[Double L]

Daley has been a corrupt mayor, he's been putting lots of money into pork projects like millenium park while crime has been rising, and the cities poor neighborhoods are getting worse, he is involved in "machine politics".

Honestly, Rick Perry has a better record of common sense decisions than Richard M. Daley.

[west20th]

Double L, on Thursday, February 1st, 2007 @ 12:31pm, said:

Honestly, Rick Perry has a better record of common sense decisions than Richard M. Daley.

I'll assume that is because Daley is totally devoid of common sense decisions. For the life of me I really can't think of any common sense decisions Perry has ever made.

[Double L]

Perry balanced the budget, put more money into healthcare, reducing crime, engaged in tort reform, he introduced CHIP, plenty more, I'd say that's a better record than Daley. Daley has been getting involved in anti-Iraq protests (not his role) and he has several scandals under his belt.

[west20th]

Double L, on Thursday, February 1st, 2007 @ 4:05pm, said:

Perry balanced the budget, put more money into healthcare, reducing crime, engaged in tort reform, he introduced CHIP, plenty more, I'd say that's a better record than Daley. Daley has been getting involved in anti-Iraq protests (not his role) and he has several scandals under his belt.

Hmmm....balanced the budget with a new business tax in times of record surpluses. Put more money into health care, any results? Half-assed tort reform, now you can't sue for malpractice but the AMA (or whoever licenses DR's) does nothing to get rid of the incompetent quacks who generate most of the malpractice suits. Introduced CHIP and turned the administration over to his buddies who totally screwed it up. Yeah what a great guy. Actually I hope someone picks him for VP, it will get him out of our hair. Actually, to be fair. Perry can't take total/blame credit for a lot of that stuff. The Govenors in Texas aren't that powerful. He's just an over-coiffed show pony. Give the blame/credit to Dewhurst and Craddick.

Oooops sorry for getting so far off topic.

This post has been edited by west20th: Thursday, February 1, 2007 at 5:38 PM

[Double L]

All the programs you talk about are still moving forward for us from what the situation was before. They may have more work to do but he still shows fiscal responsibilty and the ability to get the state's priorities in good order. Daley put money into pork projects like Millenium Park but the cities ghettos have been getting worse.

...so no, Perry's not perfect (I liked Chris Bell better) but he's better than Daley.

[west20th]

Double L, on Thursday, February 1st, 2007 @ 4:41pm, said:

All the programs you talk about are still moving forward for us from what the situation was before. They may have more work to do but he still shows fiscal responsibilty and the ability to get the state's priorities in good order. Daley put money into pork projects like Millenium Park but the cities ghettos have been getting worse.

...so no, Perry's not perfect (I liked Chris Bell better) but he's better than Daley.

Well I can't argue with you there. Don't know much about Daley.

[Double L]

EDIT: My original point was only that even Perry, with all of his critics has been involved in even less scandal and accusation of corruption as Daley.

[H-Town Man]

Double L, on Thursday, February 1st, 2007 @ 2:31pm, said:

Daley has been a corrupt mayor, he's been putting lots of money into pork projects like millenium park while crime has been rising, and the cities poor neighborhoods are getting worse, he is involved in "machine politics".

Honestly, Rick Perry has a better record of common sense decisions than Richard M. Daley.

I didn't say I liked Daley's machine politics. But I do like the fact that he gets things done that are important to the city, and doesn't get muscled by local congressmen. White needs to show some muscle, plain and simple.

Perry's an idiot. Ever heard of the Trans-Texas Corridors?

[Furious Jam]

TheNiche, on Wednesday, January 31st, 2007 @ 5:47pm, said:

One would hope that people can think for themselves and don't need to reference a list of supporters or naysayers of a project as an indication of what they themselves should think...

Well I obviously have my own opinion, or else I wouldn't be posting here. But both the quality and the quantity of supporters on an issue can be relevant. If that wasn't true, why even bother with listing supporters or having a petition in the first place?

[musicman]

Furious Jam, on Friday, February 2nd, 2007 @ 6:16pm, said:

If that wasn't true, why even bother with listing supporters or having a petition in the first place?

There are people with quite a bit of free time on their hands.

[TheNiche]

Furious Jam, on Friday, February 2nd, 2007 @ 6:16pm, said:

Well I obviously have my own opinion, or else I wouldn't be posting here. But both the quality and the quantity of supporters on an issue can be relevant. If that wasn't true, why even bother with listing supporters or having a petition in the first place?

Posting lists of supporters adds nothing to the argument and has absolutely nothing to do with which side of an issue is objectively correct.

But as a political tactic, it works because there is a recognition that not everyone necessarily does think for themselves when complex matters are being debated and that those people can easily be won over by an endorsement from someone or some organization with a name that carries weight. That is more or less the basis for the existence of political parties.

[Double L]

It doesn't surprise me that Bill White doesn't want to get involved in this debate.

[nmainguy]

Furious Jam, on Friday, February 2nd, 2007 @ 6:16pm, said:

Well I obviously have my own opinion, or else I wouldn't be posting here. But both the quality and the quantity of supporters on an issue can be relevant. If that wasn't true, why even bother with listing supporters or having a petition in the first place?

Perhaps the supporters of rail on Richmond; verified on-line with no attempt to hide their origins-clearly out-weigh the anti's in numbers-have a valid and well thought out point and are a like-minded group of individuals that think the same way. The anti's hide behind the Brass Maiden's voice mail.
I'm proud to be on the side of a group that is upfront and not some back-room gang of slackers with more money than sense who rely only on lies and hoary, empty arguments.

[Double L]

Saying you're going to put the rail down "the line of highest ridership" is a statement that can rally a lot of people who aren't involved in the issue behind it, but upon closer look there might be more factors than ridership such as whether or not Afton Oaks is an efficient environment to place a rail system or whether the cost is worth the benefit.

Polls/petitions are glimpses and not facts, but glimpses none the less. I wouldn't decide an issue based on a poll or a petition but it's worth giving a look at as long as you can take it simply as the opinions of the average citizen. After all, all you Culbertson supporters better recognize that he made his Univ. line decision based on what the majority of his constituents were saying.

[TheNiche]

nmainguy, on Saturday, February 3rd, 2007 @ 8:20pm, said:

... who rely only on lies and hoary, empty arguments.

This, from someone who prefaces his accusations by committing back-to-back ad hominem fallacies and fails to provide adequate premeses?

Honestly, what is it about our society that we become so childishly partisan? I just don't get it.

[TheNiche]

Double L, on Saturday, February 3rd, 2007 @ 8:34pm, said:

I wouldn't decide an issue based on a poll or a petition but it's worth giving a look at as long as you can take it simply as the opinions of the average citizen.

Yeah, that's the tricky part. Taking a poll is an expensive proposition. Whoever finances it will essentially dictate its outcome. It all comes down to how you ask the question, and then how you write up the press release. So you end up having to accept there's already limited usefulness in knowing the popular opinion because what is popular isn't always right, but if you then place the poll's validity in question...well it starts to look like a pretty useless indicator of anything in particular.

[musicman]

nmainguy, on Saturday, February 3rd, 2007 @ 8:20pm, said:

I'm proud to be on the side of a group that is upfront and not some back-room gang of slackers with more money than sense who rely only on lies and hoary, empty arguments.

both sides are very upfront and have money supporting them. if you don't believe that then you're relying on lies and hoary, empty arguments.

[Furious Jam]

TheNiche, on Saturday, February 3rd, 2007 @ 3:47pm, said:

Posting lists of supporters adds nothing to the argument and has absolutely nothing to do with which side of an issue is objectively correct.

No offense, but that's just nutty. If I posted a list of 500 accredited climatologists who believe that global warming is occurring, and someone else responded by posting a list of 50 anonymous crackpots who think that global warming is a myth, you're telling me that those lists would add nothing to that argument? Obviously, the opinions/support of some people carry more weight than the opinions/support of others, depending on the issue. Here, you have a list of neighborhood associations and other organizations representing the interests of thousands of people and businesses in the affected area. And you say that list carries no more weight than a short list of anonymous opponents? Again, nuts.

You use the term "objective", as if every argument can be conclusively settled by some quantifiable measurement. The reality is, very few arguments can be settled in such a fashion - if it were that easy, there probably wouldn't be an argument to begin with.

In fact, there is virtually nothing objective about this issue. I'm amazed you can't see that after 34 pages of this. The people who oppose rail on Richmond do so for personal reasons only. They don't care whether rail on Richmond would be objectively best for Houston - all they care about is that it's not for them.

[TheNiche]

Furious Jam, on Saturday, February 3rd, 2007 @ 9:31pm, said:

No offense, but that's just nutty. If I posted a list of 500 accredited climatologists who believe that global warming is occurring, and someone else responded by posting a list of 50 anonymous crackpots who think that global warming is a myth, you're telling me that those lists would add nothing to that argument?

That is correct. On a forum like this, all that that may mean is that the one poster has done a better job at research than has the other. It may also be complicated by availability of data, which as I mentioned, is often the result of financial capacity and motivations. In another sense, it is also difficult to label some people as accredited and others as not accredited. Self-proclaimed credentials are common, especially in non-profits with political agendas. In any case, if legitimate questions are raised about the validity of, for instance, the global warming theory or the forecasted physical or economic impacts, citing a list of people that say that "something must be done, or else!" does absolutely nothing to provide an answer to the question.

Furious Jam, on Saturday, February 3rd, 2007 @ 9:31pm, said:

Here, you have a list of neighborhood associations and other organizations representing the interests of thousands of people and businesses in the affected area. And you say that list carries no more weight than a short list of anonymous opponents? Again, nuts.

In the political realm, yeah this stuff is absolutely important. But as far as determining a more wholistic solution that takes into account impacts to ALL of the stakeholders, the neighborhood associations are simply not a representative sample of those that might be affected. And no matter how well organized the political movement is, that has no bearing on the correctness of the decision that has to be made.

Furious Jam, on Saturday, February 3rd, 2007 @ 9:31pm, said:

You use the term "objective", as if every argument can be conclusively settled by some quantifiable measurement. The reality is, very few arguments can be settled in such a fashion - if it were that easy, there probably wouldn't be an argument to begin with.

In fact, there is virtually nothing objective about this issue. I'm amazed you can't see that after 34 pages of this. The people who oppose rail on Richmond do so for personal reasons only. They don't care whether rail on Richmond would be objectively best for Houston - all they care about is that it's not for them.

With data, objective measures are possible. Unfortunately, data is limited, expensive to come by, and often expensive to properly analyze. So to a large extent we have to operate in the world of competing and interacting theoretical models, where objective answers to a question can include multiple valid outcomes. Frankly, there are so many combinations of alignments and design characteristics that a single answer is absolutely not going to please everyone, even if everyone is interested in creating the greatest social net benefit (i.e. Pareto Efficiency).

I believe that both sides have valid points, and I don't think that it is just a matter of people on one side of the argument with private interests versus people on the other side with public interests, either. Rather, there seem to be different stakeholders on both sides that each have either a private or a public interest, and many that probably have a mixed interest.

[H-Town Man]

TheNiche, on Sunday, February 4th, 2007 @ 12:01am, said:

With data, objective measures are possible. Unfortunately, data is limited, expensive to come by, and often expensive to properly analyze. So to a large extent we have to operate in the world of competing and interacting theoretical models, where objective answers to a question can include multiple valid outcomes. Frankly, there are so many combinations of alignments and design characteristics that a single answer is absolutely not going to please everyone, even if everyone is interested in creating the greatest social net benefit (i.e. Pareto Efficiency).

You know, you could have just said something like, "Theoretical models never tell the full story." You should change your name from 'TheNiche' to 'ThePedant.'

[nmainguy]

musicman, on Saturday, February 3rd, 2007 @ 9:05pm, said:

both sides are very upfront and have money supporting them. if you don't believe that then you're relying on lies and hoary, empty arguments.

Here is a list of Richmondrail.org board of directors:
http://www.richmondr...ogs/?page_id=17
Here's one for the Mobility coalition:

I know you'll argue the point just because you think they've been up front but you clearly haven't done your homework if you think The Brass Maiden is an "upfont" organization. It's a woman with an answering machine.

[musicman]

nmainguy, on Sunday, February 4th, 2007 @ 7:01am, said:

Here is a list of Richmondrail.org board of directors:
http://www.richmondr...ogs/?page_id=17
Here's one for the Mobility coalition:

I know you'll argue the point just because you think they've been up front but you clearly haven't done your homework if you think The Brass Maiden is an "upfont" organization. It's a woman with an answering machine.

NMain i was reponding to YOUR statement "Im proud to be on the side of a group that is upfront and not some back-room gang of slackers with more money than sense who rely only on lies and hoary, empty arguments."

posting a pro website doesn't clarify whether one group has more money than the other. I said they both have money. I see signs both pro and con along richmond. Those cost money too. They have a board of directors but so does TSU.

Anti rail petition words..."I oppose Metro's light rail being placed on Richmond Avenue. The 2003 referendum passed by the voters did not approve this placement. Save our trees and green space! "

pro rail petition words..."I support neighborhood-friendly light rail on Richmond Avenue. "

Reading both petitions, IMO neither says anything that has substance. If it convinces you either way then you'll taken the bait. I made up my mind by studying the issue, attending public meetings, talking with planners, etc.

There are many grass roots organizations that get things done in Houston. I personally have to hand it to people that put their money where their mouth is and gather 20,000 signatures (or the latest number) to get something put up for a public ballot.

For me personally, there's no need to sign a petition. I've made my feelings known to several councilmembers who work closely with METRO officials. And whatever happens I can't say i haven't tried to make it a better system based on what i know/learned and have experienced.

[RedScare]

H-Town Man, on Saturday, February 3rd, 2007 @ 10:38pm, said:

You know, you could have just said something like, "Theoretical models never tell the full story." You should change your name from 'TheNiche' to 'ThePedant.'

Excuse me while I wipe the coffee from my nose.

[Houston19514]

RedScare, on Sunday, February 4th, 2007 @ 10:00am, said:

Excuse me while I wipe the coffee from my nose.

Ditto. ROFL. That was the funniest (and truest) post I've seen here in a very long time.

[H-Town Man]

Wow. I don't think I've ever gotten a compliment from Red, so it must have actually been funny.

[MexAmerican_Moose]

H-Town Man, on Sunday, February 4th, 2007 @ 9:17pm, said:

Wow. I don't think I've ever gotten a compliment from Red, so it must have actually been funny.

it was....i think i might sig you

[ricco67]

MexAmerican_Moose, on Sunday, February 4th, 2007 @ 9:48pm, said:

it was....i think i might sig you

that almost sounds dirty.

[nmainguy]

H-Town Man, on Saturday, February 3rd, 2007 @ 10:38pm, said:

You know, you could have just said something like, "Theoretical models never tell the full story." You should change your name from 'TheNiche' to 'ThePedant.'

No words truer spoken

[TheNiche]

H-Town Man, on Saturday, February 3rd, 2007 @ 10:38pm, said:

You know, you could have just said something like, "Theoretical models never tell the full story." You should change your name from 'TheNiche' to 'ThePedant.'

If that was a joke, then honestly, I don't get it. I said what needed to be said--nothing more, nothing less. Had I stated what was suggested, it would not have communicated the intended message. In fact, it would've been downright confusing.

[nmainguy]

...and now for something that truely is NOT down-right confusing:
http://www.ctchousto...blogs/christof/

[TheNiche]

nmainguy, on Monday, February 5th, 2007 @ 12:08pm, said:

...and now for something that truely is NOT down-right confusing:
http://www.ctchousto...blogs/christof/

Christof says:

Quote

The University of Houston is a significant destination, with 34,000 students, only 6% of which live off campus.

[musicman]

nmainguy, on Monday, February 5th, 2007 @ 12:08pm, said:

...and now for something that truely is NOT down-right confusing:
http://www.ctchousto...blogs/christof/

The University of Houston is a significant destination, with 34,000 students, only 6% of which live off campus.
Does he mean ON campus?

I was just reading about the SE line and the number of streets that will be closed along Scott in the vicinity of UH from METRO's website.....

Localized impacts are anticipated at
15 non-signalized intersections along Scott Street because the fixed guideway in the
median of the roadway would restrict left-turn and cross street through movements at
these intersections. Traffic that currently makes these movements would need to divert
to adjacent signalized intersections. In addition, pedestrian movements across the median at these intersections would be
prohibited. These intersections are on Scott Street at Denver, Bell, Pease, Jefferson,
Coyle, McIlhenny, Bremond, Dennis, Drew, Tuam, Anita, Rosalie, Simmons, Reeves,
Alabama, and Eagle.


Localized traffic impacts are anticipated at 20 non-signalized intersections along Scott
Street and Griggs Road ...........These intersections are on Scott Street at Rosewood, Wichita, Ruth,
Wentworth, Arbor, Rosedale, Palm, Gertin, Rio Vista, Julius, Parkwood, and
Charleston Streets; and on Griggs Road at Foster, Eastwood, Wayland, Grace, Carol,
Shroeder, Cavanaugh, and Royal Palms.

It sure would be irritating if I couldn't "easily" turn onto my street because of the rail system. I still think the Richmond area will be affected in a big way!

This post has been edited by musicman: Monday, February 5, 2007 at 1:31 PM

[713 To 214]

Houston19514, on Sunday, February 4th, 2007 @ 2:00pm, said:

Ditto. ROFL. That was the funniest (and truest) post I've seen here in a very long time.

I agree 100%!

[tierwestah]

H-Town Man, on Saturday, February 3rd, 2007 @ 11:38pm, said:

You should change your name to 'ThePedant.'

This comment is so grand! Painfully funny because it's so true.

And since Niche didn't get it. The punchline is by the definition itself. Very funny

From Websters dictionary

Pedant:
1. a person who makes an excessive or inappropriate display of learning.
2. a person who overemphasizes rules or minor details.
3. a person who makes a great show of his knowledge

This post has been edited by tierwestah: Monday, February 5, 2007 at 4:54 PM

[TheNiche]

tierwestah, on Monday, February 5th, 2007 @ 3:47pm, said:

This comment is so grand! Painfully funny because it's so true.

And since Niche didn't get it. The punchline is by the definition itself. Very funny

From Websters dictionary

Pedant:
1. a person who makes an excessive or inappropriate display of learning.
2. a person who overemphasizes rules or minor details.
3. a person who makes a great show of his knowledge

I understand, and agree, but am not amused. It is a statement, not a joke.

[VicMan]

west20th, on Thursday, February 1st, 2007 @ 10:49am, said:

I kind of like signature #43.

Since internet petitions are crap, I'll sign the petition

I'll add a link to an infamous shock site

[Trae]

I don't get the joke.

[H-Town Man]

Let's talk about light rail, and why it should be on Richmond Ave.

[nmainguy]

H-Town Man, on Monday, February 5th, 2007 @ 11:01pm, said:

Let's talk about light rail, and why it should be on Richmond Ave.

We've done that. Go back and review the posts.

[H-Town Man]

Thanks, I'll review them. I meant, as opposed to personal comments.

[Furious Jam]

Rail on Richmond supporters take note:

John Culberson will be having a town hall meeting on Thursday, February 22 at 6 p.m. on Rice University campus - McNair Hall, Shell Auditorium, entrance #20. RichmondRail.org is encouraging supporters to show up early, decked out in pro-rail gear (signs won't be allowed). I'll be there and I hope to see a big pro-rail turnout.

[ricco67]

<bump>

I'm going to try to attend.

[nmainguy]

musicman, on Sunday, February 4th, 2007 @ 9:19am, said:

Reading both petitions, IMO neither says anything that has substance. If it convinces you either way then you'll taken the bait. I made up my mind by studying the issue, attending public meetings, talking with planners, etc.
For me personally, there's no need to sign a petition. I've made my feelings known to several councilmembers who work closely with METRO officials. And whatever happens I can't say i haven't tried to make it a better system based on what i know/learned and have experienced.

Signing a petition is merely stating your agreement with the petitioners. Your straw-man argument is just that: a straw-man argument.
BTW, how did you vote on the non-binding resolution?

[musicman]

nmainguy, on Tuesday, February 6th, 2007 @ 9:41pm, said:

BTW, how did you vote on the non-binding resolution?

i didn't

[ricco67]

<cough>
<cough>
<cough>
Don't vote, can't delicate flower!
<cough>
<cough>
</cough>

[musicman]

ricco67, on Tuesday, February 6th, 2007 @ 9:54pm, said:

<cough>
<cough>
<cough>
Don't vote, can't delicate flower!
<cough>
<cough>
</cough>

i meant the petition

[nmainguy]

ricco67, on Tuesday, February 6th, 2007 @ 9:54pm, said:

<cough>
<cough>
<cough>
Don't vote, can't delicate flower!
<cough>
<cough>
</cough>

No, he can delicate flower...it's the way we do things. It's called freedom of speech.
All he has done is put in to question his motives. Is he an anarchist? Or is he just a lazy citizen who counts on people like us to carry his load?
I'm going for lazy because he doesn't seem to be resourcefull, clever or smart enough to be anything other than.

[musicman]

nmainguy, on Tuesday, February 6th, 2007 @ 10:07pm, said:

No, he can delicate flower...it's the way we do things. It's called freedom of speech.
All he has done is put in to question his motives. Is he an anarchist? Or is he just a lazy citizen who counts on people like us to carry his load?
I'm going for lazy because he doesn't seem to be resourcefull, clever or smart enough to be anything other than.
It's always a relief to uncover the blowhards on HAIF who delicate flower and moan yet don't vote.

As i said, i thought you were referencing the petition.

Just remember, because you vote doesn't mean you're carrying my load nor anyone elses. It takes more than placing a vote to make a difference.

[infinite_jim]

went to my first richmondrail meeting tonight and the people from the CTC are good folks

I'll be there for the town hall meeting and for the public meeting at the JCI next summer.

support what you believe in!

[nmainguy]

musicman, on Tuesday, February 6th, 2007 @ 9:51pm, said:

i didn't

I asked: "BTW, how did you vote on the non-binding resolution?"
I didn't ask about a petition. I specified the non-binding resolution. We all get it. You choose not to vote. Or did you choose not to vote before you voted? Please explain. Inquiring minds want to know.