AtticaFlinch

And here I thought the Woodlands Villager was the epitome of journalistic excellence.

The Sierra Club's against opening any new drilling sites period. It's sorta like how the NRA is against any gun restrictions period. It's the give-em-an-inch-and-they-take-a-mile theory. The only difference is the NRA thinks the government is the bad guy, while the Sierra Club thinks oil corporations are the bad guys. Republicans are opposed to it because Obama did it. There is no practical reason for it other than opposition for the sake of opposition. I really can't think of a single instance during Obama's presidency where Republicans have shown any willingness to so much as compromise with Obama on anything. Don't worry though. It's all so much political posturing and mugging for the cameras in anticipation of the 2010 elections. Behind closed doors, they're probably pretty happy Obama's done this. They just can't let the teabaggers know as they don't want to lose their votes.

Heh... until I can illegally download a house, I don't think this comparison holds up to any scrutiny. I don't think the idea itself is too unreasonable, but certainly the 99 year time frame is. Maybe one year or five years is more appropriate. Two questions though: 1) What happens if someone buys the property only to demolish the structure? Many houses, especially inside the loop and out west, are bought just to be destroyed and rebuilt. Most of those aren't 100 years old. Would a potential buyer/seller still be responsible for paying this fee? 2) Does this apply just to real estate, or will this idea be extrapolated to apply to all manner of property? Will Ford or Toyota have to be paid 1% every time one of their cars are resold. Will I have to pay GE something to sell a used washer/dryer set on Craigslist? It seems to me if this is allowed to become policy, it'll open up a can of worms that'll amount to little more than corporate piracy.

What you didn't know is this Wendy's will be built to resemble La Luz Del Mundo. It's the most architecturally significant Wendy's ever built, even moreso than the one they built inside the dome at St Peters Basilica in the Vatican.

In all fairness, I blamed every qualified person in Katy who could have run against the unopposed Elder in the last election.I take Callo's opinion on this with a grain of salt though. I remember him from my C-D days. The only issue he took any stance on was apartment complexes. The residents didn't matter to him at all, but man, he hated the crap out of apartments. He won't favor building any apartments, even in midtown. His idea of utopia is a sea of stand alone family dwellings. I don't think it's jealousy. Perhaps it's more the opposite of the ostrich/head-in-the-sand syndrome, commonly known as the anti-buried-sand syndrome which is often shortened to just anti-BS.

Yeah you do. If you didn't, you wouldn't have posted this polemical diatribe. Crucify you and burn down River Oaks? Did anyone suggest either of these for Katy? Please point out the post in question where this was suggested. I'd rather have wannabe gang members nearby rather than real ones, but suit yourself.Did you buy you belief in the American way from the outdated propaganda store? Why won't anyone think about the children?! The buy the land and build them. Otherwise, tough s#it. Repeat, see above. They live near me. And the people of River Oaks. Good. I was worried.

There are several terms for that: traitor, turncoat, Benedict Arnold. Take your pick. (This part is a joke.) Debating whether it's racially charged hatespeech or just plain ol' boring hatespeech is moot. Hatespeech is hatespeech, and it doesn't matter whether a person speaks ill of different races, different genders, different sexual orientations, different nationalities, different financial circumstances, different ages, different mental acuity or a different number of generations than their family's citizenship and patriotism. Sorry man. As far as your Mexican-American friends go, perhaps you should find out why they oppose illegal immigration, because there are a ton of good rational reasons to oppose it, and determine yourself whether or not it's hatespeech or reasoned dialog. It's impossible to accurately gauge their intent without hearing their reasons firsthand.

And that brings up another interesting point. Old-timey mayors and their kind always go on about how they cain't speak freely no more, and how political-correctness is a bad thing. Why is it even called politically-correct? Why isn't it called morally-correct or ethically-correct? We've moved beyond the political sphere with hate speech. Now we're after the hearts and minds of the bigots in this country.

I suppose. Shock humor is an example of how that may work. Otherwise, race is such a charged and divisive issue in this country that it really is necessary that we always consider the content of what we say and the audience we are saying it to. Until we can learn to have an honest dialog about the subject of race in this country, we'll unfortunately need to continue to walk on eggshells. As long as old-timey mayors hold on to outmoded thought processes, and as long as he has constiuents who agree with him, until all the poison is removed from our racial terminology, I wouldn't go around spouting off the n-word expecting people to understand that I don't mean it offensively. But hey, that's just me. Perhaps someone else may be better able (or more willing) to pull it off than me.

I said the mayor's statement was racist. I don't give a flying fart what the people of Katy do, or their reasons for doing it, but that doesn't negate the fact that the mayor's statement was racist. Give me reasonable objections beyond "They might not be Americans" and "I shouldn't have to look at it because it inflames my delicate sensibilities" and then we can discuss the meat of why it does or does not make sense to build this apartment complex, and I won't object on ethical grounds.

What about to eat? I don't want to go to a restaurant that serves only tofu and salad.

A-men brother? Did you mean A-Team brother? That's B.A. Baracus, Mr T himself. And you probably shouldn't have said that. Mr T pitied the fool who says that.

There's an error in logic with this statement: Perhaps, the referenced movie explained the concept better than the article, because this just doesn't make sense given the example. First, how many years? And, if there's a finite value on those years, then the word overall is misleading. Eventually it will be greener.

Rent. Bikes are ubiquitous there and super inexpensive to rent. You may even be able to buy one there and sell it back before you leave. Either way, it'll probably cost you less than freight on getting a bike either delivered there or as additional luggage.

High quality bikes are expensive. You get what you pay for though. If basic transport is all that's necessary, then perhaps something like this would be more in line with meeting that need: http://www.walmart.com/ip/Kent-26-Men-s-Glendale-CS-Dual-Suspension-Comfort-Bike/11992196

I don't know. I got the impression the transition was already underway.

Is the L invisible in my nom de internet? Does neither your keyboard nor Gary's keyboard have an L key? Also, I never mentioned illegals. You may have quoted my post, but you weren't responding to it.

I was on the phone with someone from the HAS a couple months ago, and she told me it was in the process of being converted into a commercial freight airport.

Way to make this personal, guy. First, it's Flinch, not Finch. You're confusing me with my namesake Atticus Finch. While I may share many of his values, I cannot claim to have anywhere near the fortitude demonstrated by Harper Lee's character. Second, we often disagree, that's for sure. And while I crack jokes about religion and politics, I'm respectful of other people's religious beliefs. However, I don't respect intolerance and I don't respect violence in the name of God, any god. In fact, I'd like you to point out the specific comment that I wrote that left your religious sensibilities all asunder. Why don't you go through my entire post history and point them out? If you're offended because I abhor violence in religion, which may very well be the case considering your particular invitation to attend your concert (I guess you've got to do what you can to fill a seat for a prog rock concert these days), then I can't reason with you anyhow. Third, I'm confident my beliefs wouldn't fade from view simply because I'd have to speak to someone face-to-face. It's obvious you don't know me if you'd think that. And all that aside, threats of violence, for whatever reason, don't sit well with me. If you think I'm going to crumple like a fading violet simply because you threatened to fight me (what are you, in the fifth grade? You gonna make me eat a knuckle sandwich?) then you're sadly mistaken. Of course, I may take you up on the offer someday. I might just want to hear the poor man's Steve Perry fronting the poor man's Dream Theatre someday. When that day comes, I'll make sure my presence is known, no worries. It shouldn't be difficult to stand out in a crowd of ten people. Also, I may be classless, but I'm no wimp. I guarantee your personal assurance that a fight with me being a good idea would fade when you met me. Funny thing is Gary, I think it's you and your "ILK" who poison this site. I think you poison the entire idea of rational debate. The difference between you and me is I at least participate in the debate rather than sit around wringing my hands and crying that people disagree with me. Most of your post history is you complaining about how the site's no longer as good as it used to be, which is a common lament about all sorts of things for conservatives. Stop moaning and whining, and take a second and remove the log from your own eye before you try to remove the speck from mine.

If you just wanted this to be about you and your neighbors, then why'd you post this on a Houston board and City-Data, a national board. It seems to me you're not upset because we've passed judgement, but because the judgement we've passed doesn't mirror your own judgement.

I'm with you on everything but the high speed rail. The time of poor people isn't important. Let them walk to work. It may take a couple days, but hey, they're poor so who cares about them.

In that case, I blame every resident of Katy who meets the criteria to run for office but didn't. That probably pushes the percentage of Katydids I blame up to 60 or 70%. In the Senate they call those numbers a supermajority (unless the Democrats are in charge...).

I guess, I don't know. They might be in low-rent houses for all I know. The only place I know for sure where you can easily find illegals is in a Home Depot parking lot. That said, now I'd like to bring up an interesting point. You chastised me for making several fact based assumptions, and now you've done the same but worse. You see, you just assumed the non-Americans were illegal, and that's not based on fact but hearsay. You made an assumption based on another assumption. Also, even if most illegals are found in low-rent apartments, that doesn't mean all low-rent apartments have illegals. Surely you recognize that. The po' white folks in the surrounding backwoods may step away from their moonshine stills to become the only residents of this new complex. It's retarded to continue to make assumptions about who's going to live there at this point, and doing so highlights the assumer's ingrained biases. If you say so. I personally think the difference is that you base your conclusions on denial and equivocation. It's not so much a difference in perspective as it is you're closing your eyes, putting your fingers in your ears and loudly exclaiming, "La-la-la! I can't hear you! La-la-la!"

I am then to assume that those po' white folks are not Americans? I don't know why you're having a problem recognizing the racism in Elder's statement. Also, I don't take his view to be the view of all Katydids - just the 51% or more who voted him into office. Understood. And to clarify, I was telling him that his sensibilities don't outweigh the rights of other people.

Am I going to have to break out some statistics showing that most poor immigrants are Hispanic in our fair city, or can you just take me on my word with this one?