Why are Church Leaders silent on the River Tax?

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

So...Bear...

What did your preacher say this Sunday morning about the proposed river improvement tax?

The closest my preacher got to discussing the issue was talking about Jesus changing water into wine. I don't think that was about the Arkansas River, but you have to admit it would make it quite a tourist attraction.

And Bear...don't call people hypocrites unless you want the tag yourself. You speak of peace and love, but have an avatar of a man running away from a bear attack.

I'm crestfallen.  Even my Avatar raises your ire.

I'm not worthy.....

But, I'm no Hypocrite.

[}:)]

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by TURobY

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear
The Grass Roots NO RIVER TAX Dis-organization has a few No River Tax Signs.

Too bad that they are all in the public right-of-way. LOL [}:)]

Well, the Vote No Supporters ARE THE PUBLIC.

[]

I noticed the above too. Vote Yes signs in yards (some people even have two) and the vote no signs are mainly in the public ROW illegally. Makes me wonder if the signs that were "stolen" were just picked up as code violations...

[cannon_fodder]

What would Jesus do (about the river)?[]

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by TURobY

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear
The Grass Roots NO RIVER TAX Dis-organization has a few No River Tax Signs.

Too bad that they are all in the public right-of-way. LOL [}:)]

Well, the Vote No Supporters ARE THE PUBLIC.

[]

I noticed the above too. Vote Yes signs in yards (some people even have two) and the vote no signs are mainly in the public ROW illegally. Makes me wonder if the signs that were "stolen" were just picked up as code violations...

The No Tulsa River Tax website seems to indicate that they are being taken from peoples yards.

The low-life Tote-the-Note EastSide Used Car Dealer, by offering a $5.00 bounty on Vote No signs, is probably violating the Constitutional Free Speech rights of the Vote No supporters.

Reason being:  

By offering a cash "bounty" on the sign, he is encouraging people to steal signs from people's yards, effectively stiffling the right of Free Expression.

Mr. Used Car Dealer has absolutely no way of knowing the Provenance of a sign for which he is paying a bounty.

Does anyone not believe that the Kaiser River Tax organization is secretly funding his Sign Bounty campaign?

I wish a sharp civil rights attorney would sue this worthless pile of excrement into well-deserved oblivion.

[!]

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by TURobY

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear
The Grass Roots NO RIVER TAX Dis-organization has a few No River Tax Signs.

Too bad that they are all in the public right-of-way. LOL [}:)]

Well, the Vote No Supporters ARE THE PUBLIC.

[]

I noticed the above too. Vote Yes signs in yards (some people even have two) and the vote no signs are mainly in the public ROW illegally. Makes me wonder if the signs that were "stolen" were just picked up as code violations...

The No Tulsa River Tax website seems to indicate that they are being taken from peoples yards.

The low-life Tote-the-Note EastSide Used Car Dealer, by offering a $5.00 bounty on Vote No signs, is probably violating the Constitutional Free Speech rights of the Vote No supporters.

Reason being:  

By offering a cash "bounty" on the sign, he is encouraging people to steal signs from people's yards, effectively stiffling the right of Free Expression.

Mr. Used Car Dealer has absolutely no way of knowing the Provenance of a sign for which he is paying a bounty.

Does anyone not believe that the Kaiser River Tax organization is secretly funding his Sign Bounty campaign?

I wish a sharp civil rights attorney would sue this worthless pile of excrement into well-deserved oblivion.

[!]

You can prove he knowingly accepted and paid for illegally removed signs? If so get your civil rights lawyer and go to town. I would advise him to get one to and go after you for libeling him.

When overzealous supporters of my business once put push in signs on Jenks public right of way, I was called by angry Jenks officials who threatened me. I had no idea when I printed the signs that they would be illegally placed and told him so. Don't even know who put them in. I guess you would suspend that archaic principle of innocent till proven guilty?

[RecycleMichael]

The homes in my neighborhood have a pretty even mix of yes and no signs and they are all legal. I go to the neighborhood meetings and have educated our group on the proper rules.

There was a yes sign across the street from me that was run over on Saturday night, but I haven't seen any other sign war examples.

On Sunday, I drove an area from 31st street to 71st street and Memorial to the river. I saw illegal vote no signs stuck on almost every corner of every intersection. There were no other signs...no roofing signs, no buy your house signs, no tree trimming or tanning signs. Just illegal vote no signs.

The right to vote no does not give you the right to break the law and make our city ugly.

Who will step up and be the responsible party in the vote no crowd? Surely someone in that campaign cares about following the law.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

What would Jesus do (about the river)?[]

The way the Kaiser River Tax campaign is stooping to using Children in its emotional appealing advertisements, I would not be surprised if they next fronted a local Holy Man to opine that Jesus would support the River Tax.  

Is Rabbi Sherman busy this week?

Based on what's in the New Testament, I would surmise:

Jesus would not conduct Baptisms in the River due to unsanitary nature. But at least those insisting to be so annointed would be Baptised before they died of severe intestinal malady on their way to Heaven.

He wouldn't use it as a source of fish to feed the multitudes.  Not recommended for a long, healthy life due to their accumulation of heavy metals in their tissues.

He might change the Water into Wine.  What a unique vintage!

He might walk on it.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

The homes in my neighborhood have a pretty even mix of yes and no signs and they are all legal. I go to the neighborhood meetings and have educated our group on the proper rules.

There was a yes sign across the street from me that was run over on Saturday night, but I haven't seen any other sign war examples.

On Sunday, I drove an area from 31st street to 71st street and Memorial to the river. I saw illegal vote no signs stuck on almost every corner of every intersection. There were no other signs...no roofing signs, no buy your house signs, no tree trimming or tanning signs. Just illegal vote no signs.

The right to vote no does not give you the right to break the law and make our city ugly.

Who will step up and be the responsible party in the vote no crowd? Surely someone in that campaign cares about following the law.

Mr. Recyle:  You're getting us Off Topic.  This topic is about the morality of the Kaiser River Tax, and the notable silence of our local religious leaders.

Final Jeopardy Answer on your off-topic post:

Best you ask the Sign Man.  Sign, Sign, everywhere a sign.

If I have to say it a million times, the local city ordinance is patently Unconstitutional Abridgement of Free Speech rights.

Mayor Savage doing the bidding of her Puppet Masters got the ordinance passed.  After her Tulsa Project Arena Tax failed 59% - 41%, the ordinance got passed.

Local Ruling Oligarchy Thought Control Measure #101.  

It's one small part of the local Controlling Power Oligarchy's method to stifle free speech and maintain total control.

They don't want ANY dissenting opinion. None. Zero.

They like things just the way they are.  

They own the only local mass circulation daily news paper.  Anyone unclear of the Lorton's World position on the Kaiser River Tax?

They are spending $10,000's, possibly $100,000 in ads on the local TV stations.  Even when the local stations mention any dissenting opinion on the Kaiser River Tax, it is ALWAYS framed with a Vote YES opinion book-ending each side of the VOTE NO coverage.

There is no real free Speech tolerated in:

The BANANA REPUBLIC OF TULSA

Anyone who has lived in Tulsa for even a few years realizes that Tulsa civics is rotten to the core.

[:O]

[RecycleMichael]

You just make up facts, Friendless Bear.

The sign ordinance is legal and similar to other cities. If you think it is unconstitutional, why don't you take it to court?

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

You just make up facts, Friendless Bear.

The sign ordinance is legal and similar to other cities. If you think it is unconstitutional, why don't you take it to court?

You're being pattonly ridiculous, again.

I do not have $1,000,000 to front legal fees fighting our city government, which could legally spend MY OWN TAXES TO DEFEND THE INDEFENSIBLE, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

With Mayor Chatty Kathy's Democrate buddy, the State Attorney General, joining the City's defense by an amicus filing, too?

Admittedly, if my shyster attorney actually prevailed, he could probably file a claim for attorney fees.

Arvin McGee's attorney did finally get a BIG payday against the City of Tulsa, right?

Most local attorneys have absolutely NO interest in fighting in court the local power establishment that selects the very judges in whose courts they earn their livelihood.

Attorney Louis Bullock used to have the bullocks to take on the entrenched establishment.  Rightly or wrongly, he closed Hissom, and after many years of litigation, he also clawed out reform of medical treament for state prison inmates.  

However, those were STATE cases, not a battle against the local Power Oligarchy.

But, we can ask for Volunteers?

>>Any attorneys interested in suing the City over the Campaign Signs in City Right of Way abridgement of Free Speech

Mr. Dan Hicks can be the Plaintiff poster boy.....Contact him through www.notulsarivertax.com

[Townsend]

pattonly?

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by Townsend

pattonly?

Correct.  Pattonly.

Recyle gets it.

Right, RM?

[cannon_fodder]

Friendly Bear:

I am a local attorney, and there is no issue here to be taken to court.

Governments at the Federal, State and local level are free to decide where proper venues for public speech are.  Some areas have been set aside by the courts as special vantages of public speech that can only be encumbered in certain ways/circumstances (for instance, you can stand on a street corner and protest, until he interferes with traffic or gets so large you need police protection - then you need a permit).  In forums of public speech the government must be official neutral and allow all aspects to be represented.

If government could not restrict speech in anyway, the courthouse lawn would be strewn with signs for everything to such an extent that they would do no good.  The inside of every governmental press conference, display board, or courtroom would be awash with shouts and pleas for whatever the political moment called for.  Frankly, it would be anarchy.

In between the two is the way things actually operate.  The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that local governments can place reasonable restrictions on speech.  Making it illegal to place ANY SIGNS on the public right away is a neutral and reasonable restriction on political and commercial speech.  People are still free to place signs in their yards, their business, billboard space, or to stand with a placard.  

You have no basis for your argument and apparently have no background in constitutional law.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Friendly Bear:

I am a local attorney, and there is no issue here to be taken to court.

Governments at the Federal, State and local level are free to decide where proper venues for public speech are.  Some areas have been set aside by the courts as special vantages of public speech that can only be encumbered in certain ways/circumstances (for instance, you can stand on a street corner and protest, until he interferes with traffic or gets so large you need police protection - then you need a permit).  In forums of public speech the government must be official neutral and allow all aspects to be represented.

If government could not restrict speech in anyway, the courthouse lawn would be strewn with signs for everything to such an extent that they would do no good.  The inside of every governmental press conference, display board, or courtroom would be awash with shouts and pleas for whatever the political moment called for.  Frankly, it would be anarchy.

In between the two is the way things actually operate.  The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that local governments can place reasonable restrictions on speech.  Making it illegal to place ANY SIGNS on the public right away is a neutral and reasonable restriction on political and commercial speech.  People are still free to place signs in their yards, their business, billboard space, or to stand with a placard.  

You have no basis for your argument and apparently have no background in constitutional law.

Unless it can be shown that the intent of the ordinance is to stifle Free Speech/Free Expression.

The fact that we live in the Banana Republic of Tulsa, and that the sign ordinance is merely another measure of local CONTROL over the political arena, may have some bearing on the legal argument.  

Kind of like Poll Taxes were perfectly legal once, right?

For instance, the lack of any campaign limits permits the Vote Yes Tax Vampires to spend a million dollars in anticipation of collecting  500 million dollars, as part of their favors-trading network of connected cronies controlling the reins of power.  

That lack of a campaign or individual donor limit DROWNS out the free speech of anyone else.

The ordinance is part of pattern, and could be argued against the constitutionality of the sign ordinance.

I didn't bring up the SIGNS in this topic.  

Suggest we argue about it on a New topic you can freely post.

Or not.

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Kind of like Poll Taxes were perfectly legal once, right?

WRONG.  Poll taxes were shown to have a discriminatory intent and a discriminatory effect.  No such argument is available when restrictions are put on both sides and have no detrimental effects on one side over the other.  Very simply, there is no case here.

You appear to dislike the entire notion of free speech.  What you want, is targeted speech.  That is to say, the "NO" side in this issue should not have to follow the rules because the "YES" side has more money.  However, you neglect to realize that spending money on signs/TV/Radio/billboards is also an exercise of free speech.  Full circle - their free speech is not as important as yours.

Likewise, your "Banana Republic" argument is a gross hyperbole.  Such an argument would be prudent in some scenarios, but when there is no detrimental intent (especially since that ordinance was passed LONG before this debate came up) nor effect, it losses in a hurry.  When you can still express your views on the internet, in the paper, in your yard, on the street corner, at city meetings, with placards, on billboards, TV, radio, fliers, handouts, and every other way BUT placing signs on public property and those rules apply equally to all sides... then your argument becomes completely, totally, and "no way this even gets to court" baseless.  

Keep talking about topics you are ignorant on, it really strengthens your argument...