Comments

  • Who cares?

    November 5, 2010 at 6:02 a.m.
  • I have to question the election of the DA. The press meeting about the major arrest was the key in Tyler's reelection. I also wish someone would analyze the low turnout in this election and the makeup of the voters.

    November 4, 2010 at 3:07 a.m.
  • TxHunter,

    My apologies, I overlooked the first time you asked that. My answer is still genuine.

    Please note that I said "not NEARLY as much" homework. I've done plenty of research on the other races, but as I said, Ocker was the only candidate I found who had common ideals that was running against someone with conflicting ideals. It was an inspiring situation. Frankly, I didn't see much choice in the other races. (I'll skip your subsequent references to me not doing my homework.)

    You're right, there's no way to prove how many votes the article may have cost him, but I'm not hanging my hat on it costing the election because I'm sure there were opportunities missed to gain votes elsewhere. It doesn't change the absurdity of quoting a political rival and an ex-brother-in-law.

    I'd like to have civil discussions that center more on the state of government and less on childish word games (as others play) that don't deal with the (de)merits my of opinions AS STATED. The election is over, and I'm not Matt Ocker. If you truly had some common ground with Matt before things soured, why can't you and I keep this about improving our government in a respectful way. If you don't think there's room for improvement, we probably can't have a fruitful discussion, but if you think it can be improved, I'd love to hear your ideas. I plan to engage the County government more directly as the needs of my 2-month-old son allow, much like I did in City government for a spell. Yes, I attended meetings, spoke on a few occasions, and engaged the Council members, and I enjoyed being a part of it. It's amazing how easy it is to be a part of the process when the meetings are in the evenings and are televised & hosted online and meeting minutes are put online.

    So, if you're interested, please refrain from projecting your ill feelings for Matt onto me. I can handle the vitriol of the other guys because I know they have no interest in civil discourse, but if you care about YOUR government like I do and want to work toward optimizing it's effectiveness & efficiency in representing & working for us, then we can keep agreeing to disagree instead disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. We don't have to agree on the issues, but we can agree to act as if we're sitting across the table from each other. It's your call.

    November 3, 2010 at 9:52 p.m.
  • ViCad...your spiel towards Tyler was a little back handed, no? Was his race any closer than Pozzis? How do you explain his (Pozzi) close call with defeat? What caution should he exercise, to avoid a loss next election, since his campaign was won by less than 1,000 votes? Your comments towards Tyler vs the ones towards Pozzi are polar opposites. You are, in essence, not following your own advice that is spelled out in your headline.

    November 3, 2010 at 8:58 p.m.
  • "OR

    Continue to whine, ask ridiculous and inflammatory questions, make unfounded accusations and continue to rabble rouse."

    Wow!! Now how could we have guessed you'd take this path???

    btw, "citations" . . . Seriously??? lol.

    here:
    http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/users...

    Your BS has been spotted.

    November 3, 2010 at 8:17 p.m.
  • spyderandfly said: "My questions regarding the budget were answered by the Departments that I inquired. I was satisfied with their answers."

    Can you justify EVERY budgetary increase over the last 8-10 years to ensure it was free of waste?
    ---

    spyderandfly said: "GET INVOLVED in the budget process"

    The one that happens during business hours?
    ---

    spyderandfly said: "Continue to ask ridiculous and inflammatory questions, make unfounded accusations..."

    Citations?

    Two more to go:
    • What waste did Don Pozzi cut in order to keep the tax rate flat for 8 years?
    • How did the County "avoid tax increases" while increases taxes?"

    November 3, 2010 at 7:50 p.m.
  • BS stated "spyderandfly,

    • Can you justify every budgetary increase over the last 8-10 years?
    • Who did you contact to justify every expenditure?
    • How did you become certain all expenditures were free of waste?
    • What waste did Don Pozzi cut in order to keep the tax rate flat for 8 years?
    • How did the County "avoid tax increases" while increases taxes?"

    BS,

    My questions regarding the budget were answered by the Departments that I inquired. I was satisfied with their answers.

    Here's a free lesson for you. Try the same thing. If you're not satisfied, THEN comment on it. GET INVOLVED in the budget process and you may see for yourself what gets cut.

    OR

    Continue to whine, ask ridiculous and inflammatory questions, make unfounded accusations and continue to rabble rouse.

    Your redirects are indicative of your hollow, transparent accusations. Don't worry though. No one expects you to actually make an effort. Whine, whine, whine but do nothing. pathetic.

    November 3, 2010 at 7:39 p.m.
  • spyderandfly,

    • Can you justify every budgetary increase over the last 8-10 years?

    • Who did you contact to justify every expenditure?

    • How did you become certain all expenditures were free of waste?

    • What waste did Don Pozzi cut in order to keep the tax rate flat for 8 years?

    • How did the County "avoid tax increases" while increases taxes?

    November 3, 2010 at 7:17 p.m.
  • spyderandfly said: "I even think the phone numbers are made public."

    I've never said public officials are inaccessible. I've said accessibility could be improved through public-friendly meeting times. You're arguing with things I haven't said.

    November 3, 2010 at 7:01 p.m.
  • BS stated:"I've also made it clear that I'm not looking to improve transparency & accessibility for myself — it needs to be improved for the masses."

    Wow, well that's a relief because I'm pretty sure that the staff, CC, etc. are available to more than just you. If I'm not mistaken, I think they'll talk to anyone who's interested (which now is obvious your genuinely not - too easy to bark and accuse without accountability, right?).

    I even think the phone numbers are made public. Weird.

    November 3, 2010 at 5:38 p.m.
  • BS stated: "No, he didn't do himself any favors by having heated discussions on this website, and he knows how I feel about it."

    hmmmm. "and he knows how I feel about it."

    Awful intimate statement from someone who is simply an independent citizen with no connection to MO other than agreeing with his political views.

    Perhaps it was one of those simple phone calls that are so easy to make to Matt for clarification but seemingly impossible to make to county staff to get other answers.

    hmmmmmm.

    November 3, 2010 at 5:27 p.m.
  • spyderandfly,

    I've been very clear on my position on waste, and it centers on the dishonest method used to increase revenue that likely results in unnecessary expenditures. Don Pozzi himself has said there was waste, so feel free to make a case against him.

    I've also made it clear that I'm not looking to improve transparency & accessibility for myself — it needs to be improved for the masses.

    I've never claimed that anyone has refused to answer my questions.

    Do you not think these basic things should be features in our government?

    November 3, 2010 at 5:17 p.m.
  • BS stated: "Which facts am I ignoring?"

    First off, I can't believe that I'm actually foolish enough to respond and AGAIN point this out for what the fifth or sixth time?

    All of your hollow arguments and accusations are derived from some core belief that tax dollars are being wasted in some manner.

    The FACT, sir, is that you refuse to educate yourself by contacting those who are responsible for creating the budget (county staff, court, etc.). FACT - You cry about accessibility yet refuse to access.

    Perhaps because exposing the truth dispells the argument and makes you look foolish?

    So, once again, who refused to provide you information when you requested to learn about their justifications for expenditures?????

    Go ahead now, we know the routine . . . (will it be "a," "b" or "c" this time?)

    A. Answer with a question (redirect)
    B. Ignore
    C. Respond and change topic to avoid question (redirect)

    November 3, 2010 at 5:03 p.m.
  • TxHunter said: "Have you done as much homework on opposing candidates in all the other races that you voted for?"

    No, not nearly as much because I haven't found another candidate with ideals worth supporting in this election. If I had, I would have.
    ---

    TxHunter said: "One of my problems with every election is all of the mud slinging that goes on."

    I have not personally attacked Don Pozzi. I have only criticized his policies and political doublespeak. I've tried to focus on the issues.
    ---

    TxHunter said: "I know the Advocate didn't do MO any favors but again he did enough to lose enough votes on his own. Still haven't heard you admit that."

    I haven't been asked to admit that. No, he didn't do himself any favors by having heated discussions on this website, and he knows how I feel about it. I think he was drawn into discussions he should have avoided, but I don't think it cost him 322 net swing votes, though, because I think he also won votes on this website over time from voters with similar sensibilities. And no, the Advocate didn't do him any favors, which did cost him more than 322+ swing votes. I also know that 322+ votes could have been gained in ways that weren't tried. So, I'm not placing blame, just acknowledging that he would have won if that article hadn't been published, everything else being equal. Do you disagree?

    November 3, 2010 at 5:01 p.m.
  • TxHunter said: "Absolutely not because I do not have any personal ties with my candadate of choice."

    I didn't say anything about having personal ties with a candidate. Again, if you thought your candidate of choice (how you choose is up to you) was being wrongfully injured by false statements, you wouldn't speak up about it? Why not?

    November 3, 2010 at 4:13 p.m.
  • spyderandfly said: "... and facts remain facts no matter which ones you choose to ignore."

    Which facts am I ignoring?

    Please comment on these facts: www.tinyurl.com/Pozzi-Rhetoric

    November 3, 2010 at 4:10 p.m.
  • To the Victoria Advocate, I thought your comment "your lack of teamwork was apparently why the race you fought hard was a close one" was totally unnecessary.

    November 3, 2010 at 3:06 p.m.
  • BS Stated: " As long as the facts don't change, my opinion of them won't change."

    . . . and facts remain facts no matter which ones you choose to ignore.

    hollow argument. *yawn*

    November 3, 2010 at 2:42 p.m.
  • TxHunter,

    I'm holding them accountable for disseminating false notions both before (publishing ads with false info) and after (this editorial) the election. (Would you not do the same if it injured your candidate of choice? They did what I'm doing now in a front-page article on Tyler & Branch.) I have no way of measuring what effect that had on Matt's campaign, but it's irrelevant in this context. It still stands: the Advocate is using political rhetoric in an editorial entitled, "Let's move past campaign rhetoric".

    November 3, 2010 at 2:27 p.m.
  • TxHunter said: "Could have fooled me."

    Did you miss that I'm pointing out the Advocate's political rhetoric in an editorial entitled, "Let's move past campaign rhetoric"? That was not a randomly-placed comment.

    Should I change my opinion of Don Pozzi now that the election is over? I've expressed repeatedly that I'm an autonomous citizen who's driven by my own concerns. You can expect more of the same for years to come, but at some point you'll need to get beyond dismissing my opinion as solely motivated by this election. As long as the facts don't change, my opinion of them won't change.

    So there's no confusion:
    I completely accept that "the people have spoken" and nothing I can say or do can change the results. That doesn't mean I'm going to give anyone a pass for this kind of political puffery.

    November 3, 2010 at 1:35 p.m.
  • TxHunter said: "You are right. THe people have spoken and Don Pozzi is still our county judge."

    You totally missed my point, intentionally or not. Of course I'm struggling with this, but these are not sour grapes. I agree that the people have spoken, so naturally I disagree with the Advocate's application of the cited double standard. And I didn't initially say "the people have spoken" — the Advocate did. But I'm glad you got to throw in a jab anyway.

    November 3, 2010 at 1:02 p.m.
  • Mike said: "... we can't prove one way or the other."

    We can't have it both ways either. Either the "people have spoken", or they haven't.

    November 3, 2010 at 12:14 p.m.
  • BSspotter

    I don't want to beleaguer the point but we can't prove one way or the other, what the people thought..... They pushed that republican button and walked out of the voting booth.... You can go back and forth all day, using straw man arguments but that's all they are.... They could have been die-hard republicans, pushed the wrong button, or had a well meaning message to give.... It's all subjective.

    Have a good one

    November 3, 2010 at 12:10 p.m.
  • TxHunter,

    Are you suggesting those voters didn't know what they were doing when they voted straight ticket GOP? Either "the people have spoken" or they haven't. Which is it?

    November 3, 2010 at 11:52 a.m.
  • Mike,

    But "the people have spoken."

    November 3, 2010 at 11:31 a.m.
  • I think republican straight line party voting had a lot to do with the results.

    November 3, 2010 at 11:20 a.m.
  • VicAd to Tyler:
    "Your lack of teamwork was apparently why the race you fought hard in was a close one."

    What does an even tighter race mean for the County Judge incumbent?

    VicAd to Pozzi:
    "The people have spoken, and they have determined they are satisfied with your leadership, fiscal management and forward thinking."
    "We urge you to continue... working toward transparency for your constituents."

    Continue? Let's move past campaign rhetoric? Pozzi's stance on transparency was nothing but rhetoric & lip service and wouldn't have been part of the discussion without a challenge!
    Fiscal management? www.tinyurl.com/Pozzi-Rhetoric

    Why is the County Judge race an indication the people are happy with the status quo while the DA race with a larger margin of victory is an indication that something needs to change?

    How is it an indication of a job well-done when Pozzi narrowly defeated a guy who was assassinated in a lengthy front-page article (with a psych evaluation from a political rival) and raised (unsolicited) only a tiny fraction of Pozzi purse? One could say it lends credence to the challenger's ideas. This citizen thinks the challenger provided a public service by raising important questions about County government finances & operations. Time will tell.

    Anyone else detecting a double standard here?

    November 3, 2010 at 11:07 a.m.