Forgot your password?
Type your email address below and click the sign up button to create an account.
Well, JW, I'd say that they like to give to political campaigns since it was a drop in the bucket to the almost $190k that they donated that year. I'd also say that they want to keep politicians happy to keep their funding going their way. Feel free to make a flow chart so we can all connect the dots but I would suggest that if Geanie didn't purposely torpido the system switch by submitting the legislation without Hager on board, she certainly bungled it pretty effectively to alienate her base on both sides of the issue.
Yes it was for show. A show to help Geanie Morrison and it was a show for Armstrong's legacy. Answer this one why did Texas A&M gave Morrison campiagn money prior to this UHV issue?
Mr. J. Williams
Hmmm... UHV for show? Really? That's what that was all about? Dr. Hudson was "reassigned" just for show?
Yes, I am a part of the majority that felt and still feel that UHS is in the business of giving this community lip service and lies regarding UHV. I'm not going to rehash my views on this issue as my position is obvious I think. The bottom line with this issue and others that I support is that I'm committed to see this community move forward in a positive and vibrant way rather than move backwards.
And Mike, I don't distain Liberalism, I just don't agree with all of the positions. I do appreciate that you don't say that you're something you're not ;)
You may not be running for anything, but you are a part of the majority. The A&M UHV thing is nothing but for show and people like you eat it up.
There you go again.
It's so easy spending other peoples money.
I misread your post because I thought you were talking about Liberalism but I can see you wrote about libertarianism....But you probably have the same distain for liberalism..:-0
I do agree what you wrote about Libertarianism,it's a 19th century anti ideology...Anti-government,taxes,laws,EPA,FDA, and civilization as we know it.."If it feels good"
Not to worry ,libertarians can't win elections under that label ,so they run as republicans.
Don't make pull out my liberal talking points (voting rights act-civil rights etc) ..:-)
HA Mike!! I should have checked my years before throwing numbers around so carelessly. Yes, I would like us to be back in the years of a balanced budget.
SOOOO, let me rephrase, I think Libertarianism is fine in theory, but in practicality it will move this country, state, city, etc, backwards... and not in a positive way.
"The bottom line is Libertarianism isn't fical conservatism, it's a recipe for disaster for this community and nation that will set us back 20 years. "
Let's see if if we go back 20 years,President Clinton was elected...By 1998 the president along with a GOP controlled Congress submitted the first balanced for 1999....It took years and a loss of house and senate members who chose "country" over party and ideology to accomplish it...Of course the dot.com bubble didn't hurt...:-).
Tax and spend and borrow and spend gets the same results....Name one administration since 1980 who has not grown government?
I can't think of a single scenario where ideology has made a difference at the local level. I guess if people take what they identify with and constantly brag on the successes and ignore the failures,will always have a recipe for always being right....These local council members are not national figures nor should they mimic them,they are our neighbor,friends,shop keepers and at best part-time low level politicians..IMO
With all due respect, Mr. Williams, I'm not running for public office nor am I in the public sector so don't feel a need to justify my views. The bottom line is Libertarianism isn't fical conservatism, it's a recipe for disaster for this community and nation that will set us back 20 years.
I may not agree with every vote made by this council and I do agree that they, as a group, have done a poor job articlating and justifying their votes, but I would argue that much has been accomplished to move this city forward in growth and livability.
We are never going to like everything about candidates but it's about choice.
Choose to act, or choose to face the consequences of inaction. Work with what we have in common, even while we work against those things we differ on.
That is government, a mature and sophisticated government.
Emett Alvarez sounds like he is going to be even more of a spend thrift. His concept of arranging a "settlement" with the seven people protesting the new sewer plant sounds like payola on a large scale.
I got nothing against Rangel. She worked the sewer plant issue within her district. To answer the question, yes, Victoria would be better off with another term.
I can understand the Sewer plant deal, but the UHV Texas A&M deal? Come on. The A&M deal was nothing about the bettering the Crossroads area, but to make State Rep. Geanie Morrison and Mayor Armstrong look good for their legacy.
I support Denise. There are reasons why she voted for spending increases. Why don't you ask her and find out why instead of assuming she is a spend monger. I have talked with her several times and she told me the sewer plant decision was one of the hardest she had to make, but she was looking at the bigger picture of closing a smelly old plant for a new modern and less odor plant. I think her support of A&M instead of UH was right on target. Look at the ineptness of the current President of UHV that has no vision except trying to grow a univeristy on a postage stamp.Like the boots campaign or not it is working.
YES WE CAN AFFORD ANOTHER TERM.
With Emmett Alvarez we will be set back 20 years. There is a reason why he lost two elections. People don't want him. He doesn't appear to be at the City meetings. I never see him in the audience from the tv.
There was no surpise why you support her. I have to ask you the same question, BsSpotter and Matt Ocker asked. If you are such a fiscal conservative then why are you supporting spending increases?
Mr. J Williams
I wish I lived in Denise's district because she would have my vote as she has proven to be a thoughtful representative for this community, committed to move us forward in a responsible way.
and how could i forget approving the use of OUR tax dollars to help fight the city and council's poor decision of location.
per vicad: the City Council is working to transfer $175,000 from the water/wastewater fund balance to pay for the plant's defense.
imo this candidate has proven to be a free spender with the tax payers money and seems to constantly go with the same voting block on the council
her yes vote on the private parking lot by the pump house is all I need to know about this candidate. im also very curious if there is ANY kind of relationship between this candidate and the pumphouse owners ? why im certain vicad would never investigate, im curious if anyone has any information.
but if you needed further thought:
her support of financing the 'brings your boots'
her support of the new sewage plant
and last but not least her support of recruiting a&m to uh-v
all the above came with a steep price tag and the candidate showed little financial restraint with her 'yes' votes
can victoria afford another term ?