Omaha Forums

koberaptor wrote:to anyone that lives around the millard area

I find it funny how millard citizens, who are die-hard conservatives, will be the first in line to vote for a tax increasing bond (which i have no problem with) but complain about Suttle's taxes which helped Omaha get out of debt. Lots of folks here wanted suttle out because of his taxes. talk about the double standard  

They rejected the last bond issue. Also, Omaha is not out of debt if you consider the $1.1 Billion in long-term bonds that were outstanding as of the end of 2011.

http://www.cityofomaha.org/finance/imag ... 20CAFR.pdf

koberaptor wrote:to anyone that lives around the millard area

I find it funny how millard citizens, who are die-hard conservatives, will be the first in line to vote for a tax increasing bond (which i have no problem with) but complain about Suttle's taxes which helped Omaha get out of debt. Lots of folks here wanted suttle out because of his taxes. talk about the double standard  

Rich people actually love socialism as long as they get to dictate who participates in the socialism.

Is this where the world ends because a conservative want the mayoral race?

I don't think anyone was even remotely implying doom and/or gloom.  

I happen to hail from the camp that believes a mayor (in a city like Omaha...  it's different for nation-states like LA, NYC or Chicago) isn't much more than a cheerleader for the city.

We now happen to have a mayor that is proudly two to three decades behind reality on civil rights.

Yay.

+3

Big E wrote:I don't think anyone was even remotely implying doom and/or gloom.  

I happen to hail from the camp that believes a mayor (in a city like Omaha...  it's different for nation-states like LA, NYC or Chicago) isn't much more than a cheerleader for the city.

We now happen to have a mayor that is proudly two to three decades behind reality on civil rights.

Yay.

I'd say at least Daub was an exception, and maybe Fahey.

Either way, several of the past mayors have had some positive influence on the city. Maybe Stothert will continue the trend. However, from the sounds of it, while she is in office, we can't be expecting mass transit improvements.

koberaptor wrote:to anyone that lives around the millard area

I find it funny how millard citizens, who are die-hard conservatives, will be the first in line to vote for a tax increasing bond (which i have no problem with) but complain about Suttle's taxes which helped Omaha get out of debt. Lots of folks here wanted suttle out because of his taxes. talk about the double standard  

2 reasons -

1. People like to have a say in the tax, and
2. They are paying for something tangible, for the benefit of all children, NOT to pay off union thugs.

joeglow wrote: 2 reasons -

1. People like to have a say in the tax, and
2. They are paying for something tangible, for the benefit of all children, NOT to pay off union thugs.

Good to know that the teacher unions don't fall in the thug category.  

And last I checked, schools were good for society in general, not just for the children.  Congrats to Millard for recognizing that.

icejammer wrote:

joeglow wrote: 2 reasons -

1. People like to have a say in the tax, and
2. They are paying for something tangible, for the benefit of all children, NOT to pay off union thugs.

Good to know that the teacher unions don't fall in the thug category.  

And last I checked, schools were good for society in general, not just for the children.  Congrats to Millard for recognizing that.

Agreed.  The Teacher's Union doesn't spend lots of money to elect their "adversary" who decides their total compensation package.

And yes, good schools are good for society in general because they are good for the kids attending them.  A great school in a city with zero kids attending it does very little for the city.

joeglow wrote:2. They are paying for something tangible, for the benefit of all children, NOT to pay off union thugs.

C'mon.  Name calling?

S33 wrote:Is this where the world ends because a conservative want the mayoral race?

No. Not all conservatives are narrow minded caustic vindictive emotionally juvenile power hungry maniacs...


Perhaps you don't realize how many "socialist lefties" on this board supported Daub.  In fact, maybe you don't give enough credit to those who actually vote for individuals rather than blindly follow party.


Why must you make everything a right vs. left debate?  Perhaps it's time for your own thread (ala Streets) where you can play political ping-pong with yourself.

nebport5 wrote:

S33 wrote:Is this where the world ends because a conservative want the mayoral race?

Perhaps you don't realize how many "socialist lefties" on this board supported Daub.  In fact, maybe you don't give enough credit to those who actually vote for individuals rather than blindly follow party.


Why must you make everything a right vs. left debate?  Perhaps it's time for your own thread (ala Streets) where you can play political ping-pong with yourself.

Is something preventing you from reading through the thread and all its Stothert bashing?

And don't start putting buzz-words inside quotes trying to pass your cr@p off as something I said.

nebport5 wrote:No. Not all conservatives are narrow minded caustic vindictive emotionally juvenile power hungry maniacs...

Yeah, I'm sure the framework of your voting strategy is absent of bias, solely based upon the individual. LOL!!!

you aren't really expecting to be taken seriously when you post nonsense like this, are you?

To be fair to the analysis of the Millard bond issue:

1.  Let us recall that untill the last one,  they ALL had passed.
2.  They all passed with wider majorities than this one did.
3.  The last one was so porcine that a bunch of old retired people were able to easily find enoughpork in that proposal to clog the arteries of a marathon runner.
4.  People voted for this one because the morons who did the last one, got their heads out of their rears and cut the pork leaving a bond issue that was for things that were really justifiable.

As for how this contrasts with the "rich people" in Millard crack earlier, many of the people in Millard are not rich by any definition.

They have lost all three of the pools in Millard (all of them in working class or lower middle class areas of Millard).  Jim Suttle sat across from my father and in response to the question of why they were all ripped out, Suttle said (and the quotes are not ironic) "The people in Millard are rich.  You can afford a country club membership for your kids to use a pool."  

The insensitivity and cluelessness of this guy seems to be boundless.  

All he managed to do was to PO a bunch of people who used the next chance they had to get rid of him.  

So, he got waxed in Millard, an area of the city that liked their city council rep and would have voted for her in the majority,  He made that majority bigger by treating them badly.  Add to that the other areas of the city west of 680 (hotbeds of Suttle supporters in Elkhorn and west O), and you can see how he got beat so badly.

She could keep his margin in Dundee down.  Beat him in the south by a bit, and then crush him with west O.

bigredmed wrote:To be fair to the analysis of the Millard bond issue:

1.  Let us recall that untill the last one,  they ALL had passed.
2.  They all passed with wider majorities than this one did.
3.  The last one was so porcine that a bunch of old retired people were able to easily find enoughpork in that proposal to clog the arteries of a marathon runner.
4.  People voted for this one because the morons who did the last one, got their heads out of their rears and cut the pork leaving a bond issue that was for things that were really justifiable.

I had a discussion with a former school administrator about the bond issue last year and it was their opinion that it was more of a balloon than a serious bond issue.

I agree with more of Suttle's stance that Stothert's.  I am not at all surprised he lost though, he came off as a misleading half-truthful politician way too often.  Stuff like that will never fly in a city like this.  I just really hope she doesn't get the LGBT bill thrown out, that would be a mess.

HskrFanMike wrote:

joeglow wrote:2. They are paying for something tangible, for the benefit of all children, NOT to pay off union thugs.

C'mon.  Name calling?

Ummm, were you asleep the last 3 months?

joeglow wrote:

HskrFanMike wrote:

joeglow wrote:2. They are paying for something tangible, for the benefit of all children, NOT to pay off union thugs.

C'mon.  Name calling?

Ummm, were you asleep the last 3 months?

Yeah what happened.

Linkin5 wrote:

joeglow wrote:

HskrFanMike wrote:

joeglow wrote:2. They are paying for something tangible, for the benefit of all children, NOT to pay off union thugs.

C'mon.  Name calling?

Ummm, were you asleep the last 3 months?

Yeah what happened.

http://leavenworthst.com/2013/03/17/oma ... ert-shirt/

joeglow wrote:http://leavenworthst.com/2013/03/17/oma ... ert-shirt/

Making a hilarious t-shirt makes someone a "thug" now?

By the way, what do you have against strippers?

S33 wrote:

nebport5 wrote:

S33 wrote:Is this where the world ends because a conservative want the mayoral race?

Perhaps you don't realize how many "socialist lefties" on this board supported Daub.  In fact, maybe you don't give enough credit to those who actually vote for individuals rather than blindly follow party.


Why must you make everything a right vs. left debate?  Perhaps it's time for your own thread (ala Streets) where you can play political ping-pong with yourself.

Is something preventing you from reading through the thread and all its Stothert bashing?

And don't start putting buzz-words inside quotes trying to pass your cr@p off as something I said.

nebport5 wrote:No. Not all conservatives are narrow minded caustic vindictive emotionally juvenile power hungry maniacs...

Yeah, I'm sure the framework of your voting strategy is absent of bias, solely based upon the individual. LOL!!!

you aren't really expecting to be taken seriously when you post nonsense like this, are you?

you "live" in a very different world then I do.  There's nothing compelling or logical above worth responding to.  I stand by my original comments (albeit to an enlighten audience).  cheers!

nebport5 wrote:

you "live" in a very different world than* I do.  There's nothing compelling or logical above worth responding to.  I stand by my original comments (albeit to an enlighten audience).  cheers!

Re-read your last comment if you want to see illogical, incorherent, and hypocritical. You got really mad about this. lol

In fact, maybe you don't give enough credit to those who actually vote for individuals rather than blindly follow party.
No. Not all conservatives are narrow minded caustic vindictive emotionally juvenile power hungry maniacs...

Exibit A. too funny...

Bosco55David wrote:

joeglow wrote:http://leavenworthst.com/2013/03/17/oma ... ert-shirt/

Making a hilarious t-shirt makes someone a "thug" now?

By the way, what do you have against strippers?

"Thanks Mr. Stothert for working for the fire dept. as a physician for 20 years, the last 4 of which you did for free.  However, your wife just beat our efforts, so you are fired."

And then there are the flyers that violated election laws that originated from the fire-fighter's union hall.

The list could go on, but it is clear you are clouded by your biases.

joeglow wrote:

Bosco55David wrote:

joeglow wrote:http://leavenworthst.com/2013/03/17/oma ... ert-shirt/

Making a hilarious t-shirt makes someone a "thug" now?

By the way, what do you have against strippers?

"Thanks Mr. Stothert for working for the fire dept. as a physician for 20 years, the last 4 of which you did for free.  However, your wife just beat our efforts, so you are fired."

And then there are the flyers that violated election laws that originated from the fire-fighter's union hall.

The list could go on, but it is clear you are clouded by your biases.

I literally laughed out loud when I read the quote that his termination was not politically motivated.

Even if it wasn't, it was definitely Suttle's last grand flop. Well... I guess he does have a few weeks to make a few more. Should we make an over/under?

S33 wrote:

nebport5 wrote:

you "live" in a very different world than* I do.  There's nothing compelling or logical above worth responding to.  I stand by my original comments (albeit to an enlighten audience).  cheers!

Re-read your last comment if you want to see illogical, incorherent, and hypocritical. You got really mad about this. lol

In fact, maybe you don't give enough credit to those who actually vote for individuals rather than blindly follow party.
No. Not all conservatives are narrow minded caustic vindictive emotionally juvenile power hungry maniacs...

Exibit A. too funny...

Clearly you have no idea what I was saying.  I merely refuted your tenuous rhetoric, there was no anger.  Rather, I was hopeful for a spirited, yet intelligent debate.  However, the way you free associate unrelated things to support your pre-conceived notions relieves me of further interest.  You see a world very different than I do, clearly.  Thus, agree to disagree.

nebport5 wrote:

S33 wrote:

nebport5 wrote:

you "live" in a very different world than* I do.  There's nothing compelling or logical above worth responding to.  I stand by my original comments (albeit to an enlighten audience).  cheers!

Re-read your last comment if you want to see illogical, incorherent, and hypocritical. You got really mad about this. lol

In fact, maybe you don't give enough credit to those who actually vote for individuals rather than blindly follow party.
No. Not all conservatives are narrow minded caustic vindictive emotionally juvenile power hungry maniacs...

Exibit A. too funny...

Clearly you have no idea what I was saying.  I merely refuted your tenuous rhetoric, there was no anger.  Rather, I was hopeful for a spirited, yet intelligent debate.  However, the way you free associate unrelated things to support your pre-conceived notions relieves me of further interest.  You see a world very different than I do, clearly.  Thus, agree to disagree.

If you want to have a "spirited, yet intelligent" debate, then please, respond with something less abrasive and with something of coherent substance. I'm not that hard of a guy to get along with.

I guess I was confused that you would respond to a half-assed one-liner like I wrote - simply in response to the obvious hatred for Stothert's conservative ways.

Anyway, maybe next time. Have a great weekend.

joeglow wrote:"Thanks Mr. Stothert for working for the fire dept. as a physician for 20 years, the last 4 of which you did for free.  However, your wife just beat our efforts, so you are fired."

And then there are the flyers that violated election laws that originated from the fire-fighter's union hall.

The list could go on, but it is clear you are clouded by your biases.

Those two are news to me. Got links?

Still waiting to hear what you have against strippers.

Bosco55David wrote:

joeglow wrote:"Thanks Mr. Stothert for working for the fire dept. as a physician for 20 years, the last 4 of which you did for free.  However, your wife just beat our efforts, so you are fired."

And then there are the flyers that violated election laws that originated from the fire-fighter's union hall.

The list could go on, but it is clear you are clouded by your biases.

Those two are news to me. Got links?

Still waiting to hear what you have against strippers.

Here's the husband-getting-fired-one:

http://www.omaha.com/article/20130515/N ... 59836/1685

Although his role seemed to be of a 'consultant,' according to the opening of the article...

Bosco55David wrote:

joeglow wrote:"Thanks Mr. Stothert for working for the fire dept. as a physician for 20 years, the last 4 of which you did for free.  However, your wife just beat our efforts, so you are fired."

And then there are the flyers that violated election laws that originated from the fire-fighter's union hall.

The list could go on, but it is clear you are clouded by your biases.

Those two are news to me. Got links?

Still waiting to hear what you have against strippers.

I have no interest in discussing this with someone who is intentionally obtuse.  There were other people here who commented because they are aware of it.  Use google.  It does not suddenly become fact when I do your work for you.  It also does not cease to exist as a fact just because you are too lazy to educate yourself.

And if you fail to see anything wrong with the shirts being handed out at a fire-fighters bar, you will NEVER allow yourself to be educated.

I gotta agree with Joe, here. The t-shirt deal was a whole new level of pathetic. If that's the kind of thing the fire fighters union wants to condone, I say allow the city to send out a RFP, and privatize the |expletive| thing. (they do exist)

S33 wrote:

nebport5 wrote:

S33 wrote:

nebport5 wrote:

you "live" in a very different world than* I do.  There's nothing compelling or logical above worth responding to.  I stand by my original comments (albeit to an enlighten audience).  cheers!

Re-read your last comment if you want to see illogical, incorherent, and hypocritical. You got really mad about this. lol

In fact, maybe you don't give enough credit to those who actually vote for individuals rather than blindly follow party.
No. Not all conservatives are narrow minded caustic vindictive emotionally juvenile power hungry maniacs...

Exibit A. too funny...

Clearly you have no idea what I was saying.  I merely refuted your tenuous rhetoric, there was no anger.  Rather, I was hopeful for a spirited, yet intelligent debate.  However, the way you free associate unrelated things to support your pre-conceived notions relieves me of further interest.  You see a world very different than I do, clearly.  Thus, agree to disagree.

If you want to have a "spirited, yet intelligent" debate, then please, respond with something less abrasive and with something of coherent substance. I'm not that hard of a guy to get along with.

I guess I was confused that you would respond to a half-assed one-liner like I wrote - simply in response to the obvious hatred for Stothert's conservative ways.

Anyway, maybe next time. Have a great weekend.

Granted one's tone and intent can often be misconstrued on these boards...However, our fundamental impasse is I hate Stothert for all the adjectives listed above, not because she's conservative.  You don't accept this possibility.  Therefore, any debate ends there.  But again, I would've voted for Daub back in the day had I lived here at the time.  My impressions of Stothert were formed by the words coming out of her mouth since her time on the city council.  I heard many of folk, including other conservatives, use many of the same adjectives to describe her.

nebport5 wrote:

Granted one's tone and intent can often be misconstrued on these boards...However, our fundamental impasse is I hate Stothert for all the adjectives listed above, not because she's conservative.  You don't accept this possibility.  Therefore, any debate ends there.  But again, I would've voted for Daub back in the day had I lived here at the time.  My impressions of Stothert were formed by the words coming out of her mouth since her time on the city council.  I heard many of folk, including other conservatives, use many of the same adjectives to describe her.

You assume that I wouldn't. But, if the content of her spoken words are why you do not respect her and would not vote for her, then I can respect that.

However, at least to me, you weren't exactly clear on that. From what you wrote, it could have ben construed multiple ways.

And you really have to stop saying how "different" my life is from yours, as you know next to nothing about me, my political views, or even my hair color.

joeglow wrote:I have no interest in discussing this with someone who is intentionally obtuse.  There were other people here who commented because they are aware of it.  Use google.  It does not suddenly become fact when I do your work for you.  It also does not cease to exist as a fact just because you are too lazy to educate yourself.

And if you fail to see anything wrong with the shirts being handed out at a fire-fighters bar, you will NEVER allow yourself to be educated.

I simply asked for a link so I could read about these claims and apparently struck a nerve in the process. And I didn't say anything about the shirts, specifically. I asked what you had against strippers.

Focus, Joe. Focus.

Bosco55David wrote:

joeglow wrote:http://leavenworthst.com/2013/03/17/oma ... ert-shirt/

Making a hilarious t-shirt makes someone a "thug" now?

By the way, what do you have against strippers?

You did say something about T-shirts...

Nothing particularly interesting, but about T-shirts nonetheless.

Bosco55David wrote:

joeglow wrote:I have no interest in discussing this with someone who is intentionally obtuse.  There were other people here who commented because they are aware of it.  Use google.  It does not suddenly become fact when I do your work for you.  It also does not cease to exist as a fact just because you are too lazy to educate yourself.

And if you fail to see anything wrong with the shirts being handed out at a fire-fighters bar, you will NEVER allow yourself to be educated.

I simply asked for a link so I could read about these claims and apparently struck a nerve in the process. And I didn't say anything about the shirts, specifically. I asked what you had against strippers.

Focus, Joe. Focus.

Not mad. Just disinterested in someone who wishes to remain willfully ignorant.

joeglow wrote:Not mad. Just disinterested in someone who wishes to remain willfully ignorant.

Someone asking for a link = willfully ignorant?

Your logic (what little you had) just went all Hindenburg.

S33 wrote:

nebport5 wrote:

Granted one's tone and intent can often be misconstrued on these boards...However, our fundamental impasse is I hate Stothert for all the adjectives listed above, not because she's conservative.  You don't accept this possibility.  Therefore, any debate ends there.  But again, I would've voted for Daub back in the day had I lived here at the time.  My impressions of Stothert were formed by the words coming out of her mouth since her time on the city council.  I heard many of folk, including other conservatives, use many of the same adjectives to describe her.

You assume that I wouldn't. But, if the content of her spoken words are why you do not respect her and would not vote for her, then I can respect that.

However, at least to me, you weren't exactly clear on that. From what you wrote, it could have ben construed multiple ways.

And you really have to stop saying how "different" my life is from yours, as you know next to nothing about me, my political views, or even my hair color.

You're right and I'm not claiming to know anything more of you beyond your posts.  I only meant our views/how we see the world...(as indicative of respected posts) are different.

k, back to being best friends. love you.