City tax hikes -- kiss goodbye to your fancy ped bridges

[Ozy_Flame]

I've been following this whole argument and your blog, First Lady, and first of all, the only one who is getting steamed about anything is YOU. You're the one who is taking Muta's comments and twisting them around to make it seem like he's a hardcore Pincott supporter. You're the one who is trying to provide links to back up your claims, yet you're quoting the Calgary Sun and other un-credible sources. You're the one who's quoting Pincott's passive comments as finalized actions. You hammer Muta on the fact of where he lives, then go on to claim that you knew all the time he lived in Calgary. Dare I continue? I could go on.

And the fact that you're quoting your HUSBAND'S BLOG is seriously the nail in the coffin for me. It's laughable to finish your "blog" (and I do use that term loosely) with a quote from your husband.

I also have to bring this up - you DO know that the majority of alderman voted in favor of the pedestrian bridges, don't you? As in, more alderman than just Pincott.

Pincott doesn't have all the answers; infact, a couple of his policies are downright stupid (hiring a poet is ridiculous.) Muta has stated this boldy and simply. You choose not to listen.

BTW, the City of Victoria is having HUGE success with the clear plastic bags program. Perhaps you should do some research before you bash a good idea.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Perhaps you should just explain yourself, instead of attacking me.

Laugh. Please quote to where I attacked you.

Originally Posted by First Lady

It does not shock me you are in Calgary. Your IP address already told me that.
Very little surprises me.
Nor does this impress me; which is what you are really trying to do.

Then if you've checked my IP address and it doesn't shock you that I live in Calgary, why is your blog plastered with the assumption that I live in New Zealand? I thought you checked my IP address. You jumped the gun there, and now you're trying to cover it up. Classy.

And I don't need to impress you one bit; it seems Rick 'the Dinger' Bell and passages from your own husband's political rants does that for you enough.

Originally Posted by First Lady

Historically he has been left leaning. His commentary on Pincott only makes him appear right wing.

Aside from which, you asked for news sources and I provided them.

Regardless of which ever way Bell falls on the political spectrum, the man must be taken with a grain of salt. Quoting him is like quoting the Opinions section of a newspaper. That's what he does - provide opinion. The piece in your blog is simply that - his opinion. Nothing more.

Kudos to you for providing a couple news sources; however, none of your articles prove that his platforms have been implemented; they all state what we already know - that he wants this, and wants that. We've heard it already. Big whoop. Every alderman and politician do that. Attacking Pincott is just weak in this regard. Again, your links simply just state what his platforms convey. Nothing new here.

Originally Posted by First Lady

You have had several opportunities here and on my blog to express your opinion, yet you choose to attack me.

Hypocritical much? You're taking my posts, bending what you read here on CP, and re-hashing this made-from-thin-air crap on your own blog. Perhaps you should take your own advice, man up, and post your opinions here, instead of hiding behind the shelter of your own blog and regular visitors to your site.

I've blatantly stated... BLATANTLY stated... that I don't agree with every one of Pincott's platforms, that I'm NOT a Pincott supporter, and that I do agree with some things of his, however. FAR from your blog which makes me out to be a hardcore Pincott supporter. But hey, I guess that's what your blog is for, to convey things that you see and hear in a manner that furthers your own political agenda. Nice.

Originally Posted by First Lady

I would rather here Pincott's ideas directly from him. Perhaps he can recycle some beer cans and get his website renewal paid up.

www.brianpincott.ca

Here, let me provide you with a link:

http://www.bettercalgary.ca/assets/surveys/Pincott.pdf

... in case you missed it the first time. You asked, you shall recieve.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Muta

You're taking my posts, bending what you read here on CP, and re-hashing this made-from-thin-air crap on your own blog. Perhaps you should take your own advice, man up, and post your opinions here, instead of hiding behind the shelter of your own blog and regular visitors to your site.

This thread has already been derailed enough; which is what I was trying to avoid. It is about tax hikes; not specifically about Pincott.

I blog for various reasons and considering I am doing it under my real name, "hiding" is certainly not one of them.

I have had plenty of discussions with the moderators of CP as to what I can and cannot post here. I will abide by their wishes as I enjoy posting here.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by First Lady

This thread has already been derailed enough; which is what I was trying to avoid. It is about tax hikes; not specifically about Pincott.

You derailed the tread by taking someones comments and posting them in your blog.

Did you really think that Muta was going to say nothing?

My 2 cents... take it or leave it.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Dion

You derailed the tread by taking someones comments and posting them in your blog.

If I had posted my remarks here it would have derailed the thread; they were not specific to the thread topic. Nor did I think it relevant enough for a thread of it's own.

Did you really think that Muta was going to say nothing?

Not sure what I expected, but I certainly would not have predicted him going overboard with his long post here, a long one on my blog and a private message of a similiar insulting tone.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Not sure what I expected, but I certainly would not have predicted him going overboard with his long post here, a long one on my blog and a private message of a similiar insulting tone.

Then perhaps maybe you should ASK for clarification on what platforms of Mr. Pincott's I agree with and which one's I don't agree with. I've called you out several times on that, and you still haven't bothered to follow through with it. Then, in light of your desire to not really ask the necessary questions, you go and post this:



Just so that everyone can see, I'm apparently 'Pincott's #1 fan' according to her blog. It gets more ridiculous from that point on if you read that blog.

If you didn't want me to 'go overboard' (laugh), perhaps you should have done your due dilligence in your research first before going willy nilly with what you wrote. You didn't do that. Now, you're trying to cover it up.

And again, please quote where I personally attacked you... in anything. Instead of hiding behind your blog, lets get some quotes here. I'm going to ask you again to please provide a quote or a link.

I think you're finished here, First_Lady. It's unfortunate you've been exposed to the level you have been, but hey... if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

[Bobblehead]

[SeeGeeWhy]

This is gold.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Muta

Then perhaps maybe you should ASK for clarification on what platforms of Mr. Pincott's I agree with and which one's I don't agree with. I've called you out several times on that, and you still haven't bothered to follow through with it.

Why should I bother. You are an adult and clearly capable of typing. There is absolutely nothing preventing you from doing this without my "asking".

Just so that everyone can see, I'm apparently 'Pincott's #1 fan' according to her blog. It gets more ridiculous from that point on if you read that blog.

It was you, who in post #8 of this thread, responded to Cowboy89 who was knocking Pincott, with "vision transcends... blah, blah"....
Pretty high praise for someone is not a fan.

If you didn't want me to 'go overboard' (laugh), perhaps you should have done your due dilligence in your research first before going willy nilly with what you wrote. You didn't do that. Now, you're trying to cover it up.

Are you referring to the research of quoting the Calgary Herard, AM770, QR77 and city of Calgary's own website to get the facts on Pincott; that you disqualify as unrealiable sources ???
And what am I trying to cover up?

And again, please quote where I personally attacked you... in anything. Instead of hiding behind your blog, lets get some quotes here. I'm going to ask you again to please provide a quote or a link.

Your posts are printed in full on my blog. Pick nearly any sentence that has "you" or "your" in it. Maybe you don't see them as insults, but they are at least condescending.

I think you're finished here, First_Lady. It's unfortunate you've been exposed to the level you have been, but hey... if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Um ok. If you think this is my first internet spat with someone you are quite mistaken. I have not stooped to your level of using ad hominems. I have used facts and recent info and yet all you are doing is stomping your feet.


Why is this bothering you so much? Do you work in Silly Hall?

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

And the fact that you're quoting your HUSBAND'S BLOG is seriously the nail in the coffin for me. It's laughable to finish your "blog" (and I do use that term loosely) with a quote from your husband.

It's even more humorous that you, Muta's brother, come to his defense.

Are you the older one by chance? I know there is likely only minutes of difference; but your coming to his aid would indicate you are the older twin.

[Bobblehead]

*tweet*

Keep the ad hominems to a minimum.

*flashes yellow cards to all involved*

Continue.....

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Why is this bothering you so much? Do you work in Silly Hall?

Silly hall. How clever and original. Now we know you're a Sun reader.

[Nancy]

[llama64]

Originally Posted by josh white

Silly hall. How clever and original. Now we know you're a Sun reader.

It really is hard to take someone seriously when they keep quoting someone like Rick Bell.

Yes, there are higher priorities then the bridges in Calgary.

I don't know the specifics of the budget, but from what I understand, the bridges constitute a capital project, which means it's mostly funded by the Province. I could be wrong though as I havn't done any research.

The tax increases are going directly toward the yearly operating budget, which pays for our basic services. If these services are not given the money they demand in salaries, what's stopping the people doing the jobs from seeking wealth in Fort MacMurray or out on the rigs?

If we make a lot of money as a city, we have to expect that all of the collateral services required to run the city will demand a certain cut. That's what is happening here.

[Nancy]

So, apparently, the design of the new pedestrian bridge has been released. Apparently, it is going to be modeled on the +15's in Calgary "... as a grand statement of artistic irony..." says the architect.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by Nancy

So, apparently, the design of the new pedestrian bridge has been released. Apparently, it is going to be modeled on the +15's in Calgary "... as a grand statement of artistic irony..." says the architect.

Do you have a source? I can only imagine what they would look like...

         ___________ 
       /____________\              
___/                         \___

Yay!

... I fail at ASCII art

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by First Lady

It's even more humorous that you, Muta's brother, come to his defense.

Are you the older one by chance? I know there is likely only minutes of difference; but your coming to his aid would indicate you are the older twin.

Yes, because me being Muta's brother has everything to do with pointing out your fallacies. I have just as much right to comment as anyone else. Isn't this the pot calling the kettle black, calling me out when you're the one quoting your husband? Unbeleivable.

I like how you search through previous threads to find information on me. Can you put the same effort into more credible sources? Opinionated newspaper pieces and your husband's blog doesn't exactly cut the mustard.

Anyways, I wanted to add that I do believe the funding for the bridges is spread over the 2009-2011 three-year project, and IS a capital project to an extent. I would be surprised if the provincial government wasn't helping out with this.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Why should I bother. You are an adult and clearly capable of typing. There is absolutely nothing preventing you from doing this without my "asking".

...and you are an adult with, I would hope, the responsibility to atleast do your proper research when you make the decision to attack somebody. Which you clearly haven't done. For a politician, it has become fairly obvious that spin doctoring is high on your political agenda.

The point is that you haven't flat out asked me which platform's of Pincott's I supported. And here I am, calling you out... AGAIN. This is what, the seventh time now? I want to hear you directly ask me what my positions on each of Pincott's platforms are. Then, I want you to post on your blog your clarifications and admit that you didn't do your due dilligence when writing it. Do that, and then there's no problem. I'll forgive you.

Originally Posted by First Lady

It was you, who in post #8 of this thread, responded to Cowboy89 who was knocking Pincott, with "vision transcends... blah, blah"....
Pretty high praise for someone is not a fan.

High praise? Maybe to you. 'transcending', in this case, very clearly means thinking about issues other that building roads and infrastructure into suburban areas. You know, issues like innner city beautification - ie, the pedestrian bridges. I thought that was obvious. I clearly stated, right after, that I am not a Pincott supporter. Funny how you leave that out, huh?

Originally Posted by First Lady

Are you referring to the research of quoting the Calgary Herard, AM770, QR77 and city of Calgary's own website to get the facts on Pincott; that you disqualify as unrealiable sources ???
And what am I trying to cover up?

I am referring to getting clarification from me on which platforms of Pincott's I like, and which ones I don't like. You never did that. I'm not going to say this again, that's the research I'm talking about. You so whole-heartedly advocate me as 'Pincott's #1 fan', yet you don't provide evidence as to why that is, and you don't bother to ask me for clarification. Instead, you write willy nilly whatever it is furthers your political agenda on your blog in such a degrading, juvenile fashion.

Your news sources are somewhat adequate, if not less credible. Quoting opinion pieces and news stories that clearly only state Pincott's positions isn't very good evidence as to what he has actually done, or accomplished, in City Hall during his tenure. He wants to ban firepits? Good for him, there's hundreds of things aldermen want and do not want to do. I think this is a stupid platform on Pincott's position. Bet you didn't know that. You know how I know? Because you didn't ask me, but wow, what a surprise.

Your news sources merely re-inforce their platforms. This isn't revelationary news. Your other sources are opinion pieces, lots are which are from your own flesh and blood. Yup, that's not biased or anything.

Originally Posted by First Lady

Your posts are printed in full on my blog. Pick nearly any sentence that has "you" or "your" in it. Maybe you don't see them as insults, but they are at least condescending.

I'm not doing that work, I don't have to. The 'insulting tones it is YOUR responsibility to pick those out and quote them. You made the claim that you were insulted, and now are not willing to post what those insults actually are. The onus is on you to do so, and you're not doing it.

Originally Posted by First Lady

Um ok. If you think this is my first internet spat with someone you are quite mistaken. I have not stooped to your level of using ad hominems. I have used facts and recent info and yet all you are doing is stomping your feet.

Uh huh. Spin doctoring, out-of-context arguments, links to clearly skewed and biased opinions, articles that prove nothing more than Pincott's platforms (which is already common knowledge), willy nilly writing / research, failure to get proper clarification from the source himself (me), trigger-happy keyboard fingers (writing I'm from New Zealand, then checking my IP and seeing that I'm in Calgary, and then acting non-surprised)... need I continue?

Originally Posted by First Lady

Why is this bothering you so much? Do you work in Silly Hall?

What bothers me is when you take what I say, twist it into your own argument without doing your proper clarification with me first, then post it on another forum and hide behind that, refusing to show here how you've twisted my words. Why couldn't you just have PM'ed me the fact that you were going to twist my words and put it on your blog? Huh?

[llama64]

Welcome to Thunder Dome. CP style.

[Ozy_Flame]

Here's a good article about the upcoming pedestrian bridges (Yes, i know it's Fast Forward, but I'm trying to highlight the quotes by a few of the alderman who voted in favor).

http://www.ffwdweekly.com/article/ne...-too-far-2783/

I think there is misconception about the bridges. It IS a capital project in that the entire design and construction of one bridge will come out of the provincial infrastructure fund, and the construction of the other being funded by land sales in the East Village redevelopment.