www.SaveOurOwners.com

[kcdcchef]

Too true. If anyone believes Lamar Hunt is a starving child, or that David Glass takes the bus, they are well and truly fools of the highest degree.

they have went above and beyond that, and not to interrupt the two of you patting each other on the back, but, they are out to smear them both, and you know it.

if any of the three of them, ever do as much for kc as hunt and glass, then by all means, have at it. but in the interim, why not lay off the two men that give us pro sports to root for? it is not as though anyone else wants the royals, jeez.

What name did I call you? Chump? Yes, I should "get away" with that, that's not even a real insult. 

yes, it is. my screenname is kcdcchef, if that is too hard for you, pm me, i will give you some further info on me, but, i did not call you any names. it is pathetic, that, we now have this new warning system, and you are manipulating it. just stick with kcdcchef, it will save you and i these rants. deal, mean?

[mean]

I truly don't agree that they're smearing Hunt and Glass. Perhaps this is the fundamental point of contention. I think they're making fun of the tax, nothing more. You take it a step further. I have an idea, why don't you ask them?

Anyway, I'm not manipulating anything, or at least not trying to. I'm trying to be civil. I think "chump," is perfectly civil. If it really bothers you, I won't say it again, but I don't think you're being honest here. Would you get upset and say I'm manipulating the warning system if I called you a sillyhead? Chill, dude. Oops I called you a "dude"! Please don't accuse me of manipulating the system!

See what I'm saying? Moderators should reserve warnings for when people call each other stupid f$&king idiots and whatnot, which still happens too often. Sometimes they might step over the line, but in general I think the moderation has been pretty good.

[kcdcchef]

I truly don't agree that they're smearing Hunt and Glass. Perhaps this is the fundamental point of contention. I think they're making fun of the tax, nothing more. You take it a step further. I have an idea, why don't you ask them?

Anyway, I'm not manipulating anything, or at least not trying to. I'm trying to be civil. I think "chump," is perfectly civil. If it really bothers you, I won't say it again, but I don't think you're being honest here. Would you get upset and say I'm manipulating the warning system if I called you a sillyhead? Chill, dude. Oops I called you a "dude"! Please don't accuse me of manipulating the system!

See what I'm saying? Moderators should reserve warnings for when people call each other stupid f$&king idiots and whatnot, which still happens too often. Sometimes they might step over the line, but in general I think the moderation has been pretty good.

my brother mean

i am not asking for moderation. i am not even asking for an absurd level of civility, there are others here, you know who they are, that propound dumbass, idiot, dumbfuck, dipshit, etc, constantly, and i do not wish for an open season, especially since i have a propendency to want to return fire.

with regards to glass, and hunt, read the forum on these matters, read these topics, we know who wallace, william, and fenton are, dont we mean??!!?? anyway.........not just them, but read these topics, man, there are people all over this board that are ripping glass and hunt a new one every chance they get, talking about how they suck, do nothing for kc, are robbers, who should be shot, who are fucking the city and county, how terrible they are, and that is not the case, is it? read the last 4 pages, grid started this, and i took it AND RAN. these 2 men have done a LOT for kansas city, and to attack them is not right.

the parody of the website, is another thing, and i do not agree with it, either, but, that is my perrogative. i think it is nothing more then laziness, and another form of a pathetic attempt to smear and blemish men who have done a lot for our city.

if you wish to fight them, and the proposed tax, which, we all know only stands a SLIM SLIM SLIM chance of passing, then do it like they are, out in the open.

either way, all this shit ends in 18 days, and I THANK GOD IT DOES. i miss this website talking about kc progress. but what irritates me most, is if this fails, the parties you guys will throw in every thread in this forum, thinking it means downtown baseball is on the horizon. please.

[beautyfromashes]

I think the creators of those jibjab cartoons should be sued for running an illegal campaign in the last presidential election.

[lock+load]

the parody of the website, is another thing, and i do not agree with it, either, but, that is my perrogative. i think it is nothing more then laziness, and another form of a pathetic attempt to smear and blemish men who have done a lot for our city.

if you wish to fight them, and the proposed tax, which, we all know only stands a SLIM SLIM SLIM chance of passing, then do it like they are, out in the open.

Do think it is easy to come up with all the stories they are writing for the site?  How is that laziness?  You disagree with their method of delivery and have your panties in a major wad about it.  If there was a link at the bottom of their site with their names, would it make a difference in your opinion?  You wouldn't know who they are anyway.  No one would.  All that would do is provide an opportunity for the well-funded YES side to drag their names and reputations through the mud.  Why in the world would they do that?  They have lives, and while they want to do what they can to defeat the tax, they do not want themselves to be the center of attention.  I wouldn't either.  The message is out there, and that is what is important.  Should every blogger have to identify themselves in order to comment on a ballot proposal?  That seems ludicrous.

[kcdcchef]

Do think it is easy to come up with all the stories they are writing for the site?  How is that laziness?  You disagree with their method of delivery and have your panties in a major wad about it.  If there was a link at the bottom of their site with their names, would it make a difference in your opinion?  You wouldn't know who they are anyway.  No one would.  All that would do is provide an opportunity for the well-funded YES side to drag their names and reputations through the mud.  Why in the world would they do that?  They have lives, and while they want to do what they can to defeat the tax, they do not want themselves to be the center of attention.  I wouldn't either.  The message is out there, and that is what is important.  Should every blogger have to identify themselves in order to comment on a ballot proposal?  That seems ludicrous.

they do not have lives, or they would not be so obsessed with it. hell, or any of us for that matter.

i have a friend who posts shit in politicartoons in livejournal all of the time, i have sat there and watched him make a cartoon about dog food made out of mutilated terrorists, it took him 5 minutes to do the whole thing, so, to answer your question, if you are good at computer stuff, which, they are, it takes mere minnutes.

should they all have to identify themselves? if you are running a counter campaign, and spending any money at all on it, the law i believe, says, yes, you do. guess we will see here soon.

[lock+load]

they do not have lives, or they would not be so obsessed with it. hell, or any of us for that matter.

So David Glass, Lamar Hunt, Steve Glorioso, you, me, mean, none of us have lives because we're interested in the political process?  Absurd.

i have a friend who posts shit in politicartoons in livejournal all of the time, i have sat there and watched him make a cartoon about dog food made out of mutilated terrorists, it took him 5 minutes to do the whole thing, so, to answer your question, if you are good at computer stuff, which, they are, it takes mere minnutes.

Writing has nothing to do with computer skills and is hardly comparable to making cartoons.  It takes time to write something good, in addition to coming up with th ideas.

they all have to identify themselves? if you are running a counter campaign, and spending any money at all on it, the law i believe, says, yes, you do. guess we will see here soon.

They spent $9 on a website.  I don't know the law but even I can see that the point of campaign disclosure laws is not to find out who spent $9 on a website.  You are trying to influence the outcome of the election with your posts here.  Some has paid for this website.  Should your name be disclosed too?  I don't think so.  Just be realistic man.

[kcdcchef]

They spent $9 on a website.  I don't know the law but even I can see that the point of campaign disclosure laws is not to find out who spent $9 on a website.   You are trying to influence the outcome of the election with your posts here.  Some has paid for this website.  Should your name be disclosed too?  I don't think so.  Just be realistic man.

and champagne. and a limo. those cost too, or were they free? campaign expenditures, not being reported. that, is not legal. look it up.

So David Glass, Lamar Hunt, Steve Glorioso, you, me, mean, none of us have lives because we're interested in the political process? Absurd.
.

no, all of us here who post on this so much, well, you fill in the blanks. either way, like i said, it has TOTALLY consumed this board.

[shaffe]

that's not a campaign cost.  is glorioso turning in recipts for the miles he drives everywhere to cry on any radio station who will air it?

[kcdcchef]

that's not a campaign cost.  is glorioso turning in recipts for the miles he drives everywhere to cry on any radio station who will air it?

yes, it is, and yes, he does.

[mean]

my brother mean

i am not asking for moderation. i am not even asking for an absurd level of civility, there are others here, you know who they are, that propound dumbass, idiot, dumbfuck, dipshit, etc, constantly, and i do not wish for an open season, especially since i have a propendency to want to return fire.

Sure seemed like it to me, but OK.

with regards to glass, and hunt, read the forum on these matters, read these topics, we know who wallace, william, and fenton are, dont we mean??!!??

If you know, do tell, cause I'm still dying to buy these guys a beer. Sure I have suspicions, but there are about five people I'm looking at (and two of them I know in person, so I really doubt it's them unless they are REALLY good at keeping a straight face). At least one of them is a poster here, I'm sure, and probably two of them. Not sure about the third. Anyway, I'm not nearly confident enough to start pointing fingers.

there are people all over this board that are ripping glass and hunt a new one every chance they get, talking about how they suck, do nothing for kc, are robbers, who should be shot, who are fucking the city and county, how terrible they are, and that is not the case, is it?

I don't think they're all terrible or whatever, I just think they're doing what is in their best interests, which is to say, spending less of their money. And why wouldn't they, the county makes it so easy for them. It's just not, in my opinion, in the best interest of the county, and for that we can only blame the county.

Anyway, I didn't see any tax opponents saying Lamar was evil or in need of shooting. Well, except maybe PPA before he went away, but who listens to that guy anyway? And either way, even if there are people saying that, I'm not, and you're talking to me, so who cares what some other people are saying?

the parody of the website, is another thing, and i do not agree with it, either, but, that is my perrogative. i think it is nothing more then laziness, and another form of a pathetic attempt to smear and blemish men who have done a lot for our city.

As I said, you're well within your rights to be state wrong opinions.

either way, all this shit ends in 18 days, and I THANK GOD IT DOES. i miss this website talking about kc progress. but what irritates me most, is if this fails, the parties you guys will throw in every thread in this forum, thinking it means downtown baseball is on the horizon. please.

Hear, hear. Pass or fail, it will be over, and...finally!

and champagne. and a limo. those cost too, or were they free? campaign expenditures, not being reported. that, is not legal. look it up.

It doesn't matter whether it cost SOME money, the law very specifically says $500, and there's talk of that going up to $5000. I have no idea how much limos cost, but I'm sure that between a $9 web site, a limo ride, and a bottle wine, they're still not breaking any laws. Anyway, the point of the ethics law isn't to keep average Joes from speaking their mind and sharing their opinions, it's specifically to keep people from anonymously bankrolling campaigns.

[kcdcchef]

If you know, do tell, cause I'm still dying to buy these guys a beer. Sure I have suspicions, but there are about five people I'm looking at (and two of them I know in person, so I really doubt it's them unless they are REALLY good at keeping a straight face). At least one of them is a poster here, I'm sure, and probably two of them. Not sure about the third. Anyway, I'm not nearly confident enough to start pointing fingers.

i have got it to 5 posters, and am sure it is 3 out of those 5, and i am happy with that. i do not intend to point fingers in the interim.

It doesn't matter whether it cost SOME money, the law very specifically says $500, and there's talk of that going up to $5000. I have no idea how much limos cost, but I'm sure that between a $9 web site, a limo ride, and a bottle wine, they're still not breaking any laws. Anyway, the point of the ethics law isn't to keep average Joes from speaking their mind and sharing their opinions, it's specifically to keep people from anonymously bankrolling campaigns.

that is then, and this is now. and the law says disclosure with regards to how much you spend, and right now, it is $500. i know limos and champagne are not free.

Hear, hear. Pass or fail, it will be over, and...finally!

thank god, this shit has gotten old. today, there is a new twin 15 story condo tower unveiled, i had another thread about letter writing to the city to get parking ordinances getting changed, the 20 story condo tower is close to breakiing ground, the empire theater has lights on inside it now, man, there is so much shit going on, and it is all about the stadiums. enough. they are not going downtown either way, we should all be able to see that, so, what is the point?

Anyway, I didn't see any tax opponents saying Lamar was evil or in need of shooting. Well, except maybe PPA before he went away, but who listens to that guy anyway? And either way, even if there are people saying that, I'm not, and you're talking to me, so who cares what some other people are saying?

ppa will be back, you can count on that. with regards to the posters, again, re read these threads, there are a LOT of people who talk shit on glass and hunt, and have the fuckem attitude about them, and specifically say that they have not done one damn thing for kc, and that is horseshit. without hunt, we do not have the chiefs, or worlds of fun, without glass, there is a chance we do not even have the royals anymore, noone was stepping up to the plate to buy them. NOONE. when he put in his bid, it was the ONLY BID MLB was looking at, there were no other ones. and we speak about him like he is some sort of cancer.

either way, i cannot wait until this is over, it is so sad, and so petty. if the posters on here who are tarring and feathering glass and hunt, would just stop and realize, you are not talking these guys into downtown, so, give it up, if you want to focus on this being a bad deal for kc, which, i do not believe it is, or focus on this being bad for jacko taxpayers, which, i do not believe it is, fine, do that, but, the majority of these posters ripping glass and hunt to shreds for this deal, mention downtown baseball CONSTANTLY, so, if it was the same deal, but a downtown stadium, they would be behind it. that is retarded, either get behind the tax, or dont, but dont say the owners should burn in hell, UNLESS you get it your way. that is sad.

[shaffe]

the following, boys and girls, is the word for word text from the books on missouri campaign disclosure laws.  at least, the part that would even remotely apply here.

No candidate for statewide elected office, general assembly, or municipal office in a city with a population of more than one hundred thousand shall be required to comply with the requirements to file a statement of organization or disclosure reports of contributions and expenditures for any election in which neither the aggregate of contributions received nor the aggregate of expenditures made on behalf of such candidate exceeds five hundred dollars and no single contributor, other than the candidate, has contributed more than the amount of the limitation on contributions to elect an individual to the office of state representative as calculated in subsection 2 of section 130.032, provided that:

(1) The candidate files a sworn exemption statement with the appropriate officer that the candidate does not intend to either receive contributions or make expenditures in the aggregate of more than five hundred dollars or receive contributions from any single contributor, other than the candidate, that aggregate more than the amount of the limitation on contributions to elect an individual to the office of state representative as calculated in subsection 2 of section 130.032, and that the total of all contributions received or expenditures made by the candidate and all committees or any other person with the candidate's knowledge and consent in support of the candidacy will not exceed five hundred dollars and that the aggregate of contributions received from any single contributor will not exceed the amount of the limitation on contributions to elect an individual to the office of state representative as calculated in subsection 2 of section 130.032. Such exemption statement shall be filed no later than the date set forth in section 130.046 on which a disclosure report would otherwise be required if the candidate does not file the exemption statement. The exemption statement shall be filed on a form furnished to each appropriate officer by the executive director of the Missouri ethics commission. Each appropriate officer shall make the exemption statement available to candidates and shall direct each candidate's attention to the exemption statement and explain its purpose to the candidate; and

(2) The sworn exemption statement includes a statement that the candidate understands that records of contributions and expenditures must be maintained from the time the candidate first receives contributions or makes expenditures and that an exemption from filing a statement of organization or disclosure reports does not exempt the candidate from other provisions of this chapter. Each candidate described in this subsection who files a statement of exemption shall file a statement of limited activity for each reporting period described in section 130.046.

the text mentioned in section 130.046
Not later than the eighth day before an election for the period closing on the twelfth day before the election if the committee has made any contribution or expenditure either in support or opposition to any candidate or ballot measure


of course most of this is hardly relevent since saveourowners is not a campaign.  but if it ever was found to be a campaign, all they would have to do is file a piece of paper saying "i will not raise more than $500".  that's it.  if you want to read the entire chapter, here's the link:

http://www.moga.state.mo.us/statutes/ch ... hap130.htm

[TheNorthlander]

the following, boys and girls, is the word for word text from the books on missouri campaign disclosure laws.  at least, the part that would even remotely apply here.



of course most of this is hardly relevent since saveourowners is not a campaign.  but if it ever was found to be a campaign, all they would have to do is file a piece of paper saying "i will not raise more than $500".  that's it.  if you want to read the entire chapter, here's the link:

http://www.moga.state.mo.us/statutes/ch ... hap130.htm

Actually, read the law a few paragraphs up, and the issue becomes much more clear.

(7) "Committee", a person or any combination of persons, who accepts contributions or makes expenditures for the primary or incidental purpose of influencing or attempting to influence the action of voters for or against the nomination or election to public office of one or more candidates or the qualification, passage or defeat of any ballot measure or for the purpose of paying a previously incurred campaign debt or obligation of a candidate or the debts or obligations of a committee or for the purpose of contributing funds to another committee:

(a) "Committee", does not include:

a. A person or combination of persons, if neither the aggregate of expenditures made nor the aggregate of contributions received during a calendar year exceeds five hundred dollars and if no single contributor has contributed more than two hundred fifty dollars of such aggregate contributions;

[lock+load]

I am voting YES now.  The Super Bowl and All-star game weren't quite enough, but this now seals it for me.

[shaffe]

that may be the best one yet.

[TheNorthlander]

I thought I heard Steve Glorioso ranting just now....this story probably explains why.....

I especially liked the last line: "There will be no second class citizens among members of the media"

FEC Won't Regulate Internet Politics
Mar 27 12:14 PM US/Eastern

By DAVID PACE
Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON


The Federal Election Commission decided Monday that the nation's new campaign finance law will not apply to most political activity on the Internet.

In a 6-0 vote, the commission decided to regulate only paid political ads placed on another person's Web site.

The decision means that bloggers and online publications will not be covered by provisions of the new election law. Internet bloggers and individuals will therefore be able to use the Internet to attack or support federal candidates without running afoul of campaign spending and contribution limits.

"It's a win, win, win," Commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub said, adding that the rule would satisfy concerns of campaigns, individuals and the Internet community about whether the campaign finance law applies to Internet political activity.

The commission was forced to act after a federal court ruled that the FEC must extend some of the campaign financial and spending limits to political activity on the Internet.

The 2002 law requires that campaign ads for federal candidates be paid for with money regulated by the law, which limits contributions by individuals to $2,000 and bans union and corporation donations.

In its initial interpretation of the law in 2002, the FEC said no political activity on the Internet was covered. But a federal court judge ruled in 2004 that the commission had to craft a new rule that at the very least covered paid political advertising on the Internet.

The ruling, and the commission's decision not to appeal it, sparked fears among some Internet users that the panel might adopt broader restrictions. But FEC Chairman Michael E. Toner said the new rules give a "categorical and unqualified" exemption for all individual and group political activity on the Internet, except for paid advertising.

"The law was never intended to regulate private citizen communication on the Internet," said Commission Vice Chairman Robert D. Lenhard. "I believe that we have achieved that goal today."

Commissioners said the new rule also specifically changes several other FEC regulations to make it clear that Internet activity, such as blogging, e-mail communications and online publications, is not covered by the campaign law.

For example, the rule says individuals can use union or corporate computers or other electronic devices for political activity, as long they do it on their own time and are not coerced to engage in such activity by the union or corporation.

Bloggers would be entitled to the same exemption from the campaign finance law that newspapers and other traditional forms of media receive.

"There will be no second class citizens among members of the media," Toner said.

[LenexatoKCMO]

Its seems like its getting a little hard to get onto the site - has popularity exceeded bandwidth? 

[lock+load]

Heard the guys on KMBZ this morning.  Said they are getting 35k hits a day, the Glorioso said they are full of shit.

[KCPowercat]

it's upsetting to the big timers like Glorioso because he can't control it....unlike local media.