KCRag Forum

KCMax wrote: What's funny is that if this were a President Bush event, I'm sure you would applaud anyone that "crashes" the party.

nah. i am peaceful in politics too. i did a campaign rally against w recently, but, that is as far as i go. not into that.

besides, it matters not. i spoke with the sos people yesterday, and today, they have plenty of security EVERY event. they are ready.

I find it odd that the side that has so much support needs security against dissidents.

i'll vote no too!  why not?
so are all of my friends and family who live in jackson county, mo.
crazy, eh?
my girlfriend and her family feels a no is a good vote too, as does her grandparents and my grandmother.
in fact, i don't know anyone who wants to vote yes and i spend EVERY DAY OF MY LIFE IN JACKSON COUNTY MO.

well, maybe i'll vote yes.  if scott elarton pitches a shutout through 6 innings and the royals win on opening day april 3rd, 2006, i'll vote yes on april 4th, 2006.

and i'll make sure to tell everyone else i run into at the K on opening day to try and think about it the same way.

KCMax wrote: I find it odd that the side that has so much support needs security against dissidents.

why do you find it odd? of course they need security against the dissidents, they are idiots that would show up at events they are against, as opposed to being intelligent and running a campaign to oppose this, get organized, and have their own events.

but, since they are apathetic gen x'ers, all they do is trash what others do, they are too lazy, too unmotivated, and too selfish to take the time to organize a campaign.

It is a private party.  That is why they could kick out persons they do not want.  If you want to crash then go ahead and report what happens.

kcdcchef wrote: but, since they are apathetic gen x'ers, all they do is trash what others do, they are too lazy, too unmotivated, and too selfish to take the time to organize a campaign.

Or maybe it is because they have $2 million dollars from the teams.  You overlook such important facts when spewing your venom towards those younger than you and those who disagree with you.

kcdcchef wrote: but, since they are apathetic gen x'ers, all they do is trash what others do, they are too lazy, too unmotivated, and too selfish to take the time to organize a campaign.

u just described a 70's hippie

For anyone who is interested I will be at opening day this year (with a ticket) and will be giving out 'Vote No' t-shirts.  Let me know who wants one and I'll tell you where to meet me.  

Why not let everyone know where you are going to be?  Ashamed?

lock&load wrote: Or maybe it is because they have $2 million dollars from the teams.  You overlook such important facts when spewing your venom towards those younger than you and those who disagree with you.

there are several of you on this forum that are opposed to this. sure, you do not have 2m, but, that is your own fault. kietz and his crew, that get millions in advertising revenue, are on the air everyday speaking on this issue. the pitch, with millions annually in advertising, is against it, well, and everything else for that matter. and there are others too, go dig up that bum glazier.

go to them, get donations, and you guys would have money, and launch a real campaign. but, no, too lazy, too apathetic, too unorganized, and lack of will. getting behind something takes effort, talking shit, takes no effort whatsoever.

those of you against, could put together a campaign. look at the light rail, they put together an inferior campaign, but, were organized, because of all the suburban homeowners that did not want to pay for it. and they defeated the far superior campaign, far superior in terms of finance and organization.

could this campaign against not be as organized, because those same subarbanites want this passed? they sure as hell voted in mass in bi state II in favor of it!!

aknowledgeableperson wrote: Why not let everyone know where you are going to be? Ashamed?

because he only has one 4 pack of hanes t shirts and one permanent marker, supplies are limited. according to s.o.s., they are distributing 25,000 t shirts on opening day.

kcdcchef wrote: why do you find it odd? of course they need security against the dissidents, they are idiots that would show up at events they are against, as opposed to being intelligent and running a campaign to oppose this, get organized, and have their own events.

but, since they are apathetic gen x'ers, all they do is trash what others do, they are too lazy, too unmotivated, and too selfish to take the time to organize a campaign.

arent all of the thirty somethings on here gen x'rs? wouldnt that include kcdcchef? 

warwickland wrote: arent all of the thirty somethings on here gen x'rs? wouldnt that include kcdcchef? 

according to lockandload, i am in my mid 60's

i'm in my mid 10s 

Interesting article

http://governing.com/articles/3stadium.htm

Cities are finally catching on.

jerry12 wrote: Interesting article

http://governing.com/articles/3stadium.htm

Cities are finally catching on.

yeah, that was not a biased piece or something..................

let me post a joe posnanski piece, so you can see another "objective" opinion..............

what leads you to believe it was biased, chef?

In STL, we no longer pay to have stadiums built.  The owners should do it themselves.  If they want a loan that they are going to repay at an interest rate , like we are doing for I believe 60 million of the new stadium, then fine, but no handouts to the already rich.

shaffe wrote: what leads you to believe it was biased, chef?

a lot of those studies and pieces are biased when written, you can tell by reading any of them. for example, when i read the pieces and studies on pro sports with regards to relo and stadiums, it speaks well and cites right away examples of 10 different team moves in the past 10 years, and right away all the places built, so, that is biased towards pro sports teams, and construction.

then, con, reading something like that, where, well, just read it, you will see what i mean, all of these studies that are about sports teams, and what they bring to the communities, are either for or against, they are always biased one way or the other.

CGOCPFTF wrote: In STL, we no longer pay to have stadiums built. The owners should do it themselves. If they want a loan that they are going to repay at an interest rate , like we are doing for I believe 60 million of the new stadium, then fine, but no handouts to the already rich.

you are so fucking full of shit. st louis built the edward jones dome for the rams, and you built that dump the savvis center for the blues. the cardinals have owners who are willing to do this and can afford it. they are in the minority, right now, 6 owners combined in mlb and nfl have done that. 6, out of 62. big deal.

but that article wasn't a study, it was an article about the changing trend toward public money financing massive amounts of, in this case, baseball stadiums.

shaffe wrote: but that article wasn't a study, it was an article about the changing trend toward public money financing massive amounts of, in this case, baseball stadiums.

in which case, i said both.