Rail Transit

[Kalohepirate]

Re: Rail Transit

Either way special or general election I think it would be best for us the people to decide. I have let my council member know my feels and it seems to fall on deaf ears. Its time for us to make a difference.

[Frankie's Market]

Re: Rail Transit

Is Stop Rail Now's attorney, John Carroll, smoking the good stuff?

If this is the same "John Carroll" who used to be state legislator, it could simply be the effects of old age. He must be in his 80s by now, or awfully close to it.

All of those anti-rail people, being led by an old, senile pied-piper.

Hope your man has better success with this petition than his career in politics. Aside from a few victories in legislative races, Carroll has been a loser in every election for a major office.

[helen]

Re: Rail Transit

Either way special or general election I think it would be best for us the people to decide. I have let my council member know my feels and it seems to fall on deaf ears. Its time for us to make a difference.

Having this issue being voted on the general (or maybe the primary) election wouldn't cost extra other than printing cost for the ballots. Having a special election just for this issue is going cost extra to pay for the people to man the polling places on Oahu.

[sansei]

Re: Rail Transit

hi this is sansei and for now im smiling that stop rail's who want's their petition to be put on the ballot wont be for now until after the general election and for now this make's me :O)

im hoping stop rail's people will be stopped and that we have something better to go on with and drop this stop rail now coalition. i would go for go-rail-go and they make me:O)

Well thank's for your time

[TuNnL]

Re: Rail Transit

Having this issue being voted on the general (or maybe the primary) election wouldn't cost extra other than printing cost for the ballots. Having a special election just for this issue is going cost extra to pay for the people to man the polling places on Oahu.

This is an excellent point, Helen. I really don’t think either side is happy that the City Clerk has done the research on this issue. IMHO, there are more people on O‘ahu who favor rail then oppose it. That opinion would best be reflected in the general election when the widest cross-section of people will be inclined to vote. An island son, Barack Obama, is running for president, after all. Hawai‘i has shown time and time again, its inclination to support the “local boy” when it comes to national affairs be it sports, music or politics.

So Stop Rail Now doesn’t have enough signatures. 40,000 isn’t 44,525. That doesn’t mean that they won’t eventually get it. Heck, they might even get it before the August 4th 90-day deadline. But why their attorneys failed to realize that language calling for a special election would change the rules is mind-boggling. Surely they realized that starting this petition on April 21st meant they needed to give themselves every advantage they needed to succeed. Unless these “Stop Rail Guys” are idiots, IMHO, this was a deliberate attempt to mislead the public with a smoke-and-mirrors strategy. Here’s why:

1. If they put a sense of urgency that they needed to get X amount of signatures by X date, people who normally might have not been inclined to respond due to a lack of having all the facts, fence-sitting, or just pure laziness, suddenly feel compelled to help Stop Rail Now.

2. Knowing just how unpopular it would be to try and de-rail rail, they needed to give their effort a jump-start, and they knew the media would jump on the bandwagon if they framed the debate the way a general election ballot initiative would.

3. Putting an anti-rail propagandist (Panos Prevedouros) who’s specialty is transportation engineering (as opposed to transportation planning) on the mayoral ballot would require the excitement and critical mass of the issue to occur before the general election. But once he is on the ballot, it insures that rail will remain a campaign issue, regardless of the Stop Rail Now ballot initiative.

So the more I think about it, the more I am convinced that Cliff Slater and gang know exactly what they’re doing here. They want a Special Election sometime in the Spring when few people are paying attention, so they can skew the results by ensuring their 50,000 anti-railers islandwide get to the polls. The rest of the 850,000+ O‘ahu residents who favor rail will be at home taking a nap.

[pzarquon]

Re: Rail Transit

So the more I think about it, the more I am convinced that Cliff Slater and gang know exactly what they’re doing here. They want a Special Election sometime in the Spring when few people are paying attention, so they can skew the results by ensuring their 50,000 anti-railers islandwide get to the polls. The rest of the 850,000+ O‘ahu residents who favor rail will be at home taking a nap.

That's certainly a charitable view. The problem is, the missed general election this year is going to be a big one, with unusually high turnout, which means even with an uninteresting mayoral campaign, the "fifteen percent of the votes cast for mayor in the last regular mayoral election" will be a much higher bar. And they were already struggling to make the (wrong) cut.

Everyone's griping about conspiracy that and fixed that, but the petition wording is as clear as can be, and so is the city charter. And I know for a fact that one of the petition organizers knew about it, because he got into a discussion about it on Doug White's blog back in May.

Doug White: So, where is the “votes cast” language found? It ain’t there. There is no basis for Callan’s alternative interpretation. The Charter is explicit, and the Charter reads exactly as the City Clerk’s office said.

Dennis Callan: There are several sections in the City Charter dealing with signature requirements. Look at this one.

Doug White: So, you’re trying for an initiative special election—but it’s within 180 days of a scheduled election. No dice.

I guess, 20,000 signatures in, it was a little too late to rewrite the petition and start over again. But just because you didn't want to hear it doesn't mean it wasn't true.

[salmoned]

Re: Rail Transit

So because a special election was asked for, the issue doesn't get on the general election ballot, even though the signature requirement for a general election initiative is only 10% (vs. 15% for a special ballot) and the city can save up to two million bucks putting it on the general election ballot? Ho hum. The fraud, waste and abuse of a rail project would dwarf this minor fiasco. Carry on.

[Pretender]

Re: Rail Transit

Hey, I never said I was a widowed father of four, I just asked if I couldn't be one in response to your narrow categorization of who could find a McD's dollar menu selection to be a luxury. I AM interested in the future of this island and this planet and all the people on it - THAT'S why I'm against this rail project. If I weren't interested in our mutual welfare, I wouldn't have bothered to reply. I'm holding true to my moniker and swimming upstream to my culminating act and subsequent death, as you may have suspected. I'm not poor or broke, but I'm not rich enough to squander what I have, either - but enough of me, it's not about me, it's not about you, it's about a misconceived and misguided rail project.

Yikes. I understand your point, but I feel you lost allot of credibility through your attempt to sway opinion with your storytelling. I for one assumed your prior post was a truthful admission of your personal situation.

[hifotog]

Re: Rail Transit

An investment is something someone does voluntarily. Taxes rammed down our throats is a COST.

Mahalo Mel! I too, signed the petition...why? because people are still going to drive their cars no matter what! THE BUS is still going to run its routes, taxis are still going to service oahu.
Now...with the news that Hono Advertiser has joined other companies in laying off workers, Aloha Air, Weyerhauser, and others going out of business due to the economic slump or otherwise, imagine gas prices going OUTTA CONTROL and getting higher every day! This is NOT the time for a Rail Transit project...despite the issue now hopefully goes into the voting stages....will there be a technical conspiracy to win the rail system? I sure hope not....but with politics, you will never know. We locals were too young to see and Oahu wasnt as crowded with traffic and buildings to see fo real, the congestion created when H1 was being built.,,,in fact, I dont think there WAS congestion then. I sure hope the people have an open mind and give it careful thought before placing a vote for it.

[Random]

Re: Rail Transit

Mahalo Mel! I too, signed the petition...why? because people are still going to drive their cars no matter what!

True. Nothing beats having a car of your own giving you the personal space you need. Most everyone who are able or young only sees public transportation as a temporary solution to their lack of personal vehicle.

Stop Rails Now should support widening highways through the use of Eminent Domain. That means we start kicking out people whose homes are alongside busy traffic roads to make new lanes.

*evil smiley*

[salmoned]

Re: Rail Transit

Yikes. I understand your point, but I feel you lost allot of credibility through your attempt to sway opinion with your storytelling. I for one assumed your prior post was a truthful admission of your personal situation.

Sway opinion? I asked a question to show how useless and foolish it is to attack the person rather than the argument. If I used 2 or 3 examples of who I could be, would it have made a difference for you? I apologize if one example of who I could be didn't make you realize that who I am doesn't matter. If you are swayed by emotional or personal appeals, you're not forming an opinion, you're reacting to emotional stimuli. I'm not here to build credibility or make emotional appeals, I'm advancing arguments I believe are valid. Were I building credibility, I wouldn't wish to remain beneath your contempt, as noted in my by-line. If I say 2+2=4, I hope you don't believe me because I've built up credibility in your mind, but rather because you understand and agree. Please, I implore you all, stick to the topic - that's what matters here.

Look, even if you're FOR rail transit, you WILL want to sign the petition if you're also FOR large, long term, expensive and/or disruptive decisions being brought to the public for a vote, rather than being decided by the mayor and city council. The pro-rail contingent has nothing to lose and much to gain by a plebiscite if, as they say, a majority of the electorate supports rail. The 'stop rail now' motto is partisan, but the subtext of this movement, 'let the people decide', cannot be faulted by either side in this case. In fact, if the mayor and city council were truly doing their jobs properly, they would have already insisted on a plebiscite on this issue.

[TuNnL]

Re: Rail Transit

Sway opinion?

Yes salmoned. Sway opinion. That’s all you have been trying to do in this thread up to the point of your pretending to be a person you were not, so why should that incident reflect any differently?

I'm not here to build credibility ... I'm advancing arguments I believe are valid.

The problem with your reasoning, salmoned, is for most people to take you seriously, you need the former in order to do the latter. Human beings by their very nature, are discriminate in who they choose to listen to. You could make the most compelling argument in the world, but if you have an agenda to push, a malicious intent, or a POV skewed by unsavory elements, it negates your compelling argument.

If I say 2+2=4, I hope you don't believe me because I've built up credibility in your mind, but rather because you understand and agree.

This rationale only works if the people you are trying to influence have the same facts, logic of experience, educational background, and time spent studying the issue under their belt as the opinionator. IMHO, rail transit is not such an issue where such conditions exist. Therefore, it’s important as citizens that we get our information first from the source, before in the words of scrivener, we allow some nameless, faceless, random, anonymous message board member to sway our opinion.

This board used to have a “point system” for a member's reputation. You’ve been on this board long enough to remember it. In lieu of that system, it is up to you to prove that you are not ‘beneath our contempt’.

[salmoned]

Re: Rail Transit

Okay, TuNnl. You can't address any of my arguments, so attacking me is all you have left. I get it. Scrivener believes he needs credibility to teach, that what he teaches cannot stand on it's own merits. I believe knowledge of reality and the desire and ability to present it cogently is all that's necessary. You both only care to listen to your own opinions of a person's status or credibility first, but those who want to learn must listen to and weigh only the facts and arguments and decide on that basis. I believe even a madman, even the most despicable person, might have something of value and truth to share, you believe otherwise. For you, because it comes from my lips, it doesn't count. Fair enough, I see your position and have no hope of persuading you otherwise. I do hope your ad hominem attacks are finished, though, as they add nothing to the discussion.

As for myself, I have no interest in anyone's 'reputation', including my own. You say I misrepresented myself when, in fact, I didn't [and only your willful or negligent ignorance of what was clearly asked could have led to your misapprehension]. As a result, my reputation [in your mind] suffers. Why should I, or anyone, care about that?

[TuNnL]

Re: Rail Transit

You can't address any of my arguments, so attacking me is all you have left.

I’ve addressed every argument you have made that I felt was valid and unbiased in its reasoning.

I believe knowledge of reality and the desire and ability to present it cogently is all that's necessary ... I believe even a madman, even the most despicable person, might have something of value and truth to share, you believe otherwise.

First of all, I would never refer to someone who is mentally ill as “a madman.” You seem to think this is okay. That speaks volumes as to your ability to view the world in an objective, unbiased manner. And you presumptuously conclude that “I believe otherwise.” That’s simply not true. All it means, is I would consider the fact the individual making the statement is mentally ill when he or she made the statement. And most people IMHO, would agree with that approach.

For you, because it comes from my lips, it doesn't count.

Here again, you are wildly jumping to conclusions. I never said that. You can apply what I said in my previous comment to anyone, and believe me, I do. You seem to think the world resolves around salmoned. It doesn’t.

As for myself, I have no interest in anyone's 'reputation', including my own.

And that’s why this is not a ‘fair fight,’ so to speak. The comment I made was not an “attack” as you perceived it, but simply an attempt to protect another member’s reputation. Something you so callously disregard. HT members have been banned for this type of blatant disrespect. And to my knowledge, there has been at least one case where a “defamation” lawsuit has been threatened. Welcome to the real world.

You say I misrepresented myself when, in fact, I didn't

First off, I am not the one who originally said you misrepresented yourself, but I agree with that member’s conclusion. Let’s take a look at what you said:

Unless you're a broke student, if you think that McDonalds is the height of luxury, then you need a better job AND a lesson on good nutrition.

Hmm, couldn't I be a responsible, widowed father of four (one with special needs) who defines a luxurious splurge as NOT brown bagging it or going without lunch, but buying from the dollar menu only (would never splurge on the pricier items)? Do I have to be a student to be broke or to enjoy the luxury of not having to prepare food?

In this exchange, turtlegirl is talking to you directly. Not giving an example. You responded with the preface “couldn’t I” rather than “couldn’t a” which in a simple one-syllable, one-letter word would take you out of the equation and indicate to the HT audience that you are only giving an example. You chose not to do that. I won’t speculate as to the motivation or reasoning behind that choice. But it is what it is. [/English 101]

[salmoned]

Re: Rail Transit

Look, even if you're FOR rail transit, you WILL want to sign the petition if you're also FOR large, long term, expensive and/or disruptive decisions being brought to the public for a vote, rather than being decided by the mayor and city council. The pro-rail contingent has nothing to lose and much to gain by a plebiscite if, as they say, a majority of the electorate supports rail. The 'stop rail now' motto is partisan, but the subtext of this movement, 'let the people decide', cannot be faulted by either side in this case. In fact, if the mayor and city council were truly doing their jobs properly, they would have already insisted on a plebiscite on this issue.

So, none of the above qualified? Yet, all of the material that was ad hominem above the above was addressed - a strange assessment that my comments against ad hominem material was unbiased argument, but the material related to the topic was not.

You are the first to suggest I meant mentally ill by the word 'madman'. How can you deduce I think it's okay (or not okay) when only YOU made the connection, not I? Of course, this is STILL all ad hominem against me and doesn't address rail transit.

"The problem with your reasoning, salmoned, is for most people to take you seriously, you need the former in order to do the latter. Human beings by their very nature, are discriminate in who they choose to listen to. You could make the most compelling argument in the world, but if you have an agenda to push, a malicious intent, or a POV skewed by unsavory elements, it negates your compelling argument." This is exactly saying that if you (including yourself in most people) don't find someone credible, you won't find any argument they make credible, no matter how compelling. I never took it as just for me, I understood you feel this way about everyone you find not credible. I was not jumping to any conclusions, just clarifying your own. You feel if a person is not credible, their arguments are negated even if compelling. Too bad you're not as discriminate in choosing who you listen to as your proverbial 'human beings'. There's no problem with my reasoning, but there is a big problem with your assumptions - they're false.

turtlegirl WAS talking to me, directly, with a ridiculous claim as what MY life situation MUST be, though you left out her previous, "Are you retarded?" So, naturally I replied with an alternate possible ridiculous life situation which would lead to the same position of finding the dollar menu at McD's to be the height of luxury. Since her comment was about ME, so was mine. There is nothing that suggests that WAS my life situation, any more than there was anything to suggest HER claims had validity. If you still don't get it, I'm sorry, it's just not worth any more effort on my part.

Does it matter who was the first to claim I misrepresented myself? I had explained the matter prior to your reiteration of the claim - did you not understand?

Who's reputation did I attack and why did YOU feel it possible and necessary to redress the issue? Also, why haven't you made it obvious what you mean by this slanderous claim? Does anyone want to stand up and claim I attacked them, personally?

Now, for the last two posts, you have only addressed me and nothing to do with rail transit - how am I making this all about me? Isn't it YOU making it all about me? Haven't I been pleading for a return to topic? Don't you understand what that means?