Dennis Broadbooks
-
The Basics
-
Dennis on Patch
-
More Stuff
Comments
-
On the article Rockwood Board Member Cites Deficit Concerns in Opposition to Raises
-
On the article Rockwood Board Member Cites Deficit Concerns in Opposition to Raises
Dennis Broadbooks
9:57 pm on Monday, May 6, 2013
@Mathew: "The bond issue gained a fair majority or yes votes, falling short of the needed 57% by just a few percentage points." When I read this it made me go to the St Louis County Election Board site to view the actual vote totals. According to the final results posted, Prop S went down in defeat by a margin of 9,256 No votes (53%) to 8,214 Yes votes (47%). That's not even a simple majority of Yes votes, much less "just a few percentage points" of what was necessary. Based on the total # of votes cast (17,470), 9,958 Yes votes would have been needed in order to pass Prop S.
-
On the article Rockwood Board Member Cites Deficit Concerns in Opposition to Raises
Dennis Broadbooks
3:41 pm on Monday, May 6, 2013
Reply@Larry_Lazar: So...it's perfectly OK if you attempt to smear individuals without any evidence or proof because you consider it to be a "hypothesis" on your part (just like man-made global warming, I might add). Yet you can state "They have also framed someone we all know to be an outstanding citizen volunteer as acting out of personal financial gain". You condemn it on the one hand (when it's being used against someone you believe to be an upstanding individual, not saying they are or they aren't) but yet will use that exact same tactic continuously when it's implemented against someone you believe to be disingenuous. And what makes your hypothesis "well founded"? WHERE is the proof? How do you KNOW they're spending that amount of money on ANYTHING they do? Show us the balance sheet or checkbook you've been looking at. I find it amusing you can call your own actions justifiable by using the term "hypothesis" yet throw out the term "conspiracy theory" when you want to discredit others who oppose you. I asked you this before Larry, somewhat tongue in cheek, but where do you get the money to support the spreading of your man-made global warming theories/hypothesis? From whom do you get your talking points? How do you stand to gain financially from the promoting of your views? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
-
On the article Rockwood Board Member Cites Deficit Concerns in Opposition to Raises
Dennis Broadbooks
2:44 pm on Monday, May 6, 2013
Reply@Larry_Lazar: "I suspect RS for RS is acting on behalf of an outside organization. One that provides them with a "playbook" for their activities." At least you didn't accuse the RS for RS folks of taking Rex's money without a shred of evidence again. Speaking of evidence...where's your proof in this accusation? Have you seen the paperwork? Is there a "smoking gun" e-mail which you can show us? Have you tapped Eileen's phone? I've said it before & I'll say it again...when it comes to contrived conspiracy theories you can't ever accuse Brian Nieves of that again, Larry. At least not without being guilty of the pot calling the kettle black. All you have at this point (that you've produced anyway) is innuendo. And just why do you continually focus on that aspect of the discussion anyway? It'd be very easy to use that method of discrediting someone's point of view on you & the man-made global warming issue. Why not stick to the facts at hand & make your case that way?
-
On the article Senator Nieves Speaking Out Against National Education Standards
Dennis Broadbooks
10:40 am on Saturday, April 27, 2013
Reply@Travis_Bickle: There's not another nation on the face of this earth who's done more for racial equality than the US & the GOP initiated it with Abe Lincoln. It's the left leaners in this country who continually use the racial component as a method for stirring the pot. It's amazing to see the labeling of conservatives as "conspiracy theorists" when the left has a corner on the market as it relates to their use of racism as a weapon of choice. Travis I'd encourage you to quit using the black/white issue as a crutch & start debating real issues. BTW, I'll admit I'll be very happy when PBO is out of office, but not for any of the reasons you'll find circling around in the recesses of your vivid imagination. It will be for concrete economic issues for one & for the dividing of our country along racial lines as another. His campaign promise(s) to unite our nation have failed miserably. PBO can't leave soon enough for my individual liking. It's gonna be a loooong three years.
-
On the article Senator Nieves Speaking Out Against National Education Standards
Dennis Broadbooks
3:10 pm on Friday, April 26, 2013
Reply@Larry_Lazar: Inquiring minds want to know...who's funding you? ;-)
-
On the article Senator Nieves Speaking Out Against National Education Standards
Dennis Broadbooks
2:51 pm on Friday, April 26, 2013
ReplyAnne is contributing (more with her TIME than money!) with her own money to fund some of what they're doing. While I don't have her financial statement in front of me I can say with virtual certainty you're dead wrong in your assumptions. Same with Eileen Tyrrell & RS for RS. These are all "labors of love" & to insinuate otherwise is flat out dishonest & without a shred of proof other than what you want to believe.
And as far as disinformation campaigns against man-made global warming theories goes, the REAL money lies on the side of those who want us to believe that such a thing exists. They get government grants to further their own financial interests. For every scientist or study you come up with which supports your "theory", there's just as many on the other side of this issue. We can't destroy our economy on a simple hypothesis which cannot be proven to the satisfaction of everyone in this debate. Right now it's nothing but a lot of rhetoric on both sides, but only ONE side wants to shut down the economy to support their belief system.
-
On the article Senator Nieves Speaking Out Against National Education Standards
Dennis Broadbooks
2:25 pm on Friday, April 26, 2013
Reply@Larry_Lazar: Then why the insinuations? Even this response by you casts doubt on their ability to "think for themselves". You're being "conspiratorial" in your thinking again as you just stated, "Frankly, I have no idea about funding for the many opponents of CC." It appears you believe they're either being manipulated by money or aren't smart enough to figure out what Common Core is truly about.
-
On the article Senator Nieves Speaking Out Against National Education Standards
Dennis Broadbooks
1:52 pm on Friday, April 26, 2013
Reply@Larry_Lazar: As a follow up to my comments above I'd also like to repudiate your insinuation that Anne Gassel's organization is receiving some sort of "illicit" funding as well. Anne's a personal friend of mine & I can state without any hesitation that MO Coalition Against Common Core is strictly a "labor of love" on her part. You'd have to walk a mile in Anne's shoes (literally, as I have!) to know her integrity is beyond anything you can muster up to throw at her
-
On the article Senator Nieves Speaking Out Against National Education Standards
Dennis Broadbooks
1:51 pm on Friday, April 26, 2013
Reply@Larry_Lazar: As a follow up to my comments above I'd also like to repudiate your insinuation that Anne Gassel's organization is receiving some sort of "illicit" funding as well. Anne's a personal friend of mine & I can state without any hesitation that MO Against Common Core is strictly a "labor of love" on her part. You'd have to walk a mile in Anne's shoes (literally, as I have!) to know her integrity is beyond anything you can muster up to throw at her.
Dennis Broadbooks
10:21 pm on Monday, May 6, 2013
@Larry_Lazar: At this point it matters not to me who "started it". I don't even necessarily disagree with some of the points you make when it comes to why the RSD board voted the way it did to increase the administrator's salaries (I personally wouldn't have voted for the increase, but then I'm not on the board either). You can make a very cogent argument when you want to. There's a "theme" I'm using here to object to the way you "frame" your opinions. Many times you use innuendo not backed up by facts & you've even admitted as much. The prime example is you've not provided one iota of evidence to back up your accusations of financial backing to RS for RS by Rex Sinqufield. You might say it's simply a "hunch" on your part. As Sergeant Joe Friday used to say, "just the facts ma'am (or 'sir' in your case)". I think it's high time you put up or else leave the innuendo out.