Narrow Search

  • Show Only

  • Category

  • Narrow by Date

    • All
    • Today
    • Last 7 Days
    • Last 30 Days
    • Select a Date Range

Comment Archives: stories: News: Web Exclusive

Re: “Martin: Cordish Is Drunk on Power

I had the pleasure of meeting the devils aid(Allen Hicks sp?)the director of construction for the cordish Group last year.That was when they we believe tried to dismantell our little business.He was not shy about letting us know that thier view of economics 101 is not that competition is good for the market but there view is if im not here you (the customer) will have to go there.They were very addement to let us know that they were very well represented in jeff city(i can only assume somebodies kid is now going to harvard instead of cmsu for his paid for education that his father or mother sold thier sole for, (by the way hope you burn in hell.)Also he was very forthcoming that they were in bed with my mayor at that time(kay)I can take that two ways both of which make me want do blow chow.The first i take personally as a tax payer the second I,I,I I cant even talk about as a 45 year old active heterosexuall who aslo used to like porn until that thought is now stuck in my head. Anyway i hope everybody likes ted's and macfatts and flying saucer because if they get it thier way that all we are going to get to eat around here for a long time.Mark my words one way or another we are going to eat it. Thank you,signed working hard for you!

Posted by joe on 02/16/2008 at 5:29 PM

Re: “Martin: Cordish Is Drunk on Power

You should post the pictures of Cordish exec's in your paper. That way, whenever we see any of them, we could just beat the shit out of them and shove a beer can up their ass.
Maybe they'll get the message after awhile.

Posted by Biggie on 02/15/2008 at 7:02 PM

Re: “Martin: Cordish Is Drunk on Power

You should post the pictures of Cordish exec's in your paper. That way, whenever we see any of them, we could just beat the shit out of them and shove a beer can up their ass. Maybe they'll get the message after awhile.

Posted by Biggie on 02/15/2008 at 4:02 PM

Re: “The e-Candidate

WRITING IN ALL CAPS makes you look TOTALLY SANE. TOTALLY.

Posted by Kristy on 12/17/2007 at 8:38 PM

Re: “The e-Candidate

WRITING IN ALL CAPS makes you look TOTALLY SANE. TOTALLY.

Posted by Kristy on 12/17/2007 at 5:38 PM

Re: “The e-Candidate

Go Dr. Paul! teaparty07.com

Posted by David Summerly on 12/15/2007 at 9:55 PM

Re: “The e-Candidate

Go Dr. Paul! teaparty07.com

Posted by David Summerly on 12/15/2007 at 6:55 PM

Re: “Cauthen's Travels

This jerk-offs job is NOT to represent the City, it's to manage it, hence the title "City Manager". We have Council members and a marketing dept that can represent us all over the world. How can he manage if he's never here??? What a joke.

Posted by Me on 12/15/2007 at 4:21 AM

Re: “Cauthen's Travels

This jerk-offs job is NOT to represent the City, it's to manage it, hence the title "City Manager". We have Council members and a marketing dept that can represent us all over the world. How can he manage if he's never here??? What a joke.

Posted by Me on 12/15/2007 at 1:21 AM

Re: “The e-Candidate

I watched one video on youtube about Ron Paul (about 3 weeks ago), and ever since I've been scouring political information online; his principles and ideals are inspiring, and this article doesn't do him justice.
I'm glad to see him in the Pitch, but I'd hoped for more meaningful content...

Posted by Robbie R. R. on 12/13/2007 at 9:00 PM

Re: “The e-Candidate

As the person being quoted so often in this write-up, I am absolutely shocked to see that my comments were totally taken out of context and that Mark and James, the actual ORGANIZERS of the Kansas City Area Team and the Jackson County Team who spoke with John Amick were not quoted or even mentioned!

Just to clear up a few things, first of all I did NOT imply that Sprint was a terrible place - it is one that contains a lot of politics, and JOHN AMICK, I told you that our teams were refreshed because we work from the bottom up, NOT FROM THE TOP DOWN LIKE a large company does. In a different discussion, we told you that Dr. Paul does not take money from corporations or special interests because HE DOES NOT WANT to OWE THEM ANYTHING when he gets into office.

Secondly, I LOVE working with so many different people on our teams and like I told John Amick, THAT IS WHY IT IS SO interesting and challenging for me. I in no way implied that it is TOO HARD to work with the people I've met through our groups! It was in very bad taste to follow up this spin with an implication that interest began to wane after our successful concert at the Uptown Theater. That is absolutely UNTRUE - my comment, a full MONTH after the concert, was that we were working our tails off and the only time I see a break may be around the holidays.

Yes, there was some open discussion about Dave VonKleist's presentation - it wasn't everyone's cup of tea, but GUESS WHAT? THE PEOPLE WHO LEFT EARLY ARE ON OUR TEAMS AND WORKING HARD TO GET RON PAUL ELECTED. That is the beauty of FREEDOM - people actually get to talk about ANYTHING THEY WANT and people actually get to LIKE IT or NOT LIKE IT. It's OK in a FREE COUNTRY - get it?

THEN, to top that off, it was implied that we broke off into different teams right after the concert and email discussion back & forth. Again, a full month after the concert, we broke off into two teams - THE REASON WE HAVE TWO TEAMS IS to focus on KANSAS Caucuses / campaign plans versus MISSOURI primaries / campaign plans because they are ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PROCESSES! You were AT THE GRASSROOTS TRAINING SESSION - YOU KNOW THIS FOR A FACT.

Finally, at our grassroots training meeting, nobody "ARGUED" about anything. We had an open discussion about how we might want to canvass and left it at that. Nothing is set in stone, and to imply that we "argued" about it means those with some experience acted like they were superior or something.

I'm DISGUSTED.

Deborah Wells,
Totally amazed that people think it's perfectly fine to lie right to people's faces

Posted by Deborah Wells on 12/13/2007 at 8:55 PM

Re: “The e-Candidate

In this article you stated that "He was opposed to giving Rosa Parks (along with everyone else ever nominated) the Congressional Medal of Freedom, arguing that Congress has no constitutional authority to bestow such an award upon anyone."

These kinds of statements are why people are confused by what Dr. Paul does. Stating that Congress has no Constitutional authority to bestow such an award is not accurate, he stated (see my reference at the end of this comment), that congress should not be spending tax payers MONEY for this award.

Dr. Pauls speach...
"Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 573. At the same time, I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies. However, I oppose the Congressional Gold Medal for Rosa Parks Act because authorizing $30,000 of taxpayer money is neither constitutional nor, in the spirit of Rosa Parks who is widely recognized and admired for standing up against an overbearing government infringing on individual rights.

Because of my continuing and uncompromising opposition to appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution, I must remain consistent in my defense of a limited government whose powers are explicitly delimited under the enumerated powers of the Constitution--a Constitution, which only months ago, each Member of Congress, swore to uphold.

Perhaps we should begin a debate among us on more appropriate processes by which we spend other people's money. Honorary medals and commemorative coins, under the current process, come from allocated other people's money. We should look for another way.

It is, of course, easier to be generous with other people's money. "


Reference: http://www.house.gov/paul/cong...

Posted by K Fairbanks on 12/13/2007 at 7:21 PM

Re: “The e-Candidate

In regards to the article on Congressman Ron Paul, I have to state I was disappointed. As I began about Dr. Paul being a long shot, and not getting media attention, I could not agree more. I also found the "E-Candidate," article to be constructive when pointing out Dr. Paul's strict adherence to the United States Constitution.

Most Americans can echo a distrust of big government, large corporations, and the IRS. Why not elaborate on Dr. Paul's position on bringing troops home from Iraq? Mr. Amick could have shared that Congressman Paul is endorsed by the VFW, the Veterans of Foreign War, due to his constant fight to ensure that those that are or have served in the military have their medical and veterans rights protected.

My disgust in the article is the deviation of the topic. I want to hear about the candidate, not miniscule bits of hearsay. The Pitch was informing the public of an outstanding Congressman, Ron Paul, running for the office of President of the United States. Amick would have demonstrated greater journalism skills had he remained focus on Dr. Paul.

Posted by Pam D. on 12/13/2007 at 6:10 PM

Re: “The e-Candidate

I watched one video on youtube about Ron Paul (about 3 weeks ago), and ever since I've been scouring political information online; his principles and ideals are inspiring, and this article doesn't do him justice. I'm glad to see him in the Pitch, but I'd hoped for more meaningful content...

Posted by Robbie R. R. on 12/13/2007 at 6:00 PM

Re: “The e-Candidate

As the person being quoted so often in this write-up, I am absolutely shocked to see that my comments were totally taken out of context and that Mark and James, the actual ORGANIZERS of the Kansas City Area Team and the Jackson County Team who spoke with John Amick were not quoted or even mentioned! Just to clear up a few things, first of all I did NOT imply that Sprint was a terrible place - it is one that contains a lot of politics, and JOHN AMICK, I told you that our teams were refreshed because we work from the bottom up, NOT FROM THE TOP DOWN LIKE a large company does. In a different discussion, we told you that Dr. Paul does not take money from corporations or special interests because HE DOES NOT WANT to OWE THEM ANYTHING when he gets into office. Secondly, I LOVE working with so many different people on our teams and like I told John Amick, THAT IS WHY IT IS SO interesting and challenging for me. I in no way implied that it is TOO HARD to work with the people I've met through our groups! It was in very bad taste to follow up this spin with an implication that interest began to wane after our successful concert at the Uptown Theater. That is absolutely UNTRUE - my comment, a full MONTH after the concert, was that we were working our tails off and the only time I see a break may be around the holidays. Yes, there was some open discussion about Dave VonKleist's presentation - it wasn't everyone's cup of tea, but GUESS WHAT? THE PEOPLE WHO LEFT EARLY ARE ON OUR TEAMS AND WORKING HARD TO GET RON PAUL ELECTED. That is the beauty of FREEDOM - people actually get to talk about ANYTHING THEY WANT and people actually get to LIKE IT or NOT LIKE IT. It's OK in a FREE COUNTRY - get it? THEN, to top that off, it was implied that we broke off into different teams right after the concert and email discussion back & forth. Again, a full month after the concert, we broke off into two teams - THE REASON WE HAVE TWO TEAMS IS to focus on KANSAS Caucuses / campaign plans versus MISSOURI primaries / campaign plans because they are ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PROCESSES! You were AT THE GRASSROOTS TRAINING SESSION - YOU KNOW THIS FOR A FACT. Finally, at our grassroots training meeting, nobody "ARGUED" about anything. We had an open discussion about how we might want to canvass and left it at that. Nothing is set in stone, and to imply that we "argued" about it means those with some experience acted like they were superior or something. I'm DISGUSTED. Deborah Wells, Totally amazed that people think it's perfectly fine to lie right to people's faces

Posted by Deborah Wells on 12/13/2007 at 5:55 PM

Re: “The e-Candidate

In this article you stated that "He was opposed to giving Rosa Parks (along with everyone else ever nominated) the Congressional Medal of Freedom, arguing that Congress has no constitutional authority to bestow such an award upon anyone." These kinds of statements are why people are confused by what Dr. Paul does. Stating that Congress has no Constitutional authority to bestow such an award is not accurate, he stated (see my reference at the end of this comment), that congress should not be spending tax payers MONEY for this award. Dr. Pauls speach... "Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 573. At the same time, I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies. However, I oppose the Congressional Gold Medal for Rosa Parks Act because authorizing $30,000 of taxpayer money is neither constitutional nor, in the spirit of Rosa Parks who is widely recognized and admired for standing up against an overbearing government infringing on individual rights. Because of my continuing and uncompromising opposition to appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution, I must remain consistent in my defense of a limited government whose powers are explicitly delimited under the enumerated powers of the Constitution--a Constitution, which only months ago, each Member of Congress, swore to uphold. Perhaps we should begin a debate among us on more appropriate processes by which we spend other people's money. Honorary medals and commemorative coins, under the current process, come from allocated other people's money. We should look for another way. It is, of course, easier to be generous with other people's money. " Reference: http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec99/cr042099.htm

Posted by K Fairbanks on 12/13/2007 at 4:21 PM

Re: “Cauthen's Travels

I agree with the second comment, this article is extremely weak. I don't understand what the author was trying to prove. The costs for the trips don't seem outlandish by any means, and the author made no clear case of wrongdoing or illegal behavior by Cauthen.

I'm not trying to defend Cauthen, I don't know him or anyone in City Hall, but I don't think this article tells us anything.

Posted by BL on 12/13/2007 at 3:52 PM

Re: “The e-Candidate

In regards to the article on Congressman Ron Paul, I have to state I was disappointed. As I began about Dr. Paul being a long shot, and not getting media attention, I could not agree more. I also found the "E-Candidate," article to be constructive when pointing out Dr. Paul's strict adherence to the United States Constitution. Most Americans can echo a distrust of big government, large corporations, and the IRS. Why not elaborate on Dr. Paul's position on bringing troops home from Iraq? Mr. Amick could have shared that Congressman Paul is endorsed by the VFW, the Veterans of Foreign War, due to his constant fight to ensure that those that are or have served in the military have their medical and veterans rights protected. My disgust in the article is the deviation of the topic. I want to hear about the candidate, not miniscule bits of hearsay. The Pitch was informing the public of an outstanding Congressman, Ron Paul, running for the office of President of the United States. Amick would have demonstrated greater journalism skills had he remained focus on Dr. Paul.

Posted by Pam D. on 12/13/2007 at 3:10 PM

Re: “Cauthen's Travels

I agree with the second comment, this article is extremely weak. I don't understand what the author was trying to prove. The costs for the trips don't seem outlandish by any means, and the author made no clear case of wrongdoing or illegal behavior by Cauthen. I'm not trying to defend Cauthen, I don't know him or anyone in City Hall, but I don't think this article tells us anything.

Posted by BL on 12/13/2007 at 12:52 PM

Re: “The e-Candidate

http://www.teaparty07.com/

Drink LiberTEA at the Teaparty, Dec 16, 2007. Drink it for the first time.

All other candidates DENY LIBERTY.

Ron Paul is the greatest candidate I've ever seen. Consistent for 30 years. No flip flops. We are done with WAR, we want a real currency, we want peace, we want the welfare-state for the military industrial complex to END, we want to fix America and stop policing the world and to stop the authoritarian oppression here NOW.

Here is what the US Government without Ron Paul in charge has done to us:

- 9 trillion in debt
- 850 billion trade deficit
- War in Iraq
- War in Afghanistan
- Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda alive
- Fomenting War with Iran
- 12.25 trillion M3 money supply, and expanding (massive inflation)

Ron Paul�s record is crystal clean perfect and consistent. He takes no money from anyone but people and constituents. He is as pure as they come.

One of my favorite quotes about Dr. Paul, �You�re working for the most honest man in Congress.� That was John McCain speaking to Kent Snyder in 1988.

Posted by Mick Russom on 12/13/2007 at 8:52 AM

All contents ©2014 Kansas City Pitch LLC
All rights reserved. No part of this service may be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of Kansas City Pitch LLC,
except that an individual may download and/or forward articles via email to a reasonable number of recipients for personal, non-commercial purposes.

All contents © 2012 SouthComm, Inc. 210 12th Ave S. Ste. 100, Nashville, TN 37203. (615) 244-7989.
All rights reserved. No part of this service may be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of SouthComm, Inc.
except that an individual may download and/or forward articles via email to a reasonable number of recipients for personal, non-commercial purposes.
Website powered by Foundation