Comments by Francis Drouillard
Tim -- You're attacks on a fellow American over a "sacred" holiday seem a bit over the top.
Patriots are more considerate of the wishes of their neighbors and seeking alternatives to traditional fireworks isn't too much to ask.
Besides, rising to the challenge of develop alternatives to fireworks -- particularly when you live in a tinderbox -- is the American way, not bullying.
Have a safe and happy 4th!
Steven -- You have a great deal of contempt for state environmental laws and zero respect for the majority of Californians that want those laws enforced.
Perhaps that's to be expected from someone that would sell homes built on wetlands to unsuspecting buyers.
Steven -- Your inability to acknowledge the importance of natural resources is not an exemption for you or HMB from laws designed to protect them.
You don't have to understand the logic behind those laws. But you and HMB have to abide by them like everyone else.
Steven -- Please recall that those "weeds" are wetlands that are necessary for the health of the coast. No need to get a determination from you whether they're worthy of protection. That has already been codified into law and tested in the courts. Wetlands are valuable resources in need of protection.
A better way to think of the $18 million price tag is that it pays for the land and well as the incompetence of your city government.
These developments seem promising. Whatever the final outcome, I hope that the Coastal Commission gets an opportunity to demonstrate the good that can result from cooperating with them. This project has the potential to be a win for HMB, a win for the Coastal Commission and a win for our coast.
Dan -- Carry on with your thread hijacking. I prefer to keep the focus on AB 1991, which is a very bad bill no matter what you choose to believe about news outlets.
Dan Blick -- Yawn.
Re-read what you wrote and you'll see why I thought you were denying the existence of a liberal media bias. Reading your response, I'm not sure where you stand.
Given the drastic decrease in violence in Iraq, the recent successes of its military, and the advances by its government, the coverage you seek could easily be called biased.
What would be the point? Despite ample evidence that media bias exists at the networks (just like at any other news outlet) and common knowledge of human nature, you've already made up your mind on the issue. Besides that, neither this issue nor your opinion on it are worth the effort required to compile the evidence. Now, one news outlet may be more biased than another, but to assert that some outlets are bias-free is very difficult to justify. To turn the tables, show me the evidence that they're…
'There is no "liberal bias," Kevin.'
Of course there is, Dan. So sayeth Bernie Goldberg. Tim Russert was concerned by media bias as well.
'There is no â€œliberal bias,â€ Kevin.'
I think once you make the distinction between news and opinion, you'll see how silly it is to proclaim Fox News as "the worst of a bad lot."
Not that I don't despise Hannity and Savage. Those are the two worst proponents of the conservative cause ever.
In my view, PBS is government propaganda by definition, and I hate seeing my tax dollars used to fund them.
The CURRENT BILL STATUS web page indicates the hearing was postponed at the request of the author.
What's up with that?
I've never understood the contempt displayed towards Fox News. Seems silly to me to complain about them when there are so many others to choose from. Instead of insulting those that do watch Fox News -- which appears to have more viewership than similar cable news outlets with a greater distribution -- why wouldn't one assuage their superiority by declaring which news outlets they trust rather than complaining about the one they probably don't watch anyway? Just wondering. Perhaps someone can 'splain…
AB 1991 is a bad bill whether you're a liberal or a conservative. It's a bad bill whether you watch Fox News or MSNBC.
AB 1991 is a bad bill whether or not you love your mother.
AB 1991 is a bad bill. Let's not lose focus on that issue.
Steven, Lawyers get paid to say what their clients want them to say. As best I can tell, truth isn't a requirement. Still no specific examples of the Coastal Commission, namely Sarah Christie, lying to the legislature. For what it's worth, as Coastal Commission liaison to the Legislature, she is far more concerned with her credibility among legislators than you. Don't expect any flip-flops by the Commission. Their reasons for opposing AB 1991 haven't changed, and they have an excellent command of…
You're wasting your time with the Energizer Bunny of ideologues. He never changes his tune no matter what facts are presented. Ever.
Why do you call the Coastal Commission liars? Because they're calling AB 1991 for what it is, namely a vehicle for developers to skirt environmental laws?
How many similar efforts up and down the coast do you have to see before YOU recognize what AB 1991 does?
And while you're at it, when are you going to answer the simple question -- what environmental laws do you support? You've been skirting that one long enough now.
HMB's analysis shows they lose money under any scenario for building on Beachwood alone, including the 83-home version the developer claims was previously approved.
Why does building 83 homes on Beachwood become profitable only when AB 1991 passes?
All -- You can call me "Frank."
I'd also like to address a point raised regarding my knowledge of the Beachwood parcel.
Frankly, I don't care about the Beachwood parcel, its developer, HMB or anyone living in HMB.
What I do care about is the adverse effect that AB 1991 will have on my coastal community, and I intend to stop it.
If the good citizens of HMB would address those concerns rather than challenge their validity, they might get a little more sympathy for their plight.
Page 2 of 5 pages < 1 2 3 4 > Last ›