We are approaching day 94 of Elkhorn’s obsession with itself. The residents of Elkhorn have brought a new “secret weapon”. T-SHIRTS!
Well, two people can play that game. The residents of Omaha that support annexation are not being heard. Well, I plan to solve that problem. How about we make some t-shirts!
What do you think of this throw-back t-shirt?
Please Note: The UNO College Democrats have not taken an “official” stand on the annexation issue.
“I (Heart) Ryan R.”
Cheif — Why don’t you go into the T-Shirt business as well. It looks to be lucrative!
The really funny part is if it was a Republican in the mayor’s seat, you’d be supporting Elkhorn and wondering why our big bully mayor wanted to go in and reap the fruits of Elkhorn’s labor. If it were a Republican in the mayor’s seat, the conservatives would be all in favor of the annexation.
You think you’re so different from the Republicans? You’re not. You’re exactly like them and vice versa. You see what the other side favors and then you take the opposite stance. You got pissed when people criticized Clinton and they get pissed when you criticize Bush for the same things. You’re all alike.
God help us if either group ever evaluated an issue on merit alone.
Maybe our “objective observer” is not as objective as they would like to think.
I fail to see how annexation of Elkhorn is a partisen issue.
Jeeze. Someone didn’t eat their wheaties this morning. I thought maybe the “Obj. Obs.” would have something constructive to say. Instead he came on a politically centered website and yelled at us for being politically minded. Shame on us! Maybe we just shouldn’t care one way or the other. Yeah, I’m sure that city politics would just find a way of working itself out. Yeah.
Acutally i totally agree with Objective Observer, I think that people are too parisan. Thats why I’m not a registerd Democrat I’m registerd as an Independent. Nine times out of ten (probably more frequently than that) I agree with Democrats over Republicans, but i belive that a person should vote for who they feel will represent them best in any elected position, and i cannot guarentee that that person will alwayts be a Democrat. In short I dont belive that being politcally minded means being partisan.
This is my new favorite definition
parisan (noun) - A fervent, sometimes militant supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea.
Nick i agree with you, it always should be the person and the position. I hope nobody votes down the party line, in fact i think that if you want to do the right thing for your party, sometimes you have to vote the other way. I do like the idea of being independent but face it, most of the indies are just…looney.
The nice thing about America, vs. Britain or France, is that we vote for people who do and are expected to reach across the party lines.
Tiny history lesson…the best Republican in NE history was Sen. Norris, who FDR campaigned for. The best Democrat was William Jenning’s Bryant, who was a Fundimentalist Christian.
But the way the GOP runs the house, senate, and Exec branches, there’s no reason not to be a partisan. The tone is set by the party in power. Remeber how Clinton reached for Bipartisan issues like Welfare Reform and Nafta (not that I liked either of those much)? Bush has made the key points of his administration 1% tax cuts, stripping medicare, privitizing SS, and starting two wars.
Any objective observer can see that Bipartisanship has been something Democrats give Republicans when Democrats are in power…and Republicans beat Democrats into submission with when Republicans are in power.
So call me a partisan…but I’m going to apose each and every move that the GOP makes in the next 4 years unless a democrat can convince me it deserves bipartisan support.
oh wait. we were talking about Elkhorn.
annexing is common sense. I supported Daub when he was in favor of it, and I support Fahey now.
John, when are you running, and what position? Ill vote for ya!
oh and i really don’t see Elkhorn as a partisan issue either. I actually know some Republicans that are for the annexation, go figure.
To jump further off topic….NAFTA is completely necessary to compete with the EU.
I think the idea that the US needed to revamp trade to compete with the EU is a reasonable one. NAFTA as the way to do it? I’m not so sure about that.
Free trade between 1st world nations is one thing (like the EU), free trade between two of the richest nations in the world (America, Canada) and easily manipulated 2nd world countries with vast natural resources to squander (like Venezuela, Brazil and Chile) is somewhat imoral, and free trade between 2 of the richest and some of the poorest (Belize, Columbia, Bolivia) is downright criminal.
The problem is exploitation. Free trade is good when it moves goods faster, helps businesses reach larger markets, etc. It is bad when it is really just anther way of saying “let’s ship jobs over seas to people we can economically force them onto with no living wages and no infrastructure to protect their rights or give them any shot at advancement in the world.”
But I don’t know why I feel the need to go into policy debates about Nafta right now. I mean, the things Bush is doing to the budget are so much worse for 2nd and 3d world countries, not to mention our economy, that who really cares.
Annexation is not a partison issue, and I urge our objective observer to use his or her real name next time and come up with something better than they are both the same, how unoriginal.
lets at least be fair, while I agree with you all that annexation is not a partisan issue, we should invite “objective” observer back to the blog to explain how, exactly, they think this is a partisan issue.
d0ba24d13838addf68302b886c3e42dd 866667c2c85d44c0856381.