Do you have insurance againt killer robots from space?

http://www.seo.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/3d_tin_robot.jpg

Wow! Kerry how are you?

That robot reminds me of those ole nasty tatoos of former Thunder gold-bricker-sicker Robert Swift!

Why are we talking about cancer insurance and killer robots from space in this thread?

Larry, again, give us a NEW proposal. ...

Here is my new proposal:

1). File a lawsuit to get MAPS 3 overturned on unconstitutional grounds.

Then proceed with the previous proposals that would have fixed it.

Larry, if you've got any interest in saving the taxpayers money, which I thought was at least one of your secondary interests, you'd realize that your newest suggestion would do precisely the opposite. Unless you're a lawyer, which is who would be the beneficiaries of our tax dollars. We'd get lawyers instead of a convention center.

That's not my idea of a solution.

Yeah, thats the solution. Let's file another lawsuit to overturn the clear will of the people so LarryOKC can have his pound of flesh.

Here is my new proposal:

1). File a lawsuit to get MAPS 3 overturned on unconstitutional grounds.

Then proceed with the previous proposals that would have fixed it.

With respect, the two main things preventing you or anyone else who strongly believes this to be an appropriate path are:
(a) a willingness to write an adequate retainer check to a law firm
(b) a law firm willing to accept the retainer and advocate your position

When you are ready to take care of (a), I imagine you can find a (b) in short order. Whether you'll prevail is of course an entirely separate question.


Am I all gaga over the M3 process? Nopers
Do I gritch or stroke when I buy taxable items in OKC? Also Nopers
Do I hope for the best? Sure

Larry, if you've got any interest in saving the taxpayers money, which I thought was at least one of your secondary interests, you'd realize that your newest suggestion would do precisely the opposite. Unless you're a lawyer, which is who would be the beneficiaries of our tax dollars. We'd get lawyers instead of a convention center.

That's not my idea of a solution.

So what IS your solution? Other than blindly hoping everything turns out for the best?

As far as cost to the taxpayers that would be the fault of the City for putting itself in the position to begin with. They could have easily set it up so it was legal/constitutional but deliberately chose the other route (even though they said they would). You have to ask yourself, Why?

These are the same folks you are blindly trusting? I just don't get it.

So what IS your solution? Other than blindly hoping everything turns out for the best?.

Yes. At this point in time, that seems like the most practical way to go forward. I have a lot of evidence (MAPS 1, 2 and 2.5) that I'll basically get what I voted for and virtually none that I won't.


As far as cost to the taxpayers that would be the fault of the City for putting itself in the position to begin with. They could have easily set it up so it was legal/constitutional but deliberately chose the other route (even though they said they would). You have to ask yourself, Why?

These are the same folks you are blindly trusting? I just don't get it.

So, to make your point, you'd rather we use our taxes to pay lawyers than improve our city? And "blindly trust" that, in the end, which could be 15 years from now instead of 7, the voters will somehow get what they have already voted for, at what could be a significant increase in cost? I'd rather blindly trust our city officials.