Chestek, Sherwood, Provenza, Rothfuss and Crum will attend. Members of the public are invited to come with questions about the 2025 session, interim topics or future goals.
Care to name someone not biased Brett? We have read your critique's and heard you speak, so it is clear to all that you have some serious bias yourself.
My bias is toward ensuring that all viewpoints are heard and that the information that people receive is not slanted, unlike this blog. If asked to recommend a moderator, I'd probably recommend someone like Eric Henderson of KOCA, who has done a great job of interviewing and hosting community figures across the entire range of political perspectives and asking them fair but challenging questions.
"My bias is toward ensuring that all viewpoints are heard ..." There is a preponderance of right wing viewpoints that clearly should not be heard as they violate the Constitution*. We have had these arguments through history and it is clear that the conservative viewpoints that you want to have equal time have been debunked time and time again. Jeff Victor is on the side of the Constitutional ideas more than you, but he is not advocating for my approach anymore than he is advocating for yours.
I have not been on Eric Henderson's show so I would not have any exposure to his subjective nature or bias to determine where he is coming from??....He has been at PVA recently and I have appreciated his information. I have been interacting with Glenn Woods since I ran against Liz and I only have so much time to give.
* Example - the idea that any neighbor should manage your womb is anathema to our Constitutional rights. The entire argument of the GOP post ROE has been one to destroy the Constitution and yet you sided with this rabble during the last election Brett.
Republicans are unfit to have a voice in our Republic until they renounce their attack against our Rights.
Greg, it's obvious that you've been consuming too many of the hallucinogenic gummies that you touted (and popped in front of the entire room) at the recent PVA meeting.
This is to be a public political forum, and should admit all viewpoints -- not just the extreme partisan ones that you and Jeff favor. It's inappropriate to suppress viewpoints with which you do not agree, and one of my concerns is that Jeff will attempt do that as he does in this blog.
You're also sadly incorrect in your characterization of MY views, which are moderate rather than purely "conservative" or "liberal" (descriptions which are a futile attempt to flatten the space of political opinion to a single dimension). My views on the issues are based on careful consideration of each one, rather than total, sheep-like conformity to the agendas and interests of a single political party as yours are. (For the record, I favor reproductive freedom, for reasons on which I'm not going to elaborate here.)
And I do believe that all citizens' sincere political beliefs, however far flung, deserve to be heard. That's a key component of our democracy. What's not, and what is a violation of the Constitution, is the censorship that you advocate above.
"If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
John Stuart Mill
You're too much of a misguided, raving troll to be taken seriously, Greg.
Excellent job moderating Jeff!
Ask Crum why he voted for junk science on the gun bill when the public overwhelming disapproved of the repeal of gun free zones?
A moderator of a political forum such as this should be unbiased. I hope they'll find one who actually is!
Care to name someone not biased Brett? We have read your critique's and heard you speak, so it is clear to all that you have some serious bias yourself.
My bias is toward ensuring that all viewpoints are heard and that the information that people receive is not slanted, unlike this blog. If asked to recommend a moderator, I'd probably recommend someone like Eric Henderson of KOCA, who has done a great job of interviewing and hosting community figures across the entire range of political perspectives and asking them fair but challenging questions.
"My bias is toward ensuring that all viewpoints are heard ..." There is a preponderance of right wing viewpoints that clearly should not be heard as they violate the Constitution*. We have had these arguments through history and it is clear that the conservative viewpoints that you want to have equal time have been debunked time and time again. Jeff Victor is on the side of the Constitutional ideas more than you, but he is not advocating for my approach anymore than he is advocating for yours.
I have not been on Eric Henderson's show so I would not have any exposure to his subjective nature or bias to determine where he is coming from??....He has been at PVA recently and I have appreciated his information. I have been interacting with Glenn Woods since I ran against Liz and I only have so much time to give.
* Example - the idea that any neighbor should manage your womb is anathema to our Constitutional rights. The entire argument of the GOP post ROE has been one to destroy the Constitution and yet you sided with this rabble during the last election Brett.
Republicans are unfit to have a voice in our Republic until they renounce their attack against our Rights.
Greg, it's obvious that you've been consuming too many of the hallucinogenic gummies that you touted (and popped in front of the entire room) at the recent PVA meeting.
This is to be a public political forum, and should admit all viewpoints -- not just the extreme partisan ones that you and Jeff favor. It's inappropriate to suppress viewpoints with which you do not agree, and one of my concerns is that Jeff will attempt do that as he does in this blog.
You're also sadly incorrect in your characterization of MY views, which are moderate rather than purely "conservative" or "liberal" (descriptions which are a futile attempt to flatten the space of political opinion to a single dimension). My views on the issues are based on careful consideration of each one, rather than total, sheep-like conformity to the agendas and interests of a single political party as yours are. (For the record, I favor reproductive freedom, for reasons on which I'm not going to elaborate here.)
And I do believe that all citizens' sincere political beliefs, however far flung, deserve to be heard. That's a key component of our democracy. What's not, and what is a violation of the Constitution, is the censorship that you advocate above.
"A Republic if you can keep it." Ben Franklin
You are too ill informed to be nuanced Brett.
I am 194 pages in to this Rand Report on 'Cast Lead' and 'Protective Edge'. You are not worth my time.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1888.html#document-details
"If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
John Stuart Mill
You're too much of a misguided, raving troll to be taken seriously, Greg.