User profile: Fossil
Joined: Jan. 31, 2008
Comments posted: 161
Contact Fossil (log-in required)
Comments by Fossil
Page 1 of 15 | Next
Posted on October 9 at 7:44 p.m.
With all due respect, my comments were relevant to this aricle and appropriately directed to you.
Posted on October 9 at 7:52 a.m.
Mr. Issler, encouraging a citizen to file suit against a sitting Councilmember is not doing our community any good. It is divisive and unproductive. Didn't you and several current councilmembers condemn others for that kind of activity during the last campaign? One lawsuit may result in a counter lawsuit (Mr. Kiester's fitness was questioned in the letter to the city attorney). Some millionaire citizen might one day feel that you have defamed him or her and bring one against you. Can you afford to play in that game? Is that what you want? This type of activity is expensive and profits only the attorneys. Rarely are such lawsuits successful and they never rehabilitate reputations. They serve only to make the slander and defamation more public.
Posted on October 8 at 8:01 a.m.
This fellow is some kind of volunteer is he? Seems to me he has found a way to avoid being culpable for any damage his ideas may cause. He can always say, not me. Pretty neat set up. His surrogates on the Council get to give him cover. Why doesn't the city try and be more transparent? Give him a personal services contract and pay him a token $1.00 an hour whenever he does something for us. At least that way, he can be held accountable. The Lord knows, many of our Council members have no clue as to what this fellow is actually up to. Say, one of his great ideas result in citizens losing their homes because of emminent domain. Or have to sell out and leave Marco because one of his ideas made it too costly to live here. Then the Council can at least point to this fellow and say he fooled us, we didn't know. His present deal is simply to pat for me. He has found a way to eat his cake, regurgitate it and serve a portion to each Council member. Too much sleeze to sort through. Just some thoughts.
Posted on October 5 at 7:02 a.m.
Issler, this is the United States and we have a Constitution that lays out basic principals from which our laws derive. Again you show your contempt for our democratic and judicial system when it does not support your view. You are so un-American. If you do not approve of how the system establishes guilt or innosence, you should move to Cuba. Under that system, you could take a position that actually would result in something affecting your personal life. Either you agree and support the system and all is good or you may disagree, accuse the system of being incompetent (as you do here), and simply disapear. Don't you think if the prosecutor had a real case he would have continued to press the issue? Have a good trip and say hi to the brothers when you get there.
Posted on October 3 at 7:39 a.m.
Issler, as usual you missed the point. Do they not teach engineers cognitive thinking? Mr. McMullan is not asking the Council to turn against what the majority wants. He is only questioning the Council's judgment why certain items continue to enjoy a high priority during these hard times. Mr. McMullan offers some very relevant questions. The number of citizens that benefit from the tennis, volley ball and shuffleboard courts are a really small minority. As I recall, we have not had the benefit of Veteran's park because it was used by the City as a dump for a long time, why the sudden change in priorities? We have done without the pedestrian bridge forever and can certianly wait another few years on that too. Rather than finding fault when a citizen brings up factual examples of budget items that can be re prioritized, you should join with Mr. McMullan and encourage our leadership to do the right thing. Take some time, review the budget like Mr. McMullan did. I'm sure you will be able to find some addtional items that can be delayed or cut all together.
On Letter to the Editor: Rome is on fire and the City Council fiddles
Posted on October 3 at 7:18 a.m.
Thank you Lawrence. You forgot my favorite project, the need to dredge a deeper and wider channel and new port facilities for the cruise ships.
Posted on September 30 at 6:50 a.m.
Issler, I went to the link you presented and fail to understand what it is you are trying to say. The link shows us why Mr. McMullan is amongst us today. He was obviously cleared of the charges brought against him. Are you trying to say the courts were wrong? Have you no respect for the judicial branch of a democracy? If McMullan gave any more respect to the fellows you admire so much, he would be on his knees and bowing as though they were potentates whose only responsiblity to us is to extract excessive tributes. We are Americans who have a form of government elected by the people, not the other way around. A government that must respect the view of the minority, who in this case happens to be right. Mr. McMullan's letter exhibits a thought process your entry ignores, logic. When economic times are tough you only make them worse by imposing further financial burdens on it's citizens. Clearly cutting back on spending is the solution when one is living beyond their means. We, meaning the citizens are doing it, why cannot our potentates?
Posted on September 28 at 5:16 p.m.
Of course I carry my own health insurance. I do not have the benefit of belonging to a corporation. I am self insured and self employed. I do not believe in any social program except Social Security and medicare only because it is now almost time for me to receive benefits I paid for. I have taken care of myself and my family my entire life. I have saved for my retirement and bought my own home. I believed I had accumulated plenty of money to retire in Marco Island, until the last two City Councils started nickle and dimeing me to death. This is just another scheme to reach into my pocket. You lie if you say the city will not recive administrative fees or other such reimbursements from this plan. The city is always trying to invent new services to tax us for. Now you have found a way to get another $20 a month from me. Enough is enough, pay for your own seawall.
Posted on September 28 at 11:35 a.m.
The majority of us carry auto insurance because it is the LAW. The primary purpose of mandatory auto insurance is to protect against personal liability and medical claims, not to maintain or protect property. Property protection is frequently not elected when the car one is driving has a value that is less then the cost to insure it. Will this program the City proposes protect my property, myself, my family and any guests that may be visiting my home at the time of collapse? Will it protect against my neighbor's wall caving in? Will it protect my or neighbor's boat if damaged from my or their wall collapsing? Will it protect unconditionally? That is to say collateral or liablity insurance? I carry health insurance only because I can afford to and I am too young and earn too much for government aid. If the City continues charging us for things we do not need, I may not be able to afford that any longer! Salingby, maintain and repair your seawall yourself. Don't come to me for money. Be responsible and maintain your own property.
Page 1 of 15 | Next
Posted on October 11 at 7:24 a.m.
Leroy, we all know your record when it comes to free speech. Either one agrees with the City or they should just shut up. The City could flush raw sewage onto your street and you would stand on your front steps and cheeer.
On Editor's Notes: Nastiness is a small price to pay