Comments on: Letters to the editor: Oct. 11, 2012

By: DrewJ

DrewJ — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 05:16:15 +0000

Funny, because I've been thinking the exact same thing about you anti-Mangum people…I shouldn't bother stooping to your level because you'll continue to lie and misrepresent the facts. Seems to me like Ms. Farrell's letter must be right; you guys must be concerned about Mangum being the frontrunner in this race.

By: I See right thru her

I See right thru her — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 02:54:11 +0000

I'm glad others are able to see Ms. Tally for what she really is. I for one will never let my eyes glaze over because her inaccuracies are easy to see through and very unbelievable.

By: Retired

Retired — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 02:47:07 +0000

A word of advice to anyone that wants to respond to the Mangum fans. Don't waste your time, they're trying to convince themselves what's in B & W print that he had nothing go do with the bonds. The truth will prevail, and you can't reason with ignorance. There's nothing to prove on this board, we know where a majority of the support stands & it's clearly not with Mangum.

By: KJN

KJN — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 23:03:23 +0000

Wow, Tally's letter is unbelievable. Literally "unbelievable." And Tally has admitted in other posts that she supports Vaus. Not sure I can trust her to give a fair representation of the "facts." Also not sure she has any credentials to be telling us what the facts are (other than she likes Vaus and doesn't want Mangum to win).

Voice of San Diego did another article on what they called "Meet the Players" in the Billion dollar bond deal. Mangum wasn't mentioned in the article. Why? Because Mangum didn't vote on the bonds that resulted in the billion dollar payback, and they probably didn't want to risk getting sued for libel. Maybe Tally needs to be more careful about what she says too.

Now I know why the other letter from Farrell cautioned against being swayed by vitriol.

By: MoneyMoney

MoneyMoney — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 20:59:33 +0000

You have to wonder if either Rachelle and Michelle have ever had an independent thought or if they just nod in agreement not realizing at all what they're agreeing to?. In a nutshell – even if Mangum wasn't present in 2011 for the final vote, his approval of the 2010 resolution authorizing it clearly shows his approval of the District's use of exotic financing which includes excessive premiums, high interest rates and no ability to refinance. And no, he's not the front runner and never was.

By: David

David — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 19:18:59 +0000

Jeff Mangum has been and is willing to talk to any person or group of people who legitimately just want to know what is going on with the bonds and don't have any ulterior motives or axes to grind.

Jeff is a gentleman. His discussions with the community on the bond issue have been very enlightening. Take the time to talk to him and find out for yourselves.

By: JDN

JDN — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 19:17:57 +0000

I've read the documents where Clariece Tally is getting her information. As usual she is mischaracterizing things. In fact, the problem is that to really understand just how she, Vaus and his other supporters are twisting things takes more time,and space, than is allowed on this website. And if I try, Tally will just keep spewing the same inaccuracies until your eyes glaze over.

She apparently hopes that if she repeats the same things over and over, it will make them true (or others will believe it is true).

Clariece Tally wasn't there in October 2010. If you really want to know the difference between the October 2010 and the May 2011 meetings, you can go to the horse's mouth. Jeff has been speaking to groups all over the city discussing an issue that takes more than an hour to cover. I know because I have been to one of these meetings. The bond issue cannot be covered in a 250-word letter to the editor or in short soundbites blasted by Vaus and his supporters. They know that, and they use it to their advantage.