At least that's what the Bridge to Nowhere Tea Party spokesman, Citizen Pete, claims their puzzling message "Will trade bridge for pipeline" implied. Our own correspondent Protester Pete covered the event disguised as a disinterested exercise enthusiast, who happened to be carrying a hidden video cam.
Research of the Pundit Pete Press Service archives indicates this is not the first time Citizen Pete and the Bridge to Nowhere Tea Party have posted their radical messages on this bridge.
However, this is the first time we have been able to secretly capture the elusive Pete on video, including his lengthy, yet implausible, rant claiming government interference in the economy. Here is the raw, unedited video that Protester Pete, under great personal danger, was able to obtain.
We should note that a search of the internet also revealed a remarkably similar video of Citizen Pete posted by another one of the Tea Party activists.
During our observation of the Bridge to Nowhere Tea Party event, we encountered an individual, accompanied by his wife and two daughters, who took offense at the message on the bridge. One of the Tea Party activists, Regan Benson, recorded the confrontation.
As Citizen Pete discussed afterwords, "Exercising our right of free speech through thought-provoking, creative, and sometimes humorous messages on a bridge seems to illicit the most rude and aggressive behavior from those on the left who disagree with us. I mean we are Tea Party folks, the nicest people you'd ever like to meet. People who love and care about this country enough to try and save it. And on top of that, we never leave a mess. So, what gives these people, including many of our leaders in DC and so called "journalists" at major news organizations, the right to call us nasty names? Something is wrong with this picture."
Other PPPS posts about the Bridge to Nowhere Tea Party:
what a piece of crap...
ReplyDeletePious Pete takes offense at your description.
ReplyDeletePerhaps next time you could try something like "what a bunch of hooey" or perhaps a more PC acceptable "I take issue with your not-so-sweet smelling opinions."
Just a suggestion of course.
We moved here from Tucson, AZ several years ago. My son is in middle school now and wants to start venturing out of the neighborhood on his bicycle. We are reluctant to subject him to the dangers of the crosswalk here in unincorporated JeffCo because we have to deal with the fact that people in our own neighborhood think that 25 mph is a suggestion and tend to drive DOUBLE that up our hill on Allison Way.
ReplyDeleteBack in Tucson, EVERY SINGLE SCHOOL located on a major street has a pedestrian bridge that goes over street to keep kids from being struck by distracted speeders or drivers that just don't obey traffic laws. Additionally, the city of Tucson (with a population of less than 850,000, has installed pedestrian bridges all over town, strategically located where pedestrian/vehicle incidents are likely, in an effort to protect kids and residents from being hit by a car.
Have any of you who oppose this bridge given any thought to the fact that it keep kids who want to go to the mall by bicycle or walking out of the dangers of that major cross-street's crosswalk? I would like to see another one put up for the north / south intersection so we can keep children out of the road. Additionally, I think we need more of these all over the county...I seem to remember a child getting hit by a car about 2 years back at the Wadsworth / Chatfield Ave, intersection, because that crosswalk leads to NO SIDEWALK on the South side of the street.
What are our tax dollars for if not to provide safety for pedestrians who want to WALK somewhere?
As a REPUBLICAN, I am offended that the Tea Party would be opposed to providing my kid with a safe way to go to the mall. There are MANY things to be pissed about when it comes to taxes, but to oppose this with a ridiculous argument that "no one uses it" is to promote an anarchist's view of "no money should be spent by the government" and I want to know which one of you tea partiers are standing at the bridge 24 hours a day counting the number of pedestrians using it. I've seen families, kids on skateboards, and groups of people using it MANY times, as I drive under it twice a day on my way to Denver, and many times on the weekend to go to many of the stores on Wads.
I LIKE SAFE ROADS, and HOPE that my local government will CONTINUE to provide my family with better roads and spend my tax dollars (which as an employer in Colorado is a LOT!!) on things like pedestrian bridges.
This is a bridge that not even the county commissioners would defend.
DeleteThe ultimate question is if the bridge's cost out weighs the benefit. I say yes. The $3+M could have been used to make more places safer such as installing turn signals at wads and peakview. There have been several accidents and as a resident of woodmar, I know the HOA and others have requested turn signals, but there are no funds. . . hmmm. . .I wonder why.
Columbine West Resident - Ah, where to begin.
DeleteYou have given the subject much thought. Perhaps you should start a blog. It can be great therapy.
What does going twice 25 mph up your street have to do with the bridge? Should we have a bridge to get to the mail box? Try a speed bump. It's cheaper.
Here in South Jeffco, EVERY SINGLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL is built within a square-mile section or so between the major streets precisely so no kids have to cross those streets for school. THIS IS NOT TUSCON my friend.
Nope. We've never given any thought to kid's safety. As a REPUBLICAN, I'm pretty sure I'm supposed to hate kids and safety - at least that's what the media tells me.
I've not heard too much about Tea Party folks hating kids - I think we're all just supposed to hate government (and of course black people, but that's another subject). I'm sorry that you are offended by the Tea Party. After all, it was the Tea Party that got all those REPUBLICANS elected across the country and to a majority in the U.S. House. Pretty offensive.
"What are our tax dollars for if not to provide safety for pedestrians who want to WALK somewhere?" I like this comment.
I don't know, I guess our tax dollars are supposed to pay for a lot of things, one of which might be pedestrian safety. It's a matter of priorities. But at $3 million a pop, I doubt we can afford very many. As a REPUBLICAN, you should be able to appreciate that.
Things I do know.
There is absolutely no reason for our federal tax dollars to be spent on local projects like this bridge. 80 percent of the money to build that bridge came from the Federal government. This is a local project and should be paid for with local funds. You are free to lobby locally for pedestrian bridges, but the Federal government is broke. And projects like this are a big reason why.
Something else I know. A pedestrian bridge should not cost over $3 million. Period. That is an obvious waste. I would say that practically everyone who drives under that bridge (except perhaps you) would agree.
As to your 24-hours a day counting comment. We are Tea Party activists, not Occupiers. We have jobs and lives and other volunteer work. So give it a rest. Everyone knows that very few people use that bridge to actually get somewhere. Most of the people I've observed use the bridge for two reasons (not counting the teenagers who like to hang out up there): for exercise and out of curiosity, because they've heard about how much it cost. And of course there are the folks who like to post signs on the bridge - I think they plan to use it a lot.
A question for you. How does opposing this bridge as a waste of money translate to an anarchist's view of "no money should be spent by the government" Tea Partiers are not anarchists. If you want to meet anarchists, go to an Occupy protest. Tea Party folks want to reign in government spending, not eliminate it (although there are many federal government functions which are not authorized in the Constitution and should be eliminated).
Does $15 trillion in debt have any meaning to you? If you want more pedestrian bridges, form a charity and raise some funds.
Finally, you missed the whole point of our protest anyway. It was all about the Keystone Pipeline project which the President denied. That would have been privately funded, would have created jobs, would reduce our dependence on unstable foreign oil sources, and probably reduce energy costs. What do you think about that?
Two recommendations for you.
Teach your kid how to safely ride a bike and to cross at a cross walk.
Lighten up a little. There is no reason to be offended. Pundit Pete is a satire blog. And the Bridge to Nowhere Tea Party just likes to have a little fun and stimulate conversation.
We can all have that conversation without calling each other anarchists or something.
God bless ya.