VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 12[3]456 ]


[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 13:49:01 10/17/13 Thu
Author: Joe Rizoli (Her way or the highway)
Author Host/IP: 108.20.58.194
Subject: Linda Dunbrack control freak

Linda Dunbrack resident control freak says below.
Watch how she controls the conversation here.
She reminds me if the "pigs" in the movie Animal Farm.
She applies the rules her own way as a hypocrite would.
This is how our town Goverment has become. A one way debate that has to agree with Linda Dunbrack.

She states:

I would strongly encourage people to watch the Republican debate.

If you think Ted Cruz has it right on the government shutdown, then you should
vote for Frank Addivinola and Mike Stopa, as they both pronounce their
unqualified support of the shenanigans in DC.

Tierney's opinion is much more bipartisan and moderate. He agrees that
Obamacare needs to go, but that issue should be considered separately, and
that the status quo isn't good enough. He says that we have to pay our debts
and reduce our budget with a combination of tax increases and cutting
expenses. Sounds like an "independent thinker" with a common sense approach
who had to pick a party but doesn't fit in either.

I haven't decided which primary to vote in yet, but Frank Addivinola and Mike
Stopa come across not just as conservative, but radical. If you want more of
the same in DC, vote for them.
▶ Rest of post
From: Ned Price
Date: 6:34pm, Oct 14

>I haven't decided which primary to vote in yet, but Frank Addivinola and
>Mike
> Stopa come across not just as conservative, but radical. If you want more
> of
> the same in DC, vote for them.
> Linda Dunbrack-Forum Manager


Apparently the poster has decided that the problems in Washington are caused
by Republicans.
It seems to me that, since our entire congressional delegation is presently
Democratic, that if you want "more of the same in DC"
you should vote for one of the Democratic candidates. No?

Ned Price
From: Dennis Paulsen
Date: 7:17pm, Oct 14

I had thought that one of the rules for Framgov was that endorsing (or in this
case, trashing)of candidates was not allowed.

Is there a separate rule for forum moderators?
▶ Rest of post
From: Colleen McLaughlin
Date: 8:46pm, Oct 14

I'm thankful to not be receiving all the phone calls others have said they are
receiving. Candidate materials are arriving in the mail, and that lets me have
a written record of what the candidates say they pronounce their support for.


Just my opinion, but if posters (especially moderators) say something
about someone, the poster should really stick very closely to the facts. The
following is not an endorsement. I'm just telling you what a piece of mail
says.

Right in front of me is a postcard from Frank Addivinola. Nowhere on it does he
say he pronounces his "unqualified support of the shenanigans in DC."


What the card does say is a lot of common sense things, like "prosperity for
families and communities", "support small business", "protect Medicare for
seniors", that he is "against military action in Syria", and so on.

Linda, where has either of these two candidates said that they "pronounce their
unqualified support of the shenanigans in DC."?

Could it be some other candidate said this?


Colleen McLaughlin
▶ Rest of post
From: Linda Dunbrack
Date: 8:48pm, Oct 14

Endorsements are allowed, as established for the last town election. There is
no prohibition written in the charter:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/framgov/charter. Given that you endorsed a
candidate

It is fair to criticize and characterize a candidate's views and positions, but
not the character or motivation of the candidate.

Campaigning is not allowed.

@Ned... I do have a more balanced view of who is at "fault;" however, I was
only commenting on the Republican primary in direct response to Mr. Joiner's
post.

It has been a long time since we have had a meaningful race for our
congressional seat. I hope more people post on this topic.
From: William LaBarge
Date: 9:01pm, Oct 14

As someone who volunteer time to the Town as a Town Meeting Member, I find
it disconcerting that a certain minority faction of the Federal counterpart
of Town Meeting threatening to let the US Federal Government to go into
default unless they get their political demand met. Threatening to let the
Government to go into default is just plain unacceptable.

What I also found troubling is at a Tea Party demonstration in front of the
White House today, there was a Confederate Flag was among them. I would hope
that all political candidate (D or R) for this special election would see a
big red flag associated with that Tea Party that put on that demonstration.
That is the very same Tea Party whose members are also members of the
Federal counterpart of Town Meeting threatening to let the US Federal
Government to go into default...

Could you imagine if a certain faction in Town Meeting in the Town of
Framingham threatened to not approve any budget item unless Town Meeting
decided to cut certain program? I am not going to state whom I am voting
for, but I will say this: I do not want any of our Federal counterpart of
Town Meeting Members representing us to behave in the manner I described
above.

William LaBarge
Town Meeting Member, Precinct 16
From: Colleen McLaughlin
Date: 9:19pm, Oct 14

pronounce (pr-nouns)
v. pronounced, pronouncing, pronounces
v.tr.
1.
a. To use the organs of speech to make heard (a word or speech sound); utter.
b. To say clearly, correctly, or in a given manner: learning to pronounce
French; pronounced my name wrong.
2. To represent (a word) in phonetic symbols.
3. To declare officially or formally: pronounced the legislature to be in
session; was pronounced dead on arrival.
v.intr.
1. To say words; speak.
2. To declare one's opinion; make a pronouncement: pronouncing on the issues
of the day.


To state that someone has "pronounced" something is to in effect say that you
are quoting that person.



Linda, I'll ask the question again:

Where did either Frank Addivinola or Mike Stopa, "pronounce their unqualified
support of the shenanigans in DC." ?

I'd really like to see that quote so I can make up my mind whether or not to
vote for either one.


Colleen McLaughlin
▶ Rest of post
From: Linda Dunbrack
Date: 9:57pm, Oct 14

@Colleen. If you watch the tape starting at 0:43, hear the moderator's
questions where he asks the candidates to classify themselves with respect to
the shutdown, it should be pretty evident where I draw my conclusions:

http://www.necn.com/searchNECN/search/v/82376534/broadside-mass-5th-s-gop-candidates.htm

Mike Stoppa "I'd have to say I am a Ted Cruz guy" and then he explains why, in
detail, on this particular issue, he agrees with Ted Cruz. Starting at 1:05.

Addivinola: "Ted Cruz" and then he explains why. Starting at about 1:53.
From: Lynn Joiner
Date: 11:09pm, Oct 14

Writes William LaBarge: ". . . Threatening to let the
Government to go into default is just plain unacceptable."

There is no danger of the federal government going into default. The interest
payments on the federal debt are c. $20 billion a month. The monthly revenues
are c. $225 a month. The Treasury can easily afford the interest payments to
our debt holders.

What not raising the debt limit would do is stop additional borrowing for more
expenses. For any household or business running a debt some 8 times its annual
revenues, with many more times unfunded liabilities, that would not be called
'default'; it would be called 'fiscal responsibility'.

It is true that an irresponsible Administration *could* attempt to violate the
law and refuse to pay the debt interest before paying other bills, which would
put us in default. Now I'll leave it to you to ascertain whether the current
Administration has any qualms about breaking the the law. . .

/Mr Lynn
From: James Wellnitz
Date: 2:40am, Oct 15

The debt ceiling is one law. The US government revenues (taxes) are set by
a group of laws. The spending levels are *also* set by law. If the debt
limit is not raised, these laws will be in conflict and Executive branch
will be forced to choose which law(s) to break, not whether to break a law.

Note that the spending and taxation levels - and therefore the
deficit/surplus - were set by Congress when it passed these laws.

If there were no danger of a Federal government default, why are
Congressional Republicans using the debt limit as a negotiating tactic?

We can't avoid default by prioritizing interest payments, as you imply.
That would mean not paying some other bill. There's a term for not paying
some of the bills - it's still "default".
▶ Rest of post
From: William LaBarge
Date: 4:34am, Oct 15

From: Lynn Joiner
**Writes William LaBarge: ". . . Threatening to let the
**Government to go into default is just plain unacceptable."

There is no danger of the federal government going into default. The
interest payments on the federal debt are c. $20 billion a month. The
monthly revenues are c. $225 a month. The Treasury can easily afford the
interest payments to our debt holders.

What not raising the debt limit would do is stop additional borrowing for
more expenses. For any household or business running a debt some 8 times
its annual revenues, with many more times unfunded liabilities, that would
not be called 'default'; it would be called 'fiscal responsibility'.

MY RESPONSE:
As you know, we are in deficit spending when we spend more than we take in.
How do we avoid that? We pay as we go without getting out the credit card.
Before we get to that let's get on how we end up inflicting a tax bill onto
anyone.
We, collectively, the People, decide on what programs we all want and how
much we are willing to pay for it. Once we decided on all of the programs we
want, we inflicted a tax bill onto the taxpayers. Now we get into deciding
who will pay which portion of that tax bill. If we decide to put it on the
national credit card, you just passed those taxes to the future taxpayers.

Now let's get into the practical side of inflicting a tax bill onto the
taxpayers and which taxpayers winds up paying the bill. I have seen both
Democrats and Republicans push for various programs that inflict bills onto
the taxpayers. With all that said, I don't want one side to be pointing
fingers on other peoples when it comes to the spending side. I do hope that
all of our elected political leaders can work out a way to pay for those
programs in a fair and equitable manner.

From: Lynn Joiner
It is true that an irresponsible Administration *could* attempt to violate
the law and refuse to pay the debt interest before paying other bills, which
would put us in default. Now I'll leave it to you to ascertain whether the
current Administration has any qualms about breaking the the law. . .

MY RESPONSE:
With due respect, Lynn Joiner, if Congress don't raise the debt ceiling in
order for the US Federal Government to pay ALL of their bills, then Congress
is forcing the President to break the law by defaulting on some of the
bills. Keep in mind that it is Congress who passed the laws that created
these programs that incurred bills and will continue to incur bills. Now it
is up to Congress to repeal such laws if they don't want those bills to
continue to be incurred. In the meantime, Congress has a responsibility to
pay the bills incurred because of the laws they passed and that is
non-negotiable.

William LaBarge
From: Ned Price
Date: 1:29pm, Oct 15

> The debt ceiling is one law. The US government revenues (taxes) are set
> by
> a group of laws. The spending levels are *also* set by law. If the debt
> limit is not raised, these laws will be in conflict and Executive branch
> will be forced to choose which law(s) to break, not whether to break a
> law.
> -- James Wellnitz

I don't agree that laws will necessarily be broken It is not clear to me
that all the money appropriated has actually been spent Also
it is a different thing not to buy a car that has been budgeted for or not
to pay the sixth month a cable bill that has a 2 year minimum term than not
to pay your mortgage.
In Town Meeting we often appropriate money before it is actually spent



Ned Price
From: Lynn Joiner
Date: 2:52pm, Oct 16

William LaBarge conflates *default* on debt obligations with choosing not to
incur new expenses that require borrowing, or perhaps revising (or reforming)
existing programs that consistently drive expenditures above revenues, thereby
requiring more borrowing to support the deficits. They are *not* the same
thing, and only the former is properly 'default'.

Continued payment of debt obligations is required by law (and arguably by the
14th Amendment), while everything else, including so-called 'entitlements', is
within the purview of Congress to modify as needed to force the federal
government to live within its means.

/Mr Lynn
From: Linda Dunbrack
Date: 6:32pm, Oct 16

Hi everyone,

Now that the primaries are over, let's get back to talking about local issues.
I'll grant a little more flexibility again when we are within a week of the
general election.

There is a national issues forum on e-democracy for any who would like to
debate the issues further.

http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/us
▶ Rest of post

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

[ Contact Forum Admin ]


Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.