| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Dominic
Member
65 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2007 : 8:43:44 PM
|
| sorry Kane...maybe attack was too bold a word....I should have used "vigorously disagree with what I have to say" |
 |
|
|
Citizen Kane
Advanced Member
1082 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2007 : 8:50:02 PM
|
You misunderstand me, Dominic. I am not actively "backing" anyone. Have I made comments here that would lead you to believe that I am? If I have, then I've mislead you. Frankly, I truly believe that we are stuck with a choice of the "lesser of two evils." Neither candidate is a prize. Neither lives the life of a boy scout. For the first time in my history of voting for mayor in this city, I do not see nor am I inspired by a clear choice. You are, and I admire your dedication to that candidate.
|
|
|
|
AVGMOM
Member
83 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2007 : 8:50:54 PM
|
| Kane, don't start preaching to me about violations and laws when the Leader Herald clearly broke them all and that's why this mess occured. It was also the Leader Herald who brought up the Police Dept. in the article., no one is in violation except Mr. Cunnane and Mr. Almeida, there is such thing as freedom of speech and then is SLANDER AND LIBEL. I rest my case. |
|
|
|
Citizen Kane
Advanced Member
1082 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2007 : 8:51:55 PM
|
| Oh . . . and yes, I have indeed at times vigorously disagreed with what you have said. That's what good, honest debate is about, right? But I have admired your willingness to engage in high level debate and enjoyed the way you have made your case. |
|
|
|
Citizen Kane
Advanced Member
1082 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2007 : 8:56:40 PM
|
Slander and libel are not the same thing. Slander is spoken, libel is written. And Mr. Curnane, I believe, has a disclaimer on Mr. Almeida's columns every week saying that the opinions he expresses are not those of the newspaper.
And good luck to Mr. DeMaria making a case for libel. He is a public figure, and it is much more difficult for a public figure to make a case for libel. Mr. DeMaria would have to be able to prove that Mr. Almeida knew the statement to be false and made it anyway. Good luck with that. If Mr. Almeida had reason to believe that Mr. DeMaria had, indeed, made the statement that he favored granting licenses to illegal immigrants, it will be next to impossible for DeMaria to make a case for libel. |
|
|
|
AVGMOM
Member
83 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2007 : 9:02:38 PM
|
Speaking of debates Kane, it was "your" candidate who ducked out on two debates with "my" candidate, first Mr. McGonagle calls for a series of debates in his video, okay fine. The Independent newspaper calls for a debate - Joe never responded. Next, Patty Cheevas from ECTV scheduled a meeting with both candidates to discuss a debate, Carlo's campaign manager attended because he had another engagement, NO ONE I REPEAT NO ONE, from the McGonagle campaign attended the meeting. Call the Independent, call Patty, Joe calls for a SERIES of debates and Carlo can't even get him to agree to one. I'll tell you, Carlo was looking forward to a debate because there were so many issues that needed to be discussed that can't be in a mailer or a newspaper ad.
What does that say about Joe? Lying to the voters, saying he wants to debate his opponent and ducks the situation. I say he's a coward. Sorry, I am not trying to be disrespectful. I have met Joe before, not a bad guy, I just don't think he's the guy for the job. |
|
|
|
Citizen Kane
Advanced Member
1082 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2007 : 9:11:04 PM
|
Joe is not "my" candidate, AVGMOM. As you can see from my discussion with Dominic, I'm not enthralled with either candidate.
On the debate issue (and this may shock you), I agree with you 100%. I won't go so far as to call McGonagle a coward, but I agree that if you are going to call for a series of debates, you have to follow through. In this regard, we're on the same page. |
|
|
|
AVGMOM
Member
83 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2007 : 9:22:36 PM
|
| Sorry, Kane I was under the impression you were a diehard fan of Joe's like most people on this board appear to be. Well I am tickled silly that we agree on something Kane. I think a debate would have been great. Newspaper ads, mailers, even the videos, sometimes there is not enough substance. The candidate needs that opportunity to freely express themselves and answer questions that "we" the taxpayers want to know, and honestly Carlo really wanted the opportunity to do that. |
|
|
|
Citizen Kane
Advanced Member
1082 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2007 : 9:34:48 PM
|
| I'm glad we could end the night and our discussions on a "positive" note, AVGMOM. Thanks for the debate! |
|
|
|
AVGMOM
Member
83 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2007 : 9:35:46 PM
|
| Anytime Kane, goodnight. |
|
|
|
Lynda
Advanced Member
1282 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2007 : 10:36:32 PM
|
| I have a question, I have read on here numerous times that "Carlo excepted Hanlons endorsement" now my question is this. Does one have to "except" another's endorsement? Even if Carlo didn't want his endorsement (which I have no idea either way) does he say so or just smile and say Thank you? |
|
|
|
Citizen Kane
Advanced Member
1082 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2007 : 10:51:26 PM
|
| Lynda, Carlo was at Hanlon's concession speech on Primary night when Hanlon first endorsed him. Hanlon then sent out a letter endorsing Carlo in glowing terms. Now . . . if Carlo was not comfortable with this endorsement, if he thought it would not benefit him in some way, then yes, Carlo or his "handlers" would sit down with Hanlon and/or his "handlers" and say thanks but no thanks. Add that to the fact that many of Hanlon's supporters are out publicly supporting Carlo by holding signs for him, and yes, that indicates that Carlo has gladly accepted Hanlon's endorsement and support. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with him doing this -- that's the way the game is played, in the same way that McGonagle has the support of many of the former Ragucci supporters. |
|
|
|
Lynda
Advanced Member
1282 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2007 : 10:54:40 PM
|
| Thanks Citizen. I just simply didn't know if it was something that was like a document of acceptance or just a simple Thank you. |
|
|
|
Citizen Kane
Advanced Member
1082 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2007 : 10:58:06 PM
|
No problem, Lynda.
By the way . . . how is your husband doing? I know you had good news a while back. How is he feeling? |
|
|
|
whatashame
Member
60 Posts |
 Posted - 11/03/2007 : 11:00:19 PM
|
Keep in mind - Mr Demaria voted for every increase to increase the budget and is the reason our taxes have gone through the roof - the records speak for themselves! If you want higher taxes, Vote for Demaria.
DATE AGENDA # DESCRIPTION McGONAGLE DeMARIA
7/24/2006 A-0528-06 TRANSFER $60,000 MAYOR'S RESERVE TO MAYOR'S NO YES
PROFESSIONAL RESERVE ACCOUNT
4/9/2007 C-0092-07 TRANSFER $23,000 BUDGET OFFICE TO
PURCHASING FOR ADDITIONAL CLERICAL NO YES
4/9/2007 C-0076-07 SALARY ADJ. ADMIN OFFICES NO YES
4/9/2007 C-0005-07 SCHOOL COMMITTEE SALARIES NO YES
4/9/2007 C-0046-07 CLERK OF COMMON COUNCIL SALARY NO YES
$5,000
4/9/2007 C-0047-07 CLERK OF ALDERMAN SALARY NO YES
$5,000
4/9/2007 C-0048-07 CITY COUNCIL ADMIN. ASSISTANT SALARY NO YES
$48,000
4/9/2007 C-0049-07 CLERK OF COMMITTEE SALARY NO YES
$27,000
5/14/2007 A-0189-07 TRANSFER $5,000 PARKING CLERK METER REVENUE NO YES
TO PARKING TICKET PROCESSING
5/14/2007 A-0190-07 $14,610.99 FROM BUDGETARY FUND TO NO YES
RECREATION SALARIES ACCOUNT
5/14/2007 C-0075-07 TRANSFER $488,09.20 FROM BUDGETARY FUND TO NO YES
CITY TREASURER /COLLECTOR DEPARTMENT
SHORT TERM INTEREST ACCOUNT TO PAY
INTEREST ON BOND NOTES
8/9/2007 C-0237-07 TRANSFER $10,000 FROM MAYOR'S RESERVE ACCT. NO YES
TO PERSONNEL DEPT. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
BUDGET HEARINGS
6/29/2007 C-0218-07 REDUCE CELEBRATIONS ACCT. $1,760 YES NO
REDUCE SALARIES ASSESSORS OFFICE YES NO
01-141-10-141-5111 = $50,000
REDUCE SALARIES SOLICITORS OFFICE YES NO
01-151-10-151-5111 = $67,371
REDUCE LITIGATION ACCT. SOLICITORS OFFICE
01-151-11-151-5302 = $30,000 YES NO
REDUCE PROFESSIONAL DEV. SOLICITORS OFFICE
01-151-11-151-5710 = $1,500 YES NO
REDUCE CLAIMS ACCT. SOLICITORS OFFICE YES NO
01-151-11-151-5760 = $2,000
REDUCE SALARIES BUILDING INSPECTOR
01-241-10-241-5111 = $33,811 YES NO
REDUCE E-911 OVERTIME ACCT. NO YES
01-299-10-299-5130 = $10,000
REDUCE SALARIES E-911 ACCT. YES NO
01-299-10-299-5130 $10,000
REDUCE COMPUTER MAINT. ACCT. E-911 YES NO
01-299-11-299-5244 = $1,500
REDUCE CITY SERVICES REPAIR & MAINT. ACCT. YES NO
FOR FIRE ALARMS
01-490-11-450-5242 = $5,000
REDUCE CITY SERVICES HYDRANT ACCT. YES NO
01-490-11-450-5533 = $5,000
REDUCE CITY SERVICES TREES, SOD, SEED ACCT. YES NO
01-490-11-650-5439 = $2,000
REDUCE CITY SERVICES STREET SWEEPING EQUIP. YES NO
& SUPPLIES 01-490-17-490-5436 = $5,000
REDUCE CITY SERVICES EQUIP. HIRE ACCT.
01-490-18-490-5280 = $40,000 YES NO
REDUCE CODE ENF. SALARIES ACCT.
01-525-11-525-5240 = $10,000 YES NO
REDUCE CODE ENF. FIELD EQUIPMENT ACCT.
01-525-11-525-5434 = $1,500 YES NO
REDUCE REC. DEPT. PROGRAM EXPENSES ACCT.
01-630-11-630-5352 = $1,000 YES NO
REDUCE WATER MWRA ACCT. YES NO
01-821-11-821-5694 = $650,000
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
CARLO DIMARIA
