Good for Dave! It's about time that somebody steps forward to challenge this criminal. Next: Betty Shultz.
The next question: who will replace these two?
posted by limedrops911 at 11:25 P.M. EST on Thu Dec 08, 2005 #
My feeling? GOOOOO DAVE!!!
I'll second that! Or third it, I guess, since limedrops also agrees. :-)
posted by valbee at 11:28 P.M. EST on Thu Dec 08, 2005 #
I'd love for Dave to be one of them but as he's pointed out, that won't happen. All I can hope for is they don't decide to pick KMH as one of them.
I think the fact that Dave is continuing to keep focus on this speaks to what kind of a person he is.
Hopefully he will run again and next time? Toledo voters will see they should have picked him this last time.
:-)
posted by psyche777 at 12:34 A.M. EST on Fri Dec 09, 2005 #
I was wondering, seeing I've lost my scorecard. Is Bob McCloskey part of the Carty/Kest gang or the Ketsupcabbage/Ford/Szollozi Gang?
(Ray, aintcha glad you're missing this?)
posted by BrianInFlorida at 04:08 A.M. EST on Fri Dec 09, 2005 #
The "official" dem group endorsed McCloskey so I guess he's part of the "Carty" bunch.
posted by psyche777 at 08:23 A.M. EST on Fri Dec 09, 2005 #
Is Bob McCloskey part of the Carty/Kest gang or the Ketsupcabbage/Ford/Szollozi Gang?
Ketsupcabbage? I guess it's been a hot and stormy summer in Florida, eh pal? You need a cool down for sure. Come back here for a day or two to get your brain refreshed once again.
McCloskey and the perennial, hat 'n cigar- toting loser, Shankland, were part of the great Carty Team.
Why not? They all fit together nicely.
posted by limedrops911 at 09:36 A.M. EST on Fri Dec 09, 2005 #
Now that's irony...but I'm sure Brian will address that....
Granted I didn't feel Carty should attach himself to McCloskey given the ethics concerns however Jack Ford and the "unofficial" dem group endorsed KMH.
Neither one should be holding a claim of having high ethics values demanded from those they are endorsed with.
Same with the Republicans who seem to have no problem with it. Dave was the only one I saw or read that had an issue with the McCloskey situation.
posted by psyche777 at 09:46 A.M. EST on Fri Dec 09, 2005 #
psyche - I had a problem with the McCloskey at-large issue, but my problem wasn't with McCloskey - it was with Barb Herring, the law director who issued the opinion!
McCloskey obviously had a significant number of supporters who wanted him to continue on council. That he went to the trouble of asking for a legal opinion is to be commended. That the legal opinion said he could do something that many of us thought was counter to what was intended is really not his fault.
And his vote results indicate that a significant number of Toledoans are okay with the opinion as well.
One thing I've learned over the years is that, if in doubt about an issue, consult with an attorney. In the end, if you've followed your attorney's advice, you're usually given a pass on the issue even if the advice was wrong. (obviously this doesn't apply to things you should know are illegal like murder, theft, etc...)
This works the same way with your taxes...if you followed your accountant's advice, while it doesn't forgive any actual taxes you should have paid, you usually don't have to pay any fines or penalties.
In the end, regardless of our positions on the issue, McCloskey based his run on appropriate legal advice from an individual charged with providing such advice.
So instead of going after McCloskey, I'd go after Herring - but I don't know if that's legally viable.
posted by intrepid at 02:33 P.M. EST on Fri Dec 09, 2005 #
Limedrops - You are calling Bob McCloskey criminal? Did I miss the indictment, trial and verdict? I'd be mindful of my terminology. A person could construe that as slander/libel.
Intrepid - Intelligent post. Thank you.
Psyche - in your own post Dave was the only one I saw or read that had an issue with the McCloskey situation. Over 300,000 people in Toledo/Lucas County and he is the ONLY one to voice an objection? Curious.
The voters made their choice. It's over. Dave Schulz's complaint prior to the election was thrown out in Columbus. He may have some valid concerns, but his constant whining and sniping is not a good thing if he anticipates ever running for office again.
Just my opinion - and I know it's not going to be taken well.
posted by DoknowDocare at 03:02 P.M. EST on Fri Dec 09, 2005 #
I thought my context was clear do, it was meant to be he was the only one running for City Council who made that an issue.
That's also stated in the press release.
I don't see it as "whining or sniping", he's trying to follow thru legally with options available to him or anyone for that matter. To me if you really feel strongly that something is wrong you don't just give up when you lose one round. You go thru the whole process if it is important.
Intrepid that is an interesting point, that could very well end up being an issue as a part of this Court filing.
:-)
posted by psyche777 at 03:59 P.M. EST on Fri Dec 09, 2005 #
Agreed, Psyche...it's McCloskey's only defense that I see at this point...should make for an interesting court case.
posted by intrepid at 04:51 P.M. EST on Fri Dec 09, 2005 #
limedrops, thanks for the advice, but I pay well for the consultants in my life and I've done really really really really really really good so far, but appreciate your concern.
As far as "comming back to Toledo", how do you know I'm not in town now? It's only an 18 hour drive, but shame with all the snow, I'd rather wallow in the 60's in Florida. (it got to 80 today) :}
Barb Herring, as I have stated in another post, has a tendency to "manipulate" the wording of phrases in the City Charter to suit her needs. If I can find the time, I'll do some research and talk to some friends.
Nonetheless, Bob knows what he is doing. The billboard fiasco, the "re-elect" on his campaign signs, come on, does he seriously think he's smarter than Toledo? Watching him fumb~bum~bumle his excuses, I think he knows he's busted. Besides, I highly doubt Dave Terry and Mark wouldn't put their necks out there unless the suit could hold water.
And I am anxiously awaiting a comment from a certain councilperson whom seeks accountability from his peers.
posted by BrianInFlorida at 05:40 P.M. EST on Fri Dec 09, 2005 #
Dave was on Bob Frantz's show, Bob addressed the whole appearance of "sour grapes". It was made pretty clear that there was very little chance of any Dave would be the one to "profit" from this.
The issue of Bob only going on the Law Directors statement was briefly discussed. While I'm sure that will be used as a defense, if a decision made ends up being in error that should not automatically create a free pass situation.
It's also interesting to note it doesn't seem to be clear exactly what would happen as far as replacing either Bob McCloskey or Betty, would the next two high vote getters just move up? Appointments? A special election for those two seats? Depending on the results of the case that will have to be addressed too.
posted by psyche777 at 07:09 P.M. EST on Fri Dec 09, 2005 #
I heard Dave on Frantz this evening and believe Dave has quite a good case as well as two top-notch lawyers.
Seems to me that the question of who replaces him and Betty would be #7 and #8. Of course, politics the way it is, there would be lots of meetings and other nonsense and possibly another costly special election.
By the way, Frantz called himself an 'independent.' That was the best laugh I had all day.
posted by limedrops911 at 10:00 P.M. EST on Fri Dec 09, 2005 #
I also heard Dave on Bob Frantz's show Friday evening. And I heard psyche777 call-in to the show.
I voted for the same three Council candidates in Sep and Nov. Dave was one of them, and this recent action by him makes me feel good about voting for him.
On Bob's show, Dave said other Republicans and Democrats are encouraging him to follow through with the lawsuit. Dave isn't the only one wanting this. Dave said this would also affect Betty Shultz.
If Betty and Bob both get the big boot, Dave said two possibilities are:
1. The 7th and 8th place finishers in the Nov election would wind up on Council.
2. A special election would be held for the two open council-at-large seats.
Results from the Nov election:
Phil Copeland ... 38,044 ... 11%
Bob McCloskey ... 36,421 ... 10%
Mark Sobczak ... 34,895 ... 10%
George Sarantou ... 32,961 ... 9%
Betty Shultz ... 32,044 ... 9%
Frank Szollosi ... 30,253 ... 9%
------------
Bob Vasquez ...28,014 8%
Karen Shanahan ... 26,742 ... 7%
Karyn Hancock ... 24,209 ... 7%
Dave Schulz ... 20,181 ... 6%
Terry Shankland ... 17,804 ... 5%
Ernie Berry ... 12,942 ... 3%
Amanda Scott-Rice ... 282 ... 0%
Dave finished 10th, so he gains nothing if the 7th and 8th place finishers simply take the Council seats. He may get a few more votes if a special election is held.
Here's an early October Toledo Talk posting about a Blade op-ed titled "McCloskey's end run."
From the op-ed:
"Where are the Republican lawyers in town? Where is the distress over Mr. McCloskey's transparent ploy? Term limits were imposed by the voters for a reason, and nowhere in the fine print did it say, "except for you, Mr. McCloskey."
The distress and the lawsuit are here now thanks to Dave Schulz. Finally, someone stands up and takes action against city government for violating or circumventing the city charter.
This fall, we saw other blatant examples of city charter violations. Why is any of this allowed?
City Council passed Toledo's strict smoking by a 11-0 vote in the summer of 2003. People wondered why the strict ban didn't make it to the ballot, so the citizens could decide. Toledo said the city charter prevented Council from putting the strict ban on the ballot. How convenient.
Selective enforcement of the city charter, this has to end some time. Way to go Dave.
posted by jr at 10:13 P.M. EST on Fri Dec 09, 2005 #
DoknowDocare said:
"Dave Schulz's complaint prior to the election was thrown out in Columbus. He may have some valid concerns, but his constant whining and sniping is not a good thing if he anticipates ever running for office again."
The public whines and complains when politicians get away with things they shouldn't. The public whines and complains when no one stands up to these politicians. Now someone wants to take the violaters head-on, and he's called the whiner and complainer.
posted by jr at 10:21 P.M. EST on Fri Dec 09, 2005 #
Thanks Jr, and yeppers that was me. Though I was not expecting the response I got from Bob, I was flattered. I think my new tag line is going to be "One of Toledo's most prolific bloggers" :-)
According to those present here at the homestead, I did a good job.
I wrote about it on my blog but I'm not really into the whole "me" thing here. My main point in calling was to state on the record that I supported Dave, especially since I am not either a party. I really admire what he is trying to do and I feel very strongly that we need people who do care about ethics.
:-)
posted by psyche777 at 02:24 A.M. EST on Sat Dec 10, 2005 #
limedrops...Bob is not a republican, neither am I. That is one aspect that Bob and I do share. I do believe he leans alot more conservative than I do on some issues, but as he pointed out to me and I have to agree with, on many issues we do agree.
posted by psyche777 at 02:26 A.M. EST on Sat Dec 10, 2005 #
The public whines and complains when politicians get away with things they shouldn't. The public whines and complains when no one stands up to these politicians.
Or, in the case of national politics, the so-called 'whiners' are called anti-American, communist, un-patriotic leftists.
It worked very well with the Bushists, so perhaps McCloskey could start a counter-campaign against Schulz and call him a un-American, pinko agitator.
posted by limedrops911 at 09:00 A.M. EST on Sat Dec 10, 2005 #
Thanks guys for the support of my efforts. I will keep you all posted on the progress of the lawsuit.
I am working on converting my campaign site over to COBRA so pardon the construction. I just added on the COBRA Files section, the complaint that was filed yesterday for your information.
The Blade ran a nice story today.
Have a good weekend!
Dave
posted by daveschulz at 10:01 A.M. EST on Sat Dec 10, 2005 #
That would be slander without proof, but I had assumed you were smarter than that. I am soooooo glad to see you proved me wrong.
I am curious,limedrops, where out of thin air did you pull the "in the case of national politics" scenerio? Oh how the Freedom of Speech gets massacred by the conservative left field.
The people that are complaining are the one's that didn't vote for the corruption in City Hall. Several small voices converge into one large voice. It's that one large voice Dave heard.
posted by BrianInFlorida at 10:02 A.M. EST on Sat Dec 10, 2005 #
...where out of thin air did you pull the "in the case of national politics" scenerio? Oh how the Freedom of Speech gets massacred by the conservative left field.
There are none so blind as those who do not see.
posted by limedrops911 at 10:32 A.M. EST on Sat Dec 10, 2005 #
Lime? I can see further than you can ever fathom. The difference is I ascertain each situation and episode unbiasedly and without manipulation. Politiking outside the box dilutes your emphasis and provides great fodder for amusement. Facts are facts, and you can't hide from the fact that Bush still wallows in the 39% favorable rating "nationwide". Think you can save him, Mr National Politics?
Maybe you should pay closer attention to my compositions.
posted by BrianInFlorida at 12:39 P.M. EST on Sat Dec 10, 2005 #
It does no good to argue with Limedrops, Sil, or Coward. They only see the world in terms of black and white, good and evil, Republican and Democrat. Those boys (or girls) have never seen a shade of gray.
posted by MemyselfandI at 12:48 P.M. EST on Sat Dec 10, 2005 #
Lime? I can see further than you can ever fathom.
Oh, I am sure of that. You are without doubt one of the most astute posters in the whole world. And if that were not enough, your ego encapsulates the entire earth.
Good laugh, eh?
and now back to the subject at hand---
Dave- isn't it interesting that not a single present council member nor any council person-elect have bothered to open their mouths about either the 4-term issue nor the Noe pipeline [Shultz] nor the Pilkington $100,000 bribe [McCloskey]? How sad it is that these elected officials have isolated themselves in their ivory towers and remail uninterested in we common peasants.
posted by limedrops911 at 10:13 P.M. EST on Sat Dec 10, 2005 #
Yes, the Saturday Blade article was nice. It's in the Dec 10 paper. Yet, I read psyche777's posting here late Thursday night on Dec 8. Way to go, psyche777.
From the Blade article:
"The complaint also could be expanded to include Republican at-large Councilman Betty Shultz, who was elected to her fourth consecutive four-year term on council Nov. 8. "I think Betty will be brought into this. If the decision goes in our favor, it will be applied to her," Mr. Schulz said."
"The city charter bars a councilman from serving more than three consecutive four-year terms. But city Law Director Barbara Herring has written that if a term ends before the four years is up, it doesn't count as having been served."
No wonder so many normal people think those in government are scoundrels. Doesn't count. What a bunch of horseshit. The person was elected for a specific position and is expected to serve the full term of said position. If that elected official chooses to run for a different office in mid-term, then all of the years served prior have to count. How can they not count?
Can the taxpayers demand that Bob and Betty pay back whatever salary they got from city for the years they served that didn't count? If they didn't count, they shouldn't have gotten paid.
The bums in government make up the rules as they go to benefit themselves. That's why what Dave is doing is so important.
posted by jr at 10:37 P.M. EST on Sat Dec 10, 2005 #
JR and Limedrops,
Thanks for the kudos.
JR, you can see that the Blade is drawing starker distinctions now. Re: Herring's opinion about incomplete terms not counting and noting that Betty and Bob have been elected to their fourth consecutive four year term.
I agree with your assessment of Herring's opinion. BS BS BS.
Rock on brothers and sisters.
Suggestion: Let's send some letters to the Blade about this issue. Keep it going and point out Herring's BS.
Dave
posted by daveschulz at 11:37 P.M. EST on Sat Dec 10, 2005 #
Limedrops,
Good point on noone speaking up. I understand it is hard to do that to colleagues but I had a few councilman, including one at-large, tell me what he was doing was wrong. Then since it involved a Democrat and a Republican it made it difficult for them to muster the will to speak out. It was frustrating. I do have to credit Rob Ludeman and Louis Escobar for speaking in favor of my position publicly. Obviously, Louis had nothing to lose and doesn't get along with Bob anyway. I share your frustration.
Dave
posted by daveschulz at 11:45 P.M. EST on Sat Dec 10, 2005 #
jr,
I knew that my opinion would not be a 'favorite' among the posters on this topic. However, it is my opinion.
After having spent the last few years working closely with ALL the members of council it is my opinion (mine only) that there are a couple others that have participated in more egregious behavior than Bob McCloskey or Betty Shultz.
These matters do not get discussed by The Blade or other local media as the Blocks (particularly John R) have a metaphorical axe to grind for some strange reason.
I do not begrudge Mr. Schulz the right to his opinions as to what is right and wrong with our city. He is entitled to that, without doubt. And people speaking up is not the issue. Sometimes it's about HOW we speak up. I doubt that Mr. Schulz has ever asked to sit down with either McCloskey or Shultz to try and separate the facts. I doubt that would even be a possibility at this point.
I DO get irritated with those that don't bother to get involved in what goes on in the city, but prefer to play 'armchair quarterback' relying solely on media input. My recommendation is that these people (all of us) get involved in your communities, get to know your councilperson with a open mind, and then decide what, if any, issues you have with what is or is not being done. To be well informed will afford some level of balance in the overall picture.
My basic question(s) in regard to Mr. Schulz's quest are (1) if you are successful in your quest, what do you think will happen with the other 11 members of council? (2) and if you chose to run for another open seat and won, how well do you think the other council members are going to trust you? (Keeping in mind that politics is a business that from the front of the line appears to understand and accept, but from the back of the line can hold much different views)
I am concerned that since we already have a city that is attempting a 'recovery', both economic and political, that this whole mess will wind up having a negative impact in the long term. A short term victory does not guarantee long term success.
posted by DoknowDocare at 10:30 A.M. EST on Sun Dec 11, 2005 #
Doknow,
You raise some interesting points. I would say that the majority on Council as of this summer when I was running, were decidedly against McCloskey's manuever. I spoke to quite a few of them. The way in which he ran his campaign by posting signs indicating that he was that district's councilman was unsettling to his fellow district council colleagues. In fact, Bob told me one person asked that one of his signs be removed from that member's district. So, Bob was undermining his fellow council colleagues. What does that say about working with the other 11 members of council?
Bob and I had a dialogue on term limits during the campaign at forums and in the media. There wasn't much use to sit down with him and understand his situation. That is what campaigns are for. I had the audacity to ask council to clarify term limits and I got personal attacks to the effect that I "had no business even thinking about running for office" though I am an elected offical of the GOP State Central Committee.
I am not sure what my political future holds in terms of council, but the heat of the campaign and governing are two different things. If I had been running for re-election and had these issues to confront, they obviously would have been handled more tactfully perhaps but I hope I would have stood on the side of the people regardless. This is my nature. I feel you need some elected officials to provide a check and balance on entrenched power. Gene Zmuda had a knack for that when he was on Council. He was not shy to be the lone no vote or hold a press conference to express his displeasure at an official action. That won him a ton of respect and made him a perrenial top vote getter.
Let's bring out the more egregious behavior you refer to. That would be of interest to this group.
Look forward to the continued discussion.
Dave
posted by daveschulz at 10:52 A.M. EST on Sun Dec 11, 2005 #
I am NOT much on politics...yet, I could NOT believe McCloskey was re-elected!!!
It's NOT the question of ethics with the zoning of said business...it's the FACT the man has NOT done a good job at all as our Concil Person on the EastSide...
There was a time he was good...not anylonger, obviousley he's made himself too comfortable...and...that happens, when that does happen...it's time for US the PEOPLE to make a CHANGE...
My feelings...Bob was VOTED in...he's our Concil Person...Lesson Learned...OUT WITH THE OLD IN WITH NEW...that's why there's ELECTIONS...
Dave, I hope you give it a try next election!!!
posted by MARIELORA at 11:12 A.M. EST on Sun Dec 11, 2005 #
Do, I appreciate your point of view and it is a valid one as to the lack of involvement. However if there is more egregious behavior than Bob McCloskey on City Council then it should be talked about. I realize there were some issues with Karyn as well not just the whole parking snafu but that seems to be a moot point to discuss since she was not re-elected.
I fully admit nor have I ever hid the fact that I am biased in support of Dave. Same with Frank, I'm open about it. I think that is only fair in a public forum so that while I try not let my personal bias come into the majority of these discussions? I try to be honest about it. I was not an anti-Bob McCloskey person until the whole lawsuit situation, granted the court has not decided on that but I think it's bad business to try to force contributions for a vote. I think there should have been some type of action within the City when these claims were first made. I thought using re-election signs when he was not being re-elected was tacky. I could not believe the voters of Toledo selected him again. I would have loved to see Dave win, however, there were other incumbent City Council persons I would have not voted for.
That's why I believe what Dave is doing is important. It's obvious if you are current council person expecting you to speak up against other council members isn't going to happen. Unless of course they are the "other" party or the "other" faction of the Dems. I disagree with that. I think it is up to those who are elected to demonstrate they care about the ethics of their own party first then worry about the "other guy". (Yes I know that is almost bordering on fantasy but that's how I believe it should be)
But, alot of us are Monday morning quarterbackers, I admit at times I am. I think that's part of human nature. I share your wish that more people would get involved. I'd love more of them to vote. We just got an update on the house we wanted, so hopefully by the next time an election rolls around? I'll be an official Toledo voter than rather than having to sit on the sidelines and hope for the best.
Thanks Jr, that's one advantage of the net, it's easy to get information out faster than the Blade sometimes.
:-)
posted by psyche777 at 07:23 P.M. EST on Sun Dec 11, 2005 #
Mr. Shulz,
In regard to There wasn't much use to sit down with him and understand his situation. I believe the term I used was separate the facts. There were, and still are, many facets to this whole ordeal that have not played out. You state that that was the purpose of forums and the media were enough for you to make your decisions. My personal belief is that if you want to fully understand the full scope of a given situation then you sit down with that person and have a meaningful and respectful exchange. You, in my opinion, chose to try your case in the media. This makes me wary of your ultimate intent. Just how I feel about the tactic being used. But now that this machine is in motion you could not, even if you wanted to, sit down and have a conversation with either one of the people that have gotten under your skin - for any reason. I'm sure your attorneys would advise against it.
One point we agree on is the integrity of Gene Zmnuda. He is a fine man.
As for other 'offenders' that could suffer repercussions? You won't get names from me. If you want them, dig them out. I WILL tell you that we have council members who have made statements that "those people don't matter, they aren't smart enough to vote" and "maybe we should let the __________ neighborhood go to hell, then those people wouldn't be able to complain" and it goes on and on. These people got elected, let it go to their heads, and have intended to do NOTHING except collect a pay check for their term. I have absolutely no respect for these people, I have told them to their faces that I don't respect them, and they know - without hesitation - that when it's their turn to run for re-election I will be on the opposite of the highway willing to advocate and support almost anyone but them.
Mr. Shulz, you are entitled to whatever means are available to you in your quest. I would never say you aren't. I will hold on to my concern over your motives though. I'm not sure they are quite as righteous as they might appear on the surface. If, in the end, I am proven wrong I will submit an apology.
Time will tell us all what the outcome will be. Until then I am remaining watchful of any new facts regarding either side of the dispute.
posted by DoknowDocare at 09:46 P.M. EST on Sun Dec 11, 2005 #
Psyche,
Thanks to us being Americans, we are permitted to support whichever candidates we choose. I do not, in any way, think that people should be 'brow beaten' to vote a certain way.
Just because I don't share your preferences does not mean that either one of us is wrong.
Karyn McConnell-Hancock engineered her own demise with her parking ticket event. She's not even on the radar for discussion in my mind.
I like to think that I base my choices for elected officials (at all levels) on being a reasonably informed individual. I'm sure you feel the same way.
There is a whole new horizon up ahead for Toledo. It's promising if WE, as citizens, do our part. To sit around and grouse about old news is counter productive.
During my visits to Columbus I pick up tidbits of information regarding Toledo and what's in store. I, for one, am looking forward to all the 'news' that will filter out in the coming months.
As a resident of Toledo it makes me feel good that you and your family have chosen to move INTO Toledo as opposed to the outlying areas. It will be refreshing to know that there is at least one more interested party that will bother to vote.
And, for the record, most great accomplishments in this world start with a fantasy. :)
posted by DoknowDocare at 09:56 P.M. EST on Sun Dec 11, 2005 #
And what are the motives of politicians who knowingly violate the city charter? What other facts are there other than the fact that Bob and Betty will serve more than 12 years on Council?
posted by jr at 10:26 P.M. EST on Sun Dec 11, 2005 #
Do, I agree we don't have to agree, we come into most discussions with our own experiences, both personal and what we can garner from the media and others.
I don't agree with you on Dave but? I do agree we all have our own preferences.
I do hope though if my fantasy level ever reaches the level of Bill White at Overthrow that you immediately get me psychological help though.
:-)
posted by psyche777 at 11:59 P.M. EST on Sun Dec 11, 2005 #
Psyche, Bill White doesn't have fantasies. He is clinically delusional seasoned with just the right amount of paranoia.
And we can agree to disagree on things. That is what makes life interesting. If we all thought alike ours would be a BORING world.
The key is to accept that we ALL have opinions and that they may or may not be alike. That's just life.
posted by DoknowDocare at 02:28 P.M. EST on Mon Dec 12, 2005 #
We also have different senses of humor and it's obvious my comment didn't have the same humor appeal to you it did to me.
But? That is life too.
:-)
posted by psyche777 at 03:45 P.M. EST on Mon Dec 12, 2005 #
JR,
Your post about the motives of the term limits violators was SPOT ON. I like how you think.
Dave
posted by daveschulz at 05:42 P.M. EST on Mon Dec 12, 2005 #
As for other 'offenders' that could suffer repercussions? You won't get names from me. If you want them, dig them out. I WILL tell you that we have council members who have made statements that "those people don't matter, they aren't smart enough to vote" and "maybe we should let the __________ neighborhood go to hell, then those people wouldn't be able to complain" and it goes on and on.
posted by DoknowDocare at 09:46 P.M. EST on Sun Dec 11, 2005 #
So you would just let stupid people remain stupid and not name names? If this is true, you need to let the voters know who says things like this or not mention these comments at all.
posted by SherryET at 10:23 P.M. EST on Mon Dec 12, 2005 #
Stupid? I don't believe I ever said stupid. People are smart enough to research when they want to.
I think that folks that WANT to know will bother to find out. All it takes is involvement.
posted by DoknowDocare at 08:52 A.M. EST on Wed Dec 14, 2005 #
Syndicate ToledoTalk
