generation welfare in buffalo was swapped out for generation employment in town government. hypocrites are the names who will run for office when downsizing fails. hypocrite is a leader of a town owning slum property. hypocrite is a wannabe politicain telling town how their government should be. gaughan used his money to pay himself to run for mayor of a city he didn't live in. are we talking about hypocrites. or are you just blindly following a leader? i heard that's typical of some in west seneca.
Is it possible either of these two potential candidates want to run for "whatever" seat is available and will still continue to work to bring the vote to downsize to the voters?! E'gads your thick-headed!
You have the Gaughan story mis-represented, but don't let the truth and accuracy get in your way.
It is possible, and that is basically what they each said in the WS Bee article, but the real question is what people believe is more probable.
“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ― Thomas Jefferson
I know, personally, that both of these men have the highest degree of integrity and will not only represent this community and its resident's concerns and wishes, but will work together on the Town Board to bring unity and efficiency to it- more than has been done with any number of representatives!
It's my hope that we can educate the electorate to just that!
“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ― Thomas Jefferson
There should not be unity on a legislative body, otherwise there would be no need for for that body and we can just vote in a single person. What we need are representatives from a broad and diverse segments of our community that can publicly debate and reach consensus through compromise based on what their independent judgment dictates is in the best interest of their constituents. This process is meant to be messy and sometimes not nice, but it is this process that our forefathers intended to guide our officials in establishing our public policy.
“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ― Thomas Jefferson
“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ― Thomas Jefferson
Folks, this is code for Wallace Piotrowski (aka Pigeon/Walsh and crew) want to take over the control of the town of WS one way or another with ol style heavy hand politics. First they claim to want 'efficiency' of government by downsizing, but if that doesn't work, try to defeat the two incumbents with talking heads. Either way it would be a win win for Pigeon, I mean WP with 2-1 or 4-1 majorities. Hopefully the 'education' of the electorate will be seen for what it is(a power grab), the referendum will not be approved, and the incumbents reelected.
As much as I respect and agree with most of your postings, DT, this has got to be the lamest you've posted! What do you mean there should be no unity? Don't confuse unity with some sort of lock-step, blindly agreeing in unison- no, unity as in ability to work together in some manner of harmony and politeness. Four or five members can disagree, but they ought to be able to do so in fair debate and negotiation. What we have is a free-for-all, dis-jointed, vindictive, rude, mean-spirited group of adults acting out more like undisciplined children!
Our forefathers also believed in lynchings, public hangings, martial law, and a host of public behaviors unacceptable in todays society. I'm surprised by the nature of our current board we don't enact those today!
Sorry, DT- I just think you've got this all wrong!
“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ― Thomas Jefferson
And I yours, however I still believe your choice in using this word was poor since this is not literature or art your definition of unity as used in this context does not appear in Websters: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unity
u⋅ni⋅ty
/ˈyunɪti/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [yoo-ni-tee] Show IPA
–noun, plural -ties.
1. the state of being one; oneness.
2. a whole or totality as combining all its parts into one.
3. the state or fact of being united or combined into one, as of the parts of a whole; unification.
4. absence of diversity; unvaried or uniform character.
5. oneness of mind, feeling, etc., as among a number of persons; concord, harmony, or agreement.
6. Mathematics.
a. the number one; a quantity regarded as one.
b. identity (def. 9).
7. (in literature and art) a relation of all the parts or elements of a work constituting a harmonious whole and producing a single general effect.
8. one of the three principles of dramatic structure (the three unities) derived from Aristotelian aesthetics and formalized in the neoclassic canon in which a play is required to represent action as taking place in one day (unity of time), as occurring within one place (unity of place), and as having a single plot with a beginning, middle, and end (unity of action).
Origin:
1250–1300; ME unite < OF < L ūnitās, equiv. to ūn(us) one + -itās -ity
Synonyms:
1. singleness, singularity, individuality. See union. 5. concert, unison.
Antonyms:
1. diversity, variety.
Last edited by dtwarren; April 5th, 2009 at 08:00 PM.
“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ― Thomas Jefferson
lets just say they're all related. all have government jobs. suburban style welfare. fair enough?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)