The Rudz Candidacy: Some Answers Please!

[Frank Lee Blunt]

Gosh wouldn't it be so simple if I were Mr. Solka. But I got a suggestion for you. Since you Mr. Sojka, why not just tell him to his face? Poor Mr. Sokja, I kinda feel sorry for him, but from what I hear around the county, he can take care of himself. Mark, my apologies to you sir. If you and Mr. Sojka are friends so be it. My concern is not about the past petty fighting within party's,it's about the present TOL board members and their voting history. Libhandwringing, take a deep breath,.............there is that better? Now try to vomit all that hate out and clear your mind of nasty thoughts. As far as I know Mr. Sojka is not a candidate for any elected office and the same is true of Marko. You can hate them all you want, it's fun reading. But their questions seem to be genuine and valid. Shooting the messenger doesn't change the message. The present slate of pretenders on the Rep ticket for highway and town board and judge are liars, spreading misleading information to the elderly voters and the general public in the TOL.
Your thoughts LIBLIE ?

[mark blazejewski]

Mark, my apologies to you sir. If you and Mr. Sojka are friends so be it.

No apologies necessary Blunt.

As far as I know Mr. Sojka is not a candidate for any elected office and the same is true of Marko.

Speaking for myself, spot on Blunt!

Your thoughts LIBLIE ?

Indeed.

I challenge the distinguished blowhard Libslayer to provide one specific quote in which I lied about Paul Rudz. That is all the edgy Libslayer personality has to do is provide the quote and cite the source of publication.

If Libslayer, or whatever he calls himself, produces such a sourced, genuine, untainted, pristine quote I will promptly address it.

As far as commenter Libslayer, anonymity does not provide immunity from, or privilege against libelous civil action; generally, only truth does that, just my opinion of course.

Reference: https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment...n-peter-zenger

Given the fact that Mr. Sojka is a well-respected, prominent Lancaster businessman, with I understand, a very good reputation, if Sojka is not you Blunt, a potential woe to Libslayer, eh?

BTW, this is the current status of Mr. Sojka's Speak Up account:

sojka.jpg

[Frank Lee Blunt]

Curses! Foiled again!!

[Libslayer]

Gosh wouldn't it be so simple if I were Mr. Solka. But I got a suggestion for you. Since you Mr. Sojka, why not just tell him to his face? Poor Mr. Sokja, I kinda feel sorry for him, but from what I hear around the county, he can take care of himself. Mark, my apologies to you sir. If you and Mr. Sojka are friends so be it. My concern is not about the past petty fighting within party's,it's about the present TOL board members and their voting history. Libhandwringing, take a deep breath,.............there is that better? Now try to vomit all that hate out and clear your mind of nasty thoughts. As far as I know Mr. Sojka is not a candidate for any elected office and the same is true of Marko. You can hate them all you want, it's fun reading. But their questions seem to be genuine and valid. Shooting the messenger doesn't change the message. The present slate of pretenders on the Rep ticket for highway and town board and judge are liars, spreading misleading information to the elderly voters and the general public in the TOL.
Your thoughts LIBLIE ?

I see you are upset by the truth. It is quite Laughable. You want to see Hate just go back and look at every post that you make there Greg. All Hate . The candidates are liars ? Seems to me you are the LIAR here.
You say Rutz and Marecki are R.I.N.O 'S both lifetime Republicans. The only liar I see is you Greg with every mailer.
You have sent out with nothing but hate and slander in them. Please tell what Misleading information that any of them are spreading. YOUR THOUGHTS ? You really cant stand the truth that was brought out about GOD HYPOCRIE GREG CAN YOU ?

[Frank Lee Blunt]

Libloser, I think you'd better take ,as you call him, Marko's advise. I understand Mr. Sojka has a Page on Facebook where you might reach him more directly.But as I just said, maybe you should be careful about you accusations. They may come back to haunt you. Try to get a good night's rest Libloser. Tomorrow will be another day for you to get all lathered up with real Hate. Gosh, you're fun

[mark blazejewski]

But their questions seem to be genuine and valid. Shooting the messenger doesn't change the message.

Just My Opinions:


Hey Blunt,

Your observations which require thoughtful, reasoned consideration, were presented to a seemingly very troubled actor. That actor may suffer from the effects of what IMHO, may be a peculiar combined malady, suggestive of both Coprophilia and Tourette's.

References:

https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-...ps/coprophilia

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-...ensive%20words.

In connection with Coprophilia:

Hey marky poo ...
See marko people like me view you as the poop stain of society. You are nothing but a liar on a blog trying to look important.its time you realize you are just that. Irrelevant.

People like him indeed.

Concerning Tourette's, for you to try and make sense of all of his comments, you will be required to fight your way through a contradictory literary pigmire.

On post #13, the commenter starts off with what may be described as a reasonable speculation...

If and when he knocks on your door you can ask him as many questions as you like...

...but in ending the very same sentence, Libslayer becomes perceptively abusive...

...there Marko...

(What's with the Marko crap?)

...then in reversal, appears to return to a polite, somewhat reasoned, perhaps even scripted tone and offer...

If you would like a meeting could be arranged with you and Paul. I am sure you would then view Rudz as an outstanding candidate just as Sojka and Banks did when they interviewed him.

...but then in further, perhaps involuntary reversal, appears to withdraw his previous, more gracious comments, and closes with words which serve to discredit the previous positive tone and productive offer...

He has better things to do then to answer liars like you and Greg on this blog.

At least two reversals present in the one singular post!

In my opinion, a far more positive script was written for an actor who may actually be incapable of exerting, perhaps for reasons stemming from the speculative malady(s) described above, any longstanding measure of self-control.

Moreover, this Libslayer poster exhibits the symptoms of both a liar and a bully.

Consider this comment resident on post #4...

Do you even live in the area anymore?

...which appears to make a legitimate request for information, but on post #9, the commenter once again seems to contradict itself...

I read the garbage you post here Greg and Mark and laugh at you every time I read it.

...because those words strongly suggests that the commenter is a faithful reader of this forum.

In that regard, if Libslayer is telling the truth on post #9, how can the exact same commenter not know that I have been, and continue to be, a life-long village resident, which was the queried subject on post #4?

Ergo, for what reason other than intimidation, did the commenter express interest regarding my residence?

Simply put, Libslayer is either a liar or a bully. Is it not reasonable to suggest that the reader may muse that given the substance of his further posts, Libslayer may very well be a combination of both?

That combined status may be further supported by this comment...

Hey marky poo ....Everything I have posted here is fact and true. You cant dispute that.

...because thematic to this thread, the commenter engaged only in name-calling, personal insults, contradictions, and bullying in the way of participation, but offered little, if anything, else...

Enjoy your Sunday fuming over facts there little man.

See marko people like me view you as the poop stain of society.

Mark you and Sojka are truly disgusting individuals who have no character at all.

To conclude, if the crude and contradictory Libslayer has the power to arrange a meeting between Trustee Rudz and myself as it suggests, is it not fair to conclude that Libslayer may speak authoritatively for Rudz?

In that regard, does not this comment by Libslayer suggest that perhaps Rudz specifically dispatched him to this forum to comment on his behalf?...

I came on here to set your lies straight.

If such is the case Libslayer simply did not, with any significant credible substance, answer one single question initially posted on this thread, especially this very important one:

(3) Why have both political parties endorsed Trustee Paul Rudz, whom I understand told the Lancaster Conservative Party Chair that he favors the dissolution of the Lancaster Town Police Department in favor of a contracted police force?

[Lee Chowaniec]

A different perspective

As a lifelong ‘blank’ with no standing (skin-in-the-game) in the primary, this year’s primary outcome can well impact whether I have a candidate to vote for in the November election – or why should I bother voting at all when my voice has been silenced. Transparency and fairness are at stake here. Rudz is not the only one that has a lot of explaining to do.

Blanks and independents watching the Republican Party zoom telecast of the candidate interviewing meeting agree with my opinion that Paul Rudz had the strongest presentation, not saying anything off the wall, a strong contender.

The same individuals became disillusioned and incensed with Rudz when hearing he accepted the Democratic endorsement – which he later told the Republican Party committee that he did not pursue but would have been a fool not to accept.

It then becomes public knowledge that Rudz did interview with the Conservative Party for their endorsement. He was most likely denied the endorsement when he advocated for the dissolution of the Lancaster’s police department and other avenues pursued.

A Democratic mailer comes out saying that the Democrat and Working Family parties are pleased to be supporting Rudz for council primary election.

Rudz is denied Conservative Party endorsement, gets it from the Republican / Democrat Parties and has the support of the Working Family Party. So, what are voters to think of Mr. Rudz’s values and political ideology? Does a diehard lifelong Republican / Conservative sell themselves out for personal gain over the best interests of his or her party or the community?

I wonder if Rudz would primary the Conservative line if he could. Not being a registered conservative he can’t – unlike Amatura and Wozniak, recent converts to make themselves eligible to primary on the Conservative line and made presentable to a biased Republican Party that did not even endorse two Republican incumbents,

Three lines aren’t enough to secure victory for some of these candidates. Let ‘s crush the Conservative Party and eliminate all competition. Primary their endorsed candidates, challenge the authenticity of their petitions (even legally) while Republican and Democrat Party operatives gather positions for candidates opposing the endorsed conservative candidates - and even for an interloper who has no interest of winning but to suck away votes' writing seniors and encouraging them to fill out absentee ballots writing in Rudz’s name on the ballot.

It is unfortunate that voters can’t listen in to political party candidate interviews and really hear the candidates views. I can’t belief some of the things coming out of the candidates mouths when interviewing before the Republican Party committee. Transparency, honesty, integrity? My ass!

Voters would find it interesting to see that Amatura beat out Pilato by only four votes for the endorsement. Another candidate received 6 votes and 11 committee members cast 'no endorsement' votes. Rudz was by far the biggest vote getter garnering 84% of the committee vote. More is better, but at what collateral damage?

Fairness in politics, an oxymoron!

This stuff should be posted on their bios and the grandiose mailers distributed in their name.

[mark blazejewski]

Blanks and independents watching the Republican Party zoom telecast of the candidate interviewing meeting agree with my opinion that Paul Rudz had the strongest presentation, not saying anything off the wall, a strong contender.

The same individuals became disillusioned and incensed with Rudz when hearing he accepted the Democratic endorsement – which he later told the Republican Party committee that he did not pursue but would have been a fool not to accept.

It then becomes public knowledge that Rudz did interview with the Conservative Party for their endorsement. He was most likely denied the endorsement when he advocated for the dissolution of the Lancaster’s police department and other avenues pursued.

Lee,

This political campaign aside, it is urgent that Rudz, in his capacity as a sitting legislator in a village whose residents rely everyday on the good works of the Lancaster Town Police Department, truthfully and fully, publicly explain or otherwise address, this purported comment, which I understand was made to the Lancaster Conservative Party Chair:

(3) Why have both political parties endorsed Trustee Paul Rudz, whom I understand told the Lancaster Conservative Party Chair that he favors the dissolution of the Lancaster Town Police Department in favor of a contracted police force?

If in fact both political major parties are truly open to the consideration of such a possibility, in my opinion it is beyond concerning; it is alarming, and is very worthy of rigorous public debate,

In that regard, my request is not a political one; it is a civic one.

[Libslayer]

[QUOTE=Frank Lee Blunt;1985614]Mark, there will no answers from Mr. Rudz. He does not speak for himself anymore. He is one of the walking dead in the Ralph Mohr parade of sorry soul starved clones. Paul Rudz has no real true civic duty in mind. He has become the same as his new cronies. Liars,each and everyone of them. He fits their mold perfectly.
Getting in bed with these guys and gals takes it's toll on one's ability to tell the difference between right and wrong.
Paul I told you you'd get your time in the limelight. Now's the time an honest man would answer the questions put forth by you Mark. But as I said, an honest man would do that. Honesty is NOT Paul Rudz's choice now. He will lie like the entire Ship of Fools does now. He has given away his soul. So the public will never hear from him. It's part of the standard operating procedure of TOL DEM/REB's.
Paul Rudz you and Greg White are one and the same. No difference between you and him and Theft of Service Amatura.
[/QUOT

The only liar here is you. Not one shred of proof to anything you say.

[Libslayer]

[QUOTE=Lee Chowaniec;1985913]A different perspective



It then becomes public knowledge that Rudz did interview with the Conservative Party for their endorsement. He was most likely denied the endorsement when he advocated for the dissolution of the Lancaster’s police department and other avenues pursued.

As to what I have gathered on this subject of the Police department the only thing Rutz told Sojka and Banks in their interview with them is that the village pays the town 1 million dollars a year for the Merger and he said that was excessive. 1 million for 30 years is 30 million. He never said anything about defunding the police department. Rudz was also was never asked any questions by the conservatives about the police department. So in essence yet another SOJKA LIE to discredit yet another candidate.
Maybe why he didn't get the conservative endorsement was the fact he told the conservative committee and I quote " If you are looking for an attack dog like Bob Leary I am not your guy" Maybe that didn't sit too well with Bobs wife doing the interview. Looks like Honesty didn't get him the endorsement.

When are any of you people going to realize what Sojka says you have to take with a grain of salt.

[mark blazejewski]

As to what I have gathered on this subject of the Police department...

This comment suggests your knowledge regarding the dissolution of the Lancaster Police Department may be limited.

As to what I have gathered on this subject of the Police department the only thing Rutz told Sojka and Banks in their interview with them is that the village pays the town 1 million dollars a year for the Merger and he said that was excessive. 1 million for 30 years is 30 million. He never said anything about defunding the police department.

The issue is not what Rudz may have told Sojka or Mr. Banks, but rather is an issue that requires focus on the full and complete substance of any possible conversation that Rudz had with the Lancaster Conservative Chair concerning the "dissolution" of the Lancaster Police Department. The separate issue of "defunding" the Lancaster Town Police Department has no relevance to this question:

(3) Why have both political parties endorsed Trustee Paul Rudz, whom I understand told the Lancaster Conservative Party Chair that he favors the dissolution of the Lancaster Town Police Department in favor of a contracted police force?

Rudz was also was never asked any questions by the conservatives about the police department.

Your responsive comment, though valued, simply says that the "conservatives" "never asked " any questions about the LTPD, but it fails to address any possible comments that Rudz may have voluntarily made to Lancaster Town Conservative Chair regarding the subject of the dissolution Lancaster Town Police Department.

*So in essence yet another SOJKA LIE to discredit yet another candidate..

The source of the information was not Sojka, but the Lancaster Town Conservative Chair.

[mark blazejewski]

Just my opinion, but this entire post represents a slickly worded comment which some may consider to be deceptive...

...It then becomes public knowledge that Rudz did interview with the Conservative Party for their endorsement. He was most likely denied the endorsement when he advocated for the dissolution of the Lancaster’s police department and other avenues pursued.

As to what I have gathered on this subject of the Police department the only thing Rutz told Sojka and Banks in their interview with them is that the village pays the town 1 million dollars a year for the Merger and he said that was excessive. 1 million for 30 years is 30 million. He never said anything about defunding the police department. Rudz was also was never asked any questions by the conservatives about the police department. So in essence yet another SOJKA LIE to discredit yet another candidate.
Maybe why he didn't get the conservative endorsement was the fact he told the conservative committee and I quote " If you are looking for an attack dog like Bob Leary I am not your guy" Maybe that didn't sit too well with Bobs wife doing the interview. Looks like Honesty didn't get him the endorsement.

When are any of you people going to realize what Sojka says you have to take with a grain of salt.

[Lee Chowaniec]

I welcome your post, libslayer. I always like hearing both sides of a story before opining.

First off, I assume you are a Republican like Rudz, loyal in friendship and defending his position. Admiral, but not so much when the individual you are supporting has taken a position not worth defending.

We all hear things from political party operatives. It is well known that Rudz has been advocating dissolving the Lancaster Police Department declaring the department has become too costly to the town. He has suggested Lancaster have the Sheriff’s Department take over the responsibility. This has nothing to do with Sojka spreading a falsehood.

The Conservative Party interviewing committee did not broach the subject, Rudz brought it up out of the blue. What disturbs me is that if Rudz sincerely believes this is a campaign agenda item worthy of pursuing, it should be included in his bio or featured in a campaign mailer / flyer.

Like Rudz, I believe the police department has become costly and have spoken out about cost-cutting measures through the years. However, I was always an advocate of Lancaster having its own police department and supported the town / village merger in 2003. The Lancaster Police response time is incredible, as is the service. It would not be anyway near what we now have should we become patrolled by the Sheriff’s Department.

As to the $1 million the Village is paying toward police services, Rudz is running for a town board position. If his interests lie in believing the Village is being unfairly treated, as a Village Trustee, has he ever made this known at a Village meeting?

[Libslayer]

The source of the information was not Sojka, but the Lancaster Town Conservative Chair.[/QUOTE]

So where is Debbie Lemaster to back up your claims ? Were you in the room during the interview process ? Sorry Marko anything you say isn't factual to me never was.

[mark blazejewski]

So where is Debbie Lemaster to back up your claims ? Were you in the room during the interview process ? Sorry Marko anything you say isn't factual to me never was.

I see your overlords left you unattended and you are now writing your own posts again.

I never wrote that the Lancaster Conservative Chair was my source of the information,...

(3) Why have both political parties endorsed Trustee Paul Rudz, whom I understand told the Lancaster Conservative Party Chair that he favors the dissolution of the Lancaster Town Police Department in favor of a contracted police force?

...I only wrote that the Chair was the source of the information...

The source of the information was not Sojka, but the Lancaster Town Conservative Chair.

Although I do not presume to speak for Lee Chowaniec, it would that appear that he seems to not only confirm one my suspicions attendant to your previous answer, but seemingly has the exact same information that I have previously presented...

We all hear things from political party operatives. It is well known that Rudz has been advocating dissolving the Lancaster Police Department declaring the department has become too costly to the town. He has suggested Lancaster have the Sheriff’s Department take over the responsibility.

The Conservative Party interviewing committee did not broach the subject, Rudz brought it up out of the blue.

...and even more information than I have presented...

He has suggested Lancaster have the Sheriff’s Department take over the responsibility.

Your deflecting tactics aside, Rudz, in addition to fourteen further questions, still needs to fully and completely address this query...

(3) Why have both political parties endorsed Trustee Paul Rudz, whom I understand told the Lancaster Conservative Party Chair that he favors the dissolution of the Lancaster Town Police Department in favor of a contracted police force?