| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat, Sep 11 2010, 7:11 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Rush Holt Signs in Cranbury |
 |
|
| Guest wrote: | Our TC candidates Hassekbach and Mulligan are baggers also - although they'll never address it saying they want to keep politics out of local elections. So we'll have Beck and Palin attending our TC meetings
Dems and moderates had better come up with an agreed-on write in candidate or God save us all |
Wow. This post is so inflammatory I don't know what to say. And the idea that Palin and Beck would be involved in local party is like saying the Dems are taking marching orders from Obama and MSNBC. I am sure MSNBC is behind the Old Trenton Rd project. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Sep 11 2010, 11:35 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Rush Holt Signs in Cranbury |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | Our TC candidates Hassekbach and Mulligan are baggers also - although they'll never address it saying they want to keep politics out of local elections. So we'll have Beck and Palin attending our TC meetings
Dems and moderates had better come up with an agreed-on write in candidate or God save us all |
I'm a moderate Dem but I care less about what the TC member's national politics are than I care what their positions are on local issues, unless they bring national politics into Township politics, which by your own post you are not saying they do. You raise the spector of Pallin and Beck, who I agree are not the most confidence inspiring people (to put it politely), but you are basically pulling a Palin or beck when you try and politicize everything by suggesting that your distaste for their national politics trumps how they fall on local issues.
I voted for Obama and would do so again, but I'll vote for Mulligan and I won't vote for Johnson. Because I can see that Mulligan is deeply concerned with local issues and will fight for us on COAH, where as Johnson is part of the same group as the outgoing TC members who is willing to bend over on the COAH fight whenever their state political machine asks them to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Sep 11 2010, 11:49 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Rush Holt Signs in Cranbury |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | Isn't Sipprelle a tea-bagger????
Yeah, he'll fix things alright!!!!!!!
Nutbag Glen Beck will give him his marching orders. |
Go spread your childish hatred somewhere else, we're trying to have an adult discussion here. |
Methinks thou doth protest too muche. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Sep 12 2010, 1:02 am EDT Post subject: Re: Rush Holt Signs in Cranbury |
|
|
Let me see, all of the republicans in town are teabaggers, all of the democrats are for increased COAH mandates. If you believe either of those statement, you are either a hopeless partisan trying to tar the other party or an idiot.
I know all 3 of the candidates. I wouldn't characterize the republicans as teabaggers and the democrat is not for increased COAH mandates. They are all decent guys. While I have definite preferences among them, I dont fell the need to smear any of them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Sep 12 2010, 7:15 am EDT Post subject: Re: Rush Holt Signs in Cranbury |
|
|
I will vote for the person who does the best to ensure me they know the issues and are concerned. I saw all three at Cranbury Day yesterday and spoke with all of them. I have yet though to hear a real position on anything- For land preservation, helping small businesses, against COAH...etc...it's all the same. I guess it's good because it means there is not a lot going on.
What I would like to see is the TC and BOE work more closely together. I think that was mentioned in last year's campaign and I have not seen it happen. Is the BOE attending TC meetings or the TC attending BOE? In some towns a non-voting representative from each sits at the table with the other members- BOE @ TC and a TC member at the BOE. Why doesn't Cranbury do this so all people are informed? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Sep 12 2010, 10:25 am EDT Post subject: Re: Rush Holt Signs in Cranbury |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | Let me see, all of the republicans in town are teabaggers, all of the democrats are for increased COAH mandates. If you believe either of those statement, you are either a hopeless partisan trying to tar the other party or an idiot.
I know all 3 of the candidates. I wouldn't characterize the republicans as teabaggers and the democrat is not for increased COAH mandates. They are all decent guys. While I have definite preferences among them, I dont fell the need to smear any of them. |
No, probably none of the current TC members or candidates are "for increased COAH." And of course most of the Democrats who live in the city are not, which is the point. However, the outgoing TC members, who happen to be Democrat, have demonstrated repeatedly with their words and actions that their loyalty to State politics trumps their representation of the Township on COAH or other issues where there is an unequivocal Township interest. And the current TC Democrat candidate, who runs the local party, has publically stated his agreement and support for those outgoing members and like them has publically aligned himself with Greenstein and DeAngelo.
As a whole the Democratic party machine in New Jersey is controlled by people who are for COAH as well as forced consolidation of smaller school districts and Townships. They have been responsible for repeated bills, always introduced by representatives from large urban districts like Camden, which is logical. What is not logical is that our representatives, like Linda Greenstein and Wayne DeAngelo, would support them when basically none of the townships or constituents in their districts benefit and most are directly hurt by such measures. And what is even less logical is that our TC members, regardless of national personal party affiliation, would tolerate and endorse it, as some of them have. The running excuse from people like Greenstein is that she “has to stay in the good graces of the Party to be useful to us in the future” but it is unacceptable that our local TC members would simply accept such a weak and easily refuted excuse and even repeat it as they frequently have. In order for such a statement to make sense, there has to be clear examples where it pays off, where Linda’s abstaining on the COAH bill or voting in favor of the school consolidation bill resulted in some other action that she brought about for the benefit of Cranbury. Yet when I ask the TC members who support her to list such examples none has even been able to. They try and cover with the vague notion that it “would be even worse” if she wasn’t working on our behalf within the party but they have never been able to give specific examples of results. And yet they continue to publically praise her on the record, continue to appear with her at public events, and continue to take a gentle, docile tone in dealing with our representatives. That is unacceptable.
This is exactly why, despite being a life-long Democrat who voted for Obama and Holt and would do so again, I have started voting Republican in State elections and have recently voted for Republicans in TC elections. I vote based on the issues not party affiliations. It’s hard to imagine that someone can always just happen to have every issue that affects them personally always come consistently down on one party or another, yet some people vote reflexively for the same party in every election on every issue. I would argue they are not taking their responsibility as a voter seriously. And, BTW, there is a difference between voting for something even if it is against your personal interests and voting against it just because the party says so. For example, I would benefit from Republicans in national office in terms of my taxes based on my income. But I don’t agree with their overall position on the issue despite my personal interests. Whereas on a State level the reasoning behind the Democrats support of COAH and consolidation is fundamentally corrupt.
Also, this is not purely a Democrat or Republican issue. Governor Christie is now pushing small town consolidation too. The differences, so far, are that he has not suggested he would consider Cranbury an example of a Township that needs consolidating (and no one can deny that some tiny townships make no economic sense) and the local Republicans on or running for TC have not demonstrated that they will simply toe the party line if he did come after us. If either of those things happen I wouldn’t support them either. I support the people and the policies that make sense, regardless of party. That’s what we’re supposed to do, not be blind sheep whose only value is to add to some war of attrition over who has more dumb voters in their camp… |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Sep 12 2010, 11:56 am EDT Post subject: Re: Rush Holt Signs in Cranbury |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | Isn't Sipprelle a tea-bagger????
Yeah, he'll fix things alright!!!!!!!
Nutbag Glen Beck will give him his marching orders. |
Go spread your childish hatred somewhere else, we're trying to have an adult discussion here. |
Hatred? I don't think so. I'm not the original poster - but Sipprelle is a member of the Tea Party. Watch Beck and Palin - you then see what Sipprelle would do. Facts are facts.
Now let's discuss what kind of America we want. I for one don't see much of a contest against a proven congressman like Holt |
A proven congressman who only votes party line, whose supporting the tax increases that will hurt about 860,000 small business owners, the guy who claims the health care reform has been the best thing. Yes, this is a guy I want representing me. |
Thank you President Obama and Congressman Holt
1. Adult children may remain as dependents on their parents’ policy until their 27th birthday.
2. Children under age 19 may not be excluded for pre-existing conditions.
3. No more lifetime or annual caps on coverage.
4. Free preventative care for all.
5. Adults with pre-existing conditions may buy into a national high-risk pool until the exchanges come online. While these will not be cheap, they’re still better than total exclusion and get some benefit from a wider pool of insureds.
6. Small businesses will be entitled to a tax credit for 2009 and 2010, which could be as much as 50% of what they pay for employees’ health insurance.
7. The “donut hole” closes for Medicare patients, making prescription medications more affordable for seniors.
8. Requirement that all insurers must post their balance sheets on the Internet and fully disclose administrative costs, executive compensation packages, and benefit payments.
9. Authorizes early funding of community health centers in all 50 states (Bernie Sanders’ amendment). Community health centers provide primary, dental and vision services to people in the community, based on a sliding scale for payment according to ability to pay.
10. No more rescissions. Effective immediately, you can't lose your insurance because you get sick. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Sep 12 2010, 12:25 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Rush Holt Signs in Cranbury |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | Let me see, all of the republicans in town are teabaggers, all of the democrats are for increased COAH mandates. If you believe either of those statement, you are either a hopeless partisan trying to tar the other party or an idiot.
I know all 3 of the candidates. I wouldn't characterize the republicans as teabaggers and the democrat is not for increased COAH mandates. They are all decent guys. While I have definite preferences among them, I dont fell the need to smear any of them. |
Since when is a smear to state facts. I hope you’ll ask Mulligan or Hasselbach whether they organize, speak for or support the Tea Party. All you have to do is Google their names and the result speaks for itself. I also don’t think they would say they are being smeared by being called a supporter or member of the Tea Party. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Sep 12 2010, 12:29 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Rush Holt Signs in Cranbury |
|
|
| Guest wrote: |
1. Adult children may remain as dependents on their parents’ policy until their 27th birthday.
2. Children under age 19 may not be excluded for pre-existing conditions.
3. No more lifetime or annual caps on coverage.
4. Free preventative care for all.
5. Adults with pre-existing conditions may buy into a national high-risk pool until the exchanges come online. While these will not be cheap, they’re still better than total exclusion and get some benefit from a wider pool of insureds.
6. Small businesses will be entitled to a tax credit for 2009 and 2010, which could be as much as 50% of what they pay for employees’ health insurance.
7. The “donut hole” closes for Medicare patients, making prescription medications more affordable for seniors.
8. Requirement that all insurers must post their balance sheets on the Internet and fully disclose administrative costs, executive compensation packages, and benefit payments.
9. Authorizes early funding of community health centers in all 50 states (Bernie Sanders’ amendment). Community health centers provide primary, dental and vision services to people in the community, based on a sliding scale for payment according to ability to pay.
10. No more rescissions. Effective immediately, you can't lose your insurance because you get sick. |
Health Care premiums increasing dramatically for me and my family as a result. Because the increases has to be covered somehow.
2014- We'll lose our private medical insurance with my company as it will be cheaper to pay the 2,000 fine and tell me to pay for my own care in the market with the exchanges.
Free Preventive care is not free- my premiums increase to cover the costs for preventive care which is now required and I do not need.
This is costing us money and putting me and my family at risk in 2014 as we will not be able to pay the premiums required to keep the same level of medical care. So yes thank you Mr. Holt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Sep 12 2010, 1:17 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Rush Holt Signs in Cranbury |
|
|
11 we have no way to pay for this.
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | Isn't Sipprelle a tea-bagger????
Yeah, he'll fix things alright!!!!!!!
Nutbag Glen Beck will give him his marching orders. |
Go spread your childish hatred somewhere else, we're trying to have an adult discussion here. |
Hatred? I don't think so. I'm not the original poster - but Sipprelle is a member of the Tea Party. Watch Beck and Palin - you then see what Sipprelle would do. Facts are facts.
Now let's discuss what kind of America we want. I for one don't see much of a contest against a proven congressman like Holt |
A proven congressman who only votes party line, whose supporting the tax increases that will hurt about 860,000 small business owners, the guy who claims the health care reform has been the best thing. Yes, this is a guy I want representing me. |
Thank you President Obama and Congressman Holt
1. Adult children may remain as dependents on their parents’ policy until their 27th birthday.
2. Children under age 19 may not be excluded for pre-existing conditions.
3. No more lifetime or annual caps on coverage.
4. Free preventative care for all.
5. Adults with pre-existing conditions may buy into a national high-risk pool until the exchanges come online. While these will not be cheap, they’re still better than total exclusion and get some benefit from a wider pool of insureds.
6. Small businesses will be entitled to a tax credit for 2009 and 2010, which could be as much as 50% of what they pay for employees’ health insurance.
7. The “donut hole” closes for Medicare patients, making prescription medications more affordable for seniors.
8. Requirement that all insurers must post their balance sheets on the Internet and fully disclose administrative costs, executive compensation packages, and benefit payments.
9. Authorizes early funding of community health centers in all 50 states (Bernie Sanders’ amendment). Community health centers provide primary, dental and vision services to people in the community, based on a sliding scale for payment according to ability to pay.
10. No more rescissions. Effective immediately, you can't lose your insurance because you get sick. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Sep 12 2010, 1:20 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Rush Holt Signs in Cranbury |
|
|
Your just bitter because you ran and lost a few years ago.
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | Let me see, all of the republicans in town are teabaggers, all of the democrats are for increased COAH mandates. If you believe either of those statement, you are either a hopeless partisan trying to tar the other party or an idiot.
I know all 3 of the candidates. I wouldn't characterize the republicans as teabaggers and the democrat is not for increased COAH mandates. They are all decent guys. While I have definite preferences among them, I dont fell the need to smear any of them. |
Since when is a smear to state facts. I hope you’ll ask Mulligan or Hasselbach whether they organize, speak for or support the Tea Party. All you have to do is Google their names and the result speaks for itself. I also don’t think they would say they are being smeared by being called a supporter or member of the Tea Party. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Sep 12 2010, 2:23 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Rush Holt Signs in Cranbury |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | Isn't Sipprelle a tea-bagger????
Yeah, he'll fix things alright!!!!!!!
Nutbag Glen Beck will give him his marching orders. |
Go spread your childish hatred somewhere else, we're trying to have an adult discussion here. |
Hatred? I don't think so. I'm not the original poster - but Sipprelle is a member of the Tea Party. Watch Beck and Palin - you then see what Sipprelle would do. Facts are facts.
Now let's discuss what kind of America we want. I for one don't see much of a contest against a proven congressman like Holt |
A proven congressman who only votes party line, whose supporting the tax increases that will hurt about 860,000 small business owners, the guy who claims the health care reform has been the best thing. Yes, this is a guy I want representing me. |
Thank you President Obama and Congressman Holt
1. Adult children may remain as dependents on their parents’ policy until their 27th birthday.
2. Children under age 19 may not be excluded for pre-existing conditions.
3. No more lifetime or annual caps on coverage.
4. Free preventative care for all.
5. Adults with pre-existing conditions may buy into a national high-risk pool until the exchanges come online. While these will not be cheap, they’re still better than total exclusion and get some benefit from a wider pool of insureds.
6. Small businesses will be entitled to a tax credit for 2009 and 2010, which could be as much as 50% of what they pay for employees’ health insurance.
7. The “donut hole” closes for Medicare patients, making prescription medications more affordable for seniors.
8. Requirement that all insurers must post their balance sheets on the Internet and fully disclose administrative costs, executive compensation packages, and benefit payments.
9. Authorizes early funding of community health centers in all 50 states (Bernie Sanders’ amendment). Community health centers provide primary, dental and vision services to people in the community, based on a sliding scale for payment according to ability to pay.
10. No more rescissions. Effective immediately, you can't lose your insurance because you get sick. |
Thank you Rush Holt
My family is already benefiting from healthcare reform. My college daughter is now covered by my family health insurance. And she has much better benefits than when she (actually me and my husband) had to buy it herself. My husband’s folks also always got caught in the doughnut hole on their prescriptions and already they are getting help.
But there are benefits (I pray that my family will never need them) that I could never put any price on. Now kids with pre-existing conditions cannot be denied coverage.
You jokers who opposed this reform would be against Medicare, SSI for our disabled children and adults, Medicaid – and on it goes.
My next door neigh’s son who has a severe psychiatric illness has had her costs go way down because of the new Parity bill that was passed. Before this new legislation, her son actually had services entirely cut off midway through the year – because of restriction on benefits for mentally ill people. Thank God we are starting to help the working class |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Sep 12 2010, 2:35 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Rush Holt Signs in Cranbury |
|
|
Here, here!!!!
The so-called "compassionate conservatives" are neither.
They just enjoy couching their hatred and disgust of the less fortunate with flowery religious and/or patriotic rhetoric signifying NOTHING.
Beware of the wolves in sheep's clothing.
They talk the talk and then pull the rug out from under you with their actions. How is it so many people were fooled by these charlatans for so many years.
The Tea-Party is little more than another well-organized marketing ruse to lull the angry masses into submission by words and not by deeds.
Cut the crap!
You snake-oil salesmen can talk all you want, but, I wanna see results.
Don't get me wrong, Democrats suck too. But, their suckery is more from a congenital case of ineptness and not an organized, and well-funded, campaign of slimy tricks and smoke & mirror politics.
We, The People, get crappy politicians, because the electorate is busier going to the mall to buy the newest iPodPadPhone thingy than they are in keeping track of the crooks that we hire to run things for us like a 3 year with the car keys!
All politicians pretty much suck.
It's just that the gop and the right-wing nuts are better at selling their chicanery to a dopey, unsuspecting public.
If ya don't believe me, just watch Fox for a day.
If you can stand it!!!!!!!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Sep 12 2010, 4:59 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Rush Holt Signs in Cranbury |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | Isn't Sipprelle a tea-bagger????
Yeah, he'll fix things alright!!!!!!!
Nutbag Glen Beck will give him his marching orders. |
Go spread your childish hatred somewhere else, we're trying to have an adult discussion here. |
Hatred? I don't think so. I'm not the original poster - but Sipprelle is a member of the Tea Party. Watch Beck and Palin - you then see what Sipprelle would do. Facts are facts.
Now let's discuss what kind of America we want. I for one don't see much of a contest against a proven congressman like Holt |
A proven congressman who only votes party line, whose supporting the tax increases that will hurt about 860,000 small business owners, the guy who claims the health care reform has been the best thing. Yes, this is a guy I want representing me. |
Thank you President Obama and Congressman Holt
1. Adult children may remain as dependents on their parents’ policy until their 27th birthday.
2. Children under age 19 may not be excluded for pre-existing conditions.
3. No more lifetime or annual caps on coverage.
4. Free preventative care for all.
5. Adults with pre-existing conditions may buy into a national high-risk pool until the exchanges come online. While these will not be cheap, they’re still better than total exclusion and get some benefit from a wider pool of insureds.
6. Small businesses will be entitled to a tax credit for 2009 and 2010, which could be as much as 50% of what they pay for employees’ health insurance.
7. The “donut hole” closes for Medicare patients, making prescription medications more affordable for seniors.
8. Requirement that all insurers must post their balance sheets on the Internet and fully disclose administrative costs, executive compensation packages, and benefit payments.
9. Authorizes early funding of community health centers in all 50 states (Bernie Sanders’ amendment). Community health centers provide primary, dental and vision services to people in the community, based on a sliding scale for payment according to ability to pay.
10. No more rescissions. Effective immediately, you can't lose your insurance because you get sick. |
Thank you Rush Holt
My family is already benefiting from healthcare reform. My college daughter is now covered by my family health insurance. And she has much better benefits than when she (actually me and my husband) had to buy it herself. My husband’s folks also always got caught in the doughnut hole on their prescriptions and already they are getting help.
But there are benefits (I pray that my family will never need them) that I could never put any price on. Now kids with pre-existing conditions cannot be denied coverage.
You jokers who opposed this reform would be against Medicare, SSI for our disabled children and adults, Medicaid – and on it goes.
My next door neigh’s son who has a severe psychiatric illness has had her costs go way down because of the new Parity bill that was passed. Before this new legislation, her son actually had services entirely cut off midway through the year – because of restriction on benefits for mentally ill people. Thank God we are starting to help the working class |
I just was advised of my preliminary open enrollment material. My costs are escalating this year due to health care reform thank you Mr. Holt. I don't have a kid who is in the older age bracket, but have a family. Now, I have to pay more so others can have their kids stay on their plan instead of aging out. I was told my premium went up about 4,000 because of health care reform and I now have to pay 1,000 more in my employee contribution. Our Town is paying 2-3% more due to health care reform so my taxes are going up.
I am not against Medicare or Social Security and find myself pretty liberal, but I don't have the money to support this whether it's the ethics arguement or otherwise. What happens in 4 years when I risk losing my medical plan? I can't afford 10-12,000 a year for a medical plan and my company could force me onto the exchange.
So while I think there are some benefits such as removing caps I worry for myself and the care my family will be getting or where I am going to come up with the money for the added expenses. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Sep 12 2010, 5:04 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Rush Holt Signs in Cranbury |
|
|
| Guest wrote: |
Since when is a smear to state facts. I hope you’ll ask Mulligan or Hasselbach whether they organize, speak for or support the Tea Party. All you have to do is Google their names and the result speaks for itself. I also don’t think they would say they are being smeared by being called a supporter or member of the Tea Party. |
Okay, I googled their names and did not see anything Tea Party related. If you have real facts or proof, please post your name and your links. Otherwise, I can only assume you are part of Mr. Johnson's campaign and wonder why his campaign would have to resort to such tactics? Mr. Johnson seems a pleasant individual and am concerned that his supporters seem to have to hide behind innuendo and smear tactics. I hope this is not what the Democratic party in Cranbury has become. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Sep 12 2010, 6:50 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Rush Holt Signs in Cranbury |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: |
Since when is a smear to state facts. I hope you’ll ask Mulligan or Hasselbach whether they organize, speak for or support the Tea Party. All you have to do is Google their names and the result speaks for itself. I also don’t think they would say they are being smeared by being called a supporter or member of the Tea Party. |
Okay, I googled their names and did not see anything Tea Party related. If you have real facts or proof, please post your name and your links. Otherwise, I can only assume you are part of Mr. Johnson's campaign and wonder why his campaign would have to resort to such tactics? Mr. Johnson seems a pleasant individual and am concerned that his supporters seem to have to hide behind innuendo and smear tactics. I hope this is not what the Democratic party in Cranbury has become. |
I have no dog in this fight – basically amused though at this turn of events in my sweet little Cranbury. I just goggled “dan mulligan tea party” and “art hasselbach tea party” Anybody can do this.
Either you’re just stupid and don’t think people will bother to check when one poster challenges another’s facts before anonymously calling them a liar or accusing them of smears or you’re just a fool who believes he/she can be right by writing nonsense.
By the way, what’s so bad about the Tea Party or being a tea bagger? It seems the accusation is the worst of it all – like a child defaming another’s mother. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
