| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon, Apr 11 2011, 12:38 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Wittman? |
 |
|
It is a misunderstanding. Here is my point again which you have never addressed in your pages of blather. Blaming a politician for a problem with another cause takes the problem off the appropriate cause. If you see COAH and Abbot as the biggest problems facing Cranbury the problem is CONSTITUTIONAL not poor little Linda Greenstein. I think COAH and Abbot are HUGE problems and throwing out Greenstein will not help.
By the way you brought up consolidation later. That is not a constitutional fix. I did point out that that particular problem stems directly from the Governor's office.
So, please vote out Greenstein as soon as possible, but do not expect that to fix the issues that effect Cranbury.
Please folks let us get a constitutional fix. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Apr 11 2011, 1:03 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Wittman? |
|
|
| I understood you every time and addressed your issue every time. If you chose not to understand me, read carefully or can't comprehend it, there's nothing more I can do for you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Apr 11 2011, 1:17 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Wittman? |
|
|
Since direct language and logic are eluding you, let me try framing our difference of opinion in a different, hypothetical context.
Person A (me) states, “I can’t support candidate X” because they have made racist statements that are strongly opposed to my beliefs.” Then Person B (you) states, “But you should support Candidate X because racism is a system issue in our country and not supporting her won’t fix it.”
Do you see the disconnect yet? Person A didn’t say anything about whether not supporting her would “solve racism” and said nothing about the Candidate being responsible for racism; merely that the Candidate endorsing racist beliefs was their basis for not supporting them as a candidate. Yet Person B (you) keeps ignoring that and saying, ‘But your statement implies that you think not electing her will solve racism.” That is an illogical leap.
I have been clear, repeatedly, that my lack of support for Greenstein is because she chooses to vote consistently against Cranbury’s interests with no demonstration that doing so eventually helps Cranbury or its constituents. I have not blamed her for COAH or consolidation or world hunger. I have never stated that replacing her would be a magic bullet fix for those problems. I have merely held her accountable for voting favorably for those issues. One of two things is true. Either she legitimately is in favor of those issues as her voting record indicates, in which case I chose to believe that her views or incompatible with mine and in my opinion the interests of Cranbury Township. Or, alternatively you can believe that her voting record does not represent her true positions and that she voted for “political” reasons. I do not respect either explanation and therefore cannot support her as our representative.
Is that so complicated? Now I suppose you will accuse me of calling her a racist and saying that I don’t support her because I think if we replace her we will solve racism in this country. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Apr 11 2011, 2:47 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Wittman? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | When did Greenstein vote for school consolidation? |
Late 2006 or early 2007. It was a bill that allowed the establishment of a special superintendent vested with the authority to authorize studies of small school district consolidations. The bill was a typical complicated mess that in theory required the local Township’s to vote on consolidation, but knowing almost no Township would willingly do this had various leverages the superintendent could pull such as withholding all state funding, messing with staffing and any other shared arrangements, such as our tuition agreement with Princeton. So effective if the powers that be really wanted to make it happen they could make the alternatives impalpable. They did call for a study of Cranbury specifically and there was a public meeting at the school with the person appointed to lead the study. I don't think they ever got around to publishing the study and I assume the initiative is tabled, but since the law wasn't repealed presumably it could always be resurrected again.
Greenstein voted in favor of it, even after being questioned about it at a Cranbury public meeting and implying she didn’t agree with it. |
That was not a bill for school consolidation. |
Why try to reinvent history? Of course it was. It was widely discussed as exactly that, Greenstein fielded questions about it at a local meeting, they held a special meeting to discuss its impact on Cranbury and you could even go back and search this site at the time and find discussion about it. The Cranbury Press covered the meeting. How many points of reference do you need to deny to try and make a case that the bill had nothing to do with trying to promote school district consolidation? |
Read the Bill. Then continue to make up your own facts. What a strange world you live in. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Apr 11 2011, 2:50 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Wittman? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | It's a statement of facts, not a rant. And to your point, Baroni actually did vote in favor of Cranbury's interests contrary to Greenstein in the examples mentioned. He consistently took our position. No one said anything about how replacing Greenstein would be some magic bullet that would make Trenton be fair to Cranbury and not constantly try and work against us. But that's not the point. If she's consistently voting against our interests why would anyone living here rationally vote for her?
Are you seriously suggesting that the bar for supporting her need only be that there is no proof that someone different will solve all our problems with the state? So the logic is we know she does nothing for us but since someone else may not be any better let's keep voting for her? That logic may make sense if there were examples where she is helping us and we have something to lose. But if she's voting against us every time in recent years I don't see why we wouldn't at least try someone else. It was a real shame we lost Baroni. He showed up to every meeting just like Greenstein but actually voted for us. |
Exactly, and it was all part of Greenstein's evil plan to get rid of Baroni. Why exactly do you think Baroni disappeared? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Apr 11 2011, 3:18 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Wittman? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | When did Greenstein vote for school consolidation? |
Late 2006 or early 2007. It was a bill that allowed the establishment of a special superintendent vested with the authority to authorize studies of small school district consolidations. The bill was a typical complicated mess that in theory required the local Township’s to vote on consolidation, but knowing almost no Township would willingly do this had various leverages the superintendent could pull such as withholding all state funding, messing with staffing and any other shared arrangements, such as our tuition agreement with Princeton. So effective if the powers that be really wanted to make it happen they could make the alternatives impalpable. They did call for a study of Cranbury specifically and there was a public meeting at the school with the person appointed to lead the study. I don't think they ever got around to publishing the study and I assume the initiative is tabled, but since the law wasn't repealed presumably it could always be resurrected again.
Greenstein voted in favor of it, even after being questioned about it at a Cranbury public meeting and implying she didn’t agree with it. |
That was not a bill for school consolidation. |
Why try to reinvent history? Of course it was. It was widely discussed as exactly that, Greenstein fielded questions about it at a local meeting, they held a special meeting to discuss its impact on Cranbury and you could even go back and search this site at the time and find discussion about it. The Cranbury Press covered the meeting. How many points of reference do you need to deny to try and make a case that the bill had nothing to do with trying to promote school district consolidation? |
Read the Bill. Then continue to make up your own facts. What a strange world you live in. |
I did read the bill at the time, and attend the public meetings about it, and speak to the official appointed to head the student of our possible consolidation and read the discussion about it here at the time and the article in the Press and the article in the Star Ledger. Or how about the editorial at the time from Hank Kalet in the Press where he supported the bill and the uproar that caused here from people outraged he would publish something so anti-Cranbury in the Cranbury paper.
What is strange is someone who thinkss a few sentences on this Forum can wipe away fact and history. There were dozens of local people at the public hearings, there were Greenstein's own words. If you want to try and defend the bill or explain why it isn't that bad that's one thing. But to try and invent a fantasyland where the bill had nothing to do with encouraging consolidation is just wacko.
What exactly are you smoking? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon, Apr 11 2011, 3:20 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Wittman? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | It's a statement of facts, not a rant. And to your point, Baroni actually did vote in favor of Cranbury's interests contrary to Greenstein in the examples mentioned. He consistently took our position. No one said anything about how replacing Greenstein would be some magic bullet that would make Trenton be fair to Cranbury and not constantly try and work against us. But that's not the point. If she's consistently voting against our interests why would anyone living here rationally vote for her?
Are you seriously suggesting that the bar for supporting her need only be that there is no proof that someone different will solve all our problems with the state? So the logic is we know she does nothing for us but since someone else may not be any better let's keep voting for her? That logic may make sense if there were examples where she is helping us and we have something to lose. But if she's voting against us every time in recent years I don't see why we wouldn't at least try someone else. It was a real shame we lost Baroni. He showed up to every meeting just like Greenstein but actually voted for us. |
Exactly, and it was all part of Greenstein's evil plan to get rid of Baroni. Why exactly do you think Baroni disappeared? |
Baroni quit to take a job for a lot more money at the Port Authority. Duh. No conspiracy in a guy deciding to make more money.
Try and keep up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Apr 12 2011, 12:22 am EDT Post subject: Re: Wittman? |
|
|
| And essentially end his political career. He was perfectly positioned to take on Holt. Now he is done. If you think his arm wasn't twisted out of his socket you have no idea what is going on. By a clue then comment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Apr 12 2011, 12:29 am EDT Post subject: Re: Wittman? |
|
|
Now if I recall the bill had no comment on consolidation. The county superintendents were tasked to submit a plan to consolidate the smaller districts. If the plan was approved by the Corzine administration, the effected municipalities would both have to approve it for the consolidation to occur.
As I see it, the only folks that should be angry about such a weak and stupid bill are those that are for consolidation. Because there is no way in hell you are going to find to municipalities to approve this consolidation that have not already been consolidated.
Let us talk about Cranbury and Princeton, would Princeton vote for such a bill? NO. Would Cranbury vote for such a bill? No.
This completely worthless bill designed to appease the consolidation crowd has your knickers all twisted up. What are you going to do when something important happens? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Apr 12 2011, 8:20 am EDT Post subject: Re: Wittman? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | And essentially end his political career. He was perfectly positioned to take on Holt. Now he is done. If you think his arm wasn't twisted out of his socket you have no idea what is going on. By a clue then comment. |
Or....
Maybe getting executive experience is part of his career development plan? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Apr 12 2011, 10:09 am EDT Post subject: Re: Wittman? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | And essentially end his political career. He was perfectly positioned to take on Holt. Now he is done. If you think his arm wasn't twisted out of his socket you have no idea what is going on. By a clue then comment. |
Or....
Maybe getting executive experience is part of his career development plan? |
If Baroni ever is again elected to public office, I will come on this board and praise your political acumen. But I doubt Baroni will ever be heard from again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Apr 12 2011, 11:01 am EDT Post subject: Re: Wittman? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | Now if I recall the bill had no comment on consolidation. The county superintendents were tasked to submit a plan to consolidate the smaller districts. If the plan was approved by the Corzine administration, the effected municipalities would both have to approve it for the consolidation to occur.
As I see it, the only folks that should be angry about such a weak and stupid bill are those that are for consolidation. Because there is no way in hell you are going to find to municipalities to approve this consolidation that have not already been consolidated.
Let us talk about Cranbury and Princeton, would Princeton vote for such a bill? NO. Would Cranbury vote for such a bill? No.
This completely worthless bill designed to appease the consolidation crowd has your knickers all twisted up. What are you going to do when something important happens? |
Your first two sentences contradict each other. You say it had no comment on consolidation then that it setup a process to make plans for consolidation. That sounds like more than a "comment." The bottom line is the purpose of the bill was to begin a process that could lead to State-pressured municipal and school consolidations. If the only purpose was to let Township’s do whatever they wanted they didn’t need a bill for that.
If it was a “worthless bill,” why did she vote for it? No one has suggested it wasn't weak. But why was she voting for it at all, especially when she admitted she didn't like it in our public meeting? The answer is she did it because her party leaders wanted her to. Does she represent them or us? I keep reading defenses of Greenstein that are based solely on “not much harm was done” as opposed to “good was accomplished.” What has she done for Cranbury? Why are some people’s standards for support merely that she didn’t single-handedly cause our problems?
And the bill wasn't as weak as you suggest. Yes local municipalities had the chance to vote, but the new executive superintendent had various leverage points as well, including the ability to without state funds. So, yeah, a Township could say no but then face punitive financial consequences if they did. In the end, as far as I can tell the initiative died with the Corzine administration. Though Christie is rattling his saber about wanting to support consolidation too, and if anything he tends to be more aggressive than Corzine if he does get serious about it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Apr 12 2011, 12:04 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Wittman? |
|
|
I see the problem. You have no reading comprehension. Since you have no idea what you are reading it makes your responses insane.
Very slowly now. Your first sentence says, "the first two sentences contradict each other." OK what are the first two sentences, "the bill had no comment on consolidation. The county superintendents were tasked to submit a plan to consolidate smaller districts"
If English were understandable to you, these sentences are not in contradiction. You are simply commenting because you like to type and have a back and forth on the internet.
None of my commentary was a defense of Greenstein(again your problem with reading english). The point is the problems that Cranbury faces are constitutional not legislative. If Greenstein is replaced nothing will change, Unless she is replaced by someone who strongly advocates a constitutional convention.
Get it now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Apr 12 2011, 12:44 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Wittman? |
|
|
Feel better? It is sad that you must derive pleasure from this type of condescending behavior on an anonymous forum. Heaven forbid folks should disagree. Definitely warrants throwing a tantrum in the sandbox. I for one am one over to your position simply on the basis of your charm and tact.
Back to point...it will be interesting to see Wayne's campaign unfold. Coming from a small town within a district of large towns means he will need to come out of the gate with some clear goals, if elected, and a visibility strategy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Apr 12 2011, 1:16 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Wittman? |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | Feel better? It is sad that you must derive pleasure from this type of condescending behavior on an anonymous forum. Heaven forbid folks should disagree. Definitely warrants throwing a tantrum in the sandbox. I for one am one over to your position simply on the basis of your charm and tact.
Back to point...it will be interesting to see Wayne's campaign unfold. Coming from a small town within a district of large towns means he will need to come out of the gate with some clear goals, if elected, and a visibility strategy. |
Just to be clear. You don't want a contitutional convention, correct. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue, Apr 12 2011, 2:28 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Wittman? |
|
|
| According to today's Trenton Times Wayne is running for assembly not senate. I am confused. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
