| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed, Jan 6 2010, 7:24 pm EST Post subject: Re: The January 4, 2010 Township Committee Reorganization Meeting |
 |
|
| Guest 2 wrote: | | I think the biggest source of partisan politics in this town is this message board. |
Not really. This board has members of both parties active. When Dave Cook was running he posted here and was respectfully and well received here. Numerous people posted supporting him and indicating they were voting for him.
If this board has any biased position it is against putting politics above community and against the efforts by a minority in the community to try and use local government to advance a personal spending agenda. This community has been very vocal against that and since those leading the efforts have been the sitting Democrats on the TC, it may appear that it is politically motivated. But our disgust is actually quite bipartisan. We are for respecting all members of the community. We are for all voices being heard. We are for fair and balanced government. We are for transparency in local government. And we are for spending that is proportionate to the size of our community and responsible to taxpayers and not simply on the basis of what level of debt we are legally allowed to accrue.
Republicans don’t own that. In fact, on a national level historically Republican administrations have spent more than Democratic ones and are collectively responsible for a vast majority of our national debt now. So wanting a responsible local government has a long democratic tradition. It is only that vocal and active minority of New Jersey Democrats who favor the political machine and the politics of party that the majority membership of this forum opposes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Jan 6 2010, 7:36 pm EST Post subject: Re: The January 4, 2010 Township Committee Reorganization Meeting |
|
|
| Hey, how about being the best qualified person for a positon on the Planning Board... or Township Committee for that matter, getting the job, regardless of political pary, that would be what we should wait...party-blind, like just looking at one's qualifications instead of race, creed or color or political party...very American. We just need the best man to get the job done. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Jan 6 2010, 7:57 pm EST Post subject: Re: The January 4, 2010 Township Committee Reorganization Meeting |
|
|
| Has anyone noticed that the Planning Board is filled full of Republicans? Is that bipartisan? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wrong
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Jan 6 2010, 8:12 pm EST Post subject: Re: The January 4, 2010 Township Committee Reorganization Meeting |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Has anyone noticed that the Planning Board is filled full of Republicans? Is that bipartisan? |
I wish people would look at facts. Taking out the TC reps you have Mrs. Weidner, Mr. Harvey, and Mr. Dulin all are registered Democrats. Mr. Kehrt and Mr. Speer I do not know their affiliation. Mr. Whalers is a Republican I believe.
They are fair, intelligent people and should not be brought into this discussion they have nothing to do with this discussion about TC operations. In fact Tom Weidner was very much supportive of bipartisanship in his term on the TC.
I wish you had posted your name since your posting false information in the hopes people would be uneducated. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Jan 6 2010, 8:16 pm EST Post subject: Re: The January 4, 2010 Township Committee Reorganization Meeting |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Hey, how about being the best qualified person for a positon on the Planning Board... or Township Committee for that matter, getting the job, regardless of political pary, that would be what we should wait...party-blind, like just looking at one's qualifications instead of race, creed or color or political party...very American. We just need the best man to get the job done. |
Exactly!
That's why it's so sad and frustrating that Mr. Stout puts party before qualification. We need qaulified people and I don't care what party they belong to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Jan 6 2010, 8:18 pm EST Post subject: Re: The January 4, 2010 Township Committee Reorganization Meeting |
|
|
| Wrong wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Has anyone noticed that the Planning Board is filled full of Republicans? Is that bipartisan? |
I wish people would look at facts. Taking out the TC reps you have Mrs. Weidner, Mr. Harvey, and Mr. Dulin all are registered Democrats. Mr. Kehrt and Mr. Speer I do not know their affiliation. Mr. Whalers is a Republican I believe.
They are fair, intelligent people and should not be brought into this discussion they have nothing to do with this discussion about TC operations. In fact Tom Weidner was very much supportive of bipartisanship in his term on the TC.
I wish you had posted your name since your posting false information in the hopes people would be uneducated. |
So one confirmed Republican and at least 5 confirmed Democrats but it is "full of" Republicans. Love it... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bi (partisan) curious
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Jan 6 2010, 8:48 pm EST Post subject: Re: The January 4, 2010 Township Committee Reorganization Meeting |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Hey, how about being the best qualified person for a positon on the Planning Board regardless of political party? We just need the best man to get the job done. |
Exactly!
That's why it's so sad and frustrating that Mr. Stout puts party before qualification. We need qaulified people and I don't care what party they belong to. |
Just curious...
What makes you think Win is more qualified than David Stout to be on the planning board? If you are basing your selection on qualifications, Stout has a lot more experience. The reasoning that has been given to support Win for the Planning Board seat is his "different opinions", which is akin to party affiliation.
I'm not saying Win shouldn't have been selected, just pointing out what appears to be an inconsistency in the logic above. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Jan 6 2010, 8:56 pm EST Post subject: Re: The January 4, 2010 Township Committee Reorganization Meeting |
|
|
| Bi (partisan) curious wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Hey, how about being the best qualified person for a positon on the Planning Board regardless of political party? We just need the best man to get the job done. |
Exactly!
That's why it's so sad and frustrating that Mr. Stout puts party before qualification. We need qaulified people and I don't care what party they belong to. |
Just curious...
What makes you think Win is more qualified than David Stout to be on the planning board? If you are basing your selection on qualifications, Stout has a lot more experience. The reasoning that has been given to support Win for the Planning Board seat is his "different opinions", which is akin to party affiliation.
I'm not saying Win shouldn't have been selected, just pointing out what appears to be an inconsistency in the logic above. |
I am not that poster. However, the issue for me is that if we have 3 seats it should be 3 people- 3 different opinions, 3 different views and 3 different backgrounds. I personally would be fine if it were Dave, David and Richard. The fact that we have 2 people filling 3 seats concerns me more than Rep vs Dem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Jan 6 2010, 9:17 pm EST Post subject: Re: The January 4, 2010 Township Committee Reorganization Meeting |
|
|
| Bi (partisan) curious wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Hey, how about being the best qualified person for a positon on the Planning Board regardless of political party? We just need the best man to get the job done. |
Exactly!
That's why it's so sad and frustrating that Mr. Stout puts party before qualification. We need qaulified people and I don't care what party they belong to. |
Just curious...
What makes you think Win is more qualified than David Stout to be on the planning board? If you are basing your selection on qualifications, Stout has a lot more experience. The reasoning that has been given to support Win for the Planning Board seat is his "different opinions", which is akin to party affiliation.
I'm not saying Win shouldn't have been selected, just pointing out what appears to be an inconsistency in the logic above. |
Your confusion stems from mistakenly inferring that I was only concerned with the appointment of the TC members to the board. Rather, it is Mr. Stout’s policy over his multiple tenures as Mayor to only appoint political allies to any open board positions to which I was referring. First, it is statistically improbable that all the “most qualified” people would all happen to be political allies of his and, second, he has been open with his policy of excluding members of the other party, which by definition means he is not principally concerned with qualification. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Jan 6 2010, 9:38 pm EST Post subject: Re: The January 4, 2010 Township Committee Reorganization Meeting |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Bi (partisan) curious wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Hey, how about being the best qualified person for a positon on the Planning Board regardless of political party? We just need the best man to get the job done. |
Exactly!
That's why it's so sad and frustrating that Mr. Stout puts party before qualification. We need qaulified people and I don't care what party they belong to. |
Just curious...
What makes you think Win is more qualified than David Stout to be on the planning board? If you are basing your selection on qualifications, Stout has a lot more experience. The reasoning that has been given to support Win for the Planning Board seat is his "different opinions", which is akin to party affiliation.
I'm not saying Win shouldn't have been selected, just pointing out what appears to be an inconsistency in the logic above. |
Your confusion stems from mistakenly inferring that I was only concerned with the appointment of the TC members to the board. Rather, it is Mr. Stout’s policy over his multiple tenures as Mayor to only appoint political allies to any open board positions to which I was referring. |
Perhaps you were confused about the topic of this post- "the township reorganization meeting from january 4th". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Jan 6 2010, 10:04 pm EST Post subject: Re: The January 4, 2010 Township Committee Reorganization Meeting |
|
|
Who gave Cranbury the "crappy ballfield"?
Who said the PNC building is a once in a lifetime deal?
Who raised the property tax for most of the homes in Cranbury? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Jan 6 2010, 10:44 pm EST Post subject: Re: The January 4, 2010 Township Committee Reorganization Meeting |
|
|
| Guest wrote: |
Perhaps you were confused about the topic of this post- "the township reorganization meeting from january 4th". |
Perhaps you had trouble following the progression of the topic which subsequently brought up additional appointments to this and other boards. I know it can be hard, but real word discussions often involve more than one simple point. Reality is like that too. People's actions are complex and can rarely be judged in isolation. Sorry if this is beyond your comprehension. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Jan 6 2010, 10:44 pm EST Post subject: Re: The January 4, 2010 Township Committee Reorganization Meeting |
|
|
| This thread is all over the place. Let Dave and Jay vote on some substantive issues before we pass judgement. If you just can't stop yourself from posting start a new thread. Call it, "David Stout is a minion of Satan", and have yourself a field day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Jan 6 2010, 10:55 pm EST Post subject: Re: The January 4, 2010 Township Committee Reorganization Meeting |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | This thread is all over the place. Let Dave and Jay vote on some substantive issues before we pass judgement. If you just can't stop yourself from posting start a new thread. Call it, "David Stout is a minion of Satan", and have yourself a field day. |
It is interesting what a polarizing figure Stout is. While Stave was Mayor there was bickering here to be sure. But somehow it was worse previously when Stout was Mayor and he's not in that position a few days again before the tone here turns more aggressive. Perhaps it is because he is the perceived leader of the coalition of democrats, whether true or not, or perhaps it is just because the guy is unlikable. I have no idea. It's also interesting you never read people defending Stout. You get people counter posters on politics and disagree about the issues like the Library. But I hardly ever recall anyone posting, “you got him all wrong, he’s a great guy and here’s why.” Why is that? I don’t really know him personally so I’m just curious. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
karnac
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Jan 6 2010, 11:08 pm EST Post subject: Re: The January 4, 2010 Township Committee Reorganization Meeting |
|
|
Is it...
1. Kevin Costner
2. PNC's Real Estate Agent
3. Everyone who ever served on the TC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Jan 7 2010, 12:45 am EST Post subject: Re: The January 4, 2010 Township Committee Reorganization Meeting |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | cranbury liberal wrote: | | Wow, you are so off-topic. The politics you are mentioned, regardless of what side you are on, have, or should have, nothing to do with Cranbury Township. I could care less whether you voted for Obama or McCain when it comes to the issues that affect Cranbury. If you honestly believe whether someone's position on te national Stimulus Bill or health care reform should be a factor in who you vote for for Township Committee, let alone be used as an excuse for why the Township Committee should shut-out any opposing views you are part of the problem. |
Actually I think that guy hit the nail on the head. Many of the posters were anonymously attaching Cook because he was siding with a democratic majority - citing that as "politics as usual" and equating that as bad government. That's what republicans do these days. |
I sort of agree with this person. I have lived here for a long time and don’t think the republicans on the council or and who ran for council are mainstream. They are not like Whitman or Kean . I don’t feel comfortable with them running Cranbury in the majority. I think they are like the old John Birch types.
I also think they are creating this whole fuss about nothing just to belittle the democratic majority. That’s what I think |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
