Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Our site is aimed at creating a space for The Wawarsing Community. Please send your home-made recipes to share with our audience,these recipes are sure to knock your socks off!!! Log on and tell a friend!!! Send us your Wawarsing Community Events, Breaking News, and information. Contact information can be found on Profile.
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(15)
-
▼
August
(12)
- Replacing Tom Nolan: Burns or Bust!!!
- The Blueberry Fest: Walking on Market Street.
- John Burns: The Devil Keeper.
- Wawarsing Conservative Party Caucus: Ellenville
- Blue Angel Sports Talk: Army football is here!!!
- Blue Angel Sports Talk: GO WAWARSING LIONS!
- Best Soul Food Around: LA CAFE!!!
- Dave of Stoeckeler Realty says: Make an Offer!!!
- Dylon and Friends, Show Us How it's Done!!!
- Ellenville NAACP: Busy in the Month of August!!!
- August Dessert of The Month: Sweet Potato Pie
- Ellenville Teens Demand Skateboard Park!!!
-
▼
August
(12)
16 comments:
When did Patty Steinhoff, Republican stalwart, become a Democrat?
The trend of Dems and Repubs cross-endorsing each other to eliminate all, or nearly all, voter choice (most egregiously in the Ulster Legislature District 1 race) shows the paucity of these bankrupt parties to put up candidates who actually stand for something and are willing to fight for their posts.
How is this different than Soviet-era "elections" where only the pre-selected picks of party bosses in backroom deals could run and were guaranteed winning?
The only thing as bankrupt is so-called third parties unable to put-up candidates from their own membership and simply rubber-stamping the tired choices of the major party duopoly. What is the point of even HAVING a third-party, based on some supposed unique ideology or platform, if it simply props up the status quo and the pick of empty-shell legacy parties?
No wonder voters are turned off by the whole sorry process.
Mr. Krulick you are sooooo right. Graham found out the hard way. The Wawarsing Conservative Party is not Conservative at all!!!
There's some interesting thing going on with the Conservatives because of Mr. Krulik's comment. Check out www.wawarsingconservatives.blogspot.com
Surely, "interesting things" can't be going on with the Conservatives BECAUSE of MY comments!
And I see that the original first post keeps getting edited shorter and shorter, including removal of the original identification of Steinhoff as a Dem. Rather Orwellian, if you go changing what WAS written!
I would also take your material more seriously if you IDENTIFIED yourselves and stood BEHIND what you said. I have a hunch that someone named is actually writing here, but in the third person, and may even be the blogger himself, AND "Christian corner," AND "Bluedevilmustdie" too.
Anyway, I learned from direct experience back when I was an active Green (now I'm back being in no party) that politics sucks (from poly=many, and tics=bloodsucking parasites), and third-party politics sucks as badly as major party politics, only the frustration is greater and the hypocrisy is more rancid.
Your closer to the truth then you might think (spooky eyes going back and fourth). Really, who is the ONLY guy in Ellenville who would have a "Blue Devil Must Die" Blog...don't need Sherlock for that one. CONVICTION...I've learned that most times, The Message is more important then The Person. I stand behid everything I say. And the same things I'm saying now, I said in Public then. Annnnnnnny way, I hope your not right when you say "...third party politics sucks as badly as major party politics...". America has always had Reformers to step-up. Keep doing what your doing.
Oh, I'm pretty sure I'm aware of the truth here, but just haven't stated the obvious. I'd rather YOU did the revelation as a matter of principle!
"Anonymous" persons "standing behind" what they say is a contradiction and oxymoronic. It's like those testimonials in direct-mail ads that go, "This is the greatest product ever! A.H."
Who is "A.H." and why should we believe it's not just a made-up claim of the advertiser?
The message CAN stand by itself if it can be verified independently, or IF it is supported by authoritative backing with a proven track record or expertise. But the opinion or claims of an anonymous source carries no weight unless the logic is solid or it points to a more valid and trustworthy source.
If the "I" standing behind things is not identified, it is rather meaningless, as there's no way to validate the qualifications or trustworthiness of that source.
---
The problem with third-parties is that, to the extent they are founded on actual principles, their failure to PRACTICE those principles in internal and external business is more noticeable and egregious.
As a state and national rep for the Green Party, I discovered that party leaders rarely lived up to the principles they mouthed, indeed were more authoritarian and anti-democratic (small d) than the norm.
Where major party "leaders" were often big-time megalomaniacs with tyrannical traits held in check by realpolitick considerations, small party "leaders" were functioning petty tyrants, big fish in small ponds, with no hope to have REAL power or influence in the real world, so they ran their little pseudo-world as tinhorn dictators, with a viciousness and absolutism that would be funny if it weren't so sad.
My experience is that I wouldn't trust most of these petty autocrats to be dog-catchers, much less actual legislators or public administrators.
Third-parties tend to draw both true idealists motivated by principles and purity of belief, and petty tyrants and cranks and social misfits who can't make it in a more inclusive and pragmatic association.
"The message can stand by itself if it can be verified independently...". One, The Wawarsing Conservative Party has endorsed All Wawarsing Democrats, and the One Registered Conservative running for Wawarsing Town Clerk, doesn't want to be identified as an Conservative only, but a Dem Team-mate...VERIFIED. Two, The two Wawarsing Party "leaders" who demand to stay Anonymous... who Graham has been working with for the past month, has been calling Conservative party members, statings Graham was never involved in leadership. This betrayal happened simply because Graham was pushing The Party to line up with The State Party's Platform. Check the petitions, check the caucus mintues...VERIFIED. Steve, Everybody can't be a Local Celebrity...nice headshot. Again, it's The Message Steve, The Message!!!
One of the few things that former VM Auerbach used to say ad nauseum that still makes sense was his comment on hearing some strange or puzzling or questionable bit of gossip: "Consider the source!"
It's hard for a message to be simple uncontested fact; one rarely goes around shouting "two plus two equals four!" Simply saying it's "verified" because YOU (the same anonymous source!) say it is, is circular reasoning.
And it's hard for opinions NOT to sneak in, and much of the posted material is NOT verifiable FACT, but OPINION that depends on the TRUSTWORTHINESS of the opiner to be taken seriously.
For example, you say the "leaders" have been calling registered Conservatives and telling them you, oops, "Graham" was never involved in leadership, and then use the loaded and subjective term "betrayal," and claim to purport what "Graham" was actually doing. Well, unless you ARE Graham, why should we assume YOU know that Graham was doing or thinking, or that YOU are in a position to know what the "leaders" were doing, or that you aren't biased in your claims?
See, it would be so much easier IF you identified yourself, and spoke in the first person, so then we'd know WHERE you were coming from, and why we should take your opinions as authoritative on matters that YOU would be privy to.
"...one rarely goes around shouting two plus two equals four! simply saying it's verified because YOU...say it is...".
NEWS FLASH...Two plus two equals four, and it's fact because it's TRUE!!! Steve, consider me "The One Rarely". Stating The Truth is not cirular reasoning...where I come from...it's called telling The Truth.
I don't think you understood what I said; misconstruing or misrepresenting what one said is one of the flaws online blogs and forums consistently must deal with.
Let me clairfy. The reason one DOESN'T go around shouting "Two plus two equals four!" is because THAT IS a universally-recognized and conceded FACT. There's NO NEED to do it, and if one does, one comes across as an unhinged loony.
So I wasn't asking YOU to verify the fact that 2 + 2 = 4, or to shout it, because that would be unnecessary and ridiculous.
I was asking you to verify the OPINIONS you stated that are NOT verifiable independently (how do I find out what Jim Graham thought or believed he was doing, unless I get it from Jim Graham DIRECTLY or from a trusted source who got it from Jim directly, or from a published comment that accurately quoted Graham?), or that were biased or subjective, like the use of the word "betrayal."
What I called circular reasoning wasn't you saying "grass is green" (or in this case 2+2=4), but saying that your anonymous confirmation of your PREVIOUS anonymous claim was no more verification than the original unsupported claim. Unless you ARE Jim, how do YOU know his thinking, and so why should YOUR claim that the first opinion is true be any more true than the original opinion itself?
You score no points for authoritativeness by repeating the obviously but irrelevantly true (2+2=4). That isn't the issue. The issue here is that ONE anonymous person claiming that a previously made anonymous claim is "true," without showing why either claim is authoritative, isn't the same thing as a verifiable or self-evident FACT.
Either you announce that YOU are JIM, and thus are qualified to speak FOR Jim, or show why YOUR opinion that something is a "betrayal" actually IS a betrayal, and not just your BELIEF that it is.
Again, there's no obligation for you to do any of this, but there's no obligation that anyone take you or your anonymous claims seriously unless YOU take PERSONAL responsibility for what you say.
When a reporter writes an article, and puts his/her name in the byline, we KNOW who is taking responsibility. IF the reporter has a track record of accuracy and reliability, we will usually give him/her the benefit of the doubt when making a claim we can't verify personally. IF the reporter has been consistently wrong, or editorializes what should be objective reporting, we KNOW, because there's a track record, and we know to take his/her claims with skepticism.
IF a reliable reporter cites an anonymous source, we tend to accept the source's info based on the REPORTER'S credibility, as we can't base it on the unknown original source. Thus it is the goal of a good reporter to NOT post anonymous info without being 100% certain it can hold up to scrutiny.
Again, YOU confirming your OWN claims, when we don't know WHO YOU ARE, is worthless, and on the same par as some unknown Nigerian banker saying that YOU are due $22 million dollars simply because he has sent you an email with that claim.
This is simple logic. If you don't get how it works, there's no point in pursuing it.
Do yourself a favor...go to The Ulster County Board of Election...it's in Kingston. There you can varify The petitions Graham witnessed and signed. You will also find out the candidates The Wawarsing Conservative Party endorsed. You'll see The Party went for ALL TOWN DEMS!!! Call up Nibe and or Steinoff and ask them who chaired The Caucus that endorsed then.
Simple logic...if you don't know how it works...yada,yada,yada.
You're playing a game of "I didn't say the grass was green. I said it wasn't blue."
You are trying to fix a watch with butter; "but it's the very BEST butter!" The point is you CAN'T fix a watch with butter.
I'm not questioning ANY of the irrelevant points you just provided; they aren't what I challenged. They don't matter. THEY CAN BE established by independent means. You are avoiding the points I DID challenge, the ones that are mere assertions of an anonymous source.
Who cares about the petitions? I didn't bring them up. Who questioned who were the candidates that were endorsed? There's no argument there. These ARE relatively simple facts.
I asked where YOU get off using words like "BETRAYAL" (a harsh and subjective word, absent PROOF!) or how YOU know that Conservative "leaders" are saying things to their members, or what Graham's actual motives were, unless YOU are the relevant party HIDING behind anonymity, or have special knowledge about what Jim Graham thinks, and, if the latter, HOW that is so.
Your constant pointing to things not questioned INSTEAD of those that ARE being questioned is wearing thin. Are you just playing thick, or is this an inherent inability to deal with the issues at hand as clearly presented?
I'm sorry if I'm not communicating clearly enough, but I have a long history of effective professional communication. So, are you just avoiding dealing with what I am ACTUALLY asking and saying, or is this really too hard for you to comprehend?
"I didn't say the grass was green. I said it wasn't blue.".??????
All-righ-tee-then...Betrayal-to lead astray, to prove false. The Two "Anonymous" Wawarsing Conservative "leaders" called and made contact with Conservative party members telling them Graham was never in leadership. Wawarsing Town Clerk Candidate Roxanne Shamro was at least one of the persons contacted. Ask her who these "Anonymous" Wawarsing Conservative "leaders" are. Can you Verify that? Can you comprehend? Is that too hard for YOU to understand? Betrayal.
I'm going to try this one last time because I see I'm getting nowhere in getting through to you. YOU are either being purposely evasive and doing this side-step dance, or you just don't comprehend the simple question. Just trying to throw my words back at me Pee-Wee Herman style ("I know you are, but what am I") isn't a reasoned reply.
We have an ANONYMOUS person (YOU) claiming a variety of things; there's no reason to take YOUR SUBJECTIVE claims as authoritative, because YOU claim to KNOW what Graham THINKS or what his motives were:
"This betrayal happened simply because Graham was pushing The Party to line up with The State Party's Platform."
BETRAYAL is YOUR opinion, based on an INTERPRETATION that beggars the question of HOW YOU KNOW THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED. HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT GRAHAM's motivation was and why THIS was the reason for this "betrayal"? IF YOU ARE GRAHAM, then the question is answered, partially (the motivations of the "leaders" is still YOUR opinion, which may be an informed opinion, but an opinion nonetheless). Otherwise, why we should accept the ANONYMOUS claim about ANOTHER'S motivation? It is simply not supported.
We KNOW what the definition of betrayal IS; stop patronizing us (we also know where the UC Board of Elections is). But just CALLING something betrayal doesn't MAKE it so. See the difference?
I don't CARE who the Anonymous "leaders" are, unless THEY are the ones posting here, which seems unlikely. And an ANONYMOUS source saying ONE person can confirm the calls wouldn't hold up in court; it's still hearsay and secondary material. And like the old jape, "All Indians walk in single file; well, the ONE I saw did!"
IF YOU identified yourself, and YOU were known as reliable, then YOUR claim that Roxanne said something MIGHT be viable, unless YOU got what she said wrong. That you have mis-interpreted MY words, which are here for all to see, brings even THAT capacity into question.
You can resolve much of this by identifying yourself, but I doubt you will.
Steve Krulick's words (9th Post): It's hard for a message to be simple uncontested fact; one rarely goes around shouting "two plus two equals four! Simply saying it's "verified" because YOU (the same anonymous source!) say it is cirular reasoning.
Grrr...I mean...The Blue Devil Must Die (10th Post): Steve, consider me "The One Rarely".
Then you, Steve, 11th Post said: I don't think you understood what I said...misconstruing or misrepresenting what one said is one OF THE FLAWS ONLINE BLOGS AND FORUMS CONSISTENTLY MUST DEAL WITH.
Question..."How else would ANYONE read your 9th Post!"...Come on Steve!!! What you tried to say, and what was said are two different things.
So no, there's no mis-interpreting your words...just word them better. Your words are here for All to see...see? Nothing is in question. Verified.
Speaking of things being Verified...you can resolve much of this if you varify...1. Who the Conservative Party endorsed. 2. Evidence at The Ulster County Board of Elections, which would hold up in court. 3. The Two candidates endorsed at The Village caucus. After, you would then consider what The Two "Anonymous" Wawarsing leaders have told... let's say... (The Registered Conservative) Town Clerk candidate, Shamro. Which was told, Graham was not involved in leadership when acted on Party's behalf.
Varify...I doubt you will.
Steve...Pee-Wee Herman???...Come On!!!
Post a Comment