Results 1 to 15 of 21

Thread: No menu - no override

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Wayland MA 463 Old Conn Path
    Posts
    382

    Default No menu - no override

    On Thursday May 7th, 2010 the Wayland Town Crier published two op-ed pieces on the upcoming debt exclusion override.

    One op-ed was entitled "Vote 'yes' on debt exclusion override question" and it was authored by the entire Board of Selectmen.

    Another op-ed was entitled "No Menu Means No Override" and it was authored by myself.

    I was pleased to see that the Crier had posted both of these op-ed's with equal weight and side-by-side as a point counter point comparison of these two approaches to presenting ballot questions.

    The opinions are very clear...
    One man's divisive is another man's line-item-veto and freedom of choice.
    One man's divisive is another man's all or nothing and a beauty contest.

    Gee, I have a lot to say about this going forward and trust me, I will..

    But now its time to step up and debate this out in the open.
    Any takers?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    448

    Default Is this manipulative?

    I have yet to hear a good explanation for why we should lump such diverse things as road repairs, technology for schools and replacing the beach house, together as one line item and asking us to vote on it.

    The only logical reason I can see to do it the way we do is so that some less popular items can get apporved by association with more widely supported items.

    I could understand it if simlar items were grouped together such as road repairs & building repairs, or school technology & textbooks.

    But lumping such unrelated items together just seems either irrational or manipulative.
    John Flaherty

    Any views expressed are NOT mine alone.
    Wayland Transparency - Facts Without Spin
    http://www.waylandtransparency.com/

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Wayland MA 463 Old Conn Path
    Posts
    382

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Flaherty View Post
    But lumping such unrelated items together just seems either irrational or manipulative.
    Irrational NO ... its very rational and very evil. About as evil as 'pork barrel' rationally gets.
    Now manipulative ? Well yes..........

    And Oh, I just don't see a lot of dialogue on my thread other than you John...
    Whats up with that enews ?
    Last edited by AlanJReiss; 05-08-2010 at 06:47 AM. Reason: A happy ending....

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    726

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlanJReiss View Post
    Irrational NO ... its very rational and very evil. About as evil as 'pork barrel' rationally gets.
    Now manipulative ? Well yes..........

    And Oh, I just don't see a lot of dialogue on my thread other than you John...
    Whats up with that enews ?
    Evil, really? That's more than a bit harsh. I think reasonable people can take either side of the issue, but to say you are right and the opposition is evil demonstrates a complete unwillingness to hear those who think differently. It is also intimidating those who might want to espouse a different point of view. Talk about a discussion closer! I am disappointed and surprised you would take this position.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Wayland MA 463 Old Conn Path
    Posts
    382

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim Reichelt View Post
    Evil, really? That's more than a bit harsh. I think reasonable people can take either side of the issue, but to say you are right and the opposition is evil demonstrates a complete unwillingness to hear those who think differently. It is also intimidating those who might want to espouse a different point of view. Talk about a discussion closer! I am disappointed and surprised you would take this position.
    When I look at the consequences of forcing a YES/NO both at the local level and at the federal level then the word 'evil' comes to mind.
    So no, I don't accept your guilt trip.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    726

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlanJReiss View Post
    When I look at the consequences of forcing a YES/NO both at the local level and at the federal level then the word 'evil' comes to mind.
    So no, I don't accept your guilt trip.
    I have a viewpoint that might be somewhere between YES and NO, but I am afraid to share it with you. You used the word "guilt", not me. I'm definitely done with this particular discussion.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    448

    Default

    I'm inclined to agree with Alan.
    No reason to feel guilty about the use of the word "evil" for something that seems to be designed for selfish interests and to force people into voting for something they otherwise might not vote for just because it's lumped togehter with something else that they do want.

    It doesn't work in the private sector. You're not forced to buy a loaf of bread when all you want is a quart of milk. You have options. You can pay for only that which you want.

    However, I DO have a willingness to hear from those who think differently.
    In fact, I would like to hear some logical explanation for why this type of thing is acceptable and in the best interests of "the people".
    John Flaherty

    Any views expressed are NOT mine alone.
    Wayland Transparency - Facts Without Spin
    http://www.waylandtransparency.com/

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •