dfx
Junior Member
Posts: 221
|
Post by dfx on Oct 23, 2009 14:27:30 GMT -5
One more thing -
I want to be totally clear on this point - I have no opinion on this matter one way or the other.
The only motivation behind my comment is the fact that I have a young child who lives in this fine town and I just want to know the facts so I can do my best when voting.
dfx
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike Rosseel on Oct 23, 2009 16:05:56 GMT -5
"On behalf of the CIC, I would like to make one clarification to item #1 of Mr. Friedman's post above which states that the Citizen Debate Committee comprised of "members of the Freehold Borough CIC..." Any participation with the Citizen Debate Committee by certain members of the Freehold Borough CIC was strictly in their own individual capacities, and the CIC was in fact uninvolved in the planning or execution of the proposed debate, nor had the debate planning been discussed at any CIC meeting. The CIC continues to work towards fulfilling its stated mission and does not become involved in election campaigns. "
Mr Kelsey, you love that statement now as much as before. More PROGANDA by FV, Miller and Newman!
|
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Oct 23, 2009 16:24:58 GMT -5
Freehold Borough, NJ The Citizen Debate Committee makes the following statements regarding the breakdown in negotiations on the proposed candidate debate. The Citizens Debate Committee will not publicly assignee blame for the breakdown but believes that residents should know the facts and come to their own conclusions. The Committee is also releasing the text of the letter to the public to allow the public to judge the letter on its own merits and not on rumor. The Committee has given both Parties an opportunity to review and comment on our statement below prior to its release and those comments are included at the end of our statement. The Citizen Debate Committee asked both sides to refrain from further comment on the debate negotiations to ensure that this matter is concluded in a civil and honorable manner. The Citizen Debate Committee hopes and expects that this statement, followed by the Parties’ comments, will conclude the public disagreement waged by the parties over this matter. Citizens Debate Committee Letter to Candidates Dear Candidates, “The constant free flow of communications among us- enabling the free interchange of ideas- forms the very bloodstream of our nation. It keeps the mind and body of our democracy eternally vital, eternally young.” Franklin D. Roosevelt With that refrain in mind I would, along with Freehold.InJersey.com in conjunction with the Asbury Park Press, and Freehold Borough residents, like to invite you to participate in the Freehold Borough 2009 Council Election Debate sponsored by Freehold.InJersey.com and the Asbury Park Press. This debate is intended to provide the residents of the Borough an opportunity to hear your views on the future of the Borough side by side with your opponents in an orderly and constructive manner. I would like to make all candidates aware that the Freehold Borough Police have committed resources to assure an orderly forum, that the Asbury Park Press will be providing a moderator, that Freehold.InJersey.com will be collecting questions from readers online, and that the League of Women Voters will be participating. I invite each ticket to send a representative to meet with myself and Colleen Curry of Freehold.InJersey.com and the Asbury Park Press to discuss debate rules and format. Please have your representative call me at $$$-%%%-&&&& by Tuesday October 6, 2009 so we can schedule a day to meet. The debate will be held in Freehold Borough toward the end of October at 7:00 p.m. Please ensure that your representative is authorized to agree to the debate rules, format, and date as once the rules, format, and date are agreed to changes will not be made. Plato said “the punishment which the wise suffer who refuse to take part in the government, is to live under the government of worse men.” We applauded your willingness to serve and look forward to your participation at this forum. Sincerely, Jeffrey J. Friedman, on behalf of (Members of Citizen Debate Committee) Citizens Debate Committee Statement 1.-No candidates or parties were involved in the planning of the debate. The Citizens Debate Committee comprises members of the Freehold Borough CIC, residents, and property owners. 2.-All candidates received notice from the Citizens Debate Committee on the same day. 3.-Letters were delivered by professional messenger service not political operatives. 4.-The Citizens Debate Committee communicated with the Freehold Borough Police only to ensure that any planning done by the Citizen Debate Committee would be done in compliance with public safety protocol and procedure. 5.-There were Three (3) dates available to the candidates for the debate not One (1). 6.-One side called the Citizens Debate Committee contact person upon receipt of the letter while the other side first had their lawyer call the APP making inaccurate claims that the letters were delivered by political operatives. 7.-One side agreed to meet with the APP and the Citizens Debate Committee contact person while the other side would only meet with the APP. 8.-One side agreed to the rules as presented by the LOWV while the other side presented their own non-negotiable format. 9.-Both sides were asked not to discuss debate negotiations. Both sides posted remarks regarding the breakdown of debate negotiations. 10.-Both sides believe that the other side has acted improperly and commented inaccurately regarding the debate planning and negotiations. Response by parties regarding the Citizens Debate Committee’s statement Councilman George Schnurr, on behalf of the Democratic Ticket: Our position is we will only negotiate with Republican candidates and not through third parties. Chairman Ted Miller, on behalf of the Republican Ticket: Prior to reviewing it I am sure it was crafted in the same spirit that the Committee has endeavored to have an open debate and I have the highest levels of appreciation for all involved. On behalf of the CIC, I would like to make one clarification to item #1 of Mr. Friedman's post above which states that the Citizen Debate Committee comprised of "members of the Freehold Borough CIC..." Any participation with the Citizen Debate Committee by certain members of the Freehold Borough CIC was strictly in their own individual capacities, and the CIC was in fact uninvolved in the planning or execution of the proposed debate, nor had the debate planning been discussed at any CIC meeting. The CIC continues to work towards fulfilling its stated mission and does not become involved in election campaigns. I think this is a more than fair point. The release is pretty exacting, but this clearly ambiguous use of the CIC members would lead the average reader to think the committee had a role. Thank you for making plain that clarification. I actually think this group did themselves a small disservice by not giving more info about who they are, when they formed, and why. They had to know -- as I predicted and as is evident here -- that the response would now focus on who they are -- and what role they play. In terms of d**ning facts -- assuming these are a mix of non-partisan and bi-partisan folks -- this is s bad as it gets. They were dealing with the APP and the League of Women voters -- so they probably weren't all goofballs! |
|
|
|
Post by Mike Rosseel on Oct 23, 2009 16:35:43 GMT -5
its not the average reader...its the facts....its trying to make something look like its something it isnt. Obviously the gentleman from the CIC, felt he had to clarify what was posted by jeff friedman, is he the average reader. lets call a spade a spade, the CIC was used to look like they were involved and they werent, end of story.
|
|
|
|
Post by lisas84 on Oct 23, 2009 16:42:22 GMT -5
I have to back KA. As a member of the CIC, nobody came to our meetings to discuss this event. I was a bit shocked to see our committee's name in that post.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike Rosseel on Oct 23, 2009 17:03:15 GMT -5
Thank you KA and Lisas84 for clearing up this lie, imagine people trying to make it seem like you committee is involved in a debate which they have NO KNOWLEDGE OF!!!! nice work FV
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Oct 23, 2009 20:09:48 GMT -5
Hi! A new guy here with a simple, yet obvious question: who exactly makes up the "Citizens Debate Committee"? I consider myself pretty involved in this community as well as a home owner - yet I don't recall ever seeing a public notice announcing the formation of this group or being invited to join this group. I only ask this because I understand the fact that things are rarely what they appear to be on the surface. (Case in point: The small - yet focal - fringe group named the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth"? I'm not going to get into the details here, but anyone wishing to learn more about the outcome of that situation need only to google the name and read the post-election follow-up information on the group & their claims.) Now I'm not claiming to know every detail of the failed debate, however there are always 2 sides to every story. And my experience tells me that the usually truth lies somewhere in the middle. So to read a press release by a group that we know little about and attribute it as fact may be a bit premature... dfx Hello dfx, Welcome to the site. Your questions are good and fair ones. The debate committee was simply an independent group who came together with what was believed to be a really nice idea for our town. It is a mixed bag of people who are Republican, Democrat and independent. None are active in either of the parties. Also, at least three people on this committee are also on municipal committees working closely with the governing body. None of those municipal committees had any direct involvement in the debate committee, and every member was there on their own, as individuals. This committee is not associated with any other group. It really is just a bunch of people who believe they were doing something our town would be proud of. Lets face it, a meeting where the public could meet the candidates, with a live video feed, and have questions submitted to a new paper web site is a pretty good thing for a small town. It is inovative and I bet it would have done well and all the candidates would have done well too. Why did this group come together? Simple. Nobody else was talking about putting a debate together. Someone had to try. |
|
|
|
Post by admin on Oct 23, 2009 20:17:53 GMT -5
Thank you KA and Lisas84 for clearing up this lie, imagine people trying to make it seem like you committee is involved in a debate which they have NO KNOWLEDGE OF!!!! nice work FV I agree, it was good for ka19 and Lisa to clear that up. As far as that CIC guy actually doing something to make the town proud outside the committee, he should be immediately removed. I think people should write letters and petition for his removal.  |
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Oct 23, 2009 20:39:05 GMT -5
its not the average reader...its the facts....its trying to make something look like its something it isnt. Obviously the gentleman from the CIC, felt he had to clarify what was posted by jeff friedman, is he the average reader. lets call a spade a spade, the CIC was used to look like they were involved and they werent, end of story. Actually -- that's not even part of "the story." The story is what you once called "the true facts." Do you now have any comment on the facts as released by the bi-partisan and non-partisan committee? Do you have any evidence that the committee is anything other than non-partisan? What is your beef with the App? Are they closet Borough, Ted Miller Republicans? Maybe they get on websites and start threads titled "Why I hate Ted." Is that the type of objective, non-partisan, serious opinion for which we should be looking? Are you in a position to refute a single fact related to the debate as set out by the committee? I think the readers have sifted through your posts and understand you extreme distaste for at least one candidate -- and pretty much this site. I was just wondering if you wanted to now address the actual facts, rather than political spin -- and tell us why George - Derick Jeter - Schnurr and his team of incumbents fear and loath democracy? |
|
adefonzo
Junior Member
If I can see further than some, it's because I have stood on the shoulders of giants
Posts: 308
|
Post by adefonzo on Oct 23, 2009 21:47:01 GMT -5
This is one of those times where I am oh so happy to be on the other side of the globe. I can just sit back and laugh at all of this. Good to see the status quo has remained in tact back home!! Further proof of the status quo remaining in tact will show itself on election day when less than 50% of the voting public in Freehold Boro actually show up at the polls to vote.
There are times when I get homesick, and then there are times like this, when I am so happy to be so far away from it all!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike Rosseel on Oct 23, 2009 23:19:03 GMT -5
Rich your comments are laughable. You guys have tried time in and time again to make all post on other sites mine, i dont comment on anywhere but here and freeholdinjersey. so once again your comments lack any substance. Why is it you attack people that dont think like you. Is the kelsey way the only way. Maybe people should think why is a lawyer from virgina on freehold sites, stirring the pot and saving what people write for personal gain. you want to make accusations that i posted on the "why I hate ted" then let me ask you this, are you supporting teds attack against one of the canidates family members? is that good politics in your eyes? tell me i have no proof andi will say your accusations are the same!
FYI- when you present a fact then we can talk. i dont want to comment on your let me pat myself on the back comments. we all get it, your a political genius from all the political involvement you have. congrats! were all proud of you!
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Oct 24, 2009 9:35:22 GMT -5
to ensure that this matter is concluded in a civil and honorable manner.
The above line is from the citizens committee statement. It is in that spirit that I am taking liberty and doing something that I very very rarely do. I am locking this thread from further comment.
This thread can only go in one direction and that is not a good one. All pertinent facts that can be made public have been. People simply have to make up their minds at this point.
The goal of this site is to provide and seek out the best possible info. Those who wish to take issues into the mud are welcome to go to the other sites where that is encourages and allowed. Not here.
Even with the debate issue DOA, we still have a race and there are threads for that race elsewhere on this site. Remember, keep things on topic, and keep things sane.
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Oct 24, 2009 20:36:11 GMT -5
I actually received a couple of emails asking that this thread Be unlocked. So I will do just that. I appreciate the feed back from those who wrote and am listening. I will not be posting any further on this thread. As far as I am concerned, the relevant facts are here and the issue is DOA.
|
|
|
|
Post by jefffriedman on Oct 24, 2009 21:31:58 GMT -5
I am writing to address people posting baseless attacks against my character. I do not believe that we have ever met, nor that you know anything about me and your attacks reflect that.
For the record I am in no way connected with Mr. Miller on any political level. I had previously spent 10 years working for the election and re-election of dozens of democratic candidates. I was approached by a group of citizens, many of which serve on various Borough committees, and asked to draft a letter and work with the APP and then the LOWV to organize a debate for the candidates. I believe I was approached because I have years of political event planning experience and because I have never been involved in local politics and am presently not involved in politics on any level.
I believed then, as I do now, that a debate by the candidates, on the issues that affect the Borough’s future is a positive event for the candidates and the residents.
I have in no way attacked you nor anyone. In fact I do not know you. Our letter to the candidates was clear as to who was sponsoring the debate, the Asbury Park Press. Thereafter the citizens were attacked falsely on various websites; and when the candidates did not agree on a format those attacks on the citizens grew.
People demanded that the facts come out. I worked and crafted a statement that was reviewed and commented on by both the Democrats and the Republicans and their comments were included. If either side felt that the facts as stated were false I have no doubt they would have said so; they did not. The rest of the citizens, men and women of upstanding character, were at that point fearful of further baseless attacks on their character as well, and hoped, that the release of a statement, our only statement, would address previous attacks. Our letter also clearly says the debate would have been run by the League of Women Voters. I am not sure what more I, or anyone, could have done to ensure the fairness of the debate or our single response to the attacks made against us.
No one has criticized the actual facts of the statement. One person felt the need to clarity that the CIC was not involved; I see no place in the letter or the statement that says that the CIC was a sponsor, though I gladly accept that clarification. The only mention of the CIC in our statement was factually true and was in response to previous statements by others.
I also now understand that people have longstanding issues wit Mr. Miller and Mr. Sullivan. I do not know what those issues are nor do they concern me and I do not want to be dragged into your personal fights.
I do not condone personal attacks on anyone. I would not support any person who attacks people personally. I believe people should focus on policy issues.
If you have any real criticism of the concept of candidates debating, the letter requesting a debate, or the facts of the statement, I would be happy to discuss them with you in a respectful and civil manner. I do however demand that you cease and desit your attacks upon me and my character.
My family has owned property, and has worked in the Borough for 40 years, we own two of the oldest building in town and I live in the Borough. The positive future development of the Borough has been what I have been working for since I began running my family business.
I would expect that upon reflection you too would consider your attacks of a person who you have never met, and probably have never heard of, over the top.
Regards,
Jeffrey J. Friedman
|
|
lisa
Novice
Posts: 76
|
Post by lisa on Oct 27, 2009 14:09:04 GMT -5
I have one reply to this....... As an incumbent running for office no matter what the position when you are asked to come to a debate in front of the public and a newspaper It seems to me if you want the position your running for you should bend over backwards to get yourself to that debate. What I see going on in this blog is sheer childish self absorbed immature behavior. To attack the person that tried or helped to set up the debate no matter what the circumstances is pathetic. If it creates that much of an inconvenience then I can only assume that you’re being elected and the responsibilities that go along with it are also inconvenient.
|
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Oct 27, 2009 14:26:18 GMT -5
Rich your comments are laughable. You guys have tried time in and time again to make all post on other sites mine, i dont comment on anywhere but here and freeholdinjersey. so once again your comments lack any substance. Why is it you attack people that dont think like you. Is the kelsey way the only way. Maybe people should think why is a lawyer from virgina on freehold sites, stirring the pot and saving what people write for personal gain. you want to make accusations that i posted on the "why I hate ted" then let me ask you this, are you supporting teds attack against one of the canidates family members? is that good politics in your eyes? tell me i have no proof andi will say your accusations are the same! FYI- when you present a fact then we can talk. i dont want to comment on your let me pat myself on the back comments. we all get it, your a political genius from all the political involvement you have. congrats! were all proud of you! Thanks -- I'd except your characterization of me as a political genius, but it is untrue -- flattering as it is. With respect to facts -- I point you only to the facts set out by the citizens' committee and now Mr. Friedman -- apparently a Democrat. And, I would again ask you the following questions I will repeat from my earlier post. Are you in a position to refute a single fact related to the debate as set out by the committee?BTW -- whoever is posting in your pseudo-name on other sites, uses the exact same arguments, attacks, name calling, bad grammar, misspellings, and accusations we see here from you. No doubt a cunning maneuver by the right-wing crazies on this site or probably by Mr. Miller himself. |
|
|
|
Post by Mike Rosseel on Oct 27, 2009 17:50:15 GMT -5
Rich. maybe its time for you to grow up! Enjoy life in Virginia. Its plain to see your still upset because the mayor and council didnt handle the issue you were working on with them the way you thought it should be handled. Boo Hoo!
Please continue to think that the post are from me! I can careless. What position are you in to refute any fact from the debate? We all get it, you like Miller and think he is the right man, says alot about you! Keep supporting him, i Promise you come election day, i'm laughing not you!
|
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Oct 27, 2009 21:54:59 GMT -5
Rich. maybe its time for you to grow up! Enjoy life in Virginia. Its plain to see your still upset because the mayor and council didnt handle the issue you were working on with them the way you thought it should be handled. Boo Hoo! Please continue to think that the post are from me! I can careless. What position are you in to refute any fact from the debate? We all get it, you like Miller and think he is the right man, says alot about you! Keep supporting him, i Promise you come election day, i'm laughing not you! I am happy to let my posts stand beside yours and let readers decide for themselves who if either of us needs to grow up. But -- I will ask you again -- mostly because you claimed after Marc's post that the "TRUE FACTS" were out. Are you in a position to refute a single fact related to the debate as set out by the committee?As for the election -- that is for the people of Freehold to decide. I have taken no position on this election other than the people deserve a debate -- in that town or any other. I am just now trying to get from you an explanation consistent with your original post in light of the facts as set forth by the Committee, and the statement now of Mr. Friedman. |
|
|
|
Post by Mike Rosseel on Oct 28, 2009 7:32:46 GMT -5
Once again, i'm happy for you! I see you danced around the point about your personal issues with the mayor and council. Your post clearly show that Rich Kelsey has a issue with Mike Wilson and the council and i ask you why is that? What happened?
I am not saying one bad word about Mr Friedman. I believe the debate was a set up by ted and brian to make the dems. look bad no matter which way it went.
1. You and your fellow FV people, have said Marc has put down the WLOF and APP, where is that statement from Marc? Can you produce FACTS to show that point?
2. The CIC and its real members came out and clearly stated they had no involvement,(please look at post from real CIC members), why was this group used as a decoy for the "Bi-partisan" debate.
3. Why did ted and john have there little dinner party lastnight on the date the two incumbents offered to debate them on? Isnt that them not agreeing to a debate?
Rich, your entitled to your opinion which you put all over the place, but guess what so am I. I believe brian and ted set this whole debate up as a trap for the incumbents! They put Marc and Sharon in a "catch 22". If they jumped and agreed to the debate the way ted and brian secretly set it up, they would have been involved in a typical Miller one sided event. If they dont agree to it like they did because it was hardly a "bi-partisan" event you guys spin it like there the bad guys. Im so glad its all over next week, maybe freehold will be Miller and his puppet free after election day! Rich have a BLESSED day!
|
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Oct 28, 2009 10:41:10 GMT -5
Once again, i'm happy for you! I see you danced around the point about your personal issues with the mayor and council. Your post clearly show that Rich Kelsey has a issue with Mike Wilson and the council and i ask you why is that? What happened? I am not saying one bad word about Mr Friedman. I believe the debate was a set up by ted and brian to make the dems. look bad no matter which way it went. 1. You and your fellow FV people, have said Marc has put down the WLOF and APP, where is that statement from Marc? Can you produce FACTS to show that point? 2. The CIC and its real members came out and clearly stated they had no involvement,(please look at post from real CIC members), why was this group used as a decoy for the "Bi-partisan" debate. 3. Why did ted and john have there little dinner party lastnight on the date the two incumbents offered to debate them on? Isnt that them not agreeing to a debate? Rich, your entitled to your opinion which you put all over the place, but guess what so am I. I believe brian and ted set this whole debate up as a trap for the incumbents! They put Marc and Sharon in a "catch 22". If they jumped and agreed to the debate the way ted and brian secretly set it up, they would have been involved in a typical Miller one sided event. If they dont agree to it like they did because it was hardly a "bi-partisan" event you guys spin it like there the bad guys. Im so glad its all over next week, maybe freehold will be Miller and his puppet free after election day! Rich have a BLESSED day! I am not sure what news you think you are breaking -- there can be no more known fact than my disagreement with the Mayor and most council members on a host of issues. It is in many newspapers, and written extensively on this site. I don't think any reader has missed that point -- and I have made crystal clear what my issue is with respect to those individuals. No need to re-write the thousands of words already written outlining my concerns about Mike Wilson and most council members. You are entitled to your opinion -- I agree. I am only asking you for the basis of that opinion. Everyone is "entitled to an opinion." Whether or not we give the opinion any respect or take it seriously is based upon the factual under-pinning and the logic of any opinion. Your opinion seems to be that this entire debate was a "set-up" by Miller and Newman. You provide no evidence of that -- and Mr. Friedman and the Citizen Committee state facts that do not support your opinion. Marc's e-mail made it clear that this was some dark conspiracy, that the admin of this site set up this conspiracy, and that the whole debate forum was illegitimate. You seem to take the same position -- but then you both want to eat your cake and have it too. (BTW -- that is the proper usage of the often misquoted phrase). You want to say the whole thing is a FV, Miller, sham, one-sided, and a complete set-up. Then you want to say -- which goes farther than Marc -- that the APP and LOWV are all fine and good. You can't have it both ways, unless your position is that FV, Mr. Friedman the democrat, and the Citizen Committee all pulled the wool over the eyes and victimized the APP and LOWV. That's nonsense. The LOWV central mission is organizing, fair, non-partisan, debates. The APP clearly has no dog in this fight -- other than encouraging debate and democracy. The implication of your post -- more explicit than implicit -- is that either the APP and LOWV were subverted, or they were complicit in this "set-up." In other words, your opinion on this issue doesn't really add up. If you can clear that up for me, then I might better understand why you seem so angry about having and hosting a fair, open, community oriented, debate. The statement of the committee, particularly as filled in by Mr. Friedman, makes clear that one side did not want to debate, and that same side has misrepresented the facts of the proposed debate. I am trying to get you to focus on those factual findings -- that's all. |
|
|
|
Post by Mike Rosseel on Oct 28, 2009 11:26:33 GMT -5
This is my last post on the debate, I am a man of my word and i told admin i would be dropping this topic from here on out!
I BELIEVE that the debate was a political trap organized by ted miller
I Believe that Fv did play a role in the debate
i believe it was 100% not a Bi-Partisan organized debate. Just because you have a dem working on the debate doesnt make it bi-partisan. Why wasn't Marc and Sharon not alowed to have a representative on the committee?
I believe you keep trying to put a spin on this like someone is attacking the LOWV or the APP.
I believe that miller from day one has ran a dirty campaign and this would just follow the dirty ways of miller
I believe that if miller and newman were so ready to debate, they could have done it lastnight instead of have a cocktail party with 50 people there.
This is what i believe. I also believe that i am entitled to say what i believe. You Mr Kelsey obviously believe something else, and thats fine! You have every right to say what you believe and think its right, and if thats what you believe then it is right!
you forget that in the beginning of this ted and i were friendly and he sent me many emails with his ideas and attacks in them, thats when i walked away. Freehold doesnt need personal attacks on the family of people running, there is no place for that from either side.
PS thanks so much for letting me know how the cake saying goes, i know can die a much more knowledgable man thanks to you!
|
|
|
|
Post by admin on Oct 28, 2009 11:36:13 GMT -5
This is my last post on the debate, I am a man of my word and i told admin i would be dropping this topic from here on out! I BELIEVE that the debate was a political trap organized by ted miller I Believe that Fv did play a role in the debate i believe it was 100% not a Bi-Partisan organized debate. Just because you have a dem working on the debate doesnt make it bi-partisan. Why wasn't Marc and Sharon not alowed to have a representative on the committee? I believe you keep trying to put a spin on this like someone is attacking the LOWV or the APP. I believe that miller from day one has ran a dirty campaign and this would just follow the dirty ways of miller I believe that if miller and newman were so ready to debate, they could have done it lastnight instead of have a cocktail party with 50 people there. This is what i believe. I also believe that i am entitled to say what i believe. You Mr Kelsey obviously believe something else, and thats fine! You have every right to say what you believe and think its right, and if thats what you believe then it is right! you forget that in the beginning of this ted and i were friendly and he sent me many emails with his ideas and attacks in them, thats when i walked away. Freehold doesnt need personal attacks on the family of people running, there is no place for that from either side. PS thanks so much for letting me know how the cake saying goes, i know can die a much more knowledgable man thanks to you! I am done writing about the point/counterpoint of the debate specifics, but I will say that I agree that people are entitled to their views, what ever they may be. While you and I do not agree on everything, you are welcome to your views. You have your mind made up and nobody can take that away from you. In the end, people will make up their own minds after reading everything and taking it all in. That is what counts. To give people something to chew on and make up their own minds. For one, I am very grateful for all the support I have received. |
|
|
|
Post by richardkelsey on Oct 28, 2009 13:32:28 GMT -5
This is my last post on the debate, I am a man of my word and i told admin i would be dropping this topic from here on out! I BELIEVE that the debate was a political trap organized by ted miller I Believe that Fv did play a role in the debate i believe it was 100% not a Bi-Partisan organized debate. Just because you have a dem working on the debate doesnt make it bi-partisan. Why wasn't Marc and Sharon not alowed to have a representative on the committee? I believe you keep trying to put a spin on this like someone is attacking the LOWV or the APP. I believe that miller from day one has ran a dirty campaign and this would just follow the dirty ways of miller I believe that if miller and newman were so ready to debate, they could have done it lastnight instead of have a cocktail party with 50 people there. This is what i believe. I also believe that i am entitled to say what i believe. You Mr Kelsey obviously believe something else, and thats fine! You have every right to say what you believe and think its right, and if thats what you believe then it is right! you forget that in the beginning of this ted and i were friendly and he sent me many emails with his ideas and attacks in them, thats when i walked away. Freehold doesnt need personal attacks on the family of people running, there is no place for that from either side. PS thanks so much for letting me know how the cake saying goes, i know can die a much more knowledgable man thanks to you! I am done writing about the point/counterpoint of the debate specifics, but I will say that I agree that people are entitled to their views, what ever they may be. While you and I do not agree on everything, you are welcome to your views. You have your mind made up and nobody can take that away from you. In the end, people will make up their own minds after reading everything and taking it all in. That is what counts. To give people something to chew on and make up their own minds. For one, I am very grateful for all the support I have received. This is a fair point. The record stands. The committee has posted, members have posted, and people can decide based on those facts, or whatever they want, to believe whatever they like. I wish there had been a debate -- then we could debate the merit of the issues -- and the positions of the candidates, rather than debate whether or not their should be a debate. Mr. Miller and Mr. Newman start 350-450 in the hole. They have quite a hill to climb. Frankly, as I noted in a previous post, in the absence of a well publicized, well covered, well done debate -- with an obvious winner -- the candidates are actually better off using the 2 hours and the prep time going door to door. That's the truth. If elected -- I hope Mr. Miller or Mr. Newman will commit to a debate right now with their future opponents, in a format like the one proposed by the committee, APP, and LOWV. Freeholdboy, if nothing else, I enjoyed your passion and intensity. It reminds me quite fondly of your Dad, who used his passion tirelessly for Freehold. He also served as my campaign manager, and his sage advice is among the many lessons I am happy to still carry with me many years later. |
|
|
|
Post by Mike Rosseel on Oct 28, 2009 14:01:42 GMT -5
"Freeholdboy, if nothing else, I enjoyed your passion and intensity. It reminds me quite fondly of your Dad, who used his passion tirelessly for Freehold. He also served as my campaign manager, and his sage advice is among the many lessons I am happy to still carry with me many years later."
Rich I too enjoyed the debate with you on this topic as well. if i stepped out of line or was being dumb at times, i apologize. I have a personal interest in this election due to somethings that have been done and said by canidate miller against my family! Like my father i will passionately defend my family and sometimes we both(my father and I) get carried away. I stand by all my statements and cant wait to see the results on election day. I only wish more people in freehold had passion regardless of what side they are on! Lets have a discussion again after elction day!
|
|
