| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
02 May 2005 12:43:24 PM |
| Object: |
Town Trusteee recalled for not saying Pledge |
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1368558/posts
EstesPark residents vote to recall town trustee (re: David Habecker who sat
during pledge)
KUSA 9News website ^ | March 22nd, 2005 | Paola Farer & Roger Wolfe
Posted on 03/22/2005 10:08:55 PM PST by ajolympian2004
ESTES PARK - Estes Park residents voted Tuesday to recall a town trustee
who refused to recite the Pledge of Allegiance before board meetings.
The final vote was 903 to 605 in favor of recalling David Habecker. The
turnout was much higher than for a typical municipal election.
Some voters, like Trudy Hewitt, said they though Habecker was being
unpatriotic. "When you sit down during the Pledge of Allegiance, which is
to our flag, which is about patriotism, which is about our country, you
dishonor everybody that has fought and sacrificed for our country," she
said.
"I think his constitutional rights should be supported so I voted (against
the recall)," said Linda Medley.
Habecker has been a trustee for 12 years, but the issue didn't arise until
last year when the town board began reciting the Pledge before meetings.
Habecker chose to sit out these sessions, calling the "under God" clause
unconstitutional.
The recall election was original scheduled for Feb. 15, but Habecker went
to court and had it blocked. Earlier this month, a federal judge lifted the
injunction.
"I don't think it's a sad day for me," said Habecker after the votes were
counted. "I stood ...or sat.for what I believed in and I still believe that
way and the vote of the town of Estes Park isn't going to change my mind."
Habecker said he still plans to attend board meetings and express his
opinions.
"What it means is that the people have a voice in their government and
that's what the state statute was set up for," said Richard Clark, the
recall organizer.
***********************************************************************************
MORE INFO
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=EstesPark+residents+vote+to+recall+town+trustee+%28re%3A+David+Habecker+who+sat+during+pledge%29&btnG=Google+Search
http://makeashorterlink.com/?B2652110B
.
|
|
| User: "Clayton...Barber Responsible For The Lunatic Fringe" |
|
| Title: Re: Town Trusteee recalled for not saying Pledge |
02 May 2005 08:10:03 PM |
|
|
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:llpc719p1ak07pi872vj1vutc6avssn8ga@4ax.com...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1368558/posts
EstesPark residents vote to recall town trustee (re: David Habecker who
sat
during pledge)
KUSA 9News website ^ | March 22nd, 2005 | Paola Farer & Roger Wolfe
Posted on 03/22/2005 10:08:55 PM PST by ajolympian2004
ESTES PARK - Estes Park residents voted Tuesday to recall a town trustee
who refused to recite the Pledge of Allegiance before board meetings.
The final vote was 903 to 605 in favor of recalling David Habecker. The
turnout was much higher than for a typical municipal election.
Some voters, like Trudy Hewitt, said they though Habecker was being
unpatriotic. "When you sit down during the Pledge of Allegiance, which is
to our flag, which is about patriotism, which is about our country, you
dishonor everybody that has fought and sacrificed for our country," she
said.
"I think his constitutional rights should be supported so I voted (against
the recall)," said Linda Medley.
Habecker has been a trustee for 12 years, but the issue didn't arise until
last year when the town board began reciting the Pledge before meetings.
Habecker chose to sit out these sessions, calling the "under God" clause
unconstitutional.
The recall election was original scheduled for Feb. 15, but Habecker went
to court and had it blocked. Earlier this month, a federal judge lifted
the
injunction.
"I don't think it's a sad day for me," said Habecker after the votes were
counted. "I stood ...or sat.for what I believed in and I still believe
that
way and the vote of the town of Estes Park isn't going to change my mind."
Habecker said he still plans to attend board meetings and express his
opinions.
"What it means is that the people have a voice in their government and
that's what the state statute was set up for," said Richard Clark, the
recall organizer.
If he doesn't take legal action over something like this, it just ensures
that it will keep happening over again!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ed Medlin" |
|
| Title: Re: Town Trusteee recalled for not saying Pledge |
03 May 2005 07:17:34 AM |
|
|
"Clayton...Barber Responsible For The Lunatic Fringe"
<cjfat@SPAMBLOCKphonymails.com> wrote in message
news:4276cfa1$0$10301$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:llpc719p1ak07pi872vj1vutc6avssn8ga@4ax.com...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1368558/posts
EstesPark residents vote to recall town trustee (re: David Habecker who
sat
during pledge)
KUSA 9News website ^ | March 22nd, 2005 | Paola Farer & Roger Wolfe
Posted on 03/22/2005 10:08:55 PM PST by ajolympian2004
ESTES PARK - Estes Park residents voted Tuesday to recall a town trustee
who refused to recite the Pledge of Allegiance before board meetings.
The final vote was 903 to 605 in favor of recalling David Habecker. The
turnout was much higher than for a typical municipal election.
Some voters, like Trudy Hewitt, said they though Habecker was being
unpatriotic. "When you sit down during the Pledge of Allegiance, which is
to our flag, which is about patriotism, which is about our country, you
dishonor everybody that has fought and sacrificed for our country," she
said.
"I think his constitutional rights should be supported so I voted
(against
the recall)," said Linda Medley.
Habecker has been a trustee for 12 years, but the issue didn't arise
until
last year when the town board began reciting the Pledge before meetings.
Habecker chose to sit out these sessions, calling the "under God" clause
unconstitutional.
The recall election was original scheduled for Feb. 15, but Habecker went
to court and had it blocked. Earlier this month, a federal judge lifted
the
injunction.
"I don't think it's a sad day for me," said Habecker after the votes were
counted. "I stood ...or sat.for what I believed in and I still believe
that
way and the vote of the town of Estes Park isn't going to change my
mind."
Habecker said he still plans to attend board meetings and express his
opinions.
"What it means is that the people have a voice in their government and
that's what the state statute was set up for," said Richard Clark, the
recall organizer.
If he doesn't take legal action over something like this, it just ensures
that it will keep happening over again!
The people who put him there are removing him because he doesn't support
them and their beliefs. Democracy at work IMO. He is there to serve them not
HIS agenda.
Ed
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JohnN" |
|
| Title: Re: Town Trusteee recalled for not saying Pledge |
04 May 2005 09:20:46 AM |
|
|
wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1368558/posts
EstesPark residents vote to recall town trustee (re: David Habecker
who sat
during pledge)
some ng's removed
Three thoughts: First, he should have stood up during the Pledge, not
remained seated. By standing he shows respect for those actually
reciting the Pledge.
Second, there must have been other issues the people had with Habecker.
This could not have been his only fault.
Third, Why say the Pledge in the first place? Was there any question
about the loyalty of the people at the meetings that required them to
recite a loyalty oath? I don't see the point in reciting it over and
over again. Once should be enough.
JohnN
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Town Trusteee recalled for not saying Pledge |
05 May 2005 02:21:14 PM |
|
|
"JohnN" <jnorris53@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115216446.631686.206280@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1368558/posts
EstesPark residents vote to recall town trustee (re: David Habecker
who sat
during pledge)
some ng's removed
Three thoughts: First, he should have stood up during the Pledge, not
remained seated. By standing he shows respect for those actually
reciting the Pledge.
Second, there must have been other issues the people had with Habecker.
This could not have been his only fault.
Third, Why say the Pledge in the first place? Was there any question
about the loyalty of the people at the meetings that required them to
recite a loyalty oath? I don't see the point in reciting it over and
over again. Once should be enough.
Once should be enough, but we should also be ready and willing to recite the
Pledge anytime we head up a public meeting if it is customary to have the
recital at said meeting. Reciting the Pledge is an oath to do what is best
for the many, not what is best for the one.
I agree with you though, the townsfolk must have other issues with this guy
besides his refusal to recite the Pledge. And, even if one elects to not
recite the Pledge, he should stand at attention out of respect for the
others that do recite it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin" |
|
| Title: Re: Town Trusteee recalled for not saying Pledge |
05 May 2005 11:22:22 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote in message
news:VOSdnUKphM8G7-ffRVn-vg@ez2.net...
"JohnN" <jnorris53@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115216446.631686.206280@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1368558/posts
EstesPark residents vote to recall town trustee (re:
David Habecker
who sat
during pledge)
some ng's removed
Three thoughts: First, he should have stood up during the
Pledge, not
remained seated. By standing he shows respect for those
actually
reciting the Pledge.
Second, there must have been other issues the people had
with Habecker.
This could not have been his only fault.
Third, Why say the Pledge in the first place? Was there
any question
about the loyalty of the people at the meetings that
required them to
recite a loyalty oath? I don't see the point in reciting
it over and
over again. Once should be enough.
Once should be enough, but we should also be ready and
willing to recite the
Pledge anytime we head up a public meeting if it is
customary to have the
recital at said meeting. Reciting the Pledge is an oath to
do what is best
for the many, not what is best for the one.
I agree with you though, the townsfolk must have other
issues with this guy
besides his refusal to recite the Pledge. And, even if one
elects to not
recite the Pledge, he should stand at attention out of
respect for the
others that do recite it.
Customary? The only place I remember "The Pledge" being
customary was at Assembly of God Daily Vacation Bible School
when I was a child during the 1950s. We also recited a pledge
to the Bible and the "Christian Flag" (I remember it as white
with a cross on it - not sure) at the beginning of each day's
"school." We recited it occasionally at public school as
well, and I remember finding it difficult to remember to
insert the "under God" phrase at the correct place.
I served one term as a township auditor in the early 1980s.
We met once a month for two or three hours, and not once in
four years did anyone suggest reciting the pledge. I wonder
whether pseudo patriotism has overtaken our township board as
it seems to have the above group. I'd like to think not, but
I fear the worst.
--
Marvin
To reply, burn off fog.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Town Trusteee recalled for not saying Pledge |
06 May 2005 01:34:55 PM |
|
|
"Marvin" <marvin2@FOGstarband.net> wrote in message
news:d2bd3$427ad311$943fe1b6$2089@STARBAND.NET...
"Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote in message
news:VOSdnUKphM8G7-ffRVn-vg@ez2.net...
"JohnN" <jnorris53@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115216446.631686.206280@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1368558/posts
EstesPark residents vote to recall town trustee (re:
David Habecker
who sat
during pledge)
some ng's removed
Three thoughts: First, he should have stood up during the
Pledge, not
remained seated. By standing he shows respect for those
actually
reciting the Pledge.
Second, there must have been other issues the people had
with Habecker.
This could not have been his only fault.
Third, Why say the Pledge in the first place? Was there
any question
about the loyalty of the people at the meetings that
required them to
recite a loyalty oath? I don't see the point in reciting
it over and
over again. Once should be enough.
Once should be enough, but we should also be ready and
willing to recite the
Pledge anytime we head up a public meeting if it is
customary to have the
recital at said meeting. Reciting the Pledge is an oath to
do what is best
for the many, not what is best for the one.
I agree with you though, the townsfolk must have other
issues with this guy
besides his refusal to recite the Pledge. And, even if one
elects to not
recite the Pledge, he should stand at attention out of
respect for the
others that do recite it.
Customary? The only place I remember "The Pledge" being
customary was at Assembly of God Daily Vacation Bible School
when I was a child during the 1950s. We also recited a pledge
to the Bible and the "Christian Flag" (I remember it as white
with a cross on it - not sure) at the beginning of each day's
"school." We recited it occasionally at public school as
well, and I remember finding it difficult to remember to
insert the "under God" phrase at the correct place.
That's the only place where I remember it to be customary too. But that
doesn't preclude that customs might be different in places where I don't
normally go. If I went anywhere, and somebody said, "Please stand for the
Pledge of Allegiance," I be among the first to take my feet. I am proud to
recite the Pledge anytime and anywhere I am asked. If you do not share the
pride, then stand and shut up while the rest of us make fools out of
ourselves.
I served one term as a township auditor in the early 1980s.
We met once a month for two or three hours, and not once in
four years did anyone suggest reciting the pledge. I wonder
whether pseudo patriotism has overtaken our township board as
it seems to have the above group. I'd like to think not, but
I fear the worst.
That's fine. But if it was customary to recite the Pledge, and you opted to
sit while the rest of the room stood, then it would be a reasonable act by
everybody else to retaliate in some manner. They might not retailate, but
they might and it would be reasonable. If you stood and remained silent,
then nobody would know that you didn't recite because they are all looking
at the flag, not at you. If you are standing and silent, nobody will care,
but if you are sitting everybody will care.
.
|
|
|
| User: "c-bee1" |
|
| Title: Re: Town Trusteee recalled for not saying Pledge |
06 May 2005 06:34:27 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote in message
news:cK6dndGIzpP6JObfRVn-sQ@ez2.net...
"Marvin" <marvin2@FOGstarband.net> wrote in message
news:d2bd3$427ad311$943fe1b6$2089@STARBAND.NET...
"Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote in message
news:VOSdnUKphM8G7-ffRVn-vg@ez2.net...
"JohnN" <jnorris53@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115216446.631686.206280@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1368558/posts
EstesPark residents vote to recall town trustee (re:
David Habecker
who sat
during pledge)
some ng's removed
Three thoughts: First, he should have stood up during the
Pledge, not
remained seated. By standing he shows respect for those
actually
reciting the Pledge.
Second, there must have been other issues the people had
with Habecker.
This could not have been his only fault.
Third, Why say the Pledge in the first place? Was there
any question
about the loyalty of the people at the meetings that
required them to
recite a loyalty oath? I don't see the point in reciting
it over and
over again. Once should be enough.
Once should be enough, but we should also be ready and
willing to recite the
Pledge anytime we head up a public meeting if it is
customary to have the
recital at said meeting. Reciting the Pledge is an oath to
do what is best
for the many, not what is best for the one.
I agree with you though, the townsfolk must have other
issues with this guy
besides his refusal to recite the Pledge. And, even if one
elects to not
recite the Pledge, he should stand at attention out of
respect for the
others that do recite it.
Customary? The only place I remember "The Pledge" being
customary was at Assembly of God Daily Vacation Bible School
when I was a child during the 1950s. We also recited a pledge
to the Bible and the "Christian Flag" (I remember it as white
with a cross on it - not sure) at the beginning of each day's
"school." We recited it occasionally at public school as
well, and I remember finding it difficult to remember to
insert the "under God" phrase at the correct place.
That's the only place where I remember it to be customary too. But that
doesn't preclude that customs might be different in places where I don't
normally go. If I went anywhere, and somebody said, "Please stand for the
Pledge of Allegiance," I be among the first to take my feet. I am proud to
recite the Pledge anytime and anywhere I am asked. If you do not share the
pride, then stand and shut up while the rest of us make fools out of
ourselves.
I served one term as a township auditor in the early 1980s.
We met once a month for two or three hours, and not once in
four years did anyone suggest reciting the pledge. I wonder
whether pseudo patriotism has overtaken our township board as
it seems to have the above group. I'd like to think not, but
I fear the worst.
That's fine. But if it was customary to recite the Pledge, and you opted
to
sit while the rest of the room stood, then it would be a reasonable act by
everybody else to retaliate in some manner. They might not retailate, but
they might and it would be reasonable.
Turnabout, of course, being fair play.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Town Trusteee recalled for not saying Pledge |
07 May 2005 08:17:17 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 06 May 2005 23:34:27 GMT, "c-bee1" <c-bee1@insightbb.com>
wrote:
"Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote in message
news:cK6dndGIzpP6JObfRVn-sQ@ez2.net...
"Marvin" <marvin2@FOGstarband.net> wrote in message
news:d2bd3$427ad311$943fe1b6$2089@STARBAND.NET...
"Jeff Strickland" <spamcatcher@yahoo.net> wrote in message
news:VOSdnUKphM8G7-ffRVn-vg@ez2.net...
"JohnN" <jnorris53@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115216446.631686.206280@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1368558/posts
EstesPark residents vote to recall town trustee (re:
David Habecker
who sat
during pledge)
some ng's removed
Three thoughts: First, he should have stood up during the
Pledge, not
remained seated. By standing he shows respect for those
actually
reciting the Pledge.
Second, there must have been other issues the people had
with Habecker.
This could not have been his only fault.
Third, Why say the Pledge in the first place? Was there
any question
about the loyalty of the people at the meetings that
required them to
recite a loyalty oath? I don't see the point in reciting
it over and
over again. Once should be enough.
Once should be enough, but we should also be ready and
willing to recite the
Pledge anytime we head up a public meeting if it is
customary to have the
recital at said meeting. Reciting the Pledge is an oath to
do what is best
for the many, not what is best for the one.
I agree with you though, the townsfolk must have other
issues with this guy
besides his refusal to recite the Pledge. And, even if one
elects to not
recite the Pledge, he should stand at attention out of
respect for the
others that do recite it.
Customary? The only place I remember "The Pledge" being
customary was at Assembly of God Daily Vacation Bible School
when I was a child during the 1950s. We also recited a pledge
to the Bible and the "Christian Flag" (I remember it as white
with a cross on it - not sure) at the beginning of each day's
"school." We recited it occasionally at public school as
well, and I remember finding it difficult to remember to
insert the "under God" phrase at the correct place.
That's the only place where I remember it to be customary too. But that
doesn't preclude that customs might be different in places where I don't
normally go. If I went anywhere, and somebody said, "Please stand for the
Pledge of Allegiance," I be among the first to take my feet. I am proud to
recite the Pledge anytime and anywhere I am asked. If you do not share the
pride, then stand and shut up while the rest of us make fools out of
ourselves.
I served one term as a township auditor in the early 1980s.
We met once a month for two or three hours, and not once in
four years did anyone suggest reciting the pledge. I wonder
whether pseudo patriotism has overtaken our township board as
it seems to have the above group. I'd like to think not, but
I fear the worst.
That's fine. But if it was customary to recite the Pledge, and you opted
to
sit while the rest of the room stood, then it would be a reasonable act by
everybody else to retaliate in some manner. They might not retailate, but
they might and it would be reasonable.
Turnabout, of course, being fair play.
Well, of course it used to be customary to play the National anthem
when a cinema closed for the night and everybody used to stand.
When the first person sneaked out everybody stared but soon one
became two or three until eventually the one the one or two who stood
were the ones who got attention particularly if they blocked others.
Now the anthem is no longer played in cinemas.
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Buck" |
|
| Title: Re: Town Trusteee recalled for not saying Pledge |
05 May 2005 12:39:57 AM |
|
|
On 4 May 2005 07:20:46 -0700, "JohnN" <jnorris53@hotmail.com> wrote:
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1368558/posts
EstesPark residents vote to recall town trustee (re: David Habecker
who sat
during pledge)
some ng's removed
Three thoughts: First, he should have stood up during the Pledge, not
remained seated. By standing he shows respect for those actually
reciting the Pledge.
So why are those who say the pledge the only ones who deserve to be
"respected"? Are they "respecting" him by not getting their panties
in a bunch over such a trivial matter? It could just as easily be
said that they should not have objected, that by tolerating it they
show respect for those who actually have an issue with saying the
pledge.
--
L8r,
Uncle Buck
.
|
|
|
| User: "JohnN" |
|
| Title: Re: Town Trusteee recalled for not saying Pledge |
06 May 2005 12:56:01 PM |
|
|
Uncle Buck wrote:
On 4 May 2005 07:20:46 -0700, "JohnN" <jnorris53@hotmail.com> wrote:
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1368558/posts
EstesPark residents vote to recall town trustee (re: David
Habecker
who sat
during pledge)
some ng's removed
Three thoughts: First, he should have stood up during the Pledge,
not
remained seated. By standing he shows respect for those actually
reciting the Pledge.
So why are those who say the pledge the only ones who deserve to be
"respected"? Are they "respecting" him by not getting their panties
in a bunch over such a trivial matter? It could just as easily be
said that they should not have objected, that by tolerating it they
show respect for those who actually have an issue with saying the
pledge.
--
You are right. He should have stood out of respect for the country and
the Pledge.
JohnN
JohnN
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Town Trusteee recalled for not saying Pledge |
09 May 2005 03:15:38 PM |
|
|
On 6 May 2005 10:56:01 -0700, "JohnN" <jnorris53@hotmail.com> wrote:
Uncle Buck wrote:
On 4 May 2005 07:20:46 -0700, "JohnN" <jnorris53@hotmail.com> wrote:
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1368558/posts
EstesPark residents vote to recall town trustee (re: David
Habecker
who sat
during pledge)
some ng's removed
Three thoughts: First, he should have stood up during the Pledge,
not
remained seated. By standing he shows respect for those actually
reciting the Pledge.
So why are those who say the pledge the only ones who deserve to be
"respected"? Are they "respecting" him by not getting their panties
in a bunch over such a trivial matter? It could just as easily be
said that they should not have objected, that by tolerating it they
show respect for those who actually have an issue with saying the
pledge.
--
You are right. He should have stood out of respect for the country and
the Pledge.
Respect for a country has nothing to do with one's performance of a
dumb ***** ritual. As for 'The Pledge" ***** on it. Meaningless verbage
from start to finish.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
| User: "john howell" |
|
| Title: Re: Town Trusteee recalled for not saying Pledge |
10 May 2005 12:36:00 AM |
|
|
I will not stand or recite a pledge, salute a flag or sign a loyalty
oath. Simply because that is not what defines you as a good citizen What
defines you as a good citizen or not is how you conduct yourself in your
relationship with other people. And your true loyalty to your country also
defines you. What I mean by true loyalty is helping to defend your country
when it is being invaded from without or within. Working as best you can to
try and make your country a better place for all deserving people. Standing
up for your country when the need arises. And criticizing your government
when it needs criticizing such as now. To me, this is what defines you and
validates your worth as a good citizen no matter what country you live in.
The other stuff about pledges, saluting flags and loyalty oath is just a way
for those in power to try and maintain power over it citizens by doing head
counts. However if someone wants to say the pledge or salute the flag
because it makes them feel all warm and fuzzy inside, that's fine with me
also. But please, don't get your panty's all in a bunch because someone
else wont stand with you. Afterall, isn't this still a free country? "Well,
isn't it? St John the Atheist "stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:41hv715fcogfeisjukcsdmare9nrvciga6@4ax.com...
On 6 May 2005 10:56:01 -0700, "JohnN" <jnorris53@hotmail.com> wrote:
Uncle Buck wrote:
On 4 May 2005 07:20:46 -0700, "JohnN" <jnorris53@hotmail.com> wrote:
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1368558/posts
EstesPark residents vote to recall town trustee (re: David
Habecker
who sat
during pledge)
some ng's removed
Three thoughts: First, he should have stood up during the Pledge,
not
remained seated. By standing he shows respect for those actually
reciting the Pledge.
So why are those who say the pledge the only ones who deserve to be
"respected"? Are they "respecting" him by not getting their panties
in a bunch over such a trivial matter? It could just as easily be
said that they should not have objected, that by tolerating it they
show respect for those who actually have an issue with saying the
pledge.
--
You are right. He should have stood out of respect for the country and
the Pledge.
Respect for a country has nothing to do with one's performance of a
dumb ***** ritual. As for 'The Pledge" ***** on it. Meaningless verbage
from start to finish.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Town Trusteee recalled for not saying Pledge |
10 May 2005 08:05:04 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 10 May 2005 05:36:00 GMT, "john howell" <jh.pita@verizon.net>
wrote:
I will not stand or recite a pledge, salute a flag or sign a loyalty
oath. Simply because that is not what defines you as a good citizen What
defines you as a good citizen or not is how you conduct yourself in your
relationship with other people. And your true loyalty to your country also
defines you. What I mean by true loyalty is helping to defend your country
when it is being invaded from without or within. Working as best you can to
try and make your country a better place for all deserving people. Standing
up for your country when the need arises. And criticizing your government
when it needs criticizing such as now. To me, this is what defines you and
validates your worth as a good citizen no matter what country you live in.
BTDT.
The other stuff about pledges, saluting flags and loyalty oath is just a way
for those in power to try and maintain power over it citizens by doing head
counts.
Exactly.
However if someone wants to say the pledge or salute the flag
because it makes them feel all warm and fuzzy inside, that's fine with me
also. But please, don't get your panty's all in a bunch because someone
else wont stand with you.
I don't.
Afterall, isn't this still a free country? "Well,
isn't it?
Sure, if you've got all the proper stamps on your papers. Unless, of
course, ShrubCo decides to declare you a terriorist and has you
disappear.
St John the Atheist
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:41hv715fcogfeisjukcsdmare9nrvciga6@4ax.com...
On 6 May 2005 10:56:01 -0700, "JohnN" <jnorris53@hotmail.com> wrote:
Uncle Buck wrote:
On 4 May 2005 07:20:46 -0700, "JohnN" <jnorris53@hotmail.com> wrote:
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1368558/posts
EstesPark residents vote to recall town trustee (re: David
Habecker
who sat
during pledge)
some ng's removed
Three thoughts: First, he should have stood up during the Pledge,
not
remained seated. By standing he shows respect for those actually
reciting the Pledge.
So why are those who say the pledge the only ones who deserve to be
"respected"? Are they "respecting" him by not getting their panties
in a bunch over such a trivial matter? It could just as easily be
said that they should not have objected, that by tolerating it they
show respect for those who actually have an issue with saying the
pledge.
--
You are right. He should have stood out of respect for the country and
the Pledge.
Respect for a country has nothing to do with one's performance of a
dumb ***** ritual. As for 'The Pledge" ***** on it. Meaningless verbage
from start to finish.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JohnN" |
|
| Title: Re: Town Trusteee recalled for not saying Pledge |
11 May 2005 08:49:34 AM |
|
|
john howell wrote:
I will not stand or recite a pledge, salute a flag or sign a loyalty
oath. Simply because that is not what defines you as a good citizen
What
defines you as a good citizen or not is how you conduct yourself in
your
relationship with other people. And your true loyalty to your
country also
defines you. What I mean by true loyalty is helping to defend your
country
when it is being invaded from without or within. Working as best you
can to
try and make your country a better place for all deserving people.
Standing
up for your country when the need arises. And criticizing your
government
when it needs criticizing such as now. To me, this is what defines
you and
validates your worth as a good citizen no matter what country you
live in.
The other stuff about pledges, saluting flags and loyalty oath is
just a way
for those in power to try and maintain power over it citizens by
doing head
counts. However if someone wants to say the pledge or salute the
flag
because it makes them feel all warm and fuzzy inside, that's fine
with me
also. But please, don't get your panty's all in a bunch because
someone
else wont stand with you. Afterall, isn't this still a free country?
"Well,
isn't it? St John the Atheist "stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in
message
news:41hv715fcogfeisjukcsdmare9nrvciga6@4ax.com...
And that is your right to do, or not do, as well.
JohN
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Price" |
|
| Title: Re: Town Trusteee recalled for not saying Pledge |
10 May 2005 05:45:59 AM |
|
|
stoney wrote:
On 6 May 2005 10:56:01 -0700, "JohnN" <jnorris53@hotmail.com> wrote:
Uncle Buck wrote:
On 4 May 2005 07:20:46 -0700, "JohnN" <jnorris53@hotmail.com>
wrote:
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1368558/posts
EstesPark residents vote to recall town trustee (re: David
Habecker
who sat
during pledge)
some ng's removed
Three thoughts: First, he should have stood up during the Pledge,
not
remained seated. By standing he shows respect for those actually
reciting the Pledge.
So why are those who say the pledge the only ones who deserve to
be
"respected"? Are they "respecting" him by not getting their
panties
in a bunch over such a trivial matter? It could just as easily be
said that they should not have objected, that by tolerating it
they
show respect for those who actually have an issue with saying the
pledge.
--
You are right. He should have stood out of respect for the country
and
the Pledge.
Respect for a country has nothing to do with one's performance of a
dumb ***** ritual. As for 'The Pledge" ***** on it. Meaningless
verbage
from start to finish.
If only that were true. There is nothing meaningless about the
words "one nation indivisable" it means contempt for one of your
rights, the right of seccession.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Town Trusteee recalled for not saying Pledge |
10 May 2005 08:07:05 PM |
|
|
On 10 May 2005 03:45:59 -0700, "Michael Price" <nini_pad@yahoo.com>
wrote:
stoney wrote:
On 6 May 2005 10:56:01 -0700, "JohnN" <jnorris53@hotmail.com> wrote:
Uncle Buck wrote:
On 4 May 2005 07:20:46 -0700, "JohnN" <jnorris53@hotmail.com>
wrote:
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1368558/posts
EstesPark residents vote to recall town trustee (re: David
Habecker
who sat
during pledge)
some ng's removed
Three thoughts: First, he should have stood up during the Pledge,
not
remained seated. By standing he shows respect for those actually
reciting the Pledge.
So why are those who say the pledge the only ones who deserve to
be
"respected"? Are they "respecting" him by not getting their
panties
in a bunch over such a trivial matter? It could just as easily be
said that they should not have objected, that by tolerating it
they
show respect for those who actually have an issue with saying the
pledge.
--
You are right. He should have stood out of respect for the country
and
the Pledge.
Respect for a country has nothing to do with one's performance of a
dumb ***** ritual. As for 'The Pledge" ***** on it. Meaningless
verbage
from start to finish.
If only that were true.
If only that wasn't true.
There is nothing meaningless about the
words "one nation indivisable"
Really? Perhaps not, if you're a hefty booster of the rethugnican
nazi party.
it means contempt for one of your
rights, the right of seccession.
What 'rights?'
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Town Trusteee recalled for not saying Pledge |
11 May 2005 01:54:00 AM |
|
|
stoney wrote:
On 10 May 2005 03:45:59 -0700, "Michael Price" <nini_pad@yahoo.com>
wrote:
stoney wrote:
On 6 May 2005 10:56:01 -0700, "JohnN" <jnorris53@hotmail.com> wrote:
Uncle Buck wrote:
On 4 May 2005 07:20:46 -0700, "JohnN" <jnorris53@hotmail.com>
wrote:
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1368558/posts
EstesPark residents vote to recall town trustee (re: David
Habecker
who sat
during pledge)
some ng's removed
Three thoughts: First, he should have stood up during the Pledge,
not
remained seated. By standing he shows respect for those actually
reciting the Pledge.
So why are those who say the pledge the only ones who deserve to
be
"respected"? Are they "respecting" him by not getting their
panties
in a bunch over such a trivial matter? It could just as easily be
said that they should not have objected, that by tolerating it
they
show respect for those who actually have an issue with saying the
pledge.
--
You are right. He should have stood out of respect for the country
and
the Pledge.
Respect for a country has nothing to do with one's performance of a
dumb ***** ritual. As for 'The Pledge" ***** on it. Meaningless
verbage
from start to finish.
If only that were true.
If only that wasn't true.
There is nothing meaningless about the
words "one nation indivisable"
Really? Perhaps not, if you're a hefty booster of the rethugnican
nazi party.
it means contempt for one of your
rights, the right of seccession.
What 'rights?'
think that the civil war has proved that one wrong
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Town Trusteee recalled for not saying Pledge |
12 May 2005 12:51:16 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 11 May 2005 06:54:00 GMT, "croaker1@earthlink.net"
<croaker1@earthlink.net> wrote:
stoney wrote:
[]
Respect for a country has nothing to do with one's performance of a
dumb ***** ritual. As for 'The Pledge" ***** on it. Meaningless
verbage
from start to finish.
If only that were true.
If only that wasn't true.
There is nothing meaningless about the words "one nation indivisable"
Really? Perhaps not, if you're a hefty booster of the rethugnican
nazi party.
it means contempt for one of your
rights, the right of seccession.
What 'rights?'
think that the civil war has proved that one wrong
True.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Price" |
|
| Title: Re: Town Trusteee recalled for not saying Pledge |
12 May 2005 09:57:32 AM |
|
|
stoney wrote:
On 10 May 2005 03:45:59 -0700, "Michael Price" <nini_pad@yahoo.com>
wrote:
stoney wrote:
On 6 May 2005 10:56:01 -0700, "JohnN" <jnorris53@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Uncle Buck wrote:
On 4 May 2005 07:20:46 -0700, "JohnN" <jnorris53@hotmail.com>
wrote:
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1368558/posts
EstesPark residents vote to recall town trustee (re: David
Habecker
who sat
during pledge)
some ng's removed
Three thoughts: First, he should have stood up during the
Pledge,
not
remained seated. By standing he shows respect for those
actually
reciting the Pledge.
So why are those who say the pledge the only ones who deserve
to
be
"respected"? Are they "respecting" him by not getting their
panties
in a bunch over such a trivial matter? It could just as easily
be
said that they should not have objected, that by tolerating it
they
show respect for those who actually have an issue with saying
the
pledge.
--
You are right. He should have stood out of respect for the
country
and
the Pledge.
Respect for a country has nothing to do with one's performance of
a
dumb ***** ritual. As for 'The Pledge" ***** on it. Meaningless
verbage
from start to finish.
If only that were true.
If only that wasn't true.
There is nothing meaningless about the
words "one nation indivisable"
Really? Perhaps not, if you're a hefty booster of the rethugnican
nazi party.
Yes really, whatever you happen to be.
it means contempt for one of your
rights, the right of seccession.
What 'rights?'
Well the right of seccession as I mentioned. The right of a
community to choose not to be governmed by a larger community but
instead to conduct it's own political affairs. The right in short
that your nation* was founded upon and upheld until the dictator
Lincoln unconstitutionally waged war on half the country.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
* I assume it's your nation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Town Trusteee recalled for not saying Pledge |
12 May 2005 01:10:59 PM |
|
|
On 12 May 2005 07:57:32 -0700, "Michael Price" <nini_pad@yahoo.com>
wrote:
stoney wrote:
On 10 May 2005 03:45:59 -0700, "Michael Price" <nini_pad@yahoo.com>
wrote:
[]
Respect for a country has nothing to do with one's performance of
a dumb ***** ritual. As for 'The Pledge" ***** on it. Meaningless
verbage from start to finish.
If only that were true.
If only that wasn't true.
There is nothing meaningless about the
words "one nation indivisable"
Really? Perhaps not, if you're a hefty booster of the rethugnican
nazi party.
Yes really, whatever you happen to be.
I guess you've not been aware of current events of the last four and a
half years.
it means contempt for one of your
rights, the right of seccession.
What 'rights?'
Well the right of seccession as I mentioned. The right of a
community to choose not to be governmed by a larger community but
instead to conduct it's own political affairs. The right in short
that your nation* was founded upon and upheld until the dictator
Lincoln unconstitutionally waged war on half the country.
My nation? No. That nation died many years ago. For many years it's
been quite apparent, even stated, those like me, without theism, don't
even qualify for 'the back of the bus' even though many of us have
served honourably in the armed forces.
I agree the Civil War was unconstitutional. I also understand why it
was fought. "A house divided against itself cannot stand" is
accurate. Perhaps the world would have been better off if the
seccession would have stood. Lots of 'what if' tracks are there to
peruse.
* I assume it's your nation.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Town Trusteee recalled for not saying Pledge |
02 May 2005 02:14:21 PM |
|
|
wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1368558/posts
One piece of information that seems to be missing is: what was the basis for a recall? In Seattle, a city council member can only be recalled in cases of
malfeasance or dereliction of duty. Does refusing to say the Pledge of Allegiance count as malfeasance or dereliction of duty?
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe
in one fewer god than you do. When you understand
why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you
will understand why I dismiss yours."
-Stephen F. Roberts
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Town Trusteee recalled for not saying Pledge |
02 May 2005 03:12:31 PM |
|
|
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote:
:|buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
:|
:|> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1368558/posts
:|
:|One piece of information that seems to be missing is: what was the basis for a recall? In Seattle, a city council member can only be recalled in cases of
:|malfeasance or dereliction of duty. Does refusing to say the Pledge of Allegiance count as malfeasance or dereliction of duty?
Well there was a URL at the bottom of my original post that led to a google
search on the topic
Just looking at one of those gives this addition info
http://noquarters.blogspot.com/2005_03_01_noquarters_archive.html
[scroll down]
Voters in Estes Park, Colo., removed town trustee David Habecker from
office Tuesday in a recall election that hinged on his refusal to recite
the Pledge of Allegiance at town meetings.
Mr. Habecker, who lost by a vote of 903-605, said he is considering
whether to pursue further legal action to overturn the recall outcome,
arguing that the voters had infringed upon his First Amendment rights. A
12-year trustee and self-described agnostic, Mr. Habecker refused to stand
for the Pledge because he objects to the words "under God," which he
described as unconstitutional and "un-American."
"It was a conscientious objection on my part. To take a loyalty oath
before the meeting starts -- that's not American," Mr. Habecker said. "This
country was founded on religious tolerance. This wasn't religious
tolerance."
His opponents, who organized as the Estes Park Citizens for Responsive
Government last fall to push the recall, said the trustee's anti-Pledge
stance showed that he was out of touch with his constituents.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Town Trusteee recalled for not saying Pledge |
02 May 2005 04:08:11 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote:
:| wrote:
:|
:|> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1368558/posts
:|
:|One piece of information that seems to be missing is: what was the basis for a recall? In Seattle, a city council member can only be recalled in cases of
:|malfeasance or dereliction of duty. Does refusing to say the Pledge of Allegiance count as malfeasance or dereliction of duty?
Well there was a URL at the bottom of my original post that led to a google
search on the topic
Just looking at one of those gives this addition info
http://noquarters.blogspot.com/2005_03_01_noquarters_archive.html
[scroll down]
Voters in Estes Park, Colo., removed town trustee David Habecker from
office Tuesday in a recall election that hinged on his refusal to recite
the Pledge of Allegiance at town meetings.
Mr. Habecker, who lost by a vote of 903-605, said he is considering
whether to pursue further legal action to overturn the recall outcome,
arguing that the voters had infringed upon his First Amendment rights. A
12-year trustee and self-described agnostic, Mr. Habecker refused to stand
for the Pledge because he objects to the words "under God," which he
described as unconstitutional and "un-American."
"It was a conscientious objection on my part. To take a loyalty oath
before the meeting starts -- that's not American," Mr. Habecker said. "This
country was founded on religious tolerance. This wasn't religious
tolerance."
His opponents, who organized as the Estes Park Citizens for Responsive
Government last fall to push the recall, said the trustee's anti-Pledge
stance showed that he was out of touch with his constituents.
It gives why he was recalled. That is not the legal basis for the recall, unless is refusal to recite the pledge counts as something equivalent to malfeasance
or dereliction of duty. Generally, there must be a LEGAL BASIS for recalling a politician. It is not something that can be done just because he has *****
the electorate; that is what elections are for. A recall is a vote to convict; of what charges was Mr. Habecker actually indicted under the law (ie what was the
legal basis for allowing the recall vote to be held in the first place?)
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe
in one fewer god than you do. When you understand
why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you
will understand why I dismiss yours."
-Stephen F. Roberts
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Town Trusteee recalled for not saying Pledge |
02 May 2005 06:32:53 PM |
|
|
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:427696BB.195F1243@serv.net...
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net> wrote:
:|buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
:|
:|> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1368558/posts
:|
:|One piece of information that seems to be missing is: what was the
basis for a recall? In Seattle, a city council member can only be recalled
in cases of
:|malfeasance or dereliction of duty. Does refusing to say the Pledge
of Allegiance count as malfeasance or dereliction of duty?
Well there was a URL at the bottom of my original post that led to a
google
search on the topic
Just looking at one of those gives this addition info
http://noquarters.blogspot.com/2005_03_01_noquarters_archive.html
[scroll down]
Voters in Estes Park, Colo., removed town trustee David Habecker
from
office Tuesday in a recall election that hinged on his refusal to recite
the Pledge of Allegiance at town meetings.
Mr. Habecker, who lost by a vote of 903-605, said he is considering
whether to pursue further legal action to overturn the recall outcome,
arguing that the voters had infringed upon his First Amendment rights. A
12-year trustee and self-described agnostic, Mr. Habecker refused to
stand
for the Pledge because he objects to the words "under God," which he
described as unconstitutional and "un-American."
"It was a conscientious objection on my part. To take a loyalty oath
before the meeting starts -- that's not American," Mr. Habecker said.
"This
country was founded on religious tolerance. This wasn't religious
tolerance."
His opponents, who organized as the Estes Park Citizens for
Responsive
Government last fall to push the recall, said the trustee's anti-Pledge
stance showed that he was out of touch with his constituents.
It gives why he was recalled. That is not the legal basis for the recall,
unless is refusal to recite the pledge counts as something equivalent to
malfeasance
or dereliction of duty. Generally, there must be a LEGAL BASIS for
recalling a politician. It is not something that can be done just because he
has *****
the electorate; that is what elections are for. A recall is a vote to
convict; of what charges was Mr. Habecker actually indicted under the law
(ie what was the
legal basis for allowing the recall vote to be held in the first place?)
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
My town is having a Recall Election tomorrow, May 2. The three council
members affected are under no sort of legal basis at all. The towns folks
leading the recall drive are just pissed they didn't get their way.
It is difficult to guage these matters, but from where I am sitting it
appears that at least two of the council members being recalled will survive
the election. One of them is up in the air. The one that is on the fence is
guilty of voting in favor of a project his daughter wants to uindertake. He
is allowed to vote in favor, but he is supposed to have disclosed his
financial benefit of doing so. He has no direct financial benefit beyond the
fact that his wife, his daughter's mother, is occasionally employed by the
daughter. He also approved a street improvement that frankly should have
been done a decade ago, but now that the work is finally being done it turns
out that his daughter's project is on the same street. Without regard to the
daughter's project, the street is a vital link in the neighborhood
surrounding a high school, and the street improvements should have been done
by the school district when the school was built, but that is a different
story.
My point is, I am in a city where three of five councilmen are being
recalled tomorrow, and there is no legal basis using your description of the
term.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Town Trusteee recalled for not saying Pledge |
03 May 2005 08:27:27 AM |
|
|
Jeff Strickland wrote:
My town is having a Recall Election tomorrow, May 2. The three council
members affected are under no sort of legal basis at all. The towns folks
leading the recall drive are just pissed they didn't get their way.
It is difficult to guage these matters, but from where I am sitting it
appears that at least two of the council members being recalled will survive
the election. One of them is up in the air. The one that is on the fence is
guilty of voting in favor of a project his daughter wants to uindertake. He
is allowed to vote in favor, but he is supposed to have disclosed his
financial benefit of doing so. He has no direct financial benefit beyond the
fact that his wife, his daughter's mother, is occasionally employed by the
daughter. He also approved a street improvement that frankly should have
been done a decade ago, but now that the work is finally being done it turns
out that his daughter's project is on the same street. Without regard to the
daughter's project, the street is a vital link in the neighborhood
surrounding a high school, and the street improvements should have been done
by the school district when the school was built, but that is a different
story.
My point is, I am in a city where three of five councilmen are being
recalled tomorrow, and there is no legal basis using your description of the
term.
Generally, undisclosed conflict of interest counts as malfeasance.
I just find it very, very odd that a politician can be recalled on voter whim.
Every time I've been involved in a recall election (granted, only four times),
very specific reasons had to be presented as to *why* a recall was necessary as
opposed to just letting the politician be voted out at the end of his term.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe
in one fewer god than you do. When you understand
why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you
will understand why I dismiss yours."
-Stephen F. Roberts
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Town Trusteee recalled for not saying Pledge |
03 May 2005 12:45:35 PM |
|
|
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:42777C3F.1AFFEB8B@serv.net...
Jeff Strickland wrote:
My town is having a Recall Election tomorrow, May 2. The three council
members affected are under no sort of legal basis at all. The towns folks
leading the recall drive are just pissed they didn't get their way.
It is difficult to guage these matters, but from where I am sitting it
appears that at least two of the council members being recalled will
survive
the election. One of them is up in the air. The one that is on the fence
is
guilty of voting in favor of a project his daughter wants to uindertake.
He
is allowed to vote in favor, but he is supposed to have disclosed his
financial benefit of doing so. He has no direct financial benefit beyond
the
fact that his wife, his daughter's mother, is occasionally employed by
the
daughter. He also approved a street improvement that frankly should have
been done a decade ago, but now that the work is finally being done it
turns
out that his daughter's project is on the same street. Without regard to
the
daughter's project, the street is a vital link in the neighborhood
surrounding a high school, and the street improvements should have been
done
by the school district when the school was built, but that is a different
story.
My point is, I am in a city where three of five councilmen are being
recalled tomorrow, and there is no legal basis using your description of
the
term.
Generally, undisclosed conflict of interest counts as malfeasance.
I just find it very, very odd that a politician can be recalled on voter
whim.
Every time I've been involved in a recall election (granted, only four
times),
very specific reasons had to be presented as to *why* a recall was
necessary as
opposed to just letting the politician be voted out at the end of his
term.
--
We are having three council members facing recall, and the only beef against
them is rampant development and no roads. The ***** about the Mayor and his
daughter is that he asked the planning commissioners individually and in
private if his daughter's project had any chance at being approved. They
took it as a specific request by the boss to approve the plan, and the plan
was subsequently approved.
The project is a pre-school that is sorely needed in the area, the parcel is
surrounded by other schools and a church and planned apartments that haven't
been built yet. The neighbors are mad because they claim the project isn't
suitable for the 'hood, but it is a very good fit in the grand scheme of
things. The street in front of the project is currently dirt, and should
have been paved when the high school down the block - a distance of perhaps
200 yards - was built 10 years ago. The people that come to the school have
to negotiate the heavily rutted dirt road to drop off and pick up kids, or
they must make a U-turn on the paved portion of the street - which is
illegal in this state - to remain on pavement. The school should have been
required to pave the street where the daughter's project is intended to be,
and the mayor simply approved paving it. The daughter's project does not
require the paved street because she can orient her project to front onto
the other adjacent street that is already paved. So, the mayor's vote is not
a conflict. And if the mayor's wife was not on the daughter's payroll, there
wouldn't be a conflict anyway.
In any case, there is no conviction or even a criminal charge against any of
the recalled councilmen, so the threshold to pursue a recall is not what you
thought. I am not sure what it is, but it isn't what you thought.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Town Trusteee recalled for not saying Pledge |
03 May 2005 02:47:41 PM |
|
|
Jeff Strickland wrote:
In any case, there is no conviction or even a criminal charge against any of
the recalled councilmen, so the threshold to pursue a recall is not what you
thought. I am not sure what it is, but it isn't what you thought.
I'm used to thinking that unsubstantiated charges and whiney partisanship isn't
enough to recall an elected official; there must be some material reason to
remove someone and the only reasons material enough not to wait for the regular
election are things like fraud, dereliction of duty, criminal activity, abuse of
power, major scandal, things like that. The reasons don't necessarily need to be
substantiated, but they must be pressing enough to first get a very large number
of people to support a recall petition and then vote against them.
Fine, call me blindly optimistic :-/
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe
in one fewer god than you do. When you understand
why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you
will understand why I dismiss yours."
-Stephen F. Roberts
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Town Trusteee recalled for not saying Pledge |
03 May 2005 04:21:05 PM |
|
|
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:4277D55D.B2704ADB@serv.net...
Jeff Strickland wrote:
In any case, there is no conviction or even a criminal charge against
any of
the recalled councilmen, so the threshold to pursue a recall is not what
you
thought. I am not sure what it is, but it isn't what you thought.
I'm used to thinking that unsubstantiated charges and whiney partisanship
isn't
enough to recall an elected official; there must be some material reason
to
remove someone and the only reasons material enough not to wait for the
regular
election are things like fraud, dereliction of duty, criminal activity,
abuse of
power, major scandal, things like that. The reasons don't necessarily need
to be
substantiated, but they must be pressing enough to first get a very large
number
of people to support a recall petition and then vote against them.
Fine, call me blindly optimistic :-/
Well, in our case, we have endured dramatic growth in our region, not just
our city but the entire region. The county isn't doing its job of directing
new roads to go in, and the city is compounding the problems by being lax in
road upgrades and traffic light timing. The result is our residents have to
muddle across the region on farm roads that have more traffic in an hour
today than they got in an entire day when the road was built, then when they
finally get to town, they are cursed with too few streets and traffic lights
in places that make no sense and have timing that caters to a single car
exiting a parkinglot at the expense of 40 or 50 cars that are cruising along
relatively unimpeeded for the past 200 or 300 yards since the last light.
The irony is, the people that are spearheading the recall cite traffic
congestion as the main fault of the city government, but three of five of
the replacement candidates have moved in since 2001. In short, they are a
bigger part of the problem than they can ever hope to play a part in
solving. The people bitching that they can't get out of their driveway
because the traffic is too heavy are all new residents. The old residents -
old is relative, I moved there in 1989 - understand that the problem isn't
rooted in the city at all, it's in the county or the state. Sure, the city
has its share of faults, but we fix those faults on Election Day, not by
calling a Recall.
To be fair, the recall proponents did put together a petition drive to get
their way. But, my understanding of reading the local press is that most of
the complaining is from the people that bought their home in the past 4
years or so. These same people rail against shopping centers on vacant land
that had a Commercial Property sign posted in the middle for the past 15
years, and when the shovels were lined up to be stuck in the dirt, these
same people had a hissy fit that they liked the vacant lot and wanted either
more homes or leave the lot vacant. We got more homes. I voted No.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Town Trusteee recalled for not saying Pledge |
03 May 2005 04:43:53 PM |
|
|
Jeff Strickland wrote:
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:4277D55D.B2704ADB@serv.net...
Jeff Strickland wrote:
In any case, there is no conviction or even a criminal charge against
any of
the recalled councilmen, so the threshold to pursue a recall is not what
you
thought. I am not sure what it is, but it isn't what you thought.
I'm used to thinking that unsubstantiated charges and whiney partisanship
isn't
enough to recall an elected official; there must be some material reason
to
remove someone and the only reasons material enough not to wait for the
regular
election are things like fraud, dereliction of duty, criminal activity,
abuse of
power, major scandal, things like that. The reasons don't necessarily need
to be
substantiated, but they must be pressing enough to first get a very large
number
of people to support a recall petition and then vote against them.
Fine, call me blindly optimistic :-/
Well, in our case, we have endured dramatic growth in our region, not just
our city but the entire region. The county isn't doing its job of directing
new roads to go in, and the city is compounding the problems by being lax in
road upgrades and traffic light timing. The result is our residents have to
muddle across the region on farm roads that have more traffic in an hour
today than they got in an entire day when the road was built, then when they
finally get to town, they are cursed with too few streets and traffic lights
in places that make no sense and have timing that caters to a single car
exiting a parkinglot at the expense of 40 or 50 cars that are cruising along
relatively unimpeeded for the past 200 or 300 yards since the last light.
The irony is, the people that are spearheading the recall cite traffic
congestion as the main fault of the city government, but three of five of
the replacement candidates have moved in since 2001. In short, they are a
bigger part of the problem than they can ever hope to play a part in
solving. The people bitching that they can't get out of their driveway
because the traffic is too heavy are all new residents. The old residents -
old is relative, I moved there in 1989 - understand that the problem isn't
rooted in the city at all, it's in the county or the state. Sure, the city
has its share of faults, but we fix those faults on Election Day, not by
calling a Recall.
To be fair, the recall proponents did put together a petition drive to get
their way. But, my understanding of reading the local press is that most of
the complaining is from the people that bought their home in the past 4
years or so. These same people rail against shopping centers on vacant land
that had a Commercial Property sign posted in the middle for the past 15
years, and when the shovels were lined up to be stuck in the dirt, these
same people had a hissy fit that they liked the vacant lot and wanted either
more homes or leave the lot vacant. We got more homes. I voted No.
Ok, that covers your situation. To drag this back, kicking and screaming, to my
original question: How does refusing to say a theist pledge merit a recall?
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe
in one fewer god than you do. When you understand
why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you
will understand why I dismiss yours."
-Stephen F. Roberts
.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
