Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

Kelly - you claimed that I supported more taxes .. the fact is that Charter Schools take our tax money .. so YOU are the one supporting HIGHER TAXES ... and supporting TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.  
You are the one who has no clue -- when it comes to my political philosophy -- I am one of the most conservative members of the Democratic Committee -- always have been and am proud of it.  

and as far as my views on parental choice -- again -- you are a liar -- I have consistently said that IF we are going to use tax dollars to support non-public schools than the best alternative is to give EVERY parent a voucher to use at whatever school public or private that they choose.
and - unlike you - I have friends in all political parties and from various parts of the political spectrum --  unlike you I am able to look beyond political ideology when choosing my friends and acquaintances.

Try reading a little bit slower and let us know if you need a dictionary....

Quoted from gadfly


No Ron... once again you are sticking your ignorant foot in your mouth with tales of convenience.

1.) I never denied that charter funding comes from taxes...but charter schools receive only two thirds of the per pupil funding...the
     money follows the student, as it should...and they achieve better results with less funding...disproving the convenient theory of
     the education cartel that more money equals better results...they have in fact proven just the opoosite as seen in the correlation
     between increased funding and declining results. And I was referring to the UNNECESSARY AMBULANCE TAX you supported.
2.) I did not deny that the public elects their school boards...they do not elect the members of the NYS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
     the body that issues charters, sets curriculums and determines public school policy.

3.) You wouldn't know a conservative if one bit you on your a$$...tell it to the CP Krat slaves who endorse the liberal members of
     your Party....and there is no taxation without representation...there is in fact more of it when parents have the choice of diverting
     their tax dollars to better choices in their children's education.
4.) Even if you support religion based schools, you are still defending the public school agenda in favor of denying parents their own
     choices for their own children with their own tax dollars.

You are a typical liberal projecting your own twisted sense of "facts" onto others...get a clue.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You obviously think that the only alterative should be the one you like best.

If you consider yourself one of the most conservative members of your Committee please spare me your idea of liberal.

I don't recall mentioning political orientation of friends or how they are chosen....since it has nothing to do with this debate...
but once again....irrelevant, non-response!

We don't need no charter screwls here. The public screwls are doing a grate job. Just ask public screwls scholards like DVR and Nobody.

Quoted from benny salami

We don't need no charter screwls here. The public screwls are doing a grate job. Just ask public screwls scholards like DVR and Nobody.

While I attended non-public schools for 19 of my 21 years of education, I believe that by and large area public schools do a very good job.   There certainly is always room for improvement --- and the first improvement would be to ABOLISH CHARTER SCHOOLS and allow those  tax dollars "stolen" by the Charter Schools to be returned either to the taxpayers pocket or for use in the public schools budget.

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

While I attended non-public schools for 19 of my 21 years of education, I believe that by and large area public schools do a very good job.   There certainly is always room for improvement --- and the first improvement would be to ABOLISH CHARTER SCHOOLS and allow those  tax dollars "stolen" by the Charter Schools to be returned either to the taxpayers pocket or for use in the public schools budget.

21 years of education - should we call you Doctor? Father? Mother Superior? Liar?

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

The Founding Fathers fought the revolutionary war to end TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION  but when they drafted the Articles of Confederation (where each state had 1 vote in Congress regardless of size) and, later, the US Constitution  (where each state has 2 votes in the Senate regardless of size and the House of Representatives based on population) .. they clearly understood that there were different ways to formulate the various  legislative bodies.

I have made no public comments about the "weighted voting" proposal -- so you do NOT know whether I support or oppose it .. so any statements that you make about what you believe my position to be are purely conjecture --- and probably quite far from the truth.

Having said that -- I fully intend to support Mr. Jasenski and Mr. Santabarbara for reelection as I take a look at the WHOLE PICTURE -- ot just a single issue -- and these two gentlemen have served our county well and their opponents don't - IMHO - appear to offer anything worth voting for them for.

Yes, the founding fathers had different ideas.  They wanted to make everything equal, so at times they had equal votes, but they also decided that there needed to be a difference, so they changed the NUMBER of votes, not the VALUE of votes.  Also, it is more recent Congresses that have again limited our votes at that level.  There is no reason that there should only be 435 people representing the people of the United States in the House of Representatives.  

So, if you're looking at the WHOLE PICTURE (as per your statement), supporting Mr. Jasenski and Mr. Santabarbara, you are stating that you are fully for all the things that they have voted for, or at least the majority of them.  If this is not the case, then why don't you state specifically for us what it is that they voted for that you disagreed so wholeheartedly.  What state and federal mandates have they gone back to their party and requested that they be fought against?  What things have they spoken to the state and federal legislators that represent us to remove the mandates from us?  And if they have done nothing, then I would suggest anything is better than nothing.

Quoted from benny salami

We don't need no charter screwls here. The public screwls are doing a grate job. Just ask public screwls scholards like DVR and Nobody.

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

While I attended non-public schools for 19 of my 21 years of education, I believe that by and large area public schools do a very good job.   There certainly is always room for improvement --- and the first improvement would be to ABOLISH CHARTER SCHOOLS and allow those  tax dollars "stolen" by the Charter Schools to be returned either to the taxpayers pocket or for use in the public schools budget.

Stolen??? LMAO

The LEGAL issuance of charters and the rightful transfer of tax dollars following the student who attends a charter school at the
taxpaying parents' request? And they only get 2/3 of the per pupil funding...while the public school from which the student transfers
keeps the rest for a student no longer enrolled. LMAO

But when REMS illegally bills, collects and retains hundreds of thousands of dollars from taxpayers that does not belong to them
for a service they do not provide it is a "lie" to call them thieves?

21 years of "education" and you can't even define  T-H-E-F-T...a five letter word ! You are the one who should be demanding
a refund for every dollar spent on your "education" you idiot.

Quoted from gadfly

Stolen??? LMAO

The LEGAL issuance of charters and the rightful transfer of tax dollars following the student who attends a charter school at the
taxpaying parents' request? And they only get 2/3 of the per pupil funding...while the public school from which the student transfers
keeps the rest for a student no longer enrolled. LMAO

But when REMS illegally bills, collects and retains hundreds of thousands of dollars from taxpayers that does not belong to them
for a service they do not provide it is a "lie" to call them thieves?

21 years of "education" and you can't even define  T-H-E-F-T...a five letter word ! You are the one who should be demanding
a refund for every dollar spent on your "education" you idiot.

Since REMS had the verbal approval of the previous Town Supervisor,  it is difficult to see how that would meet the definition of  "theft" or "embezzlement" that you have used so loosely.    In all likelihood, the investigation will find that REMS did not act illegally .. but that the previous administration "stepped over" the legal lines in granting the verbal approval.

As for my education, I am greatly satisfied with my education and vastly more intelligent than you are.  

You and your "merry band of idiot"-followers  are both a joke and a disgrace  --- you and your ilk have never done more than tear down this community ,,  you have NEVER made a positive contribution to this community in your whole life.

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

Since REMS had the verbal approval of the previous Town Supervisor,  it is difficult to see how that would meet the definition of  "theft" or "embezzlement" that you have used so loosely.    In all likelihood, the investigation will find that REMS did not act illegally .. but that the previous administration "stepped over" the legal lines in granting the verbal approval.

As for my education, I am greatly satisfied with my education and vastly more intelligent than you are.  

You and your "merry band of idiot"-followers  are both a joke and a disgrace  --- you and your ilk have never done more than tear down this community ,,  you have NEVER made a positive contribution to this community in your whole life.

That's because you've made it perfectly clear that you don't know the definition of "theft"...so it's incredibly easy to see how it would
be "difficult" for you to comprehend this....try reading even more S-L-O-W-L-Y...and this time keep a dictionary nearby in case that
doesn't work.

Even if REMS had the "approval" of the former Supervisor, ST had no statutory authority to "approve" any such thing...and it is an
argument that could easily come down to a he said/she said, especially when you consider the consequences...so it will go nowhere,
as neither can prove who said what. REMS, on the other hand, ADMITTED TO TAKING THE MONEY regardless of how they justify it...and
claiming ignorance of the law is not a defense....especially when REMS has made it clear in their pathetic non-"proposal" that they are
fully aware of the proper procedure for the billing, collection and REIMBURSEMENT for a service they do not finance, provide or administer.
And even if ST admits to "approving" this THEFT, claiming ignorance won't work for him either.

W-H-A-T    T-H-I-S    M-E-A-N-S Ron, is that it is not an A-F-F-I-R-M-A-T-I-V-E  D-E-F-E-N-S-E for REMS to say "the Supervisor told us
we could take the Town's money"...or for ST to say "I thought all I had to do is give REMS my verbal permission to take the Town's
money".

Only you could be highly satisfied with an education that didn't even produce an accurate vocabulary of five letter words like T-H-E-F-T...
but I suppose you can attribute that to your "vast" intelligence.

Here's a few more definitions....just for you Ron...

Idiot - An ambulance company who S-T-E-A-L-S money from the Town in which they operate and makes the T-H-E-F-T known to
                    the Police Chief of that Town (who then reveals the T-H-E-F-T in a videotaped public meeting of that Town's Board and
                    residents)

Joke - A three hundred pound liberal Democrat that supports unnecessary ambulance taxes, defends T-H-E-F-T of public money,
                    then attacks the messengers of truth with false, delusional and/or irrelevant statements

Disgrace - A three member majority of a Town Board that rewards their perpetually insolvent "community" ambulance service for
                         T-H-E-F-T from their constituents by awarding the "community" ambulance service with a contract that guarantees
                         steady business from the same constituents and giving that "community" ambulance exclusive access to the same
                         source of revenue they have been S-T-E-A-L-I-N-G from the same constituents for years                    

Anyone can say they had a verbal agreement to get paid $100,000 per year by the previous administration for providing a service {ALS} that they don't provide {ALS}. That's why contracts were required so as to protect those involved and to act as a scale to make sure the parties keep up their end of the bargain.

Two wrongs don't make it right.

Quoted from gadfly

That's because you've made it perfectly clear that you don't know the definition of "theft"...so it's incredibly easy to see how it would
be "difficult" for you to comprehend this....try reading even more S-L-O-W-L-Y...and this time keep a dictionary nearby in case that
doesn't work.

Even if REMS had the "approval" of the former Supervisor, ST had no statutory authority to "approve" any such thing...and it is an
argument that could easily come down to a he said/she said, especially when you consider the consequences...so it will go nowhere,
as neither can prove who said what. REMS, on the other hand, ADMITTED TO TAKING THE MONEY regardless of how they justify it...and
claiming ignorance of the law is not a defense....especially when REMS has made it clear in their pathetic non-"proposal" that they are
fully aware of the proper procedure for the billing, collection and REIMBURSEMENT for a service they do not finance, provide or administer.
And even if ST admits to "approving" this THEFT, claiming ignorance won't work for him either.

W-H-A-T    T-H-I-S    M-E-A-N-S Ron, is that it is not an A-F-F-I-R-M-A-T-I-V-E  D-E-F-E-N-S-E for REMS to say "the Supervisor told us
we could take the Town's money"...or for ST to say "I thought all I had to do is give REMS my verbal permission to take the Town's
money".

Only you could be highly satisfied with an education that didn't even produce an accurate vocabulary of five letter words like T-H-E-F-T...
but I suppose you can attribute that to your "vast" intelligence.

Here's a few more definitions....just for you Ron...

Idiot - An ambulance company who S-T-E-A-L-S money from the Town in which they operate and makes the T-H-E-F-T known to
                    the Police Chief of that Town (who then reveals the T-H-E-F-T in a videotaped public meeting of that Town's Board and
                    residents)

Joke - A three hundred pound liberal Democrat that supports unnecessary ambulance taxes, defends T-H-E-F-T of public money,
                    then attacks the messengers of truth with false, delusional and/or irrelevant statements

Disgrace - A three member majority of a Town Board that rewards their perpetually insolvent "community" ambulance service for
                         T-H-E-F-T from their constituents by awarding the "community" ambulance service with a contract that guarantees
                         steady business from the same constituents and giving that "community" ambulance exclusive access to the same
                         source of revenue they have been S-T-E-A-L-I-N-G from the same constituents for years                    

         You go girl!  Don't let that jelly donut give you any sh!t . . .   All the residents can't thank you for all your efforts, of course except for dough boy and TJ Hooker . . . .

Quoted from gadfly

That's because you've made it perfectly clear that you don't know the definition of "theft"...so it's incredibly easy to see how it would
be "difficult" for you to comprehend this....try reading even more S-L-O-W-L-Y...and this time keep a dictionary nearby in case that
doesn't work.

Even if REMS had the "approval" of the former Supervisor, ST had no statutory authority to "approve" any such thing...and it is an
argument that could easily come down to a he said/she said, especially when you consider the consequences...so it will go nowhere,
as neither can prove who said what. REMS, on the other hand, ADMITTED TO TAKING THE MONEY regardless of how they justify it...and
claiming ignorance of the law is not a defense....especially when REMS has made it clear in their pathetic non-"proposal" that they are
fully aware of the proper procedure for the billing, collection and REIMBURSEMENT for a service they do not finance, provide or administer.
And even if ST admits to "approving" this THEFT, claiming ignorance won't work for him either.

W-H-A-T    T-H-I-S    M-E-A-N-S Ron, is that it is not an A-F-F-I-R-M-A-T-I-V-E  D-E-F-E-N-S-E for REMS to say "the Supervisor told us
we could take the Town's money"...or for ST to say "I thought all I had to do is give REMS my verbal permission to take the Town's
money".

Only you could be highly satisfied with an education that didn't even produce an accurate vocabulary of five letter words like T-H-E-F-T...
but I suppose you can attribute that to your "vast" intelligence.

Here's a few more definitions....just for you Ron...

Idiot - An ambulance company who S-T-E-A-L-S money from the Town in which they operate and makes the T-H-E-F-T known to
                    the Police Chief of that Town (who then reveals the T-H-E-F-T in a videotaped public meeting of that Town's Board and
                    residents)

Joke - A three hundred pound liberal Democrat that supports unnecessary ambulance taxes, defends T-H-E-F-T of public money,
                    then attacks the messengers of truth with false, delusional and/or irrelevant statements

Disgrace - A three member majority of a Town Board that rewards their perpetually insolvent "community" ambulance service for
                         T-H-E-F-T from their constituents by awarding the "community" ambulance service with a contract that guarantees
                         steady business from the same constituents and giving that "community" ambulance exclusive access to the same
                         source of revenue they have been S-T-E-A-L-I-N-G from the same constituents for years                    

the only people who take you seriously .. are the voices in your head

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

the only people who take you seriously .. are the voices in your head

YOU OBVIOUSLY MUST BE SPEAKING FROM EXPERIENCE !