#1 2009-08-19 12:57:05

After a few email exchanges, I thought I would start this thread. It costs 5/month to talk or blog on his site, and it's free on here. So, why not open this thread so that Slager can come over here and bring his decidedly twisted slant to topics we discuss?  No more hiding behind the pay factor!  Bring along a few friends too. We'll call this the exctinct supporters of the corrupt and inept elected officials thread. We can talk about all the predictions you have made and how the audit is going to be "life changing".

Offline

 

#2 2009-08-19 13:19:34

Not only do you have to pay to play on his site, but near as I can tell from actually trying to pay for a month to check it out and keep my identity private you have to use your real name. A few people here know who I am. I'm not about to trust Robert Slager with that information. I expect there are others who feel that way.

Offline

 

#3 2009-08-19 13:26:05

And.....all messages you submit have to be approved before they are posted! Wow...talk about a dictatorship! See, he could come to this wonderful free forum provided by Bill W. He already reads it 24/7, why not just open a good debate?

Offline

 

#4 2009-08-19 14:00:11

Larry McDonald wrote:

And.....all messages you submit have to be approved before they are posted! Wow...talk about a dictatorship! See, he could come to this wonderful free forum provided by Bill W. He already reads it 24/7, why not just open a good debate?

How do you debate someone with a weak mind?  Unfair.

Offline

 

#5 2009-08-19 14:12:20

This may be true, but at least he could make the effort instead of asking us to pay to join his site and have our messages filtered.

Offline

 

#6 2009-08-19 15:37:31

I wonder if Paul Shooter might come over and talk to us? I doubt it. He is worried about punishment at the hands of the hate blogger.

Okay, well....I'll start this off.

You made the statment on your site that the meeting was just a "recall meeting". You brought that up again after the meeting, which you attended. The only mention of a recall was late in the meeting and because they group that are in favor of a recall asked that the information be given out. Mr. Brady stood in front of the audience and said he is NOT in favor of a recall.

Why is it that you still claim this just a recall effort? Can you offer us proof or facts behind your claim?

Offline

 

#7 2009-08-19 22:53:47

Larry McDonald wrote:

This may be true, but at least he could make the effort instead of asking us to pay to join his site and have our messages filtered.

Agree with you, besides I have to save my $ to buy the Wareham Courier now that I've learned it carries a majority of Wareham news.

Last edited by bornofwareham (2009-08-19 22:55:03)

Offline

 

#8 2009-08-20 08:15:22

The operative word is NEWS. Most of what is reported or discussed on the Observer site is about this site or the power elite/hate bloggers/CBW/recall crew.  The courier does news articles! Imagine that?????

Offline

 

#9 2009-08-20 09:09:37

Question 2: The settlement for the former TA, McAuliffe, was NOT $35k, was it? He was paid until January and also received a settlement. That said, it was well over the $35k stated by you.

Let's discuss this a bit. They hired the TA, and then fired the TA for cause. Why would they have to pay a settlement? Hmmm, well, I'm sure he had a parachute in his contract, but the additional money must mean they did not have cause. Is that about accurate?

Offline

 

#10 2009-08-20 11:18:16

Larry: To borrow a line from Barney Frank, having a conversation with Robert Slager is like talking with the dining room table.

When have we ever seen him change his mind about an issue?

From the first day of the ambush of the WFL trustees two years ago he has maintained that what they were calling a private foundation was public money. I kept hammering away with him on this point.  In my first e-mail to him I pleaded with him to read the 501(C) 3 statute, which is the legal "firewall" that would keep a misguided Marion BOS, for example, from going after Tabor Academy'e endowment!  It's the same law designed to keep sticky  BOS fingers away from bequests to  the  +/-45 "hybrid" libraries  like ours in the Commonwealth.  He never even acknowledged receiving that advice , and to this day he pretends to be  convinced that The Wareham 8 stole public money and gave it to  the Spinney Library, just as I suspect that the nutcase at the Dartmouth hearing is stiil convinced that Obama is a Nazi.

I've never considered Slager to be stupid. His mind is quick but warped to the extreme.

There is something about this guy that we never allude to, but which is relevant to my "damaged goods" portrayal of him . He has no sense of humor. No one has ever seen this man laugh. That's scary.

I would agree with anyone who maintains that Robert Slager has inficted grievous harm on Wareham, but "taking him on" only makes him worse, and that,in turn, drives up his readership, which gives him more appeal to advertisers.

I was happy to learn that neighborhood gatherings are "in the works". This is the way to go. Rather than expend energy on Slager's latest lies, I hope folks will come to grips with the importance of raising awareness about the critical importance of the October Town Meeting. How can we raise public awareness, and how can we lift the level of the understanding of the issues?  A certain amount of "bitching and moaning" is probably good for our blood circulation, but we mustn't let  our understandable revulsion of Slager  drain our time and energy.

One more thought:  I once had a track coach who quiped, "You run better when you're scared."
What he meant,of course, is that being "scared" can be a source of energy as opposed to paralysis.
When I take stock of our still feeble numbers and think of the  sizable and entrenched oppostion and then look at how fast the October TM is charging down on us.... it's scary.

Anger can be a source of positive energy too, but the anger we all feel for Slager tends to cause paralysis rather than make us "run faster".

Bottom line: We have to push,push, push for neighborhood meetings that will focus on immediate and long term goals and develop strategies and time lines for both.


A major benefit of Bob Brady's meeting was that It brought Larry McDonald out of the woodwork . Hang in there!  Wareham needs  you!

Offline

 

#11 2009-08-20 11:33:17

Mr. Wheeler,
I can agree with you on Slager. During the entire ACLU and race baiting fiasco, I spoke with the ACLU and she told me exactly what she told Slager. I called him and told him that what he is publishing is racial baiting and why doesn't publish exactly what the lawyer from the ACLU told him, but he never acknowledged what she told him. It didn't suit his purpose. I won't say the guy is dense, but he will not accept or print the truth if it hurts the Selectmen or his goal.

It's no different with the Trustee fight. He preaches to his minions how they will be brought out as corrupt and yada yada yada...and yet, here we are.

I am also very aware of the approaching dates. Town Meeting is as important as the elections. This group of Selectmen have set in motion events that will have long lasting impact on Wareham and we need to organize, move forward, and take this town back.

Thank you for the compliment Mr. Wheeler, but I would suspect everyone is equally important in this movement!

Offline

 

#12 2009-08-20 11:55:38

I hope today's Charter Review announcement in the Rag will pry many eyes open.  It is now confirmed that these past three years of political grandstanding have been about one thing and one thing only - creating a city council trough they can belly up to and strap on their feed bags.  That's all this has ever been about.  Lining their own pockets.  Shameful.

Last edited by Hamatron5000 (2009-08-20 11:56:11)

Offline

 

#13 2009-08-20 12:30:03

While we are talking about funds how about the Tobey fund they spent money above the interest level swept the subject under the carpet.does anyone know the current status?

Offline

 

#14 2009-08-20 12:34:16

That's right Ham...the Charter Review Committee has in it's mind to have a Mayor-Council form of government.
You mustn't let that happen. It will be the end of Wareham.
You have a big fight ahead for Town Meeting, and Dick Wheeler is right, as well as Larry...time is running out!
Anyone check on a TV show yet?
No better way to educated the public than have a forum that most people can reach.

Offline

 

#15 2009-08-20 13:16:27

Hamatron5000 wrote:

I hope today's Charter Review announcement in the Rag will pry many eyes open.  It is now confirmed that these past three years of political grandstanding have been about one thing and one thing only - creating a city council trough they can belly up to and strap on their feed bags.  That's all this has ever been about.  Lining their own pockets.  Shameful.

This makes alot of sense. Why would Sweet Brucie want to stop with a view of the ocean (and who knows what else)? The others all stand to gain too.
Neighborhood association meetings, fliers, a mailing (anyone have a wareham mailing list?), person to person, all of these are ways we can get the uninformed informed. There's alot of focus on Bobo, and rightfully so, but we have to get the elected officials OUT. I'd like to see a CLEAR set of "bullet points" put together, that can quickly/easily sum up the major concerns with the current regime. Print it out, hand it out.

PShooter

Offline

 

#16 2009-08-20 13:30:25

Seriously, which of these numbnuts are gainfully employed? Think about it. Now they can get paid for ruining the town! What a great world we live in.

Offline

 

#17 2009-08-20 21:51:39

Larry let's get back to your original thread.Maybe your question was to difficult for Mr.Slager to answer so I'll give him an easy one.

Mr Slager in the days and weeks leading up to Mr Brady's meeting you were very concerned about the individuals organizing the meeting, you made several references to other media outlets being favorable because he placed ads in their papers.

You also made many references to peoples names being omitted from websites, and other groups.

Holding you up to your standards here is my question:

You received money from a group and placed an ad in your online edition of the Observer. Yet you refused to say who the Board members were, who the members of the group were, so are you guilty of the same things you charged  the S-T and the Courrier of?
You took money and posted that ad and hid the members of that group.

And if you did not take money are you saying that it was Observer Media that put the ad in the paper?

These are simple yes or no answers.
I will wait for your response.

Offline

 

Board footer

warehamwater.cruelery.com