yes i do

What's that song by BTO? "You aint' seen nuthin yet" I can play it, but I don't remember it.

The one big change that stands out to me is that Bobo changed Sweet Brucey's quote to call "Take Back Wareham" people ugly people with black hearts, whereas last night Brucey was quoted as saying anyone who voted against the selectmen were ugly people with black hearts.  I don't know if Bobo has permission from Brucey to change his quotes as needed when they get Brucey in hot water, or if Bobo had to call Sweet Brucey back up on his Sweet Brucey speed dial.

I wish Bobo and Brucey would stop projecting (accusing other people of being what they are.)  Bobo and Brucey are both ugly individuals with hearts as black as the midnight sky.  And Bobo is not just ugly on the inside but on the outside too.  Have you ever seen his In this Corner picture?  Whoa, nelly, what a hideous face!

How about this. How about establishing a group called SAVE WAREHAM or PRESERVE WAREHAM. Something with a positive sound that people will not be reminded of what has taken place with the acrimony for the last few months.
TAKE BACK WAREHAM was basically the genesis of better things to come.
No one will be writing about the negative hate bloggers of TAKE BACK WAREHAM, because it doesn't exist anymore.
Just a suggestion :)

OK, Larry...cool with me.

I agree again Poppa Bear. Smear as they may, "we" are growing. As much by their gaffes, as our efforts. Remember, only thing you need to get "in", is a dissatisfaction with the current "leader's". That should pretty much fill us up.

Also, any negative connotation(s) to the term "Take Back Wareham" should have been considered much earlier. Whatever it is, it's gained momentum despite their smear campaign. I would venture to say there are plenty of people that would never claim to be a part of any "Take Back Wareham", but they see things much as we do. In other words, they're smart enough (or at least not blind) to see what the root of the problems are...and it ain't "us".

Bill, all of us, and our "leader's" own incompetence have strengthened our numbers.

Again, desperate moves by desperate people.

PShooter
TAKEBACKWAREHAM

Last edited by PShooter (2009-10-29 17:12:42)

townie, that has to be the surprise that Bobo has promised!

Q: Why do they want to put  Westfield on the ballot?

A: "They" is one (1) selectman and one(1)wanna -be journalist, both of whom are in dire straits financially.
Putting Westfield on the ballot maintains a "revenue stream"  from the developer's  Public Awareness and Advertising budget that will keep their wallets warm  and the presses rolling throughout the Winter and on into  April .  "It's about the money!"  There's no other plausible explanation !

As far as I can tell, the idea of this "deal" first appeared in a Slager "In This Corner" blog post.  As we learned in the decision on his case vs. Chief Joyce, Slager is able to hide behind the nature of this "editorial" post, and does not have the same requirements to actually, you know, tell the truth.   You'll notice, and this is very, very important, that non of the non-editorial posts on his site state that a deal was struck.  As previously discussed, libel/slander laws are very different when applied to editorial-type posts as opposed to those that claim to be "news".  The closest anybody comes in a "news" post is from the "Breaking News" that was allegedly written by Andrea Smith:

After learning that the Westfield senior affordable-housing project was defeated on Town Meeting floor Monday because of a political deal struck between the Take Back Wareham group and supporters of Bay Pointe residential expansion...

AND

Sauvageau said he believes Westfield was defeated on Monday because of a deal between the Take Back Wareham political group (which opposed Westfield) and proponents of Bay Pointe expansion...

In the first, it just says that Brucey learned about the "deal".  In the second, it's a paraphrasing of something that Brucey said.  Again, SLAGER NEVER CLAIMS IN A NEWS POST THAT THERE WAS A "DEAL" OF ANY KIND. The first appearance was in an "editorial".  Later claims such as "Monday night’s vote against Westfield, aided in no small part to a deal Take Back Wareham struck with supporters of Bay Pointe expansion, hasn’t disillusioned selectmen" also come in editorials. 

The only possible explanation is that Slager knows he's making crap up.  Again.  Let's see if he actually has the "stones" (thanks for the term, Paul Shooter) to print an actual news article about the alleged "deal", or if he'll just continue to hide behind the legal protections that the editorial umbrella gives up.  His transparency and utter cowardice makes me want to vomit.

..."what occurred at Town Meeting has convinced me that people are finally understanding they need to do even more. They need to become more active. They need to increase awareness among their families and friends as to what is actually happening in Wareham."

I actually found ONE small truth in that article!