A Conservative's Take on Richardson, Texas Politics & Other Local Tomfoolery
Destiny, The RCA needs to hire you as their media consultant. . . their canidates are listening to the wrong people. I begged Chris and told Dennis in 2009 to stay away from the Man Behind The Curtain. . .The Wizzard of the RCA. Maybe Diana thought of this herself. . .but I bet she had help??!!!mmtLike I said before I wouldn't listen to the Wizzard of the RC either. . but I think he might be smarter then having any tricky politics put on Channel 5 @ 10:00!!!
MMT. I think you are very confused. The RCA did not exist in 2009. The RC did, however, exist. I would agree that the wizard of the RC, Eisemann, should be avoided. Last week we all saw why. In his attempt to shame Gordon, all he did was shame himself and show how petty he really is. If is a great thing that life is not fair because if it were Eisemann would have gotten much worse than what he got the other night. Please do explain why you seem to dislike the RCA. I would be interested in understanding that.
9:11, I do not care for either one. . .but in 2009, Chris and I had several conversations about some people that put flyers on cars w/o her permission (2 guys in today's RCA). I did hear Wm Gordon took all his RCA endorsements off his Website. . .wonder why??? Just like I would not want Charles Eisemann and his crew to endorse me!! I do not think either group helps our town or our canidates one bit!!. So to answer your question. . .I dislike the RC as much as I dislike the RCA. . .and will not be happy with a RC endorsement list either and if it comes I will make sure NOT to vote for a straight ticket!!! Like I said earlier. . .hoping the RC and RCA will be a thing of the past with the younger generation of canidates in the years to come!!
MMT. Interesting response. To paraphrase your comment on why you dislike the rca... There were two guys, who were not in the rca, who put flyers on cars without permission. Then two years later, those two guys join with other citizens who formed a group, the rca. Now, because of the actions of those two guys two years ago, who put pieces of paper on windshields without permission, who were not together in any group at the time, and then joined a group of other citizens, you find it justifiable and reasonable to dislike the group they joined. Does that properly sum up your rational?Thank goodness they did not jointly join Rotary, the PTA or any other civic organization. Then you would have another group of folks to dislike, just because of placing paper on a windshield without permission. I must say your logic, justification and rationalization I find lacking, if that is the best excuse to dislike a group you can come up with. It seems to take very little to make you dislike, people or groups. But you are certainly entitled to you opinions, just like everyone else, reasonable or not. Thank you for answering my question.
Anon, you know that's not what she's saying. She's saying people should use their brains, pay attention, and pick their OWN candidates -a sentiment which I have a feeling YOU'D probably agree with.
10:18, Ck out Blogs from election 2009. . .it was not called the RCA but it was all the same guys and just like the Blogs will tell you. . .these guys did not help by endorsing their canidates. . .Chris told me she could not control them. . . everyone they supported lost!! So like I said W Gordon took his RCA endorcements off. . . it will be interesting to see who they put on their wedsite and if it works out any better this time!! mmt I bet Steve wins. . .even if they endorse him!!10:18, Sorry I didn't make any sense to you. If you know Chris Davis maybe she can make it clear about the flyer(she can explain it better.) And she will let you know the group might not have had a name but it was alive and active. But they all lost. Try going to any of these Richardson blogs and ck out election 2009 and you will figure it out. They used their names then instead of RCA. Maybe they will have better luck this time.
MMT. Check your facts. Ed Haynes was the one you refer to as passing out flier without permission. Are you claiming he is part of the rca? I have read several of your comments. You do not have the facts correct is most of them. You are doing nothing more than spreading nonsense and misinformation. Again, check your facts and engage your brain before talking about things that you have no idea about.
The previous poster was correct. It was Ed Haynes who passed out flyers without permission, and Mr. Haynes is not associated with the RCA in any way. Last I checked, the U.S. Constitution says that Mr. Haynes has a right to publish his opinion about Richardson politics or any other damn topic he chooses to address!
Mr Anonymous 8:50, I said "w/o permission from Chris." When I asked her why she would want her name on that flyer. . .she said she couldn't control him or them!! And yes at the forum, they apoligized that flyers were put on our cars and said that was against THEIR rules. Maybe the rules of who was conducting the forum. Like I said it didn't do anyone on the flyer any favors(duh). . .and it was put out before the other endorsement list we all hear so much about. Oh and by the way. . I know Ed Hines(probably longer then you) and he has always been very nice to me. Very funny guy. I wish Ed all the best in LA. Oh, Mr Anon 8:50, please ignore may posts from now on and like most people I know. . . I will ignore yours too!! Good luck on your canidates in May!! mmt Hope by next election you feel strong enough about your beliefs and your canidates to use your name!!! Remember . . .we are all moving toward Transparency!!
mmt-again without the correct facts. it is haynes, not hines. it is about government transparency, not private transparency. ignore me if you please, though doing that will not change your incorrect perceptions or make you correct in your statements. but keep on doing what you are doing. it is very entertaining. smiles at you.
This is an awesome thread. I do agree Margaret doesn't have the facts correctly stated from the beginning. Margaret, like anonymous 9:11 said, the RCA didn't even exist in 2009. Ed Haynes (or Hines if you like) was never part of the RCA as far as I know. If you know otherwise, please do tell. I do not know who the second person you claim was working with Haynes, you never did mention their name. But, for the sake of argument, I would guess that you are the type of person who wants people to make independent judgments concerning who is the best person for a specific council seat. Would that be a correct assumption?I will that that assumption is correct for now.Suppose there were two people with the same views and they each discovered the other held the same views. And further suppose they decided to work together to try and achieve and end result they both desired. In this case, candidate X for Place Z. Would their actions in doing this be “OK” with you? Or would the fact that they are working together nullify their actions and make those actions something upon which you would look down upon because they are no longer working independently to achieve a common goal?I will assume that so far, it would be OK for two people with the same goal, who work together to achieve that goal, would be OK with you.Assuming that, suppose 4 groups of 2 discovered they all had common desires for the same thing and decided to work to achieve that goal together. Now that we have 8 independent people working together, would that be ok or not ok with you?At what point does it because “not good” for a group of people to work together? Could any more than 2 people work together with a common goal and have it be acceptable to you? ? Could any more than 4 people work together with a common goal and have it be acceptable to you? How many people, who are independent in thought, who have the same goals, can work together before you discount them as a group?
David, Are you smoking something? Or am I just tired. Save that thought . . . catch you at the forum tomorrow night!! mmt
It must be that you are just tired.