Woodstock's "Attack PAC" Revealed
No surprises here: Kevin Ford- Chair (Current BOE member), John Leavitt- Treasurer, Rebbecca Leavitt- Deputy Treasurer (I guess he can’t handle it alone with all of those contributions and expenditures).
Other officers are listed as: George McCoy (Current BOF member), Dean Audet (Highway Project member), Marylou Davis & Steve Gottlieb (Well known Academy critics on the hill) and of course Lindsay Paul (Deposed BOE Chair and current member).
Quite a collection of tax and spenders from both sides of the aisle who resist any sort of transparency with regard to the public’s business they were entrusted with...and shouldn’t have been based on their records and behavior. If this is the brain trust of “Woodstock’s future” we’re in much bigger trouble than you can imagine. Both parties should be so proud- not. See the SEEC documents -HERE-.
This reads like the who's who of the Woodstockcafe. People of Woodstock wake up! Three million here, another two hundred thousand there, they love to spend your money and will if you let them, and on what next?
?
WOW! So you’ve identified individuals you dislike (this dislike is well known) – Uh, exactly where is the story here? Also – exactly where are your supporting facts for all statements of mere Opinion, etc.? Where is the factual support that they are “tax and spenders”? Why has the article utterly failed to make a case and failed to supply ANY supporting facts, behavior, etc., that they “resist any sort of transparency with regard to the public’s business they were entrusted with…”?
Does no one else notice that over and over this website states BIASED OPINION as though it is Fact. What kind of an article merely rambles on with these biased statements (knowing you preach to the choir in any event) and offers zero factual support for the biased statements?
Specifically and exactly what “records and behavior” disqualify them? Y’all are getting alarmingly lazy with the rhetoric – article after article simply assumes that readers don’t require facts, but will blindly believe any statement of Opinion. This is weak and we’ve all seen it many times in history…
These Opinions may actually be true, but I am one of those funny American who requires a LOT more than the the clearly personal and highly biased OPINION of an article writer before I believe wholesale any of what’s being written. I’m one of those funny Americans (similar to the teachings, for example, of the Founders, etc.) who actually thinks for myself – I don’t rely on others to tell me what to think.
This critical comment applies to this and MANY other similar articles on this site. I’ll be interested to see whether any response to this comment takes the usual boring and immature tactic of personalized insults, jumping to conclusions about those things I did NOT say and pointing fingers to prove guilt by association; that is, tactics which have ZERO to do with the actual merits of the critical argument…
.
Well Con,
Despite my better judgment I am going to spend a few minutes debunking your rant. Between this and the Coalition site there are now over three years worth of supporting facts to back my “BIASED OPINION” including video and documents throughout, which is a clear chronicle of the behavior and records of those in question- considering the time you spend here, your head should be full of “FACTS” by now unless you are “alarmingly lazy” and need to be spoon fed the history article after article which should not be necessary for a thinker such as yourself- nor do I presume to tell you or anyone else “what to think”.
Specifically, the site has a search tool, of which the “advanced” feature works quite well for your convenience in your quest and need for “FACTS”.
“Dislike” is not an issue for me and I guess is only well known to you with your mystical powers of deduction assuming the fact that you know very little about me. The only thing “weak” here is the behavior of this group of individuals in hiding behind a PAC to impugn the reputations of competing candidates- cowardly comes to mind- and as mentioned, is not a surprise.
Rather presumptuous to describe your comment as “critical” don’t you think? At this point it is difficult to remember how many times I have asked you to have the “critical argument” on the issues, to which you have either gone silent or have run back to Aljazeera to point fingers at me- a tactic I find extremely tiresome.
Let me know if and when you’d like to have that “critical argument” and I will see what I can do for you, otherwise please refrain from wasting my time. Thanks.
P.S.- Your follow up rant from 4am this morning will stay in the spam file. You and I are done.
Con,
I guess you must lead a boring life? You use your education or at least your software driven and enhanced thesaurus as to impress us. Education in your case seems to have replaced common sense.You come over here to defend the Leavitt family "proper gander" network and proclaim your lack of understanding of facts. Yet you come again and again as if to prove something, to whom?
"Con". Is that an acronym for con-artist or are you just having fun?
The majority of this town knows the reputation of the Leavitt family as proven by the election they were candidates in. Kevin Ford is a joke, a small man hiding behind the café to support his demand for attention. Audet and McCoy, only God knows what they are trying to prove?
Some people are real humanitarians and do well in the community. They expect nothing in return; others use it for personal gain. I know that is above your reasoning. Have your children explain it to you.
Con,
Guess the jig is up? Maybe you could publish a new book. You could title it “The silence of the clam”?
Your real name John or Becki?
John Leavitt can't seem to figure out how to fill out simple forms, can he?
It's hard to tell if he's just plain stupid or he's smart like a fox and does this deliberately in order to make things as confusing as possible.
I don't think he reported the contribution properly. Someone ought to file a complaint with the elections people. This can be added to the pile of complaints that have already been filed against him.