The Various Political Viewpoints
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
Thank You Angel Mower, Thank You
Prospect Ave, Rumford
Penobscot Street, Rumford
These two infamous properties were on the market this winter if you didn't notice. But, soon they will be back on the rental market with someone local to manage them. Until recently, the person who owned these buildings was deemed an "absentee landlord" and demonized for putting his tenants in "harm's way."
Well let's enter the no spin zone and put things in perspective. But for the Sun Journal, all the drama that ensued during a property owner versus overzealous code inspector could have been avoided. It not only cost the town money for nothing (no pun intended) but it cost the property owner greatly as well. The owner was forced to evict all the tenants because he couldn't afford the laundry list of ridiculousness so he cleaned up after all the tenants, winterized the buildings, and put them on the market.
After some hard work on the part of the Town of Rumford and the Landlord Association, an agreement was met on what building code is appropriate for a one hundred year old community like Rumford. The focus was on ensuring tenants were safe while not making things so cost prohibitive that it would force a landlord out of business. These new standards now apply to our out-of-state landlord, right? Everything works out in the end. And, in this case, everything worked out for the Town of Rumford, the landlords, the tenants, and the victim of yet another Sun Journal character assassination. He is NOT a slum lord.
The guy who owns these buildings, the one from Massachusetts, yeah he's good people. His apartments are nice, he takes good care of the inside of the buildings, and was planning on taking care of the outside as well. He just didn't take into consideration all the people who feel entitled to just not pay their rent and to basically steal from the property owner. Oh and the messes they leave behind. They never paid the security deposit to begin with so they had nothing to lose. And, he was at another disadvantage. He didn't know the players in Rumford. He didn't know who doesn't pay their rent or plays games. He learned the hard way.
The number one reason this piece was written was to thank the person or persons who mowed the properties at Prospect Ave and Penobscot Street. It is very much appreciated and it just goes to show how God works in our lives. Thank you from the bottom of our heart for your kind deed. And yet another reason to LOVE Rumford.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Governor Sarah Palin's Farewell Address - 7/26/09
Doesn't this all sound oh so familiar? In honor of our soldiers who are willing to die for your right to free speech and freedom of the press, "GET IT RIGHT" [SUN JOURNAL]!
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Here is One of the Voices Behind Those Sun Journal Editorials
Friday, June 12, 2009
Monday, May 25, 2009
Sun Journal Attacks Rumford Again!
Rumford Board of SelectmenFrank DiConzo, Arthur Boivin, Mark Belanger, Brad Adley
Missing: Rob Cameron
Editor's Note: In reponse to an editorial in the Sun Journal Enquirer titled "Stopping the Secrets in Rumford," one of our valued citizens calls them out once again for their obviously biased media reporting.
Dear Editor,
In the Editors column that appeared in the Sunday edition of the SJ, the editorial staff went after Rumford's Board of Selectmen for holding their hiring meetings "in secret". It is the Sun Journal's position that the Selectmen should have published the date, time and location of these meetings. They fail to mention that any information given to the board by perspective candidates had to be kept in the highest confidence by law. So what the editor said should happen is that the date, time and place was to be published so that citizens could show up, watch the board go into executive session, sit outside of the meeting for several hours so that they could watch the board come back into session and then adjourn.
My questions for Judy Myers and the gang is where were you when Jim Doar was hired illegally? At a public meeting Attorney Tom Carey forced then Chairman Jim Rinaldo into admitting that he had allowed five citizens that he had hand picked to be "advisors" to out vote the majority of the board. The Sun Journal had a reporter at that meeting and yet no word was mentioned in the paper.
So all of a sudden the SJ has seen the light and it wants to follow the strictest letter of the law. Why is that? Could it be because the people that they backed in Rumford are no longer in power? Could it be that they are trying to deflect attention away from the infighting in Lewiston? Why did the editor choose to use the words of Walter Buotte, the Chairman of the Charter Commission that broke every rule in the book? Yes, they referred to Carlo Puiia as a "native son." They even question why Carlo knew he was the chosen candidate four days before the public announcement. Common sense says that the board had to see if he would accept the job before they announced it and therefore the public meeting was just a formality. But common sense is not very common at the Sun Journal and they are desperate to undermine Rumford's future.
There are only two things that we can do to push back against the Sun Journal for their constant harassment of our community. First, we can support Carlo Puiia and put Rumford on the right track. Second, we can cancel our subscriptions and stop buying their product. Since the Sun Journal has no respect for the citizens of Rumford, they don't deserve to make a profit off us.
Ron Theriault
Dear Editor,
In the Editors column that appeared in the Sunday edition of the SJ, the editorial staff went after Rumford's Board of Selectmen for holding their hiring meetings "in secret". It is the Sun Journal's position that the Selectmen should have published the date, time and location of these meetings. They fail to mention that any information given to the board by perspective candidates had to be kept in the highest confidence by law. So what the editor said should happen is that the date, time and place was to be published so that citizens could show up, watch the board go into executive session, sit outside of the meeting for several hours so that they could watch the board come back into session and then adjourn.
My questions for Judy Myers and the gang is where were you when Jim Doar was hired illegally? At a public meeting Attorney Tom Carey forced then Chairman Jim Rinaldo into admitting that he had allowed five citizens that he had hand picked to be "advisors" to out vote the majority of the board. The Sun Journal had a reporter at that meeting and yet no word was mentioned in the paper.
So all of a sudden the SJ has seen the light and it wants to follow the strictest letter of the law. Why is that? Could it be because the people that they backed in Rumford are no longer in power? Could it be that they are trying to deflect attention away from the infighting in Lewiston? Why did the editor choose to use the words of Walter Buotte, the Chairman of the Charter Commission that broke every rule in the book? Yes, they referred to Carlo Puiia as a "native son." They even question why Carlo knew he was the chosen candidate four days before the public announcement. Common sense says that the board had to see if he would accept the job before they announced it and therefore the public meeting was just a formality. But common sense is not very common at the Sun Journal and they are desperate to undermine Rumford's future.
There are only two things that we can do to push back against the Sun Journal for their constant harassment of our community. First, we can support Carlo Puiia and put Rumford on the right track. Second, we can cancel our subscriptions and stop buying their product. Since the Sun Journal has no respect for the citizens of Rumford, they don't deserve to make a profit off us.
Ron Theriault
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Cheerleaders for the Revolution: Network Coverage of Barack Obama's First 100 Days
Media Research Center Executive Summary
During his first 100 days as President, Barack Obama has pushed an audaciously liberal agenda which, if enacted, would have radical consequences for America for decades. With Democrats enjoying monopoly control of the House and Senate, the news media have a professional duty to scrutinize those policies, and give audiences both sides of the story — not just the perspective of a powerful Chief Executive.
Unfortunately, a Media Research Center analysis of ABC, CBS and NBC evening news coverage of President Obama’s first 100 days in office shows network reporters have failed as watchdogs. The networks have raised few doubts about Obama’s left-wing agenda and showered each of Obama’s major policy initiatives with positive press.
MRC analysts looked at all 982 broadcast evening news stories about Obama and his administration from Inauguration Day (January 20) through April 29. Key findings:
Obama’s first 100 days were defined by massive spending, aggressive intervention in the private sector and proposals for a huge expansion of the federal government. Yet none of the networks aired a single story on whether Obama’s policies were pushing the U.S. toward socialism, and no reporter used the term “socialist” to describe Obama.
Not only that, network reporters never used the word “liberal” to describe either Barack Obama or his agenda during the first 100 days.
The networks lavished good press on every major initiative of the early Obama administration, including the massive stimulus package, all of the various bailouts, health care, stem cells, the environment and foreign policy.
In the days before the President unveiled his unprecedented $3.5 trillion budget — with a record-shattering $1.75 trillion deficit — four out of five statements on the evening newscasts parroted the White House spin that Obama was a deficit fighter.
Reporters treated Obama’s hugely expensive $787 billion stimulus bill to mainly positive coverage (58 percent positive, 42 percent negative).
The networks applauded Obama’s decision to use taxpayer money to fund embryo-destroying stem cell research (82% positive coverage).
Network coverage of Obama’s mortgage bailout was also positive — 59% of statements supported the bailout or wanted even more intervention, compared to 41% who opposed the bailout as unfair to responsible homeowners.
Reporters heavily skewed their coverage in favor of the President’s actions on global warming (78% positive).
President Obama’s decision to send thousands of additional troops to Afghanistan was greeted by nearly unanimous (91%) positive coverage — a far cry from the highly negative coverage of President Bush’s successful troop surge in Iraq two years ago.
Like Obama and the Democrats, the networks went on a feeding frenzy against big corporate bonuses. The networks aired six times more statements forwarding the “infuriated” reaction to business (104) than criticized politicians’ grandstanding (16).
The networks spent days decrying AIG’s $165 million bonuses, but hardly mentioned the $210 million in bonuses handed out by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the bailed-out mortgage giants with strong Democratic ties). ABC and NBC completely ignored the Fannie and Freddie bonuses, while the CBS Evening News gave it 27 seconds.
Such highly promotional coverage is not part of the normal “honeymoon” that exists between journalists and new Presidents. Rather, it seems to be a symptom of how few network reporters evidently see their professional role as operating on the public’s behalf as a check on whoever is in the White House.
The longstanding liberalism of network reporters made them aggressive adversaries of the Bush White House over the past eight years. The evidence from Barack Obama’s first 100 days is that that same liberal mindset has crippled reporters’ ability to be effective watchdogs on behalf of the public.
The once-fierce media watchdogs have become Barack Obama’s drooling, tail-wagging lapdogs.
During his first 100 days as President, Barack Obama has pushed an audaciously liberal agenda which, if enacted, would have radical consequences for America for decades. With Democrats enjoying monopoly control of the House and Senate, the news media have a professional duty to scrutinize those policies, and give audiences both sides of the story — not just the perspective of a powerful Chief Executive.
Unfortunately, a Media Research Center analysis of ABC, CBS and NBC evening news coverage of President Obama’s first 100 days in office shows network reporters have failed as watchdogs. The networks have raised few doubts about Obama’s left-wing agenda and showered each of Obama’s major policy initiatives with positive press.
MRC analysts looked at all 982 broadcast evening news stories about Obama and his administration from Inauguration Day (January 20) through April 29. Key findings:
Obama’s first 100 days were defined by massive spending, aggressive intervention in the private sector and proposals for a huge expansion of the federal government. Yet none of the networks aired a single story on whether Obama’s policies were pushing the U.S. toward socialism, and no reporter used the term “socialist” to describe Obama.
Not only that, network reporters never used the word “liberal” to describe either Barack Obama or his agenda during the first 100 days.
The networks lavished good press on every major initiative of the early Obama administration, including the massive stimulus package, all of the various bailouts, health care, stem cells, the environment and foreign policy.
In the days before the President unveiled his unprecedented $3.5 trillion budget — with a record-shattering $1.75 trillion deficit — four out of five statements on the evening newscasts parroted the White House spin that Obama was a deficit fighter.
Reporters treated Obama’s hugely expensive $787 billion stimulus bill to mainly positive coverage (58 percent positive, 42 percent negative).
The networks applauded Obama’s decision to use taxpayer money to fund embryo-destroying stem cell research (82% positive coverage).
Network coverage of Obama’s mortgage bailout was also positive — 59% of statements supported the bailout or wanted even more intervention, compared to 41% who opposed the bailout as unfair to responsible homeowners.
Reporters heavily skewed their coverage in favor of the President’s actions on global warming (78% positive).
President Obama’s decision to send thousands of additional troops to Afghanistan was greeted by nearly unanimous (91%) positive coverage — a far cry from the highly negative coverage of President Bush’s successful troop surge in Iraq two years ago.
Like Obama and the Democrats, the networks went on a feeding frenzy against big corporate bonuses. The networks aired six times more statements forwarding the “infuriated” reaction to business (104) than criticized politicians’ grandstanding (16).
The networks spent days decrying AIG’s $165 million bonuses, but hardly mentioned the $210 million in bonuses handed out by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the bailed-out mortgage giants with strong Democratic ties). ABC and NBC completely ignored the Fannie and Freddie bonuses, while the CBS Evening News gave it 27 seconds.
Such highly promotional coverage is not part of the normal “honeymoon” that exists between journalists and new Presidents. Rather, it seems to be a symptom of how few network reporters evidently see their professional role as operating on the public’s behalf as a check on whoever is in the White House.
The longstanding liberalism of network reporters made them aggressive adversaries of the Bush White House over the past eight years. The evidence from Barack Obama’s first 100 days is that that same liberal mindset has crippled reporters’ ability to be effective watchdogs on behalf of the public.
The once-fierce media watchdogs have become Barack Obama’s drooling, tail-wagging lapdogs.
For the full report, please click here.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Political Investigative Journalism Died with the 2008 Election – And It’s a Surprise Why? by Kimberly Morin
Recently Senator John Kerry made the following statement (as reported by the Associated Press) expressing his concerns about newspapers like the Boston Globe failing:
"Will the emerging news media be more fragmented by interests, financial interests and other interests, and political partisanship?" he asked. "There also is the important question of whether online journalism will sustain the values of professional journalism, the way the newspaper industry has."
Was he sleeping during the 2008 election? Newspapers and television stations such as NBC and MSNBC already behave this way. Why else do you think they are failing? Americans want to know the truth about political candidates, especially when it comes to Presidential elections. Alas, newspapers like the New York Times and the Boston Globe, which is owned by the Times, are two examples of political investigative journalism gone awry. They were so outright partisan and biased during the 2008 elections that they didn’t need to endorse Obama, whoever was reading the paper already knew who they were backing.
It’s one thing to endorse a candidate but completely another to simply not report the truth about every candidate and to actually make up lies about the ‘opposition’ (the NY Times reported that John McCain had an affair with a female lobbyist – it was a lie – she sued and the Times settled the defamation case). Many Americans still rely on the main stream media(MSM) for their daily and weekly news. They don’t have the internet to research statements they read in the paper or see on television. They have been led to believe that journalists are held to a high standard of reporting in an objective manner on all subjects. The American people have been ‘fleeced’ by the main stream media and they are finally realizing the truth, which is one reason the MSM is failing.
A recent example can be proven with coverage of the Tax Day Tea Parties. The Boston Globe printed a small blurb about a Tea Party in a different state. Within that article they made mention that there were only 200 people at the Boston Tea Party, yet when I spoke to people who were actually THERE, the number was really around 2,000. The Globe had the chance to report on this story – a Boston Tea Party – home of the original Tea Party – but they chose to ignore it. Why? Investigative journalism at the Boston Globe is dead when it comes to anything political. Had they actually researched the Tea Party they would have realized that it wasn’t directly against Mr. Obama, who they copiously endorsed, but it was against ALL politicians across all parties and against the very government that is squeezing the life out of the American people. THAT would have been investigative journalism.
Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD) has proposed a bill, S.673, that would allow newspapers to become non-profit organizations. He tells the AP that these papers would not be allowed to endorse political candidates yet that wording is nowhere to be found in the actual bill. What Senator Cardin doesn’t seem to understand is whether they endorse a candidate or not, the media bias towards one candidate in particular causes their investigative journalism ideologies to fly out the window. Newspapers would also be able to accept ‘charitable contributions’ for which the donor could write them off as is currently the case with other ‘real’ charitable donations. Does the Senator not realize what outright bias this would buy even worse than today? Far left financier George Soros would have a field day ‘donating’ money to newspapers to report on his ideology or candidate only.
There should be absolutely no government intervention in the failure of print or television media. If they fail it is due to their own biased and non-investigative reporting. Yes the internet plays a part in this role because so many Americans rely on this form of media for their news. It is up to us as Americans to seek out the facts regardless of which media we turn to. There are slews of far right and far left bloggers and news outlets online but there are also non-partisan sites in which the facts can be brought to light. For those people who rely on the MSM though, they have been duped. The investigative journalistic ideologies have simply become the liberal ideologies of many newspapers. In fact 495 newspapers endorsed Obama during the last election (215 for McCain) – I wonder how many of them actually reported the truth about all candidates?
It’s ironic, liberals bash Fox News for being a far right media outlet, yet the very same liberals quote places like www.mediamatters.com, one of the most far left biased media outlets, as their source for facts. Fox News is the only news outlet that during the election, on a daily basis, would bring both Democrats and Republicans onto their news programs to debate issues regarding the election. Does Fox News have Conservative commentators, yes and they are probably the only television media outlet that does. Commentators are not news reporters, they are commenting on the news that is reported. Is it any wonder why the MSM, whose ‘investigative journalists’ refused to report fair and balanced news are failing? If newspapers are failing it is due to their lack of investigative journalism and the outright partisan bias that they spewed during the last election. The American people have decidedly chosen to support media outlets that actually provide the truth on both sides of any political forum. Like it or not, let the rest fail. Political investigative journalism died in 2008 and now the people have spoken.
See previous article here: http://www.examiner.com/x-9100-Boston-Conservative-Independent-Examiner~y2009m5d7-The-inmates-have-taken-over-the-asylum-otherwise-known-as-Capitol-Hill
"Will the emerging news media be more fragmented by interests, financial interests and other interests, and political partisanship?" he asked. "There also is the important question of whether online journalism will sustain the values of professional journalism, the way the newspaper industry has."
Was he sleeping during the 2008 election? Newspapers and television stations such as NBC and MSNBC already behave this way. Why else do you think they are failing? Americans want to know the truth about political candidates, especially when it comes to Presidential elections. Alas, newspapers like the New York Times and the Boston Globe, which is owned by the Times, are two examples of political investigative journalism gone awry. They were so outright partisan and biased during the 2008 elections that they didn’t need to endorse Obama, whoever was reading the paper already knew who they were backing.
It’s one thing to endorse a candidate but completely another to simply not report the truth about every candidate and to actually make up lies about the ‘opposition’ (the NY Times reported that John McCain had an affair with a female lobbyist – it was a lie – she sued and the Times settled the defamation case). Many Americans still rely on the main stream media(MSM) for their daily and weekly news. They don’t have the internet to research statements they read in the paper or see on television. They have been led to believe that journalists are held to a high standard of reporting in an objective manner on all subjects. The American people have been ‘fleeced’ by the main stream media and they are finally realizing the truth, which is one reason the MSM is failing.
A recent example can be proven with coverage of the Tax Day Tea Parties. The Boston Globe printed a small blurb about a Tea Party in a different state. Within that article they made mention that there were only 200 people at the Boston Tea Party, yet when I spoke to people who were actually THERE, the number was really around 2,000. The Globe had the chance to report on this story – a Boston Tea Party – home of the original Tea Party – but they chose to ignore it. Why? Investigative journalism at the Boston Globe is dead when it comes to anything political. Had they actually researched the Tea Party they would have realized that it wasn’t directly against Mr. Obama, who they copiously endorsed, but it was against ALL politicians across all parties and against the very government that is squeezing the life out of the American people. THAT would have been investigative journalism.
Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD) has proposed a bill, S.673, that would allow newspapers to become non-profit organizations. He tells the AP that these papers would not be allowed to endorse political candidates yet that wording is nowhere to be found in the actual bill. What Senator Cardin doesn’t seem to understand is whether they endorse a candidate or not, the media bias towards one candidate in particular causes their investigative journalism ideologies to fly out the window. Newspapers would also be able to accept ‘charitable contributions’ for which the donor could write them off as is currently the case with other ‘real’ charitable donations. Does the Senator not realize what outright bias this would buy even worse than today? Far left financier George Soros would have a field day ‘donating’ money to newspapers to report on his ideology or candidate only.
There should be absolutely no government intervention in the failure of print or television media. If they fail it is due to their own biased and non-investigative reporting. Yes the internet plays a part in this role because so many Americans rely on this form of media for their news. It is up to us as Americans to seek out the facts regardless of which media we turn to. There are slews of far right and far left bloggers and news outlets online but there are also non-partisan sites in which the facts can be brought to light. For those people who rely on the MSM though, they have been duped. The investigative journalistic ideologies have simply become the liberal ideologies of many newspapers. In fact 495 newspapers endorsed Obama during the last election (215 for McCain) – I wonder how many of them actually reported the truth about all candidates?
It’s ironic, liberals bash Fox News for being a far right media outlet, yet the very same liberals quote places like www.mediamatters.com, one of the most far left biased media outlets, as their source for facts. Fox News is the only news outlet that during the election, on a daily basis, would bring both Democrats and Republicans onto their news programs to debate issues regarding the election. Does Fox News have Conservative commentators, yes and they are probably the only television media outlet that does. Commentators are not news reporters, they are commenting on the news that is reported. Is it any wonder why the MSM, whose ‘investigative journalists’ refused to report fair and balanced news are failing? If newspapers are failing it is due to their lack of investigative journalism and the outright partisan bias that they spewed during the last election. The American people have decidedly chosen to support media outlets that actually provide the truth on both sides of any political forum. Like it or not, let the rest fail. Political investigative journalism died in 2008 and now the people have spoken.
See previous article here: http://www.examiner.com/x-9100-Boston-Conservative-Independent-Examiner~y2009m5d7-The-inmates-have-taken-over-the-asylum-otherwise-known-as-Capitol-Hill
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
The Truth About My Arrest at USC by John Ziegler
According to Bighollywood.breitbart.com, John Zeigler reports, "I have had a rather bizarre career in media, but what happened last week on the campus of USC here in Los Angeles may end up marking one of the strangest and most disturbing episodes yet. I went to USC intending to simply let as many people as possible know that the award for 'journalism excellence' they were giving Katie Couric for her Sarah Palin interview was a complete farce. To prove my point, I wanted to give away copies of my film 'Media Malpractice,' which has my own Sarah Palin interview as a special feature. Instead, I ended up getting handcuffed, “arrested,” roughed up, detained, threatened, and forced off the premises."
For those that may have missed the incredible video of the incident, here is how the episode was played on Fox News Channel:
For those that may have missed the incredible video of the incident, here is how the episode was played on Fox News Channel:
For the remainder of this article, please click here.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Senate Rejects Fairness Doctrine, But Dems ‘Open Back Door to Censorship’
Friday, February 27, 2009
By Susan Jones, Senior Editor
The Senate passed a Broadcaster Freedom Amendment to a D.C. voting rights bill on Thursday by a vote of 87-11. But Democrats countered with an amendment that seeks to promote “diversity” in media ownership.
The Broadcaster Freedom Amendment prevents the Federal Communications Commission from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, which would requires equal time for the expression of different political viewpoints on the public airwaves. Radio stations that run conservative talks shows, for example, would be required to allot equal time for liberal talk shows – or, more likely, stop airing the conservative shows altogether.
Critics of the Fairness Doctrine call it an assault on free speech. They say the government has no business deciding what constitutes fair political discourse.
For the remainder of the story, please click here.
By Susan Jones, Senior Editor
The Senate passed a Broadcaster Freedom Amendment to a D.C. voting rights bill on Thursday by a vote of 87-11. But Democrats countered with an amendment that seeks to promote “diversity” in media ownership.
The Broadcaster Freedom Amendment prevents the Federal Communications Commission from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, which would requires equal time for the expression of different political viewpoints on the public airwaves. Radio stations that run conservative talks shows, for example, would be required to allot equal time for liberal talk shows – or, more likely, stop airing the conservative shows altogether.
Critics of the Fairness Doctrine call it an assault on free speech. They say the government has no business deciding what constitutes fair political discourse.
For the remainder of the story, please click here.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Friday, April 17, 2009
Sunday, April 12, 2009
If My Comments Weren't Removed, This Is What I Would Say...
Hey Sun Journal, Paul says "Kiss Our Bootay!"First the Sun Journal screwed up the original article about the town meeting. Please click here to read that piece of crap journalism. Then they had to print this story to compensate for their first screwed up article. And, below are the comments that the Sun Journal allowed below the article. If I had written things like this, my comments would have been removed and I would have been banned but because these comments fit into the agenda of the Sun Journal and their quest to crap all over our town, these comments are allowed and do not go against their "policy."
Comments
Posted By: Sue at April 10, 2009 5:36 AM (Suggest Removal)
I wonder who Sue is? This wouldn't be the Sue that is married to one of our Selectmen, would it? Sue sure is quiet ever since she got busted for running the RFP. I noticed there haven't been any new stories on there since she got called out on it and got her way with the casino. Too busy cutting hair and finding new ways to get taxpayer money for your elitist school?
Who in heck would want to be the manager in this town?? The bozo selectmen are still running the show...
I don't know Sue. You tell us. You must be talking about your husband because AB, FD, and MB are doing a great job. I sure wouldn't want to be a Town Manager in a town that has people like you sitting on the sideline spewing your negative opinions. You aren't even involved on any level aside from finding ways to get the taxpayer to pay for your special interest programs. People like you are going to prevent community building and are going to be the demise of our town because of your direct contribution to the Sun Journal's negative assessment of Rumford and your contribution to class warfare.
Add your comments
Posted By:mark at April 10, 2009 7:23 AM (Suggest Removal)
I wonder who Mark is? It wouldn't be the Mark who is the Union President of the troublemaking hate and discontent Fire Department we are paying for, is it? Mark sure does have a hard time keeping his mouth shut and only makes things worse for the rest of his fellow firefighters.
It’s funny how the idiots think that 24 is a lot! Do they not realize with the economy the way it is there should be 100! Once you weed out their cronies you would probably have 5.
Wow, what a nice citizen. Calling anyone an idiot, let alone our Selectmen is just pure immaturity. Someone has anger problems. Is it because the Town of Rumford won't let you rape the overtime any longer and your wife has to work now? You can always tell who works for the Town of Rumford just by how many toys they have in their yard, i.e. tractors, boats, campers, ATVs, snowmobiles, etc. By the way, Bethel only got 30 applications and Steve Eldridge and Jim Doar are probably two of them. So if you minus those two, they really only have 28 which is only four more than Rumford.
Add your comments
Posted By: bob at April 10, 2009 7:45 AM (Suggest Removal)
So all it takes is one mark, who cares how many really applied and of course sue you go to all the town meetings and give constructive comments on how to make RUMFORD a better place to live and how to help bring jobs to the area right ???? as i thought you probley have never even been to a meeting as most rumphoneions have not also..everyone is so quick to put down and to bash the area but not many willing to go the extra miles it takes to make a great town..typical RUMPHONEIONS-----RUM-PHONEY-IONS ( A PERSON WHO CLAIMS TO LOVE THE TOWN AND AREA BUT DOES NOTHING TO BRING POSITIVE CHANGE.A NEGATIVE PERSON. THE LIST COULD GO ON .AT LEAST SOME OF US REALLY DO GO TO TOWN MEETINGS AND TRY AND BRING POSITIVE...KEEP UP THE COMPLAINING SUE YOUR DOING A GREAT SERVICE FOR YOUR TOWN...WE NEED MORE LIKE YOU(NOT)I HEARD THERES RENTALS IN CARTHIDGE OPEN...
Bob, you rock! You could not have said it any better. You need to come join us on River Valley Voices. You would fit in great. We, too, are tired of the phonies sniping at people from the sidelines because they lost their power. Has anyone else noticed how well things are going since they are gone and we don't have psycho Town Managers like Steve Eldridge and Jim Doar at the helm. These two should never work in Town Government ever again!
Add your comments
Posted By: A Mom at April 10, 2009 8:18 AM (Suggest Removal)
Bob, it sounds like you need a nap and maybe you really should take your meds. Deep breaths.
A Mom, I wonder who that could be. Did you change your screen name? You would know who needs to take meds and who shouldn't because you are on them. If I was you, I would take more of them. By the way, there is nothing wrong with taking medication of any kind and quite frankly we don't appreciate your judgmental attitude but that is typical of a wannabe elitist. You want so badly to fit in, don't you? You picked the wrong side honey. Why don't you focus on your children instead of men and your fake friends in cyberspace? Sounds like they could really use you right now.
Add your comments
Posted By: MaineGal at April 10, 2009 9:12 AM (Suggest Removal)
I wonder who MaineGal is? It most likely is the woman who really isn't a MaineGal hence the reason she must overcompensate for it with her screen name. Who has spoken at Town Meetings that we know of? Oh, I know. It's a certain ex-selectwomen that no one wants to hear from anymore because of the mess she got us into.
Bob, I've found speaking at Rumford Town meetings is futile, not to mention a waste of time unless you are there to agree with the board. While it may be a platform to speak to other town members, the majority of the board members are too inveterate in their own notions to make it even worth the effort. My fingers are crossed that the newly elected board member can help change that. Meanwhile there is the RVFP to share ideas and opinions. (URL has been removed as we don't allow advertising of the RV Fire and Police Advocates site on this site.)
Hey Sun Journal, I thought you didn't allow advertising on your site? I can only think of one person who would have such a vested interest in regaining control of the town again. And, this person knows they can never get re-elected so they will have to find another puppet to do the dirty work so they can work things from behind the scenes like they did when Jim Doar was Town Manager. I wonder who they will choose to run this year. As soon as we find out, we'll be sure to show you the connection and let you know why they chose this particular person to run.
Add your comments
Posted By: SnowStorm at April 10, 2009 10:48 AM (Suggest Removal)
Hmmm. Who has it out for Jason Thompson?
JASON ''SLIPPERS '' THOMPSON FOR TOWN MANAGER !! HE WILL MAKE A WAY...
So Jason wears slippers, are you judging him? Is this another class warfare statement coming from a wannabe elitist. Do you have a problem with people who dress casually and comfortably? And, if so, why? Are only pink Gucci bags and Saabs allowed in your little world?
Add your comments
Posted By: Jennifer at April 10, 2009 10:50 AM (Suggest Removal)
"Who in heck would want to be the manager in this town??" I do, I do!!
Wow, can you believe the immaturity? Pretending to be "Jennifer" and writing this comment as if you were "Jennifer". Too bad you got it all wrong because not only does Jennifer not want to be Town Manager of this corrupt town but Jennifer wants to instead write books about this corrupt town. Instead of making $65,000 and dealing with a bunch of bafoons, she can make $65 million writing books about the bafoons.
Add your comments
Posted By: Orno at April 10, 2009 11:38 AM (Suggest Removal)
Oh, wouldn't Jennifer make a great town manager? She comes outfitted with a machine gun. (That should help solve all the problems.) With Jennifer as town manager we'd end up with no fire department, no police department, no MedCare, etc. BUT....we'd probably have a half dozen or so happy people in town!!!!!!!!! (The exclamations are for you, Jen.)
You guys just love that machine gun picture, don't you? If only it was a real machine gun... Here is what Jennifer would do if she was Town Manager. The Fire Department would be regionalized and become mostly volunteer. And, she would bust the union. The police department would need more assessment given the fact that they are running their minimum of two people per shift. But, we would definitely look into a more regionalized approach to include working with the Maine State Police, Oxford County Sheriff's Department, and other local towns. And, we would also look at prevention of crime more thoroughly so that we didn't see the same people getting busted over and over again. Med-Care would stay before the Rumford Fire Department would but if they don't change their attitude about co-locating in a Public Safety building, then maybe the Rumford Fire Department will have to take care of EMS in Rumford so they are atleast gainfully employed until we can bust up the union. Oh, and Jennifer wouldn't need a "Secretary" but instead would hire an assistant Town Manager to replace the Secretary. Having someone with education to assist the Town Manager is much more valuable than a typist, telephone answering obstructionist. And, Jennifer would also take a good, hard long look at hiring an Accountant with a degree as opposed to the person we have doing it now who ends up costing us tons of money in auditing costs because of all their screw ups and cover ups. Oh, and anyone that treated the community like crap or their employees like crap would be canned in a New York Times minute. Add your comments
Posted By: Orno at April 10, 2009 11:44 AM (Suggest Removal)
And she'd probably try to banish the Sun Journal from town. It's no longer her favorite "rag".
Yes, Jennifer would banish the Sun Journal from town if that was possible. The Sun Journal is the biggest piece of crap newspaper this State has ever seen. They are completely bias and have a liberal agenda that makes people sick. They are right up there with the New York Times and I don't think anyone can ever accuse Jennifer of the Sun Journal being her favorite newspaper given the fact the Rumford Reporter was started because of their terrible reporting. We can thank the Sun Journal for turning us into the red headed step child of the State and hurting our economic development efforts. They suck!!!
Add your comments
Posted By: Citizen at April 10, 2009 1:07 PM (Suggest Removal)
It would not surprise me one bit if they just keep Len Greely in the position.
Citizen is the same person who made the nasty comment about AB earlier that was thankfully removed. His name is Len Greaney and if he wants to apply for the Town Manager position, then he can do it legally like the rest of the applicants. But, after working as Town Manager for a year, he probably doesn't want to apply for the position because of all the personnel issues you have to deal with. There has been no accountability for years and trying to get it back is not an easy task especially when the majority of employees are master manipulators and butt kissers. Because of all the personnel issues, the Town Manager can't get anything accomplished. They are too busy sitting in Union negotiations, dealing with Union grievances, babysitting incompetent employees, fighting off the scammers and their workmen's compensation claims, getting people to do the job they were hired to do, and figuring out who is lying and who is telling the truth.
Saturday, April 04, 2009
The Lewiston Sun Journal Rag Gets It Wrong AGAIN!
Submitted by a Rumford Citizen
When it was announced that Rumford was going to advertise for a new Town Manager, the Lewiston Sun Journal snickered. They implied that Rumford was so "whacked out" that no one in their right mind would apply for the job. At the Selectmen's meeting Thursday night Selectman DiConzo announced that the board had received twenty four qualified applicants. So once again the Anti-Rumford Rag known as the Sun Journal attempted to make him look bad and got it all wrong.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the SJ took a cheap shot at Rumford, after all they did receive a "Golden Hemorrhoid Award" for defecating on our town. After all, it was the SJ that declared Steve Eldridge to be a God; good luck Lisbon. And there was a Sun Journal reporter present the night Attorney Tom Carey explained that Jim Doar was hired illegally and the paper did nothing; good luck Bethel.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the SJ took a cheap shot at Rumford, after all they did receive a "Golden Hemorrhoid Award" for defecating on our town. After all, it was the SJ that declared Steve Eldridge to be a God; good luck Lisbon. And there was a Sun Journal reporter present the night Attorney Tom Carey explained that Jim Doar was hired illegally and the paper did nothing; good luck Bethel.
It is very telling of the paper's lack of journalist integrity that Friday's article covering the meeting did not mention the twenty four qualified applicants. The Sun Journal also did not report that Robert's Rule of Order was used Thursday night to stop Chief Carter from making a second attempt to get the board to approve a grant that would commit Rumford to a four year agreement to hire another police officer; that's because the SJ had so much fun last year ridiculing Rumford for adopting those rules.
In 2008 they went to great lengths not to report Chairman Buccina's lack of understanding of the rules that led to so much discord in Rumford. And of course we can't ignore the fact that SJ editor Judy Myers was the one that promoted the Rumford CRIME BULLETIN that depicts our town as a lawless crime ridden place that looks like, oh what's the name of that dump, oh yeah - LEWISTON.
Thursday, April 02, 2009
Some Typical Story Comments on the Lewiston Sun Journal Rag
Graphics by Vigs Editorial: I love how these cowards snipe at people behind their anonymity and blame everyone else for all the problems in Rumford when in fact they are the real problem in Rumford. The fact that Kim, most likely Russell, who hates Town Manager Len Greaney for holding her husband accountable, has the nerve to make these kinds of statements just goes to show how immature some people are in our community. And, also please note that if the anonymous cowards support BA and RC then that should tell you something. They don't have the towns best interest in mind, they have the Department Heads and unions best interest in mind. Just take a look at their voting records. It says it all. We finally don't have a corrupt board thanks to AB, MB, and FD! And, if you don't believe me, just think back to when JL, JT, GB, et al were running the show who just happen to be very good friends with BA and RC. SCARY!!!
Posted By:04257 at April 2, 2009 9:29 AM
I for one would NOT like to see Rumford and Mexico merge. Then the people of Mexico would have to put up with some of the no-minds that sit on the Rumford board and then Mexico would be making negitive headlines much like Rumford does. My vote is NO NO NO!
Posted By: Kim at April 2, 2009 10:56 AM
I agree with you 04257. Rumford is being "managed" by somebody that is totally incompetent, clueless and destructive to the town. You can blame some of the selectman but not all, it is a very corrupt board with only two (BA and RC) having the town's best interest at heart.
Posted By:04257 at April 2, 2009 9:29 AM
I for one would NOT like to see Rumford and Mexico merge. Then the people of Mexico would have to put up with some of the no-minds that sit on the Rumford board and then Mexico would be making negitive headlines much like Rumford does. My vote is NO NO NO!
Posted By: Kim at April 2, 2009 10:56 AM
I agree with you 04257. Rumford is being "managed" by somebody that is totally incompetent, clueless and destructive to the town. You can blame some of the selectman but not all, it is a very corrupt board with only two (BA and RC) having the town's best interest at heart.
PS We would like to thank the "Jennifer" imposter for posting this Rumford Reporter editorial on the SJ Rag. If you would like to continue doing that service for us in the future, please feel free. The more widely disseminated the information is, the more people it will reach. That would be the official good deed of the day.
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Monday, March 16, 2009
News Fit to Print by Lou Marin
The black letters slowly crawl
across the off-white paper.
Not quite fairness for all,
words, cutting like a rapier.
We hated the yellow press,
their 19th century writing caper.
The truth they would transgress,
words, cutting like a rapier.
The Lewiston, Maine daily rag,
uses facts as solid as vapor,
reports valid as a tabloid mag,
words, cutting like a rapier.
Since innocents they attack,
let their readership taper.
Leave the Journal on its rack,
words, cutting like a rapier.
The black letters slowly crawl,
words, cutting like a rapier.
across the off-white paper.
Not quite fairness for all,
words, cutting like a rapier.
We hated the yellow press,
their 19th century writing caper.
The truth they would transgress,
words, cutting like a rapier.
The Lewiston, Maine daily rag,
uses facts as solid as vapor,
reports valid as a tabloid mag,
words, cutting like a rapier.
Since innocents they attack,
let their readership taper.
Leave the Journal on its rack,
words, cutting like a rapier.
The black letters slowly crawl,
words, cutting like a rapier.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Sun Journal Obsessed with Rumford for a Reason
Graphics by VigsAccording to the Associated Press, "Ten newspapers, including the Sun Journal of Lewiston, were honored Friday for outstanding reporting done in the spirit of courage and independence of Publick Occurrences, the nation's first newspaper, by the New England Newspaper Association."
"Winners included the Sun Journal, Lewiston, Maine, for its reporting on Rumford, Maine, which provided detailed but fair coverage of nutty small-town politicians."
Well, I guess we finally got our answer why the Sun Journal is so obsessed with Rumford. They not only chose us as their "Publick Occurrence" but they time and time again reported what was NOT happening in Rumford in order to make it appear like a "Publick Occurrence." Their reporting got so bad that the Town of Rumford to include the Town Manager and a couple Board of Selectmen met with the "Editors" at the Sun Journal to ask them why and to plead with them to get the facts before they go to print because they were negatively affecting our image and our efforts to attract and retain business for economic development purposes. Most of the Sun Journal's articles were one-sided, flat out inaccurate, purposefully written to look a certain way by omitting important aspects, and just plain cruel. And, they got an award for it!
"The only thing the Sun Journal newspaper is good for is lighting fires."
Everyone I know has cancelled their subscription to the Sun Journal and I would recommend that you do the same. Take a stance Rumford. How dare they use our town to advance their own agendas. If you made it to the meetings and were involved with Rumford politics, you would have seen that there were a handful of people fighting hard for your rights and a handful of people fighting to keep their power for personal gain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
