Monday, April 12, 2010

If Joe said Linda said X, and Linda denies it, and then Sam says Linda said X, and Linda denies it, should Linda take a lie detector test?

If I were two-faced
would I be wearing this one?

Abraham Lincoln

Shaw may see challenge in Republican primary
Joe Killian
Greensboro News and Record, February 19, 2010

Arguing over an argument
Joe Killian
Greensboro News and Record, February 25, 2010
My opinions will never change
no matter what the facts are

Steven Colbert
News & Record Gets It Wrong Under Alias
John Hammer
Rhino, February 25, 2010

Everyone There Says N&R Got It Wrong
John Hammer
Rhino, March 04, 2010

Commissioners Blast N&R
Scott D. Yost
Rhino, March 11, 2010
Freedom of the press
is guaranteed only to those who own one

A J Liebling

But then............

Candidates dispute incumbent's statement on taxes
Jordan Green
Yes Weekly, 04/12/2010

Shaw Did Say County Would Have To Raise Taxes
Spag, 04/12/2010
Gaurino, April 11, 2010
Will the Rhino back Linda again?

Does it seem like the establishment is protecting thier own?

Should John Hammer and Scott Yost take a polygraph?

Should Skip?

Would Spag and BJ agree to take a lie detector test?
If the Skip and Linda story isn't true, why didn't the News and Record publish a correction?
How can a Commissioner vote to borrow money without raising taxes?
Were the bonds advertized with offsetting budget cuts to pay for them?

The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement

The opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth

Niels Bohr

Bookmark and Share


Anonymous said...

The Rhino backed up the status quo unquestioningly when the Skip, Linda thing happened. And they propped up Skip when he went after Joe. It should be interesting to see if this will be covered Thursday.

Anonymous said...

Linda voted to borrow $650,000,000 and somehow, figured there would never be a tax hike to pay for it.

The Greensboro News and Record promoted the bonds as well, so let's look for some backtracking hypocracy from the editorial board when it comes to crunch time and people start losing their jobs.

5 teachers got the boot at Grimsley.


How about that parking deck Skip?

How about that tax break Robbie?

How about the live in conflict of interest Deena?

We are led by a bunch of hypocrites.

And the election will get close and the Rhino and the News and Record will opt to endorse their old friends.

Anonymous said...

Don't steal from my kids.

Anonymous said...

Spag Responds:

Shaw Can't Get Her Facts Or Position Straight
Talk about multiple inconsistent statements. Not only did Linda Shaw deny that she said "we are going to have to raise taxes" to pay for the bond debt, but the story she has told about what she claims she actually said doesn't make much sense either.

She first told Jordan Green “for the record I have never, ever said raising taxes will be necessary." But a few paragraphs later in the piece Shaw says that when pressed about whether a tax increase will come as a result of the bonds she said "eventually, but I won't be raising them."

Later BJ Barnes states ostensibly in Shaw's defense "Linda said that a tax increase may be unavoidable."

Maybe someone can explain how raising taxes won't be "necessary" to pay for the bonds but will happen "eventually" to pay for the bonds because they are "unavoidable". How can those statements be reconciled ? If there is going to be a tax increase "eventually" because it is likely "unavoidable", isn't that the same as saying the tax increase is "necessary"- something Shaw initially denied saying?

Not that it matters beyond its value to demonstrate her inconsistency on the subject because neither statement reflects what she actually said on April 6th which was "we are going to have to raise taxes".

The larger issue in this story is the reason for the tax increase if one does happen "eventually" and that is because of the $1 billion dollars in debt due largely because of bonds that Shaw supported.

What it comes down to is Shaw voted for the bonds which had to be paid for somehow. So after finally admitting that it will take a tax increase to pay for them, she tries to extricate herself from any liability for any such tax increase by saying she won't vote for it. When she voted for the bonds, how did she think they were going to be paid for? Is her current position responsible or sensible?

Is it responsible to go buy fancy new furniture on a credit card and then refuse to pay the bill? If that is your position, wouldn't it have been better simply to not have purchased the fancy new furniture in the first place?