My response to this? See previous post. Too lazy to click? Very well: *after* 2003, Stone not only was on the bandwagon for an aldermanic raise, he led the charge.
This and Thillens are the only two things I have *ever* heard in defense of Stone. And both are open to criticism. I want to know what objective, verifiable, undisputed benefit Stone has created for us. What else does the man have to show for 34 years in office and over $100,000 in salary for each of many of those years? What has our tax money gotten us?
Concerned consumers want to know.
24 comments:
Lets see Stone supporters have been called, thugs, lazy, morons, jerks, accused of stealing signs, illegal deversion of tax dallors, lying and that just the beginning from one blog and blogger.
Now is the Alderman accused of not doing anything aside fron Thillens. Well look at the senior housing in Lincoln Village and Grandville and California just as a Start.
As for name calling I have a few but will wait till April 18.
>Now is the Alderman accused of not doing anything aside fron Thillens. Well look at the senior housing in Lincoln Village and Grandville and California just as a Start.
As for name calling I have a few but will wait till April 18.
March 22, 2007 4:41 AM
The alderman IS accused of not doing anything, aside from Thillens. The bike path remains unfinished. Oh that's right, he's got a "secret plan" on why it's not finished, I guess I'll have to wait .....NOT.
How much more senior housing does the 50th ward need before there is no more room for the youngsters? On their bikes? As for the name calling threat, don't you think you're being childish about it?
"Sticks and Stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me" nyanyanyanya nya. I remember that one. LOL
I think that piece is a well- written, well designed response to the criticism that Stone gave himself a raise. I really do not understand the why there is criticism that Stone gave himself a raise. Who out there would refuse a raise the way Stone did? Not one of you people would refuse a raise, yet you bad month Stone when he accepts one.
Perhaps Stone has done some things in the ward. But that still doesn't make up for the fact the schools in the neighborhood are still overcrowded, youth services are lacking, there plenty of empty store fronts (many bearing Stone signs, mind you), etc., etc.
He had 34 years and enough city clout to bring in the best city services to improve his ward. Do we see much of that? Not really. We just see and hear a lot of complaints from residents. It's time for him to go and bring new blood - Naisy Dolar for 50th Ward Alderman!
lets not forget about Stone's Hard working,dedicated staff ALSO being called sychofants,hacks,and every other nasty name that can be thought of!SO!-lets see who is doing the vicious Name-Calling-The "nameless"supporters of Stone's opponent,driven by either BLIND AMBITION,PERSONAL HATRED(such as Wendy/Willow9),RACIST PREJUDICE,a"Whatever-it-takes"ATTITUDE,and the FASCIST PERSONALITY CULT her campaign has become(with YELLOW HATS INSTEAD OF BROWN SHIRTS)-THE Dolar CARPETBAGGER RUN-- OUTSIDER FINANCED UGLY CAMPAIGN IS WHAT SHE HAS CURSED THE 50TH WARD WITH-AND WHICH DESERVES TO BE STRONGLY REPULSED BY THE ONLY ONES WHO MATTER,THE VOTERS OF THE 50TH WARD!!!
Stone never met a pay raise he didn't like
Let's review Stone's record on pay raises
for aldermen.
The last 6 pay increases the Aldermen voted for themselves, and Stone's vote:
1. December 23, 1985: from $27,600 to $40,000, 45% increase; Stone: ?
This pay raise was approved by a cowardly voice vote. Stone was present, no alderman asked for a roll call, and no votes were recorded.
2. April 12, 1991: from $40,000 to $55,000, 38% increase; Stone: YEA!
3. April 15, 1995: from $55,000 to $75,000, 36% increase; Stone: YEA!
4. July 29, 1998: from $75,000 to $85,000, 13% increase; Stone: YEA!
5. November 6, 2002: from $85,000 to $98,125 15% increase over 4 years; Stone: YEA!
6. July 26, 2006: from $98,125 to ???, automatic increases tied to the Consumer Price Index (CPI): Stone: YEA!
This most recent pay increase was sponsored by Stone himself. Stone's change to the laws of our City was a true innovation in the legislative history of the Chicago City Council in that it is OPEN ENDED. Notice the every 4 years or so pattern to the pay raises our Village Elders award themselves. That's because Illinois state law prohibits aldermen from raising their pay during their current term. They can only raise salaries for subsequent terms. So they have to plan ahead a little. Stone planned ahead in spades. Stone took care of all future generations of aldermen in one swell foop. Thanks to Stone, aldermen will get automatic COL raises every year, without having to go no record, until the end of time.
Neighbors, raise your hand if you get an automatic cost of living raise every year!
Hugh said...
Stone never met a pay raise he didn't like
evey city employee gets a cost of living raise including allthose union employees who leaders waisted their money in the primary
willow9 said...
Stick and stone will be slander lawsuits after 4/18 hello Hugh of 23** estes?
Good luck with that slander lawsuit. You're more interested in silencing open debate than attacking the argument head-on -- I wonder why.
"Stone never met a pay raise he didn't like"
You're wrong there: he voted against the Big Box Living Wage Ordinance, so he doesn't like pay raises for OTHER people, just for himself.
Ald. Moore's ordinance would have guaranteed those in the city working for the country's largest employer (the Walmart heirs' total fortune exceeds $100 billion) a salary of at least $20,000 -- which is the size of the RAISE Alderman Stone sponsored for himself.
anonymost said...
Good luck with that slander lawsuit. You're more interested in silencing open debate than attacking the argument head-on -- I wonder why.
March 22, 2007 9:18 PM
Lets talk about the living wage ordinance then as a starter. Did you know the city of Chicago has such a wage? If you do business with the city you must pay your employees atleast $10 per hour. It may not be the $13 per hours that the Big box had but none of the unions were interested in trying to raise that rate which Stone and the rest of the Alderman would support.
In fact if the uions had gone along with that it would also be less likely that the Mayor would contract out more work as it becomes less finacially likely a private company can do the work cheaper.
The unions did not bother with that idea because Walmart was not invloved and two who one of the sponsored the orginal bill in the city council... Bernard Stone...
Now as to the slander.. some can dish it out but cant take it. So yes I can debate issues without name calling or false accusation unlike some.
Frredon of speech is not absolute as some will find out soon.
By the way, the big box bill if it became law never would have stood up to a legal challange. Similiar laws in other cities/States have met similiar fates.
aw, don't tell me you tough guys are worried about some dumb guy on the internets?
Dear neighbors,
Don't let brave Mr. anonymous intimate you from discussing the important issues of our community.
Avoiding slander is a very easy matter:
SPEAK THE TRUTH
This is for the "THE Dolar CARPETBAGGER RUN" individual:
You know, it's obvious that you're a supporter of dear leader Stone AND MAYBE one of his staffers (dun, dun, dun...)
I suppose the idea of Stone's staffers as hardworking can be subjective. Maybe they have performed hard work...
BUT!
Where are the fruits of your labor, dear hardworking staffers and Ald. Stone? I don't see much of that in the neighborhood!! Why isn't the 50th Ward the best place to live in Chicago? Why do residents complain all the time how Stone needs to go? Why do we residents who aren't in Stone's favorite list get treated like crap whenever many of us request for help from the ward office?
I don't get you...
does anyone recognize the folks in the photo huddling with Stone?
are they actors?
Hugh is right on. Bernie Stone is ALL about the pay raises.
Jim in Chicago said...
"Stone never met a pay raise he didn't like"
You're wrong there: he voted against the Big Box Living Wage Ordinance, so he doesn't like pay raises for OTHER people, just for himself.
The Box Box would never have pass a court challange. I believe Maryland tried something with Health Insurance and it got struck down.
I don't know where you're from but here in America something has to be a lie before it can be slander
Hugh said...
does anyone recognize the folks in the photo huddling with Stone?
are they actors?
March 23, 2007 10:57 AM
The woman on the left(no, not Stones offspring) is Chris Jabari, Rogers elementary schools newest Principal. Joel Bakrins "retired" on to bigger and better things.
Hugh said...
I don't know where you're from but here in America something has to be a lie before it can be slander
I am here, I am there but I am no where. I am the wind.
anonymost said...
Good luck with that slander lawsuit. You're more interested in silencing open debate than attacking the argument head-on -- I wonder why.
Hugh said...
aw, don't tell me you tough guys are worried about some dumb guy on the internets?
Dear neighbors,
Don't let brave Mr. anonymous intimate you from discussing the important issues of our community.
FOLKS I DO NOT WANT TO SILIENCE ANYONE OT STOP DISCUSSION OF ANYONE, THAT IS UNAMERICAN.
Hugh however crossed the line a long time ago and my issue is with him and him alone. I would deal with it now but then he would make it a campaign issue which is should not be.
However I will be like the wind now and blow away. Until 4/18.
One final point:
willow9 said...
How much more senior housing does the 50th ward need before there is no more room for the youngsters? On their bikes? As for the name calling threat, don't you think you're being childish about it?
This is another prime example of campaign that is diving this community. Now its old versus young. Willow9 some day you will be a senior to and face housing issues. This type of campaign does not come from Stone but Naisy.
As for name calling I leave you with this quote" I sure as heck did not start this fight but by god I am going to finish it"
I never have like bullies in school, at the office, or on the net. They can dish it out but usually cant take it. I also learned not to fight a battle in an opponent grounds. In this case it the blog, but when it is my turn it will be in neuteral setting.
So I am know like the wind and blow.
Buh bye, anonymous, buh bye. (what the heck was that one smokin?)
You long for the good old days when you could control what people knew and what they say and what they think. Welcome to the 21st century.
You think you can restore your old Order by intimidating people into silence with threats of lawsuits.
Why are you so worried about a bunch of nuts on the internets, hard guy? Why not bring it on, before the election? Don't want to create an issue? Or are you hoping your lawsuit will make you feel better the morning after, that damages recovered in your lawsuit will replace your patronage income?
If i were you I would rather talk lawsuit than talk about your guys record, too.
So let's talk about slander. What do you know about it?
Just because you are not happy about something does not mean it's slander.
For example, if someone were to post, say
"Bernard L. Stone is REALLY, REALLY OLD!"
... you might not be happy with that, but it's not slander, because it's TRUE!
Or say someone posted
"Avy Meyers is a piss-poor interviewer."
... well, that's not slander, either, because it's opinion.
Also, since you must show actual harm, if you are planning to sue you must also be planning on losing the election?
Or is your goal to intimidate?
Hugh said...
So let's talk about slander. What do you know about it?
Just because you are not happy about something does not mean it's slander.
For example, if someone were to post, say
"Bernard L. Stone is REALLY, REALLY OLD!"
... you might not be happy with that, but it's not slander, because it's TRUE!
Or say someone posted
"Avy Meyers is a piss-poor interviewer."
... well, that's not slander, either, because it's opinion.
Also, since you must show actual harm, if you are planning to sue you must also be planning on losing the election?
Or is your goal to intimidate?
March 25, 2007 12:56 PM
Sorry I just cant resist one more post.
I am not running Hugh. What you have said about Me( Not Stone) is not true, hurtfull and slander
Intimindation ( like must bullies) is your game. The campaign should be about issues not you slandering me Hugh.
By the way I did a search of records to
Hugh D*****
23** W. Estes
Chicago IL 60645
No record of any political donations going back since atleast 2000
So you dont put your money where your mouth is.
I hear the wind blowing so I see on you April 18, 2007.
> What you have said about Me .. is not true, hurtfull (sic) and slander
how can you slander anonymous?
this I have to see
I can hardly wait
meanwhile yes please go away and stop your childish attempts to frighten me and my neighbors
bet you won't though
Post a Comment