October 6, 2006

Joe Serra: a principled candidate running in the age of the "donor class"

Joe Serra is the Democratic candidate for 50th District State Rep, a district which includes parts of Kane, Kendall, and LaSalle counties. Serra has adopted the admirable policy of refusing all money from Political Action Committees or PACS which represent large interest groups.

His aim to be beholding to no one but the average people of his district is perhaps the best hope of getting politics moving away from the corrosive and detrimental effects of the vast amounts of money flooding the system. This has lead to candidates becoming nothing but fund-raising machines, putting the interests of monied interests ahead of, and often to the exclusion of, the issues of importance to and the best interests of the middle class and the state as a whole.

Serra is 45 years old, lives in Geneva, IL with his wife of 17 years and six children ranging in ages from 15 to 5.

He is particularly concerned with state funding for schools and favors a proposal which would raise state income taxes while simultaneously lowering property taxes.
When elected, I will propose to increase the State Income Tax a maximum of 2% paired with a 25% reduction in property taxes phased in over a three year period. By doing this we will provide our States School Systems approximately $7 billion. Education funding must be reformed to rely more directly on state revenues generated from income tax; there just is no realistic way around this. We must increase our State Income Tax. Any plan that suggests otherwise is vaporous and disingenuous.

Property taxes currently provide around 70% of the funding for public elementary and secondary education in Illinois. In some districts, property tax revenues provide as much as 95% of the total education dollars. That is putting an undue burden on most of the growing districts in the State.

Serra is also committed to managing out of control suburban sprawl and configuring the tax code to preserve and strengthen the increasingly targeted middle-class.

Joe Serra appears to be a guy who saw the direction the country is going and rather than stand by, decided to stand up and try to do something about it. He reflects the traditional values of Democrats and seeks to serve the people, not the most powerful.

Unfortunately, at this time he has no website containing policy positions and further information, but he does have a lot of material which lays out his positions and views on a wide range of issues, his background, and other information.

Someone who wants to run a campaign the old fashioned way, without the majority of funds coming from business and other interest groups, deserves admiration and support. If such campaigns become more common, and if people both notice and support principled candidacies, it would go a long way towards fighting the current system of politicians beholding to the donor class, the highest bidder, and away from the worst government money can buy.

If the idea of a non-traditional politician sounds good, learn more about Serra or get involved in his grassroots campaign, you can contact the campaign at info@serra06.com


At 10/06/2006 6:20 AM, Blogger A_A_D said...

"the admirable policy of refusing all money from Political Action Committees or PACS which represent large interest groups"???

I agree that it may be an admirable policy TID, but it's a policy for candidates who are going to lose.

Remember Glen Poshard?

He's a good example of the kind of bind such a pledge will create. I've met Glen Poshard and think he's a real and genuine individual. Glen's the kind of guy we should want in Government, but he lost to George Ryan.

Refusing PAC money is an issue that only resonates with a small number of voters. I polled the question about 8 years ago, so there could have been some changes in the public's attitude, but I find it pretty doubtful that there's been significant movement in that time.

Refusing PAC money also tends to alienate a candidate from their own base, since organized labor contributions come from PACS just the same as business contributions.

I personally long for the day when public financing of elections is a reality, because then there could be a truly even playing field. But until then, I don't believe a candidate should walk into a gunfight unarmed, no matter how admirable the action might seem.

At 10/06/2006 7:30 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

While I can't dispute what you say, the fact remains that a large reason why our politics is so broken and distorted is precisely because people are willing to do nearly anything to win.

I realize it may seem overly idealistic and naive, but truly, until more politicians commit to doing things differently, start adjusting their priorities and start weaning themselves off big donors, things will not improve.

Public financing is about the only viable alternative, but, like every other attempt to clean up money influence in politics, the power hungry will find a way to subvert and pervert that as well.

It's almost as if we need to change the rules every 5 or 10 years to keep ahead of those who want to buy influence and the politicians who are addicted to their cash.

And yes, all PACs do not necessarily represent industry or corporate interests.

But again, if actual PEOPLE started having as much influence as those who dump millions on politicians, then surely unions would have their voices heard directly from union members and those who realize the value of unions.

I guess essentially the goal should be to have influence according to number of people, not piles of cash.

This is why I find it somewhat repulsive to hear people boasting and crowing about how great a candidate is because he managed to reel in a huge pile of cash.

That shows that they're far too cynical and have a warped attitude.

Sure, it's crucial in an election to have cash, but to boast that you're essentially a successful whore for donors strikes me as odd, especially if the candidate has no opposition for all practical purposes.

At 10/06/2006 12:42 PM, Blogger A_A_D said...

I agree with all of your points TID, especially your dislike of fundraising ability becoming an important attribute for potential candidates.

It's absolutely disgusting to me that one measure of a candidates "legitimacy" is their ability to sell themselves to donors. But in the end a candidate's financing has a dramatic impact on their ability to get out their message.

As an example, ask Paul Rumler if he thinks he could have won with an infusion of $50,000. I'd think that even $15,000 or $20,000 might have turned that race around, simply by allowing Paul to carry his message forward more effectively. ;)

The only good news is that it's mostly political insiders who really care about fundraising ability. For party leaders, it's an important attribute because the two parties have a limited number of resources to allocate, and candidates who raise big money don't need as much party support.

At 10/06/2006 3:35 PM, Blogger nicodemus said...

I did a search for this guy on The Illinois State Board of Elections and they have no record of him. I looked under 50th district state rep, and came back with zilch. Patricia Reid Lidner the incumbent Republican appears to be unopposed.
Then I looked on this new Il State Voters Guide. Again, nothing.
Is Serra some kind of "write-in" or is he so old-fashioned that his name isn't even on the ballot?

At 10/06/2006 5:24 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

AAD, very true.

And Nico,

I share your frustration. I was contacted by Serra with some basics of his campaign. I too tried to find more info on him and largely came up empty.

So I wrote back to him and asked for more information. He then sent links to several documents and what seems like a template for his website, although he doesn't have it up.

Apparently he's truely a greassroots candidate in that he's running a campaign with essentially no money, or at least not enough to spend on a website.

It seems to defeat the purpose of trying to publicize your campaign when you have no central place for people to find out more about you and your views.

He does have a lot of good material with clearly explained positions on many issues, however it's not practical to post them all here, nor would I do so.

Unfortunately, it seems the best anyone interested can do is contact Serra by e-mail and ask that he send along some material by e-mail.

Again, courting attention without a website to refer people to is a tough way to go. Hope that changes.

At 10/06/2006 7:15 PM, Blogger nicodemus said...

Yeah I can relate. The Topinka campaign in northern Illinois is largely non-existent as well.

At 10/06/2006 9:05 PM, Anonymous Joseph Serra said...


The reason you do not find anything about me or my candidacy at the SBE is because you must raise a specific sum of money in order to declare your candidacy. I am in fact on the ballot.

To address some of the statements regarding Glen Poshard's loss to Ryan just prove my point and I thank you for that. George Ryan is one of the poster boys for graft, greed and corruption in government. How do you think he got that way?

A leader leads by example. I wouldn't be much of a leader if I was taking money from the PACs, Corporations and Casinos all the while saying politicians shouldn't take money from PACs, Corporations and Casinos. Although, my opponent has done exactly that.

Even you say that Glen Poshard is someone that we need in government and agree that money in politics causes problems in our government, but at the same time you denigrate Poshard for not having his hand in the pockets of the corporations. You contradict yourself.

Ask your self if you want someone to lead or to follow everyone else.

I'm a leader, not a follower and I am my OWN man. Our political campaign system needs to be reformed and maybe I'll be the one to do it.

Thanks for reading.

Joe Serra

At 10/06/2006 10:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you cant get people to believ in you and give you cash you have no business being in polotics.
PS. I find it amusing that Paul Rumler thinks he could have won with $50,000.

At 10/07/2006 1:26 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

You're welcome to be amused, but if you'd actually read AAD's comment, you'd see that Rumler has never said he "thinks he could have won with $50,000."

Don't make stuff up. Thanks.

I think the comment was meant to imply that an infusion of $50,000 at a strategic point in the campaign may have made the difference. This is not from Rumler's mouth, but the opinion of AAD.
And I myself think it's likely true.
Jacobs was sweating bullets a week out and polls showed Rumler a full 10 points ahead.

At 10/07/2006 11:34 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Exactly what poll are you refering to Dope? Maybe you could provide a link.

At 10/07/2006 12:09 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Here ya go.

Straight from Jacobs' mouth.

"According to unofficial final results districtwide, Mr. Jacobs finished with 8,280 votes to challenger Paul Rumler's 6,511.

He admitted that internal polls had him trailing by 10 percent 10 days before the primary."

At 10/07/2006 5:09 PM, Anonymous Joe Serra said...


I'm wondering when you became an expert on political fundraising and exactly how much it costs to run a campaign?

How much does it cost to win?

Is the "Magic" number 51k? How about 60k how about 1 MeeeeLLION dollars! The truth is you're don't know anything about politics. You're an armchair quarter back who pisses and moans all day long and into the night about politicians but don't have the stones to go out and run yourself.

Haul your fat ass off of the barka-lounger and run. Prove to me and everyone else that you know what it's like to run for office. That you have experience to back up you comments. Prove me wrong when I say "those who can't play, watch."


Joe Serra

At 10/07/2006 5:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Again where did you find Jacobs saying that he was behind 10 percent 10 days before the primary.
I didn't realize that Jacobs beat Rumler by 1,700 votes out of 14,800. That is more than 10%. I had thought that this was a more competitive race than that.

At 10/08/2006 2:46 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anyone that would be for this loser for dogcatcher should think of themself as a unick. This is the most pathetic candidate and we the people need to know if you are supporting this loser for anything? Please let us know if this is your guy or not?

At 10/08/2006 11:56 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Anon 3:46. "unick"? HAHAHAHAHA!!

Thanks for the laugh. It never fails. Whenever the bonehead bridgade shows up after a night of drinking, it's always good for a laugh or two.

At 10/08/2006 12:06 PM, Anonymous Joseph Serra said...

Arthur Alexander Deco like to quote people of fame. I do the same thing because I admire those individuals that I'm quoting. I try to follow the advice that these articulate individuals have left for us, I assume the same for Arthur Alexander Deco. I was recently on A.A.D.'s Blog CAMP PAIN
and read a marvelous quote from IMMANUEL KANT that sums up my stance on takinging money from organizations that want to manipulate politicians to vote their way.

It reads;

"Conduct yourself at all times, as though the maxims of your will were the principles of a general law."

Very wise indeed and very true to this day. I'm confused, however, as to why A.A.D. would publish this quote if he didn't think politicians or the general public should follow that sage advice?

Joseph Serra

At 10/08/2006 12:15 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Anon 17:25.

What part of "He admitted that internal polls had him trailing by 10 percent 10 days before the primary." don't you understand?

I answered this within a half hour of your asking yesterday.

It's also worth noting that Jacobs spent $17.04 per vote compared to Rumler's $1.22

At 10/08/2006 3:33 PM, Anonymous Joseph Serra said...

A.A.D. By the way If you were truely involded with politics and knew your stuff, you would know that 44% of Illinoisians are "extremely concerned" with the influence of money in politics. I consider that a fairly large voting block. If you don't believe me - then check out the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform.

I really am scratching my head as to why Democrats running for office are constantly defending their good intentions and honourable actions to voting democrats. Maybe you could clear this up for me.


Joseph Serra

At 10/08/2006 10:10 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dope where did you get this 10% info. I would like to know where it came from. It seems like you are making it up.

At 10/09/2006 7:22 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Anon, you're a moron. You can ask the question 50 times, but I provided a source within minutes of you asking for it. I don't know if you're brain damaged or can't figure out how to click on a link, or simply think it's a hoot to act like a fool. Hard to say.

At 10/09/2006 9:47 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Too bad Rumler wasn't playing horse shoes!

In politics close doesn't get it! When you lose a politcal rac e you are a loser. When you win, you are a winner.

I predict this will be the first of many victories for Jacobs, and the first of two loses for Rumler!

At 10/09/2006 11:30 AM, Anonymous Joseph Serra said...

To: “Anon” & Arthur Alexander Deco,

For a couple of years I criticized the Kane County Democrats because they could NEVER find a democrat to run for the County Board, local races, state races or even federal races. I guess I was verbalizing my frustration for living in such a republican dominated area. The truth is there just weren’t enough democrats living around here. I had Dan Hines calling me asking me if I would become more active in the party and finally I started to attend meetings. I realized I was being a hypocrite by complaining, giving suggestions and criticizing because we couldn't even field a candidate much less find one that could win. It took a year and one terrible hurricane for me to finally decide that someone has to take the lead and run for office. Enough was enough and I started to run.

I guess some of TID readers are voicing their frustrations too and I owe them an apology for being overly defensive. “Anon” and Arthur Alexander Deco, I do apologize to you for voicing your opinion. I'm NOT a politician; I'm just Joe Six-pack who had enough. Will you forgive me for my aggressiveness?


Joseph "Joe" Serra

At 10/09/2006 11:44 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

anon 9:47.

I predict you'll get a Speak-n-Spell for Christmas. Lord knows you need it.

At 10/09/2006 8:05 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Coutin' votes got nothing to do with readin and wrtiten. Jacobs' primary opponent could spell real good, but he couldn't get enough votes. Too bad, so sad.

At 10/10/2006 4:58 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yep. Just like Bush won the last two elections, and therefore, he must be best. Another parallel between the two.

I guess what you're arguing is that winning ugly is still winning.
Winning is more important than how you win. Maybe they could start a program to teach that to school kids?

At 10/10/2006 10:03 AM, Blogger A_A_D said...

Hey Joe! ;)

I can understand your feelings, and there's no need to forgive anything from my end, it's all good.

You are right that over on the 'lil blog I started to entertain myself, I quote thinkers like Kant. But I also need to point out that I also quote profanity from General George Patton too. I see myself and my tastes as eclectic. ;)

Joe - I do commend your stand on principle, I really do. Unfortunately, in the rough and tumble world of politics in Illinois, standing on principle isn't always the best road to election.

I see myself as a realist, but perhaps I am a cynic. Glen Poshard was a good man but he was beaten by a crook. In his case a little less principle and a bit more money might have been the road to being elected.

Is that right?
We ALL know it's not right.

But I'm not thinking that's much fair or right about politics in Illinois anyway!

At 10/10/2006 12:50 PM, Blogger A_A_D said...

Is it more important to be "right" than to win?

Me personally, I'd rather not win if I'd have to cheat, I do believe in working inside campaign laws. But setting self-imposed limits is a dificult strategy to use and still prevail under the current system.

In the political arena it's pretty much like Vince Lombardi once said, "Winning isn't everything, it's the ONLY thing." If you don't get the "seat at the table", you can't represent anyone or anything.

At 10/12/2006 9:51 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Losing is for losers. Winning is for winners. Jacobs won. Ebough said!

At 10/12/2006 1:55 PM, Anonymous Joe Serra said...

Arthur Alexander Deco

Thank's A.A.D.

Believe me, I know where your comming from. Money is extremely important in any race - today. I'm tring to change that.

I had an interview with the Herald the other Day along with my opponent. When the Editors asked her about my position she said something to the effect of "you can't run a campaign without it" My answer to that was. I'm sitting right next to you being interviewd by the same people you are and I'm still here!

I'm still running and I don't owe a thing to the casinos, or the PACs or the corporations. I have only the people of Illinois to answer to.

There is no way in HELL that I would need 100k to run this race. Maybe 5 - 10k but 100K?! No way!
This is suplemental income to a lot of the politicians - especially those who run unopposed and still bring in several hundred $$k in "contributions".

Well thanks for your insight - I agree with most of what you've said.

Joe Serra

At 10/12/2006 2:14 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Anon 9:51

"Ebough" indeed!!

At 10/12/2006 10:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think when Joe loses and all is said and done about the amount of blog coverage Joe got and how important blog coverage is. He doesn't need the stinking money to run. No he doesn't. He would need it to win however. I also find it interesting that people think that if you take money from someone then you owe them. That is the mind of a weak individual that I don't want leading me. People like Joe are better suited to sit on the outside and look in. This guy reminds me of Mellon. A real dreamer. If you look at it in the end we will have to look for him again in a few years if he decides to run again.

At 10/13/2006 12:28 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Anon 22:50.

I can't help but be discouraged by hearing such a cynical attitude.
Obviously nothing will ever improve as long as folks think as you do.

You not only don't acknowledge that trying to avoid being bought by donors and PACs is an honorable goal, but you actually are so used to the "politics as usual" that you feel the need to berate and sneer at anyone who is even trying.

That's pretty sad.

Yeah, money may run politics, and pols refusing to take PAC donations may have an uphill battle in winning an election, but with your ultra cynical attitude, nothing would ever get done.

Following your "whatever it takes" attitude, paying people for their votes would be legal. After all, as long as it results in a victory, it's ok, right?

Hell, with the insane amounts some pols spend on their campaigns, they end up paying almost $20 a vote or more anyway. Might as well pay off the voters directly, right? Why keep up the pretense?

And good luck getting anyone to believe that politicians don't feel some sort of obligation to perform for large donors. Give me a break.

And you're right, pols don't HAVE to do what donor's want. But they DO.

What planet are you on to think they don't?

Of course they do. At the least, the donors get their ear and they get an opportunity to argue their case so that the politician has only their side of the story.

In many cases, the politicians are clueless, get handed an issue by PACs and trade groups, who both give them tons of money for campaign ads, mailings, polling or anything they need, put them in office, then get them to introduce a custom written bill, give them talking points to con the public with, and simultaneously run propaganda campaigns on the issue.

The pol is just a small part of the equation. And yes, they DO get run by the big money corporate and development interests.

The pols routinely try to spin bills as something that benefits the greater public, but that's a load of crap 90% of the time, such as elimination of the estate tax to save family farms or enacting insurance company protection laws (lawsuit "reform") by saying it will stop a woman from sueing McDonalds over being severely scalded by coffee or inflaming public resentment by citing a case where a lawyer made a lot of money from a huge case.

But it's all a huge lie, and the insurance industry, in this case, get to write their own laws, and the pols get tons of dough for their elections, (and that they can use to live like millionaires) and also don't have to worry about doing the work themselves. The bills are written for them, the speeches written for them, the talking points provided, and the ad campaigns run for them.

All the pol has to do is read the propaganda and pocket the money. What's not to like?

It's all a con job, and surely you don't expect people to buy the idea that big donations don't influence politicians.

The geneal public may be sheep and gullible, but readers here aren't.

At 10/13/2006 8:25 AM, Blogger A_A_D said...

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
George Orwell

Best of luck, over and out to all!

At 10/13/2006 9:38 AM, Anonymous Joseph Serra said...


I am not about to debate you on the subject of fundraising because you are absolutely correct. Today, money is needed to run and win a campaign. I don't think that people would argue with you on that point.

I'm in sales and I work with a lot of F50 and G100 companies that do NOT allow their CIO, their COO, or their purchasing directors attend any functions or meeting where the company that is selling to them picks up the tab for the CIO, COO, Purchasing Director, etc., because it can lead to unethical behavior. They don't want their employee’s decision making responsibilities to influenced by anything except the facts, the figures and the information that is relevant to their RESPONSIBILITIES. I applaud that policy.

The politician is not unlike the CFO, COO, CIO or purchasing director. The lobbying industry and the PACs have something to sell no matter what you think; these organizations are absolutely trying to INFLUENCE - BRIBE politicians.

By your thinking, you should be able to offer a policeman a U.S. Grant to get yourself out of a ticket and that should be okay.
You admit that money influences politics. Isn't that a bad policy? Don't you want to change that policy?

Who ever has raised the most money is better able to touch and get their message across to all of the voters. Don't you think the PAC's know this already? The lobbyists know that and they want Patricia Lindner to win because they know that she will vote for their cause which might be to lower the legal age to gamble in the state to 18.

Do you want your 18 year old son or daughter going to casinos and gambling away their paycheck? I don't ever want your child to get involved with something like that. Some politicians really don't care but would rather be re-elected.

I wish you would vote for me because you think I would do a good job. If you don't want to vote for me just because I won't take money from PAC's, Casinos or Corporations, then I think I'll have to find another way to convince you that what I'm trying to do is the right thing.

Good luck,

Joe Serra
50th District Candidate
to the Illinois General Assembly,
Geneva, IL

At 10/13/2006 10:10 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

AAD, I certainly hope this isn't that you're not going to participate here anymore.

Don't let the morons wear you down.

Your perspective is a welcome addition.

At 10/13/2006 12:55 PM, Anonymous RayBurke said...


If you take a dinner and then vote against the people that bought it for you ---- than you have no business in public service.

For you to suggest that people who accept campaign contribution in effect are taking BRIBES is false.

Campaign contributions are given for many reasons. People may like you. They may want your ear. They may support your party, or agree with your postion. Sometimes they simply want to give something back to their community. Maybe they want to obligate you.

The notion that people can bribe you with a campaign contributions is not convincing.

It takes 18 millions of dollars to run for Governor of Illinois. This guy that raised dough for Blago and gave him $66,000 is the perfect example. Now I realize you would somehow feel obliagted to do something corrupt if a person gave you money wanted, but the vast majority of people that raise money don't feel as you do. Most are honest people.

Your assertion that their is too much money in politcs is crazy. Energizer spends more money on promoting batteries than do all the politcal campaig spending in America combined. If your point is that people are more interested in batteries than politics, you have a point. But to ignore hard facts is ridiculous.

Are you obliagted to the newspaper if they say something nice about you? Where you bought off by the Dope when he printed your wacky views on politcs?

Why is that every loser I know, thinks everyone else is corrupt besides them. My guess is that these people are the most corrupt of all. Petty little people that can't think of anything but how the other guy is doing this and that!

If your company doesn't want you to take a "free lunch" it is likely because they don't want to buy anyone else a lunch.

American business was stronger in the 1950s than in the 2000s, when personal relationships mattered. Now all the wild-eyed reformers want to do is turn people into robots controlled by their paymasters!

While your theories may have a place in an ivory tower. in the real world they don't hold water. Blago's guy was indicted for doing something illegal, not raising funds. Garbage in, garbage out!

At 10/13/2006 10:57 PM, Anonymous Joseph Serra said...

I just have too laugh.... It takes all kinds to make the world an interesting place.

Thank you Rayburke,

Joe Serra

At 10/13/2006 11:10 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Joe, you're a wise man.

Welcome to blogland, Quad City style, where if you didn't laugh, you'd blow your brains out simply due to the crushing realization that you share the planet with such stunningly stupid small-minded people. (sometimes)

And for some reason, the rational and fair-minded seem to avoid the thing entirely. Can't blame them on one hand, as you've seen that dealing with some of these types is literally impossible to do in a sane manner.

But at the same time, the fact that reasonable bright people DON'T participate ensures that the morons will dominate.

That's one of my biggest frustrations.

You've aquitted yourself well here Joe. Especially considering that none of the major local politicians around here, with the exception of Jacobs opponent James Beals and Judge Vicki Wright have even had the character to participate here under their names. Other pols have long left hundreds of posts under aliases, but have never owned up to their own words.

So thanks Joe. I think you're ahead of the game. It's just unfortunate that often times discussions get quickly drug into the ditch. It's really a shame and serves to preclude the possible, namely a true informative and interesting interaction with candidates and elected officials.

The fact that this golden opportunity is squandered due to politicians who don't have the self-confidence to participate, fail to take advantage of this rising communication vehicle, or who choose to ignore it, and the dearth of reasonable and rational participants on smaller blogs is a real shame in my opinion.

At 10/14/2006 12:11 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe Dope, because the whole idea of blogging under an anon system is just plain stupid. This is the problem when an anon blog owner operator that is making big money from tips and corporate sponsors and has the guts to call anon posters out for being anon. Seems odd to me too. I also know that this and other posts that I write will never see the air because it just goes to show how stupid it all is and that you are a true cowered for not posting them. I like that you put Jacobs name in your little diatribe. Show bias and malice. Get some guts Dope and don't hide behind your curtain of power.

At 10/14/2006 12:50 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Thanks for the laughs, my mixed up and illiterate friend.

Sooooo... I guess you'd prefer that commenters be required to use their real names to comment?

How would that be accomplished, pray tell? Would someone have to go check people's id cards before allowing them to sign up? What would prevent people from registering with a false name? And what would prevent someone else from registering using your real name, for instance?

Do you think this might have something to do with the fact that there is not one public blog/website out of hundreds of millions that requires people to use their actual names?

Have you spent a split second thinking this through? Expecting blogs to be anything other than anonymous shows a basic ignorance of the subject.

Let's see, you say I'm hypocritical because I "call out people for being anon". I don't recall ever criticizing anyone for being anonymous (except that it's annoying that they don't at least choose a screen name other than "anonymous".)

Oh, are you talking about the fact that certain politicians never speak for themselves under their own name? Well, I'd say that's an entirely different matter, wouldn't you?

They're free to comment anonymously, though they've given away their identity pretty well.

But if they have something to say, wouldn't you think that they'd actually stand behind their words at least every once in a while? No huge deal, but I just find it a bit interesting.

I'm rarely "cowered" by the way.

And you can't believe how much "big money" the blog pulls in. It's obscene. (cough) But I gotta ask who my "corporate sponsors" are, because if I have them, they're sure damn quiet. You'd think they'd at least let ME know that they're sponsoring me. So any info you have would be greatly appreciated.

I mention Jacobs name because it's simply the truth. Sorry. I'm not going to cover it up.

95% of the screetching, vicious, dishonest attacks come from those supporting Jacobs. (including yours) Any long time observer knows that already.

And I admit that a year of their abuse hasn't exactly had a positive influence on my opinion of Jacobs or his supporters. My disagreements on his positions are honest, but considering their disturbing reaction to the truth or anything less than praise, I'm not inclined to cover for them and write fluff pieces in return.

In other words, when they threaten and demand that I write what they want, I'm not inclined to obey. I don't respond well to threats from anyone. I stand behind the truth of everything I write, and as such, I don't feel I have any reason to feel I've been unfair in any way.

So you and the other's constant whining, bitching, attacks and threats are utterly dishonest and only serve to compound my already low opinion of that "group".

I've never hid behind a "curtain of power" (hee hee... nice!) a shower curtain, or any other sort of curtain.

I'm right here, nearly every day. You sure know how to find me. I'm not exactly hidden.

If you can make a case that I've been in error or untruthful, bring it on. Otherwise as I say, all your whining and carping is ridiculous and I'll continue to ignore most of it.

And just for future reference, all the clods whose comments include the schoolyard taunt "you probably won't be brave enough to print this" or some variant of such crap will immediately earn a trip to the dump.

If you want your comments published, here's a tip. Try being honest and making sense. Put a little effort into thinking before you spout off.

I have faith that you can do it.

Now I have to go slip into my solid-gold jacuzzi. The blog groupies are getting restless.

At 10/14/2006 9:43 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Would the person who is again making theats against me please have the courage to contact me directly by e-mail before they recklessly do something which will blow up in their faces in a big way?

I'm not sure you're thinking too clearly here, and I'd like to help you out.

At 10/29/2006 11:11 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, I'll be. Joe Serra sounds like quite the man to me. I will not vote for him, but that is simply because he is yet another Democrat out to ravage my wallet and redistribute that which I worked for to people he finds more deserving. However in general he sounds like the type of candidate that should hold public office. I will not be voting for his pro choice opponent either on principle. I do not believe in murdering babies any more than I believe in robbing one group of people to give to another group of people.

Good luck to you Joe, I don't want you in because I do not like anyone spending my hard earned money for me, but I like your style. It is too bad we are on opposite sides of the political divide.


At 10/30/2006 2:52 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Your attitude would lead to the destruction of our society.

You apparently have NO problem with the government taking your money and giving it to who they think deserves it more, namely Lockheed Martin, Halliburton, and an endless list of defense contractors, or to contstruction companies to build roads, or to contractors to build improvements to airports or parks, etc. even if you never use them.

If you think the country can function without taxing and spending, then you're just not thinking.

The fact is that the money you seem so concerned about, tax dollars spent on other human beings who find themselves in a horrible situation, represents a tiny tiny fraction of the tax money dumped to contractors and corporations for far more unnecessary and wasteful purposes.

At 10/30/2006 7:37 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Inside Dope writes:

You apparently have NO problem with the government taking your money and giving it to who they think deserves it more, namely Lockheed Martin, Halliburton, and an endless list of defense contractors, or to contstruction companies to build roads, or to contractors to build improvements to airports or parks, etc. even if you never use them.

My reply:

You certainly took a large amount of artistic liberty in proclaiming what you believe I think in your personal interpretation of what I wrote. Why do you possibly think I support any form of Government redistribution of wealth to corporations or individuals? I find income taxation a form of slavery, which is why our founding fathers forbade a tax against income. If a man does not own the fruits of his labor, he is not a free man. My objection to this income tax property tax swap is simple. I do not approve of the list of recipients you made of my income…i.e Haliburton, contractors etc. nor do I approve of forced charity to your so called human beings in horrible circumstances. Therefore I want to “starve” the beast. I have two viable alternatives, I can stop working or I can limit the scope of what the Government can steal from me. I chose to do the later, by living in a modest home in poor community so I can keep my property taxes affordable and restrain the Government’s hand by depriving them of deriving excess revenue to spend on their immoral acts . Currently I have some form of control, although far from desirable by simply living in modest home. I would like a larger home but I refuse, on principle to fund more killing in foreign lands, enable more free loaders, or allow the Government to murder children using my tax money.

I believe you have mistakenly assumed I am a Republican; I am not. I am an Independent voter who labored heavily for Paul Tsongas’ presidential bid, and that of Pat Buchanan, and Pertouka.



At 10/31/2006 6:11 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

I wrote what I wrote because I simply couldn't imagine that someone would actually think this country would be better off with no taxes and no government services.

Good luck with that.

At 11/01/2006 9:07 PM, Anonymous bustaface said...

You must like hanging your hat with a bunch of loosers...cause all your boy's lost and they lost big time Pat B what a goof. Talk about a guy with strange political ideas... I'm an independent too because I can't stand people like you. I vote for the Guy that's going to do the best job and represent me,my community and my family. Taxing is an important part of our society. Do you pay your taxes? You strike me as the kind of guy who cheats on them every April 15th PIMP.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home