VinceWhirlwind - PilcheskyDeceit True Freedom of Speech

Guru

Status: Offline

Posts: 3414

Date: Wed Dec 30 4:01 PM, 2009

VinceWhirlwind	Permalink

I see that Vince got a little too uppity for ol' baldy across the way what an as$hole. You're always welcome here Vince. -- Edited by IHavehadenoughofhaters on Thursday 31st of December 2009 10:31:13 AM __________________ Hey Joey?? Bite me! :))

VinceWhirlwind

Member

Status: Offline

Posts: 124

Date: Sun Jan 3 11:59 AM, 2010

RE: VinceWhirlwind

Permalink

Thanks! i had been involved in a discussion on the finer points of Act 47 and Chapter 9 reorganization. Several posters chimed in with opinions and information and then pragmat came on board to call me names, tell me i was wrong, etc. I actually debunked a couple of things that prag had to say, after which prag sent me a PM that was so hateful and somewhat threatening that i posted it for all to see and began by saying "is this what we're reduced to in trying to discuss an issue?" unfortunately, i was banned before i could jump back on and save the vile message, so.........

the thread went as follows:

VinceWhirlwind

Posts: 243
Date: Dec 27 10:55 AM, 2009

Printer Friendly

I keep hearing talk of opening and modifying the 2010 budget, but i believe it cannot be, as it has been adopted. the only reason to reopen and modify is in the case of an emergency as stated in the Home Rule Charter, Section 909: Supplemental, emergency and transfer appropriations should be defined in the Administrative Code. Should a deficit develop the Mayor shall make recommendations to minimize the deficit and for that purpose Council may reduce other appropriations.
No appropriation for debt service may be reduced or transferred to resolve this deficit.

Hardcore, you're right on concerning the State overseeing the plan in what you stated, From what I have read, and again, I'm not very schooled in this, the state would mandate a huge tax increase and personnel cuts. The state plan coordinator would have no concerns about perceptions (not an elected official), wouldn't care about backlash from cutting all the services to the bone (like trash collection, police and fire protection, etc.), and basically would make all fiscal decisions for the city until chapter 9 was averted.

The thing is though, we should all be careful what we wish for here. If the State recommends bankruptcy proceedings, it would not only apply to what all of you term as "cronies," it would be across the board cuts with no discrimination. Janet has no power here to determine anything. The State would be in charge. There are no choices to be made about who is kept and who is sent packing.

Toms cabin

Posts: 61
Date: Dec 27 11:39 AM, 2009

	Printer Friendly
Council has the authority to open budgets and contracts, although it is at a set limit in 2010, afterward Evans can swing her mighty pen. I think she can also sever us from relations with PEL and DCED. PEL has no authority to enact legislation in this city, nor can it impose taxes on its own. I say out with PEL and DECD. We probably never needed them in the first place.

VinceWhirlwind

Posts: 243
Date: Dec 27 11:51 AM, 2009

Printer Friendly

Uncle Tom,
show me where that is stated. the only things i have read is that council is able to open budgets ONLY in an emergency and that involves repealing and revising ordinances, which still must obtain the mayor's signature. they cannot touch anything that has to do with debt service.
please show me the legislation you're looking at for your information so i may continue my education. Thanks!

Hardcore

Posts: 1129
Date: Dec 27 12:02 PM, 2009

	Printer Friendly
Vince W., I am not wishing for bankruptcy. I know that means all contracts are null and void, including the police and fire contracts. We could be working for slightly over minimum wage.....

pragmat
Posts: 1035
Date: Dec 27 12:05 PM, 2009

Printer Friendly

Vince,

According to posts, the city will need to find millions this coming year for contract and court losses. If the contingency fund cannot cover them, there I believe you have a budgetary emergency which will allow the city council to find the money, or cut expenses to make up a budgetary deficit. Hence: Should a deficit develop the Mayor shall make recommendations to minimize the deficit and for that purpose Council may reduce other appropriations.

On the subject of the "state being in charge", that is false. The state is in charge of nothing. They are here, strictly on an advisement capacity. The state cannot force the city to do anything. The only thing they can do is sanction the city. Sanctioning the city means holding back liquid fuels money. That's less than two million dollars a year. If they do that, council will have another emergency budget deficit and council can cut expenses to cover that too.

And Doherty will never allow a bankruptcy proceeding to take place. If they did that, the last thing a backruptcy judge would cut is public safety and vital core services like refuse collection. The first thing that absolutely would be cut is Doherty's crony political fat, i.e. created jobs, pet projects, professional services and non vital expenses. Bankruptcy would slash his monetary political exsistance and kill his political career. It'll never happen.

Your boy is toast in 2010, one way or the other. It's all coming to roost and he has no way out other than to leave. How's that gubernatorial campaign shaping up?

__________________
Better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.

Nelson
Posts: 141
Date: Dec 27 3:09 PM, 2009

	Printer Friendly
Doherty ammended the 2002 budget that was approved by the then sitting council the last two months of the Connor's administration. It can be done.

VinceWhirlwind

Posts: 243
Date: Dec 27 4:34 PM, 2009

Printer Friendly

prag, i believe you're reading my post incorrectly and attributing something that Hardcore stated (and I quoted) as belonging to me. as i had stated, If the State recommends bankruptcy proceedings, it would not only apply to what all of you term as "cronies," it would be across the board cuts with no discrimination.
The State does recommend what next to do. there are currently three options on the table and no one would like any one of them. In those recommendations, current and former contracts would be null and void and it would be like starting from zero while a reorganization takes place.

prag, you also had the following to say: If they did that, the last thing a backruptcy judge would cut is public safety and vital core services like refuse collection. The first thing that absolutely would be cut is Doherty's crony political fat, i.e. created jobs, pet projects, professional services and non vital expenses.

The plan would not cut core services, but it would reduce them to minimum staffing levels based on population and national guidelines. There would be a "guardian" so to speak, to watch over this process until it's complete. that would be across the board and, as you stated, include non vital expenses.

the following is a case that is on the legal books concerning Vallejo CA and is being used in reference to Pittsburgh, also an Act 47 city:

In a previous Policy Brief (Volume 9, Number 51) we raised the question of whether Pittsburgh's legacy costs could force the City to seek relief under Chapter 9 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Under Chapter 9 a judge would oversee a readjustment of debts. Pennsylvania's Act 47 permits a municipality in financial distress to pursue a Chapter 9 filing if one of the following conditions is present:

The Act 47 coordinator recommends filing
There is imminent action by a creditor that would threaten the ability of the municipality to provide services
A creditor has rejected the Act 47 plan and the rejection cannot be resolved
A condition causing financial distress could be solved by filing
The governing body has failed to adopt an Act 47 plan or carry out the recommendations of the coordinator

__________________

VinceWhirlwind

Member

Status: Offline

Posts: 124

Date: Sun Jan 3 12:02 PM, 2010

RE: VinceWhirlwind

Permalink

pragmat
Posts: 1035
Date: Dec 27 5:23 PM, 2009

Printer Friendly

VinceWhirlwind wrote:

prag, i believe you're reading my post incorrectly and attributing something that Hardcore stated (and I quoted) as belonging to me. as i had stated, If the State recommends bankruptcy proceedings, it would not only apply to what all of you term as "cronies," it would be across the board cuts with no discrimination.
The State does recommend (yes recommend, not mandate) what next to do. there are currently three options on the table and no one would like any one of them. In those recommendations, current and former contracts would be null and void and it would be like starting from zero while a reorganization takes place. (bring it)

prag, you also had the following to say: If they did that, the last thing a backruptcy judge would cut is public safety and vital core services like refuse collection. The first thing that absolutely would be cut is Doherty's crony political fat, i.e. created jobs, pet projects, professional services and non vital expenses.

The plan would not cut core services, but it would reduce them to minimum staffing levels based on population and national guidelines.(and they will find our departments are already below population and national guidelines. What's your point?) There would be a "guardian" so to speak, to watch over this process until it's complete. that would be across the board and, as you stated, include non vital expenses (where the fat and cronys are).

the following is a case that is on the legal books concerning Vallejo CA and is being used in reference to Pittsburgh, also an Act 47 city: (Pittsburgh will be out of Act 47 soon or will be thrown out, just like Scranton)

Besides, Vince, you have to be bankrupt to file bankruptcy. It's not happening because we're not bankrupt. Your boy is a liar.

VinceWhirlwind

Posts: 243
Date: Dec 28 9:03 AM, 2009

Printer Friendly

red rover, you are somewhat correct in what you said, Cities can't go bankrupt. That's what taxpayers are for. however, they can be reorganized and that was my point.

prag, i realize that you're an angry person, but try to see the information i'm giving rather than imagining whom i support as you keep tossing out whenever i post: Besides, Vince, you have to be bankrupt to file bankruptcy. It's not happening because we're not bankrupt. Your boy is a liar.

the information i'm providing is on the money and comes from extremely reliable sources within the State. scream and rant all you want, the options i spoke of in my last post are raise taxes, file for bankruptcy (which is a reorganization move and is under federal bankruptcy court jurisdiction) (see Westfall Township) and instituting the current recovery plan. i don't think everyone would be happy with bankruptcy, nor wishes it by any means, just thought i'd throw the details out there for perusal.

go ahead prag, beat me up with your infinite wisdom.

glenncashuric
Posts: 1071
Date: Dec 28 9:13 AM, 2009

	Printer Friendly
If one wishes to bring about the best long-term result, one must place all options on the table for consideration. Chapter 9 is one of those options, and is not as unlikely as some would believe. GC

Joe Pilchesky

Posts: 6313
Date: Dec 28 9:27 AM, 2009

	Printer Friendly
There were sound reasons why Lenny Kreshefski, Rob Farrell, and Sara Hailstone, to name only a few, bailed without a parachute at 10,000 feet. In the coming months, I propose that Janet Evans will have an explanation for that.

pragmat
Posts: 1035
Date: Dec 28 9:32 AM, 2009

Printer Friendly

Vince,

You're very good at framing this issue in a most desirable Doobie fashion to scare the hell out of certain people you seem to want to target with your nonsense. You sound like a lawyer trying to create a ball field and want everyone to play by your rules. You are missing about 4 more "options" other than what you present.
Use your imagination Vince.

One thing is certain. We are not bankrupt and you know it. Save your breath, no one will believe you or your boy.

And I'm angry? You bet your a$$ I am.

__________________

VinceWhirlwind

Member

Status: Offline

Posts: 124

Date: Sun Jan 3 12:04 PM, 2010

RE: VinceWhirlwind

Permalink

VinceWhirlwind

Posts: 243
Date: Dec 28 4:17 PM, 2009

Printer Friendly

Amen, Glenn.

i am not trying to "scare" anyone, nor frame any issue a certain way. These are ACTUAL OPTIONS currently on the table

prag, why don't you enliven my imagination with your "options." LOL, funny you keep referring to what i say as nonsense, but have nothing to offer that i'm incorrect. the information i shared is directly from a source who is helping to draft and reach these decisions and not from within the city structure.

i guess the saying is quite true, don't argue with an idiot, because someone nearby won't know the difference. so.....i guess you'll believe what you like and hope for the best. (pssst, anger isn't always a positive solution)

pragmat
Posts: 1035
Date: Dec 28 4:27 PM, 2009

Printer Friendly

Vince,

You said the state is in charge under Act 47 and you were wrong.
You said we could file bankruptcy and you were wrong because nothing in any city documents points to us being bankrupt.
You said we had only a few options and you were wrong.
But I'm the idiot?

And no, I will not tell you what I think about these issues other than what I said. I don't confer with the enemy. You'll see many alternative "options" other than what you mentioned and you'll see in the end I was right and the reality of it, whether I'm angry or not.
Enjoy the ride.

__________________
Better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.

VinceWhirlwind

Posts: 243
Date: Dec 28 5:41 PM, 2009

Printer Friendly

pragmat wrote:

Vince,

You said the state is in charge under Act 47 and you were wrong. (Nope, see my post after hardcore's above) also, Act 47 is what we're in now. Act 47 is the title for distressed city status. i believe we were discussing Chapter 9 proceedings. completely different.
You said we could file bankruptcy and you were wrong because nothing in any city documents points to us being bankrupt. (that you know of presently) the information i'm discussing is options, not hard decisions.
You said we had only a few options and you were wrong. How so?
But I'm the idiot?

And no, I will not tell you what I think about these issues other than what I said. You've said absolutely nothing other than refer to me as a "Doobie" and "your boy", etc. not sure what i can construe from that........ I don't confer with the enemy. Who exactly is the enemy? Would you be referring to me? Enemy is a very strong word and i thought this was a discussion. You'll see many alternative "options" other than what you mentioned and you'll see in the end (end of what? end of time? end of our lives? end of the day? end of the year? the decade?) I was right (right about what? all you've done is called me names and not presented anything logical nor helpful to the discussion) and the reality of it, whether I'm angry or not.
Enjoy the ride.

Harcore and Glenn actually had a discussion with me and i don't believe that we're now enemies. I was grateful for some input. Thanks, guys!

Joe Pilchesky

Posts: 6313
Date: Dec 29 10:22 AM, 2009

Printer Friendly

Please take notice:

The poster VinceWhrilwind has been banned for posting a private message he received from another poster. This is a zero tolerance policy for reasons too numerous to mention.

Private messages are exactly that - private. They are not to be shared on this site with other posters. If you're being harassed via private message contact me, I'll handle it appropriately.

Thank you.

Dark star
Posts: 36
Date: Dec 29 3:46 PM, 2009

Printer Friendly

Joe Pilchesky wrote:

Please take notice:

The poster VinceWhrilwind has been banned for posting a private message he received from another poster. This is a zero tolerance policy for reasons too numerous to mention.

Private messages are exactly that - private. They are not to be shared on this site with other posters. If you're being harassed via private message contact me, I'll handle it appropriately.

Thank you.

Yikes, seems a little extreme. The value of free speech outweighs sharing a PM don't you think??????

Joe, I thought you were the gatekeeper for free speech. Our protector. With all due respect, I completely disagree with you on banning someone for just posting a PM.

John Taxpayer

Posts: 6
Date: Dec 29 6:05 PM, 2009

	Printer Friendly
Is it possible that Vincewhirlwind is onto something here? There ARE an awful lot of factual details to back up the argument. Not what you want to hear? Banning is an easy out. This site is obviously not for debate or facts.

Joe Pilchesky

Posts: 6313
Date: Dec 29 6:44 PM, 2009

Printer Friendly

Dark star wrote:

Yikes, seems a little extreme. The value of free speech outweighs sharing a PM don't you think??????
NO. The free speech that 99% of the posters share here is anonymous free speech. There are many reasons for anonymity in posting. I don't need to fatigue your sensitivity to repetition to recite them, but let's all agree that retaliation is at the top of the list.
Joe, I thought you were the gatekeeper for free speech. Our protector.
I am your gatekeeper for free speech, and in the course of protecting you I must first and foremost tend to protecting your identities the best that I can. You will have no anonymous free speech if I allow opportunities for your identity to be compromised, perhaps exposed. There are things posters might share privately with one another poster that can easily expose them, i.e., many posters deliberately post contrary to their intellect and speaking or writing style, that's to ward off compromising themselves, but certain people can recognize you by the way you express yourself, especially if you might have a certain pet saying. In the privacy of communicating, you might let that pet saying slip. What happens if that PM is posted for all to see? If you engage in PMs that might reach 10 or 12 in number, you could unwittingly reveal information that's intimate to only a small group of people. Now, the poster you're PMing with may not pick up on that, but if your PMs are posted for thousands of other posters/people to read, any number of them might be able to isolate where you work, and maybe even who you are.
I have a pet saying, It's "go fvck yourself". Fortunately, many others have adopted my saying, not that I post anonymously, but you get the idea.
When any poster posts someone else's PM to them, it's a clear confidentiality breach of the purpose of the private feature.
With all due respect, I completely disagree with you on banning someone for just posting a PM.
That's OK, you can disagree, but I have a responsibility here to protect all posters from even the slightest chance of being exposed. I don't like banning anyone. But, I'm the law here and if I don't uphold it we're all screwed. We might as well pack it in. I don't know who the posters are when I'm banning them. They could be close friends/relatives of mine for all I know. It doesn't matter.

Layer cake

Posts: 63
Date: Dec 29 7:24 PM, 2009

Printer Friendly

John Taxpayer wrote:

Is it possible that Vincewhirlwind is onto something here? There ARE an awful lot of factual details to back up the argument. Not what you want to hear? Banning is an easy out. This site is obviously not for debate or facts.

Nothing stopped Vince but Vince.

Thank you, Joe. You did the right thing. I don't like seeing posters banned either, but one thing can lead to the other. There's way too much on the line here to jeopardize it.

__________________

IHavehadenoughofhaters

Guru

Status: Offline

Posts: 3414

Date: Sun Jan 3 1:32 PM, 2010

RE: VinceWhirlwind	Permalink

Did you keep a copy of the pm? If so post it here :) __________________ Hey Joey?? Bite me! :))

Glenn Cashuric

Member

Status: Offline

Posts: 505

Date: Sun Jan 3 2:13 PM, 2010

RE: VinceWhirlwind	Permalink

For the record, I was vehemently opposed to the banning of Vince Whirlwind. Not that it seems to matter. GC __________________

IHavehadenoughofhaters

Guru

Status: Offline

Posts: 3414

Date: Sun Jan 3 3:58 PM, 2010

RE: VinceWhirlwind

Permalink

Glenn Cashuric wrote:

For the record, I was vehemently opposed to the banning of Vince Whirlwind. Not that it seems to matter.

GC

glenncashuric
Posts: 1071
Date: Dec 31 5:39 PM, 2009

	Reply QuotePrinter Friendly
And for my final post of 2009 (perhaps longer): Upon whom are we placing our bets for a council appointment? I always thought it would be a woman, so by default (not that I don't think she'd be a great choice) I am going with Mary Ann Wardell. Happy New Year. GC

This is the first post after Baldy announced to the peanut gallery Vince's banning.....it is a scary post way to tell Joeyboy off! Oh wait you don't even mention Vince.

Please....vehemently.... Really? You might want to refresh yourself with the definition of vehement. Oh wait I know you told him off good in a PM no doubt! A brave and courageous approach I might add.

Main Entry: ve·he·ment

Pronunciation: \ˈvē-ə-mənt\

Function: adjective

Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin vehement-, vehemens, vement-, vemens

Date: 15th century

: marked by forceful energy : powerful <a vehement wind>: as a : intensely emotional : impassioned, fervid <vehement patriotism> b (1) : deeply felt <a vehement suspicion> (2) : forcibly expressed <vehement denunciations> c : bitterly antagonistic <a vehement debate>

— ve·he·ment·ly adverb

__________________

Hey Joey?? Bite me! :))

VinceWhirlwind

Member

Status: Offline

Posts: 124

Date: Sun Jan 3 10:54 PM, 2010

RE: VinceWhirlwind	Permalink

unfortunately, i was banned before i could jump back on and save the vile message, so......... __________________

Glenn Cashuric

Member

Status: Offline

Posts: 505

Date: Mon Jan 4 8:25 AM, 2010

RE: VinceWhirlwind	Permalink

Again...not serious. I could not have cared less, actually. GC __________________

LusOnlyVoice

Site Administrator

Status: Offline

Posts: 5099

Date: Sun Jan 10 7:15 AM, 2010

RE: VinceWhirlwind	Permalink

Did that PM contain any personal information ... such as Name? Address? Phone Number? ... if not how can that banning be justified by saying he is protecting the the poster who sent it? Joe is the "Law" of DD ... I think that he was just flexing his cyber muscles and nothing more ... you were not going with the flow of DD so you had to be banned. Well Vince we are proud to have you here at PD ... and I will not bann you for posting a PM ... I sometimes do it myself ... when David Evans sends them to me ... so ... I encourage anyone here who gets a threatening PM to post it ... we do not tolerate threats here and I want everyone to be aware if there is a poster who is threateing anyone ... that is the poster who will be banned ... not the one who posts the vile PM's ... __________________ I want everyone to stop and think about one thing ... Joe Pilchesky is not a lawyer ... he's just a guy playing a lawyer on the internet. Please don't trust your legal needs to this man.

Agamemnon

DD: Where logic & proportion have fallen sloppy dead.

Status: Offline

Posts: 3768

Date: Sun Jan 10 9:17 AM, 2010

RE: VinceWhirlwind	Permalink

If anything, this just proves...yet again...that Pilchesky is incredibly predictable. Think about it: DD is the ONLY PLACE where Joe Pilchesky has ANY authority. It exits no where else, certainly in not in the courtroom (where his record of success can best be compared to that of the Italian Navy's). So given that DD is this little place he created to entertain himself, the only way he can feel like he has some control is to edit & ban people. He's the functional equivalent of some 19 year old who spends 42 hours a week playing Worlds of Warcraft. Look at what this guy is reduced to: the only place where he has any sway is in cyberspace. Pretty damn pathetic. __________________ Free Speech does't require a multi-paragrah disclaimer Mr. Pilchesky.