John Paxman is the designated moderator for the NAPC March 2, 2015 candidate debate at the Lake Worth Playhouse. Now, I have always thought that Mr. Paxman was an excellent moderator at this forum, however, it would have been wise of him not to display a political sign at his office. Now I'm sure that we will hear from some pundit out here who will say it's free speech, etc. and that he will surely not take sides during this debate and will be 100% fair. My answer to that is--he's already taken sides.
Also, for a little trivia, Jon Faust, the President of the Neighborhood Association Council has given John Szerdi a $100 campaign contribution. The former President and now Secretary, Mary Lindsey, had her husband give a $50.00 contribution to John Szerdi. It's no wonder that the League of Women Voters will not participate in any debate put on by the NAPC.
Office of John Paxman, Moderator for the NAPC debate
You take some creepy, stalking like pictures.
ReplyDeleteIs that the best you can do, anonymous? LOL
ReplyDeleteIf you think about it, it's sort of a creepy subject.
How does one miss the content and make a 'creepy/stalking pic' comment?
ReplyDeleteI think the (ignore)ance is creepy when the conflict of interest and lies stated are so dangerous. More so when wielding power coupled with a blatant disregard for others 'fair & level playing field.
The really ironic part to me is that the attitude of superiority (I know better than you) is clearly revealed by their kindergarten kicks because they know they are losing by attempting to silence any different opinions!
Wow. Talk about 6 degrees of separation. He is a resident of Lake Worth, a business owner on Dixie Hwy. and admittedly an excellent choice for moderator, basically reading questions that are already prepared to the candidates and listening to their answers before going to the next prepared subject. But he shouldn't be able to show support for one candidate over another. So just who is this magical person who has no thoughts of his/her own but can be articulate and entertaining while moderating one of our most democratic rights?
ReplyDeleteIf memory serves me correctly, Rinaldi was thrust into the spotlight when a local newscaster ducked out at the last minute. At least Mr. Paxman has a track record showing no favoritism in past moderations. Shame on you for making him out to be less than honorable.
No one did that, anonymous at 6:44... but I knew I would get someone like you over here twisting it all.
ReplyDeleteMr. Paxman has done a good job in the past. He just shouldn't show favoritism with a political sign. Just my opinion and I'm stickin to it.
He's not a resident of Lake Worth. He did something stupid but worse is the NAPC allowing it. What would be funny if half the candidates did not show up. Talk to yourselves.
ReplyDeleteOf all the players on the sleazy side of Lake Worth's underbelly, John Paxman presents as the most impartial. He is always a gentleman, and that goes a long way towards making him an acceptable moderator.
ReplyDeleteThe contributions from the Neighborhood presidents for unelected (I'm an architect)Szerdi belie the claim that they are non-political, but we already knew that they were wolves in sheep's clothing.
Szerdi is hard to warm up to even when he has been fed the questions beforehand and should have brilliant answers.
If they stood outside & had a handout stating why this kind of behavior needs to stop, might be effective. Those that know think it's OK because they are winning, those that don't have no clue what they are seeing never mind what questions to ask!
ReplyDeleteThis is so Saul Illinsky - the ends justifying the means...ugh!
Donations are protected political speech. Neither man is active in the campaigns, are they?
ReplyDeleteAnd Weetha, Saul Alinsky never said that. He also went by his real name when he spoke to people and didn't hide.
Sam Goodstein
Sort of like Samuel L. Clemens, huh Sam?
ReplyDeleteModerators should be non-partisan. Don't give me your liberal stuff.
Sam Goodstein is right , Saul never 'quoted' that but look for yourself what he was about:
ReplyDeleteThe rules[1]
“Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood.
“Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.
“Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.
“Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.
“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
“A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.
“A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news.
“Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.
“The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.
“If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.
“The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.
“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
imho...(Z, Sue, Suzie, Suzie Q, Suzanne, Constitution Lady)...the end justifies the mean(s).