Comments on: Young Democrats of America Meeting in Washington, DC http://jac1975.blog.friendster.com/2007/02/young-democrats-of-america-meeting-in-washington-dc/ Trying to live life to the fullest as a progressive living in the heart of the Red Beast. Mon, 28 Dec 2009 23:52:54 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Dorothy http://jac1975.blog.friendster.com/2007/02/young-democrats-of-america-meeting-in-washington-dc/#comment-16 Dorothy Tue, 28 Oct 2008 17:35:39 +0000 http://jac1975.blog.friendster.com/2007/02/young-democrats-of-america-meeting-in-washington-dc/#comment-16 Keep up the good work. Keep up the good work.

]]> By: Dominic http://jac1975.blog.friendster.com/2007/02/young-democrats-of-america-meeting-in-washington-dc/#comment-15 Dominic Sat, 10 Feb 2007 01:35:17 +0000 http://jac1975.blog.friendster.com/2007/02/young-democrats-of-america-meeting-in-washington-dc/#comment-15 Jason, I have to disagree with you on "poking a stick" in the eye of the outgoing President. While many people think the reason I was against these amendments was/is because I am mad at Chris Gallaway, is completely wrong. I have been friends with Chris since he moved to Northern Virginia in early 2004 and think he has done some great things for the organization. It is my feeling that on the board of 15, our organization is best served by people who are active in the organization and, as you know, the President Emeritus generally is not (read: Scott Butler). That is why I opposed it. Now, Chris Gallaway might be the exception, not the rule, but that isnt good enough for me. I even tried to get the State Presidents Association Chair (who happens to be from your state) as that person on the board, and it was rejected because of some stupid rules. The thing that gets me is - debate was shut down in committee - actually it was tried twice - we still had a couple of more alternative amendments to propose - if everyone really cared about included everyone and passing something that is right for the organization, they would have allowed debate to continue. Over the next month, I will be submitting new changes to the rules committee in regards to these amendments. This time, I will again submit for the SPA chair to be on the board. If you are sitting in rules committee in May, would you support that (since, well your state would benefit greatly from that)? Jason,

I have to disagree with you on “poking a stick” in the eye of the outgoing President. While many people think the reason I was against these amendments was/is because I am mad at Chris Gallaway, is completely wrong. I have been friends with Chris since he moved to Northern Virginia in early 2004 and think he has done some great things for the organization.

It is my feeling that on the board of 15, our organization is best served by people who are active in the organization and, as you know, the President Emeritus generally is not (read: Scott Butler). That is why I opposed it. Now, Chris Gallaway might be the exception, not the rule, but that isnt good enough for me. I even tried to get the State Presidents Association Chair (who happens to be from your state) as that person on the board, and it was rejected because of some stupid rules.

The thing that gets me is - debate was shut down in committee - actually it was tried twice - we still had a couple of more alternative amendments to propose - if everyone really cared about included everyone and passing something that is right for the organization, they would have allowed debate to continue.

Over the next month, I will be submitting new changes to the rules committee in regards to these amendments. This time, I will again submit for the SPA chair to be on the board. If you are sitting in rules committee in May, would you support that (since, well your state would benefit greatly from that)?

]]>