Man, this Ron Angle is full of himself. His constant use of "I" is simply indicative of his perception that he is the boss. All he is - is one legislator on the Council with one vote. Beware of anyone who sits on a Board of the public that speaks in the first person.
Um, is he supposed to refer to himeself using the Royal We? He refers to himself using the first person singular. Clearly, he is a man of condfidence. Just as clearly, he has no illusions about himself. I am not wary of people who use the word "I" to describe themselves. I am wary of cowards who hide behind anonymity to launch their vicious attacks.
In all probability, you're someone who has something to fgain by slamming Angle. You could be a tipstaff, someone in the Morganelli crew, or one of the goofy Longoons. Thiose are the probabbilities. The certainty is that you are a coward.
Let me see if I get this straight. Judge Freedberg does something he likes. Judge Freedberg is spared the wrath of your self styled canine. Judge Franciosa dares to rule against him and you see what follows. I am curious. If Franciosa ruled in his favor then would the decision have been a fleeting moment of lucidity in an otherwise senile and incompetent judge? Or would he have still been both but your canine would have kept those thoughts to himself to protect the favorable decision?
The master of deflection creates the issue, demands submission by all and then rants if he doesn't get what he wants. And the list of biased people just grows and grows.
Fortunately he wont act with his now clear bias against the local courts but will rise above his personal disappointment.
His word for the day is "bizarre". The first decision is bizarre. The second ruling is bizarre. News flash. These bizarre rulings will very likely withstand any challenge on appeal. And what will be left? A trail of slander prompted by the juvenile rants of a barbarian.
All this could have been avoided if only Judge Franciosa realized that its better to agree with your canine than dare to do otherwise. Had an out of county judge been assigned who ruled against your canine surely another source of bias would have been brought to the light of day by your canine.
The last two comments come from anonymous cowards who are scared to death that Angle might find what they don't want you to know.
Sure, Angle takes heat for speaking his mind. Anyone willing to challenge the status quo gets that.
But here are some of the comments posted at the ET site:
* "If Angle was Obama speaking, you would all be shaking your heads in agreement with him."
* "Never met the man,but he does keep stirring the kettle!Not sure if that's good or bad,but it does keep everyone alert!"
* "UPS,equal time!Mr.DA how many times do you have to hear NO,NO,NO!The people of PA don't want you for State OFFICE! Either focus on LOCAL ISSUES or RESIGN!You are either the County DA or A FULL TIME POLITICIAN! DECIDE and do one or the other and stop wasting our money on frivilous politically motivated BS!"
* "I have come to the conclusion that I want someone like Angle to represent us, the taxpayers, and not someone like so many of the others who represent every one else except us, the taxpayers. Why is it so wrong for Angle to "do anything that doesn't benefit you in some way" when a lot of the others are doing the same thing, just more sneakily and costing us more in the long run. I agree that he is a loud-mouth, obnoxious guy, who I am glad I don't live next to or run into on a daily basis, but until the area and or the school board have someone else comparable to him with some class to represent us, then he is it and at least he is not the "yes" guy like we have so many of right now."
Those folks identify themselves. He's an obnoxious bastard, but he's our obnoxious bastard, and he scares the hell out of the anonymous cowards who don't like being questioned.
Those ET commenters don't identify themselves. They are using screennames like "tag42day" and "dinkydau68" that don't give any indication as to their real identity.
Anon 11:34 AM seems to be making some legitimate points. Rather than addressing them, you are attacking him for remaining anonymous, which strikes THIS anonymous poster as a cop-out.
1) Anybody posting at ET must register w/ them. They do not have to reveal who they are to the public, but the ET knows and this makes it very easy to ID the source of defamatory remarks.
2) 11:34 refers to Angle as a "barbarian." That's a personal attack,m amade anonymously, by a coward just like you. In fact, it probably was you. If you want to continue this discussion tonoight, you'll have to ID yourself. But you want do that bc you are a coward. And that's no personal attack. It's the truth,
I wasn't referring to Anon 11:34's use of the word "barbarian", but his statements about how Ron attacks Freedberg when he rules against him and is silent when he does not. Or about how whenever somebody sides against Ron, he claims bias. You don't bother responding to any such claims, you just point to the word "barbarian" and use it as an excuse to ignore him.
How is him calling Ron a barbarian any less a personal attack than you calling us "cowards"? Further, I notice you don't go around calling anonymous posters cowards in other threads when they agree with you. If you're so vehement against anonymous posters, why not disable anonymous posting, or delete ALL of those posts in all threads as they come?
"Anybody posting at ET must register w/ them. They do not have to reveal who they are to the public, but the ET knows and this makes it very easy to ID the source of defamatory remarks."
Doesn't registering simply mean they need to provide an email address? Somebody could easily register an account without leaving any trace of who they really are...
"How is him calling Ron a barbarian any less a personal attack than you calling us 'cowards'?"
No question I am attacking you personally as a coward, which is what you are. Anybody who hides behind the skirts of anonymity to launch a personal attack is a coward. This is not why I allow anonymous comments here.
Anonymity is for people who have something to say but whose business or occupation coukld cause them to lose business if their identity were known. It is not a platform for anonymous hate speech.
When I say what I say, you can see my name right next to it. I'm hiding from no one and am willing to take responsibility for my words. You are not.
That's the difference between you and me.
I also make no claim to consistency. Read my comments policy. If it's too much for you, go elsewhere.
I've made three posts here (5:01 PM, 10:31 AM and 10:34 AM). I challenge you to point out any "anonymous hate speech" that I've stated. (The closest I can find it my statement that your refusal to respond to a previous poster is a "cop-out", which I'd hardly call hate speech.) I simply pointed out a few disagreements I have with you, and that is what has drawn personal attacks from you against me.
Look, I have no idea whether you are the author of the hate speech I refer to or note, and don't have the time or inclination to check my statcounter. Suffice it to say there are numerous examples of hate speech by anonymous cowards, directed at Angle and others.
To the extend that you defend this cowardly behavior anonymously, you are certainly a coward, too. If you don't, then you have no reason to be offended.
To all anonymous posters. If you anonymously attack someone Ohare hates you are funny and witty. If you personally attack an Ohare mancrush like Angle, you are a coward. I hope that clears everything up.
17 comments:
"As a member of county council, I help set the court’s budget."
In other words, "don't f--- with me b/c I am vindictive and will try to strip your office of funds".
Barks? It sounds more like he is whining and whimpering than anything else.
...
More of a yap than a bark.
A yap? Hardly. He called 'em out, plain and simple. And we all know he will follow through.
Even with his warts, Angle is the best hope this county has of reigning these elitists.
Ron won't necessarily follow through on anything. He's produced more flip flops than a beachwear manufacturer.
Man, this Ron Angle is full of himself. His constant use of "I" is simply indicative of his perception that he is the boss. All he is - is one legislator on the Council with one vote. Beware of anyone who sits on a Board of the public that speaks in the first person.
Um, is he supposed to refer to himeself using the Royal We? He refers to himself using the first person singular. Clearly, he is a man of condfidence. Just as clearly, he has no illusions about himself. I am not wary of people who use the word "I" to describe themselves. I am wary of cowards who hide behind anonymity to launch their vicious attacks.
In all probability, you're someone who has something to fgain by slamming Angle. You could be a tipstaff, someone in the Morganelli crew, or one of the goofy Longoons. Thiose are the probabbilities. The certainty is that you are a coward.
Let me see if I get this straight. Judge Freedberg does something he likes. Judge Freedberg is spared the wrath of your self styled canine. Judge Franciosa dares to rule against him and you see what follows. I am curious. If Franciosa ruled in his favor then would the decision have been a fleeting moment of lucidity in an otherwise senile and incompetent judge? Or would he have still been both but your canine would have kept those thoughts to himself to protect the favorable decision?
The master of deflection creates the issue, demands submission by all and then rants if he doesn't get what he wants. And the list of biased people just grows and grows.
Fortunately he wont act with his now clear bias against the local courts but will rise above his personal disappointment.
His word for the day is "bizarre". The first decision is bizarre. The second ruling is bizarre. News flash. These bizarre rulings will very likely withstand any challenge on appeal. And what will be left? A trail of slander prompted by the juvenile rants of a barbarian.
All this could have been avoided if only Judge Franciosa realized that its better to agree with your canine than dare to do otherwise.
Had an out of county judge been assigned who ruled against your canine surely another source of bias would have been brought to the light of day by your canine.
Judging from the comments on that site, this guy is not very well liked or respected. Seems as though he has wore out his welcome.
The last two comments come from anonymous cowards who are scared to death that Angle might find what they don't want you to know.
Sure, Angle takes heat for speaking his mind. Anyone willing to challenge the status quo gets that.
But here are some of the comments posted at the ET site:
* "If Angle was Obama speaking, you would all be shaking your heads in agreement with him."
* "Never met the man,but he does keep stirring the kettle!Not sure if that's good or bad,but it does keep everyone alert!"
* "UPS,equal time!Mr.DA how many times do you have to hear NO,NO,NO!The people of PA don't want you for State OFFICE! Either focus on LOCAL ISSUES or RESIGN!You are either the County DA or A FULL TIME POLITICIAN! DECIDE and do one or the other and stop wasting our money on frivilous politically motivated BS!"
* "I have come to the conclusion that I want someone like Angle to represent us, the taxpayers, and not someone like so many of the others who represent every one else except us, the taxpayers. Why is it so wrong for Angle to "do anything that doesn't benefit you in some way" when a lot of the others are doing the same thing, just more sneakily and costing us more in the long run. I agree that he is a loud-mouth, obnoxious guy, who I am glad I don't live next to or run into on a daily basis, but until the area and or the school board have someone else comparable to him with some class to represent us, then he is it and at least he is not the "yes" guy like we have so many of right now."
Those folks identify themselves. He's an obnoxious bastard, but he's our obnoxious bastard, and he scares the hell out of the anonymous cowards who don't like being questioned.
Those ET commenters don't identify themselves. They are using screennames like "tag42day" and "dinkydau68" that don't give any indication as to their real identity.
Anon 11:34 AM seems to be making some legitimate points. Rather than addressing them, you are attacking him for remaining anonymous, which strikes THIS anonymous poster as a cop-out.
1) Anybody posting at ET must register w/ them. They do not have to reveal who they are to the public, but the ET knows and this makes it very easy to ID the source of defamatory remarks.
2) 11:34 refers to Angle as a "barbarian." That's a personal attack,m amade anonymously, by a coward just like you. In fact, it probably was you. If you want to continue this discussion tonoight, you'll have to ID yourself. But you want do that bc you are a coward. And that's no personal attack. It's the truth,
I wasn't referring to Anon 11:34's use of the word "barbarian", but his statements about how Ron attacks Freedberg when he rules against him and is silent when he does not. Or about how whenever somebody sides against Ron, he claims bias. You don't bother responding to any such claims, you just point to the word "barbarian" and use it as an excuse to ignore him.
How is him calling Ron a barbarian any less a personal attack than you calling us "cowards"? Further, I notice you don't go around calling anonymous posters cowards in other threads when they agree with you. If you're so vehement against anonymous posters, why not disable anonymous posting, or delete ALL of those posts in all threads as they come?
"Anybody posting at ET must register w/ them. They do not have to reveal who they are to the public, but the ET knows and this makes it very easy to ID the source of defamatory remarks."
Doesn't registering simply mean they need to provide an email address? Somebody could easily register an account without leaving any trace of who they really are...
"How is him calling Ron a barbarian any less a personal attack than you calling us 'cowards'?"
No question I am attacking you personally as a coward, which is what you are. Anybody who hides behind the skirts of anonymity to launch a personal attack is a coward. This is not why I allow anonymous comments here.
Anonymity is for people who have something to say but whose business or occupation coukld cause them to lose business if their identity were known. It is not a platform for anonymous hate speech.
When I say what I say, you can see my name right next to it. I'm hiding from no one and am willing to take responsibility for my words. You are not.
That's the difference between you and me.
I also make no claim to consistency. Read my comments policy. If it's too much for you, go elsewhere.
I've made three posts here (5:01 PM, 10:31 AM and 10:34 AM). I challenge you to point out any "anonymous hate speech" that I've stated. (The closest I can find it my statement that your refusal to respond to a previous poster is a "cop-out", which I'd hardly call hate speech.) I simply pointed out a few disagreements I have with you, and that is what has drawn personal attacks from you against me.
Look, I have no idea whether you are the author of the hate speech I refer to or note, and don't have the time or inclination to check my statcounter. Suffice it to say there are numerous examples of hate speech by anonymous cowards, directed at Angle and others.
To the extend that you defend this cowardly behavior anonymously, you are certainly a coward, too. If you don't, then you have no reason to be offended.
To all anonymous posters. If you anonymously attack someone Ohare hates you are funny and witty. If you personally attack an Ohare mancrush like Angle, you are a coward. I hope that clears everything up.
Dr. Answer
Post a Comment