 |
| An Albero Supporter BEFORE Vandalism |
While Albero has taken the high road to date, stealing yard signs appears to be a minor distraction compared to what else can be expected from Ireton's campaign and some of his supporters. According to a Salisbury businessman (who asked not to be identified), Ireton said to him last week, "You know Joe Albero hates blacks, Mexicans, Jews, and women." Compare that to Ireton's claim that he would "run on his record". I guess when you don't have much of a record to run on ...
Ireton's claimed record is more one of taking credit for the accomplishments of others:
- NOT Raising Taxes - Salisbury taxpayers can thanks the same "council majority" that Ireton has spent almost four years disparaging. Ireton tried to raise taxes. The council wouldn't let him.
- A 40% Reduction in Crime - While some are questioning the number, Ireton can rightly claim credit for hiring SPD Chief Barbara Duncan. It's also a fact that he happened to be mayor when Salisbury began participation in the state's "Safe Streets" program. He just doesn't want to admit that the idea came from council president Terry Cohen. He also doesn't want to admit that the vital work done by the city's crime task force was led by councilwoman Debbie Campbell. As for finally increasing police pay, Ireton only signed off after the council tired of waiting for action and seized the issue themselves.
- A $16 Million Surplus - Thank the city council AGAIN. Jim Ireton and taxpayer dollars go together like Drunken Sailor and Whorehouse. Quarter Million Dollar Apartments in "the Bricks"?
- Business Friendly - Talk to any businessperson who has waited months or years for permits.
- "I've Kept Every Promise I Made" - I'll save this one until after I control my laughter.
23 comments:
"run on his record"
Does that have anything to do with running from the cops that late Summer evening on the beach in Delaware?
I am unable to see the truth in any comment from a person who wishes not to be identified. Unless a person can prove a comment, in my book, that is not a reliable source. No matter how reliable one believes a source to be, in real life folks love to drum up trouble and will comment just for the giggle of getting someone goat.
Perhaps the signs were borrowed by Albero supporters who were unable to go get signs.... or perhaps Joe ran out of signs so went and got 5 from the Camden nneighborhood.... perhaps there are actually no signs missing and Joe saying there were, so supporters would accuse the other candidate....perhaps a candidate running in Dist 1 or 2 took the signs because they would rather work with the other candidate for Mayor...there are a lot more "perhaps" over missing signs. Get proof and than post about "stolen" signs
A candidate will get my vote quicker by telling me what he can do for our city instead of posting insinuation to trash the other candidates, Just saying.
Political candidates who deem it necessary to resort to such dishonorable & unethical tactics of unlawfully removing their opponents’ signs from people's yards/businesses (most likely with the aid of their “henchmen”) in order to achieve victory LOUDLY reveals the maturity, character & integrity (or should I say, lack thereof) that the candidate genuinely possesses to voters.
9:42 You seem to choose to be anonymous yourself. Are we to seek the truth from you?
9:42 you sound like a typical Obama Libtard.
Dear Chuck (Comment 0942) -
"I am unable to see the truth in any comment from a person who wishes not to be identified." But you comment ANONYMOUSLY? "Just Saying".
Maybe the signs were "borrowed" by Albero supporters. It's doubtful though. If someone calls Joe and requests a sign, they get it. Trust me, he definitely hasn't run out of signs ... yet.
Are you accusing your pal (and Jim's) Jake Day of stealing signs? It sounds like it.
Now let's move to the real world. Signs were stolen. The logical conclusion is that they were taken by supporters of Jim. Can it be proven? No. It can only be inferred. However, there is much more evidence to this than in Jimmy's claim that members of council are "racists" OR that he kept all of his campaign promises (I'm still laughing about that one) OR that he's responsible for a drop in crime, OR that he's responsible for a $16 million surplus, etc......
You should also note that Joe Albero didn't post ANY insinuation. I posted two pieces, one straight news and the other CLEARLY labelled as op-ed.
... Just Saying Chuck
You all should be using your names and not hding behind anonymous
That's nuts 9:42 to say you can not see truth in anon comments. It's irrational to generalize like that.
Of course some anon comments will be false but don't be so naive as think all are going to be.
You all should be using your names and not hding behind anonymous
January 21, 2013 at 10:10 AM
why? So others will know who to attack and harass when something is said they don't like?
There are many reasons people post anonymously. A comment will be judged by it's credibility, not if it is signed or not.
Well, some will anyway. There are certain people I would not want to know my identity because of some of the immaturity actions they would exhibit.
Anybody could put up a false name anyway. Would that make them more credible than someone who does not?
There would be less comments if people had to use their real names, as was the case when Joe required real names in the past.
Look at the commentor who uses the name Alex. Most would agree he is a troll. Most of what he posts is untrue and inflammatory.
Using a name or not using a name has no bearing on the truth of a comment. The content of a comment is what is used to deem a comment truthful or something else.
Anonymous said...
I am unable to see the truth in any comment from a person who wishes not to be identified. Unless a person can prove a comment, in my book, that is not a reliable source. No matter how reliable one believes a source to be, in real life folks love to drum up trouble and will comment just for the giggle of getting someone goat.
Perhaps the signs were borrowed by Albero supporters who were unable to go get signs.... or perhaps Joe ran out of signs so went and got 5 from the Camden nneighborhood.... perhaps there are actually no signs missing and Joe saying there were, so supporters would accuse the other candidate....perhaps a candidate running in Dist 1 or 2 took the signs because they would rather work with the other candidate for Mayor...there are a lot more "perhaps" over missing signs. Get proof and than post about "stolen" signs
A candidate will get my vote quicker by telling me what he can do for our city instead of posting insinuation to trash the other candidates, Just saying.
January 21, 2013 at 9:42 AM
Spoken like a true Libtard. The only thing they left out is the fact that Libtards only believe what is spewed out of the mouths of reporters from the Lame Stream Media such as the Communist News Network!
There are many reasons people post anonymously and one main reason is the fact that they may be city employees and Jim Ireton has the power to force them out of a job.
Many comments may not be the truth, but I would be willing to say that many or most of the comments are factual!
You all should be using your names and not hding behind anonymous
January 21, 2013 at 10:10 AM
Maybe after Joe gets elected more of us can use our real names and not be in fear of losing our jobs! If you all only knew the crimes and total disregard for State Requirements going on in many Depts. in this city you would demand action be taken!
The way I view it is - this site is comparable to an open forum open to CIVIL discussions and debates where commenters should not be afraid to identify themselves. Unfortunately it gets out of hand occasionally when people have to resort to bullying & name-calling when they don’t agree with someone else’s opinion.
However, I do see some people’s point in choosing to post anonymously due to the fear of being punished for expressing their genuine thoughts. A good example is someone posting a favorable comment in support of Joe and then being threatened by their employer who does not support Joe, which is PATHETIC that people fear exercising their 1st Amendment RIGHTS due to the retaliatory & vindictive actions that a tyrannical supervisor or other person may impose upon them.
9:42, if you were a regular commenter in the cyber world you would know that many people just use a "sudo,(spelling?) name". you need to educate yourself on this. by the way even old fashioned newspapers allow for this.
I fully understand the problem if you are being critical of the Mayor and you work for the city but have to believe that is a very low percentage. If you can say it, own up to it
Jack, you are safely in Florida. Unfortunately, the political climate is so nasty in Salisbury, many people have reason to be afraid of being fired, demoted, having their houses or cars vandalized, and not just employees of the city. Two of my friends were threatened with eviction by their landlords if they took a sign for candidates the landlord didn't like. One had the landlord sticking a sign in the yard of someone they didn't support.
Heck, looked what happened to Campbell, Spies and Cohen. Campbell and Spies had bricks through car and house windows on the same night, two hours apart. Cohen got a "youse gonna sleep wid da fishes" message on her front step.
Ireton used his friends to get elected and bad mouths them at every turn. It wasn't just Debbie, Terry and Tim, either. He did it to a bunch of his supporters.
People I know who were associated with particular issues lost business and friends. Funny thing is, everyone I know who has suffered have been those "outside the machine" of Barrie Tilghman and now Jim Ireton.
Judge if you must, but Salisbury has become a very sad place. A number of my friends there won't even put signs out or bumper stickers on any more. I live outside the city limits, but not far enough to where I would risk putting my name on anything. Of course, I rarely post, too, and I watch what I say the few times I do. I don't say anything I would be ashamed to put my name to, but I don't do it for the reasons I've said.
I felt I had to post this time, because people need to know why others seldom or don't post, even anonymously!
Isn't Ireton asking for an entirely new "stormwater utility tax" that he misrepresents as a "fee"?
Jack Richards:
If you still lived here you might know why many can't use their names -- or risk being drubbed by the POWERS THAT BE, like the Greater Salisbury Committee ("Houses of Lords").
Not true Jack. There are many city employees on here that fear for their jobs and retaliation. There is no such thing as whistle blower security.
I always enjoy Jack's posts, but was thinking earlier that he has no clue what Salisbury has reduced to when it comes to retaliation. The list is long and people should be afraid of having reputations smeared, action against them by city agencies, etc. Everyone hoped (in a misguided way) that it would become better with Ireton, but sadly I think that isn't the case.
9:42, why don't you move to Camden Neighborhood to see how this conspiracy works?
9:47 Thanks I have to admit as I have said numerous times via this media, my old Salisbury is gone and fully realize that it is a new game and guess I can understand the possibility of retaliation. But many postings seem to be of the caliber that anonymous is not necessary. jackkcharl@aol.com
But many postings seem to be of the caliber that anonymous is not necessary. jackkcharl@aol.com
January 21, 2013 at 11:03 PM
I'll take that as a compliment, thank you.
Post a Comment