You're right Dr. Sklaroff. This is a bit 'feel-goodsy.' I'm getting to the public comment issue, which was tabled, later today.

Priceless!

Good job congratulating yourself Sklaroff. I'm sure you got a gold star for participating too!

If I thought the conversation would go anywhere or you would actually read anything I write I would care to tell you how wrong you are with your above statements.

Oh the heck with it:

1. Romney certainly is qualified and I would have liked someone with more experience than Obama, but after his first couple of years he has finally worked out a management style that works and he is doing quite well (check out the book Confidence Men for more on this topic). Also Obamacare is not unconstitutional (you need to buy car insurance and that is constitutional).

2. It is not premature to call Zimmerman stupid for shooting an unarmed child. I'm not saying the kid was totally innocent, but shooting a kid? Too much.

3. Voter-ID laws are not a good idea. It is, in effect, a way to keep people from voting. The real problem is our terrible voter turn-out not our extremely low number of voter fraud cases.

4. I'm sure you know everything about how the commissioners interract. I'll bet Castor calls you after every meeting.

5. I actually agree, the election will be highly partisan, but that's fairly easy to figure out.

6. Stopping people from being discriminated against shouldn't even be a problem for you. Sorry to infringe on your right to... uhh... sorry, it doesn't infringe on anything of yours or cost anything if you really look at it.

@ "Finnick"

1. Please provide your full-name for, otherwise, you continue to hide within the realm of anonymity.

2. You neglected to comment on the exclamation from Holt [after he had found himself agreeing with me, reluctantly, on a few prior points]: "I never met anyone before who was always correct on every issue!"

3. Obama has been a disaster within each of the three major realms-of-policy: Domestic, Foreign, Social.

4. The "Individual Mandate" of ObamaCare is totally different from the mandate to buy auto insurance; the former is imposed because you breathe, whereas the latter is triggered by the optional decision to employ the public highways.

5. Voter/Photo-ID laws diminish fraud: "It is, in effect, a way to keep people from voting" when they have no justification to do so [not citizens, etc.].

6. Castor knows I was publicly/prospectively critical of his campaign-strategy of a year ago, but there is little doubt that he is currently enjoying himself.

7. The Partisanship of 2012's election will diminish ["historically"] the concept of "I voted for the better of the two candidates, regardless of their party affiliations."

8. Listen to the program [and read prior Patch commentaries and listen to the testimony of a month ago] and then you will note the myriad deficiencies in this Ordinance.

To claim "we need to pass it and then to see what's in it" prior to fixing it, this is reminiscentof Pelosi on ObamaCare.

@ Lombardi

BTW, you owe us [and me] the honoring of your pledge to reply to all the ID'ed deficiencies in the Abington Anti-Discrimination Ordinance.

[He cannot any longer hide behind the claim of "sarcasm" because - as y'all will hear him say on the TV/Cable show - he is prepared to complete his "homework" assignment.]

Finnick, if you want to assist him, you can go right ahead!

@ "Finnick"

Here's the hyperlink to the incomplete albeit mandatory analysis of this Ordinance...
http://abington.patch.com/articles/abington-passes-anti-discrimination-ordinance
...recognizing that it's dangerous to pass a bill while anticipating the subsequent capacity to amend it [to fix defects that may emerge...but that had been ID'ed prior to adoption].

@ "Finnick"

Regarding Zimmerman/Martin, when Lombardi said he was "Stupid," the rejoinder was that it was "Stupid to say he was 'Stupid' until the complete database could be assessed."

The "Lefties" were disabused of the argument that no investigation had been done promptly, and I noted the ABC-News photo of Zimmerman's bloody skull; ultimately, I pivoted to attacking Sharpton [and this was before the revelation of Virginia Beach, on O'Reilly, which reflects the SCUM's hypocrisy].

["SCUM" = "So-Called Unbiased Media"]

It was positively sarcastic. Holt's point (which you can see on TV tonight) was clearly to state that he never met someone who was so certain to be right about everything he said. To allude otherwise is typical of what Sklaroff does.

@ Marc

Now that you have been enticed back onto the blogosphere, and recalling that I'd previously provided the hyperlink to the spate of anti-Ordinance queries [answered only by your electrical-silence], it's now time for you to put-up-or-shut-up.

No sarcasm on my end...so let's get crackin'!

[You promised, twice, "ON the record"....remember?]

I have three jobs, Doc. You're not my 4th. I'll answer your questions (have already begin typing up answers) and will send them to you upon their completion. I'm a man of my word.

Sklaroff translation: Dear Marc, I've missed you... but I still swear I'm right!

@ Marc...I'm a patient man.

@ "Finnick"...why do you hide behind a pseudonym?

@ Victor...thanx for assisting efforts to transcend rhetorical impediments.

Sklaroff, I already answered that in previous posts and I don't like to repeat myself.

@ "Finnick"

Humor us; tell us again why you withhold your last name...

...and recognize that your credibility hangs in the balance.

I'd rather not repeat myself and remember... I don't care what you think about my credibility because my credibility comes from coherent statements and actually backing from web/print sources (you did say earlier that I need to research, but I do and actually did cite a book in my first post... books you know, those long things with words on pages). People in this site are the only ones online who want to know exactly who people who post are. This is a website in which I could write as Mickey Mouse if I want, get over it.

@ "Finnick"

You are rationalizing your inability to ensure you maintain accountability....by hiding behind anonymity.

Those "books" are not always printed [we passed that threshold last year, numerically, in America...which is why B&N's days may be limited] but, regardless of your sourcing, let's hear YOU defend any of the postures I articulated!

The alternative would simply be that your "Mickey Mouse"-signature would simply be viewed routinely as accompanying "Mickey Mouse"-comments.

I'm unsure why you cared so much to make a long statement on the availability of print sources, but the book I referenced was printed. I actually bought it in print (I happen to like being able to hold a real book) from a B&N. It also addressed some of your original points. You see, how discussions work is that you are supposed to provide sources to back up your arguments. You are not supposed to just say things and assume they are right.

I won't address any of your statements until you realize that yours are just restatements of your original statements and that you have ignored nearly everything I wrote.

@ "Finnick"

OK, you have been provided the key-points that emerged from the fast-paced discussion.

Quote your book, quote anything...and provide proof that any of my assertions could have been erroneous...or admit the inability to do so.

Why don't you quote anything that proves them right? I cited a source and several other easily accessable things (low voter turnout v. number of cases of voter fraud). You cite yourself. Don't be silly.

Dr. Bob loves to cite himself and other bloggers and pose the information as fact. His links are usually posts from RedState and some random GOP-centric blog. It's the same reason why his lawsuits (against Nancy Pelosi and against the AHERF) were thrown out for lack of evidence or lack of basis for a trial.

He's certainly good at stringing together fancy two dollar words that look nice together, but ponted factual statements are much more difficult for him.

re Voter Fraud:

Holt said something akin to "there were only 0.0004% of cases nationally."

This is akin to the lifeguard claiming proudly that 99% of the kids who had entered the pool, had left it @ day's end.

No, the issue is rampant...

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/07/the-threat-of-non-citizen-voting

...and widespread...

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/153079-gop-says-5000-non-citizens-voting-in-colorado-a-wake-up-call-for-states

....and well-documented...

http://michellemalkin.com/category/voter-fraud/

...with all above-cites [tip-of-iceberg] remaining unrefuted.

Would you mind citing something not terribly biased?

I'm sorry, Joseph...that would involve him going outside his sphere of GOP Mental Protection and actually having to read something with facts that go against his own personal biases and beliefs. Not gonna happen. We're lucky he didn't link to something his pal Bob Guzzardi blogged about and call it a factual report.

@ Lombardi

You have sufficient time to start hurling [sarcastic?] ad-hominems, but you still haven't completed your [typed] homework assignment?

I already replied to the AHERF saga, and you should please remember that its leadership was investigated by the AG for gross-fraud [with myself having been the first whistle-blower victim, absent support from organized medicine].

The Pelosi gambit constituted an effort to expose her having broken House rules to achieve a personal endpoint; no one joined, so it was dropped.

Now, dare to try to refute the references provided infra, or admit the existence of rampant voter-fraud!

@ the-two-of-you

Start with the article from "The Hill" and see where it leads.

Then, BOTH of you can admit this trenchant problem threatens the validity-of-the-vote.

Sklaroff, I know that your last comment was not directed at me, but as I had already asked please provide actual documentation. If I was grading student papers and saw what you cited as sources in the Works Cited page I would certainly detract major points.

@ "Finnick"

You "know" incorrectly [as usual]; the references were provided to "the-two-of-you."

So, refute this [from "The Hill"] for starters:

"Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler, a Republican, told the panel that his department’s study identified nearly 12,000 people who were not citizens but were still registered to vote in Colorado. Of those non-citizen registered voters, nearly 5,000 took part in the 2010 general election in which Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet narrowly defeated Republican Ken Buck. Colorado conducted the study by comparing the state’s voter registration database with driver’s license records."

And, in the process, note that these primary-data are pivotal...and don't try to evade this responsibility by claiming the speaker was a Republican.

DEAL WITH IT!
[the facts and their implications]

Colorado? Yeah, that is PA. Also, a Republican study cited on a Republican website sounds biased so I will have to take time later to see if the details are fully published. I know you said that I shouldn't get out of it by claiming he is Republican, but it's true just as a Democrat would be biased in their studies.

Also, I wrote my response when your first post was up aimed just at Marc and thus my initial statement. I apologize for the confusion.

@ "Finnick"

re: "[a] Republican study cited on a Republican website sounds biased so I will have to take time later to see if the details are fully published."

The Hill is not a Republican website, you are projecting any sense of "bias" and I'll patiently await your analysis.

re: "I know you said that I shouldn't get out of it by claiming he is Republican, but it's true just as a Democrat would be biased in their studies."

You cannot assume anything published by either party is automatically biased, else there would be no credible substrate for discussion; deal with the FACTS...and admit the problem exists.

Right, just like FOX is fair and balanced and someone as smart as yourself should know that studies, especially those cited by politicians are always biased because they are not peer reviewed for errors or bias (like scientific studies).

[well said, although that last phrase does appear to be a-bit-much!]

Good to know I got the gist of what you were saying.

Mr. Krievins, you seem upset that no one wants to talk to you.

As someone who was in communication with Tom Kirk prior to broadcast, I would like to state for the record that Mr. Finnick's name came up (on my recommendation) as a potential guest. Your name, Victor, sadly was not raised by anyone to my knowledge. I do know that Dr. Bob did mention Guzzardi at some point (natch!) but not sure if that idea was tabled since he lives outside of the area.

@ Lombardi

You should find the time to thank Victor for having sprouted the idea of holding this debate-of-the-bloggers.

That's funny! Because Tom Kirk called me last November discussing having me on the show with other folk from the area. When exactly did Victor sprout this idea?

@ Victor & Lombardi

Regarding the idea for this show, perhaps we can simply conclude "Great Minds Think Alike!"

@ Benzak

If it weren't for the 180-second rule, I'd have commented upon our pleasant encounter @ the dentist's office, many months ago....

I hear crickets for that one Krievins.

A little more clever. I'll give you some credit for that one.

I got called a "loser" by a geriatric stamp-collector whose comments on Patch usually consist of nothing more than "Well Said [GOP member]!" and personal attacks on Democrats -- because of ONE photograph of me that has sunglasses? Considering the praise I received from not only Tom Kirk on the job I did both hosting/modertating the episode in a manner that showed no favor to one side or the other, but also from Dr. Sklaroff, I think your thoughts on Tom Kirk's beliefs are unfounded and frankly incorrect. You should spend less time worrying about finding out Finnick's full name so you could google him to Troll him more and more time worrying about helping yourself to put together a well thought out point about something that doesn't parrot the thoughts of someone else.

Yes, he did remove them...and he did a good job as "DJ"!

@ Marc

You were proceeding along flawlessly until your 8th word; Victor is not "geriatric" and you should not impugn Philately.

We want to know who "Finnick" is [and a great way to find-out would be to have him on the Comcast show] because he should be brave enough to stand-up for what he believes.

Victor contributes substance, although you may have difficulty ID'ing it because of your predilection towards sarcasm; why do you defend "Finnick" when he uses an alias?

In al fairness, I retract the GERIATRIC part. Victor's still on the better side of 60 I'm sure. I just assume he's much older because his sense of "humor" is ancient.

Why do you impugn Finnick for using part of his name and not his full name. He's made it clear (with good reason) why he doesn't put his full name out there. It doesn't make his words any less meaningful or true.

Mark Twain was a pseudonym. I guess we shouldn't take anything that Samuel Clemens wrote under that name with any credibility.

Substance? You make me laugh. You should try more jokes than Krievins. You are much better than he is.

@ Marc

You answered your own question; the fact that you KNOW Twain=Clemens stands in counterdistinction to what the public does not know of the last-name of "Finnick."

Why do you protect him? What do the two-of-you have to hide?

I'm not protecting anyone. I'm merely shooting down your ridiculous belief that just because someone posts a thought/belief under a pseduonym that is bears no credence. You're wrong on this one, Doc. Finnick COULD post under the name Mickey Mouse and it doesn't take away any credibility behind the truth of his statements or the ideas behind his beliefs. That's certainly not HIDING anything. I'm not sure why you and Victor are so hung up on that.

Sklaroff, you must be a conspiracy theorist to think that someone posting on a website must have something to hide.

@ the-two-of-you

The key is ACCOUNTABILITY!

[as i wrote earlier]

Because you absolutely must know a person's name before you can find anything they say reliable? Seems arbitrary to me as long as what they say makes sense and they provide support.

@ "Finnick"

When what you write neither makes sense nor is referenced, it's not surprising that you would wish to avoid appending your name to the posting.

The same is true when you can't refute what I have typed; emulate Lombardi's forthrightness, for this exercise will necessarily impose a level of self-discipline that you sorely need.

Sklaroff Translation: I'm not listening! You're still wrong because I don't know your name!

Eh... falling backwards.

Stop assigning homework. I'm the teacher. Also do your homework and find credible sources.

@ "Finnick"

Are you refusing to try to refute the piece in The Hill?

Already did buddy.

@ "Finnick"

Why do you refuse to address the data in The Hill, inasmuch as it's NOT GOP-controlled?

[BTW, you aren't my "buddy."]

You really like having people repeat themselves, but I hate repeating myself so I won't humor you.

Also, I thought we were getting so close... so sad...

@ "Finnick"

Inasmuch as you are unable to refute the data cited in the piece published by The Hill, you should admit the existence of the problem, or you expose yourself to be the hypocrite I have consistently found "you" [hiding your name, naturally] to be.

Sklaroff translation: I don't believe you so I won't read what you write!