Abington Democrats and Commissioner Wayne Luker
As the Chairman of the Abington-Rockledge Democratic Committee, I was very disturbed by the somewhat reckless article recently published on this website about Commissioner Wayne Luker. First, since no affiliations were disclosed by the author within the article I must start by pointing out that presenting comments as facts about the local Democratic party by a republican committee person and self-proclaimed leader of the local teabaggers is strange to say the least. That being said, let me state this plainly, Commissioner Wayne Luker has served Abington for 19 years and personally I am amazed by his service. The truth is that Commissioner Luker and his primary opponent, Donna Brewer, both agreed to an open primary. The full Democratic Committee voted for an open primary as suggested by Wayne and Donna and that is as they say that. The citizens of Ward 5 will decide in the primary election, a concept that apparently seems so foreign to the local "republican machine" it must mean that something is wrong.
Speaking of the local R machine, what really happened to the public library mentioned in the blog? Conspicuously missing from the former article was one key point, originally four (yes four) Republican Commissioners voted in favor of the public library. It was the right thing to do for Abington, for Roslyn, and for our public library system. In fact, the Abington library board composed of prominent Republicans and Democrats, spoke out in favor of the plan many times. So, what happened - or what changed? Well, that's when it got "political" as they say and I'm not talking about on the Democratic side.... I understand there was quite an uproar about the library at the local Republican's meeting directed at the Republican Commissioners that voted in favor of the library. Approving such a big project so beneficial to the community in a Democratic Commissioner's ward is apparently forboden. Next thing you know, the litigation over the library was dragged out by the township solicitor, thereby jeopardizing the hundreds of thousands of dollars set to come into Abington from the state and the county that would make the public library possible. And that was as they say that, all four Republicans changed their vote. Don't take my word for it, see Commissioner Schreiber's words regarding the public library and Commissioner Michael O'Conner's cogent comments about the Abington Solicitor's handling of the litigation here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6DNozmLWWc
But lets really "get real" here. You see, for over six or seven months now there has been a debate over a non-discrimination ordinance here in Abington. Simply stated, this is an ordinance that would protect all residents of Abington equally. Also simply stated it has now become clear that the current makeup of the board will not see through the passing of this ordinance. To really know what is going on right here in your Township, I urge you to listen to Commissioner Schreiber's words on the issue here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyoXuEp4S3M
In closing, I ask you all "what do you want for Abington?" The Abington Township board currently stands at 9 Republicans and 6 Democrats. I believe it is time for more independent voices on the board to add to our sitting Democratic Commissioners, a new solicitor and a new direction. I believe this will only occur this November when YOU can vote in a Democratic majority on the board so that decisions are not made behind the scenes by a few unelected individuals that run the Republican leadership. Choice is yours, republicans, democrats, or whatever your affiliations, I'd like to see all of you come out on May 17th for the Primary elections and let your voices also be heard on General Election day, Nov. 8th. Oh, and feel free to stop by our website to check out our candidates and incumbents at www.abingtondemocrats.com .
Thank you for your attention.
Bill Sword
7:40 am on Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Mr. Chairman,
You should be ashamed of yourself for opening your piece by using such disgusting and derogatory language to describe those who have differing opinions.
Perhaps in the future you'll be more considerate.
Michael L. Barbiero, esq.
8:20 am on Thursday, May 19, 2011
Specifically with regard to your outrageous allegations – I really debated whether or not to dignify your “comments” with a response. I decided they must be addressed as it is you who should be ashamed for projecting such disgusting innuendo. After reading your posts, I did a quick "google" search of the term (not recommended) but did find that there is a split within your own group and the media (FOX NEWS) on whether of not to use the word.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520899,00.html
http://theweek.com/article/index/202620/the-evolution-of-the-word-tea-bagger
Sorry I didn't get the memo that you all picked a name that had some disgusting connotation. You see, I was in law school when that movie came out mentioned in the article, so I never saw it....
Finally, I think you should all write to that bastion of liberalism, the Oxford dictionary so that they can get on the same page (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dawn-teo/teabagger-oxford-dictiona_b_362355.html)
No wonder the rest of us don't know what to call the group. Frankly, it's manufactured "outrage" like this in attempts to discredit people that is truly turning the public off to political debate. In short, call your group whatever you want, but don't try to drag the rest of us down with you when you have no response to the issues.
Ed Boyd
8:24 am on Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Mr Barbiero, nice try.
First, the video "Abington Votes Down Public Library" mislabeled. It should read "Abington Township Ends Lawsuit to Seize Private Property". That is the discussion being held if you actually listen to the tape. Naming it something which incites emotions with your followers doesn't change the facts.
In a related fact: the GOP would vote in favor of the new library, if PRIVATE funds, not public grant money, were used AND if the location wasn't secured via a hostile government takeover.
Two, Mr. Luker (Democrat) voted against the same ordinance you accuse the "Republican machine" of killing. The anti-discrimination ordinance is a solution looking for a problem. Mr Luker recognizes this detail. Abington residents ARE treated equally and need no "protection" from the ruling class.
Third, name-calling is extremely unprofessional and sophmoric for a man in your position. It's called Tea Party, with an emphasis on Party - a celebration of our great country and all its diverse views, not just hateful, name-calling Democrat ones.
Tea-bagging on the other hand, should be one of the protected practices, if only you leftist rulers could find a way to shove the ordinance down our throats, don't you think??
Michael L. Barbiero, esq.
8:20 am on Thursday, May 19, 2011
Specifically with regard to your outrageous allegations – I really debated whether or not to dignify your “comments” with a response. I decided they must be addressed as it is you who should be ashamed for projecting such disgusting innuendo. After reading your posts, I did a quick "google" search of the term (not recommended) but did find that there is a split within your own group and the media (FOX NEWS) on whether of not to use the word.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520899,00.html
http://theweek.com/article/index/202620/the-evolution-of-the-word-tea-bagger
Sorry I didn't get the memo that you all picked a name that had some disgusting connotation. You see, I was in law school when that movie came out mentioned in the article, so I never saw it....
Finally, I think you should all write to that bastion of liberalism, the Oxford dictionary so that they can get on the same page (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dawn-teo/teabagger-oxford-dictiona_b_362355.html)
No wonder the rest of us don't know what to call the group. Frankly, it's manufactured "outrage" like this in attempts to discredit people that is truly turning the public off to political debate. In short, call your group whatever you want, but don't try to drag the rest of us down with you when you have no response to the issues.
Bill Fromm
9:26 am on Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Mr. Barbiero,
Your posting above is truly disgraceful.
Leaving aside the embarrassing and distracting grammatical errors*, why are you using vulgar language to attack a political opponent? Is your position so weak on the issues that you have to stoop to juvenile name-calling?
I'm referring, of course, to your use of the term “teabagger.” That term refers to a sexual practice; it has nothing to do with one’s political views. Do you routinely call your political opponents “c---suckers,” too?
The hilarious irony is that you’re using schoolyard sexual taunts in the same piece you’re using to boast of your support for a non-discrimination ordinance! You’d better hope this ordinance doesn’t pass, Mr. Barbiero, because your behavior certainly doesn’t comport with it!
I'd like to ask, Why aren't the Democrats repudiating your juvenile and vulgar name-calling? Should Abington voters assume that rank-and-file Democrats agree with your childish and offensive approach?
In closing, I'm an Independent, and I don't think I'll be supporting Abington Democrats anytime soon if the party is under your leadership.
* Yikes, you’re an ATTORNEY? I hope your clients haven't seen this! Do your clients know of your weaknesses when it comes to proofreading and spellchecking?
-- Bill Fromm
Michael L. Barbiero, esq.
8:20 am on Thursday, May 19, 2011
Specifically with regard to your outrageous allegations – I really debated whether or not to dignify your “comments” with a response. I decided they must be addressed as it is you who should be ashamed for projecting such disgusting innuendo. After reading your posts, I did a quick "google" search of the term (not recommended) but did find that there is a split within your own group and the media (FOX NEWS) on whether of not to use the word.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520899,00.html
http://theweek.com/article/index/202620/the-evolution-of-the-word-tea-bagger
Sorry I didn't get the memo that you all picked a name that had some disgusting connotation. You see, I was in law school when that movie came out mentioned in the article, so I never saw it....
Finally, I think you should all write to that bastion of liberalism, the Oxford dictionary so that they can get on the same page (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dawn-teo/teabagger-oxford-dictiona_b_362355.html)
No wonder the rest of us don't know what to call the group. Frankly, it's manufactured "outrage" like this in attempts to discredit people that is truly turning the public off to political debate. In short, call your group whatever you want, but don't try to drag the rest of us down with you when you have no response to the issues.
Bill Sword
9:46 am on Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Perhaps instead of posting youtube videos he should visit http://www.abington.org/resident/noplaceforhate.htm.
Bill Fromm
10:35 am on Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Let's call this the "Barbiero Revision" to the No Place for Hate Pledge:
"I promise to try to respect ALL people, including those who are different from me...unless I can score a cheap laugh by mocking and taunting those who are different from me with bathroom humor."
-- Bill Fromm
Michael L. Barbiero, esq.
8:21 am on Thursday, May 19, 2011
Specifically with regard to your outrageous allegations – I really debated whether or not to dignify your “comments” with a response. I decided they must be addressed as it is you who should be ashamed for projecting such disgusting innuendo. After reading your posts, I did a quick "google" search of the term (not recommended) but did find that there is a split within your own group and the media (FOX NEWS) on whether of not to use the word.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520899,00.html
http://theweek.com/article/index/202620/the-evolution-of-the-word-tea-bagger
Sorry I didn't get the memo that you all picked a name that had some disgusting connotation. You see, I was in law school when that movie came out mentioned in the article, so I never saw it....
Finally, I think you should all write to that bastion of liberalism, the Oxford dictionary so that they can get on the same page (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dawn-teo/teabagger-oxford-dictiona_b_362355.html)
No wonder the rest of us don't know what to call the group. Frankly, it's manufactured "outrage" like this in attempts to discredit people that is truly turning the public off to political debate. In short, call your group whatever you want, but don't try to drag the rest of us down with you when you have no response to the issues.
Michael L. Barbiero, esq.
6:31 am on Thursday, May 19, 2011
I'm grateful that you didn't ask for my birth certificate. Thankfully, just writing outlandish accusations and untrue statements don't make them so. Four republicans voted in favor of the library at first. They were for it before they were against it. Nothing changed, except our solicitor dragging his feet.
Similarly, almost all commissioners stated in public that they were for some version of the non-discrimination ordinance, when their constituents packed the township building in support of the ordinance. Unfortunately, as Com. Schreiber and Peacock pointed out, actions don't always match public statements made to placate crowds. There's a pattern here: R commissioners say one thing up on the board, then doing something completely different behind the scenes. Mr. Boyd, if the majority of R Commissioners share your stated views on the non-discrimination ordinance, they're not stating those views in public, at least not while up on the board.
Here's a bipartisan issue for you. The "advice" the board is getting needs attention, period. Issues above, as well as the billboard issue (see comments at: http://abington.patch.com/articles/abingtons-lefevre-township-defending-stance-on-no-billboards) show a disturbing trend of the board voting one way, only to "rescind" the vote later to go in the opposite direction. I suppose you're aware that the board is hiring a solicitor from another township (in addition to the one we have now) to deal with the billboards...?
Victor B. Krievins
3:18 pm on Sunday, April 29, 2012
The only thing outrageous in all of Abington is you Mr. Barbiero. Shame on you!
Bill Fromm
8:44 am on Thursday, May 19, 2011
Instead of apologizing for using juvenile and crude language to mock a political opponent, Mr. Barbiero has chosen to double-down on his insult by providing links to the Huffington Post to justify it. No wonder Independents like me voted Republican last November!
While you've got your Oxford dictionary out, Mr. Barbiero, can you please give us the definition for the word "forboden" that you used? I looked in Merriam-Webster, and M-W says the word doesn't exist. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/forboden)
Since you're so much smarter than the rest of us -- able to quote dictionaries, link to news stories, and all that stuff -- maybe you can educate us about "forboden"...?
-- Bill Fromm
Michael L. Barbiero, esq.
8:52 am on Thursday, May 19, 2011
Thanks for proving my point Bill.... way to ignore Fox news link. Here it is again since you missed it the first time http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520899,00.html. My point is, since you missed it, is you know full well that the term is used, yet you decided to attribute only your disgusting viewpoint to the phrase.
By the way, act like you didn't come across these when you googled forboden:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/forboden
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Forboden
http://www.webster-dictionary.net/definition/Forboden
http://thinkexist.com/dictionary/meaning/forboden/
http://www.question.com/dictionary/forboden.html
John Monaghan
9:57 am on Thursday, May 19, 2011
Did you hear about the English teacher who accused her students of being anti-semantic? Guys it's more fun when we talk about substance. Can we all agree on that?
Michael L. Barbiero, esq.
10:29 am on Thursday, May 19, 2011
Agreed John, thanks for your comment. As I said, I really debated responding. In the end, I could not let that all sit with no response. I realize that I may not reach an accord with those commenting, but I wanted everyone else to know my thoughts. You and I have discussed issues on this very site and I respect your opinion. Thanks again.
Bill Fromm
10:07 am on Thursday, May 19, 2011
Seriously, Mr. Barbiero, are you the best representative the Democratic Party has? I don't know who the head of the Abington Republicans is, but I doubt he or she behaves the way you do.
The Barbiero Formula for discussion:
1. Use juvenile insults when disagreeing with someone
2. Pepper your postings with spelling and grammar errors
3. Bombard readers with links that no one has the time or interest to click on
Then, when readers call you out on these three things...
4. Feign ignorance of the true meaning of the childish insults you used
5. Call people "disgusting" for objecting to your schoolyard bathroom humor
6. Further bombard readers with links that no one has the time or interest to click on
I'm just an independent commentator, Mr. Barbiero. YOU, on the other hand, are REPRESENTING YOUR PARTY.
And you're coming across as sloppy, petty, immature, and insulting.
When do you stand for re-election as head of the Abington Democrats? I'd like to show this exchange to your members ahead of time so they can see who is publicly representing them.
-- Bill Fromm
Bill Fromm
10:13 am on Thursday, May 19, 2011
John Monaghan wrote:
> it's more fun when we talk about substance. Can we all agree on that?
I appreciate your viewpoint, John, but I actually think it's more fun to expose the self-appointed arbiters of tolerance and "non-discrimination" as shameless hypocrites when it comes to public dialogue!
Lee
11:07 pm on Friday, May 18, 2012
It is really immature to refer to tea partiers in that fashion. Name calling like that makes you look harsh. You want to reach out to people and bring them to your pov, by setting a gracious example. By the way most tea partiers are conservatives, former Reps and Dems you would find if you ever decide to open your narrow pov and attend one. :)