Ruth Breidenstein's Penny Save Ad

[FisherRd]

How in the world did Ruth prey on old people? If this is true, then I would like the facts in the matter.

She's your buddy, call her and ask her about it. She's got integrity, right? Then she'll tell you all the details of her scams.

[truth seeker]

She's your buddy, call her and ask her about it. She's got integrity, right? Then she'll tell you all the details of her scams.

I'm asking you because you are the one who brought it up. If you have going to accuse her, then you need proof. That seems to be what everyone on this thread demands.

[Dougles]

How in the world did Ruth prey on old people? If this is true, then I would like the facts in the matter.

So now you want facts?

[truth seeker]

So now you want facts?

I have always wanted the facts.

[FisherRd]

I'm asking you because you are the one who brought it up. If you have going to accuse her, then you need proof. That seems to be what everyone on this thread demands.

This is rich coming from you. Think about your hypocrisy for a moment and then dial up old Ruthless and ask her about how she preyed on the elderly. Surely her honesty and integrity will compell her to tell you all about it.

Strange that you seem to know all the details and all the players in town but are unaware of her being sued. Well, not really strange at all. Now wipe the drool off your chin and dial them digits.

[Dougles]

I have always wanted the facts.

Except when they work against "your guy" huh?

If you always want the facts why are you worried about Ruth's feelings getting hurt?

[FisherRd]

Logickiller and truth seeker must still be getting the low-down on Ruth's scams. I imagine it will take a while to catch them up on the lawsuit and other shenanigans.

[truth seeker]

Logickiller and truth seeker must still be getting the low-down on Ruth's scams. I imagine it will take a while to catch them up on the lawsuit and other shenanigans.

I'm not going to dignify your accusations until you spell it out for us. Until then, it means nothing to me.

[FisherRd]

I'm not going to dignify your accusations until you spell it out for us. Until then, it means nothing to me.

Your constant and wilfull displays of ignorance are nothing new here. Why should it change now?

[TheLegendKiller]

Your constant and wilfull displays of ignorance are nothing new here. Why should it change now?

When you resort to saying things like:

I do think it could get interesting if WS citizens start buying Pennysaver ads and make claims about whatever they want. For example, somebody could take out an ad claiming that Wally asked them where to get a male midget stripper, or that Clarkie punches blind people, or that Ruth was an adulterer, etc.

then you are clearly not worth talking to. I post board meeting minutes and quotes from the paper and you call me an ignorant liar. Someone accuses Piotrowski of doing something and I point out that it was actually someone else who did it, you call me a Lorigo puppet. I attempt to provide information to give the whole story and get to the truth. It appears Truth Seeker is doing the same.

From here on out when I don't respond to your posts, take it as me ignoring you because I don't want to waste anymore time feeding your craving for attention.

You in Truth?

[FisherRd]

You two clowns plug your ears and cover your eyes. Pretend it's because you're above all the partisan hackery as opposed to being a couple of speedbags that can't get your masters to give you talking points on the Ruth issue.
I'm sure pretending it didn't happen will make Ruthless's past disappear, and magically restore her honesty and integrity, right? You poor things.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5Klc...eature=related

[truth seeker]

When you resort to saying things like:



then you are clearly not worth talking to. I post board meeting minutes and quotes from the paper and you call me an ignorant liar. Someone accuses Piotrowski of doing something and I point out that it was actually someone else who did it, you call me a Lorigo puppet. I attempt to provide information to give the whole story and get to the truth. It appears Truth Seeker is doing the same.

From here on out when I don't respond to your posts, take it as me ignoring you because I don't want to waste anymore time feeding your craving for attention.

You in Truth?

Ditto for me. I am through wasting my time trying to bring the truth out with facts as I know them. I am truthful in my replies and apparently you are not interested in the truth, so I will only be answering questions that I feel are relevant to the topics and will not stoop to your level of ignorance.

[Dougles]

I'm not going to dignify your accusations until you spell it out for us. Until then, it means nothing to me.

But you expect us all to take Ruth's comment at it's word and not slander? Sounds to me like a bitter comment from a former govt worker who got fired.

[FisherRd]

You're entitled to your own opinions, truth seeker, but not "facts as you see them". No wonder you come across as such a ninny.

[notsg]

My concern is not that Sheila is hiring her friends. (Does your handle mean Not Sandy Geist btw?)

First let me say with no sarcasm whatsoever that I think this was a good one. I never looked at my handle that way. I'm not Sandy Rosenswhatever either for that matter. Actually, the handle means Not Sheila Geegan.

My concerns are that unqualified people are getting town jobs and politicians are advancing their own interests over what is best for the town. As far as the infamous “Wally-Deal” I stand by what I said. First off, the only reason I said anything was that everyone on here was acting like Harrington killed. In the general election, Harrington received 8709 votes and Lorigo received 8604. Since Harrington was Prosecutor, you make him judge and give Lorigo the Prosecutor gig, with a difference of a hundred votes between the two, I say it’s a win-win. If Joe’s last name was anything but Lorigo, none of you would have had anything to say about it. The sins of the father and all that right?

I think you are ignoring that Wally's position was that Sheila's husband was not the best candidate for the promotion so even if Mr. Lorigo was the best for prosecutor, this deal is exactly the kind of thing that you usually would condemn.

As far as Sheila “requesting a favor” from Ruth, no no, she asked Ruth to violate federal and state tax laws. Big difference and bigger deal than you would like to make it. Who’s the puppet now?

Gotta stop you mid paragraph here. This is why people call you the LogicKiller. You're calling me a Sheila puppet because I referred to the thing she is accused of asking for as a favor. But let's see, where did I get the word favor from? ... let me just look round ... Oh yeah, at the beginning of this thread when YOU quoted Ruth referring to it as asking for a "favor." I really hope for your sake that you didn't finish this post by saying that everything Ruth says is gospel because that could get real embarrassing for you.

Here's an example of actual logic for you.
1 IF everything Ruth says is gospel AND
2 Ruth called it a favor
3. THEN everyone laughs at LogicKiller when she pretends that only a Sheila puppet would call it a favor

At best, Meegan doing this was incredibly stupid and ignorant. At worst, incredibly corrupt and criminal. Either way, this is a huge character flaw that voters have the right to consider when going to the polls next week.

I don't condone that kind of behavior but I still believe in hearing from both sides when it comes to negative political ads

As far as the no harm no foul, you either have a huge context issue or are purposely misinterpreting my words. In the context of a legal proceeding to remove the supervisor from office, which is a lot bigger deal than anyone on here seems to appreciate, the deal was not actually made, so there is nothing to remove him for. Now, making a deal when there is a disagreement over hires , which is done all the time, versus violating tax law, apples and oranges sorry.

I'm sorry but I still don't see the difference when both sides are accused of something improper and in both cases no action came about. In both cases I would think it was wrong to propose it. I think one could also say that you are the one who diminishes everything Wally does but blows up everything Sheila does. Perhaps we have to agree to disagree on this one.

With regard to Ruth and Pat, to answer your question, yes. These are two of the good guys. They don’t pull political bs or lie, and when they step out in public to say something, you can take it as gospel. And I absolutely stand by that.

I like Pat and Ruth too.