The page you're trying to access is only available to readers with free accounts. Just sign in below, and we'll send you on your way.

-->

Comments by Avenger

Written on Letter To The Editor: Sadly laughable:

Issler, your 10:41am post is even more illogical than usual, and may have set a record for spelling and grammatical errors. Hitting the sauce a little early, are you, in anticipation of your candidate’s victory?

Marco97—good point about the 2006 election, and Tucker’s vote switch!

Written on POLL/Fiscal conservatism: What does it mean for Marco candidates? :

Actually, Issler, you and your bosom buddy Joe Granda started the negative campaigning with your 17 December letters to the editor. Rather than talk about how great and qualified your boy was, you two went after Chuck Kiester. And you never did explain how you and Granda just happened to have the identical 32 word phrase in each of your letters.

There are only four men running for three council seats, and you feel your candidate is so weak that your only recourse is to demean the incumbents.

Written on Commentary: A political Canine Cove:

Issler, how long is your nose now? Here you go telling another bald faced lie about Chuck Kiester. Come on, there are four guys running for three council seats! You must have very little confidence in your candidate, since you and Granda have “gone negative” against Chuck from the start. You exemplify exactly what Curle and Farmer said was wrong with politics in this town.

Written on Letter to the Editor: Let the record speak:

in response to Avenger:

Issler, I challenge you to explain how you and Joe Granda just happen to have this identical phrase in each of your letters to the editor today:

“At a time when citizens throughout the country are losing confidence in the ethical and honest behavior of government leaders, we need to assure we have a “zero tolerance” reaction to actions…”

And I don’t buy that it’s just a coincidence.

Yo, Issler--why don't you respond to my challenge?

Written on Letter to the Editor: Let the record speak:

Oh, and now let’s talk about Issler’s infamous analytical ability. He states that Chuck “was originally elected by only 2,838 votes (22 percent of the voters on Marco Island)….” Knowing Issler’s past history with statistics, I checked the Collier County Supervisor of Elections website for the 2006 election results:

http://www.voterfocus.com/hosting/col...

Now some context--in that election, seven men ran for three City Council seats. There were 13,207 registered voters on Marco Island, but only 6,443 actually voted in the 2006 election. Chuck did get 2,838 votes, which was only 138 fewer than the candidate with the highest number of votes, Ted Forcht. Below are all the candidates’ results:

Ted FORCHT..………2976
Robert POPOFF….…2944
Charles KIESTER……2838
Stef STEFANIDES...…2714
Joe BATTE …….….…2655
Joseph SIMONS.…….1788
Heyward BOYCE.……1784

So once again Issler uses “stupid stats” taken out of any context related to reality in order to bolster his fabrication about the results of the 2006 election. What else has he twisted, exaggerated, or made up in this letter?

Written on Letters to the Editor: Is size important?:

Granda, I’ve already asked Issler this question, and now I’d like to hear what you have to say. How did you and Issler just happen to have this identical phrase in each of your letters to the editor today:

“At a time when citizens throughout the country are losing confidence in the ethical and honest behavior of government leaders, we need to assure we have a “zero tolerance” reaction to actions…”

Written on Letter to the Editor: Let the record speak:

Issler, I challenge you to explain how you and Joe Granda just happen to have this identical phrase in each of your letters to the editor today:

“At a time when citizens throughout the country are losing confidence in the ethical and honest behavior of government leaders, we need to assure we have a “zero tolerance” reaction to actions…”

And I don’t buy that it’s just a coincidence.

Written on Letter To The Editor: Putting Christ back in Christmas:

Don’t blame Mr. Waldack for the content of “his” commentary! Seems that he may have again used other people’s words without attribution:

http://mopsonthehill.wordpress.com/20...

http://christianity.about.com/od/holi...

Written on Letter to the Editor: Healthcare bill misleading:

Well, John, you didn’t give me any page numbers, but you did admit that the bill doesn’t say that you will “need to visit with a bureaucrat every five years (mandatory) once I reach ‘old age’.”

Now, let’s assume that the part of the bill from which you pulled your “interpretation” is Section 1233, on pages 425-430. That “legalese” says Medicare will pay for — not mandate — "advance care planning consultations" between individuals and their physicians every five years. So what do I think section means? That Medicare will pay for the counseling, so that doctors and patients would spend more time on it instead of just having a cursory discussion in an initial Medicare visit. Doctors, John — not bureaucrats. And the language clearly states that this counseling is voluntary.

Not wanting to take any chances in post- Schiavo Florida, a few years ago, I paid several hundred dollars for my living will, durable power of attorney, and advanced directive.

And let me refresh your memory about previous legislation related to this issue. Last year (during the Bush administration), Congress overwhelmingly approved legislation requiring doctors to discuss issues like living wills and advance directives with new Medicare enrollees. A 1992 law passed under President George H.W. Bush already requires hospitals and nursing homes to help patients with those legal documents if they want support.

Your twisted distortion about “visit with a bureaucrat every five years (mandatory),” is relatively mild compared to Palin’s “death panels” and Grassley’s “pull the plug on grandma” but you join them in being unhinged from the reality of the actual legislation. Too bad that ideology and Obama bashing is more important to you than the truth.

Written on Letter to the Editor: Healthcare bill misleading:

So what you’re saying, John, is that you read the 1000+ pages of the House’s proposed health care bill, H.R. 3200. In all those pages, the one item that most concerned you is that you will “need to visit with a bureaucrat every five years (mandatory) once I reach ‘old age’?”

I’ve read portions of the bill, and have been unable to find this “mandatory” requirement. So I challenge you to post the page number(s) where this “visit with a bureaucrat” is mandated. Better yet, copy and paste the section that contains this requirement so we can read what has you so concerned.

Features