Report Inappropriate Comments

Aw, SCOT, I'm starting to think you're just worn out.

Ignoring all the times that we provided facts from verified sources and proved your two-time loser candidate to be telling lies really takes a lot of effort on your part -- so much, in fact, that you only have the energy left make four-line all-caps name-calling comments.

You also put effort into ignoring where the two-time loser just refused to provide any proof of his prior claim -- again, after so many other instances where other commenters provided links or other sources.

I'm sure he appreciates hearing that there's one person on this site who likes his refusal to back up his words with factual information. Funny how he doesn't have a problem with your screen name, too.

Here, let me show you how this is done, once again:

"I have dedicated almost 1,000 days and over $40,000 of my own money to benefit the 80,000 taxpayers that are paying the tab."

The two-time failure is counting 698 days from the 2016 campaign and 278 days from the 2018 campaign and combining them to make it look like they were consecutive -- in prior comments, he's called it "1,000 consecutive days," in fact.

Same thing with the $40,000 spent -- did you know that he wasted $1,770 on his losing 2018 run?

That's just dishonest, SCOT, to count the 2016 campaign [which, again, he lost] as a positive in the 2018 campaign.

There are not 80,000 taxpayers in Warwick. There just aren't. He's dishonestly using the population number, SCOT.

And he calls that kind of rebuttal of his false statements "insulting." I can see where it would be -- to him. Based on examples like the one I just showed you, the "insult" is that facts and information prove he's just not as good as fooling people as he thinks he is.

But look, if you want to admire a dishonest, failed candidate, that's up to you. Just like it's up to him to decide not to restrain himself from humiliating himself with ever new comment, as he's been doing for four years now.

He thinks his imaginary submission of the independent school audit is going to change anything. It's not.

There are two possible outcomes: Either the city council pays the additional $4 million, possibly from the asphalt budget they already tapped, or from the accumulated surplus that the council has already reduced by several million dollars over the last two years to fund their deficit budgets; or the school department sues the city and gets a judge to award it the $4 million anyway.

Your two-time failure candidate will not influence that, certainly not by posting fake stories on this website. He just won't.

That he, and you, deny that fact is a problem with how the two of you think and act -- not me.

Happy Losing September, SCOT!