joe wrote on August 03, 2008 10:54 AM: And "Mike R.", before you blindly agree with Mr. Abbinett's attempted belittling of me, maybe you should read his first response to my comments, you'll see they apply to you also. You'll see that Mr. Abbinett could care less that you support or dispute what he says simply because you don't post comments with your full name, as he does. I posted my comments, which never showed any disrespect towards him, without using my full name so he called me a coward, that was the initial issue I took up with him. Unlike you and I, Mr. Abbinett has no idea of the nature of this R-J comment forum, and thinks he's the rulesman in an international debate session or something. In a sense, I was defending the majority of us who use our common sense, which Mr. Abbinett obviously lacks, by not including our full names when making comments. It's not because we are cowards, it's because we don't want 3 am telephone calls from some of the crazies who scan these forums.

I'm disappointed to see you take his position against me "Mike R.". I have read several of your past comments and have agreed with you on quite a few (especially those on our corrupt Governor). I have read your points and took your opinions into consideration without personally attacking you simply because you didn't include your full name as Mr. Abbinett did to me.

Oh well, as you can see by the exhaustive opinions Mr. Abbinett spewed out after you made your post (astonishes even me!), he's a true blowhard.

joe wrote on August 03, 2008 10:21 AM: Mr. Abbinett you have clearly proven you have some serious self-assurance issues. Also Mr. Abbinett, despite your volumes and volumes of writing, it doesn't change the fact that the PPA has absolutely NO affiliation with the AFL-CIO and that your beloved canidate Mrs. Sanchez-Rangen should have done her homework instead of assuming they did.

And as for your support of the PPA, I think anyone reading your rants would agree that the PPA is probably better off not having someone as yourself in their corner anyway as you spew out facts that are only created in your own mind and have an elitest attitude. You also continue to throw out political party affiliations and have clearly demonstrated that you are a hard-core Democrat. Whether you're Democrat or Republican, if you have an obvious bias towards one or the other to the point you start coming up with "conspriacy theories" and make blatantly false statements as you have done here, then there's not point trying to debate anything with you.

Besides, why would the PPA even care about a school board position anyway? Why would Mr. Kallas risk his own and the PPA's reputations on a position that has basically nothing to do with police?

It's apparent that your close friend Mrs. Sanchez-Rangen got caught doing something she shouldn't have and you're willing to portray the valley's police in a bad light to cover her mistake. After reading your garbled mess of false accusations and your attempted belittling towards those who dare challenge your fabricated facts, I'm sure the PPA is grateful your pulled your "support" from them.

If someone as yourself is a friend of, and supports Mrs. Sanchez-Rangen, then I see your endorsement of her being a liability, which I'm sure she will realize when she loses in this election.

David Kallas wrote on August 03, 2008 09:31 AM: Mr. Abbinett,
It would appear to me from your writings that you are a staunch democrat supporter, though this issue has nothing to do with partisan politics.
If you were to review the endorsemnts of the Police Prtotective Association you would find that an overwhelming amount of the endorsees are Democrat candidates.
We, as a practice, endorse people based on their philosphies about our members, not party affiliation.
As for your biased opinion that I drew first blood I am having a tough time understanding how you so easily dismiss the facts when they don't support your position.
Fact 1. Unlike your statement that "I, like the vast majority of others, was of the understanding that when the AFL-CIO speaks officially on any policy decision, or endorsements, that their many members respect the spirit of unity loyally above all else!" Ms Rangen can not in good conscience, or honestly, allege the same.
Over 2 weeks ago Ms. Rangen was told by Chris Collins (Executive Director) and me, during seperate conversations, that regardleess of the fact that she may have had the endorsement of the AFL-CIO she COULD NOT say that she had the endorsement of the Police Protective Associaton. No confusion, misunderstanding, misinterpretation or innocent mistake , she understood EXACTLY what she was told and exactly what she could and could not do. You so easily come to her defense without truly knowing ALL the facts.
Fact 2. Ms Rangen, the candidate, allowed for any voters who visited her website to believe she had the Police Protective Associations endorsement, along with many other organizations she DIDN'T have.
Should we have allowed for the public to continue to be misled for several more days of early voting?
How many times did we need to verbally explain this to Ms. Rangen.
You're welcome to contact me at 384-8692 for more.

Johnathan L. Abbinett wrote on August 03, 2008 12:07 AM: So, David Kallas, you started this and drew "first blood" - put the facts you can prove on the table (in chronological order) and let's see how your story stands up to public scrutiny by informed voters!

Who did what, where, when and why?

I'm betting the facts will bear out even more Republican political corruption and the Democratic challenger will be exonerated with the sunshine of truth!

You're in the law enforcement profession and you know injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - yet, you crossed ethical lines and brought not only the integrity of yourself, and the Police Protective Association into question - you've done a terrible, selfish dis-service to the poltical process of our local democracy - shame, Shame, SHAME!

I'll caution you not to try anymore amatuer tactics by making unsupported claims or trying to spin the story to cause confusion - those attempts will only bring you more grief than you've already brought on yourself and the entrenched, anointed Republican!

Many serious citizens, from both major parties are closely monitoring this non-story you've created - and they are independently gathering and fully corroberating the facts to determine the truth!

You know, I'm sure you're familier with "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" standard of law - aren't you?

Once all the facts are determined, a number of respected citizens will be weighing in publicly in defense of our democracy and the principle of truth and ethical conduct in politics!

This is really all about the welfare of all of our children and who really is best qualified to represent their interest and the desires of their parents in our public schools!

So, don't come back onto the playground thinking that being a bully will work - especially when you're going after a passionate parent, mother and advocate!

Johnathan L. Abbinett wrote on August 02, 2008 11:47 PM: Obviously David Kallas underestimated the highly respected standing of the Democratic challenger within the community at-large (thinking he could pull a political cheap shot and hat trick for the Republican anointed incument)?

Now David Kallas wants to attempt to cover his tracks with smoke by trying to turn this into a "he said - she said" based on undocumented, and alleged verbal communiques?

PUHLEEEEZE tell me you have some actual facts to support your gross misconduct and unbecoming misbehavior?

It's also quite obvious that there is a significant degree of disagreement over the relationship of the AFL-CIO and their subordinate groups such as the Police Protective Association? It will be interesting to determine who has a reality based understanding of the inter-relationship between these groups - obviously all concerned need more specific, written clarification?

I, like the vast majority of others, was of the understanding that when the AFL-CIO speaks officially on any policy decision, or endorsements, that their many members respect the spirit of unity loyally above all else!

So, all interested, invested (and the politically entrenched) need to put the facts on the table - so the people know who best to cast a ballot for in the final week of Early Vote or on the fast approaching Election Day!

Which raises another valid question - why now? Why weren't any misunderstanding amongst any of the endorsers and candidates cleared up before the voting began? Gee, could it be because someone wanted to try cause a campaign controversy and smear another innocent challenger with the broad brush of doubt to ensure the anointed incumbent is guaranteed a victory? That doesn't just happen in Florida and Ohio!

As we've just seen by the "selection" of Repbulican delegates to the RNC Convention - such gross misbehavior makes a mockery of our beloved democracy!

Johnathan L. Abbinett wrote on August 02, 2008 11:24 PM: At a time when the vast majority of us yearn for change and a return to sound, ethical conduct on the part of all our public servants and elected representatives - what is at issue here is INTEGRITY!

The integrity of David Kallas of the Police Protective Association, the integrity of the RJ and their reporter - all because the integrity of an innocent citizen, wife, mother and child advocate has been unfairly questioned by the poor performance of a reporter and the RJ - who have been played by a professional political operative shilling for the advantage of another selected and anointed incumbent desperate to stay in office and hold onto power.

It's offensive that anyone would think the citizenry isn't paying very close attention and sees through this sham!

Is it no wonder that the people favor term limits to ensure new blood and fresh eyes have half a chance of eventually entering the public service sector and our political arena?

Let's just look at the facts we know, so far, shall we?

On a Friday afternoon the ambush is sprung on the challenger by leaving a voice message and throwing a letter in the mail - and within less than two hours the RJ allows their reporter to post a hit piece to initiate an unfair controversy (without even giving a working woman the chance to get off work, travel home and respond to the message, nor a reasonable opportunity to receive the letter in the mail)!

That is simply unscrupulous and, sadly, mundanely, typical of how political hit jobs are done historically here - and the citizenry is fed up with these unethical tactics!

Yet, somehow the entrenched incument is able to hear about the letter and it's contents before the recipient? Then, another, third, candidate finds this grossly unfair TOO!

Mike R wrote on August 02, 2008 10:20 PM: Wow
Well said Mr Abbinett. Your post has perfectly sumised how many of us think regarding the lack of etiquette among certain posters. Thank you

Johnathan L. Abbinett wrote on August 02, 2008 05:04 PM: Dear "joe" - I'll simply say, thanks for proving my point about why many of us do not reply to anonymous posters - now, let's not lose sight of the main issue in this comment thread - that a good person's integrity has been very unfairly brought into question!

The original issue is not about me or you. So, I'm done attempting to interact with you - but, happy you have whatever "proof" you need in your mind to support your "opinion" sir - I think? Now, good luck to you "joe"!

joe wrote on August 02, 2008 04:17 PM: Mr. Abbinett, your reaction, personal attacks, and name calling regarding my first comments proves you, yourself, have no concept of "etiquette".

I could see your reaction warranted if I came out with a "guns-a-blazin'" disrespecting and name calling attack on you in my first comments. Again, I never disrespected you Mr. Abbinnet in my first post, you chose to take the low road and began the name calling. Your so-called "rules" and "etiquette" went out the door with your personal attacks. You make yourself look like a hypocrite Mr. Abbinett.

Whether or not you choose to include your full name, date of birth, social security number, home address and telephone numbers in this, A LAS VEGAS NEWSPAPER COMMENT SECTION, bares no issue on the validity of one's opinions in this forum.

Please Mr. Abbinett, get off of your high horse and remember where you are posting your opinions at. This is not a college debate forum, nor a national press conference. Please stop being such a snob and telling all of us lowly R-J readers about the rules and etiquette, (which, by the way you violated the first rule of debate etiquette by making personal attacks by name calling) when you don't adhere to them yourself, it makes your opinions seem alot less valid. Besides, this isn't the "journalisim and writing" community your supposed rules would apply in, and you are not the referee.

I also like your blind little stab at my comprehension skills and education, which you have no clue about (more personal attacks?). I feel that I write fairly well for someone who has only 2 masters degrees (1 from from the University of Utah and 1 from UNLV).

Anyway, I think Mr. Kallas just brilliantly answered your accusations Mr. Abbinett -touche.

Johnathan L. Abbinett wrote on August 02, 2008 03:19 PM: Dear Joe,

Within the journalism and writing communities there are rules of etiquette - and people who are not willing, for whatever excuse, to use their real names do NOT receive the same degree of respect from readers as those who post openly and candidly.

A good analogy would be the difference between a personal letter and junk mail - I'm sorry if you were not aware of this long-standing standard.

That is not to say that a point, or an alternative opinion, may have some validity - but, anonymity does not help make your point or give much credance to you case sir!

And I apologize if I've offended you?

Obviously your issue speaks directly to the need for better, more ethical Trustees being elected and overseeing our educational system!

Read All Comments