Thursday, October 13, 2011

A Friend's perspective on Duke Lowrie

This is a guest blog by Mike Dooley, a retired fireman who worked with Duke Lowrie for a number of years.  Mike is very outspoken.
I can honestly say that Duke is the man to send to Baton Rouge. He is one of the most honest and hard working guys I know. He was one of the most educated firemen on the job and his work ethics showed it.
The deal that Jeff whats his name is stirring up is hog wash. Duke stood up to the establishment and won that fight because it was something he believed in.
He was the one that got the rules changed because it wasn't right. He will never back down from hard work or what is right.
I told him these attacks would come during his race, even though the whole thing is false. Jeff couldn't make a pimple on Dukes butt!! 
This burns me up that Jeff is being dishonest telling these lies on Duke. I know the truth and Jeff needs to get his facts straight!!!! Thats my take !!!!


  1. Ok Jim, so here is your test. This fireman is accusing Thompson of being "dishonest". Another way to describe this is lying, which is what Thompson accused Duke of.

    Now, according to your own rules, there is to be no mudslinging. So Im curious why you posted this?

    It is clear you have muffled the debate on these candidates, particularly as it relates to anyone having a negative opinion of Duke. I appreciate your loyalty to a man you feel is worthy of office. However I condemn the practice of cherry picking the negative comments associated with Lowry while allowing all negative comments on Thompson. This is unfair to Thompson, and its unfair to voters. The spirit of your blog is one of open debate as we walk the path of finding the right candidates. This simply cannot be accomplished with non-transparency.

    Sure, if someone is accusing someone of unfounded criminal acts, thats slander and take it down. If someone uses the "n" word or other foul language, take it down. People give opinions on here all the time on various topics. Most of which by the way are heresay, sometimes they are true, other times they are probably outright lies. To be able to ferret out facts is pretty much impossible as a web moderator.

    Whether or not Duke's lawsuit is valid will be up to the courts, not Jim. I say you have the right to your OPINION. But I also say we are entitled to our opinion, regardless of whether or not you like it. If you retort this and claim otherwise (which i expect) your arguement is not sincere, and many of us know it.

    Outside of the Duke/thompson debate, I feel you have been fair and unbiased. I look forward to reading your blog. I ask you to examine your consicious and do what you feel is right.

    They have a saying. If one person says your a horse, they are probably crazy. If two people, might want to take a closer look. And three, you better saddle up. A number of us have seen what you are up to with Duke, and we expect better of you-its that simple.

    Please advise

  2. What happened to the moderation? "Jeff couldn't be a pimple on Duke's butt." Really? See rule no. 1. "Jeff is being dishonest". See rule no. 2.

    Jim, you ain't objective at all.

    Remove that post if we're gonna follow the rules.

    Also, why don't you post the letters from LABI and LOGPAC wherein they state that Duke listed them as host members on his invitation without their authority and they asked that they BE REMOVED AS SUCH!!! Go to Jeff Thompson's facebook page and you will see that these two business organizations were misled by Duke. But that's next weeks campaign fodder......this one is fun.

  3. I don't claim to be objective. I endorsed Duke. As to the guest blog by Mike Dooley, I was read a comment on the KTBS website that suggested people ask people who had worked with Duke what they thought of him. So I did.
    I think the Thompson flyer was gutter politics and unworthy of him.
    I am aware of the messup with the invitations and I asked Duke about it, rather than get Thompson's take on it.
    They were supposed to be listed at the bottom as 'endorsements', not as host members. The printer made a mistake. The Lowrie people should have caught it.

  4. 10:49 PM - I have not muffled the debate. There are plenty of anti-Duke, pro-Thompson comments on the blog. There have been anti-Thompson comments that have not been allowed in either.
    Again, as to Mike Dooley's post, I read a comment on KTBS website that suggested people should talk to other firemen to see what they thought of Duke. I asked Mike if he would like to put up something. I'm not then going to censor what he wants to say. If any firemen would like to publish an opposing view, I would run it.
    As to this statement "Whether or not Duke's lawsuit is valid will be up to the courts, not Jim."
    I have no idea about the lawsuit, and you're right, it is up to the courts.
    Try to understand - the comments against Duke were coming in from about 3 URLS and were all being insulting and were attacking. Organized trolling by anyone will not be allowed.

  5. How about "disorganized trolling?"

    I could do that. Extremely well.

  6. Vote for the Democrat in the election, I say. They're the only ones who have any sense.

  7. I have worked with both Dooley and Duke. However, I can attest that in the suspension for lying, Duke was targeted as well as others who bravely stood up to the BCFD administration. Duke is a good man and will do a good job, as well as Mr. Thompson. I believe emotions are "over the top" and could use a dose of civility.

  8. When will the lawsuit be decided? Will it be before the election? The outcome will determine the person that I will vote for if I have the opportunity to do that.

  9. Thats pretty much on the mark Dooley but why did you stop short of explaining Sammy Halphens role in all of this. Those of us who know the truth, that Sammy was the one who got that training started anyway and then slithered away so as to not be implicated when the crap hit the fan.

  10. Anyone who has worked for the halphen's knows that when you challenge them on something you do become a target.

  11. I am happy to see this post that you completely approve of, Jim, so now I have a demonstration of how to post in accordance with your rule #1 and rule #2.
    What I am supposed to be doing to abide by your rules is making statements like your candidate could not be a pimple on the butt of my candidate. And I am supposed to make accusations that the candidate that I am not supporting is dishonest and telling lies.
    I sure do appreciate you giving this demonstration and teaching me what "No personal attacks or insults" and "No accustory statements" means.
    In my ignorance, Jim, I had a completely different idea about what these phrases mean.

  12. By the way, I was going to vote for Lowrie, but now I just don't know. If he is the kind of person that people have to rally around him and squealch free speech to keep him from having the actual reputation that he earned, and nobody can learn the truth about him without lawsuits, and blogs refusing to post comments about him, the truth about him is being hidden and I won't vote for him.

  13. "blogs refusing to post comments about him"
    There are plenty of anti-Lowrie comments on the blog. What wasn't allowed was defamatory, organized trolling. Everyone is perfectly free to express their opinions as to why they favor Thompson over Lowrie, or vice versa.

  14. Well as I said, I don't favor either of them, and had planned to vote for Lowrie based upon your endorsement. But now there seems to be an effort being made to prevent the public from learning the truth about him. I want someone in office who says that his life is an open book, and as for me, I would set my lawyers, doctors, clergy, etc. free to tell you all they know about me. I don't have any secrets, and while I don't have any desire to be a politician myself, I want the same sort of open honest people as myself to serve.

  15. This is getting funny.

    I don't have a doctor, a lawyer, or a clergy member.

    So, I reckon I'd have to set The Mrs. free to tell you all she knows about me.


    I'm trying to figure out that last comment at 6:30 pm. Really, I am.

    I'm trying to figure out what effort is being made to prevent the public from learning the truth about Lowrie. Or, for that matter, Thompson.

    Seems that several local bloggers have published court filings, minutes of hearings, and moonbat comments ad nauseating.

    I don't know either one of the guys. But, I am suspecting that this Anon who claims she was going to vote for Lowrie, but changed her mind (which is a woman's prerogative) is a plant...or just some chick with nothing better to do.

    Nothing personal, mind you. It just smells like fish...

  16. I'm just glad this is the final week to have to hear about the dang elections. I'm sick of it!

  17. Now, Andy, you don't mean to tell me that a reader can judge comments for himself? You can't possibly think for yourself, and you must have someone to screen and control what you see.

  18. Anon@ 11:37 pm. I don't mean to tell you that at all.

    But, there is a rule (really a truth) about blogging. A blog is not an unbiased news source (but, what is, huh?). It takes on the personality & preferences of the administrator of said blog.

    A blog is not a free, and open forum on every issue. It's just not. People that have a problem with that have several options...the first of which is to start their own blog, and do it their own way.

  19. That Andy fella is pretty smart, yall need to listen to him.

  20. @notlowalker

    Good to see you Chief Halphen! Wish you were back! Man, how we wish you were back!


Rules of the road:
1. No personal attacks or insults.
2. No accustory statements about wrongdoing or criminal acts against anyone.
3. Say all you want about the pros and cons concerning the candidates and the issues, or the general subject of the blog post, just follow Rule #1 and Rule #2.