FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


State representative vs. Tea Bagger





handfleisch
Here's an email an attention-seeking Tea Partier wrote to Washington State 47th district Representative Geoff Simpson:
Quote:
Still waiting for an apology from you, sir, for using a pornographic word during televised debate, to describe patriotic Americans. In addition, you also need to apologize for describing the Tea Party as racist and sexist. You obviously have never been to a Tea Party rally, or else you would have not made such an slanderous, idiotic statement.

Also, still waiting from the leadership (Reps Chopp and Debolt). The leadership shouldn't condone this language, and should take necessary action to censure/reprimand.

Rep Simpson, please apologize for both slurs ASAP. If you issue a statement of apology, I will be happy to post it.

Thanks,

Jim Walker
Orbusmax.com

Here's the answer he got
Quote:
Dear Jim -

I don't think it's patriotic to fly airplanes into buildings as one of your tea party members recently did. I find your movement to be infected with the same selfish, hate-spawned and dangerous ideas that have plagued civilization from time to time, only to be quelled when appeals to man's more patriotic attributes of selflessness, kindness, compassion and peace have prevailed.

I was puzzled by your objection to my recounting the words of my 90 year old decorated WWII veteran constituent until I heard the more obscure alternate meaning associated with the term teabag. I believe my friend was using the term to describe angry, predominantly white, anti-government individuals who have recently been made prominent by the media highlighting their hate-filled rhetoric toward all things progressive.

Indeed, it is well documented that the originators of your movement themselves adopted the names "teabag" and "tea bagger" to describe their anti-government antics. Your manufactured outrage toward me for using the term that the fathers and mothers of your movement coined for themselves is tiresome.

I will apologize to you for recounting my friend's puzzlement about the selfishness of your movement when you apologize for your hatred, your selfishness and your lack of compassion toward others.

Thanks,

Geoff

http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2010/02/geoff_simpson_vs_the_teabagger.php
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
Here's an email an attention-seeking Tea Partier wrote to Washington State 47th district Representative Geoff Simpson:
Quote:
Still waiting for an apology from you, sir, for using a pornographic word during televised debate, to describe patriotic Americans. In addition, you also need to apologize for describing the Tea Party as racist and sexist. You obviously have never been to a Tea Party rally, or else you would have not made such an slanderous, idiotic statement.

Also, still waiting from the leadership (Reps Chopp and Debolt). The leadership shouldn't condone this language, and should take necessary action to censure/reprimand.

Rep Simpson, please apologize for both slurs ASAP. If you issue a statement of apology, I will be happy to post it.

Thanks,

Jim Walker
Orbusmax.com

Here's the answer he got
Quote:
Dear Jim -

I don't think it's patriotic to fly airplanes into buildings as one of your tea party members recently did. I find your movement to be infected with the same selfish, hate-spawned and dangerous ideas that have plagued civilization from time to time, only to be quelled when appeals to man's more patriotic attributes of selflessness, kindness, compassion and peace have prevailed.

I was puzzled by your objection to my recounting the words of my 90 year old decorated WWII veteran constituent until I heard the more obscure alternate meaning associated with the term teabag. I believe my friend was using the term to describe angry, predominantly white, anti-government individuals who have recently been made prominent by the media highlighting their hate-filled rhetoric toward all things progressive.

Indeed, it is well documented that the originators of your movement themselves adopted the names "teabag" and "tea bagger" to describe their anti-government antics. Your manufactured outrage toward me for using the term that the fathers and mothers of your movement coined for themselves is tiresome.

I will apologize to you for recounting my friend's puzzlement about the selfishness of your movement when you apologize for your hatred, your selfishness and your lack of compassion toward others.

Thanks,

Geoff

http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2010/02/geoff_simpson_vs_the_teabagger.php


Hmmm, so wife-beating progressive politician wrote a nasty letter full of incorrect information and accusations to one of his constituents. Nice to see him engaging in this type of activity instead of maybe working on something a bit more important. Say something like working on stopping more job losses as we’ve seen in the last year. Sounds like a classy guy.

Rep. Geoff Simpson arrested on domestic violence charge
http://horsesass.org/?p=4773


Just goes to show you that American’s frustration with Congress and its heavy Democrat majority is justly warranted. The next election cycle can’t come soon enough.
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Here's an email an attention-seeking Tea Partier wrote to Washington State 47th district Representative Geoff Simpson:
Quote:
Still waiting for an apology from you, sir, for using a pornographic word during televised debate, to describe patriotic Americans. In addition, you also need to apologize for describing the Tea Party as racist and sexist. You obviously have never been to a Tea Party rally, or else you would have not made such an slanderous, idiotic statement.

Also, still waiting from the leadership (Reps Chopp and Debolt). The leadership shouldn't condone this language, and should take necessary action to censure/reprimand.

Rep Simpson, please apologize for both slurs ASAP. If you issue a statement of apology, I will be happy to post it.

Thanks,

Jim Walker
Orbusmax.com

Here's the answer he got
Quote:
Dear Jim -

I don't think it's patriotic to fly airplanes into buildings as one of your tea party members recently did. I find your movement to be infected with the same selfish, hate-spawned and dangerous ideas that have plagued civilization from time to time, only to be quelled when appeals to man's more patriotic attributes of selflessness, kindness, compassion and peace have prevailed.

I was puzzled by your objection to my recounting the words of my 90 year old decorated WWII veteran constituent until I heard the more obscure alternate meaning associated with the term teabag. I believe my friend was using the term to describe angry, predominantly white, anti-government individuals who have recently been made prominent by the media highlighting their hate-filled rhetoric toward all things progressive.

Indeed, it is well documented that the originators of your movement themselves adopted the names "teabag" and "tea bagger" to describe their anti-government antics. Your manufactured outrage toward me for using the term that the fathers and mothers of your movement coined for themselves is tiresome.

I will apologize to you for recounting my friend's puzzlement about the selfishness of your movement when you apologize for your hatred, your selfishness and your lack of compassion toward others.

Thanks,

Geoff

http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2010/02/geoff_simpson_vs_the_teabagger.php


Hmmm, so wife-beating progressive politician wrote a nasty letter full of incorrect information and accusations to one of his constituents. Nice to see him engaging in this type of activity instead of maybe working on something a bit more important. Say something like working on stopping more job losses as we’ve seen in the last year. Sounds like a classy guy.

Rep. Geoff Simpson arrested on domestic violence charge
http://horsesass.org/?p=4773

Just goes to show you that American’s frustration with Congress and its heavy Democrat majority is justly warranted. The next election cycle can’t come soon enough.


You sure are on a roll, you doing almost nothing but smear and lie lately. The charges were dropped. You are 100% wrong to call him a wife-beating politician.
Quote:
Domestic violence charges against legislator dropped

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20080601/NEWS03/147588895

Oh, please list the "incorrect information and accusations". I need the laugh.
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:

You sure are on a roll, you doing almost nothing but smear and lie lately. The charges were dropped. You are 100% wrong to call him a wife-beating politician.

Actually, I called him a wife-beating progressive politician. Same difference. Ok, the charges were dropped after he was arrested for domestic violence against his ex-wife. I'm sure it was case of mistaken identity or something.

handfleisch wrote:
Oh, please list the "incorrect information and accusations". I need the laugh.


You can start with his accusation that the guy who flew his plane into the building was a tea party member. Do you have proof Joe Stack was a member of any tea party organization?

Quote:
Dear Jim -

I don't think it's patriotic to fly airplanes into buildings as one of your tea party members recently did.
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:

You sure are on a roll, you doing almost nothing but smear and lie lately. The charges were dropped. You are 100% wrong to call him a wife-beating politician.

Actually, I called him a wife-beating progressive politician. Same difference. Ok, the charges were dropped after he was arrested for domestic violence against his ex-wife. I'm sure it was case of mistaken identity or something.

handfleisch wrote:
Oh, please list the "incorrect information and accusations". I need the laugh.


You can start with his accusation that the guy who flew his plane into the building was a tea party member. Do you have proof Joe Stack was a member of any tea party organization?

Quote:
Dear Jim -

I don't think it's patriotic to fly airplanes into buildings as one of your tea party members recently did.


Shows your attitude towards democracy. There wasn't enough evidence to even start a trial. In democracies with a functioning legal system, we call that not guilty, not charged, vindicated, not even worth mentioning. It really shows low character to imply he's guilty of a serious crime for political purposes. (It's also a simplistic ad hominen logical fallacy -- attacking him personally instead of his points, as if it did have anything to do with his argument). But truth, facts and jury trials don't much matter to you when you want to smear somebody, do they? You're a very good right winger.

C'mon, "full of incorrect information and accusations" is what you said. Full. Whaddya got?
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:

Actually, I called him a wife-beating progressive politician. Same difference. Ok, the charges were dropped after he was arrested for domestic violence against his ex-wife. I'm sure it was case of mistaken identity or something.

handfleisch wrote:
Oh, please list the "incorrect information and accusations". I need the laugh.


You can start with his accusation that the guy who flew his plane into the building was a tea party member. Do you have proof Joe Stack was a member of any tea party organization?

Quote:
Dear Jim -

I don't think it's patriotic to fly airplanes into buildings as one of your tea party members recently did.


Shows your attitude towards democracy. There wasn't enough evidence to even start a trial. In democracies with a functioning legal system, we call that not guilty, not charged, vindicated, not even worth mentioning. It really shows low character to imply he's guilty of a serious crime for political purposes. (It's also a simplistic ad hominen logical fallacy -- attacking him personally instead of his points, as if it did have anything to do with his argument). But truth, facts and jury trials don't much matter to you when you want to smear somebody, do they? You're a very good right winger.

C'mon, "full of incorrect information and accusations" is what you said. Full. Whaddya got?


I don’t recall making a legal determination. Did I say he was convicted? You propped up this guys as the newest poster child of the progressive movement, and now you’re PO’d that it has been shown that he was arrested for domestic violence. And you call that “not worth mentioning?” If you want to argue that it was some type of injustice and he was falsely accused (you seem to imply for “political purposes”), that’s your right. But the fact stands that this guy was arrested. Why wasn’t he fully prosecuted? I don’t know and could only speculate. Maybe his wife refused to testify to save him further embarrassment. Maybe the DA was a political friend. Maybe the cop who arrested him screwed up evidence or a report. Maybe it was the third Friday of the month. You get my point; it would only be speculation. If your argument is that he never beat his wife nor was arrested, the report of the cop and the arrest record would probably contradict that. If you want to argue that he wasn’t fully prosecuted, that seems to also be true.

You still haven’t answered any question. Do you have proof Joe Stack was a member of any tea party organization? That is the accusation made in the opening line of the nasty-gram your progressive politician makes. So back it up.
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:

Shows your attitude towards democracy. There wasn't enough evidence to even start a trial. In democracies with a functioning legal system, we call that not guilty, not charged, vindicated, not even worth mentioning. It really shows low character to imply he's guilty of a serious crime for political purposes. (It's also a simplistic ad hominen logical fallacy -- attacking him personally instead of his points, as if it did have anything to do with his argument). But truth, facts and jury trials don't much matter to you when you want to smear somebody, do they? You're a very good right winger.

C'mon, "full of incorrect information and accusations" is what you said. Full. Whaddya got?


I don’t recall making a legal determination. Did I say he was convicted? You propped up this guys as the newest poster child of the progressive movement, and now you’re PO’d that it has been shown that he was arrested for domestic violence. And you call that “not worth mentioning?” If you want to argue that it was some type of injustice and he was falsely accused (you seem to imply for “political purposes”), that’s your right. But the fact stands that this guy was arrested. Why wasn’t he fully prosecuted? I don’t know and could only speculate. Maybe his wife refused to testify to save him further embarrassment. Maybe the DA was a political friend. Maybe the cop who arrested him screwed up evidence or a report. Maybe it was the third Friday of the month. You get my point; it would only be speculation. If your argument is that he never beat his wife nor was arrested, the report of the cop and the arrest record would probably contradict that. If you want to argue that he wasn’t fully prosecuted, that seems to also be true.

You still haven’t answered any question. Do you have proof Joe Stack was a member of any tea party organization? That is the accusation made in the opening line of the nasty-gram your progressive politician makes. So back it up.[/quote]

You called him a wife-beating politician. You don't seem to understand the basic premise of our democratic legal system, that being arrested does not mean you are guilty. And you called him that to discredit him because you can't answer his argument. That's called a smear.

About the Tea Party reference, how about finding it yourself, unless you prefer to remain misinformed by right wing lies pushed by the Free Republic and other such lying hate sites. It's easy as pie to find the politicians answer to that one; go fetch. And then start listing the "full of incorrect information and accusations" you claimed. At least it might delay your next right wing smear, lie or disinformation.
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:

I don’t recall making a legal determination. Did I say he was convicted? You propped up this guys as the newest poster child of the progressive movement, and now you’re PO’d that it has been shown that he was arrested for domestic violence. And you call that “not worth mentioning?” If you want to argue that it was some type of injustice and he was falsely accused (you seem to imply for “political purposes”), that’s your right. But the fact stands that this guy was arrested. Why wasn’t he fully prosecuted? I don’t know and could only speculate. Maybe his wife refused to testify to save him further embarrassment. Maybe the DA was a political friend. Maybe the cop who arrested him screwed up evidence or a report. Maybe it was the third Friday of the month. You get my point; it would only be speculation. If your argument is that he never beat his wife nor was arrested, the report of the cop and the arrest record would probably contradict that. If you want to argue that he wasn’t fully prosecuted, that seems to also be true.

You still haven’t answered any question. Do you have proof Joe Stack was a member of any tea party organization? That is the accusation made in the opening line of the nasty-gram your progressive politician makes. So back it up.

Come off it. You called him a wife-beating politician. You don't seem to understand the basic premise of our democratic legal system, that being arrested does not mean you are guilty. And you called him that to discredit him because you can't answer his argument. That's called a smear, a logical fallacy besides a crappy thing to do.

About the Tea Party reference, how about finding it yourself, unless you prefer to remain misinformed by right wing lies pushed by the Free Republic and other such lying hate sites. It's easy as pie to find the politician's answer to that one, google exists; go fetch and tell us your great right wing wisdom response. And then start listing the "full of incorrect information and accusations" you claimed. At least it might delay your next right wing smear, lie or disinformation.
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
You called him a wife-beating politician. You don't seem to understand the basic premise of our democratic legal system, that being arrested does not mean you are guilty. And you called him that to discredit him because you can't answer his argument. That's called a smear.

Actually, I called him a “wife-beating progressive politician.” And I understand the legal system just fine. You’re right that the fact that he was arrested for domestic violence doesn’t mean he will be legally convicted of the criminal offense, but doesn’t mean that the arresting officer didn’t have cause to arrest him for it. In many states here in the US responding officers are mandated by law to arrest the offending party if there is certain evidence of abuse (marks, bruises, etc.). Their hands are tied as far as making a judgment call because in the past officers using their own judgment have decided to not arrest the offending party, thinking that an arrest ‘would make things worse.’ But in actuality usually it only perpetuated the abuse. Like I said, I don’t know why your progressive poster boy wasn’t full prosecuted, and I could only speculate.


handfleisch wrote:
About the Tea Party reference, how about finding it yourself, unless you prefer to remain misinformed by right wing lies pushed by the Free Republic and other such lying hate sites. It's easy as pie to find the politicians answer to that one; go fetch. And then start listing the "full of incorrect information and accusations" you claimed. At least it might delay your next right wing smear, lie or disinformation.

So now you want others to somehow track down the smears and lies you progressives/liberals lodge? And if they are unable to find this magical evidence that supposedly exists, that means everyone is “misinformed by right wing lies”? Riiiiiiiight.
You can’t get back up the first sentence of the letter where your poster boy makes the attack that “it's patriotic to fly airplanes into buildings as one of your tea party members recently did.” I’m just asking you to provide proof for the claim that a tea party member flew the plane into the building, or at least have the balls to admit that such a link doesn’t exist.
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
You called him a wife-beating politician. You don't seem to understand the basic premise of our democratic legal system, that being arrested does not mean you are guilty. And you called him that to discredit him because you can't answer his argument. That's called a smear.

Actually, I called him a “wife-beating progressive politician.” And I understand the legal system just fine. You’re right that the fact that he was arrested for domestic violence doesn’t mean he will be legally convicted of the criminal offense, but doesn’t mean that the arresting officer didn’t have cause to arrest him for it. In many states here in the US responding officers are mandated by law to arrest the offending party if there is certain evidence of abuse (marks, bruises, etc.). Their hands are tied as far as making a judgment call because in the past officers using their own judgment have decided to not arrest the offending party, thinking that an arrest ‘would make things worse.’ But in actuality usually it only perpetuated the abuse. Like I said, I don’t know why your progressive poster boy wasn’t full prosecuted, and I could only speculate.


handfleisch wrote:
About the Tea Party reference, how about finding it yourself, unless you prefer to remain misinformed by right wing lies pushed by the Free Republic and other such lying hate sites. It's easy as pie to find the politicians answer to that one; go fetch. And then start listing the "full of incorrect information and accusations" you claimed. At least it might delay your next right wing smear, lie or disinformation.

So now you want others to somehow track down the smears and lies you progressives/liberals lodge? And if they are unable to find this magical evidence that supposedly exists, that means everyone is “misinformed by right wing lies”? Riiiiiiiight.
You can’t get back up the first sentence of the letter where your poster boy makes the attack that “it's patriotic to fly airplanes into buildings as one of your tea party members recently did.” I’m just asking you to provide proof for the claim that a tea party member flew the plane into the building, or at least have the balls to admit that such a link doesn’t exist.


Balls? Is this threatening to your manhood or something? Maybe you should quit smearing people, constantly, using lies, and making claims you can't support and then running away when challenged.

Your questions answered here in full back and forth between the pol and the Drudge-like website here: http://www.orbusmax.com/02232010GSimp.html
"To connect the actions of the kamikaze, anti-government pilot and the tea partiers takes little stretch of the imagination"

Tea Party supports Joe Stack
http://twitter.com/TPPatriots/statuses/9351363311 "God bless Joe Stack an american hero"

Argument:
Suicide Pilot Joe Stack Sounds Like Tea Partier to Me
http://www.newser.com/story/81293/suicide-pilot-joe-stack-sounds-like-tea-partier-to-me.html

"Joe Stack was a terrorist. Period. Yet some mainstream Republicans and tea partyers empathize with him."
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2010/0223/Joe-Stack-was-a-terrorist-Do-Republicans-like-Scott-Brown-and-the-tea-party-get-that

Now, please bring on your list of how the piece was "full of incorrect information and accusations", as you have charged. Unless you want that put into the pile of your other baseless allegations, lies, smears and fantasy-based theories.
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
You called him a wife-beating politician. You don't seem to understand the basic premise of our democratic legal system, that being arrested does not mean you are guilty. And you called him that to discredit him because you can't answer his argument. That's called a smear.

Actually, I called him a “wife-beating progressive politician.” And I understand the legal system just fine. You’re right that the fact that he was arrested for domestic violence doesn’t mean he will be legally convicted of the criminal offense, but doesn’t mean that the arresting officer didn’t have cause to arrest him for it. In many states here in the US responding officers are mandated by law to arrest the offending party if there is certain evidence of abuse (marks, bruises, etc.). Their hands are tied as far as making a judgment call because in the past officers using their own judgment have decided to not arrest the offending party, thinking that an arrest ‘would make things worse.’ But in actuality usually it only perpetuated the abuse. Like I said, I don’t know why your progressive poster boy wasn’t full prosecuted, and I could only speculate.


handfleisch wrote:
About the Tea Party reference, how about finding it yourself, unless you prefer to remain misinformed by right wing lies pushed by the Free Republic and other such lying hate sites. It's easy as pie to find the politicians answer to that one; go fetch. And then start listing the "full of incorrect information and accusations" you claimed. At least it might delay your next right wing smear, lie or disinformation.

So now you want others to somehow track down the smears and lies you progressives/liberals lodge? And if they are unable to find this magical evidence that supposedly exists, that means everyone is “misinformed by right wing lies”? Riiiiiiiight.
You can’t get back up the first sentence of the letter where your poster boy makes the attack that “it's patriotic to fly airplanes into buildings as one of your tea party members recently did.” I’m just asking you to provide proof for the claim that a tea party member flew the plane into the building, or at least have the balls to admit that such a link doesn’t exist.


Balls? Is this threatening to your manhood or something? Maybe you should quit smearing people, constantly, using lies, and making claims you can't support and then running away when challenged.

Your questions answered here in full back and forth between the pol and the Drudge-like website here: http://www.orbusmax.com/02232010GSimp.html
"To connect the actions of the kamikaze, anti-government pilot and the tea partiers takes little stretch of the imagination"

Tea Party supports Joe Stack
http://twitter.com/TPPatriots/statuses/9351363311 "God bless Joe Stack an american hero"

Argument:
Suicide Pilot Joe Stack Sounds Like Tea Partier to Me
http://www.newser.com/story/81293/suicide-pilot-joe-stack-sounds-like-tea-partier-to-me.html

"Joe Stack was a terrorist. Period. Yet some mainstream Republicans and tea partyers empathize with him."
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2010/0223/Joe-Stack-was-a-terrorist-Do-Republicans-like-Scott-Brown-and-the-tea-party-get-that

Now, please bring on your list of how the piece was "full of incorrect information and accusations", as you have charged. Unless you want that put into the pile of your other baseless allegations, lies, smears and fantasy-based theories.


That's the best you can do? Tweets and liberals wishing that he wasn't one of them or held the same beliefs that they do? Where is this supposed 'proof' that Joe Stack was a member of the Tea Party? That is the opening line of the letter you posted from your progressive poster boy. If your criteria for ‘proof’ is that someone supports him after the fact, here are some examples of hardcore liberals expressing similar sentiments on the very progressive Democratic Underground site:

Quote:
The corporations are committing terrorism on the American worker on a daily basis.

Just like Stack's manifesto says, people are dying directly because of corporate greed.
The only problem with what Stack did was he picked the wrong target. Should have gone for one of the big bankers that are running the show. A local IRS office just houses a bunch of peons. That and his manifesto was rambling and not very well written.

When do you say enough is enough and the tree of liberty must periodically be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants?



Quote:
If an agency or corporation makes someone's life not worth living what do they expect in return?

and the insurance industry is killing people directly

they are murdering the workers, why shouldn't the workers hit back?


Quote:
I already stated that a couple posts up thread

Stacks only mistake was wrong choice of target

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x519215


Quote:
If so, he's one of those Bush-hating, anti-capitalist teabaggers Of a sort I'm unfamiliar with.


Quote:
Not to defend the teabaggers or Repubes or Libertarians or whoever...but his ramblings sound just as left wing as they do right wing. Sounds like he was manic depressive or something. He's all over the place.


Quote:
He spent much of his rant about the lack of Health Care
He talked about the government bailing out Wall Street. Republicans are on Wall Street's side, Republicans are against Health Care. Those are two reasons I think he was every bit as much Liberal as he was Conservative.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7740602



Even these ‘progressives’ can understand that Joe Stack held many of their same beliefs and they even seem to condone what he did as they say his only mistake was a wrong target. You forwarded the allegation that he was a Tea Party member, so please provide the proof.

I think this sums up your position nicely:

liljp617
Quality thread.
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
You called him a wife-beating politician. You don't seem to understand the basic premise of our democratic legal system, that being arrested does not mean you are guilty. And you called him that to discredit him because you can't answer his argument. That's called a smear.

Actually, I called him a “wife-beating progressive politician.” And I understand the legal system just fine. You’re right that the fact that he was arrested for domestic violence doesn’t mean he will be legally convicted of the criminal offense, but doesn’t mean that the arresting officer didn’t have cause to arrest him for it. In many states here in the US responding officers are mandated by law to arrest the offending party if there is certain evidence of abuse (marks, bruises, etc.). Their hands are tied as far as making a judgment call because in the past officers using their own judgment have decided to not arrest the offending party, thinking that an arrest ‘would make things worse.’ But in actuality usually it only perpetuated the abuse. Like I said, I don’t know why your progressive poster boy wasn’t full prosecuted, and I could only speculate.


handfleisch wrote:
About the Tea Party reference, how about finding it yourself, unless you prefer to remain misinformed by right wing lies pushed by the Free Republic and other such lying hate sites. It's easy as pie to find the politicians answer to that one; go fetch. And then start listing the "full of incorrect information and accusations" you claimed. At least it might delay your next right wing smear, lie or disinformation.

So now you want others to somehow track down the smears and lies you progressives/liberals lodge? And if they are unable to find this magical evidence that supposedly exists, that means everyone is “misinformed by right wing lies”? Riiiiiiiight.
You can’t get back up the first sentence of the letter where your poster boy makes the attack that “it's patriotic to fly airplanes into buildings as one of your tea party members recently did.” I’m just asking you to provide proof for the claim that a tea party member flew the plane into the building, or at least have the balls to admit that such a link doesn’t exist.


Balls? Is this threatening to your manhood or something? Maybe you should quit smearing people, constantly, using lies, and making claims you can't support and then running away when challenged.

Your questions answered here in full back and forth between the pol and the Drudge-like website here: http://www.orbusmax.com/02232010GSimp.html
"To connect the actions of the kamikaze, anti-government pilot and the tea partiers takes little stretch of the imagination"

Tea Party supports Joe Stack
http://twitter.com/TPPatriots/statuses/9351363311 "God bless Joe Stack an american hero"

Argument:
Suicide Pilot Joe Stack Sounds Like Tea Partier to Me
http://www.newser.com/story/81293/suicide-pilot-joe-stack-sounds-like-tea-partier-to-me.html

"Joe Stack was a terrorist. Period. Yet some mainstream Republicans and tea partyers empathize with him."
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2010/0223/Joe-Stack-was-a-terrorist-Do-Republicans-like-Scott-Brown-and-the-tea-party-get-that

Now, please bring on your list of how the piece was "full of incorrect information and accusations", as you have charged. Unless you want that put into the pile of your other baseless allegations, lies, smears and fantasy-based theories.


That's the best you can do? Tweets and liberals wishing that he wasn't one of them or held the same beliefs that they do? Where is this supposed 'proof' that Joe Stack was a member of the Tea Party? That is the opening line of the letter you posted from your progressive poster boy. If your criteria for ‘proof’ is that someone supports him after the fact, here are some examples of hardcore liberals expressing similar sentiments on the very progressive Democratic Underground site:


I forwarded an interesting exchange where a politician slammed a wingnut. The pol answered the question that mistaking the attacker of the IRS buildig for a teabagger took no stretch of the imagination. Plenty of other people saw the same thing. (You, of course, called the attacker "liberal" and used it to bash Obama, much more ridiculous than supposing he was a Tea Bagger.)

You claimed it was "full of incorrect information and accusations". Where are they? Or is this just another of your record number of unsupportable statements lately (including the lying smear that this politician is a wife beater)?
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
I forwarded an interesting exchange where a politician slammed a wingnut. The pol answered the question that mistaking the attacker of the IRS buildig for a teabagger took no stretch of the imagination. Plenty of other people saw the same thing. (You, of course, called the attacker "liberal" and used it to bash Obama, much more ridiculous than supposing he was a Tea Bagger.)

You claimed it was "full of incorrect information and accusations". Where are they? Or is this just another of your record number of unsupportable statements lately (including the lying smear that this politician is a wife beater)?


You brought up Obama. You were also the one who forwarded the claim that Joe Stack was a Tea Party member. And the letter from your progressive politician who was arrested for beating his wife (is that more to your liking?) didn't make a case "that mistaking the attacker of the IRS buildig for a teabagger took no stretch of the imagination", but actually claimed that Joe Stack was a Tea Party member. Obviously he lied. You can gripe all you want about it, but at the end of the day you are unable to provide one iota of proof that that central 'incorrect information and accusation' is even close to true.
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
I forwarded an interesting exchange where a politician slammed a wingnut. The pol answered the question that mistaking the attacker of the IRS buildig for a teabagger took no stretch of the imagination. Plenty of other people saw the same thing. (You, of course, called the attacker "liberal" and used it to bash Obama, much more ridiculous than supposing he was a Tea Bagger.)

You claimed it was "full of incorrect information and accusations". Where are they? Or is this just another of your record number of unsupportable statements lately (including the lying smear that this politician is a wife beater)?


You brought up Obama. You were also the one who forwarded the claim that Joe Stack was a Tea Party member. And the letter from your progressive politician who was arrested for beating his wife (is that more to your liking?) didn't make a case "that mistaking the attacker of the IRS buildig for a teabagger took no stretch of the imagination", but actually claimed that Joe Stack was a Tea Party member. Obviously he lied. You can gripe all you want about it, but at the end of the day you are unable to provide one iota of proof that that central 'incorrect information and accusation' is even close to true.


Um. Let me take you thru it step by step.
I forward an exchange between pol and wingnut.
You ask for verification of one part while saying the whole thing is false and smearing the pol.
I forward the pol's reply to that same question of verification, which was pretty reasonable by most people's standards, which I summarized as 'mistaking the attacker of the IRS building for a teabagger took no stretch of the imagination".

Now you are backing away from your statement that the piece was "full of incorrect information and accusations", and trying to say you were only talking about that one part, right? Like your whole history of totally changing what you supposedly meant, or redefining words as you want, when challenged. Your credibility is approaching zero, which is perfect for a right winger in 2010. Here's a club for you to join http://www.43alumni.com/
jmi256
It looks like the Democrats’ poster boy is back in the news for assaulting his ex-wife again: this time at a hospital with his sick daughter in the room recovering from surgery. Real classy guy. Puts his nasty letter to one of his constituents in context doesn’t it?

Quote:
State Rep. Geoff Simpson charged with gross misdemeanor assault by Seattle City Attorney

The Seattle City Attorney's office filed charges against state Rep. Geoff Simpson, D-Covington, today, July 8, for gross misdemeanor assault in connection with a domestic violence incident that occurred May 22 at Seattle Children's Hospital.

A preliminary hearing has been scheduled for 2:30 p.m. Monday, July 26.

Simpson represents the 47th Legislative District in the state House of Representatives.

A gross misdemeanor is punishable by 365 days in jail and a $5,000 fine according to spokesperson Kimberly Mills for the city attorney's office .

The charge filed by the prosecutor involves an alleged domestic violence incident on May 22 at Children's where Simpson’s ex-wife attempted to keep him out of a room where his 12-year-old daughter was in the hospital recovering from surgery.

The Seattle Police Department report completed May 22 stated his daughter had asked him not to visit her while she was in the hospital.

According to the police report, Simpson pushed his ex-wife out of the room and used the door to “force her all the way out.”

According to his ex-wife's statement in the police report, Simpson "barricaded the door and shut the blinds."

The police report stated the security officer asked for his “ID/Lanyard.” According to the report Simpson said the hospital had no right to keep him from seeing his daughter and he left with the lanyard.

Seattle police were called and an officer spoke to witnesses and wrote the report.

According to the police report a social worker with Children’s Hospital witnessed the scene and her description of the incident matched what the ex-wife told the officer.

The social worker told the officer she saw Simpson "barrel" into the room, push his wife out and shut the door. According to the social worker's statement in the police report Simpson closed the blinds and "barricaded himself inside using his body." The social worker's statement noted he was yelling inside the room and would not open the door.

The police report was forwarded to the Seattle City Attorney's office and after review the city attorney filed the gross misdemeanor assault charge today.

Simpson’s wife filed for a temporary order for protection against him May 27. The order was reissued June 10 and extended through July 29.

Simpson said when reached by phone it was his court appointed day to see his daughter.

"On May 22 I went because it was my time to be with my daughter," Simpson said when reached by phone.

Source = http://www.seattlepi.com/sound/423156_sound98071389.html
Bikerman
I think some heat needs to be taken out of this thread.
I've scanned through the postings and this is my impression of things - agree or not, I think it is pretty balanced.
1) I don't think Stack was a tea-party member. Whilst some of his writings do seem along the basic agenda lines of the tea-party (as I understand them) others are definitely not. Much is made of his reference to Marxism towards the end of his suicide note but I don't think he was a Marxist or even a socialist - the quote seems to be one he just stuck in because it fitted the overall theme. I think he was just a mixed-up person who tipped over some limit and 'blew'.
2) Geoff Simpson strikes me as a man going through a bad divorce/separation rather than some serial wife-beater. This last story seems to me to be a man completely razzed-off with his wife, thinking rightly or wrongly that she is trying to drive his daughter away from him, and angrily forcing his way past her as she tries to block entry to their daughter's room.
I don't see any intent or suggestion that he tried to hit his wife, he just seems to have roughly pushed her out of the way.
Unpleasant, yes, but nothing too different from behaviour I've seen myself from married friends when they are really mad at each other...people sometimes behave really badly when in that sort of bad marriage breakup....I don't think that can be extrapolated to some serial-wife-beating history/behaviour without more evidence - and believe me I have ZERO tolerance for men who raise their hands to their wives and/or children.

I'd say that this thread has said everything worth saying and quite a lot not worth saying and I would like to close it now if you can both agree to that.

Over to you.
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
I think some heat needs to be taken out of this thread.
I've scanned through the postings and this is my impression of things - agree or not, I think it is pretty balanced.

1) I don't think Stack was a tea-party member. Whilst some of his writings do seem along the basic agenda lines of the tea-party (as I understand them) others are definitely not. Much is made of his reference to Marxism towards the end of his suicide note but I don't think he was a Marxist or even a socialist - the quote seems to be one he just stuck in because it fitted the overall theme. I think he was just a mixed-up person who tipped over some limit and 'blew'.

2) Geoff Simpson strikes me as a man going through a bad divorce/separation rather than some serial wife-beater. This last story seems to me to be a man completely razzed-off with his wife, thinking rightly or wrongly that she is trying to drive his daughter away from him, and angrily forcing his way past her as she tries to block entry to their daughter's room.
I don't see any intent or suggestion that he tried to hit his wife, he just seems to have roughly pushed her out of the way.
Unpleasant, yes, but nothing too different from behaviour I've seen myself from married friends when they are really mad at each other...people sometimes behave really badly when in that sort of bad marriage breakup....I don't think that can be extrapolated to some serial-wife-beating history/behaviour without more evidence - and believe me I have ZERO tolerance for men who raise their hands to their wives and/or children.

I'd say that this thread has said everything worth saying and quite a lot not worth saying and I would like to close it now if you can both agree to that.

Over to you.


That’s fine with me. I was just making the point that if someone is going to try to elevate another person as some type of champion (especially if the source of that is his attack on someone), he should first find out what kind of person he is and be prepared to defend the position. Especially when the attack contains unproven and/or false allegations. About your specific points:

1. I agree. I haven’t seen any evidence at all to support the claim that he was a member of any Tea Party organization, and many of his rants in his suicide note seem to support policies from the Democrats. Either way, he was a sick person who needed help, and we can leave it at that.

2. I’m sympathetic, but I can’t really agree. If he has been in trouble twice already for assaulting his ex-wife, I would be willing to bet there have been other assaults that have either not been reported or swept under the rug. He clearly has a history of abuse, and will continue to be a danger to those around him until he gets himself in order.

As far as closing the post, I think that’s fine. I just saw this other story about Simpson assaulting his ex-wife again and thought it would appropriate to follow up within the thread. But to be fair I think Handfleisch should be given a chance to respond and make any points he wants before you close it. I’ve had my say and it seem like the right thing is to let him have the last word if he wishes before you close it. After that, it’s fine with me if you do.
Bikerman
Yes, I indended to wait until you both had chance to reply before doing anything further.

I think it is very dangerous to extrapolate from scant data. As I understand it the first case was dropped for whatever reason. You may presume that his wife forgave him, but I could equally well suggest that she made a false or exaggerated report to the police which on investigation they could neither substantiate nor prosecute. The second report is, as I said, apparently for pushing his wife out of the way to get to his daughter. That is all the data there is and to presume that this makes him a serial wife-beater is simply not warranted by the evidence.
If that is your belief then of course you are entitled to it, but it is a pretty heavy label to saddle someone with on very sketchy data and a lot of presumption.

Before the first case was dropped the following reports appeared and seem to me to be credible:
Quote:
Simpson said "As a state legislator, I remain strongly in support of erring on the side of protecting potential victims with our laws and their enforcement – even when, in situations like mine, it can result in unwarranted charges. I am confident that once the facts come to light I will be exonerated."
The details are sketchy, and I’m told neither Simpson or his ex-wife are talking publicly on the advice of their lawyers, but as I understand it, the arrest came after police were called to the ex-wife’s house while the two were having an argument. No actual physical violence was alleged or observed, but state law apparently provides police officers little discretion under these circumstances, even when all parties involved do not want the arrest to happen.

http://horsesass.org/?p=4773
As I read it he was originally charged with 4th degree assault - which is the most minor possible charge and means that there cannot have been any marks, bruises or other signs of violence (that would merit 3rd or 2nd degree at least). It sounds perfectly consistent with the reporters source above - he was arrested on a holding charge and the charges were later dropped.
Still sounds depressingly like many incidents I've witnessed between friends going through a bad divorce to me....

Anyway, the intention was not to ignite the thread again, rather the opposite, so we'll agree to differ on what happened since neither of us can know with any degree of certainty.....
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
Anyway, the intention was not to ignite the thread again, rather the opposite, so we'll agree to differ on what happened since neither of us can know with any degree of certainty.....

I thought we were done until handfleisch made his final comments, but if you want to carry water for him in the meantime, I’m more than willing to keep the debate going. =)

What we do know for certainty is that this person who the Democrats seem to have made their poster boy has a history of domestic violence with two arrests. How many arrests make someone a serial wife beater? Is it two? Or three? Or more? I don’t know what your answer would be, but this guy has displayed a pattern of abuse that seems in line with someone with some real aggression/anger/violence issues. The first arrest involved no witnesses, and the case seems to have been dropped for whatever reason, which we could only speculate upon, but the second involved witnesses and will probably move forward. I haven’t seen any type of proof presented at all that the ex-wife made anything up, and the fact that there are witnesses to his second arrest for assault would seem to invalidate that defense. They seem to already be divorced, so the argument that this is somehow a result of them being in the midst of a messy divorce doesn’t make sense and also seems to attempt to excuse the assaults. I’m not saying you personally are excusing it, but the line of defense seems to argue that there are some instances, such as messy divorces, when domestic abuse are ok. I would say there aren’t, and the fact that he would attack his wife in front of his sick child just out of surgery, in a hospital, in front of a social worker and who knows who else, just goes to further underscore how sick this guy is.
Bikerman
I would absolutely not condone ANY violence under any circumstances, but I don't see pushing past someone as an assault or an attack - I see it as rude, potentially actionable and undesirable, but assault? No. He was trying to get past her, not hit her, and she was trying to stop him. I don't - absolutely don't - say that a messy divorce justifies violence, I merely observe that people going through such a divorce are quite likely to behave like stupid children - both sexes - and escalate normal situations into silly confrontations.
Here is the UK they might conceivably try for a common-assault conviction but I doubt it would ever get to court since proving intent to harm would be difficult if not impossible.
Quote:
In Criminal Law an assault is defined as an attempt to commit battery, requiring the specific intent to cause physical injury


Anyway, if you want to have the last word then go ahead and I will wait for hanbdfleisch before closing.
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
I would absolutely not condone ANY violence under any circumstances, but I don't see pushing past someone as an assault or an attack - I see it as rude, potentially actionable and undesirable, but assault? No.

I’m not saying you condone the assault. But domestic violence is much more than simply being rude or undesirable. And the fact remains that the state has determined that his actions do constitute assault have has charged him accordingly. Whether he is found guilty and sentence is up to a judge (and a jury if there is a jury trial). If I had to guess, I would bet that he ends up settling for a lesser charge and sentence. He faces up to a year in jail and a sizable fine for his actions, so I doubt any of it is taken lightly.
handfleisch
I pass. I'm done with trying to represent basic rationality to a half dozen incorrigible members of the lunatic fringe in this forum. I'm volunteering as much of my time as possible this election to keep the Paladinos, Angles, O'Donnells, Brewers and other unstable Tea Party shills out of politics (and the Republican Party is now aiding and abetting these extremists like never before).
Quote:
The pressing historical question is how extremist ideas held at bay for decades inside the Republican Party have exploded anew—and why, this time, Party leaders have done virtually nothing to challenge those ideas, and a great deal to abet them.

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/18/101018fa_fact_wilentz#ixzz12S0fiXCX

Worse, the activist Supreme Court has passed a decision allowing unlimited, secret funding for campaign advertisements by corporations and mega-rich individuals in elections, so now the radio and TV are filled with attack ads against progressive candidates. (The group "Concerned Taxpayers of America" who ran attack ads against one progressive Democrat, Rep. DeFazio, turned out to be just two rich guys trying to protect their hedge-fund business.) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2010/10/13/ST2010101306021.html
Quote:
Concerned Taxpayers of America supported by only two donors


The USA is really looking at a dystopian future we don't keep pushing back the insane right wing. We've got private fire departments letting houses burn down when homeowners don't pay fees. Is this the right wing/ libertarian, privatized-everything, no-taxes-for-anything deregulated-everything future of the USA?
Quote:
Tennessee Firefighters Watch House Burn Down; Owners Didn’t Pay Subscription Fee

http://www.indyposted.com/114773/tennessee-firefighters-watch-house-burn-down-owners-didnt-pay-subscription-fee/

In that context, wasting time here is just wrong.

-----------------------------

The Brewster files: watch these two bizarre clips from the debate between the candidates for Arizona governor. The current Governor behind the hateful, lying anti-immigration hoopla, Jan Brewer, really appears dishonest and like she's missing more than a few marbles.
Opening statement: Is she on drugs?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUPKKbmWMZ8
Goddard Vs. Brewer; Abrupt End to Gubernatorial Debate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ray_1ROtYdI



THAT'S ME IN THE BACK
Bikerman
OK...I'll have to allow a reply to this before I lock this thread.
Good luck with your campaigning - you are quite correct, there is no substitute for grass-roots involvement in campaigns = whatever side you support.
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
OK...I'll have to allow a reply to this before I lock this thread.
Good luck with your campaigning - you are quite correct, there is no substitute for grass-roots involvement in campaigns = whatever side you support.


Hmmmm.... And I thought he was campaigning all this time. Either way, good luck from me too handfleisch.

(BTW, how is handfleisch’s last post remotely on topic? 90% of it is new allegations that have nothing to do with the thread and typical cheerleading for failure we’ve seen infesting just about every other post.)
------------------------------------------------
edit: I was wondering where that image of you "in the back" was from, and apparently it's from 2008. It seems appropriate that you would lie and try to pass off an old image when Obama actually had some popularity as something recent.

The image:
http://blogs.chron.com/texaspolitics/archives/obama1.jpg

You can find the link to the image on the past page here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=tnuVyTRlYMIC&pg=PA36&lpg=PA36&dq=http://blogs.chron.com/texaspolitics/archives/obama1.jpg&source=bl&ots=w0WvRNdX1l&sig=nz5AwxrUSSTlQbLBmS3JGcQGmAs&hl=en&ei=Dhe-TMmKEMP7lwfQvczmBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBkQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q&f=false
Bikerman
Thread locked by agreement.
Bikerman - Mod.
Related topics
Ohio State vs Michigan game
What ideology do you follow?
Student and Teacher Conversation!!
BCS Title Game: OHIO STATE vs. FLORIDA
A 10-Year Old Takes Action for Cleaner Air in Cars
Sterilize the poor?
Teabaggers/townhall rightwingers: insane or just stupid?
Obama's Unemployment Numbers Keep Going Up
Justice Thomas' wife's tea bagger group is breaking law
Black Tea Party Protesters
Obama to Gulf relief efforts: Stop!
Wingnut Deputy Att. General fired for anti-protester comment
Tea Party = Occupy??
Coming out and the people that come with it
This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.