Seattle Police Chief Says Concussion Made Officer Stomp Handcuffed Man’s Head

Mikael Thalen
by
June 4th, 2014
Updated 06/05/2014 at 4:00 am

A Seattle police officer who stomped on a handcuffed man’s head in 2010 was cleared of wrongdoing this week after Interim Seattle Police Chief Harry Bailey agreed that a concussion made him do it.

According to reports, Seattle police officer Garth Haynes, who was off-duty and out of uniform at the time, began fighting several men who confronted him as he violently restrained a woman outside a bar.

Haynes was charged with fourth-degree assault for stomping the man’s head after police arrived but was later found innocent when he told jurors that he felt “dazed” during the incident. Haynes also told the jury that he believed the woman on scene had stolen his coat and that he never intended to stomp on anyone.

Although acquitted of assault in 2012, Haynes received a 10-day suspension from his department for excessive force, which was immediately appealed by The Seattle Police Officers Guild.

After reviewing medical records from the incident, a doctor hired by city attorneys stated that Haynes had received a “low-level concussion” that likely made him not understand his own actions.

“It is possible that the concussion could account for Officer Haynes’ behavior in the immediate aftermath of the incident,” the doctor’s report said.

With this “evidence,” the city was able to convince Interim Police Chief Bailey to reverse the suspension and remove the excessive force charge from Haynes’ record. City attorneys even accused the three men from the 2010 incident of racism in the appeal, alleging that they approached Haynes because he was black, not because he was grabbing a woman.

“I’m glad to see that the city attorney’s office had an ah-ha moment and realized, and in fact agreed with, what we’ve said all along, that Officer Haynes was the victim of a racially motivated beatdown,” Seattle Police Officers Guild President Ron Smith said.

According to city spokeswoman Kimberly Mills, first responders never found evidence that Haynes had received a concussion to begin with.

“There was no diagnosis of a concussion when Officer Haynes was evaluated by medical personnel following the incident,” Mills said.

Despite Mill’s evidence, Seattle Mayor Ed Murray announced during a Monday press conference that he would not challenge the city’s decision, but would work to fix police corruption issues.

“We have a complaint process, an appeals process, and a punishment process that is broken,” Murray said.

Tim Leary, a lawyer who previously represented the man who was stomped on, was seemingly shocked at the city’s decision.

“I think there are significant questions where an officer is claiming a concussion caused him to be confused and lack the ability to control his actions when he’s stomping on the head of a hand-cuffed suspect he’s upset with,” Leary said.

Chief Bailey’s decision comes only days after more than 125 Seattle officers filed a private lawsuit against city officials and the U.S. Justice Department for attempting to stop them from regularly using violence.

Share Button

Tags: , ,

Category: Injustice, US

Mikael Thalen

About the Author ()

Mikael is the lead features writer at Storyleak.com. His articles have been featured on sites such as the Drudge Report, Infowars and Natural News. During his time at Examiner.com, he was frequently ranked the number one political writer.

Comments (303)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Winchester97 says:

    Ah yes.
    The Thin Blue Line.

    They sure enough protect their own.
    I'd be curious to see what "The Seattle Police Officers Guild" had to say……..

  2. TheNewsMadd says:

    More police brutality and they keep getting away with it.

    • Roger says:

      Why? We need to get involved with local elections and fire them.

      • PoofAgain says:

        Is Seattle 'local' for you? I don't think so, but then I never look to you for honest comments. When are you going to admit you were wrong about the Santa Barbara shooter's father? He STILL hasn't ever been interviewed, and yet you continue to claim you heard him. No one else, on any other forum I've read, has made that claim….because it's not true.

        • LetsMove says:

          Hello Poof.

          I'll drop down and start a new topic……..

        • Roger says:

          His attorney (his spokesman) spoke for him.

          And I continue to mention you weren't in the car and don't know what I heard.
          When you blame aspergers syndrome for the conduct it's exactly what I said I heard. Why? Because when you stick to the truth it stands up to scrutiny even by someone as unreasonable and ill mannered as you.

  3. Granny Roberts says:

    Agreed, and they LIE. They get 4 days to get their story straight — with their union rep, their superior, fellow cops on the scene — before they have to talk to anyone. Hiring standards actually screen FOR good liars, then training hones those skills. We also screen out anyone with an iq high enough to question orders or react intelligently in crisis. We have a gang of bullies whose limbic systems run their show, our show, the world’s show — and look at the level of violence, the high rates of incarceration, the lack of ethics and accountability that we now suffer. I know it’s not enough, but please sign my petition against this madness.
    https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Police_can_b

  4. Winchester97 says:

    I urge everyone to read the link at the bottom of the article.
    Essentially, 125 of Seattle's Finest are suing, to enable them to use more force.

    They want to really stomp the shlt out of their Citizens.

  5. Mr.Lincoln says:

    The police state is the law and we need to video tape everything for own protection folks. Form cell phones and digital cameras always be prepared. CYA!

    June 2, 2014 When Drug Warriors Burn A Baby, Who's The Terrorist?
    http://reason.com/blog/2014/05/30/when-drug-warri

  6. Mr. Liberty says:

    I have had a few concussions from football. I will tell you what, when I had one I couldn't walk straight, my vision was blurry, and couldn’t focus, let alone run and possibly stomp someone’s head in…This cop must be one tuff SOB, tougher than NFL football players even. I want to shake his hand. He is a freak of nature.

    • TheNewsMadd says:

      This whole story is a cover up

      • Mr. Liberty says:

        Yup it defies science/health. I have never seen anyone become more aggressive with a concussion.

        • TheNewsMadd says:

          The whole story stinks and to think he will get away with it. This is the crap I am talking about and we as a people need to stand up for the vitcims of police and government brutality we face daily. IF we stand together we can fix this

  7. Mr.Lincoln says:

    Jun 5, 2014 Police Militarization meets Hacker Culture: Swatting

    In recent years, a small amount of hackers and gamers have been anonymously reporting fake hostage situations, shootings, and other violent crimes designed to send elite police units, like SWAT teams, to unsuspecting people at their residences.

    Swatting is a dangerous and expensive prank, which is easy to pull off. Swatters are utilizing easily accessible technology to mask or even alter the ID during calls to 911 dispatchers. With SWAT teams and paramilitary gear becoming the norm across small town America, these calls have predictably chaotic results.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ziLjOPCQwg

  8. Roger says:

    If I had a concussion and stomped on the Chief's head, would he excuse the act?

    • Winchester97 says:

      I've had several concussions.
      If I squeezed your testicles until you gasped and cried, would you excuse it?

      • Roger says:

        Not any more than I excuse this police abuse.
        And why do the trolls always derail the discussion into gutter talk?

        • Winchester97 says:

          You're calling me a Troll, boy?
          For whatever the reasons, the folks that own this Website like me posting here. To paraphrase you, "I make good and excellent comments". Further, I rarely post a comment to you. I normally ignore you, and do not get involved with the thousands of posts of your daily drama.

          As to gutter talk, that was not gutter talk. Testicles are a body part, no different than a hand, or a foot, or a leg.

          No.
          I am not going to talk dirty, and whisper in your ear, no matter how much you beg.

          • Roger says:

            You just proved my point.

          • LetsMove says:

            Roger, it must be a lonely life, going back and responding to comments that are a day old.

            You probably eat day old bread, and buy day old newspapers because they are on sale.

  9. LetsMove says:

    Here is a fact that will baffle most. PoofAgain and I, couldn't be further apart. Polar opposites. Believing strongly in different things. Yet, I respect the hell out of her, and wholeheartedly support her right to say whatever is on her mind, in whatever way she wants to say it.

  10. PoofAgain says:

    This story/excuse doesn't pass the smell test.

    • LetsMove says:

      No.
      It does not. Something smells about it.

      You probably saw what I wrote directly under here, to you. You know who I am. You invited me to the other "place", and commented this morning that we don't have much in common. We probably don't. You will recall weeks ago when we first met, I told you I felt you a worthy debate opponent. Someday we just might do that.

      What I wrote to you below?
      I invited Wee here also.
      Here is something else. It stuck in my mind when I saw it, and I saved it. Someone from a long time ago was posting to Wee.

      CowboyLogic
      60 weeks ago @ Do You Believe That? – About · 324 replies · +3 points
      I have been excellent.
      I rarely comment anywhere anymore.

      I had read that Wolverine site off and on for a couple of months. It is sad that the same handful of morons took down another one. Take this site for example. I see the young fellow was looking for answers, and asking honest questions. You appeared at the top of the thread, having a rational discussion with him. It wasn't long until your resident troll showed up right on your heels, begging for attention, begging to be the martyr. He really needs to check himself into the Nervous Hospital.

      It would probably be a rare day that you and I would agree on much, but I have always respected your opinion.

      I'd like to say that I had an epiphany and the light came on one day, but it was more like a gradual awakening. I have learned that whether Atheist or Believer, Republican or Democrat, that fundamentally, there is not that much difference between any of us. We all want a few fundamental things. Safety, security, comfort, peace of mind. Different things give each of us these things, but fundamentally, there is not that much difference, (other than those rabid ones on the extreme far left, and the extreme far right).

      What I have learned in life, is those in power must have us continually at each others throats. For as long as we are focused on that, then we cannot focus on the many numerous Hustles the are pulling on us. The Republicans and the Democrats are both independent and co-equal wings of the same bird of prey, and we are whats on the menu.

      • PoofAgain says:

        I don't disagree with what you've said. I think what comes into play is when people on either side try to force others to believe as they do. I'm an atheist, and I've never ever tried to convince someone to non-believe as I do. I try very hard to not belittle those who believe, but at a certain point I've been known to lash back…no apologies for that. I think what gets to me the most is hypocrisy, and I'll readily admit I've been guilty of it myself. But when someone comments repeatedly about their Christian belief system and then blathers on and on about how they'd love to torture/maim another human who's only been accused of a crime (prior to a trial, sometimes even prior to charges being pressed), my claws come out. I'm all for utilizing the justice system as written…and while my personal beliefs about the death penalty go against current law in most states, I still support the law of the land.
        The comment you posted from CowboyLogic is awesome. I pity those who've had the unfortunate experience of running into Mothy — myself included. I strongly take issue with those who won't admit when they're wrong and rather than man up, continue attacking those who point out his errors.
        And yes, I knew it was you! =)

        • LetsMove says:

          My beliefs tend to scare most "Fundamental" or "Evangelical" types.

          Quite simply, who am I, to deem what is right for you?
          To think that one is in a position to say what is right, or what is wrong, and who should do this, or who should do that, immediately ego moves in, and humility moves out. The premise is wrong at the start.

          If you are an Atheist, fine, that is your business.
          If I believe, then that is mine.
          What precludes us from treating each other with common courtesy, mutual respect and dignity?

          I sure hate to say this, but that idiot Roger has actually helped me. For one simple reason. He made me examine my Nuttery and made me check to folds on my Tinfoil Hat.

          The worst thing in my life anymore, would to be perceived as anything even remotely like him. I wonder sometimes, and ask myself "how many folks has he driven out of Church?" or "how many folks has he driven away from being Conservative?" All they have to do, is take one look at him and say Uh-uh, that stuff sure isn't for me. If someone found out that he posted online, and simply checked his archives, they would run for their lives away from him and anything he stood for.

          I have always believed one only has one chance to make a first impression. Further, I believe that kindness counts; for if you are kind, and you treat people kind, you will be treated in kind.

          Some folks do not get the most elementary things in life.

          They are too busy posting their voluminous posts……………..

          • Mr. Liberty says:

            Agreed. To the both of you. It is all about respect. That is how one can learn new ideas. If some idea you don't necessarily agree with is presented to you in a respectful and thoughtful way, you have the opportunity to learn. Whether that be changing your opinion or solidifying your current opinion. This site definitely needs some more respect between commenters.

          • LetsMove says:

            I wasn't a big fan of CowboyLogic. He was too coarse and abrasive for me. He saw everything clearly in black and white, good and bad, right and wrong. He even said that his mind was "laid out that way". But I sure learned volumes from him. He was like an encyclopedia. When I started following him, at one time he had over three hundred people following him. That drove his detractors insane. He could write out his opinion, and drive a topic one way or the other.

            I think what irritated me the most with him, was he was never wrong. In the several years I followed him, I think he was wrong twice, and both times, he was the first one to stand up and say "hey, I made a mistake, and this is why". He did it before anyone even called him on it. I respect that. It is too bad he died.

          • Mr. Liberty says:

            Never had the pleasure of debating/commenting with him.

          • TheNewsMadd says:

            I never really argeed with him on much but he was one of the smartest people I have ever come across on ID

          • Roger says:

            You had opposing positions on almost everything.

          • TheNewsMadd says:

            We both agreed about one thing as that was you

          • Roger says:

            Yet here I am and he's not.

            So, who gets the last word?
            His comments rose and then his participation dwindled, I am more long term instead of popularity based on my positions.

          • Roger says:

            He could be a bit rough around the edges at times, and had a sense of humor at times. He was someone that loved this country above all.

            He had a huge following on Intense debate and seemed to enjoy the attention, but in spite of that he was outspoken on his values at the core of his thinking.

          • PoofAgain says:

            It's one of the sad things about the entire gay marriage debate, IMO. I believe more people have been turned away from religion over that one issue (and abortion) than have turned toward it, mainly because of the tenor of those who so strongly cite the Bible and ignore the law…all the while attacking anyone who wants to just follow the law. We've had a huge debacle here the past year after a bakery owner refused to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding….a baker owner who stupidly said to the customer, "I won't bake you a cake because I'm opposed to same-sex marriage". Clear violation of our state's anti-discrimination in public accomodation laws, and it didn't matter how many times the law was cited, there were many who said disgusting, nasty things about gays and about anyone who, in commenting, merely supported the law. It got to the point where many actual Christians moved 48' left of center because they didn't want to be associated with such hatred.
            Odd thing about today is to watch him continue the anti-woman insults knowing full-well he's been outed about it. Why would any sane person do that? Oh, never mind…..

          • Mr. Liberty says:

            I disagree with you there. I am sure you agree with the separation of church and state? I do too. But what people fail to realize is that the door swings both ways. What I mean by that is, the state cannot make people be religious, nor can state claim a specific national religion. It also cannot force people, in this case to make a cake, for something they disagree with religiously. It is the persons private business and they should be able to serve who they want. Homosexuals are not a protected class either. (IMO that it is bad business to selectively serve someone = less $$). I agree many Christians are hypocrites, they forget some of Jesus' famous teachings (i.e. Let he be without sin cast the first stone). But I also feel like that the state/society often over reaches against Christians. i.e. not allowing people to say "Merry Christmas" or the whole nativity scene deal on personal property.

          • PoofAgain says:

            Actually in Oregon 'sexual preference' IS a protected class, and anti-discriminaton laws are very specific regarding businesses who are open to the public. If the baker had said, "Sorry, I'm busy that day", that would have been the end of the story. Or if the business had been by membership only (not a public accommodation), there would have been no problem, he could have done the pick-and-choose method to establish his client base. I work for the largest corporation in it's field in the country, and we have NEVER been told what to say or not say around Christmas, nor am I aware of any nativity scene on private property where the owner of the company was forced to remove it.
            I expect that eventually 'sexual preference' will be included on a national basis when it comes to discrimination…always remember that such protection also applies to those who are straight, just as a Caucasian cannot be discriminated against due to race. The way I look at our laws in Oregon, I'm covered by 7 of the 8 'classes' that cannot be discriminated against, the only one that doesn't apply is 'handicapped' — Rog would say I fit that one, too.

          • LetsMove says:

            Yes.
            I know. I have a friend who lives in Oregon.
            I know it is pretty liberal in many respects.

            I am curious.
            What do you think of the legalization of marijuana?

          • PoofAgain says:

            I'm very comfortable with the 8 'groups' who are protected under Oregon law, I don't find them to be liberal, I find them to equal things out and I'm all about equality (except for white supremacists — that's where my own prejudice comes into play, although I support their First Amendment rights).
            As for marijuana, I think the whole medicinal marijuana system, at least in Oregon, is a joke. My daughter has been a user since she was a teenager and now she has a card as a "caregiver" so she can go to the medicinal stores with her neighbor, who has a "patient" card. *rolls eyes* I guess it's my feeling it should be de-criminalized, that might put a major kibosh on all the imports from Mexico and free up jail space. I'm just not sure I want the State taking control of it….probably because I live in a state that 'owns' all the liquor stores and they haven't done the world's greatest job in that regard either.

          • LetsMove says:

            As an aside, you might like this website. I do not know if you have heard of it. it is relatively new. https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/06/03/exc

            Regarding the pot question, I am always curious, especially about liberal states. Personally, I believe that the reason it is not legal is twofold. First, the states get millions and millions into their treasuries for their "War on Drugs".

            Secondly, the Government can't figure out how to tax it, and collect the tax, without every gardener in the country putting just enough to "get by".

            It has been a cottage industry all of my adult life. In the past 15 years it has become big business.

            I always said it should be legalized, and franchised, and that I wanted the first franchise. I reckon I lost out in Colorado.

          • Mr. Liberty says:

            Sorry to butt in. But all drugs should be legal. The Drug War is a farce.

          • LetsMove says:

            Of course it is a farce.

            The last War that the United States won, was World War II. That was a long, long time ago.

            These other "Wars"?
            The War on Drugs?
            The War on Poverty?
            The War on whatever the war du-jour is?

            All nonsense.
            Figments of imaginations, and distractions to keep people occupied and "busy".

            We, the People, should declare a War against Big Government Corruption. Politicians would shlt themselves straight.

          • TheNewsMadd says:

            Holy $hit dude. You hit is spot on again. You need to stick around. But the troll needs ignored IMO.

          • Roger says:

            Yes, you seem to decide who should be ignored, when you can pull it off.

          • PoofAgain says:

            Why do you follow other commenters around? To showcase that you're a liar? Seems like a weird way to get the attention you crave.

          • Roger says:

            Why did you follow me here?

            To showcase your ill mannered harping?

          • PoofAgain says:

            I didn't follow you here, you egotistical twit. I came here to respond to notifications I had in my inbox. Good gawd, get over yourself.

          • Roger says:

            That's not what you said….

            35 minutes ago @ Storyleak – Seattle Police Chief S… · 3 replies · 0 points
            Sorry for not getting back to you — I couldn't get this site to load and finally threw up my arms and went to that other site to toy with Rogie. =)

          • LetsMove says:

            She is here, because I invited her. I did not invite you.

          • Roger says:

            You don't need to.
            Frankly you give yourself far too much credit.

            Ego much?

          • PoofAgain says:

            Liar much? Rhetorical question, no need to respond.

          • LetsMove says:

            Poof, I am really surprised that El Rog-bo is here.

            I heard that he was headed off to the Montreaux Jazz Festival.

          • Roger says:

            You were there and it was a one person show. Do you really think you're a person?

          • LetsMove says:

            Roger Russell, Gypsy Songman http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXMuWi0dUBc

          • Roger says:

            Do you know trolling is a bad thing?

          • Roger says:

            You sure seemed determined to throw words around in ways that don't match what they mean.

            And no, I' didn't lie. You sound like an angry drunk. I'm just saying perhaps if you don't drink and want to avoid that tone you may want to be aware of it.

          • PoofAgain says:

            Yeah, you lied. I proved it last night, TrustFunded proved it this morning. I can't speak for him, but your lying doesn't bother me a bit, I'll just point it out until you admit it. Any REAL 'christian' would admit their lies and try to pretend to follow the words of their make-believe god. You're no real christian…you've proven that.

          • Roger says:

            No, you proved you're ill mannered and untruthful.
            http://www.tpnn.com/2014/05/26/santa-barbara-gunm

            I had a link last night showing the father spoke through his attorney in a statement.

            You said you had links with the same content. In that link aspergers syndrome was blamed as contributing to the shooting.

            That is exactly the kind of thing I heard on my radio. You weren't in the car and can't know what I heard, I do.

            And the link I posted shows the father called for gun control. You were given a similar link on the heritage site.

            You're still an ill mannered cranky troll that can't be honest.

            You have been thoroughly owned on this and only your possible mood swing and hot flashes prevent you from being honest enough with yourself to admit it.

          • PoofAgain says:

            blah blah more lies blah blah lying rogie blah blah. Shooo.

          • Roger says:

            What's wrong, don't like being owned and harassed as you have done to me for almost three weeks only to be proven the two faced liar and whining weasel that you are?

            Why don't I repeat my link.
            http://www.tpnn.com/2014/05/26/santa-barbara-gunm

            “On behalf of the Rodgers family they want to make sure that the victims and the victims’ families are aware that this is the tragedy of the most extreme,” Shifman said. “They want to send their deepest condolences to all of the victims’ families involved.”

            “My client’s mission in life will be to try to prevent any such tragedies from ever happening again,” Shifman said. “This country, this world, needs to address mental illness and the ramifications from not recognizing these illnesses.”

            Shifman also claimed the family is “staunchly against guns” and supports gun control laws. “They are extremely, extremely upset that anybody was hurt under these circumstances.”

          • trustfunded says:

            Shifman? Is that who you heard screaming while in your car? You know he isn't the shooter's father, right?

          • Roger says:

            You know that you have been owned and need to crawl back under the bridge.

          • trustfunded says:

            You claimed the father said it. You claimed you heard the father scream. Now that you can't prove it (provide a link as asked dozens of times) you change your claim to the attorney who made the comment. You prove yourself to be a liar daily.

          • Roger says:

            You claimed to be someone that I should bother even dealing with.

            The radio show as about the father and the excuses.

            Don't you have a bridge to crawl under? Once more you have been proven that you don't know jack about what I was listening to and can't accept the fact that you just need to shut up.

          • trustfunded says:

            "I listened to the radio to the father of the dead suspect scream and blame everyone.
            He was asking how come nobody did anything.

            Excuse me, he was the father. Why didn't "he" do something more?"
            http://www.kcrw.com/news/programs/lr/lr140523va_s

          • Roger says:

            And why didn't he?

            You sure are stuck on stupid on this.

          • trustfunded says:

            What was it you heard the father say again?

          • Roger says:

            Still pretending you can spin this ? You are just unable to do that.

          • trustfunded says:

            You can't spin your way out of your web of lies. They are thoroughly documented.

          • Roger says:

            I don't need to spin, I know what I heard and provided a link backing my comment.

          • trustfunded says:

            Why spin, I prefer watching you squirm.

          • Roger says:

            I'm not, I'I'm not, just repeating the same old truths that make you the fool.

          • trustfunded says:

            "Yes, the father did blame society.
            I listened to him and know what I heard."

          • Roger says:

            Yeppers. And can you prove I'm wrong, he even blamed the aspergers syndrome.

          • trustfunded says:

            I already proved you are wrong. You did not here the father give an interview.

          • Roger says:

            Still prThe father made excuses, and it was in a moment of anguish. The radio discussed it. Deal with it.

          • trustfunded says:

            Do you stand by your claim that you heard the father give a radio interview?

          • PoofAgain says:

            Crickets.

          • Roger says:

            trolling still?

            I'm shocked.

          • Roger says:

            I stand by my claim that on the radio they discussed the father's reaction to the shooting.

            And you have been shown proof that happened.

          • trustfunded says:

            I gave you the proof.

          • Roger says:

            I gave you a link with the proof.

          • trustfunded says:

            You proved you lie. Thanks.

          • Roger says:

            I proved you lie about it. And that I knew what I heard. Too bad for you, trolls usually end up looking that way.

          • trustfunded says:

            "Pretty amazing, all you have to do is show you were in my car and heard the interview."

          • Roger says:

            And you haven't.

            But that won't stop you, trolls never stop for those pesky facts.

          • trustfunded says:

            The pesky fact is you did not hear the father give an interview as you claimed. That means you are lying.

          • Roger says:

            The father made a statement that made excuses, why does that bother you so very much? Most trolls are so illogical.

          • trustfunded says:

            Do you stand by your statement that you heard the father give a radio interview?

          • PoofAgain says:

            More crickets.

          • Roger says:

            More trolling. More ignoring the facts like a woman totally driven by rejection of men.

          • Roger says:

            I stand by my comment that it was the father's exudes that the radio was discussing.

          • trustfunded says:

            What is "exudes"?

          • Roger says:

            It's a misspelled version of excuse.

            And that's in the father's statement as provided by the attorney.

          • trustfunded says:

            "I know there have been many interviews and the one I heard was the father of the shooter."

          • Roger says:

            And I do you consider an interview an interview?

            Or does trolling prevent that?

            When the father's spokesman makes excuses I consider it as coming form the father.

          • trustfunded says:

            No, you don't do me you pervert.

          • Roger says:

            I proved my point and that you still insist on trolling.

          • trustfunded says:

            "So, you admit that the father hasn't been completely unheard from. Hence, the radio interview would have been possible. "

          • Roger says:

            And was that supposed to make a point outside of reinforcing my claims?

          • trustfunded says:

            Do you stand by your statement that you heard the shooter's father give a radio interview?

          • PoofAgain says:

            Many more crickets.

          • Roger says:

            Still trolling?

          • PoofAgain says:

            A choir of crickets.

          • Roger says:

            Yes, it's all you have. That and your unreasonable quest to shout down real men.

          • Roger says:

            Do you always repeat yourself. The father's statement involved aspergers syndrome, do you have it too?

          • Roger says:

            Do you stand by your claim it wasn't the father they were discussing on the radio?

          • trustfunded says:

            I never made that claim. Quote me or admit that is yet another lie from you.

          • Roger says:

            So you want what exactly? You didn't make any statement have no claim and you're here because why?

            Just trolling?
            How much do you get paid?

          • Roger says:

            Do you stand by your claim it wasn't the father they were discussing?

          • trustfunded says:

            I've never made that claim, in fact quite to the contrary. Quote more or this is just another lie from you. You make this so easy.

          • Roger says:

            State your claim and then I'll know exactly what weasel position to dispute.

            I've already shown my evidence.

          • trustfunded says:

            I claim you are a liar and my proof is in this thread.

          • Roger says:

            I claim you're a troll and my proof in this thread shows it.

          • Mr. Liberty says:

            "Actually in Oregon 'sexual preference' IS a protected class, and anti-discrimination laws are very specific regarding businesses who are open to the public."

            I would counter that Christians are a protected class too. So how do we distinguish between the two? Who is allowed to do what?

            I have personally been told by employers to say Happy Holidays, but I have chosen to say Merry Christmas without penalty. So I guess I would be ok with them suggesting Happy Holidays, but if someone was fired or penalized for saying Merry Christmas I’d have issue.

            I cannot find a specific instance of the nativity scene example. I will have to dig around a bit…while I do what do you think of this video?
            http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=rRmttUXUGfI

            Do you agree that there is a difference between public view and public property? Do you think that even if people petitioned a ban would it still be legal?

          • PoofAgain says:

            Here's the section of Oregon law the bakery violated:
            "Discrimination in Public Accommodation
            A place of public accommodation is defined in state law as any place that offers the public accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges, whether in the nature of goods, services, lodging, amusements or otherwise. It is illegal to discriminate in places of public accommodation on the basis of race, sex (including pregnancy), sexual orientation, national origin, religion, marital status, physical or mental disability, or age (18 years of age and older)."
            The owner's religious beliefs were not violated in any way. He knew the law, he opted to try to finagle it to suit his purposes, got caught doing it, went on Lars Larsen to plead his case and the shlt hit the fan. But nothing about his rights were violated — he was always free and still is to practice his religion, but as a public accommodation business, he's not allowed to use his religious beliefs to deny service to the public. As I've said from the outset, he should have just said he was busy — the bakery has since closed up shop and are operating out of their home, free to deny service to anyone…I support their right to do that.
            As for the other part of your post, I'll have to get back to it, late lunch/early dinner time. =)

          • Mr. Liberty says:

            Hmm interesting, did the baker own his own store in the first place or was he renting?? I am not sure I understand how his business would be considered a public accommodation if he owned his own property and his own product/service, to me that is private, not public.

            "sex (including pregnancy), "

            Would you be ok with a pregnant women buying alcohol or cigarettes? According to Oregon law you cannot refuse her service.

          • PoofAgain says:

            The baker was either renting or leasing space in a strip mall, his shop was open to the public. A public accommodation was explained in my comment above. If he'd been operating out of his home or even some rental space where the general public wasn't able to just walk in off the street, there'd have been no problem.
            Pregnant women are not prohibited by law from buying alcohol or tobacco products…it's obviously not wise for pregnant women to smoke or drink much alcohol, but it's not against the law.

          • Mr. Liberty says:

            I feel ya. I understand the definition, I just don't agree with it :)
            My main disagreement with the law is the fact that it tells a private business what it can and cannot do with regards to its own service/product. If it meets health and sanitary standards its fair game IMO. I am obviously against big gov and business regulations, I feel like the rule of “law” is unnecessary in this situation. It could of been handled where the gay couple went to another business and gave that business profits which in turn hurts the homophobic baker. The gay couple could start Facebook page and protest the bakery in the parking lot of the strip mall to further hurt his business. That’s what I mean when I think the market could sort itself out. Because you and I both know in MOST places people are generally not homophobic or racist, they are happy for the business regardless of the person.

          • Mr. Liberty says:

            Another example is Donald Sterling. He is a racist bigot. There is no argument that says otherwise. But it does set a dangerous precedent forcing him to sell his team (business) because of things he has said in private. You cannot penalize free speech. Even if he is an old loser. Because once that precedent is set than it could move to political opponents to the controlling party being forced to sell, etc.

          • PoofAgain says:

            The Donald Sterling thing had nothing to do with his freedom to say whatever he wanted to — we're all allowed that with very limited exceptions. His problem arose when he violated the NBA's rules for owners, which he likely had a hand in writing and certainly signed off on at some point in the past. If a franchisee for McDonald's decided he'd independently start selling corn dogs and tacos, that would likely be a violation of his franchise agreement and McDonald's could probably force him to give up his franchise. Not sure, seems logical to me.

          • Roger says:

            His privacy was violated in a state that requires both parties approve any recording of that type. It was leaked when he wouldn't submit to a payoff to hush up the person trying to extort funds from him.

            And the NBA rules don't allow for the punishment imposed on him.

          • LetsMove says:

            Roger, you are like a gawdamned yapping puppy that pisses and shlts on the floor. Someone ought to whack you across the nose with a rolled up newspaper.

            Running around, yapping and yapping like a schizophrenic Chihuahua.

          • Roger says:

            And here you are pretending to be better than the things you called me.

            It's not working but I can see why you may not like exposing yourself as a troll when you rant like that.

            Do you realize trolling is a bad thing?

          • LetsMove says:

            What have I called you other than a gawdamned yapping schizophrenic Chihuahua?

          • Roger says:

            Still trolling? Still proving that you are projecting with those labels?

          • Mr. Liberty says:

            I haven't heard the rules for owners part of the story but if that is the case I would never sign that paper and I would never be a NBA owner. What rule did he violate?

          • PoofAgain says:

            I actually don't know what rule(s) his comments violated and I'm not interested in researching it, it's a done deal at this point. But the NBA seems to believe he violated the owner rules, they've pulled his franchise and it's been sold. We'll see if he does anything in the future regarding the legality of that — seems to me he turned a VERY handsome profit and should quietly walk away.

          • LetsMove says:

            Poof, something that nobody is talking about.

            Due to the fact that Sterling was forced to sell, that single issue just might ameliorate his tax bill.

            He might get off tax free.

          • PoofAgain says:

            Good point. And we know that a person at his level of wealth has a cadre of attorneys and CPAs advising him on his every financial move, so I'm sure if there's tax dollars to be saved, he'll save them. I'm not fan of taxes (are any of us?), but the tax revenue this sale could have generated for the already-hurting California tax coffers would have been huge.

          • Roger says:

            We shouldn't need all that to defend out right, the system should be defending our rights.

          • PoofAgain says:

            WTF are you talking about? Nobody's First Amendment rights were violated, you lying twit.

          • Roger says:

            Yes, they were.

            The private property ownership is protected under 'the right to the pursuit of happiness', since he was happy owning the team.

            You have been stuck on stupid so many times I can't be surprised you have this wrong too.

          • PoofAgain says:

            I know for a fact that TrustFunded schooled you (had to be embarrassing for you, you twit) on the FACT that there is no such thing as a guaranteed "right to the pursuit of happiness". That wording is part of the "truths" contained in the Declaration of Independence, not the US Constitution. Here's the wording, twit. "…truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". Twit.

          • Roger says:

            Have you checked the Declaration of independence? The founders not only said there was that right, but that it came from our creators.

            Do you want me to educate you on this?

          • LetsMove says:

            I shouldn't need a team of lawyers to post on the Internet and protect me from the likes of you Roger, but I can see that the day is fast approaching when I will need them.

          • Roger says:

            Intense debate must be confusing for you.

          • Mr. Liberty says:

            Great point.

          • Roger says:

            Mark Levin researched it and the NBA overstepped it's bounds.

            He's not the only one to discuss it. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/05/28/s

          • smith says:

            http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/clippers

            Some people know when to stop pushing for civil remedies.

          • Roger says:

            And some know when to stop trolling a site that won't fold.

          • Mr. Liberty says:

            Yes he did make a sound profit something like 4,500% ROI lol…

            I still think he shouldn't of been forced to sell, suspended from all Bball activites and from attending games sure, but no sale.

          • PoofAgain says:

            The NBA did what they did and at least so far Sterling isn't raising a legal fuss whether you or I or anyone else agrees with it. I honestly can't imagine he'd ever show his face at an NBA game again unless he disguised himself….maybe he could wear that mask the Alinsky guy (? — I'm still 'new' enough to not know all the players here) has — the one of a certain commenter with balls around his neck?

          • Roger says:

            And Sterling is litigating.
            http://www.cbssports.com/nba/eye-on-basketball/24

            Anything else that you need an education on?

          • PoofAgain says:

            Twit. Your link is 13 days old and the times they are a changin'. Here's a link from 2 days ago. Twit. http://nba.si.com/2014/06/04/donald-sterling-sell

          • Roger says:

            Oh you're back. Did your nails dry finally?

            The fact he litigated proves he didn't just roll over like the spineless men you seem used to.

            And after he litigated he was found to be mentally impaired, how come you think his backing off is more in keeping than his litigation?

            Hmmm?

          • smith says:

            Yes, mentally impaired people ought not initiate lawsuits.

          • LetsMove says:

            Rim shot!

            Bada bing, Bada Boom!

          • Roger says:

            Is that why he doesn't mention litigation?

            I'll take your word for it.

          • LersMove says:

            Roger, you have some strange hero's that you look up to.

            Adolph Hitler.
            Cliven Bundy
            Donald Sterling.

            There is sure some weird shlt rolling around in that empty cranium of yours.

          • Roger says:

            You sure have some strange talking points.

            But I expect it from a troll.

          • PoofAgain says:

            Again you posted a link to something that isn't accurate. Keep it up, twit — you're shining these past 18 hours. Not going to acknowledge (AGAIN) that you're wrong?
            "And Sterling is litigating." In English, there's tremendous difference between "is" and "was".
            Anything else that you need an education on? Twit.

          • Roger says:

            Sure it's accurate, and it was spot on for the comment I was making.

            Why do you sound so cranky today? Mood swings again?

            You just don't like being owned, most trolls don't.

          • LetsMove says:

            Be careful about those "being owned" comments Roger.

            I'll turn you out.

          • Roger says:

            Your bloody stumps may not agree.

          • Mr. Liberty says:

            "Pregnant women are not prohibited by law from buying alcohol or tobacco products…it's obviously not wise for pregnant women to smoke or drink much alcohol, but it's not against the law."

            Then why is it against the law for me to use drugs?

          • PoofAgain says:

            Technically I'm not sure it IS against the law for you to use drugs, it's against the law for you to possess them. But obviously you couldn't use them without being in possession of them….

          • Mr. Liberty says:

            You are correct. Stupid law IMO lol
            http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/12210

          • TheNewsMadd says:

            Good point

          • Roger says:

            Drugs are a controlled substance for a reason.

            Doctors prescribe them for medical reasons, recreational drugs need to be managed on a state level, it's a 10th amendment thing to me.

          • PoofAgain says:

            Nobody cares what it is to you.

          • Roger says:

            Enough others do that recreational drugs are still outlawed in most municipalities.

            Once more, you are wrong and can't admit it.

          • PoofAgain says:

            What am I wrong about? That no one cares what you think? Oh, I'm pretty sure that's accurate.

          • Roger says:

            You have been wrong so much it's hard to keep track of it all. And your position on drugs it more out of the mainstream then mine is.

          • PoofAgain says:

            The correct word in your last sentence is "than", not "then". Twit.

          • Roger says:

            Still pretending that spelling that you understand makes up for the positions you were just owned on?

          • Roger says:

            You know, this issue is just one tentacle of the fascist regime. The real issue is private property.

            A business making something not required for survival is told it's a public accommodation. That not only that they are not allowed to have private values in how they run the business they own and run.

            When government decides what we are allowed to do and think – there is a word for that. Tyranny.

          • PoofAgain says:

            And when the Constitution says a public accommodation business must follow state and federal laws and some jerk tries to usurp that by feigning that he's allowed to violate them based on his religious beliefs, there's a word for that. Bigotry. No patriot discriminates against a fellow citizen.

          • Roger says:

            When does the constitution say that a non essential service is a public accommodation?

          • Mr. Liberty says:

            Yeah its tuff to interpret, because I could say that homosexuals are bigots towards these Christians. I am not saying the baker is not a bigot. I am just trying to point out the fact that with too many regulations and laws comes a lot of questions. Legislation and its interpretation doesn’t develop from a coherent set of moral principles, but instead based on who is able to persuade the judges and the courts to adopt the principles they prefer.

          • Roger says:

            Can you imagine what would happen if a Christian went into a gay bar and demanded that as a public accommodation to avoid offending and discriminating against them the bartenders couldn't act gay?

          • PoofAgain says:

            The thing the baker didn't understand or chose to ignore is that in order to have a business license in both the city and state he was conducting his 'public accommodation' business in, he agreed to follow all business-related rules, regulations and laws. Those rules, etc., cover everything from how he prepares his product to how he disposes of his waste product, how he accommodates the handicapped, health/sanitation codes, Oregon's anti-discrimination laws. He was never in any way denied his personal right to practice his religion as he saw fit, but as a public accommodation business he was not allowed to use his religious beliefs to discriminate against the public (customers).

          • Roger says:

            Why? So there is no private property allowed in Oregon?

          • Mr. Liberty says:

            Yeah, it is just too much laws. I think people could sort it out better on their own IMO. Society could weed out the bad apples and edge them out of business.

          • PoofAgain says:

            In the case of the baker, society did indeed weed them out. She's now making wedding cakes from her home kitchen, he's become a trash collector. Mr. Klein did himself no favors by airing his laundry on Lars Larsen to push his story into the public spotlight, because the backlash of those who demand equality for all based on law was truly overwhelming. Our Bureau of Labor and Industries (responsible for situations like this) has determined the bakery clearly violated State law….they've so far not determined the fine(s) or penalties, but it'll likely bankrupt the Kleins if the loss of their public accommodation business hasn't already. Bottom line is that businesses shouldn't discriminate against protected groups of people (you and I and everyone else), because it'll cost them dearly.

          • Roger says:

            And that violates their constitutional protections regarding religion.

            And you sound as if it's a good thing.

            Mob rule can come back and bite you, that's why we have a republic with a rule of law.

            Justice delayed is justice denied, even for Christians.

          • PoofAgain says:

            They willfully and proudly chose to violate the law, no different really than someone who assaults someone physically or dumps untreated sewage onto their neighbor's property. You show me where ignoring the law violates their religious freedom to believe and practice their faith. There was no mob rule, we are a nation of law. They violated the law. Why do you support law-breakers? Is that the 'christian' in you coming out again? They were (past tense) an Oregon public accomodation business (not an individual), and a business doesn't have religious beliefs nor rights. The Bill of Rights is very clear in using the term "people" and not including "and corporations and businesses".

          • Roger says:

            The founding fathers did the same thing when the Brits were unreasonable.

            We are a nation founded on the law 'the constitution' that says you can't legislate whether someone can worship or observe their religion.

            Deal with it. Why do you want to be educated so many times today?

          • PoofAgain says:

            No one has legislated whether someone can worship or observe their religion. The legislation is that no public accommodation business in Oregon can discriminate against a customer based on 8 protected 'groups'. The business does not have religious beliefs, nor is it a race, nor does it have any form of sexual orientation or disability….because it's a business. Twit.

          • Roger says:

            Yes, they have.
            You claim there are local laws, that's legislating.

            What a snit you are.

            For you to be so fascist as to say that Christians can't be allowed businesses because you ignore the first amendment? That's a stretch even for you, and you seem to stretch and sag more than most do as a troll.

          • PoofAgain says:

            Do you even read, including your own garbage? Local laws in this case have been legislated for public accommodation businesses. Aaron and Melissa Klein are not a business. Their stupid archaic religious beliefs have never been violated in any way, shape or form. If they had been, they'd have taken legal action, and they haven't done that. Quite the contrary, they've folded up their tent and slithered into oblivion as much as possible — she's only making wedding cakes for private individuals, not the general public. They're now awaiting word of the fines/penalties they'll incur as the direct result of violating the law which they even admit they willfully violated. As for the fines/penalties they likely face, another Oregon business that broke the same laws around the same time is facing fines/penalties totaling $400,000. You're so out in left field with this I hope you don't get conked again on the noggin by those gigantic hail balls your god threw in your direction. Twit.
            http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2013

          • Roger says:

            Do you believe your own garbage? How can non emergent non life dependent services by a private vender at his own choosing be required by any state without being fascist? Even if the courts impose it, it's tyranny. It violates the 1st amendment, and some others too, in spirit.

            You may want a marxist all powerful government, but patriots don't.

          • smith says:

            Not all laws are just, as in this case. If some dick doesn't want to bake your gay wedding cake, F him. The wedding industry overindexes for gay friendly suppliers. Call a newspaper to deliver an appropriate amount of negative publicity to this ass then move on to a baker that is happy to deliver the cake you and your partner deserve. This fascination with resolving sincere but largely immaterial differences of opinions via the courts is one way that government has industrialized itself. Yes, ROGER, that's a jab at you… dick.

          • PoofAgain says:

            In this case Oregon law very clearly provides protection to the public from public accomodation businesses based on "sexual orientation"…as well as race, age (over 18), religion, gender, handicapped status, nationality, 8 'groups' specifically. I fall into 7 of those protected classes as likely you do too. If that's a sign of the government stepping too far into our personal freedoms, I don't have an issue with it. I would hate to be the mother of a handicapped child who was refused a birthday cake by a baker who didn't like handicapped children. I know myself, and I know I'd not only take my business elsewhere, I'd make damn sure everyone I could think of would know of such discrimination.

          • smith says:

            I'm not arguing that there wasn't a violation of statute here, rather that the statute itself goes too far. Your handicapped scenario is a red herring but even then, public pressure would come to bear on such a nitwit and business would suffer as a result. I believe the same to be true in this case.

            Homosexual committed relationships have always existed but now they are "the new black". The market would likely punish a baker who refuses to serve one. Better to leave a baker the option the option of refusing to bake it than to leave them with limited outs of sabotaging the job or taxing society for playing it out in the courts.

            Your last point is exactly my perspective. It's pretty clear that, at this point, there is enough popular support for gay marriage that we don't need the state to force vendors to participate in order for there to be a vibrant market of suppliers.

            All of this is highly subjective. Where you and I choose to draw the line between group civil rights and individual liberties differs.

          • PoofAgain says:

            This case more than any other I've ever commented on has always been, to me, about a business's refusal to follow law, not whether the law is over-reaching or not. A business has to be licensed in Oregon to be open to the public — if the owners of that business decide to operate in an unlawful manner, they know what the consequences are to that choice. Whether you or I or anyone else thinks "sexual orientation" should be a protected group or not is irrelevant — it's the law. The same law protects a person who is straight too. It's all about equality.

          • smith says:

            I think we're zeroing in on a fundamental difference of opinion. Why should it be a matter of course that all businesses must be licensed by the government? Leaving aside issues of public health and safety (which clearly would apply to foodservice) why does the government need to insert itself in between two parties conducting arm's length transactions. There is a cost associated with this, whether or not the government adds any value to the transaction? I feel the same way about laws in general. There is a dollar cost associated with the passage and enforcement of any law but rarely, if ever, is there a cost/benefit analysis associated with restrictive legislation. In fact, government and associated bureaucracy has a strong disincentive to such analyses – the bigger government gets, the more power and wealth they gain.

          • PoofAgain says:

            I actually don't believe business licensing laws were put in place as a means for the government to gain wealth. At this point in time, increases in licensing fees might add to the coffers, but increased costs to enforce business laws need to be covered somehow. As for business licensing, if nothing else it gives some leverage to the government to ensure all forms of business laws are being enforced. Everything from labor law to environmental law to civil rights law. If there were no repercussions for violating someone's civil rights (refusing to allow a black or Jew to stay in a hotel, for instance), do you think businesses would self-patrol themselves? I sure don't. One way or the other, the laws are on the books and until something extraordinary happens, they're not going anywhere.

          • Roger says:

            I see the flaw in your limited logic.

            How do you think civl rights were passed? It wasn't something the government wanted, it was something the people demanded and marched for.

            We can patrol ourselves when we rid ourselves of the mindset that government is the all seeing wise arbiter.

          • TheNewsMadd says:

            I would not be ok with it but who's to say she is not getting that stuff for her husband or someone else?

          • Roger says:

            Do you use the same argument for other recreational drugs?

            What about meth?

          • PoofAgain says:

            Take your strawman crap somewhere else — no one here, and I mean NO ONE, is willing to tolerate your intrusion into actual discussion to try to steer a conversation in your direction.

          • Roger says:

            It's not straw man crap. You sure use a lot of foul language.

            Recreational drugs have an uncontrolled manufacturing process that makes them dangerous.

            Actual discussion…, is that when you go get your nails done?

          • PoofAgain says:

            I'd hate to see a pregnant woman walking out of the store with a couple of cases of PBR and 2 cartons of Marlboro smokes, but you're right — who's to say she's not picking those up for someone else? It's legal for her to purchase AND use both.

          • Roger says:

            Personal responsibility. It should matter. The fact this discussion comes up reminds me of the USSR where every action was being observed and judged.

          • PoofAgain says:

            Neither I nor anyone else will allow you to derail this convo. And no one cares what this discussion reminds you of.

          • Roger says:

            Why would I want you to derail this into a call for legalizing drugs?

            It was derailed when you started.

          • TheNewsMadd says:

            I hate it as well. But when I think about who am I to make the judgment that they are for her, I will go with my gut instinct and hope she is getting them for another adult.

          • Roger says:

            It isn't anyone's business either way.
            Adults have choices, that sometimes mean the choice may be wrong.

          • LetsMove says:

            I hear what you are saying.
            If a Baker does not wish to cater to some particular group, on the one hand, as a capitalist, that is his business. Today it will be the Gays. Tomorrow it will be the Environmentalists, the next day it will be the hairy-legged Birkenstock wearing gals, the day after that, it will be all the men who he deems obese. Pretty soon, the market will sort itself out, and a new bakery will open across the street, serving everyone, and doing so with a smile.

            I concur.
            The two most divisive issues are Gay Rights and Abortion. Both issues which I believe a person must make up their own minds on.

            Funny you mention religion. Over at Bitchspot they debate it heavily. I find it coincidental that the Buddha reportedly gazed at his navel, while Roger, not to be outdone, is an Anal Gazer.

            As far as his misogynist lingo, I brought that out a couple of weeks ago at LRC. That is his Modus Operandi, his fall back and default position. Once he see's he cannot win any debate, he resorts to name calling and throwing sexist insults. I watched him and HPDuuuh and a couple of the other clod-hoppers at Conservative Victory drive all of the women from that site. Now they lament there is nobody left to talk to……..

          • Mr. Liberty says:

            Agreed. For a free market to flourish, the market should be able to sort ITSELF out. No bailouts or insider trading.

          • Roger says:

            The market is quicker, more nimble and rewards those who deserve it based on merit, not politics.

            It must be punished and repressed if fascists are to seize power.

          • PoofAgain says:

            If you don't believe in the Constitution and the rights it affords even people like you, why do you live in the United States?

          • Roger says:

            I do, and I feel that the constitution was compatible with the free market system.

          • LetsMove says:

            ………and PS:
            You just watch.
            Mark my words.
            As soon as the Mothman wakes from his afternoon nap, he will come charging in here, on his big bay horse, on the war-path, screaming insults and hurling arrows. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhrmtXeR1gs

          • PoofAgain says:

            Nailed it.

          • Roger says:

            Here you are, was let's move a sexist misogynist since he didn't include you?

        • TheNewsMadd says:

          Well said Poof. Agreed!

          • PoofAgain says:

            Sorry for not getting back to you — I couldn't get this site to load and finally threw up my arms and went to that other site to toy with Rogie. =)

          • Roger says:

            Yes, that's what trolls do.
            You wander around from sites that don't want you and toy with people that are more serious.

            I'll mannered don't even see that as a bad thing.

          • LetsMove says:

            A tad slow on the uptake, eh Rogere'?

            We had these conversations yesterday, when you were napping. They were a thoughtful, and respectful, exchange of views and ideas.

            ….and I was right.

            LetsMove · 18 hours ago
            ………and PS:
            You just watch.
            Mark my words.
            As soon as the Mothman wakes from his afternoon nap, he will come charging in here, on his big bay horse, on the war-path, screaming insults and hurling arrows. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhrmtXeR1gs

          • Roger says:

            A tad slow on the uptake?

            You're a new named guest troll. Are you an old troll that just couldn't remember the last fake name you made up or are you a new one?

          • PoofAgain says:

            Off-topic again? Jeesh — you never quit with the "troll" crap, do you? It's clear as day to me that you're the real troll — debate/discussion was taking place during your nappie-poo time but as soon as you stalk everyone's personal profile you show up to prattle even more. Shooo — you bore me, you bore everyone. Twit.

          • Roger says:

            Are you afraid you won't be the only one?

          • LetsMove says:

            Poof.
            He never quits with the Troll bit.
            It is his mantra.

            Just wait until the Moon is full and he starts talking about the Trista Parsians and the goats.

          • Roger says:

            Its' also true.
            And once more you made my point for me.

          • PoofAgain says:

            Isn't he the guy (?) who, several years ago, dragged in something about a church being on fire and someone locking the doors? I seem to recall seeing that in literally hundreds of his comments way back when. And I seem to recall discussion about goats too, but I can't recall the context. Weird weird weird.

          • Roger says:

            24 minutes ago @ Breitbart.tv – Soldier Found Guilty i… · 1 reply · +1 points
            The whole town needs locked in the church and the church set on fire. IMO

            That was thenewsmad. And yes he still defends that comment.

          • TheNewsMadd says:

            Yeah that comment was made about a town of people who beat a lady and burned her house down for being a Pagan. It was made to get a rise out of roger and as you see it still gives him a rise after 4 years

          • Roger says:

            Tell the entire truth.
            The comment was based on a rumor with nothing to substantiate it and was later narrowed down on the belfaste site to be about a hindu couple treated that way by islamists in India.

          • LetsMove says:

            Wow Wee,
            Getting a rise out of Roger is something I do not want to envision.

          • TheNewsMadd says:

            Yeah, pretty gross

          • Roger says:

            Yet that's what you just mentioned wasn't it?

            You sure are predictable. And not in good ways.

          • TheNewsMadd says:

            That's ok.

          • Roger says:

            All this chatter, and to think that poof just ripped on me for off topic comments.

            Double standards, some people are so consistent!

          • LetsMove says:

            That's why I like Poof.
            She not only rips your head off, she bitch slaps you into submission.

            I love it when you squeal for her.

          • Roger says:

            Do you realize she might see you called her a bitch?

          • LetsMove says:

            Rog Honey, I know you are slow, and you struggle mightily, but when someone uses the phrase "Bitch slap", the bitch is the one getting slapped.

            You best go back and re-read what I wrote.

          • Roger says:

            Are you saying she got slapped now? I didn't think you meant that.

            But she certainly hasn't laid a hand on me, and I'm not hers.

            You best go back under the bridge and try again.

          • PoofAgain says:

            Hey, Roget — report us for being off-topic, that'd be fine with me. Of course the site administrators are already aware you're a proven liar, so it's unlikely they'd do much, at least to me or TheNewsMadd or LetsMove or TrustFunded. But have at it — it'll give you something to do before your nappie-poo.

          • Roger says:

            There you go again.

            Still that cranky old liar. I owned you on that radio show and you deserved to be mocked on it. Want to go for another round?
            http://www.tpnn.com/2014/05/26/santa-barbara-gunm

            When a loser like you is upset and thrashing around I have to wonder if there are deeper issues than your lack of personality or manners.

            "Shifman also claimed the family is “staunchly against guns” and supports gun control laws. “They are extremely, extremely upset that anybody was hurt under these circumstances.”

      • TheNewsMadd says:

        You and I are on the exact same page. Are difference don't matter anymore. I get along with alot of chiristians and let them say what they want and never say a word. They leave me alone as well when I talk about their religion. In the end we both know that does not matter anymore. This country is going downhill fast and the more divided we are the more they win. As I have said several times in the past no sense in arguing what a piece of $hit smells like, it just smells like $hit

        • Mr. Liberty says:

          Agreed Wee! Thank you for being respectful. Abortion and gay rights are designed to create dissent among the citizens. We have far bigger fish to fry than these two issues. Live and let live, problem solved.

          • Roger says:

            Misdirection.
            Distraction.

            Just two legs of the propaganda stool.

          • LetsMove says:

            STFU!

            What compels you, to come into the middle of a conversation, insert yourself like a child farting in church, and comment to every person on the thread?

            Do you have some sort of quirk?
            Some sort of tick that goes off in your head, and you start typing furiously like someone with tourettes ?

          • Roger says:

            Wow, you're just as rude as winchester.

            What compels you two to come here and pretend you are the arbiter of the site?

          • LetsMove says:

            What compels you two to come here and pretend you are the arbiter of the site?

            What?
            You obviously think that you are.

            I like this site.
            It has potential.
            It could take off and go somewhere, especially if they did less "Cops shoots dog" articles, and have more articles from Michael Thomas.

            It would especially get some traction, if they banned you from posting.

          • Roger says:

            The site had traction before the posse targeted it.

            Too bad they don't figure out who just goes around insulting people and bans them.

            I'd still be here struggling to discuss issues.

          • LetsMove says:

            Rog Honey,
            I know you struggle.

            That is why we all go slow, so you can keep up.

          • Roger says:

            Lowering the standards. it must be a troll thing.

          • PoofAgain says:

            OMG, he called you a troll. Them's fightin' words, pal. **snicker**

          • Roger says:

            I could call you a lot of things too.

            And it would be just as true.

            I have to wonder, if there was any hypothetical classic auto repair business and how it's doing.

          • TheNewsMadd says:

            I am respectful to those who are respectful to me. I respect you.

            Agreed we do have far bigger fish to fry and need to put our differences behind us. I firmly believe we have government implants though and their only purpose is to divide and distract

          • LetsMove says:

            Government Implants, eh?

            I always knew that Roger was a boob.

          • TheNewsMadd says:

            Yep

          • Roger says:

            You trolls sure do stick to personal insults.

            It must be all you can manage.

          • PoofAgain says:

            That's ( . ). ( * ) if enhanced.

          • Roger says:

            I was tempted to lower myself to your level. But the only thing I could think of was a strong mixture of vinegar and water.

          • LetsMove says:

            These
            (*) (*)

            are really enhanced.

          • Roger says:

            He do, fascism is raising it's ugly head. And the media covers for the tyranny.

          • PoofAgain says:

            Interesting, because I consider far-right radio/TV to be the ones who divide and distract. I'm sure there are left-leaning media that try to do the same, but they lack the clout the far-right has, so they almost don't count. I'm a liberal, and there's nothing I've ever heard on MSNBC that has swayed my opinion one way or the other…and since it's always touted by the right how low MSNBC ratings are, they really don't influence very many. But when it comes to the likes of Rush or Sean or Bill or all of those fly-by-night "analysts", I'd bet my bottom dollar suckers like Roger can quote them verbatim on most subjects. Heck, they quote them constantly in commenting, except they fail to use quotation marks or give credit where credit is due.

          • Roger says:

            How does actually acting as journalists and reporting the truth a bad thing?

            Is Bashir making that comment about Sarah Palin a bit divisive and distracting perhaps?

          • Mr. Liberty says:

            Rush or Sean or Bill are agents of the globalists. They and FoxNews do incite division. All MSM does IMO.

          • Alinsky Hero USA says:

            That;s why we love Media Matters.

          • Roger says:

            When Soros gets the same media exposure as the Koch brothers then journalists might be taken seriously.

          • Alinsky Hero USA says:

            Actually Rush and Sean don't have high ratings. They just make up their numbers and sell them to dumb advertisers who never check.

            Rush gives out his show for free, nobody buys it.

          • Roger says:

            They are in an industry that's hostile to them.

            If anything the numbers are screwed downward.

          • PoofAgain says:

            Is English your second language? Or did you purposely use "screwed" instead of "skewed"? Twit.

          • Roger says:

            I could call you a twit, but I think the correct spelling might be more of slightly different. But of course that's just my opinion based on your ill mannered and unreasonable comments.

          • LetsMove says:

            That's the true Roger.
            The one hiding behind that "Mr. Nice Guy" facade.

            I knew from the get-go that you were counterfeit.

          • Roger says:

            And I knew from the get-go that you were a troll and would try to put things in their worst light.

            What is wrong with calling her a snit?

          • LetsMove says:

            He wouldn't know the difference if he were skewed, screwed or skewered.

          • PoofAgain says:

            That explains a lot. If someone can't tell whether they've been screwed or not (good meaning or bad), they've pretty-much become some version of a eunuch. In this case, it's a eunuch with severe OCD.

          • Roger says:

            What it explains is that you as part of the posse forget the obvious.

            In your push to shut down debate you forgot the results of either word have the same result.

          • PoofAgain says:

            Well said. **snicker**

          • Roger says:

            You almost used a big word, who would have imagined….

          • CitizenSane says:

            Hello Poof.
            Well, I see that the feral shltbird destroyed another website, and LRC is gone. They switched over to Disqus, and nobody is participating. There is one guy that looks like a home named "JeepWonder" who is using Rogers photo on his avitar.

            So much for stifling free speech.

          • PoofAgain says:

            Could you send me a link to one of those 'jeep wonder' comments? Not here though, this site is too difficult for me to open the comments to. Maybe here? http://bitchspot.jadedragononline.com/2014/06/07/

          • Roger says:

            You sure are a little limited aren't you.

            You don't mind telling people to do things, but you're just a bit too useless to actually go to the site and look yourself?

            Typical. And it's typical that the posse of trolls targeted a site and destroyed all debate until they switched to another format, like you did with the heritage site when it changed over.

          • PoofAgain says:

            TSTBRT.

          • Roger says:

            Was that supposed to mean something? Or were you just so angry at life that you had to at least pretend to say something?

          • smith says:

            Looking at other comments here Roger is also very pleased with himself that he knows the distinction between twit and twat. How droll.

          • Roger says:

            Looking at my other comments I know the difference between twit and snit too. How troll.

          • Guest says:

            Of course he knows the difference.
            That little growth under his nose, looks like a hood.

          • Roger says:

            And you can't manage to even post under a regular profile, so every single site that changes over is safe from you.

  11. smith says:

    We are given precious little time in life … how much of yours is a fool worth?

    At what point do dalliances with a fool make you one too?

  12. Mr. Liberty says:

    Im outta here. Camping this weekend! Thanks for the good debate Poof, Letsmove and Wee. Hope you all have a wonderful weekend!

  13. Mr. Liberty says:

    Wow…O really thinks he is a dictator. Shame on him and shame on congress for not impeaching his sorry as s. Turns out they twice denied the Bergdhal swap but Barry felt like he can just go ahead and circumvent them. Barry needs to go to prison.
    http://www.wnd.com/2014/06/another-bergdahl-shoe-http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/4/co

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *