The Tea Party's Joe Walsh...A Perfect Example Of Pure Hypocrisy...What Could Be More Tea Partyish?

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by mudbeed

 

Hey. Don't come to the rescue of a deadbeat dad.

Deadbeat dad? You don't know what kind of father he is.. you just know he won't pay his wife. I'm tired of seeing that term thrown around, just because a man doesn't funnle obscenes amounts of cash into his exwives / ex girl friends bank accounts does not determine the type of parent he is. If there were strict regulations that all the funds were put into a trust account that could ONLY be spent on material or necessities for the child then sure, I'd say he's stiffing the child. But to me, he's only stiffing the mom, and I'm ok with that. A woman can kill her baby if she wants, a man is automatically held financially responsible to care for both. If she didn't want this, perhaps she shouldn't have married the guy, or had his kid.

How anyone could try to defend this piece of human garbage is beyond me. He's stiffing mom and you ok with that. Who do you think is taking care of his kids? Stiff mom and you stiff the kids.

Buster? Have you ever had your kids taken away from you? Or your ex spouse tryed to take them away from you?

Have you payed into the system and KNOW your ex spouse is wasting your hard earned cash and spending it on her new boyfriend?

Ever been there? I haven't either. Don't go blaming the DAD on his feeling about how the court system reacts to "most" deadbeat" dads. He needs to fix that. That's the law.

The guy sounds like a flake to me. Vacations,New girlfriend,Kids can't get court orderd compensation..etc.

You did a good job of painting him into the corner of Bad Dad AND a Tea Partier.

Happy? What's your real fricking adgenda?

Democrats care..Tea party is full of crap. Republicans for the rich.

Middle America ain't falling for it again buddy. Been there done that.

reply to post by buster2010


Maybe he'd like to take care of the kids? Maybe he'd like to directly contribute the expenses per the child as they appear..

No .. I don't support child payment to mothers simply because there is no regulation as to what they have to spend the money on. Just like alimony. We want a "equal" society, while still discriminating against fathers. So he stiffs mom, what would she do for the child if she had that 100+ thousand dollars? Give it to the kid? Please... mom can't go on a shopping spree ... yeah, I'm OK with that.

@#% the System.

What 100 grand? He's a politition dude. Read the Rulebook.
Life time pension and upgraded medical.

You get that? Your somebody.

What the hell do you think is the payoff?

Power.. and Paychecks for life.

Go back and read my first sentence. 100k? Too funny.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by buster2010

 

Maybe he'd like to take care of the kids? Maybe he'd like to directly contribute the expenses per the child as they appear..

No .. I don't support child payment to mothers simply because there is no regulation as to what they have to spend the money on. Just like alimony. We want a "equal" society, while still discriminating against fathers. So he stiffs mom, what would she do for the child if she had that 100+ thousand dollars? Give it to the kid? Please... mom can't go on a shopping spree ... yeah, I'm OK with that.

@#% the System.

Uh, I think he lost all power to tell her where to spend her money at the time the divorce was final. If he wants to spend money on the children the way he sees fit, no one is stopping him. If he thinks that mom is squandering the money, then he has the right to take her back to court and seek relief. The truth of the matter is that the man is a deadbeat dad and despite that fact, the Tea Party still loves him to pieces.

On the other hand, I would like to thank yourself and niceguybob for showing up in this thread and proving my original point, which is that you Tea Party people will continue to stand behind your man even when they are proven hypocrites and despicable ones at that.

reply to post by Flatfish


Uh I think she lost all rights to his money when the divorce was final.

There are people of lower income status who go to jail for this same thing and owe less.

Think about that.

reply to post by Rockpuck

Uh I think she lost all rights to his money when the divorce was final.

That does NOT absolve him of his financial obligation to his children. The money, believe it or not, is not going to his wife it goes to his kid. He owes over 100,000 in child support payments to HIS CHILDREN. I guess you would be okay with it if he dumped support for his own offspring so that they could go on welfare and the rest of us can pay for his progeny while he traipses off to Paris and Mexico with his mistress and then "loans" his own campaign money?

The guys a bum, he has no business seeking office and especially not to lecture America on it's debt issues.

Sad... So very sad.

Ya'll are focusing on the wrong guy. Here is the real Joe Walsh
His words ring true for all of us!
I'd vote for him in a second!

what a thread

objective: paint the husband as a worthless piece of trash who needs to help the poor little old mother out who cant fend for herself or take care of her child.

thought women didnt need men oh just their cash.

Originally posted by stephinrazin
Sigh. Just because one man in the Tea Party is a scumbag does not invalidate the Tea Party platform. The refusal to address issues is unfortunate. If you disagree with the Tea Party values that is your right. If you think that Joe Walsh is a piece of trash that too is your right. The attempt to discredit a group's philosophical platform by showing that a member is a morally despicable person is pathetic. It is a sign of the dumbing down of political debate in this country.

Exactly. It would be like me saying it was ludicrous for the Democratic Party to make Timothy Geithner Treasury Secretary after he failed to pay his taxes properly for several years. I could say that it makes the entire Democratic Party look bad.

Wait...I DO think that was ludicrous...

Bad seeds on both sides of the aisle, people.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by Flatfish

 

Uh I think she lost all rights to his money when the divorce was final.

Not according to the judge presiding over the divorce court and guess who has the final word in such matters? I'll just bet it's not Joe Walsh. The guys a low life that has no business being elected to head anything other than a prison chow line and anyone who would continue to support him, knowing full well what kind of person he is, deserves no better.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by Flatfish

 

Uh I think she lost all rights to his money when the divorce was final.

This isn't alimony wer're talking about. It's CHILD support. Children need things like shelter, food, clothing, education, that a compensary to their parents life style. The courts make that decision.

He hasn't paid child support for over 10 years for 3 kids! He owes $117.400. Do the math, no I'll do it for you.

117,400 / 10 years = 11,740 per year
11,740 / 12 months in a year = $978.00 per month
978 / 3 children $326.00 per child per month.

That is not unreasonable. What is unreasonable is his not paying and seeking higher office to regulate the economy with the same morals.

I would pay money to see this guy in front of Judge Judy!



Great thread OP! S7F for you.

The Tea Party along with the right winger conservatives are funded by the wealthy to do their bidding.

They and the right wing conservatives are doing the battle for the wealthy of this country at the expense of the working class Americans, the soldiers, our teachers, public schools, the disabled, and the retired.

They wish to eliminate EVERYTHING from the middle class and put it all into the POCKETS of the WEALTHY, PERIOD.

The BUMS must be stopped before we have NOTHING LEFT PEOPLE!!!!

Originally posted by pplrnuts
The Tea Party is funded by the wealthy to do their bidding. They and the right wing conservatives are doing the battle for the wealthy of this country at the expense of the working class Americans, the solders, our teachers, public schools, the disabled, and the retired.

They wish to eliminate EVERYTHING from the middle class and put it all into the POCKETS of the WEALTHY, PERIOD.

The BUMS must be stopped before we have NOTHING LEFT PEOPLE!!!!

You are exactly right and I support your position completely but what I don't understand is their continued support of such politicians in light of their blatant hypocrisy. The only thing that I can think of that would explain it is found in this old saying; "Birds of a feather, flock together." Pretty despicable flock if you ask me.

It gives birds a bad name too.

Originally posted by buster2010
What a scumbag. He cries about putting debt on his kids when he doesn't care about them enough to even take care of them. He needs his butt kicked.

And a lesson in personal responsibility, that is their "thing" isn't it, he needs his smug face kicking in, the arrogance of going high profile while knowing he had this debt is staggering.

Originally posted by niceguybob
It gives birds a bad name too.

Yes it does indeed, but I doubt it pertains to all birds. I would have to assume that we're primarily talking about birds of prey, seeing how their agenda dictates that they prey on the weak, (poor & elderly) in order to attain financial gain for the powerful. (wealthy elite)

Originally posted by neo96
what a thread

objective: paint the husband as a worthless piece of trash who needs to help the poor little old mother out who cant fend for herself or take care of her child.

thought women didnt need men oh just their cash.

Well Neo, you never cease to amaze me. I'll give you credit, it doesn't take you more than ten seconds to repaint a picture to your liking. The husband/congressman is a worthless piece of trash who has neglected to pay his court ordered child support, no ifs ands or buts.

Also in case you hadn't noticed there are three children involved and they're not just "her" children, unless of course she discovered some new form of self-impregnation during their marriage. (which I'm sure is not outside the scope of your imagination.) Furthermore, I feel confident that if you ask her, she'd tell you that she doesn't need him anymore but in would be nice if he paid his fair share of the cost of raising "their" children.

Your defense of this deadbeat dad does nothing more than to prove my point in making this thread, which is the fact that despite their blatant hypocrisy, these scumbags continue to garner the support of the T.P./GOP at large.

reply to post by Flatfish


read the thread man and thats like the pot calling the kettle