In My Official Capacity As The Election District Chairperson Of The Sussex County GOP 5th of The 35th

    Often when I write here I make it clear that I am merely speaking as a private citizen and that I am not speaking as a representative of either the organization known as Delaware Right, or for that matter as a representative of the GOP.

   However, this time I want to make it clear that I am speaking as an E D C of the Sussex County Republican Party. It will be perfectly clear why it is important that everyone understand this point as they read further.

  On Monday night I attended the monthly meeting of the Sussex County GOP in Georgetown. To be honest I was supposed to drive to Frederick Md. for my job, but I had anticipated any number of reactions to the events at the state convention. None of which occurred.

   What I was witness to however was an attack on the First Amendment. I have to say that being a Republican and a conservative, I had not expected to experience this at the hands of the Sussex County Executive Committee of the Republican Party, but that is exactly what happened.

  Last month a resolution was put forth, which by the way was not done according to the rules, since it was done completely verbally and was not put in writing. The committee voted to send it to the resolutions committee, which actually ended up writing the resolution, and then brought it back this month to have another vote to send it to the state committee to have it adopted as policy for the Delaware State GOP.

  First let me tell you, it most likely doesn’t have a chance in hell of passing at the state level, which is nothing new for resolutions coming out of Sussex.

  The resolution was presented to the Executive Committee by the Vice-Chairman Fred Silva, who also sits on the resolution committee.

 The resolution read as follows,

   “The Delaware Republican Party stands for traditional family values and all representatives of that organization shall, in that capacity, publically reflect that view”.

  Now do you see why it is important that everyone understand that I am speaking as a representative of the Republican Party?

   When discussion was opened to the floor I rose in opposition of this resolution.

   My first point was to the vagueness of the wording. I asked what exactly does traditional family values mean? And whose family values are we talking about, mine, yours or someone elses?

   I then asked when exactly I was considered a representative of the GOP? I was told by V.C. Silva that anytime I was speaking as an E D for the party.

   I asked what if I didn’t share the so-called Party line? V.C. Silva told me then I should just shut my mouth.

   When I brought up the fact that the Republican Party was supposed to stand in defense of the freedom of speech, I was offered the argument that if I work for a company, I have to abide by their rules. My counter was that I was not an employee of the GOP, but that I am the GOP, as well as everyone else in the room is the GOP.

  I was told that we must all be on the same page.

  Now if we take the point of this resolution to its logical end, when I am at the monthly meetings, acting in my role as an E D C, then I can never rise in opposition to anything the Party has determine to be the Party position.

 I ask everyone, is this the freedom that the GOP so often speaks of? Is this the new view of Liberty?

  Vice-Chair Fred Silva seemed a little, how can I say?, angry that I would dare to suggest that this resolution went against a person’s right to freedom of speech, he actually seems to think, that when we become a sitting member of the committee we give up our rights.

  I find this particularly odd, since V.C. Silva is an active member of the 912 Delaware Patriots, an organization that holds our Constitutional rights in very high regard.

  One has to wonder, would Mr. Silva seek to impose such a restriction upon the members of the 912 Delaware Patriots, and if so, what would their reaction be?

  Since the number eight principle in their creed states,

 ” It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.”

   While Mr. Silva may believe it is not un-American to disagree, he obviously thinks it is un-Republican to disagree.

   Now for the truth of the matter. This resolution has grown out of the controversy created by the fact that the Executive Director of the Delaware State Republican Party, John Fluharty,  made public statements in support of gay marriage. Let me add that the position is a paid position.

   What those who put forth the resolution really wanted to say was that they don’t want homosexuals in the party, but did not have the courage to come out and say it, so they cloak it in the words, traditional family values, and just for good measure they include every member of the party, not just paid positions.

   It is one thing to say a paid employee was insubordinate and to call attention to it, it is something totally different to pass such an asinine resolution, that is not only destined to fail to pass anywhere beyond Sussex, but that is written in such vague terms as to be open to the broadest interpretation and will allow power-hungry totalitarians such as Mr. Silva to use it to silence any and all opposition.

  It is these types of purity test that continue to shrink the GOP, it is this type of intolerance to opposing points of view, even within the party that will condemn the party to failure.

 If this piece of hateful, restrictive garbage somehow were to pass the state level, I will continue to exercise my freedom of speech, and those such as Mr. Silva are free to do whatever it is they think necessary to respond.

124 Comments on "In My Official Capacity As The Election District Chairperson Of The Sussex County GOP 5th of The 35th"

  1. waterpirate says:

    Frank,

    I must say that this news does not find me well. It means that the vast majority of R’s in the county will remain in the shadows. We will quietly go about the business of electing sane and balanced R’s, in spite of the ongoing petulance of the current regime. I had high hopes for J.R. being able to tun back the extreme and unify us agian…. alas I fear that will not happen anytime soon given this shenanigan move.

    It truly shows no balls. If the V.C. wants to exclude gays, and make lists and decide who is worthy and who is not, he should have the balls to put in clear, big, bold print. Not veiled in cowardice. We all know what that leads to.

  2. Laffter says:

    So the message is….

    STAY IRRELEVANT MY FRIENDS

    hmmmmmm, where do these clowns get these ideas?

    Haven’t they ever read about the Pol Pot regime, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Stalin etc?
    They were all ant the party, loyal to the party

    They are becoming that which they despise……..and fear.

  3. Fred Silva says:

    You miss the point, Frank. That resolution had already been passed by the vote of the Executive Committee last month. As I recall, you were there but you raised no disagreement with the resolution at that time.

    Your point in discussing the already approved resolution was out of order and I should have called you on that. But many of the people who spoke were taking your argument apart, so I did not.

    The only discussion relevant was whether to accept or not the two minor improvements the Resolutions Committee made to the resolution.

    For you to use this column to attack the Executive Committee for approving such an “asinine” resolution and “hateful garbage” is beneath you.

    Finally, I never told you to shut your mouth. Those words were never spoken, but then you know that.

    Hope this puts your fears to rest.

  4. anon says:

    Social conservatives, who exist merely to use government to control other people’s lives, are the cancer of the Republican Party. So long as social conservatives take a primary role in the GOP, we will continue to lose. No party who passes a resolution like that has any right to use the words “freedom” or “liberty” in any way.

  5. Linda Creasy says:

    Frank, if this resolution concerned you so much, why didn’t you speak up at the previous meeting when it was introduced and approved almost unanimously to go to the Resolutions Committee? Perhaps if you had done so, the wording might have ended up more to your liking. The originator of the initial resolution had no issue with the minor changes that were recommended. Further, given the results of the vote to accept the new wording, it would seem that over 75% of the members had no problem understanding the true intent of the resolution. An intent, by the way, that you have seriously twisted to the most negative interpretation possible and which bears little or no resemblance to what was trying to be accomplished. What you have presented here does nothing more than misrepresent the Sussex GOP and its views. I believe this is why so many of your peers shot down your argument at the meeting and voted overwhelmingly to accept the resolution.

    I enjoy reading your posts, but I have to speak up when you misrepresent the committee, and worse, speak untruthfully about what Fred said to you. He never told you to shut your mouth. I have the entire meeting on tape (as always, to ensure accuracy in the minutes). He simply never said that to you. I understand that you disagree with the actions of the committee on this one, and wanted to voice your opinion. However, when you falsely accuse others, you lose integrity, Your arguments will gain far more traction if you stick with the facts.

  6. Book says:

    I was not even there and I have no doubt the events occurred as stated. The inmates don’t run the asylum, they own it. Stay irrelevant my friends….

  7. Dave says:

    That is indeed a poorly written and passed resolution if the phrase “traditional family values” was left undefined.

    Consider just the following, does the phrase mean traditional (family values) or (traditional family) values?

    Further, this is one of those litmus tests that because it is not defined can only be seen in the eye of the beholder (or beholders).

    Lastly, this type of crap is exactly the reason many (including me) will never again be a member of the GOP (except perhaps during the primary).

    If you put up candidates that meet my standards, that candidate may receive my vote, in spite of their party affiliation, but really, my expectation is that the GOP in Delaware will jerk further to the right until the jerk themselves into non-existence.

  8. Duke Brooks says:

    Frank, I am writing now as the Spokesman for the Sussex Republican Committee, and also as an Election District Committeeman (1st of the 14th).
    There is a dramatic and profound difference between party discipline (which is essential to any political party’s survival and success) and “an attack on the First Amendment,” as you wrote. Since you and I were at the same meeting, and I neither witnessed nor heard any such assault, please allow me to inform you that the First Amendment says, in part, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of the Press, nor of Speech…” Please note that even a cursory understanding of the English language makes it clear that the Framers’ intent was that government should have no ability to imprison those who publicly disagree with its policies or actions. No such restriction was ever intended to be imposed on citizens, companies, political parties, the D.A.R. or the Junior League.
    No party can function or elect candidates if one member speaks to the press and says, “I favor apple pie without reservation,” while that party’s official platform says, “Apple pie must be banned in all forms.”
    If the Delaware Republican Party gives one message to the press, but a representative of that party publicly states a message that is 180-deg. away from the party’s message, the public (read: voters) could easily conclude that the party is either undisciplined, “off-message,” unco-ordinated, unprofesional, or all four. This would inhibit our ability to articulate a clear message and, of course, message is everything in politics.
    No person should EVER, under any circumstances, speak FOR the State Party or the County Committee unless the respective chairmen specifically authorize them to do so. This is why there are communications directors in Georgetown, Wilmington and D.C. You (and I) have every right to discuss our opinions on party positions within our own party, within our families (traditional or not) and amongst friends. BUT…IN PUBLIC or to a member OF THE MEDIA, it is absolutely essential that we all “sing from the same sheet of music.” Unless this simple and obvious strategy is observed, we’re shooting ourselves in the foot just to prove that we have a gun. Freedom of speech is not the issue here, so please leave the straw men in the barn and the red herrings in the pot.

  9. Frank Knotts says:

    Let me clarify, when I say that it was said to “just shut your mouth” it was in the context of what a member of the party should do if they disagreed with a party line. If I am misremembering, please Ms. Creasy post a link to the recording. Am I also misremembering that Mr. Silva said if you don’t like the policy, then people could just leave the party?
    Duke of course I understand that the Constitution applies only to congress and has no authority over private organizations. But an organization that holds itself up as the defender of such rights, may want to be seen as allowing its members to exercise those rights.
    As for why I did not rise in opposition last month? Well first of all when the spoken resolution was put forth it had the word “paid” members of the state party in it, this written resolution said “all” representatives. There is a difference in restricting a person who is compensated, and restricting a volunteer.
    I guess this is why we have a policy that all resolutions are to be submitted to the E C in writing so that they can be considered as written and then compare them to the changes made. But that must only apply to resolutions that certain people may disagree with.
    As for being out of order? I was recognized by the Chairman, said my piece and then allowed others to have their say. And yes, I seem to have been in the minority, but not alone. I am not surprised that Mr. Silva believes that I was out of order for speaking my mind considering his support of this resolution. Why wouldn’t we discuss the changes? If changes are made between the time the original is put forth and then when the altered is brought back, why wouldn’t you allow people to discuss those changes? Or were we supposed to just ram it through like Nancy Pelosi?
    I will admit that I may not remember every word spoken, but the negative tone of this resolution speaks for itself, which is more than members will be allowed to do if it were ever passed at the state level, which it will not be.
    Which brings up another point. This is exactly why the GOP cannot gain any ground north of Sussex, because we are seen for our angry old white guy image and nothing else.
    Finally, I ask again, can we expect that Mr. Silva will be bringing this same resolution to his other organization the 912 Delaware Patriots? Or is he only interested in destroying the GOP? I mean if it is good that the GOP not have the freedom to speak its mind, why not the 912 Patriots?

  10. Laffter says:

    A lot of talk about tue ‘ intent’ of a resolution

    I was not at the meeting- I do not know what the intent of any resolution is not do I care

    I read tue resolution as simply words on paper- and extrapolate from there

    And from the outside I will tell you all- I read that resolution and thought ‘they’re nuts’ and that’s a group to stay clear off

    Regardless or your ‘intent’ it clearly says that your committee wants to stifle others and anything outside of a mom dad and kids is not welcome in your party.

    Think about traditional f-amily values-
    That would ward and June cleaver- nuclear family – good luck finding that anymore
    Divorce would not even be accepted and divorce does not reflect traditional fily values either

    Look around- if that’s the case and others interpret it that way- well, you just painted yourself into extinction

    From my point of view that is sad- even the progressive Dems don’t want the Rs to not exist- they recognize that checks and balances are vital to democracy

    But the poster above that said the social conservative are a cancer? Got it right in the money . Viewed primarily as a bunch of freaks that can’t stand opposition nor criticism – and brow beat the other voices into silence

    We have at it- destroy the Sussex GOP further
    You can only last so long- and at tue rate you are going Father Time will take care of the rest

  11. waterpirate says:

    SOOoooo, still no balls?

    Card carrying members of the party showed up to defend the action, and the legality of it all, yet failed to explain or elaborate the ” intent ” of the resolution. They have all turned into JM. We should all be very afraid for our futures.

  12. anon says:

    “There is a dramatic and profound difference between party discipline (which is essential to any political party’s survival and success) and “an attack on the First Amendment,” as you wrote.”

    One important thing here. Nobody — and I mean NOBODY — gives a hoot what the Sussex GOP Executive Committee thinks, outside of the people in that room. The EC are not the actual influencers of the party. They’re just the people with enough time to go to the meetings now that every reasonable person has been driven away. Same goes for the State GOP. Everyday Republicans — the ones who actually get people elected — laugh out loud at what happens in those meetings. I would LOVE to see the Sussex GOP EC try to enforce “party discipline.”

  13. Frank Knotts says:

    This resolution was intended as nothing more than a slap at John Fluharty, without the courage to say so.
    The generalities of the wording however leave it open to wild interpretation.
    Let’s face it, this tripe isn’t worth the paper it is written upon. The very fact that it doesn’t include what the consequenses will be for those who do not toe the party line, shows that even those who felt the need to construct such an obtuse piece of offal, had no real sense that it would be adopted at the state level, let alone enforced.
    The only reason I am talking about it at all is to demonstrate the mind set that is killing the GOP. The Republicans in Sussex have been spoiled by having Republicans elected. However if this continues to be the product we are attempting to sell, soon no one will be buying.
    A lot of people in the E C are good level headed people who are intimidated by the bullying tactics off others, they just don’t want to be attacked for their views. They would rather sit and allow this stuff to just pass, then have to be called liberal or worse.
    As for myself I am intimidated by very little, certainly not by bullies, I do find myself intimidated by really smart people, so very little that was said in support of this resolution intimidated me.

  14. anon says:

    I sure hope they are not talking about GOP County Councilman Vance Phillips’ traditional family values?

  15. waterpirate says:

    How about we think of EC as a village for a moment. 1 thing I can tell you for certain is that a village that has no children will soon be extinct. The average age of the EC is scarry in itself, but the really troubling thing is the number of members who do not work anymore. They have become what others have accused them of being, bigoted old white guys with nothing better to do than try and turn the clock back to the days of June cleaver.

    Also true to form, Duke and Fred have nothing to say about the intent, just jibber jabber about the valididty of the resolution.

  16. Jeannette says:

    Frank! Really? No one told you to shut up, no one in the room denied you the right to free speech – you were afforded the opportunity to speak your mind AND to vote; so, tell me, please, how that is a violation of the 1st amendment? No one said you were a paid employee of the GOP and to be perfectly honest, I have always considered you to be relatively intelligent so I am left to wonder at your motives for keeping such dissent going within the party -over and over and over. Are you a liberal plant? Are you attempting to thwart any efforts of the party to move forward as a unified organization? I don’t agree 100% with everything that comes up either but when it’s voted on and the majority carries it in a different direction, I have a choice – do I abandon the organization for a minor difference or do I go with the majority rule in order to keep the organization functional.

    Make a choice Frank – it’s simple and I think you already know that.

  17. Frank Knotts says:

    Jeannette, as I clarified above, I was using an editorial tool. The “shut up” was not directed at me and my opposing the resolution, it was in answer to the question, what if a member disagrees with the party, “well then they should keep their mouths shut”, was the answer.
    The point I was making about not being a paid employee was in response to people, maybe even you, pointing out that employees of a company cannot speak out against their employer. Again my point was that I am not an employee of the party, but that I am the party, you are the party, all Republicans are the party.
    And this resolution can be interpreted to restrict the rights of all members to exercise their right to free speech. Do you believe it is a good idea that the party that professes to defend freedoms, should pass resolutions that restrict them?
    And really, “liberal plant”? That’s the best you can do? So now any decent from the so called party line, and you are a liberal?
    Finally, I see you agree with Mr. Silva when he said if you don’t like it leave the party. Is that how we grow the party? How does that elect Republicans?
    For that matter Jeannette, what was the last thing that was discussed at any monthly meeting that would actually get Republicans elected?
    Jeanntte, please go watch this video and tell me if it reminds you of anything.
    http://www.delawareright.com/gop-state-convention/

  18. William Christy says:

    Frank there’s the truth and then your version which are miles apart. The easy solution is if you are so opposed to what the Executive Committee does then step down from your position.

    Your arrogance and ego prevent you from seeing what you are doing is wrong. Your “editorializing” does nothing to help the party grow which you profess to care so much about, on the contrary it only fuels the flames of those who speak against the GOP and gives ammunition to the liberals within this state. I also suspect you are very aware of what you are doing, and that this is just another display of your methodology at fracturing the party further.

  19. Frank Knotts says:

    You know Mr. Christy, back in 2006 and 2010 it was the more moderates in the GOP that were constantly telling me and others to leave the party if we didn’t like the way it was going.
    I am getting a little tired of people like you telling me to get out of my party of choice. I am getting tired of people who make such big show about defending our Liberties treading on mine and those of others.
    What I am really getting tired of is Johnny come latelies coming in and acting as if they hung the moon in politics.
    The act of telling people to get out of the party is the death knell for the party. You don’t grow the party by telling people to leave, you don’t win elections without growing the party. Really, someone who is acting as if they are a mover and shaker, such as yourself, and promoting a candidate, should be careful of telling people to just leave.
    As for not liking what the E C is doing? Well that is the whole point here isn’t it? The question is, am I or any other member able to voice our displeasure with the E C or the party in general. History is full of parties that did not allow dissention, do we really want to be another one?
    To be honest, had it been a simple resolution vote, I would have voiced my opinion, and then resigned myself to being on the losing side. But when Mr. Silva reacted such an angry manner and also said people should just leave the party, well for me that took it to another level beyond simply differing view points within the party, none of us own the party, we share the party.

  20. anon says:

    “Are you attempting to thwart any efforts of the party to move forward as a unified organization?”

    Someone wake me when there are actual efforts to unify, and not more efforts like this to try and get the GOP below the 20% mark. I’ve seen what some of the families in that room are capable of. I have no interest in their idea of ‘family values’ and the unconstitutional theocracy they want to create.

  21. Harry Whittington says:

    No Frank, don’t “step down” because you disagree with the Committee, as Jeanette suggests. Stay in your position and try to bring these fools into the 21st Century.

  22. Harry Whittington says:

    Excuse me, it was not Jeanette who suggested that Frank “step down” it was the self proclaimed keeper of the Constitution Bill Christy.

  23. Laffter says:

    I was wondering…….

    Traditional family values- should those be the Phillips version?

    Or the Bodenweiser version?

    Or tue ‘I actually think I’m God’ jeff Christopher version

    Just sayin’

  24. Harry Whittington says:

    You weren’t at the meeting Harry I was not the one who made the suggestion, or implied that if Frank is so displeased with what we are doing there is an easy solution.
    I didn’t address Mr. Knott’s comments at the meeting, I preferred to sit back and watch him self implode.

    delawareright represents itself as the voice of the Sussex County GOP. Neither delawareright, Mr. Grossman, Mr. Cragg, or Mr. Knotts have been officially endorsed or supported by the Sussex County GOP Executive Committee.

    Mr. Knotts is an elected member of the committee and is bound by the rules, just like any other organizations, it has nothing to do with it being a volunteer or paid position.

    NO ONE is infringing upon Mr. Knotts 1st amendment rights, that was reiterated numerous times during the meeting and in comments posted in here.
    (I have checked I.P. addresses and do not believe this comment was posted by Harry Whittinton. To the person who posted this, if you continue to use other people’s names, I will block your I.P. address from access to the site. This is a one time warning for such behaviour. Frank Knotts)

  25. Frank Knotts says:

    WOW! There are some really thick headed people in this world. Yes I was allowed to voice my opposition to the resolution. No my constitutional rights were not infringed that night, and yes I know the 1st Amendment does not apply to private organizations.
    My ppoint is that we as Republicans hold ourselves out to be freedom loving members of a political party. Should that party actually attempt to restrict free and open expression of our personal views?
    How does the party benefit by alienating more people?
    I am still waiting for an answer, when was the last time at a Sussex GOP meeting did we discuss anything that has to do with actually getting Republicans elected? The only mention of elections is to say they are coming up.
    The EC in Sussex is spending more than they are taking in, the only talk of fund raising is to ask the room every month for money. When was the last time the Sussex GOP put on a real fund raising event. And the Take Back Our State events don’t count because they were run by a PAC.
    Yet we waste our time with resolutions to restrict the members rights, and resolutions to impeach the president. All for nothing but grandstanding, which only further demonstrates to the people in the rest of the state that we are as lunitic as they think we are.

  26. Dave says:

    “My ppoint is that we as Republicans hold ourselves out to be freedom loving members of a political party. Should that party actually attempt to restrict free and open expression of our personal views?”

    So the crux of this is that you believe the GOP should practice what they preach?

    Or said another way, should hypocrisy be such a core value for the GOP. Laffter brought it up but I’ll echo it. The sanctimonious guise of members of the GOP belies their apparent true nature (Phillips, Bodenweiser).

    To preempt the response that the Democrats are no better, I will agree. So whats the difference? Well the Democrats aren’t proclaiming their morality and sanctimony. They don’t run out and pray at school board and county council meetings. They don’t practice sanctimonious behavior in public and depravity in private. In short, while their morals may be no better, they lack the hypocrisy gene.

    Aside from sex though, this hypocrisy has also been demonstrated politically by their ranting and raving against federalism but supporting federalism when it comes to marriage, abortion, any and all federal actions that govern or control social aspects of society.

    For what it’s worth, at least in Delaware, I make no distinction between the fringe IPOD and the GOP. IPOD is a suit cut from the same cloth. While I have no love for the Democratic Party, I can at least respect the fact that the practice what they preach even though I often don’t like what they preach.

  27. Angus Berger says:

    Frank there’s a difference between being thick headed and someone who thinks they know what’s best for everyone else but themselves. Perhaps you should reflect inwardly to discover which category you fall into. You admit that your 1st amendment rights were not infringed upon then you claim the party is trying restrict free and open expression. Which is it Frank no one tried to stifle your 1st amendment rights or they did it can’t be both.
    It certainly seems to me that Monday night did in fact have a segment that was directly related to getting someone elected. Ms. Lafferty formally announced her intention to run for the 2016 Governors seat. Maybe if you hadn’t been so busy being rude talking at the back of the room instead of listening to Ms. Lafferty you would be aware of what she said.
    When was the last time you came up with a real idea such as a fund raiser instead of your usual bitching about the party or storming out all pissed off like you did in April?

  28. Angus Berger says:

    Dave where’s the proof that Eric Bodenweiser’s values are anything then what he claims? There is nothing more than allegations made by a multiple convicted felon from 35 years ago, or are you counting Bodenweiser’s brother who was a drunk which is why he didn’t receive any of the family business because their father knew he drunk would only piss it away.
    Then we have a democratic VP who doesn’t pay even the smallest of bills like a landscaper. The landscaper finally got paid when he began unearthing the trees and shrubs for non payment, and refused to take a check from the democratic VP of the United States of America. Or maybe we should discuss Bill Clinton’s now infamous non sexual contact blow job, with Monica Lewinski. Or how about the current Speaker of the House (PS) who has made several trips to Jamaica to practice hedonism. The list goes on and on with politicians whose credo is; do as I say don’t do as do. Only a fool or a liberal would claim anything otherwise.

  29. Harry Whittington says:

    Is Mr. Christy using my name?

    Mr. Christy, I suggest you get used to John Fluharty at GOP headquarters. He is a protected class in Delaware under our employment law:

    ace, marital status, genetic information, color, religion, gender, national origin, age, handicap, requiring submission to a polygraph examination, retaliation, sexual orientation; users of legal marijuana

    You can claim that the resolution doesn’t name him or even gay marriage, but any attempt to remove him from his position after your idiotic resolution will most likely be met with a lawsuit that the party will most likely lose.

    The Sussex County GOP keeps reinforcing the left wing stereotypes of what republicans are; which will make it harder to get republicans elected in New Castle County and statewide. That means we stay in the basement at Legislative Hall, which means more liberal laws and higher taxes for years to come.

  30. Dave says:

    “Or maybe we should discuss Bill Clinton’s now infamous non sexual contact blow job, with Monica Lewinski”

    I’m assuming you missed the part where I said “Well the Democrats aren’t proclaiming their morality and sanctimony.” Bill Clinton’s relationships and acts were not preceded by public displays of sanctimony.

    You and others seem to keep missing the hypocrisy thing. I like your values just fine. The problem is you don’t practice them and you repeatedly demonstrate the inability to live in accordance with your values. There can be only two conclusions. The first is that you are hypocrites. The second is that you do not share those values which you loudly proclaim at every opporunity. Live your beliefs or stop using a megaphone to tell me what they are because I’m not buying it.

    As far as Bodie goes, while we await the wheels of justice, I will stand corrected and would amend my statement to include “alleged acts” in front of Bodie’s name.

  31. Linda Creasy says:

    I just have to jump in here one more time. Many of the posts keep suggesting that the intent of the resolution was to remove John Fluharty from his position. While I certainly can’t speak for the originator of the resolution (who was not Mr. Christy, as seemed to be implied earlier), my personal interpretation of the intent NEVER included any such thing. My understanding of the intent was simply that when an individual is formally speaking on behalf of the party – “on the record” you might say – then the language and content of their comments should reflect the stated views of the party and not conflict with them in any way.

    This has absoulutely nothing to do with the individual’s personal preferences or private views, or any discussion they may have with anyone when not speaking on behalf of the party. There is no suggestion of requiring that any action be taken against John or anyone else. It is simply stating that, moving forward, care should be taken as noted in my explanation at the end of my first paragraph above.

    Finally – a quick comment about John Fluharty. Personally, I think John is a good guy, a hard worker – I like him. I look forward to working with him in the future. And I am CERTAINLY not looking for him to be replaced. I’d be willing to wager (and sincerely hope) that the vast majority of my fellow Sussex GOP members feel the same way.

  32. William Christy says:

    Harry Whittington I have no desire to use your name in part or whole. I had nothing to do with the original resolution so before you make accusations be sure your facts are correct.

    I’ve met Mr. Fluharty and I will be speaking to him again this week. I have no issues with Mr. Fluharty and I too look forward to working with him in the future. A persons private life choices are just that private, it’s none of my business.

    I also have spoken to John Seigler on several occassions and had teh honor of standing alongside him at leg hall when he, Ms. Lafferty, I and a number of State Senators and Representatives spoke in opposition to HB35.

    Funny I don’t recall seeing you or any other self proclaimed conservative Sussex county GOP party member who posts in here at the HB35 rally. Unlike you I don’t talk the talk, I have no problem putting myself out there to walk the walk.

    The only thing keeping this party in the basement are people like you who take every opportunity to post erroneous, libelous information about people in a blog that allows it to continue.

  33. William Christy says:

    Ms. Creasy,

    I concur with everything you stated, and my recollection of the original resolution was exactly as you explained it. I would also like to thank you for posting that I was not the person who brought the resolution forward.

  34. waterpirate says:

    Hows about the originator of the resolution, tell us all what the intent was? It seems odd to me that he would show up to make sure everyone knew that the resolution moved forward and was carried legally, but chose not to splain his intent.

    Now not being a EC member he does not owe me anything, however since their are alot of Republicans that he is representing I feel like it should warrant some clarity.

    The world is tired of people who speak prcel toungue. It does not do anyone any good to say ” we believe that life starts at conception ” when what you want to say, but are to afraid to say is that you stand firmly against abortion.

    Making the statement about family values is no different. As Dave pointed out, Who’s family? in what context? Everyone assumed that it was an anti everything statement that did not look like Ward and June Cleaver.

  35. Linda Creasy says:

    waterpirate,

    The originator of the resolution was in attendance at the last two meetings – the first, in which the proposed resolution was presented, discussed and approved by the membership to go to the Resolutions Committee, and at the second, in which the proposed re-wording of the resolution was presented, discussed and approved by the membership by a 3 to 1 margin. The originator was fully prepared on both occasions to explain their intent if questioned.

    It would appear that, with the exception of Frank, the only people who did not understand the intent of the resolution and chose to interpret and share it in the most negative and controversial manner possible were folks like you who were NOT in attendance.

    Further, the orginator of the resolution is not avoiding responding here as you have implied. That person is out of the state on business right now and is not even aware of this blog and subsequent posts yet. I’m sure they’ll be more than happy to explain their intent when they return.

    “The world is tired of people who speak prcel toungue.”

    Well frankly, I’m tired of people who were not even there and who choose to form their opinions based solely on the word of one person vs. first obtaining all the facts, continuing to besmirch the Sussex GOP in the interest of “good copy” and “blog fodder”.

    And as far as your last statement – you know what happens when you assume…

  36. William Christy says:

    Waterpirate I am not about to be so bold as you and others are in here and speak for another persons intentions. If you want to know the originators intent who brought the resolution forward ask them yourself to their face.
    The originator is a well respected EC member and shows up at every meeting not just show up to make sure the resolution moved forward.
    The only people the EC member who brought the resolution forward owes any explanation to (IMHO) are those GOP members in the persons district he represents. That goes for every other EC member who voted either nay or yea to the resolution as brought forth and amended, I will explain my vote to any GOP member in my district who wishes to ask me.

    Who exactly is everyone? I certainly didn’t assume anything about the original resolution or the amended one I voted on. I don’t believe any other EC member assumed anything prior to voting either. Speaking for myself, I have no problem saying what I mean, and meaning what I say.

    In closing even though you are not an EC you do have the right to attend the meetings (as you are well aware). I’ve yet to see you in attendance.

  37. anon says:

    ” Many of the posts keep suggesting that the intent of the resolution was to remove John Fluharty from his position. While I certainly can’t speak for the originator of the resolution (who was not Mr. Christy, as seemed to be implied earlier), my personal interpretation of the intent NEVER included any such thing.”

    The only instance in the recent past that would have violated that silly resolution was John Fluharty supporting gay marriage. If you don’t think that’s what the resolution was about, you’re either terribly naive or you’re lying to yourself.

  38. waterpirate says:

    I appreciate your candor, however I am very thoughtfull and patient. I seek no notoriety nor bolstering of my station in life through bragging of my past nor current accomplishments. That being said, my problem with all this is that that the current EC falls far short of representing the rank and file Republicans in this County and in this state. It is the ongoing shennanigans of the EC that provide poor entertainment for the blogoshpere, when in reality it falls short of action.

    Action being defined as engageing new members who are not retired and drawing pensions. Fund raiseing, the grooming of electable candidates, the growth of the party.

    When the EC continues to narrow it’s platform and put forward resolutions that fit that narrow view, no growth or progress will be made.

    Just because you are a member of the EC, it does not elevate you to any station, other than being a part of the ongoing train wreck.

    If you are ever blessed with meeting me in person or recieving my proffesional card, you will read just after my name ” just some guy “. That is truly how I feel about myself and my opinions. Can you say the same?

  39. Linda Creasy says:

    LOL @ waterpirate…I’m not sure if you were directing that at me or at Bill, but yes, it may surprise you to know that I do indeed feel the same way. And since I know who you are, I won’t need your business card should we ever meet in person. Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem likely to happen since you no longer attend EC meetings.

    If we no longer represent the rank and file Republicans in this county, why don’t you attend, speak up, and try to make a difference vs. undermining us in the blogosphere? As the saying goes, if you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.

    “If you are ever blessed with meeting me in person”

    Hmmm…seems to me that anyone that leads with a statement like that most certainly does not consider himself “just some guy”. Just sayin’…

  40. Linda Creasy says:

    anon,

    Please read my statement again. I said that the resolution was never intended to request the removal of John Fluharty from his position, but rather to ensure that MOVING FORWARD, when an individual is formally representing the party, that the language and content of their comments should reflect the stated views of the party and not conflict with them in any way.

    While his actions may have triggered the initial resolution, nothing was ever suggested or intended to remove Fluharty from his position. To continue to insist on here that it was, regardless of your motive, will still not make it true.

    So no, I am not naive or lying to myself or anyone else. I’m not sure the same can be said for you…

  41. waterpirate says:

    Please do not mistake my poining out of issues with the EC, as undermining of anything. I simply call it like I see it from the bridge of my ship. The EC is a evil that must be, but it has become a breeding ground for conflict, in it’s quest for power. This is not new information since it has been going on for a long time. Power corrupts people, and a title is a gateway drug that promotes that perversion.

    Think of it like this, to be a good christian you need not be a part of an organised church, just lead a good life. The same is true of R’s in this county and state. To be a good one you need not be part of the EC.

    The EC needs to be focused on: fundraiseing, grooming and finding new candidates, and getting them elected. Instead we find them mired in controversey, in fighting, and writing resolutions with un clear objectives.

    I chose to be a part of the solution that focuses on the first 3 examples I gave as they are productive uses of time. The EC’s focus on the latter 3 makes it non productive to the goals we need to achieve as R’s.

  42. Dave says:

    Well said Lirpa!

    Um…by the way “Too” is an adverb usually used at the end of a sentence or clause and always used before an adjective or adverb. While it doesn’t violate any rule of grammar or usage. But it is unnatural and seems affected. It is difficult to start a sentence with the word “too” and have it be grammatically correct.

    I would suggest “also,” which means “in addition to” as opposed to “too” whose primary definition is “excessive”

    I say this with the greatest respect and also tongue in cheek, since I am sure that was your intent. Regardless, it’s a bit late for an April Fool post isn’t it?

  43. Frank Knotts says:

    Dave, I believe Lirpa to have been spam and have removed that comment.
    Okay, Angus Berger, for the slow to learn group. I know that the 1st Amendment does not apply to private organizations, so the resolution cannot actually affect my 1st Amendment rights as a citizen. My point is that the nature of the resolution is to restrict a member of the GOP’s free expression of their views. I happen to think, that to be counter-intuitive.
    Angus then says, “It certainly seems to me that Monday night did in fact have a segment that was directly related to getting someone elected. Ms. Lafferty formally announced her intention to run for the 2016 Governors seat. ”
    Ah! If saying were only doing. So you really think that simply announcing is all it takes? I heard everything Ms. Lafferty had to say. I heard a lot of empty rhetoric, I heard bumper sticker politics, what I did not hear was how she would raise the money needed. What I did not hear was a strategy to win state-wide. What I did not hear was a unifying message, beyond saying that we should unify. Again, if saying were only doing. Beyond holding up a prop that read “We The People”, what was the message?
    And before Mr. Christy pops up, let me tell all here that after the meeting I walked up to Ms. Lafferty and Mr. Christy and offered my email address to her and invited her to send in a post on any topic she wishes, be it her “campaign” or any issue she feels strongly about. I have heard nothing in response. But getting a “campaign” off the ground can be time consuming.
    Now as to the intent of the original resolution, the entire conversation was centered around Mr. Fluharty and his statement to the press on gay marriage. So anyone who says that it had nothing to do with him is either misinformed, or they are attempting to misinform others.
    The reason the wording was watered down was because the original resolution cause a small dust up behind the scenes. The original stated that “PAID” employees should represent the party line. Of course that one word severely narrowed the focus of the intent. But at least it was more honest. The fear of being labeled homo-phobic led to the wording change.
    Unfortunately, it also widened the scope of who would be affected. I have no problem demanding that someone who is paid should be subordinate to their employer. However when you attempt to subordinate volunteers and members of a party, and then tell them they can just leave if they don’t like it, well I think you are either mad, or your intent is to destroy the party.
    The problem the GOP is suffering is that far too many members are locked into their youth. They have not attempted to stay relevant. They have not adapted their arguments to reflect the current climate.
    It is not that we as a party cannot support “traditional family values”, it is that we must mold that message so that it will be received by a younger generation.
    The time has passed when we can simply get up and shout “throw the fag out”. If we want to support family values, then I suggest that we begin at home. The problem in the E C is that we have an age problem. This does not mean that the people who are older are not of value. They are, they have the experience and knowledge that younger people need to draw from. The younger people have the energy and the new eyes and ideas to grow the party.
    But as long as we have people standing at the front of the room telling them like it or leave, we will never grow the party, because the young people will just leave, if they ever show up at all.
    Finally, Ms. Creasy, I am still interested in a link to the recording of the meeting you stated that you have. If not here, maybe you could post it on the Sussex GOP site? I am sure others would be as interested in hearing the actual meeting, as I would be for them to hear it, so if I was mistaken we can clear that up.

  44. Linda Creasy says:

    Frank,

    I would love to provide a link to the recording, but my device has no means of creating such a file that I know of. It has no ports for connection to a computer, and is simply a playback device. Who would have thought we would need such a capability to “defend” against one of our own members? If you know of some other way that I can create an electronic file from such a recorder, I’ll be happy to utilize it and post the link.

    What you fail to mention is that this recording has already been heard by an “owner/moderator” of this site, who contacted me shortly after the first few posts were made here. I’ve no doubt that he immediately shared what he heard with you, including the fact that my device did not have electronic transfer capabilities, so I can only guess at your motive for raising this request again. Could this be a red herring? Please tell me that you are not trying to create the illusion among your “followers” that no link to the recording equates to corroboration of your accusation.

    You already knew that a link could not be provided to discredit your argument, but requested it again anyway to give the appearance of wanting to use it to validate what you’ve said. I was actually trying to take the high road and not bring up the tape again, as I knew it would undermine you to anyone that listened to it. Although we disagree here, I have no desire to paint you in a bad light. However, since you insist… I’ll be happy to personally play the recording back for anyone, Frank, but rest assured it will serve only to call your bluff and reaffirm what several of us have been saying in these posts all along.

    One final comment… This all started because you were convinced that your First Amendment rights were somehow being compromised, and yet you deleted a post made by Lirpa which was completely harmless. How ironic…

  45. Dave says:

    Unless your device was manufactured in the 1940s it has an earphone jack which can be connected to your microphone jack on your pc and thereby providing a means to record in an electronic file what is on the device.

  46. anon says:

    Linda — I said the resolution was about Fluharty, not to remove him now, but to remove him or someone like him later. You confirmed that it was about Fluharty.

    In addition, Fluharty took great pains to say that he was not speaking for the party when he spoke on gay marriage.

    This vaguely-worded resolution, by the way, did not say “thou shalt speak the party line,” but instead said that party representatives should reflect “traditional family values.” Apparently, if he’d said he was in favor of tax increases, everything would’ve been cool.

    Everyone knows what this is. I think we’re done here.

  47. William Christy says:

    Frank what do we hear or read from you? The same tasteless rhetoric, indignation and condescending insults by a self righteous buffoon.

    Just to clarify and keep it truthful you didn’t walk up to me and say one single word. You were totally dismissive of Ms. Lafferty just as you are of anyone else who doesn’t agree with you or treat you like you are a god with a message to save our party.
    Why would anyone take you up on your offer, and by the way I was offered the same thing (to be a guest writer on any topics of my choice) by the owners of this site in April after the meeting when Jeff, Steve and I spoke for nearly an hour. I declined the offer then and I still decline the offer as I have advised Ms. Lafferty to do. There is no need to write an article for this site when the only responses will be full of the same negative denigrating comments that can be found in any discussion in this blog.

    With that being said this is not about Ms. Lafferty!

    This is about Frank Knotts an EDC member who presents himself as the voice of the GOP as a blog writer for delawareright (a site which presents itself as the voice of the Sussex County GOP). Neither could further from the truth the EC has never collectively voted to make you or delawareright the voice of our party. Your whole dog and pony show imploded in April when it was disclosed what happens to the faces of GOP members who disagree with you.

    So now on to you Frank Knotts:

    Tell me what did you hope to accomplish with your moronic topic about coming out of the closet?

    Do you really thing that’s the type of commenting that helps the party grow or attracts people to our party by ridiculing and mocking ones sexual identity or preference?

    Let me make one thing perfectly clear I do NOT agree with your methodology, or your commentary about coming out of the closet. I found it to be totally tasteless, and insulting to those who struggle with gender identity. I also found it to be very intolerant and insulting to friends of mine who are members of the LBGT community.

    Interesting that you would use the word “fag” the same word that Sam Wilson loudly proclaimed at Jimmy’s Grille when he saw Meyer Persow there about a month ago. All of the GOP members there including the member who brought up the resolution were speechless and taken aback by Councilman Wilson’s tasteless outburst. While I do not condone what Councilman Wilson did I accept that he is up there in age.

    You however have NO excuse for using the term or trying to project to those reading this site that the real intent of the resolution or majority consensus of the EC was in anyway an attempt to demean or prevent anyone from living their life as they choose to sexually.

  48. Linda Creasy says:

    Dave,

    I didn’t know that could work. Thanks for the suggestion – I’ll see what I can do!

  49. Frank Knotts says:

    Ms. Creasy, do all of you guys buy your tin foil in the same place to get the bulk rate?
    I had not spoken with anyone about your comments here, that was, until the most recent one regarding the recording. All of us here have other lives and do not spend all of our days discussing the comments here.
    If you can provide the recording fine, I will await the outcome. I have spoken with the person you refered to, and was told that hearing it over the phone and only a partial play-back, that they too would like to help bring it forth.
    Just in case there is still a misunderstanding of what I am saying here, no one stopped me from talking, or suggested that I be stopped from talking during the meeting. It is the resolution that I see as being an attempt to restrict all members of the GOP from the free expression of their views. It was in answer to my question of , “what if someone disagrees with the party?”, that it was suggested that they, “shut up”, and or leave the party.
    If I am misremembering the discussion, I welcome the recording to refresh mine and others who were present that also remember it this way.
    Mr. Christy, so now you and your candidate are too good to discuss the issues here? Okay, but if I were advising a candidate, I would take advantage of any chance to get the meassage out, if there is one.
    I was accused of ignoring Ms. lafferty in the past, so I made an effort to make contact and to offer an outlet. As for being dismissive, well I did have a two and a half our drive to Frederick Md that night for my job, so yes at the end of the meeting I was trying to get on the road. I apologize if it seemed rude.
    As for being the voice of anything? As for myself, as I have said, I speak only for myself, not the party or Delaware Right. And I certainly don’t need anyone to take a vote to legitimize what I say.
    As for using the word “fag” go back and read the comment again, you really need reading comprehnsion classes. I was saying that the days of people using that language is long gone. Notice the quotation marks.

  50. William Christy says:

    Mr. Knotts my reading and comprehension skills are just fine. Let’s get one thing perfectly straight Ms. Lafferty is not my candidate, and it has nothing to do with me feeling I’m to good or Ms. Lafferty is to good to discuss issues here.

    The administrator and you as moderator are more concerned about “hits” to the site than controlling the comments that lack any civility. Hence my comment about declining the offer to be a contributor of an article. The “hits” you receive are those who come to view the train wreck and or the regular malcontents who never have anything positive to say about anything except the ego stroking circle jerk praise of fellow malcontents.

    You weren’t accused of ignoring Ms. Lafferty in the past, you claimed to have spoken and met her in the past which was an outright lie. Ms. Lafferty had no idea who you were until I pointed you out to her at the March meeting.

    You can claim you are speaking only for yourself all you want, I don’t buy it and neither do the majority of other EC members. You handed out pamphlets at the April meeting, this site was described as a site for the voices of the GOP party. You are an EDC as such your comments (which are for the most part very critical of the current EC and the GOP party overall) are viewed as that of an disgruntled EDC.

    That is what people have tried to explain to you but you are either to damn stubborn…..or you’ve have suffered irreparable brain damage from your prior drinking and drug use, or sniffed to much propane in your current position.

    I find it interesting how you try to justify your use of the word “fag” yet you refuse to answer my questions or respond to my statement about your tasteless, mocking insulting diatribe directed at members of the LBGT community who are also voters.

    Your own blog site was dead in the water, your style of writing and irrational responses caused you to no longer be welcomed at DelwarePolitics and quite honestly you aren’t doing any better here.

    You are nothing more than a pawn, for a person who loves DCW/CZW matches. The mentality used to run this site is the same, commentaries and comments with no socially redeeming value are better than none at all. You ARE part of this 3 ring circus whether you want to accept that fact or not.

  51. Frank Knotts says:

    Mr. Christy says, ” Let’s get one thing perfectly straight Ms. Lafferty is not my candidate”, really? You spend a lot of time with her and talking about her, so I only assumed she was someone you supported, but if you want to use this forum to state that you don’t support her, that is fine.
    The laughs continue with, “You weren’t accused of ignoring Ms. Lafferty in the past, you claimed to have spoken and met her in the past which was an outright lie. Ms. Lafferty had no idea who you were until I pointed you out to her at the March meeting. ”
    Ah, dear Mr. Christy, please do not use a word like lie, it is beneath even you. I had spoken to Ms. Lafferty at a monthly meeting in the past, briefly, as I stated, when challenged in the past that I had not sought her out. If she did not remember that brief interaction, am I to blame?
    “The administrator and you as moderator are more concerned about “hits” to the site than controlling the comments that lack any civility. Hence my comment about declining the offer to be a contributor of an article.”
    So are you saying that your convictions cannot stand up to those who choose to attack them, oh! you will go far in politics my friend. (That was sarcasm Sheldon)
    ” You are an EDC as such your comments (which are for the most part very critical of the current EC and the GOP party overall) are viewed as that of an disgruntled EDC.”
    Ah! The blind squirrel finally finds a nut! You are correct Mr. Christy, I am critical of the current EC and the GOP, and passing inane resolutions that are intended to stifle the free expression of the individual member’s views, will do nothing to quell that criticism.
    And now William Christy, after saying that comments here lack civility, makes this comment,
    “That is what people have tried to explain to you but you are either to damn stubborn…..or you’ve have suffered irreparable brain damage from your prior drinking and drug use, or sniffed to much propane in your current position.”
    Now if that isn’t a civil comment, I have never heard one. Yes I have been honest about my past indiscretions, I have drank and I have used drugs and I have chased women, and while I don’t make a habit of forcing my faith on others, I am happy to witness the fact that my life was saved through finding Christ as my Savior and finding my wife of over thirty years. You then impugn my current employment status as being detrimental, a job I have held for thirty two years, for the same company.
    I am not proud of my mistakes, but I do not regret them, they have led me to where I am today, and I am blessed and thankful, but you nor no man can make me ashamed .
    As for answering your question about another post? Well, then take your question to that post and I will answer it, where it will be on topic, but I will not allow you to dictate the topic of this thread.

  52. William Christy says:

    Mr. Knotts do not try to manipulate my words you will lose every time. You were implying that I was somehow Ms. Lafferty’s manager which I am not.

    However:

    I am the treasurer of a PAC that she and I started together. FYI, your RD is the assistant treasurer.

    Since we are both EDC’s it only stands to reason that we would be at the Sussex GOP meetings.

    Since we both are invited to Dan Gaffney’s Friday show at Jimmy’s it would only stand to reason that we both end up there on some Fridays.

    Since Ms. Lafferty and I have both been invited as speakers to meetings it would only stand to reason that we are in attendance together.

    Since I am the Delaware state coordinator for Oathkeepers there are many conservative groups that are interested in both Ms. Lafferty’s message and mine.

    As the Delaware state coordinator for Oathkeepers I have in my official capacity for Oathkeepers endorsed Ms. Lafferty, I have asked fellow Oathkeepers to do the same.

    Now on to your claim I can not stand an attack on my convictions.

    To that I say Bullshit Frank Knotts, you have in the past in Delaware Politics allowed a person whom I have no doubt you know personally to attack me repeatedly about matters you know are false. You have allowed that person to libel me, my wife, and drag personal matters concerning my grandchildren into discussions.

    So while you claim you will not allow people to dictate the topic of a thread again I say bullshit. You have repeatedly allowed it to happen in a number of topics in this very blog (those topics was turned into nothing but personal attacks directed at me) . For THAT very reason I brought up the matter at the April meeting and I did NOT disrupt the meeting as you claimed in your fabrication of the April meeting where you once again claimed to be a victim. I made the board aware of what was going on and I was told that I could bring it up during the question and answer period which is EXACTLY what I did.

    Calling you a liar is not beneath me.
    I have no reason to doubt Ms. Lafferty’s assertion that she had never met or spoken to you. I find that Ms. Lafferty is forthright and completely truthful about everything.

    Unfortunately I can not say the same for my dealings with you.
    Case in point the first time I ever met you at a 35th district meeting I showed you my credentials yet you denied knowing anything about that when you allowed laffter to verbally assault me in this blog site. You lied Mr. Knotts no matter what spin you want to try to put on it now.

    You now claim the word”fag” is a long gone expression again a lie, I heard the term used more at the one and only 35th district meeting I ever attended than I have heard anywhere else in the 7 years I’ve lived in this state. You will never convince me that you have not heard it used there.

    I didn’t impugn the company you work for, certainly you are not going to tell me that sniffing propane is healthy.

    If it wasn’t for me this site wouldn’t be getting any “hits” at all, so quite frankly (no pun intended) you should be praising me not berating me.

  53. Frank Knotts says:

    WOW! You certainly are going to great lengths to distance yourself from Ms. Lafferty. Is that for your protection or hers?
    I merely assumed that you supported her, and you have now spent all this time explaining how you just happen to be in the same places at the same time, okay you don’t support her, enough said.
    Now to the point that you say you can stand up to attacks? Is being a cry baby how you do it. That last comment was nothing but whining, oh! poor me say William Christy. Crying foul is not defending your views, it is playing the victim, not something a real conservative would do by the way.
    As for what I do and don’t allow on my threads, well that is my call, personally if you weren’t such a thin skinned reactionary, you would know that most of the people who say those things are getting exactly what they want from you when you react the way you do. Just put on your big boy pants and keep playing, or go home and tell mommy how the big bad bullies were mean to you. Oh! God! now you will be saying I attacked your dear sainted mother!
    And Oath Keepers? What is that? Is that some group to the right of the 912 Patriots? What’s the matter, the Patriots weren’t fomenting armed rebellion fast enough for you?
    Is Ms. Lafferty a member of Oath keepers? Just asking.
    I am not questioning Ms. Lafferty’s honesty, I am merely stating that I had a brief conversation that she clearly does not recall, but if it makes you feel like a big man to call me a liar, well feel free my jejune friend.
    And again, simply because I was unimpressed with our first meeting and do not recall all details, you choose to call me a liar, you are free to do so, but it seems trite.
    I can’t believe I have to explain the simplest things here. I was saying that the days that an organization would sanction standing up and saying the word “fag” in the middle of the meeting are long gone, not that individuals don’t still use the word, are you really this slow witted, or do you think you are that smart? Damn!

  54. Laffter says:

    Ummmm yes she is a member of the Oathkeepers….

    See Billy Boy, we do know who the members are, CURRENT and past

    As for your credentials. HAHAHAHAHAHA

    Frank, Christy is a liar and a bully

    Case in point, he blames the AG for his family situation…not his own bad parenting

    THAT alone should tell you everything you need to know

  55. Willaim Christy says:

    Mr. Knotts,
    While you claim to be clean and sober you still have all the classic traits of a substance abuser. Your post above in indicative of that fact.
    Make no mistake Mr. Knotts I fully support Ms. Lafferty’s bid for the Governors office in 2016, however I do not dictate to Ms. Lafferty what she should or should not do.

    Mr. Knotts’ your own actions and words in this specific discussion and your blog are the classic example of the nonstop turmoil and dissension that the majority of EC members want no part of.

    In closing while I afforded you the opportunity to speak to Ms. Lafferty at the May meeting, your demeanor and body language that I have witnessed on no less than 4 different occasions (including May) first hand cause me grave concern. You will not receive the same courtesy should you approach Ms. Lafferty again.

  56. laffter says:

    Well Frank

    You see what I mean?

    I do believe you have been threatened……

    Classic Bully, but he is a paper tiger and we all know that. He pushes into people from behind and elbows them when their backs are turned.
    He is the classic coward provocateur ,

    So, now is hie trying to set you up as some sort of physical threat to Lacey, and he is what, her self appointed bodyguard?
    It’s sad , pathetic, laughable, etc

    Dude couldn’t even protect his oupwn grandchildren…..and is parenting style sure failed him.

    It’s so pathetic it’s laughable
    It’s Evan Q and COD all over again.
    Lacey could kick his ass, my ass and your ass at the same time. Lacey proved herself over and over
    She does not need this shill to defend her

    However, this shows a definite lack of judgement on her part to associate with a cop wanna be – and to bring him to private police functions

    Bill you were never part of the drug unit and were not welcome there either.if you had any couth or knowledge of the way that social group functions you would have stayed home.

    Frank, cut your losses, he isn’t worth even talking to and Lacey won’t get far in her run for Gov
    The seat is tied up anyway, and she won’t get near it- even if she could raise over 2 million.
    It is simply spending good mony that most think could go to other causes.

  57. Harry Whittington says:

    If Mr. Christy is representative of Ms. Lafferty’s supporters, I want no part of her or her candidacy. One primary vote and one general election vote lost.

  58. anon says:

    Harry Whittington — Well put. I completely agree. And I’m worth way more than one vote, because I have earned the trust of others who will believe me when I tell them to steer far clear of any candidate who would align with people like Christy.

    As far as Frank goes, he has earned my respect over time as well. He’s not always right. He doesn’t always take the right approach. And he can say really stupid things sometimes. But he’s thoughtful, he sees the bigger picture, and he’s willing to both humble himself in service of a larger goal and assert himself when it is necessary. And his journey from RINO-basher (an easy place to be) to Big Tent Republican (a hard place to be) has been a sight to behold.

  59. Laffter says:

    @anon- well put

    Frank has made his journey and still is making it
    As we all are in our own way

    Anyone who would pick Christy to represent them has to have their motives and ability to judge questioned.
    It is a sign that she is looking to go hard right, where Christy is. That is bring her the 9/12 patriots and the Oathkeepers and the Delaware volunteer regiment and little else

    So, she may have the far right in Sussex and some of Kent – and absolutely NO ONE in New Castle

    Can anyone she her or Christy campaigning in Downtown Wilmington- like the Hilltop area. Or anywhere off MLK?
    I can just see Christy open carry down those streets. He would not make it to the corner.

    She is done…..before she even started.

    Lay down with dogs , get up with fleas.

  60. Dave says:

    The fact that she is a member or aligned with a group like the Oathkeepers (which by the way includes ex sheriff Mack) and 9-12 Patriots is the only part of her bio one need consider. She is the fringe. Her candidacy is hardly worth any newsprint, blog postings, or other commentary.

    There are plenty of things that need to improve in this state, but putting someone so far out to the right in office certainly is not a solution. The greatest impact she will have is to increase the financial and other support for real candidates because no one wants to take a chance on her getting elected.

  61. Frank Knotts says:

    You are a funny little man Mr. Christy, now you are attempting to question my sobriety. I am randomly drug tested because of my job and undergo a federal background check to hold my HazMat card. Could you pass both of those?
    Also, first you spend an unusual amount of time distancing yourself from Ms. Lafferty, and then claim to have “afforded” me the ability to speak to her. As Laffter said, as an ex- State Trooper I doubt she needs the protection of and elderly over weight gentalment such as yourself.
    Not sure what body language you are seeing beyond a person who is confident and at ease with their ownself. I am sure that scares bullies like yourself.
    If Ms. Lafferty wishes not to speak to me, she merely needs to say so. But I am not sure that is a good tactic for any candidate, but with people like yourself, it’s not about winning, it’s about continuing to lose, to protect your victim status and conspiracy theories, so that you can foment armed rebellion. We see you for who you are, everyone outside your tiny closed circle jerk of fellow travelers sees you for who you are.

  62. William Christy says:

    Dave
    Ms. Lafferty is not now nor has she ever been a member of 9-12 or Oathkeepers. People who lack courage like to hide behind anonymous names while posting untruths, that’s the downside of blogs just like this. It’s also the difference between successful blogs and one like this which is doomed to fail because of bloggers like Frank Knotts.

  63. William Christy says:

    laffter May 19, 2013

    “Well Frank You see what I mean? I do believe you have been threatened……”

    Frank does fine all by himself portraying a victim. I did not threaten Mr. Knotts in any way I advised him Ms. Lafferty has no interest in speaking to him.

    “Classic Bully, but he is a paper tiger and we all know that. He pushes into people from behind and elbows them when their backs are turned. He is the classic coward provocateur”

    I accidently bumped into someone who deliberaltely stepped out in front of me, while my head was turned speaking to someone. I immediately apologized and there were no less than 12 witnesses who can attest to that. I’ve never elbowed anyone and I have no problem doing or saying anything while looking someone squarely in the face. I don’t hide like a coward with an anonymous name either.

    “So, now is hie trying to set you up as some sort of physical threat to Lacey, and he is what, her self appointed bodyguard?
    It’s sad , pathetic, laughable, etc”

    What is truly sad is the lengths you will go to in an attempt to discredit someone. No one has to set Mr. Knotts up he self implodes all on his own, and he will be the cause of his own demise within the Sussex GOP party. Since you’re so concerned what my role is with Ms. Lafferty why don’t you ask her yourself…. everyone knows why because you’re a coward.

    “Dude couldn’t even protect his oupwn grandchildren…..and is parenting style sure failed him.”

    My grandchildren have been living and thriving with me for 3 years now in a safe loving environment.

    “It’s so pathetic it’s laughable
    It’s Evan Q and COD all over again.
    Lacey could kick his ass, my ass and your ass at the same time. Lacey proved herself over and over
    She does not need this shill to defend her”

    I have no doubt Ms. Lafferty could easily kick your ass and Franks ass no problem. But then again you’re a coward who’s always hiding. Again what my role is concerning Ms. Lafferty is her choice and business, not yours.

    “However, this shows a definite lack of judgement on her part to associate with a cop wanna be – and to bring him to private police functions.”

    Ms. Lafferty didn’t “bring” me to anything, nor was the event private. I was invited by several retired DSP troopers that I know personally.

    “Bill you were never part of the drug unit and were not welcome there either.if you had any couth or knowledge of the way that social group functions you would have stayed home.”

    Ms. Lafferty was never part of the drug unit either so your point is baseless. I was more than welcomed at the event, and had a number of retired troopers speak to me directly offering to help with Ms. Lafferty’s campaign. If you realloy knew hwat the hell you were talking about it wasn’t a party for just the drug unit it was a reunion of retired DSP and current troopers hosted by the drug unit.

    “Frank, cut your losses, he isn’t worth even talking to”

    Yet here you are once again….. posting the same lies and trying to intimidate me. I’m not intimidated by cowards which is exactly what you are a coward.

  64. Mike Protack says:

    The Monthly GOP meetings are seldom a worthwhile event, the challenge for the GOP is in the field standing up and reaching out not sitting in a big room with egos and personalities trumping the necessary business of building a slowly bit steadily disappearing party.

  65. Frank Knotts says:

    You see Mr. Christy, it is when you make statements such as this one,
    ” Again what my role is concerning Ms. Lafferty is her choice and business, not yours. “,
    that you demonstrate that you have no clue about politics. If Ms. Lafferty intends to be a serious candidate, and not just a ultra right wing spoiler, then you and she need to realize that every association she has now and has had in the past will be every citizens business. It’s called vetting a candidate, and the GOP has had enough trouble due to failure to vet candidates. And you reluctance to disclose your relationship with the supposed candidate, will only fuel speculation. That is just friendly advice, but of course you are so much smarter than anyone else, so you already know this, right?

  66. Laffter says:

    I have a couple of questions

    If I am a coward, what do you call the person who posted using Harry Withington’s name on this blog when it clearly wasn’t him

    If I am a coward what do you call the person who posted on DL using the name DP. Moderator?

    If I am a coward what do you call the person who posted as, Don Ayotte, people who know, and truth be told on DL, All three posters using the same IP address.

    There are not one set of rules for your friends Bill, and another set for everyone else….
    These are YOUR friends, Bill. I don’t sock puppet, not ever

    You on the other hand do…..

    What you don’t realize is when you walk away people laugh- and anyone aligned with you is considered to have damaged themselves.
    You come in here and disparage Frank and other posters for the very things you do

    Tell me Bill, who invented all, those fake names on FB.

    There are so any stories out there about you and the crap you have pulled that anyone hearing them would know that where there is smoke there is fire

    You would have been wise, for the sake of your candidate to keep your mouth shut and stop posting, but I know you just can’t help,yourself and rise to the bait everytime
    I chummed the water water and you took the bait

    You are soooooo predictable.

    See, your grandchildren had a hard go of it because YOU did not succeed in parenting. What does that tell the rest of us?
    And you blame the results of your bad parenting on the AG?
    Interesting.

    Wy don’t you publish the membership roles of the Oathkeepers

    Ahhhh but you won’t do that- will you. And some of them are not smart enough to keep,their emails off state mail

    Better check that Bill…….

    for the record, it was a drug unit get together, and you were brought by your candidate.
    You should have said hello …..too bad you missed the opportunity

    :-)

  67. William Christy says:

    Mr. Knotts you are the last person I would ever take advice from. In my opinion you are a hypocrite, whose unconscionable conduct has no redeeming value to fellow EDC’s, the EC or the GOP party.

  68. Laffter says:

    My mother was a very wise woman

    She had a great saying which I use often,…….

    ” a fox smells it’s own stink first”

    Yup, pot meet kettle ..,,,

  69. waterpirate says:

    We all know he has a short fuse, and given the opportunity he makes the news about himself, not the news. I have a real hard time with people who think the team has the letter ” I ” in it.

    Is Ms. Lafferty makeing a real run? I think that she started the marathon early if she is. The run for Govenor is like a double marathon even for a known candidate, not a sprint.

    Has she got a website? Any leadership or political experiance, besides her DSP service?

  70. William Christy says:

    Talk about predictable you took the bait hook, line, and sinker. the photos of the DSP reunion I posted were private until you made your first post in here. You ran right over to the 2 public fb pages that I post in, and started your usual guessing game.

    If you were there as you claim then answer the following.

    1. Who organized the reunion?

    2. Post the initials of the people who won raffle prizes and what they won.

    Yes I call you a coward because you are. Now I’m calling you a liar because you are. Lacey Lafferty is not and has never been a member of Oathkeepers. The are no Oathkeepers membership roles since there is not, nor has there ever been an state chapter of Oathkeepers in the state of Delaware. For the record it was a DSP reunion, open to anyone who wished to attend, and bought a ticket.

    I have no idea why someone used the name dp moderator on dl nor do I care.

    I have no idea why Don Ayotte, or the other names posted or came from some alleged same IP location, nor do I care. Anyone who claims to be as astute as you would know that an IP only gives a general location where the internet service provider is located. Also in many cases the same IP number can be shared by 100’s of internet users depending on the provider. Only law enforcement can obtain specific information to trace an IP to a specific location with a warrant issued by the courts.

    What do you call someone who posts over 180 times using a state owned computer, on a state owned internet provider during the time they are being paid by taxpayer dollars to work? Laffter

    Thanks for taking my bait hook, line, and sinker and proving what I’ve maintained all along. Unless I comment in delawareright Mr. Knotts blog is dead in the water.

    If your mother was a wise woman she would have kept a firm grip on the aspirin between her knees. Unfortunately she didn’t (edited for vulgarity. Frank Knotts)

  71. waterpirate says:

    That sir will prolly get you in some pretty hot water with the management.

  72. Frank Knotts says:

    I would ask that all involved please save your internet accusations for another time and place. If you feeel anything illegal has taken place contact the authorities. As for using other peoples names here, be assured we are monitoring the situation and know exactly who used Harry Whittington’s name. There has been one warning, there will be no others, persons using other people’s names will be blocked. Please do not test or force this issue.
    There are a lot of techno handshakes that go into commenting on a blog.

  73. Harry Whittington says:

    I am still waiting for an explanation as to why Bill Christy felt the need to steal my identity.

  74. William Christy says:

    I did not steal your identity, in fact my post was directed at you. I have no explanation as to how your name ended up in the author area rather than mine, it was not done intentionally or with any malicious intent. I offer my apology.

  75. Laffter says:

    Christy is a liar. Here is the page for the DE OATHKEEPERS

    http://oathkeepers.net/de/

    Among other things. So, malign my mother, shows us all what trash you are

    All it does is prove my point

    You have lied, you have been a sock puppet, you have used another posters name, you have tried to manipulate and ruin people lives

    Karma is a bitch, and she is coming for you. None of us need to do anything, you have destroyed yourself .

    A sad bitter, overweight old man, a failed parent, a wanna be, someone who will always live on the fringe and never be in the inner circle.

    How sad a person you are to take such a cheap shop.

    But hey, I hope Lacey sees this, and knows what you are, short fuse and all. 😉

    PEACE OUT

    thanks Frank, for the redaction, but ts only himself he hurts, he does not have the power to hurt or affect me in any way.

  76. Harry Whittington says:

    Mr. Christy, I do not buy your excuse because in order to post under my name you have to willfully type it, all 16 letters, into a space that is clearly NOT the space for comments.

    I would ask Frank to please make sure Mr. Christy has not attempted to impersonate me anywhere else on this blog.

  77. Laffter says:

    How about Christy either gets banned completely OR better yet is treated like Moseley?

    Ignored and relegated to irrelevance ,

    He seems to think this blog would wither and die without him, so lets just ignore him

    Don’t respond to him at all ever…..and then , well, he will be proven to be a liar yet again

    Then maybe he will see how irrelevant he is.

    Just a thought.

  78. william Christy says:

    Mr. Whittington I did not deliberately use your name. I offered an apology if you refuse to accept it then that’s your problem not mine.

  79. William Christy says:

    Laffter

    I keep all my correspondence to back up all my claims. the link you provided for the alleged Delaware chapter clearly states the following:

    “Chapter Details
    Leadership is being established for Delaware”

    The last post on the site was 3 years ago by Stewart Rhodes.

    The state calendar of events is empty going all the way back to the site being setup by the national organization in 2009.

    There is no Delaware chapter, there are no bylaws there are no officers, there has been no filing with the state of Delaware for a non profit status, all of which are required for a state chapter of any organization.

    Here is correspondence between myself and an Oathkeepers board member dated 02-26-2013 about a Delaware chapter.

    02-26-2013, 02:24 PM
    CorbinKale
    Oathkeepers Board of Directors

    Join Date: XXXXXXX
    Location: XXXXXXXXXXXXX
    Re: Delaware OATH KEEPERS chapter
    Mr. Christy,

    There is no Oathkeepers chapter in Delaware. There is also a moratorium on State Chapter President appointments. If you have the time and motivation to take the reins, I’ll add Delaware State Coordinator as your title. If you are successful, you’ll be nominated and approved as the Delaware State Chapter President, once the moratorium is lifted.
    Corbin Cale

    For the record once again contrary your claim you posted about Lacey Lafferty. Lacey Lafferty has never been nor is she currently a member of Oathkeepers.

  80. William Christy says:

    This evening I and other GOP members were attending an event to show support for a cause that is of importance to our county, state, and nation. Certain posters on this blog on the other hand were posting more of the same inflammatory comments creating more turmoil and dissension then there already is.

  81. waterpirate says:

    There is a huge differance between dissension and only allowing one idea under the tent. You and others are trying to force the idea of 1 idea under a small tent. The Susssex GOP EC has some major issues it needs to come to grips with, thankfully those issues do not affect those of us who left the ” puzzle house ” in favor of spending our time in more productive ( pro team R ) endeavors that do not involve the EC.

  82. Frank Knotts says:

    Mr. Whittington, let me assure you we are monitoring the situation. Let me apologize for this. I truly do not want this to turn into another DP. I will seek guidance on what should be done to prevent this in the future.
    I receive email alerts anytime a comment is posted, it contains I.P. addresses and email addresses, we also now have an admission from Mr. Christy that it was him that came in under your name. I too am skeptical that it could be a mistake, since when you are a returning commentator the system auto-logs you in under the name you originally supplied to the system, to just happen to have the name change, would require one to do so.
    Mr. Christy seems to be losing his temper since he is now typing in all bold letters, a sign of shouting on-line.
    As for the Oath Keepers? Well it sounds as if Mr. Christy is saying that in Delaware there is no interest in another far right group to foment armed rebellion, that is, beyond himself. Seems the national chapter has said, if you want to be president, then go right ahead. Another paper tiger. Another D.A., another person who is delusional in their belief that they are actually making a difference.

  83. William Christy says:

    Mr Knott’s once again you display your ignorance all capital letters is shouting bold is to make a point or statement

    I was using a new tablet I purchased to post with. You pass judgement while you feel you ate above reproach

    You know nothing about Oathkeepers or what we stand for you are also to ignorant to even try to educate yourself. We do not stand for or condone armed rebellion. We refuse to support or uphold any unconstitutional orders.

  84. William Christu says:

    Furthermore I wouldn’t use my real email address if I was trying to steal someone’s name. I know damn well you see the email addresses with each post

    You can claim Im not making a difference but YOU have done NOTHING to move the GOP party forward and you are not respected by your fellow ED’s

  85. Tuxamus Maximus says:

    Reading the rants and LIES of Angus Berger and Little Willie the Cowardly are the entertainment of this blog!

  86. Mike Rowe says:

    Frank- “And Oath Keepers? What is that? Is that some group to the right of the 912 Patriots? ”

    Here is a description of Oath Keepers, and what our mission is quoted from the OK website:

    ” Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of currently serving military, veterans, peace officers, and firefighters who will fulfill the oath we swore to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God.
    Our oath is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and we will not obey unconstitutional (and thus illegal) and immoral orders, such as orders to disarm the American people or to place them under martial law and deprive them of their ancient right to jury trial.
    We Oath Keepers have drawn a line in the sand. We will not “just follow orders.”
    Our motto is “Not on our watch!”
    If you, the American people, are forced to once again fight for your liberty in another American Revolution, you will not be alone. We will stand with you.
    There is at this time a debate within the ranks of the military regarding their oath. Some mistakenly believe they must follow any order the President issues. But you can rest assured that many others in the military do understand that their loyalty is to the Constitution, and understand what that means.
    The mission of Oath Keepers is to vastly increase their numbers. We are in a battle for the hearts and minds of our own troops. To win that battle, Oath Keepers will use written and video testimony of active duty military, veterans (especially combat vets), and peace officers to reach, teach, and inspire our brothers in arms in the military and police to fulfill their oaths and stand as guardians of the Republic.
    If you are currently in the military, are a veteran, or are a peace officer, please submit your written and/or video testimony on your oath, so you can help us win that battle for hearts and minds.”

    Frank, the Oath Keepers are not some crazed group of people looking to revolt against the government. We believe in the US Constitution, The Declaration of Independence, and the freedoms and liberties that this country was founded on. We are comprised of Veterans, Law Enforcement, and Active Duty personnel who acknowledge that their Oath of Enlistment has no statute of limitations. We are members of the community, fathers, brothers, sisters, and daughters. I find it truly sad that prior to the first shots fired in 1775 in Lexington and Concord, those who believed in those very same things were considered Patriots, and now if you believe in freedom and liberty you are castigated for those very same beliefs.

    On the incident at Jimmy’s: I know it to be true that Sam Wilson did in fact call Meyer that word. Although we disagree on many issues, I consider Meyer a friend, and what was said by a sitting Councilman was appalling. I have also heard him throw the “n” word around as well. We are now faced with another sitting Councilman with disgusting allegations surrounding him as well. You speak of vetting so I must ask, Who vetted these two? Is this what is to be expected of a Republican? The party of family values? You castigate Right Leaning organizations for their Constitutional beliefs yet say nothing about these problems?

    (edited for use of a name. Frank Knotts) I can tell you that currently there is no organized State Chapter, not yet anyway.

    It really does none of us any good to bash each other on a blog, nothing productive can come of it. We are all flawed individuals and should all try to treat each other better, for as I said, it does none of us any good.

    Good day!

  87. Dave says:

    “We refuse to support or uphold any unconstitutional orders.”

    Who determines what is unconstitutional? You?

  88. Tuxamus Maximus says:

    Angus Berger must really be on a long term binge of drinking, drugs and huffing something to see it possible to tell such LIES!! Both Angus and Little Willy Crispy can’t see the truth through the things they are imbibing in in such a way that they state things they know nothing of in the real world.
    Sober up guys and you’ll both make some sense…maybe.
    Let me get this right. Angus misses his buddy Bodie and blames Bodie’s brother, Joe Biden, Slick Willie Clinton and the DE Speaker Pete S for all the worlds problems is something beyond imagination. Does this guy hold a grudge or WHAT?
    Does Angus, and his buddy in lunacy Lil Willie the Coward (aka Richard Cranium), really think that anyone takes them seriously? They seem to miss their hero Bodie (well at least Angus does) so badly that he feels the charges are bogus and all the prosecution has is an accuser that has been in trouble in the past.
    It’s doubtful the Angus knew Bodie 20 to 25 years ago and even further back to have a clue what he was doing to people way back when. One thing is for sure though…he may well have been doing things that the statute of limitations doesn’t run out. That’s BAD stuff and a Grand Jury believed a DSP detective with the Major Crimes Unit. Good enough for me as they (both the Grand Jury and the DSP) aren’t dummies. Isn’t that the same guy that investigated the baby doctor and the other doctor water-boarding a child…among others?
    He blames the accuser for his buddy’s problems because he’s had trouble with the law in the past. DUH. Bodie MAY HAVE messed up the kid so bad he was doomed to be trouble and/or have trouble in life. It’s possible.
    Maybe Bodie was doing some really twisted things in the late 70’s and through the 80’s. Things he thought his ‘god’ would forgive and save him from in the 90’s or later?
    Is Angus aware the the defense has requested, and gotten every continuance? They got the witness list and dropped back and PUNTED this last time.
    Does Angus really think that’s all the state has? Does he really know what goes on with that twisted family? Does Angus know the brother at all let alone well enough to call him a drunk? Doubtful. Angus probably gets lost once he crosses the county line.
    I digress..let’s look at other grudges Angus holds in his inebriated state of ‘mind’.
    Biden had issues with his landscaper. Maybe Angus wishes he had land to landscape? Does Angus really know the WHOLE story? Doubtful. He probably knows what he wants to believe/know.
    Slick Willie got the BJ(s) a long time ago. Get over it! Who cares anymore? He was elected TWICE and left the country in a good place…get over it. Move on.
    So Pete S is having a life you envy and can’t have of your own? If true he’s doing it legally in a place it’s allowed. If he’s there he’s doing what he wants to do…isn’t that what our guys in the armed forces fight for all of to do…WHAT WE WANT TO DO? FREE TO DO WHATEVER WE WANT TO DO?
    Maybe Cowardly Lil Willy and Angus Berger the ‘belittler’ have the right to tell us all what we can, and can’t do in life, that we’re not aware of in our world/reality.
    Poor old Angus is so upset with the world he blames everyone else for his issues or his rosy red palm.
    Stop the madness and sober up! I’m thinking that poor old disturbed Angus envies the sitting VP, Slick Willie and Pete S for having landscaping, sex, and the ability to have fun in Jamaica doing what must be legal there!
    Lil Willie is just plain goofy but entertaining none the less. He just needs to learn how to tell a lie better.
    Obviously Angus doesn’t have a grip on reality to write such drivel about people he doesn’t know (well Slick Willie did get the BJ and probably more than once but envies him for it!) at all. To lie about people, and situations/issues he doesn’t know about is really sad. Pity the fool.
    Both write things that are so far out there they have to be so deeply inebriated by some kind of booze, drug(s) or whatever is the thing to huff for now that it’s past sad to the point of pathetic yet entertaining for those of us in the real world. Both would be a waste of time to read if not for seeing the sadness of their minds.
    Keep up the entertainment guys!
    Waterpirate!! You make a lot of sense! Like Frank you’ve come a long way from DP to being smart enough to know those guys are OUT OF THEIR MINDS.
    Frank! Keep up the good fight against those mentioned above that are so sic and twisted they believe their own lies and make things up to prove some ‘point’.
    Just some observations from along the road of life.

    Dave where’s the proof that Eric Bodenweiser’s values are anything then what he claims? There is nothing more than allegations made by a multiple convicted felon from 35 years ago, or are you counting Bodenweiser’s brother who was a drunk which is why he didn’t receive any of the family business because their father knew he drunk would only piss it away.
    Then we have a democratic VP who doesn’t pay even the smallest of bills like a landscaper. The landscaper finally got paid when he began unearthing the trees and shrubs for non payment, and refused to take a check from the democratic VP of the United States of America. Or maybe we should discuss Bill Clinton’s now infamous non sexual contact blow job, with Monica Lewinski. Or how about the current Speaker of the House (PS) who has made several trips to Jamaica to practice hedonism. The list goes on and on with politicians whose credo is; do as I say don’t do as do. Only a fool or a liberal would claim anything otherwise.

  89. Dave says:

    “Some mistakenly believe they must follow any order the President issues.”

    By the way, they must follow all “lawful orders”

    Article 92 of the UCMJ

    FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER OR REGULATION
    Any person subject to this chapter who–
    (1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;
    (2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by any member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or
    (3) is derelict in the performance of his duties;
    shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

    So military members may refuse to obey an order or regulation and incur the consequences of the court. But it is a court of law that determines whether the order is/was lawful, not an organization that is outside of the law or the court. Oathkeepers set themselves up as the arbiters of what is constitutional. Quite simply they (and you) are not.

  90. Mike Rowe says:

    Dave- During Katrina there were warrantless unlawful searches conducted by law enforcement. There were also those who refused to conduct those searches, and those people were Oath Keepers Dave. To blindly follow an unlawful order is unlawful is itself unlawful. Even today there are incidents where law enforcement illegally detains people, violating their Constitutional Rights. The Constitution really isn’t all that difficult to understand and comprehend.

  91. William Christy says:

    Dave May 22, 2013

    “We refuse to support or uphold any unconstitutional orders.”

    Who determines what is unconstitutional? You?

    Yes Dave United States enlisted personnel and Commissioned Officers can decide what is unconstitutional.

    Oath of Enlistment

    “I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

    Officers Oath

    “I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

    Take notice that both the Oath of enlistment and Officers Oath both state clearly state “I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same. “

  92. Frank Knotts says:

    Taximus Maximus, please slow your roll.
    Mike Rowe, and Mr. Christy, so each individual soldier gets to decide whether an order is unconstitutional? So within any given troop or squad you could have any number of people with any number of views on any number of orders? This makes for a cohesive fighting unit in your opinion? If a soldier feels an order is unconstitutional what should he do? Should he merely refuse to follow said order? Or should he use force to keep others from following the order also? Because I believe as Dave has pointed out, soldiers and police can now refuse to follow orders if they are willing to suffer the consequences.
    Also can you explain to me how Oath Keepers mission squares with this part of the military oath that Mr. Christy provided, ” and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. ”
    Can you tell everyone, who decides what the military code is? You do also recognize that in our system of government, the one that the Founders founded upon the Constitution, that the military is subordinate to the civilian arm of government, right?
    What you and Oath Keepers seem to be saying is that the military can and possibly should rise up in opposition of the freely elected civilian branches of government. How is this not fomenting armed rebellion?
    How does this square with the whole argument about the elected sheriff being sovereign? Oh! That’s right, there is only one elected office above corruption, I forgot.
    Finally, to those who challenge me on what I have done to make a difference, well that is not for me to say, that will be up to the people who I have worked with, as for the respect of my fellow ED’s, that also is for them to decide.

  93. Frank Knotts says:

    Oh! By the way, Mike I thought better of you. If you have read all the comments in context, and still do not understand what I said about the word “fag” then please go back and read them again. Of course the word is still used by individuals, I said that the time is past when any organization would use such language. Come on man!

  94. William Christy says:

    Mr. Knotts as I expected you would focus on the word President. Only the enlisted oath states “obey the President and officers appointed over me”.
    No military personnel swear an allegiance to the President.

    Our military swears or affirms: “I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.”

    One notable difference between the officer and enlisted oaths is that the oath taken by officers does not include any provision to obey orders; while enlisted personnel are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice to obey lawful orders, officers in the service of the United States are bound by this oath to disobey any order that violates the Constitution of the United States.

    You do understand that without the Constitution there would be no United States and/or civilian government?

    As for the UCMJ here you go:
    http://www.ucmj.us/

    These articles require the obedience of LAWFUL orders. An order which is unlawful not only does not need to be obeyed, but obeying such an order can result in criminal prosecution of the one who obeys it. Military courts have long held that military members are accountable for their actions even while following orders — if the order was illegal.

    “I was only following orders,” has been unsuccessfully used as a legal defense in hundreds of cases (probably most notably by Nazi leaders at the Nuremberg tribunals following World War II). The defense didn’t work for them, nor has it worked in hundreds of cases since.

    The Vietnam War presented the United States military courts with more cases of the “I was only following orders” defense than any previous conflict. The decisions during these cases reaffirmed that following manifestly illegal orders is not a viable defense from criminal prosecution. In United States v. Keenan, the accused (Keenan) was found guilty of murder after he obeyed in order to shoot and kill an elderly Vietnamese citizen. The Court of Military Appeals held that “the justification for acts done pursuant to orders does not exist if the order was of such a nature that a man of ordinary sense and understanding would know it to be illegal.” (Interestingly, the soldier who gave Keenan the order, Corporal Luczko, was acquitted by reason of insanity).

    While you are attempting to claim Oathkeeper members are promoting an armed uprising the truth is that we will not let a civilian government become a dictatorship by refusing to obey any unlawful orders. That was the intent of the Commissioned Officers Oath, to have a checks and balances system to prevent our Constitution and our nation from a takeover ordered by a President. The Constitution is what governs our nation not the President or any civilian branch of the government.

    Those who have served or taken an oath to uphold the United States Constitution know their oath before GOD Almighty, has no expiration date. That is until they themselves expire.

    In closing Frank just because you post people like me will never make a difference doesn’t make it fact. No matter how many times you or the trolls repeatedly post it doesn’t make it fact. I have made a difference in the community where I live, and the vast majority of homeowners would agree. I have now expanded out into the county at the suggestion and invitation of Sussex Countians who know me personally, I have accepted the challenge.
    I am committed 100% to moving my party forward, I am committed 100% to my family, and I’m committed 100% to upholding the Constitution of the United States. I refuse to bitch about problems without offering viable ways to correct them.
    If you ain’t part of the solution…… then you ARE the problem.

  95. Mike Rowe says:

    Frank- The American soldier is smart enough to know what is or isn’t an unlawful order, and anyone with a basic understanding of the Bill of Rights knows what unlawful searches are. What I am speaking of are situations similar to Katrina, and recently the Boston Marathon bombing. After the bombing thousands of law enforcement when house to house without warrants, yelling and screaming at gun point. The same things occurred during Katrina. I have been consistent on where I stand regarding the Constitution, and if you are saying is true regarding the resolution then I will agree with you. As far as Oath Keepers, I wouldn’t support them or be so passionate about their message if I thought they were an extreme group. I would think you would know me well enough but I was mistaken. Actually, to label me extreme is laughable. We need to talk, perhaps over a soda or coffee, so I can bring you back from the darkside.

  96. William Christy says:

    Mike I voted on the resolution as did every other EDC by secret ballot. First the resolution had nothing to do with John Fluharty, nor did it have anything to do with violating any persons First Amendment rights. As with any organization the resolution was dealing with elected representatives of the GOP making disparaging comments that are critical of party policies or comments that do not represent the values of the party.

    This is no different then a person in the military who is forbidden to speak out critically against the commander in chief, or military policies.

  97. Laffter says:

    All this wonderful patriotic rhetoric coming from two folks who SERVED? In the military? EVER?

    Ummmmmm what branch if the military did either of you serve in ?

    Mr. Rowe – your branch of service was what exactly and how’s many years did you serve?

    As for Christy- being a bounty hunter with Internet creds is not a veteran

    If I mistaken about your service- please produce verifiable proof of service

    Were either or you ever certified LEOs?
    We’re either of you ever professional paid firefighters?

    WHAT PAID BRANCH IF SERVICE AND WHAT UNIFORM DID YOU WEAR?

    And if not- well why not ?

    What amazes me is so many of these Oathkeepers are well wanna bes – fringe members- groupies as you will- never served tha elves- but want the accolades that those who honestly put their lives on the line receive and deserve

    It’s pathetic. And psychologically sick

    Remember- no matter how fast your
    hand moves, it’s still just jerking off
    H/t GEEZER

  98. Harry Whittington says:

    Fluharty went to a Marriage Equality meeting on March 19th, and at the very next Sussex GOP meeting on April 8th, the resolution was brought forward. This is from Duke Brooks, the Sussex GOP spokesperson:

    At Monday night’s Sussex GOP meeting, Rob Arlett (RDC-38th) offered a non-binding resolution, which was voted upon in the affirmative, that “employees of the State Republican Party shall publicly reflect the Party’s official positions.”

    The resolution was brought forward at the meeting directly after Fluharty went to the Marriage Equality meeting, and it references “employees of the State Republican Party” of which there are 2, Fluharty and an administrative assistant, but we’re to believe it wasn’t directed at Fluharty?

    Brooks goes on to say this:

    And although one member of the Sussex Committee suggested in an email that the Sussex delegation boycott the upcoming Republican State Convention unless Fluharty is dismissed, no such boycott will take place.

    I have two questions for Mr. Identity Thief/Impersonator:

    1) How stupid do you think we are?
    2) If the Sussex GOP is so gay friendly, as you are trying to assert, why did a member want to “boycott” the Convention until Fluharty was “dismissed”?

  99. Willaim Christy says:

    Mr. Whittington you should learn the difference between posting an opinion and posting a statement of fact.

    I’m not even going to answer how stupid you all are.

    As to the resolution I am not a spokesperson for the Sussex County GOP. I am not Mr. Brooks or the person who brought the motion forward so I will not speak for them either. I suggest you ask them directly yourself.

    I’ve met and spoke to Mr. Fluharty I have no issues with him.

  100. anon says:

    “This is no different then a person in the military who is forbidden to speak out critically against the commander in chief, or military policies.”

    So we’re supposed to equate the military with the party? And you wannabes don’t see this as a problem? A non-binding resolution to enforce party discipline? It’s hilarious that you all think you could enforce anything. So, so funny.

    Also, the resolution as Frank reported it only had to to with the vague “family values” and not the party platform.

  101. Waterpirate says:

    HW,

    They will not answer. This is just more smoke and mirror double talk from the top down from the Sussex leadership. They choose to speak in code and riddles, so the narrow view can be plausibley denied.

  102. Frank Knotts says:

    Mr. Christy and Mike Rowe, in your above comments you have demonstrated that there is a vehicle for military personnel to refuse orders and that they have been upheld in many cases. So what is the purpose of Oath Keepers?
    But let’s get back on topic here, the resolution. Mr. Christy now says,
    “Mike I voted on the resolution as did every other EDC by secret ballot. First the resolution had nothing to do with John Fluharty, nor did it have anything to do with violating any persons First Amendment rights. As with any organization the resolution was dealing with elected representatives of the GOP making disparaging comments that are critical of party policies or comments that do not represent the values of the party.”
    First of all, Harry already shot holes in the part about it not being about Fluharty, of course it was, only a coward would deny it.
    But second, Mr. Christy is once again passing false statements off as truth when he says, ” the resolution was dealing with elected representatives of the GOP “, wrong again my short sighted friend, the resolution said, “all members”, this is why I rose in opposition, this was the major change to the original, again because the cowards did not have the courage of their convictions to state that they wanted to run the gay guy out of the GOP. And any party that restricts its members from speaking their mind is doomed to fail, in my opinion as an official member of the GOP.
    Also Mr. Christy again makes false claims when he says,” Frank just because you post people like me will never make a difference doesn’t make it fact. ” Mr. Christy, please show me where I wrote that, I may believe it, but I did not post it in this thread. Again you make up this crap as you go along.
    Mike, I would enloys that talk, I have always found you to be reasonable, even when we disagree. I just do not understand the purpose of all of these single issue, special interest groups that in my view serve only to confuse the issues and the voters, by making in many cases unfounded claims and accusations, to what end? Well in my view, in many cases it is for selve promotion of the organization, to grow membership and raise revenue. But in the end what do they actually accomplish?
    Instead of being involved in any number of these small ineffective groups, people would do better to get involved in their communities and join a party or political club and instead of working against everything, work for something. Please do not take that as a personal attack on you, far from it, I know you to be a person who does much.

  103. Harry Whittington says:

    Mr. Imposter/Identity Thief:

    Duke Brooks’ comments came from a piece he wrote for the examiner, it was not presented as his “opinion” but as a narrative of what happened at the Sussex County GOP meeting. Brooks is the spokesperson for the Sussex GOP, I would assume his assessment of the resolution from the April meeting is accurate.

    At Monday night’s Sussex GOP meeting, Rob Arlett (RDC-38th) offered a non-binding resolution, which was voted upon in the affirmative, that “employees of the State Republican Party shall publicly reflect the Party’s official positions.”

  104. Harry Whittington says:

    Let me again point out that the Delaware GOP has 2 employees, Fluharty and an administrative assistant, and this resolution came up at the Sussex GOP meeting directly after Fluharty attended a Marriage Equality Meeting.

    It’s ridiculous to assert the resolution was not directed at Fluharty.

  105. William Christy says:

    Frank here you go.
    “Mr. Christy seems to be losing his temper since he is now typing in all bold letters, a sign of shouting on-line.
    As for the Oath Keepers? Well it sounds as if Mr. Christy is saying that in Delaware there is no interest in another far right group to foment armed rebellion, that is, beyond himself. Seems the national chapter has said, if you want to be president, then go right ahead. Another paper tiger. Another D.A., another person who is delusional in their belief that they are actually making a difference.”

  106. Frank Knotts says:

    Mr. Christy, I stand corrected. Thank you. Now would you like to address any of the other points made, or would you rather savor you nut?
    Harry, it is not delusional, it is cowardly, they won’t say what they truly feel. So they hide behind their carefully crafted resolutions(that was sarcasm Sheldon).

  107. William Christy says:

    Frank any person who has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States has a duty to disobey any unlawful orders, it’s not just military personnel. The purpose of Oath Keepers is to be a united voice for all of us who have taken an oath. FYI retired military, LEO personnel are still bound by the oath that they took if they receive a pension. For someone that claims to be a all about constitutional rights, you should be more accepting of those who are actually willing to disobey any unlawful orders that would violate your constitutional rights.

    Concerning your other points no I have nothing to say. I was advised today that as an EDC I should not be posting in this site.

  108. anon says:

    Let’s be straight about all of this military/LEO/Oathkeepers stuff. This is primarily about subverting the electoral process and trying to find some justification for ignoring laws that are passed by people who actually won elections.

    It ties in with all of the Sheriff nonsense. They want to misinterpret the Constitution and the intent of the founders to fit their desire to ignore laws they don’t like, since they’re impotent when it comes to winning elections, due to the unfavorable status of their policy positions and questionable theories.

    (That said, I also find Mike Rowe to be upstanding guy. But he might want to review his associations.)

    So wrap yourself in the flag, the military and the Constitution to try and elevate yourself, Christy. Just be sure to obey the legitimate laws written by the people who actually won.

    “I was advised today that as an EDC I should not be posting in this site.”

    Looks like you had some discipline enforced on you. Was it Constitutional, or did it violate your Oath?

  109. William Christy says:

    anon I had nothing enforced on me I was advised.

    Lets be straight about Oath Keepers it has nothing to do with subverting the electoral process or some General Assembly bill passed in little ol Delaware. believe it or not there’s a whole big nation outside the boundaries of this state. This has nothing to do with winning elections.

    There is a legislator in the current General Assembly who could hold a candle to the any of our brilliant forefathers who composed and signed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.

  110. William Christy says:

    The last paragraph should read:

    There isn’t a legislator in the current General Assembly who could hold a candle to the any of our brilliant forefathers who composed and signed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.

  111. Laffter says:

    “was advised today that as an EDC I should not be posting in this site.”

    Don’t look like he takes advise from his betters real well either…..

  112. Tuxamus Maximus says:

    Tuxamus Maximus gets a “slow your roll” from Mr. Knotts and man Tuxamus Maximus has a great deal of respect for but wonders why, having been advised to test the waters and reread the ‘rules’, that it seems only vulgarities are edited but not slanderous, libelous and defamatory remarks let alone some truly outrageous lies.

    Tuxamus Maximus ponders why this is a policy for this blog. It seems as though this blog is a free for all concerning any and all forms of comments short of vulgarities. OK…I’m game to play.

    This blog is a great leap forward in allowing statements to remain from the other site Mr. Knotts contributed where comments not appreciated were removed by the lunatics that took that blog to a place it will most likely remain useless to anyone that can’t see, or appreciate, anything that isn’t so far to the ‘right’ that they can only walk and talk in right circles.

    William Christy (AKA so many different alias and IP’s I won’t bother with that list now to keep this short) was found not only to be an identity thief, as well as a liar, in so many of his contributions in this thread alone that what small bit of intelligence he does have is outweighed by his arrogance and ego both of which cause him to make mistakes and cause his downfall in credibility and ability.

    Some were called out to offer up proof of military service yet they just can’t seem to make that happen. What’s up with that? Do they read and respond only to what they wish and turn a blind eye to being truthful.

    Laffter is GREAT !! Keep up the great contributions!! Keep yanking Billy Boy’s chain for the distress it seems to cause him.

    Meanwhile Tuxamus Maximus will just keep testing the waters…..

  113. Frank Knotts says:

    Ah! I see William Christy has taken the John Mosely course in how to deflect the conversation when challenged beyond his capablilities.
    I was speaking of the military because you sir posted the oaths that the military take. try to follow along with at least your own comments at least.
    As for being advised not to post here, why not enlighten us all and tell us who advised you? the Chairman John Riley? Or maybe Duke Brookes? Please let us know. Unless this is just another of your made up stories to inflate your stature.
    I mean if you are making such wonderful points why would anyone not want you speaking out? Oh that’s right, I guess they haven’t crafted the memo on the latest talking points for the sheeple yet.

  114. Dave says:

    I’m still waiting for the responses to Laffter’s question about who has stood a watch?

    I know I have. Those have not served, might be able to hold membership in an auxiliary organization I suppose. I know the American Legion has such an auxiliary.

  115. Tuxamus Maximus says:

    Frank calling it correctly and Dave calling ‘them’ out! I hear crickets.

  116. Frank Knotts says:

    Taxi-Maxi, sometimes it is better not to draw attention to certain comments that will die if left alone, but will lend credence to them if pointed out. Much in the way I have delt with others who make unfounded and out landish comment, i.e. let idiots be idiots and let the world see them as such, I am holding to that line of thought here at Delaware right as well. The comment in question is such a comment in my opinion.

  117. Jon Moseley says:

    As a conservative sometimes in disagreement with Frank Knotts — although actually not as often as he might think —

    1) Vague or ambiguous rules, regulations, policies, or statements are undesirable, in and of themselves, in my opinion. That does not mean that what they are trying to say is bad or inappropriate. But the vague and ambiguous wording of what otherwise might be a good thing is bad simply because it is vague and/or ambiguous. If worded well, the intended goal might be a good thing that is very proper and appropriate. But it is a bad thing if a person cannot tell if they are in compliance or not. It is also a bad thing if there is room for manipulation by officials implementing a rule, regulation, policy, etc.

    2) It is right and proper for the DEGOP or any other organization to decide and publicly state what it stands for and what are its goals.

    Compare: Imagine an organization with no mission statement and no identified goals or objections. That would be chaos.

    3) However, I would recommend that any GOP unit address this problem a little differently. The idea that a GOP member or official cannot disagree or express a different opinion is, I think, the wrong way to go about this and is an over-reaction.

    I would have to say that Frank Knotts is right to that extent, to the extent that the resolution goes too far and is an over-reaction.

    On the one hand, it should be clear what the Party stands for and what are its goals, policies, and objectives. It is absolutely nutty to think that someone would try to operate an organization which cannot tell you what it is trying to accomplish.

    Imagine a factory that manufactures things. WHAT THINGS? Oh, I don’t know, none of us can agree on what we are going to manufacture. So nothing ever gets done. That would be silly.

    On the other hand, I agree with Frank Knotts that individual GOP members and officials should not be restricted from expressing their opinions, point of views, and personal policies.

    But when they disagree with the official policies of the Party, while they should be free to do so, everyone should know that they are not representing the Party in that their opinion conflicts with the official positions adopted by the Party.

    Imagine an organization whose purpose is to promote the love of opera, whose Treasurer hates opera and goes around talking trash about how dreadful opera is and people should listen to hip hop instead. Wouldn’t you think that organization might ask the Treasurer if he or she is really in the right place?

    4) If the resolution perhaps takes too strong an approach, it is in reaction to a persistent onslaught in the other direction. perhaps in order to resist those trying to tear down traditional values of our society, some are over-reacting. But they are over-reacting to others pushing them around.

    Finally, if Laffter and/or Kavips think something is nuts, then it is probably perfect.

  118. Jon Moseley says:

    Dave May 17, 2013 writes: “So whats the difference? Well the Democrats aren’t proclaiming their morality and sanctimony. ”

    That is a completely silly argument, In fact, it is a pure expression of “situational ethics” and amorality. Dave, Geezer, and others frequently make this argument.

    Right is right and wrong is wrong. There is objectively wrong behavior. It is not a question of taste (like some people like chocolate and others like strawberry ice cream). There is right and wrong, good and bad. And right and wrong do not change.

    This argument pushed by many (not just Dave0 is grounded on the idea that there is no right and wrong, there is no bad or good.

    This is astonishing for someone (Dave) who elsewhere claims to be a Catholic, although Dave says he loves to make fun of the Catholic Church.

    Quite obviously, one cannot possibly be a Catholic or any kind of Christian or even an adherent of most religions while believing that there is no right or wrong, only consistency or inconsistency.

  119. Frank Knotts says:

    Mr. Mosely, I would be a fool not to thank you for at least understanding what it was that I was saying, even though we have disagreed in the past. Too many people have seemed to ignore what I was saying simply because they have not agreed with me in the past, or rather they disagree for the sake of disagreeing.
    If the members of a party are barred from voicing their opinions, then the party will stagnate and fail to grow.

  120. Robert Hauser says:

    The two party swindle’s a quadruped
    With two hindquarters yet absent a head.

    GOP = Gay Old Perverts (been hearing that one a lot lately)

    Welcome to the scatosphere of politics in America, Frank, smells nice, doesn’t it? Your kind never learn.

  121. Dave says:

    “This is astonishing for someone (Dave) who elsewhere claims to be a Catholic, although Dave says he loves to make fun of the Catholic Church.”

    I claim to be an American as well, and I sometimes make fun of America. So what? Silly Jon.

    And yes ““So whats the difference? Well the Democrats aren’t proclaiming their morality and sanctimony. ” which you wanted to formulate an argument about but couldn’t seem to manage it. When you portrary yourself as righteous but are not, quite simply that’s hypocrisy. It’s cut and dried Jon. Not much more to say.

    I do not portray myself as righteous, I don’t praise the Lord in public and sin in private. Criticizing the Catholic Church is not a criticism of Catholicism anymore than criticism of the President is criticism of America.

  122. Latter says:

    What does your kind Learn Hauser?

    Wellbutrin doesn’t work, and Lithium isn’t quite enough?
    Of just that life is a bitter pill you haven’t quite learned to swallow

    How sad and lonely it must be at the top……of the trash heap

  123. Frank Knotts says:

    Nice to see Dr. Mengele (Robert Hauser) is trolling other threads.

Got something to say? Go for it!