Is this a door they really want to open?
Shilling’s comments coincide with campaign literature being mailed to voters in Kooyenga’s suburban Milwaukee district by a Democratic group that highlights a $30,000 settlement Kooyenga paid after taking a protester’s sign in the Capitol.
The mailer also accuses Kooyenga of being “drunk at work,” referring to floor speeches Kooyenga made in July 2015 after a bomb threat at the Capitol prompted some lawmakers to have beers across the street before the threat was cleared.
The Wisconsin Leadership Committee is behind the postcard.
The group recently reported to Wisconsin election officials it was spending $84,000 in online ads against Kooyenga and three other Republicans running for the state Senate. For contact information, the group listed an address and phone number belonging to the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee in Washington, D.C.
I don’t know if Kooyenga was a bit tipsy or not. But Wisconsin legislators of both parties have been taking to the floor after drinking for decades – especially when they are doing those 30-hour budget sessions. I imagine a drunk Kooyenga still makes more sense than half the Democrats when they are sober!
I love how liberals, defenders of everything perverted and evil, want to raise moral standards of behavior…only on Republicans.
I find that hypocrisy fascinating.
k:
You have repeatedly called me a “liberal”, yet I would like to see the rise in moral standards for everyone; right-left, liberal-conservative, every race, ethnicity, creed and belief. The problem arises when there is an arbitrary and self-imposed standard for what is or isn’t “moral” proposed by a minority and applied to the majority.
Actual convictions:
Russ Decker D-Schofield DUI 3/29/05 Elected Democrat Majority Leader in 2007, lost reelection in 2010.
Frank Boyle D-Summit DUI 6/12/04 Blew 0.18 Retired with full bennies in 2008
Shirley Krug D-Milwaukee DUI 11/14/04 refused breathalyzer, State Rep at the time, was running for senate, dropped out 7/05. Became MMSD commissioner, then budget chief for Milwaukee DPW.
Peggy Lautenschlager Dem State Attorney General DUI 2/23/04 drove state-owned car into a ditch, blew .12, lost reelection primary 2006 to Kathyleen Falk (who lost to J.B. Van Hollen).
Nord,
How can you embrace a raise in moral standards if you deny absolute truth?
Perversion of morality starts with denial of absolute truth.
Yah, and we won’ t forget Bill Kramer (R), either. The booze was a problem for him.
Owen, I will quibble: still makes more sense than half the Democrats
Only half? Really??
k:
I deny that you have the right, or ability, to be the arbiter of what “absolute” truth is, or isn’t.
Nord,
I am clear about absolute truth.
How do you define it?
If you can’t articulate good and evil
clearly, how can you be honest in raising moral standards?
No k, you aren’t clear on much.
Contrary to the current administration (and rabid followers like you), truth is truth, fact is fact. What you choose to believe is up to you, but to claim that you have a truth more absolute that regular truth is absurd to the Nth degree.
Nord,
You still fail to define good and evil.
I am clear on it.
You cannot raise moral standards if you are unclear about the standard.
Kevin,
What are the elements of evil?
Pat,
Colossians 3:5 gives an excellent definition of “evil”.
2 Timothy 2:22 gives an excellent definition of what is NOT evil (good).
Galatians 5:22 is also an excellent definition of “good”, “evil” would be the opposite of this passage.
My understanding that the elements of evil are conscious and deliberate wrongdoing, discrimination designed to harm others, humiliation of people designed to diminish their psychological needs and dignity, destructiveness, and acts of unnecessary and/or indiscriminate violence.
Pat: Well put. Would lying be considered conscious and deliberate wrongdoing?
Why yes it would.
As Don the Con is campaigning for re-election, voters should evaluate his moral character by comparing his actions to these elements.
Agreed.
Pat,
So using your definition, wouldn’t openly encouraging immoral carnal choices that have high rates of STD’s be “conscious and deliberate wrongdoing”, “discrimination designed to harm others”?
Especially the taxpayer on health care costs?
So Baldwin meets much of your definition of evil in her carnal choice advocacy and you said “who cares?” Doesn’t that make you an enabler?
I love it that we got to your definition, it is way more intrusive, in its awful liberal political correctness. I am going to have a lot of fun with your definition.
Pat,
So Randy Bryce, and what he did to his baby mama in lack of child support violating court orders, falls well within your definition of evil?
All abortion advocates, that exterminate a disproportionate amount of black babies, also well within your definition of evil?
Can we just stipulate socialism falls within your definition of evil?
Can we then postulate, liberalism itself, is evil under your definition?
Glad we got to this point.
Kevin,
Glad you accept the what I wrote. By accepting you also acknowledge that Don the Con is evil and is unfit for office. Those who embrace, and accept, Don the Con are also complicit at promoting evil, making them evil as well. Why do you embrace and promote evil?
Randy Bryce’s ex wife supports him and his candidacy? And, gives him high praises for being a great father. She also disagrees, and chastises the ads calling him a dead beat dad. She evidently doesn’t find him evil. I think I would lean more toward believing what his ex wife says over what an PAC ad, that supports a different candidate, says.
Pat,
Violating court orders are excused because the ex is bought off?
That is even worse that the deadbeat dad part.
Trump is not up for re-election, let’s talk about election.
You want to re-litigate 2016 election, when we can prevent evil in 2018 election.
I have also been very specific about the acts I oppose. You say “Don the con”, but fail to point to anything specific other than your hated.
You missed answering my abortion question, socialism and liberalism question, which all fit into your definition of evil.
Kevin,
Trump is campaigning for re-election. He’s stated that he intends to run again. He’s said about the midterm election, “I’m not on the ticket, but I am on the ticket, because this is also a referendum about me.” So Don the Con’s evil behavior is on the table.
You say Bryce’s ex was bought off. Do you have direct evidence of that or is that your opinion?
Pat,
When I say “bought off”, I mean handled. Most women screwed on child support hold a grudge forever. It would be interesting to know what was said, or done, to get her to forgive Bryce’s ridiculous sin in this matter.
Fair enough point on Trump. Do you have an alleged lie in particular you want to talk about? Is that alleged “lie” worse than promoting unhealthy carnal lifestyles? I think the latter is much, much worse. Is that alleged “lie” worse than systematic extermination of black babies? I think the racist extermination, via abortion, is much, much worse.
“When I say “bought off”, I mean handled.”
Oh I thought you meant bought off like affairs with porn stars and nude models.
Pat,
They must have said or did something for her. Women are 100% upset at deadbeat dads. They are disgusting.
You avoid my question on how socialism, liberalism and racist abortion falls within your broad definition of evil.
They must have said or did something for her.
Who’s they? The “Deep State” boogie man?
Bryce, bryce’s Associates, or Bryce campaign.
Fact or another alternative fact?
Common sense.
Women screwed on past child support, rarely say good things about their ex-deadbeat without some consideration making past sins whole.
If you deny that, you are painfully foolish.
The key word you use is, “rarely”. You didn’t say always. You say you speak factually, but you provide no facts for your allegation that Bryce’s ex was “bought off”. You’re making an unsubstantiated allegation. It’s probably time for you to put up or shut up.
Wow. Do you work for Bryce campaign?
I would like to know how his sins of past child support deadbeatism (which is public record) was handled to get his ex to say good things now.
To say this happened without consideration or correction is equivalent to seeing a unicorn.
So you can’t substantiate your allegation that Bryce’s ex was “bought off”. You attempted to state it as a fact when you knew you didn’t have evidence that it happened. Shame on you for lying. And we all know lying is evil.
Pat,
You are hilarious.
You are not least bit curious how Bryce’s victim of his heinous deadbeat acts now sings his praises?
Some sort of amends had to occur.
If they didn’t make amends, she may be the most dishonest female on the planet…and that includes Diane Feinstein.
She has made her statements. And you make unsubstantiated accusations about what you think it should be. Nothing but wishful thinking and lies on your part. Shame on you and your evil lies.
I suppose you believed Clinton when he said he did not have sexual relations with that woman.
Woman everywhere are laughing at your naieve position here. No woman in this situation says those things about their deadbeat ex without amends for these past deadbeat child support sins.
Well, it’s taken a little time but you’ve finally pulled the Clinton card from your sleeve. Priceless! Shows real desperation on your part.
You make the statement that Bryce’s ex was bought off without any evidence, which is a lie. And now you make a feeble attempt to come up with some other rational by basically calling Bryce’s ex a liar because you “think” no women nice things about their ex without being bought off.
“Woman everywhere are laughing at your naieve position here.”
Now you speak for women everywhere. Desperation truly makes you say the most foolish things.
Every shafted woman I know that is owed child support wants to do unpleasant things to vital organs of the deadbeat.
Some amends had to be done here, money, apology, or some other consideration for her victimization at hands of Bryce.
We need the whole story.
Well obviously you don’t know many “shafted” women. How would that deadbeat dad make payments if vital organs were inoperable?
“We need the whole story.”
Then go out and get it. Don’t make up lies.
Pat admits: “Why yes it would.”
We can assume you will not be voting for Baldwin then, yes?
And yes, Faye Boudreaux was paid off; two months after Deadbeat Stache announced his canditcy, and only after outstate Democrat money started falling into fell his coffers.
“The complaint alleges that Bryce and his campaign violated the Federal Election Campaign Act by “converting campaign funds to Bryce’s personal use when at least $7,776.73 of the campaign’s funds were used to pay for personal legal fees and a judgment against Bryce for a personal debt he owed his former-girlfriend — 13 years before Bryce became a candidate.”
During the 2017 Thanksgiving holiday weekend, Slechta received a check from the law firm Halling & Cayo for $4,245.73.
A few days after Slechta received the check from Halling and Cayo, court records indicate the judgement against Bryce in Milwaukee County Circuit Court was satisfied in full.
In January, the campaign made a payment of $7,703.73 to Halling & Cayo for ‘legal services’ “
Bryce made a total of $23,000 from Jan 1 2017 to April 2018 ($5000 was ‘salary’ from from his own campaign)
Where did he get nearly $7,500 to pay off legal fees, his 13-year old debt, AND $1300 in late child support, hmmmm?
Nort slurs: “How would that deadbeat dad make payments if vital organs were inoperable?”
Kid gets Dad’s SS payments until 18. Better off, actually.
Well then, I’m not voting for Bryce.
Oh, wait, I’m not in his district so I don’t really give a major rip. But I don’t car for people making things up about any candidate, Rep or Dem. Be honest about things.
So, you ARE voting for Baldwin, then, even as she lies.
Interesting.
Bryce isn’t running against Baldwin.
I repeat: So, you ARE voting for Baldwin, then, even as she lies.
Even more interesting now, is you playing silly games in attempting to weasel out of admitting you will vote for Baldwin.
From this we can conclude that all that talk from you about “be honest about things” is just a load of crap.
Sorta like any Lefty. To them, “truth” is what they think it is, today. It might be different tomorrow, and it probably was different yesterday.
MajorJagoffMoron whines: “Even more interesting now, is you playing silly games in attempting to weasel out of admitting you will vote for Baldwin.”
Why should I tell you how I will cast a vote. I’m not asking you, or anyone else, how they are going to vote for the reason it’s none of my business. Why do you feel it’s your right to know how anyone else will vote?
“Sorta like any Lefty. To them, “truth” is what they think it is, today. It might be different tomorrow, and it probably was different yesterday.”
Kind of like Kevin?
“Sorta like any Lefty. To them, “truth” is what they think it is, today”.
Or like the trump administration, where truth isn’t truth, and alternative facts are acceptable. 5000 lies and counting…….
Sooooo many hypocrites, soooo little time.
Patsy pukes: “Why should I tell you how I will cast a vote.”
To prove, or more likely, disprove, to not just me but all watching, that you are being “ honest about things”. If you are so “honest” why are you so afraid to show it?
Patsy deflects yet again: “Why do you feel it’s your right to know how anyone else will vote?”
Better question: Why do you use false pretenses to sidestep questions no one else is afraid to answer?
You are not being very “honest”, sistah.
MajorJagoffMoron blumbers: “To prove, or more likely, disprove, to not just me but all watching, that you are being “ honest about things”.
What am I dishonest about, Major J Moron?
Nort dumps: “Sooooo many hypocrites, soooo little time.”
At least you admit it. BTW, still waiting….
mjm:
You won’t have to wait long, t-rump averaged 15-ish lies per day.
Patsy chokes: “What am I dishonest about, Major J Moron?”
Your call for all to “just be honest about things”, for one. If you yourself cannot adhere to even your own proclamation you are the hypocrite you (and Nortumous) claim others to be.
Secondly, your call to honesty appears oddly scatterbrained since you claim you “ …don’t really give a major rip.” about having Deadbeat Stache as a WI Rep becuase you are “…not in his district”, yet go on and on and on about Trump this and Trump that.
In your mind, is honesty a needed quality only in politicians and only those politicians who directly represent you?
Thirdly, you state that, “…I don’t care for people making things up..”, yet here you are stating that I think it’s my *right* to know how you will vote. Please quote where I said such.
And lastly (for now), you continual attempts to tap dance around a very simple question make you look like you are hiding something. But if you are as honest as you are demanding others to be, why would you need to tap dance and hide? If you plan on voting for Vukmir, hey, ~golf clap~. If you are going to vote Baldwin I will happily let you know your vote will be canceled out by mine.
There is a third scenario there, of course. Perhaps you are also not in Baldwin’s district, and just don’t give a major rip.
Nort takes dance lessons from Patsy: “You won’t have to wait long,”
“Trump, Trump, Trumpty, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump-dee-doo-dah, Trump”.
The only song playing in Nortumous’ head. How utterly boring.
LEDs, numbnutz. Still waiting…
MajorJagoffMoron ate his Alphabets for breakfast and pooped: “you state that, “…I don’t care for people making things up..”, yet here you are stating that I think it’s my *right* to know how you will vote.”
You sure have your pink panties riding up your ass about me not telling you who I’m voting for. You certainly give the impression that you feel you’re deserving of knowing how I’ll vote. My honesty isn’t dependent on giving into your laying on the floor and throwing a tantrum about my vote.
And, the number one thing I could give a rip about is caring about what you think.
Now go back to your corner and suck your thumb.
m:
Lotsa LEDs, big savings, rapid ROI. Or did I get too technical for you?
Trump is living in the heads of LOTS of the NPC’s, Lord of the NorthWoods Ticks being the most noisome.
Sorry guys, but I’m a fan of Janis and CCR, a lot of bluesmen you have never heard of. But you can believe whatever you want, even if it isn’t true.
Patsy purgers: “You sure have your pink panties riding up your ass about me not telling you who I’m voting for”
Ah, there you go again, “making things up”, against your own supposed code of conduct.
Everyone knows I don’t like pink.
Pasty gurgles: “You certainly give the impression that you feel you’re deserving of knowing how I’ll vote.”
I am simply asking. I can’t help that you are so fearful of someone else knowing your choice that your mind incomprehensibly turns a simply inquiery into a “right” and a demand. So fearful, in fact, that you have become hysterical (and not, obviously, in a comedic vein).
It is certainly your prerogative to disclose or not this horrible huge (in your mind) secret.
Of course, in choosing not offer us your selection we are left only to conclusions based on existing evidence.
For example, we might conclude that the reason you are so afraid to disclose your choice of candidate is that doing so would just further expose you to be a fake and a fraud and a sad little hypocrite.
I say “further” because given the examples of your double talk that I’ve already noted, the above conclusion would just be putting another log on an already raging fire.
At this point, it matters not whether you tell.
Nort retorts: “Or did I get too technical for you?”
If that is your definition of “technical”, Oh Great Elected Official, your constituents are in grave danger.
Still waiting….
Nort exposes: “…. bluesmen you have never heard of. “
Hell freezes. Common ground discovered. Albert Collins to Magic Slim. Heard em all. Play some of em.
MajorJagoffMoron bleats: “At this point, it matters not whether you tell.”
If it matters not, why are you continuing to fuss about it like a jilted school girl? By all appearances it matters greatly to you, as you keep bringing it up.
Patsy pouts: ”By all appearances it matters greatly to you, as you keep bringing it up.”
Sheesh. With the self-flattery now. Realize: You ain’t that important, sistah.
Perhaps you didn’t fully (or even basically) comprehend the meaning of “At this point, it matters not..”.
IOW, thanks for playing.
Bye
MJM,
Thanks for the post.
Pat, Nord,
Don’t you want to apologize?
I will gladly accept it.
Especially since Bryce fits in your definition of evil now?
Kevin croaked: Don’t you want to apologize?
No apologies are necessary. I still see no evidence she was “bought”.
Wow.
You doing a lot extra to pervert basic facts and language, aren’t you?
Doesn’t that violate your definition of evil?
Kevin blurted: “You doing a lot extra to pervert basic facts and language, aren’t you?”
No.
The FEC evidence was presented the victimized ex was paid off, illegally, with campaign funds.
Are you going to ignore his ongoing law breaking?
“The complaint alleges that Bryce and his campaign violated the Federal Election Campaign Act by “converting campaign funds to Bryce’s personal use when at least $7,776.73 of the campaign’s funds were used to pay for personal legal fees and a judgment against Bryce for a personal debt he owed his former-girlfriend — 13 years before Bryce became a candidate.”
The key word used above is, alleged”.
And nowhere do I read that Bryce’s ex was, “bought off”.
Pat,
How can you “raise moral standards” when you do not even adhere to your own definition of evil?
Kevin,
I’m a little more nuanced. You need to explain what you’re talking about now.
Oct 18 at 9:50 pm you said:
“Humiliation” was evil.
What do you think Bryce has been doing to his former women, when these victims need courts to tell him he owes?
When will you stick up for the victimized women here and their humiliation at hands of Bryce?
Or do you violate your own definition of evil?
Kevin,
Another duck and weave.
I just enjoy you not living up to your own definition of evil.
This is Nord’s challenge as well, but his issue is: he cannot define good and evil clearly. You at least made a stab at it, even though you do not want to apply it.
Still waiting for your evidence of Bryce’s ex being, “bought off”.
Pat,
If you want to ignore the obvious, I can’t help you.
I see very clearly the obvious. You’re right, you can’t help.