Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Saturday, March 13, 2010

A state representative has been charged in a domestic assault for the second time in less than a year.

David Alan Weiler, 44, was charged Friday with Class A misdemeanor simple assault-domestic violence. He pleaded not guilty.
David Weiler pleaded guilty in April 2009 to Class B misdemeanor simple assault for assaulting his wife on March 27. He was given a one-year deferred imposition of sentence, during which time he was supposed to complete a psychological evaluation and follow-up treatment and domestic violence offender treatment. He remains on unsupervised probation for that offense until April 15, according to court documents.

David Weiler, a Republican, was first elected to the state House in 2000. He was re-elected in 2004 and 2008.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

reinheitsgebot

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Family values and domestic abuse. I see nothing wrong here, do you?

She probably deserved it!! Bitch probably burned his toast or something.

The Right.

Well, if this guy lived in New York and was a Democrat he could have gotten David Patterson to cover the whole thing up.

Or if he was a Dem member of Congres he could have gotten Pelosi to look the other way in exchange for a yes vote on health care.

Axe, when the Tiger Woods things first blew up there were "funny" pictures going around showing Tiger beaten up. The idea was he deserved it. But that is just Tiger, a black man. So spare me your faux outrage and the violin music.

Gotta keep dat pimp hand STRONG.

Way to go Mr. Weiler, Mitchogynist 2586 applauds your efforts.

New handle, same old asshole.

New handle, but I still like to annoy Liberals.

And Reinheitsgebot, you should find yourself a simpler handle to speel, something that reflect who you are more, I know I have a sugestion, call youself:

IDIOT.

Perfect, short sweet to the point.

Mitch should change his name to weak coward to more accurately reflect who he truly is.

Weak coward? If any is making weak comments it's you.

"Family values and domestic abuse. I see nothing wrong here, do you?"

Other than a "tool" blanketing the entire republican party because of an incident by some state politician in Noth Dakota?

Other than a "tool" blanketing the entire republican party because of an incident by some state politician in Noth Dakota?

If this were a single incident of a Repub not living up to the high and mighty, self-righteous "morals and values" rhetoric they campaign on, you might have a point.

JPW, Trafficant represents the whole of the Dem party then.

Simple minded thinking like yours is whats wrong with the politics in the US.

"If this were a single incident of a Repub not living up to the high and mighty, self-righteous "morals and values" rhetoric they campaign on, you might have a point."
#12 | Posted by jpw at 2010-03-13 04:48 PM

Well by that reasoning, all dems are drunks and drug addicts ala Patrick Kennedy and all dems like to fondle their male staffers ala Masso?

JPW, Trafficant represents the whole of the Dem party then.

I didn't say he represented the entirety of Repubs. Just that he's far from the only one to not live up to their own standards.

Simple minded thinking like yours is whats wrong with the politics in the US.

Is there a long list of Dems who have committed the same acts? All while claiming the high road in regards to bribes and such?

It's funny you call me simple whilst displaying nothing to indicate you're anything otherwise.

Well by that reasoning, all dems are drunks and drug addicts ala Patrick Kennedy and all dems like to fondle their male staffers ala Masso?

LOL I guess reading comprehension is not strong on the DR.

I'm by no means indicating the Dems are white as the newly driven snow.

But are they usually caught behaving in a manner contrary to their stated rhetoric? Do they usually fall harder because they attempt to prop themselves up on some high and mighty pedestal as if they're not subject to human nature?

If so, provide the list and examples of them campaigning against what they got caught doing.

To further clarify-

I'm also not saying this guy represents all Repubs. That'd be stupid.

But how many times can the excuse 'well he's just one guy, it's not indicative of a larger trend' be doled out?

Answer-IMO not many. And the problem isn't that Repubs are more corrupt than Dems. It's just that the Dems don't try as hard to act like they're not.

"LOL I guess reading comprehension is not strong on the DR."
#16 | Posted by jpw at 2010-03-13 05:02 PM

Well by all means explain your retort? What part of "blanketing the entire..." did you miss?

(Other than a "tool" blanketing the entire republican party because of an incident by some state politician in Noth Dakota?)

"If this were a single incident of a Repub not living up to the high and mighty, self-righteous "morals and values" rhetoric they campaign on, you might have a point."

#17...

Wish you had posted that first, before my #18...


To further clarify-

I'm also not saying this guy represents all Repubs. That'd be stupid.

But how many times can the excuse 'well he's just one guy, it's not indicative of a larger trend' be doled out?

Answer-IMO not many. And the problem isn't that Repubs are more corrupt than Dems. It's just that the Dems don't try as hard to act like they're not.

Ok. I can buy that. Hypocrisy does make corruption worse, true.

"But are they usually caught behaving in a manner contrary to their stated rhetoric? Do they usually fall harder because they attempt to prop themselves up on some high and mighty pedestal as if they're not subject to human nature?
If so, provide the list and examples of them campaigning against what they got caught doing." - JPW

I see this argument put forth quite often... Reps setting themselves up as the moral compass, etc.

And maybe what I'm about to say doesn't rise to your anticipated level of proof, but here goes:

Dems, throughout the years... have advocated any number of over-arching and/or specific initiatives. Setting aside any moral 'problems' for a moment, though there are many over the years. From "helping the poor" to "education" to "gay rights" , etc, Dems have advocated any number of things which, they claim, will be good for those involved. Would you agree thus far?

I don't know how many trillions of dollars have been spent helping "the poor." And where do we stand today?

What of the status of the black nucular (a little Dubya lingo) family? Has 40+ years of "vote for Dems because we'll help you" really helped blacks? How so?

The list goes on and on. Have Dems done much of anything regarding gay "rights"? Is our education system, a longtime Dem pet project, in better shape?

I could go on. The bottom line is that both the Rep and Dem party, as a whole, put themselves out there as "representing" certain segments of society.

We can look at the results and draw our own conclusions, pro or con, as to how not only a party has fared... but also how a certain individual has fared, whether by judging their votes and the outcomes or their personal actions vs their stated "beliefs."

Is one (rhetoric vs voting and results... or rhetoric vs their private life) necessarily better or more credible than another? If so, how?

I could say, for instance, that I support kids. Under that umbrella, as long as my "motives" are right, I could say, do, or vote for things which could be detrimental. Do you see what I mean?

Do you see what I mean?

I think so.

But the Repubs using the morals and family values platform is not them trying to represent a given group. It's them trying to take the mantle of superiority and righteousness.

Then it often turns out they're just like everyone else anyway, despite how much they claim the moral high ground.

If they dropped the facade this sort of story wouldn't be posted on the DR.

"But the Repubs using the morals and family values platform is not them trying to represent a given group. It's them trying to take the mantle of superiority and righteousness."

Why do you insist on only the repubs use morals and family values? The dems share the same morals and values, so do the independents, Green Party, Constitution Party, etc...

"If this were a single incident of a Repub not living up to the high and mighty, self-righteous "morals and values" rhetoric they campaign on, you might have a point."

When was the last time a Republican campaigned on "family values?" Did this guy in particular use that stance?

The entire 'family values' thing was from the mid-80s, in contrast to Clinton.

The GOP has plenty of things wrong. Is this the best you can do? Rehashing some tired line from 20 years ago?

Unless there is something more to it, that is. The 'family values' idea was dead-on-target because Democrats truly are anti-family.

That's why it had so much sting, and why you still still hyperventilate over it so many years later.

"The entire 'family values' thing was from the mid-80s,"

Wrong again, Vermin, as usual.

Florida GOP to Filmmakers:
No Family Values, No Tax Credit
Posted: 03/10/10

www.politicsdaily.com

The reason the left pounce so hard when a repub fails the 'family values' is that it helps to distract that THE DEMS HAVE NO VALUES.

Repub voters EXPECT their candidates to be descent and honest... something that none of the politicians appear to be able to manage. The dem politicians are no more honest. They don't come out and tell the voters that they are worthless puddles of scum. Its just that the dems voters don't expect anything better from their representatives.

Well, if this guy lived in New York and was a Democrat he could have gotten David Patterson to cover the whole thing up.

Painful but true. I'm glad Paterson isn't running again. That move was sleazy.

Can I flag a thread title as offensive? This one is. Reinheits unwavering dedication to smearing anything conservative is just as bad as this asswipes tendancy to beat his wife. They're both repulsive.

Why do you insist on only the repubs use morals and family values? The dems share the same morals and values, so do the independents, Green Party, Constitution Party, etc...

They share the same values? WHAT!?!?!?!

I think you might be the first self-described Repub to say that! LOL

Yes, there are some Dems that have utilized part of the platform. Maybe because they were trying to win Repub heavy districts and were pandering to the constituents?

I'm going off of my overall perception of accumulated reading of politics here.

When was the last time a Republican campaigned on "family values?"...

The entire 'family values' thing was from the mid-80s, in contrast to Clinton.

According to wikipedia it was part of the GOP platform as recently as 2004.

en.wikipedia.org

According to my memory, it's an ever-present aspect of many of the races I've read coverage on.

Did this guy in particular use that stance?

Someone finally caught me on that. I'm surprised it took so long.

No, I don't know if he specifically used a morals and values platform.

The GOP has plenty of things wrong. Is this the best you can do? Rehashing some tired line from 20 years ago?

Considering this thread isn't about general things wrong with the GOP, it's not off topic to discuss this. Try and keep up, vern.

Unless there is something more to it, that is. The 'family values' idea was dead-on-target because Democrats truly are anti-family.

That's why it had so much sting, and why you still still hyperventilate over it so many years later.

Yes, Vern, I'm hyperventilating over it. I'm fucking hysterical. My hair has been pulled out in clumps.

LOL damn you're fucking stupid.

There's a long list of Repubs who haven't lived up to the platform of their party. Are all of them truly anti-family too?

I didn't say he represented the entirety of Repubs. Just that he's far from the only one to not live up to their own standards.--JPW

So you admit the Dems have no standards?

They share the same values? WHAT!?!?!?!

I think you might be the first self-described Repub to say that! LOL
#29 | Posted by jpw at 2010-03-14 01:00 PM

How about they share the same "basic" morals and values. Not sure how many politicians are going to get elected running on the immoral and valueless platform.

This guy should resign--he's got big problems and a distraction.

The elections are in November--he likely would not be missed until then.

So you admit the Dems have no standards?

No, not even close.

Why doesn't it surprise me that the simplest outcome is the one you latch on to.

They just don't have the stupidity to try and claim to be morally superior.

How about they share the same "basic" morals and values. Not sure how many politicians are going to get elected running on the immoral and valueless platform.

I know.

My post was in jest for the reason of what you state above.

It's an obvious point and part of the reason why the moral superiority crowd is so ridiculous. But then you have people like Vern and Murphy who claim the Dems ARE immoral and valueless.

There are children involved here.

I hope he gets help.

Rock 'em and sock 'em if they get outta line.

Well by that reasoning, all dems(GOPPERS) are drunks and drug addicts ala Patrick Kennedy (GWB)and all dems like to fondle their male staffers ala Masso(FOLEY)?

"And Reinheitsgebot, you should find yourself a simpler handle to speel....
#8 | Posted by mitch"

Given Bitch's speeling prowess, try to choose a handle with less than four letters.

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable