Thread: Tea Party Representative defends his children, aye!

ahoy me friends!

in these troubled times we be livin' in, it warms the cockles 'o me heart to see that thar be congressmen willin' to stand tall and man the oars against the villiany 'o the Obama regime....men who shall protect thar very children from this onerous debt.

case 'n point, congressman and Tea Party crusader, Joe Walsh;

“I won’t place one more dollar of debt upon the backs of my kids and grandkids unless we structurally reform the way this town spends money!” Walsh says directly into the camera in his viral video lecturing Obama on the need to get the nation’s finances in order.

Walsh starts the video by saying, “President Obama, quit lying. Have you no shame, sir? In three short years, you’ve bankrupted this country.”

Tea Party Rep. Joe Walsh sued for $100,000 in child support - Chicago Sun-Times

thats why 'tis a great dissapointment to me that Mr. Walsh doesn't really seem to care about his children when his own pocketbook be on the line....and it saddens me that he thinks that because he be a congressperson, he be expempt from the laws that govern ordinary americans.

A Chicago judge issued a preliminary ruling Wednesday against U.S. Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Ill.) in his child-support dispute with his ex-wife, ordering the Tea Party favorite to explain why he appears to be $100,000 behind in child-support payments.

Cook County Circuit Judge Raul Vega also wanted to know why Walsh wasn’t in court Wednesday — the McHenry Republican’s ex-wife, Laura Walsh, was there — and initially said he expected him to show up for the next hearing.

In court, Walsh’s attorney, Janet Boyle, asked Vega “for what purpose” he wanted the congressman in court.

Vega gave her a puzzled look — to which Boyle responded: “Mr. Walsh is a U.S. congressman.”

“Well, he’s no different than anyone else,” the judge replied.

Judge scolds Rep. Joe Walsh in child-support case with ex-wife - Chicago Sun-Times

do ye all find that Mr. Walsh's indignant proclimations to our skipper about defendin' the financial well bein' 'o his children be consistent with his own behavior towards his offspring?

aye?

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

do ye all find that Mr. Walsh's indignant proclimations to our skipper about defendin' the financial well bein' 'o his children be consistent with his own behavior towards his offspring?

aye?

- MeadHallPirate

No.

I think they're both as wrong as two boys fucking.

Mr. Walsh should take care of his financial obligation to his children and Mr. Obama should allow me to take care of mine without sticking his hand in my pocket and taking my family's money in order to dole it out to his political patrons.

To be fair, at this point the dispute is one of whether he actually owes that amount or not. His ex is claiming that he owes the $117k but he is claiming that the amount is much less and that the motivation for these stories is purely political.

What's funnier is Mr. Walsh's kids, if he eventually gets off his deadbeat dad ass, are going to be paid from the public dole, because after all Mr. Walsh is on the public dole.

Originally Posted by lutherf

To be fair, at this point the dispute is one of whether he actually owes that amount or not. His ex is claiming that he owes the $117k but he is claiming that the amount is much less and that the motivation for these stories is purely political.

I'd say a more important dispute is showing up in court. Failure to show up is grounds for a summary judgement against him isn't it? (I'm not a lawyer, maybe those aren't the right words).

Wait, what the f**k does one have to do with the other again? Joe Walsh didn't pay child support ...so his statements that overspending and putting debt on the citizens of this nation are wrong? You know what's hilarious? That this article appears in the Chicago Sun-Times under a banner that proclaims "2011 Pulitzer Prize Winner." Apparently you can write with the intellect of a child that was beaten on the head with a brick and win a Pulitzer Prize. Nothing like two wholly unrelated issues being mashed together for discerning liberal Chicagoan readers to chortle about to convince themselves that their idiotic policies have some sort of vague validity in a retarded way.

By the way, in case you didn't notice, my patience with political stupidity is wearing thin.

Originally Posted by lutherf

...the dispute is one of whether he actually owes that amount or not. His ex is claiming that he owes the $117k but he is claiming that the amount is much less...

So he is a deadbeat just not as much of a deadbeat as his wife is claiming, or so he'd have us believe.

And what's "much less"?

I'd accept that $100K is "much less" than $117K.

So it's entirely possible that he doesn't owe as much as the wife claims but even though the amount he owes is much less it's still a very considerable amount. Potentially.

Aslo, in the article the wife is claiming that at present he makes no effort to pay child support, a claim Mr. Walsh has made no effort to dispute.

With a Congressional salary of $174,000 a year he is certainly earning enough to make some token effort to meet his obligations and pay down the amount he is in arrears.

I'll note here that Mr. Walsh has made a pledge to not accept Congressional health insurance or retirement benefits.

Do his children have health insurance? If so, where do they get it from?

Does their mother pay for it in spite of the fact that Mr. Walsh is a deadbeat?

Or are the children on Medicaid?

I don't know the answer, but I'm sure as shit curious now.

This thread prompted me to do a little digging around and it would seem that Mr. Walsh has a long and frequent history, beginning in 1992, of the IRS placing liens on his income due to a habbit of not paying his taxes.

Mr. Walsh claims that these dozen or so liens over three decades are all isolated incidents and aren't indicative of any kind of pattern.

That sounds reasonable to me .

I guess the fact that he hasn't paid his child support in full, or in some years at all, for the last several years is also completly isolated and isn't in any way a further manifestation of the fiscal irresponsibility which manifested itself in his not paying his taxes.

Wow.

Mr. Obama is tax and spend.

Mr Walsh is don't pay your tax and spend, but not on your children. And he has contol of this nation's purse strings. At least we know he's probably not going to open them, that's a good thing. But maybe he's not going to open them even when he has a legal obligation to do so? That's not such a good thing.

At least they're both from Illinois. Perhaps we can just blame it on the drinking water in and around Chicago?

and that the motivation for these stories is purely political.

As was Mr. Walsh's motivation for getting on a soap box and lecturing the President on financial responsibility.

And to be perfectly honest with you. this is something that, as an American taxpayer, I'd like to know.

I think it's fair that I now know that there's an American Congressman who doesn't pay his child support or taxes.

I don't think that detracts from the message he had for president Obama, but I think in an unrelated sense it's fair that I've been informed.

I see no problem with Walsh at all. He is elected to represent the wishes of his constituents, and his opposition to Owebama's attempt to bankrupt America is dead nuts on. What he does in his private life is none of our concern, nor is our business. His actions on the macro scale of his public office are what matters, and what will affect the future of our great nation.

This is no different than a representative like Foley or Craig rightfully defending America from the homosexual agenda. On the macro level, thier actions protect millions of folks from this encroaching danger. Once again, what they do on a personal level is irrevalent.

Originally Posted by soot

This thread prompted me to do a little digging around and it would seem that Mr. Walsh has a long and frequent history, beginning in 1992, of the IRS placing liens on his income due to a habbit of not paying his taxes.

Mr. Walsh claims that these dozen or so liens over three decades are all isolated incidents and aren't indicative of any kind of pattern.

That sounds reasonable to me .

With the preface that this has nothing to do with the original contention, I could care less if this guy doesn't pay his taxes. I like how we're trained to be like "if you pay your taxes, you're a good boy!" More people should tell the government to eff off. If I could get away with it -- and I don't have the balls to -- I'd do it.