Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...

Faisal Gill Amends Finance Report, Concerns Mount

By Greg L | 27 April 2007 | 51st HOD District | 61 Comments

Faisal Gill has filed an amended campaign finance disclosure which increases the amount paid to Tom Kopko for “web site design” and assistance in filing campaign finance reports to $2,000 from $1,000. This is in addition to $4,000 paid to Huberspace for “web hosting”, making Faisal Gill’s campaign website one of the most expensive new media efforts this election cycle and the most expensive ever for a House of Delegates campaign. Additionally, $750 was paid on February 9th to the PWCRC for a “committee event” that I can’t find any record of having happened. That was the day after the website for Julie Lucas went live and four days after a PWCRC meeting. If there was a “committee event” that day, members of the committee weren’t invited.

As far as the smell test goes, this is failing big time. Between suspect contributions and reported expenditures that make no sense at all, Faisal Gill is looking more and more like a corrupt politician with each passing day.

UPDATE: In the comments a reader points out that the $750 payment on February 9th was to sponsor a table at the Lincoln-Reagan dinner.



The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed.

61 Comments

  1. Had to Say said on 27 Apr 2007 at 12:01 pm:
    Flag comment

    “….Faisal Gill is looking more and more like a corrupt politician with each passing day.” That includes KOPKO

  2. Anonymous said on 27 Apr 2007 at 12:01 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg, have you heard yet if the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office is investigating this yet? It appears that there is enough evidence here for a possible indictment.

  3. George said on 27 Apr 2007 at 12:02 pm:
    Flag comment

    I’m guessing Gill took out a full page ad or something for the Lincoln/Reagan Dinner this year (the $750). The amended report to increase Kopko’s fee & the change to reflect “website design” is curious though.

  4. John Smith said on 27 Apr 2007 at 12:17 pm:
    Flag comment

    I hope he wasn’t paid $2,000 to write those issue pages …

  5. James Young said on 27 Apr 2007 at 12:47 pm:
    Flag comment

    “As far as the smell test goes, this is failing big time.”

    I’m sure it doesn’t, with those with the stench of their own misdeeds in their noses.

  6. Batson D. Belfrey said on 27 Apr 2007 at 1:15 pm:
    Flag comment

    Yes. If you want to find corruption, follow the money. From some of Gill’s questionable donors, to those he is paying. This stinks, in a big way, and it is only getting stinkier by the day.

    As far as the smell test goes, if James Young could keep his fingers out of his nose, he might be able to smell the stink too.

  7. Matt said on 27 Apr 2007 at 1:39 pm:
    Flag comment

    Wow…it costs $750 for a full page ad at your L/R dinner? No wonder you don’t charge as much as the PWCDC does for convention filing fees :)

  8. Jonathan Mark said on 27 Apr 2007 at 1:45 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”"I’m sure it doesn’t, with those with the stench of their own misdeeds in their noses.”"”

    Speaking of noses, Jim, Batson claims that he has seen you doing some deep drilling. He knows what he saw. Care to comment?

  9. Had to Say said on 27 Apr 2007 at 2:27 pm:
    Flag comment

    James,

    Do you actually think anyone takes you seriously? You are good for one thing here, a laugh!

  10. CONVA said on 27 Apr 2007 at 4:04 pm:
    Flag comment

    Normaly a report is amended to reflect a mathimatical error. Screwing up an entry is very rare. Kopko & Co. have nothing on the Dem machine in Chicago.

  11. Jonathan Mark said on 27 Apr 2007 at 4:09 pm:
    Flag comment

    Didn’t Gill know how much he paid Kopko? Gill should explain what the source of this error was.

    If he wants to dispel suspicions about his shadowy past with the imprisoned American Muslim Council leader Abdurahman Alamoudi then Gill needs to be more open about what is going on.

    Gill is going on trial later this year for reckless driving. What is that all about? Gill left out $1000 of the $2000 that he made to Kopko. What is that all about?

    Gill still refuses to say when he started his employment at the terrorist-led American Muslim Council and when he ended it. What was the total amount of money that Gill received from the in-part Libyan funded group, which was founded and run by the Libyan secret agent Abdurahman Alamoudi?

    Those who want a secretive candidate who refuses to even provide a complete resume of his past employment should vote for Gill.

  12. James Young said on 27 Apr 2007 at 4:43 pm:
    Flag comment

    Well, “Had to Say”/”Batson,” that’s easy to understand, with “Batson’s”/your childish belittlement and mythmaking. ‘Course, not being taken “seriously” by a loser who couldn’t score a real job and people who are such cowards that they can’t sign their real names is high praise indeed.

  13. Anon said on 27 Apr 2007 at 5:26 pm:
    Flag comment

    The most expensive ad at the LR Dinner was the back cover and it was full page in color and it cost $250.

  14. charles said on 27 Apr 2007 at 5:46 pm:
    Flag comment

    George made me think, maybe Gill paid for a TABLE for the dinner as a campaign activity? I don’t remember what the charge was for a table.

    Or maybe there was several ads, or an Ad and a table, or whatever.

    The CHARGE was that “no event was held that day”. That charge is meaningless, as the payment wouldn’t be tied to the day of the event, but the day of the payment.

    Here’s the question I’d like a real answer to: Did Tom Kopko say how much he had been paid when he spoke about this on monday?

  15. charles said on 27 Apr 2007 at 5:49 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg, any comment about how you “forgot” about the Lincoln-Reagan dinner? selective memory? Deliberately misleading readers? Simple mistake in your haste to smear the guy representing your opponent in your lawsuit?

  16. charles said on 27 Apr 2007 at 5:55 pm:
    Flag comment

    Help me out here. I decided to see if the money spent on web services was really out of line, so I went to vpap and checked how much Julie was paying for her web site.

    I looked at all the expenditures (It’s a very short list) and none of them were for web services.

    Am I looking at the wrong place, or can you get a political web site hosted for free? That’s pretty frugal.

  17. anon said on 27 Apr 2007 at 6:20 pm:
    Flag comment

    Was this topic of payment addressed at Monday’s meeting by Kopko or Gill? I believe I recall reading that it was.

    Just curious if there was a dollar amount mentioned on Monday. As of Monday we all thought the amount paid was $1K, now it turns out to be $2K.

    If the amount was stated as $1K at the meeting by anyone and not corrected by Gill/Kopko - or even if the dollar amount was never directly stated - this again would point to unethical behavior. Gill/Kopko KNEW this was all over the web - and everywhere else - as Kopko receiving $1K. A lie by omission is still a lie.

  18. Bryanna Altman said on 27 Apr 2007 at 7:03 pm:
    Flag comment

    Ms. Wickham made reservations for the Gill Campaign to attend the Lincoln- Reagan Dinner as a Patriot Sponsor on February 17th. The cost was exactly $750.00, table for 10 and VIP reception with Ed Gillespie. As the chair of the event I was the one who received the $750. check. PWCRC Membership Chairman

  19. charles said on 27 Apr 2007 at 7:58 pm:
    Flag comment

    How many baseless charges have to be answered before a candidate is allowed to start ignoring additional baseless charges?

  20. Greg L said on 27 Apr 2007 at 8:05 pm:
    Flag comment

    Thanks for clearing that up, Bryanna. In regards to other comments:

    I don’t believe a specific amount was mentioned at the PWCRC meeting, so I don’t believe there’s a problem there, unless someone else caught something I didn’t pay close enough attention to.

    Yes, you can get free (volunteer) web hosting.

  21. Loudoun Insider said on 27 Apr 2007 at 8:54 pm:
    Flag comment

    So this is $6,000 for a so-so website? How in the world did Gill forget how much he paid the Chairman of the PWCRC? Was it changed to reflect the real amount only after this story broke, thinking that more digging would occur?

  22. AWCheney said on 27 Apr 2007 at 10:05 pm:
    Flag comment

    Given the uproar LI, I’ve been wondering if it might not be a later payment that is now being rolled into the one so that it doesn’t show up on the next report. It would be a lot harder for Kopko and Gill to explain a second $1K “consulting fee” than dealing with a singular incident.

  23. Hal said on 27 Apr 2007 at 10:09 pm:
    Flag comment

    I’ll say this. I’m in NC and web design and hosting is my biz. I’d like to know how that figure is justified regarding the hosting tab. If that’s correct, have I got a deal for some folks.
    For $4000, not only would I host the site, but I would stand on the street corner at the town square and hand out flyers.

    Who’s zooming who here?

    Hal@Whispers

  24. James Young said on 28 Apr 2007 at 12:10 am:
    Flag comment

    Actually, while you can get free webhosting — I did, back in the early days of the Internet, when I was stupid enough to be talked into running for office — you must disclose such gratuities on the “In-Kind” portion of your report, or you did back then. If she is getting it free, and Julie is not reporting this, then she’s in violation of the campaign finance laws of the Commonwealth.

    I suppose one could try to spin that as a scandal. I prefer to believe it to be an oversight.

  25. AWCheney said on 28 Apr 2007 at 9:24 am:
    Flag comment

    Actually, according to the Virginia SBE, the following in-kind contribution was listed on Julie’s report:

    APRN16_07 Ditch Oliver P. - 14170 Cuddy Loop Apt 104 - Woodbridge - VA - 22193 N/A - Retired - N/A Web Site Design/Development - Fair Market Value 3/31/2007 3275 3775

    There was NO oversight.

    Interestingly enough, according to Gill’s SBE report, the amendmended version listed the Kopko expenditure of $2,000.00 for web design (APRN16_07 Kopko Tom 4413 Berwick Place - Woodbridge - VA - 22192 Web site design Faisal M. Gill 1/5/2007 2000), whereas the original report lists $1,000.00 of that as consulting (APRN16_07 Kopko Tom 4413 Berwick Place - Woodbridge - VA - 22192 Consulting Faisal M. Gill 1/5/2007 1000). Question: When was the amended report filed…before or after all this hoopla?

  26. Batson D. Belfrey said on 28 Apr 2007 at 10:55 am:
    Flag comment

    “Question: When was the amended report filed…before or after all this hoopla?”

    A very good question. Another would be, what was the total amount Gill paid Kopko? Was it $2000 total for “webdesign” or $1000 for “consulting”. Two different reasons given for the expenditure. Will we see another report that tells us the total was actually $3000?

    James and Charles can try to spin this as best they can, but they are still putting lipstick on a pig.

  27. charles said on 28 Apr 2007 at 2:14 pm:
    Flag comment

    OK, it’s 2pm the next day, Greg knew his allegations of nefarious behavior regarding the $750 was false last night at 8pm, but he still lists his false allegation in his post. Is it too hard for you to correct your false charges, Greg? I know you know how to edit your posts to fix things, you do it all the time, just too lazy I guess when the lie suits your needs.

    Here’s a poll I’d love to see on this site: “Would you care if Greg told lies to you, so long as he lied about people you hate”? I’m guessing his regular readers wouldn’t care a bit.

    Does VPAP pick up stuff from the SBE eventually? How hard is it to get to the SBE versions of the reports, because it sounds like they are different sometimes.

  28. charles said on 28 Apr 2007 at 2:26 pm:
    Flag comment

    OK. Greg, you know that web site hosting is different from web site design. You know it costs money to purchase a good web site host with high-speed access.

    Web site design. How much would you expect that to cost? People here who hate Faisal Gill are claiming that a $2000 to Kopko for web site design would be too much.

    Well, how much did Lucas pay for web site design? According to her VPAP report, she paid OP Ditch $3,275 for Web site design.

    Oh wait, she didn’t pay him, he donated it back to her. Still, that’s a lot more money than Kopko got for designing Gill’s site.

    Maybe OP Ditch is also providing hosting services as part of the payment, in which case we are not comparing apples to apples. Maybe Lucas has only paid through june, and gill paid through the end of the general election. Who knows?

    What I do know is that two people in the committee have been paid for “web services”. One received $3,275 dollars for his work, and then donated it to a candidate he supprorts, Julie Lucas. The other only $2,000 for his work, and did NOT donate it to any candidate.

    And apparently Greg thinks there’s something really bad about Gill spending $750 on the Lincoln/Reagan dinner, but nothing at all wrong with Lucas spending $156 for the same dinner.

    I guess we can add the $750 to the list of unsubstantiated and provably false smears Greg has employed against the lawyer for the man who is suing him for libel.

  29. John Smith said on 28 Apr 2007 at 3:12 pm:
    Flag comment

    Charles, please do not forget the $4,000 Gill paid to Huberspace for website services, bringing his total to $6,000 for website services. Unreasonable? I have no idea.

    “…and gill paid through the end of the general election. Who knows?”
    I hope you are not implying that Kopko is still providing services to Gill for his $2,000 check. If true, that would be very concerning.

    Also, it’s easy to access SBE information on the State Board of Elections website.

  30. Jonathan Mark said on 28 Apr 2007 at 3:17 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”"a $2000 to Kopko for web site design would be too much”"”

    Is Kopko a professional website designer? Has anyone who is not seeking to be nominated by the PWCRC paid Kopko $2000 for website design?

    For a PWCRC party chairman to be setting himself up in business charging thousands of dollars to persons seeking a PWCRC nomination is peculiar.

    No one even knows if Kopko has stopped performing paid work for Gill. The amount Kopko took from Gill has suddenly ballooned to $2000 after initially being reported on VPAP as $1000.

    Does Kopko provide Gill with itemized receipts?

  31. James Young said on 28 Apr 2007 at 3:19 pm:
    Flag comment

    Thank you for clearing that up. Please note that I said “if”; I’m glad to see that Julie reported it.

  32. just the facts said on 28 Apr 2007 at 3:42 pm:
    Flag comment

    Gill, Faisal made 2 payments
    totalling $4,000 to Huber Space in 2007:
    Transaction Date Amount Service
    02/26/07 $1,500 Web site services
    01/08/07 $2,500 Web hosting

    Gill, Faisal made 1 payment
    totalling $2,000 to Kopko, Thomas A in 2007:
    Transaction Date Amount Service
    01/05/07 $2,000 Web Site Design

    Source: VPAP

  33. charles said on 28 Apr 2007 at 9:07 pm:
    Flag comment

    The money to Huberspace include $2500 for web HOSTING, and $1500 for web site services.

    So his total cost for web site services/design is $3500, while Julie lists $3750 for web services/design in in-kind from O.P Ditch.

    It appears from the expense accounts that Julie either has a free web host, or Op Ditch is providing that as part of the in-kind contribution. Gill is paying for his web host. I don’t know how to compare them, they look like web sites to me, so if OP is considered “professional” and Tom isn’t, it doesn’t look to me like being “professional” made a difference. I won’t get into an argument over which is better, since everybody here would say Julie’s was better even if it was drawn in crayon on her computer display.

    When I said “paid through general election”, I meant the web hosting. It could be the $2500 is for a 1-year lease, for example. We are all speculating of course about the expenses, since the reports aren’t all that detailed.

    The web sites are both already designed, so I doubt either candidate is going to have additional design expenses. They probably will have other expenses for maintenance.

    In any case, the most absurd part of this discussion has been to somehow fault Gill because Kopko agreed to work for him for money. Regardless of whether you think Kopko should or should not accept money for services from candidates for office, that’s an issue for Tom, not the candidates who want services.

  34. just the facts said on 29 Apr 2007 at 8:25 am:
    Flag comment

    GODADDY.COM HOSTING PLAN FOR DELULX:
    ($83.88 IS A FAR CRY FROM $2,500 FOR “HOSTING” for 1 year)

    “12 mo: $6.29/mo SAVE 10%!
    24 mo: $5.59/mo SAVE 20%!
    Linux/Windows
    See Hosting Plan comparison chart

    Plan Features
    • 100 GB Space
    • 1,000 GB Transfer
    • 1,000 Email Accounts
    • Unlimited Web sites
    • FREE! Software
    • 25 MySQL Databases
    • Unlimited Email Forwards
    • Forums, Blogging, Photo Galleries
    • Metropolis Hosting Community
    • $25 Google® AdWords® Credit1″

  35. Jonathan Mark said on 29 Apr 2007 at 8:52 am:
    Flag comment

    “”"the money to Huberspace include $2500 for web HOSTING,”"”

    I have been paying $80-90 a month for a dedicated webserver and bandwidth. While it is possible for Faisal to pay hundreds a month for a webserver a local candidate’s website won’t attract enough traffic to justify that size server.

    If Faisal is that profligate with his own campaign’s money think what he would do with the public’s money in Richmond.

  36. just the facts said on 29 Apr 2007 at 9:42 am:
    Flag comment

    “Paid for and authorized by Friends of Faisal Gill.
    Site designed by Huberspace Web Design”

    Why is it not “designed by Tom Kopko”?

  37. Loudoun Insider said on 29 Apr 2007 at 10:51 am:
    Flag comment

    Huber is an active member of the LCRC and Leesburg District Chair. He is firmly in the Delgaudio camp and seems to be the ultra-right web guy of choice.

  38. NoVA Scout said on 29 Apr 2007 at 1:48 pm:
    Flag comment

    All this detailed discussion of how much servers and site design cost leave me wondering what happened to the original question: Is it appropriate for a GOP unit chairman to be taking money (in whatever amount for whatever services) from one candidate in a contested intra-party nomination battle? Or is this not the question?

  39. AWCheney said on 29 Apr 2007 at 2:07 pm:
    Flag comment

    I believe that it is most certainly the question NoVA. Kopko can hardly serve as Chairman of a diverse but united political committee if he is only going to service those Republicans with whom he agrees…of course, that may be why it is not very diverse OR united.

  40. charles said on 29 Apr 2007 at 3:22 pm:
    Flag comment

    NovaScout, it’s hard to keep track of what the “issue” is. For a while the “issue” was $750 for an “event that never took place”.

    Several people noted the event was an obvious one. But eventually, someone posted that they had actually seen the $750 check for the L/R dinner.

    I’m guessing the only reason that person wasn’t attacked as a stooge for Gil is it was posted by a person who has ENDORSED Lucas. I guess you can’t attack your own people.

    People here think it would be better if Kopko was giving free services to one candidate over another, apparently. I thought it would be better that he didn’t give money to a candidate, and I imagine that if he had done this “in-kind” like O.P. Ditch for Lucas, people would be complaining about the “unfairness” of the convention chair donating to one of the two candidates.

  41. Jonathan Mark said on 29 Apr 2007 at 6:05 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”"Why is it not “designed by Tom Kopko”?”"”

    Obviously, because Kopko didn’t design it. Which makes one wonder why Faisal filed a campaign expense report which says that Faisal paid Kopko $1000, make that $2000 for “web design.”

  42. AWCheney said on 29 Apr 2007 at 8:55 pm:
    Flag comment

    Charles, what is obvious is that you are being overly defensive and reading the comments from a biased perspective. The concern is ANY appearance of impropriety. It is, or at least should be, incumbent upon the Party leadership (ESPECIALLY the Chairman) to remain neutral in a nominations contest…at least maintain the appearance of neutrality. If he/she does not, ANY decision made in those nominations contests would be rightfully open to criticism by any candidate who is not favored by that decision. And when that Chairman accepts MONEY from a candidate within his or her jurisdiction before the nominations process has concluded, regardless of the service provided, it takes on the appearance of payola…it’s as simple as that. The key phrase here is “within his or her jurisdiction.” If that Chairman is a consultant, it does not preclude him or her from pursuing their profession outside of that jurisdiction. If that was going to be a problem, they shouldn’t have taken the Chairmanship in the first place. The Party leadership is supposed to be providing services to all candidates in their unit equally, as part of their position. If they intend to abuse that position they should resign and then they can accept all the consulting fees that they may be offered with impunity.

  43. AWCheney said on 29 Apr 2007 at 9:01 pm:
    Flag comment

    And BTW, even an “in-kind” service would be improper unless provided equally to the candidates.

  44. CONVA said on 29 Apr 2007 at 9:40 pm:
    Flag comment

    I recall reading a few weeks ago that the PWCDC was screwed up. Is that compared to Kopko’s Keystone Kops?

  45. anon said on 29 Apr 2007 at 11:42 pm:
    Flag comment

    I think the reason the person providing the info on the $750 wasn’t attacked as a “stooge” for Gill/Kopko was because she is the treasurer and she presented FACT, not speculation.

    Why would someone attack the very person who received the $$ and knew what it was for and then reported that fact. She didn’t spin anything. And, I, for one, had no idea WHO she was supporting.

  46. NoVA Scout said on 30 Apr 2007 at 7:34 am:
    Flag comment

    Charles, I don’t live in the district and can’t vote for either candidate, but it seems starkly clear that the controversy wasn’t over the $750. Use an objective standard. If you had a candidate you believed in strongly and were trying to move through a party nominating fight at any level, would you be non-chalant about news that his opponent was paying non-trivial sums to the Party chairman? I can name off the top of my head about a dozen people in the PW Committee who would be carpet-chewing, spittle-flecked livid if a couple of grand of Lucas money had gone to Kopko around the time that a primary had been selected as the nominating procedure. I think that hypothetical provides a fair test of whether this is a big deal or not.

  47. Batson D. Belfrey said on 30 Apr 2007 at 9:26 am:
    Flag comment

    Not surprising to see that Charles “tags in” to give his partner James “Lord of the Sith” Young a breather. Not surprising either that Charles defends both Gill and Kopko with inane, verbose postings. I guess since no one reads his blog, he must express his defense here.

    What is surprising is that he put away his toy trains long enough to help Darth Vader defend Gill and Kopko’s questionsable behavior. Since Charles is defending it, he must condone it. I am not saying he needs to express the same outrage as other commentors. He could condemn the actions with his silence. Nope, not Frodo. He needs to comment in defense.

    At the very least, we can see that there are no hard feelings between Darth and Frodo, seeing as Frodo replaced Darth, when Darth was canned as an OpEd writer at the Potomac News.

    Charles’ verbosity aside, Tom “Taco” Kopko and Fish-Gill are still shadey.

  48. James Young said on 30 Apr 2007 at 9:30 am:
    Flag comment

    “NoVA Scout” offers this little pearl: “I can name off the top of my head about a dozen people in the PW Committee who would be carpet-chewing, spittle-flecked livid if a couple of grand of Lucas money had gone to Kopko around the time that a primary had been selected as the nominating procedure.”

    Yep. It’s true. I’m one of them. Because, IF that had happened, there would be at least a prima facie case of a quid pro quo: Kopko would have — contrary to his history — chosen a nominating process after payment from a candidate.

    No such prima facie case is made here. Kopko chose the same nominating process that he has advocated consistently. That’s why this whole imbroglio is more about form than substance, and more about Kopko unwisely giving his political enemies fodder for their creative fictions than about real wrong-doing.

    But God forbid facts should interfere with “NoVA Scout’s” nihilistic attacks upon genuine, committed Republicans.

  49. James Young said on 30 Apr 2007 at 9:33 am:
    Flag comment

    Tell me, Greg, why do you continue to indulge “Batson’s” slanders?

    It’s really pathetic that this cowardly, low-level government peon is given a forum to indulge his long-festering college resentments here. Most people grow up.

    On the other hand, didn’t Larry Sabato get a lot of press for doing the same thing during last year’s senatorial race?

  50. Jonathan Mark said on 30 Apr 2007 at 10:19 am:
    Flag comment

    “”"this cowardly, low-level government peon”"”

    Us peons, whether working for the government or not, have the same rights as everyone else.

  51. Batson D. Belfrey said on 30 Apr 2007 at 11:03 am:
    Flag comment

    “It’s really pathetic that this cowardly, low-level government peon is given a forum to indulge his long-festering college resentments here. Most people grow up.”

    Maybe. What is even more pathetic is that slip-and-fall attorney, who has a blog that no one reads, is notorious for personally attacking anyone with whom he disagrees on multiple sites (even his own, but few see it), goes crying to the teacher like a school-girl, because mean old Batson pulled his pig-tails. Hardly the resolve I would expect from one who wields the power of the Dark Side.

    Just to keep with the subject of the thread, I don’t see how Taco’s defenders can continue to hold that he has exercised leadership in the party. The PWCGOP is fractured, and factionalized. Many long-time members have left in disgust. Taco play’s favorites when it comes to candidates. Taco has allowed himself to be perceived as unethical, by taking money from a candidate in a contested nomination. Taco acted unprofessionally at a Congressional Candidates debate, and embarrased the party, and it made all of the papers. Taco willfully neglected the 50th HOD race last November. (I guess you only get help if you pay him for it). He neglected the US Senate race, and George Allen was defeated in PWC as a result.

    Taco is a party chairman. He is chaged with facillitating the nomination process, and with helping to get nominated candidates within his area of responsibility elected. Not only has he willfully neglected his duties as Chairman, he has financially benefitted from the process. He has brought discredit to himself, and the party on several occasions.

    James and Charles call Taco a leader. What does this say about their judgement? Who wouldn’t these two sheep follow?

  52. James Young said on 30 Apr 2007 at 11:42 am:
    Flag comment

    “Many long-time members have left in disgust.” Really? Who? Name names, by all means. At least one who posts here was gone long before Kopko entered the scene. And, incidentally, was absent while the GOP was taking control of the County.

    And how would “Dil Doe” know, anyway? His face has never darkened the door of a GOP event, so far as we know (and if I correctly surmise his identity, then he has certainly never done so). He is fairly free with his criticisms, but so far as we know, he has never been elected to any leadership position in any position, nor exercised any leadership in any context. From the evidence here, we could reasonably presume that “Batson” can’t even lead his stream into the bowl, on those rare occasions when he has not soiled himself at the prospect of confronting his betters. “Batson” seems best suited to the position he finds himself when walking his dog: in the rear, anxiously awaiting his opportunity to collect the deposits left behind.

    “Sheep,” “Dil Doe”? All of the evidence demonstrates that you have been little more than a sheep all of your life. And remember the old joke at H-SC: “Where the men are men, the women are women, and the sheep are nervous.”

  53. Batson D. Belfrey said on 30 Apr 2007 at 11:57 am:
    Flag comment

    “And remember the old joke at H-SC”

    I had forgotten that one. I remember the one about Darth Vader, and Jabba the Hut though!

  54. AWCheney said on 30 Apr 2007 at 12:04 pm:
    Flag comment

    “At least one who posts here was gone long before Kopko entered the scene. And, incidentally, was absent while the GOP was taking control of the County.”

    If you are referencing me here, Jimmy…I was never “gone” or totally absent. One of the biggest differences between you and me is that I am secure in myself and don’t have an ego which requires constant massage. I prefer to provide my assistance quietly, behind the scenes (and there are a lot of candidates/elected officials, past and present, during the period you mention out there who can attest to that…but I do not need them to do so). So, while you trumpet your YR and handful of convention credentials (which is really growing rather old and tiresome…and laughable), you would do well to consider that there are many more experienced political activists out there who, like me, are far more experienced and knowledgeable about politics than you or your buddies, who quietly involve themselves as a matter of principle rather than any self-serving interest or ego quest.

  55. James Young said on 30 Apr 2007 at 2:01 pm:
    Flag comment

    My, defensive, aren’t we, Old Whithered Wench? Whyever would you assume that I was talking about you?

    I suppose that only you would believe that your claimed “assistance quietly, behind the scenes” and that “there are a lot of candidates/elected officials, past and present, during the period you mention out there who can attest to that” is anything but a monument to your absence. “Ohh,” says the OWW, “I have exercised influence, but it is double-secret, and God knows, I couldn’t … er, dare not actually prove it with accomplishment.”

    I know the difference between credentials and influence. As to the former, you doubtless possess some, which is probably why you frequently regale us with — what was the phrase you used? — your “growing rather old and tiresome…and laughable,” as well as dessicated “credentials;” as to the latter, influence is generally a function of respect. You have none, and must (like your buddy “Batson”) constantly attack those who actually do.

    And BTW, I trumpted nothing in this thread.

    You are doubtless correct that “there are many more experienced political activists out there who … are far more experienced and knowledgeable about politics than you or your buddies, who quietly involve themselves as a matter of principle.” Sadly, you presume too much with your sanctimonious claim that you are among them, or that your enemies can only be pursuing “self-serving interest or ego quest.”

    As for your claim to “quiet,” one can but hope.

  56. Jonathan Mark said on 30 Apr 2007 at 2:46 pm:
    Flag comment

    “”"My, defensive, aren’t we, Old Whithered Wench?”"”

    Your time is coming also. As is mine, if it hasn’t already. Be respectful.

  57. AWCheney said on 30 Apr 2007 at 4:22 pm:
    Flag comment

    I really hit a nerve there, didn’t I Jimmy. ;-)

  58. James Young said on 30 Apr 2007 at 9:50 pm:
    Flag comment

    If you choose to engage in belittling nicknames, Old Withered Wench, don’t act surprised when someone chooses to respond with accurate ones.

    I know that you prefer unilateral disarmament in the face of your attacks. Guess it “hit[s] a nerve” when others won’t indulge you.

  59. AWCheney said on 1 May 2007 at 12:00 am:
    Flag comment

    You really want me to tear you apart, point by point Jimmy…or would you prefer Willy? If that’s what you want, here goes:

    ““Ohh,” says the OWW, “I have exercised influence, but it is double-secret, and God knows, I couldn’t … er, dare not actually prove it with accomplishment.””

    As any child would, if you don’t have a reasonable argument make something up. I have nothing to prove…but you prove yourself the egomaniacal fool consistently.

    “I know the difference between credentials and influence. As to the former, you doubtless possess some, which is probably why you frequently regale us with — what was the phrase you used? — your “growing rather old and tiresome…and laughable,” as well as dessicated “credentials;” as to the latter, influence is generally a function of respect.”

    I never spoke of influence, only principle…obviously influence is far more important to you than principle. In terms of respect, I really don’t care if I have any from either you, or from within your increasingly shrinking circle…and I further doubt that you have any. They’re just too afraid of your rampages to tell you. Again, regarding credentials, I have nothing to prove…unlike you.

    “You have none, and must (like your buddy “Batson”) constantly attack those who actually do.”

    I have no desire to attack the handicapped or otherwise challenged…I simply respond.

    “And BTW, I trumpted nothing in this thread.”

    It’s “trumpeted” Jimmy and, although not in this thread, you do…over and over and over…

    “You are doubtless correct that “there are many more experienced political activists out there who … are far more experienced and knowledgeable about politics than you or your buddies, who quietly involve themselves as a matter of principle.” Sadly, you presume too much with your sanctimonious claim that you are among them, or that your enemies can only be pursuing “self-serving interest or ego quest.””

    To repeat for late-comers, what I actually said was, “…you would do well to consider that there are many more experienced political activists out there who, like me, are far more experienced and knowledgeable about politics than you or your buddies, who quietly involve themselves as a matter of principle rather than any self-serving interest or ego quest.” The meaning here is self-explanatory, particularly to those who know you. I realize that you are not the type of person who could understand a concept such as that.

    “As for your claim to “quiet,” one can but hope.”

    I could never do that Jimmy…I wouldn’t want to deprive you of my sage advice and witty presence.

  60. James Young said on 1 May 2007 at 12:45 am:
    Flag comment

    How can I possibly be “deprive[d]” of what is so sadly lacking, Old Whithered Wench?

    Belittlement with unused nicknames is hardly “wit.” And as for “sage advice,” my recollection is that your “sage advice” to Harry Parrish was to use the criminal justice system to attack a political opponent. Oh. I get it. You meant “sleazy advice.”

  61. Jonathan Mark said on 1 May 2007 at 5:23 pm:
    Flag comment

    How long will you seek for that which is not lost, Jim? Your sanity is in your own hands. Only you can restore it and become a properly functioning human being again.

Comments are closed.


Views: 3074