"Headusher" post of the day
Another from the "Headusher" archives:
If Mike Boland was well enough to hold a press conference in Moline, he was well enough to be in the Capitol doing the job we pay him to do (according to the house Clerk, yesterday Boland missed 79 important votes.)
Instead of working hand-in-hand in as a legsislative team, Boland was in Moline taking pot-shots at Sen. Mike Jacobs.
The worst part? Boland knew in adnavce that his baseless attack aginst Senator Mike Jacobs was false, as WQAD-TV informed Boland that they retracted the errant story, made an on-air correction, and made apology to Senator Mike Jacobs.
Instead of showing good judgement, Boland held a campaign style press conference and attempted to smear young Mike Jacobs. What kind of creep does that?
I would encourage Mike Jacobs to file a restraining order against Mike and Mary Boland, as they are obsessed with every move Mike Jacobs' makes.
If Boland is stupid enough to run against Jacobs, he's going to get his *ss kicked. As a result, Boland's political obituary will read, "HERE LIES THE IDIOT THAT RAN AGAINST BOTH SENATOR MIKE AND DENNY JACOBS AND LOST!"
Boland's doctors advised him to take a vacation. Here is a thought Mr. Boland, why not check into the Robert Young Center and have your head examined.
By the way bloggers, did you know that Mike Boland did not bother to vote on election day? Did you know that Boland didn't work the precincts on election day although half his family was on the ballot? Consequently, Boland's son-in-law and close poilitical allie, Phil Banaszick, were defeated. As everyone knows, both candidates were funded and put-up by Boland in a wacky attempt to take over South Moline.
Dope, old Mike Boland can't have it both ways. Was he so sick that he couldn't vote; so sick that he couldn't work the election; so sick that he couldn't show-up to his job, but yet well to hold a campaign style press conference and speared false rumors. Which way do you want it Mr. Boland? You can't have it both ways!
Now I better understand why Boland's peers in the House, nicknamed him --- SQUISH!
One last thing Dope, Boland's assertion that he is being considered for statewide office or House Leadership is a total joke! The fact is the only route open to Boland is to crawl back to his safe and secure House Seat. But if Boland doesn't watch himself, Democrats may find a "QUALITY" opponent for Boland and simply take him out entirely.
--
Posted by theheadusher to The Inside Dope at 4/9/2005 09:43:24 AM
posted by The Inside Dope @ 1/16/2006
23 comments
23 Comments:
I think it is great that Mike Jacobs and Mike Boland have burried the hatchet on the long time fued that Denny and Boland had. These two men have worked hard together to bring WIU to the QC. They are both working on the important issue of Ethanol for our environment and the good of the farmers. These men are both working to open Thomson prison. This is one of the best accomplishments that Mike Jacobs has had, putting old time family dissagreaments aside for the good of the 36th district.
Alls well that ends well. Sen. Mike Jacobs , Reps Pat Vershoore and Mike Boland all looked like a team on TV talking about 2.4 million dollars going to WIU. The President of WIU had wonderfull remarks about these men working together to make WIU QC a reality.
Amazing, ain't it. That someone could insult, distort someone's record, imply all sorts of nasty, mean spirited crap about someone, and then find love.
Touching, really.
Sounds like a shotgun wedding with Jacobs forced to the alter with the point of Madigan's rifle planted in his ribs.
But of course, just because it walks like him, talks like him, and looks like him, we're not supposed to say it's Sen. Jacobs. Just sayin'
I don't think the gun was pointed anywhere Sen Mike Jacobs. Proof is in the pudding
Didn't Paul work for Boland? Can someone help with this one.
Boy it seems as if the Headusher was a prophet on this issue of Boland staying in his seat.
Now let me get this straight. The speaker made Sen. Jacobs with the shot gun in the Meeting hall be the Senator.
Now that must have been terrible for him!!
i think i heard somewhere that rumler was a volunteer on boland's campaign years back. don't have a source for you though, so take it for what it's worth - hearsay!
I find it troubling when I see all this anonimity being used for evil. I am not a Rumler or a Jacobs and I feel that this site was better when it was less of a tool to destroy. I don't know if the people being accused as Rumler are Jacobs or the people being accused of being Jacobs are Rumler. Or the people being accused are the people that they are charged as being. It could be that it is one person writting both sides to get people going. I do know now how easy it is to muddy the waters as was stated in the paper the other day. I feel that you have to keep attacking the Headusher because it is what your audience want's, but give it a rest already with the personal attacks already 3/4 of this blog is associated with Rumler and Jacobs. We get the idea already.
Quit feeding the fire it is getting Stale.
You might think I'm being mean, but I'm just pointing out the facts as I know them to be.
First of all, if you feel that all the blather about Rumler and Jacobs is getting stale... OK. That's a valid opinion, and that's fine.
But what disturbs me is that you apparently don't have the ability to figure out who might be seen as a Jacobs poster and who is supposedly Rumler.
Yikes!
First of all, there's precious little comments defending Rumler. It's probably a 25 to 1 ration of attacks and smears against Rumler to those defending him.
And it's my biggest fear, and confirmation that I should just toss out any comments of this nature, that there are people out there who truly can't tell the BS from the truth.
I almost hope you're one of the Jacobs crew because I'd hate to think someone could truly be so blind as to think both sides are equally at fault.
Every single comment which has suggested that Rumler was somehow posting and then further trying to accuse him of hating Evans and the district and all the other ridiculous stuff should be immediately recognized and dismissed as pure baloney, put out by the usual suspects.
Rumler supporters have been very rational when they've commented at all, which is not often. This isn't some biased statement, but simply a fact.
While I may sometimes tear into one of the Jacobite commenters in response to their lies and distortions about Rumler, Rumler's supporters rarely, if ever, do.
So I suggest you take that into consideration before you come to the conclusion that both sides in this thing are equal. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Secondly, I must respond to your contention that I deal with these issues because it's what my "readers want."
I have ZERO idea what my readers want, other than something interesting to read and discuss.
Frankly, I'm sick to death of all of the "Headushers" around here, more than you'd ever believe!
I sure don't try to stir it up, but at the same token, I'm not going to allow false or erroneous comments or suggestions just hang out there in the breeze.
Perhaps you might want to go through the archives here and get a count on how many posts I've made here, then count how many have had anything to do with Jacobs or Rumler.
That might set you straight and keep you from swallowing the crap that others try to put out here.
I'd be shocked if 2% of my posts even mention Jacobs or Rumler.
If you're another Jacobs propagandist, then you got me to bite. But if you're not, please use your common sense when making judgements about these issues.
Anon 12:02
I'll pretend your comment made some sense and guess at what you were trying to say.
What my comment was meant as suggesting is that all the happy talk about Boland and Jacobs playing kissy face and getting along is largely the product of the shotgun marriage betwen the two which could be compared to Madigan jamming a shotgun in Jacobs back and forcing him to "marry" Boland.
I hope you get it this time, 'cause I'm not going to draw you any pictures.
Believe me I don't want you turning on me. All I am trying to point out is this whole thing could be people playing each other. The Headusher could be Jacobs. My point however is that some of it might be Jacobs and then again some of it could be Rumler playing Headusher after you thought it was Jacobs. See my point. OK. Now to go the otherway for you These negative comments by Rumler supporter about Lane Evans could be Jacobs playing Rumler. You see all this anonimity is a way to play people against each other. I don't mean to disrespect you, however when I said you know what your readers are looking for I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. I mean I feel you were writting this due to it being what your readers wanted and not that you are this hate raveged twords this Headusher.
I mean no disrespect but I feel that someone is playing you. Just an oppinion.
No, you can be disrespectful ... it's ok, I'm used to it. haha.
But kidding aside, I see what you're saying.
What I'd say in reply is that if you had read literally hundreds of the comments from "HeadUsher" and his other clones, you'd be able to immediately spot them, no matter how they sign them. (they just go by "anonymous" now)
I assume you haven't been reading the blog very long?
If you had, you could spot the telltale phrases, the same tactics and use of misinformation, certain words and phrases that they repeat all the time, the general tone and voice of the comments, and perhaps most noticeably, the horrible spelling.
Sure, some of those things could be faked by someone who was trying to be clever, but even that could be spotted by someone who's familiar with the real deal.
I've been reading this guy's comments since around March of last year. Nearly a thousand of them I'd suspect.
It is not magic to tell which are from them and which aren't.
Hope you continue to offer your thoughts.
Did you attempt to sell your blog (theinsidedope) to someone you thought was Senator Mike Jacobs for $10,000?
Actually, no. It was the other way around.
And whoever you heard that version from is lying to your face, probably with good reason.
Remind whoever is feeding you these lies that I haven't been deleting any e-mails lately so it might not be a great idea to be attempting to mistate the facts.
Oh...and it wasn't someone I "thought" was Jacobs.
Glad to be able to straighten you out.
I think that you should be less defensive on this one Dope. The fact that you would sell "The Inside Dope" is not a negative thing as is the fact that someone would want to but your blog. This should be looked at as a compliment on the popularity of this blog.
Lighten up, you are getting way to defensive lately.
I'm sorry if it appears that way, but wouldn't you be a little defensive if someone was lying their asses off about you?
I will never allow anyone to lie about myself and/or the blog without responding quickly and truthfully. I'm just not going to sit back and allow it.
It would be nice if these few people would simply stop trying to lie and distort things, but apparently that's never going to happen. So in the meantime, I have a duty to respond.
It's a distraction, takes up far too much space and I'm sure some readers couldn't care less.
But rather than chiding me for being defensive, perhaps you might direct your comments toward the people who insist on continually trying to spread lies and distortions here? There are only a few, and they make it their job to constantly lie, distort, fabricate, make up, and smear.
Yet you sit back and don't say a thing about that. Why?
They're the ones who are consuming the blog. They're the ones who take up all the space. They're the ones who make the blog a less pleasant place for everyone.
Yet no one seems to mind. But I'm faulted for simply trying to respond to them? Curious.
I should add that I'd like to agree that an offer to buy could be a compliment of sorts, but considering the source, it was pretty creepy.
As was the fact that when I decided to shoot them a ridiculously huge figure assuming it would chase them off, they agreed to it.
I was stunned.
I still didn't agree to it though, and much to my relief, after their agreeing to it and saying they'd work something up, I never heard from them about it again, and I gladly let it drop.
But it sure as hell was no "attempt to sell" on my part, and I take that suggestion as a serious insult and attempt to distort the facts.
Facts which are clearly documented, I might add. Which is why it absolutely baffles me why these clowns are still trying to pursue it. Do they have some weird psychological desire to sabotage themeselves?
I'm not pushing the issue, yet they are. Like most of their actions, this just makes no sense whatsoever and seems to come from some weird desire to cause themselves as much damage as possible. They even work at it, for God's sake!
I'm confused about who was wanting to buy this blog - I have been reading this post and can't figure out what you are alluding to. Did I miss something in previous weeks?
No, you didn't miss anything because I've not discussed it. It was pretty distasteful and I have no real desire to make an issue out of it. The only reason it's even mentioned here was that a commenter raised the subject and mistated the case and a subsequent commenter, who I've deleted, pursued the matter further.
I'll let you come to your own conclusion as to who attempted to buy the blog.
And a note to anonymous...
Sorry to have left your comment out of context, but I think it still makes sense. I agree with your assessment, and have no disagreement with your comment above.
And thanks for your follow up. I appreciate it.
I've stated the basic facts. Anything more is best discussed by e-mail.
Anonymous... I did not attack you, or distort anything you wrote.
Please contact me by e-mail and I believe we can straighten this all out. Please get in touch and all can be explained.
Anon... I think I see where the misunderstanding is coming from now!
When I wrote, "I should add that I'd like to agree that an offer to buy could be a compliment of sorts, but considering the source, it was pretty creepy." I did NOT mean you or your comment were creepy. I was referring to the source of the proposal to buy the blog, not you.
Perhaps you took that the wrong way, and I see how you might. I hope this clears things up a bit.
I certainly didn't have any intention of jumping on you and appreciated your comments. I'd be happy to explain things further if you'd contact me via e-mail.
I appreciate your comments and hope you continue to contribute.
Post a Comment
<< Home