July 13, 2006

For candidate Beals, running mouth = jacked jaw

That seems to be the equation applying to the incident at a Moline bar which resulted in Republican candidate for 36th District state senator Jim Beals' broken jaw.

As usual, John Beydler has done the real work and gotten access to records pertaining to the lawsuit Beals filed against both the guy who punched him AND the bar where it occured. The details indicate that it was Beals crowing about beating some guy at darts that inspired said guy to rearange Beals' face.

I find it surprising that someone running for office would be trying to get money out of a bar owner for simply allowing someone who had been drinking to be in a bar.

I know it's shocking, but sometimes there's drunk people in bars. And sometimes they're cocky jerks.

10 Comments:

At 7/13/2006 11:11 AM, Blogger UMRBlog said...

Never mind the jaw or the lawsuit. Who's got time to play darts when there's an election in less than a year?

What's next? Dominoes, Backgammon?

 
At 7/13/2006 11:22 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

The incident occured just after Christmas of last year, Dec. 28th. (Ho, ho, ho) I guess there was plenty of time then.

 
At 7/13/2006 11:30 AM, Blogger tiz said...

I used to know the guy who hit Beals. I don't know what Beals looks like, but the guy who hit him was 6'3" and close to 300 lbs the last time I saw him. If Beals was running his mouth to this guy he has really big cojones to go along with the broken jaw.

I do have to commend Beals for interacting with people on TPP in a civil manner. It'd be nice if other candidates could do this.

 
At 7/13/2006 5:06 PM, Blogger DookOfURL said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 7/13/2006 7:27 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Dook, how do you know Beydler's views are "moderate"? He might be to the left of me, for all we know, or to the right of Pat Robertson. Maybe he just strives to keep his writing down the middle?

I doubt that's the case, but I'm trying to make a point. Just because someone writes down the middle (and Beydler doesn't always), doesn't make them a "moderate".

But of course, he'd be good for interviewing candidates.

But I fail to see why any candidates couldn't participate on this blog as well.

Am I too "mean" or something? Are they afraid I'd take them to task? Afraid I'd hurt their feelings or show their ignorance or lack of knowledge perhaps?

I'd promise to be nice and not to make fools out of them if I had to. haha!

But I'm constantly flabberghasted at how simply not being too strong in your views is considered "moderate", even if the views expressed are consistantly to one side of the spectrum.

And the flip side is even more bizarre to me. That if you do argue your points strongly and forcefully with conviction, you're somehow ... what? .. a whacko?

Someone to be afraid to debate or argue with? Simply because a person has certain things of which they feel strong conviction?

Since when does believing in something other than a hazy middle concensus disqualify you as a serious or credible person?

I guess you have to be a fuzzy-minded person who has no firm beliefs or philosphy, someone without any strong opinions one way or the other, or at the least, someone who won't dare publish any opinions which might offend ANYONE, someone who will bend over backwards to present right and wrong with equal weight and equal respect.

That just seems wishy-washy, wrong, and frankly, dull, to me.
And I think it's contributed mightily to why the public is so ignorant and ill-served by the media.

Apparently, people are now trained to confuse bland neutrality with "moderation", rather than the lazy and irresponsible habit of simply avoiding making a judgement about whether something is right or wrong.

But back to the subject. I'd rather have the candidates come here. If that were the case, or even if it wasn't, I'd like to see readers solicited for questions they'd like to ask the candidates, and select the best ones from that group as well.

That way the readers would have an opportunity to get their concerns or questions addressed as well, and they'd likely come up with some questions which were better than the person who conducts the interviews.

Rather than being a one on one interview, it would be like the candidates were taking questions from the audience.

 
At 7/14/2006 3:29 PM, Blogger DookOfURL said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 7/14/2006 7:45 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Dook,
You can call a misleading statement a "slip" if you wish, but if it's not what you meant, then I'd think you'd be grateful that it was caught and disputed.

Secondly, I don't think it can be fairly said that this blog isn't open or tolerant of divergent views.

However, if by tolerant you mean that I have to agree with views I don't agree with and feel are incorrect, and then not respond, or pull my punches, then yes, I guess I'm intolerant.

But I don't think that's the definition of the word. I tolerate different views, I just don't agree with them and don't feel obligated to let them slide.

But the blog itself isn't intolerant. I publish any comment that comes in, no matter what the views expressed.

Maybe your conservative views don't come in for as much scrutiny over at TPP, and if so, then you're free to prefer it.

But I'd argue that this blog isn't intolerant of differing viewpoints. I just happen to argue viewpoints which I feel are incorrect and attempt to show how and why.

I'm not sure that qualifies as "intolerance" or lack of openess, but you're free to think so.

And I can assure you that I'm open to all views. But I can't assure you that I'm going to agree with views I consider incorrect or even dangerous a certain percentage of the time just to appear "open".

That said though, I've often agreed with your views and observations, as I have with other conservative commenters. (you might have to look hard, but they're there.)

It's just that, aside from you, conservatives just can't seem to stand the heat or defend their positions (no surprise) and choose to run away.

If they prefer an "echo chamber" of like-minded readers, then that's their deal. Of course, this makes it rather hypocritical when they try to pin that same label on this blog. But hypocrisy is the bedrock principle in conservative thought these days.

I don't for a moment think I'm more qualified or could do a better job than Beydler at some sort of candidate roundtable.

It's just that I reject the idea that this blog is somehow too illegitimate to be considered or that I couldn't be even-handed and fair-minded if I were the interviewer.

 
At 7/15/2006 3:51 PM, Blogger Huck Finn said...

I think TID will tolerate just about any point of view that's argued logically. Sometimes he'll totally disagree and glong-winded in his comments, but if someone's point is argued well, he'll simply state his own view if he disagrees. If someone's really good, they'll change his opinion :)

That's a lot more than you can say for some other newer blogs in this area.

 
At 7/15/2006 4:34 PM, Blogger DookOfURL said...

Hee!Hee! I hope you enjoy talking to yourselves.

 
At 7/15/2006 7:25 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Yeah Dook, that's sort of what conversation, debate, and discussion is.... talking with each other.

Thanks for the good wishes.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home