LANSING -- We already know Senate Republicans will verbally attack even one of their own when they step out of line like they did last week with Sen. Valde Garcia, R-Howell, but they are even worse on Democrats, resorting to physical violence.
Subscription only Gongwer is reporting that Sen. Roger Kahn, R-Saginaw, the chair of the Senate Department of Human Services Appropriations Subcommitttee, attacked Sen. Irma Clark-Coleman, D-Detroit, in a Capitol elevator on Wednesday following a hearing on the Department of Community Health (DCH) budget, and Sen. John Pappageorge, R-Troy, had to restrain Kahn.
The attack took place in front of several witnesses, and Clark-Coleman filed both a police report and a formal complaint with Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, R-Rochester.
The Senate Republicans made some draconian cuts to the DCH budget, including killing the Healthy Michigan Fund, cutting the Medicaid reimbursement rate and cuts to community mental health.
Clark-Coleman said Kahn "charged at me like a bull,” before he was restrained, according to Gongwer, and he continued his "bellowing" as she left the elevator. Clark-Coleman said she felt "fearful that given the opportunity, this legislator would continue to use physical intimidation to reinforce his policy positions."
15 comments:
Let me see if I have this straight. He "bellowed". I've put the definition below.
So, according to this socialist democrat site, speaking loudly is now a "physical" attack.
You say he was restrained. If that's true, he obviously didn't reach the other to physically attack. There is no way of knowing if he was going to actually cause physical harm. He could have wanted to get up in the face of the person he was yelling at, and not even make physical contact. We'll never know because he was "restrained" according to you. So all we're left with is "words". Those words, you now consider a physical attack.
Perhaps you need to be reminded of an old nursery rhyme. "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names can never hurt me."
Sounds like some socialist democrats need to man up abit.
Officer, officer. arrent him. He yelled at me.
bel·low (bl)
v. bel·lowed, bel·low·ing, bel·lows
v.intr.
1. To make the deep roaring sound characteristic of a bull.
2. To shout in a deep voice.
v.tr.
To utter in a loud, powerful voice. See Synonyms at shout.
n.
1. The roar of a large animal, such as a bull.
2. A very loud utterance or other sound.
First, brett, there is no such thing as a “socialist” Democrat in this country, and that is just a fascist Republics talking point.
I’m not a lawyer, brett, but assault is the threat of physical violence, and the physical attack is the battery. Regardless, that is not proper behavior for a body that prides itself on being the genteel place of civilized debate, and it is not proper behavior for a Senator, even a Republican one. I guess in your book it’s OK for a large man to physically intimidate a woman, but not for most.
She was never touched. Therefore, there is no physcial intimidation.
You socialist Democrats really need to stop with the whining and start dealing with the issues.
But it won't matter much longer. Obama's cowardice is going to have us at war with N. Korea in a couple of weeks. Unfortunately, the coward won't fight back.
Obama's cowardice will also have Iran blowing up in our faces as well. Put your helmet on. We're about to be at war and I seriously doubt that the N. Koreans nor the Iranians will be worrying about the feelings of socialist Democrat even if she is a female.
Wrong again, brett. You don’t have to touch someone to physically intimidate them.
Once again, brett, there is no such thing as a socialist Democrat in this country, and that is just a fascist Republican talking point.
“Obama's cowardice? You are full of it. I don’t think we will be at war, but the one thing I do know for sure is that if we are at war it will not be a war for nothing based on lies like Iraq, and we will not be alone. How is it bravery to send people off to war to die for no reason when you know you will never be in danger like Bush did?
Again, brett, there is no such thing as a socialist Democrat in this country, and that is just a fascist Republican talking point. Of course “the N. Koreans nor the Iranians will be worrying about the feelings of “socialist Democrat” even if she is a female.” She is a state Senator, why would they care?
Try making your insults make some sense, brett. After all, that’s all you have.
I don't know if this is true. IF this is true, as much as I hate to admit it, I would have to take Kevin's side.
If someone was charging like a bull, getting up in my face and "bellowing", I'd interpret it as a threat and react accordingly with appropiate defense measures. When was he restrained is a big question.
Would I go as far as to consider it an assault or a battery, based on what is given so far? No to battery, questionable to assault.
Regardless of legality, was it RIGHT? If the story is how Kevin describes (a big maybe) No. I'm from the old school where a man doesn't go charge up and scream in a woman's face. Period, end of story.
Again, that assumes Kevin has the facts right, which is a big assumption.
The reporting on this supposed incident seems much different than guru writes it, which shouldn't surprise anyone. Every statement of an attack is stated by the 72 year old female Senator from Detroit.
The only one saying that Kahn charged her in the elevator is Clark-Coleman. The only one saying that there was intimidation is Clark-Coleman.
According to Kahn, there were four people in the elevator. Clark-Coleman, Kahn his legislative assistant and a Bay City Senator, Jim Barcia a Democrat.
Pappageorge seems to have appeared out of thin air as he's not mentioned other than to say he escorted her out of the elevator by her elbow.
Each description of how people reacted came from Clark-Coleman. Nobody else has backed up her statements yet.
Guru seems to have taken all of Clark-Colemans statements as gospel and not stated anything that Kahn said. Clark-Coleman is a Detroit Democrat. Just being from Detroit already takes credibility away from her. Add to it that she's a socialist Democrat, and it's unlikely things are as she described.
Biased comments or lies from Guru? We'll find out probably next week.
http://www.mlive.com/news/saginaw/index.ssf/2009/06/the_wrath_of_kahn_saginaw_town.html
Well, I don’t know why it would be questionable because I have never lied. But the fact is I didn’t make that stuff up, it came right from Gongwer. I wasn’t there, and I didn’t talk to the witnesses like they did. From reading the comments when it was reported in his hometown newspaper, the Saginaw News, this guy has a history of that kind of behavior. The arrogance of the Senate Republicans is beyond the pale, so this is not real surprising behavior from one of them.
Well, you are wrong again, brett. But, I’m not going to call you a liar; just confused as usual and have trouble with reading comprehension.
The report from the Saginaw News said:
“Kahn "rushed at me as if he were going to strike me in the face," but Sen. John Pappageorge, a Troy Republican, blocked his advance.”
“Kahn said two other people were in the elevator at the time: his legislative director and Sen. Jim Barcia, a Bay City Democrat. Efforts to reach the other people involved were not immediately successful Thursday night.”
He never said there were only four people in the elevator. Note the words: other. What, did you expect Kahn to do anything other than deny it? He knows this does not rise to the action of prosecution by police, and he knows Bishop will do nothing about it, at least in public. He’s home free if he denies it.
If you want to put Kahn’s side on your blog that is your right. Am I biased? Yes. After all, the facts have a liberal bias.
“Just being from Detroit already takes credibility away from her?” How is that?
Any you know of course, or you wouldn’t be using it, there is no such thing as a “socialist” Democratic in this country, and that is just a fascist Republican talking point.
You really need an English comprehension class. Notice that I said "Each description of how people reacted came from Clark-Coleman. Nobody else has backed up her statements yet." and "The only one saying that Kahn charged her in the elevator is Clark-Coleman. The only one saying that there was intimidation is Clark-Coleman."
It was Clark-Coleman that said he was if he was going to hit her in the face. Nobody else said it. She is also the only one that said Pappageorge blocked him by getting between them. Nobody else has said that.
As for Kahnn, he mentioned four people in the elevator. His assistant, the Bay City Democrat, Clark-Coleman and himself. That would be four. He didn't mention Pappageorge, nor anyone else.
If she had been rushed at, the other Democrat would likely have said something immediately. Since someone claims that blown away Jenny's boy, Emerson was there as well, it's likely he'd have said something immediately.
Here's the cold hard facts as they can be determined without the words of the two involved. At least Three politicians were in the elevator. Two of them were having having words and disagreed with each other. Since politicians from either party seem incapable of telling the truth, it's unlikely that we'll ever know what really happened on that elevator, if anything happened at all. But I see that you know that already because you've said that Bishop will do nothing unless Kahn admits it.
There will also be nothing done because it's unlikely that Clark-Coleman will admit she lied.
Someone is lying and maybe both are lying. We'll probably never know. Without knowing the truth, it's impossible to say who is in the right and who is in the wrong.
As for Clark-Coleman having no credibility because she's a Detroit socialist Democrat, I stand by that statment. We already know that the Detroit policians are corrupt. No reason to think she's any different since she represents parts of Detroit.
I'd love to post some of this to my blog. I Just don't have a blog to post it too. But lucky you. I'm here to call you out on your lies nearly all of the time.
I have long ago listed any number of your lies. You either ignore this proof, or resort to name-calling and vulgarities.
Your headline is a lie when you say "senate Republicans" resort to physical intimidation. That's plural. Name 2.
There was an argument on an elevator. One woman says the man frightened her. I'll give her that. Boorish behavior to be sure. How does that make it a partisan behavior? It makes it a problem for one person's behavior.
Using your logic, what can we say about a Democratic Party, when one of its most intelligent lawmakers traded cocaine with a prostitute in exchange for sex? Does that mean senate Democrats have turned to prostitution.
What's ironic is that another Democrat in the elevator, Jim Barcia, was once arrested in Lansing for trying to have sex with a prostitute. So now I've got 2 Democrats dealing with whores and, unlike you, actually can justify using a plural noun.
I know Barcia, by the way, and he's a pretty decent guy. He just, at least once, did a stupid, illegal thing. I consider that a human failing, but if I used your logic I would call it a Democratic trait.
The intimidated lawmaker once served on a Detroit city council. That's the same council who had a member accuse the mayor of setting electrical shocks on her chair. So would you say: Detroit Democrats turn to electrocution?
The state senate and house are full of characters who over the years have committed crimes, broken laws, used drugs, gotten drunk, gotten into fights, stored porn on their laptops (something you might like), brought loaded guns onto the House floor, committed adultery, etc., etc. These are human failings. Only a partisan hack like you would define them as political characterists.
Bad guys and bad behavior are found in all walks of life.
(By the way, in the interest of fairness, I must again point out an error. I thought guru had sworn off porn. But he corrected me and I'm happy to admit that mistake.)
You have not listed a single lie from me, brett, because there have been none. As for the alleged vulgarities you say come from me, if I did, I have the courage to say it and put my real name behind it, and not hide behind anonymity like you do when you throw out a false, disgusting smear, like you did in your last comment.
Kahn is a member of the Senate Republican caucus. The headline is correct. I don’t know who you are talking about when you say one of the most “intelligent lawmakers traded cocaine with a prostitute in exchange for sex.” Maybe you mean David Vitter, Bob Allen, Larry Craig or the Rev. Ted Haggard?
I found no references on any incident involving Jim Barcia. You will have to provide a link. I Goggled it repeatedly.
Irma Clark-Coleman never served on the Detroit Coty Council. But, once again, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one, brett, and say it’s just a mistake and not a lie.
I thought I had read she was on the city council. My error. I accept full responsibility.
Basil Brown was charged with trading cocaine for sex. He beat the charge on the claim he was set up. The charges were brought by the AG office under Frank Kelly. Brown was a brilliant and troubled man who often was drunk on his ass.
Jim Barcia was indeed arrested for trying to pay for sex for a prostitute. Only problem is, she was an undercover cop.
You claim you work in Lansing. Grow some balls and ask him about it. It's true, whether you want to believe it or not.
But it doesn't matter. Both Brown and Barcia made mistakes and broke the law. They happen to be Democrats, but that's not why they broke the law. I can understand that. You can't or won't.
You've lied repeatedly, you've made many mistakes, and you refuse to acknowledge them. Some are extreme and some are minor. Doesn't matter. Guru is so lame he can't admit any errors.
By the way, I'm still waiting for you to give me the details of the charges and arraignment for Kahn. It was an "attack" in front of several witnesses, you say. So there must be charges by now.
Aren't there?
While you are at it, provide the charges levied against the county Republican party for illegal campaign financing regarding the Brighton school election. You've repeatedly lied about that and refused to admit it or prove it.
You've also lied about hiding your identity on other blogs. You've also lied about your claim that you were kicked off another blog.
I'm not going to continue to list the other lies. I've done that before and you either ignore them or say you've "debunked" them. You lie and then say it's not a lie merely because you say so.
Sorry, Brett, I have never lied. But hey, keep trying to find one.
When you say something that is obviously wrong, it could be a mistake. When you repeat it and ignore the facts, then it is a lie.
Your headline said "Senate Republicans." I challenged you on that because there was only one. I asked you to name two. Your response was that Kahn is a member of the caucus. True, but meaningless. He also has a beard. Does that mean that Bearded Men resort to physical intimidation. Or, that you accuse one bearded man?
You used the plural which to be true would have to mean more than one has resorted to physical intimidation. Even the "one" is dabateable. But what about two or more? Who besides Kahn has been implicated? It's a lie to say Republicans, but that's what you did. One more example. Lies are your currency.
And like the juvenile brat you are, you list Republicans who have behaved poorly. Of course they have. What's your point? Democrats and Republicans both behave badly. You are the one who tries to make it a partisan issue.
Still waiting for your answer: What crime was Kahn charged with? When was he arraigned? How did he plead?
Why don't you take Barcia to task for making light of the issue? You are all right with the fact that Senate Democrats Think Abuse of Women is Funny?
Maybe your attraction to porn is having an effect on your view of women.
By the way, how do you "Goggle" something? I'm curious.
Post a Comment