Wednesday, October 26, 2016

More on Bogers' anti-tattoo bigotry/hypocrisy.

Having had his head caved in under his anti-Holt tattoo screed, Brent Boger has changed his tune today:

The response to my post below talking about Eric Holt's selective cropping of a family photo to obscure his rather extensive tattoos in his hit piece against Ann Rivers was not about tattoos. It was about selective cropping that expunged his wife from the photo. It presented him in a different light than how he actually appears. That was the issue, not tattoos.
The other point was the link Eric has with controversial blogger Kelly Hinton who has been on a vendetta against Senator Rivers. If Hinton didn't help with the hit piece, whoever did was channeling him.
A lot of the comments below are in defense of tattoos. That's not the point. I don't care whether people have tattoos. It's none of my business what people do with their bodies, Mary Wallace. If they want to have tattoos, they have every right to have them. Nor is it any of my business what people want to ingest in their bodies. I stood up to a packed Council Chamber to prove that point.
I follow John Stuart Mill's philosophy in this respect: people ought to be allowed to pursue their own separate interests so long as they don't harm others.
The irony of all of this is clear.  situational ethics is the issue.

Boger appears to be incapable of understanding that first, I have no greater "vendetta" against Rivers than I do ANY politician who lied to get elected, who gave her word to convince us and then NAILED this county with a $700 million sledgehammer, and

Second, I treat everyone the same around here.... even to the point of beating on my brother-in-law, County Chair Marc Boldt (psycho as he is) like a rented mule.

Isn't it odd that part of the "vendetta" is now being investigated by the state Attorney General's office, according to the Executive Director of the PDC?

Why, it's as if none of my charges happened.  It's as if Brent wants you to think there's no substance to my allegations... that I made it all up.  What's odder still?

Even when proven, it won't make any difference to Rivers' lackey.

As for the hit piece in question, I'm sure its possessed of the same brilliant writing I use.... although, not having seen it, I have yet to read it.

But here's the truth of it: until Boger's tat bigotry broke out on us, I had no idea it existed.

And here's another truth: I had nothing to do with it and was 1000% unaware of it until it broke.

And here's yet another truth: had I BEEN asked to help write it, I would have.

Meanwhile, Boger is making the claim that, in fact, I DID write the piece:
If Hinton didn't help with the hit piece, whoever did was channeling him.
Brent, at this point, knows he's lying.  But he can't very well not claim I wrote it and still attack me, now, can he?

In pondering all of this, never forget that when Boger babbles this way, he''s not speaking as a lawyer.  He's speaking as an insecure little man who wants friends.

If you were to ask him if Rivers' lied, he would deflect... and fall back into the "she changed her mind" defense.  Well, here's what Gas Tax wrote as a campaign pledge from her own website: decide for yourself.

I again note that when he talks about this, he doesn't talk about the issue that's got me so enraged: he doesn't talk about it because he knows it's a loser for him.

And her.

He calls it the "Transportation package," when it is, in fact, the largest increase in this state's gas tax and tab fees in our history.

I'm reminded of that old saw that DOES in fact, involve attorneys:  "When the law is on your side, argue the law.  When the evidence is on your side, argue the evidence.  When you have neither, attack the other guy's lawyer."

Did anyone force her to post this... which, come to think about it, *I* wrote in the first place?  Did anyone put a gun to her head?

Because the other thing Boger doesn't mention as I have, is that both he and Rivers have had a year's-long relationship with me that only terminated when I refused to cave on my principles merely because I had once been able to call Rivers my friend and business partner.

Me, personally (the Rivers, myself and my wife) have vacationed together and because Rivers and I had been in business together and worked together as consultants and on campaigns... and I also volunteered in a consulting capacity for Bogers' failed prosecutor campaign a few years back... and I really find it strange that neither Boger nor Rivers had any difficulty with me then.

What's changed?  Holding Rivers to the same standard I hold everyone else to is what's changed.

And while *I* have standards, I use the same ones on EVERYONE.  I don't show Bogers' "flexibility" and beat up someone politically on the other side while giving my side a pass.

If you're a democrat and you lie, I'm coming after you.  If you're a Republican and you lie, I'm coming after you.

At some point, you see, we ALL have to stand up and vote out ANYONE who lies to us to get... or to stay... in office.  If we don't... then where's their incentive to tell us the truth?

Like most of weak character, Boger believes that his friends can commit the equivalent of political murder and he still would stand by them.


Not so much.

Any time anyone wants to govern me, they had better not lie to get the job, or I am coming after them.

Boger, being Boger, has the ethics of an alley-cat, apparently.  He knows that in his line of work if someone had, say, been involved in a contractual obligation of some sort, the she just "changed her mind" defense would get him nowhere.

But, as I say, he HAS no defense for a proven liar, save to attack me.

Like *I* was the one who lied.  Like *I* made this stuff up.  Like *I* was the one who cost this county $700 million because *I* broke *MY* word.

Yes, Boger leaves a great deal out of his attacks against me and his efforts to tie me to Holt as some sort of reason to vote against Ann's opponent.

And you should be asking yourself: why is it that Boger is reduced to telling a tiny part of the story that seems to suit him.... but not the whole thing, that explains it all?

And the most ironic twist of all?  Bogers use of Mills' quote:
I follow John Stuart Mill's philosophy in this respect: people ought to be allowed to pursue their own separate interests so long as they don't harm others.
Odd.  I believe lying to get elected, in fact, harms others.

I believe that costing this county $700 million from our local economy in exchange for $200 million in local projects, the largest of which we do not need or want, harms others.

I believe that governing without honor and making excuses for violating your pledge WHEN YOU DID NOT HAVE TO DO SO harms others.

And in this case?

It's causing a half-billion dollars of harm to the people of Clark County.

But because of Bogers' political infatuation, he simply doesn't care and would much rather try to defend the indefensible.

I, of course, should be used to this sort of playground crap.  For those with no integrity, the idea that I could oppose something or someone on principle is simply beyond their comprehension.

But one thing I know for sure:  Boger's sniveling here has nothing to do with principle and everything to do with sucking up to his buddy, the state senator  that screwed us sideways to the tune of oer $1500 for every man, woman and child in this county.

How.... Brent of him.  That sort of thing makes this easy.


No comments: