Tea Party scum Joe Walsh owes $100,000+ in child support

[dmcowen674]

Awesome news, looks like one Radical Tea Party Republican down, many more to go:

10-27-2012

http://couriernews.suntimes.com/159...earmarked-for-walsh-in-race-vs-duckworth.html

SuperPAC pulls back $2.5 million it had earmarked for Walsh in race vs. Duckworth



The conservative SuperPAC that had already plowed $2 million into Tea Party Republican Rep. Joe Walsh’s race and had threatened to put in an additional $2.5 million to “bury” Tammy Duckworth, is now putting its money elsewhere.



The decision comes a week after Walsh, already a flame thrower, made national headlines by declaring that abortion was never necessary to save the life of a mother.

On Friday, a Tribune/WGN poll showed Duckworth ahead by 10 points



Update 10-22-2012 The airwaves are filled with this headline of the dead beat Dad Walsh.

Today was start of early voting here.
Stood on line for two hours.
Can't imagine how long people will be waiting on line election day.
They had 6 voting machines and only two worked reliably, the third one had to be re-booted after every person used it.
These computers were junk.
You had to press like ten times for every box before the touch screen would respond.
Took 20 minutes to get through to the end when it should have only taken like 2 minutes.
Hopefully my vote is the one that kicks this jack boot out of office.

Update 10-20-2012 6pm

This jackboot dead beat dad is now the number one searched trending on the Internet including this thread.

Hopefully enough people will see this and make a difference and not vote for such scum that doesn't pay child support.


6-27-2011

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politi...p.-joe-walsh-sued-for-100000-in-child-support

Tea Party Rep. Joe Walsh sued for $100,000 in child support



Freshman U.S. Rep. Joe Walsh, a tax-bashing Tea Party champion who sharply lectures President Barack Obama and other Democrats on fiscal responsibility, owes more than $100,000 in child support to his ex-wife and three children, according to documents his ex-wife filed in their divorce case in December.



In court documents, after his ex-wife, Laura Walsh, asked a judge to suspend his driver’s license until he paid his child support, Joe Walsh asks his ex-wife’s lawyer: “Have you no decency?”


Court documents examined this week by the Chicago Sun-Times during research for a profile on the increasingly visible congressman showed his financial issues also included a nine-year child support battle with his ex-wife.


Before getting elected, he had told Laura Walsh that because he was out of work or between jobs, he could not make child support payments. So she was surprised to read in his congressional campaign disclosures that he was earning enough money to loan his campaign $35,000.

“Joe personally loaned his campaign $35,000, which, given that he failed to make any child support payments to Laura because he ‘had no money’ is surprising,” Laura Walsh’s attorneys wrote in a motion filed in December seeking $117,437 in back child support and interest. “Joe has paid himself back at least $14,200 for the loans he gave himself.”

Walsh lives with his new wife and children in McHenry. He has not paid any of the $117,437 yet, Laura Walsh’s attorney, Jack Coladarci, said Wednesday.

He now is paid $175,000 a year as a congressman.

Took vacations

Laura Walsh went to court repeatedly over the past nine years to get him to pay up, sometimes even asking the court to garnish his wages, court records show. In 2004, Laura Walsh complained in a motion that despite her ex-husband’s claims of poverty, he took a vacation to Mexico with his girlfriend and another to Italy.

Staffers learned during the campaign that Walsh was driving on a suspended license. His license was suspended twice in 2008 for his failure to appear in court, and he was cited in 2009 for driving on a suspended license, according to the Illinois Secretary of State.

10-20-2012

http://news.yahoo.com/joe-walsh-backs-off-abortion-224441139--abc-news-politics.html

Joe Walsh Backs Off Abortion Comment



During a debate with Democratic challenger Tammy Duckworth on Thursday, Walsh had declared that he was "pro-life without exception," and said that due to medical advancements, there were no instances in which abortion was necessary to save the life of the mother.


The campaign of Rep. Joe Walsh, R-Ill., on Friday walked back the congressman's assertion at a debate that medical developments have made it unnecessary for abortion laws to make an exception to protect the life of the mother.

 

[Nintendesert]

Oh, Illinois.

 

[dmcowen674]

First of all the scumbag should not be eligible for Political position as a dead beat father.

Second of all shame on Illinois Rich Republicans for voting the scumbag in the first place.

Third, he should be stripped of political position including stripped of that unreal pension and benefits Congressmen get for life.

Fourthly - Idiot Rich Illinois Republicans don't vote this asshole back in for second term.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Only had to go back 16 months to dig that up, did you?

I'm sure there are no scumbags behind on child support on the left.

 

[trenchfoot]

The Party of Family Values strikes again. I guess with role models like Gingrich and McCain, what can we expect anyway?

And no, the Dems aren't equivalent in the sense that they don't go out of their way to push family values as a party plank like the Repubs do "with pride".

 

[infoiltrator]

If there are find and condemn them.
Otherwise deal with this corrupt irresponsible pond scum.
Generally the right shouts the loudest about any Democrates failings. And regard "their" own as "always righteous."
The greatest irony here is we now know why this idiot dislikes government.

 

[sandorski]

Dude made Personal Responsibility his Bitch.

 

[Juror No. 8]

If women should be allowed to abort their children for reasons of a financial nature, I don't see why men shouldn't be allowed to do the same. If you give women that choice, it's only fair that men have it too.

 

[BoomerD]

If women should be allowed to abort their children for reasons of a financial nature, I don't see why men shouldn't be allowed to do the same. If you give women that choice, it's only fair that men have it too.

As far as I know, any man who gets himself knocked up has the option to abort the parasite...Why do you think you get to decide for a woman?

 

[Matt1970]

The Party of Family Values strikes again. I guess with role models like Gingrich and McCain, what can we expect anyway?

And no, the Dems aren't equivalent in the sense that they don't go out of their way to push family values as a party plank like the Repubs do "with pride".

As long as we are name dropping for hypocrisy, how about Charlie Rangel?

 

[Juror No. 8]

As far as I know, any man who gets himself knocked up has the option to abort the parasite...Why do you think you get to decide for a woman?

Now that's a quality straw man.

I'm impressed by your creativity.

 

[nehalem256]

If women should be allowed to abort their children for reasons of a financial nature, I don't see why men shouldn't be allowed to do the same. If you give women that choice, it's only fair that men have it too.

I would agree. But to be fair you should not be able to wait until the child has been alive for years as would be the case for this.

As far as I know, any man who gets himself knocked up has the option to abort the parasite...Why do you think you get to decide for a woman?

Because she wants me to pay for it.

If you don't want people telling you what to do stop asking them to pay for your choices.

 

[nehalem256]

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...child-support-suit-deadbeat-dad-child-support

Laura Walsh had filed suit in Cook County Circuit Court a month after her ex-husband won his first term in Congress in 2010, claiming that he owed $117,437 in overdue child support and interest. The allegation had dogged the congressman and was sure fodder in his re-election battle against Democrat Tammy Duckworth

...

Walsh had previously maintained that his former wife's allegations were "false," but despite his brash outspokenness on political matters he said he would seek a private resolution to prove him right. On Thursday, he said he kept quiet despite enduring months of attacks.

...

Walsh earns $174,000 a year in Congress. His ex-wife's lawyer said last year that $2,134 was being deducted from the lawmaker's paychecks every month to meet ongoing child-support obligations for the youngest child.

Maybe there is more to the story?

 

[Juror No. 8]

I would agree. But to be fair you should not be able to wait until the child has been alive for years as would be the case for this.

Why not, specifically? If women can choose to abort their children before they are ever born, why shouldn't the same choice be afforded to men retroactively in the form of financial abortions?

 

[nehalem256]

Why not, specifically? If women can choose to abort their children before they are ever born, why shouldn't the same choice be afforded to men retroactively in the form of financial abortions?

Because a woman cannot choose to retroactively abort her child.

 

[Juror No. 8]

Because a woman cannot choose to retroactively abort her child.

But a woman does have a choice to financially abort a child at the beginning of her pregnancy that the man doesn't have. She can choose to exercise this option or not. It's a choice she gets to have that the man doesn't have.

Therefore, it's only fair to offer the same choice to a man at any time of his choosing. If women can financially abort their children, then men should be allowed to do the same.

Fair is fair.

 

[trenchfoot]

As long as we are name dropping for hypocrisy, how about Charlie Rangel?

Just for the fact that Charlie Rangel is a Dem nullifies any counterpoint you're attempting to make hypocricy-wise. The point still remains: The Repubs champion themselves as the "Party of Family Values" and the Dems don't. My mentioning Gingrich and McCain is merely coincidental to the jist of my post. They just happen to be two shining examples of how hypocritical it is for the Repubs to consider these two very high ranking and "distinguished" guys who have no morals as being so exemplary of their party's values that both were considered to be a couple of their apex alpha males and presidential material.

 

[nehalem256]

But a woman does have a choice to financially abort a child at the beginning of her pregnancy that the man doesn't have. She can choose to exercise this option or not. It's a choice she gets to have that the man doesn't have.

Therefore, it's only fair to offer the same choice to a man at any time of his choosing. If women can financially abort their children, then men should be allowed to do the same.

Fair is fair.

Fair would be to offer the man the equivalent choice of a financial abortion at the same time. This would allow a woman to make an informed decision about having an abortion based on whether the man would be involved or not.

 

[Juror No. 8]

Fair would be to offer the man the equivalent choice of a financial abortion at the same time. This would allow a woman to make an informed decision about having an abortion based on whether the man would be involved or not.

That's just it, though. The man is never given a choice to abort, the woman is. Therefore, I see no moral issue whatsoever if the man chooses to abort ten years after the fact. In that case, he'd just be rightfully exercising the choice he was never given earlier.

Again, if women can abort their children, men can too.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Funny that Illinois democrats also voted for this person.

Overlooked by one of our resident hypocrites and OP.

 

[nehalem256]

That's just it, though. The man is never given a choice to abort, the woman is. Therefore, I see no moral issue whatsoever if the man chooses to abort ten years after the fact. In that case, he'd just be rightfully exercising the choice he was never given earlier.

Again, if women can abort their children, men can too.

A fully agree with this. But it should be under the same conditions as for the woman. Just because the current laws are unfair to men, does not mean we should change to make them unfair to women.

 

[Balt]

Funny. According to Section 51.60 (a) (2) of Title 22 of the Code of Federal Regulations he would be ineligible to receive a US passport because of his child support delinquency. I guess it doesn't prevent someone from being a member of Congress.

 

[BoomerD]

Why not, specifically? If women can choose to abort their children before they are ever born, why shouldn't the same choice be afforded to men retroactively in the form of financial abortions?

Once you decide to "gift" the woman with your "man juice," it's her decision what to do with it...and if she decides to keep the end result...YOU get to pay for it...it's the gift that keeps on giving.

Don't like it? Don't play in the baby box...or wear a raincoat.

 

[nehalem256]

Once you decide to "gift" the woman with your "man juice," it's her decision what to do with it...and if she decides to keep the end result...YOU get to pay for it...it's the gift that keeps on giving.

Don't like it? Don't play in the baby box...or wear a raincoat.

Isn't that bit like gifting someone with a car.

And then them claiming that they have to pay for the insurance, gas, and maintenance?

Her body, her choice, HER responsibility.

 

[Lemon law]

Silly OP DMcowen674, as you fail to see the sheer beauty and brilliance of the JacK Walch plan. Which underlies the whole tea party set of assumptions and agenda.

Namely if you don't liked the direction of our current government or the existing laws of that government, simply maintain pro-actively those laws are unconstitutional because they don't square your vision of what the founding fathers thought, according to Jack Walch and his T bag ilk.

As therefore Jack Walch owes no child support, according to him, and even better yet, no court of law is needed. That way, each and every American can choose true freedom, and cherry pick the government we want.