Former Poulsbo mayor arrested in sexual assaults | Seattle Times Newspaper The guy was apparently a masher. I mention this because Poulsbo is a town near my Washington State house and one of the prettiest little places you will ever visit. But now it will be known as Poulsboner. *RIMSHOT*
Former Poulsbo Mayor Richard Mitchusson was arrested this afternoon for suspicion of assault and stalking.
A sheriff’s spokesman said Mitchusson, 70, a Poulsbo resident, was accused of “certain actions, conduct and demeanor” that included unwanted personal advances and inappropriate sexual contact with at least three women at their homes or workplaces within the past 15 months. The investigation was conducted at the request of Poulsbo Police.
Mitchusson was booked into Kitsap County Jail on two counts of fourth-degree assault with sexual motivation and one count of stalking. Bail was set at $50,000.
Exactly what constitutes sexual assault nowadays? The guy is 70!
Notice how the newspaper buried the perv’s party affiliation.
He must be a Democrat.
1.
Obviously he was a democrat…
“personal advances and inappropriate sexual contact with at least three women”
We know from experience *cough* Foley *cough* Craig that Republicans like their women… well… actually, Republicans are homosexuals. And they like them young and in airport bathrooms. So, yeah, this guy is definitely a democrat.
But a “masher”? No one has used that word since Bugs Bunny was popular in 1935…
#2 Named
How did that beacon of morality, Barney Frank escape your list? I know, you are just giving us an example of that good old double standard democrats are so famous for.
3,
Oh… You’re right. And Barney Frank was the Co-Chairmen of the Missing and Exploited Children… no… Sorry. That was Foley.
But he was a did sign a bill claiming that is wasn’t discriminatory to ban gay workers… no, sorry.. that was Larry Craig.
Oh. And here is a nice vid of Larry Craig denying he enjoyed the taste of page boys ala Mark Foley.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RntWGPEjoo
Oh. BTW, Larry just likes wide stances in the airport bathrooms. He’s not gay.
Barney Frank has been openly gay since 1987.
And what does being a homosexual have to do with morality? I think if Barney were opposed to gay rights and abusing children while simultaneously abusing children and propositioning gay sex in airport bathrooms, you might have a republican.. I mean a case…
#4 Named
>>Barney Frank has been openly gay since 1987.
So because Barney admits to being a lollipop boy he gets a free pass? Just how exactly is that a defense?
Frank ranks at the top in Washington political corruption and that’s saying a lot considering the scum running for that coveted title.
>>what does being a homosexual have to do with morality?
Everything.
Man this kind of stuff is OK during Viking Days, but Mr Mayor……..It has to be some BAD Lutefisk. Ya that could drive a man to such extremes.
5,
“>>what does being a homosexual have to do with morality?
Everything.”
Keep your bible close at hand. It might help you “recover” as it did to Ted Haggard.
#7 Named
You seem dazed and confused. You defend Barney Frank for his perversion then turn around and condemn Ted Haggard for his.
A reasonable question at this point is why do you defend one perversion by holding up another if there is nothing wrong with homosexuality?
The truth is you know it is wrong, but are afraid someone might get the impression you know the difference between right and wrong… and that’s something a good little liberal democrat can never do.
8,
Since you have no powers of comprehension, I’ll cut and paste the RELEVANT parts for you.
“And what does being a homosexual have to do with morality? I think if Barney were opposed to gay rights and abusing children while simultaneously abusing children and propositioning gay sex in airport bathrooms, you might have a republican.. I mean a case…”
See? Foley says don’t exploit children and goes all moral about and then abuses children. Craig fights against gay rights and then seeks out homosexual love in airport bathrooms. Your republican friends are all opposed to so many vices and then jump right into them.
I personally don’t care who’s a homosexual or not. What I find irritating is those that are vehemently opposed to homosexuality ARE closet homosexuals. It’s pathetic, really.
#7 contempt …
When asked “What does being a homosexual have to do with morality,” you responded, “Everything.”
Care to expand on that? Who’s definition of “morality?” And what business is it of yours, or anyone else’s, what a person does in their own bedroom (or for that matter, airport bathroom stall) with other consenting adults?
If everyone’s an adult, and everyone’s consenting, where’s the moral issue? And, even if there is a “moral” issue, where does that play into the supposed “land of the free?” Surely, a good patriot, one who loves freedom — true freedom — would be able to say that one’s private sex life is one’s own, so long as it does not harm others and does not involve children?
(I’m not gay, but several of my friends are. Oddly, some of them are Republicans. I’m not a Democrat per se, nor am I a Republican, because neither party actually represents my best interests. I have yet to meet a gay pedophile, though some do sadly exist. As do many “straight” pedophiles. Gray areas are gray for a reason.)
#9 Named
>>Since you have no powers of comprehension…
It takes little effort to understand your position and your meaning. You name republican perverts in an attempt to defend democrat perverts. See, they do it so it’s OK.
Purely political, purely hypocritical, which is interesting since that seems to be your main complaint. You gotta laugh when you see someone use hypocrisy when they complain about hypocrisy.
>>those that are vehemently opposed to homosexuality ARE closet homosexuals.
So under your criteria those opposed to murder are closet murderers. See, that sounds as stupid as yours.
#10 johnrudy
>>Surely, a good patriot, one who loves freedom — true freedom — would be able to say that one’s private sex life is one’s own, so long as it does not harm others…
Nice goal, but sadly not reality. If it remained private then fine, but today the gay lifestyle is paraded in your face and used as a weapon to attack those who won’t capitulate.
Dare complain or question their militant tactics then you run the risk of being tossed a big fat PC bomb or even worse, loosing your job. Their goal is clearly to harm others if they disagree.
You ask that they should receive true freedom but perhaps give the reality you are championing the wrong group.
11,
You know what I hate about the Internet? It’s made people think in one dimension.
I guess you didn’t notice, before you decided to weigh in on the discussion, that my initial comment was to 1.) who claimed that the reason the ID was kept quiet was because the mayor was a democrat. So, I played along and said, well, sure… He was going after a woman, so he must be a democrat, since Repubs get busted for chasing boys and airport homosexual rendezvous.
And then you got stupid and looked for generalities.
Oh well.
@contempt:
“Nice goal, but sadly not reality. If it remained private then fine, but today the gay lifestyle is paraded in your face and used as a weapon to attack those who won’t capitulate.”
No gay person I have ever known has attacked someone … Ever.
That said, your solution is that they can be free as long as it’s private? In other words, you wish to regulate public behavior as well.
To a certain extent (EG, decency laws), this may be understandable. I certainly don’t need to see naked anyone (gay, straight, man, woman, don’t care) running about in public. I don’t need to see public sex acts.
However, what exactly is the problem with two people who love (or even just lust) each other having some form of PDA? Where is the line drawn? If it was OK for me to hold my ex girlfriend’s hand in public, should it not be the same for same-sex couples — again, under the banner of FREEDOM. If it was OK for me to kiss my ex girlfriend in public, should it not be the same for same-sex couples — again, under the banner of FREEDOM.
Freedom, as so many like to say, isn’t FREE. It means defending even that which makes you uncomfortable.
Do I get a little uncomfortable seeing a same-sex kiss in public? Sometimes. But will I defend it, as I believe in FREEDOM? Oh, hell yes.
I will defend to the death your right to engage in prejudicial comments based on what appears to be homophobia/gay hatred. That is your right — to express yourself.
Of course, the rest of us have the right to argue with, deride and mock you.
#14 johnrudy
>>I will defend to the death your right to engage in prejudicial comments based on what appears to be homophobia/gay hatred… Of course, the rest of us have the right to argue with, deride and mock you.
And there it is. Someone doesn’t agree with your jaded idea of tolerance then out comes the homophobia card. Don’t agree with your perverted views you mask as progressive and you claim the right to attack. Sometimes this is just too easy.
Checkmate.
#12–contempt for reason==please explain how the gay lifestyle is put in anyone’s face or used to attack anyone that is any different from the heterosexual lifestyle?
I don’t think you are necessarily a homophobe just yet as stupidity covers a lot of ground and you certainly prove that with every post.
#16 bobbo
Hi Bobbo – you missed me didn’t you…
14, 16,
leave contempt alone. He’s struggling with finding passages that allow him to religiously pitch or catch other males…
#17–contempt for defending his positions==You’ve been gone? You have quite a cabal of similarly dimwitted repuglicans, charlatans, and trollers here at DU. You’d have to be gone a while before one idiot less would ever be noticed. How long where you gone?
Any exciting stories to tell, adventures, insights or is all that too gay for ya?
@contempt:
Check, but certainly NOT mate.
Re-read the quote: I weasel-worded you, and you took the bait. “APPEARS TO BE.”
You attack me for allegedly (weasel words again) attacking you, when I did no such thing. I merely pointed out that you are putting on an appearance of intolerance and prejudice.
Indeed, I would say NOW that you, personally, ARE intolerant and prejudiced, and you have every right to be. But do others, whose lifestyles you may object to, also have the right to be THEMSELVES?
That, my friend, is CHECKMATE.
If you have the right to be intolerant of others, they have the right to do what they want, too. Your intolerance offends me, yet I cannot — nor would not — outlaw nor prohibit it, even in public where unsuspecting young minds would be terribly warped and corrupted by it. You have the right to your views. You have the right to voice your views. Therefore, why would you (or anyone) deny that to somebody else — that is, unless you despise freedom?
Any and all prejudice simply does not stand up to reason by anyone of a certain intellect level. Gays, straights, it takes all kinds to make society work. One of the best computer scientists EVER was gay, and sadly committed suicide because of his persecution. (Alan Turing.) To deny the rights of others, or want to deny the rights of others, based on nothing more than the fact they are different from you is absurd at best, and dangerous for society at worst. People of all walks contribute greatly to society.
If you love freedom — really, truly, love freedom — then you love it for EVERYONE, not just people who are like you. Otherwise it ain’t freedom. To truly love freedom is to defend the rights of those whose exercise of their freedom makes you uncomfortable. I defend — to the death — your right to be what you are. But yes, I will debate you, mock you and perhaps even “attack” you for your beliefs, because they are at odds with mine. You have the right to your opinion, I have the right to mine.
In the US, we used to have the right to pursue happiness — not to BE happy, but to pursue it, so long as it didn’t harm others. Surely you can’t object to what people do together, so long as they’re consenting adults? And if you do … Well, fine, that’s your prerogative. You have that right. And I have the right to judge you. We call that “freedom” here in the US. Used to mean something.
Finally … I notice you pick out very small things that look like attacks on you, and you debate those. Yet, you refuse (aside from once) to debate the actual issues of WHY you think this immoral, WHY you think this is a problem. Aside from it being “in your face” (whatever that means), what is the issue? It makes you uncomfortable? You don’t like it? Therefore it’s wrong and should never be done?