Probably to piss you off.
"You would think that if they didn’t want to associate with him, they’d block him."
A name on a Facebook group list and four comments are not an association.
And here is the perfect example of gooey glib snarky lie, Simpson style:
But when the group’s leader hails Nathan Bedford Forrest as her model of behavior, we know who they really are.
What she really said: I’m determined to stand, fight, and never back down...but I'm gonna fight like Forrest…NOT Sherman.
He's her model for FIGHTING heritage battles, not entire life-defining BEHAVIOR, as Simpson implies. It's a clear as day, so his misstatement is deliberate.
Rob: I asked the same thing the other night. I didn’t get a response from anyone, not surprisingly.
Who'd you ask? Why did you ask? Your well known animosity for the Flaggers may have something to do with it, ya know?
This is from Rob, again, about moi:
Though it would appear the only morality to her, is a morality based on her biblical interpretation. Her comments in the past prove that to be a rather scary concept.
Hey, Rob! BOO!!! Muaahahahahahahaaa. (Y'all skeered yet?)
Poor Widdle Bwooks says, "Her little pronouncement came after efforts to shut down the blog and get me in trouble by her supporters were thwarted (free speech, remember?). It contained lies, as usual."
He keeps saying that, but he hasn't yet identified any lies. Oh, and whose efforts? Why so close-lipped?
Connie Chastain? Two previous efforts to contact my employer came at her behest.
LOL. No behestin' done by me. Behesting is against my religion. The voices in his head musta told him that one.
Here's another lesson in slimy-glib snark, y'all.
Simpson: The Flaggers don’t disavow Matthew Heimbach because they agree with what he believes and think he’s a nice guy.
Tripp Lewis is one Flagger -- not Flaggers. And what Tripp agreed with was Heimbach's honoring his Confederate ancestors.
And, as I've noted before, there are probably things Heimbach believes that even Floggers agree with.
They invite him to their functions, including social ones.
His one. single auto-invite via Facebook is not plural, as Simpson is dishonestly claiming here. (Students, pay attention. If you wanna learn how to write slimy-glib snark, here's a great lesson; take one instance of something and pluralize it. Simpson has a long history of attempting to smear a large number of people with the comments of one or a handful of folks.)
They can no longer claim they didn’t know, and it’s now clear that they have known for years.
Clear? Known WHAT? What's clear is that probably most of them don't know NOW. Don't know what he believes, don't even know who he IS. Simpson is a LOT more interested in Heimbach than the Flaggers are.
It’s time for the rest of us to recognize who the Flaggers really are. Just as Forrest lied before Congress, they lie about themselves to the American people. Why should anyone be fooled?
LOL! He's layin' it on thick, now. Lie to the American people? Oh, that's rich. The Flaggers don't lie, except in Simpson's hallucinations, while his lies reach far more "American people." (The American people? He must be watchin' politics shows on TV.)
I’m surprised that Connie Chastain didn’t give her usual apology for Forrest, although that’s not as frequent as her attacks on Julia Ward Howe.
Hehehe! Posting what Howe herself WROTE is an attack on her. Oh, that's rich. Just another example of how out-of-touch Simpson's Flagger obsession is making him.
Note we’ve never seen Connie comment on the racial composition of her neighborhood or count the number of non-white friends she has (she’s made bizarre claims about other people, sometimes without much in the way of evidence: she went after Tim Wise’s place of residence, so identifying homes is not problem for her). I believe she calls that lying by omission.
Ah, Simpson, I didn't "go after" Tim Wise. Somebody posted the information that he, big wacist-witch-hunter, lives in a really, really white neighborhood of majority-black Memphis. I verified the data online before repeating it far, far fewer times, I might add, than you have attacked the Flaggers. Besides, how is it "going after" somebody to tell the truth -- verified with demographic data -- that their personal life contradicts their public persona -- that he attacks people for living in the manner he does?
And following up the violent rhetoric coming from the anti-racist left, how about this post from oh, so superior Mr. Wise?
My information in those areas is not germaine, because I don't go around in racist-witch-hunt mode, seeking to slandering people as racists and haters. I'm a reactionary. I don't attack. I defend or counterattack. (Pick nearly any post in Backsass, and the probability is extremely high that it will be a response to an attack.)
I can't believe I'm having to explain this -- it should be obvious to somebody so highly intelligent and educated, but since it appears to be necessary, I'll explain that it's about hypocrisy. If you're gonna attack and slander people for something, you should expect scrutiny for the same thing. However, if anybody wants to "investigate" me, my life, my past, my background in those areas, please, be my guest.
lenastorheim/Kristin Konate/Wonder Woman sez: Fear inhibits them from speaking their truthful agenda – but their actions tell us. Shameful conduct. The Flaggerettes are an inflammatory and intentionally divisive group.
Lena, take your crystal ball in for re-calibration. It's giving you very bad readings.