Simpson tells Tripp, "... we know you don’t care who stands with you," (at the VMFA).
Howsomeever, Tripp didn't say anything about "standing with him." He said, "We don’t care who’s there," which is not the same thing at all, is it? Do you suppose somebody of Simpson's intellect and edumuhcation doesn't know this? Can't tell the difference? Of course he knows; this kind of deliberate pretzeling of the truth isn't attributable to a deficiency of intellect or education, but to a deficiency of integrity.
It's the same deficiency that enables him to keep harping on Tripp "embracing" Matt Heimbach, when neither Tripp nor any other VaFlaggers did that. Simpson knows this, too. He has read my repeated substantiation of this truth on my blog, but he chooses to continue repeating this lie. Beats all you ever saw... and I can't help but wonder what it does for him to perpetrate lies like this.
Then he sez, "So you now don’t care if there’s a person who’s kidnapped a child among your supporters?"
I'm not sure who he's talking about. If it's CC Lesters, there's no indication he has kidnapped anybody. If Simpson is talking about the child's mother, well, she's the child's mother. As for the mother being a supporter of the VaFlaggers, does being the girlfriend of a Flagger automatically make one a Flagger supporter? Especially when that Flagger and girlfriend live approximately 950 miles from Richmond, the VaFlaggers' location, and especially when her "support" consisted of attending two events in Virginia?
There's nothing to indicate that Tripp doesn't care about who supports the Flaggers. But taking enjoyment from seeing a crowd on the sidewalk, which is a visible thorn in the side of the VMFA, whether they're all Flaggers or not, is hardly the same thing as not caring who supports the Flaggers. It's another thing Simpson knows is not true .... but if he wants to hold the Flaggers to that ridiculous standard, he has to apply it to himself ... and thus, he does not care that in the past, he has had among his blog supporters two convicted pedophiles...
Now, I don't know about y'all, but to me, for sheer smear-worthiness by association, pedophilia convictions far and away trump a mother, distraught about her child's welfare, fleeing in a misguided attempt to protect the child -- IF that's what happened, but at this point, who knows? Only an idiot would imagine they have the whole picture about a domestic dispute from what's reported in the media.
Then Simpson gives a truly bizarre display of an intellectual or ethical deficiency (or both) when he sez, "No wonder the SCV wants to drum you out (yes, folks, he’s out now … as of April 13, 2014)."
Hmmm. April 13th, huh? Which predates the current domestic incident Simpson has posted about by a full month (as the graphic accompanying the report plainly showed), and Tripp's issues with the SCV go back much farther than that. Thus, the news story could not possibly have had a bearing on the issues between Tripp and the SCV. How ethical is it to attempt connection between two obviously -- nay, conspicuously -- unrelated things?
And Simpson ends with these bits of moral lapses.
"And how are those legal cases going? You said you were suing an officer, remember?"
Unless you're in the SCV, Simp, this ain't none of your business.
"Say hello to Rob Walker."
You're still wandering in the Arizona desert bleating "Rob Walker! Rob Walker!" huh? Are you sincerely unaware that nobody cares about this but you? Maybe you should cover your head with a big, wide-brimmed hat, as the desert sun seems to be baking your brain. Which just goes to show you that the sickening hate-mongering you engage in, your bizarre displays of intellectual vacuousness and your conspicuous lapses in integrity, can at least have a comical facet.
Yes, do go back to history, and relieve yourself of counterattacks by moi. Remember, I monitor your blog for attacks on Southern heritage and its supporters. Stick with history and, regardless of how biased it may be, I will leave you alone.