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.
#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.
#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?