Captain Joel Fox, front man for the shady group of SCA donors, has apparently given up trying to answer our questions. But that hasn't stopped him from continuing to comment on our blog.
Fox still falsely claims we haven't identified a possible crime that the SCA has committed:
I've been asking you to identify the evil for weeks, and you've failed to produce a single solitary crime...not one.
Yet we linked to the very Arizona statute that appears to have been violated. How much clearer do we have to make it for him?
While we appreciate that Fox is commenting, it's hard to appreciate the substance of his comments. He's barely touched the tough questions we've posed to him, (and frankly, if he decides to, we've got a whole bunch more).
Fox's latest comments below:
Fox's comment to our August 12 blog post about his absurd "nuthin to see" comment:
Joel Fox says: The Sheriff isn't empowered to give pardons. Governors and Presidents can do that, but that's about it....
Yeah, Tommy, I'm the one who isn't smart...
Ray, What's a "hear no evil" stance that works in church? I've been asking you to identify the evil for weeks, and you've failed to produce a single solitary crime...not one.
And that's why your gooneys are trying to get me to shut up (it won't work).
So you're challenging me, now? What do I get if I win? Are we playing for marbles or matchbox cars? What? Is this the second grade playground?
Grow up, Ray. Justify your assertions or be man enough to admit you really don't know what happened, but you have a lot of questions, and gee, it would be nice if somebody who knows what happened would answer them for you.
You call me a liar, you doubt my credibility, you say it's a scandal...sounds like you have all the answers already.
If you don't, what are you basing your assertions on? rumors? wild ass guesses? vagaries of misperceptions compounded by malicious bias?
all of the above.
Posted On: Thursday, Aug. 13 2009 @ 9:46PM
Fox's August 13 comment to New Times' columnist Sarah Fenske's August 11 article:
Geez, Sarah/FormerRepublican...you are awfully quick to judge for one who knows so little. You call it curious, but why? You're not curious...you're certain.
Chad, you don't have it straight. Thankfully, law enforcement in this town is conducted by people with more common sense than you. Have you even found a crime yet? Still need more time?
You want an explanation? ...as if it would make any difference...Here's a hint, though: Look at the signature on that check. Now, see if you can answer a very important question: Who wrote "vote for sheriff joe" on that check?
Whatever your wildest fantasies might be, even you surely don't think it was Joe Arpaio. So why would Joe Arpaio "go down" because some person wrote "vote for sheriff joe" on a check he's never seen?
How would the Republican Party be in trouble over a check they've never seen?
If you like this story, consider signing up for our email newsletters.
SHOW ME HOW
You have successfully signed up for your selected newsletter(s) - please keep an eye on your mailbox, we're movin' in!
Were you thinking that the people who would send $25,000 to support deputies would also hate Arpaio? Did you figure that Chad Snow and Coz might have been on the donor list of SCA? Of course they wouldn't. Their bias and prejudice against Arpaio would prevent them from supporting anything even remotely close to Arpaio.
It only stands to reason that supporters of the deputies would also be supporters of Joe Arpaio. Why is that surprising in the least?
It isn't. And you know it isn't. But that doesn't stop you from leading people who hate Arpaio already into a cloud of confusion and assumptions and lies and fantasy.
The only one around here that should be ashamed is you, Sarah. Comment by Joel Fox on Aug 13th, 2009, 23:17 pm