Flying Monkeys
By Nobody
11 Mar 2011 1:42 pm in No Holds Barred Political Forum
10 Dec 2013 6:25 pm
Anyone who can call a man who slept with the daughter of a woman he once had a relationship with 'a very decent person' has no idea what the word decent means. Decent people don't do that ****, Kitten.RichClem » 10 Dec 2013 10:39 » wrote: I was referring to his record as a journalist, but yes, I still believe he's a very decent person, having followed his career for many years.
You tried to smear him as a child molester. You're a truly disgusting person for trying that.
I had heard something about John Fund sleeping with his ex-girlfriend's daughter, but I didn't know any details, so I merely asked a question about it.
I never said she was underage. As soon as I looked it up, I learned that she was an adult at the time.
But in no way does that make what he did right.
I don't care if it was 100 years later and she was 50 years old, it's still wrong, and he's still a pervert.You still imply he's a pervert, refusing to note that the affair was many years later and that the "daughter" was in her early 30's by that time.
So obviously, you still lack the most basic sense of decency.
You're a literal psychopath.
10 Dec 2013 7:44 pm
Oh, sure, you're shocked and horrified that when a 30-something woman tried to have an affair with Fund, he went along.Misty » Today, 8:25 pm » wrote: Anyone who can call a man who slept with the daughter of a woman he once had a relationship with 'a very decent person' has no idea what the word decent means. Decent people don't do that ****, Kitten.
Save your bulls*** for the moonbats, psycho, especially given your long, long, LONG history of defending felons and rapists.
F*** off. Your immediate instinct is to lie and smear, regardless of facts.
I had heard something about John Fund sleeping with his ex-girlfriend's daughter, but I didn't know any details, so I merely asked a question about it.
I never said she was underage. As soon as I looked it up, I learned that she was an adult at the time.
Only a psychopath would smear someone as a child molester without knowing the evidence.
Just as only a psychopath would tell years of lies in defense of a serial rapist/ serial felon without knowing the evidence.
Someone's a "pervert" for going along with a 30-something woman trying to seduce you, many years after he had an affair with her mother?I don't care if it was 100 years later and she was 50 years old, it's still wrong, and he's still a pervert.
Nor did you say it was "wrong." Had that been all you'd done, I wouldn't care in the slightest. Instead, your smeared him as a child molester, and f*** your usual "gosh-I-was-only-asking" bulls***.
10 Dec 2013 8:13 pm
You have no idea if this woman 'seduced' John Fund. You just made that up.RichClem » 10 Dec 2013 21:44 » wrote: Oh, sure, you're shocked and horrified that when a 30-something woman tried to have an affair with Fund, he went along.
Someone's a "pervert" for going along with a 30-something woman trying to seduce you, many years after he had an affair with her mother?
She was younger than Fund, and had some emotional issues, so even if she did come on to him, he should have refused her advances.
That is what a person of high integrity would do.
I guess it's not beneath you to engage in a little slut-shaming, huh Puss?
You have proven that you have zero integrity, because you constantly defend perverts like John Fund and Carl Paladino.
11 Dec 2013 7:52 am
She admitted she approached him, and he had no idea she had emotional problems, troll.Misty » Yesterday, 10:13 pm » wrote: You have no idea if this woman 'seduced' John Fund. You just made that up.
She was younger than Fund, and had some emotional issues, so even if she did come on to him, he should have refused her advances.
That is what a person of high integrity would do.
WTF are you babbling about? I have great sympathy for the young woman and her problems.I guess it's not beneath you to engage in a little slut-shaming, huh Puss?
You're the one who smears real life rape victims.
F*** off, psycho.You have proven that you have zero integrity, because you constantly defend perverts like John Fund and Carl Paladino.
Go find a rapist to defend.
11 Dec 2013 2:18 pm
Back it up Pumpkin. When and where did she admit it?RichClem » 11 Dec 2013 09:52 » wrote: She admitted she approached him, and he had no idea she had emotional problems, troll.
The answer of course is.....she didn't.
And even if she did 'approach' him, was he helpless to say no?
Most people would say no to the offspring of someone they had a relationship with.
Are you saying John Fund can't control his sexual impulses?
And stop saying that Morgan Pillsbury was over 30.
She was 23 years old the first time the then 43-year-old John Fund took her to bed.
If as you say Fund was doing nothing wrong by sleeping with her, then why did he insist that she keep their 3 year relationship a secret from her own mother?
You can read the transcript of the tape yourself in the link below, where Fund is obviously angry that Morgan told her mother about the relationship.
Of course you won't though.
You'll just say you 'bet blind' (like you always do) that it doesn't say what I say it does, and prefer to remain willfully ignorant.
You keep insisting that I tried to smear John Fund as a child molester because I referred to Morgan Pillsbury as Melinda Pillsbury's 'child'.Sex, Lies, and the Tape: The John Fund Story
When the stone thrower himself lives in a glass house, it is a matter of legitimate public interest.
John Fund, the forty-six year old writer on the staff of the Wall Street Journal's editorial page, has staked out a position as a man of integrity. On his frequent appearances on cable and network talk shows, he espouses the position of the right-wing conservatives. He is friends with people in the Bush White House. He is a dear friend of Conservative Grover Norquist. He recently met with Vice President Dick Cheney. During the Clinton presidency he wrote often of the terrible acts committed by Clinton against women. On his appearances on Television evangelist Pat Robertson's 700 Club show, he often condemns those who do not live up to the highest moral standards. This conservative pundit seems to be on television more often than I Love Lucy reruns.
Although he portrays himself as a voice of the religious right, the never-married Fund has cut a wide swath of sexual relationships throughout the Libertarian and Conservative parties. He's a regular right-wing Lothario.
He is also a hypocrite.
There is nothing newsworthy about consensual sex between two unmarried adults, even if one of those supposed adults acts badly. But, when a high profile public person stakes out the moral high ground, that person had better not be standing on quick sand.
A few months age, Morgan Pillsbury, a twenty-seven year old woman, contacted me with information about her former lover of three years, John Fund. Although I had heard stories of Fund's less-than-cavalier treatment of women and particularly his Clintonesque treatment of one particular woman, I did not think that information worthy of a story. Amusing gossip, yes -- newsworthy, no. But the story Morgan told gave me pause. If her allegations were true, Fund's relationship with her was not only bizarre; it was treacherous and bordered on the perverse. To back up her story of the bad behavior of John Fund, she furnished me with a tape recording she made of a conversation she had with Fund. The tape and conversations with Morgan's' mother, Melinda Pillsbury-Foster, and others confirmed Morgan's tale.
Twenty years ago, Melinda and John Fund both worked for the then fledgling Libertarian party in California. Fund was the executive director of the local party in Sacramento. Melinda, who at the time was the mother of four children, began sexual relationship with the much younger Fund. Melinda said, "John and I had a sexual relationship for four or five years. When he moved east, we remained friends. It never really ended." Melinda, who is still active in the Libertarian party, went on to say, "Six or seven years ago, John called and during the conversation he told me, 'Melinda, if any of your children come east, have them look me up.' I didn't realize that he was using me as a dating service!" Last year Melinda learned that not only had Fund been sleeping with Morgan, he was the father of the child she would abort.
Not only had Fund violated his twenty-year-old friendship with Melinda Pillsbury-Foster, he, much like Congressman Gary Condit (Fund recently wrote a scathing indictment of Condit's behavior), insisted that Morgan keep their three-year-affair secret.
Morgan was 23 years old the first time the then-43-year-old Fund took her to bed. Sounds all too familiar, doesn't it? According to Morgan, John Fund was the third man she had been intimate with. She had contacted him when she moved to the New York area after a bad breakup with her previous boyfriend. Instead of receiving consolation from the man who had on occasion been her baby-sitter back in California, Fund took her to bed. In 1999, confronted with an unplanned and apparently unwanted pregnancy, Fund abandoned Morgan and, without attempting to dissuade her, allowed the distraught young women to have an abortion without any support from him.
John Fund is a full time writer for the Wall Street Journal. Yet, when I began researching a profile on Mr. Fund, he -- unlike most other journalists -- began a campaign to kill the story. A source close to Fund told me a few days ago that Fund and a confederate were attempting to plant a false and malicious blind item about two people at Talk magazine. They believed that the item would so frighten the victims that they would see to it that my profile of Mr. Fund was spiked. Mr. Fund and his pals can congratulate themselves -- to protect innocent people from being attacked; I have pulled the piece from Talk magazine. Hence this abbreviated piece which is written solely to introduce the reader to John Fund on tape with Morgan Pillsbury, the mother of the aborted child.
So that there should be no confusion, this tape was made legally and given to me by Morgan Pillsbury. Ms. Pillsbury also gave me her permission to use her name, as did her mother Melinda Pillsbury-Foster. I have learned that very recently Ms. Pillsbury, who has experienced some financial difficulties, has at Fund's request moved in with him. John Fund lives in an apartment in Jersey City, just a stone's throw from the Holland Tunnel. I have also been told that Mr. Fund, for whatever reason, has given Morgan cash and a new computer.
The following is a transcription of the tape of Morgan Pillsbury and John Fund. Mr. Fund makes mention of how he is being threatened by Melinda. He apparently believes that Melinda has no right to be angry for his deceiving her for three years, all the while sleeping with, and impregnation her oldest child. For those who doubt the veracity of the transcript or wish to hear the anger and seething hostility of John Fund, Please listen to the audio tape. John Connolly
http://www.apj.us/sc20010904connolly.html
My children are well over the age of consent, and they are still and always will be my children.
But as usual you have mischaracterized what I said in an attempt to smear me.
In the article I posted John Fund is quoted as saying to his ex-girlfriend, "Melinda, if any of your children come east, have them look me up."
And Morgan is referred to as Melinda's oldest child.
Your children are always your children, no matter how old they are.
11 Dec 2013 2:47 pm
Do you seriously think I'm going to waste my time doing research and engaging in a fake debate with a psychopathic liar who has told years of lies on behalf of a serial felon ?Misty » 1 minute ago » wrote: Back it up Pumpkin. When and where did she admit it?
And even if she did 'approach' him, was he helpless to say no?
Who will lie endlesssly about this, too?
Come on, you're kidding, right?
11 Dec 2013 2:54 pm
BINGO!RichClem » 11 Dec 2013 16:47 » wrote: Do you seriously think I'm going to waste my time doing research and engaging in a fake debate with a psychopathic liar who has told years of lies on behalf of a serial felon ?
Who will lie endlesssly about this, too?
Come on, you're kidding, right?
I knew that was exactly what you would say, because you are a **** artist of the highest caliber.
You make false statements and then you say that you can't waste time proving them, even though you seem to have endless hours to waste posting here.
That is your M.O. Puss, and everyone knows it.
If indeed Ms. Pillsbury said what you say she did, a quick Google search is all it would take to prove it.
But of course, you can't prove it, because she never said it.
You made it up.
11 Dec 2013 3:06 pm
My M.O. is to avoid debate?Misty » 9 minutes ago » wrote: BINGO!
I knew that was exactly what you would say, because you are a **** artist of the highest caliber.
You make false statements and then you say that you can't waste time proving them, even though you seem to have endless hours to waste posting here.
That is your M.O. Puss, and everyone knows it.
Can't you even tell believable lies?
Here's a hint. I debate politics on the most level playing field I find. I don't rehash dishonest smear attempts by lying trolls so they can tell further lies.
I didn't even get that far, troll.If indeed Ms. Pillsbury said what you say she did, a quick Google search is all it would take to prove it.
But of course, you can't prove it, because she never said it.
You made it up.
You started by smearing Fund as a child molester and have done little except stonewall and lie since then.
So f*** you and your endless bulls***.
11 Dec 2013 3:09 pm
Here's exactly what you said.Misty » 48 minutes ago » wrote:as usual you have mischaracterized what I said in an attempt to smear me.
You were "just asking!"( MistyBlue)Didn't John Fund molest his girlfriend's daughter?
11 Dec 2013 3:56 pm
Here's clue Puss....when you see a question mark after a sentence, it's a **** question.RichClem » 11 Dec 2013 17:09 » wrote: Here's exactly what you said. You were "just asking!"
So yes I was 'just asking' if anyone knew anything about it, because I did not know the actual facts until I looked it up.
Damn, are you really this crazy that you can't even see that you have misproven your own claim?
I see your loco and raise you three.
Thank you for posting my quote Puss, because I'm sure it is gone from the other forum along with much of the lost content, and I would have been unable to find it myself. You have proven that what I did was indeed ask a question.
11 Dec 2013 4:26 pm
Save your bulls*** for the moonbats, psycho. No one with an ounce of common sense believes you.Misty » 25 minutes ago » wrote: Here's clue Puss....when you see a question mark after a sentence, it's a **** question.
So yes I was 'just asking' if anyone knew anything about it, because I did not know the actual facts until I looked it up.
Damn, are you really this crazy that you can't even see that you have misproven your own claim?
I see your loco and raise you three.
Just an innocent question."
You "innocently" smeared Rush the same way.
Go ahead, bleat all you want. Your words are there for everyone to see.(Misty Blue)why would you suppose that Rush Limbaugh was traveling to the Dominican Republic with a bottle of Viagra?
Was he going there to start a family?
Isn't it curious that a man of Rush's means can't get laid here in the United States?
I wonder what he can find in the DR, that he can't get here?
I'm just sayin'.
....The Dominican Republic has a well-documented child sex trade with a thriving sex tourism sector.
Psycho.
11 Dec 2013 6:25 pm
This post is addressed to Golfboy in reference to this post:
Before he fixated on me and started following me around, he stalked another person called Pundit Hater, who he eventually ran off the forum.
He was banned for that by the people who ran .org before David bought it.
He followed PH to a forum called On The Left, where he was also banned for guess what?
Stalking Pundit Hater.
This is what the owners of OTL told me.
Right.
Of course he also said:
So he admits to being a stalker.
I have other quotes from him where he admits to 'targeting' me and 'following' me.
If you had ever read any of his old posts, you would have seen that in his frustration at not being able to run me off like he did PH, he has become more and more deranged in his rantings and name calling. You would not even be able to recognize him as the same poster.
So what you should be doing instead of chastising me, is counseling your buddy about his obsessive behavior.
To the extent that he keeps following me, disrupting and derailing my threads, I will continue to do the same to him, and make him an object of ridicule, which is what he deserves.
And you should mind your own **** business.
You obviously know nothing about your buddy Clem's history. I do, because I have read many of the old threads at LF.org.golfboy » 10 Dec 2013 18:00 » wrote: So why do it. Why not debate the topic of the thread instead of following Rich around posting nonsense?
Have you ever considered that it takes two to tango, and you're just as responsible as he is?
Before he fixated on me and started following me around, he stalked another person called Pundit Hater, who he eventually ran off the forum.
He was banned for that by the people who ran .org before David bought it.
He followed PH to a forum called On The Left, where he was also banned for guess what?
Stalking Pundit Hater.
This is what the owners of OTL told me.
We had to give Rich the boot. Like David, we noticed how prolific a poster he was and recognized that he was good
for our post counts, but unlike him, we simply weren't willing to sacrifice the quality of the board for raw numbers.
We gave him multiple warnings and suspensions but eventually it became clear even to someone thick like me that he wasn't going to clean up his act, so we showed him the exit.
Of course Clem will say:Rich was banned from here. He couldn't refrain from stalking certain members around the forum,
demanding they respond to his posts. He badgered people via PM. He wouldn't let anything slide, and kept rehashing and taunting posters in unrelated threads about how he "owned them" or "kicked their ***."
He was asked repeatedly to cut it out but he never did. So we eventually showed him the door.
I've been banned from four (forums), from my recollection, including this one by the previous owners, always for expressing my freedom of speech on politically incorrect ideas and issues.
Right.
Of course he also said:
The only person other than yourself I had a confrontation with, that I recall, was PH.
Wow, so in 5 years or so, I've stalked a total of two people.
Makes me a real sociopath.
So he admits to being a stalker.
I have other quotes from him where he admits to 'targeting' me and 'following' me.
If you had ever read any of his old posts, you would have seen that in his frustration at not being able to run me off like he did PH, he has become more and more deranged in his rantings and name calling. You would not even be able to recognize him as the same poster.
So what you should be doing instead of chastising me, is counseling your buddy about his obsessive behavior.
To the extent that he keeps following me, disrupting and derailing my threads, I will continue to do the same to him, and make him an object of ridicule, which is what he deserves.
And you should mind your own **** business.
11 Dec 2013 7:35 pm
To Golfboy,
In case you missed it:
http://liberalforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1080#p117541
I dare you to peruse this thread and then tell me that your buddy Clem is not an obsessive, fixated stalker.
You accused me of following Clem around, but this is my thread.
It's pretty obvious to everyone but you I guess, who's following whom.
In case you missed it:
http://liberalforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1080#p117541
I dare you to peruse this thread and then tell me that your buddy Clem is not an obsessive, fixated stalker.
You accused me of following Clem around, but this is my thread.
It's pretty obvious to everyone but you I guess, who's following whom.
11 Dec 2013 8:09 pm
be proud you have a stalker miss blue!...Misty » 29 minutes ago » wrote:To Golfboy,
In case you missed it:
http://liberalforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1080#p117541
I dare you to peruse this thread and then tell me that your buddy Clem is not an obsessive, fixated stalker.
You accused me of following Clem around, but this is my thread.
It's pretty obvious to everyone but you I guess, who's following whom.
granted you might rather have one that was a bit less **** **** CRAZY and wore less lipstick than clem...but hey, how many people can honestly state that they have been someone's obsession?
12 Dec 2013 3:12 pm
Not many, because most of them are dead now.Lostphoenix » 11 Dec 2013 22:09 » wrote: be proud you have a stalker miss blue!...
granted you might rather have one that was a bit less **** **** CRAZY and wore less lipstick than clem...but hey, how many people can honestly state that they have been someone's obsession?
12 Dec 2013 4:42 pm
Oh yeah, the person who's "bats** f***ing crazy" isn't the person who dishonestly smears decent public figures as child molesters.Lostphoenix » Yesterday, 10:09 pm » wrote: be proud you have a stalker miss blue!...
granted you might rather have one that was a bit less **** **** CRAZY and wore less lipstick than clem...but hey, how many people can honestly state that they have been someone's obsession?
It's the person who's offended by it.
You people are as dumb as freaking rocks.
I have yet to see one single liberal who's offended by that stunning ugliness.(Misty Blue)why would you suppose that Rush Limbaugh was traveling to the Dominican Republic with a bottle of Viagra?
Was he going there to start a family?
Isn't it curious that a man of Rush's means can't get laid here in the United States?
I wonder what he can find in the DR, that he can't get here?
I'm just sayin'.
....The Dominican Republic has a well-documented child sex trade with a thriving sex tourism sector.
12 Dec 2013 6:21 pm
Are you **** serious?RichClem » 12 Dec 2013 18:42 » wrote: I have yet to see one single liberal who's offended by that stunning ugliness.
Have you ever heard the **** that Rush Limbaugh says about Liberals?
Why should we be offended by anything that anyone says about that drug addled gasbag?
You must have a man crush on him.
Which one do you have the hots for more, Rush or John Fund?
12 Dec 2013 8:31 pm
13 Dec 2013 6:01 am
Rush does spoofs and comedy. Sometimes they're in bad taste, but they're comedy.Misty » Yesterday, 8:21 pm » wrote: Are you **** serious?
Have you ever heard the **** that Rush Limbaugh says about Liberals?
You were dead serious, just like you were dead serious in accusing Bush and officials of committing "war crimes" and felonies.
Say, was Karl Rove ever indicted? If not, why weren't you defending him like you for years dishonestly defended Clinton, on the basis of never being convicted?
Because you're a lying partisan troll.
13 Dec 2013 10:43 am
Oh really Kitten? He does comedy?RichClem » 13 Dec 2013 6:01 am » wrote:
Rush does spoofs and comedy. Sometimes they're in bad taste, but they're comedy.
You were dead serious, just like you were dead serious in accusing Bush and officials of committing "war crimes" and felonies.
Because you're a lying partisan troll.
Was he doing comedy when he said that Sandra Fluke was a slut and a prostitute?
Or when he called the Pope a Marxist?
How about when he calls women Feminazis?
Or when he says that the NFL looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips.
He said that the media was allowing Michelle Obama to take a vacation as a form of reparations for 'our slave past.'
And that the Times Square car bomber probably had an Obama bumper sticker on his SUV.
He also said that Arizona shooter Jared Loughner had the full support of the Democratic party.
He didn't say these things in a comedy club, Puss.
He's a racist mysogynistic drug addled gasbag, and I'm not the least bit surprised that you would defend him.
After all, if you defend a man who sends out racist cartoons and bestiality videos, and a man who screwed both a mother and her daughter, I can't imagine that there is any piece of **** that you won't defend, and that makes you no better than any of them.
Clinton was never indicted on rape charges, but that hasn't stopped you from referring to him as a serial rapist and a felon has it, you stupid hypocrite.Say, was Karl Rove ever indicted? If not, why weren't you defending him like you for years dishonestly defended Clinton, on the basis of never being convicted?
You get to bash all the Liberals/Democrats you want, but when someone bashes a Republican/Conservative, you get your little bloomers all in a twist.
Can you say double standard?
**** you.
I will say whatever I want about whomever I want, and if you don't like it you can eat me, you whiny little bastard.
Who is online
In total there are 4974 users online :: 9 registered, 14 bots, and 4951 guests
Registered users: Buck Naked, Squatchman, ROG62, ConservativeWave, jerra b, SouthernFried, Lisa 558, Deezer Shoove, Sayaras
Bots: DuckDuckBot, DuckDuckGo, Kinza, LCC, ADmantX, proximic, Baiduspider, CriteoBot, YandexBot, Googlebot, Mediapartners-Google, Applebot, curl/7, bingbot