Liberal Forum

Misty » 11 Jan 2014 6:24 pm » wrote: Hyperbole is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech.
I have no idea what you prefer to do with a woman's vagina.
Although I do know that you once said that a 'lack of consent' does not mean rape.

Skeptic » 11 Jan 2014 7:09 pm » wrote: Clem is the moral compass of the conservative movement!

Sherman: “What I learned is that Roger Ailes has created a political operation that employs journalists. It exists for two reasons: to generate as much profit as possible for its corporate parent, Rupert Murdoch, and to advance the personal, political agenda of its founder, Roger Ailes…The story is not Fox News, the story is Roger Ailes. The network is a complete expression of his worldview.”

Stelter: “So you’re saying it’s a news channel, and it’s also a political machine?”

Sherman: “No, I’m saying it’s a political machine that employs journalists."

Skeptic » 11 Jan 2014 7:09 pm » wrote:

Clem is the moral compass of the conservative movement!

RichClem » 12 Jan 2014 8:04 pm » wrote:Do you and your hubby write and sign a contract every time you have sex?

You're the psychopath who defends serial felons/ serial rapists.
And smears decent people as child molesters.

Misty » 13 Jan 2014 10:14 am » wrote: It's none of your business what me and my hubby do.

You just talking about it makes me ill.

You're the psychopath who defends serial felons/ serial rapists.
And smears decent people as child molesters.

RichClem » 13 Jan 2014 11:18 am » wrote: Do you demand that he wait until you give explicit consent before sex?

Misty: Decent people don't screw the daughters of a woman they had a relationship with.

Clem: She was in her '30's, yet you tried to smear him as a child molester.
Get some professional help, psycho.

Misty » 13 Jan 2014 12:37 pm » wrote: I never used the word 'child' and you know it.
You are a filthy liar.

And she was NOT in her 30's, she was 23.

RichClem » 13 Jan 2014 1:00 pm » wrote:You smeared by alleging he "molested" his girlfriend's daughter.

Misty » 13 Jan 2014 1:08 pm » wrote: I alleged nothing. I asked the question, "Didn't John Fund molest his girlfriend's daughter?"
You have posted the quote yourself with the question mark in it. A question is not an allegation.

That was before I knew any of the details of the story.

BTW, I don't give a **** about John Fund.
I have no idea why this sticks in your craw the way it does, but I can only imagine.
Mancrush?<<<<<<< question mark.

That's a question, Puss.

It’s no longer in dispute that New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s (R) administration crippled the community of Fort Lee last September on purpose. It’s also no longer in dispute that the governor’s team did so as an act of political retaliation. But what was it, exactly, Christie’s aides were retaliating against?

The working assumption has been that the administration sought to punish Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich, a Democrat who didn’t endorse Christie’s re-election. But the governor’s incredulity over this explanation is not without merit – it’s unclear if the local mayor’s endorsement was ever even sought. Indeed, the governor’s insistence yesterday that he had no idea who Sokolich was seemed relatively persuasive.

And if Team Christie was in the habit of retaliating against fairly obscure Democratic officials who balked at endorsing the governor, there would be a more expansive record of statewide revenge from last fall.

So perhaps the working assumption is mistaken. Maybe Christie’s aides targeted Fort Lee, but it wasn’t related to a campaign endorsement that wasn’t even solicited. If so, we’ll need a different explanation for one of the key questions at the heart of the scandal: what happened to cause a top Christie aide to say it was "time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee" on Aug. 13 at 7:34 a.m.? What, specifically, prompted that message on that morning if Sokolich’s preference for governor was irrelevant? What was it, exactly, that Team Christie was retaliating against?

Rachel Maddow offered an alternative theory on the show last night and it’s important to consider it in detail.

In New Jersey, state Supreme Court justices serve an initial term of seven years, at which point the sitting governor decides whether or not to reappoint them. Since the New Jersey constitution was revised and adopted in 1947, every governor has reappointed every state Supreme Court justice without exception.

That is, until Christie took office. In 2010, soon after Christie’s inauguration, he did something unprecedented: he declined to reappoint one of the justices: New Jersey Supreme Court Justice John Wallace, the court’s only African-American member. Wallace was not burdened by scandal or allegations of wrongdoing; Christie simply didn’t want him on the high court anymore.

Democrats in the state Senate were livid. Rachel described the political firestorm that soon erupted in Trenton:

Senate Democrats made Chris Christie’s first nominee to replace Justice Wallace, they made her wait until somebody else’s seat came up on the court then they would consider her for that one, but not Justice Wallace’s.

Then, Chris Christie nominated a man named Phil Quan for the state Supreme Court, Senate Democrats said no. Then, Chris Christie nominated a man named Bruce Harris for the court, Senate Democrats said no.

Senate Democrats were so mad about what Christie did to take John Harris off the Supreme Court when he was up for re-nomination that they would not let anyone through. It’s been a big political crisis in New Jersey. Senate Democrats rejected every one of those Christie nominees, one after the other.

And then when another of the justices on the Supreme Court, a Republican, came up for re-nomination just like John Harris had, and the Senate Democrats signaled that they were going to give her a whale of a time at her re-nomination hearing, Chris Christie just flipped out. He had enough. He pulled that justice off the Supreme Court rather than submit her to re-nomination before the Senate Democrats.

No governor had ever failed to reappoint a sitting state Supreme Court justice, but Christie had suddenly done it twice – once for the court’s only African-American jurist, infuriating Democrats, and then again for a justice he actually liked. The governor, enraged, held a press conference to tell reporters, “I was not going to let her loose to the animals.”

The “animals,” in this case, were the Democrats in the state Senate.

Christie said that on the afternoon of Aug. 12, 2013.

On the morning of Aug. 13, 2013, Christie’s deputy chief of staff told the governor’s guy at the Port Authority, “Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee.”

The leader of the Senate Democrats at the time was a senator from … Fort Lee.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show ... he-scandal

At a morning press conference on Thursday, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie announced that he had fired Bridget Anne Kelly, a deputy chief of staff and top aide in his administration, for her role in the growing scandal involving the manufactured delays on the George Washington Bridge in an apparent act of political retribution and asked another aide not to seek a top position within the state Republican party.

He denied having advance knowledge about the lane closures or the involvement of his own staff. “I was blindsided yesterday morning,” he said. “I apologize to the people of Fort Lee, I apologize members of the state legislature.” Christie also faced questions about his abrasive leadership style that some have described as bullying, and insisted that those characterizations are untrue.

“This is the exception,” he said. “It is not the rule of what’s happened over the last four years in the administration.”

But while Christie claimed that this was “not the way this administration has conducted itself over the last four years” and denied being a bully, accusations of political retribution have long surrounded the governor. For instance, former Gov. Richard Codey (D) accused the Christie administration of “sending a message” by denying him state trooper protection after he publicly disagreed with Christie. The same day, a Codey cousin was fired from his position at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and a former Codey aide was removed from the New Jersey Office of Consumer Affairs.

After then State Sen. Sean Kean (R) told a reporter that Christie erred in not calling for a state of emergency sooner, during a 2010 blizzard, Christie’s staff banned Kean from attending the next news conference Christie held in Kean’s home district. A Christie aide told the Star-Ledger that Kean “got what he deserved.”

Rutgers Professor Alan Rosenthal saw his state funding slashed after backing a re-districting map more favorable to Democrats and last year, confirmation of a judicial candidate recommended by State Sen. Christopher “Kip” Bateman (R) suddenly stalled after the legislator voted against Christie’s public medical education system reorganization.

On Thursday, the U.S. Attorney for New Jersey announced that he would be opening up another investigation into the lane closings, joining the state legislature and the inspector general of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, who are conducting investigations of their own.

RichClem » 13 Jan 2014 1:00 pm » wrote: Go debate with Clinton what the meaning of "is" is, pyscho.
You smeared by alleging he "molested" his girlfriend's daughter.
Can an uglier smear be made? No, she was 31.

Morgan was 23 years old the first time the then-43-year-old Fund took her to bed.

http://www.apj.us/sc20010904connolly.html

Misty » 14 Jan 2014 4:36 pm » wrote:

Friday, March 5, 1999 -- St. Paul, Minnesota -- In the Internet hubbub over Juanita Hickey-Broaddrick and her on-again, off-again rape story, I got to thinking about how Mrs. H/B's account was so detailed -- and matched almost exactly the letter sent her in 1992 by Philip Yoakum, GOP activist and arch-Clinton-foe Sheffield Nelson's best bud.

In this infamous letter, he "reminds" her -- or is it "coaches" or "witness-tampers" her? -- of a story that should burned into her brain. The only thing he leaves out is the date.

There's a reason for that: it's because the persons who claim that this incident really happened -- Mrs. H/B, her two sister-friends, Mr. Broaddrick (Juanita's current husband), and Mr. Yaokum -- had a hard time picking out a year in which this incident happened, much less a date. It took NBC's news team to supply the Broaddricks with a date in April of 1978.

Think about this for a minute: an alleged soul-shattering event supposedly made an unavoidably strong impression on Mrs. Broaddrick -- but not her then-husband, Mr. Gary Hickey, who says he never heard of the alleged rape, never noticed the disfiguring "black" lip wound allegedly suffered by his then-wife, and never heard her tell any "cover stories" to explain away the alleged lip injury. It also allegedly affected Mr. Broaddrick, Ms. Rogers and her sister, and the other members of the Jane Doe #5 camp... yet they barely remember the year, and none of them can remember the month it happened, much less the date!

Full disclosure here:

I have been sexually taken advantage of. It wasn't quite a rape (much less one as soul-searingly brutal as what JD5 alleges) but it was something I felt quite queasy about at the time and which causes me twinges to this day.

It happened when I was attending Cottey College, a two-year liberal arts institution in Nevada, Missouri, which is ten miles from the Kansas border and 100 miles due south of Kansas City. It was my second year of college, in early September 1982, in the first weekend of September, in the wee hours of either Saturday or Sunday morning.

My friends and I had been at the bars in Fort Scott, Kansas and we were invited to a frat house for a party after the bars had closed. I'd gotten drunk, went upstairs with one frat boy, and suddenly, without my consent, it turned into a gang-bang situation, which didn't bother me until the effects of the beer started to wear off.

Upon sobering up, I was disgusted with myself for a) allowing multiple men to have their way with me in a not-quite-consensual fashion and b) enjoying a good portion of it, at least while still drunk. The frat boys were somewhat disappointed when I asked to be allowed to leave, but they let me go without incident. Because of the fuzziness of the incident (it had, at any rate, started out consensually), and because I literally couldn't remember much of it after sobering up, I decided that it wasn't clear-cut enough to rate my pursuing it.

Now, I was tired and drunk at the time of my incident. I can barely recall what the first frat boy who accosted me looked like (I think he was dark-haired, had glasses, mustache, yellow sweatshirt, medium build, about 5'8" to 5'10") or what the interior of the frat house looked like (my main impression is that it seemed to be well-kept, which surprised me at the time -- I always thought of frat boys as, to use the famous phrases, "Bears with Furniture").

Juanita Hickey (now Broaddrick), her two female friends, and her then-lover/now-husband were presumably neither drunk nor dead tired at the time of her alleged incident.

How come I can remember the year, the approximate time of year, and the two most likely days of the week on which my incident could have occurred -- and none of the folks in Mrs. Hickey/Broaddrick's camp, including Mrs. Jane Doe #5 herself, can even remember the year in which her far more serious incident allegedly took place?

Were they waiting for some reporter to tell them -- as NBC did?

"Vulnerable" Indeed -- But to Whom?

You all have no idea how much it pisses me off to see rape used in this fashion -- not only because rape smears are just about the lowest form of mudslinging short of accusing someone of mass murder (which, by the way, Clinton's foes do on a daily basis in the mainstream media), but also because each phony rape story makes it that much harder for genuine victims to be believed.

And I don't just hate rape smears when they're used by the right wing, either.

I was aghast to see Tawana Bradley's story promoted the way it was by the Rev. Al Sharpton. I wasn't angry so much at Tawana. She was just a teenager who originally merely wanted to avoid having the tar whupped out of her by her mom's boyfriend for staying out late, and I remember doing similar stunts at her age for similar reasons... although smearing feces on my body was not one of the options I considered. I was hellaciously angry at the adults who were pushing her story even when it got to be nearly as ridiculous as Paula Jones' ever-evolving tale -- and who still push it today.

It's a little bit harder for me to feel sorry for Juanita Hickey-Broaddrick.

She, contrary to being a "young and vulnerable" person, to use her own quote from the Lisa Myers interview, was 35 years old, a good four years older than Bill Clinton, who as we all know by now has not previously exhibited a taste for women older than himself. Hillary herself is a year younger than him, and we all know how the media went out of their way to make the then-21-year-old Presidential-kneepad-hunter Monica Lewinsky look like a cringing schoolgirl so they could accuse Bill Clinton of being a child molester. Folks, I'm 34. I work a day job. Unlike Juanita, I'm not my own boss, with all the freedom and responsibility which comes with such a role. Yet I don't consider myself "young and vulnerable": I've got too many gray hairs to buy that line.

If Juanita was ever "vulnerable", it probably wasn't to retaliation from then-State-Attorney-General Bill Clinton for reporting a rape: Arkansas, even in the late 70's, had rape shield laws that were strictly enforced.

She would be vulnerable, however, to someone like Ken Starr, who in early 1998 had already hit a brick wall with Whitewater and the other Faux-gates, and who was clinging desperately to L'Affaire Monica as his only chance of fulfilling his true mandate.

Obviously, a rape charge would be much more fertile dirt than consensual oral sex for growing the seed of an impeachment case. Therefore, Starr, as he had with the McDougals and Webb Hubbell, and as he was attempting to do with Ms. Lewinsky, decided to use his immense powers of persuasion to try to overturn Juanita Broaddrick's two previous affidavits, in which she swore under oath that the story was false.

Evidence has come to light showing that Mrs. B. was and is indeed vulnerable now: to charges of nursing-home mismanagement. She has had a number of judgements against her and is no stranger to legal actions. In addition, her facility, unlike most others in the area, is not exactly jam-packed with residents: she's had to advertise to get business, something few nursing homes in Arkansas need to do.

And even if Starr didn't have this to use as a lever against her, just the mere fact that he had the unlimited ability to pursue a perjury charge against her would be enough to make anyone cry "uncle", rather than run up $200,000 or more worth of legal bills and still risk losing one's case. A July 1998 The Nation article by Bruce Shapiro makes it clear just how Starr's ability to force people into bankruptcy through legal bullying has caused White House staffers to walk in utter terror of talking on-the-record to the press: just getting one's name in the paper is provocation enough for Starr's five-score gunsels to slap one upside the head with a subpoena or worse.

This, by the way, explains the "White House silence" that the media loves to make so much of.

As with Jim McDougal, Starr succeeded in "persuading" Mrs. Broaddrick to change her story... but also as with Jim McDougal, Starr wound up deciding not to pursue the allegations he had gone to so much trouble to elicit.

The reason Starr's office gives is that the alleged crime was not impeachable, and that there was no evidence of any White House attempts to cover it up, is nonsense. Starr was already going to obscene, and illegal, lengths to parlay a few clandestine blow jobs into "high crimes and misdemeanors", and to turn standard legal tactics and procedures into "perjury" and "obstruction of justice".

What's more, he and his 98-odd legal eagles had Tripp's tapes, wherein the two ladies discussed an alleged two-and-a-half-hour phone call between Clinton and a lady named "Juanita." Hmmmm... why didn't they try to parlay that into "evidence of obstruction of justice," as they did with the Betty Currie and Monica talks -- which weren't taped, and therefore far more open to interpretation?

The reason they didn't pursue it is because Starr and his 98-odd OIC staffers knew that this story stank to high heaven, reeking even worse than the bizarre and eminently unusable testimony they had elicited from the recently-deceased Jim McDougal.

Which leads me to my final point:

For those who question why no one in the legitimate media wanted to touch this story -- that is, until forced to by the slavering e-mail hordes led by Matt Drudge, the Star tabloid, the Lucianne-Goldberg-allied Freepers and FOX -- not NBC, not CBS, not even The Wall Street Journal's own hard-news section (whose Washington editor didn't find out about what his editorial brethren were planning to do until he read about it in the Drudge Report) wanted anything to do with it, they should consider the following:

The same folks pushing this story were the same ones pushing every other vile rumor about Bill Clinton, even those long since laughed out of the public eye:

The Mena drug-running story.

The "Clinton Body Count" story.

The "Hill and Bill killed Vince" story (this is the one for which I thought the editorialists at the WSJ would burn in hell forever, until JD#5 came along).

The "Bill Clinton 'finger-f***ed' his own daughter Chelsea" story related by Lucianne Goldberg to the New York Press (and she WILL burn in hell for pushing this particularly vile lie).

And my own personal favorite, the very recently revived-only-to-be zapped "Bill fathered a kid off of a black hooker" story, a tale calculated to really stir the racist underpinnings of the get-Bill movement.

If these folks don't flinch at promoting -- with a straight face, mind you -- all of the above tales (not to mention the discredited David-Hale-based Whitewater tale and the other Faux-Gate stories), including charges of *mass murder*, what makes you think they'd draw the line at reviving and hawking a phony rape charge?

-- Tamara Baker

Misty » 14 Jan 2014 4:41 pm » wrote:For RichClem.........

-- Tamara Baker

The "Hill and Bill killed Vince" story (this is the one for which I thought the editorialists at the WSJ would burn in hell forever, until JD#5 came along).

Misty » 13 Jan 2014 7:18 pm » wrote:Not An Isolated Incident: Christie Has Been Repeatedly Accused Of Political Retribution


Christie's staff also cut off access to the mayor of Jersey City, because he would not endorse Christie.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html

RichClem » 14 Jan 2014 4:47 pm » wrote:The WSJ never claimed they killed Vince, moonbat, nothing like it.

RichClem » 14 Jan 2014 4:40 pm » wrote: Published by Weasel-something?

You reject my excellent, highly credible sources, but expect me to accept this?

Misty » 14 Jan 2014 7:49 pm » wrote: The source is first hand Jackhole.
The writer of that article interviewed Morgan Pillsbury. I think she knows how old she was.

I haven't seen any proof from you that she was 31.
Oh, I know, you've posted it many, many times before, right?