Liberal Forum

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?

It is true that I had a short romance in 1999 with the then-31-year-old woman in question, who now admits to having been diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder.

http://www.johnfund.com/

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.

Who Framed John Fund? ...

the smearing of Fund raises questions that define us morally and politically. It did not take a lot of investigation on my part to conclude that Pillsbury was not the kind of source one could legitimately use to hang a man in public. Why were so many so eager to use her that way? No principle was at stake. It was all about payback.
http://www.thenation.com/article/who-framed-john-fund

RichClem » 15 Jan 2014 8:43 am » wrote: It claims to be first hand. How typically trollish that you refuse to accept facts cited from my excellent, time-tested sources on the flatulent excuse that they're contained in opeds, but cite a totally non-credible moonbat source.
No, nothing from that source can be trusted.

Clem: It's hardly my fault that you have endless excuses not to read my sources; that you go blind when key facts are cited.

RichClem » 15 Jan 2014 9:01 am » wrote:So you're going to accept the word of a deeply emotionally disturbed woman who has already admitted telling many terrible lies about Fund and their affair?

Over that of a highly respected national journalist?

Misty » 15 Jan 2014 12:44 pm » wrote: That's it Clem, smear the woman.

Handwritten undated letter to the Wall Street Journal. In it, my accuser stated that she had been "struggling with emotional problems for sometime. I have trouble distinguishing between reality and fantasy ....n recent weeks, I have claimed that John was abusive to me. John was not abusive."

Deposition Transcript dated February 22, 2001 in the case of Pillsbury-Foster v. Franklin, Civil Action No. 233136 (Cal. Super Ct.). This case concerns the woman's mother and stepfather and is unrelated to any dispute between us. In it, she testifies under oath that she has "borderline personality disorder." Her condition manifests itself in "mood swings, all sorts of things," she stated, adding, "[y]ou're just not functional." When asked during the deposition, "What lies have you told in the past?," she replied, "Too many to name." When pressed to give an example, she said, "That I had a heart problem." She then described how she bilked her stepfather out of $10,000 by falsely telling him that she had a heart condition that required medical surgery to correct. This deposition transcript is not the only occasion in which she has discussed her emotional troubles on the official record. In a Pro Se Answer to a Complaint filed in California in In re Morgan Pillsbury, Debtor, Case No ND01-10494-RR, she admitted that she has "borderline personality disorder. One of the symptoms of this condition is an inability to discriminate truth from fiction." She further admitted that by June 1998, she was having severe emotional problems" and "was entirely non-functional." She also stated that she "has told whoppers [lies] all her life."
http://johnfund.com/

You mean a highly respected hack.

Misty » 15 Jan 2014 12:42 pm » wrote:Do you really believe that anyone is buying your **** about how you've posted 'endless sources' on any given subject?

RichClem » 15 Jan 2014 12:54 pm » wrote: Anyone with eyes and integrity.
It was all there in black and white, troll.

VATICAN CITY (AP) — A document obtained by The Associated Press on Friday shows Pope Benedict XVI defrocked nearly 400 priests over just two years for sexually molesting children.

The statistics for 2011 and 2012 show a dramatic increase over the 171 priests removed in 2008 and 2009, when the Vatican first provided details on the number of priests who have been defrocked. Prior to that, it had only publicly revealed the number of alleged cases of sexual abuse it had received and the number of trials it had authorized.

While it's not clear why the numbers spiked in 2011, it could be because 2010 saw a new explosion in the number of cases reported in the media in Europe and beyond.
The document was prepared from data the Vatican had been collecting and was compiled to help the Holy See defend itself before a U.N. committee this week in Geneva.

Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, the Vatican's U.N. ambassador in Geneva, referred to just one of the statistics in the course of eight hours of oftentimes pointed criticism and questioning from the U.N. human rights committee.

The statistics were compiled from the Vatican's own annual reports about the activities of its various offices, including the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which handles sex abuse cases. Although public, the annual reports are not readily available or sold outside Rome and are usually found in Vatican offices or Catholic university libraries.

An AP review of the reference books shows a remarkable evolution in the Holy See's in-house procedures to discipline pedophiles since 2001, when the Vatican ordered bishops to send cases of all credibly accused priests to Rome for review.

Then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger took action after determining that bishops around the world weren't following church law to put accused clerics on trial in church tribunals. Bishops routinely moved problem priests from parish to parish rather than subject them to canonical trials — or turn them into police.

Read More At Link In Title

The mayor of Hoboken on Saturday accused two top officials in the administration of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) of threatening to withhold Hurricane Sandy aid from the hard-hit city unless she supported a development project backed by the governor.

The accusation came in an interview on the MSNBC program “Up With Steve Kornacki” and was immediately denied by a Christie spokesman.

But it is likely to generate new and potentially damaging questions for the probable 2016 presidential contender, in the wake of allegations that other Christie aides engineered a traffic jam in Fort Lee, N.J., possibly as retaliation for the Democratic mayor’s refusal to endorse the governor’s reelection campaign last year.

An allegation that Christie aides held desperately needed money hostage to other political concerns could also serve to undermine Christie’s widely praised handling of the devastating storm.

Hoboken Mayor Dawn Zimmer said on MSNBC that she was twice told in person that her city needed to approve the development project in order to receive funding it had requested for post-storm rebuilding projects.

She said the message was first conveyed by Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno on May 13, five days after Hoboken’s planning board had rejected the development proposal.

She said Guadagno pulled her aside after touring a ShopRite that had been rebuilt after the storm and told her the two issues were linked.

Zimmer provided MSNBC with an entry from her personal diary in which she recounted the incident, which she said she wrote later that day.

“It is very important to the governor,” the diary describes Guadagno as saying of the development project. “The word is that you are against it, and you need to move forward or we are not going to be able to help you. I know it’s not right — these things should not be connected — but they are, she says, and if you tell anyone, I will deny it.”

Zimmer said she was given the same message four days later by Richard Constable, Christie’s community affairs commissioner. As the two prepared to appear on a television program about Sandy recovery, she said Constable told her she needed to support the project for her city to receive aid.

Read More At Link In Title

Misty » 18 Jan 2014 1:43 pm » wrote:Mayor of Hoboken, N.J.: Christie aides tied Sandy fund requests to support for project.

RichClem » 18 Jan 2014 2:17 pm » wrote:
Oh my gosh, that sounds like politics! Horrors!

Democrats never engage in that.

RichClem » 18 Jan 2014 2:17 pm » wrote:Oh my gosh, that sounds like politics! Horrors!
Democrats never engage in that.

RichClem » 18 Jan 2014 2:17 pm » wrote:
Oh my gosh, that sounds like politics! Horrors!

Justice Anthony Kennedy is widely perceived as a swing vote on abortion, thanks to his decision to retain the “essential holding of Roe v. Wade” in the 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey. But this perception of Kennedy is misplaced. Since becoming a justice, Kennedy voted to strike just one of the 21 abortion restrictions that have come before the Supreme Court, and that one restriction was in Casey itself. Thus, Kennedy has not voted to block a law limiting access to abortion for the last 21 years.

On Wednesday, the justices will hear a case brought by abortion protesters seeking greater access to women approaching abortion clinics — and if Justice Kennedy gets his way, those protesters may soon have unlimited ability to “counsel” or even harass patients approaching women’s health clinics.

McCullen v. Coakley concerns a Massachusetts law that creates a buffer zone around clinics that women can freely travel through without being confronted by protesters, leafleters or so-called “sidewalk counselors.” Under the Massachusetts law, entrances to abortion clinics are surrounded by a 35 foot buffer zone that no one may enter unless they have legitimate business within the clinic or are simply passing through the buffer zone in order to reach another destination.

McCullen hinges on two distinctions at the heart of First Amendment law. Laws that are “content-based” — that is, laws that single out speech about a particular topic for inferior treatment — and laws that engage in “viewpoint discrimination” — that is, laws that treat people who hold one set of views differently than people who hold opposing views — are both treated with great skepticism under the First Amendment. Thus, the First Amendment allows a state to prohibit someone from loudly protesting outside their neighbor’s bedroom while that neighbor is trying to sleep, so long as it bans all protests on any subject whatsoever. But a law that prohibits only protests about abortion — or only prohibits protests opposing abortion — while permitting protests on all other topics, is likely to be struck down.

The plaintiffs in McCullen try to characterize the Massachusetts law as one that engages in viewpoint discrimination because it permits clinic workers and their patients to enter and exit the buffer zones (and thus to enter and exit the clinic itself), without permitting abortion protesters to do so. It’s a neat trick. Essentially, the plaintiffs argue that clinic workers are themselves pro-choice, so allowing them inside the buffer zone without also allowing anti-abortion protesters is a form of viewpoint discrimination.

Should the Supreme Court accept this argument, the only way for Massachusetts to enforce its buffer zone law would be for it to also forbid clinic workers from entering and exiting the clinic where they work. Clearly, this is not a workable way for a health clinic to operate.

It’s likely, however, that the Court will hand an even more expansive victory to abortion protesters. Dissenting in a 2000 case called Hill v. Colorado, Justice Kennedy suggested that any law that prevents protests around health clinics by its very nature engages in content discrimination, no matter how the law is written or how broadly it sweeps. “We would close our eyes to reality,” Kennedy claimed in Hill, “were we to deny that ‘oral protest, education, or counseling’ outside the entrances to medical facilities concern a narrow range of topics—indeed, one topic in particular. By confining the law’s application to the specific locations where the prohibited discourse occurs, the State has made a content-based determination.”

In essence, Kennedy argued that the only reason anyone ever protests outside of a health clinic is because they oppose abortion, so any restriction on protests outside of clinics should be treated as an impermissible content restriction. Should Kennedy’s view carry the day in McCullen, the result will be a constitutional right to protest outside of health clinics that does not exist at any other location or apply to protesters focused on any other topic.

In fairness, the plaintiffs in this case claim that they do not berate the women they target for so-called counseling — according to their brief, they “try to engage women who may be seeking abortions in close, kind, personal communication, with calm voices, caring demeanor, and eye contact.” That may very well be true, but if the Supreme Court gives them a constitutional right to engage in this kind of subtle protest, Massachusetts will hardly be able to permit this kind of activity while banning more aggressive protesters — permitting speech that is outwardly kind to women seeking abortions while banning speech that is overtly nasty to them would itself be a form of content-based regulation.

In other words, the likely outcome of a decision writing Justice Kennedy’s preferences into the law would be open season for everything from the kind of activity these plaintiffs say they engage in to angry men dressed up as grim reapers yelling at women approaching clinics.

South Carolina state Sen. Lee Bright (R), who is challenging Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) in the GOP primary, said on Friday that school teachers should be able to carry machine guns to protect students from gun violence.

Appearing on Fox News Radio’s The Alan Colmes Show, Bright expanded on his proposed bill to create high school courses on how to use a fire arm by agreeing with Colmes that the government cannot legally restrict gun ownership on school grounds:

In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled that the government can limit ownership of “dangerous and unusual” weapons that are not in “common use.” As conservative Justice Antonin Scalia concluded in the landmark 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller — which held that the Second Amendment provides an individual right to carry a firearm under certain circumstances — “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms…in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

Congress significantly limited the sale of machine guns in the 1986 Firearms Owners’ Protection Act, which prevents the sale to civilians “of all machine guns made after the law took effect.”

Misty » 18 Jan 2014 6:26 pm » wrote: Normally I might actually agree with you about that Puss.
This kind of thing happens all the time, but this is different.
There is something very unseemly about withholding Sandy relief funds from a city that was 80% under water after the storm.
They are entitled to that money and there should be no strings attached.

But I know you would never agree with that because you don't have a soul.

Misty » 20 Jan 2014 3:35 pm » wrote:The Supreme Court’s Probably About To Create A Right To Harass Women At Abortion Clinics

RichClem » 20 Jan 2014 4:37 pm » wrote: This is exactly why I prefer the private sector to handle almost everything, rather than politicians.
However, Democrats play this game as well, not that you'll ever bleat about that.

Finally, it turns out this mayor is full of crap and has lied about the issue. She did get most of the funding she asked for.

A majority of this amount, $43 million, consists of National Flood Insurance Program claims that have been paid out to flood insurance policyholders in Hoboken. Flood insurance is, well, insurance; it's supposed to pay out when you get flooded.

The $70 million figure also includes $8.5 million in Small Business Administration loans, $6.3 million in FEMA Individual Assistance payments, and $2 million in Federal Transit Administration funding.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/small-sandy-grants-to-hoboken-not-so-suspicious-2014-1#ixzz2r00FZQ00

RichClem » 20 Jan 2014 4:38 pm » wrote:
Thanks for making it crystal clear again that you don't support our Constitutional right to free speech.

Misty » 20 Jan 2014 3:35 pm » wrote:The Supreme Court’s Probably About To Create A Right To Harass Women At Abortion Clinics


Coming soon to a women’s health clinic near you........