HomeFairfax General ForumArrest/Ticket SearchWiki newPictures/VideosChatArticlesLinksAbout
Barbara Comstock, deceit goes back years
Posted by: 10th district voter ()
Date: August 29, 2016 07:57PM

The August 10, 2005, edition of Fox News' "Special Report with Brit Hume" featured a segment by reporter Megyn Kendall (Now Megyn Kelly) on the ongoing controversy over a NARAL Pro-Choice America advertisement that criticized then Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. for allegedly supporting, or giving sympathy to, violent anti-abortion protesters.

The segment included comments from a woman named Barbara Comstock, former director of the Justice Department's Office of Public Affairs under Attorney General John Ashcroft. At Justice, Barbara worked closely with John (Johnny) Yoo, known in the White House at that time as "Mr. Torture." Yoo was given the nickname after he advocated for the Bush Cheney administration, waterboarding, and crushing the testicles of prepubescent boys, in order to get needed information out of a prisoner. Yoo appeared the same week on MSNBC as Ms Comstock appeared on Fox News, both praising judge Roberts, and minimizing his connections to violent pro-lifers.

Anyway, on Fox News, [Megyn Kelly] Kendall failed to identify Ms. Barbara Comstock as a strategic adviser to the group “Progress for America,” (PFA), a right-wing political PR shop, who was being compensated to actively campaign for Roberts's confirmation.

On August 9, 2005, the day after the NARAL Pro-Choice America ad was first released, Progress for America unveiled a counter-ad defending Roberts, part of which was (Surprise!) spotlighted during the Fox “Special Report" segment. In addition, PFA had launched a pro-Roberts website, and assembled a coalition of conservative groups to advocate for Roberts's confirmation. Ms. Comstock's involvement with PFA and her mercenary agenda, was never revealed on Fox News. Pretty sleazy, Barbara. But, hey, you defended and raised money for Scooter Libby, so, why should we be surprised you sold out your country yet again?

She was playing games in 2005, she played games with us in 2006 over Scooter Libby, she played games with us on her votes in Congress to defund breast cancer research and her vote defeating common sense gun safety legislation.

Seriously, Barbara.. You represent people in your district, not the “Conservative” cause as defined to you by the Heritage Foundation.

Taken from media reports at the time. This post is not associated with any political campaign.

Re: Barbara Comstock, deceit goes back years
Posted by: BrianSchoeneman ()
Date: August 29, 2016 08:59PM

Of course it's associated with a campaign. Nobody just randomly pulls decades old nonsense and puts it out like this is some kind of news.

Re: Barbara Comstock, deceit goes back years
Posted by: 10th District voter ()
Date: August 29, 2016 10:05PM

BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Of course it's associated with a campaign. Nobody
> just randomly pulls decades old nonsense and puts
> it out like this is some kind of news.


Brian, Just because you are dishonest, doesn't mean everyone is dishonest. It's called "justification," "I am dishonest because every else is."

Well 90% of people try to be honest. You, apparently, believe if it doesn't fit into your perfect world, others' dishonesty is your justification to sooth your own ego and morals.

I can assure you, I am not involved in any campaign. I don't like Rep. Comstock. I am angry how she justified voting against funding for breast cancer research, her position on guns, and her palling around with Rep Blackburn, so, I did some research. Should I do my own research, or, should I just listen to what Ms. Comstock says?

Apparently, I will be chastised by you for doing my own candidate research.

Shame on you.

I was not aware much of Ms. Comstock before I moved into the 10th district in 2011.

If this post were associated with a campaign, dontcha think it would be all over the place and not on tiny FFU?

By dismissing something because you "Believe" it came from a campaign, shows you are a partisan political hack, with no respect for different point of views and no tolerance for a citizen with a different moral compass.

Again, shame on you.

Re: Barbara Comstock, deceit goes back years
Posted by: F2f dudemc ()
Date: August 30, 2016 09:02AM

Brian.

Address the issue of deceit, and don't attack the messenger with fabricated claims. You really are a political ass.

Re: Barbara Comstock, deceit goes back years
Posted by: dmwme ()
Date: August 30, 2016 09:15AM

BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Of course it's associated with a campaign. Nobody
> just randomly pulls decades old nonsense and puts
> it out like this is some kind of news.

Desperate Democrats. Not associated with a campaign my ass.

Re: Barbara Comstock, deceit goes back years
Posted by: dmwme ()
Date: August 30, 2016 09:15AM

BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Of course it's associated with a campaign. Nobody
> just randomly pulls decades old nonsense and puts
> it out like this is some kind of news.

Desperate Democrats. Not associated with a campaign my ass.

Re: Barbara Comstock, deceit goes back years
Posted by: DEMs reek of desparation ()
Date: August 30, 2016 09:31AM

More desperation from loser Democrats. Just for that I think I'll pull out my credit card and make another online contribution to Congresswoman Comstock's campaign. Suck it losers.


Re: Barbara Comstock, deceit goes back years
Posted by: not a Comstock fan ()
Date: August 30, 2016 11:41AM

BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Of course it's associated with a campaign. Nobody
> just randomly pulls decades old nonsense and puts
> it out like this is some kind of news.

I have concluded attorneys, by definition, are dishonest people. They have to be disingenuous at best to do their job effectively. Therefore, I believe attorneys justify their dishonesty, and in Brian's case, his "intellectual shifty and accusatory arrogance," by believing all people are dishonest, which is not the case.

Brian, apologize for your attack, your rush to judgement, your disdain for a voter bringing up issues that concerned him or herself, and your unfair and wrong characterization. Can you address the issue without attacking? The original post only appeared here, so I can believe it was from a relatively new voter in the district doing research, as explained.

Re: Barbara Comstock, deceit goes back years
Posted by: OP is a dimwit ()
Date: August 30, 2016 01:15PM

10th district voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The August 10, 2005, edition of Fox News'
> "Special Report with Brit Hume" featured a segment
> by reporter Megyn Kendall (Now Megyn Kelly) on the
> ongoing controversy over a NARAL Pro-Choice
> America advertisement that criticized then
> Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. for
> allegedly supporting, or giving sympathy to,
> violent anti-abortion protesters.
>
> The segment included comments from a woman named
> Barbara Comstock, former director of the Justice
> Department's Office of Public Affairs under
> Attorney General John Ashcroft. At Justice,
> Barbara worked closely with John (Johnny) Yoo,
> known in the White House at that time as "Mr.
> Torture." Yoo was given the nickname after he
> advocated for the Bush Cheney administration,
> waterboarding, and crushing the testicles of
> prepubescent boys, in order to get needed
> information out of a prisoner. Yoo appeared the
> same week on MSNBC as Ms Comstock appeared on Fox
> News, both praising judge Roberts, and minimizing
> his connections to violent pro-lifers.
>
> Anyway, on Fox News, [Megyn Kelly] Kendall failed
> to identify Ms. Barbara Comstock as a strategic
> adviser to the group “Progress for America,”
> (PFA), a right-wing political PR shop, who was
> being compensated to actively campaign for
> Roberts's confirmation.
>
> On August 9, 2005, the day after the NARAL
> Pro-Choice America ad was first released, Progress
> for America unveiled a counter-ad defending
> Roberts, part of which was (Surprise!) spotlighted
> during the Fox “Special Report" segment. In
> addition, PFA had launched a pro-Roberts website,
> and assembled a coalition of conservative groups
> to advocate for Roberts's confirmation. Ms.
> Comstock's involvement with PFA and her mercenary
> agenda, was never revealed on Fox News. Pretty
> sleazy, Barbara. But, hey, you defended and
> raised money for Scooter Libby, so, why should we
> be surprised you sold out your country yet again?
>
>
> She was playing games in 2005, she played games
> with us in 2006 over Scooter Libby, she played
> games with us on her votes in Congress to defund
> breast cancer research and her vote defeating
> common sense gun safety legislation.
>
> Seriously, Barbara.. You represent people in your
> district, not the “Conservative” cause as
> defined to you by the Heritage Foundation.
>
> Taken from media reports at the time. This post
> is not associated with any political campaign.


I love the "worked closely" with...

That is the first sign the post is total bullshit.

Re: Barbara Comstock, deceit goes back years
Posted by: conniving comstock ()
Date: August 30, 2016 01:51PM

Can we live with this?
Attachments:
images.jpg

Re: Barbara Comstock, deceit goes back years
Posted by: ffvoter ()
Date: August 30, 2016 01:58PM

OP is a dimwit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 10th district voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The August 10, 2005, edition of Fox News'
> > "Special Report with Brit Hume" featured a
> segment
> > by reporter Megyn Kendall (Now Megyn Kelly) on
> the
> > ongoing controversy over a NARAL Pro-Choice
> > America advertisement that criticized then
> > Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. for
> > allegedly supporting, or giving sympathy to,
> > violent anti-abortion protesters.
> >
> > The segment included comments from a woman
> named
> > Barbara Comstock, former director of the
> Justice
> > Department's Office of Public Affairs under
> > Attorney General John Ashcroft. At Justice,
> > Barbara worked closely with John (Johnny) Yoo,
> > known in the White House at that time as "Mr.
> > Torture." Yoo was given the nickname after he
> > advocated for the Bush Cheney administration,
> > waterboarding, and crushing the testicles of
> > prepubescent boys, in order to get needed
> > information out of a prisoner. Yoo appeared
> the
> > same week on MSNBC as Ms Comstock appeared on
> Fox
> > News, both praising judge Roberts, and
> minimizing
> > his connections to violent pro-lifers.
> >
> > Anyway, on Fox News, [Megyn Kelly] Kendall
> failed
> > to identify Ms. Barbara Comstock as a strategic
> > adviser to the group “Progress for
> America,”
> > (PFA), a right-wing political PR shop, who was
> > being compensated to actively campaign for
> > Roberts's confirmation.
> >
> > On August 9, 2005, the day after the NARAL
> > Pro-Choice America ad was first released,
> Progress
> > for America unveiled a counter-ad defending
> > Roberts, part of which was (Surprise!)
> spotlighted
> > during the Fox “Special Report" segment. In
> > addition, PFA had launched a pro-Roberts
> website,
> > and assembled a coalition of conservative
> groups
> > to advocate for Roberts's confirmation. Ms.
> > Comstock's involvement with PFA and her
> mercenary
> > agenda, was never revealed on Fox News.
> Pretty
> > sleazy, Barbara. But, hey, you defended and
> > raised money for Scooter Libby, so, why should
> we
> > be surprised you sold out your country yet
> again?
> >
> >
> > She was playing games in 2005, she played
> games
> > with us in 2006 over Scooter Libby, she
> played
> > games with us on her votes in Congress to
> defund
> > breast cancer research and her vote defeating
> > common sense gun safety legislation.
> >
> > Seriously, Barbara.. You represent people in
> your
> > district, not the “Conservative” cause as
> > defined to you by the Heritage Foundation.
> >
> > Taken from media reports at the time. This
> post
> > is not associated with any political campaign.
>
>
> I love the "worked closely" with...
>
> That is the first sign the post is total bullshit.

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2005/12/21/50-patriot-act-supporters-warn-against-acts-lapse-2/

They worked together when the Patriot Act was up for renewal in 2005 as well.

Re: Barbara Comstock, deceit goes back years
Posted by: another fail ()
Date: August 30, 2016 02:05PM

ffvoter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OP is a dimwit Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 10th district voter Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > The August 10, 2005, edition of Fox News'
> > > "Special Report with Brit Hume" featured a
> > segment
> > > by reporter Megyn Kendall (Now Megyn Kelly)
> on
> > the
> > > ongoing controversy over a NARAL Pro-Choice
> > > America advertisement that criticized then
> > > Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. for
> > > allegedly supporting, or giving sympathy to,
> > > violent anti-abortion protesters.
> > >
> > > The segment included comments from a woman
> > named
> > > Barbara Comstock, former director of the
> > Justice
> > > Department's Office of Public Affairs under
> > > Attorney General John Ashcroft. At Justice,
> > > Barbara worked closely with John (Johnny)
> Yoo,
> > > known in the White House at that time as "Mr.
> > > Torture." Yoo was given the nickname after
> he
> > > advocated for the Bush Cheney administration,
> > > waterboarding, and crushing the testicles of
> > > prepubescent boys, in order to get needed
> > > information out of a prisoner. Yoo appeared
> > the
> > > same week on MSNBC as Ms Comstock appeared on
> > Fox
> > > News, both praising judge Roberts, and
> > minimizing
> > > his connections to violent pro-lifers.
> > >
> > > Anyway, on Fox News, [Megyn Kelly] Kendall
> > failed
> > > to identify Ms. Barbara Comstock as a
> strategic
> > > adviser to the group “Progress for
> > America,”
> > > (PFA), a right-wing political PR shop, who
> was
> > > being compensated to actively campaign for
> > > Roberts's confirmation.
> > >
> > > On August 9, 2005, the day after the NARAL
> > > Pro-Choice America ad was first released,
> > Progress
> > > for America unveiled a counter-ad defending
> > > Roberts, part of which was (Surprise!)
> > spotlighted
> > > during the Fox “Special Report" segment.
> In
> > > addition, PFA had launched a pro-Roberts
> > website,
> > > and assembled a coalition of conservative
> > groups
> > > to advocate for Roberts's confirmation. Ms.
> > > Comstock's involvement with PFA and her
> > mercenary
> > > agenda, was never revealed on Fox News.
> > Pretty
> > > sleazy, Barbara. But, hey, you defended and
> > > raised money for Scooter Libby, so, why
> should
> > we
> > > be surprised you sold out your country yet
> > again?
> > >
> > >
> > > She was playing games in 2005, she played
> > games
> > > with us in 2006 over Scooter Libby, she
> > played
> > > games with us on her votes in Congress to
> > defund
> > > breast cancer research and her vote defeating
> > > common sense gun safety legislation.
> > >
> > > Seriously, Barbara.. You represent people in
> > your
> > > district, not the “Conservative” cause as
> > > defined to you by the Heritage Foundation.
> > >
> > > Taken from media reports at the time. This
> > post
> > > is not associated with any political
> campaign.
> >
> >
> > I love the "worked closely" with...
> >
> > That is the first sign the post is total
> bullshit.
>
> http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2005/12/21/
> 50-patriot-act-supporters-warn-against-acts-lapse-
> 2/
>
> They worked together when the Patriot Act was up
> for renewal in 2005 as well.

Again, tenuous. They're two of a few dozen people who signed a letter. Keep trying.

Re: Barbara Comstock, deceit goes back years
Posted by: xCnNF ()
Date: August 30, 2016 03:06PM

I am sorry but if you think the OP is an entirely disinterested individual who just happened to find out some information, you are being naive. Both the tone and content of the original post indicate the OP is arguing against Comstock's re-election. To many of us that would be sufficient to say the person is "associated with any political campaign". It is possible that the OP isn't an employee of or volunteer for an opponent's campaign. If that more narrow definition is what the OP meant, that is what the OP should have said.

Re: Barbara Comstock, deceit goes back years
Date: August 30, 2016 05:17PM

Really, OP? That's the best you can do? Is it some kind of surprise that Comstock is a pro-life conservative? Jeez. Please tell LuAnn she'll need to up her game.

Re: Barbara Comstock, deceit goes back years
Posted by: BrianSchoeneman ()
Date: August 31, 2016 11:09AM

10th District voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BrianSchoeneman Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Of course it's associated with a campaign.
> Nobody
> > just randomly pulls decades old nonsense and
> puts
> > it out like this is some kind of news.
>
>
> Brian, Just because you are dishonest, doesn't
> mean everyone is dishonest. It's called
> "justification," "I am dishonest because every
> else is."
>
> Well 90% of people try to be honest. You,
> apparently, believe if it doesn't fit into your
> perfect world, others' dishonesty is your
> justification to sooth your own ego and morals.
>
>
> I can assure you, I am not involved in any
> campaign. I don't like Rep. Comstock. I am angry
> how she justified voting against funding for
> breast cancer research, her position on guns, and
> her palling around with Rep Blackburn, so, I did
> some research. Should I do my own research, or,
> should I just listen to what Ms. Comstock says?
>
>
> Apparently, I will be chastised by you for doing
> my own candidate research.
>
> Shame on you.
>
> I was not aware much of Ms. Comstock before I
> moved into the 10th district in 2011.
>
> If this post were associated with a campaign,
> dontcha think it would be all over the place and
> not on tiny FFU?
>
> By dismissing something because you "Believe" it
> came from a campaign, shows you are a partisan
> political hack, with no respect for different
> point of views and no tolerance for a citizen
> with a different moral compass.
>
> Again, shame on you.

I don't believe it came from a campaign. I know it came from a campaign. Nobody outside of a campaign would think that blindly repeating "Scooter Libby" and rehashing ancient 10+ year old nonsense would actually matter. Especially posting it here.

Come on, man. You're not fooling anybody claiming you're not affiliated with a campaign. How much are you making? Are they paying by the word?

You're dishonest and it's not because I am or anybody else is. Nobody who is honest would be doing this kind of thing. Sorry.

Re: Barbara Comstock, deceit goes back years
Posted by: Ask Me How I Know ()
Date: August 31, 2016 11:35AM

Of course the OP is being paid. $15 per hour is the going rate for this sort of work.

I might start a post on what I observed at the DMV a few days ago.

This forum powered by Phorum.