Wendy Davis ad goes too far! ad uses wheelchair to criticize paralyzed foe Abbott

[1776]

Your white trash boyfriend pics?

Oh....Carla "Danger" is hilarious.....and pathetic.

That would make you a fatass dumbfuck troll bitch.

So says the overweight, diabetic, drug addict ghetto trash....

Asswipe, anyone with a clue knows not to belittle someone's physical or mental problem not their fault.

Oh Gawd, another irrational nutcase.

Idiot troll.

 

[1776]

 

[Carla_Danger]

 

[Star]

Latest polls eveyone:

Abbott has a 11.3 lead over Davis.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2014 - Texas Governor - Abbott vs. Davis

Very generous polling for Davis. I seriously doubt they'll be spending much more money on her Titanic of a campaign. It is over.

In 2012 the Democratic Party internal polling had Obama winning by about 3.0 percent, RealClear had Obama winning by about 0.7 percent. The President won by 3.9 percent, IOW's RealClear missed it by about 3.2 percent.

Fast forward to today - RealClear has Abbott ahead by 11.3 percent, Lyccum has Abbott by 9 percent, and the Democratic Party's internal polling has Abbott ahead by a fast shrinking 6 percent. It's now less than three weeks before we find out who's closer. Personally I hope for Texas' sake, Republicans are so overconfident they 'Cantor-ize' Abbott.
.

 

[Star]

Romneycare....cough, cough, I mean Obamacare wasn't around then, you big dummy.

It's OK, I guess if it's cool for Hillary to like molestation of those now legally defined as infants it's OK for private individuals like yo'self go dig it too.

Infants?

http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-young-adults.php

ObamaCareClick Here To Enroll (the Affordable Care ActClick Here To Enroll) allows young adults to stay on their parents plan until 26 and offers ObamaCare young adults cheaper health insuranceClick Here To Enroll due to cost-assistance through their State's health insurance marketplace. Find out how young adults can save money due and no longer be denied treatment or coverage for being sick.
.

 

[TooTall]

Romneycare....cough, cough, I mean Obamacare wasn't around then, you big dummy.

It's OK, I guess if it's cool for Hillary to like molestation of those now legally defined as infants it's OK for private individuals like yo'self go dig it too.

I'd like to find me an infant 25 yr old. LOL! I better start carrying candy in my pocket.

Actually, Monica was 22 when she started giving the lowlife slimeball BJ's, not that a year makes that much difference.

 

[TooTall]

Did the ad in question tell the truth.....?????

YES!!!!

Don't you just hate it when Dems tell you an ugly truth.

That would be a first coming from a Dem, if it was true.

A couple of hours ago, you said you were going to follow up on the details. Has that been a problem for you?

I got busy, but here is one that I looked up. I have more and will post them when I have time.

Greg Abbott did "nothing" to pursue reports of the sexual abuse of boys at a West Texas state-run school.
— Wendy Davis on Monday, September 15th, 2014 in a TV ad

MOSTLY FALSE– The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/sta...avis-claims-greg-abbott-didnt-act-allegation/

 

[TooTall]

Here is another example for you.

Most everyone living in a major media market in Texas has seen State Senator Wendy Davis’s first statewide campaign ad released during the first week of August claiming that Texas Attorney General and gubernatorial candidate Gregg Abbott sided with a company who hired a sexual predator and against a sexual assault victim. The best way to understand this case is to begin with the cast of characters.

… Kirby retained the right to control precisely where and how its products were to be sold—through personal in-home demonstrations,” the court said. “After retaining this control in the present case, Kirby failed to take any precautions regarding Sena’s activity on recruiting dealers to perform such demonstrations. Because Kirby retained the right to control where and by what method its distributors and dealers sold Kirby products, and because it was this aspect of the marketing process that gave rise to the risk of harm to homeowners, we conclude Kirby had a duty of care toward Read …”

This reasoning formed the basis for the Court of Appeals’ finding that Kirby acted negligently and, therefore, Read was entitled to actual damages. The court, however, said this negligence did not amount to gross negligence, and thus, Read was not entitled to exemplary damages. The court’s decision was unanimous. Six justices on the Texas Supreme Court agreed with the finding by the appeals court. Three justices, including Abbott, did not.

Greg Abbott Supports Big Business over Rape Victim

And the best part for last.

" According to the ABC-affiliated KVUE television station, Greg Abbot (who at the time was a justice on the court) teamed up with Justice Priscilla Owen to pen a dissenting opinion that “argued Kirby bore no civil liability because it had legally removed itself from control of personnel decisions.”

Did you notice how he teamed up with a woman to write the dissent, which by the way makes sense from a legal standpoint? Not that this mattered to Wendy Davis, whose team of flunkies released a obfuscatory TV ad that Texas Monthly contributor Erica Grieder says makes it sound as if “Abbott wanted to give the rapist a pardon and a reference letter for a job as a high school volleyball coach”:

According to theHouston Chronicle, the ad even offended RH Reality Check “reproductive justice” reporter Andrea Grimes, who said that “it seems unnecessarily sensational and kind of disturbing in a way that makes it look like the campaign is exploiting a rape survivor to make a political point.” She added that, “as a survivor of sexual violence myself, I would be very upset to find out someone had used what had happened to me to make a political point without my permission.”

 

[Carla_Danger]

Did the ad in question tell the truth.....?????

YES!!!!

Don't you just hate it when Dems tell you an ugly truth.

That would be a first coming from a Dem, if it was true.

A couple of hours ago, you said you were going to follow up on the details. Has that been a problem for you?

I got busy, but here is one that I looked up. I have more and will post them when I have time.

Greg Abbott did "nothing" to pursue reports of the sexual abuse of boys at a West Texas state-run school.
— Wendy Davis on Monday, September 15th, 2014 in a TV ad

MOSTLY FALSE– The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/sta...avis-claims-greg-abbott-didnt-act-allegation/

I can dig up half truths stated from any politician, but we're talking about her ad.

 

[Stephanie]

Seeing the left in this thread shows why our country is doomed

it took a few years but the left/libs/Dems/Commies managed to get it done

sad testament of what's ahead folks

 

[TooTall]

Did the ad in question tell the truth.....?????

YES!!!!

Don't you just hate it when Dems tell you an ugly truth.

That would be a first coming from a Dem, if it was true.

A couple of hours ago, you said you were going to follow up on the details. Has that been a problem for you?

Here is an article that I found interesting.

Wendy Davis’ BFF Planned Parenthood

December 2013, the mother of a 15-year-old rape victim reached out to an Arizona Planned Parenthood clinic, but the counselors at the facility chose not to report the rape due to the ‘hassle’ involved. The rapist, Tyler Kost, went on to rape two more young women before he was finally apprehended in May, 2014.

In June 2013, Project Defending Life released a video that shows a New Mexico Planned Parenthood counselor telling a 14-year-old girl that she “probably would not need to report” the fact that the girl had been impregnated by a 21-year-old.

In 2012, a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado gave a 13-year-old girl an unauthorized abortion and then sent her back home with her stepfather, who it turns out happened to be her abuser. This despite the fact that there were numerous signs indicating that the stepfather was the one who had impregnated her.

In 2007, Live Action found eight Planned Parenthood clinics across the nation that were willing to cover up rape. These same clinics also ‘provided instructions on how to circumvent parental consent laws.’

In mid 2007, a young woman sued an Ohio Planned Parenthood clinic for never informing the authorities that her father had raped and impregnated her.

Please review Life Dynamics’ recently released a report, ‘The Cover-Up of Child Sexual Abuse,’ for more horrifying examples of Planned Parenthood blatantly covering up rape.”

So just to recap, actually covering up rape is totally okay, but submitting a fair and equitable legal dissent regarding who is financially liable after a rape is wrong.

 

[TooTall]

Did the ad in question tell the truth.....?????

YES!!!!

Don't you just hate it when Dems tell you an ugly truth.

That would be a first coming from a Dem, if it was true.

A couple of hours ago, you said you were going to follow up on the details. Has that been a problem for you?

I got busy, but here is one that I looked up. I have more and will post them when I have time.

Greg Abbott did "nothing" to pursue reports of the sexual abuse of boys at a West Texas state-run school.
— Wendy Davis on Monday, September 15th, 2014 in a TV ad


MOSTLY FALSE– The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/sta...avis-claims-greg-abbott-didnt-act-allegation/

I can dig up half truths stated from any politician, but we're talking about her ad.

Did you read the article where Abbot got numerous convictions? Mostly false is not even close to half truths. It actually is a nice way of saying 'mostly lies.'

BTW, what do you call this?

Greg Abbott did "nothing" to pursue reports of the sexual abuse of boys at a West Texas state-run school.
— Wendy Davis on Monday, September 15th, 2014 in a TV ad

 

[Carla_Danger]

Here is another example for you.

Most everyone living in a major media market in Texas has seen State Senator Wendy Davis’s first statewide campaign ad released during the first week of August claiming that Texas Attorney General and gubernatorial candidate Gregg Abbott sided with a company who hired a sexual predator and against a sexual assault victim. The best way to understand this case is to begin with the cast of characters.

… Kirby retained the right to control precisely where and how its products were to be sold—through personal in-home demonstrations,” the court said. “After retaining this control in the present case, Kirby failed to take any precautions regarding Sena’s activity on recruiting dealers to perform such demonstrations. Because Kirby retained the right to control where and by what method its distributors and dealers sold Kirby products, and because it was this aspect of the marketing process that gave rise to the risk of harm to homeowners, we conclude Kirby had a duty of care toward Read …”

This reasoning formed the basis for the Court of Appeals’ finding that Kirby acted negligently and, therefore, Read was entitled to actual damages. The court, however, said this negligence did not amount to gross negligence, and thus, Read was not entitled to exemplary damages. The court’s decision was unanimous. Six justices on the Texas Supreme Court agreed with the finding by the appeals court. Three justices, including Abbott, did not.

Greg Abbott Supports Big Business over Rape Victim

And the best part for last.

" According to the ABC-affiliated KVUE television station, Greg Abbot (who at the time was a justice on the court) teamed up with Justice Priscilla Owen to pen a dissenting opinion that “argued Kirby bore no civil liability because it had legally removed itself from control of personnel decisions.”

Did you notice how he teamed up with a woman to write the dissent, which by the way makes sense from a legal standpoint? Not that this mattered to Wendy Davis, whose team of flunkies released a obfuscatory TV ad that Texas Monthly contributor Erica Grieder says makes it sound as if “Abbott wanted to give the rapist a pardon and a reference letter for a job as a high school volleyball coach”:

According to theHouston Chronicle, the ad even offended RH Reality Check “reproductive justice” reporter Andrea Grimes, who said that “it seems unnecessarily sensational and kind of disturbing in a way that makes it look like the campaign is exploiting a rape survivor to make a political point.” She added that, “as a survivor of sexual violence myself, I would be very upset to find out someone had used what had happened to me to make a political point without my permission.”

Yours is from an opinionated blog.


In the Dec. 31, 1998, majority opinion written by Justice Raul Gonzalez, the court agreed with the Austin-based 3rd Court of Appeals that a mandate by Kirby, the manufacturer, that its vacuum cleaners be sold only through home demonstrations gave the company a role to play in who got hired to do door-to-door sales even though a company agreement with its distributors said otherwise.

"We hold that the company does owe such a duty," the court said. Specifically, the court said that "because Kirby required in-home demonstrations, the company exercised sufficient control over the sale of its products to end-users to justify imposing a duty of reasonable care in selecting the persons who performed the demonstrations."

Kirby had argued its arrangements with vacuum cleaner distributors explicitly said the company shall exercise no control over the selection of individual salespeople. Kirby’s contracts specified: "The full cost and responsibility for recruiting, hiring, firing, terminating and compensating independent contractors and employees of distributor shall be borne by distributor."

Abbott’s dissent to the court’s ruling, joined by Justice Priscilla Owen, said Kirby retained control over where the sales work was to be performed -- but not over who was to do that work. "Failure to require background checks of potential dealers relates to who is a dealer, not where the dealer works," Abbott wrote. "As a result, the requisite relation between the control retained and the alleged injury is missing. Because the Court holds to the contrary, I dissent."

Abbott summed up: "In essence, the Court rewrites Kirby’s Distributor Agreement and Independent Dealer Agreement to require Kirby to assume control over dealer selection. Because the injury is not related to the control retained by Kirby," Abbott closed, "...Kirby owed no duty to" the woman "under the circumstances of this case."

Our emails to the Abbott campaign did not yield responses, but Amelia Chasse of his campaign said in a statement sent to reporters including the Austin American-Statesman’s Jonathan Tilove that Abbott’s dissent still "left intact the liability against the sex offender and his employer." That is, the question in the Supreme Court case concerned only Kirby’s responsibility and did not affect the liability of anyone else in the case.

Kirby held responsible for salesman s actions Amarillo.com Amarillo Globe-News

 

[Carla_Danger]

Did the ad in question tell the truth.....?????

YES!!!!

Don't you just hate it when Dems tell you an ugly truth.

That would be a first coming from a Dem, if it was true.

A couple of hours ago, you said you were going to follow up on the details. Has that been a problem for you?

I got busy, but here is one that I looked up. I have more and will post them when I have time.

Greg Abbott did "nothing" to pursue reports of the sexual abuse of boys at a West Texas state-run school.
— Wendy Davis on Monday, September 15th, 2014 in a TV ad


MOSTLY FALSE– The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/sta...avis-claims-greg-abbott-didnt-act-allegation/

I can dig up half truths stated from any politician, but we're talking about her ad.

Did you read the article where Abbot got numerous convictions? Mostly false is not even close to half truths. It actually is a nice way of saying 'mostly lies.'

BTW, what do you call this?

Greg Abbott did "nothing" to pursue reports of the sexual abuse of boys at a West Texas state-run school.
— Wendy Davis on Monday, September 15th, 2014 in a TV ad

Greg Abbott blames Wendy Davis for limit on settlements put into law before she was a senator

Abbott responded by blaming legislators, including Davis, a Fort Worth state senator, for limiting his options. "Sen. Davis," Abbott replied, "there is actually another thing coming between me and settling that lawsuit. And that is a law that you voted on and helped pass in 2011 that removes from the attorney general the ability to settle lawsuits just like this."

Did legislators including Davis move to keep the attorney general from settling lawsuits?

MOSTLY FALSE – The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.

Greg Abbott blames Wendy Davis for limit on settlements put into law before she was a senator PolitiFact Texas

 

[TooTall]

Here is another example for you.

Most everyone living in a major media market in Texas has seen State Senator Wendy Davis’s first statewide campaign ad released during the first week of August claiming that Texas Attorney General and gubernatorial candidate Gregg Abbott sided with a company who hired a sexual predator and against a sexual assault victim. The best way to understand this case is to begin with the cast of characters.

… Kirby retained the right to control precisely where and how its products were to be sold—through personal in-home demonstrations,” the court said. “After retaining this control in the present case, Kirby failed to take any precautions regarding Sena’s activity on recruiting dealers to perform such demonstrations. Because Kirby retained the right to control where and by what method its distributors and dealers sold Kirby products, and because it was this aspect of the marketing process that gave rise to the risk of harm to homeowners, we conclude Kirby had a duty of care toward Read …”

This reasoning formed the basis for the Court of Appeals’ finding that Kirby acted negligently and, therefore, Read was entitled to actual damages. The court, however, said this negligence did not amount to gross negligence, and thus, Read was not entitled to exemplary damages. The court’s decision was unanimous. Six justices on the Texas Supreme Court agreed with the finding by the appeals court. Three justices, including Abbott, did not.

Greg Abbott Supports Big Business over Rape Victim

And the best part for last.

" According to the ABC-affiliated KVUE television station, Greg Abbot (who at the time was a justice on the court) teamed up with Justice Priscilla Owen to pen a dissenting opinion that “argued Kirby bore no civil liability because it had legally removed itself from control of personnel decisions.”

Did you notice how he teamed up with a woman to write the dissent, which by the way makes sense from a legal standpoint? Not that this mattered to Wendy Davis, whose team of flunkies released a obfuscatory TV ad that Texas Monthly contributor Erica Grieder says makes it sound as if “Abbott wanted to give the rapist a pardon and a reference letter for a job as a high school volleyball coach”:

According to theHouston Chronicle, the ad even offended RH Reality Check “reproductive justice” reporter Andrea Grimes, who said that “it seems unnecessarily sensational and kind of disturbing in a way that makes it look like the campaign is exploiting a rape survivor to make a political point.” She added that, “as a survivor of sexual violence myself, I would be very upset to find out someone had used what had happened to me to make a political point without my permission.”

Yours is from an opinionated blog.


In the Dec. 31, 1998, majority opinion written by Justice Raul Gonzalez, the court agreed with the Austin-based 3rd Court of Appeals that a mandate by Kirby, the manufacturer, that its vacuum cleaners be sold only through home demonstrations gave the company a role to play in who got hired to do door-to-door sales even though a company agreement with its distributors said otherwise.

"We hold that the company does owe such a duty," the court said. Specifically, the court said that "because Kirby required in-home demonstrations, the company exercised sufficient control over the sale of its products to end-users to justify imposing a duty of reasonable care in selecting the persons who performed the demonstrations."

Kirby had argued its arrangements with vacuum cleaner distributors explicitly said the company shall exercise no control over the selection of individual salespeople. Kirby’s contracts specified: "The full cost and responsibility for recruiting, hiring, firing, terminating and compensating independent contractors and employees of distributor shall be borne by distributor."

Abbott’s dissent to the court’s ruling, joined by Justice Priscilla Owen, said Kirby retained control over where the sales work was to be performed -- but not over who was to do that work. "Failure to require background checks of potential dealers relates to who is a dealer, not where the dealer works," Abbott wrote. "As a result, the requisite relation between the control retained and the alleged injury is missing. Because the Court holds to the contrary, I dissent."

Abbott summed up: "In essence, the Court rewrites Kirby’s Distributor Agreement and Independent Dealer Agreement to require Kirby to assume control over dealer selection. Because the injury is not related to the control retained by Kirby," Abbott closed, "...Kirby owed no duty to" the woman "under the circumstances of this case."

Our emails to the Abbott campaign did not yield responses, but Amelia Chasse of his campaign said in a statement sent to reporters including the Austin American-Statesman’s Jonathan Tilove that Abbott’s dissent still "left intact the liability against the sex offender and his employer." That is, the question in the Supreme Court case concerned only Kirby’s responsibility and did not affect the liability of anyone else in the case.

Kirby held responsible for salesman s actions Amarillo.com Amarillo Globe-News

It says the same thing. All 9 Supreme Court Justices more often than not render 6-3 or even 5-4 decisions on their individual interpretation of the law. This one was 6-3, and one of the dissenting Justices was a woman. The blog pointed out the 6-3 decision, the Amarillo Globe-News conveniently omitted that from their article.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Did the ad in question tell the truth.....?????

YES!!!!

Don't you just hate it when Dems tell you an ugly truth.

That would be a first coming from a Dem, if it was true.

A couple of hours ago, you said you were going to follow up on the details. Has that been a problem for you?

I got busy, but here is one that I looked up. I have more and will post them when I have time.

Greg Abbott did "nothing" to pursue reports of the sexual abuse of boys at a West Texas state-run school.
— Wendy Davis on Monday, September 15th, 2014 in a TV ad


MOSTLY FALSE– The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/sta...avis-claims-greg-abbott-didnt-act-allegation/

I can dig up half truths stated from any politician, but we're talking about her ad.

Did you read the article where Abbot got numerous convictions? Mostly false is not even close to half truths. It actually is a nice way of saying 'mostly lies.'

BTW, what do you call this?

Greg Abbott did "nothing" to pursue reports of the sexual abuse of boys at a West Texas state-run school.
— Wendy Davis on Monday, September 15th, 2014 in a TV ad

Unsubstantiated: Greg Abbott attributes 3,000 murders to immigrants here illegally


PANTS ON FIRE – The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim.

Unsubstantiated Greg Abbott attributes 3 000 murders to immigrants here illegally PolitiFact Texas

 

[Carla_Danger]

Here is another example for you.

Most everyone living in a major media market in Texas has seen State Senator Wendy Davis’s first statewide campaign ad released during the first week of August claiming that Texas Attorney General and gubernatorial candidate Gregg Abbott sided with a company who hired a sexual predator and against a sexual assault victim. The best way to understand this case is to begin with the cast of characters.

… Kirby retained the right to control precisely where and how its products were to be sold—through personal in-home demonstrations,” the court said. “After retaining this control in the present case, Kirby failed to take any precautions regarding Sena’s activity on recruiting dealers to perform such demonstrations. Because Kirby retained the right to control where and by what method its distributors and dealers sold Kirby products, and because it was this aspect of the marketing process that gave rise to the risk of harm to homeowners, we conclude Kirby had a duty of care toward Read …”

This reasoning formed the basis for the Court of Appeals’ finding that Kirby acted negligently and, therefore, Read was entitled to actual damages. The court, however, said this negligence did not amount to gross negligence, and thus, Read was not entitled to exemplary damages. The court’s decision was unanimous. Six justices on the Texas Supreme Court agreed with the finding by the appeals court. Three justices, including Abbott, did not.

Greg Abbott Supports Big Business over Rape Victim

And the best part for last.

" According to the ABC-affiliated KVUE television station, Greg Abbot (who at the time was a justice on the court) teamed up with Justice Priscilla Owen to pen a dissenting opinion that “argued Kirby bore no civil liability because it had legally removed itself from control of personnel decisions.”

Did you notice how he teamed up with a woman to write the dissent, which by the way makes sense from a legal standpoint? Not that this mattered to Wendy Davis, whose team of flunkies released a obfuscatory TV ad that Texas Monthly contributor Erica Grieder says makes it sound as if “Abbott wanted to give the rapist a pardon and a reference letter for a job as a high school volleyball coach”:

According to theHouston Chronicle, the ad even offended RH Reality Check “reproductive justice” reporter Andrea Grimes, who said that “it seems unnecessarily sensational and kind of disturbing in a way that makes it look like the campaign is exploiting a rape survivor to make a political point.” She added that, “as a survivor of sexual violence myself, I would be very upset to find out someone had used what had happened to me to make a political point without my permission.”

Yours is from an opinionated blog.


In the Dec. 31, 1998, majority opinion written by Justice Raul Gonzalez, the court agreed with the Austin-based 3rd Court of Appeals that a mandate by Kirby, the manufacturer, that its vacuum cleaners be sold only through home demonstrations gave the company a role to play in who got hired to do door-to-door sales even though a company agreement with its distributors said otherwise.

"We hold that the company does owe such a duty," the court said. Specifically, the court said that "because Kirby required in-home demonstrations, the company exercised sufficient control over the sale of its products to end-users to justify imposing a duty of reasonable care in selecting the persons who performed the demonstrations."

Kirby had argued its arrangements with vacuum cleaner distributors explicitly said the company shall exercise no control over the selection of individual salespeople. Kirby’s contracts specified: "The full cost and responsibility for recruiting, hiring, firing, terminating and compensating independent contractors and employees of distributor shall be borne by distributor."

Abbott’s dissent to the court’s ruling, joined by Justice Priscilla Owen, said Kirby retained control over where the sales work was to be performed -- but not over who was to do that work. "Failure to require background checks of potential dealers relates to who is a dealer, not where the dealer works," Abbott wrote. "As a result, the requisite relation between the control retained and the alleged injury is missing. Because the Court holds to the contrary, I dissent."

Abbott summed up: "In essence, the Court rewrites Kirby’s Distributor Agreement and Independent Dealer Agreement to require Kirby to assume control over dealer selection. Because the injury is not related to the control retained by Kirby," Abbott closed, "...Kirby owed no duty to" the woman "under the circumstances of this case."

Our emails to the Abbott campaign did not yield responses, but Amelia Chasse of his campaign said in a statement sent to reporters including the Austin American-Statesman’s Jonathan Tilove that Abbott’s dissent still "left intact the liability against the sex offender and his employer." That is, the question in the Supreme Court case concerned only Kirby’s responsibility and did not affect the liability of anyone else in the case.

Kirby held responsible for salesman s actions Amarillo.com Amarillo Globe-News

It says the same thing. All 9 Supreme Court Justices more often than not render 6-3 or even 5-4 decisions on their individual interpretation of the law. This one was 6-3, and one of the dissenting Justices was a woman. The blog pointed out the 6-3 decision, the Amarillo Globe-News conveniently omitted that from their article.

Her claim that Abbott sided with Kirby was rated mostly true

Wendy Davis claim about hiring of salesman-rapist lacks clarification PolitiFact Texas

 

[TooTall]

Here is another example for you.

Most everyone living in a major media market in Texas has seen State Senator Wendy Davis’s first statewide campaign ad released during the first week of August claiming that Texas Attorney General and gubernatorial candidate Gregg Abbott sided with a company who hired a sexual predator and against a sexual assault victim. The best way to understand this case is to begin with the cast of characters.

… Kirby retained the right to control precisely where and how its products were to be sold—through personal in-home demonstrations,” the court said. “After retaining this control in the present case, Kirby failed to take any precautions regarding Sena’s activity on recruiting dealers to perform such demonstrations. Because Kirby retained the right to control where and by what method its distributors and dealers sold Kirby products, and because it was this aspect of the marketing process that gave rise to the risk of harm to homeowners, we conclude Kirby had a duty of care toward Read …”

This reasoning formed the basis for the Court of Appeals’ finding that Kirby acted negligently and, therefore, Read was entitled to actual damages. The court, however, said this negligence did not amount to gross negligence, and thus, Read was not entitled to exemplary damages. The court’s decision was unanimous. Six justices on the Texas Supreme Court agreed with the finding by the appeals court. Three justices, including Abbott, did not.

Greg Abbott Supports Big Business over Rape Victim

And the best part for last.

" According to the ABC-affiliated KVUE television station, Greg Abbot (who at the time was a justice on the court) teamed up with Justice Priscilla Owen to pen a dissenting opinion that “argued Kirby bore no civil liability because it had legally removed itself from control of personnel decisions.”

Did you notice how he teamed up with a woman to write the dissent, which by the way makes sense from a legal standpoint? Not that this mattered to Wendy Davis, whose team of flunkies released a obfuscatory TV ad that Texas Monthly contributor Erica Grieder says makes it sound as if “Abbott wanted to give the rapist a pardon and a reference letter for a job as a high school volleyball coach”:

According to theHouston Chronicle, the ad even offended RH Reality Check “reproductive justice” reporter Andrea Grimes, who said that “it seems unnecessarily sensational and kind of disturbing in a way that makes it look like the campaign is exploiting a rape survivor to make a political point.” She added that, “as a survivor of sexual violence myself, I would be very upset to find out someone had used what had happened to me to make a political point without my permission.”

Yours is from an opinionated blog.


In the Dec. 31, 1998, majority opinion written by Justice Raul Gonzalez, the court agreed with the Austin-based 3rd Court of Appeals that a mandate by Kirby, the manufacturer, that its vacuum cleaners be sold only through home demonstrations gave the company a role to play in who got hired to do door-to-door sales even though a company agreement with its distributors said otherwise.

"We hold that the company does owe such a duty," the court said. Specifically, the court said that "because Kirby required in-home demonstrations, the company exercised sufficient control over the sale of its products to end-users to justify imposing a duty of reasonable care in selecting the persons who performed the demonstrations."

Kirby had argued its arrangements with vacuum cleaner distributors explicitly said the company shall exercise no control over the selection of individual salespeople. Kirby’s contracts specified: "The full cost and responsibility for recruiting, hiring, firing, terminating and compensating independent contractors and employees of distributor shall be borne by distributor."

Abbott’s dissent to the court’s ruling, joined by Justice Priscilla Owen, said Kirby retained control over where the sales work was to be performed -- but not over who was to do that work. "Failure to require background checks of potential dealers relates to who is a dealer, not where the dealer works," Abbott wrote. "As a result, the requisite relation between the control retained and the alleged injury is missing. Because the Court holds to the contrary, I dissent."

Abbott summed up: "In essence, the Court rewrites Kirby’s Distributor Agreement and Independent Dealer Agreement to require Kirby to assume control over dealer selection. Because the injury is not related to the control retained by Kirby," Abbott closed, "...Kirby owed no duty to" the woman "under the circumstances of this case."

Our emails to the Abbott campaign did not yield responses, but Amelia Chasse of his campaign said in a statement sent to reporters including the Austin American-Statesman’s Jonathan Tilove that Abbott’s dissent still "left intact the liability against the sex offender and his employer." That is, the question in the Supreme Court case concerned only Kirby’s responsibility and did not affect the liability of anyone else in the case.

Kirby held responsible for salesman s actions Amarillo.com Amarillo Globe-News

It says the same thing. All 9 Supreme Court Justices more often than not render 6-3 or even 5-4 decisions on their individual interpretation of the law. This one was 6-3, and one of the dissenting Justices was a woman. The blog pointed out the 6-3 decision, the Amarillo Globe-News conveniently omitted that from their article.

Her claim that Abbott sided with Kirby was rated mostly true

Wendy Davis claim about hiring of salesman-rapist lacks clarification PolitiFact Texas

Here is another example for you.

Most everyone living in a major media market in Texas has seen State Senator Wendy Davis’s first statewide campaign ad released during the first week of August claiming that Texas Attorney General and gubernatorial candidate Gregg Abbott sided with a company who hired a sexual predator and against a sexual assault victim. The best way to understand this case is to begin with the cast of characters.

… Kirby retained the right to control precisely where and how its products were to be sold—through personal in-home demonstrations,” the court said. “After retaining this control in the present case, Kirby failed to take any precautions regarding Sena’s activity on recruiting dealers to perform such demonstrations. Because Kirby retained the right to control where and by what method its distributors and dealers sold Kirby products, and because it was this aspect of the marketing process that gave rise to the risk of harm to homeowners, we conclude Kirby had a duty of care toward Read …”

This reasoning formed the basis for the Court of Appeals’ finding that Kirby acted negligently and, therefore, Read was entitled to actual damages. The court, however, said this negligence did not amount to gross negligence, and thus, Read was not entitled to exemplary damages. The court’s decision was unanimous. Six justices on the Texas Supreme Court agreed with the finding by the appeals court. Three justices, including Abbott, did not.

Greg Abbott Supports Big Business over Rape Victim

And the best part for last.

" According to the ABC-affiliated KVUE television station, Greg Abbot (who at the time was a justice on the court) teamed up with Justice Priscilla Owen to pen a dissenting opinion that “argued Kirby bore no civil liability because it had legally removed itself from control of personnel decisions.”

Did you notice how he teamed up with a woman to write the dissent, which by the way makes sense from a legal standpoint? Not that this mattered to Wendy Davis, whose team of flunkies released a obfuscatory TV ad that Texas Monthly contributor Erica Grieder says makes it sound as if “Abbott wanted to give the rapist a pardon and a reference letter for a job as a high school volleyball coach”:

According to theHouston Chronicle, the ad even offended RH Reality Check “reproductive justice” reporter Andrea Grimes, who said that “it seems unnecessarily sensational and kind of disturbing in a way that makes it look like the campaign is exploiting a rape survivor to make a political point.” She added that, “as a survivor of sexual violence myself, I would be very upset to find out someone had used what had happened to me to make a political point without my permission.”

Yours is from an opinionated blog.


In the Dec. 31, 1998, majority opinion written by Justice Raul Gonzalez, the court agreed with the Austin-based 3rd Court of Appeals that a mandate by Kirby, the manufacturer, that its vacuum cleaners be sold only through home demonstrations gave the company a role to play in who got hired to do door-to-door sales even though a company agreement with its distributors said otherwise.

"We hold that the company does owe such a duty," the court said. Specifically, the court said that "because Kirby required in-home demonstrations, the company exercised sufficient control over the sale of its products to end-users to justify imposing a duty of reasonable care in selecting the persons who performed the demonstrations."

Kirby had argued its arrangements with vacuum cleaner distributors explicitly said the company shall exercise no control over the selection of individual salespeople. Kirby’s contracts specified: "The full cost and responsibility for recruiting, hiring, firing, terminating and compensating independent contractors and employees of distributor shall be borne by distributor."

Abbott’s dissent to the court’s ruling, joined by Justice Priscilla Owen, said Kirby retained control over where the sales work was to be performed -- but not over who was to do that work. "Failure to require background checks of potential dealers relates to who is a dealer, not where the dealer works," Abbott wrote. "As a result, the requisite relation between the control retained and the alleged injury is missing. Because the Court holds to the contrary, I dissent."

Abbott summed up: "In essence, the Court rewrites Kirby’s Distributor Agreement and Independent Dealer Agreement to require Kirby to assume control over dealer selection. Because the injury is not related to the control retained by Kirby," Abbott closed, "...Kirby owed no duty to" the woman "under the circumstances of this case."

Our emails to the Abbott campaign did not yield responses, but Amelia Chasse of his campaign said in a statement sent to reporters including the Austin American-Statesman’s Jonathan Tilove that Abbott’s dissent still "left intact the liability against the sex offender and his employer." That is, the question in the Supreme Court case concerned only Kirby’s responsibility and did not affect the liability of anyone else in the case.

Kirby held responsible for salesman s actions Amarillo.com Amarillo Globe-News

It says the same thing. All 9 Supreme Court Justices more often than not render 6-3 or even 5-4 decisions on their individual interpretation of the law. This one was 6-3, and one of the dissenting Justices was a woman. The blog pointed out the 6-3 decision, the Amarillo Globe-News conveniently omitted that from their article.

Her claim that Abbott sided with Kirby was rated mostly true

Wendy Davis claim about hiring of salesman-rapist lacks clarification PolitiFact Texas

Lawyers often disagree on the law. That is why they have Prosecutors and Defense lawyers and Judges often differ on the law.

 

[TooTall]

That would be a first coming from a Dem, if it was true.

A couple of hours ago, you said you were going to follow up on the details. Has that been a problem for you?

I got busy, but here is one that I looked up. I have more and will post them when I have time.

Greg Abbott did "nothing" to pursue reports of the sexual abuse of boys at a West Texas state-run school.
— Wendy Davis on Monday, September 15th, 2014 in a TV ad


MOSTLY FALSE– The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/sta...avis-claims-greg-abbott-didnt-act-allegation/

I can dig up half truths stated from any politician, but we're talking about her ad.

Did you read the article where Abbot got numerous convictions? Mostly false is not even close to half truths. It actually is a nice way of saying 'mostly lies.'

BTW, what do you call this?

Greg Abbott did "nothing" to pursue reports of the sexual abuse of boys at a West Texas state-run school.
— Wendy Davis on Monday, September 15th, 2014 in a TV ad

Unsubstantiated: Greg Abbott attributes 3,000 murders to immigrants here illegally


PANTS ON FIRE – The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim.

Unsubstantiated Greg Abbott attributes 3 000 murders to immigrants here illegally PolitiFact Texas

Abbott got his information from a supposedly reliable source that turned out not to be factual. I don't consider quoting something in writing with a graph showing numbers lying. A serious mistake, yes!

 

[BlindBoo]

She is a piece of shit like you and she will lose next month, loser.

Using a wheelchair in an ad attacking someone in a wheelchair is a personal attack and from the start loses the audience.

Only stupid fuck scum like you like the video.

Your bitch is going to lose wasting millions of your fellow scum's money....

Asswipe, anyone with a clue knows not to belittle someone's physical or mental problem not their fault.

Of course. Good thing her ad didn't do that, eh?

She told the truth about him, that's what I know. I also know wingnut dickheads like you can't change that so you focus on a few seconds of a wheelchair. Shove your fauxrage up your wingnut ass.

Dumbass Texans vote against themselves every time.

Oh the times they are a changin.

Soon the big cities in Texas will have more votes than the rural areas and we'll turn the whole state blue.

Plus the angry old white dudes are not producing enough angry young white dudes, so it's just a matter of time.