Liberal Forum

Misty » 22 May 2017 8:23 pm » wrote: Ironic that she did those ads about the starving kids.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6gOnb2e2Dw

What do you call an Ethiopian kid with a penny on his head??



















A nail

Huey » 22 May 2017 8:17 pm » wrote:
If you consider Misty an opposing view than yes. Misty is a troll. She offers no opposing view. She doe what she does intentionally, She is here to intentionally piss of posters.

If she pulls the dishonest crap with new posters that she pulled in the OP she will be posting by herself. She calls people out based on lies then removes anything that dbubnks it.

You wanna grow the forum, get that bitch Under control. Until then SHE is **** this place is.

Calm down felicia, this is beer and popcorn.

crimsongulf » 23 May 2017 7:13 pm » wrote: Calm down felicia, this is beer and popcorn.

Oh, I'm good Vanessa. All taken care of.

How's the boat?

Huey » 23 May 2017 7:19 pm » wrote:
Oh, I'm good Vanessa. All taken care of.

How's the boat?

which one?

TRUMP'S ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT

Misty » 23 May 2017 9:17 pm » wrote:The story of a family who ruined everything.

WTF are you babbling about, psycho? What have they ruined?
What freaking planet do you live on?
Oh, that's right, they ruined your party's hopes for retaining power and maybe ruined its future.

Steve Bannon, sexy racist.

What a shameless psychopathic liar you are, geez.

When Obama visits Pope Francis.



When 45 visits Pope Francis.



Jesus Christ, it looks like a Sicilian funeral.

Termin8tor » 23 May 2017 11:06 pm » wrote: WTF are you babbling about, psycho? What have they ruined? What freaking planet do you live on?
Oh, that's right, they ruined your party's hopes for retaining power and maybe ruined its future.
What a shameless psychopathic liar you are, geez.

Breathe Puss. Breathe.
Nice deep breaths.

There. Feel better now?

How about some nice relaxing music?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkQiw3PB20U

Misty » 24 May 2017 9:18 am » wrote: Breathe Puss. Breathe.
Nice deep breaths.

There. Feel better now?

I assume you're now on heavy meds after months of hysterical shrieking, babbling and lying about Trump.

Termin8tor » 24 May 2017 9:31 am » wrote: I assume you're now on heavy meds after months of hysterical shrieking, babbling and lying about Trump.

Name one lie she has told about Trump.
I'll wait.....

Annoyed Liberall » 24 May 2017 10:35 am » wrote: Name one lie she has told about Trump.
I'll wait.....

Trump tried to ban muslims.

There ya go.

Huey » 24 May 2017 10:51 am » wrote: Trump tried to ban muslims.

There ya go.

Trump himself said he wanted a complete shutdown of Muslims coming here.
Was he lying?

Annoyed Liberall » 24 May 2017 10:55 am » wrote: Trump himself said he wanted a complete shutdown of Muslims coming here.
Was he lying?

Ka-thunk!

Annoyed Liberall » 24 May 2017 10:55 am » wrote: Trump himself said he wanted a complete shutdown of Muslims coming here.
Was he lying?

What he said has nothing to do with the actual legislation, Dim.

85% of Muslims in the world aren't affected at all.

Does that sound like a Muslim "ban?"

Annoyed Liberall » 24 May 2017 10:55 am » wrote: Trump himself said he wanted a complete shutdown of Muslims coming here.
Was he lying?

1. That was campaign rhetoric that was walked back during the campaign.

2. There is a recently bumped thread from Apr that contains the EO, the law behind the EO giving the president to suspend immigration FOR ANY REASON, and questions no one from the left cares to answer. The EO itself, not anyone's alleged "wants", DOESN'T mention MUSLIMS or the word ban anywhere. It references a suspension of Immigration from 7 (later changed to 6) countries that Obama put on the list of Countries of Concern that needed extra scrutiny pertaining to immigration.

3. Legal Scholars from both sides agree that the any judgement made by the court was unprecedented because they did not look at the wording of the EO and for the first time based their decision on campaign rhetoric.

4. The EO affects first 7, then later 6, predominately Muslim countries. There are around 50 muslim majority country in the world. Of those 50 only 1 on the list, Iran, is in the top 10 population wise. How do you affect a muslim ban when the overwhelming majority of muslims were not affected by the ban?

Think, damn it!

Termin8tor » 24 May 2017 10:57 am » wrote:What he said has nothing to do with the actual legislation, Dim.
85% of Muslims in the world aren't affected at all.
Does that sound like a Muslim "ban?"

What legislation?
An EO is NOT legislation.

Huey » 24 May 2017 11:05 am » wrote:That was campaign rhetoric that was walked back during the campaign.

He's been walking backwards more than Michael Jackson.

Jan 29, 2017 - Giuliani: "Trump asked me how to do a Muslim ban legally."

Entire quote to keep the context:

Huey » 24 May 2017 11:05 am » wrote: 1. That was campaign rhetoric that was walked back during the campaign.

2. There is a recently bumped thread from Apr that contains the EO, the law behind the EO giving the president to suspend immigration FOR ANY REASON, and questions no one from the left cares to answer. The EO itself, not anyone's alleged "wants", DOESN'T mention MUSLIMS or the word ban anywhere. It references a suspension of Immigration from 7 (later changed to 6) countries that Obama put on the list of Countries of Concern that needed extra scrutiny pertaining to immigration.

3. Legal Scholars from both sides agree that the any judgement made by the court was unprecedented because they did not look at the wording of the EO and for the first time based their decision on campaign rhetoric.

4. The EO affects first 7, then later 6, predominately Muslim countries. There are around 50 muslim majority country in the world. Of those 50 only 1 on the list, Iran, is in the top 10 population wise. How do you affect a muslim ban when the overwhelming majority of muslims were not affected by the ban?

Think, damn it!

Huey » 24 May 2017 11:05 am » wrote: 1. That was campaign rhetoric that was walked back during the campaign.

2. There is a recently bumped thread from Apr that contains the EO, the law behind the EO giving the president to suspend immigration FOR ANY REASON, and questions no one from the left cares to answer. The EO itself, not anyone's alleged "wants", DOESN'T mention MUSLIMS or the word ban anywhere. It references a suspension of Immigration from 7 (later changed to 6) countries that Obama put on the list of Countries of Concern that needed extra scrutiny pertaining to immigration.

3. Legal Scholars from both sides agree that the any judgement made by the court was unprecedented because they did not look at the wording of the EO and for the first time based their decision on campaign rhetoric.

4. The EO affects first 7, then later 6, predominately Muslim countries. There are around 50 muslim majority country in the world. Of those 50 only 1 on the list, Iran, is in the top 10 population wise. How do you affect a muslim ban when the overwhelming majority of muslims were not affected by the ban?

Think, damn it!

Fuelman » 24 May 2017 12:11 pm » wrote:joke