Liberal Forum

You ran away crying when Romney, whom you told us 'til we were crosseyed was going to be our next prez, got stomped into the ground. How long did it take you to lick your wounds and man up enough to come back? It was so long I forget. A loss of 4 points is "stomped into the ground?" Imbecile. I have know for years that Obama's economic policies failed, and I took months off to work my butt off to put extra money away. I put my money where my mouth is. And now we've learned that Obama had to cheat to win. Many, many conservative groups that were obstructed and bullied by Obama's IRS remained inactive, unable to raise funds or even get officers for two years or so. Unable to participate in the democratic process. That's Obama-Fascism on clear display. But you're a hopeless troll and will stonewall no matter how obvious the facts.

Gosh, I thought this was "a Misty joint." Where'd she go? Spouted a couple blatant lies and fled.You ran away crying when Romney, whom you told us 'til we were crosseyed was going to be our next prez, got stomped into the ground. How long did it take you to lick your wounds and man up enough to come back? It was so long I forget.It was almost five months.The big coward has some nerve accusing others of running away. LOLI have proven to him more than once that the Tax Code on 501 C 4 groups and the IRS regulations on them contradict each other, and that the IRS has not been following the actual law, and he still keeps calling me a liar.That's all he has.Look, a squirrel!Here......How the hell are you, you old SOB?

Go ahead.....call me a liar again, because that's all you've got.You call people liars in the face of all evidence to the contrary.Don't you think people notice that Jackhole?He is in another thread, quoting the heritage foundation declaring that the government of singapore owns the means of production and manipulates prices through that ownership - and that makes them capitalist.He is really just a running joke, these days. A total spent shell with nothing less to say. He can copy, he can paste, and he can call it a day. Those are the tricks in his bag.

It was almost five months. The big coward has some nerve accusing others of running away. LOL Completely and intentionally missing the point. I think there's a fairly high chance the country's going to collapse into a depression as the result of Obama's policies. That's what I'm afraid of, not debate. I have proven to him more than once that the Tax Code on 501 C 4 groups and the IRS regulations on them contradict each other, and that the IRS has not been following the actual law, and he still keeps calling me a liar. That's all he has. You're as usual trying to distract from the real scandal; Obama's IRS abuse of power, an impeachable act. Hey look, a squirrel! He is in another thread, quoting the heritage foundation declaring that the government of singapore owns the means of production and manipulates prices through that ownership - and that makes them capitalist. What, are you on hard drugs? I didn't see a single word of that. Naaah, you're just lying as usual. He is really just a running joke, these days. A total spent shell with nothing less to say. He can copy, he can paste, and he can call it a day. Those are the tricks in his bag. Can't you even tell believable lies?

This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by RichClem. View it anyway? Do you wake up thinking about me Puss?He is really just a running joke, these days. A total spent shell with nothing less to say. He can copy, he can paste, and he can call it a day. Those are the tricks in his bag.The Jackhole is out of gas.He has become a caricature of himself.

This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by RichClem. View it anyway? Do you wake up thinking about me Puss? No, thank God. Yes, rather than comment honestly on the real scandal, Obama's abuse of the IRS to bully and intimidate ordinary Americans, you put me on Ignore. Your typical troll behavior. And speaking of troll behavior, you dishonestly defended Clinton by claiming he'd never been convicted, yet here you are smearing Issa. What was he convicted of 40 years ago? You dishonestly denied there was any evidence in the boxes and boxes of EVIDENCE collected against Clinton. Where's the evidence against Issa? He is really just a running joke, these days. A total spent shell with nothing less to say. He can copy, he can paste, and he can call it a day. Those are the tricks in his bag. The Jackhole is out of gas. He has become a caricature of himself. Out of gas? The IRS scandal, the Benghazi scandal, the pathetic Obama Economy etc. have me supercharged. Out of gas is the person who flees the debate. True, all the trolls and moonbats hate me. So?

Clemming defends a felon, and the man chosen as the "most corrupt politician ever" by citizen watchdog groups.

Yes, rather than comment honestly on the real scandal, Obama's abuse of the IRS to bully and intimidate ordinary Americans, you put me on Ignore.Your typical troll behavior.I've had you on ignore since before this IRS story broke Jackhole.I read your posts once in a while just for **** and giggles, and to see what new right wing propaganda and lies you're spreading.Like this one: "Obama's abuse of the IRS."There has been not one shred of proof that Obama in any way 'abused' the IRS, yet you state it as if it is a proven fact, and even call for his impeachment.And speaking of troll behavior, you dishonestly defended Clinton by claiming he'd never been convicted, yet here you are smearing Issa. What was he convicted of 40 years ago?In 1971 a member of Issa's Army unit accused him of stealing his Dodge Charger.He confronted Issa about it, and the car magically reappeared the next day.Issa was arrested in 1972 for driving a red Maserati that was stolen from a Cleveland showroom.The charges were eventually dismissed, but that does not negate the fact that he was driving a stolen car.In 1972 Issa was stopped for driving a yellow Volkswagen the wrong way down a one-way street.When police searched the car they found a .25-calibre Colt automatic inside a box of ammunition, along with a "military pouch" that contained 44 rounds of ammo and a tear gas gun and two rounds of ammo for it.He was arrested for carrying a concealed weapon, and pled guilty to the lesser charge of possession of an unregistered gun.Got that Puss? He pled guilty and was convicted.BTW in 1982 a struggling business that Issa had invested in burned to the ground.Lucky for him, he had recently increased his fire insurance, but I'm sure that was just a coincidence. LOLOut of gas is the person who flees the debate.Like you did for months after both the 2008 and the 2012 election.You even tried to sneak in as 'Mr. Gitmo' in 2009. Coward. LOL

Out of gas is the person who flees the debate. So I guess that's you Puss. I'm sure you just had something to do. It's only fleeing when I do it, right Puss? Gosh, I thought this was "a Misty joint." Where'd she go? Spouted a couple blatant lies and fled. You spread your lie about 'Obama's abuse of the IRS to bully and intimidate ordinary Americans' and fled.

I've had you on ignore since before this IRS story broke Jackhole. I read your posts once in a while just for **** and giggles, and to see what new right wing propaganda and lies you're spreading. Like this one: "Obama's abuse of the IRS." There has been not one shred of proof that Obama in any way 'abused' the IRS, yet you state it as if it is a proven fact, and even call for his impeachment. There's considerable evidence that Obama did abuse it, with his over the top, dishonest rhetoric like calling conservative groups "enemies of democracy." His promotion of the official who was in charge of that IRS division, to head Obama-care! And his thuggish Chicago background and track record as a candidate. But even if he didn't directly do it, he's the Chief Law Enforcement Officer. These accusations were around for a couple years. Members of his own administration knew. It's his obligation as president to uphold the law; to control agencies under his direct control. Yes, this is an impeachable offense. But you'll dishonestly defend him to the end, just like you did Clinton. You're a lying, fawning, groveling apologist for corrupt Democrats. Got that Puss? He pled guilty and was convicted. I'm sure you're overstating this, but even so, in your opinion, Issa's minor crimes 40 years ago are more important than Clinton's felonies, impeachable acts, abuse of power and serial rapes. Troll. BTW in 1982 a struggling business that Issa had invested in burned to the ground. Lucky for him, he had recently increased his fire insurance, but I'm sure that was just a coincidence. LOL Typical sleaze, coming from the troll who dishonestly insisted that Clinton is innocent because he'd never been convicted. You have zero evidence against Issa on this. Schippers had boxes and boxes and boxes of evidence, which you dishonestly denied existed. Troll. Like you did for months after both the 2008 and the 2012 election. You even tried to sneak in as 'Mr. Gitmo' in 2009. Coward. LOL I didn't flee any debates, troll. I worked my butt off because I'm literally terrified of Obama's lieftist policies. And no, I didn't come back under any other names. Any other false accusations you'd like to make? Get it all off your little troll chest.

Is Kathleen Sebelius Really Letting Sarah Murnaghan Die?Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius reiterated that she would not intervene in organ donation rules in order to allow a 10-year-old girl, Sarah Murnaghan, who is dying of cystic fibrosis from receiving a badly needed lung transplant.Murnaghan's doctors say that she will die of complications related to cystic fibrosis within three to five weeks if she does not receive a transplant. She has been treated at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia for the last three months with end-stage cystic fibrosis, currently on ventilator support.Sebelius spent Tuesday on the receiving end of appeals and heated criticism from GOP lawmakers, Pennsylvania senators, and from the family of the dying child."We're going to let a kid die over red tape. Somebody needs to stand up and say this isn't right. This is a human issue this isn't politics," Murnaghan's mother, Janet, told reporters.Contracted under the Department of Health and Human Services, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network and the United Network for Organ Sharing oversee the procurement and distribution of organ donation throughout the US Sources are divided on whether Sebelius has the authority to override existing rules, but incensed GOP congressmen speak with certainty that she holds the power."I'm begging you. ... She has three to five weeks to live. Please suspend the rules," urged Rep. Lou Barletta, R-Pa.Under current regulations, children under the age of 12 have lower priority on the transplant list for donor lungs than adults. They receive priority, however, for lungs from children, which are considerably rarer.The rule is based on the rationale that an adult lung may be too large to transplant into a young child. Although it is possible to use a part of an adult lung or alter it for a small child's use, it's uncertain whether a child recipient of an adult lung would survive just as long."The medical evidence and the transplant doctors who are making the rule and have had the rule in place since 2005 making a delineation between pediatric and adult lungs, because lungs are different than other organs that it's based on the survivability (chances)," said Sebelius, defending the existing rules.While lung allocation rules ought to be revisited, as has been the case for kidneys and livers, Sebelius is reluctant to override regulations on behalf of a single high-profile child. After all, the transplant allocation system was designed to maximize fairness among all those in it."Forty people in your home state are waiting for a lung," Sebelius reminded Barletta.In a world with fewer donors than children in need, a lung for Murnaghan would come at the cost of someone else higher on the list, who would most likely be a child.Sebelius ordered a review of the existing rules on May 31 for the sake of all pediatric patients awaiting a lung transplant, but some say that such a review would take too long in order to save Sarah's life.From a medical standpoint, lung transplants for end-stage cystic fibrosis patients remain controversial. Cystic fibrosis (CF) affects the function of many organs, including the pancreas, gastrointestinal system, and organs of the reproductive system. Receiving a lung transplant will not cure CF elsewhere in the body, though the lungs are most susceptible to complications.Annually in the US, about 200 people with CF, including 25 children, receive lung transplants. A 2007 review of data from the US Cystic Fibrosis Foundation Patient Registry and from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network found that the benefit of lung transplants to children with cystic fibrosis is questionable. Among the 248 of the 514 children on the waiting list from 1992-2002 who received a lung transplant, only five were deemed to have significant estimated benefit.Remaining patients experienced either insignificant benefit, or experienced risks of harm, both significant and insignificant. Lung transplants are risky procedures, and only half of people who receive a lung transplant survive at least five years.It seems harsh to belabor the statistical likelihood of Murnaghan surviving a lung transplant, because she the statistical likelihood of her surviving her reality of no lung transplant is bleak.Sebelius alone, whether she circumvents the rules on Murnaghan's behalf or not, cannot change the fact that organ donation in this country is a zero-sum game. If she lives, another adolescent will likely die, or vice versa.Is it possible to save both Sarah Murnaghan and the next child in line on the transplant list? How do we save a greater number of children with CF who will one day need transplants? HHS should revisit policies that determine who is eligible to donate organs to maximize the number of available organs. And individuals should act to increase the number of organ donors by registering to become one.To listen to the right wingers on this forum, you would think that Kathleen Sebelius and/or President Obama hate 12 year old sick kids and want them to die.

Misty: BTW in 1982 a struggling business that Issa had invested in burned to the ground.Lucky for him, he had recently increased his fire insurance, but I'm sure that was just a coincidence. LOLI'm sure you're overstating this, but even so, in your opinion, Issa's minor crimes 40 years ago are more important than Clinton's felonies, impeachable acts, abuse of power and serial rapes.Yes, because grand theft auto, arson and insurance fraud are such minor crimes. LOLIn 1982 right before Issa's warehouse full of electronics caught fire, he put some important electronic prototypes in a fireproof box, and removed the business's computer and financial files from the building.Not to mention that he also increased the company's fire insurance from $100,000 to more than $400,000.But I'm sure that was all just a big coincidence, right Puss?If you apply the standards of evidence Issa uses to indict the president pure innuendo, speculation and smears then you can fairly say that Issa was a likely car thief, con-man, and arsonist.....Andrew Sullivan

Yes, because grand theft auto, arson and insurance fraud are such minor crimes. LOL Look, a squirrel! Obama's IRS bullied, intimidated and obstructed the democratic process, delaying and defunding organizations that quite possibly would have caused his defeat. That's a gross abuse of the democratic process and an impeachable offense. But a fawning, lying, groveling Democrat toady like you will ignore that and bleat forever about something that happened 40 years ago. Just like you lied for years on behalf of a serial felon/ serial rapist. If you apply the standards of evidence Issa uses to indict the president pure innuendo, speculation and smears then you can fairly say that Issa was a likely car thief, con-man, and arsonist. You can make whatever claims you want, but it's Obama's recent actions that are the scandal. Only a lying, groveling pro-Democrat toady would try to change the subject away from that to something that happened 40 years ago.

Obama's IRS bullied, intimidated and obstructed the democratic process, delaying and defunding organizations that quite possibly would have caused his defeat.Another blatant and stupid lie. Not one Conservative group was denied tax exempt status and they were allowed to operate as tax exempt groups while their applications were pending.Any idiot can check that out for themselves, except you, I guess.That's a gross abuse of the democratic process and an impeachable offense.But a fawning, lying, groveling Democrat toady like you will ignore that and bleat forever about something that happened 40 years ago.You mean like you blather on endlessly about an alleged rape that supposedly took place in 1978?You are as transparent as a piece of glass.You will defend every Republican criminal, even convicted ones, and condemn any Democrat, even in the face of no evidence.I'm leaving now.Not running from you (though considering your level of insanity, I should).I have things to attend to on the homefront.

Obama's IRS bullied, intimidated and obstructed the democratic process, delaying and defunding organizations that quite possibly would have caused his defeat. Another blatant and stupid lie. Not one Conservative group was denied tax exempt status and they were allowed to operate as tax exempt groups while their applications were pending. Any idiot can check that out for themselves, except you, I guess. Well gosh, who should we believed, a lying troll like you or the sworn testimony of Americans who said just what I noted? At least one group still hasn't gotten its documentation. Rotsa ruck raising funds without it. Some had trouble getting officers. Most had trouble raising funds once donors found out about the audits, harassment and intrusive questions. It's all been in the news. I've cited evidence in my threads. Did you read it and comment on it? No, you won't bother, because evidence would only get in the way of your Democrat Talking Point Lies. You mean like you blather on endlessly about an alleged rape that supposedly took place in 1978? You are as transparent as a piece of glass. Supposedly? Even liberal journalists and Clinton supporters believed Broaddrick's powerful testimony and evidence. You dishonestly smeared her. And you comically denied there was evidence in the boxes and boxes and boxes of EVIDENCE that Schippers at al collected for months. You have ZERO credibility, troll. You will defend every Republican criminal, even convicted ones, and condemn any Democrat, even in the face of no evidence. "No evidence." Can't you event tell believable lies?

Most had trouble raising funds once donors found out about the audits, harassment and intrusive questions.Which right wing group was 'audited' by the IRS.Give me a name.IMO, they should be asked intrusive questions.They are political groups applying for tax-exempt status.They should not qualify.Why should we taxpayers subsidize their political activities?And that goes for both Liberal or Conservative groups.Congressman Jim McDermott, while expressing outrage at the IRS mismanagement, challenged some of the groups' assertions that they were repressed by the IRS's treatment. He said the groups were seeking a tax exemption and the IRS had to ask questions."None of your organizations were kept from organizing or silenced. We are talking about whether or not the American public will subsidize your work," said McDermott. "Each of your groups is highly political."Congressman John Lewis, an icon of the civil rights movement, also noted that the IRS had been led by Republican appointees for the past decade. He asked "where was the outrage" when progressive groups and organizations like the NAACP were targeted during the Bush administration.

Most had trouble raising funds once donors found out about the audits, harassment and intrusive questions. Which right wing group was 'audited' by the IRS. Give me a name. There are several threads about the topic, moonbat. If you're too lazy to read them, don't bother me. You'll just stonewall and lie whatever evidence I cite. IMO, they should be asked intrusive questions. They are political groups applying for tax-exempt status. They should not qualify. Then why weren't liberal groups treated the same? Why have liberal groups for decades done exactly the same thing? Why should we taxpayers subsidize their political activities? And that goes for both Liberal or Conservative groups. You aren't "subsidizing" anything. They're simply tax-free. But of course, you develop this sudden "awareness" only AFTER conservative groups arise and are harassed. You're trying to divert attention away from Obama's impeachable indifference to the scandal. Look, a squirrel! Typical troll behavior.

Which right wing group was 'audited' by the IRS.Give me a name.There are several threads about the topic, moonbat. If you're too lazy to read them, don't bother me.You'll just stonewall and lie whatever evidence I cite.So IOW you just made it up.Got it.I Googled 'tea party groups audited by the IRS' and got nothing.Tea Party and other conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status are complaining about being singled out for extra review. I have read or heard nothing about any of them complaining about being audited.And I'm the liar.

Mr. Grand Theft Auto and Suspected Arsonist/ Insurance Swindler Typical of a lying troll to have denied that the boxes and boxes and boxes of evidence collected by Schippers et al were evidence. To have dishonestly denied that Clinton was guilty of felonies, impeachable acts, abuse of power and serial rape from the mountain of evidence proving it. Then to make incredibly weak accusations at Issa. What happened to your bleating about "innocent until proven guilty, troll? There are several threads about the topic, moonbat. If you're too lazy to read them, don't bother me. You'll just stonewall and lie whatever evidence I cite. So IOW you just made it up. Got it. I Googled 'tea party groups audited by the IRS' and got nothing. Liar. So because you're too freaking lazy to read the threads, I "made it up?" You very, very rarely go into my threads, so of course you don't, snicker, "know" the evidence. Is this the best the liberal-left can do? Shameless lying trolls?

IRS Approved More Conservative Groups Than Liberal GroupsAn analysis of a list of groups approved for tax exempt status, released by the Internal Revenue Service in the wake of its admission to targeting conservative groups for heightened scrutiny, determined that of the groups approved, more than two-thirds were conservative.The analysis, by Martin A. Sullivan of Tax Analysts, examined a list of 176 advocacy organizations that were ultimately approved for tax exempt status by the IRS during the period when the service admits to having targeted certain conservative groups with inappropriate criteria.According to Sullivan's analysis, 122 of the groups were conservative, 48 were liberal or non-conservative and 6 remain of unidentified ideology.The IRS released the list on May 15, after senior official Lois Lerner announced that the IRS had been inappropriately targeting conservative groups in its review of groups seeking tax exempt status for political activity.The inappropriate targeting included the appearance of keywords like "tea party," "patriot" and "9/12" to sweep up groups for further review. Among the approved groups, 46 had names that include those words, according to Sullivan.Sullivan's analysis, however, does not illuminate much about the targeting scandal. It shows that conservative groups were reviewed and approved more often than liberal groups, but it does not state the total number of conservative and liberal groups that applied for tax exempt status during that period. The analysis also does not identify the ideological breakdown of groups that applied and have not been approved, since the IRS is prevented by law from providing the names of groups still being processed by the service. All of these caveats are noted in the analysis.At least one error was readily identifiable in the Tax Analysts' analysis. A group named U.S. Health Freedom Coalition is listed as a liberal or non-conservative group, when it was in fact created by the conservative group Americans for Prosperity as the principal funding mechanism for ballot initiatives opposing the implementation of the Affordable Care Act in Arizona and Ohio. The group is run by Eric Novack, a former Americans for Prosperity fellow and known conservative activist.