Liberal Forum

He lies.RichClem proves - once again - that he can't discern a lie from an opinion different than his own.Easily. Your lips would be moving. LOLStill licking your wounds, huh? LOL

Skeptic, on 03 February 2012 - 01:56 PM, said: If I ever did lie, how could you tell?White Bread, on 03 February 2012 - 03:53 PM, said: Easily. Your lips would be moving. LOLStill licking your wounds, huh? LOLWounds? What did you do, hit him with your purse?Bleat away.

Wounds? What did you do, hit him with your purse?Bleat away.I forget. I clobbered him with some nonsense he went on about.He's too ignorant and stupid to be much of a challenge. He doesn't even have the ability to hang in there like you can after you've made a complete fool of yourself, so he's not even close to being as entertaining as you are.

Roger Boisjoly Scientist Who Fought to Prevent Challenger Launch, Dies at 73Six months before the space shuttle Challenger exploded over Florida on Jan. 28, 1986, Roger Boisjoly wrote a portentous memo. He warned that if the weather was too cold, seals connecting sections of the shuttles huge rocket boosters could fail. The result could be a catastrophe of the highest order, loss of human life, he wrote. The memo was meant to jolt Morton Thiokol, the company that made the boosters and employed Mr. Boisjoly. In July 1985, a task force had been formed, partly on Mr. Boisjolys recommendation, to examine the effect of cold on the boosters. The effort, however, had become mired in paperwork, procurement delays and a rush to launch the shuttle, according to later investigations. Meanwhile, his apprehensions only grew. The night before the Challengers liftoff, the temperature dipped below freezing. Unusual for Florida, the cold was unprecedented for a shuttle launching, and it prompted Mr. Boisjoly and other engineers to plead that the flight be postponed. Their bosses, under pressure from NASA, rejected the advice. The shuttle exploded 73 seconds after launching, killing its seven crew members, including Christa McAuliffe, a high school teacher from Concord, N.H. Mr. Boisjolys memo was soon made public. He became widely known as a whistle-blower in a federal investigation of the disaster. And though he was hailed for his action by many, he was also made to suffer for it. Mr. Boisjoly (pronounced like Beaujolais wine) died in Nephi, Utah, near Provo, on Jan. 6. He was 73. His death was reported only locally at the time. He lived in southwest Utah, in St. George. His wife, Roberta, said he recently learned he had cancer in his colon, kidneys and liver. Until the Challenger disaster, Mr. Boisjoly was known in his field as a crackerjack troubleshooter who had worked for companies in California on lunar module life-support systems and the moon vehicle. In 1980, he accepted a cut in pay to move with his family to Utah to deepen his involvement in the Mormon religion and to join Morton Thiokol. After the Challenger explosion, Mr. Boisjoly gave a presidential commission investigating the disaster internal corporate documents. His disclosure of the internal memo he had written six months before the disaster was regarded as a bombshell. Mr. Boisjoly was awarded the Prize for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and spoke to more than 300 universities and civic groups about corporate ethics. He became sought after as an expert in forensic engineering. But before then he had paid the stiff price often exacted of whistle-blowers. Thiokol cut him off from space work, and he was shunned by colleagues and managers. A former friend warned him, If you wreck this company, Im going to put my kids on your doorstep, Mr. Boisjoly told The Los Angeles Times in 1987. He had headaches, double-vision and depression, he said. He yelled at his dog and his daughters and skipped church to avoid people. He filed two suits against Thiokol; both were dismissed. He later said he was sustained by a single gesture of support. Sally Ride, the first American woman in space, hugged him after his appearance before the commission. She was the only one, he said in a whisper to a Newsday reporter in 1988. The only one. Roger Mark Boisjoly was born in Lowell, Mass., on April 25, 1938, and earned a mechanical engineering degree from the University of Massachusetts at Lowell. Besides his wife, the former Roberta Malcolm, he is survived by his daughters Norma Patterson and Darlene Richens; his brothers Ronald, Russell and Richard; and eight grandchildren. Mr. Boisjoly worked for 27 years in the aerospace industry. But it was one night and one moment that stood out. On the night of Jan. 27, 1986, Mr. Boisjoly and four other Thiokol engineers used a teleconference with NASA to press the case for delaying the next days launching because of the cold. At one point, Mr. Boisjoly said, he slapped down photos showing the damage cold temperatures had caused to an earlier shuttle. It had lifted off on a cold day, but not this cold. How the hell can you ignore this? he demanded. At first this seemed persuasive, according to commission testimony. Makers of critical components had the power to postpone flights. Four Thiokol vice presidents, all engineers themselves, went offline to huddle. They later said that they had worried they lacked conclusive data to stop a launching that had already been postponed twice. They thought the naysayers might be operating on gut reaction, not science. Jerry Mason, Thiokols general manager, told his fellow executives to take off their engineering hats and put on management hats. They told NASA it was a go. The next morning Mr. Boisjoly watched the launching. If there was going to be a problem, he thought it would come at liftoff. As the shuttle cleared the tower, his prayers seemed answered. Thirteen seconds later, Mr. Boisjoly said, we saw it blow up. http://www.nytimes.c...anger.html?_r=2Ronald Reagan was supposed to give his State of the Union address the night of launch. After the crash a number of rumors surfaced that the Whitehouse pressured the shuttle to launch over NASA concerns because Reagan wanted to incorporate the astronauts in his speech. The rumors were taken seriously enough to be investigated by a commission into the cause of Challenger crash but no evidence of Whitehouse pressure was found.LinkThat was a presidential commission established by Ronald Reagan through Executive Order #12546.I'm just sayin'.

That was a presidential commission established by Ronald Reagan through Executive Order #12546.I'm just sayin'.Yeah, sure, like you just innocently "asking" if John Fund was a child molester.Lie much?From your source:After the crash a number of rumors surfaced......Rumors?How freaking typical that you'll ignore sworn testimony in order to lie in defense of a serial felon.Ignore then dishonestly smear a crying rape victim and her four contemporaneous supporting witnesses in order to lie in defense of a rapist.But you'll give credibility to rumors in an attempt to smear a great president.Lie much? Edited by RichClem, 07 February 2012 - 03:04 PM.

I forget. I clobbered him with some nonsense he went on about.He's too ignorant and stupid to be much of a challenge. He doesn't even have the ability to hang in there like you can after you've made a complete fool of yourself, so he's not even close to being as entertaining as you are.Like I said, we can tell when you're lying because your lips are moving. The fact is, I handed you your azz in a bag and you ran off. I can dig up the thread if you doubt it.

I'm just sayin'.Translated into honest English, she's trying to dishonestly smear a conservative public figure.In this case, the greatest president of the 20th Century.Speaking of smearing conservatives, Dick Cheney for almost his entire career had a reputation for high integrity accepted on both sides of the aisle.Cheney never did anything in his life in 'good faith'.Lie much?

I'm adding this little RichClem Gem to your post Misty. It is Proof that Rich hasn't ever even read the first Amendment. WTF does "respecting religion" mean? Congress can't pass a non-binding resolution expressing "respect" for a religion?The Constitution only forbids Congress from "establishing" a religion, but since when has the clear wording of the Constitution gotten in the way of your ignorance and stupidity?What lifestyle is being "dictated" by Christianity? WTF are you babbling about?Here is the first Amendment for those who haven't read it.Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Edited by Oldschool, 07 February 2012 - 08:32 PM.

I'm adding this little RichClem Gem to your post Misty. It is Proof that Rich hasn't ever even read the first Amendment. WTF does "respecting religion" mean? Congress can't pass a non-binding resolution expressing "respect" for a religion?The Constitution only forbids Congress from "establishing" a religion, but since when has the clear wording of the Constitution gotten in the way of your ignorance and stupidity?Here is the first Amendment for those who haven't read it.Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.What utter hooey.I forgot the word "respect." You forgot the word "establishment" of religion, which is far more central to that part of the amendment than the word I left out. Does that mean you've never read the first amendment? Or are you just full of crap?And speaking of not understanding the 1st Amendment, what do the following words mean in respect to SCOTUS's Citizen's United decision?Congress shall make no law....abridging the freedom of speechDon't strain yourself. Edited by RichClem, 07 February 2012 - 08:55 PM.

Gosh, who should people believe, a shameless liar like you and some moonbat website?Or a journalist who has worked for very prestigious publications, one the largest newspaper in the country?You always get fooled,.................fool.

What utter hooey.I forgot the word "respect." You forgot the word "establishment" of religion, which is far more central to that part of the amendment than the word I left out. Does that mean you've never read the first amendment? Or are you just full of crap?And speaking of not understanding the 1st Amendment, what do the following words mean in respect to SCOTUS's Citizen's United decision? Don't strain yourself.Rich I did not forget any word as it is written in my post above. You on the other hand neither know or grasp the meaning of the first Amendment. If you did you wouldn't be spouting off in support of Prop8 which is a direct violation of the first amendment. Clear this up for us though. What exactly does, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, mean to you. Please enlighten us with your limited intellectual approach to a document written by intellectuals.

I'm adding this little RichClem Gem to your post Misty. It is Proof that Rich hasn't ever even read the first Amendment. I went back and put the quote into context.Rich do you believe state government has the right to legislate laws respecting Religion? Yes or NO???WTF does "respecting religion" mean? Congress can't pass a non-binding resolution expressing "respect" for a religion?Oldschool: Here is the first Amendment for those who haven't read it.Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.OMFG! That is too funny. That has to go into my 'Favorite Clem Kadiddlehopper Quotes' thread.

Rich I did not forget any word as it is written in my post aboveTrue, you forgot it in the first post you left in response to what I wrote. How typically deceitful that you'd try to pretend you didn't.You claimed my forgetting one word is "proof" that I've never read the 1st Amendment. Given that you forgot a far more important word, is that proof you've never read it?Imbecile.Clear this up for us though. What exactly does.....Why don't you answer the following question I've asked of you several times already. What do the following words mean with respect to SCOTUS's Citizen's United decision? Congress shall make no law.....abridging the freedom of speechPlease enlighten us with your limited intellectual approach to a document written by intellectuals. Edited by RichClem, 07 February 2012 - 09:20 PM.

True, you forgot it in the first post you left in response to what I wrote. How typically deceitful that you'd try to pretend you didn't.You claimed my forgetting one word is "proof" that I've never read the 1st Amendment. Given that you forgot a far more important word, is that proof you've never read it?Imbecile.Why don't you answer the following question I've asked of you several times already. What do the following words mean with respect to SCOTUS's Citizen's United decision? Please enlighten us with your limited intellectual approach to a document written by intellectuals.I have enlightened you 3 times at least, in multiple threads. Corporations aren't people. I don't think you have read the Constitution or you would have known what I was asking in its context. Now I've answered your question for the 3rd time. Lets try this one more time, since you've yet to answer mine.Do you think that STATE Government, through legislation or referendum, can create laws respecting religion? Edited by Oldschool, 07 February 2012 - 09:24 PM.

Why don't you answer the following question I've asked of you several times already. What do the following words mean with respect to SCOTUS's Citizen's United decision?Congress shall make no law.....abridging the freedom of speechLet's see how you feel when George Soros gives $100 million to Obama's super PAC. LOLCorporations were never actually declared 'people' by the SCOTUS.It was a clerk (J.C. Bancroft Davis) who erroneously wrote that in his headnotes in the Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company case in 1886. It was not in the actual ruling. As a matter of fact, Chief Justice Morrison Remick Waite said that the court did not wish to hear arguments on the question of corporate personhood.Corporate attorneys picked up the language of Davis's headnote and began to quote it like a mantra.And subsequent courts have incorrectly based decisions on the headnotes and not the actual ruling in the case.BTW J.C. Bancroft Davis was the former president of the Newburgh and New York Railway Company.Can you say conflict of interest?

Why don't you answer the following question I've asked of you several times already. What do the following words mean with respect to SCOTUS's Citizen's United decision?Congress shall make no law.....abridging the freedom of speechLet's see how you feel when George Soros gives $100 million to Obama's super PAC. LOLWell gosh, screw the Constitution then.Unlike you, I have never demanded that his or anyone's right to free speech be violated.The following words prohibit Congress's ability to restrict ANY speech, individual, corporate, group, whatever.Congress shall make no law.....abridging the freedom of speechCorporations were never actually declared 'people' by the SCOTUS.It was a clerk (J.C. Bancroft Davis) who erroneously wrote that in his headnotes in the Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company case in 1886. It was not in the actual ruling. As a matter of fact, Chief Justice Morrison Remick Waite said that the court did not wish to hear arguments on the question of corporate personhood.I've never said anyone declared that corporations "were" people; just that for over 200 years, they have enjoyed most of the same Constitutional rights, just like unions, businesses, political groups, associations, etc. etc do.Are you advocating we be able to violate unions' free speech? If not, why not? Are unions "people?"Corporate attorneys picked up the language of Davis's headnote and began to quote it like a mantra.And subsequent courts have incorrectly based decisions on the headnotes and not the actual ruling in the case.BTW J.C. Bancroft Davis was the former president of the Newburgh and New York Railway Company.Can you say conflict of interest?That is one of the many, many risks that come with the democratic process. Removing the restrictions on ordinary Americans' right to contribute in unlimited amounts would overwhelm Special Interest money.And returning to the original Constitutional intent of the Founders of severely limited government would reduce the power and scope of the federal government, making it far less relevant to American's lives.

Well gosh, screw the Constitution then.Please cite me the part of the Constitution where it says that corporations have the same rights as individual people.I've never said anyone declared that corporations "were" people; just that for over 200 years, they have enjoyed most of the same Constitutional rights, just like unions, businesses, political groups, associations, etc. etc do.So why have they enjoyed those rights?Cite the SCOTUS ruling where corporations were declared 'people' and were said to be entitled to the same Constitutional rights as individuals.I won't hold my breath.

Queen of Angels' CondomsBy Greg PalastI arrived into this world at the Queen of Angels hospital in Los Angeles into the hands of Dr. Sidney Kolodny. Queen of Angels, judging by the number of nun-nurses running about, is a Catholic hospital.Dr. Kolodny was Jewish. Last night, I heard Senator Rick Santorum tell us that President Obama has attacked Catholics and freedom of religion by barring church-controlled businesses from excluding contraception care in their employees' health plans.Joining the shriek-fest against the president's decision, the sanctimonious little ex-senator prattled on about big bad government crushing religious freedom.That's just arse-backwards.Obama's decision is a defense of religious freedom. Religious freedom is a right of people, not their bosses.The Queen of Angels hospital, church-owned though it may be, has no right to tell its Jewish doctors and employees to wear crucifixes. Nor should the Church's managers be allowed to tell their employees that the health care they receive by law should be dictated by the religious views of their employer.A question for you, Mr. Santorum: should Catholic reporters working at the Christian Science Monitor be told they can't have blood transfusions because the Church-owner doesn't sanction surgery?It makes me furious that the Obama Administration does not defend itself and the religious rights of workers. No damn employer should be allowed to tell an employee what medicine may be prescribed by their doctor based on the business owner's beliefs. What's Santorum worried about? I guess he believes that, without the force of law to restrain them, the nuns at Queen of Angels will dash off to get prescriptions for birth control pills.If a religious organization abjures condoms or The Pill or blood transfusions, that's their right. It should not be their management's right, even if the managers wear vestments, to impose those religions strictures on the bodies of their workers.It's about freedom of the worker from the religious dictates of her employer.I'll say it even if, for some reason, Obama can't.

Please cite me the part of the Constitution where it says that corporations have the same rights as individual people.So why have they enjoyed those rights?Cite the SCOTUS ruling where corporations were declared 'people' and were said to be entitled to the same Constitutional rights as individuals.I won't hold my breath.Corporations only came into existence because Businessmen needed a way to protect their personal assets. It is away to avoid personal responsibility. Since Corporations sole purpose is to separate itself from the "individual" I don't see how it can be argued that they have the rights of an individual. They're entirely a financial entity and should be treated as such. The other argument is associated with "Television". We already have laws in place censoring basic TV. You can't curse or have pornography of any kind. Suddenly, when it comes to Corporate Political Propaganda, we're faced with conservatives arguing "Freedom of Expression" is applicable to TV? It is Ironic that these 5 Conservative Judges may have opened the door for Pornography on American Television.

How about answering my question, moonbat. Are you advocating we be able to violate unions' free speech? If not, why not? Are unions "people?"Well gosh, screw the Constitution then.Please cite me the part of the Constitution where it says that corporations have the same rights as individual people.I don't need to, moonbat. Where does it say that unions have a right to free speech? Business or civic groups? Any group?What do the following words mean? Congress shall make no law.....abridging the freedom of speechThat is uncategorical, unequivocal, crystal clear, concise, self apparent, obvious.Congress cannot abridge ANY speech. Is that clear enough, moonbat?Never mind that I have cited sources that document that for 200 years SCOTUS upheld the right to free speech of any and all groups, unions, organizationsI won't hold my breath.Of course you won't. You refuse to even read most of what I write, most of the sources I cite.But you'll be back later lying that I never provided a source.Obama's decision is a defense of religious freedom.Greg Pallast, that absolute raving leftist loon?Words do not suffice. How freaking absurd.Religious freedom is a right of people, not their bosses.It's about freedom of the worker from the religious dictates of her employer.Bulls***. The Constitution guarantees no such thing. It does guarantee the right to religious freedom from GOVERNMENT interference, duuuh.I'll say it even if, for some reason, Obama can't.If he did, he'd be ridiculed as even more utterly stupid and ignorant than he is already. Edited by RichClem, 09 February 2012 - 01:15 PM.