Liberal Forum

Skeptic, on 23 February 2012 - 05:26 PM, said: They belong in clem-bat's "Skeptic - constitutional expert" thread.A fine addition, I would think.I cited many sources including the Constitution itself, and over 200 years of Supreme Court precedent.What did you moonbats cite other than your ignorance?Go ahead, bleat away.Okay.RichClem, on Feb 27 2009, 04:05 PM, said: I wish you'd be raped. As I noted:Yeah, she has four styles of "debate."1) Stonewall.2) Evade3) Lie.4) Attack you personally.Although to be fair, I should have listed 5) deceive.

I cited many sources including the Constitution itself, and over 200 years of Supreme Court precedent.What did you moonbats cite other than your ignorance?Go ahead, bleat away.As I noted:Although to be fair, I should have listed 5) deceive.Emoticon enthusiast, you can cite away, it does not mean your argument is valuable to anyone other than you.You're in over head Clem.

As I noted:Yeah, she has four styles of "debate."1) Stonewall.2) Evade3) Lie.4) Attack you personally.Although to be fair, I should have listed 5) deceive.I'm pretty sure deceive and lie are the same thing Puss.I'm disappointed. When I saw you had posted something, I was so sure that you were going to tell me how it's a good thing that one quarter of all the money flowing into the super PACs comes from only five wealthy people.I need you to assure me that it's a good thing for democracy, that these 5 billionaire's voices carry so much weight in our presidential election, and that they have the interest of all Americans (middle class and poor included) at heart. And that when all is said and done, they won't expect anything in return, for all the money they've given.You will assure me of those things won't you Puss?

I cited many sources including the Constitution itself, and over 200 years of Supreme Court precedent. What did you moonbats cite other than your ignorance? Go ahead, bleat away.you can cite away, it does not mean your argument is valuable to anyone other than you.I agree. Pearls before swine. I mean, who puts any value in citing over 200 years of Supreme Court decisions, anyway?Pretty funny given how outraged you were when you claimed I didn't cite enough sources about global warming.You're in over head Clem.I'm the one citing Supreme Court precedent and sources to back my opinion up. What have you got, moonbat?I'm pretty sure deceive and lie are the same thing Puss.No, lie, deceive and dissemble are similar but have important distinctions. Geez, after eight years of Clinton lying, deceiving and dissembling, I'd think you'd know the difference.I'm disappointed. When I saw you had posted something, I was so sure that you were going to tell me how it's a good thing that one quarter of all the money flowing into the super PACs comes from only five wealthy people.I need you to assure me that it's a good thing for democracy, that these 5 billionaire's voices carry so much weight in our presidential election, and that they have the interest of all Americans (middle class and poor included) at heart. And that when all is said and done, they won't expect anything in return, for all the money they've given.You will assure me of those things won't you Puss?As I have said several times, I would like all campaign restrictions lifted so every American left, middle, right, libertarian, whatever can participate fully in the democratic process by giving whatever they choose to the candidate of their choice. That would overwhelm Special Interest money, almost certainly.It's called "Freedom," a concept the liberal-left generally despises in practice, even though they pay weak lip service to it. Edited by RichClem, 23 February 2012 - 07:33 PM.

As I have said several times, I would like all campaign restrictions lifted so every American left, middle, right, libertarian, whatever can participate fully in the democratic process by giving whatever they choose to the candidate of their choice. That would overwhelm Special Interest money, almost certainly.So it would be okay with you if one person gave, say $100 million to a candidate?You don't believe that a person like that would have undue influence over a candidate, and expect a lot in return?C'mon Puss. Tell me you don't believe that. After all, that quid pro quo thing.....that never happens in politics, right?It's called "Freedom," a concept the liberal-left generally despises in practice, even though they pay weak lip service to it.You know what kind of freedom I like Puss? The freedom to go to my doctor and have a legal procedure without having the government force my doctor to shove a probe up my vagina against my will. That kind of freedom. Edited by MistyBlue, 23 February 2012 - 07:50 PM.

As I have said several times, I would like all campaign restrictions lifted so every American left, middle, right, libertarian, whatever can participate fully in the democratic process by giving whatever they choose to the candidate of their choice. That would overwhelm Special Interest money, almost certainly.So it would be okay with you if one person gave, say $100 million to a candidate?You don't believe that a person like that would have undue influence over a candidate, and expect a lot in return?C'mon Puss. Tell me you don't believe that. After all, that quid pro quo thing.....that never happens in politics, right?There would have to be very tough laws for immediate and full disclosure, but guess what, Special Interests have been funneling 10's if not 100's of millions of dollars into elections for decades, mostly to Democrats.Unions, for example, spend much more on their own ads and electioneering efforts than is reported in public disclosure forms.Massive amounts in, snicker, "small donations" last election were simply bundled by the same Special Interest Groups that always Soros and other leftists spent large amounts of money indirectly to influence elections, amounts and places that can only be guessed at.Never saw you complain about it when Dems were the ones benefiting.You know what kind of freedom I like Puss? The freedom to go to my doctor and have a legal procedure without having the government force my doctor to shove a probe up my vagina against my will. That kind of freedom.Oh gosh, is your amnesia bothering you again? The bill is being re-written, as I predicted and as I support.And as usual, not one single word of concern about the loss of arguable human life, or even literal human life, when partial birth abortions are done.Seems liberals have more compassion for animals. Edited by RichClem, 23 February 2012 - 07:59 PM.

Unions, for example, spend much more on their own ads and electioneering efforts than is reported in public disclosure forms.And you know this how?Massive amounts in, snicker, "small donations" last election were simply bundled by the same Special Interest Groups that alwaysAlways what? Again you know this how?Soros and other leftists spent large amounts of money indirectly to influence elections, amounts and places that can only be guessed at.And you know this how?Let me guess. You read it in one of your right wing propaganda pieces.Never saw you complain about it when Dems were the ones benefiting.I've only been posting on this forum since 2008.In 2008 (pre Citizens United) only two of the top five outside groups contributing to campaigns were unions.In 2010 (post Citizens United) only three of the top ten were unions.The rest were groups that gave to Republicans.So how could I complain about something that wasn't happening?Unions are paltry players compared to big business when it comes to buying influence in Washington.

I agree. Pearls before swine. I mean, who puts any value in citing over 200 years of Supreme Court decisions, anyway?Pretty funny given how outraged you were when you claimed I didn't cite enough sources about global warming.I'm the one citing Supreme Court precedent and sources to back my opinion up. What have you got, moonbat?It's the manner in which you use them Clem, unconvincingly imo.

Wow, a Republican somewhere in the country made a bad joke?Shocking, yawn.Meanwhile The Chosen One and Democrats are running a $1.6 trillion deficit and refusing to cut spending.That imperils the entire country, but little Miss Marxist is worried about a joke.Stupid clueless moonbat.Your responces are the same thing over and over and over, don't you ever come up with anything interesting? Don't you ever get tired of waking up ever morning to the same thing? Kinda reminds me of a Bill Murray movie I once saw. Every one of you responces ends with 'STUPID CLUELESS MOONBAT' Now I understand why most here ignore you.

Karl Rove Still Repeating Falsehood About Obama Giving Loan To Brazil, Years After It Was Debunked-VideoRove Feb. 20th Fox News' Hannity Show: "The president gave a loan to Brazil. Brazil which is eating our lunch economically internationally, why do they need our money? They have plenty of their own. [Obama] gave them a loan and told them, as you've just alluded to, went down there and said we want to be your best customer."This lie was debunked in 2009.A Brazilian oil company, PetroBras, received a loan from the independent Export-Import Bank.The loan was approved by appointees of the Bush/Cheney administration.Obama had nothing to do with it.The Export-Import Bank agreed to the loan in large part because PetroBras agreed to use U.S.-made oilfield equipment and services on the project, which made the deal beneficial for both countries.But Karl Rove says Obama is just handing money over to Brazil.Karl Rove is a big fat liar.

Newt Gingrich has just released a nearly 30 minute long TV ad that`s all about rising gas prices and what president Newt Gingrich will do to bring them down. According to Newt Gingrich and his 30-minute infomercial, the Obama administration is, quote, "anti-oil."The truth?The United States' rapidly declining crude oil supply has made a stunning about-face, shredding federal oil projections and putting energy independence in sight of some analyst forecasts. After declining to levels not seen since the 1940s, U.S. crude production began rising again in 2009. Drilling rigs have rushed into the nation's oil fields, suggesting a surge in domestic crude is on the horizon. The number of rigs in U.S. oil fields has more than quadrupled in the past three years to 1,272, according to the Baker Hughes rig count. Including those in natural gas fields, the United States now has more rigs at work than the entire rest of the world. "It's staggering," said Marshall Adkins, who directs energy research for the financial services firm Raymond James. "If we continue growing anywhere near that pace and keep squeezing demand out of the system, that puts you in a world where we are not importing oil in 10 years."There are doubts that energy independence is that close. But many say the booming shale oil fields in Texas and North Dakota and the growth of deep-water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico will allow the nation to cut its reliance on oil imports significantly over the next couple of decades. Last month, the U.S. Energy Information Administration upgraded its forecast of crude production in 2025 to 6.4 million barrels per day - 1 million barrels more than were pumped in 2010.http://www.chron.com...ons-3341919.phpNewt Gingrich is a big fat liar.

I agree. Pearls before swine. I mean, who puts any value in citing over 200 years of Supreme Court decisions, anyway?../../../public/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gifPretty funny given how outraged you were when you claimed I didn't cite enough sources about global warming.I'm the one citing Supreme Court precedent and sources to back my opinion up. What have you got, moonbat?../../../public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gifIt's the manner in which you use them Clem, unconvincingly imo.It's so funny that you fit right into the pattern of every liberal-left winger I've debated; ignore the mountain of substance, but bleat endlessly about emoticons or color or name calling or the weather or how your back hurts or whatever it takes so you don't have to deal with the substance of what I wrote.I've got the Constitution and over 200 years of bipartisan Supreme Court precedent.You've got nothing.Unions, for example, spend much more on their own ads and electioneering efforts than is reported in public disclosure forms.Massive amounts in, snicker, "small donations" last election were simply bundled by the same Special Interest Groups that alwaysSoros and other leftists spent large amounts of money indirectly to influence elections, amounts and places that can only be guessed at.And you know this how?Let me guess. You read it in one of your right wing propaganda pieces.Yeah, reality is "right wing propaganda.Pretty stupid claim, coming from one of the board's worst Propaganda Artists. Say, how's that nonexistent "War on Contraception" going?That "War on Women?"In 2008 (pre Citizens United) only two of the top five outside groups contributing to campaigns were unions.In 2010 (post Citizens United) only three of the top ten were unions.The rest were groups that gave to Republicans.So how could I complain about something that wasn't happening?Unions are paltry players compared to big business when it comes to buying influence in Washington.Bulls***, because you're ignoring massive amounts of money spent indirectly by Democrat Special Interest Groups and paid labor by unions, the environmental groups, etc. etc.Great job at ignoring my point. Edited by RichClem, 23 February 2012 - 08:58 PM.

Bulls***, because you're ignoring massive amounts of money spent indirectly by Democrat Special Interest Groups and paid labor by unions, the environmental groups, etc. etc.Do you have any proof of these massive amounts of money?Or is it the usual 'because I said so' type of evidence.Does this happen on the Republican side or is it only the Dems? ROFLGround Hog Clem, on 11 March 2011 - 03:48 PM, said:Yadda, yadda, yadda.....Your responses are the same thing over and over and over, don't you ever come up with anything interesting? Don't you ever get tired of waking up every morning to the same thing? Kinda reminds me of a Bill Murray movie I once saw. Every one of you responses ends with 'STUPID CLUELESS MOONBAT' Now I understand why most here ignore you.ROFLMAOGround Hog Clem.It's perfect.

Bulls***, because you're ignoring massive amounts of money spent indirectly by Democrat Special Interest Groups and paid labor by unions, the environmental groups, etc. etc.Do you have any proof of these massive amounts of money?Or is it the usual 'because I said so' type of evidence.I can't cite a source, because almost every time I do, either your vision fails or you develop amnesia or both.I'm really worried about your medical condition.Does this happen on the Republican side or is it only the Dems? ROFLFrom what I recall, most Republican spending until recently was through direction contribution. Most of the Democrat Base depends on taxpayer money and favors, so they have a huge financial incentive to spend time and money to win elections.Most of the Republican base is tax-paying, busy with their families, their businesses, with their lives. There is far less incentive to be involved, except to protect their money and their freedom.They're increasingly active in that regard.

Newt Gingrich has just released a nearly 30 minute long TV ad that`s all about rising gas prices and what president Newt Gingrich will do to bring them down. According to Newt Gingrich and his 30-minute infomercial, the Obama administration is, quote, "anti-oil."The truth?The United States' rapidly declining crude oil supply has made a stunning about-face, shredding federal oil projections and putting energy independence in sight of some analyst forecasts. After declining to levels not seen since the 1940s, U.S. crude production began rising again in 2009. Drilling rigs have rushed into the nation's oil fields, suggesting a surge in domestic crude is on the horizon. The number of rigs in U.S. oil fields has more than quadrupled in the past three years to 1,272, according to the Baker Hughes rig count. Including those in natural gas fields, the United States now has more rigs at work than the entire rest of the world. "It's staggering," said Marshall Adkins, who directs energy research for the financial services firm Raymond James. "If we continue growing anywhere near that pace and keep squeezing demand out of the system, that puts you in a world where we are not importing oil in 10 years."Newt Gingrich is a big fat liar.More dishonest propaganda from one of the board's worst liars.The truth is, almost all of that was approved under Bush, and Obama has greatly slowed down the approval process, even repeatedly defying court orders to give approvals for drilling in the Gulf.Court orders Obama to act on drilling permitsBy Steve Hargreaves, senior writerFebruary 21, 2011: 11:14 AM ETNEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- A federal court ordered the Obama administration Thursday to act on five deep water drilling permits in the Gulf of Mexico within 30 days, calling the delays in issuing new decisions "unreasonable, unacceptable, and unjustified."In a case brought by the drilling company Ensco, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana Judge Martin Feldman ruled that the four to nine months the company has waited for a decision on the permits it has a stake in is simply too long.http://money.cnn.com...rmits/index.htm.Heck, even Bill Clinton blasted Obama.Clinton Blasts Obama's Foot Dragging on Oil Drilling Permits By Warner Todd HustonInterestingly at the end of last week during the IHS CERAWeek conference held in Houston, Texas, former President Bill Clinton said that Obama's constant delays on issuing offshore oil drilling permits was "ridiculous."http://www.chicagono...illing-permits/Bil's just earning the money he's been paid for his speeches.

"wallow in ****" is probably a better moniker for you, tinkerbell.Says the *** who uses a queer in the black shirt as his avatar. LOL

That's good. Align yourself with that nutbag RichClem.I don't give a flying **** what either one of you thinks about the Postal Service, unions or anything else for that matter.I did my time, and now I'm sitting back and collecting my pension. And I have excellent health care too.Isn't America grand?When the Postal Service is privatized, maybe you can move to Mayfield and help Clem (aka Ward Cleaver) pick up your neighbor's mail.Don't forget your time machine, because you'll have to travel back to the 1950s...It doesn't need to be privatized. It needs to be exterminated. Too much useless deadweight...oh wait, you said you were retired. I take that statement back. The deadwood has retired. LOL

It doesn't need to be privatized. It needs to be exterminated. Too much useless deadweight...oh wait, you said you were retired. I take that statement back. The deadwood has retired. LOLHey, be fair to her. She worked in slow motion as well as any postal employee.Skeptic, on 23 February 2012 - 04:29 PM, said: "wallow in ****" is probably a better moniker for you, tinkerbell.Says the *** who uses a queer in the black shirt as his avatar. LOLLOL, that's a keeper.I've told that troll, real men don't lie through their teeth like he does.

Skeptic, on 23 February 2012 - 04:29 PM, said:"wallow in [excrement]" is probably a better moniker for you, tinkerbell.Says the *** who uses a queer in the black shirt as his avatar. LOLSays the bigot who uses a racist image as his siggy.I really had you pegged wrong.I thought you were one of the decent Conservatives that was capable of having a civil debate, but now you've shown your true colors.This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by White Bread . View it anyway? Sorry Bunkey. I had to do it. I have no use for racist homophobes.

Clem: Bulls***, because you're ignoring massive amounts of money spent indirectly by Democrat Special Interest Groups and paid labor by unions, the environmental groups, etc. etc.Misty: Do you have any proof of these massive amounts of money?Or is it the usual 'because I said so' type of evidence.I can't cite a source...yadda, yadda, yadda....Thought so.From what I recall, most Republican spending until recently was through direction contribution.From what you recall? ROFLMost of the Democrat Base depends on taxpayer money and favors, so they have a huge financial incentive to spend time and money to win elections. Most of the Republican base is tax-paying, busy with their families, their businesses, with their lives.You get more ridiculous every day.I'm really worried about your medical condition.If I were you, I'd be a lot more concerned about the state of your own sanity.What kind of a nut obsessively follows someone around on an internet forum for four years?