Liberal Forum

Is the following a lie? There was enough evidence that Clinton raped Juanita Broaddrick that many Clinton supporters believed he is a rapist.The argument, is there credible evidence that Clinton raped the woman in question..you know or should, that a legal threshold needs to be met in orderfor it to likely end in a guilty verdict. I think you need to ask yourself why no charges were pursued, I am not suggesting that all cases that do notgo forward is due to there not having legal merit. This is where you begin to look not only at the evidence, but who collected it, who is making thecharge of rape. Even if she believed she was raped, there needs to be a fair amount of support for her claim. So the woman Schippers and his staff found extremely credible and the four contemporaneous witnesses who heard her story, saw her trauma and saw her badly bitten lip, including a nurse who treated it aren't credible evidence?Rape is a very serious crime and when Broaddrick contradicted her sworn statement denying he assaulted her..you can see how compromised this would be in a court of law,or you should be able to. Or how about the following?[Does "all my information come from "right wing opinion pieces?" Do I "know how to think for myself?"That is not an inaccurate statement, and anyone can easily search your sources to see for themselves. You are not in the habitof presenting neutral information as a source. Meaning, a series of news sources, a variety if you will, that report on a story versusan opinion of what happened in a particular event. Personally, imo, this could be remedied if you could fact check your opinion pieces.Am I a "low information voter?" However much I disagree with you and distrust your sources, you are hardly "low information." You seem to believe you have all the information you need and reject out of hand, ( without fact checking through a neutral source)alternative news sources/opinions.How about the following. Could an honest, sane person hold that opinion?That is sarcasm, I think, lol. Other than the snip you drew from, I don't know what your conversation was about.Nobody has seen the sources I've cited? I'm not unduly modest. When it's painfully obvious that I've won an exchange, I say so.If it is painfully obvious, you should not feel the need to declare yourself the winner Clem.

Is the following a lie? Or how about the following?Does "all my information come from "right wing opinion pieces?" Do I "know how to think for myself?"Am I a "low information voter?" However much I disagree with you and distrust your sources, you are hardly "low information."How about the following. Could an honest, sane person hold that opinion?Nobody has seen the sources I've cited?There was enough evidence that Clinton raped Juanita Broaddrick that many Clinton supporters believed he is a rapist.OMFG! Get over it will you?

If it is painfully obvious, you should not feel the need to declare yourself the winner Clem.Oh gosh, Henry dodged more questions. There's a surprise.I cannot show it here, because Clinton demanded it be sealed for 50 years, you claim that it doesn't exist.If it's sealed how the spam did you see it?In your dreams?Or did you have to make another one of those phone calls?Oh gosh, did your vision fail you again? How sad.Oh gosh, maybe in the boxes and boxes and boxes of evidence and sworn testimony that Schippers, House Managers and their employees collected? The ones Clinton demanded by sealed for 50 years? Does that give you a hint?Talk about desperate. Let's take a look at the massive voter fraud that was committed.He was convicted of six felonies Puss, but to you that's no big deal, because he carries an 'R' after his name.It wasn't all that big a deal because of the details of what he did and the low sentence he received. He got one year of home detention.Are you alleging that the judge corruptly gave him a light sentence?Do you mean the massive Democrat voter fraud that you're always blathering about?In the five years that Bush's Justice Dep't devoted itself to exposing massive voter fraud by Democrats, they uncovered 81 cases, many of which were people who mistakenly filled out registration forms or misunderstood eligibility rules.Last year the Republican National Lawyers Association decided to look into it and their data showed that 30 states, including the District of Columbia, had 3 or less voter fraud convictions for a 10 year period.And in the states with higher convictions of improper voting, most involved voters improperly filling out registration forms, vote buying, voting in the wrong precinct or a person with a felony conviction attempting to vote.Not quite the rampant voter impersonation of dead people that you right wingnuts are always screeching about.Oh geez, how many times do have to cite all the examples of massive Democrat-committed voter fraud, which somehow you manage not to see?Who are you kidding, geez.Now I could easily cite the sources for everything I just said, since I do have the tabs open, but like you always say, I have cited them many times in the past, and besides you won't bother to read them anyway. LOLI can't see anything, not one bit. No source, no examples, nothing.That's the dishonest stunt you try to pull.

Oh gosh, Henry dodged more questions. There's a surprise.You're a piece of work Clem, lol.OMFG! Get over it will you?Well done, lol.

Oh gosh, Henry dodged more questions. There's a surprise.Oh gosh, did your vision fail you again? How sad.Oh gosh, maybe in the boxes and boxes and boxes of evidence and sworn testimony that Schippers, House Managers and their employees collected? The ones Clinton demanded by sealed for 50 years? Does that give you a hint?It wasn't all that big a deal because of the details of what he did and the low sentence he received. He got one year of home detention.Are you alleging that the judge corruptly gave him a light sentence?Oh geez, how many times do have to cite all the examples of massive Democrat-committed voter fraud, which somehow you manage not to see?Who are you kidding, geez.I can't see anything, not one bit. No source, no examples, nothing.That's the dishonest stunt you try to pull.Your psychosis is getting worse, clem-bat.Get some help. Seriously...

Glenn Beck's Goldline Hit With Injunction, Agrees To Repay Defrauded Customers $4.5 MillionConservative talker-endorsed precious metal retailer Goldline International agreed to a court order this week to repay defrauded customers $4.5 million and overhaul its business practices. The injunction, handed down by the Los Angeles County Superior Court, was obtained by the City Attorney of Santa Monica, California where the company is based who had filed 19 criminal counts of fraud and theft against the company last year. Those charges have now been dismissed. Goldlines entire business model was essentially a scam, the city attorney found. It was a bait-and-switch: Consumers wanted to buy gold bullion, but salespeople preyed on their fears including falsely claiming that the government could seize bullion and misled them into buying vastly overpriced gold coins instead. Consumers typically paid more than 55 percent above the actual value of the coins, which are much harder to sell down the road, instantly wiping out a large portion of their savings.Link

There was enough evidence that Clinton raped Juanita Broaddrick that many Clinton supporters believed he is a rapist. OMFG! Get over it will you?Don't you mean,"Better put some ice on that?" That's what Clinton told his rape victim.Look at all the sympathy little Miss Marxist has for the rape victim.Who's is demented, someone who's concerned about the historical record of perhaps the most corrupt president in American history?Or someone who has lied for years on his behalf?Gosh, that's a toughie.You're a piece of work Clem, lol.Well done, lol.And as expected, Henry sides with the liar.

Oh gosh, Henry dodged more questions. There's a surprise.He answered every one of your whiny questions in post #1098.How is that dodging?MistyBlue, on 24 February 2012 - 03:48 PM, said:Clem: I cannot show it here, because Clinton demanded it be sealed for 50 years, you claim that it doesn't exist.If it's sealed how the **** did you see it?Clem: Oh gosh, maybe in the boxes and boxes and boxes of evidence and sworn testimony that Schippers, House Managers and their employees collected? The ones Clinton demanded by sealed for 50 years? Does that give you a hint?Are you **** nuts? (rhetorical question)If the 'boxes and boxes and boxes' of evidence and sworn testimony are sealed, then how the **** do you know what's in them?It wasn't all that big a deal because of the details of what he did and the low sentence he received. He got one year of home detention.Yes Puss. When a Secretary of State, who is in charge of elections for that state, gets six felony convictions for voter fraud it's no big deal. As long as there's an 'R' after his name.You are a shameless apologist for every Republican who has ever committed a crime. Edited by MistyBlue, 24 February 2012 - 04:49 PM.

Don't you mean,"Better put some ice on that?" That's what Clinton told his rape victim.Look at all the sympathy little Miss Marxist has for the rape victim.Who's is demented, someone who's concerned about the historical record of perhaps the most corrupt president in American history?Or someone who has lied for years on his behalf?Gosh, that's a toughie.And as expected, Henry sides with the liar.I don't expect you to take information honestly presented in good faith to you. After all, we are on oppositesides of all political conversations...but I will suggest you look for a neutral source, a professionalone at that, regarding your inability to reason...your unhealthy narcissism.

He answered every one of your whiny questions in post #1098.How is that dodging?Strange, I didn't ask any questions to which the following is an answer.(Henry)If it is painfully obvious, you should not feel the need to declare yourself the winner Clem.Lie much?Are you **** nuts? (rhetorical question)If the 'boxes and boxes and boxes' of evidence and sworn testimony are sealed, then how the **** do you know what's in them?Because lots of news stories were written about how Schippers and his team were taking sworn testimony and "evidence," perhaps? Because I cited those stories for months if not years?Does that give you a clue?I mean really, are you trying to make yourself look both dishonest and stupid?Yes Puss. Six felony convictions is no big deal.Are you alleging that the judge who sentenced him is corrupt?If not, one year's home detention doesn't make it seem that big a deal to me. And I trust Daniels' judgment about it.Certainly not compared to the rape, felonies and impeachable acts Clinton committed, about which you told endless lies to this day.

We do...it's called Alabama.ROFL

Don't you mean,"Better put some ice on that?" That's what Clinton told his rape victim.I don't expect you to take information honestly presented in good faith to you. After all, we are on oppositesides of all political conversations...but I will suggest you look for a neutral source, a professionalone at that, regarding your inability to reason...your unhealthy narcissism.Uh, Henry, the rape story was carried on NBC, for a short period into the MSM, and and many Clinton supporters were persuaded by Broaddrick and the evidence.I've cited it many, many, many times.Is that neutral and professional enough for you?

Because you're a shameless liar and shill for the Democrat Party. Duuh.The fact that public workers are key to Obama's and Dems elections doesn't undercut the undeniable fact that spoiled, overpaid, thuggish union members are a huge component of Wisconsin's deficit problems.But as usual, you spread Democrat Talking Point Lies.She lies. Even Obama & officials are planning to shut down Fannie Mae because of its central role in the collapse, as even Bawney Fwank admitted.What does Wall St. have to do with Wisconsin's spending problems?What a silly freaking twit you are, geez.[/i]No, we only demonize those greedy ones who expect to be paid roughly double the income of the average Wisconsin resident or American. It amazes me that anybody actually thinks this guy is still connected to the real world.

Uh, Henry, the rape story was carried on NBC, for a short period into the MSM, and and many Clinton supporters were persuaded by Broaddrick and the evidence.I've cited it many, many, many times.Is that neutral and professional enough for you?What was reported? Broaddrick contradicting her sworn testimony is/should be a red flag for you, if you could reason it out.It is interesting what you do not seem to acknowledge is missing from Misty and Skeptic's posts. I am not aware thateither of them have ever said, Clinton was an ideal gentleman. I don't hear them saying anything even close to that, yetthis escapes you too.It is your opinion based on evidence that is highly questionable, at best, that he is a rapist. You can hold to your opinion butto refer to Misty or Skeptic as liars is absurd and completely baseless. They have no obligation to accept your sources, noryour opinion.

It is interesting what you do not seem to acknowledge is missing from Misty and Skeptic's posts. I am not aware thateither of them have ever said, Clinton was an ideal gentleman. I don't hear them saying anything even close to that, yetthis escapes you too.It is your opinion based on evidence that is highly questionable, at best, that he is a rapist. You can hold to your opinion butto refer to Misty or Skeptic as liars is absurd and completely baseless. They have no obligation to accept your sources, noryour opinion.This whole thing started years ago, when I told Clem that I didn't think it was right to refer to anyone as a 'rapist' (which he did and still does constantly concerning Bill Clinton) if they were never convicted of that crime, or even charged with it.That seemed to set him off and he's been after me for years, hounding me about it and practically clubbing me over the head like a baby seal to get me agree with him that Bill Clinton is a rapist. He also loves to try and shame me for not expressing any sympathy for the so-called victim, Juanita Broaddrick.If you were to do a search of his posts over the last few years that contain the words 'rapist', 'Clinton' or 'Juanita Broaddrick' you'd be shocked at the number of results.You're right Henry. I never said that Clinton was an ideal gentleman. We all know he wasn't.With rape being such a heinous crime, I would feel the same way if Clem referred to any other person who was never charged with or convicted of that crime as a 'rapist'.I think it's disgusting.

Uh, Henry, the rape story was carried on NBC, for a short period into the MSM, and and many Clinton supporters were persuaded by Broaddrick and the evidence.I've cited it many, many, many times.Is that neutral and professional enough for you?What was reported? Broaddrick contradicting her sworn testimony is/should be a red flag for you, if you could reason it out.Henry, all of that was debated over a period of time, and even many Clinton supporters were convinced. One called for his resignation.Many others remained agnostic, but very deeply disturbed. To cite just one mitigating factor, one of the charges that would have been made against Clinton was his allowing his minions to harass, libel, bully and intimidate so many women.Broaddrick said she was deeply intimidated by that; didn't want to be smeared in the national media.It is interesting what you do not seem to acknowledge is missing from Misty and Skeptic's posts. I am not aware thateither of them have ever said, Clinton was an ideal gentleman. I don't hear them saying anything even close to that, yetthis escapes you too.It is your opinion based on evidence that is highly questionable, at best, that he is a rapist. You can hold to your opinion butto refer to Misty or Skeptic as liars is absurd and completely baseless. They have no obligation to accept your sources, noryour opinion.I of course don't demand that they share my opinion, and had they expressed credible, reasonable opinions, I would never have accused them of lying.However they have told undeniable, blatant lies, more than I will try to relate here. Again, little Miss Marxist claimed there was "no credible evidence." That's undeniably false because the evidence was strong enough to convince even many Clinton supporters.Perhaps you haven't seen it, but I have had many, many differences of opinions with liberals on the board, but never, ever accused them of lying, because it was reasonably clear they were sincere in their opinions, however much I disagreed.Little Miss Marxist, skeptic, EC and others are unquestionably dishonest, with a long, long, long record of it,

This whole thing started years ago, when I told Clem that I didn't think it was right to refer to anyone as a 'rapist' (which he did and still does constantly concerning Bill Clinton) if they were never convicted of that crime, or even charged with it.That seemed to set him off and he's been after me for years, hounding me about it and practically clubbing me over the head like a baby seal to get me agree with him that Bill Clinton is a rapist. He also loves to try and shame me for not expressing any sympathy for the so-called victim, Juanita Broaddrick.If you were to do a search of his posts over the last few years that contain the words 'rapist', 'Clinton' or 'Juanita Broaddrick' you'd be shocked at the number of results.You're right Henry. I never said that Clinton was an ideal gentleman. We all know he wasn't.With rape being such a heinous crime, I would feel the same way if Clem referred to any other person who was never charged with or convicted of that crime as a 'rapist'.I think it's disgusting.Exactly. Clem has a furious need to dominate too, it is concerning, all considered.I could say more, but best to leave it at that.

I don't think I ever claimed I "saw" the evidence.....Once again.....If it's sealed how the **** did you see it?Oh gosh, maybe in the boxes and boxes and boxes of evidence and sworn testimony that Schippers, House Managers and their employees collected? The ones Clinton demanded by sealed for 50 years? Does that give you a hint?

Henry, take a close look at this exchange and tell me if you find little Miss Marxist to be debating in good faith, to be honorable over this matter..Once again.....MistyBlue, on 24 February 2012 - 03:48 PM, said: If it's sealed how the **** did you see it?Oh gosh, maybe in the boxes and boxes and boxes of evidence and sworn testimony that Schippers, House Managers and their employees collected? The ones Clinton demanded by sealed for 50 years? Does that give you a hint?Once again what? I never claimed to have seen it.And why are you ignoring my point that the Clinton-loving MSM reported in detail about this for weeks if not months. It's undeniable that Schippers and staff collected "evidence" including sworn testimony.That's part of the historical record, factual, rock solid, which is why you're bleating stupidly about whether I "saw" the evidence or not in a desperate attempt to deny the mountain of evidence against Clinton, literally boxes of it.This whole thing started years ago, when I told Clem that I didn't think it was right to refer to anyone as a 'rapist' (which he did and still does constantly concerning Bill Clinton) if they were never convicted of that crime, or even charged with it.That seemed to set him off and he's been after me for years, hounding me about it and practically clubbing me over the head like a baby seal to get me agree with him that Bill Clinton is a rapist. He also loves to try and shame me for not expressing any sympathy for the so-called victim, Juanita Broaddrick.Oh gosh, you sound so reasonable in this post.Except that you also told undeniable lies in his defense and stonewalled every single bit of evidence of his rape, his felonies, his impeachable acts. Edited by RichClem, 24 February 2012 - 05:54 PM.

Henry, all of that was debated over a period of time, and even many Clinton supporters were convinced. One called for his resignation.Many others remained agnostic, but very deeply disturbed. To cite just one mitigating factor, one of the charges that would have been made against Clinton was his allowing his minions to harass, libel, bully and intimidate so many women.Broaddrick said she was deeply intimidated by that; didn't want to be smeared in the national media.I of course don't demand that they share my opinion, and had they expressed credible, reasonable opinions, I would never have accused them of lying.However they have told undeniable, blatant lies, more than I will try to relate here. Again, little Miss Marxist claimed there was "no credible evidence." That's undeniably false because the evidence was strong enough to convince even many Clinton supporters.Perhaps you haven't seen it, but I have had many, many differences of opinions with liberals on the board, but never, ever accused them of lying, because it was reasonably clear they were sincere in their opinions, however much I disagreed.Little Miss Marxist, skeptic, EC and others are unquestionably dishonest, with a long, long, long record of it,What you're saying is, some people can disagree with your conclusions about Clinton but not others...even though they reject your claim she was raped too.Interesting how you personalize it all...you could stop doing that.