Liberal Forum

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.But, he won't. His cheese has slid too far off the cracker.Am I causing you trouble, Henry?

But, he won't. His cheese has slid too far off the cracker.Am I causing you trouble, Henry? No, of course not..besides, you can see how useful my input has been, lol.Oh well.

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.You know, there's 'evidence' locked up somewhere left over from Iran-Contra, that Ronald Reagan raped 129 dead Mexican babies, and then ate them! However, somebody named 'Schippers' locked it all up in Sleeping Beauty's tower for 50 years. to be guarded by super-sized pink lions wearing fuzzy green slippers. Now, I've never actually seen the 'evidence,' but somebody I usually agree with, told me this! So, it's gotta be true!

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.I'm not sure what you mean. "But not others?"Put it this way, are there liars on the board who are conservative? Isn't it painfully obvious sometimes they aren't being honest?Or put it this way. I disagree with your claims about Iran, and I find your refusal to answer questions to be both comical and dismaying, but I have never claimed that you're lying over the matter.I accept you're expressing an honest opinion, not matter how I feel about the flawed way you've approached the topic.After literally years of dealing with little Miss Marxist and skeptic, I have absolutely, positively no doubt in my mind they are dishonest, deceitful, disingenuous, any adjective that could be used.And I think it appropriate to point that out.Interesting how you personalize it all...you could stop doing that.That is a flaw of mine, but after literally years of ugly attacks on me, I have become a little trigger happy.

I'm not sure what you mean. "But not others?"Put it this way, are there liars on the board who are conservative? Isn't it painfully obvious sometimes they aren't being honest?Or put it this way. I disagree with your claims about Iran, and I find your refusal to answer questions to be both comical and dismaying, but I have never claimed that you're lying over the matter.I accept you're expressing an honest opinion, not matter how I feel about the flawed way you've approached the topic.After literally years of dealing with little Miss Marxist and skeptic, I have absolutely, positively no doubt in my mind they are dishonest, deceitful, disingenuous, any adjective that could be used.And I think it appropriate to point that out.That is a flaw of mine, but after literally years of ugly attacks on me, I have become a little trigger happy.As Henry pointed out - you lack the ability to differentiate fact from opinion. Therefore a 'lie' is to you whatever you disagree with.You need psychological help.If you don't get psychological help, the best you can ever possibly hope for in the rest of this life are living in self-aggrandizing fantasies, while ACTUALLY being somebody else's favorite chew-toy.GET HELP!

I'm not sure what you mean. "But not others?"Put it this way, are there liars on the board who are conservative? Isn't it painfully obvious sometimes they aren't being honest?Or put it this way. I disagree with your claims about Iran, and I find your refusal to answer questions to be both comical and dismaying, but I have never claimed that you're lying over the matter.I accept you're expressing an honest opinion, not matter how I feel about the flawed way you've approached the topic.After literally years of dealing with little Miss Marxist and skeptic, I have absolutely, positively no doubt in my mind they are dishonest, deceitful, disingenuous, any adjective that could be used.And I think it appropriate to point that out.That is a flaw of mine, but after literally years of ugly attacks on me, I have become a little trigger happy.Clearly, I have wasted my time speaking with you about this, lol.When you admit to accepting that other posters reject your evidence as proof Clinton raped Broaddrick and you believe they're honest about their opinion but continue to exclude Skeptic and Misty, who reject your evidence for similar reasons, you're admitting to a problem YOU have that has nothing to do with Clinton.I hope on some level, you realize this.

Clearly, I have wasted my time speaking with you about this, lol.When you admit to accepting that other posters reject your evidence as proof Clinton raped Broaddrick and you believe they're honest about their opinion but continue to exclude Skeptic and Misty, who reject your evidence for similar reasons, you're admitting to a problem YOU have that has nothing to do with Clinton.I hope on some level, you realize this.You obviously didn't read what I've written in the last couple, few posts.Little Miss Marxist and skeptic have a long, long, long record of lying, of stonewalling obvious facts, of dissembling, of evading, of falsely or spuriously attacking individuals whose opinions I cite, of falsely attacking me. It is on the basis of their long history that I judge them. I wouldn't trust the with the time of day, for good reason.If someone doesn't have a history of doing so, I give them the benefit of the doubt.I have obviously wasted my time speaking to you about this, despite it being crystal clear. Edited by RichClem, 24 February 2012 - 07:42 PM.

You obviously didn't read what I've written in the last couple, few posts.Little Miss Marxist and skeptic have a long, long, long record of lying, of stonewalling obvious facts, of dissembling, of evading, of falsely or spuriously attacking individuals whose opinions I cite, of falsely attacking me. It is on the basis of their long history that I judge them. I wouldn't trust the with the time of day, for good reason.If someone doesn't have a history of doing so, I give them the benefit of the doubt.I have obviously wasted my time speaking to you about this, despite it being crystal clear.Hey ! I'm offended ! You just trash-talked Misty and Skeptic, and left me out. Come on. Aren't I a good enough foe of you to be included in that ? How did I miss out on that compliment ? And what a piss poor excuse for a Conservative you are. Four threads raging right now, needing Conservative support, and I'm in all 4 and you're in none of them. Like I said, You're no Conservative !! Now get on over there, Mr. Psuedo-Conservative and start earning your stripes. 1. Majority Of Immigrants On Welfare2. New Cato - Guns Used In Self-Defense - Leftie's Night...3. Another Apology From Obama 4. There He Goes Again.... Apologizing!

Hey ! I'm offended ! You just trash-talked Misty and Skeptic, and left me out. Come on. Aren't I a good enough foe of you to be included in that?No, duh.

How the South Carolina 'Dead Voters' Hoax CollapsedLast month, officials in South Carolina, facing resistance from the Department of Justice to their new voter ID law, concocted a ghoulish tale of dead voters taking over the state's elections.As was suspected from the beginning, the fevered stories of "zombie voters" turned out to be fantasy.No Dead Voters Found on South Carolina's Alleged Zombie Voter ListIn December GOP Attorney General Alan Wilson said on Fox News that thousands of dead people in South Carolina were on the voter rolls and implied it was the federal governments fault if they stayed there.On Jan. 11, DMV director Kevin Shwedo upped the ante with the specific allegation that votes had been cast under the names of deceased individuals. He said that well over 900 individuals appear to have voted in South Carolina after they died.Then Attorney General Wilson again took to Fox News, saying, We know for a fact that there are deceased people whose identities are being used in elections in South Carolina.South Carolina has passed one of the most restrictive voter I.D. laws in the country that could potentially disenfranchise thousands of voters. The Justice Dep't has blocked the law, and the state of South Carolina has filed a lawsuit challenging the DOJ.The lawsuit could cost the state upward of a million dollars or more.

So just what the hell is the problem with voter ID? Really, why do you all get so frikken worked up over having to prove you are a citizen and showing up and proving who you say you are? I really smell an opposition based on if all is even, things might be different than you wish.

South Carolina has passed one of the most restrictive voter I.D. laws in the country that could potentially disenfranchise thousands of voters. The Justice Dep't has blocked the law, and the state of South Carolina has filed a lawsuit challenging the DOJ.The lawsuit could cost the state upward of a million dollars or more.And another blatantly political case by the radical Obama Justice Dept. will be slapped down by the Supreme Court, maybe 9-0 like the last two.Say, isn't Obama supposed to be a Constitutional expert?Say, why is the Justice Dept. challenging this law, if it's almost identical to those already upheld by SCOTUS, other than for corrupt partisan electoral purpose?South Carolina passed a voter ID law that is almost identical to those implemented by Georgia and Indiana six years ago. It requires a voter to present a South Carolina driver's license or other photo IDa passport, military ID, or a voter registration card with a photo issued by South Carolina election officials. Even if a voter shows up at a polling place without an acceptable ID, he can still vote a provisional ballot that will be counted if he brings an ID to election officials before the results are certified. South Carolina's law is more lenient than either Georgia's or Indiana's. If a voter has a religious objection or a "reasonable impediment" that prevents him from getting a free photo ID, then the voter can simply fill out an affidavit in which he outlines his objection or impediment and swears that he is who he says he is. His provisional ballot will then be automatically counted unless local election officials have evidence that "the affidavit is false." This new ID requirement is a common-sense reform that can easily be met by voters regardless of their race, ethnicity, or economic status. However, South Carolina is one of the few states still covered under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, a civil rights-era law that requires the state to get "preclearance" of any voting change from the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division at the U.S. Justice Department or a federal court in the District of Columbia. Section 5 was originally passed in 1965 as a five-year emergency provision to remedy widespread, systematic discrimination in the South. Yet it has been frequently renewedmost recently in 2006even though the official discrimination it was intended to stop has long since disappeared except for isolated incidents.....DOJ's objection is no surprise. Because they have consistently lost in court, radical organizations have been counting on the Civil Rights Division to abuse its authority to stop these voter ID laws. Since almost all of Obama's political appointees in the division have come from these organizations, there was no question that they would ignore the facts and the law to come out with this unlawful result. As is detailed in a series at Pajamas Media, DOJ has also illegally applied a political litmus test in its hiring of lawyers for civil service positions within the division. Two of the deputy chiefs hired in the Voting Section, which reviewed South Carolina's law, came from the ACLU's Voting Rights Project and were heavily involved in unsuccessfully fighting voter ID requirements in court. Other career hires came from the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and the ACLU. One co-drafted the NAACP's losing amicus brief in Crawford v. Marion County, the Supreme Court case upholding Indiana's voter ID law. Holder even tolerates perjury and leaks of confidential legal documents by liberal staffers in the unit that reviews Section 5 submissions.http://blog.heritage...aw-enforcement/

You obviously didn't read what I've written in the last couple, few posts.Little Miss Marxist and skeptic have a long, long, long record of lying, of stonewalling obvious facts, of dissembling, of evading, of falsely or spuriously attacking individuals whose opinions I cite, of falsely attacking me. It is on the basis of their long history that I judge them. I wouldn't trust the with the time of day, for good reason.If someone doesn't have a history of doing so, I give them the benefit of the doubt.I have obviously wasted my time speaking to you about this, despite it being crystal clear.They haven't lied and I think you have made yourself perfectly clear.

They haven't lied and I think you have made yourself perfectly clear.Oh, so the following is an honest opinion?I guess they prefer to penetrate a woman's vagina without her consent.Kind of like you.Naah, that's not a lie, never! Edited by RichClem, 24 February 2012 - 08:59 PM.

So just what the hell is the problem with voter ID? Really, why do you all get so frikken worked up over having to prove you are a citizen and showing up and proving who you say you are?Believe it or not there are millions of people in this country who don't have a government issued ID.Coincidently most of the people who will be disenfranchised by these laws, are people who tend to vote for Democrats.Well actually it's not a coincidence at all. That's the idea.So how do you feel about the officials in South Carolina lying about the many 'zombie voters' to justify their law?I really smell an opposition based on if all is even, things might be different than you wish.Republicans are the ones who don't want all things even.They know that the more people that vote, the more chance that Democrats win.That's why Republicans have been in the business of voter suppression and voter disenfranchisment for years.They make no secret of it.Paul Weyrich, "father" of the right-wing movement and co-founder of the Heritage Foundation, Moral Majority and various other groups once said, "I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people, they never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."

Oh, so the following is an honest opinion? I guess they prefer to penetrate a woman's vagina without her consent.Kind of like you.Naah, that's not a lie, never!Oh come off it Clem, you should be able to recognize sarcasm/insults...you make more than enough of themyourself each day.

Believe it or not there are millions of people in this country who don't have a government issued ID.Coincidently most of the people who will be disenfranchised by these laws, are people who tend to vote for Democrats.Why would a Democrat voter be less likely to carry proper ID or a Republican?

Oh, so the following is an honest opinion? I guess they prefer to penetrate a woman's vagina without her consent.Kind of like you.Naah, that's not a lie, never!Oh come off it Clem, you should be able to recognize sarcasm/insults...you make more than enough of themyourself each day.You just don't get it.Yes, I can recognize them, except that a couple years ago she smeared me in full seriousness in every active thread on the board that I "don't care about rape."She didn't to that in sarcasm or as a throw away insult, but fully seriously. An actual rape victim and others on the board believed her for a day or two. The poor rape victim was more than a little distraught.Those aren't the only ugly slanders she's made of me, far from it.This is her character. When I cited David Schippers about Clinton, she immediately posted some spurious non-evidence that made a decent man, a long-time Democrat of courage and integrity look like a crook.This is her character.When I cited John Fund on voter fraud, she immediately smeared him and strongly implied he's a liar and a child molester.This is her character.Take almost any issue ever discussed on the board, and this is how she approaches it. She doesn't debate in good faith. She lies and smears. Edited by RichClem, 24 February 2012 - 09:22 PM.

Jeebus H black christ. Honestly, the Rich/misty.clemmy/cummslut deal is really getting old. Both sides. Good grief get a frikkin room and get your freak on.

RichClem: Oh, so the following is an honest opinion?MistyBlue, on 16 February 2012 - 06:16 PM, said:I guess they prefer to penetrate a woman's vagina without her consent.Kind of like you.Clem: Naah, that's not a lie, never!That was a sarcastic remark based on your quote that said that a lack of consent does NOT mean rape.I posted the quote along with it.Let's get something straight Puss. I'm never going to apologize again for anything I say to you or about you.I tried that in the past, and you still continue to whine about the things I apologized for to this day.You don't deserve any apologies after the filth that you have spewed about me for years.You have made it perfectly clear that for whatever sick reason, you have some kind of a 'blood grudge' against me, and you have made it your business to 'discredit' me personally.I despise anyone who disseminates propaganda, falsehoods and lies, on either left or right, and I strongly dislike her on a personal basis, so I've chosen to discredit her personally on the board.an autistic mind @ Mar 26 2009, 04:31 PM)....dude, this has gone on far too long...i realize you 2 have problems but you are still in full force bashingthis is starting to affect other posters enjoyment here and the sanity of otherscant you just let it go.you dont have to apologize to no one...just please end itI'll tone it down a great deal, as long as Missy the Poo stays away from disseminating more Propaganda and Disinformation.This is a blood grudge match, no kidding.As long as Missy the Poo opens her lying mouth, this goes on.I don't care what you want. This is a debate board. You're engaged less in debate, than in a left wing Propaganda Campaign. I'll write whatever I want about you and start as many threads about you as I want.Not to confuse you with the facts again, but this is a debate board, not a place to disseminate propaganda, falsehoods and lies, like Missy Poo does daily. I targeted her, because unlike other complete loons, because she refuses to debate, she has a veil of false credibility. When she begins to correct the mistakes, falsehoods and lies she'd disseminated, I'll be more than happy to be courteous to her and cut her some slack.In 2008 when I first started posting here you said, "I'll write whatever I want about you."And for four years you sure have.That works both ways Puss. I'll write whatever I want about you too.I can't even begin to comprehend the level of your insanity.