Liberal Forum

You stupid phuking racist pukes learn to keep your fat mouths shut, or else.

How much time are you willing to spend trying to convince someone on the Internet that she is wrong?I'm not trying to convince her of anything. She'd never admit it anyway.I'm just having fun.If she wants to live in a fake alternate reality, that's not my problem.

I'm not trying to convince her of anything. She'd never admit it anyway.I'm just having fun.If she wants to live in a fake alternate reality, that's not my problem.told you racist filth to shut up and i meant it

Republican candidate Fuqua endorses death penalty for rebellious children.Remember former Republican legislator Charlie Fuqua, running again for legislature with financial support from the Arkansas Republican Party and U.S. Reps. Tim Griffin and Steve Womack, among others? We've mentioned some excerpts from his book, "God's Law: The Only Political Solution." I have more for you today. To save space, I've omitted the Biblical citation for Fuqua's endorsement of the death penalty for rebellious children. Fuqua doesn't think execution would have to be used often on children who defied their parents, but suggests the deterrent effect of its legality would be beneficial. Verbatim, from the writing of Charlie Fuqua, a former lawyer for the Arkansas Department of Human Services: The maintenance of civil order in society rests on the foundation of family discipline. Therefore, a child who disrespects his parents must be permanently removed from society in a way that gives an example to all other children of the importance of respect for parents. The death penalty for rebellioius children is not something to be taken lightly. The guidelines for administering the death penalty to rebellious children are given in Deut 21:18-21:[...]This passage does not give parents blanket authority to kill their children. They must follow the proper procedure in order to have the death penalty executed against their children. I cannot think of one instance in the Scripture where parents had their child put to death. Why is this so? Other than the love Christ has for us, there is no greater love then [sic] that of a parent for their child. The last people who would want to see a child put to death would be the parents of the child. Even so, the Scrpture provides a safe guard to protect children from parents who would wrongly exercise the death penalty against them. Parents are required to bring their children to the gate of the city. The gate of the city was the place where the elders of the city met and made judicial pronouncements. In other words, the parents were required to take their children to a court of law and lay out their case before the proper judicial authority, and let the judicial authority determine if the child should be put to death. I know of many cases of rebellious children, however, I cannot think of one case where I believe that a parent had given up on their child to the point that they would have taken their child to a court of law and asked the court to rule that the child be put to death. Even though this procedure would rarely be used, if it were the law of land, it would give parents authority. Children would know that their parents had authority and it would be a tremendous incentive for children to give proper respect to their parents.To date, Congressman Griffin and Republican Party Chair Doyle Webb have criticized some of the things Fuqua has said. Womack has said nothing. But no party official has demanded money back or urged Fuqua to withdraw from the race. Majority control of the legislature is far too important for Republicans to abandon a candidate, no matter how extreme. Which tells you a little something about Republican majority governance. Still waiting for Republican leadership, too, on the question of endorsement of sitting Republican Rep. Loy Mauch of Bismarck, who we've quoted repeatedly in defense of slavery and harshly critical of GOP patron saint Abraham Lincoln. Mauch scorns Lincoln as a Nazi and Marxist. The Republican representative is a follower of the neo-Confederate League of the South. Republican officials also haven't pulled endorsements and financial support for slavery apologist Republican Rep. Jon Hubbard of Jonesboro.LinkI'm sure Charlie Fuqua considers himself 'pro-life'. [/sarcasm]UpdateArkansas Republicans Distance Themselves From Slavery, Muslim, Child Death Penalty Comments

U.S. Rep. Paul Broun: Evolution a lie 'from the pit of hell'.Evolution, embryology and the Big Bang theory are major underpinnings of mainstream science. And Georgia Republican Rep. Paul Broun, a physician who sits on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, says they are lies straight from the pit of hell.Broun, who is unopposed for reelection in November, made the comments in a videotaped Sept. 27 speech at a sportsman's banquet at Liberty Baptist Church in Hartwell, Ga., according to the Associated Press.Here are his remarks:Gods word is true. Ive come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution, embryology, Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell. Its lies to try to keep me and all the folks who are taught that from understanding that they need a savior. Theres a lot of scientific data that I found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I believe that the Earth is about 9,000 years old. I believe that it was created in six days as we know them. Thats what the Bible says. And what Ive come to learn is that its the manufacturers handbook, is what I call it. It teaches us how to run our lives individually. How to run our families, how to run our churches. But it teaches us how to run all our public policy and everything in society. And thats the reason, as your congressman, I hold the Holy Bible as being the major directions to me of how I vote in Washington, D.C., and Ill continue to do that.Broun spokeswoman Meredith Griffanti told the Athens Banner-Herald that Dr. Broun was speaking off the record to a large church group about his personal beliefs regarding religious issues.Read MoreBroun said the Bible teaches us how to run all our public policy and everything in society, and that he holds the Holy Bible as being the major direction to him of how he votes in Washington, so the statement that he was just talking off the record about his personal beliefs is a bunch of crap.Broun sits on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee along with Missouri Rep. Todd 'Legitimate Rape' Akin.

I'm sure Charlie Fuqua considers himself 'pro-life'. [/sarcasm]UpdateArkansas Republicans Distance Themselves From Slavery, Muslim, Child Death Penalty CommentsYour president is melting down.The US is facing literal bankruptcy and national economic collapse because of Obama's leftist policies.Your political philosophy is collapsing around the world.But you bleat about stupid, irrelevant micro scandals like this?Loser.

Mitt Romney Lies to the WorldMitt Romney gave a rousing speech about how his foreign policy would be much more muscular than President Obamas. But Romney displayed again his proclivity to lie on specifics and distort the broader reality, too, writes Robert Parry.By Robert ParryWhile its true that all politicians play games with the facts, it is actually rare for a politician to be an inveterate liar. But Mitt Romney is one of that rare breed on matters both big and small. And with some polls showing his surge toward victory on Nov. 6, his dishonesty may soon become an issue for the entire world. Romneys foreign policy speech on Monday was another example of his tendency to lie on minor stuff as well as weighty issues. For instance, he claimed that President Barack Obama has not signed one new free trade agreement in the past four years though Obama secured passage of agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama and signed them in October 2011.Romney apologists suggest that the Republican presidential nominee was hanging his truthiness on the word new since negotiations on the agreements began late in George W. Bushs presidency. But the work was completed by Obama and he pushed the deals through Congress despite resistance from some of his own supporters in labor unions. So, by any normal use of the English language, Obama had signed new trade agreements, but Romney simply stated the opposite. Romney also accused Obama of staying silent in the face of street protests in Iran over the reelection of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2009. But Obama wasnt silent. He did speak out, with his comments becoming increasingly harsh as more images of violence emerged. The United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, beatings and imprisonments of the last few days, the President said on June 23, 2009. He added that he strongly condemned these unjust actions. If Romney wished to criticize Obama for not condemning Iran in even stronger terms or for not using his harshest language immediately that might be one thing, but to say, the President was silent is just a lie. More broadly, Romneys depiction of U.S. foreign policy as weak and feckless under Obama is almost the inverse from the truth. For instance, Obama helped organize an international military force to wage war in Libya, enabling rebels to overthrow longtime dictator Muammar Gaddafi, but Romney acts as if that never happened. Instead, Romney lays every foreign policy problem at Obamas door and credits others with every accomplishment, including the killings of Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders. On that topic, Romney said: America can take pride in the blows that our military and intelligence professionals have inflicted on Al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, including the killing of Osama bin Laden. But Romney gives no credit to Obama for ordering these strikes and taking criticism from many on the liberal side for his aggressive use of drone attacks. The Palestine Flip-Flop Another jaw-dropping example of Romneys dishonesty was his sudden embrace of negotiations leading to a Palestinian state after he was recorded in his infamous 47 percent speech last May as deeming such talks hopeless. I look at the Palestinians not wanting to see peace anyway, for political purposes, committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel, and these thorny issues, and I say theres just no way, Romney told a group of wealthy donors. The Palestinians have no interest whatsoever in establishing peace and that the pathway to peace is almost unthinkable to accomplish. As for what the U.S. policy would be in a Romney administration, he said, we kick the ball down the field. However, on Monday, Romney declared: I will recommit America to the goal of a democratic, prosperous Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with the Jewish state of Israel. And again, all the blame for the impasse is placed on Obama: On this vital issue, the President has failed, and what should be a negotiation process has devolved into a series of heated disputes at the United Nations. In this old conflict, as in every challenge we face in the Middle East, only a new President will bring the chance to begin anew. And then, theres the traditional hypocrisy that you get from both parties but most notably from the Republicans, preaching the value of liberty and democracy but advocating ever closer ties with the oppressive monarchies of the Persian Gulf. Romney declared about Obamas approach to the Arab Spring that the greater tragedy of it all is that we are missing an historic opportunity to win new friends who share our values in the Middle East friends who are fighting for their own futures against the very same violent extremists, and evil tyrants, and angry mobs who seek to harm us. However, Romney then added, I will deepen our critical cooperation with our partners in the Gulf. Neocon Revival Besides the lies and misrepresentations in the speech, there were some genuine policy differences expressed by the Republican presidential nominee. For instance, he vowed to expand the U.S. military and to deploy it more aggressively around the globe. Romney also repeated his pledge to yoke U.S. foreign policy to Israels desires. The world must never see any daylight between our two nations, he said. And Romney renewed his belligerence against Russia, which he had previously deemed without question, our No. 1 geopolitical foe. In his speech on Monday, Romney said, I will implement effective missile defenses to protect against threats. And on this, there will be no flexibility with [Russian President] Vladimir Putin. Despite the Depression-level economic crisis gripping Europe, Romney also announced that he will call on our NATO allies to keep the greatest military alliance in history strong by honoring their commitment to each devote 2 percent of their GDP to security spending. Today, only 3 of the 28 NATO nations meet this benchmark. One might regard Romneys neoconservative revival as delusional in a variety of ways further driving the United States toward bankruptcy even as U.S. interventionism in the Muslim world would surely make matters worse but it is Romneys reliance on systematic lying that perhaps should be more troubling to American voters. Romney has long been known as a serial flip-flopper who changes positions to fit the political season, but his pervasive mendacity has been a concern since the Republican primaries when his GOP rivals complained about him misrepresenting their positions and reinventing his own. [See Consortiumnews.coms Mitt Romney: Professional Liar.] That pattern has continued into the general election campaign, with Romney telling extraordinary whoppers on the campaign trail and even during last Wednesdays presidential debate, such as when he claimed his health-care plan covered people with pre-existing conditions when it doesnt. [See Consortiumnews.coms Mitt Romney as Eddie Haskell.] Strategic Lying One reason that I criticized Romneys debate performance though many other Americans, including many Democrats, disagreed with my assessment was that I felt his lying and his squirrely behavior were more important than Obamas sluggishness. Telling lies while waving your arms shouldnt trump telling the truth in a moderate tone. Indeed, as a journalist, I simply cannot abide politicians who lie systematically, who dont just trim the truth once in a while but make falsehoods a strategic part of their politics and policies. When I arrived in Washington in 1977 as a reporter for the Associated Press, the nation had just emerged from the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal. To reassure the country that the government could be honest, President Jimmy Carter promised never to lie to the American people. But then came the Reagan administration with its concept of perception management, i.e., the manipulation of the publics fears and prejudices for the purpose of lining up the people behind new foreign adventures. A chief public diplomacy goal of the administration was to cure the American people of the Vietnam Syndrome. Thus, minor threats, like peasant uprisings in Central America, were portrayed as part of a grand Soviet strategy to invade the United States through Texas. The strength of the Soviet Union was itself exaggerated to justify a massive U.S. military build-up. Todays neocons cut their teeth of such distortions and lies. Post 9/11, with George W. Bush in the White House, this neocon strategy of fear-mongering led the United States into the debacle of the Iraq War (in pursuit of imaginary weapons of mass destruction). Now, less than a year after U.S. military forces left Iraq and with a withdrawal from Afghanistan finally underway the latest polls suggest that the American voters are shifting toward the election of another neocon President who promises more soaring rhetoric about U.S. exceptionalism and more interventionism abroad. Its almost as if many Americans like being lied to.http://consortiumnew...s-to-the-world/

It's bad enough that Mitt Romney has been shamelessly using Navy SEAL Glen Dohertys tragic death in the attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, Libya for political gain, he actually compared the bravery of Dohertys act to himself running for president.Romney: They didnt hunker down where they were in safety. They rushed there to go help. This is the American way. We go where theres trouble. We go where were needed. And right now were needed. Right now the American people need us.Glen Dohertys mother has asked Mitt Romney to stop using the story about her dead son in his stump speeches.I dont trust Romney. He shouldnt make my sons death part of his political agenda. Its wrong to use these brave young men, who wanted freedom for all, to degrade Obama, said Barbara Doherty to Bostons local NBC affiliate WHDH.Romney Using Navy SEAL Who Died in Libya As Political Prop Soldiers Mother Demands He Stop Exploiting Her Dead Son

Mitt Romney Lies to the WorldYes, that's the latest desperate Democrat Talking Point Lie.Isn't helping one bit, though.By Robert ParryWhy is a, snicker, "moderate liberal" like you citing a leftist wackjob like Parry?You weren't lying about being a moderate, were you? Naaah!Say, how the heck did Romney get a 5-point lead over The Chosen One?And why is the trend going strongly toward a "liar" like Romney? Poll aggregator changes 5 states from 'leans Obama' to 'toss up'...WI, MI, NH, PA, OH...http://drudgereport.com/

This isn't a swingers site. Just sayin.

This isn't a swingers site. Just sayin.I agree with you.Sorry to hear about your health challenges.I will hold good thoughts for your recovery.

Mitt Romney: People Don't 'Die In Their Apartment Because They Don't Have Insurance'Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, who has pledged to repeal Obamacare, says that people without health insurance don't have to worry about dying as a result."We don't have people that become ill, who die in their apartment because they don't have insurance," Romney said in an interview with the Columbus Dispatch's editorial board on Wednesday.While it's difficult to tell how many people die each year from lack of health insurance, one study, from a health care advocacy group, puts the number at 26,000 deaths per year."We don't have a setting across this country where if you dont have insurance, we just say to you, 'Tough luck, you're going to die when you have your heart attack,'" he added in the interview. "No, you go to the hospital, you get treated, you get care, and its paid for, either by charity, the government or by the hospital."Romney took a similar stance in an interview with CBS' "60 Minutes" in late September, when he said: "We do provide care for people who don't have insurance. If someone has a heart attack, they don't sit in their apartment and die. We pick them up in an ambulance, and take them to the hospital, and give them care."Roughly 4 in 25 Americans, or nearly 49 million Americans, had no health insurance last year, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Repealing Obamacare would deny access to health insurance to about 30 million uninsured Americans who would have received it under health care reform. Letting so many people go uninsured ultimately can cost both individuals and society. When people lack health insurance, their health worsens, and their health treatments become more expensive, research has found. People without health insurance also are in danger of facing massive medical bills, debt, and bankruptcy if they get sick or injured.On top of that, society at large sometimes must pay for the uninsured through higher taxes and health care costs. The government often helps pay for unpaid emergency room bills. States and cities that run hospitals lose money when hospital bills go unpaid. And economists have found that hospitals sometimes charge higher prices for health care, and health insurance companies sometimes charge higher premiums, because the uninsured often are unable to pay for health care.There are so many things wrong with what Mittens said, I don't know where to start.First of all, I love that he thinks that everyone who doesn't have health insurance, lives in an 'apartment'.No Mittens, many of them actually own their own home.Secondly he said, "We don't have people that become ill, who die in their apartment because they don't have insurance...."Yes, we do. Many people needlessly die from heart attacks or strokes because they went without treatment for chronic conditions such as diabetes, high blood pressure or high cholesterol. If they were able to see a doctor regularly for check-ups and preventative care, that would not happen. Millions of people who have chronic conditions like diabetes or asthma and need regular access to medication to stay alive, cannot get such treatment in the ER.Third....treating someone in the emergency room is the most costly and least effective way to provide treatment.Treating the uninsured in the emergency room just shifts the cost into the overall health care market, which drives up everyones cost of care.

There are so many things wrong with what Mittens said, I don't know where to start.Your Propaganda isn't selling, moonbat. CAMPAIGN FREAKOUT!OBAMA LOCK UNDER 10 STATES http://drudgereport.com/FLORIDA: R 51% 0 44%... VIRGINIA: R 51% O 44%...Tampa Bay Times/Bay News 9/Miami Herald PollTimes/Bay News 9/Herald exclusive Florida poll: Romney 51, Obama 44Barack Obama's lackluster debate performance last week has dramatically altered the presidential race in Florida, with Mitt Romney opening up a decisive 7 percentage point lead, according to a new Tampa Bay Times/Bay News 9/Miami Herald poll.http://www.tampabay....bama-44/1255882

Binders full of womenObama's bankrupting the country, and this is the best you can do?Where are all the brilliant, articulate, rational, ejucated liberals to defend Obama's glorious record? GALLUP: R 51% O 45%

Binders of women bulls***So the person who blindly and dishonestly defended a real life, actual rapist is going to bleat about Romney's slightly poor choice of words?Hilarious.

Mitt Romney flat-out lies about birth control because he's a flat-out liar.Let's not beat around the bush. We could call it a gaffe or a flip-flop or invoke some other euphemistic excuse from Very Serious Journalism dictionary, but let's not. The truth is, Mitt Romney is a liar. In the second presidential debate on Tuesday night, Romney said:Id just note that I don't believe that bureaucrats in Washington should tell someone whether they can use contraceptives or not, and I don't believe employers should tell someone whether they could have contraceptive care or not. Every woman in America should have access to contraceptives. And the Presidents statement of my policy is completely and totally wrong.None of that is true. Romney does believe bureaucrats in Washington should decide who has access to contraceptives, and he does believe employers should also make that decision. We know this is true, because Romney supported the Blunt Amendment to allow employers to decide whether their employees should have access to contraceptives. That's what the Blunt Amendment did, and Romney said at the time, "Of course I support the Blunt Amendment." And Romney didn't just support the amendment; he joined his fellow Republicans in attacking the president for his policy to make birth control affordable and accessible to all American womena policy Romney claimed, last night, to support when he said he too thinks all women should have access to contraceptives. In January, when the policy was first introduced, the Romney campaign said, "This is a direct attack on religious liberty and will not stand in a Romney presidency." To further appeal to the rabid Republican base, Romney also pledged to end Title X, which funds family planning programs. You know, contraception. When the policy was enacted in August and Republicans were hyperventilating that women having access to affordable birth control was just like 9/11 and Pearl Harbor Day, Romney released an ad accusing the president of declaring a war on religion. And let's not forget that Romney promised when it comes to Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of health care for women and specifically, the nation's largest and best resource for affordable birth control for women:Planned Parenthood, we're going to get rid of that.Romney does believe bureaucrats and employers should be making birth control decisions for women. He does not believe all American women deserve access to affordable birth control. And when the president said, during the debate, that Romney "suggested that in fact employers should be able to make the decision as to whether or not a woman gets contraception through her insurance coverage," he was absolutely accurate. Except that Romney didn't merely suggest it; he said, in no uncertain terms, that's the policy he supported. And then, like the rest of his despicable party, he accused the president of waging a war on religion for implementing a policy that all of a sudden, Romney supports. And then he has the audacity to say the president is "completely and totally wrong" about Romney's policy? The only question is, which policy, Mitt? The one where you want to defund our health care, support Washington bureaucrats vote on our access to birth control, and let our employers make our decisions for us? Or the policy where you'll say anything, even if it's a lie, to try to win the presidency?