Liberal Forum

Got any stats on how many 4 year olds are buying apps for thier I-Phone????LOFL.i was taught to shoot at age 7. i might teach the kid to shoot at age 4. depends on how coordinated she is.i won't be teaching her with a damn phone app, though.When phone apps are outlawed, only outlaws will have phone apps.

First the NRA releases a shooting app for kids 4 and up just one month after 20 first graders were massacred, and now this.Just when you think they can't go any lower........NRA Targets Obamas Kids InA Scathing New AdThe National Rifle Association is getting personal. In a new web video the gun lobby calls President Obama an elitist hypocrite for using the Secret Service to protect his two children, Sasha, age 11, and Malia, age 14.The ad, posted to the NRAs Stand and Fight website, criticizes Obama for opposing the NRAs proposal of increasing the number of armed guards in schools as a way to prevent shootings like the Sandy Hook massacre.Are the presidents kids more important than yours? asks the voiceover on the ad. Then why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school? It continues, Mr. Obama demands the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes, but hes just another elitist hypocrite when it comes to a fair share of security. Protection for their kids and gun-free zones for ours.The video does not show pictures of the presidents daughters, using instead images of outspoken gun control advocates such as New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Vice President Joe Biden.The ad apparently served as a preemptive strike against President Obama, who plans to unveil his high anticipated proposals to reduce gun violence on Wednesday. Along with school security, mental health and the entertainment industry, the president is also expected to recommend universal background checks, a ban on high-capacity magazines and some sort of assault weapons ban.Last week, Obama signed a billto restore lifetime Secret Service protection for presidents elected after 1997, which includes himself and George W. Bush, and presidents in the future, along with their wives. The law gives children of former presidents protection until the age of 16.George W. Bush signed a directive four days before he left office, authorizing the Secret Service to provide a period of extended protection for his daughters Jenna and Barbara. Bill Clinton had also authorized extended coverage for his daughter Chelsea when his term ended. The Secret Service asked that the period of additional protection be kept confidential.http://tv.msnbc.com/...cathing-new-ad/

Okay, so my husband and I were watching Hardball last night, and Chris Matthews played this clip, at which point we looked at each other with our jaws agape, and then immedialtely burst into laughter. Should we have given African Americans the right to keep and bear arms BEFORE or AFTER we removed their shackles? Let us not forget that then Governor Ronald Reagan signed the Mulford Act in 1967, prohibiting the public carrying of loaded firearms in California, when it was African Americans who wanted the right to KABA. Free men go armed. The Liberal Left in this country want to put an end to that,,,,

MistyBlue, on 12 Jan 2013 - 12:04, said:Let us not forget that then Governor Ronald Reagan signed the Mulford Act in 1967, prohibiting the public carrying of loaded firearms in California, when it was African Americans who wanted the right to KABA.Free men go armed.The Liberal Left in this country want to put an end to that,,,,Yes, that old Liberal Leftie Ronald Reagan wanted to put an end to freedom, just like Obama.

EXCLUSIVE: Unmasking the NRA's Inner CircleThe NRA's shadowy leaders include the CEO who sells Bushmaster assault rifles and a top director who lives in Newtown. The resurgent debate over gun control has put a spotlight on the hardline leaders of the National Rifle Association. In the wake of the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, executive vice president Wayne LaPierre delivered a full-throated rejection of gun control and called for more firearms in schools, while David Keene, the group's president, predicted the failure of any new assault weapons ban introduced in Congress. The two NRA figureheads purported to speak for more than 4 million American gun owners, though the group's membership may in fact be smaller. But whatever its true size, today's NRA, widely considered to be disproportionately influential in politics, operates more like a corporation or politburo than a typical nonprofit or lobbying organization. Its 76 board directors and 10 executive officers keep a grip on power through elections in which ordinary grassroots members appear to have little say. The NRA leadership is known as much for its organizational secrecy as its absolutist interpretation of the Second Amendment. That may be why, until now, little has been known about some of its most powerful insiders. They sit on the NRA board of directors' nine-member Nominating Committee, which, despite ballots distributed annually to legions of NRA members, closely controls who can be elected to the NRA board. Mother Jones has uncovered key details about the current Nominating Committee: ■ George K. Kollitides II, the chief executive of Freedom Group—which made the Bushmaster military-style assault rifle used in the Newtown massacre—was appointed as a member of the current committee, despite his failed attempts to be elected to the NRA board. ■ The current head of the Nominating Committee, Patricia A. Clark, lives in Newtown, just a couple of miles from the school where 20 young children and six adults were massacred. ■ While longtime NRA members and election watchers have reported that the Nominating Committee consists entirely of elected board members, the organization's bylaws allow for three members to be appointed from outside the NRA board—as three of its current members were. ■ Two additional outsiders appointed to the current Nominating Committee include Roger K. Bain, a licensed federal firearms dealer in Pennsylvania, and Riley B. Smith, a timber company executive in Alabama. Long before Newtown, and even before the bloodbath at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, a survey conducted in May 2012 by Republican pollster Frank Luntz found that most gun owners, including current and former members of the NRA, favor tighter gun regulations such as universal criminal background checks. And according to an ABC/Washington Post poll published on Tuesday, 86 percent of gun-owning households support a law requiring background checks at gun shows to close the so-called "loophole." So what motivates NRA leaders to remain so out of step with their constituency, flatly rejecting any discussion of legal reform? One answer may be their ties to the $11.7 billion gun industry. Freedom Group's Kollitides ran for the NRA board in 2009 but lost, despite an endorsement from gun manufacturer Remington. "His campaign didn't sit well with some gun bloggers, who viewed him as an industry interloper," according to a 2011 report in the New York Times. It remains unclear who among the NRA leadership tapped Kollitides, Bain, and Smith, to be on the current Nominating Committee. "I was appointed," Bain confirmed in a brief phone call. "I am not a board member," he said, declining to say who appointed him. "This conversation is over." Calls to Kollitides and Smith seeking comment were not returned. The NRA declined to respond to multiple requests for comment regarding its board members and other organizational details. However, one NRA official, who declined to be named, said that Kollitides "has never been on the board, although he has run several times." But that need not stand in the way. "You've got a good friend you want to get more involved, and you nominate him," a current long-serving NRA board member told Mother Jones. Back in August 2011, the NRA Nominating Committee elected Clark, a board member since 1999, as its chair. Clark, a competitive sport shooter and an instructor in the Eddie Eagle GunSafe program heralded by LaPierre in his recent media blitz, is a longtime resident of Newtown. Her home is about a 10-minute drive by car from Sandy Hook Elementary School and about a 15-minute drive from the former home of Nancy Lanza, who was also murdered by her son on December 14 after he got possession of her semiautomatic assault rifle and other legally registered weapons. Reached by phone on December 29 in nearby Bridgeport, Connecticut, where she works in the health care industry, Clark confirmed her NRA leadership role. When asked if she knew any of the victims or their families in Newtown, she replied, "This is a hard time for me. I am not really interested in giving an interview at this time." Unlike the NRA's paid executive officers, who earn big money for their work, Clark's directorship is unpaid. (LaPierre took home $960,000 from the NRA and related organizations in 2010; Kayne B. Robinson, the executive director of general operations, earned more than $1 million.) Elections for the NRA board, which oversees the organization's nearly 800 employees and more than $200 million in annual revenues, occur annually for 25 directors, who serve three-year terms. The vote typically involves less than 7 percent of NRA members, according to past NRA ballot results and pro-NRA bloggers. A low election turnout among members is not uncommon among nonprofit groups, but how a candidate gets his or her name on the ballot is key. According to an NRA supporter and self-proclaimed Second Amendment activist in Pennsylvania who blogs under the handle "Sebastian," this occurs one of two ways: It requires a grassroots petition by members, which rarely gets a candidate on the ballot, or a candidate must be included on the official slate endorsed by the Nominating Committee. "Read the bios in your ballot and you'll see that almost all were nominated by the nominating committee," complained "Pecos Bill" from Illinois last January in one pro-gun-rights forum. "Seems the NRA, fine organization that it is, is being run like a modern corporation and the 'good ol' boys' are keeping themselves in power." In fact, 10 women currently serve on the board, but few people had access to that information until very recently, when the NRA posted a complete list on its website. (In the past, the NRA cloaked its board in secrecy; incomplete and outdated lists were published by outside groups using press clips and legally required NRA financial disclosures.) According to a search using Archive.org, the current board page was published sometime after December 6. The Nominating Committee now led by Clark handpicked nearly all of the candidates on the 2012 ballot. As John Richardson, an NRA "Life Member" in North Carolina explained on his blog, No Lawyers - Only Guns and Money, in January 2012, "This year there are 31 candidates running for 25 positions. Of these 31, 29 were nominated by the Nominating Committee. The remaining two candidates were nominated by a petition of the membership which requires at least 250 signatures." (One of those two nominated by petition was elected to the board last year.) Other notable figures currently serving on the board include actor and firearms enthusiast Tom Selleck; anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist; Lt. Colonel Oliver North of Iran-Contra fame; right-wing rocker Ted Nugent, whose thinly veiled threats about Barack Obama's reelection campaign prompted a Secret Service inquiry; and Marion Hammer, the former NRA president who helped mastermind the spread of Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law. At a poignant news conference held in Newtown on Monday, parents of some of the slain first-graders announced Sandy Hook Promise, a new group and campaign to promote "common sense solutions" to America's gun violence problem. It is unclear whether Patricia A. Clark attended that gathering in her local community. But she has shown a certain kind of interest in kids for decades. According to her board bio, she has "worked with Juniors for more than 30 years" as a firearms coach and instructor. As a line in her bio puts it, she is an "NRA Benefactor and Heritage Society member who believes that youngsters are the key to NRA's future."Link

Your Brain in a Shootout: Guns, Fear and Flawed InstinctsIn the roiling national set-to over whether guns would make schools safer, most of the debate has been a caricature of itself. One side wants to install guns in every school, and the other wants to banish them. “I wish to God [the principal] had had an M-4 in her office, locked up,” Republican Representative Louie Gohmert of Texas said on Fox News after the Newtown, Conn., school massacre, “so when she heard gunfire, she pulls it out … and takes his head off before he can kill those precious kids.”But the research on actual gunfights, the kind that happen not in a politician’s head but in fluorescent-lit stairwells and strip-mall restaurants around America, reveals something surprising. Winning a gunfight without shooting innocent people typically requires realistic, expensive training and a special kind of person, a fact that has been strangely absent in all the back-and-forth about assault-weapon bans and the Second Amendment.In the New York City police department, for example, officers involved in gunfights typically hit their intended targets only 18% of the time, according to a Rand study. When they fired 16 times at an armed man outside the Empire State Building last summer, they hit nine bystanders and left 10 bullet holes in the suspect—a better-than-average hit ratio. In most cases, officers involved in shootings experience a kaleidoscope of sensory distortions including tunnel vision and a loss of hearing. Afterward, they are sometimes surprised to learn that they have fired their weapons at all.“Real gun battles are not Call of Duty,” says Ryan Millbern, who responded to an active-shooter incident and an armed bank robbery among other calls during his decade as a police officer in Colorado. Millbern, a member of the National Rifle Association, believes there is value in trained citizens’ carrying weapons for defensive purposes. He understands what the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre meant when he said, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” But he knows from experience that in a life-or-death encounter, a gun is only as good as its user’s training.Under sudden attack, the brain does not work the way we think it will. Millbern has seen grown men freeze under threat, like statues dropped onto the set of a horror movie. He has struggled to perform simple functions at shooting scenes, like unlocking a switch on a submachine gun while directing people to safety. “I have heard arguments that an armed teacher could and would respond to an active shooter in the same way a cop would. That they would hear gunshots, run toward the sound and then engage the shooter,” Millbern writes in an e-mail from Baghdad, where he now works as a bomb-detection K-9 handler. “I think this is very unrealistic.”As lawmakers in at least seven states debate whether to allow teachers to carry firearms in school (something already allowed in Utah and Texas), it is worth considering: What happens in the human brain during a gunfight? And how much training would armed teachers or security guards need to prevail?The Adrenaline SurgeAt 3 p.m. one autumn day in 2004, Jim Glennon found himself being shot at without warning. He was a lieutenant, a third-generation cop who had decided on the spur of the moment to help out on a routine shoplifting call. The suspect, a white man in his mid-50s, had walked out of a liquor store with a bottle of vodka without paying for it, and the police had tracked his license plate to a condo complex in a suburb of Chicago.The officers knocked on the door at the end of a long hallway and got no response. After a few minutes, Glennon started to suggest they come back with a warrant. That was when the man threw open the door and began firing a black snub-nosed revolver from three feet away.Glennon was a police-academy trainer, unusually well schooled in survival skills. But from the moment he saw the revolver, his mind entered a state unlike anything he’d experienced before. “Oh s—! Gun!” he said, spinning his body hard to the left, missing a bullet by inches or less.Without his conscious knowledge, the sight of the gun had sent a signal to his brain stem, passing a message to his amygdala—the primal, almond-shaped mass of nuclei that controls the fear response from deep within the brain’s temporal lobe. The amygdala, in turn, triggered a slew of changes throughout Glennon’s body. His blood vessels constricted so that he would bleed less if he got wounded. His heart rate shot up. A surge of hormones charged through his system, injecting power to his major muscle groups should he need to fight or flee.His first actual thought was that the gun must have had only five or six rounds. He knew this because it reminded him of the revolver his grandfather gave his father years earlier. As he and a fellow officer turned and began racing down the hallway to take cover around the corner, he counted the number of shots he heard behind him, waiting for the suspect to run out of ammunition. Relying on his training, he pulled his .40-caliber Sig Sauer pistol out of his holster.As happens for most people in life-or-death situations, his brain began to manipulate his perception of time, slowing down the motion as he fled down the corridor. “The hallway looked like one of those dreams where it is just really, really long,” he says. Later he would guess that it was 250 ft. long; it was really 79 ft.But for each superpower his brain gave him, it took one away. In a flash, his brain reprioritized, shifting finite resources to the cause of survival. As he ran, rounds bursting behind him “like cannon shots,” he suddenly fell flat on his face in the carpeted hallway, tearing skin off his hands and knees.“I was a 48-year-old guy wearing 20 lb. of equipment,” he remembers, “and I was running faster than I think my body was capable of handling.” In life-or-death situations, human beings often lose basic motor skills that we take for granted under normal conditions. (Attackers, not just those they’re shooting at, also experience such trade-offs, though they usually have the advantage of not being taken by surprise.)Instantly, Glennon bounced back up and kept running to the corner, which seemed to get no closer with each step. Just then, his fellow officer fell down in front of him, screaming that he’d been shot. So Glennon’s brain reprioritized again. He grabbed the officer’s belt and heaved him the rest of the way around the corner. He remembers feeling pain in his back and thinking, Son of a bitch got me. It had taken seconds to get to the end of the hallway, but it felt like minutes.Then, having finally taken cover, he turned and pointed back down the hallway toward the shooter. It was a chilling sensation to see his bare hand in front of him, pointing in the shape of a pistol like a boy on the playground. Where was his gun? “I looked at my hand. It wasn’t there. I looked in my holster. It wasn’t there.”Without being aware of it, Glennon had dropped his gun in the hallway when he’d reached over to help the wounded officer. In moments of extreme stress, the brain does not allow for contemplation; it does not process new information the way it normally does. The more advanced parts of the brain that handle decision making go off-line, unable to intervene until the immediate fear has diminished.Read Page 2By fixating on hypothetical school-yard gunfights, we are choosing to fight in the riskiest arena: the chances that an officer or armed educator will shoot a child by accident are high, as are the chances of arriving officers’ mistakenly shooting anyone seen with a weapon in the ensuing chaos.

Came across this old thread concerning the Obama 'you didn't build that' comment, while doing some forum cleanup.'Totally Rad', on 24 Jul 2012 - 16:01, said:It's perfectly Clear to me. Success in society is never a solo effort.Sorry, not what he said. He said if you have a company, you didn't build it.You can keep trying to spin this all you want, but the reason he's being forced to repeatedly "explain" his comment, is because he screwed up.'You didn't build that:' A theme out of context."Look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own," he said. "You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there."If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges."If you've got a business -- you didn't build that," he continued. "Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the internet. The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don't do on our own."It was obvious to anyone who read the full comments that when Obama said, 'you didn't build that' he was referring to this 'unbelievable American system' that allowed you to thrive.Could he have worded it better? Sure.Lying little trolls like Golfboy are just waiting for Obama or Biden to word something inartfully, so they pounce on it and have their gotcha moment.But that's what dishonest trolls do.

Right, but that's all we had, because we had no standing army at the time that the Bill of Rights was adopted. Most of the Continental Army was disbanded in 1783 and the Legion of the United States which was the foundation of the United States Army wasn't established until 1792, a year after the Bill of Rights was adopted. So we had to have private armed citizens to provide defense and defend public safety. I found the part about the Shay's Rebellion very interesting. I remember learning about it (what seems like 100 years ago) but I couldn't have told you what it was about until I read that article, and did a little research on it. A lot of people say that the Second Amendment gives us the right to bear arms in case we have to rebel against a tyrannical government, yet the article says that the Founders framed the Constitution in part as a response to the danger posed by the Shay's Rebellion, which was a revolt against what was considered by some to be harsh government policies. Another good point was that if the Second Amendment gives us the right to bear arms in case we have to rebel against a tyrannical government, they would have repealed the Constitution's treason clause, which defines treason as taking up arms against the government. There's a section on the Shay's Rebellion Wikipedia page about the impact it had on the framing of the Constitution.http://en.wikipedia....hays'_Rebellion You may be better served reading the actual words of our founders rather than a progressive blog....just sayin'.

You may be better served reading the actual words of our founders rather than a progressive blog....just sayin'.I don't really consider The Daily Beast a progressive blog, but I didn't take everything the author said at face value.I did a little digging around on my own.I'm not sure what you thought was factually incorrect in my post, and you haven't posted anything to dispute what I said.But I will take your advice and do a little more research on the Founding Fathers, in regards to the 2nd Amendment.

Poor Golfboy.Hoist with his own petard.You'll get no serious response from liberals because there is no defense of infanticide.Infanticide? I thought this thread was about abortion?How many infants are being killed within 24 hours of their birth?Remember what you said GB:Words mean things and when you lie for the the purpose of exaggerating the threat, well, you lie.

Poor Golfboy. Hoist with his own petard. Infanticide? I thought this thread was about abortion? How many infants are being killed within 24 hours of their birth? Remember what you said GB: lol. it's nice that you have a new version of richclem to play with. i know you were getting bored here with no one to spar with.

lol. it's nice that you have a new version of richclem to play with. i know you were getting bored here with no one to spar with.The little troll must be the love child of Clem and DL. LOL

Sen. Dianne Feinstein caught in conflict of interest or just helping the hubby?La Jolla Post Office stands among 4,000 United States Post Office properties set for sale. Residents of the California beachside village want to save their historic building but are losing the battle to more powerful political forces. Crony capitalism is close to home in California.United States Postal Service (USPS) hired the worlds largest commercial real estate firm, CB Richard Ellis Group (CBRE), to sell the properties. Richard Blum is chairman of the board at CBRE. U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California) is Richard Blums wife.Most of the citizens served by those four thousand post offices soon to be for sale think Dianne Feinsteins wifely relationship to CBREs Chairman Blum represents a conflict of interest. Such thinking is certain concerning Californias post offices and a strongly held belief among La Jollans about to lose their beloved building to a lifelong politician helping her husband.The same is happening to the Berkeley post office. Despite plummeting stamp sales and bill-paying moved from mail to online, Berkeley residents, too, want their historic post office saved from sale. They are buying neither stamps nor the story that their senator acts in anything but a conflict of interest.On December 4 in protest, Berkeley residents marched on Sen. Feinsteins San Francisco offices. They confronted the senators staffer, Brian Weiss, demanding that the sale of their post office be stopped for conflict of interest with the senators husband and his business.His business and her public life are completely separate, said Weiss, leaving Berkeley folks wondering exactly how Weiss would know that.Weiss elaborated in a follow-up email, saying Senator Feinstein is not involved with and does not discuss any of her husbands business decisions with him." Life must be dull in the Feinstein-Blum household or else Weiss is constantly in on the couples conversations.The La Jolla task force fighting the sale--and fighting the personal interests of their own senator were advised by Feinsteins office to file an application with the California State Preservation Office. They were told that their paperwork wasnt filled out correctly. What paperwork?" was the question of the moment.It is uncertain whether the gratuitous advice was a face-saving device for a politician caught in conflict, or whether this is bureaucratic business as usual in California. By all appearances, it looks like crony capitalism at work among high-ranking government officials and businessmen in bed with U.S. senators.http://www.examiner....lping-the-hubbyOne of the reasons for the Postal Service's financial problems is the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, which was passed in the 2006 lame duck session.It forces the Postal Servive to prefund its future health care benefit payments to retirees for the next 75 years in a ten year time span, something that no other government or private corporation is required to do.They are funding health benefits for employees who haven't even been born.The bill passed in the House of Representatives by voice vote, and a record of each representatives position was not kept.The bill passed in the Senate by Unanimous Consent and a record of each senators position was not kept of this either.So there is no way to find out how Senator Feinstein voted on it.I'm sure she never discusses any of her husband's business decisions with him.

Free men go armed.The Liberal Left in this country want to put an end to that,,,,Cute siggy.Almost as if the patriot act never happened.You people - you have no sense of shame.Racist.Yes, that old Liberal Leftie Ronald Reagan wanted to put an end to freedom, just like Obama.Quick, chuck. Call reagan a liberal - that's the standard neocon answer when caught in hypocrisy.

lol. it's nice that you have a new version of richclem to play with. i know you were getting bored here with no one to spar with.Bwahaha!!!I knew rich clem.I accused rich clem of child molestation and glory holing.G00fboy is no rich clem.

One of the reasons for the Postal Service's financial problems is the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, which was passed in the 2006 lame duck session.It forces the Postal Servive to prefund its future health care benefit payments to retirees for the next 75 years in a ten year time span, something that no other government or private corporation is required to do.They are funding health benefits for employees who haven't even been born.The bill passed in the House of Representatives by voice vote, and a record of each representatives position was not kept.The bill passed in the Senate by Unanimous Consent and a record of each senators position was not kept of this either.So there is no way to find out how Senator Feinstein voted on it.I'm sure she never discusses any of her husband's business decisions with him.Pedocons CHEER the deliberate destruction of the post office - on account of fox tells em to.

I knew rich clem.I accused rich clem of child molestation and glory holing.G00fboy is no rich clem.ROFLI've been doing a search for an old post and have come across some good stuff.Clem started a thread whining about how Liberals were fleeing him.It appears that many if not most liberals have fled to the Liberals only section or to another debate board, as I would have predicted. I thought they'd last a little longer.A great poster named rem had the best response.......Does anyone know who let RC back in? Was there a budget cut at the loony bin where he normally resides and they needed his bed for "sicker" people?Does anyone know what happened to RC's history of 10,000+ old posts, which clearly demonstrate time & time again that he is an hypocritical liar, an unworthy debate opponent and a foaming maniac who commonly mistakes viagra for ritalin.Being wrong is NO deterrent to this guy - he'll still drone ON, and ON and ON like a chatty Kathy doll completely undeterred by reality, and then he'll keep going. That's not debate, rather its akin to a discussion with the most belligerent drunkard fool at the party.The thing about RC is if you suck at debate he'll take you down and biatch slap you a few times along the way, and wrap up with a nice straw man labelling you as a typical liberal. You see, predatorily attacking the weak while posing as a good Christian is typical demonic or chicken hawk Neocon behavior. If you're a decent debater he'll insult your intelligence with endless circular arguments &, for example, compare high crimes against humanity happening now to lying about a bj many years ago without noticing any differentiating nuance. Neocons are also color blind, except when it comes to race.Its not a question of fleeing debate, its a question of needing space from trolls & the pitifully narrow minded. Even if minus 20% of Americans support war criminal Bush and five more Katrina's happened, RC would still be his loyal, yappy lapdoggy googling up excuses for his evil master. But if you could look at RC's history, you'd see that he used to repeatedly grind statistics in our faces when a minority of Americans were against the Iraq war. That does not deter him one iota now that he is clearly on the lunatic fringe. This is not a problem for RC, he just drops statistical data from his vernacular.Instead of admitting how wrong his predictions were and learning from his mistakes, he just comes back for more of the same with his signature ad nauseam arguments. Don't be deterred RC, perhaps liberal professors plotting to destroy America are now conducting the statistical studies.Anyway, its getting late and I forgot to feed the cat.There was a good poster named Pundit Hater who Clem stalked until he left the forum. He came back as political-forum-guy for a while, then Clem drove him away for good.I came to offer a warning, though, as in "UH OH!"Rich said: "And why don't you respond to the rest of my points?"He's starting his back-door slide. Anyone who's been here a while has seen it all before, repeatedly, and most recently in his stalking of me. He's going to try to wear you down with sheer stamina, you see, and keep stating the same things over and over again.After a while, you'll just tell him that, "I answered your stupid questions." He'll ignore that and ask them again, and again, and again.He'll start going into all of your threads, and even into threads in which you don't participate, and claim, "That's why he ran from debate and wouldn't answer my questions. Liberals flee debate, reality!"You'll appeal to others to referee, as I did, perhaps, and they'll all say, "Rich, he answered you a dozen times! Let it go!"And he won't. And he'll compile lists of anything untoward you ever said in the heat of debate (and over months of debate) and splatter them out there in a single posting to make you sound like a nasty guy (all the while splattering his every post with demeaning and mocking insults).Eventually he'll probably quote someone else (unattributed) on something he thinks he can defeat (usually something personal about him) and mock you and say "What about that, huh?" If you catch him in this dirty trick, as OldPat recently did and as happened twice with the same quote in my fight with him over at BANNED WORD (which was first corrected by the original poster he had quoted, and then corrected by me two weeks later when he tried the same thing again) he'll say, "Aw geez, I made a mistake." Except it's not a mistake - it's a technique that's going to force you to be ever-vigilant or get smeared because anytime you miss Rich's dirty trick, he'll shine it uglier on you.In the meantime, he'll continue to distort what you actually type, as you've wonderfully caught and clobbered repeatedly. He's pretty clever - with me, he did things like leave off the "S" in the word "failure" to make a very sound and logical point seem like hyperbole.Just a public warning to you, and to anyone bothering to take the lunatic seriously.Oh, I'm sorry, the "honorable" lunatic seriously.PH (who can't get deleted, apparently)I swear when I read Pundit Hater's posts I'm amazed at how much they mirror my own posts in regards to Clem's behavior.And when I read the things that Clem said to Pundit Hater and the way he hounded him, it's like Deja Vu.

The secret is revealed. This is why we have a Liberals Only Room.It was created to be a "RichClem free" zone. LOLI can see where things are going.I tried to be a moderator, but ended up making a fool out of myself in trying to play the mediator.I have found somewhere else and would like to leave this forum. Yeah, Dasher and the rest were right--I probably won't even last two weeks. Heck, I couldn't even last a week. This forum no longer has anything to do with the name of the forum. There aren't enough liberals that have stuck around to make it such--most have left on behalf of Clem and probably due to me defending him for a while as I learned what kind of a poster he is.I'm sorry that in those actions that I contributed to more people leaving. It was not in my intentions--I was merely trying to play a mediator as SO many people were ragging on Clem and I didn't realize why--I thought it was because his opinions were an irritant, but I've learned otherwise since then.I would like to thank David for giving me the chance to moderate. It takes a lot of time and effort, and I'm sorry that I was harsh towards the moderation methods I saw when I first arrived--I didn't know the extent of what people were dealing with as right-wingers start to take over this board.I'm not going to be one of the only liberals left in a forum. That gets old really quick.I'm the first one to admit when I'm ignorant of something. I'm sorry I was so gullible and naive.Hi Kizz, it is tough, but the LF had more posters yesterday than it did in almost a year. Over 400. You and Clem both had 59 posts, so there were other people besides the two of you. But 59 posts in one day takes alot of energy. I just merged the Liberal Only room and the debate hall. So those who want a "RichClem free" zone can now see the "liberal only" room very easily. It is hard to write 59 posts in a day. That can wear any person out. But stick around. There is always a danger that one person dominates a particular chat room, especially if he is controversial. This is also a friendly reminder to RichClem to post less in this room till you end up being 15-20% of the room instead of 30-40%. So in essence, if Kizz is not here, then you would be 30% of the room, which is not good.So Kizz, I just told Clem to take it easy if you are not around. So ignore Clem's posts and he will end up posting less.Ignore Clem's post.....LOLGood advice.

(theravenseldon @ Jun 28 2007, 10:29 PM) I think short of spamming or overt calls to violence you aren't going to get anybody banned. Even calls to violence don't get banned on the LF. If someone someone calls for the killing of such and such.. Leave the post up... make a comment that the post is illegal... and Run to the phone to call the FBI, Secret Service or local police. ... That way we can all claim to be good citizens.. Just like Coyote said. If a moderator ever does an edit just make a note saying that you did it as well. But if someone keeps on calling for the killing of someone, in a spam like manner, that is boring and the person should be banned.... Depends on the articulateness of the poster.. So it's okay to call for violence, as long as you do it in an articulate manner. But if someone keeps on calling for the killing of someone, in a spam like manner, that is boring and the person should be banned. Yeah. I always get bored when someone keeps on calling for my killing. So you can't be banned for calling for violence, (as long as it's done in an articulate manner), but if you keep on doing it, then you're boring, andbeing boringapparently is a banning offense.

David on Deportliberals....... The DL is here often.... and he seems articulate.. even though I never read his stuff...