Liberal Forum

You'll just disappear after you get slapped around, as usual.

I went to the horsey sauce thread and slapped down eight irrefutable proofs that fox lies. As I predicted, you waffled and huffed and puffed but failed to address them. You won;t address them becasue you CAN'T address them without admitting you were wrong - and that's something you don't have the stomach for. So I posted this:You may attend, or not attend, upon me, as is your wont. You challenged us to produce credible evidence of fox news lying. I came to your house and dumped a **** ton of it on your lawn, in your drive way, and very near the edge of your swimming pool. Only the most vacuous of lackeys allow themselves to be propagandized in that low fashion and then defend the propaganda machine. A NEWS CHANNEL photo-shopping the pictures of guys they're doing a hit piece on???? Running b-roll to puff crowd size???I challenged ANY right winger to show me ANYTHING NEAR the low level of garbage from MSNBC that we had shown against fox, time and time again. Guess what happened? One did. He showed MSNCB using cheap-assed camera angles to hide the fact that the pistol toter in the frame was black, since that would have threatened their narrative that the teabaggers were all a bunch of white racists. Y'know what I did?I started a thread about it, acknowledged my error in my previous comparisons, and swore off either watching MSNBC or crediting them as anything superior to fox. There's the difference betwixt us. One of us can admit his errors and learn from them, and the other will defend the indefensible, hiding behind being too busy to view the proof that he demanded (while still picking one that he thinks he can parse a shot at, thus betraying that he DID watch them and simply could not refute them). Is it THAT hard to say, "Y'know what? You guys are right. Fox sux. Moving on..." That's what I did, with MSNBC. And I didn't even have to change my politics (or my underwear). And that summarizes the real issue between us: your intellectual dishonesty. You got the cartoons, the pyramids, the chops. The only thing you lack is the manhood to own your mistakes. And it boxes you in. Now you're stuck with - I think - EIGHT clips that demonstrate to any resonable person that fox is a lying spin machine. The only folks that are gonna pretend to believe otherwise are lowblooded hangers on. So that's what you're stuck with: a claque of shills. You need to govern yourself better. You need to hold yourself to a higher standard. And I never once claimed that you did not approve of the lybia misadventures. Nor can you produce a quote of me doing so. I merely vouchsafed that you had BETTER be behind it, given your history of applauding anything that ignores the sovereignty of nation states and fights for the cause of globalism.

I went to the horsey sauce thread and slapped down eight irrefutable proofs that fox lies. As I predicted, you waffled and huffed and puffed but failed to address them. You won;t address them becasue you CAN'T address them without admitting you were wrong - and that's something you don't have the stomach for. So I posted this:You are wasting time with teacher, the only thing he has been known for is his bloated unwarranted ego, the image's on his posts tell us all we need to know about him, with all his look at me I'm super man bulls--t. But for some reason a lot of the freaks on this forum have a ego control problem. you find them on the forum doing their Charlie Sheen WINNER bulls--t.

Newt Gingrich, March 7th, 2011 (in an interview with Greta Van Susteren).Van Susteren: What would you do about Libya?"Gingrich: Exercise a no-fly zone this evening. The United States doesnt need anybodys permission. We dont need to have NATO, who frankly, wont bring much to the fight. We dont need to have the United Nations. All we have to say is that we think that slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable and that were intervening. And we dont have to send troops. All we have to do is suppress his air force, which we could do in minutes.Newt Gingrich, March 23, 2011, in an interview with Matt Lauer on NBCs Today show.Lauer: "Do you think Moammar Gadhafi has to go as a result of this military intervention?"Gingrich: I would not have intervened. I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Gadhafi.Newt Gingrich on Neil Cavuto, September 17th, 2004: You cant flip-flop and be commander-in-chief.No you can't Newt.

Newt Gingrich, March 7th, 2011 (in an interview with Greta Van Susteren).Newt Gingrich, March 23, 2011, in an interview with Matt Lauer on NBCs Today show.Newt Gingrich on Neil Cavuto, September 17th, 2004: You cant flip-flop and be commander-in-chief.No you can't Newt. Wow.Friggin'...wow...

Ditto. Freakin WOW. Time for teacher to come to newt's defense, and tell us how we "ditn prove nutn."

Sex outside of marriage should be illegal, says Alaska Governor Parnell's nominee.JUNEAU -- Gov. Sean Parnell's appointee for the panel that nominates state judges testified Wednesday that he would like to see Alaskans prosecuted for having sex outside of marriage.The candidate, Don Haase of Valdez, also admitted under questioning by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that his official resume failed to disclose his leadership role in Eagle Forum Alaska, which advocates for social conservative issues. He most recently was president of the organization, but resigned when he learned of his nomination, he said.Haase, picked by Parnell for one of three public seats on the Alaska Judicial Council, said that he wouldn't let his personal beliefs influence which candidates he'd approve for judgeships.No, of course not. I guess that's why he quickly resigned as president of his advocacy group, and lied on his resume. We believe you Mr. Haase. We really do.

James O'Keefe Asks Supporters For $50,000 To Pay Off 'Major Credit Card Debt'For undercover sting savant James O'Keefe, the task of self-funding his missions to bust groups such as ACORN and NPR is apparently causing a strain on his pocketbook.In a recent fundraising email to supporters, O'Keefe, who recently filed to have his group, Project Veritas, listed as a nonprofit, claims he's in deep credit card debt, and that he needs $50,000 to pay it off."Up 'til now, my friends and I have financed all of our work on our own -- running up major credit card debt," O'Keefe writes in the email, according to Talking Points Memo. "We made a lot of sacrifices -- personally and financially -- because we fight for what we believe in.""It cost us about $50,000 when all is said and done to produce the NPR video," O'Keefe continues. "If you help us raise over $50,000, it will go toward our next video -- after we pay off our credits cards, of course."Here you go Flying Monkeys. This is your chance to bail out a criminal who produces highly edited deceptive videos for a living. Give generously. Who cares if O'Keefe is a lying creep with a criminal history? He hates ACORN and NPR so what's not to like?If O'Keefe is the 'investigative journalist' that he purports to be, then why can't he find a paying job with a legitimate news organization?Related:James O'Keefe Requests Nonprofit Status For Project Veritas As his role in the recent NPR controversy continues to develop, conservative filmmaker and self-proclaimed muckraker journalist James O'Keefe is seeking nonprofit status for his Project Veritas organization. However, O'Keefe's past may play a detrimental role in his attempt for tax-exemption.Currently, the Project Veritas website features a section where viewers can donate, however it states that donations are not tax-deductible due to its pending nonprofit status.Marc Owens, a Washington tax lawyer who has monitored tax-exempt groups with the IRS, told the Chronicle of Philanthropy that its application for 501[C]3 status may not be accepted due to O'Keefe's criminal record and his public statement that he'd "do it again." Owens said:"If he is proposing to do something that is, in fact, illegal, can the IRS believe, with any degree of credibility, what he is saying? Is he going to continue to enter government offices illegally? He pled guilty to it once and said he would do it again. It's reasonable to conclude that the organization may be engaged in criminal activity in the future."

For The First Time, Majority Want Abortion To Be Legal Seven in 10 Americans believe Roe v. Wade should stand, according to new data from a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, as the landmark Supreme Court abortion-rights ruling turned 40 on Tuesday. That is the highest level of support for the decision, which established a woman's right to an abortion, since polls began tracking it in 1989. Some 31% of respondents in the poll said abortion should always be legal, and 9% believed it should be illegal without any exceptions. Between those two opinions are the 23% who thought it should be legal most of the time, but with some exceptions, and the 35% who felt it should be illegal except in circumstances of rape, incest and to save a woman's life. http://online.wsj.co...1504582200.html

If you say so. Again, I don't have a problem with that.This is the crux of it. In every country that has tried it, total registration has led to confiscation.You don't have a problem with thatThis is why you are wrongEspecially if they don't have to undergo a background check.What other constitutional rights do you think you opught to have permission from the government before exercising?Abortion?Publishing a news paper?Going to church?How would you know if I have a criminal record or not?Why should I?It is currently illegal for you to buy the gun anyway.Now you want to make me responsible for stopping you from committing this crime.What other property do you think the government ought to have an inventory of the citizens own?

What other constitutional rights do you think you ought to have permission from the government before exercising?Abortion?I guess you've been asleep while Republicans have put a myriad of restrictions and regulations on abortion providers, and placed mandates on doctors and women seeking an abortion, making what is a legal procedure, in essence, unavailable in many states.

Virginia Senate Republicans Snuck Through A Controversial Redistricting Bill While A Democrat Was At The Inauguration On a party-line vote, Virginia state Senate Republicans passed a controversial redistricting measure that could give the party an easier path to control in 2015 elections, leaving Democrats furious at what they called a "dirty trick." Virginia's Senate is split evenly, 20-20, between Republicans and Democrats. Democratic Sen. Henry Marsh, a civil rights lawyer who has been in the state Senate since 1991, was in Washington on Monday for President Barack Obama's inauguration.The redistricting amendment passed 20-19, as Republicans took advantage of Marsh's absence. Democrats sounded unsuspecting of the move, which Virginia politics blogger Ben Tribbett wrote could "create a GOP supermajority." Tribbett outlines the changes: Five Democratic seats would be in play because they become more Republican. Meanwhile, two traditionally swing districts would become safe Republican districts. “There have been no hearings on this plan. The public has no idea what these districts look like," Democratic Sen. Don McEachin said. "The good working spirit that this Senate has had will come to a very quiet, very sudden end if this bill is passed. To do this by surprise, to rush it through in a day, even though they control the Committee on Privileges and Elections — this is sneaking, underhanded, and beneath the dignity of the Senate." Even Republicans and conservatives sound unhappy that Republicans decided to pursue the legislative strategy. Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell's office did not say whether he would think about vetoing the measure. The Richmond Times-Dispatch's Jeff Schapiro reported that he was "steamed" because he was worried it could threaten his agenda in his last year in office. Read more: http://www.businessi...1#ixzz2IuJZLK9G This is how Republicans operate. Since the Virginia state Senate was evenly divided (20/20), Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling would have had to break the tie, and he was reluctant to go along with the redistricting plan. So they waited until one of the Democrats left town to attend the Inauguration and then they rammed the bill through.

This is how Republicans operate. Buncha jerks, but that's politics.

I guess you've been asleep while Republicans have put a myriad of restrictions and regulations on abortion providers, and placed mandates on doctors and women seeking an abortion, making what is a legal procedure, in essence, unavailable in many states. And you oppose that don't you? So how about a little consistency here and opposing the restrictions on ALL constitutional rights. (Or do you only support rights that aren't specifically spelled out?) This is how Republicans operate. Since the Virginia state Senate was evenly divided (20/20), Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling would have had to break the tie, and he was reluctant to go along with the redistricting plan. So they waited until one of the Democrats left town to attend the Inauguration and then they rammed the bill through How do you feel about the New York Legislature passing their gun restrictions as emergency legislation in the middle of the night?

Awwwwww......Is this where I sign up for an Obama phone?

Grand Theft Election - How Republicans Plan to Rig the Electoral College and Steal the White HouseVirginia lawmakers move to change states system for apportioning presidential electoral votes.RICHMOND, Va. A Republican-backed bill that would end Virginias winner-takes-all method of apportioning its 13 electoral votes in presidential elections cleared its first legislative hurdle Wednesday.A Senate Privileges and Elections subcommittee recommended Sen. Bill Carricos bill on a 3-3 party line vote Wednesday, advancing it to consideration by the GOP-dominated full committee next week. Republicans control the Senate and House in Virginia, and Gov. Bob McDonnell is a Republican.The bill would apportion electors by congressional district to the candidate who wins each of the states 11 districts. The candidate who carries a majority of the districts would also win the two electors not tied to congressional districts.Sen. Charles W. Bill Carrico, R-Grayson, said the change is necessary because Virginias populous, urbanized areas such as the Washington, D.C., suburbs and Hampton Roads can outvote rural regions such as his, rendering their will irrelevant.Last fall, President Barack Obama carried Virginia for the second election in a row, making him the first Democrat since Franklin D. Roosevelt to win Virginia in back-to-back presidential elections. For his victories, he received all 13 of the states electoral votes.Under Carricos revision, Obama would have received only four Virginia electoral votes last year while Republican Mitt Romney would have received nine. Romney carried conservative rural areas while Obama dominated Virginias cities and fast-growing suburbs.Virginia would be only the third state after Maine and Nebraska to apportion electors according to congressional districts, and by far the largest. Maine has only two U.S. House districts, and Nebraska has three.Unlike the other two states, however, Virginia is covered by the 1965 Voting Rights Act, passed during the civil rights era. The act seeks to ensure that states with a history of racial discrimination mostly in the South do not dilute the voting power of minorities. That means Carricos bill would face scrutiny by the Obamas Justice Department should it become law.Democrats have bitterly objected, saying its part of a broad GOP scheme to restrict voting access and manipulate political districts to thwart Democratic gains and keep Republicans in power.Republicans were happy with the statewide winner-take-all method until 2008 when Obama ended 44 years of GOP victories in Virginia in presidential elections, Democrats also said.http://www.washingto...a446_story.htmlVirginia is not the only state considering this type of legislation.GOP officials who control legislatures in several states that supported President Barack Obama are considering changing state laws that give the winner of a state's popular vote all of its Electoral College votes also.Under these laws, Obama, who won the popular vote by 5 million votes, could very possibly have lost the election.Can't win fair and square? Put your thumb on the scale.

Can't win fair and square? Put your thumb on the scale. Gerrymandering has always been a temptation for politicians. Not sure what can be done to prevent it.

For The First Time, Majority Want Abortion To Be Legal Seven in 10 Americans believe Roe v. Wade should stand, according to new data from a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, as the landmark Supreme Court abortion-rights ruling turned 40 on Tuesday. That is the highest level of support for the decision, which established a woman's right to an abortion, since polls began tracking it in 1989. Some 31% of respondents in the poll said abortion should always be legal, and 9% believed it should be illegal without any exceptions. Between those two opinions are the 23% who thought it should be legal most of the time, but with some exceptions, and the 35% who felt it should be illegal except in circumstances of rape, incest and to save a woman's life. http://online.wsj.co...1504582200.html even i'm starting to come around to this abortion thing. it really only kills future liberals. seems like a win-win for everyone.

So how about a little consistency here and opposing the restrictions on ALL constitutional rights.Speaking of consistency, do you consider abortion a constitutional right?How do you feel about the New York Legislature passing their gun restrictions as emergency legislation in the middle of the night?I don't like when any bills are rushed through.Did they do it while the tying vote was absent?(NY state Senate passed Cuomo's bill in a 43-18 vote. Assembly approved it in a 104-43 vote.)Hardly the same as what happened in Virginia.

even i'm starting to come around to this abortion thing. it really only kills future liberals. seems like a win-win for everyone. All kinds of studies these days purporting that increased access to abortions has resulted in less violent crime. They seem specious, in my view, but I admire ingenuity for its own sake.