Liberal Forum

RichClem » 05 Jan 2014 9:53 pm » wrote:
I was referring to your silly lie that I have a "plutocratic, fascist ideology."

No, I advocate freedom.

You advocate and defend the repressive liberal Welfare State.



You've been on the board for years and know full well that most do.

But you'll lie regardless of what the facts are.

it seems that most everyone except huey, thinks you are a slimy **** misogynist stalker

you really think people respect the kind of behavior you display constantly. you are **** little boy. you are a pitiful socially scared psycho that is a constant source of boring justifications that your lack of confidence squeezes out of you like toothpaste. and you get paid for it. ZERO credibility.

Skeptic » 05 Jan 2014 10:03 pm » wrote:1) You **DO** have a "plutocratic, fascist ideology."

Oh gosh, is that what you think of the Constitution and Principles the country was founded on?

Imbecile.

RichClem » 06 Jan 2014 7:09 am » wrote:
Oh gosh, is that what you think of the Constitution and Principles the country was founded on?

Imbecile.

Believing one's position to be consistent with a recognized authority is not in itself proof one is correct. There is huge disagreement among men and women of honest and intelligent intent about just about everything. Adamant holding to a position and refusing to accept the fact one may be mistaken is the hallmark of a frightened mind.

Skeptic » 05 Jan 2014 8:27 pm » wrote:
Misty is a steady, smart, articulate poster. I've watched the clem bat follow her from thread to thread, posting the same, inane, ridiculous crap over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

I've watched him do this for YEARS. Clem's goal seems to be to discredit ANY articulate opposition to his plutocratic, fascist ideology. He has done it to many such people until they leave the forum. As such, he is a forum quality killer.

I suspect he lives in some relative's basement and collects $50 a week from some Koch funded political organization for the purpose of disrupting any decent conversation that might germinate between two people that haven't been entirely brain-washed into believing we should all vote to maximize tax policy benefit for billionaires.

I am not going to dispute your opinion of Misty as a poster or the facts of the clem/misty stalker saga. I am simply saying if Misty feels she is being stalked on these forums why does she continue to respond, antagonize and make posts that are intentionally designed to draw clem to her?

Do you not think that responding to him also kills the forum?

SallyForth » 06 Jan 2014 7:26 am » wrote: Believing one's position to be consistent with a recognized authority is not in itself proof one is correct. There is huge disagreement among men and women of honest and intelligent intent about just about everything. Adamant holding to a position and refusing to accept the fact one may be mistaken is the hallmark of a frightened mind.

You mean I'm supposed to ignore my decades of reading and learning to satisfy ignoramuses and moonbats?

You're kidding, right?


What is your opinion of what the country's Founding Principles are?

RichClem » 06 Jan 2014 7:32 am » wrote:
You mean I'm supposed to ignore my decades of reading and learning to satisfy ignoramuses and moonbats?

You're kidding, right?


What is your opinion of what the country's Founding Principles are?

I have spent decades reading and learning too, sir. I have strongly-held positions. I, like you, will not cede my views to people I believe are, as you say, ignoramuses.
All that said, no two people in that 'learned" category are going to agree on most, or even much, depending on the subject.

Just because you or I have spent a lot of time studying does not of itself mean either of us is correct.

I find this to be helpful, and the response to it:

"The beginning of wisdom is the admission of one's ignorance."
-- Socrates

Reader response:
It's catchy, but I think it slightly misses the mark... it's not the realization of ignorance that shocks the system, its the realization of uncertainty. When someone truly sees that ALL of their knowledge comes with varying degrees of uncertainty that can never be completely eliminated, that disrupts the "foundational" relationship to knowledge. One must stop thinking that they're going to grasp the absolute truth with both hands and hold on tight, and come up with another way to relate to life, learning, and wisdom.



http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/983799

SallyForth » 06 Jan 2014 7:44 am » wrote:
I have spent decades reading and learning too, sir. I have strongly-held positions. I, like you, will not cede my views to people I believe are, as you say, ignoramuses.
All that said, no two people in that 'learned" category are going to agree on most, or even much, depending on the subject.

Just because you or I have spent a lot of time studying does not of itself mean either of us is correct.

You won't even offer an opinion? Come on, you're kidding, right?

You'll criticize me and other conservatives and express endless opinions on many topics, but you won't express an opinion about likely the most important political overview of the entire country?

Typical leftist.

Huey » 06 Jan 2014 7:30 am » wrote:
I am not going to dispute your opinion of Misty as a poster or the facts of the clem/misty stalker saga. I am simply saying if Misty feels she is being stalked on these forums why does she continue to respond, antagonize and make posts that are intentionally designed to draw clem to her?

Do you not think that responding to him also kills the forum?

I think she responds to demonstrate that RichClem can't intimidate her or that his inane conclusions about her are not the final verdict. That dynamic (others foolishly adopting the conclusion of such a stalker) is all part of a forum where such stalking is tolerated.

Let me ask you, Huey:

Since RC insults everyone left of Mussolini as "trolls" and "moonbats", why does it not strike you as odd that he responds to any of us?

RichClem » 06 Jan 2014 7:57 am » wrote:
You won't even offer an opinion? Come on, you're kidding, right?

You'll criticize me and other conservatives and express endless opinions on many topics, but you won't express an opinion about likely the most important political overview of the entire country?

Typical leftist.

The question is far too broad. Narrow it.
PS Way to sidestep the point that "decades of reading" doesn't of it itself makes one's opinion correct.

SallyForth » 06 Jan 2014 8:23 am » wrote: The question is far too broad. Narrow it.

If you had any real idea what they are, you wouldn't be evading the question.

The country was founded on the principles of individual liberty and severely limited federal power, based on the Founders' clearly expressed fear of tyrannical government.

Making the entire Liberal Welfare State and almost all of Liberalism 180 degrees contrary to those Principles.

Which is why liberals would rather have a limb removed rather than answer the question.

RichClem » 06 Jan 2014 8:26 am » wrote:
If you had any real idea what they are, you wouldn't be evading the question.

The country was founded on the principles of individual liberty and severely limited federal power, based on the Founders' clearly expressed fear of tyrannical government.

Making the entire Liberal Welfare State and almost all of Liberalism 180 degrees contrary to those Principles.

Which is why liberals would rather have a limb removed rather than answer the question.

You misunderstand the principles again, cllembat. Try looking up the "Necessary and Proper" clause that both Hamilton and Madison agreed was necessary to have a federal government AT ALL.

SallyForth » 06 Jan 2014 8:23 am » wrote:
The question is far too broad. Narrow it.
PS Way to sidestep the point that "decades of reading" doesn't of it itself makes one's opinion correct.

All he reads are right-wing Op-Eds

Skeptic » 06 Jan 2014 8:36 am » wrote:
All he reads are right-wing Op-Eds

Are the Federalist Papers Right Wing Op Eds?

Skeptic » 06 Jan 2014 8:35 am » wrote: You misunderstand the principles again, cllembat. Try looking up the "Necessary and Proper" clause that both Hamilton and Madison agreed was necessary to have a federal government AT ALL.

Which had nothing to do at all with today's Welfare State or what today's Liberalism is.

Or with my summary of the Founding Principles.

The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

"The foregoing powers" which were explicitly listed and which were severely limited by the forgotten 10th Amendment.

By liberal reasoning, just about anything is permissible for the federal government to do. It has no limitations.

Huey » 06 Jan 2014 8:37 am » wrote:

Are the Federalist Papers Right Wing Op Eds?

You're under the impression RC read them with even a hint of comprehension??

I thought you were smarter than that.

RichClem » 06 Jan 2014 9:02 am » wrote:
1) Which had nothing to do at all with today's Welfare State or what today's Liberalism is.

2) Or with my summary of the Founding Principles.



3) "The foregoing powers" which were explicitly listed and which were severely limited by the forgotten 10th Amendment.

4) By liberal reasoning, just about anything is permissible for the federal government to do. It has no limitations.

1) Well, that might be your conclusion, based on ... ... ...

2) ...which was flat wrong.

3) The 10th only restates the intent of the constitution, itself. The "Necessary and Proper" clause is, after all, part of the "foregoing Powers."

4) Incorrect!! As usual.

RichClem » 06 Jan 2014 8:26 am » wrote:
If you had any real idea what they are, you wouldn't be evading the question.

The country was founded on the principles of individual liberty and severely limited federal power, based on the Founders' clearly expressed fear of tyrannical government.

Making the entire Liberal Welfare State and almost all of Liberalism 180 degrees contrary to those Principles.

Which is why liberals would rather have a limb removed rather than answer the question.

Those aren't all the principles by which this government was founded. You've made a generalized statement, and I'll guarantee you that the way any two people interpret them is not going to be identical. Each of those terms: individual liberty and limited federal power are open as it gets to interpretation. You might as well say that no Christian Church follows the Bible because there are over 1000 Christian denominations in this nation. If they all saw the Bible as clearly as you believe you see the Constitution, there'd be one church, not a thousand times that many. SCOTUS didn't rule the way you wanted re the ACA. The Court torked off the South with Brown. Does this mean that the justices don't understand the Constitution? Try being reasonable and realize that everyone doesn't see things your way. I don't expect anyone at all to see things my way, even when I'm absolutely certain I'm right.

And the idea that liberals are opposed to those principles in general is nonsense. With you it's all or nothing, no grey, isn't it. But the world is not like that.

SallyForth » 06 Jan 2014 10:03 am » wrote:

Those aren't all the principles by which this government was founded.

Baloney, I am correct without any question.

And given that you refused to even offer your own opinion, who cares what you think?

And the idea that liberals are opposed to those principles in general is nonsense. With you it's all or nothing, no grey, isn't it. But the world is not like that.

In fact, I used the term "almost," which is a shade of gray.


But test your claim out; what liberal policies in existence or proposed are voluntary?

And which are written into law and regulation?

Social Security? Medicare?

Welfare? Government Monopoly Education?
The environment? Business activity?

Pharmaceuticals? Medicine? Health care?

Almost everything liberals stand for is written into federal law or regulation coercing Americans under penalty of fine or imprisonment.

Where would liberals like to see smaller, less powerful government and lower taxation?

Nowhere, off the top of my head.

You'll dodge the questions, like liberals always do.

RichClem » 05 Jan 2014 5:19 pm » wrote: Oh my, Rush told a joke in bad taste!

It figures you would stick up for that drug addled gasbag.
That was not a 'joke' Kitten, and Rush is not a comedian.
He was dead serious.

Misty » 06 Jan 2014 1:12 pm » wrote: It figures you would stick up for that drug addled gasbag.
That was not a 'joke' Kitten, and Rush is not a comedian.
He was dead serious.

I heard it, and it was an over the top joke, based on Fluke's silly support for universal contraception distribution.


Can't you even tell believable lies?

And I thought it was well over the top and in bad taste.