Liberal Forum

Misty, on 26 Mar 2013 - 16:18, said:Example?The Tea Party was ignored by the others until it was too big to ignore.James O'Keeffe Acorn scandal.Reverend Wright?Benghazi?I thought you were talking about subjects that were completely ignored by the other cable news networks?I've never seen a story completely ignored by fox news (as evident by the 19 minutes) the way I have on the other cable news networks.None of those things were completely ignored, although some of them should have been.Especially James O'Keefe and his ACORN videos that were totally discredited.

I thought you were talking about subjects that were completely ignored by the other cable news networks? None of those things were completely ignored, although some of them should have been. Especially James O'Keefe and his ACORN videos that were totally discredited. Parse words if you must, but ignoring it until you no longer can and remain relevant to me is totally ignoring it. 1 maybe 2 days I could put it down as lousy journalism, but weeks?

I responded to your falsehoods below. Yadda, yadda yadda......... ****. You said that I supported the 'anti-conservative smear' that we gave Saddam the green light to gas the Kurds. We didn't give Hussein the green light to gas the Kurds. That's utter bulls***, but what else would one expect from a psychotic. And of course little Miss Marxist jumps in to support a good anti-conservative smear. As anyone can clearly see, I did not say that we gave the green light. I said that we turned a blind eye. People can read you know. Ronald Reagan's administration turned a blind eye to Saddam's repeated use of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers and the Kurds in Iraq. LIAR!

You can also pick up your own mail, and your neighbor's mail. LOL Long time no see A of J. How are you? I've been doing well. hopefully the last hurricane didn't cause you/your family much trouble. I heard some Occupy members (which is largely a dead movement now but still pockets remaining) went to help the Sandy victims. get ready for more, though; it's unlikely anything major will be done about anthropogenic global warming by world governments in the next 20 or so years. and even if they did, carbon still remains in the atmosphere for hundreds of years (so things should be fine around...2600 AD LOL) wretchedclump would probably deny AGW even if his house was blown over, or if his area suffered from a long drought. maybe he would rather heed the words of Perry, who told his base to "pray to God" to end human-induced warming and resulting fires

Parse words if you must, but ignoring it until you no longer can and remain relevant to me is totally ignoring it. 1 maybe 2 days I could put it down as lousy journalism, but weeks? I gave actual figures to support my claim. You haven't provided any proof that these cable outlets ignored these subjects until they no longer could. Also, I contend that most of the things you mentioned were Fox News created controversies that did not deserve the amount of coverage they got on FOX.

WretchedClump You're closer philisophically toa total wackjobthan you are to mainstream Americans. This coming from the guy who thinks abolishing social expenditures on welfare and middle class entitlements, cutting taxes on the wealthy to near or to 0%, and adopting stringent monetary policies, while remaining quiet on social issues (even though you support abortion rights, you rarely point that out to appease your conservative lackeys) is "center." No, idiot, it would put you further right-wing than Pinochet, your favorite monetarist/neoliberal dictator. It's funny how most people's definition of extreme right is your "center."

I've been doing well. hopefully the last hurricane didn't cause you/your family much trouble. No. I'm here in PA now, and it wasn't too bad. Luckily my family in NYC were not really affected either. But areas near where I used to live like Breezy Point, and the Rockaways were hit hard.

Reverend Wright was Fox fabricated? Really? You don't think what he said was a problem? You don't think in 20 years the President heard any of it but continued to attend anyway? Really? How the Networks Censored and Manipulated Jeremiah Wright Soundbites and Glorified Barack Obama’s Race Speech

Reverend Wright was Fox fabricated? Really? You don't think what he said was a problem? You don't think in 20 years the President heard any of it but continued to attend anyway? Really? Why don't you discuss that with Clem? I'm sure he'd be happy to drag up a few of my old quotes on that subject for you. I really have no interest in discussing it at this time. It's been beaten to death. This is how the right wing/conservative media operates. They blow up some non-story, then they bully what they call the 'liberal media' into covering it, by their constant whining and complaining that the 'liberal media' refuses to cover it.

You're closer philisophically toa total wackjobthan you are to mainstream Americans. WretchedClump This coming from the guy who thinks abolishing social expenditures on welfare and middle class entitlements, cutting taxes on the wealthy to near or to 0%, and adopting stringent monetary policies, while remaining quiet on social issues (even though you support abortion rights, you rarely point that out to appease your conservative lackeys) is "center." No, idiot, it would put you further right-wing than Pinochet, your favorite monetarist/neoliberal dictator. It's funny how most people's definition of extreme right is your "center." Wow, sorry to see your psychosis is as bad as ever. You don't have a clue what my actual opinions are. I'd give Americans the freedom to participate or not in Government Ponzi Schemes S.S.and Medicare. I want the rich to pay roughly the same % of their income in income and other real taxes as everyone else. (Payroll taxes aren't really taxes.) The Fed is ripping off ordinary Americans via inflation to benefit big banks, moonbat. Try not to be so freaking stupid.

What he said, except a little nicer. You can't deal with these people that way - they take it for weakness. You have to take a firm hand with bathroom trolls - and always keep a rape whistle handy. The US helped Iraq develop its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in the 80's. AndRonald Reagan’s administration turned a blind eye to Saddam's repeated use of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers and the Kurds in Iraq. Then in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, Bush 43 cited those same atrocities (which were disregarded at the time) and those same weapons programs (which no longer existed) as a pretext for war. Which was merely hypocritical then. But now, with these facts being well understood by all, it is downright effeminate and truckstop gay to keep runing that tired spew - which is what spewtard teacher was doing, which is why you have to cuff him. Nothing less than a good cuffing is proper response to the forum equivalent of bathroom trolling. Running effeminate clown cartoons in hopes of finding like-minded nancies is nothing less than that.

Reverend Wright was Fox fabricated? Really? You don't think what he said was a problem? You don't think in 20 years the President heard any of it but continued to attend anyway? Really? Why don't you discuss that with Clem? I'm sure he'd be happy to drag up a few of my old quotes on that subject for you. I really have no interest in discussing it at this time. It's been beaten to death. "No interest in discussing it at this time?" You've done little except stonewall the fact that Obama had a racist, Marxist-Communist spiritual adviser, moonbat. It's the equivalent of a Repub having attended a Neo-Nazi church for 20 years. What would have been your reaction if I'd deferred that I'd have no interest in discussing that either at the time?

I am really gonna need to bow at the glory hole soon. I'm cock-hungry.You said it, you obnoxious, three-post-having pinhead.

This is how the right wing/conservative media operates.They blow up some non-story, then they bully what they call the 'liberal media' into covering it, by their constant whining and complaining that the 'liberal media' refuses to cover it. Oh yeah, non-stories like the fact that Clinton was going to be impeached after the 1996 election for his many non-Lewinsky felonies and impeachable acts, which the liberal MSM refused to report to the American people. Journalists finally showed up to a Ross Perot speech expecting him to attack Bush. Instead, he shoved Clinton's coming impeachment in their faces. Cokie Roberts looked like she'd swalled a lemon when she had to bring that up for discussion on the Sunday panel show that week. The liberal MSM was literally censoring the news hoping to get Clinton back into office. Hey, tell everyone again how there's no liberal bias. That's such a hilarious lie.

Wow, sorry to see your psychosis is as bad as ever. You don't have a clue what my actual opinions are. Actually, I just made them like 10x more sophisticated than they actually are. I'd give Americans the freedom to participate or not in Government Ponzi Schemes S.S.and Medicare. sayeth the moron who thinks Obama is "left-wing" and yet you would cut off funding for those exact programs, while lying about giving americans the "choice." so there really isn't a "choice," just a bunch of demagoguery about supposed "Ponzi schemes" (You're awfully quiet about the lack of prosecutions from the SEC on real Ponzi Schemes) it's econ 0.00001, that if you don't fund a program, the PROGRAM DOESN'T EXIST. ROFL. how that escaped you is beyond me I want the rich to pay roughly the same % of their income in income and other real taxes as everyone else. (Payroll taxes aren't really taxes.) Of course payroll taxes are taxes. Do you even know what a "tax" is? As for your first assertion (lie), I've never heard or seen you talk about the 15%'ers, since they derive their "income" from stocks, bonds, equity, derivatives, etc. The Fed is ripping off ordinary Americans via inflation to benefit big banks, moonbat. Yeah, no sh%t. Everyone knows Bernanke is feeding $85 billion every month into the coffers of the banking elite. I thought that was what you wanted, anyways? Seeing as you had no problem with Reagan/Bush I bailing out the S&L banks in 1990, Clinton/Greenspan bailing out LTCM in 1998 after the Asian and Mexican financial crises, nor Bush II's bailout of the banks and hedge funds. All of these ran into the hundreds of billions. It's business as usual, yet you have a curious proclivity to point fingers at the most convenient of times (now that a Democrat is in office; I'm sure if Romney was elected, he'd do the exact same f*cking thing)

Gosh - ya REALLY think romney would follow - with small, purely cosmetic variations - the same policy that bushbama is following? That kind of cyncism in NOT what we expect from a fellow who wants to muck in and carry his end, Smithers.

Payroll taxes aren't really taxes. Of course payroll taxes are taxes. Do you even know what a "tax" is? Real taxes go toward supporting the cost of government. Payroll taxes go into a program from which you will get your money back at your retirement. Even you should be able to figure out that huge difference. Yeah, no sh%t. Everyone knows Bernanke is feeding $85 billion every month into the coffers of the banking elite. I thought that was what you wanted, anyways What I want? You really are psychotic. Seeing as you had no problem with Reagan/Bush I bailing out the S&L banks in 1990, Clinton/Greenspan bailing out LTCM in 1998 after the Asian and Mexican financial crises, nor Bush II's bailout of the banks and hedge funds. All of these ran into the hundreds of billions. I had a huge problem with the Democrat-caused S&L crisis, and I never supported Clinton bailing out LTCM, which caused literal depressions in a number of countries. Get some meds, moonbat, because even after years of reading my posts, you don't have a clue what my philosophy is. It's business as usual, yet you have a curious proclivity to point fingers at the most convenient of times (now that a Democrat is in office; I'm sure if Romney was elected, he'd do the exact same f*cking thing) No, it isn't "business as usual," and Romney would have 1) cut spending and 2) stimulated economic growth, so his deficits would have been far, far smaller.

Get some meds, moonbat, because even after years of reading my posts, you don't have a clue what my philosophy is. No, it isn't "business as usual," and Romney would have 1) cut spending and 2) stimulated economic growth, so his deficits would have been far, far smaller. What world are you living in? The federal government cuts spending, AND "stimulates economic growth?" That's funny - all of your retarded friends were crying when it looked like defense contractors might have to tioghten their belts. You people need to keep your memes straight, sally.

What world are you living in? The federal government cuts spending, AND "stimulates economic growth?" Obama and Dems have been spending massively, yet this is the weakest recovery in 80 years, moonbat. Duh. Oh gosh, what's this? Since 1970, all six instances when our government got larger as a percent of GDP, the unemployment rate went higher. All six times when government got smaller as a percent of GDP, our unemployment rate went lower. This relationship between the relative size of government and unemployment can be described by a "Federal Spending-Unemployment Rate Rule" with a fairly high 0.80 correlation. Put simply, that means that changes in spending as a share of the economy explains 80% of the change in unemployment. http://news.investor...nemployment.htm Follow the link to see the actual chart. Can't post it.

Cokie Roberts looked like she'd swalled a lemon.....That's the same thing you said about me My Clemmy, when you shoved that lemon down my throat. Remember how I almost choked to death, and afterward you laughed and laughed? Good times, huh Sweetie?