Liberal Forum

I'm obsessed......Yes you are Puss.

Yes you are Puss. I see you're running on little troll feet from your latest outrage. Here's a hint Puss. An 'actual real-life rapist' is someone who was convicted of that crime. No, troll, a "rapist" is someone who commits rape. Ask a rape victim if her attacker was a "rapist." Rotsa ruck selling your swill.

I see you're running on little troll feet from your latest outrage. I'm not running from anything, except you and your insane obsession with Bill Clinton. I've been busy potty training a toddler today, who BTW is a whole lot more mature than you. What kind of a nutcase just keeps repeating the same old ****, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year?

I'm not running from anything, except you and your insane obsession with Bill Clinton.I've been busy potty training a toddler today, who BTW is a whole lot more mature than you.What kind of a nutcase just keeps repeating the same old ****, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year?"Insane?" To be informed about important aspects of very recent history is "insane?"To be concerned that the until recently de facto head of the Democrat Party is a serial felon/ rapist/ impeached disgrace is "insane?"To be concerned that this deeply corrupt many might well be back in the White House if Hillary runs and wins is "insane?"I'd be insane if I wasn't concerned about that.But speaking of insane, could a sane, honest person really believe the following?Here's a hint Puss.An 'actual real-life rapist' is someone who was convicted of that crime.No, moonbat, a "rapist" is someone who comitted rape, even if he's never convicted, or even charged.Can't you tell believable lies?

Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli Challenges Va. Sodomy Ruling Although most people think sodomy laws have been unconstitutional since the Supreme Court's 2003 ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli would like to explain why in his view that's not so. What's more, he wants the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals to agree with him and uphold the constitutionality of Virginia's sodomy law which makes anal and oral sex between people of any sex a crime in the process. Cuccinelli last week asked the full appellate court to reverse a three-judge panel's decision and uphold the application of the law in a criminal prosecution against William Scott MacDonald, a very unsympathetic defendant. MacDonald, 47 at the time, was convicted of violating the state's criminal solicitation statute, which applies whenever a person over 18 "commands ... or otherwise attempts to persuade" a person under 18 to commit a felony. According to the appeals court decision, MacDonald called up a 17-year-old girl, met her in a Home Deopt parking lot, went to her grandmother's house, and then asked the girl to perform oral sex on him and have sex with him. She "declined both proposals," but MacDonald later told the police that she "performed oral sex against his will." The girl "gave a sharply conflicting account," according to the court, and he was charged with filing a false police report, among other more serious crimes. Specifically, MacDonald eventually was convicted of soliciting a minor to commit the felony of violating Virginia's "Crimes Against Nature" statute, or sodomy law. Under the sodomy law If any person . . . carnally knows any male or female person by the anus or by or with the mouth, or vol- untarily submits to such carnal knowledge, he or she shall be guilty of a [felony.] Read more at link in title. Cuccinelli wants the court to revive the prohibition on consensual anal and oral sex, for both gay and straight people.

Cuccinelli wants the court to revive the prohibition on consensual anal and oral sex, for both gay and straight people. Looks to me as if you're lying again. Gosh, there's a surprise. MacDonald eventually was convicted of soliciting a minor to commit the felony of violating Virginia's "Crimes Against Nature" statute, or sodomy law. Under the sodomy law It appears that Cucinelli wants to overturn the "right" to sodomy, so as to prosecute child molesters. A federal "right" to sodomy, geez.

Connecticut Lawmakers Pass Sweeping Gun MeasureStill stinging from the shooting deaths of 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Connecticut lawmakers early Thursday approved what advocacy groups call the strongest and most comprehensive gun legislation in the nation.Gov. Dannel Malloy is expected to sign the bill, which bans some weapons as well as the sale or purchase of high-capacity magazines like those used in the Newtown shooting. The bill also requires background checks for all gun purchases.Malloy's signature will make Connecticut the third state to pass such tough measures since the December rampage in Newtown. New York and Colorado passed gun-control legislation limiting magazine capacity, among other provisions.Similar legislation appears stalled in Congress despite overwhelming public support for background checks and substantial -- although diminished -- support for major gun restrictions in the wake of the Newtown killings.Connecticut's action Wednesday sends a message to the nation, said Senate President Don Williams."Democrats and Republicans were able to come to an agreement on a strong, comprehensive bill," he added. "That is a message that should resound in 49 other states, and in Washington, D.C., and the message is we can get it done here and they should get it done in their respective states and nationally in Congress."Read More At Link In TitleI think it's great that both Republican and Democratic state lawmakers decided that the issue had risen above partisan politics, and were able to work together on this bill.

I think it's great that both Republican and Democratic state lawmakers decided that the issue had risen above partisan politics, and were able to work together on this bill. Oh yeah, just what the country needs. Politicians of both parties passing ineffective, symbolic laws restricting our freedom and Constitutional rights that won't have any effect on actual safety.

Looks to me as if you're lying again. Gosh, there's a surprise.It appears that Cucinelli wants to overturn the "right" to sodomy, so as to prosecute child molesters.So how come in 2004, Cuccinelli opposed a bipartisan bill that would have amended the law to comply with Lawrence v. Texas and still be applicable in the MacDonald case?In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Courts Lawrence v. Texas ruling held that states may not ban private non-commercial sex between consenting adults. Virginias Crimes Against Nature statute, which made oral sex (even between consenting married couples) a felony, was clearly the sort of legislation the Court was referencing.A year later, a bipartisan group in the Virginia Senate backed a bill that would have fixed the states Crimes Against Nature law to comply with Lawrence eliminating provisions dealing with consenting adults in private and leaving in place provisions relating to prostitution, public sex, and those other than consenting adults. Cuccinelli opposed the bill in committee and helped kill it on the Senate floor.This is not about sex with minors, Cuccinelli wants homosexual sex to be illegal.In 2009, he (Cuccinelli) told a newspaper that he supported restrictions on the sexual behavior of consenting adults: "My view is that homosexual acts, not homosexuality, but homosexual acts are wrong. They're intrinsically wrong. And I think in a natural law based country it's appropriate to have policies that reflect that. They don't comport with natural law." As a result, the laws text remains unchanged a decade after the Supreme Courts ruling.Here is a bit of advice Mr. Know It All, instead of just reflexively calling me a liar, you should look into things a little further.Cuccinelli has made no secret of the fact that he thinks that there should be laws against sodomy, not to protect minors, but to legislate homosexual behavior, nevermind that in the process it affects all consenting adults, gay or straight. Big government at it's finest.

Misty, on 03 Apr 2013 - 20:01, said:I'm not running from anything, except you and your insane obsession with Bill Clinton."Insane?" To be informed about important aspects of very recent history is "insane?"To be concerned that the until recently de facto head of the Democrat Party is a serial felon/ rapist/ impeached disgrace is "insane?"Yes Puss. Your obsession with Bill Clinton is insane.Nobody else on this forum is interested in discussing Bill Clinton on a daily basis.No, moonbat, a "rapist" is someone who comitted rape, even if he's never convicted, or even charged.Unless you were in the room when the so-called rape was committed you have no proof that it ever happened.

Looks to me as if you're lying again. Gosh, there's a surprise. It appears that Cucinelli wants to overturn the "right" to sodomy, so as to prosecute child molesters. So how come in 2004, Cuccinelli opposed a bipartisan bill that would have amended the law to comply with Lawrence v. Texas and still be applicable in the MacDonald case? This is not about sex with minors, Cuccinelli wants homosexual sex to be illegal. Perhaps you are correct and I'm wrong. We'd have to see his detailed stance on the issue. Here is a bit of advice Mr. Know It All, instead of just reflexively calling me a liar, you should look into things a little further. Here's a bit of advice. Stop lying and take the time to correct the years of lies you've told. Cuccinelli has made no secret of the fact that he thinks that there should be laws against sodomy, not to protect minors, but to legislate homosexual behavior, nevermind that in the process it affects all consenting adults, gay or straight. Big government at it's finest. And he'll be opposed by libertarian-leaning conservatives, and any attempt to do so will very likely fail. Given that liberal like you want to micromanage the most important issues and smallest details of Americans' lives by force of federal law under penalty of fine or imprisonment, you're hardly one to talk.

Perhaps you are correct and I'm wrong. We'd have to see his detailed stance on the issue.No perhaps about it.I posted his stance in post # 3147.Cuccinelli believes that homosexual behavior is wrong, and he believes that public policy should reflect that by outlawing certain sexual acts, nevermind that most straight people engage in those same acts.Given that liberal like you want to micromanage the most important issues and smallest details of Americans' lives by force of federal law under penalty of fine or imprisonment, you're hardly one to talk.That's rich considering Conservative Flying Monkeys like you want to legislate what people do in their bedrooms and what women do with their own bodies.

For Clem, who apparently knows very little about the AG in his own state.Log Cabin Republicans Praise McDonnell, Slam Cuccinelli - October 28, 2009Yesterday, the Log Cabin Republicans praised Republican Bob McDonnell for his "inclusive" statements promising never to discriminate against employees on the basis of sexual orientation.Today, the group of Republican gay activists slammed McDonnell's ticket-mate, Ken Cuccinelli, for the reverse. Cuccinelli, the Republican nominee for attorney general, was quoted in the Virginian-Pilot newspaper declining to commit to the state's nondiscrimination policy against gays and lesbians."My view is that homosexual acts, not homosexuality, but homosexual acts are wrong," Cuccinelli told the newspaper. "They're intrinsically wrong. And I think in a natural law based country it's appropriate to have policies that reflect that. . . They don't comport with natural law. I happen to think that it represents (to put it politely; I need my thesaurus to be polite) behavior that is not healthy to an individual and in aggregate is not healthy to society."David Lampo, vice president of the Log Cabin Republican Club of Virginia, put out the following statement today:"That Mr. Cuccinelli would make such incendiary and prejudicial remarks as a candidate for the state's highest legal office is truly frightening, and we call on him to apologize for injecting his personal and hateful opinions into this race," said David Lampo, vice president of the Log Cabin Republican Club of Virginia. "The overwhelming majority of Virginia voters, 90 percent according to Republican pollster Tony Fabrizio, support a policy of employment nondiscrimination for state employees. We hope voters evaluate very carefully a candidate who intends to let his personal beliefs and prejudices guide his decision making as Attorney General.""Cuccinelli's remarks stand in stark contrast to the inclusive statements of Bob McDonnell, the Republican candidate for Governor," Lampo continued, "Mr. McDonnell has rightfully said the government should not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, and so we call on Republican leaders and candidates throughout Virginia to repudiate Cuccinelli's hateful remarks and stand with Bob McDonnell on this important issue."

No perhaps about it. I posted his stance in post # 3147. Cuccinelli believes that homosexual behavior is wrong, and he believes that public policy should reflect that by outlawing certain sexual acts, nevermind that most straight people engage in those same acts. And he will fail to get a law like this passed. Are you expecting a politician to be flawless philosophically? Which Democrat is? Given that liberal like you want to micromanage the most important issues and smallest details of Americans' lives by force of federal law under penalty of fine or imprisonment, you're hardly one to talk. That's rich considering Conservative Flying Monkeys like you want to legislate what people do in their bedrooms and what women do with their own bodies. Oh gosh, another lie. I don't want to legislate what people do in their bedrooms. "What women do with their own bodies?" More bulls***. The argument is over when life begins. You know, the "life" that is guaranteed by the Constitution? L-I-F-E. That's what the debate is, not a "woman's body." A fetus has a separate set of genes and is a separate life. You totalitarian/ quasi-fascist moonbats have legislated what milesage our car gets, what medicines we're allowed to take, what light bulbs we're allowed to use. Who we must hire and who we can fire, including protecting alcoholics, drug addicts and other miscreants. What we can do with our Private Property. Taking half of Americans income in taxes and seeking more. To cite just a few of the countless infringements the liberal-left has inflicted on Americans.

And he will fail to get a law like this passed. Are you expecting a politician to be flawless philosophically? Which Democrat is? Oh gosh, another lie. I don't want to legislate what people do in their bedrooms. "What women do with their own bodies?" More bulls***. The argument is over when life begins. You know, the "life" that is guaranteed by the Constitution? L-I-F-E. That's what the debate is, not a "woman's body." A fetus has a separate set of genes and is a separate life. You totalitarian/ quasi-fascist moonbats have legislated what milesage our car gets, what medicines we're allowed to take, what light bulbs we're allowed to use. Who we must hire and who we can fire, including protecting alcoholics, drug addicts and other miscreants. What we can do with our Private Property. Taking half of Americans income in taxes and seeking more. To cite just a few of the countless infringements the liberal-left has inflicted on Americans. I always enjoy the jackazz opinion that the "life" guaranteed by the Constitution refers to a zygote in the first trimester. When did that happen exactly? The original Constitution only referred to land owning white guys. We only practiced, fully, all "people" except for gays in 1965 with the Civil Rights Voting Act. When did the zygote get the protection that doesn't even apply completely to gays yet? What Supreme Court decision or land mark legislation caused this to happen, or was it born in the bible thumping childish minds of the "Born Again" crowd? Funny thing about that too, you have to be "born again" to be saved......"Born".....

And he will fail to get a law like this passed.What law? What are you talking about?He's not trying to get a law passed.He's trying to get a federal appeals court to reverse their decision that struck down Virginia's sodomy law as unconstitutional.Virginia prosecutors used the sodomy law in order to be able to charge a 47-year-old man with a felony for soliciting oral sex from a 17-year-old girl.Normally under other statutory rape laws, he would have been charged with a misdemeanor.In 2004 a bipartisan group in the Virginia Senate backed a bill that would have fixed the states Crimes Against Nature law to comply with Lawrence v Texas, eliminating provisions dealing with consenting adults in private and leaving in place provisions relating to prostitution, public sex, and those other than consenting adults. That would have covered the above mentioned case. But Cuccinelli opposed the bill in committee and helped kill it on the Senate floor.And he did that because of his views on homosexuality. He said that homosexual acts are wrong, and that it's appropriate to have policies that reflect that. IOW he wanted to be able to use the sodomy law to prosecute gay consenting adults for their behavior.So it's his own fault that the sodomy law was now struck down as unconstitutional by the federal appeals court. The Virginia legislature had a chance to bring the law in line with the Lawrence V Texas decision, and Cuccinelli killed it.Cuccinelli has been hoist with own petard, because it's highly unlikely that the appeals court decision will be overturned. And this whole thing could have been entirely avoided had he and the Republican majority in the Virginia General Assembly not been so determined to ignore the Supreme Court in the first place.Are you expecting a politician to be flawless philosophically?No, But I expect that they don't use the laws to impose their prejudices and their religious zealotry on us.

I always enjoy the jackazz opinion that the "life" guaranteed by the Constitution refers to a zygote in the first trimester. When did that happen exactly?Apparently in Clem's imagination a 'personhood amendment' stating that life begins at conception was added to the Constitution.Of course he didn't always believe that because in this post he refers to fetuses as 'arguable' babies....you have yet to write one single word about the many thousands of innocent arguable babies that have been killed in partial birth abortions that I've seen.Clem apparently has been witness to many thousands of 'partial birth' (not a medical, but a political term) abortions.Interesting.

What law? What are you talking about? He's not trying to get a law passed. He's trying to get a federal appeals court to reverse their decision that struck down Virginia's sodomy law as unconstitutional. Which quite arguably is the correct Constitutional decision, which was the accepted judicial for more than 200 years. So? Why shouldn't it be up to our elected representatives to rule on it or not? You liberal-leftists demand that almost every aspect of Americans' lives by micro-managed by law. Apparently in Clem's imagination a 'personhood amendment' stating that life begins at conception was added to the Constitution. I wasn't referring to law or the Constitution at all, but to the reality that it's not about "a woman's body." Here's the key part of my post, which typically you cut out and ignored. A fetus has a separate set of genes and is a separate life.

Which quite arguably is the correct Constitutional decision, which was the accepted judicial for more than 200 years.So?So, I don't even think you know what you're talking about.You clearly don't understand the issue.