Topspin
Verified User
Navy boy were you too dumb to use the GI bill?
liberals are definately scum
- Thread starter tinfoil
- Start date
Navy boy were you too dumb to use the GI bill?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
1) It was Democrats who were 'tricked' by the highly intelligent Bush with regards to the Iraq war. If you were 'tricked' by Bush... should you really comment on others intelligence or lack thereof?
2) Climategate brought to light the FACT that there has been no significant warming in the past 15 years (as stated by the leading fearmonger). It also pointed out that they do not know whether the medieval period was warmer or not. (meaning at best they know the earth has warmed over the past century) We also find out that the IPCC is not to be trusted (unless of course you are some brain dead lemming who believes 'government' reports about how the government would never mislead anyone)
3) NO ONE... that is NO ONE... uses the word 'hip' anymore you moron.... unless it is followed immediately by the word 'hop'
4) Now go back to your leaders to get your talking points for the day... you quite obviously are incapable of thinking on your own and the rest of us do enjoy laughing at the idiocy they feed you.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
LOL How wrong you are. When Hitler and Mussolini imposed socialism on their countries they had to enforce it by militant means: fascism.
Look at your liberal Democrat Party Platform, outlining hundreds of new laws and social programs to control every aspect of your life- its 59 pages long! What happens to those who don't go along? Fines and jail: fascism.
Conservatives, in contrast, want limited government and laissez-faire capitalism:
http://www.conservativepartyusa.com/P3.html
Again, do you have an evidence to support your assertion that conservatives want a "Christian Police state", or is this just your closed-mindedness speaking again?
evince
Truthmatters
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I have seen the right do NOTHING but deflect the causes of the tea party racism as Dem plants, Proove to me the site you are talking about is actually from any liberal.
I went to that site and its about nothing but getting money and chat. The interesting thing is the chat part is mostly cons from what Ive seen.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Prove they are actual tea party members.
Bingo. Any liberal, or normal person with a finely-tuned sense of spoofing can tell this dude's website is a spoof on tea baggers, and is 99% not serious.
For God's sake, don't any conservatives watch the Colbert show or the daily show? Your spoof-radar is totally absent! But, I'm sure this website dude appreciates the publicity and the money he's making off his spoof.
christiefan915
Catalyst
I went to the site expecting to see all sorts of dark and devious plans and what shows up? A message board.
What a letdown. Although it's amusing that so many conservatives were taken in by their "hook" to grab new users.
Wait a second, retard, if it was spoof on tea baggers, it would be trying to create a realistic parody, not exposing the technique to create the parody.
You are a total idiot. you can't even think up logical excuses.
The only persons who would create this is a liberal seeking to influence other liberals to join in the deciet.
Unless you think it's really a conservative, posing as a liberal, posing as a tea bagger.
That would make you doubly stupid
here you go Deshrubinator, you scumbag!!
http://www.nowhampshire.com/2010/04/14/source-state-dems-scrambling-to-deploy-tea-party-‘crashers’/
fuck you too Crypiss!
From a poster at the linked site:
John says:
April 14, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Both Ms. Sullivan and others who encourage imposters to engage such conduct are committing an actionable tort, i.e., defamation.
The garden variety definition of defamation, which includes defamation of organizations and groups, is as follows: The plaintiff making a defamation claim (here, the Tea Party’s duly constituted entities) must prove four elements: (1) a publication including statements, pictures, and signs to one other than the person defamed; (2) a false statement of fact that is understood as (a) being of and concerning the plaintiff and (b)tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff. Also, if the plaintiff is a public figure, the plaintiff must also prove actual malice.
The Tea Party is comprised of several incorporated entities. Those entities will have a good case for a civil suit (including damages) against Ms. Sullivan and others who act in a similar manner. After all, Ms. Sullivan and such individuals are actively soliciting and/or engaging in the “publication” of statements concerning the Tea Party and its duly constituted entities. Those statements are patently false (if the statements were bona fide or in any way truly representative of the organization, Ms. Sullivan would not need to go to the extreme of soliciting and/or deploying imposters to make those statements). Moreover, those statements are clearly made with malice and are aimed solely at harming the organization by bringing it and its members into public disrepute and subjecting them to ridicule based on false premises.
The First Amendment affords Ms. Sullivan the right to critize the Tea Party movement in any number of ways. However, the First Amendment does not afford an individual the right to actively encourage others to misrepresent themselves as members of organization in an effort aimed solely at discrediting and subjecting that organization to substantial ridicule and harm.
John Sullivan (no relation to Ms. Sullivan)
Cherry Hill, NJ
http://www.nowhampshire.com/2010/04/14/source-state-dems-scrambling-to-deploy-tea-party-‘crashers’/
fuck you too Crypiss!
From a poster at the linked site:
John says:
April 14, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Both Ms. Sullivan and others who encourage imposters to engage such conduct are committing an actionable tort, i.e., defamation.
The garden variety definition of defamation, which includes defamation of organizations and groups, is as follows: The plaintiff making a defamation claim (here, the Tea Party’s duly constituted entities) must prove four elements: (1) a publication including statements, pictures, and signs to one other than the person defamed; (2) a false statement of fact that is understood as (a) being of and concerning the plaintiff and (b)tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff. Also, if the plaintiff is a public figure, the plaintiff must also prove actual malice.
The Tea Party is comprised of several incorporated entities. Those entities will have a good case for a civil suit (including damages) against Ms. Sullivan and others who act in a similar manner. After all, Ms. Sullivan and such individuals are actively soliciting and/or engaging in the “publication” of statements concerning the Tea Party and its duly constituted entities. Those statements are patently false (if the statements were bona fide or in any way truly representative of the organization, Ms. Sullivan would not need to go to the extreme of soliciting and/or deploying imposters to make those statements). Moreover, those statements are clearly made with malice and are aimed solely at harming the organization by bringing it and its members into public disrepute and subjecting them to ridicule based on false premises.
The First Amendment affords Ms. Sullivan the right to critize the Tea Party movement in any number of ways. However, the First Amendment does not afford an individual the right to actively encourage others to misrepresent themselves as members of organization in an effort aimed solely at discrediting and subjecting that organization to substantial ridicule and harm.
John Sullivan (no relation to Ms. Sullivan)
Cherry Hill, NJ
Last edited:
Nah, I think it's just some dude - maybe he's a liberal - who made a spoof site on a whim, and is having fun fucking around. Please stop begging me to buy into your conspiracy theories, i.e. Climate Gate, the War on Iraq, et al. I'm not prone to getting duped, like you are, man!
There ain't no liberals who are "infiltrating" teabagger meetings, collecting "intel", and devising ways to bring the tea bag party down. That's just conservative projection. Liberals don't want to waste time hanging around with smelly, cranky, old, white men.
This dude has Sean Hannity to thank for making his obscure message board go viral. He should pay a royalty to hannity!
Canceled.LTroll.28
Banned
How do we know it wasn't set up by a rightie....maybe Tinfoil himself?