Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Wasserman-Schults Implies the Tea Party to Blame for Gifford Shooting
Wasserman-Schults Implies the Tea Party to Blame for Gifford Shooting.....And, Brit Hume called....
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FT6p4MJZBtc]Michelle Malkin Worst Person in the World Oct 24 2007 - YouTube[/ame]
2012: End Times for the Teabaggers.
"After months of confusion and bickering over whom to support, a kind of unraveling has occurred at the upper reaches of the movement, in some cases causing friendships to fray and giving rise to charges and countercharges on Facebook. Officers have resigned. Angry statements have been issued. Reputations have been damaged.
Nite all. I'm tired of your bullshit so I'm going to beddie bye.
I saw this video on the news this morning and thought it was recorded last year, but instead it was recorded yesterday.
This woman is still repeating a totally debunked urban myth like it has some validity. This is the Chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee tasked with re-electing Democrats.
Seems to me we have a wannabe truther running the DNC.
Media Matters tried to claim she didn't say that the Tea Party had anything to do with Gabriel Gifford's shooting, but it's clear that she tried to insinuate that they had something to do with the angry atmosphere that she claims existed back then.
Like it doesn't exist today......
I wonder what kind of public discourse the OWS protests have caused?
I still can't believe she is saying the Tea Party made civil discourse worse than Occupy Wall Street crowd did.
I think the DNC would be better served if they didn't have a compulsive liar for a chairwoman.
merged
I saw this video on the news this morning and thought it was recorded last year, but instead it was recorded yesterday.
This woman is still repeating a totally debunked urban myth like it has some validity. This is the Chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee tasked with re-electing Democrats.
Seems to me we have a wannabe truther running the DNC.
Media Matters tried to claim she didn't say that the Tea Party had anything to do with Gabriel Gifford's shooting, but it's clear that she tried to insinuate that they had something to do with the angry atmosphere that she claims existed back then.
Like it doesn't exist today......
I wonder what kind of public discourse the OWS protests have caused?
I still can't believe she is saying the Tea Party made civil discourse worse than Occupy Wall Street crowd did.
I think the DNC would be better served if they didn't have a compulsive liar for a chairwoman.
merged
I don't think she's a liar. I put up the OP to indicate I think she's just despicable and obnoxious. Someone else posted her "Top Ten Lies" and I was able to point out that it did contain one single lie.
So she's not quite as stupid or a blatent liar like Michele Bachmann but to Independents, she's like Pelosi - just more proof that the Dems aren't all that different than the Repubs. They'll spew bs and do whatever it takes to get re-elected or to hurt the other party.
I don't recall the shooter being a member of the Tea Party or even having any of their literature at his home. The press would have been all over that. Of course, I could be wrong and invite any LibDems here to show me proof that he was a Tea Partier.
I think the post implying that I hate ALL things Liberal or Democrat (I don't) and the other one that I have a grudge against Giffords show how blinded some people are by party on this thing. Of course, I get the same thing from The Right when I disagree with them too.
I saw this video on the news this morning and thought it was recorded last year, but instead it was recorded yesterday.
This woman is still repeating a totally debunked urban myth like it has some validity. This is the Chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee tasked with re-electing Democrats.
Seems to me we have a wannabe truther running the DNC.
Media Matters tried to claim she didn't say that the Tea Party had anything to do with Gabriel Gifford's shooting, but it's clear that she tried to insinuate that they had something to do with the angry atmosphere that she claims existed back then.
Like it doesn't exist today......
I wonder what kind of public discourse the OWS protests have caused?
I still can't believe she is saying the Tea Party made civil discourse worse than Occupy Wall Street crowd did.
I think the DNC would be better served if they didn't have a compulsive liar for a chairwoman.
merged
I don't think she's a liar. I put up the OP to indicate I think she's just despicable and obnoxious. Someone else posted her "Top Ten Lies" and I was able to point out that it did contain one single lie.
So she's not quite as stupid or a blatent liar like Michele Bachmann but to Independents, she's like Pelosi - just more proof that the Dems aren't all that different than the Repubs. They'll spew bs and do whatever it takes to get re-elected or to hurt the other party.
I don't recall the shooter being a member of the Tea Party or even having any of their literature at his home. The press would have been all over that. Of course, I could be wrong and invite any LibDems here to show me proof that he was a Tea Partier.
I think the post implying that I hate ALL things Liberal or Democrat (I don't) and the other one that I have a grudge against Giffords show how blinded some people are by party on this thing. Of course, I get the same thing from The Right when I disagree with them too.
How exactly are you defining 'proof' that Loughner was a TEA Party member? Because there are claims in the media that he is and I am sure that one of our drooling fool posters will provide that as 'proof'. However, there is no actual proof of anything - other than the fact (and is is a fact) that he is an apolitical, mentally disturbed individual who had a personal grudge against Giffords.
The Infidel just negged me for the above post. Gee, that didn't take long...
Oddball said:Hi, you have received -721 reputation points from Oddball.
Reputation was given for this post.
Comment:
have another, you weak-assed titty baby
Regards,
Oddball
Note: This is an automated message.
Oddball just negged me for the above post. Another hater of free speech - except when it's his...
It's always nice to be recognized by the village idiot...
Dr.House said:Hi, you have received -473 reputation points from Dr.House.
Reputation was given for this post.
Comment:
Whine some more...
Regards,
Dr.House
Note: This is an automated message.
I don't think she's a liar. I put up the OP to indicate I think she's just despicable and obnoxious. Someone else posted her "Top Ten Lies" and I was able to point out that it did contain one single lie.
So she's not quite as stupid or a blatent liar like Michele Bachmann but to Independents, she's like Pelosi - just more proof that the Dems aren't all that different than the Repubs. They'll spew bs and do whatever it takes to get re-elected or to hurt the other party.
I don't recall the shooter being a member of the Tea Party or even having any of their literature at his home. The press would have been all over that. Of course, I could be wrong and invite any LibDems here to show me proof that he was a Tea Partier.
I think the post implying that I hate ALL things Liberal or Democrat (I don't) and the other one that I have a grudge against Giffords show how blinded some people are by party on this thing. Of course, I get the same thing from The Right when I disagree with them too.
How exactly are you defining 'proof' that Loughner was a TEA Party member? Because there are claims in the media that he is and I am sure that one of our drooling fool posters will provide that as 'proof'. However, there is no actual proof of anything - other than the fact (and is is a fact) that he is an apolitical, mentally disturbed individual who had a personal grudge against Giffords.
You do realize that we're in agreement on this, right? That I wrote the OP? Just checking.
How exactly are you defining 'proof' that Loughner was a TEA Party member? Because there are claims in the media that he is and I am sure that one of our drooling fool posters will provide that as 'proof'. However, there is no actual proof of anything - other than the fact (and is is a fact) that he is an apolitical, mentally disturbed individual who had a personal grudge against Giffords.
You do realize that we're in agreement on this, right? That I wrote the OP? Just checking.
Yep. I'm making a point. You asked for proof, well, the media lied about Loughner being a TEA Partier and the left ran with it. The fact that it was then proved false will conveniently be ignored.
Generally, on this forum, the standard for 'proof' is laughable.
The Infidel just negged me for the above post. Gee, that didn't take long...
Oddball just negged me for the above post. Another hater of free speech - except when it's his...
It's always nice to be recognized by the village idiot...
Dr.House said:Hi, you have received -473 reputation points from Dr.House.
Reputation was given for this post.
Comment:
Whine some more...
Regards,
Dr.House
Note: This is an automated message.
Dr.House negged me for above post.
The Infidel just negged me for the above post. Gee, that didn't take long...
Oddball just negged me for the above post. Another hater of free speech - except when it's his...
It's always nice to be recognized by the village idiot...
Dr.House said:Hi, you have received -473 reputation points from Dr.House.
Reputation was given for this post.
Comment:
Whine some more...
Regards,
Dr.House
Note: This is an automated message.
Dr.House negged me for above post.
New reputation!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi, you have received -1180 reputation points from California Girl.
Reputation was given for this post.
Comment:
....
Regards,
California Girl
Note: This is an automated message.
California Girl just negged me. Another hater of free speech - unless it's hers...
Does anyone disagree that their has been a decrease in the level of civility in our political environment?