Fogbow

Dinesh D'Souza @DineshDSouza wrote: The Biden Democrats say we have to choose. Either we are for them or we are against them. Okay, then, we are AGAINST. Moreover, I’ll go further and say they pose a far greater threat to our freedom and safety than #Putin. He’s the lesser evil. They are the greater one #Ukraine

Whatta piece of crap he is.

MN-Skeptic wrote: ↑Fri Feb 25, 2022 6:07 pm Why “formerly” in the thread title?

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Fri Feb 25, 2022 6:13 pm

MN-Skeptic wrote: ↑Fri Feb 25, 2022 6:07 pm Why “formerly” in the thread title?

'Cause he was pardoned. Or does that still count? I've heard both ways.

MN-Skeptic wrote: ↑Fri Feb 25, 2022 6:21 pm

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Fri Feb 25, 2022 6:13 pm

MN-Skeptic wrote: ↑Fri Feb 25, 2022 6:07 pm Why “formerly” in the thread title?

'Cause he was pardoned. Or does that still count? I've heard both ways.

The online dictionary defines felon as “ a person who has been convicted of a felony.” That’s good enough for me. I’m not willing to give him any benefit of the doubt.

Dinesh D'Souza @DineshDSouza wrote: I notice the witless progressives are trying to de-platform and de-bank #Putin in the same manner they have done to Nick Fuentes. The problem is that the little plastic swatter that works on a fly doesn’t really work on a grizzly bear #Ukraine

Suranis wrote: ↑Sun Feb 27, 2022 7:57 pm You really have to admire someone that puts so much effort into being a witless moron.

Really what the hell does he think this is, a campaign to get Ukraine thrown off twitter?

Foggy wrote: ↑Sun Feb 27, 2022 2:14 pm Dinesh just thinks Vladimir is SOOOO MANLY AND STRONG. LIKE A RUSSIAN BEAR, GRR.

HUG ME, VLADIMIR, YOU BEAST.

bob wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 8:09 pm
Don't know if it is real or not, or why. But the obvious implication is the publisher decided it didn't want to buy some defamation lawsuits.

Slarti the White wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 8:45 pm

bob wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 8:09 pm
Don't know if it is real or not, or why. But the obvious implication is the publisher decided it didn't want to buy some defamation lawsuits.

Having watched 2000 Mules and understanding how it does not provide evidence that supports the claims it makes, I wouldn't be surprised. I would think that, at the very least, the people who appeared in video footage used in the movie would have a case for defamation.

Dinesh D'Souza @DineshDSouza wrote: How stupid can people be? The left—and even some on the right—jumped on the #TrumpAnnouncement as involving TRADING CARDS while in fact it involved a strong and comprehensive set of policies to RESTORE FREE SPEECH. This is the #1 issue in the country and Trump is all over it

Paola Poot @PootDibou wrote: What does this mean in @TrueTheVote's brief in their Motion to Dismiss in the Mark Andrews defamation case?

"Because none of the statements or images in the film or book are “of and concerning” Plaintiff, his defamation claim against the TTV Defendants fails as a matter of law."

The widely debunked film includes surveillance video showing Mark Andrews, his face blurred, depositing five ballots in a dropbox in downtown Lawrenceville, a suburb northeast of Atlanta. A voiceover by conservative pundit and filmmaker Dinesh D'Souza says: "What you are seeing is a crime. These are fraudulent votes."

In fact, a state investigation found, Andrews was dropping off ballots for himself, his wife and their three adult children, who all live at the same address. That is legal in Georgia and a state investigator said there was no evidence of wrongdoing by Andrews.

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Sat Feb 25, 2023 4:27 pm The first eight minutes culminate in an incredible tongue bath of Putin, “Right on. No disagreement whatsoever…”