Occupy Wall Street in NYC low on cash

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

archer wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

archer wrote: For GOP..
1. LJ already addressed the use of the term "teabagger" by tea party members. Go back and read it.

2. No...it was not OK to use the word "c*nt" to refer to Palin That word is never OK. Is mahar not sponsored by his cable channel/the subscribers to that channel. He is getting paid. There was a poster here who called women that word and very few conservatives on this board seemed concerned by it.

Still waiting for your source.

for what?

When in doubt... Archer plays dumb. You had better stop now before you lose with's left of your credibility.

I knew you were dense, but didn't realize you were also illiterate. LJ gave you a source for your teabagger question....here it is again, do you have anyone who could read it to you?

The grassroots movement didn't always consider "tea bagger" a slur: Early Tea Partiers innocently embraced the term until they discovered its vulgar connotations (see also the 1998 John Waters movie Pecker). In a twist, some conservatives have recently advocated that the word be reclaimed.
Feb. 27, 2009
At the first anti-stimulus "New American Tea Party" rally in Washington D.C., a protestor carries a sign reading "Tea Bag the Liberal Dems before they Tea Bag You!!" The Washington Independent's David Weigel calls it "the best sign I saw."

http://theweek.com/article/index/202620 ... tea-bagger

archer wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

archer wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

archer wrote: For GOP..
1. LJ already addressed the use of the term "teabagger" by tea party members. Go back and read it.

2. No...it was not OK to use the word "c*nt" to refer to Palin That word is never OK. Is mahar not sponsored by his cable channel/the subscribers to that channel. He is getting paid. There was a poster here who called women that word and very few conservatives on this board seemed concerned by it.

Still waiting for your source.

for what?

When in doubt... Archer plays dumb. You had better stop now before you lose with's left of your credibility.

I knew you were dense, but didn't realize you were also illiterate. LJ gave you a source for your teabagger question....here it is again, do you have anyone who could read it to you?

The grassroots movement didn't always consider "tea bagger" a slur: Early Tea Partiers innocently embraced the term until they discovered its vulgar connotations (see also the 1998 John Waters movie Pecker). In a twist, some conservatives have recently advocated that the word be reclaimed.
Feb. 27, 2009
At the first anti-stimulus "New American Tea Party" rally in Washington D.C., a protestor carries a sign reading "Tea Bag the Liberal Dems before they Tea Bag You!!" The Washington Independent's David Weigel calls it "the best sign I saw."

http://theweek.com/article/index/202620 ... tea-bagger

Thanks for the link. Now back to reality.

teabagging - the insertion of one man's sack into another person's mouth. Used a practical joke or prank, when performed on someone who is asleep, or as a sexual act.

Slut - Someone who provides a very needed service for the community and sleeps with everyone, even the guy that has no shot at getting laid and everyone knows it.

Rush slandered one private citizen, Archer slanders thousands of private citizens. Birds of a feather. Archer and RUsh.

Whatever.....

archer wrote:

Arlen wrote:

archer wrote:

Arlen wrote: You and your source crap. Send everyone off on some menial chore to find sources. You liberals are so dishonest.

I noticed that there were no sources for the fictional name-calling of Mrs. Obama. Go figure.

It's only crap Arlen when you don't have a source.....I did do the research and found out the 1 million was donated to a super pac.....since the super pacs and the candidates must be totally separate (we have been hearing from the GOP candidates how they have ABSOLUTELY NO control over their super pacs) then you obviously have no source for Obama getting 1 million from Maher.......you sure get testy when you are proven wrong. Find me a link to Obama directly getting 1 million from Mahar and maybe YOU won't look so dishonest.

I do not know that the lady called a slut by Rush was a direct giver to Obama. Yet he makes the effort to contact her. Yet he makes no effort to contact Palin or call Maher to task. (It figures. He is a liberal.)

I stand by my feelings for the source calling by you. You duck reality by deflecting to the "give me the source" crap.

Are you as mean as your sister, LJ?

Why is it OK for you to ask for a source, but you get all bent out of shape if a liberal asks for one? Oh, I can answer that one, because liberals ACTUALLY have sources for what they claim and you do not.

Got it!

I was not really asking for a source. I was just noting the inconsistency of asking me or a source whenever it is not the policy of liberals to offer sources.

But you are only trying to win arguments, you are not trying to be just.

LJ is you in the future. You will become just as hateful as she. Not a very bright future for you.

So far I see liberals providing sources when asked...and often offering them in their OP if the issue is open to question. I see some conservatives rarely giving a source for their statements and if asked, whining about it. You would be a prime example. If you are going to put statements out there like they are truth you should be able to back them up. If you can't, then state it as an opinion.

I'd be quite happy to end up as smart and talented as LJ,

archer wrote: I'd be quite happy to end up as smart and talented as LJ,

You mean you would actually take a job with the RNC?

Another two pages of deflection because he doesn't HAVE a source, and no doubt can't find one because it doesn't exist.

Funny how he always gets testy about "sources" when he doesn't have one. And whenever asked, we can.

Empty blather... Got it.

LadyJazzer wrote: Another two pages of deflection because he doesn't HAVE a source, and no doubt can't find one because it doesn't exist.

Funny how he always gets testy about "sources" when he doesn't have one. And whenever asked, we can.

Empty blather... Got it.

You are a national treasure.

OWS in NY is low on cash? Really, I didn't think they had any resources to begin with beyond what had already been donated? Perhaps it would be more properly stated that OWS in NY is low on OTHER PEOPLE'S CASH.

neptunechimney wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: Another two pages of deflection because he doesn't HAVE a source, and no doubt can't find one because it doesn't exist.

Funny how he always gets testy about "sources" when he doesn't have one. And whenever asked, we can.

Empty blather... Got it.

You are a national treasure.

I take great pride in that. ...And, as usual, you have nothing to add.