Nothing says

Boy howdy, don't these memes get stupider by the day..

These were put up before the election -- ya know he was out campaigning at the time right? He wasn't even in the white house --I don't think he's even there now..
Second of all, the Feds put these up because they expected riots. Ya see, Unlike the little ol' leftists, we actually pay taxes, so we're not really a big fan of your side damaging property that we have to pay for..

It really says somethin' when half the city boards itself up in case your side decides they don't like the results and loot peoples property..

You're certainly #1 round here, ain't ya..

4kt0pk.jpg (click to show) And it's cute how you think conservatives make money and pay taxes.

Good ol' fashioned liberal logic right thar ^
Protect yourself from people attackin' you and you're the problem --no wonder you guys riot for criminals

Look, I know here in America it's hard to distinguish between your corporate masters and elections, but those are businesses attacked by looters.

That wasn't an election.

Well this is just cute..
Just a minute whilst I run my point by my dogs and see if they get it better than you... yep...yep one of them figured it out, other ones a little slow..

Ok lets keep this real slow..
Those are buildings that are being boarded because they're convinced that if libs don't get their way in the vote, they'll go round smashing things up and they'd rather not pay for the repairs..
pretty expensive ya know... but probably a little cheaper than some kinda' white house..

Oh hang on, my other dog just got it too now. Need a couple more minutes or...?

Look sunshine, just admit your meme was stupid and I'll unhook ya' ;)
I got stuff to do and tryin' to explain to a kid that the president isn't pilllow-fortin' himself in the living room takes quite abit of that time, ya know..

Bruh, this "aw shucks" character you're shooting for is cute.

And you have nothing better to do than be here tonight. Because you keep replying.

If you had better things to do, you would be doing them.

Get over yourself. you need to get ready to report to work at 6 am. Them breakfast biscuits ain't gonna make themselves.

Not a *shucks* character, well only half ;) I am from Texas afterall. Even got a hat
also yeah you're right. I do have better things to do so I'll get on with it

I mean, explaining the point of how walls work to a liberal seems like quite an uphill battle doesn't it..

Take care and have a nice day, and don't think too hard now, don't want you becoming a conservative

Texan? I dunno about all that. As this boards resident Texan I have to administer the test to determine your legit Texan Status.

Google will not have these answers, and any true Texan will know the right answers.

1) Does the Alamo have a basement?
2) Which month is truck month?
3) Whataburger or In-and-Out

. Pee wee reference. Technically No but there's an excavated area under it apparently

2. February through march, guess that makes it a season

3. Whataburger is Texan based and in and out moved in from California.

I'm in England, How'd i do?

Edit/ howdyi'd do? I should say..

I grade your test as: that dog won't hunt.

Sorry, Harry, you're not a wizard. You'll have to leave Hogwarts.

That's some Brit from last year or so, same lame wall of cringe laden cutesy.

It's a delight triggering him into exhausting himself so lovingly in the name of some orange buffoon that ain't helming his UK as it splinters into a rump of a zombie empire slightly larger than Alderney and twice as mighty as a sewer pipe emptying its wealth into the Thames.

As always, Timber, your inability to see the world for the objective reality that it is has shocked no one but yourself.

Just because you don't understand my criteria for success doesn't make it less successful.

It just shows your incredibly limited concept of content.

Holy f**k is that awesome. Have you ever seen anything so agregious? It's funny but scary. Good luck my friend

Nope. Still not caring.

I'm not the guy who HAS to have the last word.

Even to the point where you created a special stream where you can comment about someone else's post.

You know, like you do.

How many of your ex-wives have said something like that?

OH, was this the ass kicking you were talking about? Frankly, parsing your nonsese is hard so I don't put effort into it.

Well. How is this meme doing?

20 comments and 3 upvotes? In a stream that it clearly will not appeal to?

Doing damn good.

So...I guess I am enjoying this ass kicking I'm giving out.

You have a limited view of what success means. For you, success is transactional.

It can only happen right now.

That's why you keep responding to every comment. Because you HAVE to prove that you're right.

That's why you go around correcting grammar.

You have to WIN NOW. Because NOW is all that matters.

You don't understand anything other than right now.

Which is why you don't understand why a 3 upvote meme is really successful.

No, you do this because it satisfies your need to feel smarter than everyone around you.

It's why you correct grammar. It's why you think it matters on an image board.

That's why you spent soooo much time on a post about how I'm crazy or whatever? I don't know, I didn't read it.

Because you have exactly one gear.

You NEED to be right. You NEED to win every single transaction. And when you lose them, they stick in your head.

You compose these great big long posts that no one by you reads.

But I'll sum it up again: blah blah blah fancy word blah blah blah I'm really cool blah blah blah name calling blah blah blah you're a lying leftists who lies. I'm timber, I'm super smart.

Oh, timber, the only person around here that thinks you're smart is you.

Also, I stopped reading there because it's more of the same from you.

Lesse....some implied violence will be in there.

And about how you're super smart. And a rigid adherence to grammar is supa dupa important.

blah blah blah

You're dumb, [REPLACE USERNAME WITH 'INSULT'].

blah blah blah

Rhetorical question that I don't want an answer to.

blah blah blah

You're dumb, I'm smart. Other smart people agree with me.

blah blah blah

closing rhetorical flourish that impresses myself.

I think you missed the part where I admitted that I stopped reading.

'cause you've got one gear, dude. It's the "I'm right. You're a lying Leftist person who lies!!!!" gear.

And you grind on it. All day.

https://www.projectveritas.com/news/michigan-usps-insider-delivers-testimony-of-shady-postmark-scheme-to/

Hop on that there Google Machine and find 2 stories promoted by Project Veritas that was legit real.

Because every time they were lies.

3q0s3d.jpg (click to show)
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/sep/9/project-veritas-sting-nh-man-charged-admits-voting/

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/court-affirms-media-was-wrong-those-videos-of-planned-parenthood-dealing-in-baby-parts-werent-deceptively-edited

The first one- sure. I'll accept that one.

So that's 1 for Veritas.

The second one...no. The appeal didn't overturn the original ruling because the video wasn't deceptively edited. The appeals court overturned the original ruling because, and I quote, "the original court had improperly considered evidence presented by Planned Parenthood" during the three-day trial.

It's very clear from the appeals court ruling that the rulling was overturned not because the video was truthful but that it has been improperly considered.

It's right there in the decision.

So, that's a loss. 1 - 1

Actually no it isn't a loss as you choose top focus on an irrelevant part and ignored the relevant material that was also included and pretended it didn't exist. Check the first big quote block from the article and it will confirm that the video was real, which is what you actually asked for.

" The OIG further concluded, based on the videos, that the Provider Plaintiffs at a minimum violated federal standards regarding fetal tissue research and standards of medical ethics by allowing doctors to alter abortion procedures to retrieve tissue for research purposes or allowing the researchers themselves to perform the procedures."

Oh, no. See, that's the Washington Examiner- which is marginally worse than the Enquirer as you could use the Enquirer as ass-wipe while the Examiner is digital and you can't wipe your ass with pixels. the Examiner is opinion piece with ads disguised as journalism.

I went and read what real newspapers said about the decision and then I read the original decision.

Also, contrary to what people think, Appeals Courts don't retry the case. They examine the process by which the decision was made. If they think the rules weren't properly followed, they send it back.

The appeals courts don't make a call about the truthfulness of a video. They weigh in on whether or not the original court followed all the rules properly.

Either you didn't actually read the court's opinion or you're lying about it. What you have done is an Ad Hominem attack with no substantiation so you could ignore facts you do not like, and this is the second time in a row you ignored those same facts. In reading the opinion you'd note that the OIG made a factual findings from the video "without question" and that was upheld.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-50282-CV0.pdf

"In any event, there is no question that the OIG here made factual
findings after viewing the videos and related evidence. On the basis of the
administrative record—not the post hoc justifications offered by plaintiffs’
witnesses in the district court—the OIG determined that video discussions
“centered on clinic processes and tissue packaging rather than the abortion
procedure itself; the video featured repeated discussion about the position of
the fetus in the uterus, the risk to the patient, and the patient’s pain tolerance.”
The OIG further concluded, based on the videos, that the Provider Plaintiffs at
a minimum violated federal standards regarding fetal tissue research and
standards of medical ethics by allowing doctors to alter abortion procedures to
retrieve tissue for research purposes or allowing the researchers themselves to
perform the procedures. The plaintiffs’ briefing with regard to the substance
of the discussions contained in the videos (as opposed to their trial witnesses’
post hoc justifications) is curiously silent."

Do oyu see what I did there?

I admitted I was wrong on one thing.

And then used actual facts from the decision to show their evidence was wrong.

You know, 2 things you can't do.

If I wanted silence out of you, I would just block you. I wouldn't keep using you to accomplish my goals.