DOJ Indicts Southern Poverty Law Center for Secretly Funneling MILLIONS to Members of White Supremacist and Extremist Groups
- Thread starter ziggy
- Start date
Ichabod Stain
Was it me?
Ichabod Stain
Was it me?
be sure to eat a gallon of rancid whory fuckjuice.Be sure to wear your helmet and flameproof chastity belt, Fredo.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Posts 136, 137, 279. Deal with it
How is that different than Putin paying Trump for US secrets/inside information?
Ichabod Stain
Was it me?
it's true.
When will your mom be available?
James
Verified User
FastLane
Verified User
Well the SPLC actually funded the KKK and the other is just the crazy hallucination of your methamphetamine addled mind.
You guys believe the most insane shit. The SPLC is prepared to go to court . This premise is absurd and you dumbass rightys jump on board again. When you are sent something insane from crazy sources do you ever wonder if it is true? Or do you start a thread here and defend it like you have a "bombshell"? Do all the crazy things you believe that turn out wrong ever give you pause?
Libhater
Verified User
I was under the impression that this archovies was a woman, or perhaps a tranny. Is it true that this nutcase is actually a man or a pre mature leftist adult?
Grim Reaper
Chief Exit Officer (CEO)
1. Claims about the person (“Chivy”)
- Statements like:
- “Chivy the simpleton”
- “predictable as my morning shit”
- “well-trained drones”
- “their main diet is a constant stream of lies”
Fact check: These are ad hominem attacks, personal insults, and subjective opinions.- There is no verifiable fact in calling someone a “simpleton” or “drone.”
- These statements reflect the writer’s bias and disdain, not objective truth.
2. Claims about behavior
- “He goes straight to their favorite subject, Jan 6th”
- “They automatically go into Jan 6th mode first, full blown denial follows”
- “No drone wants to know anything contrary to their programming”
Fact check / bias:- Could be partially observable if “Chivy” repeatedly posts about Jan 6th, but generalizing about motives, denial, or programming is speculation.
- Phrases like “automatically,” “full-blown denial,” and “their programming” are loaded assumptions, not objectively verified.
3. Claims about ignorance and exploitation
- “No matter how much they are exploited for their dollars, they voluntarily remain ignorant”
- “Facts are like insect repellant to this moron”
- Fact check: These are rhetorical exaggerations and insults, not factual claims.
- The writer is expressing frustration and bias. There is no empirical verification of someone’s internal beliefs or “voluntary ignorance.”
Summary
- Factually verifiable: None of the statements can be independently verified—they are all opinion, insult, or speculation.
- Bias: Extremely high; this is a classic example of partisan or personal attack rhetoric (ad hominem, hyperbole, and loaded language).
- Recommendation for analysis: Focus on verifiable claims rather than insults when assessing discussions like this.
AI response. Do better.1. Claims about the person (“Chivy”)
- Statements like:
- “Chivy the simpleton”
- “predictable as my morning shit”
- “well-trained drones”
- “their main diet is a constant stream of lies”
- There is no verifiable fact in calling someone a “simpleton” or “drone.”
- These statements reflect the writer’s bias and disdain, not objective truth.
2. Claims about behavior
- “He goes straight to their favorite subject, Jan 6th”
- “They automatically go into Jan 6th mode first, full blown denial follows”
- “No drone wants to know anything contrary to their programming”
- Could be partially observable if “Chivy” repeatedly posts about Jan 6th, but generalizing about motives, denial, or programming is speculation.
- Phrases like “automatically,” “full-blown denial,” and “their programming” are loaded assumptions, not objectively verified.
3. Claims about ignorance and exploitation
- “No matter how much they are exploited for their dollars, they voluntarily remain ignorant”
- “Facts are like insect repellant to this moron”
- The writer is expressing frustration and bias. There is no empirical verification of someone’s internal beliefs or “voluntary ignorance.”
- Factually verifiable: None of the statements can be independently verified—they are all opinion, insult, or speculation.
- Bias: Extremely high; this is a classic example of partisan or personal attack rhetoric (ad hominem, hyperbole, and loaded language).
- Recommendation for analysis: Focus on verifiable claims rather than insults when assessing discussions like this.
So, you lied about Hillary and a 10 second search shows video of her claiming that the "election was stolen." But instead of apologizing you try to change the subject.
Always.
Let me parse the pigeon mess of double negatives..
Obama indeed participated in the 2016-17 attempted coup against the duly elected president of the United States.
{The exchange, in which Strzok wrote that Obama “wants to know everything we’re doing,” was included in a report released Tuesday by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) and Republican staff on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. }
Maybe you can lie that I said democrats shot Reagan? That's always a winner, Dutch.
Didn’t change the subject, just showed the facts
And you already told us, Obama attempted a coup, just like Democrats shot Reagan and the Pope deals in human trafficking
The Johnson reference is hysterical, Ron said it so it’s got to be true, Ron also proclaimed the rioters in the Capitol on 1/6 were fake Trump supporters, and he had proof
You tried - since I proved that Hillary Clinton claimed that Trump stole the election from her.
Which you already knew, but figured you'd try to get away with lying.
It's just what you do.
Documented fact.
There's that pathological lying and insanity you're known for.
Do you think it should be felony to oppose the democrat party? When should the death penalty be used? Only when someone runs against a democrat, or would you demand that anyone opposing absolute power by your party be killed?