Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: flaglady47; papertyger; cynwoody; manc
Just so I understand...

If D’Souza had asked each of you to illegally funnel $10,000 to a Conservative candidate, you would have agreed, correct?

And, when the Feds offered each of you immunity to testify against D’Souza, you would have refused, and you would have gone to prison to protect D’Souza, because he has done so much for the Conservative cause, correct?

And, each of the Conservative candidates you supported would have willingly accepted the $10,000, even though they knew your contribution was felony, correct?

17 posted on 02/20/2015 2:20:38 AM PST by zeestephen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]


To: zeestephen
And, each of the Conservative candidates you supported would have willingly accepted the $10,000, even though they knew your contribution was felony, correct?

Felony schmelony! You are part of the problem, not part of the solution!

If the law conflicts with the Constitution, the law is wrong!

19 posted on 02/20/2015 2:37:46 AM PST by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

To: zeestephen

Interesting that you don’t address the validity of D’Sousa’s assertions, but fixate on attacking the source.


20 posted on 02/20/2015 2:49:48 AM PST by papertyger ("News" is what journalists want you to hear.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

To: zeestephen

You are not addressing my point but maybe other freepers points.

You attacked him instead of addressing what the article states. Now the article was there for you to read. The article is what we were talking about but for some reason you decided to do an Alinsky and attack he author of the article instead of addressing what the article has to say.

Why is that? Do you agree with the article or not?


21 posted on 02/20/2015 2:50:40 AM PST by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

To: zeestephen

Surely you must see that the rigidity of your position, which is logically correct, is absurd nonetheless?


27 posted on 02/20/2015 3:20:21 AM PST by major-pelham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

To: zeestephen

I’m with ya, zeestephen. The article made a claim about Dinesh’s illegal contribution, which you addressed.


30 posted on 02/20/2015 3:40:41 AM PST by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

To: zeestephen

Obama’s campaign disabled the security measures that checked whether online contributions were lawful. The FEC refused to investigate because Obama won, and the winner gets privileges (I believe they actually said something to that effect). An analysis done by non-governmental investigators (IIRC) found that something like 90% of the online contributions (these millions of dollars that we were told were rolling in from the “little people” in America, this vast groundswell of popular support...) were from foreign Muslims.

Why was nobody in the Obama regime investigated for these crimes which make D’Souza’s infractions seem like a speck of sand by comparison?

The FACT is that Obama was funded by Islamists. They put him there for a reason. America ignores that at our own peril - aided by people who want to turn the attention away from that fact to piddles like D’Souza’s infractions.


56 posted on 02/20/2015 6:58:09 AM PST by butterdezillion (Note to self : put this between arrow keys: img src=""/ g g)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson