Town Hall Reporter gets OWNED

[ghemminger]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvxTsgPTig0

 

[nullvalu]

I seen that yesterday, Hugh tried to trip him up but yeah the supporter PWNED him.

I would have asked him.. Hey.. Do you have AIDS? No? Does anyone you know have AIDS? No? Well, gee it must not be worth fighting.. *DUH*

 

[stones88]

Black helicoptor?

 

[ghemminger]

Damn so many new people I can't keep up w this forum any more...LOL

 

[nullvalu]

Black helicoptor?

What?

 

[silverhandorder]

That former judge looked bad ass. And to think he just got on Ron Paul train.

 

[Dustancostine]

http://www.waxahachiedailylight.com/articles/2007/09/09/dailylight/opinion/editorials/column1.txt

I bet this is the same guy. I posted this editorial earlier today. The man in the video said he was a stock broker and a mediator and lived south of Dallas. Waxahachie is south of Dallas and the author of this piece is listed as a local businessman and mediator.

--Dustan

 

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

This guy sounds pretty close to what I believe

 

[JAHOGS]

I seen that yesterday, Hugh tried to trip him up but yeah the supporter PWNED him.

I would have asked him.. Hey.. Do you have AIDS? No? Does anyone you know have AIDS? No? Well, gee it must not be worth fighting.. *DUH*

LOL I will have to remeber that one.

 

[Akus]

are you a black helicopter guy?

What a condescending piece of garbage. According to him, apparently everyone who is concerned about government's ability to tap people communication devices is a tin foil hat. So much for the "liberal hypocracy" and liberal this and that....

 

[Perry]

That was sweet. Annoys the hell out of me when people say "what freedoms have you lost?". What an ignorant question.

 

[Severius]

Of course you can't prove whether you have been searched without a warrant or wiretapped without over site or cause, the government hides these records from public view, even from judges. They use the argument in court that if you can't prove you were searched than you can't sue the government for violating your liberties, and they don't have to prove to the judge they didn't do it because of "state secrets". In a single blow they violate almost the entirety of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They can use any information they gain illegally to prosecute you in court, and keep the "evidence" they have secret because of their "state secrets" privilege, barring even the court from over viewing the evidence. This is treason!

 

[derdy]

What a douchebag.

So, according to him although laws are passed which take away your freedoms, they are meaningless and inapplicable to everyone unless you or someone you know is tried and convicted under those laws. With that logic, it's a wonder he isn't in jail.

How is that guy an Internet reporter. I'm suprised he doesn't have a black eye. Maybe that's why he's wearing glasses.

 

[GreyBlood]

the judge used a word like "suriptious"
I'm not sure how it is spelled but does anyone know what word he used.

 

[Mordechai Vanunu]

That guy was badass. Fuck Townhall, neocon idiots.

 

[LibertyEagle]

There were more videos than just that one. Here are all of them.

http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/85cea191-ebee-4d7d-af09-ff2fa8e93d75

 

[lucius]

The sad thing is those tactics the reporter used would of stifled dissent/stop discussion on 99.99% of all Americans; that reporter just choose wrong and he knew it, indicated by when he turned away from having his profile on camera. Way to go judge!

Some powerful ‘white hats’ supporting Ron Paul. I played Texas Holdem last night with a bunch of police that are now all RP supports because of me—I took their money…

 

[catwoman]

Of course you can't prove whether you have been searched without a warrant or wiretapped without over site or cause, the government hides these records from public view, even from judges. They use the argument in court that if you can't prove you were searched than you can't sue the government for violating your liberties, and they don't have to prove to the judge they didn't do it because of "state secrets". In a single blow they violate almost the entirety of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They can use any information they gain illegally to prosecute you in court, and keep the "evidence" they have secret because of their "state secrets" privilege, barring even the court from over viewing the evidence. This is treason!

I've been having an online debate with a guy who says that unless and until SCOTUS says something is unconstitutional, it isn't.

For instance, that one part of the Patriot Act that was declared unconstitutional the other day by a Federal judge. The guy I'm debating says, who cares, that judge was appointed by Clinton and the decision will be overturned by the 5th circuit. Until SCOTUS decides he won't listen.

 

[Cowlesy]

are you a black helicopter guy?

What a condescending piece of garbage. According to him, apparently everyone who is concerned about government's ability to tap people communication devices is a tin foil hat. So much for the "liberal hypocracy" and liberal this and that....

He is so condescending, I can't handle listening to him. I hope I never stumble into his blog and accidentally give him a website view.

He looks like Mike Nifong too.

 

[goldstandard]

sur·rep·ti·tious /ˌsɜrəpˈtɪʃəs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sur-uhp-tish-uhs] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. obtained, done, made, etc., by stealth; secret or unauthorized; clandestine: a surreptitious glance.
2. acting in a stealthy way.
3. obtained by subreption; subreptitious.