Anything on the Godstation 4.

Because the lemmings have been owned.

Ok, you are just showing how ignorant you are. I just showed you exactly what the definition of libel means and you still can't get that through your head.

Libel: published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.

Posts can be libel. Anything that is written which is false can be considered libel if it is damaging against a perosn's character. You're just so blissfully ignorant you believe words don't mean what they mean because you don't argee with them.

Either that or you're just a troll, which is probably more than likely in your case.

A simple google search will show what 'libel' means.

libel

"1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander, which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. Proof of malice, however, does allow a party defamed to sue for general damages for damage to reputation, while an inadvertent libel limits the damages to actual harm (such as loss of business) called special damages. Libel per se involves statements so vicious that malice is assumed and does not require a proof of intent to get an award of general damages. Libel against the reputation of a person who has died will allow surviving members of the family to bring an action for damages. Most states provide for a party defamed by a periodical to demand a published retraction. If the correction is made, then there is no right to file a lawsuit. Governmental bodies are supposedly immune to actions for libel on the basis that there could be no intent by a non-personal entity, and further, public records are exempt from claims of libel. However, there is at least one known case in which there was a financial settlement as well as a published correction when a state government newsletter incorrectly stated that a dentist had been disciplined for illegal conduct. The rules covering libel against a "public figure" (particularly a political or governmental person) are special, based on U.S. Supreme Court decisions. The key is that to uphold the right to express opinions or fair comment on public figures, the libel must be malicious to constitute grounds for a lawsuit for damages. Minor errors in reporting are not libel, such as saying Mrs. Jones was 55 when she was only 48, or getting an address or title incorrect. 2) v. to broadcast or publish a written defamatory statement."

So you are wrong. Slander is oral defamation. Libel is written defamation. This is clearly written defamation. It took me 5 seconds to look this up. You should at least try to fact check what you are saying so people don't think everything you say is as worthless as you believe that someone else says.

Thanks for correcting my typo buddy, it completely negates everything I said because I put two n's in one word on accident.

Anyways, you need to realize that by seeing an illegal immigrant you are witnessing a crime because they are here illegally which is breaking the law, but you're so ignorant to that because you're a complete and total partisan.

I've never heard someone say something like breaking crimes before either, I guess it's because you have no idea what you're saying which is most likely the case since you're so focused on someone else's spelling, but breaking crimes is not the same as breaking the law. In fact, it is the opposite of that. Breaking crimes is a good thing and it's actually quite legal, it's what people in law enforcement get paid to do every day.

The Middle East is worse off now than it was when Obama first took office. It will be hard to top what our outgoing Nobel Peace Prize winning President accomplished in the Middle East. There aren't anymore countries we can bomb in the Middle East, unless we start bombing our so called Allies. Maybe Trump can make new countries in the Middle East and start bombing them too so he can surpass his predecessor.

But based on what Trump said during the campaign about having a strong military but never using it. He has backed up most of his campaign promises already so hopefully he'll continue and get us the hell out of that land.

Since 1991 when we first established our presence there under Daddy Bush. We've spent Trillons in the Middle East and all we've had to show for it is over 6,000 dead, over 60,000 wounded, and even more who are screwed up mentally they can't even function in society anymore. I would hope that he washes his hands of everything in the Middle East and pulls us out. We look to ourselves from now on, we only protect our own borders. None of these interventions overseas that only benefit other nations who won't even defend themselves but expect us to pay for it and forgive their debt to us.

The French Revolution was caused by the French Monachy's long lasting costly war with the British Empire which bankrupted its nation. A parallel can be seen with our wars in the Middle East which has cost us $6 trillion so far. You can't blame that on Trump but of course you'll try, but Obama was the one who already made that push in that direction by expanding the US bombings in the Middle East. Under Dubya we were bombing 4 countries and then under Obama we expanded bombing to 7 countries and dropped 30,000 more bombs than under Dubya.

I don't think you realize you can make underground walls that can be installed with listenning sensors that can detect tunneling. Or that we have something called Radar than can be used to detect planes, its only been around since WWII.

Or is it that you'd rather spend your tax money to feed and shelter these illegals breaking the law, committing crimes in our land and violating our national sovereignty than rather protect our national borders?

I do 'now' that.

You do know that I am talking about what would happen in the aftermath of a civil war between liberals and conservatives right?

If liberals started a civil war in this country right now. Then the current democracy that we have wouldn't hold. Socialism and Liberalism would be crushed and instead of a President you would have a Dictator.

Of course that won't happen anyways so don't worry. Only the left stands to lose anything in a civil war because they know it would be a complete slaughter.

No, because liberals would lose any control that they have in this country if it came to that. The US military isn't exactly made up of hippies.

If it did happen then the Great Wall of America would be built at a much cheaper cost using liberal slave labor.