• ********* EBWF NEWS ALERT ************

  • Discuss current events / serious things here. Needless flaming / idiocy are grounds for banning.
Discuss current events / serious things here. Needless flaming / idiocy are grounds for banning.
 #103100  by almostapathetic
 Fri Feb 09, 2018 7:59 pm
HolidayFriday wrote:
Fri Feb 09, 2018 7:52 pm
That's not so much a news alert but a Liberal comedy act.
NBC is out of control in that regard. I like Seth and Jimmy and SNL, but my god, they are out of control. SNL has at least stopped being so liberal agenda about it their content and now seem to be just going after the right for mostly the comedic value.
 #103169  by lemmiwinx
 Sat Feb 10, 2018 12:14 pm
Why won't Trump release the Democrat memo? Because it's full of shit that's why. It'd be like releasing the worst kind of fart in the middle of Sunday school class.
JohnnyP liked this
 #103172  by lemmiwinx
 Sat Feb 10, 2018 12:50 pm
Sometimes a fart in the wind sets off a wildfire. It's up to us to make sure there's enough fire exits with ramps.
Last edited by lemmiwinx on Sat Feb 10, 2018 12:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 #103173  by JohnnyP
 Sat Feb 10, 2018 12:50 pm
kocher wrote:
Sat Feb 10, 2018 12:25 pm
I don't think anyone really cares about the Democrat memo at this point, there's no need - the Republican memo went out like a fart in the wind.
According to the same people who told you Hillary had a 92% chance of winning. Did you even know there is already an 11 count criminal indictment against someone in the UraniumOne scandal and Congress has referred Christopher Steele to the DOJ for criminal prosecution? Of course not. Because you listen to a dyke who thought Trump paying more in taxes than their parent company was proof he paid no taxes and watch a network who suggested a black hole brought down a Malaysia airline flight.
 #103182  by kocher
 Sat Feb 10, 2018 1:59 pm
JohnnyP wrote:
Sat Feb 10, 2018 12:50 pm
kocher wrote:
Sat Feb 10, 2018 12:25 pm
I don't think anyone really cares about the Democrat memo at this point, there's no need - the Republican memo went out like a fart in the wind.
According to the same people who told you Hillary had a 92% chance of winning. Did you even know there is already an 11 count criminal indictment against someone in the UraniumOne scandal and Congress has referred Christopher Steele to the DOJ for criminal prosecution? Of course not. Because you listen to a dyke who thought Trump paying more in taxes than their parent company was proof he paid no taxes and watch a network who suggested a black hole brought down a Malaysia airline flight.
I follow FiveThirtyEight for election coverage, which had Hillary at around 71%. Even if it had been 99.9%, that doesn't completely nullify the possibility of Trump being elected, it's a projection. But I don't see the relevance of reporting projections to this.

Again, I don't see the relevance of UraniumOne to this. Are you espousing random Republican talking head trivia to distract from the point or build a W column tally? Doubly irrelevant considering the indictments weren't related to the UraniumOne deal
the charges come out of a 2014 investigation of an American-based kickback scheme that defrauded millions of dollars from a subsidiary of the Russian nuclear agency Rosatom.

The kickback scheme and Rosatom's 2010 purchase of a controlling interest in the Canadian company Uranium One were entirely separate. The kickback plan locked in contracts for an American firm to import Russian uranium. The other deal involved buying Uranium One stock. They involved different Rosatom subsidiaries and different activities.
Beyond an affiliation with Rosatom, there's nothing that links this to UraniumOne.

While that tidbit regarding the Malaysia airlines was never reported by CNN, but rather a dumb hypothetical question by Don Lemon to a panelist, there is some credibility to it even though the terminology isn't all there -- I witnessed your mom spread eagle and pussy-suck that plane inside herself firsthand lol.
 #103190  by JohnnyP
 Sat Feb 10, 2018 3:46 pm
kocher wrote:
Sat Feb 10, 2018 1:59 pm
JohnnyP wrote:
Sat Feb 10, 2018 12:50 pm
kocher wrote:
Sat Feb 10, 2018 12:25 pm
I don't think anyone really cares about the Democrat memo at this point, there's no need - the Republican memo went out like a fart in the wind.
According to the same people who told you Hillary had a 92% chance of winning. Did you even know there is already an 11 count criminal indictment against someone in the UraniumOne scandal and Congress has referred Christopher Steele to the DOJ for criminal prosecution? Of course not. Because you listen to a dyke who thought Trump paying more in taxes than their parent company was proof he paid no taxes and watch a network who suggested a black hole brought down a Malaysia airline flight.
I follow FiveThirtyEight for election coverage, which had Hillary at around 71%. Even if it had been 99.9%, that doesn't completely nullify the possibility of Trump being elected, it's a projection. But I don't see the relevance of reporting projections to this.

Again, I don't see the relevance of UraniumOne to this. Are you espousing random Republican talking head trivia to distract from the point or build a W column tally? Doubly irrelevant considering the indictments weren't related to the UraniumOne deal
the charges come out of a 2014 investigation of an American-based kickback scheme that defrauded millions of dollars from a subsidiary of the Russian nuclear agency Rosatom.

The kickback scheme and Rosatom's 2010 purchase of a controlling interest in the Canadian company Uranium One were entirely separate. The kickback plan locked in contracts for an American firm to import Russian uranium. The other deal involved buying Uranium One stock. They involved different Rosatom subsidiaries and different activities.
Beyond an affiliation with Rosatom, there's nothing that links this to UraniumOne.

While that tidbit regarding the Malaysia airlines was never reported by CNN, but rather a dumb hypothetical question by Don Lemon to a panelist, there is some credibility to it even though the terminology isn't all there -- I witnessed your mom spread eagle and pussy-suck that plane inside herself firsthand lol.
Don Lemon reported it live on CNN. He works for CNN. But it wasn't reported by CNN according to you. Makes perfect sense.

http://www.businessinsider.com/nate-sil ... ion-2016-8

"Renowned statistician Nate Silver gave Hillary Clinton a nearly 93% chance of winning the general election."

You were saying pathological liar? What is your excuse now? Let me guess Nate Silver said that not fivethirtyeight. Even though Nate Silver owns the site.

Keep believing bullshit from the fake news media and Ill keep laughing at you. Russia!!!!!! 😂
 #103191  by kocher
 Sat Feb 10, 2018 4:27 pm
JohnnyP wrote:
Sat Feb 10, 2018 3:46 pm
kocher wrote:
Sat Feb 10, 2018 1:59 pm
JohnnyP wrote:
Sat Feb 10, 2018 12:50 pm

According to the same people who told you Hillary had a 92% chance of winning. Did you even know there is already an 11 count criminal indictment against someone in the UraniumOne scandal and Congress has referred Christopher Steele to the DOJ for criminal prosecution? Of course not. Because you listen to a dyke who thought Trump paying more in taxes than their parent company was proof he paid no taxes and watch a network who suggested a black hole brought down a Malaysia airline flight.
I follow FiveThirtyEight for election coverage, which had Hillary at around 71%. Even if it had been 99.9%, that doesn't completely nullify the possibility of Trump being elected, it's a projection. But I don't see the relevance of reporting projections to this.

Again, I don't see the relevance of UraniumOne to this. Are you espousing random Republican talking head trivia to distract from the point or build a W column tally? Doubly irrelevant considering the indictments weren't related to the UraniumOne deal
the charges come out of a 2014 investigation of an American-based kickback scheme that defrauded millions of dollars from a subsidiary of the Russian nuclear agency Rosatom.

The kickback scheme and Rosatom's 2010 purchase of a controlling interest in the Canadian company Uranium One were entirely separate. The kickback plan locked in contracts for an American firm to import Russian uranium. The other deal involved buying Uranium One stock. They involved different Rosatom subsidiaries and different activities.
Beyond an affiliation with Rosatom, there's nothing that links this to UraniumOne.

While that tidbit regarding the Malaysia airlines was never reported by CNN, but rather a dumb hypothetical question by Don Lemon to a panelist, there is some credibility to it even though the terminology isn't all there -- I witnessed your mom spread eagle and pussy-suck that plane inside herself firsthand lol.
Don Lemon reported it live on CNN. He works for CNN. But it wasn't reported by CNN according to you. Makes perfect sense.

http://www.businessinsider.com/nate-sil ... ion-2016-8

"Renowned statistician Nate Silver gave Hillary Clinton a nearly 93% chance of winning the general election."

You were saying pathological liar? What is your excuse now? Let me guess Nate Silver said that not fivethirtyeight. Even though Nate Silver owns the site.

Keep believing bullshit from the fake news media and Ill keep laughing at you. Russia!!!!!! 😂
Lol is this a troll? FiveThirtyEight also had Clinton at 80-90% through most of August, they also had Trump winning in late July. What does that say to you? Nothing. 71% came at the time of the election which is when I thought it'd be most pertinent, but I guess they actually already predicted Trump would win since he was winning in the polls at one point?

Lemon's question was obviously stupid to even pose for a news organization, but it was in response to online buzz from people spouting conspiracy theories. He's reporting that random Twitter handles are saying that, I guess you can say that much. It's pretty comical you're willing to go to war over hypothetical questions from 4 years ago and election prediction methodology. Not enough fake news kindling to stoke the flames of Clinton/FBI/Obama scandals anymore?
 #103297  by HolidayFriday
 Sun Feb 11, 2018 1:50 pm
kocher wrote:
Sat Feb 10, 2018 4:27 pm
Lol is this a troll? FiveThirtyEight also had Clinton at 80-90% through most of August, they also had Trump winning in late July. What does that say to you? Nothing. 71% came at the time of the election which is when I thought it'd be most pertinent, but I guess they actually already predicted Trump would win since he was winning in the polls at one point?
Clearly, FiveThirtyEight said Clinton was predicted to win 71% - 28%.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/20 ... -forecast/

These statistics are just part of a larger problem with the Liberal public and media who think that if something is said very loudly and hundreds of thousands of times, that it can be considered the truth. They say their polls work, but they predicted an outcome that was completely incorrect, and I don't believe it stopped there.

Let's consider for a moment, the California results. With Pennsylvania making America wait ten hours for their vote count, California with it's whopping fifty-five electoral votes announced Hillary as the winner the very second the polls closed. How can they project that? The answer is, they cannot. They would like us to think they could predict the winner based on how many illegal aliens, homosexuals, and mind-blind Liberals are here, but in reality, they cannot.

Two weeks after the election, news papers read that there were still twelve million votes to count; four weeks later seven million. I hate to break this to you, but it's impossible to project a winner with more uncounted votes than the difference between the two candidates. To tell you the truth, I don't believe they ever finished the count. The last I heard, it was too late for a recount in their Russian scandal states, and shortly thereafter, CA announced that Hillary had won by a couple million. Too late for a recount, though.

I really don't care who wins as long as they count the freaking ballots, and I don't really believe they did.

Lemon's question was obviously stupid to even pose for a news organization
Agreed. It was aimed at all of our pseudo-scientists and based on social media.

CNN :lol:
  • 1
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 57