Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
Just now, Foxx said:

sorry Avenatti. it doesn't work that way. not to mention that the Kavanaugh thing, is, you know... over. your day in court is coming, be sure and yell, Squirrel all you want.

 

Plus...he appears to think a criminal referral is yet another Senate Hearing.  :lol:

  • Haha (+1) 2
Posted
13 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

It would have been kind of funny, in hindsight, if Hillary had come out and claimed Kavanaugh had assaulted her while he was drunk at a DC party 

Image result for hillary clinton viagra cure

  • Haha (+1) 2
Posted

 

Question: When you, as a news network,  withhold critical information that shows someone is lying about rape allegations against a SCOTUS nominee, is that considered fake news?

 

Or is there another name for that?

 

Asking for a friend.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

Question: When you, as a news network,  withhold critical information that shows someone is lying about rape allegations against a SCOTUS nominee, is that considered fake news?

 

Or is there another name for that?

 

Asking for a friend.

 

It's amazing how fast they're trying to bury Avenatti while trying to put distance between their network and the fake news they've been spreading on this issue.

Posted
9 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

Question: When you, as a news network,  withhold critical information that shows someone is lying about rape allegations against a SCOTUS nominee, is that considered fake news?

 

Or is there another name for that?

 

Asking for a friend.

 

They were well within their rights.  They weren't required to provide information to the Senate.  It's not malfeasance on their part, it's editorialism.

 

*****, biased editorialism.  But still editorialism.

Posted

This is no different than Leland Keyser destroying Ford's credibility by saying she never attended a party where both Ford and Kavanaugh were in attendance.  It was never about the facts. 

  • Like (+1) 3
Posted

 

6 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

They were well within their rights.  They weren't required to provide information to the Senate.  It's not malfeasance on their part, it's editorialism.

 

*****, biased editorialism.  But still editorialism.

 

I know. I just, y'know, this is the kind of stuff that I look at and think "Damn, a LOT of people got hurt unnecessarily over one portion that could have been totally avoided if only NBC has a shred of integrity."

 

Heads should roll because of it.

 

Posted
12 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

 

I know. I just, y'know, this is the kind of stuff that I look at and think "Damn, a LOT of people got hurt unnecessarily over one portion that could have been totally avoided if only NBC has a shred of integrity."

 

Heads should roll because of it.

 

 

From their point of view, a lot of people got hurt NECESSARILY because of what they did.

 

When you're fighting Nazis, etc...

Posted
1 hour ago, LABillzFan said:

 

 

I know. I just, y'know, this is the kind of stuff that I look at and think "Damn, a LOT of people got hurt unnecessarily over one portion that could have been totally avoided if only NBC has a shred of integrity."

 

Heads should roll because of it.

 

well, to be fair, they did just get rid of Megan Kelly.

?

Posted

Didn't our nations press secretary release a statement saying that the Supreme Court under President Trump was now secured for decades?

 

Under. One of these things is not like the other.

 

Does this administration not understand who is in charge?

Posted
1 hour ago, Thurmal34 said:

Didn't our nations press secretary release a statement saying that the Supreme Court under President Trump was now secured for decades?

 

Under. One of these things is not like the other.

 

Does this administration not understand who is in charge?

com'on. it's all about context and reading comprehension. try reading what you posted again, "... the Supreme Court under President Trump was now ...". if you think she was saying that the Supreme Court was below the President or even that, Trump was above the SC, then you have no comprehension abilities. try reading it where she was referring to the fact that the SC, while under the President's tenure is now... you probably didn't get that though either....

Posted
14 minutes ago, Foxx said:

com'on. it's all about context and reading comprehension. try reading what you posted again, "... the Supreme Court under President Trump was now ...". if you think she was saying that the Supreme Court was below the President or even that, Trump was above the SC, then you have no comprehension abilities. try reading it where she was referring to the fact that the SC, while under the President's tenure is now... you probably didn't get that though either....

He's drunk again and not worth your time.

Posted
20 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

It's amazing how fast they're trying to bury Avenatti while trying to put distance between their network and the fake news they've been spreading on this issue.

Amazing?

 

How about consistent with a well worn pattern?

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
3 hours ago, Thurmal34 said:

Didn't our nations press secretary release a statement saying that the Supreme Court under President Trump was now secured for decades?

 

Under. One of these things is not like the other.

 

Does this administration not understand who is in charge?

 

Somebody's trying too hard.

×
×
  • Create New...