Kavanaugh Confirmation

You sure do watch a lot of CNN. You and WD40 and a few other mouthbreathers source it all the time and whine about how it's ratings are worse than Married With Children reruns. Weird.

Unlike you, I get my news from a variety of sources. Keeps me balanced and objective, again, unlike you.

For the record though, that was CNN's website I checked out. And not a peep about the hearing other than a blurb about the ones in the back showing the global audience they are the village idiots.
 
Unlike you, I get my news from a variety of sources. Keeps me balanced and objective, again, unlike you.

For the record though, that was CNN's website I checked out. And not a peep about the hearing other than a blurb about the ones in the back showing the global audience they are the village idiots.

Was curious so I just looked:

Front Page
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20180905-102722.png
    Screenshot_20180905-102722.png
    893.4 KB · Views: 10
Kavanaugh is saying all the right things about Roe v Wade, as far as the protesters are concerned. It seems to have quieted down a bit.
 
Unlike you, I get my news from a variety of sources. Keeps me balanced and objective, again, unlike you.

For the record though, that was CNN's website I checked out. And not a peep about the hearing other than a blurb about the ones in the back showing the global audience they are the village idiots.
You have no idea where I get my source of news and you intimating that you do, I would think would be beneath you. Perhaps I misjudged you. Balanced and objective. Lulz.
 
You have no idea where I get my source of news and you intimating that you do, I would think would be beneath you. Perhaps I misjudged you. Balanced and objective. Lulz.
Media Matters is not balanced news, try again.
 
You cited CNN as your source yesterday. You have no room to discuss batsh!t crazy. Sep hilariously owned your ass. Better luck next time, lube boy
We’ve covered this. It’s a 2fer for us to yell fake news and rub your damn noses in it. Try to keep up sloboi
 

Which part of "not on their main page" are you missing? Did ya have to dig for that? Because I did yesterday and found it on the proverbial page 37 as a minor blurb.

But I'll stand by my theory that even CNN was embarrassed by the actions of the DNC committee members and refused to show them acting like children.
 

Okay, I'll give you the fact I did not specifically state "on CNN's main page" last night when I posted that.

Regardless, the point stands. They covered the initial opening remarks, the idiot Code Pink group and little else from the hearing on their page yesterday.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
Which part of "not on their main page" are you missing? Did ya have to dig for that? Because I did yesterday and found it on the proverbial page 37 as a minor blurb.

But I'll stand by my theory that even CNN was embarrassed by the actions of the DNC committee members and refused to show them acting like children.

I focused in on the "embarrassed to cover it" part, but even the covering of the protesters has a CNN slant.

Coffee in my big Big Gulp.. Just a little feisty today.
 
We’ve covered this. It’s a 2fer for us to yell fake news and rub your damn noses in it. Try to keep up sloboi
No, you got hammered with your own hypocrisy and now you're moving the goalposts. You're going to sprain something with the mental gymnastics you're displaying. I'm worried.
 
I focused in on the "embarrassed to cover it" part, but even the covering of the protesters has a CNN slant.

Coffee in my big Big Gulp.. Just a little feisty today.

Actually, I thought them calling the DNC partisan was a bold move.

Very un-CNN like.
 
No, you got hammered with your own hypocrisy and now you're moving the goalposts. You're going to sprain something with the mental gymnastics you're displaying. I'm worried.
Nope. And this worn out rhetoric doesn’t fly and it’s useless to play. A debate happens then both sides claim victory and do a victory lap. My goal posts are exactly where they started.
 
Interesting Feinstein exchange. She tries to pin him on if he believes a sitting president can be indicted. He pointed to the Ginsburg Rule and refused to answer a hypothetical. And rightfully so.

But in earlier statements he pointed to US v Nixon as one of the greatest moments in judicial history. And in opening remarks he’s already stated no one is above the law.

He’s sharp and well prepared. The Dims screech plan appears to be rapidly evaporating. They either accept his answers or call him a liar. If the latter they better be able to prove it.
 

VN Store



Back
Top