CNN fires Dr. Drew after questioning Clinton health

[awesome guy]

Think your scope of all of TW is ridiculous?

The scope of the donations is simply a fact. It includes all TW employees.

Silly

What is your problem? The $340k in donations made to Clinton are calculated using donations from all TW employees. That's a fact. It isn't silly or ridiculous, it's the truth. How could you have a problem with something that is 100% true.

Dude, check out the donations from CNN and it's talent. They're libtards.

[HokieFanDC]

Think your scope of all of TW is ridiculous?

The scope of the donations is simply a fact. It includes all TW employees.

Silly

What is your problem? The $340k in donations made to Clinton are calculated using donations from all TW employees. That's a fact. It isn't silly or ridiculous, it's the truth. How could you have a problem with something that is 100% true.

Dude, check out the donations from CNN and it's talent. They're libtards.

There isn't a category for donations from CNN employees.

[awesome guy]

Think your scope of all of TW is ridiculous?

The scope of the donations is simply a fact. It includes all TW employees.

Silly

What is your problem? The $340k in donations made to Clinton are calculated using donations from all TW employees. That's a fact. It isn't silly or ridiculous, it's the truth. How could you have a problem with something that is 100% true.

Dude, check out the donations from CNN and it's talent. They're libtards.

There isn't a category for donations from CNN employees.

It's all over the Internet and how they're 90% democrats. Reasonable people can tell just watching, but they have polls for you.

[HokieFanDC]

Silly

What is your problem? The $340k in donations made to Clinton are calculated using donations from all TW employees. That's a fact. It isn't silly or ridiculous, it's the truth. How could you have a problem with something that is 100% true.

Dude, check out the donations from CNN and it's talent. They're libtards.

There isn't a category for donations from CNN employees.

It's all over the Internet and how they're 90% democrats. Reasonable people can tell just watching, but they have polls for you.

The "it" that's all over the internet is the total of donations from TW employees, all of them. The lying, misleading websites that call the donations out as being from CNN are lying to, and misleading, their poor clueless readers.

As for 90% of them being Dems, sure, why not. There's no way to know that, but sure, I'll go with that.

[awesome guy]

Silly

What is your problem? The $340k in donations made to Clinton are calculated using donations from all TW employees. That's a fact. It isn't silly or ridiculous, it's the truth. How could you have a problem with something that is 100% true.

Dude, check out the donations from CNN and it's talent. They're libtards.

There isn't a category for donations from CNN employees.

It's all over the Internet and how they're 90% democrats. Reasonable people can tell just watching, but they have polls for you.

The "it" that's all over the internet is the total of donations from TW employees, all of them. The lying, misleading websites that call the donations out as being from CNN are lying to, and misleading, their poor clueless readers.

As for 90% of them being Dems, sure, why not. There's no way to know that, but sure, I'll go with that.

But you're not a reader?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_controversies

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians ... cle=Career

There's tons of information for those willing and able to search.

[HokieFanDC]

It's all over the Internet and how they're 90% democrats. Reasonable people can tell just watching, but they have polls for you.

The "it" that's all over the internet is the total of donations from TW employees, all of them. The lying, misleading websites that call the donations out as being from CNN are lying to, and misleading, their poor clueless readers.

As for 90% of them being Dems, sure, why not. There's no way to know that, but sure, I'll go with that.

But you're not a reader?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_controversies

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians ... cle=Career

There's tons of information for those willing and able to search.

The Wiki post you linked says that CNN treated both Dem and GOP candidates unfairly, and gave favorable treatment to Bush.

And the opensecrets link you posted says Time Warner, not CNN, which is exactly what I told you, and the reason the numbers being spouted are TW totals, not CNN specific.

You're right, that's info, but it doesn't say what you said it is saying.

[awesome guy]

It's all over the Internet and how they're 90% democrats. Reasonable people can tell just watching, but they have polls for you.

The "it" that's all over the internet is the total of donations from TW employees, all of them. The lying, misleading websites that call the donations out as being from CNN are lying to, and misleading, their poor clueless readers.

As for 90% of them being Dems, sure, why not. There's no way to know that, but sure, I'll go with that.

But you're not a reader?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_controversies

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians ... cle=Career

There's tons of information for those willing and able to search.

The Wiki post you linked says that CNN treated both Dem and GOP candidates unfairly, and gave favorable treatment to Bush.

And the opensecrets link you posted says Time Warner, not CNN, which is exactly what I told you, and the reason the numbers being spouted are TW totals, not CNN specific.

You're right, that's info, but it doesn't say what you said it is saying.

4 to 1 worse for Republicans.

[HokieFanDC]

It's all over the Internet and how they're 90% democrats. Reasonable people can tell just watching, but they have polls for you.

The "it" that's all over the internet is the total of donations from TW employees, all of them. The lying, misleading websites that call the donations out as being from CNN are lying to, and misleading, their poor clueless readers.

As for 90% of them being Dems, sure, why not. There's no way to know that, but sure, I'll go with that.

But you're not a reader?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_controversies

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians ... cle=Career

There's tons of information for those willing and able to search.

The Wiki post you linked says that CNN treated both Dem and GOP candidates unfairly, and gave favorable treatment to Bush.

And the opensecrets link you posted says Time Warner, not CNN, which is exactly what I told you, and the reason the numbers being spouted are TW totals, not CNN specific.

You're right, that's info, but it doesn't say what you said it is saying.

4 to 1 worse for Republicans.

Ok. But, you're wrong on the CNN donation angle, there is nothing about 90% democrats, and the email issue is a big nothing. The reasons given as proof that CNN fired Drew because of what he said, were all wrong. So. Now you toss out a new one. That means that 1 of the 4 foundations for your claims was right, and 3 were wrong, or made up.
I especially like how you spent 5 posts telling me I was wrong and silly, and then linking to the data that proved I was right.

[awesome guy]

It's all over the Internet and how they're 90% democrats. Reasonable people can tell just watching, but they have polls for you.

The "it" that's all over the internet is the total of donations from TW employees, all of them. The lying, misleading websites that call the donations out as being from CNN are lying to, and misleading, their poor clueless readers.

As for 90% of them being Dems, sure, why not. There's no way to know that, but sure, I'll go with that.

But you're not a reader?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_controversies

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians ... cle=Career

There's tons of information for those willing and able to search.

The Wiki post you linked says that CNN treated both Dem and GOP candidates unfairly, and gave favorable treatment to Bush.

And the opensecrets link you posted says Time Warner, not CNN, which is exactly what I told you, and the reason the numbers being spouted are TW totals, not CNN specific.

You're right, that's info, but it doesn't say what you said it is saying.

4 to 1 worse for Republicans.

Ok. But, you're wrong on the CNN donation angle, there is nothing about 90% democrats, and the email issue is a big nothing. The reasons given as proof that CNN fired Drew because of what he said, were all wrong. So. Now you toss out a new one. That means that 1 of the 4 foundations for your claims was right, and 3 were wrong, or made up.
I especially like how you spent 5 posts telling me I was wrong and silly, and then linking to the data that proved I was right.

I gave you a subset of the data and told you to search and learn yourself. You're still 0 for 5 on intelligent points.

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/ ... scarcity-/

[HokieFanDC]

The "it" that's all over the internet is the total of donations from TW employees, all of them. The lying, misleading websites that call the donations out as being from CNN are lying to, and misleading, their poor clueless readers.

As for 90% of them being Dems, sure, why not. There's no way to know that, but sure, I'll go with that.

But you're not a reader?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_controversies

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians ... cle=Career

There's tons of information for those willing and able to search.

The Wiki post you linked says that CNN treated both Dem and GOP candidates unfairly, and gave favorable treatment to Bush.

And the opensecrets link you posted says Time Warner, not CNN, which is exactly what I told you, and the reason the numbers being spouted are TW totals, not CNN specific.

You're right, that's info, but it doesn't say what you said it is saying.

4 to 1 worse for Republicans.

Ok. But, you're wrong on the CNN donation angle, there is nothing about 90% democrats, and the email issue is a big nothing. The reasons given as proof that CNN fired Drew because of what he said, were all wrong. So. Now you toss out a new one. That means that 1 of the 4 foundations for your claims was right, and 3 were wrong, or made up.
I especially like how you spent 5 posts telling me I was wrong and silly, and then linking to the data that proved I was right.

I gave you a subset of the data and told you to search and learn yourself. You're still 0 for 5 on intelligent points.

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/ ... scarcity-/

I'm not disputing anything you posted, but none of that is an indicator that would lead a normal.person to conclude Pinsky was fired for what he said. Lots of people express similar negative opinions on Hillary, and don't pay any price. Bias <> furinf

[awesome guy]

But you're not a reader?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_controversies

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians ... cle=Career

There's tons of information for those willing and able to search.

The Wiki post you linked says that CNN treated both Dem and GOP candidates unfairly, and gave favorable treatment to Bush.

And the opensecrets link you posted says Time Warner, not CNN, which is exactly what I told you, and the reason the numbers being spouted are TW totals, not CNN specific.

You're right, that's info, but it doesn't say what you said it is saying.

4 to 1 worse for Republicans.

Ok. But, you're wrong on the CNN donation angle, there is nothing about 90% democrats, and the email issue is a big nothing. The reasons given as proof that CNN fired Drew because of what he said, were all wrong. So. Now you toss out a new one. That means that 1 of the 4 foundations for your claims was right, and 3 were wrong, or made up.
I especially like how you spent 5 posts telling me I was wrong and silly, and then linking to the data that proved I was right.

I gave you a subset of the data and told you to search and learn yourself. You're still 0 for 5 on intelligent points.

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/ ... scarcity-/

I'm not disputing anything you posted, but none of that is an indicator that would lead a normal.person to conclude Pinsky was fired for what he said. Lots of people express similar negative opinions on Hillary, and don't pay any price. Bias <> furinf

Ah, so now you admit you were wrong all along. Thanks for playing.

[HokieFanDC]

The Wiki post you linked says that CNN treated both Dem and GOP candidates unfairly, and gave favorable treatment to Bush.

And the opensecrets link you posted says Time Warner, not CNN, which is exactly what I told you, and the reason the numbers being spouted are TW totals, not CNN specific.

You're right, that's info, but it doesn't say what you said it is saying.

4 to 1 worse for Republicans.

Ok. But, you're wrong on the CNN donation angle, there is nothing about 90% democrats, and the email issue is a big nothing. The reasons given as proof that CNN fired Drew because of what he said, were all wrong. So. Now you toss out a new one. That means that 1 of the 4 foundations for your claims was right, and 3 were wrong, or made up.
I especially like how you spent 5 posts telling me I was wrong and silly, and then linking to the data that proved I was right.

I gave you a subset of the data and told you to search and learn yourself. You're still 0 for 5 on intelligent points.

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/ ... scarcity-/

I'm not disputing anything you posted, but none of that is an indicator that would lead a normal.person to conclude Pinsky was fired for what he said. Lots of people express similar negative opinions on Hillary, and don't pay any price. Bias <> furinf

Ah, so now you admit you were wrong all along. Thanks for playing.

Good one! RIF. Enjoy your meds and your booze.

[awesome guy]

4 to 1 worse for Republicans.

Ok. But, you're wrong on the CNN donation angle, there is nothing about 90% democrats, and the email issue is a big nothing. The reasons given as proof that CNN fired Drew because of what he said, were all wrong. So. Now you toss out a new one. That means that 1 of the 4 foundations for your claims was right, and 3 were wrong, or made up.
I especially like how you spent 5 posts telling me I was wrong and silly, and then linking to the data that proved I was right.

I gave you a subset of the data and told you to search and learn yourself. You're still 0 for 5 on intelligent points.

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/ ... scarcity-/

I'm not disputing anything you posted, but none of that is an indicator that would lead a normal.person to conclude Pinsky was fired for what he said. Lots of people express similar negative opinions on Hillary, and don't pay any price. Bias <> furinf

Ah, so now you admit you were wrong all along. Thanks for playing.

Good one! RIF. Enjoy your meds and your booze.

Uh huh

[RiverguyVT]

Now it looks like this is PRECISELY why dr Drew was fired...

[RiverguyVT]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/ ... ling-show/

[HokieJoe]

Now it looks like this is PRECISELY why dr Drew was fired...

I haven't been keeping up. What's the new dirt?

[RiverguyVT]

Now it looks like this is PRECISELY why dr Drew was fired...

I haven't been keeping up. What's the new dirt?

Sources are now saying he was harrassed by CNN to retract his statements, THEN fired.
A connection posters in thread above denied in the name of "conspiracy" or coincidence.

[HokieJoe]

Now it looks like this is PRECISELY why dr Drew was fired...

I haven't been keeping up. What's the new dirt?

Sources are now saying he was harrassed by CNN to retract his statements, THEN fired.
A connection posters in thread above denied in the name of "conspiracy" or coincidence.

Ahh. They need to fire Jeff Zucker. He's a poisonous idiot; and as long as he's there, they will be a bottom dweller. His brand of broadcast journ-o-lism is nothing but progressive agitprop.