United We Stand - uwsboard.com

awesome guy wrote:

CFB Apologist wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:Part of me is laughing, the other part is praying she doesn't run.

Yep- another mascot candidate, like Obama. I think she would beat Trump if the dems come out and vote.

She's more qualified than Obama was and would be just as disastrous. She even had more sense than Obama as she left Rev Wight's Blame Whitey church long before Obama realized how it looked. I think she's just as racist as Obama, just has better sense about masking it. She would be awful and could win provided she can handle the belittling attacks. She'll also be running against success and seen as Obama 2.0 which will kill her odds.

She'd turn out the minority vote like crazy. Obama showed that's a winning strategy for Dems.

Has Trump ushered in the new era of politics? Famous people are what the people will elect, because, well, they're already famous and we know and adore them?

Isn't Oprah sort of a conspiracy theorist and anti-vaxxer?

BG Hokie wrote:Has Trump ushered in the new era of politics? Famous people are what the people will elect, because, well, they're already famous and we know and adore them?

Isn't Oprah sort of a conspiracy theorist and anti-vaxxer?

I've had enough of the celebrity President. I think I'd take Pence over Oprah.

BG Hokie wrote:Has Trump ushered in the new era of politics? Famous people are what the people will elect, because, well, they're already famous and we know and adore them?

Isn't Oprah sort of a conspiracy theorist and anti-vaxxer?

In the USA? Yes.

At least for populists.

From Ben Shapiro's site:
Top 5 Oprah Fails
https://www.dailywire.com/news/25542/to ... n-saavedra

"Where was the Hollywood Press Association that was receiving such plaudits at the hands of Oprah Winfrey, again, a woman who was good friends with Harvey Weinstein, being cheered by Meryl Streep, a woman who gave a standing ovation to Roman Polanski?"

The media used the 75th Golden Globe Awards on Sunday as a platform to launch Oprah Winfrey into the national discussion regarding a possible presidential run in 2020. As The Daily Wire’s Ben Shapiro told Fox News on Monday, Oprah may be popular right now, but if she enters the political arena she will see an immediate hit to her popularity, which could affect her very differently than it did Donald Trump.

As Shapiro noted, Winfrey is a hardcore leftist and her image is based on being a uniter, not a divider — which would take a huge hit if she got political. There is an abundant amount of information available on Oprah which will be used against her if she decides to run for office.
=======================
Ben's take on Oprah's speech:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/25504/op ... en-shapiro

On Sunday evening, Oprah Winfrey received the Cecille B. DeMille Lifetime Achievement Award. She proceeded to launch into an emotional speech about the power of women to fight back against sexism and sexual malfeasance — a speech that led to widespread celebration in Hollywood, where everyone knew about the problem of sexual harassment and assault and nobody did anything for years, but where one speech from the most powerful woman in the history of media can apparently cure all ills.
=================================

Actual victims weren't invited on stage
https://www.dailywire.com/news/25569/we ... ly-zanotti

They are responsible for taking down perhaps one of the most powerful men in the entertainment industry, and without them, the #MeToo movement might have completely fizzled like so many modern feminist social media efforts. But Rose McGowan and Asia Argento say that they haven't been asked to join the super-woke Hollywood women's movement to end sexual harassment and violence.

Writing on Twitter, both McGowan and Argento said they weren't invited to accompany the "Times Up" actresses on the red carpet, although A-listers like Reese Witherspoon and Meryl Street brought social justice warriors — and even the "leader" of the #MeToo movement — as their guests.

BG Hokie wrote:
Isn't Oprah sort of a conspiracy theorist and anti-vaxxer?

Yes.

USN_Hokie wrote:

BG Hokie wrote:
Isn't Oprah sort of a conspiracy theorist and anti-vaxxer?

Yes.

This young go-getter used to love Oprah.

HokieFanDC wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

BG Hokie wrote:
Isn't Oprah sort of a conspiracy theorist and anti-vaxxer?

Yes.

This young go-getter used to love Oprah.

Don't see anything wrong with what he said, not sure what your point is supposed to be. I'm sure Jenny McCarthy is nice too.

HokieFanDC wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

BG Hokie wrote:
Isn't Oprah sort of a conspiracy theorist and anti-vaxxer?

Yes.

This young go-getter used to love Oprah.

I used to love Pop Tarts.

USN_Hokie wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

BG Hokie wrote:
Isn't Oprah sort of a conspiracy theorist and anti-vaxxer?

Yes.

This young go-getter used to love Oprah.

Don't see anything wrong with what he said, not sure what your point is supposed to be. I'm sure Jenny McCarthy is nice too.

Just picked the last post, nothing to do with vaxx. Just a comment from POTUS about his future opposition.


If you want me to say something directly about that post, I'll say that I don't see anything that supports that she is anti-vaxx, other than having McCarthy on her show once, and on that show, reading the CDC statement that said they have found no association between vaccines and autism.

HokieFanDC wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

BG Hokie wrote:
Isn't Oprah sort of a conspiracy theorist and anti-vaxxer?

Yes.

This young go-getter used to love Oprah.

Don't see anything wrong with what he said, not sure what your point is supposed to be. I'm sure Jenny McCarthy is nice too.

Just picked the last post, nothing to do with vaxx. Just a comment from POTUS about his future opposition.


If you want me to say something directly about that post, I'll say that I don't see anything that supports that she is anti-vaxx, other than having McCarthy on her show once, and on that show, reading the CDC statement that said they have found no association between vaccines and autism.

You want us to believe the UWS Googler can't find a link? C'mon....

http://therightscoop.com/excellent-mark ... en-globes/

Mark Levin opened his radio show tonight discussing the speech Oprah that apparently rocked the liberal world last night, the one that the media can’t quit talking about today.

But the speech didn’t rock Levin’s world – in fact he called the speech grotesque and he explains why below:

ElbertoHokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

CFB Apologist wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:Part of me is laughing, the other part is praying she doesn't run.

Yep- another mascot candidate, like Obama. I think she would beat Trump if the dems come out and vote.

She's more qualified than Obama was and would be just as disastrous. She even had more sense than Obama as she left Rev Wight's Blame Whitey church long before Obama realized how it looked. I think she's just as racist as Obama, just has better sense about masking it. She would be awful and could win provided she can handle the belittling attacks. She'll also be running against success and seen as Obama 2.0 which will kill her odds.

She'd turn out the minority vote like crazy. Obama showed that's a winning strategy for Dems.

Yep, hate to say it but Oprah would win EASILY.

FireFuente wrote:

ElbertoHokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

CFB Apologist wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:Part of me is laughing, the other part is praying she doesn't run.

Yep- another mascot candidate, like Obama. I think she would beat Trump if the dems come out and vote.

She's more qualified than Obama was and would be just as disastrous. She even had more sense than Obama as she left Rev Wight's Blame Whitey church long before Obama realized how it looked. I think she's just as racist as Obama, just has better sense about masking it. She would be awful and could win provided she can handle the belittling attacks. She'll also be running against success and seen as Obama 2.0 which will kill her odds.

She'd turn out the minority vote like crazy. Obama showed that's a winning strategy for Dems.

Yep, hate to say it but Oprah would win EASILY.

Disagry.
She wouldn’t make it through the meat grinder...she’s too private.
Nor would she give up her interests & $$ & lifestyle.

the awesome deal with Oprah as prez would be free weight watchers for all, you fat ass get to lose weight, you fat ass get to lose weight....yippeeee

USN_Hokie wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

BG Hokie wrote:
Isn't Oprah sort of a conspiracy theorist and anti-vaxxer?

Yes.

This young go-getter used to love Oprah.

Don't see anything wrong with what he said, not sure what your point is supposed to be. I'm sure Jenny McCarthy is nice too.

Just picked the last post, nothing to do with vaxx. Just a comment from POTUS about his future opposition.


If you want me to say something directly about that post, I'll say that I don't see anything that supports that she is anti-vaxx, other than having McCarthy on her show once, and on that show, reading the CDC statement that said they have found no association between vaccines and autism.

You want us to believe the UWS Googler can't find a link? C'mon....

There are lots of links that claim Oprah is anti-vaxx, and all of them point to McCarthy being on Oprah's show.

None of them have anything else. No worries, the claim sounded like RW LIV dipshirtery, and of course, it is.

Feel free to prove me wrong.


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/look- ... le/2645282

HokieFanDC wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote: Yes.

This young go-getter used to love Oprah.

Don't see anything wrong with what he said, not sure what your point is supposed to be. I'm sure Jenny McCarthy is nice too.

Just picked the last post, nothing to do with vaxx. Just a comment from POTUS about his future opposition.


If you want me to say something directly about that post, I'll say that I don't see anything that supports that she is anti-vaxx, other than having McCarthy on her show once, and on that show, reading the CDC statement that said they have found no association between vaccines and autism.

You want us to believe the UWS Googler can't find a link? C'mon....

There are lots of links that claim Oprah is anti-vaxx, and all of them point to McCarthy being on Oprah's show.

None of them have anything else. No worries, the claim sounded like RW LIV dipshirtery, and of course, it is.

Feel free to prove me wrong.


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/look- ... le/2645282

When will you learn? When you get condescending then you're always about to get embarrassed. Quibble away, I'm sure Mother Jones is now a RW site and they have more than McCarthy being on her show.


http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... doscience/

There are lots of links that claim Oprah is anti-vaxx, and all of them point to McCarthy being on Oprah's show.

None of them have anything else. No worries, the claim sounded like RW LIV dipshirtery, and of course, it is.

Feel free to prove me wrong.

My first google hit is a mother Jones article disparaging her for being anti-vac. Are they RWNJs too?

Surely, you can imagine that Oprah does not have to be Jenny M herself, to promote Jenny M's agenda, no? Promoting that nonsense by having her as a guest, and promoting Jenny M's book can't be discarded offhand, DC. C'mon, man.

It also fits her "alar-style" nut jobbery w the beef industry. She's a rich woman's Maury Povich, moving her brainwashed masses to bypass cancer treatments, and setting up a child abuse factory in South Africa.

Her 15 minutes of prez campaign are up. The gal is a damaged LIV LWNJ

RW Vox calls out Oprah's junk science too! Ermagod!

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/ ... udoscience

awesome guy wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:
This young go-getter used to love Oprah.

Don't see anything wrong with what he said, not sure what your point is supposed to be. I'm sure Jenny McCarthy is nice too.

Just picked the last post, nothing to do with vaxx. Just a comment from POTUS about his future opposition.


If you want me to say something directly about that post, I'll say that I don't see anything that supports that she is anti-vaxx, other than having McCarthy on her show once, and on that show, reading the CDC statement that said they have found no association between vaccines and autism.

You want us to believe the UWS Googler can't find a link? C'mon....

There are lots of links that claim Oprah is anti-vaxx, and all of them point to McCarthy being on Oprah's show.

None of them have anything else. No worries, the claim sounded like RW LIV dipshirtery, and of course, it is.

Feel free to prove me wrong.


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/look- ... le/2645282

When will you learn? When you get condescending then you're always about to get embarrassed. Quibble away, I'm sure Mother Jones is now a RW site and they have more than McCarthy being on her show.


http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... doscience/

I wasn't being condescending, I didn't get a Mother Jones article at all.

You found one, thanks. Looks like it's deeper than what I found. The Mother Jones article was created 8 hours ago.

See how easy that was?
This is how normal people act. I understand how you find it confusing.

HokieFanDC wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote: Don't see anything wrong with what he said, not sure what your point is supposed to be. I'm sure Jenny McCarthy is nice too.

Just picked the last post, nothing to do with vaxx. Just a comment from POTUS about his future opposition.


If you want me to say something directly about that post, I'll say that I don't see anything that supports that she is anti-vaxx, other than having McCarthy on her show once, and on that show, reading the CDC statement that said they have found no association between vaccines and autism.

You want us to believe the UWS Googler can't find a link? C'mon....

There are lots of links that claim Oprah is anti-vaxx, and all of them point to McCarthy being on Oprah's show.

None of them have anything else. No worries, the claim sounded like RW LIV dipshirtery, and of course, it is.

Feel free to prove me wrong.


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/look- ... le/2645282

When will you learn? When you get condescending then you're always about to get embarrassed. Quibble away, I'm sure Mother Jones is now a RW site and they have more than McCarthy being on her show.


http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... doscience/

I wasn't being condescending, I didn't get a Mother Jones article at all.

You found one, thanks. Looks like it's deeper than what I found. The Mother Jones article was created 8 hours ago.

See how easy that was?
This is how normal people act. I understand how you find it confusing.

It's always easy bringing information to your low info ecosystem. The first results are all from lefty sites, a normal person would have caught that up front.

awesome guy wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:
Just picked the last post, nothing to do with vaxx. Just a comment from POTUS about his future opposition.


If you want me to say something directly about that post, I'll say that I don't see anything that supports that she is anti-vaxx, other than having McCarthy on her show once, and on that show, reading the CDC statement that said they have found no association between vaccines and autism.

You want us to believe the UWS Googler can't find a link? C'mon....

There are lots of links that claim Oprah is anti-vaxx, and all of them point to McCarthy being on Oprah's show.

None of them have anything else. No worries, the claim sounded like RW LIV dipshirtery, and of course, it is.

Feel free to prove me wrong.


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/look- ... le/2645282

When will you learn? When you get condescending then you're always about to get embarrassed. Quibble away, I'm sure Mother Jones is now a RW site and they have more than McCarthy being on her show.


http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... doscience/

I wasn't being condescending, I didn't get a Mother Jones article at all.

You found one, thanks. Looks like it's deeper than what I found. The Mother Jones article was created 8 hours ago.

See how easy that was?
This is how normal people act. I understand how you find it confusing.

It's always easy bringing information to your low info ecosystem. The first results are all from lefty sites, a normal person would have caught that up front.

LOL. The only one that had addl info was the MJ article, which was published this morning.
No worries, unlike you, and yes I'm being condescending, when I get new info, I acknowledge it. You run away like the girl child you are.

HokieFanDC wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote: You want us to believe the UWS Googler can't find a link? C'mon....

There are lots of links that claim Oprah is anti-vaxx, and all of them point to McCarthy being on Oprah's show.

None of them have anything else. No worries, the claim sounded like RW LIV dipshirtery, and of course, it is.

Feel free to prove me wrong.


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/look- ... le/2645282

When will you learn? When you get condescending then you're always about to get embarrassed. Quibble away, I'm sure Mother Jones is now a RW site and they have more than McCarthy being on her show.


http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... doscience/

I wasn't being condescending, I didn't get a Mother Jones article at all.

You found one, thanks. Looks like it's deeper than what I found. The Mother Jones article was created 8 hours ago.

See how easy that was?
This is how normal people act. I understand how you find it confusing.

It's always easy bringing information to your low info ecosystem. The first results are all from lefty sites, a normal person would have caught that up front.

LOL. The only one that had addl info was the MJ article, which was published this morning.
No worries, unlike you, and yes I'm being condescending, when I get new info, I acknowledge it. You run away like the girl child you are.

You're so full of excrement. You deny and obfuscate or argue over verb tense. Or act like a bitch, like here, and ignore the dozens of other articles with the same message.

awesome guy wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:
There are lots of links that claim Oprah is anti-vaxx, and all of them point to McCarthy being on Oprah's show.

None of them have anything else. No worries, the claim sounded like RW LIV dipshirtery, and of course, it is.

Feel free to prove me wrong.


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/look- ... le/2645282

When will you learn? When you get condescending then you're always about to get embarrassed. Quibble away, I'm sure Mother Jones is now a RW site and they have more than McCarthy being on her show.


http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... doscience/

I wasn't being condescending, I didn't get a Mother Jones article at all.

You found one, thanks. Looks like it's deeper than what I found. The Mother Jones article was created 8 hours ago.

See how easy that was?
This is how normal people act. I understand how you find it confusing.

It's always easy bringing information to your low info ecosystem. The first results are all from lefty sites, a normal person would have caught that up front.

LOL. The only one that had addl info was the MJ article, which was published this morning.
No worries, unlike you, and yes I'm being condescending, when I get new info, I acknowledge it. You run away like the girl child you are.

You're so full of excrement. You deny and obfuscate or argue over verb tense. Or act like a bitch, like here, and ignore the dozens of other articles with the same message.

I didn't ignore them, I read them, and none of them had the addl info the MJ article had. I said thanks for the addl info, and of course, you being the amazing gentleman you are, couldn't accept that thanks.

I still have no idea what you guys are talking about with verb tense. What is it that you keep bringing up and occupies so much of your mindshare?

HokieFanDC wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:

awesome guy wrote:When will you learn? When you get condescending then you're always about to get embarrassed. Quibble away, I'm sure Mother Jones is now a RW site and they have more than McCarthy being on her show.


http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... doscience/

I wasn't being condescending, I didn't get a Mother Jones article at all.

You found one, thanks. Looks like it's deeper than what I found. The Mother Jones article was created 8 hours ago.

See how easy that was?
This is how normal people act. I understand how you find it confusing.

It's always easy bringing information to your low info ecosystem. The first results are all from lefty sites, a normal person would have caught that up front.

LOL. The only one that had addl info was the MJ article, which was published this morning.
No worries, unlike you, and yes I'm being condescending, when I get new info, I acknowledge it. You run away like the girl child you are.

You're so full of excrement. You deny and obfuscate or argue over verb tense. Or act like a bitch, like here, and ignore the dozens of other articles with the same message.

I didn't ignore them, I read them, and none of them had the addl info the MJ article had. I said thanks for the addl info, and of course, you being the amazing gentleman you are, couldn't accept that thanks.

I still have no idea what you guys are talking about with verb tense. What is it that you keep bringing up and occupies so much of your mindshare?

Come on, vox and the rest have the same information. It's really pathetic how you try and twist the regular occurrence of you being wrong into me really being wrong or with blame. Beta to the max.