THE CURRENT EVENTS THREAD
Quote: gamerfreakI do not understand how you can be compelled to confess in a civil suit, and then that is turned around and used as criminal evidence.
If I remember the timeline correctly
Cosby agrees to civil suit with promise of avoiding criminal charges
Cosby is assured civil deposition will be sealed with natural caveat that testimony can be unsealed if Cosby speaks out
Cosby answers honestly at deposition
Ten years later Cosby accuses Hannibal Burress of being a disgraceful comic for using foul language
Burress angrily points out publicly the irony coming from someone who has settled and been accused of rape multiple times
Cosby denies accusations WHICH NOW OPENED UP deposition testimony since he spoke about it
Hoisted by his own petard
Quote: darkozTen years later Cosby accuses Hannibal Burress of being a disgraceful comic for using foul language
Buress must still be amazed how big a jab his ad-lib comic bit was. It finally generated the necessary attention to Cosby's past.
Quote: TigerWuThe election was a year and a half ago. Hillary lost. Get over it.
She hasn't lost in her mind, she'll be
back on the ballot in 2020.
Quote: EvenBobShe hasn't lost in her mind, she'll be
back on the ballot in 2020.
To be fair, I'd, I'd be pissed myself if I were so close to becoming First Female President only to be beat by someone with no prior Political experience. :/
Quote: EvenBobShe hasn't lost in her mind, she'll be
back on the ballot in 2020.
I don't blame you for thinking that.... I mean, conservative media seems to think she's actually the president right now.
And does that mean you've taken that bet that someone here offered you that she won't be running?
Quote: NathanTo be fair, I'd, I'd be pissed myself if I were so close to becoming First Female President/
But it was an illusion, she wasn't close
at all. Trump got 305 electoral votes,
it was a landslide. She was only close
in her mind, in the media, and in the
fake polls.
Quote: TigerWuI don't blame you for thinking that...
There's a reason she keeps herself in
the news cycle every week, month
after month. No other election loser
does that if they aren't going to run
again.
Quote: EvenBobThere's a reason she keeps herself in
the news cycle every week, month
after month. No other election loser
does that if they aren't going to run
again.
You mean, "There's a reason conservative media keeps her in the news cycle every week, month after month."
We've been over this before. CONSERVATIVES are the ones obsessed with Hillary, not the left.
I see Obama in the news more than Hillary, anyway. So by your logic he's running for President again???
Quote:She was only close
in her mind, in the media, and in the
fake polls.
So where are all these fake polls I keep hearing conservatives talk about? The only polls I'm aware of are the ones that still said she had a chance of losing. Which she did. So what is fake about that?
Quote: TigerWuThe only polls I'm aware of are the ones that still said she had a chance of losing. Which she did. So what is fake about that?
The day before the election:
Clinton Has 90 Percent Chance of Winning: Reuters/Ipsos States of the Nation
NEW YORK (Reuters) - With hours to go before Americans vote, Democrat Hillary Clinton has about a 90 percent chance of defeating Republican Donald Trump in the race for the White House, according to the final Reuters/Ipsos States of the Nation project.
The former secretary of state.. was on track to win 303 votes in the Electoral College to Trump’s 235, clearing the 270 needed for victory, the survey found.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll/clinton-has-90-percent-chance-of-winning-reuters-ipsos-states-of-the-nation-idUSKBN1322J1
The exact opposite happened. Fake polls.
Quote: EvenBobThe day before the election:
Clinton Has 90 Percent Chance of Winning: Reuters/Ipsos States of the Nation
NEW YORK (Reuters) - With hours to go before Americans vote, Democrat Hillary Clinton has about a 90 percent chance of defeating Republican Donald Trump in the race for the White House, according to the final Reuters/Ipsos States of the Nation project.
The former secretary of state.. was on track to win 303 votes in the Electoral College to Trump’s 235, clearing the 270 needed for victory, the survey found.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll/clinton-has-90-percent-chance-of-winning-reuters-ipsos-states-of-the-nation-idUSKBN1322J1
The exact opposite happened. Fake polls.
Does this really need explanation on a gambling forum?
The polls/calculations would have been wrong if they said Hillary had a 100% chance of winning.
An event with a probability of .1 is not considered unusual by any standard.
All available data pointed to a high probability of Hillary winning. Again, it was probable, not guaranteed. I know you understand the difference, yet you still seem disturbed that statisticians were not able to look into a crystal ball and predict the future with 100% accuracy. Even the sports books got it wrong and they have 0 political motivation, just $$$$.
But let’s pretend for a minute that you have actual evidence that the polls were fudged to favor Hillary. If that was the case, it would have been a conservative group who did it. Turnout is lower when voters feel their candidate will win in a landslide. Democrats would have had NOTHING to gain by fluffing the polls for HRC.
Quote: gamerfreakDoes this really need explanation on a gambling forum?
Explanations are irrelevant. All that matters
is the day before the election people saw
headlines that polls claimed Hillary had
a 90% chance of winning. Five Thirty
Eight said Trump was a goner and
had 30% chance of winning. It was in
the bag for Hillary, a sure thing.
Fake polls, obviously. Real polls are
always closer to the real results.
Quote: EvenBobExplanations are irrelevant. All that matters
is the day before the election people saw
headlines that polls claimed Hillary had
a 90% chance of winning. Five Thirty
Eight said Trump was a goner and
had 30% chance of winning. It was in
the bag for Hillary, a sure thing.
Fake polls, obviously. Real polls are
always closer to the real results.
90% chance of winning is a sure thing?
This is beyond even conservative logic
Quote: darkoz90% chance of winning is a sure thing?
90% chance of winning means it's a
close race? 90% chance of winning
means it's a nail biter and could go
either way?
Really? Then what's the use of ever
even looking at another poll if they're
that meaningless. Did you watch
the coverage on election night?
The media was orgasmic over the
Hillary landslide that was about to
happen. Where on earth did they
get that idea from, I wonder..
Quote: beachbumbabsHow about we confine the politics to the politics thread, folks. Take it over there. Thanks.
Okay that was my fault :()
Edit: well maybe not. Kanye is hiphop and he kinda spilled us over
Quote: EvenBobThe day before the election:
Clinton Has 90 Percent Chance of Winning: Reuters/Ipsos States of the Nation
......
The exact opposite happened. Fake polls.
So she had a 10% chance to lose. And she lost. Completely within the realm of all possibility, logic, and statistics. So I ask again, what part of that is "fake?"
Quote: gamerfreakDoes this really need explanation on a gambling forum?
This is why I'm almost 100% sure now that EvenBob is just a troll. At least with regards to these political threads.
been paying zero attention to the woman Prince
Harry is marrying. She looks really familiar. Oh no,
it's that girl from the TV series 'Suits'!
She's why I stopped watching the show. She can't
act worth a crap, I couldn't take it anymore. This
is the best a billionaire prince can do? A divorced
H-wood floozie actress who probably perfected
sucking a basketball thru a garden hose to get where
she is?
Apparently she's a good enough actress to fool him
real good. I'm sure she moans in orgasmic spasms every
time he touches her. And please spare me that they're
'in love'. They're exactly where SHE wants them to be,
he has nothing to do with it.
He'll find out, just wait till the wedding is in the rear view
mirror. Surprise!
Quote: EvenBobOMG, I'm so dense. As an older straight male I have
been paying zero attention to the woman Prince
Harry is marrying. She looks really familiar. Oh no,
it's that girl from the TV series 'Suits'!
She's why I stopped watching the show. She can't
act worth a crap, I couldn't take it anymore. This
is the best a billionaire prince can do? A divorced
H-wood floozie actress who probably perfected
sucking a basketball thru a garden hose to get where
she is?
Apparently she's a good enough actress to fool him
real good. I'm sure she moans in orgasmic spasms every
time he touches her. And please spare me that they're
'in love'. They're exactly where SHE wants them to be,
he has nothing to do with it.
He'll find out, just wait till the wedding is in the rear view
mirror. Surprise!
I think she is gorgeous.
Quote: EvenBobOMG, I'm so dense. As an older straight male I have
been paying zero attention to the woman Prince
Harry is marrying. She looks really familiar. Oh no,
it's that girl from the TV series 'Suits'!
She's why I stopped watching the show. She can't
act worth a crap, I couldn't take it anymore. This
is the best a billionaire prince can do? A divorced
H-wood floozie actress who probably perfected
sucking a basketball thru a garden hose to get where
she is?
Apparently she's a good enough actress to fool him
real good. I'm sure she moans in orgasmic spasms every
time he touches her. And please spare me that they're
'in love'. They're exactly where SHE wants them to be,
he has nothing to do with it.
He'll find out, just wait till the wedding is in the rear view
mirror. Surprise!
I remember circa 2013 Harry and Meghan were being talked about SPARINGLY. Now in 2018 now that they are getting married this month, we are being BOMBARDED with news about them. At first the tabloid fodder about Meghan was all good. I remember thinking,"It won't be long before the tabloids start to turn on Meghan and start talking about scandals about her. And I was right. There was a tabloid headline that claimed she had inappropriate relationship with Matt Lauer in his dressing room or something! This was so obvious something like this was coming.
Quote: gamerfreakI think she is gorgeous.
Lord knows that's all it takes to make
a good marriage, a gorgeous wife. My
point is, she couldn't act her way out
of a traffic ticket, she got where she
is in H-wood by her other hidden
talents. The same ones she used to
trap a prince. Ask Grace Kelly. Ooops..
She too took the casting couch route
to fame and glory and princessdom..
What a sad, pathetic way to look at life and the world around us.
Quote: billryanIs that what a woman needs for a good marriage? The ability to act?
No, not at all. The act comes before
the marriage, afterwards the act is
dropped. Like Ace said, he hears it
in every divorce he handles. The
wife was soooo different before
the marriage, and afterwards she
turned into a different person.
Quote: EvenBobLord knows that's all it takes to make
a good marriage, a gorgeous wife. My
point is, she couldn't act her way out
of a traffic ticket, she got where she
is in H-wood by her other hidden
talents. The same ones she used to
trap a prince. Ask Grace Kelly. Ooops..
She too took the casting couch route
to fame and glory and princessdom..
And what do you know about her other than you didn’t like her on a TV show?
Quote: NathanI remember circa 2013 Harry and Meghan were being talked about SPARINGLY. Now in 2018 now that they are getting married this month, we are being BOMBARDED with news about them. At first the tabloid fodder about Meghan was all good. I remember thinking,"It won't be long before the tabloids start to turn on Meghan and start talking about scandals about her. And I was right. There was a tabloid headline that claimed she had inappropriate relationship with Matt Lauer in his dressing room or something! This was so obvious something like this was coming.
According to Google, Meghan and Prince Harry only started dating in 2017 not circa 2013. He was actually dating someone named Cressida in 2013. ;)
Quote: NathanAccording to Google, Meghan and Prince Harry only started dating in 2017 not circa 2013. He was actually dating someone named Cressida in 2013. ;)
That's why the were talked about 'sparingly'
in 2013, they didn't even know each other.
Quote: gamerfreakAnd what do you know about her other than you didn’t like her on a TV show?
She's marrying the future king of England,
she's an actress. What do you think she's
doing before the wedding but giving the
best performance of her life. Especially in
the bedroom.
Quote: EvenBobShe's marrying the future king of England...
He won't live that long to receive that title.
Quote: EvenBobShe's marrying the future king of England,
she's an actress. What do you think she's
doing before the wedding but giving the
best performance of her life. Especially in
the bedroom.
What a waste it is to lose ones mind.
Quote: IbeatyouracesHe won't live that long to receive that title.
He won't? His father is almost 70. If he
lives to be 100, Harry will be king in his
60's. He could easily be king for decades.
Quote: EvenBobHe won't? His father is almost 70. If he
lives to be 100, Harry will be king in his
60's. He could easily be king for decades.
He would have to out live William and all of his children and their children and their children, etc.. Harry will NEVER be King.
Quote: EvenBobHe won't? His father is almost 70. If he
lives to be 100, Harry will be king in his
60's. He could easily be king for decades.
#alternativefacts.
Liberals will love it, as they never met a regulation they didn’t love.
There are still some good hard working Republicans if you go far enough North in CA but for the most part it’s wacko central.
1. Median house prices that are so high that an additional 20K of cost for solar panels is a relatively small bump
2. Almost perpetual sunshine in the daytime in most parts of the state.
Locations that are shaded or that have roofs that are too small are excepted from the solar panel req't.
Maybe Nevada casinos should be required to have solar panels.
Quote: gordonm888
Maybe Nevada casinos should be required to have solar panels.
They should probably be all over the rooftops across the city.
Quote: Bozhttps://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/05/09/california-solar-panels-state-may-require-them-new-homes/594364002/
Liberals will love it, as they never met a regulation they didn’t love.
Oh, right, because only liberals care about the environment and sustainable energy.
Quote: EvenBobThat's why the were talked about 'sparingly'
in 2013, they didn't even know each other.
LMAO! That's what I get for not going to Google before writing about how "Prince Harry and Meghan were only talked about sparingly in 2013. I would have known it was actually Cressida that I was thinking of. :P
Quote: EvenBobHe won't? His father is almost 70. If he
lives to be 100, Harry will be king in his
60's. He could easily be king for decades.
LOL
Uh, no.
Google up "royal succession."
Sheesh.
Quote: MrVLOL
Uh, no.
Google up "royal succession."
Sheesh.
Different worlds evidently have different rules.
Quote: billryanDifferent worlds evidently have different rules.
Naturally he won't admit he was WRONG either!
Quote: EvenBobHe won't? His father is almost 70. If he
lives to be 100, Harry will be king in his
60's. He could easily be king for decades.
He would have had a chance to become King if he were the ONLY son of Charles and hell, even Charles himself is a Prince, not a King. I think when Queen Elizabeth 2 dies, Charles will become King. When Charles dies, William would become King, and when William dies, Prince George will become King. Like I said, if William never existed, Harry would have a good chance to become King being the Grandson of The Queen and son of a Prince.
Quote: TigerWuOh, right, because only liberals care about the environment and sustainable energy.
If it creates a larger government, yea they love it.
And I know you are far too smart to think it is about the environment and “sustainable” energy.
Quote: BozIf it creates a larger government, yea they love it.
And I know you are far too smart to think it is about the environment and “sustainable” energy.
LOL Okay.
Obviously sustainable energy companies are going to make money off of this.
Better them than oil companies.
Quote: billryanBut the oil companies are our friends.
So is "small" Republican government!
Quote: billryanBut the oil companies are our friends.
I honestly would love to know why you are so bitter about America and American success stories. You seem to hate the companies, people and economic systems that built this country and continue to thrive in it while the rest of the world envies us.
Without getting suspended it’s hard to say but I have a few theories. But I’m sure you have a few about me as well.
