| Ronster316 said: Buzzfeed= The next Gawker. CNN= Lying scumbag cockroaches. |
So what about BBC?
bunchanumbers said:
So what about BBC? |
I don't even pay for a BBC TV Licence, (they cover for pedofiles, they are a bunch of porkie tellers too, they are essentially the UK's CNN)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YGzqJf8yQI
bunchanumbers said:
So what about BBC? |
Paul Wood? He's a reporter. He isn't the BBC. There's a good reason he was not permitted to add his allegations to the site. The BBC doesn't allow bias into their articles. They are known for covering things more completely and fairly than similar news channels.
| bunchanumbers said: That is putting it mildly. People were chanting lock her up over some emails. |
You mean willful destruction of evidence? Yeah. How petty.
And, of course, if the shoe were on the other foot Democrats would be calling this McCarthyism and saying, "Hurr, hurr, the '80s called, they want their foreign policy back!" Such is the world in which we live.
AsGryffynn said:
Paul Wood? He's a reporter. He isn't the BBC. There's a good reason he was not permitted to add his allegations to the site. The BBC doesn't allow bias into their articles. They are known for covering things more completely and fairly than similar news channels. |
No bias on the BBC? during Brexit, they we're pretty much as left as CNN were during the election, BBC have shown clear bias on many occasions, thats why i dont pay for my licence or watch their shitty programmes.
| Lawlight said: I picked one at random - Mike Flynn. Looked it up and apparently, according to wikileaks, he was "fired" because he "worked management and was abusive to staff". And even then, the official story is that he is retiring 1 year ahead of time. So, what is your source because it already looks inaccurate. |
Its very interesting that you only use Wikileaks to validate information. You know that is not a very good scientific way of verification because if Wikileaks is compromised then your validation is compromised. If anything, it would be good if you can find sources other then Wikileaks.
Ronster316 said:
No bias on the BBC? during Brexit, they we're pretty much as left as CNN were during the election, BBC have shown clear bias on many occasions, thats why i dont pay for my licence or watch their shitty programmes. |
As someone who supported it, I call this complete bologna...
|
Lawlight said: In addition to that a lot of the advisors worked with Bush and previous Republican presidents. They all had ties to Russia? |
So much for draining the swamp. Draining real swamps is bad so perhaps Trump cares about the environment. Looks at EPA pick and a few other posts.... nvm
badgenome said:
You mean willful destruction of evidence? Yeah. How petty. |
Mention Obama's name at a Trump rally and you'll hear hang/kill that n*****. Such a nice crowd of people he has supporting him.
Isn't it cute when people pretend Obama and Hillary aren't responsible for several genocides across the middle east with their "arab spring"? Like they genuinely think the worst about Hillary are the emails, lol.
Check out Libya for example, great great work there.
If Trump stops USA's foreign policy of fucking up the middle east as much as they can, then he will be already better than Obama.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2026 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
Currently Online 
