NATIONAL DEBT, TWITTER POSTS BY CNN— Razor (@hale_razor) February 13, 2019
2008 $10.3T: 2
2009 $11.9T: 0
2010 $13.6T: 0
2011 $14.7T: 0
2012 $16.2T: 0
2013 $16.8T: 0
2014 $17.9T: 0
2015 $18.2T: 0
2016 $19.7T: 0
2017-now $22T: 11
But don’t call them biased. pic.twitter.com/vNO3wCwT5m
22 comments:
https://twitter.com/cnnbrk/status/253668807581761537
CNN Breaking News
@cnnbrk
Obama on debt: I worked with D’s and R’s to cut $1 trillion on domestic budget. We have to do more. http://on.cnn.com/PXFWZM #CNNDebate
Oct 3 2012
That took under a minute to locate.
Aside from the fact that the Commissar (sorry, the commi) used a different search term than Razor and did the search on a different twitter feed than Razor used, to get a solitary result which uncritically mouthed Obama's self-congratulation over the debt, that Razor guy has been utterly owned!
It's funny because Obama congratulated himself. Just like when the economy came back in 2018.
Ohhhh, "a solitary result." This isn't a grad school thesis. I posted the first match on Google, which took longer to copy-and-paste than it did to find. One result is enough to contradict the expansive rhetorical claim of zero.
But surely that's the only time CNN ever mentioned the national debt during its period of biased Twitter silence. It's inconceivable that a more thorough search could ever locate another one.
Wrong CNN Twitter feed, says Roger! Wrong search term! So, the "CNN Breaking News" Twitter feed doesn't represent CNN? And "debt" isn't debt? Notice how Eric switched to mocking Obama, rather than following Roger's stupid lead in pushing hairsplitting technicalities to "disqualify" the CNN tweet's validity in the Supreme Court of Razor. That's because Eric isn't a fragile dimbulb who forever worries about being "owned." You should try following that lead, Roger.
site:www.cnn.com "national debt"
Ouch, the stupidity - it hurts.
The screenshot on the post clearly shows that the twitter feed Razor searched was @cnn, and his search term was "national debt". I just went and did the same search on twitter that he did, and I can verify that his numbers of 2 for 2008 (end of Bush term) and for all of Obama's term (series of zeros) are correct. However, he has the wrong number for the period from Trump's inauguration to present. He shows 11 tweets about "national debt", but CNN has been going to town recently and the number now stands at 21. But that's just another hairsplitting technicality.
"The US national debt problem is only getting worse" is a good example of a recent one. But Razor's simple point was that CNN's feed wasn't concerned enough to note the national debt was getting worse (or even that it existed) from 2009 through 2016, even though it doubled. But don't call them biased.
Was that point too subtle for the commi to grasp? He triumphantly finds a tweet from the related @cnnbrk feed about "debt" from 2012 as if erasing Razor's "0" number for that year would own him. The punchline is that even if that tweet had come from the same @cnn search Razor did, it would only serve to underscore Razor's point, not undercut it. It's less damaging to CNN that there are zero tweets, rather than a solitary one nodding with approval at Obama's self-congratulation in dealing with the debt.
Strangely, I can't believe that I'm sitting here explaining this, but I guess we have to deal with the minds we encounter in life.
Ha ha, look at all that urgent bluster. It's not the RIGHT tweet, and it's only ONE tweet, which didn't match OUR search terms, plus it's a wrongly WORDED tweet, which therefore bolsters the point about NO tweets! Robert really feels owned.
The poor, unappreciated commi - victim of endless hairsplitting technicalities.
(Ahem.) YOU’RE THE ONE ARGUING ON BEHALF OF THE HAIRSPLITTING TECHNICALITIES, YOU MASOCHISTIC CRETIN. (End all caps.) There is no Twitter Berlin Wall between @CNN and @CNNbrk. It doesn’t matter how much you need Razor’s faulty premise to be true.
And to think it only took under a minute to find one absurdly findable CNN tweet. Is that the quickest I've "owned" you yet? Even if it is, at this point it’s no longer Breaking News.
The commi needs to relax. We've already established he's a victim of hairsplitting technicalities. His insistence on it in all caps is unnecessary.
"Victim" is an inapt word to describe the person whose hunch was correct.
Especially when the thing I was right about was your own imaginary CNN victimhood. It took longer for your fellow victim Jossie Smollett's story to fall apart.
You know the commi's mental stability is in doubt when he moves heaven and earth to convince himself he's converted a "0" to a "1" to achieve a great victory.
But then, he's beside himself waiting for his predicted FUN of 2019 to begin. The rest of us know it has begun - like an avalanche.
Bla, bla, bla. It kills you that I'm right.
Iam dyin' here, but it's from laughing at the commical commi.
Hey, you fell for confirmation bias. It happens to all of us.
Your shame isn't in falling for it, it's in all your desperate hairsplitting and deflection.
This is Eric Viking initially falling for the claim in the Razor tweet, and then kicking Obama while moving on:
https://thumbs.gfycat.com/ThankfulSeriousAlligatorsnappingturtle-small.gif
This is you after falling for the Razor tweet, insisting “I can totally save this”:
http://i.imgur.com/LU6TF.gif
The Razor tweet, pre-commi analysis:
NATIONAL DEBT, TWITTER POSTS BY CNN
2008 $10.3T: 2
2009 $11.9T: 0
2010 $13.6T: 0
2011 $14.7T: 0
2012 $16.2T: 0 ◄
2013 $16.8T: 0
2014 $17.9T: 0
2015 $18.2T: 0
2016 $19.7T: 0
2017-now $22T: 11 ◄
But don’t call them biased.
___
The Razor tweet, as it now lies in ruins at my feet, post-commi analysis:
NATIONAL DEBT, TWITTER POSTS BY CNN
2008 $10.3T: 2
2009 $11.9T: 0
2010 $13.6T: 0
2011 $14.7T: 0
2012 $16.2T: 1 ◄
2013 $16.8T: 0
2014 $17.9T: 0
2015 $18.2T: 0
2016 $19.7T: 0
2017-now $22T: 11....errrr...: 21....um, now actually...:22
But don’t call the commi an embarrassment to idiots everywhere.
I'm particularly impressed by how the bias disappears before your eyes when comparing the before and after versions.
How could I have been so stupid as to lay my faith in a tweet that seems to give the impression that CNN has had a born-again regard for the national debt during Trump's presidency, when the commi was so easily able to make that illusion crumble in the cold light of reality and his enlightened "rightness"?
Never will I hairsplit and deflect again in defense of a tweet by anyone just because it advances my preferred narrative!
Quantum physicists should carefully study Rogert. He's an absolute constant in a vacuum.
Look at him go!
https://i.giphy.com/media/cJcMPzXoDAsBa/giphy.webp
Lordy, someone would have to have an important honking screw loose to willingly make themselves look as foolish as the commi has done in these comments, so I'm just going to back s-l-o-w-l-y away from the comment thread....
I'm right. You're wrong. Four little words that fully explain everything you've posted.
It's okay, honey, you have 364 other chances this year to play at being the media's special victim.
But you're about 600 words too late to check off the "Leaving before I catch whatever you've got" box on your Troll Bingo card. Absolute constant.
I found one more CNN link for you, Tweety bird:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/17/politics/paul-ryan-deficits-debt/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/17/politics/paul-ryan-deficits-debt/index.html
The best part:
With a burning flash of indignation over a story supposedly being ignored on purpose, Rogert became a "Hall Monitor" himself. Oops.
"That screw, it just won't stop rattlin' around in there, it just won't stop!"
You sure are backing away s-l-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-w-l-y.
Just like criminals return to the scene of the crime, dummies return to the scene of their stupid.
Post a Comment