Breaking!!!! CBS Affiliate Exposes Random Woman’s Throwback Views From FB Post!!!

image

For realz! 

So, a north Texas woman, whom no one has ever heard of, posted on her FB page that she believes a woman shouldn’t be president, that it should be left to a man.  Shocking, I know.  I mean, to believe men should be leaders is, well, old school!  And, besides, if too many people believed that, then Hillary doesn’t get to be prez!!!!!  So, enter CBS to attempt to shame the woman.  They actually sent a cough reporter cough to the lady for an interview!  She maintained her position. 

Hot Scoop: CBS Affiliate Blows the Lid Off of Random Woman’s Facebook Post

BREAKING: Random, non-public-figure woman posts controversial opinion on Facebook; friends agree, disagree.  Film at 11.  Stiles summarizes the absurdity:

This local CBS affiliate not only wrote up a story on its website, they actually sent a reporter to interview “Dallas woman” Cheryl Rios and shoot B-roll footage at her workplace. (Spoiler alert: She refused to condemn her stupid Facebook post.) They even interviewed one of her clients, who disagreed with her views. The story currently has more than 14,000 shares on Facebook. If this is a sign of things to come, the next 18 months are going to be even more excruciating than expected. One can (somewhat) realistically extrapolate this to the point where Republican presidential candidates are being asked to respond to random commenters on their social media posts: “And now to you, Senator Cruz. Twitter user @h00j_d0ng1776, one of your followers, no less, writes: ‘#HillarySoOld she remembers when women couldn’t vote. Those were the days.’ Senator Cruz, do you think your opposition to female suffrage will hurt you in a general election?”

You can watch a partial of the interview at the link.

As the article states, this is exactly what you can expect from the LSM in defense of Hillary. 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in News and politics. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Breaking!!!! CBS Affiliate Exposes Random Woman’s Throwback Views From FB Post!!!

  1. DirkH says:

    As long as your name ends in Clinton or Bush one could make an exception.

  2. DirkH says:

    This is funny. David Appell visited us on NTZ the last few days, and in every second comment he complained about being censored- as Pierre’s blog settings sort a lot of comments into moderation until Pierre fishes them out eventually. Well David just wouldn’t believe that even though numerous people pointed out to him that it happens to them as well.

    He went on and on until Pierre finally booted him for good. This is the end of the drama:
    http://notrickszone.com/2015/04/15/science-under-siege-max-planck-institute-study-shows-climate-models-severely-overstate-warming

    • suyts says:

      I think our friend David has psychotic breaks from time to time. It’s sad.

      I would have thought it rather obvious that aerosols cooled less than thought by the lunatics. but, it’s nice to see it on paper.

      • leftinflagstaff says:

        I think the ‘from time to time’ moments are more likely when in a rational state.

      • cdquarles says:

        Which aerosols are we talking about, James? Sulfate? I think I’ll agree. Silicate dust? Clouds :P, the world’s most extensive, and variable, aerosol of them all?

        • suyts says:

          Heh! Well, I wasn’t referring to clouds, but, yes, they provide net cooling as well.

        • cdquarles says:

          That’s sort of the point. People talk about aerosols and clouds as if they’re not the same thing. All clouds are aerosols, but not all aerosols are clouds.

          As soon as I get enough cash I’m going to buy the other two books by Grant Petty on atmospheric radiation and chemistry. I am nearly convinced by that first book that nearly everything touted in the popular culture about ‘global warming’ and ‘radiative forcing by IR active carbon dioxide’ is wrong. I think that IR active agents in the atmosphere are neither forcings nor feedbacks and net to zero overall. What matters is incoming solar power, outgoing ‘terrestrial’ power’ plus the autocorrelation due to ‘inertia’ and we likely should not be ignoring outgoing geological/geochemical sources, either.

          Anyway, the day they can show me that carbon dioxide matters more to the weather than water does, is the day I will take the ‘science’ these tyrants misuse more seriously.

        • DirkH says:

          Also, re clouds and IR, Dr. Gerard Pollack found out that energy from IR is used in water droplets to build up charge separation. An effect that is without a doubt lacking from all climate models.

        • cdquarles says:

          Fascinating, Dirk. Thanks!

    • Lars P. says:

      A very good post at NTZ, because indeed the models are too simplified and as such can easily be wrong and are proven wrong.

      Models do model the process wrongly. They either assume a sensitivity to CO2 by so many °C or assume an increase of “backradiation” from the top of the atmosphere calculated based on other models.

      In the real process, adding CO2 to the atmosphere does or could do:
      1) eventually shortens the free path of some IR – in the CO2 bandwidth from 50 to 45 meters or so?
      2) eventually increases the CO2 bandwidth through the doppler effect.
      3) has no effect in the vertical transmission of heat through radiation in the atmosphere itself
      4) is assumed to change the radiation from the top of the atmosphere to space in certain bandwidth
      This is very different to how they model it.

      Claes Johnson has some very good posts on modelling:
      http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/search/label/greenhouse%20effect
      “Postulate1: “Total greenhouse effect” = 33 C.
      Postulate2: “Added greenhouse effect” of global warming of 1 C from doubled CO2. ”

      See also :
      http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2015/03/double-albedo-model-total-greenhouse.html

  3. leftinflagstaff says:

    No woman should be president if that’s the reason you vote for her. But, we did it for a black dude. Get ready to reap what you sow, the sequel.

  4. Jason Calley says:

    For the last decade or so, here in the US a higher percentage of women have voted instead of men. Additionally, there are more women of legal voting age than there are men of legal voting age. If men have been more popular winning candidates than women, it is because women either support or allow it.

  5. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    I seem to recall that liberals weren’t too happy with the idea of a woman President when that woman President could have been Michele Bachmann or Sarah Palin.

    • Jim Masterson says:

      Democrats/liberals consider a conservative woman as not a real woman, a conservative black as not a real black, and a conservative Hispanic as not a real Hispanic. Once you attach “conservative” to someone, Democrats/liberals turn that person into a sub-human low-life.

      Jim

      • Scott says:

        Didn’t you know there isn’t a single true Scotsman in the world? I can prove it. 🙂

        Seriously though, I’ve taken a lot of crap as a white guy leaning right. But I really feel like it’s minor abuse compared to right-leaning “minorities”. “Uncle Tom” labels come to mind.

        -Scott

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s