search results matching tag: jeopardy

» channel: motorsports

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (117)     Sift Talk (3)     Blogs (20)     Comments (255)   

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

No standing? Lol. According to who? Trump? Giuliani?
Technically speaking, once the house votes to impeach, he's impeached.

She's holding them back because Senate Republicans have stated clearly they intend to ignore their constitutional obligation to be impartial and will simply pardon Trump with no examination of the evidence, no witnesses, no trial. It's proper to wait until McConnell publicly retracts his unambiguous public statements that he's not going to have a fair (or any) trial, he's not going to be impartial, and that he's simply going to work for and pardon Trump. If he was on any jury, he would be dismissed for those statements. As it stands, unless he recused himself along with all the others who have said the same thing, the trial is a blatant sham because jeopardy isn't attached, and if that happens it will be relitigated after the Republicans lose control of the Senate, which they will if they follow McConnell's lead.
Perhaps that's why they didn't include the multiple impeachable crimes he's admitted to under oath, they need proven crimes to impeach him a second time in case he's reelected, but this time with a Senate that's not his bitch.

Why is Trump whining about it like a spoiled infant?
Why is he really whining and crying about it?

Because he needs the Senate to quickly rubber stamp his pardon, not be forced into an actual trial, not expose the evidence, and certainly not convict. Funny, until seconds before they knew she was withholding them, they all whined about the process moving way too fast, then instantly flipped and cried that it's going too slow now. *facepalm

Treason, giving aid and comfort to the enemy is certainly worthy of impeachment, taking foreign donations in trade for policy that benefits them and not the U.S. is impeachable, so is perjury (which you admit he's done), so is felony fraud (which he admits he's done repeatedly), so is ignoring the emoluments clause of the constitution, just to name a few.

bobknight33 said:

Technically speaking Articles of impeachment have no standing till given to Senate for the trail.

Why is Nancy holding them back?
Why is she really holding them back?

Because there is no crime worthy of impeachment.

Once again Dems have nothing.

Liberal Redneck - Mueller Report Schmueller Report

newtboy says...

Bob.
Stop being stupidly catty. Many investigators are Republicans including Mueller.
<1/6 of the Clinton investigation over a legal real estate deal, which found zero, amounted to zero, and you want to reopen it and investigate a private citizen with another special council with no target or budget limits...but this investigation was over treason and a felon filled administration that's committed uncountable (and been convicted of uncountable) felonies since Trump was elected, run by Trump appointees he only called Democrats when they wouldn't illegally do his bidding, then ended by two Trump sycophants that said it should be quashed before being appointed.

And you still whine like a little bitch. WTF, man, grow up. Your children are more adult. I bet they don't whine and pout when they get what they want.

Trump underhandedly won a single legal round, out of how many? He's almost as exonerated as Jussie is, which is barely at all legally and only that because of special treatment, and not a bit factually.
The report said they found no proof of illegal "collusion" with Russia and Trump directly over the election interference his friend Putin undertook for Trump's sole benifit, but also said he committed obstruction, but Mueller was instructed he could not indict Trump himself, and his bosses who told him that they must be the one's to indict blatantly prejudged the investigation publicly long long ago, it's why they were chosen for the positions, so there never was jeopardy, yet Trump fought tooth and nail against it making it take 4 times longer, wasting far more than necessary because he simply can't ever testify without perjuring himself dozens of times, not even to clear himself. He simply cannot tell the truth, or even avoid lying for an entire sentence, so we had to investigate his actions, and will again.
Sad, very sad.

Now he's tossing another promise and going after pre-existing condition protections like he repeatedly specifically promised to never do....and you love it I'm sure. So very very sad.

bobknight33 said:

24/7/365 for 600+ days that Trump is a Russian puppet and $30 Million report that said other wise and still can't accept the fact that Trump won. No collusion found by Muller and his 16 Clinton loving puppets.

And this is the best Sift post about the loss. Sad, very sad.

ant (Member Profile)

Jeopardy! First Tiebreaker Ever After 37 seasons

MilkmanDan says...

I think I can remember seeing a few ties, but mostly back in the pre-Ken Jennings era when it was capped at 5 wins as you say.

I've been in Thailand for over a decade, pretty hard to get my Jeopardy fix here. YouTube has full episodes sometimes, but I haven't found a torrent source for reliable dailies. So, I haven't watched very much in the past 10+ years.

Fairbs said:

The only tie I remember was a guy that could have won had he bet more. He chose to get the tie because it was his last day on the show. I think at that time, you could only win 5 times and then you were retired. The person he tied with came back the next day.

Mordhaus (Member Profile)

Jeopardy! First Tiebreaker Ever After 37 seasons

ulysses1904 says...

My mom was a contestant on the original Jeopardy in 1967. She wasn't the winner but back then everyone got to keep their winnings, she won $160. And the home game version of Jeopardy, a set of encyclopedias and Turtle Wax or Rice a Roni or something like that.

jon ronson-hilarious and disturbing story on public shaming

enoch says...

@ChaosEngine

i have many:teachers,police,firefighters as facebook friends.

during the run up to the election i was posting a ton of my research,analysis and commentary in regards to the election.

this,on it's own,should not be surprising,what WAS surprising is all the support i received from these people and who were simply afraid to like,or comment.

they were literally sharing my work with other people via private messaging.

each and every one expressed to me a fairly robust paranoia that if they liked any of my posts,or commented,that they would receive disciplinary action and that their jobs would be in jeopardy.

i found this very troubling and what i could not,and STILL cannot reconcile,is how some people not only ignore this very subtle form of censorship,but find it a viable and understandable in the realms of social media.

when you restrict what a person can comment or speak on due to fear.this is censorship.

in the case of justine sacco,she was simply making a joke and when put in context..a really damn good one.but due to the self-righteous moralizing of total strangers,her life was destroyed.

now there will be some that may still find this justified,and that is fine,that is their right but what REALLY chills me is that nobody is addressing the much deeper and far more insidious nature of public shaming.basically:other people saw what happened to justine sacco and will modify their social media persona accordingly.

this,in my opinion,will only result in a vanilla goo like substance that offers no challenging ideas,no conflicting opinions that offer an opportunity to discuss and debate difficult subjects,because debate starts with disagreement,and if you impose a fear of retribution by simply posting any content that may be construed as controversial.then the conversation ends...
and we all pay a price for that kind of groupthink.

this will force the really bad and worst of us to go underground,and reside in an echo chamber where their fucked up ideas are parroted back to them,resulting in a confirmation that their worldviews are correct.

conversely...

those who may have good ideas,or wish to engage in controversial subjects,or in the case of justine sacco..make a fucking joke...will be relegated to the "good little worker bee" position.who never challenges power or authority and simply obeys...for fear of losing:financial security,public standing etc etc.

they become fucking stepford wives.

and in my sincere opinion,this is the real danger.

Double Jeopardy

WTF, America?!? (Wtf Talk Post)

PlayhousePals says...

All of the progress that's been made on so many fronts, decades long uphill battles in many cases ... soon to be gone or in serious jeopardy. One can *hope* that the myriad of impending lawsuits, the depositions etc. etc. against this acid tongued, classless carnival barker will have an impact of some import ... not that Pence would be any kind of prize in my mind either [sigh]. I am deeply embarrassed and ashamed for our Nation. Those who would compromise their morals and values to cast a vote in support of this man/child for *any reason* speaks volumes as to their lack of character and conviction. Never underestimate the power and sheer magnitude of the easily duped. Color me incredulous and sincerely grieving for future generations

Bill Maher Monologue Oct 28

cricket (Member Profile)

siftbot says...

Congratulations! Your video, Louis C.K. on Jeopardy May 18, 2016, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 38 Badge!

cricket (Member Profile)

notarobot (Member Profile)

Jeopardy: Canadian Cities

Reaction to the Fine Brother's "React" Youtube controversy

mxxcon says...

Because they did not get a *copyright*!!!
They got a trademark! A trademark for their PRODUCT.
IT'S A HUGE FUCKING DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A TRADEMARK AND A COPYRIGHT!
They did not go around internet shutting down any other videos! They did not claim to own anybody else videos! They stated as such!

They got a trademark for their shows. A very specific format of shows!

Just like Jeopardy and Wheel of Fortune have trademarks for those shows to allow them to be licensed else and be named like that. However, these shows do not own the concept of a quiz show or a letter guessing show in a different format.

This is not any different.

newtboy said:

Explain.
How is what I said wrong?
Why do you knee-jerkingly assume I mixed up terms? I said copyright, they claim copyright rights...not trademark or patent rights.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon