Fake news strikes again as they stage a rescue

[HereWeGoAgain]

Wow, you conservatards are beyond desperate and gullible as fuck. Nothing "fake" about the rescue, the camera crew just noticed an old man making a mistake and quickly jumped in before it turned into something much worse. That's all.

Come on man...
Even your buddy Hutch Starskey has given up the narrative....

Don't ever speak for me, dumbass.

Stop repeating yourself...it's a sign of a low IQ.
Ya little bitch.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Yes, I'm sure CNN deliberately destroyed a $50K truck just to fool you.

Is it destroyed? It looked mostly intact to me. That truck will be repaired, as opposed to going to a junk yard, so lets slow down with the "destroyed" stuff.

Dukes of Hazard wrecked 10 cars per episode, so why cant CNN do the same thing for ratings? It appears thats exactly what they did.

It was floating, dope. That also means it was sinking. A flooded car is a total loss.

Why do you idiots continually need the obvious explained to you?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Wow, you conservatards are beyond desperate and gullible as fuck. Nothing "fake" about the rescue, the camera crew just noticed an old man making a mistake and quickly jumped in before it turned into something much worse. That's all.

Come on man...
Even your buddy Hutch Starskey has given up the narrative....

Don't ever speak for me, dumbass.

Stop repeating yourself...it's a sign of a low IQ.
Ya little bitch.

I really can't make it any clearer. I'm OK with just leaving you in a retarded stupor.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Yes, I'm sure CNN deliberately destroyed a $50K truck just to fool you.

Is it destroyed? It looked mostly intact to me. That truck will be repaired, as opposed to going to a junk yard, so lets slow down with the "destroyed" stuff.

Dukes of Hazard wrecked 10 cars per episode, so why cant CNN do the same thing for ratings? It appears thats exactly what they did.

It was floating, dope. That also means it was sinking. A flooded car is a total loss.

Why do you idiots continually need the obvious explained to you?

It was also hitting the ground as it floated forward...which of course means the water wasnt that deep.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Wow, you conservatards are beyond desperate and gullible as fuck. Nothing "fake" about the rescue, the camera crew just noticed an old man making a mistake and quickly jumped in before it turned into something much worse. That's all.

Come on man...
Even your buddy Hutch Starskey has given up the narrative....

Don't ever speak for me, dumbass.

Stop repeating yourself...it's a sign of a low IQ.
Ya little bitch.

I really can't make it any clearer. I'm OK with just leaving you in a retarded stupor.

Good with me...enjoy your bubble.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Yes, I'm sure CNN deliberately destroyed a $50K truck just to fool you.

Is it destroyed? It looked mostly intact to me. That truck will be repaired, as opposed to going to a junk yard, so lets slow down with the "destroyed" stuff.

Dukes of Hazard wrecked 10 cars per episode, so why cant CNN do the same thing for ratings? It appears thats exactly what they did.

It was floating, dope. That also means it was sinking. A flooded car is a total loss.

Why do you idiots continually need the obvious explained to you?

It was also hitting the ground as it floated forward...which of course means the water wasnt that deep.

How in the fuck can you say that when it's floating, dumbass?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Yes, I'm sure CNN deliberately destroyed a $50K truck just to fool you.

Is it destroyed? It looked mostly intact to me. That truck will be repaired, as opposed to going to a junk yard, so lets slow down with the "destroyed" stuff.

Dukes of Hazard wrecked 10 cars per episode, so why cant CNN do the same thing for ratings? It appears thats exactly what they did.

It was floating, dope. That also means it was sinking. A flooded car is a total loss.

Why do you idiots continually need the obvious explained to you?

It was also hitting the ground as it floated forward...which of course means the water wasnt that deep.

How in the fuck can you say that when it's floating, dumbass?

I'm still waiting for the explanation of the record breaking wardrobe change.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Yes, I'm sure CNN deliberately destroyed a $50K truck just to fool you.

Is it destroyed? It looked mostly intact to me. That truck will be repaired, as opposed to going to a junk yard, so lets slow down with the "destroyed" stuff.

Dukes of Hazard wrecked 10 cars per episode, so why cant CNN do the same thing for ratings? It appears thats exactly what they did.

It was floating, dope. That also means it was sinking. A flooded car is a total loss.

Why do you idiots continually need the obvious explained to you?

It was also hitting the ground as it floated forward...which of course means the water wasnt that deep.

How in the fuck can you say that when it's floating, dumbass?

I'm still waiting for the explanation of the record breaking wardrobe change.

Who says the man in the shorts was the reporter?

Is the very simple question any clearer yet?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Is it destroyed? It looked mostly intact to me. That truck will be repaired, as opposed to going to a junk yard, so lets slow down with the "destroyed" stuff.

Dukes of Hazard wrecked 10 cars per episode, so why cant CNN do the same thing for ratings? It appears thats exactly what they did.

It was floating, dope. That also means it was sinking. A flooded car is a total loss.

Why do you idiots continually need the obvious explained to you?

It was also hitting the ground as it floated forward...which of course means the water wasnt that deep.

How in the fuck can you say that when it's floating, dumbass?

I'm still waiting for the explanation of the record breaking wardrobe change.

Who says the man in the shorts was the reporter?

Is the very simple question any clearer yet?

It was obviously Drew Griffin.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

It was floating, dope. That also means it was sinking. A flooded car is a total loss.

Why do you idiots continually need the obvious explained to you?

It was also hitting the ground as it floated forward...which of course means the water wasnt that deep.

How in the fuck can you say that when it's floating, dumbass?

I'm still waiting for the explanation of the record breaking wardrobe change.

Who says the man in the shorts was the reporter?

Is the very simple question any clearer yet?

It was obviously Drew Griffin.

It wasn't. As I said earlier and you failed to comprehend, the audio clearly shows the reporter was running and had arrived at the man while the video had just shown the person in shorts and the sign. Listen to the audio.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

It was also hitting the ground as it floated forward...which of course means the water wasnt that deep.

How in the fuck can you say that when it's floating, dumbass?

It was obviously Drew Griffin.
I'm still waiting for the explanation of the record breaking wardrobe change.

Who says the man in the shorts was the reporter?

Is the very simple question any clearer yet?

It was obviously Drew Griffin.

It wasn't. As I said earlier and you failed to comprehend, the audio clearly shows the reporter was running and had arrived at the man while the video had just shown the person in shorts and the sign. Listen to the audio.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

How in the fuck can you say that when it's floating, dumbass?

It was obviously Drew Griffin.
I'm still waiting for the explanation of the record breaking wardrobe change.

Who says the man in the shorts was the reporter?

Is the very simple question any clearer yet?

It was obviously Drew Griffin.

It wasn't. As I said earlier and you failed to comprehend, the audio clearly shows the reporter was running and had arrived at the man while the video had just shown the person in shorts and the sign. Listen to the audio.

Nice post.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

It was obviously Drew Griffin.
I'm still waiting for the explanation of the record breaking wardrobe change.

Who says the man in the shorts was the reporter?

Is the very simple question any clearer yet?

It was obviously Drew Griffin.

It wasn't. As I said earlier and you failed to comprehend, the audio clearly shows the reporter was running and had arrived at the man while the video had just shown the person in shorts and the sign. Listen to the audio.

Nice post.

I figured it matched whats between your ears...

 

[Godboy]

Yes, I'm sure CNN deliberately destroyed a $50K truck just to fool you.

Is it destroyed? It looked mostly intact to me. That truck will be repaired, as opposed to going to a junk yard, so lets slow down with the "destroyed" stuff.

Dukes of Hazard wrecked 10 cars per episode, so why cant CNN do the same thing for ratings? It appears thats exactly what they did.

It was floating, dope. That also means it was sinking. A flooded car is a total loss.

Why do you idiots continually need the obvious explained to you?

If its a "$50,000" car, it isnt a total loss. Even if the engine is hydrolocked, he could still replace the engine for less than 10k, easily.

 

[Godboy]

Is it destroyed? It looked mostly intact to me. That truck will be repaired, as opposed to going to a junk yard, so lets slow down with the "destroyed" stuff.

Dukes of Hazard wrecked 10 cars per episode, so why cant CNN do the same thing for ratings? It appears thats exactly what they did.

It was floating, dope. That also means it was sinking. A flooded car is a total loss.

Why do you idiots continually need the obvious explained to you?

It was also hitting the ground as it floated forward...which of course means the water wasnt that deep.

How in the fuck can you say that when it's floating, dumbass?

I'm still waiting for the explanation of the record breaking wardrobe change.

Who says the man in the shorts was the reporter?

Is the very simple question any clearer yet?

Did you watch the video, dummy? Quit asking stupid questions.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Yes, I'm sure CNN deliberately destroyed a $50K truck just to fool you.

Is it destroyed? It looked mostly intact to me. That truck will be repaired, as opposed to going to a junk yard, so lets slow down with the "destroyed" stuff.

Dukes of Hazard wrecked 10 cars per episode, so why cant CNN do the same thing for ratings? It appears thats exactly what they did.

It was floating, dope. That also means it was sinking. A flooded car is a total loss.

Why do you idiots continually need the obvious explained to you?

If its a "$50,000" car, it isnt a total loss. Even if the engine is hydrolocked, he could still replace the engine for less than 10k, easily.

It's an insurance write-off, dude. More splainin' still required?

 

[Godboy]

Yes, I'm sure CNN deliberately destroyed a $50K truck just to fool you.

Is it destroyed? It looked mostly intact to me. That truck will be repaired, as opposed to going to a junk yard, so lets slow down with the "destroyed" stuff.

Dukes of Hazard wrecked 10 cars per episode, so why cant CNN do the same thing for ratings? It appears thats exactly what they did.

It was floating, dope. That also means it was sinking. A flooded car is a total loss.

Why do you idiots continually need the obvious explained to you?

If its a "$50,000" car, it isnt a total loss. Even if the engine is hydrolocked, he could still replace the engine for less than 10k, easily.

It's an insurance write-off, dude. More splainin' still required?

So what youre saying is, this hoax didnt cost CNN $50,000? Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Clementine]

Dumb?

Dumb is believing that they would purposely destroy a truck like that.

You don't know that there weren't issues with the truck or the guy was paid. You are completely ignoring the magical instant wardrobe change of the supposed victim. And who runs to help someone without putting the mic down? We couldn't see much of it because the sign blocked the camera.

Is CNN even bothering to show all those white racists carrying people through the water and the black people helping whites? The community looks really unified but CNN cornered a woman who was still soaking wet after just getting rescued and seemed to be saying that things aren't going well with the rescue mission. So glad the woman let the reporter have it.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Dumb?

Dumb is believing that they would purposely destroy a truck like that.

You don't know that there weren't issues with the truck or the guy was paid. You are completely ignoring the magical instant wardrobe change of the supposed victim. And who runs to help someone without putting the mic down? We couldn't see much of it because the sign blocked the camera.

Which of course is suspicious in in it of itself.
Why vid a sign when you could be vidioing the heroic acts of Drew Griffin?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Yes, I'm sure CNN deliberately destroyed a $50K truck just to fool you.

Is it destroyed? It looked mostly intact to me. That truck will be repaired, as opposed to going to a junk yard, so lets slow down with the "destroyed" stuff.

Dukes of Hazard wrecked 10 cars per episode, so why cant CNN do the same thing for ratings? It appears thats exactly what they did.

It was floating, dope. That also means it was sinking. A flooded car is a total loss.

Why do you idiots continually need the obvious explained to you?

If its a "$50,000" car, it isnt a total loss. Even if the engine is hydrolocked, he could still replace the engine for less than 10k, easily.

It's an insurance write-off, dude. More splainin' still required?

So what youre saying is, this hoax didnt cost CNN $50,000? Thanks for proving my point.

Assuming they owned it, dope.

Your conspiracy already has way too many moving parts for a simple stunt that would have little to no effect on the ratings of a network that doesn't have problems with their ratings in the first place.

You guys are some simple mofos.