Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
User Journal

Journal BarbaraHudson's Journal: Sarah Palin Endorses Donald Trump, Univision buys 40% of The Onion 13

The New York Times and other sources are reporting that Sarah Palin is back in the spotlight, endorsing Donald Trump. Iowa republicans will just eat this up.

And a large chunk of The Onion has been sold to Univision

n a memo to employees, Mike McAvoy, the president and chief executive of Onion Inc., said the deal came after the company had searched for a partner during the last year to help the company grow. He said that after acquiring a âoegood chunkâ of Onion Inc., Univision could acquire the remainder of the company in the future. Time reports that Univision bought a 40% stake.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sarah Palin Endorses Donald Trump, Univision buys 40% of The Onion

Comments Filter:
  • They need to come up with a whopper of a surprise to knock Donald out of the running. The "smart" Bush is polling barely above the margin of error. Even better, Donald is pretty well guaranteed to lose the election if he gets the nomination.

    But what do they have to gain from this round of suicide by a thousand paper cuts? One would be hard pressed to find a standing government that is more conservative than the US (perhaps Myanmar or Iran? you can't really call Afghanistan or Somalia much of a standi
    • The dogs that haven't really barked are The Donald's business career and his personal life.
      Once we're through the pre-season, and arrive at February, junk is going to get real.
      If we haven't figured out from this administration that a celebrity airhead is undesirable, then screw us to the wall with an industrial bore.
      • The dogs that haven't really barked are The Donald's business career and his personal life.

        You say that as if the GOP doesn't embrace adultery and bankruptcy with open arms. When was the last time the GOP didn't have a presidential contender who was on at least their second marriage? When was the last time they didn't have one who had run into financial irregularities? Sure, he combines the two but that should make him double-plus-good, right?

        If we haven't figured out from this administration that a celebrity airhead is undesirable, then screw us to the wall with an industrial bore.

        I wish you would stick to one conspiracy about President Lawnchair regarding his intellect. Last time you claimed he was the evil illuminati antichris

        • When was the last time the GOP didn't have a presidential contender who was on at least their second marriage?

          2012. But you knew that.

          I wish you would stick to one conspiracy about President Lawnchair regarding his intellect.

          Where's the troll value in that?

          • When was the last time the GOP didn't have a presidential contender who was on at least their second marriage?

            2012. But you knew that.

            The key word there is contender, not to be confused with candidate. Newt Gingrich was absolutely a contender and was on at least his second marriage. His open infidelity is definitely not what knocked him out of the race, either. You'll need to go back further to find a GOP race where there was not a contender who was on at least marriage number 2.

            I wish you would stick to one conspiracy about President Lawnchair regarding his intellect.

            Where's the troll value in that?

            You do, on rare occasions, try to tell me that you are being serious.

            • The key word there is contender, not to be confused with candidate.

              The key word here is 4, as in "Alinksy Rule 4". As long as we're carpet bombing conservatives (why not?) we should point out that they've all sinned, and come short of the glory of God. Theologically speaking, there is no difference between Her Majesty and the peasantry, which is key to The Royal Rationalizations, I would expect.

              • You're the one who claims that personal matters will bring down the Donald; I provided you a reason why they won't. Why you felt the need to try to stuff words into my mouth is unclear. I made no attempt to compare them to any other standard that you might fantasize over.
      • After how they rallied around the Duggars, scandals involving their own are just another way to emphasize how "we treat (our own) sinners better than other do". They lap this sh*t up.

        After all, any outside who did that is automatically going to hell anyway, right?

I think there's a world market for about five computers. -- attr. Thomas J. Watson (Chairman of the Board, IBM), 1943

Working...