CNN Hosts Debate on Phrases That Have a Lot of Vowels

New York City, NY — Hosts of an afternoon CNN political program got into a lengthy debate yesterday when the topic of “quid pro quo” came up. Producers of the live show were thrown for a loop when the four experts diverted into a realm of discussion not typically suited for a CNN show.

IMG_20191106_132249

“Next up for discussion was their thoughts on ‘quid pro quo,’ because that’s something Americans care about,” said associate producer Geoff Garcia. “But then it got a little weird.”

In a surprise move, Anne Moore counted aloud the number of vowels in ‘quid pro quo,’ which she declared to be five. Why she did this is still unclear, but Bill Williamson followed it up with his take on other phrases that contain a lot of vowels. Here’s a partial list they came up with:

Under the weather (6)

The coast is clear (6)

Barking up the wrong tree (7)

Across the board (5)

By hook or by crook (5 or sometimes 7)

Neither here nor there (8)

Things got a little tense when Ron Thompson chimed in with “I could eat a horse.” His three colleagues believed this offering from Ron crossed a line, because, as Anne Moore said, “we here in the US don’t eat horses, OK?” Ron was apologetic stating that he was only trying keep up, not that he would ever actually eat a horse.

CNN brass caught wind of the statement and quickly cleared up the matter. An insider who spoke under conditions of anonymity said upper level management asked Ron only one question concerning the horse comment. “We’re not going to beat around the bush. How would you feel if President Trump were to be impeached, and had to leave office?” Ron replied he’d be “over the moon.”

Ron was reinstated, promoted, featured on the cover of People magazine, and is now up for a Nobel Peace Prize.

-Out of the Wilderness News

Advertisements

12-year climate change timeline is a win/win for Democrats

Leaving science and everything that makes sense out of this, the 12-year deadline for the end of the world is the best thing Democrats could have ever come up with. Why? Well, I haven’t heard anyone say this yet, maybe they have and I’m just unaware, but here’s why the Democrats are putting most of their eggs in this climate change timeframe…

It’ll be the year 2030 when the so-called climate change timetable is at it’s end point. At this point, either the world ends, as suggested by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, or it doesn’t. And here’s where it gets good for the Democrats…

Scenario 1 – the world ends

Democrats announce the ultimate “I told you so!”

Scenario 2 – the world doesn’t end

In this case (and what I think the Democrats will do since the world isn’t going to end in 2030, at least not because of global warming), the Democrats will say, “We did it! Thanks to all your hard work and the amazing vision and leadership of the Democrat party, we’ve avoided disaster. Now, you should trust us with your vote, your money, and your future!” They’ll use this heroic act of saving the world to push their party forward and ask for everyone to join in with the party of the future. They’ll say, “Republicans and conservatives would have brought the world to an end, but thank goodness the Democrats did something about it!”

The ironic part is this: even if no one did anything environmentally responsible from today till January 1st, 2030, the world wouldn’t end. The Democrats know this, so no matter how much effort is or isn’t put into “saving the world,” they’re going to take credit because of what’s going on now– the party-wide push to fix global warming. In 2030, they’ll say it was all thanks to them.

What are your thoughts on this? Do you think they have a 12-year plan to set themselves up as the saviors of the earth? Comment below!

As always, thanks for stopping by!

-Out of the Wilderness