Fox Caught in Another Lie

[calamity]

Another pathetic lie: I only stated that Dems were fanatical enough to attempt massive voter fraud. In the world of facts, this doesn’t presuppose a “huge conspiracy” at all, it can just as easily be explained as a bunch of independent operations with the same goal. The same approach has worked for Antifa and BLM, ...

Boogiemen are at it again, eh?

 

[Eriech]

That is the idea. Often, this is why it is done.

They know you can never make people stop believing once they say it.

Watch, it will pop up many times here now.

How many big lies were floated by the NYTIMES? Pulitzers were given.
If you watch and read media assuming you are being lied to we'd all have a better understanding.

 

[calamity]

How many big lies were floated by the NYTIMES? Pulitzers were given.
...

nonsensical garbage

 

[Eriech]

nonsensical garbage

No doubt you read that in the Times.....must be true

 

[calamity]

No doubt you read that in the Times.....must be true

No. I actually know how to backcheck stories. Hint: very few of Fox stories pan out, far fewer than NYT, that is for sure.

 

[Eriech]

No. I actually know how to backcheck stories. Hint: very few of Fox stories pan out, far fewer than NYT, that is for sure.

Unfortunately the producers at Fox read the NYTIMES and the Washington Compost. Most of their STORIES originate there. The circle of lies......

 

[noonereal]

How many big lies were floated by the NYTIMES? Pulitzers were given.
If you watch and read media assuming you are being lied to we'd all have a better understanding.

Thanks for repeating the Fox propaganda.

 

[Eriech]

You won't get any argument from me. Fox is propaganda; it is a part of the mainstream media. Still the best of the rest though a very very low bar.

 

[Ouroboros]

Where are they? And where is the evidence? LOLOL Your 'thinking' is circular.

Spoken in ignorance...several of the state courts ended up with federal court challenges. And 'didnt like him?' That's complete BS because no matter how much they did or didnt like him, they wanted a REPUBLICAN in that office and he's what they had. They certainly wouldnt have undermined their own interests that much.


I didnt win, or if I did, it's by default...you are just making excuse after excuse but not supporting them. I posted facts re: the entirety of the election and all you have is personal conspiracy theories that you really need to stretch for.

More mind reading presented as facts, and more laughable than ever. I’m sure you would like to think all Republicans think in the same ways because it makes your simple minded demonization easier. But you can no more attest to their thinking processes than you can to the honesty of your fellow Mad Libs.

 

[Ouroboros]

Boogiemen are at it again, eh?

Dirtbags gonna do what dirtbags do.

 

[Ouroboros]

nonsensical garbage

Just this week NYT had to retract the idiotic story that the FBI had warned Giuliani about Russian influence— or didn’t you read that little detail?

 

[Lursa]

More mind reading presented as facts, and more laughable than ever. I’m sure you would like to think all Republicans think in the same ways because it makes your simple minded demonization easier. But you can no more attest to their thinking processes than you can to the honesty of your fellow Mad Libs.

Funny, once again you avoided answering the direct questions. Why is that? If you have the "truth," why arent you posting it in answer? Here, try again:

Where are they? And where is the evidence? LOLOL Your 'thinking' is circular.

Spoken in ignorance...several of the state courts ended up with federal court challenges. And 'didnt like him?' That's complete BS because no matter how much they did or didnt like him, they wanted a REPUBLICAN in that office and he's what they had. They certainly wouldnt have undermined their own interests that much.

I didnt win, or if I did, it's by default...you are just making excuse after excuse but not supporting them. I posted facts re: the entirety of the election and all you have is personal conspiracy theories that you really need to stretch for.

I've asked you over and over: why didnt the GOP hold hearings, support their own investigations? They had nothing to lose and everything to gain.

 

[Ouroboros]

Funny, once again you avoided answering the direct questions. Why is that? If you have the "truth," why arent you posting it in answer? Here, try again:

I've asked you over and over: why didnt the GOP hold hearings, support their own investigations? They had nothing to lose and everything to gain.

I know that simple reasoning to you is like rocket science, but guess what? If I have not stated that I know the election was stolen, then it’s not incumbent on me to provide evidence for that position. I provided justification as to the reasons I have doubts that Dems ran an honest election because they have been dishonest about so many things, but that’s not an endorsement of a conspiracy theory. I know you were dying to try out your clunky little interpretation on someone expousing a conspiracy theory, because that’s what you were trying to do with another poster when I butted in on a tangential subject. I anticipated that you ignore specific statements and see everything through your cloudy lens, so thanks for being completely predictable.

 

[Lursa]

I know that simple reasoning to you is like rocket science, but guess what? If I have not stated that I know the election was stolen, then it’s not incumbent on me to provide evidence for that position. I provided justification as to the reasons I have doubts that Dems ran an honest election because they have been dishonest about so many things, but that’s not an endorsement of a conspiracy theory. I know you were dying to try out your clunky little interpretation on someone expousing a conspiracy theory, because that’s what you were trying to do with another poster when I butted in on a tangential subject. I anticipated that you ignore specific statements and see everything through your cloudy lens, so thanks for being completely predictable.

So to course-correct then, you dont believe that the election was significantly fraudulent and The Donald actually won? Yes or no?

 

[Ouroboros]

So to course-correct then, you dont believe that the election was significantly fraudulent and The Donald actually won? Yes or no?

Sorry, I only give yes or no answers to people who deserve them. In previous posts you have blatantly lied about the position I’ve explicitly taken, and you have lied in this post as well with this “course correction” nonsense. But by all means keep flogging your dead mound of horseflesh, while convincing yourself that you’re standing up for objective truth (via selective interpretation). I’ve made my definitive statement on the election already; let’s see if you can refute what I’ve already written.

 

[Lursa]

Another diversion. No worries, it's ludicrous to imagine that after:

~60 FAILED legal challenges and The Donald-appointed DHS head of cyber security and AG Barr claim no widespread evidence of fraud? And why did so many Republican governors, secretaries of state, and election officials agree? And why so many federal judges appointed by The Donald, including 3 on SCOTUS, not buy into it either? And again...why no Senate hearings or investigations?​

The entire GOP had 2.5 months to mount an investigation...and they didnt. Why not?

You cant answer this any better than you can answer my initial post, lol.

Nothing you wrote there refutes the facts that I posted...you just posted more of what the followers have been grasping at in a great deal of ignorance (regarding the dismissal of valid evidence and standing of cases, for example) for all these months.

Why didnt the GOP who had ONLY to benefit, not have hearings on the election? They had 2.5 months. Most of Congress knows very well the election was legit, but the Republicans kept telling you what you wanted to hear to keep your votes and loyalty. They know better but are telling you what you want to hear, pretending they're unhappy or outraged The Donald was 'cheated.' That's bullshit.

The GOP would have fought it if there was any realistic and significant election fraud. That you believe their grift is sad but obviously deepy ingrained in you.

I posted facts. You didnt refute a single one of them. All you said was, 'it was a huge conspiracy!'

When are you going to answer the question in my post, asked more than once: why dont you explain why the GOP didnt investigate those court cases further or open senate hearings?

They had 2.5 months.

Sorry, I only give yes or no answers to people who deserve them. In previous posts you have blatantly lied about the position I’ve explicitly taken, and you have lied in this post as well with this “course correction” nonsense. But by all means keep flogging your dead mound of horseflesh, while convincing yourself that you’re standing up for objective truth (via selective interpretation). I’ve made my definitive statement on the election already; let’s see if you can refute what I’ve already written.

LMAO! Whooosshh! Look at that backpedal! Wow, so then you are ashamed to admit you believe the election was significantly fraudulent and The Donald would be rightfully the winner?

I have lied about nothing...I posted facts and asked questions and you have avoided even the most basic answers...because you're ashamed. You go on and on and now wont even own it?

 

[Ouroboros]

LMAO! Whooosshh! Look at that backpedal! Wow, so then you are ashamed to admit you believe the election was significantly fraudulent and The Donald would be rightfully the winner?

I have lied about nothing...I posted facts and asked questions and you have avoided even the most basic answers...because you're ashamed. You go on and on and now wont even own it?

Yes, it is funny that you could manage to type all that twaddle without being able to read anyone else’s posts accurately. Thanks for continuing to demonstrate your inabilities, as it’s revealing as to the doublethink of Mad Libs generally.

 

[Geoist]

Collusion is a crime.

I think you need to review the 2018 GOP talking points.

 

[Lursa]

Yes, it is funny that you could manage to type all that twaddle without being able to read anyone else’s posts accurately. Thanks for continuing to demonstrate your inabilities, as it’s revealing as to the doublethink of Mad Libs generally.

LMAO except it's also sad...I didnt retype it...it was all there to cut and paste as a reminder

So I'll still stick with this, which you tried to ignore:

LMAO! Whooosshh! Look at that backpedal! Wow, so then you are ashamed to admit you believe the election was significantly fraudulent and The Donald would be rightfully the winner?​

​

I have lied about nothing...I posted facts and asked questions and you have avoided even the most basic answers...because you're ashamed. You go on and on and now wont even own it? ​

​

Post 266 for reference​

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Isn’t this what a reputable news agency is suppose to do? If evidence is presented that what they reported was wrong it should be retracted. I doubt CNN is capable of retracting all the lies they reported.

Obviously no reputable news media would deliberately make that mistake in the first place. If someone needs to publicly apologize after receiving backlash, the action is admitting he is not reputable. It is an invitation for anyone to sue or fire him.

This is what Fox does. They tell people to report unbelievable lies and only regret them if they are caught in defamation lawsuits. CNN never had that problem because it is 100 percent real news with minimal bias in its reporting.

 

[Ouroboros]

LMAO except it's also sad...I didnt retype it...it was all there to cut and paste as a reminder

So I'll still stick with this, which you tried to ignore:

LMAO! Whooosshh! Look at that backpedal! Wow, so then you are ashamed to admit you believe the election was significantly fraudulent and The Donald would be rightfully the winner?​

​

I have lied about nothing...I posted facts and asked questions and you have avoided even the most basic answers...because you're ashamed. You go on and on and now wont even own it? ​

​

Post 266 for reference​

Wow, way to prove to everyone that you don’t even have basic reading skills. I wrote “type,” not “retype,” so nothing I wrote even implies retyping. I was expressing amazement that you, over the course of many posts, could have typed so much nonsense, given that you have no reading comprehension skills.

I didn’t ignore your twaddle; I clearly said you had no right to demand answers on your terms since you consistently misrepresented my statements to play your “are you now or have you ever been” game.

 

[Daddyo]

"The sorry saga began on Thursday, when Biden pledged at a virtual climate summit that the US will cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 50% to 52%, compared to 2005 levels, by 2030. Biden and the White House briefly outlined a variety of measures that would help, from improving vehicle efficiency to retrofitting buildings to "farmers deploying cutting-edge tools" to make American soil "the next frontier in carbon innovation."

There was nothing in either Biden's summit speeches or in policy papers released by the White House about mandating changes to Americans' diets. But The Daily Mail ran a headline that said "Biden's climate plan could limit you to eat just one burger a MONTH." The article went on to say that although Biden hasn't yet released the details of his plans, "Americans may have to cut their red meat consumption by a whopping 90 percent and cut their consumption of other animal based foods in half."

Where did The Daily Mail get those numbers? It cited the academic paper we told you about above. But, again, that paper wasn't about Biden and wasn't about mandatory restrictions.

The paper found that if Americans made a 50% cut to their consumption of animal-based foods and a 90% cut to their consumption of beef in particular -- in other words, if they went down to four pounds of beef per year, or 0.18 oz per day -- there would be a 51% reduction in diet-related US greenhouse gas emissions between 2016 and 2030."

So Biden pledged to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 50 plus percent by 2030. Americans cutting beef consumption to 4 lbs per year would get us there by 2030. What they said was true. Who they attributed it too was not. Glad they fixed it. CNN can learn how to properly correct mistakes. They make tons of them.