- Joined
- Apr 20, 2007
- Messages
- 6,152
- Reaction score
- 2,344
- Location
- Pacific Northwest
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Who is Usama Rooting For?
Who does Usama bin Laden want to be the next president? More people think the terrorist leader wants Obama to win (30 percent) than think he wants Clinton (22 percent) or McCain (10 percent). Another 18 percent says it doesn’t matter to bin Laden and 20 percent are unsure
I wondered when they'd get to it.
Here it is:
FOXNews.com - FOX News Poll: Obama Has Slim Edge Over McCain, Half Would Never Vote for Clinton - Polls | AP Polls | Gallup Poll | Opinion Polls
Fox Mantra: The Dems will get you killed
:screwy
Yet why have they not been able to nail Fox on false reporting (or Limbaugh either) a la New York Times, Dan Rather etc.?
(Answer: Because conservatives are more honest and more thorough by nature.)
Not really. Fox News and conservatives like "Limbruger" have been busted for twisted and false reporting, not to mention racist, xenophobic and anti semitic and anti muslim rants.
The difference between the Dan Rather case and Fox News almost daily twisting of facts and bias reporting, is the power of conservative media in the US.
Conservative media are very vocal, and very well connected in political and business circles. This combined has been succesfull to "muddy the waters" on so many cases that we today have large number of people actually believing that Saddam was behind 9/11.
If anyone even brings up inaccuracies or bias in the reporting, said people get hammered by conservatives and usualy on a personal level. The final goal is always to take focus away from the issue and as often as possible target the messenger. The Dan Rather thing is a classic example in many ways. Sure the material he used was not up to par at best, but because of the hammering by conservatives, no media outlet has since even sniffled at Bush's military record or lack of it. Another example the recent McCain scandal. It was not long after the New York Times broke the story, that conservative media personalities (who funny enough were attacking McCain for a long time) got behind McCain and went on the attack, attacking the New York Times. Suddenly the story was not of McCains possible doing favors for lobbiests, but about why the New York Times broke the story and why the New York Times was bad.
Falsehoods, inaccuracies, big time spin and worse happen all the time on Fox News, but because of conservative tactics no media outlet is willing to call them on the facts. And when some does, they are laughed off or hounded for being "liberal biased", and that usualy shuts down any discussion in the US. Just look at the debates on these boards. Anyone linking evidence of bias, falsehoods or outright lies on Fox News are always hammered by the "usual suspects", usualy by claims that the "evidence" comes from a liberal website. And if that dont work, then they try to change the subject by attack other media outlets, and if its a European that brings up Fox News bias, then they go after the BBC and Al Jazerra. Happens every time and will probally happen in this thread after I post this.
Well here you go again PeteEU. Last I saw you were claiming a trove of McCain related stories “over there” and when confronted to post this trove, you about faced and claimed you really had not looked into it that much. In other words, you could not produce even one of your claimed tales. It was noted, and so is the similarity to your last wild claim in this thread. I understand that many people can’t help but wear their biases on their sleeves; I also know that sometimes their intellectual honesty is right there too.
In this instance the comment you choose to respond to was a fairly simple one, both in construct and the ability to prove:
“Yet why have they not been able to nail Fox on false reporting (or Limbaugh either) a la New York Times, Dan Rather etc.?”
While I find Nikatia’s contention that this is because “conservatives are more honest” to be simplistic, his point stands. For all of the crowing and hand wringing about big bad Fox News being such a source of bad journalism and reporting, where are the cases ala the now infamous Dan Rather situation? Please detail the stories you are talking about. I keep seeing silly folks at forums like this make claims about all the “big stories” Fox News lied about. When pressed to supply the links to these stories that Fox News has been caught and somehow found guilty of perpetrating, either by admission or investigation, no information is ever forth coming. One needs only an IQ above room temperature and the ability to search the public record to know why. None exist.
You make the claim that “falsehoods and inaccuracies” happen at Fox News “all the time”. Since according to you, this is a regular occurrence, surely you can locate some verified examples of this and demonstrate how they are different than all of the other media sources. You know the older ones with a much longer track record of the types of examples surely you can locate for us all to take in?
Because otherwise Pete, it is just another of your pie in the sky claims that you may yet claim you have “not looked into much”. In case you don’t know it, making claims about topics you have not looked into does not make you appear very smart or well informed. Rather the opposite.
I don’t really care to challenge the rest of your post, as it reads like run of the mill internet hyper speculation/fantasy couched in broadly ignorant generalizations. And might I say falsehoods and inaccuracies too? Opinion pieces and blogs are not “evidence” of Fox doing anything wrong. Admission that the story was bad both from Dan Rather and the Network president are. So tell us all about those horrid public cases of Fox News getting themselves into a Dan Rather situation?
O'REILLY: ...they've lost billions of dollars in France according to "The Paris Business Review."
Fox News accepted that Andrew Gilligan had not actually said the words that John Gibson appeared to attribute to him.
Or submit the personal opinions of die hard left wing “websites” who don’t like Fox News, even though they can’t point to a single situation that Fox has gotten themselves into, oh like say CBS and CNN, say with their Baghdad Bureau Chief?
IMO the whole Fox News is insert charge here arguments are among the most easily debunked idiot’s rant on the internet. :doh
Just goto Mediamatters.org. There are plenty of examples of Fox News, twisting the facts, bias and worse. But of course you will never accept mediamatters.org because its "a liberal" site. How about the Guardian or the Uks Ofcom regulators?
What are you refering too? Or is it just an attempt to attack the poster and divert attention away from Fox News?
As I stated, there is plenty information about Fox News and its missdeeds. BUT every time someone links them, then some pro Fox News person starts to slam the source, usualy by painting it as a "Liberal" site and that ends that discussion.
Just goto Mediamatters.org. There are plenty of examples of Fox News, twisting the facts, bias and worse. But of course you will never accept mediamatters.org because its "a liberal" site. How about the Guardian or the Uks Ofcom regulators?
Okay lets look at one case. Mark Foley. How come Fox News was never critized or even fined for at first writing Mark Foley (D) on the TV screen? Not to mention several other "miss prints"... oddly enough almost always hitting political opponents to the Bush administration. Or the John Conyers picture problem?
What about O'Rielly using debunked biased right wing reports to prove his homophobic paranioa?
Media Matters - O'Reilly falsely claimed that heterosexual marriage in Sweden "declined drastically since gay marriage was legalized"
Hell O'Rielly should have a whole thread on his own.
Or how Fox News handled the Obama indonesian school? Its not long ago I saw Fox News still uses the term madras when the issue comes up.
Lets see a Dan Rather Situation.
So Fox News admitted that one of its own made up slanderous quotes against Kerry. Yet we always hear about the "Dan Rather" story, and he was only duped by the evidence.. he did not even make it up. I love how Fox News excused it with basicly "we were tired".
Or how about Bill O'Rielly and his so called boycot of French goods.
No such publication exists. Again making things up. The funny part during O'Rielly's boycot period, French exports to the US rose according to offical numbers from the US goverment.
Or how about John Gibson.
Standards Cases - Upheld cases | Ofcom
Here again a Fox News "reporter" basicly made stuff up to slam a competitior or political enemy. Hell his comments are still on the Fox News website.
Thats at least 3 situations where Fox News has been caught in making up stuff directly. At least Dan Rather did not make the document that he thought was geniune, he just used it.
Well when people like you and other Fox News lovers, paint any site that is critical of Fox News as "left wing" or "liberal" then there cant be any evidence out there that will satisfy you. You comments here clearly prove my points. I also bet that the links I have provided so far will not meet your "standard" of proof because they dont come from right wing friendly sites.
Of course its easily "debunked" because either pro Fox News people attack the critics, call the "proof" for lefty liberal bias crap or worse, or try to divert attention by changing the subject.. something you attempted in your comments. Or the classic one... "thats an opinion piece, not news" comment.
Well, nobody wants to talk about the national debt in a thread devoted to Fox News, maybe you should go back and read the opening post?Nobody wants to talk about the national debt, and actually, "this is the real problem".
“As I stated, I have not looked much into it."
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ccain-lobbyist-scandal-12.html#post1057539254
When these kinds of situations occur, the weight of the falsehoods reported comes to light. Said sources are forced to admit their mistakes. The world pays attention, verification occurs from numerous credible sources as well as from the source of same; via apology or retraction.
You can’t point to a single serious instance where Fox News has been called before the world to account for, as you claim, fabricated lies, slander and liable. Silly of you to think that the weight of reality and the public record would not be brought into the matter.
You point to a George Soros owned source as saying Rupert Murdoch and Fox News are biased? “Media Matters” as your source won’t do anything more than provide exactly the “type” of bias you are claiming Fox News guilty of.
Bill O’Rielly is not Fox News anymore than Chris Matthews is CNN. Both report news stories and then offer their take on them. Hello McFly?
Obama did attend a madras learning school in Indonesia. Is it relevant? NIMO. A particular pundit offered his “opinion” on what it means. They get paid to do so; there is no confusion about this basic fact of life. Well except for those unfortunate victims of synaptic backfire in the brainpan.
Again, let us take a look at your intellectual work product here, using only your own source as reference.
Fox News correspondent Carl Cameron made a really dumb joke abut Kerry. Didn't my nails and cuticles look great? What a good debate! I'm metrosexual - he's a cowboy." Women voters, he purportedly added, "should like me! I do manicures."
He was reprimanded and the Network apologized for this idiotic gaffe that nobody took seriously and was featured in an opinion piece on the web.
Dan Rather went ahead and reported a story in the national evening news, as a bona fide news piece, that his own editors, staff and legal department warned him was questionable at best. Despite the fact that his editors and advisors at the network advised the story not be reported on yet, they supported Rather when he went ahead with it. This is why they had to apologize as a network and news organization.
You’ll need something a lot less feeble here.
While yet another demonstration of your inability to grasp the concept of OP/ED commentary is unnecessary at this juncture, it is appreciated for redundant illustrative effects.[/COLOR]
And again, O'Rielly is the face (one of them) of Fox News. His opinions and his usuage of facts are a direct reflection of Fox News. If he uses false or fabricated sources to prove his point, then he is fabricating news.
But it was expected you would come with one of the main talking points from Fox president Roger Ailes, to excuse open bias and fact fabrication of Fox News.
I said you could not point to an example of Fox News having got itself into a Dan Rather/CBS type of situation. How desperate of you pretend otherwise. Clearly Fox News is not the only tired party here.
I have. You just cant accept the facts. Not my problem.
OK, let us again refer only to your own linked sources. In this case, the first words in the article you point to would clue even a mildly negligent researcher into a simple fact.
My Word” is a personal comment section at the end of an hour-long news programme called The Big Story. On the day of the publication of the Hutton Inquiry Report into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr David Kelly (which contained criticism of the BBC), John Gibson, the programme anchor, delivered his regular editorial opinion piece
He said it live on Fox News, else Ofcom would not have touched it. He is paid as an anchor of Fox News and anything he says is a reflection of the opinion or at best the attitude of Fox News. You excusing him by using the "editorial opinion piece" is nothing but a cop out.
So far your claim in this post is that the following are representative of Fox News as slanderous, libelous and fabricated reporting. They hardly reflect a very thoughtful or well informed and educated adult mindset.[/COLOR]
1. Fox News displayed a “D” for democrat chevron during a single sequence in one reporting of the Mark Foley scandal. Foley, as corrected later and ever since, has had a “R” chevron associated with his name.
It was only one of the more well known cases, but does it excuse the fact that this so called reputal news organisation suddenly miss labels a caption on a pedofile so that he goes from a Republican (the people the station openly backs) to a Democrat (the "enemy")? Hardly.
2. Bill O’Rielly allegedly falsely claimed that heterosexual marriage declined in Sweden after gay marriage was legalized during his nightly political commentary show.
Alleged? I saw it on TV. The transcripts are there. O'Rielly used a total debunked report to promote his homophobic agenda. For peak sake, the report he uses has statistical numbers that dont exist! You can goto the statistical offices of Sweden and Denmark (in english and online even) to get up to date statistics on exactly the issues he used as "proof".
3. Fox News reported the fact that Mr. Obama attended a madras learning school in Indonesia and a political commentator offered up his opinion on the matter.
Obama went to a public school in Indonesia, not a madras. The word madras is a negative word in the US and many parts of the west, because people associate it with terrorists training centers. Now had it been a religious school, then fine, but it was not. As for the political commentator crap.. again its a cop out.
4. Carl Cameron of Fox News made a metro-sexual joke in a political OP/ED commentary blog on the Fox News Website. He was reprimanded by the network and apologies for the remark were offered by both parties.
It was not a blog, it was made to look like a news story.
USATODAY.com - Fox News pulls reporter's item with fake Kerry quotes
I still love how Fox News excuses its actions because of fatigue.
This is what you think compares to the Dan Rather/CBS Bush military story?
Hello... Using fabricated and false facts to prove a story. But let me guess, Dan Rather had the balls to go up against your president, hence its much worse. Pathetic excuse.
Dan Rather aired a story his own advisors, legal department and research assistants warned him was questionable at best. He not only used a document he knew was not well vetted, his superiors lacked the integrity to stop him from doing so. The story was so widely disproved and the sources so obviously hackneyed that the rest of the media jumped on it. In fact, Rather is suing CBS right now over this issue. Basically saying, if you knew I was reporting bovine scatology, then why did you not stop me?
No the facts Dan Rather used were disproved, the story died because no one would touch it with a 1 hundred mile pole. Fact is Bush's "war record" has never been examined in detail, as quite a bit of paperwork has mysteriously disappeared.
I’m hardly a “Fox News Lover”. My comments and challenges here should clearly prove to you that you can’t just drop into an internet forum and regurgitate ideological and common place generalizations and intellectual twaddle and not get challenged on it. Chalk up another broadly ignorant stereotyipification to your tab.
Well considering how you openly defend Fox News with the same sterotypical talking points as "Fox News Lovers" then frankly you join them in that box.
And you cant grasp the fact that there is no difference between and OP/ED matter and a new story, when lies, fabrication and twisting of facts are used in the story. Hiding behind the OP/ED talking point, first promoted by Fox News founder is just another excuse to not face the music so to say.As you offered only the fact that you don’t have a grasp of the differences between OP/ED and opinion matters and news stories, I suggest you look at the writing on the wall.
End of the day you refuse to intellectually acknowledge the differences between hard line news reporting and OP/ED commentary. So you complain vociferously that you keep getting told about the differences between hard line news reporting and OP/ED commentary.
Which is a lot like standing in a puddle of water, sticking an Aluminum paper clip into an electric wall socket and complaining about the sparkly shocky tingles that are traveling up and down your arm.
What you are basicly advocating is that its okay to make up stuff about people as long as its an OP/ED piece and not in the "news section" of the network. Does that mean that Fox News is 90% OP/ED then?
Oh who cares about truth and accuracy? Fiddle-dee-dee, I simply adore those little Asian babes, they really get me hot just before supper. Cosmetically, they just have to be number one. Wouldn't you agree? Let's take a vote. Who do you believe has the best hair style of the three major prime time network news casters? Isn't Larry King the most icky person on television? Don't yo just lo-v-v-v-e television?
Wow all that effort over Fox Comedy channel?
See it for the nonsense that it is and move on lol...
And you cant grasp the fact that there is no difference between and OP/ED matter and a new story, when lies, fabrication and twisting of facts are used in the story. Hiding behind the OP/ED talking point, first promoted by Fox News founder is just another excuse to not face the music so to say.
What you are basically advocating is that it’s okay to make up stuff about people as long as it’s an OP/ED piece and not in the "news section" of the network. Does that mean that Fox News is 90% OP/ED then?
I’m particularly impressed that you think the best nail you can hang anything on is the Carl Cameron story from 2004.
So there you are on record as not being able to differentiate between news reporting and news commentary; until it suits your wafer thin purposes to do so.
You appear utterly unaware of the recent history of journalism over just the last few decades in addition to your other OP/ED issue.
You’ve got what now? An errant “R” or “D” and some political commentary? And you’ll raise me a Carl Cameron/John Kerry Metro sexual joke?
Well Sir Lion you just cant accept the evidence there is about Fox News, thats not my problem. You asked for similar issues with Fox News, you got similar issues, where fabrication (even by Fox News reporters) was used to in a story on the Fox News Channel. That you dont think the issues are on the same "level" as the Dan Rather story, only shows how pro Fox News you are, dispite your claims of not being it.. or that you are a Bush supporter, and having negative stories about Bush is some how worse than having false facts to slam the opposition.
And I never claimed that Fox News was found guilty in a court of law, because we both know that will never happen. But I did provide one ruling from Ofcom against Fox News, which is the "medias court" in the UK. Also Dan Rather was never found guilty in a court of law. You are just trying to muddy the waters as always.
Your claims of lack of logic only shows how twisted your own is. Fabricating facts for stories or to prove a point in journalism is wrong. Newspapers, even the New York Times (a favourite of the right these days) have fired journalists for fake interviews or fake facts. Fox News has yet to do so, let alone admit quite a number of mistakes.
Hiding behind the excuse of "its and OP/ED piece" is just that .. a lame excuse. Dan Rathers story was an OP/ED piece then. Now all the crap against Dan Rather falls away right?
Now you are making things up. The Carl Cameron story is one of many issues with Fox News, issues that are well documented. the Carl Cameron story also shows at best the attitude of Carl Cameron and at worst of Fox News, towards Kerry. Considering how Fox News was totaly biased against Kerry during the election, then I suspect the latter. I also never claimed that this story was "my best nail". In fact I never claimed that on any of the examples.
Again you are making things up. I am fully able to differentiate between news reporting and news commentary. What you are not able to differentiate between it seems, is that fabricating facts, or using fabricated facts in news reporting or news commentary are no different. Its still lies.
Again irrelevant. Just because its an OP/ED piece, then its okay to fabricate facts or use fabricated facts? Does that mean that if Dan Rather chose to do his piece as an OP/ED piece, then it would not have been the issue it was?
As I stated, you asked for examples of similar conduct. I gave you examples. There are plenty more where those came from, but of course you wount accept the soruces used, so whats the point?
I asked you to provide “evidence” that Fox News has ever been caught up in a Dan Rather/CBS situation. None has occurred and you have certainly offered nothing to contradict that.
Humorously, in another thread about Fox News we have posters from every part of the political spectrum who happen to agree that the Fox News “is” idiocy is pabulum. Some of those posters who happen to be liberal or lean democratic were able to quite correctly point out that the opinions and commentaries on Fox are no more the position of the network than Glen Beck IS CNN, or Keith Olberman IS MSNBC, or Chris Matthews IS CNN. Would you like me to provide you with the link to the thread? Then you can call everyone in that thread who does not agree with your narrow minded paper thin logic about Fox News “Fox News Lovers”? Do tell, because that should make for some truly funny moments, watching you tell posters that have been here for years and are hardly “right wing” that they are Fox News Lovers. Chuckle.
According to your more and more desperate attempts at logic, since anything Glenn Beck says is on CNN, his words are CNN and therefore CNN is “guilty” of any charge you want to flim flam at Beck. The same with Chris Mathews on the same channel, CNN. According to you *(and yes THIS IS STUPID OF YOU) since anything Chris Matthews has to say is aired by CNN, his opinions are those of CNN. Now Matthews and Beck are at opposite ends of the political spectrum and have made all sorts of comments that set internet posters a twitter. But not until I came across your tired attempt to spin this issue, had I ever met someone trying to claim CNN was espousing both the views of Glenn Beck AND Chris Matthews. That is quite a corner you have managed to back yourself into.
Just more feinting and posturing. But I’m thrilled that your court made a judgment that they themselves recognize comes from “a personal comment section at the end of an hour-long news programme”. Thanks be to the lord above we have courts to issue finding against opinion pieces. The world is safe. Chuckle.
Dan Rather admitted his error in judgment, so did CBS. I did not make any claims about Dan Rather or CBS being “proved guilty many times” much less once. You did claim that Fox News has “been found guilty many times”.
Your idea of guilt is an accusation by Media Matters.
And then you keep referring to your link that reads “My Word is a personal comment section….” All while claming you don’t and then you do understand the differences between OP/ED and reporting. You even offered up some specious attempts to explain why you did not recognize any differences between the two. Now you act like you never did that either. If you don’t stand by your own claims, why are you expecting anyone to give them any heed? You’re all over the place as your spin attempts keep spiraling further and further outwards.
As all you have to offer as evidence of Fox news mistakes is Media Matters and their accusations, you have nothing to offer really. I understand that you sincerely wish that Media Matters was doing more than making accusations and allegations, but at the end of the day that is all they are doing. There is some source on the internet every day that claims to debunk most everything said by anyone on any channel. Only real stories of fabrication, libel and slander ever actually lead to the stores being confirmed and vetted by other media sources. This is what happened with Dan Rather and CBS News, and this is what has not happened with Fox News. You say it has, but so far all you’ve submitted is hot gas.
Yes yes, your IQ plummet continues unabated. Now according to you if CNN does not agree that the comments of one of their pundits made during their commentary show or OP/ED are those of the network, they are hiding behind the OP/ED.
So until CNN and MSNBC and all the other mainstream media sources come out and stop hiding behind OP/EDs and admit the views of Glenn Beck/Chris Matthews/Keith Olberman et al represent the network, not the pundit, your going to beat your drum about how they have been “found guilty many times" of the sham charges you have tried to float out here?
Do tell; better yet let me see if I can predict the future like you. Hokus Pokus, I predict you will now attempt to say that you never claimed that since Bill O’'Rielly is a face of Fox News, and they air his words, his words are those of Fox News.
And hence you never really intended to mean that since Glenn Beck/Chris Matthews/Keith Olberman are faces of CNN and MSNBC, their words are those of CNN MSNBC. Just how far down this dung hole you have managed to dig are you planning on falling?
No, I was making fun of your best attempts at trying to rationalize your unsupportable claims.
No, so far you have contradicted yourself. In fact, you have hung yourself. But go ahead, I can’t wait to see how you try to backpedal on your they are faces of the network, therefore they are the network idiocy.
Still playing like an allegation from Media Matters is “evidence” of lying, libel slander and whatever adjectives you can come up with? Like I said before, my what a lobvely circle jerk you have made there.
At this point, having defeated your own logic with your “faces of” sophistry, there really is no point. I’m dead certain you have no idea that you managed to hang yourself with your own rope, and I’m just as certain that you have no idea just how much I appreciate you maneuvering your self into a corner with your own “case summations” in this thread.
BTW Pete, if you are going to wax not so poetic about “talking points” regarding Fox News, might I suggest you stop regurgitating “talking points” regarding Fox News?
So far you have brought up who owns Fox News. Who the president of Fox News is. Anyone that does not agree with you is a Fox News Lover.
The show host at Fox News unlike all other media are the anchors, so anything they say is Fox News saying it.
That is your specious logic, and gosh darn it you’re proud of this logic. Man the lengths and leaps in logic you are willing to undergo in order to keep dissembling truly qualify you as a contortionist.
You are “talking pointing” yourself into a corner…and providing a great example of unbridled hypocrisy. You’ve done nothing but ape talking points so common on the internet, and so easily debunked that it is surprising anyone is willing to make them. You’ve posted nothing but empty and unsupportable talking points, you’ve supplied three or four utterly pathetic “examples” of supposed libel, slander and fabrication ala they put a “D” chevron up instead of “R” one time. Wow, heavy stuff. Or at least you think so. Chuckle.
You’re done son, you don’t know it. You won’t admit it, in fact you’ll probably go on issuing broadly stereotypic generalizations and offering up “examples” that are common place and occur on every single news media source, and have for decades. So and so used this poll to make a commentary, and so and so says that poll was not right. So so and works for so and so therefore so so is the “network” and the network is hiding behind the Op/ED. Blah spin blah spin blah.
You’re done son, you don’t know it but I do. And I’m done with you, happy stereotypical Fox News “is” mantra ranting. Feel free to either enjoy the corner you painted yourself into, or spin furiously in order to get out of it. Break a leg.
Pete, save your efforts or invite another poster to take up your argument. You no longer have my attention on this subject. You lost me many feedback loops and logic leaps ago. I’ve discussed this issue with far too many intelligent people from across the political spectrum to be impressed your narrow minded ideological slant.
I’d never be caught dead trying to paint ANY news network with the ideologues brush you use. That kind of deliberate dishonesty, both factually and intellectually holds no allure for me. It is part of the problem with the whole Fox News "is" argument. In order to buy into it, you've got to chose to become a sheeple. Sheeple willingly join the herds that they run around in. Fox News "is" is about as useful as CNN “is” and Conservatives "are" and Liberals "are" is. Which translates as baahh baahh.
While rambling about talking points don’t forget to vomit forth talking points always aimed at Fox News. For years and years now. Then you can complain that your utterly usual talking points and links are being met with talking points.:3oops::spin::3oops:
As I said in my first reply to you, it is a lot like standing in a puddle of water, holding an aluminum paper clip while sticking it in an electrical socket and then complaining about the sparkly shocky tingles traveling up your arm.:mrgreen:
And I’m done with you
I thought you were and I quote: And I’m done with you.
I guess not. You continue to attempt to use the same tactics you have used since you lost the argument, and no how many times you post the same bla bla, it wount change the facts.
Are you done now?
Since you insist, I’ll happily oblige you.
So let us, you and me, butt heads in a Mano a Mano 'bout. Right here at Debate Politics. In the Battleground and Disputations forum.
I’m feeling magnanimous, so let me know.
If we can agree upon the parameters, I’ll happily let you whoop up on me.
I’m a poor defenseless “Fox News Lover.”
You’ll be Bruce Lee and I’ll be Shirley Temple.
Really!
That is how it will work out.
I’m a poor maundering troglodyte; you’ll make mince meat of me.
Don’t believe me?
Then accept my offer.
This is the link I copied to the appropriate spot, but if it don’t work just hoist a flag and we’ll get through it. Hand in hand. :lol:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=106
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?