• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tea Party has their first Congressional Caucus brought to you by Bachmann





So you won't be backing up your claims then. Dismissed...


Here I got you a few more.

:failpail: :failpail: :failpail: :failpail:
 
I meant that you can point out any of my statements in that quote, your favorite one that you don't believe, and I'll get you proof for that. I'm not going to go through all of them though, so give me the one that you don't believe.
 
I meant that you can point out any of my statements in that quote, your favorite one that you don't believe, and I'll get you proof for that. I'm not going to go through all of them though, so give me the one that you don't believe.






show me the tea party they "hosted"
 
That wasn't part of the quote. Actually that wasn't part of any of my quotes.

Are you talking about the virtual tea party that they had on their website?



1. "Fox news hosted tea parties"



2. "Fox News sponsored tea parties."




link?
 
1. "Fox news hosted tea parties"



2. "Fox News sponsored tea parties."




link?
And where was that in that quote? lol.



This is the quote that you wanted links and sources too. These are the examples that I gave as evidence that fox cheerleaded or supported the tea parties based on the way you look at it.

Use something that I actually said.

What you quoted is found no where in any of my posts in this entire thread. If you're going to quote something from me at least use an actual quote. It's dishonest to use something that I never said and put it in quotation marks.
 
Last edited:



dood read your own quote. "sponsoring"




1. "Fox news hosted tea parties"
2. "Fox News sponsored tea parties."



3. They ran the banner for a week straight.
 
Last edited:
Rough, I see you haven't logged off. Is your silence a concession? :ssst:
 
Rough, I see you haven't logged off. Is your silence a concession? :ssst:

Some people step away from their computers at times Rev. If you don't like the fact that I'll address stuff whenever I feel like it the least you could do is act like a man about it.

As for them running the banner, do you think I'm making the damn thing up? Do you think it's photo shopped or something? Are you trying to deny that they ran it? I think the existence of the banner is pretty good proof that it exists, lol.
 




1. "Fox news hosted tea parties"
2. "Fox News sponsored tea parties."
3. They ran the banner for a week straight.



4. Had hosts other than opinion hosts asking for people to come out to the tea party.




We are running out of buckets.... :lamo


:failpail:
 

You can keep posting those buckets but it doesn't mean anything, you know that right? :roll:

And once again you post some crap that I never said.

But, while your on the subject. Here's a clip of Megyn Kelly inviting people to go to fox's own virtual tea party.
Fox's Kelly: "you can join the tea party action from your home if you go to the FoxNation.com ... a virtual tax day tea party" | Media Matters for America

Kind of like killing two birds with one stone.

Just to let you know, this changing subjects and you picking out **** that I never claimed is growing old. I'd rather waste my time elsewhere, so don't bother making up any more stuff.
 
You can keep posting those buckets but it doesn't mean anything, you know that right? :roll:

And once again you post some crap that I never said.


I'm taking it right from your post!!!!! /facepalm




context is everything, It was about thier COVERAGE of a tea party watch your OWN link.....

Note she says you can "sound off ABOUT the tea party" or some such, it was not a "tea party" event other than a tax day discussion about the tea party, that yes they called it a "Virtual tea party" however, honestly indicates your smart enough to know the difference. dishonesty is pretending its anything else.


/facepalm


Just to let you know, this changing subjects and you picking out **** that I never claimed is growing old. I'd rather waste my time elsewhere, so don't bother making up any more stuff.



You said you can back up your claims. I simply destroyed this one by one. I accept you concession. and we have run out of buckets so its best you move on now.





1. "Fox news hosted tea parties"
2. "Fox News sponsored tea parties."
3. They ran the banner for a week straight.
4. Had hosts other than opinion hosts asking for people to come out to the tea party.





:failpail::failpail::failpail::failpail:

There is not enough pails for your fail.
 
I'm taking it right from your post!!!!! /facepalm

Sorry about that one, I went out to lunch and came back and responded and completely forgot the whole "opinion and otherwise" part of my post. That was my stupid mistake.

As for what your saying about the clip, it's not dishonest at all. They called it a virtual tea party and it was hosted by their website. You can take that as you may but it's pretty obvious what they meant, and megyn kelly was hardly the only one.

Fox News' Hemmer: "Can't get to a tea party? Fox Nation hosts a virtual tea party." | Media Matters for America
 



When you have media matters taking a 10 second clip is reading what you want out of it really the honest response here?


Do you have ANYTHING on this mysterious fox "virtual tea party"

She was driving people to thefoxnation site, not to a "tea party event"....

I
 
*whispers* Read the Constitution.
 
Are you trying to be a poet?
 
*whispers* Read the Constitution.

Very nice!

I heard that is the current Tea Party emphasis. But still a problem. If the constitution is so clear, why does its meaning has to be reevaluated on a regular basis in the courts? Don't hide behind the Constitution, how do YOU interpret the Constitution to answer these questions? Step up and give me your view, I won't call an individual interpretation wrong, but I'll call it an individual interpretation.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…