Fox News “brainwashed” so many dads: “People are being bamboozled on a massive scale”

[ttystikk]

so it's biased and its balance is way to the right, but they also do not stand up for conservative principles?

you talk in circles pretty bad.

Just what ARE conservative principles? Why do they get precedence over my Constitutional and civil rights?

 

[bearkat42]

If you condemn bill you have to condemn hillary.

Yep, with every breath that I breathe.

 

[Blunted 4 lyfe]

You didn't get that did you?

Bill, as far as I know, isn't the person who lied about taking sniper fire.

If you condemn bill you have to condemn hillary.

That's not what happened, he said he was reporting from a war zone while he was 100's of miles away.

If my rememberer serves me right I think it mighta been during the fuckland wars.

There's embellishment of the truth (Hillary)and then there's lying (Bill O) there's suppose to be a higher integrity from reporters and not so much from politicians because of the nature of the business that they're in.

B4L

 

[UncleBuck]

this fucking comet is not chopping very well.

i am now trying to mince and dice it.

if that doesn't work, i am busting out the ninja blender.

goddamn comets.

 

[ThickStemz]

That's not what happened, he said he was reporting from a war zone while he was 100's of miles away.

If my rememberer serves me right I think it mighta been during the fuckland wars.

There's embellishment of the truth (Hillary)and then there's lying (Bill O) there's suppose to be a higher integrity from reporters and not so much from politicians because of the nature of the business that they're in.

B4L

You don't call repeatedly touting ones foreign policy experience based on landing under sniper fire a lie? When reality was she landed in a totally undisturbed greeting event that wasn't interrupted once by any kind of violence?

You hold tv station reporters to a higher standard than non elected government officials? Sec of state..

How backward can you be?

I'm not saying bill didn't lie. I'm saying you can't call him liar for that without calling hillary one too.

So if he isn't a credible reporter, how is she a credible presidential candidate?

 

[see4]

this fucking comet is not chopping very well.

i am now trying to mince and dice it.

if that doesn't work, i am busting out the ninja blender.

goddamn comets.

Are comets like amberlampse?

 

[ttystikk]

Are comets like amberlampse?

More like the Red (Yellow) Green (Alert) Show.

 

[UncleBuck]

You don't call repeatedly touting ones foreign policy experience based on landing under sniper fire a lie? When reality was she landed in a totally undisturbed greeting event that wasn't interrupted once by any kind of violence?

You hold tv station reporters to a higher standard than non elected government officials? Sec of state..

How backward can you be?

I'm not saying bill didn't lie. I'm saying you can't call him liar for that without calling hillary one too.

So if he isn't a credible reporter, how is she a credible presidential candidate?

weren't you supposed to be gone about 50 posts ago?

 

[Blunted 4 lyfe]

You don't call repeatedly touting ones foreign policy experience based on landing under sniper fire a lie? When reality was she landed in a totally undisturbed greeting event that wasn't interrupted once by any kind of violence?

You hold tv station reporters to a higher standard than non elected government officials? Sec of state..

How backward can you be?

I'm not saying bill didn't lie. I'm saying you can't call him liar for that without calling hillary one too.

So if he isn't a credible reporter, how is she a credible presidential candidate?

I never said she didn't lie as a matter of fact you can always assume politicians are lying whenever they speak, but in this case she embellished the truth ( there were sniper fire I'm sure, just not at her). But Bill was so called "reporting" from the middle of a war zone leading folks to believe he was embedded with the fighters when in fact he was safe and sound hundreds of miles away from any fire.

Where's his integrity of reporting, Dan Rather and Brian Williams were held to a high standard of what a journalist should be, why not Bill? Oh...my bad, he's not a real journalist or a news anchor he's an entertainer at an entertainment channel.

B4L

 

[ThickStemz]

I never said she didn't lie as a matter of fact you can always assume politicians are lying whenever they speak, but in this case she embellished the truth ( there were sniper fire I'm sure, just not at her). But Bill was so called "reporting" from the middle of a war zone leading folks to believe he was embedded with the fighters when in fact he was safe and sound hundreds of miles away from any fire.

Where's his integrity of reporting, Dan Rather and Brian Williams were held to a high standard of what a journalist should be, why not Bill? Oh...my bad, he's not a real journalist or a news anchor he's an entertainer at an entertainment channel.

B4L

I guess that's a matter of opinion.

In modern warfare weapons can reach hundreds of miles easily. I've not looked and I don't know the situation. If he was in the Falklands war, if he was in Argentina, a country the UK was engaged in hostilities with, it might not necessarily be a lie because "war zone" is in fact a legal term. If commercial jets are avoiding it, it's a war zone. Doesn't have to be shooting.

Granted his point was to make himself sound brave. But that might not be a lie. The same way bill Clinton didn't lie when he said "I didn't inhale" knowing he is allergic to smoke and ate his pot in brownie form. It's a lawyers answer.

It has a dishonest spirit. I'll say that.

Whereas hillary clearly said she had to run to avoid sniper fire while slumped over. A bold faced lie.

 

[Padawanbater2]

I guess that's a matter of opinion.

In modern warfare weapons can reach hundreds of miles easily. I've not looked and I don't know the situation. If he was in the Falklands war, if he was in Argentina, a country the UK was engaged in hostilities with, it might not necessarily be a lie because "war zone" is in fact a legal term. If commercial jets are avoiding it, it's a war zone. Doesn't have to be shooting.

Granted his point was to make himself sound brave. But that might not be a lie. The same way bill Clinton didn't lie when he said "I didn't inhale" knowing he is allergic to smoke and ate his pot in brownie form. It's a lawyers answer.

It has a dishonest spirit. I'll say that.

Whereas hillary clearly said she had to run to avoid sniper fire while slumped over. A bold faced lie.

Every time you come back in here and try to defend this shit it makes you look a million times worse than if you were honest about it and said "yeah, you're right, that's a pretty damning lie". Now we all know that to you, not looking like you could be wrong is what's important, not being honest;

I'm really not interested in how you will try to spin this into some more horeseshit lies, and I'm confident nobody else is either, so why don't you just shut the fuck up after this, I think that would be beneficial to everyone involved

 

[ThickStemz]

Every time you come back in here and try to defend this shit it makes you look a million times worse than if you were honest about it and said "yeah, you're right, that's a pretty damning lie". Now we all know that to you, not looking like you could be wrong is what's important, not being honest;

I'm really not interested in how you will try to spin this into some more horeseshit lies, and I'm confident nobody else is either, so why don't you just shut the fuck up after this, I think that would be beneficial to everyone involved

I don't think I was talking to you.

I had said O'Reilly had been dishonest. We were comparing it to the dishonesty of Hillary Clinton in saying she landed under sniper fire, which clearly isn't the case.

Is reporting from a war zone (legal term of art) but saying that and hoping to give off that "hey i was in direct line of fire" is dishonest (and we all believe it is) and it takes away credibility of a person (and you're all saying it does) than hillary just making up being shot at us the same damn thing.


Your ill-tempered reaction instead of thought out response is evidence you know I'm right, and it bugs you.

 

[UncleBuck]

Is reporting from a war zone (legal term of art)

he wasn't in a war zone.

you would not make a good lawyer, bignbushy. insert usual joke about your failure in law school and subsequent addiction to heroin, sprinkled liberally with references to your ambiguous sexual orientation.

 

[Padawanbater2]

I don't think I was talking to you.

I had said O'Reilly had been dishonest. We were comparing it to the dishonesty of Hillary Clinton in saying she landed under sniper fire, which clearly isn't the case.

Is reporting from a war zone (legal term of art) but saying that and hoping to give off that "hey i was in direct line of fire" is dishonest (and we all believe it is) and it takes away credibility of a person (and you're all saying it does) than hillary just making up being shot at us the same damn thing.

Your ill-tempered reaction instead of thought out response is evidence you know I'm right, and it bugs you.

He was in Rio, Rio is in Brazil, not Argentina. He was nowhere near the war zone like he has repeatedly lied he was. His own cameraman called him a liar.

Remember when you said this?;

You can't find a fox news version of the Dan Rather fuck up where their zeal so got in the way of their objectivity that they presented a false story.

Bill O'Reilly, on Fox News, lied. There's more evidence that what I said is true and what you said is false. Fox News, as an organization, lies on purpose to push a right-wing political agenda.

It's not like they make it up.

I hear a lot of bashing of fox news and see very little actual evidence of them actually just making shit up.

I've always said the fox news detractors are more dishonest than fox news.

fox news team has a biased slant but is otherwise fair.

if you're telling me that FNC is a bogus news organization and not reputable at all, this is another thing I laugh at and say "is that the best you got?"

You and no one else here have advanced the case one bit though that this indicates anything beyond a bias.

You can't accept the fact that you've been repeatedly proven wrong about Fox News. Just like you people do with everything else you're proved wrong about, you dismiss and deny the evidence. It's the old 'head in the sand' method of observing reality for people with a fragile and sheltered perspective on it, like you

 

[ThickStemz]

He was in Rio, Rio is in Brazil, not Argentina. He was nowhere near the war zone like he has repeatedly lied he was. His own cameraman called him a liar.

Remember when you said this?;

Bill O'Reilly, on Fox News, lied. There's more evidence that what I said is true and what you said is false. Fox News, as an organization, lies on purpose to push a right-wing political agenda.






You can't accept the fact that you've been repeatedly proven wrong about Fox News. Just like you people do with everything else you're proved wrong about, you dismiss and deny the evidence. It's the old 'head in the sand' method of observing reality for people with a fragile and sheltered perspective on it, like you

I said clearly I wasn't intimately familiar with the story.

If he was in a legally defined war zone he is guilty of being dishonest with his implications.

If he was in Rio and he implied he was under fire he is a liar.

That's not quite on the Dan Rather scale as it is just one man mistating the facts he should have known. And it wasn't something that could negatively impact someone else, just glorify himself.

That's more akin to the Brian Williams model. Someone who can't help but overstate their own achievements.

Yes its a lie.

But you didn't give me all the relevant facts so I can't say that before now.

 

[Padawanbater2]

I said clearly I wasn't intimately familiar with the story.

If he was in a legally defined war zone he is guilty of being dishonest with his implications.

If he was in Rio and he implied he was under fire he is a liar.

That's not quite on the Dan Rather scale as it is just one man mistating the facts he should have known. And it wasn't something that could negatively impact someone else, just glorify himself.

That's more akin to the Brian Williams model. Someone who can't help but overstate their own achievements.

Yes its a lie.

But you didn't give me all the relevant facts so I can't say that before now.

You're not "intimately familiar with the story", yet for some reason you feel the need to dive in and defend Fox News and Bill O'Reilly right off the bat

If you're not familiar with the story, you probably shouldn't comment on it unless you don't mind running the risk of putting your foot in your mouth

 

[ThickStemz]

You're not "intimately familiar with the story", yet for some reason you feel the need to dive in and defend Fox News and Bill O'Reilly right off the bat

If you're not familiar with the story, you probably shouldn't comment on it unless you don't mind running the risk of putting your foot in your mouth

I think that's fair.

But that's why I commented on it tied to hillary clinton. It's essentially the same charge.

Imbellishing the details, even fabricating them to give them credibility.

Bill O'Reilly said it to make himself look brave and give him credibility as a fearless person.

Hillary was being challenged on her foreign policy experience. She used the line of being in the line of fire to support her experience. Turns out she was just as wrong. She lied too.

I'm wondering though. Kind of off topic, but the two above and Brian Williams can't be foolish enough to lie about such things in the era of video tape everywhere. Im willing to grant that all three of those people were being honest when they said these things. Not that they were accurate. But it's possible to create a story about something one did a long time ago. As time goes the memory fades and it's replaced with emotional memory as much as reality. No one is perfect. It's a strange psychological phenomenon

 

[UncleBuck]

I think that's fair.

But that's why I commented on it tied to hillary clinton. It's essentially the same charge.

Imbellishing the details, even fabricating them to give them credibility.

Bill O'Reilly said it to make himself look brave and give him credibility as a fearless person.

Hillary was being challenged on her foreign policy experience. She used the line of being in the line of fire to support her experience. Turns out she was just as wrong. She lied too.

I'm wondering though. Kind of off topic, but the two above and Brian Williams can't be foolish enough to lie about such things in the era of video tape everywhere. Im willing to grant that all three of those people were being honest when they said these things. Not that they were accurate. But it's possible to create a story about something one did a long time ago. As time goes the memory fades and it's replaced with emotional memory as much as reality. No one is perfect. It's a strange psychological phenomenon

brian williams. dan rather. hillary clinton.

rinse and repeat.

suck dick for heroin. get cut off by daddy.

love fox news.

 

[Padawanbater2]

I'm wondering though. Kind of off topic, but the two above and Brian Williams can't be foolish enough to lie about such things in the era of video tape everywhere. Im willing to grant that all three of those people were being honest when they said these things. Not that they were accurate. But it's possible to create a story about something one did a long time ago. As time goes the memory fades and it's replaced with emotional memory as much as reality. No one is perfect. It's a strange psychological phenomenon

That's not what happened. If you believe that's what happened, you're naive at best, very very stupid at worst

Why didn't Fox reprimand O'Reilly in any way? Why hasn't he ever apologized about lying about being in the Falkland Islands during the war? And why do you believe Fox News doesn't make shit up considering this is a textbook example of them making shit up?

 

[ttystikk]

You're not "intimately familiar with the story", yet for some reason you feel the need to dive in and defend Fox News and Bill O'Reilly right off the bat

If you're not familiar with the story, you probably shouldn't comment on it unless you don't mind running the risk of putting your foot in your mouth

The blind defense of Faux Spews, irrespective of the content of the debate, says everything about their real motive.