It's All The Fault Of Fox News

SirGreenThumb

SirGreenThumb

Well-Known Member
budleydoright said:
Give one example of a question he asked that was not full of stinky fox new BS. In other words, what questions did he ask about REAL events, not manufactured BS? NONE.
Click to expand...
hahaha, really?
read the whole thread before you ask me a question.

manufactured BS? yep, you don't even deserve me to respond to you with the idiotic shit.
 
SirGreenThumb

SirGreenThumb

Well-Known Member
beenthere said:
Thanks for being honest about the news reporting part.
Actually, 55% of Fox News is opinion, 45% is hard news.

But we do have a difference of opinion on the interview though.
Obama dodged each question and was caught in three lies.
Click to expand...
Maybe you can answer this for me since the left is avoiding the question..

Are they referring to fox as a whole, or just when they report on politics?
 
B

budleydoright

Well-Known Member
beenthere said:
Thanks for being honest about the news reporting part.
Actually, 55% of Fox News is opinion, 45% is hard news.

But we do have a difference of opinion on the interview though.
Obama dodged each question and was caught in three lies.
Click to expand...
No it's about 8%. The rest is total BS and anybody that believes it is a fool. An Australian company that wraps itself in the American Flag, The Bible and the 2nd Amendment no surprize they have the followers that they have.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
SirGreenThumb said:
What makes it even better is that he was proven wrong about his bullshit in this very thread. :lol:

Hence the reason I have no reason to reply to him any longer. Yet he will still holler about me being this and that even though he was shown to be a liar.
Click to expand...
is that so?

so when the white supremacists you cite at colorofcrime say skin color is the best predictor of crime, and wiki says SES is the best predictor of crime, that's the same thing?

and when the white supremacists at color of crime say that judges and cops have no bias, yet a mountain of empirical data shows the exact opposite, that's the same thing?

you even admitted you joined a white supremacist group.

no wonder you are an ardent defender of fox news, you have absolutely no clue how reality works.
 
SirGreenThumb

SirGreenThumb

Well-Known Member
budleydoright said:
No it's about 8%. The rest is total BS and anybody that believes it is a fool. An Australian company that wraps itself in the American Flag, The Bible and the 2nd Amendment no surprize they have the followers that they have.
Click to expand...
surprize? :lol:

what is wrong with the 2nd amendment?

This should be fun.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
SirGreenThumb said:
All of them.
Its not that hard to give a straight answer and all he did was stretch out an answer that he didn't give.

It would be like me going for a job interview for a network admin position and they ask me to explain how I would go about changing a users login in active directory, but instead of me telling them how to change a users login I explain how to install a hard drive. You think I would get the job?

What if I smelled like perfume from my mom, and my fiancee smelled it on me and asked me about it, but instead of saying I gave my mom a hug before I left I go on some wild tangent and start talking about how I was standing in line at starbucks and there was this chick in front of me with some strong perfume, blah blah... You think my lady will say ok that makes sense.. no she wouldn't.
Click to expand...
Context, man, you always have to take that into consideration.

This interview I kind of look at like one of Richard Dawkins debates with creationists. He's spent his entire academic career studying evolution and these people with no knowledge of the theory at all ask elementary questions a beginning biology student could answer if they simply took the time to learn, but their own ideological beliefs prevent them from accepting the information. I don't think that's what is happening here with FOX news and O'Reilly. He has an agenda to push, his network demands it. He is asking questions that have been answered, issues that have been solved. The president is answering his questions just like most people would after they've been asked it dozens of times. He knows the FOX network spins what he says, he knows that's exactly what O'Reilly is there to do during the interview. Instead of getting into the usual argument O'Reilly has on his show, he decided to sidestep it and in nicer words, call him an idiot for asking since it's been answered dozens of times before and his network just refuses to accept the answer. Just like Dawkins does with evolution. He knows it's a fact, he knows the interviewer does not understand the concept, so where is the value in sitting there trying to explain and justify his responses? It would have went much worse for Obama if he'd have sat there and played O'Reilly's game. Trust me, he did very well in this interview.

But just to clarify, give me two questions you felt the president didn't answer sufficiently, I'd like to review them myself and give you my own take on it
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
SirGreenThumb said:
Oh look the liar speaks again.
Click to expand...
you have never once even tried to refute the basic facts or even acknowledge them.

you are a weak, scared little racist.

have fun living in your delusion, because no one else is gonna delude themselves into your protective little cocoon.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
SirGreenThumb said:
I base it off of you thinking the word tiny being used by the forum admin is the funniest thing you've ever heard.

A comedy show?
Click to expand...
you seem especially upset that rolli had a funny at the expense of your racist, deluded friend.

but deluded racists gotta stick together, so it makes sense.
 
SirGreenThumb

SirGreenThumb

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Context, man, you always have to take that into consideration.

This interview I kind of look at like one of Richard Dawkins debates with creationists. He's spent his entire academic career studying evolution and these people with no knowledge of the theory at all ask elementary questions a beginning biology student could answer if they simply took the time to learn, but their own ideological beliefs prevent them from accepting the information. I don't think that's what is happening here with FOX news and O'Reilly. He has an agenda to push, his network demands it. He is asking questions that have been answered, issues that have been solved. The president is answering his questions just like most people would after they've been asked it dozens of times. He knows the FOX network spins what he says, he knows that's exactly what O'Reilly is there to do during the interview. Instead of getting into the usual argument O'Reilly has on his show, he decided to sidestep it and in nicer words, call him an idiot for asking since it's been answered dozens of times before and his network just refuses to accept the answer. Just like Dawkins does with evolution. He knows it's a fact, he knows the interviewer does not understand the concept, so where is the value in sitting there trying to explain and justify his responses? It would have went much worse for Obama if he'd have sat there and played O'Reilly's game. Trust me, he did very well in this interview.

But just to clarify, give me two questions you felt the president didn't answer sufficiently, I'd like to review them myself and give you my own take on it
Click to expand...
You did exactly what I did to you.. Kudos :clap:

Question:Why didn’t you fire Sebelius?
Question: when did you know there was going to be problems with the computers?

You asked for two there are two.. :razz:

I know it can be said that it is rude for O'reilly to interrupt him, but with the limited amount of time there was allowed and the presidents long winded responses is a way of avoiding giving a straight answer. IMO.
 
B

budleydoright

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
fox news clings to their guns and bibles and antipathy towards those who are different.

:DDDDDDDDD
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter anyway, according to their own gospel, they are all going to hell anyway:

Matthew 19:24
New International Version (NIV)
24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

LOL
 
SirGreenThumb

SirGreenThumb

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
you seem especially upset that rolli had a funny at the expense of your racist, deluded friend.

but deluded racists gotta stick together, so it makes sense.
Click to expand...
Why are you still talking to me?

You sure say a lot to not say anything at all.

also, it wasn't even funny. Guess you need to get out more also.. well that is obvious, just look at your post count.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top