Obama lies all the time, Other news agencies used FOX as their news source.
Beam Me Up Scotty
doing these days as to their in the tank for Obama news was going.
The funny thing was that CNN was using information that they said was
"from another NEWS SERVICE" and as it turns out they were quoting people
from a conversation with Sheppard Smith of FOX. Shep had some people on
the phone earlier and CNN was drawing from FOX for their breaking news.
To get back to my main point, Obama has suggested that FOX isn't a
"news" organization..... Another Obama lie.
wolfagain
When you're sucking hind tit in the ratings time to try something
different! CNN is finally getting wise!
Ouroboros Rex
Fox went to court to be able to "lie and distort the news", case closed.
Beam Me Up Scotty
That's why CNN uses FOX's "material".... CNN wants to lie and distort?
--
Moribund The Burgermeister
dog.com> wrote:
>
> To get back to my main point, Obama has suggested that FOX isn't a
> "news" organization..... Another Obama lie.
1% of Americans watch Fox News. That's just short of the number who
will be voting Republican in 2010
Peter Franks
I wasn't aware. Could you please elaborate?
Yup
>
>
> <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
> >To get back to my main point, Obama has suggested that FOX isn't a
> >"news" organization..... Another Obama lie.
>
> aren't required to be truthful
>
>
Like Drugs Limbaugh their product is just "Infotainment" - aimed
mostly at the elderly and hillbilly trailer trash.
Ouroboros Rex
Callers to Fox did not go to court to be able to "lie and distort the
news", Fox went to court to "lie and distort the news." Lying right wingers
clearly can't tell the difference. lol
Agent Orange
> Callers to Fox did not go to court to be able to "lie and distort the
> news", Fox went to court to "lie and distort the news." Lying right wingers
> clearly can't tell the difference. lol
More and more you reference "right wingers". Sounds like your
positions are mostly based on politics.
Hmmmmmmmmm......
Ouroboros Rex
I could, but it's all over Google and probably more believable from there.
Basically they went to court six times, before three different judges, to
verify their right to "lie and distort the news" (actual quote) so they
could get away with firing a whistleblower. Apparently in the state where
this occurred, whistleblowers have no protection unless they are reporting
an actual crime, so Fox chose to prove their lying did not constitute a
crime.
One source:
http://www.civilianism.com/gate/2009/06/fox-news-gets-court-ok-to-lie/
Meanwhile:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/20/the-ten-most-egregious-fo_n_327140.html
Multiple videos at link.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200910130047
"Fox News has responded to White House criticisms of its network by claiming
that while its "editorial" programs are filled with "vibrant opinion," its
news hours are straight and objective. However, Fox News' purportedly
straight news programs echo its "editorial" programs: Media Matters for
America has compiled a non-exhaustive list -- from this year alone --
documenting how Fox's news programming features smears, falsehoods, doctored
and deceptive editing, and GOP talking points." ...
8 pages worth at link.
And, of course...
Mark Foley is a Democrat!
http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/foley.jpg
Did _Dems_ preserve Foley's seat?
http://www.boingboing.net/200610041218.jpg
Ted Stevens is a Democrat:
http://www.hanlonsrazor.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/stevens.jpg
Arlen Spector - Democrat!
http://crooksandliars.com/2007/07/24/fox-news-labels-arlen-specter-a-...
Fox Chafee, we hardly knew ye!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/06/264_fox_chafee.jpg
McCain runs for president under wrong party!
http://static.crooksandliars.com/files/uploads/2008/02/mccaind-j.jpg
And, of course, Gov. Mark Sanford? Democrat.
http://crooksandliars.com/logan-murphy/shocking-fox-news-labels-disgr...
Any journalistic organization pulling this asinine gradeschool shit
would be laughed out of its market share. lol
Beam Me Up Scotty
If it's on FOX it's on FOX, trying to parse the news is Semantics. The
President and company didn't suggest that anyone on FOX was Newsworthy.
--
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On Nov 6, 1:31 pm, smor...@board.com wrote:
>>
>> <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>>> To get back to my main point, Obama has suggested that FOX isn't a
>>> "news" organization..... Another Obama lie.
>> However, according to Faux's own legal pleadings---they
>> aren't required to be truthful
That just covers their ass for when they have a Liberal on their shows,
they know that Liberals will lie and trying to accept liability for the
lies Liberals tell, would guarantee your demise. Even at a dollar a lie
they would go broke after just a few Liberal guests are put on the network.
--
Yup
Anyone with IQ above 78 knows Fox noise went totally bankrupt long ago
in the truthfulness sense - but man you sure can count on them
hurtling into 24/7 saturation mode as soon as another pretty young
blond girl goes missing.
Peter Franks
> Peter Franks wrote:
>> Ouroboros Rex wrote:
>>> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>>> I looked in on CNN during the Ft. Hood shooting to see how they were
>>>> doing these days as to their in the tank for Obama news was going.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The funny thing was that CNN was using information that they said
>>>> was "from another NEWS SERVICE" and as it turns out they were
>>>> quoting people from a conversation with Sheppard Smith of FOX. Shep
>>>> had some people on the phone earlier and CNN was drawing from FOX
>>>> for their breaking news.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To get back to my main point, Obama has suggested that FOX isn't a
>>>> "news" organization..... Another Obama lie.
>>> Fox went to court to be able to "lie and distort the news", case
>>> closed.
>> I wasn't aware. Could you please elaborate?
>
> I could, but it's all over Google and probably more believable from there.
> Basically they went to court six times, before three different judges, to
> verify their right to "lie and distort the news" (actual quote) so they
> could get away with firing a whistleblower. Apparently in the state where
> this occurred, whistleblowers have no protection unless they are reporting
> an actual crime, so Fox chose to prove their lying did not constitute a
> crime.
I'm defending and I don't defend Fox, but your references* are based on
supposition and inference. I see very little fact. If there are some
actual facts to the case that I'm missing, I'd appreciate if you could
provide those.
* Your references are suspect at best, probably more politically driven
than newsworthy.
That said, let's take a look at one of your references:
http://theimmoralminority.blogspot.com/2009/10/fox-admits-that-they-lie-and-distort.html
"According to Akre and Wilson, the station was initially very excited
about the series. But within a week, Fox executives and their attorneys
wanted the reporters to use statements from Monsanto representatives
that the reporters knew were false and to make other revisions to the
story that were in direct conflict with the facts. "
We have two sides here, and the details from neither. It is
inappropriate to arrive at a conclusion that Fox news is lying based on
assertions from "Akre and Wilson". The facts should speak for
themselves, but are not mentioned.
So, at this point, it isn't clear, nor can it be concluded that Fox news
is in fact attempting to "lie and distort the news".
Subsequently, it was determined that neither were protected under
'whistleblower' clauses, therefore Fox was not "[getting] away with
firing a whistleblower."
"Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre�s claim that they pressured her to
broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right
to do so."
Your conclusion that "Fox went to court to be able to 'lie and distort
the news', case closed." is not case closed.
The mere fact that Fox news asserted, and was subsequently confirmed,
that they had the right to broadcast a false story. You can't conclude
that they DO in fact do that as part of their agenda.
Ouroboros Rex
Nope, the plain fact is, the right wing now operates almost 100% from
lies - right when America actually needs at least two parties that make
sense. That's why as soon as someone with the facts shows up, they get
their clock cleaned every time.
Excellent example:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/06/iwndis-jerome-corsi-claim_n_348461.html
To the republican party, any dead serviceman will be used as a political
asset.
Ouroboros Rex
Sounds like you need to find the court documents.
It is
> inappropriate to arrive at a conclusion that Fox news is lying based
> on assertions from "Akre and Wilson".
Didn't happen.
The facts should speak for
> themselves, but are not mentioned.
>
> So, at this point, it isn't clear, nor can it be concluded that Fox
> news is in fact attempting to "lie and distort the news".
Sounds like you need to find the court documents.
>
> Subsequently, it was determined that neither were protected under
> 'whistleblower' clauses, therefore Fox was not "[getting] away with
> firing a whistleblower."
Sorry, the definition of the word whistleblower is not limited in that
way.
>
> "Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre�s claim that they pressured her to
> broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their
> right to do so."
>
> Your conclusion that "Fox went to court to be able to 'lie and distort
> the news', case closed." is not case closed.
It is already 100% proven, and you are very late to the game.
>
> The mere fact that Fox news asserted, and was subsequently confirmed,
> that they had the right to broadcast a false story. You can't conclude
> that they DO in fact do that as part of their agenda.
In fact, I can, as the evidence for that stretches well over a decade.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EJ04Ak01.html
And, in fact, it is well known throughout the industry. No one claims
otherwise except those who believe their causes profit from it, because no
other conclusion is possible given the record.
Ouroboros Rex
As always, the right winger just makes some shit up.
Ouroboros Rex
> channel pretending to be legitimate "news" that was
> started intentionally to promote a conservative
> political position
>
> That's why
They had to be subsidized their first two years. =)
Agent Orange
> Agent Orange wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 1:43 pm, "Ouroboros Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote:
>
> >> Callers to Fox did not go to court to be able to "lie and distort the
> >> news", Fox went to court to "lie and distort the news." Lying right
> >> wingers clearly can't tell the difference. lol
>
> > More and more you reference "right wingers". Sounds like your
> > positions are mostly based on politics.
>
> Nope, the plain fact is, the right wing now operates almost 100% from
> lies
Um, yeah, sure thing kiddo. Keep telling yourself that. Both sides
are waist-deep in lies.
Ouroboros Rex
> a symposium of "radio and TV talk show hosts" was
> informing
>
> Limpballs told his peers "I'm an entertainer--I make my
> living entertaining an audience"
>
> He said: "I merely REFLECT my audience's beliefs"
>
> Given that--rightwingers should parse it so that they
> figure out if what his "viewers believe" isn't
> true---he's not constrained to tell them the truth
>
> "If I didn't entertain them", he said, 'I'd be out of a
> job"
The problem is, he knows right wingers aren't very smart, and so his show
is filled with assurances that he is always right and other news outlets are
slanted away from HIM instead - and his audience is dumb enough to instantly
forget his entertainer stance and argue for him endlessly every time. lol
Eric Gisin
"Moribund The Burgermeister" <gare...@ymail.com> wrote in message
news:c7803dfe-e22c-4965...@b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
Eric Gisin
<smo...@board.com> wrote in message news:q969f5lclid4tj9ov...@4ax.com...
>
> BWHAHAHAHA
>
> You can't be serious?
>
> 90% slanted/biased opinion based journalism,
> intersperced with dubious "news" claimed to be
> "unbiased" certainly isn't credible
>
> What's more telling is that someone (like you) that
> belives it is.
Peter Franks
Not me, you.
You're the one making claims, now back it up. Pointing me at Google is
just a cop out.
Agent Orange
> Wotta fucking loon, Scotty. Obama can only down along with the economy for next 3 years.
>
> On Nov 6, 9:59 am, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-
>
> dog.com> wrote:
>
> > To get back to my main point, Obama has suggested that FOX isn't a
> > "news" organization..... Another Obama lie.
>
> 1% of Americans watch Fox News. That's just short of the number who
> will be voting Republican in 2010
Just like Bob McDonnell and Chris Christie were going to get waxed in
Virginia and New Jersey, respectively?
Jerry Okamura
"Ouroboros Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote in message
news:hd1mr...@news5.newsguy.com...
> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>> I looked in on CNN during the Ft. Hood shooting to see how they were
>> doing these days as to their in the tank for Obama news was going.
>>
>>
>> The funny thing was that CNN was using information that they said was
>> "from another NEWS SERVICE" and as it turns out they were quoting
>> people from a conversation with Sheppard Smith of FOX. Shep had some
>> people on the phone earlier and CNN was drawing from FOX for their
>> breaking news.
>>
>>
>> "news" organization..... Another Obama lie.
>
>
"If" they went to court, then isn't it up to the court to decide if they
lied and distorted the news?
Agent Orange
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 13:48:29 -0800 (PST), Agent Orange
>
> <agentorang...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Nope, the plain fact is, the right wing now operates almost 100% from
> >> lies
>
> >Um, yeah, sure thing kiddo. Keep telling yourself that. Both sides
> >are waist-deep in lies.
>
>
> "I was out of the loop"
>
> "I completed all of my NG duty"
>
> "I could pass a standard drug test"
>
> "I'm a uniter not a divider"
>
> "Saddam has tons of "slam-dunk" WMD stockpiled and
> ready to use stored in Iraq"
Wow. Some quotes from Bush that you think are lies. Do you really
want the list of lies already put out there by Obama? Good night, it
would take me hours to list them all. And I haven't denied, of
course, that there are plenty of lies on the right...if you read my
post I said, "Both sides are waist-deep in lies."
Agent Orange
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 15:49:46 -0600, "Ouroboros Rex"
>
>
>
> <i...@casual.com> wrote:
> "logical fallacies" shamelessly
>
> The "old school" of education used to teach basic
> debate which touched on logical fallacy and how to spot
> or counter it
Ouroboros Rex wouldn't know the first thing about logical fallacies.
He uses ad hominem so much that he inspired "Rexy's Law".
Jerry Okamura
On Nov 6, 9:59 am, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-
>
> To get back to my main point, Obama has suggested that FOX isn't a
> "news" organization..... Another Obama lie.
1% of Americans watch Fox News. That's just short of the number who
will be voting Republican in 2010
Relevance? What percentage of Americans watch CNN, or MSNBC? For that
matter, what percentage of Americans watch the three major over-the-air TV
news programs?
Jerry Okamura
> Peter Franks wrote:
>> Ouroboros Rex wrote:
>>>> I looked in on CNN during the Ft. Hood shooting to see how they were
>>>> doing these days as to their in the tank for Obama news was going.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The funny thing was that CNN was using information that they said
>>>> was "from another NEWS SERVICE" and as it turns out they were
>>>> quoting people from a conversation with Sheppard Smith of FOX. Shep
>>>> had some people on the phone earlier and CNN was drawing from FOX
>>>> for their breaking news.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "news" organization..... Another Obama lie.
>>>
>>> closed.
>>
>
> I could, but it's all over Google and probably more believable from
> there. Basically they went to court six times, before three different
> state where this occurred, whistleblowers have no protection unless they
> are reporting an actual crime, so Fox chose to prove their lying did not
> constitute a crime.
Well now. Is there something in the Constitution that says that ANY news
organization has to tell the truth? Becuase if that were the case, then
EVERY NEWS organization is violating the Constitution, aren't they?
Michael Coburn
I want your 5 most egregious Obama lies, blowhard. That should not take
you "hours". But I warn you that I want some references for these
supposed lies that are from sources other than Republican liars. I have
not spent all my time watching Obama for any "nit" slip up that I can
amplify in a fake Republican talking point.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
James
So many lies. So little time. Just watch for his video campaign clips.
James
> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:54:52 -0800, Peter Franks
> <no...@none.com> wrote:
>
>>The mere fact that Fox news asserted, and was subsequently confirmed,
>>that they had the right to broadcast a false story. You can't conclude
>>that they DO in fact do that as part of their agenda.
>
>
> BWHAHAHAHA
>
> You can't be serious?
>
> 90% slanted/biased opinion based journalism,
> intersperced with dubious "news" claimed to be
> "unbiased" certainly isn't credible
You have a cite for that claim or is it just your humble opinion?
James
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 15:49:46 -0600, "Ouroboros Rex"
> <i...@casual.com> wrote:
>
> "logical fallacies" shamelessly
>
> The "old school" of education used to teach basic
> debate which touched on logical fallacy and how to spot
> or counter it
Too bad you flunked it.
Agent Orange
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 05:44:12 -0800, Agent Orange wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 12:03 am, smor...@board.com wrote:
> >> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 13:48:29 -0800 (PST), Agent Orange
>
> >> <agentorang...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> Nope, the plain fact is, the right wing now operates almost 100%
> >> >> from
> >> >> lies
>
> >> >Um, yeah, sure thing kiddo. Keep telling yourself that. Both sides
> >> >are waist-deep in lies.
>
> >> "we did not sell arms to Iran"
>
> >> "I was out of the loop"
>
> >> "I completed all of my NG duty"
>
> >> "I could pass a standard drug test"
>
> >> "I'm a uniter not a divider"
>
> >> "Saddam has tons of "slam-dunk" WMD stockpiled and ready to use stored
> >> in Iraq"
>
> > Wow. Some quotes from Bush that you think are lies. Do you really want
> > the list of lies already put out there by Obama? Good night, it would
> > take me hours to list them all. And I haven't denied, of course, that
> > there are plenty of lies on the right...if you read my post I said,
> > "Both sides are waist-deep in lies."
>
> I want your 5 most egregious Obama lies, blowhard.
Go screw yourself, asshat. (see, isn't calling people names fun?)
> That should not take
> you "hours". But I warn you that I want some references for these
> supposed lies that are from sources other than Republican liars. I have
> not spent all my time watching Obama for any "nit" slip up that I can
> amplify in a fake Republican talking point.
I'm not going to be your little lapdog and do whatever you want me
to. They are easy enough to find. Do it yourself.
(waiting for the inevitable "See? I knew you couldn't do it!"
nonsensical response)
Agent Orange
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 10:57:06 -0800 (PST), Agent Orange
>
> <agentorang...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 6, 1:43 pm, "Ouroboros Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote:
>
> >> Callers to Fox did not go to court to be able to "lie and distort the
> >> news", Fox went to court to "lie and distort the news." Lying right wingers
> >> clearly can't tell the difference. lol
>
> >More and more you reference "right wingers". Sounds like your
> >positions are mostly based on politics.
>
> We're talking about a biased/slanted entertainment
> channel pretending to be legitimate "news" that was
> started intentionally to promote a conservative
> political position
>
> That's why
Don't worry...it's okay that you completely missed my point to Rexy.
Agent Orange
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 05:44:12 -0800 (PST), Agent Orange
>
>
>
> <agentorang...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 7, 12:03 am, smor...@board.com wrote:
> >> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 13:48:29 -0800 (PST), Agent Orange
>
> >> <agentorang...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> Nope, the plain fact is, the right wing now operates almost 100% from
> >> >> lies
>
> >> >Um, yeah, sure thing kiddo. Keep telling yourself that. Both sides
> >> >are waist-deep in lies.
>
> >> "we did not sell arms to Iran"
>
> >> "I was out of the loop"
>
> >> "I completed all of my NG duty"
>
> >> "I could pass a standard drug test"
>
> >> "I'm a uniter not a divider"
>
> >> "Saddam has tons of "slam-dunk" WMD stockpiled and
> >> ready to use stored in Iraq"
>
> >Wow. Some quotes from Bush that you think are lies.
>
Did I say that? So, no, the answer is, no, I know they're not all
from Bush.
> > Do you really
> >want the list of lies already put out there by Obama? Good night, it
> >would take me hours to list them all.
>
> Sure it would---waiting for lightening to hit your
> tin-hat takes a long wait.
Not sure what that's supposed to mean, but ok.
> >And I haven't denied, of
> >course, that there are plenty of lies on the right...if you read my
> >post I said, "Both sides are waist-deep in lies."
>
> Which ones on the "left" lied us into war, sold arms to
> sworn enemies, were told to congress and a Grand
> jury--(then admitted on National television) and
> covered up drug abuse and desertion?---and got nearly,
> 5,000 of our troops killed, 30-40 thousand maimed,
> wounded?
Ok, we get it. You're against the war in Iraq and you blame Bush. No
problemo.
James
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 12:27:11 -0500, "James"
> <king...@iglou.com> wrote:
>
>>So many lies. So little time. Just watch for his video campaign clips.
>
> school students are familar with----are of the same
> gravity as "Iraq has tons of WMD---and we must
> attack"??
Ok. It's all Bush's fault that Obama lies. Happy?
James
He wants a pissing contest.
James
> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:16:36 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty
> <Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>
>>> Callers to Fox did not go to court to be able to "lie and distort
>>> the news", Fox went to court to "lie and distort the news." Lying
>>> right wingers clearly can't tell the difference. lol
>>
>>
>>The President and company didn't suggest that anyone on FOX was
>>Newsworthy.
>
> Why would they
>
> Faux is not reliable or truthful most of the time
>
> They won court cases that absolved them of having to do
> so.
k00k-a-d00dle-d000!
James
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 12:32:56 -0500, "James"
> <king...@iglou.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> 90% slanted/biased opinion based journalism,
>>> intersperced with dubious "news" claimed to be
>>> "unbiased" certainly isn't credible
>>
>>You have a cite for that claim or is it just your humble opinion?
>
> hours of Opinion "journalism" and see.
I'll take that as a stupid opinion.
James
> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>> On Nov 6, 1:31 pm, smor...@board.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>>>>> To get back to my main point, Obama has suggested that FOX isn't a
>>>>> "news" organization..... Another Obama lie.
>>>> However, according to Faux's own legal pleadings---they
>>>> aren't required to be truthful
>>
>> shows, they know that Liberals will lie and trying to accept
>> liability for the lies Liberals tell, would guarantee your demise.
>> Even at a dollar a lie they would go broke after just a few Liberal
>> guests are put on the network.
>
> As always, the right winger just makes some shit up.
...says the perpetual liar
Agent Orange
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 13:05:49 -0800 (PST), Agent Orange
> mess---because of Iraq
What interest would I have in that? You obviously mistake me for
someone who desires to defend Bush.
Agent Orange
> >What interest would I have in that? You obviously mistake me for
> >someone who desires to defend Bush.
>
> Calling Obama a "liar", while not wanting to discuss
> Bush, reagan, nixon etal, is hypocrisy.
It might be if I chose to discuss Obama's lies but not Bush's. In
fact, when prompted, I also declined to discuss Obama's. Moreover, I
already said several times now that both sides are waist-deep in lies
(eh.."both sides" would include Republicans). So no hypocrisy
whatsoever.
Agent Orange
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 15:12:15 -0800 (PST), Agent Orange
Not only is it not a specious argument...it's not even really an
argument. I'm simply explaining to you that I've declined to discuss
specific lies on either side, so I'm not being hypocritical.
> Saying that "both sides lie"---while ignoring the basis
> and consequences for those lies is hypocritical
>
> If one side lies about selling arms to our sworn
> enemies---and the other side "lies" in a campaign
> promise---even a grade schooler could see the
> hypocrisy.
>
> I expect politicians to say "things" that are modified
> by political reality. That's why they're called
> politicians--not saints.
Pretty obviously you want to get into an argument about something that
doesn't really interest me all that much, and you're not happy about
it. So be it.
James
> principles to your lying candidates.
HAW HAW HAW HAW
Jerry Okamura
"Agent Orange" <agento...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b02676a6-5236-433f...@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 9, 7:59 am, smor...@board.com wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 15:12:15 -0800 (PST), Agent Orange
>
> <agentorang...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 8, 5:31 pm, smor...@board.com wrote:
>
> >> >What interest would I have in that? You obviously mistake me for
> >> >someone who desires to defend Bush.
>
> >> Calling Obama a "liar", while not wanting to discuss
> >> Bush, reagan, nixon etal, is hypocrisy.
>
> >It might be if I chose to discuss Obama's lies but not Bush's. In
> >fact, when prompted, I also declined to discuss Obama's. Moreover, I
> >already said several times now that both sides are waist-deep in lies
> >(eh.."both sides" would include Republicans). So no hypocrisy
> >whatsoever.
>
> That's a specious argument
Not only is it not a specious argument...it's not even really an
argument. I'm simply explaining to you that I've declined to discuss
specific lies on either side, so I'm not being hypocritical.
Are you saying that you don't think that when politicians and their
supporters lie to the American people, you don't have any problems with
that?
Agent Orange
> "Agent Orange" <agentorang...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Uh...I think I'm saying that I don't really care to talk about this
subject. Now, am I somehow making myself unclear?
Agent Orange
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 08:18:18 -0800 (PST), Agent Orange
>
> <agentorang...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >I'm simply explaining to you that I've declined to discuss
> >specific lies on either side, so I'm not being hypocritical.
>
> iti's okay to generically infer "both sides lie"---yet
> not mention that "one side's" lies are much, much more
> egregious, deadly than the others.
Keep putting the bait out there, buddy. I'm not taking it, no matter
how hard you try. Find someone else to get into a pissing match with.
Agent Orange
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 16:49:04 -0800 (PST), Agent Orange
>
> <agentorang...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 9, 1:51 pm, smor...@board.com wrote:
> >> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 08:18:18 -0800 (PST), Agent Orange
>
> >> <agentorang...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >I'm simply explaining to you that I've declined to discuss
> >> >specific lies on either side, so I'm not being hypocritical.
>
> >> You're "simply explaining" an evasion of why you think
> >> iti's okay to generically infer "both sides lie"---yet
> >> not mention that "one side's" lies are much, much more
> >> egregious, deadly than the others.
>
> >Keep putting the bait out there, buddy. I'm not taking it, no matter
> >how hard you try. Find someone else to get into a pissing match with.
>
Because you're obviously interested in a fight, and I am not. Plenty
of people out there are....so find someone else.
Ok, I'm done in this thread.
Jerry Okamura
If you don't care, then by definition you don't care when they lie to us.
Agent Orange
No. It means that I don't care to talk about this subject here in
this newsgroup. Good grief, this isn't that hard.
Jerry Okamura
Talking about it in this newsgroup is how you stand a chance of stopping
people from lying to us.
Strabo
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 05:44:12 -0800, Agent Orange wrote:
>
>> On Nov 7, 12:03� am, smor...@board.com wrote:
>>>
>>> <agentorang...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> � Nope, the plain fact is, the right wing now operates almost 100%
>>>>> � from
>>>>> lies
>>>> Um, yeah, sure thing kiddo. � Keep telling yourself that. � Both sides
>>>> are waist-deep in lies.
>>> "we did not sell arms to Iran"
>>>
>>> "I was out of the loop"
>>>
>>> "I completed all of my NG duty"
>>>
>>> "I could pass a standard drug test"
>>>
>>> "I'm a uniter not a divider"
>>>
>>> "Saddam has tons of "slam-dunk" WMD stockpiled and ready to use stored
>>> in Iraq"
>> the list of lies already put out there by Obama? Good night, it would
>> there are plenty of lies on the right...if you read my post I said,
>> "Both sides are waist-deep in lies."
>
> you "hours". But I warn you that I want some references for these
> supposed lies that are from sources other than Republican liars. I have
> not spent all my time watching Obama for any "nit" slip up that I can
> amplify in a fake Republican talking point.
>
It's a lot a simpler to list those things he promised to do and has
succeeded. Here, I'll do it.
1.
........
Michael Coburn
> Michael Coburn wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 05:44:12 -0800, Agent Orange wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 7, 12:03Â am, smor...@board.com wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 13:48:29 -0800 (PST), Agent Orange
>>>>
>>>> <agentorang...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Â Nope, the plain fact is, the right wing now operates almost 100%
>>>>>> Â from
>>>>>> lies
>>>>> Um, yeah, sure thing kiddo. Â Keep telling yourself that. Â Both
>>>>> sides are waist-deep in lies.
>>>> "we did not sell arms to Iran"
>>>>
>>>> "I was out of the loop"
>>>>
>>>> "I completed all of my NG duty"
>>>>
>>>> "I could pass a standard drug test"
>>>>
>>>> "I'm a uniter not a divider"
>>>>
>>>> "Saddam has tons of "slam-dunk" WMD stockpiled and ready to use
>>>> stored in Iraq"
>>> Wow. Some quotes from Bush that you think are lies. Do you really
>>> want the list of lies already put out there by Obama? Good night, it
>>> would take me hours to list them all. And I haven't denied, of
>>> course, that there are plenty of lies on the right...if you read my
>>> post I said, "Both sides are waist-deep in lies."
>>
>> I want your 5 most egregious Obama lies, blowhard. That should not
>> take you "hours". But I warn you that I want some references for these
>> supposed lies that are from sources other than Republican liars. I
>> have not spent all my time watching Obama for any "nit" slip up that I
>> can amplify in a fake Republican talking point.
>>
>>
> It's a lot a simpler to list those things he promised to do and has
> succeeded. Here, I'll do it.
>
> 1.
>
>
> ........
This is the answer I anticipated. Rightarded hot air.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
Strabo
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:04:39 -0500, Strabo wrote:
>
>> Michael Coburn wrote:
>>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 05:44:12 -0800, Agent Orange wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 13:48:29 -0800 (PST), Agent Orange
>>>>>
>>>>> <agentorang...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Â from
>>>>>>> lies
>>>>>> Um, yeah, sure thing kiddo. Â Keep telling yourself that. Â Both
>>>>>> sides are waist-deep in lies.
>>>>> "we did not sell arms to Iran"
>>>>>
>>>>> "I was out of the loop"
>>>>>
>>>>> "I completed all of my NG duty"
>>>>>
>>>>> "I could pass a standard drug test"
>>>>>
>>>>> "I'm a uniter not a divider"
>>>>>
>>>>> "Saddam has tons of "slam-dunk" WMD stockpiled and ready to use
>>>>> stored in Iraq"
>>>> Wow. Some quotes from Bush that you think are lies. Do you really
>>>> want the list of lies already put out there by Obama? Good night, it
>>>> would take me hours to list them all. And I haven't denied, of
>>>> course, that there are plenty of lies on the right...if you read my
>>>> post I said, "Both sides are waist-deep in lies."
>>> I want your 5 most egregious Obama lies, blowhard. That should not
>>> take you "hours". But I warn you that I want some references for these
>>> supposed lies that are from sources other than Republican liars. I
>>> have not spent all my time watching Obama for any "nit" slip up that I
>>> can amplify in a fake Republican talking point.
>>>
>>>
>> It's a lot a simpler to list those things he promised to do and has
>> succeeded. Here, I'll do it.
>>
>> 1.
>>
>>
>> ........
>
> This is the answer I anticipated. Rightarded hot air.
>
Happy to oblige.