kallend 2,027 #76 August 11, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote Uh, sorry - there's a bit of a difference. Michael Moore's stuff is filled with blatant lies, and those lies have been well documented. So far, the stuff I see coming out of Fox are very well researched. Funniest statement of the day. Care to verify anything Fox News has reported that wasn't true? The Pelosi jet hoax comes to mind.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #77 August 11, 2009 >>Funniest statement of the day. >Care to verify anything Fox News has reported that wasn't true? Update - THAT was the funniest statement of the day! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #78 August 11, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote I had to double-check the original post's date. Wow. It was posted August 8, 2009???? um, the election was last fall.In spite of all the stuff we have to deal with today, the Republicans are still waving Wright & Ayers around. So you're saying time makes them less relevant? Yes, that's what I'm saying. Wright & Ayers are not on the whitehouse staff. They're not working for Obama, so yes, they're not relevant. We'll have to disagree. I think every relationship my President has had in his adult life are important, especially when they are so telling. The whole thing was ridiculous. If you were a foreigner, and you watched FOX news before the election, you would swear that Reverend Wright was running for President of the US. FOX showed more of Wright than they did of Obama. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #79 August 11, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Uh, sorry - there's a bit of a difference. Michael Moore's stuff is filled with blatant lies, and those lies have been well documented. So far, the stuff I see coming out of Fox are very well researched. Funniest statement of the day. Care to verify anything Fox News has reported that wasn't true? The Pelosi jet hoax snafu comes to mind. Fixed that for you - she's covered now, btw, since the appropriations committee just order two extra Gulfstreams over/above the military's request to keep at Andrews.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 425 #80 August 11, 2009 Quote>>Funniest statement of the day. >Care to verify anything Fox News has reported that wasn't true? Update - THAT was the funniest statement of the day! And yet you don't provide any contrary evidence. Hmmm. And you STILL haven't replied to this thread: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3637172;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed; What's up with that?Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #81 August 11, 2009 QuoteQuote>>Funniest statement of the day. >Care to verify anything Fox News has reported that wasn't true? Update - THAT was the funniest statement of the day! And yet you don't provide any contrary evidence. Hmmm. And you STILL haven't replied to this thread: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3637172;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed; What's up with that? Simple - see post #57 above. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #82 August 11, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote Uh, sorry - there's a bit of a difference. Michael Moore's stuff is filled with blatant lies, and those lies have been well documented. So far, the stuff I see coming out of Fox are very well researched. Funniest statement of the day. Care to verify anything Fox News has reported that wasn't true? First of all, Chuck, Bill was laughing because what your question actually means, if its grammar and syntax are read accurately, is: "Fox "News" has reported stuff that isn't actually true. Care to verify that the untrue stuff is true?" Of course, what you presumably meant was: "Care to verify that anything which Fox "News" claims as Truth is, in fact, False?" So I'll answer that question. Here are a few from Snopes.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #83 August 11, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Uh, sorry - there's a bit of a difference. Michael Moore's stuff is filled with blatant lies, and those lies have been well documented. So far, the stuff I see coming out of Fox are very well researched. Funniest statement of the day. Care to verify anything Fox News has reported that wasn't true? The Pelosi jet hoax snafu comes to mind. Fixed that for you - she's covered now, btw, since the appropriations committee just order two extra Gulfstreams over/above the military's request to keep at Andrews. Do try to keep up.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #84 August 11, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Uh, sorry - there's a bit of a difference. Michael Moore's stuff is filled with blatant lies, and those lies have been well documented. So far, the stuff I see coming out of Fox are very well researched. Funniest statement of the day. Care to verify anything Fox News has reported that wasn't true? First of all, Chuck, Bill was laughing because what your question actually means, if its grammar and syntax are read accurately, is: "Fox "News" has reported stuff that isn't actually true. Care to verify that the untrue stuff is true?" Of course, what you presumably meant was: "Care to verify that anything which Fox "News" claims as Truth is, in fact, False?" So I'll answer that question. Here are a few from Snopes.com Hmmm, that's a very long list of lies.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #85 August 11, 2009 QuoteHmmm, that's a very long list of lies. Here's 6 from ABC alone 4 from CBS 3 from NBCMike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #86 August 11, 2009 QuoteQuoteHmmm, that's a very long list of lies. Here's 6 from ABC alone 4 from CBS 3 from NBC So Faux News is twice as untruthful as ABC, three times as untruthful as CBS and four times as untruthful as NBC. OK, thanks for confirming that.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #87 August 11, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Hmmm, that's a very long list of lies. Here's 6 from ABC alone 4 from CBS 3 from NBC So Faux News is twice as untruthful as ABC, three times as untruthful as CBS and four times as untruthful as NBC. OK, thanks for confirming that. When you're twice as big as ABC, three times as big as CBS and four times as big as NBC, it's more like that you're going to get some 'false, but accurate' () info every now and then.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #88 August 11, 2009 Just for fun I looked through your "list of lies" for ABC News. Of the six, only one might be considered a lie (the crystal meth as candy story, although I couldn't go to the link because my company blocks stories about illegal drugs). The rest are stories where ABC interviews were quoted out of context, or where (believe it or not) ABC was pointng out the falsehood, not making it. You really need to do a better job of research if you're going to get all snarky. Typing "ABC News" and "False" into the Snopes search engine and then claiming that the six hits shows there were six lies from ABC News is disingenuous at best. It's really something I would expect out of, say, Fox News. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #89 August 11, 2009 >And yet you don't provide any contrary evidence. I'll give you a few pictures showing FOX's habit of labeling losing or scandal-ridden republicans as democrats. I know that won't matter one bit to you, of course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #90 August 11, 2009 Quote Just for fun I looked through your "list of lies" for ABC News. Of the six, only one might be considered a lie (the crystal meth as candy story, although I couldn't go to the link because my company blocks stories about illegal drugs). The rest are stories where ABC interviews were quoted out of context, or where (believe it or not) ABC was pointng out the falsehood, not making it. And I'm *SURE* you applied the same RIGOROUS examination to the claims about Fox....right? Quote You really need to do a better job of research if you're going to get all snarky. Typing "ABC News" and "False" into the Snopes search engine and then claiming that the six hits shows there were six lies from ABC News is disingenuous at best. It's really something I would expect out of, say, Fox News. "Lie" #1 - the original story was from something called "Insight Magazine", not Fox. "Lie" #2 - there because of Obama's mention of Fox in a quote "Lie" #3 - from a site called "derober.com" - there because the site owner mentioned Fox in a quote. "Lie" #4 - Bad info from Beck on the Cars.gov website. "Lie" #5 - Bad info (?) from Britt Hume on NO corruption "Lie" #6 - Fox mentioned in quote "Lie" #7 - Fox mentioned in quote "Lie" #8 - Fox mentioned in quote "Lie" #9 - Fox mentioned in quote "Lie" #10 - Film discussed on Fox, "false" attributed to book/movie, not story "Lie" #11 - Rumor attributed to "Fox news source" "Lie" #12 - "Strawberry quick" meth not marketed at kids ("false" tag), reported on by Fox. So...we have TWO items out of 12 that are ACTUALLY from Fox. Now, what was that BULLSHIT you were spouting about checking facts? Maybe you should have done some, yourself.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #91 August 11, 2009 since they backed down because of public pressure does not make it untrue and most likely was reported on fox first. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #92 August 11, 2009 No I did not go through all the Fox links. Obviously you didn't either, until I prompted you to. My point is that if you had posted this response to Kallend's comments on Fox, your argument would be much more effective. Instead you post even more bullshit to refute bullshit. Posting facts to refute bullshit is much more helpful to the debate. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 425 #93 August 11, 2009 Quote>And yet you don't provide any contrary evidence. I'll give you a few pictures showing FOX's habit of labeling losing or scandal-ridden republicans as democrats. I know that won't matter one bit to you, of course. And you will of course provide the source for these "screen captures"? And Bill, no one can figure our why you refuse to address this thread: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3637172;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed; C'mon now. As outspoken as you are, can we not get your take on the video linked from that thread? You have ignored numerous requests to do so, even though you chime in on nearly every other post. Hmmmmm.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #94 August 11, 2009 QuoteNo I did not go through all the Fox links. Obviously you didn't either, until I prompted you to. My point is that if you had posted this response to Kallend's comments on Fox, your argument would be much more effective. Instead you post even more bullshit to refute bullshit. Posting facts to refute bullshit is much more helpful to the debate. I already knew from reading the page on Fox that at least several of them were bullshit. I didn't go through it to refute kallend because, honestly, most of his posts are sematics games - he gets back what he gives.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #95 August 11, 2009 Quote>And yet you don't provide any contrary evidence. I'll give you a few pictures showing FOX's habit of labeling losing or scandal-ridden republicans as democrats. I note that you don't mention the rest of the MSM's habit of NOT mentioning party affiliation until late in the article (if at all) if it's a Dem, while putting affiliation in the first paragraph (if not the first sentence or the headline) if it's a Rep. QuoteI know that won't matter one bit to you, of course. Indeed.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #96 August 11, 2009 >And you will of course provide the source for these "screen captures"? FOX News. >> I know that won't matter one bit to you, of course. Got it in one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #97 August 11, 2009 >I note that you don't mention the rest of the MSM's habit of NOT mentioning >party affiliation until late in the article (if at all) if it's a Dem, while putting >affiliation in the first paragraph (if not the first sentence or the headline) if it's a >Rep. I've noticed they do that too. Although I must say I prefer that to outright lies. But if that's what floats your boat, go for it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #98 August 11, 2009 Quote>I note that you don't mention the rest of the MSM's habit of NOT mentioning >party affiliation until late in the article (if at all) if it's a Dem, while putting >affiliation in the first paragraph (if not the first sentence or the headline) if it's a >Rep. I've noticed they do that too. Although I must say I prefer that to outright lies. But if that's what floats your boat, go for it. Quotesupporting a party by associating or not associating them to a party depending upon wether or not the story is good or bad is part of the reason the liberal news is failing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,452 #99 August 11, 2009 Is it better to outright lie about the party affiliation based on the content of the story? Because there seems to be some evidence that's what the "conservative media" (Fox News) does. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,998 #100 August 11, 2009 >supporting a party by associating or not associating them to a party depending >upon wether or not the story is good or bad is part of the reason the liberal news >is failing. If you prefer outright lies to omissions, I guess that makes you . . . a republican. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
