To Faux News they all look alike

let's play "I said you said":

just like when they Identified Mark Foley as Rep. Mark Foley D-FL

"they" all look alike, and all pedophiles just gotta be democrats! :badgrin:

And I ask you, No other network has done similar things?

and if you can find any instance where one of them has, and I made excuses for them or failed to castigate them for it, please provide.

Your not Truthmatters, a political hack that thinks opinions are facts and that his paste jobs are better than RSR's.

the italicized post begs the question as to why you wrote the bolded one.

lol :confused:
 
I love how you guys are deflecting the problem of Jefferson onto Fox. Ok, Fox sucks. How does that mitigate the Jefferson problem?
 
Am I not allowed to point out FOX news used a tape of Conyers they knew was him in the Gonzales testimony because it shows Gonzales in it.

They used it because there was a person in the crowd with a Resign sign he held up.

That sign was for Gonzales and NOT Jefferson.

There is no way someone who works in news would NOT know the differance between the two men they dont even look alike.

I think it is important to point out when a SO CALLED NEWS STATION LIES TO THE PUBLIC!

That is what this thread is about,now there is another thread in here about Jefferson ad if you go look you will see all the Dems ion here that I saw condemed him and said he needs to go down if found guilty.

If you look further you will also see a thread about a R congressman who died and me paying my respects to him.

So who is defending what here?
 
I love how you guys are deflecting the problem of Jefferson onto Fox. Ok, Fox sucks. How does that mitigate the Jefferson problem?


again...let me ask the school teacher the question:

when did "innocent until proven guilty" quit becoming a tenet by which we governed ourselves?

I am ON RECORD as saying that the minute Jefferson is CONVICTED of ANYTHING, I will condemn his sorry ass and hope like hell he gets hard time.

Since when did indictment morph into conviction?

How does ANY of that change the fact that Faux News "conveniently" fucked up here...j ust like they "conveniently" misidentified Foley as a democrat?
 
again...let me ask the school teacher the question:

when did "innocent until proven guilty" quit becoming a tenet by which we governed ourselves?

I am ON RECORD as saying that the minute Jefferson is CONVICTED of ANYTHING, I will condemn his sorry ass and hope like hell he gets hard time.

Since when did indictment morph into conviction?

How does ANY of that change the fact that Faux News "conveniently" fucked up here...j ust like they "conveniently" misidentified Foley as a democrat?

You are not the only one, I'm not even checking to find if you posted all the republican 'sinners.' Wrongs do not make a right.
 
You are not the only one, I'm not even checking to find if you posted all the republican 'sinners.' Wrongs do not make a right.

you know I rarely, if ever, cut and paste anything - with the exception of polling data to confound RSR.

There are lists a mile long of democrats who have been convicted of corrupt acts.

There are lists a mile long of republicans who have been convicted of corrupt acts.

In all likelihood, Jefferson will have his name added to the former.

The point of THIS thread, however, was not to try to hide from that, but to discuss the "convenient" mistake that Faux news made.
 
you know I rarely, if ever, cut and paste anything - with the exception of polling data to confound RSR.

There are lists a mile long of democrats who have been convicted of corrupt acts.

There are lists a mile long of republicans who have been convicted of corrupt acts.

In all likelihood, Jefferson will have his name added to the former.

The point of THIS thread, however, was not to try to hide from that, but to discuss the "convenient" mistake that Faux news made.

Not disagreeing with that, though the reason for the topic thread was the problem with Jefferson, a diversion if you will.
 
Not disagreeing with that, though the reason for the topic thread was the problem with Jefferson, a diversion if you will.


certainly. It is evident that Faux News would not go out of their way to give any coverage to a black congressman who was NOT accused of crimes.* ;)

The point here was, Faux News was able to "kill" two (black)birds with one stone. They can get Jefferson's name on the screen and get Conyer's face on at the same time... two for the price of one.

how droll.

* Harold Ford excluded, of course!
 
certainly. It is evident that Faux News would not go out of their way to give any coverage to a black congressman who was NOT accused of crimes.* ;)

The point here was, Faux News was able to "kill" two (black)birds with one stone. They can get Jefferson's name on the screen and get Conyer's face on at the same time... two for the price of one.

how droll.

* Harold Ford excluded, of course!

So now you are claiming that FOX is not only biased, but racist?
 
So now you are claiming that FOX is not only biased, but racist?


both, when it is "convenient" to do so...as it was here.

Can you imagine them putting up Senator Biden's picture with Senator Harkin's name underneath? lol
 
Dan Rather knowingly ran a story he knew to be unproven, with documentation his expert told him was a forgery, just before an election. Remind me, since I was not here then, what was your position on that?

How about all the red X's on conservative politicians by a certain Cable news organization? Or the purposeful arrangement of pictures where parts of words are framed in the picture to make the person look bad?

How about the insistance of the MSM to run stories with a "source" an Iraqi Police Captain, that they were told repeatedly was NOT a Police Captain at all?

How about green helmet guy in Lebanon? Or the doctoring of pictures from Lebanon to look worse then the situation was?
 
Dan Rather knowingly ran a story he knew to be unproven, with documentation his expert told him was a forgery, just before an election. Remind me, since I was not here then, what was your position on that?

How about all the red X's on conservative politicians by a certain Cable news organization? Or the purposeful arrangement of pictures where parts of words are framed in the picture to make the person look bad?

How about the insistance of the MSM to run stories with a "source" an Iraqi Police Captain, that they were told repeatedly was NOT a Police Captain at all?

How about green helmet guy in Lebanon? Or the doctoring of pictures from Lebanon to look worse then the situation was?

I was and am against all of that.
 
Dan Rather knowingly ran a story he knew to be unproven, with documentation his expert told him was a forgery, just before an election. Remind me, since I was not here then, what was your position on that?

How about all the red X's on conservative politicians by a certain Cable news organization? Or the purposeful arrangement of pictures where parts of words are framed in the picture to make the person look bad?

How about the insistance of the MSM to run stories with a "source" an Iraqi Police Captain, that they were told repeatedly was NOT a Police Captain at all?

How about green helmet guy in Lebanon? Or the doctoring of pictures from Lebanon to look worse then the situation was?

Rather I heard of and he paid a pretty ehfty price for that one dont you think?

The others sound like bullshit to me.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top