• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tea Party Movement Lights Fuse for Rebellion on Right

The "tea party types" are just your typical neighbors and colleagues, sorry to tell you.

I don't know where you live, but I live in a republican district in California. None of my neighbors or colleagues, conservative, independents, or otherwise want to have anything to do with what the 'Tea Party' has become.

Their agenda is a very unworkable mix of fiscal conservative rhetoric, populism, and anti-government/anti-Obama fringe.


The liberal media are trying desperately to paint this movement as a terrorist Klan movement bent on eating babies, but it ain't working.

Yes--the big bad billion-dollar media corporations... a real liberal bunch :roll::roll:

The sad irony of people who watch Fox news because they believe the other networks are biased--they actually believe they are getting a fair and balanced accounting of current events.

Does it ever occur to them that Fox just frames the "news narrative" in a way that confirms their outlook?

Much like global warming, the gig is up on the media. The more they attack this down-to-earth movement, who is trying simply to get Republicans politicians to act like conservatives and oust the radical left from government, the more strength it gains.

Meanwhile, back on planet earth, independents are only hearing hyper-partisan talking points and no workable solutions from this new party...

They may be able to disrupt some congressional districts, state and local elections, but, at the national level, they're lacking in political-savvy and experience.


If it weren't working, do you honestly think Bayh, Biden, and Kennedy would have dropped out of their races? Would New Jersey have a conservative governor, and would a Republican won Kennedy's senate seat?

Again, meanwhile, back on planet earth, none of those things you mentioned had anything to do with the Tea Party... Despite what their idiot King (Beck) and Queen (Palin) say...
 
I don't know where you live, but I live in a republican district in California. None of my neighbors or colleagues, conservative, independents, or otherwise want to have anything to do with what the 'Tea Party' has become.

Their agenda is a very unworkable mix of fiscal conservative rhetoric, populism, and anti-government/anti-Obama fringe.




Yes--the big bad billion-dollar media corporations... a real liberal bunch :roll::roll:

The sad irony of people who watch Fox news because they believe the other networks are biased--they actually believe they are getting a fair and balanced accounting of current events.

Does it ever occur to them that Fox just frames the "news narrative" in a way that confirms their outlook?



Meanwhile, back on planet earth, independents are only hearing hyper-partisan talking points and no workable solutions from this new party...

They may be able to disrupt some congressional districts, state and local elections, but, at the national level, they're lacking in political-savvy and experience.




Again, meanwhile, back on planet earth, none of those things you mentioned had anything to do with the Tea Party... Despite what their idiot King (Beck) and Queen (Palin) say...
As usual Hazelnut means to preach, but comes across a screech. You gotta love how he tries to slag Fox News watchers as being naive enough to think that the "other" news networks are biased, as if this really is not the case. Only Fox News is biased!! Poor Hazelnut and his FDS, and he is talking all about the real world too! Koo koo koo koo.
 
I don't know where you live, but I live in a republican district in California.

That right there explains why you've gotten this so wrong.

In middle America - you know, the part you coasters seem to right off as a bunch of hillbillies running around barefoot - the tea party movements are very positive, social, and un-newsworthy beyond their mere getting together against big government.

You want big, involved government. I don't expect you to understand this.
 
This is why liberals want to disarm the public, so there will never be a threat from the People to the govt.

Please quote some BS source that proves your nonsense claim about "liberals want to disarm the public"? It must be from a reputable rightwing truth sheet or at least a Murdoch owned bastion of honesty.

Oh by the way, would you revolt deniers care to explain this?

hannity.jpg



Or this?

MICHELLE BACHMANN: And really now in Washington, I’m a foreign correspondent in enemy lines. And I try to keep everyone back here in Minnesota know exactly the nefarious activities that are taking place in Washington. [...]

I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us, having a revolution every now and then is a good thing, and the people — we the people — are going to have to fight back hard if we’re not going to lose our country. And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States

Or this?

Fueled by the screeds of radio hosts Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, and the lesser-known, but increasingly influential, online conspiracist Alex Jones, many gun-show attendees I spoke to were convinced Obama planned to usher in a Marxist dictatorship.

They warned that the president's power grab would only begin with mass gun seizures. "If Obama takes away our guns," a young, .45-caliber-pistol-toting man from Reno told me, "it's just a step into trying to take away everything else."

Indeed, in their minds, average Americans opposed to the Obama agenda would be herded into FEMA-run concentration camps by a volunteer army of glassy-eyed liberal college graduates.

"When they start imprisoning Americans, and people start seeing that we're the enemy, then that'll make it hot," predicted one young man from Antioch sporting a button for former Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul of Texas. "People talk about a revolution," the young man continued, "an armed revolution. I think police crackdowns on individuals will tip the scales."

http://www.alternet.org/story/13901...wing_gun_nuts_share_their_paranoid_worldview/
 
Last edited:
Please quote some BS source that proves your nonsense claim about "liberals want to disarm the public"? It must be from a reputable rightwing truth sheet or at least a Murdoch owned bastion of honesty.

Oh by the way, would you revolt deniers care to explain this?

hannity.jpg
Hey Einstien, since it has not quite caught your attention yet, please quote for us where in your article it says the Tea Party is planning on using firearms to overthrow the government? Because this talking out your ass at another poster, while you are lying out yours, ain't gonna get ya any gold stars.

Your entire premise in this thread is BS, you lack the spine to address that fact and now you want to prattle at someone else about BS and BS sources and claims that have not been made? Talk about naked hypocrisy.:doh
 
Hey Einstien, since it has not quite caught your attention yet, please quote for us where in your article it says the Tea Party is planning on using firearms to overthrow the government? Because this talking out your ass at another poster, while you are lying out yours, ain't gonna get ya any gold stars.

Your entire premise in this thread is BS, you lack the spine to address that fact and now you want to prattle at someone else about BS and BS sources and claims that have not been made? Talk about naked hypocrisy.:doh

It's nothing... people see a conservative Republican, it automatically means Tea Party, and as soon as guns come up or they talk historically about Jefferson's quote of Revolution, it's again automatically an "armed revolt". Aren't liberals supposed to be better educated than the rest of us? I gotta tell ya, anecdotal information isn't supporting that claim especially in the WillRockwell post. I'm surprised these quotes aren't from his own blog.
 
As usual Hazelnut means to preach, but comes across a screech.

Cute thesis, let's see if Sir L has the balls or intellect to back it up with an actual argument.

You gotta love how he tries to slag Fox News watchers as being naive enough to think that the "other" news networks are biased, as if this really is not the case. Only Fox News is biased!! Poor Hazelnut and his FDS, and he is talking all about the real world too! Koo koo koo koo.

Oops -- guess not.

"as if this really in not the case." Yikes!

Appeal to Belief / Appeal to Spite ("liberal media") are logical fallacies--fallacious arguments. The fact that some people believe a claim does not serve as evidence of bias.

If you want to point out a particular slanted story with an overly negative spin on the Tea Party, fine, but to just throw out that "liberal media" shorthand claim as your line of reasoning... Doesn't fly.

Re: FNC -- the network itself has gone on record to say that its mid-day programming is straight news while its morning and late-afternoon to evening programming are news-based opinion shows--editorial.

Do you want to debate which side of the political spectrum each of their commentators is on?

The most-watched shows on the network are editorial programs hosted by conservative-leaning commentators. Do you want to debate that point?

I watch O'Reilly on a regular basis. Greta sometimes. I listen to Bret and Shep in the car. I listen/watch to get a conservative perspective on the day's events. Based on posts by others, it seems that some don't see the irony in the "fair and balanced" slogan. Fair enough?
 
Haz - you have no credibility and haven't on any boards you've been on, sorry to say. You're partisan hack at 101%.
 
I don't know anyone fomenting a revolution. This is another sleaze attempt by the lunatic fringe left to smear the tea party movement with lies.

The Reverend is right,

You don't need lies to smear the Tea Party movement. The truth works perfectly well.
 
Cute thesis, let's see if Sir L has the balls or intellect to back it up with an actual argument.



Oops -- guess not.

"as if this really in not the case." Yikes!

Appeal to Belief / Appeal to Spite ("liberal media") are logical fallacies--fallacious arguments. The fact that some people believe a claim does not serve as evidence of bias.

If you want to point out a particular slanted story with an overly negative spin on the Tea Party, fine, but to just throw out that "liberal media" shorthand claim as your line of reasoning... Doesn't fly.

Re: FNC -- the network itself has gone on record to say that its mid-day programming is straight news while its morning and late-afternoon to evening programming are news-based opinion shows--editorial.

Do you want to debate which side of the political spectrum each of their commentators is on?

The most-watched shows on the network are editorial programs hosted by conservative-leaning commentators. Do you want to debate that point?

I watch O'Reilly on a regular basis. Greta sometimes. I listen to Bret and Shep in the car. I listen/watch to get a conservative perspective on the day's events. Based on posts by others, it seems that some don't see the irony in the "fair and balanced" slogan. Fair enough?
I'm sorry Hazelnut, I already addressed one of your idiotic arguments, the idea that Fox News viewers think all the other cable news media are biased; as if other news media are not biased. As all the cable news networks are biased, Fox News viewers are right. That was simple.

Have you got a peer reviewed study about media bias that debunks those already in the public domain? Do you have some hidden studies and decades of polling and studies from within the media that argues against that which we in the real world know about? By all means then, present them. Otherwise, piss poor job of trying to rationalize the matter, come back when you have something other than just your rambling opinion to offer; that is patently worthless at DP with all but wing nuts. Yes I know, you have goads and jibs and jokes a plenty, but little else. Which avails you not at all in an intellectual debate or conversation.

Chuckle, I bet you honestly think that your reply is an honest to God airtight case for your asinine insistence that only Fox News is biased.
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry Hazelnut, I already addressed one of your idiotic arguments, the idea that Fox News viewers think all the other cable news media are biased; as if other news media are not biased. As all the cable news networks are biased, Fox News viewers are right. That was simple.

Have you got a peer reviewed study about media bias that debunks those already in the public domain? Do you have some hidden studies and decades of polling and studies from within the media that argues against that which we in the real world know about? By all means then, present them. Otherwise, piss poor job of trying to rationalize the matter, come back when you have something other than just your rambling opinion to offer; that is pretty worthless at DP with all but wing nuts.

Let's see, the more ignorant the poster, the more beligerant their reply. Yep, I get it.
 
Let's see, the more ignorant the poster, the more beligerant their reply. Yep, I get it.
Who, seriously, who cares what you think? You "thought" the article in your own thread claimed the Tea Party was trying to use firearms to overthrow the government! You have thus far lacked the spine or intestinal fortitude to address the lack of substance in your, shall we say, highly fictional premise. So quite naturally, all that is left to you in the absence of accountability and veracity, is idiotic goads like the above. Bravo, to quote the popular internet cliche, way to fail.
 
Five posts into the thread and the hyper-partisans are already trying to change the subject.

Change the subject??? Now who would do a thing like that......

hazlnut said:
The sad irony of people who watch Fox news because they believe the other networks are biased--they actually believe they are getting a fair and balanced accounting of current events.

Does it ever occur to them that Fox just frames the "news narrative" in a way that confirms their outlook?

Have you ever posted in a thread without mentioning Fox???
 
Change the subject??? Now who would do a thing like that......



Have you ever posted in a thread without mentioning Fox???

I think he's on the payroll at mediamatters.
 
I guess WillRockwell believes that Ron Paul is the president of the United States...cause you know, he won some online polls where less than 20 people voted and that apparently constitutes reality....
 
They don't and details indeed. Please answer the question if you can, how you arrived at the conclusion that the Tea Party intends to use firearms to overthrow the government? For a bonus you could throw in how you managed to arrive at that conclusion based upon the article you linked. I mean the article is pretty slanted and sprinkled with typical NYT hackery, but even this article from the NYT does not make the claim you have. So from where did you dream up that the Tea Party is going to use firearms to overthrow the government? Mr. Rogers' Bloviated Imagination Land?

It's called... pull it out of your ass.

I call it making an ass of yourself, but they are really both the same thing.
 
Last edited:
It's called... pull it out of you ass.

I call it making an ass of yourself, but they are really both the same thing.
True that. Mr. Rockwell knows this, which is why he stuck around to address the error he made, like he always does. You just can't perceive it because he used invisible HTML!
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry Hazelnut, I already addressed one of your idiotic arguments, the idea that Fox News viewers think all the other cable news media are biased; as if other news media are not biased. As all the cable news networks are biased, Fox News viewers are right.

Yes -- as I noted, you made an appeal to belief -- "as if this really is not the case"...

So, to be clear, you didn't address anything -- just a feeble fallacious argument.

You gotta love how he tries to slag Fox News watchers as being naive enough to think that the "other" news networks are biased, as if this really is not the case.

Appeal to Belief / Appeal to Spite -- not a valid argument, sport.

Try again, if you like.



Have you got a peer reviewed study about media bias that debunks those already in the public domain?

Those on conservative sites and WND...???

Tell you what, Lion, you go first. I'd love to read one objective academic study that shows a clear across-the-board bias on both social and fiscal issues by the mainstream media...
:waiting:

But no LINKS to WND...


As for the rest of your yammering, back to the old Straw man, I see -- You love to put words in my mouth. I suppose that it's easier for you to debate me when you misconstrue the point...

So, please show me where I state that all the other outlets were 100% unbiased and FOX was the only biased source?

I was pretty specific in my comments regarding FNC; perhaps you should re-read and not just make crap up.
 
Yes -- as I noted, you made an appeal to belief -- "as if this really is not the case"...

So, to be clear, you didn't address anything -- just a feeble fallacious argument.



Appeal to Belief / Appeal to Spite -- not a valid argument, sport.

Try again, if you like.





Those on conservative sites and WND...???

Tell you what, Lion, you go first. I'd love to read one objective academic study that shows a clear across-the-board bias on both social and fiscal issues by the mainstream media...
:waiting:

But no LINKS to WND...


As for the rest of your yammering, back to the old Straw man, I see -- You love to put words in my mouth. I suppose that it's easier for you to debate me when you misconstrue the point...

So, please show me where I state that all the other outlets were 100% unbiased and FOX was the only biased source?

I was pretty specific in my comments regarding FNC; perhaps you should re-read and not just make crap up.
Yes I made the statement that all cable news media are biased. You disagree? Because it seems like you want to argue but are unsure what you want to argue about. You attempted to supplant some issues you wanted to argue about, which had nothing to do with what I stated, so it appears I already went first. ;)

Some things are so simplistic they really need neither your confirmation nor your personal stamp of approval, but for arguments sake let us explore what you chose to reply to, that I stated.

To quote precisely what came from your post, if in fact Fox News viewers think the other cable news media are biased, they are correct are they not? If not how so? By all means debunk away.

If in fact you really think Fox viewers would be wrong, other cable news media are not biased, surely you have something other than just a Hazelnut thinks so, which is worth nada as you know.

Seems to me you are already starting to try to wiggle out of your previous comment and add new facets to it that were not present. I understand, it was a patently dumb comment, but you made it so own it brave intellectual warrior. Good luck, I have zero confidence in you, so surprise me!
 
Last edited:
If in fact you really think Fox viewers would be wrong, other cable news media are not biased, surely you have something other than just a Hazelnut thinks so, which is worth nada as you know.

Now we're getting somewhere.

First of all define "biased" -- if you're talking across the board slant on all stories every single day, I'd say no. Absolutely not.

MSNBC offers counter-programming to FNC. Sort of. Many of their commentator/hosts are left-leaning counter-parts to those on FNC. Morning Joe is a mixed bag. Scarborough is a moderate, but Pat Buchanan is on a regular basis.

CNN -- Anderson Cooper, Campbell Brown - pretty straight forward news programming. Larry King -- interview show with softball questions. They have a mid-day guy, Rick something who is left-leaning. But you'd have a hard time showing a consistent daily slant on stories coming out of CNN.

Again, the qualification for bias is consistent. Not one story or even one show--but a daily effort to produce a news "narrative" from a specific angle.

CBS, NBC, ABC -- local news highlight local stories. They cater to their audience and demos. The nightly network news shows cover stories from a variety of angles -- you'd have a hard time showing any consistent bias one way or another. I know Bill O'Rielly has got a hardon for NBC, but I don't see it.

Newspapers -- Front page, straight news. Columnists -- opinion. Editorial page -- varies from week to week. Basically, they bigger papers cater to a certain audience and stories are selected and edited based on how well they'll sell that paper to their audience.

IMO:

The ONLY BIAS, meaning consistent slat on stories, you'll see is what I call a "conflict bias." Stories are framed around the most dramatic elements--the conflict between two sides.

In dramatic story telling, you engage your audience by punching up the conflict between two people or parties. In order to make their programming more compelling, MSM will frame or tell stories from an angle that implies some sort of conflict. Listen to the language used over the weekend when Cheney and Biden made statements on the Sunday shows.

Why does Sarah Palin get more coverage--because she's a polarizing personality--conflict comes naturally. Love her or hater her, viewers will stay tuned in.

The one bias I will give you -- On social issues, there is more tolerance among people who work in the media for gays.

A lot of "liberal media" bias arguments consist of finding fault in which stories were not covered. I have yet to see a legitimate relevant major story that was not covered by major outlets in some fashion.

The bottom line here is that no other outlet, not even MSNBC approaches News/Editorial cable programming in the fashion FNC does -- they have reinvented New/editorial programing and packaged it as a daily news 'narrative' told from a conservative angle.

This is nothing new. William Randolph Hearst ran his newspapers the same way.
 
Now we're getting somewhere.

First of all define "biased" -- if you're talking across the board slant on all stories every single day, I'd say no. Absolutely not.

MSNBC offers counter-programming to FNC. Sort of. Many of their commentator/hosts are left-leaning counter-parts to those on FNC. Morning Joe is a mixed bag. Scarborough is a moderate, but Pat Buchanan is on a regular basis.

CNN -- Anderson Cooper, Campbell Brown - pretty straight forward news programming. Larry King -- interview show with softball questions. They have a mid-day guy, Rick something who is left-leaning. But you'd have a hard time showing a consistent daily slant on stories coming out of CNN.

Again, the qualification for bias is consistent. Not one story or even one show--but a daily effort to produce a news "narrative" from a specific angle.

CBS, NBC, ABC -- local news highlight local stories. They cater to their audience and demos. The nightly network news shows cover stories from a variety of angles -- you'd have a hard time showing any consistent bias one way or another. I know Bill O'Rielly has got a hardon for NBC, but I don't see it.

Newspapers -- Front page, straight news. Columnists -- opinion. Editorial page -- varies from week to week. Basically, they bigger papers cater to a certain audience and stories are selected and edited based on how well they'll sell that paper to their audience.

IMO:

The ONLY BIAS, meaning consistent slat on stories, you'll see is what I call a "conflict bias." Stories are framed around the most dramatic elements--the conflict between two sides.

In dramatic story telling, you engage your audience by punching up the conflict between two people or parties. In order to make their programming more compelling, MSM will frame or tell stories from an angle that implies some sort of conflict. Listen to the language used over the weekend when Cheney and Biden made statements on the Sunday shows.

Why does Sarah Palin get more coverage--because she's a polarizing personality--conflict comes naturally. Love her or hater her, viewers will stay tuned in.

The one bias I will give you -- On social issues, there is more tolerance among people who work in the media for gays.

A lot of "liberal media" bias arguments consist of finding fault in which stories were not covered. I have yet to see a legitimate relevant major story that was not covered by major outlets in some fashion.

The bottom line here is that no other outlet, not even MSNBC approaches News/Editorial cable programming in the fashion FNC does -- they have reinvented New/editorial programing and packaged it as a daily news 'narrative' told from a conservative angle.

This is nothing new. William Randolph Hearst ran his newspapers the same way.
No we are not getting anywhere, you are dissembling. You in fact stated nothing before: "The sad irony of people who watch Fox news because they believe the other networks are biased--they actually believe they are getting a fair and balanced accounting of current events."

In fact your entire stance is exactly the appeal to belief/spite you complain vacuously about. Which comes not at all as a shock to anyone thoughtful who has bothered reading most of your post across many threads since you arrived. The hackery is outweighed only by the hypocrisy with you and you are utterly inconsistent. As you argue about consistency, chuckle.

You
watch Fox News, you do so because you think/believe you are getting a fair and balanced accounting of events? No eh? Well then, you prognostication about "why" millions of other people watch Fox News is just so much "Appeal to Belief/Spite" and once again you are trapped in a conundrum of your own making. You frame your narrative to fit your outlook. See that is the problem with posters like you who labor with Fox Derangement Syndrome. In order to make your arguments about bias, you end up asking others what they mean by "bias" when you get caught in a causality loop. You start at broad sweeping generalizations, and then when you get challenged do you reply honestly and directly to the challenge or question? No, you spin like a top and then want to get "specific" about what you think "bias" is. In other words, you are the personification of an internet argument. I've always argued what is the bias argument worth? I've posed that question directly to you before; not that you could muster a response to it. Much as before, it is amazing how you could type so much yet not address anything I asked you or stated. You sir are far more impressed with your internet spin-dance than am I and to judge by responses at DP, many others seeking intellectually honest discourse. But then I actually know a thing or two about journalism and so called "media bias" whereas you are left spining in a rut crying, don't quote "conservative websites" or use WND, both themselves vacuous appeals to belief/spite, to quote your latest circular posing.
 
No group can overthrow the government by force, as things currently stand. Have you ever watched some of the SWAT teams on TV? Do you really want to try and attack those people? You would lose. No matter which group you happen to be associated with. Of course SWAT would be backed up by the Marines special ops.
No, it really can't be done by force, unless, our money becomes worthless. In that scenario the Police and Military members would resign from their duties after a while. Thus ensuing chaos.

Chaos would then start a civil war to see who would take the reins of power after value returned to the currency. Using history as a guide, the left would be the most likely group to start the "revolution" (as it would be called), or the civil war, which it would become in short order.

So while people are stockpiling foods and weapons, I'm content to practice my grasp on the Spanish language. Civil wars are best viewed from the sidelines.

P.S: This isn't a media bias thread.
 
Last edited:
No we are not getting anywhere, you are dissembling. You in fact stated nothing before: "The sad irony of people who watch Fox news because they believe the other networks are biased--they actually believe they are getting a fair and balanced accounting of current events."

Boy, I guess I really have to spell it out for you:

Fox packages it's cable news channel as "Fair and Balanced" - Fact.

The most popular programs on FNC are editorial/opinion programs - Fact.

Editorial is not news - Fact.

Calling editorial programing "fair and balanced" is ironic. - Fact.

People who watch opinion shows and think they're getting news are sad and stupid - IMO.

I believe you understood everything I said the first time around and only wish to bait and play silly little game of parsing and misstating what I said.
I'm not even sure you've taken a side or made a point.

I guess that's difficult when the conversation is over your head or you really having nothing to say and just want to attack...

In fact your entire stance is exactly the appeal to belief/spite you complain vacuously about.

Please see facts above should you continue to be confused about what constitutes a legitimate argument.

BTW - I'm still waiting for you do post one fact.

You[/B] watch Fox News, you do so because you think/believe you are getting a fair and balanced accounting of events?

I stated that I watch FNC to get a conservative perspective on current evets.

You continue to play your little game of putting words into my mouth and misstating what I said to create an argument you can attack.

Pathetic. -- Anyone following the thread can see how desperately you continue to assemble your little straw friends.

I've posed that question directly to you before; not that you could muster a response to it.

Really, where?

And if I had a dollar for every question of mine that you avoided --

Much as before, it is amazing how you could type so much yet not address anything I asked you or stated.

Projection. Were you ever going to take side or just parse and attack everything I post with weak straw men??

The fine art of trolling -- you're determined to take it to a new level.

But then I actually know a thing or two about journalism and so called "media bias"

Really -- because I was working for Fox during the inception of FNC. I would love to hear about your journalistic background.

Honestly, Sir L, are you taking a position or just parsing everything I say in a weak attempt to bait me (into what I can't imagine)?

The way you keep calling me "Sir" -- are you acting out some weird fantasy?
 
Boy, I guess I really have to spell it out for you:

Fox packages it's cable news channel as "Fair and Balanced" - Fact.

The most popular programs on FNC are editorial/opinion programs - Fact.

Editorial is not news - Fact.

Calling editorial programing "fair and balanced" is ironic. - Fact.

People who watch opinion shows and think they're getting news are sad and stupid - IMO.

I believe you understood everything I said the first time around and only wish to bait and play silly little game of parsing and misstating what I said.
I'm not even sure you've taken a side or made a point.

I guess that's difficult when the conversation is over your head or you really having nothing to say and just want to attack...
Oh boo hoo you poor victim you, sorry but it is what it is. If you are going to bother going on a harangue about appeal to belief/spite, simultaneously doing exactly that, it what it is. Hypocritical and again, you have not really said anything but your usual anti Fox screed. You are real worked up about their slogan, so when you appeal to belief/spite it is OK in your book and you are incapable of admitting the obvious, yes that is quickly becoming a pattern with you.

Please see facts above should you continue to be confused about what constitutes a legitimate argument.
Of course, never mind this is your answer to everyone you argue with here at DP. Only you, in post after post and thread after thread, know what constitutes a legitimate argument; you tell us so daily. How droll and how common.

BTW - I'm still waiting for you do post one fact.
Empty. You have not managed to address anything I've said to you so far, instead positing hypocritical lectures about your appeals to belief/spite. Observing you pose at wanting some kind of "facts" is pretty amusing though.

I stated that I watch FNC to get a conservative perspective on current evets.
Yes and according to your appeal to belief/spite, you alone watch Fox for those reasons, the other millions, do so because they are stupid and all the other claims you have made in this thread. Pretty dumb of you, and you know it.

You continue to play your little game of putting words into my mouth and misstating what I said to create an argument you can attack.
Yawn. Poor you, poor victim of "attack!"

Pathetic. -- Anyone following the thread can see how desperately you continue to assemble your little straw friends.
Yawn, coming from the same guy whining about appeals to belief/spite and offering little else, yawn.


Really, where?

And if I had a dollar for every question of mine that you avoided --



Projection. Were you ever going to take side or just parse and attack everything I post with weak straw men??

The fine art of trolling -- you're determined to take it to a new level.
Coming from a poster who has managed to avoid everything I have asked you, this is just par for the course dissembling.

Really -- because I was working for Fox during the inception of FNC. I would love to hear about your journalistic background.
Where you doing late night trash collection at a Fox satellite? You will pardon me, but you don't strike me as being too familiar with the tenants of journalism. Chuckle.

Honestly, Sir L, are you taking a position or just parsing everything I say in a weak attempt to bait me (into what I can't imagine)?

The way you keep calling me "Sir" -- are you acting out some weird fantasy?
Oh please don't bother throwing the word honesty into this thread, as a review of it does not actually play out as you pretend.

I wonder how many post you are willing to just dodge and keep arguing, presenting your appeals to belief/spite and acting sincerely as if you are not doing exactly that. I bet quite a lot.;)
 
Last edited:
So please tell me, if you can answer the question, how do "your typical neighbors and colleagues" intend to use firearms to overthrow the government. Details please, we've all heard the bloviated threats and Jefferson quotes. If these are intelligent people, my "neighbors", what gives them encouragement that "rising up" with firearms will get them anything but arrested?

I mean, really! We all know Bill Ayers, which was Obama best friend, tried to do that and wish he could do more to cause disaster.
 
Back
Top Bottom