• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

Fox lies.

Cowboy said:
That dont even make any kind of sense Mak . The "try to follow along" comment is about as an arrogent statement as you some times say everyone here allways picks on you because WE ALL disagree with your opinion & it is not true period , I have many times said I agree with some of your thoughts & opinions once you narrow it down to what they acctually are . Not everyone is against you but some people at least try to keep an open mind .

Just the way I see it & you told me a hundred times you dont care what I think so alls good . Dont mean I'm gonna shut the fuck up though . :wink:
Click to expand...

and thats exactly why he does it. He makes those snarky, arrogant, condecending comments because he believes he's more intelligent than most here.
 
Thanks for the humor fellas but they are shooting at Geraldo on the Fox report right now so I have to run.:yum::yum:
 
mak2 said:
It wasnt one man, is was a corporate exec. Try to follow along.
Click to expand...

Ok, let me try to follow along with you.

The one man was a corporate executive. He was in fact a male member of the species, so therefore he is a man. And you clearly indicate that he was "a corporate exec." So "a" would denote a singular body. As would the term "exec" also denote singular. Whereas 'they' instead of "a" would clearly connote plural; similarly "execs" with an 's' on the end would also be an indicator for plural/multiple executives.

So we clearly agree that there is only 1 individual. And I cannot see how you can dispute his gender.

Therefore its clear that I was correct to refer to him as only one man :hammer:

Now I think I followed along a bit more accurately than you have thus far.
 
Mighty sensitive little fellers aint you. The pediophile thing didnt bother me and follow along, when I absolutely did not say all, ever, got you guys all worked up. Whatever.

"One man" might work in the mail room. A corporate exec guides corporate direction.

Sammon's "mischief" wasn't limited to his on-air appearances. As Media Matters reported, Sammon also pushed Fox News colleagues to play the socialism card. On October 27, 2008, Sammon sent an email to staffers highlighting what he described as "Obama's references to socialism, liberalism, Marxism and Marxists" in his 1995 autobiography Dreams From My Father. Shortly after sending the email, Sammon appeared on two Fox News programs to discuss his research and also wrote a FoxNews.com piece about Obama's "affinity to Marxists."

On October 14, 2008, Sammon said that Obama's "spread the wealth around" remark "is red meat when you're talking to conservatives and you start talking about 'spread the wealth around.' That is tantamount to socialism."

Sammon repeated the "tantamount to socialism" line later that day, stating: "That's anathema to conservatives. That's the same as saying, 'Spread the misery around.' That's basically tantamount to socialism. And that bothers a lot of people. So I think if McCain is going to have any chance of moving ahead, he's got to turn this economic discussion from something that's been hurting him for the last couple weeks to something that can help him by focusing on what to do about the economy in the future."
 
mak2 said:
Mighty sensitive little fellers aint you.
Click to expand...
Nope, not sure why you even think that other than you make silly statements like that to divert attention away from the fact that you are so often wrong.

mak2 said:
The pediophile thing didnt bother me and follow along, when I absolutely did not say all, ever, got you guys all worked up. Whatever.
Click to expand...
Further evidence that the left is full of hypocrites. The pedophile thing is a big deal if the man being referred to is a teacher, priest, etc. But if its a big time donor of the left its totally OK.

mak2 said:
"One man" might work in the mail room. A corporate exec guides corporate direction.
Click to expand...
Still one man. Others have their own minds.

mak2 said:
Sammon's "mischief" wasn't limited to his on-air appearances. As Media Matters reported, Sammon also pushed Fox News colleagues to play the socialism card. On October 27, 2008, Sammon sent an email to staffers highlighting what he described as "Obama's references to socialism, liberalism, Marxism and Marxists" in his 1995 autobiography Dreams From My Father. Shortly after sending the email, Sammon appeared on two Fox News programs to discuss his research and also wrote a FoxNews.com piece about Obama's "affinity to Marxists."
Click to expand...
All this is TRUE. So where is the problem?

mak2 said:
On October 14, 2008, Sammon said that Obama's "spread the wealth around" remark "is red meat when you're talking to conservatives and you start talking about 'spread the wealth around.' That is tantamount to socialism."
Click to expand...
Again, this is TRUE. So where is the problem?

mak2 said:
Sammon repeated the "tantamount to socialism" line later that day, stating: "That's anathema to conservatives. That's the same as saying, 'Spread the misery around.' That's basically tantamount to socialism. And that bothers a lot of people. So I think if McCain is going to have any chance of moving ahead, he's got to turn this economic discussion from something that's been hurting him for the last couple weeks to something that can help him by focusing on what to do about the economy in the future."
Click to expand...
Again truth in all this. So where is the problem?
 
Those are exammples of him guiding corporate policy, saying something he at the time thought to be not true. Funny how you can understand it when it is a democrat.
 
So.

Is his job to let the corporation go rudderless without any guidance?

You point out things he did to guide the company, and you point out that those things he highlighted were TRUE.

Now if they were LIES, which they were not, then you might have a valid point.
 
If saying something he dont beleive is true, then telling his underlings to say it too is not lying and not guiding the corporation in a dishonest direction, then I just dont understand what lying is. At the time he did not beleive those comments, in fact he believed them to be far fetched, that is lying. Even if he is a republican. You get it in that other thread where a demo lies.
 
He may have believed them to be 'far fetched' but they turned out to be TRUE.

Therefore no lie.

What don't you get? Can't you keep up with this, we discussed that these things were true many posts ago.
 
Melensdad said:
He may have believed them to be 'far fetched' but they turned out to be TRUE.

Therefore no lie.

What don't you get? Can't you keep up with this, we discussed that these things were true many posts ago.
Click to expand...

Come on man, if I tell you something I think is a lie and it turns out to be true, I wasnt lying? Really?
 
Melensdad said:
He may have believed them to be 'far fetched' but they turned out to be TRUE.

Therefore no lie.

What don't you get? Can't you keep up with this, we discussed that these things were true many posts ago.
Click to expand...

What dont I get? I dont get how it is a lie if one group does it, and is not if another one does. I cant keep up?

Just as a refresher, lest we forget:

Lying, as defined by St. Thomas Aquinas, is a statement at variance with the mind. This definition is more accurate than most others which are current. Thus a recent authority defines a lie as a false statement made with the intention of deceiving. But it is possible to lie without making a false statement and without any intention of deceiving. For if a man makes a statement which he thinks is false, but which in reality is true he certainly lies inasmuch as he intends to say what is false, and although a well-known liar may have no intention of deceiving others — for he knows that no one believes a word he says — yet if he speaks at variance with his mind he does not cease to lie.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09469a.htm
 
Melensdad said:
He may have believed them to be 'far fetched' but they turned out to be TRUE.

Therefore no lie.

What don't you get? Can't you keep up with this, we discussed that these things were true many posts ago.
Click to expand...

Where'd ya go? I think this thread demonstrates clearly what happens when a group becomes so partisan they completly lose track of right and wrong. I know you guys know what a lie is, yet you staunchly defended it over and over. Weird, then in another thread, in which a democrat manipulates the data to make it appear to say something it doesnt (yes, still a lie) you catch that right off.

Again, sad but I think many in this country are so partisan they have lost their moral compass. They dont even understand basics of right and wrong anymore. :sad:
 
I'll simply have to point out that the guy was doing his job. He may not have personally believed something but it did turn out to be true. And many people did believe it to be true, which seemed to be obvious to many, and again, turned out to be true. His job is to be skeptical (he's in the journalism profession) and his job is also to help make his program(s) successful. He was skeptical but and he turned out to be right.

As for the right versus wrong issue you bring up, that may also be correlated to the liberal pedophile and his supporters and the fact that you consider it a non-issue. Talk about losing a moral compass!
 
Tell you what, mak2. How about we shut down Fox News (please note correct spelling) and place our hope and faith in ABC, NBC, PBS, CNN and MSNBC as our only sources for accurate and unbiased reporting of the news? Would that make your liberal soul happy? We'll only listen to one side of the story and from that attempt to make decisions on how to vote our ticket and trust our politicians. Would that give your soul great solace? Oh, and we'll publicly crucify all Fox News executives and Fox News anchors and their staffs. We'll even give you the spear to finish them off if you feel particularly humane as the life drains from their bodies while hanging on the cross of liberalism. Would that make you happy?
 
Melensdad said:
I'll simply have to point out that the guy was doing his job. He may not have personally believed something but it did turn out to be true. And many people did believe it to be true, which seemed to be obvious to many, and again, turned out to be true. His job is to be skeptical (he's in the journalism profession) and his job is also to help make his program(s) successful. He was skeptical but and he turned out to be right.

As for the right versus wrong issue you bring up, that may also be correlated to the liberal pedophile and his supporters and the fact that you consider it a non-issue. Talk about losing a moral compass!
Click to expand...

No, a lie is a lie is a lie. My job cant make me lie, his cant make him either. I gotta ask, what pedophile do I consider to be a nonissue?

By the way, nothing above changes the fact that you are defending a lie because a Republican told it. Just sayin.
 
JEV said:
Tell you what, mak2. How about we shut down Fox News (please note correct spelling) and place our hope and faith in ABC, NBC, PBS, CNN and MSNBC as our only sources for accurate and unbiased reporting of the news? Would that make your liberal soul happy? We'll only listen to one side of the story and from that attempt to make decisions on how to vote our ticket and trust our politicians. Would that give your soul great solace? Oh, and we'll publicly crucify all Fox News executives and Fox News anchors and their staffs. We'll even give you the spear to finish them off if you feel particularly humane as the life drains from their bodies while hanging on the cross of liberalism. Would that make you happy?
Click to expand...

I am not a liberal, I dont even know what this post means. Why are you guys defending lies?
 
mak2 said:
I am not a liberal, I dont even know what this post means. Why are you guys defending lies?
Click to expand...
The post means that YOU made a BROAD GENERALITY that Fox News lies, based on the actions/words of one individual. For that atrocity I just thought you would like to see public condemnations along with public punishment (crucifixion) of the entire organization, and to elevate your preferred liberal news sources to "Fair & Balanced," which a person with the IQ of a stone knows is not the case. Additionally, you beat on a dead horse until people become upset with you for not believing or getting their rebuttal to your arguments (the rebuttals being fact based arguments), and then you get upset and say everyone is picking on you. You certainly add color to the mix here, but someday you'll need to "get it" or keep receiving the treatment you get here for not paying attention. I'm going to work now, but I'll be back later.
 
JEV said:
The post means that YOU made a BROAD GENERALITY that Fox News lies, based on the actions/words of one individual. For that atrocity I just thought you would like to see public condemnations along with public punishment (crucifixion) of the entire organization, and to elevate your preferred liberal news sources to "Fair & Balanced," which a person with the IQ of a stone knows is not the case. Additionally, you beat on a dead horse until people become upset with you for not believing or getting their rebuttal to your arguments (the rebuttals being fact based arguments), and then you get upset and say everyone is picking on you. You certainly add color to the mix here, but someday you'll need to "get it" or keep receiving the treatment you get here for not paying attention. I'm going to work now, but I'll be back later.
Click to expand...

Threat?

So if I dont agree with your "facts" I need to get it or keep recieving the treatment I get here? For not paying attention or for not agreeing with everything. Another interesting point brought out on this thread,

1) definition of lying varies by party

2) I need to get it or I will get the treatment.

:yum::yum::yum:
 
mak2 said:
I am not a liberal, I dont even know what this post means. Why are you guys defending lies?
Click to expand...

"I want to make it a bit eaiser for my many, many liberal brothers and sisters on this site to contribute to his reelection. Thanks. Vote no change. "
 
SShepherd said:
"I want to make it a bit eaiser for my many, many liberal brothers and sisters on this site to contribute to his reelection. Thanks. Vote no change. "
Click to expand...

I am not being condescending but I guess have to explain this to you.

I do not beleive there are any liberals on this site, I beleive they have all been ran off. I have been told I was wrong, so, I took everyone's word for it. I utilitzed an ironic rethorical device to say I am not a liberal and there are no liberals on this site, at least that are out of the closet and discuss political matters with you guys.

Now I am ready for my treatment. Thank you.
 
ok..what ever

I guess, "this is what he really ment' is used so often today it really doesnt matter what was said.

i guess "I'm not a liberal", and "many liberal brothers and sisters " was just shananigains....

right..............:hammer:
 
I'm surprised Mr. Sammon still has a job. Espousing commentary you perceive to be far fetched, at minimum, strips one of their credibility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top