It's All The Fault Of Fox News

[SirGreenThumb]

Give one example of a question he asked that was not full of stinky fox new BS. In other words, what questions did he ask about REAL events, not manufactured BS? NONE.

hahaha, really?
read the whole thread before you ask me a question.

manufactured BS? yep, you don't even deserve me to respond to you with the idiotic shit.

 

[headwrappedturtle]

I can answer that for him:

a tiny one!

I just want to put my lips to your butthole after reading this.

funniest thing i have ever heard



EDIT: I think seriously broke some ribs laughing at this.

omgz rollie you got me rolling

 

[SirGreenThumb]

Thanks for being honest about the news reporting part.
Actually, 55% of Fox News is opinion, 45% is hard news.

But we do have a difference of opinion on the interview though.
Obama dodged each question and was caught in three lies.

Maybe you can answer this for me since the left is avoiding the question..

Are they referring to fox as a whole, or just when they report on politics?

 

[beenthere]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to rollitup again.

Hey look, a sok rep!
Come up with something original dude, followers are pathetic.

 

[SirGreenThumb]

I just want to put my lips to your butthole after reading this.

funniest thing i have ever heard

You don't get out much do you?

 

[budleydoright]

Thanks for being honest about the news reporting part.
Actually, 55% of Fox News is opinion, 45% is hard news.

But we do have a difference of opinion on the interview though.
Obama dodged each question and was caught in three lies.

No it's about 8%. The rest is total BS and anybody that believes it is a fool. An Australian company that wraps itself in the American Flag, The Bible and the 2nd Amendment no surprize they have the followers that they have.

 

[UncleBuck]

What makes it even better is that he was proven wrong about his bullshit in this very thread.

Hence the reason I have no reason to reply to him any longer. Yet he will still holler about me being this and that even though he was shown to be a liar.

is that so?

so when the white supremacists you cite at colorofcrime say skin color is the best predictor of crime, and wiki says SES is the best predictor of crime, that's the same thing?

and when the white supremacists at color of crime say that judges and cops have no bias, yet a mountain of empirical data shows the exact opposite, that's the same thing?

you even admitted you joined a white supremacist group.

no wonder you are an ardent defender of fox news, you have absolutely no clue how reality works.

 

[UncleBuck]

hahaha, really?
read the whole thread before you ask me a question.

manufactured BS? yep, you don't even deserve me to respond to you with the idiotic shit.

no one deserves you to respond to them, that is an insufferable and cruel fate.

 

[SirGreenThumb]

No it's about 8%. The rest is total BS and anybody that believes it is a fool. An Australian company that wraps itself in the American Flag, The Bible and the 2nd Amendment no surprize they have the followers that they have.

surprize?

what is wrong with the 2nd amendment?

This should be fun.

 

[Padawanbater2]

All of them.
Its not that hard to give a straight answer and all he did was stretch out an answer that he didn't give.

It would be like me going for a job interview for a network admin position and they ask me to explain how I would go about changing a users login in active directory, but instead of me telling them how to change a users login I explain how to install a hard drive. You think I would get the job?

What if I smelled like perfume from my mom, and my fiancee smelled it on me and asked me about it, but instead of saying I gave my mom a hug before I left I go on some wild tangent and start talking about how I was standing in line at starbucks and there was this chick in front of me with some strong perfume, blah blah... You think my lady will say ok that makes sense.. no she wouldn't.

Context, man, you always have to take that into consideration.

This interview I kind of look at like one of Richard Dawkins debates with creationists. He's spent his entire academic career studying evolution and these people with no knowledge of the theory at all ask elementary questions a beginning biology student could answer if they simply took the time to learn, but their own ideological beliefs prevent them from accepting the information. I don't think that's what is happening here with FOX news and O'Reilly. He has an agenda to push, his network demands it. He is asking questions that have been answered, issues that have been solved. The president is answering his questions just like most people would after they've been asked it dozens of times. He knows the FOX network spins what he says, he knows that's exactly what O'Reilly is there to do during the interview. Instead of getting into the usual argument O'Reilly has on his show, he decided to sidestep it and in nicer words, call him an idiot for asking since it's been answered dozens of times before and his network just refuses to accept the answer. Just like Dawkins does with evolution. He knows it's a fact, he knows the interviewer does not understand the concept, so where is the value in sitting there trying to explain and justify his responses? It would have went much worse for Obama if he'd have sat there and played O'Reilly's game. Trust me, he did very well in this interview.

But just to clarify, give me two questions you felt the president didn't answer sufficiently, I'd like to review them myself and give you my own take on it

 

[headwrappedturtle]

You don't get out much do you?

what are you basing this off?

how could you possibly know how much i ''get out''?

maybe i dont, maybe i want to change, where do you suggest i go?

 

[UncleBuck]

Oh look the liar speaks again.

you have never once even tried to refute the basic facts or even acknowledge them.

you are a weak, scared little racist.

have fun living in your delusion, because no one else is gonna delude themselves into your protective little cocoon.

 

[budleydoright]

surprize?

what is wrong with the 2nd amendment?

This should be fun.

Never said there was anything wrong with it, I just stated that a foreign company wraps themselves in it, gets a bunch of followers who foolishly buy into their bullshit.

 

[UncleBuck]

fox news clings to their guns and bibles and antipathy towards those who are different.

DDDDDDDD

 

[SirGreenThumb]

what are you basing this off?

how could you possibly know how much i ''get out''?

maybe i dont, maybe i want to change, where do you sugest i go?

I base it off of you thinking the word tiny being used by the forum admin is the funniest thing you've ever heard.

A comedy show?

 

[UncleBuck]

I base it off of you thinking the word tiny being used by the forum admin is the funniest thing you've ever heard.

A comedy show?

you seem especially upset that rolli had a funny at the expense of your racist, deluded friend.

but deluded racists gotta stick together, so it makes sense.

 

[SirGreenThumb]

Context, man, you always have to take that into consideration.

This interview I kind of look at like one of Richard Dawkins debates with creationists. He's spent his entire academic career studying evolution and these people with no knowledge of the theory at all ask elementary questions a beginning biology student could answer if they simply took the time to learn, but their own ideological beliefs prevent them from accepting the information. I don't think that's what is happening here with FOX news and O'Reilly. He has an agenda to push, his network demands it. He is asking questions that have been answered, issues that have been solved. The president is answering his questions just like most people would after they've been asked it dozens of times. He knows the FOX network spins what he says, he knows that's exactly what O'Reilly is there to do during the interview. Instead of getting into the usual argument O'Reilly has on his show, he decided to sidestep it and in nicer words, call him an idiot for asking since it's been answered dozens of times before and his network just refuses to accept the answer. Just like Dawkins does with evolution. He knows it's a fact, he knows the interviewer does not understand the concept, so where is the value in sitting there trying to explain and justify his responses? It would have went much worse for Obama if he'd have sat there and played O'Reilly's game. Trust me, he did very well in this interview.

But just to clarify, give me two questions you felt the president didn't answer sufficiently, I'd like to review them myself and give you my own take on it

You did exactly what I did to you.. Kudos

Question:Why didn’t you fire Sebelius?
Question: when did you know there was going to be problems with the computers?

You asked for two there are two..

I know it can be said that it is rude for O'reilly to interrupt him, but with the limited amount of time there was allowed and the presidents long winded responses is a way of avoiding giving a straight answer. IMO.

 

[budleydoright]

fox news clings to their guns and bibles and antipathy towards those who are different.

DDDDDDDD

Doesn't matter anyway, according to their own gospel, they are all going to hell anyway:

Matthew 19:24
New International Version (NIV)
24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

LOL

 

[SirGreenThumb]

you seem especially upset that rolli had a funny at the expense of your racist, deluded friend.

but deluded racists gotta stick together, so it makes sense.

Why are you still talking to me?

You sure say a lot to not say anything at all.

also, it wasn't even funny. Guess you need to get out more also.. well that is obvious, just look at your post count.

 

[budleydoright]

I'm Curious, are republicans REALLY wishing they had Mcain and Ms word Salad or Bif and his magic underware?