Fox at it again, thanks Jon Stewart

@Fido,

I strongly disagree with you Fido. Freedom means freedom. Once you start taking away freedoms you think can live without, you open up the door to people taking away freedoms they think you can live without.

Sure, in one sense it would be nice if all I had to do to shut someone up was to label them a "gang". Of course I would hate it if someone could shut me up by labeling me a "gang". (Of course there is nothing wrong with calling Fox news a "mob", I am just arguing that they shouldn't be put in jail because of what I think of them and neither should I).

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I strongly disagree with you Fido. Freedom means freedom. Once you start taking away freedoms you think can live without, you open up the door to people taking away freedoms they think you can live without.

Sure, in one sense it would be nice if all I had to do to shut someone up was to label them a "gang". Of course I would hate it if someone could shut me up by labeling me a "gang". (Of course there is nothing wrong with calling Fox news a "mob", I am just arguing that they shouldn't be put in jail because of what I think of them and neither should I).

Freedom is not a quality institutions like churches, and property and press cannot live without because they do not live in the first place... If institutions destroy the ability of the government to provide the good, one of which is liberty, and another is justice, that it was constituted to achieve, then they are enemies of the people, and as bad as any foreign enemy which has faced us... Churches hate liberty.... The press, and by that I take all means of communication that get rich not taking a stand, but by transmitting lies wholesale on airwaves that are the property of the people and which the people have a right to demand are used for their benefit.... So; rights are a necessity of people... Respect people any you respect property, but the respect of property does not ensure respect for people, or their rights, but makes it all but certain that no civil right will be respected that goes against property rights... Church rights and press rights go against our own, and they should be abolished... If you respect people and their rights then you respect their religion and their communications, but the respect of churches and of communication does not of itself protect, or respect people, and that is where we are, where we must fight these corporations as churches and news services are for rights that are properly ours that have been bought off from under us to settle a debt they forced the government to assume...

1 Reply

@Fido,

Please clarify Fido.

Are you proposing banning all religion? Or would you propose a list of religions that are acceptable to the State (this is how China solves the problem). The same question applies to the press as well.

To be honest, when you talk about labeling groups as "enemies of the people", you scare me as much as any Church.

1 Reply

@tsarstepan,

tsarstepan wrote:

Obama had made a simple metaphor that when the Democrats were controlling the House, he made the innocent reference that it was like they were driving the car. They had the majority of seats, they were driving the car. That they were in control and that the Republicans needed to sit in the back of that car and act like passengers. Fox News kept twisting his words by not only implying that he made the gaffe that Republicans should be forced to sit in the back of the bus but that Obama, our dear black President was racially disparaging the Republican house members.

They kept insisting that Obama used the racially termed word bus, an idea that they were considered racially inferior and had to sit in the back of the bus ... referring to the historically racial Jim Crow laws of the segregated south.

I find it funny that you couldn't bother to watch less then 120 seconds of video to see exactly what was said including context and you already made up your mind. Something tells me that you will be self blinded to these facts and their existing context as well simply because reality goes against your grain of thinking.

I did watch it days ago, and now I am waiting for you to name an individual and quote a sentence he spoke which is a clear lie.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Brandon9000 wrote:

Please quote the clear lie for me.

Then

Brandon9000 wrote:

I didn't ask for a transcription. I asked what the "clear" lie was. If you cannot tell me what it was, then there wasn't one.

Then

Brandon9000 wrote:

now I am waiting for you to name an individual and quote a sentence he spoke which is a clear lie.

Do you think it's smart to lie about your own statements?

But I'll play your stupid game.

At about 3.50 into the clip I linked to Hannity says, quote
"President Barack Obama actually said Republicans can go to the back of the bus" unquote.

Numerous other fox faces repeat this fabrication but I've wasted enough time on your Fox-like evasion of the truth. This satisfies all three of your conflicting requests.

Have a nice day.

1 Reply

@hingehead,

hingehead wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Please quote the clear lie for me.

Then

Brandon9000 wrote:
I didn't ask for a transcription. I asked what the "clear" lie was. If you cannot tell me what it was, then there wasn't one.

Then

Brandon9000 wrote:
now I am waiting for you to name an individual and quote a sentence he spoke which is a clear lie.

Do you think it's smart to lie about your own statements?

But I'll play your stupid game.

At about 3.50 into the clip I linked to Hannity says, quote
"President Barack Obama actually said Republicans can go to the back of the bus" unquote.

Numerous other fox faces repeat this fabrication but I've wasted enough time on your Fox-like evasion of the truth. This satisfies all three of your conflicting requests.

Have a nice day.

Asking you to back up your claims is neither a stupid game nor a "Fox-like" evasion. It's ordinary, plain vanilla debate. Everyone has to be prepared to back up claims. You're right. Hannity seems to have lied.

2 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Thank you Brandon. One day you will have to explain to me how you quote someone in print from audio without doing a transcript. Cheers HH.

1 Reply

@hingehead,

hingehead wrote:

Thank you Brandon. One day you will have to explain to me how you quote someone in print from audio without doing a transcript. Cheers HH.

Why don't I just tell you now rather than waiting for "one day." Tsarstepan said, "no one is going to transcribe" the whole video "for you," and I responded, or meant to, that I didn't want a transcript of the whole video, just a specific quotation of one line that was alleged to be a clear lie.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

You now have the quote Brandon. Rather than admit that it exists, I see you are going to just argue that it wasn't given to you in the proper manner.

Why do you play this game Brandon? You pull **** like this then get all upset when it is used against you.

Hannity LIED. Admit it. Fox news allowed him to lie without repercussions. All you had to do was watch the video to see the lie. But you claimed you did watch it. Where you lying then? Or are you lying now?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Please clarify Fido.

Are you proposing banning all religion? Or would you propose a list of religions that are acceptable to the State (this is how China solves the problem). The same question applies to the press as well.

To be honest, when you talk about labeling groups as "enemies of the people", you scare me as much as any Church.

What does anyone have to say about the religion of another??? Believe what you wish, but pay taxes, and if your contributions go to charity and you wish a receipt, then prove it... We support those institutions, and the fact is that many churches have spewed hatred for the very society which offers them the right to do so... They are not a foce for good or social progress... They are adjunct of political parties acting and organizing against the common wealth and the common good...All churches are corporations and as such I would say they should with other corporation of a financial nature be expected to prove, or be able to prove a pure public purpose to their activities... We have a democracy to protect us from the use of privilage and position to that the society... It does not matter whether they exist to save souls or make profit... They should all be able to demonstrate that they exist for our good and not our harm, and no church in America can make this claim... The rest upon privilage to attack our rights just as the news corporations... To me that is a crime, and it should be punished instead of being rewarded....

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Brandon9000 wrote:

Hannity seems to have lied.

why can't you just say, "Hannity lied."?

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

You now have the quote Brandon. Rather than admit that it exists, I see you are going to just argue that it wasn't given to you in the proper manner.

Why do you play this game Brandon? You pull **** like this then get all upset when it is used against you.

Hannity LIED. Admit it. Fox news allowed him to lie without repercussions. All you had to do was watch the video to see the lie. But you claimed you did watch it. Where you lying then? Or are you lying now?

First of all, I have admitted that he lied. That, however, doesn't mean that it was a sinister lie with conspirators plotting in the shadows. It might have been an unfortunate exaggeration. I have admitted that it is false, though.

Secondly, I simply had no idea from that whole video, which statement was supposed to be the "clear lie." Once it was pointed out to me, I instantly agreed that it was a lie.

Finally, asking for someone to back up a claim in a debate is standard, not a lie, although I suppose that's all news to you.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Quote:

doesn't mean that it was a sinister lie with conspirators plotting in the shadows

I agree Brandon, I don't think Fox's lying and fabrication is 'in the shadows'. It's out there and flagrantly masquerading as news.

1 Reply

@hingehead,

hingehead wrote:

Quote:
doesn't mean that it was a sinister lie with conspirators plotting in the shadows

I agree Brandon, I don't think Fox's lying and fabrication is 'in the shadows'. It's out there and flagrantly masquerading as news.

That is an opinion which you have backed only with one single sentence by Hannity. Anyone can "think" anything. It doesn't make it true.

3 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Brandon9000 wrote:

hingehead wrote:

Quote:
doesn't mean that it was a sinister lie with conspirators plotting in the shadows

I agree Brandon, I don't think Fox's lying and fabrication is 'in the shadows'. It's out there and flagrantly masquerading as news.

That is an opinion which you have backed only with one single sentence by Hannity. Anyone can "think" anything. It doesn't make it true.

What's worse is that this is a privilage we give the press that they have often misused, and now it is blatent propaganda... Alright; they have captured the weakminded and well armed and violent... The object is an attack on all right using a privilage we give them out of our rights... What they are doing is inevitable, and people should have rights, but such privilages can only serve the rich and the powerful; and their attitude is that heads we win and tails you lose, because if we try to limit their privilage they will use it as an excuse to limit all our rights...

I think the proof of it is this: Fox can keep the privilage of press if they can prove they serve a pure public purpose... They cannot...They serve the cause of partasanship, division, and disunity... Those bastards are supporting treason, and they could use a good hanging every man and woman of them... NO ONE can say when and at what time our union and unity will stand between us and destruction.... We should not always expect to get along, and always agree; but those who make their wages drving a wedge between us so we can be defeated in detail are criminals...

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

You think only Hannity's statement was a lie? Did you really watch the video? Or are you just playing dumb because you know there are at least 3 other people that told the same lie.

Peter Johnson Jr. (Fox News Analyst) "What we are really seeing is a reference to notion of being in the back of the bus."

Monica Crawly - "Riding in the back has some racial overtones and you can't tell me the President was not aware of that."

Peter Johnson Jr " And once the car is out of the ditch you can't have the keys but we will let you sit in the back of the bus."

Quote:

Anyone can "think" anything. It doesn't make it true.

Yes, but it can be a lie.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

You think only Hannity's statement was a lie? Did you really watch the video? Or are you just playing dumb because you know there are at least 3 other people that told the same lie.

Peter Johnson Jr. (Fox News Analyst) "What we are really seeing is a reference to notion of being in the back of the bus."

Monica Crawly - "Riding in the back has some racial overtones and you can't tell me the President was not aware of that."

Peter Johnson Jr " And once the car is out of the ditch you can't have the keys but we will let you sit in the back of the bus."...

What Hannity said was false. Without watching the video again, the above statements strike me as opinions that you don't agree with.

0 Replies

Did everyone get that?! It wasn't a "sinister lie", it was an "unfortunate exaggeration".

I've been counseling 13 year olds for the past several months, and I swear this sounds like the same kind of "logic" they try, when they are just plain wrong.

2 Replies

@snood,

snood wrote:

I've been counseling 13 year olds for the past several months, and I swear this sounds like the same kind of "logic" they try, when they are just plain wrong.

And unwilling to admit it.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

snood wrote:
I've been counseling 13 year olds for the past several months, and I swear this sounds like the same kind of "logic" they try, when they are just plain wrong.

And unwilling to admit it.

Unwilling to admit that fair and balanced is twisted and insane??? They lie for money... Why do people believe their rubbish??? Do you suppose money affects their view of reality as well??? You can never take an honest man... Those who accept the lies accept them lies to justify their own versions of reality that are lies...

0 Replies

Fox at it again, thanks Jon Stewart

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know