[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Against orders. They were told twice to stand down. Those orders would’ve come down via the Whitehouse and the State Dept.[/quote]
Has something emerged since Fox first reported this in October, because I know that intelligence officials said it was an outright lie.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
this board is an example of why media is at peril . If you say something one side does not like , it will be called delusional , stupid , they will try and lump you into a mythical class of people that have no grasp on reality . Every one has to be right all the time . Just think of all the posters that 10,000 posts and have never admitted to being wrong [/quote]
You’ve aptly described liberals on this board. The others mostly just ask for sources or some kind of proof besides, “weed makes you think better,” from a known pot smoker.[/quote]
Yeah You are one I am talking about , the word is objectivity . Good example show me where I said weed makes me think better ? That is called modus operandi . Discredit the person you disagree with , with stupidity , but I know , It works
[quote]conservativedog wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
It should be called MSNBC opinions or Fox opinions. At least Stewart is just a comedy program and doesn’t masquerade as serious news. Fox and MSNBC are the left and right versions of pure confirmation bias. [/quote]
Just because they both have a point of view doesn’t mean both are wrong.
One can be right whether you agree with it or not.[/quote]
Of course, I’m sure MSNBC and Fox are both at times right when they bring certain things up. Doesn’t really change what I was talking about though. They are both prime confirmation bias over and over again. On Fox it’s the Democrats screwing everything up and here’s why and on MSNBC it’s Republicans screwing everything up and here’s why. They both appeal to exactly who they are trying to appeal to.
Also lol at people in 06 who were saying NOT to question the commander in chief in regards to Iraq questioning the commander in chief in regards to anything. I take it when the commander in chief has the letter I hate I can attack him, but when he has the letter I love don’t you dare say anything negative about him? Consistency for the loss.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TV_ED_HENRY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
"Benghazi has proven an interesting case study. Henry rejects the notion that he works off Fox marching orders in discussing the issue, but said, “I wouldn’t lie to you. I see that we’re covering Benghazi a lot, and I think that should be something that we’re asking about.”
He said other news outlets have under-covered the story, since four Americans were killed and there’s still some mystery about what the administration knew and when they knew about the attack.
“We’ve had the proper emphasis,” he said. “But I would not be so deluded to say that some of our shows, some of our commentators, have covered it more than it needed to be covered.”
–Ed Henry, Fox’s WH Correspondent, saying exactly what I argued in this thread. Just sayin’
[quote]smh23 wrote:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TV_ED_HENRY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
"Benghazi has proven an interesting case study. Henry rejects the notion that he works off Fox marching orders in discussing the issue, but said, “I wouldn’t lie to you. I see that we’re covering Benghazi a lot, and I think that should be something that we’re asking about.”
He said other news outlets have under-covered the story, since four Americans were killed and there’s still some mystery about what the administration knew and when they knew about the attack.
“We’ve had the proper emphasis,” he said. “But I would not be so deluded to say that some of our shows, some of our commentators, have covered it more than it needed to be covered.”
–Ed Henry, Fox’s WH Correspondent, saying exactly what I argued in this thread. Just sayin’[/quote]
Here you go Zeb.
Seemed like Fox REALLY wanted to make Benghazi play more in the election than it did. I don’t know if some of them saw the writing on the wall in regards to Romney and tried to make this bigger because of that or not. Guess we will never know. I don’t think Benghazi had any legitimate election impact, but it wasn’t for lack of trying from Fox.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TV_ED_HENRY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
"Benghazi has proven an interesting case study. Henry rejects the notion that he works off Fox marching orders in discussing the issue, but said, “I wouldn’t lie to you. I see that we’re covering Benghazi a lot, and I think that should be something that we’re asking about.”
He said other news outlets have under-covered the story, since four Americans were killed and there’s still some mystery about what the administration knew and when they knew about the attack.
“We’ve had the proper emphasis,” he said. “But I would not be so deluded to say that some of our shows, some of our commentators, have covered it more than it needed to be covered.”
–Ed Henry, Fox’s WH Correspondent, saying exactly what I argued in this thread. Just sayin’[/quote]
Here you go Zeb.[/quote]
Big Deal
We all know FOX leans right is this supposed to leave our jaws gapping?
Fox talks about it too much. I’ve already explained that one. I’ll give you the short version, FOX over does it because the corrupt MSLM under does it.
But I know you are really, really mad about Benghazi, I can read it in your words.
[quote]H factor wrote:
Seemed like Fox REALLY wanted to make Benghazi play more in the election than it did. I don’t know if some of them saw the writing on the wall in regards to Romney and tried to make this bigger because of that or not. Guess we will never know. I don’t think Benghazi had any legitimate election impact, but it wasn’t for lack of trying from Fox. [/quote]
Yeah, those crazy right wing people at FOX. They were trying to make a big deal about an American Ambassador and three others being murdered by terrorists. And this is after they asked for help and were refused. And also after Obama and company came out immediately after and said it was all because of a video on the Internet.
Happens every day…I wish those right wingers would just knock it off AND LEAVE BRITTANY…ERR OBAMA ALONE!
Like FOX has nothing better to do, like nuzzle up under Obama’s ass and give it a kiss with the rest of the corrupt MSLM.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TV_ED_HENRY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
"Benghazi has proven an interesting case study. Henry rejects the notion that he works off Fox marching orders in discussing the issue, but said, “I wouldn’t lie to you. I see that we’re covering Benghazi a lot, and I think that should be something that we’re asking about.”
He said other news outlets have under-covered the story, since four Americans were killed and there’s still some mystery about what the administration knew and when they knew about the attack.
“We’ve had the proper emphasis,” he said. “But I would not be so deluded to say that some of our shows, some of our commentators, have covered it more than it needed to be covered.”
–Ed Henry, Fox’s WH Correspondent, saying exactly what I argued in this thread. Just sayin’[/quote]
Here you go Zeb.[/quote]
Big Deal
We all know FOX leans right is this supposed to leave our jaws gapping?
Fox talks about it too much. I’ve already explained that one. I’ll give you the short version, FOX over does it because the corrupt MSLM under does it.
[/quote]
Which was exactly my contention in this thread. Exactly.
By the way, now that you’ve apparently become acquainted with the Old Testament in the in the Pat Robertson thread, have you decided that the earth is indeed a few thousand years old, or is the Old Testament genealogy bullshit?