It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Fox “news”

page: 8
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 07:59 AM

Originally posted by wittgenstein
“And you expect everybody to weed through all your dozens of posts, page after page, "

I’m sorry that a lot of evidence is to difficult for you to understand. Here I will make it easy for you. Simply respond to this ( and please, simply saying that Stewart is wrong is not a legitimate response)
Anyway, I am off to work so I will end my participation ( for today) with a site done in 2XOHsurf's debate style.

edit on 1-8-2012 by wittgenstein because: (no reason given)

I think I very clearly responded to a number of posts with a logical refutation. Maybe they weren't all your posts, as there were a number of people who came on providing "evidence".

I don't believe anybody responded to my posts. That's called a moving target and is clearly a waste of any more time.

All that I can recall seeing is "proof" of misprints, typos, reports that were later retracted publicly, sources that were later shown to be incorrect and biased opinions. Do these constitute "lies" using the generally accepted definition? And most importantly, are the "lies" of substantial importance to constitute a blatant effort to mislead the public on a topic of consequence? Or are they simply screwups?

posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 08:06 AM
If you really want to make your case I will help you.

Start with something like...

Fox lies about... (something that actually matters)

Fox lies about Obama's presidential record.
Fox lies about the US economy.
Fox lies about the joblessness in America.
Fox lies about Obama's foreign policy.
Fox lies about Obama's murky past.
Fox lies about how many people make 100% (I love this one, really kooky)

Take the strongest case you can make and run with only that.

posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 08:08 AM
My honest opinion? the news channel only show you what they want you to see, i wouldnt touch the mainstreamnews with a barge pole.

The only channel which comes even close to the truth is RT

posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 04:40 PM
“cloaked in ambiguous claims like "Fox lies"
2XOHsurf how is that statement not clear?
Why are you uncertain as to the meaning of ?
Actually, my opponents are the ones being ambiguous as they confuse the word “bias” with the word “lie”.
Since words have no precise definitions for them, everything they say is ambiguous.

“If you really want to make your case I will help you. Start with something like...Fox lies about... (something that actually matters)
Note that you are all over the map. When I proved that Hannity, O’Rielly etc are liars you conceded that they are liars but that they are not part of fox “news”. However, in the above quote you are asking once again for examples of fox lying. I’ll take your word.
Perhaps, you think these things do not matter and that is why you refused to even engage them
or perhaps, as you claimed, you cannot take on a mountain of evidence. OK, Lets take other evidence individually,
Fox lied about Obama claiming that taxes will go up next year for everybody
Fox claims that Obama said that business people are bad people
Now for fox “news” without reference to Hannity and O’Reilly etc (already proven to be liars).
Fox claims that Obama’s India trip cost $200,000,000 a day, even when they knew that that was untrue. ( see below video that proves that) O’Reilly’s defense was that he and Hannity are not news shows and so do not have to tell the truth. However, note that that lie made it into fox “news” itself.
Also, why would Fox “news” go to court to fight for their right to misinform the public? Site from a post of “OLD HIPPY DUDE”.
I apologize, the next site shows 10 fox lies and I know that you can only tackle one at a time.
Fox “news” continued to report the made up ACORN “scandal” as fact. *
Fox “news”called the 2000 election (with certainty) before the results were even remotely determined.

“I give up. You win. You're better than me. FOX is Satan. Liberals are awesome. MSNBC is truth on tv.”
Stop making up things. That was never my position. However, I understand, you lost the debate and must resort to

Is anyone so gullible that they would believe (actually, yes. Most are sheeple) that streetwise urban workers would confuse
( A.K.A. 's stooge , see the first video in this post for a real laugh! He looks like the Beave dressed up as Huggy Bear)

PS; It is interesting that whereas I have posted many many fox lies, my opponents have not done the same for MSN.Note that I never claimed that MSN never ever lied (it is a major capitalist institution and is interested in maintaining the current power structure, hardly a socialist goal). However, I am saying that fox “news” lies at the very least 10 times more. Fox “news” is shameless in its service to the international elite’s desire for the public’s support. MSN caters to a more educated audience and so cannot lie so blatantly. Therefore it lies less. Not because the international elite does not also control MSN, but because it cannot get away with lying as easily as fox.
edit on 1-8-2012 by wittgenstein because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-8-2012 by wittgenstein because: (no reason given)

top topics
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in