View Single Post
  #254   Report Post  
posted to talk.politics.guns,rec.boats
Gray Ghost Gray Ghost is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Oct 2009
Posts: 22
Default 2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror

jps wrote in news:vkd1e5t49g4phgclrq6r2couo36jnri65s@
4ax.com:

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:29:30 -0500,
(Gray Ghost) wrote:

jps wrote in
m:

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 08:26:41 -0500,

(Gray Ghost) wrote:

jps wrote in
m:

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:50:39 -0600, Alex DeLarge
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 20:20:49 -0600, Alex DeLarge
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:04:16 -0600, Alex DeLarge
wrote:

Clave wrote:
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote in
message ...

...

You said the Courts ruled that FOX can tell their people to
lie...
Are you denying it?

Jim


Are you PROVING IT, clammie dear?
It's funny that you all have to tag team one poster
What, is your gaping asshole seeking relief too?

Why didn't you wait

Because you asked with your eyes, faggot.

Wow. You've just self-identified as a seriously creepy asshole.

What a waste of life.

Plonk!


I especially like how the conversation went from the credibility of the
original poster, who failing to post anything besides blog vomit about
this case to attacking the doubters.

Again are you claiming that the reporters cases was absolutely foolproof
and that the court somehow subverted that? Post some actual proof.

It appears, based on the blog vomit posted so far, that they simply had a
weak case, which kinda puts thier allegations into question.

No more, no less.

Having a weak legal case doesn't decrement the fact that it was
revealed in court that Fox News isn't above fabricating information to
press its cause.


If the court did not find it favor of the plaintiffs, on what basis do you
beleive the material they presented is factual?


They found it wasn't against the law for Fox News to insist its
reporters lie. They didn't question whether Fox News asked its
reporters to lie.

Why are you focused on the outcome rather than the evidence presented?

The plantiff didn't refute the evidence that Fox asked its newspeople
to lie, they did maintained that it was within their rights to ask
their employees to lie. The court agreed.

How many ways can you parse that to support your claim?


Well, if I actually had a NEWS story about this and not just opinion pieces I
might be able to make a judgement.