jps wrote in news:8k2sd5p7vbrodu7r9v859k887upfpgd001@
4ax.com:

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:05:03 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
wrote:

jps wrote in
m:

On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:46:07 -0700, "Clave"
wrote:

"RD (The Sandman)" wrote in message
.. .
"Clave" wrote in
news:RJGdnQXeVYHNCkbXnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@cablespeedmi .com:

"RD (The Sandman)" wrote in
message ...
"Clave" wrote in
news:nKudnW3sNKyq_kfXnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@cablespeedmi .com:

..

You can take your pick too, moron. Or are you still allergic to
facts?

http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...TF-8&rlz=1T4GW
YE_ en US316US317&q=court+rules+fox+can+lie

Those are opinion sites...

OK, you retards just go on believing it never happened. Your
collective need to deny recent history is even more well-documented
than the FOX case.

Then why do you have such a problem producing a cite for it?


I produced 83,000 of them.

I'm not interested in playing birther games with you or any of your
slurp buddies.

Jim

Birthers. Weren't they formerly known as "The Klan"?

They'll never believe anything if it goes against the grain of their
assumed/ratified/cemented ignorance. Cannot compute.


Ahhhhhh, Clave......you found a butt buddie......

That's your rebuttal? You're afraid of the truth so deflect.

It's not going to change the facts nor your fear of them.


And what exactly are the "facts"? All we saw was 83,000 opinion pieces.

If I get the gist some malcontents claimed they were told to lie by the
management of thier station. They refused, got fired and brought suit. The
suit failed suggesting that they did not present a convincing case.

What's your point? Are you now going to damn an entire network becuase at one
station some malcontents "claimed" that they were told to lie, though a court
apparently wasn't buyibng thier argument?