RE: more hard hitting analysis from Faux Nuze (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


mnottertail -> RE: more hard hitting analysis from Faux Nuze (10/16/2015 3:08:58 PM)

Thats right, cuz I know what a conservative is, and I have only seen one other on this board. The nutsuckers who put the (R- ) behind there name are neither republican nor conservative.

You might start, by telling me when 'conservatives' ----

con·ser·va·tive (kən-sûr′və-tĭv)
adj.
1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
2. Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.
3. Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.
4.
a. Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.
b. Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement.
5. Conservative Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political conservatism, especially in the United Kingdom or Canada.

(see the last clause of 5, they are remaking the word now)

anyway, when conservatives have traditionally been free market communists?
when conservatives have been traditionally fiscally irresponsible disasters?
when conservatives have been traditionally set against unions?
when conservatives have been traditionally against America for Americans, and for running corporate money and jobs out of the country?

Start there, then we will work on why I am a conservative, and nutsuckers are nutsuckers.




thompsonx -> RE: more hard hitting analysis from Faux Nuze (10/16/2015 4:27:36 PM)

Well fluffy, I made a mistake.

Apology accepted...n.p.




Lucylastic -> RE: more hard hitting analysis from Faux Nuze (10/16/2015 4:52:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Just one problem, dwerp...I'Reilly is NOT a newscaster, he is an opinion commentator. Much like Bill Maher but NOT funny.


You HAD to quote his entire post, just to say that. Have you not heard of trimming your quotes for relevancy.
Its pathetically easy to break up a page long post into bits, but no, quote the whole damn thing as if that makes you smart.
Ps we are talking about a man who lied over years to his and foxs viewing public on hard intelligence supposedly......apart from hannity, or megyn or obilbo.gutfeld, bolling, judge stupid bitch, they all work for fox...news or not





Hillwilliam -> RE: more hard hitting analysis from Faux Nuze (10/16/2015 5:07:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


Just one problem, dwerp...I'Reilly is NOT a newscaster, he is an opinion commentator. Much like Bill Maher but NOT funny.


The problem is this.

FOX N-E-W-S pays Bill O a shit ton of money to get on the air and lie.

Stupid people eat it up.
Are you one of them?




CreativeDominant -> RE: more hard hitting analysis from Faux Nuze (10/16/2015 5:08:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Just one problem, dwerp...I'Reilly is NOT a newscaster, he is an opinion commentator. Much like Bill Maher but NOT funny.


You HAD to quote his entire post, just to say that. Have you not heard of trimming your quotes for relevancy.
Its pathetically easy to break up a page long post into bits, but no, quote the whole damn thing as if that makes you smart.
Ps we are talking about a man who lied over years to his and foxs viewing public on hard intelligence supposedly......apart from hannity, or megyn or obilbo.gutfeld, bolling, judge stupid bitch, they all work for fox...news or not


Never hurts to go whole page at times.

Yes, we are talking about a man who did that...one whos e veracity was hard to vet. Should FOX have done a better job with an unpaid guest? Yes. Should CBS and NBC have done an even better job with paid reporters? Yes.




CreativeDominant -> RE: more hard hitting analysis from Faux Nuze (10/16/2015 5:12:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Thats right, cuz I know what a conservative is, and I have only seen one other on this board. The nutsuckers who put the (R- ) behind there name are neither republican nor conservative.

You might start, by telling me when 'conservatives' ----

con·ser·va·tive (kən-sûr′və-tĭv)
adj.
1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
2. Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.
3. Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.
4.
a. Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.
b. Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement.
5. Conservative Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political conservatism, especially in the United Kingdom or Canada.

(see the last clause of 5, they are remaking the word now)

anyway, when conservatives have traditionally been free market communists?
when conservatives have been traditionally fiscally irresponsible disasters?
when conservatives have been traditionally set against unions?
when conservatives have been traditionally against America for Americans, and for running corporate money and jobs out of the country?

Start there, then we will work on why I am a conservative, and nutsuckers are nutsuckers.
Tell you what...why don't you give us the name of some prominent conservatives you stand with? Those that would...by your own statements above...would align against not only Bush but Obama and Clinton. Then explain why you always seem to come down on their side.

For all your talk about how no one on these boards or in office is a true conservative except you, it should be easy.




Lucylastic -> RE: more hard hitting analysis from Faux Nuze (10/16/2015 5:12:53 PM)

Lmao.
Oh and no, quoting a hundred lines of a post, and only use a sentance or two is sad. And fucking annoying.




mnottertail -> RE: more hard hitting analysis from Faux Nuze (10/16/2015 6:15:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Thats right, cuz I know what a conservative is, and I have only seen one other on this board. The nutsuckers who put the (R- ) behind there name are neither republican nor conservative.

You might start, by telling me when 'conservatives' ----

con·ser·va·tive (kən-sûr′və-tĭv)
adj.
1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
2. Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.
3. Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.
4.
a. Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.
b. Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement.
5. Conservative Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political conservatism, especially in the United Kingdom or Canada.

(see the last clause of 5, they are remaking the word now)

anyway, when conservatives have traditionally been free market communists?
when conservatives have been traditionally fiscally irresponsible disasters?
when conservatives have been traditionally set against unions?
when conservatives have been traditionally against America for Americans, and for running corporate money and jobs out of the country?

Start there, then we will work on why I am a conservative, and nutsuckers are nutsuckers.
Tell you what...why don't you give us the name of some prominent conservatives you stand with? Those that would...by your own statements above...would align against not only Bush but Obama and Clinton. Then explain why you always seem to come down on their side.

For all your talk about how no one on these boards or in office is a true conservative except you, it should be easy.


Tell you what, having proven that you are a nutsucker, and not a conservative, why dont you tell me some of the nutsuckers that are your favorite felching material. since you are unable to speak about conservatism, knowing not one fucking thing about it.

But quit your masturbatory shit and answer the question.


About the last prominent person who could be called conservative was Goldwater, and one pretty big area where he and I agreed was that the war powers act was unconstitutional.

It isn't so much that I come down on the side of Obama or Clinton, or anyone as I dont come down on side of nusuckerism, or felching of rightwing lies, particularily when they are talking dildos in neckties who are demonstrably ruining America, corporate catamites who spill our blood and treasure, fiscally inept and disasterous.......ad nauseam.




thompsonx -> RE: more hard hitting analysis from Faux Nuze (10/16/2015 6:22:02 PM)

It isn't so much that I come down on the side of Obama or Clinton, or anyone as I dont come down on side of nusuckerism, or felching of rightwing lies, particularily when they are talking dildos in neckties who are demonstrably ruining America, corporate catamites who spill our blood and treasure, fiscally inept and disasterous.......ad nauseam.


Ron:
Stop beating around the bush and tell us how you really feel.




bounty44 -> RE: more hard hitting analysis from Faux Nuze (10/17/2015 5:46:24 PM)

kudos to neil cavuto:

Neil Cavuto Righteously Apologizes For Hosting Fraudulent CIA Agent, Wayne Simmons

maybe you all can read/watch it without your fox news derangement syndrome kicking in....




thompsonx -> RE: more hard hitting analysis from Faux Nuze (10/17/2015 5:49:23 PM)


ORIGINAL: bounty44

kudos to neil cavuto:

Neil Cavuto Righteously Apologizes For Hosting Fraudulent CIA Agent, Wayne Simmons

maybe you all can read/watch it without your fox news derangement syndrome kicking in....

Looks to me as if you are aplauding gravity there comrade.




bounty44 -> RE: more hard hitting analysis from Faux Nuze (10/17/2015 5:59:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


Just one problem, dwerp...I'Reilly is NOT a newscaster, he is an opinion commentator. Much like Bill Maher but NOT funny.


The problem is this.

FOX N-E-W-S pays Bill O a shit ton of money to get on the air and lie.

Stupid people eat it up.
Are you one of them?


in the course of 19 yrs of the fox news/the o'reilly factor, bill o'reilly has uttered probably hundreds of thousands of words and many thousands of opinions and his understanding of the facts---exactly which ones of those were lies?

do you even watch the show or just repeat the liberal line?

if you do, and since apparently he lies frequently, should be what then, a weekly occurrence? monthly at least right? how about at least every other month? should be pretty easy for you then to come up with 40-50 examples.

otherwise, I guess fox news isn't getting their money's worth for all the lying he's supposed to be doing.






Lucylastic -> RE: more hard hitting analysis from Faux Nuze (10/17/2015 6:04:30 PM)

I take it you didnt see this http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4848607




bounty44 -> RE: more hard hitting analysis from Faux Nuze (10/17/2015 6:18:04 PM)

the more I think about it, the more disgusting it is (but perfectly liberal) that "oh fox news for shame!" for having someone on their shows who deceived them, or that "fox news lies" or "bill o'reilly lies"...but I don't recall seeing critical commentary from any of you on the moral turpitude of Obama, Hillary, harry reid, nancy Pelosi, Debbie wasserman-shultz, Rachel maddow, ed Schultz, brian Williams, etc., you know, people who have actually been caught lying and dissembling but who, surprise, surprise, just happen to agree with your points of view...




PeonForHer -> RE: more hard hitting analysis from Faux Nuze (10/17/2015 6:50:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

No, they only got fired from their place of business for lying to their viewers.

Well, lying to viewers? Since that is the modus operandi at Faux nuze, then I guess that only bolsters the point.

[Etc.]



Fascinating. I actually *read* all that, even though O'Reilly isn't of much consequence to us this side of the pond.

Even now, I'm still occasionally flabbergasted by the extent to which opinion-formers like this will lie. Just astonishing.




CreativeDominant -> RE: more hard hitting analysis from Faux Nuze (10/17/2015 7:52:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


Just one problem, dwerp...I'Reilly is NOT a newscaster, he is an opinion commentator. Much like Bill Maher but NOT funny.


The problem is this.

FOX N-E-W-S pays Bill O a shit ton of money to get on the air and lie.

Stupid people eat it up.
Are you one of them?

No. I recognize his bias. Of course, since I recognize the bias from a commentator...not a news reporter...from my own side and admit to it, that also means I'm not blind to the bias...and lies...from the other side. Something that many here do not seem to be able to do....or admit. As a matter of fact, it's such a big deal when they do, one of them started a whole thread about it.




CreativeDominant -> RE: more hard hitting analysis from Faux Nuze (10/17/2015 8:04:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Thats right, cuz I know what a conservative is, and I have only seen one other on this board. The nutsuckers who put the (R- ) behind there name are neither republican nor conservative.

You might start, by telling me when 'conservatives' ----

con·ser·va·tive (kən-sûr′və-tĭv)
adj.
1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
2. Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.
3. Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.
4.
a. Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.
b. Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement.
5. Conservative Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political conservatism, especially in the United Kingdom or Canada.

(see the last clause of 5, they are remaking the word now)

anyway, when conservatives have traditionally been free market communists?
when conservatives have been traditionally fiscally irresponsible disasters?
when conservatives have been traditionally set against unions?
when conservatives have been traditionally against America for Americans, and for running corporate money and jobs out of the country?

Start there, then we will work on why I am a conservative, and nutsuckers are nutsuckers.
Tell you what...why don't you give us the name of some prominent conservatives you stand with? Those that would...by your own statements above...would align against not only Bush but Obama and Clinton. Then explain why you always seem to come down on their side.

For all your talk about how no one on these boards or in office is a true conservative except you, it should be easy.


Tell you what, having proven that you are a nutsucker, and not a conservative, why dont you tell me some of the nutsuckers that are your favorite felching material. since you are unable to speak about conservatism, knowing not one fucking thing about it.

But quit your masturbatory shit and answer the question

About the last prominent person who could be called conservative was Goldwater, and one pretty big area where he and I agreed was that the war powers act was unconstitutional.

It isn't so much that I come down on the side of Obama or Clinton, or anyone as I dont come down on side of nusuckerism, or felching of rightwing lies, particularily when they are talking dildos in neckties who are demonstrably ruining America, corporate catamites who spill our blood and treasure, fiscally inept and disasterous.......ad nauseam.

You've proven nothing asshole except what you seem to be conservative. Given the last prominent conservative you can name was relevant 50 years ago...and the one area the two of you agreed on being unconstitutional...would, if it was withdrawn, give Presidents much more power to start wars without Congressional interference. Given your railing against what you seem to be unnecessary U.S. involvement elsewhere, that seems a bit inconsistent. Or is it that, unlike Goldwater, you prefer the President being solely accountable...especially if he's Republican...rather than having the flexibility that Goldwater sought?




CreativeDominant -> RE: more hard hitting analysis from Faux Nuze (10/17/2015 8:08:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

No, they only got fired from their place of business for lying to their viewers.

Well, lying to viewers? Since that is the modus operandi at Faux nuze, then I guess that only bolsters the point.

[Etc.]



Fascinating. I actually *read* all that, even though O'Reilly isn't of much consequence to us this side of the pond.

Even now, I'm still occasionally flabbergasted by the extent to which opinion-formers like this will lie. Just astonishing.

I can see why you would be...when some libs do it, they give them a comedy show.




ifmaz -> RE: more hard hitting analysis from Faux Nuze (10/17/2015 10:28:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

No, they only got fired from their place of business for lying to their viewers.

Well, lying to viewers? Since that is the modus operandi at Faux nuze, then I guess that only bolsters the point.

[Etc.]



Fascinating. I actually *read* all that, even though O'Reilly isn't of much consequence to us this side of the pond.

Even now, I'm still occasionally flabbergasted by the extent to which opinion-formers like this will lie. Just astonishing.



If I covered shipping, would you take Piers Morgan back? Maybe swap for Jeremy Clarkson?




PeonForHer -> RE: more hard hitting analysis from Faux Nuze (10/18/2015 3:21:48 AM)

quote:

If I covered shipping, would you take Piers Morgan back? Maybe swap for Jeremy Clarkson?


Piers is the only compelling reason for the UK retaining a nuclear capability. Jeremy I'd tie on the first nuke to be fired.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875