President Obama put a ‘raw onion’ in his podium so he could cry fake tears

[andreisdaman]

I wouldn't waste what little you have.  You are working with a very small amount to begin with.

what the fuck is the matter with you?..can you please respect and adhere to my 2000 post rule please?

[Dos Equis]

what the fuck is the matter with you?..can you please respect and adhere to my 2000 post rule please?

 

This is really dumb.  You sound like a little kid.  

It is dumb

[andreisdaman]

It is dumb

 

[whork]

There could be several thousands of episodes on msnbc or cnn if he chose to target them too, but he is liberal so he targets fox.  And plenty of his stuff can be proven false, but you would know that if you cared to do an ounce of research.

Great now prove it. Should be easy with so much stuff to choose from.

Your entire argument has unraveled and now hinges on 8 questions that all demographics answered almost the same, with not even a half question deviation between each group and confidence that a comedian was telling the truth, which he always wasn't

You dont need Stewarts Word or opinion this is not FOX news. Stewart backs up his claims with side-by-side video footage, interviews etc. A foreign concept to you but try to evolve.

It has taken you way too long and posting too much nonsense for you to say what i told you at the beginning of the thread.  You have absolutely zero proof that fox is anymore dishonest  than the other networks.  You are just a jackass and a liar so you won't  admit it because you've been made to look full retard

Next time you lack evidence and want to believe some thing anyhow, just say so.

You really have zero self-awareness. You are the one who want to believe FOX is credible so you discount all empirical evidence on the basis of it being liberal misinformation.

There is no point in making an ass of yourself an entire thread.  You could have simply said that you are going to believe fox lies more, no matter the lack of evidence because you are an ignorant dishonest liberal,.and that would have been perfectly fine with me and I wouldn't have made you demonstrate you have zero.evidence.  

There is a lot of evidence but you refuse to acknowledge it. You could have simply said that where going to believe FOX and its viewers were well informed no matter the evidence.


You are so stupid you actually thought there were multiple studies on this until I pointed it out to you that you were linking the same survey results multiple times.  That alone make me question your reading comprehension.  Now, you just swear the survey and a liberal comedian are all the evidence anyone would need.

That liberal comedian was the US most credible news anchor. You should watch his shows not take my for it. Gather the data then make an opinion. It can see its hard for a man who has been puppeteered for so long to grasp this simple principle but please try.

Sorry, that isn't good enough for any sane person.  notice the only idiot that agrees with you is andreisdaman, and that is only because he hopes you have better luck with me than he has.  Sorry to disappoint him, you are near as stupid as he is. 

[whork]

And msnbc, cnn, and the others steer the honest path.  Msnbc employs al sharpton.  Msnbc edited a 911 call to incite a racial response from the black community.  You can't cite 1 example of fox doing anything that irresponsible.  Yet I bet you still watch them.  Gimme a break.  You see what you want to see

Additionally, a person that voted black  and defends black no matter what has no right to comment on objectivity.  You citing critical thinking is laughable.. I've pretty much shown those to be nonexistent in your brain.

In you we're talking about the person that posts on a public message board and then says "i'm not talking to you", when someone makes you look like an idiot

So, in summary, you started your last post with "the fact is" and followed it with your own biased opinion and nothing that actually resembled a fact.

I dont get your reasoning. You whine about liberals but everytime you are exposed as having the very same traits that you despise in others, you use them as a scapegoat. You have a low standard for yourself but then again you should.

[whork]

Yes, that is actually exactly what andre and whork are claiming. Have you not been following along?

Dont lie bitch. No one said this.

Even in the 8 question survey you refuse to acknowledge, msnbc scored horribly.

[whork]

Yeah, if we apply the idea that mainstream news is more about entertainment, its easy to see why msnbc would hire a whore degenerate like Al Sharpton to appeal to a particular viewer demographic.  

It is what it is, why is it so hard for some people to admit it?   Why can we demonize one side when our side does the same shit?  And then in same breath deny ours does it too?  

We should just all say that the people they put on those 2 news outlets, MSNBC and FOX are full shit 60% of the time.  nuff said lol.

Im on board with this.

[iwantmass]

Dont lie bitch. No one said this.

Even in the 8 question survey you refuse to acknowledge, msnbc scored horribly.

All these new posts to still demonstrate you have zero evidence to your original claim....

You really are a special kind of stupid

[iwantmass]

Im on board with this.

He isn't supporting you here.  He is calling you out but you would know that if you were at all literate.  His argument is similar to mine.  People like you bitch about other news outlets while taking everything from the outlet of your own political party as the gospel.  It's the same argument I've been making you look like a jackass on for 6 pages now.

[iwantmass]

I'm not going to waste my time on all the nonsense you posted, other than to say stop talking about empirical evidence.  It's clearly a term that you have seen others use in a ln argument, and you thought it would make you look smart to include it yourself.  You don't know what it means and it only aids in further making you look like an ass considering you've actually posted zero evidence at this point

Oh boy, john stewart the most credible news anchor.  He isn't a news anchor at all.  He hosts a satirical news comedy show on a comedy network that has no obligation to real journalism.   When he has been called out, he just claims his show isn't real news, it's comedy. 

[whork]

He isn't supporting you here.  He is calling you out but you would know that if you were at all literate.  His argument is similar to mine.  People like you bitch about other news outlets while taking everything from the outlet of your own political party as the gospel.  It's the same argument I've been making you look like a jackass on for 6 pages now.

Learn to read fag. He said MSNBC and FOX where full of shit 60% of the time.

You watch FOX news so its actually you he is calling out.

[whork]

I'm not going to waste my time on all the nonsense you posted, other than to say stop talking about empirical evidence.  It's clearly a term that you have seen others use in a ln argument, and you thought it would make you look smart to include it yourself.  You don't know what it means and it only aids in further making you look like an ass considering you've actually posted zero evidence at this point

Yes emperical evidence on one side your retarded opinion on the other. Only a moron like you would respond to real life data with an opinion for 6 pages. Nobody cares about your opinion. Are you an adolescent?

Oh boy, john stewart the most credible news anchor.  He isn't a news anchor at all.  He hosts a satirical news comedy show on a comedy network that has no obligation to real journalism.   When he has been called out, he just claims his show isn't real news, it's comedy. 

Jon Stewart has more credibility than all of FOX combined. His viewers are much more informed than FOX viewers (this is not hard FOX viewers are less informed than those that dont watch the news). This should really tell you something about your news source and really shows how simple minded you are. Oh and FOX is comedy as well, its just not intended comedy but you are unable to fathom this because you dont want your delutions destroyed.

[iwantmass]

Still no evidence, got it.  You didn't have to resurrect this thread 2 weeks later to provide nothing yet again

You still don't understand how this works. You actually have to back up your claims or they are meaningless. You don't just get to say group x is more informed than y, with absolutely zero to back up your claim in terms of evidence.

[iwantmass]

Learn to read fag. He said MSNBC and FOX where full of shit 60% of the time.

You watch FOX news so its actually you he is calling out.

Yes, which is implying they both lie equally.  Oh boy, are you  a slow one....

[whork]

Still no evidence, got it.  You didn't have to resurrect this thread 2 weeks later to provide nothing yet again

No "evidence" will satisfy you sheep.

Anyone who brings any "evidence" on the table is automatically labeled as a liberal and the findings is therefore useless in your book.

You still don't understand how this works. You actually have to back up your claims or they are meaningless. You don't just get to say group x is more informed than y, with absolutely zero to back up your claim in terms of evidence.

This is very funny. I have supplied a survey which shows FOX viewers being the least informed demographic. I have also told you were you can watch thousands of examples of FOX news lying through their teeth. Yet we see no data from you to back up your claim only your retarded opinion. And still you make a post like this. You have zero self-awareness and the attention span of a house fly. You are just a sad fuck trying to hang on to his delution.

[iwantmass]

Yes, we know you provided a survey.  Your illiteracy led you to believe you were providing multiple different links, until i pointed out they all use the same survey.  Not only that, but you initially also stated the survey proved fox lies more.  It doesn't.  Even if we take it at face value, it is a survey pertaining to the knowledge of viewers, not fox's honesty.

Moreover, the vague survey shows a very small deviation, which we've already talked about, but i'm thinking you don't know what the word deviation means.  The guy that put together the survey says people like you are using it in the wrong fashion and the difference is really trivial. 

So, lets stop talking about anyone who brings evidence to the table.  I'm asking you to bring evidence to the table, not anyone or everyone.  You haven't done that and you can't do that.  We've discussed this already and identified your stupidity already.  You've attempted to amend your argument and you continue to be wrong every time. 

I never said fox was the standard of truth telling.  I said they lie no more so than the other networks.  It was you that claimed they lie well more than the others, so the burden is on you to prove it.

[whork]

You are talking out of your ass again.

Here is the data we have to work with:

A survey that says FOX is by far the least credible network and shows the FOX viewers as less informed than those who doesnt watch the news.

Thousands of episodes of the daily show where FOX is exposed as not just misinforming but deliberately lying to its audience.



Now instead of being a whiny little bitch why dont you show the data that support your claim?

[iwantmass]

You are talking out of your ass again.

Here is the data we have to work with:

A survey that says FOX is by far the least credible network and shows the FOX viewers as less informed than those who doesnt watch the news.

Thousands of episodes of the daily show where FOX is exposed as not just misinforming but deliberately lying to its audience.



Now instead of being a whiny little bitch why dont you show the data that support your claim?

The survey addresses the knowledge base of viewers, it doesn't even make a claim towards fox's credibility.  I'm not really going to comment on 1000s of episodes of satirical comedy.  That show has been proven wrong plenty of times, and when they are, they just say "hey we're comedy, not news".  

What claim have I made exactly?  Are you referring to me thinking that fox lies no more than the others?  That was a counter to you claiming fox lies more, which you still have provided ZERO evidence to support your case.

I don't really know what to say about being a whiny bitch.  I would wager everyone reading this feels that is the role you are filling quite well via your meltdown.  

At least you are admitting you have no real data finally.  You finally have owned up your sole piece of data being a survey.  Falling apart at the seams....

[whork]

The survey addresses the knowledge base of viewers, it doesn't even make a claim towards fox's credibility.  I'm not really going to comment on 1000s of episodes of satirical comedy.  That show has been proven wrong plenty of times, and when they are, they just say "hey we're comedy, not news". 

Again different standards. FOX has been exposed many times, yet you still use them as a news source because you are a sheep at heart and thats not gonna change.

But please show me the many times Daily show has been wrong by providing links to your claims.

What claim have I made exactly?  Are you referring to me thinking that fox lies no more than the others?  That was a counter to you claiming fox lies more, which you still have provided ZERO evidence to support your case.

I don't really know what to say about being a whiny bitch.  I would wager everyone reading this feels that is the role you are filling quite well via your meltdown.   

If a was having a meltdown i would have tossed my laptop through the window i would not be writing with you. Are you projecting your feelings right now?

[iwantmass]

Who says fox is all I use?  Your memory is as shitty as your reading comprehension.  In this very thread, I've said I use them as 1 possible source.  I also followed that up and said I never take anything they say as the truth until I've done more research.

You keep saying fox has been exposed many times and act as if I'm disagreeing with you. Ive agreed the entire thread that some of fox's personalities are dishonest.  Where we differ, is that you claim them to be more dishonest than other networks and you also claimed to have proof to back that up.  Yet, you have failed to provide that proof for over 6 threads now.

In 6 pages your evidence consists of a survey and mention of the daily show. That is literally all you have provided.  For evidence to be so abundant, I would have expected more than that.

[whork]

Who says fox is all I use?  Your memory is as shitty as your reading comprehension.  In this very thread, I've said I use them as 1 possible source.  I also followed that up and said I never take anything they say as the truth until I've done more research.

Why dont you watch an independent news source instead?

You keep saying fox has been exposed many times and act as if I'm disagreeing with you.

You not only disagreed with me you also made the claim FOX was more honest than MSNBC and other networks. Now you have to back up that statement with data. I am waiting.

Ive agreed the entire thread that some of fox's personalities are dishonest.  Where we differ, is that you claim them to be more dishonest than other networks and you also claimed to have proof to back that up.  Yet, you have failed to provide that proof for over 6 threads now.

Yes i make the claim FOX is the most dishonest network followed by MSNBC. There is no scientific studies done on this that i am aware of so we have to go with the data at hand. The data supports my claim. Now its on you to provide data that support your claim. Provide data that shows FOX being less dishonest that MSNBC and other networks.

In 6 pages your evidence consists of a survey and mention of the daily show. That is literally all you have provided.  For evidence to be so abundant, I would have expected more than that.

[iwantmass]

No such thing as an independent news source.

I made no such claim.  I said fox was no more dishonest, possibly less.

You didn't provide data that told.us anything about fox's honesty.  I know reading comprehension is an issue,  but you provided results to a survey that tried to identify to the knowledge base of its viewers.  It has absolutely zero to do with fox's honesty.  How hard is that to understand.  Once again, I will repeat this, the actual author behind the survey says it doesn't mean what you think it does.  If you take.5 seconds to Google that, you will see he claims people like you tried using his survey out of political bias.  He literally mentions exactly what you are doing right here as no way representing his survey results. 

You've proven you are an idiot.  You've made multiple attempts to.change the nature of your argument.  It's not gonna work because you are wrong. 

If you actually want to try and claim that you provided data in the future, you need to provide the list of survey questions and answers so we can see what we are working with.  I provided the questions for you, but the answers seems to he not readily available.  Funny how that works, isn't it.  Those missing answers, that is what we refer to as data, that you keep insisting you've provided.

[whork]

No such thing as an independent news source.

There are news sources that are as good as independent compared to MSNBC & FOX. Ever watched the news in Europe?

I made no such claim.  I said fox was no more dishonest, possibly less.

Yes and you havent come up with any data. No back up your claim or STFU. Didnt they teach you to this in school?

You didn't provide data that told.us anything about fox's honesty.  I know reading comprehension is an issue,  but you provided results to a survey that tried to identify to the knowledge base of its viewers.  It has absolutely zero to do with fox's honesty.  How hard is that to understand.  Once again, I will repeat this, the actual author behind the survey says it doesn't mean what you think it does.  If you take.5 seconds to Google that, you will see he claims people like you tried using his survey out of political bias.  He literally mentions exactly what you are doing right here as no way representing his survey results. 

You've proven you are an idiot.  You've made multiple attempts to.change the nature of your argument.  It's not gonna work because you are wrong. 

If you actually want to try and claim that you provided data in the future, you need to provide the list of survey questions and answers so we can see what we are working with.  I provided the questions for you, but the answers seems to he not readily available.  Funny how that works, isn't it.  Those missing answers, that is what we refer to as data, that you keep insisting you've provided.

[iwantmass]

I'm glad you ignored the bottom part, seeing as you don't actually know what data is.  You continue to confirm your stupidity

I don't have to come up with any data. You made a claim that fox lies more so than the other networks.  It is your obligation to prove that.  I made no such claim.  I've said as much through the entire thread.  You don't get to call someone a liar and demand that they prove they aren't the liar. No system works that way.  Otherwise, we wouldn't have a Court system that requires evidence....

[whork]

I'm glad you ignored the bottom part, seeing as you don't actually know what data is.  You continue to confirm your stupidity

The data we have support my claim all the way through.

You refuse to believe it because it would further expose your ass as a misinformed sheep.

Now you post some data that support your claim.