O'Reilly pulled a Brian Williams?

[Ace_on_the_Turn]

Perhaps this article will explain how the phrase, "no-go zone" came about and why. In the article, the author states that another term should have been used.

A Question of No-Go Zones in Europe

If what the author states is true, then there could be a bit of truth because the police enter those areas only in force.

So now you're down to a "bit of truth" based on an article written by a man that tried to claim that the OKC bombing was “just the beginning” of an offensive by Islamic fundamentalist", Maybe you missed it, it was in all the papers, but the OKC bombing was carried out by a home-grown terrorist who was as far from an Islamic fundamentalist as you could get. But, never you mind. You just go ahead with your Fox News apologist duties as best you can.

 

[ignerntbend]

I think the most recently exposed lie ( I'm doing my best to keep up) is O'Reilly's claim to have been on the porch in Florida at the moment that Mohrenschildt committed suicide. I'm not sure he's even defending that yet.

His co-workers claim that he was in a studio in Dallas at the time. That's understandable because they are part of a vast farleft conspiracy to nail America's last honest man to a cross. But, how do you account for the fact that O'Reilly's name doesn't appear in the police report and he didn't file a story on a historical event that he found himself in the middle of? Why did he wait 35 years to tell this story?

Why did he call a congressional investigator to verify that the suicide occurred when he was at the scene of the suicide?

SEMANTICS, That's why.

 

[Shadowrider]

Only 61 posts since I asked who was more credible than Fox News and we still haven't heard. But we DO know that Fox sucks, that much is sure. lol

 

[Ace_on_the_Turn]

Only 61 posts since I asked who was more credible than Fox News and we still haven't heard. But we DO know that Fox sucks, that much is sure. lol

Fox News does not suck. Fox News was created to fill a demand. They fill that demand. They make money. They help advance an agenda. In that sense, Fox News is very successful. It just so happens credibility is not among Fox News' strengths. And no reason why it should be.

 

[Shadowrider]

Fox News does not suck. Fox News was created to fill a demand. They fill that demand. They make money. They help advance an agenda. In that sense, Fox News is very successful. It just so happens credibility is not among Fox News' strengths. And no reason why it should be.

So I'm taking away that we have no credible media whatsoever. And yet all you guys are not only falling for all of it except for Fox, which is biased, but then pushing it upon others as well. That about right?

 

[dennishoddy]

Only 61 posts since I asked who was more credible than Fox News and we still haven't heard. But we DO know that Fox sucks, that much is sure. lol

Yeah, I can watch the Today show in the AM and see more lies in three hours than O'rielly may or may not have made in 30 years of reporting.

I love it when Fox news gets a lib person on their show and starts asking questions. Even with multiple clips proving the lies of the administration, they still try to spin and defend. Its hilarious!

Black guy on Hannity tonight was defending Holder and Sharpton. Even though they showed a dozen clips of Holder that threw the race card today showing racism, and Sharpton being the biggest racist and race baiter in modern history, the lib still defended the lies.

Where is the outrage from the left that their own people are lying on TV?

FOR GODS SAKE WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE FROM THE LEFT THAT HOLD FOX TO THE LINE? WHERE IS IT!! WHERE IS IT!!

Lol, just trying to sound like a lib here...

 

[Ace_on_the_Turn]

So I'm taking away that we have no credible media whatsoever. And yet all you guys are not only falling for all of it except for Fox, which is biased, but then pushing it upon others as well. That about right?

I know you've dangled your "gotcha" question multiple times in this thread. Sorry, not going to play your, "yeah, but", game. Your inferring what has not been implied is your issue, not mine.

 

[dennishoddy]

I know you've dangled your "gotcha" question multiple times in this thread. Sorry, not going to play your, "yeah, but", game. Your inferring what has not been implied is your issue, not mine.

Ok. Lets rephrase the question.

If you saw a political issue, or a national issue come to a head, and you wanted the best coverage, what channel would you watch? That is a totally open question.

 

[Shadowrider]

I know you've dangled your "gotcha" question multiple times in this thread. Sorry, not going to play your, "yeah, but", game. Your inferring what has not been implied is your issue, not mine.

It's only a "gotcha" question to those who are not standing on solid ground and do not want to have an actual truthful and honest debate. Who's playing "gotcha"?

 

[TedKennedy]

I heard a guy make an interesting comment the other night.

WE are not the consumers of the media, WE are the product. Makes perfect sense.

So WHO is the consumer? The advertiser, the political puppet master?

After we've been fed whichever flavor of horse manure we pick, we are transformed into a product different than before, makes sense, if you're willing to admit you can be influenced and fooled.