likewise

btw, the irony of you guys jumping onto an unsubstantiated memo from Britain is too great to ignore.

[Edited on October 25, 2006 at 4:41 PM. Reason : .]

10/25/2006 4:40:23 PM

I'm not really sure I see the irony. Please point it out to me.

10/25/2006 4:43:20 PM

10/25/2006 4:44:30 PM

its not ironic that you are skeptical of "unsubstantiated memos" when you yourself and others have jumped on other unsubstantiated memos that are more to your political liking?

10/25/2006 4:47:27 PM

Did I?

You shouldn't lump people together like that. You run the risk of looking like a jackass who doesn't know what he's talking about.

10/25/2006 4:49:33 PM

you shouldnt change the subject when you cant legitimately continue the conversation

it makes you look about as dumb as someone who claims "liberal bias" is "reality bias"

10/25/2006 4:56:04 PM

Did he or did he not jump on the Downing Street bandwagon, TreeTwista?

10/25/2006 4:58:07 PM

did who jump on the Downing Street bandwagon? boonedocks? George Bush? bgmims? I don't know what you're asking

10/25/2006 4:59:25 PM

gg on changing the subject by telling me not to change the subject

10/25/2006 4:59:37 PM

gg on not realizing the hypocrisy in that post either mr pot kettle

[Edited on October 25, 2006 at 5:02 PM. Reason : f]

10/25/2006 5:01:43 PM

I mean, you assumed boondocks was one of the Downing St. nuts. And then when he informed you he wasn't, you switched the topic.

10/25/2006 5:02:57 PM

Quote :

"btw, the irony of you guys jumping onto an unsubstantiated memo from Britain is too great to ignore."

"btw"'s clearly indicate I want to change the direction of the thread.

Damn, you're about to go 0/3 in this thread

[Edited on October 25, 2006 at 5:04 PM. Reason : .]

10/25/2006 5:03:23 PM

Ok timeout, lets get back to actual debate.

I'll admit idocy here. Please refresh me on what the hell Downingstreet Memo means?
I'm not sure what we're referring to and I'm too lazy to google it.

10/25/2006 5:03:32 PM

Quote :

"Please refresh me on what the hell Downingstreet Memo means?"

No. Go learn on your own, it's not that hard.

10/25/2006 5:05:02 PM

hey boonedocks

Quote :

"The more I read Abramoff's personal notes, the more I realize that smarts are not required to be a good lobbyist. The guy seems to have trouble making coherent sentences."

sounds to me like you put some faith into this unsubstantiated memo from one of pryderi's threads

but if you'd rather call me a jackass and say i'm about to go "0/3" in this thread instead of addressing the obvious fact that the BBC has a left-wing bias, which is the topic of this thread, then go right ahead

10/25/2006 5:05:55 PM

^^^It was a leaked British Government memo that told us what we already knew, yet was somehow stupendously awesome.



[Edited on October 25, 2006 at 5:08 PM. Reason : .]

10/25/2006 5:06:03 PM

I see, so you can accuse me of having something to do with this memo when I have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

Looks like its something about Bush which I have never heard, and have never made any comment on. So go fuck yourself.

(not you Boonedocks)

But seriously, who lets them take minutes of your secret diabolical plot? lol If that is true, that is damn stupid.

[Edited on October 25, 2006 at 5:07 PM. Reason : l]

10/25/2006 5:06:49 PM

.

[Edited on October 25, 2006 at 5:07 PM. Reason : .]

10/25/2006 5:06:56 PM

I actually didn't accuse you of anything.

What I did say, though, was to go gather your own information instead of expecting other people to gather it for you.

10/25/2006 5:07:43 PM

Quote :

"Did he or did he not jump on the Downing Street bandwagon, TreeTwista? "

I thought that was a reference to me, sorry.

10/25/2006 5:08:32 PM

ahahah, I knew you'd search for it. The Internet is serious business, afterall.

And yet you still found nothing ; ;

That post has -nothing- to do with the actual Downing Street memos

10/25/2006 5:08:38 PM

no it has to do with you taking unsubstantiated memos as true

which is exactly what we were talking about

Quote :

"its not ironic that you are skeptical of "unsubstantiated memos" when you yourself and others have jumped on other unsubstantiated memos that are more to your political liking?"

[Edited on October 25, 2006 at 5:09 PM. Reason : .]

10/25/2006 5:09:15 PM

wiki

10/25/2006 5:09:31 PM

I made fun of the dude's spelling.

Obviously I took it for Gospel

10/25/2006 5:10:14 PM

Ok, look this hasn't been fully substantiated. But it was reported on several major news networks.

Shit, Paul Harvey told me about it and that fucker knows what's going on. He also knows how to say 3000 words without changing intonation, lol

10/25/2006 5:10:49 PM

^^no, nobody cares about the spelling part

but you assumed it was indeed a memo from abramoff

when it was just as unsubstantiated at the article that this thread is about

so please try and explain that one

i know you think i'm a dumbass and all and cant imagine me actually being right about something

but apparently you cant imagine a lot of things that are actually real

[Edited on October 25, 2006 at 5:11 PM. Reason : ^^]

10/25/2006 5:11:35 PM

Again, using the memo to make fun of a lobbyist obviously means I'm taking the memo as fact.

You know me; never one to interject a quick insult into a thread at people whom I find annoying. I certainly wasn't doing so in the Abramoff thread.

[Edited on October 25, 2006 at 5:19 PM. Reason : .]

10/25/2006 5:18:02 PM

be careful not to hurt yourself with all that backpeddling

10/25/2006 5:18:40 PM

explaining = backpedaling?

10/25/2006 5:19:47 PM

hey, at least you admit that you believed the Abramoff memo instead of sticking to your "did I? be careful lumping people together" lies

10/25/2006 5:21:46 PM

I took neither as fact.

Regardless of whether you're trolling or not, you're looking like a retard at this point.

10/25/2006 5:23:59 PM

namecalling in lieu of staying on topic

surefire sign of a backpeddler acknowledging (only to himself of course) he fucked up

10/25/2006 5:25:35 PM

Quote :

"I took neither as fact."

Hey topic, say hello to the guy who likes to freestyle with bums.

10/25/2006 5:27:31 PM

freestyling with bums has what to do with the BBC? let alone that you're supposed to be in the party that is sympathetic with the homeless

oh yeah you're changing the topic because try as you may, you can't argue that the BBC has liberal bias

10/25/2006 5:28:37 PM

Well apparently you don't want to address the fact that I never took either of those memos as fact, so I have to come up with other topics.

10/25/2006 5:31:30 PM

so this was all sarcasm? just a big joke post that you made?

Quote :

"The more I read Abramoff's personal notes, the more I realize that smarts are not required to be a good lobbyist. The guy seems to have trouble making coherent sentences."

10/25/2006 5:32:28 PM

Yes, it was joke. I said that like 10 posts ago.

Your reading comprehension skills are superb.




[Edited on October 25, 2006 at 5:36 PM. Reason : .]

10/25/2006 5:36:09 PM

ah...the Jon Stewart defense

be serious until somebody calls you out and then claim "oh its just a joke, dont take me seriously"

classic

10/25/2006 5:37:29 PM

So where's the original seriousness?

10/25/2006 5:42:04 PM

^^ Well it's pretty sad when the only honest person in the room is the satirist. I take it you don't think much of satire in general then?

If you want a satirist that makes a point and is intentionally serious about it, watch this then: http://www.dailymotion.com/sensemilia/video/143459

[Edited on October 25, 2006 at 5:48 PM. Reason : /]

10/25/2006 5:47:42 PM

Comment to the original "article" posted:

Quote :

"Tell me something I don't unfortunately know. It is the same with the American media. And the worst part is, that its getting much much worse. That's why I like the Daily Mail, and FOX news, it tells it like it is. It reports the news and dosen't make it. - John, New York, USA"

[/thread]

10/25/2006 8:07:24 PM

the reason I dislike Fox and most of the the news channels is because I feel like im watching a laser show. Its not good for my eyes

10/26/2006 8:57:02 AM

I like the news alerts, and so do more viewers than any other news station in america: #1 in the ratings

10/27/2006 1:20:41 AM

Praise Jesus!


Why are we trying to apply the same conservative/liberal standards on the BBC? Who the fuck cares? I guess they should be more 'fair and balanced', right?

10/27/2006 8:10:36 AM

^^ Thank you for saying that. I've been making that point for some time.

The right wing shows are always saying they don't have to be fair because they're just countering biases in the "mainstream" media. But being number one in the ratings makes them the "mainstream". They just like to use that underdog rhetoric - you know, "It's us against a sea of wacko liberals trying to change our way of life". Even with a Republican president and both houses of congress in power, they still spew the underdog BS. Anyway, now that they're number one in the ratings, what other excuses can they come up with for poor journalistic integrity?

[Edited on October 27, 2006 at 8:12 AM. Reason : *~<]Bo]

10/27/2006 8:11:51 AM

I invite you to take a look at the backgrounds of most mainstream reporters and determine for yourself whether or not the majority of the media is aligned against those who are not on the left.

10/27/2006 11:10:44 AM

most people that go to liberal arts colleges and major in journalism are not republicans. Its just the way it works. Now if they are liberals or not isnt the issue but to you anyone who doesnt lick the presidents ass is obviously a terrorist.

10/27/2006 11:37:09 AM

Randy, again, makes my point about the underdog/persecution complex.

Clue 1: If FOX's ratings are really #1 then, by definition, they are the "mainstream" ...
Clue 2: When your party has the presidency and both houses of congress you are not the underdog, you are the top dog. And, by the way, that means you have no excuses for fucking things up (it's going to be hard to blame the Democrats this election cycle).

Even in the face of all this, Randy just can't imagine that he's not an underdog, being persecuted ...

10/27/2006 12:35:13 PM

Quote :

"deliberately promotes multiculturalism"

And this is a problem for who?

10/27/2006 12:37:05 PM

I have a solution for this guy being outside an office attempting to intimidate people or limit freedom in any way:



Solution:

10/27/2006 11:14:39 PM