rigney Posted October 28, 2012 Author Posted October 28, 2012 More accurately, the CIA spokesman who presumably somehow somewhere reports under a division that Petraeus is ultimately in charge of: Did anybody EVEN CLAIM that the CIA told others "not to help those in need?" Erm, no. Does our government even remotely know what actually happened over there? Perhaps it's like Obamacare. Information only comes after the election has been verify and you read the results.
John Cuthber Posted October 28, 2012 Posted October 28, 2012 Rather than adding to the red herrings about Obamacare, perhaps you should answer the question that you have been ignoring. Unless you are accusing someone of handing it out, there's no way I could smell the crap is there? That's my point. You are contradicting yourself. So, lets get this straight Exactly what crap are you saying is being handed out? Who is doing it? What evidence is there to back up your accusation (even if you insist that it's not an accusation)? I predict a non-answer- go on- be a devil- prove me wrong and actually answer the questions. 1
rigney Posted October 28, 2012 Author Posted October 28, 2012 (edited) Rather than adding to the red herrings about Obamacare, perhaps you should answer the question that you have been ignoring. Unless you are accusing someone of handing it out, there's no way I could smell the crap is there? That's my point. You are contradicting yourself. So, lets get this straight Exactly what crap are you saying is being handed out? Who is doing it? What evidence is there to back up your accusation (even if you insist that it's not an accusation)? I predict a non-answer- go on- be a devil- prove me wrong and actually answer the questions. I'm not ignoring your question, but yes! my inquiry has now become a full blown accusation. I simply thought that with the truth syrum "only FOX" has delivered, you may have figured out the whole mess better than the president's staff has done. But then, you're really not looking for truth; are you? Edited October 28, 2012 by rigney
ydoaPs Posted October 28, 2012 Posted October 28, 2012 But then, you are really not looking for answers; are you? Yes. Do you have anything more than vague accusations of wrongdoing yet?
John Cuthber Posted October 28, 2012 Posted October 28, 2012 I really am looking for answers, in particular I'd like an answer to the question I have kept on asking Here it is again so you can answer it or admit that you can't. Unless you are accusing someone of handing it out, there's no way I could smell the crap is there? That's my point. You are contradicting yourself. So, lets get this straight Exactly what crap are you saying is being handed out? Who is doing it? What evidence is there to back up your accusation (even if you insist that it's not an accusation)? 2
rigney Posted October 28, 2012 Author Posted October 28, 2012 (edited) I really am looking for answers, in particular I'd like an answer to the question I have kept on asking Here it is again so you can answer it or admit that you can't. Unless you are accusing someone of handing it out, there's no way I could smell the crap is there? That's my point. You are contradicting yourself. So, lets get this straight Exactly what crap are you saying is being handed out? Who is doing it? What evidence is there to back up your accusation (even if you insist that it's not an accusation)? Since I seem unable too satisfy your questions, perhaps you might answer one for me. Why did the UK close its embassy in Libya prior to this massacre in Benghazi? Since the Brits I know certainly aren't cowards, they surely must have had a good reason. Edited October 28, 2012 by rigney
John Cuthber Posted October 28, 2012 Posted October 28, 2012 The thread is indeed all over the place, but I keep trying to bring it back on track. Here I go again. I have no idea why the embassy was closed. There's no sensible reason to think I might , so it was a red herring. Unless you are accusing someone of handing it out, there's no way I could smell the crap is there? That's my point. You are contradicting yourself. So, lets get this straight Exactly what crap are you saying is being handed out? Who is doing it? What evidence is there to back up your accusation (even if you insist that it's not an accusation)?
rigney Posted October 28, 2012 Author Posted October 28, 2012 (edited) This whole thread is all over the place. A rather mundane way of expressing your view point, so how do you figure? What doesn't meet with your approval? The question is: What happened to cause this terrible massacre in Benghazi? I primarily follow FOX News for what I believe to be the best explinatrions, since the liberal media will say nothing in a negative way. With your help we may get at the truth. Edited October 28, 2012 by rigney
John Cuthber Posted October 28, 2012 Posted October 28, 2012 A rather mundane way of expressing your view point, so how do you figure? What doesn't meet with your approval? The question is: What happened to cause this terrible massacre in Benghazi? I primarily follow FOX News for what I believe to be the best explinatrions, since the liberal media will say nothing in a negative way. With your help we may get at the truth. So, you rely on a news channel which is well documented as being biassed. Why do you do that? Never mind that, why not answer my earlier question? Unless you are accusing someone of handing it out, there's no way I could smell the crap is there? That's my point. You are contradicting yourself. So, lets get this straight Exactly what crap are you saying is being handed out? Who is doing it? What evidence is there to back up your accusation (even if you insist that it's not an accusation)?
ydoaPs Posted October 28, 2012 Posted October 28, 2012 I primarily follow FOX News for what I believe to be the best explinatrions[sic] THERE's your problem.
rigney Posted October 28, 2012 Author Posted October 28, 2012 THERE's your problem. Really! What do you suggest?
ydoaPs Posted October 28, 2012 Posted October 28, 2012 Really! What do you suggest? I'd suggest not getting your news primarily from a source that is a substance-free propaganda mill who went to court specifically to earn the right to lie and label it as news. Even people who get their only news from The Daily Show are more well-informed about current events than FOX "news" viewers. People like you are fed lies, because you're gullible. That's why you support FOX and people like Romney; because you swallow the lies and don't give a damn to actually check the facts. That's why you've not presented anything but vague accusations-because you can't. 1
John Cuthber Posted October 28, 2012 Posted October 28, 2012 Seriously, people who don't watch the news turn out to be better informed than people who only watch Fox. http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2012/confirmed/final.pdf 1
Phi for All Posted October 28, 2012 Posted October 28, 2012 I primarily follow FOX News for what I believe to be the best explinatrions, since the liberal media will say nothing in a negative way. Shouldn't the media be neutral instead of positive or negative? And just so you know, "liberal media" is another bit of spin you've swallowed whole. The media, even FOX News, isn't liberal OR conservative. It's not even real journalism, it's a for-profit business, interested in keeping you from switching channels or turning it off. They aren't there to inform you, they're there to keep you there so you'll watch the stuff their advertisers pay them for. Period. That's why you should NEVER have just a single source for your news. You can piece together what's really happening if you look at multiple sources. A really good source is the one outlet that doesn't have commercials so it doesn't have to please advertisers. It's called National Public Radio. Now you know why Mitt wants to cut its funding. He'd much rather have everyone listen to Clear Channel radio. 1
Appolinaria Posted October 28, 2012 Posted October 28, 2012 Plenty of sources of information shouldn't be trusted, not just Fox. Criticism is counterproductive. Misinformation happens. That doesn't mean Rigney is gullible.
iNow Posted October 28, 2012 Posted October 28, 2012 In the age of information, ignorance is a choice. 1
Appolinaria Posted October 28, 2012 Posted October 28, 2012 Yeah, I saw that quote on tumblr, too. And yes, I agree. However, a lot of Americans watch Fox and trying to convince them to do otherwise with condescending remarks and a superior attitude won't help our situation.
rigney Posted October 28, 2012 Author Posted October 28, 2012 (edited) In the age of information, ignorance is a choice. No!Ignorance is not a choice if you use the functional logic of your brain. But stupidity is the brutish and blind denial of not wanting to differentiate truth from lies, even though you are totally aware of an issue. Edited October 28, 2012 by rigney
Phi for All Posted October 28, 2012 Posted October 28, 2012 No!Ignorance is not a choice if you use the functional logic of your brain. But stupidity is the brutish denial of not wanting to differentiate truth from lies, even though you are totally aware of an issue. Logic relies on untainted information. When we get our news solely from the perspective of an outlet that wants us to feel a certain way about it, logic can't be trusted. I think we make a mistake when we seek "Truth" instead of information. It's too easy these days for people with hidden agendas to claim what they tell us is "The Truth". In much the same way science seeks supportive evidence instead of "proof", we should seek information so we're always looking for better explanations rather than assume we know "The Truth". 2
rigney Posted October 29, 2012 Author Posted October 29, 2012 (edited) Shouldn't the media be neutral instead of positive or negative? And just so you know, "liberal media" is another bit of spin you've swallowed whole. The media, even FOX News, isn't liberal OR conservative. It's not even real journalism, it's a for-profit business, interested in keeping you from switching channels or turning it off. They aren't there to inform you, they're there to keep you there so you'll watch the stuff their advertisers pay them for. Period. That's why you should NEVER have just a single source for your news. You can piece together what's really happening if you look at multiple sources. A really good source is the one outlet that doesn't have commercials so it doesn't have to please advertisers. It's called National Public Radio. Now you know why Mitt wants to cut its funding. He'd much rather have everyone listen to Clear Channel radio. Actually I like to use my own method of sorting out the differences of news media bias. At present I find a deep liberal as well as concervative slant to everything being propagandized concerning the happening in Benghazi. From the negativity input of the liberal left it seems the right is fabricating a bunch of lies to harm the presidents chance of reelection. From a concervatives view it hints of a coverup. As of now, I say take your pick. Eventually we will get to the bottom of something rezemblng truth. Edited October 29, 2012 by rigney
ydoaPs Posted October 29, 2012 Posted October 29, 2012 From the negativity input of the liberal left it seems the right is fabricating a bunch of lies to harm the presidents chance of reelection. How is that not the case? Every single concrete allegation has been shown to be a lie. Which is probably why you're avoiding them like the plague.
John Cuthber Posted October 29, 2012 Posted October 29, 2012 We should check many sources, but most of us can't be bothered. If you are going to just use one news source, don't pick the one which research has shown leaves you knowing less than you would if you didn't follow the news at all. 1
rigney Posted October 29, 2012 Author Posted October 29, 2012 (edited) How is that not the case? Every single concrete allegation has been shown to be a lie. Which is probably why you're avoiding them like the plague. I don't avoid either view of an issue as some seem to do, yet I usually wind up being biased even while trying to be open minded. Your quote above tells me that you only want to see one side of the story. Look and listen to the following video. Do you honestly believe all of these men are idiots, political hacks and republicans? When the news was released about taking ben Laden out it was almost immediately released. But was it democrats or republicans who made that announcement? Yet, in the second month of trying to get at the bottom of this boondoggled massacre in Benghazi, we are no closer to truth than when we first started. Murdered American envoys?! Yes we seem able to live with that pretty well. But will we ever truly get to the bottom of what actually happend, and why? Tell me, at present; is this administration trying to hide some sort of culpability? THERE's your problem. I said primarily, not exclusively. Edited October 29, 2012 by rigney
rigney Posted October 29, 2012 Author Posted October 29, 2012 (edited) We should check many sources, but most of us can't be bothered. If you are going to just use one news source, don't pick the one which research has shown leaves you knowing less than you would if you didn't follow the news at all. I know! This will probably be considered trolling since it comes from FOX NEWS, but to me the link is just a way of trying to get at the facts, regardless from where they come.http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/29/early-briefing-on-libya-strike-focused-on-al-qaeda-before-story-changed/ Edited October 29, 2012 by rigney
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now