Gravitymaster 0 #51 November 28, 2007 Quote Quote I believe you use sources you trust. Nothing wrong with that if you honestly believe they provide you with your "truth". I find it pretty hypocritical to use sources like you have in this thread and then to accuse others of using highly biased sites. BULLSHIT.. you guys do it every fucking day so PLEEEEEZE dont claim that your favorite news source is FAIR AND BALANACED....( sure.. if you are a right wing nut job I guess it appears that way) Please show one post in the 6+ years I've been on this site where I claimed Fox was Fair and Balanced. I'm always amazed by your use of "you guys". Is this a way of getting around the rules against personal attacks? Or are you making the claim that I do it everyday? I think a search of my posts will reveal that "I" don't do it every day, so what group are you including me in? If you are making an assertion that I am a Neo-Con, please list the attributes, which by generally accepted (not yours) definition, qualify someone as a Neo-Con and post comparative data which you believe qualifies me for that label. Or you could simply admit you use the term as away of avoiding personal responsibility and consequences of a Personal Attack. Your choice. Either prove it or shut-up! . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #52 November 28, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteI believe you use sources you trust. Nothing wrong with that if you honestly believe they provide you with your "truth". I find it pretty hypocritical to use sources like you have in this thread and then to accuse others of using highly biased sites. BULLSHIT.. you guys do it every fucking day so PLEEEEEZE dont claim that your favorite news source is FAIR AND BALANACED....( sure.. if you are a right wing nut job I guess it appears that way) I refer you, again, to the many Pew reports and reports from other places that show that Fox is closer to center than the rest. You know presenting a Neo-Lib with facts is like talking to a blank wall. They just stare at you like a retarded child and then change the subject or launch a thinly veiled Personal Attack. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #53 November 28, 2007 Quote I'm always amazed by your use of "you guys". . Right! Everyone knows it should be "youse guys".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #54 November 28, 2007 Quote Quote I'm always amazed by your use of "you guys". . Right! Everyone knows it should be "youse guys". I thought was only for the Joisey-ites? Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #55 November 28, 2007 Quote Quote Quote I'm always amazed by your use of "you guys". . Right! Everyone knows it should be "youse guys". I thought was only for the Joisey-ites? You need to get around more.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 190 #56 November 28, 2007 Quote"youse guys". LMAO I've never considered how that would be spelled...Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #57 November 28, 2007 QuoteI refer you, again, to the many Pew reports and reports from other places that show that Fox is closer to center than the rest. sounds like a Wikipedia article. Next to the Stephen Colbert entry about the infestation of elephants in Africa. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #58 November 29, 2007 QuoteQuoteI refer you, again, to the many Pew reports and reports from other places that show that Fox is closer to center than the rest. sounds like a Wikipedia article. Next to the Stephen Colbert entry about the infestation of elephants in Africa. GIYFMike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #59 November 30, 2007 QuoteI never realized the purpose of an interview was to prevent the interviewee from speaking: http://www.newshounds.us/2007/11/23/naomi_wolfe_unnerves_john_kasich_on_oreilly_factor.php Typical irresponsible interview that I come to expect from those types of shows. He was rude and antagonizing. She was nervous and obviously expecting to be treated poorly. I only watched half of the interview but he drove her towards limiting the discussion to Guantanamo and she was too flustered to remember to stick to the bullets he listed at the top of the interview, namely the secret CIA prisons, spying on Americans, etc. She's got plenty to back up her claims. Too bad she let him get to her. But that's what that interview style is all about. You take control of the discussion, steer it towards a minor point that you feel that you have control over, step on the interviewee any time they appear to be getting back on track or if you're running short on time, try to make them look weak, end by stating your own points and then feign respect as you cut to a commercial. A good interviewer talks less than the interviewee and tries to make them feel comfortable and welcome. They ask a question and then let the person answer it. But if you're not really interested in the answers you're likely to get then a respectful Q and A won't work. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #60 December 1, 2007 Entertainment instead of reporting....all across the board.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
