The Wall

[BananaStand]

You may believe Fox is the truth and the others are the propaganda but it only seems like the truth to you because it conforms to your views.

So if Fox reports that Border Patrol reports a 40% decrease in apprehensions....that's not "truth" to you?

That's 'right wing propaganda'?

That's what you claimed. That's how we got on this irrelevant de-rail. It's this petty-shit game you wanna play where you claim license to categorically shit all over anything fox says, and then paint me as some kind of propaganda machine that only ever quotes one source (which is overwhelmingly false btw).

I call that being an ass-hole. Stop it.

[Poopadoop]

So if Fox reports that Border Patrol reports a 40% decrease in apprehensions....that's not "truth" to you?

That's 'right wing propaganda'?

That's what you claimed. That's how we got on this irrelevant de-rail. It's this petty-shit game you wanna play where you claim license to categorically shit all over anything fox says, and then paint me as some kind of propaganda machine that only ever quotes one source (which is overwhelmingly false btw).

I call that being an ass-hole. Stop it.

Nice try. I said that just because they report some objective facts doesn't make them objective all the time about everything.

You can call me all the names you want, no intelligent person is going to deny that Fox is biased reporting.

[BananaStand]

Nice try. I said that just because they report some objective facts doesn't make them objective all the time about everything.

We weren't talking about what they do 'all the time' or 'about everything'. It was one article that I linked, and it reported an objective fact, cited from an official government source.

You took that as an opportunity to slam it as right-wing propaganda without even reading it. And you also used the opportunity to shame me for only getting my news from one source, which is not only erroneous, it's just a real dick-head way to be.

[Poopadoop]

We weren't talking about what they do 'all the time' or 'about everything'. It was one article that I linked, and it reported an objective fact, cited from an official government source.

You took that as an opportunity to slam it as right-wing propaganda without even reading it.

Who's biased here?

No, I saw the link from Fox News, and commented on how you repeatedly cite them. I never said anything about that specific report being false or propaganda.

[BananaStand]

I never said anything about that specific report being false or propaganda.

The first word you typed was "lol". Then you made a sarcastic comment suggesting that the numbers were too exact to be believed.

[Poopadoop]

The first word you typed was "lol". Then you made a sarcastic comment suggesting that the numbers were too exact to be believed.

I typed lol because you rely on Fox News so much. You defend them as unbiased news, and cite their ratings as proof. I also typed it because the report can't possibly know how many people got in that weren't caught.

None of which equates to saying that specific report is false or propaganda.

[Poopadoop]

you also used the opportunity to shame me for only getting my news from one source.

Show me where I said that.

[BananaStand]

Show me where I said that.

How about right here:

No, I saw the link from Fox News, and commented on how you repeatedly cite them.

Again, do the math, and tell me what % of links I post are from fox news?

Why is fox persona non-grata in this forum? Why do you get to cry foul whenever fox is mentioned. This isn't he first time.

Why don't you post the list of poop-approved news sources? What am I allowed to cite without you being a complete dickwad about it?

[Poopadoop]

How about right here:

Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop
No, I saw the link from Fox News, and commented on how you repeatedly cite them.

Let's stop here for a minute.

Do you acknowledge that 'repeatedly citing' is not the same as saying 'this is the only news you ever watch?'

And if you do acknowledge that, then why do you try to equate saying one with saying the other?

[BananaStand]

Let's stop here for a minute.

Do you acknowledge that 'repeatedly citing' is not the same as saying 'this is the only news you ever watch?'

And if you do acknowledge that, then why do you try to equate saying one with saying the other?

OMG fuck off with this hair-splitting nonsense. You know what you said. You know why you said it. You know it was a de-rail. You know it was just you jumping on an opportunity to make a personal attack at me.

What's wrong with 'repeatedly citing' a news outlet anyway? If that was all I ever cited, you might have a point. But I don't. I'm going to ask you again, where is the list of poop-approved sources? What is the limit on Fox News? What % of citations I've used belong to Fox News anyway? What is the limit? Have I exceeded it?

You're obviously keeping score....So....what's the score???

The article reported a statistical fact, without bias, spin, or partisanship. That's all. Rather than address the content of the article you chose to make posts ridiculing the source. And when you're called out on it, you spent the next several posts playing stupid hair-splitting semantics.

How about you just keep your shit on topic and nevermind where I get my news. If I post something you don't agree with, say why. But ridiculing evertything from Fox, just because it's Fox, demonstrates your own echo-chamber ignorance. It also demonstrates that you're an ass hole.

[Poopadoop]

So if Fox reports that Border Patrol reports a 40% decrease in apprehensions....that's not "truth" to you?

That's 'right wing propaganda'?

That's what you claimed.

This is one of your favourite moves. You put together two different things a person says and make it into them saying something completely different altogether. It doesn't work, we're too smart for that here.

If you want to be taken seriously, try making a reasoned argument and give up on twisting people's words into bullshit.