A Secret Scandal And Dirty Tricks

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,784
2,433
136
Originally posted by: UberNeuman


well, let's see - the OP posts about rumor, while offering nothing to back it up - while in the Fox post, that OP just offers more of what Fox News has been prone to do - which is to present SEX in a most salacious manner to grab viewers....

Fox News loves to hate sex, while Bill O'Really has Jenna Jamerison on to talk about her new book, "cum stained hands on my ass."

Charming, to say the least.........

Yea, thats great, like I said, you only care about there being meaningful commentary in the OP if its a post that you disagree with. That was my only point. I know that most of the lefties here have some weird obsession with FNC, so I'm not even going to go down that road.
 

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,937
3,087
126
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: UberNeuman


well, let's see - the OP posts about rumor, while offering nothing to back it up - while in the Fox post, that OP just offers more of what Fox News has been prone to do - which is to present SEX in a most salacious manner to grab viewers....

Fox News loves to hate sex, while Bill O'Really has Jenna Jamerison on to talk about her new book, "cum stained hands on my ass."

Charming, to say the least.........

Yea, thats great, like I said, you only care about there being meaningful commentary in the OP if its a post that you disagree with. That was my only point. I know that most of the lefties here have some weird obsession with FNC, so I'm not even going to go down that road.

So, then, by that, you'd agree that the OP of the Fox thread has a valid viewpoint... or you would have called that OP to question on it?

Or is it, that you can't stand the light in your face?

Here's the link to the Fox News thread - go tell him what you think...
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,784
2,433
136
Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: UberNeuman


well, let's see - the OP posts about rumor, while offering nothing to back it up - while in the Fox post, that OP just offers more of what Fox News has been prone to do - which is to present SEX in a most salacious manner to grab viewers....

Fox News loves to hate sex, while Bill O'Really has Jenna Jamerison on to talk about her new book, "cum stained hands on my ass."

Charming, to say the least.........

Yea, thats great, like I said, you only care about there being meaningful commentary in the OP if its a post that you disagree with. That was my only point. I know that most of the lefties here have some weird obsession with FNC, so I'm not even going to go down that road.

So, then, by that, you'd agree that the OP of the Fox thread has a valid viewpoint... or you would have called that OP to question on it?

Or is it, that you can't stand the light in your face?

I just said that I'm not going down that road, I don't really care about that thread, or what the lefties here think of FNC. I was just using that thread as an example. Apparently you think that "cause we're looking out for you!!" is meaningful commentary. This is a stupid argument, you know that the OP of that thread did not provide any meaningful commentary, I don't even know why you are trying to argue that point.
 

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,937
3,087
126
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: UberNeuman


well, let's see - the OP posts about rumor, while offering nothing to back it up - while in the Fox post, that OP just offers more of what Fox News has been prone to do - which is to present SEX in a most salacious manner to grab viewers....

Fox News loves to hate sex, while Bill O'Really has Jenna Jamerison on to talk about her new book, "cum stained hands on my ass."

Charming, to say the least.........

Yea, thats great, like I said, you only care about there being meaningful commentary in the OP if its a post that you disagree with. That was my only point. I know that most of the lefties here have some weird obsession with FNC, so I'm not even going to go down that road.

So, then, by that, you'd agree that the OP of the Fox thread has a valid viewpoint... or you would have called that OP to question on it?

Or is it, that you can't stand the light in your face?

I just said that I'm not going down that road, I don't really care about that thread, or what the lefties here think of FNC. I was just using that thread as an example. Apparently you think that "cause we're looking out for you!!" is meaningful commentary. This is a stupid argument, you know that the OP of that thread did not provide any meaningful commentary, I don't even know why you are trying to argue that point.

You don't care about that thread, because I think you're smart enough to see that Fox News presents stories to bait people into watching and feeling some sort of moral superiority over those they attack...

Give them the "nasty" then stand back and wag a finger at those nasty people....

Unless you feel I am unjust in my viewpoint on Fox News, then feel free to post in the link I posted above... or:

Here's the link to the Fox News Thread - if you believe Fox News has been unjustly accused, please speak up here....
 

spittledip

Diamond Member
Apr 23, 2005
4,480
1
81
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: spittledip
Doesn't anyone find it odd and strange and pathetic that the people who are running to become president, both democrats and republicans, fight like little school children? These are the people we want in the White House? I wish there were other options. These people are the bottom of the barrel. They represent the worst that America has, and yet they are the ones running to lead America. Maybe they really do represent us...

Yep, and we continue to vote for them, pretty sad isn't it?

I think you've got it backwards, we don't continue to vote for them despite how they act, they act the way they do BECAUSE we continue to vote for them. People construct this fantasy of a virtuous public that has foisted upon it all sorts of morally questionable politicians, but the reality is that we live in a democracy, we mostly get the politicians we want. People are, for the most part, self-involved assholes who really get behind the idea of negative campaigning because that's how they behave in their own lives.

Of course given half the chance, everyone tut-tuts about how bad politics today is, but that's just all for show to demonstrate what upright citizens they are. The truth is that if negative smear campaigns didn't work, politicians would stop using them.

Yeah, that's how I came to the conclusion that they did represent us. Not that is an excue for them to behave like asses. And I think it would be virtuous for them to resist such impulses rather than calculatingly use them to gain power. Not that throwing mud takes too much calculation.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Pabster repeats and represents as fact innuendo from Robert Novak-

"Hillary's camp claims to have "damaging" information on Obama. I say let her put up or shut up."

Then claims others are "trolling" his thread...

How does one troll a troll, anyway?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,478
6,412
126
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Pabster repeats and represents as fact innuendo from Robert Novak-

"Hillary's camp claims to have "damaging" information on Obama. I say let her put up or shut up."

Then claims others are "trolling" his thread...

How does one troll a troll, anyway?

What you call trolling I call bottom fishing the local sewage treatment plant.