CBJ7, do you mean "make up facts" like NBC, ABC and CNN in regards to the Zimmerman case? Or maybe you're thinking about withholding "inconvenient details and facts" until they are unactionable, like CBS did in regards to Benghazi? Or maybe, CBJ7, you're referring to MSNBC's Al Sharpton proffering commentary on Paula Deen's "racism"?no, I meant what I said.
As a news source, Fox is every bit as credible as the Kool Aid dispensing networks that pretend to be "professional" news outlets. Originally Posted by I B Hankering
- CJ7
- 07-11-2013, 02:41 AM
- CJ7
- 07-11-2013, 02:44 AM
- I B Hankering
- 07-11-2013, 07:51 AM
- Yssup Rider
- 07-11-2013, 08:34 AM
British news outlets? CODE = TABLOIDS!
Not the Onion, Corpy?
How about Canada Free Press?
Not the Onion, Corpy?
How about Canada Free Press?
- JD Barleycorn
- 07-11-2013, 01:30 PM
Here is how the joke works (and we some of those that are fooled)
In the Clinton White House there was a three ring binder called "Reliable News Sources". Inside this binder were sheets of paper and each piece of paper was a name of a news source. One name per sheet. Now if the press secretary, Clinton, or Hillary went before the public and the press asks a question about the story in _____________. The democrat could say that they were unaware of any "reliable news source" that had published such a story. The trick is that knowing ahead of time what would be asked they would remove that page from the three ring binder. That way they did not have to lie outright. The "reliable sources" that they referred to was that little binder and not reality. Obama has taken that practice further and Bush never did it. Fox News has never been in that notebook and some fools get taken in easily.
In the Clinton White House there was a three ring binder called "Reliable News Sources". Inside this binder were sheets of paper and each piece of paper was a name of a news source. One name per sheet. Now if the press secretary, Clinton, or Hillary went before the public and the press asks a question about the story in _____________. The democrat could say that they were unaware of any "reliable news source" that had published such a story. The trick is that knowing ahead of time what would be asked they would remove that page from the three ring binder. That way they did not have to lie outright. The "reliable sources" that they referred to was that little binder and not reality. Obama has taken that practice further and Bush never did it. Fox News has never been in that notebook and some fools get taken in easily.
- Yssup Rider
- 07-11-2013, 01:45 PM
Pealrs from BSwine!
OK, so you rail against anyone who disagrees and then counter with a JOKE?
You're right, some fools are taken easily. Where did they take YOU today?
OK, so you rail against anyone who disagrees and then counter with a JOKE?
You're right, some fools are taken easily. Where did they take YOU today?
- CJ7
- 07-11-2013, 01:45 PM
LMAO ... people, you cant make that shit up
on second thought
on second thought
- i'va biggen
- 07-11-2013, 04:42 PM
Here is how the joke works (and we some of those that are fooled)
In the Clinton White House there was a three ring binder called "Reliable News Sources". Inside this binder were sheets of paper and each piece of paper was a name of a news source. One name per sheet. Now if the press secretary, Clinton, or Hillary went before the public and the press asks a question about the story in _____________. The democrat could say that they were unaware of any "reliable news source" that had published such a story. The trick is that knowing ahead of time what would be asked they would remove that page from the three ring binder. That way they did not have to lie outright. The "reliable sources" that they referred to was that little binder and not reality. Obama has taken that practice further and Bush never did it. Fox News has never been in that notebook and some fools get taken in easily. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn
Welcome fool looks like you have been taken in...