Top Defense officials briefed Obama on ‘attack,’ not video or protest

[PapaG]

The headline story at foxnews.com

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2014/01/14/court-strikes-down-fccs-net-neutrality-rule/

Do tell what's not credible.

I won't believe it until I read it in The Guardian!

 

[BillBrasky]

LOL at HuffPost being a credible source.

Much more credible than Fox "News," though I'm not saying it's the end-all, be all of credible news sources.

The question is, what is credible about Fox "News?"

 

[PapaG]

Much more credible than Fox "News," though I'm not saying it's the end-all, be all of credible news sources.

The question is, what is credible about Fox "News?"

It amazes me that someone can post this and realize how ridiculous it appears.

 

[BillBrasky]

It amazes me that someone can post this and realize how ridiculous it appears.

Then again, you probably believe with all your heart that Rush Limbaugh has never lied!

 

[PapaG]

Then again, you probably believe with all your heart that Rush Limbaugh has never lied!

I think Rush Limbaugh is a buffoon. I listen to sports radio, anyhow.

I'm not sure what other boards you've been on before, but for this community, your posts come across as lacking in depth, hyper-partisan, and basically just talking points from the DailyKos. I think you're a bit out of your league here, frankly.

BTW, did you answer DennyCrane's question about the FauxNews website yet?

 

[Denny Crane]

Much more credible than Fox "News," though I'm not saying it's the end-all, be all of credible news sources.

The question is, what is credible about Fox "News?"

Fox News is a real news organization, partisan claims to the contrary. I showed you a link to the headline story on their site. I read a very similar story on wired.com earlier today. I am not seeing anything about it that is not credible. In fact, most of the digital content is pretty good.

I don't confuse news reporting with the partisan talking heads they have on the air.

Do you not believe the score of the 49ers / Seahawks game because you saw it played on FOX network or the score reported on Fox News?

Sheesh.

And yeah, it was really silly to make the partisan claim about credible and then use HuffPost which is as shrill and partisan as it gets.

 

[BillBrasky]

I think Rush Limbaugh is a buffoon. I listen to sports radio, anyhow.

I'm not sure what other boards you've been on before, but for this community, your posts come across as lacking in depth, hyper-partisan, and basically just talking points from the DailyKos. I think you're a bit out of your league here, frankly.

Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. Then again, I seem to remember you saying you were going to ignore my comments. Hmm, guess you failed on that one too.

BTW, did you answer DennyCrane's question about the FauxNews website yet?

That's not a political story. Therefore, it does not apply to my original comment.

 

[PapaG]

That's not a political story. Therefore, it does not apply to my original comment.

So declassified documents that show that the President wasn't briefed on a video, but rather a "terrorist attack," aren't true because FauxNews reported them? Interesting. No wonder we have such a stupid populace.

 

[BillBrasky]

Fox News is a real news organization, partisan claims to the contrary. I showed you a link to the headline story on their site. I read a very similar story on wired.com earlier today. I am not seeing anything about it that is not credible. In fact, most of the digital content is pretty good.

I don't confuse news reporting with the partisan talking heads they have on the air.

Do you not believe the score of the 49ers / Seahawks game because you saw it played on FOX network or the score reported on Fox News?

Sheesh.

And yeah, it was really silly to make the partisan claim about credible and then use HuffPost which is as shrill and partisan as it gets.

I really wasn't talking about the website; more the talking heads you mentioned. I also wasn't talking about non-political news articles which you displayed in the link.

As for HuffPost, I already answered that one above.

 

[BillBrasky]

So declassified documents that show that the President wasn't briefed on a video, but rather a "terrorist attack," aren't true because FauxNews reported them? Interesting. No wonder we have such a stupid populace.

I think you lost yourself there.

 

[PapaG]

I really wasn't talking about the website; more the talking heads you mentioned. I also wasn't talking about non-political news articles which you displayed in the link.

As for HuffPost, I already answered that one above.

Since the article in the OP was from the website, and not a talking head, then that must make it credible.

 

[PapaG]

I think you lost yourself there.

No, it's actually straightforward. Are you saying that these documents weren't declassified, and they don't say what the article claims they say?

 

[BillBrasky]

Since the article in the OP was from the website, and not a talking head, then that must make it credible.

Except for the fact that it IS a political story rather than non-political.

The problem with your "logic" is that just because you see a story which fits your views, you seem to believe each and every fact contained within that story.

 

[BillBrasky]

No, it's actually straightforward. Are you saying that these documents weren't declassified, and they don't say what the article claims they say?

That's not the issue. Where you lost yourself is when you quoted me, then responded with something which had absolutely nothing to do with my quote.

 

[PapaG]

Except for the fact that it IS a political story rather than non-political.

The problem with your "logic" is that just because you see a story which fits your views, you seem to believe each and every fact contained within that story.

So since it's political, it's not credible? I posted the article; you said it's not credible. That puts the burden on you to discredit the article, and posting Fox "News" repeatedly is a rather infantile and low-brow effort to do so.

 

[PapaG]

That's not the issue. Where you lost yourself is when you quoted me, then responded with something which had absolutely nothing to do with my quote.

Your quote had nothing to do with the point of the thread? Amazing!

Welcome to S2! You'll fit in great here.

 

[BillBrasky]

So since it's political, it's not credible? I posted the article; you said it's not credible. That puts the burden on you to discredit the article, and posting Fox "News" repeatedly is a rather infantile and low-brow effort to do so.

Wrong. I said Fox "News" is not credible. Perhaps you should refresh your comprehension by re-reading and trying to understand what was said rather than be in a hurry to quickly respond.

So what if I call it Fox "News" and you want to say it's infantile and low-brow. Truthfully, I care not what you think. It is sad you fancy yourself an expert in those areas.

By the way (again), weren't you going to ignore my comments?

 

[BillBrasky]

Your quote had nothing to do with the point of the thread? Amazing!

Welcome to S2! You'll fit in great here.

Dude, that was a weak attempt at hyberbole. Try again.

 

[PapaG]

Wrong. I said Fox "News" is not credible. Perhaps you should refresh your comprehension by re-reading and trying to understand what was said rather than be in a hurry to quickly respond.

Wrong

Your post lost me at Fox "News."

That's your first post in the thread. Maybe in your circles, that's considered a highly intellectual comment. Hard to tell, since you haven't once commented on the actual substance of the article. Or, is the entire factual news discredited because you didn't read it on the HuffPo?

 

[DaLincolnJones]

I'm talking about the Bush administration's lie regarding the false evidence of WMDs in Iraq in 2003, not Clinton's remarks in 1998. That is a separate issue entirely. Let's not forget that the Bush administration's lie cost nearly 4,500 american servicemen and women their lives.

But since I'm feeling gracious today, I'll aid you in your comprehension by giving you a couple links:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-schwarz/colin-powell-wmd-iraq-war_b_2624620.html

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/18/panorama-iraq-fresh-wmd-claims

ok, ok, now I know you are just trolling. Your choices of "credible" news outlets is laughable. Personaly, the only news I listen to on a daily basis is OPB/NPR. If I want to follow up on a story, I will read half a dozen different sites to get an over all feel, then make my own decision on the matter.

Of course you are still talking about what happened a decade ago, anything to avoid the current subject.

 

[BillBrasky]

Wrong

Funny, you're guilty there of what you accuse me of in the following:

That's your first post in the thread. Maybe in your circles, that's considered a highly intellectual comment. Hard to tell, since you haven't once commented on the actual substance of the article. Or, is the entire factual news discredited because you didn't read it on the HuffPo?

Get off the HuffPo thing dude. Asked and answered.

Thanks for letting me know I can pretty much disregard anything that you post that pertains to politics, the economy, etc. etc.

Oh hey, what ever happened to that! I thought you were going to take your ball and go home. I guess you lied.

 

[PapaG]

Oh hey, what ever happened to that! I thought you were going to take your ball and go home. I guess you lied.

You haven't posted anything regarding the economy, politics, etc. You've posted about Fox "News" and the HuffPo (the Guardian too, I suppose), and their varying degrees of credibility.

Derp

 

[BillBrasky]

ok, ok, now I know you are just trolling. Your choices of "credible" news outlets is laughable. Personaly, the only news I listen to on a daily basis is OPB/NPR. If I want to follow up on a story, I will read half a dozen different sites to get an over all feel, then make my own decision on the matter.

Of course you are still talking about what happened a decade ago, anything to avoid the current subject.

Following up on a story is always a good idea. Reinforcing information and credibility is something we all should do.

I never said those two articles came from the most credible of news sources. Even in my previous comments, I've said that.

Is it an avoidance or a comparison. Certainly the latter. Please keep up.

 

[BillBrasky]

You haven't posted anything regarding the economy, politics, etc. You've posted about Fox "News" and the HuffPo (the Guardian too, I suppose), and their varying degrees of credibility.

Derp

Now I know you have no comprehension skills. Even more sad is it took you three promptings to respond! lol

 

[Denny Crane]

Since the article in the OP was from the website, and not a talking head, then that must make it credible.

This.

And, similar stories on ABC News site and many others now. The documents and closed door hearings/testimony is now declassified and made public.

Here's a political story:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...al-charges-warranted-so-far-in-irs-targeting/

Where is it lacking credibility?

 

[BillBrasky]

That story essentially rehashes the Wall Street Journal! Where are they going to slant it?!

Seriously, this has gotten to the point of nitpicking. It's clear neither you nor PapaG have correctly comprehended my point. I'm not going to explain it twice.

 

[Denny Crane]

That story essentially rehashes the Wall Street Journal! Where are they going to slant it?!

Seriously, this has gotten to the point of nitpicking. It's clear neither you nor PapaG have correctly comprehended my point. I'm not going to explain it twice.

So it is credible.

It sure is looking like Top Defense Officials Briefed Obama and the administration outright lied about it for weeks afterward.

 

[maxiep]

I love it when coffins are used as props. Good times. Good times.

 

[barfo]

I love it when coffins are used as props. Good times. Good times.

And if there weren't pictures: "Obama didn't even care enough to attend the service".

barfo

 

[PapaG]

This.

And, similar stories on ABC News site and many others now. The documents and closed door hearings/testimony is now declassified and made public.

Here's a political story:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...al-charges-warranted-so-far-in-irs-targeting/

Where is it lacking credibility?

Dunderheads of America don't even care about this ruling, and what it means on net neutrality in terms of charging services via ISP. It won't make ABC/CBS/NBC until it actually starts impacting ISP bills.