Thanks for sharing the apathy and hopelessness !
Interestingly, this last election cycle saw the election of a good number of people - including his son - that are, at least to some degree, like-minded with Dr. Paul.
Yeah, so what? Makes no difference in MY life. Don't watch FOX, ABC, NBC, CBS. Unless I am in the mood for silly comedy!
Really ?
That might be true - if it were not for the fact of Fox News' well-documented history of repeated, similar conduct with regard to Dr. Paul.
Well ... defend at all costs ..... is a bit over the top ..... but as a euphemism and figure of speech it's more or less accurate, in the context that most would understand it. Literally, no - it's not.
Don't worry - I'm under no illusions.
Don't worry - I'm under no illusions.
Really ?
Got a lot of time in editing bays do ya ? None, Just gave a common sense response to the the shadow chasing conspiracy theorists.
Having spent easily in excess of a thousand hours slicin' and dicin' and actually turning the knobs over the years, I find it highly unlikely that whoever put the piece together was unaware of what source footage they were using.
What is more likely, is that Fox did not cover the event themselves, nor did they have access to footage from a stringer - so someone made a conscious editorial decision to use footage they did have as B-roll material.
That in itself is generally no big deal - it's done all the time in news and video production. The problem is that the footage they selected was entirely unrepresentative of the actual event and what had actually happened. Right,thus the controversy.
That sin was further compounded by the talking head choosing to comment on something that never happened in a manner as though it did, to Dr. Paul's detriment. Yes the talking head commented on the reaction from the crowd because that's what talking heads do. Yes it was to the detriment to Ron Paul in that instance,but there wasn't anything sinester to it.
That might be true - if it were not for the fact of Fox News' well-documented history of repeated, similar conduct with regard to Dr. Paul.
Some folks could be confronted with written of confessions of guilt ..... and still attempt to explain it all away and close their eyes.
It will be real interesting to see if Fox does a mea culpa .....
So the conspiracy goes like this see: Fox News owner Rupert Murdock sees Ron Paul win the CPAC straw poll and tells Roger Ailes something has to be done to thwart this Ron Paul character because he will be a menace to republicans. Roger Ailes tells Rupert no problem I Know just the dirty trick that will humiliate Ron Paul and stop any momentum with potential supporters. Roger Ailes directs the editing staff to use the wrong footage. It's an order!! He also tells Bill Hemmer to make sure he asks Ron Paul about that rough audience to complete the embarrassment. He also tells Hemmer don't worry everything will be fine and no one will ever notice. Our plot to ruin Ron Paul will succeed.
Wow dudeOk you convinced me.
..... that's almost as utterly delusional as:
See muttly's response above to get an example in practice ....
Precisely ....
Indeed ..... and in discussing the matter on here, that someone has no other choice but to resort to such flawed premises as strawmans and red herrings, that are in fact, outright lies ...... well, that might say a little something about the honesty and integrity of those who are so inclined .....
As RLENT pointed out. Quite well I must add:
Also, RLENT understood exactly what I was talking about when he added this:
And you have yet again, another example of what I was talking about here:
This has nothing to do with conspiracies, it is a question of honesty and integrity and reporting the facts. I know, I know, the media has zero integrity, the politicians have zero integrity, yada, yada, yada. This is the "News" side of the FoxNews Channel for God's sake, and you have those that will defend it or chalk it up as a "honest mistake". Common sense indeed.
YouTube - Office Space-Jump 2 Conclusions Mat
Precisely ....
When creating fallacious strawman arguments and introducing red herrings is the only way you have to get there, it says something about the quality of one's premise ....
Indeed ..... and in discussing the matter on here, that someone has no other choice but to resort to such flawed premises as strawmans and red herrings, that are in fact, outright lies ...... well, that might say a little something about the honesty and integrity of those who are so inclined .....
And BTW the way: it's sinister ... not sinester ....
