Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 13 of 13
  1. #11  
    Senior Member 98ZJUSMC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Tunnel Hill, IL
    Star Member Segami (7,751 posts)
    2. Fox News’s ratings are tanking. Other networks refuse to cover it...

    Averaged over prime time (8-11 p.m.), the three major cable news networks had a combined audience Monday of 2.7 million viewers, and here are the percentage shares:
    Fox ...... 65%
    MSNBC ..... 24%
    CNN ....... 11%

    ...Jeff Zucker's network is a f***ing asterisk, is what they are - an irrelevant afterthought in the TV new business, of interest only as an example of how not to operate a cable news franchise.

    Life is hard (D)Ummies. It's even harder when you're stupid.
    -paraphasing John Wayne
    Reply With Quote  

  2. #12  
    Senior Member Doc Savage's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Star Member McCamy Taylor (14,085 posts)
    5. Ben-gay-gate makes no sense to me and I have a genius level IQ. Meaning

    that I seriously doubt that any voter is going to base a decision on it. I think that the end game is supposed to be getting Hillary in front of the committee so that they can ask her something misleading that she will answer truthfully as she understands the question and that they can later claim she lied about when they claim the question was actually a different question. Seriously. Call it Ken Starr II--the perjury trap. But Hillary is smarter than all of them put together. So it won't work. She will probably look at them and smile and say "That question is not phrased well. Can you rephrase that?" over and over again until they have to give up.

    I think we should just put Hillary and Issa in a cage fight and see who come out alive. I am betting on Hillary.
    I am wondering about that. If she is so smart, why did she loose the election? Nothing like running the first looser for the top position.
    Reply With Quote  

  3. #13  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    The reason why this memo is important is because the foundation of the Republican claims of a Benghazi cover-up is based on the idea that the White House intentionally lied and blamed a YouTube video for the attack.
    Uhhh ... no. DUmmy Jason Easley at PoliticsUSA is incorrect, probably intentionally.

    That the White House intentionally lied and blamed a YouTube video as the reason for the attack is a foregone conclusion. Everyone already knows that they lied, and lied intentionally, and they've known that since September 16, 2012, when Susan Rice went on those Sunday shows and made those laughable claims that caused the nation a collective guffaw at the ludicrousness of such a claim.

    The question at hand is just who sent Susan Rice out there and told her to lie to the American people. The White House tried to point to the CIA, and the CIA's story didn't hold water. Now we have more evidence that the White House was indeed trying to direct the narrative, a knowingly false one, effectively trying to do damage control because they desperately needed Benghazi to not be a terrorist attack before the 2012 election.
    Olde-style, states' rights conservative. Ask if this concept confuses you.
    Reply With Quote  

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts