ViRedd
New Member
OK, so now you've almost said something with substance ... but it took you another two paragraphs,My post was 4 paragraphs? Now, we all know who didn't pass lower division writing here. (Is this a paragraph?)
Yes, you bring up a good point. I'm sure Democrats do watch FOX, however, that does not mean they subscribe to the FOX propaganda. The same could be said for MSNBC, plenty of Republicans watch MSNBC but they do not subscribe to their propaganda. By assuming that the viewer only watches what they believe in, the overall analysis becomes extremely skewed. Therefore, your argument holds little weight.
Side Note: By the way, who only watches what they believe? It seems like that would be counter productive. Wouldn't you want to hear both sides of an argument?
Now, it certainly is interesting that you would approach the argument from this stance. "More people watch FOX (even Dems), so FOX is accurate and their view is correct." Of course, I'm paraphrasing you. It is also interesting that you didn't think my previous post had any relevant information, because you just exhibited the exact behavior I was describing.
So, again, I will post: "now you just have to learn how to accurately analyze factually material, opposed to skewing parts of it for your argument....it has been very entertaining analyzing your train of thought."
Also, if you bought that ACORN story, you really need to read up. That was debunked within the first week. Next you're going to be preaching that Bush dropped the WTC towers. :: hint :: You're tipping on the c.r.a.z.y. side there CJ. :: tip :: Stick with the good argument, government spending. At least Bush set that up for the Right to harp on. LOL
By the way, for the "other side" opinions, I watch Bill Maher every week. He's a great Icon for liberal laughing stock.