WWTBAM Bored

Chris Christie and John Kasich are in. Rick Perry is off to the kiddie table debate. Oops!

OH. How clever. Faux news! Ha ha ha! I get it.
I realize you have to use that phrase to be considered a good card carrying drone, but it's funny nonetheless. So demeaning. To you, I mean, not to Fox. People that use that phrase mark themselves as being empty headed and doofy. And they are proud of it.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:OH. How clever. Faux news! Ha ha ha! I get it.
I realize you have to use that phrase to be considered a good card carrying drone, but it's funny nonetheless. So demeaning. To you, I mean, not to Fox. People that use that phrase mark themselves as being empty headed and doofy. And they are proud of it.

Flock, I just noticed that you are now listed as an Oregonian, whereas I always thought of you as an Arkansan. When did that happen? If you already explained the circumstances and your motivation on the Board, I'm sorry I missed it. I Googled Center Point and learned that your mayor is named Hank Williams, so that's pretty cool.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:OH. How clever. Faux news! Ha ha ha! I get it.
I realize you have to use that phrase to be considered a good card carrying drone, but it's funny nonetheless. So demeaning. To you, I mean, not to Fox. People that use that phrase mark themselves as being empty headed and doofy. And they are proud of it.

How empty headed and doofy are people who can't talk about any news outlet other than Fox News without going into a diatribe about the liberal leftist press and what they want you to hear?

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:OH. How clever. Faux news! Ha ha ha! I get it.
I realize you have to use that phrase to be considered a good card carrying drone, but it's funny nonetheless. So demeaning. To you, I mean, not to Fox. People that use that phrase mark themselves as being empty headed and doofy. And they are proud of it.

How empty headed and doofy are people who can't talk about any news outlet other than Fox News without going into a diatribe about the liberal leftist press and what they want you to hear?

Um, I didn't bring this up, SSS. I believe the diatribe here is yours. I am surprised Rush Limbaugh's name wasn't mentioned in your response.

TheConfessor wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:OH. How clever. Faux news! Ha ha ha! I get it.
I realize you have to use that phrase to be considered a good card carrying drone, but it's funny nonetheless. So demeaning. To you, I mean, not to Fox. People that use that phrase mark themselves as being empty headed and doofy. And they are proud of it.

Flock, I just noticed that you are now listed as an Oregonian, whereas I always thought of you as an Arkansan. When did that happen? If you already explained the circumstances and your motivation on the Board, I'm sorry I missed it. I Googled Center Point and learned that your mayor is named Hank Williams, so that's pretty cool.

When I started on the bored, I was in the Atlanta Area. I missed my chance to be on WWTBAM because I never heard of A Flock Of Seagulls and ranked them after Sheryl Crow on the Phone Game. I moved to Arkansas in 2005. Last Summer we moved to Central Point,OR. I had no idea Hank was our mayor. We will soon be moving to Olympia, Washington. We are moving there because it's right on Puget Sound and there will be actual gulls there.....

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:OH. How clever. Faux news! Ha ha ha! I get it.
I realize you have to use that phrase to be considered a good card carrying drone, but it's funny nonetheless. So demeaning. To you, I mean, not to Fox. People that use that phrase mark themselves as being empty headed and doofy. And they are proud of it.

How empty headed and doofy are people who can't talk about any news outlet other than Fox News without going into a diatribe about the liberal leftist press and what they want you to hear?

Um, I didn't bring this up, SSS. I believe the diatribe here is yours. I am surprised Rush Limbaugh's name wasn't mentioned in your response.

My bad.

I should have realized right away that Rush Limbaugh and the words "empty headed and doofy" just naturally go together.

As someone who is unlikely to vote for anyone who is debating on Thursday, I think this stinks.

I am sorry but who the eff is Fox News to dictate this - months and months before a vote is cast.

The people who won't make the stage?

The 2012 runner-up
A several-term Senator
A two-time governor
Another two-time governor
ANOTHER two-time governor (was Perry two or three terms?)
One of the most recognizable female executives in the nation
Jim Gilmore, another former governor who I don't think jumped into early enough to be in enough polls to qualify.

As I said, the likelihood of my voting for any of the 17 is small but, it should be up to the Republican voters to see if they want to hear from Rick Santorum. Not Roger Ailes.

It sucketh for the whole democracy thing.

This is theater. One will make a decision NOT on a debate. They can pick their participants however they choose. The other networks could do the same, but they won't because it's REPUBs! Omg

We thought of a solution in the sports department at work last night: have two debates with all 16 contestants (eight each night) and SEED THEM like a tournament - the most popular eight would be arranged with four on each night. Or just put all the odd numbers on one night and the evens on the other.

If there are more than 16, we'll need a play-in.

Ritterskoop wrote:We thought of a solution in the sports department at work last night: have two debates with all 16 contestants (eight each night) and SEED THEM like a tournament - the most popular eight would be arranged with four on each night. Or just put all the odd numbers on one night and the evens on the other.

If there are more than 16, we'll need a play-in.

How about we just put them in a Hunger Games tournament?

jarnon wrote:And the MSM have their marching orders to cover him like a real contender. There are more news stories about him than Cruz, Rubio and Paul put together.

The numbers back me up (and I'm a numbers guy, so I had to post):

[i]TV Guide[/i] wrote:Election Coverage Gets Trumped

So far, network nightly news executives are placing their bets on one presidential candidate — at least in terms of who they think will draw in viewers. Donald Trump is getting more airtime than any other would-be POTUS. Analyst Andrew Tyndall explains how the coverage broke down from June 1 to July 24. —Ileane Rudolph

114  Number of minutes ABC's World News Tonight, NBC Nightly News and CBS Evening News have devoted to the 2016 campaign.
60   Number of minutes the three network-news broadcasts have spent on Trump.
5    Minutes in the broadcasts' campaign coverage that were focused on Hillary Clinton.
15   Minutes in the broadcasts' campaign coverage that were focused on Jeb Bush.
35   Number of minutes NBC Nightly News, which leads in Trump coverage, have given the former Celebrity Apprentice host.

A year from now, the election will still be 2 months away.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:A year from now, the election will still be 2 months away.

A year from now, there still will be no phone game. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:A year from now, there still will be no phone game. --Bob

Thanks for injecting something on-topic into this political thread, Bob!

Who is really faux news?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/culture/ka ... kwnqs:sf10

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Who is really faux news?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/culture/ka ... kwnqs:sf10

What have they made up? Why should they give publicity to a highly edited, misleading, set of videos?

Bob Juch wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Who is really faux news?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/culture/ka ... kwnqs:sf10

What have they made up? Why should they give publicity to a highly edited, misleading, set of videos?

And what is your source that tells you these videos are highly edited and misleading? Of course, if they tell you that, it is perfectly OK to ignore the content of these videos, isn't it? It makes it a lot easier to avoid thinking about it, doesn't it?

It's just so damn easy to be a liberal.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Who is really faux news?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/culture/ka ... kwnqs:sf10

What have they made up? Why should they give publicity to a highly edited, misleading, set of videos?

And what is your source that tells you these videos are highly edited and misleading? Of course, if they tell you that, it is perfectly OK to ignore the content of these videos, isn't it? It makes it a lot easier to avoid thinking about it, doesn't it?

It's just so damn easy to be a liberal.

Every major media outlet that's taken the time to watch the unedited videos.

By the way, weren't these secret films made in California? California is a two-party consent state, which means that it's illegal to record a private conversation without the consent of all participants. I fully expect Kamala Harris, who's running for the Senate, to chase this down and prosecute if appropriate. --Bob