Add new comment

.
.
.
I said, "Fox is not an extension of the Republican Party."
You said that (1) my position was, "Fox does not attend to a certain audience," and that (2) "this statement is a lie."  
In fact, Fox DOES attend to the audience that is alienated by the MSM.  Certainly it does.  
So, No, I didn't lie.  But thanks for the insult.  That went off the rails in a hurry, didn't it?
........ 
"Pander" is YOUR characterization, an OPINION, and you logically proceed from it as a GIVEN, as if "Fox Panders" were a sound premise, and we all needed to move forward from that point.  
PBS attends to a neglected audience, but that's not the definition of "pander."  "Pander" means to gratuitously indulge a repulsive need or desire.  Interest in Karl Rove's analysis is a repulsive need or desire?  
How is Rove a less legitimate political analyst than James Carville?  (Who is also frequently on Fox.)  
.
.....
You pile up the straw men, on top of the self-appropriated word definitions, on top of the sneering insinuations as to my integrity, and that's just in your second post.
I don't have the time or the inclination to cut through 90 semantic bait-and-switches per post, to point out the definition of "pander" and every 12th word you misuse.  
Nor do I wish to weed through your posts to point out all the places you have (1) presumed your opinion as a fact, and then (2) built a logical argument on top of your "fact", and then (3) triumphantly proclaimed that anybody disagreeing is a liar.
Everybody else here is able to exchange ideas without that stuff.
.........
Seattle Sports Insider is a venue for reasonable and interesting idea exchange.  I seriously doubt anybody found any of this obfuscation to be interesting.
We're done here, LR.  As Fox does, with people using the above tactics, I'll give you the last word.
.