Town halls gone wild

[PI2]

When anybody opposed to the ideas, plots, plans and would-be "polisies" of the Obama Administration tries to use "freedom of speech" to express such opposition, the LMSM immediately denigrates it by suggesting that it is "organized" and thus unworthy of credibility.

That kind of thing is only ok when the left does it, don't ya know!

You really are not denying that this "opposition" has been orchestrated and that the Memo put out by the RNC on tactics to be used to disrupt the meetings is false?

you lie again
the RNC didnt put out any memo
it was ONE guy on Facebook with 23 friends and a myspace with 5
and he only sent it to the 5 friends on myspace
you libs are getting fucking pathetic

Right only one guy that's why it has spread across the Internets.

Hey try signing up for twitter alerts and read some of the stuff that the morons are tweeting, and then let's see if you can find out who wants to share a cab or introduce some of you whack jobs to the bar scene in Pittsburgh before the big Rightie circle jerk on taking back the Internets this Friday and Saturday.

Right but it's not organized, you just keep on believing.

 

[DiveCon]

You really are not denying that this "opposition" has been orchestrated and that the Memo put out by the RNC on tactics to be used to disrupt the meetings is false?

you lie again
the RNC didnt put out any memo
it was ONE guy on Facebook with 23 friends and a myspace with 5
and he only sent it to the 5 friends on myspace
you libs are getting fucking pathetic

Right only one guy that's why it has spread across the Internets.

Hey try signing up for twitter alerts and read some of the stuff that the morons are tweeting, and then let's see if you can find out who wants to share a cab or introduce some of you whack jobs to the bar scene in Pittsburgh before the big Rightie circle jerk on taking back the Internets this Friday and Saturday.

Right but it's not organized, you just keep on believing.

you guys did more to spread it than he did

i'd never heard of the guy till you lib morons spread it around

 

[Vast LWC]

Nodog! Finally caught you online. Still making sense and being reasonable, I see.

ohh, nice sarcasm

Not this time, Dive. I don't know anything about the Cavuto stuff so I'm not dumb enough to try to address it and get my ass handed to me, but there's nothing wrong with the opinion that we need to scrutiize where we get our information from. It's the age of branded infotainment, and sometimes hard to separate fact from spin. That's why I get both the NYT and the WSJ on the weekends. When they agree, I know it's probably right.

A man who recognizes quality news sources.

Both have an obvious bias to one side or the other, but their actual reporting is about a factual as one can find.

I really hope Murdoch's take over of the WSJ doesn't seriously affect their fine work to date.

 

[Vast LWC]

yes, it was Cavuto in Sacramento who was caught on tape inflating the numbers.
But most of these folks don't even claim to be journalists - they will readily admit that they are "infotainers" so they give themselves permission to spin away.

There are those on both the right and left who do it - the saddest part is when someone thinks they are informing themself by watching this stuff.

Cavuto: ”Johnny, any estimates on how many people are here?”
Johnny: ”Um, we’re trying to get th…”
Cavuto: ”Gotta be five thousand.”
Johnny: ”Oh, at least. You know, I mean, I… The cops aren’t going to tell us and we’ve been trying to get a hold of the PR person to give us the number, but… I think five thousand. You could say it’s… [inaudible]… ‘Starting at five thousand, and [maybe] more‘”
Cavuto (on the air): ”Bill, you cover a lot of these things, Shep, so you’re probably better at estimating crowd sizes than I am… They were expecting five thousand here; it’s gotta be easily double, if not triple that… But, again, I’m no expert.”

Seems like you do a little spinning yourself.

From the transcript Cavuto clearly admits he's "no expert" so his estimate is just that.

Now, it's true his statement would not hold up in court, due to the "no expert" clause... c'mon... this is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

 

[DiveCon]

yes, it was Cavuto in Sacramento who was caught on tape inflating the numbers.
But most of these folks don't even claim to be journalists - they will readily admit that they are "infotainers" so they give themselves permission to spin away.

There are those on both the right and left who do it - the saddest part is when someone thinks they are informing themself by watching this stuff.

Cavuto: ”Johnny, any estimates on how many people are here?”
Johnny: ”Um, we’re trying to get th…”
Cavuto: ”Gotta be five thousand.”
Johnny: ”Oh, at least. You know, I mean, I… The cops aren’t going to tell us and we’ve been trying to get a hold of the PR person to give us the number, but… I think five thousand. You could say it’s… [inaudible]… ‘Starting at five thousand, and [maybe] more‘”
Cavuto (on the air): ”Bill, you cover a lot of these things, Shep, so you’re probably better at estimating crowd sizes than I am… They were expecting five thousand here; it’s gotta be easily double, if not triple that… But, again, I’m no expert.”

Seems like you do a little spinning yourself.

From the transcript Cavuto clearly admits he's "no expert" so his estimate is just that.

Now, it's true his statement would not hold up in court, due to the "no expert" clause... c'mon... this is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

no more of a stretch than your claims against what Beck said

 

[goldcatt]

ohh, nice sarcasm

Not this time, Dive. I don't know anything about the Cavuto stuff so I'm not dumb enough to try to address it and get my ass handed to me, but there's nothing wrong with the opinion that we need to scrutiize where we get our information from. It's the age of branded infotainment, and sometimes hard to separate fact from spin. That's why I get both the NYT and the WSJ on the weekends. When they agree, I know it's probably right.

A man who recognizes quality news sources.

Both have an obvious bias to one side or the other, but their actual reporting is about a factual as one can find.

I really hope Murdoch's take over of the WSJ doesn't seriously affect their fine work to date.

It's a lot more subtle than the spin in his other outlets, but the bias is creeping from the op-ed page very slowly but surely. Which is why it plus the NYT are my choices. Both are comprehensive and do actual reporting instead of just running stories off the wire (although that is one of the things that's slowly being cut in the WSJ - probably a needed money saver, but still sad to see). But neither of them alone is 100% credible. Therefore, read both. Don't know about anybody else, but it makes perfect sense to me.

 

[Vast LWC]

Not this time, Dive. I don't know anything about the Cavuto stuff so I'm not dumb enough to try to address it and get my ass handed to me, but there's nothing wrong with the opinion that we need to scrutiize where we get our information from. It's the age of branded infotainment, and sometimes hard to separate fact from spin. That's why I get both the NYT and the WSJ on the weekends. When they agree, I know it's probably right.

A man who recognizes quality news sources.

Both have an obvious bias to one side or the other, but their actual reporting is about a factual as one can find.

I really hope Murdoch's take over of the WSJ doesn't seriously affect their fine work to date.

It's a lot more subtle than the spin in his other outlets, but the bias is creeping from the op-ed page very slowly but surely. Which is why it plus the NYT are my choices. Both are comprehensive and do actual reporting instead of just running stories off the wire (although that is one of the things that's slowly being cut in the WSJ - probably a needed money saver, but still sad to see). But neither of them alone is 100% credible. Therefore, read both. Don't know about anybody else, but it makes perfect sense to me.

Indeed. I try to read both myself, but with a sixth month old baby it seems like I don't as much time as I'd like for print anymore.

 

[goldcatt]

A man who recognizes quality news sources.

Both have an obvious bias to one side or the other, but their actual reporting is about a factual as one can find.

I really hope Murdoch's take over of the WSJ doesn't seriously affect their fine work to date.

It's a lot more subtle than the spin in his other outlets, but the bias is creeping from the op-ed page very slowly but surely. Which is why it plus the NYT are my choices. Both are comprehensive and do actual reporting instead of just running stories off the wire (although that is one of the things that's slowly being cut in the WSJ - probably a needed money saver, but still sad to see). But neither of them alone is 100% credible. Therefore, read both. Don't know about anybody else, but it makes perfect sense to me.

Indeed. I try to read both myself, but with a sixth month old baby it seems like I don't as much time as I'd like for print anymore.

I remember those days. No time for anything. I never said I read all of each paper either, just the parts that interest me. My kids are almost 6 years, so I have a "little" more time but still not enough for that. I'm on my "summer vacation" now, when they get back there won't be as much time for posting either. Dagnabbit.

 

[PI2]

1:30pm-2:30pm Forced Unionization:
Card Check, Mandatory Arbitration, & Right to Work
Blogging 101:
How to Make Your Voice Heard
360 Integration:
How the Internet Affects Every Aspect of Your Organization

2:45pm-3:45pm
Protecting Patients’ Rights:
The Threat of Government Run Health Care
Social Networking 101:
Twitter & Facebook
Protecting Your Organization’s Online Identity

4:00pm- 5:00pm
Internet Regulation:
Will the Next Government Takeover be of the Internet?
“YouTubing” Activism:
Utilizing Online Video Online
Marketing & Fundraising

Lunch



1:30pm-2:30pm
Bankrupting America
Old Media, New Media, & The Conservative Movement
Shaping the Future:
Youth, Politics, & New Media
Online Community Building

2:45pm-3:45pm
Cap-and-Tax:
The Cost of Global Warming Alarmism
Detecting & Countering Media Bias Information
Pollination: Integrating Technology to Amplify the Message
Moving from Persuasion to Mass Mobilization

4:00pm 5:15pm
Map to Victory: How the Right Can Win Online

Sounds like the righties have a full agenda

 

[PI2]

i'd never heard of the guy till you lib morons spread it around

Well we all know that you righties aren't very well read, have a limited vocabulary and are a little slow on the uptake so we'll give you a mulligan on that one.

 

[DiveCon]

i'd never heard of the guy till you lib morons spread it around

Well we all know that you righties aren't very well read, have a limited vocabulary and are a little slow on the uptake so we'll give you a mulligan on that one.

ROFLMFAO
so what happened to "the right wing echo chamber"

i guess that tired talking point just died a horrible death

 

[drsmith1072]

You should also watch the people that purposely twist and misrepresent the facts in order to support their sick ideology as well.


Sounds like the definition of a brown shirt, doesn't it?

So are you asking to be watched? because that fits you perfectly.

Let's see, you accuse people of being dishonest and then can't prove your accusation and you have tried to dishonestly atrtibute something that i never said to me so you could attack me for it.
It sure sounds like you "purposely twist and misrepresent the facts in order to support <your> sick ideology" LOL

I can see that I really get under your skin. Good.

Nope not really but if you feel the need to believe that to feel better about yourself then who am I to steal your sunshine?

Why don't you try to talk about the subject and state facts that you can prove instead of calling those you don't agree with names?

I already did state the facts and you avoided them.
FACT is that you accuse people of lying and then when asked to prove your allegation you avoid doing so.
FACT is that you did try to attack me for something that I never said.
As for the name calling it's funny that you would start whining about it as you engage in that very tactic yourself. LOL

that's difficult for your type to do,

Nope, not really considering the fact that I tried to talk about the facts with you and you cut and ran. LOL

but you could try acting like an adult for a change.

Coming from some one who acts as childish as you do that's hilarious.

You don't discuss honestly, all you do is attack with lies which you cannot counter in an intelligent manner.

lies?? I could ask you what lies I have told but since you have shown the tendency to run away when asked to prove your allegations in the past I don't see what good it will do. Oh well here we go again and here you go again. Can you show me when and where I lied as you claim?

You are a waste of time.

Says the poster who only calls people who disagree with "her" liars and then runs away when asked to prove said allegation. LOL

 

[drsmith1072]

You're talking about one event out of how many tea parties?

Foxnews (the network) basically advertised for the tea parties weeks before the events and then sent hosts of their programs out to them. Some of whom became part of the events including hannity, cavuto who I believe was caught on tape trying to inflate the numbers at the event he was attending and glenn beck who also had an entertainer on hand at the alamo event and all of them hosted their shows from the events.

So what don't you understand??

You're confusing reporting with advertising. Can you provide a advertisement televised or in print that states that Fox News Corp. encourages people to attend the tea parties.

Where was Neil Cavuto reporting from?

No, I am not confusing anything but you seem to be. When you become part of the event as hannity and beck did you are no longer reporting. When an allegedly unbiased (fair and balanced) news network talks up tea parties for weeks on end and then has their people host their programs and provide entertainment at the events themselves to give the events more exposure that goes well beyond mere reporting. That's just common sense.

To try and argue that what foxnews (the network) did was mere reporting is beyond absurd.

 

[drsmith1072]

yes, it was Cavuto in Sacramento who was caught on tape inflating the numbers.
But most of these folks don't even claim to be journalists - they will readily admit that they are "infotainers" so they give themselves permission to spin away.

There are those on both the right and left who do it - the saddest part is when someone thinks they are informing themself by watching this stuff.

Cavuto: ”Johnny, any estimates on how many people are here?”
Johnny: ”Um, we’re trying to get th…”
Cavuto: ”Gotta be five thousand.”
Johnny: ”Oh, at least. You know, I mean, I… The cops aren’t going to tell us and we’ve been trying to get a hold of the PR person to give us the number, but… I think five thousand. You could say it’s… [inaudible]… ‘Starting at five thousand, and [maybe] more‘”
Cavuto (on the air): ”Bill, you cover a lot of these things, Shep, so you’re probably better at estimating crowd sizes than I am… They were expecting five thousand here; it’s gotta be easily double, if not triple that… But, again, I’m no expert.”

Seems like you do a little spinning yourself.

From the transcript Cavuto clearly admits he's "no expert" so his estimate is just that.

Ok, now you have got to be kidding. He talks about it before and guesstimates that it's gotta be at least 5,000 and then when on air he tries to inflate that number up threefold. So are you honestly trying to spin that he didn't do that??

Him admitting that he is not an expert is NO excuse for trying to dishonestly inflate the numbers like that.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

yes, it was Cavuto in Sacramento who was caught on tape inflating the numbers.
But most of these folks don't even claim to be journalists - they will readily admit that they are "infotainers" so they give themselves permission to spin away.

There are those on both the right and left who do it - the saddest part is when someone thinks they are informing themself by watching this stuff.

Cavuto: ”Johnny, any estimates on how many people are here?”
Johnny: ”Um, we’re trying to get th…”
Cavuto: ”Gotta be five thousand.”
Johnny: ”Oh, at least. You know, I mean, I… The cops aren’t going to tell us and we’ve been trying to get a hold of the PR person to give us the number, but… I think five thousand. You could say it’s… [inaudible]… ‘Starting at five thousand, and [maybe] more‘”
Cavuto (on the air): ”Bill, you cover a lot of these things, Shep, so you’re probably better at estimating crowd sizes than I am… They were expecting five thousand here; it’s gotta be easily double, if not triple that… But, again, I’m no expert.”

Seems like you do a little spinning yourself.

From the transcript Cavuto clearly admits he's "no expert" so his estimate is just that.

Now, it's true his statement would not hold up in court, due to the "no expert" clause... c'mon... this is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

No, any rational person understands when you say "I'm no expert" that your estimate should not be taken literally. Much like me declaring, you are an idiot, but, again, I'm no expert.

Were you born stupid or have you been working on it your whole life?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Foxnews (the network) basically advertised for the tea parties weeks before the events and then sent hosts of their programs out to them. Some of whom became part of the events including hannity, cavuto who I believe was caught on tape trying to inflate the numbers at the event he was attending and glenn beck who also had an entertainer on hand at the alamo event and all of them hosted their shows from the events.

So what don't you understand??

You're confusing reporting with advertising. Can you provide a advertisement televised or in print that states that Fox News Corp. encourages people to attend the tea parties.

Where was Neil Cavuto reporting from?

No, I am not confusing anything but you seem to be. When you become part of the event as hannity and beck did you are no longer reporting. When an allegedly unbiased (fair and balanced) news network talks up tea parties for weeks on end and then has their people host their programs and provide entertainment at the events themselves to give the events more exposure that goes well beyond mere reporting. That's just common sense.

To try and argue that what foxnews (the network) did was mere reporting is beyond absurd.

If so then it should be easy for you to produce advertisements to that effect. Show me any ad printed or aired that states Fox has or is sponsoring these events.

Just because Beck and Hannity exercised their constitutional rights and happen to be supportive of the cause and just so happens to work for a cable news outlet, doesn't mean the news outlet is the sponsor. You have failed in proving Fox sponsored any of these events. Using your logic, anyone reporting weeks in advance on any given topic is automatically a supporter of that cause. Which is ridiculous.

Common sense? Common sense would tell you that if Fox was sponsoring the events they would have been participating in every single tea party, but the facts do not support your claim. Fact is there was only one tea party where Fox employees were participants.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

yes, it was Cavuto in Sacramento who was caught on tape inflating the numbers.
But most of these folks don't even claim to be journalists - they will readily admit that they are "infotainers" so they give themselves permission to spin away.

There are those on both the right and left who do it - the saddest part is when someone thinks they are informing themself by watching this stuff.

Cavuto: ”Johnny, any estimates on how many people are here?”
Johnny: ”Um, we’re trying to get th…”
Cavuto: ”Gotta be five thousand.”
Johnny: ”Oh, at least. You know, I mean, I… The cops aren’t going to tell us and we’ve been trying to get a hold of the PR person to give us the number, but… I think five thousand. You could say it’s… [inaudible]… ‘Starting at five thousand, and [maybe] more‘”
Cavuto (on the air): ”Bill, you cover a lot of these things, Shep, so you’re probably better at estimating crowd sizes than I am… They were expecting five thousand here; it’s gotta be easily double, if not triple that… But, again, I’m no expert.”

Seems like you do a little spinning yourself.

From the transcript Cavuto clearly admits he's "no expert" so his estimate is just that.

Ok, now you have got to be kidding. He talks about it before and guesstimates that it's gotta be at least 5,000 and then when on air he tries to inflate that number up threefold. So are you honestly trying to spin that he didn't do that??

Him admitting that he is not an expert is NO excuse for trying to dishonestly inflate the numbers like that.

Off air:

"...The cops aren’t going to tell us and we’ve been trying to get a hold of the PR person to give us the number, but… I think five thousand. You could say it’s… [inaudible]… ‘Starting at five thousand, and [maybe] more"

Anyone that believes any estimate a non-expert tells you, is a fucking idiot, especially after he tells you, "I'm no expert", therefore any number he throws up is a fucking GUESS!!!!

Bottom line here is, you're a fucking idiot!

 

[drsmith1072]

You're confusing reporting with advertising. Can you provide a advertisement televised or in print that states that Fox News Corp. encourages people to attend the tea parties.

Where was Neil Cavuto reporting from?

No, I am not confusing anything but you seem to be. When you become part of the event as hannity and beck did you are no longer reporting. When an allegedly unbiased (fair and balanced) news network talks up tea parties for weeks on end and then has their people host their programs and provide entertainment at the events themselves to give the events more exposure that goes well beyond mere reporting. That's just common sense.

To try and argue that what foxnews (the network) did was mere reporting is beyond absurd.

If so then it should be easy for you to produce advertisements to that effect. Show me any ad printed or aired that states Fox has or is sponsoring these events.

Just because Beck and Hannity exercised their constitutional rights and happen to be supportive of the cause and just so happens to work for a cable news outlet, doesn't mean the news outlet is the sponsor. You have failed in proving Fox sponsored any of these events.

WOW spin machine got a hold of you. LOL

Excercized their constitnutional rights?? It's funny how we have now made it full circle where previously the righties were arguing that they weren't part of the events but were only reporting on them to admitting that they in fact were a part of the events but that they were excercising their constitutional rights while using network funds and airtime to prop up and promote their cause. LOL
Are you missing the FACT that they HOSTED THEIR FOXNEWS PROGRAMS FROM THE EVENTS meaning that the network had to approve.

Using your logic, anyone reporting weeks in advance on any given topic is automatically a supporter of that cause. Which is ridiculous.

WOW another loser tries to dishonestly put words into my mouth. That is YOUR logic not mine so please keep your baseless moronic assumptions to yourself. My logic has to do with the fact that foxnews promoted the events, sent their people to host their shows from the events while providing entertainment and in hannity's case the event actually changes their schedule to suit his show.

Which is a far cry from merely reporting on an event. If you could be honest then you would admit that FACT.

[/QUOTE]Common sense? Common sense would tell you that if Fox was sponsoring the events they would have been participating in every single tea party, but the facts do not support your claim. Fact is there was only one tea party where Fox employees were participants.[/QUOTE]

WOW, you really are out there aren't you? That is not common sense that is your failing attempt to spin a justification for foxnews' propping up of the tea parties.

The FACTS show that foxnews was in fact promoting them when they sent out their employees to host their shows at the events as well as provide entertainment. That is undeniable and yet you are still trying to spin it. LOL

 

[drsmith1072]

Cavuto: ”Johnny, any estimates on how many people are here?”
Johnny: ”Um, we’re trying to get th…”
Cavuto: ”Gotta be five thousand.”
Johnny: ”Oh, at least. You know, I mean, I… The cops aren’t going to tell us and we’ve been trying to get a hold of the PR person to give us the number, but… I think five thousand. You could say it’s… [inaudible]… ‘Starting at five thousand, and [maybe] more‘”
Cavuto (on the air): ”Bill, you cover a lot of these things, Shep, so you’re probably better at estimating crowd sizes than I am… They were expecting five thousand here; it’s gotta be easily double, if not triple that… But, again, I’m no expert.”

Seems like you do a little spinning yourself.

From the transcript Cavuto clearly admits he's "no expert" so his estimate is just that.

Ok, now you have got to be kidding. He talks about it before and guesstimates that it's gotta be at least 5,000 and then when on air he tries to inflate that number up threefold. So are you honestly trying to spin that he didn't do that??

Him admitting that he is not an expert is NO excuse for trying to dishonestly inflate the numbers like that.

Off air:

"...The cops aren’t going to tell us and we’ve been trying to get a hold of the PR person to give us the number, but… I think five thousand. You could say it’s… [inaudible]… ‘Starting at five thousand, and [maybe] more"

Anyone that believes any estimate a non-expert tells you, is a fucking idiot, especially after he tells you, "I'm no expert", therefore any number he throws up is a fucking GUESS!!!!

Bottom line here is, you're a fucking idiot!

FACT is that cavuto was given one estimate and actually repeated it and then when he went on air he increased that estimate. To do so was nothing more than spreading propaganda and trying to PROMOTE and talk up the event in a dishonest attempt to make it larger than it was.

Why else would he try to claim that it was three times higher than 5,000?? Using common sense what could be the reason behind him doing something like that??

Your spin is failing and nothing will change that FACT. LOL

 

[Lonestar_logic]

No, I am not confusing anything but you seem to be. When you become part of the event as hannity and beck did you are no longer reporting. When an allegedly unbiased (fair and balanced) news network talks up tea parties for weeks on end and then has their people host their programs and provide entertainment at the events themselves to give the events more exposure that goes well beyond mere reporting. That's just common sense.

To try and argue that what foxnews (the network) did was mere reporting is beyond absurd.

If so then it should be easy for you to produce advertisements to that effect. Show me any ad printed or aired that states Fox has or is sponsoring these events.

Just because Beck and Hannity exercised their constitutional rights and happen to be supportive of the cause and just so happens to work for a cable news outlet, doesn't mean the news outlet is the sponsor. You have failed in proving Fox sponsored any of these events.

WOW spin machine got a hold of you. LOL

Excercized their constitnutional rights?? It's funny how we have now made it full circle where previously the righties were arguing that they weren't part of the events but were only reporting on them to admitting that they in fact were a part of the events but that they were excercising their constitutional rights while using network funds and airtime to prop up and promote their cause. LOL
Are you missing the FACT that they HOSTED THEIR FOXNEWS PROGRAMS FROM THE EVENTS meaning that the network had to approve.

Using your logic, anyone reporting weeks in advance on any given topic is automatically a supporter of that cause. Which is ridiculous.

WOW another loser tries to dishonestly put words into my mouth. That is YOUR logic not mine so please keep your baseless moronic assumptions to yourself. My logic has to do with the fact that foxnews promoted the events, sent their people to host their shows from the events while providing entertainment and in hannity's case the event actually changes their schedule to suit his show.

Which is a far cry from merely reporting on an event. If you could be honest then you would admit that FACT.

Common sense? Common sense would tell you that if Fox was sponsoring the events they would have been participating in every single tea party, but the facts do not support your claim. Fact is there was only one tea party where Fox employees were participants.[/QUOTE]

WOW, you really are out there aren't you? That is not common sense that is your failing attempt to spin a justification for foxnews' propping up of the tea parties.

The FACTS show that foxnews was in fact promoting them when they sent out their employees to host their shows at the events as well as provide entertainment. That is undeniable and yet you are still trying to spin it. LOL[/QUOTE]

Why haven't you provided any evidence to support your claim?

You talk about facts, but yet you provide none. Fact is Fox presented a wide amount of coverage on these events. But reporting on an event or advancing the cause does not constitute sponsoring an event.

You talk about me spinning the facts, at least I'm consistent with my argument. you now are trying to exchange your accusation of Fox sponsoring an event to promoting an event. There's a distinct difference in the two. Shall I give you the definition of sponsoring as it pertains to this discussion?

Sponsor:
One that finances a project or an event carried out by another person or group, especially a business enterprise that pays for radio or television programming in return for advertising time.

Show me a Fow News advertisement where Fox is the sponsor, not to be confused by a promotional ad.

How many shows ( tea parties) did Fox employees host? How many tea parties were held?

And why do you keep repeating "events"? There was ONE event where Fox employees actively participated in, so it's not "events". You accuse me of spinning while you spew outright lies, well I'd rather be viewed as a spinner rather than a liar. But I guess that's the difference between you and I.