# Obama vs. Fox **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 20, 2009, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-fox/514497 "2009-10-20T16:57:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 686
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2009, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-fox/514497/686 "2009-11-06T06:27:48Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Repetition avails you nothing. The Resolution does nothing, and encourages no abridgement of speech. All this crap you’re posting is meaningless. All that matters is what’s in the text of the resoultion, which isn’t even binding in the first place. You said that last time. You’d likely say it next time. Each time I bring in new information, add more citations, provide fresh quotes and ideas. Each time you say NO IT ISN’T NA NA NA I CAN’T HEAR YOU, as if simple denial without further citations or new thoughts actually meant something. I provided the text in question, posted a New Zealand news article pointing out how it is ambiguous, but that a simple reading of it clearly upholds my position. I quoted various people who are very concerned by it, from the EU to news media to commentators. I quoted the head of the OIC, which has been pushing this Resolution in various forms for ten years, saying what their aim is — to make blasphemy illegal. And you come back to say NO IT ISN’T … I give up, no more pig wrestling on this topic for me. I do have to thank you for your idiocy, however, it has allowed me to lay out and explain and substantiate my position much more clearly than if you had just let it go … you should learn to quit while you’re behind. Countdown to NO IT ISN’T in 3 … 2 … 1 … --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-vs-fox/514497)._