• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

For all who balsted media matters:

liblady

pirate lover
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
16,164
Reaction score
5,060
Location
St Thomas, VI
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Last edited:

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,832
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
liblady, why will you not answer this simple question:

If Fox News published its web story before Sherrod resigned, what does that mean? Why is it important?
 

liblady

pirate lover
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
16,164
Reaction score
5,060
Location
St Thomas, VI
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
liblady, why will you not answer this simple question:

If Fox News published its web story before Sherrod resigned, what does that mean? Why is it important?

it means grim lied, that's what it means. other than that, it means they published a story without vetting it.
 

Grim17

Battle Ready
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
30,628
Reaction score
14,488
Location
Southwestern U.S.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Grim has lied in his post, and his own link PROVES it.

FOXNews.com - Video Shows USDA Official Saying She Didn't Give 'Full Force' of Help to White Farmer

now, this clip contains this: The Agriculture Department announced Monday, shortly after FoxNews.com published its initial report on the video, that Sherrod had resigned.

THUS PROVING THAT FOXNEWS.COM DID INDEED PUBLISH THE STORY ON JULY 19th, AS MEDIA MATTERS REPORTED.

so, grim and others, what now? apologies?

um....BLASTED.

As I have stated numerous times on the other thread, I have never claimed the story was published any other day but the 19th. Fox News published their story at least an hour AFTER Shirley Sharrod resigned from her job. Sharrod stated so herself on CNN. The announcement from the USDA of her resignation didn't come until hours later.

I believe it is you who needs to apologize and retract you post.
 

Grim17

Battle Ready
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
30,628
Reaction score
14,488
Location
Southwestern U.S.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
it means grim lied, that's what it means. other than that, it means they published a story without vetting it.

Too bad Fox published it after her resignation.

Does that mean you are lying, or are you from the Pelosi, Reid and Dean school of progressive politics, where lying is a strategy, not a virtue?
 

liblady

pirate lover
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
16,164
Reaction score
5,060
Location
St Thomas, VI
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Too bad Fox published it after her resignation.

Does that mean you are lying, or are you from the Pelosi, Reid and Dean school of progressive politics, where lying is a strategy, not a virtue?

then why, as your link shows, did they say they published it afterwards? liar. i'm finished posting proof to the willfully blind and totally dishonest.

The Agriculture Department announced Monday, shortly after FoxNews.com published its initial report on the video, that Sherrod had resigned. YOUR LINK, LIAR.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,832
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
it means grim lied, that's what it means. other than that, it means they published a story without vetting it.

Well, grim didn't lie; he backed himself up thoroughly. You mistake the time of announcement of her resignation with her actual resignation.

Neither did Fox publish a story without vetting it. They reported accurately exactly what happened. It's all there in the story. Tell you what -- take the actual story they published (which is available on Media Matters) and explain exactly what in it is "unvetted." Give the actual text. Show specifically where the story is wrong. What did they say, and how was it wrong? Show it.

But even then, taking for the sake of argument that it was wrong, and it was unvetted -- then what? Why is that important? You keep avoiding that question. If Fox was wrong . . . then what? C'mon. Why is it so important that the story was posted before she resigned? Why is the timing important?
 
Last edited:

liblady

pirate lover
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
16,164
Reaction score
5,060
Location
St Thomas, VI
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
As I have stated numerous times on the other thread, I have never claimed the story was published any other day but the 19th. Fox News published their story at least an hour AFTER Shirley Sharrod resigned from her job. Sharrod stated so herself on CNN. The announcement from the USDA of her resignation didn't come until hours later.

I believe it is you who needs to apologize and retract you post.

you retract your lies, because i proved you wrong with your own post and link. as i have done before, and will do again. address my proof, er...YOUR proof, or you risk being labeled a coward.
 

liblady

pirate lover
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
16,164
Reaction score
5,060
Location
St Thomas, VI
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Well, grim didn't lie; he backed himself up thoroughly. You mistake the time of announcement of her resignation with her actual resignation.

Neither did Fox publish a story without vetting it. They reported accurately exactly what happened. It's all there in the story. Tell you what -- take the actual story they published (which is available on Media Matters) and explain exactly what in it is "unvetted." Give the actual text. Show specifically where the story is wrong. What did they say, and how was it wrong? Show it.

But even then, taking for the sake of argument that it was wrong, and it was unvetted -- then what? Why is that important? You keep avoiding that question. If Fox was wrong . . . then what? C'mon. Why is it so important that the story was posted before she resigned? Why is the timing important?


foxnews did not know of her resignation when the original story was published. period. that's the point, and semantics are a chicken**** way of debating. grim's "backup" consists of a statemenht that proves that. even foxnews says they got it wrong. i'm finished with the dishonesty here. i really didn't think you would actually DEFEND a liar.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,832
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
foxnews did not know of her resignation when the original story was published. period. that's the point,

But that doesn't mean she resigned after the story was posted. It only means Fox News didn't know she resigned when they posted the story. So what?


and semantics are a chicken**** way of debating.

No, "chicken****" is refusing to answer a simple question you've been asked many times: if Fox News published the story before she resigned, so what? Why is it important? What does it mean? Why does it make a difference?

I asked you that LONG before Grim started attacking Media Matters's timeline, so it's not about that. Why is the timing important this entire affair?

Why do you ignore this question? What are YOU chicken of?
 

Hicup

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2009
Messages
9,081
Reaction score
2,709
Location
Rochester, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
foxnews did not know of her resignation when the original story was published. period. that's the point, and semantics are a chicken**** way of debating. grim's "backup" consists of a statemenht that proves that. even foxnews says they got it wrong. i'm finished with the dishonesty here. i really didn't think you would actually DEFEND a liar.

The annoucement of the resignation, and the resignation are two independant circumstances. Sheesh!

Tim-
 

Hicup

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2009
Messages
9,081
Reaction score
2,709
Location
Rochester, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
But that doesn't mean she resigned after the story was posted. It only means Fox News didn't know she resigned when they posted the story. So what?




No, "chicken****" is refusing to answer a simple question you've been asked many times: if Fox News published the story before she resigned, so what? Why is it important? What does it mean? Why does it make a difference?

I asked you that LONG before Grim started attacking Media Matters's timeline, so it's not about that. Why is the timing important this entire affair?

Why do you ignore this question? What are YOU chicken of?

She won't answer your question becasue I suspect it will out her as a rabid liberal bent on the destruction of Fox News.. :) She might even be one of those MM's Fox Watchers, and her report is due by friday. :)

Sad..


Tim-
 

Josie

No Day But Today
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
39,235
Reaction score
21,008
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
This matters.....why?

The curious thing is that Sherrod is going to sue the man who posted the excerpted video, but not the people who forced her to resign. Very, very curious....
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,661
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
This matters.....why?

The curious thing is that Sherrod is going to sue the man who posted the excerpted video, but not the people who forced her to resign. Very, very curious....

Not curious to me, Mellie. That's exactly who she SHOULD sue. I hope she ruins him as it will be fair warning to others who choose to doctor the truth the way he did. Frankly, it's one time I wish the ACLU would get involved to help her with legal expenses so she really can do serious damage to this embecile.

The people who requested her resignation were her employers. They had ever right to do that -- for any reason whatsoever.

Regarding OP -- If it isn't a rule violation to call out a user like this, it should be.
 

Josie

No Day But Today
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
39,235
Reaction score
21,008
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Maggie, here's my problem with it. If Breitbart KNEW there was more to it and INTENTIONALLY left out the rest of the story in order to paint her as a racist, I would completely agree with you.

However, something tells me that's might not be the case.

What is interesting is that the NAACP had the ENTIRE VIDEO and yet did not immediately provide her boss or the White House with that proof. The White House pressured her to resign based on fear that she would "be on Glenn Beck". They forced her to resign based on 50% of the information WHICH THEY COULD'VE GOTTEN FROM THE NAACP.

Something just seems funny about it. Either the administration is completely moronic and just fires people willy-nilly because they're afraid of Glenn Beck or there's something more behind this.

The White House would benefit from Breitbart being silenced, ya know....
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,661
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Maggie, here's my problem with it. If Breitbart KNEW there was more to it and INTENTIONALLY left out the rest of the story in order to paint her as a racist, I would completely agree with you.

However, something tells me that's might not be the case.

What is interesting is that the NAACP had the ENTIRE VIDEO and yet did not immediately provide her boss or the White House with that proof. The White House pressured her to resign based on fear that she would "be on Glenn Beck". They forced her to resign based on 50% of the information WHICH THEY COULD'VE GOTTEN FROM THE NAACP.

Something just seems funny about it. Either the administration is completely moronic and just fires people willy-nilly because they're afraid of Glenn Beck or there's something more behind this.

The White House would benefit from Breitbart being silenced, ya know....

I actually misread your post. I thought she was suing the guy who sent the video to Breitbart, not Breitbart himself. Yeah, I don't think he knew it'd been edited. Unless she can prove he did or that he should have known (in other words, any reasonable person could have seen it had been edited), I don't think she has a prayer. I think she should go after the guy who put it together. Undoubtedly Breitbart's pockets are deeper.

The White House was trying to get ahead of the flack. Stupid knee-jerk reactions they've done before that've spilled egg on their faces.
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
74,902
Reaction score
31,557
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
it means grim lied, that's what it means. other than that, it means they published a story without vetting it.

So Grim caused the NAACP and White House to fire a woman based on a rumor? Can you IMAGINE how that would fly in most businesses? "Hey...I heard you did something and it might make us look bad...resign or you are fired"...But...thats not what happened..."I dont care...you are still fired..."

I know this gets silly...but the simple fact is EVERYONE INVOLVED acted. CNN reported. MSNBC reported. But the NAACP and White House balme FOX for doing what THEY THEMSELVES did? What is this absolute obsession over whether or not Fox reported something at some time or another? The fact is Breitbart posted the video and EVERYONE that acted, acted. This Fox obsession is just amazing.
 

Josie

No Day But Today
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
39,235
Reaction score
21,008
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
So Grim caused the NAACP and White House to fire a woman based on a rumor? Can you IMAGINE how that would fly in most businesses? "Hey...I heard you did something and it might make us look bad...resign or you are fired"...But...thats not what happened..."I dont care...you are still fired..."

I know this gets silly...but the simple fact is EVERYONE INVOLVED acted. CNN reported. MSNBC reported. But the NAACP and White House balme FOX for doing what THEY THEMSELVES did? What is this absolute obsession over whether or not Fox reported something at some time or another? The fact is Breitbart posted the video and EVERYONE that acted, acted. This Fox obsession is just amazing.

It's an obvious effort to destroy Fox News. It's pathetic.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,832
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
So Grim caused the NAACP and White House to fire a woman based on a rumor? Can you IMAGINE how that would fly in most businesses? "Hey...I heard you did something and it might make us look bad...resign or you are fired"...But...thats not what happened..."I dont care...you are still fired..."

I know this gets silly...but the simple fact is EVERYONE INVOLVED acted. CNN reported. MSNBC reported. But the NAACP and White House balme FOX for doing what THEY THEMSELVES did? What is this absolute obsession over whether or not Fox reported something at some time or another? The fact is Breitbart posted the video and EVERYONE that acted, acted. This Fox obsession is just amazing.

I said what I thought was probably going on in all their heads here:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/bias-...tack-fox-sherrod-story-10.html#post1058884084

As I said, I think a lot of, maybe most, people don't actually know what it is they're so, so angry about. Are they really angry about Fox News's opnion people expressing negative opinions about Sherrod? That it was done on the basis of a selectively-edited video? Seriously? Seems to me that a more appropriate response would be to laugh at them, to be delighted in their stupidity.

No, the anger has to be coming from somewhere else, and I do believe it's because they think, on some level, that Fox is to blame for what the NAACP and the White House did to Sherrod -- or because they're angry about what happened to Sherrod but can't bring themselves to muster that anger at the NAACP or the White House, so they direct it at Fox News. Or a combination of both. Or, perhaps, with some, it's because they, too, believed the story without checking and are embarrassed and angry about that.
 
Last edited:

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
74,902
Reaction score
31,557
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It's an obvious effort to destroy Fox News. It's pathetic.

Did you watch Gibbs and his official 'apology"? Holy crap...what a sleezebag.

Heres the FUNNY part...and I mean laugh my ass off no LMAO abbreviations...

I couldnt tell you a single story that has been presented by Keith olberman, Rachel Maddow, or ANY of the MSNBC cast. I think they are sleazebag journalsists on the order EVERYONE on the left assigns to Fox.

yet these people that HATE Fox News...good lord...they cite story, details, specific hosts of shows. Its CLASSIC tiny dick syndrome...and I think its HILARIOUS. If they HATE them so much why are they so obsessed with this ONE news source???
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
74,902
Reaction score
31,557
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I said what I thought was probably going on in all their heads here:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/bias-...tack-fox-sherrod-story-10.html#post1058884084

Really? Honest to God...I dont think ANY of them actually give it that much thought. Its like they have been programmed (there was a story about that...kids programmed to behave a certian way when lights or music came on)...to just absolutely WRETCH at the mention of FOX NEWS. I simply cannot fathom the dedication of that miuch of their existence to HATRED of Fox News.
 

Josie

No Day But Today
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
39,235
Reaction score
21,008
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Did you watch Gibbs and his official 'apology"? Holy crap...what a sleezebag.

Heres the FUNNY part...and I mean laugh my ass off no LMAO abbreviations...

I couldnt tell you a single story that has been presented by Keith olberman, Rachel Maddow, or ANY of the MSNBC cast. I think they are sleazebag journalsists on the order EVERYONE on the left assigns to Fox.

yet these people that HATE Fox News...good lord...they cite story, details, specific hosts of shows. Its CLASSIC tiny dick syndrome...and I think its HILARIOUS. If they HATE them so much why are they so obsessed with this ONE news source???

Amen, amen, amen! :)
 

Grim17

Battle Ready
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
30,628
Reaction score
14,488
Location
Southwestern U.S.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Let's settle this once and for all, so you can issue your retraction and we can move on LL.

The following comes from a story published yesterday on Politico. I suggest you write this stuff down to avoid any more confusion.


But FoxNews.com did run a story about the existence of the video, titled "Video Shows USDA Official Saying She Didn't Give 'Full Force' of Help to White Farmer" at 5:58 p.m. on Monday, an hour before the Agriculture Department announced Sherrod’s resignation.


Got it LL? It was published at 5:58 pm

Since the story was first posted, it has been updated to reflect Sherrod's resignation, but its original version was republished by another website, and posted in a timeline created by Media Matters, the liberal media monitor.

Got it LL?

The story was never taken down, it was just updated as I have repeatedly stated. The stories original content, before the update was added, was published by a liberal "gotcha" website, which MM took a screen shot of and used in their time line hit piece. All you have to do is compare the screen shot with the story as it now appears on Foxnews.com, and you will see they are virtually the same.

Are the facts finally sinking in LL?

Here's some bonus coverage for you:

FoxNews.com was not the only news organization to publish web stories about the video that Monday afternoon. WCBS-TV, New York's CBS affiliate, published a web story about the video that was linked to by the Drudge Report around 4:30 p.m. Monday afternoon. Like the other web stories, the CBS affiliate's story was updated the next day to reflect Sherrod's resignation.


And then comes the icing on the cake:

Clemente noted that, although FoxNews.com did put out a story before Sherrod's resignation was announced, it was published after she actually resigned, since it has been widely reported that she was pressured to get her resignation in before Glenn Beck's 5 p.m. show on Fox.

Now it's time to find out whether you are a person of integrity, or just another in a long line of liberals that put politics before truth.

Your move LL.
 

Grim17

Battle Ready
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
30,628
Reaction score
14,488
Location
Southwestern U.S.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Now it's time to find out whether you are a person of integrity, or just another in a long line of liberals that put politics before truth.

Your silence says it all LL.
 
Top Bottom