• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Fox News at it again

Still using the avoidance tactic and the personal attack tactic.. and going back on your own word of "being done with me".

TRANSLATION:
bahbahbah.jpg



Are you done yet? Or are you willing to actually debate the issue at hand?

You’re soooooooooo quick on the uptake. So, just so you can “catch on” I’ll run it by you one more time. Scrunch up your eyes and concentrate really hard. Ready for it? OK, here goes, hope you are ready for it! To quote an old saying, put yer money where yer yammering mouth and your maundering Fox News “is”……..IS.

So let us, you and me, butt heads in a Mano a Mano 'bout. Right here at Debate Politics. In the Battleground and Disputations forum.

I’m feeling magnanimous, so let me know.

If we can agree upon the parameters, I’ll happily let you whoop up on me.

I’m a poor defenseless “Fox News Lover.”

You’ll be Bruce Lee and I’ll be Shirley Temple.

Really!

That is how it will work out.

I’m a poor maundering troglodyte; you’ll make mince meat of me.

Don’t believe me?

Then accept my offer.

You’re on record as desiring a debate, so bring integrity to your common place talking points screed. Otherwise, piss off you poor intellectual lightweight.:roll:
 
Last edited:
And he continues with his rambling.. so much for "being done with me"...
 
Why don't you take him up on his offer?

Well when your arguments go like his do, you really don’t want to have to go into an actual debate situation.

For example, it is Pete’s claim that Bill O’Rielly “lied” about Gay Marriage in Sweden. According to Media Matters he says. The fact Media Matters does not actually say O'Rielly lied slipped past sharp old Pete. The Media Matters article he quotes is specific that they are unsure what source O’Rielly was using, they think he might have been quoting Kurtz. They say the Kurtz data has been debunked. In the real world any organization with a smidge of integrity (that purports to have integrity and claims they are operating to insure journalistic integrity) would report something like “O’Rielly quotes debunked study.” Then internet conspiracy theorist like Pete can rant that O’Rielly did not quote a debunked report, he lied and “fabricated” the whole situation. In Pete’s rose tinted world this means O’Rielly LIED and thus Fox News lied! Ergo-brain fart- Fox News is guilty of libel, slander and fabricating this whole Swedish Gay Marriage story out of thin air. Oh yes, and they do this “all the time.”;)

Then he’s got the whole problem of his ideological biases getting the best of him. He refers to the Mark Foley scandal and quite seriously claims that they once placed an “R” up instead of a “D”! They did this to try to fool those really dumb viewers (sheeple like Pete who watch nightly news commentary programming?) into forgetting that Foley was a democrat. Chuckle. And of course, Pete is so well versed in this HUGE story that made the rounds of all the anti Fox News blogs that he failed to actually grasp a simple fact. The errant “R” was actually put up during the O’Rielly Factor, not in a Fox News Report. But that is what happens when you try to buttress your crackpot claims by dashing out a quick Google search which you don’t really bother to actually study the details of. And did I mention he sincerely wants us to take him and his claims seriously?:roll:

It is not hard to understand why such specious intellectual dishonesty does not make Pete feel real confident in his own case.

I think also, it is likely that a small but dim bulb finally popped on in Pete’s dusty attic. When you are left having to “massage” Media Matters and their unrebutted allegations in order to try to make an argument, well you’re already running on fumes.

Add a pinch or two of I don’t recognize the differences between Op/ED commentary and hard line news reporting, and you’ve got some seriously thin broth. Pete thinks that broth is mortar and has his bricks and trowel ready to go. He’s building a foundation for his “case” as it were. And that is dern funny right there.:mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
Well when your arguments go like his do, you really don’t want to have to go into an actual debate situation.

Funny coming from the person totaly avioding the debate by using sterotypical right wing tactics to derail the debate.

For example, it is Pete’s claim that Bill O’Rielly “lied” about Gay Marriage in Sweden. According to Media Matters he says. The fact Media Matters does not actually say O'Rielly lied slipped past sharp old Pete. The Media Matters article he quotes is specific that they are unsure what source O’Rielly was using, they think he might have been quoting Kurtz. They say the Kurtz data has been debunked. In the real world any organization with a smidge of integrity (that purports to have integrity and claims they are operating to insure journalistic integrity) would report something like “O’Rielly quotes debunked study.” Then internet conspiracy theorist like Pete can rant that O’Rielly did not quote a debunked report, he lied and “fabricated” the whole situation. In Pete’s rose tinted world this means O’Rielly LIED and thus Fox News lied! Ergo-brain fart- Fox News is guilty of libel, slander and fabricating this whole Swedish Gay Marriage story out of thin air. Oh yes, and they do this “all the time.”;)

Fine lets debate this point. First off the Kurtz data has been debunked, and you can debunk it yourself by going to the danish or swedish statistical site.

If we look at the claim that 60% of births in Denmark are outside marriage. If we look at the danish statistical website, then we find that in 2004 out of 1000 livebirths 454 were outside marriage. Thats not 60%. In 2003 it was 449. In 1988 a year before gay marriage was introduced in Denmark, the number was... 445. I took the 2004 number because the O'Rielly case and Kurtz report is from 2005.

Now if O'Rielly had as he so often claimed, checked his sources, then he would have known that the Kurtz report had been debunked and that statistical material used in the report was at best highly dubious and at worse totaly made up. On top of that O'Rielly totaly ignores the cultural and social issues that have an impact on what Kurtz was rambling about, something the debunkers also pointed out about Kurtz's material.

Hence O'Rielly either choose to not check his sources, or did not care because the report so nicely proved his homophobic stance.

And as I have stated time and time again, the employees of a news station reflect said news station. If a reporter has anti semitic views and promotes said views on TV, then that TV station has 2 choices. Either let him be, and be labled an anti semitic station or fire his ***. The same goes for falsefiying material. If a reporter is caught falsefying a newstory or material for a story, the station is responsible for the material aired, and if that material is fake or false or extremely biased, then it reflects the station just as it reflects the employee behind the false material.

Now you can hide behind your typical right wing smear tactics and avoid the debate, but as along as you deny the facts as you are doing, then no debate can be done really..

Let me ask you bluntly. Is it wrong or not to use false/fake or made up facts in a news story or OP/ED piece?

Then he’s got the whole problem of his ideological biases getting the best of him. He refers to the Mark Foley scandal and quite seriously claims that they once placed an “R” up instead of a “D”! They did this to try to fool those really dumb viewers (sheeple like Pete who watch nightly news commentary programming?) into forgetting that Foley was a democrat. Chuckle. And of course, Pete is so well versed in this HUGE story that made the rounds of all the anti Fox News blogs that he failed to actually grasp a simple fact. The errant “R” was actually put up during the O’Rielly Factor, not in a Fox News Report. But that is what happens when you try to buttress your crackpot claims by dashing out a quick Google search which you don’t really bother to actually study the details of. And did I mention he sincerely wants us to take him and his claims seriously?:roll:

Again you are putting words in my mouth, how typical of you. That Fox News put a D behind Mark Foley's name instead of the R, either means it was intentional by one of the employees, or it was a braindead mistake. Which ever it was, it was seen as an attempt to paint the man as a democract pedofile instead of what he really was, a republican pedofile. Does it matter if it was on O'Rielly or morning news or whatever? Of course not, it was still on Fox News and Fox News is responsible for what O'Rielly airs, just as CBS is responsible for what Dan Rather aired.

It is not hard to understand why such specious intellectual dishonesty does not make Pete feel real confident in his own case.

Ahh back to the personal attacks instead of the topic at hand.

I think also, it is likely that a small but dim bulb finally popped on in Pete’s dusty attic. When you are left having to “massage” Media Matters and their unrebutted allegations in order to try to make an argument, well you’re already running on fumes.

And attacking the source I see. If you are so "against" the source, then why dont you explain why Media matters goes after the "liberal paper" New York Times, and the "liberal" channels of CNN, MSNBC and others? What soruces would you accept?

Add a pinch or two of I don’t recognize the differences between Op/ED commentary and hard line news reporting, and you’ve got some seriously thin broth. Pete thinks that broth is mortar and has his bricks and trowel ready to go. He’s building a foundation for his “case” as it were. And that is dern funny right there.:mrgreen:

And that you simply dont understand that there is no difference between an OP/ED commentary based on false facts or/and made up sources, and a news story that uses the same tactic. Fake facts and made up sources are bad regardless of who promotes them!

Again I ask you.

Is it wrong or not to use false/fake or made up facts in a news story or OP/ED piece?
 
Funny coming from the person totaly avioding the debate by using sterotypical right wing tactics to derail the debate.

I’ve addressed each and every link and source you have posted, and I’ve debunked each of them. I’ve shown that you have not even been able to accurately quote your own sources and I’ve challenged you directly to an Mano a Mano debate on the Fox News subject here in the appropriate forum.

You are murmuring something about avoiding the debate?

Fine lets debate this point. First off the Kurtz data has been debunked, and you can debunk it yourself by going to the danish or swedish statistical site.
If we look at the claim that 60% of births in Denmark are outside marriage. If we look at the danish statistical website, then we find that in 2004 out of 1000 livebirths 454 were outside marriage. Thats not 60%. In 2003 it was 449. In 1988 a year before gay marriage was introduced in Denmark, the number was... 445. I took the 2004 number because the O'Rielly case and Kurtz report is from 2005.

Now if O'Rielly had as he so often claimed, checked his sources, then he would have known that the Kurtz report had been debunked and that statistical material used in the report was at best highly dubious and at worse totaly made up. On top of that O'Rielly totaly ignores the cultural and social issues that have an impact on what Kurtz was rambling about, something the debunkers also pointed out about Kurtz's material.

Hence O'Rielly either choose to not check his sources, or did not care because the report so nicely proved his homophobic stance.

I actually had to alert you to the fact that Media Matters said they think O’Rielly was sourcing the Kurtz study. Not the other way around, you were claming that Media Matters was alleging that O’Rielly lied and fabricated facts. Instead Media Matters actually alleged that if O’rielly was quoting the Kurtz study, then they say the Kurtz study has been debunked. So if you are at last into checking the details of your own claims, want to take a look at the dates associated with your latest spin on facts? If you need the nature of chronological events explained to you, I can learn you some more. If you want to supply your links along with the dates of said “debunking” versus the date O'Rielly made his report on, then by all means do so. Should be interesting watching you actually read your own material and then watching you spin some more.

And as I have stated time and time again, the employees of a news station reflect said news station. If a reporter has anti semitic views and promotes said views on TV, then that TV station has 2 choices. Either let him be, and be labled an anti semitic station or fire his ***. The same goes for falsefiying material. If a reporter is caught falsefying a newstory or material for a story, the station is responsible for the material aired, and if that material is fake or false or extremely biased, then it reflects the station just as it reflects the employee behind the false material.

Let us cover this for you again. When news reporters on major news networks are caught lying, fabricating facts and falsifying facts they are punished. Sometimes fired. Retractions and apologies made. The world and the other media sources find out and feed off the story. As you pointed out earlier this happened with CBS and Dan Rather. So I goes without saying (except you need it pointed out again) that the nanosecond Fox News is really caught doing those things, it will be worldwide news and all the Fox News “is” sheeple will start raising a serious cacophony of baahh baahh baahhs.

So far you have not shown a single case of falsified material. You have proved that once in the last ten years, a reporter posted a bogus piece, making metro sexual jokes on the Fox News website. The piece was pulled in less than 8 hours, apologies offered, explanations given, and retractions and reprimands made. This is what reputable news source do when that kind of thing happens.

Otherwise we are left with your regurgitation of blogs about the evil and dastardly “R” instead of a “D’ chevron that appeared for close to 13 seconds one time on the O’Rielly show. There is your now debunked claim that shows O’Rielly might have quoted a study that was later debunked. Not that he fabricated a single thing, how smart do you think you look pointing to a Media Matters report that claims only he might have been quoting a debunked story? Or are you feeling obtuse, again?

If you do have some new evidence from some more blogs and some more un-rebutted unproven allegations from Media Matters, then post ‘em up in a brand new thread you can open to whole forum to view. You can present your next ankle deep pool of thought and knowledge on the matter. I’ll debunk you again, show where you were lying and spinning at again. You’ll claim you have not been debunked and have made your case.

Now you can hide behind your typical right wing smear tactics and avoid the debate, but as along as you deny the facts as you are doing, then no debate can be done really..
Let me ask you bluntly. Is it wrong or not to use false/fake or made up facts in a news story or OP/ED piece?

You have quoted the epitome of left wing talking points, Media Matters. And you did not even manage to do that honestly and correctly. You regurgitated the arguments of several left wing blogers who were really worked up about that horrid “R” instead of a “D” idiocy. You have offered nothing but the utterly mundane Fox News “is” talking points all while yammering angrily about “talking points’ as you hit each one. Obtuse much?


Of course it is wrong to use false/fake or made up facts. I’d say it is about as desperate and pathetic as trying to use false/fake or made up facts on an internet debate forum in a thread about Fox News. So far you have quoted the most commonly found talking points against Fox News that come up in a Google search. And you have lied about what your own sources said. As I’ve said all along, you are intellectually dishonest. I’ll add you are a bold faced liar to the mix to. Want specific examples from this thread? Be glad to copy and paste all this for you, then we can watch to spin some more.

Again you are putting words in my mouth, how typical of you. That Fox News put a D behind Mark Foley's name instead of the R, either means it was intentional by one of the employees, or it was a braindead mistake. Which ever it was, it was seen as an attempt to paint the man as a democract pedofile instead of what he really was, a republican pedofile. Does it matter if it was on O'Rielly or morning news or whatever? Of course not, it was still on Fox News and Fox News is responsible for what O'Rielly airs, just as CBS is responsible for what Dan Rather aired.

My God what utter self serving dishonest twaddle. Ci, obtuse muy mucho.

Ahh back to the personal attacks instead of the topic at hand.

Well IMO you’re an intellectual lightweight who has only DOA arguments from the anti Fox News talking point factory. And you can’t even read and retain the information you quote correctly.

And attacking the source I see. If you are so "against" the source, then why dont you explain why Media matters goes after the "liberal paper" New York Times, and the "liberal" channels of CNN, MSNBC and others? What soruces would you accept?

Media Matters routinely makes allegations, they are unanswered by everybody. They are unrebutted, un-followed up on and nobody at any news media source really cares about them. When Media Matters does turn up a genuine case of fabrication, libel and slander the world will make note and the story will be big news. Right now, nobody but internet buffoons quotes them on anything. As I correctly pointed out their mission statement clearly details they are into researching “conservative media sources.” Frankly if Media Matters wants to say things like they think that Chris Matthews seemed to quote a debunked source, I’ll think…hmm maybe Matthews quoted a debunked source. I won’t lobotomize myself like you, and announce “Ahhhhhhhhh…Chris Matthews is a liar; he fabricated, made up and created false facts! CNN is guilty of lying, fabricating facts, libel and slander!”That obtuse mucho thing is your bag.

And that you simply dont understand that there is no difference between an OP/ED commentary based on false facts or/and made up sources, and a news story that uses the same tactic. Fake facts and made up sources are bad regardless of who promotes them!
Again I ask you.

Is it wrong or not to use false/fake or made up facts in a news story or OP/ED piece?

Yip, you’re done. Over done actually.

I’ll be glad to debate you as offered more than once. Feel free to say I won’t debate you. But I’m finished with your shallow and ideologically feeble lies and fabrications in this thread. You have nothing more to offer than claims that your case of talking points and commentary/concerns from left wing blogs is rock solid.

IMO you’re so full of shite that your eye balls are floating.

 
Last edited:
I’ve addressed each and every link and source you have posted, and I’ve debunked each of them. I’ve shown that you have not even been able to accurately quote your own sources and I’ve challenged you directly to an Mano a Mano debate on the Fox News subject here in the appropriate forum.

You are murmuring something about avoiding the debate?

Well considering you have refused to debate the issues because you think Mediamatters is a biased source and what they are saying is false, then yes you are avoiding the debate. On top of that you are trying to avoid the debate by claiming that its basicly okay to lie and provide false or made up information in an OP/ED piece, which is hypocritical as a minimum.

I actually had to alert you to the fact that Media Matters said they think O’Rielly was sourcing the Kurtz study. Not the other way around, you were claming that Media Matters was alleging that O’Rielly lied and fabricated facts. Instead Media Matters actually alleged that if O’rielly was quoting the Kurtz study, then they say the Kurtz study has been debunked. So if you are at last into checking the details of your own claims, want to take a look at the dates associated with your latest spin on facts? If you need the nature of chronological events explained to you, I can learn you some more. If you want to supply your links along with the dates of said “debunking” versus the date O'Rielly made his report on, then by all means do so. Should be interesting watching you actually read your own material and then watching you spin some more.

Yes Mediamatters says "apparently" but I saw the clip of the actual show when it was on Mediamatters 3 years ago, and he clearly was refering to the Kurtz study as he quotes "statistics" from it. His guest at the time also said she knew of the study and of Stanley Kurtz's work. Again you are refusing to believe mediamatters, which is not my problem, but yours. And you can find Kurtz's study on the net and how it has been debunked. And if you read it, then you will find O'Rielly's claims almost carbon copied from the study.

YouTube - Al Franken - Bill O'Reilly's Swedish Study

Yes its a clip from Al Franken, but it has the O'Rielly stuff in it, so you can see that Mediamatters did not make it up.

Let us cover this for you again. When news reporters on major news networks are caught lying, fabricating facts and falsifying facts they are punished. Sometimes fired. Retractions and apologies made. The world and the other media sources find out and feed off the story. As you pointed out earlier this happened with CBS and Dan Rather. So I goes without saying (except you need it pointed out again) that the nanosecond Fox News is really caught doing those things, it will be worldwide news and all the Fox News “is” sheeple will start raising a serious cacophony of baahh baahh baahhs.

So far you have not shown a single case of falsified material. You have proved that once in the last ten years, a reporter posted a bogus piece, making metro sexual jokes on the Fox News website. The piece was pulled in less than 8 hours, apologies offered, explanations given, and retractions and reprimands made. This is what reputable news source do when that kind of thing happens.

Again you are dismissing the facts and evidence of Fox News either using falsified matterial or make falsified matterial. Again not my problem that you cant accept mediamatters as a source.

Otherwise we are left with your regurgitation of blogs about the evil and dastardly “R” instead of a “D’ chevron that appeared for close to 13 seconds one time on the O’Rielly show. There is your now debunked claim that shows O’Rielly might have quoted a study that was later debunked. Not that he fabricated a single thing, how smart do you think you look pointing to a Media Matters report that claims only he might have been quoting a debunked story? Or are you feeling obtuse, again?

It was at least twice. The video is on Youtube. But if you dont think its an issue, then I guess you would not have a problem with say CNN misslabling Bush as "Nazi Party Leader", as long as they say sorry.

If you do have some new evidence from some more blogs and some more un-rebutted unproven allegations from Media Matters, then post ‘em up in a brand new thread you can open to whole forum to view. You can present your next ankle deep pool of thought and knowledge on the matter. I’ll debunk you again, show where you were lying and spinning at again. You’ll claim you have not been debunked and have made your case.

The evidence that I have shown should be more than enough, but again you are the one refusing to accept the evidence, because of some warped idea that mediamatters is so highly biased against Fox News or the right... something that can easily disproved on the site by the amount of cases against "liberal" news media. But if you have a source that investigates media coverage in an "unbiased way", then provide it to prove your own assumption that Fox News has never done a "Dan Rather".

You have quoted the epitome of left wing talking points, Media Matters. And you did not even manage to do that honestly and correctly. You regurgitated the arguments of several left wing blogers who were really worked up about that horrid “R” instead of a “D” idiocy. You have offered nothing but the utterly mundane Fox News “is” talking points all while yammering angrily about “talking points’ as you hit each one. Obtuse much?

I have not posted any left win talking points as I have never ever seen left wing talking points. However you are using the usual right wing tactics to muddy the waters and divert attention away from the issue at hand and usualy turn focus on the messenger. So far you may have thought that you have successed, but in fact you are again just avoiding the debate.

Of course it is wrong to use false/fake or made up facts. I’d say it is about as desperate and pathetic as trying to use false/fake or made up facts on an internet debate forum in a thread about Fox News. So far you have quoted the most commonly found talking points against Fox News that come up in a Google search.

Hardly, I have had the same opinion and its not based on what "google" turns up or what the left in the US says. In fact the left aint much better than the right on this issue, but thats not what we are discussing, we are discussing Fox News and if they have been involved in a "Dan Rather" like situation, and I have clearly shown they have. They have used fake, made up or totaly false facts in thier shows. That is what you asked for thats what you got even with several sources, but its funny how you have not mentioned Ofcom or the british newspaper reports..

And you have lied about what your own sources said. As I’ve said all along, you are intellectually dishonest. I’ll add you are a bold faced liar to the mix to. Want specific examples from this thread? Be glad to copy and paste all this for you, then we can watch to spin some more.

Again where have I lied? You have yet to even remotely prove that. Instead you attempt to prove it by attacking my sources, twisting what actually is said there and when that does not work, you label the source as liberal. Again a classic right wing trick.

My God what utter self serving dishonest twaddle. Ci, obtuse muy mucho.

Well IMO you’re an intellectual lightweight who has only DOA arguments from the anti Fox News talking point factory. And you can’t even read and retain the information you quote correctly.

Time for more personal attacks.

Media Matters routinely makes allegations, they are unanswered by everybody. They are unrebutted, un-followed up on and nobody at any news media source really cares about them. When Media Matters does turn up a genuine case of fabrication, libel and slander the world will make note and the story will be big news. Right now, nobody but internet buffoons quotes them on anything. As I correctly pointed out their mission statement clearly details they are into researching “conservative media sources.” Frankly if Media Matters wants to say things like they think that Chris Matthews seemed to quote a debunked source, I’ll think…hmm maybe Matthews quoted a debunked source. I won’t lobotomize myself like you, and announce “Ahhhhhhhhh…Chris Matthews is a liar; he fabricated, made up and created false facts! CNN is guilty of lying, fabricating facts, libel and slander!”That obtuse mucho thing is your bag.

Well thats your opinion. Mine is that the media are scared of Fox News because of said stations political power among republicans.

Yip, you’re done. Over done actually.

I’ll be glad to debate you as offered more than once. Feel free to say I won’t debate you. But I’m finished with your shallow and ideologically feeble lies and fabrications in this thread. You have nothing more to offer than claims that your case of talking points and commentary/concerns from left wing blogs is rock solid.

IMO you’re so full of shite that your eye balls are floating.

Funny how you did not answer the question at all. Instead you revert to the same personal attacks you have been using for a couple of pages.

I ask you again, and this time answer, unless you are finally done with me.

Do you believe that its wrong to use false, made up or fake facts in the mass media, regardless if its OP/ED or actual "news show"?
 
Last edited:
Well considering you have refused to debate the issues because you think Mediamatters is a biased source and what they are saying is false, then yes you are avoiding the debate. On top of that you are trying to avoid the debate by claiming that its basicly okay to lie and provide false or made up information in an OP/ED piece, which is hypocritical as a minimum.

No that is your spin on everything that has been said. You spin lightly more than Bill O’Rielly.
Yes its a clip from Al Franken, but it has the O'Rielly stuff in it, so you can see that Mediamatters did not make it up.

Again you are dismissing the facts and evidence of Fox News either using falsified matterial or make falsified matterial. Again not my problem that you cant accept mediamatters as a source.

Your definition for falsification does not meet that of even the cheapest dictionary.
The evidence that I have shown should be more than enough, but again you are the one refusing to accept the evidence, because of some warped idea that mediamatters is so highly biased against Fox News or the right... something that can easily disproved on the site by the amount of cases against "liberal" news media. But if you have a source that investigates media coverage in an "unbiased way", then provide it to prove your own assumption that Fox News has never done a "Dan Rather".

The “evidence” you have shown means you have now inadvertently agreed with my early point. According to your “standards” all of the major news media are not just biased, but "guilty of libel, slander, fabricating facts and far worse. All the time.”

I tried to warn you about the corner you painted yourself into, you spun on. I’m dead certain you still have no clue what I am talking about. But then you are the fool who keeps crying that he can’t get a debate.
I have not posted any left win talking points as I have never ever seen left wing talking points. However you are using the usual right wing tactics to muddy the waters and divert attention away from the issue at hand and usualy turn focus on the messenger. So far you may have thought that you have successed, but in fact you are again just avoiding the debate.
Hardly, I have had the same opinion and its not based on what "google" turns up or what the left in the US says. In fact the left aint much better than the right on this issue, but thats not what we are discussing, we are discussing Fox News and if they have been involved in a "Dan Rather" like situation, and I have clearly shown they have. They have used fake, made up or totaly false facts in thier shows. That is what you asked for thats what you got even with several sources, but its funny how you have not mentioned Ofcom or the british newspaper reports..

Again where have I lied? You have yet to even remotely prove that. Instead you attempt to prove it by attacking my sources, twisting what actually is said there and when that does not work, you label the source as liberal. Again a classic right wing trick.

Time for more personal attacks.

Well thats your opinion. Mine is that the media are scared of Fox News because of said stations political power among republicans.

Of course you have not quoted left wing talking points Pete. It is just an accident of nature that everytime you quote your set of “facts and sources” you get told you are using talking points and biased sources in an argument about bias. But as you assure me, these people are just spouting right wing talking points. Of course they are Pete, of course they are. They are, let me get this right, Fox News fans. Cue the Twighlight Zone theme for effect. Ta da, the self fulfilling prophesy.
Funny how you did not answer the question at all. Instead you revert to the same personal attacks you have been using for a couple of pages.
I ask you again, and this time answer, unless you are finally done with me.

Do you believe that its wrong to use false, made up or fake facts in the mass media, regardless if its OP/ED or actual "news show"?

Well I think it is funny that you keep saying I did not answer your question. Here let me answer it a third time for you. You could look back at my last post where I answered it the second time too. Look just a wee bit further back; you can see where I answered it the first time. Don’t know why I think you’re an obtuse lightweight prone to lying.

Of course it is wrong to use false/fake or made up facts. Same with twisting facts to fit your ideology and motives. All of which puts you out of business Pete.

So here is the challenge: You keep saying you want a debate, based upon the facts and the issues.

Then put your money where you mouth is and take it to:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/contests/

Post what you want to debate with me. I’ll wipe the slate clean and give you a fresh run at making a rational case for whatever harebrained claim you want to make.

You can even pick as a topic one of your “claims” in this thread. You’ll just have to prove it, instead of trying to spin it.

So if you think you can play with the big boys, bring your game to a debate. Quit squawking and flapping your arms screaming for debate and start one. Or I can start one for you. Your choice.

Like I said before, you’ll make mince meat of me. It will be like watching Bruce Lee beat up Shirley Temple. Really.

The challenge has been made. Again. Try to comprehend it this time and I dare you to accept it.
 
Last edited:
No that is your spin on everything that has been said. You spin lightly more than Bill O’Rielly.

So are you dening that O'Rielly said what Mediamatters has quote him from saying? Are you denying that O'Rielly either used as Mediamatters says, a debunked report by conservative Kurtz or some swedish study that no one seems to be able to find?

Your definition for falsification does not meet that of even the cheapest dictionary.

So now you dont believe the definintion of falsification all of a sudden? How about you look it up in a dictionary.. there are a few online.

falsification - Definitions from Dictionary.com

The “evidence” you have shown means you have now inadvertently agreed with my early point. According to your “standards” all of the major news media are not just biased, but "guilty of libel, slander, fabricating facts and far worse. All the time.”

I tried to warn you about the corner you painted yourself into, you spun on. I’m dead certain you still have no clue what I am talking about. But then you are the fool who keeps crying that he can’t get a debate.

I have never claimed that any of the other major news media are "not biased". I have claimed they are not AS biased as Fox News, but that was in a different thread long ago. And anyways we are not talking about bias at Fox News, but of a "Dan Rather" situation, which is using false or fabricated information in a story. And it is you that have attempted to divert attention away from the issue of Fox News by bringing in other news organisations that are not related.

Again your continuous pounding away against me is just another attempt to divert attention away from topic at hand. So far you have not mentioned anything that is at all relevant to the debate at hand. You have instead resorted to personal attacks.

Of course you have not quoted left wing talking points Pete. It is just an accident of nature that everytime you quote your set of “facts and sources” you get told you are using talking points and biased sources in an argument about bias. But as you assure me, these people are just spouting right wing talking points. Of course they are Pete, of course they are. They are, let me get this right, Fox News fans. Cue the Twighlight Zone theme for effect. Ta da, the self fulfilling prophesy.

It is you that sees Mediamatters as biased. It is you that refuses to accept Ofcom's ruling. It is you that refuses to accept the evidence presented. If the evidence is "tainted" then prove it. Prove that O'Rielly used an existing Swedish report on gay marriage with those statistics. Prove that the supposed quotes from Kerry were actually true.

Well I think it is funny that you keep saying I did not answer your question. Here let me answer it a third time for you. You could look back at my last post where I answered it the second time too. Look just a wee bit further back; you can see where I answered it the first time. Don’t know why I think you’re an obtuse lightweight prone to lying.

We shall see. Its often hard to see anything in the massive amounts of bla bla and personal attacks.

Of course it is wrong to use false/fake or made up facts. Same with twisting facts to fit your ideology and motives. All of which puts you out of business Pete.

About time, even though you again resort to personal attacks yet again.

Funny how you agree with me, but when it comes to Fox News , then they have never done so... and you claim not to be a Fox News fan? gezz. Hello, they have even ADMITTED to have used false/fake or made up facts.

Now if you had just posted this opinion in the first post you did, instead of resorting to personal attacks and the usual tactics, then we could both have spared lots of time.

So here is the challenge: You keep saying you want a debate, based upon the facts and the issues.

Then put your money where you mouth is and take it to:

I have put my money where my mouth is in this thread so to say, and you are the one thats avoiding it with long bla bla posts, personal attacks and refusing to believe the source of the evidence, not to mention refuse to answer simple questions. I see no reason to start a new debate on the same issue in another thread somewhere else.

Post what you want to debate with me. I’ll wipe the slate clean and give you a fresh run at making a rational case for whatever harebrained claim you want to make.

If you are so headbent on debating it somewhere else, than in this thread, then fine you post what debate you want to debate with me.

You can even pick as a topic one of your “claims” in this thread. You’ll just have to prove it, instead of trying to spin it.

So if you think you can play with the big boys, bring your game to a debate. Quit squawking and flapping your arms screaming for debate and start one. Or I can start one for you. Your choice.

Like I said before, you’ll make mince meat of me. It will be like watching Bruce Lee beat up Shirley Temple. Really.

The challenge has been made. Again. Try to comprehend it this time and I dare you to accept it.

Dare away. As I have stated, I see no reason to start a new debate on the same topic somewhere else. It will most likely result in the same personal attacks, avoidance tactics and other forms of right wing spin tactics as you have used in this thread. If you want to debate it somewhere else, then post, and maybe I will post there too, but as far as I am concerned you are just trying to avoid the subject yet again.

But I have no doubt that you will now claim (yet again) victory.

But let me remind you and others.

You are the one doing the personal attacks.
You are the one refusing to believe the opositions evidence and not debunking the evidence, but instead labling it coming from a "liberal website".
You are the one dismissing as jokes or mistakes, those episodes with false/fake or made up news/information on Fox News that are beyond doubt.
You are the one who attempted to divert attention towards the poster (me) or bring in other media (other than CBS).
You are the one who has continuesly used huge posts with no content to dilute the debate.
You are the one defending Fox News, and yet agree that using false/fake or made up facts is wrong. This is called a double standard if you dont know.

Now if you wish to debate without resorting to the above tactics, then fine I am game.
 
So are you dening that O'Rielly said what Mediamatters has quote him from saying? Are you denying that O'Rielly either used as Mediamatters says, a debunked report by conservative Kurtz or some swedish study that no one seems to be able to find?



So now you dont believe the definintion of falsification all of a sudden? How about you look it up in a dictionary.. there are a few online.

falsification - Definitions from Dictionary.com



I have never claimed that any of the other major news media are "not biased". I have claimed they are not AS biased as Fox News, but that was in a different thread long ago. And anyways we are not talking about bias at Fox News, but of a "Dan Rather" situation, which is using false or fabricated information in a story. And it is you that have attempted to divert attention away from the issue of Fox News by bringing in other news organisations that are not related.

Again your continuous pounding away against me is just another attempt to divert attention away from topic at hand. So far you have not mentioned anything that is at all relevant to the debate at hand. You have instead resorted to personal attacks.



It is you that sees Mediamatters as biased. It is you that refuses to accept Ofcom's ruling. It is you that refuses to accept the evidence presented. If the evidence is "tainted" then prove it. Prove that O'Rielly used an existing Swedish report on gay marriage with those statistics. Prove that the supposed quotes from Kerry were actually true.



We shall see. Its often hard to see anything in the massive amounts of bla bla and personal attacks.



About time, even though you again resort to personal attacks yet again.

Funny how you agree with me, but when it comes to Fox News , then they have never done so... and you claim not to be a Fox News fan? gezz. Hello, they have even ADMITTED to have used false/fake or made up facts.

Now if you had just posted this opinion in the first post you did, instead of resorting to personal attacks and the usual tactics, then we could both have spared lots of time.



I have put my money where my mouth is in this thread so to say, and you are the one thats avoiding it with long bla bla posts, personal attacks and refusing to believe the source of the evidence, not to mention refuse to answer simple questions. I see no reason to start a new debate on the same issue in another thread somewhere else.



If you are so headbent on debating it somewhere else, than in this thread, then fine you post what debate you want to debate with me.



Dare away. As I have stated, I see no reason to start a new debate on the same topic somewhere else. It will most likely result in the same personal attacks, avoidance tactics and other forms of right wing spin tactics as you have used in this thread. If you want to debate it somewhere else, then post, and maybe I will post there too, but as far as I am concerned you are just trying to avoid the subject yet again.

But I have no doubt that you will now claim (yet again) victory.

But let me remind you and others.

You are the one doing the personal attacks.
You are the one refusing to believe the opositions evidence and not debunking the evidence, but instead labling it coming from a "liberal website".
You are the one dismissing as jokes or mistakes, those episodes with false/fake or made up news/information on Fox News that are beyond doubt.
You are the one who attempted to divert attention towards the poster (me) or bring in other media (other than CBS).
You are the one who has continuesly used huge posts with no content to dilute the debate.
You are the one defending Fox News, and yet agree that using false/fake or made up facts is wrong. This is called a double standard if you dont know.

Now if you wish to debate without resorting to the above tactics, then fine I am game.

So Pete is that a yes? Hard to tell, it took you a few hundred words there to sorta answer. So contact the Mods in the True Debate section and suggest any of your tightly bundled logic boulders from this thread.

Hey, why not start with your Ofcom data? As with so many of your claims that I won’t debate or answer you, I’ve addressed your Ofcom link and their findings several times. Surely you can now start a debate about this point, since I’ve never responded to it. Directly. Several times.

Or would you like me to start the debate for you? :confused:
 
Last edited:
So Pete is that a yes? Hard to tell, it took you a few hundred words there to sorta answer. So contact the Mods in the True Debate section and suggest any of your tightly bundled logic boulders from this thread.

Hey, why not start with your Ofcom data? As with so many of your claims that I won’t debate or answer you, I’ve addressed your Ofcom link and their findings several times. Surely you can now start a debate about this point, since I’ve never responded to it, directly. Several times.

Or would you like me to start the debate for you? :confused:

My response is very clear.
 
My response is very clear.

Then please choose anything from this thread, or something completely new. What do you want to debate? Which point? Your original one, a new one?

Or do you want me to suggest one?

For God’s sake man, spit it out!:doh
 
Then please choice anything from this thread, or something completely new. What do you want to debate? Which point? Your original one, a new one?

Or do you want me to suggest one?

For God’s sake man, spit it out!:doh

I have made it very clear in my post Sir Lion.

You are welcome to start any debate you want, and maybe I will join you but as far as I am concerned the debate is here. I have been attempting to debate with you, but you are the destructive one refusing to debate and instead you turn to personal insults, baseless attacks on the evidence or outright denial of the evidence and many other ways to divert attention away from the debate. If you give up the all those points I posted, then maybe we can have a real debate.

But right now it seems more and more to me that you just want "the last word" regardless of what word that is.
 
I have made it very clear in my post Sir Lion.
You are welcome to start any debate you want, and maybe I will join you but as far as I am concerned the debate is here. I have been attempting to debate with you, but you are the destructive one refusing to debate and instead you turn to personal insults, baseless attacks on the evidence or outright denial of the evidence and many other ways to divert attention away from the debate. If you give up the all those points I posted, then maybe we can have a real debate.

But right now it seems more and more to me that you just want "the last word" regardless of what word that is.

My what a magnanimous offer; 'give up' that all your points, spin and takes on everything are the end all and be all of knowledge and wisdom? Because your feelings are hurt.

Yip, you’re done.:bolt
 
Last edited:
My what a magnanimous offer; 'give up' that all your points, spin and takes on everything are the end all and be all of knowledge and wisdom? Because your feelings are hurt.

Yip, you’re done.:bolt

I far from give up. Bring it on if you are willing to conduct yourself in a civilzed way and go away from the typical right wing smear tactics you have been using.

Its you who are giving up the debate by the tactics you have used in the debate. Look at what we are talking about right now.. has zero to do with what the original question was.. "has Fox News done a "Dan Rather" or similar". Instead you are focusing all your effort on me, and trying to start a whole "new" debate somewhere else, as that would change the fact that you totaly lost in all arguments and yet you conceed that my point is valid. You cant have it both ways, both agreeing with me and disagreeing we me on the same things, and thats exactly what you have done.

So Sir, you are done until you change your tone and attitude and actually DEBATE the issue.
 
Point, set and match to Sir Lion.
 
Point, set and match to Sir Lion.

Pete is finished doing anything but :spin:

You won’t answer my direct question Sir Loin, wah wah. What, you did three times already? Nuh uh.

You won’t answer my Obcom data Sir Loin, wah wah. What, you did several times? Nuh uh.

You keep pointing out I’m either stupid or a liar Sir Loin, wah wah!

If the shoe fits……………:roll:

Pete could host his own OP/ED Commentary, As The World Spins.
spin-arrows.gif
 
Last edited:
Yeah, you smoked him.
 
Yeah, you smoked him.

Actually, given that Pete started the name calling/labeling in his first post, I’m pretty sure he was smoking something throughout this thread. This in the end resulted in him smoking himself. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
Actually, given that Pete started the name calling/labeling in his first post, I’m pretty sure he was smoking something throughout this thread. This in the end resulted in him smoking himself. :mrgreen:

Sir Loin you are the one that lost all credibility by your avoidance methods. As for the one that started the name calling.... if you think calling someone a Fox News Lover is name calling, then well I can live with that and appologize as it was not ment in that form. It was a non negative label, nothing more. However your actions later on far dwarf "Fox News Lover" comments, and were and are directly destructive for the debate, something I suspect was the whole point. I also remind you that I predicted from the start what would happen and you proved me right.

You accuse me of spin, yet the only spin that has happened here is yours. Your spin has been typical of most Fox News defenders and totaly baseless in any facts. Your arguments have been at best weak with no facts, and your conclusions have been typical of anyone defending Fox News.

I have also stated, that if you are willing to debate in a civilized manner, then bring it on. But as long as you resort to the same old methods, then we have nothing to discuss as everything has been gone through several times without you reacting in a civilized debating manner.

You can also move the debate wherever you want, and as I have stated, I might follow you if you keep it civil and stick to the different facts and principles of the discussion.. like is it wrong to use fake, false or made up facts or information in news broadcasting. But as a principle I still say that the debate is here in this thread, and that debate you have avoided and attempted to derail.

This will be my last post unless something substantial is posted.
 
Sir Loin you are the one that lost all credibility by your avoidance methods. As for the one that started the name calling.... if you think calling someone a Fox News Lover is name calling, then well I can live with that and appologize as it was not ment in that form. It was a non negative label, nothing more. However your actions later on far dwarf "Fox News Lover" comments, and were and are directly destructive for the debate, something I suspect was the whole point. I also remind you that I predicted from the start what would happen and you proved me right.

You accuse me of spin, yet the only spin that has happened here is yours. Your spin has been typical of most Fox News defenders and totaly baseless in any facts. Your arguments have been at best weak with no facts, and your conclusions have been typical of anyone defending Fox News.

I have also stated, that if you are willing to debate in a civilized manner, then bring it on. But as long as you resort to the same old methods, then we have nothing to discuss as everything has been gone through several times without you reacting in a civilized debating manner.

You can also move the debate wherever you want, and as I have stated, I might follow you if you keep it civil and stick to the different facts and principles of the discussion.. like is it wrong to use fake, false or made up facts or information in news broadcasting. But as a principle I still say that the debate is here in this thread, and that debate you have avoided and attempted to derail.

This will be my last post unless something substantial is posted.

As nothing of any substance has been forth coming throughout over twenty five posts dripping with chides for debate (all while pretending none of your points and questions have been answered) I could care less about your latest take on matters. It is called spin, and man have you put a lot of effort into spin. Your comfort with labeling people, couched amidst your cries you’ve been labeled, scream for more attention than your stated piety. The circle jerk spins on.

But if you are really looking for substance, try a True Debate. You would think a guy with all your claims would want to take them all to an immediate True Debate. Not so. Not so far. I suspect not ever.

You could prove me wrong, but I’m not holding my breath.

 
So, anyway, I just heard O'Reilly say that his job is to inform and illuminate, not to social engineer. Does that mean that he is no longer a culture warrior?

:rofl
 
So, anyway, I just heard O'Reilly say that his job is to inform and illuminate, not to social engineer. Does that mean that he is no longer a culture warrior?

:rofl

He is a culture warrior, armed with "one of those luftha things.";)
 
The main problem I see with FOX News is the same problem I see with all the mainstream media (also known as corporate presstitutes) in general. When we have a media which attempts to convince us that bowling scores are more important than the Fourth Amendment, we are in real trouble.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom