• 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!

MSNBC edits video to falsely portrait GOP congressman's speech

Anagram

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2011
Messages
8,856
Reaction score
5,411
Location
St. Louis MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
The video is self explanatory and catches MSNBC red handed using selective editing to play fast and loose with the truth.

MSNBC Edits Congressman to Make it Seem He Said Food Stamp Recipients Are Rapists, Pedophiles and Murderers | MRCTV
Yeah that looks pretty bad. I'm not sure the video itself was intentionally edited to make it look that way since it still had Sessions saying that he wanted to end rapists, pedophiles, and murderers from competing with needy families, but the woman on the right was way off in her interpretation.
 

CalGun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
7,039
Reaction score
3,268
Location
Denio Junction
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Wait till the word gaming wackos from the radial left play with it.
 

pbrauer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
25,394
Reaction score
7,206
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The video is self explanatory and catches MSNBC red handed using selective editing to play fast and loose with the truth.

MSNBC Edits Congressman to Make it Seem He Said Food Stamp Recipients Are Rapists, Pedophiles and Murderers | MRCTV
It may be self explanatory to you, but it sure isn't to me. Noel Sheppard says they edited it to make it sound as if food stamp recipients are all rapists, pedophiles, and murderers which is completely ridiculous, that wasn't the intent at all. And that's not the way the woman responded either.
 

Grim17

Battle Ready
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
30,319
Reaction score
14,361
Location
Southwestern U.S.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It may be self explanatory to you, but it sure isn't to me. Noel Sheppard says they edited it to make it sound as if food stamp recipients are all rapists, pedophiles, and murderers which is completely ridiculous, that wasn't the intent at all. And that's not the way the woman responded either.
Who gives a crap what Noel Shepherd thinks? I posted this video, but I did not include anyone elses commentary along with it.
 

Helix

Administrator
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
69,908
Reaction score
52,035
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
the two major confirmation bias entertainment networks cherry pick sound bytes all of the time.

my advice : don't watch either of them. your life will improve by an order of magnitude. i ditched both years ago, and it's great. now i can choose what to get pissed off about on my own.
 

pbrauer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
25,394
Reaction score
7,206
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Who gives a crap what Noel Shepherd thinks? I posted this video, but I did not include anyone elses commentary along with it.
Take a gander at the title of the link: MSNBC Edits Congressman to Make it Seem He Said Food Stamp Recipients Are Rapists, Pedophiles and Murderers
 

head of joaquin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
12,029
Reaction score
3,530
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
The original was even worse. MSNBC did him a favor.

Basically like all Republicans, the guy just hates poor kids.
 

ReformCollege

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 10, 2012
Messages
4,136
Reaction score
915
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
The original was even worse. MSNBC did him a favor.

Basically like all Republicans, the guy just hates poor kids.
Typical of a liberal, your coddling those who molest children, rape women, and kill innocents. You're the one who is hateful.
 

head of joaquin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
12,029
Reaction score
3,530
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Typical of a liberal, your coddling those who molest children, rape women, and kill innocents. You're the one who is hateful.
So you're saying the guy did call food stamp users rapists?

Man, your narrative is way off track.

But back to the OP. I watched the original recording. The guy, like all conservatives, hates poor Americans and wants to punish them. MSNBC did him a favor by not focusing on that.
 

ReformCollege

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 10, 2012
Messages
4,136
Reaction score
915
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
So you're saying the guy did call food stamp users rapists?

Man, your narrative is way off track.

But back to the OP. I watched the original recording. The guy, like all conservatives, hates poor Americans and wants to punish them. MSNBC did him a favor by not focusing on that.
No. He said that rapists, pedophiles, and murderers shouldn't be eligible for food stamps, so they don't compete with those struggling to get by. And you said that prohibiting rapists, pedophiles, and murders from obtaining food stamps is hating on the poor. Which is either completely insane, or completely dishonest. Coming from you, I'm not sure which one to expect.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
No. He said that rapists, pedophiles, and murderers shouldn't be eligible for food stamps, so they don't compete with those struggling to get by. And you said that prohibiting rapists, pedophiles, and murders from obtaining food stamps is hating on the poor. Which is either completely insane, or completely dishonest. Coming from you, I'm not sure which one to expect.
Shouldn't those guys be in jail? Sounds like just another stupid statement to make the sheep froth at the mouth. No real substance.
 

ReformCollege

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 10, 2012
Messages
4,136
Reaction score
915
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Shouldn't those guys be in jail? Sounds like just another stupid statement to make the sheep froth at the mouth. No real substance.
You would be surprised in today's society. I've seen far too many rapists get 3 years in a plea, then as soon as they get out of jail they break their house arrest and go kidnap and rape another girl. Either way, I really have zero idea why anyone would be in favor of allowing rapists, murders, and pedophiles to qualify for government assistance. If anything, you are right, they should still be rotting in jail.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
You would be surprised in today's society. I've seen far too many rapists get 3 years in a plea, then as soon as they get out of jail they break their house arrest and go kidnap and rape another girl. Either way, I really have zero idea why anyone would be in favor of allowing rapists, murders, and pedophiles to qualify for government assistance. If anything, you are right, they should still be rotting in jail.
No body really is. Is one of those stupid nonissue statements politicians are famous for making.
 

ReformCollege

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 10, 2012
Messages
4,136
Reaction score
915
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
No body really is. Is one of those stupid nonissue statements politicians are famous for making.
Both sides are guilty of it really. But either way, I enjoy watching people make an ass out of themselves trying to defend ex-murderers.
 

tererun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2012
Messages
4,905
Reaction score
1,577
Location
The darkside of the moon
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
I think the commentator was wrong in her interpretation, but the editing of the clip shows the intent by the senator was to keep criminals from getting food stamps over law abiding citizens. Maybe i am just used to the cuts from the right which completely re-organize a quotation in order to give it an entirely new meaning. It was a terrible interpretation by the commentator to say they thought all the poor were rapists and murderers and pedophiles, but that is news commentary. If it is Ok for rush to say that some chick is a slut because she wants to get birth control on her medical insurance she pays for, then it is ok for someone from MSNBC to completely misinterpret and represent the quote. Unlike fix noise the people at MSNBC seem stupid enough to actually leave in the content of the quote they are misrepresenting.

I Can see the complain of the poor commentary, but they did not actually edit out the meaning of the claim making this a complete load of BS. It seems very clear from the edit the congressman did not call food stamp recipients rapists, pedophiles, or murderers, but rather that he wanted to make it so they cannot get benefits. I can get the whining about the commentary being BS, but newsbusters screws up by claiming edits that did not actually occur in the story. In essence newsbusters is guilty of the same piss poor commentary BS MSNBC is because they were stupid enough to leave the story intact so people could see what actually happened. You actually want me to be enraged at MSNBC doing crappy news commentary while leaving the quote intact because newsbusters did crappy news commentary while leaving the quote intact? Can't we just say they both suck equally and are complete tools of the system and anyone who buys their BS is gullible and soft headed?
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Both sides are guilty of it really. But either way, I enjoy watching people make an ass out of themselves trying to defend ex-murderers.
Oh, both sides are guilty of such stupidity. No argument here on that.
 

tererun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2012
Messages
4,905
Reaction score
1,577
Location
The darkside of the moon
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Shouldn't those guys be in jail? Sounds like just another stupid statement to make the sheep froth at the mouth. No real substance.
Oddly the congressmen misses the reality if they were in jail we provide them food, shelter, clothing, and health care. It is a lot more than 200 a month in SNAP benefits. Also, we do not keep people in jail for those crimes for life many times. He is talking about removing people with a criminal record from being able to get food stamps. If we had jobs for everyone to integrate back into society and start participating in the workforce I would be with the congressman. Howerver, since the reality is a felony conviction will make it much harder for you to do the right thing and work, I cannot say they is too much alternative to the very minimal effort we make to give them a reason to not re-offend.

the real problem boils down to you need a job to survive without assistance, and when jobs are not available to all people (the finite number of jobs in america is far lower than the number of workers we have) it is hard to say let them die. After all, they are not just going to lay down and die peacefully, especially if they are criminals. The idea is somewhat arguable, but the argument is a distraction over the real issue that many people who would work to survive are not entitled to a job due to supply which means a lot in the argument over government assistance and it's necessity in many different sections of society.
 

Gonzo Rodeo

better late than pregnant
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 30, 2011
Messages
4,161
Reaction score
1,373
Location
Here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Private
I think the commentator was wrong in her interpretation, but the editing of the clip shows the intent by the senator was to keep criminals from getting food stamps over law abiding citizens.
It seems very clear from the edit the congressman did not call food stamp recipients rapists, pedophiles, or murderers, but rather that he wanted to make it so they cannot get benefits.
So you agree completely with the OP then. I didn't alter your words at all; you made these two statements. You clearly agree with the OP.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Oddly the congressmen misses the reality if they were in jail we provide them food, shelter, clothing, and health care. It is a lot more than 200 a month in SNAP benefits. Also, we do not keep people in jail for those crimes for life many times. He is talking about removing people with a criminal record from being able to get food stamps. If we had jobs for everyone to integrate back into society and start participating in the workforce I would be with the congressman. Howerver, since the reality is a felony conviction will make it much harder for you to do the right thing and work, I cannot say they is too much alternative to the very minimal effort we make to give them a reason to not re-offend.

the real problem boils down to you need a job to survive without assistance, and when jobs are not available to all people (the finite number of jobs in america is far lower than the number of workers we have) it is hard to say let them die. After all, they are not just going to lay down and die peacefully, especially if they are criminals. The idea is somewhat arguable, but the argument is a distraction over the real issue that many people who would work to survive are not entitled to a job due to supply which means a lot in the argument over government assistance and it's necessity in many different sections of society.
There is certainly people in need, and there may be a criminal who dd his time that needs assistance. But there isn't really any significant rapist murder population on welfare.
 

tererun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2012
Messages
4,905
Reaction score
1,577
Location
The darkside of the moon
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
So you agree completely with the OP then. I didn't alter your words at all; you made these two statements. You clearly agree with the OP.
Yes, I agree that the congressman did not say that SNAp beneficiaries were all horrible criminals, and it was clear he was talking about removing criminals from the roles of the program. I do disagree with that position for a number of reasons, but it was quite obvious that the OP and newsbusters was wrong to say they edited the video to remove that sentiment when it was clearly there for the viewers to see in the edited version. I do also agree that the MSNBC commentator deliberately and ignorantly ignored obvious parts of their own edited footage which contradicted their claims.
 

tererun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2012
Messages
4,905
Reaction score
1,577
Location
The darkside of the moon
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
There is certainly people in need, and there may be a criminal who dd his time that needs assistance. But there isn't really any significant rapist murder population on welfare.
Oh, they are there if they fall into the realm of SNAP recipients. I do not believe that convicted felons are unable to get benefits as there are ones that do. You are arguing a completely differrent point than either MSNBC or Newsbusters makes about the edited footage. I think there is a reasonable debate to be had about the ability of convicted felons to get government benefits, though i think that we are in a hard place because it is much harder for them to get jobs which means they will have a harder time not resorting to crime without help from the government if they want to participate within society after release as some do. But the congressman clearly did say removing the criminals from the roles to allow for benefits for law abiding people. Whether you think there is a lot or just a few makes no real difference in that argument. It should also be noted that for parole, probation, and release to a halfway house criminals are under obligation to seek out jobs and attempt to become employed which law abiding recipients are not under most of the time for SNAP.
 

Boo Radley

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
37,066
Reaction score
7,028
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Oh, they are there if they fall into the realm of SNAP recipients. I do not believe that convicted felons are unable to get benefits as there are ones that do. You are arguing a completely differrent point than either MSNBC or Newsbusters makes about the edited footage. I think there is a reasonable debate to be had about the ability of convicted felons to get government benefits, though i think that we are in a hard place because it is much harder for them to get jobs which means they will have a harder time not resorting to crime without help from the government if they want to participate within society after release as some do. But the congressman clearly did say removing the criminals from the roles to allow for benefits for law abiding people. Whether you think there is a lot or just a few makes no real difference in that argument. It should also be noted that for parole, probation, and release to a halfway house criminals are under obligation to seek out jobs and attempt to become employed which law abiding recipients are not under most of the time for SNAP.
I believe I read rapists and murderers. Very specific. Many people don't seem to understand that rape and murder aren't the only felonies possible.

Look, some people seem to e real Old Testament. They want punishment, forever, no forgiveness. I'm more New Testament. Once your time is done, your debt is paid, I'm willing to start new. I don't mind hiring felons, nor granting welfare rights if thy don't find work.

That said, there is no huge rapist and murderer welfare population.
 

tererun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2012
Messages
4,905
Reaction score
1,577
Location
The darkside of the moon
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
I believe I read rapists and murderers. Very specific. Many people don't seem to understand that rape and murder aren't the only felonies possible.
Does it really make much of a difference? The sentiment is pretty similar even if you are cherry picking felonies. It really does not change the argument much on either side. But if it makes you feel better then feel free.
Look, some people seem to e real Old Testament. They want punishment, forever, no forgiveness. I'm more New Testament. Once your time is done, your debt is paid, I'm willing to start new. I don't mind hiring felons, nor granting welfare rights if thy don't find work.
If you read what i have said so far you would see I pretty much agree, but I do see where the opposing argument comes from. The only reason I agree they should be given benefits is because if they wanted to live a legal life after their punishment they are pretty much kept out of it due to the lack of employment which is based on supply. I would agree with the congressman if there were jobs for them and they simply did not take them I would have to agree with not providing them with assistance in that case. But if you do not allow them to work legally and participate in society in a legal fashion I don't e3xpect them to sit around and die which means you either provide them with something or recognize they will do bad things again even if they are rehabilitated morally.
That said, there is no huge rapist and murderer welfare population.
That is probably because there is no big rapist and murderer population. or at least convicted rapist population. Still, he is right that they would be allowed to receive benefits and we do provide them to rapists and murderers who apply and fit the requirements. I am pretty familiar with welfare and SNAP and i have yet to see any state that actually denies benefits to rapists and murderers.

At this point I am not even sure where your argument is going. Are you saying there are no rapists and murderers on food stamps so there is no one to deny? That doesn't seem correct. Even if the argument's importance is decreased because there are few of them, it would be pretty simple to implement and save benefit money by having them do a criminal background check while they do their inquiries into finances during the application process. At least the congressman would be correct that it would save some money, and be easy to implement.

When you look at the original topic none of the objections actually seem to include any argument based on those discussions. It is all a distraction based on editing of quotes and misrepresentation of what the congressman said, and then what MSNBC actually said. The problem is no one is actually discussing the issues around the purpose of food stamps for felons. Oh, and i am not typing out the entire cherry picked list of felonies because that would just be long and pointless given the idea behind it.
 
Top Bottom