MSNBC edits video to falsely portrait GOP congressman's speech (1 Viewer)

[Grim17]

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

 

[Anagram]

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]

Wait till the word gaming wackos from the radial left play with it.

 

[pbrauer]

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]

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]

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]

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]

The original was even worse. MSNBC did him a favor.

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

 

[pbrauer]

The original was even worse. MSNBC did him a favor.

Agreed

 

[ReformCollege]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.