MSNBC edits video to falsely portrait GOP congressman's speech

[Boo Radley]

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.


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 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.

Because you're confusing two different things.

1) we seem to agree concerning felons.

2) The politician's rhetoric is a different matter. He says rapists and murderers to dishonestly frame the issue. That is what I was originally commenting on and agreed that both sides do it. If he can't get everyone thinking rapists and murderers, he won't have to actually tackle the issue. It's a dishonest tactic.

 

[Gonzo Rodeo]

Because you're confusing two different things.

1) we seem to agree concerning felons.

2) The politician's rhetoric is a different matter. He says rapists and murderers to dishonestly frame the issue. That is what I was originally commenting on and agreed that both sides do it. If he can't get everyone thinking rapists and murderers, he won't have to actually tackle the issue. It's a dishonest tactic.

You know what else is a dishonest tactic? Twisting a Congressman's words and then arguing the straw man in order to mislead people that Republicans hate the poor.

If your attitude is that an eye for an eye is justifiable, well that's one thing; if your attitude is that the Republicans OBVIOUSLY hate the poor, well, that's quite another thing.

 

[tererun]

Because you're confusing two different things.

1) we seem to agree concerning felons.

2) The politician's rhetoric is a different matter. He says rapists and murderers to dishonestly frame the issue. That is what I was originally commenting on and agreed that both sides do it. If he can't get everyone thinking rapists and murderers, he won't have to actually tackle the issue. It's a dishonest tactic.

I can agree with the second point. However, if his proposal actually follows what he says and tries to only go after the people who he is targetting then I can see the simplistic start of a actual argument. I don't think that the saving money on food stamps ideas republicans represent just applies to hard criminals, but it would be a compromise. I guess i actually give a compromise credit to them because they normally do not. I would not vote for that compromise, but I also did not hear him claim all food stamp recipients were hard criminals like MSNBC was implying. He did clearly separate removing those criminals and allowing law abiding recipients. This goes back to the original discussion where his statement was clearly misrepresented by MSNBC. Had they called BS on him claiming that was all he wanted and that he was using the criminal line to advance cutting food stamps for law abiding people I would agree with that. But he did not say everyone on food stamps was a criminal in the parts they showed. I fully understand we would have to keep an eye on his proposals because he would probably try to sneak cuts for others into it and pretend it was just hard criminals until it got passed. That is just the way politicians work, but the direction MSNBC takes is way to easy to dismiss as being manipulative when they could have targeted his real motivations to target everyone. It is one of the reasons I may be amused by MSNBC using faux news tactics against republicans, but I also don't trust them any further than faux news. I just see it as part of the same distracting fight media news tools use to keep people from actually being ticked off by legitimate things. It is legitimate to be bothered by the idea he was probably trying to sneak cuts for everyone in using criminals, but to claim he said it when he didn't makes their argument looks stupid and turns people off.

 

[Geoist]

The guy, like all conservatives, hates poor Americans and wants to punish them.

Head, I am no Republican or conservative. But your trolling is laughable. To say "all conservatives hate poor Americans" is a statement that only the lowest common denominator of partisan hacks will take seriously.

 

[Geoist]

Shouldn't those guys be in jail?

Nearly all of them get out eventually.

 

[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

So, the Media Research Center is all about the "truth?" Not likely. The words of the day are "taken out of context" feast your eyes and ears on the whole segment.

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.

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.

Shouldn't those guys be in jail? Sounds like just another stupid statement to make the sheep froth at the mouth. No real substance.

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.

Head, I am no Republican or conservative. But your trolling is laughable. To say "all conservatives hate poor Americans" is a statement that only the lowest common denominator of partisan hacks will take seriously.

I can agree with the second point. However, if his proposal actually follows what he says and tries to only go after the people who he is targetting then I can see the simplistic start of a actual argument. I don't think that the saving money on food stamps ideas republicans represent just applies to hard criminals, but it would be a compromise. I guess i actually give a compromise credit to them because they normally do not. I would not vote for that compromise, but I also did not hear him claim all food stamp recipients were hard criminals like MSNBC was implying. He did clearly separate removing those criminals and allowing law abiding recipients. This goes back to the original discussion where his statement was clearly misrepresented by MSNBC. Had they called BS on him claiming that was all he wanted and that he was using the criminal line to advance cutting food stamps for law abiding people I would agree with that. But he did not say everyone on food stamps was a criminal in the parts they showed. I fully understand we would have to keep an eye on his proposals because he would probably try to sneak cuts for others into it and pretend it was just hard criminals until it got passed. That is just the way politicians work, but the direction MSNBC takes is way to easy to dismiss as being manipulative when they could have targeted his real motivations to target everyone. It is one of the reasons I may be amused by MSNBC using faux news tactics against republicans, but I also don't trust them any further than faux news. I just see it as part of the same distracting fight media news tools use to keep people from actually being ticked off by legitimate things. It is legitimate to be bothered by the idea he was probably trying to sneak cuts for everyone in using criminals, but to claim he said it when he didn't makes their argument looks stupid and turns people off.

 

[Master PO]

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

i can always count on you for some good humor, and rib ticking action...:2razz:

 

[Boo Radley]

You know what else is a dishonest tactic? Twisting a Congressman's words and then arguing the straw man in order to mislead people that Republicans hate the poor.

If your attitude is that an eye for an eye is justifiable, well that's one thing; if your attitude is that the Republicans OBVIOUSLY hate the poor, well, that's quite another thing.

Can you to where I said that?

 

[Boo Radley]

I can agree with the second point. However, if his proposal actually follows what he says and tries to only go after the people who he is targetting then I can see the simplistic start of a actual argument. I don't think that the saving money on food stamps ideas republicans represent just applies to hard criminals, but it would be a compromise. I guess i actually give a compromise credit to them because they normally do not. I would not vote for that compromise, but I also did not hear him claim all food stamp recipients were hard criminals like MSNBC was implying. He did clearly separate removing those criminals and allowing law abiding recipients. This goes back to the original discussion where his statement was clearly misrepresented by MSNBC. Had they called BS on him claiming that was all he wanted and that he was using the criminal line to advance cutting food stamps for law abiding people I would agree with that. But he did not say everyone on food stamps was a criminal in the parts they showed. I fully understand we would have to keep an eye on his proposals because he would probably try to sneak cuts for others into it and pretend it was just hard criminals until it got passed. That is just the way politicians work, but the direction MSNBC takes is way to easy to dismiss as being manipulative when they could have targeted his real motivations to target everyone. It is one of the reasons I may be amused by MSNBC using faux news tactics against republicans, but I also don't trust them any further than faux news. I just see it as part of the same distracting fight media news tools use to keep people from actually being ticked off by legitimate things. It is legitimate to be bothered by the idea he was probably trying to sneak cuts for everyone in using criminals, but to claim he said it when he didn't makes their argument looks stupid and turns people off.

Neither network is about news. They are about entertainment. Treating either as if they were news is the mistake.

 

[Boo Radley]

Nearly all of them get out eventually.

Well, specifics matter. But I suspect, as I've said, there's no real or significant rapist murderer welfare recipient pool.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Well, specifics matter. But I suspect, as I've said, there's no real or significant rapist murderer welfare recipient pool.

Out of 46 million there may be bunch of them. The point is that a reduction in funding must result in someone losing benefits so why not choose to exempt convicted felons as opposed to a random mother with children?

 

[Boo Radley]

So, the Media Research Center is all about the "truth?" Not likely. The words of the day are "taken out of context" feast your eyes and ears on the whole segment.

Not shocked, but he purpose here is still to be shocking and not informative. This is the result of for profit news. It becomes entertainment and not news.

 

[Boo Radley]

Out of 46 million there may be bunch of them. The point is that a reduction in funding must result in someone losing benefits so why not choose to exempt convicted felons as opposed to a random mother with children?

Perhaps if you want them back in jail. Once a debt has been paid, is been paid. If you want hem to pay more, make penalties hasher. The industrial prison complex will appreciate that.

 

[Threegoofs]

Out of 46 million there may be bunch of them. The point is that a reduction in funding must result in someone losing benefits so why not choose to exempt convicted felons as opposed to a random mother with children?

You make the assumption that mothers with children cannot be convicted felons.

And why, if someone commits a felony and serves their time, should they be excluded from getting some meager food stamp money? Given the fact that those people are having an especially tough time in the job market (being felons...ever applied for a job without a convicted-for-a-crime tick box?), why make them reconsider the benefits of crime to feed themselves rather than helping them get on their feet?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Perhaps if you want them back in jail. Once a debt has been paid, is been paid. If you want hem to pay more, make penalties hasher. The industrial prison complex will appreciate that.

That is precisely what is being suggested: adding harsher penalties, for certain convicted criminals, by restricting their access to additional taxpayer support after release.

 

[Boo Radley]

That is precisely what is being suggested: adding harsher penalties, for certain convicted criminals, by restricting their access to additional taxpayer support after release.

No, that's not the same. Just keep them in prison to begin with. Ever see or read Les Miserables? A bit of a lesson there.

 

[ttwtt78640]

You make the assumption that mothers with children cannot be convicted felons.

And why, if someone commits a felony and serves their time, should they be excluded from getting some meager food stamp money? Given the fact that those people are having an especially tough time in the job market (being felons...ever applied for a job without a convicted-for-a-crime tick box?), why make them reconsider the benefits of crime to feed themselves rather than helping them get on their feet?

What is being discussed is how to target the reduction in SNAP benefits. Perhaps all SNAP benefits could all be reduced by 2.5% so that convicted felons are not singled out. Personally, I favor changing who gets SNAP rather than making the truely needy and law abiding recipents suffer more as well.

 

[tererun]

Neither network is about news. They are about entertainment. Treating either as if they were news is the mistake.

That is quite true, but recognizing that reality means the stupid interpretation of the commentator and perhaps the editing style just simply boils down to the desired shouting at the other side that gets them viewers. Then the outrage becomes more like the arguments over honey boo boo. Of course they misinterpreted what the congressman said because they wanted to bash the right. Of course it would have been more intellectually representative to point out the congressman's record on welfare and showed that he was lying like a politician when he said he only wanted to cut criminals from the roles by using his votes or past statements which show him to be full of crap. This is why i consider MSNBC to be a far less funny and intelligent daily show. When comedy BS news commentary does a better job of making an intellectual point using actual facts than a "news" network it is a pretty pathetic indictment of our news media. Plus the daily show knows how to edit a piece to only support their joke. MSNBC has a lot to learn about manipulative editing to support their biased commentary. If they want to be the faux news for the left they are really going to need to step up their game more than they already have.

Oh, and my recognition of their incompetence to properly edit a piece is not an endorsement of their network. It does not make them more honest, just too stupid to lie properly.

 

[tererun]

Out of 46 million there may be bunch of them. The point is that a reduction in funding must result in someone losing benefits so why not choose to exempt convicted felons as opposed to a random mother with children?

On the surface i would agree with that, but how the hell are they supposed to rehab when we threaten their survival and drastically limit their alternative to get a job and do the right thing? It all leads down to the fundamental problem of letting profits dictate employment which makes job supply limited. yes, it is more socialist, but we could find things for unemployed people to do to improve things. I am not talking about pointless things either. Could you imagine the extra productivity we could get if we organized and gave jobs to the unemployed and gave them them food, shelter, clothing, and medicine (which is more than many get on minimum wage).

 

[Boo Radley]

That is quite true, but recognizing that reality means the stupid interpretation of the commentator and perhaps the editing style just simply boils down to the desired shouting at the other side that gets them viewers. Then the outrage becomes more like the arguments over honey boo boo. Of course they misinterpreted what the congressman said because they wanted to bash the right. Of course it would have been more intellectually representative to point out the congressman's record on welfare and showed that he was lying like a politician when he said he only wanted to cut criminals from the roles by using his votes or past statements which show him to be full of crap. This is why i consider MSNBC to be a far less funny and intelligent daily show. When comedy BS news commentary does a better job of making an intellectual point using actual facts than a "news" network it is a pretty pathetic indictment of our news media. Plus the daily show knows how to edit a piece to only support their joke. MSNBC has a lot to learn about manipulative editing to support their biased commentary. If they want to be the faux news for the left they are really going to need to step up their game more than they already have.

Oh, and my recognition of their incompetence to properly edit a piece is not an endorsement of their network. It does not make them more honest, just too stupid to lie properly.

I'm not sure what we're disagreeing on.

 

[sangha]

Out of 46 million there may be bunch of them. The point is that a reduction in funding must result in someone losing benefits so why not choose to exempt convicted felons as opposed to a random mother with children?

They want to cut the benefits by 25%. Do you think 25% of FS recipients are rapists, pedophiles, and murderers?

 

[Threegoofs]

What is being discussed is how to target the reduction in SNAP benefits. Perhaps all SNAP benefits could all be reduced by 2.5% so that convicted felons are not singled out. Personally, I favor changing who gets SNAP rather than making the truely needy and law abiding recipents suffer more as well.

So moms who are felons should be given less assistance to feed their non-felon kids?

 

[tererun]

I'm not sure what we're disagreeing on.

Sorry, wasn't really arguing, just ranting.

 

[Boo Radley]

Sorry, wasn't really arguing, just ranting.

Not a problem

 

[tererun]

They want to cut the benefits by 25%. Do you think 25% of FS recipients are rapists, pedophiles, and murderers?

Disclaimer: i don't believe the congressman is being honest about his true motives.

Still, even if it is not 25% it would be a reasonable place to start cutting for those who want to save money on the program without paying any attention to the actual societal effects of such cuts presently. I find the proposal to be wrong, but if you were going to cut people from the program start with the hard core criminals and see how close it gets you to your goal before going after the law abiding recipients.