• 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!

Secretive Republican Donors Are Planning Ahead

Media Matters was/isd run by the self-admitted liar for the right wing conspiracy that hunted Clinton. This man decided to expose the right wing for what it was doing. He is always going to be suspect because of his past so he has to source everything he says

When the right wing employed the man his stories were carried in major media but mostly first right wing media, without the kinds of availability of fact checking that MM offers with each charge.

When I use MM as a source, I check out the links and more. I have seen a few stories I think are biased bs, but they are easily identifiable because MM in their stories, gives me the ability to check their stories out. Very few sources do that much. It's a breath of fresh air.

Now it may irk you and others that they go after the right. But they admit that is why they were set up in the first place. So what is the beef? You have a beef with exposing lies -- with sources you can follow to judge for yourself? DO you prefer stories with no links?

I am not going to get into an argument with you over Media Matters and its credibility. I can post article after article that is a half truth or a distortion. I don't put much faith in any right wing or leftwing source as I prefer actual data from non partisan sites like bea.gov, bls.gov, U.S. Census data, and the U.S. Treasury. Nothing else really matters.

GW Bush was attacked daily by Media Matters and continues to be attacked to this day by others that want to ignore actual results. I have absolutely no use for George Soros, Media Matters, or any other leftwing source just like I have learned to trust but verify any "rightwing" source. Suggest you do the same thing.
 
Then I guess you really can't see the logical problem with your challenge.


:roll: That's just sad. Spell out, in detail, my attempt at "deception."
On numerous occasions you have misinterpreted my words (purposefully, it seems) and you have tried to portray me as being something I am not. You have ignored what I said about Soros (negative) and selectively accused me of hero worshipping the man. You try one liners and other lame attempts at deflection and dismissal.

I have been respectful and honest in this thread. I have asked honest questions and been attacked for being dishonest. I have repeatedly asked you and others(?) to defend attacks on MM. None has so far.
 
I really like what Sosros did with startimg MM, but he is NO hero of mine. YOu must read what I post and not what you think I am postying. I already said I do not liek what he and others who speculate in markets do, but he is NOT alone. His consevative friends are just as creepy.

Stay in the now, champ. I said a hero of the left, not a hero of "yours." Unless you yourself encompass the entirety of the left, must you mischaracterize what I say?


But to attack what a guy funds just because I do not like him would demand I explain a lot more. You just seem to hate what MM does, so you keep mentioning MM as if anything Soros does is a reflection on teh sourced content on MM.

Where did I bring up MM other than direct response to something YOU said about them? Link to it. Should not be difficult if I "keep" doing it.

You're having a great deal of difficulty with accuracy here.

And the fact that Soros is a convicted felon is simply that -- a fact. It isn't an "attack." It's a fact. You may find it an inconvenient fact. You may go to pains to try to dismiss that fact. But it's still a fact.
 
Last edited:
On numerous occasions you have misinterpreted my words (purposefully, it seems) and you have tried to portray me as being something I am not. You have ignored what I said about Soros (negative) and selectively accused me of hero worshipping the man. You try one liners and other lame attempts at deflection and dismissal.

I haven't ignored anything you've said. I've said it's irrelevant, because it is. He's a convicted felon. Your qualification of it is stupid.

And as I said above, I never said you "hero-worshipped" the man. Not once. If you're going to accuse me of deception, keep boogers out of your own nose.

And besides, this was in relation to the MM stuff. That's what you were referring to. Now you're trying to say it's about something else, presumably because you know you can't point to any other "deception."

I have been respectful and honest in this thread. I have asked honest questions and been attacked for being dishonest. I have repeatedly asked you and others(?) to defend attacks on MM. None has so far.

If you genuinely think you've been "honest," particularly in your lame challenge that someone point out errors in one single MM story that you cherrypicked, and in your lame defense that Soros isn't a convicted felon because he wasn't convicted in the United States, then that explains much.
 
Please try to be honest and read the prevoius posts? I do not stick up for the left. I do not like the left -- or the right. I think fringe partisans ruin the debate.

Funny; just a few posts back, when I said he was a "hero of the left," you took it as my saying he was a personal hero of yours. So you're going to have to figure out where you're coming from here.

In any case, I never said you "stick up for the left." No idea where you're getting these strawmen, but it is, as I must point out yet again, quite ironic when you're accusing me of "dishonesty."
 
Here you go:

1) http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...n-donors-planning-ahead-3.html#post1059058739



It was sarcasm directed at your inexplicable misreading of what I said.



That's not really a response to what I said. I said that he has been convicted of a crime that the US considers to be a felony, which makes it understandable that someone would refer to him in passing as a convicted felon.

B) If it makes you feel better, substitute "convicted of insider trading" for "convicted felon" when you come across it.



DD) And yet you attack the conviction, saying that it was a bull**** political prosecution. I'm waiting for your explanation of why.



You don't say.

1) I see what happened. I apologize.

If the US recognizes Soros to be a convicted felon, then since his appeals he will be subject to the same restrictions and penalties that all convicted felons are. I would appreciate a link to this as a fact because it is an interesting concept.

B) I do not feel better or worse. I like to deal with facts, and truths, when forming arguments like this one. Fact is, Soros was convicted for insider trading in France. To use a Beck anaology, Saying Soros is a convict because France says he is is like saying Jews were convicts in Nazi germanys. Jews were convicted foe being Jews. They were convicts.

DD)
There you go again. I explicitly said "Wrongly convicted? A wrong conviction is not a judgement I can make." That is not an attack on the coviction.

Maybe I can help you. I did attack the charge "I will say Soros was singled out by the socialits French you are supporting." and considering prosecutorial judgements and all, it is a factual statement. I was usuing a factual statement as part of a larger statement to throw your much admired friend 'sarcasm' back at you.

and last but not least:


4) You are assuming now? Why? I will say Soros was singled out by the socialits French you are supporting. Wrongly convicted? A wrong conviction is not a judgement I can make. I'm a liberal, not a conservative, so I would never stray so far for political purposes or gain. Think Scooter Libby. (there's that heroic name of the right again)

I and you can both read what the arguments in Soros' case(s) were. The court of public opinion is outside a court of law. The politics of personal destruction is all some people have.
 
I am not going to get into an argument with you over Media Matters and its credibility. I can post article after article that is a half truth or a distortion. I don't put much faith in any right wing or leftwing source as I prefer actual data from non partisan sites like bea.gov, bls.gov, U.S. Census data, and the U.S. Treasury. Nothing else really matters.

GW Bush was attacked daily by Media Matters and continues to be attacked to this day by others that want to ignore actual results. I have absolutely no use for George Soros, Media Matters, or any other leftwing source just like I have learned to trust but verify any "rightwing" source. Suggest you do the same thing.

But the argument is over the credibility of mediamatters, as that is exactly what people were attacking.

I said upfront I think there are stories on MM that seem too spun for me to use. But what media matters offers that sites like it do not, is a source to track back to.

I like nonpartisan sites too, but have seen factcheck dot org attacked.

So Bush was attacked by MM. How much of the attacks were ever exposed as lies or distortions? I'd say very few.

Your suggestion will pass unchallenged because I believe you have not read all my posts here. I have repeatedly said I like MM but always check what they say. Thing is what they say is easily verifiable because they give links to things. When a wingnut gets something posted on there it is easily identifiable as lunatic fringe.

You don' like Soros because he funded a group that attacked Bush? :lamo

I dislike about him has to do with his financial dealings -- how he makes some of his money. I am at least consistent in why and what I do not like about people.

But Soros does not run MM. he funded it.
 
1) I see what happened. I apologize.

If the US recognizes Soros to be a convicted felon, then since his appeals he will be subject to the same restrictions and penalties that all convicted felons are. I would appreciate a link to this as a fact because it is an interesting concept.

?

Not sure what you're talking about or why you think that's a response to what I said.

You said that Soros' conviction in France didn't mean anything here because they have different laws, thus implying that his actions would have been legal here. In order for that to be true, you need to show how French and US securities laws differ and why his actions would warrant a conviction there but not here. If his actions would have warranted a conviction here, then it would be pretty foolish to argue that he's not a criminal simply because the French court was the one that did the deed.

B) I do not feel better or worse. I like to deal with facts, and truths, when forming arguments like this one. Fact is, Soros was convicted for insider trading in France. To use a Beck anaology, Saying Soros is a convict because France says he is is like saying Jews were convicts in Nazi germanys. Jews were convicted foe being Jews. They were convicts.

lol

Yes, 1980's French securities prosecutions are just like 1930's Nazi persecution of jews. We'll get that Godwin yet!



DD)
There you go again. I explicitly said "Wrongly convicted? A wrong conviction is not a judgement I can make." That is not an attack on the coviction.

Maybe I can help you. I did attack the charge "I will say Soros was singled out by the socialits French you are supporting." and considering prosecutorial judgements and all, it is a factual statement.

I'm asking you for a link to prove that this is a factual statement. You're arguing that the conviction is meaningless because he was "singled out by socialists" and raised an issue as to the fairness of the trial. I'm still waiting for evidence to support this claim.
 
But the argument is over the credibility of mediamatters, as that is exactly what people were attacking.

I said upfront I think there are stories on MM that seem too spun for me to use. But what media matters offers that sites like it do not, is a source to track back to.

I like nonpartisan sites too, but have seen factcheck dot org attacked.

So Bush was attacked by MM. How much of the attacks were ever exposed as lies or distortions? I'd say very few.

Your suggestion will pass unchallenged because I believe you have not read all my posts here. I have repeatedly said I like MM but always check what they say. Thing is what they say is easily verifiable because they give links to things. When a wingnut gets something posted on there it is easily identifiable as lunatic fringe.

You don' like Soros because he funded a group that attacked Bush? :lamo

I dislike about him has to do with his financial dealings -- how he makes some of his money. I am at least consistent in why and what I do not like about people.

But Soros does not run MM. he funded it.

I don't have any use for Media Matters as I stated. GW Bush was much maligned by Media Matters with distortions, half truths, and downright lies as the actual facts prove, facts like the documented support for the war in Iraq from Democrats, the Iraq Liberation Act signed by Clinton, the UN Resolution 1441 authorized by the UN, the 9/11 Non Partisan Report, the British Intelligence's Lord Butler Report, and I could go on. MM plays to the ignorance of the Democrat base and others who want to believe their BS. Name for me an issue that MM posted on Bush that you believe is the truth and I will offer a contrary point of view and the source. The point is MM wants the issue and never issues a retraction when wrong.

Think Soros isn't expecting a return on his investment?
 
Stay in the now, champ. I said a hero of the left, not a hero of "yours." Unless you yourself encompass the entirety of the left, must you mischaracterize what I say?

Where did I bring up MM other than direct response to something YOU said about them? Link to it. Should not be difficult if I "keep" doing it.

You're having a great deal of difficulty with accuracy here.

And the fact that Soros is a convicted felon is simply that -- a fact. It isn't an "attack." It's a fact. You may find it an inconvenient fact. You may go to pains to try to dismiss that fact. But it's still a fact.

Why you can't (to borrow a right wing phrase of late) man up and admit you were accusing me of having Soros as a hero is between you and your what, manhood? Help me out here. What do right wingers mean when they ask people to man up?

I am never confused with being on the left, except by people on the far right.

It's about the linking of Soros and MediaMatters. Attack Soros and therefore MediaMatters is suspect.

Soros was convicted in France of insider trading.
 
I am not going to get into an argument with you over Media Matters and its credibility. I can post article after article that is a half truth or a distortion. I don't put much faith in any right wing or leftwing source as I prefer actual data from non partisan sites like bea.gov, bls.gov, U.S. Census data, and the U.S. Treasury. Nothing else really matters.

GW Bush was attacked daily by Media Matters and continues to be attacked to this day by others that want to ignore actual results. I have absolutely no use for George Soros, Media Matters, or any other leftwing source just like I have learned to trust but verify any "rightwing" source. Suggest you do the same thing.

Who the hell cares what you have a use for. You don't like them - fine. That doesn't make them wrong.
 
The sad part about right wing attacks and the politics of personal destruction is how easily they can be exposed for how pathetically false and misrepresenting they are.

1) Vachon said Soros will appeal the case at the Court de Cassation, the equivalent of the Supreme Court.

2) Soros has two options for appeal.

3) In France, a suspect is presumed innocent until the final appeal is completed.

---

Since Soros is still presumed innocent in France, it is pathetic and misleading for an American to even suggest he is guilty. No one named how America would ever consider Soros a convict, let alone a convicted felon.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aecKa2w1cIpg&refer=home
 
1) I see what happened. I apologize.

If the US recognizes Soros to be a convicted felon, then since his appeals he will be subject to the same restrictions and penalties that all convicted felons are. I would appreciate a link to this as a fact because it is an interesting concept.

B) I do not feel better or worse. I like to deal with facts, and truths, when forming arguments like this one. Fact is, Soros was convicted for insider trading in France. To use a Beck anaology, Saying Soros is a convict because France says he is is like saying Jews were convicts in Nazi germanys. Jews were convicted foe being Jews. They were convicts.

DD)
There you go again. I explicitly said "Wrongly convicted? A wrong conviction is not a judgement I can make." That is not an attack on the coviction.

Maybe I can help you. I did attack the charge "I will say Soros was singled out by the socialits French you are supporting." and considering prosecutorial judgements and all, it is a factual statement. I was usuing a factual statement as part of a larger statement to throw your much admired friend 'sarcasm' back at you.

and last but not least:


4) You are assuming now? Why? I will say Soros was singled out by the socialits French you are supporting. Wrongly convicted? A wrong conviction is not a judgement I can make. I'm a liberal, not a conservative, so I would never stray so far for political purposes or gain. Think Scooter Libby. (there's that heroic name of the right again)

I and you can both read what the arguments in Soros' case(s) were. The court of public opinion is outside a court of law. The politics of personal destruction is all some people have.

This is not my argument but the fact is George Soros is a convicted Felon which nobody can deny, unless you're and illiterate fool.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/14/business/worldbusiness/14iht-soros.1974397.html?_r=1

What's more his appeals were denied. That is the fact.
 
I don't have any use for Media Matters as I stated. GW Bush was much maligned by Media Matters with distortions, half truths, and downright lies as the actual facts prove, facts like the documented support for the war in Iraq from Democrats, the Iraq Liberation Act signed by Clinton, the UN Resolution 1441 authorized by the UN, the 9/11 Non Partisan Report, the British Intelligence's Lord Butler Report, and I could go on. MM plays to the ignorance of the Democrat base and others who want to believe their BS. Name for me an issue that MM posted on Bush that you believe is the truth and I will offer a contrary point of view and the source. The point is MM wants the issue and never issues a retraction when wrong.

Think Soros isn't expecting a return on his investment?
I have better idea, why don't you find a Media Matters story that takes President Bush to task?
 
Well, at least you recognize it as "paranoia" on some level, anyway.

Besides, that CoC "foreign money" bull**** was debunked weeks ago. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/09/us/politics/09donate.html?_r=2&ref=eric_lichtblau

Sorry; I just can't get worked up at the thought that GASP! a political party is raising money and GASP! it's looking not only at the current election, but the NEXT election, and beyond.

But then, I'm not paranoid.


Do you think that I pulled those figures out of my a**?Get up to date, your link is two weeks old. :roll:
 
The sad part about right wing attacks and the politics of personal destruction is how easily they can be exposed for how pathetically false and misrepresenting they are.

1) Vachon said Soros will appeal the case at the Court de Cassation, the equivalent of the Supreme Court.

2) Soros has two options for appeal.

3) In France, a suspect is presumed innocent until the final appeal is completed.

---

Since Soros is still presumed innocent in France, it is pathetic and misleading for an American to even suggest he is guilty. No one named how America would ever consider Soros a convict, let alone a convicted felon.

Soros Found Guilty of Insider Trading by French Appeals Court - Bloomberg

Oh boy.

Your article is from 2005, saying that Soros might still appeal to the Cour de Cassation.

This article, from 2006, which I already provided for you, shows that he DID appeal to the Cour de Cassation. He lost.
 
Not true. It irks you to no end.


Thing is, if you had a real case here, you'd have something other than "even an idiot can see it' to back it up.
Get back to us when you do.


Because, well, you know, Conservative justices have no right to express their opinions in private.


Yes. GOP money comes from evil, DNC money comes from kittens and sunshine.
We get it. Was there anything else or were you somply going continue with your partisan hack routine?

What irks me is the faux patriots, such as yourself waving the flag, saying they support the constitution, while the country is being bought and sold on the auction block to the highest bidder.
 
What irks me is the faux patriots, such as yourself waving the flag, saying they support the constitution, while the country is being bought and sold on the auction block to the highest bidder.

I approve of this message.
 
Do you think that I pulled those figures out of my a**?Get up to date, your link is two weeks old. :roll:

Yeah, and it's just as relevant now as it was then. What you posted in no way contradicts it. (Not that you even provided any sourcing for it.)
 
What facts, you post an article as was pointed out and then generalize based upon that article that MM has credibility? Not going there with you but suggest you do better research on George Soros and Media Matters before making a total fool of yourself.

Why are you attacking media matters? Why not attack the source that they get their data from if it is wrong? They provide plenty of documentations when they debunk winger lies.
 
Why are you attacking media matters? Why not attack the source that they get their data from if it is wrong? They provide plenty of documentations when they debunk winger lies.

I don't have any use for Media Matters and over the years have pointed out where they have been wrong offering a leftwing distorted position interesting enough only against Conservatives. I will stick to actual results that I can verify not second or third hand information that only reports part of the story.
 
What irks me is the faux patriots, such as yourself waving the flag, saying they support the constitution, while the country is being bought and sold on the auction block to the highest bidder.

Fair point, if it weren't for all these corporations flooding the airwaves with propaganda, maybe people would be less likely to make sweeping and simplistic statements about things that are too complex for soundbytes.
 
I don't have any use for Media Matters and over the years have pointed out where they have been wrong offering a leftwing distorted position interesting enough only against Conservatives. I will stick to actual results that I can verify not second or third hand information that only reports part of the story.

Like I said, they provide plenty of documentation when they debunk something. When I Quote from them I usually check the footnotes first.
 
Why are you attacking media matters? Why not attack the source that they get their data from if it is wrong? They provide plenty of documentations when they debunk winger lies.

The data doesn't have to be wrong for their spin on it to be.
 
Back
Top Bottom