Time to LIST the Fox lies - Be Specific

[Squawker]

You continue to say Franken is lying, yet you provide no examples of this lying. Well, other then a web site that was nothing short of stunningly ridiculous and complete inaccurate. Again, do you have any actual examples of Franken lying?

I know a brick wall when I see one. The web site had over 24 examples of Franken lies with links and quotes to back it up, yet you refuse to believe any of them. What would be the point to give you 24 more? I have no wish to spend any of my time on the likes of Al Franken.

First you're wrong about Fox. They've been hammering away at this WMD BS for months now and they know it's false. Reporting something you know to be false is lying. Continually reporting that lie is propaganda.

You must be hearing something different than I am, although I admit to being somewhat distracted on the computer with the news on in the background. I am one that thinks the WMD’s were moved out of the country before the inspectors went back in, but who really knows one way or the other? Just because the left thinks they are not in Iraq doesn’t mean they were never in Iraq.

 

[shuamort]

Squawker, I'm still waiting for you to defend your position on the BGH case since you're saying that Fox doesn't lie.
Might obliged.

 

[Squawker]

Squawker, I'm still waiting for you to defend your position on the BGH case since you're saying that Fox doesn't lie.
Might obliged.

Sorry Shuamort, I lose track of all these posts. I didn’t see anything to defend, as I don’t recall the story and the sound bite didn’t work. This is what the ruling said and I didn’t see anything that vilified Fox.

Fox appealed and prevailed February 14, 2003 when an appeals court issued a ruling reversing the jury, accepting a defense argument that had been rejected by three other judges on at least six separate occasions. CLICK HERE for more details on latest ruling. CLICK HERE to view how Fox13 reported the ruling.
New World Communications of Tampa, Inc., d/b/a WTVT-TV, a subsidiary
of Fox Television, challenges a judgment entered against it for violating Florida's private
sector whistle-blower's statute, section 448.102, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1998). We
reverse.
In December 1996, WTVT hired the appellee, Jane Akre, and her
husband, Steve Wilson, as a husband-and-wife investigative reporting team. Shortly
after Akre and Wilson arrived at WTVT, they began working on a story about the use of
synthetic bovine growth hormone (“BGH”) in Florida dairy cattle. Their work on this
story led to what could be characterized as an eight-month tug-of-war between the
reporters and WTVT’s management and lawyers over the content of the story. Each
time the station asked Wilson and Akre to provide supporting documentation for
statements in the story or to make changes in the content of the story, the reporters
accused the station of attempting to distort the story to favor the manufacturer of BGH.
In September 1997, WTVT notified Akre and Wilson that it was exercising
its option to terminate their employment contracts without cause.

 

[Jaymo]

. :spin: I am one that thinks the WMD’s were moved out of the country before the inspectors went back in, but who really knows one way or the other? Just because the left thinks they are not in Iraq doesn’t mean they were never in Iraq.

:spin:
:rofl Of course weapons of mass distruction were in Iraq! We gave them to them when they were at war with Iran. We supplied the very weapons that Saddam used against the Kurds in the North. Don't you remember Rummy shaking hands with Saddam to seal the deal? It was the inspection program during the Clinton Presidency that destroyed most all of the weapons of mass D.:duel

 

[Pacridge]

I know a brick wall when I see one. The web site had over 24 examples of Franken lies with links and quotes to back it up, yet you refuse to believe any of them. What would be the point to give you 24 more? I have no wish to spend any of my time on the likes of Al Franken.
You must be hearing something different than I am, although I admit to being somewhat distracted on the computer with the news on in the background. I am one that thinks the WMD’s were moved out of the country before the inspectors went back in, but who really knows one way or the other? Just because the left thinks they are not in Iraq doesn’t mean they were never in Iraq.

I asked for examples of Franken lying. You provided a web site link and they provided quotes and sources to back up those quotes. This is where your/their allegations hit a brick wall. As I detailed in my response, those quotes and the backing up of those quote's are crap. They don’t fact check out, not even slightly. That site, as with every site I've been able to find, does exactly to Franken what you're accusing him of doing to other's. They take quotes and or facts then twist them and lie in an attempt to prove he's lying. The site you provided listed 20 some points where they claim Franken is lying. However when you fact check them you find out they're full of crap. Just like the Levittown example I detailed for you. And the mis-quote they did on his reporting of what the Washington Post piece contained and the statements that O'Reilly’s mother made in that publication .

Which by the way it turns out is the same tactic used regarding the Brit Hume example you gave earlier. You, or at least you quoted a cite that states: "As anyone with even an elementary knowledge of English knows, there is a monumental difference between "replace" and "include." Hume never said "replace," as Franken claims" and they provide a link to a video of Hume’s statement to prove it. Sure enough you go to that link and there's Hume stating just as the cite claims. What the cite doesn't tell you is Franken never said Hume said "Replace." I know because I paid the 4.95 fee for a copy of the audio of that days Air America broadcast from the AM station in Portland, Or. I listen to what Franken said- Franken never claims Hume said replace. Franken claimed Hume took FDR's state and rearranged the sentences. Which Hume most certainly did do.

This is the exact same tactic used in the cite you sourced. They provide a quote attribute it to Franken then reference another source and claim "see Franken lying about what he said they said, you can go see for yourself." And sure enough when you go look/read the source they provide- sure enough what their claiming Franken quoted someone as stating is not there. Only thing is if you check Franken never said that in the first place. I know the cite you sourced had me convinced Franken indeed did lie. Until a blogger pointed out that that's not what Franken said in his book. So back to the library I go and sure enough that not what Franken says in his book. You find yourself chasing blind red herrings down rabbit holes.
The diffence is when you fact check Franken you find he's able to back is allegations up. These sites, and yes the one you listed as well, are not able to back up their allegations.

BTW- the US government, including the White House, also believe the WMD's weren't in Iraq, not just people on the left.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/