• 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!

Poll: 70 percent of Americans believe news media is intentionally biased[W:239]

 
 
Grant said:
I'll go one better and not even bother with them. Im discussing this with you, not Jon Stewart or Media Matters.
Click to expand...

Okay, allow me to summarize for you.

Fox news falsely reported that Susan Rice manipulated details of the attack on the US embassy in Benghazi for the political gain of President Obama.

When a report surfaced debunking this theory, fox news simply reported that a house republican wanted to investigate further.

In spite of fox news persistently reporting false allegations surrounding Benghazi, the investigation concluded no evidence of wrongdoing on any presidential appointees, and yet fox news doesn't report the conclusions of the investigation, only that a politician wants to investigate further.

"Debunking a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies, the investigation of the politically charged incident determined that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria."
 
Absentglare said:
Okay, allow me to summarize for you. Fox news falsely reported that Susan Rice manipulated details of the attack on the US embassy in Benghazi for the political gain of President Obama.
Click to expand...
Why do you suppose she did it and who on Fox news made the claim?

When a report surfaced debunking this theory, fox news simply reported that a house republican wanted to investigate further.
Click to expand...
The 'theory' has not been completely explained. Who was the reporter?

In spite of fox news persistently reporting false allegations surrounding Benghazi, the investigation concluded no evidence of wrongdoing on any presidential appointees, and yet fox news doesn't report the conclusions of the investigation, only that a politician wants to investigate further.
Click to expand...
In fact these investigations are ongoing and subpoenaed files were either not submitted or deleted. There was absolutely no cooperation.

"Debunking a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies, the investigation of the politically charged incident determined that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria."
Click to expand...
Who said that?
 
Grant said:
Why do you suppose she did it and who on Fox news made the claim?

The 'theory' has not been completely explained. Who was the reporter?

In fact these investigations are ongoing and subpoenaed files were either not submitted or deleted. There was absolutely no cooperation.

Who said that?
Click to expand...

Stephen Hayes

Susan Rice’s Talking Points - Fox Nation

There was absolutely full cooperation. Although, for you to spread misinformation like this just makes your bizarre spoon-feed-me-so-i-can-try-to-poke-holes-in-it-but-instead-i-simply-demonstrate-my-own-misinformation that much more amusing.

The quote was from the article i linked. RTFA if you're actually willing to question your sources.
 
I'm not surprised by the percentage as all the hate expressed from Republicans is at non white people. What I do notice is when the Democrats have their speech they don't slander Race or Religion, they rather pin point the one's who cause they issues of yesterday and Today. We can talk about the white boy who shot up the Church as an example, and no I don't give a care about the flag, maybe because I'm white who knows, Don't quote me on this, but I'm sure the kid is from a Baptist or Catholic Background. So does that mean all Baptist or Catholic are evil. Of course it does according to Fox news it does. Only when it is someone else is it ok to blame their Race and Religion. I have no idea why someone would think someone who is hot headed is someone to listen to. They say people don't think straight when they are mad. Words of the wise. The man Rupert Murdoch is known for owning most if not all by now "News Channels, and News Papers", Who is A far right winger. Why would he have all these news companies without putting his own political views in the matter, because he does, and so you wont hear anything different unless you take the time to read up on the people publishing these things. If all you do is watch someone talk about hate or we don't want to talk about that, then you that's all you will hear and know. It's ironic that now people get the real news from comedy channels, and show these days.

When you see the people watching their news channels you see something amazing and eye opening. Lets compare Fox "News" to Jon Stewart. You watch the ones watching Fox become angry and unpleasant to be around that that time for the most part, not that they are angry people, but when you watch Jon Stewart everyone is laughing and having a good time for the most part. This is without all the catastrophic events that happen. Back to the words of the wise one's does not think straight when angry.

Back when Bush was in office they were ok with religion and news being together, and that included the Pope, but now it's a big no no because someone became a trained chemist. Now we should remove church from the news? Side note, how does one learn if they don't listen to the people who went to school, studied and learned? You learn by listening the the teacher not the class clown, or the rich kid who thinks he knows everything when he is in the same class as you.

At the end of my comments all I will say is this. If you believe in GoD and/or Jesus, Why would you cast the first stone? Why would you not be all giving to those less fortunate than you? A human Life is worth all the money in the world, because there is no getting it back. Now look at what all this trigger pulling has got us and tell me you are happy with the world you live in.
 
Absentglare said:
Stephen Hayes

Susan Rice’s Talking Points - Fox Nation

There was absolutely full cooperation. Although, for you to spread misinformation like this just makes your bizarre spoon-feed-me-so-i-can-try-to-poke-holes-in-it-but-instead-i-simply-demonstrate-my-own-misinformation that much more amusing.

The quote was from the article i linked. RTFA if you're actually willing to question your sources.
Click to expand...
OK, so your beef is with Stephan Hayes. Where do you think he went wrong?
 
Grant said:
OK, so your beef is with Stephan Hayes. Where do you think he went wrong?
Click to expand...

You don't seem to be appreciating that this a systemic issue where information is very selectively reported to deliberately mislead people.

Read the article, he's reporting on a bunch of unsubstantiated claims that were subsequently proven false. Do you see any retractions ? I don't.
 
Absentglare said:
You don't seem to be appreciating that this a systemic issue where information is very selectively reported to deliberately mislead people.

Read the article, he's reporting on a bunch of unsubstantiated claims that were subsequently proven false. Do you see any retractions ? I don't.
Click to expand...
I read the article. Please point out where he went wrong.
 
Grant said:
I read the article. Please point out where he went wrong.
Click to expand...

Here:

Absentglare said:
Okay, allow me to summarize for you.

Fox news falsely reported that Susan Rice manipulated details of the attack on the US embassy in Benghazi for the political gain of President Obama.

When a report surfaced debunking this theory, fox news simply reported that a house republican wanted to investigate further.

In spite of fox news persistently reporting false allegations surrounding Benghazi, the investigation concluded no evidence of wrongdoing on any presidential appointees, and yet fox news doesn't report the conclusions of the investigation, only that a politician wants to investigate further.

"Debunking a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies, the investigation of the politically charged incident determined that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria."
Click to expand...
 
Grant said:
Are you claiming that Susan Rice told the truth?
Click to expand...

Speculating that the white house manipulated her talking points for political purposes was unethical to report with zero evidence.

Investigations completely absolved the white house of any such actions, and no retraction was printed.
 
Absentglare said:
Speculating that the white house manipulated her talking points for political purposes was unethical to report with zero evidence. Investigations completely absolved the white house of any such actions, and no retraction was printed.
Click to expand...
Susan Rice told the same lie as Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton yet you feel there is no connection?

Anyone who lied publicly should be fired but instead Rice became Ambassador to the UN. You find nothing wrong with that?

Who were these "investigators' btw?
 
Grant said:
Susan Rice told the same lie as Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton yet you feel there is no connection?

Anyone who lied publicly should be fired but instead Rice became Ambassador to the UN. You find nothing wrong with that?

Who were these "investigators' btw?
Click to expand...

Back up your claim.

Look at the links i've cited.
 
Absentglare said:
Back up your claim.

Look at the links i've cited.
Click to expand...
Back up the claim that Susan Rice, BHO and Hillary Clinton lied about Libya? That's already been well documented. Are you still believing it was caused by a video?
 
Grant said:
Back up the claim that Susan Rice, BHO and Hillary Clinton lied about Libya? That's already been well documented. Are you still believing it was caused by a video?
Click to expand...

What ? It's not documented. You made me spoon-feed you sources, now put up or give up.

I already told you, the details were not manipulated for political purposes. You just look back on it with 20/20 hindsight and say, "they could have been more specific," when, in reality, the immediate intelligence was not conclusive, and they had little ability to speculate on whether the attack was politically motivated (which is required for an act to be an act of terrorism).

Why do people get all bent out of shape when the President doesn't immediately go on TV and call an act of violence "terrorism?"

It's racist to presume that any act of violence committed by someone from the middle east always qualifies as "terrorism."
 
Absentglare said:
What ? It's not documented. You made me spoon-feed you sources, now put up or give up.

I already told you, the details were not manipulated for political purposes. You just look back on it with 20/20 hindsight and say, "they could have been more specific," when, in reality, the immediate intelligence was not conclusive, and they had little ability to speculate on whether the attack was politically motivated (which is required for an act to be an act of terrorism).

Why do people get all bent out of shape when the President doesn't immediately go on TV and call an act of violence "terrorism?"

It's racist to presume that any act of violence committed by someone from the middle east always qualifies as "terrorism."
Click to expand...

I dunno if it's racist, but it's definitely shortsighted. "Terrorism" has a pretty clear-cut definition, and far too many people try to blur it into "it's terrorism if a Muslim does something bad, but not necessarily if a non-Muslim does the same thing."

On another forum way back when, I referred to Scott Roeder (the man who killed "abortion doctor" George Tiller) as a terrorist -- which he clearly was. He used an act of violence as a means to force societal change, in this case through intimidation. I was screamed at by every right-winger there about how wrong I was, for a multitude of bad reasons. His body count wasn't high enough (even though the shoe and underwear bombers were terrorists who failed to kill anybody); what Tiller did was "barbaric" (doesn't matter, it's still legal); and a host of other vapid rationalizations.
 
Absentglare said:
What ? It's not documented. You made me spoon-feed you sources, now put up or give up.

I already told you, the details were not manipulated for political purposes. You just look back on it with 20/20 hindsight and say, "they could have been more specific," when, in reality, the immediate intelligence was not conclusive, and they had little ability to speculate on whether the attack was politically motivated (which is required for an act to be an act of terrorism).

Why do people get all bent out of shape when the President doesn't immediately go on TV and call an act of violence "terrorism?"

It's racist to presume that any act of violence committed by someone from the middle east always qualifies as "terrorism."
Click to expand...
This doesn't relate to anything I said.
 
Grant said:
This doesn't relate to anything I said.
Click to expand...

Cite your source-

Grant said:
Back up the claim that Susan Rice, BHO and Hillary Clinton lied about Libya? That's already been well documented. Are you still believing it was caused by a video?
Click to expand...

I'd say that pretty directly relates to something you said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom