• 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!

Jon Stewart nails Fox News to the wall yet again....

I heard many FOX reports of the JD's report dealing with the Ferguson PD.
I'm utterly serious and Stewart utterly should not be your utter source of news.

Stewart is not a source of news. He is an entertainer, and a darned good one.

and Fox gives him a lot of his material.
 
Quite right, he isn't a source of news ... despite him being thought of as one by some people.
But he is a liar and those same people actually believe what he says.

He's a liar?
 
He's a liar?

Maybe "liar" is a bit strong, but what would you call someone who regularly omits certain facts in order to ridicule someone or something?
 
Maybe "liar" is a bit strong, but what would you call someone who regularly omits certain facts in order to ridicule someone or something?
The best way to prove Stewart wrong would be to show video footage of FoxNews hosts and/or guests discussing the Republican report on Benghazi and the DoJ report on Ferguson. So why don't you?
 
Maybe "liar" is a bit strong, but what would you call someone who regularly omits certain facts in order to ridicule someone or something?

How about the facts he does not omit...do they have any bearing on you? Or are you just looking for the facts he left out of the show?
 
Maybe "liar" is a bit strong, but what would you call someone who regularly omits certain facts in order to ridicule someone or something?

Is it your opinion that no one in the news media (like fox) EVER omits facts for sensationalism?



Because, well, gosh....I think you better revise your position, LOL.
 
The best way to prove Stewart wrong would be to show video footage of FoxNews hosts and/or guests discussing the Republican report on Benghazi and the DoJ report on Ferguson. So why don't you?

The problem with the bit Stewart did, was that it was a dishonest comparison.

First let me say this... The things discussed about Benghazi on various shows on Fox were based on the known facts (and misinformation from the state department and administration) and information obtained from CREDIBLE sources. Based on the Administration peddling that BS "internet video" line of crap for 2 weeks, it justified every single bit of discussion about Benghazi and therefore I have no issue what so ever with the discussions that took place on Fox about it. I wouldn't have an issue with any other outlet having discussions about issues concerning republicans either...

As for the bit Stewart did, which was to make various people at Fox out to be hypocrites, as I said it was a phony comparisan. This one simple questions should make that abundantly clear:

Did the information Fox reported about Benghazi, risk imminent, widespread violence to break out on the streets of American cities, spark racial tensions, endanger the lives of 100's or 1000's of innocent Americans, create wide spread animosity toward police officers across the entire country putting them at risk of being violently attacked, incite riots that would surely result in widespread looting, arson, and the destruction of private property costing millions, if not billions of dollars in damages?

After answering that, tell me again libs, just how "spot on" and "honest" that partisan prick is...
 
That seems fair and balanced....but then Shepard Smith is a liberal....


Is Fox TV Shepard Smith "fair and balanced" or a liberal-left Shepardista? | RedState

Shep Smith's Reading List Revealed: Left, Lefty, Leftist! - Breitbart

Limbaugh refers to Shep Smith’s ‘mascara running’ after Fox host’s Ebola caution



I hate to be picky but.....got any videos of "conservative' Fox News hosts reporting on the Benghazi or Ferguson report?

So you are now ragging on Fox because they have a liberal hosting a news show?

After you answer that, do you think you could respond to post #12?
 
The problem with the bit Stewart did, was that it was a dishonest comparison.

First let me say this... The things discussed about Benghazi on various shows on Fox were based on the known facts (and misinformation from the state department and administration) and information obtained from CREDIBLE sources. Based on the Administration peddling that BS "internet video" line of crap for 2 weeks, it justified every single bit of discussion about Benghazi and therefore I have no issue what so ever with the discussions that took place on Fox about it. I wouldn't have an issue with any other outlet having discussions about issues concerning republicans either...
For over two years Fox News lied and said there were "stand down orders". That's more than just misinformation.....that's brain washing.
 
Last edited:
So you are now ragging on Fox because they have a liberal hosting a news show?
Actually, I thought he was fair and balanced.

After you answer that, do you think you could respond to post #12?
Or better yet, why don't you post a video of Megan Kelly, Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly discussing the Benghazi and/or Ferguson reports? After all, that's what the OP is about.
 
For over two years Fox News lied and said there "stand down orders". That's more than just misinformation.....that's brain washing.

Lied? Do you think they just made that whole thing up, or do you think that maybe there were sources making this claim that were in a position to know?

Here, let me answer that for you:

Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command — who also told the CIA operators twice to "stand down" rather than help the ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.

Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to "stand down," according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to "stand down."

and this:

Fox News Channel reported that American officials in the compound repeatedly asked for military help during the assault but were rebuffed by CIA higher-ups. At a press briefing one day earlier, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, asked why there had not been a quicker, more forceful response to the assault, complained of "Monday-morning quarterbacking." Panetta said he and top military commanders had judged it too dangerous to send troops to the eastern Libyan city without a clearer picture of events on the ground.

Or maybe this:

However, Secretary of Defense Panetta stated during an October 2012 press briefing that General Ham was one of the military commanders who had judged it too dangerous to send troops to Benghazi without a clearer picture of events on the ground:

The "basic principle is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on; without having some real-time information about what's taking place," [Panetta] said during a joint question-and-answer session with Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff General Martin Dempsey.

"As a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, General Ham, General Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation," Panetta said.​

snopes.com: Attack on the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi

So we have a member of a CIA team in Benghazi who made the initial claim, and the public statements made by Obama's Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.

So if you are calling Fox News liars, then you are also calling the Obama Administration liars too, because that was the main source behind the reports.


Now if you would be so kind and answer the question I posed in post #12

Did the information Fox reported about Benghazi, risk imminent, widespread violence to break out on the streets of American cities, spark racial tensions, endanger the lives of 100's or 1000's of innocent Americans, create wide spread animosity toward police officers across the entire country putting them at risk of being violently attacked, incite riots that would surely result in widespread looting, arson, and the destruction of private property costing millions, if not billions of dollars in damages?
 
Actually, I thought he was fair and balanced.

Or better yet, why don't you post a video of Megan Kelly, Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly discussing the Benghazi and/or Ferguson reports? After all, that's what the OP is about.

The op was about Stewart "nailing" Fox News to a wall, and what I said in post 12 shows that Stewart's entire premise is false... I'll make a note that you again failed to address the post... Is it too tough for you to comprehend, or is it that you just don't like what it's telling you?
 
Lied? Do you think they just made that whole thing up, or do you think that maybe there were sources making this claim that were in a position to know?

Here, let me answer that for you:



and this:



Or maybe this:



snopes.com: Attack on the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi

So we have a member of a CIA team in Benghazi who made the initial claim, and the public statements made by Obama's Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.

So if you are calling Fox News liars, then you are also calling the Obama Administration liars too, because that was the main source behind the reports.


Now if you would be so kind and answer the question I posed in post #12

Did the information Fox reported about Benghazi, risk imminent, widespread violence to break out on the streets of American cities, spark racial tensions, endanger the lives of 100's or 1000's of innocent Americans, create wide spread animosity toward police officers across the entire country putting them at risk of being violently attacked, incite riots that would surely result in widespread looting, arson, and the destruction of private property costing millions, if not billions of dollars in damages?

Your link doesn't seem to back up a word you said. Try again. Meanwhile, here's FoxNews host, Sean Hannity still claiming there were 'stand down orders' even after the republican report on Benghazi said that was a lie.....

 
The op was about Stewart "nailing" Fox News to a wall, and what I said in post 12 shows that Stewart's entire premise is false... I'll make a note that you again failed to address the post... Is it too tough for you to comprehend, or is it that you just don't like what it's telling you?

What you fail to comprehend is that just you saying so doesn't make it true.
 
Maybe "liar" is a bit strong, but what would you call someone who regularly omits certain facts in order to ridicule someone or something?

Fox News?
 
Your link doesn't seem to back up a word you said. Try again. Meanwhile, here's FoxNews host, Sean Hannity still claiming there were 'stand down orders' even after the republican report on Benghazi said that was a lie.....



And your answer to the question on post #12?
 
What you fail to comprehend is that just you saying so doesn't make it true.

And your answer to this question?

Did the information Fox reported about Benghazi, risk imminent, widespread violence to break out on the streets of American cities, spark racial tensions, endanger the lives of 100's or 1000's of innocent Americans, create wide spread animosity toward police officers across the entire country putting them at risk of being violently attacked, incite riots that would surely result in widespread looting, arson, and the destruction of private property costing millions, if not billions of dollars in damages?
 
Maybe "liar" is a bit strong, but what would you call someone who regularly omits certain facts in order to ridicule someone or something?
A Fox News commentator?
 
Back
Top Bottom