• 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!

Breaking: CNN Reports Darren Wilson Did Not Suffer a Fractured Eye Socket

So what? The cop who shot and killed Brown knew nothing about this at the time of the shooting so it won't be a factor at any trial that is held.

You don't know that. In fact, from the officer's side of the story, he did indeed know these two were suspects.
 
I doubt that will be seen as a valid reason to shoot him 6-times and kill him.

If it's found he fought for the officer's gun and then charged him later, it sure is.
 
I doubt that will be seen as a valid reason to shoot him 6-times and kill him.

Why the preoccupation with how many times Brown was shot? If the suspect whom just attacked the officer in his car, was running away, and turned to then not only taunt the officer, but charge him again Wilson had no choice but to shoot, and stop the threat coming at him. Now, when firing a service pistol, usually a 9mm, or .40 cal semi auto, the succession of fire rapidly in that sort of situation pulls the weapon up, and to the right. So, the the shots moving up his arm wouldn't stop Brown charging, the 4th shot to the shoulder takes him off balance, and he starts to fall forward, the next shot goes through his eye down out of his jaw, and into his collarbone area, and the last shot into the apex of Brown's head. All of this would have happened in less than 5 seconds. So, all of this crap about how many times Wilson discharged his weapon, would have been enough to halt the threat. Period.
 
Not that this is about Bundy, if only to show the hypocrisy in those in here applying a false narrative in this case. There is no evidence that Bundy knew, or ordered anyone to pose as sniper at law enforcement on that bridge, or that the person that the media was drooling over as a pawn in their furtherance of their narrative at the time was even there as a sniper, or pointing at Federal LE.

But it is striking though, how people that want us all to so believe that this case in MO. is so based in racist hate, that a cop just executes 'an angel of a young black boy who wouldn't hurt a flea' ... When in reality he was an 18 year old, drug abusing, thug that thought that he was big enough to even attack a cop and get away with it...I've seen Brown's type before, going through life bullying people to get what he wants, defying authority, on a path to end up in jail or dead. Now for his mother's sake I am saddened for her that it was the latter, however, in Brown's case, he picked the wrong target to attempt to intimidate....And now the left, and media have their story to further the disgusting false narrative of racial tensions in this country. It is truly sad, just as the hypocritical douche bags that further the divide, and exploit it. ;)

Just pointing out the hypocrisy out there.
 
Always.

And it should always be pointed out. No?

Pointed out? Sure go ahead...I am big enough to admit that my own hypocrisy on the subject is evident, and that it is my own human flaw. But so many in here will only take that and use it only against me, rather than a moment where we could come together, and admit a pretty known reality...Let's see how it plays out...Your move.
 
CNN has ethics and gravitas.

Hoft is the stupidest man on the internet.

Oh, well they have ****ing GRAVITAS!!! There's that magic leftwing word that makes all the difference in the world.
 
Hey, does anyone else remember last year when CNN was the butt of jokes from everyone from Jon Stewart to the AP for ****ing up the reporting from the Boston bombing?

Blazing headline on channel and on the internet:
Arrest made in Boston bombing! (according to "sources")

Anderson Cooper reports this on air - woohoo all is good, we got the guy!
WAIT! Hold on, now sources say no arrest was made
Wait, they have a suspect but no name yet
Okay, hold on, no suspect, no name
Wait, now the Administration and other Federal official say no arrest, no

This was even better than when they ****ed up in 2012 on the SCOTUS ruling on the individual mandate:

Mandate ruled unconstitutional! Obamacare in big trouble!
Wait...hold on
Hold a minute, it looks like our sources are wrong....

Yeah, CNN never gets it wrong.;)
 
I doubt that will be seen as a valid reason to shoot him 6-times and kill him.

:shock:

You still think that we are arguing Wilson shot brown over the strong arm robbery? Good grief. Wow. Over 100+ pages of debate across different threads, and we still cannot get past this. :lamo
 
So what? The cop who shot and killed Brown knew nothing about this at the time of the shooting so it won't be a factor at any trial that is held.

Knew nothing about what? The robbery Brown was videoed involved in?

How do you know that? He has a radio in his car, he may have been notified after the initial confrontation. I have read similar but there's been no verification of course.
 
Hey, does anyone else remember last year when CNN was the butt of jokes from everyone from Jon Stewart to the AP for ****ing up the reporting from the Boston bombing?

Blazing headline on channel and on the internet:
Arrest made in Boston bombing! (according to "sources")

Anderson Cooper reports this on air - woohoo all is good, we got the guy!
WAIT! Hold on, now sources say no arrest was made
Wait, they have a suspect but no name yet
Okay, hold on, no suspect, no name
Wait, now the Administration and other Federal official say no arrest, no

This was even better than when they ****ed up in 2012 on the SCOTUS ruling on the individual mandate:

Mandate ruled unconstitutional! Obamacare in big trouble!
Wait...hold on
Hold a minute, it looks like our sources are wrong....

Yeah, CNN never gets it wrong.;)

All news outlets can get it wrong from time to time, its the risk of trying to be the first one out. At least CNN isn't filled with opinion!

The Project on Excellence in Journalism report in 2006 showed that 68 percent of Fox cable stories contained personal opinions, as compared to MSNBC at 27 percent and CNN at 4 percent. The "content analysis" portion of their 2005 report also concluded that "Fox was measurably more one-sided than the other networks, and Fox journalists were more opinionated on the air."[43]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies
 
Read the news and believe whatever you want to believe.

It will all be settled at any trials that are held.
 
All news outlets can get it wrong from time to time, its the risk of trying to be the first one out. At least CNN isn't filled with opinion!

The Project on Excellence in Journalism report in 2006 showed that 68 percent of Fox cable stories contained personal opinions, as compared to MSNBC at 27 percent and CNN at 4 percent. The "content analysis" portion of their 2005 report also concluded that "Fox was measurably more one-sided than the other networks, and Fox journalists were more opinionated on the air."[43]

Fox News Channel controversies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Lol !!

Yes, I'm sure they're a non-partisan organization given their white washing of MSNBC's hackery

Aren't you the guy that called HuffPo mainstream ?
 
All news outlets can get it wrong from time to time, its the risk of trying to be the first one out. At least CNN isn't filled with opinion!

The Project on Excellence in Journalism report in 2006 showed that 68 percent of Fox cable stories contained personal opinions, as compared to MSNBC at 27 percent and CNN at 4 percent. The "content analysis" portion of their 2005 report also concluded that "Fox was measurably more one-sided than the other networks, and Fox journalists were more opinionated on the air."[43]

Fox News Channel controversies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hate to tell you, but guess who ultimately owns both places the fellow who started The Project on Excellence in Journalism worked for years - Ted Turner.
 
Hate to tell you, but guess who ultimately owns both places the fellow who started The Project on Excellence in Journalism worked for years - Ted Turner.

Oh, there's plenty more.

Fox News' year in apologies: Fake videos, false info, cutting and pasting from GOP
Research November 19, 2009 5:54 PM EST ››› ERIC HANANOKI

On November 19, co-host Jane Skinner apologized for Happening Now "mistakenly" airing a fake video of Sarah Palin's book tour "crowds." This was not the first time Fox News has apologized for airing fake videos and false information.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2009/11/19/fox-news-year-in-apologies-fake-videos-false-in/157273
 
Oh, there's plenty more.

Fox News' year in apologies: Fake videos, false info, cutting and pasting from GOP
Research November 19, 2009 5:54 PM EST ››› ERIC HANANOKI

On November 19, co-host Jane Skinner apologized for Happening Now "mistakenly" airing a fake video of Sarah Palin's book tour "crowds." This was not the first time Fox News has apologized for airing fake videos and false information.

What do either or those have to do with CNN? We weren't talking about Fox here. My point, which you glossed right over with the FoxNews distraction is again:

Ted Turner, the founder and owner of CNN owns both places the fellow who started The Project on Excellence in Journalism worked for years.
 
All news outlets can get it wrong from time to time, its the risk of trying to be the first one out. At least CNN isn't filled with opinion!

The Project on Excellence in Journalism report in 2006 showed that 68 percent of Fox cable stories contained personal opinions, as compared to MSNBC at 27 percent and CNN at 4 percent. The "content analysis" portion of their 2005 report also concluded that "Fox was measurably more one-sided than the other networks, and Fox journalists were more opinionated on the air."[43]

Fox News Channel controversies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2006? Good grief, that was 8 years ago.

Yes, a lot of Fox on air correspondents have opinions. And lots express their opinions. And? Has nothing to do with CNN being the be all, end all of accuracy, as implied in the OP.
 
Oh, there's plenty more.

Fox News' year in apologies: Fake videos, false info, cutting and pasting from GOP
Research November 19, 2009 5:54 PM EST ››› ERIC HANANOKI

On November 19, co-host Jane Skinner apologized for Happening Now "mistakenly" airing a fake video of Sarah Palin's book tour "crowds." This was not the first time Fox News has apologized for airing fake videos and false information.

Fox News' year in apologies: Fake videos, false info, cutting and pasting from GOP | Research | Media Matters for America

Well goodness, that's really relevant to the discussion. Or not.
 
2006? Good grief, that was 8 years ago.

Yes, a lot of Fox on air correspondents have opinions. And lots express their opinions. And? Has nothing to do with CNN being the be all, end all of accuracy, as implied in the OP.

And listeners go to fox to reinforce their ideologies, not for objective news.


The Fox News audience skews more ideological than that of its two main competitors. Fully, 60% of Fox News viewers describe themselves as conservative, compared with 23% who say they are moderate and 10% who are liberal, according to a 2012 survey by the Pew Research Center. By contrast, the ideological makeup of CNN viewers (32% conservative, 30% moderate, 30% liberal) and MSNBC viewers (32% conservative, 23% moderate, 36% liberal) is far more mixed.

5 facts about Fox News | Pew Research Center
 
Back
Top Bottom