- Joined
- Jul 15, 2005
- Messages
- 28,134
- Reaction score
- 15,024
- Location
- Canada's Capital
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Are you trying to equate the two situations?
Absolutely.
Are you trying to equate the two situations?
Look Pete, you keep missing what the point of the video was in the first place. It wasn't to expose a murderer, or to uncover some secret killing, it was to expose yet another nut job within the ACORN organization that was acting in a very inappropriate and unprofessional manner.
Regardless of the facts behind the claims she made, her making them was totally inappropriate behavior period. There is absolutely no justification for what she said in that video... None. Her job was to offer assistance and advice to the people of the community they served, and you just don't say things like that to the public, especially when you are representing a government sponsored public service organization.
Like I've said a hundred times, this was never billed as "confession of a murderer", it was billed as "look at the story this nut told".
What I'll never understand, is how you or anyone else would believe that the people watching this story, could have possibly walked away thinking that a murderer worked for ACORN, when it was stated quite clearly that they didn't know if it was true, and never once did anyone at Fox who showed the video say such a thing. Just because some lady said it, doesn't make it true, and even if a person were to watch the video without anyones commentary, I can't imagine they would walk away believing the woman was some murderer who had escaped justice... It just goes to show the powerful effects that politics can have on some people.
Grim, your are sadly misguided, ACORN was not an organization filled with "nut jobs". James O'Keefe made them look that way in previous videos by editing them. He didn't go there to expose anything, he went there to embarrass them by presenting them with false scenarios. She recognized they were playing with her, so she offered her own false scenario.
You stated that Beck said he didn't know if her story was true which he did. But certainly gave credence to it. Here is what he said before showing the video:
I think that qualifies as showing the video as fact.
BECK: If you didn't think that there should have been an investigation before, what I'm going to show you tonight will boggle your mind, and, if at the end of the hour, you still don't think there should be a rigorous investigation and you wonder why, if we want to figure out how the president wants to community organize, why he's surrounding himself with members of ACORN, well, then, I don't know what else to do.
For the remainder of the hour, we're going to take this video apart piece by piece, because, this one, not only involves prostitution, illegal aliens, tax corruption, and fraud, but also an admission of a woman killing her husband. Remember, this is now the fourth city.
Keep dancing Pete, and keep pretending that Glenn Beck never said that he had not confirmed whether the story was true...
Dishonest posts are your business Pete, and boy do you take that business seriously.
Assuming things went down as Grim states, it would appear that Beck was reporting this incident as an unconfirmed story - but most of us would, I think, agree that many people take such things as fact, especially if they are in the easily-consumable format of a video.From the Media Matters Link:
After Andrew Breitbart posted a video of an ACORN employee in San Bernardino, California, claiming that she had killed her ex-husband, Fox News' Glenn Beck, Karl Rove, Greta Van Susteren, and Sean Hannity promoted it without fact-checking it or indicating that they had contacted ACORN for a response to the claim. In fact, ACORN stated that the employee made up the story because she recognized that the actors in the video "were clearly playing with" her so she "matched their false scenario with her own false scenarios," and, indeed, the San Bernardino Police Department has said her claim is false.
The mere fact they showed the video is proof that they all reported it as fact. Are they not the "We report you decide" Network? They reported the phony story as fact and there is no way out. Isn't strange that Media Matters knew thew truth about the woman's story and the mighty Fox News channel did not know?
Assuming things went down as Grim states, it would appear that Beck was reporting this incident as an unconfirmed story - but most of us would, I think, agree that many people take such things as fact, especially if they are in the easily-consumable format of a video.
Sorry I was in a hurry earlier... Breakfast, shower...etc
I don't know if I can prove to Beck meant to misled his audience, however it seems to me he would have spent a considerable amount of time explaining his reservations about the woman's story before showing the video. As it was, three minutes and 18 seconds in the video below before he said anything and even then it only consumed about 10 seconds at that. You could have sneezed and missed it. And if this was a legitimate story, why didn't Fox's news readers cover it? Watch the video and use your common sense.
Updated with more current polling results:
Conservatives Remain the Largest Ideological Group in U.S.
Looks to me that liberals and liberalism aren't as popular or as large a population as some would want to think.
So why isnt Romney president?
Romney was pretty socially conservative wasnt he?
You can not prove intent but you can surely evolve an understanding of his technique (or style) that would bring his intent into question
So what do you think the intent was behind him saying that he contacted the state and was waiting for confirmation, and the intent behind him saying that he didn't know if any of the claims the woman made were true?
I believe the intent there was pretty clear, and it sure does cast a ton of doubt on that hypothesis of yours.
Ohhhhh G ..... bait much??
He never specifically said he contacted or is waiting for confirmation from California, he said: "we haven't been even able to confirm from the state of California whether Tresa's husband from 10 years ago was killed, or if he's dead, or if she even had a husband. Did she make the story up? I don't know. Nobody's asking questions." Of course, if he never contacted them, he would never from them.So what do you think the intent was behind him saying that he contacted the state and was waiting for confirmation, and the intent behind him saying that he didn't know if any of the claims the woman made were true?
I believe the intent there was pretty clear, and it sure does cast a ton of doubt on that hypothesis of yours.
So chances are, even if the state of California was contacted, that Beck was implying that they were not investigating something about which no evidence existed beyond the statement of this person in a video, and which they could not possibly have been aware of if the woman just made it up anyway...He never specifically said he contacted or is waiting for confirmation from California, he said: "we haven't been even able to confirm from the state of California whether Tresa's husband from 10 years ago was killed, or if he's dead, or if she even had a husband. Did she make the story up? I don't know. Nobody's asking questions." Of course, if he never contacted them, he would never from them.
He never specifically said he contacted or is waiting for confirmation from California, he said: "we haven't been even able to confirm from the state of California whether Tresa's husband from 10 years ago was killed, or if he's dead, or if she even had a husband. Did she make the story up? I don't know. Nobody's asking questions." Of course, if he never contacted them, he would never from them.
Even if he or his staff did actually contact the state of California, the statement implied that they (California) were not investigating something they should have been - a something that apparently turned out to be absolutely nothing, and unless I missed something, was made up on the spot.Good Lord... I've never in my life seen anyone go to such lengths to convice himself that the bs he's spewing is really a bucket of rose peddles.
Even if he or his staff did actually contact the state of California, the statement implied that they (California) were not investigating something they should have been - a something that apparently turned out to be absolutely nothing
and unless I missed something, was made up on the spot.
Look into the mirror Grim, it was you that misquoted the quote.Good Lord... I've never in my life seen anyone go to such lengths to convice himself that the bs he's spewing is really a bucket of rose peddles.
Look into the mirror Grim, it was you that misquoted the quote.
Look Pete, he said what he said... That blows your entire theory period.
If he was trying to deceive his audience, he wouldn't have made those statements.
You have it backwoods, that's exactly what he would if he was trying to deceive his audience.*
Seeing as I didn't watch whatever clip this is to begin with....I can't watch it again! :2razz:That is incorrect... Watch the clip again... That comment was directed to the main stream media.
Maybe nothing. I saw somewhere that the woman in question made up her story - and beck reported on it?What was made up on the spot?
You have it backwoods, that's exactly what he would if he was trying to deceive his audience.*
Those statements only consumed 10 seconds of his time.
Do you not see how absolutely rediculous that statement is?
Saying he tried to convince them it was and established fact, by telling them it wasn't an extablished as fact, must be some kind of partisan mind control thing... What else could explain such anti-logic?
Well Grim, I've got some really bad news for you. It looks like Beck was fibbing to his audience about contacting California and not hearing back from officials in California. I found this story in the Internet Archive that was published the very day Beck played the video on his show.
https://web.archive.org/web/2009092...ies/PE_News_Local_S_webtape16v2.406d524.html?