• 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!

Fox news never said that. (1 Viewer)

Correction:

The proposed law that came out of the House but failed in the Senate was HR 3962. As I understand it, that proposal did include jail time for those who didn't acquire health insurance. However, what was finally signed into law was HR 3590 which, as I mentioned in my last post (#92), the law does NOT include jail time.
Click to expand...
 
Objective Voice said:
Just an FYI on the tax penalty and criminal prosecution issue in the PPAC, don't confuse "non-prosecution" or no added penalty for failure to pay the tax with non-garnishment of wages. Believe me, if the IRS wants their money they'll get it!
Click to expand...
Jail time might be a better option than having the IRS on your ass.;)
Also, there's alot of disucssion concerning exactly when FoxNews commentators made the claim of jail time for those who do not comply with obtaining health insurance per the PPAC. Let me put it this way...

The proposed law that came out of the House but failed in the Senate was HR 3692. As I understand it, that proposal did include jail time for those who didn't acquire health insurance. However, was was finally signed into law was HR 3590 which and, as I mentioned in my last post to this thread, the law does NOT include jail time. Therefore, if anyone at FoxNews made the claim that American citizens who did not acquire health insurance would face jail time on or after March 23, 2010, the date the bill was signed, then they are, in fact, lying through their teeth. Fair enough?
Click to expand...
I contend that those on FOX did so when the law did include jail time. They were telling the truth. Fair enough?

Now, go out and find videos or transcripts from FoxNews or Conservative talking heads that defend your position. My take: There's enough evidence out their to show FoxNews got it wrong, but I'll let the aforementioned/suggested evidence convict or acquite
Click to expand...
.
Click to expand...

Bill O'Reilly got it wrong. He is part of Fox News, so technically you are right.
 
haymarket: "Lots of people here badly need to get a ticket for thread hijacking. This thread is NOT about penalties for not getting health insurance. Again, it is NOT about penalties for health inusrance. It is about the claims of Bill O'Rielly that "nobody on FOX News ever said you were going to jail if you didn't buy health insurance"."

apdst: "Show us proof, in the form of the dates on which those comments were made. Thanks in advance."

nonpareil: "Like Coburn, I was pretty sure I'd heard exactly this assertion numerous times on Fox News, so I did a quick search of their transcripts. Here's what I found (emphasis mine):"

Whovian: "As for the November 2009 dates, those dates were all PRIOR to the legislation being put to a vote, when multiple versions of the text were still prevalent online. The possibility of jail time was still there when these comments were made, but was removed precisely BECAUSE these people and others in the media , as well as the public, objected."

Sheik Yerbuti: "So? What does that have to do with O'Reilly's claim no one ever said on Fox that jail was a possibility for those who wouldn't have health insurance?"

Whovian: "Please show me where I defended BO in this. I dare you."
Click to expand...
WTF did that come from? Read my post again, I didn't say you defended it, I asked you what the possibility of jail time in the bill has to do with O'Reilly [falsely] claiming that nobody on Fox ever said it?

Which you still haven't answered.
 
Objective Voice said:
Correction:

The proposed law that came out of the House but failed in the Senate was HR 3962. As I understand it, that proposal did include jail time for those who didn't acquire health insurance. However, what was finally signed into law was HR 3590 which, as I mentioned in my last post (#92), the law does NOT include jail time.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Thanks, I was wondering what H.R.3692 - National Forest Roadless Area Conservation Act, had to do with this. :wink:
 
I'm going to the read the link in a minute, but for the record.......I can't stand Bill O'Reilly. The man is poorly spoken, has a very weak grasp of the issues and the news in general, and has a completely unwarranted inflated opinion of himself. Nobody, other than Keith Olbermann, loves himself more than O'Reilly on the cable news channels. Where his viewership comes from is beyond me. His show is boring and obnoxious.

Same thing for Sean Hannity and his muppet voice. Just can't stand him at all. (I do like Rush Limbaugh, who's far more intellectual and reasoned in his opinions)

I'm as conservative as they come, but give me the likes of Hume, Krauthammer, Cavuto, Baer, Van Susteran, George Will, and others. I like Fox News, just not their two so-called "stars".
 
Erod said:
I'm going to the read the link in a minute, but for the record.......I can't stand Bill O'Reilly. The man is poorly spoken, has a very weak grasp of the issues and the news in general, and has a completely unwarranted inflated opinion of himself. Nobody, other than Keith Olbermann, loves himself more than O'Reilly on the cable news channels. Where his viewership comes from is beyond me. His show is boring and obnoxious.

Same thing for Sean Hannity and his muppet voice. Just can't stand him at all. (I do like Rush Limbaugh, who's far more intellectual and reasoned in his opinions)

I'm as conservative as they come, but give me the likes of Hume, Krauthammer, Cavuto, Baer, Van Susteran, George Will, and others. I like Fox News, just not their two so-called "stars".
Click to expand...

Points to window, where Erod's credibility just flew out.
 
Whovian said:
Points to window, where Erod's credibility just flew out.
Click to expand...

Rush Limbaugh has single-handedly led to the weakening and virtual implosion of the once all-powerful liberal mainstream media.

From a pissant little AM radio station in the 80s and 90s, he took down ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN. They are peons in the newsworld today.

And his opinions are reasoned and researched. And no, I don't always agree with him, but I understand his arguments...unlike Olbermann or O'Reilly, who just make crap up.
 
Erod said:
Rush Limbaugh has single-handedly led to the weakening and virtual implosion of the once all-powerful liberal mainstream media.

From a pissant little AM radio station in the 80s and 90s, he took down ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN. They are peons in the newsworld today.

And his opinions are reasoned and researched. And no, I don't always agree with him, but I understand his arguments...unlike Olbermann or O'Reilly, who just make crap up.
Click to expand...
now that made as much sense as this
stupidgraph.jpg
 
Erod said:
Rush Limbaugh has single-handedly led to the weakening and virtual implosion of the once all-powerful liberal mainstream media.

From a pissant little AM radio station in the 80s and 90s, he took down ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN. They are peons in the newsworld today.

And his opinions are reasoned and researched. And no, I don't always agree with him, but I understand his arguments...unlike Olbermann or O'Reilly, who just make crap up.
Click to expand...

:shock:

/facepalm
 
Whovian said:
so...I'm not 'technically a liar... but I am. Got it.

:rolleyes:

I purposely did not discuss the 'is bo right or wrong' question in this thread, and concentrated on a sub-topic. That makes me, by default, a liar?

You're not very good at this.
Click to expand...

No I'm not good at dishonesty, quite unlike you.

You purposely spinned and diverted from the fact that O'Reilly was lying.
 
Last edited:
Barbbtx said:
I tried to prove the video fake in another post. I couldn't. Bill was wrong because at least one (Cavuto) said it before Bill said no one did. The date of the townhall that Coburn attended and took a pot shot at FOX was March 31, 2010. Bill interviewed him after that.
On the scroll at the bottom of the Cavuto video, the DC sniper was due to be or was executed that day. I looked it up and he was executed on Nov. 10, 2009.
Sorry, but the video looks legit to me.
Bill was wrong, everyone else on fox who said jail time was possible were right, Tom Colburn was an uninformed jerk. Either he didn't know jail time was in there (that makes him an idiot) or he just wanted to bash Fox for some unknown reason.
Click to expand...

All Colburn did was say that the "intention" of the bill was not to put anyone in jail. O'Reilly took an exception to that and played the victim card for Fox. O'Reilly took the fight to Colburn, not the other way around. Colburn merely said the truth that he heard people on Fox talked about jail time. The final healthcare bill has a clause that says no jail time. So he wasn't an uninformed jark.
 
nonpareil said:
All Colburn did was say that the "intention" of the bill was not to put anyone in jail. O'Reilly took an exception to that and played the victim card for Fox. O'Reilly took the fight to Colburn, not the other way around. Colburn merely said the truth that he heard people on Fox talked about jail time. The final healthcare bill has a clause that says no jail time. So he wasn't an uninformed jark.
Click to expand...

Uninformed = not informed by Fox.
 
Barbbtx said:
What the hell was that? Did anything ever come of it? Was it just a joke? Was it real? What was your point in posting it?
Click to expand...

" Bill O'Reilly settled a sexual harassment lawsuit by his former producer last night, ending what he called a "brutal ordeal" without an apology.

The Fox News talk show host also agreed to drop his extortion suit against Andrea Mackris and her attorney, Benedict Morelli, according to a statement by O'Reilly's lawyer. The deal likely involves payment of millions of dollars to Mackris, since the two sides were discussing an offer of well over $2 million when negotiations broke down, say sources close to O'Reilly. Both parties agreed to keep the details confidential, according to the statement."

Bill O'Reilly, Producer Settle Harassment Suit (washingtonpost.com)



It happened. Who knows what all the real facts are. But what seems to be undisputed is that there was a phone conversation between the two. And she (Mackris) ended up with a boatload of money as a result of it. ;)


.
 
Barbbtx said:
What the hell was that? Did anything ever come of it? Was it just a joke? Was it real? What was your point in posting it?
Click to expand...

I have no idea if it is anything, but it was quite funny.
 
Cole said:
" Bill O'Reilly settled a sexual harassment lawsuit by his former producer last night, ending what he called a "brutal ordeal" without an apology.

The Fox News talk show host also agreed to drop his extortion suit against Andrea Mackris and her attorney, Benedict Morelli, according to a statement by O'Reilly's lawyer. The deal likely involves payment of millions of dollars to Mackris, since the two sides were discussing an offer of well over $2 million when negotiations broke down, say sources close to O'Reilly. Both parties agreed to keep the details confidential, according to the statement."

Bill O'Reilly, Producer Settle Harassment Suit (washingtonpost.com)



It happened. Who knows what all the real facts are. But what seems to be undisputed is that there was a phone conversation between the two. And she (Mackris) ended up with a boatload of money as a result of it. ;)


.
Click to expand...

Thanks. What an idiot. Although I don't know how it could be called sexual harassment when it was phone sex. Most people know how to hang-up a phone. However it shines a light on why I get creeped out by O'Reilly at times. He seems to take a little too much pleasure in showing barely clothed young women in some of his "this is bad and disgusting" segments. This tells me it may not just be my imagination.
 
Barbbtx said:
Thanks. What an idiot. Although I don't know how it could be called sexual harassment when it was phone sex. Most people know how to hang-up a phone. However it shines a light on why I get creeped out by O'Reilly at times. He seems to take a little too much pleasure in showing barely clothed young women in some of his "this is bad and disgusting" segments. This tells me it may not just be my imagination.
Click to expand...
I guess O'Rielly's 2004 case was supposed to have some relevency to this. Somehow. Was Fox also supposed to have lied about luffas or someting like that?
 
Zaserac said:
I guess O'Rielly's 2004 case was supposed to have some relevency to this. Somehow. Was Fox also supposed to have lied about luffas or someting like that?
Click to expand...

If you are expecting every post to have relevence to the topic, you're going to be very disappointed.:lamo

I am a huge FOX fan and I never heard about O'Reilly's trouble in 2004. Hence, I strayed when someone posted about it.:2wave:
 
Barbbtx said:
If you are expecting every post to have relevence to the topic, you're going to be very disappointed.:lamo
Click to expand...
Yeah particularly in any of the daily Media Matters sourced Fox/Beck/Hannity/O'Rielly derangment threads. That those same topics are the most posted on a daily basis by the same small group of repeat posters day after day and from all availabe evidense, for years at a time, that is kinda funny. In a lot of ways it has become Debate Politics calling card. I've never seen a forum with so many of them. Staff must be so proud.

Barbbtx said:
I am a huge FOX fan and I never heard about O'Reilly's trouble in 2004. Hence, I strayed when someone posted about it.:2wave:
Click to expand...
It was well reported though, the audio tapes of the phone conversations were released to the public too. Which is where the whole luffa comment came from. Mr. Clinton could learn a thing or two from O'rielly on how to handle these situations too. One of them managed to get the whole thing hush hushed and a agreement from the plaintiff to never again speak about the matter in his out of court settlement. The other ended up getting into legal trouble and having to give up his license to practice law and pay some hefty fines. Though he could afford it.
 
vauge said:
What does it take to wake people up?

[video]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/video/video_2324.html?1271360625[/video]
Click to expand...

I would say this is suprising but its Same Old Fox spreading anger and fear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom