CNN Exec quits after accusing US troops of targeting Journalists

[quote name='Scrubking']

Excellent! One less radical liberal asshole in the media making up shit against the US and giving aid to our enemies. \:D/[/quote]

Could not have agreed with you any more!
 
Yeah, CNN sucks. They're so in bed with the conservative right that it isn't even funny. You might as well be watching Fox News.
 
I stopped watching CNN at all after finding out they were in bed with Saddam Hussein of all people. At this point maybe they're worth a few laughs. Moving on to trying to say something nice, I will say that Candy Crowley is a very nice person (I've met her) and I wish she would go to a respectable network.
 
When is Brit Hume, bill O'Reilly or anyone at Fox News going to resign for their constant mis-statment of facts?

It seems that accountability for your own actions is a foreign concept to the right.
 
[quote name='usickenme']When is Brit Hume, bill O'Reilly or anyone at Fox News going to resign for their constant mis-statment of facts?

It seems that accountability for your own actions is a foreign concept to the right.[/quote]

Evidence?

I love how you idiots claim that a different viewpoint is a lie or a "mistatement". Not to mention that getting facts mixed up and accusing people of things with no evidence, something liberals love to do, are two different things.

And the fact that you mention fox news makes you not even worth listening to since all radicals like you claim that fox news is TeH eVIL11!!! even though they have had practically zero scandals or problems.
 
[quote name='Scrubking'][quote name='usickenme']When is Brit Hume, bill O'Reilly or anyone at Fox News going to resign for their constant mis-statment of facts?

It seems that accountability for your own actions is a foreign concept to the right.[/quote]

Evidence?

I love how you idiots claim that a different viewpoint is a lie or a "mistatement". Not to mention that getting facts mixed up and accusing people of things with no evidence, something liberals love to do, are two different things.

And the fact that you mention fox news makes you not even worth listening to since all radicals like you claim that fox news is TeH eVIL11!!! even though they have had practically zero scandals or problems.[/quote]

At the Republican National Convention: We report, you decide! News that's fair and balanced! Total and utter hogwash! On Wednesday afternoon, Fox News employees were overheard chanting "Four more years! Four more years!" from their Convention workspace. Later a Fox News spokesman tried to pretend that the chanting was merely "a humorous toast to a retiring techie" - although while the toast allegedly happened on Tuesday night, the spokesman was "not aware" of the Wednesday chanting. Heck, why pretend? The Fox News anchors were practically chanting "four more years" all damn week.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/gossip/story/228453p-196193c.html
 
There have been books writen on the mistruths that some people on Fox News has said.

But your agruement is that eeveryone not like you is an idiot, what a strong case you have.

"I'm not guilty." -Scrubking
"Why's that?" -Judge
"Because you are an idiot and are just lieing and spreading "mistatements"." -Scrubking
"You admited it!" -Judge
"There you go again with your lies!!!" -Scrubking
 
[quote name='usickenme']When is Brit Hume, bill O'Reilly or anyone at Fox News going to resign for their constant mis-statment of facts?[/quote]
Its somewhat hard to accuse Fox News of lying because, if you listen carefully, you'll discover they NEVER state anything as a fact. Virtually every sentence is proceeded by "reports indicate" or "word on the street it" or "I've heard people say". They then follow that with outrageous mis-statements of truth, knowing that they can't get into trouble for it because they never actually claimed it was true:

"Word on the street is that John Kerry is a great big pussy. Reports indicate that he gave Bin Laden a blowjob a mere three days before the September 11th attack. Meanwhile, general consensus points to Bush being the greatest man in human history. Although its too early to say for sure, it looks as though his private investment plan for Social Security is absolutely brilliant and certain to have nothing but good effects"

The Daily Show's assessment of the CBS scandal was quite accurate: their biggest mistake was in making the report a statement of fact. The age of facts is over: we're now living in the age of suppositions carefully phrased to give the impression that they're facts, but with just enough disclaimers to withstand a slander lawsuit.
 
[quote name='Drocket'][quote name='usickenme']When is Brit Hume, bill O'Reilly or anyone at Fox News going to resign for their constant mis-statment of facts?[/quote]
Its somewhat hard to accuse Fox News of lying because, if you listen carefully, you'll discover they NEVER state anything as a fact. Virtually every sentence is proceeded by "reports indicate" or "word on the street it" or "I've heard people say". They then follow that with outrageous mis-statements of truth, knowing that they can't get into trouble for it because they never actually claimed it was true:
.[/quote]

well I was specifically referring to this...

The Fox News folks, of course, specifically Brit Hume, squeezed the whole FDR thing. ‘Media Matters For America’ has done much of the legwork on breaking this down, and both on his radio show and at his website, Al Franken has done much of the publicizing. Hume, and others like those bastions of public conduct John Fund and Bill Bennett, have taken a bunch of 70-year old quotes out of context to make it look like Franklin Delano Roosevelt is endorsing President Bush’s plan to partially privatize Social Security.

Here’s the full relevant segment from Roosevelt’s message to Congress on Social Security and other similar programs from 1935: “In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, non-contributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps thirty years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans.”

The syntax is a little ancient but the message is pretty straightforward. For 1935, people who would only take money out of Social Security and not put any in, should have their contributions covered half by the federal government and half by the states. Later on, those contributions should be replaced by the “self-supporting annuity plans” — which Roosevelt has already defined (“Second…”) as the actual Social Security system. Buried in the formality of his third point, FDR is talking about things we would later know as IRA’s and Keoghs and 401k’s.

But look at how Hume mixed and matched the original Roosevelt quotes on February 4th (and we’re quoting this verbatim from Fox’s website) “…it turns out that FDR himself planned to include private investment accounts in the Social Security program when he proposed it. In a written statement to Congress in 1935, Roosevelt said that any Social Security plans should include, ‘Voluntary contributory annuities, by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age,’ adding that government funding, ‘ought to ultimately be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans.’”

Roosevelt said no such thing. The “voluntary contributory annuities” are the IRA’s and Keoghs and 401k’s. What “ought to ultimately be supplanted” was the special government contributions to Social Security on behalf of people born in the 1870’s and earlier, and the “self-supporting annuity plans” constitute Social Security itself.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6844293/#050214a
 
So far all I see is a bunch of radical liberals crying and bitching about Fox leaning conservative - which neither they, nor I deny.

I'm still waiting for evidence that they are outright liars, but I know I won't get any.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']So far all I see is a bunch of radical liberals crying and bitching about Fox leaning conservative - which neither they, nor I deny.

I'm still waiting for evidence that they are outright liars, but I know I won't get any.[/quote]

I think the point was that like any great lawyer, these pundits will twist the truth hard but not so hard that they can't retract their disingenuous opinions if they get called on it.

To put it in terms you can understand, Bill O'Reilly's current on-air persona is the conservative counterpart to Bill Clinton's persona after Monica-gate.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']So far all I see is a bunch of radical liberals crying and bitching about Fox leaning conservative - which neither they, nor I deny.[/quote]

"Fair and Balanced"

Yep, that sounds like an admission of bias to me.

I'm still waiting for evidence that they are outright liars, but I know I won't get any.
Click to expand...
Of course you won't. They don't believe in facts, so they never use them.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']So far all I see is a bunch of radical liberals crying and bitching about Fox leaning conservative - which neither they, nor I deny.

I'm still waiting for evidence that they are outright liars, but I know I won't get any.[/quote]

They don't lean, they've fallen. They've completely blurred the line between reporting and editorializing.

You just copped to their most frequent lie - if they admit to leaning right, they cannot possibly be "Fair and Balanced."
 
lol..

you should stop waiting SK...they can't back up their arguement. This is the norm for the Dems and Liberals...rarely can they actually make a true statement that can be backed up by facts. I think maybe they were taught at an early age to believe in magic and fairy tales and that if you believe enough then it can happen...Peter Pan syndrome.
 
[quote name='defender']lol..

you should stop waiting SK...they can't back up their arguement. This is the norm for the Dems and Liberals...rarely can they actually make a true statement that can be backed up by facts. I think maybe they were taught at an early age to believe in magic and fairy tales and that if you believe enough then it can happen...Peter Pan syndrome.[/quote]

Yeah, liberals are the only ones who believe in magic. Jesus walks on water and makes a few bread loaves feed 1000s of people, the xian god creates the world in 7 days, battles with Egyptian gods and then later denies their existence, and liberals are the only ones who believe in magic.
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='defender']lol..

you should stop waiting SK...they can't back up their arguement. This is the norm for the Dems and Liberals...rarely can they actually make a true statement that can be backed up by facts. I think maybe they were taught at an early age to believe in magic and fairy tales and that if you believe enough then it can happen...Peter Pan syndrome.[/quote]

Yeah, liberals are the only ones who believe in magic. Jesus walks on water and makes a few bread loaves feed 1000s of people, the xian god creates the world in 7 days, battles with Egyptian gods and then later denies their existence, and liberals are the only ones who believe in magic.[/quote]

Don't forget the "disappearing WMD's" trick. That one's my favorite.
 
[quote name='defender']lol..

you should stop waiting SK...they can't back up their arguement. This is the norm for the Dems and Liberals...rarely can they actually make a true statement that can be backed up by facts. I think maybe they were taught at an early age to believe in magic and fairy tales and that if you believe enough then it can happen...Peter Pan syndrome.[/quote]

I hear you. All they've managed to do in this thread is bitch about how Fox is conservative so they must be TEh EviL11!!!

Your're right I'm not gonna wait anymore since they can't do anything but talk shit - which is exactly what I expected.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']Still waiting...[/quote]

How about this:

FOX peddles false report that California school "banned Declaration of Independence because it mentions God"

Over the last two weeks, FOX News Channel has repeatedly -- and falsely -- reported that an elementary school in Cupertino, California, banned the Declaration of Independence because it mentioned God.

Between November 24 and December 7, the Cupertino case has been falsely reported on seven occasions on FOX News primetime programs, numerous times during FOX News daytime programming, as well as on FOX Broadcasting Network's FOX News Sunday. Hannity & Colmes planned a December 8 live broadcast from Cupertino; a promo for that show asserted that the Constitution and Declaration of Independence had been "banned" by a California school that is "erasing God." The November 29 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country falsely reported the story; CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNBC have not covered the story.

In fact, Stevens Creek Elementary School in Cupertino did not ban the Declaration of Independence. As the Cupertino Union School District stated in a November 30 news release, the Declaration is featured in the school's textbooks and is displayed in some school buildings. A December 8 editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle noted, "The Declaration of Independence is not banned from Stevens Creek Elementary School, or any classroom in Cupertino. Copies of the Declaration -- including the passages about the inalienable rights of all men 'endowed by their Creator' and the founders' 'reliance on the protection of divine providence' -- hang in classrooms. It appears in textbooks distributed throughout the district."

Even the lawsuit, which was brought forth on behalf of teacher Stephen Williams by the right-wing Alliance Defense Fund challenging the school's decision to prohibit the handouts, acknowledged that the school has not imposed an outright prohibition on the mention of God or the discussion of religious beliefs in the classroom. The lawsuit recognized that "other teachers are permitted to show films and distribute handouts containing references to God," and that Williams had been permitted to teach "lessons on the origins of religious holidays" during that school year and had provided handouts relating to religion in the past "without any problems." Despite that acknowledgement, an Alliance Defense Fund press release about the lawsuit was headlined "Declaration of Independence Banned from Classroom."

The notion that the school banned that document originated in an erroneous November 24 Reuters article headlined "Declaration of Independence Banned at Calif. School." But the school prohibited only supplemental handouts distributed by Williams to his students that selectively chose excerpts from the Declaration of Independence making reference to God -- along with other handouts that appeared to proselytize Christianity. A December 8 article in the San Francisco Chronicle noted that parents had complained to the school about Williams, stating that his teaching "crossed the line into evangelizing." In response, Stevens Creek Principal Patricia Vidmar began reviewing Wiiliams's lesson plans and supplemental handouts in advance.

The excerpts of the Declaration of Independence that Williams used as a supplemental handout (Exhibit C in the lawsuit ) all made reference to God. Among the other supplemental handouts, all of which related to the importance of Christian faith in U.S. history, was a proclamation by President George Bush for the National Day of Prayer (Exhibit A), coupled with a description of the event copied from the National Day of Prayer website: "The National Day of Prayer has great significance for us as a nation. It enables us to recall the way in which our founding fathers sought the wisdom of God when faced with critical decisions." Another handout entitled "What Great Leaders Have Said About the Bible" (Exhibit E) quoted only former American presidents' praise for the Bible, except for a final quote attributed to Jesus Christ. Williams also passed out several excerpts from the diary of former President John Adams (Exhibit H), one entry of which states: "The Christian religion is above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity."

Nonetheless, conservative media figures -- primarily on FOX News -- repeatedly distorted the Cupertino story. Williams was interviewed on the November 29 edition of FOX News' Hannity & Colmes along with Alliance Defense Fund attorney Jordan Lorence, but no guest appeared to defend the school. During that program, co-hosts Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes, as well as Williams and Lorence, falsely asserted that the school had banned the Declaration of Independence, without noting that only the handout including the excerpts chosen by Williams had been prohibited. Colmes revised his account of the story in subsequent editions of Hannity & Colmes.

Below is a summary of the pundits and programs presenting the false claim that Stevens Creek elementary school banned the Declaration of Independence because it mentions God:

Host Brit Hume, FOX News' Special Report with Brit Hume, November 24
Guest host and Big Story host John Gibson, FOX News' The O'Reilly Factor, November 26
Co-hosts Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes, FOX News' Hannity & Colmes, November 29
Guest host and MSNBC political analyst Monica Crowley, MSNBC's Scarborough Country, November 29
Hannity, Hannity & Colmes, December 3
Host Chris Wallace, FOX Broadcasting Company's FOX News Sunday, December 5
Host Bill O'Reilly and guest and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, The O'Reilly Factor, December 6
Hannity, Hannity & Colmes, December 6
Hannity, Hannity & Colmes, December 7

http://mediamatters.org/items/200412090002

Where are the firings at Fox News over this one?
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']Where are the firings at Fox News over this one?[/quote]

Good one EZB. I'm betting SK is going to quit this thread now. :lol:
 
You couldn't find a more wacko liberal site? It's not like they are targeting Fox news or anything. :roll:

The fact is the school prohibited the man from teaching about the declaration without supervision so they did ban the declaration from being freely taught to the kids in his case. Whether he taught the kids from a handout or from a copy of the declaration itself is semantic. The accusation against fox is a big stretch, but wacko liberal sites will use whatever they can get to spread their lies.

I also like the part where they try to portray Fox as showing only one side of the story on Hannity and Colms. The fact is they invited the School to explain their side but they prefered to hide in their shame.
 
The teacher is free to teach about the declaration of independence. Here's what the article stated:

Among the other supplemental handouts, all of which related to the importance of Christian faith in U.S. history, was a proclamation by President George Bush for the National Day of Prayer (Exhibit A), coupled with a description of the event copied from the National Day of Prayer website: "The National Day of Prayer has great significance for us as a nation. It enables us to recall the way in which our founding fathers sought the wisdom of God when faced with critical decisions." Another handout entitled "What Great Leaders Have Said About the Bible" (Exhibit E) quoted only former American presidents' praise for the Bible, except for a final quote attributed to Jesus Christ. Williams also passed out several excerpts from the diary of former President John Adams (Exhibit H), one entry of which states: "The Christian religion is above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity."

Is he teaching -- or preaching -- in a school being paid for by the taxpayers? This teacher was starting to step over the line. But you and Fox News like to spin this into saying that the school banned the Declaration of Indepence.
 
It is amusing how you keep quoting that liberal attack on fox news as fact.

Anyway, saying he can teach only certain parts of the declaration is wrong no matter how you spin it.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']It is amusing how you keep quoting that liberal attack on fox news as fact.

Anyway, saying he can teach only certain parts of the declaration is wrong no matter how you spin it.[/quote]

Like I said, it was the combination of focusing only on the parts that talk about God, handing out Prayer proclamations, learning what people say about the bible, and studying some obscure quote saying Christianity is the best religion. If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, it's a duck.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']It is amusing how you keep quoting that liberal attack on fox news as fact.

Anyway, saying he can teach only certain parts of the declaration is wrong no matter how you spin it.[/quote]

What are you missing? I quote the pamphlet:

The National Day of Prayer has great significance for us as a nation. It enables us to recall the way in which our founding fathers sought the wisdom of god when faced with critical decisions.
Click to expand...

Lecturing a group of elementary schools with a pamphlet such as this is like showing them Oliver Stone's "JFK" or teaching that "Davinci Code" nonsense as fact.

A reasonable adult cannot expect the kids to realize that this pamphlet represents the viewpoint of radical xian fundamentalists who are pushing a revisionist view of American history. If the teacher wants to spread this fanatical claptrap on the internets or his local coffee shop, then this is America and the first amendment will protect his right to express his viewpoint. However don't use my tax dollars to teach lunatic fringe ideas to the most vulnerable of Americans.
 
However don't use my tax dollars to teach lunatic fringe ideas to the most vulnerable of Americans.
Click to expand...

Yeah, cause teaching that the founding fathers where religious is such a "lunatic fringe" idea.

Why the insinuation? Why don't you radical asshole libs just come out and say you want to erase every mention of God from America's history and make worshiping God illegal. Have some balls and just admit to the truth already.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']
However don't use my tax dollars to teach lunatic fringe ideas to the most vulnerable of Americans.
Click to expand...

Yeah, cause teaching that the founding fathers where religious is such a "lunatic fringe" idea.

Why the insinuation? Why don't you radical asshole libs just come out and say you want to erase every mention of God from America's history and make worshiping God illegal. Have some balls and just admit to the truth already.[/quote]

They were deists - they may have believed that there is one god, but it's not the kind of god that's going to be your good buddy and help you out of a tight spot, or the type of god that's going to decide that the North American continent needs to be repopulated by white English and European people. They certainly didn't want a national prayer day.

Grow a brain and start understanding that not everyone believes your exact viewpoints on spirituality.
 
[quote name='camoor']Grow a brain and start understanding that not everyone believes your exact viewpoints on spirituality.[/quote]
He understands that. He simply believes that everyone who disagrees is a Satan-worshipper.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']
However don't use my tax dollars to teach lunatic fringe ideas to the most vulnerable of Americans.
Click to expand...

Yeah, cause teaching that the founding fathers where religious is such a "lunatic fringe" idea.

Why the insinuation? Why don't you radical asshole libs just come out and say you want to erase every mention of God from America's history and make worshiping God illegal. Have some balls and just admit to the truth already.[/quote]

That's funny coming from you. Trying to defend God when you sport an avatar and sig suggesting that it's fun to gun down liberals. Then you calling everyone on this board an "asshole". What ever happened to "love thy neighbor"?
 
Scrubking's mentality would suggest that it's alright to spend a whole day in an Economics class on the religious meaning of "In God We Trust" on a penny.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top