Update 1/8/11 8:31AM PST: All Four Media Matters Attempts Completely Blown Apart.
Update 1/5/11 16:32 PST: Just returned from work, then hit the gym, did some plinking in the backyard with my AK, played with my twin pit bulls and then prayed. Not to worry, any valid entries will be examined. I will certainly look at Media Matters' three new entries as time permits, probably reviewing in detail over the weekend. Promise.
The contest closes on 2/15, so new entries -- so long as they follow the very simple rules -- are still accepted. The reason there are a couple of basic ground-rules (and I'm open to suggestions as to how to gauge a "lie") is that I'm simply looking for the Fox equivalent of a Rathergate memo; an Al Qaqaa series of hit pieces; or a John McCain lobbyist affair fabrication. Game-changers, in those cases, all designed to turn elections. Real meaty lies, if you will.
Media Matters' big entry is that Elena Kagan didn't ban the military from Harvard Law? Everyone knows she did -- that's why it was such a huge issue at her confirmation hearing! And we have the DOD emails to prove it. That's the best lie they can come up with?
But I'm still hoping someone will come up with a real lie by Fox News Channel reporters. Just one! That's all I ask!
Update 1/4/11 17:31 PST: Media Matters pwnt. Hard.
Below, I've posted the actual emails from DOD recruiters that were entered into the Congressional record.
• Were military recruiters allowed to interview students on campus? No.
• Were military recruiters given any mechanism for interacting with candidate students on campus? No.
• Were military recruiters given permission to visit the campus in any recruiting capacity? No, they were refused permission.
• Were military recruiters even allowed to send in job openings for posting on a freaking law school bulletin board? No.
• Did the military believe their access to students was cut off? Yes.
• Did Kagan herself believe she had effectively cut off access to her students because of DADT? Yes.
• Was Kagan openly "hostile" to the idea of the military recruiting on campus? Yes.
• Did the military spend months trying to figure out how to get access to recruits? Yes.
• Did the military finally have to escalate, getting the USG to threaten to cut off $300 million in funding, before they could get access to students? Yes.
Recognizing their epic fail, Media Matters has posed three new "lies", which I will review as time permits. Remember, libs, the contest closes on 2/15. Considering only a handful of progressives have even figured out the very simple rules, you still have an awesome chance at winning the Krugerrand!
A couple of days ago, MSNBC media star Keith Olbermann appeared to suffer a Tourettes-like attack, cursing Fox News repeatedly on Twitter. His incisive message: the Fox News Channel is "100% bulls***".Knowing that FNC kicks the crap out of every other cable news outlet, which means Americans find it the most trustworthy source of information, I launched my One Krugerrand Fox News challenge. The first person to document one lie repeated by Fox News Channel reporters can win a 1-oz. Krugerrand worth around $1,400.
There are only a few simple rules -- like providing a link to a transcript or video on a trustworthy site. Even so, amidst the hundreds of responses I received from outraged progressives, only a handful of budding Marxists even figured out how to post an entry that conforms to the rules.
Well, with nothing better to do during the day than respond to bloggers' challenges, Media Matters took a shot at the gold. Some crackpot named Matt Gertz wrote the following earlier today.
Following Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court, several Fox News reporters falsely claimed that while she was dean of Harvard Law School, Kagan "barred" military recruiters from campus:
Megyn Kelly: "[T]he criticism of Kagan is that while she was dean of Harvard Law School, and she was dean in 2003, she decided to continue a policy of banning the military from the campus because they didn't like the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy."
Bret Baier: "The top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee has asked the Pentagon about its recruitment efforts at Harvard while Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan was dean of the law school there. Kagan barred recruiters in protest of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy."
Carl Cameron: "In the Clinton White House, she recommended compromised policies that worry conservatives over abortion and guns. As dean of the Harvard Law School, she made headlines supporting a controversial wartime ban on campus military recruitment."In fact, Kagan did not support a "ban on military recruitment" at Harvard Law, and Harvard law students had access to military recruiters during her entire tenure as dean. As we've
noted:Throughout Kagan's tenure as dean, Harvard law students had access to military recruiters -- either through Harvard's Office of Career Services or through the Harvard Law School Veterans Association. Kagan became dean of Harvard Law in June 2003. In accordance with Harvard's pre-existing nondiscrimination policy, she barred the school's Office of Career Services (OCS) from working with military recruiters or the spring 2005 semester after the U.S Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit ruled that law schools could legally do so. During that one semester, students still had access to military recruiters via the Harvard Law School Veterans Association. During the fall 2005 semester, after the Bush administration threatened to revoke Harvard's federal funding, Kagan once again granted military recruiters access to OCS.
Indeed, according to data we obtained from Harvard Law School's public information officer, graduates entered the military during each year Kagan served as dean, and the number of graduates from each of the classes that could have been affected by the prohibition on Harvard Law's OCS working with military recruiters was equal to or greater than the number who entered the military from any of Harvard's previous five classes.
CNN accurately reported on Kagan's actions in this May 10, 2010...
Mr. Ross, you owe me one ounce of gold.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Media Matters is a suitably trustworthy site. I know, it's a stretch.
Now, do I trust the Defense Department or a Soros-funded, Marxist front group?
Because the Defense Department has over 800 pages of documentation that says Media Matters is full of crap. Mr. Peabody, set the Wayback Machine for June of 2010.
Before her confirmation, the Christian Science Monitor reported the real details of how Kagan's recruiting ban worked:
The issue does not lend itself to 10-second sound-bite questions or responses... [but] In 2004, Kagan barred military recruiters from using the law school’s office of career services to meet with students interested in military service... The action was controversial because it came at a time when the United States was at war in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
...In her statement announcing that military recruiters would be barred from the school’s office of career services, Kagan said: “I am gratified by this result, and I look forward to the time when all law students have the opportunity to pursue any legal career they desire...”
...Administration officials and other Kagan supporters stressed that a student veterans group agreed to help facilitate student access to military recruiters during this period... The clear suggestion was that Kagan’s policy change had no real impact on military recruiters. But the recent release of 850 pages of Defense Department documents tells a different story.
Polite and patient military recruiters were told by Harvard officials to call back later. They received this response again, and again, for weeks until the recruiting season had ended... “The Army was stonewalled at Harvard. Phone calls and emails went unanswered,” an Army recruiter said in a March 2005 memo. “The [career services director] refused to inform students that we were coming to recruit and the [career services director] refused to collect resumes or provide any other assistance.”
One Air Force recruiter’s memo concludes: “We shouldn’t allow [Harvard Law School] to play this game.”
A de facto ban is still a ban. And the DOD itself says it "was stonewalled" by Kagan's policy. Gee, this is a tough one. Do I trust the DOD or Soros Matters?
Matt, you've really outdone yourself this time: that was quite an epic fail you pulled off. No gold for you!
Next time, try one of Fox' big lies. Like this one. Oops. That was The New York Times. My bad.
As an aside, Matt, do I rate my own tag yet, like Jammie Wearing Fool?
Update: Yes! They gave me my own tag. Does this mean they'll apologize for their Dealergate fabrications now?
Update II: Matt Gertz gets up off the canvas to post a humorous screed entitled, "Doug Ross Still Owes Me $1,400 In Gold."
In it, he summarizes all of the key positions. Except one.
Curiously, he fails to mention the military recruiters -- the most important parties to the affair -- who say they were banned, "stonewalled" in their words -- from recruiting. They could not get any access to Kagan's students.
Furthermore, Kagan said she was pleased with that development. "Gratified", was the word I think she used. She was gratified that the military could not get access to students -- not because of anything the DOD had done, but because of a policy created by Bill Clinton.
I just pwnt Media Matters so hard I think I pulled a muscle.
Update III: For the final word in this matter, let's go to Senator Jeff Sessions grilling Kagan, as documented in the Congressional Record:
01:02:03 I WOULD JUST SAY WHILE MY TIME IS -- IS RUNNING DOWN, I'M JUST A LITTLE TAKEN ABACK BY THE TONE OF YOUR REMARKS, BECAUSE IT IS UNCONNECTED TO REALITY.
01:02:17 I KNOW WHAT HAPPENED AT HARVARD.
01:02:19 I KNOW YOU ARE AN OUTSPOKEN LEADER AGAINST THE MILITARY POLICY.
01:02:22 I KNOW YOU ACTED WITHOUT LEGAL AUTHORITY TO REVERSE HARVARD'S POLICY AND DENY THOSE MILITARY EQUAL ACCESS TO CAMPUS UNTIL YOU WERE THREATENED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT OF LOSS OF FEDERAL FUNDS.
01:02:37 THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED.
Update IV: I suppose the ABA Journal, the DOD, and Senator Jeff Sessions are all "lying", too.
“I’m just a little taken aback by the tone of your remarks because it is unconnected with reality,” Sen. Sessions said near the end of his 30-minute question period, which he spent almost entirely on the recruiting issue. “I know you acted without legal authority to deny access to military recruiters...”
...“You did what DOD wanted [only] after they went to the university counsel and the president [of Harvard] and said [Harvard was] going to lose some $300 million in aid, isn’t that a fact?” Sessions asked... Kagan said the DOD’s request went through “a discussion,” and ultimately Harvard agreed to reinstate military recruiters’ access to the law school’s career office...
And from DOD emails entered into the Congressional Record:
To: Sullivan, John, Mr., DoD OGC, Koffsky, Paul, Mr., DoD OGC
Subject: FW: AF Phase I Letter to Harvard Background
I just got back and going through my e-mails . . . Harvard Law School is delaying and providing a ``slow role'' to Air Force's efforts to recruit during the Spring recruiting season. Seems they have delayed sufficiently in providing permission that the Season ending March 4th may already be ``too late''. Any advice? ...
Subject RE: Harvard Phase I Pushups
. . . checked with Army JAG Recruiting and Major Jackson provided the following.
``Hi, Ma'am--
The Army was stonewalled at Harvard Phone calls and emails went unanswered and the standard response was--we're waiting to hear from higher authority...
From: Carr, Bill, CIV, OSD-P&R
To: Dr. Curt Gilroy, SES, OSD-P&R
Subject: S: 3-22-06/Solomon Olive Branch--Or Not
...Dean Kagan is a case in point below as she reportedly ``encouraged students to demonstrate against the presence of recruiters . . . (and to) express their views clearly and forcefully.'' Not a true fan of ``equal in quality and scope'' it would appear. Despite that (or because of it) we'll want to reach out to academe to find a sober means of accomplishing our varied purposes within statutory intent, but we lack a venue . . . and AALS is too hostile to constructively . . .
Subject Harvard Law School
Thursday 10 March 2005
Sir, I just received a phone call from Mr. Mark Weber, Assistant Dean for Career Services, Harvard Law School. All my previous communication has been with one of his staff members, Ms. Kathleen Robinson, the recruitment manager. He stated that he was calling because he ``felt bad that they
had left us without an answer'' and wanted to pass on the contact data of the president of the Harvard Veterans Student Group. He stated that the faculty had still not decided whether to allow us to participate in on-campus interviews and that the official on-campus interview program for Spring 2005...
... I asked him if I could at least post a job posting via their office and he said no. He stressed that I could contact interested students via the Harvard Veterans Student Group but that his office could not provide any support to us...
...By delaying until the last minute (or never providing an answer) to the AF request to recruit, the AF is unable to organize and schedule the recruiting effort in time to participate in the HLS program which ends on March 4, 2005. We shouldn't allow HLS to ``play this game.''...
Executive Summary:
• Was the military allowed to interact with students via -- or even post job openings -- at the Law School? No.
• Did the military believe their access to students was cut off? Yes.
• Did Kagan herself believe she had effectively cut off access to her students because of DADT? Yes.
• Was Kagan openly "hostile" to the idea of the military recruiting on campus? Yes.
• Did the military spend months trying to figure out how to get access to recruits? Yes.
• Did the military finally have to escalate, getting the USG to threaten to cut off funding, before they could get access to students? Yes.
Media Matters == pwnt.
| Some edumucation for young progressives | ||
 Whom Despots Fear |  What really happened |  To the Congress: |
Meadia Matters wouldn't know the truth if a truck load of it ran them over !!!
ReplyDeleteGreat work Doug !!
Sure didn't take you long to weasel out of your bet.
ReplyDeleteWeasel? As in posting mindless drivel anonymously?
ReplyDeleteOr, perhaps you mean weasel as in Dan Rather's pathetic, "even though my evidence is totally manufactured, the story is real"?
You see, Dan Rather and CBS actually lied. As Mr. Ross has accurately documented here, the supposed Fox News lie is, in fact, supported by the DoD. Here's a hint for you, dullard: that would be under the "Not A Lie" column.
Is that really the best and all you could muster on this challenge? For all your crowing about one news channel, that's it?
It must be awfully lonely there in your parent's basement.
Surprised Media Matters did not use the claim that Sonia Sotomayor's "wise Latina" statement was repeating/agreeing with what O'Connor said instead of disagreeing with it.
ReplyDeletehttp://mediamatters.org/research/200905260050
Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement.
How many millions of Soros' money do these clowns have to operate with, and that's the best they could come up with?
ReplyDeleteHey turns out I'm not the only one who thinks you're an idiot:
ReplyDeletehttp://mediamatters.org/blog/201101030036
And I'll even post with my Google account so you don't delete my comment like a baby.
I was just stopping by to see how the anonymous goons were doing on your initial post about this when I saw this spiffy new post about it. Doug, you are more badass than BillyJack! I was surfing around and stumbled across this:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/ev803/hey_redditors_some_blogger_is_offering_1400_if/
Tons of people getting all weewee'd up over you on that site!
Keep it up, Doug, it is so much fun to watch these nuts go all frothy over you.
I am definitely going frothy. It's just so much fun to watch extreme conservatives be proven wrong so thoroughly.I can't wait for the verbal gymnastics Doug is gonna have to pull off to try and make it appear as if he hasn't been thoroughly schooled by MM.
ReplyDelete"CNN accurately reported"
ReplyDeleteIs this a joke?
My parents don't have a basement. Here's Matt Gertz' response to Doug's weasling.
ReplyDeletehttp://mediamatters.org/blog/201101030036
Hey Doug, if you could read, you would see the evidence you provided only backs up his case. Oh and quoting the "Christian Science Monitor" as a source? BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Freaking laughable. You have been pwned more times than a 8 year old girl playing Halo on this little bet. You lost. Pay the man his money. We all know, of course, that you won't because you're a sociopath.
ReplyDeleteDoug, you are a pathetic excuse for a human being. You have been proven wrong multiple times now. Pay up. Quit being a sore loser and pull your head out of your ass.
ReplyDeleteSee! Proof that liberals cannot discern the truth from a talking point.
ReplyDeleteHeh.
ReplyDeleteYou sure do know how to stir the pot...!!
You're pathetic. Your attempts to squirm your way out of paying what you owe MediaMatters are so transparent. You owe that dude 1.4K. Pay up.
ReplyDeleteDo you have any understanding that banning the recruiters from the Office of Career Services, while arranging for them to use another facility, IS NOT banning them from the Harvard Campus (as Megan said) or even banning them from the Law School campus? Pay up.
ReplyDelete"They could not get any access to Kagan's students."
ReplyDeleteYes. They. Could.
This is hilarious. You got schooled and the best you can do is pretend that "stonewalled" means "banned." That's not even what the word means -- "stonewalled" is when you refuse to cooperate with someone, which is what the OCS admittedly did. What they did not do was prevent them from coming on campus. Which is what Fox News reported, and which is why you owe him your precious Armageddon gold.
What do you mean access? "Stonewalled" doesn't mean "couldn't come on campus." "Stonewalled" means "the office wasn't answering our phone calls." The office simply refused to allocate any of its resources to help the recruiters.
This is not a ban. They were not banned from campus, and they certainly weren't prevented from "access[ing] Kagan's students." The phone calls and such you are talking about are all with the OCS office.
I bet $1,400 that you delete this comment, too.
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201004140055 That's a video of Cavuto admitting that Fox lied about health care reform delivering jail time for those who don't get insurance. Fox is a "credible source", right? And, here's Fox reporters making the false claim.
ReplyDeletehttp://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201004150084
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200911130050
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200911100060
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200911090052
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200911090007
I WANT MY GOLD.
Contact me, kay, Dougie?
My website's mbloomer1.edublogs.org. It's called Tomorrow's Progressives.
Simply because the recruiters felt they were "stonewalled" doesn't make it so.
ReplyDeleteDOD recruiters were simply asked not to recruit from a place they would've preferred to recruit from.
Recruiter complaints amount to nothing more than being refused the front row at a concert and then insisting they were banned from the entire auditorium.
A noisy student asked to leave the library doesn't imply expulsion from school.
Nothing about this "ban" disallowed recruiters from meeting in any other place on campus.
Mr. Ross owes Mr. Getz the money as he provided a technically correct example of a misleading news story.
As an aside, Ross failed to establish what constitutes an effective criteria for proof of victory.
Since he didn't - for whatever reason - he can now allow himself to adjust the goalpost as he sees fit, thereby setting his own arbitrary standard of success.
Please, Mr. Ross, give us a clear criterion of success - including a definition and clear example of what you'd consider a "lie" - so that we may have a transparent standard by which to play your game.
@ Stephen - reading is fundamental.
ReplyDeleteThe clear suggestion was that Kagan’s policy change had no real impact on military recruiters. But the recent release of 850 pages of Defense Department documents tells a different story.
Polite and patient military recruiters were told by Harvard officials to call back later. They received this response again, and again, for weeks until the recruiting season had ended... “The Army was stonewalled at Harvard. Phone calls and emails went unanswered,” an Army recruiter said in a March 2005 memo. “The [career services director] refused to inform students that we were coming to recruit and the [career services director] refused to collect resumes or provide any other assistance.”
One Air Force recruiter’s memo concludes: “We shouldn’t allow [Harvard Law School] to play this game.”
Kagan was proud of what she'd done.
She said she was "gratified" that law school students would be off limits to recruiters.
By the way, Doug, I think you'll like to know that I'm putting this on Daily Kos and on my site so that it'll still be on the Internet if you take this down.
ReplyDelete@Anon 9:34. I've provided numerous examples of real, MSM-class lies.
ReplyDeleteDan Rather's Air National Guard Memo.
The NYT's Al Qaqaa hit piece.
The NYT's unsourced John McCain-lobbyist-affair hit piece.
Censoring candidate Obama's background (ever heard of Frank Marshall Davis?).
"which means Americans find it the most trustworthy source of information"
ReplyDeleteReally? Or it just means the majority of coach potatoes watch FOX. What a great type of Americans to be on your side buddy. Maybe the more educated don't need a televised source of news because everything hits the internet first; that or they have their own career to worry about.
Your argument puts Walmart at the same level as FOX. Everyone goes there so it must be the best. But when you get off your butt and actually open your eyes, you get to see the trash you are accompanied with.
"The issue does not lend itself to 10-second sound-bite questions or responses."
ReplyDeleteWhich makes it an unsuitable story for liberals -- er, progressives I mean -- to understand.
@Tomorrows Progressive -
ReplyDeleteExcellent -- I've always wanted to be featured on a completely whacked out, socialist hate-site.
I doubt that the Florida Court of Appeals is a valid source for this challenge (NEW WORLD COMMUNICATION OF TAMPA, INC. v. Akre, 866 So. 2d 1231 - Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 2nd Dist.) but there is not only a documented case of Fox News forcing reporters to use falsified information to suite a stated point of view of the producers. The case also opens up the legal precedent that Fox News or CNN or anyone is not legally obligated to tell the truth to the public.
ReplyDeleteI think he's got you on this one. Make good on your word and pay up, butbpropose a counter bet, find some flaw in the liberal media, shouldn't be hard.
ReplyDeleteUmm, does anyone remember that the Fox Corporation went to court, fought for, and legally won the right to lie to the public. Google Jane Akre or check this article for a summary http://www.philly2philly.com/politics_community/politics_community_articles/2009/6/29/4854/fox_news_wins_lawsuit_misinform_public
ReplyDeleteYou owe Mr. Gertz a 1-oz. Krugerrand.
ReplyDeleteDoug - this is as amusing as the last time you offered this challenge. Can I request more challenges like this in the future? It is so adorable to watch these dolts froth up like toddlers being told they are going to bed early.
ReplyDeleteGee, I covered this Appeals Court issue on the original thread.
ReplyDeleteI'll say... it... slowly...
Fox TV affiliate != Fox News Channel
Doy!
@The_Bad - you're right. I'm thinking about a monthly contest, rotating "lies" by different conservative pundits.
ReplyDeleteRush, Coulter, etc.
That would be awesome fun!
OK, Dougie, you're now on Daily Kos. Now "refeudiate" my claims. Fox News lied. I want my prize, coward.
ReplyDeleteYou made a bet. You lost. Pay up pussy.
ReplyDeleteHow do you sleep at night? You republicans must be drugged up worse than woodstock to be able to live with the lies you spew out of your mouths on a daily basis.
ReplyDeleteI always enjoy seeing dishonest fake "conservatives" show that they don't give a rat's ass about principles.
ReplyDeleteIt's easy to talk a good game about "I'm going to give you ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS!!!" if you really don't intend to follow through. All you're doing is showing that you have no qualms about lying, and certainly don't have the pride to stand by your word.
And at the end of the day, you can knock me for being Anonymous, but you're the one disgracing your family name by not being honest in your dealings with other people.
Signed with love,
A real conservative.
Wow. Now I don't follow politics or anything but I stumbled upon this and dam, is this how all people who watch fox news think? I have heard people talk crap about fox news and their audience before but I thought it was just jokes. The author of this is clearly proven wrong but you just totally ignore the facts. Thank god I don't follow politics cause I could never deal with people using your thought process.
ReplyDeleteI love the logic of so many conservatives -- if the vast majority of people on an internet forum disagree with them, that is prima facie evidence that said forum is part of the vast liberal conspiracy. You lost the bet, and dancing around arguing semantics is...wait, I guess it depends on what the definition of "is" is.
ReplyDeleteThis is your own forum and you're being taken to task. Man up (and pay up), Nancy.
Looks like you need a new update, because your completely bogus rebuttal was just blown out of the water. No one expected you to pay up on your bet, but your floundering is very amusing.
ReplyDeleteYour posse of fans on this site will follow you over your cliff, so at least you aren't alone in how bad this makes you look.
Welsher. He met your conditions, pay him the money and quit whining.
ReplyDeleteOkay, I've seen a lot of this lately, and its really starting to get to me. Everyone is 'picking sides', name calling, and ignoring any and all facts because it was quoted from someone with more liberal/conservative opinions. Has America honestly come down to this. The definitions of Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives, and Liberals has become so skewed and misused by the media they're worthless titles used to harass someone with different viewpoints. Its downright pathetic. Not to mention multiple sources of information should be verified from 'both sides' before a proper opinion of a story can be formed. No one media center should ever be your only source of news... EVER. Please, instead of backing a corporate 'news' television station and starting a flame-war under Anonymous on some blog, you get out into the world and form your own opinions. How many of you are involved in your local economy or know what your local school board budgets look like?
ReplyDeleteThe facts:
ReplyDelete1. Fox News states the recruitrs were banned from the campus.
2. The recruiters were NOT banned from the campus, even according to the source you cite as defence.
Therefore Fox News lied.
You need to pay up.
In the spirit of this contest and how it's been conducted, I would like to throw down a gauntlet of my own to conservatives.
ReplyDeleteI will give $2,400 worth of platinum to ANY conservative who can prove that Ronald Reagan did not jerk off while Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990.
The roles are simple:
1 - cite 2 reputable news organizations stating that this DID NOT happen.
2 - cite 4 people in your family that say this DID NOT HAPPEN, and supply nude photos of each.
4 - Get a sworn statement from the alleged victim saying that Glenn Beck never raped and murdered her, and that Ronald Reagan wasn't jerking off during it.
3 - provide video of every second of every day in 1990 in the lives of both Ronald Reagan and Glenn Beck, with them each holding up the days news paper (changing it for the new one at delivery time) and a clock over their heads.
Isn't it a tad bit ludicrous to make a bet that your favorite news organization hasn't lied?
ReplyDeleteEventually you're going to get called on it, whether the lie be unintentional bias or bold-faced.
No reasonable person would say Fox News lies all the time, nor would a reasonable person say Fox News tells the truth all the time.
You're hinging your bets that this new organization has been entirely honest since its inception. Isn't that silly? You really think Fox is immune to errancy?
The problem here is not the facts. The facts speak plainly. Fox was wrong -- as probability dictates would happen.
And so we come to you: Being so unprincipled, so ridiculous, so silly that you won't admit it.
All in all it's not so bad though. The words I've typed out won't penetrate the burqa of ideology you lavishly adorn. Ironically, in this giant display of stupidity, you've shaken some of your readers to realize the folly of your ilk.
You have failed.
Why is it whenever creationists or Conservatives do these "I'll give you $X if.." posts they always refuse to follow through? You have no honor.
ReplyDeleteHey Doug - "stonewalling" != "banned from campus.
ReplyDeleteDefinitions for both are here:
stonewall: 1.
1:
chiefly British : to engage in obstructive parliamentary debate or delaying tactics
2
: to be uncooperative, obstructive, or evasive
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stonewall
"ban : to prohibit especially by legal means ; also : to prohibit the use, performance, or distribution of <ban a pesticide "
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ban
You know, I read your wall-of-text, then proceeded to look at the images to the right side of the site, and then I concluded that you're full of shit and you still owe Matt $1,400 in gold.
ReplyDeleteThis is pointless.
ReplyDeleteUsing things like "facts" and "logic" to try to convince conservatives to disown their faith in Fox News is kind of like.... trying to use reason and logic to convince conservatives to disown their faith in....
uh...
GOSH I can't think of an analogy here.
Hey, let's do something fun; even without evaluating the validity of Doug Ross's claims or Media Matters' claims - let's look at how the responses were formulated.
ReplyDeleteEven if Media Matter's opinion is invalid (I'm not making any judgements here, so don't put words in my mouth) - it never insulted Doug Ross as a person. It clearly stated its facts (or, depending on how you look at it, what they believe to be facts) and did no more than that.
This response from Doug called MM's writer a crackpot and a Marxist multiple times. Incredibly mature, am I right? Instead of actually countering MM's points, Doug resorted to personal insults.
Take a look at some of the more conservative responses as well:
Here's one from the The_Bad: Calling a commenter "dullard" and insinuating that he lives in his parents' basement. Amazing counter. I applaud the use of a thesaurus for "dullard."
I don't know if it's just me, but I tend to trust mature sources over ones that childishly spout insults. I'm not saying you have to agree, but at least respond in a respectful way; maybe that way people will listen to you. Insults will get you nowhere.
Doug Ross gets "pwnt"
ReplyDeleteTypical right-wing nutcase.
ReplyDeleteRather than addressing substance they attack the source.
Perfect example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvLLL2RFfmg
One of many times Fox is caught in the act doctoring photos.
"Fox News. Not racist, but #1 with racists!"
The source you used to back up your claim doesn't say anything about being banned from campus. Your a joke, as is anyone who supports you, as is Faux News and the right-wing spin machine. Its rather sad to know that people actually are ignorant enough to allow themselves to be spoon fed your BS.
ReplyDeleteUm, I'm pretty sure if you have to announce how hard you pwnt your intended target you're doing it wrong.
ReplyDeleteLike shouting out your own "daaaamn" or "oh, snap!". It just looks kind of sad.
You do know that they didn't literally build a big, stone wall to keep out the military, right? That's not what stonewalling means. Saying that you trust the DOD more than Media Matters because they said that they were stonewalled isn't mutually exclusive to them being allowed on campus. It just means that they received no cooperation or funding through the Law Office of Career Services. There was no ban - even de facto - on the military recruiting on campus.
ReplyDeletewatching doug ross get pwnt is funny and entertaining. i hope they take him to court.
ReplyDeleteYOU TERRORIST
ReplyDeleteYou lost, be a man and pay him his $1400.
ReplyDeleteWhy won't you respond to "Tomorrow's Progressives" comment. The first link CLEARLY shows O'Reilly lying. Please at least answer this. I would like to see your explanation.
ReplyDeletethis blog sucks, doug ross is a liar
ReplyDeleteDoug Ross embodies what is wrong with America.
ReplyDeleteI feel sorry for Republicans. Living their lives in fear with the blinders on. It's a shame so many of them go to great colleges and yet are seemingly so unintelligent.
ReplyDeleteFTLULZ
You lost, now pay the $1400.
ReplyDeleteLOLZ REPUBZ
ReplyDeleteIt's blog posts like this which give us real conservatives a bad name.
ReplyDeleteDoug, you issued a challenge and got your ass handed to you. Now's the time to man up and admit it, or else you're no better than a liberal.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete"Meadia Matters wouldn't know the truth if a truck load of it ran them over !!!
ReplyDeleteGreat work Doug !!"
what the hell? conservatives actually believe this shit? pathetic. doug ross is a liar, fox news lies all the time, and conservatives eat it all up like its a delicious pie.
Ok. Debunk all the other accusations in the comments on the challenge post.
ReplyDeleteAlso, you can't just discredit a source by saying "lol media matters". If you want us to prove that Fox News lied by certain criteria, then you need to use that same criteria to show that our sources (Media Matters, for example) lied.
@Amalaur Maybe you should use that awesome job of yours to actually pay your own way in life, rather than still sucking on your fathers teet.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteok guyz, doug ross went to bed so no more comments till he wakes up. its only fair. besides his daughter said so and she goes to college.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete@Amalaur
ReplyDeleteMaybe they should teach you about time zones at that J-school
The fact this type of thing has broken down into an argument over political views just proves to me the American media and politics is a load of horse shit...and you Americans are lapping it up
ReplyDelete@Amalaur:
ReplyDeleteFor your information, I'm on winter break. I'm a senior at a top Ivy League university and I had an internship at a top business firm in NYC this past summer. So, please, don't use the "get a job" or "get a life" argument. So cliché.
I guess arrogance and ignorance run in the family. Who knew?
I feel sorry for all these conservatives throwing around words like "socialist" as if it's something with a negative connotation.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if they understand what the word liberal or progressive actually means?
Shouldn't have made this offer so visible. Pay the man his money.
ReplyDeleteReally man? Fox News doesn't lie?
ReplyDeleteNow, I'm aware that no media outlet or any news station is free from slander. They even honestly make mistakes from time-to-time. But Fox News does lie, and very verbosely.
Does no one remember the "Obama is a Muslim" escapade? I mean, come on really. If you are even going to try and say there was any lick of truth in that, you need to get your head out of your ass.
Furthermore, you seem too eager to place out a bet on something that can easily be won. Obviously you never had the intention to give anyone any money, because you are trying to prove some (let me use your own words here) "Crackpot" ideal that Fox News is some kind of trustworthy news station above any others. Lets get one thing straight though. Fox News just like any other news station lies and will continue to. It's all about their agendas. Your agenda though?
Obviously your agenda is to prove your a little weasel liar that likes to make bets he would never pay out on.
Good Job Doug, you are completely discredited.
Not sure who the bigger fool is: Doug, or every one of you cheering Doug on for getting it totally, utterly wrong.
ReplyDeleteI mean...geez...the recruiters were banned from the career office. Wow, whoopty doo, that's some proof there. I got a speeding ticket about 5 years ago, I guess that's proof that the government is banning me from driving!
Way to go, "conservatives"!
Sorry Dougie your articles prove the opposite point. Pay up homie
ReplyDeleteCongrats, Doug! You've got these leftarded assclowns in a frothy mire. Why it is that they all seem illiterate and ignorant, I can't ascertain. Seems like they wouldn't know truth or consequences if it came down to brass tacks and nut-cutting.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the entertaining response. You made a bet, and you lost. Pay up you ignorant fool.
ReplyDeleteThese fuckers use logic, they must be marxists.
ReplyDeleteDoug Ross is just another reason that I'm really no longer proud to be an American.
Good job, you troll!
ReplyDeleteOh hey, more people proving my point:
ReplyDelete"You've got these leftarded assclowns..."
Why is it that conservatives (or should I say Republicans? I don't want to insult any true conservatives out there) always go for the lowest denominator insults?
Here's a tip, guys: it doesn't make you look very smart. In fact, it kind of does the very opposite.
Conservative gets owned and worms his way out of the deal he made.
ReplyDeleteSurprise, surprise.
Pay the man.
ReplyDeleteOf course someone like Dog Ross would try to insult his way out of this one. I would be more surprised if Ross actually went through with what he oh so pompously announced.
ReplyDeleteGod I hope Matt Gertz takes the whole thing to small claims court.
I'm not american, but this shit makes me sad. This bet was lost from the start.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the credibility of Media Matters is completely out of question - they might be a bunch of liars or thieves - but that doesn't null out the fact that they have SACTISFIED your conditions citing 3 major news sources. You said "anyone". Pay it up.
Pay up, bitch!
ReplyDeleteWay to welch on a bet.
ReplyDeleteJust like the rest of your blog you are a cheapskate who won't put his money where his mouth is.
...up his ass.
You really should pay up. Your references CLEARLY say "In 2004, Kagan barred military recruiters from using the law school’s office of career services to meet with students interested in military service" and "The [career services director] refused to inform students that we were coming to recruit".
ReplyDeleteSounds to me like exactly what Media Matters said, and not what Fox News said.
Media Matters may be biased, but I think they caught you. Fess up, pay up.
Hey. Hey. Guys.
ReplyDeleteAre we seriously expecting a right-wing blogger to have an ounce of integrity?
I really don't envy you Doug. Right now you have the attention of people that will pry into everything about you. Hope you have nothing to hide. You should probably pay up and save face.
ReplyDelete"You've got these leftarded assclowns in a frothy mire"
ReplyDelete"Keep it up, Doug, it is so much fun to watch these nuts go all frothy over you"
"It is so adorable to watch these dolts froth up like toddlers being told they are going to bed early."
whenever an idiot conservative gets served, they think it causes liberals to "froth". fucking hilarious
The article you posted in response seems to show that the recruiters were not banned from the campus, only from the career center. The 850 page document you mention also says nothing about recruiters being banned from the campus, only from the career center.
ReplyDeleteFox statement that recruiters were banned 'from the campus' would then be a lie.
There does not appear to be any other logical reading of the evidence.
You're a fucking idiot.
ReplyDeleteYou're a moron, just pay up your bet. This is just one of the many lies Fox has spread. How about the one about Obama being a Muslim or not being born in the states? You really think that Christian Science Monitor is a reliable source of factual information and that's what you're basing your argument on?!?! Or you think that your blogspot blog is a more reliable source of information than http://mediamatters.org? Come on, why do people read the crap you write? It's just your own opinions with nothing to back it up.
ReplyDelete@directorblue -- Reading IS fundamental, I just wish you knew how!
ReplyDelete"Kagan was proud of what she'd done."
True!
"She said she was 'gratified'"
True!
"that law school students would be off limits to recruiters."
Now, where in the article does it say that? Where in any article does Kagan actually say that "students" are "off limits to recruiters."
Learn to read. Kagan said "I look forward to the time when all law students have the opportunity to pursue any legal career they desire." I guess you failed your SAT Reading Comprehension, because it's very obvious here that she is referring to looking forward to a time when DADT is repealed, and therefore her gay law students can join the army and remain openly gay -- NOT anything about keeping recruiters away from law school students. Maybe you need to get your eyes checked?
The OFFICE was off limit to recruiters. The students were NOT "off limits" on campus. It did NOT have the result of keeping recruiters "off limits" to ANY student on campus. And Fox News reported that the recruiters were "banned from the campus" -- certainly not anywhere near the truth.
You keep pulling things out of your butt, son. You're already a laughing stock, you might as well concede and keep your pride.
I seem to be late to the party. Hopefully you'll still see my comment, Doug! ;)
It does seem a little embarrassing to be proven wrong by your own source. Nice work Doug...
ReplyDeleteHey Doug, I read both your bog and Matts. You're a weasel and a rat! Pay the goddamn man, you lost a bet, you little squirming sleekit melon!
ReplyDeleteLove from England x
Sen. Jeff Sessions to Elena Kagan in the Congressional Record:
ReplyDelete01:02:03 I WOULD JUST SAY WHILE MY TIME IS -- IS RUNNING DOWN, I'M JUST A LITTLE TAKEN ABACK BY THE TONE OF YOUR REMARKS, BECAUSE IT IS UNCONNECTED TO REALITY.
01:02:17 I KNOW WHAT HAPPENED AT HARVARD.
01:02:19 I KNOW YOU ARE AN OUTSPOKEN LEADER AGAINST THE MILITARY POLICY.
01:02:22 I KNOW YOU ACTED WITHOUT LEGAL AUTHORITY TO REVERSE HARVARD'S POLICY AND DENY THOSE MILITARY EQUAL ACCESS TO CAMPUS UNTIL YOU WERE THREATENED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT OF LOSS OF FEDERAL FUNDS.
01:02:37 THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED.
Sen. Jeff Sessions in the Congressional Record:
"During her time as Dean of Harvard, Ms. Kagan reversed Harvard's existing policy and kicked the military out of the recruiting office in violation of federal law. Her actions punished the military and demeaned our soldiers as they were courageously fighting two wars overseas."
ABC News: "Throughout the day Kagan was also grilled about her decision as dean of Harvard Law School to forbid military recruiters from the campus career center because she believed the "don't ask don't tell" policy violated the school's anti-discrimination policy."
Ed Whelan:
"Kagan’s exclusion of military recruiters from the Harvard law school campus promises to draw considerable attention precisely because—as Peter Beinart, the liberal former editor of the New Republic, has written—it amounted to “a statement of national estrangement,” of Kagan’s “alienating [her]self from the country.” In her fervent opposition to the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law and the Solomon Amendment, Kagan elevated her own ideological commitment on gay rights above what Congress, acting on the advice of military leaders, had determined best served the interests of national security. At a time of war, in the face of the grand civilizational challenge that radical Islam poses, Kagan treated military recruiters worse than she treated the high-powered law firms that were donating their expensive legal services to anti-American terrorists."
Senator Jeff Sessions during the Kagan hearing -- from CSpan.
ReplyDelete01:02:03 I WOULD JUST SAY WHILE MY TIME IS -- IS RUNNING DOWN, I'M JUST A LITTLE TAKEN ABACK BY THE TONE OF YOUR REMARKS, BECAUSE IT IS UNCONNECTED TO REALITY.
01:02:17 I KNOW WHAT HAPPENED AT HARVARD.
01:02:19 I KNOW YOU ARE AN OUTSPOKEN LEADER AGAINST THE MILITARY POLICY.
01:02:22 I KNOW YOU ACTED WITHOUT LEGAL AUTHORITY TO REVERSE HARVARD'S POLICY AND DENY THOSE MILITARY EQUAL ACCESS TO CAMPUS UNTIL YOU WERE THREATENED BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT OF LOSS OF FEDERAL FUNDS.
01:02:37 THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED.
I mean, truly, none of us care if Media Matters is a good company. None of us care about anything other than if it was a lie or not.
ReplyDeleteYet, your entire post is about media matters... It's really disappointing that journalism has strayed so far away from its definition. Start reporting and stop lashing out like a child.
Also, as I read the definition of ban (and the definition is what matters in court), she would have had to explicitly state that they were not allowed to recruit on campus. I don't see where she did that. If you get beat by symantics... well, that's funny.
Hey Doug, still haven't rebuked my claim. Or are factual videos direct from Fox lies because they're from Media Matters? I won. At least give one reason why you're afraid to argue one point I put forward.
ReplyDeleteoh boy doug, you're a fail.
ReplyDeletetypical conservative to screw up and then not apologize.
but it's ok. you're nothing special. please move on.
You're one of those people that should be banned from the internet for wasting our time reading your garbage.
ReplyDeletePay. Up. Now.
ReplyDeleteYou made a bet and lost, now pay up.
ReplyDeleteBanning one thing is not banning another.
ReplyDeleteSomeone using the word "stonewalled" does not prove that anyone was banned from campus.
Face it, you owe them some money.
I am seeing this all the time these days, conservatives make some claim 'blah blah blah, show me proof!' then somebody does, and what happens: 'That's not the version of the truth I want to hear ::whine whine::'. Step up and be a man Doug.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvLLL2RFfmg
ReplyDeleteWhat about that one?
Thats a 100% lie.
Probably best to just ignore it though :)
Republicans in America are like Turkeys voting for Christmas - they don't represent your views and trick you into voting against your own interests.
THIS IS GREAT !!!!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteNothing drives moonbats more ape poopy then FOX NEWS !!!!!!!!
keep up the great work Doug !!!
Do we still get the gold if we can prove that this blogger is lying?
ReplyDeleteCongratulations on being a moron, moron. Not that liberals are right about everything, but you're a disgrace to humanity. Dumb, bitter and closed-minded.
ReplyDeleteDon't worry, eventually the conservatives will get something right.
ReplyDelete...eventually.
Whats a moonbat? I mean, of all the terms cons come up with, its the strangest. Perhaps the lord and savior Glenn Beck used it before? Its sad that cons cannot form an opinion of their own...really is.
ReplyDeleteand after that:
ReplyDeleteLEAHY: The senator’s time has expired.
(CROSSTALK)
LEAHY: But you can respond to that if you want.
SESSIONS: ... did not happen in that way. And I think if you had any complaint, it should have been made to the United States Congress, not to those men and women who we send in harm’s way to serve our nation.
LEAHY: Especially because of the number of people, including the dean of West Point who has praised you and said that you were absolutely not anti-military, I’ll let you respond -- take time to respond to what Senator Sessions just said.
KAGAN: Well, thank you, Senator Leahy.
You know, I respect and indeed I revere the military. My father was a veteran. One of the great privileges of my time at Harvard Law School was dealing with all these wonderful students that we had who had served in the military and students who wanted to go to the military.
And I always tried to make sure that I conveyed my honor for the military. And I always tried to make sure that the military had excellent access to our students. And in the short period of time, Senator Sessions, that the military had that access through the veterans organization, military recruiting actually went up.
But I also felt a need to protect our -- to defend our school’s very long-standing anti-discrimination policy and to protect the men and women, the students, who were meant to be protected by that policy: the gay and lesbian students who wanted to serve in the military and do that most honorable kind of service. And those are the two things that I tried to do.
And I think, again, the military always had good access at Harvard Law School.
Doug didn't "forget" the context. He purposefully left it out.
ReplyDeleteYou lost. Pay up. This is sad.
ReplyDeleteand before your quote:
ReplyDeleteKAGAN: Senator, the military at all times during my deanship had full and good access. Military recruiting did not go down. Indeed, in a couple of years, including the year that you’re particularly referring to, it went up. And it went up because we ensured that students would know that the military recruiters were coming to our campus. Because I talked about how important military service was. Because our veterans organization and the veterans on campus did an absolutely terrific job, a terrific service to their fellow students in talking to them about the honor of military service.
"Knowing that FNC kicks the crap out of every other cable news outlet, which means Americans find it the most trustworthy source of information"
ReplyDeleteI stopped reading there. This is what's called a logical fallacy, you can look it up on Wikipedia if you want to educate yourself.
Doing as good a job as Fox News in reporting facts. Leave out crucial information and context, use a snippet, and spin it your own way.
ReplyDeleteDoug Ross, you are pathetic and truly a despicable, odious man who knows nothing about true journalism.
Pay up, loser.
ReplyDeleteWait everyone just calm down. I just read as much as I could on this and it seems pretty blatant that Fox News' report was in fact wrong. There is a difference between stonewalling and a straight-out banning. Moreover I've seen a few more posts showing more instances where Fox has slipped up, especially with the O'Keefe and Giles Scandal.
ReplyDeleteNow I'm not dumb enough to think Fox is the only one telling the truth slant, but as Mr. Ross says above - it is the most watched news in America. Thus there should be a higher bar for professionalism that Fox adheres too. Plus wouldn't you want to correct mistakes in order to ensure that there is nothing for these "Socialist - Marxist" journalists, bloggers and so on to highlight? By the way socialism and Marxism not as closely linked as people would like you to think. Read a history book before you spurt out some more nonsensical hyperbole. That goes to both sides.
Wow, way to weasel out of a bet there Doug. Typical right-wing b.s., attack the employer, don't debate FACT. No wonder conservatives are so often laughed at, they can't even keep their word on something this simple.
ReplyDeletePathetic.
Hell, I have an easier one: Death Panels. Where should I email my address so you can send me the money?
ReplyDeleteYou did lose. Technically, it was a lie. You should salvage some dignity here and pay, because what you are doing makes you as bad as Fox, CNN and the lot of them.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand why any of you bother turning on your TVs at all anymore. Nevermind pointing out lies, a harder challenge would have been to go to any cable news channel and find the truth presented factually in a manner that could be deemed news and not "agneda-pushing-rubbush".
"the bottom line is that military recruiters were only ever barred from the school's Office of Career Services for one semester in 2005. During that time, Kagan encouraged the military to recruit through the Harvard Law School Veterans Association, a student organization (now called the Harvard Law School Armed Forces Association)."
ReplyDeletehttp://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jun/30/elena-kagan/kagan-says-height-military-recuitment-controversy-/
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/jun/30/elena-kagan-and-military-recruiters-harvard-law/
Seems like you owe somebody some money. It seems like your readers aren't actually opening up any of these articles and reading them and are just going with what you incorrectly interpret from them.
ReplyDeleteDoes it really suprise anyone that this weasel won't pay up? Since when do repuglys pay for anything?
ReplyDeleteTax cuts for the wealthy= unpaid for
2 wars= unpaid for
Don't hold your breath,a**holes like this never mean what they say or say what they mean. Doug Ross you are a waste of space.
Wow, you make conservatives and human beings in general look bad. I'll be the 100th person to call you out for weasling your way out of a bet.
ReplyDeleteBe a man, Doug, and give that precious gold coin away to someone who deserves it.
Goddamn Doug, are you genuinely this stupid or just fail at reading comprehension. The quotes YOU list , like
ReplyDelete>"Throughout the day Kagan was also grilled about her decision as dean of Harvard Law School to forbid military recruiters from the campus career center because she believed the "don't ask don't tell" policy violated the school's anti-discrimination policy."
Ok, very slowly here Doug, the Campus career center does not equal the WHOLE Harvard campus. One specific office/center. There were many, many other opportunities and venues held on the Harvard campus where there were indeed military recruiters.
Pay up.
You go Doug! You are spreding the trooth! The Obamabots are wrong wrong wrong! keep up the fight and les get r cuntry back from the loony libtards!!!
ReplyDeleteUSA USA USA USA USA USA USA!!!!!!!
Hey Everyone! This guy is a PHONY! A BIG FAT PHONY!!
ReplyDeleteI lol at every of Doug's posts.
ReplyDeleteUSA: READING IS FOR FAGGOTS!
ReplyDeleteThe only thing worse than an ignorant brain-washed neocon who believes Fox News is "fair & balanced" is an ignorant brain-washed neocon who's a sore loser and doesn't pay a bet when he loses.
ReplyDeletehere's another often repeated Fox News lie - whenever a republican is caught in scandal, Fox News always puts a "D" next to their name. This isn't a once in a while "oops our bad" mistake it's a deliberate, often repeated lie to meant to misled their viewers.
of course doug ross excluded this in his rules because he knows it's a well worn tactic by fox news.
Remember that we are trying to decide whether or not FOX news has lied, the following are irrelevant:
ReplyDelete--MSNBC, CNN, NYT have lied (this has nothing to do with the claim: other news organizations lie =/> FOX news doesn't lie)
--The funding and political nature of the claimant (discredit the sender. If I say, "it's sunny out" it doesn't matter if I'm conservative or liberal, it has nothing to do with the weather).
--The fact that Kagan was happy to ban the military from using the office (again moving the spotlight away from the main question).
--The fact that the office ban had an impact on recruitment (this could be true or false and it still has no impact on the claim).
--Claiming that it's easier to trust the DoD than a "Soros-funded, Marxist entity" (moving the goalpost of your original criteria--easy enough to deny a claimant if the news outlet is "untrustworthy", which was never clearly defined).
Even the Christian Science Monitor uses the phrase "banned from office of career services" and not banned from campus. FOX news committed what is known as a "lie of omission" by saying "Kagan banned military recruitment" instead of saying "Kagan banned military recruitment from using the office of career services".
It may be a less impressive technical lie (not as grandiose of complete fabrication, which I imagine the spirit of the original contest was designed for), but it is conclusively a lie. Ridiculing the claimants and name-calling doesn't help your position from a broad standpoint, since it betrays how little you thought of this contest actually being fulfilled.
But the fact of the matter is that you owe someone money. Media organizations lie all of the time, deliberately or not. FOX news is no different.
Not agreeing with the political outlook of the person who met your challenges standards isn't a reason to go back on your bet. "Prove it!" "Here's your proof." "I don't respect you so I don't have to keep my word!" That's how you come across to me, who has no love for liberals or conservatives, strictly speaking. Fox lied, it's obvious, even in the "proof" you supplied. I also wonder if the bet stops once it's been met, or you're going to owe everyone that can prove fox lies and doctors photos and video footage. A casual observer can do a youtube search, yah know. The definition of an idiot is someone who can look evidence dead in the face and still say "I'm right because I like to be". you have no integrity, my friend. You're as bad as Dan Rather AND fox news.
ReplyDeleteWow you're just like Fox News: attack the person, not the issue. PAY UP DOUCHEBAG!
ReplyDeleteDoug -
ReplyDeleteYou, like everybody at the thorougly-discredited Fox "News" Channel, are an idiot. And you can't even take a proper screen-capture of a website.
Thank you Mr. Ross. Those of us who do not watch Fox are always looking for a way to demonstrate to Fox viewers that Fox lies, and that their lies are purposefully partisan in nature. Your challenge has given us the forum to do just that, and for that, I thank you. As a bonus, you have also shown yourself to be dishonest, so thanks for that as well. So keep on posting updates, since every one that you post just further shows Fox and you as the liars you are, as none of them demonstrate, or even suggest, that Kagan was 'banning the military from the campus'.
ReplyDeleteI stumbled upon this post and read the original challenge, several responses, and tons of comments. I can't help but thing that this blogger, Doug, is stirring the pot to get activity on his blog much the same way the eye glasses guy in NY did a month or two ago. He's enjoying the attention.
ReplyDeleteI also see from the blogger's posts and comments that he has such a strong political stance that he has a hard time seeing things from any perspective other than his own biased view.
The liberal responses and name calling is not even getting close to what they are trying to achieve. I'm assuming they think they can make this blogger look bad, but as soon as you sink down to childish talk it is you that looks bad. They are actually just helping the site's popularity.
The liberals appear to have presented numerous examples to win the contest, but the blogger has demonstrated that his biased position makes him blind from anything different from what he wants to see. This post is doing nothing but getting people angry with each other.
It looks like a good time to stop competing. The participants have won, but the judge will not award a winner. I doubt the judge will change and award a winner just because more people won more times.
I suggest avoiding contests fun by a blogger whose purpose is to support his political position. The first response to such a contest should be a pointer to an unbiased third party to run it.
I'm a conservative and Doug, you're the reason why we get a bad name. You're an idiot. You didn't even read the subtitle to the article:
ReplyDelete"Elena Kagan, Supreme Court nominee, said she 'abhorred' the Pentagon's 'don't ask, don't tell' policy banning gays from serving openly. In her confirmation hearings, critics will focus on her efforts to limit military recruiting at Harvard."
It's pretty obvious that you don't have any critical thinking skills beyond that of fourth grader who doesn't want to believe that Santa isn't real.
Since you cannot think for yourself with out going into mindless drivel yourself and pulling Strawmen arguments out of your ass by misquoting and taking quotes out of context, I'll explain it for you.
To limit does not mean to ban. In the context of the CSM article, they use the term "to limit" as "as far as something can go" (Princeton Wordnet). As CSM points out, there is a law in place that states that Military Recruiters are allowed to have access to campuses. Kagan did not violate this law as the CSM argued, but rather the military, who became limited (my definition: Restricted or Confined)in their capacities to recruit on campus, believed that Harvard was not allowing FULL UNRESTRICTED ACCESS TO ALL LOCATIONS/SERVICES ON CAMPUS. Kagan said that the military could recruit, but that they should not be allowed access to the Office of Career Services. OCS is ONE part of the overall campus, but is a MAJOR part for recruitment for job placement, which is why they felt they were being "hindered." Kagan upheld the law, allowing access to the campus, but barred access to OCS.
In case you missed the point, OCS IS NOT THE FULL CAMPUS. Fox News lied, and you have to pay up.
You're giving Conservatives a bad name, and you're looking like an idiot to anyone who can think for themselves. Your replies are also quite childish and immature. Grow up and pay up.
Doug, your response to about 100 people pointing out Fox News' lies is to bury your head in the sand?
ReplyDeleteIt's sad how "right winger" and "dishonest" have become synonymous these days.
http://www.spitefulcritic.com/home/10-most-ridiculous-fox-news-lies-creative-edits-and-half-truths
ReplyDeletePlease let me know where to collect my money.
Whoa, Doug! I've been keeping up with news over the holiday on my BlackBerry & skimmed over this one. Now it's today's top post, with more comments than I've ever seen in response to your writing. Must've hit a nerve or something. I've noticed the standard drivel that passes for considered criticism.
ReplyDeleteGreat job! Keep it up. Remember; if they're here gnashing and whining, they're not somewhere else foisting their wretched dispositions upon other people.
bahahahahahaa!!! So not only do you think that a Republican accusing her of the same lie that Fox News reported is somehow "proof" -- yes, Jeff Sessions is lying; you might as well have cited Fox News -- but the Congressional record goes on to show that Kagan insisted that recruiters still visited the campus!
ReplyDeleteLet's look at your ancillary points:
1. ABC News "reported" it -- actually, what they reported was what Jeff Sessions accused her of. Fox News does this all the time (e.g. "people found Obama's citizenship questionable") so they don't actually lie. This is why your challenge had any difficulty at all.
2. The DOD emails.
2a. The DOD complains that there had been a delay and "it may already be too late." Well, the truth is that it WASN'T too late; recruiters showed up on campus and therefore there was no "de facto" ban.
2b. "encouraged students to demonstrate against the presence of recruiters . . . (and to) express their views clearly and forcefully" -- This is not a ban. Nor is it even encouraging harassment.
2c. Participation in the HLS program is not the only way to recruit on campus. In fact, did you even notice that in the transcripts you're pointing out that the office even gave the military another group it could use to help them recruit on campus?
2d. "I asked him if I could at least post a job posting via their office and he said no." Again, this is the Harvard Law School job posting. Not recruiting on campus. Had Fox News reported, "Kagan, as head of Harvard Law School, denied the military job postings at the Harvard Law School campus," we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Remember that we're talking about BANNING recruiters from campus: "banning the military from the campus", "a controversial wartime ban on campus military recruitment." Those are Fox News's words. Specifically, Kagan would have had to have banned the military from the campus PERIOD. Not simply denied the military use of the Law School offices.
directorblue.blogspot.com==pwnt
ReplyDeleteTypical lib response. Dwell on one issue till hell freezes over. Never mind trying to unearth a different potential lie.
ReplyDeleteyou and your ilk have ruined this country. you've been proven wrong and you still can't admit it. you made the rules so vague so you could change them later and not have to cough up the money. you are the worst of the worst, the most pansy excuse for a man i've ever heard.
ReplyDeleteasking someone to find a lie on the fox news channel is like asking if you can find a drop of water in the ocean.
time and time again, it's been proven in scientific polls that people who get their news primarily from fox news are misinformed. in an absolute and relative sense (relative to the "liberal" mainstream media and other sources like NPR). we are talking strict facts here--on those, fox news viewers are completely confused.
half of you idiots thought that there were actually WMD found in iraq. the other half equate obama (possibly the most level-headed president we've had in decades) to a nazi, and you remember the "death panels" lie?
the line between "commentator" and "journalist" is blurry on fox news, no one knows who is stating an opinion and what is fact on that channel.
keep your gold, it will be useful when the next congress composed of uneducated, corporate ass-kisser hillbillies like you runs our economy to the ground. maybe you can use it to buy a ticket to china when all the "jobs are gone".
Sounds like you owe the man some Gold.
ReplyDeleteHis facts are logically presented and check out.
You call people names because you've lost.
Pretty Simple.
I guess you weren't telling the truth about paying. To me that's a lie. Honesty is a virture. Try it and pay your debt. http://mediamatters.org/blog/201101040014
ReplyDeleteOh my god, just pay the man already.
ReplyDeletePretty sad, man. The problem is, some people don't know when to keep their big mouths shut. Then, when proven wrong, they will bend the laws of logic and reality to imagine otherwise.
ReplyDeleteDoug, I think you've read the MM article closely by now, and deep down, you're feeling pretty lame. You're scrambling and it shows. Just take this as a lesson and learn to think before you speak.
The sad thing is that the only thing you know how to do is throw around invective and insults. MM is able to show you're wrong in half the text and ten times the class. Whether or not you like their ideology, they are schooling you HARD. If you hate MM, you should just crawl away quietly because you're making them look good and yourself look pathetic.
I also find it amusing that conservative commentators in this thread have interpreted people laughing at Doug's failure to be an example of him getting them all upset. Can't you guys tell when someone is being pointed out as a fool? Nobody is "angry" that Doug has welched on his bet. We're all just laughing because it's so predictable. OF COURSE he was never going to pay anyone anything, no matter what they turned up. Did anyone think otherwise for even a second?
ReplyDeleteYou're a pathetic liar without the honor or the morality to back up your word, which is obviously worth less than nothing.
ReplyDeleteYou're a miserable shill and everybody that isn't already converted to your hypocritical, immoral, and dishonest blog is laughing at you.
You have no grace. You have no honor. People like you are murdering the country that I love, and you are amongst the most cowardly and pathetic amongst them.
A man is as good as his word. You obviously are no man at all.
You lost the bet. Pay up!
ReplyDeleteWow, you could power a small island with that furious amount of backpedaling.
ReplyDeleteI love the viral,liberal,troll spamming !!!
ReplyDeleteNot a independent thought amongst them !!
Keep up the great work Doug !!!
The louder they hiss and spit, the closer you are on the mark !!!
MRPKW, do you write ad copy? Because you are fucking in love with exclamation points. Here's a tip: one per sentence. I mean, I know you're excited and all by all these people calling Doug a fool, but keep it in your pants.
ReplyDeleteIt is very simple, really... Let's say a guy saves two kids from a cliff but their mother fell and died. I could report this a few ways. The honest and straight forward way, "Man saves two children but mother slipped out of his grip and fell to her death."
ReplyDeleteOr I can try it the Fox News way, "Man saves two children but lets mother fall to her death."
They are both versions of the truth but one is honest and the other is misleading. This is Fox News MO... It's not that they are straight out lying, its that thy are reporting it in a way to drive your opinions instead of just presenting the facts and letting you, the viewer, have your own opinion. This is also why they felt it was necessary to have a tag line of 'We report, you decide' - to give the auspice of honesty and being objective, some things they very much are not.
Doug is as dishonest as these liberals. You say one thing, have it taken the wrong way, people call you out on it and you back pedal. You are no better than the liberals ruining this country. You should be ashamed of your self, but seeing as how you are not a man of your word, it should not matter. More than one person played your game and (technically) won. Congratulations, you are no better than these liberal democrats that you bash everyday.
ReplyDeleteThe really funny thing is that, if Fox News were their kid, they wouldn't put up with their crap.
ReplyDeleteIf a Fox News viewer had a kid who told their father they were going to neighbor Johnny's for the night and then got busted underage drinking at a party across town, what would happen? "But dad I DID go to Johnny's, I was telling the truth."
"Then why were you arrested across town?"
"Well, we went there after I got to Johnny's. See, I was honest and told you the truth..."
Yea, that kid would be in serious trouble. But when a major news network (any of them) does it, we react differently because we make them the authority for our information with very little follow-up on them.
"Typical lib response. Dwell on one issue till hell freezes over. Never mind trying to unearth a different potential lie."
ReplyDeleteIf Doug here wasn't so braindead, we wouldn't be sitting here arguing over what the word "banned" means -- we'd have proved that Fox News has lied outright at least once and Doug would've given up his gold. But in typical Fox-conservative fashion, we had to spend time proving that you can't twist words to mean anything you want them to. (See also: Death panels.)
Not only that, but in conservative fashion, if we moved on, Doug here would simply claim victory. Which he just can't.
But Greg has given you your wish. He's documented 3 new lies from Fox: http://mediamatters.org/blog/201101030027
You're boned, Doug.
So they've posted 3 more well documented lies over at MM, how are you going to get out of these?
ReplyDeletehttp://mediamatters.org/blog/201101040014
Trying to make Doug (and other conservatives understand how they're wrong by engaging in a coherent discussion/debate is pretty useless. It's like trying to teach Algebra to someone who doesn't believe in Math.
ReplyDeleteThe more you present facts/logic, the more fervently they cling to their faith.
"CNN accurately reported"
ReplyDeleteI believe this statement is in error. Impossible to believe CNN would accurately report anything. They simply read their leftist propaganda
24/7.
EDGEWISE.
ReplyDeleteAncient Chinese philosopher say:
"Bite Me"!!!!
Keep it going Doug !!!!
I can hear the spittle and foam from here !!!
Hey, MRPKW, I can taste your tears from here.
ReplyDelete@Read_This 12:31am:
ReplyDelete"I applaud the use of a thesaurus for "dullard."
I don't know if it's just me, but I tend to trust mature sources over ones that childishly spout insults."
Did you just insult me, then admonish me for being insulting? Wow, I see your point - it's on the top of your head, dolt. Here's another name for you which did not require research: "sanctimonious ass".
Do something better than admit you're wrong. Admit you're wrong by donating the $1400 to a charity.
ReplyDelete@The_Bad:
ReplyDeleteI never said I was a saint. I thought lowering myself to your level might help you get my point. Looks like it worked. Mission accomplished.
Edgwise, I don't know how you can match up against MRPKW's exclamation points and concise rebuttals like "Bite me". Give up, MRPKW definitely wins the innuendo and the i-have-no-facts-so-i-will-spat-off-personal-attacks-and-rhetoric contest.
ReplyDeleteHey Doug - "stonewalling" != "banned from campus.
ReplyDeleteDefinitions for both are here:
stonewall: 1.
1:
chiefly British : to engage in obstructive parliamentary debate or delaying tactics
2
: to be uncooperative, obstructive, or evasive
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stonewall
"ban : to prohibit especially by legal means ; also : to prohibit the use, performance, or distribution of <ban a pesticide "
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ba
Nice Job Doug!
ReplyDeleteIt is fun to pick on liberals!
You "progressives" are a hoot !!!
ReplyDeletefor 8 years you prattle on about George Bush "lying" about WMDs with a definition of "lie" that's fuzzier than a peach and looser than Paris Hilton, BUT NOW you want to change that.
What a bunch of "100% bulls***" like the grand exalted strap on Olberman said, you should have no trouble coming up with a plethora of real lies.
Your gold is safe Doug !!!!!!
MRPKW, where did you learn that pissing off as many people as possible, while using as many exclamation points as possible, means that you have won the debate?
ReplyDelete@Karl
ReplyDelete"Nice Job Doug!
It is fun to pick on liberals!"
I can't tell if this sarcasm, I certainly hope so.
MRPKW!!!!!!!!!!!
ReplyDelete"I can hear the spittle and foam from here !!!"
You can hear foam and spittle? Do you eat shits like me for breakfast?
Listen, guy!!!!! That bite me thing was pretty good!!!!! You are right, Doug is getting their goat but good!!!!! Everyone is just fuming at his logic!!!!! They are not laughing at him or his sycophantic followers!!!!! It's true, you are winning, don't stop now!!!!! Yaaaaaay!!!!!
Good night!!!!!
Seriously though, Doug, the more I think about it, the more I think you never expected to win this competition. Anyone with half a brain knows that it would be ridiculous to say that ANY news outfit hadn't lied at one time or another. Now MM is listing more FN lies. How can you hope to keep up with them? They have probably watched more Fox News than you!
ReplyDeleteI mean, I wouldn't make a statement like you made about ANY of the networks. So unless you think Fox News is just the most ethical media organization in existence, I can't imagine you really believe what you're saying. I think you're just trying to drive traffic to your site by being as dumb as possible.
Otherwise, if you really meant your bet and you're a man of honor, you're going to have to address those other points and at least pretend to think you've rebutted them. Good luck, dude. Because if you really meant this, you picked a battle with extremely long odds. Fortunately for you, I think you're smarter than that. After all, it's easy to just go online and talk shit and then never follow through with your promises. There's no such thing as bad publicity, right?
C'mon, Doug. Admit I was right. I'm a fourteen year old. You were proven wrong by a fourteen year old- and one with the ethics to not walk out of a bet.
ReplyDeleteDamn, Doug. All this abuse of Media Matters. Watch your step, though, or someone will charge you with child abuse.
ReplyDelete@Read_This 6:23pm:
ReplyDelete“Incredibly mature, am I right?”
“Doug resorted to personal insults.”
“I don't know if it's just me, but I tend to trust mature sources over ones that childishly spout insults.”
“I'm not saying you have to agree, but at least respond in a respectful way”
“Here's a tip, guys: it doesn't make you look very smart.”
…and then…
“I never said I was a saint.”
Nope, you never said you were a saint, but you have certainly proved that you are a smug and pious self-avowed foremost-authority. If your mission was to look ridiculous, bravo douchenozzle.
Also, none of us are impressed with you claiming to be at a top Ivy League university or that you used to blow executives at a top business firm. The fact that you mention it at all indicates you are more likely a DeVry drop-out currently laid off from dropping the french fry buckets at your local greasy spoon.
The Media Matters senior fellow is so desperately parsing his words that he's characterizing the end result of Kagan's hostility towards the military, (lack of access of recruiters to the students resulting in a defacto ban until the US gov intervened) not as "barring" or banning", but "stonewalling", hence, Fox was lying? Even though virtually every news outlet that has ever reported on the story, characterized it as a ban?
ReplyDeleteSeriously? That's their argument?
Hey, guys....it happened only six years ago. Some of us actually remember that far back.
nicedeb, that's not "desperately parsing," that's having a basic understanding of English words and their meanings. Kagan did not ban military recruiters from campus, more than two FOX reporters said that she did, and other news sources reported that FOX was incorrect. Even if this doesn't meet your definition of lying, it definitely meets Doug's as he so narrowly defined it when he made the bet.
ReplyDeleteYou don't have any money on the line, so you don't have to stoop to Doug's level of weaseldom in order to defend the indefensible.
It's not just the liberals that think Doug is a pathetic weasel. I'm a conservative Republican and I also think Doug is pathetic and should just go ahead and pay the damn bet -- save some face and quit making us conservatives look so awful.
ReplyDeleteKagan did not ban military recruiters from campus.
ReplyDeleteSorry, but you can't change history.
Kagan for all intents and purposes banned military recruiters in 2004, and admitted as much in a letter:
And, despite any claims to the contrary, the Solomon amendment was in full force and effect as the law of the land when Kagan premeditatedly broke it.
Kagan pled guilty in a September 2005 letter to the Harvard Law School Community. Quoting from that letter, with emphasis added to clarify Kagan’s wordy admission:
“In November 2004, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a decision in the FAIR [Solomon] case, holding the Defense Department’s policy violates First Amendment freedoms. The Supreme Court granted review of this decision; the Third Circuit ruling is stayed pending the Supreme Court’s decision, which is expected later this year... Although the Supreme Court’s action meant that no injunction applied against the Department of Defense, I reinstated the application of our anti-discrimination policy to the military (after appropriate consultation with University Officials) in the wake of the Third Circuit’s decision; as a result, the military did not receive OCS [Office of Career Services] assistance during our spring 2005 recruiting season. My hope in taking this action was that the Department would choose not to enforce its interpretation of the Solomon Amendment while the Third Circuit opinion stood.”
Stripped of all obfuscating legalese, Kagan’s words bear repeating:
“Although the...Court’s action meant that no injunction applied...I reinstated...our...policy... My hope in taking this action was that the Department would choose not to enforce...the Solomon Amendment.”
As the military has long known, hope is not a method. In Dean Kagan’s case, her hope demonstrates a total disregard for the rule of law.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38143
Imma conservative republican, too. Doug Ross should pay up already, he's making us all look rilly rilly bad. There are many many more conservative Republicans like me out there who are totally scandalized by Doug Ross's scandalous behavior. Stop embarrassing us, Doug!
ReplyDeleteThe Media Matters senior fellow is so desperately parsing his words that he's characterizing the end result of Kagan's hostility towards the military...not as "barring" or banning", but "stonewalling", hence, Fox was lying?
ReplyDeleteI believe that's not the MM characterization, that's from the DoD documents and Doug.
Even though virtually every news outlet that has ever reported on the story, characterized it as a ban?
Maybe some citations? In a quick search, the best I could come up with was a CBSNews link that specifically debunks this claim.
Specifically, that article goes a long way to rebut the text that you quoted from another blog without citation.
I also found another interesting source in this search in the backyard of you conservatives. According to Kagan's predecessor, such policies had been in place since 1979, interrupted only in 2002 by Air Force insistence on pressing the Solomon Amendment. Kagan only returned to the older policy when the Solomon Amendment was declared unconstitutional in Federal Court!
Your quoted blogger says "And, despite any claims to the contrary, the Solomon amendment was in full force and effect as the law of the land when Kagan premeditatedly broke it." But this assertion is not explained, likely because it cannot be explained.
The military continued to recruit through the Veteran affairs office, and recruitment did not fall. How can you say that military recruiters are banned from Harvard campus if their recruitment efforts aren't even hampered, and they are coordinating through an office in Harvard university?
You say things like "Kagan for all intents and purposes banned military recruiters in 2004....". I like that: "For all intents and purposes." Can you say it without such a strong qualifier and keep a straight face?
Always funny when people have to describe to everyone else that they really have won the argument.
ReplyDeleteHere's a fact:
ReplyDeleteElena Kagan NEVER banned military recruiters from Harvard University. She may have made it more difficult for them to recruit on campus. She may have avoided cooperation with them. But she never specifically deemed that "they are banned from Harvard."
To me, the most telling, and pathetic, aspect of this little contest is the fact that Doug had to give such strict conditions. The fact that he had to limit the contest to "reporters," leaving out all of Fox's analysts and pundits (which makes up a vast majority of Fox's TV personalities) is pretty much an admission that Fox is ridden with lies.
You lose, Doug.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/current/orgs/affinity-organizations/hls-veterans-association-statement-on-military-rec.html
ReplyDeletenicedeb can only try to make a point by taking Kagan's statement:
ReplyDelete"reinstated the application of our anti-discrimination policy to the military (after appropriate consultation with University Officials) in the wake of the Third Circuit’s decision; as a result, the military did not receive OCS [Office of Career Services] assistance during our spring 2005 recruiting season."
and changing it to:
“Although the...Court’s action meant that no injunction applied...I reinstated...our...policy..."
Is it at all possible for you to understand that not receiving OCS assistance IS NOT the same as being banned from the Harvard campus?
nicedeb, you opened by accusing Media Matters of "desperately parsing" words, and then you go on and parse your little heart out.
ReplyDeleteFantastic.
On the statement of Megyn Kelly: "[T]he criticism of Kagan is that while she was dean of Harvard Law School, and she was dean in 2003, she decided to continue a policy of banning the military from the campus because they didn't like the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy." - Well, was there criticism of Kagan in this regard? Seem to me there was, therefore Kelly’s statement is TRUE.
ReplyDeleteOn the statement of Bret Baier: "The top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee has asked the Pentagon about its recruitment efforts at Harvard while Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan was dean of the law school there. Kagan barred recruiters in protest of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy." - Two parts here - Did the top Republican on the Committee ask the Pentagon about its efforts? I see nothing showing he didn’t, so that part is TRUE. Did Kagan bar recruiters in protest of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy? Seems the evidence indicates that was the case, so no lie there. And if that was not a lie then it would mean on the whole Baier’s statement was TRUE.
Carl Cameron‘s statement: "In the Clinton White House, she recommended compromised policies that worry conservatives over abortion and guns. As dean of the Harvard Law School, she made headlines supporting a controversial wartime ban on campus military recruitment."
- Two parts to this also… Did she recommend compromised policies on abortion and guns? Yes, so TRUE to this. And when she was dean at Harvard Law School did she make headlines concerning said ban? Yes, she did. Part two is TRUE also.
It would seem to me that Mr. Gertz should understand more about what he’s talking about before making such claims.
Now, could or would a FOX News Reporter restate a lie in a story (which is what this fuss is about isn’t it?)? Well, of course they would. I’ve heard them myself… Pelosi claimed to have done a good job and they repeated that she had said such nonsense. They repeated Obama’s claim that he thought the Healthcare Bill was good. Both of those fables were repeated by FOX News Reporters… but isn’t that part of giving use the news? Telling us about all the BS that other folks say?
Now Doug, I won’t post any links or videos or such (although I‘ve never had my hands on a Kugerrand… but you may want to rethink how you word your challenges.
@BigAl
ReplyDeleteThe problem here is trying to define who at Fox is actually a "reporter."
By Fox's own admission, a majority of its programming is opinion programming.
Doug needs to tell us what he considers "news" and who he considers to be a "reporter" on Fox before anyone can actually legitimately take up this challenge.
As I said before, just the fact that he put such stringent and specific requirements on what counts as a lie is pretty much an admission from Doug that a huge majority of content on Fox (ie-Fox and Friends, Cavuto, Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, Hannity, Van Susternenennenen, etc.) is untruthful, misleading, and lies.
Why won't he allow the challenge to INCLUDE programming from Fox's pundits and analysts, including some of the above-named programming?
Why is the world would anyone even take this douche up on his bet? He obviously is never going to believe anything he is sent regardless if it is fact or fiction.
ReplyDeleteThis whole experiment is akin to trying to change a devoutly religious person into an atheist. You simply cannot change the mind of someone who has unyielding faith in something. This blogger has unyielding faith in the right and in Fox news.
It's hilarious that the internet community has pwn'd Doug so hard - not on liberal forums or blogs - but IN THE COMMENT SECTION OF HIS OWN BLOG. There have been several lies told by Fox News documented by commentators here (and countless more documented elsewhere).
ReplyDeleteI also noticed that you didn't offer $1,400 in gold for the FIRST lie documented, but for ANY lie documented. It's looks like you are already several thousand in debt. If you ever had any intention of paying up, that is.
PAY THE MONEY DOUG!!!
ReplyDeleteWe've seen numerous cases where your challenge was accepted and you failed.
PAY THE MONEY DOUG!!!