FOX NEWS gets caught reporting more fake news to viewers!
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — The View
pvd295 — 9 years ago(January 02, 2017 02:35 PM)
At the end of last week, as 2016 was coming to a close FOX NEWS reported to viewers that 'Food Stamp Fraud' was at an all-time high, and suggested it's time to end the program once Republicans take over the White House next this month. They also posted it on their website.
FOX reported that "70 million dollars was wasted on Food Stamp Fraud", and attributed this finding to their investigation which led them to reports from the USDA's current 2016 stats.
Problem is, the last time the USDA released stats on 'Food Stamp Fraud' was in 2011, and the USDA told those questioning this FOX story they have no idea where FOX came up with those stats, since none were taken this year.
But if this is true, then this is good news as the USDA's funding was $71 Billion in SNAP benefits; so this current figure from FOX shows fraud at only 0.098% of funding - so why end the program?
The reality is that by looking a t fraudulent SNAP payouts, the percentage decreased from 6% in 2005, to less than 4% in 2011. SO fraud has been decreasing. Same with SNAP benefits for cash - it's been decreasing since 1993.
When this was brought to the attention of those incompetent wizards at FOX NEWS, get what they did ? They scrubbed their website and changed their story.
WHOOPS! If you're going to lie, at least get your lie straight.
"Splodey heads keep splodin' " - Sarah Palin, 7-1-16 -
pjpurple-1 — 9 years ago(January 02, 2017 04:54 PM)
Even if Fox got the numbers wrong, $71 BILLION in food stamps is GOOD news? Only to a leftard.
I thought LBJ's "war on poverty" was going to actually END poverty, not create more dependency and leftard voters!
What's with watching all the reporting on FOX news? Why are you watching that channel?
As for, "if you're going to lie, get your lies straight". Again? WHAT?? How does one lie "straight"? Lies are not "straight talk", except to a HilLary supporter of course. LOL What? You think EVERYONE is a Clinton? Only they can lie with such smoothness and ease and never get caught.
You can be such a dummy, ya know that? emoji alert
Facts are not liberals strong suit. Rhetoric is. Thomas Sowell -
A_l_a_c_h_u_a_1 — 9 years ago(January 02, 2017 05:14 PM)
What's with watching all the reporting on FOX news? Why are you watching that channel?
it's the typical example of how pvd contradicts herself all the time. She is constantly coming on here claiming to know what Fox News reports, then she says that she never watches it and that only right wing nut jobs watch Fox News. Yet she somehow always knows what Fox News is reporting, as there are constant threads from her about it.
It's just like how earlier she said that she would not watch the upcoming inauguration. But I guarantee you she will be talking about it on here. I will bet anyone on that. She will have threads upon threads about the inauguration.
pvd has zero credibility. She claims she doesn't watch or pay attention to things - such as Fox News - yet she suddenly knows what they report. So either she lies and she really does watch - which of course makes her a liar, or she doesn't watch it and makes things up and contributes to "fake news" - which also makes her a liar. Why anyone takes whatever she says seriously is beyond me. She has proven time and time again to have zero credibility, she never gives sources to what she posts, and she flat out makes stuff up. She is a proven liar. -
pvd295 — 9 years ago(January 02, 2017 07:25 PM)
Even if Fox got the numbers wrong, $71 BILLION in food stamps is GOOD news? Only to a leftard.
I thought LBJ's "war on poverty" was going to actually END poverty, not create more dependency and leftard voters!
Yes, but then Reagan got in and wiped out the middle class with his "Voo Doo Economics" (as his running mate liked to call it), making the rich richer and the poor poorer. Bush 41 continued with the voo-doo, and then his son sealed our fate with the worst economic collapse since the stone age - putting more people on SNAP, as they lost their jobs, their homes, and savings account. Not exactly what LBJ was envisioning, but then again he probably wasn't envisioning a Hollywood B-List actor to run our country (never mind a reality TV star).
C'mon PJ&Pimples, if you're going to cite history - cite the whole history.
What's with watching all the reporting on FOX news? Why are you watching that channel?
I actually watched this on MSNBC this weekend, and it was linked on their site. So I wasn't watching FOX News (Sorry to disappoint you); I was watching MSNBC which provided a link to the Fox newscast. MSNBC is one of the news sources who questioned the USDA and left them scratching their heads as to why FOX was reporting these lies.
"Splodey heads keep splodin' " - Sarah Palin, 7-1-16 -
pjpurple-1 — 9 years ago(January 03, 2017 05:40 PM)
voodoo?? Who woud know more about voodoo than youdoo?? LOL
Worst economic collapse since the "Stone Age"?? Didn't realize that the United Staes of America was THAT OLD!!
I can TELL you what LBJ was "envisioning" but you won't believe it He wanted minorities on the welfare roles. He wanted people BEHOLDEN and dependent on the government so they'd vote DEOMOCRAT. Why on earth woud politicians WANT people to be self sufficient?
That woud make it TOO hard to fool them with Washington bullsh#T. How can you get votes from people who don't NEED you?? You STILL don't get that, do ya/ Okay. I'm patient. I'll keep trying to explain things to you.
As far as a "B-list actor" or "reality star" running the countryso freaking what??? I'm sure you are familiar with the Constitution. The Founding Fathers listed only THREE requirements for President. A candidate must be 35, a natural born citizen , and a resident of the USA for fourteen consecutive years. Well, I KNOW TRUMP fufills all THOSE requirements!
Our Founders did NOT want a Political Class. They did not want professional politicians to run the government. They themselves were not politicians. They were planters, businessmen, doctors, lawyers,etc. They did NOT endeavor to create a ruling class.
Trump is exactly the type of person they had in mind, someone who ran a business, employed people, created wealth,etc. Not someone who sucked off the Federal teat for his whole adult life getting public housing, stipends, free postage, free staff members, free trips with the President or his wife when they go on vacation at the taxpayer's expense, etc., like the Senators and Congressmen who have been in office for decades. AND yeahyou will reply with his "not paying taxes" which was just his taking advantage of the tax code Washington politicians put in place because it benefits THEM!
Okay so you watched MSNBC and (surprise!) they cited a negative Fox report. Was it Rachel Maddow's Show? She is so QUICK to report anything negative about a conservative! You didn't disappoint me. I don't really care who you watch or listen to. It's a free country. Just wondering why you cited "Faux News". It seemed too painful for you to watch so I was curious. Watch whatever you want.
Facts are not liberals strong suit. Rhetoric is. Thomas Sowell -
!!!deleted!!! (28128673) — 9 years ago(January 02, 2017 06:43 PM)
Thanks, pvd. A responsible news organization would make a public apology.
The Washington Post has called out Trump on his lies:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/01/02/yes-donald-trump-lies-a-lot-and-news-organizations-should-say-so/?utm_term=.5d4f59022f33
An editor at The Wall Street Journal is criticizing his newspaper for NOT calling out Trump on his lies:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wall-street-journal-lies-donald-trump_us_586934b8e4b0eb586489df43 -
Dengal — 9 years ago(January 03, 2017 04:47 PM)
So fox gets caught lying, and pvd starts this thread, but the other media lies, and you don't care? All US media is full of fake news.
I actually watched this on MSNBC this weekend, and it was linked on their site. So I wasn't watching FOX News (Sorry to disappoint you);
Don't lie. Anytime someone on fox says something controversial, you are right there with a thread. A few weeks ago you started one about O'Reilly or Hannity saying something that occurred while the program was still on. No doubt MSNBC keeps close tabs on fox, but even they aren't quick enough to do realtime criticism. -
A_l_a_c_h_u_a_1 — 9 years ago(January 03, 2017 04:58 PM)
A few weeks ago you started one about O'Reilly or Hannity saying something that occurred while the program was still on
Excellent point. And that was O'Reilly she posted a thread about, because I posted a thread about what he said about not ever going on The View again, and she posted a thread a couple of minutes after me stating the same thing. And I was posting my thread right when I was watching his show live and right after he made his statement. So pvd had to have been watching O'Reilly too at that same time to get that same information - because like you said, MSNBC isn't
that
quick with realtime info.
The only other possibility is that pvd read my thread and that's how she got her info about what O'Reilly said, and then posted her own thread. LOL! Either way, she is a liar. Because she also claims to have me on ignore and doesn't read my posts - even though she clearly knows what I post. -
pvd295 — 9 years ago(January 03, 2017 05:55 PM)
Don't lie.
Who's lying? This was reported on Rachel Maddow the other night. That's how I became aware of it.
Anytime someone on fox says something controversial, you are right there with a thread. A few weeks ago you started one about O'Reilly or Hannity saying something that occurred while the program was still on.
Occasionally, yes I channel surf (as I usually mention in the post) and come across FOX and see what they have to say about something. I don't watch an entire show - I catch what they're saying and move on. I also channel surf in between MSNBC, CNN, etc.
No doubt MSNBC keeps close tabs on fox, but even they aren't quick enough to do realtime criticism.
They sometimes do. It depends which show is reporting.
"Splodey heads keep splodin' " - Sarah Palin, 7-1-16