The Rebel News Thread
- Thread starter mitchell76
- Start date
Mitch, who said she was an SP or a Sugarbaby? Either girls you know they are after your money, I'm talking a hot Civvie who is about to rape you of your bank account because you fall for the lies. Fox Fake News lies to you and the hosts laugh about it over drinks and expensive dinners.
But Fox lies 100% about certain topics like the bogus "Stolen Election" crap. Poor Dutchie believed that nonsense for months and even posted on this board about how Trump had "proof" and the 100 or so judges who heard the cases were all corrupt.
Now I realize that you aren't nearly as gullible as Dutch. But there's still a chance you might be misinformed badly if you watch Fox News.
Keep up the good fight mitchell !
Rebel news to the woke lefties is like garlic to a vampire.
Shine the light on the darkness of the woke left.
I would love to be the Vampire Slayer that drives a stake into Rebel Twat News! I'd find me a Buffy to tag along and we would celebrate after the staking and burning party.Keep up the good fight mitchell !
Rebel news to the woke lefties is like garlic to a vampire.
Shine the light on the darkness of the woke left.
Sorry, that position is currently taken by mitchell.
But you might apply to be Buffy.
Playing a female part might be more suitable for a woke male.
No, not everyone lies.
Fox told you that, but they were saying that so you'd accept their lies.
Has Justin ever lied? Did Justin originally lie about "Blackface'?? Did Justin lie about Jody Wilson-Raybould?? I rest my case!!
That is why this fLIES News Network are going public about it............LOL:
Good for Dominion to expose this dangerous so called "News Network" that has constantly lied to their viewers over the years:
Fox News is in trouble. The network has been sued for $1.6 billion by Dominion Voting Systems for false claims it aired about the 2020 presidential election. Fox hosts, and many of the guests they showcased, claimed that Dominion’s technology “stole” votes from defeated President Donald Trump, and, among their more wild allegations, claimed that Dominion’s machines were engineered in Venezuela with the help of Hugo Chávez (who died in 2013) to rig elections.
Most defamation suits against media companies are dismissed on First Amendment grounds, but this lawsuit, filed in March of 2021, has already survived a motion to dismiss. Most suits that survive this long are settled (like the lawsuit brought by the parents of Nicholas Sandman against The Washington Post), but, in this case, Dominion has little incentive to settle. Its entire business model requires the public’s trust, and a clear statement that Fox was lying, on purpose, is probably worth more to it than whatever Fox would offer by way of a “no fault” settlement. Moreover, Fox might not want to settle this case: Smartmatic, another voting machine company, has also filed a $2.7 billion lawsuit against Fox, and that case has survived a motion to dismiss as well. If Fox settled with one, it would almost have to settle with the other. Both companies have also sued Newsmax, which seems to be competing with CNN for Fox’s audience.
Cases like this usually settle because media defendants don’t want to open themselves up for “discovery,” which allows plaintiffs to see internal discussions at the organization. Fox is offering an object lesson as to why companies fear discovery. The Dominion lawsuit has already uncovered a number of e-mails that paint Fox in a terrible light. These e-mails have shown that Fox owner Rupert Murdoch and others in the company did not believe the election conspiracy theories their own network was pushing. The Dominion lawsuit is shaping up as the biggest threat to Fox News since the network emerged to threaten democratic self-government.
Fox isn’t giving up, though. For its defense, the company argues that it wasn’t promoting lies about Dominion but merely covering lies other people told. Here’s how Fox’s lawyers explained this defense in their filings: “It is plain as day that any reasonable viewer would understand that Fox News was covering and commenting on allegations about Dominion, not reporting that the allegations were true.”
I think that Fox’s addled viewers absolutely believed the network’s lies about Dominion and that the 2020 election was in some way “rigged.” Some of them even went on to attack the Capitol in an attempt to overthrow the government and hang the vice president of the United States. But as a legal proposition, sure, this is the most credible argument for Fox to make.
The relevant legal standard for this situation was set by the Supreme Court in 1964 in the seminal case New York Times Company v. Sullivan. In a unanimous opinion, the court ruled that the First Amendment gives broad protections to media companies reporting on the news, even if the news is false. But the First Amendment is not a blank check for the media to lie. To succeed against a news organization, plaintiffs have to show that the false reports or statements were made against them with “actual knowledge” or “reckless disregard” for the truth.
That is a very high bar, but Fox employs some very bad journalists. Suggesting that a foreign leader who had been dead for seven years helped build voting machines used to rig the 2020 election sure sounds like “reckless disregard” for the truth about the election or the space-time continuum. I can’t predict how an actual trial against Fox News would play out, but if you wanted to construct a pattern of news coverage that failseven under the generous protections of NYT v. Sullivan, Fox’s postelection coverage would be a good place to start.
Should the case go to trial, and should Fox wind up on the losing end, the company would have another problem during the appeals process: A couple of the Supreme Court justices most likely to watch Fox News might be unwilling to save it. Even though the court is stacked with Republican appointees, the ideology of at least some of them does not help Fox in this case.
The reason is that these conservatives don’t want to strengthen NYT v. Sullivan, even if it would protect media organizations like Fox. They want to destroy it so that it’s easier for aggrieved rich people to sue the so-called “liberal” media for coverage they don’t like. When Trump talks about “opening up libel laws,” this is what he’s talking about, and while Trump himself lacks an intellectual core and defends Fox’s coverage of his failed campaign, the conservatives on the Supreme Court might stick to their ideological guns.
Chief among those conservatives is Justice Clarence Thomas. He’s already on record as wanting to reconsider NYT v. Sullivan, and has written that the case is a policy decision “masquerading as constitutional law.” Thomas wrote that in a 2019 case where the court rejected a defamation claim against serial rapist Bill Cosby made by one of his victims. Thomas agreed with the court, but wrote separately, weaving in his thoughts on revisiting Sullivan just to show how serious he was about overturning the case.
Fox News May Finally Pay the Price for Its Lies
The Dominion Voting Systems lawsuit has placed the network in real legal jeopardy, and even its friends might not bail it out this time.
www.thenation.com
We know that Trump lied over 30,000 times since he became the President. But there is a huge difference with the likes of Fox News lying and spreading conspiracy theories that resulted in the January 6th Insurrection. Then knowingly sewing further dissent among their viewers with the "stolen elections" disinformation and now going through what will be the most humiliating court case brought about by Dominion Voting machines is the difference between night and day. On the other hand the one or two misleading statements by politicians pale in comparison with these real culprits. They defended Trump when all along they were fully aware of Trump's incompetency, just to please their viewers!!
What is real about what churches tell you? seems like the message always goes quickly from "love one another" to "send in your money" and "do as we say, not as we do"...
Last edited:
Shrug.
2 minutes out of several hours where he was going bad shit in the building. Plus Chansley is so unstable that he could have read this message and then 5 minutes later forgotten it and done more bad shit.
But if he's a real pastor in a real church, he's subject to some kind of scrutiny and control and a code of ethics. But Reimer is just a free agent bogus grifter.
I dealt with this already. Go read my posts.
They don't have the manpower to arrest him, so they shadow him.
He's not supposed to be in there. He's breaking the law. That's why he's in jail. In your last post, he's telling people to leave and go home, but here he is wandering around somewhere he is not allowed to be. The video in fact proves the criminal charge, not defends against it.
