Fox Nation Editors scrub Fox Onion article and comments, pretend nothing happened

[rightwinger]

Is there any difference between FoxNews and the Onion?

Oh yes..I forgot.

The Onion realizes it is fake news

 

[Truthmatters]

Damn you people are retarded.

Fox didn't sue anyone, Fox was sued for wrongful termination.

You are a lying sack of dog shit.

Fox countersued these reporters you fucking piss ant pussy

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Damn you people are retarded.

Fox didn't sue anyone, Fox was sued for wrongful termination.

You are a lying sack of dog shit.

Fox countersued these reporters you fucking piss ant pussy

No dumbass, Fox appealed the first ruling and won their appeal.

Do you ever get tired of making shit up?

 

[RDD_1210]

Damn you people are retarded.

Fox didn't sue anyone, Fox was sued for wrongful termination.

You are a lying sack of dog shit.

Fox countersued these reporters you fucking piss ant pussy

No dumbass, Fox appealed the first ruling and won their appeal.

Do you ever get tired of making shit up?

What grounds did they base their appeal on? How did they win the appeal. THAT is what they are trying to point out to you.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You are a lying sack of dog shit.

Fox countersued these reporters you fucking piss ant pussy

No dumbass, Fox appealed the first ruling and won their appeal.

Do you ever get tired of making shit up?

What grounds did they base their appeal on? How did they win the appeal. THAT is what they are trying to point out to you.

On the grounds that no wrongful termination occurred. And they won by providing an irrefutable defense.

 

[Intense]

Well, anyone can be fooled.

After all, millions of people confuse ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, AP, Reuters, NY Times and numerous other "mainstream" outlets with real news every day.

I love that picture. It's not the only time Fox has done that to people they don't like:

Especially the yellow teeth. Nice "touch".

Makes them almost look Brittish.

 

[Truthmatters]

No dumbass, Fox appealed the first ruling and won their appeal.

Do you ever get tired of making shit up?

What grounds did they base their appeal on? How did they win the appeal. THAT is what they are trying to point out to you.

On the grounds that no wrongful termination occurred. And they won by providing an irrefutable defense.

That its legal for them to lie to their viewers.

You have no morals left you fucking scumbag

 

[Lonestar_logic]

What grounds did they base their appeal on? How did they win the appeal. THAT is what they are trying to point out to you.

On the grounds that no wrongful termination occurred. And they won by providing an irrefutable defense.

That its legal for them to lie to their viewers.

You have no morals left you fucking scumbag

No, that there is a difference between "policy" and "law".

 

[Truthmatters]

You are willing to back a station that wanted reporters to LIE to their viewers.

You have no morals asshole

 

[JBeukema]

On the grounds that no wrongful termination occurred. And they won by providing an irrefutable defense.

That its legal for them to lie to their viewers.

You have no morals left you fucking scumbag

No, that there is a difference between "policy" and "law".

read the wording very carefully

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You are willing to back a station that wanted reporters to LIE to their viewers.

You have no morals asshole

I'm not backing anyone. I'm telling you that Fox did not sue anyone for the right to lie, which was your claim. They appealed a judgement against them and won, you want to argue their defense which is just that, a defense.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

That its legal for them to lie to their viewers.

You have no morals left you fucking scumbag

No, that there is a difference between "policy" and "law".

read the wording very carefully

I wrote it, I don't need to read it. Fact is the Court of Appeals decided the FCC’s position against news distortion is only a “policy,” not a “law, rule, or regulation.”

 

[JBeukema]

No, that there is a difference between "policy" and "law".

read the wording very carefully

I wrote it, I don't need to read it.”

there you have it folks

LL wrote the law... or maybe you meant the ruling?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

read the wording very carefully

I wrote it, I don't need to read it.”

there you have it folks

LL wrote the law... or maybe you meant the ruling?

Your concession is duly noted.

 

[goldcatt]

No, that there is a difference between "policy" and "law".

read the wording very carefully

I wrote it, I don't need to read it. Fact is the Court of Appeals decided the FCC’s position against news distortion is only a “policy,” not a “law, rule, or regulation.”

And you're perfectly a-OK with that, and with that becoming legal precedent for ALL infotainment outlets to follow once FOX fought for it, so long as your guys were in the clear on this one case. No concern for journalistic integrity, ethics or the broader impact of what they chose to put out there. Gotcha.

The blind hackery makes me ill on occasion.

 

[RDD_1210]

No dumbass, Fox appealed the first ruling and won their appeal.

Do you ever get tired of making shit up?

What grounds did they base their appeal on? How did they win the appeal. THAT is what they are trying to point out to you.

On the grounds that no wrongful termination occurred. And they won by providing an irrefutable defense.

LOL, "they won by providing an irrefutable defense."? Really?

I asked how the won and THAT's your response?

You should have just said, they won because they argued their side the best. Shameful how you avoid the question I asked, which is HOW did they win...what specific argument did they use? Don't even respond, you're obviously trolling for the sake of it.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

read the wording very carefully

I wrote it, I don't need to read it. Fact is the Court of Appeals decided the FCC’s position against news distortion is only a “policy,” not a “law, rule, or regulation.”

And you're perfectly a-OK with that, and with that becoming legal precedent for ALL infotainment outlets to follow once FOX fought for it, so long as your guys were in the clear on this one case. No concern for journalistic integrity, ethics or the broader impact of what they chose to put out there. Gotcha.

The blind hackery makes me ill on occasion.

Fox didn't fight for it, they simply argued the laws as they were. What they did fight for and won was the appeal on a bad decision by a Florida court in a wrongful termination lawsuit.

You idiots seem forget the subject of the lawsuit and seem to just focus on the defense that was used. You idiots also seem to think that no media outlet has ever distorted the facts. Keep your head buried in the sand!

 

[Lonestar_logic]

What grounds did they base their appeal on? How did they win the appeal. THAT is what they are trying to point out to you.

On the grounds that no wrongful termination occurred. And they won by providing an irrefutable defense.

LOL, "they won by providing an irrefutable defense."? Really?

I asked how the won and THAT's your response?

You should have just said, they won because they argued their side the best. Shameful how you avoid the question I asked, which is HOW did they win...what specific argument did they use? Don't even respond, you're obviously trolling for the sake of it.

You didn't ask for specifics.

I provided the court document that outlines everything. If that's not good enough for you, then too bad.

 

[Truthmatters]

the reason the "won" the case is they proved (to the biased judge at least) that there was no law againt them lying.

 

[goldcatt]

I wrote it, I don't need to read it. Fact is the Court of Appeals decided the FCC’s position against news distortion is only a “policy,” not a “law, rule, or regulation.”

And you're perfectly a-OK with that, and with that becoming legal precedent for ALL infotainment outlets to follow once FOX fought for it, so long as your guys were in the clear on this one case. No concern for journalistic integrity, ethics or the broader impact of what they chose to put out there. Gotcha.

The blind hackery makes me ill on occasion.

Fox didn't fight for it, they simply argued the laws as they were. What they did fight for and won was the appeal on a bad decision by a Florida court ina wrongful termination lawsuit.

You idiots seem forget the subject of the lawsuit and seem to just focus on the defense that was used. You idiots aslo seem to think that no media outlet has ever distorted the facts. Keep your head buried in the sand!

I call bullshit. It was never an issue, never debated, never interpreted, never applied and certainly never part of the common law record until FOX decided to make it so by voluntarily choosing to argue it as their appeal because they didn't want to have to take back reporters who might actually tell the truth.

No shit they all lie. Why do you think I refuse to refer to them as "news" outlets? They are infotainment factories, thanks not entirely but in no small part to the blessing they were given in the form of this ruling. Get your own head out of your ass for once. There are bigger and more important issues than "Rah Rah Party", and you won't find them in your colon.