Liberal Forum

Huey » 12 Oct 2026, 3:19 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Oct 2026, 3:19 pm

Blackvegetable » 12 Oct 2026, 2:47 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Oct 2026, 2:47 pm

https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-veter ... -guilfoyle

Fox Veteran Shames Network for ‘Malpractice’ Over Guilfoyle

“Fox has 0 reporting online about this,” he wrote on X, saying the network’s last article mentioning Guilfoyle dated Dec. 10, 2024, when Trump announced her nomination. 

The veteran executive praised Fox’s sister publication, the Wall Street Journal, for exposing a series of allegations against Guilfoyle, including claims she solicited via text messages $100,000 from MAGA donor Eric Deters with no paper trail to pay off an American Express bill.

For a sense of scale...

Her MONTHLY AMEX bill is 2x Hunter's alleged retainer from.Burisma.

The emails make EXPLICIT references to "Pay to Play".

So why would FOX not report on its "sister publication's scoop?
 
 


 

See, I told you that you could figure that out on your own.  Even if it is from that less than credible source, the daily beast.  Zero, huh?  You shoulda used the link I gave you, Princess.

For the record, they **** you again.  This is from yesterday:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump- ... ions-mount

You need to find better sources.

 

 

Fox has 0 reporting online about this,

That is from the tweet in the DB article which was posted Monday the 12th.  The Fox News cite article was posted on the SUNDAT THE 11th!

The tweet DB used was wrong.

Huey » Yesterday, 11:20 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 11:20 am

That is from the tweet in the DB article which was posted Monday the 12th.  The Fox News cite article was posted on the SUNDAT THE 11th!

The tweet DB used was wrong.

He's had his *** KICKED on his own thread and now, he can't slime out of the FACT there's been a BLOODY STUMP shoved up his *** multiple times too!!!

You can't make this **** up. No really, you can't.         

Huey » Yesterday, 11:20 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 11:20 am

Huey » 12 Oct 2026, 3:19 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Oct 2026, 3:19 pm

Blackvegetable » 12 Oct 2026, 2:47 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Oct 2026, 2:47 pm

https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-veter ... -guilfoyle

Fox Veteran Shames Network for ‘Malpractice’ Over Guilfoyle

“Fox has 0 reporting online about this,” he wrote on X, saying the network’s last article mentioning Guilfoyle dated Dec. 10, 2024, when Trump announced her nomination. 

The veteran executive praised Fox’s sister publication, the Wall Street Journal, for exposing a series of allegations against Guilfoyle, including claims she solicited via text messages $100,000 from MAGA donor Eric Deters with no paper trail to pay off an American Express bill.

For a sense of scale...

Her MONTHLY AMEX bill is 2x Hunter's alleged retainer from.Burisma.

The emails make EXPLICIT references to "Pay to Play".

So why would FOX not report on its "sister publication's scoop?
 
 



 

See, I told you that you could figure that out on your own.  Even if it is from that less than credible source, the daily beast.  Zero, huh?  You shoulda used the link I gave you, Princess.

For the record, they **** you again.  This is from yesterday:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump- ... ions-mount

You need to find better sources.

 


 

Fox has 0 reporting online about this,

That is from the tweet in the DB article which was posted Monday the 12th.  The Fox News cite article was posted on the SUNDAT THE 11th!

The tweet DB used was wrong.

 

@Blackvegetable  

5th time

Huey » Yesterday, 12:13 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 12:13 pm

@Blackvegetable  

5th time

What is the story about?


Hint:.Fox Veteran Shames Network for ‘Malpractice’ Over Guilfoyle
What did DB get wrong?

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 12:45 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 12:45 pm

Huey » Yesterday, 12:13 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 12:13 pm

@Blackvegetable  

5th time

What is the story about?


Hint:.Fox Veteran Shames Network for ‘Malpractice’ Over Guilfoyle
What did DB get wrong?

 

Good for him.  DB did not fact check the tweet when they wrote their article the day after fox online ran with the story.

You need to get DB to stop telling you what to think.

Huey » Yesterday, 12:47 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 12:47 pm

Good for him.  DB did not 

it's more than that...

It is what DB is accurately reporting.

DB did not

They did..

As demonstrated...

.
 

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 12:52 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 12:52 pm

Huey » Yesterday, 12:47 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 12:47 pm

Good for him.  DB did not fact check the tweet when they wrote their article the day after fox online ran with the story.

You need to get DB to stop telling you what to think
 

it's more than that...

It is what DB is accurately reporting.

DB did not

They did..

As demonstrated...

.
 

 

Try that again.  You delete portions of my post that shoot down your lie.  As demonstrated.


 

Huey » Yesterday, 12:54 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 12:54 pm

Try that again.  You delete 

I delete your lies...


 

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 12:57 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 12:57 pm

Huey » Yesterday, 12:54 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 12:54 pm

Try that again.  You delete 

I delete your lies...


 

 

No, you do it because you are ******.

This is not lie:

DB did not fact check the tweet when they wrote their article the day after fox online ran with the story.

If they did they would have made some comment about the tweet.  But no, DB wanted you to believe the tweet.  And you being DUMB **** fell for it hook, line and sinker.
 

Huey » Yesterday, 1:06 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 1:06 pm

No, you do it because you are ******.

This is not lie:

DB did not fact check the tweet when they wrote their article the day after fox online ran with the story.

If they did they would have made some comment about the tweet.  

They contacted FOX...They say so, and tell you how FOX responded.

That makes your assertion a lie....

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 1:08 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 1:08 pm

Huey » Yesterday, 1:06 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 1:06 pm

No, you do it because you are ******.

This is not lie:

DB did not fact check the tweet when they wrote their article the day after fox online ran with the story.

If they did they would have made some comment about the tweet.  

They contacted FOX...They say so, and tell you how FOX responded.

That makes your assertion a lie....

 

And yet, I have posted the FOX online article written a day prior to their article about 5 times now.  DB suck at factchecking.

Keep lying, ****. This is damn amusing.  

Huey » Yesterday, 1:13 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 1:13 pm

And yet, I have posted the FOX online article written a day prior to their article about 5 times now.

Can you demonstrate that the FOX story of 6:45 pm Sunday preceded the tweet?

Allow me, since you won't..

No, you cannot.

 
 

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 1:17 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 1:17 pm

Huey » Yesterday, 1:13 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 1:13 pm

And yet, I have posted the FOX online article written a day prior to their article about 5 times now.

Can you demonstrate that the FOX story of 6:45 pm Sunday preceded the tweet?

Allow me, since you won't..

No, you cannot.

 
 

 

Now you are reframing.  That is about the DB.  The DB should have said in the article that since the tweet FOX had issued on online story.

They did not.  Which is the part you losing on.

Huey » Yesterday, 1:24 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 1:24 pm

Now you are reframing.  

don't...

You can't,  can you.

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 1:25 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 1:25 pm

Huey » Yesterday, 1:24 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 1:24 pm

Now you are reframing.  

don't...

You can't,  can you.

 

• Overall, we rate the Daily Beast Left-Biased based on story selection and editorial positions that favor the left. We also rate them Mixed for reporting due to failed fact checks.

Fact of the matter is they wanted you to believe FOX did not run any online stories.  

Huey » Yesterday, 1:28 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 1:28 pm

Fact of the matter is they wanted you to believe FOX did not run any online stories.

No...

What is the story about?
You can't get a single fact correct...

Huey » Yesterday, 1:28 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 1:28 pm

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 1:25 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 1:25 pm

Huey » Yesterday, 1:24 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 1:24 pm

Now you are reframing.  

don't...

You can't,  can you.


 

• Overall, we rate the Daily Beast Left-Biased based on story selection and editorial positions that favor the left. We also rate them Mixed for reporting due to failed fact checks.

Fact of the matter is they wanted you to believe FOX did not run any online stories.  

 

 

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 1:30 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 1:30 pm

Huey » Yesterday, 1:28 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 1:28 pm

Fact of the matter is they wanted you to believe FOX did not run any online stories.

No...

What is the story about?
You can't get a single fact correct...

 

Try that again and without questions that will not be answered.  

Huey » Yesterday, 1:41 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 1:41 pm

Try that again and without questions that will not be answered.

I am waiting for you to demonstrate that anything in the DB story is wrong....

not in a narrative form...

but why waste time?


You can't....

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 1:44 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 1:44 pm

Huey » Yesterday, 1:41 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 1:41 pm

Try that again and without questions that will not be answered.

I am waiting for you to demonstrate that anything in the DB story is wrong....

not in a narrative form...

but why waste time?


You can't....

 

My work is done.  You tells us why they did not post that indeed, fox did post an online store BEFORE their article was written.  That is all that matters, now.

PS.  I told you what was wrong with the story.


 

Huey » Yesterday, 1:48 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 1:48 pm

My work is done.  You tells us why they did not post that indeed, fox did post an online store BEFORE their article was written.  That is all that matters, now.

PS.  I told you what was wrong with the story.

They did.

It isn't. 

You haven't.