Comments by "Winsome Martinez" (@winsomemartinez) on "I have never in my life been for abortion: Elaine Riddick" video.

@GoodAvatar-ut5pq I have no irritation with or at you. Your original comment referenced up-vote bots. I commented that I believe this channel purposely encourages such bots and then you seemed to go off the rails in quite the defensive (and offensive) manner. It appears you are just itching for a fight, but to what end? Are you going to "win" a comment section battle and garner the trophy? If so, here you are: 🏆
2
*libel. If you were to read the article, it clearly states she is pro-life. I think the hubbub was the title of the article which was later changed.
2
@GoodAvatar-ut5pq Is there such a thing as "too big to ban"??? I ask because bots seem to appear with greater frequency on certain videos and are absent (or nearly so) on others. If this were guided (or at least encouraged) it would seem to be a TOS violation by the channel...
1
@GoodAvatar-ut5pq You suggest you want to argue and yet don't appear to have the capacity to do so. Do you believe I can be shut down with by an attempt with denigrating language? And what does Trump's treason have to do with your original comment anyway? Put that in your debate pipe and smoke it.
1
@GoodAvatar-ut5pq I realize you don't know me nor understand why I spend time on this site. There are several commenters here who spend the time to inform the Fox audience with demonstrable facts. Facts which are lacking in Fox's daily "reportage" (if one can call it that). I find it more successful to issue these facts without commentary about partisanship which does a better job of highlighting Fox's craven partiality. Spend some time, get to know a few of us. Not everyone on this site is an idiot. Ignore the up-vote bots and the vulgar trolls, it makes them shrivel over time. Everything you listed in your last comment is something I believe to be true and since it seems as though Fox is not going away anytime soon, the best one can do is to offer truth where there is a noticeable lack.
1
@chanelle7484 The body of the article did not change, simply the title. They did address her concerns after the fact by the addition of an introductory explanation and clarification separate from the article. There was no defamation within the article.
1
@chanelle7484 My point is that IF she had a case she would already have representation, mainly because there are swarms of lawyers always on the lookout for a payday. It's the American way. Being upset at inclusion in an article does not on its face rise to the level of libel. This particular show is famous for ginning up "moral outrage" at "liberal media" by exclusion of relevant facts. And misplaced moral outrage does not equal a winnable lawsuit. Hell, Tucker knows how that works, normal people are "morally outraged" by his nightly lying which tiptoes right up to the libel line, but even when he crosses it he simply claims "opinion for entertainment". It's his business model.
1