Maddow Meltdown: In Defense To OAN Lawsuit, Host Argues Her Words Are Not Actually Facts

[j-mac]

This is what the Division Pimps do: They take some kernel of truth and twist it to fit their agenda.

They focus on and expand on all information that supports their agenda, and avoid and distort all that does not.

Since they used a fact to begin with, their flocks extrapolate that out and believe the whole pile of crap.

The problem is that their flocks don't appear to realize this.
.

What causes this level of loyality among liberals? I mean is your post here really meant to bring up political division, while you sit there and type that anyone who doesn't share your views on topics are too stupid to understand? And you don't see that as division? Good grief!

he's Maddow of the middle...….

Guys, answer me this one:

When you listen to Sean or Rush, do you feel you're getting the whole story, unvarnished and accurate, honest pros & cons?

Or do you feel it's a little closer to what I describe?

Serious question, I'd appreciate a serious response.
.

Of course not. Maddow, Limbaugh and Hannity are all dudes trying to influence their listeners. If you think you are getting Walter Cronkite reporting from any of those men, you’re an idiot.

Tell that to their flocks.
.

Wait, wait, wait....You try to tell me that you try to describe Both sides with equally skeptical lens', then one damned post later describe people who don't share your political views, as "their flocks"????

You're just a liar.

 

[Mac1958]

What causes this level of loyality among liberals? I mean is your post here really meant to bring up political division, while you sit there and type that anyone who doesn't share your views on topics are too stupid to understand? And you don't see that as division? Good grief!

he's Maddow of the middle...….

Guys, answer me this one:

When you listen to Sean or Rush, do you feel you're getting the whole story, unvarnished and accurate, honest pros & cons?

Or do you feel it's a little closer to what I describe?

Serious question, I'd appreciate a serious response.
.

Of course not. Maddow, Limbaugh and Hannity are all dudes trying to influence their listeners. If you think you are getting Walter Cronkite reporting from any of those men, you’re an idiot.

Tell that to their flocks.
.

Wait, wait, wait....You try to tell me that you try to describe Both sides with equally skeptical lens', then one damned post later describe people who don't share your political views, as "their flocks"????

You're just a liar.

Who do you think I was describing with the word "flocks"?
.

 

[Papageorgio]

Hopefully this helps reign in the crazy nuttiness that seems to be so much of these so called news people.

She made a hard statement aired by her network that is owned by a cable company that block the smaller network, it seems like a solid case. It would be interesting if part of the settlement would be for Maddow to issue an on air apology.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Only Trump speaks truthfully with the exception of these 15,000+ lies.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...as-made-false-or-misleading-claims-over-days/

Disagreeing with a Marxist Democrats does not equate to a lie, loser.

 

[JimBowie1958]

When you listen to Sean or Rush, do you feel you're getting the whole story, unvarnished and accurate, honest pros & cons?
.

Sean is giving his spin on it too, but the actual facts regarding the impeachment are such that he doesnt have to apply much spin to them at all.

The Impeachment done in the House was exceptionally one sided and gave the Republicans and ORANGE MAN BAD little ability to present their side of the case.

I dont listen to Rush regularly after he back-stabbed Perot.

 

[edthecynic]

Maddow said: “In this case, the most obsequiously pro-Trump right-wing news outlet in America really literally is paid Russian propaganda. Their on-air U.S. politics reporter is paid by the Russian government to produce propaganda for that government.”

A typical Right-wing nuisance suit for publicity only as you can't be sued for telling the truth!
Trump’s New Favorite Channel Employs Kremlin-Paid Journalist
If the stories broadcast by the Trump-endorsed One America News Network sometimes look like outtakes from a Kremlin trolling operation, there may be a reason. One of the on-air reporters at the 24-hour network is a Russian national on the payroll of the Kremlin’s official propaganda outlet, Sputnik.

Kristian Brunovich Rouz, originally from the Siberian city of Novosibirsk, has been living in San Diego, where OAN is based, since August 2017, reporting on U.S. politics for the 24-hour news channel. For all of that time, he’s been simultaneously writing for Sputnik, a Kremlin-owned news wire that played a role in Russia’s 2016 election-interference operation, according to an assessment by the U.S. intelligence community.

 

[Polishprince]

Guys, answer me this one:

When you listen to Sean or Rush, do you feel you're getting the whole story, unvarnished and accurate, honest pros & cons?

Or do you feel it's a little closer to what I describe?

Serious question, I'd appreciate a serious response.
.

Good question.

I listen to Rush Limbaugh, and he gives his own take, his own opinions on undisputed facts. He doesn't call people "russian spies" or other bullshit. He gives his opinion, which I don't always agree with.

However, I listen to other programs as well, legal analyst Mark R. Levin, Tucker Carlson when I get a chance, Alex Jones at Infowars, etc.

And I don't accept it all as gospel.

 

[Papageorgio]

Only Trump speaks truthfully with the exception of these 15,000+ lies.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...as-made-false-or-misleading-claims-over-days/

So your defense is the other kid did it first. My kids used that excuse as well until they turned six, hopefully you’ll mature past that soon.

 

[Mac1958]

Guys, answer me this one:

When you listen to Sean or Rush, do you feel you're getting the whole story, unvarnished and accurate, honest pros & cons?

Or do you feel it's a little closer to what I describe?

Serious question, I'd appreciate a serious response.
.

Good question.

I listen to Rush Limbaugh, and he gives his own take, his own opinions on undisputed facts. He doesn't call people "russian spies" or other bullshit. He gives his opinion, which I don't always agree with.

However, I listen to other programs as well, legal analyst Mark R. Levin, Tucker Carlson when I get a chance, Alex Jones at Infowars, etc.

And I don't accept it all as gospel.

Thanks.

Do you ever wonder about what you're not being told, or about what is being distorted or misrepresented to some degree?
.

 

[edthecynic]

Her comment, therefore, is a quintessential statement ‘of rhetorical hyperbole

Well at least you admit NOTHING "human scum" Tramp says should be taken as factual!!!!!

"I call it truthful hyperbole. It’s an innocent form of exaggeration—and a very effective form of promotion.”
- Donald Jackass Tramp, The Art of the Deal

 

[Papageorgio]

Guys, answer me this one:

When you listen to Sean or Rush, do you feel you're getting the whole story, unvarnished and accurate, honest pros & cons?

Or do you feel it's a little closer to what I describe?

Serious question, I'd appreciate a serious response.
.

Good question.

I listen to Rush Limbaugh, and he gives his own take, his own opinions on undisputed facts. He doesn't call people "russian spies" or other bullshit. He gives his opinion, which I don't always agree with.

However, I listen to other programs as well, legal analyst Mark R. Levin, Tucker Carlson when I get a chance, Alex Jones at Infowars, etc.

And I don't accept it all as gospel.

Thanks.

Do you ever wonder about what you're not being told, or about what is being distorted or misrepresented to some degree?
.

I used to trust news outlets, I don’t anymore. I look for two or three sources and still wonder.

 

[jwoodie]

When you listen to Sean or Rush, do you feel you're getting the whole story, unvarnished and accurate, honest pros & cons?

1. I don't listen to either on a regular basis, but they are open about their agendas and don't tell deliberate lies. (Please cite specific examples to the contrary.)

2. Moral equivalency arguments do not excuse Maddow's (et al) knowing falsehoods.

3. Binary thinking is another term for syllogistic reasoning. Why do you disparage it?

 

[edthecynic]

The Impeachment done in the House was exceptionally one sided and gave the Republicans and ORANGE MAN BAD little ability to present their side of the case.

The Tramp liars had ample opportunity to present "their side," they didn't because they have NOTHING that supports "their side." That is why "human scum" Tramp and the lying scum GOP can only block documents and witnesses that support "their side."

 

[Papageorgio]

The Impeachment done in the House was exceptionally one sided and gave the Republicans and ORANGE MAN BAD little ability to present their side of the case.

The Tramp liars had ample opportunity to present "their side," they didn't because they have NOTHING that supports "their side." That is why "human scum" Tramp and the lying scum GOP can only block documents and witnesses that support "their side."

Did you believe the House would not impeach? It was a given and why present your case when the outcome was already determined?

 

[Polishprince]

The Impeachment done in the House was exceptionally one sided and gave the Republicans and ORANGE MAN BAD little ability to present their side of the case.

The Tramp liars had ample opportunity to present "their side," they didn't because they have NOTHING that supports "their side." That is why "human scum" Tramp and the lying scum GOP can only block documents and witnesses that support "their side."

Actually, President Trump had zero chance to present his case. The hearings were held in a secret chamber in the subbasement of the Capitol, no reporters were allow, President Trump had no chance to produce witnesses or cross-examine Schiff and the other accusers. Only select portions of the Secret Hearings were leaked.

 

[edthecynic]

You deal in broad brush.....Never claimed to have all the answers and neither has Rush......

Amazing how many DittoTards have never actually listened to what the "all seeing, all knowing" pathological liar actually says!

 

[j-mac]

he's Maddow of the middle...….

Guys, answer me this one:

When you listen to Sean or Rush, do you feel you're getting the whole story, unvarnished and accurate, honest pros & cons?

Or do you feel it's a little closer to what I describe?

Serious question, I'd appreciate a serious response.
.

Of course not. Maddow, Limbaugh and Hannity are all dudes trying to influence their listeners. If you think you are getting Walter Cronkite reporting from any of those men, you’re an idiot.

Tell that to their flocks.
.

Wait, wait, wait....You try to tell me that you try to describe Both sides with equally skeptical lens', then one damned post later describe people who don't share your political views, as "their flocks"????

You're just a liar.

Who do you think I was describing with the word "flocks"?
.

Jesus, and the bible often describe the followers of Christianity as a "flock". Now, knowing how most liberals have openly described Christians, and Trump supporters, as a kind of brainwashed, uneducated, dolts that have a cultist like admination of Trump, I can only surmize that you mean it in the most negative light possible.

 

[edthecynic]

The Impeachment done in the House was exceptionally one sided and gave the Republicans and ORANGE MAN BAD little ability to present their side of the case.

The Tramp liars had ample opportunity to present "their side," they didn't because they have NOTHING that supports "their side." That is why "human scum" Tramp and the lying scum GOP can only block documents and witnesses that support "their side."

Actually, President Trump had zero chance to present his case. The hearings were held in a secret chamber in the subbasement of the Capitol, no reporters were allow, President Trump had no chance to produce witnesses or cross-examine Schiff and the other accusers. Only select portions of the Secret Hearings were leaked.

Typical lying scum Trump Chump.

So "secret" there were 49 Republicans in the "secret chamber" with equal time for cross examining every witness!
The entire transcripts were later released online for EVERYONE to read the "secret" hearings and see the GOP questions.

 

[j-mac]

You deal in broad brush.....Never claimed to have all the answers and neither has Rush......

Amazing how many DittoTards have never actually listened to what the "all seeing, all knowing" pathological liar actually says!

We might take you people more seriously if you weren't trying to nullify the 16 election for anything you can glom on to....Hell, you had one liberal professor that Nadler called to his section of the witch trial that espoused impeaching because the President tweets....Really?

 

[edthecynic]

The Impeachment done in the House was exceptionally one sided and gave the Republicans and ORANGE MAN BAD little ability to present their side of the case.

The Tramp liars had ample opportunity to present "their side," they didn't because they have NOTHING that supports "their side." That is why "human scum" Tramp and the lying scum GOP can only block documents and witnesses that support "their side."

Did you believe the House would not impeach? It was a given and why present your case when the outcome was already determined?

So you admit the GOP and "human scum" Tramp CHOSE not to give "their side."
Thank you.