Perfect example of how partisan pundits LIE to you

[Pogo]

.

First of all, Maddow used a Straw Man argument. This wasn't about the legality of Christmas, was it? It was about not being sued for saying Merry Christmas. I think most people would see this difference. And even in your response you question the issue of legality. Again, it stops people from suing for being "offended". Political Correctness run amok.

And second, to declare the entire reason for the bill signing irrelevant is ridiculous. The very reason the bill is written, voted on, and signed into law is irrelevant in a story about that bill? Really?

Partisan ideology is intellectually dishonest, and this is a perfect example.

.

Actually you're being dishonest.

Have you never heard a politician speak??

Politicians make shit up all the time. How is an unsourced anecdote based on nothing but the word of a politician -- who is using that anecdote to push a bill -- related to "journalism"?? What kind of vetting is that? That's what you want?

Anyway you've confirmed that I'm the only one who actually watched the video. I thought since you posted it you would have watched it -- the entire second half of the video is about Rick Perry's Christmas fantasy strawman (and it's documented) -- and the story isn't even all there because the video cuts it off before it's done.


At the 2:14 mark the story leaves the bill signing altogether to go off to its main point, Perry's history -- and, I'll say this again, the rest of the story is cut off in progress, so we don't even know where it went after that.

So let's review.
You're incensed that a politician's undocumented hearsay pander story, that he's plainly using to sell his bill, isn't reported as "news"...
You don't want to watch your own posted video to see what it's actually about...
And you have a video that cuts off in midstream and therefore loses at least some of its context.

And you wanna talk "dishonest".

Excuse me, I feel a cough coming on... :hack:: ::hack:: )

 

[Moonglow]

Both sides play the game. Which is why have premium channels so I can see something really entertaining.

 

[PredFan]

Like moths to Mac's flame, the blind left wing partisan nutters show up to out themselves. Hilarious.

 

[Mac1958]

.

First of all, Maddow used a Straw Man argument. This wasn't about the legality of Christmas, was it? It was about not being sued for saying Merry Christmas. I think most people would see this difference. And even in your response you question the issue of legality. Again, it stops people from suing for being "offended". Political Correctness run amok.

And second, to declare the entire reason for the bill signing irrelevant is ridiculous. The very reason the bill is written, voted on, and signed into law is irrelevant in a story about that bill? Really?

Partisan ideology is intellectually dishonest, and this is a perfect example.

.

Actually you're being dishonest.

Have you never heard a politician speak??

Politicians make shit up all the time. How is an unsourced anecdote based on nothing but the word of a politician -- who is using that anecdote to push a bill -- related to "journalism"?? What kind of vetting is that? That's what you want?

Anyway you've confirmed that I'm the only one who actually watched the video. I thought since you posted it you would have watched it -- the entire second half of the video is about Rick Perry's Christmas fantasy strawman (and it's documented) -- and the story isn't even all there because the video cuts it off before it's done.


At the 2:14 mark the story leaves the bill signing altogether to go off to its main point, Perry's history -- and, I'll say this again, the rest of the story is cut off in progress, so we don't even know where it went after that.

So let's review.
You're incensed that a politician's undocumented hearsay pander story, that he's plainly using to sell his bill, isn't reported as "news"...
You don't want to watch your own posted video to see what it's actually about...
And you have a video that cuts off in midstream and therefore loses at least some of its context.

And you wanna talk "dishonest".

Excuse me, I feel a cough coming on... :hack:: ::hack:: )

Actually, no.

I'm pointing out that a partisan pundit was intellectually dishonest by leaving out a relevant part of a story in order to make a partisan point. That, as I pointed out, is a lie of omission. You can pretend I'm doing someting else if you'd like, but we both know it's not true.

Look, I know you're going to defend and spin for Maddow, just like a righty would defend and spin for Rush. That's how the game is played. I just don't play it. I find it insulting when someone thinks they're getting away with playing it with me.

I've already spent more time on our conversation than I usually do when dealing with a partisan ideologue. I always know what to expect, and I always get it. Spin, diversion, distortion, etc., etc.

Maddow has a (D) after her name, so she "speaks the truth". Something like that, right? Okay, sure.

.

 

[Stephanie]

I have to hand it to mac...he picked on a left leaning propagandist instead of going after someone on fox news

 

[Pogo]

.

First of all, Maddow used a Straw Man argument. This wasn't about the legality of Christmas, was it? It was about not being sued for saying Merry Christmas. I think most people would see this difference. And even in your response you question the issue of legality. Again, it stops people from suing for being "offended". Political Correctness run amok.

And second, to declare the entire reason for the bill signing irrelevant is ridiculous. The very reason the bill is written, voted on, and signed into law is irrelevant in a story about that bill? Really?

Partisan ideology is intellectually dishonest, and this is a perfect example.

.

Actually you're being dishonest.

Have you never heard a politician speak??

Politicians make shit up all the time. How is an unsourced anecdote based on nothing but the word of a politician -- who is using that anecdote to push a bill -- related to "journalism"?? What kind of vetting is that? That's what you want?

Anyway you've confirmed that I'm the only one who actually watched the video. I thought since you posted it you would have watched it -- the entire second half of the video is about Rick Perry's Christmas fantasy strawman (and it's documented) -- and the story isn't even all there because the video cuts it off before it's done.


At the 2:14 mark the story leaves the bill signing altogether to go off to its main point, Perry's history -- and, I'll say this again, the rest of the story is cut off in progress, so we don't even know where it went after that.

So let's review.
You're incensed that a politician's undocumented hearsay pander story, that he's plainly using to sell his bill, isn't reported as "news"...
You don't want to watch your own posted video to see what it's actually about...
And you have a video that cuts off in midstream and therefore loses at least some of its context.

And you wanna talk "dishonest".

Excuse me, I feel a cough coming on... :hack:: ::hack:: )

Actually, no.

I'm pointing out that a partisan pundit was intellectually dishonest by leaving out a relevant part of a story in order to make a partisan point. That, as I pointed out, is a lie of omission. You can pretend I'm doing someting else if you'd like, but we both know it's not true.

Look, I know you're going to defend and spin for Maddow, just like a righty would defend and spin for Rush. That's how the game is played. I just don't play it. I find it insulting when someone thinks they're getting away with playing it with me.

I've already spent more time on our conversation than I usually do when dealing with a partisan ideologue. I always know what to expect, and I always get it.

Maddow has a (D) after her name, so she "speaks the truth". Something like that. Great.

.

I don't know what the hell Maddow has after her name; I don't even have TV. But based on the video you posted, the story is not about what you claimed it was. Your premise is invalid. And as to the "relevant" part, I've been inviting you since you put this silly thread up to demonstrate how the kid is "relevant" and in answer I got bupkis. In two days.

As stated before, if you have an actual point you should be able to articulate it; if you can't, that point probably does not exist. Think about it.

So how is an undocumented pander story from a politician, legitimate news? Isn't news supposed to be confirmed? Is everything any politician says automatically true then? Ever watched a political debate and sifted through the analysis of who stretched the truth? Is this practice, like, new to you? Hello? Anybody in there?

Still to be dealt with are the facts that the bill signing is a setup to what follows, and that the video cuts off before the air segment ends. Ain't no way around that. Why was it cut off at that point? Did something inconvenient follow?

Maybe you don't know me well enough but I rarely post directly on issues; I post on logic more than anything else. And yours is sorely lacking here, deny it all you want but until those questions are answered that's the way it is.

And don't flatter yourself; you do play it. You're playing it right here, and not very well.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

.

So now schools in Texas don't have worry about being sued if they call a Christmas tree a Christmas tree.

Schools in Texas can still be sued, with or without the bill.

That a perceived religious act in a school might provoke litigation should be welcomed by the ISD, if the district has done it’s homework, understands the law, and tailors the policy to conform to Establishment Clause jurisprudence.

And teachers and student have been at liberty to say ‘Merry Christmas’ before the law was passed.

That’s why this ‘legislation’ is a sham, a partisan stunt, and a non-issue, a ‘controversy’ contrived by the right to appease their political base.

 

[Pogo]

.

So now schools in Texas don't have worry about being sued if they call a Christmas tree a Christmas tree.

Schools in Texas can still be sued, with or without the bill.

That a perceived religious act in a school might provoke litigation should be welcomed by the ISD, if the district has done it’s homework, understands the law, and tailors the policy to conform to Establishment Clause jurisprudence.

And teachers and student have been at liberty to say ‘Merry Christmas’ before the law was passed.

That’s why this ‘legislation’ is a sham, a partisan stunt, and a non-issue, a ‘controversy’ contrived by the right to appease their political base.

-- and as the article linked in the OP points out, this bill is a warmup act for his trip to the Ralph Reed pander party, where he is right now, doing just that.

Funny, for a "hit piece", this video doesn't even mention that. Opportunity lost?