Madcow sure does love lying.
- Thread starter Liberty
- Start date
that is it, dipshit
GStarz
Member
- Feb 14, 2011
- 418
- 32
- 16
Rachel Maddow, like a lot of the liberal posters here, is a political hack out to advance an agenda through fair means or foul. However, this is not to disparage him personally. I understand that he's a good family man, loves his wife and takes very good care of her.
Last edited:
R
rdean
Guest
It was TWO guys. Fox overreacted with endless video and commentary.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Moderator
- #105
So because two guys tried to intimidate voters and got away with it, it's alright because it was only two guys?
And is it alright in your eyes because it was only two guys or because they were pro Obama?
the latter
R
rdean
Guest
Yea, the guy said they were "concerned" there MIGHT be intimidation. Then the guy was SO intimidated, that the walked right between them to go inside.
And this is the best the right wing and Fox can do? Hilarious.
GStarz
Member
- Feb 14, 2011
- 418
- 32
- 16
Why should we doubt there are more than 2 people involved behind the scenes and why should we think Obama was not involved or did not at least approve? Obama is close personal friends with Bill Ayres and Ayre's wife, Bernadine Dorn, who was not just involved with but the leader of the SDS, Weather underground, a terrorist socialist group that bombed and killed and were open and proud about it, like psychopaths. Here is Bernadine Dorn made famous on Oct 6, 1970, on the CBS Nightly News.
Last edited by a moderator:
GStarz
Member
- Feb 14, 2011
- 418
- 32
- 16
So clever! No, Einstein, I mean that Obama was friends with these people later in their lives when they helped him start his political career, dummy! And they have not changed their views, and they bombed and murdered and meant to exterminate 25 million people if they could if those people did not agree with them. Bill Ayres still says what they did was right. And he's one of obama's chums.
Obama's past isn't just a connection to radicals, it's a connection with socialist/Marxist terrorists - close ties, friendship, to a leader - Bernadine Dorn. What do you think Obama was talking about all that time he was with them - Mom, Apple pie and the American way?
Do I have to draw you a fucking picture, or what? Obama's whole history is one of Marxist/radical/terrorist associations with nothing in his past to give him political balance and therefore nothing to suggest he isn't exactly one of those people himself. Get it now, or is the truth to fucking tough to bear?
Last edited by a moderator:
GStarz
Member
- Feb 14, 2011
- 418
- 32
- 16
Maybe you're conservative and maybe a poser - there are a lot. I don't know who you are except for the totality of the posturing in your posts, and this too-cute-by-half blind spot you're showing on this issue is a huge red flag, and I bet the only support you'll get from this is from liberals.
If you don't understand that Obama, by being close friends with people who still believe what they did way back then was right, and that the 'fight needs to continue", at the very least is not against their causes and methods, and quite possibly supports them as friends do, and find nothing alarming about that, then you're just dumb as a fucking wooden post stupid, or you're one of them. This is too plain and clear for there to be any middle ground.
Last edited by a moderator:
R
rdean
Guest
Ayers and Obama were on different boards of a right wing conservative organization founded by close friends of Ronald Reagan. How radical can you get?
Besides, Obama was "old enough" to participate. He was at least eight years old.
Last edited by a moderator:
No, it wasn't, but that's not really the point. She was engaging in hyperbole and PolitiFact is often overly literal. Over the course of the past year, I've read pieces they've written stating:
- Calling a candidate for governor of Georgia a liar because he said "If we have to scrape the gold off the gold dome, you make sure that education comes first," and there isn't actually enough gold on the dome to pay for it.
- Criticized another candidate for saying "Our school test scores are right at the bottom", claiming it wasn't true because for four states had lower scores.
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
that is it, dipshit
I don't know what denying irrefutable facts, on videotape, gets you, but, hey, enjoy yourself.
i dont eitherthat is it, dipshityeah, that's it.
I don't know what denying irrefutable facts, on videotape, gets you, but, hey, enjoy yourself.
but then, i'm NOT the one denying the facts
I love it when you post, i need the laughs.....
Rachel Maddow is allowed to give her take on Fox and its deceptive and biased broadcasting. This is still America and she is free to speak her mind. But Maddow was right, even though it would take a high level of interest on the part of the viewer to see when and where the stories on fox are being filtered and encoded.
I watch Fox often to see how they work a story, it is fascinating to watch. Stories gain labels and key parts of stories are left out if the idea or opposing point of view conflicts with their ideological stance. Often I turn to it for some contemporary story to see the slant they give it. Anyone who doubts this strong bias is simply a choir member of their church. Watch it and compare it to reality. Reality is too complex for most.
There is a fascinating story in the November 2010 Harpers that details Murdoch's marriage to the republicans after the FCC and Neut allowed him to pretty much break the laws of our communications boundaries. Is it any wonder Americans are labeled dumb today when a foreigner, a billionaire takes over the airways to present his ideological nonsense and our representatives allow it because he gives them millions. Some immigrants are loved it seems. Murdoch triumphant: How we could have stopped him?twice?By Marvin Kitman (Harper's Magazine) [this is on pay basis, but lots of articles in cyberspace confirm pov]
"Orwell famously worried about the divorce of public discourse, including journalism, from truth, but he did not anticipate its remarriage to entertainment. Journalism, whose practitioners in high-end newspapers and early broadcast outlets once saw their task as recording the truth, now largely function to hold up a mirror for us to see our fun-house reflection. The old journalistic paradigm posited a search for accuracy, objectivity, and fairness. The new pomo paradigm declares those goals misbegotten; they are inherently unachievable. Because everyone possesses and advocates for his or her own truth, the job of the reporter is not to adjudicate among competing assertions, but to assemble them into de facto collage. The fairness of contemporary journalism resembles not the fairness of a judge and jury weighing evidence within a framework of rules, but rather the fairground of the carnival midway, where barkers call out on behalf of their wares." Martin Kaplan
Above quote from, "What Orwell Didn't Know," read it if you are interesting the modern world of media.
I watch Fox often to see how they work a story, it is fascinating to watch. Stories gain labels and key parts of stories are left out if the idea or opposing point of view conflicts with their ideological stance. Often I turn to it for some contemporary story to see the slant they give it. Anyone who doubts this strong bias is simply a choir member of their church. Watch it and compare it to reality. Reality is too complex for most.
There is a fascinating story in the November 2010 Harpers that details Murdoch's marriage to the republicans after the FCC and Neut allowed him to pretty much break the laws of our communications boundaries. Is it any wonder Americans are labeled dumb today when a foreigner, a billionaire takes over the airways to present his ideological nonsense and our representatives allow it because he gives them millions. Some immigrants are loved it seems. Murdoch triumphant: How we could have stopped him?twice?By Marvin Kitman (Harper's Magazine) [this is on pay basis, but lots of articles in cyberspace confirm pov]
"Orwell famously worried about the divorce of public discourse, including journalism, from truth, but he did not anticipate its remarriage to entertainment. Journalism, whose practitioners in high-end newspapers and early broadcast outlets once saw their task as recording the truth, now largely function to hold up a mirror for us to see our fun-house reflection. The old journalistic paradigm posited a search for accuracy, objectivity, and fairness. The new pomo paradigm declares those goals misbegotten; they are inherently unachievable. Because everyone possesses and advocates for his or her own truth, the job of the reporter is not to adjudicate among competing assertions, but to assemble them into de facto collage. The fairness of contemporary journalism resembles not the fairness of a judge and jury weighing evidence within a framework of rules, but rather the fairground of the carnival midway, where barkers call out on behalf of their wares." Martin Kaplan
Above quote from, "What Orwell Didn't Know," read it if you are interesting the modern world of media.
hortysir
In Memorial of 47
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Trump and Musk: Two Grown Men Who Need To Grow The **** Up- Started by TemplarKormac
- Replies: 0
-
Elon Musk says SpaceX will decommission Dragon spacecraft after Trump threat- Started by YoursTruly
- Replies: 0
-
-
next generation AI - new model for brain memory storage
- Started by scruffy
- Replies: 0
