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

[JimBowie1958]

Thanks for your partisan LYING. Maybe one day you will be able to breathe without LYING!

I wish the same for you. Take care.

You disagree with Ed the Shit4brains, therefore you lie.

It is pathetic really, but let sleeping dogs sleep.

It makes it easier to handle them.

 

[Papageorgio]

Thanks for your partisan LYING. Maybe one day you will be able to breathe without LYING!

I wish the same for you. Take care.

You disagree with Ed the Shit4brains, therefore you lie.

It is pathetic really, but let sleeping dogs sleep.

It makes it easier to handle them.

He doesn't have an argument, just emotion of anger and hate. Tough to reason with the unreasonable.

 

[bodecea]

HER WORDS ARE NOT ACTUALLY FACTS???....CASE CLOSED!

If that's the case, Maddow needs to air a disclaimer before every broadcast stating that the shows content is strictly her opinion and anti-Trump propaganda.

Read more at mobile.twitter.com ... see video

The left becomes further from truth and reality as each day pssses!

She's trolling FOX News who went to court for that very reason.....

 

[The Purge]

HER WORDS ARE NOT ACTUALLY FACTS???....CASE CLOSED!

If that's the case, Maddow needs to air a disclaimer before every broadcast stating that the shows content is strictly her opinion and anti-Trump propaganda.

Read more at mobile.twitter.com ... see video

The left becomes further from truth and reality as each day pssses!

She's trolling FOX News who went to court for that very reason.....

Did FOX say they shouldn't believe them?....You are the MOST DEMENTED ABNORMAL of the bunch we have here!!!...ROTFLMFAO

 

[martybegan]

HER WORDS ARE NOT ACTUALLY FACTS???....CASE CLOSED!

If that's the case, Maddow needs to air a disclaimer before every broadcast stating that the shows content is strictly her opinion and anti-Trump propaganda.

Read more at mobile.twitter.com ... see video

The left becomes further from truth and reality as each day pssses!

She's trolling FOX News who went to court for that very reason.....

That's stupid spin even for you.

She made the mistake of saying OAN actually takes money from "Russians"

She now has to backtrack because her lawyers know its an actionable statement if she can't prove it.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Maddow's comments are as "true" as Hillary Clinton accusing Tulsi Gabbart of being a Russian asset.
These mentally defective cows can't help themselves. They see Russian connections behind every rock, bush and tree.

A few hundred years ago their mentally diseased types were finding witches instead of
Russians.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You fukkin idiots.

^^^^
Anyone see the irony in this?

 

[edthecynic]

Hannity is unabashedly pro-Trump and often repetitive, but not a congenital liar like Maddow.

Of course he is, you are just too STUPID to catch him.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You fukkin idiots.

^^^^
Anyone see the irony in this?

No.

But I do see dementia regarding it.

 

[edthecynic]

She made the mistake of saying OAN actually takes money from "Russians"

Not what she said, of course, she said one of their "reporters" is literally paid by the Russians, which IS true!!!
Rouz IS paid by the Russian propaganda outlet Sputnik. You can see his Russian lies on the Sputnik website, under his name, which he then parrots when he is on OAN.

Here is Maddow's actual quote:

“Their on-air politics reporter (Kristian Rouz) is paid by the Russian government to produce propaganda for that government.”

 

[martybegan]

She made the mistake of saying OAN actually takes money from "Russians"

Not what she said, of course, she said one of their "reporters" is literally paid by the Russians, which IS true!!!
Rouz IS paid by the Russian propaganda outlet Sputnik. You can see his Russian lies on the Sputnik website, under his name, which he then parrots when he is on OAN.

Here is Maddow's actual quote:

“Their on-air politics reporter (Kristian Rouz) is paid by the Russian government to produce propaganda for that government.”

And the proof of that?

 

[edthecynic]

She made the mistake of saying OAN actually takes money from "Russians"

Not what she said, of course, she said one of their "reporters" is literally paid by the Russians, which IS true!!!
Rouz IS paid by the Russian propaganda outlet Sputnik. You can see his Russian lies on the Sputnik website, under his name, which he then parrots when he is on OAN.

Here is Maddow's actual quote:

“Their on-air politics reporter (Kristian Rouz) is paid by the Russian government to produce propaganda for that government.”

And the proof of that?

Do you really think Rouz works for Sputnik for FREE?????? Are you really that STUPID?
I would say the burden is on YOU to prove Rouz works for Sputnik for free!

 

[Leo123]

Of course not. Neither is objective, and both play the same game, as I have clearly described.

The problem is that their flocks refuse to see that.

I want the whole picture. You don't have to.
.

That neither is objective is not my point. You'll never get the 'whole picture' from one source and it's best not to think anyone is totally objective.

 

[Mac1958]

Yes, Hannity tells the facts as he understands them. Madcow assumes her opinion is fact and tells that in place of fact.
Hannity is being as rational and as objective as he or anyone else can be. Madcow is promoting a narrative she wants to be true.

Holy crap, Jim. I wish I hadn't seen that.
.

Yes, I am sure you prefer seeing only what you want to see, that supports your world view.

Reality isnt like that.

The FISA report by Horrowitz has supported everything Hannity has claimed about FISA abuse, and that is just one issue, with more to come.

You are going to absolutely hate the 2020's

Yeah, okay.

So you really do believe that "Hannity is being as rational and as objective as he or anyone else can be"?

You're being serious? At least most of the Trumpsters here are willing to admit that he's biased - you can't even do that?
.

 

[JimBowie1958]

So you really do believe that "Hannity is being as rational and as objective as he or anyone else can be"?
You're being serious? At least most of the Trumpsters here are willing to admit that he's biased - you can't even do that?
.

Of course Hannity has biases, but I think if there were solid evidence that Trump was a Chinese spy he would cover that too and with as much objectivity as he could muster.

Hannity picks the side he thinks is true and goes to bat for it.

 

[Mac1958]

So you really do believe that "Hannity is being as rational and as objective as he or anyone else can be"?
You're being serious? At least most of the Trumpsters here are willing to admit that he's biased - you can't even do that?
.

Of course Hannity has biases, but I think if there were solid evidence that Trump was a Chinese spy he would cover that too and with as much objectivity as he could muster.

Hannity picks the side he thinks is true and goes to bat for it.

Well then he's not objective.

I never know what to believe around here.
.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Well then he's not objective..

I believe I did say, "as objective as he or anyone else can be."

 

[Mac1958]

Well then he's not objective..

I believe I did say, "as objective as he or anyone else can be."

Then we still disagree. He does what they all do - he cherry picks and expands on and highlights the information that supports his agenda, and ignores, avoids, dismisses and distorts that which does not.

If that's considered to be within a thousand miles of objectivity, we're straight up fucked.
.

 

[Leo123]

Well then he's not objective.

I never know what to believe around here.
.

Who, in your opinion, is objective?

 

[CWayne]

Well, why don't you lay out for us who you watch, listen to, or read, so that we can see why you think you have the superiority to judge....

You still won't tell me if you think my description was accurate. My description was very clear.

That in itself is very telling.

I watch and listen to the Division Pimps on both ends. That's why my description is so clear, and it's part of the reason I so regularly point out how similar the behaviors on both ends of the spectrum are.

My guess, since you won't tell me, is that you know my description is correct. At some level, perhaps even subconsciously, you know that what Hannity and Rush and the rest are feeding you is incomplete, distorted, and intellectually dishonest, but that you don't care. You're committed to your tribe, no matter what.

That's just me giving you the benefit of the doubt. I hope that you're just not being completely conned here, unaware of it.
.

That's hillarious...YOU telling me about intelectual honesty? Hell, you can't even admit that your a died in the wool liberal...But hey, I wouldn't admit that either if I were you.

Problem with people like you is that you assume way too much.

My positions on the issues are located in the link at the end of the second line of my sig, in which I gleefully disembowel a Regressive Leftist: 2. >>> For the liars who pretend I claim to be a centrist/moderate/impartial/unbiased/fence-sitter: Come on Jake, man up, just this once.

I think of myself as a left-leaning independent, and I think anyone with at least average intelligence could see that from that thread.

As for your opinion me, I don't care. I do appreciate the way you've gone drama queen over my opinion, though. Always fascinating.
.

Nah, no drama here Mac....To do such would imply that I care what you think...And I don't.

Wow,you just keep stepping into it.

If you don’t care what he thinks why do you continue to engage with him, and why do ask him where he gets his new? Further fascination...

Yet, you did not ask the same thing of Mac. Fascinating.

I've come to realize that this forum is a forum that believes that if I get the last word, I win the argument.

If I demonstrate that I don't care what you or anyone thinks by not bothering to reply, then the accusations of cowardice and running away ensue from all those on that persons side in a pile-on of what would be epic proportions but in reality is a normal occurrence.

I often make my point and then move on without replying to who I was making the point to. Why? More often than not, they'll just repeat what I have argued against (as if repetition is somehow going to make what they said any truer) which makes them a waste of time. More often than not, though; I don't bother to reply because I don't care what they have to say any further on the subject.

Of course, on this forum, that means they can feel good about their 'win' even though they didn't.