sex scandal Obama Admin

[BigRedBuster]

Examples of what??? I watched her show and wanted to throw up. Do I need to provide samples of my stomach bile?

[sd'sker]

i did your research brb:

4 examples of rachel maddow's false statements: link

20 pages (113 examples) of beck's false statements: link

 

which goes to my point: those two should not be equated.

[sd'sker]

Examples of what??? I watched her show and wanted to throw up. Do I need to provide samples of my stomach bile?

again, whatever. so your argument is that maddow and beck should be equated because of your gag reflex? i can not really argue against that.

[BigRedBuster]

And, here we go....the other side makes stuff up and doesn't tell the truth. The one that supports your side is honest.

 

I get it.

show your work.

 

edit: i am only defending maddow since you singled her out.

 

seriously, if you can not see how beck is a clown and maddow actually provides thoughtful, well cited work, than i really can not go on with this conversation. i think we are capable of more than just rationalizations through equivocation and saying everything is equivalent.

 

 

That's funny. In one post you claim my problem is that I want to "lump everyone together". In another you claim I singled her out. Argue with yourself much?

[sd'sker]

And, here we go....the other side makes stuff up and doesn't tell the truth. The one that supports your side is honest.

 

I get it.

show your work.

 

edit: i am only defending maddow since you singled her out.

 

seriously, if you can not see how beck is a clown and maddow actually provides thoughtful, well cited work, than i really can not go on with this conversation. i think we are capable of more than just rationalizations through equivocation and saying everything is equivalent.

 

 

That's funny. In one post you claim my problem is that I want to "lump everyone together". In another you claim I singled her out. Argue with yourself much?

i only defend maddow because i watch her show and respect her. also, you did do both:

 

It's not just..."whatever". I don't care if you are talking about Beck, Hannity, Oreilly, Maddow, Olberman or anyone else on any of the networks that claim to just be opinion shows.

 

People have been drawn to these people as their source for news. It is a sick phenomena in the US right now that is extremely dangerous. Beck or Maddow come out with some big story that their sheep eat up and all of a sudden it's all over the Internet as fact when it is farthest from the truth.

 

Then you throw in people like Micheal Moore that absolutely is sick to the core with his lies. But...technically, he is telling facts.

I have very little respect for anyone in the media anymore and they can all go burn for all I care.

it is not mutually exclusive.

[BigRedBuster]

i did your research brb:

4 examples of rachel maddow's false statements: link

20 pages (113 examples) of beck's false statements: link

 

which goes to my point: those two should not be equated.

 

 

Great....Thank you for proving neither of them can be trusted. I don't trust either one of them. And, as I have stated. You can technically report "facts" but all one sided and the viewer comes to a completely false conclusion. (the "reporters" ultimate goal)

[BigRedBuster]

And, here we go....the other side makes stuff up and doesn't tell the truth. The one that supports your side is honest.

 

I get it.

show your work.

 

edit: i am only defending maddow since you singled her out.

 

seriously, if you can not see how beck is a clown and maddow actually provides thoughtful, well cited work, than i really can not go on with this conversation. i think we are capable of more than just rationalizations through equivocation and saying everything is equivalent.

 

 

That's funny. In one post you claim my problem is that I want to "lump everyone together". In another you claim I singled her out. Argue with yourself much?

i only defend maddow because i watch her show and respect her. also, you did do both:

 

It's not just..."whatever". I don't care if you are talking about Beck, Hannity, Oreilly, Maddow, Olberman or anyone else on any of the networks that claim to just be opinion shows.

 

People have been drawn to these people as their source for news. It is a sick phenomena in the US right now that is extremely dangerous. Beck or Maddow come out with some big story that their sheep eat up and all of a sudden it's all over the Internet as fact when it is farthest from the truth.

 

Then you throw in people like Micheal Moore that absolutely is sick to the core with his lies. But...technically, he is telling facts.

I have very little respect for anyone in the media anymore and they can all go burn for all I care.

it is not mutually exclusive.

 

 

Ummmm....If I lump someone in a list of at least two people, that is not singling someone out. Single means one. That would imply that I only talked about that one person. In this post I talked about at least 5 people.

[BigRedBuster]

And, thanks for proving my point. You defend someone because you watch that person and have come to believe they tell the truth and in the same thread you point out that she has made false statements....but, you are OK with that because she doesn't do it as much as the other side.

[sd'sker]

i did your research brb:

4 examples of rachel maddow's false statements: link

20 pages (113 examples) of beck's false statements: link

 

which goes to my point: those two should not be equated.

 

 

Great....Thank you for proving neither of them can be trusted. I don't trust either one of them. And, as I have stated. You can technically report "facts" but all one sided and the viewer comes to a completely false conclusion. (the "reporters" ultimate goal)

so you just do not get news? no news for you? it is all your gut? no degrees? no cross-references? whether it be one mistake (even if it is corrected) or a pattern of dishonesty and falsehoods it is still the same to you? you are incapable of judging degrees of truthfulness or discerning trustworthiness? 4 false statements equal 20 pages of blatant lies and patently false news stories? maybe the problem is not the reporters, but the viewers.

[sd'sker]

And, thanks for proving my point. You defend someone because you watch that person and have come to believe they tell the truth and in the same thread you point out that she has made false statements....but, you are OK with that because she doesn't do it as much as the other side.

your point does not make a lot of sense to me. i seek other sources of news and cross-reference the information. there is a difference between a few false statements and a pattern of lies. motive comes into play. this should be a lot more complicated than you are trying to make it.

[knapplc]

Calling those hits on Maddow "false statements" implies that she intentionally lied. The link you provided shows she was inaccurate on some things she said. There's a huge difference there.

[BigRedBuster]

Really???

 

"President Bush didn't do one interview with the New York Times while he was President"

 

He did a few.

 

Now....how is that not a "false statement"?

[knapplc]

She was wrong. They've found four things she was wrong on. Now, to prove your point you're going to have to show that she said that intentionally to lie about the point she was making.

 

 

Mind you, I don't watch Maddow at all. I couldn't care less whether she's good or bad - I get no info from her, her show or the network she's on.

[sd'sker]

Really???

 

"President Bush didn't do one interview with the New York Times while he was President"

 

He did a few.

 

Now....how is that not a "false statement"?

i think his point was on motive. was she intentionally misleading or was she mistaken? i would be interested to see any news source that has been 100% accurate. again, this becomes about motive. are you trying to provide information that will be more interesting to a certain group? or are you trying to indoctrinate a group to follow your agenda? is it about sharing information you believe is important and why it is important? or are you trying to create a false narrative for some ulterior motive?

[Comish]

I find it equally important to note what differing sources decide is NOT news.

 

That skirts the issue of providing facts, opinions, etc.

 

But, never-the-less...................If somethings are ignored by INTENT..........that is equally odious and certainly just as biased as issuing a slant on "facts"