The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Rachel Maddow destroys Fox "blood on hands" News on Letterman

Eventually FOX will have to put a contract out on her, but maybe she'll eventually have the same impact as Jon Stewart did on Crossfire.
 
And the O'Reilly "destroyed" her the next night after she pulled a Breitbart and completely edited his videos.
 
rareboy said:
Eventually FOX will have to put a contract out on her, but maybe she'll eventually have the same impact as Jon Stewart did on Crossfire.
Click to expand...

she is never hostile and always presents facts that back up her messages. She is educated and she actually respects the people she interviews.

I think that Tom Ridge told her at the conclusion of her interview with him, that he enjoyed the exchange and if more people acted as she did and had reasonable and respectful discourse America would be in a better place today.

Fox has a problem because if they would only ignore her, she would not answer them and trollop them everytime with LOGIC.

She is magnificent, and BTW, despite what the fox heads say, she regularly takes Obama to task....partially because he uttered the words..."I want you to hold me accountable"... and she believes he should be.
 
BP, she's no better than Breitbart, she manipulates you with videos that she takes out of context and pieces together and you applaud her as having logic.
 
I suspect that after yesterday, most people on the site have Laika on ignore by now so there won't be many replies to the thread.

While I am not ignoring Laika or Coolkid, I'm just not bothering to respond to their posts anymore and intend to only engage in discussion with the serious posters, including conservatives, who have thought provoking and interesting opinions to offer.

I would suggest that others might follow this approach.

It won't be long before they get bored and go off to other sites to troll, just like Justapixel does.

This post will probably be removed at the request of one of both of the two in question so hopefully some of those who have fallen into the same trap as I did of responding to these two output only posters will see this and realize that there is a way to get discussion back on a more interesting plane.

And by the way, Rachel is one of the smartest people on television today. And one of the few who fearlessly fights for all of us.
 
When was she on Letterman? I missed this. She was, as usual 100% correct in her statements. Thanks for sharing this.

Fan the flames of hate and scare white people. It's good right-wing politics.
 
I don't agree with her politics, but her and her girlfriend sure make a cute couple!

maddow081110_3_560.jpg
 
Whether or not you agree with her politics is one thing, but she was correct in what she said on Letterman. Right wing demagoguery to scare the voters into voting. I'm checking other sites to find the rest of her interview. The right wing is scared of her because she's smart and factual.

Breitbart altered the video? True.


rareboy, yes. Most people have him and a couple others on ignore. And seeing that new avatar I'm really fucking glad I do. *ouch*
 
Love way Rachel and Keith expose the the so called network of Fair and Balanced FOX NEWS.
 
laikaNYC said:
BP, she's no better than Breitbart, she manipulates you with videos that she takes out of context and pieces together and you applaud her as having logic.
Click to expand...

Really?

I watched a number of her episodes during the elections. I checked sources on each of them. She pulled nothing out of context, and didn't "piece together" anything -- it was all done in a very responsible, scholarly manner.

She's slanted -- she admits it. But I have yet to catch her messing with facts or twisting what the sources say. She leaves impressions that don't square with the facts on occasion, but that's what op-eds often do: give a view of the facts that the author wants to promote, not some impartial analysis. And she states things in ways that people with an agenda can take and run with (e.g. on the Arizona immigration law), but she doesn't go there herself.

So: if you're claiming manipulation of sources, ante up -- show us an instance. I wouldn't mind catching her at it.
 
Kulindahr said:
Really?

I watched a number of her episodes during the elections. I checked sources on each of them. She pulled nothing out of context, and didn't "piece together" anything -- it was all done in a very responsible, scholarly manner.

She's slanted -- she admits it. But I have yet to catch her messing with facts or twisting what the sources say. She leaves impressions that don't square with the facts on occasion, but that's what op-eds often do: give a view of the facts that the author wants to promote, not some impartial analysis. And she states things in ways that people with an agenda can take and run with (e.g. on the Arizona immigration law), but she doesn't go there herself.

So: if you're claiming manipulation of sources, ante up -- show us an instance. I wouldn't mind catching her at it.
Click to expand...

http://www.justusboys.com/forum/showpost.php?p=6336467&postcount=70

I provided you proof that she completely manipulated video of O'Reilly in order to make him look like a racist. Nothing about that was responsible, she completely twisted his words and pasted them together out of context. And she wonders why her audience only appeals to one demograph of voters.
 
Kulindahr said:
Really?

I watched a number of her episodes during the elections. I checked sources on each of them. She pulled nothing out of context, and didn't "piece together" anything -- it was all done in a very responsible, scholarly manner.

She's slanted -- she admits it. But I have yet to catch her messing with facts or twisting what the sources say. She leaves impressions that don't square with the facts on occasion, but that's what op-eds often do: give a view of the facts that the author wants to promote, not some impartial analysis. And she states things in ways that people with an agenda can take and run with (e.g. on the Arizona immigration law), but she doesn't go there herself.

So: if you're claiming manipulation of sources, ante up -- show us an instance. I wouldn't mind catching her at it.
Click to expand...

fat chance... all that is available that is being parrotted is O'Reilly's lame-O excuse for doing what he did, by attacking the person that exposed him. There is NO contextual difference in her presentation and the things that he said when viewed in whole.

Believe me, I choose cairfully who I get opinions from on some topics, and i respect her presentation of her opinions because she does not do precisely what Brietbart does in his now legendary smear.

The republican event he was scheduled to speak at was cancelled, and a rescheduling will happen in the near future without him on the ticket, so even the republican national committee has caught on to brietbart.

and to be fair... it also has to be said that the Obama admin has recently become rather hard on the professional progressives and cable news in general. He is taking aim not just at people like Oreilly, but also people like ed schultz, and the only one of the bunch that he seems to trust, just as Mr Ridge did, was Ms Maddow. She never softballs an interview of consequence and she is always respectful.

we need alot more of people like her.
 
If Rachel Maddow really did take video out of context, edit things together in such a way to make them portray the opposite of what they are and just flat out lied, conservatives would have LOTS AND LOTS of video of that.

As it is, all they have are homophobic slags about how she looks like a man and is a lesbian and looks like Elmira Gulch.

They can cry all the way to their KKK meeting and their Tea Baggers Anonymous commiseration bake sales. They're wrong and Rachel Maddow called them on it. Calling the messenger a "dyke" isn't going to change that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top