Rachael Madcow is upset, because CNN actually reported the news in covering Michelle Bauchman's Tea Party response to Obama's SOTU speech.
A few weeks ago, I created a video mocking MSNBC for it's flat out "FAKE" journalist integrity. One person I made sure to highlight was Rachael Maddow. When the now departed Keith Olberman was suspended from MSBNC a few months ago for violating MSNBC's "ethics", because he donated money to a congressional candidate, Rachael Madcow used the opportunity to capitalize on Olberman's suspension to use it to some how show that MSNBC "is a news operation".
Well the person who supposedly represents a "news operation" is upset that CNN actually covered a real news story, imagine that. After Obama's SOTU speech, Congressman Paul Ryan gave the Republican response. I have to give Ryan credit. He hit on most of the main themes that needed to be addressed. What erked Rachel was that CNN decided to cover Michelle Bauchman's Tea Party response to Obama's speech.
Though CNN was the only network to cover it, it was still news. Frankly, it was a pleasure watching Michelle rather then watching the pathetic excuse of the Fox News "All Stars" sit around and gleefully gush over Obama's platitude laden speech. I know why CNN decided to cover Bauchman's response. CNN finally figured out that the Tea Party is indeed relevant, and people were going to watch if Michelle was given airtime. CNN simply wanted the ratings. For Rachael to get her boxers all wrinkled up only shows how politically bias she is. It's funny yet odd though. I can understand Rachael taking shots at Fox News but CNN? I know Michelle Bauchman is the second most hated conservative woman just after Sarah Palin but come on Rachael. Can you try and pretend to be what you say MSNBC is, a news operation?
Well the person who supposedly represents a "news operation" is upset that CNN actually covered a real news story, imagine that. After Obama's SOTU speech, Congressman Paul Ryan gave the Republican response. I have to give Ryan credit. He hit on most of the main themes that needed to be addressed. What erked Rachel was that CNN decided to cover Michelle Bauchman's Tea Party response to Obama's speech.
Though CNN was the only network to cover it, it was still news. Frankly, it was a pleasure watching Michelle rather then watching the pathetic excuse of the Fox News "All Stars" sit around and gleefully gush over Obama's platitude laden speech. I know why CNN decided to cover Bauchman's response. CNN finally figured out that the Tea Party is indeed relevant, and people were going to watch if Michelle was given airtime. CNN simply wanted the ratings. For Rachael to get her boxers all wrinkled up only shows how politically bias she is. It's funny yet odd though. I can understand Rachael taking shots at Fox News but CNN? I know Michelle Bauchman is the second most hated conservative woman just after Sarah Palin but come on Rachael. Can you try and pretend to be what you say MSNBC is, a news operation?
posted by Alpha Conservative Male at 5:22 PM
9 Comments:
I watched Bachmann's rebuttal on the net. I was weirdest thing I've seen since her interview with Chris Matthews. Her whiny voice and confused glare off into space (anywhere but the camera) exemplifies the entire teabagging clan.
p allen "I watched Bachmann's rebuttal on the net. I was weirdest thing I've seen since her interview with Chris Matthews. Her whiny voice and confused glare off into space (anywhere but the camera) exemplifies the entire teabagging clan."
Let me try to translate and summarize what you just said allen. You couldn't dispute or point out anything she said that was factually incorrect, so you decided to merely nit pick and attack the way she said what she said. Did I do a good job in summing that up allen?
CB"You couldn't dispute or point out anything she said that was factually incorrect, so you decided to merely nit pick and attack the way she said what she said".
Noooh... She didn't say anything I haven't heard her say before. Her "point of view" is truth in her mind. Because I disagree with her point of view, doesn't mean she's not being truthful. Hell, she really might believe the crazy stuff she says! Double heck, "you" might believe the crazy stuff she says! For the sake of being "civil", let's just say she's misinformed...
p allen "Noooh... She didn't say anything I haven't heard her say before. "
lame allen. Your attack on Bauchman is purely superficial, it lacks substance. It's just like with the attacks on Palin by the left. Nit picking superficial distractionary claims don't work in building a credible argument allen. They are still entertaining.
p allen "Her "point of view" is truth in her mind. Because I disagree with her point of view, doesn't mean she's not being truthful."
Alrighty then, tell me what Bauchman said that wasn't "truthful" then allen. Start with that. By the way, this is me beginning to trap you in the corner yet again using your own words. lol
p allen "Hell, she really might believe the crazy stuff she says! Double heck, "you" might believe the crazy stuff she says! For the sake of being "civil", let's just say she's misinformed..."
You want to believe she talks crazy or something along those lines, but you don't have any evidence. You couldn't pick out anything in her speech that was odd, deceptive or a flat out lie? Not one thing allen? You are proving my point. You somethings prove my points without you even knowing you are doing it. Keep it up.
Rachael Maddow needs to lick her wounds and carry on.
CB;"Alrighty then, tell me what Bauchman said that wasn't "truthful" then allen. Start with that. By the way, this is me beginning to trap you in the corner yet again using your own words".
There were "TWO" falsehoods that I immediately caught while listening to Bachmann's response.
First off, even CNN, the network that gave Bachmann the platform to sprout the nonsense says that Bachmanns claim of 16,500 IRS agents policing health care "is, at best, misleading."
The second is the "PolitiFact Lie of The Year" of the assertion that there is a government takeover of Health Care in the U.S..
Media Matters points out several more falsehoods to Bachmanns response to the SOTU address. They also provide links to all of their sources which shows that many of Bachmann assertions just aren't true.
However, I doubt if you'll admit that your own hand got caught in your imaginary "trap." As I said earlier, "you probably believe the same nonsense Bachmann does"!
Note: Just for kicks, see if you can come up with some "hard facts" that support any of her aforementioned inaccurate assertions.
p allen "First off, even CNN, the network that gave Bachmann the platform to sprout the nonsense says that Bachmanns claim of 16,500 IRS agents policing health care "is, at best, misleading."
PolitiFact.com and FactCheck.org reported the 16,500 number was extrapolated from an early Congressional Budget Office forecast that the IRS might need $5 billion to $10 billion over 10 years for all the administration and processes involved. The CBO didn't come out with an exact number of new hires that would be need. Do you deny that more IRS agents period won't be hired to carry out Obamacare allen?
P Allen "The second is the "PolitiFact Lie of The Year" of the assertion that there is a government takeover of Health Care in the U.S.."
Yes, I know you're thick but come on. We all know money is the life's blood of any organization. The federal government can dictate what it will pay and not pay for drugs, medical procedures etc. The federal government can say they won't pay for a medical procedure, because the life's expectancy or age of a patient is beyond the government's acceptability. When private insurance companies are squeezed out of business thanks to the now adverse requirements they must up hear to, who's going to be the ONLY GAME IN TOWN ALLEN? It's going to be the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Think McFly think!!!!
p allen "Media Matters points out several more falsehoods to Bachmanns response to the SOTU address. They also provide links to all of their sources which shows that many of Bachmann assertions just aren't true. "
You posted a link from George Soro's Media Matters,and you actually expect me to take it seriously?! lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol. Dam, that was beyond funny. I have to caught my breath. lol Shouldn't media matters be listening to Limbaugh's show like they normally do to try and desperately caught him in saying a naughty word or something?
p allen "However, I doubt if you'll admit that your own hand got caught in your imaginary "trap." As I said earlier, "you probably believe the same nonsense Bachmann does"!
The 16,000 number may be off, but there will be new hires at the IRS in response to the law, the only thing that is questionable is the number. Notice the controversy is about Bauchman's number of hires not that they will be allen. OOPS!
p allen "Note: Just for kicks, see if you can come up with some "hard facts" that support any of her aforementioned inaccurate assertions."
Come up with the facts that no new IRS agents will be hired in the enforcement of this new law. ;-)
CB;"Come up with the facts that no new IRS agents will be hired in the enforcement of this new law".
No links to cover Bachmann's assertions?? No facts?? No proof?? No wonder...
Predicting the future is what Bachmann thinks she can do. (maybe you think she can too...) However, saying, or believing that you can predict who or how many people will be hired or fired does not constitute "FACTS" nor "TRUTH."
I could tell you my dog is so sick that I know that he'll be dead in a week. Yet, that old hound bounced back an lived for another 3 years! Even though he died 3 years later, I can claim that I was "FACTUAL" and "TRUTHFUL" because, after all he did die...
Post a Comment
<< Home