Rachel Maddow uses shameless lie to trash Republicans

[pbrauer]

What has totally escaped you not once, but twice, was my response to her on-air correction. Slow down and read my words on this page, and what I wrote back on page one very carefully before you falsely jump my ass again.

Well Grim your are wrong, what she said was part of a larger narrative which was extremism. Her point was the congressman was so close the militia movement that he received a fax from them. She got the timing wrong (which she previously got right -March 24th), but she was essentially correct - he received the fax from them. She corrected her minor error last night. It was an editing error on her script which she read on-alir. That's what good journalists do when the err.

 

[Grim17]

Well Grim your are wrong, what she said was part of a larger narrative which was extremism. Her point was the congressman was so close the militia movement that he received a fax from them. She got the timing wrong (which she previously got right -March 24th), but she was essentially correct - he received the fax from them. She corrected her minor error last night. It was an editing error on her script which she read on-alir. That's what good journalists do when the err.

Wrong? You want wrong pal... Well here you go. This is what has transpired since her correction was posted on this thread:

1. a) I stated "I take her at her word when she said it was simply a mistake, rather than a conscience effort to misrepresent the truth."
b) You came back with "YOU Grim, YOU said Rachel Maddow lied in the title of this thread."
c) I then repeated "I take her at her word when she said it was simply a mistake, rather than a conscience effort to misrepresent the truth."
d) You responded to that by saying "I can't make you believe she didn't shamelessly lie"
VERDICT: I retracted my statement not once, but twice, and you still didn't get it... Fail

2. a) You asked "Will Newsbusters update their blog to reflect this (the on air correction)?"
b) I stated "I certainly expect them to acknowledge in some way that Maddow issued a retraction."
c) You answered with "Not a chance Grim, not a chance! Read what the asshole, Jack Coleman, wrote"
d) My response was "I said "I certainly expect them to acknowledge in some way that Maddow issued a retraction", and that is precisely what they did. They (or he) didn't buy her excuse, but they did acknowledge that she made an on-air correction."
VERDICT: You used Newsbusters own article acknowledging her correction, to say they would never acknowledge her correction... Major Fail

3. a) Trying to argue against me, you stated on post #43 that "last night she showed that she got it right on her March 24th show. On Monday she made a mistake"
b) Facts that I acknowledged back on post #3 when I said "Since she had discussed that issue on a prior show and stated that the fax was received by the congressman after, not prior to the bombing, then I take her at her word when she said it was simply a mistake, rather than a conscience effort to misrepresent the truth."
VERDICT: Again, you are oblivious to what I previously said on this issue and continue arguing facts that I've acknowledged and don't dispute... Fail

4. a) You stated on post #43 "it seems to me, you should look at the facts."
b) Every "fact" you are alluding to, I acknowledged back on post #3
VERDICT: Again you are barking up the wrong tree... Fail

5. The only one who isn't looking at the facts of this story is you. The reason I know you aren't looking at all the facts, is because if you were, you would know that regardless of the mistake she made, the entire premise of Maddow mentioning that fax in the first place was totally baseless.

You said it yourself, that "Her point was the congressman was so close the militia movement that he received a fax from them." The only problem with that, as I stated in post #42, "That fax, according to the person who sent it, was also sent to 100's of other lawmakers and public officials." This from the ChicagoTribune, April 25, 1995:

In an interview, however, Koernke said his organization, the Militia At Large, did in fact send the fax to Stockman, as well as to "hundreds" of other lawmakers and public officials.

Koernke said his group received the fax from an unknown source in Oklahoma City shortly after the bombing. Then he "automatically" distributed it across the country, "simply to inform people" and ensure against a possible government cover-up, Koernke said in Dexter, Mich.​

Maddow gave viewers the false impression that there was only one fax sent by that militia group, and they chose their close buddy congressman Stockman as the lucky recipient. Not mentioning the FACT that it was sent to hundreds of other people also, is what's called a "lie by omission"... and without that omission, she has no basis for her attack on the congressman.

VERDICT: I read all the facts, and obviously you did not... Fail AGAIN.

Now, have you had enough "wrong" for one day?

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Moderator's Warning:

Lets tone down the "E" yelling a bit. We can all get our points across in a civil manner.

 

[pbrauer]

5. The only one who isn't looking at the facts of this story is you. The reason I know you aren't looking at all the facts, is because if you were, you would know that regardless of the mistake she made, the entire premise of Maddow mentioning that fax in the first place was totally baseless.

Come Grim, the guy is an extremist.

G.O.P. Lawmaker Defeated in Texas Runoff
Published: December 11, 1996
HOUSTON, Dec. 10 — Representative Steve Stockman, one of the most outspoken and controversial members of the freshman Republican class that took Washington by storm two years ago, was defeated in a runoff election here tonight.

Mr. Stockman is the only Congressional incumbent in Texas to lose this year. With 97 percent of the precincts counted, Mr. Stockman trailed Nick Lampson, a Democrat and former tax assessor-collector, by 53 percent to 47 percent.

With a take-no-prisoners political style, Mr. Stockman was a conspicuous figure on Capitol Hill, though he was often ridiculed as an example of conservative extremism. He had much-publicized ties to militia groups and called Attorney General Janet Reno a murderer for the Branch Davidian siege.

The Democrats got other good news tonight, as an incumbent Democrat, Representative Ken Bentsen of Houston, fended off a Republican challenger who supports abortion rights. But the Republicans won a State Senate seat in West Texas that meant they can claim a majority in a state legislative chamber here for the first time in 124 years. In a race between two Republicans to succeed Representative Jack Fields, State Representative Kevin Brady defeated Gene Fontenot, an investor.

G.O.P. Lawmaker Defeated in Texas Runoff - New York Times

 

[Ockham]

Come Grim, the guy is an extremist.

That's no excuse for intentionally broadcasting a lie, leaving it out there for 2 days and then retracting it as a "mistake", less than 2 weeks before a congressional election. You're ends do not justify the means and that you would suggest such a thing simply implies that if someone is what you would deem an "extremist", it's okay to lie about them.

 

[Harshaw]

Come Grim, the guy is an extremist.

Oh, I see. It's OK if he's a "bad guy."

 

[Grim17]

Oh, I see. It's OK if he's a "bad guy."

Of course it is. That's how it works with them.

Unbelievably, I think he missed my point about Maddow even mentioning that fax at all. Even if she had said that he received it after the bombing, it's still irrelevant because she led her viewers to believe that he was the only recipient of that fax, when the truth is, it was sent to hundreds of other public officials at the same time. Therefore, the entire "he's close buddies with dangerous militias" line of crap goes out the window when all the facts are presented.

Funny he had nothing to say about that... isn't it?

 

[Whovian]

Well Grim your are wrong, what she said was part of a larger narrative which was extremism. Her point was the congressman was so close the militia movement that he received a fax from them. She got the timing wrong (which she previously got right -March 24th), but she was essentially correct - he received the fax from them. She corrected her minor error last night. It was an editing error on her script which she read on-alir. That's what good journalists do when the err.

Maddow gave viewers the false impression that there was only one fax sent by that militia group, and they chose their close buddy congressman Stockman as the lucky recipient. Not mentioning the FACT that it was sent to hundreds of other people also, is what's called a "lie by omission"... and without that omission, she has no basis for her attack on the congressman

Assuming Grim is correct, why did Maddow not mention that he was just one of hundreds of others who got the fax? Wouldn't this, by her logic of association, mean they were all close buddies with the militia group that sent it? This certainly qualifies as a 'lie by omission'.

 

[Grim17]

Her point was the congressman was so close the militia movement that he received a fax from them.

Although I have already pointed out how Maddow omitted the fact that 100's of people were also sent that fax, here's another question that I'm sure your ideology will forbid you from honestly addressing....

If the congressman was so close to the militia movement, then how come he contacted the FBI immediately after receiving that fax and turned it over to them?

And if you're really feeling ambitious, explain how come Maddow failed to mention that fact also?


The answers to those questions, especially the second one, are pretty obvious to most. For you however, something tells me that the obvious isn't an option you're capable of choosing.

 

[liblady]

Although I have already pointed out how Maddow omitted the fact that 100's of people were also sent that fax, here's another question that I'm sure your ideology will forbid you from honestly addressing....

If the congressman was so close to the militia movement, then how come he contacted the FBI immediately after receiving that fax and turned it over to them?

And if you're really feeling ambitious, explain how come Maddow failed to mention that fact also?

why didn't you point out the fact that maddow did her mea culpa?


The answers to those questions, especially the second one, are pretty obvious to most. For you however, something tells me that the obvious isn't an option you're capable of choosing.

why didn't you point out the fact that maddow did her mea culpa?

 

[Whovian]

why didn't you point out the fact that maddow did her mea culpa?

Where was her mea culpa for implying that only the congressman received the fax because he was such close buddies with the militia group, when hundreds got the same fax at the same time?

 

[Grim17]

why didn't you point out the fact that maddow did her mea culpa?

Check post #3.

 

[liblady]

Where was her mea culpa for implying that only the congressman received the fax because he was such close buddies with the militia group, when hundreds got the same fax at the same time?

that fact that she apologized is more than you will ever see of limbaugh et al.

 

[Grim17]

Where was her mea culpa for implying that only the congressman received the fax because he was such close buddies with the militia group, when hundreds got the same fax at the same time?

It doesn't exist... Just like it doesn't exist for her omitting the fact that he immediately contacted the FBI after receiving it.

 

[Whovian]

that fact that she apologized is more than you will ever see of limbaugh et al.

nice deflection, but try to actually answer the question...

Where was her mea culpa for implying that only the congressman received the fax because he was such close buddies with the militia group, when hundreds got the same fax at the same time?

 

[liblady]

I don't care what she says. i think she's hot. But that is just me.

lol......i think it is just you. ;-)

 

[Grim17]

that fact that she apologized is more than you will ever see of limbaugh et al.

She didn't apologize for that LL.

 

[liblady]

Check post #3.

then what are you still bitching about?

 

[Grim17]

then what are you still bitching about?

If you actually read what was posted on this thread, you wouldn't need to waste time asking unnecessary questions like that.

 

[liblady]

If you actually read what was posted on this thread, you wouldn't need to waste time asking unnecessary questions like that.

you are correct. she didn't apologize for saying he was close to the militia...........because he was. she did, however, apologize in general and say she got it wrong. and since no one watches her, does it matter?

 

[Whovian]

you are correct. she didn't apologize for saying he was close to the militia...........because he was. she did, however, apologize in general and say she got it wrong. and since no one watches her, does it matter?

You're still avoiding my question, which must mean you have no idea how to truthfully answer it.

She implied he is close to the militia, because he recieved the fax. She IGNORED the fact that hundreds of others got the same fax.... the same way YOU are ignoring it.

 

[Grim17]

you are correct. she didn't apologize for saying he was close to the militia...........because he was. she did, however, apologize in general and say she got it wrong. and since no one watches her, does it matter?

False argument... but nice try anyway.

She didn't apologize for omitting the fact that a) hundreds of people also received that fax, and b) that he immediately contacted the FBI upon receiving it... which kind of kills the whole "buddy buddy" line of attack... don't you think?

 

[liblady]

You're still avoiding my question, which must mean you have no idea how to truthfully answer it.

She implied he is close to the militia, because he recieved the fax. She IGNORED the fact that hundreds of others got the same fax.... the same way YOU are ignoring it.

no, she implied he received the fax because he IS close to the militia. she made a point incorrectly.........she was wrong.

 

[liblady]

False... but nice try anyway.

She didn't apologize for omitting the fact that a) hundreds of people also received that fax, and b) that he immediately contacted the FBI upon receiving it... which kind of kills the whole "buddy buddy" line of attack... don't you think?

yes, it does. she selectively spoke........and she was wrong.

 

[pbrauer]

Assuming Grim is correct, why did Maddow not mention that he was just one of hundreds of others who got the fax? Wouldn't this, by her logic of association, mean they were all close buddies with the militia group that sent it? This certainly qualifies as a 'lie by omission'.

I can't answer why she didn't mention it, I'm not a mind reader. However, I question whether the fax was actually sent to hundreds of lawmakers because the quote was from a self-proclaimed paramilitary leader. Where is the proof that he actually sent them i.e a trusted source?

Lawmaker Who Got Fax Had Warned Reno - Chicago Tribune

The reports also suggested that the fax, which had the word "Wolverine" emblazoned along the top, had been sent by Mark Koernke, a self-proclaimed paramilitary leader in Michigan.

On Monday, at a press conference in his Beaumont, Texas, district, Stockman acknowledged that members of his staff had contacted the NRA. But he insisted the fax had been sent not by Koernke but by a Michigan woman named Libby Malloy.

In an interview, however, Koernke said his organization, the Militia At Large, did in fact send the fax to Stockman, as well as to "hundreds" of other lawmakers and public officials.

Koernke said his group received the fax from an unknown source in Oklahoma City shortly after the bombing. Then he "automatically" distributed it across the country, "simply to inform people" and ensure against a possible government cover-up, Koernke said in Dexter, Mich.

Color me skeptical.