• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tucker in his own defense says, no reasonable person should believe me and yet his audience on fox is huge.

And that means what?

That Maddow said no serious person would take what she say literally. It's a legal loophole used by opinion "news" shows to keep from getting sued
 
That Maddow said no serious person would take what she say literally. It's a legal loophole used by opinion "news" shows to keep from getting sued
And of course you have a link to her saying so?
 
And of course you have a link to her saying so?

Hey @watsup heres a left wing example

Because you a don't have the mental faculties to use Google?

Maddows on air statement, "In this case, the most obsequiously pro-Trump right wing news outlet in America really literally is paid Russian propaganda"

Her legal argument, "No reasonable viewer could conclude that Maddow implied an assertion of objective fact"

 
Hey @watsup heres a left wing example

Because you a don't have the mental faculties to use Google?

Maddows on air statement, "In this case, the most obsequiously pro-Trump right wing news outlet in America really literally is paid Russian propaganda"

Her legal argument, "No reasonable viewer could conclude that Maddow implied an assertion of objective fact"

Are you having a reading problem? Maddow didn't say that, the judge did.

"The challenged statement was an obvious exaggeration, cushioned within an undisputed news story."

Smith continued: "The statement could not reasonably be understood to imply an assertion of objective fact, and therefore, did not amount to defamation."
 
Tucker is a sleazy liar.

Quite the religious way to make a living.
 
Are you having a reading problem? Maddow didn't say that, the judge did.

"The challenged statement was an obvious exaggeration, cushioned within an undisputed news story."

Smith continued: "The statement could not reasonably be understood to imply an assertion of objective fact, and therefore, did not amount to defamation."

It was part of her legal argument that the judge agreed with.

In any case it is legally understood that neither Tucker or Rachel host factual shows
 
It was part of her legal argument that the judge agreed with.

In any case it is legally understood that neither Tucker or Rachel host factual shows
Your story, tell it any way you wish.
 
Your story, tell it any way you wish.

It's not my story it's the legal system backed up by rulings. I would expect someone named bongsaway to have an intimate knowledge of the legal system
 
It's not my story it's the legal system backed up by rulings. I would expect someone named bongsaway to have an intimate knowledge of the legal system
Sorry but your expectations would not be met by me as far as knowledge of the legal system. Don't let a name fool you. I know enough to keep my mouth shut when the police ask you questions like where are you headed when they pull you over. It's none of their business and no you can't open my trunk without a warrant. Do I need to know more?
 

It was part of her legal argument that the judge agreed with.

In any case it is legally understood that neither Tucker or Rachel host factual show
Too bad that is not understood and recognized by their audiences.
 
They are in a cult of idiots?
He still has a job because he tells the idiots what they are desperate to hear as a way to confirm their biases, no matter how absurd their opinions are. His show is a conservative echo chamber of the absurd.
 
Back
Top Bottom