That a daily dose of manufactured outrage and lies is their crack.What does that say about the folks who watch his show?
They are in a cult of idiots?What does that say about the folks who watch his show?
What does that say about the folks who watch his show?
That they have as much common sense and self control as your average crack addict.What does that say about the folks who watch his show?
What does that say about the folks who watch his show?
And that means what?Rachel Maddow made the same claim
And that means what?
And of course you have a link to her saying so?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?
Are you having a reading problem? Maddow didn't say that, the judge did.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"
Maddow Calling OAN 'Russian Propaganda' Protected by First Amendment: Court
"The challenged statement was an obvious exaggeration, cushioned within an undisputed news story," the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said.www.newsweek.com
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."
Your story, tell it any way you wish.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.
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'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
Too bad that is not understood and recognized by their audiences.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
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.They are in a cult of idiots?