Jump to content
luv2 luv2 (New Member) New Member

Special Council Muller Report

Politics   (11,263 Views 543 Comments)
7,083 Visitors; 258 Posts
If you find this topic helpful leave a comment.
advertisement

You are reading page 5 of Special Council Muller Report. If you want to start from the beginning Go to First Page.

Who should redact the Muller’s Report?

This poll is closed to new votes
  1. 1. Who should redact the Muller’s Report?

    • Attorney General William Barr
      1
    • House Intelligence Committee
      4
    • Who Cares
      1

6 members have participated

  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 04/20/2019 at 07:28 PM
3 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

You must be aware that Limbaugh is not a credible or trusted source for political commentary or analysis.

Pew Research Center

The Daily Wire is nearly within a bias category of "propaganda" according to the tables. 

 Media Bias chart

 

Regardless if whatever your little chart says, it seems unlikely he would have the large audience he has, over decades of time, if he was always full of crap. 

I have found him to be pretty accurate almost all the time.  I would agree he is partisan, but that’s hardly a news flash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lil Nel said:

If your statement was true, you wouldn't quote the sources you choose to quote.

Your post is nonsensical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't find Limbaugh a reliable source of information.  He said that the presence of gorillas shoots down the theory of evolution, and he fancies himself an expert on climate change as being a conspiracy theory, he through out the idea that the New Zealand mosque killer might be "a liberal Green New Deal Supporter".   He made fun of women wanting birth control because they were having "so much sex".  Given the many falsehoods he's come up with, I personally would find a more reliable source for conservative information.  The fact that he has millions of fans is irrelevant to whether he's spinning wildly or outright making things up.  Kind of sounds like our President actually.

 

Edited by Tweety

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tweety said:

I don't find Limbaugh a reliable source of information.  He said that the presence of gorillas shoots down the theory of evolution, and he fancies himself an expert on climate change as being a conspiracy theory, he through out the idea that the New Zealand mosque killer might be "a liberal Green New Deal Supporter".   He made fun of women wanting birth control because they were having "so much sex".  Given the many falsehoods he's come up with, I personally would find a more reliable source for conservative information.  The fact that he has millions of fans is irrelevant to whether he's spinning wildly or outright making things up.  Kind of sounds like our President actually.

 

I would say whatever source you are getting this from is (probably intentionally) taking things that aren’t meant be taken, literally.  And, is absent of any sense of humor.

He also says he does his show with “half my brain tied behind my back, just to make it fair”.  Guess what?  That isn’t true either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tweety said:

Given the many falsehoods he's come up with, I personally would find a more reliable source for conservative information.  

 

I wonder what source that might be that you would approve of?

Edited by SC_RNDude
V

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SC_RNDude said:

I would say whatever source you are getting this from is (probably intentionally) taking things that aren’t meant be taken, literally.  And, is absent of any sense of humor.

He also says he does his show with “half my brain tied behind my back, just to make it fair”.  Guess what?  That isn’t true either.

No, I think that statement is true.

Who, would seriously make jokes about the New Zealand mosque shooter?

Who, makes jokes about women and access to the birth control?

Somebody using half their brain.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
advertisement
5 hours ago, SC_RNDude said:

Regardless if whatever your little chart says, it seems unlikely he would have the large audience he has, over decades of time, if he was always full of crap. 

I have found him to be pretty accurate almost all the time.  I would agree he is partisan, but that’s hardly a news flash.

So, you use audience size as criteria, or determination of credibility?

Wow.

You need to retract every negative thing you have ever written about the NY Times or Washington Post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Tweety said:

I didn't see any "media meltdowns".  But I don't have cable, nor do I read conservatives interpretations of "mainstream media".

The Meuller investigation was to get at the truth as evidenced by the indictments and people sent to jail, none of which was Trump.  As you say, Russia interfered and it was important to understand how and why and who might have played a hand in it.  

Were there people that were salivating at the idea that Trump was going down?  Oh hell yes there were.   We can't sugar coat that idea.  

But to say that an investigation where many people surrounding Trump himself were doing shady things was a "witch hunt" against Trump just doesn't ring true to me.  

Like I said before, I extremely happy that Trump wasn't found colluding.  We don't need that kind of crap going on in our country.

The "media meltdown" line came straight from Fox.

I heard them use it last night.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SC_RNDude said:

I would say whatever source you are getting this from is (probably intentionally) taking things that aren’t meant be taken, literally.  And, is absent of any sense of humor.

He also says he does his show with “half my brain tied behind my back, just to make it fair”.  Guess what?  That isn’t true either.

Well, he has over two pages at a political fact checker of False, Mostly False, and Pants on Fire Statements.  Perhaps that isn't too bad given it covers several years.  But he says some crazy things.  

Maybe calling the shooter a liberal Green Deal supporter loving killer was funny to you, and I do hope it was made tongue in cheek, and I don't know the context.  (Source was HuffPo I believe) But it's not funny.  It's making light of a tragic situation.  I do have a sense of humor, and a sometimes warped one at that.  

The contraceptive talk was from memory.  He called a college student that was advocated for insurance coverage contraceptive a ***, and having the government pay for contraception would make her a prostitute and that we should be able to watch since we're paying for her to have "so much sex".  He later apologized.  But he's a windbag that spins reality to some warped view.  In my opinion.  Clearly there was a more mature stance he could have taken on whatever moral ground he stands on against covered contraception.

To me he's like a Howard Stern, John Stewart or a Trevor Noah (who only has one entry as "half true on Punditfact), good for some entertainment, truthful in some areas, but not a news source.

As always, I certainly allow anyone their opinion based on their life experiences and where they get their information.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Lil Nel said:

So, you use audience size as criteria, or determination of credibility?

Wow.

You need to retract every negative thing you have ever written about the NY Times or Washington Post.

His audience dwarfs theirs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SC_RNDude said:

His audience dwarfs theirs.

 

1 hour ago, SC_RNDude said:

His audience dwarfs theirs.

Oh, please.

More nonsense.

If audience size is a measure of credibility, Kim Kardashian is the most credible person in the world.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Tweety said:

Well, he has over two pages at a political fact checker of False, Mostly False, and Pants on Fire Statements.  Perhaps that isn't too bad given it covers several years.  But he says some crazy things.  

Maybe calling the shooter a liberal Green Deal supporter loving killer was funny to you, and I do hope it was made tongue in cheek, and I don't know the context.  (Source was HuffPo I believe) But it's not funny.  It's making light of a tragic situation.  I do have a sense of humor, and a sometimes warped one at that.  

The contraceptive talk was from memory.  He called a college student that was advocated for insurance coverage contraceptive a ***, and having the government pay for contraception would make her a prostitute and that we should be able to watch since we're paying for her to have "so much sex".  He later apologized.  But he's a windbag that spins reality to some warped view.  In my opinion.  Clearly there was a more mature stance he could have taken on whatever moral ground he stands on against covered contraception.

To me he's like a Howard Stern, John Stewart or a Trevor Noah (who only has one entry as "half true on Punditfact), good for some entertainment, truthful in some areas, but not a news source.

As always, I certainly allow anyone their opinion based on their life experiences and where they get their information.  

Hey Tweety.

Trevor Noah is a comic.

I don't consider Limbaugh to be a stand-up routine.

He isn't funny.

Like DJT, Limbaugh is a blow-hard, with an inflated ego.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
×