MSNBC is a Propaganda Arm of...

[Berzerker]

But they weren't ignoring him, the guy even announced on Maddow's show. They waited until he won and then they launched an all out assault attaching him to the Jim Crow regime of the Democrat Party. And no, they were not indifferent to that primary, they were giving it plenty of coverage but they never went into Paul's "offensive" views until after he won. So either they just discovered all that the day he won , or they were holding it back for some reason - giving the Democrat nominee a more beatable opponent is the only logical motive.

As for a link, a link to what exactly? Somebody's article pointing out what I'm addressing? Or am I supposed to look thru hours of video footage from several days of coverage documenting the change in tone? No thanks. I wouldn't even know where to find MSNBC tapes... Now, if you come off like this:

I don't trust your judgment on this matter, Berzerker. I need specific links to videos/articles or else I won't believe you.

I don't think I'm alone here in this opinion either.

Dont expect me to waste a few hours looking for video links after that BS. And if you wanna chime in to support what he said, back it up. I dont remember debating you either. Where did I deserve this reputation of unreliability? If you dont have an answer, WTH are you doing supporting the troll?

Moderator Action: Trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Lord Baal]

Here's the problem, now follow the logic - he said other people agreed with him that I'm too unreliable. So he needs to quote people from previous threads and you dont count. I dont even know you. When did we have a debate in which I gave you reason to think I'm unreliable? He cant back that BS up, would you like to try? Lets hear that voice of yours.

No, he said no such thing. Perfection merely said that he "didn't trust your judgement," and "needed specific links" in order to evaluate your claim. If you could not provide these links, then he "wouldn't believe you." This is an entirely justified position. He said nothing about your actions in previous threads. Neither did I. He stated that he "did not believe" himself to be alone in thinking that you had not provided adequate information in this thread to support your position. Seeing as how myself and one other person have since posted agreeing with his assessment, he indeed was not alone in his belief. Perfection is not saying what you think he is.

I did, try reading the OP and look for "evidence" of this bias - hint, their coverage of Paul changed after he won the primary.

This is the equivalent of me claiming that I'm right because I said so. In the OP you provided absolutely no evidence of anything. Because I said so is not evidence. You need a link to a news story, or you are simply saying something with no evidence.

Well, go piss somewhere else

Very mature. I can see this thread will last a while.

Unless of course they have a TV and spent some time watching MSNBC the last few days.

Which helps those of us in Australia, how? And why do you assume that even fellow Americans would just happen to be watching that television network, when there are many other networks they could be watching? Perfection is surely not alone in not having access to cable television and therefore being unable to view this network.

He is a troll, you just cant figure that out. And I aint calling him that because he asked for a link, its the rest of what he said. How did you miss all that?

Probably because he did not say a goddamn thing trollish in either of his posts!? If you think he did, then you clearly have difficulties with the English language. Go re-read his posts. Show me anywhere where he's said anything even remotely trollish.

Oh well, if you and Perfie have nothing to say other than request a link, yer outta luck. Go visit their website if you cant watch their shows, I dont care.

Again,very mature. If you can't even be bothered to defend your claim enough to even post a link to the MSNBC website then you mustn't have much of a leg to stand on. Either that or you're both lazy and immature, in which case you also likely don't have a leg to stand on.

 

[Princeps]

Right after a primary instead of before?

I don't see anything wrong with that. The primary victory just brought him greater attention.

Oh, and its spelled Democratic Party.

 

[JerichoHill]

So what? It was the Democrat Party in charge of Jim Crow and now its Democrats smearing Paul for what their party did. The point is the change in coverage, I wouldn't have started this thread had MSNBC been telling us about the guy's views when he was running for the GOP nomination. They screwed his opponent because Paul is more beatable. That aint news, its propaganda...

And here you betray a lack of understanding about the shifting composition of the parties.

Southern Democrats, who opposed Civil Rights Laws, became Southern Republicans through Reagan's social + fiscal conservative revolution (see 1980, 1984).

The Democrats of the 1950s are NOT the democrats of today
The Republicans of the 1950s are NOT the republicans of today.

 

[civ_king]

MSNBC is a whore of the Democratic Party, however Fox News does everything the GOP wants

 

[JollyRoger]

You aint watching MSNBC

I did watch MSNBC. They gave him an interview. He spouted off a bunch of nonsense (that he has also spouted elsewhere) and they are merely covering it. It is not MSNBC's fault that he has decided post-primary to become such a high-profile kook.

Criticizing a British scumpany is un-Amwerican? What kind of Benedict Arnold crap is that?

 

[Formaldehyde]

So what? It was the Democrat Party in charge of Jim Crow and now its Democrats smearing Paul for what their party did.

The point you seem to be missing is that almost all the "Jim Crow" crowd are now Republicans instead of Democrats. That might help explain why only a handful of blacks are now members of the same party which set them free 150 years ago.

The Democrats of the 1950s are NOT the democrats of today
The Republicans of the 1950s are NOT the republicans of today.

Indeed. At least in the South.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Moderator Action: WARNING: This thread is on very thin ice. There needs to be actual discussion instead of bickering. No more flaming, no more trolling. Next time somebody earns an infraction for either of these reasons, the thread gets locked.

 

[mangxema]

But they weren't ignoring him, the guy even announced on Maddow's show. They waited until he won and then they launched an all out assault attaching him to the Jim Crow regime of the Democrat Party.

I haven't watched MSNBC (or much else, for that matter) in a while, but you seem to be missing one very important fact: The really controversial stuff happened right after Paul won the primary. Of course they took it easier on him before the primary; he hadn't said his crazy yet! Also, given the fact that some of said crazy occurred on their network, of course they are going to talk about it!