Racheal Maddow

[kwc57]

Racheal is the best informed, most comprehensive and smartest broadcast personality on TV.

That may be so, but O'Reilly is "lookin' out for ya"!

 

[Oddball]

Obviously the willfully ignorant have not and will not watch anything which might cause them discomfort - avoiding cognitive dissonance seems to be a common factor in their belief system, and why they hold so firmly to the talking points of the right.

DR. FREUD!...PAGING DOCTOR SIGMUND FREUD!

PLEASE CALL YOUR OFFICE!

 

[Si modo]

Wry has a crush.

 

[Misty]

Maddow has a doctorate in philosphy in politics.

She knows the formula to every argument.

Which does make her learned. But it doesn't mean she is correct in her arguments.

Recently she used, and do did I btw, used the appeal to coincidence argument.

Lolol. Get it. We coincidently used the coincidence argument. Lolol

 

[paperview]

First of all it's Rachel Not racheal.

Try spelling her name correctly before you praise her.

She has a research team that finds all her info for her

she then reads off a Teleprompter.

As they all do.

Does she read off a teleprompter when doing interviews?

 

[Wry Catcher]

First of all it's Rachel Not racheal.

Try spelling her name correctly before you praise her.

She has a research team that finds all her info for her

she then reads off a Teleprompter.

As they all do.

Does she read off a teleprompter when doing interviews?

Nope, no need for a teleprompter when one is curious and asks questions not biased by preceived notions (last night with the biologists in LA, for example).

BTW, for Misty. Do you know the meaning of "cavil"? It perfectly describes your post. Look it up, and then look in a mirror, you'll see the archetype in graphic detail.

 

[Si modo]

First of all it's Rachel Not racheal.

Try spelling her name correctly before you praise her.

She has a research team that finds all her info for her

she then reads off a Teleprompter.

As they all do.

Does she read off a teleprompter when doing interviews?

Nope, no need for a teleprompter when one is curious and asks questions not biased by preceived notions (last night with the biologists in LA, for example).

BTW, for Misty. Do you know the meaning of "cavil"? It perfectly describes your post. Look it up, and then look in a mirror, you'll see the archetype in graphic detail.

Perhaps you should look up 'smarmy' and 'deranged'.

Just sayin'.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Does she read off a teleprompter when doing interviews?

Nope, no need for a teleprompter when one is curious and asks questions not biased by preceived notions (last night with the biologists in LA, for example).

BTW, for Misty. Do you know the meaning of "cavil"? It perfectly describes your post. Look it up, and then look in a mirror, you'll see the archetype in graphic detail.

Perhaps you should look up 'smarmy' and 'deranged'.

Just sayin'.

Why? Both words were used by you to defame Ms. Maddow, considering the source (you) there is very little I need to look up - even at your most magniloquent your posts are predictable and prosaic; rarely smarmy, usually arrogant and discourtious.

 

[Nonelitist]

I can't stand Maddow!!!

His voice gets on my nerves and he loooks and acts like a woman.

Grow some balls dude!!

 

[Wry Catcher]

I can't stand Maddow!!!

His voice gets on my nerves and he loooks and acts like a woman.

Grow some balls dude!!

Said the bigot.

 

[Angelhair]

First of all it's Rachel Not racheal.

Try spelling her name correctly before you praise her.

She has a research team that finds all her info for her

she then reads off a Teleprompter.

As they all do.

She and her president......

 

[maineman]

The Scoreboard: Thursday, May 27
By Chris Ariens on May 28, 2010 04:45 PM25-54 demographic: (L +SD)

Total day: FNC: 395 | CNN: 211 | MSNBC: 138 | HLN: 129

Prime: FNC: 700 | CNN: 246 | MSNBC: 239 | HLN: 225
5p: 6p: 7p: 8p: 9p: 10p: 11p:

FNC Beck: Baier: Shep: O'Reilly: Hannity: Greta: O'Reilly:
503 343 428 873 629 596 531

CNN Blitzer: Blitzer: KingUSA: Brown: King: Cooper: Cooper:
283 280 221 237 222 280 246

MSNBC Matthews: EdShow: Matthews: Olbermann: Maddow: Olbermann: Maddow:
142 131 163 296 217 203 185

HLN Showbiz: Prime: Issues: Grace: Behar: Grace: Showbiz:
48 50 164 341 127 226 152



C'mon..........this is a joke right??? Look at the Maddow # ( highlighted in red)........and this is in the 25-54 demographic, so total rating is even going to be lower. The show barely has 1 million viewers/night and many nights falls under that and it is estimated that a vast majority of those viewers are committed liberal viewers. So........in other words..............


Nobody watches that show!!!!!

and do you honestly believe that ratings have any sort of direct correlation with the intelligence of the host?

and irrelevant post................

irrelevant my ass. If any post is irrelevant, it was your posting the ratings statistics. The OP made a comment about the intelligence of Rachel Maddow... either your reply was irrelevant, or you did, in fact, believe that there was some direct correlation between ratings and the intelligence of the host.

fucking moron.

 

[Angelhair]

and do you honestly believe that ratings have any sort of direct correlation with the intelligence of the host?

Yes. That guy, Rachel Madnow, though well educated, has no clue how to get people, liberal or conservative to watch her show. Buy hey, MSNBC has no clue how to get people to watch their entire network either.

Her only defense would be that someone else is pulling the strings on her show. Maybe she could flash her tits or something.

She has tits???????

 

[Tom Clancy]

Obviously the willfully ignorant have not and will not watch anything which might cause them discomfort - avoiding cognitive dissonance seems to be a common factor in their belief system, and why they hold so firmly to the talking points of the right.

Again Hypocrite..

You probably wouldn't watch anything from Fox News, since they always lie.. right? Because that's causes discomfort, and avoiding cognitive dissonance seems to be a common factor in your belief system, and why you hold so firmly to the talking points of the left.


See what I did here?

You complain and complain about how the people from the Right use talking points from their sources and somehow you have a secret obsession with Beck and Hannity, actually all of Fox News, Yet you don't realize the same thing you're calling the right about is happening to you..

Thus making you a Hypocrite and a Small minded Fellow who uses Talking points by Maddow & Co.

Thanks for playing and showing your true colors!

Play again?

 

[Nonelitist]

I had an intimate dream about Maddow.


Does this make me gay?

 

[Rinata]

I had an intimate dream about Maddow.


Does this make me gay?

Don't be silly. You're just a plain, ordinary, everyday jerk.

 

[Sarah G]

I had an intimate dream about Maddow.


Does this make me gay?

Don't be silly. You're just a plain, ordinary, everyday jerk.

 

[Nonelitist]

I had an intimate dream about Maddow.


Does this make me gay?

Don't be silly. You're just a plain, ordinary, everyday jerk.

Wheewww... that's a relief!!!!

I have never had a dream about another dude before.

I knew a liberal would have a good answer to that question... noone is better at seperating people into groups... and I needed to know what group I fit into.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Obviously the willfully ignorant have not and will not watch anything which might cause them discomfort - avoiding cognitive dissonance seems to be a common factor in their belief system, and why they hold so firmly to the talking points of the right.

Again Hypocrite..

You probably wouldn't watch anything from Fox News, since they always lie.. right? Because that's causes discomfort, and avoiding cognitive dissonance seems to be a common factor in your belief system, and why you hold so firmly to the talking points of the left.


See what I did here?

You complain and complain about how the people from the Right use talking points from their sources and somehow you have a secret obsession with Beck and Hannity, actually all of Fox News, Yet you don't realize the same thing you're calling the right about is happening to you..

Thus making you a Hypocrite and a Small minded Fellow who uses Talking points by Maddow & Co.

Thanks for playing and showing your true colors!

Play again?

Normally I ignore you (that does not mean I refuse to read your posts, 'insipitudes' provide humor and rarely need to be answered or even acknowledged), but challenged, I'll respond. I regularly tune in and listen to Limbaugh and Hannity on the radio, and watch Fox to see how they present current events.
To be fair, Rachel has a bias; and to be fair (I'm sure you are) Limbaugh, Hannity and the Fox News personalities have a bias too.
The big difference being that Rachel and Olbermann provide commentary as commentary, and the Fox personalities present commentary as news.
Only a liar or a fool can't see the difference.

 

[WillowTree]

I had an intimate dream about Maddow.


Does this make me gay?

I dunno but I like yer hairdo sweetie!