Racheal Maddow

[Nonelitist]

I had an intimate dream about Maddow.


Does this make me gay?

I dunno but I like yer hairdo sweetie!

Thank you!!

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Gotta give it to Nonelitist and friends.

You guys sure are classy.

 

[Oddball]

I had an intimate dream about Maddow.


Does this make me gay?

No, Hanrahan.

 

[xsited1]

I had an intimate dream about Maddow.


Does this make me gay?

You were probably dreaming you were in a woman's body. But you probably should see an eye doctor.

 

[Sarah G]

She's pretty, you all are just saying she isn't because you hate her politics.

To me, she's comparable to Laura Ingram on the Right. Laura also seems edgy and assertive but she's a little smarter and classier than her female peers.

Now Ann Coulter looks like a man with long hair but she's even better than her little clone Michelle Malkin.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I had an intimate dream about Maddow.


Does this make me gay?

You can't be made gay twice.

 

[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?

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.

Ignore me? For what Reason? Have I ever insulted you? Surely you can't be serious.

Rachel and everyone else in the news no matter who they are have Bias, some more than others..

Rachel is the same as Beck. Both have shows that only show 1 side of view.. They present personal opinion and bullshit stories as fact.

But of course MSNBC doesn't provide news they just provide it as commentary.. Right..

That's ignorance at it's best.. But you know very well that MSNBC is the same as Fox. But you won't admit that now will you?

It can't be because it shares your views or gives you the same bullshit talking points now can it?

Nah, never.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

Ignore me? For what Reason? Have I ever insulted you? Surely you can't be serious.

Rachel and everyone else in the news no matter who they are have Bias, some more than others..

Rachel is the same as Beck. Both have shows that only show 1 side of view.. They present personal opinion and bullshit stories as fact.

But of course MSNBC doesn't provide news they just provide it as commentary.. Right..

That's ignorance at it's best.. But you know very well that MSNBC is the same as Fox. But you won't admit that now will you?

It can't be because it shares your views or gives you the same bullshit talking points now can it?

Nah, never.

"Rachel is the same as Beck" is sufficient (and necessary) reason to ignore your posts. I suggest you watch Rachel this evening, I'll watch Fox - we both can examine our bias'.

 

[Qball]

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

Who told you this, The Advocate?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Watching Fox now.
Hannity presenting a fair and balanced (lol) assessment of the allegations of quid pro quo in the Sestek matter, comparing the episode to Blogojevich and suggesting that the R's in Congress are asking for a Special Prosecutor.
Next Hannity and Frank Luntz (?) blame Obama for the consequences of the oil spill. Hannity claims Obama is doing nothing about the oil spill, is on vacation, playing golf and hanging out with Hollywood elites.
Luntz call the president "pathetic". Coming up the Gov. of Arizona and Newt Gringrich. I can't wait.

 

[Tom Clancy]

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.

Ignore me? For what Reason? Have I ever insulted you? Surely you can't be serious.

Rachel and everyone else in the news no matter who they are have Bias, some more than others..

Rachel is the same as Beck. Both have shows that only show 1 side of view.. They present personal opinion and bullshit stories as fact.

But of course MSNBC doesn't provide news they just provide it as commentary.. Right..

That's ignorance at it's best.. But you know very well that MSNBC is the same as Fox. But you won't admit that now will you?

It can't be because it shares your views or gives you the same bullshit talking points now can it?

Nah, never.

"Rachel is the same as Beck" is sufficient (and necessary) reason to ignore your posts. I suggest you watch Rachel this evening, I'll watch Fox - we both can examine our bias'.

Rachel is the same as Beck.

Wanna know why? .. I feel like a broken seriously.. They both have some sort of bullshit team finding "news" and then report on it, and then give their own assessment.. And the only people debating about is them, nobody else.. In other words.. One sided View.

Again, thanks for showing your true colors.

And no thanks, I don't watch Fox or MSNBC, I have an enjoyable night to enjoy.

 

[EriktheRed]

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

Which is what makes her all the more effective at pissing off wingnuts.

 

[WillowTree]

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.

Ignore me? For what Reason? Have I ever insulted you? Surely you can't be serious.

Rachel and everyone else in the news no matter who they are have Bias, some more than others..

Rachel is the same as Beck. Both have shows that only show 1 side of view.. They present personal opinion and bullshit stories as fact.

But of course MSNBC doesn't provide news they just provide it as commentary.. Right..

That's ignorance at it's best.. But you know very well that MSNBC is the same as Fox. But you won't admit that now will you?

It can't be because it shares your views or gives you the same bullshit talking points now can it?

Nah, never.

"Rachel is the same as Beck" is sufficient (and necessary) reason to ignore your posts. I suggest you watch Rachel this evening, I'll watch Fox - we both can examine our bias'.

omg,, you cannot make this shit up..

 

[skookerasbil]

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.

you can always tell when one of the k00ks gets publically humiliated!!!

real intelligent folks are a dime a dozen........but some of the most brilliant people in the world are bonafide oddballs AND tend to extreme's which is exactly why Maddow has so few viewers!! Her views are fringe and not embraced by vast segments of society!!

So what she's intelligent??!!!! Only far lefties think intelligence is everything!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

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

Which is what makes her all the more effective at pissing off wingnuts.

"pissing off"??? Quite the opposite...............

Conservatives love to tune Maddow in for the sheer entertainment value!! It only reinforces our positions, because when you watch the arrogance and entreme positions and realize almost nobody is watching PLUS those who are watching are 95% nutty ass fringe, it becomes a dose of comedy!!

Im in here simply to make the point to the newer members who have become politically curious and who are trying to find their way through the muck. My goal on here is to expose the hyperpartisan k00k left and leave it to the blogger about making a decision to embrace the views of less than 20% of the population!!!

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

you can always tell when one of the k00ks gets publically humiliated!!!

real intelligent folks are a dime a dozen........but some of the most brilliant people in the world are bonafide oddballs AND tend to extreme's which is exactly why Maddow has so few viewers!! Her views are fringe and not embraced by vast segments of society!!

So what she's intelligent??!!!! Only far lefties think intelligence is everything!!!

LMAO, did I suggest (or anyone) that intelligence is "everything"? Most would argue that being intelligent is a good thing, and being dull or even dull normal is not what you want to be.
Then again, there is some truth to the cliche "ingnorance is bliss"; and while being ignorant on some issues is not a sign of low intelligence, being universally ignorant is likely so.
I watched Hannity last night, anyone who watches/listens to him regularly must be ignorant as well as (at best) dull normal. I suppose kook that you must find his type of 'reporting' blissful - active listening skills are not necessary for an emotionally burst.

 

[sitarro]

She's pretty, you all are just saying she isn't because you hate her politics.

To me, she's comparable to Laura Ingram on the Right. Laura also seems edgy and assertive but she's a little smarter and classier than her female peers.

Now Ann Coulter looks like a man with long hair but she's even better than her little clone Michelle Malkin.

That's funny........ pretty isn't exactly the word I would use for her, here she is with her partner doing a Larry King impression.



Now Laura Ingram is actually attractive, then again, she actually embraces her sex rather than attempt to look like the opposite sex. She also has a brain that she uses.

 

[maineman]

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.

you can always tell when one of the k00ks gets publically humiliated!!!

real intelligent folks are a dime a dozen........but some of the most brilliant people in the world are bonafide oddballs AND tend to extreme's which is exactly why Maddow has so few viewers!! Her views are fringe and not embraced by vast segments of society!!

So what she's intelligent??!!!! Only far lefties think intelligence is everything!!!

this thread was started to comment upon her intelligence, not her popularity with late night television viewers. Like I said, if anyone's post was IRRELEVANT it was yours. If you wanted to make the claim that she was in fact intelligent but extreme, perhaps you might have posted some evidence that would support such an allegation, instead of media audience ratings which do not have any direct correlation with extreme positions. If they did, then Hannity and Rush and Coulter would have equally low ratings. And again... if you had wanted to say, "So what she's intelligent", you could have simply said that at the begining, or, better yet, just kept your piehole shut and moved onto a thread where you might have been able to intelligently contribute... although THAT's a stretch.

 

[xsited1]

She's pretty, you all are just saying she isn't because you hate her politics.

...

He's not too bad looking:

He kind of looks like one of my nephews.

 

[Sarah G]

It's pretty funny how you all find the worst pics of Rachel and the very best pics of Laura. Laura is quite masculine at times. Her voice is deep and loud, like Ann Coulter but she has a cute look about her mostly.

Rachel does too.

Rachel has a sweet little voice and a fun personality although they're comparable.