Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Rachel Maddow is a graduate of Stanford University and recieved a Rhodes Scholarship; in 2001 she earned her Ph.D in Politics from Oxford University. That she is a she, gay and liberal is sufficient reason for the willfully ignorant bigots on the far right to demean her.
I hate to agree with Sally, post #7, but she is both intelligent and informed. She makes a worthy adversary...I'd love to see her have a show with Cheney's daughter.
Wow...the fireworks!
But, once you point to her being a Rhodes Scholar, as though that meant anything, I have to remind you that many such awards are simply for being liberal.
Bill Bradley...Rhodes Scholar...485 verbal SAT score.
"Bill Bradley, the thinking presidential candidate, scored a 485 verbal on his SAT? That's lower than George W. Bush, the allegedly slow-witted presidential candidate. As reported recently in The New Yorker, Bush got an SAT verbal score of 566."
Bill Bradley's SAT Scores - Slate Magazine
LOL, you forgot to mention President Clinton, another liberal. One wonders why liberals are selected and not conservatives? I suppose one might, if curious, read the profiles of those Americans selected this year. See this link:
http://www.rhodesscholar.org/assets/uploads/2011_Winners_Bios.pdf
I suppose after reading several of the profiles these remarkable young men and women are liberals, I can't imagine anyone of them supporting the ideology of the Tea Party, Ron Paul, the clowns to the right of him or the New Right.
I hate to agree with Sally, post #7, but she is both intelligent and informed. She makes a worthy adversary...I'd love to see her have a show with Cheney's daughter.
Wow...the fireworks!
But, once you point to her being a Rhodes Scholar, as though that meant anything, I have to remind you that many such awards are simply for being liberal.
Bill Bradley...Rhodes Scholar...485 verbal SAT score.
"Bill Bradley, the thinking presidential candidate, scored a 485 verbal on his SAT? That's lower than George W. Bush, the allegedly slow-witted presidential candidate. As reported recently in The New Yorker, Bush got an SAT verbal score of 566."
Bill Bradley's SAT Scores - Slate Magazine
LOL, you forgot to mention President Clinton, another liberal. One wonders why liberals are selected and not conservatives? I suppose one might, if curious, read the profiles of those Americans selected this year. See this link:
http://www.rhodesscholar.org/assets/uploads/2011_Winners_Bios.pdf
I suppose after reading several of the profiles these remarkable young men and women are liberals, I can't imagine anyone of them supporting the ideology of the Tea Party, Ron Paul, the clowns to the right of him or the New Right.
"...you forgot to mention President Clinton..."
Why would any reputable person bring up an individual guilty of duplicity, adultery, lying about adultery, sexual harassment, rape, perjury, obstruction of justice, as though said individual was some sort of paragon?
Next thing, you'll proudly mention Ted Kennedy.
I feel she is very informative and is great when she interviews people...respectable to be short.
Now Ed Schultz.... well, while I watch him I feel he is way to hard on the people he interviews, and pushes his views on viewers of his show
Chris Matthews, well he is O.K. but I have noticed with him that he likes to interrupt the republican guests all the time.... but I think that his show is a great one to watch
So I guess, change the original question (thread title), what do you think of Rachel Maddow and her colleagues on MSNBC?
The fact is simple that Maddow stands head and shoulders above her colleagues right, left, or center.
She is erudite, witty, fun, and satirizes and spoofs better than anyone in the business.
I wish we had someone in her league on the Republican side. George Will is intelligent and decent as she but not as vocally eloquent.
LOL, you forgot to mention President Clinton, another liberal. One wonders why liberals are selected and not conservatives? I suppose one might, if curious, read the profiles of those Americans selected this year. See this link:
http://www.rhodesscholar.org/assets/uploads/2011_Winners_Bios.pdf
I suppose after reading several of the profiles these remarkable young men and women are liberals, I can't imagine anyone of them supporting the ideology of the Tea Party, Ron Paul, the clowns to the right of him or the New Right.
"...you forgot to mention President Clinton..."
Why would any reputable person bring up an individual guilty of duplicity, adultery, lying about adultery, sexual harassment, rape, perjury, obstruction of justice, as though said individual was some sort of paragon?
Next thing, you'll proudly mention Ted Kennedy.
After Ted Kennedy, he'll mention Robert Byrd, then Harry Reid, etc.
The fact is simple that Maddow stands head and shoulders above her colleagues right, left, or center.
She is erudite, witty, fun, and satirizes and spoofs better than anyone in the business.
I wish we had someone in her league on the Republican side. George Will is intelligent and decent as she but not as vocally eloquent.
Too bad nobody's watching her, huh ?
She's very intelligent and has a great research staff.
"...you forgot to mention President Clinton..."
Why would any reputable person bring up an individual guilty of duplicity, adultery, lying about adultery, sexual harassment, rape, perjury, obstruction of justice, as though said individual was some sort of paragon?
Next thing, you'll proudly mention Ted Kennedy.
After Ted Kennedy, he'll mention Robert Byrd, then Harry Reid, etc.
Jeremiah Wright?
The fact is simple that Maddow stands head and shoulders above her colleagues right, left, or center.
She is erudite, witty, fun, and satirizes and spoofs better than anyone in the business.
I wish we had someone in her league on the Republican side. George Will is intelligent and decent as she but not as vocally eloquent.
She's very intelligent and has a great research staff.
I will give you intelligent and a great and articulate speaker. However, she is a political hack, practices gutter journalism, practices selective reporting (you will never hear her report anything bad on Democrats esp on Obama) and twist facts and sound bites to fit her political agenda.
While highly intelligent and articulate, she is a HIGHLY dishonest newsperson.
The fact is simple that Maddow stands head and shoulders above her colleagues right, left, or center.
She is erudite, witty, fun, and satirizes and spoofs better than anyone in the business.
I wish we had someone in her league on the Republican side. George Will is intelligent and decent as she but not as vocally eloquent.
So you admit she's more of a comedian than a serious news person. I'd probably agree with that sentiment.
She's very intelligent and has a great research staff.
I will give you intelligent and a great and articulate speaker. However, she is a political hack, practices gutter journalism, practices selective reporting (you will never hear her report anything bad on Democrats esp on Obama) and twist facts and sound bites to fit her political agenda.
While highly intelligent and articulate, she is a HIGHLY dishonest newsperson.
BULLDYKE: (German root) A woman who appears to be more butch than a real man. They are usually seen wearing jean jackets, wolf t-shirts or rainbow hats. Their habitat is mostly biker bars, truck pulls and Celine Dion concerts. Likes to wear mullett hair do's
Rachel Maddow is a graduate of Stanford University and recieved a Rhodes Scholarship; in 2001 she earned her Ph.D in Politics from Oxford University. That she is a she, gay and liberal is sufficient reason for the willfully ignorant bigots on the far right to demean her.
I hate to agree with Sally, post #7, but she is both intelligent and informed. She makes a worthy adversary...I'd love to see her have a show with Cheney's daughter.
Wow...the fireworks!
But, once you point to her being a Rhodes Scholar, as though that meant anything, I have to remind you that many such awards are simply for being liberal.
Bill Bradley...Rhodes Scholar...485 verbal SAT score.
"Bill Bradley, the thinking presidential candidate, scored a 485 verbal on his SAT? That's lower than George W. Bush, the allegedly slow-witted presidential candidate. As reported recently in The New Yorker, Bush got an SAT verbal score of 566."
Bill Bradley's SAT Scores - Slate Magazine
LOL, you forgot to mention President Clinton, another liberal. One wonders why liberals are selected and not conservatives? I suppose one might, if curious, read the profiles of those Americans selected this year. See this link:
http://www.rhodesscholar.org/assets/uploads/2011_Winners_Bios.pdf
I suppose after reading several of the profiles these remarkable young men and women are liberals, I can't imagine anyone of them supporting the ideology of the Tea Party, Ron Paul, the clowns to the right of him or the New Right.
god there are times I love that you are here, and this is one of them. so first, partly due to lack of imagination and see:
which in a weird way, I find apt. 
I feel she is very informative and is great when she interviews people...respectable to be short.
Now Ed Schultz.... well, while I watch him I feel he is way to hard on the people he interviews, and pushes his views on viewers of his show
Chris Matthews, well he is O.K. but I have noticed with him that he likes to interrupt the republican guests all the time.... but I think that his show is a great one to watch
So I guess, change the original question (thread title), what do you think of Rachel Maddow and her colleagues on MSNBC?
.
BULLDYKE: (German root) A woman who appears to be more butch than a real man. They are usually seen wearing jean jackets, wolf t-shirts or rainbow hats. Their habitat is mostly biker bars, truck pulls and Celine Dion concerts. Likes to wear mullett hair do's
Maddow is cute.
You're just jealous.
I feel she is very informative and is great when she interviews people...respectable to be short.
Now Ed Schultz.... well, while I watch him I feel he is way to hard on the people he interviews, and pushes his views on viewers of his show
Chris Matthews, well he is O.K. but I have noticed with him that he likes to interrupt the republican guests all the time.... but I think that his show is a great one to watch
So I guess, change the original question (thread title), what do you think of Rachel Maddow and her colleagues on MSNBC?
I feel Rachel Maddow is about as neutral in her interviews as Sean Hannity is in his.
That is to say I don't believe anything either one of those 2 farwingnuts says without verifying first
Anyone in here who is claiming Maddow is neutral and politically fair in her interviews is exposing their own left leaning bias.
I hate to agree with Sally, post #7, but she is both intelligent and informed. She makes a worthy adversary...I'd love to see her have a show with Cheney's daughter.
Wow...the fireworks!
But, once you point to her being a Rhodes Scholar, as though that meant anything, I have to remind you that many such awards are simply for being liberal.
Bill Bradley...Rhodes Scholar...485 verbal SAT score.
"Bill Bradley, the thinking presidential candidate, scored a 485 verbal on his SAT? That's lower than George W. Bush, the allegedly slow-witted presidential candidate. As reported recently in The New Yorker, Bush got an SAT verbal score of 566."
Bill Bradley's SAT Scores - Slate Magazine
LOL, you forgot to mention President Clinton, another liberal. One wonders why liberals are selected and not conservatives? I suppose one might, if curious, read the profiles of those Americans selected this year. See this link:
http://www.rhodesscholar.org/assets/uploads/2011_Winners_Bios.pdf
I suppose after reading several of the profiles these remarkable young men and women are liberals, I can't imagine anyone of them supporting the ideology of the Tea Party, Ron Paul, the clowns to the right of him or the New Right.
there really is no other way to see it, and of course academia and its demands for and foisting upon us of their particular brand of purity makes it so, so, I am quite sure 80% of them are libs too....
I noticed a paucity of hard sciences ( I counted 5) but hey, we simply must cover the areas that really matter; English majors and social sciences, Public affairs, minority studies, humans rights advocates, feminist studies and lets not leave out the world wise 15 year old genius who advises the UN ..
yes, we certainly need to build the next generation of educrats, intelligentsia and UN Nomenclatura, becasue everything is going just so well in their fields of endeavor now.....
Oh before you go, Q- how are they chosen? that is, who submits the nominees?
