Rachel Maddow...Thoughts?

[Trajan]

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.

Maddow is much like a litigator, she presents a theory and uses her skills to convince the audience (jury). Hannity is much like a parrot, words come from his mouth but I doubt he understands much of what he utters.

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH

 

[Trajan]

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:

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 ..which in a weird way, I find apt.

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?

Applying for the Scholarship |*The Rhodes Scholarships

thx Bro. yea I saw that, and yee gads they have to be citizens? I wan to see ALL of their BIRTH certificates.. NOW!!

and del...do you think, there could be......an anchor baby amongst them??




no what I mean t is, does a Ryecatcher know that the selection prcoess is as rife with special handling as is the Service school appointments ( West Point etc...

 

[del]

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:

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 ..which in a weird way, I find apt.

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?

Applying for the Scholarship |*The Rhodes Scholarships

thx Bro. yea I saw that, and yee gads they have to be citizens? I wan to see ALL of their BIRTH certificates.. NOW!!

and del...do you think, there could be......an anchor baby amongst them??




no what I mean t is, does a Ryecatcher know that the selection prcoess is as rife with special handling as is the Service school appointments ( West Point etc...

is it your position, then, that the service academies churn out liberals?

i've clearly missed whatever point you're making

 

[PoliticalChic]

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:

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 ..which in a weird way, I find apt.

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?

Applying for the Scholarship |*The Rhodes Scholarships

"7. proof of citizenship."

Damn birthers!!!

 

[del]

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:

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 ..which in a weird way, I find apt.

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?

Applying for the Scholarship |*The Rhodes Scholarships

"7. proof of citizenship."

Damn birthers!!!

so how did you do on your SATs?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Applying for the Scholarship |*The Rhodes Scholarships

"7. proof of citizenship."

Damn birthers!!!

so how did you do on your SATs?

The Ivy's liked 'em.

 

[Wry Catcher]

"7. proof of citizenship."

Damn birthers!!!

so how did you do on your SATs?

The Ivy's liked 'em.

So you say.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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:

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 ..which in a weird way, I find apt.

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?

Trajan just fell flat on his face. Like how many hard scientists adhere to the hard right? Hmmm??

 

[PoliticalChic]

so how did you do on your SATs?

The Ivy's liked 'em.

So you say.

Then why ask?

 

[Warrior102]

so how did you do on your SATs?

The Ivy's liked 'em.

So you say.

Why is that so hard to believe? Rhodes Scholarships are only bestowed upon criminals (Clinton) and ugly lesbians (Maddow)?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Ivy's liked 'em.

So you say.

Why is that so hard to believe? Rhodes Scholarships are only bestowed upon criminals (Clinton) and ugly lesbians (Maddow)?

This is why the rest of America looks at the 15% of the hard right with astonishment, asking, "Are those fools really that stupid?" And the answer is, "Yes".

 

[Warrior102]

So you say.

Why is that so hard to believe? Rhodes Scholarships are only bestowed upon criminals (Clinton) and ugly lesbians (Maddow)?

This is why the rest of America looks at the 15% of the hard right with astonishment, asking, "Are those fools really that stupid?" And the answer is, "Yes".

Did you get that stat from MichaelMoore.com, asswipe? How fucking brilliant. Why don't you STFU

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why is that so hard to believe? Rhodes Scholarships are only bestowed upon criminals (Clinton) and ugly lesbians (Maddow)?

This is why the rest of America looks at the 15% of the hard right with astonishment, asking, "Are those fools really that stupid?" And the answer is, "Yes".

Did you get that stat from MichaelMoore.com, asswipe? How fucking brilliant. Why don't you STFU

You prove my point. You are stupid. You add nothing to the American dream. You are a loser.

End of story.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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.

That you came to your conclusion also reveals why you love Glenn Beck.

I don't like Beck. But don't let the facts stop you.

 

[HUGGY]

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?

Rachel Maddow...Thoughts?

A snob...homely.

 

[old navy]

47 % of all statistics are made up on the spot.

 

[rightwinger]

47 % of all statistics are made up on the spot.

That's total Bull Shit

Actually, 49.3% of statistics are made up on the spot

 

[del]

"7. proof of citizenship."

Damn birthers!!!

so how did you do on your SATs?

The Ivy's liked 'em.

of course they did, and i'm sure mensa swooned over your stanford benet results.

 

[freedombecki]

MSNBC is owned by G.E. which, as you may know, controls Obamas' Economic Council.
G.E. received 139 Billion in bailout money, how much do you think was spent to prop up MSNBC?

Is that the same G.E. Corp that routed 150,000 American jobs and billions of dollars to China to save a nickel and pick a taxpayer pocket or two with its CEO on Obama's Czar list--Czaring to "Save American jobs for Americans."

 

[tinydancer]

She's sadly a real true genius who's gotten caught up in the bullshit of the politics.

Maddow when you get her off script and she's just actually shooting the breeze is wild and funny. Actually she's like John Candy gone wild on SCTV doing a schmenge routine for women in menopause.

The woman is hysterical.

Too bad she feels she has to fall into the liberal schtick line of nasty aka Behar. She's better than that.