Is Rachael Maddow Out of Control?

[Truthmatters]

There is no hell worse than being in the same room with a 'Bull Dyke' on the rag! That would be Madcow.
Anyway she doesn't have long before the owners of MSNBC notice they can be making more money running re-runs of the 'Littlest Hobo' than having Madcow on the air.
After the GOP takes back the Senate this year and Bobo becomes as useful as a pop-corn fart MSNBC will do a complete make-over and all the LIB wackos will be shown the door.
They can go to Sorros and plead with him to front a new cable network just for them. He won't. In a couple of years Madcow will be working in a 'hair removal' salon specializing in the 'vulva wax'.

and Robmoney won by 5% huh

 

[Synthaholic]

Anytime Republicans get a taste of their own medicine, and tactics, they go all victim.

If Rachel is uncovering criminality, those careers do not deserve saving.

No, what the republicans did was simply smear Wendy in Texas in an equally devastating way.

Who loses in all this are the People. Both Christie and Wendy Davis are good people who as all people do, come with flaws. But their basic character as anyone would admit if they thought about it long enough, is gritty, determined and expressive of their inner convictions. What person could make it in politics without fudging a little? What person could make it in politics without a little roughing up here and there? What person could make it in politics without throwing a bone here or there in exchange for a favor or two?

What are you basing this "Christie is a good person" on?

 

[Truthmatters]

his hard on for fat pols

 

[thanatos144]

his hard on for fat pols

Oh look a racist fat joke....Way to go you tolerant democrat.

 

[Truthmatters]

are you ******* insane?

how is that racist?

 

[Truthmatters]

Christy is a shit head who is willing to send to prison the people that worked for him to cover his own crimes.


how many of those people do you think will TURN on him now and out his whole shitpile of lies?

 

[thanatos144]

are you ******* insane?

how is that racist?

calling someone a pol short for pollock you racist *****.

 

[Dot Com]

her pointing-out inconsistencies/hypocrites on the Right is wrong how exactly?

 

[thanatos144]

her pointing-out inconsistencies/hypocrites on the Right is wrong how exactly?

Nothing wrong with it if she isn't lying about it.

 

[Silhouette]

I'm picking the only demographic that advertisers care about, therefore the only demographic that matters.

As I said from the beginning.

Yes, the old folks tune into Fox. It's in the numbers.

Just watch the commercials while Bill O'Reilly or Hannity are on....they are definitely targeting the old.

Greg Gutfeld though is hilarious. I've caught "Red Eye" every now and then if I'm up at that ungodly hour and I never fail to laugh my ass off. He's intelligently edgy, not stupid-edgy like the way left Hollywood fare.

 

[Silhouette]

her pointing-out inconsistencies/hypocrites on the Right is wrong how exactly?

It isn't per se. But when a media head launches out with obvious mal intent, nay, glee, to destroy someone's career come hell or high water, then there's a problem. Especially before there's a conviction. Maddow isn't even shy about it. She smiles ear to ear, gives cheeky, snarky looks at the camera as she cheerfully alludes that the end game is to see these various guys and gals she's targeted on her show go to prison or jail. And she does this in a very public venue to exact the effect of destroying their career without even a conviction.

It would be another thing if they'd already been through the court system, been found guilty and on their way to jail for her to trump it all up and give you an in your face "whoot whoot". It still would be tasteless and revealing of her as a journalist. But what she's doing is purposeful and with the intent to destroy not just reveal. A journalist should be about revealing and Maddow I believe has taken it a step beyond that. Hence the name of this thread.

Is she alone? No. Like the Rolling Stone article compared: she is rather like Glenn Beck in blue. Glenn Beck was out of control and ultimately I'm sure this is why Fox canned him. I wonder if that fate and correlation has ever crossed Maddow's mind? Would MSNBC fire her? How much more can she rant out of control before even the heads of that company say "enough is enough". Surely they are watching the Duck Dynasty/Chic-Fil-A numbers and also wondering how all this "gay support" never seems to render out that way at the voting booths..?

 

[Political Junky]

are you ******* insane?

how is that racist?

calling someone a pol short for pollock you racist *****.

A pol is a politician. A Pole is proper for a Polish person.

 

[Synthaholic]

I'm picking the only demographic that advertisers care about, therefore the only demographic that matters.

As I said from the beginning.

Yes, the old folks tune into Fox. It's in the numbers.

Just watch the commercials while Bill O'Reilly or Hannity are on....they are definitely targeting the old.

Pat Boone selling walk-in bathtubs, then singing off-key at the end.

 

[rdean]

I dont watch her show....I cant stand to look at women trying to look like men. Penis envy is disturbing.

Maybe you should watch it. It could open that tiny mind.

Sorry not a mangina like you. I actually have pride.

Seems what you are proud of, most others would be ashamed.

 

[mamooth]

IBut when a media head launches out with obvious mal intent, nay, glee, to destroy someone's career come hell or high water, then there's a problem.

I'm more concerned about whether it's true than whether someone whose career I like is threatened by the truth. Must be a liberal thing.

And seriously, comparing Beck to Maddow? The tiny difference between the two is Beck constantly made crap up, and Maddow doesn't. It all comes back to that truth thing.

 

[Synthaholic]

her pointing-out inconsistencies/hypocrites on the Right is wrong how exactly?

It isn't per se. But when a media head launches out with obvious mal intent, nay, glee, to destroy someone's career come hell or high water, then there's a problem. Especially before there's a conviction. Maddow isn't even shy about it. She smiles ear to ear, gives cheeky, snarky looks at the camera as she cheerfully alludes that the end game is to see these various guys and gals she's targeted on her show go to prison or jail. And she does this in a very public venue to exact the effect of destroying their career without even a conviction.

No, she is helping lay the groundwork for their eventual conviction, doing what reporters have done for centuries: break news. She did it with a few #BridgeGate stories, Steve Kornacki did it with a few #BridgeGate stories, etc.

It's called journalism.

The fact that she enjoys exposing Right-Wing hypocrisy is irrelevant to the facts she presents.

It would be another thing if they'd already been through the court system, been found guilty and on their way to jail for her to trump it all up and give you an in your face "whoot whoot". It still would be tasteless and revealing of her as a journalist. But what she's doing is purposeful and with the intent to destroy not just reveal. A journalist should be about revealing and Maddow I believe has taken it a step beyond that. Hence the name of this thread.

It doesn't get to a court system until there are charges. That's where reporters come in, along with local, state, Federal investigators.

Is she alone? No. Like the Rolling Stone article compared: she is rather like Glenn Beck in blue. Glenn Beck was out of control and ultimately I'm sure this is why Fox canned him. I wonder if that fate and correlation has ever crossed Maddow's mind? Would MSNBC fire her? How much more can she rant out of control before even the heads of that company say "enough is enough". Surely they are watching the Duck Dynasty/Chic-Fil-A numbers and also wondering how all this "gay support" never seems to render out that way at the voting booths..?

She's nothing like Glenn Beck. She uses facts to report what other news outlets are ignoring, including her own.

Glenn Beck is a rodeo clown, spewing conspiracy theories and half-baked pronouncements of impending doom, due to Democrats.

 

[Synthaholic]

are you ******* insane?

how is that racist?

calling someone a pol short for pollock you racist *****.

A pol is a politician. A Pole is proper for a Polish person.

thermos is pretty ******* stupid.

 

[Antares]

This is just more proof that if conservatives didn't lie, they would have nothing to say.

Sorry chile, I posted last night and last Friday, po Rach was less than half of Kelly's viewership.

My original post:

She beat Megyn Kelly last week in the only demographic that matters.

Why are you dishonest, especially when it's so easily proven?

Too funny, why do you deflect and back away from the silly shit you post?

Kelly beats the shit out her 9 out of 10 nights and you think that's a win for the effeminate Fred Savage?

 

[Silhouette]

her pointing-out inconsistencies/hypocrites on the Right is wrong how exactly?

It isn't per se. But when a media head launches out with obvious mal intent, nay, glee, to destroy someone's career come hell or high water, then there's a problem. Especially before there's a conviction. Maddow isn't even shy about it. She smiles ear to ear, gives cheeky, snarky looks at the camera as she cheerfully alludes that the end game is to see these various guys and gals she's targeted on her show go to prison or jail. And she does this in a very public venue to exact the effect of destroying their career without even a conviction.

No, she is helping lay the groundwork for their eventual conviction, doing what reporters have done for centuries: break news. She did it with a few #BridgeGate stories, Steve Kornacki did it with a few #BridgeGate stories, etc.

It's called journalism.

The fact that she enjoys exposing Right-Wing hypocrisy is irrelevant to the facts she presents.

You know that she is stepping over the line and proclaiming-alluding guilty before a trial is held. With glee and great repetition no less. Which in her type of exposure is tantamount to actively destroying someone's career without cause. A proper exercise of journalism would be to present the facts as they unfold, with a sober demeanor and not cheer on a guilty verdict before an investigation is complete.

I've said it before that her talents are good. But she has a zeal to destroy people that is undeniable. It's a shame because her tenacity would be much better served under a sober restraint instead of coming across like she has rabies.

The point of this exercize is to ask what is lost and what is gained and weigh the two side by side. I've said that she is also human and has things she'd rather not see people publish about her that would destroy her career before there's ever been a fair trial of her. That can be said of anyone really. So why does she get to destroy with impunity in this way while others are expected to maintain restraint in return? Does she believe she is above reproach?

 

[Sarah G]

It isn't per se. But when a media head launches out with obvious mal intent, nay, glee, to destroy someone's career come hell or high water, then there's a problem. Especially before there's a conviction. Maddow isn't even shy about it. She smiles ear to ear, gives cheeky, snarky looks at the camera as she cheerfully alludes that the end game is to see these various guys and gals she's targeted on her show go to prison or jail. And she does this in a very public venue to exact the effect of destroying their career without even a conviction.

No, she is helping lay the groundwork for their eventual conviction, doing what reporters have done for centuries: break news. She did it with a few #BridgeGate stories, Steve Kornacki did it with a few #BridgeGate stories, etc.

It's called journalism.

The fact that she enjoys exposing Right-Wing hypocrisy is irrelevant to the facts she presents.

You know that she is stepping over the line and proclaiming-alluding guilty before a trial is held. With glee and great repetition no less. Which in her type of exposure is tantamount to actively destroying someone's career without cause. A proper exercise of journalism would be to present the facts as they unfold, with a sober demeanor and not cheer on a guilty verdict before an investigation is complete.

I've said it before that her talents are good. But she has a zeal to destroy people that is undeniable. It's a shame because her tenacity would be much better served under a sober restraint instead of coming across like she has rabies.

The point of this exercize is to ask what is lost and what is gained and weigh the two side by side. I've said that she is also human and has things she'd rather not see people publish about her that would destroy her career before there's ever been a fair trial of her. That can be said of anyone really. So why does she get to destroy with impunity in this way while others are expected to maintain restraint in return? Does she believe she is above reproach?

You're getting way too emotional about this, she's reporting on the stories, these people ruined their own careers.

Maybe you're watching too much Fox News to be objective.