Reasons Why The Radical Far Rightwing Reactionary Republicans Hate Rachel Maddow

[MarcATL]

isn't it cute the new label the left now has for you people who are Republicans?

The Radical Far Rightwing Reactionary Republicans

they must of took DAYS to come up with that one?

liberals are like children and the scary thing is, they VOTE

and ALL THIS over some dumb t.v. talking head

Derpa dee derp.

 

[Tank]

Rachel Maddow?

I thought that was Tom Cruise!

 

[Papageorgio]

I don't hate her, I just don't care about what she has to say.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Interesting.......................all this talk about Rachel Maddow, and she's just hit her 5 year mark for being a news anchor.

Sounds like the right wing is throwing her a tribute party for being able to stay on the air, even in spite of the hate they throw at her.

Me? I like Ms. Maddow. She's smart, she's funny, and most of all, even if the person she is interviewing is from the opposite side of the political spectrum from her, she's always polite, but she WILL call people on their bullshit if they try to lie on her show.

Not only that, but if she makes a mistake and reports something wrong on her show, she will come back the next day (or as soon as she finds out she made a mistake) and tell everyone she was wrong, and then tell them the facts.

Ms. Maddow does a good job of reporting the news, as well as offers some pretty decent insight as to what is going on.

But.......................I guess that if you like Glenn Beck, Bill O'reilly, or any of those other idiots who speak for the far right wing, I can see why you hate her.

She tells the truth about 90 percent of the time. FAUX Nooze and the far right wing sites? They only provide facts about 60 percent of the time, and it's only because they're hoping that the cherry picked 60 percent props up their 40 percent lies.

Romney is gonna win because the polls say he will.....................yeah..................right...................

 

[NoNukes]

Rightwing attacks on Maddow center on her being gay

That is what passes for political discourse

She is gay and an NRA member. They must get very confused as to whether they like her or not.

 

[daveman]

It doesn't really count as exposing someone's lies if you lie yourself:

Rachel Maddow Lies to Leno About Republican Campaign Contributions | NewsBusters

Rachel Maddow Lies to David Letterman on the Auto Bailout | National Review Online

Rachel Maddow of MSNBC Caught Lying About Ohio Pro-Life Bill | LifeNews.com

Rachel Maddow lies about Rush Limbaugh | Mofo Politics

American Power: Debunking Rachel Maddow's Lies About 'Fast and Furious': MSNBC Hack Falsely Claims Scandal Just Like Shirley Sherrod 'Conspiracy'

No Maddow supporters want to address her lies?

I see Maddow's supporters are furiously pretending this post doesn't exist.

 

[Surfer]

She is gay and an NRA member. They must get very confused as to whether they like her or not.

I seriously doubt she's an nra member. She mocks them mercilessly on her "show". She's repulsive and looks like a damn dude. Ugh.

 

[NoNukes]

She is gay and an NRA member. They must get very confused as to whether they like her or not.

I seriously doubt she's an nra member. She mocks them mercilessly on her "show". She's repulsive and looks like a damn dude. Ugh.

She and her lover are both NRA members and went to an NRA meeting on their first date. See, you go to these NRA meetings and you wind up sleeping with someone the same sex as you.

 

[Surfer]

I seriously doubt she and her manwife are NRA members.

 

[whitehall]

Hatred of media information sources seems to be the sole prerogative of the radical left. Why else would they support at least two entire (tax exempt) research groups, Media Matters and News hounds, monitoring only conservative speech 24/7 and spinning it out to the hate mongers who need their daily fix of outrage? The right wing simply doesn't watch Maddow.

 

[daveman]

She is gay and an NRA member. They must get very confused as to whether they like her or not.

I seriously doubt she's an nra member. She mocks them mercilessly on her "show". She's repulsive and looks like a damn dude. Ugh.

She and her lover are both NRA members and went to an NRA meeting on their first date. See, you go to these NRA meetings and you wind up sleeping with someone the same sex as you.

Neither Maddow nor her lover are NRA members.

NPR.org » Rachel Maddow: The Fresh Air Interview

GROSS: So, there's just one question I want to ask about your relationship with your partner, and that's about your first date, which I read was at an NRA ladies' day on-the-range event.

(SOUNDBITE OF LAUGHTER)

GROSS: And I thought like, was that supposed to be ironic? Because I can't imagine Rachel Maddow on a date at an NRA event.

(SOUNDBITE OF LAUGHTER)

MADDOW: I'm actually kind of a good shot. My partner, Susan, her sister is a lifetime NRA member and a real gun enthusiast. And when Susan and I first met and I wanted to take her out on a date, she said, well, I'm doing this thing to support my sister at her club. And I thought, at her club? You're not really like a country club type person. What kind of - like some sort of dining club? What is this? No, no. Her rod and gun club. And I said sure. And so it was ladies' day on the range. It was an NRA event. And the idea was to make the various shooting sports more fun for the ladies. And so, Susan and I turned up. It was the best possible first date in the entire world.​

So, what else have you gotten wrong?

 

[Missourian]

She simply tells it like it is.

She points out all the lies and shenanigansthat the Republicans and other far rightwing reactionary Republican radicals engage in.

She brings their nonsense to light.

And for that...they hate her guts.

I'll list the topics she covers and information she brings out to light in this thread.

Seriously Marc, I will tell you the truth...Maddow isn't important enough to hate.

It would be like hating one specific termite that is weakening the structural soundness of your house.

Maddow is inconsequential...just a munching termite that is slightly larger than the rest.

God as my witness, I never give Rachael Maddow a moments thought until one of you guys who watch her post something about how much you think I hate her.

The truth is, she's just not on my radar...I am 100% apathetic towards her, as I imagine are 99.9999 percent of people who don't watch MSNBC, which is ironically 99.9999 percent of people.

 

[NLT]

Rachel Madcow is another lying pos Bull Dyke loudmouth

 

[Papageorgio]

Interesting.......................all this talk about Rachel Maddow, and she's just hit her 5 year mark for being a news anchor.

Sounds like the right wing is throwing her a tribute party for being able to stay on the air, even in spite of the hate they throw at her.

Me? I like Ms. Maddow. She's smart, she's funny, and most of all, even if the person she is interviewing is from the opposite side of the political spectrum from her, she's always polite, but she WILL call people on their bullshit if they try to lie on her show.

Not only that, but if she makes a mistake and reports something wrong on her show, she will come back the next day (or as soon as she finds out she made a mistake) and tell everyone she was wrong, and then tell them the facts.

Ms. Maddow does a good job of reporting the news, as well as offers some pretty decent insight as to what is going on.

But.......................I guess that if you like Glenn Beck, Bill O'reilly, or any of those other idiots who speak for the far right wing, I can see why you hate her.

She tells the truth about 90 percent of the time. FAUX Nooze and the far right wing sites? They only provide facts about 60 percent of the time, and it's only because they're hoping that the cherry picked 60 percent props up their 40 percent lies.

Romney is gonna win because the polls say he will.....................yeah..................right...................

She is not a news anchor, she is a political talk show host.

I put her at the same as category as Olbermann, Hannity and Matthews. I don't trust any of what they say.

 

[asterism]

She simply tells it like it is.

She points out all the lies and shenanigansthat the Republicans and other far rightwing reactionary Republican radicals engage in.

She brings their nonsense to light.

And for that...they hate her guts.

I'll list the topics she covers and information she brings out to light in this thread.

Someone with such promise, so much potential, and so much latitude is a shill and a pundit - not even one with a sizeable audience.

I'd give her kudos if she was some hardscrabble bootstrapping success story. I'd give her laurels if she was following her dreams and making the world a better place and the best she could do was being a part-time guest on a cable access show.

But this woman is a child of privilege. She attended Stanford, compliments of her Attorney father. Her undergraduate degree is in Public Policy. She then was awarded the John Gardner Fellowship, a true honor meant to encourage people to pursue careers in public service. Then she became a Rhodes Scholar, the cream of the crop, and earned a PhD in Politics.

So with all that she has received, what has she done with all this brilliance? Media pundit. Not even a media pundit that crashes barriers, one the breaks new ground, or even one that moves the needle of public opinion. No, she is a lesbian liberal on the most liberal network on TV. Her talent and camera friendly appearance coupled with her quick wit and social situation would have garnered that position. One doesn't need to be that bright to spout talking points, take pot shots at the competition, and tow the line for the politicians her bosses support. After all these student accomplishments and she just preaches to the choir? Really?

Her credentials and education would be much better suited in an actual public policy role - a White House advisor, a Congressmember, a Senator (and maybe later President), or even a town committeemember. She had a guaranteed affluent life handed to her and she chose the path that leads to more affluence and less influence.

As to her so often cited "conservative roots," well that's bullshit. Her California family was not conservative. They were Catholic, but they were "California Catholic" and that means liberal - nothing wrong with that, but it's not conservative. She likes to say that " "I'm undoubtedly a liberal, which means that I'm in almost total agreement with the Eisenhower-era Republican party platform." She's obviously too smart to not know Eisenhower's views on gay people and people of color. So that means she's just lying.

I watch Maddow from time to time, and I still get the sentiment that this woman hates me. She doesn't know me, she doesn't know that this person that is me even exists. However, she lashes out so viciously at people who say things that I also think. Not the wacko evangelists, not the deranged hypocrites, not the misogynists, and not the anti-gay activists. No, she lashes out at Libertarians that are fiscally conservative. She lashes out at anyone who supported the invasion of Iraq (without actually knowing anyone who deployed there, btw). She lashes out at anyone who doesn't agree 100% with her, if they are on the right side of the spectrum. She has contempt for Republicans that supported gays in the military, she has contempt for gay Republicans. She has contempt for anyone, of any party (except Democrats) that didn't support Obamacare.

So am I reactionary, or am I just reacting?

 

[MarcATL]

She simply tells it like it is.

She points out all the lies and shenanigansthat the Republicans and other far rightwing reactionary Republican radicals engage in.

She brings their nonsense to light.

And for that...they hate her guts.

I'll list the topics she covers and information she brings out to light in this thread.

Seriously Marc, I will tell you the truth...Maddow isn't important enough to hate.

It would be like hating one specific termite that is weakening the structural soundness of your house.

Maddow is inconsequential...just a munching termite that is slightly larger than the rest.

God as my witness, I never give Rachael Maddow a moments thought until one of you guys who watch her post something about how much you think I hate her.

The truth is, she's just not on my radar...I am 100% apathetic towards her, as I imagine are 99.9999 percent of people who don't watch MSNBC, which is ironically 99.9999 percent of people.

For someone who you folks claim is so inconsequential, you folk sure do go out of your to make a point of describing just exactly how inconsequential she is.

Interesting...

 

[asterism]

She simply tells it like it is.

She points out all the lies and shenanigansthat the Republicans and other far rightwing reactionary Republican radicals engage in.

She brings their nonsense to light.

And for that...they hate her guts.

I'll list the topics she covers and information she brings out to light in this thread.

Seriously Marc, I will tell you the truth...Maddow isn't important enough to hate.

It would be like hating one specific termite that is weakening the structural soundness of your house.

Maddow is inconsequential...just a munching termite that is slightly larger than the rest.

God as my witness, I never give Rachael Maddow a moments thought until one of you guys who watch her post something about how much you think I hate her.

The truth is, she's just not on my radar...I am 100% apathetic towards her, as I imagine are 99.9999 percent of people who don't watch MSNBC, which is ironically 99.9999 percent of people.

For someone who you folks claim is so inconsequential, you folk sure do go out of your to make a point of describing just exactly how inconsequential she is.

Interesting...

She's a legend in this corner of the Internet, always has been.

That doesn't mean shit out there in the real world though.

 

[MarcATL]

She simply tells it like it is.

She points out all the lies and shenanigansthat the Republicans and other far rightwing reactionary Republican radicals engage in.

She brings their nonsense to light.

And for that...they hate her guts.

I'll list the topics she covers and information she brings out to light in this thread.

Someone with such promise, so much potential, and so much latitude is a shill and a pundit - not even one with a sizeable audience.

I'd give her kudos if she was some hardscrabble bootstrapping success story. I'd give her laurels if she was following her dreams and making the world a better place and the best she could do was being a part-time guest on a cable access show.

But this woman is a child of privilege. She attended Stanford, compliments of her Attorney father. Her undergraduate degree is in Public Policy. She then was awarded the John Gardner Fellowship, a true honor meant to encourage people to pursue careers in public service. Then she became a Rhodes Scholar, the cream of the crop, and earned a PhD in Politics.

So with all that she has received, what has she done with all this brilliance? Media pundit. Not even a media pundit that crashes barriers, one the breaks new ground, or even one that moves the needle of public opinion. No, she is a lesbian liberal on the most liberal network on TV. Her talent and camera friendly appearance coupled with her quick wit and social situation would have garnered that position. One doesn't need to be that bright to spout talking points, take pot shots at the competition, and tow the line for the politicians her bosses support. After all these student accomplishments and she just preaches to the choir? Really?

Her credentials and education would be much better suited in an actual public policy role - a White House advisor, a Congressmember, a Senator (and maybe later President), or even a town committeemember. She had a guaranteed affluent life handed to her and she chose the path that leads to more affluence and less influence.

As to her so often cited "conservative roots," well that's bullshit. Her California family was not conservative. They were Catholic, but they were "California Catholic" and that means liberal - nothing wrong with that, but it's not conservative. She likes to say that " "I'm undoubtedly a liberal, which means that I'm in almost total agreement with the Eisenhower-era Republican party platform." She's obviously too smart to not know Eisenhower's views on gay people and people of color. So that means she's just lying.

I watch Maddow from time to time, and I still get the sentiment that this woman hates me. She doesn't know me, she doesn't know that this person that is me even exists. However, she lashes out so viciously at people who say things that I also think. Not the wacko evangelists, not the deranged hypocrites, not the misogynists, and not the anti-gay activists. No, she lashes out at Libertarians that are fiscally conservative. She lashes out at anyone who supported the invasion of Iraq (without actually knowing anyone who deployed there, btw). She lashes out at anyone who doesn't agree 100% with her, if they are on the right side of the spectrum. She has contempt for Republicans that supported gays in the military, she has contempt for gay Republicans. She has contempt for anyone, of any party (except Democrats) that didn't support Obamacare.

So am I reactionary, or am I just reacting?

Repped for sincerity.

How does Rachel lash out against your ilk?

 

[asterism]

She simply tells it like it is.

She points out all the lies and shenanigansthat the Republicans and other far rightwing reactionary Republican radicals engage in.

She brings their nonsense to light.

And for that...they hate her guts.

I'll list the topics she covers and information she brings out to light in this thread.

Someone with such promise, so much potential, and so much latitude is a shill and a pundit - not even one with a sizeable audience.

I'd give her kudos if she was some hardscrabble bootstrapping success story. I'd give her laurels if she was following her dreams and making the world a better place and the best she could do was being a part-time guest on a cable access show.

But this woman is a child of privilege. She attended Stanford, compliments of her Attorney father. Her undergraduate degree is in Public Policy. She then was awarded the John Gardner Fellowship, a true honor meant to encourage people to pursue careers in public service. Then she became a Rhodes Scholar, the cream of the crop, and earned a PhD in Politics.

So with all that she has received, what has she done with all this brilliance? Media pundit. Not even a media pundit that crashes barriers, one the breaks new ground, or even one that moves the needle of public opinion. No, she is a lesbian liberal on the most liberal network on TV. Her talent and camera friendly appearance coupled with her quick wit and social situation would have garnered that position. One doesn't need to be that bright to spout talking points, take pot shots at the competition, and tow the line for the politicians her bosses support. After all these student accomplishments and she just preaches to the choir? Really?

Her credentials and education would be much better suited in an actual public policy role - a White House advisor, a Congressmember, a Senator (and maybe later President), or even a town committeemember. She had a guaranteed affluent life handed to her and she chose the path that leads to more affluence and less influence.

As to her so often cited "conservative roots," well that's bullshit. Her California family was not conservative. They were Catholic, but they were "California Catholic" and that means liberal - nothing wrong with that, but it's not conservative. She likes to say that " "I'm undoubtedly a liberal, which means that I'm in almost total agreement with the Eisenhower-era Republican party platform." She's obviously too smart to not know Eisenhower's views on gay people and people of color. So that means she's just lying.

I watch Maddow from time to time, and I still get the sentiment that this woman hates me. She doesn't know me, she doesn't know that this person that is me even exists. However, she lashes out so viciously at people who say things that I also think. Not the wacko evangelists, not the deranged hypocrites, not the misogynists, and not the anti-gay activists. No, she lashes out at Libertarians that are fiscally conservative. She lashes out at anyone who supported the invasion of Iraq (without actually knowing anyone who deployed there, btw). She lashes out at anyone who doesn't agree 100% with her, if they are on the right side of the spectrum. She has contempt for Republicans that supported gays in the military, she has contempt for gay Republicans. She has contempt for anyone, of any party (except Democrats) that didn't support Obamacare.

So am I reactionary, or am I just reacting?

Repped for sincerity.

How does Rachel lash out against your ilk?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WJIUHybk7E]Rachel Maddow GOP conservatism authoritarian or libertarian - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Missourian]

She simply tells it like it is.

She points out all the lies and shenanigansthat the Republicans and other far rightwing reactionary Republican radicals engage in.

She brings their nonsense to light.

And for that...they hate her guts.

I'll list the topics she covers and information she brings out to light in this thread.

Seriously Marc, I will tell you the truth...Maddow isn't important enough to hate.

It would be like hating one specific termite that is weakening the structural soundness of your house.

Maddow is inconsequential...just a munching termite that is slightly larger than the rest.

God as my witness, I never give Rachael Maddow a moments thought until one of you guys who watch her post something about how much you think I hate her.

The truth is, she's just not on my radar...I am 100% apathetic towards her, as I imagine are 99.9999 percent of people who don't watch MSNBC, which is ironically 99.9999 percent of people.

For someone who you folks claim is so inconsequential, you folk sure do go out of your to make a point of describing just exactly how inconsequential she is.

Interesting...

Sounds like you are skeptical.

OK, here is my challenge.

I have 10,881 posts spanning 5 years...how many times have a said something positive or negative about Rachael Maddow?

Three years and five days ago, I said this:

You're kidding, right?

They debate their thoughts, ideas, and ideals every weekday.

Beck at 5pm and Maddow at 9 pm.

Beck clobbers her every day....currently by nearly 2 to 1.

Glenn Beck – 2,055,000 viewers (490,000) (936,000)

Rachel Maddow Show —1,073,000 viewers (292,000) (546,000)​

Cable News Ratings for Thursday, September 2, 2010 - Ratings | TVbytheNumbers

That's all I could find.

Three years and five days ago, I mentioned her ratings...in reply to a question Zona asked.

10,881 posts, and I mentioned her ratings...not anything she said, or argument she made, or opinion she held...one time.

Could anyone be more off my radar, or inconsequential?

So believe what you will...that we are all secretly as obsessed with Rachael Maddow and MSNBC as you are with Hannity and Fox News.

But the truth is, most of us are indifferent because Maddow and MSNBC are only talking to you...we really just don't care.

Their mewlings are so far off in the distance that they are lost in the background noise...most of us never hear about them until one of you thrusts them into our periphery.