Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You can always tell how great a person is, by the level of outrage they receive from the right. The amount of vitriol they spew at someone, can be used as a reverse barometer, to mark that persons success.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.
Actually asterism, that's not an attack. It's a VERY good question.Repped for sincerity.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?
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]
You can always tell how great a person is, by the level of outrage they receive from the right. The amount of vitriol they spew at someone, can be used as a reverse barometer, to mark that persons success.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.
Rachel Maddow
Bill Clinton
Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama
Travon Martin
Cindy Sheehan
Are people that really get under their skin.
I wonder what President took more shit from the right?
Bill Clinton or Barack Obama?
As far as Rachel is concerned, I love her! She rocks! Maddow is the man!
Actually asterism, that's not an attack. It's a VERY good question.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]
My friend you just prompted a new MarcATL thread.
#Checkitout: http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...vatives-aren-t-really-conservative-today.html
It's not an attack.It is an attack. She ignores her own chosen side's lack of concern for liberty.
I look forward to the conversation.
It's not an attack.It is an attack. She ignores her own chosen side's lack of concern for liberty.
I look forward to the conversation.
Liberals don't go around spouting "small government" every third sentence.
I mean, you must see the irony, and that's putting it nicely, in that...don't you?
I sure wish you guys did as you now SAY you do back when Bush II was totally RAMSACKING The Constitution and ramming all sorts of authoritarian policies down our throats.It's not an attack.It is an attack. She ignores her own chosen side's lack of concern for liberty.
I look forward to the conversation.
Liberals don't go around spouting "small government" every third sentence.
I mean, you must see the irony, and that's putting it nicely, in that...don't you?
Of course they don't, the more Socialist the government the better is what liberals spout..
and as long as they use other's monies to pay for it, THAT'S EVEN BETTER
I sure wish you guys did as you now SAY you do back when Bush II was totally RAMSACKING The Constitution and ramming all sorts of authoritarian policies down our throats.It's not an attack.
Liberals don't go around spouting "small government" every third sentence.
I mean, you must see the irony, and that's putting it nicely, in that...don't you?
Of course they don't, the more Socialist the government the better is what liberals spout..
and as long as they use other's monies to pay for it, THAT'S EVEN BETTER
But politics is everything to you people, your policies are last on the list, must serve the Party first. Zieg Heil!!!
In Steffy's far RW radical mind, taking away our freedom of privacy and forcing the country into damn near total financial collapse by starting two unnecessary wars is excusable and not authoritarian.
Making health care affordable for all, on the other hand, now that's SOCIALISM (and in this argument AUTHORITARIAN)...KEEL HEEM!!!
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?
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'
I love that chick! She is fuckin' funny!
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?
So.........................how much "bootstrapping" did people like O'reilly, Beck, and Limbaugh do?
Wanna talk about Hannity?
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.
Damn. Call 'em out by name, and the cowards STILL won't address the issue.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'
[MENTION=29614]C_Clayton_Jones[/MENTION]
[MENTION=20450]MarcATL[/MENTION]
[MENTION=2873]Billo_Really[/MENTION]
[MENTION=11763]ABikerSailor[/MENTION]
[MENTION=24391]NoNukes[/MENTION]
Anyone else need their noses rubbed in Maddow's lies?
