# Rachel Maddow Rocked Meet the Press



## BDBoop (Apr 29, 2012)

Rachel Maddow Makes History and Triumphs over the War On Women



> Rachel Maddow was correct. The interruption by Castellanos was significant, because Republicans dont want to talk about the war on women. They have adopted the same position towards the rights of women that they long ago adopted towards issues like poverty and racism. It doesnt exist. Castellanos was trying to muddy the waters with funny math designed to deny the fact that women earn less than men. Women who work full time earn 77% of what men do. Until today, that fact was not in dispute.
> 
> Castellanos tried to use different factors to claim that the wage gap doesnt exist, but even when all factors are taken into account, 41% of the wage gap is unexplained. This means that when a man and a woman the same background, doing the same job, working the same hours, women still make less money than men.
> 
> ...



That's what I've been talking about. THAT is what we're up against.


----------



## Sarah G (Apr 29, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Rachel Maddow Makes History and Triumphs over the War On Women
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'll have to watch it but I must say, I'm getting real tired of hearing her complain about the war on women.  I do agree with her but she is taking it way too far.  It isn't helpful.


----------



## Sallow (Apr 29, 2012)

Sarah G said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Rachel Maddow Makes History and Triumphs over the War On Women
> ...



Sure it is.

This sort of stuff gets buried in nonsense..like the "War on Religion".

It's important to understand what the core agenda is..which is the to subvert the power of about half of the American public.


----------



## jillian (Apr 29, 2012)

Sarah G said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Rachel Maddow Makes History and Triumphs over the War On Women
> ...



Why isn't it helpful? Could they be worse on women's issues?


----------



## Sarah G (Apr 29, 2012)

I watch her almost every night.  She covers this topic at length every night, people are going to turn her off.  What is she actually doing other than talking about it?


----------



## Stephanie (Apr 29, 2012)

At least a couple more people saw here on meet the Depressed, than they would on her own show..


----------



## NYcarbineer (Apr 29, 2012)

The Right has no one in the media as intelligent and articulate as Rachel Maddow.  Not even close.


----------



## Sarah G (Apr 29, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> The Right has no one in the media as intelligent and articulate as Rachel Maddow.  Not even close.



I agree.  Love her.


----------



## Stephanie (Apr 29, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> The Right has no one in the media as intelligent and articulate as Rachel Maddow.  Not even close.


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Apr 29, 2012)

I can't help but see this as typical manipulation by the Democrat Party and their media crones as is typical during an election year.

 Eh.. fall for it at your own discretion but don't expect much to change.


----------



## Stephanie (Apr 29, 2012)

This Phony war on women is all they have,  they can't run on Obama's and the Democrats RECORD

so they go too what they know best, fear mongering


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 29, 2012)

What war on Wimmen?


----------



## Annie (Apr 29, 2012)

The problem was, she was arguing about the 'salary discrimination' when in fact, it's a productivity problem:


> ...
> 
> if business owners and managers could pay a woman 23 percent less than a man and get exactly the same production out of her, why would any men be employed in such positions?
> 
> ...


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 29, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Rachel Maddow Makes History and Triumphs over the War On Women
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You are up against truth?

What fracking war on women? If she thinks there is a fracking war on women she doesn't deserve the scholarship she had. The simple fact is that women are not getting paid less for the same work. She also lied about why they Lily Ledbetter Act was passed. The fact is that Ledbetter knew about the discrimination for years, and decided not to sue, for whatever reason. If she hadn't known about the discrimination there were provisions in the old law that allowed a woman to sue based on when she actually discovered the actions, not when they first happened.

Women doing the same job as men get paid more than men in today's world. I can't wait until men start filing suit against employers for paying them less than they do women. If I ever find out that a woman doing the same job as I do gets paid more I will gladly jump on the lawsuit bandwagon to make a point.

Here is a simple fact of life, there are things men can do that women cannot. Men are, pound for pound, stronger than women. Men can do heavy work that is impossible for women, and generally take on jobs that women won't do. Lumberjacks are paid better than average, and are almost exclusively men. You could blame that on sexism, or you could admit that most women wouldn't be able to do the work. 

There is no fracking war on women, and the Democrats lost it anyway.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 29, 2012)

Sallow said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



There is no fracking war on religion either, at least not in the US. There is, however, a concerted effort from both parties to make the wants of the many more important than the freedom of the one.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 29, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> The Right has no one in the media as intelligent and articulate as Rachel Maddow.  Not even close.



George Will comes to mind off the top of my head.


----------



## Samson (Apr 29, 2012)

Sarah G said:


> I watch her almost every night.  She covers this topic at length every night, people are going to turn her off.  What is she actually doing other than talking about it?



You watch her ALMOST EVERY NIGHT?




I wouldn't even watch a chick with a squid ALMOST EVERY NIGHT.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 29, 2012)

CrusaderFrank said:


> What war on Wimmen?


The one that keeps stunning geniuses like Madcow languishing on the cable farm team, while male good ole boys like Williams, Lauer and Gregory get all the primo slots with the big club.

Damned republicans.


----------



## Stephanie (Apr 29, 2012)

If Maddow is so intelligent, why does she stay on the cable channel that has it's ratings in the toilet..?


----------



## Samson (Apr 29, 2012)

Stephanie said:


> If Maddow is so intelligent, why does she stay on the cable channel that has it's ratings in the toilet..?



Apparently because Sarah G is watching.


----------



## Trajan (Apr 29, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Rachel Maddow Makes History and Triumphs over the War On Women
> ...



the dems and their soul mates have turned the obamacare issue ala contraception and religious org. rights into a 'war on woman'...its kool aid. *shrugs*


----------



## Trajan (Apr 29, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > The Right has no one in the media as intelligent and articulate as Rachel Maddow.  Not even close.
> ...



krauthammer.....daniel henniger....


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 29, 2012)

There's a War on Wimmen?

When?

How?

Are they still on Fluke's vaq-ja-ja?


----------



## Sarah G (Apr 29, 2012)

Trajan said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn what's his face, Sarah Palin, lots of real brainy type Rs out there right?


----------



## Oddball (Apr 29, 2012)

Trajan said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...


John Stossel, Thomas Sowell, Charles Murray, Jacob Sullum....


----------



## Samson (Apr 29, 2012)

Sarah G said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Yes, Sarah, Democrats have a monopoly on intellect.

Oddly, this has not completely resolved ANY issue during the past 4 years.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 29, 2012)

Sarah G said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



You want a contest naming stupid people? I bet I can name more from both either side than you can from one.


----------



## Sarah G (Apr 29, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...



Yeah, you probably can.  I don't know half the stupid Repubs on the air.


----------



## Peach (Apr 29, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > The Right has no one in the media as intelligent and articulate as Rachel Maddow.  Not even close.
> ...



The best conservative voice that remains.


----------



## Stephanie (Apr 29, 2012)

Sarah G said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



ah, so you're saying Maddow is a Democrat?


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 29, 2012)

Sarah G said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Rachel Maddow Makes History and Triumphs over the War On Women
> ...



I think she'll keep talking about it as long as they keep 1) waging it, and 2) claiming it's a figment of our imagination.


----------



## mudwhistle (Apr 29, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Rachel Maddow Makes History and Triumphs over the War On Women
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm not impressed with who is the loudest but with who makes sense.

She was shouting everyone down. She was acting like a bitch.


----------



## mudwhistle (Apr 29, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> The Right has no one in the media as intelligent and articulate as Rachel Maddow.  Not even close.



She has her talking points down....but they're pure multifarious nonsense.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 29, 2012)

Sarah G said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Biden?

Obama 57 States?

Al Franken?

Rdean?


----------



## mudwhistle (Apr 29, 2012)

Sarah G said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



If you can find a lib that can fill 3 hours of radio without repeating themselves over and over and without going on an angry rant feel free. 

Glenn Beck is a bit of a flake.....kind of a clean Howard Stern. 

Rush is simply a pompous voice that usually is right. 

Usually when libs try to do it they sound stupid, unprepared, and most of all very anti-social. Like that Left-wing Slut Ed Schutz.


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 29, 2012)

mudwhistle said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Rachel Maddow Makes History and Triumphs over the War On Women
> ...



Shouting everyone down?! The asshole next to her did everything but pat her on the head and say "There, there, honey!" He was dismissive at best and condescending at worse. 

What a prick.


----------



## GWV5903 (Apr 29, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Rachel Maddow Makes History and Triumphs over the War On Women
> 
> 
> 
> ...



His behavior declared war on women??? 

Proof positive, if you repeat a lie loud enough and long enough some will believe it to be the truth...

His control was impeccable, she is a rude disrespectful bitch, her condescending remark was proof...

The fantasy world of the Liberal Left never ceases to amaze...


----------



## whitehall (Apr 29, 2012)

Maddow is a radical left wing lesbian crusader. So surprises there.


----------



## mudwhistle (Apr 29, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



That's your opinion.

She was rude.


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 29, 2012)

GWV5903 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Rachel Maddow Makes History and Triumphs over the War On Women
> ...



His behavior proves his perceptions, as do yours. Well played, sir. Well played.


----------



## mudwhistle (Apr 29, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



What would she do if someone were to just treat her as an equal and ask her to step outside next time she starts mouthing off?

She wants to act like a man....she can take an ass-whipping like a man.


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 29, 2012)

Man, y'all are just making my point - I don't even need to post.

Never mind the fact that it was HER turn to speak, and he talked over, around and through her. That wasn't rude.

She should have known her place, right?


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 29, 2012)

You have to admit Rachel knows how to make love to a woman...


----------



## del (Apr 29, 2012)

meh, the guy was as smarmy as she usually is. 

i certainly didn't see anything resembling *rocking meet the press*


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 29, 2012)

They need to change the name of the program to Meet the Obama Lovers.


----------



## mudwhistle (Apr 29, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Man, y'all are just making my point - I don't even need to post.
> 
> Never mind the fact that it was HER turn to speak, and he talked over, around and through her. That wasn't rude.
> 
> She should have known her place, right?



If you feel it works for you to fall back on victimhood....go for it sister.

She wants to act like she can push everyone around because nobody else there is as rude as she is. 

She's just acting the way she's used to. Like a male chauvinist pig. The fact that she's a woman doesn't mean she can't be held accountable for her actions.


----------



## Political Junky (Apr 29, 2012)

Castellanos is an ass.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 29, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



You are entirely correct, his behavior proves his perception that all women, including whining bitches that are misstating facts, deserve respect. Just think of what that segment would have been like if he had acted the same way she did.


----------



## Synthaholic (Apr 29, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > The Right has no one in the media as intelligent and articulate as Rachel Maddow.  Not even close.
> ...


He's a hack.

No. 11: George Will - War Room&#8217;s Hack Thirty - Salon.com


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 29, 2012)

Synthaholic said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



Are you saying Maddow isn't? Did you read my first response in this thread where I pointed out the lies she spouted in the 30 seconds she talked?


----------



## Synthaholic (Apr 29, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


Yes.

And if you look at that list, there are plenty from the Left.  Just to short-circuit your inevitable and ignorant claim that Salon is a Liberal source.  It's not.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 30, 2012)

Synthaholic said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Funny, I don't remember saying anything about Salon, I thought I specifically asked if you thought Maddow is not a hack. Instead of providing evidence to refute the points I actually made about Maddow and her ability to hack, you decided to declare yourself a hack. Good job.


----------



## Jroc (Apr 30, 2012)

Maddow has serous psychological issues, and anyone who believes in some mythical "war on Women" is weak minded, and easily taken in by propaganda. They are no better than these idiots who believe the federal government played a part in the 9/11 attacks


----------



## Political Junky (Apr 30, 2012)

i'm surprised that republican men get laid.


----------



## Synthaholic (Apr 30, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



That's why I said I was short-circuiting your inevitable claim that they are Liberal.

I'm glad I was successful.


----------



## Synthaholic (Apr 30, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Rachel Maddow Makes History and Triumphs over the War On Women
> ...



That's a lie. 



> She also lied about why they Lily Ledbetter Act was passed. *The fact is that Ledbetter knew about the discrimination for years, and decided not to sue, for whatever reason.*



That's a lie.



> If she hadn't known about the discrimination there were provisions in the old law that allowed a woman to sue based on when she actually discovered the actions, not when they first happened.



Well, which is it?  Doesn't matter.  They are both lies.



> *Women doing the same job as men get paid more than men in today's world.* I can't wait until men start filing suit against employers for paying them less than they do women. If I ever find out that a woman doing the same job as I do gets paid more I will gladly jump on the lawsuit bandwagon to make a point.



That's a lie.



> Here is a simple fact of life, there are things men can do that women cannot. Men are, pound for pound, stronger than women. Men can do heavy work that is impossible for women, and generally take on jobs that women won't do. Lumberjacks are paid better than average, and are almost exclusively men. You could blame that on sexism, or you could admit that most women wouldn't be able to do the work.



Strawman.



> There is no fracking war on women,[



That's a lie.



> and the Democrats lost it anyway.



Again - which is it?  You seem to want to, on the one hand, claim that something is a fact, then turn around and say "And if it isn't a fact, then XYZ...".  Unfortunately, your attempts at ass-covering fail with both.


----------



## Barb (Apr 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Man, y'all are just making my point - I don't even need to post.
> 
> Never mind the fact that it was HER turn to speak, and he talked over, around and through her. That wasn't rude.
> 
> She should have known her place, right?



That, or "take an ass whuppin like a man."

These neanderthals are the gift that keeps giving


----------



## mudwhistle (Apr 30, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > GWV5903 said:
> ...



She's just like Debbie Wasserman-Schulz.....only more butch. Same exact talking points. Same loud personality. Same habit of trying to shout people down she doesn't agree with.


----------



## mudwhistle (Apr 30, 2012)

Barb said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Man, y'all are just making my point - I don't even need to post.
> ...



And you're not afraid to use your gender as a crutch ether it appears.

Bravo.


----------



## editec (Apr 30, 2012)

I've heard Racherl on the radio.

She's very articulate.  

The GOP created this "war on woman: bludegeon that they're getting beaten with in the media.

They created it one stupid assed talking head, one crappy piece of legislation at a time.

The WAR on WOMEN is also a war on the average american family.

Perhaps some of you haven't noticed it yet, but women play a fairly signficant role in supporting American families.

So anything that screws them in the workplace, screws their families, too.

What I do find interesting is that when the GOP is conducting war on American workers in industries that have significant men in the ranks, nobody calls THAT a war on men.

But if you look at the stats, for the last 20 years, thanks to the GOP's war on the workers, men's salaries have been declining.

It isn't that the little movement woman have made has been so good, when comparing their salaries to men, its that men's salaries have been going down.

The war on women is a SUBSET of the GOP's war on human beings who have to work for a living


----------



## Barb (Apr 30, 2012)

mudwhistle said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



I'm not limping, sparky. YOU're the one "using" gender. 

According to you, if a woman is to be taken seriously, she has to kick your ass. How is that not a cave man mentality at work? Buy a clue.


----------



## jillian (Apr 30, 2012)

editec said:


> I've heard Racherl on the radio.
> 
> She's very articulate.
> 
> ...



yes, Rachel is very articulate. i appreciate how the loons try to turn her into some shrieking ugly shrew like anne coulter. but she isn't. she's always well-spoken and her research is impeccable. on those occasions where she's been incorrect factually, she always corrects herself. one can disagree with her politics, but her intelligence has to be acknowledged.

as for your point. i believe that's correct, in part... 

there is one distinction, however, between the GOP war on women and the GOP war on working people... and that is, the old white men of the GOP seem to want to control women's sexuality in ways that make them subservient to the will of their male 'keepers'... 

no woman should have to ask the permission of an old man, whether her boss or a judge, for access to contraception, to reproductive choice, and to economic parity in the workplace.


----------



## mudwhistle (Apr 30, 2012)

editec said:


> I've heard Racherl on the radio.
> 
> She's very articulate.
> 
> ...



You lost me after you said the GOP created this war on women.

We both know that is a lie.


----------



## jillian (Apr 30, 2012)

mudwhistle said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



that's really funny.

don't you have another white male angst thread to do?


----------



## mudwhistle (Apr 30, 2012)

Barb said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...



Nope. You're using it. I think we should treat Maddow the same as a man. That is what you want isn't it? If you want to act like one why not treat you like one. 

I don't need someone to kick my ass in order to respect them. I respect women greatly. 

Maddow simply loves shouting people down. She does know her talking-points, but her facts are horseshit and raising her voice and getting wild and crazy doesn't make her facts any more accurate.


----------



## mudwhistle (Apr 30, 2012)

jillian said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...



So you want to use your gender as a crutch now?

Funny how women want equal pay but they want to be treated differently at the same time.

I remember years ago hearing some woman in the Army in my training unit bitching at me about how women are being mistreated in the military. She said she wanted everything to be the same between the sexes. I asked her what she thought about the hair-cut regulations. She said that's silly. I said no it's not. I said if you want total equality men should be allowed to grow their hair as long as women. I also pointed out the accepted differences in physical requirements. I said women should have to do the same number of pushups and situps. Women should have to do the same number of chinups to pass Air borne school because we're doing the same job for the same pay. I told her that she was using her gender as a crutch and the Army was actually showing favoritism to her if she took the time to think about it.


----------



## mudwhistle (Apr 30, 2012)

jillian said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > I've heard Racherl on the radio.
> ...



Look, I don't watch her very often. Most of the time I stay away from her little cable network. When I do watch it what I see offends me. When she starts going off on others it seems rude. She always has to have the last word it seems. She is articulate but her facts are wrong, so I'm not impressed.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Apr 30, 2012)

Stephanie said:


> If Maddow is so intelligent, why does she stay on the cable channel that has it's ratings in the toilet..?



Because there's a difference between intelligence and entertainment value.


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 30, 2012)

Sarah G said:


> I watch her almost every night.  She covers this topic at length every night, people are going to turn her off.  What is she actually doing other than talking about it?




Maddow wont change on this topic. Why should she? At a minimum, it draws the same few thousand k00ks in each night who salivate on this stuff. Nobody goes to that network except the hyperpartisans on the left.

The lefty dolts who think a Maddow appearance on "Meet the Depressed" is going to cause some incredible groundswell are naive assholes.


----------



## mudwhistle (Apr 30, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > If Maddow is so intelligent, why does she stay on the cable channel that has it's ratings in the toilet..?
> ...



Well, if you lose viewers that's not exactly intelligent.


----------



## mudwhistle (Apr 30, 2012)

skookerasbil said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > I watch her almost every night.  She covers this topic at length every night, people are going to turn her off.  What is she actually doing other than talking about it?
> ...


Being a loud lefty bullshit artist appeals to some, but not to most. People want to watch fun stuff, not listen to a bunch of bickering. That's why Air America folded. The reason the 5, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity are so popular is because they balance things a bit more yet maintain a sense of reality. Watching Maddow, Mathews, and Schultz on MSNBC is pretty much an escape from reality. Even Bill Maher attempts to inject some sanity into his show even though I doubt he thinks that way judging from his jokes.


----------



## Samson (Apr 30, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > If Maddow is so intelligent, why does she stay on the cable channel that has it's ratings in the toilet..?
> ...





Do you realise that by "cable channel" we mean television?


----------



## blastoff (Apr 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



There you go.  Play the p-card.


----------



## Samson (Apr 30, 2012)

jillian said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > I've heard Racherl on the radio.
> ...



Interesting how you make the issue entirely partisan.

I'm uncertain as to how anyone can blame any real or perceived lack of "progress" among females in the USA during the past to any party. Indeed, Wyoming, not known as a democratic stronghold by any means, allowed women to vote as early as 1869.

June 4, 1919, when the Senate approved the 19th amendment by 56 to 25 after four hours of debate, _during which Democratic Senators opposed to the amendment filibustered to prevent a roll call until their absent Senators could be protected by pairs. The Ayes included 36 (82%) Republicans and 20 (54%) Democrats._

It is interesting how the democrats have since claimed to be the proponents of women's "rights," mainly on the basis that they champion abortion, and quite naturally, this is often for better or worse, *the women's choice*. The republicans have drawn a constituancy which rejects this rather obvious fact, and as a result are perpetually on the defensive: If they ever return to sanity, then democrats won't have a chance.


----------



## Samson (Apr 30, 2012)

blastoff said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



Another reason to limit boardtime to one day every month: Perpetually worthless poo-throwing postage.


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 30, 2012)

Anybody that matters talking about Maddow's appearance on MM this morning?  Didn't think so.


----------



## Toro (Apr 30, 2012)

I watched it.  I didn't think so. She's too much of a shrill shill.


----------



## jillian (Apr 30, 2012)

Toro said:


> I watched it.  I didn't think so. She's too much of a shrill shill.



how the mighty have fallen.


----------



## jillian (Apr 30, 2012)

Samson said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



in case you didn't notice, the issue is, in fact, partisan.

i don't think 'partisan' is a dirty word. there isn't a single one of us who isn't 'partisan', meaning has a particular set of beliefs.


----------



## Jroc (Apr 30, 2012)

16 trillion in debt, real unemployment rate 15%, gas prices close to $4 a gal, Iran on the verge of a nuclear weapon & this is what liberals are focused on? This is what we call the dumbing down of our society..Sad.


----------



## jillian (Apr 30, 2012)

Jroc said:


> 16 trillion in debt, real unemployment rate 15%, gas prices close to $4 a gal, Iran on the verge of a nuclear weapon & this is what liberals are focused on? This is what we call the dumbing down of our society..Sad.



well, it's not like women's rights matter to the religious right.

thanks for your input.


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 30, 2012)

Dems had a chance to put women into power with Hillary.  They picked hope and change instead.


----------



## Jroc (Apr 30, 2012)

jillian said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > 16 trillion in debt, real unemployment rate 15%, gas prices close to $4 a gal, Iran on the verge of a nuclear weapon & this is what liberals are focused on? This is what we call the dumbing down of our society..Sad.
> ...





> *Propaganda* is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position. Propaganda is usually repeated and dispersed over a wide variety of media in order to create the desired result in audience attitudes.
> 
> As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda, in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience. Propaganda often presents facts *selectively* (thus possibly lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or uses loaded messages to produce an *emotional* rather than rational response to the information presented.



Propaganda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Samson (Apr 30, 2012)

jillian said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



How is the issue partisan?

Are all women either democrats or republicans? No independant women voters?

The only reason you claim any "GOP WAR ON WOMEN" is because _it serves your purpose to create a partisan issue_. 

Niether party is actually responsible for whatever preceived social status women have.

BTW: nice dodgeing the fact based discussion regarding the actual history behind women's suffrage and the dominate role of Republicans enacting the 19th Amendment. Ignoring this really only emphasises the importance you place of perception over reality.


----------



## jillian (Apr 30, 2012)

Jroc said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Jroc said:
> ...





so stop propagandizing.


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 30, 2012)

Walk the talk Dems.  Obama put females on the Supreme Court because he thought he could control them.


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 30, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> i'm surprised that republican men get laid.



Maybe they don't! Maybe that's why they are so cranky.


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 30, 2012)

Barb said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Man, y'all are just making my point - I don't even need to post.
> ...



Yup. The fact that their go-to is that she's a lesbian? Very telling.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated (Apr 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > i'm surprised that republican men get laid.
> ...



Wouldn't fit the stereotype.  That being, the Republican party is the party of the rich.  That implies that a fair deal of Republicans have money.  Call this sexist if you want, but being wealthy gets you laid easy.


----------



## Jroc (Apr 30, 2012)

jillian said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



There are reasons why MSNBC has very low audience, Maddow is one of them. You are among the select few who actually watch that channel&#8230; Congratulations.. Look for the next Media Matters talking point...I mean" Propaganda"


----------



## Samson (Apr 30, 2012)

jillian said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...





Physician, heal thyself.


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 30, 2012)

Not2BSubjugated said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



Oh, but actually. They're not rich, not most of them and not by a long shot. They just have to believe 'trickle down' will actually happen. Maybe, baby; someday.

Also, most of them are people of faith. Getting laid a lot? A sin.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated (Apr 30, 2012)

Sarah G said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



Hahaha.  This sort of silliness is prevalent on both sides of the isle, but here it is in Democrat form for those of you watching.  Someone agrees that Maddow is smarter than any of the Repubs on the air. . . then admits to not knowing half the Repubs on the air.

This is one of the great challenges America faces politically.  That annoying little facet of human nature that causes people to blurt out strong opinions when even -they- know that they're equipped with less than half of the relevant information.  This is why people turn in voters ballots with boxes checked regarding issues they know -dick- about.


----------



## mudwhistle (Apr 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...


Adultry and Fornication is a sin, not getting some. 

I guess only libs like to get laid. Cons are supposed to feel guilty for laying pipe.

If that were the case Santorum would be still running. He wouldn't have a daughter to worry about.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated (Apr 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Sorry, but are we talking stereotypes or actuality?  I've never had a girl I took home from a bar ask me my political affiliation before letting me in the front door.

The faith part I guess I could see.


----------



## Jroc (Apr 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Generally you'll find very religous people have more children.


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 30, 2012)

Dude! You're not supposed to be taking home girls from bars!! 

Damn sluts.


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 30, 2012)

Jroc said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Not2BSubjugated said:
> ...



So they're having sex once a year or so. Big deal.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated (Apr 30, 2012)

mudwhistle said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Not2BSubjugated said:
> ...



Laying pipe is good, honest work.  A conservative should never feel guilty about laying pipe, only about demanding the benefits of laying pipe if he didn't earn them by laying said pipe.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated (Apr 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Dude! You're not supposed to be taking home girls from bars!!
> 
> Damn sluts.



Hahaha!  I'm not a Republican, so it's okay.

And don't knock sluts (until you've tried 'em lol).  They're good people and they promote equality in that they ease the sexual income gap between Don Juan and Urkel.  We must recognize that sexual currency is, in fact, currency, and grant all people equal access to society's supply of bedroom equity, lest we violate the social contract and leave millions disenfranchised.


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 30, 2012)

Not2BSubjugated said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Dude! You're not supposed to be taking home girls from bars!!
> ...



Oh, I know! Because when you're poor, the only thing that's left is sex. Hopefully it's good. Unfortunately, it too often has unintended results.

I was one. I slept with everything that moved and a few things that didn't between 1976 and 1980. Last summer camp, the first sergeant actually thanked me for keeping my pants on. 

True story.


----------



## jillian (Apr 30, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> i'm surprised that republican men get laid.



they do... but it costs them.


----------



## Sarah G (Apr 30, 2012)

jillian said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > i'm surprised that republican men get laid.
> ...



Yeah, they have to be charged, they always want all this extra weird stuff.


----------



## mudwhistle (Apr 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Horny chicks are cool.


----------



## Toro (Apr 30, 2012)

jillian said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > I watched it.  I didn't think so. She's too much of a shrill shill.
> ...



She's Hannity of the Left. And I've watched more of her than Hannity.  She, and Hannity, shouldn't be on MTP.  Both are bombastic partisans.


----------



## mudwhistle (Apr 30, 2012)

Toro said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



Only similarity is their hair.


----------



## Sarah G (Apr 30, 2012)

Toro said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



Hardly..  She may be partisan but she is very, very smart.  Hannity couldn't find his rear with both hands.

Rachel also has a very good research team, you won't find her lying day in and day out just to put a program together.


----------



## jillian (Apr 30, 2012)

Toro said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



you could say a lot of things about her, but bombastic? i've never seen her raise her voice. even pat buchanan used to love going on her show.

so your level of tolerance must have ebbed. firstly, she's about a thousand times smarter than hannity; and her factchecking is pretty meticulous...unlike hannity

the comparison is a false one. if you want to say you disagree with her, that's fine. calling her shrill is simply a misrepresentation.


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 30, 2012)

Calling her shrill is calling her female. She speaks her mind and she's female = shrill.


----------



## Toro (Apr 30, 2012)

jillian said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



They both push a highly partisan, ideologically driven agenda. She talks over people - as she did on MTP - and twists facts to fit her narrative. That is no different than Hannity. This is what partisans do. They play to their bases. It doesn't matter if they are on the left or the right. 

The "she's smarter than Hannity" is a silly argument. So what?  Hannity is more successful.  It's the same show, the same product sold to different target markets.


----------



## Synthaholic (Apr 30, 2012)

mudwhistle said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Your threatened masculinity is showing.


----------



## Synthaholic (Apr 30, 2012)

jillian said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > I watched it.  I didn't think so. She's too much of a shrill shill.
> ...


Well, we _are_ closer to November....


----------



## Toro (Apr 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Calling her shrill is calling her female. She speaks her mind and she's female = shrill.



Nonsense.


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 30, 2012)

Oh, you've made me see the light. What was I thinking.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/min...ar/08/mind-your-language-feminisation-madness


----------



## Synthaholic (Apr 30, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Dems had a chance to put women into power with Hillary.  They picked hope and change instead.



Janet Reno didn't have a position of power?
Madeline Albright didn't have a position of power?
Hillary Clinton doesn't have a position of power?
Janet Napolitano doesn't have a position of power?
Susan Rice doesn't have a position of power?
Justice Kagan doesn't have a position of power?
Justice Sotomayer doesn't have a position of power?
Justice Ginsburg doesn't have a position of power?

Once again you demonstrate your ignorance.


----------



## Toro (Apr 30, 2012)

Sarah G said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



She may not be "lying," but when you push the meme of "women are paid 77% of what men make" _with no qualifications_, and use that to frame a "War on Women," you certainly are being disingenuous.


----------



## Toro (Apr 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Oh, you've made me see the light. What was I thinking.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/min...ar/08/mind-your-language-feminisation-madness



Hannity is shrill. So is the whole damn right wing sewer media. They are ALL like that. Maddow is no different. 

It's amusing to watch liberals get all bent out of shape over this. They are defending the same things they criticized conservatives for so long.


----------



## Synthaholic (Apr 30, 2012)

Toro said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



This is the kind of statement I would expect from Stephanie or Willow Tree.  You know - mindless, uneducated, hyper-partisan, nonfactual, and frankly, moronic.

Everything Rachel reports is backed up by facts.  And when she makes a mistake, she not only discloses it, she makes a big deal of disclosing it, in a segment called "Department Of Corrections".

If you believe she has lied, or been mistaken in her facts, then show us.  You won't, because you can't.

Please post any evidence that Hannity has EVER corrected something he has stated.  Hell, he still says that Obama was the most Liberal member of the Senate, which is clearly an intentional lie.


----------



## Synthaholic (Apr 30, 2012)

Toro said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



Well, facts do have a Liberal bias.


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 30, 2012)

How many times has Hannity been on MTP?


----------



## Toro (Apr 30, 2012)

Synthaholic said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Right. That's no different than Maddow repeatedly talking about the Republican War on Women. 

Are you willing to bet your avatar that I can find Hannity correcting himself?


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 30, 2012)

She was right, and Castellanos was in error.

http://bls.gov/news.release/pdf/wkyeng.pdf

Also, for those who think Rachel was the one who was out of line, why then was she saying this?



> Maddow paused and called out Castellanos for continuously interrupting her. "*It's weird that you're interrupting me and not letting me make my point*, because we get along so well, so let me make my point," she said. "But the interruption is important, I think, because now we know, at least from both of your perspective, that women are not faring worse than men in the economy, that women are not getting paid less for equal work. I think that's a serious difference in factual understanding in the world, but given that, some of us believe that women are being paid less than men."


----------



## Toro (Apr 30, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> How many times has Hannity been on MTP?



Rush Limbaugh was on This Week some time ago. It was just as bad.


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 30, 2012)

To me, Meet the Press was a way to bring in reporters and get a more indepth look at those who were right there during an important political event.  I'm just not sure a Hannity, Maddow, Limbaugh or Mathews qualifies.  How can anyone be surprised when a bunch of talking heads spew the party line?


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 30, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> To me, Meet the Press was a way to bring in reporters and get a more indepth look at those who were right there during an important political event.  I'm just not sure a Hannity, Maddow, Limbaugh or Mathews qualifies.  How can anyone be surprised when a bunch of talking heads spew the party line?



Good point.

This show is not even a shadow of its former self.


----------



## mudwhistle (Apr 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Calling her shrill is calling her female. She speaks her mind and she's female = shrill.



What's the male equivilant to shrill then?


----------



## Sarah G (Apr 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > To me, Meet the Press was a way to bring in reporters and get a more indepth look at those who were right there during an important political event.  I'm just not sure a Hannity, Maddow, Limbaugh or Mathews qualifies.  How can anyone be surprised when a bunch of talking heads spew the party line?
> ...



David Gregory is not the person to host that show.  I remember wanting them to ask Rachel after Tim Russert died.

I don't like Chuck Todd anymore either.  It seems like they're grooming Russert's son and he is getting good but maybe won't be ready before MTP goes down.


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 30, 2012)

mudwhistle said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Calling her shrill is calling her female. She speaks her mind and she's female = shrill.
> ...



The better question would be why is that word only ever used to describe women?


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



I'd have just said Rush and left it at that, if I was a leftie.  

mudwhistle DID try to use it for a male.  

I'm going with Schumer.


----------



## jillian (Apr 30, 2012)

Toro said:


> Right. That's no different than Maddow repeatedly talking about the Republican War on Women.
> 
> Are you willing to bet your avatar that I can find Hannity correcting himself?



if republicans have a problem with it being said they're waging a war on women, they should stop.

the first bill passed by the tea party House when it was called to order after the 2010 election was a bill to absolve hospitals of liability for allowing women to die for refusing to do a necessary life-saving abortion or even diecting them to a hospital that would, in fact accommodate them.

since then, republicans who got into office by pretending to be fiscal conservatives, engaged in a radical and religious right agenda designed to divest women of dominion over their own bodies...and of the parity in the workplace they fought for over the last 40 years... arguments we believed were largely settled. we're relitigating issues of women's rights that we believed were settled in the 70's. some of us are waiting for them to re-introduce the 'three-stitch' rule applying to domestic violence issue.

heck...i think we should be screaming out of every doorpost and window... you haven't even begun to hear shrill


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 30, 2012)

jillian said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Right. That's no different than Maddow repeatedly talking about the Republican War on Women.
> ...



Alcohol was a "settled" issue in America at one point.  Americans are free.  That means we can change our minds and nothing is "settled".  Everything should be Constitutional however.


----------



## jillian (Apr 30, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



not the correct word for schumer either. pushy? ok... 

but you know what... there are lots of loud rightwingers.


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 30, 2012)

jillian said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



One really doesn't excuse the other.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 30, 2012)

Toro said:


> Right. That's no different than Maddow repeatedly talking about the Republican War on Women.
> 
> Are you willing to bet your avatar that I can find Hannity correcting himself?


Madcow should be running MTP!

_*WAR ON WOMEN!!*_


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 30, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> i'm surprised that republican men get laid.



I am not surprised that Democratic women don't.


----------



## jillian (Apr 30, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



well, i think the people who vote for him are ok with him being a bit pushy.

and they wouldn't be if he allowed himself to be drowned out by the rightwing din.

that isn't what they elect him for.


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 30, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > i'm surprised that republican men get laid.
> ...



/snort



Yeah-k.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 30, 2012)

Synthaholic said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Only hacks try to short circuit inevitable claims before they are made. 

Personally., I think Salon leans a bit to the right, which is why I wouldn't try to claim they are progressive. You are still a hack though.


----------



## jillian (Apr 30, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > i'm surprised that republican men get laid.
> ...



really? that isn't what rushbo said.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 30, 2012)

Synthaholic said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



This article is a lie?



> Young women aged between 22 and 29 are now being paid more on average per hour than their male counterparts.


An end to the male role as breadwinner? The 20-something women who earn more than men | Mail Online

I am breathlessly awaiting your providing actual evidence to refute the study used here.

Or you could admit you are simply a hack.


----------



## Trajan (Apr 30, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > i'm surprised that republican men get laid.
> ...


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> She was right, and Castellanos was in error.
> 
> http://bls.gov/news.release/pdf/wkyeng.pdf
> 
> ...



Like my link above?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 30, 2012)

editec said:


> I've heard Racherl on the radio.
> 
> She's very articulate.
> 
> ...



The GOP created the war on women?

Tell you what, why don't you lay out a concise timeline showing exactly how they did it.


----------



## mudwhistle (Apr 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



I don't use the word, but it seems to be just short of being a screamer.


----------



## Trajan (Apr 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Not2BSubjugated said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...




I bet it is.......



but then again, you weren't even born yet so, vagina envy


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Calling her shrill is calling her female. She speaks her mind and she's female = shrill.



This is, quite possibly, the dumbest post on the internet.


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 30, 2012)

Trajan said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Not2BSubjugated said:
> ...



I think you just landed my newly-acquired "dumbest post on the internet" award.

AKA, WTF?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 30, 2012)

Stephanie said:


> This Phony war on women is all they have,  they can't run on Obama's and the Democrats RECORD
> 
> so they go too what they know best, fear mongering



Demagoguery is the foundation of the DNC.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 30, 2012)

Synthaholic said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



If everything she says is backed up by facts you should have any trouble proving that Lily Ledbetter did not know about the discrimination for years before she filed the suit. The only snag you will have in proving that is that Ledbatter admitted in a disposition that she knew about the difference in pay in 1992, which was 6 years before she filed suit with the EEOC. 

White House Distorts Ledbetter v. Goodyear Ruling, in Backing Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act

I await your outstanding ability to find facts that do not exist to prove that Maddow never lies.







Alternatively, you could just admit that Maddow and, by extension, you are both hacks.


----------



## Trajan (Apr 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



I think you have unlimited gall.....I think you are easily befuddled, by your own words no less......Oh...I know I don't want any award you have "acquired", "newly"( which I debate)  or not.  that much is certain.

here;

Reading Comprehension Connection: Home


oh and its free...


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> She was right, and Castellanos was in error.
> 
> http://bls.gov/news.release/pdf/wkyeng.pdf
> 
> ...



She is right, but it is still a lie. Kinda like Romney is right that women have been harder hit since Obama got elected, but it is still a lie.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Because you are an idiot?



> Pennsylvania Republican Tom Ridge is taking direct aim at Rush Limbaugh,  telling CNN's John King the conservative talk radio host can be  "shrill" and uses language in a way "that offend very many."



Ridge takes aim at Limbaugh &#8211; CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 30, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> George Will comes to mind off the top of my head.



Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell...

I'd love to see Madcow go toe to toe with Ann Coulter.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 30, 2012)

Samson said:


> Apparently because Sarah G is watching.



I understand the attraction, though. Sarah G. is 20% of Maddow's viewing public - it gives her a  lot of pull with the show.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 30, 2012)

jillian said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Right. That's no different than Maddow repeatedly talking about the Republican War on Women.
> ...



If I started saying you are waging a war on purple people eaters, the only thing you would have to do to get me to stop is end your war on purple people eaters?



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVbGnspgy_8]The Flying Purple People Eater - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 30, 2012)

jillian said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



Rush is an idiot.

Do you have any other comments?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 30, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> You have to admit Rachel knows how to make love to a woman...



Leftists are consumed with hate; it makes them come off rude.


----------



## Synthaholic (Apr 30, 2012)

Toro said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



I'm not claiming that he has never corrected himself (although I would be shocked if you could find him correcting a negative statement about a Democrat and stating that he was wrong, and apologizing for it).

My point is that, even though he knows that they are blatant lies, he continues to repeat his favorite talking points like the one I cited.  Even political novices know that there are more Liberal Senators than Obama.  But he repeats it to this day.


----------



## Synthaholic (Apr 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > To me, Meet the Press was a way to bring in reporters and get a more indepth look at those who were right there during an important political event.  I'm just not sure a Hannity, Maddow, Limbaugh or Mathews qualifies.  How can anyone be surprised when a bunch of talking heads spew the party line?
> ...


David Gregory is a pathetic hack, who believes it's not a reporter's role to ask tough questions:




			
				David Gregory said:
			
		

> I think there are a lot of critics who think that . . . . if we did not stand up and say this is bogus, and you&#8217;re a liar, and why are you doing this, that we didn&#8217;t do our job.  I respectfully disagree.  It&#8217;s not our role.


----------



## Synthaholic (Apr 30, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



The "facts" that you claimed were indeed lies.  For instance:

Please provide your proof that Ledbetter knew for years that she was being underpaid.

And now you want to move the goalpost by limiting your "facts" to a narrow age group of 7 years.


----------



## Sarah G (Apr 30, 2012)

jillian said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



Yes.  

And Foster Friess talking about women putting Bayer asprin between their knees.  These guys are clueless.


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 30, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > You have to admit Rachel knows how to make love to a woman...
> ...



So how do you define calling a woman 'skank' several times in one post? Surely not 'polite?'


----------



## Provocateur (Apr 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Rachel Maddow Makes History and Triumphs over the War On Women
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I never pegged you as a useful tool.


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 30, 2012)

Provocateur said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Rachel Maddow Makes History and Triumphs over the War On Women
> ...



I'm sooooo hurt.  Norly.


----------



## Synthaholic (Apr 30, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



Funny how your link repeatedly makes that claim, yet every link within says "page not found".


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 30, 2012)

Synthaholic said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Already did.

I notice you didn't actually address the specific point I made here, which is that younger women are getting paid more than men in their age group. Care to explain why there is an all out war on women that forces women to accept lower pay if it isn't happening in the youngest, most dynamic, part of the work force? How can we asshole sexists pigs win if younger men are not getting paid more than younger women?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 30, 2012)

Synthaholic said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Like I said, you should be able to dig up the SCOTUS decision that disproves she knew about the pay. Unless, that is, Maddow is lying. I will make it easier for you, here is the decision.

LEDBETTER v. GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO.

The court ruled that, because she was aware of the discrimination in the past, and the law specifically limited the filing of a case until 180 days after the discovery of said discrimination, the case should be dismissed because it was not brought within the statue of limitations.

Like I have said repeatedly, feel free to link to any proof that this is not true, and that it does not prove Maddow is a hack. She is not basing this on research, she is basing it solely on Ledbetters testimony before Congress, which was not sworn, so she, apparently, felt no compunction about lying.


----------



## Stephanie (Apr 30, 2012)

I have to laugh at how the left talk with great admiration for this Maddow talking head..or any of their talking heads for that matter..

yet she is still on a cable channel that has it's rating in the TOILET.

and they accuse the right of being obsessed with and forming their political views from Rush..


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 30, 2012)

Stephanie said:


> I have to laugh at how the left talk with great admiration for this Maddow talking head..or any of their talking heads for that matter..
> 
> yet she is still on a cable channel that has it's rating in the TOILET.
> 
> and they accuse the right of being obsessed with and forming their political views from Rush..



Give them a break, their are so few progressives that can actually talk without getting confused they always worship the ones who manage it.


----------



## mudwhistle (Apr 30, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Apparently because Sarah G is watching.
> ...



That stuff will rot her brain. 


Here's a gift for Sarah G next Halloween. 

She can use this to make her Jackalanterns......

Just print it out and start cutting.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 30, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Give them a break, their are so few progressives that can actually talk without getting confused they always worship the ones who manage it.



So, you're saying that leftism is a symptom of mental retardation?


----------



## Sarah G (Apr 30, 2012)

mudwhistle said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



Maybe we will use that, I was thinking of inviting her over to the Tavern to help us mix drinks for the Democratic October Surprise celebration.


----------



## Sarah G (Apr 30, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Give them a break, their are so few progressives that can actually talk without getting confused they always worship the ones who manage it.
> ...



  I don't think you two want to go there.


----------



## Toro (Apr 30, 2012)

Synthaholic said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



And Maddow keeps repeating the "women get paid 77% of men." That's fundamentally dishonest when she uses it in the War on Women meme without qualifying it. Adjust it for education and time in the workforce and most of that difference goes away. Adjust it for age and it pretty much disappears.  It perfectly demonstrates the adage about three types of lies - lies, damn lies and statistics. Is Hannity worse?  Maybe, I don't know, but if so, that's a Pyrrhic victory on your part. My point all along is that partisan ideologues will lie, bend the truth and distort reality to promote their agenda. In that, Maddow is no different than Hannity or Coulter or Limbaugh. Maybe she's less so, but fundamentally, there is little difference.


----------



## Jroc (Apr 30, 2012)

jillian said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > i'm surprised that republican men get laid.
> ...


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 30, 2012)

http://bls.gov/news.release/pdf/wkyeng.pdf



> Usual weekly earnings of full-time workers varied by age. Among both men and women,
> median weekly earnings tend to be higher in the older age groups. Men between the ages of 45
> to 54 had median weekly earnings of $998, about the same as the median for men age 55 to 64
> ($992). Usual weekly earnings were highest for women age 35 to 64; weekly earnings were - 2 -
> ...


----------



## Political Junky (Apr 30, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > George Will comes to mind off the top of my head.
> ...


Me too.


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 30, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Absolutely. I wonder if it'd be as much fun as it was when Franken proved her to be a lying liar who lies?


----------



## Trajan (Apr 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> http://bls.gov/news.release/pdf/wkyeng.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> ...



and ?


----------



## Stephanie (Apr 30, 2012)

I was going to say Coulter and Madcow would have a cat fight, but I'm not sure what to call it...


----------



## Political Junky (Apr 30, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > George Will comes to mind off the top of my head.
> ...


Me too.


----------



## del (Apr 30, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Give them a break, their are so few progressives that can actually talk without getting confused they always worship the ones who manage it.
> ...



so, you're a leftist?


----------



## Not2BSubjugated (Apr 30, 2012)

Stephanie said:


> I was going to say Coulter and Madcow would have a cat fight, but I'm not sure what to call it...



I'd call it Special Olympics Boxing

Edit:  I'd like to apologize to any participants and to the families of any participants of the Special Olympics.  I spoke without thinking, and I realize that it was insensitive to compare people with real, medical problems to partisan hacks like Maddow and Coulter who, without any disease or chromosomal deficiency, have -chosen- to be retarded.


----------



## asterism (Apr 30, 2012)

editec said:


> I've heard Racherl on the radio.
> 
> She's very articulate.
> 
> ...



It's amazing that you think an entire political party doesn't work for a living while you support the party that advocates for more and more free rides on the government dole.


----------



## del (Apr 30, 2012)

asterism said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > I've heard Racherl on the radio.
> ...



it's amazing that you read what he wrote and came up with that statement


----------



## asterism (Apr 30, 2012)

mudwhistle said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



I remember a WM bitching to our Staff Sgt about the inequality of men being able to take their shirts off at washdown in Rota while the women couldn't.  His answer was good, he said that while he wouldn't recommend her taking her shirt off, she shouldn't require that the men put their shirts on for the same reason that the problem of pay inequity doesn't get solved by reducing the pay of men, it's by paying women the same (which has been the case in the military for DECADES).


----------



## Toro (Apr 30, 2012)

Not2BSubjugated said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > I was going to say Coulter and Madcow would have a cat fight, but I'm not sure what to call it...
> ...



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I just wanted to note that this isn't my sock. We are different people. 

Carry on.


----------



## asterism (Apr 30, 2012)

del said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



"The war on women is a SUBSET of the GOP's war on human beings who have to work for a living"


----------



## GWV5903 (Apr 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Man, y'all are just making my point - I don't even need to post.
> 
> Never mind the fact that it was HER turn to speak, and he talked over, around and through her. That wasn't rude.
> 
> She should have known her place, right?



Because anything can be subjective, I took a second look at the tape, same result... 

Maddow and Castellanos have a difference in opinion and somehow Easley's blog castigates him based on his behavior? 

In no way was he demeaning towards Maddow, quit the opposite in fact...

What is painfully obvious is her desire to be in charge and that her belief she has to win the debate...

The only point made is when your on a political talking head show, you have differing opinions, it's pretty simple, if you can't handle the heat, stay out of the kitchen...

Rachel takes a defensive, I'm going to control the conversation approach and Alex is extremely polite and she claims he's being condescending? 

Easley is the one claiming his behavior is wrong, when in fact it's nothing of the sort...

Castellanos is correct, this is nothing more than a manufactured diversion, because they can not talk about the economy...

If you watched the whole show, which I have a difficult time doing anymore because of their bias, you would have seen Gibbs telling us how wonderful the GM bailout is...


----------



## Synthaholic (Apr 30, 2012)

GWV5903 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Man, y'all are just making my point - I don't even need to post.
> ...




David Gregory:  "How, Rachel, should this debate be framed?"

The host asked her to speak, not him.  The host didn't just throw the question out for anyone to answer.
 


> *Castellanos is correct, this is nothing more than a manufactured diversion*, because they can not talk about the economy...


No, he is incorrect:

*Shining Shoes Best Way Wall Street Women Outearn Men*







Women who want to earn more on Wall Street than their male colleagues have one reliable option. They can set up a shoe-shine stand in Lower Manhattan. 


Female personal care and service workers, which include butlers, valets, house sitters and shoe shiners, earned $1.02 for every $1 their male counterparts made in 2010, according to census data compiled by Bloomberg. *That job category, which covers 38,210 full-time workers in the U.S., was the only one of 265 major occupations where the median female salary exceeded the amount paid to men. 
*


The six jobs with the largest gender gap in pay and at least 10,000 men and 10,000 women were in the Wall Street-heavy financial sector: insurance agents, managers, clerks, securities sales agents, personal advisers and other specialists. Advanced- degree professions proved no better predictors of equality. *Female doctors made 63 cents for every $1 earned by male physicians and surgeons, the data show. Female chief executives earned 74 cents for every $1 made by male counterparts.* 


The Census Bureau figures underscore the lack of financial progress made in the generation since women began leaving the home and moving into the workforce in large numbers. *While the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression initially hit women less severely, their median earnings still trailed men in 505 of 525 occupations tracked by the federal government.*


&#8220;We don&#8217;t see the pay gap closing,&#8221; Ilene H. Lang, president and chief executive officer of Catalyst, a New York- based nonprofit group that seeks to advance women in business, said in a telephone interview. &#8220;It&#8217;s persistent.&#8221; 
​


Are you going to now try to discredit Bloomberg News when it comes to a financial/business story?  

ETA:  This deserves it's own thread, here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/221099-bloomberg-news-confirms-gender-pay-gap.html


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 30, 2012)

Synthaholic said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Did you find the part of the Supreme Court decision where they said that she couldn't bring the case even though she didn't know about the discrimination before? It should be pretty easy to find if, as you claim, all Maddow's statements are well researched and whe never says anything that is untrue. I would think she would link to it on her website since it is such an obvious part of the Republican war on women. Can I help by linking to her site for you?

Rachel Maddow | Official Personal Website

Rachel Maddow is a hack, prove me wrong.


----------



## Barb (Apr 30, 2012)

nuff said


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 30, 2012)

Barb said:


> nuff said



Exactly. I swear to God their motto is "How can I love you if you won't bend over."


----------



## Barb (May 1, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > nuff said
> ...



lol, THAT should be on a bumper sticker!


----------



## Ringel05 (May 1, 2012)

I still find it fascinating that all those pundits that conform to, espouse or verify our individual paradigms are always "brilliant", are possessed with unimpeachable logic, can leap tall buildings with a single bound and catch speeding bullets with their teeth.  Also that all those who don't share our paradigms are dull, backwards, obstructive, obtrusive, destructive, etc, etc.
God I love human nature!  It's so friggin' predictable.


----------



## Barb (May 1, 2012)

and women in the er or icu (and probably their graves) are accusers unless and until there is a conviction.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 1, 2012)

Ringel05 said:


> I still find it fascinating that all those pundits that conform to, espouse or verify our individual paradigms are always "brilliant", are possessed with unimpeachable logic, can leap tall buildings with a single bound and catch speeding bullets with their teeth.  Also that all those who don't share our paradigms are dull, backwards, obstructive, obtrusive, destructive, etc, etc.
> God I love human nature!  It's so friggin' predictable.



I can post a video of a politician supporting a statement he admits he didn't hear just because of who said it.


----------



## Ringel05 (May 1, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghj5V5cUo1s]Billy Preston - Will It Go Round in Circles - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Barb (May 1, 2012)

jillian said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Right. That's no different than Maddow repeatedly talking about the Republican War on Women.
> ...





> you haven't even begun to hear shrill



The mewling that will take place once they do, it almost makes you feel a little sorry for them. 






almost...


----------



## mudwhistle (May 1, 2012)

Barb said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



Funny how we're arguing over a* lesbian* yet now you're bitching about somebody taking away abortion and birth control. 

Seems a bit ironic.


----------



## jillian (May 1, 2012)

mudwhistle said:


> Funny how we're arguing over a* lesbian* yet now you're bitching about somebody taking away abortion and birth control.
> 
> Seems a bit ironic.



i have a better idea... how about the "small government" rightwingnuts stop trying to take away women's rights, in general.

her being a lesbian is irrelevant to the subject.

you just have nothing to say because she made your guy look like an idiot.


----------



## Interpol (May 1, 2012)

Planned Parenthood has helped America lead the way as #1 in the world in early cancer detection. 

It's been assaulted since this perverted version of the GOP took the House. 

I think it's condescending to all women to make their health care issues a partisan issue and to totally drop the crisis in America today of joblessness, stagnation, lack of a manufacturing base, and the monstrous debt problem, all of which have not been addressed by the GOP in Washington. 

I wouldn't call it a "War on Women", so much as a totally condescending and vein attempt to control their lives by Big "C" Conservatives in Washington and elsewhere who say they stand for liberty but who keep assaulting a womens liberty in America today to control their own health care needs.


----------



## mudwhistle (May 1, 2012)

jillian said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Funny how we're arguing over a* lesbian* yet now you're bitching about somebody taking away abortion and birth control.
> ...



Nobody's trying to take away anything now. 

And her being a Lesbian is very relevant. 

I have plenty to say about how she acted because I saw it. She shouted everyone down and tried to control the discussion. Speaking of fairness, when you have a panel discussing a topic everyone deserves to be heard, not just the loudest participants. Rachel tried to filibuster the discussion and she made herself look like an angry bitch. The rest of the folks there weren't acting like the rude asshole Maddow acted like.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 1, 2012)

del said:


> so, you're a leftist?



Bet you have an Obama "O" on your Rascal.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 1, 2012)

jillian said:


> i have a better idea... how about the "small government" rightwingnuts stop trying to take away women's rights, in general.
> 
> her being a lesbian is irrelevant to the subject.
> 
> you just have nothing to say because she made your guy look like an idiot.



I have a better idea; how about you offer something Obama and your shameful party have done to improve the nation, rather than the constant demagoguery and politics of division that you scumbags incessantly engage in.

The hate sites that do your thinking for you are nothing, if not predictable: Obama drops in the polls, and the party drones will be out trying to drive a wedge of division between; blacks, whites, women, men, children, employed people, government leaches, retirees, students, teachers, ad infintium.

Obama is the most divisive president we have ever had, and the party drones do nothing but foment hatred and division.


----------



## Toro (May 1, 2012)

mudwhistle said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



I agree. Prime Time cable "news" shows aren't Sunday morning TV magazines.  She was poor.


----------



## Truthmatters (May 1, 2012)

they hate it when the facts prevail


----------



## Oddball (May 1, 2012)

Barb said:


> and women in the er or icu (and probably their graves) are accusers unless and until there is a conviction.


Wow....Good thing there are no sweeping generalizations and hysterical hyperbole there!


----------



## Synthaholic (May 1, 2012)

mudwhistle said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



If her being a lesbian is relevant because she is unlikely to get an abortion or take birth control pills, and therefore she shouldn't have a say in the matter, then that also applies to all the male members of Congress.

So I guess they should all STFU?



> I have plenty to say about how she acted because I saw it. *She shouted everyone down and tried to control the discussion.* Speaking of fairness, when you have a panel discussing a topic everyone deserves to be heard, not just the loudest participants. Rachel tried to filibuster the discussion and she made herself look like an angry bitch. The rest of the folks there weren't acting like the rude asshole Maddow acted like.



She shouldn't of had to even raise her voice at all.  She had the floor.  David Gregory asked her for her opinion.  She was interrupted by the Republican.

If Republicans had any manners and were interested in civil discourse she would never of had to raise her voice at all.

What right did the Republican have to interrupt her?


----------



## saveliberty (May 1, 2012)

Let's see a liberal (Gregory) invites a liberal (Maddow) onto a liberal show and its the Republican who's out of line trying to be heard?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 1, 2012)




----------



## BDBoop (May 1, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Let's see a liberal (Gregory) invites a liberal (Maddow) onto a liberal show and its the Republican who's out of line trying to be heard?



She had the floor. She did. He talked over her. He condescended to her. You not seeing it just means that in all likelihood, you have never been condescended to.


----------



## saveliberty (May 1, 2012)

I have not watched the exchange BDBoop.  I'll take your word for the condescending tone.  A wage gap certainly did exist years ago.  Now, two people starting out in the same job at the same time, I'm not so sure there would be a gap.

If Maddow made a statement and repeated it, in modern political talk shows, its interuption time.  I agree it is poor manners from my era, but I also see how TV works these days.


----------



## Toro (May 1, 2012)

OK, I take it back. I re-listened to the podcast and she wasn't as bad as I first thought. Maddow was only slightly more annoying than everyone else. She was interrupted by Castellanos at the beginning but was rude in her exchange later with Rogers.


----------



## BDBoop (May 1, 2012)

Thank you both.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 1, 2012)

Interpol said:


> Planned Parenthood has helped America lead the way as #1 in the world in early cancer detection.



How, exactly, has it done that?


----------



## BDBoop (May 1, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Interpol said:
> 
> 
> > Planned Parenthood has helped America lead the way as #1 in the world in early cancer detection.
> ...



By providing screenings, which is part of the 97% of what they do that doesn't involve abortion.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 1, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> they hate it when the facts prevail



 Tell me, given that the facts are on my side, why would I hate it when they prevail? Not one person in this thread, including you, addressed any of the facts I posted that contradict the hack version of the facts Maddow spouted.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 1, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Interpol said:
> ...



By screenings do you mean mammograms? If so, you are being lied to, Planned Parenthood does not do mammograms in any of their facilities. The mot common cancers in the US are Bladder, Lung. Breast, Melanoma, Colon. Rectal, Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, Endometrial, Pancreatic, Kidney, Prostate, Leukemia, and Thyroid Cancer, none of which are screened for at any Planned Parenthood facility in the US.

That leaves me to ask, again, exactly how has Planned Parenthood contributed to the US being number one in _cancer detection_? did they develop some easy to use hime test that I am unaware of that contributes to the success in detecting one or more of these cancers?

If you want to argue that Planned Parenthood does good things you should be able to do so without lying. Unless you can't actually think of the good things they do because you don't care about them, and the only reason you support them is they supply abortions, in which case you should just admit that is all that matters to you.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 1, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> By providing screenings, which is part of the 97% of what they do that doesn't involve abortion.



You know, it's a funny thing. You of the insane left claim that America has the worst medical care in the world; yet when it comes to abortion clinics, suddenly we have the best cancer detection in the world, thanks to abortion.

Doesn't the level of utter bullshit you spew, ever stick in your throat?

I mean, I realize that you're a rabid, partisan hack and never actually think about what you spew, still......


----------



## BDBoop (May 1, 2012)

Screenings. Hello? Screenings? Breast exams. Surely you have heard of them. They also do pap smears and pelvic exams. 

I know you're heavily invested in poor people not having access to routine health care, because how else are we going to get rid of them if they don't have the good sense to drop dead, but this is one issue you are clueless on.


----------



## saveliberty (May 1, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Thank you both.



Just don't let it get around.  We got reputations to protect.


----------



## BDBoop (May 1, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you both.
> ...



No worries. I have the attention span of a gerbil.

What's your name again?


----------



## saveliberty (May 1, 2012)

Well, if I want a gerbil to remember, the name's cedar chips.


----------



## Not2BSubjugated (May 2, 2012)

Barb said:


> and women in the er or icu (and probably their graves) are accusers unless and until there is a conviction.



Should people accused of crimes against a woman have less rights than those accused of crimes against a man?  Innocent until proven guilty isn't just a protection for woman beaters. . . it's a protection for everybody to keep the innocent from being thrown in prison.  Unfortunately, people aren't trustworthy enough to assume that a woman who's been the victim of a violent crime is never going to be dishonest or incorrect in fingering the perpetrator.

The thought behind this legal phenomenon is that it's better to let a thousand guilty people go free than to punish one innocent person for a crime they did not commit.  When you compare the potential for abuse with that system to the potential for abuse with a system wherein the burden of proof lies with the accused, I tend to agree.


----------



## saveliberty (May 2, 2012)

Barb said:


> and women in the er or icu (and probably their graves) are accusers unless and until there is a conviction.



You become what you think.  This is basically crap.


----------



## BDBoop (May 2, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > and women in the er or icu (and probably their graves) are accusers unless and until there is a conviction.
> ...



No, that was an actual bill. Want me to find it?

Also - I don't know how old the people are in this thread, but the days of the cops turning a blind eye because it's a 'family matter' are not so long ago.


----------



## Sandy Price (May 2, 2012)

I am a fairly constant watcher of the Maddow Show and I often take notes on what it is she bases many of her requirements for action.  When she did a program on ALEC I went to the Internet, and wrote two letters on why I wanted the company to reject their support as soon as possible.  The first letter want to State Farm National headquarters and the second one was to my State Farm local office.  

When she became involved in women's problems, I immediately contacted Planned Parenthood to fight for all women's activities that they had backed for many years.  

Outside of demanding a return to the separation of church and state, I know of no other actions to take.  I've been a member of Republicans for Choice for as long as it has been alive and often pass on the need for other Republicans to make a change in their agenda.  

I go back to the days of individual freedoms for all Americans but getting involved in all the personal attacks on our candidates, I realize my place in the GOP has been erased by the religious right.  Not a single candidate offered to the voters as Republicans will get my vote.  I've been a loyal Republican since I voted for Ike.  How can a bunch of religious rightwing nuts dare to take over an entire political party?  

I will have to wait it out and see if these terrible people do get elected in the House in November.  I am a Capitalist and would rather not vote for a Democrat but if there is no other choice then I will.  

Don't throw insults at me.  It is the usual Conservative reaction to anyone who wants rights for everyone.  They tried to divide us up into white Christian Straight Men and others.  Whining on the Internet never won or lost a single issue.


----------



## mudwhistle (May 2, 2012)

I used to back Democrats but then I became better informed, got a job, and bought property. 

Now I support anyone that wants me to keep them. 

Democrats punish folks like me so I can't support them.


----------



## saveliberty (May 2, 2012)

Sandy Price said:


> I am a fairly constant watcher of the Maddow Show and I often take notes on what it is she bases many of her requirements for action.  When she did a program on ALEC I went to the Internet, and wrote two letters on why I wanted the company to reject their support as soon as possible.  The first letter want to State Farm National headquarters and the second one was to my State Farm local office.
> 
> When she became involved in women's problems, I immediately contacted Planned Parenthood to fight for all women's activities that they had backed for many years.
> 
> ...



Who do you think came up with White-Hispanic and all the other divisions?  Liberals are the great dividers.  They have to, that is how they can create needs and wants of those new groups and provide for them.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 2, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...



Please do, just so I can laugh.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 2, 2012)

Sandy Price said:


> I am a fairly constant watcher of the Maddow Show and I often take notes on what it is she bases many of her requirements for action.  When she did a program on ALEC I went to the Internet, and wrote two letters on why I wanted the company to reject their support as soon as possible.  The first letter want to State Farm National headquarters and the second one was to my State Farm local office.
> 
> When she became involved in women's problems, I immediately contacted Planned Parenthood to fight for all women's activities that they had backed for many years.
> 
> ...



You base all your personal stances on what Rachel Maddow says? Do you plan to learn to think for yourself when she dies, or has she made arrangements to transfer your thought processes to someone else?


----------



## BDBoop (May 2, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



Lawmaker proposes relabeling rape victims as 'accusers' - CNN

http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/20112012/108144.pdf

Let me know when the laughter happens.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 2, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Now I get to laugh, at you. This bill never even got to a committee vote, pointing to it as an example of what Republicans are doing is as stupid as pointing at a bill that makes pi=3 and saying that it is proof that all lawmakers are mathematically challenged idiots.


----------



## BDBoop (May 2, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Is he a Republican. Did he write the bill. Why yes he did. The laughter? Happening at this end. You couldn't even muster a "Well, would you look at that, it's an actual bill that a Republican actually wrote and submitted."

Hack, thy name surely does fit.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 2, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Laugh at him all day long, I enjoy laughing at the idiot Democrat who was worried about Guam tipping over. I guess I am just smart enough to know that Johnson is not every single Democrat in Congress. If you were half as smart as you think you are you would be saying the same thing about the idiot from GA.


----------



## BDBoop (May 2, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



No, I was laughing at you for never being honest.


----------



## HomeInspect (May 2, 2012)

It's all a matter of opinion, but I think Michelle Malkin and Laura Ingram make Maddow look like chump change.


----------



## AMERICANMALE444 (May 2, 2012)

Pssssshhht...Maddow. Just another hysterical far leftie woman wronging her hands because slutty women can't have free abortion from the federal government. Jesus, how far will lefties go to make sure sluts can have free on demand abortions? I saw her crying her eyes out about some dead abortionists who frankly had it coming; you mess with fire, you get burned. Not a tear for the millions of dead babies aborted every year. Heartlessness and cruelty lie at the very heart of liberalism.


----------



## AMERICANMALE444 (May 2, 2012)

HomeInspect said:


> It's all a matter of opinion, but I think Michelle Malkin and Laura Ingram make Maddow look like chump change.



I don't know which way you meant that, but if you meant Malkin and Ingram and smarter than that dyke harpie Maddow, then yes!!!!


----------



## BDBoop (May 2, 2012)

AMERICANMALE444 said:


> Pssssshhht...Maddow. Just another hysterical far leftie woman wronging her hands because slutty women can't have free abortion from the federal government. Jesus, how far will lefties go to make sure sluts can have free on demand abortions? I saw her crying her eyes out about some dead abortionists who frankly had it coming; you mess with fire, you get burned. Not a tear for the millions of dead babies aborted every year. Heartlessness and cruelty lie at the very heart of liberalism.



So life is sacred unless somebody disagrees with you, then all bets are off?


----------



## Amelia (May 2, 2012)

AMERICANMALE444 said:


> Pssssshhht...Maddow. Just another hysterical far leftie woman wronging her hands because slutty women can't have free abortion from the federal government. Jesus, how far will lefties go to make sure sluts can have free on demand abortions? I saw her crying her eyes out about some dead abortionists who frankly had it coming; you mess with fire, you get burned. Not a tear for the millions of dead babies aborted every year. Heartlessness and cruelty lie at the very heart of liberalism.





Had it coming?

Are you applauding the murder of abortion doctors?


----------



## BDBoop (May 2, 2012)

Amelia said:


> AMERICANMALE444 said:
> 
> 
> > Pssssshhht...Maddow. Just another hysterical far leftie woman wronging her hands because slutty women can't have free abortion from the federal government. Jesus, how far will lefties go to make sure sluts can have free on demand abortions? I saw her crying her eyes out about some dead abortionists who frankly had it coming; you mess with fire, you get burned. Not a tear for the millions of dead babies aborted every year. Heartlessness and cruelty lie at the very heart of liberalism.
> ...



Yes. Yes, he is. So that would make WHO 'heartless and cruel?'


----------



## AMERICANMALE444 (May 2, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> So life is sacred unless somebody disagrees with you, then all bets are off?



??????

A murderer's life is NOT sacred!! Jeffery Dahmer killed a dozen dudes and got the death penalty. Abortionists kill way more than that and they get a fat paycheck! Each abortion doctors Mercedes should be spray painted on the side "PAID FOR BY DEAD BABIES"

All bets are off when it comes to protecting INNOCENT LIFE, not disgusting abortion industrialists.


----------



## AMERICANMALE444 (May 2, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Yes. Yes, he is. So that would make WHO 'heartless and cruel?'



The real cruel people are the women who get knocked up and then instead of facing the consequences of her bad behavior, she just KILLS HER BABY to get out of raising it. Wow, only the far left could ever support something as wantonly cruel as for profit baby murder.


----------



## BDBoop (May 2, 2012)

Waah?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 3, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> So life is sacred unless somebody disagrees with you, then all bets are off?



If a white man is accused of rape, do you think the police should shoot him to death rather than arrest him?

Why, or why not?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 3, 2012)

Amelia said:


> Had it coming?
> 
> Are you applauding the murder of abortion doctors?



You mean George Tiller, who engaged in infanticide?

Just like Obama murdering Anwar al-Awlaki, I deplore the act that caused his death, but realize the world is a much better place without him in it.


----------



## BDBoop (May 3, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > So life is sacred unless somebody disagrees with you, then all bets are off?
> ...



If you need to change the subject to make your point, you've already conceded you have nothing. 

Carry on.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 3, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> If you need to change the subject to make your point, you've already conceded you have nothing.
> 
> Carry on.



No one is changing the subject.

In theory, even you would oppose the summary murder of suspects, even if they were white, even if they were men.

Does that mean that "all life is sacred to you?" Demonstrably not, life is clearly cheap, of very little value. Yet presumably you would not support simply killing those who are accused. 

The same holds true with those who recognize that some restraints on abortion are warranted. Just because a person sees that there should be restraint to the killing of one's offspring, doesn't mean they  must oppose capital punishment, or self-defense, or any of the other nonsense the hate sites tell you to spew to "defeat the infidels."


----------



## BDBoop (May 3, 2012)

Uncensored2008 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > If you need to change the subject to make your point, you've already conceded you have nothing.
> ...



Until "black rapists" are in utero and somehow related to the subject at hand, you've changed the subject.

Have a good day.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (May 3, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Until "black rapists" are in utero and somehow related to the subject at hand, you've changed the subject.
> 
> Have a good day.



Ah, too stupid to grasp simile.

This is why you are a leftist.


----------

