# Is Rachael Maddow Out of Control?



## Silhouette (Jan 24, 2014)

I just thought I'd throw that out there.  She seems a bit manic these days and out on a if-you-are-conservative,-I'm-going-to-punish-you-severely,-destroy-you,-ruin -your-career kick.  You can tell when she's a bit manic because she stutters more.  It seems anyway that she has a speech issue that gets worse when she's keyed up, or worried about something?

If she keeps actively destroying people's careers, when does journalism cross that fine line into an active vendetta?  Has she crossed that line?  Her guests even seem a bit frightened of her, unless they're gay.  

Seems somebody put a bee in her bonnet.  Let me guess.  It has to do with gay stuff.

She has announced several times and quite conspicuously that she is a culture warrior or part of a culture war.  Could it be she wants to do a pre-emptive strike?  It seems like her MO is "beat up this and that conservative" to send a message to other politicians lest they cross her, their, "agenda"..

I wonder if she's trying to send a message to the US Supreme Court Justices?  You know, with the Utah case coming up this year..

So I've got a poll going here to weigh in on what you think Ms. Maddow's fury seems to be all about.


----------



## Sallow (Jan 24, 2014)

When has she done that?


----------



## edthecynic (Jan 24, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> I just thought I'd throw that out there.  She seems a bit manic these days and out on a "if you are conservative, I'm going to punish you severely, destroy you, ruin your career" kick.  You can tell when she's a bit manic because she stutters more.  It seems anyway that she has a speech issue that gets worse when she's keyed up, or worried about something?
> 
> If she keeps actively destroying people's careers, when does journalism cross that fine line into an active vendetta?  Has she crossed that line?  Her guests even seem a bit frightened of her, unless they're gay.
> 
> ...



Yeah, play that perpetual VICTIM card, crybaby!


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 24, 2014)

Just last year your right wing packed scotus wouldn't even defend your fucking cheating


what does EVERY right winger in the country do?

pretend 30 years of court documentations that proves you cheat isn't real


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 24, 2014)

all this country has to do is STOP  this current R party from cheating.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 24, 2014)

Settle down folks.  I'm not on MSNBC.  Maddow is.  The poll is read to vote on now.


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 24, 2014)

Then the people will win and the cheaters can be put in prison where they belong


----------



## R.D. (Jan 24, 2014)

That is her schtick.   MSNBC has been trying to be the Air America of TV for a while  now and she is their big hope.   That station isn't news it's a progressive propaganda 

Aside from being a hack she sounds  like whatever meds she is on she isn't addressing the side effects of dry mouth....annoying as hell.


----------



## whitehall (Jan 24, 2014)

Maddow never pretended to be fair and balanced. She is a militant lesbian activist and her entire thought process is skewed toward that end. The radical left has become emboldened since the left wing democrat governor of NY told Americans that certain right wing segments of society would not be welcomed in the Empire State and the left wing senator from NY launched into a tirade directed at innocent people who call themselves Tea Party members. The line has been drawn on the concrete and the hatred on the left is oozing up like a putrid slime.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 24, 2014)

Truthmatters said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Settle down folks.  I'm not on MSNBC.  Maddow is.  The poll is read to vote on now.
> ...



I'm a registered democrat and have voted democratic for decades now; probably before you were born.

Don't get me wrong here.  I generally think Maddow is a good journalist.  She is covering important stuff like fracking, nuclear plant issues, voter suppression by the GOP and women's reproductive rights.  Though on that last bit I'm more in the camp of "after 3 months, no, no abortion unless the mother's life is at risk".

She's an asset to the journalist world until she starts getting manic with the gay stuff.  Then her character changes.  She seems panicky almost, or manic, like I said.  And frankly, I'm worried for her since during her "get conservatives!" phase, a sitting Pope has been dethroned, a governor, other politicians and she now is going after Chris Christie who is one of the GOP favorites.  She used to sing his praises in fact when he and Obama were chumming around after Hurricane Sandy.  Though lately I think someone has "spoken" to her about the Christie thing because after three or four nights of going manic on him, she's toned it down a bit.

It's just that when you help lop off the heads of really big and powerful men, they don't just sit back and take it.  She would do a much greater service to the democratic party by recognizing and paying attention to the Duck Dynasty & Chic Fil a numbers instead of constantly weaving in gay crap into the democratic platform.  Her stories on environmental stuff is the pulitzer gold ring.  She should aim for that instead.  Especially fracking.  Those brittle well casings are ultra vulnerable to lateral shear earthquakes.  If the fracking is causing earthquakes, like in Texas now, then say goodbye to fresh drinking water forever.  Once that toxic stew is down there, it's there forever and will percolate around from capillary action and pressures with our drinking and agriculture waters.  Fracking is going to be seen, next to boiling water for turbines with radiation [nuclear] one of the worst mistakes of modern humanity for it's long-range repurcussions..


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 24, 2014)

If Maddow wants to knock heads off of torsos in a political way, she should take up the far more long-reaching cause of our insane energy use and promote things like hydrogen cars: A Hydrogen Generator You Can Build | Fuel-Efficient-Vehicles.org and babysitting the decomissioning of fracking and nuclear power.

Also, for centralized power, instead of nuclear: [ame=http://youtu.be/hUtXsZrPf_Q]Concentrating Solar Power Plants 1 MW- 5 MW (Fresnel Technology) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 24, 2014)

Her audience isn't big enough to warrant any level of concern.
She is well credentialed but her Abortion and Same Sex shtick bores me to tears.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 24, 2014)

We should never be in the business of stamping out either conservatives or democrats.  The two balance each other and promote sanity by the push and pull of their conflicting ideologies.  You get too far left or too far right and they start up with a "take no prisoners" outright vendetta.  I think that's what Miss Maddow is up to.


----------



## Toro (Jan 24, 2014)

Truthmatters said:


> the SCOTUS thinks you should be punished



lol


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 24, 2014)

Indeependent said:


> Her audience isn't big enough to warrant any level of concern.
> She is well credentialed but her Abortion and Same Sex shtick bores me to tears.


  The size of her audience may not be the question here.  The question is her relentless advertisement and persecution in a public venue of key conservative figures in what she openly admits is a "culture war".  We don't need a civil war right now, in case you hadn't noticed.  Yet she has been at least instrumental in unseating a couple careers for what most would see as petty issues.  So a governor on Virginia took some clothes and jewelry in exchange for some favors.  Show me a politician, dem or GOP who hasn't done that?  People expect it to some degree.

I think the "message" is more "if you don't fall in line with what we want, you will pay with your career".  Of note, just after the Virginia governor was unseated, the Virginia AG suddenly announced s/he would no longer uphold the ban on gay marriage in that state...

...It's literally feeling like it's Rachael Maddow vs the right of people to govern themselves.  What will she do to Utah?  The Supreme Court?  Or are they already shaking in their boots for fear of crossing her?  If this is a form of orchestrated blackmail, and it may very well be, where do people draw the line and stop the advancement?  There is no proof at all that gay is "born that way".  There is a mountain of observed fact that gay is more like a cult.  A "Cult"rure war if you will.  Is the US being advanced upon by a cult of LGBT descriptive behaviors against its will, forcibly, via blackmail or extortion?

Extortion is defined as "if you don't do "thing A" or give me "thing B", I will deliver on my threat, overt or implied, to do "thing C".  Is this happening?  If it is, it isn't legal.


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 24, 2014)

We DO need a culture war right now.
Unfortunately, the two skewed sides fighting don't represent what's really best for the nation.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 24, 2014)

Indeependent said:


> We DO need a culture war right now.
> Unfortunately, the two skewed sides fighting don't represent what's really best for the nation.



No, when a country is economically beaten to a pulp and compromised as such, with drooling enemies waiting for the beast to buckle at the knees, the LAST thing we need is divisiveness or instigation to civil unrest.

I notice MSNBC has a new link to "get active" for ???  That with announcing a culture war as part of the MSNBC agenda is really unsettling.  It's as unsettling as what Rupert Murdoch, "naturalized citizen" of the US was trying to do with the Glenn Beck circus awhile back and Sarah Palin with her bullseye on Senators or Representatives for Universal Healthcare.  

Fox toned that down when Gabby Giffords got shot in the head while holding a rally.  The GOP is not above "making an example out of people to scare off other would-be advocates" of causes they don't like.  Neither side should be up to that type of behavior.  This country is in big trouble and we do not need civil unrest right now.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 24, 2014)

Maddow is an excellent TV opinionist for her side.

She is a bit stronger in her language than before.

Whether that is deliberate or not, I don't know.


----------



## bodecea (Jan 24, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> I just thought I'd throw that out there.  She seems a bit manic these days and out on a "*if you are conservative, I'm going to punish you severely, destroy you, ruin your career*" kick.  You can tell when she's a bit manic because she stutters more.  It seems anyway that she has a speech issue that gets worse when she's keyed up, or worried about something?
> 
> If she keeps actively destroying people's careers, when does journalism cross that fine line into an active vendetta?  Has she crossed that line?  Her guests even seem a bit frightened of her, unless they're gay.
> 
> ...



Those quotes you have of her....where are the links to her saying those things?


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 24, 2014)

bodecea said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > I just thought I'd throw that out there.  She seems a bit manic these days and out on a "*if you are conservative, I'm going to punish you severely, destroy you, ruin your career*" kick.  You can tell when she's a bit manic because she stutters more.  It seems anyway that she has a speech issue that gets worse when she's keyed up, or worried about something?
> ...



They aren't quotes.  I often include the "..." when I'm trying to paraphrase or indicate a general view of something.  Sorry to confuse you.


----------



## Sallow (Jan 24, 2014)

Truthmatters said:


> she hates your party like every patriotic American does.
> 
> You cheat and its proven
> 
> ...



You are wrong there.

She doesn't "hate" anyone.

Actually, she's quite nice to both conservatives and republicans.

Some of the best shows was when she had Pat Buchanan on. They had a great chemistry and showed real respect for each other. Megan McCain is also a great guest. She regularly has Republicans on as well and treats them with a great deal of respect. So much so, sometimes they wind up saying some really stupid things. Like Rand Paul.


----------



## bodecea (Jan 24, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



Ok, so where are some links of her saying things or behaving in such a way that you paraphrased it?


----------



## Sallow (Jan 24, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Her audience isn't big enough to warrant any level of concern.
> ...



That's laughable.

You folks are constantly downplaying the audience of MSNBC shows.

NOW you are saying they have this kind of power?

Since when?

Maddow essentially just reports on stuff..and stuff the mainstream media misses.

Sometimes they catch up..sometimes they don't.

But she does have a knack for getting some amazing scoops.


----------



## blastoff (Jan 24, 2014)

Rach acts like a raving lunatic out of frustration.  After all, how would you like to look like that?  The answer is you wouldn't.  Then layer in everyone she meets is conflicted about her/him/it because they can't tell if they're dealing with just a dyke, a cross-dressing guy, or a transsexual.  

But to those into ugly with a huge keister, Maddows worth a look at least.


----------



## Sarah G (Jan 24, 2014)

Nope, she's completely in control.  Rachel is doing some in depth reporting and research on the stories of the day lately.  You may not want to hear about your corrupt governors but I do.


----------



## Vox (Jan 24, 2014)

who?


----------



## Sarah G (Jan 24, 2014)

Sallow said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > she hates your party like every patriotic American does.
> ...



She'd love to have one or both Koch brothers on her show.  You're right, she doesn't hate them but the interview would be extremely hard on them.  Like it was on Rand Paul.


----------



## bodecea (Jan 24, 2014)

blastoff said:


> Rach acts like a raving lunatic out of frustration.  After all, how would you like to look like that?  The answer is you wouldn't.  Then layer in everyone she meets is conflicted about her/him/it because they can't tell if they're dealing with just a dyke, a cross-dressing guy, or a transsexual.
> 
> But to those into ugly with a huge keister, Maddows worth a look at least.



So, you watch her show a lot...?


----------



## mamooth (Jan 24, 2014)

Only thing that bugs me about Rachel is that she usually says everything twice. Always has. Dang it Rachel, I got it the first time, no need to say it again.


----------



## NLT (Jan 24, 2014)

Rachel Madcow just another angry dyke with an agenda.  woopie de do


----------



## Fang (Jan 24, 2014)

Impossible to say since I don't watch her. I did try and watch her a few years back just to see what she's all about and she was factually incorrect on 3 separate items in a span of 5 minutes. Needless to say I never tuned back in.


----------



## Sallow (Jan 24, 2014)

NLT said:


> Rachel Madcow just another angry dyke with an agenda.  woopie de do



Yeah..she's so angry she has a cocktail night to show everyone how to make drinks.

That's angry you betcha.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jan 24, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> I just thought I'd throw that out there.  She seems a bit manic these days and out on a if-you-are-conservative,-I'm-going-to-punish-you-severely,-destroy-you,-ruin -your-career kick.  You can tell when she's a bit manic because she stutters more.  It seems anyway that she has a speech issue that gets worse when she's keyed up, or worried about something?
> 
> If she keeps actively destroying people's careers, when does journalism cross that fine line into an active vendetta?  Has she crossed that line?  Her guests even seem a bit frightened of her, unless they're gay.
> 
> ...



Do you consider her a journalist?  It seems as if she holds the same status as Limbaugh.  She breaks no news, does no investigative reporting.  She reads the news and makes comments on the affairs of the day.  I don't think she has crossed a line between journalism and any other pursuit as she has never been a journalist.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 24, 2014)

Rachel should give tips to the angry women of Fox, Megyn and Gretchen.


----------



## Sallow (Jan 24, 2014)

Sarah G said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



That's kind of what makes her pretty good at interviews.

She doesn't hate anyone, like say Lawrence O'Donnell does. She's pretty fair and never shows any anger. But she is a very good listener.

Which makes her a bit more "deadly".


----------



## Sallow (Jan 24, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > I just thought I'd throw that out there.  She seems a bit manic these days and out on a if-you-are-conservative,-I'm-going-to-punish-you-severely,-destroy-you,-ruin -your-career kick.  You can tell when she's a bit manic because she stutters more.  It seems anyway that she has a speech issue that gets worse when she's keyed up, or worried about something?
> ...



Actually she does.

Not often..but she's generally spot on when she goes to work.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 24, 2014)

I like Buchanan, I like Maddow, I am thinking Krauthammer is starting to synthesize instead of just hold the line.


----------



## bodecea (Jan 24, 2014)

Sallow said:


> NLT said:
> 
> 
> > Rachel Madcow just another angry dyke with an agenda.  woopie de do
> ...



She does?   Didn't know that.   May have to watch.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 24, 2014)

bodecea said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Declaring a culture war: 



> Rachel Maddow: The Culture War Is Back (VIDEO) Rachel Maddow: The Culture War Is Back (VIDEO)





> Rachel Maddow's Quiet War Rachel Maddow's Quiet War | Politics News | Rolling Stone
> "But Maddow's skills are different: She strives not for the expression of political anger but for its suppression, to distance herself from the partisan debate rather than engage it, to steward progressive fury into a world of certainty, of charts, graphs, statistics, a real world that matters and that the political debate can't corrupt. Maddow's producers say, unexpectedly, that the closest analog for her style as a broadcaster is Glenn Beck, whose abilities as a performer she very much admires. Though their worldviews could not be more different, *Maddow and Beck both attempt to pull off a similar trick: to reflect and redirect their audience's rage at politics without succumbing to it. What Maddow is trying to build is a different channel for liberal anger, an outsider's channel, one that steers the viewer's attention away from the theater of politics and toward the exercise of power*, which is to say toward policy..."



The Rolling Stone's analogy skirts along the edge of the truth much like Maddow's "pushing it" skirts along the edge of journalism and towards a vendetta.  That's how I see it anyway.  She is walking a very fine line between the two and some say she has crossed it:



> Rachel Maddow To Politifact: 'You Are Terrible' And Someone Should 'Sue You' (VIDEO) Rachel Maddow To Politifact: 'You Are Terrible' And Someone Should 'Sue You' (VIDEO)
> Rachel Maddow has grown infuriated with Politifact multiple times in the past, but the rage she displayed towards her arch-nemesis on her Monday MSNBC show was truly unparalleled.





> Tue Jan 14, 2014 at 11:33 PM PST.
> 
> Rachel Maddow Destroys Any Credibility Chris Christie Might Think He Still Has.  Daily Kos: Rachel Maddow Destroys Any Credibility Chris Christie Might Think He Still Has
> 
> ...



One wonders where Miss Maddow's links to concrete proof that Chris Christie was lying are?  If insinuation can destroy careers without proof, then the civil judicial system will unravel.  There has to be some sort of check on reporting facts vs speculation in journalism if people's entire lives and political careers can be destroyed by mere guessing.  For instance, if I hire a guy to dig a ditch, am I responsible if he then goes on to commit tax fraud on the wages I paid him?  Am I directly responsible for every person I've ever had work under me?  Sometimes people in lower ranks are involved in chicanery and power-climbing that has nothing to do with their employer; and that their employer has no idea about.  This lower-ranked scuffling is quite likely the source of the "Christie scandal" from all the reports of actual facts I've seen.  To crucify Chris Christie on a guess or because if he gets elected in 2016 he might roll back some of the gay agenda's strong-armed advancements, is not fair.  It wouldn't surprise me if Christie launched a lawsuit for defamation on Maddow and other journalists quick to pronounce him guilty and destroy his career without a trial on the facts.


----------



## Sallow (Jan 24, 2014)

bodecea said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > NLT said:
> ...



Friday nights..generally.


----------



## Spiderman (Jan 24, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> I just thought I'd throw that out there.  She seems a bit manic these days and out on a if-you-are-conservative,-I'm-going-to-punish-you-severely,-destroy-you,-ruin -your-career kick.  You can tell when she's a bit manic because she stutters more.  It seems anyway that she has a speech issue that gets worse when she's keyed up, or worried about something?
> 
> If she keeps actively destroying people's careers, when does journalism cross that fine line into an active vendetta?  Has she crossed that line?  Her guests even seem a bit frightened of her, unless they're gay.
> 
> ...



She is an obscure commentator on a little watched cable news channel.

You are giving her way to much credit.

She doesn't have the juice to ruin anyone's career


----------



## R.D. (Jan 24, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...


She doesn't.  The Daily Kos is just doing their part to help the cause


----------



## Sallow (Jan 24, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



Really?

He just fired several high ranking members of his administration.

That's after joking about the bridge closing.

Seriously..


----------



## bodecea (Jan 24, 2014)

Sallow said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Ah...no wonder I miss it.  It's date nite with the Mrs.


----------



## The2ndAmendment (Jan 24, 2014)

whitehall said:


> Maddow never pretended to be fair and balanced. She is a militant lesbian activist and her entire thought process is skewed toward that end. The radical left has become emboldened since the left wing democrat governor of NY told Americans that certain right wing segments of society would not be welcomed in the Empire State and the left wing senator from NY launched into a tirade directed at innocent people who call themselves Tea Party members. The line has been drawn on the concrete and the hatred on the left is oozing up like a putrid slime.



This.

Many people on the left don't realize how dangerous the rhetoric of their leaders has become. It's only one step to genocide in New York.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 24, 2014)

The Fox girls are on a vendetta, not Maddow.


----------



## Spiderman (Jan 24, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> The Fox girls are on a vendetta, not Maddow.



Yeah but the fox girls are all better looking than maddow.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 24, 2014)

Spiderman said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The Fox girls are on a vendetta, not Maddow.
> ...



Yup.  Maddow is OK but those girls are hot.  Or so my sons tell me.  They also say the would not be seen in public with them if they were going to talk.


----------



## Pennywise (Jan 24, 2014)

Truthmatters said:


> she hates your party like every patriotic American does.
> 
> You cheat and its proven
> 
> ...



Stop spamming the board you shut-in. You really ought to seek professional help.


----------



## bodecea (Jan 24, 2014)

Spiderman said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The Fox girls are on a vendetta, not Maddow.
> ...



Eye of the Beholder and all that.


----------



## Yurt (Jan 24, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> The Fox girls are on a vendetta, not Maddow.



why am i not surprised jake is on the side of liberals once again.


----------



## bodecea (Jan 24, 2014)

Yurt said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The Fox girls are on a vendetta, not Maddow.
> ...



Oh dear.   This is serious!


----------



## shart_attack (Jan 24, 2014)

She's a bully, and she sucks.


----------



## Sallow (Jan 24, 2014)

The2ndAmendment said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > Maddow never pretended to be fair and balanced. She is a militant lesbian activist and her entire thought process is skewed toward that end. The radical left has become emboldened since the left wing democrat governor of NY told Americans that certain right wing segments of society would not be welcomed in the Empire State and the left wing senator from NY launched into a tirade directed at innocent people who call themselves Tea Party members. The line has been drawn on the concrete and the hatred on the left is oozing up like a putrid slime.
> ...





Hyperbole much?


----------



## Yurt (Jan 24, 2014)

bodecea said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



if you say so


----------



## Nosmo King (Jan 24, 2014)

shart_attack said:


> She's a bully, and she sucks.


Two words: Rush Limbaugh.

How's that for a paradigm of bullying?


----------



## bodecea (Jan 24, 2014)

Yurt said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Yurt said:
> ...



I'm just getting my cue from you....going on and on and on and on about this.   Ergo, a serious serious business!


----------



## blastoff (Jan 24, 2014)

Pennywise said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > she hates your party like every patriotic American does.
> ...



That or go back to school and learn a bit about the language _your_ barely able to communicate in.


----------



## bodecea (Jan 24, 2014)

shart_attack said:


> She's a bully, and she sucks.



Awwwwwwwwwww, pobrecito.


----------



## Yurt (Jan 24, 2014)

bodecea said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



seems you're the one taking this seriously.  i'm just toying with jake and proving daily that he is a democrat.


----------



## Antares (Jan 24, 2014)

Truthmatters said:


> she hates your party like every patriotic American does.
> 
> You cheat and its proven
> 
> ...



You need to get laid kid, you're a strange duck.


----------



## TooTall (Jan 24, 2014)

Sarah G said:


> Nope, she's completely in control.  Rachel is doing some in depth reporting and research on the stories of the day lately.  You may not want to hear about your corrupt governors but I do.



Since I rarely watch MSNBC and you are concerned about corrupt Governors, has Maddow  commented on any of these mentioned in this article?



> *Gov. Timothy M. Kaine,* a Democrat, accepted an $18,000 Caribbean vacation last year, putting him atop the list of Virginia elected officials who in 2005 accepted nearly $315,000 in gifts, trips, concert tickets and other gratuities from corporations, interest groups and wealthy persons.
> 
> The newly elected governors winter getaway on Mustique  a private island playground for rock stars and royalty  was paid for by Albemarle County investor James B. Murray Jr.
> 
> ...



Virginia's Long Tradition of Expensive Gifts to Governors | National Review Online


----------



## thanatos144 (Jan 24, 2014)

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


----------



## NLT (Jan 24, 2014)

bodecea said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Better go get those kilts outta of the dry cleaners


----------



## rdean (Jan 24, 2014)

Sallow said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > she hates your party like every patriotic American does.
> ...



I've never seen her "freak out" like Ann Coulter or Laura Ingram.  But then again, I'm not sure what right wingers mean by "freak out".  They insist Obama is manic, weak, a tyrant, stupid, over educated.  He's like all things to all Republicans.  Strange for a man nicknamed "no drama" Obama.  
I have never seen her rude to any guest.  Holler, yell, act nervous.

And, I seem to remember when the Crispie story wasn't very big.  It seemed no one else was reporting it but her.


----------



## rdean (Jan 24, 2014)

thanatos144 said:


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



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


----------



## protectionist (Jan 24, 2014)

Sarah G said:


> Nope, she's completely in control.  Rachel is doing some in depth reporting and research on the stories of the day lately.  You may not want to hear about your corrupt governors but I do.



I wouldn't say "completely".. While I do agree with her some of the time, I can't forget one of the rare instances when MSNBC actually had a conservative on, and Rachel was a beast.  It was her "interview" with Dan Stein of FAIR, and she was disingenuous (to say the least), she purposely dodged the critical sub-topics of the immigration issue, and instead just ranted on about one of the founders of FAIR, and some racist things he said back in the 1950s.  She monopolized the air time, and just kept yammering on. I'd say she spoke about 95% of the time, to Stein's 5%, and most of that was incomplete, interrupted sentences.  It was outrageous.

  Here was a rare opportunity for MSNBC watchers to get some really important  information and insight into the immigration issue, from one of the top analysts of it, and Rachel did everything she could to obstruct, and prevent that from happening.  I suppose that was her plan.


----------



## thanatos144 (Jan 24, 2014)

rdean said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > I dont watch her show....I cant stand to look at women trying to look like men. Penis envy is disturbing.
> ...



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


----------



## Nosmo King (Jan 24, 2014)

thanatos144 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


You take pride that you cannot accept information from a woman you don't find attractive?  Odd what passes for virtue these days!  

I can only watch swimsuit models!  Any other woman must be suspect due to her appearance!

And you take pride in that?  I'm guessing that you would be easily distracted by bright shiny things.


----------



## Antares (Jan 24, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Spiderman said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Geeezus Jake Maddow looks just like Fred Savage from the Wonder Years...


----------



## thanatos144 (Jan 24, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...


I accept information from many women what madcow gives is not information it is lies created by a deep hate of men.


----------



## Nosmo King (Jan 24, 2014)

thanatos144 said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


And how did you come to that conclusion?  According to your very own words:



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



Now what is it?  You can only watch beauty pageant winners?  You are fearful of Lesbians?  You watch the show avidly and you came to your unique conclusion?  Or are you just another knuckle dragging idiot who says something typically stupid and then, after you're called on it, you run away from it?

The ball, as it were, is in your court.


----------



## thanatos144 (Jan 24, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



your stupidity is astounding


----------



## Nosmo King (Jan 24, 2014)

thanatos144 said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


Ahh!  You chose the last option I proffered.  At least your cards are on the table.  Intellectually, you are holding the 6 of clubs, the 8 of diamonds, the deuce of spades, the 9 of hearts and the 4 of clubs.  You should have folded before I raised.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 24, 2014)

Sallow said:


> Really?
> 
> He just fired several high ranking members of his administration.
> 
> ...



Well, thankfully things like professional investigators, evidence and courts can see that what appears on the surface may not be what is going on.

For instance, another way of interpreting what you just said is that maybe Christie fired several high-ranking members of his administration for what he saw as impropriaties or even foul play.  And his joking is a way of "moving on" from the scandal.  Like "let's not make such a big deal about it".

On the one hand it is a big deal for someone to have maliciously closed lanes during rush hour.  Or stuff like that happens all the time without a spotlight on it.

On the other hand too, it's a bit weird that the AG in Virginia just announced s/he wouldn't be enforcing the ban on gay marriage there....just after the Gov of Virginia was forced to step down...just after Maddow went on another rampage screaming afoul of him accepting gifts from people who later turned out to have gotten advantages from him, allegedly.

The point is that the man is unconvicted still of crimes that every politician since the dawn of human history has committed.  Are we really supposed to be that up in arms about those types of things?  Or is this a witch hunt with a convenient ending [see the sudden switch in the AG of Virginia on gay marriage]...  Do we convict and destroy careers before a trial has even happened, by whipping up public outrage from a pulpit on mainstream media over really mediocre crimes?  This type of thing happens at Fox News too.  

My point is in all this, we have a country to run.  If we are mired in these trivial-scandals, firing people right and left, all that will be brave enough to run for office will be even more and more villainous creeps who aren't as scared of the Maddow-treatment as their predecessors were.  And then we are heading towards very dark times indeed.  This is why France and other more mature countries who have "seen it all" are stunned by this type of public crucifying without a trial; or even with a trial.  The Bill Clinton/Lewinsky scandal damaged the country.  Who did that damage was not Bill Clinton, unless he is the first president to ever have an extramarital affair while in office.  The damage was done by the witch hunters who took away a great sitting president from his job to the detriment of the country and smeared the entire name of the democratic party in the doing.

At some point people need to STOP and think of the good of the country instead of their extreme political agendas.  People don't like gay marriage.  Duck Dynasty and Chic Fil A spelled that out clearly.  A million hits on the "boycott A&E" page within hours of their announcement they retracted later to suspend Phil Robertson from the show.

The numbers are just not in for gay marriage; which, with respect to this thread's theme, is at the heart of it all.

Face it, [I believe Maddow has], when Christie gets elected, that house of cards will collapse and I believe she knows it.  Hence the witchunt.  The only trouble is that this country needs a man with the grit and tenacity of Christie to shape things up.  Would be a shame to throw the baby out with the bathwater, providing there is even dirty bathwater...THE JURY IS STILL OUT.


----------



## thanatos144 (Jan 24, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


I have watched her show stupid fuck I choose not to anymore because she is a man hating harpy that lies all the fucking time.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Jan 24, 2014)

Intelligence and integrity. Period.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 24, 2014)

> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Really?
> ...



One more thing...

Does anyone know anything about the new AG in Utah that was "suddenly' replaced on the eve of the Utah v gay marriage lawsuit?  JakeStarkey seems to know him but is reluctant to post on his creditials it seems.

And, about those chic fil a and Duck Dynasty numbers...I think the democratic party is making a collosal mistake branding itself with the gay, and the tactics employed by them to force their agenda on people who quite clearly don't want anything to do with the cult.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 24, 2014)

Yurt said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The Fox girls are on a vendetta, not Maddow.
> ...



I recognize the truth, Yurt, not politics.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 24, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Does anyone know anything about the new AG in Utah that was "suddenly' replaced on the eve of the Utah v gay marriage lawsuit?  JakeStarkey seems to know him but is reluctant to post on his creditials it seems.



Now you resort to untruths.  The link was sent to you this morning.  And it has been posted on the Utah Local News - Salt Lake City News, Sports, Entertainment, Business - The Salt Lake Tribune link.

You are merely being pissy because you know your hetero-fascism is going to lose out.


----------



## Sallow (Jan 24, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Really?
> ...



You're kind of all over the map here..and it's not really worth addressing non-sequitur issues.

So to focus.

Maddow did a story on Christie's bridge closing.

Officials appointed by Christie said it was a "traffic study".

The Port Authority was not aware of the study.

The Christie administration then said they were unaware of the study.

They then joked about it.

Then, when the story got hot, Christie apologized and fired several top people from his administration.

They've lawyered up.

To be sure, unless there is something like a recording out there..I basically think that Christie is relatively safe as governor.

But this probably dashes his hopes for the White House. And if this is how he acts?

That's probably a good thing.


----------



## Yurt (Jan 24, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...





maddow is the truth and not politics....

you're fracking insane, literally


----------



## Political Junky (Jan 24, 2014)

Sarah G said:


> Nope, she's completely in control.  Rachel is doing some in depth reporting and research on the stories of the day lately.  You may not want to hear about your corrupt governors but I do.


Exactly, as much as the Right bitches about Rachel, they can't cite anything she said that's untrue.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 24, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



The 2/3rds majority in Utah who voted their faith on not allowing gay marriage would say the same thing.  Who's truth do we decide upon?


----------



## Politico (Jan 24, 2014)

She has always been out of control like most Leftytards. But I imagine not having viewers anymore tends to make her more upset.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 24, 2014)

Sallow said:


> You're kind of all over the map here..and it's not really worth addressing non-sequitur issues.
> 
> So to focus.
> 
> ...



Mission accomplished.  Can you say "defamation"?  What proof do you have that Christie's career as a Whitehouse hopeful is fair to "dash" without a conviction?  The gays like to frighten politicians with threats of lawsuits and actual lawsuits.  What if Christie decided to file one on his own?  Or does the gay have something on him and "know" he won't do that?  Can you now say "extortion"?  If I was Christie, I'd call them out and make them put their cards on the table.  If it is shown anyone is extorting him, maybe he could not be in the Whitehouse, but he sure could pave the way for an absolute victory there for the GOP and possibly a landslide for that party too in 2014..?

For those keeping track, 63% of our voters here believe Maddow is out bullying conservatives and destroying careers.


----------



## Political Junky (Jan 24, 2014)

Spiderman said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > I just thought I'd throw that out there.  She seems a bit manic these days and out on a if-you-are-conservative,-I'm-going-to-punish-you-severely,-destroy-you,-ruin -your-career kick.  You can tell when she's a bit manic because she stutters more.  It seems anyway that she has a speech issue that gets worse when she's keyed up, or worried about something?
> ...


You might want to check with Christie and McDonnell. Rachel started the probes into both those scandals.


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 24, 2014)

they don't like real journalists


----------



## Howey (Jan 24, 2014)

edthecynic said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > I just thought I'd throw that out there.  She seems a bit manic these days and out on a "if you are conservative, I'm going to punish you severely, destroy you, ruin your career" kick.  You can tell when she's a bit manic because she stutters more.  It seems anyway that she has a speech issue that gets worse when she's keyed up, or worried about something?
> ...




Poor, poor Silhouette. He/she/it really needs to come out of the closet and embrace his/her/it's love of same sex relations.


----------



## Politico (Jan 24, 2014)

Truthmatters said:


> they don't like real journalists



None of them are journalists.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 24, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Yurt said:
> ...



That was some years ago, Sil, and the recent poll was a 48/48 split.

We decide the truth by the Constitution, Sil, not by Jacksonian democratic majority.


----------



## bodecea (Jan 24, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...


Does that in any way surprise you?   It shouldn't.   FOX knows their clientele very well.


----------



## bodecea (Jan 24, 2014)

Nosmo King said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



There is a great deal of fear of lesbians out there.   Men who cannot stand that a woman would not need them, would not automatically desire to have a man.   They are very afraid and insecure about that.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 24, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> That was some years ago, Sil, and the recent poll was a 48/48 split.
> 
> We decide the truth by the Constitution, Sil, not by Jacksonian democratic majority.



We should discuss this on another thread but I'll bite here for a moment:

Then gays should be fine with states determining if gay marriage is legal or not and simply lobby voters through the media to promote their cause.  48/48 and just an ad or two here or there and you should be able to legalize gay marriage in Utah, the legal way and not the illegal way.  A cult has to impress voters.  Members of a race don't.  That's how the 14th works.


----------



## blackhawk (Jan 24, 2014)

Who is Rachael Maddow?


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 24, 2014)

bodecea said:


> There is a great deal of fear of lesbians out there.   Men who cannot stand that a woman would not need them, would not automatically desire to have a man.   They are very afraid and insecure about that.



I actually knew a young gal who is afraid of lesbians for another reason.  She was stalked by one relentlessly and urged to "convert".  She was drug raped by her numerous times and the lesbian infiltrated her relationship with a man to destroy it by black gossip of him, of her, alternately, until indeed the relationship ended.

This girl, a victim of lesbian stalking is now "confused" "bisexual".  She wasn't before the stalking episode.  She was quite grounded in her preference for guys.  So she now has no relationship, is broken and remains quite fearful of lesbians in general.  The lesbian stalker also preached relentlessly in the girl group that hung out in their circle that anyone who was into boys was "stupid/crazy/wrong/etc." and this lesbian spared no opportunity to berate her friends if they were interested in or seeing a guy.  The words "peer pressure" don't do justice to this lesbian's mission: to convert.  No ifs, ands or buts. 

This is just one reason why I call the LGBT movement a cult.  Then you can just watch a theatrical version of their mission statement: The Rocky Horror Picture Show.  This young gal actually lived a live version of that show and now has the psychological scars for life to prove it.


----------



## Howey (Jan 24, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> We should discuss this on another thread



Let's not, ok? Take your deranged ramblings elsewhere.


----------



## Howey (Jan 24, 2014)

NTG said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > We should discuss this on another thread
> ...







Silhouette said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > There is a great deal of fear of lesbians out there.   Men who cannot stand that a woman would not need them, would not automatically desire to have a man.   They are very afraid and insecure about that.
> ...



Case in point. I've "known" you longer than the folks on here. I also know your "true" stories are mere figments of an insane mind.


----------



## bodecea (Jan 24, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > There is a great deal of fear of lesbians out there.   Men who cannot stand that a woman would not need them, would not automatically desire to have a man.   They are very afraid and insecure about that.
> ...




That is pretty horrible and I hope the perpetrator was caught and punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Now, that being said....does having girls/women stalked and raped by men make you feel that straight men are part of a cult too?

BTW:  Finding a "mission statement" thru musicals...what an interesting concept.   Do we find a mission statement of barbers by Sweeney Todd?  How about a mission statement of nuns by The Sound of Music?


----------



## Rozman (Jan 24, 2014)

Truthmatters said:


> Just last year your right wing packed scotus wouldn't even defend your fucking cheating
> 
> 
> what does EVERY right winger in the country do?
> ...



If we have a right wing packed SCOTUS....
How is it they gave the OK to this piece of crap called ObamaCare?....

I can't wait to see your answer....
Take your time...


----------



## Synthaholic (Jan 24, 2014)

Truthmatters said:


> Then the people will win and the cheaters can be put in prison where they belong


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

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


----------



## Synthaholic (Jan 24, 2014)

Indeependent said:


> *Her audience isn't big enough *to warrant any level of concern.
> She is well credentialed but her Abortion and Same Sex shtick bores me to tears.




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


----------



## Synthaholic (Jan 24, 2014)

*MSNBC Tops Fox News in Primetime Demo*

         By Jordan Chariton on January 10, 2014 5:11 PM







MSNBC  drew a victory in primetime last night, beating Fox News in the A25-54  demographic by 37,000 viewers, the networks first primetime demo win in  over a year. MSNBC had 348,000 viewers in the demo compared to Fox  News 311,000. CNN and HLN followed with 250,000 and 141,000 demo  viewers, respectively.


----------



## Rozman (Jan 24, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > *Her audience isn't big enough *to warrant any level of concern.
> ...



The Gay market share?...


----------



## bodecea (Jan 24, 2014)

Rozman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...



Apparently we are more powerful than we thought.   Interesting.


----------



## theHawk (Jan 24, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> *MSNBC Tops Fox News in Primetime Demo*
> 
> By Jordan Chariton on January 10, 2014 5:11 PM
> 
> ...



You're delusional...



> *Fox News was still far out front in total viewers for primetime, beating MSNBC by over a million viewers *(2,157,000 vs. 1,143,000).


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 24, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > That was some years ago, Sil, and the recent poll was a 48/48 split.
> ...



Nope, they don't have to abide by a majority if it conflicts with the guidance given by SCOTUS.

That is why Amendment 3 was overturned.

Sotomayor granted the stay and encouraged SCOTUS to support that, as she builds her majority for marriage by Amendment IV of the Constitution.

Once again, democratic majority cannot set aside civil liberties.

Your civil and religious liberties do not empower the setting aside other's civil liberties.

Tis what tis.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 24, 2014)

_I actually knew a young gal who is afraid of lesbians for another reason. She was stalked by one relentlessly and urged to "convert"._ 

And amongst all of us on USMessageBoard, I bet we can come up with ten thousand girls who have been stalked by heterosexuals.

Sil, argue coherently, please.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jan 24, 2014)

Rozman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


Oh, definitely that demographic.

Along with the most highly prized demographic.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jan 24, 2014)

theHawk said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > *MSNBC Tops Fox News in Primetime Demo*
> ...




How am I delusional?  I said MSNBC won in the most important demographic.

Show me where I'm wrong.


----------



## Antares (Jan 24, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > *Her audience isn't big enough *to warrant any level of concern.
> ...



*Net 9PM P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s) 
FOXN KELLY FILE, THE                   2,750                410               869 
CNN CNN FILMS PRESENTS            474                164               246 
MSNB Rachel Maddow Show            1,221                345               619 
CNBC AMERICAN GREED                241                 92               101 
HLN Dr. Drew ON CALL                385                127               194 
*

Nope.


----------



## Antares (Jan 24, 2014)

*Net 9PM P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s) 
FOXN KELLY FILE, THE 2152 273 646 
CNN PIERS MORGAN LIVE 511 130 237 
MSNB Rachel Maddow Show 1083 273 517 
CNBC AMERICAN GREED 186 77 92 
HLN Dr. Drew ON CALL 353 106 188 
*


----------



## Antares (Jan 24, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



I just posted yesterday and last Friday, Maddow wasn't even close.


----------



## TooTall (Jan 24, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> *MSNBC Tops Fox News in Primetime Demo*
> 
> By Jordan Chariton on January 10, 2014 5:11 PM
> 
> ...



I call BS!



> When the new Fox News program The Kelly Files trounced The Rachel Maddow Show in the ratings last Tuesday, MSNBC president Phil Griffin actually called for an investigation into the matter.
> The good folks at Nielsen complied, and according to New York's Daily News, Griffin is once again looking foolish:
> Nielsen has conducted an investigation into the ratings for Megyn Kelly&#8217;s new Fox News Channel show, &#8220;The Kelly File,&#8221; following grousing by MSNBC chief Phil Griffin.
> The investigation has revealed that the numbers for Kelly are accurate.
> ...



Read more: Nielsen: Fox's Megyn Kelly Really Did Trounce MSNBC's Maddow in Ratings Last Tuesday | NewsBusters


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 24, 2014)

Guys on both sides, check your numbers again, please.

The issue is "prime time'.

Isolate that, then compare.


----------



## SteveJa (Jan 24, 2014)

Never have been a big fan of hers


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jan 24, 2014)

Maddow is terrific. 
Smart and very politically savvy.

And, the right is terrified of her. 

Yep. Works for me. 

(Well, except for that little detail that she's a vampire.)


----------



## Synthaholic (Jan 24, 2014)

Antares said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Indeependent said:
> ...


I posted the article.  Here's the link.  Knock yourself out.

MSNBC Tops Fox News in Primetime Demo - TVNewser


----------



## Synthaholic (Jan 24, 2014)

TooTall said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > *MSNBC Tops Fox News in Primetime Demo*
> ...


You fucking retard - that's from last October!


----------



## Antares (Jan 24, 2014)

Kelly has more total viewership, Syn is simply cherry picking 1 demographic.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jan 24, 2014)

Antares said:


> Kelly has more total viewership, Syn is simply cherry picking 1 demographic.


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

As I said from the beginning.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jan 24, 2014)

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


----------



## WillowTree (Jan 24, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



:funny face: I fucking love it. TM beat at her own game, Diarrhea of the mouth before she even knew who she was addressing.


----------



## Antares (Jan 24, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


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



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


----------



## SmedlyButler (Jan 24, 2014)

Truthmatters said:


> Supreme Court denies RNC bid to end voter fraud consent decree - Los Angeles Times
> 
> 
> your traitors to this country for ignoring this



Who's ignoring it and if they did why would it make them a traitor?


----------



## TooTall (Jan 24, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...





> *the networks first primetime demo win in over a year*.


  That is really impressive to a retard.


----------



## SmedlyButler (Jan 24, 2014)

Do us a favor

If you are a Democrat could you kind of keep that to yourself...at least until the hallucinogen wears off?


----------



## mamooth (Jan 24, 2014)

From a group that supposedly doesn't care about Maddow, there's now 9 pages of Maddow Derangement Syndrome on display. Go fig.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jan 24, 2014)

Antares said:


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




My original post:



Synthaholic said:


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



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


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 24, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Kelly has more total viewership, Syn is simply cherry picking 1 demographic.
> ...



And the million hits on "boycott A&E" on Facebook in mere hours after the page was set up to protest suspending Phil Robertson from Duck Dynasty?  The lines wrapping around the block at Chic Fil A's across the country?

Do you pay attention to those demographics?


----------



## protectionist (Jan 24, 2014)

blackhawk said:


> who is rachael maddow?



*your worst nightmare!!*


----------



## Political Junky (Jan 24, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Kelly has more total viewership, Syn is simply cherry picking 1 demographic.
> ...


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


----------



## blackhawk (Jan 24, 2014)

protectionist said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> > who is rachael maddow?
> ...



No my worst nightmare is that the disco craze did not die.


----------



## dannyboys (Jan 25, 2014)

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


----------



## thanatos144 (Jan 25, 2014)

bodecea said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



You mean the majority of those watching cable news in the USA?


----------



## thanatos144 (Jan 25, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Then the people will win and the cheaters can be put in prison where they belong
> ...



That right there is the problem... You actually believe republicans do as Madcow does...


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 25, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> Anytime Republicans get a taste of their own medicine, and tactics, they go all victim.
> 
> If Rachel is uncovering criminality, those careers do not deserve saving.



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

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

Think about it.  Do you suppose Maddow made it where she is by not stepping on anyone?  By not throwing a favor or two to someone in exchange for something she may not have otherwise been entitled to?  Maybe she's fudged on her resume' once or twice in her life?  Maybe not.  Maybe she's as pure as the driven snow and made it all the way to where she is by always being kind, always being honest, always being forthright...

This country needs its Wendy Davis and Chris Christie and their ilk to be interested in and go for politics.  They are a rare breed.  Another person with the zeal, grit and dedication to what he believes in but who also was nitpicked for being male was Anthony Weiner.  Another, Bill Clinton.

Anthony Weiner, Bill Clinton, Wendy Davis and Chris Christie all have that uncommon edge; that devotion to this country and its viability into the future as a whole nation, sane, sober, reasonable.  They are passionate about what they believe and stand up to opposition.  You have to admire them because they have a spine and the tenacity to back it up.  Another one that comes to mind is Rand Paul.  Even if you don't like what they are for, you have to admire that they come with true grit.  And every time one of them is drummed out of a career by some holier-than-thou media witch hunt, the American public and our country's integrity in fact, go out the door.

If you have a top-notch engineer working for your company, you don't let his extramarital affair or his fudging a little on his resume' or his having gotten some perks in exchange for giving them to others or if he was showing his whanger to a gal he liked on the internet, interfere with his good and productive work at your firm.  You can warn him to shape up, but if you drum him out and others like him one after the other, pretty soon human beings will stop applying for your "talented engineer wanted" ads you have to run in the papers every 4-6 years.  

Extreme agendas on both sides of the spectrum are the ones doing the worst damage in this way.  People subscribing to extreme beliefs are almost always irrational and can't see the greater good of anything beyond their cause.  So they mow down good people who even hint at disagreeing with their stance and accept collateral damage like Wendy Davis' career ruined, all because in their mind they have rationalized that "anything is worth getting what I want".  We've seen characters like that in history.  And with very few exceptions, our recollections of them have not been warm and fuzzy.

What are we really losing in all this?


----------



## bodecea (Jan 25, 2014)

Political Junky said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



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


----------



## bodecea (Jan 25, 2014)

dannyboys said:


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



Ah, another one who has been beaten out in life, love, work, etc by a woman...or perhaps several women.


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 25, 2014)

SmedlyButler said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Supreme Court denies RNC bid to end voter fraud consent decree - Los Angeles Times
> ...



the scotus said your party cheats and needs to continue being punished for it.



cheating in elections is traitorous.


if you back the R party after seeing this decision your a traitor to democracy


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 25, 2014)

dannyboys said:


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



and Robmoney won by 5% huh


----------



## Synthaholic (Jan 25, 2014)

Silhouette said:


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




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


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 25, 2014)

his hard on for fat pols


----------



## thanatos144 (Jan 25, 2014)

Truthmatters said:


> his hard on for fat pols



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


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 25, 2014)

are you fucking insane?

how is that racist?


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 25, 2014)

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


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


----------



## thanatos144 (Jan 25, 2014)

Truthmatters said:


> are you fucking insane?
> 
> how is that racist?



calling someone a pol short for pollock you racist bitch.


----------



## Dot Com (Jan 25, 2014)

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


----------



## thanatos144 (Jan 25, 2014)

Dot Com said:


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



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


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 25, 2014)

bodecea said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...


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


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 25, 2014)

Dot Com said:


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



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

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

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


----------



## Political Junky (Jan 25, 2014)

thanatos144 said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > are you fucking insane?
> ...


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


----------



## Synthaholic (Jan 25, 2014)

bodecea said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...


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


----------



## rdean (Jan 25, 2014)

thanatos144 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



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


----------



## mamooth (Jan 25, 2014)

Silhouette said:


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



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

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


----------



## Synthaholic (Jan 25, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > her pointing-out inconsistencies/hypocrites on the Right is wrong how exactly?
> ...



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

It's called journalism.

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




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



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




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




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

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


----------



## Synthaholic (Jan 25, 2014)

Political Junky said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...


thermos is pretty fucking stupid.


----------



## Antares (Jan 25, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



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

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


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 26, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...



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

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

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


----------



## Sarah G (Jan 26, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



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

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


----------



## dannyboys (Jan 26, 2014)

Truthmatters said:


> Christy is a shit head who is willing to send to prison the people that worked for him to cover his own crimes.
> 
> 
> how many of those people do you think will TURN on him now and out his whole shitpile of lies?


Just watch how many people won't "turn on him". Even the radical LIB talking heads are warning other radical LIB talking heads to be careful b/c if Chritie is found to have done nothing illegal the effort to defame him is going to back-fire and Christie will be even more popular to the voters should he run.
But predictably the simians at MSNBS will NEVER stop trying to smear Christie. You watch Matthew's slobber and scream right up to election day if Christie runs. Should be good for a laugh.
Something to notice on MSNBS: Watch Matthews and the same daily 'guest experts' some time. Look carefully at Matthew's/Corns/Deons/Perry's etc lips. Everyone of these radical LIBs have something in common: They all have some sort of minor speech impediment and they all sort of slather when they talk and they all have very tiny tight lips. Is it the water? Whatever it is if you look carefully you will see for yourself. It's sort of curious.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 26, 2014)

dannyboys said:


> Just watch how many people won't "turn on him". Even the radical LIB talking heads are warning other radical LIB talking heads to be careful b/c if Chritie is found to have done nothing illegal the effort to defame him is going to back-fire and Christie will be even more popular to the voters should he run.
> But predictably the simians at MSNBS will NEVER stop trying to smear Christie. You watch Matthew's slobber and scream right up to election day if Christie runs. Should be good for a laugh.
> Something to notice on MSNBS: Watch Matthews and the same daily 'guest experts' some time. Look carefully at Matthew's/Corns/Deons/Perry's etc lips. Everyone of these radical LIBs have something in common: They all have some sort of minor speech impediment and they all sort of slather when they talk and they all have very tiny tight lips. Is it the water? Whatever it is if you look carefully you will see for yourself. It's sort of curious.



Agreed.  And democratic strategists [providing those two words can exist next to each other logically] should sit up and take note:

Failed attack on Christie + Duck Dynasty/Chic-Fil-A/Prop 8 syndrome = a GOP landslide in 2016 & potentially 2014 as well.  Long ago I posted about the gay albatross that hangs around the neck of the democratic party.  Their main media spokeswoman coming across as a tyrant when state after state is suffering the humiliation and oppression of being told they can't detemine behavioral standards for marriage because "there's a new CULTure in town", means an audible side step to the right of the tens of millions in the middle bloc of pragmatic voters.  People remember their political science classes even if they barely passed them.  When the fundamentals of American democracy [the vote in each state to govern itself] are ripped away, even the dull and ignorant become alarmed.  The people I talk to are far more alarmed about the gay marriage steamroller crushing voters rights and first amendment rights and accessing orphaned children though the loophole of marriage than ever alarmed by everyday hanky panky in politicians on the right or the left.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Jan 26, 2014)

Can't destroy someone is their actions you're bringing to light aren't something they should be destroyed for. If you're innocent, no amount of public revelation will negatively effect you. If you're guilty of something though, having it brought to light isn't illegitimate just because political opposition did it. You're destroyed yourself. That someone found out is your own fault.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jan 26, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



Bull.  She has proclaimed no one guilty.  All of her shows are online, broken down by segment.  Feel free to find her leaping to a conclusion regarding guilt.

The Rachel Maddow Show on msnbc


----------



## Synthaholic (Jan 26, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> dannyboys said:
> 
> 
> > Just watch how many people won't "turn on him". Even the radical LIB talking heads are warning other radical LIB talking heads to be careful b/c if Chritie is found to have done nothing illegal the effort to defame him is going to back-fire and Christie will be even more popular to the voters should he run.
> ...




This is pure bubble thinking.  

#1- the "attack" on Christie has not failed.  There are multiple investigations that will be going on for months.

#2 - a tiny percentage of people in this country watch Duck Dynasty.  Many more watch SpongeBob Squarepants.  Only in Right-Wing Bubble World do these "characters" have any relevance to anything.

#3 - Chik-Fil-A.  Another tiny percentage of Americans give a shit.  Whoop dee do!

#4 - Marriage equality is pretty much a settled issue with the majority of the country supporting it.  Even reddest of all red states Utah is split evenly.

Your victimization schtick doesn't play in Peoria any longer.


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 26, 2014)

they are willing to cheat in elections to win.


they are not fair or honest about anything


they are traitors to our democracy


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 26, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


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



I say we agree to disagree.  I say her demeanor is that of a prosecutor and not a fact finder.  You see it differently.  More importantly, I wonder how the general public sees it.  And even more importantly still, I wonder what its doing to our country, her type of "journalism" on _certain issues _& the Glenn Beckian type as well in the other extreme zealot camp?  

And here's another thing to consider.  It's possible that a lot of people might see Chris Christie's tenacity and grit and willingness to step on, or even _stomp_ on people's toes as _refreshing_ after Barack Kumbayabama.  His weakness is frankly nauseating.  And that effeminant male fad so common now on the far left is equally as nauseating. Chris Christie stands up [and it's not just an act] to both republicans and democrats.  He virtually flipped the GOP the finger when they gave him crap about being kindly and negotiating with Obama for help with Hurricane Sandy.  Remember back then?  Maddow was giving him a nudge, a thumbs up.  I suspect that now that she sees him as a potential threat to the gay agen....er. ..I mean "the democrats" winning 2016, suddenly Christie is the enemy!  I mean, it's pretty transparent.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 26, 2014)

People sometimes assume as we debate that I'm pitching for one party or the other.  I'm not.  What I am is the extreme in both parties' worst nightmare.  I'm a middle voter, not part of the independent party but independent in the sense that I'm a demographic that cannot be nailed down.  We, and there are 10s of millions of us, don't subscribe blindly to a political ilk like it is a religion.  Remember y'all on the far left, you taught us well: just say no to religious thinking.

We need proof.  We are educating ourselves in the media now with a world library on the issues of the day right at our fingertips in the nanosecond we think we want to know about it.  On any given topic we can access 10 different views and opinions.  You might be tempted to say this makes us less able to define where we stand.  I say the opposite.  All the varying opinions sets us back into our own minds for the final say, checking our own inner compass for what makes sense; what is pragmatic.  We are all engaged in one great big debate and things are truly changing.  What may surpise you though is that what may be changing soon is the blind and unchecked "progress" without an end game in sight.  ie: we may be returning to a new/old fashioned type of solid and sane conservativism with a few new things learned along the way.

People are basically grounded folk who want food on the table, to help put it there and to have a society where you can hang your hat on social structures and where people treat you as decently as you treat them.  Things learned along the way would be that blacks or other minorities cannot join in this bucolic serenity-how that is wrong.  On the opposite extreme, we learn that not all behaviors are to be tolerated in the name of liberty.  Some are just patently insane and over the line and do not promote the best welfare of a stable society.

It sounds boring, I know.  Especially to the young.  But there is a new generation popping up behind the millenials that is *done* with all the hype.  They're wanting jobs, they're wanting traditional male-female relationships to be back in vogue, they're wanting to not own or drive cars, they're wanting good healthy food and a clean predictable environment to take days off in.  In short, they're craving a vacuum in our nation: sanity.  They want a sane environment to explore and live in as they age.  That's all anyone really wants when you boil it down.

And that is problematic now for both the extreme political right and political extreme left, their spindoctors, hypnotists and bishops.  The "Middlers" like me only want religion when it makes logical sense for the greater good of the structure of the matrix we all live in.  We want freedom too, when it makes logical sense for the greater good of the structure of the matrix we all live in.  Those are our interests.

Now, woo away or accept what you get at the voting booths.  Just don't say you weren't thrown a bone.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 27, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> This is pure bubble thinking.
> 
> #1- the *"attack"* on Christie has not failed.  There are multiple investigations that will be going on for months.
> 
> ...



As to #1:  Thanks for indicating that "something" "has not failed".  If not an attack, then what is it that hasn't failed yet?  hmm?

As to #2:  The Protest A&E Facebook page got over a million hits in mere hours after it was posted.  Electronic submission is really easy.  So let's say maybe 200 people agree with every 1 person who showed up to like that page.  There's a rule of thumb in politics that for every phone call a politican receives, they assume that there's something like 3,000 people who feel the same way.  Phone calls are relatively easy so we can expand on that number for some type of contact, indication or protest that is more difficult for citizens to pull off.  This brings me to 

#3:  All across the country at the Chic Fil A protest, supporting the CEOs right to free speech to object to gay marriage [an implied rejection of gay marriage in those that showed up].  People didn't just pick up the phone and call their Represntatives.  No, they woke up, showered, drove a distance away to stand in line for hours in the heat, only to be told there were only sodas left or some such by the time they reached the counter...all to show how upset/angry/pissed off they were at gays clamping down on democracy.  Taking the formula of phone calls of 1/3000, just mulitply the heads you see when you do a Google search on "chic fil a protest" in images by more like 10,000, at least, given the difficulties people had to face in the heat, standing line, the drive, lack of parking and still the tenacity to show up and protest the gay steamroller.  Here's just a tiny sample of the many pictures of different Chic Fil As that day that you will find when searching:
















As to #4: Harvey Milk marriage or the church of LGBT marriage is most certainly not a settled issue in the US.  You may have heard that Utah and Oklahoma are fighting it tooth and nail citing Windsor.  You might want to have a read of Windsor when you get a moment to see the gist of how the Court feels about states deciding gay marriage.  They said that the state's role in deciding gay marriage was of central relevance to that case.  Then they went on to cite Loving v Virginia.  Then they went on to say that as of the rendering of the DOMA Opinion, gay marriage was only legal "in some states".  

Pretty sure they're not going to walk that one back within a year's time.  And you know that if Utah prevails, so will California and all other states where gay marraige was forced upon the governed by judicial activists.  And guess what else they said in DOMA?  That a state's "unquestioned authority" under the question and context of approving gay marriage, or not, was retroactive to the founding of the country..  As to #4, don't count your usurping of democracy before it hatches.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 28, 2014)

Truthmatters said:


> they are willing to cheat in elections to win.
> 
> 
> they are not fair or honest about anything
> ...



Are you talking about democrats?  I'm a democrat.  I started this thread.  Look at my signature.  Don't assume that we are all about the far left agenda.  Just as I imagine that there are some republicans who aren't all about fracking.  Especially in the midwest where the destruction of their fresh water sources underground is especially worrisome to them.

Fracking is converting more hardline republicans towards the left.  The gay agenda is converting more hardline liberal towards the right.  Insane trends and policies tend to do that.  When a madman feels complete liberty to mow down the rights of the people who set the standards of sanity and normalcy, there tends to be this threshold that, once crossed, triggers a snap into resistance mode and a visceral repulsion begins.  

It's like a lifesaving mechanism we all have.  Probably traced back to the ancient days when our ancestors had to learn to recognize the early symptoms of rabies in others...or something along those lines.  I wrote this thread because I'm seeing signs of rabies in Rachael Maddow when it comes to the gay agenda.  And while other democrats play along like nothing is wrong, my views are closer to the middle and of a clearer vision.  The rose tint on my glasses isn't as dark.  If you read my signature you become instantly aware how good and decent people of any political affiliation cannot embrace the unembraceable.  Likewise, the good and decent people of any political affiliation cannot embrace fracking.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jan 28, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...




You made an accusation: that she has proclaimed people guilty.  Back up your bullshit.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jan 28, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > This is pure bubble thinking.
> ...


You called it a "failed attack".  Investigations have just begun.  So your comment is ignorant.

Looks like around 50 people at the Steroid Chicken place.  FAIL.


----------



## MarcATL (Jan 28, 2014)

Silhouette, you can't expect to be taken seriously as a true independent when you use partisan talking points.

For instance, labeling something as an "attack" when it's clearly not.

BTW, define attack for me please.

Again, if you use partisan rhetoric on any issue, you can expect to be called a partisan.

At this point, you seem pretty RW based on what you've been posting.

I'll keep my eye on you, as I do to any one that adamantly claim to be independent.

However, most on USMB who's made that claim are pretty damn RW.

Let's see where this goes.


----------



## thanatos144 (Jan 28, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



awww look at you trying to act indignant LOL


----------



## thanatos144 (Jan 28, 2014)

MarcATL said:


> Silhouette, you can't expect to be taken seriously as a true independent when you use partisan talking points.
> 
> For instance, labeling something as an "attack" when it's clearly not.
> 
> ...


Most conservative are not like you. We dont need to lie to follow a agenda. I feel sad for you that your so stupid that you think GLADD and the Democrats care about your Afrocentric extreme views.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 28, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Failed attack on Christie + Duck Dynasty/Chic-Fil-A/Prop 8 syndrome = a GOP landslide in 2016 & potentially 2014 as well.  Long ago I posted about the gay albatross that hangs around the neck of the democratic party.



So you're an anti-gay fanatic, and despise Maddow out of simple bigotry.  Why didn't you just say that at the start, instead of going on and on with this failed "I'm an independent!" charade?


----------



## thanatos144 (Jan 28, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Failed attack on Christie + Duck Dynasty/Chic-Fil-A/Prop 8 syndrome = a GOP landslide in 2016 & potentially 2014 as well.  Long ago I posted about the gay albatross that hangs around the neck of the democratic party.
> ...



Only a fucking retard thinks not capitulating to thug like tactics is anti anything other them anti thug....Oh shit look who I am quoting...Tell me do you lick windows because they taste like clear?


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 28, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Failed attack on Christie + Duck Dynasty/Chic-Fil-A/Prop 8 syndrome = a GOP landslide in 2016 & potentially 2014 as well.  Long ago I posted about the gay albatross that hangs around the neck of the democratic party.
> ...



Actually if you scroll back I said Maddow is a good journalist when it comes to anything but gay really.  I especially like how she keeps her eye on the fracking situation and nuclear power plants.  I'd like it if some network had a 24 hour feed on the very latest of those two horrible mistakes of humanity.

Maddow just has assumed a the role of prosecutor, judge and executioner of people she targets like Christie.  She is pre-emptively destroying careers without the jury coming back in yet.  And I think she does it because she knows who will support gay stuff once Obama is out.  I think she intuits, being smart, that Christie will put the kaibosh on the gay agenda the minute his hand lowers at the swearing in.

I'm not an independent.  I'm a democrat.  I've never voted independent in my life.


----------



## MarcATL (Jan 28, 2014)

thanatos144 said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette, you can't expect to be taken seriously as a true independent when you use partisan talking points.
> ...


Can you tell me what one of my Afrocentic extreme views is?


----------



## thanatos144 (Jan 28, 2014)

MarcATL said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



Lol all of them are you racist 

tapatalk post


----------



## Synthaholic (Jan 28, 2014)

* Is Rachael Maddow Out of Control?  *

Nope!


----------



## Synthaholic (Jan 28, 2014)

drip...drip...drip...


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 29, 2014)

> "well, well, well.  Christie's brother just happened to buy up property near train station before Port Authority announced huge rennovation"



Welcome to politics.  This has never happened before with democrats?  Wasn't it Feinstein in CA whose husband had interest in something and got bennies from her?  Let me see *checks search engine*, 

Oh, yes, here it is:



> WASHINGTON - Many of Sen. Dianne Feinstein's Capitol Hill colleagues want a crackdown on an industry worth hundreds of millions of dollars to her husband, San Francisco financier Richard Blum.
> 
> Blum's private-equity firm, Blum Capital Partners, is the largest stockholder in two of the nation's biggest for-profit college companies, ITT Educational Services Inc. and Career Education Corp., documents at the Securities and Exchange Commission show.
> 
> ...



Wow!  $360 million is a lot of dough.  How much do you suppose Christie's brother's property is worth vs Feinstein's husband's worth?  Is Maddow now going to launch on a campaign to destroy Dianne Feinstein's political career?

Yeah, no.  I didn't think so.  And its this transparent hypocrisy I'm talking about here as the indicator that there's more than just journalism going on in Maddow's bid to destroy Chris Christie.  It's too bad that the GOP returned the volley by casually giving some air time to dash Wendy Davis' hopes in Texas of the Governorship.

This type of escalation for the gay agenda is damaging our country.  The gay agenda will have to stand on its own two feet and be a kinder/gentler movement or it's going to get shut down.  Instead of spending time destroying careers and bullying people into submission, gay media activists should be writing up state ballot initiatives in the states they thought they won for marriage by judicial activism.  If Utah vs Harvey Milk goes how I think it will in the US Supreme Court this year, the only states where gay marriage will be left legal are the ones that had a consensus vote it in.

Got some work to do to "win back" those states.  Spend your time and energy there.  People are getting numb to the dog and pony show of holding out destroyed careers as a warning to other politicians who don't tow the lavender mafia line.  

If you are an LGBT activist, you should know now and plan accordingly that thuggery is going to be a very difficult pitch to voters to get them to like your cause and approve of gay marriage/access to adopt orphans...


----------



## MarcATL (Jan 29, 2014)

thanatos144 said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...


That's what I thought...bupkiss.


lol


----------



## MarcATL (Jan 29, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> > "well, well, well.  Christie's brother just happened to buy up property near train station before Port Authority announced huge rennovation"
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So this is your defense...?

Suggesting that politics is corrupt by nature so this instance of corruption is just business as usual and hence normal/expected?

And pointing out possible corruption from the other side?

Hmmm....good luck with THAT!


lol


----------



## Synthaholic (Jan 29, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> > "well, well, well.  Christie's brother just happened to buy up property near train station before Port Authority announced huge rennovation"
> 
> 
> Welcome to politics.  This has never happened before with democrats?




But you're arguing that Maddow shouldn't be covering it.


----------



## MarcATL (Jan 29, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > > "well, well, well.  Christie's brother just happened to buy up property near train station before Port Authority announced huge rennovation"
> ...


He/they are additionally arguing that her coverage of the topic, and perhaps even focus on it...is akin to an attack.

Interesting thought process these people have...don't they?


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 29, 2014)

MarcATL said:


> So this is your defense...?
> 
> Suggesting that politics is corrupt by nature so this instance of corruption is just business as usual and hence normal/expected?
> 
> ...



No, as you already know, I meant that if Maddow is into destroying careers, she ought to be an equal-opportunity destroyer.  Otherwise it looks like she's destroying with an agenda.  That's just how it looks.

And on the same spirit of your chuckles, is THAT how you respond to finding out about Dianne Feinstein's improprieties that are identical, albeit a bit more ritzy, than the ones just pointed out about Christie's brother?  $360 million?  Is that how much Christie's brother's property near the port authority thing worth too?  More?  Less?  Should we be more or less outraged about Feinstein's husband's "perks" of having a Senator for a wife?


----------



## MarcATL (Jan 29, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > So this is your defense...?
> ...


I'm not familiar with the Feinstein corruption story.

Why isn't FOXNEWS covering it?

Why isn't it resonating with the American People if it's so bad?

Again, I'll share with you a little unwritten law in politics that goes...

"Don't do anything corrupted that the American People can easily understand."

Everyone understands traffic jams....EVERYONE!

Start a thread about the Feinstein situation, see if it sticks.


----------



## bodecea (Jan 29, 2014)

thanatos144 said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



You don't have a clue how to answer him, do you?


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 29, 2014)

MarcATL said:


> I'm not familiar with the Feinstein corruption story.
> 
> *Why isn't FOXNEWS covering it?*
> 
> ...



I've got an even better question for you.  Why isn't Rachael Maddow covering it?

And...we return full circle to the OP of this thread.  It is because "_Everyone understands traffic jams...EVERYONE_!" has just underscored my point about Maddow's attack of Christie being a political weapon.  What you just said without realizing it, I'm sure, is that more viewers could be whipped into rage for politically expedient purposes [to crucify a 2016 hopeful before his bid even got off the ground, likely because he won't support the gay agenda], if the "crime" was a traffic jam instead of funnelling $360 million of taxpayer's money to Feinstein's husband via her influence on legislation that benefitted him....presuming that's what happened.  But we'll never know how bad that was in Feinstein's case, will we?  Not on MSNBC for sure.  And that's because it's hard to shove forward the gay agenda when a main proponent of that agenda gets dethroned for political improprieties...

And again, the bigger question in all this, backing way up into outer space and looking down on our little parasite colony here, how good is this for the political situation on earth to destroy good, gritty "doer" politicians who want the system to work right all for some petty Harvey Milk campaign?  

An aside:  What's really weird is that Feinstein knew Milk well, worked with him and was friends with him.  I think she's the one who actually discovered his body when their fellow democrat shot both Milk and I think the Mayor at the time dead.  From what I understand, Feinstein then got the mayorship of San Francisco because she was the president of the supervisors.  More on that here: http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-control-dianne-feinstein-milk-moscone-2013-4


----------



## swordandscale (Jan 29, 2014)

She ain't that bad


----------



## MarcATL (Jan 29, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not familiar with the Feinstein corruption story.
> ...


The question still stands...

Why isn't FOXNEWS investigating this alleged scandal if it's as bad as you claim it is.

Sounds like low-hanging fruit. And that being the case FOXNEWS would be ALL over it.

Things that make me go "Hmmmmm......!"


----------



## Synthaholic (Jan 29, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > So this is your defense...?
> ...



Agenda?  She's never hidden the fact that she's a Liberal anymore than Hannity hid that he was a wingnut.

Didn't Right-Wing media cover Anthony Weiner 'gleefully'?  Yes, I do believe they did.  Same with Eliot Spitzer.




> And on the same spirit of your chuckles, is THAT how you respond to finding out about Dianne Feinstein's improprieties that are identical, albeit a bit more ritzy, than the ones just pointed out about Christie's brother?  $360 million?  Is that how much Christie's brother's property near the port authority thing worth too?  More?  Less?  Should we be more or less outraged about Feinstein's husband's "perks" of having a Senator for a wife?




Convince Darrell Issa to investigate.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 30, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> Agenda?  She's never hidden the fact that she's a Liberal anymore than Hannity hid that he was a wingnut.



There's a fallicy in your premise.  "Liberal" is not and should not be synonymous with "rabidly pro gay agenda"..  It's going to destroy the democratic platform.  The votes we will lose because of it will topple all the other good and vastly more important issues than a cult and it's striving to get to be able to adopt kids without challenge [marriage]..


----------



## bayoubill (Jan 30, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Is Rachael Maddow Out of Control?




Seriously, does anybody anymore give a flying fuck about whatever that crazy-ass agenda-driven bitchcunt does any more...?


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 30, 2014)

bayoubill said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Is Rachael Maddow Out of Control?
> ...



I think Chris Christie cares.  That's the point of this thread.  Nice picture of Zappa by the way..lol..


----------



## Synthaholic (Jan 30, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Agenda?  She's never hidden the fact that she's a Liberal anymore than Hannity hid that he was a wingnut.
> ...




Oh!  This thread is all about your concern for the Democratic Party.  Well, that's touching, and very sweet.

Thanks for the advice.  We Liberals will take it under advisement.  Bye-bye!


----------



## Synthaholic (Jan 30, 2014)

bayoubill said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Is Rachael Maddow Out of Control?
> ...


She's no more agenda-driven than anyone in the Right-Wing media.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 30, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> She's no more agenda-driven than anyone in the Right-Wing media.



Two wrongs don't make a right.  She's been compared, fairly so, to Glenn Beck.  That's not something I'd want on my resume'.  Glenn Beck I noticed apologized for his divisiveness just a day or two ago.  So, he's got one up on her in cred factor.  Not that I'm saying he is sane at all.  What he did was reprehensible.  I think he and Sarah Palin were instrumental in egging on the twisted mind that shot Gabby Giffords.  The madness has to stop some time.

This country doesn't have time for it.  I'm a registered democrat BTW.  Voted blue straight down the line for decades, when you were probably in diapers bro; or before you were born even?


----------



## MarcATL (Jan 30, 2014)

You should be smacked about the face for even SUGGESTING that Rachel Maddow is in any way, shape or form similar to Glenn Beck.


In fact, tell you what....


*WHAPS!!!!*


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 30, 2014)

MarcATL said:


> You should be smacked about the face for even SUGGESTING that Rachel Maddow is in any way, shape or form similar to Glenn Beck.



I didn't make the original comparison.  Rolling Stone and apparently Maddow's _own producers did_..



> Maddow's skills are different: She strives not for the expression of political anger but for its suppression, to distance herself from the partisan debate rather than engage it, to steward progressive fury into a world of certainty, of charts, graphs, statistics, a real world that matters and that the political debate can't corrupt. *Maddow's producers say, unexpectedly, that the closest analog for her style as a broadcaster is Glenn Beck, whose abilities as a performer she very much admires*. Though their worldviews could not be more different, Maddow and Beck both attempt to pull off a similar trick: to reflect and redirect their audience's rage at politics without succumbing to it.
> 
> Read more: Rachel Maddow's Quiet War | Politics News | Rolling Stone




I think it's a fair and accurate comparison actually.


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 30, 2014)

Toro said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > the SCOTUS thinks you should be punished
> ...



why did the SCOTUS not save your party if they are not guilty?


----------



## Truthmatters (Jan 30, 2014)

bayoubill said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Is Rachael Maddow Out of Control?
> ...



most people realize she sticks to facts.

except of course the people like you who even deny SCOTUS decisions you don't like


----------



## Edgetho (Jan 30, 2014)

MarcATL said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



What difference, at this point, does it make?


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 30, 2014)

Truthmatters said:


> bayoubill said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



Engaging the strawman for a moment, what decisions?  I can tell you the one I don't like the most: "Citizen's United".


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 30, 2014)

Yes, agreed.  Fox does lie to its viewers.  

And, you're talking to a registered democrat here who hates Citizen's United.



> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > You should be smacked about the face for even SUGGESTING that Rachel Maddow is in any way, shape or form similar to Glenn Beck.
> ...



Like I said, at least Beck apologized...  And, to Fox New's credit, they have cleaned up their journalistic act quite a bit.  One of the stipulations of being a naturalized citizen means that if you start doing things like inciting civil unrest using your media outlet and doing other treasonous acts, your citizenship can be revoked.  Murdoch no doubt sat up and took notice once Giffords was shot.  Lucky for Maddow she was born here so unseating elected officials without a trial or verdict of "guilty" won't get her deported.


----------



## thanatos144 (Jan 30, 2014)

I see the spammer is back from pink land


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 31, 2014)

thanatos144 said:


> I see the spammer is back from pink land


Who's that?


----------



## thanatos144 (Jan 31, 2014)

nope that was a short stay


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 31, 2014)

thanatos144 said:


> nope that was a short stay



OK, so you're one of those cryptic nonsense posters meant to derail thread topic.  Shall you self regulate or maybe the mods can regulate you?

Back to the topic.  I notice that even after Glenn Beck apologized for being divisive, Maddow has doubled-down on her divisiveness.  I was chuckling watching her show last night.  Instead of covering real news now, she is engaged like a prosecutor before a jury on the New Jersey/Christie "scandals" she's trumping up.  Whole 20, 30 & 40 minute blocks of her show revolve around her ranting on and on about it.  They're digging so far deep in the dirt of local court dockets and petty civil squabbles that in order to get her audience to understand what's going on [and to care], she's going into this wild goose chase.  She spirals way waaaaay out and tries to tie everything together in some Sherlock Holmes style murder mystery.  Only it's about mundane normal political hanky panky and favoritism [In New Jersey!!  Oh M'gosh!!...lol..].  

She thinks she's really onto something.  Meanwhile she is losing her viewers in the pretzeling minutia of her prosecution.  They are switching to Pawn Stars or the knitting channel to find more stimulating cutting edge entertainment.  I was sitting there watching her yesterday just laughing my ass off at her verbal contortions trying to really get the viewers whipped up over nothing.  She ends her segment staring into the camera with that "gotcha!" look.  Jesus.  The only thing she's going to get is a loss of ratings.

I could only make it part way through her show.  I switched over to "Here Comes Honey Boo Boo" to see if they were discussing more relelvent news of the day...lol.. 

Sugaaaaarr BEAR!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 31, 2014)

Silohuette "is engaged like a prosecutor before a jury on the" LGBT cult scandal "she's trumping up. "

Thank you, Sil: I was trying to get who you were reminding of with your obsession.

You are our own USMB's version of Rachel Maddow!


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 31, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Silohuette "is engaged like a prosecutor before a jury on the" LGBT cult scandal "she's trumping up. "
> 
> Thank you, Sil: I was trying to get who you were reminding of with your obsession.
> 
> You are our own USMB's version of Rachel Maddow!


Except that I don't have millions of followers/viewers on main stream media...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 31, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Silohuette "is engaged like a prosecutor before a jury on the" LGBT cult scandal "she's trumping up. "
> ...



But . . . you have us.

You write exceptionally well, you are obviously quite intelligent, and are passionate.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 31, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



And you...have us.  Your point?

Quit trying to sideline the debate.  You don't want comparisons between LGBT and religious or cult behavior and you dont' want comparisons between LGBT and child-predator worship.


----------



## Silhouette (Jan 31, 2014)

I wonder if Chris Christie figured out the core of Maddow's fury is her fear that his presidency would bring a quick end to all the gay stuff.

She should thank her lucky stars that the status quo is all silent.  What if the good ole' boys wanted to shut her down?   They'd just start publishing quotes from The Mayor of Castro Street, the Life and Times of Harvey Milk, the postage stamp, the 68 LGBT committees across the US, Mexico and Canada that got the postage stamp approved etc. etc.

Like a slow game of no-peeky poker, turning up one card after another.  She's not much of a poker player.  Otherwise she'd know that her pair of one-eyed jacks doesn't beat a royal flush..


----------



## Political Junky (Feb 1, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > She's no more agenda-driven than anyone in the Right-Wing media.
> ...


Nope, Beck is stupid and goes for shock value. Maddow is brilliant and actually does investigative journalism.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 1, 2014)

Political Junky said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Again, Rolling Stone made the comparison, not me.  And I tend to agree about the intellect thing.  It's the common sense thing that is lacking in Maddow, or self-reflection.  But that makes sense though if you understand...what happened in the 1970s... 'nuff said.

I think the Rolling Stone made the comparison in styles of sort of manic theatre, and accurately so.  While yes, true, underneath the manic theatre is more substance on Maddow's behalf.  So then you ask yourself what's worse between the two, just plain stupid an manic on Beck's behalf, or calculating and manic on Maddow's behalf?  But then again, Fox knows its viewers.  Maybe if Beck worked for MSNBC he would be right on par with Maddow?

Who knows?  The point is that manic theatre can get carried away and ruin not just lives and political careers but careers in journalism too... Beck just had to apologize and grovel.  His career is ruined since edgy-mania was all he had to peddle and apologizing for that kind of stops that train dead in its tracks.


----------



## thanatos144 (Feb 1, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



Rolling Stone is a hack America hating a magazine

tapatalk post


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 2, 2014)

thanatos144 said:


> Rolling Stone is a hack America hating a magazine
> 
> tapatalk post



Stop inserting tangents thanatos.  Rolling Stone is an edgy magazine that people pay attention to.  They made the comparison between Maddow and Beck.  They are both into manic theatre.  That's a fair comparison.


----------



## thanatos144 (Feb 2, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> > Rolling Stone is a hack America hating a magazine
> ...


No one but Marxists pay attention to Rolling stone.... Hey maybe it will turn you  on when they put another glam shot of a terrorist on the cover.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 3, 2014)

thanatos144 said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > thanatos144 said:
> ...



I don't read the magazine regularly at all.  In fact I can't remember the last time I even saw one.  I got their comparison of Maddow and Beck's manic theatre act from a search engine bro.

Try to stay on topic.  I know its your job not to..


----------



## GreenBean (Feb 3, 2014)

RACHEL MADDOW IS CRAZY, TOO

This liberal god must be crazy!

Rachel Maddow Plays Gay Card: Defends Her Own Lies By Calling Critics Homophobes



Through her radio, television, and Internet work, Maddow's primary political objective is to help the Democratic Party increase its influence in America. &#8220;_I think the more power the Democrats gain, the better off progressive radio and progressive media is,&#8221; she says_. &#8220;&#8230;[T]he closer we get to retaking the country, the closer we get to overtaking the traditional media in terms of content and influence.&#8221;

 Asserting that Republican candidates were &#8220;not on the right side&#8221; of any major political or social issue, Maddow posed the question, &#8220;What DO the [R]epublicans have going for them?&#8221; She then provided the answer: &#8220;[W]ell, they're WHITE guys.&#8221; (Emphasis in original)

On June 3, 2009, Maddow falsely reported that conservative talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh had once said that James Earl Ray, the assassin of Martin Luther King, Jr., &#8220;should get the Medal of Honor.&#8221;

On December 4, 2012, Maddow and several other "influential progressive" advisors (as described by White House deputy press secretary Josh Earnest) met with President Barack Obama to strategize on how to best sell the American public on the need to raise taxes on people earning $250,000 or more, while extending the Bush-era tax cuts for all other U.S. residents. Also in attendance at the meeting were Al Sharpton, Lawrence O'Donnell, MSNBC host Ed Schultz, and Arianna Huffington. 

*Since when do Journalists - who are supposed to be non-partisan reporters participate in partisan propaganda think tanks ?*


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 4, 2014)

GreenBean said:


> RACHEL MADDOW IS CRAZY, TOO
> 
> This liberal god must be crazy!
> 
> ...



Well I'm a registered democrat.  And I know PLENTY of registered democrats who are NOT on board with Maddow's Lavender-Agenda.  Just look at Chick Fil A and Duck Dynasty issues.  You think that every single person who logged onto the "Boycott A&E" Facebook page was a hard line republican?  Think again..

..In fact, the talk among center dems these days is the absurdity of promoting the far left agenda of the church of LGBT over [at the expense of, as yes, more centers will vote right next time]  our traditional platforms of labor, environment, healthcare and fair wages.  The GOP is going to mine the goldmine of the visceral rejection of the notion of the church of LGBT and its child-sodomizing messiah, ripe on the vine in the middle block of voters like me.  And all our good and noble dem platforms will die for the Gay Agenda.

There are two cults ruining both parties actually.  The cult on the far right is the "no abortion, but we don't want to help out millions of unwanted babies with our tax dollars!" cult.  At the far left is the "we want LGBT sex to be taught to children as normal" cult.

Both are insane.  Both are damaging.  Oddly, both in their blind cancerous evangelism are directly harmful to children.  Weird?

I notice that Maddow now is devoting nearly her entire show each night to the *yawn* Christie "bridge scandal"....zzzzzzzzz....  That's got to be riveting for viewers...all three of them...

I guess MSNBC is funded from other sources besides advertising.  I hear there's a gay-equivalent to the Koch brothers funding these types of endeavors.  So maybe MSNBC just doesn't care about advertising revenues?


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 4, 2014)

A quote from your first link "Rachael Maddow Is Crazy, Too":



> A final level of deception remains to be revealed: one of the many companies that have contributed to the State Policy Network is Comcast, which owns MSNBC and is Rachel Maddows employer. So in her Thursday broadcast, Maddow could equally well have said that MSNBC ha been promoting forced drug tests for people on welfare, and that FFGA is an MSNBC-affiliated group. She didnt do this for obvious reasons. She knew that she was addressing a stupid audience that would never know the difference.
> 
> If Rachel Maddow is the best that MSNBC has to offer, MSNBC is in even deeper trouble than its steep ratings decline would indicate.




Agreed.  This is the insanity of the church of LGBT.  We have a rare opportunity to watch as insanity takes over people and an entire corporation to its own demise.  This is why I took pains to point out that Maddow, otherwise, is a great journalist.  She really is.  Except now, her obsession with beating back anyone she even remotely suspects as being "anti-gay" [even with good cause to be so], has put a tourniquet over all her other stories and has diverted all the blood flow to just one topic.  She does her best to shroud it under "good journalism".  But all the other good causes are falling off from lack of attention.

I'm sure that 100 years from now we'll all be glad that gay men can adopt little boys from orphanages as "married couple" [see my signature], while our last freshwater underground aquifers are all hopelessly polluted forever by historical [banned for sure by then] fracking operations "around the turn of the 21st Century".  Or that our worst world war ever was caused by the fact that certain special oil barons "around the turn of the 21st Century" were allowed to push back green energy that pushes cars forward with seawater [hydrogen electrolysis] instead of fossil fuels, or power plants that focus the sun's radiation to boil water instead of using deadly radiation from uranium that lasts and lasts and lasts for 240,000 deadly, cancer-causing, mutating years..

Nope, instead this good journalist, this keen mind, this asset to the democrats keeps spouting the un-embraceable gay gay gay gay gay gay gay agenda and is perhaps the single most responsible voice for alienating those sensible minds that once made up the ranks of democrats.  

Jobs, universal healthcare, green energy, infrastructure, education...all of it will be lost for one completely unacceptable premise.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 13, 2014)

And, as I predicted, a certain far left liberal agenda is going to backfire in an unexpected way:




> The New Jersey Republican Party sent a fundraising email to supporters Wednesday that attempted to use the scandals surrounding Gov. Chris Christie (R) as an incentive for potential donors.
> 
> 
> "Over the past few weeks, the liberal media and Trenton Democrats have relentlessly attacked the Governor despite his strong, decisive leadership. It's time to stand up to MSNBC, the liberal media and their attacks," the email said. "[Y]ou have stood with Governor Christie before, and we ask that you reaffirm your support today by committing to contribute $25 a month."
> ...



The manic nature of Maddow's witch hunt on Christie has done two things I don't think she planned on:

1. Alerted people that the far far weird left is deadly afraid of a Christie 2016 run and 

2. Created a hardening to the cries of "wolf wolf wolf wolf wolf!!" from the weird left that is becoming so bizarre in its mania, so unstoppable that it creates an instinctive drive to stop it that will override any bridge scandal Maddow and her team of sychophants can dream up.

Beware the law of unintended consequences...


----------



## mamooth (Feb 13, 2014)

Nagin is a criminal, Democrats condemn him.

Christie is a criminal, Republicans rally to his defense and proclaim there's a great liberal conspiracy.

Consistency points to the Democrats, as usual.

Most of the Republicans here initially weren't defending Christie. They were calling him a RINO and saying he was obviously guilty. But then, something happened. Orders came down from on high that Christie was not to be called a RINO, and that all of the faithful should now repeat a story about how Christie was being persecuted for being such a loyal conservative. The faithful obeyed, and dutifully did one of those flipflops that they're so well-known for.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 13, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Nagin is a criminal, Democrats condemn him.
> 
> Christie is a criminal, Republicans rally to his defense and proclaim there's a great liberal conspiracy.
> 
> ...



Let's look at it this way, let the first democrat who is without sin throw the first stone at Chris Christie...

Ever hear of the scandal that Feinstein presided over?  Where her husband's outfit got millions in perks as a result of his wife sitting on a committee overseeing the distributions of funs to that special interest?  Are you outraged about that?  Is Feinstein a criminal or do we expect hanky panky in politicians on both sides of the aisle?

No, this is about much much more than bridge lanes closing.  And the points in my last post spell that out clearly...


----------



## mamooth (Feb 13, 2014)

That's funny. I thought your posts were about how obsessed you are with gay issues. Maddow goes light on them, compared to you.


----------



## Howey (Feb 13, 2014)

lol...I remember the day way back when (two months ago before he got banned from another forum) Silhouette claimed to be a liberal.

Oh well.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 13, 2014)

mamooth said:


> That's funny. I thought your posts were about how obsessed you are with gay issues. Maddow goes light on them, compared to you.



Not for an "unbiased journalist" she doesn't.  I have an issue that is personal, that drives me on.  A friend who died of AIDS in the 1990s directly from the lack of understanding of what drives this cult into greater and greater numbers and deaths.

She may have her reasons but I assure you mine are more examined and based in logic. 

I am a mere blogger who isn't threatening anyone's career.  She, on the other hand, has presumably millions of regular viewers and as such is poised to do great damage to Chris Christie and any other gay "heretic" she has set her pyre around the feet of to light as her whim pleases her.


----------



## Synthaholic (Feb 13, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> And, as I predicted, a certain far left liberal agenda is going to backfire in an unexpected way:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Oh, it's just beginning.  


*Chris Christie's Entire Career Reeks - It's not just the bridge*


Christie is going to regret ever making noise about national office.  If all this can be uncovered by just @AlecMacGillis, what will come out when the full force of the national media starts digging into Christie's corruption?


----------



## Political Junky (Feb 13, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > That's funny. I thought your posts were about how obsessed you are with gay issues. Maddow goes light on them, compared to you.
> ...


Maddow began the examining of Christie. Can you prove anything that she reported is wrong?


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 13, 2014)

Political Junky said:


> Maddow began the examining of Christie. Can you prove anything that she reported is wrong?



This thread isn't about if she is right or wrong.  It's about her zeal for persecution without all the facts in.  She has a beef with Chris Christie.  She isn't for example, equally avid in reporting what Dianne Feinstein did with monies her husband got access to via a committee she sat on in Congress.  I think it was in the tens of millions.  That would be a story I'd like to see her go after with the same zeal.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 15, 2014)

Yeah, crickets after that Dianne Feinstein reminder...lol...


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 21, 2014)

Out of morbid curiosity last night I watched the Maddow show and wouldn't you know?  She actually kept silent about the Christie scandal for most of the show.  She even opened with a bit on how crappy oil barons are and their schills.


----------



## Rambunctious (Feb 21, 2014)

Is Rachael Maddow Out of Control?

who?


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 22, 2014)

Rambunctious said:


> Is Rachael Maddow Out of Control?
> 
> who?



Exactly.  In the future if she keeps it up it will be "MSNBC"...who?


----------



## kiwiman127 (Feb 22, 2014)

I don't watch MSNBC (I used to) and I don't watch Fox (I used to). Is Maddow now in the same league as Hannity?
Anyone?


----------



## LoneLaugher (Feb 22, 2014)

kiwiman127 said:


> I don't watch MSNBC (I used to) and I don't watch Fox (I used to). Is Maddow now in the same league as Hannity?
> Anyone?



No.


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 22, 2014)

kiwiman127 said:


> I don't watch MSNBC (I used to) and I don't watch Fox (I used to). Is Maddow now in the same league as Hannity?
> Anyone?



She was actually compared by the Rolling Stone Magazine to Glenn Beck. 

And she is laboring on the fringe of that comparison IMHO.  Yes, Fox News gets me to instantly switch channels at the mere hint, the mere mention of "Benghazi".  It's their version of a cooked up witch hunt.  Even the dullest of minds can tell when something trivial is being fanned up to influence them.  

Both networks make the mistake of underestimating the intelligence of their viewers.  The internet is to thank.  Used to be in the old days if you missed an education, you missed the boat.  Your fate was set for life.  But nowadays the internet is keeping people's brains open, flexible, growing so that the blood flow to those learning centers still keeps going.  As a result people become more savvy, less susceptible to influences.  And perhaps more jaded to being corralled since there is so much freedom of thought out there.

When the manufactured hysteria hits, the jaded eyes come out and then switch off the channel.  Best to stick to things that matter, methinks..


----------



## thanatos144 (Feb 22, 2014)

Silhouette said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't watch MSNBC (I used to) and I don't watch Fox (I used to). Is Maddow now in the same league as Hannity?
> ...



In other words the truth about bengazi upsets you 

tapatalk post


----------



## Silhouette (Feb 22, 2014)

thanatos144 said:


> In other words the truth about bengazi upsets you
> 
> tapatalk post



Yes, that the attack seemed very coordinated, technical, highly manufactured on 9-11 just before a key American election does bother me and the truth of what's behind that should bother everyone.  But that's not what will be reported on Fox.  It's the manufactured outrage that is annoying and to a jaded public, frankly, boring at this point.

Just like with Maddow's weird obsession with how New Jersey politics has now and has always worked.  And of course her complete lack of coverage, say, about Feinstein's involvement with 10s of millions of dollars shunted to her husband's business from a committee in Congress she sat in on...


----------



## regent (Feb 23, 2014)

Maddow borders on the muckraker class, with the muckrakers of old such as Ida Tarbell. In actuality the old ones led to some legislation that bettered America. 
Hannity is a political propagandist and nothing will come of him, he could be gone tomorrow and who would know it. It was Teddy Roosevelt that labeled some journalists as muckrakers.


----------

