# Rachael Madcow is Slanderous Bitch



## GHook93 (Mar 16, 2014)

She is claiming that Michigan is about to sign into a "rape" insurance requirement! What a lying SOB.

The bill that law makers are signing into law is an abortion premium RELIEF bill. If you want your insurance to cover abortion, then you pay an extra premium. Look not everyone believes in abortion, so why should they be forced to pay higher premiums to keep it in their insurance policy? If you want it covered in your insurance policy, then don't complain if you have to pay more for it! It used to be the same for child birth. Not everyone is going to need or want it, but the extra coverage is extremely expensive. With Obamacare every policy must include it, so everyone premiums increase a ton. 

But I digress. This is obviously about not having people who don't believe in abortion having to pay higher premiums to include it in their insurance policy. But the sick lying bitch Madcow calls it rape insurance. Here is her thinking. Women who are raped might get pregnant from the assault, since the Michigan law will require an extra charge to cover abortion, women now pay for rape insurance! It a fallacy in logic from one of the most dishonest people in media!


----------



## Mr. H. (Mar 16, 2014)

She's a DOB, not a SOB. 

Just sayin'....


----------



## TheOldSchool (Mar 16, 2014)

Rachel Maddow is awful.  I can't believe she's made a career out of what she does.  Thank goodness her ratings are terrible.


----------



## R.D. (Mar 16, 2014)

Mr. H. said:


> She's a DOB, not a SOB.
> 
> Just sayin'....



You sure?  Nowadays it's such a fuzzy line ...just sayin'


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 16, 2014)

GHook93 said:


> She is claiming that Michigan is about to sign into a "rape" insurance requirement! What a lying SOB.
> 
> The bill that law makers are signing into law is an abortion premium RELIEF bill. *If you want your insurance to cover abortion, then you pay an extra premium.* Look not everyone believes in abortion, so why should they be forced to pay higher premiums to keep it in their insurance policy? If you want it covered in your insurance policy, then don't complain if you have to pay more for it! It used to be the same for child birth. Not everyone is going to need or want it, but the extra coverage is extremely expensive. With Obamacare every policy must include it, so everyone premiums increase a ton.
> 
> But I digress. This is obviously about not having people who don't believe in abortion having to pay higher premiums to include it in their insurance policy. But the sick lying bitch Madcow calls it rape insurance. Here is her thinking. Women who are raped might get pregnant from the assault, since the Michigan law will require an extra charge to cover abortion, women now pay for rape insurance! It a fallacy in logic from one of the most dishonest people in media!




If a woman is raped and gets pregnant and (obviously) does not want to keep her rapist's baby, paying extra for abortion insurance is de facto rape insurance.

Why should a woman have to pay more to cover abortion?

Why is the state mandating this?


----------



## Billo_Really (Mar 16, 2014)

I love Rachel Maddow!  Everything she say's is true.

Maddow is the man!


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 16, 2014)

TheOldSchool said:


> Rachel Maddow is awful.  I can't believe she's made a career out of what she does.  Thank goodness her ratings are terrible.


Her ratings are better than Megyn Kelly's in the demographic that advertisers care about.

They do not care about angry old White people who have been glued to FOXNEWS all day long, receiving their daily hate brainwashing.


----------



## TheOldSchool (Mar 16, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> > Rachel Maddow is awful.  I can't believe she's made a career out of what she does.  Thank goodness her ratings are terrible.
> ...



Maddow is an example of liberals stooping to the conservative model of "news." We don't need that.  She's far more a weapon for republicans than an information source for democrats.  And IMO that makes her a problem.


----------



## Howey (Mar 16, 2014)

I don't understand. I'm not a woman so I'm not affected by the trauma of rape and abortion. From what I gleam from the OP, under This law a woman must pay out of pocket for an abortion if she is raped?

Why shouldn't the rapists policy cover it?


----------



## Mr. H. (Mar 16, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > She is claiming that Michigan is about to sign into a "rape" insurance requirement! What a lying SOB.
> ...



Estimates of people wishing to adopt are as high as 2 million in the U.S. alone. 

Why be a flushing parent when you can provide for a gushing parent. 

I love babies. Especially the pre-born kind.


----------



## Sallow (Mar 16, 2014)

TheOldSchool said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > TheOldSchool said:
> ...



Dunno what you are talking about.

She's well researched and has impeccable credibility.

Add in..when she gets it wrong? She's quick to apologize.


----------



## TheOldSchool (Mar 16, 2014)

Sallow said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



That's what a republican would say about Rush Limbaugh


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 16, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > She is claiming that Michigan is about to sign into a "rape" insurance requirement! What a lying SOB.
> ...



She WONT be paying more  ---- everyone who opts OUT will be paying less.  You cant pretend that the crappy policies allowed under Obaminal Care are covering much of anything up to 4 or 5 thousand dollars of charges..  if folks are capable of choosing deductibles loike that ---- They should be allowed to opt out of any ala carte items they want to.


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 16, 2014)

Mr. H. said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > GHook93 said:
> ...


There are more children currently available for adoption than there are people willing to adopt.

If Right-Wingers are so concerned about children why don't they adopt the ones who have already been born?

And why should any woman have to spend 9 months growing and nurturing a rapist's fetus?


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 16, 2014)

TheOldSchool said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > TheOldSchool said:
> ...



Except it's easy to prove Rush wrong on the facts.

Try to prove Rachel wrong on the facts.


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 16, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > GHook93 said:
> ...



Why haven't Right-Wingers ever demanded that insurance companies offer à la carte coverage?


----------



## Grandma (Mar 17, 2014)

So is there an extra premium for prostate cancer? Heart surgery? Kidney dialysis? Any number of ailments that most people don't get?

No.

Because it's rape insurance.


----------



## shart_attack (Mar 17, 2014)

I'm not sure what aggressive lobbying under a false set of premises for the state of Michigan to get "rape insurance" has to do with _slander_, but okay.

Whatever you say.

Maddow sucks, anyway.


----------



## Mac1958 (Mar 17, 2014)

.

Maddow is intelligent and articulate.  She does a very good job of reporting and examining the issues -- from a hardcore leftwing partisan perspective.  

Unfortunately, her flock doesn't see that last part, and takes everything she says as "The Truth".  They're only interested in the hardcore leftwing partisan version of "The Truth".

So, ultimately, she's just another one of the division pimps.

.


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 17, 2014)

TheOldSchool said:


> Rachel Maddow is awful.  I can't believe she's made a career out of what she does.  Thank goodness her ratings are terrible.



Maddow is very good at what she does

Pissing off conservatives makes good TV


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 17, 2014)

Howey said:


> I don't understand. I'm not a woman so I'm not affected by the trauma of rape and abortion. From what I gleam from the OP, under This law a woman must pay out of pocket for an abortion if she is raped?
> 
> Why shouldn't the rapists policy cover it?



You're not?

LOL


----------



## Stephanie (Mar 17, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



so now you're an EXPERT on adoptions huh...why did your mom spend nine months nurturing you?
gawd you liberals are cold hearted pos...at least the rape baby wouldn't turn out like you people, I guess that the one good thing it be aborted eh?


----------



## Disir (Mar 17, 2014)

Mr. H. said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > GHook93 said:
> ...



Wishing to adopt and actually doing it are two different things. So, where are the stats of people that even go through a home study? It drops significantly.


----------



## blastoff (Mar 17, 2014)

Some of you idiots ought to check Ritchie Maddow's ratings vs. Megan Kelly now that things have settled in.


----------



## Sallow (Mar 17, 2014)

TheOldSchool said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > TheOldSchool said:
> ...



No.

They say he's a comedian.

He's funny alrighty.


----------



## Sallow (Mar 17, 2014)

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> Maddow is intelligent and articulate.  She does a very good job of reporting and examining the issues -- from a hardcore leftwing partisan perspective.
> 
> ...



I get the last part. And I don't agree. But at least you understand she knows the territory.

And she's not a "hardcore" leftwing partisan.

But she is a leftwing partisan.

She's also well researched and seldom wrong.


----------



## GHook93 (Mar 17, 2014)

rightwinger said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> > Rachel Maddow is awful.  I can't believe she's made a career out of what she does.  Thank goodness her ratings are terrible.
> ...



Too and honest reporting on issues isn't one of them. If you OK with her misleading the public because she pisses off conservatives, then that says a ton about you!


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 17, 2014)

TheOldSchool said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > TheOldSchool said:
> ...



and your evidence of this is WHAT?

if you say this you must have NEVER watched her show.


It kills me how idiots think that somehow staking out the middle means you must have the truth.


the truth is NOT always  in the middle.


She is a roades scholor and ALWAYS asks her expert guests to correct ANYTHING she says that they fell doenst meet the facts they are bringing.


Madow is on the left.


so are the facts in this time and history.

being in the middle doesn't give you an automatic connect to the REAL facts


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 17, 2014)

GHook93 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > TheOldSchool said:
> ...



dear fucking idiot,


You proved NO lie of hers


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 17, 2014)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Maddow


Rachel Maddow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

Jump to: navigation, search 


Page semi-protected


Rachel Maddow

Rachel Maddow in Seattle cropped.png

Rachel Maddow in 2008


Born
Rachel Anne Maddow
 April 1, 1973 (age 40)
Castro Valley, California, U.S. 

Education
BA, Stanford University
D.Phil, Lincoln College, Oxford 

Occupation
News anchor
Political commentator
 Television host 

Notable credit(s)
The Rachel Maddow Show (MSNBC)
The Rachel Maddow Show (Air America Radio) 

Partner(s)
Susan Mikula (1999-present)[1] 

Website

Rachel Maddow | Official Personal Website 

Rachel Anne Maddow (Listeni/&#712;mædo&#650;/, rhymes with shadow;[2] born April 1, 1973) is an American television host, political commentator, and author.[3][4] She hosts a nightly television show, The Rachel Maddow Show, on MSNBC.[5] Her syndicated talk radio program of the same name aired on Air America Radio. Maddow is the first openly gay anchor to host a major prime-time news program in the United States.[6][7][8][9] She holds a doctorate in politics from Oxford University.

Asked about her political views by the Valley Advocate, Maddow replied, "I'm undoubtedly a liberal, which means that I'm in almost total agreement with the Eisenhower-era Republican party platform."[


----------



## Stephanie (Mar 17, 2014)

She is bought and paid for by the DNC/SOROS media complex...propaganda at it's finest...luckily hardly anyone watch her and that slimy station

slanderous bitch works too


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 17, 2014)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Maddow


Honors and awards
Emmy Award in the Outstanding News Discussion and Analysis category for "The Rachel Maddow Show" episode "Good Morning Landlocked Central Asia!"
Maddow was named in Out magazine's "Out 100" list of the "gay men and women who moved culture" in 2008.[66]
Maddow was voted "Lesbian/Bi Woman of the Year (American)" in AfterEllen's 2008 Visibility Awards.[67]
Maddow won a Gracie Award in 2009, presented by the American Women in Radio and Television.[68]
In 2009, Maddow was nominated for GLAAD's 20th Annual Media Awards for a segment of her MSNBC show, "Rick Warren, Change To Believe In?", in the Outstanding TV Journalism Segment category.[69]
On March 28, 2009, Maddow received a Proclamation of Honor from the California State Senate, presented in San Francisco by California State Senator Mark Leno.[70]
In April 2009, she was listed at number four in Out magazine's Annual Power 50 List.[71]
Maddow placed sixth in the "2009 AfterEllen.com Hot 100" list (May 11, 2009)[72] and third in its "2009 Hot 100: Out Women" version.[73]
Maddow was included on a list of openly gay media professionals in The Advocate's "Forty under 40" issue of June/July 2009.[74]
In 1994, Maddow was an Honorable Mention in the Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity Prize in Ethics.[75]
In June 2009, Maddow's MSNBC show was the only cable news show nominated for a Television Critics Association award in the Outstanding Achievement in News and Information category.[76]
In March 2010, Maddow won at the 21st Annual GLAAD Media Awards in the category, Outstanding TV Journalism- Newsmagazine for her segment, "Uganda Be Kidding Me".[77]
Maddow was the 2010 commencement speaker and was given an honorary Doctor of Laws (LLD) degree at Smith College in Northampton, Massachusetts in May 2010.[78]
In July 2010, Maddow was presented with a Maggie Award for her ongoing reporting of healthcare reform, the murder of Dr. George Tiller, and the anti-abortion movement.[79]
In August 2010, Maddow won the Walter Cronkite Faith & Freedom Award, which was presented by the Interfaith Alliance.[51] Past honorees included Larry King, Tom Brokaw, and the late Peter Jennings.[51]
In February 2012, Maddow was presented the John Steinbeck Award by the Martha Heasley Cox Center for Steinbeck Studies at San Jose State University.[80]
Outstanding Host at the 2012 Gracie Allen Awards[81]
In December 2012, The audio book version of Maddow's Drift was nominated for the Grammy Award for Best Spoken Word Album


----------



## Stephanie (Mar 17, 2014)

omg, her claim to fame, being a homosexual

how shallow

so she got a lot nonsense awards...sheesh
Obama got a peace prize before he did anything resembling peace...lol


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 17, 2014)

Rachel Maddow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


A graduate of Castro Valley High School[19] in Castro Valley, California, she attended Stanford University. While a freshman, she was outed by the college newspaper when an interview with her was published by the student newspaper before she could tell her parents.[20] Maddow earned a degree in public policy at Stanford in 1994.[21] At graduation she was awarded the John Gardner Fellowship.[22] She was also the recipient of a Rhodes Scholarship and began her postgraduate study in 1995 at Lincoln College, Oxford. This made her the first openly gay or lesbian American to win an international Rhodes Scholarship.[23] In 2001, she earned a Doctor of Philosophy (DPhil) in politics at Oxford University.[24] Her thesis is titled HIV/AIDS and Health Care Reform in British and American Prisons and her supervisor was Dr. Lucia Zedner.


----------



## chikenwing (Mar 17, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Classic deflection once again,love the old adoption angle. So a fast glance,one would say that the left ,if they haven't already had you aborted,aren't adopting very many ether.

Can you say I am a hypocrite.

When we value money and convenience over life,as so many have we are in deep shit.


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 17, 2014)

Rhodes Scholarship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Rhodes Scholarship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

Jump to: navigation, search 






Rhodes House in Oxford, designed by Sir Herbert Baker
The Rhodes Scholarship, named after Cecil John Rhodes, is an international postgraduate award for selected foreign students to study at the University of Oxford.[1] Established in 1902, it was the first large-scale programme of international scholarships,[2] and is widely considered the "world's most prestigious scholarship" by many public sources such as Time,[3] Yale University Press,[4] The McGill Reporter,[5] and Associated Press.[6]


----------



## Stephanie (Mar 17, 2014)

liberals and their worship of talking heads...

yet they always put down others about listening to Rush Limbaugh

just two faced hypocrites as usual


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 17, 2014)

She is brilliant.


She is honest 



all you have is people like Oliely


----------



## R.D. (Mar 17, 2014)

Truthmatters said:


> Rachel Maddow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> A graduate of Castro Valley High School[19] in Castro Valley, California, she attended Stanford University. While a freshman, she was outed by the college newspaper when an interview with her was published by the student newspaper before she could tell her parents.[20] Maddow earned a degree in public policy at Stanford in 1994.[21] At graduation she was awarded the John Gardner Fellowship.[22] She was also the recipient of a Rhodes Scholarship and began her postgraduate study in 1995 at Lincoln College, Oxford. This made her the first openly gay or lesbian American to win an international Rhodes Scholarship.[23] In 2001, she earned a Doctor of Philosophy (DPhil) in politics at Oxford University.[24] Her thesis is titled HIV/AIDS and Health Care Reform in British and American Prisons and her supervisor was Dr. Lucia Zedner.



...and a  slanderous bitch


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 17, 2014)

Is Lush limpballs a roades scholor?


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 17, 2014)

R.D. said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Rachel Maddow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...



dear fucking idiot,


you need proof or its just slander


----------



## Stephanie (Mar 17, 2014)

Truthmatters said:


> R.D. said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



and to think you kiss people with that vulgar mouth


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 17, 2014)

if you force as woman to have SPECIAL  cavots in her insurance to cover rape abortion you are requiring them have rape insurance.


tell us are you going to BLAME her for Olileys team promising you robmoney would won by 5?


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 17, 2014)

you fuckers cant dreg up ONE lie of hers or mine


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 17, 2014)

BTW  Bobby Jindal is a rowades scholor too.

How did that work out for him?

he had to stand on national TV and say volcanos don't need to be monitored to watch the VERY volcanoe he was making fun of erupt days later.


You RUIN your roades scoholors


----------



## Sallow (Mar 17, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> omg, her claim to fame, being a homosexual
> 
> how shallow
> 
> ...



Only in your universe are "awards" and "scholarship", "nonsense".

What's even more funny is the support the right wing gives to a drug addled obsese letch like Limbaugh, who's had a gaggle of trophy wives and went to the Dominican Republic on a sex vacation.

Oh..and everything that guy says is complete bullshit.


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 17, 2014)

Gov. Bobby Jindal's volcano remark has some fuming - CNN.com

this is the SHIT you idiots make you smart people do


----------



## TooTall (Mar 17, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



We had three and adopted two so we have done our share.  I may be in trouble with some right to lifers, but I can't imagine that a woman who gets raped would not get an abortion as soon as she discovered that she was pregnant.  

My position has always been that if you can hear two heartbeats coming from a woman, one of them is hers and one of them is a baby, so a raped woman should not wait for a heartbeat unless she wants to have a baby.


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 17, 2014)

You make your educated people LIE about sceince


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 17, 2014)

Truthmatters said:


> Rachel Maddow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> A graduate of Castro Valley High School[19] in Castro Valley, California, she attended Stanford University. While a freshman, she was outed by the college newspaper when an interview with her was published by the student newspaper before she could tell her parents.[20] Maddow earned a degree in public policy at Stanford in 1994.[21] At graduation she was awarded the John Gardner Fellowship.[22] She was also the recipient of a Rhodes Scholarship and began her postgraduate study in 1995 at Lincoln College, Oxford. This made her the first openly gay or lesbian American to win an international Rhodes Scholarship.[23] In 2001, she earned a Doctor of Philosophy (DPhil) in politics at Oxford University.[24] Her thesis is titled HIV/AIDS and Health Care Reform in British and American Prisons and her supervisor was Dr. Lucia Zedner.






"....the recipient of a Rhodes Scholarship...."


"This is widely considered the most prestigious international scholarship. Recipients of this award receive a full ride to the University of Oxford in London, England, with a monthly stipend that covers accommodations and living expenses."
Prestigious College Scholarships: The Fulbright, Truman, Marshall, and Rhodes Scholarships


Really?


Famous Rhodes Scholars:

Bill Clinton: former president, 1968
Bill Bradley: Hall of Fame NBA star and senator, 1968
Susan Rice: U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, 1990
George Stephanopoulos: ABC television personality and former White House communications director, 1984
Rachel Maddow: television personality, 2001



As is true of so very many of these 'prestigious' awards.....*.being a Liberal is really the only criterion.*



"Bill Bradley.

"Here is a guy who graduated Magna Cum Laude in history, the greatest basketball player in the Ivy Colleges, Rhodes Scholar, probably a governor of Missouri somedayand all with *a 485 verbal SAT!"*
Bill Bradley's SAT Scores




BTW....I believe Maddow is an excellent spokesperson for her side....*but I needed to educate you on the validity of these "prizes" and "awards."*

....the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama???

....Paul Krugman the Nobel ("Bank of Sweden Prize")???

Be serious.


----------



## R.D. (Mar 17, 2014)

Truthmatters said:


> you fuckers cant dreg up ONE lie of hers or mine



You're so ugly, TDM.  

Her lies are too many to list and not really worth a discussion.  She holds your leash, no way you could see past your rabid shallow bull dog mentality that follows the lead of your masters.


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 17, 2014)

when there is flesh inside your body that if removed would do nothing but die that flesh is the womens flesh.


You will NEVER again FORCE YOUR religion on another female


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 17, 2014)

R.D. said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > you fuckers cant dreg up ONE lie of hers or mine
> ...



Then it should be easy huh?

Go FUCKING GET ONE!


all these years you shit heads have called me a lair you have NEVER produced one lie of mine


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 17, 2014)

You have NEVER produced a lie from Rachel Madow either


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 17, 2014)

YOU people just SLANDER for political reasons.

Your dishonest and full of fucking lies


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 17, 2014)

Like the OPS about Rachel Madow


You see truth matters


You guys eat a steady diet of lies.


Its why voters have to be cheated for you to win elections


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 17, 2014)

Truthmatters said:


> You have NEVER produced a lie from Rachel Madow either




Of course I can.


Ready?


Maddow did a show on the Florida law mandating drug testing of welfare recipients....and hammered away on the funds that the Koch Brothers put up to finance the attempt.


1. They "were a bit nonplussed, since* Koch had nothing to do with the Florida welfare legislation in question, and had never supportedor, as far as I know, ever heard ofthe Florida Foundation for Government Accountability. *



2. Rachel Maddow, naturally, didnt wait to learn the facts. Her segment on the Florida law, which required drug testing of all welfare applicants and had just been struck down by a federal judge, was all about Kochbizarrely so, since Koch had nothing to do with the law in question

3. Ms. Maddow moved on to a discussion of a 2011 Florida welfare law and a Florida federal court ruling concerning that law, *falsely stating* that the Koch brothers . . . have been promoting forced drug tests for people on welfare.....

4. .... a knowingly false and malicious statement by Ms. Maddow  Koch is not involved in promoting any such issue....


5. Nevertheless, *Ms. Maddow repeatedly and falsely *referred to FFGA as a Koch brothers affiliated group, a Koch brothers connected Florida group, a Koch brothers related group, and this group (FFGA) affiliated with them (Koch) in Florida.
6.  *She made the whole thing up to fool the low-IQ viewers who form MSNBCs base." *Rachel Maddow Is Crazy, Too | Power Line




7. "In an email dated January 3follow the link aboveKoch asked MSNBC to retract, and *apologize for, Maddows fabrications. Instead *of correcting her misrepresentations, Maddow, in her show on Friday, triumphantly refused, saying I dont play requests. Or, in other words, *I lie with impunity, and MSNBC gives me cover. *


8. The left-wing echo chamber swooned. Daily Kosremember them?headlined, Rachel Maddow Speaks Truth to Powerful Koch Brothers. Raw Storys sycophantic take was, Maddow scorches Koch brothers on correction demand: I dont play requests. 

So if you are a left-winger, blatant lies about conservatives make you a hero." Rachel Maddow Is Crazy, Too | Power Line





So.....are you ready to apologize?


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 17, 2014)

Posted on January 6, 2014 by John Hinderaker in Media Bias, The War on the Koch Brothers 

Rachel Maddow Is Crazy, Too




MSNBC has had a hard time lately. The network fired Martin Bashir and Alec Baldwin for craziness, on-air and off-air respectively. Melissa Harris-Perry was forced to apologize, first on Twitter and then, tearfully, on the air, for making political hay out of Mitt Romney&#8217;s adopted grandson. The network put Ed Schulz out to pasture, and most people wrote Chris Matthews off as a hysteric long ago, so that pretty much leaves Rachel Maddow&#8211;amazingly enough&#8211;as MSNBC&#8217;s supposed voice of sanity. Eliana Johnson has reported on Maddow&#8217;s status as the &#8220;queen&#8221; of MSNBC, who wields more control than anyone else over the network&#8217;s often-crazed content.



this is how your link starts 


full of HATE and venom and lies.



YOU used to pretend you were all christiany?


now you don't even bother with that lie huh


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 17, 2014)

Its a pack of unsourced lies you stupid broad


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 17, 2014)

GHook93 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > TheOldSchool said:
> ...



She usually has her facts together and they are devastating. When she does get the story wrong, she is upfront about it and apologizes immediately at the start of her next show

She is like a lawyer picking apart the idiocy of rightwing propaganda


----------



## Stephanie (Mar 17, 2014)

you wasted your time political chic on TM

see blew right over what you posted, which we knew she would


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 17, 2014)

Truthmatters said:


> Posted on January 6, 2014 by John Hinderaker in Media Bias, The War on the Koch Brothers
> 
> Rachel Maddow Is Crazy, Too
> 
> ...






She lied, didn't she.
I just proved it.


And that means, by extension, you did, too.


C'mon....confession is good for the soul......admit it.


And stop gnashing your teeth.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 17, 2014)

Stephanie said:


> you wasted your time political chic on TM
> 
> see blew right over what you posted, which we knew she would







You and I know it's not wasted.....it's like lighting one candle.


Or having Ms. Truthie take another dose of Maalox®.



My guilty pleasure.


----------



## Sallow (Mar 17, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > you wasted your time political chic on TM
> ...



Same coin.

Different sides.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 17, 2014)

Truthmatters said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...






4. .... a knowingly false and malicious statement by Ms. Maddow  Koch is not involved in promoting any such issue....


5. Nevertheless, Ms. Maddow *repeatedly and falsely *referred to FFGA as a Koch brothers affiliated group, a Koch brothers connected Florida group, a Koch brothers related group, and this group (FFGA) affiliated with them (Koch) in Florida.

6. *She made the whole thing up to fool the low-IQ viewers who form MSNBCs base." *Rachel Maddow Is Crazy, Too | Power Line




You're sweatin'.....


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 17, 2014)

Rachel Maddow: Koch-Affiliated Group Pushes Welfare Drug Tests | Video | RealClearPolitics


they gave the group money you stupid phoney christain


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 17, 2014)

Thsat group would be standing on the curb screaming at people without Koch money


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Mar 17, 2014)

Howey said:


> I don't understand. I'm not a woman so I'm not affected by the trauma of rape and abortion. From what I gleam from the OP, under This law a woman must pay out of pocket for an abortion if she is raped?
> 
> Why shouldn't the rapists policy cover it?



Because, as all Republicans know, she was asking for it.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 17, 2014)

Truthmatters said:


> Rachel Maddow: Koch-Affiliated Group Pushes Welfare Drug Tests | Video | RealClearPolitics
> 
> 
> they gave the group money you stupid phoney christain



Rachel Maddow busted lying about the Koch brothers! (via Instapundit)





Maddow doesnt support laws mandating drug testing for welfare recipients and she recently ran a segment attacking the Koch brothers for supporting such laws in Florida.

*Only problem for Maddow and her progressive followers is that the Kochs are not involved with this law in Florida.* They dont support the group Maddow insists they support. Her entire vicious report is based on a demonstratively false premise.

Predictably instead of being a responsible woman of integrity, *Rachel Maddow is refusing to correct her story.*

*Unfortunately for Rachel Maddow, her claims against the Kochs are so blatantly false even the Washington Post is calling Rachel Maddow out:*

The Kochs extensive reach notwithstanding, they cannot be connected to everything.Tarren Bragdon, the chief executive officer of the FGA, tells the Erik Wemple Blog that his organization *did not work with the Kochs on the Florida drug-testing issue. To the best of my knowledge, they were not involved at all. The Kochs general counsel, Holden, is a bit more definitive: Right hand to God, we were not involved.*

BUSTED! Rachel Maddow & MSNBC Caught In Embarrassing Lie ? Refuse To Correct | The Gateway Pundit





She lied.

You  lied.

Busted.


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 17, 2014)

THAT is what Rachel claimed

that the kcok brothers gave the group money to function.

DISPROVE that


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 17, 2014)

Truthmatters said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...






The WaPo finds it to be true....

even *the Washington Post* is calling Rachel Maddow out:

The Kochs extensive reach notwithstanding, they cannot be connected to everything.Tarren Bragdon, the chief executive officer of the FGA, tells the Erik Wemple Blog that his organization did not work with the Kochs on the Florida drug-testing issue. To the best of my knowledge, they were not involved at all. The Kochs general counsel, Holden, is a bit more definitive: Right hand to God, we were not involved.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 17, 2014)

Truthmatters said:


> THAT is what Rachel claimed
> 
> that the kcok brothers gave the group money to function.
> 
> DISPROVE that






On the contrary....I don't want to disprove that she said it: she certainly did.


But it has been found to be untrue.

And, as per the original source that I posted, she was advised that it wasn't true.....that makes her allegation a lie.


*And, unless you admit it.....it makes you a liar.*

Her lie was geared toward influencing the MSNBC low information voter.

Are you a low information voter? Are you willing to accept what has been shown to be a lie, even by the ultra Liberal Washington Post?




Your move.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (Mar 17, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > She is claiming that Michigan is about to sign into a "rape" insurance requirement! What a lying SOB.
> ...





  You guys wanted the government in health insurance. This is what happens


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 17, 2014)

Maine Heritage Policy Center[edit]

The Foundation's CEO and Director, Tarren Bragdon, is the former head of the Maine Heritage Policy Center, a right-wing think tank described as very influential within the Maine Republican Party establishment.[14]

The Lewiston-Auburn Sun Journal of Maine, in a profile of Bragdon, noted that his Maine group faced "allegations that its increased involvement in this year's gubernatorial election pushes, if not violates, the political lobbying limits allowed by its tax-exempt status."[15]

Cato Institute[edit]

Robert Levy of the Cato Institute is on FGA's board. He has long been active with the Cato Institute.[7]

State Policy Network[edit]



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founda...lity#Florida_welfare_drug_testing_controversy

The Foundation is a state affiliate of the State Policy Network, an association of conservative state think tanks. Mother Jones writes of the State Policy Network: "Its mission is simple: to back a constellation of state-level think tanks loosely modeled after Heritage that promote free-market principles and rail against unions, regulation, and tax increases. By blasting out policy recommendations and shaping lawmakers' positions through briefings and private meetings, these think tanks cultivate cozy relationships with GOP politicians. And there's a long tradition of revolving door relationships between SPN staffers and state governments. While they bill themselves as independent think tanks, SPN's members frequently gather to swap ideas."[16]


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 17, 2014)

Cato Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Shareholder dispute[edit]

According to an agreement signed in 1977, there were to be four shareholders of the Cato Institute. They were Charles and David H. Koch, Ed Crane,[104] and William A. Niskanen. Niskanen died in October 2011.[105] In March 2012, a dispute broke out over the ownership of Niskanen's shares.[104][105] Charles and David Koch filed suit in Kansas, seeking to void his shareholder seat. The Kochs argued that Niskanen&#8217;s shares should first be offered to the board of the Institute, and then to the remaining shareholders.[106] Crane contended that Niskanen's share belonged to his widow, Kathryn Washburn, and that the move by the Kochs was an attempt to turn Cato into "some sort of auxiliary for the G.O.P.... It's detrimental to Cato, it's detrimental to Koch Industries, it's detrimental to the libertarian movement."[58]

In June 2012, Cato announced an agreement in principle to settle the dispute by changing the institute's governing structure. Under the agreement, a board replaced the shareholders and Crane retired. Former BB&T bank CEO John A. Allison IV became the Chief Executive Officer.[107][108] The Koch brothers agreed to drop two lawsuits.[109]


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 17, 2014)

Robert A. Levy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Robert A. Levy (born 1941 in Washington, DC) is the chairman of the libertarian Cato Institute and the organizer and financier behind District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court Case that established the Second Amendment as affirming an individual right to gun ownership. He is a Cato senior fellow and an author and pundit. Before becoming a lawyer, he was the founder and CEO of CDA Investment Technologies.


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 17, 2014)

Funding[edit]

The FGA is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization and does not disclose the source of its funding. Bragdon has previously said that &#8221;initial donors who were interested in having [him] here&#8221; in Florida were responsible for his move to the state.[8]



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founda...lity#Florida_welfare_drug_testing_controversy


----------



## R.D. (Mar 17, 2014)

Lawrence ODonnell catches Maddow lying

Says Ohio budget item later signed into law by Gov. John Kasich requires women seeking an abortion to undergo a  "mandatory vaginal probe." - Maddow lie

"Despite what you may have heard about Wisconsins finances, Wisconsin is on track to have a budget surplus this year." - Maddow lie

 GOP Consent decree is punishment for cheating - sorry TDM, thats a lie


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Mar 17, 2014)

GHook93 said:


> She is claiming that Michigan is about to sign into a "rape" insurance requirement! What a lying SOB.
> 
> The bill that law makers are signing into law is an abortion premium RELIEF bill. If you want your insurance to cover abortion, then you pay an extra premium. Look not everyone believes in abortion, so why should they be forced to pay higher premiums to keep it in their insurance policy? If you want it covered in your insurance policy, then don't complain if you have to pay more for it! It used to be the same for child birth. Not everyone is going to need or want it, but the extra coverage is extremely expensive. With Obamacare every policy must include it, so everyone premiums increase a ton.
> 
> But I digress. This is obviously about not having people who don't believe in abortion having to pay higher premiums to include it in their insurance policy. But the sick lying bitch Madcow calls it rape insurance. Here is her thinking. Women who are raped might get pregnant from the assault, since the Michigan law will require an extra charge to cover abortion, women now pay for rape insurance! It a fallacy in logic from one of the most dishonest people in media!



If it's true, it isn't legally slander or libelous. Summarizing a bill's impact as with Arizona's religious freedom thing is protected speech and opinion if it's true. In this case, if you have to pay extra for abortions, since rape is often a reason to get an abortion, it is fairly called 'rape insurance.'


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 17, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > You fuckers can NOT prove the kochs gave them no money huh
> ...



the guy who runs CATO for the Kochs runs that fucking group you idiot

That is affliation


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 17, 2014)

You can not PROVE Rachel was incorrect about them being affliated huh?

their longtime Cato employee runs the fucking group


----------



## TooTall (Mar 17, 2014)

Delta4Embassy said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > She is claiming that Michigan is about to sign into a "rape" insurance requirement! What a lying SOB.
> ...



What percentage of abortions are the result of a woman beiing raped?  I don't know, but I seriously doubt it is often the reason and suspect it is in the single digits as a percentage.


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 17, 2014)

just having that man on the board makes them Koch affliated just like Madow said huh


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 17, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Did wo po mention that they own the CATO group and the CATO group is run by the guy who is on the other groups board?


hmmmmmmm


why didn't they do their homework fully?


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 17, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Silly Wabbit.. USED to be that insurance companies were allowed to use their brains to rate folk INDIVIDUALLY according to their TRUE needs.. So if you had functioning ovaries, you were covered for D & C procedures.. NOW -- insurance companies are OUTLAWED from considering anything but your AGE, Location, and tobacco consumption.. 

Really won't matter to the LESS affluent.. Because THEIR Obaminal care coverage will have a $4K or $6K deductible and the rape victim will be stuck paying MOST of the procedure anyway....


----------



## bodecea (Mar 17, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > She is claiming that Michigan is about to sign into a "rape" insurance requirement! What a lying SOB.
> ...



The OP sure seems upset about this.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 17, 2014)

Moderation Message:

This thread is on life support.
If you can revive it.. Enjoy..
But if it doesn't stay on topic, it's 
gotta get closed. 

flacaltenn


----------



## FJO (Mar 17, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> > Rachel Maddow is awful.  I can't believe she's made a career out of what she does.  Thank goodness her ratings are terrible.
> ...



Would you care to rethink or research that?

TVNewser - And Now the News...About TV News


----------



## FJO (Mar 17, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



The last Republican presidential contender's family adopted a baby of African-American ancestry. 

Were you among the Democrats who made a sick joke of that and ridiculed the family?


----------



## SillyWabbit (Mar 17, 2014)

TheOldSchool said:


> Rachel Maddow is awful.  I can't believe she's made a career out of what she does.  Thank goodness her ratings are terrible.



I'm not convinced she's a she.


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 17, 2014)

Grandma said:


> So is there an extra premium for prostate cancer? Heart surgery? Kidney dialysis? Any number of ailments that most people don't get?
> 
> No.
> 
> Because it's rape insurance.


I love a Grandma who kicks ass.


----------



## jillian (Mar 17, 2014)

GHook93 said:


> She is claiming that Michigan is about to sign into a "rape" insurance requirement! What a lying SOB.
> 
> The bill that law makers are signing into law is an abortion premium RELIEF bill. If you want your insurance to cover abortion, then you pay an extra premium. Look not everyone believes in abortion, so why should they be forced to pay higher premiums to keep it in their insurance policy? If you want it covered in your insurance policy, then don't complain if you have to pay more for it! It used to be the same for child birth. Not everyone is going to need or want it, but the extra coverage is extremely expensive. With Obamacare every policy must include it, so everyone premiums increase a ton.
> 
> But I digress. This is obviously about not having people who don't believe in abortion having to pay higher premiums to include it in their insurance policy. But the sick lying bitch Madcow calls it rape insurance. Here is her thinking. Women who are raped might get pregnant from the assault, since the Michigan law will require an extra charge to cover abortion, women now pay for rape insurance! It a fallacy in logic from one of the most dishonest people in media!



you're lucky i don't neg you for that trash, kiddo.

don't right-wingers know how to disagree with females without using words like bitch or ho or whatever else you like to call women.

and you don't have a clue what you're talking about in regard to the bill. 

try again&#8230; without the ignorance and misogyny.


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 17, 2014)

chikenwing said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...



You obviously meant to direct this at the estimable Mr. H, since he introduced the topic of adoption in the post I quoted.


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 17, 2014)

Truthmatters said:


> Is Lush limpballs a roades scholor?


I doubt he graduated from High School.

But that's how the wingnuts like their leaders: loud & dumb.


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 17, 2014)

If Rush Limbaugh ever loses his eyesight, he'll sure play a mean pinball.

Ooh!  I'm gonna tweet that!


----------



## Political Junky (Mar 17, 2014)

FJO said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...


In a previous run for president by McCain, it was his republican adversary that floated the story that McCain had fathered a black out of wedlock child. In truth, the McCains had adopted a black child.


----------



## MarcATL (Mar 17, 2014)

GHook93 said:


> She is claiming that Michigan is about to sign into a "rape" insurance requirement! What a lying SOB.
> 
> The bill that law makers are signing into law is an abortion premium RELIEF bill. If you want your insurance to cover abortion, then you pay an extra premium. Look not everyone believes in abortion, so why should they be forced to pay higher premiums to keep it in their insurance policy? If you want it covered in your insurance policy, then don't complain if you have to pay more for it! It used to be the same for child birth. Not everyone is going to need or want it, but the extra coverage is extremely expensive. With Obamacare every policy must include it, so everyone premiums increase a ton.
> 
> But I digress. This is obviously about not having people who don't believe in abortion having to pay higher premiums to include it in their insurance policy. But the sick lying bitch Madcow calls it rape insurance. Here is her thinking. Women who are raped might get pregnant from the assault, since the Michigan law will require an extra charge to cover abortion, women now pay for rape insurance! It a fallacy in logic from one of the most dishonest people in media!


It IS rape insurance.

If you get rape and didn't have that rape insurance...you have to PAY MORE! Hence...Rape Insurance.

Rachel pegged them good...once again.


----------



## MarcATL (Mar 17, 2014)

GHook93 said:


> She is claiming that Michigan is about to sign into a "rape" insurance requirement! What a lying SOB.
> 
> The bill that law makers are signing into law is an abortion premium RELIEF bill. If you want your insurance to cover abortion, then you pay an extra premium. Look not everyone believes in abortion, so why should they be forced to pay higher premiums to keep it in their insurance policy? If you want it covered in your insurance policy, then don't complain if you have to pay more for it! It used to be the same for child birth. Not everyone is going to need or want it, but the extra coverage is extremely expensive. With Obamacare every policy must include it, so everyone premiums increase a ton.
> 
> But I digress. This is obviously about not having people who don't believe in abortion having to pay higher premiums to include it in their insurance policy. But the sick lying bitch Madcow calls it rape insurance. Here is her thinking. Women who are raped might get pregnant from the assault, since the Michigan law will require an extra charge to cover abortion, women now pay for rape insurance! It a fallacy in logic from one of the most dishonest people in media!


Why are you so angry?

WHO are you angry at?


----------



## Mertex (Mar 17, 2014)

GHook93 said:


> She is claiming that Michigan is about to sign into a "rape" insurance requirement! What a lying SOB.
> 
> The bill that law makers are signing into law is an abortion premium RELIEF bill. If you want your insurance to cover abortion, then you pay an extra premium. Look not everyone believes in abortion, so why should they be forced to pay higher premiums to keep it in their insurance policy? If you want it covered in your insurance policy, then don't complain if you have to pay more for it! It used to be the same for child birth. Not everyone is going to need or want it, but the extra coverage is extremely expensive. With Obamacare every policy must include it, so everyone premiums increase a ton.
> 
> But I digress. This is obviously about not having people who don't believe in abortion having to pay higher premiums to include it in their insurance policy. But the sick lying bitch Madcow calls it rape insurance. Here is her thinking. Women who are raped might get pregnant from the assault, since the Michigan law will require an extra charge to cover abortion, women now pay for rape insurance! It a fallacy in logic from one of the most dishonest people in media!



You don't like Rachel Maddow because she just happens to be one of the most educated eloquent newscasters on MSNBC, and compared to the bimbos on Faux News, there's no one her equal.  And the fact that you don't understand her explanation of it, makes you the dishonest person in saying that she is dishonest.  Whine and weep......she's right.


----------



## Mertex (Mar 17, 2014)

MarcATL said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > She is claiming that Michigan is about to sign into a "rape" insurance requirement! What a lying SOB.
> ...




He's mad at Obama because Obama brought that plane down in Malaysia, or Obama didn't keep it from happening....it's just a bunch of butt hurt coming out of all their orifices.


----------



## blastoff (Mar 18, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> If Rush Limbaugh ever loses his eyesight, he'll sure play a mean pinball.
> 
> Ooh!  I'm gonna tweet that!



Take your word for it as you seem like a pinball wizard type.

Hey, I'm guessing you missed FJO's post #88 above as you haven't responded to it.  It's in reference to your absurd claim about Ritchie beating Megan in the 'big demo' ratings.  Actually, now that the dust has settled since Kelly took over the Fox time slot opposite Maddow, Ritchie's getting his rather large ass kicked.

FJO cited 3/14/14 as a recent example:

RM...total audience, 695,000; 25-54 Demo, 173,000

MK...total audience, 2,318,000; 25-54 Demo, 373,000

Recall back on 3/6/14 the night of Ritchie's BIG exposè, the opening of Al Capone's...er, I mean her rehash of old news allegations,  _Why We Did It_?  Even with MSNBC's considerable hype, Megan had a nice cream job...2,2247,000 total audience, 307,000 big demo vs. 1,260,000 total and 282,000 big d.  

MSNBC...Your Low Information Headquarters!


----------



## MarcATL (Mar 18, 2014)

FJO said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...


Name the Democrats that made a joke about it.

And what, exactly, was the "sick joke?"

Spell it out.


----------



## MarcATL (Mar 18, 2014)

Truthmatters said:


> BTW  Bobby Jindal is a rowades scholor too.
> 
> How did that work out for him?
> 
> ...


This is why I love TruthMatters, who is perhaps my FAVORITE USMB poster.

I hope she's not banned.


----------



## MarcATL (Mar 18, 2014)

Grandma said:


> So is there an extra premium for prostate cancer? Heart surgery? Kidney dialysis? Any number of ailments that most people don't get?
> 
> No.
> 
> Because it's rape insurance.


Excellent point Grandma...excellent!


----------



## GHook93 (Mar 18, 2014)

jillian said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > She is claiming that Michigan is about to sign into a "rape" insurance requirement! What a lying SOB.
> ...



A little shock value. I could have done it without demeaning her, true, but the premise still stands.

I don't watch Hannity, although he doesn't use falsehoods like Maddow, he can't every say the other side did something good. He is too partisan. Same with Rush. I don't like it from my side, so I obviously can't stand it from the other side.

Her distortion of reality is unconscionable! It's wrong on all accounts!


----------



## GHook93 (Mar 18, 2014)

MarcATL said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > She is claiming that Michigan is about to sign into a "rape" insurance requirement! What a lying SOB.
> ...



Perfect example of how Madcow fools the uneducated liberals!

You have to pay more for ABORTION! That is how it is always has been. If a person wants speech therapy and OT, but it increases the cost of their insurance (which it does), does that mean democrats want parents to get mental challenged child insurance?

It's a fallacy argument that only weak minded individuals like you will believe and/or support!


----------



## Amelia (Mar 18, 2014)

TheOldSchool said:


> Rachel Maddow is awful.  I can't believe she's made a career out of what she does.  Thank goodness her ratings are terrible.




She used to be sensible and pragmatic.  I enjoyed listening to her before she got her own show and had to perform on a nightly basis.

You run out of material pretty fast that way and have to start sensationalizing things to keep ratings.


----------



## GHook93 (Mar 18, 2014)

Mertex said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > She is claiming that Michigan is about to sign into a "rape" insurance requirement! What a lying SOB.
> ...



Intelligent? No doubt. Charismatic? Of course. Articulate? She is a masterful communicator.

But arrogant, ignorant, dishonest and dishonorable? Without a doubt. Anyone who distorts reality the way she does to so many people, can only be characterized that way.


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 18, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Rachel Maddow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> ...


Why was Condoleezza Rice chosen to be a part of the Bush administration?

It certainly wasn't because of her prior experience in government, or her success as a businesswoman . . . so why?


----------



## Amelia (Mar 18, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...




Are you serious?  Read her bio.





> In 1986, while an international affairs fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations, Rice served as Special Assistant to the Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
> From 1989 through March 1991 (the period of the fall of Berlin Wall and the final days of the Soviet Union), she served in President George H.W. Bush's administration as Director, and then Senior Director, of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council, and a Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. In this position, Rice helped develop Bush's and Secretary of State James Baker's policies in favor of German reunification. She impressed Bush, who later introduced her to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, as the one who "tells me everything I know about the Soviet Union."[40]
> 
> In 1991, Rice returned to her teaching position at Stanford, although she continued to serve as a consultant on the former Soviet Bloc for numerous clients in both the public and private sectors. Late that year, California Governor Pete Wilson appointed her to a bipartisan committee that had been formed to draw new state legislative and congressional districts in the state.
> ...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleezza_Rice


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 18, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> 7. "In an email dated January 3follow the link above*Koch asked MSNBC to retract, and apologize for, Maddows fabrications. Instead of correcting her misrepresentations, Maddow, in her show on Friday, triumphantly refused, saying I dont play requests.* Or, in other words, I lie with impunity, and MSNBC gives me cover.




Now I have caught YOU in a lie.

Her comment "I don't play requests" was in response to them *demanding that she READ THEIR STATEMENT ON THE AIR*.


So now we all know that YOU are a liar.


----------



## bodecea (Mar 18, 2014)

Apparently, Rachel has gotten some on the Right upset.   Hmmmm.


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 18, 2014)

PoliticalChic said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Posted on January 6, 2014 by John Hinderaker in Media Bias, The War on the Koch Brothers
> ...



No, you proved that you are a liar.


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 18, 2014)

iamwhatiseem said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > GHook93 said:
> ...


The government isn't in health insurance.

This is what you stupid wingnuts still can't grasp.


----------



## R.D. (Mar 18, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > 7. "In an email dated January 3follow the link above*Koch asked MSNBC to retract, and apologize for, Maddows fabrications. Instead of correcting her misrepresentations, Maddow, in her show on Friday, triumphantly refused, saying I dont play requests.* Or, in other words, I lie with impunity, and MSNBC gives me cover.
> ...



Oh brother.

You Say Tomato, I Say You're an Idiot.


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 18, 2014)

FJO said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > TheOldSchool said:
> ...


No, because ratings change daily.  I'm sure you can find a day where Kelly has more, just as I can find a day where Maddow has more.

The post that I was refuting was claiming Maddow had terrible ratings.  She does not.  She is almost always over 1 million viewers.


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 18, 2014)

R.D. said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


For showing that PoliticalChic lied?


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 18, 2014)

Amelia said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Exactly.  She was an educated, scholarly Ivory Tower pinhead, who had won many awards and earned many degrees.

All the things that half-wit PoliticalChic is denigrating, if that someone is on the Left.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 18, 2014)

rape insurance and death panels

both sides play stupid


----------



## Amelia (Mar 18, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...





Your question was about why she was chosen to be part of the Bush administration.  You said it wasn't because of her prior experience in government when in fact it was.


----------



## Amelia (Mar 18, 2014)

Some people in academia transcend the ivory tower.  Rice was one of those people.  

Some people don't.


----------



## blastoff (Mar 18, 2014)

Truthmatters said:


> just having that man on the board makes them Koch affliated just like Madow said huh



Truthy, I seriously doubt Madow (sic) said they were a-f-f-l-i-a-t-e-d.  
You're low information credentials are showing, again.  Your good at that kind of stuff though.  Or, am I a lair?

*XXXXXXXXXXX*


----------



## Mertex (Mar 18, 2014)

GHook93 said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > GHook93 said:
> ...



You only see her that way because she doesn't speak Fauxspeak.......and she  is actually making reality clearer for you, you have your blinders on.  And, you just said she was intelligent, then in the next sentence you claim she is ignorant.  Hmmmmm, you just seem to be venting.


----------



## Mertex (Mar 18, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...


Cause they want to divert your attention from all their racist remarks and jokes and focus on their token black, so they can say "see, we're not racist".


----------



## Mertex (Mar 18, 2014)

bodecea said:


> Apparently, Rachel has gotten some on the Right upset.   Hmmmm.




Some?


----------



## Sallow (Mar 18, 2014)

Mertex said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



No.

Not at all.

This is what I sometimes dislike about the left. They have a tendency to have the same partisan blinders as the right.

Bush wasn't even remotely racist.

Not part of his make up.

He chose Rice because of her deep knowledge about the Soviet Union.

Rice would have been a good part of the team had they been involved in the cold war.

Unfortunately..that had passed.


----------



## Amelia (Mar 18, 2014)

Mertex said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...




Bull criminitly sh*t!

Condoleeza Rice was highly qualified.  And Bush's appointments were highly diverse.   The left was heinous to her because of her color but she was ever dignified.  

If the left weren't such race hustlers, Obama might have had a more successful presidency.  You guys did him no favors by making it clear out of the gate that dissent would be declared racism.  If it had been made clear that he was going to have to make his way by building the relationships he lacked, without people running to defend him on spurious grounds, maybe he would have actually done what was needed to develop an effective working relationship with Congress -- and by Congress I mean both the Senate and the House.  Obama was no better at working with Democrats than he was with Republicans.  But he didn't think he needed to be because b.s. artists told him he was above that and that no one had legit reasons for disagreeing with him.


----------



## Amelia (Mar 18, 2014)

Sallow said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...





Thank you, Sallow.


----------



## Mac1958 (Mar 18, 2014)

.

I'd be interested to know if the followers of these partisan division pimps ever ask themselves:

"Gee, I wonder what they're choosing to *not* tell me?"

No indication that such curiosity is common.

.


----------



## MarcATL (Mar 18, 2014)

Amelia said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> > Rachel Maddow is awful.  I can't believe she's made a career out of what she does.  Thank goodness her ratings are terrible.
> ...


Does this rule apply to Bill O'Reilly as well?


----------



## Amelia (Mar 18, 2014)

MarcATL said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > TheOldSchool said:
> ...




I'd say most likely.  I quit watching O'Reilly in disgust long before I gave up cable.  Chris Matthews outlasted O'Reilly in my house.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 18, 2014)

Condi Rice was every bit qualified to be the NSA adviser and SecofState.

She also helped to craft national policy that those choices now prevent her from ever traveling to Western Europe again.


----------



## Sallow (Mar 18, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Condi Rice was every bit qualified to be the NSA adviser and SecofState.
> 
> She also helped to craft national policy that those choices now prevent her from ever traveling to Western Europe again.



Actually..the way things are going now?

She could get work as a consultant.


----------



## Machaut (Mar 18, 2014)

GHook93 said:


> She is claiming that Michigan is about to sign into a "rape" insurance requirement! What a lying SOB.
> 
> The bill that law makers are signing into law is an abortion premium RELIEF bill. If you want your insurance to cover abortion, then you pay an extra premium. Look not everyone believes in abortion, so why should they be forced to pay higher premiums to keep it in their insurance policy? If you want it covered in your insurance policy, then don't complain if you have to pay more for it! It used to be the same for child birth. Not everyone is going to need or want it, but the extra coverage is extremely expensive. With Obamacare every policy must include it, so everyone premiums increase a ton.
> 
> But I digress. This is obviously about not having people who don't believe in abortion having to pay higher premiums to include it in their insurance policy. But the sick lying bitch Madcow calls it rape insurance. *Here is her thinking.* Women who are raped might get pregnant from the assault, since the Michigan law will require an extra charge to cover abortion, women now pay for rape insurance! It a fallacy in logic from one of the most dishonest people in media!


I have to disagree with you on the bold section.

It is not her thinking. Rachel Maddow, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Nancy Grace, Chris Matthews, none of them is their own boss. These are not pundits, they are actors and orators paid to deliver someone else's opinions and craftily defend them on live TV if they are questioned by a guest.

If you doubt that these people are deliberately disingenuous and represent beliefs they themselves do not subscribe to, please refer to the case of Gretchen Carlson:
Gretchen Carlson Dumbs Down - The Daily Show - Video Clip | Comedy Central


----------



## SillyWabbit (Mar 18, 2014)

Machaut said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > She is claiming that Michigan is about to sign into a "rape" insurance requirement! What a lying SOB.
> ...



Are you saying that these people are only _entertainers_?


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 18, 2014)

Mertex said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



Actually, I used to admire her.. When she was WRITING in The Nation and other lefty journals.. So I KNOW she can do a thorough job without all the MSNBC hype and emotion.

But since she's taken to TV -- she HAS become dogmatic and partisian. Or maybe she always was and couldn't get away with it in the "respectable" side of the press. MSNBC is an excuse for GOOD journalists to go full Monty ranting zealot.. 

Not many people actually had subscriptions to National Review AND The Nation at the same time --- but I've read both sides of the same stories enough to KNOW when someone isn't using their brain...


----------



## Machaut (Mar 18, 2014)

SillyWabbit said:


> Machaut said:
> 
> 
> > GHook93 said:
> ...


It may be obvious to you, but for some reason, there are actually people out there who blame these people for "their" opinions, just as they blame Obama, Bush, and all the rest for "their" policies that "they" wanted.

This thread particularly miffed me because Rachel Maddow is a wonderful actress and she does at a good job of representing and delivering "her" views. Bill O'Reilly, for example, doesn't. It may make me a bit silly to dislike Bill O'Reilly and Chris Matthews because their pigheadedness is likely merely part of the character they play in the script they were given, but it just seems to me like those roles could be done so much better.


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 18, 2014)

Amelia said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...


Special Assistant and Advisory Boards.  That's basically consulting work.  She had never been elected to office, or been put in charge of an agency prior to being named head of NSA.

I'm not putting her down, I'm just pointing out the fact that Right-Wingers lauded her credentials from academia, but now dingbats like Stephanie and PoliticalChic denigrate academic credentials for purely partisan reasons.

It's called hypocrisy.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 18, 2014)

Sallow said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Condi Rice was every bit qualified to be the NSA adviser and SecofState.
> ...



Yup, security consultant for Walgreens.


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 18, 2014)

Amelia said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



That's total bullshit.  

Show me something other than the typical response when Right-Wingers are asked to produce evidence: that lone cartoon from wacko Ted Rall, who doesn't represent The Left any more than Michael Savage represents The Right.

Produce!


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 18, 2014)

Amelia said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...


Matthews is very frustrating to listen to on Hardball, but when he's a guest on someone else's show, he's a completely different person and never interupts.  In fact, he actually stops talking when someone interupts him!  It's quite amazing to watch him on Bill Maher, etc.

And the man knows his politics - I'm talking the mechanics of it.


----------



## Amelia (Mar 18, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...





Does this response from Mertex exist in a vacuum?  Did this kind of comment spontaneously start after Bush was no longer in office?



Mertex said:


> Cause they want to divert your attention from all their racist remarks and jokes and focus on their token black, so they can say "see, we're not racist".



(No, it didn't.)

Radio Host Calls Rice an 'Aunt Jemima'



p.s., I appreciate Sallow showing that attitude is not universal, not that I thought it was, but it was still refreshing to hear Sallow say something in response.


----------



## FJO (Mar 18, 2014)

MarcATL said:


> FJO said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Melissa Harris-Perry, for one, with a bunch of fellow Democrats on MSNBC, who made jokes which denigrated the Romney family for adopting an African-American baby.

To her credit, she made a tearful - if less than honest - apology a couple days later.


----------



## FJO (Mar 18, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> FJO said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



True enough, ratings may vary from day to day, but it is safe bet that finding days when Rachel Maddow has more viewers than Megan Kelly - in the demo or in total - would be about as difficult as finding an honest liberal.


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 18, 2014)

Amelia said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...


Radio host John Sylvester.  I've never heard of him before, and it's likely that you hadn't, either.

I rest my case.


----------



## Amelia (Mar 18, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...





And you'll just ignore Mertex's response to you.  

Good job.

I found what you requested -- an example other than the one you claimed to be tired of hearing.

There are more.  Why would I google 8 years of inappropriate reactions to a highly qualified public servant when you have Mertex's response staring right at you and you ignore it?


----------



## Mertex (Mar 18, 2014)

Amelia said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...


Not really.  Bush had other reasons for picking Rice, but most Republicans use it as their one reason to be able to say they are not racist.  Rice was picked because she would not be challenging WH thinking or offering debating points in policy discussion.  In other words, Bush, by picking Rice, would no longer have the voice in the room that says "Wait a minute" and offers the kind of caution that could have helped him head off mistakes and encouraged his humility.  In other words, Rice was a "yes man".



> Condoleeza Rice was highly qualified.  And Bush's appointments were highly diverse.   The left was heinous to her because of her color but she was ever dignified.


The left elected the first black President, so your accusation that we were heinous to her because of her color is pure bullshit.



> If the left weren't such race hustlers, Obama might have had a more successful presidency.


No, if the right would have been willing to work with him like the left worked with Bush, Obama would have had a more successful presidency and the country would have fared better, but conservatives don't give a crap about the country, are just interested in getting their own elected so they can pass more draconian laws and back-to-the-past type of governing.



> You guys did him no favors by making it clear out of the gate that dissent would be declared racism.


When Republican Congressmen like Wilson treat Obama like no other President has been treated, it is obvious that it has to do with race.  They are willing to forego the rules of decorum because they can't stand that a black man is in charge of the country and way more powerful than they are.  Plain and simple.



> If it had been made clear that he was going to have to make his way by building the relationships he lacked, without people running to defend him on spurious grounds, maybe he would have actually done what was needed to develop an effective working relationship with Congress -- and by Congress I mean both the Senate and the House.  Obama was no better at working with Democrats than he was with Republicans.  But he didn't think he needed to be because b.s. artists told him he was above that and that no one had legit reasons for disagreeing with him.


That's nothing but bullshit.  Obama extended his hand and almost got it bit.  I guess you've forgotten the turn-downs to dinner at the WH and the comments made by McConnell that their main goal was to make him fail?  Obama did everything and more than what most Democrats wanted him to do the first four years, and it got him nowhere withe the party of "NO" - but now that he doesn't have to worry about re-election, he rightly can tell them to stuff it.....and hopefully, people are not so stupid as to see that the Republicans don't care about their welfare, whether they have health care or not, just about getting re-elected so they can do their underhanded maneuvers, such as Chris Christie  has been found doing.


----------



## Amelia (Mar 18, 2014)

"and the comments made by McConnell that their main goal was to make him fail?"

*sigh*

McConnell pointed out that even if the GOP won the Senate in 2010, we couldn't stop Obamacare unless we took the White House back in 2012, which would mean that we needed to, in Obama's terms, make sure he was a one-term president.

Every time a Democrat cites McConnell's 2010 comment as anything other than that they sound like they aren't interested in the truth.  

I've even heard people claim he said that in 2008 right after the election.  That's how desperately people twist what was a simple observation about what would be needed to stop Obamacare.


----------



## Mertex (Mar 18, 2014)

Sallow said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



I never said that Bush was racist.  Bush had his own reasons for picking Rice, such as someone that would not challenge anything he wanted to do.  His own people did not think Rice was qualified or had the experience necessary.  Even Cheney, whom the revere so much, didn't have anything positive to say about Rice.

And, not all Republicans are racist, but the majority of racists are Republican.  And they don't hesitate to use Rice and Powell as their defense as not being racist, while at the same time coming up with bills that would undo the Civil Rights Act and put the black community back to being second class citizens.


----------



## Mertex (Mar 18, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > GHook93 said:
> ...


I really can't say that I blame anyone on MSNBC for turning it up a bit.  Just looking at all the lies and crap that Faux News comes up with, they would be doing the left a disservice if they didn't ratchet it up some....but, you can't say that Rachel Maddow lies or makes up crap.  The right doesn't like her because she is eloquent, and explains things so that even the simple minded can understand them.  Perhaps that's what infuriates most on the right about Maddow.



> Not many people actually had subscriptions to National Review AND The Nation at the same time --- but I've read both sides of the same stories enough to KNOW when someone isn't using their brain...


MSNBC is not like Faux News, where the commentators are told what and what not they are going to say.  Sure, Maddow has bosses above her that have a say on what they are presenting and set boundaries, but she is passionate about what she believes, and I don't think she is being forced to say something she doesn't agree with.  Maddow is very intelligent,  her presentations are always fact based....so I can't see where anyone could say she isn't using her brain.


----------



## MarcATL (Mar 19, 2014)

FJO said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > FJO said:
> ...


That'a a bold-face LIE from the pits of a Republican Hell!

MHP in no way, shape or form made any joke about that child.

Can you PRODUCE said joke from MHP?

Let me help you...no...you can't, because she never made one.

MHP was simply hosting her show, when a couple of comedians, one of whom was white went making a joke, and it wasn't against the baby, it wasn't even that bad, it was a joke and MHP's comment was simply, to respond that "wouldn't it be funny if Kanye West's and Kim Kardashians baby grew up and married Romney's grandbaby" that was it, she also said that the child was beautiful. But you race-hustling RW BASTARDS have somehow turned that into MHP making racist jokes bashing Romney's black baby or Romney himself. When NOTHING of the sort happened.

I was VERY pissed at her apology, because it sincerely wasn't necessary, she did no wrong. Yet, she felt bad and poured her heart out, to have the likes of some filthy RW bastard like yourself just dismiss it as false.

Makes me SICK to my STOMACH!!

*spits*


----------



## MarcATL (Mar 19, 2014)

Here's the entire CLIP featuring the "racist Joke" that the racist RW claims MHP made....


Can one of you RW BASTARDS who believe that to be true please pin-point the exact statements that MHP made that are racist? Cause I saw the entire show live on that Sunday and I saw no racism from MHP. I was shocked, SHOCKED when a controversy was the result.


----------



## Mertex (Mar 19, 2014)

Amelia said:


> "and the comments made by McConnell that their main goal was to make him fail?"
> 
> *sigh*
> 
> ...



There is a difference between "We need to win in 2012" and "The *single most important thing* we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president. - and then set out to put the country in jeopardy by not raising the debt limit in time to preclude a lower rating, by voting "no" to bills that would produce jobs and help the unemployed, and filibustering on something that even the most simple minded would have known was not going to happen (have Obama defund ACA) and costing the country another load of money.

And, the statement was made, maybe not McConnell, but by someone that is lauded by majority of Republicans, Rush Limbaugh.  He said it...he wanted Obama to fail....and I'm sure that many applauded him for saying it.




> Every time a Democrat cites McConnell's 2010 comment as anything other than that they sound like they aren't interested in the truth.


What you want to call the truth is not truth, just altered reality.  What the Republicans in Congress have done is no less than saying they wanted Obama along with the country to fail, because their actions have very much jeopardized the country.



> I've even heard people claim he said that in 2008 right after the election.  That's how desperately people twist what was a simple observation about what would be needed to stop Obamacare.



Actually the actions of Republicans in Congress demonstrated that sentiment more than in 2012....they may not have said it in 2008, but their actions demonstrated it.


----------



## Amelia (Mar 19, 2014)

Limbaugh's statement was a pithy way to recognize that Obama's  agenda would be bad for the country, so naturally we don't want him to succeed in passing it.

You continue to misrepresent what McConnell said.

The actions of Republicans in Congress reflect people who are doing what their constituents sent them to Washington to do.  The left says that if Republicans want something different from Obama's agenda they need to start winning elections.  Well, Republicans won elections.  My legislators in my district and state won elections and went to Washington with a mandate from me.

This is about the fifth time I've tried to have a political discussion with you.  You twist words, make extreme statements, sometimes backpedal when caught out, and sometimes don't even have the grace to recognize that you have been caught out.  You double down and pretend your extreme version of events is fact. 

I keep saying I won't make the mistake of engaging you again.  But you can be such a nice person in nonpolitical settings that I forget and try again.  Hopefully I won't forget next time.


----------



## Sallow (Mar 19, 2014)

MarcATL said:


> FJO said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



Add in Romney, himself, as fired Americans and profited from it. Then he ran for President  and held court telling everyone about how he felt about them. 47% of Americans want "Free" stuff. This coming from a man born with a golden spoon in his mouth never having to do physical labor for a wage, ever.

That..never made one conservative even wince.


----------



## Sallow (Mar 19, 2014)

Amelia said:


> Limbaugh's statement was a pithy way to recognize that Obama's  agenda would be bad for the country, so naturally we don't want him to succeed in passing it.
> 
> You continue to misrepresent what McConnell said.
> 
> ...



What McConnell said was unprecedented. Congress also followed suit by being the most obstructionist in history. These are all "firsts". If it happens again, by the way, under a Republican President? No big deal. So you are essentially stating that this crap should be BAU.

Limbaugh? Par for the course. He's a racist bigoted asshole who's one of the biggest hypocrites on the planet. He called Clinton a terrorist. Privately, when he isn't looking for his new trophy wife and trying to score drugs, he jets off two third world nations to hire prostitutes and pop viagra. Real role model there..you betcha!


----------



## Amelia (Mar 19, 2014)

Sallow said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Limbaugh's statement was a pithy way to recognize that Obama's  agenda would be bad for the country, so naturally we don't want him to succeed in passing it.
> ...




I don't think "unprecedented" means what you think it means.  Some things escalated during Obama's presidency but the trends began earlier.  The obstructionism, the hate, etc.

McConnell's statement was purely in the context of what it would take to get Obamacare reversed.  The end.  

And Limbaugh is not a racist.  He's a shock jock.   He's no worse than Bill Maher.


----------



## Sallow (Mar 19, 2014)

MarcATL said:


> Here's the entire CLIP featuring the "racist Joke" that the racist RW claims MHP made....
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfCy1nOVK9k
> 
> Can one of you RW BASTARDS who believe that to be true please pin-point the exact statements that MHP made that are racist? Cause I saw the entire show live on that Sunday and I saw no racism from MHP. I was shocked, SHOCKED when a controversy was the result.



I saw that when it aired.

It was hard to watch given how spirited, intelligent and generally cheerful Ms. Perry is.

And when you contrast that with the way Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck have made fun of Obama's family members in some pretty awful ways, and were never made to apologize..it becomes all the more disgusting.


----------



## Amelia (Mar 19, 2014)

Anyone remember Obama's hypocritical behavior with regard to Bush's Supreme Court nominees?

He said it would be wrong to filibuster, would be wrong to vote no for a qualified nominee for ideological reasons, agreed the nominee was qualified, and then filibustered and voted no anyway after being reminded that not joining the partisan bus might put a crimp in his future political aspirations.


----------



## GWV5903 (Mar 19, 2014)

MarcATL said:


> Here's the entire CLIP featuring the "racist Joke" that the racist RW claims MHP made....
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfCy1nOVK9k
> 
> Can one of you RW BASTARDS who believe that to be true please pin-point the exact statements that MHP made that are racist? Cause I saw the entire show live on that Sunday and I saw no racism from MHP. I was shocked, SHOCKED when a controversy was the result.



So what was the purpose of the photo then? Do you need something beyond visual aid to determine the purpose of this discussion? I know your slow on this issue, so try playing this clip a couple of times and see if you can figure it out, if not just remain in denial...


----------



## Amelia (Mar 19, 2014)

GWV5903 said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Here's the entire CLIP featuring the "racist Joke" that the racist RW claims MHP made....
> ...





Perry didn't make fun of Kieran Romney.  The photo was a terrible choice of subject matter to make any kind of joke about it, but she didn't actually insult the child.

And I believe her apology was sincere.  Why would she want to insult anyone for adopting a black child?  It would be like slapping her own family.


----------



## Sallow (Mar 19, 2014)

Amelia said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



I know EXACTLY what it means.

No other congressional leader, as a mission statement, said their goal was to make sure the President only serves one term. That's never been done.

Additionally, shortly after the President was elected, Republicans did a power point briefing on what they were going to do to unseat the President.

That's with:

-Failing financial and manufacturing sectors.
-2 Hot Wars.
-High Unemployment.
-Looming Depression.
-Full on Recession.

It was and is..the height of "malpractice" in governance.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 19, 2014)

GHook93 said:


> She is claiming that Michigan is about to sign into a "rape" insurance requirement! What a lying SOB.
> 
> The bill that law makers are signing into law is an abortion premium RELIEF bill. If you want your insurance to cover abortion, then you pay an extra premium. Look not everyone believes in abortion, so why should they be forced to pay higher premiums to keep it in their insurance policy? If you want it covered in your insurance policy, then don't complain if you have to pay more for it! It used to be the same for child birth. Not everyone is going to need or want it, but the extra coverage is extremely expensive. With Obamacare every policy must include it, so everyone premiums increase a ton.
> 
> But I digress. This is obviously about not having people who don't believe in abortion having to pay higher premiums to include it in their insurance policy. But the sick lying bitch Madcow calls it rape insurance. Here is her thinking. Women who are raped might get pregnant from the assault, since the Michigan law will require an extra charge to cover abortion, women now pay for rape insurance! It a fallacy in logic from one of the most dishonest people in media!



Another hysterical right wing thread of "ain't it awful".  Rape Insurance is hyperbole, no more so than "Death Tax".  Too bad those on the right never define problems and suggest solutions - every day it's the same refrain, "ain't it awful" -  they can't define a problem without using a cliché, and never have a solution but are quick to assign blame.  

Notice too, along with blame they are obsessed with attacking others using childish labels; indeed, even an average second grader would be embarrassed to call anyone a "Madcow".

Rate this thread pitiful..


----------



## Amelia (Mar 19, 2014)

Sallow said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...





That wasn't McConnell's mission statement.  That was McConnell saying that taking the Senate in 2010 wouldn't be enough to get Obamacare reversed. 

Obama himself introduced the "one-term" language when he spoke of what would happen if we didn't have an economic recovery.  

McConnell echoed his language, in the context of what would need to happen if Obamacare were going to be blocked.


----------



## Amelia (Mar 19, 2014)

Democrats were obstructionist with Bush because they didn't want him to get credit for immigration reform, for example.

Obama played partisan games when he was a senator.

Reid played obstructionist and partisan games when Bush was president, and then when Obama became president just fell over and no longer cared to stand up for what were supposedly his principled responsibilities as leader of the Senate -- putting the lie to any pretense that he was doing them for anything but partisan reasons.


----------



## Sallow (Mar 19, 2014)

Amelia said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



My point stands..McConnnell's "Verbal Jujitsu" aside. McConnell's senate reaction was to engage in a record number of filibusters. And when the Republicans took the house? Everything slowed to a crawl, there was budget crisis after crisis. A "sequester". And a government shutdown.

These were pretty radical maneuvers.


----------



## Sallow (Mar 19, 2014)

Case in point.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3f9bGGixwM4]Mitch McConnell Filibusters His Own Bill - YouTube[/ame]

Dem unity forces McConnell to filibuster his own proposal


----------



## MarcATL (Mar 19, 2014)

These RW bastards up in Congress purposed in their hearts to oppose Obama by all and any means necessary, even when it meant going against what they THEMSELVES believe in and/or stood for.

SICKENING!!

*SMH*


----------



## Amelia (Mar 19, 2014)

Democrats do the same.

Did it when Bush was in office.

It's not "unprecedented".




We could have had immigration reform already if they didn't.

And Obama did it too.


----------



## Sallow (Mar 19, 2014)

Amelia said:


> Democrats do the same.
> 
> Did it when Bush was in office.
> 
> ...




Did what the same?

They closed down the government?

When?

Yeah..there were filibusters. But nothing like this.

Bush was largely successful in passing legislation.

He got done most of his agenda.

He failed on immigration, a handful of judges and appointments and turning SSI into a 401K plan.


----------



## Amelia (Mar 19, 2014)

Sallow said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Democrats do the same.
> ...





Partisanship and obstructionism escalated since Obama took office but it was not unprecedented and was not caused by his election.  It was on the upswing before he was nominated.  He participated in it.  I already gave an example -- how he behaved with the Alito nomination.  He said Alito was well-qualified.  He said it would be wrong to filibuster and vote against such a candidate.  He did so anyway.   What caused his change of heart? A trusted Obama advisor said that it was because he was reminded that not joining in the partisanship could hurt his future political prospects.  [Edit: I might be smashing together things said about Alito and things said about Roberts but Obama still went against what he claimed he believed in.]


----------



## Sallow (Mar 19, 2014)

Amelia said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



Again.

I pointed out what was unprecedented.

And additionally obstruction went on by a magnitude of hundreds after Obama was elected.

You just don't see Democrats..well Liberals..behaving in remotely the same fashion as the Tea Party types in congress.


They stated they hate the government. And prove it daily.


----------



## Amelia (Mar 19, 2014)

Sallow said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...





Bush got major hate.

The trends were established before Obama was elected.

How Democrats talk about the Tea Party is as bad as how the Tea Party talks about Democrats.

Two sides of the same coin.  Reciprocated.  A continuation of a trend.  Exacerbated by gerrymandering. Stoked by the 24-hour news cycle.  Cameras on at all times makes people have to posture for the base and inhibits the ability to make deals.  

Rebublicans fighting for smaller government or for limited growth of government is not a crime.  It is not wrong.  It does not deserve the excoriation it receives.  That excoriation comes from a partisan place.




We're going in circles.  I'm done here. 

On topic: Rachel Maddow has her good points. But she's done some pants on fire stuff too.  Occupational hazard.


----------



## MarcATL (Mar 19, 2014)

When has Rachel done some "pants on fire" stuff?

Cite them please.


----------



## GWV5903 (Mar 19, 2014)

Amelia said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



I must have missed Marc's point then? 

The photo was the center piece to her point...


----------



## Amelia (Mar 19, 2014)

GWV5903 said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > GWV5903 said:
> ...




It was a "what were you thinking?" moment.  Who could ever think it was a good idea to use a family photograph to prompt a comedy segment?  But she didn't technically make fun of Kieran.


----------



## Amelia (Mar 19, 2014)

MarcATL said:


> When has Rachel done some "pants on fire" stuff?
> 
> Cite them please.





The connection she tried to draw between the Kochs and the Florida drug testing law was Beckian in its conspiratorial absurdity.   The logic she used would have implicated MSNBC's parent company as complicit in what she accused the Kochs of.


----------



## R.D. (Mar 19, 2014)

MarcATL said:


> When has Rachel done some "pants on fire" stuff?
> 
> Cite them please.



 Read the thredd, there are numerous posted already


----------



## Sallow (Mar 19, 2014)

Amelia said:


> Bush got major hate.
> 
> The trends were established before Obama was elected.
> 
> ...



Bush came into office after losing the popular vote and winning an "emergency" court case. Sure there was alot of hate. But Democrats were more than willing to do horse trading. Bush? Not so much. First thing he did was ram through a major stimulus package where there was none needed. And did it by spending the surplus. Next thing he did was to get belligerent with the Russian and Chinese. He tore up several major treaties. He was a very "my way" or "high way" kind of guy during the first term. Even with all of that, he was still successful legislatively and got card blanche after 9/11.

And that is fine to advocate for what you want. But at least be honest about it. Conservatives don't want a smaller government. They want a government that exclusively helps wealthy folks. By the way? Nothing wrong with advocating for the wealthy either. But heck, don't dumb down the argument. The wealthy are just as "dependent" on government as poor or middle class folks.

And Rachel? She gets it mostly right.

And when she doesn't? She basically sets the record straight.

Aside from the local press, she was the one covering the Bridge closings and everyone was calling her crazy.

Crazy like a Fox.


----------



## Sallow (Mar 19, 2014)

Amelia said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > When has Rachel done some "pants on fire" stuff?
> ...



Wait what?

The Kochs fund every conservative group from here to timbukto. They actually have groups writing legislation that gets put up for votes, verbatim.

It's not Beckian to make that "accusation".

Because that's what they do.

Rachel Maddow Speaks Truth to Powerful Koch Brothers
MSNBC?s Rachel Maddow hunkers down on Koch Bros. claim


----------



## Amelia (Mar 19, 2014)

Sallow said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...




The connection she tried to draw in this case was so wrong that even PolitiFact had to label it Mostly False.  If a Republican had said something similar they wouldn't have been given the benefit of a "Mostly".   Did she ever take MSNBC's parent company to task for doing the same thing she accused the Kochs of?


----------



## jillian (Mar 19, 2014)

Amelia said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



politifact said the line between the corporation and the Koch's wasn't absolutely clear.

personally, I thought that was bogus.


----------



## Amelia (Mar 19, 2014)

So did she call Comcast down too?


----------



## MarcATL (Mar 19, 2014)

Amelia said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...


If you heard her opening statement you wouldn't have to ask that question.

She started by saying that many people have something to say about this photo of Romney and the baby.

So she started by stating a fact.

Yet, the rabid RW race-hustling filth, turned that into a racist outrage scandal.

Over absolutely NOTHING.

Like...seriously.


----------



## MarcATL (Mar 19, 2014)

Amelia said:


> So did she call Comcast down too?



What are you claiming that Comcast did Amelia?

Please post it.


----------



## Amelia (Mar 19, 2014)

Perry used a family photo in a comedy segment.  That was bad taste.


----------



## Amelia (Mar 19, 2014)

MarcATL said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > So did she call Comcast down too?
> ...




Comcast is a donor to the same horrible State Policy Network that some Koch foundations donated money to, donations which somehow implicate the Koch brothers as backers of a dastardly law.


----------



## MarcATL (Mar 19, 2014)

Amelia said:


> Perry used a family photo in a comedy segment.  That was bad taste.


It was not a comedy segment.

It was a segment about race relations.

Comedians were there, yes, but they were there from segments before and after that.

It's not a comedy show Amelia.

You and your ilk seem to be doing somersaults in order to lay the blame on MHP.

It's not cool. Not to mention dishonest....to put it mildly.


----------



## MarcATL (Mar 19, 2014)

Amelia said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...


Amelia...

Are you comparing an organization that ACTIVELY lobbies for certain laws and actually pays to have certain laws written to an organization that perhaps donated to the same organization?

You do realize that many huge corporations typically donate to all sorts of organizations and causes right?

You do realize that Koch Brothers are HIGHLY politically active and PAYS to have laws written to their favor don't you?

You're not being intellectually honest here.

Not in the least.


----------



## Amelia (Mar 19, 2014)

*sigh*


Later gators


----------



## Grandma (Mar 19, 2014)

Amelia said:


> ...How Democrats talk about the Tea Party is as bad as how the Tea Party talks about Democrats.
> 
> Two sides of the same coin....



Umm, no.

The Teabaggers are a radical fringe group whose policies are proven failures. The left points out the dangers. The Teabaggers open their faces and make noise. They waste tax dollars investigating phony "scandals." They're a liability even to the republicans.

It's like comparing apples to plutonium.


----------



## Mertex (Mar 19, 2014)

Amelia said:


> Limbaugh's statement was a pithy way to recognize that Obama's  agenda would be bad for the country, so naturally we don't want him to succeed in passing it.


Limbaugh, who has never given a damn about anybody but himself, why would he care that millions don't have health care, that's what's bad for the country.



> You continue to misrepresent what McConnell said.


You continue to sugar coat what he said.



> The actions of Republicans in Congress reflect people who are doing what their constituents sent them to Washington to do.  The left says that if Republicans want something different from Obama's agenda they need to start winning elections.  Well, Republicans won elections.  My legislators in my district and state won elections and went to Washington with a mandate from me.


That's bullshit.  The majority of Americans are supporting the opposite of what they vote for.  Get your head out of the sand.  Why do you think Republicans have such a low rating? Lower than Obama's......you think that the handful of people like you should be the ones making the decisions for the majority?



> This is about the fifth time I've tried to have a political discussion with you.  You twist words, make extreme statements, sometimes backpedal when caught out, and sometimes don't even have the grace to recognize that you have been caught out.  You double down and pretend your extreme version of events is fact.


That's your opinion, so of course you are entitled to it.  But, it's bullshit....I don't twist anything...just because I don't agree with your revised version of everything doesn't mean it has been twisted.



> I keep saying I won't make the mistake of engaging you again.  But you can be such a nice person in nonpolitical settings that I forget and try again.  Hopefully I won't forget next time.


I should be able to say the same about you, yet you sometimes get nasty and throw in your digs even in the social settings......like you did in the Porch thread.  And, you'll keep responding, because you can't stand when your whitewashed version of conservatism is revealed for what it is.


----------



## Sallow (Mar 19, 2014)

Amelia said:


> *sigh*
> 
> 
> Later gators



Aw..someone needs a hug.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 19, 2014)

jillian said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



You folks are missing a key critical point.. CATO is in no way a "CONSERVATIVE" think tank.
It is the Foremost *Libertarian* think tank.. And as SUCH would be very dubious of onerous drug testing laws. Ain't no amount of money that the Kochs or ANYONE else gave to Cato that would make them into drug-busting, abortion opposing advocates.

And a lot of the Koch stated VIEWS -- including their tacit support of the Tea Party are along LIBERTARIAN LINES of ideology --- not Republican politics... 

So leave us the hell OUT of this dust-up.. Even if a Koch is on the board of CATO....


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 19, 2014)

Amelia said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...


And I could find 50 racist posts from Right-Wingers here on USMB.

Does that mean I can make a blanket statement that The Right is racist?

C'mon, Amelia.  Use your head.


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 19, 2014)

Amelia said:


> "and the comments made by McConnell that their main goal was to make him fail?"
> 
> *sigh*
> 
> ...


Explain this, please:

Robert Draper Book: GOP's Anti-Obama Campaign Started Night Of Inauguration


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 19, 2014)

Sallow said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > FJO said:
> ...


And THEN Hilary Rosen uses the word 'work' instead of 'employed' when saying that Queen Ann Romney never worked a day in her life, and the Right Wing Nut Jobs have another hissy-fit.

It was obvious that she meant Queen Ann has never held a job.


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 19, 2014)

Amelia said:


> Anyone remember Obama's hypocritical behavior with regard to Bush's Supreme Court nominees?
> 
> He said it would be wrong to filibuster, would be wrong to vote no for a qualified nominee for ideological reasons, agreed the nominee was qualified, and then filibustered and voted no anyway after being reminded that not joining the partisan bus might put a crimp in his future political aspirations.


You're flailing.


----------



## jillian (Mar 19, 2014)

Amelia said:


> Anyone remember Obama's hypocritical behavior with regard to Bush's Supreme Court nominees?
> 
> He said it would be wrong to filibuster, would be wrong to vote no for a qualified nominee for ideological reasons, agreed the nominee was qualified, and then filibustered and voted no anyway after being reminded that not joining the partisan bus might put a crimp in his future political aspirations.



at least one of bush's nominees didn't know what search and seizure is.

that SHOULD be the subject of filibuster. 

so which nominee are you talking about given that roberts wasn't filibustered.


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 19, 2014)

Amelia said:


> Perry used a family photo in a comedy segment.  That was bad taste.


How many times have you called out Rush/Sean/Beck/Billo, etc for "bad taste".

Only when you are put on the spot, and you still rationalize it.


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 19, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



Ignorant morons will be ignorant morons...




> The *Cato Institute* is an American libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. *It was founded as the Charles Koch Foundation in 1974 by Ed Crane, Murray Rothbard, and Charles Koch*,


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 19, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



This "ignorant moron" has been a contributing member of CATO for over a decade. I'm WELL aware of the founding. Doesn't matter a whit that the Kochs joined Libertarian forces to create the joint. There are only LIBERTARIAN principles involved and the Koch don't have enough money to twist our minds and principles.. There's a war for board seats currently at Cato and you'll find this statement very interesting.. 



> Koch brothers vs. Cato: Cato Chairman Bob Levy refutes Charles Koch?s statement - Think Tanked - The Washington Post
> 
> Today, Cato Institute Chairman Bob Levy responded to Koch&#8217;s statement point-by-point, characterizing it as doing &#8220;nothing to address the genuine concerns expressed by their friends and ours that the action the Kochs have taken will pointlessly and grievously injure the movement for individual liberty that they have previously done so much to advance.&#8221;
> 
> ...



Point is -- If CATO was implicated by Maddow on a position in regards to CONSUMER CHOICE on health insurance --  you can be certain that they did not take a CONSERVATIVE position on the topic. And invoking the KOCH relationship to CATO is as mindless and useless as invoking the KOCH bros. curse on their funding of NOVA on PBS, the Wing they built on the Kennedy Center, or the dozens of high tech medical centers with their names on them.. It's a cop-out used by the left when they have no arguments on the subject at hand.. A boogie man approach to deflecting from facts and debate.. 

CATO can't be bought. Libertarian principles can't be bought. And we'd rather SCUTTLE CATO entirely --- than hand it over to folks who want it as a trophy or a weapon... Something that party animals like yourself --- would never understand.. As Levy goes on to say in his statement.. 



> But actions speak louder than words. The Kochs&#8217; takeover attempt has included packing Cato&#8217;s board of directors with individuals, almost all of whom are financially entangled with the Kochs and have no history of libertarian advocacy.



Maddow should KNOW better than to try to connects dots between Giraffes and Hippos..


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 20, 2014)

flacaltenn said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


I started a thread about this 2 years ago:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/211549-koch-bros-vs-libertarians-cato-takeover.html


----------



## blastoff (Mar 21, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> FJO said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



What a load of bullshit, weasel boy.  You sound like you've gone to the JoeB school of just make stuff up that supports the way you'd like things to be.  Your fellow low infos buy it but they're already members of the choir.  

You wrote a very simple declarative statement:  

"Her ratings are better than Megyn Kelly's in the demographic that advertisers care about."  Period.  No quantifying words or phrases to indicate Kelly might actually come out ahead now and then.  Ritchie's the nightly king of the demo according to your words.


----------



## elektra (Mar 22, 2014)

Grandma said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > ...How Democrats talk about the Tea Party is as bad as how the Tea Party talks about Democrats.
> ...



Yes, very radical, low taxes, that is just a radical idea.

Free to educate my child as I wish, a very radical idea.

Stopping terrorism, that is extreme.

Wishing to be left alone, radical yes.

Freedom is a radical idea to the Democrats and the Old People, I guess so, they need the young to work as slaves to pay for the excesses, to pay for the failed policies, to grow the government beyond our means until the USA just collapses.

TeaBaggers, that is a made up term, never was such a term until the Democrats made it up to denigrate people. 

Its simple, pay google to for the rights to the word teabagger and teaparty, use the urbandictionary.com to define the word. Google is all in, they are liberals. 

So when we look up what Grandma means, we are disgusted to learn that Grandma is calling us, "Men who drop their scrotum into the mouth of another", That is how Grandma wishes to define those she obviously hates. Of course the urban dictionary changed the definition a bit when the homosexuals started screaming that it was derogatory to themselves. But facts remain, some people are bigots.

Reminds me of Democrats in the South who wore white sheets and hung the "*******". Murdered them. So now instead of referring to the tea party, a slur such as "******" is concocted, in this case its "TeaBagger". 

Human Nature repeats itself, its not that those of the KKK were a special bred, seems each Era will have a group of people are a real threat and danger.

Ugly fucking people are easy to see, just let them speak freely.

Simple to find them, they are defined by the language they use.


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 24, 2014)

Billo_Really said:


> I love Rachel Maddow!  Everything she say's is true.
> 
> Maddow is the man!



stay on topic this is about her rape claim


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 24, 2014)

TheOldSchool said:


> Rachel Maddow is awful.  I can't believe she's made a career out of what she does.  Thank goodness her ratings are terrible.



stay on topic this ia about her rape claim


----------



## Truthmatters (Mar 24, 2014)

you need to talk opny about her rape claim or your breaking the rules


----------



## Mertex (Mar 24, 2014)

Truthmatters said:


> you need to talk opny about her rape claim or your breaking the rules



They can't discount Maddow's excellent credentials and excellent eloquence, so they make it personal....


----------

