This was a very good show last night. I don’t care for Ms. Maddow’s nightly program, but she is excellent in harder news situations. One of the best.

She achieved some balance on a topic which never seems to have balance by presenting facts and comments from both sides. I was particularly impressed with the way in which Ms. Maddow vigorously upheld the right to free speech whilst reminding us that there is a concurrent responsibility on the part of the speaker. That is something Bill-o has never understood and apparently never will.

Well done, Ms. Maddow.

She’s amazed? I’m amazed that anyone can listen to this leftist talking buffoon and take her seriously about anything.

By the way…since when id Today a “hard news” show?

Maddow’s ” cultural wars ” argument is utter nonsense. I haven’t seen ONE ad from Angle , O’Donnell , Buck , Miller , Rubio etc al . that is focused on social issues. All these candidates have been ASKED about social issues and they answered them. They ARE NOT RUNNING on them .

Today Show should have higher standards and stick to the real news journalists on NBC like Gregor or Lester Holt or Erin Bernett. Today is not a hard news show, but it’s morning dominance has a long-history and moves like this may turn off viewers who want the balanced approach we’ve come to expect.

Harry Flashman said:
She’s amazed? I’m amazed that anyone can listen to this leftist talking buffoon and take her seriously about anything.

By the way…since when id Today a “hard news” show?

“Today” is generally fluff, but there is so little hard news available, this may be the best we have.

I’m amazed that this man is still on the air.

They are not running on them? They answered them?

They absolutely are running on them and they are absolutely not answering them. These candidates have made it perfectly clear to everyone what their positions are on abortion, gay rights, social security. If you don’t think there is social aspect some of these issues, you are in serious denial. Just because theses candidates haven’t run issue specific ads doesn’t mean they aren’t running on them.

Angle has. Face it, fear of Brown people. Or the ability to distinguish between Asian and Latino.
Rubio, 6 different ones by 3 different PAC’s. All issue specific towards seniors and immigration. I live in Florida, look them up.
O”Donnell, Buck, Miller have made her positions perfectly clear. The issue is they refuse to answer questions on those positions. Just because they aren’t handing signs that say _______for ending Abortion in all cases, Does not mean it’s not their position or they can dodge questions on it.

This goes for all candidates. Period. Answer the questions. All of them.

MSNBC is so unbiased, I can’t begin to guess how Rachel is going to vote.

murf said:
Maddow’s ” cultural wars ” argument is utter nonsense. I haven’t seen ONE ad from Angle , O’Donnell , Buck , Miller , Rubio etc al . that is focused on social issues. All these candidates have been ASKED about social issues and they answered them. They ARE NOT RUNNING on them .

I understand your point here, and I tend to agree, in general terms, that the Tea Partiers are no country club Republicans, nor fiscal conservative Republicans, nor social conservative Republicans. In fact, they are not Republicans, at all. And, they have generally avoided taking on social conservative issues, except:

With Obtuse Angle, she has made her extreme views on reproductive rights very well known. She won’t expand on them, to be sure, but she generally runs from the press and avoids forums which might result in unwanted questions. If Hispanic xenophobia is a social conservative issue, we certainly have that.

With Randi the Witch, she too tends to run from the press. He social conservative views are nonetheless well known from babblethons, and she has a clear record on opposition to reproductive rights.

Bucky is a bit more receptive to the press, and his extreme views on gays have become well known.

Miller tends to be the only libertarian in the bunch, so I’m not at all sure we can call him a social conservative. We might infer that from his close relationship with the Drop Out Governor, but in this context we ought not do so. Miller is much more of the Alaska secessionist sort.

Rubio does not appear to be a social conservative, but I don’t think he is much of a Tea Partier, either.

As far as “running”, perhaps not in the strict sense. However, there is a clear wink-wink-nod-nod-Know What I Mean-Know What I Mean going on here. The Tea Party is simply more astute that the Republicans regarding social issues. Social issues have not won elections, and in fact damage Republicans because of a string of hypocritical family values candidates like Ensign, Sanford, Vitter, et al.

So, you are correct to a point, but only to a point.

notsofast said:
I’m amazed that this man is still on the air.

Women find him assuring and comforting. No big surprise.

writer said:
MSNBC is so unbiased, I can’t begin to guess how Rachel is going to vote.

Much as most of us can’t imagine how O’Van Karlsen, Il Douchey, Kelly, the Beckerhead, O’Reilly, O’Hannity and O’Van Susteren are going to vote.

King, which personality are you answering with? The one that says the Japanese internment was racist, or the one that names his cat after FDR? The one that says all conservatives are rich, or the one that says all conservatives live in trailers? The one that says racists go to private schools, or the one that says he attended private schools? If we’re going to discuss things, you should give us a heads up of which personality we’re dealing with.

writer said:
MSNBC is so unbiased, I can’t begin to guess how Rachel is going to vote.

Here’s my suspicion of how those at Fox News vote:

Steve Doocy: Republican
Gretchen Carlson: Republican
Brian Kilmeade: Republican
Jon Scott: Republican
Megyn Kelly: Republican
Neil Cavuto: Republican
Glenn Beck: Republican
Bret Baier: Republican
Bill O’Reilly: Republican
Greta Van Susteren: Republican
Greg Gutfeld: Republican
Clayton Morris: Republican
Alisyn Camerota: Republican
Dave Briggs: Republican
Judge Andrew Napolitano: Republican
Chris Wallace: Republican
Mike Huckabee: Republican
Sarah Palin: Republican
Karl Rove: Republican
Fred Barnes: Republican
Stuart Varney: Republican
Cal Thomas: Republican
Tobin Smith: Republican
Bill Sammon: Republican
Michelle Malkin: Republican
Jim Pinkerton: Republican
Mara Liasson: Republican
John Stossel: Republican
David Asman: Republican

m, you’re missing the point. I agree with your assessment. But all this pretense that Fox is the only outlet leaning a certain way……come on.

m said:
Greta Van Susteren: Republican

Sorry , Greta is a Democrat . Meaning your list is a lie. Try again.

The Real Royal King said:
This was a very good show last night. I don’t care for Ms. Maddow’s nightly program, but she is excellent in harder news situations. One of the best. She achieved some balance on a topic which never seems to have balance by presenting facts and comments from both sides. I was particularly impressed with the way in which Ms. Maddow vigorously upheld the right to free speech whilst reminding us that there is a concurrent responsibility on the part of the speaker. That is something Bill-o has never understood and apparently never will. Well done, Ms. Maddow.

LOL!

That “concurrent responsibility” is called PC Censorship in the Real World!!!!

If I haven’t said it today:

THANK YOU, NPR!!!

THANK YOU!!

murf said:
Maddow’s ” cultural wars ” argument is utter nonsense. I haven’t seen ONE ad from Angle , O’Donnell , Buck , Miller , Rubio etc al . that is focused on social issues. All these candidates have been ASKED about social issues and they answered them. They ARE NOT RUNNING on them .

I live in Nevada. Angle’s ads mostly reminds us Nevada has the highest unemployment rate and foreclosure rate in the nation under Harry Reid’s watch. Reid’s ads use editing to distort or lie about Angle’s position on the issues.

Geraldo Rivera : Rent is Too Damn High Party
Bob Beckel : Suspenders are Too Damn Tight Party
Shep Smith : Hair Gel is Too Expensive Party
Susan Estrich : Cough Drops are in My Other Purse Party
Mara Liasson : Hey , I Need a Contract Right Now Party
Alan Colmes : I’m Monica’s Brother -in Law Party etc.

Big Eddie:

Heh.

First MTP, now the Today Show. Rachel sure is getting some viz on NBC – the National Barak Channel. They know she is in full court press to protect hehimself, defend Dems and trash conservatives. She fits right in on NBC…the network for the DNC.

Big Eddie wins the post of the day! Funny stuff!

Wait a minute. Only Fox is biased. How do you know which side Rachel is on?

The Real Royal King said:
Much as most of us can’t imagine how O’Van Karlsen, Il Douchey, Kelly, the Beckerhead, O’Reilly, O’Hannity and O’Van Susteren are going to vote.

Comments like these are what make you look so stupid on this site.

Of course, it also ruins any credibility you think you may have.

I forgot to mention that Fox News is the network for the RNC

Fox is unable to hide its bias as well as MSNBC does. Rachel and Olby always keep us guessing.

There is nothing to be amazed about Maddow. She has no where to go but to try to change the subject to social issues as the Liberals are decimating the economy.

Maddow is doing everyone a disservice by trying to change the subject.

TfT said:
First MTP, now the Today Show. Rachel sure is getting some viz on NBC – the National Barak Channel. They know she is in full court press to protect hehimself, defend Dems and trash conservatives. She fits right in on NBC…the network for the DNC.

Yea, she is really being pushed on us. It’s kinda like how Hollywood pushes people on us until they are household names.

She is sooo biased, though. I didn’t see the Today show nor MTP, but I suspect that they didn’t correctly point out that she is a super liberal.

Maddow is smarter and better informed than literally every single conservative commenting here combined, on an order of magnitude that should make all of you cry. Yes, she’s a liberal. No, she’s not lying. She brings facts every time (has been cited as being wrong only twice by politifact and both were mistakes of citation, not basic facts). Whereas, the Fox crowd is rated so poorly it’s amazing they have any pants left to wear, and explains why they keep fire extinguishers so close to set. It’s SO much fun watching the right tear its hair out over irrefutable facts. Keep pounding on that round peg, folks. I’m sure it’ll go in that square hole eventually. LOL

Dave Richards said:
Of course, it also ruins any credibility you think you may have.

Not to burst anyone’s bubble, but there’s no such thing as “credibility” on the Mediaite boards. ;-)

Paul Westlake said:
Maddow is smarter and better informed than literally every single conservative commenting here combined, on an order of magnitude that should make all of you cry. Yes, she’s a liberal. No, she’s not lying. She brings facts every time (has been cited as being wrong only twice by politifact and both were mistakes of citation, not basic facts). Whereas, the Fox crowd is rated so poorly it’s amazing they have any pants left to wear, and explains why they keep fire extinguishers so close to set. It’s SO much fun watching the right tear its hair out over irrefutable facts. Keep pounding on that round peg, folks. I’m sure it’ll go in that square hole eventually. LOL

No, Maddow brings facts to advance her preconceived notions rather than including facts that help find the truth. BIG DIFFERENCE.

The Left is NOT interested in advancing through getting better.

Maddow is just another smart Lefty, but the math is the same:

Smart * Wrong = Wrong.

Alz said:
Yea, she is really being pushed on us. It’s kinda like how Hollywood pushes people on us until they are household names. She is sooo biased, though. I didn’t see the Today show nor MTP, but I suspect that they didn’t correctly point out that she is a super liberal.

Come on Alz, be honest, no more so than Meghan Kelly, Gretchen or anyone else on Fox News and they sre pushed on us too.

The Real Royal King said:
This was a very good show last night. I don’t care for Ms. Maddow’s nightly program, but she is excellent in harder news situations. One of the best.

She achieved some balance on a topic which never seems to have balance by presenting facts and comments from both sides. I was particularly impressed with the way in which Ms. Maddow vigorously upheld the right to free speech whilst reminding us that there is a concurrent responsibility on the part of the speaker. That is something Bill-o has never understood and apparently never will.

Well done, Ms. Maddow.

So, why didn’t she bring up the abortion protester who was murdered while protesting?

Alz said:
No, Maddow brings facts to advance her preconceived notions rather than including facts that help find the truth. BIG DIFFERENCE.

Last I checked, facts = truth. Now, sure we can talk about how ignoring certain facts creates a bias in reporting, but then we’d be talking about Fox News and Newscorp. Listen, the simple way to know who cares about the truth is in determining their position on the fairness doctrine. Rachel is in the camp I’m in – bring it back with some modification. Everyone at Fox, and Keith, like things without the FD. That’s why I don’t spend a lot of time defending Keith, or Ed Schultz. But Maddow is in a higher league, one that only Chris Wallace can even attempt to match over at Fox… and trust me when I tell you, he’s no Rachel Maddow. I enjoy reading the hysterical whines about one of the best and fairest hosts anywhere on TV, because, guess what? She’s not going anywhere! ;-)

TtT said:
Come on Alz, be honest, no more so than Meghan Kelly, Gretchen or anyone else on Fox News and they sre pushed on us too.

The difference is the cross-promotion between networks and shows. I guess I thought it was obvious.

No, Maddow brings facts to advance her preconceived notions rather than including facts that help find the truth. BIG DIFFERENCE.— Alz

How is this any different from the rest of the wackos in the media…..?

Alz said:
It’s kinda like how Hollywood pushes people on us until they are household names.

Who do you think runs the movie studios? Liberals? Who do you think runs the record labels? Liberals? Who do you think runs the TV networks? Liberals? You are one deluded puppy. LOL

Paul Westlake said:
Last I checked, facts = truth. Now, sure we can talk about how ignoring certain facts creates a bias in reporting, but then we’d be talking about Fox News and Newscorp. Listen, the simple way to know who cares about the truth is in determining their position on the fairness doctrine. Rachel is in the camp I’m in – bring it back with some modification. Everyone at Fox, and Keith, like things without the FD. That’s why I don’t spend a lot of time defending Keith, or Ed Schultz. But Maddow is in a higher league, one that only Chris Wallace can even attempt to match over at Fox… and trust me when I tell you, he’s no Rachel Maddow. I enjoy reading the hysterical whines about one of the best and fairest hosts anywhere on TV, because, guess what? She’s not going anywhere! ;-)

No facts are facts – that’s all. Reason requires using facts to gain wisdom. The Left only uses facts to support preconceived notions.

If they used reason, they wouldn’t be Leftists.

And now we’re having a problem with cross-promote? Good grief, what’s next? Biased motion graphics? “No, no, that’s just italics!” LOL!

Alz said:
No facts are facts – that’s all. Reason requires using facts to gain wisdom. The Left only uses facts to support preconceived notions.

If they used reason, they wouldn’t be Leftists.

You just described yourself.

Next!

A man without a Country said:
No, Maddow brings facts to advance her preconceived notions rather than including facts that help find the truth. BIG DIFFERENCE.— Alz

How is this any different from the rest of the wackos in the media…..?

There are people using reason to advance. On the other hand, as you say there are a lot of wackos and it takes a lot of time and space just to deal with them. It’s hard to reach a point to be able to have civil conversations and to use reason.

Wouldn’t it be nice if we were able to sit down to solve problems? To use Socratic methods?

See, we can’t because the Right and the Left use different belief systems. One side is wants things better and the other side wants things “equal.” This is why we can’t even agree on the problems!

Alz said:
One side is wants things better and the other side wants things “equal.” This is why we can’t even agree on the problems!

People who say “the other side wants things ‘equal’” ARE the problem. You HATE it when your opponents define your stance, but then rush to define liberals in the shittiest possible terms every chance you get. You’re a sophist and a hypocrite and you have ZERO interest in reason – only winning. YOU are the problem.

Alz said:
The difference is the cross-promotion between networks and shows. I guess I thought it was obvious.

Again, Fox does that too, cross promotion on their locals, business and websites. Its no different.

Paul Westlake said:
You just described yourself.

Next!

…only when dealing with Leftists. In dealing with people who are interested in making things better, reason works quite well.

Just look at Maddow. She has no interest in making things better. Using reason requires thought and discipline. She doesn’t go there.

We’re all forced to a lowest common denominator thinking because of it. I can use reason and facts all I want, but it takes two sides. You guys never play along.

Just look at the elections! The Left has nothing to say. They can’t run on any record because the record sucks. You don’t see them saying they’ll do more of what they’ve been doing because it would be suicide.

Nor do you see them saying they will change course so as to make things better. They’re stuck with name calling. A certain amount of the Republican response has to be at the level of the liberals in order to respond.

I don’t expect you to get it, but maybe some other readers will see what I’m talking about.

Notice how Rachel doesn’t talk about the real issues of the day.
Porkulus Package – Fail
Obamacare – Fail

Bu$h/Obama debt – Fail
Obama deficit – Fail

But hey lets bring up fear mongering to scare people like abortion and the dreaded 2nd Amendment.

Paul Westlake said:
People who say “the other side wants things ‘equal’” ARE the problem. You HATE it when your opponents define your stance, but then rush to define liberals in the shittiest possible terms every chance you get. You’re a sophist and a hypocrite and you have ZERO interest in reason – only winning. YOU are the problem.

I’m just describing a theory of how liberals and conservatives are difference. One side wants things “equal” and the other wants things better.

There is some overlap so we have some common things we agree on, but on all major issues, we are at opposite ends.

It’s just the way it is.

Now, it’s important because the two belief systems lead to vastly different results. Leftism, in all its forms, ends up hurting people over time.

Conservatism ends up helping people. We have had many scores of years of examples of how Leftism tends to hurt people.

I choose Conservatism because I care about people. Is Conservatism perfect? NO! But at least there are mechanisms to fix things. There are no mechanisms on the left as it’s a top down control system where people are stuck.

Alz said:
…only when dealing with Leftists. In dealing with people who are interested in making things better, reason works quite well.

I don’t expect you to get it, but maybe some other readers will see what I’m talking about.

Your opening and closing statements reveal your preconceived bias toward anyone who approaches any issue from a liberal perspective. You automatically assume we’re wrong and unreasonable without considering the substance. You are what you hate. Physician, heal thyself.

Alz said:
I’m just describing a theory of how liberals and conservatives are difference.

Your theory is biased on its face, just like the fake political science that puts all authoritarianism on the left and only “good” political systems on the right side of the spectrum. It’s specious, hypocritical partisanship, projecting its own flaws onto liberals, as is the methodology of the right. Note I said “methodology,” which is easily seen in the results of right wing rhetoric, not “ideology,” which is what you claim to be an expert on with regard to liberals and their desire to make everything “equal.” It’s either an oversimplification of the “level playing field” ideal, or a deliberate attempt to put liberals on the defensive through exaggeration of our ideas and strength. IN other words, it’s bullshit… and you know it.

Paul Westlake said:
Your opening and closing statements reveal your preconceived bias toward anyone who approaches any issue from a liberal perspective.

YES!!!

It’s because their belief system is warped! I want things better, they want things “equal” and they hate better!

Leftism is not a valid choice for human advancement so the correct course of action is to minimize it or destroy it.

Paul Westlake said:
Your theory is biased on its face, just like the fake political science that puts all authoritarianism on the left and only “good” political systems on the right side of the spectrum. It’s specious, hypocritical partisanship, projecting its own flaws onto liberals, as is the methodology of the right. Note I said “methodology,” which is easily seen in the results of right wing rhetoric, not “ideology,” which is what you claim to be an expert on with regard to liberals and their desire to make everything “equal.” It’s either an oversimplification of the “level playing field” ideal, or a deliberate attempt to put liberals on the defensive through exaggeration of our ideas and strength. IN other words, it’s bullshit… and you know it.

What’s bullshit is what people have been doing for a 100 years: thinking that Leftism is just a different opinion on how to make things better.

What I have learned is that Leftism is terrible.

So, yes, I am biased – biased towards making things better.

It’s nice on this side of the fence because our way does have the ability to help people. The Left always ends up hurting people over time. Learn about Conservatism, it’s better.

Alz said:
YES!!!

It’s because their belief system is warped! I want things better, they want things “equal” and they hate better!

Leftism is not a valid choice for human advancement so the correct course of action is to minimize it or destroy it.

You’re an idiot. You gleefully admit to your own hypocrisy while continuing to hammer away at the stupidest political theory on earth. If you hate equality, by definition you prefer inequality, which means you want to live in a society that is stratified by sharp class divisions, and I assume you would prefer to be in the top class, of course. You openly, gleefully, shout to the universe that the world you want to live in is one that treats you as a special human being with special rights and anyone who doesn’t think, and presumably, look like you, should be considered expendable, an unworthy underclass. That’s pathetic and sickening and precisely who you are.

Alz said:
YES!!! It’s because their belief system is warped! I want things better, they want things “equal” and they hate better! Leftism is not a valid choice for human advancement so the correct course of action is to minimize it or destroy it.

See now you’re sounding like an extremist. There are some good things the Left has done, like public education and laws that stopped the exploitation of children in the workforce and in society.

More Liberty said:
Notice how Rachel doesn’t talk about the real issues of the day.Porkulus Package – FailObamacare – Fail Bu$h/Obama debt – FailObama deficit – Fail But hey lets bring up fear mongering to scare people like abortion and the dreaded 2nd Amendment.

That is not true, Rachel talks about those topics. One may not agree with what she says but she presents it well.

Paul Westlake said:
You’re an idiot. You gleefully admit to your own hypocrisy while continuing to hammer away at the stupidest political theory on earth. If you hate equality, by definition you prefer inequality, which means you want to live in a society that is stratified by sharp class divisions, and I assume you would prefer to be in the top class, of course. You openly, gleefully, shout to the universe that the world you want to live in is one that treats you as a special human being with special rights and anyone who doesn’t think, and presumably, look like you, should be considered expendable, an unworthy underclass. That’s pathetic and sickening and precisely who you are.

Sigh.

We all want fairness, but to make that the overriding goal is terrible. It means, BY DEFINITION, that we can’t advance because success and behaviors that lead to success are frowned upon and attacked.

Equality is something that happens because people want to treat people right, not authoritatively from the government.

See, the problem is that for everything to be forced to be “equal”, liberals have to treat people unequally. People hate it so even more control and restrictions are put upon people. This is where the Socialism comes from.

I think you and other liberals are sincere in your desire to help people, but you are stuck thinking that “equal” is the only way. “Better”, quite frankly is better.

From what I can see, the liberal Utopia is where everything is “equal” – no arguing, no fighting, no war, no poverty, no injustices.

So the Left’s answer is never to reverse course, but to try and force more things to be “equal” and to exert more and more control over people.

Like I said, I think the Left is sincere in many ways, but only to the extent that they believe that “equal” will solve all of our societal problems. Sorry, it won’t. This is why the Left’s belief system is warped.

Yeah Alz as a woman I AM “stuck in that equal thing”.
It sure solved alot of problems women had
You morAn!

Maddow is right about this, but it’s just one of the strains of the tea party:
http://www.sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/2010/10/for-undecided-voters-various-strains-of.html

Alz said:
but only to the extent that they believe that “equal” will solve all of our societal problems

Dude, this isn’t some fucking Kurt Vonnegut novel. It’s not about “equal” – we’re not tying rocks around people’s necks. It’s “equality,” which is shorthand for a desegregated society. Your conflation of “equality” with liberal economic theory is absurd. Under liberal policy, the rich continue to be and get still more rich, but the poor actually have a shot at not being poor, the working lower classes have a shot at social advancement, and each generation has a shot at bettering the stations of the next in every stratum of society. There’s nothing “equal” about it because, unlike conservative ideology, which is outcome-based, liberal ideology is process-based – not an “equal” outcome, a “level” playing field.

For instance: a flat tax ISN’T level because wealthy private interests derive an outsized benefit from the social contract and the public treasury – their profits derive from our collective system of free-market trade and socialism combined, so the larger the profit, the larger the benefit from the social contract, the larger the debt to that contract. It’s NOT equal, and therefore the remedy is NOT equal, and THAT’S liberal, for crying out loud! So, again, your theory is an ephemeral dream that is drawn from the thin air of the ideological purity you breathe. And that’s all I can see to it. You wish desperately for it to be so, if only to justify your own obviously selfish interests, but it is not so, and writing it over and over again won’t make it so.

Iris said:
Yeah Alz as a woman I AM “stuck in that equal thing”.
It sure solved alot of problems women had
You morAn!

Ding!

The madcow strikes again. What a peice of “work” she is.

All I got to say is. Radical Madcow!!!!!

“writer” says:
“m, you’re missing the point. I agree with your assessment. But all this pretense that Fox is the only outlet leaning a certain way…”

Actually, you’re missing the point. Bias is the issue for the right. Deceit is the issue for the left. MSM may have a liberal bias (sometimes MRC points at someone stating facts and claims that they’re showing liberal “bias”), but it’s not the conservative bias at Fox that is the issue for the left. The left understands and accepts that Fox is conservative and reactionary. What the left doesn’t accept are the stream of lies that come from the conservative media. I’m not saying that the voices in MSM never lie, but when they do they will correct it. That sometimes happens at Fox, but usually they just role with what they have wrong, over and over sometimes.

Note: MRC is the conservative media research center.
http://www.sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/2010/09/bias-vs-truthiness-analyzing-media.html

murf said:
Sorry , Greta is a Democrat . Meaning your list is a lie. Try again.

Actually, she made it very well known she did no vote for President Obama, and she has been stalking the Drop Out Governor for some time now.

The Real Royal King said:
Actually, she made it very well known she did no vote for President Obama, and she has been stalking the Drop Out Governor for some time now.

A lot of Hillary supporters didn’t vote for Obama .

I am amazed that anyone cares about her at all.

Cancon2 said:
I am amazed that anyone cares about her at all.

Apparently you cared enough to have to comment on a thread about her that you don’t care about her.

chatmandu002 said:
All I got to say is. Radical Madcow!!!!!

Wow. I have never heard anyone call her that…on this thread.

How original!

chatmandu002 says:
“All I got to say is. Radical Madcow!!!!!”

I bet you listen to Rush Limbaugh. What is it with reactionaries and mean-spirited comments? Hand and glove, cruel and morally depraved. I know one reactionary who isn’t mean spirited, Ron Paul. I voted for him in the primary, 08. One! One decent reactionary, and he’s in Congress.

Ron Paul would be fun to debate with. He knows his stuff and he’s not going to name call.

Rachel Maddow is fighting the culture wars. The tea party is about less government. Maddow opposes the movement because she wants to use government force to impose her agenda. The real issue at stake between Maddow and the tea party is whether individuals should be empowered or federal government bureaucrats. The only time “culture war” issues show up is if you want to the force of the federal government to impose an agenda on the public that they do not support or want. Hence, only Rachel Maddow is fighting a culture war here.

notsofast said:
I’m amazed that this man is still on the air.

Do you ever miss an opportunity to refer to Maddow as a man? I think at this point everyone gets the joke, you know, because she’s gay and man-ish looking. So, as hilarious and clever as it is… you could just try and debate the facts, without turning into an 11 year old boy.

Oh, and I guess just to stave off any accusations that I only think it’s wrong to hurl personal insults at people on the Left, I find it just as lame when people write “Man Coulter” or make fun of Sarah Palin’s kids. I know that some people come on here just because they really get a kick out of writing offensive, inflammatory crap and riling people up, but I’d like to think most of the posters here would actually prefer thoughtful conversation.

Maybe I’m just being really naive, though…

Trouble is, GBR, your definition of a lie is anything you disagree with.

“writer” says:
“Trouble is, GBR, your definition of a lie is anything you disagree with.”

THAT does sound like Gordon Blowhard, but I have made it very clear repeatedly that I don’t care what Beck’s politics are. He’s a reactionary. Big deal. I don’t care about that.

What I do care about is his sleazy false narrative. He blends facts with fiction to create a giant lie. YOu don’t know this “writer” because you WANT to believe what Beck claims. He says that he tells the truth, and gullible people believe him even though it’s demonstratably false. Here’s just a few lies:

http://www.sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/2010/09/becks-bust-lie-busted.html
http://www.sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/2010/10/becks-administration-targets-cass.html
http://www.sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/2010/07/beck-deception-number-54894954789.html
http://www.sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/2010/07/glenn-becks-baseless-claims-keep.html

and here’s three false claims that he made during his 8-28 speech:
http://www.sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/2010/08/during-his-speech-to-restore-honor-beck.html

You’ll notice, “writer” that I don’t take issue with anything he says but the lies.

I used to believe that just showing people that Beck lies a lot would be enough to destroy his credibility. Now I see that people who believe Beck’s nonsense WANT to believe Becks “completely insane” ideas. People like “writer” live in an alternative universe that differs from the ones that adults live in. Beck’s world is like a child’s fantasy world except most children –when pressed– admit to using their imagination.