What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Glenn Beck (1 Viewer)

Mr. Pickles said:
kaa said:
Mr. Pickles said:
kaa said:
No I really disagree with you on Maddow. It seems to me you are basically arguing that she is adept at giving herself political cover (i.e. following up with some guests after an interview), which I wouldn't disagree with. I didn't describe her as someone who uses cheap mockery or shouting. I said she uses the troll tactics of straw men, misdirection, deflection, etc. Those aren't quality aspects of debating.
Click to expand...
I'd love to see some examples of this. I'm sure there are many if you feel this way.
Click to expand...
Oh let's not go there. Why don't you give me some examples of her fact checking, following up with guests, and politely asking her guests if they characterized their views appropriately then.
Click to expand...
Here you go:
Click to expand...
You can almost cut the tension with a knife. Can anyone say UNCOMFORTABLE?I really wish she'd like Governor Pawlenty speak.

 
I think one of the most memorable moments of listening to Maddow in 2008 was when she spent like 20 minutes complaining about how republicans keep attacking Obama and that we need to focus on the issues because America is hurting and there is an unpopular war and all the republicans can do is attack Obama. In that segment, it was all issues, issues, issues.

Then in the next segment they did a little bit about the polls, which were clearly trending down for Obama. McCain was almost in the lead. And IMMEDIATELY it was like the last 20 minutes didn't exist. It was all deflect, deflect, deflect from the polls and she mercilessly bashed Bush and was quick to change the subject. It was like the moment the current issue on the table was bad for democrats, she had to deflect straight into the gutter. And she was hypocritical on top of it.

It was a typical example of being a troll. I remember it well because it was actually pretty funny.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr. Pickles said:
I'm going to disagree with your characterization of Maddow. Now, it's impossible to deny that she endorses a liberal viewpoint. She's unapologetic about this and makes it very clear. However, she does adhere to a higher standard of fact checking and statistics that a guy like Beck would ever dream of doing.I'm much more comfortable with your labels applying to Olbermann. He has guests on that only echo his viewpoint and routinely throws out accusations and hyperbole that cannot be rationally defended. Even his sympathetic guests have to rein him in at times when Keith throws out a particularly goofy comment in his patented rhetorical style.. something along the lines of "Richard, is it safe to say that George W. Bush is clinically insane?"By contrast, Maddow actually invites guest with dissenting views and is courteous when they actually accept. One particular example is Tim Pawlenty whom she claims to be a "fan" of. She regularly invites people on the show to have a spirited debate and never resorts to cheap mockery or shouting. Her staff is actually quite adept at fact checking and follow up. When she has a conservative guest on the show, she'll often go out of her way to set up the guest with background and ask them politely if she has characterized their view appropriately.I think you are too easily dismissing everyone with a contrary viewpoint there. There are certainly varying degrees. Simply because Maddow is a liberal doesn't mean that she's some kind of clueless shill. I'd say her show is one of the more cerebral liberal opinion shows on the air. I think she's even more fair than Matthews who will sometimes agree with conservative guest merely for the appearance of balance. At least with Maddow you know what you are getting.
Click to expand...
I can appreciate this. I can see this point. My problem isn't with her one on one interviewing style and it's not about the wrapping of the message. She clearly wraps it much better than most. I'm not concerned with the wrapping. It's what is inside that matters to me and when we boil down the dog and pony to message, it's obvious she isn't saying anything the others aren't. At least IMO.
 
The Commish said:
I can appreciate this. I can see this point. My problem isn't with her one on one interviewing style and it's not about the wrapping of the message. She clearly wraps it much better than most. I'm not concerned with the wrapping. It's what is inside that matters to me and when we boil down the dog and pony to message, it's obvious she isn't saying anything the others aren't. At least IMO.
Click to expand...
Look, she's clearly a political commentator, but we're comparing her to Glenn Beck here.
 
kaa said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAiN3DBchFU

Here's a straw man in a conversation with Pat Buchanan at 6:08 on 7/16/09:

Maddow: For you to argue that there's no basis on which the US benefits from Hispanics being among the people whom we choose the best and brightest from defies belief.

Pat Buchanan never said that. He was completely consistent in saying that we should select for the Supreme Court not merit not affirmative action. You can't just put words in people's mouths. Maddow set up a straw man.
Click to expand...
That's one of my favorite clips. It's funny, since his move to MSNBC, Buchanan has been relatively reasonable. This was one of his worst moments in recent memory. It's hilarious that you chose this.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAiN3DBchFU

Here's a straw man in a conversation with Pat Buchanan at 6:08 on 7/16/09:

Maddow: For you to argue that there's no basis on which the US benefits from Hispanics being among the people whom we choose the best and brightest from defies belief.

Pat Buchanan never said that. He was completely consistent in saying that we should select for the Supreme Court on merit not affirmative action. You can't just put words in people's mouths. Maddow set up a straw man. And then at the end she threw up another straw man before cutting Buchanan off, saying Buchanan puts white's grievances above others. Again, he didn't say that - Buchanan is someone who believe in selecting people on merit.

 
Mr. Pickles said:
kaa said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAiN3DBchFU

Here's a straw man in a conversation with Pat Buchanan at 6:08 on 7/16/09:

Maddow: For you to argue that there's no basis on which the US benefits from Hispanics being among the people whom we choose the best and brightest from defies belief.

Pat Buchanan never said that. He was completely consistent in saying that we should select for the Supreme Court not merit not affirmative action. You can't just put words in people's mouths. Maddow set up a straw man.
Click to expand...
That's one of my favorite clips. It's funny, since his move to MSNBC, Buchanan has been relatively reasonable. This was one of his worst moments in recent memory. It's hilarious that you chose this.
Click to expand...
I don't see that at all. Pat Buchanan destroyed Maddow there. Maddow flailed about throwing up multiple straw men and he dodged every single one and stayed on point. That was a good job by Buchanan.
 
kaa said:
Buchanan is someone who believe in selecting people on merit.
Click to expand...
Right, but he completely undercut all of Sotomayor's academic and judicial merit. It was an absurd argument to say that she wasn't intellectually qualified. Please post more of these examples. They're terrific.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr. Pickles said:
kaa said:
Buchanan is someone who believe in selecting people on merit.
Click to expand...
Right, but he completely undercut all over Sotomayor's academic and judicial merit. It was an absurd argument to say that she wasn't intellectually qualified. Please post more of these examples. They're terrific.
Click to expand...
Well, you are beginning to deflect in your own right. You asked for an example of Maddow using straw man arguments. I found one. You are now deflecting - trying to change the subject into whether or not Sotomayor is qualified for the court. You are going to have to stay on point better than that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
kaa said:
Mr. Pickles said:
kaa said:
Buchanan is someone who believe in selecting people on merit.
Click to expand...
Right, but he completely undercut all over Sotomayor's academic and judicial merit. It was an absurd argument to say that she wasn't intellectually qualified. Please post more of these examples. They're terrific.
Click to expand...
Well, you are beginning to deflect in your own right. You asked for an example of Maddow using straw man arguments. I found one. You are now deflecting - trying to change the subject into whether or not Sotomayor is qualified for the court. You are going to have to stay on point better than that.
Click to expand...
Pat's entire argument was that Sotomayor was not qualified and was purely chosen because she was a latina. Not only did he question her SCOTUS selection, but he impugned her college record at Princeton ("everyone graduates cum laude in the Ivy League") even though she graduated at the top of her class. Rachel simply countered that her academic and judicial record were more than deserving and that white males didn't have a strangle hold on intellectualism.Did you even watch that clip to its conclusion? Buchanan made the ridiculous analogy about picking black guys because they are the fastest on the planet for the U.S. Track Team to choosing white guys for the Supreme Court. Indefensible. Jimmy the Greek resurrected.
 
Mr. Pickles said:
kaa said:
Mr. Pickles said:
kaa said:
Buchanan is someone who believe in selecting people on merit.
Click to expand...
Right, but he completely undercut all over Sotomayor's academic and judicial merit. It was an absurd argument to say that she wasn't intellectually qualified. Please post more of these examples. They're terrific.
Click to expand...
Well, you are beginning to deflect in your own right. You asked for an example of Maddow using straw man arguments. I found one. You are now deflecting - trying to change the subject into whether or not Sotomayor is qualified for the court. You are going to have to stay on point better than that.
Click to expand...
Pat's entire argument was that Sotomayor was not qualified and was purely chosen because she was a latina. Not only did he question her SCOTUS selection, but he impugned her college record at Princeton ("everyone graduates cum laude in the Ivy League") even though she graduated at the top of her class. Rachel simply countered that her academic and judicial record were more than deserving and that white males didn't have a strangle hold on intellectualism.Did you even watch that clip to its conclusion? Buchanan made the ridiculous analogy about picking black guys because they are the fastest on the planet for the U.S. Track Team to choosing white guys for the Supreme Court. Indefensible. Jimmy the Greek resurrected.
Click to expand...
I didn't watch the clip. Did Buchanan actually argue that that there's no basis on which the US benefits from Hispanics being among the people whom we choose the best and brightest? Because if not, then BGP is right that Maddow is setting up a strawman regardless of how indefenisible his actual argument was.
 
kaa said:
Mr. Pickles said:
kaa said:
Buchanan is someone who believe in selecting people on merit.
Click to expand...
Right, but he completely undercut all over Sotomayor's academic and judicial merit. It was an absurd argument to say that she wasn't intellectually qualified. Please post more of these examples. They're terrific.
Click to expand...
Well, you are beginning to deflect in your own right. You asked for an example of Maddow using straw man arguments. I found one. You are now deflecting - trying to change the subject into whether or not Sotomayor is qualified for the court. You are going to have to stay on point better than that.
Click to expand...
:REDX:NO- Pickles is giving you an example using Sotomayor that Buchanan only believes in selecting certain people of merit; those that fit is partisanship view.
 
perry147 said:
kaa said:
Mr. Pickles said:
kaa said:
Buchanan is someone who believe in selecting people on merit.
Click to expand...
Right, but he completely undercut all over Sotomayor's academic and judicial merit. It was an absurd argument to say that she wasn't intellectually qualified. Please post more of these examples. They're terrific.
Click to expand...
Well, you are beginning to deflect in your own right. You asked for an example of Maddow using straw man arguments. I found one. You are now deflecting - trying to change the subject into whether or not Sotomayor is qualified for the court. You are going to have to stay on point better than that.
Click to expand...
:REDX:NO- Pickles is giving you an example using Sotomayor that Buchanan only believes in selecting certain people of merit; those that fit is partisanship view.
Click to expand...
If that's the case, then BGP is right that Maddow was setting up a strawman. She said that Buchanan wants to rule out all hispanics. If he only wants to rule out liberal hispanics, then she's mischaracterized his position as being about race when its really about ideology.
 
Mr. Pickles said:
kaa said:
Mr. Pickles said:
kaa said:
Buchanan is someone who believe in selecting people on merit.
Click to expand...
Right, but he completely undercut all over Sotomayor's academic and judicial merit. It was an absurd argument to say that she wasn't intellectually qualified. Please post more of these examples. They're terrific.
Click to expand...
Well, you are beginning to deflect in your own right. You asked for an example of Maddow using straw man arguments. I found one. You are now deflecting - trying to change the subject into whether or not Sotomayor is qualified for the court. You are going to have to stay on point better than that.
Click to expand...
Pat's entire argument was that Sotomayor was not qualified and was purely chosen because she was a latina. Not only did he question her SCOTUS selection, but he impugned her college record at Princeton ("everyone graduates cum laude in the Ivy League") even though she graduated at the top of her class. Rachel simply countered that her academic and judicial record were more than deserving and that white males didn't have a strangle hold on intellectualism.Did you even watch that clip to its conclusion? Buchanan made the ridiculous analogy about picking black guys because they are the fastest on the planet for the U.S. Track Team to choosing white guys for the Supreme Court. Indefensible. Jimmy the Greek resurrected.
Click to expand...
You're smarter than this. You know you didn't ask for a discussion on Sotomayor. You asked for examples of things like straw man arguments from Maddow.
 
kaa said:
You're smarter than this. You know you didn't ask for a discussion on Sotomayor. You asked for examples of things like straw man arguments from Maddow.
Click to expand...
You were just talking to your friend Mr. Pickles, and you accidentally ended up with Sotomayor. It's amazing how often this happens to you.
 
IvanKaramazov said:
I didn't watch the clip. Did Buchanan actually argue that that there's no basis on which the US benefits from Hispanics being among the people whom we choose the best and brightest? Because if not, then BGP is right that Maddow is setting up a strawman regardless of how indefenisible his actual argument was.
Click to expand...
Well, here's the problem. Rachel concluded that this was in opinion and stated it as such, and he was free to counter it and answer. Pat would never characterize it as such, but that was Rachel's conclusion having heard his arguments. I'm not sure what's so nefarious here.Pat harped on merit over and over, but I think it's safe to say that Sotomayor has a outstanding academic resume. Pat, in an effort to avoid the issue of diversity in the court, chose to slam Sotomayor's resume. I think that was a mistake. Her resume is certainly better than most Supreme Court nominees. As to whether Rachel's assertion was a "straw man" is up for interpretation. By the standards you and Beej have presented here, Pat would have to verbally self-characterize his own view in precisely that manner. He didn't, but Rachel felt as though it was a reasonable conclusion. It's a debate, fellas.
 
Mr. Pickles said:
IvanKaramazov said:
I didn't watch the clip. Did Buchanan actually argue that that there's no basis on which the US benefits from Hispanics being among the people whom we choose the best and brightest? Because if not, then BGP is right that Maddow is setting up a strawman regardless of how indefenisible his actual argument was.
Click to expand...
Well, here's the problem. Rachel concluded that this was in opinion and stated it as such, and he was free to counter it and answer. Pat would never characterize it as such, but that was Rachel's conclusion having heard his arguments. I'm not sure what's so nefarious here.
Click to expand...
It sounds like you're saying that Maddow innocently misunderstood Pat's position. That happens to the best of us. But when a person "accidentally" mischaracterizes a person's position making it sound more ugly or easily-rebutted than his actual position, strawmanning is always another possibility too. I don't watch Maddow's show often enough to comment on whether this is a pattern with her. I just don't like her shtick of reading every story like it's a joke, which ironically seems to be the same shtick that Beck runs.
 
IvanKaramazov said:
It sounds like you're saying that Maddow innocently misunderstood Pat's position. That happens to the best of us. But when a person "accidentally" mischaracterizes a person's position making it sound more ugly or easily-rebutted than his actual position, strawmanning is always another possibility too.
Click to expand...
I don't think she misunderstood it at all. That was her conclusion after hearing his arguments. That's fair game as far as I'm concerned. You're free to take issue with it.
I don't watch Maddow's show often enough to comment on whether this is a pattern with her. I just don't like her shtick of reading every story like it's a joke, which ironically seems to be the same shtick that Beck runs.
Click to expand...
The shtick isn't even remotely close. I'm sorry if you can't see that. Beck doesn't even attempt to be consistent within the time limits of his own show. He's rightly mocked daily. I don't recall the last time Maddow was lampooned for being over the edge.
 
Mr. Pickles said:
IvanKaramazov said:
I don't watch Maddow's show often enough to comment on whether this is a pattern with her. I just don't like her shtick of reading every story like it's a joke, which ironically seems to be the same shtick that Beck runs.
Click to expand...
The shtick isn't even remotely close. I'm sorry if you can't see that. Beck doesn't even attempt to be consistent within the time limits of his own show. He's rightly mocked daily. I don't recall the last time Maddow was lampooned for being over the edge.
Click to expand...
She doesn't still do the constant smirks and jokey asides when reading her stories? I haven't watched her show in months, so if she's gotten away from that then I'll retract my statement, but her delivery was insufferable the last few times I tuned in. This is a criticism of her mannerisms, not content. Beck's delivery was 100% exactly the same the one time I watched his program.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov said:
Mr. Pickles said:
IvanKaramazov said:
I don't watch Maddow's show often enough to comment on whether this is a pattern with her. I just don't like her shtick of reading every story like it's a joke, which ironically seems to be the same shtick that Beck runs.
Click to expand...
The shtick isn't even remotely close. I'm sorry if you can't see that. Beck doesn't even attempt to be consistent within the time limits of his own show. He's rightly mocked daily. I don't recall the last time Maddow was lampooned for being over the edge.
Click to expand...
She doesn't still do the constant smirks and jokey asides when reading her stories? I haven't watched her show in months, so if she's gotten away from that then I'll retract my statement, but her delivery was insufferable the last few times I tuned in. This is a criticism of her mannerisms, not content. Beck's delivery was 100% exactly the same the one time I watched his program.
Click to expand...
No, the delivery is pretty bad. She does this rhetorical question thingy that really bugs me.. not to guests, but to the camera presenting a news story. I even emailed the show about it. Every story is set up with something like, "So what has the Republicans sooo outraged?"She's also pretty geeky and not especially funny. She laughs at a lot of her own terrible jokes and gets a lot of blank stares when she tries to soften the mood joking with more conservative guests.The show needs work, but I think the content itself is surprisingly well thought-out for an opinion show.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr. Pickles said:
No, the delivery is pretty bad. She does this rhetorical question thingy that really bugs me.. not to guests, but to the camera presenting a news story. I even emailed the show about it. Every story is set up with something like, "So what has the Republicans sooo outraged?"She's also pretty geeky and not especially funny. She laughs at a lot of her own terrible jokes and gets a lot of blank stares when she tries to soften the mood joking with more conservative guests.The show needs work, but I think the content itself is surprisingly well thought-out for an opinion show.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. To be honest, I just can't get past the delivery but maybe that's just me.
 
IvanKaramazov said:
Mr. Pickles said:
No, the delivery is pretty bad. She does this rhetorical question thingy that really bugs me.. not to guests, but to the camera presenting a news story. I even emailed the show about it. Every story is set up with something like, "So what has the Republicans sooo outraged?"She's also pretty geeky and not especially funny. She laughs at a lot of her own terrible jokes and gets a lot of blank stares when she tries to soften the mood joking with more conservative guests.The show needs work, but I think the content itself is surprisingly well thought-out for an opinion show.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. To be honest, I just can't get past the delivery but maybe that's just me.
Click to expand...
No, that makes perfect sense. The delivery is difficult to stomach at times.
 
Mr. Pickles said:
The Commish said:
I can appreciate this. I can see this point. My problem isn't with her one on one interviewing style and it's not about the wrapping of the message. She clearly wraps it much better than most. I'm not concerned with the wrapping. It's what is inside that matters to me and when we boil down the dog and pony to message, it's obvious she isn't saying anything the others aren't. At least IMO.
Click to expand...
Look, she's clearly a political commentator, but we're comparing her to Glenn Beck here.
Click to expand...
And I would agree that she's less crappy than he is so far :goodposting: It's just not saying much IMO.I reserve the right to change the opinion when she says something stupid like he has.
 
The Commish said:
Mr. Pickles said:
The Commish said:
I can appreciate this. I can see this point. My problem isn't with her one on one interviewing style and it's not about the wrapping of the message. She clearly wraps it much better than most. I'm not concerned with the wrapping. It's what is inside that matters to me and when we boil down the dog and pony to message, it's obvious she isn't saying anything the others aren't. At least IMO.
Click to expand...
Look, she's clearly a political commentator, but we're comparing her to Glenn Beck here.
Click to expand...
And I would agree that she's less crappy than he is so far :thumbup: It's just not saying much IMO.I reserve the right to change the opinion when she says something stupid like he has.
Click to expand...
Something stupid like Beck??? Come on, it ain't like we are talking about Michele Bachmann.
 
Maddow was relativey sober-minded on that clip. If she was like that all the time, I would be more inclined to tune in from time to time. (Though she still misquoted Buchanan on the US track team and US hockey team thing, which wasn't cool).
 
IvanKaramazov said:
(Though she still misquoted Buchanan on the US track team and US hockey team thing, which wasn't cool).
Click to expand...
You are right. I do get the impression that she tries to do the right thing. She actually enjoys talking to Pat which is not common at MSNBC.

Olbermann is much more shticky and goofy. He makes pretty wild accusations. His "Special Comments" are often laughable in their content, reasoning, and delivery. Everything is so serious with that guy.

Maddow, on the other hand, is a cooler head. She likes the discourse and is respectful to her guests. I get much more out of it. I do wish that she'd take some advice on her delivery, though.

 
Gigantomachia said:
The Commish said:
Mr. Pickles said:
The Commish said:
I can appreciate this. I can see this point. My problem isn't with her one on one interviewing style and it's not about the wrapping of the message. She clearly wraps it much better than most. I'm not concerned with the wrapping. It's what is inside that matters to me and when we boil down the dog and pony to message, it's obvious she isn't saying anything the others aren't. At least IMO.
Click to expand...
Look, she's clearly a political commentator, but we're comparing her to Glenn Beck here.
Click to expand...
And I would agree that she's less crappy than he is so far :goodposting: It's just not saying much IMO.I reserve the right to change the opinion when she says something stupid like he has.
Click to expand...
Something stupid like Beck??? Come on, it ain't like we are talking about Michele Bachmann.
Click to expand...
I never say never with these :thumbup: on TV :goodposting:
 
urbanhack said:
kaa said:
Mr. Pickles said:
kaa said:
No I really disagree with you on Maddow. It seems to me you are basically arguing that she is adept at giving herself political cover (i.e. following up with some guests after an interview), which I wouldn't disagree with. I didn't describe her as someone who uses cheap mockery or shouting. I said she uses the troll tactics of straw men, misdirection, deflection, etc. Those aren't quality aspects of debating.
Click to expand...
I'd love to see some examples of this. I'm sure there are many if you feel this way.
Click to expand...
Oh let's not go there. Why don't you give me some examples of her fact checking, following up with guests, and politely asking her guests if they characterized their views appropriately then.
Click to expand...
It won't be her show, but you can watch her Sunday on Meet The Press as she squares off with **** Armey.
Click to expand...
Looks like he stepped down from DLA Piper over this internal memo that Rachel featured on her show.If I didn't know any better, I'd say this almost looks like journalism.

 
Mr. Pickles said:
urbanhack said:
kaa said:
Mr. Pickles said:
kaa said:
No I really disagree with you on Maddow. It seems to me you are basically arguing that she is adept at giving herself political cover (i.e. following up with some guests after an interview), which I wouldn't disagree with. I didn't describe her as someone who uses cheap mockery or shouting. I said she uses the troll tactics of straw men, misdirection, deflection, etc. Those aren't quality aspects of debating.
Click to expand...
I'd love to see some examples of this. I'm sure there are many if you feel this way.
Click to expand...
Oh let's not go there. Why don't you give me some examples of her fact checking, following up with guests, and politely asking her guests if they characterized their views appropriately then.
Click to expand...
It won't be her show, but you can watch her Sunday on Meet The Press as she squares off with **** Armey.
Click to expand...
Looks like he stepped down from DLA Piper over this internal memo that Rachel featured on her show.If I didn't know any better, I'd say this almost looks like journalism.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:
 
Mr. Pickles said:
urbanhack said:
kaa said:
Mr. Pickles said:
kaa said:
No I really disagree with you on Maddow. It seems to me you are basically arguing that she is adept at giving herself political cover (i.e. following up with some guests after an interview), which I wouldn't disagree with. I didn't describe her as someone who uses cheap mockery or shouting. I said she uses the troll tactics of straw men, misdirection, deflection, etc. Those aren't quality aspects of debating.
Click to expand...
I'd love to see some examples of this. I'm sure there are many if you feel this way.
Click to expand...
Oh let's not go there. Why don't you give me some examples of her fact checking, following up with guests, and politely asking her guests if they characterized their views appropriately then.
Click to expand...
It won't be her show, but you can watch her Sunday on Meet The Press as she squares off with **** Armey.
Click to expand...
Looks like he stepped down from DLA Piper over this internal memo that Rachel featured on her show.If I didn't know any better, I'd say this almost looks like journalism.
Click to expand...
Almost. Too bad old **** went a little crazy here. He was one of the only members of the Republican leadership that didn't toe the neocon party line 100% of the time.
 
I didn't know who Rachel Maddow was by name when reading this thread, but I think she's the only person I've ever seen on MSNBC. I thought it was a joke at first. She was as biased for the left as Bill O'Reilly is for the right, and way more sarcastic, although that may just be a case of conservatives not being capable of humor. Maybe she's changed - this was a couple years ago - but she's probably the single reason I haven't watched MSNBC since.

 
bostonfred said:
I didn't know who Rachel Maddow was by name when reading this thread, but I think she's the only person I've ever seen on MSNBC. I thought it was a joke at first. She was as biased for the left as Bill O'Reilly is for the right, and way more sarcastic, although that may just be a case of conservatives not being capable of humor. Maybe she's changed - this was a couple years ago - but she's probably the single reason I haven't watched MSNBC since.
Click to expand...
But she's nice when doing it, so she's "better"....HTH.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ilov80s
Movie Role Recast: What actor ruined a good movie for you? Who should have replaced them?
2
Replies
91
Views
2K
Mrs. Rannous
Mrs. Rannous
SwampDawg
The College Soccer Experience
Replies
31
Views
890
BassNBrew
BassNBrew
cosjobs
Josh Johnson, comedian
Replies
3
Views
379
cosjobs
cosjobs

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top