Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Rachel Maddow Goes Nuts On Politifact Over Gay Claim: ‘You Are Terrible’ And Someone Should ‘Sue You’

Mary!!! I mean, RACHEL!!!

How could anyone sue them?

Miss Maddow needs to calm the fuck down.

by Anonymousreply 24205/21/2013

While Rachel does seem to be a bit rabid on this subject, one must admit that there are viewers who need to be told sixteen times in a row that a FACT is a FACT.

by Anonymousreply 105/10/2013

You need to check your facts, OP. First of all, Maddow was justifiably pissed off over Politifact's contrary confirming Martina's statement in full but rating her statement only half true.

Second, Maddow didn't say that a lawsuit was possible. She rhetorically and specifically said that until someone could figure out a way to sue them they would likely continue to brand people half untruthful when they actually find them to be completely truthful. And she pointed out the irony of such inaccurate practices in a website that puts itself forward as a fact checker.

Accordingly, Maddow's statement was irreproachable and her zeal completely reasonable.

That is if you care about facts, which perhaps you don't.

by Anonymousreply 205/10/2013

I am surprised you aren't frothing at the mouth over what politifact did.

by Anonymousreply 305/10/2013

You can't sue them, and Rachel is out of her mind even uttering such rubbish. They were right, but put up the wrong rating on the comment.

by Anonymousreply 405/10/2013

The blatant disregard for facts shown by Politifact has come up before. It really is infuriating.

I mean, they're supposed to be all about facts. They bill themselves as the fact-checking fact people. They even put the word "fact" in their name. In reality, Politifact has demonstrated time and time again that it does not care at all about facts.

They go out of their way to be factually inaccurate. It's bizarre.

by Anonymousreply 505/10/2013

OP. You need to calm down.

by Anonymousreply 605/10/2013

Just watched that, never seen her before. How the hell did she a TV job shouting like that? Very Irritating. Painful.

by Anonymousreply 705/10/2013

Politifact is painful, deliberately misleading, and contrary to fact.

by Anonymousreply 805/10/2013

Pssst, OP..

NOBODY watches this self important crazed dyke except fringe, radical left wing psychos.

She's the moral equivalent to Fox News, attracting equally as damaged people on the left as Faux does on the right.

She's peaked and it's all down hill from here and she knows that. If you insist on watching trash television, stay tuned for future Maddow meltdowns to grab the attention of the drooling sofa set like yourself.

by Anonymousreply 905/10/2013

She is exactly right! Love her. Fuck you Politi-manipulatethefacts!

by Anonymousreply 1005/10/2013

Rachel Maddow is a great antidote to the Conservatives' bilge water.

Love her.

Her observations and arguments are cogent and with laser-like precision.

I would vote for her if I could.

by Anonymousreply 1105/10/2013

R7 Nobody rang for you, Cryptonetta. Slither back to the grottos.

by Anonymousreply 1205/10/2013

Is Maddow even a trained journalist? What's her deal? I can't imagine tuning into that shtick every night?!

Wow - kind of floored she has a show after watching that clip. Why not give the slot to some smart, appealing leftie who will actually connect with the audience. Are they trying to sink the channel?

by Anonymousreply 1305/10/2013

Rachel is fabulous, she's in a league of her own. Love her.

by Anonymousreply 1405/10/2013

she's right to call bs when it's being fed to the sheeple.

She's brave, too.

And, without tits and ass and reality bull shit, her show will probably get canceled.

No one cares any longer in America about what's real. The real issues.

Instead it's Ryan Lochte's boner.

by Anonymousreply 1505/10/2013

[quote] she's in a league of her own

Sort of like "Pat" R15?

by Anonymousreply 1605/10/2013

Though I rarely disagree with Maddow, I'm always through listening to her long before she is finished preaching to me.

by Anonymousreply 1705/10/2013

She's big with middle aged lesbians and those lonely liberal fraus who like to make nuisances of themselves in the gay crowd.

THIS is Maddow's demographic. She doesn't attract very educated people and has perfected attracting angry middle aged white lesbians and their confused female counterparts.

by Anonymousreply 1805/10/2013

She's big with anyone who understands the reality of politics.

by Anonymousreply 1905/10/2013

Rachel was a Rhodes Scholar and has a PhD in Political Science from OXFORD, bitches. So you haters can call her Dr. Maddow.

I flip back and forth between Rachel and Hannity (where did he get his PhD btw?) and am continuously amazed at how polite Rachel is and how no puppet liberal on Fox ever gets a word out before Hannity and whoever his fellow guest neocon is that night, start screaming over the response.

by Anonymousreply 2005/10/2013

Most of this thread is two old lesbians trying their best....

by Anonymousreply 2105/10/2013

R22 You lie. Trolldar is your friend.

I'm no fan of Maddow but she doesn't seem so crazy here. It is annoying that a fact checking site can't get facts right. I share her pain.

by Anonymousreply 2205/10/2013

R21, first of all PhD's are about a dime a dozen these days and nobody but the most deluded refers to them as "Doctors."

Second, I call bullshit on you "switching back and forth between Maddow and Hannity." Here's how it works: If you're a wacko freeper you watch Hannity but couldn't stand watching Maddow. If you're a wacko commie you watch Maddow but couldn't stand watching Hannity. And if you're 80% of the general public not extreme right or extreme left you couldn't stand watching either of these two loons. Hence, you're full of it.

by Anonymousreply 2305/10/2013

Isn't Rachel dating an old lesbian, R22? Could be her, I guess.

by Anonymousreply 2405/10/2013

I agree r18, she is like a minister who has been taught that he has to repeat something three times before the congregation remembers it. However, I find it interesting that my partner, who has a slight learning disability, loves her show. Maybe the show is liberal politics for dummies, but if it reaches a group of people who would not otherwise have access to the information, I say great!

by Anonymousreply 2505/10/2013

Nonetheless, my bf and I do just that, R24. Mostly to see the Fox News freak show and to compare it to the exposition of the actual facts on Maddow.

by Anonymousreply 2605/10/2013

Sometimes news junkies want to get both the MSNBC and the FOX spin on events to keep informed. It's not that unusual for people to watch both channels.

I personally don't watch Rachel Maddow because she annoys me but in this particular instance she has a point.

by Anonymousreply 2705/10/2013

[all posts by ham-fisted troll a removed.]

by Anonymousreply 2805/10/2013

[quote]PhD's are about a dime a dozen these days

Says the person who doesn't have one.

by Anonymousreply 2905/10/2013

[quote] Says the person who doesn't have one.

Wouldn't be so foolish as to get one, R30. They're virtually worthless. Read the article below in the Atlantic.

by Anonymousreply 3005/10/2013

R31 For someone as old as you they would worthless. Using the word commie in a sentence is a dead give away.

by Anonymousreply 3105/10/2013

[quote]Instead it's Ryan Lochte's boner.

Can't we deal with Ryan's boner as well as Rachel's comments? Try multi-tasking.

by Anonymousreply 3205/10/2013

How's that PhD working out for you, R31? You seem to have an awful lot of time on your hands for an "in demand" acedemic! LOL

by Anonymousreply 3305/10/2013

r30 is right. The only reason to develop critical thinking facilities and further one's education is to get a high paying job where the return on investment is worthwhile.

What's the point of spending time to do in-depth research and have that work reviewed if you're not going to make a lot of money from doing it.

And, we should definitely throw out any system if it is even remotely flawed or doesn't produce 100% of the outcomes it should - if even one person doesn't live up to or meet the standards that we believe that system should produce. I mean, if anyone can name one example of an idiot who go a PhD, then the entire system and all the disciplines offering such a degree MUST be worthless.

by Anonymousreply 3405/10/2013

Huh? Everything she said is correct. If you don't like her delivery style, don't watch her. But she is accurate and she is a wonderful antidote to the insanity of American politics. She holds the evil people's feet to the fire.

by Anonymousreply 3505/10/2013

r10 you are the monarch of false equivalencies.

by Anonymousreply 3605/10/2013

[quote]first of all PhD's are about a dime a dozen these days and nobody but the most deluded refers to them as "Doctors."

Not from Oxford they're not, and Rhodes Scholars are definitely not a dime a dozen.

Now please quit pissing yellow all over the thread, you troll.

by Anonymousreply 3705/10/2013

Here's the real inside story on this that's popping up today on blogs. Rachel is mad because Politifact has exposed her as less than accurate in her own statements - apparently she feels targeted and is fighting back voraciously. Pretty funny!

They rate Maddow's statements as:

27% false 20% mostly false 20% half true 27% mostly true 7% true

Ouch! No wonder she's going after them like this. Pretty transparent LOL.

by Anonymousreply 3805/10/2013

Rachel Maddow is a perfect example of why real Butch women feel so ashamed. Seems like she has taken the advice dispensed to all Butch dykes since childhood, 'just wear some make-up, do your hair nice and wear some nice women's clothes' and you'll get ahead in life and be just fine.

Hello middle class privilege at its worst. She is a total sell-out and I hope that fat check she receives from MSNBC was enough to cover the loss of her dyke dignity.

by Anonymousreply 3905/10/2013

r40, speaking of bitter women who never finished getting their Phds....

by Anonymousreply 4005/10/2013

She isn't interested in questioning the misogyny machine that got her where she is and where she'll go, she's only interested in getting there.

Questioning patriarchal systems as a woman and worse as a lesbian doesn't pay well in green backs, and sadly women like Maddow are too simplistic to benefit from the riches acquired within that can only be obtained from challenging the status quo.

by Anonymousreply 4105/10/2013

Another example here of why the DL is not good for political commentary but great as fly paper to catch intellectual botflies.

by Anonymousreply 4205/10/2013

You've lost your mind, r42 r40 r39 et al.

by Anonymousreply 4305/10/2013

Which became all the more clear after I saw your posts in the "missing people" thread.

by Anonymousreply 4405/10/2013

R44: I do not know whether Maddow identifies as Butch (or some variation thereof) or not, I do know however when she was voted and listed as the "Top Butch of 2009" she didn't deny being it or set the record straight that she wasn't Butch.

Even if she has never identified as Butch in all her born days (and I seriously doubt she has), because she was on this "top 100 'butch' list", general pop culture society (including general lesbians now "ignorantly believe Maddow "butch"!

This is the nonsense, the fucking garbage that furthers and fuels Butch Invisibility, which furthers and fuels Butch Shame which furthers and fuels Butch body dysphoria and Butch sexual shame (stoneness).

by Anonymousreply 4505/10/2013


You posted 9 responses (so far) to this thread. (8,14,17,24,25,31,34,39,40) There are many other threads that you are welcomed to inject your special brand of ignorance/stupidity into here at DL. However you may want to give this particular thread a rest. You're basically having a conversation with yourself at this point. Although you probably have all of your conversations with yourself. They do have pretty effective medications for that type of problem. You should check into them. I certainly curious to see which Fox News tactic you will employ in response to my post. Its a pity this site has so many bitter, ignorant, often elderly, bigots. On behalf of the DL community, thank you for being one of the many festering boils here that just wont go away.

by Anonymousreply 4605/10/2013

Troll has spent three and a half hours here trolling. What does the old coot have to show for it? Nothing. So sad.

by Anonymousreply 4705/10/2013

Your ranting about butch levels of shame is incomprehensible.

by Anonymousreply 4805/10/2013

"Maddow didn't say that a lawsuit was possible. She rhetorically and specifically said that until someone could figure out a way to sue them they would likely continue to brand people half untruthful when they actually find them to be completely truthful."

Thanks, R2. The OP is an idiot.

by Anonymousreply 4905/10/2013

And r49, her need to impose a Lesbian sexual/gender normative role on Rachael is just as problematic as imposing a Hetero-normative role. It appears that the matriarchy is no better than the patriarchy.

by Anonymousreply 5005/10/2013

Keep in mind, Rachel Maddow’s show isn’t really about her, although she would like you to think it is, but it’s about the puppet masters that put her there.

She is nothing but a sock puppet, spewing enough New World Order lies on her show that would put anyone who was really searching for the truth into an idiot box induced coma.

by Anonymousreply 5105/10/2013

Right on, R52! Rachel is a tool of the psychopaths.

9/11 is the Litmus Test . . .

by Anonymousreply 5205/10/2013

I agree, R53! Like her hero Obama or George W. Bush, Rachel Maddow just a teleprompter reader controlled by the Rothschild banking industry. So regardless of information, facts, figures and investigations, Rachel Maddow believes there are no such things as conspiracy theories and those who believe such conspiracies are too ideological and emotional.

It should also not surprise anyone that she is a Rhodes scholar. That doesn’t mean she’s smart, it just means she was indoctrinated at one of the most notorious illuminati organizations in the world which was started by Master illuminist and 33rd degree Freemason Cecil Rhodes.

by Anonymousreply 5305/10/2013

Fact: Rachel Maddow is doing fantastically well in the ratings, consistently gaining audience share, especially among coveted younger viewers.

[quote] “The Rachel Maddow Show” at 9 p.m. ranked #2 topping CNN’s “Piers Morgan Tonight” by 84% among A25-54 (308,000 vs. 167,000) and by 70% among total viewers (1.09 million vs. 639,000). “Maddow” was also ranked #1 among the younger demo of A18-34. “Maddow” is up 32% in A25-54, more growth than all cable news programs in the hour combined, and up 11% in total viewers compared to Jan. 2012.

Fox News is hemorrhaging viewers, particularly in the younger demographic.

No wonder the freepers here are so rabid.

by Anonymousreply 5405/10/2013

Huh, R55?? Her network has apparently slipped to 4th Place behind HLN, CNN, and Fox. And her show is bombing since Piers found his groove on CNN.

[quote] NYT: Breaking news is always good news for CNN, and April’s ratings are the latest example. By comparison, MSNBC was actually down in viewers from the same month a year ago, dropping to 407,000 total viewers from 426,000 a year ago. It had no increase in the 25-to-54 group, staying at 139,000. Its strongest prime-time hour, with Rachel Maddow, was down 7 percent in total viewers.

by Anonymousreply 5505/10/2013

Rachel's dismissal of Alex Jones and conspiracy theorists pissed off a lot of people like r54.

I knew when Rachel did a segment on Alex Jones that she would piss off a lot of people like you. For some reasons, conspiracists are like rabid dogs: if you dismiss their kooky "government is behind every bombings and shootings," they go after you with the full force of the internet.

Look r154, it's not just Rachel who think 9-11 truthers, Boston bombing and Sandy Hook conspiracists are crazy. She's just an easy target for those who are already homophobic. It's easy to attack her sexuality or how she looks. That way, you don't have to address the substance of what she is saying.

by Anonymousreply 5605/10/2013

R55 Paid a visit yesterday to my insurance agent who keeps Fox News on in his waiting room. In the 15 minutes or so I sat there (and from what I could overhear once at his desk) the ads run on Fox were for the following items: Home diabetes testing kits, inexpensive life insurance, gold speculators, First Alert, mobility scooters, reverse mortgages, a local mortician hawking pre-paid funerals, a local dental practice and their discount dental implants. In other words: ads that are mostly targeted at the 60+ gang or people who live in fear. No ads for big ticket items like autos, no ads for anything considered high tech (unless you consider the hearing aid that looks like a Bluetooth device). No ads showing young people enjoying soft drinks or beer or fast food. No ads that would appeal to young people with disposable income, the demographic advertisers want.

That pretty much tells you who is watching Fox.

by Anonymousreply 5705/10/2013

Maddow is so far down in the ratings, she's desperate for P R.. Even CNN is creaming her show.

by Anonymousreply 5805/10/2013

The Alex Jones crowd are really going after Rachel on DL now.

by Anonymousreply 5905/10/2013

Maddow isn’t a journalist. She isn’t a news anchor. She is a government sponsored disinformation specialist who has never reported a legitimate news story in her life and does nothing but spew opinions and tells contrived government sponsored stories to lead a gullible public down the pipers path.

And people like R57 have bought it hook, line, and sinker because they feel that if they agree with her opinions they are very "cutting edge" and "trendy" LOLOL.

Open your eyes!

by Anonymousreply 6005/10/2013

R60, most dedicated conspiracy theorists take Alex Jones with a grain of salt. He is not the head of any organized movement. He is not anyone else's acknowledged leader.

You won't extinguish the 9/11 Truth Movement merely by discrediting Alex Jones. He is unimportant.

by Anonymousreply 6105/10/2013

So am I right then, r61? How dare Rachel mock you, Alex Jones, and all the other people who believe the government is behind every bombings and every shootings. Are you disappointed because you thought she was like you?

When she did that Alex Jones segment, I remember thinking that she's lost her conspiracy-prone viewers.

Like I said, you can attack Rachel all you want (and that's what you're doing now), but she's not the only person who thinks you're a kook. Are you going to attack every rational thinking person?

by Anonymousreply 6205/10/2013

the op knows she didn't call for a lawsuit. op knows that politifact is a dog and pony shit-show.

r whoever knows that she has been covering politifact since before they even rated her.

it's a pretty terrible site, I'm curious as to who would take the time to type out such a fraudulent post. complete with follow up texts.

who ARE you, op?

by Anonymousreply 6305/10/2013

[quote]Are you going to attack every rational thinking person?

Are you going to attack people who recognize a controlled demolition when they see one? I will take the opinion of professional architects and engineers over the opinion of ANY paid talking head on TV any day of the week.

by Anonymousreply 6405/10/2013

Alex who? I love how people think he's some influential leader - not true.

Here’s what the deal is and exactly why this talentless, obnoxious woman Rachel Maddow is on the air. The power elite realize that a growing number of people everyday are waking up the fact that there is a deliberate, evil plan by the leaders of this world’s system to enslave you, take away your freedoms and liberties and establish a New World Order to ultimately be run by the Biblical Antichrist.

They aren’t too worried yet, because only about 10% of the population has figured this out. But, they don’t want anymore dissident’s than need be, so she is there to mock and belittle people who are on to the truth.

Interesting in all this, is her adamant stance that the U.S. government would never engage in false flag terror attacks. Maybe if she had completed her homework on time she may have learned of such incidents as the “Gulf of Tonkin” or “Operation Northwoods.” She is obviously not schooled in true history and world events.

The scary thing for us is that they know gays and lesbians are typically of far above average intelligence and that is a real threat to them, so they cooked up this "Maddow" character to try to appeal specifically to the LBGT crowd. Don't believe it?

Check out Maddow's before picture below to realize she is just playing the role she was assigned by the NWO:

by Anonymousreply 6505/10/2013

I love Rachel, and I sincerely would be in heaven if she came over to my place with her strap-on, but even I don't watch her show.

She repeats things too much, as if there isn't enough craziness in the world for her to fill up her 40 minutes.

by Anonymousreply 6605/10/2013

Troll is now going on 4 hours of trolling.

4 hours. Think of all the other, productive, meaningful things one could do with that time. What does old troll have to show for it?

by Anonymousreply 6705/10/2013

[quote]who ARE you, op?

r64, has r65 and r66's posts answered your question? They are truthers and conspiracy theorists. She did a take down of Alex Jones and other weird conspiracies a few weeks ago and now they're attacking her.

by Anonymousreply 6805/10/2013

R68, you are one "thread monitor" post away from being a troll yourself.

R69, anyone who is paid to anchor a show on any cable news network is bought and paid for by the Powers That Be. It does not matter whether that person is to the left or to the right. Maddow belongs to the same class of people as Hannity, O'Reilly, and Ann Coulter. They are on the Red Team, she is on the Blue Team. But it is an intramural league and they all work for the same people at the top of the same pyramid.

by Anonymousreply 6905/10/2013

HAHAHAHA someone uses the words "old troll" and you naturally assume it means you.

You fell for the oldest trick in the book.

by Anonymousreply 7005/10/2013

I'm no truther myself, but I do tent to agree with R70 to the extent that Maddow (just like the Faux News Gang) strikes me as so loud, repetitive, and scripted I feel like she's trying to pull a fast one (of some sort).

It's a little too rehearsed sometimes. I have no idea what that means, but it sort of creeps me out.

by Anonymousreply 7105/10/2013

R71, I assumed you were talking to R24, etc. who scoffed at the value of a PhD. I did not assume you were referring to me. I didn't fall for anything you said or did. I am simply annoyed at your self-appointed thread monitor routine.

by Anonymousreply 7205/10/2013

quit lying, r72. You twitch when you lie. Everybody can tell.

by Anonymousreply 7305/10/2013

now you're becoming the troll's troll's troll, r73.

by Anonymousreply 7405/10/2013

Okay, normally I just lurk but had to chime in here on one point. First off let me get this out front: I love Rachel Maddow.

One thing is bothering me though (and it's not the Illuminati stuff haha): if what R39 is saying is true (and I realize she has an ax to grind), but if it's true it does look quite a bit like Rachel is targeting these people as retaliation for fact-checking her.

I can tell you that in J-school that's a clear violation of the code of ethics. I know Rachel is not a trained journalist (I have no problem with that unlike some), but you'd think Air America or MSNBC would have given her a crash course in ethics or departmental standards, right?

I actually just lost a little respect for RMadd.

by Anonymousreply 7505/10/2013

"Trained journalist"? Is that like trained seal? Because that is what you get from most people on TV and who write for papers - the timid, brainless regurgitating of whatever government and the corporate world feeds them.

by Anonymousreply 7605/10/2013

[quote]the timid, brainless regurgitating of whatever government and the corporate world feeds them.

Yes, like the tired old lie that if one corner of a four-cornered building is damaged by falling debris and fire breaks out in isolated areas of two floors, it is only a matter of hours before the entire thing will collapse neatly into its own footprint at free-fall speed without the use of explosives.

by Anonymousreply 7705/10/2013

Love her despite her no-go on the conspiracies. Obviously that wouldn't be allowed in today's environment so it's fine that she does what she does. Politifact has always been part of the Republican "a pox on both your houses" style of journalism, and often needs some taking down. The only story I've seen her bungle is the one about the Unconstitutional march to dictatorship in Michigan, where the legislature has been taking over towns for the enrichment of GOP vendors and at the expense of the voters of these towns. She bungled only by not fully calling out the Dems for participating fully in a record of informal bipartisan abuse of the silly and unworkable Romney constitution. Yes, what the Republicans did was over the line evil. No, it wasn't entirely unprecedented.

by Anonymousreply 7805/10/2013

r70 Okay so every anchor who works on network news is bought and paid for, but for some reason, you feel need to go into every MSNBC and Rachel thread to attack her personally from her sexuality to her questioning her intelligence. That's above and beyond a personal attack.

I don't care if you think the moon is made out of cheese. If that's your belief, that's your belief. It doesn't affect me or anyone for that matter. You're not in any seat of power to effect changes reflecting your conspiracy beliefs.

What Rachel was saying is that people who are in the seat of power are listening these conspiracy theories and acting on it. Sen. Coburn actually submitted a gun amendment to the Water Bill requiring a registry of government firearms on the belief that the government is buying up all the guns and bullets so that none would be available to people.

Do you understand what she's trying to get at? She's not attacking your beliefs. She attacking people like Coburn who is taking his conspiracy theories and trying to make it law.

by Anonymousreply 7905/10/2013

r76 she had mentioned them on her show before they ever did a check on her.

And OP, I disagree with 'nuts'. What she was very logical and direct and true. More pundits should be saying this exact thing.

We can not have a democracy without dialogue and conversation. We can not have a conversation with culpability for something Fact-based.

Words have meanings. The Right Wing pundits and politicians and press will just walk over anything and everything they like as long as they can flot out lie about their competition and about their own actions.

For fuck's sake we see pundits lie about their own words knowing damn well they're right there on tape. If someone doesn't hold some kind of line ... what's the point ??? We fucking lost.

So no. It's not NUTS to demand culpability for the basic concept of "FACTS" and what they mean .

by Anonymousreply 8005/10/2013

[quote]The Right Wing pundits and politicians and press will just walk over anything and everything they like as long as they can flot out lie about their competition and about their own actions.

Kind of like Hillary Clinton claiming to have dodged sniper fire on the tarmac of an airport where video shows her accepting a bouquet of flowers from a little girl.

by Anonymousreply 8105/10/2013

trolldar r66 and you will meet someone of his rocker. Wow.

by Anonymousreply 8205/10/2013

I am undecided on Rachel Maddow. I have read many pros and cons on this thread. But there seems to be an awful lot of hate toward one television personality: for her views, her "fake" butchness, her rejection of conspiracies, etc.

Again, I have not really made up my mind, but this is a lively debate and I am enjoying it quite a bit- good to see young people fired up. After my generation (the 60s/flower power) we went a long time without seeing people fired up like this. I think it's great!

The only thing that bothers me personally about her (and it's more of an eye-of-the-beholder thing) is her hair. As a hairdresser I would tell her honey, you don't have to try to look like a man to be taken seriously! Let it grow out, dye it back blonde, and you might not get any more "butch awards" but whoo-ee Ii guarantee those ratings will improve.

Peace, love, and cock n' hole :)

by Anonymousreply 8305/10/2013

trolldar r66. then check out the "missing people" thread.

by Anonymousreply 8405/10/2013

Yes, this thread has brought out the sorts off loonies for whom the usual "shithouse rat crazy" description falls way short.

by Anonymousreply 8505/10/2013

[quote]her "fake" butchness

This must be a fucking joke. Is someone really taking a picture of her when she was [italic]17 years old[/italic] and using that to label... anything... definitive about her personality today????

Is this a joke?

by Anonymousreply 8605/10/2013

[quote]She is a government sponsored disinformation specialist

This is a joke, right?

by Anonymousreply 8705/10/2013

[quote] I am undecided on Rachel Maddow.

[quote] Again, I have not really made up my mind

r84 = Jeremy Iron

by Anonymousreply 8805/10/2013

R87 just gave herself away (hint: her initials are RM!)

First rule of yearbook photos is you only get that mad and worked up about your own! (Plus only Rachel would know her *exact* age at the time of the photo - senior photos could be taken any time during the spring and Rachel's birthday is in April!)

Love you Rachel! Don't listen to the trolls! :) You rock! E-kisses!

by Anonymousreply 8905/10/2013

Wow. So a woman with short hair has her gender questioned . I thought this board was supposed to be witty. Really- "She's a Man" is still a thing these days?

On the other side of it, her queerness has to be proved? or disproved? Or.. what? Why? Who the fuck cares?

She's good at job.

People clamor to be on her show.

Others refuse because they can't handle her direct questions.

She heads discussion panels and specials and has a NYT best seller on the shelves.

The Show's ratings are quite successful.

Morons trying to claim that lesbians are the core of her audience can't do math. If 3% of the population that self-IDs as dykes could make things happen anywhere in mainstream media — well tv would look a lot different these days. No, she has the numbers- that's a large mainstream audience- idiots.

This is a woman who presents as queer without question and she's helping to define the narrative in news. For fuck's sake, that's amazing.

Yet people still have to assume she needs to change something to suit their own narrow perceptions.

Ok, whatever.

by Anonymousreply 9005/10/2013

r 77, SHE WAS CRITICAL OF POLITIFACT FOR A LONG TIME (a year, 2 years?) before they began to sloppily so-called-fact-fact-check her.

So, r77, where is your journalistic mistrust of Politifact??? They gave her negative ratings AFTER she began criticizing them.

Are you a high-school dropout?

by Anonymousreply 9105/10/2013

I meant r76

aka Alex Jones

by Anonymousreply 9205/10/2013

Trolldar R8 and watch the thread light up.

Trolldar reports that R10/19/22 is someone else. What do you think?

by Anonymousreply 9305/10/2013

R90 it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know one typically has their senior pictures taken when they are 17 years old.

by Anonymousreply 9405/10/2013

WELL R76? You were asked a few questions, you sure took the time to post your worthless opinion, so please, finish the job.

by Anonymousreply 9505/10/2013

Haha I think R91 is Maddow too! :)

Love you Rachel! Kisses!

I think you rock - you don't have to defend yourself here at all!! But so happy you came! :)

Does anyone else think Rachel is in our midst?

by Anonymousreply 9605/10/2013

Dumbshit, r90. That picture is all ove the internet, and always captioned as her at 17. It was even showed at an interview with her once. FFS . Calm yourself. You're looking quite cray cray.

by Anonymousreply 9705/10/2013

Methinks R91 is Maddow as well!

Love you Rachel! Kisses!

Anyone else get the feeling we are not alone? :)

by Anonymousreply 9805/10/2013

In the thread about 34" waists, our crazy troll @R8 and R66 claims to have been a men's tailor. What a life she's lived!

by Anonymousreply 9905/10/2013

[quote]Does anyone else think Rachel is in our midst?

No. Just a single deranged Rachel-hater posting from different computers.

by Anonymousreply 10005/10/2013

omg. INSANE. (r99 et al)

by Anonymousreply 10105/10/2013

R66 is also all over the Matt Bomer ass in a thong thread!!

by Anonymousreply 10205/10/2013

I guess they let the mental patients have access to DL at Bellevue.

by Anonymousreply 10305/10/2013

Is R66 also R10 at the "missing people" or just the "Chimp-Human Breeding Troll."

Haha I love how all your credibility gets flushed down the toilet when you get exposed as the interspecies breeding troll. I am laughing my ass off right now.

by Anonymousreply 10405/10/2013

Why is Rachel so angry?

Because an organization with the name "Fact" in its title uses their resources to generate half-true spin and outright bullshit.

I mean really. Martina N. said 29 states have no legal protection against GLBT discrimination. 29 states don't have any state laws protecting gays and lesbians. On what planet is that a point of contention?

As a devout believer in fact-based reporting, that's why she's so pissed.

All the trolls have managed to prove is that their meds clearly aren't working.

Carry on.

by Anonymousreply 10505/10/2013

Even worse--they intentionally bring irrelevant facts in to get the answer they want. The fact that some employers won't fire you because you are gay does not contradict the statement that they could legally do so.

by Anonymousreply 10605/10/2013

You'd have to be medicated to put your trust in the US Mainstream Media.

They lie us into wars and into economic bubbles.

They set us one against the other with their phony Red State vs. Blue State conflicts.

The real war in this country is between the "Haves" and the "Have Nots."

The US Mainstream Media is owned and operated by the "Haves" for the benefit of the "Haves."

Any crumbs they throw to the "Have Nots" are thrown to assuage us, to confuse us, and to control us.

by Anonymousreply 10705/10/2013

1. Politifact is lazy and inaccurate.

2. We are still waiting r76. You sure didn't wait to make us suffer through your ignorance. So, why the wait now?

3. Bravo to this thread for crushing these trolls one by one.

by Anonymousreply 10805/10/2013

Wait, is R76 the same as R66? What did R77 do? They just said something like they like Rachel but they thought this one thing is suspect, right? There's a lot of trolls on here but I don't think that one comment is trolling, R109.

by Anonymousreply 10905/10/2013

OP, where in the video does she go "nuts"?

I have watched the video twice and she never goes nuts. Or even gets excited. Are you making shit up?

Please post the frame time to where in the video she goes nuts.

by Anonymousreply 11005/10/2013

Also, OP, while youa re at it, could you please also post the time where she says that "someone should 'sue you'".

Thank you in advance, I'm looking forward to your posts. I really want to see the parts of the video that you claim happened.

by Anonymousreply 11105/10/2013

R110, this is This is R76:

"Okay, normally I just lurk but had to chime in here on one point. First off let me get this out front: I love Rachel Maddow.

One thing is bothering me though (and it's not the Illuminati stuff haha): if what [R39] is saying is true (and I realize she has an ax to grind), but if it's true it does look quite a bit like Rachel is targeting these people as retaliation for fact-checking her.

I can tell you that in J-school that's a clear violation of the code of ethics. I know Rachel is not a trained journalist (I have no problem with that unlike some), but you'd think Air America or MSNBC would have given her a crash course in ethics or departmental standards, right?

I actually just lost a little respect for RMadd."

by: Anonymous reply 76 05/10/2013 @ 01:33PM

by Anonymousreply 11205/10/2013

Why doesn't she ever talk about Saudi arabia killing their "rebels" and protesters?? There's all this fuss about Syria and they don't have SHIT on the the Saudi government.

And why doesn't she call for the freeing of Bradley Manning? All the poor guy did was expose war crimes. And he's been held without trial for three years.

by Anonymousreply 11305/10/2013

In a lot of states that don't protect "sexual orientation" per se in employment law, if they protect gender, you can argue the same facts and have a cause of action under "gender" discrimination.

It's definitely better to have the protected class spelled out - no doubt about it, but I would say it's a little overly simplistic to say you can be fired in all the rest of the states for sexual orientation.

It would depend on their state law jurisprudence - in many I am sure you could be, in others I am sure you could not be.

by Anonymousreply 11405/10/2013

still waiting r76. you are not the only person in the whole world who has ever been to J-school in the history of all mankind.

I don't believe any of this shit on this thread and i'm tired of all these made up threads full of complete bullshit.

It has to be the same person making up all this shit. Or a firm. I have been on this site for fucking ever and never have I seen anything like this.

This is not an ignorant person. They are pretending to be ignorant. It's getting in all of the political type threads and its just COMPLETE BULLSHIT. It joined about 6-8 months or so ago but has really kicked it up as of late.

Enough, you will be challenged to back up your claims on this site. This site has a history of, even through the cloud of argument and bitchiness, not tolerating unsubstantiated claims. It should not start now.


by Anonymousreply 11505/10/2013

I don't get the thing about R76. Compared to everything else on this crazy thread that actually seems slightly tame and balanced...

Is there a hidden dig in there that's going over my head?

by Anonymousreply 11605/10/2013

[quote]In a lot of states that don't protect "sexual orientation" per se in employment law, if they protect gender, you can argue the same facts and have a cause of action under "gender" discrimination.

Has that approach ever actually been successful?

by Anonymousreply 11705/10/2013

R116, I think you're getting a little overly worked up about that one little post! Check out R66 (et al) which is some truly f'ed up nonsense.

by Anonymousreply 11805/10/2013

r117 What is so complicated? R76 is a MADE UP post.

Which is why you won't see a reply.

Which is what I'm going on about. These are NOT REAL PEOPLE and these are NOT REAL POSTS.

Notice you won't hear from the OP either because it never happened. He made it up. Watch the video.

70 posts go by and NOBODY notices!!!!!

by Anonymousreply 11905/10/2013

Then that is so disconcerting about r66 et al is that at r8, s/he claims to have never seen RM until that video OP posted.

by Anonymousreply 12005/10/2013

r119... are you getting it now? Help me help you.

by Anonymousreply 12105/10/2013

Not for nothing, R120/R116 but you are starting to sound like a little like one of the lunatics. A "firm" is posting on datalounge threads using "not real people" and "not real posts" and "nobody notices"?

I think there are a ton (or maybe a small few) Rachel haters on here or people with some agenda but a "firm" orchestrating a big conspiracy that nobody but you notices?? Come on!

How would it be cost effective to pay people to troll a thread like this - it's not like this is Politico comments or something or NYT comments.

Am I wrong?

by Anonymousreply 12205/10/2013

Well OP, still waiting on those times in the video where she does what you claim.


by Anonymousreply 12305/10/2013

Plus the fact, wouldn't a paid "firm" have a way to avoid getting caught with troll dar?

I don't think this theory of yours holds water on close inspection, R116.

by Anonymousreply 12405/10/2013

Hey assholes, here is how the business model works. (LINK) I can't always be around to be responsible for your ignorance, You need to go back and get your G.E.D.

I don't know if its a firm, a person, or what, but I know its FAKE.

That being said, don't sit here and red herring me to death. Especially when I am posting about red herrings.

have you heard from r76 or OP? and you won't.

by Anonymousreply 12505/10/2013

Another example of firms that exist to promote online bullshit for corporations

by Anonymousreply 12605/10/2013

This thread is not an online review site, R126. I don't like to say this for several reasons, but in this case: Take your meds.

by Anonymousreply 12705/10/2013

Come on guys, at least don't make it so easy for them. WATCH THE VIDEO

by Anonymousreply 12805/10/2013

well, r128, sorry I just can't help you cause there's no cure for stupid.

You're on your own.

by Anonymousreply 12905/10/2013

That's about fake product review, R126. You think a competing news network is posting on datalounge (mostly liberal gays) to try to turn them off to a liberal gay newsperson?

I'm sorry but it does not make any sense! And you're really rude and condescending to me just because I don't agree with your theory. (get my GED? Really?)

I'm sorry but I just think you're wrong on this. R76 was 2 hours ago and OP was many hours ago - not everyone sits on datalounge all day responding immediately. Most people sign on once a day or so for a short while!

take a deep breath, R126. It is going to be okay! It's probably only you, me and about 5 to 10 other people that have even read any of this (by the time you add in everyone's multiple posts). The world is not going to end.

The "firm" is not going to win! I promise!

by Anonymousreply 13005/10/2013

Guess I'm not on my own. Phew! You had me worried, R130.

by Anonymousreply 13105/10/2013

Where did I say that it was definitely a firm?

I mean it could be, since the CEO of Whole Foods was busted making fake posts in chat rooms. Companies post in chat rooms, Ok? Get over it. I gave a few suggestions to support my point.

My point was THOSE ARE FAKE POSTS. Now you are purposely distracting from my point.

You know what I mean. You are clearly stupid but hopefully functional enough to know that.

by Anonymousreply 13205/10/2013

Ok good, well you two can keep each other company when you go back for some remedial education.

by Anonymousreply 13305/10/2013

You know what they say about someone whose idea of argument is repeatedly calling the other person "stupid" without addressing the substance of his points?

by Anonymousreply 13405/10/2013

Ok, argue with the NY Times (LINK). They back up with proof that companies use chat rooms with fake posters.

Datalounge is a CHAT ROOM.

Now go back to school please, or the rest of us have to pay for your ignorance.

by Anonymousreply 13505/10/2013

r135, what points did I not address?

That saying does not apply here because I called him stupid AFTER I addressed his points.

Which were red herrings, not points, but I addressed them nonetheless

So I ask you, which points did I no address?

by Anonymousreply 13605/10/2013

Difference between a good thread and a classic one:

On a good thread you have a delusional BPD lunatic like R66 aka the Chimp fucker spouting all kinds of assorted wackiness from "butch theory" to "Illuminati" to "9/11".

On a Classic thread you have a tinfoil hat like R133 kicking it up a notch devising that it is all the result of a vast conspiracy involving fortune 500 CEOs and a mysterious syndicate known only as "The Firm."

And that's why this one is a classic! LMFAO Come on peeps, it's only a TV show!!

by Anonymousreply 13705/10/2013

R128 What medications should I take?

Will the docs prescribe something for having to carry the burden of everything you don't know?

What is my remedy?

by Anonymousreply 13805/10/2013

And while were waiting on the op, we can wait for r138 to show me where I posted "that it is all the result of a vast conspiracy involving fortune 500 CEOs and a mysterious syndicate known only as "The Firm." "

I didn't post that. Where did you get that from? You made it up. That is the theme of this tread.

You backed up my point. Maybe its not company, its just people making shit up.

THAT IS MY POINT. ITs all made up. EVEN r138

by Anonymousreply 13905/10/2013

I am the one laughing my ass off here at the people who think the OP and r76 are just busy off somewhere.

We'll check back in periodically to see if they show up.

by Anonymousreply 14005/10/2013

Soylent Green is People! It's Peeeeeeeooooooooopppppllllll!!!!!!

by Anonymousreply 14105/10/2013

She looks terrible in that heavy makeup imho.

by Anonymousreply 14205/10/2013

R139--Whatever medications the Institute prescribed in order for you to be out on your own recognizance.

by Anonymousreply 14305/10/2013

For you, R140.

by Anonymousreply 14405/10/2013

Well folks, I've given all I can today. Got to go run some errands.

I've been on this site since before the days of Ginny in billing and I just wish we could go back to this being a place where ignorance was the only thing that was not tolerated.

But alas, all good things must come to an end.

by Anonymousreply 14505/10/2013

What a shame.

by Anonymousreply 14605/10/2013

one more thing before I go.. r135, which points did I not address?

by Anonymousreply 14705/10/2013

r144, they didn't give me any meds. They just gave me a one-way bus ticket.

by Anonymousreply 14805/10/2013

If the op and r76 never come back, then I was right. And you all can apologize then.

Well check in a few weeks to see if in fact those posts were authentic.

Until then, you all are welcome for my attempts at trying to weed out fake posters.


by Anonymousreply 14905/10/2013

The thread does not cease because you no longer wish to participate in it. Let's add delusions of grandeur to the symptoms list.

by Anonymousreply 15005/10/2013

We'll be waiting.....

by Anonymousreply 15105/10/2013

TRMS is the only show I watch regularly, and I'm suspicious of anyone who considers RM a hack. She's brilliant. Her guests seem to enjoy being on her show. She doesn't engage Iin shouting matches, nor does she personally insult her "opponents."

OP, if you like Rush, Bill O, Drudge, Breitbart, then of course you'll hate Rachell. Your incendiary post about her on a gay blog makes it plain that you're trolling down a river.

by Anonymousreply 15205/10/2013

Why are you obsessed wth me r151/r152? I wasn't event taking to you. Or thinking about you, you are not on my radar. Stop stalking me, I need some space.

I don't need you to comment on every comment I make. It is obsessive and not necessary.

As that to your list of symptoms. Stalking and obsessing.

Also add "does not pick up on social cues" like the long running joke that is 'thread closed."

Showing a few symptoms of your own, I see.

no response is necessary I need some space.

by Anonymousreply 15305/10/2013

Love Rachel. Never miss her show. The right wing trolls who infest DL hate her which makes me love her even more.

by Anonymousreply 15405/10/2013

This link is for r152 and anyone else who is still attempting to hide behind 20th century argumentative tactics.

by Anonymousreply 15505/10/2013

How many people who watch CNN or Fox know that the GOP has been stalling the nomination of Gina McCarthy as head of the EPA? The GOP, led by David "diaper" Vitter" have submitted 1079 written questions for her. Vitter had about 600 sub-questions to go along with those 1079 questions. McCarthy answered all of the questions, but when it came time to vote on her nomination, they were no-shows. Their explanation was that she was unresponsive and has not answered enough questions.

This is what is happening in DC right now. Nothing is getting done because the GOP won't give an inch.

These are the kinds of news stories that Rachel often covers. Stories that don't often make it to either network or cable news.

by Anonymousreply 15605/10/2013


by Anonymousreply 15705/10/2013

How many people who watch CNN or Fox know that the Heritage Foundation is basically a "white power" lobby?

How many people who watch CNN or Fox know how many children shot other children to death in the first 10 days of May? Might their ignorance explain why they believe that "the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun?"

How many people who watch CNN or Fox know that the nuclear weapons base in Minot, North Dakota recently fired 17 soldiers for negligence? 100s of nuclear bombs are stored there. We are more likely to blow ourselves off the face of the earth than any foreign enemy.

by Anonymousreply 15805/10/2013

[quote] Sometimes news junkies want to get both the MSNBC and the FOX spin on events to keep informed


by Anonymousreply 15905/11/2013

The posts in this thread are weird to say the least. Anyways, I agree with Maddow in the video. But I hate her delivery. She comes across as self satisfied. she also really needs to stop the monologues. she could have explained the issue in less than the five minutes. Instead she goes on rants. And I say this as someone who thinks her show is the most informative on cable TV- save Chris Hayes.

by Anonymousreply 16005/11/2013

Christ, can she JUST get to the POINT???

by Anonymousreply 16105/11/2013

cray cray

by Anonymousreply 16205/11/2013

R1162, the point is up to the viewer. She just presents extensive research & some analysis. Mostly she raises interesting questions based on previously unexplored angles. She doesn't baby sit the viewer. Pay attention and you'll learn a lot about American history, our military, international relations, etc. She welcomes both democrats and republicans on her show. Her interview with Sandra Day O'Conoor will go down in history. She is obviously well respected by her guests.

by Anonymousreply 16305/11/2013

I fucking can't stand this bitch. But, to some crazed dykes here, that makes me a right wing nut.

by Anonymousreply 16405/11/2013

I think it makes you a misogynist yes, and I am not a dyke but a proud gay man.

by Anonymousreply 16505/11/2013

[quote], Rachel Maddow just a teleprompter reader controlled by the Rothschild banking industry.

Oh, ok. Great! (stepping away from the computer).

by Anonymousreply 16605/11/2013

Amen r17

r39 Maddow definitely has a habit of being less than accurate in her own statements.

And, when it's pointed out, she doesn't even bother to correct herself!! That's unethical.

by Anonymousreply 16705/11/2013

You're not even REAL R165! What crazed dykes?? Tell me where they are! Point them out!

I am SICK of you and the rest of the LIARS coming on here and LYING about what people are saying.

So come on we are waiting. Tell us what "crazed dyke" said that if you don't like Rachel Maddow you are a right wing nut.

Ah, but you won't respond will you? Because YOU DON'T EXIST. You are with the group or the firm that has been pulling this shit for months. GO AWAY. GO AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by Anonymousreply 16805/11/2013

Go to the Chris Hayes ratings thread(near the end) and then shut the fuck up.

by Anonymousreply 16905/11/2013

R161, I love her, but I can see how some of the things I like about her would be off-putting to others.

I also think it's difficult for some people to watch a woman who is as self-possessed and powerful as any man in her field. She's not a Diane Sawyer plastic-surgeried clotheshorse or a Katie Couric cutie-pie. She doesn't defer to anyone, and I can't imagine her giggling to gain our approval.

by Anonymousreply 17005/11/2013

Self satisfied is a fucking understatement

by Anonymousreply 17105/11/2013

Funny how all these anti-Maddow posts start popping up at once??

Did your shift just start? How much are they paying you? WHO ARE YOU?

We KNOW you are not real - we KNOW you work for The Firm. GO AWAY.

by Anonymousreply 17205/11/2013

God, you're either delusional, r173, or you're on Rachel's pr team. Which is it?

If she was loved by everyone on the left and in the center, her ratings would be much higher.

by Anonymousreply 17305/11/2013

Don't Red Herring me when I am trying to point out Red Herrings, R174! That is a classic technique from the last century but we are on to it!

Everybody, do you see how R174 deflected attention away from the issue and NONE of you idiots NOTICED! I CAN'T FIGHT THIS FIGHT ALL ALONE! Work with me!

I noticed an influx of anti-Maddow posts and called out The Firm (not my term, but as good a description as any for what is GOING ON here), and then The Firm throws up a post (R174) not answering those charges but accusing ME of working for Maddow's PR team.

Classic projection. But don't believe it! They have not answered one of the questions I have raised and they are back in full force today. Don't believe these people - THEY ARE NOT REAL!

by Anonymousreply 17405/11/2013

On Thursday May 9th, Maddow pulled in a whopping 696,000 viewers.

Hannity 2,269,000

Morgan 1,161,000

Dr Drew 863,000

Maddow 696,000

Not too long ago, Dr. Drew almost got canned.

by Anonymousreply 17505/11/2013


Take your meds, honey.

by Anonymousreply 17605/11/2013

I am asking you under citizen's oath, R177, R176, et al (meaning penalty for perjury applies of this issue ever becomes evidence in a court of law - look up "common law testimony").

Under Citizen's Oath, do you or do you not have any affiliation with The Firm?

Of course you are free to not answer at all, but we are also free to interpret that as a "yes."

by Anonymousreply 17705/11/2013

How long can MSNBC hemorrhage before action has to be taken? Does someone have deep pockets to keep this channel afloat with these clowns and its not just Rachel.

by Anonymousreply 17805/11/2013

Yeah there's definitely an agenda by some anti-Maddow trolls. I'm not sure I'm buying this "Firm" thing, but there's certainly a lot of GOProud types in this thread. Rachel has always been an easy target for the haters, so it's expected.

r168 you can hate her but posting lies is another thing. You obviously don't watch her show. You see her clips posted on your wingnut site and think you know everything about her. She has "a habit of being less than accurate?" Really, troll?

She was sued by this homophobic Christian rocker for slander. Not only did the the judge toss out the slander suit, he was ordered to pay her legal fees for basically filing a frivolous lawsuit.

As for not correcting herself -- she has a segment called the Department of Corrections. When she misstates something, she will correct herself.

I'm a regular viewer. I don't watch Fox News at all. I don't go around lying about Hannity or O'Reilly because I'm not familiar with their shows. I know about them from clips, but not enough to come to DL and just blatantly lie about what they say or do.

Maybe you ought to do the same, asshole.

by Anonymousreply 17905/11/2013

r169(etc) see r180

You two nutty dykes should set up a meeting at a conveniently located Waffle House.

by Anonymousreply 18005/11/2013

I'm not even a dyke, you asshole. Even if I were, at least I'm not an AIDS infested cocksucker.

by Anonymousreply 18105/11/2013

Maddow is brillant, and I agree with almost 100% of what she talks about on her show. It's her delivery that I hate - she's snide and thinks she's hilarious. I can only take watching her for bits at a time.

But if you're going to watch one of these shows, she's the only one worth watching.

by Anonymousreply 18205/11/2013

There's the word...."brilliant"


New word for 1,000 Alex.

by Anonymousreply 18305/11/2013

[quote] at least I'm not an AIDS infested cocksucker.

I have never watched Rachel Maddow in my life but if all of her fans and defenders are male-homophobic sex-negative ASSHOLES like R280/R282, I think I'll pass thanks.

Unreal to be hearing that here on DL and in 2013 no less.

by Anonymousreply 18405/11/2013

Ya know r183 when you sift through the news of the day, it just ain't pretty. You see how red states are trying to circumvent Constitutionally protected laws by passing really silly and ridiculous laws. They can't outright ban abortion so they pass buildings code that apply only to abortion clinics. They force woman to have ultrasounds.

Then we the GOP screaming IMPEACHMENT every chance they can.

In the face of all this hatred towards the first black President, Rachel provides a relief. She can deliver the news seriously and when warranted, she is sarcastic and silly. She is rather funny, but in a serious way.

by Anonymousreply 18505/11/2013

I meant to refer to R180/R182

by Anonymousreply 18605/11/2013

r185 but you certainly don't mind it when a homophobe is derogatory towards lesbians, right? This whole thread is peppered with bigotry towards lesbians.

I guess that's okay for you. Just don't insult gay men, right?

by Anonymousreply 18705/11/2013

[quote] Rachel provides a relief.

If America is in such desperate need of this relief, why aren't her ratings higher. For heaven's sake, Dr. Drew's brand of relief has already been proven FATAL (to celebrities, at least) and he's still pulling in more viewers than Maddow.

60,000,000+ voted for Obama - why are 59,320,000 so averse to watching Maddow (and don't blame it on hate for "the first black president" because we're only talking Obama voters).

by Anonymousreply 18805/11/2013

On DL, you can insults blacks, women, Hispanics and nothing is said. As soon as gay men become the subject of attack, these fragile queens like r185 scream bigotry. THAT is unbelievable.

by Anonymousreply 18905/11/2013

r189 You don't watch her show yet you have so much to say about her.

FOX News is the highest rated news program on cable. Does that mean they are the pillar of journalistic integrity? Fox couldn't even predict an Obama win. They're viewers were existed in a Fox-created bubble.

Let's not even get to CNN. They seem to think the first to break news means the information doesn't even have to be accurate.

by Anonymousreply 19005/11/2013

Once again, Rachel brilliantly dissects the liar and skewers it. Fuck Politifact and the lying horse it rode in on.

by Anonymousreply 19105/11/2013

R190 : Most of the females on here are fat women. Maybe they are butch, or not. Being fat doesn't mean butch, it means fat. They tend to dress butchy, because it is easier to wear shirts and pants when you are so fat.

They seem to have fat partners. So you and R182 are two fat lesbians, but has not much to do with being butch. A butch has some swagger and a bit of attitude. And a sense of confidence that she uses to attract other women. You do not.

by Anonymousreply 19205/11/2013

We're not talking about Fox.

What we're saying is that not everyone on the left loves(or even likes) Maddow. But you, for some reason, can't fathom that. Instead you call us liars or right wing posers.

by Anonymousreply 19305/11/2013

r194 do I care that you love or hate Rachel. Do you exist in a bubble where you think everyone on the left should love Rachel? I certainly don't. The fact that you make that statement tells me you somehow feel special because you're not a fan. Nonsensical.

by Anonymousreply 19405/11/2013

You are a complete and utter moron r195.

Take a pin and pop your own bubble. Rachel's own shitty ratings prove that she is not well liked.

Go ahead and argue otherwise, but it just makes you a damn fool!

by Anonymousreply 19505/11/2013

r196 I don't care if she has the highest or lowest ratings. If she's still on the air and I can still watch her, I'll be happy.

For every person who seem to have this intense hatred for her like you do, there is another who love her.

It's a matter of taste and style. I'm not a big fan of Ed Schultz's style but he's an important voice for Progressives and I hope he does well in his new timeslot.

by Anonymousreply 19605/11/2013

Wow. What a totally bizarre thread.

TRMS is a good program and she's an excellent host. At times she gets a bit repetitive and I wish she'd wrap it up more quickly, but that's a minor complaint. In general, her show is informative, amusing and a welcome respite from the endless parade of men in suits hosting news programming.

She busted Politifact ages ago, long before they began retaliating against her. Just this week she exposed that white supremacist freak at the Heritage Foundation, before his shitty "report" could be used to smear immigration reform. He's resigned (actually he was fired) and the right wing nuts are disavowing his work.

Her coverage of the Republican fascists in Michigan has been exemplary. I had no idea what they were up to until she brought it to my attention. The only time she really lost me was during the Japanese nuclear meltdown. In her effort to understand the disaster she got into a level of technical detail that made my eyes glaze over. That's my failing, not hers.

I DVR her program every day, wouldn't miss it.

by Anonymousreply 19705/11/2013

Ahhh.. I see we still haven't heard from OP. I figured as much.


You still think the OP is just busy? I guess he hasn't checked in yet today, but he should any minute now, considering "Most people sign on once a day or so for a short while!"

by Anonymousreply 19805/11/2013

by the way, 175 is not me, but the stalker I picked up yesterday.

Its been 24 hours man. Let go of me in your thoughts. It's just a chat room.

by Anonymousreply 19905/11/2013

Well, since clearly I was right, lets get back to the men's tailor thing.

by Anonymousreply 20005/11/2013

OMG, Maddow is so fucking shrill.

Can anyone watch OP's link without having their ears bleed? I don't think so!

by Anonymousreply 20105/11/2013

dl down?

by Anonymousreply 20205/12/2013

Yeah, since about 10:45pm last night.

by Anonymousreply 20305/12/2013

Well, it's back now.

by Anonymousreply 20405/12/2013

She can sue. She has much legal standing as any of us.

by Anonymousreply 20505/12/2013

If you're suggesting she sue for defamation, the problem is that she's a public figure. She would need to prove malice.

by Anonymousreply 20605/12/2013

Can anyone make sense of R79's post, or her other ones? God, I hate the ESL posters.

by Anonymousreply 20705/12/2013

Still no OP. I guess he's just off camping for a few days. He will be checking in any day now.

by Anonymousreply 20805/16/2013

Same here, R1.

CNN, MSNBC, ABC, etc... all shit.

by Anonymousreply 20905/16/2013

I used to like Maddow a LOT until this week when she started overreaching on this IRS thing -- I mean, the facts are still coming out and she's going SO far out of her way to defend Obama. No one else on MSNBC is doing that like she is (and I watch them all). It makes her look more like a fangirl than a journalist. That's just my opinion, but I've been a fan of hers for a long time and suddenly I'm...... disillusioned?

by Anonymousreply 21005/16/2013

R221, but she's not wrong.

by Anonymousreply 21105/16/2013

I don't know, R212.

I've been following politics a long time and if there's one thing I know it's that it takes a long time for the facts to come out. Neither you nor I nor Rachel Maddow knows the real story behind all of this yet. She's making a fool of herself, in my opinion.

It's the difference between a supporter and a fan. I'm an Obama supporter, but I can still say (as can Chris Matthews and many others) "Okay hold on something's not quite right here, let's look into this and see what the extent of it is...." Rachel can't say that, and that to me shows a lack of depth.

Maybe it's her (relative) youth and maybe it's just a deficiency that hasn't been noticeable until now. I'll keep watching (I love her rants, best on TV in my opinion, better than Stewart) but I'm looking at her with a new set of eyes in light of all this.

by Anonymousreply 21205/16/2013

She isn't making a fool of herself. You're assuming that at some point in the future, it will be shown that this nakedly political ploy by the GOP (from the same script they've used over and over, where it almost always comes to naught) is somehow based on reality instead of lies and deceptions... and at that point, she'll look foolish.

Which is just a really bizarre position to take. It ignores pretty much all of history... both the GOP's and Maddow's.

She's a Rhode's scholar, and incredibly well versed in Government, Politics, and policy. I think she knows more than you.

by Anonymousreply 21305/16/2013

[quote] She's a Rhode's scholar... I think she knows more than you.

It's "Rhodes" Scholar. At least I know more than you! :)

by Anonymousreply 21405/16/2013

Otay, Rachel.

I don't give a fuck if you're a Rhode's scholar or not. Just try giving an objective opinion.

It might be good for the soul.

by Anonymousreply 21505/16/2013

If you actually think there's any real substance to any of these alleged "scandals", then you don't know very much at all.

The only rational response to the GOP pushing all this crap is incredulity.

This "Wellll... they MIGHT be right this time in spite of the fact that they're always wrong about everything and are proven liars with political axes to grind" crap you're spewing is more embarrassing than anything Rachael is doing. By a long shot.

by Anonymousreply 21605/16/2013

So, let's all bow down to Rachel Maddow?


Not in this life time.

by Anonymousreply 21705/16/2013

Nobody is saying anyone should bow down to anyone.

Other than maybe you shouldn't be bowing down to right-wing media and Republican politicians and their constant crying "Wolf".

Or claiming Maddow is embarrassing herself before there's ANY evidence of any such thing.

by Anonymousreply 21805/16/2013

lay off the meth r217.

The IRS scandal has merit. And most on the left(TV talking heads and guests, newspapers) have admitted that.

The AP scandal has merit because of the scope of the damn thing. And most on the left have admitted that.

by Anonymousreply 21905/16/2013


by Anonymousreply 22005/16/2013

No, R220, sorry. They're all falling apart, and have nothing to do with Obama anyway.

The only REAL scandal with the IRS thing is that the Tea Party organizations WEREN'T stripped of their tax-exempt status. It's so patently obvious they're hyper-partisan political organizations and not "charities". Never mind the only organization that WAS stripped of its tax exempt status was a LIBERAL one. Kinda makes the whole thing look silly.

As for the AP... let's see, the GOP demanded the actions, which are legal under the Patriot Act, after they voted AGAINST a shield law that would have protected the AP, but it's somehow a "scandal" for Obama? Yeah, try explaining that in a way that doesn't make you sound fucking crazy.

by Anonymousreply 22105/16/2013

R221, instead of idiotically (and inaccurately) mocking, please defend the OP's statement, since you obviously agree with it. Show how Rachel is "going nuts", show precisely how and where she is factually wrong, and back it up.

Since you can't, you should probably stop mocking me, and attacking Maddow without merit or facts to back yourself up.

by Anonymousreply 22205/16/2013


R222 et al: you just sound like a broken record now! Get a room! :)

by Anonymousreply 22305/16/2013

which is it, Erza?

They're all falling apart or they have nothing to do with Obama anyway.

Ten lashes for you, r221. You neglected to call Maddow BRILLIANT.

by Anonymousreply 22405/16/2013

R224, and not one of you guys have actually debated or disproven anything I've said... or engaged in any way actually, other than name-calling. Who's the embarrassment now?

by Anonymousreply 22505/16/2013

The GOP -- the same party that under Bush set the IRS on the NAACP, targeted ACORN politically and killed it, and even targeted the IRS on a liberal church that was vocally anti-war -- really thinks it's got something with these ludicrous IRS claims?

First prove that the Tea Party organizations shouldn't have been targeted at all. Obviously they should have been.

The Tea Party -- named after a group protesting taxation without representation -- is now of the belief that they deserve representation without taxation, apparently. They're a hyper-partisan political group, not a "charity".

So tell me... where exactly is the "scandal", beyond the fact that the IRS never actually stripped any conservative organizations at all, let alone the Tea Party, of their tax-exempt status?

by Anonymousreply 22605/16/2013

Oh geez, R227, you really went to town on the kool aid didn't you? LOL

Drink up, buttercup ;) Rachel Maddow sounds even more "brilliant" after a few stiff ones, I'm sure!

by Anonymousreply 22705/16/2013


r228 is an elder gay.

I'm guessing....Matt Dridge.

by Anonymousreply 22805/17/2013

TRMS: china wants to build an oil refinery on the fault line of an earth quake.

Meanwhile at Fox, a neighbor: of Charles Ramsey never helped Amanda Berry.

by Anonymousreply 22905/17/2013

I think Rachel's hitting the President too hard on this stupid AP thing. I usually agree with her but she sees this as a lot worse than I do.

What bugs me about all this is that what is actually the WORST scandal to break this week is getting scant coverage. It's the propensity of military personnel in charge of rape and sexual assault counseling and prevention to spend their time raping and sexually assaulting people.

Are you fucking kidding me? And we're wasting time on Benghazi talking points, low level IRS agents actually investigating political groups who should never qualify for tax exemption and giving the President shit for going after the identity of the shitstain who leaked the existence of an Al Qaeda mole.


by Anonymousreply 23005/17/2013

R228 = freeper moron Kool-Aid drinker

by Anonymousreply 23105/17/2013

I'm over this wack-a-doo Maddow. She had it a couple years ago, but she's lost it ): All style no substance.

by Anonymousreply 23205/20/2013

Don't worry, R233. You'll always have Fox & Friends to get you through the darkness. :)

by Anonymousreply 23305/20/2013

Are you kidding, R234? Fox News = Faux (Fake) News. Fox & Friends = Bullshit TV. Rachel is not as bad as them yet but she is getting there quick! LOL

by Anonymousreply 23405/20/2013

So, R235. Please explain to the class exactly how Rachel deals in "fake news".

LOL LFMAO :0))))))

by Anonymousreply 23505/20/2013

We're not in class, R236. You're coming on kind of aggressively - do you have something you'd like to explain yourself?

What are you the hall monitor?

Are you guarding the thread against any dissent against Rachel Maddow or something? Get a hobby!

I guess her fans are as kooky as she is! LOL. :D

by Anonymousreply 23605/20/2013

Everyone knows she is gay! Why is she suing? It's not something to sue over. She's setting us back 20 years with this shit.

by Anonymousreply 23705/20/2013

Lots of retarded people in this thread. r238 takes the cake in stupidity and illiteracy.

by Anonymousreply 23805/20/2013

Excuse me??

by Anonymousreply 23905/20/2013

[quote] Lots of retarded people in this thread.

We prefer "differently abled"

by Anonymousreply 24005/21/2013

Whack-a-doo? Really?

Freepers get out of your mother's basement and go suck some dick.

by Anonymousreply 24105/21/2013
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!