Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MSNBC)   How does Rachel Maddow explain the absurdity of Florida? By using Fark, of course (skip ahead to 3:50)   (msnbc.msn.com) divider line 204
    More: Florida  
•       •       •

8967 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Jan 2013 at 9:18 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



204 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-26 02:00:56 PM  

Diagonal: Tech help request: Video does not play in Firefox. Which extension does the NBC video? I've got Adobe Flash and Shockwave, Java 11, and QuickTime. What gives?


I copied the link url to the video and pasted it into the address bar to get it to work on a phone
 
2013-01-26 02:01:11 PM  

Diagonal: Tech help request: Video does not play in Firefox. Which extension does the NBC video? I've got Adobe Flash and Shockwave, Java 11, and QuickTime. What gives?


Can you right-click on the video and disable hardware acceleration? That usually works if you are just getting a green screen.
 
2013-01-26 02:01:58 PM  

Diagonal: Tech help request: Video does not play in Firefox. Which extension does the NBC video? I've got Adobe Flash and Shockwave, Java 11, and QuickTime. What gives?


Could be silverlight or you might have to allow some things in noScript if you have that.

I'd ditch the Java unless you need it.
 
2013-01-26 02:07:52 PM  
I nominate Rachel for the Awesome tag!
 
2013-01-26 02:09:01 PM  

occamswrist: Someone asked what specifically she says that is wrong so I decided to spend some time watching her clip, reading about what she said, and commenting on it.


That's admirable too. I also notice that like a lot of trolls here, you merely overlooked the fact that you couldn't actually find anything wrong, and just moved the goalposts to her delivery and not the content.
 
2013-01-26 02:09:59 PM  

Your Silence is Killing Kurds: occamswrist: Madbassist1: occamswrist: That got me to the 4 minute mark of the 13 minute clip. Then she talks about Fark and it felt like when my 1 year old brings me a D battery and I act surprised and grateful for it.

Seriously anyone who watches Maddow and feels validated is a farking moron. Keep drinking that kool-aid.

I LOVE IT. You didn't disprove anything she said, you ass, you just don't like the way she says it. LMAO cry moar.

I LOVE IT. You didn't disprove anything I said, you ass. LMAO cry moar.

She really didn't make any points except for the way she stresses certain words. You can feel the smarminess coming through her.

That's nice


Let me help you out here.
I know I'm not going to change any of your minds directly. Once you're ready, you might change your own mind.
 
2013-01-26 02:11:30 PM  
Maddow - do not want
Coulter - want
Fark - worship!
 
2013-01-26 02:14:54 PM  
Im sure if Meddow was on fark she would be in the politics area. I might be the only one but I feel her show is kinda like a College class with a really cool teacher.

Is it true shes beating Hannity?
 
2013-01-26 02:16:32 PM  

occamswrist: Your Silence is Killing Kurds: occamswrist: Madbassist1: occamswrist: That got me to the 4 minute mark of the 13 minute clip. Then she talks about Fark and it felt like when my 1 year old brings me a D battery and I act surprised and grateful for it.

Seriously anyone who watches Maddow and feels validated is a farking moron. Keep drinking that kool-aid.

I LOVE IT. You didn't disprove anything she said, you ass, you just don't like the way she says it. LMAO cry moar.

I LOVE IT. You didn't disprove anything I said, you ass. LMAO cry moar.

She really didn't make any points except for the way she stresses certain words. You can feel the smarminess coming through her.

That's nice

Let me help you out here.
I know I'm not going to change any of your minds directly. Once you're ready, you might change your own mind.



I have my mind changed all the time, but rarely by people who have watched 4 minutes of something who then makes grand claims about linguistic deconstruction, especially when that something is otherwise highly lauded.

You remind me of my first year undergrad students who spend the first few weeks under the impression that their As in some backwater high school translates to being masters of critical thought.
 
2013-01-26 02:19:00 PM  

Madbassist1: occamswrist: Someone asked what specifically she says that is wrong so I decided to spend some time watching her clip, reading about what she said, and commenting on it.

That's admirable too. I also notice that like a lot of trolls here, you merely overlooked the fact that you couldn't actually find anything wrong, and just moved the goalposts to her delivery and not the content.


You give me the awful impression you didn't even read my post or that it went right over your head. I pointed out a couple of instances where she only told part of the story that fit her narrative to insult Republicans. I leave it up to fair minded readers of Fark (most who won't post) to decide, not you. You won't back down at this point, I know that.

She said "Michigan Republicans don't care what other people think of them" which is patently false. Most of them may not care what Rachel Maddow thinks of them, but her statement was painting with too broad a brush. Political hacks talk like that and people lap that shiat up.
 
2013-01-26 02:20:55 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: KiwDaWabbit: Pants full of macaroni!!: "Rachel Maddow is a MAN" remarks in 3.... 2.....

She's only a "man" according to men who are threatened by the fact that she is much more intelligent than they are.

Is this the same debate as the one over Ann Coulter?


I don't think so, Rachel Maddow doesn't have a fierce adams apple.

Regardless, I wouldn't mind pulling on Ann Coulter's hair.
 
2013-01-26 02:22:02 PM  

ItchyMcDoogle: Im sure if Meddow was on fark she would be in the politics area. I might be the only one but I feel her show is kinda like a College class with a really cool teacher.

Is it true shes beating Hannity?



It's exactly like that. The most impressive thing is how she can string together apparently disparate issues over the course of a 15 minute segment to create complex broadbrush stroke arguments on some particular aspect of the political zeitgeist. That might be down to damn good researchers though.

This aspect is apparently exactly what annoys occamswrist though, so different strokes for different folks I guess.
 
2013-01-26 02:23:24 PM  

Bungles: occamswrist: Your Silence is Killing Kurds: occamswrist: Madbassist1: occamswrist: That got me to the 4 minute mark of the 13 minute clip. Then she talks about Fark and it felt like when my 1 year old brings me a D battery and I act surprised and grateful for it.

Seriously anyone who watches Maddow and feels validated is a farking moron. Keep drinking that kool-aid.

I LOVE IT. You didn't disprove anything she said, you ass, you just don't like the way she says it. LMAO cry moar.

I LOVE IT. You didn't disprove anything I said, you ass. LMAO cry moar.

She really didn't make any points except for the way she stresses certain words. You can feel the smarminess coming through her.

That's nice

Let me help you out here.
I know I'm not going to change any of your minds directly. Once you're ready, you might change your own mind.


I have my mind changed all the time, but rarely by people who have watched 4 minutes of something who then makes grand claims about linguistic deconstruction, especially when that something is otherwise highly lauded.

You remind me of my first year undergrad students who spend the first few weeks under the impression that their As in some backwater high school translates to being masters of critical thought.


I've watched more than 4 minutes of cable news. Why would you think my opinion is based solely on the 4 minutes of Rachel Maddow I just watched? That's ridiculous.

You wanted examples so I gave examples from the most relevant clip.
 
2013-01-26 02:23:45 PM  
andersoncouncil42: I've rarely ever heard anyone have anything reasonable to say against RM that rang true. When I say reasonable I mean not misogynist, homophobic, ad-hominem, or downright false.

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Moonbat liberal media twunt. I wouldn't piss on her if she was on fire.


Madbassist1: How about disproving her story instead of attacking her, asshole?

occamswrist: I watched some of the 13 minute cip...
Seriously anyone who watches Maddow and feels validated is a farking moron. Keep drinking that kool-aid...

occamswrist: She really didn't make any points except for the way she stresses certain words. You can feel the smarminess coming through her.

And occamswrist has the audacity to suggest people that watch Maddow are brainwashed idiots. He's seen 4 minutes of her, and wasn't smart enough to discern any points she made.

Tell me, where did occamswrist get the idea that people that watch Maddow are brainwashed idiots? He clearly didn't form that opinion on his own by watching her. He was told to think that. And he wants to cry about brainwashing?

occamswrist: Way to be what you accuse others of being.

Indeed, scum.
 
2013-01-26 02:26:37 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Diagonal: Tech help request: Video does not play in Firefox. Which extension does the NBC video? I've got Adobe Flash and Shockwave, Java 11, and QuickTime. What gives?

Could be silverlight or you might have to allow some things in noScript if you have that.

I'd ditch the Java unless you need it.


Thanks for the help, but no silverlight or noScript. Even turning off AdBlock didn't help.

Beats me. Maybe I can find it on YouTube.
 
2013-01-26 02:26:58 PM  

impaler: andersoncouncil42: I've rarely ever heard anyone have anything reasonable to say against RM that rang true. When I say reasonable I mean not misogynist, homophobic, ad-hominem, or downright false.

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Moonbat liberal media twunt. I wouldn't piss on her if she was on fire.

Madbassist1: How about disproving her story instead of attacking her, asshole?

occamswrist: I watched some of the 13 minute cip...
Seriously anyone who watches Maddow and feels validated is a farking moron. Keep drinking that kool-aid...

occamswrist: She really didn't make any points except for the way she stresses certain words. You can feel the smarminess coming through her.

And occamswrist has the audacity to suggest people that watch Maddow are brainwashed idiots. He's seen 4 minutes of her, and wasn't smart enough to discern any points she made.

Tell me, where did occamswrist get the idea that people that watch Maddow are brainwashed idiots? He clearly didn't form that opinion on his own by watching her. He was told to think that. And he wants to cry about brainwashing?

occamswrist: Way to be what you accuse others of being.

Indeed, scum.


Instead of saying she didn't make any points I could have said the points she tried to make weren't valid because she ignored certain aspects of the story to try to prove her point. Would that make you feel better?
 
2013-01-26 02:27:51 PM  

occamswrist: Your Silence is Killing Kurds: occamswrist: Madbassist1: occamswrist: That got me to the 4 minute mark of the 13 minute clip. Then she talks about Fark and it felt like when my 1 year old brings me a D battery and I act surprised and grateful for it.

Seriously anyone who watches Maddow and feels validated is a farking moron. Keep drinking that kool-aid.

I LOVE IT. You didn't disprove anything she said, you ass, you just don't like the way she says it. LMAO cry moar.

I LOVE IT. You didn't disprove anything I said, you ass. LMAO cry moar.

She really didn't make any points except for the way she stresses certain words. You can feel the smarminess coming through her.

That's nice

Let me help you out here.
I know I'm not going to change any of your minds directly. Once you're ready, you might change your own mind.


If you're trying to change people's minds re maddow you probably need to focus on the substance rather than her manner; because most people immediately realize that in presenting pieces she is performing (that it bugs you so much suggests that you've misunderstood the format of the whole show)
 
2013-01-26 02:29:58 PM  

occamswrist: The second segment was about a small island on the US/Canada border by Detroit whose owners want to turn it into an Independent Commonwealth. Maddow is upset by this idea because apparently she wants the island to turn into the shiathole that Detroit is? I don't know what she wants and she doesn't really explain, she just criticizes people trying to save their neighborhood.


No you idiot, it's a bunch of overentitled assholes at the right-wing Mackinac Institute who want to buy a city park that people use everyday and turn it into their own playground while leeching on Detroit for its services.

If you read the thought process of the people who came up with this idea, you'll see why no one took it seriously.
 
2013-01-26 02:30:01 PM  
I have to agree with occamswrist on a large amount of what he says regarding Rachel. My wife watches her show every day, so obviously I watch it often as well. Often I agree with her on items she discusses, and am glad to see her bring some items to the table that would otherwise go unreported nationally; but I do agree that she will often try to tie in unrelated things to make you think in a perspective that doesn't really have any regards to the original subject. She will also not cover or openly mock other perspectives that should be investigated in regards to the topic at hand, giving some biased reports that many just lap up and don't investigate more.
I'm glad she exists, but wish she would rid herself of this type of thing; it's a major problem in news reporting in this country from all sides.
 
2013-01-26 02:38:48 PM  

Mrtraveler01: occamswrist: The second segment was about a small island on the US/Canada border by Detroit whose owners want to turn it into an Independent Commonwealth. Maddow is upset by this idea because apparently she wants the island to turn into the shiathole that Detroit is? I don't know what she wants and she doesn't really explain, she just criticizes people trying to save their neighborhood.

No you idiot, it's a bunch of overentitled assholes at the right-wing Mackinac Institute who want to buy a city park that people use everyday and turn it into their own playground while leeching on Detroit for its services.

If you read the thought process of the people who came up with this idea, you'll see why no one took it seriously.


http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130112/BIZ/301120319
 
2013-01-26 02:48:09 PM  

occamswrist: ...I could have said the points she tried to make weren't valid because she ignored certain aspects of the story to try to prove her point. Would that make you feel better?


But that's pretty much SOP for arguing anything. Without that practice we'd have no legal system, any form of debate, or advertising.
 
2013-01-26 02:53:16 PM  

Diagonal: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Diagonal: Tech help request: Video does not play in Firefox. Which extension does the NBC video? I've got Adobe Flash and Shockwave, Java 11, and QuickTime. What gives?

Could be silverlight or you might have to allow some things in noScript if you have that.

I'd ditch the Java unless you need it.

Thanks for the help, but no silverlight or noScript. Even turning off AdBlock didn't help.

Beats me. Maybe I can find it on YouTube.


Make sure you have the latest version of Flash.
 
2013-01-26 02:53:32 PM  

ChrisDe: JacksonBryan: I think she was trying to claim that Michigan will soon replace Florida as the "farked up" Politics capital of the US.  Didn't watch the whole video but roughly 5 minutes of it.

Gov. Rick Snyder is doing everything he can to make that happen. He was hours away from signing a bill allowing weapons into schools when Sandy Hook happened. He got shamed into vetoing that bill, but you can bet he'll sign it in six months when another version shows up on his desk.


As I recall, that bill would have forced more stringent requirements on people carrying in schools, which frankly I can only see as good. If we can push the idea that ONLY responsible farking adults can have weapons*, then maybe we won't have so many stupid, horrifying, tragic deaths.

* And correctly store the weapons and ammunition in gun lockers and not give out the farking combination to everyone who walks in the got-damn front door...
 
2013-01-26 03:07:14 PM  

threedingers: I honestly want to avoid forming my opinions in an echo chamber but unfortunately I've yet to find a right-leaning equivalent of TRMS.


David Frum.
 
2013-01-26 03:14:44 PM  
Your Silence is Killing Kurds:

If you're trying to change people's minds re maddow you probably need to focus on the substance rather than her manner; because most people immediately realize that in presenting pieces she is performing (that it bugs you so much suggests that you've misunderstood the format of the whole show)

I did. I pointed out where she wasn't telling the whole story so that it could fit her narrative.

Watched the rest of the clip.

She complained about the Florida 2000 vote clusterfark. But she mentioned a bunch of Jews voted for Buchanan because of the butterfly ballot. That ballot was designed by Theresa Lepore, a Democrat, so Rachel's jumbled sentence with the Jews for Buchanan and Katherine Harris was a nonsequitor. The butterfly ballot, being designed by a Democrat, doesn't reflect poorly on Republicans.

She complained about Rick Scott cutting early voting days in half (from 14 to 8 days) but according to this the polls were open much longer for those 8 days and the total number of early voting hours was larger overall. But who needs facts when we have Rachel Maddow! Rick Scott (the crook) was criticized so he later increased the number of early voting days and dropped the max voting hours/day from 14 to 12. OMG this is "shameless" as Rachel Maddow calls it!!!!

Then she talks about Republican gerrymandering for congressional districts. I agree with her on this and thinks its a form of fraud. Don't know if this is only a Republican thing or not...But I do agree that splitting the electoral college votes within a state is a good idea, just not by congressional districts. Split electoral votes by the popular vote. Or fark electoral college and elect the President directly by a popular vote.

I was promised a money shot at the end of the clip that would stick all these ideas together but there really wasn't one. Her complaint about Michigan Republicans was supported only by their waffling on splitting up the electoral votes, not any of the other points she failed to make. I agree that some Michigan Republicans are being manipulative on this issue.
 
2013-01-26 03:26:17 PM  

occamswrist: Zafler: occamswrist: reason.com

Now you can say there is at least one reasonable complaint against her.

Mutually exclusive statement detected, initiating proper response.

BUAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Way to be what you accuse others of being.


I'm not the one you originally replied to. But Reason is as much of an oxymoron as American Thinker. They only barely have any relationship with reality.
 
2013-01-26 03:29:52 PM  

occamswrist: She complained about the Florida 2000 vote clusterfark. But she mentioned a bunch of Jews voted for Buchanan because of the butterfly ballot. That ballot was designed by Theresa Lepore, a Democrat, so Rachel's jumbled sentence with the Jews for Buchanan and Katherine Harris was a nonsequitor. The butterfly ballot, being designed by a Democrat, doesn't reflect poorly on Republicans.



The point about that was the daftness of Florida, not the party affiliation of the participants.

I think we've got to the core of your issue. Your're so used to your world being Us vs Them, you don't realise that *actual* real news commentary isn't like that. It's not about "making the republicans look bad" (although that's occasionally inevitable). She's slams democrats regularly and often, it's just that democrats only occasionally do things as brazenly as some Republicans.

The point was that madness, historically, comes from Florida. You somehow rewired that in your own mind through a "how can this be read as attacking that Republicans?". The Buchanan 2000 fiasco was as a member of the Reform Party. It was a ballot ok'd by all four of the running parties. Yet you're read this as an attack on Republicans. The "Katherine Harris" was as part of a list of insane Florida issues. You've conflated them.

I think the problem here is you, and the bias you're bringing to the table.
 
2013-01-26 03:30:12 PM  

Zafler: occamswrist: Zafler: occamswrist: reason.com

Now you can say there is at least one reasonable complaint against her.

Mutually exclusive statement detected, initiating proper response.

BUAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Way to be what you accuse others of being.

I'm not the one you originally replied to. But Reason is as much of an oxymoron as American Thinker. They only barely have any relationship with reality.


We didn't really discuss that story instead we moved back to the 13 min clip that referenced fark. I think we've flogged this thread to death.
 
2013-01-26 03:37:31 PM  

Slartibartfaster: / Enlarged clitoris is not a penis either, FYI


You just had to take things to a weird place, didn't ya?
 
2013-01-26 03:51:16 PM  

Bungles: occamswrist: She complained about the Florida 2000 vote clusterfark. But she mentioned a bunch of Jews voted for Buchanan because of the butterfly ballot. That ballot was designed by Theresa Lepore, a Democrat, so Rachel's jumbled sentence with the Jews for Buchanan and Katherine Harris was a nonsequitor. The butterfly ballot, being designed by a Democrat, doesn't reflect poorly on Republicans.


The point about that was the daftness of Florida, not the party affiliation of the participants.

I think we've got to the core of your issue. Your're so used to your world being Us vs Them, you don't realise that *actual* real news commentary isn't like that. It's not about "making the republicans look bad" (although that's occasionally inevitable). She's slams democrats regularly and often, it's just that democrats only occasionally do things as brazenly as some Republicans.

The point was that madness, historically, comes from Florida. You somehow rewired that in your own mind through a "how can this be read as attacking that Republicans?". The Buchanan 2000 fiasco was as a member of the Reform Party. It was a ballot ok'd by all four of the running parties. Yet you're read this as an attack on Republicans. The "Katherine Harris" was as part of a list of insane Florida issues. You've conflated them.

I think the problem here is you, and the bias you're bringing to the table.


You got all that by reading my one paragraph about butterfly ballots? Did it take you at least 4 minutes to read so that you could be sure your assessment of me is accurate? Because 4 minutes or less isn't enough time.

But you're right that she didn't specifically say the ballot was a Republican failure. If you reread my sentence I never claimed she did either. I simply pointed out her sentence was jumbled and it wasn't a Republican failing. What bias are *you* bringing to this discussion? When she complains about Republicans constantly and then slips that in there, viewers will conflate the two. I hope we can both agree on that one.

Now analyze the other 3/4 of my post that you've ignored and see if your hypothesis about me holds up.
 
2013-01-26 04:12:43 PM  

occamswrist: You got all that by reading my one paragraph about butterfly ballots? Did it take you at least 4 minutes to read so that you could be sure your assessment of me is accurate? Because 4 minutes or less isn't enough time.

But you're right that she didn't specifically say the ballot was a Republican failure. If you reread my sentence I never claimed she did either. I simply pointed out her sentence was jumbled and it wasn't a Republican failing. What bias are *you* bringing to this discussion? When she complains about Republicans constantly and then slips that in there, viewers will conflate the two. I hope we can both agree on that one.

Now analyze the other 3/4 of my post that you've ignored and see if your hypothesis about me holds up.


You're either dense or deliberately ignoring what Maddow was saying, so let me spell it out:

Florida is weird, but at least Republicans have enough political sense to pull back when their schemes are exposed.
Michigan is weirder, but like the honey badger, Michigan Republicans just don't give a shiat.
 
2013-01-26 04:16:44 PM  

occamswrist: Bungles: occamswrist: She complained about the Florida 2000 vote clusterfark. But she mentioned a bunch of Jews voted for Buchanan because of the butterfly ballot. That ballot was designed by Theresa Lepore, a Democrat, so Rachel's jumbled sentence with the Jews for Buchanan and Katherine Harris was a nonsequitor. The butterfly ballot, being designed by a Democrat, doesn't reflect poorly on Republicans.


The point about that was the daftness of Florida, not the party affiliation of the participants.

I think we've got to the core of your issue. Your're so used to your world being Us vs Them, you don't realise that *actual* real news commentary isn't like that. It's not about "making the republicans look bad" (although that's occasionally inevitable). She's slams democrats regularly and often, it's just that democrats only occasionally do things as brazenly as some Republicans.

The point was that madness, historically, comes from Florida. You somehow rewired that in your own mind through a "how can this be read as attacking that Republicans?". The Buchanan 2000 fiasco was as a member of the Reform Party. It was a ballot ok'd by all four of the running parties. Yet you're read this as an attack on Republicans. The "Katherine Harris" was as part of a list of insane Florida issues. You've conflated them.

I think the problem here is you, and the bias you're bringing to the table.

You got all that by reading my one paragraph about butterfly ballots? Did it take you at least 4 minutes to read so that you could be sure your assessment of me is accurate? Because 4 minutes or less isn't enough time.

But you're right that she didn't specifically say the ballot was a Republican failure. If you reread my sentence I never claimed she did either. I simply pointed out her sentence was jumbled and it wasn't a Republican failing. What bias are *you* bringing to this discussion? When she complains about Republicans constantly and then slips that in there, viewers will confl ...


I'm not American, think your entire political system is rather cuckoo, and have no dog in this fight.

I can, however, tell when a journalist knows her stuff. She's one of the few TV political commentators that I've seen in the US that is at the same standard as her equivalents in France, the UK, or Germany.

The fact you're attacking one of the few *actual* TV journalists the US has strikes me as..... odd.
,
 
2013-01-26 04:17:26 PM  
I adore Rachel - she's smart, beautiful, and funny. I don't have the skillz to post it here, but her high school yearbook photo is completely fappable.

/fap
 
2013-01-26 04:17:39 PM  
(the US has some superb newspaper journalists....superb TV journalists are few on the ground there though, but Maddow is clearly one of them).
 
2013-01-26 04:37:42 PM  

Bungles: (the US has some superb newspaper journalists....superb TV journalists are few on the ground there though, but Maddow is clearly one of them).


I always liked Ted Koppel's Nightline.
 
2013-01-26 06:44:59 PM  

occamswrist: Bungles: (the US has some superb newspaper journalists....superb TV journalists are few on the ground there though, but Maddow is clearly one of them).

I always liked Ted Koppel's Nightline.


Actually, on reflection, I've come around to your way of thinking, somewhat. If your position is histronics and performance art disguised as reporting is detrimental to all, which seems to be somewhat what you are saying, then I agree with you, but to demonize RM and ignore the masters of the craft is disingenous.
 
2013-01-26 06:52:57 PM  

Huron77: Coulter - want


Men on the right love Coulter because they think being attracted to "her" is a heterosexual thing.

Hint...it isn't.
 
2013-01-26 07:10:06 PM  

Madbassist1: dericwater: cptjeff: Gordon Bennett: So what's her Fark handle?

After seeing jokes made on fark turn up on her show later that night word for word on a couple occasions, I'm pretty convinced that she does visit at least every now and then. This just confirms it.

Also, I had no idea you could click on a tag and sort.

You understand that she has a room full of writers to help her out. It's not a one-(wo)myn operation in the back room.

I dont have any facts to back me up (like that has ever stopped a farker) but I'm willing to be MSNBC's operation is a LOT smaller than you think it is. I'd be willing to guess 5-6 writers at the very most.


That's about the size of it, I'm guessing. When she did her radio show, I think it was just herself or one or two other researchers working with her.
 
2013-01-26 07:10:46 PM  

Abox: Huron77: Coulter - want


Men on the right love Coulter because they think being attracted to "her" is a heterosexual thing.

Hint...it isn't.


25 years ago, she looked all right. Now, she looks like a shriveled up shrew.
 
2013-01-26 08:02:24 PM  
By blaming Bush?

Just guessing.
 
2013-01-27 12:39:09 AM  

angiemama: I adore Rachel - she's smart, beautiful, and funny. I don't have the skillz to post it here, but her high school yearbook photo is completely fappable.

/fap


she's a geek and likes a good drink. what's not to love?
 
2013-01-27 01:01:42 AM  

ItchyMcDoogle: Im sure if Meddow was on fark she would be in the politics area. I might be the only one but I feel her show is kinda like a College class with a really cool teacher.

Is it true shes beating Hannity?


If she is, I hope she's using a heavy lead pipe.
 
2013-01-27 08:59:44 AM  

Slartibartfaster: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: prominent adam's apple,women don't have those.

Ummmm.... no. Both sexes have it. It tends to be larger in men

can you read ?

// Id bag both maddow and coulter given half a chance (and an obliging moment with Mrs Slartibartfaster)
/ would only brag about Maddow to my friends


Yes, just fine. My point is that there are some women who have prominent adam's apples (and some men who have very small ones). This whole obsession the Left has with Coulter's adam's apple is infantile and stupid. Seriously. For both Maddow and Coulter, there is plenty to legitimately criticize with slobbering on about how "ZOMFG she's a LEZZZBIAN!" (who farking cares; and it's ad homenim) or "ZOMFG she's a TRANNY!" (she's not; and it's ad homenim).

I do note the difference in the smear technique, however, The Right often has a basis of truth to their smears. Maddow IS a lesbian, and this - being anathema to the God-fearing Right Wing is sufficient for their purposes. The Left OTOH generally just makes shiat up out of thin air (Coulter=tranny; Limbaugh=diddles little boys, etc.)
 
2013-01-27 09:13:22 AM  

Madbassist1: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Lochsteppe: Tyee: Maddow takes forever to say anything. Just say it!

You've probably been fortunate enough to avoid this problem, but complex or multi-part ideas half-truths, equivocations, smears and distortions take a while to express.

ftfy

Yeah? Tell me one thing in the linked story that is a half-truth, equivocation, a smear or even a farking distortion, you stupid farking troll. One...farking...thing. I'll be waiting, jackass.


LOL! You're really, really cute when you have temper tantrums and name-call, you know? What, do you have a RealDoll with a pic of Maddow's face glued on it?

Definitions: TROLL - What you call someone when they don't agree with you. USAGE: when you've "got nuthin' else" in your debate arsenal to argue with.
1-media-cdn.foolz.us lh5.ggpht.com
 
2013-01-27 09:53:42 AM  

threedingers: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Lochsteppe: Tyee: Maddow takes forever to say anything. Just say it!

You've probably been fortunate enough to avoid this problem, but complex or multi-part ideas half-truths, equivocations, smears and distortions take a while to express.

ftfy

Can you provide some examples?

No snark - I listen to Maddow most days and would welcome a reasonable, informed and logical rebuttal to her arguments.

I honestly want to avoid forming my opinions in an echo chamber but unfortunately I've yet to find a right-leaning equivalent of TRMS.


Oh, God, there are so many they all blur into a single great mass of derp. Just looking quickly at YouTube, here's one: Link

GIS "Maddow pwned" and "Maddow owned" for others. There are dozens. I recall another good one was on Bill Maher. Link

The thing is, she has this habit of talking over people and verbally bludgeoning them into silence while she yammers on and on and on. That's how she gets away with a lot of bullshiat because people forget what the original half-lie was. Many Lefties consider this brilliance and worship at her feet because, to them, this is standard debate tactics.

There's a reason she's not on a medium like Fark (ASAWK). She would be quickly pwned in an actual give-and-take debate where both sides had equal say.
 
2013-01-27 09:59:30 AM  

ekdikeo4: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: KiwDaWabbit: Pants full of macaroni!!: "Rachel Maddow is a MAN" remarks in 3.... 2.....

She's only a "man" according to men who are threatened by the fact that she is much more intelligent than they are.

Is this the same debate as the one over Ann Coulter?

I don't think so, Rachel Maddow doesn't have a fierce adams apple.

Regardless, I wouldn't mind pulling on Ann Coulter's hair.


Actually, I've had occasional fantasies about both Coulter and Maddow. I once had a short dream where both of them were doms and had me helpless in their dungeon. Not sure what that was about....

Seriously, you might want to stop reading RIGHT HERE. Picture both Maddow and Coulter, together, in black spandex and leather and playing tag team with your man-parts. Pleasant dreams......
 
2013-01-27 11:07:16 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: ekdikeo4: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: KiwDaWabbit: Pants full of macaroni!!: "Rachel Maddow is a MAN" remarks in 3.... 2.....

She's only a "man" according to men who are threatened by the fact that she is much more intelligent than they are.

Is this the same debate as the one over Ann Coulter?

I don't think so, Rachel Maddow doesn't have a fierce adams apple.

Regardless, I wouldn't mind pulling on Ann Coulter's hair.

Actually, I've had occasional fantasies about both Coulter and Maddow. I once had a short dream where both of them were doms and had me helpless in their dungeon. Not sure what that was about....

Seriously, you might want to stop reading RIGHT HERE. Picture both Maddow and Coulter, together, in black spandex and leather and playing tag team with your man-parts. Pleasant dreams......


Those two couldn't get together on a lunch order. If you want lib-dommes, it's Rachel and Katrina VandenHeuvel (if you've ever seen her in black leather, you'll know what I mean).

For con-dommes (heh...make sure to bring yours), Coulter and Batshiat Bachmann. Or if you like 'em really nasty, Mean Jean Schmidt makes Bachmann look like Ann-Farking-Margret.
 
2013-01-27 02:50:36 PM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Definitions: TROLL - What you call someone when they don't agree with you. USAGE: when you've "got nuthin' else" in your debate arsenal to argue with.


Actually I was pointing out that he didnt have an argument except presentation. I even partially agreed with him in the end. You, however, I've read your stuff. You're not good enough to go against me. Leave it alone.
 
2013-01-27 08:47:44 PM  

Madbassist1: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Definitions: TROLL - What you call someone when they don't agree with you. USAGE: when you've "got nuthin' else" in your debate arsenal to argue with.

Actually I was pointing out that he didnt have an argument except presentation. I even partially agreed with him in the end. You, however, I've read your stuff. You're not good enough to go against me. Leave it alone.


I got a 24 hour ban for one of my posts in a gun thread so I apologize for not responding until now.

I don't single out Maddow's lies of omission because I think only left wing political commentators do this.

If I was really drunk I could have signed up for a foxnews.com account and done the same thing to their shows. Then they'd accuse me of being a moron libtard. Blah blah blah.

I read news from many different sources and after a while realized that they tend to ommit relevant pieces of information in order to fit their narratives and mislead their viewers. My two posts above where i walk through her 13 min clip provides some evidence of this.
 
2013-01-28 01:04:12 AM  

i upped my meds-up yours: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: ekdikeo4: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: KiwDaWabbit: Pants full of macaroni!!: "Rachel Maddow is a MAN" remarks in 3.... 2.....

She's only a "man" according to men who are threatened by the fact that she is much more intelligent than they are.

Is this the same debate as the one over Ann Coulter?

I don't think so, Rachel Maddow doesn't have a fierce adams apple.

Regardless, I wouldn't mind pulling on Ann Coulter's hair.

Actually, I've had occasional fantasies about both Coulter and Maddow. I once had a short dream where both of them were doms and had me helpless in their dungeon. Not sure what that was about....

Seriously, you might want to stop reading RIGHT HERE. Picture both Maddow and Coulter, together, in black spandex and leather and playing tag team with your man-parts. Pleasant dreams......

Those two couldn't get together on a lunch order.
If you want lib-dommes, it's Rachel and Katrina VandenHeuvel (if you've ever seen her in black leather, you'll know what I mean).

For con-dommes (heh...make sure to bring yours), Coulter and Batshiat Bachmann. Or if you like 'em really nasty, Mean Jean Schmidt makes Bachmann look like Ann-Farking-Margret.


Don't be too sure about that. They're both attention whores. Are you old enough to remember the Dynamic Duo debate team of Tim Leary and G. Gordon Liddy? When Liddy was an FBI agent he BUSTED Leary for drugs. Politically, philosophically and personality-wise they were total opposites - yet saw mutual profit in teaming up to debate on college campuses.
 
Displayed 50 of 204 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report