Rachel Maddow

[elucidator]

You could have surgery. There’s always hope.

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

@elucidator

You could have surgery. There’s always hope.

Rachel is in a very committed relationship with artist Susan Mikula, so I’m afraid that merely being the correct gender is not enough.

[John_Mace]

@BrainGlutton

Only because the fucking hot-dyke will never fuck me. :mad:

Stay classy, dude.

[eschereal]

@John_Mace

Stay classy, dude.

BrainGlutton? Seriously?

[chappachula]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

I’ve been wondering if chappachula is going to nut up and address his lying. I went back to the transcript and did a quick search for “Hasan”. The name appears 23 times in the transcript. Yet, chappachula posted a long anecdote about his clear recollection that Maddow specifically avoided using the name. What gives?

What gives is very simple: I fucked up.
I honestly do remember it the way I described in my post. Obviously, the transcript shows that I’m wrong. I do remember flipping back and forth between channels, so it’s possible that I missed what I should have seen. I knew Fox would be its typical self, and I didn’t expect objectivity. So I flipped to Rachel Maddow, and I remember feeling surprised at what I saw as her lack of objectivity.

(Well, that’s how I remember it, anyway. Sorry to ruin a good opportunity to pit me )

[VinylTurnip]

@bobot

was hitler a big park builder?

Parks were nice enough, but the hedge mazes sucked. Four dead ends!

[Damuri_Ajashi]

I loved her at first, her arguments with Pat Buchanan were fucking epic, she knew her adversary’s arguments better than they did, she conceded where things were a matter of opinion and really drove home inevitable conclusions that must result from irrefutable facts.

Then she got a show and I don’t think she was as repetitive at first. She had so much to say and an hour didn’t seem like enough time to say it for most of the first season and part of the second. Then she got to a point where she was giving us her take on current events rather than her take on the state of the world, but there really wasn’t an hours worth of stuff so she had to choose between trying to make news out of mundane events or repeating herself (Hey, did I mention this senator actually thinks you can’t get pregnant when you get raped? Oh I did? 27 times?) and she chose not to elevate the totally mundane shit into news just to fill up her hour and I can respect that. Then as some point she stopped all pretense at trying to present facts impartially, she went from “I just seem like a liberal because facts have a liberal bias” to “I will be presenting the facts with a liberal bias”

I agree with her on pretty much everything other than guns but I think her show might be improved with a half hour format or with more guests that are ideologically opposed to her. I don’t think Pat Buchanan can stand up to her but I would love to see her host a show with an intelligent conservative co-host (someone like Heather MacDonald, although I don’t think I have heard the sound of her voice on TV or radio, she mostly writes articles).

[Inner_Stickler]

In case anyone else got real confused for a moment there, I believe Damuri is talking about this woman and not this woman. Although I think either could be a great foil for Rachel Maddow.

[Gyrate]

@YogSosoth

Yeah, Donald Trump wants to register Muslims. That’s Hitler-esque. One doesn’t have to go full Hitler to do Hitler things. I think the comparison Maddow made is apt

To quote Ryan Cooper from The Week:

As of August, Trump had most of the ingredients for a fascist movement: the victim complex, the fervent nationalism, the obsession with national purity and cleansing purges, and the cult of personality. He was missing the organized violence, a left-wing challenge strong enough to push traditional conservative elites into his camp, support for wars of aggression, and a full-bore attack on democracy itself. He’s made much progress on all but the last one.

Of course such comparisons can only go so far - America in 2015 is not Germany in the 1930s, Trump is not Hitler (or even Mussolini) and we have the benefit of rather unpleasant experience to provide some perspective. But to say that there is no grounds for comparison would be foolish too.

@VinylTurnip

Parks were nice enough, but the hedge mazes sucked. Four dead ends!

As for Maddow, I find her style offputting enough to not watch her very often. I’ve seen her now and then and not caught her saying anything demonstrably false or questionable but I wouldn’t claim to enough exposure to make an overarching judgment.

Bill Maher, on the other hand, bugs the hell out of me. I appreciate that he brings in mixed panels but often I find that at the point I’m getting most interested in the discussion he butts in solely for the purpose of making a stupid joke, which inevitably derails the discussion. His occasional forays into anti-religion (particularly when he singles out Islam) can be grating, and while the anti-vax stuff is minimal he really needs to shut up about the whole pot smoking thing. WE GET IT BILL - YOU SMOKE POT.

But I’d take either of them over Keith Olberman.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@chappachula

What gives is very simple: I fucked up.
I honestly do remember it the way I described in my post. Obviously, the transcript shows that I’m wrong. I do remember flipping back and forth between channels, so it’s possible that I missed what I should have seen. I knew Fox would be its typical self, and I didn’t expect objectivity. So I flipped to Rachel Maddow, and I remember feeling surprised at what I saw as her lack of objectivity.

(Well, that’s how I remember it, anyway. Sorry to ruin a good opportunity to pit me )

Fair enough. So I guess it wasn’t a liberal bias to try to minimize anti-Muslim news items, nor evidence of Maddow’s poor journalism.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Inner_Stickler

In case anyone else got real confused for a moment there, I believe Damuri is talking about this woman and not this woman. Although I think either could be a great foil for Rachel Maddow.

Yes, thanks for the clarification.

I was thinking that Ted Cruz could be fun too after his failed presidential bid. Perhaps a conga line of failed presidential hopefuls so we get new co-hosts every 4 years or so.