Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: MCWAY on June 25, 2012, 08:05:59 AM
-
Just heard about this on Beck's show. Boy, you just can't make this stuff up.
Is The DNC Finally Finished With Debbie Wasserman Schultz?
There is considerable momentum building behind reports that DNC chair Debbie Wassermann Schultz will not be returning to her position atop the Democratic National Committee after the Fall election season. And it matters not if Obama wins or loses.
A bit of history on Ms. Wasserman Schultz’s 14 months leading the Democratic National Committee:
Obama selects Debbie Wasserman Schultz to replace Tim Kaine in April 2011
Blames Bush for Hamas’ rise to power
One of several testy media appearances for the DNC chair
WSJ: Obama adviser tells Debbie Wasserman Schultz to ‘tone it down’
The sentiment has been picked up by the likes of National Journal. And the blog Shark Tank quotes a close associate of Ms. Wasserman Schultz, albeit anonymously, as saying the deal is already done. The Shark Tank story continues:
This same source believes that Wasserman Schultz will be forced to resign behind closed doors and then stage an press event in which she tells Americans that her job as the DNC chair was a temporary one and that she is moving on with her congressional career.
On the topic of the Florida Congresswoman’s career, the second chapter of this story is filled with speculation that her next target is the position of Speaker of the House. National Journal sees considerable potential for a fight atop the Democratic party if Nancy Pelosi decides to retire.
So is Debbie Wasserman Schultz being moved out of the spotlight ahead of the November elections? There is no confirmation from within the DNC or from the White House, but another former DNC Chair seems to be throwing a little gasoline the fire. Earlier this month, Ed Rendell told Philadelphia radio host Chris Stigall that former RNC Chairman Michael Steele was “effective” during his tenure at that post. However, Rendell added that some of the strong comments made by Rep. Wasserman Schultz questioning Mitt Romney’s qualifications to be President were not helpful.
“I think in the end, you’ve got to be credible. There’s nobody out there who thinks that Governor Romney is unqualified.”
That said, could it be that the confrontational congresswoman from Florida is merely shifting her focus in preparation for a push to unseat the 71-year-old Nancy Pelosi as the voice that leads House Democrats? Maybe.
It should be noted that Ms. Wasserman Schultz must be re-elected to serve Florida’s 20th Congressional District before she can challenge Pelosi or anyone else hoping to lead the House Democrats. According to the (unscientific) online poll Elections Meter, Wasserman Schultz has a declining popularity rate that may not bode well for her in the coming November election.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/is-the-dnc-finally-finished-with-debbie-wasserman-schultz/
-
Just heard about this on Beck's show. Boy, you just can't make this stuff up.
Is The DNC Finally Finished With Debbie Wasserman Schultz?
There is considerable momentum building behind reports that DNC chair Debbie Wassermann Schultz will not be returning to her position atop the Democratic National Committee after the Fall election season. And it matters not if Obama wins or loses.
A bit of history on Ms. Wasserman Schultz’s 14 months leading the Democratic National Committee:
Obama selects Debbie Wasserman Schultz to replace Tim Kaine in April 2011
Blames Bush for Hamas’ rise to power
One of several testy media appearances for the DNC chair
WSJ: Obama adviser tells Debbie Wasserman Schultz to ‘tone it down’
The sentiment has been picked up by the likes of National Journal. And the blog Shark Tank quotes a close associate of Ms. Wasserman Schultz, albeit anonymously, as saying the deal is already done. The Shark Tank story continues:
This same source believes that Wasserman Schultz will be forced to resign behind closed doors and then stage an press event in which she tells Americans that her job as the DNC chair was a temporary one and that she is moving on with her congressional career.
On the topic of the Florida Congresswoman’s career, the second chapter of this story is filled with speculation that her next target is the position of Speaker of the House. National Journal sees considerable potential for a fight atop the Democratic party if Nancy Pelosi decides to retire.
So is Debbie Wasserman Schultz being moved out of the spotlight ahead of the November elections? There is no confirmation from within the DNC or from the White House, but another former DNC Chair seems to be throwing a little gasoline the fire. Earlier this month, Ed Rendell told Philadelphia radio host Chris Stigall that former RNC Chairman Michael Steele was “effective” during his tenure at that post. However, Rendell added that some of the strong comments made by Rep. Wasserman Schultz questioning Mitt Romney’s qualifications to be President were not helpful.
“I think in the end, you’ve got to be credible. There’s nobody out there who thinks that Governor Romney is unqualified.”
That said, could it be that the confrontational congresswoman from Florida is merely shifting her focus in preparation for a push to unseat the 71-year-old Nancy Pelosi as the voice that leads House Democrats? Maybe.
It should be noted that Ms. Wasserman Schultz must be re-elected to serve Florida’s 20th Congressional District before she can challenge Pelosi or anyone else hoping to lead the House Democrats. According to the (unscientific) online poll Elections Meter, Wasserman Schultz has a declining popularity rate that may not bode well for her in the coming November election.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/is-the-dnc-finally-finished-with-debbie-wasserman-schultz/
how embarrassing for you
-
how embarrassing for you
No, its embarassing for the DNC to have such an incompetent yenta at the helm.
-
how embarrassing for you
And I should be embarrassed because....
No, its embarassing for the DNC to have such an incompetent yenta at the helm.
Something like that. But, listening to Beck (as opposed to the clowns on the red-headed stepchild of cable news) is supposed to be a bad thing.
This is the same woman who claimed Wisconsin was a dry run for the presidential. Of course, once the Dems lost, she mumbled, fumbled, and spun herself sillier.
-
And I should be embarrassed because....
you can't figure it out ?
that's even more embarrassing for you
-
you can't figure it out ?
that's even more embarrassing for you
Humor me! Spell it out.
Or, are you too cowardly to address the story itself.
-
Humor me! Spell it out.
Or, are you too cowardly to address the story itself.
I humor you on a daily basis
if you can understand my very obvious statement then even humor won't do any good at this point
-
I humor you on a daily basis
if you can understand my very obvious statement then even humor won't do any good at this point
In other words, you're basically full or cheap deli meat.
I've listen to Beck for about two years, which has hardly been a secret here. I like his show. SO WHAT!!
And, my listening to Beck matters HOW, when it relates to this story, regarding Schultz.
-
In other words, you're basically full or cheap deli meat.
I've listen to Beck for about two years, which has hardly been a secret here. I like his show. SO WHAT!!
And, my listening to Beck matters HOW, when it relates to this story, regarding Schultz.
Unless its comedians, bull dikes, the left does not fine them credible.
-
In other words, you're basically full or cheap deli meat.
I've listen to Beck for about two years, which has hardly been a secret here. I like his show. SO WHAT!!
And, my listening to Beck matters HOW, when it relates to this story, regarding Schultz.
your pride is hilarious
-
Unless its comedians, bull dikes, the left does not fine them credible.
True indeed!! But, just because MSLSD and the stand-up comedians don't chirp a story doesn't mean the story is without merit.
Here's another article, citing the possible end to Blabbermouth!!
Report: Debbie Wasserman Schultz ‘getting booted’ as DNC chairwoman after November
Florida Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz may be “getting booted” from her chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee.
Javiar Manjarres of the Shark Tank political blog reported Sunday that “Wasserman Schultz will not be back as DNC Chairwoman after the November elections.”
“According to our source within the Democratic Party, who is also a close associate of Wasserman Schultz, the arrangements have already been made for her to leave DNC regardless if President Obama wins re-election or not,” Manjarres wrote.
“This same source believes that Wasserman Schultz will be forced to resign behind closed doors and then stage an press event in which she tells Americans that her job as the DNC chair was a temporary one and that she is moving on with her congressional career.”
DNC spokesman Brad Woodhouse has not immediately returned The Daily Caller’s request for comment on Wasserman Schultz’s future.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/25/report-debbie-wasserman-schultz-getting-booted-as-dnc-chairwoman-after-november/#ixzz1yovlbHkQ
http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/25/report-debbie-wasserman-schultz-getting-booted-as-dnc-chairwoman-after-november/
-
your pride is hilarious
So is your kneepadding and cowardly, empty rhetoric.
I heard the story on Beck's show. So, I said as much.
What's that got to do with the story itself?
-
WGAF. they're replace her with another whiny idiot.
i disliked her because she was all about that victim card thing. STFu and grow a set. Howard dean was a crazy mofo, but didn't act like a victim all day.
-
I've listen to Beck for about two years [...] I like his show.
???
Would you mind explaining what, exactly, you like? I've heard others say this, and he's obviously doing something right, having managed to reinvent himself from a "morning zoo" radio guy into some kind of political guru, whose ramblings are considered credible. But I really don't quite understand how one can enjoy his show. I mean, it's mostly Glenn Beck, an otherwise uneducated individual and obvious conspiracy theorist, pontificating on every subject under the sun pretending to be an expert.
I do give Beck credit for being successful and managing to get to where he is, which is no small feat on radio, and then turning that gig into a tv show. The whole "let me put on glasses and pretend to be a Professor" bit was a bit much though.
-
WGAF. they're replace her with another whiny idiot.
i disliked her because she was all about that victim card thing. STFu and grow a set. Howard dean was a crazy mofo, but didn't act like a victim all day.
Ummmm.....grow a set? I don't think that quite works for Schultz.
-
???
Would you mind explaining what, exactly, you like? I've heard others say this, and he's obviously doing something right, having managed to reinvent himself from a "morning zoo" radio guy into some kind of political guru, whose ramblings are considered credible. But I really don't quite understand how one can enjoy his show. I mean, it's mostly Glenn Beck, an otherwise uneducated individual and obvious conspiracy theorist, pontificating on every subject under the sun pretending to be an expert.
I do give Beck credit for being successful and managing to get to where he is, which is no small feat on radio, and then turning that gig into a tv show. The whole "let me put on glasses and pretend to be a Professor" bit was a bit much though.
For someone who's uneducated, Beck's "ramblings" tend to be on the mark. Not to mention, he and his buddies are a riot, when it comes to skewering utterly ridiculous statements and policies, particularly those from liberals.
-
Ummmm.....grow a set? I don't think that quite works for Schultz.
she was always on msnbc, acting all offended, wronged, upset, victimized, etc.
It's like the ppl that call into mark levin's show - "Mark, I feel a personal affront by..." shut the motherfvck up, puddy cat. man up and come up with a solution. Anyone who feels offended and wronged and that someone "owes" them an apology, go piss off, cowgirl, you're not tough enough to run this nation.
She tried to be a voice for offended liberals... and i wish to give whiny people from either party a taco bell brown shower.
-
For someone who's uneducated, Beck's "ramblings" tend to be on the mark.
I guess that depends on what the mark is.
Not to mention, he and his buddies are a riot, when it comes to skewering utterly ridiculous statements and policies, particularly those from liberals.
I don't find his "skewerings" all that impressive personally. In my opinion, they're just a notch above him yelling "git-er-done". And you can be a notch above that by not yelling "git-er-done" so the bar isn't exactly high. Frankly, the few times I've listened to Beck, his ramblings must have set a new record for logical fallacies per words spoken.
But if you enjoy them, that's fine. I just wanted to understand what you like about his show.
-
Beck appeals to people who are like him
uneducated, paranoid and religious to the point of kookyness
perhaps his state of mind has something to do with his past as a suicidal alcoholic and drug addict
-
Beck appeals to people who are like him
uneducated, paranoid and religious to the point of kookyness
perhaps his state of mind has something to do with his past as a suicidal alcoholic and drug addict
and madcow and Mahr?
-
and madcow and Mahr?
Who's madcow? I don't think I've ever heard that name before?
-
Who's madcow? I don't think I've ever heard that name before?
Maddow :o :o :o
-
and madcow and Mahr?
Maddow - Stanford graduate, Rhodes Scholar, Phd from Oxford Doctor of Philosophy in Politics (DPhil)
Mahr - B.A. in English and history from Cornell University in 1978
Neither one is a drug addict, religious kook nor attempted suicide
-
there are some seriously smart liberals and seriously smart far-right voices.
they're just misguided.
-
there are some seriously smart liberals and seriously smart far-right voices.
they're just misguided.
and Beck is not one of them
an example of a smart right winger (not far right loon) would be David Brooks
-
and Beck is not one of them
an example of a smart right winger (not far right loon) would be David Brooks
LOL David Brooks is a fucking panzie and a joke. He was another metrosexual piece of trash all smitten by obama's crease in his pants and has proven dramatically wrong in his original assessment of obama.
LMFAO - brooks. WTF is wrong w you? David Brooks? lol!
-
LOL David Brooks is a fucking panzie and a joke. He was another metrosexual piece of trash all smitten by obama's crease in his pants and has proven dramatically wrong in his original assessment of obama.
LMFAO - brooks. WTF is wrong w you? David Brooks? lol!
dude - you've got a hard on for Mark Levine and drunk Bob or whatever his name is
your opinion on this subject is irrelevent
-
dude - you've got a hard on for Mark Levine and drunk Bob or whatever his name is
your opinion on this subject is irrelevent
LOL - I have been far more accurate than brooks or the other pussy metrosexuals like brooks who originally thought obama was going to be a good potus.
-
LOL - I have been far more accurate than brooks or the other pussy metrosexuals like brooks who originally thought obama was going to be a good potus.
no time to get on your insane merri-go-round today
believe whatever you want
that's what you do best
-
and Beck is not one of them
an example of a smart right winger (not far right loon) would be David Brooks
the most popular hosts aren't always the smartest.
rachel maddow is a seriously smart individual, booksmarts and she knows how to win a debate.
A guy like Rush isn't all that *brilliant* by definition - but he is VERY shrewd, he has brass balls, and he knows how to elicit emotion from listeners.
You know the way I can post "it's a sunny day" and I'll have five getbiggers saying "i've had enough of your bullshit weather observations, 180..."
Rush is like that for liberals. He combines the victim card with being right a lot of the time, with fearlessness and his own level of reckless lawbreaking to give him some credibility. he's worth half a billion and lives and acts like there's no tomorrow. A little crazy, and ppl love that, even if they hate him and disagree with him.
-
the most popular hosts aren't always the smartest.
rachel maddow is a seriously smart individual, booksmarts and she knows how to win a debate.
A guy like Rush isn't all that *brilliant* by definition - but he is VERY shrewd, he has brass balls, and he knows how to elicit emotion from listeners.
You know the way I can post "it's a sunny day" and I'll have five getbiggers saying "i've had enough of your bullshit weather observations, 180..."
Rush is like that for liberals. He combines the victim card with being right a lot of the time, with fearlessness and his own level of reckless lawbreaking to give him some credibility. he's worth half a billion and lives and acts like there's no tomorrow. A little crazy, and ppl love that, even if they hate him and disagree with him.
Rush is smart enough to never let a dissenting view on his show
His entire show is an echo chamber for and filled with only voices that saying the exact same thing tht he is
Both Maddow and Maher (a comedian) bring on dissenting voices on their shows ALL THE TIME
-
Rush is smart enough to never let a dissenting view on his show
His entire show is an echo chamber for and filled with only voices that saying the exact same thing tht he is
Both Maddow and Maher (a comedian) bring on dissenting voices on their shows ALL THE TIME
i contend that rush would totally espouse a view on his show (that he disagrees with completely) and sell it with total zeal - if that is what his guys said the viewers would react to.
he's an entertainer, a guy whose job is to get ratings by saying things that people strongely agree or disagree with.
-
i contend that rush would totally espouse a view on his show (that he disagrees with completely) and sell it with total zeal - if that is what his guys said the viewers would react to.
he's an entertainer, a guy whose job is to get ratings by saying things that people strongely agree or disagree with.
rush won't even let callers with dissenting views on the air
his viewers are way too stupid to hear a nuanced argument on any topic
look at his ardent fans who post on this board for examples
-
Maddow - Stanford graduate, Rhodes Scholar, Phd from Oxford Doctor of Philosophy in Politics (DPhil)
Mahr - B.A. in English and history from Cornell University in 1978
Neither one is a drug addict, religious kook nor attempted suicide
Yet, neither one of them can touch the "drug addict", "religious kook", or the guy who "attempted suicide".
I forgot! This is the left about whom we're talking. Low ratings and losing arguments are badges of honor.
-
the most popular hosts aren't always the smartest.
rachel maddow is a seriously smart individual, booksmarts and she knows how to win a debate.
A guy like Rush isn't all that *brilliant* by definition - but he is VERY shrewd, he has brass balls, and he knows how to elicit emotion from listeners.
You know the way I can post "it's a sunny day" and I'll have five getbiggers saying "i've had enough of your bullshit weather observations, 180..."
Rush is like that for liberals. He combines the victim card with being right a lot of the time, with fearlessness and his own level of reckless lawbreaking to give him some credibility. he's worth half a billion and lives and acts like there's no tomorrow. A little crazy, and ppl love that, even if they hate him and disagree with him.
Maddow, like the rest of Team MSLSD, sounded like a bumbling fool, trying to keep a happy face and spin the Dems' major beatdown in Wisconsin. It was even worse, when the 2010 midterms were done, which might explain why that network was DOG-DEAD LAST in the ratings, on election night.
-
Yet, neither one of them can touch the "drug addict", "religious kook", or the guy who "attempted suicide".
I forgot! This is the left about whom we're talking. Low ratings and losing arguments are badges of honor.
touch him how
they have different audiences
Beck appeals to the uneducated, scared and super religious freaks of which there is no shortage in this country
Maddow and Maher appeal to a much more educated and savy audience
McDonalds sells a lot of burgers but that doesn't mean they are good.
It just means that alot of people have low standards
-
touch him how
they have different audiences
Beck appeals to the uneducated, scared and super religious freaks of which there is no shortage in this country
Maddow and Maher appeal to a much more educated and savy audience
McDonalds sells a lot of burgers but that doesn't mean they are good.
It just means that alot of people have low standards
Maddow and Maher do no such thing. That's but the usual "we're smart; they're stupid" liberals like you make, when you get beat at something. We heard in 2010; we heard it after Wisconsin.
And, you'll be whimpering that same excuse, should Obama go down in flames.
Maddow (and her buddies) tried going head-up with Rush on their progressive network, "Air America". We all saw how that worked.
All these so-called intellectuals get absolutely tied in knots, by the "drug addict". They can't compete with him; they've, in vain, tried to get him thrown off the air. Why go through all that, if they're so much smarter and better than he is?
Now, back to the subject of hand, namely the reported demise of Blabbermouth, due to her crackpot musings, that make made the Dems look even sillier than normal.
-
touch him how
they have different audiences
Beck appeals to the uneducated, scared and super religious freaks of which there is no shortage in this country
Maddow and Maher appeal to a much more educated and savy audience
McDonalds sells a lot of burgers but that doesn't mean they are good.
It just means that alot of people have low standards
LMFAO. Jesus Fng Christ are you in a bubble.
-
Maddow, like the rest of Team MSLSD, sounded like a bumbling fool, trying to keep a happy face and spin the Dems' major beatdown in Wisconsin. It was even worse, when the 2010 midterms were done, which might explain why that network was DOG-DEAD LAST in the ratings, on election night.
maddow is good at debating when she has the winning position. When a 2012 GOP potential had a past history of libbing it up, she was razor sharp in pointing it out and illustrating with points, to really pwn the person over it.
When she has to defend a position or rationalize a loss so viewers don't turn off the TV, she's not so good.
She is more intelligent than Rush, but Rush is more shrewd and a way better entertainer.
-
Fox is not #1 because more people agree with them - Obama vot voted in, remember? ;)
Fox is not #1 because they have more stellar programming - lolzercopters at that.
Fox is #1 because their viewers are older conservatives who are able to watch tv more hours each day, ,and who are more involved in politics.
Younger ppl are very busy making their careers, watching sitcoms, raising babies. When you're 50 and you have your own biz and kids are in college and you are doing very well financially - you're watching FOX. When you're 27 with 2 babies, working part-time while going to college part-time to be a poor teacher... your ass is watching Spongebob or Team Umizoomi all day.
-
Maddow and Maher do no such thing. That's but the usual "we're smart; they're stupid" liberals like you make, when you get beat at something. We heard in 2010; we heard it after Wisconsin.
And, you'll be whimpering that same excuse, should Obama go down in flames.
Maddow (and her buddies) tried going head-up with Rush on their progressive network, "Air America". We all saw how that worked.
All these so-called intellectuals get absolutely tied in knots, by the "drug addict". They can't compete with him; they've, in vain, tried to get him thrown off the air. Why go through all that, if they're so much smarter and better than he is?
Now, back to the subject of hand, namely the reported demise of Blabbermouth, due to her crackpot musings, that make made the Dems look even sillier than normal.
Both Maddow and Maher have opposing points of views on their shows every week and have detailed and nuanced discussions with them and they do so in a polite and respectful way
Beck, Rush and their ilk do not and most likely are not capable of doing so
-
Both Maddow and Maher have opposing points of views on their shows every week and have detailed and nuanced discussions with them and they do so in a polite and respectful way
Beck, Rush and their ilk do not and most likely are not capable of doing so
Yeah - Mahr saying GOP does not give a damn about dead mexicans is real nuanced. LOL.
you leftists live in this tiny freak show bubble and dont see it.
-
Yeah - Mahr saying GOP does not give a damn about dead mexicans is real nuanced. LOL.
i can think of a few getbiggers who said their only beef with F&F was the dead US agents... and not the mexicans.
-
i can think of a few getbiggers who said their only beef with F&F was the dead US agents... and not the mexicans.
Name them and bump the thread and quote or STFU .
-
Name them and bump the thread and quote or STFU .
they know who they are.
-
Fox is not #1 because more people agree with them - Obama vot voted in, remember? ;)
Fox is not #1 because they have more stellar programming - lolzercopters at that.
Fox is #1 because their viewers are older conservatives who are able to watch tv more hours each day, ,and who are more involved in politics.
Younger ppl are very busy making their careers, watching sitcoms, raising babies. When you're 50 and you have your own biz and kids are in college and you are doing very well financially - you're watching FOX. When you're 27 with 2 babies, working part-time while going to college part-time to be a poor teacher... your ass is watching Spongebob or Team Umizoomi all day.
Nice try, 240. But, Fox dominates ALL the age groups, especially the 25-54 or "money" demographic. Check TVbytheNumbers.com, if you don't believe me.
As for Maddow, Hannity CRUSHES her on TV, getting about twice as many of the money demographic that she does.
Greta Van Strustren is the most vanilla of all the Fox nighttime personalities and Maddow can't even hang with her.
-
Nice try, 240. But, Fox dominates ALL the age groups, especially the 25-54 or "money" demographic. Check TVbytheNumbers.com, if you don't believe me.
As for Maddow, Hannity CRUSHES her on TV, getting about twice as many of the money demographic that she does.
we can expand that further.
people who own their own business can watch TV all day. they're more likely to be conservatives.
people who work at the mall or flipping burgers cannot.
if it just about who is more popular, we'd be prepping palin to take over after a brilliant mccain presidency.
and anyone who claims the programming on fox is superior.... lol... well, anyone who says fox & friends is brilliant programming has a 90 IQ, and the rest of us know it ;)
-
they know who they are.
And you claim you know who they are - so name them now or STFU
-
And you claim you know who they are - so name them now or STFU
oka, I'll STFU cause it's pretty stupid to spend 30 minutes searching thru that many threads.
i specifically remember arging with 1 getbigger in particular. He said the reason F&F matters isn't the dead mexis, it's the 2 Us agents.
others might remember it, or not. no point in drudging it up, as i'm not calling anyone out for it. one getbigger and I argued it.
-
oka, I'll STFU cause it's pretty stupid to spend 30 minutes searching thru that many threads.
i specifically remember arging with 1 getbigger in particular. He said the reason F&F matters isn't the dead mexis, it's the 2 Us agents.
others might remember it, or not. no point in drudging it up, as i'm not calling anyone out for it. one getbigger and I argued it.
False - you got busted in yet another blatant lie and cant back it up .
-
False - you got busted in yet another blatant lie and cant back it up .
eh, others might remember the getbigger who said he doesn't care about the meican side of it - it's the US agents that he cares about.
-
eh, others might remember the getbigger who said he doesn't care about the meican side of it - it's the US agents that he cares about.
STFU - you claim you remember who that was - name that person.
-
Both Maddow and Maher have opposing points of views on their shows every week and have detailed and nuanced discussions with them and they do so in a polite and respectful way
Beck, Rush and their ilk do not and most likely are not capable of doing so
Now THAT was comical.
This would be the same Bill Maher, that talked about Santorum's wife using a vibrator, who called Sarah Palin a c*#t, who got bludgeoned and called out on his own misogyny to the point where he ended up defending Rush Limbaugh, after all that Sandra Fluke flap.
That is, after the right pointed out the hypocrisy of being mush-mouthed about his comments, while demanding Limbaugh's head for his remarks about Fluke. Of course, Obama's PAC took $1 million from Maher, as the president wagged his finger about Limbaugh and his words.
-
STFU - you claim you remember who that was - name that person.
what would be the point? So he/she could say "prove it" and I'd have to go shuffle thru many many threads on it.
i'd rather knock one out and then go make a sandwich.
-
maddow is good at debating when she has the winning position.
Really? Newsflash. Even you could win such a debate. Winning position? HEHEHEHE!!
Yeah.
She looked like a babbling idiot after Wisconsin.
-
Really? Newsflash. Even you could win such a debate. Winning position? HEHEHEHE!!
Yeah.
She looked like a babbling idiot after Wisconsin.
when she is right...
when she has found a big contradiction in someone's past positions, or someone screws up...
maddow is a master at delivering the owning.
Rush, on the other hand, can argue a wrong position and actually look right - but he's not exactly the point-by-point pwner. He's just brutal overpowering emotion.
-
Why are there pics of Ice-T's wife on a thread about Debbie "Blabbermouth" Schultz (unless you're implying that's how she looked 20 years ago)?
If you're in the mood to knock one out that much, 240, just find your Obama poster as usual and go to work.
-
Now THAT was comical.
This would be the same Bill Maher, that talked about Santorum's wife using a vibrator, who called Sarah Palin a c*#t, who got bludgeoned and called out on his own misogyny to the point where he ended up defending Rush Limbaugh, after all that Sandra Fluke flap.
That is, after the right pointed out the hypocrisy of being mush-mouthed about his comments, while demanding Limbaugh's head for his remarks about Fluke. Of course, Obama's PAC took $1 million from Maher, as the president wagged his finger about Limbaugh and his words.
Are you having a hard time paying attention
Just because Maher makes jokes you don't like doesn't change the fact that he has thoughtful and nuanced discusstions with people who have opposing points of view. I don't "win" anything by pointing this out. These are objectively verifiable facts. The same goes for Maddow. She had polite and in depth discussions with people that don't share her point of view. She doesn't interrupt them or put them down or turn off their microphone, etc.. She acts like a normal mature adult
Beck and Rush (and others) have daily pep rallies for a like minded audience of simpletons, paranoid delusionals, and crybabies. No opposing points of view are ever heard and certainly there is never a thoughtful and respectful debate of ideas.
It's just two different formats
nothing to get upset about or try to defend
It's just the way it is
-
Are you having a hard time paying attention
Just because Maher makes jokes you don't like doesn't change the fact that he has thoughtful and nuanced discusstions with people who have opposing points of view. I don't "win" anything by pointing this out. These are objectively verifiable facts. The same goes for Maddow. She had polite and in depth discussions with people that don't share her point of view. She doesn't interrupt them or put them down or turn off their microphone, etc.. She acts like a normal mature adult
Beck and Rush (and others) have daily pep rallies for a like minded audience of simpletons, paranoid delusionals, and crybabies. No opposing points of view are ever heard and certainly there is never a thoughtful and respectful debate of ideas.
It's just two different formats
nothing to get upset about or try to defend
It's just the way it is
Maher's discussions are nothing of the sort. If anyone is having the pep rallies, it's he and Maddow (though with much smaller attendance for both).
No opposing views are ever heard there? That's a laugh!! You'll find more liberals on Hannity than you'll find conservatives on Maddow.
-
Maher's discussions are nothing of the sort. If anyone is having the pep rallies, it's he and Maddow (though with much smaller attendance for both).
No opposing views are ever heard there? That's a laugh!! You'll find more liberals on Hannity than you'll find conservatives on Maddow.
you must have never watched his show
anyone who watches either Maddow or Maher know that what I've said is true
It's not the ONLY thing they do but it is true that they have people with opposing points of view and they have polite and often spirited discussions.
-
you must have never watched his show
anyone who watches either Maddow or Maher know that what I've said is true
It's not the ONLY thing they do but it is true that they have people with opposing points of view and they have polite and often spirited discussions.
Mahr is an idiot. Economically he is a brain dead as you are. His has at best a surface understanding of most issues and hides his ignorance w smug insults in front of a capitve friendly audience.
-
Mahr is an idiot. Economically he is a brain dead as you are. His has at best a surface understanding of most issues and hides his ignorance w smug insults in front of a capitve friendly audience.
you're certainly entitled to your opinion and since Maher audience probably pays to be there and viewers definitely pay to get his show it make sense that they would be a friendly audience
that doesn't refute the fact that he has opposing voices and points of view on his show and does so every week
-
you must have never watched his show
anyone who watches either Maddow or Maher know that what I've said is true
It's not the ONLY thing they do but it is true that they have people with opposing points of view and they have polite and often spirited discussions.
I have seen his show. The mere fact that you refer to Maher as "polite" is a certifiable JOKE.
Again, you will find more liberals on Hannity's show than you would on Maddow's show.
Of course, that doesn't touch the issue of the reports that Schultz is on her way out, something you never addressed at all.
-
I have seen his show. The mere fact that you refer to Maher as "polite" is a certifiable JOKE.
Again, you will find more liberals on Hannity's show than you would on Maddow's show.
Of course, that doesn't touch the issue of the reports that Schultz is on her way out, something you never addressed at all.
again, what is it with you and reading comprehension
I didn't say Maher was ALWAYS polite or never impolite
I said he has people with opposing points of view and has polite and nuanced discussion with them
Of course he still tells "dirty" jokes and makes fun of idiots like Palin and of course that gets simple minded people such as yourself in a dither but that doesn't change the facts of what I've said
why don't you just find something else to delude yourself about
-
again, what is it with you and reading comprehension
I didn't say Maher was ALWAYS polite or never impolite
I said he has people with opposing points of view and has polite and nuanced discussion with them
Of course he still tells "dirty" jokes and makes fun of idiots like Palin and of course that gets simple minded people such as yourself in a dither but that doesn't change the facts of what I've said
why don't you just find something else to delude yourself about
Nary a fact has come from your pathetic posts. His discussions are hardly polite as are his jokes. That's what I've said at least TWICE. So, the reading comprehension (or lack thereof) falls on YOU.
As usual, to excuse his relatively low ratings (along with those of Maddow), in typical liberal fashion, you claim that your host and their audience are "smarter".
And speaking of lack of reading comprehension, for all your flapping, you have YET to address the actual subject of this thread, namely the reported demise of Debbie Wasserman/"Blabbermouth" Shultz. All this deflective clucking of yours started, simply because I mentioned that I heard this story first on Glenn Beck's show.
If you have some evidence to the contrary, that Schultz isn't about to get the heave-ho, let's see it.
-
we can expand that further.
people who own their own business can watch TV all day. they're more likely to be conservatives.
people who work at the mall or flipping burgers cannot.
if it just about who is more popular, we'd be prepping palin to take over after a brilliant mccain presidency.
and anyone who claims the programming on fox is superior.... lol... well, anyone who says fox & friends is brilliant programming has a 90 IQ, and the rest of us know it ;)
Dead wrong again, 240. You made the usual liberal talking point that the sole/primary reason Fox crushes MSNBC and CNN is because old(er) people watch it.
If your claims were remotely accurate, both those stations would lead Fox in that demographic. But, it ain't even close.
Once again, check the numbers and you will find the actual stats, that Fox annihilates those two stations in the money (25-54) demographic, by a margin or nearly two to one.
-
Dead wrong again, 240. You made the usual liberal talking point that the sole/primary reason Fox crushes MSNBC and CNN is because old(er) people watch it.
If your claims were remotely accurate, both those stations would lead Fox in that demographic. But, it ain't even close.
Once again, check the numbers and you will find the actual stats, that Fox annihilates those two stations in the money (25-54) demographic, by a margin or nearly two to one.
my show beats your show na na na na na ::) who the fuck cares
-
have you guys watched all 3?
seriously, FOX is applesauce being fed to trailer folk and old people - they freakin' splice in reagan footage all the time to elicit a boner from the elderly.
CNN? Entertainment news is more like it. Cause we need a 17th interview with a jackson family member about the reaction to the verdict on the doc that killed him.
And MSNBC? Surely the sun setting every night is proof that God, like everyone else not called MSNBC, is a total racist.
I'd say they're all 3 tied for last place.
-
seriously, I want to ninja kick a football into the face of a baby seal every time I see anyone try to assign any worth to any of the news networks.
rubbish all the way, the whole lot of them.
-
Nary a fact has come from your pathetic posts. His discussions are hardly polite as are his jokes. That's what I've said at least TWICE. So, the reading comprehension (or lack thereof) falls on YOU.
As usual, to excuse his relatively low ratings (along with those of Maddow), in typical liberal fashion, you claim that your host and their audience are "smarter".
And speaking of lack of reading comprehension, for all your flapping, you have YET to address the actual subject of this thread, namely the reported demise of Debbie Wasserman/"Blabbermouth" Shultz. All this deflective clucking of yours started, simply because I mentioned that I heard this story first on Glenn Beck's show.
If you have some evidence to the contrary, that Schultz isn't about to get the heave-ho, let's see it.
you think Mahers discussion with opposing voices are not polite and I say they are.
They may get spirited at times but they are civil and the larger point is that they actually take place
Doesn't change the fact that Beck/Rush etc... never let a dissenting opinion or contrarian voice on their airwaves and the reason I haven't addressed the subject of your thread is that I have no interest in any opinion of Beck
He's an certified idiot and anyone who listens to him is exactly the same
and if you're not clear yet, that is solely my opinion
-
my show beats your show na na na na na ::) who the fuck cares
Says the guy, who posts gibberish from the aforementioned red-headed stepchild of cable news.
Of course, you're free to actually talk about Debbie Wasserman Shultz and whether or not she's on the way out. But, neither you nor Straw seems to be able to do that.
-
Dead wrong again, 240. You made the usual liberal talking point that the sole/primary reason Fox crushes MSNBC and CNN is because old(er) people watch it.
If your claims were remotely accurate, both those stations would lead Fox in that demographic. But, it ain't even close.
Once again, check the numbers and you will find the actual stats, that Fox annihilates those two stations in the money (25-54) demographic, by a margin or nearly two to one.
i guess i missed where you talk about Debbie Wasserman Shultz ???
-
Double down drop: Is Wasserman Schultz on her way out of the House and the DNC?
On Friday, Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz told CNN’s Soledad O’Brien that “Republicans in Congress and Mitt Romney continue to demonstrate that they are rooting for failure.”
One look at Schultz’s Elections Meter popularity rating and one might get the impression she’s doing the same with her own political career.
In fact, the plunge of her popularity rating graph-line over the past three months looks like a schematic drawing of a “double down drop” on a theme park roller coaster.
At her peak in mid-April, her popularity rating was 18.23 percent. By mid-May, it dropped to 16.96 percent. As of June 25, her popularity rating hit a depressing 14.76 percent.
In May, speculation that Shultz had worn out her welcome with President Barack Obama as chairwoman of the DNC and questions of whether or not she would even attempt reelection were already raised by Examiner.com.
But now, those queries have wheels and are starting to gain traction.
Billy House of the National Journal reported Wednesday that, regardless of whether or not Barack Obama wins reelection, rumor on Capitol Hill says Schultz “will not be asked to serve another term” as chairwoman for the Democratic National Committee.
On Sunday, Javier Manjarres of The Shark Tank wrote that his source “within the Democratic Party, who is also a close associate of Wasserman Schultz” confirmed that “the arrangements have already been made for her to leave DNC regardless” if Obama “wins re-election or not.”
A curious note in the National Journal article by House was the new speculation that Schultz “reportedly now has her eye on a House leadership post—perhaps even the highest.”
If Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California decides to relinquish House Democrats’ top spot after November—a possibility oft-discussed in the cloakroom, hallways, and Capitol subway—the similarly polarizing Wasserman Schultz may make a play for her post.
First: No matter how “oft-discussed” the “possibility,” in cloakrooms, hallways and the Capitol subway -- outside of Pelosi’s company -- can anyone really imagine her voluntarily surrendering power?
Second: Since losing her position as speaker of the House, although “similarly polarizing,” Pelosi has pretty much fallen off the political radar and has become little more than a bad memory. But she still strikes fear into the hearts of her fellow Democrats.
Conversely, Since ascending to the position of DNC chair she has been nothing more than a source of embarrassment.since ascending to the position of DNC chair, Schultz has become the punch-line to a bad political joke.
From her hire of Dani Gilbert -- and the ensuing “Jewbags” debacle -- to the cancellation of her speech at Miami's Temple Israel, Shultz’s presence has caused Obama to spend less time advancing his reelection effort and more time running damage control.
In April, Shark Tank's inside source told Manjarres that Obama addressed Shultz personally on her destructive activities, telling her: “Don’t forget, you work for me.”
In early June, Mediaite reported that even former Democratic National Committee chair and Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell Gov. spanked Schultz for her over-the-top criticisms of Mitt Romney’s credentials to be president.
All things considered, Schultz has few -- if any -- political allies. Moreover, where it may be true that she “has her eye on a House leadership post” as she rides her political roller coaster -- it doesn’t mean her cart will take her there.
According to Arthur Levine -- in his post on About.com -- a “double down drop” is a roller coaster term describing “a drop that is immediately followed by a second drop.”
The thing is, where coaster passengers can usually see the first drop coming, they “generally aren't able to anticipate the second drop.”
Democratic National Committee Chair and Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz may have "her eye on a House leadership post" but that doesn't mean she can see her way there.
Democratic National Committee Chair and Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz may have "her eye on a House leadership post" but that doesn't mean she can see her way there.
http://www.examiner.com/article/double-down-drop-is-wasserman-schultz-on-her-way-out-of-the-house-and-the-dnc
i guess i missed where you talk about Debbie Wasserman Shultz ???
It's the topic of the thread, O myopic one. I've only posted two stories about it (well, three, counting this one).
-
Maddow - Stanford graduate, Rhodes Scholar, Phd from Oxford Doctor of Philosophy in Politics (DPhil)
Mahr - B.A. in English and history from Cornell University in 1978
Neither one is a drug addict, religious kook nor attempted suicide
Haha, nothing even close to a quantitative degree among the bunch. Sorry, there's nothing impressive about that and I'd be surprised if either of them could handle simple calculus.
It always amuses me when people try to argue that talking heads are intelligent.
A Doctorate in "POLITICS". LOL.
-
Haha, nothing even close to a quantitative degree among the bunch. Sorry, there's nothing impressive about that and I'd be surprised if either of them could handle simple calculus.
It always amuses me when people try to argue that talking heads are intelligent.
A Doctorate in "POLITICS". LOL.
Would that be Calculus I, II, III?
Back to the topic at hand, for some reason I don't recall your party's chairman head on the chopping block, during a presidential election, is a positive sign.
I thought one of the responsibilities was to raise money for the party. If that's the case, no WONDER she could potentially get whacked.
-
Would that be Calculus I, II, III?
Back to the topic at hand, for some reason I don't recall your party's chairman head on the chopping block, during a presidential election, is a positive sign.
I thought one of the responsibilities was to raise money for the party. If that's the case, no WONDER she could potentially get whacked.
From the one or two clips I've seen of them, that would be pre-calculus.
-
Haha, nothing even close to a quantitative degree among the bunch. Sorry, there's nothing impressive about that and I'd be surprised if either of them could handle simple calculus.
It always amuses me when people try to argue that talking heads are intelligent.
A Doctorate in "POLITICS". LOL.
I know what you mean
A Doctorate in Philosophy from Oxford is such a joke and undergrad degrees from Cornell (Maher) and Stanford (Maddow) are also totally lame especially when compared Beck and Rush
great point you've made there
keep up the good work
-
I know what you mean
A Doctorate in Philosophy from Oxford is such a joke and undergrad degrees from Cornell (Maher) and Stanford (Maddow) are also totally lame especially when compared Beck and Rush
great point you've made there
keep up the good work
Obama has a law degree from Harvard and Is dumb as a box of rocks on substanative issues. W has a Yale Harvard degree.
Bill gates never went to college.
Simply getting a parchment degree does not Tell the entire story.
-
Obama has a law degree from Harvard and Is dumb as a box of rocks on substanative issues. W has a Yale Harvard degree. Bill gates never went to college.
Simply getting a parchment degree does not Tell the entire story.
except that Obama is not dumb as a box of rock (spare me the debate - I know you believe that he is)
There is no doubt that many people without degrees are intelligent and many who have degrees are not.
Citing Gates is meaningless because he was attending one of the best schools in the country and could have easily finished if he chose to do so
Beck and Rush couldn't manage to stay in even manage to get thru the earliest years of an udergrad program
Beck especially (maybe to a lesser extent Rush) is a complete idiot.
He has said his mother committed suicide and that he was also suicidal and an alcholic and has been diagnosed with ADHD. None of those would make him a candidate for someone who's opinion I would trust
The craziest thing of all is that he CHOSE to become an Mormon. His fully formed adult brain looked at the Mormon beliefs and decided that they made sense to him. That alone would disqualify his opinion on any topic
-
Obama blames ATM machines for job losses. Case closed.
-
except that Obama is not dumb as a box of rock (spare me the debate - I know you believe that he is)
There is no doubt that many people without degrees are intelligent and many who have degrees are not.
Citing Gates is meaningless because he was attending one of the best schools in the country and could have easily finished if he chose to do so
Beck and Rush couldn't manage to stay in even manage to get thru the earliest years of an udergrad program
Beck especially (maybe to a lesser extent Rush) is a complete idiot.
He has said his mother committed suicide and that he was also suicidal and an alcholic and has been diagnosed with ADHD. None of those would make him a candidate for someone who's opinion I would trust
The craziest thing of all is that he CHOSE to become an Mormon. His fully formed adult brain looked at the Mormon beliefs and decided that they made sense to him. That alone would disqualify his opinion on any topic
AND? Rush dropped out of college, because he was bored. Yet, a pack of progressive geniuses try to compete with him, head to head, on the radio and got CRUSHED!!
Based on your cracked logic, because Beck had a troubled past and he's a Mormon, he can't talk about current political events, even though he's mopped up the floor with the MSNBC bunch (Maddow included), more times than I care to count.
Events that surprise folks like you are usually of no surprise to listeners of Beck and Limbaugh, because they saw them coming a mile away (the Muslim Brotherhood taking over Egypt and the Syria debacle, among the examples).
Once again, the lefties love to claim how much smarter they are. Yet, when they go toe-to-toe with the likes of Rush, Beck, and Hannity, they get the lips slapped off their faces.
They can't compete on TV or on the radio, which might explain why they tend to whine about the "Fairness Doctirne" or endorse boycotts to try and get their sponsors yanked (Schultz, Ed that is, was all gung-ho, until some of HIS sponsors started leaving; then he had a change in tune).
And, you're really daft enough to believe the Limbaugh is incapable of getting an undergrad degree? PLEASE!! He has undergrads working for him.
-
Obama has a law degree from Harvard and Is dumb as a box of rocks on substanative issues. W has a Yale Harvard degree.
Bill gates never went to college.
Simply getting a parchment degree does not Tell the entire story.
And, if ever there were a living breathing example of that, it's the topic of this thread, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Watching her fumble and bumble after the Wisconisin woodshed whipping the Dems took was comedic gold.
-
I know what you mean
A Doctorate in Philosophy from Oxford is such a joke and undergrad degrees from Cornell (Maher) and Stanford (Maddow) are also totally lame especially when compared Beck and Rush
great point you've made there
keep up the good work
What's impressive about degrees in politics and history? Congratulations, they're good at memorizing historical events.
I'm so impressed. Nothing I've ever seen from them screams "intelligence". They're talking heads. Bad ones, at that. I don't find anything impressive about Rush and those other guys, either. Nor do people with liberal arts degrees in "journalism".
Your fucking love-fest with anything left is so sad. I really doubt that you're a grown man because you come off as a starry-eyed little bitch in most of your posts.
-
AND? Rush dropped out of college, because he was bored. Yet, a pack of progressive geniuses try to compete with him, head to head, on the radio and got CRUSHED!!
Based on your cracked logic, because Beck had a troubled past and he's a Mormon, he can't talk about current political events, even though he's mopped up the floor with the MSNBC bunch (Maddow included), more times than I care to count.
Events that surprise folks like you are usually of no surprise to listeners of Beck and Limbaugh, because they saw them coming a mile away (the Muslim Brotherhood taking over Egypt and the Syria debacle, among the examples).
Once again, the lefties love to claim how much smarter they are. Yet, when they go toe-to-toe with the likes of Rush, Beck, and Hannity, they get the lips slapped off their faces.
They can't compete on TV or on the radio, which might explain why they tend to whine about the "Fairness Doctirne" or endorse boycotts to try and get their sponsors yanked (Schultz, Ed that is, was all gung-ho, until some of HIS sponsors started leaving; then he had a change in tune).
And, you're really daft enough to believe the Limbaugh is incapable of getting an undergrad degree? PLEASE!! He has undergrads working for him.
yes, both Beck and Limbaugh were incapable of getting even an undergrad degree
it's not like either of them dropped out to start Microsoft
they both puttered around the radio biz and found their niche as the right wing radio propaganda machine fired up
I give them both credit for their personal financial success and they certainly know what their audience wants to hear and no one can discredit that or take it away from them
That doesn't change the fact that they are both complete idiots.
Perhaps they are both just pretending to be idiots (both claim to be "entertainers") and off the air they are really different people and don't believe the nonsense that they spew on the air...... but somehow I doubt it.
If you enjoy them then good for you.
It certainly explains why you're so utterly misinformed almost all of the time
-
What's impressive about degrees in politics and history? Congratulations, they're good at memorizing historical events.
I'm so impressed. Nothing I've ever seen from them screams "intelligence". They're talking heads. Bad ones, at that. I don't find anything impressive about Rush and those other guys, either. Nor do people with liberal arts degrees in "journalism".
Your fucking love-fest with anything left is so sad. I really doubt that you're a grown man because you come off as a starry-eyed little bitch in most of your posts.
yeah, degrees from Stanford, Cornell and Oxford are nothing to be impressed about. Same goes for being a Rhodes Scholar
I see your point
Of course if you bothered to read you'd understand that I ONLY mentioned it in response to 333 asking about those two specific people in response to my comment that Beck's audience was just like him and he appealed to people who were "uneducated, paranoid and religious"
Before 333 brought up their names and asked a specific question I had not brought up their names or anything about them
I was perfectly content to just keep laughing at the idea that anyone would listen to Glen Beck or care about his opinions
It still cracks me up
-
yes, both Beck and Limbaugh were incapable of getting even an undergrad degree
it's not like either of them dropped out to start Microsoft
they both puttered around the radio biz and found their niche as the right wing radio propaganda machine fired up
I give them both credit for their personal financial success and they certainly know what their audience wants to hear and no one can discredit that or take it away from them
That doesn't change the fact that they are both complete idiots.
Perhaps they are both just pretending to be idiots (both claim to be "entertainers") and off the air they are really different people and don't believe the nonsense that they spew on the air...... but somehow I doubt it.
If you enjoy them then good for you.
It certainly explains why you're so utterly misinformed almost all of the time
You mean like being misinformed about Egypt? OOPS!!!
Or, about Wisconsin? UH-OH!!
But, just as I thought, you chirp the usual "They're stupid; we're smart" mantra" to excuse away why your resident left-winged geniuses get put to sleep, when they go head up with Beck and Limbaugh, two guys who "couldn't get undergrad degrees".
BTW, it's been four pages; yet you STILL can't quite address the subject at hand, namely Schultz and her reported soon-to-be demise.
-
I'll take rush or limbaugh's track record vs Madcow any day.
-
I'll take rush or limbaugh's track record vs Madcow any day.
I believe you meant BECK'S or Limbaugh's track record......
-
Haha, nothing even close to a quantitative degree among the bunch. Sorry, there's nothing impressive about that and I'd be surprised if either of them could handle simple calculus.
It's kind of dumb to laugh off any Doctorate degree from an accredited institution, especially one as well-renowned as the University of Oxford. Having said that, handling simple calculus isn't the end-all be-all. Which brings me to my next point. Can you handle simple calculus?
It always amuses me when people try to argue that talking heads are intelligent.
Some are, some aren't.
A Doctorate in "POLITICS". LOL.
Right, a Doctorate from the University of Oxford - one of the most renowned and well-respected Universities in the world - is surely something to laugh at... ::)
-
It's kind of dumb to laugh off any Doctorate degree from an accredited institution, especially one as well-renowned as the University of Oxford. Having said that, handling simple calculus isn't the end-all be-all. Which brings me to my next point. Can you handle simple calculus?
Some are, some aren't.
Right, a Doctorate from the University of Oxford - one of the most renowned and well-respected Universities in the world - is surely something to laugh at... ::)
The good thing about tv is allowing the viewer to gauge the track record of the host. Madcow has a horrible record.
-
The good thing about tv is allowing the viewer to gauge the track record of the host. Madcow has a horrible record.
Apples and oranges.
Her political opinions or the popularity of her show do not concern me. I've never watched her show (except perhaps, in passing, while browsing through channels for something to watch) because I don't really like talking heads or pundits. So I couldn't tell you what I think of her opinions or if her record is horrible or not. I know nothing else about Maddow, but from the fact that she's on MSNBC I can safely assume that we would be unlikely to see eye to eye. But that doesn't stop me from respecting her for her academic achievements. After all, the woman did graduate from not one but two of the world's top school.
And that's the point that I made: it is flat out stupid to minimize a Doctorate degree from any accredited University, much less from the University of Oxford - one of the world's most respected institutions. To treat a Doctorate degree as something to laugh at, as Fury did, frankly, boggles the mind.