Who was it who said yesterday that conservatives were for treating gays and lesbians fairly? Oh, yeah...

I see rightwingers are getting bolder too...

ALLENTOWN, Pa. - The leader of a statewide group of college Republicans has been forced to resign after posting racially insensitive comments about Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama on the Internet.

Adam LaDuca, 21, the former executive director of the Pennsylvania Federation of College Republicans, wrote on his Facebook page in late July that Obama has "a pair of lips so large he could float half of Cuba to the shores of Miami (and probably would.)"

LaDuca, who previously had called Martin Luther King Jr. a "pariah" and a "fraud," also wrote: "And man, if sayin' someone has large lips is a racial slur, then we're ALL in trouble."

This kid then compared what he said to jokes about McCain's thinning hair, and George W. Bush's big ears. Never mind the fact that those things aren't racially, you know, different from person to person, and that for years on end, larger lips were associated with african americans and all, and things like that. This kid has a good career ahead of him, maybe working for Limbaugh, or hell, just taking over after the windbag retires. He was also one of the kids who held a bake sale protesting affirmative action, charging more money to whites than blacks. What a joke this kid is, and or an affront to the republican party, and conservatives everywhere. Alas, it's too bad he seems to be in the majority. His biggest issue with what he wrote on his Facebook page? Making it public he says, meaning, I'm sure he says and thinks a lot worse in private, not that there is anything illegal about that (before some right winger jumps on me for being the "thought police" or something), but his biggest regret, than he made those statements publicly. That says a lot to me.

"Who was it who said yesterday that conservatives were for treating gays and lesbians fairly?"

Probably the same people who say that NOW is actually promoting women, while hating women who dont' share their politics.

Probably the same people who say that NOW is actually promoting women, while hating women who dont' share their politics.

I'm getting tired of this nonsense.  It's not, and it should not be, about having just ANY old woman in politics.  Who cares if a woman is VP if she's going to work to set the women's movement back 50 years?!  Who cares if she's a woman, if she's regressive on women's issues?  That's insane!!!  The POLICIES are far more important than the GENDER!!!  Why put ONE women in charge who will make it more difficult for OTHER WOMEN to get the oppotunity?!  NOW wants women in power that will increase equality, promote fair opportunities, and be pro-woman in their policies, and pave the way for others!!! Why is this so hard to understand?  Palin is a cynical pick.  She's an insult to women voters, and to a few, more qualified, republican VP candidates.

Aside from sex, I could not think of a more enjoyable evening than having dinner with Rachel Maddow and discussing politics. Someone had better send the people at FOX a calendar and point out to them we are in the year 2008. You would think by now most people would be just a tad more open-minded about the sexual orientaion of other people. Oh yea, Republicans want CHANGE... What a joke...

Oh...Rachel, call me when you're free.   ;>)

I'd just concentrate on dinner, if I were you.  I think the sex thing would just get in the way of a good conversation with her.

No, I'm a hetero male... I meant aside from an evening of great sex with a hetero woman, right up there with that would be an evening (of no sex) having dinner and conversation with Rachel Maddow. But if she was interested in sex then maybe... nevermind.  ;>)

Seriously, I really admire Rachel Maddow... a very bright woman. I wish her much success...

I agree with you.  And how admirable that she has overcome her homosexuality so that it doesn't cloud her judgement...  (for you less-than-perceptive folks, that was a sarcastic joke)

I'm a little disappointed in her radio show, but only because the first hour is wasted by that horrible David Gregory shout-fest.  She'll be great on her own on MSNBC.

Tim Graham is just jealous, because Rachel Maddow is intelligent enough to clean his clock in a debate.  He's talking tough because he's scared of an intelligent woman like her.

I love Rachel, she is great and deserves a show. Look at how she handles the disgusting Pat Buchanan.

I like Meadow too. She and Buchanan were the only MSNBC pundits worth listening to at the convention.

I watched  parts of her show last night and found her interesting enough to keep switching back to as I surfed the cable news talking heads.

Ugh, Its Maddow, not Meadow.

Yeah.  Rachel Meadows was Jackie Gleason's wife on The Honeymooners.

Do some research before writing, AA...

Judge not least ye be judged

Neon Desert says…”Yeah.  Rachel Meadows was Jackie Gleason's wife on The Honeymooners. Do some research before writing, AA”

Neon, you really meant Audrey Meadows didn’t you?

You better look that up.  I do believe that Audrey Meadows sang "Moon River" in Breakfast at Tiffanys...

Sorry to tell you this, it was Audrey Meadows

 

Huh.

Well then what was Rachel Meadows in?

http://www.imdb.com/find?s=all&q=Rachel+Meadows+&x=10&y=9

got nothing when I "googled" it.

Here's the soundtrack for Breakfast at Tiffany's

Well then, I guess that shows that it's not a very credible source, eh?

And thanks for the link, but I already have the Breakfast at Tiffanys album (that's a thin black disk, about 12" dia., made of vinyl and it has grooves in it that play music.  Used to buy them before CDs).  Henry Mancini is God.

You're definitely not credible.  You expect me to believe that there's music on this 'album' thing?  Answer me this, smart guy: How do you fit the 12" disk in the slot on your computer when you want to rip it to your iPod?

Tim Graham is a bigot.

Happy to see Olbermann & Matthews replaced. Both had acted unprofessionally.

But no reason to add "lesbian" when speaking of Maddow. That was obviously meant as a dig or insult. Rachael has grown on me, I didn't care for her for the longest time, but she's intelligent & actually pretty fair when one considers she makes no bones about being a Lib.

And I guess what's really uproariously funny here is to have someone on FOX moaning about MSNBC having a left-wing agenda.

Exactly Jeter, my thoughts exactly.  Maddow is an admitted liberal and makes no bones about it. She is however, respectful, and that particular tone is lacking on many cable chat shows.  And her sexual orientation is irrelevant.

These cable news channels moaning and whining about their competition is so tiresome.  Do they really think people give a damn?

"And her sexual orientation is irrelevant."

 

Goes. Without. Saying. 

"And her sexual orientation is irrelevant."

Except for know-nothing dunderheads like Tim Graham.

Thanks for repeating what you say goes without saying. 

I am with you. They both did act unprofessionally during their convention coverage, but alas, that's what we get when we put 2 large scaled ego maniacs together. There tends to be a lot of clashing. Don't get me wrong. At certain points in time, I have enjoyed watching both Matthews, and Olberman, but guys, seriously, act a little better on the TV. You wouldn't find yourself in this situation.

Now, for Maddow, I'm glad to see her on. I recently moved somewhere where there is a progressive talk radio station, and they get Hartman, Maddow, Rhodes, Schulz, and a few others on there, and I have to say, first of all, the Hartman show is good no matter who you are. Almost daily, he has on someone totally diametrically opposed to his viewpoint, and they debate the merits of their viewpoints. There is no shouting. No yelling. No turning off of microphones, just some well thought out and reasoned debate, and he's not afraid to have his mind changed if someone brings up a good enough, and saliant enough point. I think he has the guys from here on his show sometimes as well.

Now, Maddow is also in that vein of Hartman's show, I think. She is intelligent, well reasoned, and is not some radical lefty, as the MRC guys would have you think. I also agree, the lesbian thing is by far just a cheap shot at her personally. I mean, if the MRC has some sort evidence, or something like that, that she is a radical lefty, why didn't he put some of that out there? I mean, surely, they can take something she said, in FULL context, print it out, and show us where the misinformation is correct? I'd be willing to read it if they did. Unfortunately, I've been over to the MRC website, and honestly, it's a mess. Just a lot of ad hom attacks, and personal attacks, rather than actual honest analysis of what someone said, and HOW it is misinformation, or bias for that matter. Now, I am a fan of this website, but comparing MMFA and MRC, they are night and day, and this place is far better. Try posting over there as a liberal, see what happens, even if you post something well reasoned, linked, and based in reality, that will earn you a ban.

Yeah, it's kinda disappointing that the best they could come up with is the non-issue of her being a lesbian. I periodically listened to her on MSNBC (DNCTV for you dittoheads) Countdown and listened to a few blurbs on TRMS radio show (generally by then I'm burned out by Jeff Christie and Friends and want to do something else like play video games), but she does have some good points to consider. Thing is, why couldn't they have criticized her over things she's said? Even my grandfather was able to do that after listening to her over one clip online.

 

One question for the rest of us guys - who would you rather be stuck in a room with, Megan Kelly or Rachel Maddow?

Did he disagree with her because he received some misinformation from somewhere else? That's the point. She's about 20 times more credible than anyone I can think of on the right (FNC for example).

He raised me on Jeff Christie ;) 

That should be child abuse.

I would take Megan any day of the week, she made the editor of US Weekly look foolish, loved it!!!  "Facts, oh we did not have time for all of those facts" 

You say that like it is tough to make the editor of US Weekly look foolish. Talk about children taking things away from toddlers.

I just wish it wasn't so one sided. When can we expect the unprofessional right wingers to be replaced?

Snoopy, and whom in the Big Networks would that be, no remember you need to talk about reports not individuals that have radio talks show that state their agenda, or commentators that are brougth on for their right or left wing opinion. Pleae Share.

How about anyone that works for FoxNews (the news people, the commentary shows can stay)? Because they constantly, and consistently spout right wing lies. I'd lump Katie Couric in there. Brian Williams. And a few others.

Snoopy, Come on, they always have both sides on the show, they are one of the few networks that bring both sides.  I have not heard anything about a thingle up a leg on Fox.  Katie Couric, your killing me, she is so left wing.  Brian I find to be a middle more middle road.  How about this, two weeks ago, they (main stream media) was talking about polls, the importance.  This week, all I have heard is, " well it is early", 'Polls are not a true reflections"  Snoopy, just be honest with yourself, the media is in the bag for the Dems.  How many reporters are in Alaska digging up dirt compaired to the number of reporters that have dug up any dirt on Obama.  Most of the dirt has been found by talk radio. 

Do you think you could stop assuming Mag and I are the same person? I'm just finishing my lunch, I'll get back to you when I'm finished...

Now, who are you to limit the playing field? You are purposely taking Hannity and O'Reilly out of play though they are no different from what Olbermann does, so your biased starting point has no merit. Anyone on fox should be removed as well. They may have a "democrat" on now and then, but really, let us pick who we want to represent the democratic view, not the made in the foxhaus weenies they pretend to be voices of democracy.

You are purposely taking Hannity and O'Reilly out of play though they are no different from what Olbermann does

Now now, let's not get ridiculous here.

Hannity and O'Reilly wish they could do what Olbermann does.

The only similarity I've ever seen between those three is volume.

As to your fabricated assumption about reporters digging up dirt? Are you like 12? McCain picks a virtual unknown, refuses to let her speak, refuses to let us know what she is all about, sends a team of lawyers to alaske to try and cover up troopergate and any other wrongdoing she committed, and you think reporters are digging up dirt? Unlike the reichwingers, these people are doing what McCain didn't do, they are vetting her. The phony cable folks you touted? They dug up dirt. Obama is a muslim, his poor brother in law, his church... I won't hear you denouncing the nutbag preacher Palin goes to, will I?

Snoopy, then I guess I can take all of CNN off the are is as well.  Then take most of CBS, and ABC.  NBC, from time to time can be a middle of the road.  12, no, but feel that many times in order to get ideas across to you I have dumb it down.  They all dig dirt, I know that, but the major networks do little report it if true.  They are talking about false info now, I have been reading in the paper and on the news that proven wrong, but they report anyway.  Most of the time they use the phrase to start "it has been said on blogs", then before you say that, how about look it up first. Heck, snoops.com is better at the facts then the networks. 

Snoopy, then I guess I can take all of CNN off the are is as well.  Then take most of CBS, and ABC.  NBC, from time to time can be a middle of the road.  12, no, but feel that many times in order to get ideas across to you I have dumb it down.  They all dig dirt, I know that, but the major networks do little report it if true.  They are talking about false info now, I have been reading in the paper and on the news that proven wrong, but they report anyway.  Most of the time they use the phrase to start "it has been said on blogs", then before you say that, how about look it up first. Heck, snoops.com is better at the facts then the networks.  Heck,

Snoopy, then I guess I can take all of CNN off the are is as well.  Then take most of CBS, and ABC.  NBC, from time to time can be a middle of the road.  12, no, but feel that many times in order to get ideas across to you I have dumb it down.  They all dig dirt, I know that, but the major networks do little report it if true.  They are talking about false info now, I have been reading in the paper and on the news that proven wrong, but they report anyway.  Most of the time they use the phrase to start "it has been said on blogs", then before you say that, how about look it up first. Heck, snoops.com is better at the facts then the networks.  Heck, I

Snoopy, then I guess I can take all of CNN off the are is as well.  Then take most of CBS, and ABC.  NBC, from time to time can be a middle of the road.  12, no, but feel that many times in order to get ideas across to you I have dumb it down.  They all dig dirt, I know that, but the major networks do little report it if true.  They are talking about false info now, I have been reading in the paper and on the news that proven wrong, but they report anyway.  Most of the time they use the phrase to start "it has been said on blogs", then before you say that, how about look it up first. Heck, snoops.com is better at the facts then the networks.  Heck, I can

Hey Markboot, Its been shown (more than once) that Faux News veiwers are less in formed than the average news consumer. Faux news lies and covers up. Faux is NOT fair or balanced.

Peebs, and the report is run by whom?  Your telling me CNN tells you  everything?  So they were the first on the Sen. Edwards story?  They all report what they think their audience wants to hear.  What I have said, and will always say.  If you are reporting the news, then just report the news.  Do not give me your thoughts on the news.  If you are going to give me your thoughts on the news, then do not call it news.  Call it a editorial show.   I know Air America has a left side swing, and I know that Rush and the others RIght Side, are right side. 

I was listening to NPR for the Reb National Convention on the radio, they were butting in and giving me their ideas about the comments that McCain was saying, giving me the play by play of his opinion.  My thought was shut up and let it run.  NPR of all the radio shows should be middle of the road, but even they have a left swing.

You're really not going to get very far with this line of argument. Look at the site you're on right now.

MMFA has almost 4 years of solid research that completely debunks the "liberal media" myth. Even if you take out the few "questionable" MMFA posts, it's still an overwhelming body of work.

So, no, the media are not "in the bag" for Democrats and never have been.

deeznuts I know this about MM, that is the fun part.  If you run the money trail of this website, you will find a heavy input of money from the Dems.  As the saying goes, keep your friend close and your enemies closer.

Umm, yeah. Do you think conservatives would donate to a website that exposes conservative misinformation? Plus, you haven't refuted anything that has been on here.

Magnolia  you said "Umm, yeah. Do you think conservatives would donate to a website that exposes conservative misinformation? Plus, you haven't refuted anything that has been on here."   Mag, this website is about exposing conservative misinformation.  But maybe, yes conservatives my want to donate to a website that exposes liberal misinformation, but why, we always know the liberal press is giving to give out misinformation!!!!

I refuted several things on here, take the time to read.  Let the anger go, it will be ok, promise.

You may need one of those big pointy sticks to move in and out with the tip specifically pointing at your refutations. Cause to the trained eye your musings look like, well, musings...

Actually, what they did was to compare viewers of The Daily Show to normal news shows, and it showed, in every instance, that The Daily Show viewers were the most and best informed, and FoxNews were the worst informed.

Fox is not Fair and Balanced. They are severe right, and unhinged. Anyone that they have on from "the other side" is normally some sort of light weight, how hardly ever disagrees from whoever is hosting the main show.

The Daily Show, ok, I stop here.  IF the Daily Show is a souce of news, all is lost.

From the Pew website:

The questions were? 

Check the link. That's why it was there.

Fox viewers by much larger percentages believed that Saddam masterminded 9/11 and we found WMD in Iraq.  Need I say more?  It's simply cheering and/or being and apologist for death, destruction, and wasted resources.

Not really, since they have more real news on in 30 minutes 4 times a week, than most "real" news stations do.

Sorry!! about the triple post, I was typing and the thing just went nutty.  Sorry!!! 

I'm just waiting for you to finish. You left the post dangling... ;)

And I guess what's really uproariously funny here is to have someone on FOX moaning about MSNBC having a left-wing agenda.- jeter2

Hey, Jeter,That reminds me , has anybody else seen the new promos on Fox? As pictures of Sean Hannity and Karl Rove flash on the screen the dead-serious announcer insists that it's the station with "No personal agendas- no political spin", something like that. It's breathtaking in its lack of self-awareness, or brazenness in seeing how much the audience will swallow.The conductor of the "Stop the radical Obama Express" and the architect of the modern GOP machine used as models of objectivity. It's like they're just daring the FoxFans to finally say "Heyyyy..."

Most ridiculous thing I've seen since last night, when the Yankees veteran shortstop (name escapes me) welcomed some kid from the Angel's triple-A Rancho Cucamonga team to the big leagues, facing his first batter, with a feeble groundout to that same pitcher. 

I never watched Matthews and Olbermann, but I agree they should not have been in the "anchor" chairs. 

I only saw one thing on the net, which I thought was interesting.  I thought Olbermann had a lot of dignity in pointing out the hypocrisy of the Republicans regarding graphic footage of 9/11.

CJR has a great post regarding the history behind previous network policies regarding broadcasting 9/11 graphic imagery here:

http://www.cjr.org/the_kicker/that_september_11_2001_video.php

I didn't use to like Olbermann, but he was spot on that night.  Good for him.

This is an interesting take on why Olbermann should not even be covering the NFL on NBC

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/2008/09/06/2008-09-06_no_place_for_partisan_keith_olbermann_on.html

Well I doubt you even read my link, but I will comment on yours anyway.

I think Olby should be given a shot at it.  If it works out, fine, if not, that's fine, too.  It is pretty silly to argue that Olby should be fired now because Limbaugh couldn't handle it without making a complete fool of himself.  I noticed there was no mention of Dennis Miller - who might also fit in that category.

I can't imagine why anyone would be opposed to this at this early stage.

I mean, look, we're almost done with this thing. Fifty-something days left."

Are we really "almost done with this thing"?  I find that almost as offensive as the MMFA flagged comment.  The debates won't count. The world events of the next 8 weeks mean nothing. Fifty days of campaign speeches no effect?  Brian says we are almost done.  Most democratic nations don't even start the campign until about now.

If the past few of election cycles is anything to go by the debates don't count as much as how they are reported afterwords.  Anyone who saw the debates in 2000 knows that Gore cleaned Bush's clock but the press ginned up this story about his sighing and suddenly it wasn't so clear who won the debates.

And Kerry cleaned Bush's clock during the debates as well. Unfortunately, it appears that some folks believe the spin that Bush won those debates, which is so far from the truth, it makes me chuckle out loud.

Once again the right wing showing their incredible "respect" for women, I see. Gosh, they sure do stand up for women, err ... I mean Sarah Palin ONLY.

The GOP does stand up for women other than Sarah Palin. Women like Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter, Condoleeza Rice...

 

But IIRC, most women are Democrats.

Now, would Graham be whining if FNC added a "lesbian radio host"?

 

Oh wait, we'd be going back to the Palin-Obama double standard...

Thing is, FNC would NOT put a known lesbian on their channel. It's really as simple as that.

Thing is, FNC would NOT put a known lesbian on their channel. It's really as simple as that.

They already have a transsexual on as a frequent guest - Ann  "The Man" Coulter....

Har, de, har, har....thats so rich!

Fox bemoans MSNBC as left wing media/agenda.

Har, de, har, har. 

maybe they can get McCain and Palin to pray for her. You know you lost game when name calling becomes your focus.

I think Olberman and Tweety balance each other pretty well.  It's a joke to suggest that Matthews is unfair to McCain.  Matthews has been a cheerleader for McCain for years.  In fact only last year he announced that McCain deserved to be President.  Obama may send a thrill up his leg when he's campaigning against Hillary but I've never heard Tweety say he deserves to be President.

Mr Mathews is a cheerleader for anybody GOP. He was a Giulliani lapdog for a while. His allegiance changes as opportunity permits.

Weird... I thought Matthews was a liberal, according to Jeff Christie...

 

 

Does "changing his allegiance" = moderate?

See, there you go again, listening to, and believing Rush Limbaugh. Stop listening to him, you'd be better off.

There is a point to this, though - the left doesn't seem to want Chris Matthews, and the right doesn't either...

The Joe Lieberman of broadcasting...

I love how the Right keeps calling Chris Matthews and ultra leftist. Yeah right.

I'd rather get news from a Lesbian on MSNBC than one of the many idiots on FOX.

QOTD right there

Rachel Maddow is an asset to this nation's intellect, much like gay soldiers who speak arabic ( and are on our side ) are.

But aren't those people anti-American, since this is a Christian nation where English is the official language?

only in the eyes of the Rush Limbaugh/ Sean Hannity types who think they own the united states by some mysterious power of affirmation.

NERZOG, that is why I love America, you can choose what ever show you like, but many here would like for Fox, Rush, Hannity and any other person that has a right wing slant to go away.  That would be censorship, just be strong my friends, turn the channel if you do not like it.

IT'S NOT CENSORSHIP!

If we want something to go away, it is not censorship. If there is a law that MAKES a show go away, then that is censorship.

Please get your stories straight.

" GO Away as in " You would like them off the air, because you do not like the message, yes that is CENSORSHIP - Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful or sensitive, as determined by a censor.(you are the censor) The rationale for censorship is different for various types of data censored:  Maybe that will help you,  

" GO Away as in " You would like them off the air, because you do not like the message, yes that is CENSORSHIP - Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful or sensitive, as determined by a censor.(you are the censor) The rationale for censorship is different for various types of data censored:  Maybe that will help you,  

It's NOT censorship. Why? Because I have no power to make them go off of the air, as in, to make a law saying they can't be there. I can solicit their advertisers, show them what they've been saying, and then let the free market of radio take its course, but it's not censorship. Only the government can censor things on the air, and they do so already. Look at the all of the rules broadcasters have to follow, and things like that. That's censorship. There are things that you can't say on TV, and radio. I'd like to see them not on radio or TV, but that's not censorship. It doesn't surprise me that you can't see or know what the difference is.

Mag, what M-foot fails to understand is that we, the public at-large, owns the airwaves.  Not Murdoch.  Not GE.  And if someone is disseminating hate and lies, then we have an obligation to call them on it and do what we can to either make them change or get them off the air.  Anyone see E.D. Hill lately?

Exactly, even then, it's still a stretch. Sure, we own them and all, but really, we don't. Even if we have a large letter writing campaign when we hear something repugnant on there, most of the time, it has very little effect. Sometimes it has a big effect, but sadly, most of the time, it doesn't. M-foot doesn't understand censorship apparently, or the radio and TV world, and is probably one of those people who claim that if someone gets fired from say, radio, because of some stupid things they said on it, that this is somehow suppression of their freedom of speech (how many times did we hear that with Imus from the right wing yelpers on here???), but alas, it is not.

Maddow's sexual orientation is so irrelevant.  I think she's competent and credible.  Something FNC and MRC is not.   

Maddow bases her opinions on facts and does a lot of "straight" news reporting.  Her radio show always starts with news from Iraq/Afghanistan since this is neglected by the corporate press for the most part.

I have yet to hear any right wing commentators base their opinions on factual information.

If they did that, then they wouldn't be right-wing commentators any more, now would they?

And Roger Ailes would throw them out of his tent. How would they feed their kids then ?

Gee, Mary.  Advocating for the starvation of the Fox children...

That's pretty harsh.

Come to think about it, where would the Hannity's/O'reilly's, ingraham's and the rest go if Ailes did throw them out ? What would their resume's say to convince someone to hire them?

Reality has a Liberal bias.

Whenever I see one of these FOX morons, I sink into despair. How can any intelligent person watch these guys and actually believe or agree with their asinine comments? The fact that millions do baffles and depresses me. My world view is apparently so different from theirs that we might as well be from different planets. Even more troubling is that I'm related to a lot of these people.

AAAAAAKK!

Does FOX Sports have credibility?

No, FOX Sports has no credibility. Just like FOX News.

How exactly does FOX Sports have no credibility?

According to ESPN, Foxsports neglected to put this little play in their highlight reel for sportscenter last Saturday:   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFtszXrC0R0&feature=related

backup: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFtszXrC0R0&feature=related

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wFtszXrC0R0&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wFtszXrC0R0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

As far as I know. I guess it's harder to lie about sports.

Oh, I'm not so sure.

The Raiders still call themselves a football team...

In an earlier post misspelled Rachel Maddow's name, no offense intended.

After watching her at the conventions and again last night she shines so far above Olbermann that it looked to me like she was embarrased having him on her show. (Olbermann was almost foaming at the mouth over Palin.)

As I start following the election coverage, she gives me a good excuse to check out MSNBC once again. 

She is far better than Olbermann.

Olbermann is the ultimate partisan political hack. He has helped along with Matthews tarnish the NBC Brand. I believe the damage that Olbermann and his partisan rants and attemps to quiet anyone who disagrees with him have hurt NBC for years to come.

I disagree. It was Mathews who is responsible for the mess MSNBC got themselves into. Mathews was constantly interrupting Olbermann et al with his shrilly whyni commentary he though was so superior to his compadres he couldn't shut up.  Got to the point where i was actually muting Mr Mathews. he is the real cancer in that body. Olbermann is a well rounded commentaor that actually knows the stuff he reports. And i absolutely saw no animosity toward rachel maddow last night but actual happiness she got an hour on television. what she does with her hour is another matter.

So the left has one guy. One guy who shows his partisanship and he gets called out for it, and disparaged by those of you who he is calling out. That's funny, considering most, if not all, of the mainstream media today tilts way towards the right hand side of the spectrum, if for no other reason than to not be painted as the evil liberal media.

I'm sure that you can show us where Olberman has told many lies correct? And has dished out misinformation on his show right?

Yes just yesterday Olbermann lied again that Gov Palin said she sold the Alaska Gov Plane on Ebay, she never said that she said she listed it on Ebay. There are plenty of more well documented lies, olbermannwatch.com lists many. 

Do your own research and think for yourself, but if you like rose colored glasses keep watching the liar.

I do believe you're right.  She merely implied it.  It was actually the former POW McCain, the best the republicans have to offer us for president, who said:

"You know what I enjoyed the most? She took the luxury jet that was acquired by her predecessor and sold it on eBay -- and made a profit!" McCain declared in Wisconsin at a campaign stop on Friday.

courtesy the WashPo

Here's another little tidbit I'll bet you didn't know:  that jet was used to fly prisoners, which Alaska doesn't have the room to keep, to Red Rock correctional facility in Arizona.  Before she sold it through a broker for $300k under the listed price, of course.

She did not imply anything, the real question is why does MSNBC allow someone to continue to lie? When will GE pull the plug on this hack?

Botherp wrote:

>>She did not imply anything, the real question is why does MSNBC allow someone to continue to lie? When will GE pull the plug on this hack?

That is outright dishonest. You might even call what she did a linguistic lie. Here's an example:

Person A: How much can you lift?

Person B: 50 pounds.

Person A, thinking to himself: I thought person B was strong.

But, it turns out that person B is capable of lifting 200 pounds. He didn't lie when he said he could lift 50 pounds, because he could. But he clearly misled. That is called a linguistic lie.

In the case of Palin, you would clearly get the impression that she took a bold step in getting rid of a luxury, and did something folksy by selling the plane on ebay. In fact, all 3 gubenorial candidates were for selling the plane. The plane was not a luxury plane; you could barley stand up in it, and the bathroom was a porta potty. It was also probably needed because Alaska is such a big state, as one of the newspapers pointed out. Selling government property on ebay is not novel in Alaska; it is standard procedure. But Palin went and kept it on ebay longer than she should have, and lost more money.

So the full story shows Palin is misleading, here, thought Oberman does liberals no favor by presenting the facts in such a sloppy way.

By the way, since you think Oberman should be fired, should Cameron be fired as well? And are you upset that Palin continues her outright lie that she said no to congress in regards to the bridge to nowhere? She is lying through her teeth.

BobTheP sez:

She did not imply anything, the real question is why does MSNBC allow someone to continue to lie? When will GE pull the plug on this hack?

I don't think they can stop McCain from continuing to lie, but I'm pretty sure they don't have the authority to pull the plug on him, no matter how much he lies.  All they can do is to let Olberman keep pointing out the lies, and hope the public catches on.

In her little speeches, she has implied, but not explicitly stating where she actually sold the plane, that she sold the plane on E-Bay. To claim otherwise is being ignorant of the language being used, not to mention, McCain has made the claim on several occassions that she did sell it on E-Bay.

"She did not imply anything, the real question is why does MSNBC allow someone to continue to lie?"--bob

I guess you really want to throw McCain under the bus here.  At first, I thought he was simply misled by Palin's implication, but since that is not the case it is much worse. McCain is willfully lying if what you say is true.

Either McCain is lying or Palin is (perhaps somewhat innocently) creating a false impression.  If you say McCain is lying, then I won't argue with you.

You will not have disagreement with me on McCain lying , he lied , but Palin has not.

And a little hint, just because i have an open mind does not mean I am supporting McCain.  I know the partisans on here have problems with people being objective.

No. See how this thing works is, you say something, and can't back it up, and therefore, I'm not going to do my own research to prove your assertion, or disprove it. Called proving a negative. Right? You make the statement as if it is fact, and then you need to back it up, and when you can't, or don't, the typical right wing response around here is to tell someone else to do the research. That's the way you lose debates. I'm just saying.

Olberman said Palin lied about selling the plane on Ebay. while true that she never said she sold it on E-bay, she did say she posted it on E-Bay, and then didn't follow up saying that she sold it somewhere else, which is implied that she sold it on EBay. An example. I sold a bike frame on E-Bay. My friend asked me what I did with said bike frame. I told him, "I put it on E-Bay." Which implied that I sold it on said such website, which is what Palin did. If she wanted to be completely honest about it, she would have said I sold the State private plane. Period. End of story. But no, she had to embelish the tale, said she put it on E-Bay, and left it hanging out there, which as I stated before, implied that she actually sold it on E-Bay.

Don't be so gullible.

Bo peep can't speak to that reality so off he goes on his private jet to rustle up some more faux examples of "liberal bias."

Just like Hannity and O'Reily tarnish the Fox News Brand?

I did not know FOX news had a brand? Interesting considering NBC News has been around for 60 years . 

Just like Hannity and O'Reily tarnish the Fox News Brand?

It's damn near impossible to tarnish manure.

 Tim Graham in the last paragraph in this blog states " they're adding the lesbian Air America host Rachel Maddow on every night!" (my emphasis!)

BOBTHEP, What kind of smart-arses comment do you have for the Graham comment? Grahams comment is right above these posts?

Graham is a homophobic jerk. I love Maddow she is classy, I am not sure what your issue is with me other than I am not partisan?

Bobthep nice side step of Funnymans post to you !

Oh, no he DIDN'T!!!  Fox News is the epitome of retarded haterism.  Rachel Maddow is the bomb.

And Graham was just in the right place to say such a comment, right where he will not called on it.

Is it really standard practice for talking heads to refer to one another's gender preference when speaking of that person?  Speaking of a colleague, I have yet to hear, "Hannity, that notorious heterosexual over at Fox."

These guys do not carp over Katie Couric, another well known heterosexual.  But otherwise no threat to their self-esteem.   

Their problem is, Rachael is way too smart for these boys and they are afraid of her as they are afraid of all women who are smarter.  

Myself, I would say that Rachael is essentially fairminded, whereas these cheesy jerks are so far to the right that they think that Rush Limbaugh is middle of the road.

  

Rachel Maddow is, without qualification, the most intelligent voice on MSNBC. She is a Rhodes scholar and has a Doctorate in Political Science from Oxford and a Bachelor's degree in Public Policy from Stanford. She does her research and can intelligently pull up information in an instant.

It does not surprise me that, after reading some of the messages here, and even though there seems to be support here for Ms. Maddow, the subject of her sexuality still appears to be more important than her academic and journalistic qualifications.  

Some guys will never change, it seems. This is truly unfortunate. Get over it, gentlemen.

Oh Come on. MSNBC brought us Scarborough and Michael Savage, not to mention Pat Buchanan works for them.

This exchange coming on Fox? The most partisan medium in the business. Dr. Rachel Maddow is a brilliant mind offering intelligent commentary. The lesbian comment speaks to Graham's prejudices and is not worth addressing, but " entrenching a left-wing agenda on this network?" Am I to believe that the only media that's acceptable are those with a right-wing bias. I am flabbergasted!

GO RACHEL KI