>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Am I wrong, or is Rachel's show really the only mainstream show
You are wrong on several counts.
Firstly - Maddow's show isn't 'mainstream'. It isn't even journalism. It is infotainment. She's no different than O'Rielly, Beck, Hannity, or any other politically biased pundit. To attempt to put her in a category that anyone would call 'mainstream' is laughable on its face.
Now - having established Maddow as a bought & paid for left wing partisan hack, it is possible to make a second correction. She isn't the only one. There's Olbermann, there's TDS, there's Colbert, HuffPo, Kos, and any number of left wing partisan hacks who are screaming this stuff in their particular echo chamber. Maddow is only a tiny voice in the left wing liberal chorus like Beck is a tiny voice in the Right wing's chorus.


And we're going to kick your fucking ass.

You "rich get richer, every thing's okay" bullshit fuck.

Am I wrong, or is Rachel's show really the only mainstream show

You are wrong on several counts.

Firstly - Maddow's show isn't 'mainstream'. It isn't even journalism. It is infotainment. She's no different than O'Rielly, Beck, Hannity, or any other politically biased pundit. To attempt to put her in a category that anyone would call 'mainstream' is laughable on its face.

Now - having established Maddow as a bought & paid for left wing partisan hack, it is possible to make a second correction. She isn't the only one. There's Olbermann, there's TDS, there's Colbert, HuffPo, Kos, and any number of left wing partisan hacks who are screaming this stuff in their particular echo chamber. Maddow is only a tiny voice in the left wing liberal chorus like Beck is a tiny voice in the Right wing's chorus.

When he said "he doesn't want to hear it", did he ever nail it. I think that's one of the things that pisses me off about politics the most and shows plain as day who the partisan hacks are. I've encountered people who ignore the facts, facts that are indisputable, because they don't like them and it's all I can do to keep from knocking their teeth down their throat. It's like crooks who get caught and deny it even when they see the 1080p footage of them committing the crime.

>> ^Nithern:
Yes, conservatives at their best. And this subject will only get worst as time progresses. Conservatives are just angry about everything (pick the subject).


Oh yes because we never see liberals acting like buffoons when they protest.

You're either a partisan hack or ignorant.

This is just too rich.

First of all, politicians receive death threats frequently and it happens on both sides. Maddow acts as though this is a first. She is so appalled by this behavior. Yet, I don't remember her saying a word about the multiple Bush effigies we saw. Oh that's right. She's a complete partisan hack. She only gets upset when it's her guy or her agenda that is being attacked. The hypocrisy is blinding. But hey, that's MSNBC "journalism" for you.

And of course, the majority on the internet lack any type of introspection. You don't have to look very far to find someone saying we should hang Bush or shoot Cheney. But yeah, this is just the "right-wing" that does this type of stuff.

I love the framing of the original question too:

GARRETT: In your speech this morning, you said the Cold War reached its conclusion because of the actions of many nations over many years. Mr. President, are the Russian sensitivities so fragile that you can't say the Cold War was won? The West won it? And it was led by a combination of Democratic and Republican American presidents?

Seriously? What journalism school did you go to? Let's just say for the sake of argument that the entire topic of "why didn't you say we won" is important. If you were a real journalist, mostly interested in trying to reveal the answer, wouldn't you ask it more like this?

NetRunner: In your speech this morning, you said the Cold War reached its conclusion because of the actions of many nations over many years, carefully avoiding characterizing the end of the conflict as a victory for the United States. Don't you believe that the United States did in fact prevail in that conflict? If so, why didn't you say that in your speech this morning?

It's still incisive, it's still challenging, and at the same time doesn't make it look like you're a partisan hack who's just trying to trump up a bogus charge about the President being ignorant or disloyal to his country.

Ultimately Obama would've answered the question I phrased the same way, though it would have given him less wiggle room to imply that my question's frame was somehow excluding the actions of other countries...

Personally though, if I'd had an opportunity to ask Obama questions while on a mission to Russia, I would've talked about the plans for setting up missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic, what's being done to secure "loose nukes", whether we can expect Russia to help us diplomatically in preventing Iran from building nuclear weapons, and maybe toss in a few things about environmental or trade policy...

I sure as shit wouldn't waste my time trying to accuse him of hating America because he didn't speak to the Russians as if he was some conquering emperor who came to receive the pleas of mercy from a defeated, evil, foe.

its because governor sanford is a staunch supporter of anti gay marriage legislature. he parades the idea that homosexuals will ruin the sanctity of marriage. see the hypocrisy in that one?

In reply to this comment by shiner_man:
I agree that Sanford should resign. He is absolutely hypocritical if he doesn't.

But what the hell does that have to do with gay marriage? I mean, I'm for gay marriage but what does some guy cheating on his wife have to do with gay marriage?

Why do you consistently upvote this self-admitted partisan hack here? Or more to the point, how do you condone this man's behavior and Kieth Olbermann's behavior while at the same time condemning Bill O'Reilly's and Sean Hannity's behavior?

>> ^shiner_man:
I agree that Sanford should resign. He is absolutely hypocritical if he doesn't.
But what the hell does that have to do with gay marriage? I mean, I'm for gay marriage but what does some guy cheating on his wife have to do with gay marriage?
Why do you consistently upvote this self-admitted partisan hack here? Or more to the point, how do you condone this man's behavior and Kieth Olbermann's behavior while at the same time condemning Bill O'Reilly's and Sean Hannity's behavior?



I'll tell you what it has to do with it. You have this hypocrite liar Sanford who is cheating on his wife, leaving his kids at home on Father's day, to fly on the taxpayers dime to Argentina to screw around .. and somehow this twisted degenerate fuckwit thinks he has the moral authority to tell gay people they should not be allowed to get married. Where does he get off telling anyone ANYTHING about marriage? And he was making these speeches while he was cheating.

He was 5 months into his affair when he did this interview:
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/06/24/sanford-on-gay-marriage

To make it short, I upvoted the "partisan hack" here because he's absolutely right.

I agree that Sanford should resign. He is absolutely hypocritical if he doesn't.

But what the hell does that have to do with gay marriage? I mean, I'm for gay marriage but what does some guy cheating on his wife have to do with gay marriage?

Why do you consistently upvote this self-admitted partisan hack here? Or more to the point, how do you condone this man's behavior and Kieth Olbermann's behavior while at the same time condemning Bill O'Reilly's and Sean Hannity's behavior?

I'm not sure why people hold Schiff forward as being particularly prescient.

Paul Krugman was talking about the dangers of a deflationary depression and a housing bubble starting in 2003.

I've never heard a word come out of Schiff's mouth that wasn't some sort of over-the-top Austrian Economics-fueled fear mongering about the fact that we still collect taxes and have a Federal Reserve leading us to swift and inevitable doom, especially since we elected a Democrat.

Schiff is a quack, and a partisan hack to boot. Here's a good analysis of his supposed prescience:

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/01/peter-schiff-was-wrong.html

I'm somewhat surprised that Stewart didn't call him on some of his more ridiculous claims.

I'm sorry my skill with immature insults just isn't up to snuff.

It's okay, I'm happy to deal with serious topics in a serious way.

Pigfucker.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
FAIL! LOLLOLOLOLOLO!

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
Hi, I'm a partisan hack and I like to poo-poo on things other people are enjoying. Can you guess who I am?


Why blankie, you're who you've always been; a partisan hack with an anal fetish.

FAIL! LOLLOLOLOLOLO!

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
Hi, I'm a partisan hack and I like to poo-poo on things other people are enjoying. Can you guess who I am?


Why blankie, you're who you've always been; a partisan hack with an anal fetish.

>> ^blankfist:
Hi, I'm a partisan hack and I like to poo-poo on things other people are enjoying. Can you guess who I am?


Why blankie, you're who you've always been; a partisan hack with an anal fetish.

LMAO. Face.

>> ^blankfist:
Hi, I'm a partisan hack and I like to poo-poo on things other people are enjoying. Can you guess who I am?

Hi, I'm a partisan hack and I like to poo-poo on things other people are enjoying. Can you guess who I am?