You shouldn't have to lie this much to get elected

[TeyshaBlue]

You seem to be overestimating Maddow's viewership, or influence in the Democratic party. Ain't no one kissing her ring.

You also can't tell me that she is anywhere near as venal or unfactual as Limbaugh.

Is there a venality index we can use?

[CosmicCowboy]

No, ing, way.

I confess to not having watched Maddow in a couple of years but unless she's gone off the ing deep end then there's no way that comparison by an objective party is ever going to hold.

I'm not saying they aren't out there but that is not a good match AT ALL.

C'mon Manny. They both have mastered the snark depending on their red or blue glasses vision.

[TeyshaBlue]

The two ends of the political spectrum do have their political othodoxies, but it is rather obvious to me who is lying more.

Of course it is. Consistency and hobgoblins and all that.

[TeyshaBlue]

C'mon Manny. They both have mastered the snark depending on their red or blue glasses vision.

Please publish your snark metics. Thx.

[MannyIsGod]

I don't care about snark. I care about objectivity and the openess to telling outright lies and I am positive that was what RG was referring to in his reference of Limbaugh.

[ChumpDumper]

Rachel Maddow

The fact that the snuff queen doesn't have the same reach of viewership is not Limbaugh's fault.

Wow, that was pretty stupid.

Which email told you to call her the snuff queen?

[CosmicCowboy]

You seem to be overestimating Maddow's viewership, or influence in the Democratic party. Ain't no one kissing her ring.

You also can't tell me that she is anywhere near as venal or unfactual as Limbaugh.

She is absolutely as venal and unfactual as Limbaugh. the difference is she claims to actually be a journalist while Limbaugh is an entertainer and makes no bones about it. He laughs all the way to the bank.

[RandomGuy]

Is there a venality index we can use?

Hmmm... maybe "mean/vindictive" would be better. Although I am unaware Maddow has given her endorsement to any commercial products, as I know Limbaugh has.

Do you doubt I could find a rather long list of nasty comments about left-wingers from Rush?

Do you doubt that you would be similarly unable to find anything similar for Rachel?

[ChumpDumper]

She is absolutely as venal and unfactual as Limbaugh.

Give us some examples.

[Wild Cobra]

Ever listen to Randi Rhodes?

Here's a link for those who don't know her. I'll bet some of the liberals here will fall in love with her:

Randi Rhodes dot com

Podcasts

[TeyshaBlue]

I don't care about snark. I care about objectivity and the openess to telling outright lies and I am positive that was what RG was referring to in his reference of Limbaugh.

The progressives have yet to field a cannon as heavy as Limbaugh. It's weird, but it's a fact. I don't exactly know what this has to do with anything concerning the OP, but RG has apparently moved the entire football field with the last goal post move.

[CosmicCowboy]

Wow, that was pretty stupid.

Which email told you to call her the snuff queen?

You are obviously such a clueless ing nerd that you have never heard of Jimmy Buffet. It's a pretty well known reference.

[RandomGuy]

She is absolutely as venal and unfactual as Limbaugh.

Then it should be easy for you to show this.

Bull has been called.

If you can't prove it, the only reasonable thing to do is reject your statement.

Can you back that statement up?

[TeyshaBlue]

Hmmm... maybe "mean/vindictive" would be better. Although I am unaware Maddow has given her endorsement to any commercial products, as I know Limbaugh has.

Do you doubt I could find a rather long list of nasty comments about left-wingers from Rush?

Do you doubt that you would be similarly unable to find anything similar for Rachel?

I seriously doubt that it's quantifiable in any meaningful manner. It's certainly eluding us at this moment.

[TeyshaBlue]

I don't care about snark. I care about objectivity and the openess to telling outright lies and I am positive that was what RG was referring to in his reference of Limbaugh.

Shup. You're the snark monkey when you want to be.

[RandomGuy]

The progressives have yet to field a cannon as heavy as Limbaugh. It's weird, but it's a fact. I don't exactly know what this has to do with anything concerning the OP, but RG has apparently moved the entire football field with the last goal post move.

It's wierd, because left and right are not equivalent.

The things that make right-wingers into right-wingers encourage genousness and uniform thinking. That is what makes the right-wing message so clear.

Exactly how have I moved the goal posts here?

[ChumpDumper]

You are obviously such a clueless ing nerd that you have never heard of Jimmy Buffet. It's a pretty well known reference.

lol Jimmy Buffet?

What do you mean by it in this context, Jimmy Buffet fan?

[TeyshaBlue]

The progressives have yet to field a cannon as heavy as Limbaugh. It's weird, but it's a fact. I don't exactly know what this has to do with anything concerning the OP, but RG has apparently moved the entire football field with the last goal post move.

I could be incorrect here.

[CosmicCowboy]

Then it should be easy for you to show this.

Bull has been called.

If you can't prove it, the only reasonable thing to do is reject your statement.

Can you back that statement up?

LOL. It's all your perspective....your's being skewed by your blue glasses.

And no, I have no intention of wasting an hour of my life searching out and posting clips of rachel maddow being snarky and venal.

If you want to declare victory then go ahead.

[MannyIsGod]

Moore is definitely a good bet.

[RandomGuy]

I seriously doubt that it's quantifiable in any meaningful manner. It's certainly eluding us at this moment.

It most certainly is not.

Find a list of nasty personal attacks on anyone from Rachel.

It seems fairly quantifiable to me. If you don't want to be honest about this, then I guess we can stop here.

[MannyIsGod]

LOL. It's all your perspective....your's being skewed by your blue glasses.

And no, I have no intention of wasting an hour of my life searching out and posting clips of rachel maddow being snarky and venal.

If you want to declare victory then go ahead.

Perspective has nothing to do with being factually incorrect. For snark, sure, which is why I didn't want to use it as a metric.

[MannyIsGod]

It most certainly is not.

Find a list of nasty personal attacks on anyone from Rachel.

It seems fairly quantifiable to me. If you don't want to be honest about this, then I guess we can stop here.

Definite a nasty attack. Thats going to vary quite a bit.

Being factually incorrect is much easier to establish, however.

[RandomGuy]

You are obviously such a clueless ing nerd that you have never heard of Jimmy Buffet. It's a pretty well known reference.

Ok, count me in that. I don't get it.

Buffet hasn't had a hit in how many decades?

[ChumpDumper]

LOL. It's all your perspective....your's being skewed by your blue glasses.

And no, I have no intention of wasting an hour of my life searching out and posting clips of rachel maddow being snarky and venal.

If you want to declare victory then go ahead.

You can't even think of one instance, so yeah -- you lose.