On 6/20/14, 1:01 PM, KC wrote:


It also doesn't mean they are smarter than anybody who has not not
"earned a doctorate through a rigorous on-campus program" either...


In Rachel Maddow's case (you remember, you called her stupid), it means
she is a lot smarter than you. Of course, so are the poops in my cat's
litter box.


--
If right-wing assholes could fly,
rec.boats would be an airport!

F*O*A*D wrote:
On 6/20/14, 1:01 PM, KC wrote:


It also doesn't mean they are smarter than anybody who has not not
"earned a doctorate through a rigorous on-campus program" either...


In Rachel Maddow's case (you remember, you called her stupid), it means
she is a lot smarter than you. Of course, so are the poops in my cat's litter box.



Prime example of a person with an English degree, unable to write sensibly.

On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 17:27:32 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

F*O*A*D wrote:
On 6/20/14, 1:01 PM, KC wrote:


It also doesn't mean they are smarter than anybody who has not not
"earned a doctorate through a rigorous on-campus program" either...


In Rachel Maddow's case (you remember, you called her stupid), it means
she is a lot smarter than you. Of course, so are the poops in my cat's litter box.



Prime example of a person with an English degree, unable to write sensibly.

===

Prime example of an adult failure with an inferiority complex.

On 19-Jun-2014, KC wrote:

From Rachael Madcow (MSNBC)

"The congressional authorization to go to war with AlQueda is still
good... but it doesn't apply to this group in Iraq because AlQueda
disowned them earlier this year"...

What a stupid bitch....

Statements by Rachel Madcow and "Reverend" Al Sharpton reveal nothing about
their positions. The fact that NBC is able to sell advertising because you
loons watch this stupidity reveals EVERYTHING about your population.

On 6/21/2014 12:10 PM, Colonel Kurtz wrote:
On 19-Jun-2014, KC wrote:

From Rachael Madcow (MSNBC)

"The congressional authorization to go to war with AlQueda is still
good... but it doesn't apply to this group in Iraq because AlQueda
disowned them earlier this year"...

What a stupid bitch....

Statements by Rachel Madcow and "Reverend" Al Sharpton reveal nothing about
their positions. The fact that NBC is able to sell advertising because you
loons watch this stupidity reveals EVERYTHING about your population.


And not assuming by the content of my post that I consider madcow and
her ilk the opposition, and not understanding that it's important to
sometimes look into the oppositions point of view, reveals EVERYTHING
about you

On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 09:22:11 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 6/20/14, 9:17 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/20/2014 8:58 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:

My anti-higher-education "tirades"? I feel nothing of the sort.

My objections are with people who feel they are somehow superior,
smarter or "better" simply because they have advanced or more than one
degree.

You often happen to be a perfect example.



The subject here was Rachel Maddow, who is as smart as a person gets,
and who also has advanced degrees. One of the resident morons here
claimed she was "stupid." That was stupid.



Whatever. She's not stupid IMO. She's making a decent paycheck
cackling away on MSNBC. I used to listen to her but found I can't
handle her constant whining and complaining of anything not progressive
or liberal.


I'm sure Rachel will be pleased that you don't believe she is stupid.

Some folks with advanced degrees still lack common sense but they have
certainly gone through the mill and had the opportunity to develop
critical thinking skills.

Ms Maddow doesn't demonstrate a lack of common sense nor does she lack
analytical skill but she is sometimes exhaustive in her analysis.

I will fast forward both her and Lawrence O'Donnell when they get
pedantic, which they often do. Not that I don't appreciate the work,
I just don't need to hear it from several different angles to get it.

I expect some of that is to fill time, like an attorney billing by the
hour.

On 6/21/2014 2:33 PM, jps wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 09:22:11 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 6/20/14, 9:17 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/20/2014 8:58 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:

My anti-higher-education "tirades"? I feel nothing of the sort.

My objections are with people who feel they are somehow superior,
smarter or "better" simply because they have advanced or more than one
degree.

You often happen to be a perfect example.



The subject here was Rachel Maddow, who is as smart as a person gets,
and who also has advanced degrees. One of the resident morons here
claimed she was "stupid." That was stupid.



Whatever. She's not stupid IMO. She's making a decent paycheck
cackling away on MSNBC. I used to listen to her but found I can't
handle her constant whining and complaining of anything not progressive
or liberal.


I'm sure Rachel will be pleased that you don't believe she is stupid.

Some folks with advanced degrees still lack common sense but they have
certainly gone through the mill and had the opportunity to develop
critical thinking skills.

Ms Maddow doesn't demonstrate a lack of common sense nor does she lack
analytical skill but she is sometimes exhaustive in her analysis.

I will fast forward both her and Lawrence O'Donnell when they get
pedantic, which they often do. Not that I don't appreciate the work,
I just don't need to hear it from several different angles to get it.

I expect some of that is to fill time, like an attorney billing by the
hour.



You have hit exactly my feelings about Maddow and O'Donnell. I have
watched and listened to both over the years, interested in their take on
current events and I don't always disagree with them. It's the daily,
weekly and sometimes longer repetitious discussion about a singular
issue that gets to me after a while. Of the two, I'd rather watch
Rachael however. O'Donnell is worse and his style of delivery is like
that of a grandfatherly figure slowly enunciating every word as if to
let them "sink in" in his commentary. Five minutes of that is about all
I can handle anymore.

MSNBC was somewhat refreshing to me during his absence and convalescence
following his car accident. I'll have to keep the remote within arm's
reach again now.

In article ,
says...

On 6/21/2014 2:33 PM, jps wrote:


You have hit exactly my feelings about Maddow and O'Donnell. I have
watched and listened to both over the years, interested in their take on
current events and I don't always disagree with them. It's the daily,
weekly and sometimes longer repetitious discussion about a singular
issue that gets to me after a while. Of the two, I'd rather watch
Rachael however. O'Donnell is worse and his style of delivery is like
that of a grandfatherly figure slowly enunciating every word as if to
let them "sink in" in his commentary. Five minutes of that is about all
I can handle anymore.

MSNBC was somewhat refreshing to me during his absence and convalescence
following his car accident. I'll have to keep the remote within arm's
reach again now.

Maddow repeats phrases intolerably, as if she's talking to a child.
She has few guests, usually spending the first 20 minutes in a
haranguing, repetitious monologue. Her ego is boundless.
I switch to CNN.
O'Donnell is another egotistical fool. I predict Ari Melber will
replace him in time, but I call that speculation.
Unlike O'Donnell, who repeatedly said that based on his "extensive
experience in writing laws" while on Sen. Moynihan's staff, the ACA was
"impossible to pass." He had Scarborough believing him. Hell, I
believed him. hehe. O'Donnell is a dope.
I like Melber. But I liked the A-Team too.

On 21-Jun-2014, KC wrote:

Statements by Rachel Madcow and "Reverend" Al Sharpton reveal nothing
about
their positions. The fact that NBC is able to sell advertising because
you
loons watch this stupidity reveals EVERYTHING about your population.


And not assuming by the content of my post that I consider madcow and
her ilk the opposition, and not understanding that it's important to
sometimes look into the oppositions point of view, reveals EVERYTHING
about you

My statement was about Madcow and that network in it's entirety, and the
mindless masses that watch them. It was not about you - I agree with your
original statement, however, my analysis about your population remains
accurrate.

On Sat, 21 Jun 2014 16:31:00 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On 6/21/2014 2:33 PM, jps wrote:


You have hit exactly my feelings about Maddow and O'Donnell. I have
watched and listened to both over the years, interested in their take on
current events and I don't always disagree with them. It's the daily,
weekly and sometimes longer repetitious discussion about a singular
issue that gets to me after a while. Of the two, I'd rather watch
Rachael however. O'Donnell is worse and his style of delivery is like
that of a grandfatherly figure slowly enunciating every word as if to
let them "sink in" in his commentary. Five minutes of that is about all
I can handle anymore.

MSNBC was somewhat refreshing to me during his absence and convalescence
following his car accident. I'll have to keep the remote within arm's
reach again now.

Maddow repeats phrases intolerably, as if she's talking to a child.
She has few guests, usually spending the first 20 minutes in a
haranguing, repetitious monologue. Her ego is boundless.
I switch to CNN.
O'Donnell is another egotistical fool. I predict Ari Melber will
replace him in time, but I call that speculation.
Unlike O'Donnell, who repeatedly said that based on his "extensive
experience in writing laws" while on Sen. Moynihan's staff, the ACA was
"impossible to pass." He had Scarborough believing him. Hell, I
believed him. hehe. O'Donnell is a dope.
I like Melber. But I liked the A-Team too.

Some of this repitition and over-analysis has to be due to the format
and medium. I bet Maddow and O'Donnell's crews have to gin up a
****load of content on their own, so it's easier to be exhuastive with
one subject vs. having to develop more stories. I bet they're
severely understaffed due to budget.

That's where Huffington has succeeded. They develop some of their own
content but also steal everyone else's work and reference it to fill
out their site.

News cannot be an easy business to be in. No longer are they funded
at a loss in the interest of serving the public. They're for-profit
entertainment arms of corporations who favor making rather than losing
money.