[Big Mac]

Before MSNBC left-wing commentator Rachel Madow became Ronnie, from her high school yearbook:



And after:



Comment: Yes, I'm poking fun at butch lesbians. I'm not serious about her having a sex change op, but I do wonder why she has to be so damn butch. And yes, her politics most generally make me ill, although I prefer her slightly over that airhead douche sportscaster turned political hack Olbermann.

[besson3c]

Maybe she wants to look the way she looks. Who cares?

[SpaceMonkey]

Big Mac, please post a photo of yourself for our reference.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Big Mac, please post a photo of yourself for our reference.

Good point, SpaceMonkey. I'm very comfortable with my appearance, but it is a valid view that I shouldn't mock her because I wouldn't want to be mocked in that fashion. However, she is a national TV personality, and a shill for the Democratic Party that is actively destroying this country, so I make an exception in such a case and hold that it's okay to mock and ridicule such people within the broad limitations of the 1st Amendment.

[besson3c]

And we're off!

I guess this wasn't just about her looks after all, huh?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Good point, SpaceMonkey. I'm very comfortable with my appearance, but it is a valid view that I shouldn't mock her because I wouldn't want to be mocked in that fashion. However, she is a national TV personality, and a shill for the Democratic Party that is actively destroying this country, so I make an exception in such a case and hold that it's okay to mock and ridicule such people within the broad limitations of the 1st Amendment.

Certainly you are free to do so. But if her role in actively destroying this country is as profound as you claim, then this thread seems kind of lame.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

And we're off!

I guess this wasn't just about her looks after all, huh?

Right, it's very much political. I think Maddow, Olbermann, Matthews, Daily Kos, and the like, the types of blatant DNC shills they are and what they're doing to this country add up to active treason against the country and the Constitution, just as I think it was treasonous for the minority to vote against the 2nd Amendment in Heller and McDonald. They are aiding and abetting the DNC [including President Barack Hussein Obama], its Big Labor allies and old person lobbies in the most massive fleecing of America ever seen, which will result in national bankruptcy and a Second Great Depression in short order unless the country rejects those policies and changes course very, very soon.

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Certainly you are free to do so. But if her role in actively destroying this country is as profound as you claim, then this thread seems kind of lame.

Perhaps, but it got you guys into the thread, right?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Right, it's very much political. I think Maddow, Olbermann, Matthews, Daily Kos, and the like, the types of blatant DNC shills they are and what they're doing to this country add up to active treason against the country and the Constitution, just as I think it was treasonous for the minority to vote against the 2nd Amendment in Heller and McDonald. They are aiding and abetting the DNC, its Big Labor allies and old person lobbies in the most massive fleecing of America ever seen, which will result in national bankruptcy and a Second Great Depression in short order unless the country rejects those policies and changes course very, very soon.


Perhaps, but it got you guys into the thread, right?

Only because I can't resist the fetid stank of the PWL.

So should I be concerned that all butch lesbians are treasonous? Just trying to figure out the scope of the problem.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Right, it's very much political. I think Maddow, Olbermann, Matthews, Daily Kos, and the like, the types of blatant DNC shills they are and what they're doing to this country add up to active treason against the country and the Constitution, just as I think it was treasonous for the minority to vote against the 2nd Amendment in Heller and McDonald. They are aiding and abetting the DNC, its Big Labor allies and old person lobbies in the most massive fleecing of America ever seen, which will result in national bankruptcy and a Second Great Depression in short order unless the country rejects those policies and changes course very, very soon.

So why waste your time with stuff that doesn't matter, why not dive into your usual schtick?

As far as the rest of this, I don't know how to have this conversation with you, so I'll pass...

[Big Mac]

If I were to take all the vitriolic language out and just point to the records of the respective partisans and why they're so devastating, do you think it would be possible in the near future to have a highbrow thread discussing the existential financial threats to the United States and therefore the world? Or are we too divided around here to get such a discourse going?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

If I were to take all the vitriolic language out and just point to the records of the respective partisans and why they're so devastating, do you think it would be possible in the near future to have a highbrow thread discussing the existential financial threats to the United States and therefore the world? Or are we too divided around here to get such a discourse going?

With you, no. I think I've made it clear what I think is needed to have productive discourse with you.

[Big Mac]

What would that be now, bess? I honestly don't know or was not aware that you came to a definitive ruling in your own mind about me in that regard.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

What would that be now, bess? I honestly don't know or was not aware that you came to a definitive ruling in your own mind about me in that regard.

To know what you hope to accomplish, for starters. Probably the only satisfying answer to this would be some sort of better understanding of viewpoints other than your own, in which case given our history I'd still really like to know what you already do understand about these viewpoints.

[Big Mac]

What if I demand of you proof that you understand conservative/libertarian/Constitutional viewpoints?

[BadKosh]

What if Maddow is only trying to get 'that look' that Kagan has?

[andi*pandi]

Is being blonde a requirement for being right, or Right for that matter?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

What if I demand of you proof that you understand conservative/libertarian/Constitutional viewpoints?

Then I would feel bad that you feel that I haven't displayed understanding of them in the multiple posts of mine where I attempted to demonstrate empathy and understanding. But, if you weren't interested in meeting me part way I'd also have to abstain from participation. You know I like you and stuff, but the way these sorts of threads always turn out has become pretty boring, predictable, and sometimes frustrating for me.

[hyteckit]

I will now call all conservatives - Cons.

[hyteckit]

Cons hate the constitution, except for 2nd amendment.

If Rachel Maddow wants to look like a boy, it's her f*cking right.
If Rachel Maddow wants to do the nasty with another woman, it's her f*cking right.


Not everyone has to fit the cons' view of what a woman should look like.

[ironknee]

i'm sure it's just a phase... she is just choosing to be a lesbian... er..right?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Is being blonde a requirement for being right, or Right for that matter?

Definitely seems like a requirement for being a female host on Fox News.

OAW

[ort888]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I think Maddow, Olbermann, Matthews, Daily Kos, and the like, the types of blatant DNC shills they are and what they're doing to this country add up to active treason against the country and the Constitution, just as I think it was treasonous for the minority to vote against the 2nd Amendment in Heller and McDonald. They are aiding and abetting the DNC [including President Barack Hussein Obama], its Big Labor allies and old person lobbies in the most massive fleecing of America ever seen, which will result in national bankruptcy and a Second Great Depression in short order unless the country rejects those policies and changes course very, very soon.

That's our Big Mac.

[besson3c]

See Big Mac, case in point... You can set your watch to how predictable these sorts of threads turn out.

[Big Mac]

Okay. I wasn't trying to be diplomatic in this thread, though. I wasn't looking for a serious discussion. In the future I hope to have one on the topics I brought up, however.

And for the record, besson, I don't think you've demonstrated much empathy or understanding at all for politics on the right side of the spectrum.

[stumblinmike]

I detect a hint of jealousy...Rachel's certainly brighter than Mac, and probably a bit more masculine as well....

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

And for the record, besson, I don't think you've demonstrated much empathy or understanding at all for politics on the right side of the spectrum.

Noted, although I'm not even sure you would be able to identify any sort of acknowledgement of legitimacy to an argument offered by anybody including myself, because that just doesn't seem to be how you roll.

[Big Mac]

That's just not true. I've admitted when I've been wrong, like the 2008 Presidential election. I even admitted instances in which I've had common ground with the Left. I think I'm far fairer to the other side and in regard to diversity of opinion than you suggest, besson, and in fact far less biased than you. You just like to pretend that you don't have biases, but you do my friend. Can you name me a single example in which you've ever agreed with the Right on anything at all?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

That's just not true. I've admitted when I've been wrong, like the 2008 Presidential election. I even admitted instances in which I've had common ground with the Left. I think I'm far fairer to the other side and in regard to diversity of opinion than you suggest, besson, and in fact far less biased than you. You just like to pretend that you don't have biases, but you do my friend. Can you name me a single example in which you've ever agreed with the Right on anything at all?

My point, exactly.

What I said had nothing to do with wrong/right, or bias/no bias, as you seemed to have interpreted it. It's no wonder you don't find me acknowledging legitimacy to other perspectives, even those I don't share (as I have), if everything is as black and white as the impression of your view of the world you have provided at least to me.

It is for this reason why I cannot have these sorts of discussions with you, and you with me if the sole object is to dissuade of what is right or wrong. You are not going to change your mind, and I'm tired of being lectured at, particularly when I don't feel like you are interested in understanding my perspective, let alone acknowledging its legitimacy. This is certainly not inspiring for me to want to change my mind either, hence this entire exercise being completely pointless for both of us.

[Big Mac]

Okay, very well then. You tell me that I'm not open to other perspectives, and in response I tell you I'm so open I sometimes agree with those to whom I am usually diametrically opposed, and then you tell me that I don't get your point. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Okay, very well then. You tell me that I'm not open to other perspectives, and in response I tell you I'm so open I sometimes agree with those to whom I am usually diametrically opposed, and then you tell me that I don't get your point. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

If you agree with the perspective, it is not somebody else's, is it?

[Lint Police]

It is OK for the left to label everyone on the right dumb, stupid, lazy, fat, trailer park americans. How dare you call someone on the left ugly!

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Lint Police 

It is OK for the left to label everyone on the right dumb, stupid, lazy, fat, trailer park americans. How dare you call someone on the left ugly!

The way around the perception of hypocrisy by "the left" or "the right" is to hold specific people accountable for the specific things they say, rather than stating that "the left" says such-and-such, or "the right" says so-and-so. "The left" and "the right" don't say anything. People and organizations say things. Unless you can point to an example where I have not held myself to the same standard that I'm expecting of Big Mac, there is no hypocrisy here.

[andi*pandi]

If your best criticism of a pundit, senator, or supreme court nominee, is that she is ugly, has cankles, is a lesbian, or is just plain not feminine enough for you, are you really debating the merits of the job, the person's intelligence, or their ideology? No. It's just childish insults.

[subego]

Sex changes as a pejorative... It's the new faggot!

[Lint Police]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

The way around the perception of hypocrisy by "the left" or "the right" is to hold specific people accountable for the specific things they say, rather than stating that "the left" says such-and-such, or "the right" says so-and-so. "The left" and "the right" don't say anything. People and organizations say things. Unless you can point to an example where I have not held myself to the same standard that I'm expecting of Big Mac, there is no hypocrisy here.

did i reply to you? no. I made a general statement directed at the stupidity on both sides. defensive much?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Lint Police 

did i reply to you? no. I made a general statement directed at the stupidity on both sides. defensive much?

Actually, you made a general, blanket statement directed at the stupidity of one side ("the left"), which seemed to me to be an attempt to label as hypocrites those who might criticize Big Mac. I felt I should respond, this being, you know, what those kids call a "thread" (and I enjoy calling people out on their lazy statements). Defensive much?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

If your best criticism of a pundit, senator, or supreme court nominee, is that she is ugly, has cankles, is a lesbian, or is just plain not feminine enough for you, are you really debating the merits of the job, the person's intelligence, or their ideology? No. It's just childish insults.

Winner.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Right, it's very much political. I think Maddow, Olbermann, Matthews, Daily Kos, and the like, the types of blatant DNC shills they are and what they're doing to this country add up to active treason against the country and the Constitution,...

Okay, while I don't particularly care for any of the above hacks, I have to ask... treason? Come on.

It's usually the left that cry and whine, stomp their feet, and assign all sorts of crazy pretend-powers to pundits they don't like (witness the insane lefty hissyfits thrown over Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Levine, etc.)

It comes off to me as especially weak for the right to adopt the same sort of insanity. Leftists prove constantly they can't handle freedom of speech when it disagrees with them, so why should the right adopt that same losing tactics?

What's next? Pretending that any of the above hacks are the "leaders of the Democrat Party?" That's another lame tactic of the left, pretending media figures wield anything close to the same powers as elected officials.

Yelling "treason" just because some talking head hack says things you disagree with comes off as the same fear of free speech that the left often exhibits. And saying they are doing something to the country (let alone destroying it) is pretty silly- even put together these hacks have the same tiny audience that's already swallowed the cool-aid. They aren't doing jack squat to anything, just adding a tiny bit more noise to the already full of noise airwaves. Nothing to get excited over- just chuckle and change the channel like most everyone else does.

[ort888]

That's our CRASH HARDDRIVE.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

If your best criticism of a pundit, senator, or supreme court nominee, is that she is ugly, has cankles, is a lesbian, or is just plain not feminine enough for you, are you really debating the merits of the job, the person's intelligence, or their ideology? No. It's just childish insults.

Can't we even get around to talking about how they make us tingle when they speak?

According to the Beav:

"Gee Wally, that Violet Rutherford makes me feel all tingly and junk."

Sorry, that was Matthews. For Maddow it was "vibrating off her seat" or something.

Rachel Maddow's Chris Matthews Moment: "I Am Vibrating Off My Seat" With Excitement

[The Final Dakar]

I suppose there's something to be said for refreshing honesty in one's viewpoint.

...and the ability to show us the future of the PL Lounge.

[BadKosh]

This Web site:

NewsBusters.org | Exposing Liberal Media Bias

Usually has the corrections and items omitted from the leftist talking heads who are spewing their White House BS all over the MSM.

Some examples:

* One reason to hope that the Big 3 networks continue to muddle through their awful evening news ratings and somehow hang around is that there's an alternative out there that would be much worse.

If any of the networks ever considered outsourcing their nightly newscasts to the Associated Press, the likely result could be bad enough to make some long for the (relatively) good old days of Brian, Diane, and Katie.

An object example of the AP's pathetically one-sided, biased and completely not-transparent video reporting came last Tuesday when it covered the Department of Justice's lawsuit against Arizona's illegal immigration enforcement measure. The 1070 law tells police to verify citizenship status in "contact" situations (e.g., traffic stops and other routine matters) if they have a "reasonable suspicion" that the person or persons involved aren't here legally.
=============================================

* While Washington lawmakers may be deadlocked over extending unemployment benefits, the liberal media are picking up the slack and helping unemployed individuals find more government help.

In a July 13 story on CNNMoney.com, reporter Hibah Yousuf profiled two individuals who've been unemployed for over 99 weeks, the maximum number of weeks a person is eligible for unemployment benefits. Yousuf how they're turning to more government agencies for assistance:

"Many have already started falling through the safety net," she reported. "These people are coping any way they can, often reaching out for other aid from agencies and charities."

Yousuf devoted one paragraph to explaining how the first individual, Kevin Huffer, took matters into his own hands by doing handyman work in exchange for rent and went fishing for meals. But she devoted another three paragraphs to the various agencies and organizations, such as the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Community Action Partnership, helping out-of-work Americans find federal assistance beyond the nearly two years of unemployment benefits.
=============================================

* Once again, it's clear that reading editorials and op-eds at publications like the Wall Street Journal and Investors Business Daily becomes a requirement to be truly informed when a Democratic administration in power.

On July 6, Peter Ferrara at IBD noted that the annual report from the trustees of the Social Security and Medicare system is long overdue, and wondered why:

Are Overdue Reports Concealing ObamaCare Impact On Medicare?

Every year, the Annual Report of the Social Security Board of Trustees comes out between mid-April and mid-May. Now it's July, and there's no sign of this year's report. What is the Obama administration hiding?




Read more: NewsBusters.org | Exposing Liberal Media Bias

[stupendousman]

Maddow used to be quite an attractive young woman. I wonder what prompted her to want to look like a man?

It's her right to do so, but I'm curious if it was some kind of mental illness, or some kind of self esteem issue or something. Don't get me wrong, some women are just naturally masculine looking and it's not a choice. Here we have a very attractive and feminine woman who for some reason decided that conventional good looks was somehow a bad thing for her. That was a choice she made, and I'm curious as to why she made it.

Has she ever explained this?

ps. Unlike posters here, Maddow is a "public figure." Part of the deal in regards to being famous and a "public figure" is that the trade-off is that complete strangers are free to talk about you or critique you without engaging in slander. Unless some of the folks here are looking to make a living off the way they present themselves visually, I think requests for personal photos isn't really a compelling rebuttal to questions about Maddow's chosen appearance.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

ps. Unlike posters here, Maddow is a "public figure." Part of the deal in regards to being famous and a "public figure" is that the trade-off is that complete strangers are free to talk about you or critique you without engaging in slander. Unless some of the folks here are looking to make a living off the way they present themselves visually, I think requests for personal photos isn't really a compelling rebuttal to questions about Maddow's chosen appearance.

Yes, I realize that. But if Big Mac doesn't want to offer himself up to physical examination, it suggests that he himself realizes the weakness and pettiness of somehow associating Maddow's physical appearance with political disagreement. Sure, it's his right to poke fun at public figures all he wants -- but it can still be a stupid point. I generally find Big Mac's politics abhorrent. I might be very interested in seeing if he is physically repulsive as well, in order to try to confirm the correlation he laid out with respect to Maddow.

Of course, I am being facetious to make the larger point that I began this post with. I'm sure Big Mac is a hottie.

[andi*pandi]

It's interesting that you think a girl who starves herself, dyes her hair, undergoes painful eyebrow waxing, and buys lipstick has good self-esteem but a girl who does not do these things must have a mental illness.

[sek929]

Wow, you just got Pandi-slapped!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Maddow used to be quite an attractive young woman. I wonder what prompted her to want to look like a man?

It's her right to do so, but I'm curious if it was some kind of mental illness, or some kind of self esteem issue or something. Don't get me wrong, some women are just naturally masculine looking and it's not a choice. Here we have a very attractive and feminine woman who for some reason decided that conventional good looks was somehow a bad thing for her. That was a choice she made, and I'm curious as to why she made it.

Has she ever explained this?

I honestly thinks she looks better in her second pic... Why is it that short hair and t-shirt = man when many men have long hair?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

It's interesting that you think a girl who starves herself, dyes her hair, undergoes painful eyebrow waxing, and buys lipstick has good self-esteem but a girl who does not do these things must have a mental illness.

Nicely done!

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

If your best criticism of a pundit, senator, or supreme court nominee, is that she is ugly, has cankles, is a lesbian, or is just plain not feminine enough for you, are you really debating the merits of the job, the person's intelligence, or their ideology? No. It's just childish insults.

[turtle777]

Madcow who ?

-t