She poses as an intellectual, but is just a careerist. She confused the concept of an acronym with that of an anagram in a recent rant (the McMahon AI vs. A1 story; the sad part is that AI is an abbreviation.) She embarrassed herself playing parlor games with Jimmy Fallon (she's no Jane Lynch.) Stop idolizing someone who is just another ignorant American journalist.
She poses as an intellectual, but is just a careerist. She confused the concept of an acronym with that of an anagram in a recent rant (the McMahon AI vs. A1 story; the sad part is that AI is an abbreviation.) She embarrassed herself playing parlor games with Jimmy Fallon (she's no Jane Lynch.) Stop idolizing someone who is just another ignorant American journalist.
So that's a no. No, you have no concrete arguments. You have some kind of hatred for her as a person, for mysterious reasons, and that's it. That's what I thought already ;-)
What makes you think I am obliged to refute a subjective thesis? Especially in this medium? Maddow is just another mediocre person dumb people think of as a smart person.
If you cannot even back up your own claim and admit it's entirely "subjective", then you're confirming my point: you're here to vent, not to have a rational, real debate (defined as: a conversation that allows us all to get closer to reality by studying objective, proven evidence and facts).
Democracy cannot survive without real debates among citizens who disagree. So feel free to use a Substack as nerdy as Krugman's to merely whine, but in that case, your attitude is definitely part of the problem, not the solution.
I was referring to your estimation of Maddow as the subjective thesis. Hang out in your neighborhood bar if you can't take your sacred cow getting gored. Stop being starstruck by poseurs on the telebision.
OK....I get it now~! You're jealous! That's OK! She's not supposed to be Jane Lynch! She is RACHEL MADDOW! Jane is a great actress. Rachel is a scholar. Whenever you thought you knew her, that's then! NOW she is AMAZING!
I am a student of political science. The stupidest people in my classes were always the journalism students trying to earn their political science degree requirements. Journalists are ignorant, and think they are fulfilling a professional tenet behaving that way. Meidas are lawyers, not journalists. Their legal reporting is their core strength. They rarely review journalists like they did Jim Acosta.
She poses as an intellectual, but is just a careerist. She confused the concept of an acronym with that of an anagram in a recent rant (the McMahon AI vs. A1 story; the sad part is that AI is an abbreviation.) She embarrassed herself playing parlor games with Jimmy Fallon (she's no Jane Lynch.) Stop idolizing someone who is just another ignorant American journalist.
So that's a no. No, you have no concrete arguments. You have some kind of hatred for her as a person, for mysterious reasons, and that's it. That's what I thought already ;-)
Listen to Olbermann's podcast to get a glimpse of the real Rachel.
I love him! Where is he?! I need him blasting everyday! But he left! Not gone...just not accessible...fast!~
The thread speaks for itself, contradict me all you like. That's a yes.
Uh... how to contradict a post with no concrete arguments in the first place... ? Any idea?
What makes you think I am obliged to refute a subjective thesis? Especially in this medium? Maddow is just another mediocre person dumb people think of as a smart person.
If you cannot even back up your own claim and admit it's entirely "subjective", then you're confirming my point: you're here to vent, not to have a rational, real debate (defined as: a conversation that allows us all to get closer to reality by studying objective, proven evidence and facts).
Democracy cannot survive without real debates among citizens who disagree. So feel free to use a Substack as nerdy as Krugman's to merely whine, but in that case, your attitude is definitely part of the problem, not the solution.
I was referring to your estimation of Maddow as the subjective thesis. Hang out in your neighborhood bar if you can't take your sacred cow getting gored. Stop being starstruck by poseurs on the telebision.
Still no arguments whatsoever, I see ;-)
HaHaHa! You're hilarious.
OK....I get it now~! You're jealous! That's OK! She's not supposed to be Jane Lynch! She is RACHEL MADDOW! Jane is a great actress. Rachel is a scholar. Whenever you thought you knew her, that's then! NOW she is AMAZING!
I am a student of political science. The stupidest people in my classes were always the journalism students trying to earn their political science degree requirements. Journalists are ignorant, and think they are fulfilling a professional tenet behaving that way. Meidas are lawyers, not journalists. Their legal reporting is their core strength. They rarely review journalists like they did Jim Acosta.