Added: 3 years ago
From: marklross2
Views: 3,150
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (108)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • she looks like a teenage boy

  • @7475flyersfan Ba wa ha ha - you're right!

  • She's talking about not having to identify as gay... not about having to give an identification of who you are. Duh.

  • @DarkAngel0125 You are wrong...duh

  • They really think the answer to the Alternative media, is to have their own extremist pundits. What they don't understand is, Rush, Hannity, Beck, they all seem extreme to them, but they're actually normal. Alternative news came about as a reaction to their monopoly on ALL the media. They're wasting their time with this approach.

  • @TubeScrewed Correct - rational and reasonable....

  • @bluegrrl70 Regressive is the word for it indeed!

  • I agree with CQ, this video had no substantive factual evidence; every statement in the video was subjective.

  • Maddow is a flaming feminist. What's even more f*cked up than that is she really believes the Federal Government is good.

    Silly wabbit

  • @gatorbait20082008 Her tricks aren't for kids though....

  • True. She's there to appeal to the far left ideologues. And if you disagree with her they'll pull the "gender card" on you. Well, guess what....there are plenty of brilliant women out there. Racael Maddow isn't one of them. She's a lightweight pretending to be a journalist and fooling thoe who are too stupid to see the truth.

  • So true!!!

  • Um, exactly what context are these statements said in? Because taking bits and pieces of a conversation and then making grossly exaggerated statements based on them is really air headed.

  • What context? The exact context I stated. While discussing national id and illegal immigration on msnbc with chris matthews...

  • You didn't state any context. I re watched the video and you didn't mention any of those issues. Where is the full, uncut conversation?

  • yoou can search for the transcript cat msnbc yourself

  • I don't think so. By criticizing Rachel Maddow, the onus is on you to provide the evidence against her.

  • whoa, where is the photo at 0:28 from? she looks so different

  • uh - i dunno...

  • Is that a man ?

  • you're taking her words out of context, she is talking about gay and straight issues as in "identity". Lesbians are hands down smarter for not f*cking men.

  • You're an idiot. The discussiuon was in relation to ilegal immigration - not homosexuality. Like all homosexuals, your preoccupation with sex affects your percep[tion....

  • enrgylife (sic) said "Lesbians are hands down smarter for not f*cking men."

    What charming anti-male bigotry. Seriously, if you somehow can't bring yourself to do what nature designed you to do and have relations with men, that's your business. But such an anti-nature inclinaton is certainly nothing to brag about.

  • It's only natural - right?

  • Yes she is an idiot...but a message to anyone arguing with those who support Maddow: Never argue with idiots, they will take you down to their level and beat you over the head with experience.

  • been there done  that...

  • "Air-headed"

    As a Stanford graduate and Rhodes Scholar, she isn't air-headed. Radical, perhaps; that judgement is contingent upon your respective political ideology. But air-headed? C'mon.

  • Only an airhead would have the educational background Maddow has, yet say the STUPID things she does...

  • Do you think Obama would support gay marriage?

    Why is it more important to people if someone says one thing and does another as Obama does?

    Then, when Palin says it - but has factual, tangible proof of doing something considered to be a victory for our community, you still are convinced she hates you.

    It's so sad. And you know because of such standards, our community will always suffer.

  • I gave a great example and you attempted to brush it off. So really, what's the point?

  • Read the facts of blacks, the klan, your party, skip what the media says, and give me an objectionable conclusion please.

  • Actually I have all weekend to work on an audit. Actually, just google anything Maddow said in connection to Sarah Palin. We can start there.

  • But when she gives information that follows the phrase "breaking news!" while she sits behind a newsdesk with the letters "MSNBC" in the bottom right of the screen, it leads folks to believe otherwise. Do you not reasonably see that?

  • I am aware that Palin has gay friends and a philisophlical opinion on marriage. I know that when the Alaskan Supreme Court ruled that gay partners of state employees should receive benefits and the Alaskan Senate passed a bill to stop that ruling, Sarah Palin VETOED that bill and the gays got the benefits because Palin did not act on her personal philisophical opinions, she acted on what was right via the Constitution. Google it. Don't wait for Maddow to tell you.

  • Well as a gay guy, most bitter lesbians really do have a problem with the love and contentment that a true beautiful woman like Sarah Palin can embody. She has one husband since high school, they got married, they had 5 wonderful children under one wedlock, etc.

    And if you want a gay guy's opinion of a lesbian, just watch Will and Grace and listen to Jack for a while.

  • I don't care if you believe it or not. But the fact that you don't believe it proves the point of your extremist, closed-minded mentality. The same cookie-cutter mentality that thinks all blacks should be slaves, then your party decided they should be Democrats. Then your party said all gays should be Democrats, then said that none of them had the right to marry. See how that works? But nah - IT WAS THOSE CHURCHES THAT DID ALL THOSE THINGS! Sarah Palin did it too, right?

  • Why bother? All you'll do is ignore the facts and keep calling Palin a liar anyway - all in the name of defending a 2nd rate "broadcaster."

  • Then why didn't Maddow open her show with those words?

  • Uh huh, show us a picture of Maddow's girlfriend (the best one you can find) and then give us the worst picture you can find of Sarah Palin.

    It'll prove my point instantly, I guarantee.

  • Yes I am gay and am very embarrassed to have people like Maddow and Ellen flapping their jaws 24/7 for the left - a party who no longer ASKS for gay support, but expects it.

    Yes your irreligious positions (as you were the one who opened the can of worms on religion) is no different in the realm of extremism than Shirley Phelps-Roper of the Westboro Baptist Church.

    You're simply batting for another side but every bit the extremist she is.

    Do something about it.

  • She's on a news network delivering "breaking news" to viewers. She's a fraud.

  • No, the investigation concluded that the "alleged" abuse of power was in not stopping Todd from using the office of the Governor to get WOOTEN fired, not Monegan. The entire liberal fascade all along was that she abused her power in firing Monegan - not Wooten who is still a trooper. Maddow purposely lied and misrepresented the report to continue feeding her desperate 19 viewers bacon grease since their was no beef whatsoever to their original accusations.

  • The first one that comes to mind is when she opened up a segement of her show (the night the first Troopergate report was released) with "breaking news" that "Governor Palin abused her power in the firing of Alaskan pubic sufaety commissioner" then with Michael Isikoff, specifically quotes the report saying that Palin was "lawful and proper" in firing Monegan.  That's one "stretch" and she's the one to be charged with "abuse of power" as an alleged "journalist."

  • segment*

  • Moreover; she's a dishonest broadcaster and tells lies to feed her bias. She did it 50 thousand times during this campaign.

    At best, she's a C-rated reality-show.

  • Well, I'm gay. I also think Sarah Palin is 50 times the woman with 50 times the beauty, intelligence, strong will, class, and talent of Rachel Maddow. Trust me, in a sick way, she is in Maddow's "spank bank."

    Your hate of Christians is helpful because if proves how much more extreme the irreligious are than the religious could ever be.

    So, thanks. We don't have to put up with your extremism. And we won't.

  • I think Rachel is a really bad broadcaster. Plus she's more obsessed with Sarah Palin than straight men are. But compared to Keith Olbermann, I can say its nice MSNBC finally got themselves a true masculine representative.

  • ha! Good one!

  • Yes - Well that's the danger of saying extemporaneous comments like Rachel often does to drum up ratings. She said "ANY government function." If she had been more careful with the choice of her words, her statement might not have been open to such a satirical criticism. Unfortunately, Rachel often speaks without first thinking...

  • I did something better than that. Watch the vid again...

  • The sheriffs are to over emphasize the point of knowing the identity of someone performing an official government function. If the bad guys figure out a way around it. the good guys will come up with something better..

  • um - I don't keep my vid masters once uploaded. To correct it would mean downloading it, editing and re-uploading. The second generation compression would severely reduce vid quality. But hey - anyone can see these comments, and read about the error...

  • No - I was just trying to keep from admitting my lame editing mistake...I thought I could slip it by, but you caught me...good for u !

  • Irshad Manji - Her pic got in by mistake. For some reason, her image came up in a google image search for Rachel, and, well, I just wasn't paying attention when I put it in...

  • So, I looked up the transcript of this interview. They were discussing a national ID card, which some want to force everyone to get as another barrier for immigration. After the exchange in the video, Rachel Maddow said, "that is the status right now."

    Basically, she wants to uphold the current system, when you have to fill out an I-9 to get a job, which proves you are a citzen/have legal rights to work in the US. Another id, she says, could be used to infringe on privacy rights.

  • A national ID card would not be a barrier to lawful immigration. As a tool, it would facilitate immigration. Rachel's words were clear. I know she just said it to rile up her radical base and increase her ratings, but she must be held responsible for her words...

  • Doesn't this guy have a TV show on MSNBC?

  • As Chris Matthews would say: HA!

  • Ha! I think you're getting confuse with Keith Olberman...they do look alike!

  • She's Rachel's girlfriend...

  • Uh, no, she's not.

    You thought that pic was Rachel, didn't you?

    Who's the airheaded idiot?

  • uh - yes she is....it was rumored in Us Weekly, or was OK!, no - maybe it was Ebony....

  • NOT Rachel even.

  • Geez, my whole post didn't post.

    It's hard to get the actual context of her comments without tone, body language, etc.

    Oh, and the last picture in your video is NOT Rachel.

  • ummm so whats the context of all these quotes and whats your source?

  • ummmm did you even pay attention? Read again....Hardballl...Chris Matthews (I admit he's not a very reliable source. Now that NBC yanked him off their campaign coverage for being in the tank for Obama...)

  • yeah, i did pay attention. now whats the context? supply a clip and dont be a dick.

  • Synonyms: broad-minded.

    Antonym: stingy

    Liberal. What a horrible thing to be.

  • tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; Too bad that isn't really true...

  • Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.; Synonyms: liberal, bounteous, bountiful, freehanded, generous, handsome, munificent, openhanded

    These adjectives mean willing or marked by a willingness to give unstintingly: a liberal backer of the arts; a bounteous feast; bountiful compliments; a freehanded host; a generous donation; a handsome offer; a munificent gift; fond and openhanded grandparents.

  • LIberal-adj. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.; Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.; Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.; Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.; Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes....

  • Along with Edwin Hubble, inventor of the Hubble space telescope, Dean Rusk, US secretary of state from '61-'69, Lord Howard Florey, one of the scientists responsible for discovering penicillin, George Stephanopolous, Clinton's senior political advisor, and many others...all airheads in their own rite, no?

  • I can see reasoning with you is going to be a task. It doesn't matter how many credentials you have.When you say stupid things, you erode your credibility. Rachel Maddow often says stupid things in order to appeal to her fans. This was just one example She deserves the title of airhead as long as she lives up to the title by saying stupid things Bill Clinton just proves that you can be a Rhodes Scholar and still lack the common sense that would have kept him from doing a fat chick! What a loser!

  • Ladies and gentlemen, this is what you would call a 'pot and black kettle' moment.

    Maybe Ms. Maddow says stupid things in your view. But if you're going to rail on someone for saying stupid things, perhaps you should make sure you don't do the same. Your credibility is a few steps above dung beetle at the moment.

  • My credibility is supported by the transcript...

  • The transcript is confusing, and what Rachel Maddow said was confusing. As is typical with this kind of show, people are interrupted before complete thoughts can be said. So people try to come up with a shortcut to get their point across. So, okay. Her statements were odd, I'll give you that.

    But YOUR credibility has nothing to do with the transcript or your interpretation of it.

    You said, "when you say stupid things, you erode your credibility." And you have said stupid things.

  • See, if you had talked about the National ID card itself, or Maddow's position on it, great. Then the issue could be debated.

    Instead, you resorted to name-calling, which adds exactly zero to the discussion. THAT'S where your credibility took a hit.

  • What did I say that was stupid?

  • Are you being deliberately obtuse? As I said before, instead of making rational arguments, you resort to name-calling. As though that's all the argument you need. 

    Lesbian

    Bitch

    Fat Chick

    Loser

    Liberal (gasp!)

    Dizzy

    Airhead

    Yeah, okay, but what's your point? You took one small statement out of a very long transcript without really discussing the issue at hand. Then you started name-calling. I find that stupid. I'm sorry, but I do.

  • Name calling is inappropriate only when the name is inaccurate. My original argument is that for Rachel Maddow to utter EXACTLY the words. " I say you shouldn't have to identify yourself in order to do any official government function," qualifies her to be labeled as an airhead. I am only adding extra information she herself has publicly divulged when I call her an airheaded lesbian. I can't help it that YOU are all hung up on the use of such terminology...

  • Okay, WHY does that make her an airhead in your opinion? That's all I've been trying to get you to say here.

    I understand her position on the National ID, and knowing that, I understand what she was trying to say, even though it didn't come out right.

    Maybe I AM hung up on terminology, you're right. But that's because I've been on the receiving end of this exact thing. Frankly, it isn't fun to be dismissed, not because of my mind or my ideas, but because of who's in my bed.

  • Think of how utterly ludicrous the idea of not being required to furnish ID to do ANY government function. Paying taxes is a government function. How is the IRS to credit you for your payment without ID? Because the idea is so stupid, Rachel earns the title AIRHEAD. As for the rest of your comment - you're gettin' a little too personal and borderline neurotic for me to comment.

  • @numuzak But why does Obama do it?

  • Also, yes, she is admittedly a lesbian. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is trying to invalidate someone and their opinion by insinuating that she is an airhead, and by conflating that with the fact that she is a lesbian, thereby attempting to depict her as somehow less than, unworthy of consideration. Lesbian isn't an insult to some people, but to people like you, it's the best argument you've got. Way to go. Oh, and by the way, Bill Clinton is also a Rhodes Scholar.

  • On what, exactly, do you base your speculation that she received her degree from like-minded professors? Yes, I do admire her credentials, considering the fact that the Rhodes Scholarship is only awarded to the most highly accomplished college grads with the best academic performance, extracurricular activities, and the greatest potential. You're right. A degree isn't a free pass to spout inaccuracies, but the Rhodes Scholarship is nothing to sneeze at.

  • ...and I find it pretty interesting that there is no link here to the actual piece of video in which Rachel said this, but instead to a completely unrelated piece. That wouldn't be to keep these comments from being properly contextualized, would it? Oh, I guess I should just take your word for it, huh?

  • MATTHEWS: I'm saying, if you want to get a job here, shouldn't you have to identify yourself, Rachel?

    BUCHANAN: Eighty percent of the country has passed this argument by.

    MATTHEWS: No, wait a minute. I want to stay on this, Pat.

    Rachel, are you saying you shouldn't have to identify yourself to get a job in America?

    MADDOW: I say you shouldn't have to identify yourself in order to do any official government function.

  • msnbcDOTmsnDOTcomSLASHidSLASH2­1818631/

  • I don't think utube allows url's...google "rachel maddow" and "natinal ID" You will find the MSNBC TRANSCRIPT

  • What a relevant commentary! Wow! Thanks for shedding light on this "airheaded lesbian," who happens to be a Rhodes Scholar, and got her PhD in Political Science from Oxford. If you want to know what a sensationalist looks like, why not turn the mirror on yourself, ya baggadouche?

  • Typical! You admire her credentials given to her no doubt from liberal minded professors who share her views. Wow! What a surprise! She has a degree! That doesn't mean she is exempt from saying STUPID things that call into question her credibility. You can take your mirror and put it where the sun don't shine. I'm not being sensational. Just how much sense does it make to say turn in a tax return - with no identity assigned to it That'll work! Why give out your ID for that government function?

  • Well, I'm more likely to trust the opinion of a Rhodes Scholar than the guy that lives across from me who spends his free time playing X-Box and watching internet porn.

    Since when is having a first rate education a bad thing? Oh, since professors turned into liberals, I guess. (Where were all the liberal professors when I was in college?)

    It seems you don't have to be a Rhodes Scholar to say stupid things either. A YouTube account will suffice.

  • I didn't say anything stupid...Rachel Maddow did...I only reported the fact.

  • Well, okay. Technically, you're right.  You didn't SAY anything stupid. You typed it.

  • And another thing...

    If someone said Obama was the first black Presidential nominee, that wouldn't be offensive.

    If someone said Obama was an airhead, that wouldn't be offensive either.

    But if someone said Obama was a black airhead, their opinion will take a back seat to their bigotry.

    That's why the 'lesbian' comment was stupid.

  • Only as how YOU interpret it. If Obama starts saying a bunch of stupid things, it would be accuratelv to call him a black airhead. If YOU want to get all hung up on the race issue...go right ahead...

  • Okay, we'll play it your way.

    GeorgeW is male, no problem.

    GeorgeW is an airhead, no problem.

    GeorgeW is a male airhead - this becomes a sexist comment because the implication is that being male is part of what contributed to the airheadedness.

    Look, you're allowed to have any prejudice you like, I could care less. And you can call anyone anything. Be my guest. But when the prejudice becomes part of the argument, your argument loses ground. I'm attacking your argument, that's all.

  • I have a question for you. If you disagreed with something that, for example, Katie Couric said, would you call her a 'stupid heterosexual airhead' or is that some special kind of insult you save for gay people?

    How is her sexuality relevant at all?

    I see the point you were trying to make, even though I disagree with you. But throwing the lesbian card into your argument makes it really easy for people to dismiss your entire point, which makes it hard to have a real discussion.

  • Oh not at all...I probably would have called Katie Couric a dizzy bitch! But your question demonstrates the double standard of the gay community. When a person of some prominence is described as being "openly gay" by the gays it is celebrated. What's wrong with merely stating a fact about Rachel Maddow that she is supposed to be proud of? Would you feel better if I had called her an "openly gay" AIRHEAD instead? Don't let the gay PC police tell you how to talk! Rachel Maddow says STUPID things!

  • well the issue is, you took a fact about Ms. Maddow and used it in a derogatory way. Nobody is saying that she isn't gay and you can't talk about it.. the problem is that you turned it into an insult. And that is bare bigotry.

  • Why is the word lesbian an insult?? According to the gay community, they are proud...If had used a derogatory term for lesbian ie. "dyke" that would have been an insult. Ther only thing insulting about my comment IS that I refer to her as an AIRHEAD. YOU turned the word into an insul by assuming I was attaching a negative connotation to the word...

  • oh come on, you have taken an indefensible position. If I call you a slow-witted, hate-filled,  Christ-worshipping dumbass.. are you going to say I that the Christ bit is not meant in an insulting way?

    seriously, that dumb. stop being childish and stand by your statements

  • Religion and sexual orientation are non-comparable. Rachel Madddow is an AIRHEAD who also happens to be a lesbian, by her own admission. So, she is an airheaded lesbian...no big....get over it!

  • i agree. that her sexuality is irrelevant.

  • I never said her sexuality was the focus of this argument. All the respondents who jumped all over me for stating a known fact about Rachel Maddow made it an issue...

  • @filmbuff87 No it isn't. It is part of her liberal views.

  • There's nothing wrong with talking about Rachel Maddow's sexuality when it is relevant to the issue at hand. But in this case, I didn't see any relevance. That's all I'm saying.

    It seems that whenever someone disagrees with Ms. Maddow, they throw the 'dyke' label at her, as though that's all the argument they need or have. I guess I'd rather hear more substantive debates.

    I agree with you in one respect. PC police of all stripes irritate the hell out of me too.

  • Thin, lame and out of context.  Complete waste of time.

  • Out of context? The quote comes directly from MSNBC transcripts! What context do YOU attribute to it?

  • what is the source of that quote?

  • The quote comes directly from MSNBC transcripts!

  • cool, what date? Can you provide a link?

  • Everytime I paste the link - I think Utube rejects it...how do I post a URL??

  • Google "Rachel Maddow" and "national ID" and you'll find it...

  • yeah I found it

    I think you did take her out of context. She is talking specifically about getting a state driver's license or some other government service. She says, specifically, that this does not pertain to things like, registering as a worker with the IRS.

    She was being interrupted, but I think she meant that you should not need to present ID automatically to interact with the government.. but go to school etc, you should have to provide some ID.

    msnbc id/21818631/

  • You are wrong. She answers Chris Matthews question as to whether one should have to present identity TO GET A JOB with the statement that she feels that you shouldn't have to present ID ""to DO any official government function" not to apply, not receive - TO DO...

  • she was being interupted. above that, she clearly says that you SHOULD have to present a social security number to get a job. you are really grasping at straws here. but I look forward to your next video, make it a good one!

  • No, she is saying that you must have SS# to get a drivers license, and since many illegals do not have SS#'s (unless they steal an one) they drive illegally.

    MADDOW: No, I don't. No, listen, what New York State is trying to do is, they're saying listen if you have got people who are here to work illegally, and you need to have a Social Security number in order to get a drivers license, then those people who need to drive in order to work, which is why they're here, they will drive illegally.

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more