Odd sayings
- GeneP59 - May 24, 2024 - 8:08am
Things You Thought Today
- GeneP59 - May 24, 2024 - 8:06am
Name My Band
- GeneP59 - May 24, 2024 - 8:03am
May 2024 Photo Theme - Peaceful
- fractalv - May 24, 2024 - 8:03am
Radio Paradise Comments
- GeneP59 - May 24, 2024 - 7:58am
RP Daily Trivia Challenge
- ScottFromWyoming - May 24, 2024 - 7:32am
It's the economy stupid.
- black321 - May 24, 2024 - 7:25am
NY Times Strands
- geoff_morphini - May 24, 2024 - 7:13am
NYTimes Connections
- ptooey - May 24, 2024 - 7:01am
Wordle - daily game
- ptooey - May 24, 2024 - 6:57am
Solar / Wind / Geothermal / Efficiency Energy
- Red_Dragon - May 24, 2024 - 6:55am
Artificial Intelligence
- miamizsun - May 24, 2024 - 5:41am
Today in History
- DaveInSaoMiguel - May 24, 2024 - 1:42am
Fascism In America
- Red_Dragon - May 23, 2024 - 5:52pm
Climate Change
- R_P - May 23, 2024 - 2:48pm
Israel
- R_P - May 23, 2024 - 12:25pm
USA! USA! USA!
- R_P - May 23, 2024 - 11:02am
Nederland / The Netherlands
- R_P - May 23, 2024 - 10:03am
Music News
- Beaker - May 23, 2024 - 8:30am
Interviews with the artists
- Beaker - May 23, 2024 - 8:12am
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos
- KurtfromLaQuinta - May 22, 2024 - 8:51pm
Science is bullsh*t
- GeneP59 - May 22, 2024 - 4:16pm
Maarjamaa
- oldviolin - May 22, 2024 - 3:32pm
Gotta Get Your Drink On
- ScottFromWyoming - May 22, 2024 - 3:25pm
Bug Reports & Feature Requests
- jarro - May 22, 2024 - 11:19am
New Music
- R_P - May 22, 2024 - 9:18am
Trump
- rgio - May 22, 2024 - 4:44am
Coffee
- haresfur - May 22, 2024 - 12:12am
Rock mix sound quality below Main and Mellow?
- theirongiant - May 21, 2024 - 2:23pm
Most played: what's the range? Last 30 days? 90?
- theirongiant - May 21, 2024 - 2:20pm
Dialing 1-800-Manbird
- oldviolin - May 21, 2024 - 11:59am
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •
- Isabeau - May 20, 2024 - 2:16pm
What Did You See Today?
- Steely_D - May 20, 2024 - 1:24pm
Baseball, anyone?
- ScottFromWyoming - May 20, 2024 - 12:00pm
Mixtape Culture Club
- ColdMiser - May 20, 2024 - 7:50am
Shawn Phillips
- Isabeau - May 20, 2024 - 6:20am
The Corporation
- Red_Dragon - May 20, 2024 - 5:08am
Positive Thoughts and Prayer Requests
- GeneP59 - May 19, 2024 - 4:08pm
What can you hear right now?
- GeneP59 - May 19, 2024 - 4:07pm
China
- Isabeau - May 19, 2024 - 2:22pm
What Makes You Laugh?
- Isabeau - May 19, 2024 - 2:18pm
TV shows you watch
- Steely_D - May 19, 2024 - 1:13am
Music library
- nightdrive - May 18, 2024 - 1:28pm
The Obituary Page
- DaveInSaoMiguel - May 18, 2024 - 4:18am
Paul McCartney
- miamizsun - May 18, 2024 - 4:06am
Virginia News
- Steely_D - May 18, 2024 - 2:51am
Gnomad here. Who farking deleted my thread?
- Red_Dragon - May 17, 2024 - 5:59pm
The Dragons' Roost
- triskele - May 17, 2024 - 4:04pm
Upcoming concerts or shows you can't wait to see
- ScottFromWyoming - May 17, 2024 - 1:43pm
DIY
- black321 - May 17, 2024 - 9:16am
Other Medical Stuff
- kurtster - May 16, 2024 - 10:00pm
Your Local News
- Proclivities - May 16, 2024 - 12:51pm
Alexa Show
- thisbody - May 16, 2024 - 12:15pm
Joe Biden
- Steely_D - May 16, 2024 - 1:02am
Strange signs, marquees, billboards, etc.
- KurtfromLaQuinta - May 15, 2024 - 4:13pm
how do you feel right now?
- KurtfromLaQuinta - May 15, 2024 - 4:10pm
What the hell OV?
- oldviolin - May 15, 2024 - 12:38pm
Song of the Day
- oldviolin - May 15, 2024 - 11:50am
NASA & other news from space
- Beaker - May 15, 2024 - 9:29am
Human Rights (Can Science Point The Way)
- miamizsun - May 15, 2024 - 5:50am
Play the Blues
- Steely_D - May 15, 2024 - 1:50am
Animal Resistance
- R_P - May 14, 2024 - 6:37pm
2024 Elections!
- R_P - May 14, 2024 - 6:00pm
punk? hip-hop? metal? noise? garage?
- thisbody - May 14, 2024 - 1:27pm
Social Media Are Changing Everything
- Red_Dragon - May 14, 2024 - 8:08am
Internet connection
- ai63 - May 14, 2024 - 7:53am
Congress
- Red_Dragon - May 13, 2024 - 8:22pm
Ukraine
- R_P - May 13, 2024 - 5:50pm
What The Hell Buddy?
- oldviolin - May 13, 2024 - 1:25pm
Surfing!
- KurtfromLaQuinta - May 13, 2024 - 1:21pm
Bad Poetry
- oldviolin - May 13, 2024 - 11:38am
See This Film
- Red_Dragon - May 13, 2024 - 8:35am
Podcast recommendations???
- ColdMiser - May 13, 2024 - 7:50am
News of the Weird
- Red_Dragon - May 13, 2024 - 5:05am
Those Lovable Policemen
- R_P - May 12, 2024 - 11:31am
|
Index »
Entertainment »
TV »
Rachel Maddow
|
Page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next |
ScottFromWyoming
Location: Powell Gender:
|
Posted:
Jun 28, 2010 - 2:15pm |
|
cc_rider wrote: Doesn't unemployment come out to about $6.50/hour?
I'm sure there's a maximum but it's a percentage of what you made in your previous job, the year ending 6 months before you became unemployed.
|
|
Manbird
Location: La Villa Toscana Gender:
|
Posted:
Jun 28, 2010 - 2:15pm |
|
cc_rider wrote: Monkeysdad wrote:
I've got to admit though, former colleagues that were laid-off with me last Feb. are still turning down jobs because they make more $ on UE. At some time the cycle has to break. I believe that's what some of the comments refer to. Not an easy topic, but at some juncture one has to take the job, waiting for another $25/hour job like they had could take a while! Again, not an easy topic......
Doesn't unemployment come out to about $6.50/hour? Better off hanging around a Home Depot with a shovel, looking for a job there. Forget the stigma of taking a low-paying job: it could really work against you whenever a 'real' job opportunity comes up. I guess I don't know anyone who can sustain themselves on what UE pays. When I lost my job about 6 years ago my UE benefits lasted a mere 5 months. The money wasn't bad - it was about 30% more than I make now. At least I ate every day...The problem with trying to find a low-wage job is that if you previously worked in a skilled or professional capacity, no one is going to hire you to sweep, dig or fry - because they consider you overqualified - likely to quit at any moment when you get back to doing what you do. They would rather hire someone with no prospects - someone more likely to accept an unfair or abusive or very difficult work environment.
|
|
cc_rider
Location: Bastrop Gender:
|
Posted:
Jun 28, 2010 - 2:06pm |
|
Monkeysdad wrote:
I've got to admit though, former colleagues that were laid-off with me last Feb. are still turning down jobs because they make more $ on UE. At some time the cycle has to break. I believe that's what some of the comments refer to. Not an easy topic, but at some juncture one has to take the job, waiting for another $25/hour job like they had could take a while! Again, not an easy topic......
Doesn't unemployment come out to about $6.50/hour? Better off hanging around a Home Depot with a shovel, looking for a job there. Forget the stigma of taking a low-paying job: it could really work against you whenever a 'real' job opportunity comes up. I guess I don't know anyone who can sustain themselves on what UE pays.
|
|
Monkeysdad
Location: Simi Valley, CA Gender:
|
Posted:
Jun 28, 2010 - 1:59pm |
|
cc_rider wrote: I think you're right, it's about extending benefits. I'd rather see a different sort of solution, like you're saying. My beef is with the attitude those people display, as if everyone who's ever gotten laid off is a druggie slacker baby-makin' machine. That mindset shuts off constructive solutions from the start.
I've got to admit though, former colleagues that were laid-off with me last Feb. are still turning down jobs because they make more $ on UE. At some time the cycle has to break. I believe that's what some of the comments refer to. Not an easy topic, but at some juncture one has to take the job, waiting for another $25/hour job like they had could take a while! Again, not an easy topic......
|
|
cc_rider
Location: Bastrop Gender:
|
Posted:
Jun 28, 2010 - 1:48pm |
|
black321 wrote: cc_rider wrote: stupid comments aside, but isnt the new legislation aimed at extending unemployment benefits, not eliminating the current benefits? Without understanding all the pros and cons, I'm not sure a blind extension of benefits is the best way to go...why not put more money towards more jobs and helping rebuild our infrastructure, particularly our energy needs. I think you're right, it's about extending benefits. I'd rather see a different sort of solution, like you're saying. My beef is with the attitude those people display, as if everyone who's ever gotten laid off is a druggie slacker baby-makin' machine. That mindset shuts off constructive solutions from the start.
|
|
black321
Location: An earth without maps Gender:
|
Posted:
Jun 28, 2010 - 1:38pm |
|
 cc_rider wrote:Â
stupid comments aside, but isnt the new legislation aimed at extending unemployment benefits, not eliminating the current benefits? Without understanding all the pros and cons, I'm not sure a blind extension of benefits is the best way to go...why not put more money towards more jobs and helping rebuild our infrastructure, particularly our energy needs.
|
|
cc_rider
Location: Bastrop Gender:
|
Posted:
Jun 28, 2010 - 1:06pm |
|
As long as there are politicians, folks like Ms. Maddow will have a job: http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/06/25/4560854-conservatives-hate-the-unemployedNow, I know there are plenty of folks who dislike Rachel Maddow for her apparently extreme-left-wing views. But this is not her editorializing, these are quotes directly from Republican leaders. I'm pretty sure none of those people have ever been laid off before.
|
|
mzpro5
Location: Budda'spet, Hungry Gender:
|
Posted:
Jun 17, 2010 - 8:17am |
|
hippiechick wrote: I think that David Gregory is not biased, he is a good journalist,
I really dislike the Howdy Doody looking MFer! And it's not political, purely personal.
|
|
rosedraws
Location: close to the edge Gender:
|
Posted:
Jun 17, 2010 - 6:55am |
|
|
|
jadewahoo
Location: Puerto Viejo, Costa Rica Gender:
|
Posted:
Apr 14, 2010 - 5:20pm |
|
Mugro wrote:That's pretty humorous. Snuffalopagus was Bill Clinton's Press Secretary for chrissakes! He is about as "objective" as Tip O'Neil's former staffer (Chris Matthews). David Gregory is what we call a Smug Liberal*. He's liberal and looks down his nose at anyone who isn't as enlightened as he is. He is far from objective and his bias shows every time he "interviews" a guest on his show. (Smug Liberals are Generation X's answer to Armchair Liberals who were of the generation that preceeded them. Armchair Liberals sat in their highbacked chairs, snifted their brandy and pontificated on what other people should do with their lives. Fun huh? Of course, these should not be confused with the folks Howie Carr likes to call Limosine Liberals, who are rich liberals who have fun spending other people's money, like the Kennedy family). All of this, of course, stands in stark contrast to the Cons and NeoCons who are nothing more than their appellation denotes.
|
|
(former member)
Gender:
|
Posted:
Apr 14, 2010 - 3:57pm |
|
Mugro wrote:
Television ratings and political elections depend on the same thing: popularity. See, that's the answer to your own question about the leftward lean. I think she's not news, but commentary. She's entertainment. But, smart entertainment with the topic being politics.
|
|
sirdroseph
Location: Not here, I tell you wat Gender:
|
Posted:
Apr 14, 2010 - 3:45pm |
|
Mugro wrote:I plead the Fifth. Give up the inside info!
|
|
Mugro
Location: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
|
Posted:
Apr 14, 2010 - 3:44pm |
|
sirdroseph wrote:
I know right? He is a bit of a weirdo too, donthca think?
I plead the Fifth.
|
|
sirdroseph
Location: Not here, I tell you wat Gender:
|
Posted:
Apr 14, 2010 - 3:43pm |
|
Mugro wrote:
Brown is so vain he could not resist.
I know right? He is a bit of a weirdo too, donthca think?
|
|
Mugro
Location: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
|
Posted:
Apr 14, 2010 - 3:41pm |
|
sirdroseph wrote:
Yea, my thing is though that as you have said, both benefitted from all the brouhaha. The difference is Maddow is an entertainer, nothing more, nothing less and Brown is an elected representative to Congress, just seems kinda trifling for him to be so involved in this and nothing but good business policy to promote her show on Maddows part.
Brown is so vain he could not resist.
|
|
Mugro
Location: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
|
Posted:
Apr 14, 2010 - 3:40pm |
|
hippiechick wrote: I think that David Gregory is not biased, he is a good journalist, and he asks the tough questions of Dems as well as Republicans. George Stephenopolis was also very good.
That's pretty humorous. Snuffalopagus was Bill Clinton's Press Secretary for chrissakes! He is about as "objective" as Tip O'Neil's former staffer (Chris Matthews). David Gregory is what we call a Smug Liberal*. He's liberal and looks down his nose at anyone who isn't as enlightened as he is. He is far from objective and his bias shows every time he "interviews" a guest on his show. (Smug Liberals are Generation X's answer to Armchair Liberals who were of the generation that preceeded them. Armchair Liberals sat in their highbacked chairs, snifted their brandy and pontificated on what other people should do with their lives. Fun huh? Of course, these should not be confused with the folks Howie Carr likes to call Limosine Liberals, who are rich liberals who have fun spending other people's money, like the Kennedy family).
|
|
sirdroseph
Location: Not here, I tell you wat Gender:
|
Posted:
Apr 14, 2010 - 3:39pm |
|
Mugro wrote:
Television ratings and political elections depend on the same thing: popularity. That was the comparison. If Rachel Maddow is watched by less people across the country than Scott Brown got to vote for him in a special election in January in MASSACHUSETTS, then that means that she isn't very popular and probably would not get elected in a race against Brown. I think that was the point of the article. Make sense now?
No one is sure how this strange media dustup got started, but most media and politics watchers say that the feud was good for both Brown and Maddow. Brown was able to use the threat of a lefty MSNDC from western Mass. running against him to raise millions of dollars, and presumably Maddow used Brown's rising star popularity to bring some much needed attention to her ratings-starved show.
Yea, my thing is though that as you have said, both benefitted from all the brouhaha. The difference is Maddow is an entertainer, nothing more, nothing less and Brown is an elected representative to Congress, just seems kinda trifling for him to be so involved in this and nothing but good business policy to promote her show on Maddows part.
|
|
sirdroseph
Location: Not here, I tell you wat Gender:
|
Posted:
Apr 14, 2010 - 3:36pm |
|
hippiechick wrote: Funny, if it's about YOU!
Sure it is, my motto is if it is funny, it is funny. I don't mind, I don't sweat the small stuff like this especially when it is funny.
|
|
Mugro
Location: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
|
Posted:
Apr 14, 2010 - 3:35pm |
|
sirdroseph wrote:
Yea, I saw that on her show when he (Brown) kept bringing this up. I believe it was the Senator who kept talking about it and Rachel was using his remarks as a ratings ploy as she repeateadly said over and over that she has never and does not ever have any intention of running all the while Brown kept insinuating that she should bring it on. I also was not aware that ratings numbers and voting numbers were correlated in any way, is that a new political science formula that I was not aware of?
Television ratings and political elections depend on the same thing: popularity. That was the comparison. If Rachel Maddow is watched by less people across the country than Scott Brown got to vote for him in a special election in January in MASSACHUSETTS, then that means that she isn't very popular and probably would not get elected in a race against Brown. I think that was the point of the article. Make sense now? No one is sure how this strange media dustup got started, but most media and politics watchers say that the feud was good for both Brown and Maddow. Brown was able to use the threat of a lefty MSNDC from western Mass. running against him to raise millions of dollars, and presumably Maddow used Brown's rising star popularity to bring some much needed attention to her ratings-starved show.
|
|
Alpine
Location: N39d39mW121d30m Gender:
|
Posted:
Apr 14, 2010 - 3:31pm |
|
hippiechick wrote: Personal attacks are unnecessary.
Tell that to Gretchen Carlson.
|
|
|