Live Music
- oldviolin - Jun 7, 2024 - 10:03pm
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •
- oldviolin - Jun 7, 2024 - 9:54pm
Wordle - daily game
- NoEnzLefttoSplit - Jun 7, 2024 - 9:33pm
TEXAS
- R_P - Jun 7, 2024 - 8:36pm
Republican Party
- kcar - Jun 7, 2024 - 8:11pm
favorite love songs
- Manbird - Jun 7, 2024 - 8:06pm
Lyrics that are stuck in your head today...
- Manbird - Jun 7, 2024 - 8:04pm
China
- R_P - Jun 7, 2024 - 7:54pm
Song of the Day
- oldviolin - Jun 7, 2024 - 7:54pm
What the hell OV?
- oldviolin - Jun 7, 2024 - 7:42pm
Radio Paradise Comments
- Isabeau - Jun 7, 2024 - 6:30pm
Things You Thought Today
- Antigone - Jun 7, 2024 - 4:11pm
Israel
- R_P - Jun 7, 2024 - 2:50pm
NYTimes Connections
- Steely_D - Jun 7, 2024 - 2:14pm
Can you afford to retire?
- JrzyTmata - Jun 7, 2024 - 2:05pm
NY Times Strands
- rgio - Jun 7, 2024 - 12:27pm
Old timers, crosswords &
- ScottFromWyoming - Jun 7, 2024 - 12:09pm
Military Matters
- R_P - Jun 7, 2024 - 11:31am
Bug Reports & Feature Requests
- Laptopdog - Jun 7, 2024 - 11:09am
NASA & other news from space
- GeneP59 - Jun 7, 2024 - 8:42am
Derplahoma!
- Red_Dragon - Jun 7, 2024 - 8:01am
Joe Biden
- ColdMiser - Jun 7, 2024 - 7:53am
Favorite Quotes
- black321 - Jun 7, 2024 - 7:45am
What makes you smile?
- Red_Dragon - Jun 7, 2024 - 6:32am
Today in History
- DaveInSaoMiguel - Jun 7, 2024 - 3:07am
June 2024 Photo Theme - Eyes
- fractalv - Jun 6, 2024 - 3:58pm
Artificial Intelligence
- johkir - Jun 6, 2024 - 3:57pm
Gotta Get Your Drink On
- Antigone - Jun 6, 2024 - 2:48pm
Snakes & streaming images. WTH is going on?
- kcar - Jun 6, 2024 - 1:25pm
Cryptic Posts - Leave Them Guessing
- oldviolin - Jun 6, 2024 - 12:35pm
Economix
- black321 - Jun 6, 2024 - 11:31am
What's with the Sitar? ...and Robert Plant
- thisbody - Jun 6, 2024 - 11:16am
songs that ROCK!
- thisbody - Jun 6, 2024 - 10:39am
USA! USA! USA!
- R_P - Jun 6, 2024 - 8:32am
Mixtape Culture Club
- ColdMiser - Jun 6, 2024 - 7:28am
Climate Change
- Red_Dragon - Jun 6, 2024 - 5:17am
Democratic Party
- kurtster - Jun 5, 2024 - 9:23pm
Name My Band
- Manbird - Jun 5, 2024 - 7:02pm
Canada
- Beaker - Jun 5, 2024 - 1:58pm
the Todd Rundgren topic
- miamizsun - Jun 5, 2024 - 5:00am
Photos you have taken of your walks or hikes.
- MrDill - Jun 5, 2024 - 2:26am
What Makes You Laugh?
- Steely_D - Jun 5, 2024 - 12:44am
What Are You Going To Do Today?
- ScottFromWyoming - Jun 4, 2024 - 9:47pm
Automotive Lust
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Jun 4, 2024 - 9:28pm
Art Show
- Manbird - Jun 4, 2024 - 8:20pm
Bad Poetry
- Isabeau - Jun 4, 2024 - 12:11pm
Classic TV Curiosities
- Isabeau - Jun 4, 2024 - 12:09pm
What's that smell?
- Isabeau - Jun 4, 2024 - 11:50am
Trump
- Red_Dragon - Jun 4, 2024 - 11:05am
Music Videos
- black321 - Jun 4, 2024 - 10:11am
Baseball, anyone?
- ScottFromWyoming - Jun 4, 2024 - 8:28am
Your First Albums
- Manbird - Jun 3, 2024 - 5:42pm
King Crimson
- Steely_D - Jun 3, 2024 - 2:25pm
2024 Elections!
- R_P - Jun 3, 2024 - 10:19am
Your favourite conspiracy theory?
- Beaker - Jun 3, 2024 - 8:00am
Beer
- Red_Dragon - Jun 3, 2024 - 5:20am
Ukraine
- R_P - Jun 2, 2024 - 3:07pm
RP on Twitter
- R_P - Jun 1, 2024 - 2:47pm
Football, soccer, futbol, calcio...
- thisbody - Jun 1, 2024 - 10:20am
What Did You See Today?
- Isabeau - May 31, 2024 - 1:15pm
ONE WORD
- thisbody - May 31, 2024 - 10:39am
May 2024 Photo Theme - Peaceful
- Alchemist - May 30, 2024 - 6:58pm
Human Curated?
- Ipse_Dixit - May 30, 2024 - 2:55pm
Evolution!
- R_P - May 30, 2024 - 12:22pm
Sonos
- konz - May 30, 2024 - 10:26am
Fascism In America
- R_P - May 29, 2024 - 11:01pm
You might be getting old if......
- Bill_J - May 29, 2024 - 6:05pm
Science in the News
- black321 - May 29, 2024 - 11:56am
Roku App - Roku Asterisk Menu
- RPnate1 - May 29, 2024 - 11:15am
Geomorphology
- NoEnzLefttoSplit - May 29, 2024 - 10:56am
The Obituary Page
- Steve - May 29, 2024 - 5:49am
Notification bar on android
- tjux - May 28, 2024 - 10:26pm
Interviews with the artists
- dischuckin - May 28, 2024 - 1:33pm
RightWingNutZ
- R_P - May 28, 2024 - 12:02pm
RP Daily Trivia Challenge
- ScottFromWyoming - May 27, 2024 - 8:24pm
|
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.
|
|
|