I may have to start watching Maddow again

[_subgenius]

It is not a link and run as defined by this board. Your Butt-Hurt still?

surprisingly, since Nov 8th 2016, my butt has yet to hurt...you still think anyone that you intended to see your link has actually clicked that link?

[_MeDotOrg]

I used to really like Rachel, and I still watch her occasionally, but she is beginning to grate on me a little bit. She really drags out a story, building to a dramatic conclusion which rarely matches the buildup.

Steven Colbert did a great parody.

[_Dr. Shades]

It is not a link and run as defined by this board. Your Butt-Hurt still?

subgenius is correct. By very definition it was "link-and-run" since you didn't even so much as attempt to explain or preview it in any way, shape or form.

You just linked and ran.

If it wasn't worth your time to explain it, then it's not worth my time to click on it.

[_EAllusion]

It is not a link and run as defined by this board. Your Butt-Hurt still?

subgenius is correct. By very definition it was "link-and-run" since you didn't even so much as attempt to explain or preview it in any way, shape or form.

You just linked and ran.

If it wasn't worth your time to explain it, then it's not worth my time to click on it.

Sub linked and ran right above him. Why single out CCC?

[_Dr. Shades]

Sub linked and ran right above him. Why single out CCC?

Oops, you're right! I missed it.

subgenius, please don't make yourself guilty of the selfsame sin of which you accuse others.

[_Mayan Elephant]

subgenius, please don't make yourself guilty of the selfsame sin of which you accuse others.

the OP was four words and a link and run.

[_Some Schmo]

I used to really like Rachel, and I still watch her occasionally, but she is beginning to grate on me a little bit. She really drags out a story, building to a dramatic conclusion which rarely matches the buildup.

Steven Colbert did a great parody.

Her shtick has gotten old for me too. She's really lending credence to the idea of being a left-wing version of a Hannity in terms of cheesy sensationalism (I think she's brighter and more honest than Hannity, however).

I prefer Chris Hayes.

[_The CCC]

subgenius is correct. By very definition it was "link-and-run" since you didn't even so much as attempt to explain or preview it in any way, shape or form.

You just linked and ran.

If it wasn't worth your time to explain it, then it's not worth my time to click on it.

My apologies I have seen it done before. It won't happen again.

[_honorentheos]

Folks like Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews are propagandists. Even when the content they share aligns with my views their delivery and intent is in conflict. Never been a fan. Don't see that changing.

[_Mayan Elephant]

Folks like Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews are propagandists. Even when the content they share aligns with my views their delivery and intent is in conflict. Never been a fan. Don't see that changing.

i did not always feel that way about mathews. but i am trending that way for sure.

maddow makes my skin crawl. that annoying condescending schmirky nonsense is, to me, exactly exactly exactly the same professional quality and intellectual content as o'reilly.

every now and then she has a message that resonates, largely because i align with her politically for the most part. but damn she is an annoying nuisance.

honor, i am curious about your comment re intent and propaganda. what exactly are the elements of their work that makes you feel that way? i have been enormously annoyed with the way the media has made themselves the story, especially in the campaign cycle. trump and bannon were clever to use that to feed the beast and win the contest. your comment makes me think about this a bit differently. it feels as if they are doubling down on making themselves the story - and doing so by becoming more of the propaganda machine. i do not get the impression that there is any concern or interest in being less of the story, they want to be more of it.