The real human costs of liberalism

Many have maintained that liberalism is a tragedy, that it weakens and dimnishes the human condition. Here, in two pictures, is incontrovertible proof.

Rachel Maddow's high school senior picture:



Rachel Maddow after 20 years of commitment to liberalism:



Liberalism must be defeated, if only to prevent this damage to the human condition. Do it for the children.

I think Rachel Maddow is hot, regardless of her opinions. I'll also bet that this is one thing Longer and I can agree on.

She's also smarter than most of the people on this board. Of course, some people would discount the intelligence of a Rhodes scholar because they don’t know what it is.

I'd hit it, no problem.

And she is smart...very smart.

OP, you're just jealous because she gets more pussy than you do. And she's smarter than you. Much smarter.

Short-haired brunette with sexy secretary glasses that likes to make sweet sweet lesbo love...yes please!

(She only needs to be straight for a few minutes to make my THREE INCHES happy, lol.)

I think she's beautiful either way, besides that she likes to fish, she likes to ski and she likes other women. Sounds like my dream woman. Not to mention the Rhodes Scholar thing. Add to that the fact that she has the scary ability to make the foolishness that modern conservatives have embraced look stupid, and do it without resorting to the histrionics we see everyday from other talking heads... I'd be honored if she and her partner wanted to use my sperm to have a child together. I'd even let them get it from me fresh. Directly from the source.

check the requirements for a Rhodes Scholar, there is no minimum grade requirement. it is more political than academic achievement. Of course, someone still has to be pretty sharp but not necessarily the smartest. I would take an MIT grad or nuke school grad over the Rhodie.

Me like lesbos only bi is better smart is ok.

Galt as usual you show your blatant hatred of democrats/liberals...Just so you know there are several republicans/conseratives that have become Rhodes Scholars....
David Vitter for example...just goes to show you can be a combination of a very educatated person yet extremely stupid as is Vitters case...oh and another for you
Bobby Jihndal also....whats in that Lousiana water!!!!
here is a partial lihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Rhodes_Scholarssting of Rhodes Scholars....

Okay KC here is your chance, what did I say about democrats and liberals.... come on, spell it out! I explained that Rhodes scholars, any Rhodes scholars, does not identify the smartest of anything. Only you saw anything in there about politics, dummy. Your problem. What I said is true still. It is not the best and brightest that get to Oxford, it is the best connected. The term Rhodes scholar comes from someone who matriculated at Oxford under a scholarship established by Cecil Rhodes, the racist founder of Rhodesia. Other people who matriculate at Oxford are not Rhodes Scholars, they are just Oxford alum. Some so-called Rhodes scholars flunked out or dropped out without finishing so they are not really Rhodes scholars. I could name one but you would not like it.
So come KC, try to justify your blurb...

Galt you are a well established dem/liberal hater...facts are facts...read your own post and it established that...as for where you brought it up this time how about proof reading your own original statement...
check the requirements for a Rhodes Scholar, there is no minimum grade requirement. it is more political than academic achievement. Of course, someone still has to be pretty sharp but not necessarily the smartest. I would take an MIT grad or nuke school grad over the Rhodie.
And in checking the list which I provided it does tend to lean heavily towards the dem/liberal side...but there are plenty of republicans on the list...sorry that some of them aren't really good examples ie Vitter and Jindahl....as far as you naming one who flunked out or dropped out go ahead but when you do that make sure you provide links/proof...as for your MIT comment they have had 55 rhodes scholars...
and most people will agree that getting into Stanford (Miss Maddows alma mater)is just as hard as getting MIT....just saying....but am sure you will loudly and stupidly disagree or try to change your arguement as you always do when you are proven wrong...which is almost every time you post...you are great at dishing out ad hominems...as far as whether I am a dummy far from dude....but with all that extensive college education you are racking up am sure you are much much smarter than me....

kcmark, you are misinterpreting the use of the word "political." Politics in academia is not the same thing as the US political system and it's parties. One has nothing to do with the other.

Well I thought I was smart until I read this thread..lotta 10 dollar words being thrown around..

There is no doubt that she is smart, but every time I hear her start a sentence with "So basically..." my skin starts to crawl because she over simplifying something to the point where it tells the story she wants to tell and not what actually happened or was intended. I really think she is just as bad as the other personalities on msnbc and foxnews. Smart people can ignore facts and form their own truths just as easy as anyone else.

Me like lesbos only bi is better smart is ok. Originally Posted by Cheaper2buyit

Yay!