MSNBC on the way out ? [Archive] - HungAngels - Guide to TGirls and Transsexuals

trish

02-11-2011, 05:38 PM

This clip is both fascinating and revealing on many levels.Really? Perhaps you'll illuminate us? Let's see how many levels we can enumerate.
1)
The reporter, a supposedly "Main Stream"... ( in some circles) with credentials Okay...yes, it's interesting to note that a reporter whose credentials include having worked since the 70's for all three network news associations, covered the White House in the 80's for NBC as The Chief Congressional Correspondent and has worked her way up the ladder to Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent, whose professional coverage of numerous stories over the decades has earned her the respect of her profession...it is interesting that you would characterize her as being "supposedly 'Main Stream'." Is it because among all her other ongoing accomplishments she also hosts a news program on MSNBC as well? Or perhaps you just don't like the fact that she was on the cutting edge of the Valerie Plame story?

2)
...does an informative interview with a former member of the Muslim Brotherhood.Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a very smart woman, who as Cuchulain rightly points out is really a neocon representing the American Enterprise Institute. Her experience with the Muslim Brotherhood is from her childhood in Mogadishu, not Egypt.

3)
The guest schools the reporter on their intentions,What does Ali say of the Brotherhood she knew as a child? Nothing surprising. The Brotherhood does not believe in secular government, they see politics, governance and religion as an integrated whole and that as an organization they will seek power and will seek to further their goals toward such an integration. Not very different from the fundamentalist Christian movement here which also seeks to integrate religious doctrines and viewpoints with the law. Ali hardly "schooled" anyone here. It's not news to anyone that political groups seek the power to further their goals.

4)
then the reporter takes to the air the next day and completely disregards her guests dire warnings In other words Mitchell points out that Egypt is Egypt and has a different relationship and history with Israel and the West than do other Islamic countries around the world. We have observed for ourselves the events in Egypt this week as both Muslims and Christian protested together side by side. The violence was not between Muslims and Christians, it was between the citizens of Egypt and Mubarak's police. We saw Coptic Christians circle and guard Muslims from the police as the Muslims faced Mecca and prayed; and later that day the Muslim Brotherhood returned the favor guarding the Christians from harm as they prayed in the streets.

5)
Slanting the news? So when Mitchell is reporting the news, if she doesn't parrot the opinion expressed in a prior guest interview, then the reporting is slanted?

6)
It's not as over the top or juicy as Beck's rants, it's far more subtleSee, we CAN agree, but you seem to use the word "subtle" as if it's a bad thing. Einstein said, "The Lord is subtle, but not malicious." Here we see that Mitchell is subtle, but Beck is malicious.

onmyknees

02-12-2011, 02:02 AM

Really? Perhaps you'll illuminate us? Let's see how many levels we can enumerate.
1) Okay...yes, it's interesting to note that a reporter whose credentials include having worked since the 70's for all three network news associations, covered the White House in the 80's for NBC as The Chief Congressional Correspondent and has worked her way up the ladder to Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent, whose professional coverage of numerous stories over the decades has earned her the respect of her profession...it is interesting that you would characterize her as being "supposedly 'Main Stream'." Is it because among all her other ongoing accomplishments she also hosts a news program on MSNBC as well? Or perhaps you just don't like the fact that she was on the cutting edge of the Valerie Plame story?

2) Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a very smart woman, who as Cuchulain rightly points out is really a neocon representing the American Enterprise Institute. Her experience with the Muslim Brotherhood is from her childhood in Mogadishu, not Egypt.

3) What does Ali say of the Brotherhood she knew as a child? Nothing surprising. The Brotherhood does not believe in secular government, they see politics, governance and religion as an integrated whole and that as an organization they will seek power and will seek to further their goals toward such an integration. Not very different from the fundamentalist Christian movement here which also seeks to integrate religious doctrines and viewpoints with the law. Ali hardly "schooled" anyone here. It's not news to anyone that political groups seek the power to further their goals.

4) In other words Mitchell points out that Egypt is Egypt and has a different relationship and history with Israel and the West than do other Islamic countries around the world. We have observed for ourselves the events in Egypt this week as both Muslims and Christian protested together side by side. The violence was not between Muslims and Christians, it was between the citizens of Egypt and Mubarak's police. We saw Coptic Christians circle and guard Muslims from the police as the Muslims faced Mecca and prayed; and later that day the Muslim Brotherhood returned the favor guarding the Christians from harm as they prayed in the streets.

5) So when Mitchell is reporting the news, if she doesn't parrot the opinion expressed in a prior guest interview, then the reporting is slanted?

6) See, we CAN agree, but you seem to use the word "subtle" as if it's a bad thing. Einstein said, "The Lord is subtle, but not malicious." Here we see that Mitchell is subtle, but Beck is malicious.

Okay...yes, it's interesting to note that a reporter whose credentials include having worked since the 70's for all three network news associations, covered the White House in the 80's for NBC as The Chief Congressional Correspondent and has worked her way up the ladder to Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent, whose professional coverage of numerous stories over the decades has earned her the respect of her profession...it is interesting that you would characterize her as being "supposedly 'Main Stream'." Is it because among all her other ongoing accomplishments she also hosts a news program on MSNBC as well? Or perhaps you just don't like the fact that she was on the cutting edge of the Valerie Plame story?

The Valerie Plame story?? LMAO...Ms. Plame and her stooge hubby are still milking that ! Maybe an academy award soon ?? Is the special prosecutor still looking for the source of the leak? Or was he satisfied he bagged Scooter Libby ?

Ms. Mitchell notoriously leans left, but how would you know?....she's preaching to the choir. She's got credentials absolutely and so do does Paul Krugman and so did Dan Rather....what's your point...?? that's she's objective ? The first two proved that's a fallacy. LMAO..why do you think she appears on Chris Matthew's show all the time? Because she bolsters his point of view. Maybe I'll post some of her more infamous faux pos, but on second thought what would be the point? You're hardly an objective audience.

"Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a very smart woman, who as Cuchulain rightly points out is really a neocon representing the American Enterprise Institute. Her experience with the Muslim Brotherhood is from her childhood in Mogadishu, not Egypt. "

And so that makes her insight irrelevant ? So we'll take Ms. Mitchell's view over someone with obviously far more insight. You are hysterical...you have a reporter who's obviously a liberal , but you fail to notice that, yet you take the time to point out the political leanings of the guest ! Oh man are you blind ! But I'm not surprised. Ms. Mitchell is your sister in solidarity in letting her imagine run away with her on linking Palin to the shootings. So of course you see her as objective. She sings your song ! She also almost daily laments about gun control, and was saying precisely what you were saying about the Tea Party .She also scolded Sen. Judd Graig..."how do you justify tax cuts for people who don't need it" She sounds more like you...than you do !! LMAO Objective?? Not on your fucking life, but believe what you wanna believe.

"What does Ali say of the Brotherhood she knew as a child? Nothing surprising. The Brotherhood does not believe in secular government, they see politics, governance and religion as an integrated whole and that as an organization they will seek power and will seek to further their goals toward such an integration. Not very different from the fundamentalist Christian movement here which also seeks to integrate religious doctrines and viewpoints with the law. Ali hardly "schooled" anyone here. It's not news to anyone that political groups seek the power to further their goals."

Really...?? well you better tell the Head of Intelligence James Clapper who testified to the contrary yesterday. How long until he is asked to submit his resignation ? This guy either has early dementia, or is just clueless. You seem to have more knowledge than he. If your last sentence is correct...then why did Ms. Mitchell state the contrary the very next day? What was the point of having a guest of Ms. Ali insight if she dismissed it the next day?
Even Richard Angle in related reports seems to dispute Ms. Mitchell's assessment.

6) See, we CAN agree, but you seem to use the word "subtle" as if it's a bad thing. Einstein said, "The Lord is subtle, but not malicious." Here we see that Mitchell is subtle, but Beck is malicious.[/QUOTE]

There ya go again. Beck was hardly malicious, but you've probably been waiting to use that quote for some time now. The point is...Mitchell's not supposed to be subtle in letting her ideology bleed into a story. She not supposed to be anything other than straightforward. She's a reporter, not an opinion journalist. She can't be both. The danger in what she does is similar to what the NYT does...opinions should be on the op-ed page. There are people like you who actually think she plays it down the middle.

trish

02-12-2011, 02:56 AM

The Valerie Plame story?? LMAO...Ms. Plame and her stooge hubby are still milking that ! Maybe an academy award soon ?? Is the special prosecutor still looking for the source of the leak? Or was he satisfied he bagged Scooter Libby ?
I didn't ask you what you thought about Valerie Plame and her husband, I asked if found something unprofessional in Mitchell's coverage.

what's your point...?that's she's objective ?You apparently forgot your own post. The point is that she's main stream and that you find main stream reporters only "supposedly" main stream. Sorry, are you feeling left out?

Really...??Really. Clapper realizes that political groups seek the power to further their goals. His point was mine: that the Muslim Brotherhood is not an overarching monolithic entity. Somalians who belong to what is called the Muslim Brotherhood there have different goals and ambitions then Egyptians of the same name. There's more than 2000 miles between Cairo and Mogadishu.

you've probably been waiting to use that quote for some time now.There you go again. Pretending to know what's in my head and what I'm just itching to say. If you must know it was your use of the word "subtle" which jogged the quotation into memory. And yes, Beck is being malicious. Admittedly more stupid than malicious, but quite distinctly malicious. He is, after all, accusing Obama and liberals of knowingly and deliberately conspiring with radical fundamentalist Muslims to establish a unified caliphate to rule all of Southeast Asia, the Middle East, Northern Africa and Europe. To the extent he believes that tripe he's an idiot. To the extent he knows he's making it up, he's being malicious. Pretty much goes for his fans too.

You're upset that Mitchell's reporting allows for the possibility that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt might continue to display the same reserve it has in the past may and seek to forward its goals through democratic means. Mitchell didn't say it would definitely go down that way; she didn't fail to acknowledge your point of view, or even have a guest to forcefully present your point of view. She only allowed for the possibility that you might be wrong, and suddenly she's being subtly biased and letting ideology bleed into her journalism. Yeah right. Did anyone ever tell you that "LMAO" is not a refutation.

Silcc69

02-13-2011, 06:35 AM

To many "walls of text" on here.

Faldur

02-13-2011, 03:29 PM

Cable news race
thurs., feb 10, 2011

foxnews o'reilly 3,325,000
foxnews baier 2,335,000
foxnews hannity 2,293,000
foxnews beck 2,243,000
foxnews shep 1,936,000
foxnews greta 1,744,000
cnn blitzer 1,036,000
cnn morgan 941,000
msnbc hardbll 844,000
msnbc o'donnell 843,000
cnn cooper 826,000
msnbc maddow 765,000
cnn parkerspitzer 724,000
msnbc shultz 575,000

trish

02-13-2011, 04:35 PM

Everyone loves a clown.

onmyknees

02-13-2011, 06:23 PM

I didn't ask you what you thought about Valerie Plame and her husband, I asked if found something unprofessional in Mitchell's coverage.

You apparently forgot your own post. The point is that she's main stream and that you find main stream reporters only "supposedly" main stream. Sorry, are you feeling left out?

Really. Clapper realizes that political groups seek the power to further their goals. His point was mine: that the Muslim Brotherhood is not an overarching monolithic entity. Somalians who belong to what is called the Muslim Brotherhood there have different goals and ambitions then Egyptians of the same name. There's more than 2000 miles between Cairo and Mogadishu.

There you go again. Pretending to know what's in my head and what I'm just itching to say. If you must know it was your use of the word "subtle" which jogged the quotation into memory. And yes, Beck is being malicious. Admittedly more stupid than malicious, but quite distinctly malicious. He is, after all, accusing Obama and liberals of knowingly and deliberately conspiring with radical fundamentalist Muslims to establish a unified caliphate to rule all of Southeast Asia, the Middle East, Northern Africa and Europe. To the extent he believes that tripe he's an idiot. To the extent he knows he's making it up, he's being malicious. Pretty much goes for his fans too.

You're upset that Mitchell's reporting allows for the possibility that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt might continue to display the same reserve it has in the past may and seek to forward its goals through democratic means. Mitchell didn't say it would definitely go down that way; she didn't fail to acknowledge your point of view, or even have a guest to forcefully present your point of view. She only allowed for the possibility that you might be wrong, and suddenly she's being subtly biased and letting ideology bleed into her journalism. Yeah right. Did anyone ever tell you that "LMAO" is not a refutation.

"Really. Clapper realizes that political groups seek the power to further their goals. His point was mine: that the Muslim Brotherhood is not an overarching monolithic entity. Somalians who belong to what is called the Muslim Brotherhood there have different goals and ambitions then Egyptians of the same name. There's more than 2000 miles between Cairo and Mogadishu."

That's you clarifying what he said. Unfortunately that's not what he said. Maybe go back and look at it again ...this time with an open mind?? Why do you feel the need to clarify the Head of "Intellegence's" statement ??This guy is frighteningly incompetent, and is the same guy that had no clue about the round up of terror suspects in London. Why are you an apologist for him, and for The Muslim Brotherhood ? Interesting. Strangely you seem to be the only one rushing to his defense...other than his spokesperson who issued a "clarification" which in iteslf is instructive...( that the head of intellegence needs to have his statement clarified) !
Even Richard Engle who appeared on Mitchell's earlier reports called Clapper's comments "Head Snapping"..But there you are issuing your clarification !!!!!!!

"You're upset that Mitchell's reporting allows for the possibility that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt might continue to display the same reserve it has in the past may and seek to forward its goals through democratic means. Mitchell didn't say it would definitely go down that way; she didn't fail to acknowledge your point of view, or even have a guest to forcefully present your point of view. She only allowed for the possibility that you might be wrong, and suddenly she's being subtly biased and letting ideology bleed into her journalism. Yeah right. Did anyone ever tell you that "LMAO" is not a refutation.[/QUOTE]

No... the responsibility of a hard news reporter that you claim she is...( I make no such claim, so am not disappointed in her in the least) . Had I not seen her fascinating interview with Ms. Ali the previous night, I would be have come away with an entirely different opinion based on the second nights summation. And also..she really revises what Engle had been reporting, again by omission. He has stated more than once that factions within the M.B. in Egypt are fundamentalist. She makes my point rather nicely, that when a reporter cherry picks, or omits valuable information, they leave the audience with a misimpression. Or.....maybe she had watched Clapper's testimony, and was simply parroting his sentiments !!!!!!!!!! LOL

With respect to Mitchell's reporting on the Plame affair...give this a read Trish !!!!!!!! No I didn't find her reporting unprofessional...I found it lacking, and oft times factually incorrect. It was certainly delivered professionally, maybe that's what you fell for ?? LOL http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-amato/andrea-mitchell-still-con_b_43276.html

Perhaps...it will carry some more weight coming from the Huff Po , but that's doubtful. When one is so entrenched, so invested in a point of view it's difficult to to see the forest for the trees !

Or if that's not enough....let's try this : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/andrea-mitchell-drunk-aga_b_43385.html

Or this
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/135503.php

Let's put Ms. Mitchell's verasity to rest..shall we??????

trish

02-13-2011, 07:13 PM

Let's put Ms. Mitchell's verasity to rest..shall we?????? Of course, her veracity has only ever been questioned only by the biased.

PomonaCA

02-13-2011, 09:13 PM

So this broads credentials are that she's been working in news media for a lifetime. Do I understand you correctly?

onmyknees

02-13-2011, 09:29 PM

Of course, her veracity has only ever been questioned only by the biased.

LMFAO.....you're beyond any redemption. She's a hack...even by Huff Po Standards! Did you read the links??? LMAO She can't and shouldn't be trusted without proper vetting, so as a reporter....what's the point?? Once a shill...always a shill !!!!! Make her an op-ed journolist (which she really is anyway) LOL

Again, she's singing your song, almost word for word in fact, so I understand the reluctence to not only detect the bias, but then admit it ! She injects her personal opinion into nearly every story she covers. Nothing wrong with that, but let's not pretend she's objective. That's the funniest thing I've ever heard !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

FAIL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

onmyknees

02-13-2011, 10:08 PM

I'm inclined to help you out here... !!!!! LMAO
So let's try a few more testimonials from The Washington Post and others...shall we?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12594.html

And this Classic...Fast forward to the 7 minute Mark. It's laugh out loud funny. Chris Matthews routinely calls himself liberal and Mitchell can't bring herself to say it ! What a fucking joke !!!!!!

YouTube - Bill O 'Reilly: Andrea Mitchell (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_hsNtgZ4pg&NR=1)

or this...why so sensitive Andrea ?? Too close to home??
YouTube - Andrea Mitchell: Don't Call David Broder A Liberal (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d6_-vIoG5s)

trish

02-13-2011, 11:39 PM

So this broads credentials are that she's been working in news media for a lifetime. Do I understand you correctly?Of course you don't understand. But that's not news. She's worked her way up the ladder of a major network's news organization, won awards, the respect of other respected journalists, has drawn the fire of the obviously biased and is now the Chief Foreign Correspondent of NBC. She has a career as a host, an interviewer and as a journalist. What are your accomplishments?

LMFAO.....Is that a FOX NEWSFOTAINMENT interview? FAIL. LOSER. LOL. EGBDF. LSMFT. :rolleyes:

onmyknees

02-14-2011, 03:33 AM

Of course you don't understand. But that's not news. She's worked her way up the ladder of a major network's news organization, won awards, the respect of other respected journalists, has drawn the fire of the obviously biased and is now the Chief Foreign Correspondent of NBC. She has a career as a host, an interviewer and as a journalist. What are your accomplishments?

Is that a FOX NEWSFOTAINMENT interview? FAIL. LOSER. LOL. EGBDF. LSMFT. :rolleyes:

My accomplishments??? Sizeable and numerous, but I don't feel the need to share them with strangers on a tranny blog/website, least of all with you. Why the fuck would I ? Bio's are optional here. I'm comfortable with who I am, what I've accomplished, what I've built and the businesses I currently own.
.

You're quite touchy about Andrea. LMAO...Is that a woman thing or you sanpping into progressive protection mode? I mean Rather was a "highly respected" journalist...so what's fucking your point? You act as though there isn't creditable evidence that she comes at her storeis with a political ajenda. It happens every day, but perhaps you're immune to it. I accept it...why can't you? Wake up...you're in denial. When the Huff Po calls you out on your bias....there's probably something to it. But you won't be swayed. You asked me why I had a problem with her...I answered and you dont like the answer. Not my problem. My question is why is it so hard to just say ...what almost everybody else watching the interview inherently knows? That's so fucking laughable. She doesn't think Matthews is a liberal...HE ROUTINELY SAYS HE'S A LIBERAL !!!!!! How can she say that with a straight face..or expect to be taken seriously ? I don't know where you got your journalism degree, but it sounds like the same place she got hers !

trish

02-14-2011, 05:50 AM

My accomplishments??? No you idiot. Read the post. I was asking PomonaCA. I know you have no worthwhile accomplishments.

I'm not quite sure, are we talking about Andrea Mitchell or me?

You're quite touchy about Andrea. LMAO...Is that a woman thing or you sanpping into progressive protection mode? I mean Rather was a "highly respected" journalist...so what's fucking your point? You act as though there isn't creditable evidence that she comes at her storeis with a political ajenda. It happens every day, but perhaps you're immune to it. I accept it...why can't you? Wake up...you're in denial. When the Huff Po calls you out on your bias....there's probably something to it. But you won't be swayed. You asked me why I had a problem with her...I answered and you dont like the answer. Not my problem. My question is why is it so hard to just say ...what almost everybody else watching the interview inherently knows? That's so fucking laughable. She doesn't think Matthews is a liberal...HE ROUTINELY SAYS HE'S A LIBERAL !!!!!! How can she say that with a straight face..or expect to be taken seriously ? I don't know where you got your journalism degree, but it sounds like the same place she got hers ! Stay on target Luke, best not rely too much on the force.

onmyknees

02-15-2011, 12:43 AM

No you idiot. Read the post. I was asking PomonaCA. I know you have no worthwhile accomplishments.

I'm not quite sure, are we talking about Andrea Mitchell or me?
Stay on target Luke, best not rely too much on the force.

You're becomming rude and over emotional, maybe some sort of medicinal imbalance? Sophmoric name calling...?? I would say it's beneath you, but it's obviously not. Get a grip...you're loosing it. The last refuse of a liberal is name calling....and you've arrived. Who's the unhinged idiot now??

arnie666

02-15-2011, 01:14 AM

I thought this interview was excellent.

http://www.therightscoop.com/msnbc-mika-gets-epic-smack-of-reality-on-egypt

They were totally speechless,he shattered their world of flowers and hugs,made Obama out to be the unconfident buffoon he is. With a bunch of retards on side.

Now if MSLSD got more speakers like this chap on,their ratings would rise big time.

I suspect she needed a change of underwear after that.

arnie666

02-15-2011, 01:19 AM

You're becomming rude and over emotional, maybe some sort of medicinal imbalance? Sophmoric name calling...?? I would say it's beneath you, but it's obviously not. Get a grip...you're loosing it. The last refuse of a liberal is name calling....and you've arrived. Who's the unhinged idiot now??

Trish is one of the saner ones,her brain cells haven't all exploded yet from prescription and recreational medication.The liberals need to drug themselves see it's the only way their view makes sense. They normally call me names after one post. My proudest moment in school was getting my liberal sociology teacher so angry he called me a fascist bastard and screamed at me to fuck off out of his classroom. He then had to make a grovelling apology as he was made too by his boss.

onmyknees

02-15-2011, 03:33 AM

From Politi-Fact

The article:
Maddow takes on Fox News over New Black Panther Party

By Louis Jacobson (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/staff/louis-jacobson/)
Published on Wednesday, February 9th, 2011 at 5:40 p.m.
Related rulings:

http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Ftom-false.gif Fox News "said the New Black Panther Party decided the election for Barack Obama." (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/feb/09/rachel-maddow/rachel-maddow-says-fox-news-said-new-black-panther/)

Rachel Maddow, Wednesday, December 15th, 2010.
Ruling: False | Details (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/feb/09/rachel-maddow/rachel-maddow-says-fox-news-said-new-black-panther/)
Share this article:

In an appearance on the "Late Show with David Letterman," MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow said that Fox News “said the New Black Panther Party decided the election for Barack Obama.” Did they?

In an interview (http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/12/16/5659432-maddow-on-letterman-more-about-fox) on the Late Show with David Letterman, Rachel Maddow -- a prominent anchor on cable news channel MSNBC -- took a shot at a rival network, Fox News.

"I of course think that we (MSNBC) are much more true than Fox is true," Maddow said in the Dec. 15, 2010, interview. "The problem that I think is reasonable to assert about Fox and its coverage is that they make up stories out of whole cloth and then make a big deal out of them."

She continued, "For example, they said the New Black Panther Party decided the election for Barack Obama. They ran dozens and dozens and dozens of stories about the New Black Panther Party, which was one guy who braided his beard in Philadelphia and who didn’t have an organization, yelling on a street corner. They represented that story as if that is the guy who decided the election. That was fake."

Acting on a PolitiFact reader’s suggestion, we fact-checked Maddow’s statement that Fox News "said the New Black Panther Party decided the election for Barack Obama."

The transcripts we looked at showed that there was indeed lots of coverage on Fox. However, the discussions focused on the legal side of the story and whether other media outlets were derelict in not giving it enough attention.

In all the coverage we examined, we couldn't find a single case in which the discussion revolved around the political impact of the incident, including whether the New Black Panther Party had helped put the Obama campaign over the top in 2008. So we rated the statement False.

Cuchulain

02-15-2011, 01:19 PM

PolitiFact is indeed an interesting site. I'm not sure how they choose which statements to check, given so many to choose from. Here's their review of 'Lonesome Roads' Beck:
http://politifact.com/personalities/glenn-beck/statements/

Not much on the snide little prick Hannity and the statements they checked were pretty vanilla:
http://politifact.com/personalities/sean-hannity/statements/

3 false and 1 pants-on-fire for Billo:
http://politifact.com/personalities/sean-hannity/statements/

trish

02-15-2011, 05:33 PM

You're becomming rude and over emotional, maybe some sort of medicinal imbalance? Sophmoric name calling...?? I would say it's beneath you, but it's obviously not. Get a grip...you're loosing it. The last refuse of a liberal is name calling....and you've arrived. Who's the unhinged idiot now??The last "refuse"??? Really??? I indicated in post #17 nine places where you were rude and off point. The list is not complete. You want to discuss an issue with me, then stick to the fucking issue, or expect a return in the same currency in which you deal.

onmyknees

02-21-2011, 01:06 AM

Looks like I need to refresh this thread again and get it refocused back to it's original intent.. My apologies...it's not there isn't more than enough material, just I've been busy doing other shit. So here's some more evidence to support my thesis. MSNC will Support the left and public employees unions at any cost....including fabrication....oh you don't think so ??

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rachel-maddows-wisconsin-budget-claim-deemed-false-by-politifact/

trish

02-21-2011, 05:05 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/20/opinion/20rich.html

onmyknees

02-21-2011, 06:04 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/20/opinion/20rich.html

I did see that Trish.........but to be honest, I don't pay much attention to a former theater critic writing about politics.

He's particularily vile, and suffers from the same psychoses as you, Olbermann and Mathews, that is to say PDS. Palin Derrangement Syndrom. Not surprising you would post a link . Birds of a feather....

Here's what he said shortly after the election...

"

If logic applied to Palin’s career trajectory, this month might have been judged dreadful for her. In an otherwise great year for Republicans she endorsed a “Star Wars” bar gaggle of anomalous and wacky losers — the former witch, Christine O’Donnell; the raging nativist, Tom Tancredo; and at least two candidates who called for armed insurrection against the government, Sharron Angle and a would-be Texas congressman, Stephen Broden, who lost by over 50 percentage points. Last week voters in Palin’s home state humiliatingly “refudiated” her protégé, Joe Miller, overturning his victory in the G.O.P. Senate primary with a write-in campaign"

Now here's the facts.........( as reported by the AP)

Palin's bottom-line, though, had Tuesday night as a win for her. In races called, her backed candidates won 37 of 52 House contests. She backed seven victorious gubernatorial candidates. In the Senate, she went six for 10 in races.

So strong was her showing that CBSNews.com claimed (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/03/earlyshow/main7017707.shtml), "Palin Emerges with Even More Clout."

Politics Daily scored (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/11/04/sarah-palins-midterm-scorecard-a-winning-record-but-some-key/) her win rate at 70 percent.

Shall I go on??????

Sorry Trish...Just another jaded Palin Hater with zero objectivity or credibility.

FRANK YOU FAIL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

trish

02-22-2011, 12:07 AM

He's particularily vile, and suffers from the same psychoses as you...What a silver tongued flatterer you are. You had me from this line on. Of course I know you don't really mean it, but one can always aspire. EGBDF. LSMFT. HHYYAA.

onmyknees

02-22-2011, 03:06 AM

What a silver tongued flatterer you are. You had me from this line on. Of course I know you don't really mean it, but one can always aspire. EGBDF. LSMFT. HHYYAA.

LMAO...of course you understand I was not, and never would use that word (vile) or anything remotly like it when referring to you. Now
psychoses.....................that's another matter !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :dancing::dancing:

onmyknees

02-22-2011, 03:41 AM

Now for today's MSNBC nugget....Say it ain't so....an MSNBC anchor devoid of the facts?????????? SHocking ........simply shocking!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LMAO

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=hdqGqG6Upr

onmyknees

02-22-2011, 06:11 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/20/opinion/20rich.html

Glad you referrenced the Times , Trish. So here's one back at ya. Maybe be a little more careful with your sourcing !!

Another day, another misleading story by the Gray Lady. Sad.

"Civility Swindle"............Oh I love that one. I'm going to be using that quite often !!! LMAO

The Gray Lady Who Cried Wolf

The New York Times tries its "civility" swindle again.

[/URL]

By [URL="http://online.wsj.com/search/term.html?KEYWORDS=JAMES+TARANTO&bylinesearch=true"]JAMES TARANTO (http://online.wsj.com/article/best_of_the_web_today.html#)

The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/16/opinion/16wed2.html) continues its fraudulent campaign to depict conservatives and Republicans as, in the words of its latest editorial on the subject, purveyors of "Dangerous Threats." The latest purported example:

Representative Denny Rehberg, a Republican and Montana's House member, boasts that he brings Made-in-Montana solutions to Washington. His latest, proposed last week in a speech advocating states' rights to the State Legislature, is to put a judge "on the Endangered Species List."If you are familiar with the Times's swindle, you will recognize its method of supplying a brief out-of-context quote, and you will suspect that the quote in context is actually far less invidious than the Times's description would lead you to believe. You will be right. The (Butte) Montana Standard (http://www.mtstandard.com/news/state-and-regional/article_358cc568-32fb-11e0-a11b-001cc4c03286.html) has the full text of Rehberg's address. Here is the relevant portion:

Environmental obstructionists found a federal judge in Missoula that was willing to ignore the scientific evidence as well as the expert opinions of on-the-ground wildlife managers here in Montana. And he ruled last August that the grey wolf had to remain on the Endangered Species List.
When I first heard his decision, like many of you I wanted to take action immediately. I asked: how can we put some of these judicial activists on the Endangered Species List? I am still working on that! But in the meantime, I have introduced legislation that would permanently end federal jurisdiction over the gray wolf population--and return responsibility to the wildlife managers here in Montana.The left-wing site ThinkProgress.org (http://thinkprogress.org/2011/02/08/rehberg-endangered/)--which seems to be a frequent, though uncredited, source of raw material for Times smears--picked this up and accused Rehberg of making "a thinly-veiled threat" against the (unnamed) judge.
http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-MP780_botwt0_C_20110217123541.jpg Associated Press Rehberg, the Times's latest target.

ThinkProgress omitted the last sentence in the passage we've quoted, so that it appeared "I'm working on it!" was his conclusion. In fact, it is clear from the full quote that it was the punch line of a joke that preceded Rehberg's statement that he was proposing legislation to change the statute he thinks the judge interpreted wrongly.
The Times's treatment of the quote is even more misleading than ThinkProgress's: The paper falsely asserts that Rehberg said he wanted to put a particular judge "on the endangered species list," when Rehberg actually referred to "some of these judicial activists"--to a type, a metaphorical species, of judge.
Now, one can criticize a joke on the ground that it is not funny, although the Times notes that "Representative Rehberg's threat [sic] drew an eager laugh." Maybe you had to be there. One can also fault a joke as being in poor taste. Certainly most jokes about killing public officials fall into that category. But is that even an accurate description of Rehberg's "endangered species list" jape?
Even the Times anticipates the obvious objection that the purpose of putting a species on the list is to protect it, not to endanger it further. The Times editorializes that Rehberg "did not mean that Judge Molloy should be protected and nurtured, which is the actual purpose of the species law." It seems reasonable to assume that the Times is correct on this point: Rehberg meant to suggest it would be desirable if "judicial activists" dwindled in number.

"Endangered species" as a political metaphor did not originate with Rehberg any more than "blood libel" did with Sarah Palin. A New York Times editorial from March 2, 1981 (http://www.nytimes.com/1981/03/02/opinion/endangered-species-in-the-white-house.html), was titled "Endangered Species in the White House." No, Ronald Reagan did not bring a rhinoceros into the Oval Office. Rather, as the editorial explained, he was considering the abolition of an executive board: "The Council on Environmental Quality, a tiny but important unit that advises the White House, has been placed on the endangered species list."

trish

02-22-2011, 07:33 AM

Glad you referrenced the Times , Trish. You're such a follower. You have my permission to quote any source you wish regardless of what I reference or don't reference. You have my rapt inattention.

onmyknees

02-23-2011, 03:28 AM

You're such a follower. You have my permission to quote any source you wish regardless of what I reference or don't reference. You have my rapt inattention.

LMAO...when you get annoyed your condesention becomes even more pronounced. So by all means...withdraw while I reload. :dancing:

hippifried

02-23-2011, 04:16 AM

More blanks?

onmyknees

02-25-2011, 01:39 AM

More blanks?

Wow...appreciate all the effort you put into stating your position Hippi. You give concise a whole new meaning ! LMAO Blanks? ....nope...some more substance for ya. Chew on this for a bit !

These fuckers are shamless at MSNBC . It's one thing to give an opinion, it's another thing when you lie and continue to lie. The sad thing is most people never take the time to fact check her, so they buy the bilge she shovels out on a daily basis. But thankfully they have no ratings so the results of her lies are limited to a couple hundred thousand cheerleaders. .. And they wonder why they're 3rd in a three man race? LMAO Listen to what she says to Leno, then look at the facts. And they wonder why we hate them ?? LOL

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=hdqGaG8zIr

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow on Tuesday told a staggering amount of nonsense to "Tonight Show" host Jay Leno concerning what's going on in Wisconsin with the unions and Tea Partiers.
After some additional investigation, it turns out the juiciest whopper of all came a few minutes earlier when she totally misrepresented Republican and Democrat political contributions in the previous elections (video follows with transcript and commentary):

RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC: But, if you look at like the last election cycle, of the top ten people donating money in that election, seven of them were giving to Republicans. It was all corporate interests and right-wing PACs and stuff. Seven of the ten were all right-wing. And the only three that weren't were unions.
JAY LENO, HOST: Yeah.
MADDOW: So, if Republicans can get rid of the unions, particularly these public sector unions, they can run the table in every election from here on out. This is the only competition they have for actual, big contributors in politics. So, they want to get rid of the unions for partisan reasons.
Oh really, Rach? Well, let's see what Open Secrets has to say (http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topcontribs.php) about that:
http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topcontribs.php

As you can see, far and away the largest contributor during the 2010 election cycle was a group called ActBlue. As Open Secrets notes (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000021806):
Launched in 2004, ActBlue bills itself as “the online clearinghouse for Democratic action.” As a federally registered political action committee, it serves as a conduit for online contributions to Democratic candidates and committees. That is, ActBlue bundles and transmits earmarked contributions from individuals raised on their website to specific candidates. The organization assists Democratic candidates and committees of all ideological persuasion, helping moderates and liberals alike. Through mid-2010, it has helped funnel more than $134 million -- and counting -- in contributions. Because much of that money comes in donations below the $200 threshold for itemized disclosure, the total amount given by donors via ActBlue is considerably greater than the totals listed below, which are based on FEC filings of candidates and committees that receive this money. The group also maintains a 527 political organization registered with the Internal Revenue Service for non-federal political activities, and ActBlue has registered as a political committee in more than 20 states for its state-level activities.
http://www.newsbusters.org/sites/default/files/main_photos/2011/February/Liar.jpgNow let's go back to what Maddow told Leno Tuesday evening:
But, if you look at like the last election cycle, of the top ten people donating money in that election, seven of them were giving to Republicans. It was all corporate interests and right-wing PACs and stuff. Seven of the ten were all right wing. And the only three that weren't were unions.
Well, ActBlue isn't a union, and according to Open Secrets, it contributed well over three times more than the second entity on that list, and almost seven times as much as the highest Republican contributor, the Club for Growth.
Notice, too, how three of the top ten contributors were listed as either "Solidly Democratic" or "Leans Democratic" while only the Club for Growth was on the Republican side.
Maddow said, "Seven of the ten were all right-wing." She was only off by 600 percent!
Also contrary to Maddow's claims, two of the "On the fence" contributors that percentage-wise still leaned Democratic - the National Association of Realtors and Honeywell International - are not unions. As such, three of the top ten contributing organizations in 2010 that mostly gave to Democrats were not unions as Maddow told Leno.
For those familiar with Politifact, this is what they'd call a Pants on Fire.
However, just in case she really meant "people (http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topindivs.php)" or individuals:

As you can see, seven of the top ten individual contributors in 2010 gave almost exclusively to Democrats.
But let's not stop there, for data from 1989 (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?type=A) will really drive home the point just how much more money Democrats typically bring in from large contributors every year, and not just from unions as Maddow claimed:

Look at that! Since 1989, eight of the top ten contributing organizations to federal elections gave mostly or almost exclusively to Democrats with not one strongly leaning Republican.
Not one!
Also notice that the Democrat PAC ActBlue is number one, and that Goldman Sachs at number five gives disproportionally to Democrats.
Additionally important is that of the top ten, only AFSCME is a public sector union. The others unions in the top ten serve the private sector thereby totally refuting any validity to Maddow's point that busting the public sector unions would radically alter the political donations landscape.
Add it all up, and apart from her out and out lie concerning 2010's top ten, there was not a shred of validity in anything Maddow said in the video and transcript above.
As this is now becoming a habit of Maddow's, one has to seriously wonder if the folks at MSNBC are going to do anything about this, or if bald-faced lying is now acceptable on this so-called cable news channel.

trish

02-25-2011, 06:00 AM

ActBlue is a clearinghouse for contributors.

OpenSecrets has confirmed the Maddow was correct in her assessment, that the unions form the financial backbone of democratic support.

Cuchulain

02-25-2011, 04:51 PM

onmyknees

02-26-2011, 12:09 AM

'MADDOW: So, if Republicans can get rid of the unions, particularly these public sector unions, they can run the table in every election from here on out. This is the only competition they have for actual, big contributors in politics. So, they want to get rid of the unions for partisan reasons.'

Rachel is spot-on here, even if she didn't clarify it enough. There's more to political power than direct contributions to a Party or candidate. In outside expenditures in 2010, repubs clobbered Dems, $191 million to $92million. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/01/07/2010-set-campaign-spending-records

Unions provide reliable 'boots on the ground' support for Dems during elections. We don't just get our members and their families out to vote. We go door to door, phone bank, work the polls, distribute printed material, etc. Weaker unions with fewer members would be a huge blow to Dem chances overall. Public sector unions make up more than half of all union membership, 7.6 mil to 7.1 mil.( http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm )
That's why the repubs are engaging in this nationally coordinated effort to crush us. The public sector unions are just the tip of the iceberg. Sadly misnamed 'right-to-work' legislation is next and has already been seen in some states. Hell, even 'ol Shep Smith agrees:

"There is no budget crisis in Wisconsin," he said, adding that the unions "[have] given concessions." The real point of the fight, Smith said, could be found in the list of the top ten donors to political campaigns. Seven out of the ten donated to Republicans; the other three were unions donating to Democrats.
"Bust the unions, and it's over," Smith said. He then brought up the Koch brothers, the billionaires who have bankrolled much of the anti-union pushback in Wisconsin. The fight, Smith said, "started" with the Kochs, who he said were trying to get a return on the money they donated to Walker's campaign.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/24/shep-smith-wisconsin-figh_n_827547.html

Even onmyknees agreed in an earlier post that Walker's action were intended to kill the unions. His attack on Rachel is just more of the 'twisting' that he enjoys so much.

Again....misreading the post. My post had nothing to do with her opinions, she's entitled to that, and states them for 60 minutes a night...but she's not entitled to her own facts in forming that opinion , or in misleading others in an effort to sway them. That's precisely what she did. The post stands, and your case is dismissed sir ! LOL

And I don't think I ever acknowledged Walker was trying to break the unions. You twist or misread yet again. I acknowledged he was attempting to kill collective bargaining for tax payer funded unions. NOT all unions.

Here's what happens in collective bargaining for public employees...Union negotiators funded by tax payers and supported by Democrats sit across the bargaining table from Democrats who concede to nearly every demand and sign contracts that extend long into the future when these politicians will be retired laying on a Beach in Boca, and the rest of us stuck with the fucking bill. Those unions then contribute more dollars to more Democratic politicians, and the charade goes merrily along. It's a ponsy scheme, but just like Madoff...the gig is up. Trouble is these politicians who cut these deals don't answer to a CEO, stock holders , or a Board of Directors, but rather the voters who finally are getting the picture...thus the emergence of Gov. Walker, Christie, Kaich, Daniels, etc

And don't include public employee unions with private sector unions. I was a shop Stewart in a private sector union for 10 years, so I'm hardly anti union.

onmyknees

02-26-2011, 03:37 AM

'MADDOW: So, if Republicans can get rid of the unions, particularly these public sector unions, they can run the table in every election from here on out. This is the only competition they have for actual, big contributors in politics. So, they want to get rid of the unions for partisan reasons.'

Rachel is spot-on here, even if she didn't clarify it enough. There's more to political power than direct contributions to a Party or candidate. In outside expenditures in 2010, repubs clobbered Dems, $191 million to $92million. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/01/07/2010-set-campaign-spending-records

Unions provide reliable 'boots on the ground' support for Dems during elections. We don't just get our members and their families out to vote. We go door to door, phone bank, work the polls, distribute printed material, etc. Weaker unions with fewer members would be a huge blow to Dem chances overall. Public sector unions make up more than half of all union membership, 7.6 mil to 7.1 mil.( http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm )
That's why the repubs are engaging in this nationally coordinated effort to crush us. The public sector unions are just the tip of the iceberg. Sadly misnamed 'right-to-work' legislation is next and has already been seen in some states. Hell, even 'ol Shep Smith agrees:

"There is no budget crisis in Wisconsin," he said, adding that the unions "[have] given concessions." The real point of the fight, Smith said, could be found in the list of the top ten donors to political campaigns. Seven out of the ten donated to Republicans; the other three were unions donating to Democrats.
"Bust the unions, and it's over," Smith said. He then brought up the Koch brothers, the billionaires who have bankrolled much of the anti-union pushback in Wisconsin. The fight, Smith said, "started" with the Kochs, who he said were trying to get a return on the money they donated to Walker's campaign.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/24/shep-smith-wisconsin-figh_n_827547.html

Even onmyknees agreed in an earlier post that Walker's action were intended to kill the unions. His attack on Rachel is just more of the 'twisting' that he enjoys so much.

Update...This from Politifact......

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2011/feb/25/responding-rachel-maddow (http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2011/feb/25/responding-rachel-maddow/)

In her criticism of PolitiFact Thursday night, Maddow misled viewers by repeatedly playing just a nine-word snippet of her saying that "There is in fact a $137 million budget shortfall." She neglected to include her full quote in context: "There is in fact a $137 million budget shortfall. Republican Gov. Scott Walker, coincidentally, has given away $140 million worth of business tax breaks since he came into office. Hey, wait. That's about exactly the size of the shortfall."

That artful editing -- plus the fact that she didn't mention the more lengthy quote that we checked -- deprived viewers of the full context for her remarks and our reasoning for checking the claim we checked. We not only examined that claim, we also debunked the suggestion from Maddow and others that the tax breaks were the cause of the $137 million shortfall.

When her producer Bill Wolff e-mailed us earlier this week asking for a correction (his correspondence to us has been posted on the Rachel Maddow blog) we reviewed our work, watched the segment and decided no correction was warranted.So in conclusion no twisting, no slanting...just the facts...Rachel Maddow = FAIL. I just call 'em like I see 'em !:party:

Cuchulain

02-26-2011, 06:23 AM

Again....misreading the post. My post had nothing to do with her opinions, she's entitled to that, and states them for 60 minutes a night...but she's not entitled to her own facts in forming that opinion , or in misleading others in an effort to sway them. That's precisely what she did. The post stands, and your case is dismissed sir ! LOL

And I don't think I ever acknowledged Walker was trying to break the unions. You twist or misread yet again. I acknowledged he was attempting to kill collective bargaining for tax payer funded unions. NOT all unions.

Here's what happens in collective bargaining for public employees...Union negotiators funded by tax payers and supported by Democrats sit across the bargaining table from Democrats who concede to nearly every demand and sign contracts that extend long into the future when these politicians will be retired laying on a Beach in Boca, and the rest of us stuck with the fucking bill. Those unions then contribute more dollars to more Democratic politicians, and the charade goes merrily along. It's a ponsy scheme, but just like Madoff...the gig is up. Trouble is these politicians who cut these deals don't answer to a CEO, stock holders , or a Board of Directors, but rather the voters who finally are getting the picture...thus the emergence of Gov. Walker, Christie, Kaich, Daniels, etc

And don't include public employee unions with private sector unions. I was a shop Stewart in a private sector union for 10 years, so I'm hardly anti union.

You're the one (deliberately) misreading MY post and twisting things yet again.

'MADDOW: So, if Republicans can get rid of the unions, particularly these public sector unions, they can run the table in every election from here on out. This is the only competition they have for actual, big contributors in politics. So, they want to get rid of the unions for partisan reasons.' THIS IS TRUE.

I pointed out that public sector unions have more than half of total union membership. Killing public sector unions effectively kills the power of unions in general. Even you can see that.

In an earlier post, I said "Let's make one thing perfectly clear: this bullshit bill in Wisconsin is, as Obama said "an assault on unions". I think that's putting it damn mildly. By removing the unions ability to negotiate on anything but wages, and that in a very limited way, by removing a unions ability to collect dues and by forcing them to recertify every year, Walker kills the union. Any other interpretation is horseshit."

Your response was "I don't doubt that's the intent for a second. I completely agree with you. But several things to consider ......the demographics clearly show that the fastest growing, best places for employment and standard of living , and places bussinesses are moving ( as well as the geneal population) are...Florida, South Carolina, Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona....besides being moderate climates, the thing they all have in common is they are right to work states." Do you still want to claim you were only talking about public sector unions?

As for your next paragraph, here's what happens on the federal and state level every day - corporate lobbyists, funded by customers (tax payers) and frequently tax breaks or govt subsidies (again, taxpayers), supported by repubs sit down across the desk from repubs who concede to damn near all their demands and pass legislation that leaves the rest of us stuck with the fucking mess. Those lobbyists and their employers then contribute mega-cash to the repubs who wrote the legislation. These CON legislators don't seem particularly answerable to voters, because with enough corporate cash in their coffers, they can run enough ads to bamboozle enough people to get them reelected.

As for your having been a 'shop Stewart', the mind boggles. It does occur to me though, that anyone who has ever held the position realizes that it's 'steward'.

Odelay

02-26-2011, 07:21 AM

And I don't think I ever acknowledged Walker was trying to break the unions. You twist or misread yet again. I acknowledged he was attempting to kill collective bargaining for tax payer funded unions. NOT all unions.

Here's what happens in collective bargaining for public employees...Union negotiators funded by tax payers and supported by Democrats sit across the bargaining table from Democrats who concede to nearly every demand and sign contracts that extend long into the future when these politicians will be retired laying on a Beach in Boca, and the rest of us stuck with the fucking bill. Those unions then contribute more dollars to more Democratic politicians, and the charade goes merrily along. It's a ponsy scheme, but just like Madoff...the gig is up. Trouble is these politicians who cut these deals don't answer to a CEO, stock holders , or a Board of Directors, but rather the voters who finally are getting the picture...thus the emergence of Gov. Walker, Christie, Kaich, Daniels, etc

And don't include public employee unions with private sector unions. I was a shop Stewart in a private sector union for 10 years, so I'm hardly anti union.

So just to be clear, you want to strip policemen and firefighters of collective bargaining rights, too, right?

onmyknees

02-26-2011, 05:40 PM

So just to be clear, you want to strip policemen and firefighters of collective bargaining rights, too, right?

No...and neither does Gov. Walker. I have more than a few freinds and relitives on NYPD and NYFD, and they'll be the first to tell you in confidence the system is rigged. It's a joke. Work a ton of bogus OT your last 3 years, get a 75-80K pension as young as 40 years of age, and collect that to life expency ( age 79..you do the math. With the middle class (aka taxpayers) fleeing these cities in droves...who's goinna pay the freight?

What I want is pension reform.

onmyknees

02-26-2011, 06:26 PM

OK...Now back to MSNBC,

I know you all hate this, but if I don't point this shit out....who's going to?? LMAO. I feel like I'm doing a community service here. OK...so MSNBC's latest folly?? Well...things are not going well for Obama, and the lefts prime constituency ( public sector unions) so it might be time to play the tried and true race card again since it worked so well in the last election. So Crazy Larry is seeing more racists behind every tree. But this time, Ms. Granholm responds..." well I hadn't thought of the racial overtones" LMAO. Well of course you hadn't Governor, and neither did anyone else beside the hosts at MSNBC! Perhaps you were too busy appearing on TV and didn't get the memo Governor? It's time to beat the race drum again...we're in trouble !! These fuckers are amazing. There isn't anything they won't say. And you tell me Beck is detached?? LMFAO

MSNBC‘s O’Donnell: ‘Union Boss’ Term Is Racist When Talking About Obama

Posted on February 26, 2011 at 2:11am
Analyzing a new Republican ad (http://obamasunionbosses.com/) that urges voters to “stop Obama and his union bosses,” MSNBC‘s Lawrence O’Donnell was shocked Friday night by the message’s apparent racism.
“The Republican Party is saying that the president of the United States has bosses… that the unions bossing him around. Does that sound to you like they are trying to consciously or subconsciously deliver the racist message that of course — of course a black man can’t be the real boss?” O’Donnell asks his guest, former Michigan Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm.
“Wow, I hadn’t though about the racial overtones,” Granholm responds.
Maybe that’s because there are none…?

Here‘s the GOP’s full ad. You decide: is this message “racist” in any way?

YouTube - Obama's Union Bosses (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpPIXFi0LfM&feature=player_embedded)

hippifried

02-26-2011, 07:03 PM

What I want is pension reform.

I hear this a lot. Mostly by those who rail against Wall Street reform. Creates its own oxymoron.

onmyknees

03-04-2011, 01:56 AM

I hear this a lot. Mostly by those who rail against Wall Street reform. Creates its own oxymoron.

Didn't Obama just complete Wall Street reform? Ohhh...that's right he neglected to include Fannie and Fredie the primary drivers of the mortgage crisis that led to the Wall Street excesses.. Maybe that's why we railed against it?

onmyknees

03-04-2011, 02:06 AM

Sometimes it's difficult to keep up with all the hilarious goings on over at MSNBC, but they shouldn't feel neglected ! Here's today's knee slapper...
When the Huff Post calls you out, you know you're
delusional. This is so ironic on so many levels where does one start? First off..Chris missed the memo from his mentor, President Obama about civil discourse, but the truly hilarious part is ...he's calling Gingrich's morality into question when just last week he did a special calling Bill Clinton, "The President of the World" .Ummmmmmmm Chis...maybe you haven't seen the blue dress with the love ick on it? This guy really does exist in his own reality. Is it hypocracy or just ignorance? LMAO

<DIV>Chris Matthews: Newt Gingrich 'Looks Like A Car Bomber' (VIDEO) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/03/chris-matthews-newt-gingrich-car-bomber_n_830726.html)

First Posted: 03/ 3/11 08:47 AMUpdated: 03/ 3/11 09:16 AM

(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/03/chris-matthews-newt-gingrich-car-bomber_n_830726.html#)

Read More: Chris Matthews (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/chris-matthews), Chris Matthews Gingrich Car Bomber (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/chris-matthews-gingrich-car-bomber), Chris Matthews Newt Gingrich (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/chris-matthews-newt-gingrich), Hardball (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/hardball), Msnbc (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/msnbc), Newt Gingrich (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/newt-gingrich), Video (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/video), Media News (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/media)
<DIV class="entry_content news_design_c"><DIV class="sidebarHeader sidebar_newsC">http://i.huffpost.com/gen/253336/thumbs/s-CHRIS-MATTHEWS-large300.jpg

<DIV id=sidebar_digg_block>

On his Wednesday show, Chris Matthews said that Newt Gingrich "looks like a car bomber" who "loves torturing."
Gingrich was discussing the potential Republican presidential field with the Chicago Tribune's Clarence Page and The Huffington Post's Sam Stein. He said Gingrich couldn't win the nomination because of his past.
"How many times he been married?" Matthews said. "...You can't just wipe the board clean and say, that wasn't just me that got kicked out of the speakership for totally embarrassing the country with ethics in his personal life. I mean, how can he walk back and in and say, 'That wasn't me?'"
Page started to speak, but Matthews interrupted him.
"But he looks like a car bomber," he said, as footage of Gingrich ran on the screen. "He looks like a car bomber. Clarence, he looks like a car bomber. He's got that crazy Mephistophelian grin of his. He looks like he loves torturing. Look at the guy! I mean this, this is not the face of a president."

hippifried

03-04-2011, 07:44 AM

Didn't Obama just complete Wall Street reform? Ohhh...that's right he neglected to include Fannie and Fredie the primary drivers of the mortgage crisis that led to the Wall Street excesses.. Maybe that's why we railed against it?
No. You railed against it because you don't know what you're tlking about & you're a parrot. The privatization scam with Fannie & Freddie was scrapped a couple of years ago, & they were taken back over by the government. What? You weren't paying attention?

onmyknees

03-10-2011, 02:07 AM

I know my friend Cuchulain had high hopes for his new Young Turk....a fearless messenger for the far left....turns out he's just another in a long line of left wing shills from MSNBC, but I do appreciate the humor he provides. This is really the funny !!!!!!!

Please play the clip...if you need a good chuckle. makes me nostalgic for KO. Has he checked out of rehab yet?? LOL

MSNBC’s Cenk Uygur Doesn’t Read Chart That Says ‘Black Separatists’ Are A Hate Group

» 190 comments (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbcs-cenk-uygur-won%e2%80%99t-read-chart-that-says-black-separatists-are-a-hate-group/#comments) by Frances Martel (http://www.mediaite.com/author/frances-martel/) | 7:53 pm, March 7th, 2011
video

http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Picture-78.png (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbcs-cenk-uygur-won%e2%80%99t-read-chart-that-says-black-separatists-are-a-hate-group/attachment/picture-7-174/)It’s a cliche in American politics to attack the other side with some variation of “you can’t handle the truth,” but sometimes it’s hard to find any other way to describe moments when prepackaged political views and hard data collide. MSNBC host Cenk Uygur had one such moment today as he appeared to refuse to read data on a chart by his guest’s institution that showed black separatists groups were in the top three kinds of hate groups in America today.
Uygur’s segment focused on Rep. Peter King’s recent comments on Islam and what he perceived to be a lack of communication between the authorities and Muslim groups. Uygur wondered why Rep. King put such an emphasis on Muslim groups when the reality, according to Uygur, was that right-wing hate groups were far more active in America than Muslim extremists.
“Let me introduce real facts here so that Congressman King can be educated,” Uygur boasts before showing a number of statistics from various research groups. Rep. King wasn’t the only one to get educated tonight, however, as Uygur read down a list of most prominent hate groups in America, listing the top three varieties of hate groups in America, classifying them before reading off the list as “right wing.” The statistics come from a recent study by the Southern Poverty Law Center (http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/news/us-hate-groups-top-1000) that show there are currently 1,002 active hate groups in America.
“Topping the list,” he began, “[are] the Ku Klux Klan with 221 groups. They are followed with Neo-Nazi groups with 170 groups, and”– at this point Uygur stops for a beat, before ending the list with “that doesn’t make any sense.” What doesn’t make any sense? That the third largest hate group contingent in America are black separatist groups. Not exactly the first type of political group conjured up by the phrase “right-wing,” unless Uygur was willing to argue that the social conservatism often found in black separatist groups somehow made them right-wing or some other similarly stretched-out argument. Of course, the socially conservative black separatist groups on the SPLC’s list mostly appear to be (http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/ideology/black-separatist/active_hate_groups) chapters of the Nation of Islam, and slamming them would not exactly strengthen Uygur’s argument that focusing on Islamic groups is a waste. Uygur smartly didn’t try to argue that, but at its expense failed to argue anything at all, responding to the chart by just shaking his head and refusing to read the facts it gave him. He smoothed it out by introducing his guest, Mark Potok of the SPLC, who mostly avoided the troublesome statistic as well.
The segment via MSNBC below:

http://videos.mediaite.com/embed/player/?layout=&playlist_cid=&media_type=video&content=VF9LGC1YSC9BWM66&read_more=1&widget_type_cid=svp"