Saturday, April 3, 2010

Rachel Is Right

For reasons unknown (as in the sense of entirely known), Rachel Maddow drives the RWS™, and those who love them, crazy. Threats to their intellect and sexuality aside, the problem is that she's both tough and factual. Snarky? Yeah, that too. But always factual. And in addition to differing from the RWS™ in those important ways, she's also SANE!!! Not to mention that her piece sort of harks back to this.

Anyone find anything not factual, not sensible in what she says? Especially her concluding remarks?


  1. Sid theres some words men of a certain age shouldnt say...For me its "Dog", for you its "Snarky"
    And what the hell does "Snarky" mean anyways??Its not in my Funk&Wagners...
    Rachel DOES drive me crazy...
    shes like that junior high PE teacher with the mannish hairstyle and no my best friends older sister with the mannish hairstyle and no makeup...
    Like 90% of the girls who wouldn't go out with me...
    Shes a Les-Bo!!!!!!!!
    Carpet Munchers are Hot, expecially if there makin out with another one...
    If you listened to Howard Stern you'd have known this 20 years ago...
    Happy Easter! He is Risen!
    I mean, umm He is still decomposing!!!!
    Must suck to be an Atheist...


  2. Referring to the post you linked (about the Citibank bailout netting the country $8B) makes me realize that none of what the RWS says actually matters in terms of what ends up really happening. They can scream that the sky is falling (or not, in the case of Katrina forecasting) and whether it does or not is independent of their tirades. The problem is the people who become convinced of things that turn out not to be true (and the real fallout from such lies, like the death of ACORN -- and loss of jobs for all the people it employed). But aside from that, it's kind of reassuring to know that what people believe (and yell about) doesn't have to have any effect on reality.

  3. Dino, I hope you're right. I guess the whole reason for this blog is that I'm not so sure: people buy so much of what the RWS™ are selling, and they elect people like Bachmann, Boehner, etc. It seems to me it DOES affect the body politic. Plus, all it takes is for a few of them to get riled up enough to do something really bad.

  4. Dr S - or anyone - is there *anything* the RWS get right?

    They are not violent. Did you look at the majority of people that are in the crowds.

    Re the brick thrower: I searched ..and to date ..the authorities don't know who threw the brick. So .. could've been anyone.

    Spitting ..try spittle. - on film.

    Cantor - bullet and the guy is in custody.

    But recently the IBEW (union in Obama's camp) misguided tea party buses, threw eggs on the bus and then wrongfully called the police on reporter and accused him of egg throwing. All on film.

    Police came to investigate about the egg throwing. When he told the truth and that he had it all on film and pointed to the camera man ..the officer drove away.

    *Note ..he did not go back to the union guys. That was fair though ..right? I wonder what would've happened if he was the one who through the eggs?

    To be clear ...I ABHOR anyone who would purpose to wrongfully slander another human being ..regardless of race,political affiliations, etc.

    I saw a black man on tv Friday night talking with hannity's fill in and he said "You mean Al "I see white people" Sharpton? Coming from a man in the same race speaks volumes.

    Those Duke University students *DID NOT* commit the crime. Do you remember how blown up that was? I believe the coach was fired or he left. Those innocent young men were accused of racism and rape/brutality. The team activities were canceled. HEINOUS accusations. The DA was also corrupt in his prosecution.

    But Sharpton was there ..spouting his usual rhetoric ..inciting the people. And for what? How would you feel if that was your son wrongfully accused?

    And I've pondered the innocence of young children. They are delightful, love everyone and everything. They don't see color. But if they sat in Wright's church or experience that rhetoric anywhere ..they will be jaded ..sadly jaded.

    Now obviously I was shocked at Geraldo's comment because I live in a predominantly white area. So I have never witnessed racism 1st hand. I also understand that people need advocates if they are oppressed. But America is changing for the better. We do have a black president and that is wonderful. But when I am critical..God as my witness ..race does NOT come into it. POLICY, POLICY,POLICY. That is it. Policy.

    And sadly ..there are the idiot, hateful factions out there ...but AGAIN ...they do NOT represent the mainstream population on either side. They are in the minority.

    Wishing you a belated Happy Passover.

    Jesus said he wished they all would be one. he was talking about faiths ..but he also said to love one another as you love yourself.

    But can go back to the 60s and check out the activist groups on the left that were violent. And with *Bombs*. And more.

    What about the people that are violent when there is a summit and the police have to be in riot gear and windows are being smashed?

    We could go tit for tat in a pissing match over this and you will win with the longer list of violence in your hx.

    There were abortion clinic bombings, that abortion dr recently murdered and Timothy mcVeigh on so called right lunatic fringe. These people have NOTHING to do with conservative people. Minority. Just as you are a good person am I. I think we can agree on that. Yes?

    But these people on either side that do these things they do not represent us.

  5. is there *anything* the RWS get right?

    Not that I know of. That's the "S" in RWS™. Death panels, concentration camps, deep seated hatred of white people, hates America, loves terrorists... Nope, guess not.

    There are plenty of thoughtful conservatives. Just not at Fox "news," on talk radio. Nor do the teabaggers care to listen to them.

  6. Seaspray: I accidently hit "reject" on your comment instead of "publish." But this isn't the first time I've said there are thoughtful conservatives; plus, I've said many times we need a strong opposition party to whomever is in power. You may have noticed I always refer to "Congressional" Republicans and the RWS™ (and, yes, teabaggers) as opposed to all Republicans. Unfortunately in Congress there are none that I know of who are serious about helping, who are about anything but blocking Obama; and who are not, for the most part, demonstrably stupid. Seriously.

    What we need is a Republican party that has something to offer other than obstructionism, and other than feeding the distortions and outright lies that are out there. It used to be so, as I've also said, many times.

    Congress now, on both sides, is appalling. But at least the Ds have actually tried to fix serious problems, in ways the Rs never have, most especially when they were in power just a very few years ago.

    As to your defenses of the indefensible, well, and your ignoring of in which party the subject of race is brought up in the more despicable of ways, I'll just let it lay. Nothing will change your mind.

  7. Regarding your rejecting my comment: Hmm I believe it was Freud (although haven't they discounted him?),who said there are no accidents ...but since all I said was "THANK YOU!" in reference to your "There are plenty of thoughtful conservatives." :)

    But I am asking you to please be specific about:"As to your defenses of the indefensible, well, and your ignoring of in which party the subject of race is brought up in the more despicable of ways, I'll just let it lay. Nothing will change your mind."

    TRY me!

    Please be specific.

    I think I have already established that lunatic fringe on either side do not count.

    Please be specific about exactly which politician,talking heads, writers ..anyone you know of that are indefensible and despicable regarding race.

    Generalizing will not suffice.

    Specific, documented facts on conservatives who have done this.

    I will surely agree with you if they have been as obscene as you state.

    Calling someone racist is a seriously indefensible and despicable accusation if not true. Innocent people have been harmed when maliciously and wrongfully accused of such charges. And do they ever fully get their good names back? I doubt it ..because sadly there will be people that don't know the individuals personally and will erroneously believe what they read in the press or hear in the news.

  8. Nope. My blog.

    I might be more inclined, though, were you to have answered, here, my question about your objections to health care reform, specifically; or were you to have commented on the links I provided.

  9. SeaSpray, you said:

    "To be clear ...I ABHOR anyone who would purpose to wrongfully slander another human being ..regardless of race,political affiliations, etc."

    Right, you have said all of that before, - as now, in great detail - yet you consistently vote for, support (and turn a blind eye to)the people who do "wrongfully slander another human being ..regardless of race,political affiliations, etc."

    Id Est Faux News, Teabaggers, The RNC, Beck, Hanity, et alii, et aliae and et alia.

    By the way, according to Beck, Jesus is now a commie fascist!

    So, as a claiming christian, - one who doesn't agree with "Everything" - how did you feel about ('He's so funny'- that's your description, SS) Beck, telling you to quit your church - 'Run as fast as you can' if the Pastor dared to mention 'Social Justice'?

    Will you now turn a blind eye to him?

    Is he now one of the people you abhor?

    Or, did you explode with spraying liquid, through the nose, laughter?

    Let me guess: How do you like your new congregation?


  10. PS, Seaspray; in case you think otherwise, my not answering your demands is not because there aren't plenty of examples; in fact, I've mentioned them often, here. It's that I don't take kindly to demands from someone who refuses requests herself. And because the fact that you even have to ask for examples of such obvious things suggests you are deaf to input that conflicts with your beliefs.

  11. SS,

    On February 22, 2010, I posted this – inre. Bush saying God told him to invade Iraq.

    "SeaSpray, you said: 'Also ..Eugene ..I did not look up the Bush/God reference…"

    I said: "Your request is a fine example of a basic move in the republican Christofascist denial game."

    I said: "I provided many links, which you ignored; (“I did not look up”) and, having refused to look at any of them, you now blandly ask me to provide more – also for you to ignore."

    Thus, then and now, by refusing to look at the evidence, you could continue to defend Bush and avoid having to say what you would actually make of such a claim.

    The mechanism works like this: as long as I can distract critics by asking for more and more evidence, I can avoid taking a position and saying what I actually think.

    It is the same point that Sid has made repeatedly about your evasiveness.

    But now I ask the central question: Regardless of whether there exists any evidence you would accept, if Bush himself had asked you, personally, to believe that he spoke to God and further, that God had in fact told him to take America to war, would you have believed him?

    Would you have accepted his personal assurance as a valid justification for the invasion?

    I want to hear your personal truth, if you have one.



Comments back, moderated. Preference given for those who stay on topic.

Popular posts