How is it that MSNBC's Rachel Maddow toiled for years as a student before before earning a doctorate in political science at Oxford -- yet managed to avoid studying the American Civil War?
How else to explain Maddow's commentary last Thursday in response to tea party protests nationwide against dubious tax policy and runaway government spending?
Here's what Maddow said in previewing an upcoming segment --
Rick Perry, the governor of Texas, appears to have his sights set on higher office. What is higher office if you're already governor in Texas? Of course, that would be president of Texas. The return of Confederacy in American politics as seceding from the Union comes back into Republican fashion.
Yeah, I laughed too -- "Republican fashion"? Those pundits at MSNBC make the darndest claims, don't they?
Onto the Maddow show segment after next, which begins with remarks from Perry, followed by this commentary from Maddow --
Who knows what might come of it (echoing Perry's words). That was the governor of Texas, Rick Perry, flirting to the point of adultery with the idea of his state seceding from the Union. What the governor's argument has in political potency is perhaps making up for its lack of historical accuracy. The Texas constitution does not actually grant the state the right to secede from the country, a fact that even the Texas Secede! organization acknowledges.
It looks like there's plenty of that "lack of historical accuracy" to go around. Maddow, for example, suggested minutes earlier that it was mid-19th century Republicans pushing for secession in this country. Hard to believe any sentient person older than 12 would make such a claim. Harder still that a person having done so would then snarkily criticize someone else for ignorance about history. Not hard to believe in the least you might see this any given night on MSNBC.
The coup de grace for Maddow that evening was still to come. In the very next segment, she described a "holy mackerel" story that further undercut her assertion about alleged Republican enthusiasm for secession leading to the Civil War. Here's what Maddow said this time around --
In the National Statuary Hall Collection in the Capitol complex in Washington, D.C., there's representation from every state. The state of Virginia, for example, is represented by the commander of Virginia's Confederate forces, Robert E. Lee. The state of Utah sent a statue of the Mormon leader Brigham Young. Representing the state of California are Father Junipero Serra and Thomas Starr King.
Now, Thomas Starr King, once called the orator who saved the nation, is getting replaced -- by the Gipper. In June a 500-pound bronze statue of President Ronald Reagan in a business suit will replace the once-famous Unitarian minister. Abraham Lincoln credited Thomas Starr King with his impassioned, pro-Union, patriotic, fiery speeches as the man who brought in and kept California in the Union during the Civil War.
Despite its liberal reputation today, California had a strong pro-Confederate contingent at the start of the Civil War. Thomas Starr King traveled all around the state, drawing huge crowds to his speeches and thereby, sort of, maybe saving the country in the process?
You know, from all those Democrats in the South, California and elsewhere for whom secession was all the "fashion," back when it actually happened, while Republicans led by Lincoln fought to oppose it.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Fashionable Republicans?
April 21, 2009 - 21:52 ET by Sergeant ROCKIt's a diversion from the fact that democRATS are making hard-core socialism fashionable for democRATS again.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Wait...that's a woman? I
April 21, 2009 - 21:57 ET by CT PatriotWait...that's a woman? I thought it was a feminine 20-something kid. I do not watch a lotta tv.
Unite. Prepare. Study. Worship. Survive.
oh yeah!
April 22, 2009 - 10:32 ET by just passing byYeah, she's a chick. I would ** her. As long as she kept her mouth shut..... or not.
"Lead, follow or get out of the way!"
But weren't those Democrats
April 21, 2009 - 22:12 ET by balboaBut weren't those Democrats who wanted to secede more like todays Republicans in that they fought for state's rights vs. Lincoln's idea of the greater authority of the federal government?
Lincoln had no such ideas about Federal power
April 21, 2009 - 22:19 ET by Captain KirockAll Abe was fighting for was to save the Union. His strong belief in a limited federal government would make a modern libertarian blush.
So I guess now, Lincoln was
April 22, 2009 - 07:54 ET by nadadhimmiSo I guess now, Lincoln was a democrat, Lester Maddox and Bull Conner were both republicans etc. This is Soviet style newspeak, a complete lie to ensnare the morons that the public school division of peoples propaganda are turning out. Remember, in Soviet world, lies are truth and slavery to the State is freedom. All Hail Comrade Stalin, oops, I mean Comrade's Obama and Ayers.
Maddow's an Obamaton
April 22, 2009 - 12:25 ET by Captain KirockMaddow's an Obamaton working for the Ministry of Truth and she is merely rewriting some history here. Lincoln was really a Democrat and the Ku Klux Klan was founded by Republicans.
Good work commrade, Maddow.
bal, don't you have any
April 22, 2009 - 05:51 ET by HockeyKidbal, don't you have any lines from a source other than the DNC's Talking Points for Dummies?
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Speaking of seceding,
April 22, 2009 - 07:31 ET by kgSpeaking of seceding, imagine a U.S. without the 2 left coasts if they seceded. The financial crisis would be over. The U.S. would have morals again. Prosperity would again come to the country etc. It is the left that has brought this country down and it is the right that carries the burden of the the left.
"DumbAssity of Dope"
But see, if this happened
April 22, 2009 - 13:13 ET by MrSnugglesBut see, if this happened then everyone would be evacuating the coasts and moving into the capitalist free society in the middle of the country. The communists running the coasts would have to build giant walls to keep people in.
how absurd to suggest
April 22, 2009 - 17:31 ET by red_dragon311how absurd to suggest that. Communists are bad and everything but how in the world can you even think that. there is no way a wall would be built to keep people IN.
that's just a stupid thing to say communists would not build a wall it has never happened and will never happen
but if a wall were to be built the evil foul republicans would build it to keep brown people "under control" just like that famous conservitve republican Adlof Hitler
(i am taking some classes at the local comunity collage Lib-speak 101 and New history 101 )
FINALY A REAL CANDIATE FOR PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!
http://zod2008.com/index.htm
The far left liberals
April 22, 2009 - 18:39 ET by MozillaThe far left liberals brought us a lot of misery. They are kicking basic morality out the window and rewriting history. This is not what I want. The far left is something radical...some call it socialism and other fascism and some communists or statist. I just call them Far left obama supporters or Neo-Marxists. They are blinded to realities going on. They couldn't see it even if it stared at their face. They even give regular democrats a bad nameas they ruined that political party. Us Conservatives don't like how they work. They like to destroy things and create chaos and are never happy. They do seem to hang out only in the coasts. Majority of the country is made up of decent moral folks.
Yes they were... Which
April 22, 2009 - 09:58 ET by mattmYes they were... Which just shows how far off the deep left end the formerly democratic party has drifted.
But still, Madcow's comparison shows her stupidity. She is what Rush calls "a glittering jewel of collosal ignorance."
Oh, you missed the other
April 21, 2009 - 22:16 ET by JSchulerOh, you missed the other historical oppsie right next door. If Perry was harkening back to the Confederacy, he wouldn't be President of Texas. Apparently, knowing the difference between the Republic of Texas and the Confederate States of America is beyond the capabilities of an MSNBC talking head.
Maddow, for example,
April 21, 2009 - 22:19 ET by RagamuffinMaddow, for example, suggested minutes earlier that it was mid-19th century Republicans pushing for secession in this country.
No she didn't. She was describing who it was coming back into fashion for, not where it was coming from
Your last paragraph doesn't even address the point she was making and is completely spurious.
*yawn*
April 21, 2009 - 22:41 ET by candanceseceding from the union comes back into Republican fashion.
It's pretty obvious here that she's talking about one kind of fashion.
Trolls can't understand basic english.
April 21, 2009 - 23:08 ET by JWFIf trolls can not understand basic english, why do they think they can lecture us on more complex subjects like American History or politics?
Maddow: The return of Confederacy in American politics as seceding from the Union comes back into Republican fashion.
Idiot Troll: She was describing who it was coming back into fashion for, not where it was coming from
Seceding from the Union would have HAD to have been a Republican fasion at one point in order to RETURN. In fact, it has never been IN fasion for Republicans EVER. Only Democrats. And she specifically mention the Confederacy.
Trolls need english lessons before talking to Adults.
Idiot Troll: Your last paragraph doesn't even address the point she was making and is completely spurious.
Idiot trolls don't realize the last paragraph would wrap up the point the AUTHOR was making, not one of the subjects OF SAID ARTICLE.
Here is my last paragraph. Idiot trolls think they can put the verbal smackdown on contributors but only emphasize their idiocy.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Ouch!
April 22, 2009 - 00:53 ET by avenarWould not want to be your troll...
Seceding from the Union
April 22, 2009 - 06:04 ET by RagamuffinSeceding from the Union would have HAD to have been a Republican fasion at one point in order to RETURN.
You used caps, so your sophistry got right past me.
You used ridiculous
April 22, 2009 - 07:20 ET by bretzysdudeYou used ridiculous arguments, and your idiocy did not get past me.
Caps?
April 22, 2009 - 07:44 ET by ArcherBWhen you learned your ABC's, did you not learn the capital letters as well?
Sorry, your abc's. There, does that make it easier to read?
Sorry, but contesting definitions, grammar and spelling is a debating tactic only used by those who can't ague the actual points.
"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary."
--Ernesto "Che" Guevara
It is in the manual for dealing with idiots.
April 22, 2009 - 07:47 ET by JWFDo not use capital letters for emphasis except when directed at IDIOTS ; use italics or bold for normal functioning people.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
http://www.io.com/~hcexres/textbook/high.html
Words Mean Things!
April 22, 2009 - 09:36 ET by GeneralAlThe statement says "comming back to fashion." Either this so called educated broad does not fully understand the context of what she said or she in fact means Republicans returning to the nineteenth century idea of secession! Of course with the modern day education system, I'd bet she doesn't know the context of anything she has to say! The reference tells me that Republicans supported secession which is at odds with historical facts!
Maddows Comments
April 21, 2009 - 22:20 ET by VinncyGAll it proves is that GE doesn't do their homework. They could have hired someone with knowledge but it's more important that their networks look like fools and toe the Democratic line.
Libs are amazingly stupid critters to watch.
Facts Are Unimportant
April 22, 2009 - 07:34 ET by rightwingidiotFacts, in Liberal reporting, just aren't that important. They take way too much time to research and tend to take the sting out of Liberal talking points.
Better to just make it up as you go. That way you can say whatever you want.
Perhaps it was inartfully
April 21, 2009 - 22:30 ET by JerPerhaps it was inartfully stated, but I believe Maddow was merely suggesting that the secessionist impulse of the South during the mid-1800's was now being replicated by a significant segment of the contemporary Republican party--not that the Confederacy was a Republican phenomenon.
Jer
Always the
April 21, 2009 - 22:53 ET by NL207Always the apologist.
Maybe Maddow was trying to say exactly what she said? Just maybe she is ignorant and her opinions are based on fallacies?
Your argument is based on the presumption that Maddow, a broadcast editorialist and Oxford scholar, is unable to accurately express herself in the English language. Amusing.
Apologist? Hardly.
April 21, 2009 - 23:12 ET by JerApologist? Hardly. Simply applying common sense. Try it sometime.
Jer
The doctor should take his
April 21, 2009 - 23:16 ET by NL207The doctor should take his own advice, don't you think?
Apologist. Wear it with pride.
Maddow is a propagandist. She is either a bare faced liar seeking to manipulate her audience or she is a colossal ignoramus. Either way, it's not pretty.
Apologist? Hardly.
April 22, 2009 - 01:53 ET by Dan The Man 2Apologist? Hardly. Simply applying common sense. Try it sometime.
Common sense you mean like Obama getting rid of Gitmo before they find out what to do with the prisoners? Or releasing memos giving away TOP SECRETS to anyone who wants them? Yeah that sounds pretty common around the leftists.
And you are making excuses for this lame yoyo leftist Madow, sounds like an apologist to me.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Jer, I'm sorry, and you're a
April 22, 2009 - 07:22 ET by bretzysdudeJer, I'm sorry, and you're a liberal that people respect around here??? Keep saying that, and I feel better with an echoing chamber here.
I thought that as well.
April 21, 2009 - 22:59 ET by CT PatriotI thought that as well. The Confederacy was not a Republican organization, if you will, when they were formed under Jefferson Davis. I think this chick on tv was just trying to stir up the ignorants who watch her show, because they wouldn't really know the true story anyways...they would just agree wit her and swear it was fact. I see her comments the way you do, jer.
Unite. Prepare. Study. Worship. Survive.
seems to me from these
April 21, 2009 - 23:15 ET by todd333seems to me from these comments the only ignorants she's stirred up are the ones commenting on this posting.
And you are not commenting
April 21, 2009 - 23:17 ET by NL207And you are not commenting on this thread?
i tried sign language but
April 21, 2009 - 23:19 ET by todd333i tried sign language but nobody replied.
i tried sign language but
April 22, 2009 - 01:59 ET by Dan The Man 2i tried sign language but nobody replied.
Then try this, read between teh lines as I hold up three fingers.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Or is it just one?
April 22, 2009 - 07:22 ET by bretzysdudeOr is it just one?
Yup, idiots. I see them too
April 22, 2009 - 11:52 ET by RESTLESS 1I see ragamuffin, balboa, jer, and todd.
That's four idiots, but not all. I'm sure your buddies will chime in shortly. I can update the list all day if you like.
"This liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Re the four
April 22, 2009 - 12:24 ET by slickwillie2001They could actually be the same person; trolls often use multiple identities, that way they can praise their own posts.
Drat! Youv'e busted the scam
April 22, 2009 - 20:22 ET by JerDrat! You've busted the scam, slick. It's just been Olbermann, all this time, posting via about a dozen different identities to give the false appearance of strength through numbers.
Good night and good luck...
Keith
a/k/a bal, pi, jason, jer, todd, ragamuffin, jfrankwilson, leon, protocol, etc.
only 99% true.
April 23, 2009 - 05:41 ET by RagamuffinI'm one of Keith O's multiple personalities.
Completely separate from and only vaguely aware of the others.
Wow...It's taken almost two
April 22, 2009 - 20:34 ET by JerWow...It's taken almost two years but I've finally made Restless' Idiot List. An honor indeed, sir. Please don't expand it beyond the current "Gang of Four". I wouldn't feel quite so "special".
Jer
Jer,
April 24, 2009 - 23:10 ET by RESTLESS 1Ya know, I actually felt bad about you and Bal making the list, but you both come to the rescue of even the most unworthy liberals. I've seen better from both of you than what you posted on this thread. I mean, seriously, has a liberal EVER screwed up in your eyes?
(BTW, you wouldn't have made the list, but proto and cyrano hadn't shown up)
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Ah...Restless. YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!
April 24, 2009 - 23:23 ET by Jer...you both come to the rescue of even the most unworthy liberals.
Example, please?
I mean, seriously, has a liberal EVER screwed up in your eyes?
Are you talking about an NB liberal, or any liberal? It really doesn't matter. I've called out both.
Jer
Jer, only half serious
April 24, 2009 - 23:36 ET by RESTLESS 1Here is your example sir. This is the only reason I included you on the list, (that and I needed one more liberal :)). It is obvious what maddow's intention was. To ascribe secession to repbublicans to the uneducated masses.
I will stipulate, though, that you have called out liberals. We have had some fun here before, and I don't put you in the class of troll. I believe you to be open to the conservative viewpoints shared here, whether you agree or not, and you come here to have good discussions and share your opions. I like that about you, and I respect you as much anyone here, but defending maddow in this instance is just...well...plain silly. She is an unworthy liberal.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Restless...
April 24, 2009 - 23:55 ET by JerThank you for the very kind words. They are much appreciated.
But a few things about Maddow:
I have never watched her show. Not once. I do not care for her. I have never defended her. Other than this recent instance, the only personal comment I have ever made about her at NB was in reaction to some statement she had made and I called her an "idiot".
In the example you cite, I was offering what in my opinion was a common sense interpretation of her remarks. I assure you I would have expressed the identical opinion no matter who had spoken the words. And that interpretation remains the same now as it was the other day. That's simply the way I saw it. And if that opinion wins me a spot on your idiot list, so be it.
Jer
Uncle Jer is on unstable ground...
April 22, 2009 - 00:01 ET by JWF...and needs to seek a defensible position. Uncle Jer needs to defend Uncle Jer's statements. Not come to the rescue of liberal moonbat on-air personalities.
Inartfully stated, Uncle Jer? That is her job. To communicate in CLEAR english to a viewing audience. Her job depends on her ability to communicate. So if you are saying she did not communicate correctly, then you are saying she did not DO her job correctly.
You believe? Merely? Suggesting? Way to take a stand Uncle Jer.
Break down her sentence. There are 2 parts.
The return of Confederacy in American politics - Clearly pointing to a specific point in American history - THE CONFEDERACY - and specifically pointing out it is returning.
as seceding from the Union comes back into Republican fashion - COMES BACK INTO. In order to come back into, something would have had to COME INTO in the first place. When had seceding from the Union ever COME INTO Republican fashion?
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Uncle Jer calls 'em like he
April 22, 2009 - 01:04 ET by JerUncle Jer calls 'em like he sees 'em, JWF. I could be wrong but my opinion is as previously stated. I don't give a rat's a$$ about Maddow. I don't watch her. I have never defended her. The only comment I have made about her was to call her an idiot a while back for some ridiculous statement she had made.
I happen to think in this instance it is far more likely that she--the holder of a doctorate in political science--was guilty of slightly clumsy wording rather than being ignorant about the political party alignments of mid-19th century America. I believe her point is that the idea of secession has returned, and THIS time, it is dressed in Republican clothing. Simple as that.
Jer
If Uncle Jer can say it in a not slightly clumsy way -
April 22, 2009 - 01:55 ET by JWFAnd Uncle Jer has only the brains and fingers of Uncle Jer. Then why can't an on air personality say it in an slighty unclumsy way when she has most probably a team of writers?
JWF edit: The return of Confederacy in American politics as seceding from the Union comes back into fashion for the Republicans this time.
Uncle Jer said it unclumsily and JWF said it unclumsily, why not people whose job it is to get it right the first time? She is not a one man show. It takes many people to do it. And yet Uncle Jer and JWF manage to get it right individually.
Don't forget, Uncle Jer, they had ALL DAY to prepare for this show. Uncle Jer and JWF are thinking off the top of their heads for a few minutes in the middle of the night here. Still want to be so forgiving?
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Jer, I believe Maddow knew
April 22, 2009 - 05:32 ET by motherbeltJer, I believe Maddow knew exactly what she was saying.
It's a well-know practice of liberals to claim Democrats as the party of civil rights, even though they voted against the Civil Rights Act in large numbers in the 60's.
They count on people not knowing their history, to get away with it.
So what would stop Maddow from implying that Republicans were the ones who promoted secession?
She's also a hypocrite. She chides California for replacing a gentleman who kept their state IN the union, while having no comment at all as she points out Robert E. Lee, who fought for Virginia's right to secede.
They might say "Wow, that sucks!" But at least they'll say "Wow!" -Duff Goldman, the Ace of Cakes
And let's not forget MB,
April 22, 2009 - 07:22 ET by Scuba DudeAnd let's not forget MB, the Democratic party is the party that supported slavery.
Maddow appears to be trying to revise history to suit her position. Typical liberal tactics, make it up as you go along.
"The wrOng ONE was elected"
It is simple
April 22, 2009 - 08:08 ET by general companyMaddow thinks that by compairing us to the Confederacy that they can continue to make us out to be racist. It is just that simple, it is also a lie, but since when does that matter to the lying liberals. For years the dimwits have been bragging just how smart this lady is, sorry I have never seen it, even her convoluted thinking isn't very clever. Another shallow dweeb trying to convince the drones that we are bad, they have no proof, no content, just good old race baiting, and hating, the foundation of the Democrap party
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
**general company
April 22, 2009 - 12:25 ET by pelicanmarsh"Maddow thinks that by comparing us to the Confederacy that they can continue to make us out to be racist."
Yep. Because we all know, wait for it, that the Confederacy and the Civil War was all about slavery and nothing else. (At least, that's what we are taught by the revisionists.)
Maddow is the epitome of public schooling, right? I mean, doesn't she have all this great and lofty education at her disposal? I'm so glad I am a simple-minded-ignorant-warrior. I never have to busy myself with intellectual elitism or condescension.
God bless the American public school system.
"Your liberal mom likes me better than she likes you. Yeah, that's right... a lot more, actually."
Democrats in history
April 22, 2009 - 10:14 ET by candanceYou are correct MB, and it has always annoyed me the way lefties on NB and elsewhere talk about history. They constantly imply that white evangelicals alone were responsible for slavery, persecution of natives, and the delayed civil rights movement.
History books and the MSM love to focus on things like Watergate and anything to make Republicans look bad. My American history teacher in high school made a point of casting the 1950s as the decade of robots, where everyone toed the Republican line or their neighbors turned them in as commies. This is burned in my memory because he used vivid language to scare us.
Breaking contracts with natives to steal their land? Started by a Democrat. The trail of tears? A Democrat. Physically assaulting a Congressman for a speech in favor of abolition? A Democrat. Using voter fraud to turn Kansas into a slave state? Democrats. Imprisoning Japanese Americans for being Japanese? A Democrat. Blocking an entrance of a university to protest black integration? A Democrat.
But did I learn these things in public school? Drumroll please.... NO! In fact, the teacher I mentioned above breezed through the civil rights movement with vague references to it upsetting "the establishment" and quickly began whining about Vietnam and Richard Nixon.
I bet if you ask Maddow which party has historically been the party of racist rednecks, 20 bucks says she answers with Republican.
But it was in the '60s when
April 22, 2009 - 10:21 ET by balboaBut it was in the '60s when people like Strom Thurmond became Republicans and JFK started Dems down the road of backing Civil Rights. The "southern strategy" solidified the Democratic Party as the party of the minority.
Correct?
yeah balboa
April 22, 2009 - 10:35 ET by candanceAfter a hundred years of persecuting various minorities, the Democrats had a epiphany, turned around amazingly fast, and wasted no time in demonizing Republicans as the real racists. Amazing how evangelicals who had just spent a hundred years pushing for equality were suddenly the bad guys.
Yeah those Democrats in the 60s were real saints. Curious how their conversion happened at the same time minorities were given more power. And it's worked out well for minorities, hasn't it? More and more welfare, high abortion rates, failing public schools, and poverty that traps like a prison.
And if you'd like to toss up Strom Thurmond, perhaps you can explain why Robert Byrd is still a Democrat.
No use arguing with Bal
April 22, 2009 - 10:48 ET by Scuba DudeNo use arguing with Bal there Candance. We all know he follows the Dim talking points.
"The wrOng ONE was elected"
ha ha scoob
April 22, 2009 - 11:36 ET by candanceThat photo looks like it was made up by some lefty with its complaint about corporate news. Yeah, those corporate thugs like Jeffrey Bewkes and Leslie Moonves sure are mouthpieces for capitalism....
Well, you're oversimplifying
April 22, 2009 - 10:55 ET by balboaWell, you're oversimplifying things just a smidge. And let's remember that you're talking about _southern_ Democrats for the most part.
Southern Dems started glomming on to Republicans who were for states' rights, i.e., "You can't tell me a black person has the right to go to my school."
oh sure Bal
April 22, 2009 - 12:01 ET by candanceThose wealthy white liberals up north who send their own kids to private school and then scream at middle class Republicans for not paying enough into the public system, yeah those folks really care.
The wealthy liberals fleeing Michigan for greener grass in Colorado, they really care about the slums of Detroit.
Wealthy Democrats who jack up sales taxes and DMV fees because they can afford to give a little more, yeah they really care about the burden it puts on working class minorities.
Planned Parenthood employees who openly take donations from racists looking to fund genocide on blacks, or white liberals in places like Manhattan who push abortion as a means of clearing out the ghettos in Harlem, you think those people really care?
Not that you addressed my
April 22, 2009 - 13:07 ET by balboaNot that you addressed my post, but...you're going to tell me that it's only liberals and no conservatives who don't care about minorities?
The democrat party is like
April 22, 2009 - 13:28 ET by MrSnugglesThe democrat party is like a drug dealer. They keep the poor people hooked to government programs, and those programs do nothing for the people except keep them in a position where they are constantly needing to go back to their drug dealer for another hit.
They will always be poor, they will always be uneducated, they will always be overpopulating the prisons until they can get themselves unhooked from the chains of government aid.
Now you tell me, do drug dealers care about their customers? No, all they care about is that they keep coming back. It is the same for the democrat party. They don't give a rats ass about black people, they just want to make sure they keep voting democrat at a 95% rate.
Kinda one-sided opinion
April 22, 2009 - 15:28 ET by balboaKinda one-sided opinion there. There's NO chance that democrats want to help those less fortunate and that republicans simply want to keep poor people in their place? Different view to the same subject, just as valid.
Sure, I'd bet some democrats see things the way you describe them. But I bet more want to help the less fortunate.
"But I bet more want to
April 22, 2009 - 17:56 ET by red_dragon311"But I bet more want to help the less fortunate. "
i hear you bal but from what i noticed it seems like they only want to help the less fortunate when they are being watched,
"SEE, look how much i help the less fortunate, i served soup to homeless people for 2 hours"
i love Nike's old tag line " Just do it" if you want to help people ....just do it, don't wait to be seen just do it.
FINALY A REAL CANDIATE FOR PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!
http://zod2008.com/index.htm
Bal, Have you always been
April 22, 2009 - 20:03 ET by Scuba DudeBal,
Have you always been this ignorant? Republicans want to keep poor people in their place? For once stop reading the DKos talking points and actually listen to what most Republican/Conservatives say, we want ALL people to be successful, regardless of race, religion or financial status.
But the Democrats want to pigeon-hole groups and keep them playing the "victim". Because without the "victim" they do not have a platform.
"The wrOng ONE was elected"
Aw, you called me
April 22, 2009 - 20:14 ET by balboaAw, you called me ignorant...[sniffle]...I'm touched.
My point was that saying Republicans want to keep poor people in their place is not true, but JUST AS STUPID as saying Democrats want to KEEP people poor.
Rs & Ds
April 23, 2009 - 08:42 ET by AgnosticThe power structures of both parties and a certain percentage of an ever expanding government don't give a rat's back end about any of us. I may be cynical but these people are human with human failings being placed in a position of great temptation with a plethora of examples of politicians getting away with corruption or getting caught and not even getting a slap on the wrist.
The federal government needs to be reduced to a size that is obeservable.
The state governments need to actually lead for their respective states and delegate populous regions or diverse regions to local governments who also must lead.
The closer the corruption is to the source the easier it will be for the American People to remove the cancerous portions of our society.
A person may be won over with logic and reason but the masses must be bought with spectacle and platitudes. - 2008 Elections
oh Bal, i'm embarrassed for ya
April 22, 2009 - 20:07 ET by botgyou're better than this bud.
Tell me under what psycho-scoialogical theory is enaballing good for individuals or groups?
"Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend,------------inside a dog it's too dark to read" ---Groucho
Don't be embarrassed. It's
April 22, 2009 - 20:12 ET by balboaDon't be embarrassed. It's OK.
I don't think anyone intended for services to be abused the way they have, or to implode upon themselves in bureaucracy. But the intent was to help people who needed help, to be a safety net. Unfortunately, people are living in the net.
correct Bal
April 22, 2009 - 20:15 ET by botgand the Dems want to increase the net. Since we agree that it is not good for the people it must be about votes. How cruel and hypocritical.
"Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend,------------inside a dog it's too dark to read" ---Groucho
And that's where we differ.
April 22, 2009 - 20:17 ET by balboaAnd that's where we differ.
bal do you mean
April 22, 2009 - 20:23 ET by botgwe differ in that i believe the dems leadership is smart enough to know what they are doing while you think the dems leaders are too stupid to understand that their enabling is bad for people?
"Outside of a dog a book is man's best friend,------------inside a dog it's too dark to read" ---Groucho
Kinda one-sided opinion
April 22, 2009 - 15:35 ET by balboaKinda one-sided opinion there. There's NO chance that democrats want to help those less fortunate and that republicans simply want to keep poor people in their place? Different view to the same subject, just as valid.
Sure, I'd bet some democrats see things the way you describe them. But I bet more want to help the less fortunate.
"the less fortunate"
April 22, 2009 - 19:47 ET by MightyMouthHow do you define that in this "equalized society"? Maybe the great social experiment has failed? Ever think of that Amigo?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Yup. Already posted as much
April 22, 2009 - 20:15 ET by balboaYup. Already posted as much in my response to botg.
Hello Balboa
April 22, 2009 - 20:10 ET by MightyMouthhave you ever seen the movie "Bucket List"?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Nope.
April 22, 2009 - 20:53 ET by balboaNope.
This never gets old, does it?
April 22, 2009 - 12:13 ET by RESTLESS 1Spin it all you want, but for some 100 years or so, 87% of republicans voted in favor of equal rights, and 67% voted against. You can dance all you want, but you can't skirt the facts.
Here are some more facts for you.
You can enjoy some more reading here. The facts don't back up your claim that demcratics is fuh them thar minoriteeeees.
"This liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
I can see the response from
April 22, 2009 - 12:28 ET by Scuba DudeI can see the response from Bal now, "Facts? We don't need no stinking facts!!!!", shuffles papers, "We have these!!!!!", holds up fax of DNC talking points.
"The wrOng ONE was elected"
So,
April 22, 2009 - 14:35 ET by RESTLESS 1what you're saying is that while the facts are not on his side, the fax is? :)
"This liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
I'm not dancing. And nice
April 22, 2009 - 19:37 ET by balboaI'm not dancing. And nice websites, real objective...
Pretty dismissive aren't you bal?
April 22, 2009 - 19:44 ET by MightyMouth"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Oh really bal?
April 22, 2009 - 19:48 ET by RESTLESS 1And you can refute the points? Hmm?
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Nope. It looks good. But
April 22, 2009 - 19:53 ET by balboaNope. It looks good. But none of it counters what I wrote.
bal, here is a sample of your beloved democrat party.
April 22, 2009 - 20:44 ET by upcountrywaterIf anything, Barack Obama’s presidential candidacy will
spotlight just who’s been the premiere racists in America today, just
as their self-revised history proves it’s always been: the Democrat
Party.
The only people who have floated the idea of a possible
President Obama assassination have been liberal Democrats. Note: John
Wilkes Booth, a Democrat, assassinated Republican President Abraham
Lincoln for his freeing of slaves, so this kind of has precedent.
As you can see bal, the democrats are the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.
Toxic Cash
You think democrats and
April 22, 2009 - 20:55 ET by balboaYou think democrats and republicans have always been the same throughout the history of America?
No Bal
April 24, 2009 - 23:15 ET by RESTLESS 1I find it much more likely that all of those racist democrats found a home in the party created to oppose them. </sarc>
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
RESTLESS 1 LMAO
April 25, 2009 - 02:10 ET by upcountrywaterReagan VS 0bama
Ah, the old Obama
April 22, 2009 - 06:11 ET by motherbeltAh, the old Obama "inartfully stated" two-step!
I guess Maddow needs to "recalibrate" and "clarify" then....
They might say "Wow, that sucks!" But at least they'll say "Wow!" -Duff Goldman, the Ace of Cakes
Oh You Sweet Libs!
April 22, 2009 - 09:44 ET by GeneralAlIt is simply amazing how you libs can excuse a statement made by one of your water boys/girls at its face value while stretching the meaning of a comment made by a Conservative.
Musical Chairs
April 21, 2009 - 22:38 ET by slickwillie2001When George W. Bush was President, talk of secession was the trendy topic on the left, as some have pointed out: When Bush Was President, Secession Talk Was Cool: http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com
It's also been pointed out that all the liberal cities that have declared themselves 'sanctuary cities' are essentially secessionist.
Now suddenly under the Bamster, any hint of secessionist talk, or even much milder reclamation of states' rights, or assertion of the 10th Amendment, is seen as beyond the pale. Same old.
Well, slick, same as when
April 21, 2009 - 23:04 ET by Scout FinchProtesters bashed W on immigration laws, and the media called the protesters "patriots". But when the protesters last week bashed Obama on tax-and-spend issues, they were terrorists, or bitter, crazed loons at best.
what's puzzling
April 21, 2009 - 23:00 ET by katainkentabout her ignorance?
I love to help the helpless but I'm not gonna help the clueless ~Dennis Miller
Those pundits at MSNBC make
April 21, 2009 - 23:16 ET by Clear thinkerThose pundits at MSNBC make the darndest claims, don't they?
You mean like the one where Tea Party protestors were organized by some far-right-wing military industrial complex?
Help Wanted - Take Two
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
Speaking of a subject relating to Maddow
April 22, 2009 - 00:13 ET by lookWhat's the difference between Obama and a blond?
The Leftist Land of Hypocrisy
Lincoln the Democrat?
April 22, 2009 - 00:34 ET by eigafanRachel must have read one of those secular progressive American History textbooks when she was preparing her commentary.
No Mistake
April 22, 2009 - 00:43 ET by HippopaulimusOh this was no mistake. Has no one else noticed the way the Dems have been hinting, leaning, insinuating that they were the party of Lincoln?
Most Americans don't know their own history, and Dems are aware of this. They also know that once the seed is planted, people will believe it.
They have seen that inaccuracies in journalism have been ignored for over a decade. So, they just say whatever pushes their agenda...and little by little the people believe it.
Does anyone here really think there will be any measurable level of complaint registered with MSNBC? And far less reaching the consciousness of Madcow.
White - does not mean racist
Heterosexual - does not mean homophobic
Male - does not mean sexist
Rachel Maddow is a far cry from a constitutional scholar
April 22, 2009 - 00:47 ET by DustBunny01Legally, secession is not possible. And, practically, it would result in a second civil war.
Even an Article 5 convention would be limited such that it simply could not "obliterate" the U.S. Constitution.
To make a break with the Federal Government, one would have to use the historical period of the nation's break with King George and the Empire. While I have strong objection to President Obama, I am yet not willing to brand him with the title of Tyrant.
A couple of times?
April 22, 2009 - 01:29 ET by RiiightThe first period of rumbling in the free States about leaving the Cavaliers/Tuckahoes/Slavers was probably among the Whigs before the Whigs lost their anti-slavery backbone.
The second time would have been during the War of the Slaver Agression when several midwestern States wanted to leave the Union. That was reversed when it was revealed that Slaver agents and Slaver money was funding the move for an independant Midwest.
Apparently, this dude Maddow
April 22, 2009 - 02:20 ET by mostlymoderateApparently, this dude Maddow skipped History class.
She listened closely to what her professors said...
April 22, 2009 - 02:33 ET by Army BratAnd memorized it for later excretion....
islam is a lie and Truth is killing it.
Wow
April 22, 2009 - 05:16 ET by Jcon96Hmmm.... Oxford bad choice for childs education...scratch off of list ...
Note, invest in additional books on history, focusing 1850-1870.
On Target
Ok yeah?
April 22, 2009 - 05:38 ET by zoro7957.....................so what about 1941, you know, when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?
That was completely
April 22, 2009 - 05:58 ET by HockeyKidThat was completely different, 'cause Hitler just wanted to make the trains to Hawaii run on time! ;)
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Hawaiian Trains?
April 22, 2009 - 06:01 ET by AgnosticAnd we know this because he made a world-wide satellite broadcast from the top of the Berlin Wall to announce the new Elevated Train that will run from Berlin to Honolulu. - My apologies to the VP
A person may be won over with logic and reason but the masses must be bought with spectacle and platitudes. - 2008 Elections
Rhodes Scholar and Ph.D. Maddow ingorant of American history?
April 22, 2009 - 06:06 ET by CKA in Red State USAWhy am I not surprised she knows nothing of the Civil War? Why should anyone be?
Wonder if she even knows of that group called the Founding Fathers and those two little documents, the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, they produced?
Sam Cooke's Wonderful World
April 22, 2009 - 06:07 ET by ThisnThatDon't know much about history
Don't know much biology
Don't know much about a science book
Don't know much about the French I took
But I do know that I love you
And I know that if you love me too
What a wonderful world this would be
*************
Don't know much about geography
Don't know much trigonometry
Don't know much about algebra
Don't know what a slide rule is for
But I know that one and one is two
And if this one could be with you
What a wonderful world this would be
Now, I don't claim to be an "A" student
But I'm trying to be
For maybe by being an "A" student baby
I can win your love for me
___________________________________
The challenge is to follow a consistent plan despite inconsistent prices - Sarah Palin, State of the State of Alaska speech
American History
April 22, 2009 - 06:57 ET by Nearly NobodyIf American history was embroidered in carpet I bet she would be an expert.
"Nearly Nobody's News"
I don't care who you are,
April 22, 2009 - 09:41 ET by kongI don't care who you are, that's funny!
Maddow probably thinks Lincoln was a democrat...
April 22, 2009 - 07:10 ET by R D Helm...and that Vietnam was started by Richard Nixon.
-Dave
This coup has gone on long enough. The time to put it down is NOW.
Ratchel Maddow
April 22, 2009 - 08:24 ET by charlietexasNo one is watching her. the ones who are will believe everything she says. they are ignorant too
She's confused.
April 22, 2009 - 09:30 ET by bubbasterMaddow has confused 21st century politics with 19th century American History. Lincoln and his Republican Party was not in favor of secession. Lincoln was anti-Jeffersonian in his views. Lincoln wanted the Union to remain intact and to oppress the South. Gov. Rick Perry is embracing a Jeffersonian philosophy.
From Dr. Clyde Wilson's The Republican Charade: Lincoln and his Party -
Maddow clearly is biased. She needs to understand the differences of today's current politics to those from the past.
BUBBA
8 TEXAN Senators
April 22, 2009 - 10:05 ET by stevepipeTexas has the RIGHT to divide up into FOUR states. (Maybe there WOULD be a PRESIDENT of TEXAS?!!? LOL)
Think 8 more Republican senators!!! Think what 8 more KAY BAILY HUTCHINSONS would be like!!! LOL
What would THAT do to the "balance" in the Senate? Might lead the party to find their lost testicles.
Is Rachel aware...
April 22, 2009 - 11:00 ET by Prester John....the to this day the official dinners that Democrats attend around the country to celebrate their party are named in honor of a slave owning states' righter (T. Jefferson) and a slave owning ethnic cleanser of native Americans (Andy Jackson)?
Bets anyone?
Doesn't Matter
April 22, 2009 - 11:21 ET by rammingspeedRachel Maddow is a leading liberal icon, and what do liberal icons do? They say anything that comes to mind, wrong though it may be, none of their colleagues calls them on it, and many people uncritically accept it as fact.
But many people know better. To paraphrase Yogi Berra, "People are staying away from liberal B.S in droves." Ask Rachel Maddow about that, as her ratings have plummeted since the craze of the Obama election has settled down.
That a radical socialist is
April 22, 2009 - 11:22 ET by pcantidoteThat a radical socialist is the result of a doctorate in political science from Oxford tells me all I need to know about Oxford.
Reject ALL incumbents in 2010
Maddow is a man, baby!
April 22, 2009 - 12:31 ET by Joe BlogsOh yeah, she's got big hands.
But seriously, having a history PhD means only that one has mastered some peculiar area -- and many mediocre historians (that is most, actually) never wander far outside their field of expertise, if they even have one. You can imagine that someone like this lesbian probably spent all her time on womyn's issues and critical theory. Of course she knows nothing about the Civil War. That was a bunch of men killing each other.
Besides, a seriously talented historian would be writing about and teaching history, not alternately smirking and venting on a cable opinion show. Maddow's ignorance should surprise nobody.
By the way, Maddow is another shining example in the Age of Obama of what I like to call Credentialism: the phenomena of people saying "look at my degrees -- they prove I'm better than you and should therefore be paid more and put in charge of things I know nothing about because, gee, I'm such a quick study."
Maddow
April 22, 2009 - 12:36 ET by jessieHJessie R. Hamby I guess she missed her history classes. Undestandable, what with her finger in the dike & all.
Okat, that's it!
April 22, 2009 - 13:24 ET by Jcon96You owe me a new monitor now Jessie!
On Target
wow
April 22, 2009 - 17:15 ET by texan1953MSnbc....still on the air?
wow
April 22, 2009 - 17:16 ET by texan1953MSnbc....still on the air?
MSNBC, You Get What You Pay For
April 22, 2009 - 18:25 ET by deerjerkydaveMaddow: "The return of Confederacy in American politics as seceding from the Union comes back into Republican fashion"
I guess Maddow was born yesterday. The civil war was essentially Republicans vs. Democrats. The Democrats were in the south and Republicans in the north. After the civil war the south remained solidly Democrat as they were very bitter against the Republican party, hence the term the "solid south." It was only in recent decades that the south turned Republican as both parties slide to the left politically. The Democrats today are now socialists, and the Republicans look like old school Democrats.
Libtards deal in
April 22, 2009 - 23:15 ET by RR GOPLibtards deal in generalities...not in boring details-that's just soooo beneath their superior intellects.
I keep saying, this is the result I see of their influence in our schools, and I've been teaching high school for 17 years now.
Learning 'facts and figures', memorizing, times tables, learning set problem-solving procedures, learning vocabulary, proper spelling, important historical dates, geography, formulas, diagramming sentences...all that has been attacked by the Ivy Tower/Leftist crowd.
To them it's more important that they learn Leftist social values than anything real.
Thus we get about 50% of our youth not surviving even a bachelor's program in college, especially in the non Liberal Arts (basket weaving I call it) fields of science and engineering.
Even full-fledged Socialist countries haven't screwed themselves to that extent, but there again, they don't waste their time on juvenile delinquents past a certain age and try to get them into a trade ASAP.
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 61% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory (yep...approval for Congress now at 39%...do you believe that!?).
Obama wants salvage rights to the USS America
April 23, 2009 - 00:10 ET by SmorgasbordI look at seceding this way: If you are on a ship that is tied to another ship, and that ship is sinking, you are going to cut the cable so you don't go down with the sinking ship. The USS America is sinking under Obama. He is purposely scuttling the USS America so he can have SALVAGE RIGHTS.
When he raises it from the sea, he will be the CAPTAIN. He will be in charge and his crew will have to obey his orders.
Heck Smorg.... Bad enough
April 23, 2009 - 00:20 ET by bigtimerHeck Smorg....
Bad enough here in our land but he has delusions of grandeur for the world, he thinks he is the Second Coming.
People on these shores had better wake up and fast, his smugness is more than I can handle, and the two to three breaking news photo ops are getting past barf-bag time.
I cannot stand to see his face at all anymore...let alone listen to the POS...talk about a side-ways gouger (it's an old joke between me and a special somebody)...his face, back and forth, if this was Bush can you imagine by now what the msm would have done to him?
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
This Guy Maddow . . . .
April 23, 2009 - 19:16 ET by DoktorFranken. . . . Is he still flappin' his gums? He needs to get laid, for sure.