PDA

View Full Version : Media Maddow and the Obamas: Killers of hope, spurs of rebellion


Chocolate Hog
05-26-2010, 01:29 AM
http://non-intervention.com/294/maddow-and-the-obamas-killers-of-hope-spurs-of-rebellion/

Chocolate Hog
05-26-2010, 01:31 AM
Wow he destroyed Obama.

KC native
05-26-2010, 01:31 AM
http://wheel.blogs.com/binary/HelpTheseGingerKids-thumb.jpg

Direckshun
05-26-2010, 01:34 AM
I'm reading it right now, but when the first words of the piece are "extremist Rachel Maddow," you're not getting off to the best start...

Chocolate Hog
05-26-2010, 01:36 AM
I'm reading it right now, but when the first words of the piece are "extremist Rachel Maddow," you're not getting off to the best start...

Non-interventionists: Mr. Obama and his crew are as interventionist as their predecessors in both parties. Since taking office, Mr. Obama has sent more troops to the undeclared, already lost Afghan war; has started a new, undeclared war in Pakistan; is running ordnance to his proxies in Somalia and Yemen; is spending hundreds of millions to make Washington a central player in Mexico’s narco-war; continues to intervene in a Muslim-Israel war that is irrelevant to U.S. interests.; and is following Israel’s lead to war with Iran. These actions will yield more wars for America, and they will be fought by the children of non-interventionists because those of Mr. Obama and his followers seldom deign to risk their lives for their country. And to helpfully underline this point, Obama, on 22 May 2010, told West Point’s graduates — as did George W. Bush — that they would be fighting and dying needlessly for his elitist, mindless, Wilsonian quest to shape a “new international order.”

Truth in words.

Direckshun
05-26-2010, 01:38 AM
Non-interventionists: Mr. Obama and his crew are as interventionist as their predecessors in both parties. Since taking office, Mr. Obama has sent more troops to the undeclared, already lost Afghan war; has started a new, undeclared war in Pakistan; is running ordnance to his proxies in Somalia and Yemen; is spending hundreds of millions to make Washington a central player in Mexico’s narco-war; continues to intervene in a Muslim-Israel war that is irrelevant to U.S. interests.; and is following Israel’s lead to war with Iran. These actions will yield more wars for America, and they will be fought by the children of non-interventionists because those of Mr. Obama and his followers seldom deign to risk their lives for their country. And to helpfully underline this point, Obama, on 22 May 2010, told West Point’s graduates — as did George W. Bush — that they would be fighting and dying needlessly for his elitist, mindless, Wilsonian quest to shape a “new international order.”

Truth in words.

Except the Democratic Party has never portrayed themselves as a party that won't engage in international affairs. Unless I'm missing something by, you know, being a Democrat.

Direckshun
05-26-2010, 01:40 AM
As I read this article, its argument is shaping up to be incredibly erratic.

The first few paragraphs are supposedly about how the Maddow lashing of Rand Paul exposes the elites in the Democratic Party, including the First Lady. WTF?

Can somebody make his argument a little more clearly? How exactly does Maddow demolishing Paul lead to us wagging fingers at Democrats?

I'm honestly all ears.

Chocolate Hog
05-26-2010, 01:41 AM
Except the Democratic Party has never portrayed themselves as a party that won't engage in international affairs. Unless I'm missing something by, you know, being a Democrat.

Weren't they the ones who had their panties in a bunch when Bush invaded Iraq? They've been pretty silent about bombing Pakistan.

Chocolate Hog
05-26-2010, 01:43 AM
As I read this article, its argument is shaping up to be incredibly erratic.

The first few paragraphs are supposedly about how the Maddow lashing of Rand Paul exposes the elites in the Democratic Party, including the First Lady. WTF?

Can somebody make his argument a little more clearly? How exactly does Maddow demolishing Paul lead to us wagging fingers at Democrats?

I'm honestly all ears.

No the argument is anytime Democrats are challenged they call the opposition racist. The people who opposed the bailouts were racist, obama care racist, border racist. The point is Democrats are just as big of hypocrites as Republicans and they don't want to engage in debate over their radical policies.

Direckshun
05-26-2010, 01:43 AM
At some point, the Democrats will move “The Freedom of Choice Act” in Congress, federal legislation to compel doctors opposed to abortions to perform them.

I will bet anybody in this forum that this does not happen during the Obama administration.

Seriously. The day Obama leaves office, if there has been a vote on the Freedom of Choice act on the floor of either chamber, I will leave this forum forever.

If there has not been a vote, you have to leave this forum forever.

I'm taking all comers, so feel free to pick up the gauntlet, billay.

Direckshun
05-26-2010, 01:44 AM
Weren't they the ones who had their panties in a bunch when Bush invaded Iraq? They've been pretty silent about bombing Pakistan.

Because we don't support all intervention. Liberals, by and large, despised the invasion of Iraq, and supported the invasion of Afghanistan, and our current forays with Pakistan.

Chocolate Hog
05-26-2010, 01:46 AM
I will bet anybody in this forum that this does not happen during the Obama administration.

Seriously. The day Obama leaves office, if there has been a vote on the Freedom of Choice act on the floor of either chamber, I will leave this forum forever.

If there has not been a vote, you have to leave this forum forever.

I'm taking all comers, so feel free to pick up the gauntlet, billay.

Who knows Obama is a radical and has supported policies only the minority of people support in this country.

I'd love to discuss how Obama is any different than Bush when it comes to foregin policy which everyone was so up in arms about.

Chocolate Hog
05-26-2010, 01:47 AM
Because we don't support all intervention. Liberals, by and large, despised the invasion of Iraq, and supported the invasion of Afghanistan, and our current forays with Pakistan.

Pakistan, Somalia, ect. all had the same involvement in the terrorist attacks as Iraq did.

Direckshun
05-26-2010, 01:49 AM
No the argument is anytime Democrats are challenged they call the opposition racist.

I simply have no idea how you can draw this conclusion from watching Maddow pounding Paul.

Have you watched the full interview? Enlighten me.

Direckshun
05-26-2010, 01:51 AM
Who knows Obama is a radical and has supported policies only the minority of people support in this country.

So you'll take up my bet?

Don't weasel on me, man. Man up and take the bet.

I'd love to discuss how Obama is any different than Bush when it comes to foregin policy which everyone was so up in arms about.

For starters, Bush wanted to invade Iraq. Obama didn't.

Direckshun
05-26-2010, 01:52 AM
Pakistan, Somalia, ect. all had the same involvement in the terrorist attacks as Iraq did.

Come again?

Chocolate Hog
05-26-2010, 01:52 AM
I simply have no idea how you can draw this conclusion from watching Maddow pounding Paul.

Have you watched the full interview? Enlighten me.

I've watched Rachel Olberman a few times everytime they mention the tea party is about how there racist. Did she call Rand Paul a racist that particular interview? No.

Chocolate Hog
05-26-2010, 01:53 AM
Come again?

To bomb Pakistan or Samolia is no different then Iraq.

Direckshun
05-26-2010, 01:54 AM
Well, just finished the article. It's more a standad kneejerk shitfit befitting petezg23 than it is some kind of barn-burning condemnation of the Obama administration.

It's built up on made-up or misleading or downright vague premises to lead to wild conclusions. And it's conclusion is completely irrelevent to Maddow vs. Paul.

But other than that, thanks for the read.

Chocolate Hog
05-26-2010, 01:55 AM
It points out how the Obama adminstration is full of shit. It's no different then the Bush adminstration.

Direckshun
05-26-2010, 01:56 AM
I've watched Rachel Olberman a few times everytime they mention the tea party is about how there racist. Did she call Rand Paul a racist that particular interview? No.

You're conflating the issue.

The issue here isn't the tea party protestors. It's Rand Paul, who was exposed in a local newspaper suggesting he didn't like Article 2 of the Civil Rights Act, and she called him on it. And he had a terrible time trying to defend himself. That's basically what happened.

If that's supposed to pass for "Democrats kneejerking with cries of racism," I'm sorry but you're going to need some thicker skin. That was nothing of the sort.

Direckshun
05-26-2010, 01:57 AM
To bomb Pakistan or Samolia is no different then Iraq.

To bomb Pakistan is actually completely different than bombing Iraq.

And we're not actually bombing Somalia...

Chocolate Hog
05-26-2010, 01:58 AM
You're conflating the issue.

The issue here isn't the tea party protestors. It's Rand Paul, who was exposed in a local newspaper suggesting he didn't like Article 2 of the Civil Rights Act, and she called him on it. And he had a terrible time trying to defend himself. That's basically what happened.

If that's supposed to pass for "Democrats kneejerking with cries of racism," I'm sorry but you're going to need some thicker skin. That was nothing of the sort.

Do you not watch MSNBC? Olberman and alot of MSNBCS guest {all who are liberal} have said Paul is a racist and made him out to be an idiot.

Direckshun
05-26-2010, 01:58 AM
It points out how the Obama adminstration is full of shit. It's no different then the Bush adminstration.

Good talk.

Chocolate Hog
05-26-2010, 02:00 AM
To bomb Pakistan is actually completely different than bombing Iraq.

And we're not actually bombing Somalia...

Bullshit. You can't just bomb a sovereign nation. And Obama did bomb Yemen.

Chocolate Hog
05-26-2010, 02:00 AM
Good talk.

Thanks for proving the articles point.

Direckshun
05-26-2010, 02:03 AM
Do you not watch MSNBC? Olberman and alot of MSNBCS guest {all who are liberal} have said Paul is a racist and made him out to be an idiot.

I just don't understand how you draw that conclusion from Maddow's interview. That's what "Mike" from this post was drawing his entire conclusion from. I'm asking what happened that was so objectionable on Maddow's behalf.

The author says Maddow's treatment of Paul is indicative of some great injustice on MSNBC's or the Democrats' behalf at the expense of low taxes, pro-lifers, and parents of American troops. El oh el.

So tell me, do you think this is true? What was so bad on a liberal-Democrat-extremist level about the Maddow interview?

Direckshun
05-26-2010, 02:05 AM
Bullshit. You can't just bomb a sovereign nation. And Obama did bomb Yemen.

You can bomb whoever the fuck you want to. It's just a very bad idea to do it in some places and a somewhat less bad to do it in others.

And Yemen is kind of a completely different country than Somalia.

Direckshun
05-26-2010, 02:06 AM
Thanks for proving the articles point.

Is this the part where I call you racist?

I've misplaced my handbook.

Chocolate Hog
05-26-2010, 02:06 AM
I just don't understand how you draw that conclusion from Maddow's interview. That's what "Mike" from this post was drawing his entire conclusion from. I'm asking what happened that was so objectionable on Maddow's behalf.

The author says Maddow's treatment of Paul is indicative of some great injustice on MSNBC's or the Democrats' behalf at the expense of low taxes, pro-lifers, and parents of American troops. El oh el.

So tell me, do you think this is true? What was so bad on a liberal-Democrat-extremist level about the Maddow interview?

Nothing with that particular interview other than she's carrying the water for the DNC. Nobody was asking those questions until he won even though he made the orginal comment back in April.

I do think she helps push Obamas radical agenada and Obama supporters are creepy cult like followers. He literally supports nearly the opposite of everything the liberals supposedly support.

Chocolate Hog
05-26-2010, 02:07 AM
You can bomb whoever the **** you want to. It's just a very bad idea to do it in some places and a somewhat less bad to do it in others.

And Yemen is kind of a completely different country than Somalia.

Liberals were mad we went to war over Iraq for nothing. Bombing a country is an act of war so far Obama has attacked two other countries. The Liberals have been quiet.

Direckshun
05-26-2010, 02:15 AM
Nothing with that particular interview other than she's carrying the water for the DNC. Nobody was asking those questions until he won even though he made the orginal comment back in April.

I do think she helps push Obamas radical agenada and Obama supporters are creepy cult like followers. He literally supports nearly the opposite of everything the liberals supposedly support.

I'm sorry, but you've bought so many right wing talking points at this point that they're starting to contradicting each other:

Maddow is "carrying water" for the DNC in the interview, even though nothing in the interview was objectionable.

Maddow was pushing a radical agenda for Obama, even though nothing in that interview has anything to do Obama's agenda.

Obama has a radical liberal Democratic agenda, even though he supports the opposite of what liberal Democrats want.

I'll be right here when you want to start making sense, billay.

Direckshun
05-26-2010, 02:19 AM
Liberals were mad we went to war over Iraq for nothing. Bombing a country is an act of war so far Obama has attacked two other countries. The Liberals have been quiet.

Well when it comes to war, liberals are not a monolithic block.

There is a pacifist contingent in liberalism, and they're vocal against all war. But they're also pretty much the fringe. They have been much quieter during the Obama years but they're not going to be the most intellectually honest types, and I'm not going to step up to the plate to defend them because I don't count myself among them.

But you're right about one thing, that liberals like me were mad we went to war over Iraq for nothing. Those last two words are the operative modifiers.

|Zach|
05-26-2010, 03:20 AM
I'm sorry, but you've bought so many right wing talking points at this point that they're starting to contradicting each other:

Maddow is "carrying water" for the DNC in the interview, even though nothing in the interview was objectionable.

Maddow was pushing a radical agenda for Obama, even though nothing in that interview has anything to do Obama's agenda.

Obama has a radical liberal Democratic agenda, even though he supports the opposite of what liberal Democrats want.

I'll be right here when you want to start making sense, billay.

Yea, here is the strange thing about the right...

No matter how many reasons Obama gives them to be critical in a legit manner they still feel the need to make wild sweeping accusations that don't pass the smell test.

Chocolate Hog
05-26-2010, 12:36 PM
I'm sorry, but you've bought so many right wing talking points at this point that they're starting to contradicting each other:

Maddow is "carrying water" for the DNC in the interview, even though nothing in the interview was objectionable.

Maddow was pushing a radical agenda for Obama, even though nothing in that interview has anything to do Obama's agenda.

Obama has a radical liberal Democratic agenda, even though he supports the opposite of what liberal Democrats want.

I'll be right here when you want to start making sense, billay.

Wait so one interview debunks everything? Again I ask do you watch MSNBC? Watch her peices on the TEA Party then you tell me.

BucEyedPea
05-26-2010, 01:25 PM
What an EXCELLENT find this website is. Way to go Scheuer and spot on write-up!

BucEyedPea
05-26-2010, 01:26 PM
Well when it comes to war, liberals are not a monolithic block.

There is a pacifist contingent in liberalism, and they're vocal against all war. But they're also pretty much the fringe. They have been much quieter during the Obama years but they're not going to be the most intellectually honest types, and I'm not going to step up to the plate to defend them because I don't count myself among them.

But you're right about one thing, that liberals like me were mad we went to war over Iraq for nothing. Those last two words are the operative modifiers.

This is not liberalism....it's leftism or Progressivism. You are NO liberal. You are a statist and a socialist. You just don't know it because you bought into stolen labels that belong on another set of ideas.

BucEyedPea
05-26-2010, 01:27 PM
I'm sorry, but you've bought so many right wing talking points at this point that they're starting to contradicting each other:

Says someone who has bought so many left wing talking points.

BucEyedPea
05-26-2010, 01:29 PM
The issue here isn't the tea party protestors. It's Rand Paul, who was exposed in a local newspaper suggesting he didn't like Article 2 of the Civil Rights Act, and she called him on it. And he had a terrible time trying to defend himself. That's basically what happened.

In your opinion. He's up 25% in Kentucky.

ClevelandBronco
05-26-2010, 01:42 PM
Except the Democratic Party has never portrayed themselves as a party that won't engage in international affairs. Unless I'm missing something by, you know, being a Democrat.

Not even the kicker that shall go unnamed could miss one from this distance.