Jump to content

Welcome to Grasscity Forums - Register now for FREE
Register now to gain access to all of our features, it's FREE and only takes one minute.
Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Create an Account

Rachel Maddow is a Partisan Hack


  • Please log in to reply
 

#1
aaronman

aaronman

    n'wah

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 14,794 posts
Toys in the Attic Strikes Again – Tenth Amendment Center

Rachel Maddow doesn’t like me. I get that.

Without trying, though, I guess I’ve been getting under her skin. She obviously doesn’t like the fact that the Tenth Amendment Center’s efforts to promote nullification have been gaining some serious traction around the country. Just this week, Rach did a full 14 minute segment on the subject. And her presentation, as you might guess, wasn’t a cheer leading session either.

The segment, titled “Confederates in the Attic” was about how efforts today, primarily championed by the Tenth Amendment Center, to decentralize power and reject unconstitutional federal “laws,” are somehow directly-related to slave owners in the pre-civil war south.

No. That’s not a joke.

She says “a conservative group called the Tenth Amendment Center has been pushing a lot of the anti-health reform stuff…in the context of nullification. And they’re pushing for other kinds of nullification too.”

Ok, other than the absurdity of using the term “conservative” to define an anti-drug war, antiwar, anti-patriot act organization started in 2006 in opposition to GW Bush, she’s right on the money here.

The Center has been pushing anti-health reform stuff? Yup. We drafted the model bill, the Federal Health Care Nullification Act. Versions of our legislation – to either fully nullify or refuse compliance with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), have been introduced in 11 states so far, and it’s making headway in a few too.

We’re pushing for other kinds of nullification too? Ab-so-freakin-lutely.

Two for two. Good job, Rachel!

But here’s where she goes off the reservation into heavy “War profiteer masters” spin mode. You see, Rachel’s job, like everyone at MSNBC, CNN, Fox and the rest of the mainstream media, is to keep convincing people that the only way to think is in a battle of democrat vs republican. Conservative vs liberal. One side is your friend, the other is your enemy. While left fears right and right fears left, her and her buddies keep getting more money and more power.

Sun Tzu would’ve been proud at this modern iteration of his strategy to divide and conquer.

Rachel continues – by telling her audience of the crazy stuff that the Tenth Amendment Center is pushing, and that states are actually working on. Here’s a few:

Food Freedom Act – nullifying the “Food safety and modernization act,”
Firearms Freedom Act – nullifying some federal gun laws and regulations
Intrastate Commerce Act – all products made or grown in state and sold in state are not under federal purview.
EPA Nullification – nullifying some or all EPA regulations

Without getting into the details of how she twisted each and every one of these efforts, it’s easiest to sum it up with this single statement of hers in rounding up the nullification movement:

“Your federal laws don’t apply here, Yankees!”

You don’t like a federal law and work to oppose it in your state? You must love the slave-ownin’ south. Wow, how insightful, Rachel!

So, is Rachel Maddow just a jerk, is she a liar, or is she ignorant? Hard to say, but let me share a little perspective.

I don’t fool myself into thinking that a majority of Rachel’s audience is going to be supportive of everything that we’re working to nullify – especially things like gun laws and the EPA. But, I do know in my own experience through interviews with places like Mother Jones, Raw Story, Huffington Post, and others, that there is some strong support on particular issues.

While Rachel was talking about what she wants you to believe is a racist, evil nullification movement being pushed by the TAC, she had this picture showing – a somewhat-modified version of our live Legislative Tracking page:

Posted Image

Did Rachel do her journalistic duty and report on the top-listed efforts of the Nullification movement, or did she pick and choose just a few in order to frame the discussion in a left vs right cat fight?

I wonder.

She talked about guns, food safety, the EPA and even Constitutional Tender Acts. But, why oh why did she skip over any and everything that would be of interest to her own audience?

The answer is pretty obvious to me.

So what did Rachel skip reporting on? Let’s see.

The number one thing listed on that page – unreadable on TV – is “state marijuana laws.”

You’d think if she were “reporting” on efforts that the TAC was pushing, she’d at least mention the first thing on our list. But, what could Rachel use to scare her mostly-liberal audience there? “These neo-confederates are trying to destroy the union by refusing to comply with the drug war! Beware!!”

Or, right below that red MSNBC graphic blob, you could see, click and learn about how 25 states, championed by the ACLU, passed laws to reject Bush’s 2005 Real ID act.

Would Rachel have then said, “The ACLU wants us to believe we can just pick and choose what laws to follow. That’s what Calhoun said in South Carolina – and it led directly to the civil war!”

Or, just below that, you could see how the Tenth Amendment Center is working to promote efforts to nullify TSA body scanners and violations of the 4th Amendment – as referenced by the Raw Story here.

“These conservatives want the terrorists to win, and they’re willing to let radical Islamo-fascists get on planes without being body-scanned. Do they really want another civil war?” Is that Maddow’s view on the TSA?

And, just one more – she also skipped over our Defend the Guard act, which is a first step effort towards ending unconstitutional wars from the bottom up. The bill was just introduced in Maine – with 2 republican and 4 democrat co-sponsors.

I wonder how Rachel would’ve dealt with that one. Maybe something like, “Barack Obama is trying to do his duty as commander in chief and keep this country safe. These confederate states don’t like our boys in uniform and are obviously part of the blame-America-first crowd. If the nullifers win, we just might be invaded by Libya!”

No. She’d never do any of that. I’d respect her more if she did, though.

Why? Because at least she’d be consistent in principle. Which, of course, she’s not. Partisan hack comes to mind, but I think that’s too soft a term.

To support nullification, you don’t have to be from the right or the left. You just have to decide that enough is enough, that you want to determine you own rules in your own area. Don’t expect that to be in the next segment, though. Zombies attack!

Next time, maybe she’ll call me before reporting on the TAC again. Maybe. But, I doubt it.



In case you didn't already know, Maddow could give two shits about the truth. She is more interested in villifying dissent and keeping her base polarized.

I saw a lot of people defending the fact that she dresses like a little boy, maybe because you respect her as a journalist or commentator. Hopefully this will show you that her job is to keep you stupid.

Edited by aaronman, 15 April 2011 - 02:30 PM.


#2
Green Wizard

Green Wizard

    Registered User

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 1,692 posts
Is Dronetek on vacation?
  • hippie flip likes this

#3
hippie flip

hippie flip

    Banned

  • Banned by Moderators
  • 6,463 posts
I think the politics section should just be renamed to "Everybody vs Dronetek."

#4
special sauce

special sauce

    Registered User

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 281 posts
ur a partisan hack.... never seen u write one good thing about (D)

#5
aaronman

aaronman

    n'wah

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 14,794 posts

ur a partisan hack.... never seen u write one good thing about (D)


A partisan hack would ignore when one side does something good. I'm what's called, "biased", as is anybody with principled beliefs. My agenda is the truth, not division.

http://forum.grassci...-end-raids.html

http://forum.grassci...y-spending.html

http://forum.grassci...r-movement.html

http://forum.grassci...l-alliance.html

http://forum.grassci...introduced.html

http://forum.grassci...en-neocons.html

http://forum.grassci...nding-bill.html

http://forum.grassci...s-drilling.html

#6
CREAM

CREAM

    plans to make

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 1,325 posts
I agree that she is a partisan hack, but I find the mocking her by comparing her to men to be off-putting.
  • chiefton8 likes this

#7
goodgirl

goodgirl

    Registered User

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 319 posts

I saw a lot of people defending the fact that she dresses like a little boy, maybe because you respect her as a journalist or commentator.


Or maybe because she is a grown woman and can dress how she chooses? :rolleyes:


A partisan hack would ignore when one side does something good.


Now that is a strange definition. Even the KKK occasionally helps an old woman cross the street but I certainly wouldn't call those that report on their racist rallies "partisan hacks".

#8
aaronman

aaronman

    n'wah

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 14,794 posts

I agree that she is a partisan hack, but I find the mocking her by comparing her to men to be off-putting.


Or maybe because she is a grown woman and can dress how she chooses? :rolleyes:


I have a hard time believing that if someone like Glenn Beck or Bill O'Reilly dressed and looked like a woman you wouldn't make jokes about it.

At the very least you wouldn't be jumping to their defense, lol. :rolleyes:

Now that is a strange definition. Even the KKK occasionally helps an old woman cross the street but I certainly wouldn't call those that report on their racist rallies "partisan hacks".


That's a stupid analogy because there's no partisanship or dichotomy. A more appropriate one would be if a Neo-Nazi group was trying to demonize the KKK, omitting any information that would allow for neonazis to sympathize with them. I would call that Neo-Nazi commentator a partisan hack. Understand now?

If you're a political commentator and you present only the facts that you can use to demonize the opposition then you are a partisan hack. She intentionally ignored the list of things they support that liberals would also support.

Edited by aaronman, 15 April 2011 - 05:13 PM.


#9
CREAM

CREAM

    plans to make

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 1,325 posts

I have a hard time believing that if someone like Glenn Beck or Bill O'Reilly dressed and looked like a woman you wouldn't make jokes about it.

At the very least you wouldn't be jumping to their defense, lol. :rolleyes:


Well thank you for crucifying me with that hypothetical! A weak one at that.
Let's pretend that all else consistent to the situation (and overlooking the fact that Bill O and Glenn Beck would not want to be labeled homosexual sympathizers--bad for business ya know) if Bill dressed flamboyantly and grew out his hair, I'd either not defend them or laugh at their expense for it?

Or is it that I apparently only defend MSNBC (false) and attack fox news (false)? Therefore it would obviously stand to reason that you can draw this conclusion and wild hypothetical.

I've made my position on this stupid fucking debate several times they are all fucking retarded. Yet I keep getting called out on this by Drone and now you. OK then.

So basically you think I only attack Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck, but 'jump to defend' Rachel Maddow? My head's spinning dude. If you can find posts (please don't selectively edit) of mine where I cheerlead Fox News hate, yet don't criticize left-wing media, please feel free to bring it out of the mothballs.

And yes go ahead and post the 'umadbrah' jpeg because I am ticked. I can't post in these "_____ of ____ is bi-essed!" threads anymore before I lose my god damn mind.

Edited by CREAM, 15 April 2011 - 08:44 PM.


#10
PhillGates

PhillGates

    Banned

  • Banned by Moderators
  • 1,843 posts

I saw a lot of people defending the fact that she dresses like a little boy, maybe because you respect her as a journalist or commentator. Hopefully this will show you that her job is to keep you stupid.


I just respect her as a person, I don't watch her show (anymore).

I defended her because I think discrediting someones occupation because of they way they dress shows the opposer's lack of intellectual honesty or how desperate they are to get their point across... or both.

I think Glenn Beck is a snazzy dresser, I still don't like him though.


At the very least you wouldn't be jumping to their defense, lol. :rolleyes:


How do we know that you would?

The claim you make for your style of an agenda, "the truth", is the same as everyone else's.

Including Drone's

Edited by PhillGates, 15 April 2011 - 09:21 PM.


#11
Dronetek

Dronetek

    Banned

  • Banned by Moderators
  • 4,399 posts

I've made my position on this stupid fucking debate several times they are all fucking retarded. Yet I keep getting called out on this by Drone and now you. OK then.


When you start making these retarded rants in the anti-Fox/GOP/Beck threads, then maybe we'll stop pointing out your hypocrisy. As it stands, your butt hurt only comes out when someone is exposing bias, lies or misinformation from the left wing media.


So basically you think I only attack Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck, but 'jump to defend' Rachel Maddow? My head's spinning dude. If you can find posts (please don't selectively edit) of mine where I cheerlead Fox News hate, yet don't criticize left-wing media, please feel free to bring it out of the mothballs.


See above. Why do these thread about left wing liars in the media always turn in discussion that has nothing to do with the topic? Because you guys actively try to steer the conversation away from the OP.


I defended her because I think discrediting someones occupation because of they way they dress shows the opposer's lack of intellectual honesty or how desperate they are to get their point across... or both.


That's not why he's discrediting her occupation. He used her lies and omission of inconvenient facts to do that.

#12
PhillGates

PhillGates

    Banned

  • Banned by Moderators
  • 1,843 posts

That's not why he's discrediting her occupation. He used her lies and omission of inconvenient facts to do that.


What I quoted was in regards to you.

You where the first to bring to our attention that she dresses like a boy... like, no shit.

It still had nothing to do with why you only assumed that Bill Maher & Rachel Maddow hates Republicans.

You made fun of her swag because you had nothing else to talk about.

Edited by PhillGates, 15 April 2011 - 09:29 PM.


#13
CREAM

CREAM

    plans to make

  • Registered Upgraded
  • 1,325 posts

See above. Why do these thread about left wing liars in the media always turn in discussion that has nothing to do with the topic? Because you guys actively try to steer the conversation away from the OP.


I don't use this phrase lightly, but I really fucking hate you man. Down to your very being. I hope this gets me banned to be honest, so I can be forced to not interact with you again. You win man. I give up.

I agree that she is a partisan hack, but I find the mocking her by comparing her to men to be off-putting.

I stated that I thought Maddow is a hack, but that I dislike the comparisons to a boy. That's it. Then aaronman called me out. So I responded. And I'm steering away the conversation. Fuck you.

Seriously, fuck you. The sad part is, this is me holding back.

(MODS--PLEASE COME REPRIMAND ME FOR THIS POST)

disrespect isn't tolerated here -UB

Edited by UBsmoker, 16 April 2011 - 02:24 AM.


#14
PhillGates

PhillGates

    Banned

  • Banned by Moderators
  • 1,843 posts

I think the politics section should just be renamed to "Everybody vs Dronetek."


An even better idea; give him his own forum and name it "DEMOCRATS PISS ME OFF!!!"

#15
WildWill

WildWill

    Just Wild and Crazy

  • Old School
  • 20,016 posts
I wonder am I the only one who ever thinks to themselves - "I wonder if these guys who predominate the politics section even realize how detrimental to the section they really are?"

I also wonder if they even smoke weed

#16
Dronetek

Dronetek

    Banned

  • Banned by Moderators
  • 4,399 posts

You where the first to bring to our attention that she dresses like a boy... like, no shit.


Get over it already. Go back and read some of the things you and others have said about Limbaugh, Beck. or Palin.

It still had nothing to do with why you only assumed that Bill Maher & Rachel Maddow hates Republicans.


I assumed? Did you not watch the clip?

You made fun of her swag because you had nothing else to talk about.


This from a guy who said he respected this so called journalist when most of HER time was spent reporting on what Fox News reported.

#17
Dronetek

Dronetek

    Banned

  • Banned by Moderators
  • 4,399 posts

I wonder am I the only one who ever thinks to themselves - "I wonder if these guys who predominate the politics section even realize how detrimental to the section they really are?"

I also wonder if they even smoke weed


I've pointed this out before, but... If its people like me ruining the forums, what does that make you? All you ever post about is how much you hate other people's posts. You contribute nothing of value. Here you are once again doing your best to derail actual discussion. Thanks for that! Posted Image

#18
Dronetek

Dronetek

    Banned

  • Banned by Moderators
  • 4,399 posts

I don't use this phrase lightly, but I really fucking hate you man. Down to your very being. I hope this gets me banned to be honest, so I can be forced to not interact with you again. You win man. I give up.


My advice would be to get off the computer and meet a girl. No matter how much I disagree with people, it doesn't affect me enough to hate someone "to their very being". For fuck sake man.. Posted Image

An even better idea; give him his own forum and name it "DEMOCRATS PISS ME OFF!!!"


How are we any different then you guys who hate Republicans/conservatives/libertarians and anyone who doesn't agree with you?

Edited by Dronetek, 15 April 2011 - 10:13 PM.


#19
PhillGates

PhillGates

    Banned

  • Banned by Moderators
  • 1,843 posts

Get over it already.


I was just correcting you.

Are you mad?

I assumed? Did you not watch the clip?


Yeah, assumed.

They didn't say they hated Republicans, they said 'these people'.

That could mean or refer to anything.

#20
Dronetek

Dronetek

    Banned

  • Banned by Moderators
  • 4,399 posts

They didn't say they hated Republicans, they said 'these people'.


Posted Image




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users