Thanks Glynnis… without your consistant pro-Maddow posts, and anti-Beck posts… I’d never know what a “real journalist” thinks!

Man o-man… I’m amazed that you apparently feel no responsibility to your readers, and refuse to address simple questions like, “Why isn’t this considered a column?” or “What relevance is this to the overall news landscape?” or “Isn’t this just a pitch for a political ideology that you support?” These are pretty basic things, but you apparently disrepect your readers enough to ignore them.

What makes all this even funnier is that in a previous post, where -naturally- you’re unfairly slamming Beck, even Dan Abrams jumped in to say that your thesis was factually wrong (see: http://www.mediaite.com/online/your-moment-of-glenn-becks-extreme-return/). Even you BOSS things you’re guilty of making basic errors in an effort to support ideology. You have a big gap in your credibility because you refuse to address this stuff, and wear your partisanship on your sleeve. The fact that you refuse to admit this either means you’re too embeded within the philosophy to separate fact and opinion… or you’re just dishonest. Why Mediaite allows this, is beyond me.

I have been asking the following question without a response since the bill passed:

“If using Federal money for abortions is already blocked and the President guaranteed the Health Care bill would not fund abortions, what does the Stupak Amendment change? Or was the Health Care Bill a trojan horse to allow these provisions?”

It’s not that women cannot buy any insurance plans that cover abortions, the Stupak amendment just guarantees that no Federal money can go towards those plans that cover abortions.

Why Glynnis, there seem to be those who dislike your offerings. Tasting their own ashes of inner-bitterness and personal failure (s), the erudite and insipid do lash out at you.

Or perhaps they just need to “check in” frequently – just to remind themselves of what they are.
Stupak – an appropriate name.

Nachi, it’s just that ImNotBlue attacks every individual person on Mediaite who doesn’t have the same views. A very passive-agressive, hostile personality.

m says:
November 13, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Nachi, it’s just that ImNotBlue attacks every individual person on Mediaite who doesn’t have the same views. A very passive-agressive, hostile personality.

A few things, M.

1) I address the things that people have said. I use specific quotes and posts to illustrate my point. Attack, or (more aptly) point out the things you and others have said, as evidence for my arguments, is much stronger than generalizations… no?

2) Don’t forget, it’s Nachi who has openly suggested that folks he/she disagrees with be “aborted.” In other words, he/she wants those who disagree to die. How’s that for a “hostile personality.”

3) If I’m calling you out… and calling others out… for the things I disagree with, or think are inappropriate, wouldn’t that be “active-aggression?” If I was passive, I would hint at it, or suggest certain things, but not address the issue head on. That’s not my style, I’m afraid. While it’s only words on the inter-webs… I’ll get right up in your face, and point out the hypocrisy… if that causes you to turn tail, that’s you’re call.

PS-
If you notice… I almost never attack someone for “disagreeing” with me, or having a different opinion. I “attack” posters who say things that are incendiary, false, purposely misleading, hypocritical, or needlessly negative and/or offensive. There are many instances where we have talked without attacking, simply because we have a disagreement of opinion. However, there are other times when it is an attack, because you’ve said something clearly (IMO) out of line… the name calling you did a day or two ago is a good example of that.

As for Ms. MacNicol… she falls under the “misleading” category. Her posts are opinion columns, not a report as they are presented. They often promote one idea over another (as this one does), or needless attack someone else with a hypocritical argument. It is Ms. MacNicol’s right to post whatever she wants, however she wants (apparently)… but it’s also my right to call her out on it. If you don’t like it… there are a lot of other sites which ban folks like me from speaking their mind (especially since they don’t agree with their political opinion).

Maddow reveals her huge bias in just one sentence — “The man who sneaked the strongest anti-abortion legislation in a generation into the health reform bill…”

For openers, how exactly did he “sneak” this in when Stupak has been in the front of the news cycle for over a week with his amendment? As for it being the strongest anti-abortion legislation, the wording I have seen mostly extend the existing abortion laws regarding Federal funding.

Stupak drew this up in fact to mollify the Dems who were in oposition to the abortion aspects and the bill never would have passed the House without it. I think Rachael and Glynnis were a little to narrow in their focus to realize that. But they both were probably none too upset with Ms. Pelosi’s section that required ALL enrolees in the government plan to pay a premium, paid into a treasury account which would pay for abortion services.

It could not be more blatantly obvious that these low-life politicians seek only to weaken and render impotent the population they make laws for.Criminals run your society and all you have to do to dissolve their power is stop using their money. The money is the control mechanism that keeps all of us economically enslaved. When we stop using the currency that they supply to us, the Federal Reserve will dissolve and the politicians they employ will be out of a job.
Tea Bags