Does MSNBC have any extra prison shows they can put here ?

There are a number of influencial people on the right who would like to do more than repeal just the 14th Amendment. There is a definite goal by the evangelical Christian movement to end the doctrine of separation of church and state.

Was that the Rachel Maddow show or Robin Meade ? Some people get those two mixed up .

Rachel Maddow Is Just A Cynical on-air personality….

Apostrophe jones said:
Was that the Rachel Maddow show or Robin Meade ? Some people get those two mixed up .

I like Robin Meade…she is a NASCAR fan…!

“one of the most respected of the lot ” ??? Really… Maddow ?? LMAO

valkyrie101 said:
There are a number of influencial people on the right who would like to do more than repeal just the 14th Amendment. There is a definite goal by the evangelical Christian movement to end the doctrine of separation of church and state.

I never thought it would be possible to make such a statement with a straight face, Val, but no longer. It is very troubling. And, as someone who tries to walk daily with Christ, an unholy alliance between Church and state poses as much danger for Church as it does state.

As to the 14th Amendment itself, these pandering, self-serving morons don’t realize that the only thing protecting us from the states’ intereference with speech, religion and other Bill of Rights protections is the 14th Amendment. Did these people all drop out of Wasilla High School. It is shameless, shameless, and as Ms. Maddow suggests, the most shameless form of pandering.

THE BECKERHEAD’S LIES
ARE OFT BLUBBERING CRIES,
BUT TO MISINFORM
IS MERELY HIS NORM.
HOW E’ER HE COMMUNICATES
HE ALWAYS PREVARICATES.

valkyrie101 said:
There is a definite goal by the evangelical Christian movement to end the doctrine of separation of church and state.

And scary Muslims too! Booga booga!

Geez, have any of these “scholars” actually read the 14th amendment? Seems like the answer is already there. But following the law seems to be variable, and that includes both sides.

Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment, confirmed this principle: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

http://federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction.html

For Maddow, this does seem a bit like trawling.

The lead says….”one of the most respected of the cable news hosts…”. You immediately think O’Reilly, Beck, Hannity, you know, a respected cable news host. Then, the nitwit writing the article goes into some hapless thing this Madow broad (?) did or said. Loser. No one but you listens to Madow Colby. No one. She (?) has one job and that is to clean the bottom of the bowl. Get a life Colby, change your channel.

Colby,

Answer me this question (and I’m a civil guy, so don’t think I’m baiting you into some kind of senseless shouting match): Why does Mediaite portray Rachel Maddow as a cable host with such high integrity? Every day, it is almost a guarantee that something she said or did on her program is somehow reshaping the cable opinion landscape for the better, yet her ratings continue to stay flat (less than 900K on Monday night, for example).

In short, Maddow is one of the most dishonest hosts on television today. A recent example (that Mediaite failed to write about) shows her clearly editing a clip from O’Reilly out of context to make him appear racist when speaking of the President (those who watch his program would see he gives Obama a very fair shake). MSNBC as a whole has set race relations back decades with its reporting and tone (particularly Matthews), and this ploy by the 9 PM host is just another example. She also insists the role of FOX News is to “scare white people.” This is both inaccurate and sophomoric.

Based on the way the comments sections go on this site, I’ll preempt those who will either refer to me as a teabagger or Faux News apologist by stating that I’m simply someone who, while understanding cable news has become a battle of ideology, simply wants those covering the media (Mediaite, TV Newser, Howard Kurtz, etc) to call out editing tricks and outright lies when they see them. And for the record, like a majority of Americans, I’m fiscally conservative and socially left-of-center, so don’t bother shooting the messenger here. I’m just trying to have a lucid conversation about the dangerous road cable news in general appears to be taking when it comes to pushing a particular side of the aisle.

If you can, Colby, please explain why Maddow is treated so favorably on this site, I would appeciate it. If not, it is understable if doing so jeopardizes your standing with the powers that be who ultimately decide on the overall narrative.

Thanks,

Tom

I should add that the 900K number is from Friday night, not Monday.

Hey Maddow- instead of spending a hour talking negative about people who you don’t agree with, why not spend at least some of that time talking about the accomplishments of Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Frank, Dodd etc,?? Oh that’s right, that would only take a few seconds if that long…Nevermind.
I don’t get the liberal talk shows, Olbermann, Schultz, Olbermann, they spend so much time trying to convince their small audience that conservatives are evil. Wouldn’t your time be better spent telling us how great your side is?? Again…nevermind.

What kind of parents name their son Rachel, anyway?

tomcable said:
Why does Mediaite portray Rachel Maddow as a cable host with such high integrity?

It’s called being “in the tank” for this network!

I am confident that all will be gone after the buyout…so we only need to listen to this a little while longer.

valkyrie101 said:
There are a number of influencial people on the right who would like to do more than repeal just the 14th Amendment. There is a definite goal by the evangelical Christian movement to end the doctrine of separation of church and state.

There is no “doctrine of separation of church and state”. That is a fallacy surrounding a Thomas Jefferson letter in which Jefferson speaks of religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God. At the time, baptists in Connecticut. felt their right to religion was considered to come from the state. Jefferson disagreed and said their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

The key words are “their legislature”…meaning the legislature of Connecticut, and “establishment” …meaning the state had no place establishing a ‘state’ religion.

He talks only of Connecticut and the problems of the baptists in that state. There is NO doctrine of Separation of Church and State.

And additionally, where does one find the “evangelical Christian movement” you refer to? Perhaps it’s in you head, filed under ‘Bogey Men and Monsters I Fear’.

Maddow’s point is true.To repeal the 14th Amendment would not only take years but would require an almost 2/3 vote to be enacted.And this is hardly a priority that the country would want to spend all it’s time and energy on.The GOP gets a few more ignorant teabagger votes that think this is serious but is only jerking them off.

Pablo said:
And scary Muslims too! Booga booga!

Yes. And giving up our freedoms because of fear of those scary Muslims, or the equally scary “Mexicans”, is what the Republicans having been Rushing to do.

Phocus2 said:
The lead says….”one of the most respected of the cable news hosts…”. You immediately think O’Reilly, Beck, Hannity, you know, a respected cable news host. Then, the nitwit writing the article goes into some hapless thing this Madow broad (?) did or said. Loser. No one but you listens to Madow Colby. No one. She (?) has one job and that is to clean the bottom of the bowl. Get a life Colby, change your channel.

I thought that cleaning of the bowl was Sponge Bob’s job?

As Maddow points out in the following clip, amending the constitution is really, really hard. So difficult, in fact, that none of us should take this political rhetoric very seriously (in terms of actually changing law.)

Great point, Rach! It’s hard to do, so why bother?

SAWB says:
August 10, 2010 at 9:18 am

“one of the most respected of the lot ” ??? Really… Maddow ?? LMAO

Well, you have to understand that here at Mediaite, and according to the Mediaite writers, nobody is better than Rachel. She is the smartest, prettiest, bestest, most wonderful person ever ever. Where she walks, roses form. She never says anything partisan or goofy, she’s never made a mistake, and every word she puts forth is a spark of brilliance and integrity.

Now despite that being utter garbage, it is the mindset of most of the Mediate writers, who feel the need to endlessly fluff Maddow’s performance. IOW, this is the crap they peddle daily, get used to it.

The Real Royal King says:
August 10, 2010 at 9:18 am

And, as someone who tries to walk daily with Christ…

What part of being such a mean spirited, racist, stalker, liar represents your “walking?”

valkyrie101 says:
August 10, 2010 at 11:10 am

What freedoms, specifically, have been given up by Republicans, and either returned or not given up by Democrats?

Phocus2 said:
There is no “doctrine of separation of church and state”. That is a fallacy surrounding a Thomas Jefferson letter in which Jefferson speaks of religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God. At the time, baptists in Connecticut. felt their right to religion was considered to come from the state. Jefferson disagreed and said their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. The key words are “their legislature”…meaning the legislature of Connecticut, and “establishment” …meaning the state had no place establishing a ’state’ religion. He talks only of Connecticut and the problems of the baptists in that state. There is NO doctrine of Separation of Church and State. And additionally, where does one find the “evangelical Christian movement” you refer to? Perhaps it’s in you head, filed under ‘Bogey Men and Monsters I Fear’.

So your argument is that the 1st Amendment prohibition on the establishment of religion was intended to apply to the state governments and not the federal government? I suppose the routine interpretation by the Supreme Court that the 1st Amendment places limits on both state government and the federal government is in error?

Where does one find the “evangelical Christian movement”? The same place one finds the “tea party movement”, on google. If you look there, you will find what I suggested. Of course the leader of the evangelical movement is Reverend Sun Myung Moon, and here is what he has to say about the separation of church and state: “The time is coming that we have to abolish the concept of separation between church and state. We need a political party centered upon religious ideology. The world of democracy is based upon the ideology of brotherhood. That is why Cain and Abel struggle exists there. Changes of power always head towards the satanic side. This democratic period in human history is passing away. Soon the heavenly sovereignty will be established to lead the world.” —Sun Myung Moon, 1996

Phocus2 said:
The lead says….”one of the most respected of the cable news hosts…”. You immediately think O’Reilly, Beck, Hannity, you know, a respected cable news host.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

hmmm…

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

valkyrie101 says:
August 10, 2010 at 11:32 am

Of course the leader of the evangelical movement is Reverend Sun Myung Moon…

Really, Val… did this topic just come up in your Social Studies class? Every post is the same thing over and over again.

Let’s try a leftwing tactic to diffuse Val, and see how it works:

Val, the only reason you’re talking about Moon, is because you don’t like Asians. You are a racist, and just trying to scare people.

Exclude all emotion, political posturing and just read the Amendment. Illegals that drop puppies in the US are not citizens. No need to change the amendment.

“It does not require a leap of faith to understand what persons, other than citizens themselves, under the Fourteenth Amendment are citizens of the United States by birth: Those aliens who have come with the intent to become U.S. citizens, who had first complied with the laws of naturalization in declaring their intent and renounce all prior allegiances.

Sen. Trumbull further restates the the goal of the language: “It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens…” Note that Trumbull does not say temporarily within our jurisdiction, but completely within our jurisdiction.”

http://federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction.html

im betting val wishes he could swallow L Ron’s load

ImNotBlue said:
valkyrie101 says:August 10, 2010 at 11:32 am Of course the leader of the evangelical movement is Reverend Sun Myung Moon… Really, Val… did this topic just come up in your Social Studies class? Every post is the same thing over and over again. Let’s try a leftwing tactic to diffuse Val, and see how it works: Val, the only reason you’re talking about Moon, is because you don’t like Asians. You are a racist, and just trying to scare people.

No, I admire Reverend Moon. He is the Glenn Beck of the religious world.

valkyrie101 said:
This democratic period in human history is passing away. Soon the heavenly sovereignty will be established to lead the world.” —Sun Myung Moon, 1996

I wondered how long it would take you to type either “Moon” or “Mormon”. It’s a shame you’re a hate filled person. Oh, and by the way, the muslims already embrace theocracies, and their goal is to convert the world. (which is a catch 22, since then there’ll be no one to make guns for them. Also, I don’t want to wipe my ass with my bare hand) I don’t recall you taking a big crap on Islam in virtually every comment.

Rachel, if there were no people who supported the idea, there would be no support to drum up.

The 14th was ratified long before this Nation’s immigration laws as a way of establishing the african Americans as citizens of this country following the Civil War. It was set up as a protection from those Southern States which threatened to disavow the legitimacy of newly freed slaves as citizens, thereby declaring them citizens of the US by birthright. It was never conceived with an eye towards those who come here and give birth, that was instituted by the courts in the 1980s.

valkyrie101 says:
August 10, 2010 at 12:05 pm

No, I admire Reverend Moon. He is the Glenn Beck of the religious world.

No, you are clearly a racist fear mongerer.

lanquihue said:
I wondered how long it would take you to type either “Moon” or “Mormon”. It’s a shame you’re a hate filled person. Oh, and by the way, the muslims already embrace theocracies, and their goal is to convert the world. (which is a catch 22, since then there’ll be no one to make guns for them. Also, I don’t want to wipe my ass with my bare hand) I don’t recall you taking a big crap on Islam in virtually every comment.

I do not hate either Moon or Mormons (like Glenn). And as a liberal, I would fight for their 1st Amendment rights, like the ACLU did when they supported Reverend Moon after he was unrightously prosecuted for tax evasion by Rudy Guliani and friends. And I would defend freedom of religion for Islamics, too.

ImNotBlue said:
valkyrie101 says:August 10, 2010 at 12:05 pm No, I admire Reverend Moon. He is the Glenn Beck of the religious world. No, you are clearly a racist fear mongerer.

So you are good with Moon’s stated goal to take over the world? For me, I am happy to defend his right to try, as long as his efforts stay within the law, which they appear to do, but definitely, in the market place of ideas, I am not a buyer of Moon’s dream. Here is an inspiring quote for you since you are his new best friend: “When you work hard, Congressmen and Senators must be controlled by you. You must talk to them very clearly based on that authority. You are given to that total authority…” Do you feel empowered, Blue?

MartiniShark said:
The 14th was ratified long before this Nation’s immigration laws as a way of establishing the african Americans as citizens of this country following the Civil War. It was set up as a protection from those Southern States which threatened to disavow the legitimacy of newly freed slaves as citizens, thereby declaring them citizens of the US by birthright. It was never conceived with an eye towards those who come here and give birth, that was instituted by the courts in the 1980s.

And yet John McCain, who was born in Panama, benefited from a favorable reading of that amendment. We had no foreign bases back in the 1860s when the 14th amendment was created, so is it unlikely that it was intended to benefit John? Isn’t that ironic? We came just seven or eight percentage points away from putting the entire country in the hands of a man born south of the border.

valk, you’ve mentioned this Rev. Moon character so often, I’m starting to get interested. Does he put out a brochure?

valkyrie101 says:
August 10, 2010 at 12:24 pm

So you are good with Moon’s stated goal to take over the world?

Not sure where you got that… I just pointed out you’re a racist.

Here is an inspiring quote for you since you are his new best friend: “When you work hard, Congressmen and Senators must be controlled by you. You must talk to them very clearly based on that authority. You are given to that total authority…” Do you feel empowered, Blue?

Fear mongerer and racist… just trying to create controversy to get ratings and distract.

ImNotBlue said:
valkyrie101 says:August 10, 2010 at 12:24 pm So you are good with Moon’s stated goal to take over the world? Not sure where you got that… I just pointed out you’re a racist. Here is an inspiring quote for you since you are his new best friend: “When you work hard, Congressmen and Senators must be controlled by you. You must talk to them very clearly based on that authority. You are given to that total authority…” Do you feel empowered, Blue? Fear mongerer and racist… just trying to create controversy to get ratings and distract.

So you do not support Reverend Moon’s stated goal to take over the world? Hey, we agree on that. Does that make us both “racists”?

Could I get a tee shirt with his picture on it?

writer said:
valk, you’ve mentioned this Rev. Moon character so often, I’m starting to get interested. Does he put out a brochure?

Brochure? That’s so old school, writer. Do a web search. Here is a site with hundreds of speeches by Reverend Moon: http://www.unification.net/ Have fun.

valkyrie101 says:
August 10, 2010 at 12:40 pm

So you do not support Reverend Moon’s stated goal to take over the world? Hey, we agree on that. Does that make us both “racists”?

Nope… you’re the racist. Just trying to scare people. Oh no, an old Asian man is speaking… scary!

Thanks, valk. I just ordered the coaster set and matching cups with his picture on them.

writer said:
Thanks, valk. I just ordered the coaster set and matching cups with his picture on them.

But for just a few thousand dollars you can secure a better place in heaven for all your departed ancestors…

valkyrie101 said:
And yet John McCain, who was born in Panama, benefited from a favorable reading of that amendment. We had no foreign bases back in the 1860s when the 14th amendment was created, so is it unlikely that it was intended to benefit John? Isn’t that ironic? We came just seven or eight percentage points away from putting the entire country in the hands of a man born south of the border.

I’m sure you think you were making a valid point. The citizenship acquired by birth on a military installation or consular facility is through the US Citizenship status of the parents, apart from the 14th Amendment.

I’ve got my credit card out right now.

Apostrophe jones said:
Was that the Rachel Maddow show or Robin Meade ? Some people get those two mixed up .

Jones , what is wrong with you ? Are you trying to be amusing ? Do you think you’re funny , like a clown ? No one would confuse Robin with Maddow . Robin is beautiful , smart , nice , a good Scrabble player and a fine singer . Maddow has a TV show somewhere , maybe . Shape up , ” Apostrophe ” .

ImNotBlue said:
valkyrie101 says:August 10, 2010 at 12:40 pm So you do not support Reverend Moon’s stated goal to take over the world? Hey, we agree on that. Does that make us both “racists”? Nope… you’re the racist. Just trying to scare people. Oh no, an old Asian man is speaking… scary!

So, again, you have no problem with Moon and his agenda? You are cool with his stated goal to have everyone in the world bow at his feet? You don’t mind if he pays off thousands of politicians, religious leaders, and “journalists” to do his bidding further to a world-wide theocracy centered on he and his family? He is big on changing the Constitution to allow that theocracy stuff, so you are down with that too. If so, you and Breitbart are on the same page. But for me, though I completely support his Constitutional right to pursue that nefarious agenda, I speak up in opposition.

writer said:
I’ve got my credit card out right now.

I am expecting, therefore, a significant improvement in your demeanor, writer. :-)

valkyrie101 says:
August 10, 2010 at 1:45 pm

So, again, you have no problem with Moon and his agenda?

I have a bigger problem with YOUR racist agenda.

You are cool with his stated goal to have everyone in the world bow at his feet? You don’t mind if he pays off thousands of politicians, religious leaders, and “journalists” to do his bidding further to a world-wide theocracy centered on he and his family?

Yes, I saw a picture of him… standing there in a suit and tie. Very scary stuff… I’m really intimidated.

He is big on changing the Constitution to allow that theocracy stuff, so you are down with that too. If so, you and Breitbart are on the same page.

Yes, I’m terrible frightened of this old man… your campaign is really working.

But for me, though I completely support his Constitutional right to pursue that nefarious agenda, I speak up in opposition.

If it weren’t for MSNBC and other networks giving this guy all this air time, nobody would have ever heard of him. They’re just doing it to create controversy and get ratings.

MartiniShark said:
I’m sure you think you were making a valid point. The citizenship acquired by birth on a military installation or consular facility is through the US Citizenship status of the parents, apart from the 14th Amendment.

Here is a link to the paper written on behalf of McCain by Lawrence Tribe and Ted Olson which explains the basis for McCain’s status as a natural born citizen, and the 14th Amendment appears to be part of that rationale. Read it for yourself: http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/files/McCainAnalysis.pdf

valk, I feel better already.

ImNotBlue said:
valkyrie101 says:August 10, 2010 at 1:45 pm So, again, you have no problem with Moon and his agenda? I have a bigger problem with YOUR racist agenda. You are cool with his stated goal to have everyone in the world bow at his feet? You don’t mind if he pays off thousands of politicians, religious leaders, and “journalists” to do his bidding further to a world-wide theocracy centered on he and his family? Yes, I saw a picture of him… standing there in a suit and tie. Very scary stuff… I’m really intimidated. He is big on changing the Constitution to allow that theocracy stuff, so you are down with that too. If so, you and Breitbart are on the same page. Yes, I’m terrible frightened of this old man… your campaign is really working. But for me, though I completely support his Constitutional right to pursue that nefarious agenda, I speak up in opposition. If it weren’t for MSNBC and other networks giving this guy all this air time, nobody would have ever heard of him. They’re just doing it to create controversy and get ratings.

Since you are so afraid of Islamics and Mexicans, I am surprised that Moon does not cause you fear too. But hey, I agree, I do not fear the man either, because I have him pegged.

Rev. Moon has advised that we should not fear the Mexicans, only the effects of their food.

writer said:
Rev. Moon has advised that we should not fear the Mexicans, only the effects of their food.

The man has travelled all over the world many times, he drinks bottled water and eats kimchee every day. But no, Moon favors the brown skinned people, its the white people he thinks are the problem. Personally, I think he is all an act. He is playing a ruse, like Glenn Beck. He says all that outrageous stuff just to set people up.

valkyrie101 says:
August 10, 2010 at 2:14 pm

Since you are so afraid of Islamics and Mexicans, I am surprised that Moon does not cause you fear too. But hey, I agree, I do not fear the man either, because I have him pegged.

If it weren’t for your 20 posts about him, nobody would know who he was. It’s your fault anyone is talking about him.

All of Maddow’s shows are a cynical ploy.

ImNotBlue said:
valkyrie101 says:August 10, 2010 at 2:14 pm Since you are so afraid of Islamics and Mexicans, I am surprised that Moon does not cause you fear too. But hey, I agree, I do not fear the man either, because I have him pegged. If it weren’t for your 20 posts about him, nobody would know who he was. It’s your fault anyone is talking about him.

That was excellent, I have to admit. Very good. :-)

Actually Moon was voted by a public opinion poll in 1982 at the time of his trial in New York, as the most infamous man this side of Charles Manson. He begged the court for a trial by judge under those circumstances, but was denied. That was one of the avenues of appeal that Lawrence Tribe argued on his behalf. So don’t look at me for making him famous. It is true that people lost track of him, though, because he has been working behind the scenes. And really, Moon does very little. The main honcho for over twenty years is Chung Hwan Kwak, who was pretty much in charge of everything until just recently. He was in charge of the Times. Kwak is one bad dude. He controlled the money, so really, he is the bag man for all those retired and current politicians who take his money in exchange for coming to hear him speak, or giving a speech in support of one of Moon’s projects. Here is the google photo page of Kwak with various dignitaries. Go to the second page for a photo of Kwak and Cheney.

oops… http://www.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&client=hp&tbs=isch%3A1&sa=1&q=Kwak+Chung+Hwan&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

Saw Judge Andrew Napalotano knock down this whole chatter about changing the 14th Amendment. He certainly is no liberal and would agree with Maddow here.

AngelPeters said:
Saw Judge Andrew Napalotano knock down this whole chatter about changing the 14th Amendment. He certainly is no liberal and would agree with Maddow here.

He knows better. It would be a good idea to put this whole notion to bed, but the tea partiers are milking it and the regular Republicans are afraid to put it down. But coming from Lindsey, I can understand, because he is a Moonie, and Reverend Moon wants to change the Constitution. (Sorry, I couldn’t resist, blue).

Rachel (and the rest of MSNBC) does exactly what Hannity and O’Reilly do at FNC: THEY ALL SPOUT OPINIONS!

The only difference is that Hannity and O’Reilly don’t lie about it and pretend to be “journ0lists”

I think that is what makes Rachel so dishonest, arrogant, and creepy.

johnrtorres said:
Rachel (and the rest of MSNBC) does exactly what Hannity and O’Reilly do at FNC: THEY ALL SPOUT OPINIONS!

The only difference is that Hannity and O’Reilly don’t lie about it and pretend to be “journ0lists”

I think that is what makes Rachel so dishonest, arrogant, and creepy.

No offense, John, but her opinion here is based on historical fact. Do you have any idea of the process it would take to amend the Constitution? Did you have that taught to you in high school civics class?

It’s not easy thing. It was never ment to be easy to amend it. Sorry.
Feel free to do the research.

“UNDER THE JURISDICTION THEREOF” – Illegals are not!, so why the need for a constitutional ammendment?

…just an ACCURATE INTERPRETATION of current law will suffice.

ACLJ (www.aclj.org) preparing a legal challenge to CLARIFY above – Contact them to show your support.

The law was never meant for illegal immigrants, and it’s about time it’s interpreted correctly!

“What kind of parents name their son Rachel, anyway?”

You’re a bigot – and a creep.

“this Madow broad (?)”

See above . . . creep.

“Colby,

“Why does Mediaite portray Rachel Maddow as a cable host with such high integrity?”

Because she has demonstrated same.

” Every day, it is almost a guarantee that something she said or did on her program is somehow reshaping the cable opinion landscape for the better, yet her ratings continue to stay flat (less than 900K on Monday night, for example). ”

This story begins by saying how “banal” Maddow’s subject is – the polar opposite of your assertion.

Her influence may exceed the sheer number of viewers..

“Maddow is one of the most dishonest hosts on television today. A recent example (that Mediaite failed to write about) shows her clearly editing a clip from O’Reilly out of context to make him appear racist when speaking of the President (those who watch his program would see he gives Obama a very fair shake).”

I am not familiar with the circumstances you cite. However, I know enough about her show to believe she presented the situation accurately. Perhaps the act of condensing O’Reilly’s segment made subtle racism more acute? Can we condemn her work as dishonest based on one clip?

” MSNBC as a whole has set race relations back decades with its reporting and tone (particularly Matthews)”

Granted, Matthews seems a bit of an “odd duck.” I don’t watch his show. How are Matthews’ and MSNBC’s “tone” damaging race relations?

“She also insists the role of FOX News is to “scare white people.” This is both inaccurate and sophomoric.”

Maddow has noted several examples of “Fakes News” distorting or misrepresenting facts to increase the “fear factor.” If you have compared her coverage to Fox’s, I would appreciate examples of her inaccuracies.

“If you can, Colby, please explain why Maddow is treated so favorably on this site, I would appeciate it.”

If I may; I don’t think it’s so much a matter of “favor” as respect for the quality of her work. Maddow is highly educated but still manages to relate complex issues to the viewer in down-to-earth terms, often with a dash of dry wit. She is quick to correct even small errors on her part with a humbleness seldom exhibited elsewhere on “the tube.”

” If not, it is understable if doing so jeopardizes your standing with the powers that be who ultimately decide on the overall narrative. ”

“The powers” might get perturbed if Colby, et al, DIDN’T give Maddow and her colleagues an occasional “tweak,” if deserved.

You ask questions in good will and I hope they will be answered.

—

Val,

You have taken on the unenviable task of wrestling with the “semantic eel” known as ImNotTrue. You’ll seldom get a straight answer to any question you ask him – but you’ll almost CERTAINLY get an evasion or a dissemblance. If your own words don’t suit him, he’ll be happy to put his own in your mouth.

For example: “Well, you have to understand that here at Mediaite, and according to the Mediaite writers, nobody is better than Rachel. She is the smartest, prettiest, bestest, most wonderful person ever ever. Where she walks, roses form. She never says anything partisan or goofy, she’s never made a mistake, and every word she puts forth is a spark of brilliance and integrity.”

Mediaite writers have praised Maddow, but not in the effusive, fawning manner INT describes. Media critics not associated with Mediaite, as noted in a story linked above, have given her high marks, as well. Mediaite isn’t unique in this matter.

Exaggeration used humorously is one thing, but this was dishonest misrepresentation.

When you mentioned Moon as a leader of the evangelical right, INT couldn’t “refudiate” the fact, and so resorted to accusations: “No, you are clearly a racist fear mongerer.”

When you further discredited INT’s assertions, he added AGE discrimination to his charges against you: “you’re the racist. Just trying to scare people. Oh no, an old Asian man is speaking… scary!”

When THAT didn’t work, he tried to minimize Moon’s influence by blaming the media for inflating it: “If it weren’t for MSNBC and other networks giving this guy all this air time, nobody would have ever heard of him. They’re just doing it to create controversy and get ratings.”

Nevermind that MSNBC didn’t even EXIST decades ago, when Moon “launched.”

When THAT didn’t work, he put the blame on YOU – as if you’re some sort of media mogul: “If it weren’t for your 20 posts about him, nobody would know who he was. It’s your fault anyone is talking about him.”

Perhaps this was INT’s “plea for ignorance.” He demonstrates it enough.

The problem for right-wingers like INT is that the facts seldom support their opinions, so they ignore or, worse, distort them. We seldom hear a verifiable fact from them – here or elsewhere. They resort to other methods; innuendo, implication, false equivalency . . . and outright lies. None could dispute Maddow’s on factual grounds, so they resorted to these methods.

A notable exception in this instance is Penguin, who quotes both the amendment and a senator’s comments. Unfortunately, such comments are immaterial to a particular amendment and its interpretation. The phrase “[a]ll persons born in the United States” includes all babies born here. They have no more say in the choice of the country of their birth than you or I did. Neither did the slaves for whom the amendment was originally devised.

Stricter law enforcement – both for immigrants AND employers – along with closer scrutiny of aliens who receive work visas or student visas would be two useful approaches. Kudos to Peng for the effort.

We might prefer to just stand aside and let self-deluded far-right-wingers take turns convincing each other how wise they are – and how wrong the rest of the world is, with its messy facts and glaring realities. Unfortunately, they’d continue to damage the country and the democratic process if we do.

They will continue to diminish in numbers and influence as the more rational thinkers among us come to realize the intellectual bankruptcy they represent.

jrcmi said:
When you mentioned Moon as a leader of the evangelical right, INT couldn’t “refudiate” the fact, and so resorted to accusations: “No, you are clearly a racist fear mongerer.”

Blue was just being funny. I appreciate him because he speaks his mind and argues very well considering how handicapped the right wing position is to debate.

jrcmi said:
jrcmi says:

way too much

Like to hear yourself type don’t ya’

I was told that joke by a very close personal friend, who happens to be gay…imagine that

It’s disturbing to find myself in agreement with Madcow, but I regret to say I think she’s correct here: The Republicans just don’t have the spine to amend the Constitution to negate the status given to anchor parasites spawned by criminal aliens.

NORBIT said:
“UNDER THE JURISDICTION THEREOF” – Illegals are not!, so why the need for a constitutional ammendment? …just an ACCURATE INTERPRETATION of current law will suffice. ACLJ (www.aclj.org) preparing a legal challenge to CLARIFY above – Contact them to show your support. The law was never meant for illegal immigrants, and it’s about time it’s interpreted correctly!

I would like to say this would work but so far it has not.

Cynical election ploy? You mean, like the smear campaigns against Sarah Palin’s family?

I certainly acknowledge Rachel Maddow’s expertise in these matters. If you want to know about “cynical election ploys”, her show is the place to start.