Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Attention: Rachel Maddow

1) Look, lady, I get it. The sole function of that show of yours is to eviscerate Republicans. You could even say that I agree with you on occasion. But, come on, don't you think that at some point during that long love-fest, er, I mean, interview, with Bill Maher, you could have brought up some of those rather inflammatory comments of his on Islam. I mean, you do in fact care about that subject, right?...You used to - you know, whenever a frigging conservative "does it"!............2) I've also noticed that you're touting, yet again, that "running deficits during a weak recovery is good" mantra. It never, EVER, gets stale, does it? And, again, I do in fact get it here, Keynesian economics, yada yada. But, really, I also have to ask you, Ms. Maddow - $1,600,000,000 deficits....aren't ENOUGH stimulation? I mean, I know that it's all relative and all but, PLEASE!!!............3) And what about President Obama's flip-flops on Gitmo and Military tribunals? You don't seem to have a hell of a lot of interest in that "conversation" lately, either....Hm, what' up?

12 comments:

Beach Bum said...

You know very well I'm a liberal but Rachel often irritates me, she could correct that if she got bigger hooters.

John Myste said...

Wow! I don't watch Ms. Maddow that often, but I will start after that resounding endorsement. She doesn't like republicans? Cool! (No offense to republicans. As ya'll all know, I am friend o' the republicans).

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

You know me, double b. If I ran MSNBC, it would be Chris and Mika 24/7.......John, Maddow is hardly the only talking-head who engages in selective outrage (Fox's Bill O'Reilly is probably even worse). She just happens to the the current one who's pissing me off. That's all.

w-dervish said...

Look Will, I get it. You don't like MSNBC pundits... and with Keith gone you've got no choice but to attack Rachel Maddow.

You're pissed at her? I'm sure (if she knew) she wouldn't give a damn. I know I certainly do not.

I don't know what inflammatory comments of Bill Maher's you're referring to, but I do know I agree with most of what he says.

I don't think the truth ever gets "stale". Also, "yada yada" is an argument against Keynesian economics? I don't think so.

RM has mentioned Obama's "flip flops"... although he doesn't have a lot of options regarding Gitmo and Military tribunals considering how the Republicans are blocking his ability to do anything else.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Sorry, wd, but your hyperpartisan stance isn't going to work on this one. Back in May of '09, the Senate voted 90-6 to NOT cut off funding for Gitmo AND to forbid the transfer of any of these terror suspects to American soil. 90-6, bra.......As far as the terror trials go, Mr.s Holder and Obama can hold them wherever they want. They caved in, pure and simple......Oh, and, just for the record, basically every elected Democrat in New York state opposed those terror trials being in New York City. It was hardly pure partisan opposition.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

So, you didn't see Mr. Maher's interview with Congressman Ellison, where the former informed the latter (himself a Muslim) that the holy Koran was a hate-filled and violent book? Or any of his other recent rants about Islam?

w-dervish said...

So, you didn't see Mr. Maher's interview with Congressman Ellison

Yes, but Bill Maher dislikes all religion, so what he said is not that much of a surprise.

I don't know why Rachel Maddow should be causing you to be pissed off because she didn't bring it up during her interview with Maher. Going after a RW Christian because they have a "my religion is better than your religion" attitude is different than going after a person who dislikes all religions.

Anyway, I think Keith Ellison did an excellent job of rebutting what Maher said. He's right and Bill Maher is wrong.

Rachel Maddow couldn't have done a better job than Keith Ellison in refuting what Bill Maher said, so why should she have brought it up? Concerns over Will Hart thinking she was a hypocrite if she didn't?

Attention: Will Hart... Rachel Maddow doesn't read your blog. She doesn't care what you think. That wasn't what she brought him on the show to talk about anyway.

Also, I linked to a Youtube video in which RM criticized the president over gitmo... something you said she hadn't done.

w-dervish said...

Holder (paraphrased): The best venue for prosecution was in federal court. I stand by that decision... Unfortunately members of Congress intervened and imposed restrictions blocking the administration from bringing any gito detainees to trial in the United States. Congress has tied our hands and we will seek repeal of those restrictions (although repeal is unlikely). In the meantime we cannot delay justice for the victims, so we will proceeded with trials in the only venue open to us.

Democrats who voted with the Republicans on the gitmo issue did so for political reasons. That doesn't excuse what they did -- and I think it was pretty gutless -- but they're the ones who have to worry about losing to a Republican the next time any of them come up for election. The Republicans would have used that vote against them. The Republicans being so far Right pushes everyone to the Right. THAT is a fact, and your "partisan" charge isn't going to work on ME.

Democrats (at least those at the US Congressional and presidential level) cave... that's what they do. I don't like it but that is the way it is (apparently). BTW I don't put party loyalty before my own ideological beliefs... which is what you mean when you hurl the insult (in your mind) "partisan" at me. I'm a Liberal and not a moderate Democrat like the president. I have and will continue to criticize him (and other Democrats).

I'll cop to being a partisan though... in that I support the Democratic Party. Even if I have serious problems with a particular Democratic politician... virtually any Democrat is better than any Republican. This is why your "partisan" accusation is MEANINGLESS... to you everyone who supports a political party and isn't an independent is a "partisan".

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Dude, your specific claim/accusation was that the REPUBLICANS are blocking Mr. Obama from doing the right thing. I gave you unimpeachable evidence that it wasn't JUST the Republicans who were doing this. Why not just acknowledge this fact and stop the damn spinning?......Oh, and you know what was even more shameful about what the Democrats did? The frigging stooges hammered Bush incessantly about Gitmo (justifiably so, in my opinion) UNTIL they actually had the chance to do something about it. What a bunch of frigging pussies, huh?......P.S. If I had been in the Senate for that vote, I would have voted to stop the funding. And if it hurt me in the subsequent election, SO WHAT! You do the right thing (or at least what you previously claimed to be the right thing), PERIOD!

w-dervish said...

Dude, your specific claim/accusation was that the REPUBLICANS are blocking Mr. Obama from doing the right thing. I gave you unimpeachable evidence that it wasn't JUST the Republicans who were doing this.

Your specific claim was that Holder and Obama could hold trials of gitmo detainees wherever they wanted. NOW you say it was Congress that "blocked" them? Can they "block" Obama & Holder or can they do whatever the hell they want? I thought Holder made it clear that they could not, but I guess you're the constitutional lawyer, not me.

I'm going to stick with blaming the Republicans... What else would you expect a partisan to do?

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I said that a bipartisan Congress blocked the closing of Gitmo.......The terror trials - are you (and Mr. Holder) saying that Congress FORCED the terror trials into military tribunals? I thought that Rachel Maddow referred to that as a flip-flop.

dmarks said...

I'm just glad Gitmo stays in operation, with the terrorists locked away in it. Candidate Obama made a promise about a situation he did not know enough about.