Where is the pledge? The link is gone. My heart is asunder. Thank you for using progressive debate technique number 8: Attack the spelling and sentence structure of the poster. Spelling Naziism is seldom if ever used at Madville but thank you for encouraging it. Tea partiers are way off base. I don't think slaves were allowed to be married. I think that sometimes their offspring were sold to other black, white and indian slaveowners, unless brand new slaves were purchased from their African and ancient or modern Islamic slave owners.
What a weak kneed individual for taking down the link and then talks about his alleged 'smack down' in another post. I apologize if it was taken down for a technical reason.
He must have a very high opinion of himself with his vocabulary skills. A teacher/lawyer that can dissect the real meaning of words .. like the word 'is' .. or 'their', and still manage to denigrate individuals calling them the disrespectful bagger word. I would have thought that a highly educated person would use the term tea party but he chose to be a pompous Beavis and Butthead kind of blogger instead. If you expect respect then why use disrespectful words.
All that education and he is still a prejudice and bias individual - I guess taking classes in school really doesn't give you class.
Oh .. about having a high opinion of himself ... he just gave himself a thumbs up to his own two links about the alleged smackdown and the USA pageant .. what a self important person.
edit -
BTW - Welcome to MV. I apologize if I have offended anyone. I have said before - I really don't like it when people use the teabagger phrase in reference to a person's political beliefs and the word is intended as a sexual slander. Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing, and so is discussion of political ideas - too bad that we can get carried away and treat individuals as a whole group and that makes it all right .. those so and so democrats .. liberals .. progressives .. libertarians ... conservatives .. republicans ... socialists, really doesn't promote a healthy discussion about things and by looking at the progress - or lack there of in DC over many issues including financial issues, people need to work together a little more and less rhetoric.
The guy is obviously a jerk. His smackdown is largely delusional, so my advice is to consider the source.
It is noteworthy to me that you express a thin-skinned attitude toward the term "Teabagger" but in the same paragraph disparage Rachel Maddow as "Madcow".
It doesn't matter to me whether or not you watch Maddow's show on MSNBC, but the woman is intelligent and well informed, something that can't be said for everyone in the Tea Party movement.
What percent of "Teabaggers" do you think STILL believe that the president;
A) Was born in Kenya?
B) Is a Muslim or even 'secretly Muslim'
C) Has raised federal income tax, hence earning the ire of tax-hating citizens just like the original Tea Party movement of, gasp, Boston MASS from years ago?
My guess is a large percentage of them buy into at least one of these McGuffins and that quite a few are balls to the wall with all three.
It's not taken down so much as it is "un-linked", (
) as one could still access it from the beeryblog homepage, if one so desired. Still and all, kinda effed up, no?
Un-linked? What do you mean?
Portion of path of original url altered from 7/12 to 7/14. The old url is still referenced in ML's submission.
ML, you can (should you choose to) use your mod ability to revise the link.
Ah, okay. Hadn't clicked on the original link submission. 
Is fixt. Thanks, crabman. Again, forgetting the powers these fings (wiggles fingers) wield.
And if I say this is your typical Obama supporter
what percentage do you think this holds true too?
I'll watch a half hour of madcow if you watch a half hour of Hanity ... neither of which sounds very appealing to me. Madcow spins the news just as much as anyone on TV - including Glen Beck, you just seem to agree with the way she spins her 'news'.
I have watched Maddow a few times and I find her to be scrupulously factual when she presents fact. Her opinions and her point of view are obvious, at least to me, so I never really have trouble distinguishing between the facts and her opinions. (Just like most cable "news" shows, her show is not an objective news program rather a point-of-view presentation. Everyone who watches "news" on cable should be aware of this fact)
I have heard bits and pieces of Hannity, both on TV and on the radio. I saw him on TV first, so I thought what I found so objectionable about him was the cocky arrogant facial expressions, like Jerry Falwell's smirking "I know something you don't know" look.
But I was surprised to discover that he was equally impossible for me to listen to on the radio, because all the arrogant posturing came through just as loudly even when I couldn't see his face.
And of course the low percentage of his rantings that could pass a fact check muster is just one more reason to not let this weasel to corrupt your thinking process. The last time I wasted a few minutes listening to him he was repeating a Talking Point that I had heard from every other conservative media person I had heard that day, every one of which echoed nearly word for word the message, even including what his own "thoughts" and "feelings" were on a subject that history soon proved to be utter hogwash nonsense wishful thinking lying Bush era talking point.
I don't watch either - I find them both to be blowhards.
I think that a news commentator should present the news and let their interviewees a chance to answer the questions .. not giver their opinions.
I watched her interview Rand Paul, she kept badgering him and asking questions about something he had said about civil rights bills. While he said he would have voted for it (40 years earlier) but he had some issues with the bill. She did not ask him about he wanted to talk about, his platform .. she focused on him being a 'racist' when he is not being a racist - she was following her script to corner him. When Paul pointed out some desegregation things she didn't know about she glossed right over it and kept going over and over again things that she wanted to badger him about. He was being honest and open and that was his mistake as she was focused on making him look like a racist. You listen to the link. If she had told him that her whole interview would be about his thoughts on the civil rights - not really pertinent to what he probably wanted to talk about. She was twisting and spinning the interview to her will - she wouldn't even let him talk towards the end because she was on her soap box.
Her interview with Art Robinson, another fellow running for office .. he just got pissed off at her for her badgering. Now if you think this is good journalism - then I am I am afraid your idea and my idea of journalism are different.
I can't give you any Hannity interviews .. I never watch the guy - I did watch these two interviews.
BTW - when I checked the TV ratings . Hannity had a better ratings, although I was surprised that there so many people that watched her attacking style - not any different than Hannity's.
I think about all the news outlets are pretty biased.. Some more then others.. Sad though, these people wouldnt have had jobs in the past.
For sure .. it's entertainment - they sell commercials, news and information .. Phptt - and they have their demographic audience to play too ... that does still not give them license to be so rude and unprofessional. I'd like to hear what Gramps has to say about the two interviews posted - sure she was prepared - to ambush and badger the people she was interviewing. Lousy interview to here the newscaster get on 'her' soapbox and not even let the person being interviewed time to respond. I guess if all you want to hear is a someone taking jabs at someone - then it is OK - and that my friend is the demographic audience that watches Hanity or Madcow.
I noticed something about all the news networks now.. None call themselves journalists.. They call themselves broadcasters. Its all a big circus show and most people not wise enough to look past both sides and down to the issues at hand.
As offended as you are by the term tea-bagger, I am as offended by your calling Rachel Maddow Madcow, especially as you don't call male OR female "conservative" commentators by similar disparaging names. It would be easier to believe that you are truly an independent and not just a liberal hater if you had ended your comment with something like "insHanity or Madcow."
I just noticed that when I say "insHanity" out loud, I sound just like Sean Connery.
Actually I don't really watch broadcasters to much extent. I did watch those two interviews when flipping thru the channels and saw a promo for them. In the past I would watch about two minutes of Olberman (AKA Olbermouth) just to confirm that he is an unbalanced man. Just as I would watch Glenn Beck (AKA S*Head by the left)for a couple of minutes before confirming that he was still unbalanced. It's been some time since I watched those shows during dinnertime or after coming home from work - a lot of hate and muckraking on those shows ... that's what they sell to their viewers.
I will stop using the phrase madcow if people stop using the term teabaggers. Yeah like that will happen. I don't often mention her name .. for sure I will see posts using the term teabaggers many more times than you will see something about a popular MSNBC journalist.
Since Gramps chose not to comment or view the two ambush interviews from Rachel, what do you think .. was this good journalism - was it even proper etiquette, was it even civil, did she let her 'guest' talk and finish their thoughts instead of having to badger them (her words)? Does she appear to be slightly 'mad' in these interviews ... it does to me.
I do like the nick name ins-Hanity ...is it ok if I say ins-Hanity and madcow? She does not really look like a cow - but she is often mad. We both agree that ins-Hanity is a jerk with an agenda... what about Rachel, or do you think that she is on the up and up because you agree with her politics?
Of female journlaist - I have watched Greta Van Susteren before - and she is a civil person and as much as Fox news (or any any news station) can be is fair and asks reasonable questions ... I have heard that some people call her "Cistern Greta Van Susteren".
Ok. Great. See, we're working together. Equal opportunity name-calling. My main issue with the madcow moniker is with people who call women (any women) cows. But yes, it is ok to say ins-Hanity and madcow, although you lose that whole Sean Connery thing with the hyphen.
The hip gal in the video is right about the free mortgage. And gas is almost free to thanks to our Pal Hugo, (Allah bless him and carry him through cancer). And organizations such as this that fight to fuel the poor. (Strong suggestion for progressive Madvillians and other progressives that know how to re-distribute the "big oil" wealth without getting caught). And look here, you can drive a car guilt free, and absolutely free, as the electricity charge will cost nothing as president BO is going to bankrupt the coal industry that supplies half the power to electricity generation plants in the US. At that point president BO will introduce legislation to cancel the law of thermodynamics and everything will run on perpetual motion machines that "big oil" has been suppressing for decades.
coachc
Once in a while I read a comment about something I wrote thats floating around the Web and divine a specimen so rich in teabagger reasoning that I just have to post it. The folks at madville.com posted my recent Progressive Pledge (thank you, madville!) and it stirred up a little more controversy over there than it did over here.