Monkeysdad wrote:  Yes, it does, but when a Libertarian starts to act like a Repubican, there is cause for concern of that person's well being.

 rosedraws wrote: 
Oh Gosh! Like that doesn't happen around here on a daily basis by a host of other RPeeps?!

 rosedraws wrote: 
  yeah, i'm fine. thanks for the concern tho.

 miamizsun wrote:

Are you okay?  Honestly, you seem to be spending a lot of time on the internet, stretching for connections that support a very gloomy scenario.

Now, I am definitely NOT a rose-colored-glasses person.  I believe in squarely examining the dark side of every issue.  But I'm worried that you're going over some kind of deep end.  

You might want to take a walk, go play with some kids, go read to some old folks... get back in touch.  

Maybe you're fine, but I just wanted to say something about it. 

 miamizsun wrote: 
Much more than I would like to

She seems like a nice enough person.

Recently, she was critiqued by Justin Raimondo of AntiWar.com (the article on the site has hotlinks for references)

Rachel Maddow, McCarthyite

The FBI, the left, and the war on "extremism"

Justin Raimondo, April 05, 2010 

Today, the answer to that question is: not much longer - and the fear is manifest in the latest campaign against "extremism," which is being touted by the "mainstream" media, the authorities, and the professional "extremist"-hunters who work in tandem with both. To give you the flavor of the witch-hunting atmosphere being whipped up by the media-FBI complex, get a load of Rachel Maddow, the "liberal" MSNBC commentator, last Thursday night. After running a videotaped interview with anti-abortion militant Scott Roeder - recently sentenced to life in prison for the murder of an abortion doctor - in which Roeder expressed support for the "sovereignist" doctrine that the federal government has no right to institute drivers' licenses, she averred:

"So, yes, so you can see Roeder as an anti-abortion extremist. You can also identify anti-abortion extremism as one branch of the broader movement of violent, militant, anti-government extremism in this country. We associate that movement with the early and mid-'90s, which is when that tape of Scott Roeder that you just saw was filmed. But just in the last 18 months since President Obama took office, a white supremacist shot and killed a security guard in an attack on the Holocaust Museum in Washington. An anti-tax extremist flew a plane into a building in Texas that housed an IRS office. He killed an IRS worker. Nine suspected militia members arrested for allegedly plotting an attack on police officers as part of a war they wanted to wage against the United States government. A Tennessee white supremacist convicted of plotting to kill President Obama near the end of the presidential campaign in ‘08.

"And, of course, there's Scott Roeder killing Dr. George Tiller.

"And, of course, there's the wave of threats and property damage against members of Congress after the health reform bill passed.

"Is it helpful to find the connections between these disparate acts, to understand what American extremism is now? Or are these all individual crazy people with no connection to politics, no connection to each other, no connection to a broader movement or to the broader country at large? What's the better way to understand this and is this stuff going to stop? Joining us now is Eugene Robinson..."

One can easily guess Robinson's answer to Maddow's largely rhetorical question, but let's rewind just a bit, and note the smearing methodology employed here: the classic amalgam. Grouped together in one intellectual package deal are:

* "antigovernment" activists

* white supremacists out to kill the President,

* antiabortion fanatics out to kill abortionists,

* and crazed anti-Semites out to attack the Holocaust Museum.

One of these things is not like the others, and Maddow - no dummy - knows it.

That's why the plaintive tone is taken - "Is it helpful?" - when posing the question of whether this is a unitary movement that needs to be infiltrated by law enforcement and its members arrested and jailed. The whole idea is to discredit "antigovernment" (i.e. pro-liberty) movements and politicians in the mainstream by associating them with hate and - most importantly - violence, or the threat of it.

How quickly these lefties forget. Intoxicated by power and by the prospect of smashing their political enemies using the mailed fist of the State, modern "liberals" of the Maddowist persuasion either don't know or don't want to be reminded of how J. Edgar Hoover's FBI was used as a political weapon of mass destruction by the Nixon administration to crush political dissidents of the left during the 1960s and 70s. White leftists and black nationalists were infiltrated, disrupted, set up, and jailed - the government used agents provocateurs to initiate violence, and then moved to repress these movements, jailing the leaders, and using massive force against antiwar demonstrators: remember Kent State?

 

 

 

 dmax wrote: 
I've see a few varieties of those around here. One I spotted recently said "Not MY President". Oh? So yours was the last one? NOW I know who to blame...

 dmax wrote: 
Only if it's material that she would use for her "point at and laugh" segment.

 dmax wrote: 

 HoneyBearKelly wrote: 
Nope. 
And, how do you think Maddow et al get their material? You listen to the other folks. 

 rosedraws wrote: 
Oh - I was serious. You were rational. You do win!

 hippiechick wrote:  Posting links to that fool Andrew Breitbart's site on a thread about Rachel Maddow is what I think is called "thread-jacking."

 dmax wrote: 
You said it was scarier than the Obama go to hell guy... so I win this argument.

 dmax wrote: 
No, I have never seen a link like that before, and I didn't know what it was.

And Breitbart is def scary.

 rosedraws wrote: 

Well, that's rational.

 owld_skipper wrote: 
I don't even think they are comparable; Beck is not even a biased conservative commentator; he is just a plain ol' crazy man they allow to have a show for some God awful reason!

 dmax wrote: 
I'm just scared of what I'm gonna SEE there! 

 hippiechick wrote: 
Because you don't know who I am and I might be trying to put something over on you?  

It's an rss feed. Here's a 'normal' link that's not ascary.

I think she a very smart, well informed liberal commentator. She recently interviewed Michael Lewis on her show. They discussed his new book, The Big Short, which explains the last melt-down in the financial markets(he is also the author of Blind SIde).

It was an interesting in-depth interview and Lewis was knocked out that Maddow had actually read, understood and could quote from the book. You want to learn something, watch Maddow; you want to be entertained by idiocy, watch Beck. Just my humble opinion, of course.