Well, sort of. But not really.
And honestly. Can I have posted anything less surprising?
[h/t Darleen]
Search
Archive Calendar
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |
Archives
Categories
- A Government That Can Force You to Buy Health Insurance Can Make You Do Anything (3)
- a protein wisdom philosophy primer (3)
- academics (25)
- armadillo (8)
- Friday Fiction 100 Word Challenge (51)
- from the protein wisdom conceptual series (136)
- identity politics (33)
- If Republicans Win the Senate in 2014 (1)
- in which celebraties comment on current events (67)
- language / intentionalism (88)
- legal (6)
- My brief conversations with inanimate objects (130)
- NSA / FISA (46)
- One Term to Serve, the 2012 Revival (6)
- Overheard in a Fallujah bunker (27)
- Poems from 196x, Revised by the Ghost of Richard Brauti (27)
- protein wisdom's DNC coverage (30)
- protein wisdom's RNC coverage (29)
- protein wisdom: the movie Lists (20)
- Provocateurism (16)
- real-time empirical observations (51)
- red pills found behind the sofa cushions (42)
- Scenes from my driveway (61)
- Talking back to 80s music (41)
- The Martha Stewart Chronicles (58)
- The protein wisdom interviews (10)
- The protein wisdom original poems (142)
- Uncategorized (20,046)
- Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance, abridged (34)
Recent Comments
- In The Mailbox: 02.28.23 (Afternoon Edition) : The Other McCain on Hey, longtime pw readers…
- In The Mailbox: 12.23.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll truly IS a sad, embittered psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- In The Mailbox: 07.18.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
Even when a progressive is wrong, she is still correct in an overarching sense, which you would realize if you weren’t bitterly clinging to some weird notion of “Liberty” or “Freedom” or whatever it is that keeps you from shutting up around your betters.
Jeez, Jeff… what’s next, “Sun Rises in east”? ;)
What a repulsive cretin.
Rachel Madow who?
Must be on one of those cable shows I can’t boycott because it’s unpossible to watch something less when my current viewing stands at zero.
I don’t really have anything to add. JHoward pretty much summed up the situation.
“Even when a progressive is wrong, she is still correct in an overarching sense, which you would realize if you weren’t bitterly clinging to some weird notion of “Liberty” or “Freedom” or whatever it is that keeps you from shutting up around your betters”
The essence of “truthiness”, n’cest pa?
As I pointed out, discovering the truth of the matter is something Rachel could have done, or delegated to have done, in five minutes or less. With a bit more effort, she could have had the FBI contacted by phone to verify.
But whether her allegation was true wasn’t the point. The point was, it could be true. It’s plausible, because they’re a bunch of bitter gun-and-bible-clinging wingnuts.
This is Rhodes Scholar-grade thinking, mind you, and should not be attempted at home.
Slartibartfast – she already knew the truth, her own video demonstrated that. This was no simple editing error, she tried to smear a congresscritter, and a dead congresscritter, and got caught lying. The rest was standard mendoucheous MSNBC at it’s finest.
So then, by her own admission, she had an agenda, and simply resorted to the progressives favorite tool; the Sorelian, necessary, lie.
Just this time she got called on it.
I don’t think it was sloppiness as much as it was calculated, but, just not the response. She truly believes that there will be a disaster if small government advocates gain control of Congress.
Smirking, smug, sanctimonious twit is wrong though, all the way around.,
Well, thank bog nobody saw it.
A corollary to the two rules about ObamaCare opponents I posted in a previous thread.
“Rule 2: In the event a non-progressive appears to be right, see Rule #1.”
The truth is unimportant. What’s important is what could be, in some parallel universe. And what can happen there, can happen here, given time.
Oh. I see I’m just saying this:
using different words. I retire from the field of play.
Other than to prove such a post was possible, why do it?
She is lying. She did this deliberately.
Of course she’s lying. She was lying before, and knew it.
The job of a host at MSNBC is to be even more of a douchebag than everyone else on the station. Fierce competition with each other keeps the whole thing “edgy”.
For the Left a lie is better than the truth. It can be framed, twisted and molded into any shape or form. It can be inflated or deflated according to need. It can be painted any color or pattern. And if they do get caught, they can non-apologize. Then it can be dusted off and used again.
Which is to say the Left has only one principle: the ends justify the means.
A lie is more useful than the truth, you see, because it facilitates the pointing-out of the hordes of furious wingnut bloggers.
Who are probably also in the militias, and nascent domestic terrorists. But I repeat myself.
Can I have posted anything less surprising?
Barak Obama Denounces Democrat Party’s Apostasy; Condemns Donks to “forty years in the wilderness.” “By failing to keep faith in me, they have proven unworthy of my awesomeness,” President laments.
To progglodytes, the truth is only the next best thing to a good, plausible lie. Which is itself only the next best thing to a wild and nonsensical lie.