I guess it's time to throw msnbc under the bus

[nadinbrzezinski]

Tweety and Eugene Robinson, yup...stuck clock and all that...Rand Paul did good.

Rachel Maddow...good message, wrong messenger.

The Last Word, dems will rue the day they surrendered civil rights to the Tea Party...per one guest of the show (Mark these words, since Dems have been known for civil rights since well...the 1960s)

I am gonna faint now.

No, he ain't the best messenger. In fact, he is lousy...but Venn Diagrams come to mind.

I guess the Big Eddie show is still safe, only one to call it a stunt.

Oh and him and Bernie have been the only ones to do a proper filibuster in the current period...Senator Reed are you taking notes?


Let the pillorying continue...

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Dead to me. All of 'em.

Agreeing with any Republican on any issue is grounds for shunning.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. I know, I know...

[JVS]

58. What if it's agreeing on the importance of cutting the deficit?

[Cleita]

2. I only watch Ed and Rachel still.

They still sneak some good stuff in.

[MadHound]

4. Nice to see that there's still intelligence and wisdom at MSNBC.

They are correct, stuck clock, right message, wrong messenger, and yes, Dems will rue the day. Nice to see that those folks are still willing to call 'em as they see 'em.

[graham4anything]

5. I only watch Al Sharpton.

It indeed is telling that no one mentioned him above.

And is it a new game to speak ixnay? Brings me back to grade school all those years ago.

[Raine]

16. I LOVE Al, him and Ed are my favorites that I never miss. The rest I can take or

leave.

[JustAnotherGen]

26. I love Reverend Al

I betch tonight he points out Rand's daddy's racist past! He isn't going to just give him kudos - he knows PRECISELY who and WHAT Rand Paul is.

[MzShellG]

53. Likewise.......

Rev Al and Big Ed. Their shows are the best on that network.

[madinmaryland]

6. Is MSNBC now the latest poutrage on DU? I can't go over to Meta to find

out what I should be outraged about anymore.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. The latest is liberals actually agreeing with Rand Paul

On drones...but since anybody agreeing s a bad democrat, those shows had hosts or guests, sometimes both...agreeing...



Yup, Meta s gone.

[BO 08]

14. Question

Do you agree that Drones used to attack terrorists in uncooperative territories ushers in the most dramatic DE-escalation of war in human history?

Do you think Paul does?


How many civilians would be killed if we carpet bombed Cambo... Pakistan?

How many troops would be killed if we invaded the Yemen?

I'm surprised to the point of signing up an account to see so many liberals arguing on behalf of bloated, tragic military incursions.

And many pretend that, if not for the drones, the enemy would be safe to roam among the innocents rather than the wholesale slaughter previous administrations have chosen.

Obama seems to be earning his peace prize if you ask me.

[MadHound]

17. You're not thinking very clearly, nor very far ahead.

For every innocent a drone kills, a dozen or more pissed off people are created. These people are mad at the US and many of them are ready to do anything to get back at us. That includes initiating future attacks against, much in the style of 911. Thus, with these drone attacks, we are laying the foundation for our own downfall. The blowback is going to be hell on earth.

Furthermore, these drone strikes are illegal, immoral. They violate the sovereignty of various nations, thus violating international law. They are not precise, and they kill dozens of innocents with each strike.

Imagine, if you will, that there was a drone strike on the Dalai Lama here in the US? After all, according to the precedent we've set with our drone policy, China would be perfectly within its right to do so. After all, according to the Chinese, he is a terrorist. Yes, he lives in a foreign nation, one whose sovereignty they would have to violate, but it isn't as if we haven't violated the sovereignty of of Pakistan, Somalia and other countries. Sure, taking out the Dalai Lama would kill twelve or fifteen surrounding innocents, but hey, isn't that what the US does?

According to our own drone policy and practices, China would be perfectly within its rights to launch a drone strike on the US in order to take out the Dalai Lama, and the right to launch another if they've gotten bad intelligence and missed with the first one(or second, or third).

Now do you understand the problems with drones? Obama's drone policy goes against international law, kills innocents, and puts all of us in danger.

[graham4anything]

19. Every day 35 people die from bullets/guns. Constant. No change in that...yet

Rand Paul wouldn't need drones, it is correct.

He would have already killed millions from a bomb on Iran.

and then brag he never used a drone.

[MadHound]

20. What does that have to do with Obama's drone policy?

Absolutely nothing.

[OwnedByCats]

59. You're strictly

anti-gun ( I've seen you say you want them ALL gone), but you're ok with drones shooting at people? I'm either missing something or you've got your priorities screwed up.

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. How many future terrorists are being created?

Even the CIA is aware, actually the CIA better than most, of this little future problem called blowback.

Oh and I am not arguing for yet another invasion, but am aware of the problems.

[BO 08]

39. many times less

clearly.

[nadinbrzezinski]

54. I suspect you have no clue what blowback means.

[BO 08]

60. I suspect you are wrong

I could be convinced otherwise however if you could suggest a blowback free form of counter terrorism.

I suggest drones are the best worst option available to deal with people we are unable to capture.

[nadinbrzezinski]

62. Whatever...I still remember after 911

A US Senator asking if it was blowback, and the CIA and intel types humming and hewing.

Yes, policies have consequences, both good policies and bad ones. We'll see the effect, and people will once again demand a pound of flesh and then some.

[OwnedByCats]

61. It appears

those in power and their supporters are never going to learn this one from history

[nadinbrzezinski]

63. It's the hubris of Empire

And not exclusively American.

[sabrina 1]

28. Well, if that is the case, then other countries have the same right, no?

How long before some other country feels it too has the right to go after people who are here, terrorists who have harmed their people, and drone them right here in the US. There would be collateral damage I suppose, but isn't that part of deescalating wars, and it would be far less than what would happen if they invaded us.

Drones are on the market now, there's big money in them.

Eg, there was a Cuban terrorist here who was responsible for killing dozens of innocent people and who was wanted by Cuba for trial. So would it be okay for the Cuban Govt, to get HIM with a drone? I'm not sure why we did not hand him over, at least to the International Court for trial. But we didn't.

I can see a future where every country in the world will claim the same rights we are claiming, to go anywhere in the world and kill people they claim litigimately or not, are terrorists.

Unless you think we have some special privileges in this world and that the world agrees with that.

Eg, all those children who have been killed, they have family members who view the US as terrorists now. Would they be entitled to a peace prize also if they simply used drones to get revenge, that is what we are doing, isn't it, seeking revenge for 9/11?

Funny how we always seem to think we are the only country in the world with a reason to want to kill people. And that no one else has the right or even wants to do the same thing.

We're not.

[BO 08]

38. yes they do

so it would behoove us and them to use drones wisely.

[sabrina 1]

40. Well, I haven't noticed any of them using them at all so far.

And considering the number of innocent deaths in other people's countries, it doesn't appear that we are 'using them wisely' at all. So we aren't a great example of how to use drones in other people's countries at this point. I don't know about you, but if a foreign government sent a drone here to the US and killed innocent, men women and children, I would not be too understanding about it, no matter what their reasons were.

[BO 08]

41. doesn't appear to you.

Question..

Why aren't we sending drones to Iraq, Suadi, Syria?

[Marr]

49. Because it's a means of projecting force without stirring up much political backlash back home.

Let's be honest-- drones are a continuation of Reagan-style "de-escalation", to use your term. It's not about killing less, or employing force less often, or more wisely. It's about doing it *quietly*, in a way that doesn't attract domestic attention.

Like the invisible means of waging war that Reagan used so much all over South and Central America, it's open to all sorts of abuse. Invisible and painless isn't necessarily better, in the long run. It makes force much *easier* to employ, so you can bet your ass it will be employed far more often.

But personally, my problem isn't with the weapon being used-- it's with the rights being asserted by the Executive in terms of killing citizens with no due process or even judicial oversight.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

7. I'll stick with Stephanie Miller. nt

[krawhitham]

9. What Paul did was nothing but a publicity stunt, he is not a true believer.

All it did was hurt the cause, American saw a lunatic against drones. Most people are lemmings if the see a lunatic against something they will believe it is really needed

All Paul was doing was getting his face on all news channels because he thinks he has a chance in 2016

Paul: 'Seriously' weighing 2016 bid

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/rand-paul-seriously-weighing-2016-bid-88611.html?hp=t1

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. Yup, and...his father

Took a stance against neocon central in 2002. And your point.

Oh yes, black and white thinking. Turn off msnbc and do not read Eugene Robinson's column in the morning.

[krawhitham]

18. ProSense makes my point better than I did

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022476740

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. Of course, party before country

You know, it sickens me when people do it, no matter what site. This reminds me of GOP and the bushies, never question dear leader.

This is bad for democracies, but please proceed.

[ProSense]

29. Actually,

"Of course, party before country

You know, it sickens me when people do it, no matter what site. This reminds me of GOP and the bushies, never question dear leader.

This is bad for democracies, but please proceed. "

...it's common sense before kookiness.

What has changed with this publicity stunt? The administration answered a strawman question, and as Robinson put it:

<...>

Paul focused narrowly on the simple question of whether “the president has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without trial.”

<...>

Hours after Paul finished his filibuster, Holder finally closed that door. “It has come to my attention,” he wrote Paul, “that you have now asked an additional question: ‘Does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?’ The answer to that question is no.”

So that’s settled. But the overwhelming majority of drone attacks target foreign nationals in foreign countries, and this is where the moral calculus gets harder.

<...>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-robinson-rand-paul-makes-the-right-call-with-filibuster/2013/03/07/b66732fc-876a-11e2-98a3-b3db6b9ac586_story.html

Paul's focus was on a "bogeyman" (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022476964) premise by design. People got roped into this nonsense, and now "that’s settled."

Because of Paul's high-profile theatrics, that is what the majority of Americans now believe. The question of whether or not the President approves of targeting and killing Americans is now moot. Paul is "happy," which is what he said in response to the letter.

I don't have to agree with Maddow and Robinson on this bullshit filibuster. It served absolutely no purpose in terms of the actual drone policy. Republicans got what they want.

Rand Paul's PR Sham
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022476740

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. Do me a favor and send this to Rachel Maddow

tweety, Eugene Robinson and a few others...and chiefly stop watching the shows as well.

This "logic" is baffling. But explains why we got a dysfunctional government.

[stevenleser]

33. Exactly. Well said. This filibuster accomplished nothing besides attention for Rand Paul.

Drones are still an issue, the same issue they were before the filibuster.

[zappaman]

46. +1 n/t

[The Second Stone]

11. Brennan is a torturer and I think he should not have been nominated

or confirmed. It disgusts me. On this one issue, Rand Paul is right. For the wrong reasons.

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. Where Venn diagrams are useful

[Zax2me]

13. Noooooo. Only thing close to sanity remaining on cable.

Rachel Maddow in particular - fantastic.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. Agreed, but she agreed that Rand Paul did something good

By the logic a few are using here, like me, Rachel became an instant Paul Bot.

It speaks loudly about them, even thinking that, or trying to silence people with this very stupid logic, but hey...by that logic, turn MS....err fox III off.

Yup, let me add this

[zappaman]

15. So true!

[think]

27. Two people from opposing parties can

have overlapping views and agree on some issues while being ideologically opposed to the majority of the OP's other views?

Who'd a thunk it?.......

[Marr]

50. Odd that the self-proclaimed "moderates" suddenly can't understand that.

Isn't it?

[think]

52. Indeed

[patrice]

43. Odd how the proportions are always the same & no one ever says anything about the NON-overlaps.

Last edited Fri Mar 8, 2013, 02:23 PM - Edit history (2)

It's as though everything that doesn't overlap somehow becomes completely ir-relevant to the overlap.

Yay! the differences just disappear!

This is a particularly interesting phenomenon, because it's the very SAME thing that those given to saying things like "dear leader" criticize in others, including he who is referred to with that cynical appellation, though the same trait in themselves, we are to assume, is due our allegiance, without question, or else!

[zappaman]

47. Right. No differences whatsoever!

Rand Paul is awesome!



We done talking about how awesome he is, or is there more coming?

[Marr]

51. What are you saying?

You think that, if someone like Rand Paul says the sky is blue, that liberals should respond with something along the lines of, "while I agree that the sky is blue, we must also consider your economic ideas and these things you said about fruit pies"?

Absurd.

[Paladin]

22. Yeah, Well. Thank God We're So Awash In Liberal Media Sources These Days.....

...that you can afford to tell MSNBC to fuck off.


(Major sarcasm notice)

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. I am not...it is the logic a few here are using

And they have been telling us that somehow, retroactively, I voted for his father for President. Hey, I was told to move to KY to work on my "new hero's" campaign.

I just took the crazy logic to the extreme.

If you have not noticed there are a few loud voices on this site suggesting that having anything in agreement with the Pauls is treason to the purity pledge we all seem to take.

I do not remember it when I first registered to vote as a dem, nor when I changed to Refuse to Disclose, but hey, such is life.

[think]

30. From OP post: "(Major sarcasm notice) "

sarcasm responding to sarcasm it seems

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. Hi back at you

[think]

42. Perhaps

I should just have posted that I think the person you responded to was being sarcastic on a deep level and in agreement with you.

Not sure if that was clear the way I posted. But that's what I get when I post in a hurry. Sorry if it was misconstrued......

[Puzzledtraveller]

48. I think you illustrated the point perfectly

[fadedrose]

34. Ed & Tweety have have already declared whose running

They keep saying Hilary has got to be the Dem candidate in 2016. They say she will beat everybody.

I change the channel everytime they start that. MSNBC is getting dumber all the time.

[fadedrose]

35. MSNBC & Rand Paul

I think Rand Paul didn't do it as a stunt. He did it because of the White House dinner that President Obama had for 12 Republican members of the Congress, and Paul wasn't invited. He figured that he'd show 'em...

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. That might be part of it

Politicians are vain and vengeful, regardless of party...

But I worry of that little statement made by one of the guests on the last word, about surrendering civil rights to the tea party.

[pacalo]

37. The Rand Paul segments on both Lawrence's & Ed's shows were excellent, Nadin!

(I missed Rachel's show, so I can't speak for her.)

Here's what Lawrence presented:

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/03/07/paranoia-on-the-senate-floor-highlights-from-rand-pauls-filibuster/

This is Ed's segment:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/45755822/ns/msnbc-the_ed_show/vp/51092989


Maybe you missed these?

[liberal from boston]

44. Rand Paul segments

Thank you Pacalo. i watched Lawrence (did not watch Ed) & I agree it was excellent. Lawrence made a point that Rand Paul was being praised for about 15 minutes of logic & ignoring the over 12 hours of paranoia. It was a stunt & the clips of what Rand Paul was actually implying about President Obama was frightening. Give credit to Lindsay Graham for asking where Paul was during the Bush administration. Lawrence did agree that there are legitimate concerns on both sides regarding drones.

[pacalo]

55. What Lindsay Graham said was very unexpected!

It's a good sign when he's embarrassed by Rand Paul.

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. I happened to watch 'em

And by the logic here, trust me, reaching for the fainting salts.

I suspect it will be the once a decade that Rand says anything I agree with, like his father, that has been close to 13 years. Does that mean I am a Paul Bot now?

Hard to keep up really, with the loyalty oaths that is.

[pacalo]

57. Thanks, Nadin...

You are definitely not a Paul bot!

[Politicub]

45. Paul's stunt was like a tweet from Ashton Kutcher

And has a shelf life that's a little shorter than an update about the color of Ashton's socks.

I ignore MSNBC when it goes all gaga over a republican. It happens. And it's over in a couple of news cycles.

Paul played the media and the uninformed like a fiddle. That's the only compliment I can muster about the episode.

The bright side is he said so much crazy shit while he was rambling that it will make for political ad gold.

Msnbc isn't perfect, but it's still pretty darn good most of the time.