Ignorant Things Heard On MSNBC
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
Bluegrass? I don't think so, Western swing? I don't think so Country? Just because they let Charlie pride makes a few bucks with it doesn't mean he invented it. Classical? hardly.
fify
Tech
Well-Known Member
These were influenced by the influx of the Scot-Irish into Appalachia, and after watching irish dance, we know where tap dancing came.
WingsOfGold
Well-Known Member
Coloreds have great comedic value
COPS is funny
COPS is funny
In an appearance Friday on MSNBC, Przybyla said “Christian nationalists” aren’t to be trusted because, in her words, they don’t believe their rights come from any human or governmental institution, but from God.
Last edited:
Sorry, Politico: You Don’t Get to Rewrite the Declaration of Independence
Here is what Przybyla, a national investigative correspondent for Politico who was a Pulitzer finalist in 2023 for Supreme Court reporting, said:
Well, news flash, Heidi: Most, if not all, traditional Christians believe that our rights come from God, not from any other entity or human or government institution.
But let’s take this a step further. The Declaration of Independence, one of America’s founding documents, states where our rights come from.
The second sentence reads: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
It couldn’t be plainer. Our rights don’t come from people, politicians, social credit systems, or talking heads attempting to rewrite history. They come from God.
Somehow, our Founders had the wisdom and foresight to know that this truth would be questioned again and again. So much so that they thought it was critical to make it the subject of the second sentence of the document declaring the United States of America to be an independent country.
Politico Reporter Apologizes for Comments About ‘Christian Nationalists'
Politico reporter Heidi Przybyla wrote an article apologizing for her comments painting those who believe their rights come from God as “extremists” and “Christian nationalists.”
Przyblya’s article was published after leading Christian organizations sent a letter to Politico leadership on Wednesday demanding an apology and accusing her of demonstrating a “disqualifying lack of knowledge of the United States of America’s founding documents and a profoundly prejudicial view toward American religious groups.”
“Due to some clumsy words, I was interpreted by some people as making arguments that are quite different from what I believe,” Przybyla wrote. “Excerpts of what I said were promoted widely in some political circles by some activists whose primary objection, I feel sure, was not my television appearance but my coverage in POLITICO about the tactics and agenda of political activists who subscribe to a philosophy they call ‘Christian Nationalism.’ Christianity is a religion. Christian Nationalism is a political movement. As I said on air, there is a big difference between the two.”
She continued:
She went on to claim she does not have a “bias against religion.”
Rachel Maddow SO Scared of the Right and Free Speech She Brings Analyst on to Push CENSORSHIP (Watch)
Well well well, what do you know? Rachel Maddow invited a lawyer on to tell her viewers how it's good to censor SOME people.
You know, those evil conservative types.
To be fair, we would honestly be more shocked and find this more newsworthy if the legal analyst Maddow brought on defended the First Amendment but since that will NEVER EVER HAPPEN, we suppose we can write about this instead.
Especially since it's so easy to mock and ridicule both her and Maddow.
Seems Barbara McQuade thinks speech should be limited ... we're going to guess she only wants certain speech limited, however.
I've had it up to here with the label "election denier" - SOMEHOW - the Dems don't think it applies to their rhetoric regarding Trump and 2016.
I've read no less than three articles all more or less saying the same thing - that declaring a man an "illegitimate" President does not deny election results and in a bizarre twist of logic, declares that while he LEGALLY became President, he is not a LEGITIMATE President - thus obviating any rational use of the word "legitimate".
Also of course, dismissing the myriad remarks from everyone that Russian interference got him elected - which I still have yet to grasp. Can they point to anything resembling specifics? Did they interfere with the machines? Did they stuff ballot boxes? Did operatives haul in truckloads of ballots with Trump's name on them, or throw out ballots with Hillary's?
The very BEST - anyone - can concoct is that somehow - with all the meetings and clandestine operations which were never shown to have happened - the best they can claim is a handful of Russians were able to advertise on Facebook and somehow turn the tide of an election that Hillary was otherwise supposed to have won? That they are unable to point to even ONE precinct where the totals were altered or manipulated?
How is claiming he is an illegitimate President - illegitimate being completely synonymous with illegal - NOT equivalent to election denial?
Similar articles dispute the fact that while Al Gore and Stacy Abrams both are insistent that they won their elections - it somehow DOESN'T mean they deny the election of their opponent?
I've read no less than three articles all more or less saying the same thing - that declaring a man an "illegitimate" President does not deny election results and in a bizarre twist of logic, declares that while he LEGALLY became President, he is not a LEGITIMATE President - thus obviating any rational use of the word "legitimate".
Also of course, dismissing the myriad remarks from everyone that Russian interference got him elected - which I still have yet to grasp. Can they point to anything resembling specifics? Did they interfere with the machines? Did they stuff ballot boxes? Did operatives haul in truckloads of ballots with Trump's name on them, or throw out ballots with Hillary's?
The very BEST - anyone - can concoct is that somehow - with all the meetings and clandestine operations which were never shown to have happened - the best they can claim is a handful of Russians were able to advertise on Facebook and somehow turn the tide of an election that Hillary was otherwise supposed to have won? That they are unable to point to even ONE precinct where the totals were altered or manipulated?
How is claiming he is an illegitimate President - illegitimate being completely synonymous with illegal - NOT equivalent to election denial?
Similar articles dispute the fact that while Al Gore and Stacy Abrams both are insistent that they won their elections - it somehow DOESN'T mean they deny the election of their opponent?
They dont' remember what they said fifteen minutes ago.
You can't expect them to remember eight years back.
You can rest assured she lost by far more than the vote totals showed.
They were still trucking in emergency ballots at 2AM.
They just didn't truck in enough in the right places.
You have to attack and vilify your opponent when you cannot beat him on facts
GRU spent 2 million dollars on General Advertisements for issues ..... like BLM support there were only one for each specific candidate
$ 2 million vs 1 billion spent by both parties
I posted yrs ago the NY TIMES Analysis of the ads, the one with the most ' impressions ' was less that 2500 people, most had a couple of 100
Just reported that Rona has been fired from NBC. Hopefully she sues and get a big check.