I think it's rationalized pretty easily - which groups when meeting en masse had violence, rapes, stabbings, living in filth and had to be removed? The Tea Party or the Occupy folks? Oddly enough none of the rage of the Occupiers, who for 8 years screeched about how cool dissent was, are now little lambs when it comes to big bad government and give a complete pass to Obama even though he's continued and strengthened some of the most heinous parts of the Patriot Act? Who believes Bush blew up the Towers? The berms in NOLA? Who made movies about assassinating the president? And on and on. I play it straight down the middle but on this issue the far left is so unhinged they think MSNBC has turned conservative.
You don't have irrational rage here, just irrationality.
Let's see if we can't help point out some of your errors.
I think it's rationalized pretty easily - which groups when meeting en masse had violence, rapes, stabbings, living in filth and had to be removed? The Tea Party or the Occupy folks?
These are not at all comparable. Tea Party events - including Fox-paid organizing and marketing, Koch brother buses for attendees - were basic short-term meetings.
Go, listen to the propaganda, leave. Even with that they could sometimes turn a bit ugly - remember the 'walk of hate' Rep. John Lewis experienced - but just basic meetings.
Occupy was quite different - more civil disobedience, long-term occupation of locations, more open to more diverse people.
You exaggerate the crime issues - well you parrot the exaggeration of them by the propagandists opposing the occupy movement for partisan reasons.
In fact, the vast majority of occupy participants were peaceful.
But when a murder took place at an Oakland BART where occupy happened to also be, having nothing to do with occupy - that became 'an occupy murder' to the liars.
Your comments are nothing but inaccurate misrperesentations to demonize a larger movement. See the 'bad apples' fallacy.
Oddly enough none of the rage of the Occupiers, who for 8 years screeched about how cool dissent was, are now little lambs when it comes to big bad government and give a complete pass to Obama even though he's continued and strengthened some of the most heinous parts of the Patriot Act?
Actually, progressives generally have been very critical of Obama on these issues, calling him 'worse than Bush' on some.
The hypocrisy is on your side - people fighting for Bush and 'little lambs' for the most part on Bush wrongs from wireless wiretapping to the use of torture and much more.
But they are screeching hyenas about Obama, not just 'rationally opposing his policies' but guilty of irrational rage. I just watched the press conference by the birthers...
Who believes Bush blew up the Towers? The berms in NOLA?
These are not progressive issues. There are fringe groups - right, left, anarchist, whatever - who participate more or less in conspiracy theories. More progressives are open to an issue that Bush and others ignored the need for strengthening the levees; that Bush was slow to respond to the disaster; that the poor of New Orlenas were treated poorly in s disaster from which large numbers have never returned to their homes, while real estate speculators took advantage to get the land cheap for their own use.
That's a far cry from 'Bush blew up the levees' or 'Bush blew up the towers'.
It's your side that ignores the facts - such as that the day of 9/11 Bush was ordering his security team to 'find a way to tie this to Saddam'.
Who made movies about assassinating the president? And on and on.
As I recall there was one foreign filmmaker who made one movie that was not 'about assassinating the president' but an account of what might happen if he were, which was portrayed in the movie. It didn't encourage it, it didn't prasie it, and it was one movie that did not represent the Democrats - it wasn't really a political event at all for them. Just fro Republicans to politicize and misrepresent as you do here.
I play it straight down the middle
Hardly.
but on this issue the far left is so unhinged they think MSNBC has turned conservative.
Turned conservative? When the Iraq war broke out, the only 'liberal show' MSNBC had was Phil Donahue, their top rated show, and they demanded that Donahue make his show more pro-war - they insisted that for every guest he had against the war he have three for the war, they put a network operative on his set to enforce making it more right-wing, and then they canceled the show because they did not want to have any content that wasn't pro-war. And that was the most 'anti-war' part of the mainstream media.
So, yes, MSNBC was pretty 'conservative', as far as being Bush cheerleaders and war cheerleaders. Dan Rather noted it was widespread, including himself.
Later, MSNBC found some market with 'liberal shows' - and still had fights with them. They suspended and finally canceled Keith Olbermanm, the leading 'liberal show'. The network president ordered host Cenk Uyger to tone down his show to stop offending 'the powers in Washington' and got rid of him. So ya, their liberal credentials are hardly unblemished.
But where are all these progressives claiming MSNBC has 'turned conservative' you claim?
No evidence.
Your entire post is filled with falsehoods, not one accurate sentence.
