…and Ridiculous
By Mitch Berg
On the other hand, Matt Snyders may be the only writer on the City Pages staff too shallow, agenda-addled and uninsightful to write for Mercury Rising. He may be to political “reporting” what Margaret Grebe was to the “Lifestyles of the Hip and Vapid” beat.
I didn’t even know Tourettes manifested itself in writing.
February 8th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
“What more can be said of Michele Bachmann (R-Crazytown), Minnesota’s most notorious department-store mannequin turned GOP she-bot? The Sixth District representative has a long history of expelling hilariously clueless verbiage, such as her claim last year that she knew of a secret Iranian plan to partition Iraq.”
I’m sure Peev has been emailing & phoning City Pages in protest of this paid journalist’s “slurs and insults” towards an elected representative of the US congress.
February 9th, 2008 at 9:54 am
too shallow, agenda-addled and uninsightful – Perhaps he should go write for the National Review, or better yet, start a righty blog.
What exactly are you if not agenda-addled/controlled, Mitch?
Terry – considering what he reported she said, she in FACT DID SAY, I don’t think I’ll blow him up for coming to a conclusion. Universally insulting all Democrats (or all Republicans), while claiming a dog is a cat, on the other hand, well that’s just low. Some people deserve to be condemned, Bachmann is one. However, this guy is over the top in calling her a department store manequin, she’s not nearly pretty enough to be something modeling clothes and I’ve seen her ambulatory, so I believe she can move, however GOP she-bot, that’s pretty accurate – from Ann Coulter to Bachmann, there is a disturbing trend that you on the right seem to go ga-ga over any woman over under 70 who looks halfway decent aligning with your whacked out views. Coulter recently encouraged people to vote for Hillary Clinton, in yet another show of her true colors, not concerned about party, or even fidelity or maturity, in a peevish fit of particularly illustrative rage, she kicked sand across the marble pit, tipped over the chess board, called all of you a bunch of poopey-heads, and went home. Will you soon be complaining about Ann insulting you, or asking me to defend you on that too Terry?
In all seriousness, the guy went over the top, and didn’t really improve anything, but seriously, his comments were about one person, one person who deserved it – the point I was making, and which you so obviously missed, is the general insults of everyone who doesn’t agree with your position, the demeaning comments, the condescension, it gets us nowhere. I would extend it to people, but some people, say Hussien, for example, deserve scorn – and in the end, you don’t give a damned anyway.
February 9th, 2008 at 10:24 am
What exactly are you if not agenda-addled/controlled, Mitch?
Addled? You can be (at least nominally) the judge.
Controlled? Wrong!
The only agenda on this blog is mine. That it is often coincident with conservatism and the GOP is a matter of agreement, not control.
February 9th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Oh, and I love this bit…you precede this…:
the point I was making, and which you so obviously missed, is the general insults of everyone who doesn’t agree with your position, the demeaning comments, the condescension, it gets us nowhere.
…with this:
his comments were about one person, one person who deserved it –
So in other words, if you think someone deserves it, it’s OK, but if I think they deserve it…
…oh, who cares.
February 9th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
“I would extend it to people, but some people,say Hussien, for example, deserve scorn”
More than scorn, Saddam Hussein deserved death, and he got it, thanks be to God and American firepower.
February 10th, 2008 at 3:44 am
God and American firepower not necessarily being aligned.. but yes.
Mitch, I’m sure you get the point. Demeaning a whole group, or large swaths, as a mechanism to engeandor contempt, is a far cry from rightfully heaping scorn on someone who is fully fitting of it’s receipt. And you know what Mitch, your ‘deserves it’ isn’t about one person, it’s about the incipid and incessant need to belittle with nonsense like ‘Tic’, or to insult and demean a political figure for no other reason than they aren’t in your party.. like Obie, as a mechanism to show disrespect for them, not because of their conduct, but just because you have shown some deep seated need to treat people broadly in a way that you’d never tolerate personally. I’m sure you get it, but you can’t argue in favor of your conduct without putting yourself into a rhetorical trap, so yeah, who cares is probably just as easy as trying to say I’m saying “oh but that’s different”, which, in case you read what I wrote, I am not saying. This person DID in fact go over the top, I wrote that, remember? But there IS in fact something different between condemning one person’s conduct (like Bachmann’s) and calling everyone you don’t like childish names – AND considering you neither support the idea of stopping doing so (apparently) nor are you bothered by your own conduct, I’m not sure why you claiming hypocrisy on my (or anyone’s part) on this point, should be given any hearing. You are condemning (wrongly) conduct which you personally advocate – kinda like gross bias in reporting – you complain about it constantly whilst advocating for it incessantly. It’s hard to take any such complaint seriously since you don’t seriously believe it’s wrong.
Lastly, while taking some ‘artistic license’ with medical terminology and conditions can occassionally be funny, in this case it’s clearly not a joke, but again a way of simply demeaning without argument – If you don’t like what he said, refute it, refute the points… rather than resort to cheap parlor tricks.
February 10th, 2008 at 9:16 am
God and American firepower not necessarily being aligned.. but yes.
So now you’re His spokesman, too?
Mitch, I’m sure you get the point. Demeaning a whole group, or large swaths, as a mechanism to engeandor contempt, is a far cry from rightfully heaping scorn on someone who is fully fitting of it’s receipt.
Rationalization.
And you are exactly wrong; poking fun at an impersonal institution…
… no, Peev, not even that. Poking fun at whiners who pee their pants over two letters in a generally-understood adjective – is “rightfully heaping scorn” by any *rational* measure.
And you know what Mitch, your ‘deserves it’ isn’t about one person, it’s about the incipid and incessant need to belittle with nonsense like ‘Tic’, or to insult and demean a political figure for no other reason than they aren’t in your party..
And if you’ve said “Wingnut”, even once, then you really aren’t the one to complain!
like Obie, as a mechanism to show disrespect for them, not because of their conduct, but just because you have shown some deep seated need to treat people broadly in a way that you’d never tolerate personally.
Deep-seated need?
On top of being G-d’s spokesman, you’re an online psychiatrist?
You are amazing.
I’m sure you get it, but you can’t argue in favor of your conduct without putting yourself into a rhetorical trap,
Er, yeah. That’s exactly it. Your deft command of rhetoric has outmaneuvered me.
(whoooie)
This person DID in fact go over the top, I wrote that, remember?
And then there was the “But…”.
But there IS in fact something different between condemning one person’s conduct (like Bachmann’s) and calling everyone you don’t like childish names
Which brings us back to the original point of my post; Matt Snyders does both. He is a completely worthless waste as a “writer”.
Thanks for keeping us on track!
June 2nd, 2010 at 12:02 pm
[…] bagged on the City Pages’ Matt Snyders a time or two for his flights into context-challenged, myopically-biased political […]