While conservatives "aren't letting a crisis go to waste" in regards to the socio-political unrest in Egypt, Chris Matthews posed a question to his panel yesterday that many within the modern American Right are calling a disaster for the Obama administration.
While the question is a legitimate one, I hardly see how Matthews asking this is any way detrimental to Obama.
Let's look at the data in reference to Bush's response to Sept. 11th 2001.
Rather than send a sufficient force into Afghanistan to capture/kill Bin Laden, he sent in fewer military than there are police officers in Manhattan. Also, his focus - and ultimately that of the entire Right Wing in this country - was shifted to Iraq where he sent precious lives on a fools errand in some vain attempt to finish the job he thought his father wanted him to complete.
The larger point is this - does the modern American Right think we should invade Egypt now? That does seem to be their answer for everything in the Middle East.
Showing posts with label Chris Matthews. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chris Matthews. Show all posts
Monday, January 31, 2011
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Behavioral Theology
I'll let Petere Sprigg speak for himself before I bring up a point that he really should consider, seeing as how he is so uber-religious.
One of the great religious talking-points, when it comes to abortion that is, is that "God knows you before you are in your mother's womb". Also, "God has a plan for all of us", is something that religious leaders use as a way to insist that our lives are pre-ordained and that God already has our lives mapped out for us in advance.
The preposterous nature of that aside, let's look at this from Sprigg's statement and then apply that to what his God has created.
Sprigg thinks all homosexual behavior should be outlawed. Therefor, every gay and lesbian person in America would be treated as a common criminal. Since God "created everyone in his own image" and that he "knows" and has a "plan" for us, it stands to reason that God knows who will and who won't be born gay or lesbian.
So here's my question to Sprigg - who are you to doubt God's plan and punish his creations for how God intended them to be?
One of the great religious talking-points, when it comes to abortion that is, is that "God knows you before you are in your mother's womb". Also, "God has a plan for all of us", is something that religious leaders use as a way to insist that our lives are pre-ordained and that God already has our lives mapped out for us in advance.
The preposterous nature of that aside, let's look at this from Sprigg's statement and then apply that to what his God has created.
Sprigg thinks all homosexual behavior should be outlawed. Therefor, every gay and lesbian person in America would be treated as a common criminal. Since God "created everyone in his own image" and that he "knows" and has a "plan" for us, it stands to reason that God knows who will and who won't be born gay or lesbian.
So here's my question to Sprigg - who are you to doubt God's plan and punish his creations for how God intended them to be?
Saturday, December 19, 2009
The Distractionary War
There's been lots of attention paid to openly vocal disagreements within the Democratic party by the conservatives who are doing all they can to prevent those same Democrats from succeeding. The current line of thinking from them is that Democrats are even more divided than the GOP at this point. Ultimately they are more wrong than they will ever admit.
One of the leading voices in this charge is the mouth agape queen of distractionary tactics, Michelle Malkin, who insists that the GOP is as solid as ever while Democrats are falling apart at such an increasing rate that there is no way the party can survive:
While Malkin is clearly attempting to draw her readerships attention away from it, the fact is that she got that last part right - this is about Democrats of all stripes attempting to find common ground. The problem that conservatives have is not being able to discern between debate and an all-out brawl that ultimately means that there is one party that is cast into irrelevancy. Essentially, conservatives can't understand how real debate works as they are more concerned with showing they have the ability to destroy something or someone. There is no common ground with them, it's their way or no way at all.
When you see people like Chris Matthews trying to say that netroots progressives are just bitching, that's hardly the death toll that Malkin claims it is. By and large, this is just Tweety playing to the camera. When you see people like Dylan Ratigan and Debbie Waserman-Schultz having a vigorous exchange over healthcare reform, this isn't the Left eating its own, it's liberal/progressive Democrats trying to find a way to get this done as cleanly and efficiently as possible. Yes, the voices are loud and the sense of urgency is as present as ever, but the main difference between this impassioned debate within the Democratic party and the reality of a splintering GOP is that Democrats have a goal to reach that is in the best interest of everyone, not just them.
What goals do conservatives have? I can't think of one, aside from assuring that the Democrats fail. And this is illustrated quite when in Michelle Malkin's piece. She has no real insight into the needs of the American people, only what the conservative movement demands of her - to be an obedient mouthpiece that will tow the party line at all costs, even if it makes her look like a blithering disgrace. And when you belong to a group of people that are more concerned with destroying the opposition than strengthening the world you live in, it's clear that you are far weaker than those you oppose.
One of the leading voices in this charge is the mouth agape queen of distractionary tactics, Michelle Malkin, who insists that the GOP is as solid as ever while Democrats are falling apart at such an increasing rate that there is no way the party can survive:
It's the left, not the right, cracking up. It's the party donkey, not the elephant, now in a rabies-crazed frenzy. Funny, though, how internecine rancor on the right always puts conservatism in its last, final, permanent death throes (again and again), but internecine warfare on the left is merely a matter of healthy, principled disagreement.
While Malkin is clearly attempting to draw her readerships attention away from it, the fact is that she got that last part right - this is about Democrats of all stripes attempting to find common ground. The problem that conservatives have is not being able to discern between debate and an all-out brawl that ultimately means that there is one party that is cast into irrelevancy. Essentially, conservatives can't understand how real debate works as they are more concerned with showing they have the ability to destroy something or someone. There is no common ground with them, it's their way or no way at all.
When you see people like Chris Matthews trying to say that netroots progressives are just bitching, that's hardly the death toll that Malkin claims it is. By and large, this is just Tweety playing to the camera. When you see people like Dylan Ratigan and Debbie Waserman-Schultz having a vigorous exchange over healthcare reform, this isn't the Left eating its own, it's liberal/progressive Democrats trying to find a way to get this done as cleanly and efficiently as possible. Yes, the voices are loud and the sense of urgency is as present as ever, but the main difference between this impassioned debate within the Democratic party and the reality of a splintering GOP is that Democrats have a goal to reach that is in the best interest of everyone, not just them.
What goals do conservatives have? I can't think of one, aside from assuring that the Democrats fail. And this is illustrated quite when in Michelle Malkin's piece. She has no real insight into the needs of the American people, only what the conservative movement demands of her - to be an obedient mouthpiece that will tow the party line at all costs, even if it makes her look like a blithering disgrace. And when you belong to a group of people that are more concerned with destroying the opposition than strengthening the world you live in, it's clear that you are far weaker than those you oppose.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Bumbling Tweety Bird?
I often find myself in a position, when attempting to write something, where my fingers end up clicking away words and phrases on the keyboard that my brain never intended to trigger. The good thing about writing is the editing process where you get to correct your textual gaffes. Live TV or a hot-mic somewhere off camera is not as forgiving.
After last night's Presidential address to West Point, Chris Matthews decided he would try to "read" the faces/the body language of the crowd ( a tactic that Bill O'Reilly and Fox"News" love to employ constantly ) and he made a statement that has every corner of the conservative world wondering what the hell he was talking about.
From the very start, conservatives have claimed that Obama has no love at all for the US military, and some within the US Armed Forces have been very vocal
to that effect. So when Matthews makes the assesment, based solely on how the relationship between Obama and the military, that he is in the enemy camp, it's predicated on readily established rhetoric coming from the Right.
The only problem is that it's an incredibly stupid thing to say. Not in-so-much as it's completely false, but that it does nothing but provide ammunition to the reactionary Right who are always searching for even the slightest verbal/physical slip-up they can use. And that is precisely what is going on today. Conservatives aren't so much appaulled by this, they are celebrating the very fact that he said it. As certainly as they are allowing themselves to forget how often they have used the military as their own personal, rhetorical, weapon when attempting to discuss the issues of the nation, conservatives are literally overjoyed that they can reap the fruits of their labor now that Matthews has ran with their ham-fisted storyline.
After last night's Presidential address to West Point, Chris Matthews decided he would try to "read" the faces/the body language of the crowd ( a tactic that Bill O'Reilly and Fox"News" love to employ constantly ) and he made a statement that has every corner of the conservative world wondering what the hell he was talking about.
From the very start, conservatives have claimed that Obama has no love at all for the US military, and some within the US Armed Forces have been very vocal
to that effect. So when Matthews makes the assesment, based solely on how the relationship between Obama and the military, that he is in the enemy camp, it's predicated on readily established rhetoric coming from the Right.
The only problem is that it's an incredibly stupid thing to say. Not in-so-much as it's completely false, but that it does nothing but provide ammunition to the reactionary Right who are always searching for even the slightest verbal/physical slip-up they can use. And that is precisely what is going on today. Conservatives aren't so much appaulled by this, they are celebrating the very fact that he said it. As certainly as they are allowing themselves to forget how often they have used the military as their own personal, rhetorical, weapon when attempting to discuss the issues of the nation, conservatives are literally overjoyed that they can reap the fruits of their labor now that Matthews has ran with their ham-fisted storyline.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Wonder When Glenn Beck Is Going To Have Him On
Chris Matthews had on William Kostric - the man with the Jefferson quote and gun at the townhall meeting given by President Obama - to answer some question, most notably what his message or intent was.
Matthews was visibly upset.
You'll notice toward the end of the segment ( approx. 6:25 ) that Kostric is holding what appears to be a script. Now, whether or not he was given the questions ahead of time - which I highly doubt - or those are his talking points given to him by either his lawyer or associate is unclear. But, what is readily apparent is that he is unrepentant for his questionable actions and appears to be more in-line with this laughable notion that our nation is on the very brink of destruction unless government is completely dismantled and people everywhere start carrying guns with them everywhere they go.
Matthews was visibly upset.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
You'll notice toward the end of the segment ( approx. 6:25 ) that Kostric is holding what appears to be a script. Now, whether or not he was given the questions ahead of time - which I highly doubt - or those are his talking points given to him by either his lawyer or associate is unclear. But, what is readily apparent is that he is unrepentant for his questionable actions and appears to be more in-line with this laughable notion that our nation is on the very brink of destruction unless government is completely dismantled and people everywhere start carrying guns with them everywhere they go.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Racism Dressed Up As Concern
Chris Matthews questions the "birther" movement as well as Congressman John Campbell ( R - CA ) about proposed legislation that he is sponsoring that would require Presidential candidates to provide a birth certificate.
For all the allegedly relevant data that Campbell nervously attempts to put forward, it doesn't seem to fit with his thesis - that this isn't about Obama. If, in point of fact, it isn't, then why wasn't this sort of legislation crafted earlier? Why, if he indeed does believe that Obama was born in America, is he legitimizing the conspiratorial set in the conservative movement? Is he being honest here? I rather doubt it.
Then, there's Lynn Cheney.
Liz, while tip-toeing very carefully around the issue at hand, parsing her words as gently as she can muster, comes quite close to the real issue behind this.
What people are uncomfortable with ( people meaning ill-informed, right-wing, conservative, racists ) is having an African American holding the highest office in the land. That's it. Case closed. You can create all the subtle nuance that you want, it doesn't remove the very blatant thesis that the "birther" movement is promoting.
And, as was readily apparent, Cheney wouldn't even answer whether she thought these conspiracy theorists, which she seems to have no discomfort keeping them within the Republican party, have any grounds for concern. She refuses to denounce their very actions.
Does this mean that Liz Cheney is a racist? Who knows. One thing that is quite clear is that many that feel that discomfort with having an African American in the White House will validate their racial fears by raising concerns about a persons actions and how they relate to that persons safety. Whether it be a black person applying for a job, moving into the neighborhood, or simply a black person excelling in life where they aren't. These people may not consider themselves racists, they may not be full blown KKK lynching nut-cases, but they - for whatever reason - don't trust or even like people that aren't white.
For all the allegedly relevant data that Campbell nervously attempts to put forward, it doesn't seem to fit with his thesis - that this isn't about Obama. If, in point of fact, it isn't, then why wasn't this sort of legislation crafted earlier? Why, if he indeed does believe that Obama was born in America, is he legitimizing the conspiratorial set in the conservative movement? Is he being honest here? I rather doubt it.
Then, there's Lynn Cheney.
Liz, while tip-toeing very carefully around the issue at hand, parsing her words as gently as she can muster, comes quite close to the real issue behind this.
What people are uncomfortable with ( people meaning ill-informed, right-wing, conservative, racists ) is having an African American holding the highest office in the land. That's it. Case closed. You can create all the subtle nuance that you want, it doesn't remove the very blatant thesis that the "birther" movement is promoting.
And, as was readily apparent, Cheney wouldn't even answer whether she thought these conspiracy theorists, which she seems to have no discomfort keeping them within the Republican party, have any grounds for concern. She refuses to denounce their very actions.
Does this mean that Liz Cheney is a racist? Who knows. One thing that is quite clear is that many that feel that discomfort with having an African American in the White House will validate their racial fears by raising concerns about a persons actions and how they relate to that persons safety. Whether it be a black person applying for a job, moving into the neighborhood, or simply a black person excelling in life where they aren't. These people may not consider themselves racists, they may not be full blown KKK lynching nut-cases, but they - for whatever reason - don't trust or even like people that aren't white.
Monday, March 16, 2009
"I Wanna Redefine The Mission"
The title comes from a direct quote from Micheal Smerconish on Hardball tonight.
He says that he "doesn't know what the mission is anymore".
WHAT!?
Redefine the mission?
Wasn't the original mission to catch Osama bin Laden?
How can we redefine that?
fucking idiot.
Video to follow soon.
Also, he doesn't seem to think we should care how Arabic women are treated............
Wasn't a Muslim woman just beheaded in America by her husband? We shouldn't care about how women in our own country are treated?
Is this guy fucking serious?
No wonder he was a substitute host of Bill O'Reilly's television show
He says that he "doesn't know what the mission is anymore".
WHAT!?
Redefine the mission?
Wasn't the original mission to catch Osama bin Laden?
How can we redefine that?
fucking idiot.
Video to follow soon.
Also, he doesn't seem to think we should care how Arabic women are treated............
Wasn't a Muslim woman just beheaded in America by her husband? We shouldn't care about how women in our own country are treated?
Is this guy fucking serious?
No wonder he was a substitute host of Bill O'Reilly's television show
Friday, March 6, 2009
This Is Awesome
Courtesy of BLUEGAL from CROOKS AND LIARS.
You ever listen to the "Real Men Of Genius" beer ads?
You'll love this.
You ever listen to the "Real Men Of Genius" beer ads?
You'll love this.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Crazy Republican # 4239
Former Congressman J.D. Hayworth of Arizona is more than content with his insanity.
The fact that people on the Right are still trying pass off the "George Soros is ruining America" nonsense has gone way past pathetic and dove headlong into laughably sad.
This guy could have his own Fox"Business" show.
The fact that people on the Right are still trying pass off the "George Soros is ruining America" nonsense has gone way past pathetic and dove headlong into laughably sad.
This guy could have his own Fox"Business" show.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
But You Call It Your "Talking Points Memo" , Bill.
Bill O'Reilly has been full righteous indignation the past few days since Scott McClellan spoke with Chris Matthews about the Bush White House distributing talking points to Fox"News".
Even though Bill and Sean Hannity were cited as examples by Matthews, O'Reilly has decided to go after Scott, calling him a liar without any proof to back up the fact that he has NOT received said "talking pionts".
You can check out O'Reilly's "Reality Check" moment on McClellan here.
McClellan is more than just a little-bit of a push-over. He went on O'Reilly's radio program and then proceeded to apologize for O'Reilly's name being attached to all of this.
What a fucking pussy.
Seriously, though, McClellan provides little proof other than the fact that he worked as the "mouthpiece" for the Bush White House. But, O'Reilly is expecting everyone to take him at his word. This is little more than a "he said, they said" type situation.
And it was Matthews that injected O'Reilly's and Hannity's name into all of this. McClellan just agreed that they were part of the group at Fox"News" that would have gone along with this.
Both sides need to present some hard evidence that backs up their statements.
As far as I'm concerned, I wouldn't put it past ANYONE at Fox to have their hands out when the Bush administration hands them something to use.
Q: Did people say call Sean, call Bill, call whoever? Did you do that as a regular thing?
McCLELLAN: Certainly. Certainly. It wasn’t necessarily something I was doing, but it was something that we at the White House, yes, were doing.
Even though Bill and Sean Hannity were cited as examples by Matthews, O'Reilly has decided to go after Scott, calling him a liar without any proof to back up the fact that he has NOT received said "talking pionts".
You can check out O'Reilly's "Reality Check" moment on McClellan here.
McClellan is more than just a little-bit of a push-over. He went on O'Reilly's radio program and then proceeded to apologize for O'Reilly's name being attached to all of this.
What a fucking pussy.
Seriously, though, McClellan provides little proof other than the fact that he worked as the "mouthpiece" for the Bush White House. But, O'Reilly is expecting everyone to take him at his word. This is little more than a "he said, they said" type situation.
And it was Matthews that injected O'Reilly's and Hannity's name into all of this. McClellan just agreed that they were part of the group at Fox"News" that would have gone along with this.
Both sides need to present some hard evidence that backs up their statements.
As far as I'm concerned, I wouldn't put it past ANYONE at Fox to have their hands out when the Bush administration hands them something to use.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Kieth Olbermann vs. Page 6 - Guess Who Wins
It's standard-operating-proceedure for the right-wing media to play fast-and-loose with the facts. When you don't have facts, the only thing left to do is just make it up as you go along.
It was no suprise to many that Page 6 of the NY POST ran a story that Olbermann and Chris Matthews were vying for Tim Russert's job on the day of his funeral.
Well, Olbermann let loose the truth - the kryptonite to the conservative propoganda machine.
You know, the far-right media is rather like a puppy with a new chew toy. They'll flail it about, knawing away, dragging it across the house, until i scarcely resembles its true form.
To falsely accuse an acutal journalist with lies is one thing, but to use the occassion of the death of Tim Russert is beyond unforgivable.
It was no suprise to many that Page 6 of the NY POST ran a story that Olbermann and Chris Matthews were vying for Tim Russert's job on the day of his funeral.
Well, Olbermann let loose the truth - the kryptonite to the conservative propoganda machine.
You know, the far-right media is rather like a puppy with a new chew toy. They'll flail it about, knawing away, dragging it across the house, until i scarcely resembles its true form.
To falsely accuse an acutal journalist with lies is one thing, but to use the occassion of the death of Tim Russert is beyond unforgivable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
The Playlist Of Doom
