A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry

Chris Matthews Documentary Tonight (sm)

Posted: Jun 16, 2010

It's called "Rise of the New Right." It comes on at 7:00 p.m. Eastern time. Looks pretty interesting. Just in case anyone is interested, it's on MSNBC.

;

That does sound interesting... - Zville MT

[ In Reply To ..]
I hope, though, that it's done fairly and not just lumping all those on the right into the pot with "extremists." I'll keep an open mind, though.

Re: Matthews - see message

[ In Reply To ..]
This Prog/Lib jerk is so biased its not even funny. He professes his love and adoration for Saul Alinsky. You better believe he is going to slam the American people on the Right, any and all that don't follow the obama agenda. He is just another useless tool of MessNBC.

He said this last night about his upcoming CROCKumentary:

MATTHEWS: "Let me finish tonight with our big documentary coming up here tomorrow night. The Rise of the New Right at 7pm Eastern tomorrow night will stun you with what's happening with this country. You'll never again believe this so-called Tea Party movement is just about taxes or deficits or Obamacare. No, what you'll see is far more like the original Tea Party up in Boston, the one that previewed our war against the British. Look at the Gadsden flag they wield, that warning of "Don't tread on me" with the coiled rattlesnake. In 1776 it served warning to those who threatened America from abroad. Today it's being waved in contempt of our own honestly elected American government in Washington.

Listen to Rush Limbaugh stir on the new right by calling the government in Washington "a regime" or Orly Taitz, leader of the birthers, calling the President illegitimate. Listen to militiamen on guard against tyranny here on the Potomac and you get the full force of what's happening. This isn't about what the tax rate should be. It's an argument about whether the federal government deserves toppling like any other tyranny or illegitimate regime in history. It's not the talk of politics, but of revolution. Listen to Limbaugh, Beck and Palin and Michele Bachmann, Orly Taitz and yes Rand Paul and you hear of a Washington that has usurped authority, of a president who is not one of us, of a Congress that needs to be investigated for treason. Of a country itself that's been taken over and needs to be taken back.

The voices you'll hear speak for themselves. The guns you see, the semi-automatic weapons of the arms of those who see the government of the United States as the looming tower of tyranny. If I can put it as bluntly as possible, catch The Rise of the New Right here tomorrow night at 7:00pm and you'll suddenly get why you're seeing men at political rallies for the first time ever, wearing guns."

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2010/06/15/matthews-teases-his-documentary-about-scary-and-violent-tea-party#ixzz0r2o218LK

Interesting info on what this will be about. - Zville MT

[ In Reply To ..]
I know he's a total liberal cook, but
I still may watch, just so I know what the other side continues to say about the "extreme right" - makes defending yourself a little easier if you know all the charges.

Bet there won't be any pictures or interviews with those that showed up at rallies just a few short years ago with signs saying Kill Bush. Should be interesting, anyway.

Looks like the mere suggestion of a DOCUMENTED focus - on the movement has

[ In Reply To ..]
you and Zville MT spinning in your seats, getting all revved up for the inevitable dogde, deflect and deny response. Suppose we simply sit back and let the story tell itself, shall we?

The easiest way to draw one's own conclusions is to keep the remote handy and simply mute Matthews every time he opens his mouth, focus on the video portions of the show and listen to the New Right as they reveal their true identity with their own words, deeds and actions. I do that whenever I watch Hardball, despite the fact that I am a progressive liberal socialist Marxist commie pinko Jihad terrorist atheist anarchist, since I find Matthews abrasive and intrusive interview style to be crude and offensive. I do, however, attempt to listen to his guests responses, even though I have to fight every step of the way to block out all the loud and distracting interruptions when the guests are trying to anwser his provocative questions...kinda like I have to do with Bill-O and Spawn whenever they get into a smackdown with an opposing viewpoint.

If the movement is as legitimate as you would have us believe, you should be anxiously anticipating exoneration, not fearfully expecting exposure under the bright glare of an impartial camera lens. BTW, talking up leftist extremists who show up with SIGNS (as opposed to guns) at protests will do nothing to change the images that the New Right will leave behind, all by itself, nor will it in any way mitigate the content of the impressions that will linger once the show is over and the audience has gone home.

Sounds more like... - Zville MT

[ In Reply To ..]
you're the one getting all in a tailspin. At least I said I would have an open mind!

Au contraire. I am very open to the idea of - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
shedding a little light on the subject. I'll be there with bells on, smack dab in the middle of my tailspin-free zone.

Just wondering... - Zville MT

[ In Reply To ..]
If Fox did a documentary (and I don't know, they may already have) about progressives and touted it as an in-depth look into the communistic ways of the progressives (and whatever other nasty things they could say about progressives) if you would watch with an open mind, "with bells on," or prepare yourself to discuss what a load of crap that CROCKumentary was. Preaching to the choir is a whole different story than trying to get your message across to the nonbelievers.

In a word, yes. I watch Fox - in the same way

[ In Reply To ..]
I watch Hardball, as described in the other post. I too subscribe to the notion that it is necessary to stay abreast of the chatter emanating from the other side of the aisle, though my motives are not centered around "defending" myself against them in any way.

I use the info to guide my reseach on any given subject of interest that I may be pursing in the moment. I do not watch MSNBC, Faux, or any other cable news outlet for that matter, expecting to be educated or informed by the brillant insights of their so-called experts. I learned to think for myself a couple of decades ago. I also learned that one cannot come to any sound conclusions about any single issue in the absence of all sides to the story. Nobody casually passes these along to me in a couple of sound bytes or offers them up on a silver platter between commercial messages from their sponsors who have their own agendas to serve. I have to go hunting far and wide to find them.

Since politics is a global phenomenon, I do not confine myself to American news sources either. In fact, I find the opposing views encountered in European, Middle and Far Eastern, Hispanic, and any and all other ethnic sources far more, shall we say "challenging," than anything Faux could ever hope to put out, and therefore, much more invaluable. If you think documented footage and words coming straight from the horses' mouth are a crock and that collections of such are a load of crap, you go girl. What better stance to take while tuning up in preparation to perfect your next harmonious gospel choral presentation?

What? - Zville MT

[ In Reply To ..]
I'm not sure what you mean by my 'next harmonious gospel choral presentation.' I was simply pointing out that those who watch MSNBC and believe the Tea Party to be an extreme right group really don't need to watch the show - they already know it all and their minds are closed to the subject, just as if an opposing documentary were on Fox.

I don't spend all day watching the news, nor do I get my ideologies from Fox. I don't like, however, those that call people with opposing viewpoints from their own stupid or worse.

There are extremists in each party - if you're watching MSNBC you'll have seen the woman stating that muslims are taking over our country and that we think Obama is a muslim - not everyone on the right buys into that. Documents, like everything else, can have a spin on them - all they have to do is find the people (like the woman stated above) and use that footage to make their point. It doesn't necessarily show the entire picture, just like any so-called news source.

Then you wont mind if I simply point out that - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
folks who believe the tea party to be an extreme right group who really (according to you) don't need to watch the show are, in fact, not the (how did you put it?) "know-it-alls" whose minds are "closed to the subject" as you claim they are. If you object to stupid being called stupid (not based on denouncement of an opposing view, but rather on the merits of being ignorant and ill-informed, as in lacking in knowledge and void of fact), then you probably would also object to stereotype being called stereotype, for which you seem to have a distinct flair.

If the right does not buy into the notion of Obama taking over the country and being a Moslem, why then is it plastered all over hundreds of their websites and lurking around every corner in blogosphere chat rooms? Why dont other right-wingers who do not believe this step up to the plate and denounce the statements instead of letting them stand and ultimately become representational of the right wing political parties' public perceptions? Why do they not denounce the STUPIDITY and instead try to guide the dialog toward more constructive informed goal-oriented discourse? Is their party that ideologically challenged and that politically bankrupt that they actually think they can gain political capitol out of such fetid gassy emissions?

MSNBC did not have to search relentlessly to find that woman. We have seen more than a few just like her since last summer on the news and have also seen those same sentiments posted over and over again ad nauseum by the tpot brigade on this very forum, haven't we? Your disclaimer would be better directed at them, not me. I already know they are on the lunatic finge. I also know very well that they are NOT representative of the greater right-wing majority party members. Problem is that the squeaky wheel gets the grease and they are the ones who define what it means to be "right wing" in the media for the rest of right-wing factions that, for whatever reason, keep their silence.

Spin? I beg to differ.

It took six or seven posts... - Zville MT

[ In Reply To ..]
but it appears you and I agree that all the extremists (on either side) are unfortunately the ones that get the attention and that it is not fair to those of us not that extreme in our beliefs.

Stereotyping anyone for any reason isn't fair (and I know, life's not fair), but instead of getting into silly arguements with those on the extreme fringe, why not get the real picture that won't come from MSNBC or Fox. And the know-it-alls I refer to are the extremists who watch either channel religiously and won't even consider another point of view.

I agree with you that the Muslim garbage is all over too many things regarding the Tea Party and I've done my best to distance myself from it, but I also agree that in the larger picture, not enough has been done to distance the main group from that same trash. Again, that's only a small part and for those that know the real reasons behind the movement can then agree or disagree.

My best friend is a progressive and I learn a lot from her about what the progressive beliefs are, as well as thier history. I don't agree with everything she says, but I respect her opinion and want to know more of the real story, just as she wants to know about conservatism and respects my opinion. I think we should all have one friend like that - someone with different beliefs that we respect and will actually listen to.

I would be more than happy to discuss any issues with you anytime you want and you won't get any scripted tea party sentiments from me - just honest, respectful dialogue. I believe liberals and conservatives can do that, regardless of what our government does;)

Sounds good to me. Just so you know, - I do not harbor any illusions

[ In Reply To ..]
about the democrat party or the progressive movement for that matter. All the political parties seem to be in such a shambles. Make no mistake. I honestly believe the progressives are the most disillusioned of all the groups, not because of Obama (who they never really thought represented their interests, despite the fact that they helped vote him in) but because of their own failure to effectively organize themselves and promote their own agendas...something they used to be very good at. In any case, I am always down for a little honesty and respect, and value the place they hold in constructive political dialog.

I know what you mean - - Zville MT

[ In Reply To ..]
I can't get behind the republican party because of their failures to do anything remotely positive with the majority that they held for so long and now their inability to even have an agenda to promote, except against anything the democrats want to do. I almost wish there was a third party to choose from, but I know that's not the answer either. Just tired of going to the voting booth, holding my breath, and voting for whomever stinks the least.

Take for example the 18th district rep race in my state, Ohio. On one side, we have Zac Space, who I voted for twice in the past. He has now ticked off republicans by voting for cap and trade and ticked off the democrats by not voting for health care. Running against him on the repubilcan ticket is Bob Gibbs, who has admitted that he voted for the highest increase in taxes while in the state legislature, but only did it because he caved to party pressure (this was during the Taft travesty).

Now, who should I vote for - the candidate who flip-flops depending on whether he can get away with it or not or the candidate who has proven that he can't think for himself and will just be another tow-the-party-liner? I'm not looking forward to it.

About the best you can do with that - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
is the best you can do.

I took a peek at Zack Space's voting record since you said you had voted for him twice in the past. He strikes me as somewhat of a middle-of-the-road dem who does not tow party line and has the capacity to participate in bipartisan initiatives and compromise, a rare and sorely needed quality, all too absent in the House and Senate these days. He appears to stay mindful of what his constituents expect from him, another plus in my book, whether I agree with his views or not. Can't say I am surprised that he supports cap and trade, being one of the dems most widely supported policies. He serves on Energy, Commerce, Trade and Health committees and subcommittees, so it would seem those votes you mentioned are votes of conscience that stem from close engagement and direct involvement in the evolution of those initiatives. Blue dogging health care took courage of conviction as well.

Unfortunately you do not have the benefit of Gibbs voting record beyond state level positions, but I have to say in his favor that admitting to having caved into party pressure actually suggests a level of honest candor I find refreshing in a politician. I would be interested in hearing more about the Taft travesty to which you allude and why you are disappointed with Gibbs in the way he responded to it. As a progressive, I am curious about what sort of tax increase it was and who benefitted from the monies it aimed to raise?

About the best you can do with this is to figure out who you can believe and trust to best represent the views on which you place the greatest importance and cut both candidates a little slack if neither one of them comes in at 100% perfect. I know what you mean about the lesser of two evils ballot. That's the way a lot of progressives felt about an Obama vote.

Re: Matthews - see message

[ In Reply To ..]
I personally won't allow myself to get all "revved up or spin in my seat" watching bullcrap spew from matthews, why that would be torture and masochistic, but if that is what you like, hey go for it, you and the rest of his nine other viewers.

I will admit, you are the first one I have come across to proclaim that you are a progressive, liberal, socialist, Marxist, commie pinko, Jihad terrorist, atheist, and anarchist. You must be proud. From what I gather, all the progs including matthews, lamestream media, and hollyweird don't have a problem defending pukes like Bill Ayers, the would be bombers(TimeSquare/underwear), the Fort Hood shooter, dictators, et cetera, and you want to call us bad.

As far as the TEA Party is concerned, we are not going away, and we don't need exoneration either, as we have committed no crime. I along with many others love our country, and don't like what it is turning into. I look forward to November and 2012, and hopefully we can vote out as many of the progressives as we can who have rotted our country to the core for too long. So, if that makes me the New Right, cool.

I would look at the history of the leftists, now we all know you guys just didn't hold up signs and sing did ya? Quite the violent party from what I have seen and read, and the stench will linger on for decades. But, you go ahead with the typical deny, deflect and dodge, its what the leftists DO best.

BTW, my favorite TEA Party sign last summer was "Yesterday's flower children are today's blooming idiots." It sure holds true to what we got running around in this country.

Have a nice evening.

A couple of things, dear. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
Getting all revved up and spinning in your seat is not something that you can control, as one can plainly see by inspecting the contents of your posts. It is something that just happens. Itâ��s something that happened twice to you (so far) today under this one little measly innocuous thread that originally sought to simply pass along some info regarding an upcoming documentary the poster thought might be of interest.

The next part of your post begs the question: Are you capable of any sort of original thought in any shape, form or fashion? Much of your spew is echoic of lockstep tpot propaganda that is even less impressive now (if at all possible) than it was when it started to surface last summer, indicative of a very limited capacity for creative, critical or rational thought. Matthews viewership is not at issue here, rather the content of an organized effort to document the (so-called) rise and nature of the pathetic movement that is the tea party.

Presuming that you are or at one time may have been a medical transcriptionist, you should be at least somewhat familiar with the use of a dictionary. I would gently suggest that you bone up on the meaning of â��tongue-in-cheekâ�� sarcasm, at least to the point that you may be able to recognize it the next time you encounter it, lest you enjoy making yourself look foolish. In the meantime, hereâ��s a clue for you. I made no proclamations. I simply upchucked the long string of ignorant, ill-informed and insulting labels tpots assign to political beliefs on a daily basis that, judging by the results of our last election, a clear 7% majority of the electorate expressed when they last cast their ballots.

Yes, I am proud to be among those who still believe in such American Constitutional precepts as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of association, the right to dissent, trial by jury, innocent until proven guilty, the right to representation and due process in a court of law and, of course, the larger global stance in support of human rights, etc., as represented by the issues you are so quick to condemn and ridicule. This would beg the question, just WHOSE America does the tea party claim to represent? Not mine, to be sure.

This may come as a surprise to you, but I do not want the tpots to go away. In fact, despite how much I abhor their behavior and what they stand for, I support their right to exist, persist, and prevail, should there ever come a day when they are duly elected into power, unlike their members who attempt to eradicate any dissenting idea, individual, group or party who does not subscribe to their lockstep fascist agendas. I share one sentiment with you. I too look forward to November and 2012, just not for the same reasons. I, along with the 69-plus million other Americans who do not share your politics, will be relishing in any and every defeat your party sustains during the democratic process, as I am sure you will be doing should any progressives meet that same fate. Both of us, by virtue of the fact that we are American citizens, share that privilege, regardless of our politics...one that no misguided upstart nascent nasty little political movement will ever succeed in sequestinering and reserving for some perceived eschelon of "real Americans" they seek to invent.

My observation with regard to exoneration was only offered as a description to the tone of your previous post, its hateful spew and defensive stance suggestive of a desire for some sort of social redemption. My observation. Take it or leave it, dear. Makes no difference to me.

Here I will stoop for a moment to indulge your ignorant and hateful remarks about progressives â��rotting our country to the core.â�� Without them and those sign-toting leftists from days gone by (and if you had your way and could reverse the progress they have contributed to American culture), blacks would still be segregated, subjugated and enslaved, gays would be fair game with no protction under the law, women would not be allowed to vote, the glass ceiling would be a non-issue since most women would be home cooking, cleaning and standing by their man, those uppity broads who dare to venture into the workplace would be paid half the wages that men earn and only pennies more than blacks and other subservient underclasses, sexual harrassment would be running rampant, unreported status quo, only God knows what the status of domestic violence victims would be (both the women and the children), we would have achieved near total ethnic cleansing and be approaching (gag me) 100% white demographic homogeneity, religious intolerance would have scoured all faiths except Christianity from the face of the earth, and the empire would be engaged in nuking the rest of the globe into fractured confederations of submissive sub-so-called-democracies (AKA corporate ecocracies) and torturing all dissenters to or beyond the brink of death. Thanks, but no thanks.

P.S. Speaking of stench that will linger for decades, nothing can compare to the steaming pile W left in Oâ��s in-box. I repeat. Nothing.

Bravo -- well said. - anti-TP

[ In Reply To ..]
The most entertaining thing about the TP is the extraordinary number of wack jobs that are crawling out from under their rocks every day proudly proclaiming to be members of this bogus group who labels themselves "real Americans".

These people are a dangerous threat to the very values on which this country was founded, and I hope and pray they will go the way of the dinosaurs before they get a chance to completely destroy it.

Seems to me .. - adam

[ In Reply To ..]
This spiel sounds high and mighty.

But it's really nothing more than the typical "pseudoleft" laundry list of how to feel superior, shows a shallow understanding of history, covers all the proper-ganda, stomping on the "ignorant ill-informed" opposition, somewhat politely of course.

Just a progressive rant as opposed to a conservative rant.

Seems to me - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
when faced with a knockout response such as this one, which articulates irrefutable points conservatives cannot answer, their first knee jerk impels them to drag out their tired, limp, whining, delusional accusations about the left's moral and intellectual superiority to express their hostilities. That laundry list accurately describes what life on the tea party planet would look like.

Instead of petty put-down tactics, why not try showing us what you got? Give us a quick overview of Tea Party 101. Impart upon us your sanitized version of and keen insight into American history, ala Lone Star's Governor-for Life Slick Perry, the self-proclaimed king of propaganda and fairly-tale fascist-in-waiting...err, I mean potential TP presidential candidate from Texas.

That would be the guy who writes off the oil spill as an act of God. You remember, the dude with the Fonzi-esque Tejas big hair, who swaggered across the TP inaugural convention stage like the George Wallace throwback he is, shouting "States rights! States Rights! States rights!" This is the same colorful guy who appeals to his local electorate by sharing a tale (with a deadpan, straight face, I might add), recounting the time he killed a coyote with his bare hands in broad daylight while jogging through his exclusive Barton Springs Estates neighborhood retreat! That's where he chills these days while waiting for the completion of the extensive overhaul of the decrepit and neglected governor's mansion he authorized on US taxpayers dime, after refusing zillions of dollars for us lowly commoners, cuz Texas doesn't "do" tainted federal simulus funds.

But I digress. Spin for us, if you would please, a couple of those knee-slapping, down-home, quaint little urban myths, taken straight out of the new crop of textbooks the Texas State Educational Board is cooking up for publication next term. That would be the folks who seek to reinvent history in ways designed to endoctrinate school children with right-minded gospel that will lead them down the path of self-righteousness toward conservative enlightenment, for the sake of shoring up future elections they cannot otherwise win on the merits of party principles. Fact is they are taking aim at history, sociology, government and economics curricula from elementary to high school over the next decade, somethng I am sure you would love to take part in.

Be sure to eradicate any vestiges of the theory of evolution, historically high on the board's priority list. Showcase those conservative ideals and emphasize the valuable part their movements have played down through the years. Consider creating a separate course, devoted entirely to the part Christianity played in the founding of our nation and don't forget to question the doctrine of separation of church and state along the way. Downplay the writings of Thomas Jefferson who coined the phrase, and whose words underpinned revolutionary movements over the ensuing years. Be very thorough when incorporating conservative figures, groups and concepts, while burying those emanating from your opposition's party. Do not fail to reduce the slavery chapters down a couple of lines, describing a transitory economic system that had no real bearing on the Civil War and insert them as an afterthought. While you are at it, reduce the scope of Latino history and culture. No need to mention the Alamo. Elevate Confederate General Stonewall Jackson to the status of role model for effective leadership. Include a statement from Confederate President Jefferson Davis when discussing President Lincoln's rants.

Be sure to apply those same standards to contemorary history and discussions of more current events. For example, devote an entire chapter to anti-feminist Phyllis Schlafly, the Moral Majority, the Heritage Foundation, the National Rifle Association and Newt Gingrich's Contract On, oops, I mean With America. In the grand scheme of things, their contributions have been absolutely pivotal, dontcha think? Employ fastidious nitpicking when determining your terminology, i.e., supplant "imperialism" with "expansionism," and "capitalism" with that perkier "free market" moniker. Resurrect Joseph McCarthy from the disgrace of censure for his attack on civil liberties and instead portray him as a misunderstood champion of the demise of Soviet bloc and guardian against conspiratorial plots to undermine the US government by home-grown pinko commies.

Here's one you would be especially good at. Eliminate focus on Great Society programs such as Title IX, except to the extent that its provisions for equal gender and racial access to educational resources and affirmative action in the work place created adverse "unintended consequences," but be vague and change the subject should any upstart wippersnapper dare to ask you to elaborate. Drop the popular black music genre of hip-hop and replace with an extensive analysis of country and western music when discussing pop culture.

Above all, do this in the name of progress. Feel free to confabulate as needed. Before jumping all over my moral superiority, keep in mind that these are just a couple of teensey-weensey guidelines, brought directly to your children's desktops by the Texas State Board of Education. Hope you don't mind the suggestions too much. Their ideas, not mine.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1253

http://www.texasobserver.org/purpletexas/rick-perry-jumps-the-shark-again

Grr - don't even get me started on Texas B of E!!! - Zville MT

[ In Reply To ..]
They make my blood boil!!

Sorry, Zville MT. It was strictly unintentional. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
Just trying to poke a little fun at a truly disturbing turn of events down here in the Lone Star. My apologies.

LOL! I know - and it was a good read... - Zville MT

[ In Reply To ..]
but I used to be a teacher and the kind of crap coming out of Texas for how we should teach history to our children just drives me insane!

I don't care how eloquently you put things - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
but you must realize that both sides are guilty of what you just spewed in your post...LOL...seriously. Take a good look in the mirror. A lot of the stuff you gripe and complaint about one side or the other....your side is guilty of doing the same crap. When you can't answer questions, you all start name calling. When you have nothing intelligent to add to a debate, you made a snide comment and make fun of either Obama and his teleprompter or Palin and her boobs. Both sides get defensive when the opposing group says bad things about them.

What kills me is that neither side sees that they are doing the very thing they are complaining about. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

There is a difference between - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
"saying bad things" about a political party, name calling, etc., and writing in such a way that allows the party's own words, ideas and actions do all the heavy lifting of conveying their own, shall we say, "shortcomings". With that in mind, please clarify which parts of my post are my spew as opposed to instant replay of the spew of others, i.e., the tpots in this case.

If I can admit to you that both sides of the aisle behave in similar fashions from time to time, do I still need to look in the mirror, or do I get a pass on that? Surely, you are not suggesting that I should hold myself accountable for the style others on "my side" use to express themselves, nor do I think it is reasonable to expect me, them or anyone to refrain from injecting a smattering of editorial comments here and there. However, regardless of the source (friendly or no so much), I will call someone out on lies, misconceptions, ignorance and the like, elements I try my best to eliminate from my own posts.

I am no different than anyone else up here. I tend to give as much (or as little) respect to a post or a poster as they extend toward me or expend on issues and talking points. The same applies to degrees of intelligence, factual content, the tone and spirit of any given post, etc. Using the garbage in, garbage out axiom and its reverse proposition as a guide, I simply respond in kind.

Speaking of nothing of substance to add, was there anything specific you found objectionablein my post, or is it because I am simply guilty of spew and a snide, defensive, griping, name-calling complainer with whose views you disagree, who fails to anwser questions and is too blind to see my own hypocrisy that prompts you to show me the error of my ways?

Knee jerks - adam

[ In Reply To ..]
that is so overused and trite. I used to sound a lot like you. Used many of the same phrases and the same list of woes, more or less. I accused dissenters and detractors of the same knee jerking, of sanitizing, spinning.

I wouldn't want to debate or discuss anything with you at this point in time as you're intoxicated on your own wordy rhetoric (well-written I will say) and we would agree on nothing as you have no desire to find common ground. That's not meant in a mean way - it's merely the fact that most folks adamantly believe what they believe and few really want or are willing to consider opposing views with an open mind.

Best regards.

Hey, Adam - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
What on earth did I say to make you think I was interested in debating you? So far, you haven't shown the slightest inclination to address a single talking point. Your posts consist of petty put-downs, weak attempts at personalized insults, hostility toward intellect that seems to somehow intimidate you and critical comments you fail to back with reason, logic, fact or even a passing swipe at an explanation. Your own brand of condescension is fairly transparent in your wistful remembrance of the days when you claim to have once sounded a lot like me, implicitly before you evolved and overcame your tendency toward the trivial, a trait you assert we once shared.

Your imagination warps your perception of reality when describing the elusive list of woes you have conjured up and attributed to me. Perhaps the most glaring deficit you exhibit as a potential debate opponent is your arrogant presumption to be privy to a sharp and keen insight into the motivations of a complete stranger whom you characterize as being intoxicated with her own rhetoric and disinterested in finding common ground.

Hogwash. I have taken great pleasure in writing for going on 40 years now, enjoy exercising and enriching my vocabulary, am challenged by the dynamics of contextual construct and have been a political activist my entire life, so sue me...but intoxicated with my own wordy rhetoric? Puh-leeze. I am about as humble as they come. I've also had plenty of experience with acquiring, shedding, adopting, discarding, test driving, fine tuning, reinventing, renewing, reworking, reviewing and scrutinizing my own belief systems as well as those of others. The best teachers I have had in this regard have been from all cultures and walks of life and the most important lessons I have taken from them have been centered around a great respect for broadened horizons and open minds. On that score, your are dead wrong about me.

Still, if you think an appropriate response to an intellectual challenge is descent into the above described mind sets, then debate is not your forte and your decision to avoid it is probably a wise one.

:) my my - adam

[ In Reply To ..]
there is no "intellectual challenge" although you seem to think you offered one, along with the idea that you're humble. Lol.

But seriously, I got a kick out of reading your word filled posts/postures.

What not quit while you are behind? - Just curious.

[ In Reply To ..]
Sorry to say but you are no match for her. Just bow out gracefully and call it a day.

Makes one wonder - mt

[ In Reply To ..]
if that poster gets paid per line, word or the whole post. Again, just wondering.

P.S. I do appreciate your post though, and will consider opposing views with more of an open mind in the future, thanks.

very good analysis. -and when that poster uses - mtt22

[ In Reply To ..]
the word "dear", its never to be warm and friendly, but rather snooty instead, a put-down. Its her give-away.

I disagree. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
Canâ��t say I blame her for talking down to the crass and crude RE: Matthews post. The snoot is well deserved.

I guess one snoot would appreciate another. - LOL

[ In Reply To ..]
The problem with snooty people is that they usually dont care and, therefore, never change.

wow -- - -- yup gal

[ In Reply To ..]
Beautiful essay. ;)

TYVM - nm

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

How was it? I wanted to watch buy DH is 'up to here' with politics and - Backwards Typist

[ In Reply To ..]
I had to change the channel. He gets grouchy lately. He's just fed up with it all.

Never mind. It was on his web site. A few points I found one-sided. - Backwards Typist

[ In Reply To ..]
(forgive me if I make mistakes-I was trying to write some important points and sometimes I can't read my handwriting-LOL).

1. CM stated it was an honest election...not true.

2. The TP is orchestrated by Fox News....not true. They certainly talked about them a lot last year, but it was mostly because the liberal news didn't give a second of air time to find out what they were about.

3. Oath Keepers - He chose the wrong Oath Keeper group. Of course, he chose the radical group, not the 'good' group.

4. He, Media Matters, and Salon also compared the "New Right" as CM calls it with the John Birch Society, Barry Goldwater, Father Conklin, Alex Jones, the Birthers, patriots, and militia groups....this is not true. It is true that the New Right wants less government, stop the massive debt spending, ear marks, and other legitimate concerns beause leaving our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren in debt up to their butts forever is NOT an idea they relish, and that is what they protest. CM makes it sound like they are a totally radical group that only wants to kill anyone in government. Not true. They want to kill the careers of those who don't look out for the people they represent. They want big business to keep their hands out of the pockets of government reps. What is true is that the tea party was started around the time O told Joe the Plumber he wanted to "spread the wealth."

5. He also stated that libertarians embrace the tea party and that they want to abolish Social Security and Medicare....a half truth. I do not know much about hte libertarian party but the tea party, from what I've read and heard, do not want to abolish the above.

6. He hates Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, Rand Paul, Ron Paul, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Sharon Angle, and anyone else who speaks against the government....very true.

All in all, I found the documentary to be one-sided...again.

Note: I do watch him. In fact, I watch all the commentators if I get a chance except for Rachel Madcow unless I hear she's going to have something on I would be interested in hearing about just to get her slanted view.

Similar Messages:

Sep 01, 2011
The first part of "Day of Destruction, Decade of War" airs on Thurs., Sept. 1 at 9 PM ET. The second and third parts air on Fri., Sept. 2 from 9-11 PM. MSNBC. It is by Richard Engel and Dr. Rachel Maddow. Richard Engel has won the George Foster Peabody Award, an Edward R. Murrow Award, and the Society of Professional Journalism Award. It should be good. ...

Sep 06, 2012
As heard/seen on MSNBC after Clinton's DNC speech: "I always figured that if Bill Clinton landed on Mars. He would know how to do it with them. He would know how to reproduce. He would know everything. He would just instinctively know how to talk to people. They would be laughing in about five minutes. The Martians." ...

Oct 24, 2012
same phrase she did, "shuck and jive." Here's her brilliant response: "For the record, there was nothing remotely racist in my use of the phrase 'shuck and jive' – a phrase which many people have used, including Chris Matthews, Andrew Cuomo, and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney to name a few off the top of my head. In fact, Andrew Cuomo also used the phrase in reference to Barack Obama, and the fact that Mr. Cuomo and I used the phrase in relation to President Obama ...

Mar 30, 2016
I knew Chris was one of the best to do an interview because he is such a smart, intelligent man and I am loving this! ...

Mar 08, 2010
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/03/08/dan_rather_obama_couldnt_even_sell_watermelons.html ...

Mar 29, 2016
I think it will be great but really expect others here to find fault about Matthews to where he is not good enough to conduct the interview with Trump. Waiting..... ...

Dec 29, 2010
This is an extremely interesting read! http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Obama-birth-certificate-Matthews/2010/12/29/id/381362?s=al&promo_code=B604-1 ...

Jun 15, 2010
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/06/15/msnbc_trashes_obamas_address_compared_to_carter_i_dont_sense_executive_command.html What did anyone else think about this reaction or the speech? ...

Sep 06, 2012
come to Charlotte." Yes! That's us. The GOP was once the Grand Old Party, but for now, until they rebuild themselves, it's us. Oh, I'm sure that is also true for many good, decent conservatives. But where on earth ARE they? And when are those who believe that this country belongs to all its citizens, believe we have to work together together to be great, believe that united we stand, believe in the principle of one man, one vote, going to step forward and speak up for themse ...

Nov 07, 2012
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/07/chris-matthews-on-obama-win-o-glad-hurricane-sandy-struck/ ...

May 16, 2013
Basically, says Obama likes going out in public and making speeches, but he doesn't like the real job of being President - the executive part. He doesn't like dealing with (other) politicians, he doesn't like the hard work of garnering support for his agenda, exercising and delegating authority, etc. He likes golfing, playing basketball, taking an unbelievable number of vacations, schmoozing with celebrities and being the center of attention. Perks, yes. Work, n ...

Jun 06, 2014
It's nice to see that he finally came to his senses. ...

Oct 09, 2016
he was caught on a hot mic over Melania. Did the media make a big deal out of it? Of course not. He's MSNBC, liberal progressive Dem. Double standard. No one made a big deal out of it, not even his bosses at MSNBC. Wouldn't doubt if they were laughing about it. ‘Captain creepy!’ Hot mic catches Chris Matthews ogling Melania Trump’s ‘runway walk’ May 5, 2016 | Frieda Powers Now we have a whole new reason to call him “Tin ...

Apr 06, 2011
The more I see this Ryan the better I like him. ...

Nov 01, 2016
It's all over Google. 🙀 ...

Jun 17, 2010
If you feel like reading, great. If not, fine. This was written by Matt Lewis. Chris Matthews' Documentary 'Rise of the New Right': A Curveball From the Left If MSNBC was looking to officially become the cable channel of the far left, it may have finally succeeded Wednesday night with the airing of Chris Matthews' documentary "The Rise of The New Right." MSNBC -- the network whose hosts routinely mock Tea Party activists as "Tea Baggers" -- aggressively promoted th ...

Aug 08, 2015
Love this woman!!! ...

Jun 08, 2017
HA! ...

Aug 27, 2012
We tried to tell you this, but of course, no one would listen. ...

Oct 15, 2011
called "The One Percent" by Jamie Johnson (an heir to the Johnson and Johnson fortune). Go to YouTube and type in "The One Percent". It's in 8 parts, each part is 9 minutes and 51 seconds long. It's a brilliant documentary, and really does make one pause and think. I found it so interesting, I'm going to now go back and watch all 8 segments again. This should be aired on TV, but I'm sure it won't be, except maybe PBS will air it. =^^= ...

Jan 24, 2014
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/17/22343692-mitt-gets-real-documentary-shows-another-side-of-romney?lite Too bad Mitt did show who he really was, although he did during the first debate. Mitt was awesome and made Obama look like a fool. ...

Mar 29, 2014
I just saw the first part - it was fascinating! There are 2 more parts. ...

Nov 02, 2016
"Before the Flood" beaten out by clowns and children's shows. The reviewer tells you exactly why (namely, the cast consisting of DiCaprio, Obama, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, the Pope, Elon Musk and Ban Ki-Moon): ---------- "I mean, who wouldn’t want to tune in and have a jet-setting actor-millionaire, a government handout beneficiary, a Pope, the globe-trotting Secretary of State, the lame-duck president, the ‘Horndog-in-Chief” and the leader of the U.N. come on for 96 minutes ...

Dec 06, 2013
Encore on MSNBC ...

Apr 02, 2015
So, I read on a friend's private conservative blog elsewhere that James O'Keefe, a conservative documentary filmmaker, had just "caught red-handed" some college administrators at a university in Florida who were "encouraging and supporting" ISIS supporters. I like my friend, but, erm, I don't always agree with his politics and I'm not so sure his assertion is actually the case on this one. In fact, the blog author wrote his post based on his assumption on a ...

Feb 05, 2012
Bringing this up from thread below, where right-winger rant is ongoing. Typically, the poster is mindlessly pulling stuff out of thin air and making wildly uninformed claims, which obviously have not been researched. I'm always more than happy to accommodate this sort of information deficit. Bill Maher donates to the following charities: US Comic Relief. Aids the homeless and people in need, particularly disaster relief. The RFK Memorial. Advancing the c ...

Nov 25, 2009
Anyone see Chris last night? He had a dem and a repub (head of Virginia republic party) on discussing the performance of Obama this past year. The dem was very reasonable. The repub was negative, negative, negative. For example, he asked her if banning torture was a good move. she insisted banning "enhanced interrogation" was a horrible decision. At the end of the segment he said people were curious as to why he had so many repubs on his show when others on MSNBC did not. ...

May 17, 2013
Finally, somebody who actually uses his head. . . "The homes that the government buys will be razed and the property maintained as wetlands to help protect against future floods. The program is voluntary." http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2013-05-17/christie-unveils-buyout-offer-to-nj-flood-victims ...

Jan 09, 2014
Those of you who were hoping he would run for POTUS in 2016 have a big problem. ...

Aug 24, 2012
Anyone going to watch it? ...