I have another undercover assignment for Ms. Steinem. I just got a call from Claude Rains and he wants to know if there's gambling going on in the casinos.
This argument again? I don't have a sense of humor because I don't find funny the things you find funny? I thought you appreciated a diversity of viewpoints? At least that's what you said.
What the anonymous poster said about you not caring much for fact gathering. I laughed out loud when I read that.
I said I laughed. I did not say I thought his observation was 100 percent accurate. No need to lie about me "constantly" quoting the Daily Kos or MSNDC (whatever that is).
I wasn't lying, wd. I was exaggerating for the sake of effect. Kind of like when Ali said, "I'm gonna take on Kenny Norton and Jimmy Young at the same time!!"
The past few days have shown why MSNBC usually shy's away from having any guest with an opposing point of view. Yesterday Rep.Joe Walsh R-Il gutted Chris Matthews like a flounder.Walsh telling Chrissy "this president puts a tingle up your leg,not mine." And then Contessa Brewer challenged Rep.Mo Brooks R-Al on his knowledge of economics by asking him "do you have degree in economics?" He answered "yes ma'am I do,highest honors." Turns out Brooks graduated from Duke in three years with a double major in political science and economics,with highest honors in economics. I'm guessing this is the end of smart quests on MSNBC.Looks like its back to David Corn,Howard Fineman and Eugene Robinson.You gotta at least give them a bit of credit for trying.
Matthews is reaping what he's sown, Russ. No question. But the plain fact is that the Republican Congress now has an even lower approval rating than does Obama. The Ryan plan went over like a lead balloon and this Walsh guy wasn't able to provide much in the way of specifics. Personally, I'm hoping that this Conrad/Chambliss/Coburn compromise can get at least a little traction and entice the radicals from both sides to see that we really need to solve this thing.
Rusty: Yesterday Rep. Joe Walsh R-Il gutted Chris Matthews like a flounder.
Actually, you got it backwards Rusty. Chris Matthews called Joe on his bullshit.
The video on YouTube is aptly titled "Chris Matthews takes down Rep. Joe Walsh".
In regards to the Republicans "cut, cap & deceive" bill, Chris Matthews asked, "where are the cuts", and he pointed out, "I've got the bill right here. It's not in here".
This dope thinks this idiotic bill is going to be passed by the Senate. Chris Matthews murdered him. WTF was up with him saying "Chris" over and over and over and over. What a weirdo.
Will: Matthews is reaping what he's sown, Russ. No question.
I've got a question. What the hell are you talking about?
What I meant by that,wd, is that Mr. Matthews has essentially been a cheerleader for Obama and is now often found lacking for words when the fellow gets criticized.
All that I'm saying (and, yes, here we go again on this merry-go-round) is that sometimes when we hitch ourselves too closely to any one horse, mud-puddles are entirely possible. And, what, I can't criticize his opinion, just because it IS an opinion? What kind of frigging sense does that make? You never criticize the opinions of Fox News opinionaters, right-wing radio opinionaters, etc.? Please.............And, yes, several times during that "interview", it appeared that Mr. Matthews was at a loss for words (by HIS standards, I'm saying).
Will: what, I can't criticize his opinion, just because it IS an opinion?
That isn't what I said. I said you were criticizing him for having an opinion and voicing it on air... apparently you believe political opinion programs shouldn't exist. At least that's the impression I get.
Will: And, yes, several times during that "interview", it appeared that Mr. Matthews was at a loss for words.
Because Joe Walsh criticized President Obama, Matthews was "at a loss for words"? I seriously don't have a clue what you're talking about. Are we both referring to the interview I linked to on YouTube? All I saw was some doofus who got trounced.
dmarks: Opinions about opinions... what's wrong with that?
I said opinions about opinions are bad? Talk about a whopper. This isn't even close to what I said.
What Will said was, "Mr. Matthews has essentially been a cheerleader for Obama..."
So Matthews supports Obama? That is his right, is it not? He can have an opinion (right or wrong) on the subject, can he not? Apparently Will believes he should not.
To me it appears as though Will often gets confused about NEWS programs versus political opinion programs. He thinks the later should be more like the former.
Also, Will then added "...and is now often found lacking for words when the fellow gets criticized".
I saw no evidence of this what-so-ever.
In any case, I THOUGHT Will was on the President's side in the debt ceiling debate. Joe Walsh was arguing AGAINST the "reasonable" proposal the president put on the table.
But when the topic is discussed by a pundit and a Congressperson, Will takes the side of the Congressperson who is against what Will previously indicated he thought was reasonable... WTF?
Will SAYS he is in favor of returning to the marginal tax rates we had under Clinton, but the Republicans seek to LOCK in the bush tax cuts with Cut Cap and Balance.
So... in the Matthews/Walsh debate over C+C+B Will appears to be in agreement with Rusty about Matthews being "gutted". Even though the facts were on Matthews' side. Which makes me wonder... does Will support C+C+B?
I'm a bit surprized you are posting WD.I thought this was the time of year you join Al Gore and others of your ilk in your yearly search for Manbearpig.
No Rusty, you're thinking of South Park dipshits Parker and Stone. They're the ones who made up the stupidity that is Manbearpig.
Should I be a bit surprised if Rusty posts when record snowstorms hit? That's when those of his ilk usually use most of their free time denying the reality of climate change.
Matthews can be a cheerleader for whoever he wants. I was just pointing out that that kind of hero worship can sometimes back you into a corner and make you spin like a top, defend the indefensible, etc.. That Walsh dude (and, yes, Rusty, too) was correct in pointing out that the President has been insufficiently specific. And, yes, I believe it was at that point when Matthews got a little tongue tied.............Yes, overall, I believe that Mr. Obama has come across as far more reasonable and Majority leader Cantor dim (the Republicans, according to David Frum, should have jumped at that 3-4 to 1 cuts to revenue deal that Obama offered).............The person that you (or I) agree with doesn't necessarily always win the debate. The debate is how effectively a person puts forward their point of view, purely and simply. And, yes, in this Matthews-Walsh food-fight, in many ways Mr. Walsh out-Matthewsed Matthews, in my opinion.............Do I agree with Cut, Cap, and Balance? Probably not. A completely balanced budget won't be even remotely possible for years.............Oh, and, no, I don't like opinion shows.
This was my response to Rusty's point about Matthews-Walsh. Show me exactly WHERE I take the Congressman's side. My God, talk about mischaracterizing.............."Matthews is reaping what he's sown, Russ. No question. But the plain fact is that the Republican Congress now has an even lower approval rating than does Obama. The Ryan plan went over like a lead balloon and this Walsh guy wasn't able to provide much in the way of specifics. Personally, I'm hoping that this Conrad/Chambliss/Coburn compromise can get at least a little traction and entice the radicals from both sides to see that we really need to solve this thing."
25 comments:
I'll bet you congressman billy long knows.
This wasn't funny the first time around.
Congressman Long likes to roll the dice a little bit, huh, CDM?............What do you find funny, wd, a Republican slipping on a banana peel?
This argument again? I don't have a sense of humor because I don't find funny the things you find funny? I thought you appreciated a diversity of viewpoints? At least that's what you said.
What the anonymous poster said about you not caring much for fact gathering. I laughed out loud when I read that.
Where do I ever not substantiate what I say? What, because I don't constantly quote that idiotic Daily Kos or MSDNC? Please.
Oh yeah, that anonymous (cherry picking lunatic/stooge) is a laugh a minute.
I said I laughed. I did not say I thought his observation was 100 percent accurate. No need to lie about me "constantly" quoting the Daily Kos or MSNDC (whatever that is).
I wasn't lying, wd. I was exaggerating for the sake of effect. Kind of like when Ali said, "I'm gonna take on Kenny Norton and Jimmy Young at the same time!!"
Not just rolling the dice, but getting drunk and tweeting from Downstream Casino.
My kind of politician!! LOL
The past few days have shown why MSNBC usually shy's away from having any guest with an opposing point of view.
Yesterday Rep.Joe Walsh R-Il gutted Chris Matthews like a flounder.Walsh telling Chrissy "this president puts a tingle up your leg,not mine."
And then Contessa Brewer challenged Rep.Mo Brooks R-Al on his knowledge of economics by asking him "do you have degree in economics?" He answered "yes ma'am I do,highest honors." Turns out Brooks graduated from Duke in three years with a double major in political science and economics,with highest honors in economics.
I'm guessing this is the end of smart quests on MSNBC.Looks like its back to David Corn,Howard Fineman and Eugene Robinson.You gotta at least give them a bit of credit for trying.
Matthews is reaping what he's sown, Russ. No question. But the plain fact is that the Republican Congress now has an even lower approval rating than does Obama. The Ryan plan went over like a lead balloon and this Walsh guy wasn't able to provide much in the way of specifics. Personally, I'm hoping that this Conrad/Chambliss/Coburn compromise can get at least a little traction and entice the radicals from both sides to see that we really need to solve this thing.
Rusty: Yesterday Rep. Joe Walsh R-Il gutted Chris Matthews like a flounder.
Actually, you got it backwards Rusty. Chris Matthews called Joe on his bullshit.
The video on YouTube is aptly titled "Chris Matthews takes down Rep. Joe Walsh".
In regards to the Republicans "cut, cap & deceive" bill, Chris Matthews asked, "where are the cuts", and he pointed out, "I've got the bill right here. It's not in here".
This dope thinks this idiotic bill is going to be passed by the Senate. Chris Matthews murdered him. WTF was up with him saying "Chris" over and over and over and over. What a weirdo.
Will: Matthews is reaping what he's sown, Russ. No question.
I've got a question. What the hell are you talking about?
What I meant by that,wd, is that Mr. Matthews has essentially been a cheerleader for Obama and is now often found lacking for words when the fellow gets criticized.
So, despite the fact that Matthews show is political OPINION, you're criticizing him for voicing his OPINION? I don't get it.
Also, Matthews is "often found lacking for words"? Again, I have no idea what you're talking about.
I think, just like Rusty imagined that Joe Walsh "gutted" Matthews, you are imagining that Matthews is "often found lacking for words".
All that I'm saying (and, yes, here we go again on this merry-go-round) is that sometimes when we hitch ourselves too closely to any one horse, mud-puddles are entirely possible. And, what, I can't criticize his opinion, just because it IS an opinion? What kind of frigging sense does that make? You never criticize the opinions of Fox News opinionaters, right-wing radio opinionaters, etc.? Please.............And, yes, several times during that "interview", it appeared that Mr. Matthews was at a loss for words (by HIS standards, I'm saying).
Will: what, I can't criticize his opinion, just because it IS an opinion?
That isn't what I said. I said you were criticizing him for having an opinion and voicing it on air... apparently you believe political opinion programs shouldn't exist. At least that's the impression I get.
Will: And, yes, several times during that "interview", it appeared that Mr. Matthews was at a loss for words.
Because Joe Walsh criticized President Obama, Matthews was "at a loss for words"? I seriously don't have a clue what you're talking about. Are we both referring to the interview I linked to on YouTube? All I saw was some doofus who got trounced.
"So, despite the fact that Matthews show is political OPINION, you're criticizing him for voicing his OPINION? I don't get it."
Opinions about opinions... what's wrong with that?
And some opinions are flat-out wrong, and deserving of criticism.
There is no such thing as a wrong opinion, that's why they are called opinions. When people try to pass them off as facts, then THAT is wrong.
dmarks: Opinions about opinions... what's wrong with that?
I said opinions about opinions are bad? Talk about a whopper. This isn't even close to what I said.
What Will said was, "Mr. Matthews has essentially been a cheerleader for Obama..."
So Matthews supports Obama? That is his right, is it not? He can have an opinion (right or wrong) on the subject, can he not? Apparently Will believes he should not.
To me it appears as though Will often gets confused about NEWS programs versus political opinion programs. He thinks the later should be more like the former.
Also, Will then added "...and is now often found lacking for words when the fellow gets criticized".
I saw no evidence of this what-so-ever.
In any case, I THOUGHT Will was on the President's side in the debt ceiling debate. Joe Walsh was arguing AGAINST the "reasonable" proposal the president put on the table.
But when the topic is discussed by a pundit and a Congressperson, Will takes the side of the Congressperson who is against what Will previously indicated he thought was reasonable... WTF?
Will SAYS he is in favor of returning to the marginal tax rates we had under Clinton, but the Republicans seek to LOCK in the bush tax cuts with Cut Cap and Balance.
So... in the Matthews/Walsh debate over C+C+B Will appears to be in agreement with Rusty about Matthews being "gutted". Even though the facts were on Matthews' side. Which makes me wonder... does Will support C+C+B?
I'm a bit surprized you are posting WD.I thought this was the time of year you join Al Gore and others of your ilk in your yearly search for Manbearpig.
No Rusty, you're thinking of South Park dipshits Parker and Stone. They're the ones who made up the stupidity that is Manbearpig.
Should I be a bit surprised if Rusty posts when record snowstorms hit? That's when those of his ilk usually use most of their free time denying the reality of climate change.
Matthews can be a cheerleader for whoever he wants. I was just pointing out that that kind of hero worship can sometimes back you into a corner and make you spin like a top, defend the indefensible, etc.. That Walsh dude (and, yes, Rusty, too) was correct in pointing out that the President has been insufficiently specific. And, yes, I believe it was at that point when Matthews got a little tongue tied.............Yes, overall, I believe that Mr. Obama has come across as far more reasonable and Majority leader Cantor dim (the Republicans, according to David Frum, should have jumped at that 3-4 to 1 cuts to revenue deal that Obama offered).............The person that you (or I) agree with doesn't necessarily always win the debate. The debate is how effectively a person puts forward their point of view, purely and simply. And, yes, in this Matthews-Walsh food-fight, in many ways Mr. Walsh out-Matthewsed Matthews, in my opinion.............Do I agree with Cut, Cap, and Balance? Probably not. A completely balanced budget won't be even remotely possible for years.............Oh, and, no, I don't like opinion shows.
This was my response to Rusty's point about Matthews-Walsh. Show me exactly WHERE I take the Congressman's side. My God, talk about mischaracterizing.............."Matthews is reaping what he's sown, Russ. No question. But the plain fact is that the Republican Congress now has an even lower approval rating than does Obama. The Ryan plan went over like a lead balloon and this Walsh guy wasn't able to provide much in the way of specifics. Personally, I'm hoping that this Conrad/Chambliss/Coburn compromise can get at least a little traction and entice the radicals from both sides to see that we really need to solve this thing."
Will said: "A completely balanced budget won't be even remotely possible for years"
So, it's really too much to ask for Obama and Congress to have a budget next year that is responsible?
Post a Comment