Chris Matthews Destroys Talk Show Host

I saw the show tonight, too. The guest absolutely was acting a complete fool, I think he annoyed Chris by going off on a scripted tangent from the very beginning. Every time I see these young people punditing on cable news I wonder how much some of them really know of what they speak, sometimes they appear to be barely out of high school. I was glad to see Chris challenge him to either admit he couldn't answer the question or stop talking altogether, some of those old heads could stand to be challenged as well!

Chris came off like a school yard bully without the facts......if he wants to play hardball he better get his own fact straight first......Neville was AN APPEASER---enough said. Oh, and Chris----by the way---the year was 1938.

Lisa, where did Chris say that Neville was not AN APPEASER, do you understand the question Chris was asking Kevin? Enough said?

Chris came off like a school yard bully without the facts......if he wants to play hardball he better get his own fact straight first......Neville was AN APPEASER---enough said. Oh, and Chris----by the way---the year was 1938.

He never said he was not an appeaser. Were you even listening?

Chris came off like a school yard bully without the facts......if he wants to play hardball he better get his own fact straight first......Neville was AN APPEASER---enough said. Oh, and Chris----by the way---the year was 1938.

Ok Lisa, show us:

A) the definition of "appeaser"

B) How Neville was an "appeaser"

C) How yelling "APPEASER" louder and louder does anything at all for anybody.

Before you go trying to impart your self-ordained righteousness and "knowledge" on others, you should know what the @!$%# you are talking about. Your bumper-sticker GOP simplicity does not count as an argument, or a position here. Explain yourself.

In all fairness his guest refused to say "I don't know." Also, his guest was acting like a FOX news commentator, trying to shout down anyone who disagreed with him, William F. Buckley probably spinning in his grave. For the last few years we have had people talk out of the behinds without having to back up their facts. Anyone who claims to know the meaning of appeasement without the political context of the 1938 Munich conference is either damned fool or a liar.

If the fool had stopped screaming for 2 seconds and had a civil conversation he would not have found himself in this place.

People like him are the exact reason I can't stand Fox news.

Chris asked him more than once, why are you yelling? The moron just yelled louder.

People like him are a disgrace to the values the true conservatives hold.

Chris Matthews was and is unprofessional. The "guest" didn't know the answer. There was no need to make his "guest" go through what seemed like an interrogation.

He was asking a fair question, the man didn't know what he was talking about. If it had been Bill O' he would have told him to "Shut Up! and get off his show! No, B.O. is a Neo-Con tool as well, and would have agreed and been polite.

I don't know Stranger. A hard and fast rule about argumentation is you don't rely on an argument you know nothing about -- or use a word you don't know the definition of. I'm so sick of hearing these people use words like "appeasement" and "socialist" and "fascist" totally incorrectly I could scream. They are aping the likes of Rush Limbaugh. With predictable results -- they look just as foolish as he does.

I didn't enjoy watching the guy squirm but in the long run, Chris Matthews did him and all his like-minded cohorts a huge favor. They might actually make friends with a dictionary, and maybe a history text or two the next time they think about having a political discussion. Especially on national TV.

yeah fox and people like this remind me of some of some of the trashy morning shows. Like wwhoes boyfriend slept with whoes mother/bestfriend w/e and everyone starts screemign and you cant hear a thing. I suppose it is interestign for some as they get viewers. For me it isnt mature. Gettign louder doesn't make your point any clearer of more correct. Just like talking louder will never get a non english speaker to understand english.

If you really know nothing about Neville Chamberlain then you have no business going on television promiting yourself as some sort of expert about the meaning of appeasement.

If you dont know anything about Neville Chamverlain you are not qualified to talk about the usage of appeasement in political discourse.

If you do know anything about Neville Chamberalin, then you also should realize that equating all willing to negotiate with appeasement is ideological bull@!$%#. Since willingness to talk to someone is NOT the same as consessions that go with appeasement policy.

Someone should ask George W. Bush what he thins appeasement means.

If the fool had stopped screaming for 2 seconds and had a civil conversation he would not have found himself in this place.

People like him are the exact reason I can't stand Fox news.

Chris asked him more than once, why are you yelling? The moron just yelled louder.

People like him are a disgrace to the values the true conservatives hold.

What does this guy have to do with Fox News?

Matthews own network, MSNBC is becoming as biased as Fox, just from the opposite end of the political spectrum.

stranger2315...Chris Matthews was and is unprofessional. The "guest" didn't know the answer. There was no need to make his "guest" go through what seemed like an interrogation.

Yes indeed, how rude to expect a loud and ince4ssent claim about the likeness to Chamberlin's acts require he say what the acts are. That performance wouldn't play in a junior high debate.

The guy is an ignoramus who can't answer a high school history question offering his view of the event anyway. He should go back to selling gym memberships and the folks who pay these jokers should stop insulting us.

He should go back to selling gym memberships

I was thinking more along the lines of used cars....

Wah ha ha ha! Whoever buys any car this guys selling deserves what he ends up with.

Well, Lisa, it was kind of two idiots talking over each other. Kevin James's ignorance was, of course, profound and embarrassing although totally in keeping with what one will encounter from people of all ideological perspectives on the internet and on the cable yack shows. But from a strictly historical perspective so was Matthews who claimed "Chamberlain gave Hitler half of Czechoslovakia". Actually the Sudetenland, which was the area in question, was a region populated by ethnic Germans given to the new state of Czechoslovakia which arose from the rubble that formerly constituted the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The US and Wilson championed these Germans rights to a union with Germany-Austria after WWI but our pleas went unheeded despite the demonstrated desire of these peoples for such a union. Hitler's demands at Munich were not without foundation. The problem is that Hitler used his newfound territory to then make the "argument" that the new borders were unacceptable from a security standpoint and used this as the pretense to send the Wehrmacht into the rump areas of Bohemia and Moravia that then constituted what was left of Czechoslovakia.

Now insofar as the current contretemps is concerned, there is no question that Obama's initial comments about meeting with foreign dicatators one-on-one with no preconditions was exceedingly stupid and naive if not downright dangerous as were his comments about going after bin Laden in Pakistan whether the Pakistanis liked it or not. He has since "qualified" those statements after being roundly pilloried for them.

He has since "qualified" those statements after being roundly pilloried for them.

Bill-5.1-and GWB pilloried him again at Knesset much to the Obama campaign's dismay. GWB was right on about just who wants to appease the enemy.

I think folks like you are underestimating the reaction there will be this time around to these kinds of smears. Painting people as traitors for what amounts to differences in political philosophy has gone far enough for many Americans. The GOP is already losing seats in Congress. Keep pushing, and continuing to attempt to hold the political diologue hostage, and I wonder what the next step will be?

What does history tell you Bill?

History tells me John McCain will carry MS handily come November notwithstanding the fact that the RNCC's choice of candidates in these special elections has been pretty dumb.

"The Republican Brand is in the trash can...if we were dog food, they would take us off the shelf"...so said Republican Tom Davis of Virginia after the Republican Party LOST their THIRD STRAIGHT CONGRESSIONAL RACE this year to the Democratic Party in Mississippi...

There is a new paradigm.

Chris is so taken with Obama that his reports are not to be taken with anything more than a grain of salt....he is incapable of being impartial---he's like a highschool girl with a bad crush on obama....sickening.

Nice irrelevant and completely unsubstantiated tangent.

Perhaps he is you are incapable of being impartial?

As for this alleged "mancrush" lets look at the actual evidence of Mathews mancrushes: The Many Mancrushes of Chris Matthews

Going back to 9/11, Matthews found himself blown away not by Bush's political or military response but by his ability to throw a baseball. He compared the man to--I kid you not--Ernest Hemingway. "There are some things you can't fake," he explained breathlessly. "Either you can throw a strike from sixty feet or you can't. Either you can rise to the occasion on the mound at Yankee Stadium with 56,000 people watching or you can't. On Tuesday night, George W. Bush hit the strike zone in the House that Ruth Built.... This is about knowing what to do at the moment you have to do it--and then doing it. It's about that 'grace under pressure' that Hemingway gave as his very definition of courage." And remember that now-infamous Mission Accomplished moment? True, Matthews did not join his guest G. Gordon Liddy in admiring--still not kidding--the President's pretend penis, but he was no less focused on Bush's fashion statements. "He looks great in a military uniform. He looks great in that cowboy costume he wears when he goes West," he cooed. "We're proud of our President. Americans love having a guy as President, a guy who has a little swagger, who's physical, who's not a complicated guy like Clinton.... Women like a guy who's President. Check it out." Matthews's man-crush on Bush continued longer than that of most of the mainstream media, leading him, for instance, to assert that "everybody sort of likes the President, except for the real whack-jobs," at a moment when the percentage of Americans telling New York Times/CBS pollsters that they "liked" Bush had fallen to 37 percent.

But nobody, save Fred Barnes, thinks Bush is cool anymore, and so Matthews has had to go cruising for a new crush. For a while it looked as if he and John McCain would hook up. "A lot of people," he explained coyly, naming no names, "like the cut of John McCain's jib, his independence, his maverick reputation." This led Matthews to declare the election all but over, announcing that as far as he was concerned, McCain "deserves the presidency." This was just a warmup, however, for Chris's latest flame: the "perfect candidate"--the one who "looks like a President," who "acts and talks like a President," who "rises to the occasion" and is "the one tough cop who was standing on the beat when we got hit last time and stood up and took it," and who, to top it all off, got "that pee smell out of that subway."

If you only look for evidence to back up what you believe and reject any other theory, you will always find what you are looking for. Please share what you think shows that Matthews has such a mancrush on Obama and compare it to his statements about Bush and McCain, you might be surprised if you are open to the possiblity.

GWB was right on about just who wants to appease the enemy.

I guess youy are talking about bush talking to north korea. or robert gates and condi rice sayign we need to talk more to iran.
or maybe you are talking about mccain who wanted to talk to hamas?
NO I know you are talking about when reagan gave iran weapons in violation of us law?
AHHH I know you are talking about isreal, and when they made peace with egypt that lasts today and ensures a steady supply of oil to isreal

diplomacy isnt appeasement, the only people who don't want to talk are warmongers who have no need for peace

lisaed...Chris is so taken with Obama that his reports are not to be taken with anything more than a grain of salt....he is incapable of being impartial---he's like a highschool girl with a bad crush on obama....sickening.

Ooh, need a saucer of milk with that? OMG, it's so like, so like, like everyone so feels like this.

It's a real hoot that you are so hell bent, on some all or nothing division of thought, that you will change the subject rather than admit some meathead got trounced and rightly so.

Dippy shoildn't qualify for a national political coverage spot. There is no shortage of deserving and hard working young people, politically informed and articulate to choose from. It's bad enough that surfer boy gets paid. He doesn't need to be defended because he likes Bush, too.

He's an unqualified fool. So what, can't there be truthfulness when listening is like hearing why he's a drop uot from Whatea Matta U. Get a sense of humor and perspective, call it not by party or power points, but for real.

Jim---obama is trying again today to redefine what the meaning of "is" is---it doesn't work. We know he wants to meet without condition with leaders of rogue nations---with people like Ahmadinejad who harbor and support world terrorists---we have HEARD OBAMA SAY THIS IN HIS OWN WORDS. Obama cannot take back THOSE WORDS NOW....we have heard them---repeatedly on the campaign trail. He is AN APPEASER....Israel knows this---and every American outside those who have already swallowed the obama kool-aid knows it too. GO GWB!!! You have fired up conservatives with your words at Knesset--ANYONE BUT OBAMA!!! HURRAH!

Obama cannot take back THOSE WORDS NOW....we have heard them---repeatedly on the campaign trail. He is AN APPEASER

Can you guess which presidential candidate said these words?

"They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that."

Hypocrisy on Hamas

Good link ombra, thanks

RObert gates. says we should talk to iran. condi rice says we should talk to iran you know the worlds biggest sponcer of terror.
Love you lisaed but your forgetting reagan who appeased iran with weapons.. this is the definaition of appeasement.
Talsk without conditions isnt appeasement.
we have done it many times before, reagan did it, isreal did it. to condemn something like you are doing you might want to check history like the rst of us and see if you will be easily debunked.

lisaed,

You may be unaware, but when entering comments on newsvine, there are these handy buttons above the comment space that allow you to bold or italicize your words.

ALL CAPS READ LIKE SOMEONE IS SHOUTING AT YOU. SEE HOW ANNOYING THIS IS?

You do realize that part of the reason Kevin James looked like an ass is not just his lack of historical knowledge but his shouting, blustering speech? I'm surprised how many conservatives don't believe in evolution when they have so many spokesmen that act like @!$%#-throwing apes.

Lisaed
re: 6.1

Obama cannot take back THOSE WORDS NOW....we have heard them---repeatedly on the campaign trail. He is AN APPEASER....Israel knows this

The comments at the top of the vine, as well as in the Matthews video, provide the definition of "appeaser". This definition does not fit.

The comments at the top of the vine, as well as in the Matthews video, provide the definition of "appeaser". This definition does not fit.

This is going the same way as with the "Elitist" absurdity and all the other Orwellian redefinition's and historical inaccuracies Neo-cons use to obfuscate the truth as if all Americans are as unaware as they are. pathetic. Americans are fed up with being played for chumps by the neo-con scourge.

Reagan was the biggest "appeaser" and should have been impeached for, selling Iran arms.... Had it not been for some of his gang who went to prison for him, how loyal...

THOSE WORDS NOW....we have heard them...

So which of these words have you heard Barack Obama use?

ap·pease /əˈpiz/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-peez] –verb (used with object), -peased, -peas·ing.

1. to bring to a state of peace, quiet, ease, calm, or contentment; pacify; soothe: to appease an angry king.

2. to satisfy, allay, or relieve; assuage: The fruit appeased his hunger.

3. to yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1300–50; ME apesen < AF apeser, OF apais(i)er, equiv. to a- a-5 + paisi- peace + -er inf. suffix]

—Related forms
ap·peas·a·ble, adjective ap·peas·a·ble·ness, noun ap·peas·a·bly, adverb ap·pease·ment, noun ap·peas·er, noun ap·peas·ing·ly, adverb

di·plo·ma·cy /dɪˈploʊməsi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-ploh-muh-see] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun

1. the conduct by government officials of negotiations and other relations between nations.

2. the art or science of conducting such negotiations.

3. skill in managing negotiations, handling people, etc., so that there is little or no ill will; tact: Seating one's dinner guests often calls for considerable diplomacy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1790–1800; < F diplomatie (with t pronounced as s), equiv. to diplomate diplomat + -ie -y3]

I've heard him use diplomacy, can you show me where he's used the word appeasement?

The comments at the top of the vine, as well as in the Matthews video, provide the definition of "appeaser".

charnello-6.6---yes....America knows an appeaser when they see one....too late, obama.

lisaed, you've got a laundry list of snarky charges against Matthews and Obama. At what point do you offer the readers some link, some quote or facts to back up the opinions?

I'm curious because you have lots of opinion but take no time to give us anything more than the lisa view. If it's not worth your time to add facts, what's repeating the same opinion worth to us?

yes....America knows an appeaser when they see one....too late, obama.

In the spirit of decent debate, I will not attack you on this one. But your idea is ignorant, poorly educated, and full of rhetorical @!$%#. Your ideas deserve no acceptance in society and are an embarrassment to enlightened, educated people worldwide. Your ideas are exactly what is wrong with this great Nation and her politics. I hope one day that ideas like yours are nothing more than myth on this Earth.

As for you, I expect nothing less. You're all the same.

Pamela Drew

lisaed, you've got a laundry list of snarky charges against Matthews and Obama

Researchers help define what makes a political conservative Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:

Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:
# Fear and aggression
# Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
# Uncertainty avoidance
# Need for cognitive closure
# Terror management This intolerance of ambiguity can lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic cliches and stereotypes, the researchers advised.

Bravo Dan. This is highly accurate.

lisaed, you've got a laundry list of snarky charges against Matthews and Obama. At what point do you offer the readers some link, some quote or facts to back up the opinions?

How about almost never? Lisaed prefers to share her "perceptions" and opinions, dont bother asking for substance.

Is it just a coincidence that the opinions line up with a partisan agenda? If someone is criticizing a Republican they are a "bully" if someone is attacking a Democrat, she loves it. I have tried to engage in reasoned discussion on the basis of facts, but its all GOP opinion and talking points all the time.

E.g

THOSE WORDS NOW....we have heard them...

First, there is your apparent confusion between his words and how you choose to misinterpret them.

Second, compare the DNC ads when McCains actual words are used - in that case the response is instead "SHAME SHAME SHAME" on DNC for using his actual words.

The hypocritical double standard is astounding.

Catch-6.14---you yourself provided the substance for me with your "Many Mancrushes of Chris Matthews" link. Thanks. My opinion about Chris and Obama is based on watching Hardball just about every night since obama announced his candidacy in Feb 07. And Pamela here is some more of the hard evidence (meaning others beside yours truly have also noted this mancrush) you insist upon--I figured this was already common knowledge but since you seem unaware here ya go:

Matthews:Obama Speech Caused Thrill Going Up My Leg

Ah Newsbusters. So you can assume this is all of the evidence?

So you have a single comment. I believe most objective people faced with the evidence presented here would agree that the evidence of his bias for McCain and "man crushes on McCain and Bush far outweigh this single comment.

So you have one speech causing a thrill up his leg, which actually is a comment about a speech and not the person vs.

For a while it looked as if he and John McCain would hook up. "A lot of people," he explained coyly, naming no names, "like the cut of John McCain's jib, his independence, his maverick reputation." This led Matthews to declare the election all but over, announcing that as far as he was concerned, McCain "deserves the presidency." This was just a warmup, however, for Chris's latest flame: the "perfect candidate"--the one who "looks like a President," who "acts and talks like a President," who "rises to the occasion" and is "the one tough cop who was standing on the beat when we got hit last time and stood up and took it," and who, to top it all off, got "that pee smell out of that subway."

VERDICT: Mathews has bigger mancrush on McCain.

VERDICT: Mathews has bigger mancrush on McCain.

Catch---6.16---again that is entirely your opinion. I respect your right o have an opinion that differs from my own. Hope you can show me same courtesy.

Catch---6.16---again that is entirely your opinion. I respect your right o have an opinion that differs from my own. Hope you can show me same courtesy.

I hope you could stop implying that I have not respected your right to have your own opinion. You certainly do and I never said otherwise. That doesnt change the facts available that clearly speak for themselves. You have every right to your opinion, that doesnt make all opinions equally supported by the facts and thats the point. Now if you want to try to explain why its your opinion despite the evidence presented feel free, you have every right to stick with your opinion, and everyone else has every right to point out why the overwelming facts point in a different dirrection.

It's part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama's speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often."

vs "A lot of people," he explained coyly, naming no names, "like the cut of John McCain's jib, his independence, his maverick reputation." McCain "deserves the presidency." This was just a warmup, however, for Chris's latest flame: the "perfect candidate"--the one who "looks like a President," who "acts and talks like a President," who "rises to the occasion" and is "the one tough cop who was standing on the beat when we got hit last time and stood up and took it," and who, to top it all off, got "that pee smell out of that subway." You are certainly entitled to your opinion that Mathews has only said gushing things about Obama, that doesnt change the underlying facts.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion that Mathews has only said gushing things about Obama

Catch 6.18--please provide the link to where I ever stated that Matthews ONLY gushes about Obama. Nevertheless---it seems clear to me (again only my opinion) that if you watch Hardball on a regular basis as I do that Chris is pulling for an Obama victory in November.

And Pamela here is some more of the hard evidence (meaning others beside yours truly have also noted this mancrush) you insist upon--I figured this was already common knowledge but since you seem unaware here ya go:

Matthews:Obama Speech Caused Thrill Going Up My Leg

That's a comedy routine, get a clue Tootsie!! It has the laugh track on there in case there are any so gulible they want to call a face off with SNL's Weekend update teaming her with Amy Pohler against Stewart and Colbert. ROTFLMAO!! Let me catch my breath; that was hillarious, kudos.

That's not evidence of a credible claim but proof of incredible hubris or ignorance, maybe both. I don't know or care, guessing what others think isn't worthwhile but it is clear you'll go as far as using stand up comedy to hold fast to your half baked notions.

(never trust a man with two names),

Caltha--and what exactly is wrong with two names?

It's an old joke, Lisa. My bad, I delivered the joke poorly. Never trust a man with two first names... Thank you for correcting me...

Caltha---no, not your bad---because I knew just what you meant....what's wrong with 2 first names??? I still don't get it.

I still don't get it.

What I don't get is how you can follow up with why that's not funny to you. That's the joke, just plain old silliness dating back to a time when a sense of humor was as simple as silly.

This is what happens when Lisa comes in trolling, skimming through and not thoroughly trying to understand anything, just buzzing around people's ears.

"2 first names"

The second name is called that for a reason. Follow along...1...2....3....
My Middle name is Alan. What's the difference between Thomas Jefferson and Jefferson Thomas?
Relax, just kidding with you. I know you were joking too.

Leah M, I wholeheartedly agree, and real life certainly is funner many times...though you must admit...nothing is funnier than a good Marx Brothers' movie.

I don't suppose that even SNL staff writers could have written the script for last evening's Chris Matthews show...in some places (namely in barrooms) if the two men had been sitting next to one another it could have come to blows.

if the two men had been sitting next to one another it could have come to blows.

I hope they put that one on Pay Per View.... :)

Having a rough night, are we lisaed?

You know you don't strengthen your argument when you attempt to defend a know-nothing kook like this Kevin James dweeb.

Ya gotta admit he was an embarrassment to your side. He sure didn't do you guys any favors.

Come on admit it.

Lisaed, Kevin James was clueless and you are cheering him on?
Wow you right wingers are a shrill, desperate group aren't you?

Kevin James shows the failure of too many on the right these days: they do not know what they are talking about and must shout down any who do.

Wow you right wingers are a shrill, desperate group aren't you?

And more concerned with empty rhetoric than facts. They want to rewrite history to fit their failed agenda. Lisa's argument isn't in favor of any substance, she's just happy somebody on TV was slandering Obama. She doesn't realize that GWB likened a PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE to Hitler, in front of actual Jews. Bush looked like a simpleton idiot, and so does anyone who is "fired up" over his embarrassing remarks. When you are in Israel, you shouldn't compare anyone to Hitler unless they have been mass-murdering Jews. He's a @!$%#ing idiot, and his supporters are even more ignorant.

I don't know, I'm conservative and he (Kevin James) sounded like a arrogant prick to me. I thought Chris did a fine job.

Chris Matthews destroys Kevin James (laugh) ---by trying (I think very ineffectively) to define a difference between Barack Obama and Neville Chamberlin....way to go Chris! Chris--tell me again ---was it 1938 or 1939, wise guy? You think you're so smart.....tee hee....NOT! The year was indeed 1938....get it right, Chris if you want to play "hardball" with another. If Kevin James was fired up---it's because GWB has fired up the conservative base----ABO in November!!!!!!

You know lisa, you don't seem to have any actual positions on facts. Mainly, your a cheerleader.

If he's going to argue that he is an appeaser, she should be capable of saying why and now a little about what they are all referring to. Simply believing it to be true because George W. said so isn't isn't good enough.

Do yourself a favor and go learn about the history of things. By all means, argue conservative, but do so intelligently.

people like lisaed are the reason im considering leaving this country in Nov. if McCain gets elected.

I believe it was Bell Hooks who pointed out that not everybody who speaks on behalf of your cause is necessarily an asset to that cause. Just like Michael Moore and Ward Churchhill don't do the left any favors, Kevin James joins the ranks of those like Ann Coulter in dragging political thought down to the equivalent of the power chord.

people like lisaed are the reason im considering leaving this country in Nov. if McCain gets elected.

Dude get real. I have to wonder if you were one of the bandwagon that said they would jump ship if GW was elected a second time. Why would you leave? I don't believe that's the American spirit in the least.....stay and fight for your country. I don't want any of the 3 main candidates elected. When one of them does get in I'm staying and fighting. My country is over it's head in career politicians, over spending, and reliance on foreign goods and there is no way I'm going to leave and let it go down the drain.

Ivy Mike -

I agree with your sentiment, but I also agree with BAjunkie's. I believe in fighting for what you believe, but If we can't change things this time around under these extraordinary circumstances, I have to wonder if we will ever be able to wrest the country's steering wheel from the irrational McCarthy propagandists. If not now, what will it take? Frankly, I have to consider if I want to be here to find out what it will take. "A mushroom cloud over an American city?"

On the positive side, I think the tide is turning, and I do think this election will bring a needed new direction.

Otherwise, you may see me next for the revolution...

I too believe in fighting, but I also believe in cutting your losses. My comment wasn't a stab at lisaed personally, but at those people who are trying to 'stay the course' when the course is set in a terribly wrong direction. If McCain becomes President, our economy is done for. And a poor country isn't a powerful country. It's real hard to fly all those jets and drive all the tanks if we have no money to buy oil. And the strategic reserve holds only enough to supply for 2 months. In a crumbling nation, I'd much rather cut my losses and move on to a more economically stable region and watch from there. Reminds me of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Hopefully this will never come to pass, if the will of the people be half of what it once was.

I certainly hope it doesn't come to a mushroom cloud* but am a little concerned it may. I'm also concerned about who will be behind it and what the country would look like after. 9/11 wasn't enough for a lot of people. They went right back to McDonald's and American Idol. It's sad to watch more people vote for a boneheaded entertainer than a boneheaded politician. I suppose it's all about the delivery.

I agree this next election may be a stepping stone to a more informed population and better times. The third party candidates are getting more attention than ever. Maybe not this year but I see a larger change in the next 4-8. I think a lot of people need to understand that one man can't change the direction of a country. It takes all three branches and I think two of them need some serious house cleaning. Where's Ben Franklin when you need him?

*gas, nuke, bio, EMP...who knows maybe all at once. The bio really frightens me. I'd rather see a nuke.

And more concerned with empty rhetoric than facts. They want to rewrite history to fit their failed agenda. Lisa's argument isn't in favor of any substance, she's just happy somebody on TV was slandering Obama. She doesn't realize that GWB likened a PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE to Hitler, in front of actual Jews. Bush looked like a simpleton idiot, and so does anyone who is "fired up" over his embarrassing remarks. When you are in Israel, you shouldn't compare anyone to Hitler unless they have been mass-murdering Jews. He's a @!$%#ing idiot, and his supporters are even more ignorant.

Did I miss something?
I could swear he [Bush] was comparing Obama to Chamberlain...not Hitler.

Mmmmm?
Hitler...the appeaser?

Rewrite history?
OK!

Reminds me of the collapse of the Soviet Union. Hopefully this will never come to pass, if the will of the people be half of what it once was.

I would agree it does look a little like the fall of the USSR and 'm willing to bet that's what Osama wanted for the US in the first place. We can't be defeated militarily but when we have The Leach of Multi-front Wars it makes the economy go limp. The largest difference between us and the USSR is that we're a Capitalistic democracy. We can do our best to vote these people out of office.

For all of you beating up on me here----just how is obama not an appeaser? Explain. Details are appreciated. Kevin James may be an idiot---but he knows an appeaser when he sees one....it's not that hard to do.

just how is obama not an appeaser?

Let's start with a definition and go from there.

ap·pease /əˈpiz/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-peez] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –verb (used with object), -peased, -peas·ing. 1. to bring to a state of peace, quiet, ease, calm, or contentment; pacify; soothe: to appease an angry king. 2. to satisfy, allay, or relieve; assuage: The fruit appeased his hunger. 3. to yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles.

1. Barack Obama has never brought to a state of peace, quiet, ease, calm, or contentment, or pacified an enemy of the United States.
2. Barack Obama has never satisfied, allied, or relieved any enemy of the United States.
3. Barack Obama has never yielded or conceded to the belligerent demands of an enemy of the United States in a conciliatory effort, even at the expense of justice or other principles.

Explain. Details are appreciated.

It is impossible to prove a negative. You will need to prove he is an appeaser. I look forward to seeing your documented proof.

I see Obama as an appeaser in that (once again, MHO) he's appeasing the angry mass of citizens that have been yanked around by their government for too long. I don't see him actually accomplishing anything in office if he gets there (he's not getting my vote) but he's appeasing the masses that are actually buying his snake oil.
If I may address 3 Roy (aren't you supposed to be retired?):

to yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles.

Have you noticed he's wearing an American Flag lapel pin? It's simple I know but I have to giggle a bit.

Have you noticed he's wearing an American Flag lapel pin?

I noticed. I also noticed that Obama managed to bring new significance to the wearing of a flag pin. By himself. I think that's the definition of a follower. Oh, wait. I think the word I am looking for is 'LEADER.'

Notice how Lisa never responds when someone responds to her bull@!$%#?

@!$%#ing useless troll

For all of you beating up on me here----just how is obama not an appeaser? Explain. Details are appreciated.

Its actually pretty simple. Diplomacy is NOT Appeasement. Willingness to negotiate is not appeasemnt. Bush's attempt to equtate the two is either bourne out of ignoracne or dishonesty.

Ok your turn, provide the facts to support your view? Please provide more than mere convenient semantics to show why no one in the Bush administration is an appeaser under your definition.

It appears that given peoples words you conveniently interpret those you dont like in the worst possible way and those you do in the best.

Lisaed, there's a difference between appeasement and diplomacy. You wouldn't know that from the example set by the neocons, so let's take a clearer look.

Neville Chamberlain sought to sooth Germany by signing the Munich Agreement in 1938 that allowed Germany to simply take a chunk of Checkoslovakia. That act, making an unreasonable concession to an aggressor, is appeasement.

Obama wants to meet with the Iranians to see if there's room for a reasonable solution to Iran's nuclear pursuits and threats to others in the region. He gave no indication that he intended to make unreasonable concessions to Iran. He simply wants to establish a dialog that's more constructive than "you gonna do what I say, or I'm gonna whup ya." That's diplomacy, and the civilized world generally agrees that diplomacy is almost always the best way to proceed.

I suspect Obama knows where do draw the line for Plan B, but he isn't going to go directly to Plan B just so certain Americans can think they were part of the big smackdown.

@!$%#ing useless troll

Pot. Kettle. Black.

I should have stated that I'm not voting for Obama. I'd simply like people to approach politics, especially voting, invested in reason instead of rhetoric. It's kind of important.

Obama wants to meet with the Iranians to see if there's room for a reasonable solution to Iran's nuclear pursuits and threats to others in the region.

LC- 9.20---as McCain said today--obama does not understand the nature of the threat posed by teeny tiny Iran to the region, to America's interests and the world.

as McCain said today--obama does not understand .....

That's metaphysically absurd. What does McCain know about what Obama understands? Is he a mind reader? A psychic?

.... the nature of the threat posed by teeny tiny Iran to the region, to America's interests and the world.

You can agree or not agree with John McCain's opinions, but that does not make him right or wrong. Take his word as gospel from the high if you want, but there are plenty of citizens and politicians willing to concede that this "I already know everything" attitude is how Bush got us into trouble in the first place.

LC- 9.20---as McCain said today--obama does not understand the nature of the threat posed by teeny tiny Iran to the region, to America's interests and the world.

Yes McCain did say something like that. Of course, it was a political smear and your characterization is both false and misleading. What does that have to do with the topic at hand?

Is what McCain says your sole basis for your world view?

"LC- 9.20---as McCain said today--obama does not understand the nature of the threat posed by teeny tiny Iran to the region, to America's interests and the world."

Ok, so that's what McCain said. And Obama says he does understand. Regardless, the greater the threat, the more necessary it is to engage in diplomacy rather than exacerbate the situation with saber rattling.

By the way, I accidentally clicked the vote arrow on your post. As of this posting, it actually has only one vote - in case you care about that kind of thing.

obama does not understand the nature of the threat posed by teeny tiny Iran to the region, to America's interests and the world.

McCain said that Iran was the same threat as was the USSR, to the USA-He is the one who is clueless if he thinks that.

jdoyle-9.27--at least mccain understands that just because Iran doesn't have nukes YET that hostile countries are just as threatening to USA, to the region, to Israel, and the world as those already armed with them....in obama's world Iran is a.o.k. because after all it is just a teeny "tiny" country.

lisaed like Iraq had WMD so we invaded?
No wait Bush lied about that one.
Considering Israel has hundreds of nukes themselves I don't see Iran using them,
so exactly should we start another war in Iran?

So why exactly shouldn't the US talk to Iran?

jdoyle-9.29--surprise surprise the U.S. is already talking to Iran vis a vis their involvement in Iraq. Where Obama went wrong repeatedly on the campaign trail and in debates was saying he would meet with them WITHOUT condition. That's just naive and dangerous. He's trying to backpedal on that now.....too late.

in obama's world Iran is a.o.k. because after all it is just a teeny "tiny" country.

Your world might be that way. In this world he actually did not say anything was "a.o.k." and your imagination added it.

He did say that the comparative threat of the Soviet Union at the height of the cold war was far more of threat than Iran is today. Other than word choice, do you really disagree?

That's just naive and dangerous.

What he actually said is neither. Such simplistic rhetoric is partisan and naive.

But dont just take my perspective:

In an October, 2006 appearance on Fox News, James A. Baker, Secretary of State during the first Bush administration, emphatically challenged the notion that talking to adversaries constitutes "appeasement":

BAKER: You don't just talk to your friends, you talk to your enemies as well. Diplomacy involves talking to your enemies. You don't reward your enemies necessarily by talking to them if you are tough and you know what you are doing. You don't appease them. Talking to an enemy is not in my view appeasement.

Catch 22- where obama went wrong was saying he would hold such meetings WITHOUT condition. Iran is not going to back down on their nuclear ambition simply because obama is cute and is able to turn a phrase.

Lisaed, I find it very ironic that some one who backed Bush would say someone is naive.

What conditions would you have?

Iran is not going to back down on their nuclear ambition simply because obama is cute and is able to turn a phrase.

Nice irrelevant strawman yet again. Tough negotatition and diplomacy might help us acheieve a better outcome - nope there are no guarantees in life.

Playing the tough guy and refusing to talk to Iranis popular for cosmetic domestic politics but hasnt exactly worked in getting Iran to back down and it is certainly naive to believe that more of the same is going to help.

Amen.

I think that Obama's idea of meeting, without preconditions, with leaders like Ahmadinejad, can have a net positive effect on politically conflicted nations like Iran. Iran had been a fairly progressive nation before the characterization of being a member of the axis of evil; Ahmadinejad's election was a reaction to America's perplexing denouncement of them and the threats of invading the region.

If an American President makes a friendly gesture (such as "talking"), it would likely be enough to push the Iranians in the other direction, and replacing Ahmadinejad with someone more reasonable and sensible to deal with.

If an American President makes a friendly gesture (such as "talking"), it would likely be enough to push the Iranians in the other direction, and replacing Ahmadinejad with someone more reasonable and sensible to deal with.

Exactly. Despite John's analysis, a meeting with the U.S. President could be an impetus and encouragement for those that disagree with Ahmedinejad.

While necessarilily speculative to some degree, the evidence supports the conclusion that Bush's approach to Iran helped get Ahmedinejad elected in the first place.

Before he was elected the hardliner candidate was expected to lose to an opponent who was more of a reformer. While its hardly the only explanation, Bush's anti-iranian rhetoric was viewes as helping get him elected in the first place.

The Iranian President has relatively little power to begin with, but much as Bush uses Almedinejad beligerancy as a foil to try to build his own support, Amedinejad uses Bush's beligerant statements to build support in Iran.

This whole equating willingness to talk with appeasement is utter nonsense.

It is not a stretch to suggest that if the President of the United States had a face to face direct meeting with Ahmadinejad, he would be 'giving' him something he badly wants

It is a huge stretch. Lets assume he wants "it" for the sake of argument, that alone doesnt make it appeasement, his subjective desire doesnt define our foreign policy. Its childish and foolish to withould something potentially mututallly beneficial that doesnt cost you anything on the grounds that you suspect the the other guy may want it.

Setting asside semantic games, equating willingness to talk with "appeasement" is irrational. The word appeasement has come to mean substantive conscessions to buy peace, this partisan attempt to apply it to the mere willingness to talk is truly a political and ideological game.

Lets talk about it rationally. Is it such a horrible idea to talk to the President of Iran. Has Bush's approach helped the nation? The evidence says no to both whether or not the President of Iran might want it. He also wants Bush to call him bad names and attack him. I'd say the later has been a lot more benfit to him than talking to the guy.

Iran and Ahmadinejad might not be one of those times.

It might be. Of course it might not. Even if its arguable its not, in any case talking to him is NOT appeasement by any reasonable application of the word given its known historical usaage.

John----in my estimation---chris matthews was just a big a jerk if not bigger than Kevin James. The year was 1938. Obama wants to talk and GWB is right....good luck with that, obama.

Lisaed----

in my estimation-

Well in your opinion Bush is probably doing a good job too.
All this shows is you are clueless

Obama wants to talk and GWB is right....good luck with that, obama.

If you believe that wanting to talk means appeasement, you really truly need to study the english language and history. Is that the neo-con Imperialist definition of appeasement.

The year was 1938

You seem to think that the number of the date is somehow more important than the actual substance. Is that true? Why do you bring up the year again and again and again?

Lets assume, in the course of talking he was off by a year? Could you explain in detail why that changes the substance of what appeasement really is?

Do you really believe that willingness to negotiate is appeasement? Its not a choice between obstinant beligerance and appeasement.

You seem to think that the number of the date is somehow more important than the actual substance. Is that true? Why do you bring up the year again and again and again?

Because it's all she could find wrong with anything Chris said in that "debate". She can't comprehend anything else he said, because he was not following the GOP talking points.

Keep in mind though, Lisa also claims to "talk to horses" because she's been around a few, so anything she says is chalked up to delusion and childhood fantasies.

wheel--please--chris was yelling louder....and was in no way more impressive to me than kevin james---granted not saying much there.

was in no way more impressive to me

Thats nice. The comment wasnt about what was and is not impressive to you, but to most everyone else. Why exactly do you believe everyone cares what you find impressive? Now if you provided a rationale that may or may not be convincing.

From your comments it at least appears that what you find impressive or not is entirely dependent your perception of the politics and not the substance. No one can make you change your opinion.

No one can make you change your opinion.

Catch--11.2--and that would be (GASP!) YOUR opinion......where are your rationale, links, supporting evidence etc?

I have provided my rationale quite clearly.

Lets start with the dictionary. Negotiation is not a synonym for appeasement. They are wholy different words. Willingness to talk or engage in diplomacy is Obamas position.

Giving away another soverign nation in hopes of peace? Thats one excellent example of appeasement. Ceeding issues of substantial importance without any clear return thats appeasement.

Willingness to talk with the President of Iran is not appeasement. Its really that simple.

Wow.. nice research. He's much older than I thought, at least in his mid 40's.

Kevin spent more than 3 years as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in LA, and then more than 10 years as a litigator in high profile entertainment matters.

Kevin's legal experience is what initially brought him into the talk radio industry...

It seems Kevin is more interested in self-promotion and money than the law. From prosecution to defense attourney, and again to radio then TV.

A real lawyer would have know all the facts surrounding the arguments they make, as should anyone who goes on Matthews' show. He's done this before and will do it again, Matthews simply revealed the faker.

Patriot,

The really understandable explanation was that he/UK didn't have any right to do that.

Chamberlain was the most vocal proponent of peace in a continent still afflicted by the horrors of WWI. Nobody in Europe wanted another war, Hitler played with that sentiment for all it was worth.

Also, Hitler was a most charming individual in a one on one situation. Chamberlain and other European leaders met with him (as heads of state often do) and he was quite persuasive in his arguments that Germany needed more "breathing room" (Lieberstraum; sp?), always saying, "Only this little bit more and we'll be satisfied."

So, when Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia, despite the pleas of the Czechs, Hitler did his charm offensive (i.e. spoke with Chamberlain et. al.), and Europe sacrificed Czechoslovakia.

I think it is important to define your terms so everyone knows EXACTLY what is being talked about, and no miscommunication occurs. Anything less is opinion, not fact, and totally irrelevent.

Especially these days with the Far-Right's Orwellian redefinitions of words and attempts to rewrite history to obfuscate any facts that contradict their ideological and political views.

And Bush is the one selling America to China to fund his war.

Dan - I think the minute you tell me you can't find 10 things around you (w/o moving) that aren't made in China you can cast that stone.

What a blatantly intentional obfuscatory argument! So not even close to the point. You are saying that Bush Borrowing Billions of Dollars from China to fund a war is on par going to Wal-Mart. WAH HA HA HA. You are one agitprop twisted sister.
I think you should go see if you have Stockholm Syndrome or something.

Mike,

I think that's the exact point Dan was making.

:) No, not at all Dan. All I'm referring to is the fact we're selling ourselves out as a country each time we purchase something from the "WalMart o' the World". I'm not saying Bush is right...in fact far from it. So please refrain from the name calling, I bet it's a bit beneath you comrade.

You're right, making a supercilious comment about me, casting stones, denigrating me and what I said is sooo... polite. And was not at all your intention. I just don't know what got into me? I don't know what name you think I called you....Can you give me a quote?

I don't know what name you think I called you....Can you give me a quote?

Just as an outsider looking in here....

You are one agitprop twisted sister.
I think you should go see if you have Stockholm Syndrome or something.

Fits that category.

agitprop |ˈajitˌpräp|
noun
political (originally communist) propaganda, esp. in art or literature : [as adj. ] agitprop painters.

Twisting the truth.....Sister, was just a play on words.! Neither are names just observations.

Clever. Bull@!$%#.

I must apologize Zoilus. I was led to believe someone with such an cyclopean lexicon would have an epidermis unlike graphene. This isn't the schoolyard, I didn't 'call you out', and you may want to relax (have a pint perhaps) before you go Charles Whitman on me again.

Did you mean "grapheme"?, the smallest meaningful contrastive unit in a system of writing, like iōta? I'm good if you are. Charles Whitman, or Walt •·¿•·. Don't worry, I'm all bark.... :)

Actually no, there is a difference. Graphene is a one atom thick sheet of bonded carbon atoms. The worlds thinnest material. woof woof

I like that word. And yes, there are some things I have a very low tolerance for.

He should have at least looked up what the word means...

Lisaed Prove Obama is an appeaser or just admit youre a liar.

I can't believe I've read through this entire posting and seen the word appeasement defined at least twice, yet Lisa still is either just not getting it or is trying to flamebait someone into a Chris Matthews moment of their own up here.

Poll question: America....who is more like the appeaser Neville Chamberlain?

You are Lisa. If Bush started killing Jews, blacks, and homosexuals, you'd probably still be his good little cheerleader. You are exactly like the "Good Germans".

Poll question: America....who is more like the appeaser Neville Chamberlain? Obama? McCain? you decide....hint: McCain wins this one.

This isnt a poll question. HINT: Neither are Neville Chamberlain, and there are worse things than Neveille Chamberlain.

Other fun "poll" questions?

Poll question: America....who is more like Geroge Bush? Obama? McCain? you decide....hint: McCain.

Poll question: America....who is more like Hitler? Obama? McCain? you decide....hint: Mccain.

Poll question: America....who is more lie Oil indusry appeasers? Obama? McCain? you decide....hint: Mccain.

Poll question: America....who is more like Jospeh McCarthy? Obama? McCain? you decide....hint: Mccain.

Poll question: America....who is more like Nixon? Obama? McCain? you decide....hint: Mccain.

REAL POLL QUESTIONS:

"Next, please tell me if you think the REPUBLICAN Party and McCain or the DEMOCRATIC Party and Obama could do a better job in each of the following areas. Which party could do a better job of [see below]?"

Making wise decisions about foreign policy?

Dealing with immigration

Making wise decisions about what to do in Iraq

Dealing with taxes

Improving morality in this country

Dealing with the economy

Improving the educational system

Reforming the U.S. health care system

Reforming government in Washington

Dealing with the nation's energy problems

Protecting the environment

In real polls Americans chose Democrats over Republicans in all of these areas. We shall see how it lines up in the election since only time will tell how people choose their President.

I can be pretty sure of one thing, Neville Chamberlain isnt running.

I can be pretty sure of one thing, Neville Chamberlain isnt running.

Catch-21.4---and perhaps you need to let Obama know that neither is George W. Bush.

Catch-21.4---and perhaps you need to let Obama know that neither is George W. Bush.

Of course the difference is that what people think about Bush's handling of the Presidency is likely to be relevant to 2008 as is whether they believe that McCain is offering more of the same.

Simon L, If you would have been living in a country under the leadership that we Americans have had for the last 8 years, you'd be screaming also.

"I have never dreamed that all opposition was to cease. The clergy, who have missed their union with the State, the Anglomen, who have missed their union with England (or anyone that puts the interest of Europe above America, Their Country,) and the political adventurers (Corporate Lobbies), who have lost the chance of swindling and plunder in the waste of public money, will never cease to bawl on the breaking up of their sanctuary." --Thomas Jefferson to Gideon Granger, 1801