is Chris Matthews a left wing version of Billo?

[Drago-Kazov]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILCKWPSbUsY

I can just picture him in 1984 yelling there are 2 lights!!!!!!!!!

I think his book Life as Campaing pretty much exposes him as scumbag. Seriously is there anyone on the left with a large audience as demagogic and intelectually unsophisticated as him?

 

[Squiggy]

Come to TNZ. Let us eat you.

 

[Drago-Kazov]

You wanna defend Chris Mathews? Seriously? I would never say f you in the midle of a political conversation so there is no point to go there. Eat me with your arguments here if you can.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Chris Matthews is just as much of a blowhard as O'Reilly, but has the advantage of being at least moderately in touch with reality.

 

[sidious618]

O'Reilly's racism takes him to a worse level than Matthews. Matthews is just a run of the mill blowhard.

 

[Misfit Toy]

O'Reilly's racism takes him to a worse level than Matthews. Matthews is just a run of the mill blowhard.

Agreed.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILCKWPSbUsY

I can just picture him in 1984 yelling there are 2 lights!!!!!!!!!

I think his book Life as Campaing pretty much exposes him as scumbag. Seriously is there anyone on the left with a large audience as demagogic and intelectually unsophisticated as him?

If the majority of your posts and threads can be easily distilled down to the level of Frankenstein or Hulk quotes without losing much of the context, you're doing it wrong. "Rarrr, Chris Matthews BAD!!! Politicians are prostitutes, SMASH!!! Puny Obama make too much war!!!"

Instead of going for the extremely intellectually sophisticated revelation that Chris Matthews is a blowhard pundit (scandalous!), why not discuss the more important issue raised in the video? Namely: Are you wasting your vote by giving it to a third party candidate who realistically has no chance of winning and can only serve as a spoiler against a candidate who shares less of your views but can actually have a shot at winning the election, especially in an important election where you're strongly opposed to the policies or history of that candidate's opponent? Is it better to take a pragmatic or idealistic approach to voting? Does choosing the "lesser of two evils" to borrow a generally highly exaggerated and overused phrase doom third party candidates to irrelevancy and prevent them from having a realistic chance at competing, or should a third party candidate who was truly up to par with the Democratic and Republican candidates be able to gain notoriety and compete on a national level despite the longer odds against them (like say Ross Perot, sort of)? Obviously, as a supporter of Gary Johnson's candidacy, your position on those things would be obvious, but the point is to get other people talking about it too.

Any of that could have challenged Matthew's viewpoint and provided an interesting discussion, but instead you decided to take the laziest and most obvious approach possible, giving us nothing of substance to discuss and bringing nothing new to the table. You say you're above the level of debate in TNZ because you'd never say "FU" in the middle of a political discussion, but your criticism of Matthews ("scumbag") doesn't exactly raise the bar there, even though you were talking about not insulting other posters rather than insulting pundits. It would be nice to get some political discussion that rises above the level of someone who skimmed a libertarian pamphlet in eighth grade and thinks "all politicians are prostitutes" or "all politicians are evil" is a useful or profound argument.

 

[Lindley]

The only way a 3rd party candidate would have a shot if is the primary system were abolished and the Big Two parties were allowed/required to field multiple candidates each in a single contest.

 

[RJDiogenes]

^^ Actually, I disagree. The Big Two would never field multiple candidates-- that would dilute their own base. The best, and probably only, way to give a chance to 3rd-party or Independent candidates is to eliminate the Electoral College and allow ranking of candidates by preference. Which has been discussed pretty recently here in another thread.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Oh, and Chris Matthews is an unwatchable moron.

 

[Drago-Kazov]

Pumpkin posted:

why not discuss the more important issue raised in the video? Namely: Are you wasting your vote by giving it to a third party candidate who realistically has no chance of winning

I think tne electoral college thread sort of covers that if it wants too.

ny of that could have challenged Matthew's viewpoint and provided an interesting discussion, but instead you decided to take the laziest and most obvious approach possible, giving us nothing of substance to discuss and bringing nothing new to the table.

When somebody does/says something really stupidit can become a topic on its own.

. It would be nice to get some political discussion that rises above the level of someone who skimmed a libertarian pamphlet in eighth grade and thinks "all politicians are prostitutes" or "all politicians are evil" is a useful or profound argument.

I assumed that way before i ever heard of liertarianism. Of course there are a couple of exceptions but they are really rare.

You say you're above the level of debate in TNZ because you'd never say "FU" in the middle of a political discussion, but your criticism of Matthews ("scumbag") doesn't exactly raise the bar there, even though you were talking about not insulting other posters rather than insulting pundits.

i have no problem insulting pundits/ politicians but saying FU to the guy i am talking too is something i would never do. i don't behave different on the net then i would IRL.

 

[Davros]

Pumpkin posted:

You say you're above the level of debate in TNZ because you'd never say "FU" in the middle of a political discussion, but your criticism of Matthews ("scumbag") doesn't exactly raise the bar there, even though you were talking about not insulting other posters rather than insulting pundits.

i have no problem insulting pundits/ politicians but saying FU to the guy i am talking too is something i would never do. i don't behave different on the net then i would IRL.

Nobody in TNZ is required to tell other posters to FU. We just put up with it when others tell it to us. Just like IRL.

 

[Drago-Kazov]

Nobody i everd discussed politics with did that to me, nor did i do it to anyone else.

 

[General_Phoenix]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILCKWPSbUsY

I can just picture him in 1984 yelling there are 2 lights!!!!!!!!!

I think his book Life as Campaing pretty much exposes him as scumbag. Seriously is there anyone on the left with a large audience as demagogic and intelectually unsophisticated as him?

It's just not Chris Matthews, all of those MSNBC people are hard to watch, Rachel Maddow, Al Sharpton, the Ed Show etc. I haven't watched MSNBC in a long time, but my girlfriend watches it since she's a staunch liberal. Just like Fox News, MSNBC is good for comedic value, since I don't put a whole lot of stock in either parties. All I want is fair and impartial reporting, but that's something that is incredibly rare. I will say that Chris Matthews having a fit after the first presidential debate was some funny stuff to watch.

 

[Drago-Kazov]

Is Chris Hayes still on? I really liked him on Bloggingheads.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILCKWPSbUsY

I can just picture him in 1984 yelling there are 2 lights!!!!!!!!!

I think his book Life as Campaing pretty much exposes him as scumbag. Seriously is there anyone on the left with a large audience as demagogic and intelectually unsophisticated as him?

It's just not Chris Matthews, all of those MSNBC people are hard to watch, Rachel Maddow, Al Sharpton, the Ed Show etc. I haven't watched MSNBC in a long time, but my girlfriend watches it since she's a staunch liberal. Just like Fox News, MSNBC is good for comedic value, since I don't put a whole lot of stock in either parties. All I want is fair and impartial reporting, but that's something that is incredibly rare. I will say that Chris Matthews having a fit after the first presidential debate was some funny stuff to watch.

Well, they're not there for impartial reporting. They're there to advance liberal or conservative ideology though editorializing. I don't think it's the idea of there being a conservative or liberal leaning network that most people necessarily have a problem with, it's that Fox seems to have a serious case of denial about their nature with the whole "fair and balanced" slogan and the claims that they're not coordinating with the RNC on their message much of or most of the time, or that they so often just make shit up or grossly exaggerate. MSNBC is at least quite open about where they stand and for the most part tries to remain factual even while advancing a liberal agenda. They also lack the direct ties with the DNC that Fox has with the RNC in terms of messaging. Their pundits can also be blowhards and annoying just like Fox's can --though of those listed above, I would not lump Rachel Maddow into the same list as the others. She doesn't rely on screaming over people or excessive hyperbole (usually) to get her point across.

 

[Drago-Kazov]

I agree about Maddow. Also Cenk was pretty good but management wanted to put him in the backseat and probably get rid of him after a while. Dylan Ratigan was on MSNBC too right?