PDA

View Full Version : Chris Matthews arguing with Tea Partier




AmericaFyeah92
02-16-2010, 11:56 PM
Just now. The tea party guy said no one in D.C. believes in the Constitution other than Ron Paul, and Chris pretended to be shocked at such a claim. Secession came up as well, with the activist pointing out that "the States formed the Union, not the other way around."

We too often lump the tea parties into one category (such as Statist impostors), and many people seem to be giving up hope on them prematurely. The neocons obviously haven't hijacked them yet, though.

[MOD:] Edited to add video link:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/vp/35439226#35439226

Endgame
02-17-2010, 12:02 AM
Got a clip?

I'll never forget when some random FSPer who open carried to an Obama town hall owned him.

AmericaFyeah92
02-17-2010, 12:04 AM
Got a clip?

I'll never forget when some random FSPer who open carried to an Obama town hall owned him.

unfortunately i have no idea how to upload TV clips. It was on a few mins ago

Indy Vidual
02-17-2010, 01:26 AM
Some good people are in the Tea Parties, but...
Tea Parties are now part of the "Eye of Newt" Gingrich machine, haven't you heard?

BuddyRey
02-17-2010, 12:02 PM
I would have loved to have seen that. I can't even stand to watch Matthews for more than five minutes, but that would have been worth it.

ctiger2
02-17-2010, 12:48 PM
It was Sheriff Mack he was arguing with. Mack said that everyone in Washington doesn't follow the constitution except Ron Paul.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/vp/35439226#35439226

low preference guy
02-17-2010, 12:58 PM
Great! He said that Glenn Beck owes Medina an apology.

ctiger2
02-17-2010, 01:07 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/...39226#35439226

The Sheriff just kicks ass in this interview. Defends Debra Medina and mentions Ron Paul as the only one who follows the constitution. Chris Matthews just can't grasp what the Tea Party movement is about and what Mack is telling him. Hey Chris, it's about restoring the Constitutional Republic you moron!

eok321
02-17-2010, 01:08 PM
It was Sheriff Mack he was arguing with. Mack said that everyone in Washington doesn't follow the constitution except Ron Paul.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/vp/35439226#35439226

That was good stuff:)

Dojo
02-17-2010, 01:11 PM
That was good stuff:)

LOL..... Matthews trying to nail jello to a wall ........ FAIL

GunnyFreedom
02-17-2010, 01:13 PM
WATCH THIS VIDEO!!!!!!!! I've been saying it for over a year now, the answer is in the State Legislatures. Sheriff Mack laid it out hard-core!

low preference guy
02-17-2010, 01:16 PM
Posted at 9/12 forum, without mention Beck in the title. LOL.

Krugerrand
02-17-2010, 01:20 PM
Wow ... Chris Matthews is hard to watch. I can't believe I made it all the way through that.

American Idol
02-17-2010, 01:21 PM
Mack just PWNED Matthews.

jclay2
02-17-2010, 01:24 PM
I don't know how much I trust sheriff mack. Especially when Chris Matthews asked mack, "when was the last time the united states had elected officials who followed the constitution?" He stated Regan was close. He also stated that McCain was pretty good when he first started and that Washington has had a lot of good people but they have just been there to long. I am not trying to completely defame this guy, it just makes me a little nervous.

ctiger2
02-17-2010, 01:34 PM
I don't know how much I trust sheriff mack. Especially when Chris Matthews asked mack, "when was the last time the united states had elected officials who followed the constitution?" He stated Regan was close. He also stated that McCain was pretty good when he first started and that Washington has had a lot of good people but they have just been there to long. I am not trying to completely defame this guy, it just makes me a little nervous.

Don't worry. The Sheriff is a good guy with his head on straight.

KAYA
02-17-2010, 01:35 PM
Mack nailed it.

eqcitizen
02-17-2010, 01:50 PM
He definitely has the right ideas.

angelatc
02-17-2010, 02:06 PM
When Matthews started coming after Mack, after he said that the 9/11 investigation wasn't done independently, Mack should have played the law enforcement card.

The biggest problem with OSHA is that the constitution doesn't give the Fed the power to do that.

I can't stand that prick.

keh10
02-17-2010, 03:10 PM
Wow ... Chris Matthews is hard to watch. I can't believe I made it all the way through that.

Lol I was thinking the same thing. Chris Mathews is like the democratic counter-part to Bill O'Reilly. Neither one can listen to reason.


Also, is it that hard to grasp the concept that if the states created the federal government, they should have the power to dissolve it?

low preference guy
02-17-2010, 03:13 PM
After watching the interview, I believe that we should draft Sheriff Mack for President as in independent if Ron Paul doesn't win the Republican nomination.

damiengwa
02-17-2010, 04:23 PM
I don't know how much I trust sheriff mack. Especially when Chris Matthews asked mack, "when was the last time the united states had elected officials who followed the constitution?" He stated Regan was close. He also stated that McCain was pretty good when he first started and that Washington has had a lot of good people but they have just been there to long. I am not trying to completely defame this guy, it just makes me a little nervous.

If you don't know Sheriff Mack, you need to wake up to the liberty movement bro. Read his book, "County Sheriff: America's Last Hope."

He's definitely a liberty lover...not a politico.

james1906
02-17-2010, 04:40 PM
I don't know how much I trust sheriff mack. Especially when Chris Matthews asked mack, "when was the last time the united states had elected officials who followed the constitution?" He stated Regan was close. He also stated that McCain was pretty good when he first started and that Washington has had a lot of good people but they have just been there to long. I am not trying to completely defame this guy, it just makes me a little nervous.

It was a good answer. The GOP rank and file loves to hear good things about Reagan and old McCain(as opposed to new McCain who's just old).

TXcarlosTX
02-17-2010, 04:42 PM
Chris gots nothing on Ron Paul. He can usually point out the hyprocrisy of politicians. His face says it all in this recent video. Mack says only Ron Paul is following the constitution. HA




Remember this?
YouTube - Chris Matthews Hardball: Protester William Kostric brings gun to presidential town hall in NH (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XflE0RMiIiA)

John Taylor
02-17-2010, 04:59 PM
Chris gots nothing on Ron Paul. He can usually point out the hyprocrisy of politicians. His face says it all in this recent video. Mack says only Ron Paul is following the constitution. HA




Remember this?
YouTube - Chris Matthews Hardball: Protester William Kostric brings gun to presidential town hall in NH (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XflE0RMiIiA)

Mack is the man.

BuddyRey
02-17-2010, 05:42 PM
Man it's aggravating to watch this. Matthews always frames the debate to revolve around these silly wedge issues (birthers, truthers etc.) while completely avoiding the meat-and-potatoes and matters of substance in what the Tea Partiers are talking about.

Apparition
02-17-2010, 05:43 PM
He loves to yell and interrupt too. =)

rprprs
02-17-2010, 06:31 PM
He loves to yell and interrupt too. =)

And, most annoyingly and disingenuously...put words in others people's mouths.:mad:

Jeros
02-17-2010, 08:56 PM
That was some valuable air time. Never has such radical concepts been expressed as clearly and concisely on Hardball. Mack's insistence on explaining his position is excellent. The cat is not going back in the bag, no matter hard hard they try.

Imperial
02-17-2010, 09:14 PM
Man it's aggravating to watch this. Matthews always frames the debate to revolve around these silly wedge issues (birthers, truthers etc.) while completely avoiding the meat-and-potatoes and matters of substance in what the Tea Partiers are talking about.

reminds me of Glenn Beck sometimes

Nathan Hale
02-17-2010, 09:21 PM
I've met Sheriff Mack, and I'll be the first to say that this was a weak interview. Mack could have deduced how Chris Matthews interviews by watching the show for a week. But instead Mack was totally taken aback by Matthews' approach, and lost on half the questions.

But his biggest sin was his hemming and hawing on the 9/11 shit. It was the same thing that got Medina. JUST SAY NO.

silverhandorder
02-17-2010, 09:35 PM
I've met Sheriff Mack, and I'll be the first to say that this was a weak interview. Mack could have deduced how Chris Matthews interviews by watching the show for a week. But instead Mack was totally taken aback by Matthews' approach, and lost on half the questions.

But his biggest sin was his hemming and hawing on the 9/11 shit. It was the same thing that got Medina. JUST SAY NO.

Okay here I am going to disagree. He outright said no. However he was pushed into further discussion.

Peace&Freedom
02-17-2010, 10:06 PM
Okay here I am going to disagree. He outright said no. However he was pushed into further discussion.

Exactly, the problem is not the answers, but in the set-up attack questions. "When did you stop beating your wife?" "I don't beat my wife." News at 11: "Embattled Mr. X Addresses Wife-Beating Scandal." It wasn't honest questioning in the first place, but a verbal barrage designed to paint someone negatively. The MSM is in uproar that liberty candidates are thriving, especially that they may even have an open mind on 9-11, and are resistant to attempts to be pistol whipped into saying "I Toby" on PC third rails. Despite the zillion attempts of the corporate media to cow 9-11 truth into oblivion, it survives and is growing, and serves to obliterate the left-right paradigm. A primary victory by Medina (in forcing a runoff) will probably bury the myth that the truth position costs votes. So of course Matthews and Becks are blowing a desperate gasket.

jkr
02-18-2010, 06:22 PM
man he is an ASSHOLE!

Lovecraftian4Paul
02-18-2010, 07:07 PM
There is no way to win with these neo-Soviet spinsters. We need to find a way to brutally damage the MSM once and for all.

Legend1104
02-18-2010, 07:20 PM
Chris M. made a mistake at the end. He said, talking about secession, "we settled that in 1861." First off, the war began in 1861. That would mean that the fact that the South left was what settled it. That would mean that he supported it. Unless he is talking about the fact that lincoln went to war in 1861 with the South, but most people say that the end of the war (1865) solved the issue of secession not the beginning. That would just prove that the North thought it was wrong to seceed, not that it was wrong. Anyway, I hate this "might makes right" talk about secession. Everyone says that the fact that the North won proves that secession is wrong. That is like saying that if two kids are arguing over something and one of them beats the other kid up, he is automatically right. At least he did not pull the secession=slavery card this time. As a history teacher, that really makes me made to hear.

Eric21ND
02-18-2010, 07:47 PM
I've met Sheriff Mack, and I'll be the first to say that this was a weak interview. Mack could have deduced how Chris Matthews interviews by watching the show for a week. But instead Mack was totally taken aback by Matthews' approach, and lost on half the questions.

But his biggest sin was his hemming and hawing on the 9/11 shit. It was the same thing that got Medina. JUST SAY NO.
Why is that question stumping so many people at the moment? :confused:

silus
02-18-2010, 08:02 PM
I've met Sheriff Mack, and I'll be the first to say that this was a weak interview. Mack could have deduced how Chris Matthews interviews by watching the show for a week. But instead Mack was totally taken aback by Matthews' approach, and lost on half the questions.

But his biggest sin was his hemming and hawing on the 9/11 shit. It was the same thing that got Medina. JUST SAY NO.
Completely disagree. I thought he did an excellent job, and never appeared weak in his answers.

Secondly, you ignore the fact that maybe he does not want to say no. Maybe he DOES believe the government had something to do with it.

Nathan Hale
02-18-2010, 08:46 PM
Okay here I am going to disagree. He outright said no. However he was pushed into further discussion.

When Matthews asked him whether or not the US had any role in the 9/11 attacks he hemmed and hawed. That's when Matthews said he's answering like a politician.

Nathan Hale
02-18-2010, 08:50 PM
Completely disagree. I thought he did an excellent job, and never appeared weak in his answers.

Well, of course, it's all about perception. But analyzing shit like this is my job. I'm an image consultant. If you picked 30 random people off the street and showed them that interview, I guarantee that a supermajority of them will say that he gave weak answers. Sure, WE appreciate his answers. But my opinion of him is not a personal opinion. I know the guy. He's a great guy. My stated opinion in this thread is based exclusively on how that interview will be received by the average viewer.


Secondly, you ignore the fact that maybe he does not want to say no. Maybe he DOES believe the government had something to do with it.

Then he should be more bold. Assuming he is a truther, the hemming and hawing only shows that he KNOWS being a truther is a bad idea, but he doesn't have the guts to set it aside and bring our movement closer to the mainstream. So you get this politician-y refusal to say no, while at the same time refusing to come out and challenge the feds.

silus
02-18-2010, 09:27 PM
Well, of course, it's all about perception. But analyzing shit like this is my job. I'm an image consultant. If you picked 30 random people off the street and showed them that interview, I guarantee that a supermajority of them will say that he gave weak answers. Sure, WE appreciate his answers. But my opinion of him is not a personal opinion. I know the guy. He's a great guy. My stated opinion in this thread is based exclusively on how that interview will be received by the average viewer.
If you picked 30 people off the street I gurantee you they would not say that.

First off, if you want to say he gave weak answers, i'd like to hear specifics other than his 9/11 response, because you imply he was consistently weak to a host of other questions. Secondly, its clear you have interests that could have been served by this man's response, so I think you should first ask yourself if you are so heavily invested in the 9/11 question that your judgment of the interview as a whole is heavily biased.


And about his questioning of government involvement in 9/11. I'd suspect he is like many Americans and is not really sure of what to think, especially in the public eye where you're almost forced to side with one side or the other. So for someone who is uncertain about this question, how would you expect him to respond?

Nathan Hale
02-18-2010, 10:15 PM
If you picked 30 people off the street I gurantee you they would not say that.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.


First off, if you want to say he gave weak answers, i'd like to hear specifics other than his 9/11 response, because you imply he was consistently weak to a host of other questions.

I don't mean to say that he was weak across the board. He probably answers 70% of the questions well. But in an interview, that's not a good percentage. And interview, especially a known hostile interview such as this one, is a tense situation with a high bar for success.


Secondly, its clear you have interests that could have been served by this man's response, so I think you should first ask yourself if you are so heavily invested in the 9/11 question that your judgment of the interview as a whole is heavily biased.

I am heavily invested. I am invested in this movement succeeding, ASAP. Sure, my opinion is biased, but only biased by my drive for us to succeed in our mission to take back government.


And about his questioning of government involvement in 9/11. I'd suspect he is like many Americans and is not really sure of what to think, especially in the public eye where you're almost forced to side with one side or the other. So for someone who is uncertain about this question, how would you expect him to respond?

There's people with legitimate questions ("hey, can I see those area security cam recordings of the pentagon strike?"), and there's downright lunacy ("George Bush and the Bilderbergers 'did' 9/11 from a black helicopter hovering over Bohemian Grove"). Yeah, most Americans are dissatisfied with the 9/11 Commission Report. Most Americans think the government isn't being totally upfront. Most Americans think that the government failed to act on intelligence. But this is NOT most Americans agreeing that 9/11 was anything other than 19 terrorists flying planes into buildings with a foreign-directed agenda. There is a vast popularity cliff between those two concepts.

Peace&Freedom
02-20-2010, 06:55 PM
If you picked 30 people off the street I gurantee you they would not say that.

First off, if you want to say he gave weak answers, i'd like to hear specifics other than his 9/11 response, because you imply he was consistently weak to a host of other questions. Secondly, its clear you have interests that could have been served by this man's response, so I think you should first ask yourself if you are so heavily invested in the 9/11 question that your judgment of the interview as a whole is heavily biased.

Exactly. The average person certainly does not evidence the kind of belligerent contempt for 9-11 truth at times foisted upon us as 'mainstream' by certain posters here. The vast majority of the public are open minded on the 9-11 controversy, whether of not they currently accept the "19 towelheads & Captain Caveman did it" conspiracy theory of the neo-cons, or the inside job alternative. They would likely accept the latter pending the results of a real investigation, or even right now, if the evidence supporting a false flag were fairly presented to them by the media.

Nathan Hale
02-20-2010, 07:42 PM
Exactly. The average person certainly does not evidence the kind of belligerent contempt for 9-11 truth at times foisted upon us as 'mainstream' by certain posters here.

When the average person (per polling) voices a concern about 9/11, it's not grounded in a concern that perhaps the US government had something to do with it. The concerns about 9/11 that show up as "pro-truther" include people who consider the 9/11 commission report inconclusive (and thus require a new investigation) and the people who consider the US government negligent (and thus require a new investigation), etc.


The vast majority of the public are open minded on the 9-11 controversy, whether of not they currently accept the "19 towelheads & Captain Caveman did it" conspiracy theory of the neo-cons, or the inside job alternative.

This question of whether or not Bin Laden and 19 cronies "did it" is not the central question among those dissatisfied with the status of the 9/11 investigation.


They would likely accept the latter pending the results of a real investigation, or even right now, if the evidence supporting a false flag were fairly presented to them by the media.

Most of the 9/11 truther stuff is disproven by independent research. Here's a web site started by former truthers who found that every time they drilled down, what seemed like a logical chain of conspiracy devolved into gibberish:

http://www.911myths.com/

Lord Xar
02-20-2010, 09:10 PM
Most of the 9/11 truther stuff is disproven by independent research. Here's a web site started by former truthers who found that every time they drilled down, what seemed like a logical chain of conspiracy devolved into gibberish:

http://www.911myths.com/

"IF" most of the 9/11 truther stuff has been disproven, then there would be no more than a pocket full of truthers.

That site, which has a private registration (curious why it would). But here are some rebuttals to that site:

http://911physics.atspace.com/Pages/Debunking911Myths.htm

http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=890.0

And what you will find also, are "legitimate" sites referencing 911myths as a "fact" site or some valid resource for debunking "curiousities".

Peace&Freedom
02-20-2010, 10:05 PM
Most of the 9/11 truther stuff is disproven by independent research. Here's a web site started by former truthers who found that every time they drilled down, what seemed like a logical chain of conspiracy devolved into gibberish:

http://www.911myths.com/

Wow, this is the same sorry url Hale offered as proof of "independent research" a year and a half ago when I called him on it, to establish the legitimacy of HIS sources (which is why I don't bother debating him). It's basically a one man site (by Mike Williams, a known neocon shill), repeat, A ONE MAN SITE, that Hale is passing off as definitive and unbiased. Meanwhile, there are over 1,000 engineers and architects who have signed on to AE911truth's.org's petition for a new investigation, most of whom have come along SINCE 18 months ago. I much prefer another one man site by Morganti, who rebuts the strawman and loaded arguments spun on the 911myths site (url below). For those who would rather make up their own minds, I've also posted links to videos of two representative debates on 9-11, which in my opinion show in real time how badly 'debunkers' perform versus truthers.

Chris Morganti's site:
http://911PHYSICS.CO.NR
- Debunking 911Myths.com

Roberts - Gage Debate on Building 7 on Hardfire (2nd part under related videos):
http://tinyurl.com/hardfire-wtc7

Bermas - Meigs (Popular Mechanics) Debate on Democracy Now (other parts under related videos):
http://tinyurl.com/bermas-meigs

Nathan Hale
02-21-2010, 07:54 PM
The reason I reference 9/11 Myths is because they source all of their claims. And if I'm not mistaken, P&F, our last exchange ended with the ball in your court.

And Xar, if the 9/11 truth stuff wasnt some niche conspiracy theory, why hasn't it caught on? If the empirical evidence is there, traction will follow. The only thing I've heard to explain this lack of traction is that the system is keeping it down. Convenient.

Lord Xar
02-21-2010, 08:09 PM
And Xar, if the 9/11 truth stuff wasnt some niche conspiracy theory, why hasn't it caught on? If the empirical evidence is there, traction will follow. The only thing I've heard to explain this lack of traction is that the system is keeping it down. Convenient.

Well, the "system" keeping it down is the easiest to understand and yes, convenient. We see media manipulation constantly and many of us, first hand, when we harkon back to when Ron Paul ran as president. We saw it with Glen Beck vs. Medina and Ron's latest CPAC win - how fox downgraded it. These all would pale in consideration from awakening the public perception of government tampering by special interests. Just think about it. Not one, in my recollection, major media outlook featured any true indepth coverage on 9/11 inconsistencies etc.. Think about how fast anyone who brings this up is labeled all sorts of things by msm ?

Personally, I think many members of congress etc.. feel that there was a coverup, feel that something weird went down, but not one will openly say so - why? You saw what happened to Medina and she just insinuated there are some unanswered questions etc.. but that has been going on for years now.. since then - ANY dissention, you are a kook, truther, pyscho, anarchists, hate america, broke from reality person... in other words, you are dangerous.

I am not a truther, but I think most everyday laypersons saw what happened as "suspicious". Something just doesn't seem plausible.

Who is leading that charge to stifle ANY dissent? I have some ideas, do you?

Nathan Hale
02-22-2010, 01:23 PM
Xar -

First, I disagree that Ron Paul got shafted by the media during his presidential run. Considering his position in the field he got tons of coverage. But that's a debate that's as old as these boards, so I'd rather not get into it. I think the MSM is not a singular entity with a singular agenda, but rather an avenue that we can exploit in our quest to take power in this country.

If anything, what hurt Medina, and in my opinion Mack, was their dancing around the issues. While Beck and her disagree on the issue, I think she would have done much better if she just picked an answer and stood behind it. In my opinion it's calamitous to make 9/11 "truth" part of the campaign platform, but I'd rather she chose that and openly stand behind it than dance around the issue.