Michele Bachmann interview

[il Padrino Ute]

To be fair...what conservative would want to sit in a studio all night with Matthews, O'Donnell, Maddow, and Olberman.

My assessment is that Matthews is the least bad of the bunch. Though he may be the dumbest.

That's a good point about a conservative wanting to sit in the studio with that group, but think of the fun that could have been had mocking them all night. That alone would be worth it.

I agree that Matthews is the least bad of the group, but I think Olbermann is the dumbest. No reason for thinking it; just a gut feeling.

[SoonerCoug]

Is that her only agenda?

No, it's not, but it was what Matthews wanted to talk about, as he and the other idiots at MSNBC couldn't stomach the fact that their people lost control of the House.

Could she have answered his direct questions? Sure, but why? They would never accept her answers, so why even play their little game?

She could have said that she is opposed to any McCarthyistic investigation of anti-Americanism. Is that such a bad thing to say? Does that really constitute playing their game--to make such a bold statement that she is opposed to a new McCarthyism?

[mUUser]

What's so hard about answering a simple question? He asked her if she still wants to investigate people for anti-Americanism. Listen to the questions and her answers. If she has an IQ above 80, she ought to be able to answer these questions.

This is some seriously scary shit. She's a total imbecile. That you'd defend total imbecile who wants a new McCarthyism is more than puzzling to me.

[YOUTUBE]DNZEcdXHvsU[/YOUTUBE]

If you want to go down this road, could you please post the interview in its entirety so we can get an idea of what happened here? Context, complete answers etc...

[Jacob]

She didn't respond because she really does want to investigate people for anti-Americanism. I think that's the most reasonable interpretation based on what she didn't say. Either that or she didn't have the courage to say that she doesn't want a new McCarthyism.

We disagree. That's not close to the most reasonable interpretation. But it may be the most likely interpretation for someone who can only approach the question with disdain for the woman and no ability to overcome their built-in bias. No reasonable person would have tried to pin her down on such an inanity in the first place.

[SoonerCoug]

The full interview is much worse. Wow. She is nuts.

[YOUTUBE]MGRKrUHR0OY[/YOUTUBE]

[Coach McGuirk]

I stopped watching MSNBC when Pat Caddell left. Dude is a bit crazy but I like him.

[Jacob]

She could have said that she is opposed to any McCarthyistic investigation of anti-Americanism. Is that such a bad thing to say? Does that really constitute playing their game--to make such a bold statement that she is opposed to a new McCarthyism?

Sooner, isn't it true that you sodomized a parrot and that you will continue sodomizing parrots now that the democrats have lost control of the house?

Its a simple question.

[il Padrino Ute]

She could have said that she is opposed to any McCarthyistic investigation of anti-Americanism. Is that such a bad thing to say? Does that really constitute playing their game--to make such a bold statement that she is opposed to a new McCarthyism?

As I said, Matthews and the others wouldn't have accepted any answer she could give except to confirm that she wants McCarthyism. So, why play their game?

It would be like Obama appearing on a Hannity show and admitting that Obamacare is a complete clusterfuck.

[woot]

I always love these "Your preferred dispensary of propaganda is more effective than mine!" arguments. Some commentators on these networks have shown the ability to think outside their agendas and have demonstrated some degree of intelligence, but most haven't. Does it matter whether any given pundit has done so, knowing that best case scenario 90% of what they say is agitprop? Both networks are worthless and I can't imagine why anyone would ever watch them other than schadenfreude.

[il Padrino Ute]

I always love these "Your preferred dispensary of propaganda is more effective than mine!" arguments. Some commentators on these networks have shown the ability to think outside their agendas and have demonstrated some degree of intelligence, but most haven't. Does it matter whether any given pundit has done so, knowing that best case scenario 90% of what they say is agitprop? Both networks are worthless and I can't imagine why anyone would ever watch them other than schadenfreude.

[Jacob]

Both networks are worthless and I can't imagine why anyone would ever watch them other than schadenfreude.

That's the only reason I watched last night. I avoid the news networks almost entirely.

[SoonerCoug]

Sooner, isn't it true that you sodomized a parrot and that you will continue sodomizing parrots now that the democrats have lost control of the house?

Its a simple question.

If you asked me that question on national TV, I'd call you an idiot for not being able to see the difference between that question and the question he asked her.

She evades the questions because she really does believe that liberals are anti-American. Look at the full interview she gave to Chris previously.

[Jacob]

If you asked me that question on national TV, I'd call you an idiot for not being able to see the difference between that question and the question he asked her.

She evades the questions because she really does believe that liberals are anti-American. Look at the full interview she gave to Chris previously.

<following interview, Jacob says to his co-hosts> You see, he sodomizes parrots. He's always talking about sodomy. Its his main philosophy. I gave him the chance to deny it and he didn't. To be fair...I think he was hypnotized. Maybe he's just a moron. Why does he constantly evade the question?

[Uncle Ted]

A much better Chris Matthews interview...

[YOUTUBE]HpchEdtS0e4[/YOUTUBE]

BTW, why does Chris Matthews always try to bring up what some tea party'ers have written on their signs? He needs to venture out a bit...

http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/

[woot]

While I'm on the subject though, I might as well point out that since MSNBC and Fox News are both just trying to get paid, that it isn't up for debate which is the more effective propaganda machine. I think it hurts MSNBC gravely that they occasionally try to seem unbiased. For instance, I think one reason why Olbermann loses to his Fox cohort is stuff like his recent denouncing of his "worst person in the world" bit in response to the Stewart/Colbert rally. The folks on Fox News would have just called them communists and proceeded with the agitprop, and they get better ratings because of it.

The networks reflect the parties they represent. In the battle yesterday between the party of unwaveringly aggressive retardation and the party of spineless who knows what, the former beat the latter. Say what you want about the troglodytes, but at least it's an ethos.