Michele Bachmann interview

[mUUser]

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.

Wierd. If I didn't know better, I'd think the gang at MSNBC isn't purposely trying to submarine their network. That "interview" was completely out of left field and without any context -- supported by the yardful of giggling school girls in the background. That was simply a bizarre follow up to a 2 year old interview.

[SoonerCoug]

Listen to this lady, people. She is a complete lunatic, and the only specific thing she can mention as far as budget cuts is Obama's trip to India, which she alleges costs 200 million dollars a day, and that's a confirmed lie.

Then she goes around making statements like this: "I think all we should do is issue subpoenas and have one hearing after another. And expose all the nonsense that has gone on."

[YOUTUBE]cfN2uzghXTo[/YOUTUBE]

The fundamental problem with the government's budget is that baby boomers are retiring, and so this huge segment of our society is transitioning from a contributory role to a role where they are drawing resources. If they want to cut social security and medicare, then they should just say it. The other major problem is that we spend way too much on defense, but no republican would ever admit that (other than one of the Pauls).

[Uncle Ted]

We don't need subpoenas. Obama promised us open and transparent government so we can just hop over to the gov website and... WTF?!?

[il Padrino Ute]

We don't need subpoenas. Obama promised us open and transparent government so we can just hop over to the gov website and... WTF?!?

[RobinFinderson]

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.

Matthews is stupid. Olberman is a boar. O'Donnell is smart but dull. Maddow is a genuine wit with encyclopedic memory for facts and figures, and the most likely of the four to expose a person's genuine ignorance. She trades too much in partisan tabloid BS, which is her own brand of fluff for filling her show on a slow news day, but her fluff tends to be more interesting than the fluff of the others.

[byu71]

Fox tilts right, no doubt. MSNBC has gone over the cliff to the left.

Watching the election coverage of the two, any person with an objective bone in their body wouldn't even compare the two. A better comparison would be CNN vs Fox, with the edge going to CNN as the one being most objective in their coverage.

Matthews a long time ago was fairly decent as libs go. He now is into asking gotcha questions and getting a thrill running down his leg if he traps the other person. Bachman is an easy trap. The fact he also comes off looking like a jackass speaks volumes as to the level he has now fallen too.

[Moliere]

The fundamental problem with the government's budget is that baby boomers are retiring, and so this huge segment of our society is transitioning from a contributory role to a role where they are drawing resources. If they want to cut social security and medicare, then they should just say it. The other major problem is that we spend way too much on defense, but no republican would ever admit that (other than one of the Pauls).

The politician that proposes budget cuts to Medicare or Social Security is a dead politician. Retirees on both programs are going to make up something like 30% of the population in the next 20 years. That's a huge voting base that will turn on anyone that proposes cuts to their benefits, which benefit programs they paid into their entire lives with the promise those benefits would be there when they retire.

[Uncle Ted]

The politician that proposes budget cuts to Medicare or Social Security is a dead politician. Retirees on both programs are going to make up something like 30% of the population in the next 20 years. That's a huge voting base that will turn on anyone that proposes cuts to their benefits, which benefit programs they paid into their entire lives with the promise those benefits would be there when they retire.

About the only politician that has the balls to talk about cuts to medicare and social security is Ron Paul but no one listens to him.

[Sleeping in EQ]

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.

You must be "butta," woot, because you are on a roll.

[mUUser]

About the only politician that has the balls to talk about cuts to medicare and social security is Ron Paul but no one listens to him.

The more I learn about this guy, the more I like him. I'm not completely onboard, but generally speaking, I like what he's selling.