MSNBC's Matthews: Talk Radio 'Gonna Pay' If Any Anti-Obama Violence

Sorry, poor spelling make me (sic).

Hey KK, it makes me sick too. Be careful pointing out others errors before you take the time to check for your own.


As to the OP, Matthews and his ilk incite their own brand of violence. They stir the pot every chance they get. It seems to me that they would like something to happen so they can be vindicated in their predictions.

How's that for sick?

Originally posted by hangedman13
reply to post by kinda kurious

 

Ahh but we seemed to have forgotten where that song originated from. The rev. Al Sharpton started that little ball rolling. All things in perspective, don't cherry pick

Al Sharpton's voice was impersonated. Who is "cherry-picking?"

It is a parody by Paul Shanklin impersonating Al Sharpton and based on the Peter, Paul, and Mary hit song "Puff, the Magic Dragon

www.alternet.org...

an Al Sharpton-like "singer" called Obama inauthentically black.

townhall.com...

reply to post by soldiermom


That whizzing sound you hear above you is parody flying over your head.

reply to post by kinda kurious


You bet. Nice try.

Just had to add that I was waiting to see what excuse you'd come up with.

[edit on 9/22/2009 by soldiermom]

reply to post by kinda kurious


No, if you recall the good rev. had quite a lot to say about Obama even before the primaries.

www.nypost.com...


It was not always peechy between the two of them. Must have been all the farce's of presidential campaigns Sharpton ran.

Never bother a liberal with facts, It just confuses them.

If anyone would bother to do any basic research they would find out a few things. Among them the only reported violence ( I can recall) was where a "liberal" bit off the finger of someone using their freedom of speech. Known now days as a racist, Nazi, tea baggier or any other insult. 99,9% of these insults come from what is called the main stream media or people like Mathews.

reply to post by Wimbly

You are wrong I despise hate filled rhetoric period...no matter which side it comes from but I am smart enough to understand when it actually is and when it isn't.

BTW I have never listened to air America but I am sure it is mild compared to micheal savage or ann coulter...

also I don't have cable or dish or anything like it so I don't watch any of them...and what I have seen of Matthews I do not like him.


[edit on 23-9-2009 by gallopinghordes]

reply to post by grover

What Matthews is saying is that if and it is a mighty big if someone from the right does shoot the president and it comes out that he took the right wing talk radio blahblahblah seriously and as an inspiration...then those who did the provoking should be held responsible because there is no claiming that they do not know that their rhetoric is inflamatory and all it takes is one loose screw.

Well then Matthews should be held responsible for inciting violence since he is the only one I hear suggesting that it might happen.

He's planting a seed in someone's ear...and it doen't have to be a right-wing loonie, either.

reply to post by jsobecky


I throughly disagree....

Like I said in an earlier post the hard right has spent a lot of time and energy demonizing Obama and really that is all it takes...you don't need to say kill someone...you just have to demonize them...the murder of abortion providers proves that...all it takes is one loose wingnut to take it all too seriously.

Matthews simply said what all of us who are not right wing nut jobs fear.

reply to post by grover

BTW I have never listened to air America but I am sure it is mild compared to mush loosebowels or micheal savage or ann coulter...

I think you should review this section of this thread:

From this moment forward, the following rules apply throughout all of ATS:

(1) Politically inspired name calling of an ideological group is not allowed: examples: "Loonie Libs," "Obamaites," "Repuglicans," etc.

(2) Alterations of a politicians name, or any other high-profile political personality, for disparaging political effect is not allowed, including within member avatars and signatures.

Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

reply to post by grover

BTW I have never listened to air America but I am sure it is mild compared to mush loosebowels or Micheal savage or ann coulter...

Randi Rhodes, Ed Shutltz and Malorey all called for the assassination of Bush. How in the world is that mild? Nobody on the right has called for Obama's assassination or any such ting. Never. So, how in the world could you say, "you're sure its mild"?

The fact is, you don't listen to any of it, yet make these judgments based on what Chris Matthews told you. Thats the problem, because Matthews is making stuff up.

Can you explain what exactly is being said about that equates to dangerous threats against him? Can you tell us who is saying it? So far, I'm blowing everything you guys claim out of the water.

ike I said in an earlier post the hard right has spent a lot of time and energy demonizing Obama and really that is all it takes...you don't need to say kill someone...you just have to demonize them...the murder of abortion providers proves that...all it takes is one loose wingnut to take it all too seriously.

Who and what is "the hard right"? How is their criticism of Obama any different from Hollywood, The MSM , Air America and the NYT attacking Bush and everyone around him for 8 years? What exactly makes Obama critics "wingnuts"?





[edit on 23-9-2009 by Wimbly]

Click here for more information.

reply to post by jsobecky


Oh I know you conservatives simply hate mush loosebowels...but until a moderator tells me to stop I will continue to use it because it expresses more clearly than anything my utter contempt for him.

The day you become a mod then I might pay attention to your dictates.

[edit on 23-9-2009 by grover]

While Benevolent Heretic is right, Matthews did not call those who criticize the President murderous racists, he is participating in the current meme that criticism of the President will lead to violence. The effect of this is three-fold. It seeks to dismiss any criticism without thought, if they are inciting violence then you do not need to give any consideration to the criticism; it seeks to shut-down any criticism of the President, scaring those who criticize him into silence; and if something really does happen they want their political opponents to take the blame.

Sometimes I think people like Matthews and Pelosi want violence so they can shut down debate.

Look folks. Chris Matthews is to the Left what Glenn Beck is to the Right.

On the seesaw of lunacy, they balance each other out.

Exposing the inherent bias of either does not require much intellectual firepower. Instead of a Howitzer, a BB gun will suffice.

What is the point of this thread if not to Politically bait?

(BTW, I never take offense to typos, we all make them. But I must pipe in when I witness the blatant misuse of the English language by a poster claiming to possess intellect on any matter.)

I propose a Glenn Beck vs. Chris Matthews Smackdown. I don't think either could last a full round as I suspect they are both "Minutemen."

Originally posted by grover
Oh I know you conservatives simply hate mush loosebowels...but until a moderator tells me to stop I will continue to use it because it expresses more clearly than anything my utter contempt for him.

As per the T&C...

1g.) Political Baiting: You will not engage in politically-charged rhetoric, politically-inspired name-calling, and related right-versus-left political bickering while posting in any topical forum or discussion thread on AboveTopSecret.com. You will not alter political candidate names or party affiliations in order to insult or deride the opposition.

reply to post by DoomsdayRex


And I do none of those...I simply alter his name to reflect my contempt for him. Of course I could also reflect my contempt by refusing to use capitals for his name too...but I like mush loosebowels.

[edit on 23-9-2009 by grover]

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
While Benevolent Heretic is right, Matthews did not call those who criticize the President murderous racists, he is participating in the current meme that criticism of the President will lead to violence.

This is true. And I have criticized him for it. I am not, in any way, defending Matthews or what he said (Just FYI). My problem with this thread is that the OP makes up a bunch of crap and loses his credibility. If the OP wanted to go after Chris Matthews, then my opinion is that he should do it based on what Matthews actually said and his participation in the movement to associate Obama critics with violence. That would be a great thread! But clearly the OP doesn't care about my opinion, or the facts, which is fine by me. I don't care about the quality of his threads.

Sometimes I think people like Matthews and Pelosi want violence so they can shut down debate.

I don't think they WANT violence, but I do believe that they are trying to deflect any criticism. Problem is, I think there's a grain of truth to what they say and that gives their idea validity. It only takes one whack-o to justify all they've been saying. And they know that. I don't think they want violence, I think they want to prevent it. But if and when it happens, you can be sure they're going to be saying "I told you so".

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

This is true. And I have criticized him for it. I am not, in any way, defending Matthews or what he said (Just FYI). My problem with this thread is that the OP makes up a bunch of crap and loses his credibility. If the OP wanted to go after Chris Matthews, then my opinion is that he should do it based on what Matthews actually said and his participation in the movement to associate Obama critics with violence. That would be a great thread! But clearly the OP doesn't care about my opinion, or the facts, which is fine by me. I don't care about the quality of his threads.

I addressed everything you said, but in typical fashion you're trying to discredit me instead of addressing the topic. Do you know what "implied" means? Do you even comprehend what you read? I think you read a couple words, then posted in rage. Thats why you keep bringing up my credibility, as if thats whats at issue here.

I don't think they WANT violence, but I do believe that they are trying to deflect any criticism. Problem is, I think there's a grain of truth to what they say and that gives their idea validity

No, there isn't. No more so then when Bush was president anyway and we didn't see any of this sort of thing in the media back then.

I don't think they want violence, I think they want to prevent it.

You seem to want to have it both ways. You agree that Matthews is wrong, then go on to proclaim how right he is. Which is it BH?

Matthews and the MSM are trying to do 2 things:

1. Deflect Obama criticism
2. Set up a crack down on freedom of speech if anything does happen

If something did happen it could be anyone who attempted it, but Matthews is setting it up so people assume it was a right wing Beck listener. The problem is Beck or Rush have never said anything about committing violence or anything of the sort. Which is why we're here talking now.

But if and when it happens, you can be sure they're going to be saying "I told you so".

Right...Where was this sentiment under Bush? I don't recall it.


[edit on 23-9-2009 by Wimbly]

Originally posted by Wimbly
Do you know what "implied" means? Do you even comprehend what you read?

You have totally edited your initial post to reflect what you are now saying! Of course I know what implied means. It wasn't in your original post! Do you know what lie means?

Fortunately, I quoted you in my first response to this thread and anyone who wants to can see what you actually said:

Originally posted by Wimbly
Matthews went on a tie raid threatening anyone who dares disagree with Obama and comparing those who do to murderous racists.

Matthews did NO SUCH THING! Changing your post after the fact and then chewing me out for not understanding the new one doesn't do any good for your sinking credibility, which just took another nosedive.

You seem to want to have it both ways. You agree that Matthews is wrong, then go on to proclaim how right he is. Which is it BH?

You twist my words just as incompetently as you do other people's. :shk: Give up while you're behind.