PDA

View Full Version : Settled Science



llotter
06-25-2011, 11:50 AM
Yes, the scientists now agree that liberals are the dumbest creatures on the planet. One of them said that a lobotomized amoeba would look smart among a group of liberals.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/06/dumbest_creatures_on_the_planet.html

Soflasnapper
06-25-2011, 12:56 PM
This is partially true (!), because of the examplar they took.

However, this characterization:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> It features Chris Matthews, one of America’s most popular liberal talk show hosts</div></div>

is quite untrue.

Matthews is routinely derided across the liberal blogs as 'The Screamer,' and 'Tweetie,' not meant as affectionate terms. He routinely comes in at the low end of ratings, even on MSNBC. He keeps his job DESPITE dismal ratings even compared to most others on MSNBC because he's a reliable shill for whatever Jack Welch and Co. tell him to believe, and during the Clinton/Gore presidency, he was stridently against both of them (and not from their left). He mocked them viciously, and over years.

Not among the most popular, not even popular at all, and not a liberal (he's been playing one now for a little while, out of the new MSNBC branding strategy, I presume).

However, it's quite true that he is a stupid man, full of cant and propaganda claims that usually don't add up or make sense. Recently, he shockingly tried to put some blame for Weiner's behavior on his wife Huma. Usually, the careerist liberals who DO make it to his show simply fawn over him, and agree (Joan Walsh, for one), out of wanting to come back and possibly hit the big time if they can get their own show. His slander of Huma got some unusual pushback, but normally whatever idiotic thing he comes up with, the careerists just sagely nod in agreement.

Sev
06-25-2011, 02:29 PM
Funny stuff.

LWW
06-25-2011, 02:32 PM
This nails some of our members:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">They think the main reasons for the public's growing skepticism on Climate Change are: 1. The media has too balanced on the subject and is not pushing hard the eco-message hard enough. 2. Big Business is funding Climate Denialism. 3. Evil Conservatives--led by Evil Talk Show Hosts Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck-are deliberately telling lies about Climate Change. 4. The Republican Party is "anti-science". </div></div>

LWW
06-25-2011, 02:33 PM
Can you cite for us some examples of what he said when he opposed Clinton/Gore?

Before FOX came along I watched more PMSNBC ... and I don't recall any such instances?

Soflasnapper
06-25-2011, 06:00 PM
I have the disadvantage of having watched a lot of Matthews over many, many years, back when he was a younger whippersnapper guested by the McLaughlin Report.

He joined in the Greek chorus of media denouncing Clinton after the Lewinsky story broke, had Gennifer Flowers on to say she feared the Clintons would kill her, and talking about the Clinton death list. All the media types were excitedly rubbing their hands and thighs over the historical potential of another impeachment taking place. They moaned and bewailed the public refusing to agree, always confidently saying that when they REALLY hear all the dirt, there will be a breaking point.

When this never happened, it was almost as if the media then took out their frustrations on Gore, to get him as they couldn't get Clinton. Gore was savaged, and Matthews was leading the lynch mob.

Probably the best single source for media behavior at the time is Bob Somerby's website, dailyhowler.com. There is a search machine available there, and with the slightest search you can discover what Matthews in particular was up to.

Just tried to search on 'Chris Matthews' and later 'hardball,' but the search function thinks I'm sending some kind of automated search and won't let it go through. YMMV.

Soflasnapper
06-25-2011, 06:03 PM
Here's an excerpt from a very long chapter five of an upcoming book from Somerby.

Entire chapter linked here. (http://howhegotthere.blogspot.com/2009/12/chapter-5.html)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Excerpt from Chapter 5:
A campaign about clothing/a virtual wilding: The press corps’ month of Wolf

FOR A SENSE OF THE TRASHING EXTENDED TO GORE, LET’S RETURN to Hardball, the Washington-based cable show which was influential within the DC press elite. In chapter 4, we watched as Chris Matthews and pundit guests puffed the virtues of Candidate Bradley. How did Matthews and his guests react to the news about Wolf?

In truth, they reacted quite poorly. As the month of Wolf unfolded, Candidate Gore would be widely assailed. But no one did it more harshly than Hardball—and no one else started so fast.

The onslaught began on Monday evening, November 1. As he started his discussion, Matthews compared Wolf to Nancy Reagan’s astrologer, although he did offer one mocking distinction. “At least [the astrologer] was providing actual information, astrological charts,” he said. “What exactly is this woman doing for Al except sort of building up his beefiness, or whatever—his masculinity?”

According to Matthews, Wolf had been assigned the task of building up Gore’s masculinity. Conservative writer Christina Hoff Sommers quickly seconded this notion. “Well, apparently Naomi Wolf has been hired by the campaign, by Al Gore, to help him assert his masculinity,” she said. “And this is pathetic. It's really sad that he has to operate at that level.”

A virtual wilding had begun. On this first evening of the onslaught, Matthews was helped by two conservative women—Sommers and Susan Molinari, the former Republican congresswoman. With their eager participation, the pounding of Wolf began at a very high level of insult. The basic claims were assumed to be true: Naomi Wolf had told Gore to wear earth tones, and to behave like an alpha male. On this basis, standard insults were fashioned: Al Gore doesn’t know who he is! And, of course, Al Gore hired a woman to teach him to be a man!

Al Gore hired a woman to teach him how to be a man! In effect, Sommers and Matthews joined forces this night to craft that standard insult. “You can imagine the serious people on this campaign must be mortified that he's listening to this young woman,” Sommers said. “And one thing,” Matthews quickly replied. “Bill Clinton may have had a lot of problems…But he didn't need anybody to teach him how to be a guy.”

A standard insult was struggling to be born. Moments later, Matthews and his conservative guest went where rubber meets road.

“Let's get to the issue that is really at the tip of our tongues,” Matthews said to Sommers. He warned his pundit guests that the issue in question was “very tricky to talk about, even an adult show like this one.” But finally, he popped the question: “Christina, what are some of the more outlandish proposals this woman has made about the upbringing of women in the sexual department?”

Sommers took over from there. “Well, now that you’ve asked,” she coyly inquired, “is this a family show?” Urged to speak freely, she lowered the boom. “Let's just say she celebrates female sexual ecstasy,” Sommers said. “And she has very detailed programs on how a woman can get in touch with her inner slut.”

Wolf had “very detailed programs on how a woman can get in touch with her inner slut?” This notion came from the mind of Sommers; none of the language, and none of the tone, was drawn from Wolf’s actual work. But Matthews quickly affirmed this claim and Sommers was soon advancing another: “I mean, her views are very, very eccentric. Even among feminists, she's eccentric, unusual—a little bit outrageous.”

Naomi Wolf had always been a respected figure within the mainstream press. But now, she was advising Gore—and a wilding had begun. “It's like Hillary changes her hair every two hours,” Matthews soon said, adding another colorful insult. “This guy changes his face every two hours.”

Other insults were offered this night, along with a bit of feigned confusion concerning the “alpha male” concept. But this first discussion of Wolf and Gore showed where Hardball was headed. By Tuesday evening, November 2, Matthews had his new insults down cold. “Hiring a woman to teach him how to be more like a man,” he sputtered. “This is like political Viagra!” Again, a few moments later: “Hiring this woman to teach him how to be a man, this alpha male thing, I never heard of before.” Later, he recited his script a third time: “I call it his political Viagra. Now he's got a woman telling him how to be a man!” For the next few weeks, Matthews would rely on these standard denigrations as he fashioned other insults which were uniquely his own.

The denigration was constant. Gore was mocked as “Bionic Al” and as the Incredible Hulk. He was described as “a man-like object;” this revived a favorite Hardball insult from the month of September. He was compared to Peter Pan; to Mr. Wizard; to the cartoon figure Clutch Cargo. According to Matthews, Wolf was helping Gore be “more Johnny Carson than Ed McMahon;” she was teaching him to be “more John Wayne and at the same time more Alan Alda.” Gore was “a bit like Jackie Mason,” he mused; the notion that Wolf was advising Gore was “like a Billy Crystal movie”—a very silly such movie at that. (Matthews went into great detail about what would occur in this film.)

For her own part, Wolf was “this sort of Svengali,” “a strange guru for a grown-up guy to be listening to.” She was compared to Nancy Reagan’s astrologer on three different Hardball programs. She was also compared to Miss Lewinsky; playing tape of Wolf’s appearance on This Week, Matthews said, “That sounds like Monica Lewinsky talking! That sounds like Valley Girl talk!” Meanwhile, the smutty jibes about Gore’s “masculinity” were being updated nightly. On November 5, Matthews sadly noted the “fact” that Gore “doesn’t have his gender straight.” The night before, he had said that Gore was “growing into this protean new person, this new today's man-woman.”

On that same November 4 program, Watergate burglar Gordon Liddy improved one of the corps’ standard insults. According to Liddy, Candidate Gore now had “a girl trying to teach him how to be a real man” (author’s emphases).

By the end of week one in this month of Wolf, Hardball’s banter had descended to a truly unfortunate level. By November 4, pundit guest Patrick Caddell was alleging that “there’s a weird relationship somewhere here with the wife or the daughter, I don't know what.” Liddy was opining that “at its most charitable, it’s a bit bizarre, being paid...to tell this guy how to be a real man.” The next night, Matthews was back on his Viagra kick. (“I call her the political equivalent of Viagra.”) Ending the week on a scripted note, he joined NBC’s Andrea Mitchell in an extended exchange about whether Gore even knew who he was. The pair of insider pundits agreed: In Mitchell’s words, “It's incredible that, after all these years in public office, that either he doesn't know who he is or that he doesn't like who he is.”

For the record, Mitchell was responding to this question from Matthews: “Who is Al Gore? Does he need advice, not on hair color or whatever, but on who is he? He's got a woman telling him how to be an alpha male, whatever that is.” (The notion that Wolf was helping Gore with his hair was advanced on four programs.)

It’s hard to capture the depth and the ugliness of the inanity spewed on this nightly program. But as the month of Wolf unfolded, how foolish could Hardball’s discussions get? Just consider the number of buttons Matthews had spied on Gore’s suits.

It’s true: As of November 1999, Candidate Gore was appearing in public wearing three-button suits. For the record, the three-button men’s suit was completely conventional at that point in time. On November 17, the Los Angeles Times noted that Gore “certainly isn’t in danger of getting out front of the voters in fashion...The three-button suit has been hot for so long now it's almost out.” Nor was the three-button suit the fashion preserve of our radical leftists. In the conservative Wall Street Journal, the conservative clothier Brooks Brothers was running display ads for its own three-button suits.

No matter! Such facts were going to make no difference as the jeering of Gore continued. On Hardball, Matthews spent the month of November counting the buttons on Gore’s troubling suits, routinely advancing bizarre accounts of what the buttons meant.

For one example, consider the program of Friday, November 12.

On this evening, Matthews had invited jury consultant Jo-Ellan Dimitrius to help him assess Gore’s connection to Wolf. (By now, this pointless topic had driven his program for two solid weeks.) The following exchange occurred, an emblem of the sheer inanity consuming large parts of the press corps:

Matthews: You know, there's been a lot of talk about the new costuming of Al Gore. You know, he used to wear blue suits like I do, or gray suits. Now he's wearing these new olive suits. He's taking up something rather unconventional, the three-button male suit jacket. I always– My joke is, “I'm Albert, I'll be your waiter tonight.” I mean, I don't know anybody who buttons all three buttons, even if they have them. What could that possibly be saying to women voters, three buttons?

Dimitrius: Well, I, I think that–

Matthews: Is there some hidden Freudian deal here or what? I don't know. I mean, Navy guys used to have buttons on their pants. I don't know what it means. Go ahead.

To her credit, Dimitrius seemed puzzled by Matthews’ questions. After some initial fumbling, she took a diplomatic approach to the problem, suggesting that Gore might understand that “olive green, dark green is much more approachable” than dark blue in a man’s suit. “Is that why Peter Pan wore green?” Matthews quickly responded. As Dimitrius fumbled again for an answer, her host finally asked a relevant question:

“How does my mind work that way,” he asked his puzzled guest.

Whatever the answer may have been, Matthews’ mind kept “working that way” throughout the month of November. He raised the topic of Gore’s three buttons on half a dozen Hardball programs, running through November 24. On five of these occasions, Matthews said the three-button suits made Gore look like a waiter; he told his “I’m Albert, I’ll be your waiter” joke on three different programs. Nor was Matthews the only major press figure counting the buttons on Gore’s troubling suits; on November 9, Arianna Huffington attacked Gore for allegedly wearing four-button suits. “The way he's now dressing makes a lot of people feel disconnected from him,” she told a panel of pundits on Geraldo Rivera’s nightly CNBC show. “It's just not the way most American males dress.”

Gore hadn’t worn any four-button suits. Huffington had simply added a button, making her nonsense stand out from the pack. But a virtual wilding was now underway. Chris Matthews was setting the standard.

On cable, Matthews was the leading face of the NBC news behemoth. For reasons no one has ever explained, he was now making an ugly joke of a critical White House campaign.

BUT THEN, THE NATIONAL PRESS CORPS HAD WOLF ON THE BRAIN during the month of November. Reporters found ways to talk about Wolf in every conceivable context. A few examples:

On November 21, Bush did the full hour on Meet the Press, the nation’s most influential news program. He wasn’t asked about the pop quiz he had recently failed. But Tim Russert did ask him to comment on Wolf, two separate times.

On November 22, the New York Times’ Michiko Kakutani wrote a lengthy, front-page report about the various books the major candidates had written. She devoted roughly 900 words to Gore’s 1992 best-seller, Earth in the Balance. In a weirdly disjointed and hostile account of the once-heralded, best-selling book, Kakutani mentioned Wolf, or earth tones, or alpha males, three separate times.

Naomi Wolf had nothing to do with Gore's environmental best-seller.

Elsewhere, the lunacy wore no disguise. On November 11, Cal Thomas devoted his nationally syndicated column to Wolf’s role in the Gore campaign. “[I]t appears the unofficial theme will be ‘Victor/Victoria,’ ” he wrote in his opening paragraph, “with Al Gore in the lead role of a man playing a woman playing a man.” Later, Thomas said that Wolf prescribed “teaching [kids] to get naked with one another in school and to masturbate.” According to Thomas, these were “two of her recommended strategies to keep them so preoccupied they won't give their parents or the country any trouble.”

Thomas was the nation’s most widely-read political columnist. According to the Nexis archives, no press critic ever challenged the astonishing things he had said.

We’ll end our excerpt at his point: For the record, Matthews was working for Jack Welch at this time, According to People, he was being paid more than $1 million per year by this time, on his way to five. A few years later, he had enough swag to buy that home on Nantucket.

We’ll recommend the whole ugly chapter, which presents the wider context for this material—and we’ll recommend that you feel disgust for the hustlers, self-dealers, movers and shakers who have kept their mouths shut about Matthews’ conduct from that day right up to this.

They have to build their careers, after all. Hardball money spends good. </div></div>

sack316
06-26-2011, 12:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is partially true (!), because of the examplar they took.

However, this characterization:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> It features Chris Matthews, one of America’s most popular liberal talk show hosts</div></div>

is quite untrue.

Matthews is routinely derided across the liberal blogs as 'The Screamer,' and 'Tweetie,' not meant as affectionate terms. He routinely comes in at the low end of ratings, even on MSNBC. He keeps his job DESPITE dismal ratings even compared to most others on MSNBC because he's a reliable shill for whatever Jack Welch and Co. tell him to believe, and during the Clinton/Gore presidency, he was stridently against both of them (and not from their left). He mocked them viciously, and over years.

Not among the most popular, not even popular at all, and not a liberal (he's been playing one now for a little while, out of the new MSNBC branding strategy, I presume).

However, it's quite true that he is a stupid man, full of cant and propaganda claims that usually don't add up or make sense. Recently, he shockingly tried to put some blame for Weiner's behavior on his wife Huma. Usually, the careerist liberals who DO make it to his show simply fawn over him, and agree (Joan Walsh, for one), out of wanting to come back and possibly hit the big time if they can get their own show. His slander of Huma got some unusual pushback, but normally whatever idiotic thing he comes up with, the careerists just sagely nod in agreement.

</div></div>

Eh, I'll vouch for ya on this from the point of view that it's a matter of perspective. Most right wing "watchdogs" view him as too far left. Most left wing "watchdogs" view him as too far right (salon and media matters to name two).

My personal opinion after a few years of watching him: He's more or less a blowhard who talks over and generally opposes whoever his guest may be at the time. He sometimes makes for entertaining television, but rarely informative television.

To sofla's point, I'd call him more Liberal since '08 w/ Obama. But over the course of time, he seems to dabble back and forth. He'll do what he thinks is best for Chris Matthews.

Sack

Qtec
06-26-2011, 01:17 AM
link (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/chris-matthews-deniers-of-climate-change-in-corrupt-conservative-media-are-evil/)

Q

LWW
06-26-2011, 05:47 AM
If that is your definition of political opposition, I feel for you.

CM was only a righty by comparison of being on the same channel with Madcow and Olberblown.

Gayle in MD
06-29-2011, 05:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is partially true (!), because of the examplar they took.

However, this characterization:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> It features Chris Matthews, one of America’s most popular liberal talk show hosts</div></div>

is quite untrue.

Matthews is routinely derided across the liberal blogs as 'The Screamer,' and 'Tweetie,' not meant as affectionate terms. He routinely comes in at the low end of ratings, even on MSNBC. He keeps his job DESPITE dismal ratings even compared to most others on MSNBC because he's a reliable shill for whatever Jack Welch and Co. tell him to believe, and during the Clinton/Gore presidency, he was stridently against both of them (and not from their left). He mocked them viciously, and over years.

Not among the most popular, not even popular at all, and not a liberal (he's been playing one now for a little while, out of the new MSNBC branding strategy, I presume).

However, it's quite true that he is a stupid man, full of cant and propaganda claims that usually don't add up or make sense. Recently, he shockingly tried to put some blame for Weiner's behavior on his wife Huma. Usually, the careerist liberals who DO make it to his show simply fawn over him, and agree (Joan Walsh, for one), out of wanting to come back and possibly hit the big time if they can get their own show. His slander of Huma got some unusual pushback, but normally whatever idiotic thing he comes up with, the careerists just sagely nod in agreement.

</div></div>

Eh, I'll vouch for ya on this from the point of view that it's a matter of perspective. Most right wing "watchdogs" view him as too far left. Most left wing "watchdogs" view him as too far right (salon and media matters to name two).

My personal opinion after a few years of watching him: He's more or less a blowhard who talks over and generally opposes whoever his guest may be at the time. He sometimes makes for entertaining television, but rarely informative television.

To sofla's point, I'd call him more Liberal since '08 w/ Obama. But over the course of time, he seems to dabble back and forth. He'll do what he thinks is best for Chris Matthews.

Sack </div></div>

Right now he is full of praise for Michelle Bachmann!

I think he's another of MSNBC's Faux Lefties, MSNBC is full of them, as proven by their selection of David Gregory as a replacement for Tim Russart, on Meet The Press, where Gregory never attempts to speak against the many RW lies told there on Sundays, and where we saw Newt Gingrich invited on, over and over again, during Nancy Pelosi's tenure as SOTH, and never saw Nancy invited there a single time.


NBC is not left leaning, it is a right leaning oranization.

Tuning into to Scarborough the LIAR, on any morning, is proof of that.
G.