NationStates Jolt Archive

Chris Matthews and Mark Greene perform an autopsy on Kevin James, conservative columnist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YK0d8ENS__c

Nicest quotes:

"You don't understand what appeasement is, don't use the word."

"Kevin, when you're in a hole, stop digging."

"WHAT DID CHAMBERLAIN DO?" (And variants).

I loved that. I watched it this morning at about 3 am, and I was laughing so hard. :D This gives me so much hope that Republicans are too incompetent to win in November. After all, they have lost three of their "reddest" congressional districts.

Then again, Obama was rather ignorant the other day, talking about going to 57 states. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws

Maybe America will realize that both parties are too stupid to be elected, and the Green party gets in office! Woo hoo! :D

When you see them reeling, its proper order to finish them off.....

when you are owned by chris matthews you are OWNED.

and pathetic.

when you are owned by chris matthews you are OWNED.

and pathetic.

QFT!

I loved that. I watched it this morning at about 3 am, and I was laughing so hard. :D This gives me so much hope that Republicans are too incompetent to win in November. After all, they have lost three of their "reddest" congressional districts.

Then again, Obama was rather ignorant the other day, talking about going to 57 states. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws

Maybe America will realize that both parties are too stupid to be elected, and the Green party gets in office! Woo hoo! :D

Wait, 57? How many bloody territories and protectorates and whatchamacallits do we HAVE? What are we, British?

*ducks*

I loved that. I watched it this morning at about 3 am, and I was laughing so hard. :D This gives me so much hope that Republicans are too incompetent to win in November. After all, they have lost three of their "reddest" congressional districts.

Then again, Obama was rather ignorant the other day, talking about going to 57 states. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws

Maybe America will realize that both parties are too stupid to be elected, and the Green party gets in office! Woo hoo! :D

You know that some of the elections aren't parts of the US, but they are states of a sort, yes? Puerto Rico, Guam, The Virgin Islands, etc. Is your issue with the idea he used the term "states"?

You know that some of the elections aren't parts of the US, but they are states of a sort, yes? Puerto Rico, Guam, The Virgin Islands, etc. Is your issue with the idea he used the term "states"?

i think the issue is that he claimed to have visited 57 states not including alaska and hawaii.

thats funny

You know that some of the elections aren't parts of the US, but they are states of a sort, yes? Puerto Rico, Guam, The Virgin Islands, etc. Is your issue with the idea he used the term "states"?

There still aren't 57, even counting Samoa and all the exciting islands. He hasn't been to those anyway. He just misspoke from being tired, and everyones nailing him for getting a digit wrong. It really isn't that big a deal. Sure if Bush did this everyone would do the same thing but it still wouldn't be a big deal.

EDIT:
And Mr. Matthews, the USS Cole was actually under Clinton, in 2000. But that video was hilarious.

There still aren't 57, even counting Samoa and all the exciting islands. He hasn't been to those anyway. He just misspoke from being tired, and everyones nailing him for getting a digit wrong. It really isn't that big a deal. Sure if Bush did this everyone would do the same thing but it still wouldn't be a big deal.

If Bush did it, everyone would say, "It's Bush."

There still aren't 57, even counting Samoa and all the exciting islands. He hasn't been to those anyway. He just misspoke from being tired, and everyones nailing him for getting a digit wrong. It really isn't that big a deal. Sure if Bush did this everyone would do the same thing but it still wouldn't be a big deal.

EDIT:
And Mr. Matthews, the USS Cole was actually under Clinton, in 2000. But that video was hilarious.

i dont want to watch the video again, did matthews actually say it was under bush?

If Bush did it, everyone would say, "It's Bush."

Oh, comon, you know it would be added to some video compilation of him saying dozens of other stupid things. Things like this are funny, but when people start using them as serious criticism, you know theres a problem.

There still aren't 57, even counting Samoa and all the exciting islands. He hasn't been to those anyway. He just misspoke from being tired, and everyones nailing him for getting a digit wrong. It really isn't that big a deal. Sure if Bush did this everyone would do the same thing but it still wouldn't be a big deal.

EDIT:
And Mr. Matthews, the USS Cole was actually under Clinton, in 2000. But that video was hilarious.

Yeah, looking at it, again. He probably meant 47.

i dont want to watch the video again, did matthews actually say it was under bush?

Bush Sr.

Wow. This is the single best example of American ahistoricism I've ever seen.

i think the issue is that he claimed to have visited 57 states not including alaska and hawaii.

thats funny
It sounds like he was trying to say he visited all 50 states, then corrected himself midway on the second half (he visited 47) but not on the first half. I've done that before.

It sounds like he was trying to say he visited all 50 states, then corrected himself midway on the second half (he visited 47) but not on the first half. I've done that before.

yeah. in the fog of campaigning its hard to remember where you are, where youve been, and how you started the sentence youre in the middle of.

i dont think he doesnt know how many states there are.

Oh lawd, that is painful to watch.

This Kevin James guy seems to be a loudmouth moron. So tell me, why is he even on TV?

That was a beautiful television moment. When as manic and out-of-control a loon as Chris Matthews nails your ass, dude, you are a loser. :D

I was so happy to see it because I am so fucking sick of watching these media clowns get on the tube and spout the most ignorant, obviously false shit, and no one, NO ONE ever calls them on it.

That was a beautiful television moment. When as manic and out-of-control a loon as Chris Matthews nails your ass, dude, you are a loser. :D

I was so happy to see it because I am so fucking sick of watching these media clowns get on the tube and spout the most ignorant, obviously false shit, and no one, NO ONE ever calls them on it.

ive always considered MSNBC and its on-air talent to be 3rd or 4th string but im becoming very fond of their willingness to give hell to whoever needs it.

The hilarious portion of this video to me is that they managed to pull a Godwin in real life.

The hilarious portion of this video to me is that they managed to pull a Godwin in real life.Are you aware what a Godwin actually is?

Are you aware what a Godwin actually is?

I think he's referring to where the other guest chastised Bush and his cronies for regularly Godwins. It's pretty common for them to make Hitler comparisons.

I think he's referring to where the other guest chastised Bush and his cronies for regularly Godwins. It's pretty common for them to make Hitler comparisons.

Yeah, I believe it comes full-circle with the idea of calling Islamists 'Islamo-fascists' and thus recreating a mythical scenario with Islamists as Nazi's and the Democrats as Chamberlain-like appeasers. Don't ask that it doesn't make sense, it doesn't have to, all it has to do is play to the traditional GOP fearmongering line.

I think he's referring to where the other guest chastised Bush and his cronies for regularly Godwins. It's pretty common for them to make Hitler comparisons.

Yes, where they talked about them "regularly referring" to people they don't like as Hitler, and that Hitler was Hitler.

Those Godwins.

Yes, where they talked about them "regularly referring" to people they don't like as Hitler, and that Hitler was Hitler.

Those Godwins.
They have compared Iran to the Nazis, Hamas to the Nazis, Hussein's Iraq to the Nazis, North Korea to the Nazis, and China to the Nazis.

It actually is an attempt to end rational discourse. It actually is the equivalent of Godwin's Law in real life.

If Bush did it, everyone would say, "It's Bush."Because we expect stupidity from Bush. No one even calls him on it anymore because it's such old news. "Bush said/did something stupid. So what?"

Because we expect stupidity from Bush. No one even calls him on it anymore because it's such old news. "Bush said/did something stupid. So what?"

There are whole websites dedicated to it... there's such a massive list now that they are archived by month and year.

There are whole websites dedicated to it... there's such a massive list now that they are archived by month and year.

And does anyone actually read them?

And does anyone actually read them?

Maybe. :p

Because we expect stupidity from Bush. No one even calls him on it anymore because it's such old news. "Bush said/did something stupid. So what?"

You know what's funny. Bush has literally been the worst thing for the Republican party in decades. I, like a lot of people in the US, used to regard the parties as equally full of shit. However, when it's a two-party system and one of them wipes their behind with the Constitution, the reputation of the US, the Presidency and everything anyone ever loved about this country, you can't really sit on the fence anymore.

As bad as Bush has been, that dark could has the silver lining of ensuring that the country is spring hard in the opposite direction. It cost so much, but there is pretty much nothing Dems can do that will compare. Welcome back, freedom. You're late.

You know what's funny. Bush has literally been the worst thing for the Republican party in decades. I, like a lot of people in the US, used to regard the parties as equally full of shit. However, when it's a two-party system and one of them wipes their behind with the Constitution, the reputation of the US, the Presidency and everything anyone ever loved about this country, you can't really sit on the fence anymore.

As bad as Bush has been, that dark could has the silver lining of ensuring that the country is spring hard in the opposite direction. It cost so much, but there is pretty much nothing Dems can do that will compare. Welcome back, freedom. You're late.

and it is up to US--well ok those of us who are americans--to insist that the upcoming democratic administration roll back the power grabs of the bush administration. there will be a tendency to want to keep the power that bush got for the presidency. IT HAS TO BE GIVEN BACK. we dont need an imperial presidency.

and it is up to US--well ok those of us who are americans--to insist that the upcoming democratic administration roll back the power grabs of the bush administration. there will be a tendency to want to keep the power that bush got for the presidency. IT HAS TO BE GIVEN BACK. we dont need an imperial presidency.

Oh, but here's the great part. It appears the pend is swinging so hard the other way, that the congress might have a majority that would override vetos anyway. This might be the most powerful government we've ever had.

Why is that important? Because Dems have to know that if they wish to keep their overwhelming majority in the congress they HAVE no excuses. Congressional approval ratings usually trail behind the President, but regardless of the President next term, Congress will have no excuses. Either they start representing us, or they will be destroying their party.

The game's changing. I suspect we'll improve a lot during the next Presidency, but even better, I suspect we'll see the beginnings of a third party, striking a balance. Or, well, that's my hope. In defense of my predictions, however, I'll point out that I said that we'd have a female or black President within three terms and most likely in 2004 after the 2000 debacle. I expected to have a strong candidate in one of those two categories in 2004, but 9/11 changed things. Still, I think I've done well on political predictions.

I suspect we'll see the beginnings of a third party, striking a balance.
Not without a major overhaul of the entire system which prevents the rise of a third party.

Jocabia, I think you should wait till next November before counting those chickens. I would give almost anything to have what you say be true, but I just do not have your optimism yet.

Not without a major overhaul of the entire system which prevents the rise of a third party.

What prevents that rise, is a requirement that they have a good showing. When the "conservative" party called Republican can't get people into office anymore, what do you think will happen? If the balance continues to swing, Dems won't be afraid to vote third party, and Repubs won't care, because their candidates don't win anyway. Fear voting is the only thing preventing the rise of a third-party. What happens when the balance is so skewed that it doesn't matter?

Jocabia, I think you should wait till next November before counting those chickens. I would give almost anything to have what you say be true, but I just do not have your optimism yet.

I'm not even talking about the Presidency. See, the chickens I'm talking about are already hatching. This is a new style of campaign and EVERYONE on both sides of the aisle sees it. The Republicans are freaking out. They are currently expecting the biggest swing of power in decades.

Could it change? Sure. Is it likely to? I'm not the only one who doesn't think so.

Oh, but here's the great part. It appears the pend is swinging so hard the other way, that the congress might have a majority that would override vetos anyway. This might be the most powerful government we've ever had.

Why is that important? Because Dems have to know that if they wish to keep their overwhelming majority in the congress they HAVE no excuses. Congressional approval ratings usually trail behind the President, but regardless of the President next term, Congress will have no excuses. Either they start representing us, or they will be destroying their party.

The game's changing. I suspect we'll improve a lot during the next Presidency, but even better, I suspect we'll see the beginnings of a third party, striking a balance. Or, well, that's my hope. In defense of my predictions, however, I'll point out that I said that we'd have a female or black President within three terms and most likely in 2004 after the 2000 debacle. I expected to have a strong candidate in one of those two categories in 2004, but 9/11 changed things. Still, I think I've done well on political predictions.

The democrats will no doubt gain alot of seats, but these won't be liberal democrats. alot of these democrats, such as the ones who won the recent special elections, are conservative by nature. basically the Reagan democrats are coming home. They will not fall in line with the DNC agenda as easily as one might think. If anything, it is Liebermans Demcoratic Leadership Council who will see a massive boost in power and membership. There are going to be many battles in congress.

if there were ever a time for a viable third party (and fourth) this is it.

I'm not even talking about the Presidency. See, the chickens I'm talking about are already hatching. This is a new style of campaign and EVERYONE on both sides of the aisle sees it. The Republicans are freaking out. They are currently expecting the biggest swing of power in decades.

Could it change? Sure. Is it likely to? I'm not the only one who doesn't think so.
From your lips to god's ear, as the saying goes.

The democrats will no doubt gain alot of seats, but these won't be liberal democrats. alot of these democrats, such as the ones who won the recent special elections, are conservative by nature. basically the Reagan democrats are coming home. They will not fall in line with the DNC agenda as easily as one might think. If anything, it is Liebermans Demcoratic Leadership Council who will see a massive boost in power and membership. There are going to be many battles in congress.

if there were ever a time for a viable third party (and fourth) this is it.

Who needs them to? See, it's about perception, for one thing. For another, they aren't lunatics. Which is to everyone's benefit. The problem in this country for 8 years isn't that conservatives were in power. It's that complete loons have been in power.

The people gaining power don't support torture, don't support a foreign policy that is making us a laughing stock, don't support the complete annihilation of fourth amendment rights. They aren't your kind of conservatives. They are going to help us make the country give and get respect again. And I can't wait to hear you whine about it.

What prevents that rise, is a requirement that they have a good showing. When the "conservative" party called Republican can't get people into office anymore, what do you think will happen? If the balance continues to swing, Dems won't be afraid to vote third party, and Repubs won't care, because their candidates don't win anyway. Fear voting is the only thing preventing the rise of a third-party. What happens when the balance is so skewed that it doesn't matter?
Let's see. To get your name on the ballot, you either have to be committed to a party so they can do it or you have to pay for it/get some absurd number of petitions. And then, to compound that problem, there is the all or nothing electoral college bullshit. The system would have to have a major overhaul for a third-party revolution. Also, if some one replaces the Republicans, then it is still two parties :rolleyes:

Let's see. To get your name on the ballot, you either have to be committed to a party so they can do it or you have to pay for it/get some absurd number of petitions. And then, to compound that problem, there is the all or nothing electoral college bullshit. The system would have to have a major overhaul for a third-party revolution. Also, if some one replaces the Republicans, then it is still two parties :rolleyes:

Huh. I didn't realize the Presidency was the only position available for vote. Golly, and here I was thinking that there were all these other positions. So silly.

Meanwhile, many third party candidates CAN and DO get their name on the ballots for President. Thus far they haven't done well with the electoral college, but some have come close at a time when there was much less reason for one. If I were trying to bring a third party to power, I would be doing everything to help the Dems this season and then I'd set us up for a rise to power during 2010 and 2012.

And does anyone actually read them?

Yup.

This just goes to show how MSNBC and their Democratic friends like to scoff at right wingers and act superior with their false elitism. Chris Matthews knew exactly what he was doing when he put those words into Kevin James' mouth. How do you expect Mr. James to defend himself when he's put on a witch hunt of a debate?

Absolute rubbish.

Good job, Democrats. :rolleyes:

I kinda feel like Kevin after posting on the ¨Do you think my state´s racist¨ thread.:p

This just goes to show how MSNBC and their Democratic friends like to scoff at right wingers and act superior with their false elitism. Chris Matthews knew exactly what he was doing when he put those words into Kevin James' mouth. How do you expect Mr. James to defend himself when he's put on a witch hunt of a debate?

Absolute rubbish.

Good job, Democrats. :rolleyes:

Kevin James agreed with what Bush said about Chamberlain. They waited for him to mention that Chamberlain was an appeaser. And when he was further challenged he said it again. At the end of the interview, he still hadn't explain what Chamberlain did to appease Hitler. And if you're going to compare a current figure to a historical figure, you should probably know what that historical figure did. Doing otherwise is an affront to both figures and embarrassment to yourself.

This just goes to show how MSNBC and their Democratic friends like to scoff at right wingers and act superior with their false elitism. Chris Matthews knew exactly what he was doing when he put those words into Kevin James' mouth. How do you expect Mr. James to defend himself when he's put on a witch hunt of a debate?

Absolute rubbish.

Good job, Democrats. :rolleyes:

yeah i loved it too.

and i dont even like chris matthews.

Kevin James agreed with what Bush said about Chamberlain. They waited for him to mention that Chamberlain was an appeaser. And when he was further challenged he said it again. At the end of the interview, he still hadn't explain what Chamberlain did to appease Hitler. And if you're going to compare a current figure to a historical figure, you should probably know what that historical figure did. Doing otherwise is an affront to both figures and embarrassment to yourself.

Yelling "What did Chamberlain do?" over and over again while refusing to let Mr. James explain himself and then ending the debate abruptly, gave him hardly any opportunity to defend his statements. Why do you think he was yelling? Perhaps it was because of two others trying to attack him.

Who needs them to? See, it's about perception, for one thing. For another, they aren't lunatics. Which is to everyone's benefit. The problem in this country for 8 years isn't that conservatives were in power. It's that complete loons have been in power.

The people gaining power don't support torture, don't support a foreign policy that is making us a laughing stock, don't support the complete annihilation of fourth amendment rights. They aren't your kind of conservatives. They are going to help us make the country give and get respect again. And I can't wait to hear you whine about it.


lol, you don't even know what my type of conservative is.

The republicans lost their way and also became drunk with power, that is why they are losing. The war in Iraq being mismanaged doesn't help either.

by the way, these democratic candidates who won these special elections are pro-gun, pro god, anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage. That sound like your kind of guy? lol

oh i won't be whining about much else other than the things everyone else will be whining about like if my taxes get raised, if gas prices don't go down and if Iran gets Nukes.

have a stiff drink and relax yourself, you act like a "loon" when you personally attack people for making a valid point.

Yelling "What did Chamberlain do?" over and over again while refusing to let Mr. James explain himself and then ending the debate abruptly, gave him hardly any opportunity to defend his statements. Why do you think he was yelling? Perhaps it was because of two others trying to attack him.

He refused to answer the question. He was pointing out that they aren't actually offering anything real. And they aren't. All James had to do was answer and Chris Matthews would have looked like an idiot. Instead, James PROVED he doesn't actually know. First, he refused to answer, then he said he never said anything about Chamberlain. Basically, he just recited the party line and he ended up looking stupid.

And he was yelling before anyone attacked him.

I'll give you a chance to defend him if you'd like. What did Chamberlain do?

I'll give you a chance to defend him if you'd like. What did Chamberlain do?

Can I answer this question for him, Jocabia? ;)

lol, you don't even know what my type of conservative is.

I know what you claime "judicial activism" is. I know what you say in all kinds of threads. I don't even have to extrapolate from there.

The republicans lost their way and also became drunk with power, that is why they are losing. The war in Iraq being mismanaged doesn't help either.

by the way, these democratic candidates who won these special elections are pro-gun, pro god, anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage. That sound like your kind of guy? lol

Depends. I'm pro-gun, pro-God, anti-abortion. Of course, I mean it differently than you. Fortunately, all of what you brought up is protected by the Constitution, so their position isn't really all that concerning to me.

oh i won't be whining about much else other than the things everyone else will be whining about like if my taxes get raised, if gas prices don't go down and if Iran gets Nukes.

have a stiff drink and relax yourself, you act like a "loon" when you personally attack people for making a valid point.
If your taxes get raised? How do you propose the debt gets paid? Magic stamps?

How do you propose we lower the price of gas?

I'm not personally attacking you. Pointing out what your position is, a position you've offered on this forum, and pointing out that their version of conservative isn't the Republican neo-con version is a "personal attack". I guess it is if you're ashamed of your beliefs. I didn't assume you were.

I'm not making fun of him, honestly. I'm trying to demonstrate what they were trying to do. They actually wanted him to answer the question. The intention was to demonstrate what appeasement was. However, because he refused to answer the question, he demonstrated he could even have the discussion. Ruffy is on the internet, so I assume he can find what Chamberlain did. And when he answers, it will be relatively easy to show the problem in the comparison and the accusation.

EDIT: But, yes, you can answer if you like.

If fewer people acted like Kevin James and, instead, actually read/listened to things before shooting off their mouths, we wouldn't have to have this part of the conversation, because everyone would already know that:

1) Matthews didn't put any words into James' mouth, because he didn't claim that James said anything. He denounced James for not saying something.

2) Kevin James actually did not say the thing Matthews blamed him for not saying. He never answered Matthews' question of fact about what Chamberlain did that amounted to appeasement. James danced around the question over and over. Some of his "answers" included: "He was an appeaser"; "It was the same thing"; "It was the same but there's a difference"; "You want 1938 or 1939?"; "I'm not going to let you box me in"; "You mean the thing president Bush said?"; "I'm not the one who made the Hitler reference"; and finally, the coup de grace, "I don't know."

3) What the incident showed is that Kevin James, like so many other "pundits" on television, had no idea what he was talking about but was just repeating a "talking point" that had been approved and disseminated by the White House press office, like so many other talking points that proliferate after a Bush or Cheney speech. He did not know what "appeasement" meant, and he did not know what Chamberlain did that earned him the title "appeaser," nor how anything any Democrat had said or done would amount to appeasement in the Chamberlain sense. Thus, calling the Democrats appeasers and comparing them to Chamberlain was bullshit coming out of Kevin James' mouth.

4) And finally, Chris Matthews finally did tell America what Chamberlain did that amounted to appeasement, so no one discussing this incident on Matthews' show has any excuse now not to be able to answer the question, "What did Chamberlain do?"

EDIT: But, yes, you can answer if you like.

I was saying what the other guy Chris Matthews was interviewing volunteered. I was also being about 95% sarcastic.

I'll give you a chance to defend him if you'd like. What did Chamberlain do?

He enabled Hitler and his army to invade Czechoslovakia.

There.

He enabled Hitler and his army to invade Czechoslovakia.

There.

That's not appeasement. "Enabling" could be anything from ignoring Hitler to asking the Czechs to ignore him to actively helping. That doesn't actually answer the question. It skirts it.

What specifically did Chamberlain do that was appeasement?

That's not appeasement. "Enabling" could be anything from ignoring Hitler to asking the Czechs to ignore him to actively helping. That doesn't actually answer the question. It skirts it.

What specifically did Chamberlain do that was appeasement?

He forced the Czech into abiding by the Munich Agreement.

"Give them what they want or fight them on your own."

Oh yeah, that's not appeasement..

He enabled Hitler and his army to invade Czechoslovakia.

There.

That's not appeasement. "Enabling" could be anything from ignoring Hitler to asking the Czechs to ignore him to actively helping. That doesn't actually answer the question. It skirts it.

What specifically did Chamberlain do that was appeasement?
Yeah, and while you're looking that up, what was Chamberlain's first name? :p

Yeah, and while you're looking that up, what was Chamberlain's first name? :p

Neville. -_-

He forced the Czech into abiding by the Munich Agreement.

"Give them what they want or fight them on your own."

Oh yeah, that's not appeasement..

I didn't say it wasn't appeasement. I said that was what they wanted to discuss. Then they would discuss why that was appeasement, another question I'm sure you can answer. And then when you've adequately defined appeasement, you'd be boxed in. Something our friend admitted he was trying to avoid. Why would you be boxed in? Because if you explain why what Chamberlain did was considered appeasement, then you'd demonstrate that what Obama is proposing doesn't meet the definition.

As you've adequately pointed out, it wasn't that Chamberlain spoke to Hitler that was a problem. That was where Matthews was going, only he didn't get that far, because James couldn't answer.

He forced the Czech into abiding by the Munich Agreement.

"Give them what they want or fight them on your own."

Oh yeah, that's not appeasement..
No one ever said it wasn't. Chamberlain is one of modern history's most despised figures because of what he did to the Czechs.

Now do what Kevin James never even got close to doing because he didn't know that: Show us how anything the Democrats of today are doing is even remotely comparable to what Chamberlain did in order to justify calling them "appeasers like Chamberlain."

Neville. -_-
Very good. With that under your belt, I'm sure you'll have no problem completing the rest of the research assignment, above.

Yeah, and while you're looking that up, what was Chamberlain's first name? :p

Wilt.

My version of history is way better than the real thing.

No one ever said it wasn't. Chamberlain is one of modern history's most despised figures because of what he did to the Czechs.

Now do what Kevin James never even got close to doing because he didn't know that: Show us how anything the Democrats of today are doing is even remotely comparable to what Chamberlain did in order to justify calling them "appeasers like Chamberlain."


Very good. With that under your belt, I'm sure you'll have no problem completing the rest of the research assignment, above.

^this

The reason for the question wasn't to abuse him, it was to demonstrate what was stupid about the accusation against Dems.

Wilt.

My version of history is way better than the real thing.

In the 20 seconds I spent staring at that and laughing, I rewrote the last half of the 20th century in my head. And you're right, it's way better. :D

Those talks lead to the Munich Agreement, which lead to appeasement.

Once they've got what they want, they become even more greedy. That agreement gave Hitler the power to prepare for an invasion, which the Czechs were unprepared for.

Chamberlain gave in to Hitler, and took what little power Czechoslovakia had to defend themselves in the process.

The Democrats want to talk, to give them what they want so they're satisfied.

Those talks lead to the Munich Agreement, which lead to appeasement.

Once they've got what they want, they become even more greedy. That agreement gave Hitler the power to prepare for an invasion, which the Czechs were unprepared for.

Chamberlain gave in to Hitler, and took what little power Czechoslovakia had to defend themselves in the process.

The Democrats want to talk, to give them what they want so they're satisfied.
WRONG. Try again.

WRONG. Try again.

That's your opinion. :)

Those talks lead to the Munich Agreement, which lead to appeasement.

Once they've got what they want, they become even more greedy. That agreement gave Hitler the power to prepare for an invasion, which the Czechs were unprepared for.

Chamberlain gave in to Hitler, and took what little power Czechoslovakia had to defend themselves in the process.

The Democrats want to talk, to give them what they want so they're satisfied.

Ah, I see. So as long as we just make shit up, then the Democrats are appeasing. The bolded part has never been suggested by ANYONE.

McCain wants to debate with Obama, to murder Obama. Granted McCain has never said he is going to do the second part, but hey we're making shit up.

MCCAIN IS A MURDERER!!!

Or can you point to where the Democrats have EVER said they wanted to "give them what they want so they're satisfied"? What are they promising the Iranians?

What are they promising the Iranians?

That we continue to depend on them for oil.

That's your opinion. :)
says you!
don't forget the wizard hat and robe

That's your opinion. :)

No, it is a fact. You are wrong, and here's why:

In the Munich Agreement, Neville Chamberlain orchestrated an agreement on the part of Britain and France to the effect that, if Germany wanted to take the territory known as the Sudetenland away from Czechoslovakia by force, Britain and France would not come to Czechoslovakia's defense.

Like many in Britain who had lived through World War One, Chamberlain was determined to avert another war. His policy of appeasement towards Adolf Hitler culminated in the Munich Agreement in which Britain and France accepted that the Czech region of the Sudetenland should be ceded to Germany. Chamberlain left Munich believing that by appeasing Hitler he had assured 'peace for our time'. However, in March 1939 Hitler annexed the rest of the Czech lands of Bohemia and Moravia, with Slovakia becoming a puppet state of Germany. Five months later in September 1939 Hitler's forces invaded Poland. Chamberlain responded with a British declaration of war on Germany.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/chamberlain_arthur_neville.shtml

The Munich Agreement was faulty on two grounds. First, and most damning to Chamberlain, is that it ceded territory that was not Britain's to cede. Basically, it sought to appease Hitler by sacrificing part of Czechoslovakia to him, against the will of the Czechoslovakians. That made it criminal. Second, it assumed that Hitler had no greater ambitions. That made it stupid.

But the bottom line is this (and this was made clear by Matthews in his show): TALKING TO HITLER WAS NOT THE APPEASEMENT. NOT DEFENDING CZECHOSLOVAKIA WAS THE APPEASEMENT.

NOW, show me what territories or other national interests of the US or any other nation in the world that the Democrats are offering to cede to any terrorist organization in the world. Show me what power the Democrats are offering to give to any terrorist group. Show me how the Democrats plan to APPEASE terrorists.

And before you start with that "talking to them is appeasement" talking-point bullshit, remember this: Nations talk to each other all the time without anyone getting appeased. Saudi Arabia just finished talking to Bush, at Bush's request, but they did not appease the US by giving him the lower oil prices he wanted. No, quite the opposite, in fact.

And Bush himself spent quite a lot of time talking to Saddam Hussein. I don't think Hussein died feeling very appeased. Do you?

Talking =/= appeasement. You actually have to give them things in exchange for a promise not to hurt you in order to be appeasing them.

That we continue to depend on them for oil.

I'm sorry, what? I know you just post random things at times, and I honestly am not sure if you're doing that now.

Are you giving up or do you have evidence they are promising this?

That we continue to depend on them for oil.

Oh, I want to see the quoted source on that one.

Democrats support Blackwater. >.>

Democrats support Blackwater. >.>

And?



And still no quoted sources, I see. What was it Mark Green said on the show? Something about "when you're in a hole, stop digging"? :p

And?



And still no quoted sources, I see. What was it Mark Green said on the show? Something about "when you're in a hole, stop digging"? :p

Yeah, that quote applies so often.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13700223&postcount=264

When you're in a hole, STOP DIGGING. That should be the motto of the forum.