Alphax: Ricardo Klement: cameroncrazy1984: Ricardo Klement: MSNBC is clearly liberal. Token conservatives don't change that. This isn't a qualitative assessment of their coverage, just ad objective observation. Their flagship programs are hosted by people who aren't just a little liberal. In fact, they moderate their message when on-air. (I just finished Maddow's awful book "Drift". It was disappointingly poor analysis - I had expected more from her, despite knowing she was a liberal. But it was almost as painful as an Ann Coulter book.

Examples, please.

Examples of problems with her book, you mean?

Probably what he meant. I bought the book. Reading it, I wondered once again why anyone trusted Reagan with anything.

Here's one of the most irritating bits:

When it came to missile defense - Star Wars - the system couldn't possibly work. It was obvious even the dullest of individuals and even the most casual of observers. It was retarded beyond belief, and only fools and morons couldn't tell from the description that this was a complete waste of money with no ability to intercept even a single missile.

Yet the Soviets apparently don't meet that sky-high bar of intellectual giants, and were scared shiatless of having their thousands of missiles instantly rendered obsolete and useless.

Huh?

WTF Indeed: [i4.fc-img.com image 590x295]
My hour of television every week makes every other show on FOX, MSNBC, and CNN look like TV for people without the mental capacity to change their own diaper.

Largely because he plagiarizes everything

skullkrusher: bartink: skullkrusher: imontheinternet: I like Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell, but Chris Matthews is a douche. He always has been.

eww, I can tolerate CM much more than (c)LOD. Raych (that's what I call her)... Raych is aight

O'Donnell comes off as an insufferable prick. Even when he's right he's annoying. At least Rachel is thoughtful.

exactly. Mathews can be irritating but he isn't downright irksome like LOD is. Last time I watched his show it was pretty much entirely about how he donated school supplies to kids in Africa. Yummy, nutritious school supplies.



GIS for "chris matthews douchebag" returns 41,500 results. Your argument is invalid.

WTF Indeed: [i4.fc-img.com image 590x295]
My hour of television every week makes every other show on FOX, MSNBC, and CNN look like TV for people without the mental capacity to change their own diaper.

I lost a lot of respect for him over that plagiarism.

imontheinternet: I like Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell, but Chris Matthews is a douche. He always has been.

Maddow is ok. O'Donnell is alternatively interesting and grating. Matthews I can only stand in very small doses. The rest are too irritating.

Ricardo Klement: imontheinternet: I like Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell, but Chris Matthews is a douche. He always has been.

Maddow is ok. O'Donnell is alternatively interesting and grating. Matthews I can only stand in very small doses. The rest are too irritating.

The thing about Matthews is that, IMO, he's a genuinely earnest person who's just not that smart or perceptive. He's not an idiot or anything, he's just aggressively average. Which means he is sometimes smart and sometimes stupid.

CPennypacker: Your point is a GIS? A GIS for "Mother Teresa Douchebag" returns 28,800 results. Therefore, Mother Teresa is 69% as much of a douchebag as Chris Matthews

That's not fair to Chris Matthews.

/Mother Theresa was no Mother Theresa

Alphax: Ricardo Klement: Alphax: Ricardo Klement: cameroncrazy1984: Ricardo Klement: MSNBC is clearly liberal. Token conservatives don't change that. This isn't a qualitative assessment of their coverage, just ad objective observation. Their flagship programs are hosted by people who aren't just a little liberal. In fact, they moderate their message when on-air. (I just finished Maddow's awful book "Drift". It was disappointingly poor analysis - I had expected more from her, despite knowing she was a liberal. But it was almost as painful as an Ann Coulter book.

Examples, please.

Examples of problems with her book, you mean?

Probably what he meant. I bought the book. Reading it, I wondered once again why anyone trusted Reagan with anything.

Here's one of the most irritating bits:

When it came to missile defense - Star Wars - the system couldn't possibly work. It was obvious even the dullest of individuals and even the most casual of observers. It was retarded beyond belief, and only fools and morons couldn't tell from the description that this was a complete waste of money with no ability to intercept even a single missile.

Yet the Soviets apparently don't meet that sky-high bar of intellectual giants, and were scared shiatless of having their thousands of missiles instantly rendered obsolete and useless.

Huh?

I don't get your objection.

Certainly the Soviet leadership saw a huge spike in military spending, and were rightly concerned. Reagan was listening to Soviet 'experts' who made it all up.

My issue is that she's saying even stupid people knew SDI wasn't dangerous. But the Soviets were terrified of this non-working weapon systems. It's a contradiction of huge proportions. Do you really not see that?

WTF Indeed: Ricardo Klement: I lost a lot of respect for him over that plagiarism.

Have you read the story about it? Both him and the other woman used the same statistics from the same book, both of them sighted the book in their articles. But because his article came out second, Newsbusters decided to say he should have cited her article because it used the same stats that his article did. Basically, the plagiarism claim was because he is attacking his old neo-con buddies and it's pissing them off because they really want to invade Iran.

So he apologized because...

skullkrusher: I think he might've been kidding

Not at all. I base all my decisions on GIS results. That's why this election, I will be proudly writing in my vote for Scarlett Johansson nude.

Citrate1007: Ricardo Klement: MSNBC is clearly liberal. Token conservatives don't change that. This isn't a qualitative assessment of their coverage, just ad objective observation. Their flagship programs are hosted by people who aren't just a little liberal. In fact, they moderate their message when on-air. (I just finished Maddow's awful book "Drift". It was disappointingly poor analysis - I had expected more from her, despite knowing she was a liberal. But it was almost as painful as an Ann Coulter book.

Almost.)

At least the token conservatives are allowed to make a counter-point. On Fox the tokens are just their as either straw-men or are yelled at whenever they try to speak.

Steve Schmidt is a traitorous RINO these days as far as "real conservatives" are concerned.

Ricardo Klement: Alphax: Ricardo Klement: Alphax: Ricardo Klement: cameroncrazy1984: Ricardo Klement: MSNBC is clearly liberal. Token conservatives don't change that. This isn't a qualitative assessment of their coverage, just ad objective observation. Their flagship programs are hosted by people who aren't just a little liberal. In fact, they moderate their message when on-air. (I just finished Maddow's awful book "Drift". It was disappointingly poor analysis - I had expected more from her, despite knowing she was a liberal. But it was almost as painful as an Ann Coulter book.

Examples, please.

Examples of problems with her book, you mean?

Probably what he meant. I bought the book. Reading it, I wondered once again why anyone trusted Reagan with anything.

Here's one of the most irritating bits:

When it came to missile defense - Star Wars - the system couldn't possibly work. It was obvious even the dullest of individuals and even the most casual of observers. It was retarded beyond belief, and only fools and morons couldn't tell from the description that this was a complete waste of money with no ability to intercept even a single missile.

Yet the Soviets apparently don't meet that sky-high bar of intellectual giants, and were scared shiatless of having their thousands of missiles instantly rendered obsolete and useless.

Huh?

I don't get your objection.

Certainly the Soviet leadership saw a huge spike in military spending, and were rightly concerned. Reagan was listening to Soviet 'experts' who made it all up.

My issue is that she's saying even stupid people knew SDI wasn't dangerous. But the Soviets were terrified of this non-working weapon systems. It's a contradiction of huge proportions. Do you really not see that?

There was a meeting, after the Cold War ended, between military officials from both the US and the former Soviet union.

After the official meetings were done, and the officials themselves had been casually talking and drinking, one of the Americans ventured to ask, "Can I ask you... when did you know you'd lost the Cold War."

The Russian officials looked at each other for a moment, and then one replied,"Star Wars."
"SDI? But it didn't work."

"Oh, we knew that," the Russian replied, "But we knew that if the United States was willing to spend such an incredible amount of money for no practical result, we couldn't possibly ever match that sort of financial resolve or capacity."

"So you're saying," asked the American, "That we could have simply taken that money, piled it into Times Square, burned it, and the message would have been the same?"

"Yes."

Everyone in the know knew that SDI didn't work. The difference was that the USSR was terrified they had no way to publicly counter it, and to even attempt something of that sort would bankrupt them. That's why they were terrified.

Basically, you're super butthurt about some of her hyperbole, even if she's totally correct in her history. Here's a dustvac and some wipes, you can use them to get that sand out of your vagina.

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Citrate1007: Ricardo Klement: MSNBC is clearly liberal. Token conservatives don't change that. This isn't a qualitative assessment of their coverage, just ad objective observation. Their flagship programs are hosted by people who aren't just a little liberal. In fact, they moderate their message when on-air. (I just finished Maddow's awful book "Drift". It was disappointingly poor analysis - I had expected more from her, despite knowing she was a liberal. But it was almost as painful as an Ann Coulter book.

Almost.)

At least the token conservatives are allowed to make a counter-point. On Fox the tokens are just their as either straw-men or are yelled at whenever they try to speak.

Steve Schmidt is a traitorous RINO these days as far as "real conservatives" are concerned.

Steve Schmidt has earned a lot of forgiveness in my book after what he went through.

Alphax: Were the Soviets terrified?

No. So it's not destabilizing.

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: There was a meeting, after the Cold War ended, between military officials from both the US and the former Soviet union.

After the official meetings were done, and the officials themselves had been casually talking and drinking, one of the Americans ventured to ask, "Can I ask you... when did you know you'd lost the Cold War."

The Russian officials looked at each other for a moment, and then one replied,"Star Wars."
"SDI? But it didn't work."

"Oh, we knew that," the Russian replied, "But we knew that if the United States was willing to spend such an incredible amount of money for no practical result, we couldn't possibly ever match that sort of financial resolve or capacity."

"So you're saying," asked the American, "That we could have simply taken that money, piled it into Times Square, burned it, and the message would have been the same?"

"Yes."

Everyone in the know knew that SDI didn't work. The difference was that the USSR was terrified they had no way to publicly counter it, and to even attempt something of that sort would bankrupt them. That's why they were terrified.

Basically, you're super butthurt about some of her hyperbole, even if she's totally correct in her history. Here's a dustvac and some wipes, you can use them to get that sand out of your vagina.

*facepalm*

That's my point - she's wrong when she says the Soviets were scared of SDI.

Ricardo Klement: *facepalm*

That's my point - she's wrong when she says the Soviets were scared of SDI.

No, they were scared. Not of the SDI's potential as a weapon, but, rather, what SDI represented as a fiscal / political / military policy in regards to the United States' ability to throw away money in what was, for all intents and purposes, a giant PR campaign that the Soviet political leadership would feel compelled to counter, even though it would, as stated before, bankrupt the entire USSR.

I don't know why you're having such a problem with this idea.

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Ricardo Klement: *facepalm*

That's my point - she's wrong when she says the Soviets were scared of SDI.

No, they were scared. Not of the SDI's potential as a weapon, but, rather, what SDI represented as a fiscal / political / military policy in regards to the United States' ability to throw away money in what was, for all intents and purposes, a giant PR campaign that the Soviet political leadership would feel compelled to counter, even though it would, as stated before, bankrupt the entire USSR.

I don't know why you're having such a problem with this idea.

That's not what she said in her book. Page 95, for your reference:

"With Star Wars defense in place, the Soviets feared our nukes would hit Russia first, but then any retaliatory missiles from them would be shot out of the sky before they even entered American airspace."

QED

Ricardo Klement: That's not what she said in her book. Page 95, for your reference:

"With Star Wars defense in place, the Soviets feared our nukes would hit Russia first, but then any retaliatory missiles from them would be shot out of the sky before they even entered American airspace."

QED

And then later realized that it wasn't going to work.

Seriously, you are very worked up about this and really, really want her to be wrong so that your "annoyance" can be justified.

Give up already.

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Ricardo Klement: That's not what she said in her book. Page 95, for your reference:

"With Star Wars defense in place, the Soviets feared our nukes would hit Russia first, but then any retaliatory missiles from them would be shot out of the sky before they even entered American airspace."

QED

And then later realized that it wasn't going to work.

Seriously, you are very worked up about this and really, really want her to be wrong so that your "annoyance" can be justified.

Give up already.

Uh, huh. I just quoted her to you and you STILL want to believe that it's not what she said.

And note I didn't say many of her facts were wrong. It was her analysis. She was largely spot-on about Grenada, although she ascribed some things to secrecy that should have been ascribed to hubris. I'm not trying to hate Maddow, but your defense of her is not well-founded.

francisright: Ricardo Klement: MSNBC is clearly liberal. Token conservatives don't change that. This isn't a qualitative assessment of their coverage, just ad objective observation. Their flagship programs are hosted by people who aren't just a little liberal. In fact, they moderate their message when on-air. (I just finished Maddow's awful book "Drift". It was disappointingly poor analysis - I had expected more from her, despite knowing she was a liberal. But it was almost as painful as an Ann Coulter book.

How dare you say this. There is no proof of this, and you should be ashamed. Ugh.

I dare say it because it is true, as demonstrated in other comments on this subject in this thread.