I also found Matthew's accusation of Oath Keepers being "a vigilante group" not just a damned lie, but more reflective of his hysterical paranoia than anything else. It truly is projection going on--that and agenda.Today's Gun Rights Examiner column looks at MSNBC's dishonest spitball tactics.
Likewise, if Matthews is going to suggest that unhinged people will be inspired to violent acts, perhaps he'd do well to avoid introducing the idea of "jamming a CO2 pellet" into his ideological opponents' heads. [More]
Also get the latest from my fellow GREs.
Tell a friend?
6 comments:
I trimmed the "Hardball" segment down to Rhodes' superb zinger against Matthews--enjoy.
I'm still chuckling, with the chuckles occasionally giving away to guffaws.
Matthews, as usual, was obnoxious and rude. He is very slick interrogator. His style of setting up straw-men and then demanding that his guest justify them is well polished. He's a typical big-ego control freak. He FEELS threatened by anything that doesn't conform to his fuzzy pink blanket Socialist worldview. He spits, blows snot-bubbles and hurls insults. If his guest is on the cusp of making a pertinent point, he shifts gears, changes the subject or attempts to redirect. At NO TIME does the guest get to finish a statement without interruption, unless, of course the guest agrees with Matthews.
i think it's fine to have a show where the host decides his job is to ask the most blatantly inane, insipid and inflammatory questions he and his staff can possibly come up with. i've seen bill o'reilly do similar things. limbaugh, too, on occasion.
i think it was fantastically rude for matthews to ignore the fgsfds from SPLC, right up until he could no longer "contain" rhodes with vitriol, and then essentially begged for help. it would have been epic devastation for rhodes to stop matthews and say, "well if you'll allow it, let's hear what the SPLC guy has to say," beating him to the punch on that.
what i really don't understand is why anyone would watch this, except to see a guest whom is a favorite of theirs. that, in turn, gives me the impression that this show exists merely to kill your trust in anyone that is not a federal official, by making them sweat on live TV.
He "did us proud" as Mike wrote.
David, regarding the comments over there: not quite sure what prompted "Ray"'s bizarre outbursts at me, but rather than let it truly stray off topic (or get accused of hunting over bait), I'll just let the guy continue eating his own foot. He ain't got it at this point, he ain't gettin' it at all.
On topic: an interesting--ahem--"interview". Reminds me there's a reason I don't watch television any more.
Seems that Rhodes acquitted himself pretty well, considering. I rather see OK more as a symptom/reaction to the problem rather than a real solution, but if these guys are serious (and I sure want them to be), it is nonetheless a useful reminder to some that the state can only operate if we let it, and crippling its ability to act from within is certainly within the realm of possibility.
It will be telling to see what sort of official discouragement of OK lies in front of us. The best part of the whole OK concept is that by its very nature and purpose (and kudos to Rhodes for that, if nothing else) it makes it uncomfortable for the state itself to swoop in and quash directly without getting more egg on itself than on others. That was nicely played, and hopefully is a harbinger of other creative monkeywrenching to come!
Hey David--while working on something else, I happened to run into this pic. I think I cracked a rib laughing so hard.
Post a Comment