Chris Matthews builds a strawman

hahah I like a point one commenter made:

Chris Matthews has never had to make any business decisions. His opinions are irrelevent
 
I've always said Matthews & MSNBC have a liberal bias.

Unlike, say, you & Beck.

LOL

Yeah, right. You got me pegged. No wonder you're so clueless. I can explain how beck is a copy of Alex Jones and you still think I drool over his program. You're laughably stupid
 
http://bigjournalism.com/mdake/2010...a-partiers-they-would-have-killed-each-other/

LOL
that's pathetic. Typical biased media pundit.

Any questions Onceler?

Do you understand what bias is yet?

(Excerpt) Matthews implies that the “lesson learned” from the mining incident is, “The message from the Tea Party is… every man for himself… if these people were every man for himself they would have… been killing each other after two days.” Actually, the message of the Tea Party is taking personal responsibility. That is a very different concept than “every man for himself.” When one takes personal responsibility for their actions, when they take care of themselves and their families, that leaves them free to be able to take care of others. (End)

Where does personal responsibility fit in with medical care? Where does having a genetic disposition to cancer and contracting it fit into taking personal responsibility for oneself?

(Excerpt) Doctors are excited about the prospect of Avastin, a drug already widely used for colon cancer, and as a crucial new treatment for breast and lung cancer too. But doctors are cringing at the price the manufacturer, Genentech, plans to charge for it: about $100,000 a year......

Even patients with insurance are thinking hard before agreeing to treatment because out-of-pocket co-payments for the drug could easily run $10,000 to $20,000 a year. One of the few cancer drugs with a higher monthly price than the level planned for Avastin is Erbitux. The drug, used for colon cancer, sells for $9,600 monthly....

One of the elevator men in the United States Senate is 250,000 dollars in debt because of his mothers treatment, which ended in her death. (End)

Where does personal responsibility fit in here? Is a person responsible for contracting colon cancer or breast cancer?

Matthews is right. The slogan "taking personal responsibility" is nothing more than saying "to hell with the other person".

Unless and until a direct connection can be made regarding a person's behavior and colon or breast cancer or any other medical condition "taking personal responsibility" has nothing to do with it.

Unless and until a direct connection can be shown regarding a person's behavior and losing their job "taking personal responsibility" has nothing to do with that either.
 
WOW...something we can agree on. Chris Matthews is an idiot.

I'm sure you had the same amount of outrage at Matthews and the rest of the mainstream media's bias in 2000 when they constantly slandered Al Gore and gave George Bush a free pass

LOL wut? That doesn't even make sense let alone relate to the topic.

Matthews is a biased prick and he proves it with his strawman
 
LOL wut? That doesn't even make sense let alone relate to the topic.

Matthews is a biased prick and he proves it with his strawman

Matthews is an idiot. And he and the 'mainstream media' showed extreme bias for Bush and against Gore in 2000. I expect you will be outraged about that too.
 
(Excerpt) Matthews implies that the “lesson learned” from the mining incident is, “The message from the Tea Party is… every man for himself… if these people were every man for himself they would have… been killing each other after two days.” Actually, the message of the Tea Party is taking personal responsibility. That is a very different concept than “every man for himself.” When one takes personal responsibility for their actions, when they take care of themselves and their families, that leaves them free to be able to take care of others. (End)

Where does personal responsibility fit in with medical care? Where does having a genetic disposition to cancer and contracting it fit into taking personal responsibility for oneself?

(Excerpt) Doctors are excited about the prospect of Avastin, a drug already widely used for colon cancer, and as a crucial new treatment for breast and lung cancer too. But doctors are cringing at the price the manufacturer, Genentech, plans to charge for it: about $100,000 a year......

Even patients with insurance are thinking hard before agreeing to treatment because out-of-pocket co-payments for the drug could easily run $10,000 to $20,000 a year. One of the few cancer drugs with a higher monthly price than the level planned for Avastin is Erbitux. The drug, used for colon cancer, sells for $9,600 monthly....

One of the elevator men in the United States Senate is 250,000 dollars in debt because of his mothers treatment, which ended in her death. (End)

Where does personal responsibility fit in here? Is a person responsible for contracting colon cancer or breast cancer?

Matthews is right. The slogan "taking personal responsibility" is nothing more than saying "to hell with the other person".

Unless and until a direct connection can be made regarding a person's behavior and colon or breast cancer or any other medical condition "taking personal responsibility" has nothing to do with it.

Unless and until a direct connection can be shown regarding a person's behavior and losing their job "taking personal responsibility" has nothing to do with that either.
While the parasites on left say "party on" and "screw tomorrow"....some sucker will take care of me when my time comes to pay the piper....
 
While the parasites on left say "party on" and "screw tomorrow"....some sucker will take care of me when my time comes to pay the piper....

Consider for a moment all the middle aged people who have money put away for medical emergencies. Now imagine if a large portion of that money was put into the economy. For example, used to pay for university for their children. Or home improvement. Or vacations. Talk about a stimulus package!

It's fine to take personal responsibility but the more things people are individually responsible for the tighter the money supply becomes because they can't depend on anyone else.

How many businesses would have gone under if the government hadn't stepped in with money for credit?

The problem isn't having a government responsible for medical and pensions and unemployment and other services. The problem is electing governments that want to dismantle those services or use the money for other things.

The fight should be to ensure governments do not interfere in those programs, not simply remove government involvement. How can anyone possibly expect people to have an attitude other than "to hell with everyone else" when that's the way they're treated?
 
besides, politicians are fair game. they're public figures. What Chrissy does is paint a whole group of people. There's a big difference, but you're trying to say they're the same thing.

Lame!

You need to try again, but with a little bit of relevence this time
 
Find some examples and link them.

You guys & your demands for links.

He's basically right. Matthews is definitely a leftie, and his show is mainly biased that way (since, ya know, it is an opinion show after all).

But he was just plain bizarre in the early part of the decade - first, trumping up Bush and portraying Gore as ineffectual weirdo, and then taking part in the MSM drumbeat for war heading up to Iraq.

Desh hates the guy & thinks he's a total rightie, if it's any indicator. He isn't, but he kind of was in the leadup to war...
 
Find some examples and link them.

February 1, 2000
Al Gore v. the Media
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2000/020100a.html

Across the board -- from The Washington Post to The Washington Times, from The New York Times to the New York Post, from NBC's cable networks to the traveling campaign press corps -- journalists don't even bother to disguise their contempt for Gore anymore.

At one early Democratic debate, a gathering of about 300 reporters in a nearby press room hissed and hooted at Gore's answers. Meanwhile, every perceived Gore misstep, including his choice of clothing, is treated as a new excuse to put him on a psychiatrist's couch and find him wanting.

Journalists freely call him "delusional," "a liar" and "Zelig." Yet, to back up these sweeping denunciations, the media has relied on a series of distorted quotes and tendentious interpretations of his words, at times following scripts written by the national Republican leadership.

...

In December, for instance, the news media generated dozens of stories about Gore's supposed claim that he discovered the Love Canal toxic waste dump. "I was the one that started it all," he was quoted as saying. This "gaffe" then was used to recycle other situations in which Gore allegedly exaggerated his role or, as some writers put it, told "bold-faced lies."

But behind these examples of Gore's "lies" was some very sloppy journalism. The Love Canal flap started when The Washington Post and The New York Times misquoted Gore on a key point and cropped out the context of another sentence to give readers a false impression of what he meant.

The error was then exploited by national Republicans and amplified endlessly by the rest of the news media, even after the Post and Times grudgingly filed corrections.

Almost as remarkable, though, is how the two newspapers finally agreed to run corrections. They were effectively shamed into doing so by high school students in New Hampshire and by an Internet site called The Daily Howler, edited by a stand-up comic named Bob Somerby. [http://www.dailyhowler.com/]

Though the major media often portrays the Internet as a bastion for crazed conspiracy theories, the nation's prestige newspapers appeared to have sunk into their own pattern of reckless journalism.

The Love Canal quote controversy began on Nov. 30 when Gore was speaking to a group of high school students in Concord, N.H. He was exhorting the students to reject cynicism and to recognize that individual citizens can effect important changes.

As an example, he cited a high school girl from Toone, Tenn., a town that had experienced problems with toxic waste. She brought the issue to the attention of Gore's congressional office in the late 1970s.

"I called for a congressional investigation and a hearing," Gore told the students. "I looked around the country for other sites like that. I found a little place in upstate New York called Love Canal. Had the first hearing on that issue, and Toone, Tennessee -- that was the one that you didn't hear of. But that was the one that started it all."

After the hearings, Gore said, "we passed a major national law to clean up hazardous dump sites. And we had new efforts to stop the practices that ended up poisoning water around the country. We've still got work to do. But we made a huge difference. And it all happened because one high school student got involved."

The context of Gore's comment was clear. What sparked his interest in the toxic-waste issue was the situation in Toone -- "that was the one that you didn't hear of. But that was the one that started it all."

After learning about the Toone situation, Gore looked for other examples and "found" a similar case at Love Canal. He was not claiming to have been the first one to discover Love Canal, which already had been evacuated. He simply needed other case studies for the hearings.

The next day, The Washington Post stripped Gore's comments of their context and gave them a negative twist. "Gore boasted about his efforts in Congress 20 years ago to publicize the dangers of toxic waste," the Post reported. "'I found a little place in upstate New York called Love Canal,' he said, referring to the Niagara homes evacuated in August 1978 because of chemical contamination. 'I had the first hearing on this issue.' … Gore said his efforts made a lasting impact. 'I was the one that started it all,' he said." [WP, Dec. 1, 1999]

The New York Times ran a slightly less contentious story with the same false quote: "I was the one that started it all."

The Republican National Committee spotted Gore's alleged boast and was quick to fax around its own take. "Al Gore is simply unbelievable -- in the most literal sense of that term," declared Republican National Committee Chairman Jim Nicholson. "It's a pattern of phoniness -- and it would be funny if it weren't also a little scary."

The GOP release then doctored Gore's quote a bit more. After all, it would be grammatically incorrect to have said, "I was the one that started it all." So, the Republican handout fixed Gore's grammar to say, "I was the one who started it all."

In just one day, the key quote had transformed from "that was the one that started it all" to "I was the one that started it all" to "I was the one who started it all."

Instead of taking the offensive against these misquotes, Gore tried to head off the controversy by clarifying his meaning and apologizing if anyone got the wrong impression. But the fun was just beginning.

The national pundit shows quickly picked up the story of Gore's new exaggeration.

"Let's talk about the 'love' factor here," chortled Chris Matthews of CNBC's Hardball. "Here's the guy who said he was the character Ryan O'Neal was based on in ‘Love Story.’ … It seems to me … he's now the guy who created the Love Canal [case]. I mean, isn't this getting ridiculous? … Isn't it getting to be delusionary?"

Matthews turned to his baffled guest, Lois Gibbs, the Love Canal resident who is widely credited with bringing the issue to public attention. She sounded confused about why Gore would claim credit for discovering Love Canal, but defended Gore's hard work on the issue.

"I actually think he's done a great job," Gibbs said. "I mean, he really did work, when nobody else was working, on trying to define what the hazards were in this country and how to clean it up and helping with the Superfund and other legislation." [CNBC's Hardball, Dec. 1, 1999]

....

Robert Parry is an American investigative journalist. He was awarded the George Polk Award for National Reporting in 1984 for his work with the Associated Press on the Iran-Contra story and uncovered Oliver North's involvement in it as a Washington-based correspondent for Newsweek. In 1995, he established Consortium News as an online ezine dedicated to investigative journalism.
------------------------------------------
http://makethemaccountable.com/coverup/Part_04.htm

A study produced by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Princeton Survey Research Associates examined 1,149 stories from 17 news publications, programs and websites. The research revealed that there were almost twice as many positive stories about Bush as there were about Gore. Even more important than this blatant pro-Bush bias, the study found that the coverage de-emphasized the philosophical differences between the candidates. This was critical, because public opinion polls showed that the voters agreed with Gore on the issues. By robbing Gore of his greatest advantage, the media organizations were Bush’s greatest allies.

A study by the Pew Research Center examined 2,400 newspaper, TV, and Internet stories. Researchers reported that three quarters of the coverage emphasized allegations that Gore was dishonest and corrupt. The study found that a majority of the stories about Bush emphasized that he was a "different kind of Republican," which was the Bush campaign’s chosen theme.
 
Consider for a moment all the middle aged people who have money put away for medical emergencies. Now imagine if a large portion of that money was put into the economy. For example, used to pay for university for their children. Or home improvement. Or vacations. Talk about a stimulus package!

It's fine to take personal responsibility but the more things people are individually responsible for the tighter the money supply becomes because they can't depend on anyone else.

How many businesses would have gone under if the government hadn't stepped in with money for credit?

The problem isn't having a government responsible for medical and pensions and unemployment and other services. The problem is electing governments that want to dismantle those services or use the money for other things.

The fight should be to ensure governments do not interfere in those programs, not simply remove government involvement. How can anyone possibly expect people to have an attitude other than "to hell with everyone else" when that's the way they're treated?

Imagining stories about fictitious people in imaginary scenarios is nonsense....don't rely or expect anyone to buy your clothes, pay for you groceries, or pay you mortgage....
If you won't or can't provide for yourself, the government (we) provide the bare minimum of essential necessities to sustain you....in better times we might be able to handle a certain amount of socialism but we already have 50% of work force exempt from inc. tax....thats a lot socialism right up front.

Its just a sad fact of life that the more you give people, for more they will expect and demand as if it was their right to be taken care of.....Just look at France right now....retirement at 60 ?.....I expect to see retirement in this country to hit 70 in the near future.....income tax at 40% and a VAT tax of 19.6%.....thats 60 cents of every dollar you earn and spend gone up in smoke....socialism is just shared poverty....
 
Yeah, right. You got me pegged. No wonder you're so clueless. I can explain how beck is a copy of Alex Jones and you still think I drool over his program. You're laughably stupid

Beck is not like alex jones at all. beck is unwilling to criticize globalization, the banksters, or monied interests in general.

You're obviously not paying close enough attention.
 
Back
Top