Stupid Right Wing Hack

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1wSZBTAXRs

Since I'm sure most of you watch Hardball, this may be old news. But it sure is funny.

Hardball?

I thought this was a political forum.

You might want to post this in sports intead.

and aren't you a little old to still be playing hardball? Isn't it time you moved to the softball beer leagues?

Matthews is another boob who's more impressed with himself than he has any good reason to be, and is possibly the dumbest of the cable news wonks.

There should be more events with these jackoffs fighting, like the Jerry Rivers/Mickey Rourke bout. I'd order an O'really/Olberman event on PPV. You can all come watch. We can make nachos.

Nice to see you back AL.

Sure he is, but the jerk-off he was slamming made him look pretty bright.
I'll be over for the Orally-Olbermann bout.
The best part abut this entire flare up over appeasement is that both of the guys they are referencing are conservatives.

I liked Olbermann's "special comment" on May 14 a little better, but this was good.

Angry Liberal wrote:

Sure he is, but the jerk-off he was slamming made him look pretty bright.
I'll be over for the Orally-Olbermann bout.
The best part abut this entire flare up over appeasement is that both of the guys they are referencing are conservatives.

Cool, bring salsa.

So you're saying that you're in favor of appeasement?

When did I say that? No, unlike the conservatives of the past and that nit-wit in chief, I am for diplomacy, which includes discussions with those that disagree with us. Are you for bombing all of the Arab world? Are you still beating your wife? Sounds stupid when it's directed at you, don't it?

So you're not bringing salsa?

I'll bring Salsa. I only watched half. Matthews lost control of his own show when he asked for 17th time, got no answer and still let the guy ramble.

That's not hardball, that's not even wiffle ball.

Fine I'll bring the fucking bean dip. I would call it squirm, which was not only funny, but I'm sure it had folks running to their computer to see what actually happened, which is a good thing.

Finally able to check out the clip.

Didn't know who Kevin James was before today, and I only made it through about 4 minutes of the "interview." All I can say is I'd rather have to cringe over James than Cindy Sheehan.

Did Matthews get this interested in Pelosi's trip to Syria last year? I watch HB occasionally and don't recall any righteous indignation at the time.

Bean dip sounds good, I also need a jar of 20 pepper relish, and a couple cranberry jellies. Got any connections?

Okay...woo-hoo...you're gonna have a party, but you failed to answer the critical question. Who is more fuckable? Matthews, Kevin James, or Mark Greene? I think Mark Greene's eyes are dreamy.

Hey, its all AL, he's a professional shit disturber.

Angry Liberal wrote:

When did I say that? No, unlike the conservatives of the past and that nit-wit in chief, I am for diplomacy, which includes discussions with those that disagree with us. Are you for bombing all of the Arab world? Are you still beating your wife? Sounds stupid when it's directed at you, don't it?

Yes, nuke them to the fucking stone age.

That would also take care of the evil Big Oil empire's profits that keep Stretch (Pelosi) and all you other liberal half-wits awake at nights.

Don't have a wife so I'll pick some random chick to slap around. ok?

Agent 13 wrote:

Who is more fuckable? Matthews, Kevin James, or Mark Greene?

DEFINITELY Chris Matthews' wife -- -- Kathleen Matthews, the former television anchor.

That's what I though, nuke them. Fantastic and well thought out policy as expected. Anyone else on the "elimination" list? I bet there are.
How many pair of night vision goggles do you own?

Its at least as sensible as "opening a dialogue," or sitting around the UN jerking off over resolution after resolution with a bunch of third worlders.

Loved your boy's: "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said. (From http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-wpxs1Re-8vx2Zk5xnYygW1W67w)

Is he running for president of this country, or Secretary General of the UN?

Bombing has the benefit of being rather decisive at the very least.

And I'm pretty sure you can still drill through glass to get to the oil.

Angry Liberal wrote:

That's what I though, nuke them. Fantastic and well thought out policy as expected. Anyone else on the "elimination" list? I bet there are.
How many pair of night vision goggles do you own?

Hey dude, reasoning with the insane either makes you stupid or just as insane. Lashing out in a random overwhelmingly violent way will speak to their level of mindset. They will respect that or at the very least fear you to the level of worship. The trouble with you so-called progressives is that you frimly believe that everyone in the world has the ability to think the way First Worlders do. They do not, the Middle East is in the twelfth (or twelth if you're from Hanover, PA) century as far as their civilizations go.

I mean for Christ's Sake do you think it would actually exist if there was no oil there?

Get real, it isn't about the mud people or the splodeydopes it's about a commodity.

Why do you need a pair? of goggles that is...

No Hon (assuming you are from B-town), Again, I never said "reason", I said discuss, talk, you know. The problem is with you right wing war mongers who feel the only way to solve anything is shoot first, second and third.
What are you saying that no one would live there if it were not for oil? Religious beliefs don't come into play? With that logic, would Idaho exist if it wasn't for potatoes?
Granted it is a great place for a bunker.

Angry Liberal wrote:

No Hon (assuming you are from B-town), would Idaho exist if it wasn't for potatoes?
Granted it is a great place for a bunker.

Terrain is far too uneven and heavily forested. Makes for really crappy fields of fire without significant engineer support. Ask Randy Weaver.

This is well put on the topic of Obama/Appeasement: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/obamas_unique_appeasement_styl.html

Total BS as usual. I guess when you say well put, you mean it supports your slanted views. Also, I'm sure your remember that Bush was in support of elections in Lebanon. And as usual, he was wrong in thinking that they would elect pro-western leaders.
Also, no one knows what Obama will do when he is meeting with anyone. Nor does anyone really know what he will do on any other specific task.
And do you think Ms. Glick might have an axe to grind?

Angry Liberal wrote:

Total BS as usual. I guess when you say well put, you mean it supports your slanted views.

Total BS as it's counter to your own.

You got me there. i am not going to go with a premise that can not under any circumstances be pilloried out. it's pure speculation based on preconceived bullshit. You can't jump to the conclusion that anyone is going to lay down to a tyrant based on the willingness to meet. That's as bad as saying, if McCain wins we will be in a war with Iran by next summer.

The problem is precisely the willingness to meet. The point of the article is exactly questioning that willingness in the context of the specific situation in comparison to similiar historical situations.

Meet with Iran to what end? Their stated policy in current EU negotiations is that they're willing to talk, but will not give. They will persist in development of WMD. Elevating their status by allowing them to sit down with an American President allows them prestige and minimizes that of the president.

Why is military action against Iran a bad idea? Why not use targeted strikes to cripple or at least massively delay existing capabilities? Why not take them at their word when they call for the destruction of Israel and the West?

Angry Liberal wrote:

No Hon (assuming you are from B-town), Again, I never said "reason", I said discuss, talk, you know. The problem is with you right wing war mongers who feel the only way to solve anything is shoot first, second and third.
What are you saying that no one would live there if it were not for oil? Religious beliefs don't come into play? With that logic, would Idaho exist if it wasn't for potatoes?
Granted it is a great place for a bunker.

Christ no I'm not from Welfaria I work for a living.

What I'm saying is that if there was no oil they would all be happily conducting their little "civil" wars amongst themselves. They would be nomadic dirt merchants. Our money has made them the threat that they are. They have nothing to offer the civilized races of the world. The last meaningful thing anyone from that reigon has contributed to the betterment of humanity was the concept of zero. And that was to the Romans.

Are you saying Idahoans worship potatoes? That's just wierd.

Right Wingers generally never settle with words what can be accomplished with a flamethrower.

Why talk if there is no result?

If the result of talking is compromise, then you have appeased.

Fuck that, killing in large quantities will accomplish the same result without the look of weakness or legitimizing the insane.