Beck goes nuclear – blasts Chris Matthews over balloon-head comment on Michele Bachmann

posted at 12:25 pm on January 28, 2011 by The Right Scoop

I have been waiting for this all week long. It’s so gut wrenching to hear Chris Matthews go on and on about Michele Bachmann, using his platform to deride her in such a condescending way. Well now Glenn Beck has stepped up to the plate to deliver a very impassioned defense (and that’s putting it mildly) of Michele Bachmann, blasting Chris Matthews for being a victim of his own incompetence.

An instant classic!

Cross-posted at www.therightscoop.com.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

The only thing I can come up with (along with Beck), is that they are either afraid of her, hate conservatives, or they really don’t like women? What other data points have I missed that Bachmann and Palin share?

dominigan

shallow and incorrect opinions.

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 2:39 PM

Chip, ask the question fairly or bugger off.

In other words: Shut UP?
Chip

another leading question.
you remain a dunderhead and a jackanapes.

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 2:31 PM

Well, I guess we all have an answer on the first amendment question.

Moreover, you’re really losing it on the whole ‘Civility’ side of things.

What’s the problem, when you can’t dodge a pointed question you deflect with insult?

Chip on January 28, 2011 at 2:41 PM

What’s the problem, when you can’t dodge a pointed question you deflect with insult?

Chip on January 28, 2011 at 2:41 PM

That’s what balloon-headed liberals do.

fossten on January 28, 2011 at 2:43 PM

What’s up with Glenn’s gloves? Must be cold in that studio.

hawksruleva on January 28, 2011 at 2:46 PM

What’s the problem, when you can’t dodge a pointed question you deflect with insult?

Chip

there is no problem. ask the question fairly, if you want a real discussion.

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 2:47 PM

What’s up with Glenn’s gloves? Must be cold in that studio.

hawksruleva on January 28, 2011 at 2:46 PM

He has recently been talking about a condition he has that causes extreme pain in the, um, extremities.

ornery_independent on January 28, 2011 at 2:51 PM

It’s time we just leave Chris Mathews and his pals at MSNBC alone. More peope will hear what he said on the righty blogs than heard him on MSNBC.

Allah should just have a recurring, automated post that says “MSNBC hosts said some ill-informed, partisan, baseless stuff today.” Then we could move on to discussing the issues of the day.

hawksruleva on January 28, 2011 at 2:52 PM

What’s the problem, when you can’t dodge a pointed question you deflect with insult?

Chip

there is no problem. ask the question fairly, if you want a real discussion.

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 2:47 PM

Let’s see, Just who gets to decide what is ‘Fair’?

Chip on January 28, 2011 at 2:53 PM

He has recently been talking about a condition he has that causes extreme pain in the, um, extremities.

ornery_independent on January 28, 2011 at 2:51 PM

Thanks – I hadn’t heard that. He sure does seem to get a lot of unusual medical happenings. Which is really irrelevant and off topic, and his personal life is none of my business. I’m just sayin’.

hawksruleva on January 28, 2011 at 2:54 PM

Chip on January 28, 2011 at 2:53 PM

He is the arbitrer of what is fair. He’s performed the same tap dance on several threads.

kingsjester on January 28, 2011 at 2:55 PM

there is no problem. ask the question fairly, if you want a real discussion.

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 2:47 PM

Let’s see, Just who gets to decide what is ‘Fair’?

Chip on January 28, 2011 at 2:53 PM

There’s no fair way to decide that. In fact, fairness only exists in the laboratories of thought experiments. It’s almost never seen in the real world. Government sometimes tries to create what it considers fairness, but has never in the history of the world succeeded over a long term.

For an example, ask a deer and a wolf to define fairness.

hawksruleva on January 28, 2011 at 2:56 PM

He is the arbitrer of what is fair. He’s performed the same tap dance on several threads.

kingsjester

as long as it’s question asked of me, I do get to say that I find it unfair.
read the original question.
tell me that it’s not a leading question.

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 2:58 PM

Liberals would burn Conservative women at the stake if they could. Violate Liberal dogma and watch out for accusations to fly.

http://www.bluecollarphilosophy.com/2011/01/chris-matthews-would-like-to-burn-sarah-palin-and-michele-bachmann-at-the-stake-if-he-could.html

This akin to a modern day witch hunt, trial, and execution.

Blue Collar Todd on January 28, 2011 at 2:58 PM

Chip on January 28, 2011 at 2:53 PM

He is the arbitrer of what is fair. He’s performed the same tap dance on several threads.

kingsjester on January 28, 2011 at 2:55 PM

It’s a pretty lame way of dodging a question that She/He Cannot answer.

Let’s see a politician try that in a debate: I refuse to answer that question because it’s unfair.

(Oh, and I get to decide what’s fair – usually something I can use as a spring board to spew leftist bilge)

Chip on January 28, 2011 at 3:00 PM

there is no problem. ask the question fairly, if you want a real discussion.

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 2:47 PM

Let’s see, Just who gets to decide what is ‘Fair’?

Chip on January 28, 2011 at 2:53 PM

There’s no fair way to decide that. In fact, fairness only exists in the laboratories of thought experiments. It’s almost never seen in the real world. Government sometimes tries to create what it considers fairness, but has never in the history of the world succeeded over a long term.

For an example, ask a deer and a wolf to define fairness.

hawksruleva on January 28, 2011 at 2:56 PM

I understand that – we can easily see that this is just a lame way of avoiding the question.

He could of tried the ‘Your being UN-civil route, but with Her/his language, that would be pretty hard to pull off.

This should show people that Leftists can’t stand up to ‘civil’ debate and the reason they have a tendency to repress opposing speech.

Example:

Chip, ask the question fairly or bugger off.

And resort to insult:

you remain a dunderhead and a jackanapes.

Chip on January 28, 2011 at 3:07 PM

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 2:58 PM

1st: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

2nd: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. It was a fair question. I reword it: Why do Liberals constantly attack and try to re-interpret these rights as outlined plainly by our Constitution?

kingsjester on January 28, 2011 at 3:10 PM

Let’s see a politician try that in a debate: I refuse to answer that question because it’s unfair.
Chip

sorry, Chip.

see leading questions and the law.

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 3:11 PM

Why do Liberals constantly attack and try to re-interpret these rights as outlined plainly by our Constitution?

kingsjester

I don’t know that they do constantly attack the First Amendment or on what grounds. Most of the ones that I’ve known have been quite fond of it.

Some people attack interpretations of the Second Amendment that say that every citizen may bear arms without qualification or limitation of that right by the federal government.
Others do wish to go further and are attacking the right of citizens to own guns. They probably think that the damage caused by guns to outweigh the benefit.
I can’t speak for them and don’t agree.

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 3:18 PM

Let’s see a politician try that in a debate: I refuse to answer that question because it’s unfair.
Chip

sorry, Chip.

see leading questions and the law.

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 3:11 PM

First, you said it was ‘presumptuous and untruthful.’

Then you said it was ‘unfair’

Now, it’s a ‘leading question’?

Which is it?, you really need to get you story straight – maybe you should write these important things on your hand to remember them, I’ve tried that and it works – some of the time….

Besides, from you previous comments, we can well guess your position on the first amendment – at least the free-speech part of it. Like the rest of your ilk (excuse me for using that word please) you’re against it.

But that’s okay, we know the left doesn’t like that whole ‘constitutional’ thing anyways (except for the Commerce Clause naturally)

But what about the right to defend yourself, how do you stand on that?

Chip on January 28, 2011 at 3:21 PM

It’s almost never seen in the real world. Government sometimes tries to create what it considers fairness, but has never in the history of the world succeeded over a long term.

For an example, ask a deer and a wolf to define fairness.

hawksruleva

of course, an inability to agree upon what IS fair doesn’t mean that other things aren’t generally agreed to be unfair.

leading questions are one of those unfair things.

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 3:22 PM

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 3:18 PM

They don’t attack the 1st Amendment? For example:

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/01/obamas-attack-on-the-first-amendment/

kingsjester on January 28, 2011 at 3:23 PM

Thank you Glen Beck!! I heard part of this in my car. Wonder if MS-NBC has figured out that Matthews hates women?

TN Mom on January 28, 2011 at 2:14 PM

I don’t think they will. The didn’t when bathtub boy called Michelle a mashed up bag of meat.

Jvette on January 28, 2011 at 3:30 PM

She deserves to be derided. she’s the worst kind of “look-at-me!” attention wh*re; no surprise Beck wants in on the self-aggrandizement.

Grow Fins on January 28, 2011 at 12:50 PM

Words of wisdom from the fish bowl mentality.

redridinghood on January 28, 2011 at 1:54 PM

Well, a fishbowl looks like a balloon but it’s filled with water instead of air.

Jvette on January 28, 2011 at 3:31 PM

Folks, you don’t understand, it’s not misogyny if it’s done by a liberal. Like racism, they have exempted themselves.

slickwillie2001 on January 28, 2011 at 3:52 PM

They don’t attack the 1st Amendment? For example:

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/01/obamas-attack-on-the-first-amendment/

kingsjester

not sure what you pointing to there.

threatening a libel suit?

that can’t be it, can it?

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 3:53 PM

Why do Liberals constantly attack and try to re-interpret these rights as outlined plainly by our Constitution?

kingsjester

I don’t know that they do constantly attack the First Amendment or on what grounds. Most of the ones that I’ve known have been quite fond of it.

Check out how the Left tried to use the Tuscon tragedy.

Some people attack interpretations of the Second Amendment that say that every citizen may bear arms without qualification or limitation of that right by the federal government.
Others do wish to go further and are attacking the right of citizens to own guns. They probably think that the damage caused by guns to outweigh the benefit.
I can’t speak for them and don’t agree.

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 3:18 PM

What part of: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Don’t you understand? It says people (not Militia), and it assumes a pre-existing right, what is so difficult about that?

If the framers had meant Militia, they would have written ‘Militia’, BUT THEY DID NOT.

Words mean things.

Chip on January 28, 2011 at 3:57 PM

Ouch! But, so much for elevating the rhetoric.

And, sorry for asking a stupid question, but how do the Mine Workers factor in to this?

Pablo Snooze on January 28, 2011 at 3:58 PM

ask the question fairly, if you want a real discussion.

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 2:47 PM

If Chip, or anyone else on here for that matter, wants to have a “real discussion,” neither you nor Grow Fins nor AnninCA would be among those that could participate. Per your own rules of “discussion” that is.

roopster217 on January 28, 2011 at 4:00 PM

Excellent. Matthews ought to be ashamed of himself. He’s crossed into the liar zone.

paul1149 on January 28, 2011 at 4:05 PM

What part of: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Don’t you understand? It says people (not Militia), and it assumes a pre-existing right, what is so difficult about that?

If the framers had meant Militia, they would have written ‘Militia’, BUT THEY DID NOT.

Words mean things.

Chip

chip, try real hard and tell me what it is that I wrote that’s causing you to say that I don’t understand the Second Am.

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 4:21 PM

I see that Glenn was wearing gloves. Well, its hard work mopping the floor with an idiot and he was trying not to get any blisters. But, I think someone else got blistered.

Mirimichi on January 28, 2011 at 4:28 PM

They don’t attack the 1st Amendment? For example:

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/01/obamas-attack-on-the-first-amendment/

kingsjester

not sure what you pointing to there.

threatening a libel suit?

that can’t be it, can it?

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 3:53 PM

Are you trying to be deliberately obtuse here?

The thread refers to a National Review Online article:

Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment

I’ll be blunt: Sen. Obama and his supporters despise free expression, the bedrock of American self-determinism and hence American democracy. What’s more, like garden-variety despots, they see law not as a means of ensuring liberty but as a tool to intimidate and quell dissent.

This attitude by Left was exemplified by the aftermath of the Tucson Tragedy – do you remember that?

Chip on January 28, 2011 at 4:33 PM

They don’t attack the 1st Amendment? For example:

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/01/obamas-attack-on-the-first-amendment/

kingsjester

not sure what you pointing to there.

threatening a libel suit?

that can’t be it, can it?

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 3:53 PM

Are you trying to be deliberately obtuse here?

no, Chip, I’m implying that McCarthy and the NRO article is crap but if you can print out the portion of the First Amendment that Obama’s supporters demanded be scrapped, please do.

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 4:41 PM

Are you trying to be deliberately obtuse here?

Chip on January 28, 2011 at 4:33 PM

Yes, he is. After all, he is a Liberal and therefore smarter than every Conservative on this site, put together./

kingsjester on January 28, 2011 at 4:41 PM

I would quote more articles, audi, but you would just continue your tap dancing routine.

kingsjester on January 28, 2011 at 4:43 PM

Yes, he is. After all, he is a Liberal and therefore smarter than every Conservative on this site, put together./

kingsjester

no, I’m not.

and there are some folks around here smarter than myself, even if they don’t agree with my moderate Conservatism.

I would quote more articles, audi, but you would just continue your tap dancing routine.

quote maybe a good one. one that proves that liberals want to end the First Amendment rather than an article that takes a small incident and leaps to an enormous generalization that’s not even evidenced by the incident.
McCarthy was puffing out political blather not serious truth.

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 4:57 PM

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 4:57 PM

You haven’t said a dadgum thing since you appeared on this site that was even moderately Conservative. First, you say you don’t what I was getting at with posting that link, then you tell Chip that the NRO article was crap. Now you claim Conservatism. Got any more bridges to sell us?

kingsjester on January 28, 2011 at 5:02 PM

no, Chip, I’m implying that McCarthy and the NRO article is crap but if you can print out the portion of the First Amendment that Obama’s supporters demanded be scrapped, please do.

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 4:41 PM

Then explain the attempted diminishment of our first amendment rights – the right of free speech after the Tucson tragedy?

Or is that You can’t answer that because it’s true (but you leftists can’t admit that to the rest of us and yourselves) or is that an ‘unfair’…. Leading question?

Chip on January 28, 2011 at 5:11 PM

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 4:57 PM

Go have a drink with crr6 and grow fins. You’ll have a ball.

katy the mean old lady on January 28, 2011 at 5:14 PM

shallow and incorrect opinions.

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 2:39 PM

I thought I smelled you. When are you going to scrub the donkey $hit out of your mouth?

csdeven on January 28, 2011 at 5:14 PM

Oh, Mccarthy’s article was the worst kind of lying crap. He’s an utter ass and a hack.

That was nothing beyond a smear job written during the last campaign.

How the hell that lying sack of McCarthy can start out saying that the Obama campaign has threatened the country with worse than Sharia Law because of something that the St Louis Sheriff’s Office and other official’s said in response to the lying accusations about Obama’s religion is pure dirty politics.

How the hell you can say that it’s proof on an assault on the First Am is beyond my understanding.

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 5:19 PM

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 5:19 PM

Now…now…remember…your president said no harsh rhetoric.

kingsjester on January 28, 2011 at 5:22 PM

Then explain the attempted diminishment of our first amendment rights – the right of free speech after the Tucson tragedy?

Chip

how about you show some diminishment of First Am rights, or general threat against them, before I tryh to explain them.

You remain a funny thing, making wild-ass charges and then demanding somebody explain your mistaken impressions.

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 5:23 PM

Now…now…remember…your president said no harsh rhetoric.

kingsjester

he’s just as much your president as mine, jes.

but McCarthy’s lying ass belongs to you if you’re going to point to it as anything but bs.

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 5:25 PM

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 5:25 PM

I’ll claim Reagan and McCarthy. You can claim Obama and Baghdad Bob Gibbs.

kingsjester on January 28, 2011 at 5:26 PM

jes, did you really give that Mccarthy thing a good read before posting the link to it?

I’m pretty sure that you can find better than that….

and you did with Reagan.

McCarthy just isn’t worth claiming.

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 5:38 PM

Tmie to disengage this argument. Come on up to the top thread of this column , audi. You’ve stretched this one as far as you can.

kingsjester on January 28, 2011 at 5:42 PM

OK to that.

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 5:53 PM

Anyone who is against the Three Fifths Amendment is saying that they wished that slave states had been given more power in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College.

Chris Matthews – slave holder spokesmanperson.

Laurence on January 28, 2011 at 5:59 PM

Anyone who is against the Three Fifths Amendment is saying that they wished that slave states had been given more power in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College.

Laurence

authentic gibberish.

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 6:03 PM

Detroit radio show host Mithch Albom (the sports writer and liberal turd) was talking about this yesterday. He was agreeing with Chris Matthews version of history because (to para-phase) “he has been around a long time and is a student of history”. And that Michele Bachmann is an idiot and needs to read the constitution and learn history before making any statements on the subject.

Once more a liberal attacking a conservative woman.

mechkiller_k on January 28, 2011 at 6:09 PM

Yes, he is. After all, he is a Liberal and therefore smarter than every Conservative on this site, put together./

kingsjester

no, I’m not.

and there are some folks around here smarter than myself, even if they don’t agree with my moderate Conservatism.

I would quote more articles, audi, but you would just continue your tap dancing routine.

quote maybe a good one. one that proves that liberals want to end the First Amendment rather than an article that takes a small incident and leaps to an enormous generalization that’s not even evidenced by the incident.
McCarthy was puffing out political blather not serious truth.

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 4:57 PM

Please audiculous, you’re embarrassing yourself. One can easily search back over your postings and disprove that assertion. However, if you want to keep up that ruse, why don’t you tell us all what are your principles as a ‘moderate Conservative’?

Chip on January 28, 2011 at 6:16 PM

Then explain the attempted diminishment of our first amendment rights – the right of free speech after the Tucson tragedy?

Chip

how about you show some diminishment of First Am rights, or general threat against them, before I tryh to explain them.

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 5:23 PM

Okay, see if you can follow along: If you tell people that they cannot use certain words, or they have to tone down the rhetoric (while they impose no-limits on themselves) That has an effect on free speech.

Get it?

Chip on January 28, 2011 at 6:31 PM

If you tell people that they cannot use certain words, or they have to tone down the rhetoric (while they impose no-limits on themselves) That has an effect on free speech.

Get it?

Chip

No, Chip. I don’t get it. I tend to believe that the First Am guarantees you and I the right to tell people not to use certain words or to tone down their rhetoric as much as it forbids doing so.

try again.

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 6:41 PM

No, Chip. I don’t get it. I tend to believe that the First Am guarantees you and I the right to tell people not to use certain words or to tone down their rhetoric as much as it forbids doing so.

try again.

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 6:41 PM

No, Chip. I don’t get it.

That says it all.

I guess you trying to run out the clock with your obtuse routine.

This is the Government telling us that, not private individuals.

It also show that you don’t believe in the concept of free-speech (except for yourself) and you have little regard for the concept of Liberty – kind of ironic for Liberals, huh?

Chip on January 28, 2011 at 6:49 PM

This is the Government telling us that, not private individuals.

show that, don’t just claim it as fact.

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 6:54 PM

shallow and incorrect opinions.
audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 2:39 PM

Exactly how can someone have an “incorrect opinion”?
Are there thought police? Thought laws?

Please define “Correct opinion” vise “Incorrect opinion”

Then please define “shallow”.

DSchoen on January 28, 2011 at 7:22 PM

This is the Government telling us that, not private individuals.

show that, don’t just claim it as fact.

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 6:54 PM

Okay, so NO people in the government told us that?

Is that what you are claiming?

Chip on January 28, 2011 at 7:26 PM

DSchoen,

someone once opined that the universe was centered around our sun and that it was falsity to proclaim differently.

I hold that opinion to be false.

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 7:29 PM

try again.
audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 6:41 PM

Untrue. As you stated people have “incorrect opinions”.

Can’t have “incorrect opinions” unless there are “correct opinions”.

Can’t have “correct opinions” unless there is an authority to enforce those “correct opinions”.

Sorry Aud, but you don’t believe in,or understand “free speech”.

DSchoen on January 28, 2011 at 7:30 PM

This is the Government telling us that, not private individuals.

show that, don’t just claim it as fact.

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 6:54 PM

Okay, so NO people in the government told us that?

Is that what you are claiming?

Chip

you’re the one making the claim about what the government is ordering.

back up your bogus claim instead of asking me to deny it.

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 7:31 PM

Sorry Aud, but you don’t believe in,or understand “free speech”.

DSchoen

you’re just confused D. dismissing some opinions as incorrect isn’t indicative of a disbelief in free speech.

I believe you have a right to discuss this and also that your opinion of my lack of belief in free speech is incorrect.

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 7:35 PM

As my dad always said, “Opinions can never be wrong. Facts can be wrong. Not opinions.”

cannonball on January 28, 2011 at 7:35 PM

Good for Glen. Now, will any of the gop regulars stop the insanity of the left attacks on Palin, O’Donnel, and now Bachmann?

Or are they going to continue to let this go on?

AnninCA on January 28, 2011 at 7:36 PM

I hold that opinion to be false.
audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 7:29 PM

Has it been in your lifetime that “someone opined that the universe was centered around our sun”?

If no, then your confusing facts with opinion.

As the saying goes “you can have your own opinion but ya can’t have yur own facts”.

Try again.

Stop dogging and please answer the question, Are there thought police? Thought laws?
Who in our time defines the “Correct opinion”?

What has Palin, Bachmann said that is (your words) an “Incorrect opinion”?

Please define “Correct opinion” vise “Incorrect opinion”

Then please define “shallow”.

DSchoen on January 28, 2011 at 7:43 PM

audiculous

Why don’t you try answering this question:

You stated earlier that you believed in moderate Conservatism.

Why don’t you tell us all what are your principles as a ‘moderate Conservative’?

Chip on January 28, 2011 at 7:46 PM

As my dad always said, “Opinions can never be wrong. Facts can be wrong. Not opinions.”

cannonball

so, if someone else has the opinion that you’re dad’s opinion is incorrect and based on a misunderstanding of the thought that opinions may incorrect if they’re assertions of propositions of fact that are incorrect, then it would be your dad’s opinion that the other guy’s opinion isn’t wrong, right?

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 7:47 PM

Certain Democrat Representatives and Senators started talking about and pushing the “Fairness Doctrine” again because of the Tucson shooting. In part because a crackerjack sheriff insinuates (with an “incorrect opinion” I might add) that conservative talk radio and a former Gov. is the cause of said shooting. Not to mention politicians that started pushing for severe gun control legislation.

Nope, no one wants any suppression of free speech or gun rights after Tucson, do they?/sarc

roopster217 on January 28, 2011 at 7:52 PM

DSchoen

sorry but having an ultimate authority on what is a correct opinion is not necessary to being able to say that some opinions consist of assertions of things that are demonstrably false.

If Bachmann asserts that she is sure that all the Founding Fathers worked ceaselessly to end slavery, her opinion isn’t an expression of truth.

If she says that she thinks that the census is a plot to end freedom and democracy, her opinion might well be wrong.

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 7:58 PM

This is the Government telling us that, not private individuals.

show that, don’t just claim it as fact.

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 6:54 PM

Okay, so NO people in the government told us that?

Is that what you are claiming?

Chip

back up your bogus claim instead of asking me to deny it.

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 7:31 PM

Dem Rep. Alcee Hastings: Loughner Was Inspired by “Violent Political Rhetoric”…

Obama, in Arizona, calls for more civility

Now that I’ve proven the obvious, try finally answering ONE question for once:

What do you Leftists have against the first and second amendments?

Or are you going to tap dance around it again?

Or are you going to continee pretending to be a ‘moderate Conservative’

Chip on January 28, 2011 at 8:04 PM

Certain Democrat Representatives and Senators started talking about and pushing the “Fairness Doctrine” again because of the Tucson shooting. In part because a crackerjack sheriff insinuates (with an “incorrect opinion” I might add) that conservative talk radio and a former Gov. is the cause of said shooting. Not to mention politicians that started pushing for severe gun control legislation.

Nope, no one wants any suppression of free speech or gun rights after Tucson, do they?/sarc

roopster217 on January 28, 2011 at 7:52 PM

Thank you for reminding me of that.

So, that point has been made, audiculous.

Now how are you going to dodge my question?

Chip on January 28, 2011 at 8:15 PM

Dem Rep. Alcee Hastings: Loughner Was Inspired by “Violent Political Rhetoric”…

Obama, in Arizona, calls for more civility

Now that I’ve proven the obvious, try finally answering ONE question for once:

you’ve proven that you don’t understand the difference between a lecture from people holding jobs in government and the government telling you what you can not do.

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 8:17 PM

Certain Democrat Representatives and Senators started talking about and pushing the “Fairness Doctrine” again because of the Tucson shooting. In part because a crackerjack sheriff insinuates (with an “incorrect opinion” I might add) that conservative talk radio and a former Gov. is the cause of said shooting. Not to mention politicians that started pushing for severe gun control legislation.

Nope, no one wants any suppression of free speech or gun rights after Tucson, do they?/sarc

roopster217 on January 28, 2011 at 7:52 PM

Thank you for reminding me of that.

So, that point has been made, audiculous.

Now how are you going to dodge my question?

Chip on January 28, 2011 at 8:23 PM

or gun rights after Tucson, do they?/sarc

roopster217

wanting to change the specific content of the Arizona laws that allow for carrying concealed weapons into places that other states do not allow has little or nothing to do with the Second Am.

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 8:32 PM

So, that point has been made, audiculous.

Now how are you going to dodge my question?

Chip on January 28, 2011 at 8:23 PM

Chip on January 28, 2011 at 8:36 PM

The Left’s Tucson Strategy: Stage Two

The Left’s attempt to link the Tucson shootings to angry rhetoric (not theirs, of course) was stage one of a broader strategy–what both military men and political strategists refer to as preparing the battlefield. The movement to feign nonpartisanship at the State of the Union address by seating Republicans and Democrats together is another aspect of this stage. At the same time, the Left is moving on to stage two–an effort to cash in on battlefield preparation by attacking specific figures on the right and trying to shut down speech that the Left finds inconvenient.

But as a ‘moderate Conservative’ you supposedly against that sort thing aren’t you?

Chip on January 28, 2011 at 8:51 PM

Chip, the points that roopster is making are

1) that people are saying that they want to have stricter regulations regarding guns.

this is not proof that they hate the Second Am, because there are many regulations now in existence concerning guns and they have not been found to be inconsistent with the Second.
more legislation could only stand if it also is not inconsistent with the Second.

2)the other point from roopster is that people are TALKING about the Fairness Doctrine.

Is talking about that a problem for you?
Isn’t the fairness doctrine something that calls for airing of More opinions rather than just one side?

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 8:56 PM

isn’t that fairness thing the reason that tv stations show comments by the other party after the president gives a awfully long state of the union speech?

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 8:58 PM

But as a ‘moderate Conservative’ you supposedly against that sort thing aren’t you?

Chip

most definitely against the argument that Hinderaker is trying to make. there’s nothing moderate about it.

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 9:14 PM

she is sure that all the Founding Fathers worked ceaselessly to end slavery, her opinion isn’t an expression of truth.

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 7:58 PM

Thanks, now I know specifically what your talking about!

Now, how come there is NO quote from Bachmann where she actually said “

all the Founding Fathers worked ceaselessly to end slavery

”.

This quote is apparently made up, as in it doesn’t exist.

So were back to that old saying
“you can have your own opinion but ya can’t have yur own facts”.

Seems your claim that her opinion is “Incorrect” is based on a non-existent quote.

And that makes your opinion invalid because it is not based on facts.

Note: not “Incorrect” but “invalid”, due to the fact that your source “

all the Founding Fathers worked ceaselessly to end slavery

”, was never said by Bachmann.

Thanks for playing!

DSchoen on January 28, 2011 at 9:28 PM

…what I’ve learned is that the framers of the Constitution did more than simply compromise. They did more than just kick the can down the road. They produced a document that one of the delegates at the Constitutional Convention, James Wilson, said succeeded in “laying the foundation for banishing slavery out of this country,” even though he regretted that “the period is more distant than I could wish.”
- Sarah Palin, America by Heart

A good book.

Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on January 28, 2011 at 9:36 PM

DSchoen, sorry D.
I was giving hypothetical opinions as a response to the assertion that there can be no incorrect opinions and not demanding that they are accurate quotations of opinions that Bachmann has offered.

you seem to have truncated my examples to change them. I offered them as conditionals, you quoted them as simple assertions.

you’re cheating, little one and you shouldn’t play unfairly.

you lose that way and you bad children don’t get any of the parting gifts

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 9:45 PM

I’m not sure what to think of Glenn Beck but I do know that I tend to appreciate the information he puts forth (I really lerned a lot from his Soros expose). I apprecaite the way he too takes on the Blood Libeling Hatefilled Left and exposes their lies and deceits.

CCRWM on January 28, 2011 at 10:01 PM

you lose that way and you bad children don’t get any of the parting gifts

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 9:45 PM

The only child here is you. You’re not here to discuss the issues. You’re here to disrupt a Conservative website.

kingsjester on January 28, 2011 at 10:15 PM

jes, I’ve done more than a little discussing today.

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 10:18 PM

jes, I’ve done more than a little discussing today.

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 10:18 PM

All you’ve done is tap dance around everyone’s questions to you while calling others idiots and children. As long as you have yourself, you’ll never be alone. Having said that, I leave you to enjoy the pleasure of the company of your biggest fan.

kingsjester on January 28, 2011 at 10:23 PM

It has been my OPINION for years that Chris Matthews is the stupidest man on television. But now I can proudly say; it’s a proven fact that Chris Matthews is the stupidest man on television.

Pole-Cat on January 28, 2011 at 10:46 PM

Something has gone wrong with Matthews. I don’t know what, but I do recognize a debilitating obsession when I see and hear one. It’s so over the top that it approaches mania.

jeanie on January 28, 2011 at 11:04 PM

So what is the take-away here? That Matthews comes from an alternate universe where J.Q. Adams *wasn’t* a well-known abolitionist?

Why oh why do you peeps let yourself get sidetracked so easily by the trolls?

Merovign on January 29, 2011 at 12:50 AM

I have the same condition on a much less extreme level. I feel for him!

ihasurnominashun on January 28, 2011 at 1:39 PM

I have it in my right hand. I can also relate/sympathize.

annoyinglittletwerp on January 29, 2011 at 2:36 AM

you’re just confused D. dismissing some opinions as incorrect isn’t indicative of a disbelief in free speech.

I believe you have a right to discuss this and also that your opinion of my lack of belief in free speech is incorrect.

Who decides what a “correct” opinion is. From my standpoint you have no correct ones, so you can now shut up. Does that clarify it for you?

Noelie on January 29, 2011 at 9:15 AM

Who decides what a “correct” opinion is.

Noelie

read the thread. you missed the explanation.
it’ll clarify things for you.

audiculous on January 29, 2011 at 10:35 AM

Chip, the points that roopster is making are

1) that people are saying that they want to have stricter regulations regarding
guns.

No the people in the Government are wanting to take away our right to self defense.

Clearly, a conflict of interest since one entity the people need to defend themselves against is the government itself.

2)the other point from roopster is that people are TALKING about the Fairness Doctrine.

Is talking about that a problem for you?
Isn’t the fairness doctrine something that calls for airing of More opinions rather than just one side?

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 8:56 PM

No, just like so-called Liberals aren’t really supportive of Liberty, the so-called Fairness Doctrine isn’t supportive of Fairness.

you’re the one making the claim about what the government is ordering.

back up your bogus claim instead of asking me to deny it.

audiculous on January 28, 2011 at 7:31 PM

Your attempt at implying that was a ‘ bogus claim’ has been blown apart.

You kept on dodging and tap dancing around the question with dodges about the government not actually attacking the first amendment – well there, it is.

So, the question stills stands (And remains UNANSWERED)

What do you Leftists have against the first and second amendments?

Chip on January 29, 2011 at 11:08 AM

It’s commenters like ‘audiculous’ who make this site pretty worthless. Keeping him/her/it around just shows the craven depths to which this place seeks hits.

Oh, and ‘audiculous’ doesn’t tap dance around questions, it’s into full avoidance mode. What dishonest crap.

“… moderate Conservatism.” What an effin’ joke from a natural born liar.

As for civility, the Indonesian Imbecile can go f#&k his commie self. That civil enough for the proglibtards who spew their Gaia destroying, methane enhanced crap here?

RickZ on January 29, 2011 at 11:54 AM

OOOOh, how less than civil. It would just break Rick’s poor mother’s heart.

it’s really a blessing that she can’t read those harsh words.

audiculous on January 29, 2011 at 12:30 PM

Oh f#&k off you bleeding @sshole.

You are less than a pimple on an elephant’s @ss, and just as relevent.

You simple another lying sonuvab!tch on the innertubes.

RickZ on January 29, 2011 at 12:36 PM

You’re simply . . .

RickZ on January 29, 2011 at 12:36 PM

OOOOHHH, my my.

thank the good lord that your mommy can’t read how low you’ve brought yourself.

audiculous on January 29, 2011 at 12:43 PM

STOP THE TAPE, STOP THE TAPE.

Hissy fit Mathews implicates women such as Ms. Palin, and Ms. Bachmann are equal to 3/5 of a person when he is only 1/2 of the person they are.

Also, now I know where Chrissy and others got the idea that the Constitution is a living document, vice a liberty document. They just do not understand or ignored the work of Frederic Douglas.

MSGTAS on January 30, 2011 at 8:35 AM

audiculous on January 29, 2011 at 12:43 PM

So, the question stills stands (And remains UNANSWERED)

What do you Leftists have against the first and second amendments?

Chip on January 30, 2011 at 10:50 AM

Comment pages: 1 2