Hardball with Chris Matthews (1 Viewer)

[Navy Pride]

You know I use to like to watch this show........Matthews although a liberal and a Tip Oneill man was always relatively fair and had guests on his show from both sides of the aisle but lately he has gone off the deep end......He has a panel on of all Liberals and all the four do is contantly bash the president and his administration........

Scarborough has sold out to the left too...........About the only guy I can watch is Tucker Carlson anymore.........

I am so glad that FOX is killing them in all the ratings......

 

[aps]

You know I use to like to watch this show........Matthews although a liberal and a Tip Oneill man was always relatively fair and had guests on his show from both sides of the aisle but lately he has gone off the deep end......He has a panel on of all Liberals and all the four do is contantly bash the president and his administration........

Scarborough has sold out to the left too...........About the only guy I can watch is Tucker Carlson anymore.........

I am so glad that FOX is killing them in all the ratings......

I missed the show. Who was on it? I taped the 5pm showing--instead, it was breaking news on the plane crash. I got home after 8pm, so I missed the 7 pm showing. They play it again at 3am. I turn on the TV just now, and it's Keith Olbermann. What the hell? What did I miss???

 

[aquapub]

You know I use to like to watch this show........Matthews although a liberal and a Tip Oneill man was always relatively fair and had guests on his show from both sides of the aisle but lately he has gone off the deep end......He has a panel on of all Liberals and all the four do is contantly bash the president and his administration........

Scarborough has sold out to the left too...........About the only guy I can watch is Tucker Carlson anymore.........

I am so glad that FOX is killing them in all the ratings......

Same boat. I use to watch him when he was able to control his knee-jerk liberal conspiracy theorizing and hysteria, but he went off the cliff and instead of giving his audience an inside look at Washington events and the power players, he started regurgitating liberal hype.

Now I generally get my news from these sources:

NPR (liberal news in the car), O'Reilly, Hannity and Colmes (conservative news at night), and a handful of my favorite columnists. Matthews took himself out of my news spectrum long ago.

 

[Navy Pride]

I missed the show. Who was on it? I taped the 5pm showing--instead, it was breaking news on the plane crash. I got home after 8pm, so I missed the 7 pm showing. They play it again at 3am. I turn on the TV just now, and it's Keith Olbermann. What the hell? What did I miss???

He had Margaret Carlson and 2 other Liberal news reporters and it was just a 4 way party to bash Bash.........Like I said I know he is a democrat but he use to be kind of fair and impartial and ask tough questions whether he was interviewing a democrat or a republican.........He does not sem to do that anymore.......He even admitted he voted for Bush.......I am beginning todoubt that now..............

 

[aps]

He had Margaret Carlson and 2 other Liberal news reporters and it was just a 4 way party to bash Bash.........Like I said I know he is a democrat but he use to be kind of fair and impartial and ask tough questions whether he was interviewing a democrat or a republican.........He does not sem to do that anymore.......He even admitted he voted for Bush.......I am beginning todoubt that now..............

I think it can be perceived as partisan by both parties. There have been times where my husband and I vow we won't watch him anymore because he has let conservatives off easy, where he's not that way with democrats. When he would do his hot shots on Fridays, he would have Joe Scarborough and Tucker Carlson and Rita Cosby. Thus, 2 cons and one semi-dem. That really annoyed us. Watch it, if he's annoying you, turn him off. That's what I do.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Matthews was on Bill Maher's Real Time last week. He certainly didn't say one thing that made him sound liberal to me.

Matthew's is an opportunist, as is Scarborough. The pendulum is swinging back to the left in this country, and both are putting a toe on the bandwagon.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Matthews took himself out of my news spectrum long ago.

Agreed 100%

 

[Navy Pride]

I think it can be perceived as partisan by both parties. There have been times where my husband and I vow we won't watch him anymore because he has let conservatives off easy, where he's not that way with democrats. When he would do his hot shots on Fridays, he would have Joe Scarborough and Tucker Carlson and Rita Cosby. Thus, 2 cons and one semi-dem. That really annoyed us. Watch it, if he's annoying you, turn him off. That's what I do.

I know aps.........He use to bring people on from both sides and he would ask tough questions to both.....Like I said he even said he voted for Bush in 2004.....He has really changed lately as have MSNBC...I don't know if its a rating thing becasue FOX is kicking their butts or not.......

I may flip over to see who he has on because my other options are Wolfe Blitzer and Shepard Smith and I don't care for either of them.............

 

[Navy Pride]

Agreed 100%

hips, you should check him out again......Its a constant bash Bush and Republicans.....You would love that......


Steelers 31-17

 

[Navy Pride]

Matthews was on Bill Maher's Real Time last week. He certainly didn't say one thing that made him sound liberal to me.

Matthew's is an opportunist, as is Scarborough. The pendulum is swinging back to the left in this country, and both are putting a toe on the bandwagon.[/QUOTE]

I doubt that but I think MSNBC is getting desperate and has put the word out to lean to the left..........

 

[Stinger]

You know I use to like to watch this show........Matthews although a liberal and a Tip Oneill man was always relatively fair and had guests on his show from both sides of the aisle but lately he has gone off the deep end......He has a panel on of all Liberals and all the four do is contantly bash the president and his administration........

Scarborough has sold out to the left too...........About the only guy I can watch is Tucker Carlson anymore.........

I am so glad that FOX is killing them in all the ratings......

After he let his emotions so cloud his judgement on the Plame thing and the fact they still have David Schuster as their main reporter on politics the show has lost all credibility. Too bad to because at one time it was a fairly good show. But they just blew this year with the reporting of conjecture and assertions as fact.

 

[Navy Pride]

After he let his emotions so cloud his judgement on the Plame thing and the fact they still have David Schuster as their main reporter on politics the show has lost all credibility. Too bad to because at one time it was a fairly good show. But they just blew this year with the reporting of conjecture and assertions as fact.

Schuster is a left wing hack and a shill for Matthews.........He has not been right on any of his reports or predictions yet....

 

[aps]

After he let his emotions so cloud his judgement on the Plame thing and the fact they still have David Schuster as their main reporter on politics the show has lost all credibility. Too bad to because at one time it was a fairly good show. But they just blew this year with the reporting of conjecture and assertions as fact.

Stinger, you seem to confuse "assertions as fact" with someone hypothesizing. Here's what Shuster said about Rove:

Well, Karl Rove's legal team has told me that they expect that a decision will come sometime in the next two weeks. And I am convinced that Karl Rove will, in fact, be indicted. And there are a couple of reasons why. First of all, you don't put somebody in front of a grand jury at the end of an investigation or for the fifth time, as Karl Rove testified a couple, a week and a half ago, unless you feel that's your only chance of avoiding indictment. So in other words, the burden starts with Karl Rove to stop the charges. Secondly, it's now been 13 days since Rove testified. After testifying for three and a half hours, prosecutors refused to give him any indication that he was clear. He has not gotten any indication since then. And the lawyers that I've spoken with outside of this case say that if Rove had gotten himself out of the jam, he would have heard something by now. And then the third issue is something we've talked about before. And that is, in the Scooter Libby indictment, Karl Rove was identified as 'Official A.' It's the term that prosecutors use when they try to get around restrictions on naming somebody in an indictment. We've looked through the records of Patrick Fitzgerald from when he was prosecuting cases in New York and from when he's been US attorney in Chicago. And in every single investigation, whenever Fitzgerald has identified somebody as Official A, that person eventually gets indicted themselves, in every single investigation. Will Karl Rove defy history in this particular case? I suppose anything is possible when you are dealing with a White House official. But the lawyers that I've been speaking with who know this stuff say, don't bet on Karl Rove getting out of this.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/MSNBC_reporter_I_am_convinced_that_0508.html

First of all, it's one thing for him to come out and say, "I am convinced Rove will be indicted" and then he stops talking. Here, he then explained in detail WHY he had come to that conclusion. I think that is a valid conclusion to reach based upon the information he lays out. Sure, it could be argued that he would not get indicted, but that doesn't mean that the other position isn't worth arguing. I cannot fathom how you come to the conclusion that he pulled this assertion out of nowhere. He had evidence to back up his position. He was wrong. So what? It happens in courtrooms every single day to either a plaintiff/prosecutor or a defendant.

 

[Stinger]

Stinger, you seem to confuse "assertions as fact" with someone hypothesizing. Here's what Shuster said about Rove:



First of all, it's one thing for him to come out and say, "I am convinced Rove will be indicted" and then he stops talking. Here, he then explained in detail WHY he had come to that conclusion. I think that is a valid conclusion to reach based upon the information he lays out. Sure, it could be argued that he would not get indicted, but that doesn't mean that the other position isn't worth arguing. I cannot fathom how you come to the conclusion that he pulled this assertion out of nowhere. He had evidence to back up his position. He was wrong. So what? It happens in courtrooms every single day to either a plaintiff/prosecutor or a defendant.

Oh he said a lot more than that, and also claimed to have inside sources when he claimed that Rove would be indicted and later said those were DEFENSE attorneys telling him that and they had no more knowledge of what Fitzgerald was going to do as you or I. I warned you then not to take what he said as evidence and you did anyway.

Remember him saying Rove was worried he would be indicted and how the grand jury appeareance was "hell", and he never presented any evidence he knew what Rove thought or felt or anything.

And he was a REPORTER, not a commentator.

 

[aps]

Oh he said a lot more than that, and also claimed to have inside sources when he claimed that Rove would be indicted and later said those were DEFENSE attorneys telling him that and they had no more knowledge of what Fitzgerald was going to do as you or I. I warned you then not to take what he said as evidence and you did anyway.

Remember him saying Rove was worried he would be indicted and how the grand jury appeareance was "hell", and he never presented any evidence he knew what Rove thought or felt or anything.

And he was a REPORTER, not a commentator.

You warned me to not take what he said as evidence? Stop being so overly dramatic. Sure I was upset that Rove wasn't indicted, but I have taken positions many times and been wrong. It's part of life.

Just keep attacking Shuster and/or Hardball if it makes you feel better. I just like the fact that Shuster's report has bothered you so much. If I were in your shoes, I would revel in the fact that he was wrong. However, you seem to still be steaming over this. Relax, and move on.

 

[Stinger]

You warned me to not take what he said as evidence?

ROFL I was the one calmly warning you that what you were presenting as evidence, based on Schusters reporting, was nothing of the sort but you insisted and let your emotions overcome you. Several times I point out the fallacy of his "evidence" which was nothing but pure conjecture.

Let's reminisce


http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-po...karl-rove-will-indicted-2.html?highlight=Rove


Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
BE careful Schuster has his whole career pending on a Rove indictment. If Rove is not indicted Shuster credibility and a years worth of reporting are down the drain.

And none of the reasons he gives are very convincing at all.

And you replied:

"Now why doesn't this conclusion remotely surprise me? Anyone who says anything that could be perceived as being negative towards the Bush Administration is never, ever convincing to you, Stinger.

He has consulted legal experts and done research on Patrick Fitzgerald's past prosecutions. Additionally, he admits that Fitzgerald may have a higher burden in this case since it involves a White House employee.

Also, Rove testified weeks ago. Why hasn't he been informed that he's off the hook?"

Stop being so overly dramatic.

Stop being in denial.

Let's not forget you went on to say, based on the reporting Schuster was doing on Hardball


Stinger Quote:
Yes such as "whenever Fitzgerald scratches his nose with his left hand he issues an indictment".

aps Quote:
Please provide me evidence of either one of them saying such. This just shows me your inability to recognize that there is evidence that supports an indictment. Sure, there is also evidence that is against an indictment, but your failure to recognize that there is evidence that supports an indictment says a lot about your ability to objectively look at the situation.


Stinger Quote:
Which adds nothing to his burden, he must deal with the facts and facts alone, something Schuster tends to play with.

aps Quote:
What facts has Shuster played with? I don't believe he has said anything that was based on his own facts. "

Sure I was upset that Rove wasn't indicted,

Why, when he was innocent of anything criminal?

Just keep attacking Shuster and/or Hardball if it makes you feel better.

Sorry but unlike you feelings have nothing to do with it as far as myself. Schuster should have been fired for the unbelieveable slanted reporting and misleading he did concerning Rove. He has no credibility anymore.

I just like the fact that Shuster's report has bothered you so much.

That it bothers me when reporters state conjecture and assertion as fact? OK whatever makes you happy.

If I were in your shoes, I would revel in the fact that he was wrong. However, you seem to still be steaming over this. Relax, and move on.

Oh I'm as cool and collective as when I was pointing out then the fallicies of you logic and belief in what Schuster was reporting. Butl if you want to take the position that reports can report bogus stories and still remain credible that is your ground to hold.

 

[aps]

Several times I point out the fallacy of his "evidence" which was nothing but pure conjecture.

Are you accusing him of lying of what his sources said to him? Again, Stinger, you make it seem as though there is only one way to interpret evidence. There is not.

Stop being in denial.

What am I being in denial about? I could see you telling me you warned me if it involved your telling me not to get into a car with a drunk person, but I still did, and subsequently suffered severe injuries as a result. You may have argued that Shuster was wrong in his assessment, and I chose to give his assessment more crediblity than you did. So what? He was wrong, and that's okay. I haven't suffered anything as a result (well, except for disappointment).

Why, when he was innocent of anything criminal?

We have gone over this before. Just because soemone is not indicted does not make them innocent. Remember, our justice system says you are either guilty or you are NOT guilty--it doesn't say "innocent." O.J. Simpson was found not guilty. Do you genuinely think he is innocent? LOL

Sorry but unlike you feelings have nothing to do with it as far as myself. Schuster should have been fired for the unbelieveable slanted reporting and misleading he did concerning Rove. He has no credibility anymore.

You don't think he has credibility, and that is your preogorative. I, however, feel otherwise, as does MSNBC since he still remains employed there.

That it bothers me when reports state conjecture and assertion as fact? OK whatever makes you happy.



Well if you want to take the position that reports can report bogus stories and still remain credible that is your ground to hold.

And you can say otherwise. It's the beauty of the differences in the way people think, feel, react, etc.

 

[Stinger]

Are you accusing him of lying of what his sources said to him?

I'm accusing him of misrepresenting his "inside sources" as having inside knowledge of what Fitzgeralds office was or was not going to do.

Again, Stinger, you make it seem as though there is only one way to interpret evidence. There is not.

Perhaps if you are dealing with evidence, but his evidence was nothing but conjecture and assertion.

What am I being in denial about? I could see you telling me you warned me if it involved your telling me not to get into a car with a drunk person, but I still did, and subsequently suffered severe injuries as a result.

And I basically told you not to get in the car with Schuster and be taken for a ride along side his bias'd and misleading reporting.

You may have argued that Shuster was wrong in his assessment,

May? There was no may about it.

and I chose to give his assessment more crediblity than you did. So what? He was wrong, and that's okay. I haven't suffered anything as a result (well, except for disappointment).

Not only was he wrong he misrepresented what he knew and didn't know. And he did so as a reporter not a commentator.

We have gone over this before. Just because soemone is not indicted does not make them innocent. Remember, our justice system says you are either guilty or you are NOT guilty--it doesn't say "innocent." O.J. Simpson was found not guilty. Do you genuinely think he is innocent? LOL

Oh what a stretch. And we don't ususally accuse people of being guilty unless there is evidence that they are, and in this case there is none, only wishful thinking on your part.

You don't think he has credibility, and that is your preogorative. I, however, feel otherwise, as does MSNBC since he still remains employed there.

In spite of the fact he misreported the Rove issue, blatantly so. Well that is your ground to hold, but be advised and remember the old adage "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me"

And you can say otherwise. It's the beauty of the differences in the way people think, feel, react, etc.

And as they say, you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. And Schuster presented none yet you protrayed them as facts, feel for them and got burned. I would think you would have learned something from that.

 

[aps]

I'm accusing him of misrepresenting his "inside sources" as having inside knowledge of what Fitzgeralds office was or was not going to do.

Where does he say he has inside knowledge?

Well, Karl Rove's legal team has told me that they expect that a decision will come sometime in the next two weeks. And I am convinced that Karl Rove will, in fact, be indicted. And there are a couple of reasons why. First of all, you don't put somebody in front of a grand jury at the end of an investigation or for the fifth time, as Karl Rove testified a couple, a week and a half ago, unless you feel that's your only chance of avoiding indictment. So in other words, the burden starts with Karl Rove to stop the charges.

I don't see him saying he has inside sources. He is surmising based upon the fact that Rove went back for a 5th time to testify before the grand jury. That is a fact, yes? That he went back and testified for a 5th time before the grand jury? Are you arguing that he did not go back 5 times? That is a lot of times to be going before the grand jury.

Secondly, it's now been 13 days since Rove testified. After testifying for three and a half hours, prosecutors refused to give him any indication that he was clear. He has not gotten any indication since then. And the lawyers that I've spoken with outside of this case say that if Rove had gotten himself out of the jam, he would have heard something by now.

The fact that they would not clear Rove before he left the courthouse was a KNOWN FACT. I believe Rove's attorney relayed such information.

He is saying that the lawyers he spoke with are OUTSIDE OF THIS CASE. I am guessing those facts are right (that he spoke with lawyers who are familiar with this process and found it unusual that Rove had not been notified he was in the clear).

And then the third issue is something we've talked about before. And that is, in the Scooter Libby indictment, Karl Rove was identified as 'Official A.' It's the term that prosecutors use when they try to get around restrictions on naming somebody in an indictment. We've looked through the records of Patrick Fitzgerald from when he was prosecuting cases in New York and from when he's been US attorney in Chicago. And in every single investigation, whenever Fitzgerald has identified somebody as Official A, that person eventually gets indicted themselves, in every single investigation.

I don't see anywhere that Shuster says he got inside information from Fitzgerald. Rather, they looked through public records that YOU or I could look at if we went to the courthouse.

Perhaps if you are dealing with evidence, but his evidence was nothing but conjecture and assertion.

The fact that every person named as Official A was subsequently indicted? That is conjecture? There's documentation to prove that. Shall we discuss the meaning of evidence, Stinger? LOTS of criminal cases are tried using circumstantial evidence, and lots of criminals are convicted based upon circumstantial evidence. Sometimes a bunch of circumstantial evidence can cause one to reach a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt.

Say I walk into a room and my hair is wet, as is my coat. Another person walks in the room and they have an umbrella that is wet, and their coat is wet. Another person walks into a room, and their hair and coat are wet. Do you think you could reach a conclusion that it's raining outside? Is that possible? Of course it is. Whether you could conclude that it is raining beyond a reasonable doubt is another story. But, in case you didn't know, that is not the standard when involving an indictment.

And I basically told you not to get in the car with Schuster and be taken for a ride along side his bias'd and misleading reporting.

You are too much! :lol:

Not only was he wrong he misrepresented what he knew and didn't know. And he did so as a reporter not a commentator.

Do you have evidence he misrepresented what he knew? If so, please provide that.

Oh what a stretch. And we don't ususally accuse people of being guilty unless there is evidence that they are, and in this case there is none, only wishful thinking on your part.

Yeah, there was NO evidence that Rove COULD have broken a law. That's why Patrick Fitzgerald spent all this time because there was NO evidence. LOL

In spite of the fact he misreported the Rove issue, blatantly so. Well that is your ground to hold, but be advised and remember the old adage "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me"

Shuster hasn't fooled me once. Maybe he fooled you, although it sounds like you never bought his argument. Rather, you were just fuming because he said something againt your wittle Wove.

And as they say, you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. And Schuster presented none yet you protrayed them as facts, feel for them and got burned. I would think you would have learned something from that.

Again, his relaying what he was told by lawyers is fact. His saying that everyone who had been labeled as Official A by Fitzgerald had been subsequently indicted is a fact, or do you have evidence to show otherwise?

 

[Stinger]

Where does he say he has inside knowledge?

Throughout the whole episode.

I don't see him saying he has inside sources. He is surmising based upon the fact that Rove went back for a 5th time to testify before the grand jury. That is a fact, yes? That he went back and testified for a 5th time before the grand jury? Are you arguing that he did not go back 5 times? That is a lot of times to be going before the grand jury.

In that clip, and it was baseless assertion to present that as evidence of any guilt.

The fact that they would not clear Rove before he left the courthouse was a KNOWN FACT. I believe Rove's attorney relayed such information.

Yes all through the ordeal Rove's attorney's told him that he was not a target but Schuster and Hardball kept presenting it as if he was hiding something, without any evidence he was.

I don't see anywhere that Shuster says he got inside information from Fitzgerald. Rather, they looked through public records that YOU or I could look at if we went to the courthouse.

"Sources close to the investigation" which he later admitted were defense attorneys for the other individuals who had no more knowledge than you or me as to what Fitzgerald would do or would not do.

The fact that every person named as Official A was subsequently indicted? That is conjecture?

Yep.

There's documentation to prove that.

It is still conjecture to state that the definiately proves Rove will be indicted.
Do you even know what conjecture means? This is a classic case of it.

Shall we discuss the meaning of evidence, Stinger? LOTS of criminal cases are tried using circumstantial evidence, and lots of criminals are convicted based upon circumstantial evidence.

That does not even qualify as circumstantial evidence, it is conjecture.

Sometimes a bunch of circumstantial evidence can cause one to reach a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt.

Moot point.

You are too much! :lol:

So says my wife.

Do you have evidence he misrepresented what he knew? If so, please provide that.

Already presented, his "evidence" which led to his statement of fact that Rove would be indicted.

Yeah, there was NO evidence that Rove COULD have broken a law. That's why Patrick Fitzgerald spent all this time because there was NO evidence. LOL

COULD have doesn't make babe. If a reporter on a major news channel is going to report that someone DID not COULD he better have evidence. And there was none here and you were warned about it.

Shuster hasn't fooled me once.

OH yes he did, and you got burned on it.

Maybe he fooled you,

:rofl how?

although it sounds like you never bought his argument.

I never bought his reporting as factual. It was partisan mush.

Rather, you were just fuming because he said something againt your wittle Wove.

Unlike you I never let my emotions get the better of me. I consistently stated that we should wait for all the facts to come it and if Rove did something illegal he should face the musice, but there was never any evidence he did, just pure conjecture on the part of a news reporter reporting it as fact.

Again, his relaying what he was told by lawyers is fact.

And those defense lawyers had no idea what Fitzgerald was going to do but Rove cited them as sources and made the factual claim that Rove would be indicted. He later had to admit his sources were NOT from the Justice Department but merely self-serving defense lawyers.

His saying that everyone who had been labeled as Official A by Fitzgerald had been subsequently indicted is a fact, or do you have evidence to show otherwise?

And as I said at the time that was utter nonsense. No more evidence that to say that everytime Fitzgerald indicted someone before noon they were guilty.

 

[Moot]

You know I use to like to watch this show........Matthews although a liberal and a Tip Oneill man was always relatively fair and had guests on his show from both sides of the aisle but lately he has gone off the deep end......He has a panel on of all Liberals and all the four do is contantly bash the president and his administration........

Scarborough has sold out to the left too...........About the only guy I can watch is Tucker Carlson anymore.........

I am so glad that FOX is killing them in all the ratings......

Weird. Because I heard Matthews say just last week that he wasn't a Democrat anymore.

Matthews Tells Baker 'Democrats Not My Party Anymore'
http://newsbusters.org/node/8371

That really surprised me. Now here you are saying that because a bunch of Liberals were on his show proves he's gone over the deep end.

Could you please tell us in what context an all Liberal panel was on Matthews show so we may judge for ourselves?


Tucker Carlson is okay, except he always acts like he's about ready to wet his pants. That boy needs to calm down and listen before he opens his mouth.

Do Fox ratings really count? I mean with guests like G. Gordon Liddy how can they have any credibility at all. Why doesn't Fox just move their studio to a prison to find guests, since thats where most of their guests have or are going to be anyway?

Scarborough....meh. His show is boring. My favorite show right now is Keith Olbermann. That dude ROCKS. :rock

 

[Navy Pride]

Weird. Because I heard Matthews say just last week that he wasn't a Democrat anymore.

Matthews Tells Baker 'Democrats Not My Party Anymore'
http://newsbusters.org/node/8371

That really surprised me. Now here you are saying that because a bunch of Liberals were on his show proves he's gone over the deep end.

Could you please tell us in what context an all Liberal panel was on Matthews show so we may judge for ourselves?


Tucker Carlson is okay, except he always acts like he's about ready to wet his pants. That boy needs to calm down and listen before he opens his mouth.

Do Fox ratings really count? I mean with guests like G. Gordon Liddy how can they have any credibility at all. Why doesn't Fox just move their studio to a prison to find guests, since thats where most of their guests have or are going to be anyway?

Scarborough....meh. His show is boring. My favorite show right now is Keith Olbermann. That dude ROCKS. :rock

I was going to respond to each of your points but this says it all.......

 

[Moot]

I was going to respond to each of your points but this says it all.......

Since you started it, what is the point of this thread?

 

[aps]

I was going to respond to each of your points but this says it all.......

Come on, Navy Pride--just because Moot likes Olbermann, you refuse to provide responses to his questions regarding Chris Matthews? That is a total cop out, and you know it.

 

[Navy Pride]

Come on, Navy Pride--just because Moot likes Olbermann, you refuse to provide responses to his questions regarding Chris Matthews? That is a total cop out, and you know it.

aps, it is hjard to debate someone that is so blinded by their hate and he/she thinks Olberman walks on water......He said as much...