Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Cry baby Chris Matthews accidentally tells the truth

Posted by   + Show Post

 While crying about Obama's lackluster performance in the debate last night Chris Matthews accidentally told the thruth about MSNBC.

"Tonight wasn't an MSNBC debate tonight, was it?" Chris Matthews said after the first Obama-Romney presidential debate concluded on Wednesday night.

"I don't know what he was doing out there. He had his head down, he was enduring the debate rather than fighting it. Romney, on the other hand, came in with a campaign. He had a plan, he was going to dominate the time, he was going to be aggressive, he was going to push the moderator around, which he did effectively, he was going to relish the evening, enjoying it," Matthews said.

"Here's my question for Obama: I know he likes saying he doesn't watch cable television but maybe he should start. Maybe he should start. I don't know how he let Romney get away with the crap he throughout tonight about Social Security," Matthews complained.

Matthews then demanded that President Obama start watching cable news, specifically his program.

"Where was Obama tonight? He should watch -- well, not just Hardball, Rachel, he should watch you, he should watch the Reverend Al [Sharpton], he should watch Lawrence. He would learn something about this debate. There's a hot debate going on in this country. You know where it's been held? Here on this network is where we're having the debate," Matthews said.

"We have our knives out," Matthews said, admitting his network is trying their best to defend Obama and his policies. "We go after the people and the facts. What was he doing tonight? He went in there disarmed."

(continued)

Matthews admit that at MSNBC they attack the people, and the facts, that don't agree with their narrative.  He also admits, with encouragement from Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz, that MSNBC is in the tank for Obama.   He also indicates that the MSNBC moderators woud be less than impartial, taking a more active role int he debate... perhaps he should learn about debates and the role of the moderator.  

However, his accidental truth is hidden in the litany of lies about Romney and the way he dominated the time and bullied the moderator, when in fact he was respectful.  If you can stomach Chris Matthews in his whiny meltdown the video shows shows it live on air... a far cry from "I've got tingles running down my leg".

by on Oct. 4, 2012 at 6:18 AM
Replies (51-60):
annabl1970
by Platinum Member on Oct. 4, 2012 at 9:23 PM

sarcasm

Quoting fullxbusymom:

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Quoting annabl1970:

No surprise you love Romney...


Quoting fullxbusymom:

That is my only concern getting that ass hat out of office!! I would vote for cookie monster if it meant Obama wouldn't be our president any longer. Although I do love Romney anyways.


Quoting candlegal:




Quoting lga1965:


 LOL> I think the President has always looked very Presidential and he is calm and dignified. Romney,on the other hand, looks like a Stepford Man.



As far as looks go ( if you want to be shallow) Obama wins. No contest.



But I prefer action, plans and concern for all Americans and that's where Obama shines. We have no idea what Mitt's plans are, except to get Obama out of the White House . Big whoop.



Quoting candlegal:



Are you actually serious?   I don't think you watched the same debate I did.



Calm cool and Presidential, REALLY?    Thanks, I really needed a good laugh this morning.



Obama hasn't appeared  presidential since the beginning of his term and now he is trying to be, lol   Yeah, okay



Quoting MomTiara19:



Good morning,



I watched the debate last night and I understand what Chris Mathews(love Chris so passionate:) was saying.I am a democrat and understand what strategy Obama was coming from.He was calm,cool,and presidential.



Obama was told not to attack Romney because he would appear to aggressive,unstable,and unpresidential.Remember Obama is the president until the end of his term and must appear so.



Romney held alot of his policies under wraps in detail which is a great strategy for throwing his opponent off at the debate.Obama has always showed his plans in detail for our country openely.Romney threw out his plans and policies in a more generalized point at the debate which left the president having to think quickly and figure out and explain why Romneys figures and fluff still dont match or add up.Romneys approach was just to attack and look more confident.....never mind the full details.Just look at me and believe my big bold ideas so I can get the ax out if I am president.



Romney did alot of flip floping...and to me seemed inconsistent.Are you for medicaid or not,medicaire or not,education or not ...first you arent then you are....his treatment plan is Obama care just with a different name that he created in MA.



If you noticed Obama never once attacked Romney and has alot of ammunition left to do so.You will see a very different debate next time.I feel Obama will bring out the big guns in the next two debates.Romney showed his radical plans.



~Tia






 




 


sweet-a-kins
by Emerald Member on Oct. 4, 2012 at 9:43 PM
Take that personal insult crap to the playground

Quoting grandmab125:



Quoting sweet-a-kins:

Romney came on and lied. His own advisor already admitted his plan will NOT cover pre existing conditions


Are you drinking or smoking?  You make up more sh.t.  How about you post some proof, like links, instead of just your usual tactics of throwing crap out there, to see if any of it sticks to the wall.  Insurance companies already cover pre-existing conditions and kids on their parents policies until they're 26.  It would take a lot to undo that.

Posted on CafeMom Mobile
mom2the.rescue
by Bronze Member on Oct. 4, 2012 at 10:58 PM
1 mom liked this

Isn't the only reason they keep the insurance till they're 26 is because of the first stages of Obamacare?  It used to be 19 if not going to school full time...then I think it was 24 if in school full time.  Now it's 26, no matter what they're doing. 

Quoting grandmab125:

 

Quoting sweet-a-kins:

Romney came on and lied. His own advisor already admitted his plan will NOT cover pre existing conditions


Are you drinking or smoking?  You make up more sh.t.  How about you post some proof, like links, instead of just your usual tactics of throwing crap out there, to see if any of it sticks to the wall.  Insurance companies already cover pre-existing conditions and kids on their parents policies until they're 26.  It would take a lot to undo that.


grandmab125
by Gold Member on Oct. 4, 2012 at 11:52 PM
1 mom liked this


Quoting sweet-a-kins:

Take that personal insult crap to the playground

Quoting grandmab125:

 


Quoting sweet-a-kins:

Romney came on and lied. His own advisor already admitted his plan will NOT cover pre existing conditions


Are you drinking or smoking?  You make up more sh.t.  How about you post some proof, like links, instead of just your usual tactics of throwing crap out there, to see if any of it sticks to the wall.  Insurance companies already cover pre-existing conditions and kids on their parents policies until they're 26.  It would take a lot to undo that.

And you try posting something truthful for a change.

grandma B

grandmab125
by Gold Member on Oct. 5, 2012 at 12:03 AM
1 mom liked this


Quoting mom2the.rescue:

Isn't the only reason they keep the insurance till they're 26 is because of the first stages of Obamacare?  It used to be 19 if not going to school full time...then I think it was 24 if in school full time.  Now it's 26, no matter what they're doing. 

Quoting grandmab125:

 

Quoting sweet-a-kins:

Romney came on and lied. His own advisor already admitted his plan will NOT cover pre existing conditions


Are you drinking or smoking?  You make up more sh.t.  How about you post some proof, like links, instead of just your usual tactics of throwing crap out there, to see if any of it sticks to the wall.  Insurance companies already cover pre-existing conditions and kids on their parents policies until they're 26.  It would take a lot to undo that.

 

Most insurance companies have always insured kids under their parents if they were going to college for four years, usually graduating at the age of 22.  If you went for 2 years, you were covered for those two years.  Now they're covered till 26, which I think is ludicrous...it raises the costs for the rest of us.  I buy my own insurance, and between pre-existing condition coverage (which I'm OK with) and covering kids till they're 26, my insurance has gone up over 50% in the last  2 1/2 years.  If adults, not kids, have a job, they should be getting insurance through their employers or buying it themselves....not mooching off the rest of us.  Companies that now have to add these people to their policies have passed that cost on to all of their employees.

grandma B

paganbaby
by Teflon Don on Oct. 5, 2012 at 12:10 AM
1 mom liked this

My mother would wholeheartedly agree.

Quoting gammie:

The debates at like watching wrestling, we know the fight is fake they already know who will win and still you think by supporting your guy you will make a difference?


Lilypie - Personal pictureLilypie Breastfeeding tickers

mom2the.rescue
by Bronze Member on Oct. 5, 2012 at 12:25 AM

I thought you were saying it was 26 before Obama.  Young adults are coming out of college with tons of debt, and not always wonderful jobs with benefits right away.  I think it was a good thing they extended the age to 26. 

Quoting grandmab125:

 

Quoting mom2the.rescue:

Isn't the only reason they keep the insurance till they're 26 is because of the first stages of Obamacare?  It used to be 19 if not going to school full time...then I think it was 24 if in school full time.  Now it's 26, no matter what they're doing. 

Quoting grandmab125:

 

Quoting sweet-a-kins:

Romney came on and lied. His own advisor already admitted his plan will NOT cover pre existing conditions


Are you drinking or smoking?  You make up more sh.t.  How about you post some proof, like links, instead of just your usual tactics of throwing crap out there, to see if any of it sticks to the wall.  Insurance companies already cover pre-existing conditions and kids on their parents policies until they're 26.  It would take a lot to undo that.

 

Most insurance companies have always insured kids under their parents if they were going to college for four years, usually graduating at the age of 22.  If you went for 2 years, you were covered for those two years.  Now they're covered till 26, which I think is ludicrous...it raises the costs for the rest of us.  I buy my own insurance, and between pre-existing condition coverage (which I'm OK with) and covering kids till they're 26, my insurance has gone up over 50% in the last  2 1/2 years.  If adults, not kids, have a job, they should be getting insurance through their employers or buying it themselves....not mooching off the rest of us.  Companies that now have to add these people to their policies have passed that cost on to all of their employees.


grandmab125
by Gold Member on Oct. 5, 2012 at 12:33 AM


Quoting mom2the.rescue:

I thought you were saying it was 26 before Obama.  Young adults are coming out of college with tons of debt, and not always wonderful jobs with benefits right away.  I think it was a good thing they extended the age to 26. 

Quoting grandmab125:

 

Quoting mom2the.rescue:

Isn't the only reason they keep the insurance till they're 26 is because of the first stages of Obamacare?  It used to be 19 if not going to school full time...then I think it was 24 if in school full time.  Now it's 26, no matter what they're doing. 

Quoting grandmab125:

 

Quoting sweet-a-kins:

Romney came on and lied. His own advisor already admitted his plan will NOT cover pre existing conditions


Are you drinking or smoking?  You make up more sh.t.  How about you post some proof, like links, instead of just your usual tactics of throwing crap out there, to see if any of it sticks to the wall.  Insurance companies already cover pre-existing conditions and kids on their parents policies until they're 26.  It would take a lot to undo that.

 

Most insurance companies have always insured kids under their parents if they were going to college for four years, usually graduating at the age of 22.  If you went for 2 years, you were covered for those two years.  Now they're covered till 26, which I think is ludicrous...it raises the costs for the rest of us.  I buy my own insurance, and between pre-existing condition coverage (which I'm OK with) and covering kids till they're 26, my insurance has gone up over 50% in the last  2 1/2 years.  If adults, not kids, have a job, they should be getting insurance through their employers or buying it themselves....not mooching off the rest of us.  Companies that now have to add these people to their policies have passed that cost on to all of their employees.

 


No, I was saying it's in the law, Obamacare, now that they are covered to 26.  Insurance companies always had their own policies on the matter, which usually was to 18, 19, 20, etc.  through 4 years of college...as long as you where in school of some kind.

grandma B

DSamuels
by Gold Member on Oct. 5, 2012 at 12:37 AM
1 mom liked this

And how do you think they will control Medicare spending? Probably by cherry picking patients treatment. I don't see any other logical way of doing it, except to tell drs and hospitals that they'll pay even less.

Wait, if they pay even less, then less drs and hospitals will accept Medicare, thus cutting and cherry picking patient treatment.

Quoting Karen_Dover:

Also, speaking of lying through his TEETH- Mitt Romney brought up the Independent Advisory Board for the ACA, calling it " a board that can tell people ultimately what treatments they're going to receive" which is TOTAL BS. The Independent Payment Advisory Board is set up to control Medicare spending growth annually, not to cherry pick patients' treatments. He is totally preying on elderly people's fears.


DSamuels
by Gold Member on Oct. 5, 2012 at 12:42 AM

LOL

Even San Francisco, liberal bastion that elects Nancy, polls said Romney won. In fact most all of CA said Romney won, except for the blacks. The whites, Asians and hispanics all said Romney won, as did independents and moderates.

Even more importantly — particularly in what is considered a ‘Blue’ state, where not surprisingly significantly more Democrats watched the debate than Republicans — it was striking that 48% thought Romney was the clear winner.

That’s according to aKPIX-TV CBS 5 poll taken right after the debate, which found only 34% of Golden State debate watchers actually believed Obama won.

Even in the San Francisco Bay Area, debate watchers saw Romney as a narrow winner, according to the poll which was conducted for CBS 5 by the firm SurveyUSA.

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/10/03/californians-watch-as-obama-romney-clash-on-economy-in-1st-debate/

Quoting lga1965:

 On our noon ABC News today, they quoted a poll showing that the President won the debate last night.:-) But others , on the Internet, say that it was a tie. A few say Romney won.

LOL. It looks like the first debate was all for nothing!

But I don't care about polls. I do care that Romney has no actual plans.And that he is just a pretentious snob.


Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)



Featured