Did anyone watch Hardball last night...

[WaffleBoy]

the segment with Michelle Malkin? Was Chris too hard on Michelle. Your thoughts.

The Boy Wonder ;)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I, for one, thoroughly enjoyed watching Matthews spank this foul Annthrax Coulter wannabe.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200408200005

[watermock]

Do you think I care about this sadistic bastard taking her off the air on a break?

This is so ****ing classic. Noone here with an ounce of balls will deny that she was thrown off the show. It's all about intimidation.

I can intimidate Al Wilson. So ****ing what. Here is the fact of the matter you dimwits, He shoved here off the show. You got it yet?

[watermock]

So you go and deny what happened you dimwit. It wasn't her that was flustered, but him. He just went into a classic male dominant posture on her ass. So sit down, shut up and realize what happened when some liberal asshole can't handle reality.

[Blueflame]

So you go and deny what happened you dimwit. It wasn't her that was flustered, but him. He just went into a classic male dominant posture on her ass. So sit down, shut up and realize what happened when some liberal asshole can't handle reality.

Matthews, Olberman, Maher... they've all clearly won debates with Ms. Malkin within the past week. My unsolicited advice to her would be to stick to Fix; they'll pre-screen... and handpick a "liberal" (includes "Democrats" like Zell Miller) and softball and script the questions... so she can appear to "win"....

[watermock]

I'm not willing to take up Malikin. What do you want me to say?

WTF are you talking about?

She was beaten down. WTF are you talking about. Every point she made was valid. All you can do is talk about how pissed off she was. It's so funny. Here is ****head "Well it's my show so I kicked her off after the first segment".

Yeah, that's really good you dimwits. Why not get a clue he was losing it.

Why was she left in the shade after the first segment?

C'mon Bitatchs. Cmon. Tell me.

Couldn't handle the truth?

And a second thing, all the amusement about throwing someone off the programme.

It's so facist it's funny.

So where do you go go from there?

Comfort the Shia enemy?

[Blueflame]

I'm not willing to take up Malikin. What do you want me to say?

WTF are you talking about? Michelle Malkin, of course

She was beaten down. WTF are you talking about. Every point she made was valid.From my pov, that's not true. All you can do is talk about how pissed off she was.Her post on Betsy'sblog made that abundantly clear. It's so funny.I agree. Here is ****head "Well it's my show so I kicked her off after the first segment". Please prove that he "kicked her off"...

Yeah, that's really good you dimwits. Why not get a clue he was losing it. UM... did HE run to an intenet blog to make excuses for an abysmal debate loss? I don't think so.

Why was she left in the shade after the first segment?

C'mon Bitatchs. Cmon. Tell me.

Couldn't handle the truth? No, she apparently couldn't.

And a second thing, all the amusement about throwing someone off the programme.

It's so facist it's funny.

So where do you go go from there?

Comfort the Shia enemy?

*Ms Malkin runs crying to the netblog trying to save face*

[WaffleBoy]

Blue, I have to say I was a bit surprise, because Chris doesn't generally play hardball with female guests. Normally, he does the standard, playful interview with female guest. But clearly, she wasn't prepared and ready to answer point-blank questions.

The Boy Wonder ;)

[Blueflame]

Blue, I have to say I was a bit surprise, because Chris doesn't generally play hardball with female guests. Normally, he does the standard, playful interview with female guest. But clearly, she wasn't prepared and ready to answer point-blank questions.

The Boy Wonder ;)

Very true, Waffle... but you can't say she wasn't asking for it.

[Raider Bill]

He kept interupting her and wouldn't let her answer his questions.

He went friggin bonkers and cut to commercial while she was taken off the show.

[Blueflame]

He kept interupting her and wouldn't let her answer his questions.

He went friggin bonkers and cut to commercial while she was taken off the show.

Gimme a break... she was asked for a simple yes or no answer but repeatedly refused, opting instead to attempt unsuccessful deflections.

Her exit from the show only spared her further embarrassment.

[watermock]

It wasn't an exit. She was repeatedly interrupted and frustrated. Play that crap with me you better have some security. Let's just say she won't be invited for the next analysis.

She was kicked off the next segment. Get your facts straight.

Let me ask you dimwits this. How many times has O'Reiley kicked a guest, even the Manatee?

Sit down, shut up and realize what happened. It's not important that this cretin was able to beat down a young female then throw her of stage, it's more representative of the absolute motive.

You freaks talk about freedom of speech, yet she was muzzled at every turn.

Ann Coulter wannabe my ass. WTF are you talking about? That's such an embarrasing analogy it's disgracefull. Maybe she does agree with some of Coulters opinions. So do I.

Does that make for a summarial execution without an explaination?

Blow me. Your people are amazing.

[Blueflame]

It wasn't an exit. She was repeatedly interrupted and frustrated. Play that crap with me you better have some security. Let's just say she won't be invited for the next analysis.

"She was repeatedly interrupted?" Why didn't she just answer yes or no to the question? She was trying to evade the question, Mock.

She was kicked off the next segment. Get your facts straight.

What makes you so sure the exit wasn't her idea? I mean, it was clearly her butt getting kicked throughout the discussion....

Let me ask you dimwits this. How many times has O'Reiley kicked a guest, even the Manatee?

What about Jeremy Glick... the kid whose father was one of the victims of the WTC attacks? O'Reilly repeatedly told him to "shut up" and had him escorted from the studio... then continued to heap scorn on Glick for months afterwards, knowing Glick had no media voice to counter his one-sided remarks.

Sit down, shut up and realize what happened. It's not important that this cretin was able to beat down a young female then throw her of stage, it's more representative of the absolute motive.

The "motive" (selling a book) belonged to the "cretin"... the unprepared young woman who appeared unable to answer a simple yes-or-no question.

You freaks talk about freedom of speech, yet she was muzzled at every turn.

Ann Coulter wannabe my ass. WTF are you talking about? That's such an embarrasing analogy it's disgracefull. Maybe she does agree with some of Coulters opinions. So do I.

Does that make for a summarial execution without an explaination?

Blow me. Your people are amazing.

She was given multiple opportunities to answer Matthews' question... and chose not to. Why?

[watermock]

"She was repeatedly interrupted?" Why didn't she just answer yes or no to the question? She was trying to evade the question, Mock.

She was being badgered and was taken off the show at the break. WTF are you talking about.

What makes you so sure the exit wasn't her idea? I mean, it was clearly her butt getting kicked throughout the discussion....

She complained about it and their is tape of the hosts comments. They dumped her back to the green room. WTF are you talking about? Why not ask her if she left on her own volition! How absurd.

What about Jeremy Glick... the kid whose father was one of the victims of the WTC attacks? O'Reilly repeatedly told him to "shut up" and had him escorted from the studio... then continued to heap scorn on Glick for months afterwards, knowing Glick had no media voice to counter his one-sided remarks.

Try to stay on the subject just for once. And that's an outright lie. Glick went crazy. Want the link? And your so ****ing arrogant you don't think someone that was "chased off the evil O'Reilly show" would not find a home?

Give me a freaking break. Now listen Female Facist, this argument isn't about Jeremy Glick. Okay? Now I will look up and see how his freedom of speech was supposedly compromised by Fox, and how noone picked up his cause...OKay?



The "motive" (selling a book) belonged to the "cretin"... the unprepared young woman who appeared unable to answer a simple yes-or-no question.

She was given multiple opportunities to answer Matthews' question... and chose not to. Why?

What part of being thrown off the show don't you understand?

http://www.lyingliar.com/lies/images/glick.jpg

This is Jeremy Glick

[watermock]

Well, no. Since you ask, there’s also the fact that, every once in a while, you display such a depraved indifference to ordinary standards of decent behavior that it makes me wonder if I really was in danger there on the stage of BookExpo America. http://www.lyingliar.com/images/frankenheader4.jpg

Really onto the cutting edge aren't you.

Is that all you got, Al? Is that all you got?”

[watermock]

You don't really want to go much further do you Blue?

[Blueflame]

She was being badgered and was taken off the show at the break. WTF are you talking about.

She complained about it and their is tape of the hosts comments. They dumped her back to the green room. WTF are you talking about? Why not ask her if she left on her own volition! How absurd.

OH... I'm sorry. I guess since she complained about it, that means she was totally victimized.

No one forced her to run to Hardball for publicity for her book, Mock. She agreed to appear on that show. And she chose to promote the unsubstantiated claims of the swiftliars... (suggesting that Kerry's shrapnel wounds were self-inflicted). If she looked like an azz, it was her own doing.

Try to stay on the subject just for once. And that's an outright lie. Glick went crazy. Want the link? And your so ****ing arrogant you don't think someone that was "chased off the evil O'Reilly show" would not find a home?

Give me a freaking break. Now listen Female Facist, this argument isn't about Jeremy Glick. Okay? Now I will look up and see how his freedom of speech was supposedly compromised by Fox, and how noone picked up his cause...OKay?

It was you who took the conversation off-topic with this: "Let me ask you dimwits this. How many times has O'Reiley kicked a guest, even the Manatee?"

Again, I'll politely ask you to cease with the namecalling... particularly an incendiary term like "female fascist"... I do not go there with you and would appreciate reciprocal courtesy. Civil debate cannot be encouraged in a climate in which opposing viewpoints are met with ad hominem attacks.

What part of being thrown off the show don't you understand?

http://www.lyingliar.com/lies/images/glick.jpg

This is Jeremy Glick

I understand that Jeremy Glick was thrown off O'Reilly's show despite your assurances that "The Manatee" was not.

[Blueflame]

You don't really want to go much further do you Blue?

Sure do. Bring it on.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Quotes

"You get up there on a national television show and you say without a shred of proof that a decorated war veteran inflicted his own wounds. This doesn't make you "controversial" or "colorful." This makes you nuts. It ought to disqualify you forever from the company of serious people, and from the society of the decent ones. And you can still get a job with Fox News."

--Charles Pierce, talking about Michelle Malkin

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3449870/

http://www.bartcop.com/foxlie.gif

[watermock]

Quotes

"You get up there on a national television show and you say without a shred of proof that a decorated war veteran inflicted his own wounds.

That isn't what was was said dimwit. He got backflash from his own RPG.


This doesn't make you "controversial" or "colorful." This makes you nuts. It ought to disqualify you forever from the company of serious people, and from the society of the decent ones. And you can still get a job with Fox News."

That is idiot boy's comment. It's meaninless and self righteous. It's just an accusation.

The rest is cut an paste from bartcop.com

[Blueflame]

That isn't what was was said dimwit. He got backflash from his own RPG.




That is idiot boy's comment. It's meaninless and self righteous. It's just an accusation.

The rest is cut an paste from bartcop.com

What does Michelle Malkin bring to the swiftliars debate anyway? Her parents were probably still in junior high back in 1969, and there's no way she could possibly have any useful information to add. It's not like she was an eyewitness. Her role on Hardball... even more than to promote her book... was as a Republican operative on a mission to smear Kerry. ::)

[Raider Bill]

Gimme a break... she was asked for a simple yes or no answer but repeatedly refused, opting instead to attempt unsuccessful deflections.

Her exit from the show only spared her further embarrassment.


She was trying to say that the BOOK alleges the wounds were self inflicted. How the hell can she answer yes or no as to what happened when she wasn't there.


Conservative bias, my ass. How many people can you name that worked as Republican staffers in the news media (not opinion journalism). Diane Sawyer there's one. Demos number in the hundreds with Matthews being one.

[Blueflame]

She was trying to say that the BOOK alleges the wounds were self inflicted. How the hell can she answer yes or no as to what happened when she wasn't there.


Conservative bias, my ass. How many people can you name that worked as Republican staffers in the news media (not opinion journalism). Diane Sawyer there's one. Demos number in the hundreds with Matthews being one.

The transcript of the show is available online, Njbil... but by my recollection the "yes or no" question was to pin down Ms. Malkin's debate position. This may not be verbatim 'cause it's not important enough to me to take the time to look up the transcript, but it went to the effect of "Are you saying Kerry intentionally caused his own injuries... yes or no?" And she is certainly the best authority on what she means to say...

[Raider Bill]

MALKIN: Well, yes. Why don‘t people ask him more specific questions about the shrapnel in his leg. They are legitimate questions about whether or not it was a self-inflicted wound.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: What do you mean by self-inflicted? Are you saying he shot himself on purpose? Is that what you‘re saying?

MALKIN: Did you read the book...

MATTHEWS: I‘m asking a simple question. Are you saying that he shot himself on purpose.

MALKIN: I‘m saying some of these soldiers... (the one's in the book)

MATTHEWS: And I‘m asking question.

MALKIN: And I‘m answering it.

MATTHEWS: Did he shoot himself on purpose.

MALKIN: Some of the soldiers have made allegations that these were self-inflicted wounds.

MATTHEWS: No one has ever accused him of shooting himself on purpose.

MALKIN: That these were self-inflicted wounds.

MATTHEWS: Your saying there are—he shot himself on purpose, that‘s a criminal act?

MALKIN: I‘m saying that I‘ve read the book and some of the...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: I want an answer yes or no, Michelle.

MALKIN: Some of the veterans say...

MATTHEWS: No. No one has every accused him of shooting himself on purpose.

MALKIN: Yes. Some of them say that.

MATTHEWS: Tell me where that...

MALKIN: Self-inflicted wounds—in February, 1969.

MATTHEWS: This is not a show for this kind of talk. Are you accusing him of shooting himself on purpose to avoid combat or to get credit?

MALKIN: I‘m saying that‘s what some of these...

MATTHEWS: Give me a name.

MALKIN: Patrick Runyan (ph) and William Zeldonaz (ph).

MATTHEWS: They said—Patrick Runyan...

MALKIN: These people have...

MATTHEWS: And they said he shot himself on purpose to avoid combat or take credit for a wound?

MALKIN: These people have cast a lot of doubt on whether or not...

MATTHEWS: That‘s cast a lot of doubt. That‘s complete nonsense.

MALKIN: Did you read the section in the book...

MATTHEWS: I want a statement from you on this program, say to me right, that you believe he shot himself to get credit for a purpose of heart.

MALKIN: I‘m not sure. I‘m saying...

MATTHEWS: Why did you say?

MALKIN: I‘m talking about what‘s in the book.


MATTHEWS: What is in the book. Is there—is there a direct accusation in any book you‘ve ever read in your life that says John Kerry ever shot himself on purpose to get credit for a purple heart? On purpose?

MALKIN: On.

MATTHEWS: On purpose? Yes or no, Michelle.

MALKIN: In the February 1969 -- in the February 1969 event.

MATTHEWS: Did he say on it purpose.

MALKIN: There are doubts about whether or not it was intense rifle fire or not. And I wish you would ask these questions of John Kerry instead of me.

MATTHEWS: I have never heard anyone say he shot himself on purpose.

I haven‘t heard you say it.

MALKIN: Have you tried to ask—have you tried ask John Kerry these questions?

MATTHEWS: If he shot himself on purpose. No. I have not asked him that.

MALKIN: Don‘t you wonder?

MATTHEWS: No, I don‘t. It‘s never occurred to me.

Look, thank you Mayor Brown. We‘ll stay with Michelle Malkin.

[Blueflame]

MALKIN: Well, yes. Why don‘t people ask him more specific questions about the shrapnel in his leg. They are legitimate questions about whether or not it was a self-inflicted wound.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: What do you mean by self-inflicted? Are you saying he shot himself on purpose? Is that what you‘re saying?

MALKIN: Did you read the book...

MATTHEWS: I‘m asking a simple question. Are you saying that he shot himself on purpose.

MALKIN: I‘m saying some of these soldiers... (the one's in the book)

MATTHEWS: And I‘m asking question.

MALKIN: And I‘m answering it.

MATTHEWS: Did he shoot himself on purpose.

MALKIN: Some of the soldiers have made allegations that these were self-inflicted wounds.

MATTHEWS: No one has ever accused him of shooting himself on purpose.

MALKIN: That these were self-inflicted wounds.

MATTHEWS: Your saying there are—he shot himself on purpose, that‘s a criminal act?

MALKIN: I‘m saying that I‘ve read the book and some of the...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: I want an answer yes or no, Michelle.

MALKIN: Some of the veterans say...

MATTHEWS: No. No one has every accused him of shooting himself on purpose.

MALKIN: Yes. Some of them say that.

MATTHEWS: Tell me where that...

MALKIN: Self-inflicted wounds—in February, 1969.

MATTHEWS: This is not a show for this kind of talk. Are you accusing him of shooting himself on purpose to avoid combat or to get credit?

MALKIN: I‘m saying that‘s what some of these...

MATTHEWS: Give me a name.

MALKIN: Patrick Runyan (ph) and William Zeldonaz (ph).

MATTHEWS: They said—Patrick Runyan...

MALKIN: These people have...

MATTHEWS: And they said he shot himself on purpose to avoid combat or take credit for a wound?

MALKIN: These people have cast a lot of doubt on whether or not...

MATTHEWS: That‘s cast a lot of doubt. That‘s complete nonsense.

MALKIN: Did you read the section in the book...

MATTHEWS: I want a statement from you on this program, say to me right, that you believe he shot himself to get credit for a purpose of heart.

MALKIN: I‘m not sure. I‘m saying...

MATTHEWS: Why did you say?

MALKIN: I‘m talking about what‘s in the book.


MATTHEWS: What is in the book. Is there—is there a direct accusation in any book you‘ve ever read in your life that says John Kerry ever shot himself on purpose to get credit for a purple heart? On purpose?

MALKIN: On.

MATTHEWS: On purpose? Yes or no, Michelle.

MALKIN: In the February 1969 -- in the February 1969 event.

MATTHEWS: Did he say on it purpose.

MALKIN: There are doubts about whether or not it was intense rifle fire or not. And I wish you would ask these questions of John Kerry instead of me.

MATTHEWS: I have never heard anyone say he shot himself on purpose.

I haven‘t heard you say it.

MALKIN: Have you tried to ask—have you tried ask John Kerry these questions?

MATTHEWS: If he shot himself on purpose. No. I have not asked him that.

MALKIN: Don‘t you wonder?

MATTHEWS: No, I don‘t. It‘s never occurred to me.

Look, thank you Mayor Brown. We‘ll stay with Michelle Malkin.

And the question was ... "are you saying...." Ms. Malkin was clearly expressing her views from the perspective of one who had read the book and unquestioningly bought its lies. She was clearly trying the patented Fix ploy of "some people say... (whatever). What do you think of this? (alternately "How do you respond to this?")"... which elevates hearsay to factual status and puts the accused on the defensive. The ploy didn't work with Matthews.

[errand]

Matthews, Olberman, Maher... they've all clearly won debates with Ms. Malkin within the past week. My unsolicited advice to her would be to stick to Fix; they'll pre-screen... and handpick a "liberal" (includes "Democrats" like Zell Miller) and softball and script the questions... so she can appear to "win"....

...yeah, Bill Maher whooped her good right? She was seated between D.J. Hughley (liberal black comedian) and Democrat Representative Emmanuel (another liberal) and Bill "the hijackers are courageous" Maher as the host with a studio audience of nothing but liberals who hissed at her and cheered at every snide remark made by these libs.

Yeah, and I suppose David Duke could whip Al Sharpton in a debate at the next Klan Rally.

Like I said before....I'll have mixed emotions when Bush wins this election....glad we'll have four years of his leadership....but saddened we'll have to read 4 more years of the crap you type defending these libs.

[BroncoInferno]

...yeah, Bill Maher whooped her good right? She was seated between D.J. Hughley (liberal black comedian) and Democrat Representative Emmanuel (another liberal) and Bill "the hijackers are courageous" Maher as the host with a studio audience of nothing but liberals who hissed at her and cheered at every snide remark made by these libs.

Yeah, and I suppose David Duke could whip Al Sharpton in a debate at the next Klan Rally.

Like I said before....I'll have mixed emotions when Bush wins this election....glad we'll have four years of his leadership....but saddened we'll have to read 4 more years of the crap you type defending these libs.

Maher didn't say that "the hijackers are couragous". He said that intentionally flying an airplane into a building while your on it doesn't really fit the definition of "coward" that was being thrown around. Sorry, but that's true. And it's an important distinction, because we have to come to terms with the fact that these terrorists are not afraid, and are willing to do themselves bodily harm to meet their objectives. There wasn't a thing wrong with Maher's comment. As usual, he called it like it is.

[errand]

Maher didn't say that "the hijackers are couragous". He said that intentionally flying an airplane into a building while your on it doesn't really fit the definition of "coward" that was being thrown around. Sorry, but that's true. And it's an important distinction, because we have to come to terms with the fact that these terrorists are not afraid, and are willing to do themselves bodily harm to meet their objectives. There wasn't a thing wrong with Maher's comment. As usual, he called it like it is.

Oh, silly me..how could anyone mistake his saying we shouldn't classify them as cowards as being the same as calling them courageous? I thought that if you weren't a coward, then you obviously were courageous

......and the murder of thousands of innocent civilians never came into play when he made those comments either huh?

If murdering a couple thousand of innocent civilians by flying a hijacked plane into a skyscraper isn't cowardly.....then what pray tell would say is?

[Blueflame]

...yeah, Bill Maher whooped her good right? She was seated between D.J. Hughley (liberal black comedian) and Democrat Representative Emmanuel (another liberal) and Bill "the hijackers are courageous" Maher as the host with a studio audience of nothing but liberals who hissed at her and cheered at every snide remark made by these libs.

Yeah, and I suppose David Duke could whip Al Sharpton in a debate at the next Klan Rally.

Like I said before....I'll have mixed emotions when Bush wins this election....glad we'll have four years of his leadership....but saddened we'll have to read 4 more years of the crap you type defending these libs.

Do you really think she didn't know what kind of environment she was accepting the invitation to? Unless your point is that you think she was too stupid to actually watch the show before agreeing to appear on it... or that she wouldn't bother to ask who the other guests were... please expound further.

She was unprepared for any of the three television appearances...and honestly, unqualified to discuss the subject she was really there to discuss, since any input she could offer was based on "having read a (provably biased;) book".

[BroncoInferno]

Oh, silly me..how could anyone mistake his saying we shouldn't classify them as cowards as being the same as calling them courageous? I thought that if you weren't a coward, then you obviously were courageous

......and the murder of thousands of innocent civilians never came into play when he made those comments either huh?

If murdering a couple thousand of innocent civilians by flying a hijacked plane into a skyscraper isn't cowardly.....then what pray tell would say is?

"The opposite of cowardice is courage, so if Maher says that the terrorists weren't cowards then he obviously thinks they're couragous!" Simplistic dichotomous thinking on your part.

cow·ard·ice-(n) Ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain.

Sorry, but intentionally flying a plane that you're on into a building doesn't fit this definition. But it doesn't follow that if they aren't cowards, they must be couragous. Courage requires bravery towards a noble goal. Obviously, they don't fit this category either. What they were falls more into the category of religious zealotry. The distinction is important. To just write them off as "cowards" is to minimize what they are capable of doing. They are not afraid; they are perfectly willing to fly planes that they're on into buildings and set off bombs that are strapped to their own bodies. It is important to recognize this, and pleasing rhetoric doesn't do the job.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Oh, silly me..how could anyone mistake his saying we shouldn't classify them as cowards as being the same as calling them courageous?

Silly you indeed.

You seem to be implying that calling an act "courageous" means that someone is defending the morality or virtue of that act.

No intelligent person would deny that the Japanese kamikaze pilots in WWII had balls the size of grapefruits (even if you accept the premise that they were crazy and/or stupid and that their actions were immoral.)