MSNBC Chris Matthews = Idiot

I can only assume he skimmed the Benedict Arnold history section and got the story wrong. Education just isn't what it used to be...
 
it's interesting how it seems that no one has the concept anymore that even if we disagree with our leadership, it does not mean that we're against them. if the President tells us to do something, we'll do it. if he speaks, we listen. that's how this works, right?
 
it's interesting how it seems that no one has the concept anymore that even if we disagree with our leadership, it does not mean that we're against them.

Supposed to work that way, but it real life is different.

Dissent is no longer the highest form of patriotism.

Dissent is now hateful, racist, bigoted, uninformed, or just plain mean spirited.

(BTW - this thread should be moved to the OFF TOPIC section instead of being here in the USMMA section.)
 
it's interesting how it seems that no one has the concept anymore that even if we disagree with our leadership, it does not mean that we're against them. if the President tells us to do something, we'll do it. if he speaks, we listen. that's how this works, right?

Is2Day4him: You are right - it is sad that the whole concept of the "loyal opposition" has largely disappeared. Thankfully it generally has not disappeared among military members themselves who still are taught and understand that we offer our professional best opinion, then accept the decision, salute and execute to the best of our ability, but among many of those outside the circle it has definitely disappeared from both sides of the aisle. People seem to have a hard time differentiating between disagreements over the mechanics of executing policies and disgreements over fundamental issues of morality and conscience and generally seem to have a harder and harder time attributing good intentions to those who would follow a different course of action than they themselves are advocating. (You only have to read a number of the postings on our site to realize that.) So if someone chooses a conflicting approach- they are not only challenged on whether or not their proposal is likely to succeed as efficiently as the other approach- their basic loyalty and integrity is challenged too. ("You can't have the best intentions for the country because I have the best intentions for the country and we differ. Therefore you are either a criminal, a thief, a liar or a traitor.")
This is a sad development for the country that's at least 20 years in the making.
 
:thumbdown:
MSNBC reached a new shameful low tonight when Chris Matthews referred to West Point as an "enemy camp." He was trying to convey his surprise that Barack Obama would go to such a place!!!!

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzdhYTY0MDRiYTBlYjVkOTAwMjE2YWM5OGU5OTg1MDA=

Here is Chris Matthew's apology:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/02/chris-matthews-dick-chene_n_376626.html

MSNBC host Chris Matthews wishes he could have phrased his point about President Obama's speech at West Point last night a little better after he referred to the venerated military academy as an "enemy camp." Matthews was saying that Obama was not getting the warmest of receptions from the cadets in the audience, and that his decision to make this speech at West Point was "interesting" because Obama "went to maybe the enemy camp tonight."
The Apology:
Now I've heard too many politicians say things like, "oh that was taken out context" to explain something they wish they hadn't said let me just say to the cadets, their parents, former cadets and everyone who cares about this country and those who defend it: I used the wrong words and worse than that I said something that is just not right and for that I deeply apologize. As those who watch me regularly probably got right away, my point was that the military up at West Point was probably a skeptical audience for President Obama given his strong position against the war in Iraq and generally more dovish image. I was wrong to make that conclusion based on the lack of applause or apparent enthusiasm in the ranks of officers and cadets last night.​



He got a lot of flack for this - at least he apologized. He does have a habit of his mouth getting ahead of his brain.

 
i think it brings up an issue that isn't discussed anymore though as Bruno and others so eloquently pointed out. there's become some weird misconception about loyalty to the country. i mean, isn't that WHY presidents have term limits? so they don't become dictators? to keep people dedicated to the country itself and not to the leader...
whether you agree or disagree with President Obama's stance on things, it does not make you any more or any less American. i honestly think this is something that needs to be addressed more openly, not necessarily within the military realm (as was stated, it seems most in the military have a pretty good grasp of this) but more within the civilian and media realms.
bottom line is that, as a country, we're in a tough spot and causing unnecessary divisions is only going to make it worse.
 
IS/Bruno: Couldn't agree more that America today in general don't appreciate or understand the patriotism involved in being part of the "loyal opposition" in general or that the military take their oath and role in this democracy very seriously and they don't understand that at all.

On the original point I actually wasn't offended by Mr. Matthews original use of the wrong words. That said I find his apology offensive and insincere. ref: "I was wrong to make that conclusion based on the lack of applause or apparent enthusiasm in the ranks of officers and cadets last night." This is faux paux #2 so I can't consider it unintentional or a spontaneous misspeak.

Mr. Matthews: If you are going to apologize do so, without equivocation, qualification, reservation or other lame backpedaling statements. A person striving to atone and be "the bigger man" would have ended the apology without the last sentence at all or at least would have ended the sentence with/at: "I was wrong to make that conclusion." Next time when you want to be entirely insincere we would appreciate it if you would more clearly telegraph you sense of self righteousness and insincerity by using the usual types of code words such as starting the entire qualifying statement with a phrase such as "With all due respect" so we clearly understand what you are really trying to convey is the exact opposite of the words stated. I know that's hard when a great and truly enlightened man such as yourself is required to interact with us, the lesser castes and general "hoi-poloi" but it seems only fair you be required to do so, since "we enemy anti- American conservatives" really just aren't all that bright.
 
In my opinion the Elite Ivy League thinkers that end up as politicians and talking heads that haven't also promised to lay down their life for the United States cannot understand or measure up to these kids that have the brains to get into Harvard and Yale but also the courage to put their lives on the line for the rest of us. Our Service Academy students are part of the definition of American Exceptionalism.
Acta non Verba
 
Not everyone can go to a service academy, nor can they all serve in the armed services, nor is that a necessary prerequisite to being a loyal American. And not everyone who goes to Harvard or Yale or other "[e]lite Ivy League" schools lacks the courage to put their lives on the line for the rest of us or their country.

In my opinion, having served or not having served in the armed services has nothing to do with one's worthiness to be a leader in this country or to serve this country in any other capacity.
 
I thought he made a good apology. I'm willing to let it go at that.
 
So I never said Chris Matthews is an "Ivy League Elitist" - I wouldn't genralize people based on where they went to school, etc. Further, I didn't think he did go to an Ivy league institution and his degrees are not from an Ivy. I verified this in both his CNBC on-line bio and his wikipedia page. He was a Harvard fellow and he does apparently hold 16 honory PhD's. His career background lists his first job in DC as a member of the Capitol Police.

My snarky comment did say "I know that's hard when a great and truly enlightened man such as yourself..." I said that and talked about his self-rightous tone as well as his words that I view as backpedeling in his apology becaus I personally find his tone very self - rightous and dogmatic at time. Not surprisingly now that I read his bio and relized he too is a product of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia Education System, like myself, before he went to undregraduate school at College of the Holy Cross - a Jesuit Institution. :cool:
 
In my opinion, having served or not having served in the armed services has nothing to do with one's worthiness to be a leader in this country or to serve this country in any other capacity.

Although I would love to see at least some military service be a pre-requisite to becoming the Commander in Chief I can understand and agree with why it is not. Although it shouldn't be a requirement prior military service can help a future President understand a bit more about what the military is and how it works.

[Just reread your post and realized you didn't say President, but rather leader. I'm extrapolating a bit here by only talking about the President]
 
In my opinion the Elite Ivy League thinkers that end up as politicians and talking heads that haven't also promised to lay down their life for the United States cannot understand or measure up to these kids that have the brains to get into Harvard and Yale but also the courage to put their lives on the line for the rest of us. Our Service Academy students are part of the definition of American Exceptionalism.
Acta non Verba

There were very few cross-admits between SAs and HYP this year. It is a fallacy that SA matriculates are turning down Ivies in droves. It might make you mad to hear that - but it's better to draw conclusions based on actual outcomes.

I have yet to meet or hear of an (N,A,AF)ROTC student at HYP who has been subject to less than respect from their peers or professors.

An off-topic response to an off-topic assertion.
 
An off-topic response to an off-topic assertion.

True but what else should we expect as contents to a thread that started with Topic "MSNBC Chris Matthews = Idiot" as a thread on the Merchant Marine Academy - USMMA Service Academy Discussion....:rolleyes:
 
Is2Day4him: You are right - it is sad that the whole concept of the "loyal opposition" has largely disappeared. Thankfully it generally has not disappeared among military members themselves who still are taught and understand that we offer our professional best opinion, then accept the decision, salute and execute to the best of our ability, but among many of those outside the circle it has definitely disappeared from both sides of the aisle. People seem to have a hard time differentiating between disagreements over the mechanics of executing policies and disgreements over fundamental issues of morality and conscience and generally seem to have a harder and harder time attributing good intentions to those who would follow a different course of action than they themselves are advocating. (You only have to read a number of the postings on our site to realize that.) So if someone chooses a conflicting approach- they are not only challenged on whether or not their proposal is likely to succeed as efficiently as the other approach- their basic loyalty and integrity is challenged too. ("You can't have the best intentions for the country because I have the best intentions for the country and we differ. Therefore you are either a criminal, a thief, a liar or a traitor.")
This is a sad development for the country that's at least 20 years in the making.

I love what you wrote here. And not only is your 2Timothy very appropriate for this topic, its also one of my favorite verses.
 
Maximus - seriously, I am tired of making you look uninformed
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578987,00.html
does this make you feel better?
the apology was all over several major news networks. I suppose one would have to follow the news in order to see it.

Moving on....
Bruno - I wholeheartedly agree with your post - spot on.
Thank you for writing this -
So if someone chooses a conflicting approach- they are not only challenged on whether or not their proposal is likely to succeed as efficiently as the other approach- their basic loyalty and integrity is challenged too. ("You can't have the best intentions for the country because I have the best intentions for the country and we differ. Therefore you are either a criminal, a thief, a liar or a traitor.")
This is a sad development for the country that's at least 20 years in the making.
 
Just out of curiosity, why is this thread in the USMMA section?
 
Back
Top