Chris Matthews Call's The PUMA's 'Wack Jobs'

[gi4obama]

Run time: 02:26 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3r9FWdXxnw   Posted on YouTube: August 27, 2008 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: August 27, 2008 By DU Member: gi4obama Views on DU: 1583

 

[Oerdin]

1. Let's face it.

They are wack jobs.

[Cherchez la Femme]

3. au contraire

they're evil, yes; but wack jobs? Non.

Why? Don't forget they are a Republican group trying to take advantage of the less astute in our party or Independents all too predisposed to believe that baloney.

Divide and conquer, Buchanan/Rove 101, ya know.

I'd LOVE to see Matthews or heck, anybody in the MSM --Olbermann included-- disclosing PUMA is a group created by Republicans;
unfortunately it feeds into *some* peoples prejudices and preconceived notions --and in true black and white thinking, one cannot like one Democrat while not hating the other :eyes:-- and they get to continue the meme of how eeevvvillll Hillary is even though most if not all the Clinton "outrages" were basic ratfucking.


From what I've heard, after the Kerry debacle 4 years ago a pretty large number of subversives 'came out', here and all over the 'net going Nyahh, nyahh, nyah-nyah nyeah -- we fooled you!. It will be very interesting to see, after this election, how many and who of the newer posters here give up all pretense and brag about their immorality and multiple instances of deliberate sin (lying);

as if that is something to be proud of -- but they are.
And most if not all will identify themselves as "Christian".
Go figure.

[onehandle]

2. Luckily, these handful of people were basically invisible. But DUers will continue to bring them up.

At least the ever shrinking pool of Hillary haters will.

[ExPatLeftist]

5. I disagree wholeheartedly.

They are not invisible, this tiny minority is all over the MSM and making hay for them. They are making a huge deal about it on CNN and (of course) Faux News. They should be invisible, but they are not and either the MSM needs to get a grip and do its job (won't happen) or these nutburgers will continue to put doubt into the brains of the feeble-minded...

[RubyDuby in GA]

7. OOps!

[RubyDuby in GA]

8. Oops again!

[BEZERKO]

9. I'm no Hillary hater,

I constantly stood up for her for eight long years.

One of her surrogates James Carville, however, seems to be an Obama hater judging by the new Puma tennis shoes and pink bracelet he was wearing on air the other night. Maybe her heart's in the right place, but a lot of that crowd have made a good living the past 36 years hosing down and stamping out any liberal uprising and liberal movements before they could build any momentum. I'm speaking of the DLC crowd.

[ExPatLeftist]

4. The ones I have seen seem quite nuts to me.

Though I often disagree with him, I like that Chris speaks bluntly, I wish he had not been told to try to weakly retract that statement...

I just saw a Hillary supporter that is holding out her vote on Larry King Live. I really wanted to post a vid of it because it was at total WTF moment, but do not have recording equipment. If anyone knows the interview I am talking about and if there is a vid, please let me know! (The woman in the interview's last name was Joyce, and some country music douchebag from a band called Big & Rich was also there because he wrote a John McCain hero worship masturbation record.)

She made several direct references (and one seemingly subconscious reference) to courting and sex in her interview. Said that she is a good Catholic girl and does not vote on the first date. She said that her ballot box is locked. She demanded to be "courted", personally it seems, for her vote, and said that Obama had never asked for her vote, to which Larry King pointed out that every speech that Obama gives is asking for her vote. In addition to being courted by Obama himself, apparently our good Catholic girl must be courted by every Obama supporter as well. Not only has every nasty thing any big meanie ever said on the Internet deeply offended her, she is also a logical midget, because somehow she believes that Obama is responsible for this, and is willing to vote against her (claimed) own best interest just to spite him for it... For good measure, she threw in some ticks and twitches and some really odd affectations. She is at the convention, and complained that all the people wearing Obama t-shirts are not "reaching out to her". Strange, it seems that mobs of people should run over to the crazy-looking bitter paranoid, twitching away in her Hillary t-shirt with an angry look on her face, doesn't it? I mean, that is what happens all the time in real life - people just walk up and ask you to be their best friend...

Wack jobs? One of the most astounding cases that I have ever seen on a supposedly serious interview.

[Cherchez la Femme]

6. With all due respect

what part of this is a highly popular Republican (Buchanan/Rovian) tactic don't you get?

This talking head you're so upset about probably has a .1% chance of being a true, tenured, registered Democrat.
Don't just believe it 'cause you've seen & heard it on the U.S. 'Librul' media, & because they/she says so!
Do some searches.
Learn how you're being manipulated.
Knowledge is power: gain it and use it.

I really do not mean to be rude, but that is the only phrasing I can come up with right now -- I do not mean to be aggressive or confrontational, please don't take it that way.

Sure a FEW unbalanced "real", or should I say 'registered' Dem's will fall for it -- but damn few. I have not seen a single one of these 'wacko's' at a couple sites I've found where the Democrats who, because they liked Senator Clinton, were bullied out of DU now congregate -- unfortunately some VERY long time and once-prolific contributors here. Most are angry, yes, but angry about their treatment from their peers. It bears repeating: I've yet to see ONE who holds this against Senator Obama personally and who wish to 'punish' him (although they feel, IMO justifiably, that he should have tried to rein in all that aggression... those imperious people truly did him no favors; but that's now a rivulet under the bridge as far as Sen. Obama is concerned).
To subscribe to the Democratic Party, one must believe ipso facto in the Rights of all human beings, adhering to our Constitution; due process, habeas corpus and the Rule of Law; the wisdom of the proper balance of Power, taking as much --or more-- care of the less fortunate as the wealthy in our society, respecting and honoring instead of abusing and undermining the process, hence respecting rather than abusing human beings;
etc. etc. etc. --all that goes along with a Left-leaning political point of view. Selfishness is not a quality that reinforces or promotes any Left/Liberal/Progressive POV or belief system... they are diametrically opposed.

Above all no self-respecting Democrat, having suffered through 8 nightmarish years already and no matter how disappointed in the primary or how angered or saddened by the treatment they received for daring to support Hillary, would consider Grampa W. McBush/McSame/McInsane/et.al. as it is certain it would be at least 4 more years of the same immoral, infantile, ignorant, arrogant, heinous, death-dealing Republicon casuistry;
and Goddess knows how many more wars ...and deaths.

The Repigs, however, don't know any other way: they couldn't comprehend NOT being selfish, therefore they do not see the disconnect between their PUMA propaganda and Democratic reality. They don't have the capacity or insight to perceive that this their ultra-spurious organization is pure anathema to everything Democrats believe in.
Even if there wasn't plenty of proof that PUMA was started and is funded and operated as a Repuke group --which there is-- logic and knowing about the people in my party alone disproves it. Do Democrats practice an eye-for-an-eye vengeance, do they Swift-Boat Republicans right back? Do we lie and deceive and act in any immoral way we wish just to win; assuming the end justifies the means?

No, we don't and I'm proud of it. Behaviorally speaking, if Dem's did use those full-blown tactics, what then is the difference between the partys? As of late, with Democrats as a whole moving towards the Right instead of sticking to their time-honored principles (remember them?) it's sometimes difficult to tell them apart.
What matters if you gain the world but lose your soul? We would just diminish ourselves, to the world but most importantly to our conscience and our own sense of honor, self-actualization, and karma if you will --and we know that. Sometimes IMO the Democrats should be much more aggressive, but that does not mean I think they should act in any way like the 'pukes do. Not allowing oneself to be a doormat is not the same as deliberately prevaricating with malice aforethought and without an iota of conscience.


Anyways, have faith in true Democrats;
and don't believe everything you see on TV, especially when it was concocted by bad old KKKarl Rove.

[ExPatLeftist]

10. With all due respect

What to you indicates that I do not research, or that I take this all at face value? I take GOP tricks such as this as a given due to my experience and years of research that I do not even feel the need to mention it every time I discuss anything possibly related to them. We all know that this tactic is being used, particularly by the media, to put a wedge in the Democratic party and create the illusion of a party divided - we've known that since the primary. The fact that you assume that I do not know this says a lot more about your arrogance than my lack of searching the Googles.

I was commenting on an individual that was in the media. Regardless of what is behind this individual, the net effect on the election is the same.

Part of the effectiveness of such sleazy tricks is that they snowball and other nutcases come out of the woodwork to parrot the same tripe - and some of them are undoubtedly sincere.

I did not even remember this woman's name, so I do not see how you can even know who I am talking about unless you saw the same show. So how can you tell me (in a very condescending fashion, IMO for someone that knows next to nothing about me) that this individual is a Rove plant? And even if she was (which you ASSUME while telling ME to research and not take things at face value - the irony), then why am I supposed to not get upset by it?

Rovian plant or genuine Hillary supporter (which, I do not know - and neither do you), this person is a nutter and pisses me off.

[Cherchez la Femme]

11. Oh yeah

Agreed. One hundred percent.

Nutter to the max.
But it doesn't matter WHO she is, her name won't really shed any information unless she's documented somewhere accessible as a Republican; and if they're smart (usually they are) they'll use a no-name peon in their ranks just for that -- another woman used to look like a fool like that multi-chinned, denture wearing, hefty 50+ yr. old plastered with the "Purple Heart" bandaids and nightmare hat at their convention. Now that pathetic woman will be a minor icon of foolishness and (deserved) scorn for years to come.

Not that they care: she served her propaganized purpose.


Anyhow, anyone who espouses that PUMA shiite, whether a 'puke peon or addled, ersatz "Democrat", is either plumb crazy or has a 'hidden' agenda
--but probably both, no matter which category.


Seriously, didn't mean to be confrontational... I told you that
It sure sounded to me like you had bought into all that -- appears I was wrong. Not the first time, won't be the last.
I do apologize that I assumed you were not aware of all the crap the 'pukes historically pull.
Sorry. :(

Still and all, there are a LOT here that have (apparently) bought into the propaganda hook, line and sinker.
Clinton was far from perfect (I was perfectly LIVID at him at least a few times during his tenure, and no not about Monica -- men will be men, hard-wired to spread their seed :shrug:) but in the main he was a damn good president; not "evil" or "a rapist" or even "Satan" --terms straight from the GOP, ALL of these terms (and many more) I read regarding him here.

On DU.


Whether they were posted by gullible victims of ratfucking or subversives, I don't know... but if the latter, 10 will get you 20 that soon after the election is concluded, no matter what the outcome, we're going to hear from at least some in hysterical 'EFF-YOU' tones about how gosh-darn easy it was to rabblerouse here

& that is depressing... and these PUMA loonies are as dispiriting as our trolls-in-waiting are

only because so many fell for it.

[ExPatLeftist]

13. I agree with your points about the Clintons

And appreciate your clarification.

:toast:

[K8-EEE]

12. I wish he would call them what they really are

Republican plants.

[provis99]

14. I wonder if any of these PUMA kooks are convention delegates

That would put to rest whether they were Republican plants (which I personally believe) or whether they are some far-out whacked up DLC types and really are what they present themselves as.

[ExPatLeftist]

16. I am guessing some of each. They are not all necessarily there for the same reason... n/t

[woolldog]

15. Chuck Todd is really starting to annoy me.

Not sure why.