Chris Matthews - Being Rude To Obama Is Unconstitutional ?

[OODA_Loop]

There's this thing call sedition. The Sedition Act is the law in question. It's illegal to talk bad about the President, The Flag, The Governeent and the Country. The reason for the law is to protect America during war time.

Sedition Act of 1918 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Congress repealed the Sedition Act on December 13, 1920

 

[Mac1958]

.

Chris Matthews will say absolutely anything at this point. Shamelessly.

Too bad, he's a smart guy with a quick mind. But his Obama man-love has taken him completely off the rails.

.

 

[jillian]

Chris Matthews: Is challenging Obama unconstitutional? | WashingtonExaminer.com

Matthews played a video clip of the exchange, in which Romney accused Obama of cutting the number of oil and gas permits awarded on federal lands:

ROMNEY: How much did you cut them by?

OBAMA: I’m happy to answer the question.

ROMNEY: All right. And it is — I don’t think anyone really believes that you’re a person who’s going to be pushing for oil and gas and coal. [Gestures.] You’ll get your chance in a moment. I’m still speaking.

OBAMA: Well –

ROMNEY: And the answer is I don’t believe people think that`s the case because –

ROMNEY: — that wasn’t the question.

OBAMA: OK.

ROMNEY: That was a statement.

After the clip ended, Matthews seemed appalled. “I don’t think [Romney] understands the Constitution of the United States,” Matthews said. “He’s the president of the United States. You don’t say, ‘You’ll get your chance.’”

Now, it’s entirely possible for one to think Romney was rude to Obama during that moment in the debate. A president is of course entitled to some deference, and some people undoubtedly thought Romney was insufficiently deferential. Others thought Romney’s behavior was entirely acceptable. But just for the record, there is nothing in the Constitution barring one from saying “You’ll get your chance” to the President of the United States — no matter what his supporters on MSNBC say.

*************************

So what is Chris saying ?

That Romey can't call his man-god out when he's lying ?

no. he didn't say it was 'unconstitutional'. what he said was that romney's disrespect was disgusting.

and it was.

but no doubt that's what you wacko's want, so i'm sure it holds romney in good stead with you. i mean, it's not like you can rely on his record.

 

[paulitician]

Ha Ha! If Romney wins, it's gonna be fun watching the 'Thrill up my Leg' dude freak out. And the Maddcow dude too. They'll have their best ratings ever.

 

[IHBF]

Sorry, but we're the type of people who would execute our tyrant kings. It was very liberal thinking that challenged the kings of old and the many revolutions that sparked change.

"Classical Liberals" were exactly that. I'm a classical liberal.

Unfortunately, the democrat party has swayed far from that. You are now the party of more government. Government, "the king", can often be tyrannical (resigned patriot act, NDAA, etc).

Too bad liberals didn't stick with liberty and less government to go along with social liberties. Instead you traded liberty for a false sense of fairness. And in doing so alienated a lot of people.

I see you like pigeonholing yourself. You swing your brush around terribly and sloppily. Sorry, but liberals like myself are not supportive of more government, we want to facilitate better government. Key difference there, which you don't seem to understand.

Classical Liberalism by the way, if you don't know, is all about the government building institutions and really helping build powerful infrastructure that we as individuals or small groups in society could not achieve on our own.

I think idiots like you just like to claim you are a "classical liberal" just as a means to try and take the definition of being a liberal away from those who might consider themselves one, and really think of yourself as a conservative.

It's idiotic. I don't think you understand the true depth and scope of what it means to be liberal, even a classical liberal. You latch onto key things you THINK you can use as a weapon against liberals, but in the process lose the forest through the trees.

There isn't the distinction between classical liberalism and modern liberalism like you think there is.

Nice verbose retort completely devoid of substance, much like your messiah's speeches. The only point in that harangue was this supposed desire for smaller, more efficient, and less intrusive government. But see, actions speak louder than any diatribe you or Dear Leader could compose. And the actions of your party, my friend, directly oppose your rambling words.

Say what you will, but here is a short list of what you've done:

Required people to purchase a product from a corporation
Resigned the Patriot Act
Beefed up war in Afghanistan
Concentration camp Gitmo is still open
NDAA
Increased number of people dependent on government

You fail. Suck a fart out of my asshole, commie.

 

[Papageorgio]

Better government... yes. Im sure the fact that your "better government" just happens to be ever expanding and never shrinking is purely coicidental?

Government has shrunk under the Obama administration idiot. Show to me that it has grown, overall. Show me the number of government jobs that Obama administration has increased, instead of declined.

You try to make your points by repetition of bullshit, but you're fooling nobody but you and all the dense motherfuckers you flock with.

Overall is the word, because of the economy, state and local government has shrunk. Federal, which is what Obama mainly controls, has grown.

So because state and local government has shrunk so much, it has more than offset federal government growth.

 

[Papageorgio]

Matthews is one of the worst cry babies the Democrats have and they like to use him.

 

[Listening]

Old Chris is having a harder time of these days.

 

[Amelia]

LOL yup!

Chris Matthews: Obama Is the Political Loser of the Year

 

[skookerasbil]

nobody cares about Chris Matthews.


Hardly anybody knows who he even is.

 

[Wyld Kard]

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Chris Matthews: Is challenging Obama unconstitutional? | WashingtonExaminer.com

Matthews played a video clip of the exchange, in which Romney accused Obama of cutting the number of oil and gas permits awarded on federal lands:

ROMNEY: How much did you cut them by?

OBAMA: I’m happy to answer the question.

ROMNEY: All right. And it is — I don’t think anyone really believes that you’re a person who’s going to be pushing for oil and gas and coal. [Gestures.] You’ll get your chance in a moment. I’m still speaking.

OBAMA: Well –

ROMNEY: And the answer is I don’t believe people think that`s the case because –

ROMNEY: — that wasn’t the question.

OBAMA: OK.

ROMNEY: That was a statement.

After the clip ended, Matthews seemed appalled. “I don’t think [Romney] understands the Constitution of the United States,” Matthews said. “He’s the president of the United States. You don’t say, ‘You’ll get your chance.’”

Now, it’s entirely possible for one to think Romney was rude to Obama during that moment in the debate. A president is of course entitled to some deference, and some people undoubtedly thought Romney was insufficiently deferential. Others thought Romney’s behavior was entirely acceptable. But just for the record, there is nothing in the Constitution barring one from saying “You’ll get your chance” to the President of the United States — no matter what his supporters on MSNBC say.

*************************

So what is Chris saying ?

That Romey can't call his man-god out when he's lying ?

I assume this was during the re-election debates? If a President submits to a political debate, while he may be the President, during the debate he isn't acting as such with any special respect due him or her. He's an opponent. He isn't doing the job a President is supposed to be doing. He's debating.

 

[candycorn]

Pussy Hazelnut sent me a personal message telling I was wrong on this thread.

But he won't accept personal messages himself.

He's a coward, like the more liberal dickweeds on this board.

They could leave the board anyway you dumbass.

I proposed the same thing and you pussied out of that too.

You really are a big mouth little person who has very little to show for your years hear on earth.

You can stay for six months after he loses.....but then you leave.

Take it or leave it.

Then again....

What the hell, lets go for it. TPS isn't adhering to the spirit of our agreement so I feel unencumbered to uphold mine.

Here is what you want I guess...

If Romney wins, I permanently stop posting at midnight on election night or when Obama concedes
If Obama wins, you permanently stop posting at midnight on election evening or when Romney concedes
As we saw in 2000, election evening isn't always decisive.

No sock puppets, no hedging...at midnight the day one of our guys loses; we permanently stop posting.

And I'll toss in this sweetener...

If Obama wins, you can stay on USMB if you change your sig line to "All Hail President Obama, Your President, My President, Our President" and leave it there until 1/1/13...

Font size 3, bold font face, blue font.

How about that?

We have a deal.

He's a man of his word. What are you?

 

[Listening]

nobody cares about Chris Matthews.


Hardly anybody knows who he even is.

Agreed. But he has an extended family that (I guess) watch him.

It is amazing that someone on the left can be so stupid.