What a Dick.
 

I would like to send him over to either war and spend some time on the front lines.

MSN talking head has an "hard time" calling military dead heroes.


Chris Hayes: I'm 'Uncomfortable' Calling Fallen Military 'Heroes' | NewsBusters.org

Jesus.

For disclosure, I am a former Marine and a combat veteran. So maybe it's hard for me to be un-biased here.

This guy has his own show on MSNBC (mornings, I believe). This is what liberalism has evolved into in this country in 2012. This guy hates George Bush so passionately, that vets called to serve in Bush-initiated wars are also tainted somehow. This is exactly why I say liberalism is a mental disorder. You'd have to have a screw loose to be unable to differentiate between the legitimacy of a war's stated purpose, and the heroism of the foot soldiers who carry out orders.

I'm not saying Hayes speaks for all liberals. But it's a pattern. Liberals support the daily slaughter of 4,000 unborn babies, but not the execution of a serial killer. Insane.

Liberals believe that wealthy people are somehow to blame for the plight of poor people, and that wealth is, therefore, both finite and bad. Insane.

Liberals believe that "racism" is bad, but that affirmative action is just. Insane.

Liberals think there is no long-term danger to borrowing more and more, and to spending more and more. They believe this, despite what's happening in Europe as I type this. Insane.

Liberals believe that if you dare utter a word about the need to fix social security or medicare, that you don't care about old people and poor people. Insane.

And Chris Hayes, an influential liberal, feels that you cannot be considered a hero for serving in a war, unless Hayes personally approves of the war. Insane.

I just cannot understand how anyone votes democrat, unless you are on welfare or in a union. I just do not get it. It's crazy, nothing short of crazy. Almost everything they believe is howling-at-the-moon, foaming-at-the-mouth crazy.

Imagine the gall of saying this on Memorial Day weekend, of all times to say it. The entire nation is taking a moment to honor those who have sacrificed more than this sissy little debutante can ever imagine, and he picks this moment to chastise the rest of us for calling them "heroes". The elitism and arrogance, and stupidity, is breathtaking.

To liberal elite chatterheads like Chris Hayes, it's more "heroic" to hang around the upper west side of Manhattan, drinking hot toddies, and discussing important things like art and existentialism.

:af: :cens:
Get his soft little lilly arse out of bed, send him to basic, transfer him away
from his family to Afghanistan and make him point man at every fire
fight possible, see some of his buddies maimed and killed.
Then see what he says.
I can't think of a strong enough derogatory word to describe a punk like that.
The man is a disgrace to his country.

he wouldn't make it through Basic Training

Once you realize that the "news" or what ever you want to call these tv shows make more money when they Har higher ratings, your eyes are opened to the stunts they pull to get noticed... Get better ratings because people want to watch and see what the fuss is about, and then more money comes in from advertisers.. It's all a joke that's polarized out country. Idiots on the left... Idiots on the right... Reducilous.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:agree:

most rediculous thing ive read in a while. Wouldnt he love to see how life was if it werent for those fallen military HERO's

It was certainly a pretty dumb thing to say.

If you watch the full clip though, it's not an irrational thing for him to say. As someone who's against the war, the idea of a blanket label would call into question if it helps legitimize the policy. This is a philosophical question more than anything else and something I could see an anti-war liberal taking into account.

The soundbite driven cable programming is really not a good avenue for intellectual exploration...it rarely works. Hayes definitely realized he was wading into deeper water and appeared quite uncomfortable.

I think it's made even worse by Hayes fitting the weenie liberal stereotype to a T but in reality does anyone even watch his show? I tried once and the only good thing about it was that David Frum was on.

-spence

"it's not an irrational thing for him to say. As someone who's against the war, the idea of a blanket label would call into question if it helps legitimize the policy"

100% wrong, I cannot believe you would say something like that. The soldiers on the ground are not the same folks who decide to wage war, everyone knows that (everyone who has a brain, at least, knows that). Anyone with a brain, therefore, can clearly differentiate between the decision to go to war, and the valor shown by the guys with boots on the ground. If you cannot make that distinction, you have major brain malfunction.

There is no problem with being opposed to a war, but still giving credit to the soldiers kicking down doors and sleeping in the hills. I just can't believe that you would defend even this.

Spence, back in the late 60's, your fellow liberals felt the same way. Because they were opposed to what they considered to be an unjust war, they attacked the soldiers returning from that war. That was disgusting, stupid, short-sighted, and just about unforgivable. You liberals, you aren't really interested in learning from your past mistakes, are you?

Repugnant and stupid.

"something I could see an anti-war liberal taking into account."

I also can see an anti-war liberal taking this into account. Because ONLY a liberal would be so blinded by ideology that he'd be unable to give servicemen credit, unless they personally agreed with the mission. Only a true liberal could have a thought process so deformed and illogical.

I could care less what this guy looks like. What he said is revolting. And you have shown that cannot bring yourself to disavow anything said or done by any influential liberal. There is nothihng that a liberal can say that you won't defend.

Too bad you and Chris Hayes weren't alive in the 60's. Maybe you could have spit at a few wheelchair-bound vets.

Unfreakinbelievable.

Why don't you do both of us a favor and ignore my posts. I really have no interest in doing this dance with you anymore. You're a close-minded, brainwashed robot. A glorified parrot for the left. There's literally no need for you to respond to anything I say, because I already know exactly what you're going to say...liberal=good, conservative=bad. I get it. We all get it.

On Memorial Day weekend of all times. Unfreakinbelievable. Have you people no shame? Have you no shame at all?

Jim, there's nothing I've said that should be taken as a defense of his statement.

I'm trying to offer some constructive perspective rather than simply write Hayes's comments off as those of a mental case. That he's wrong and his timing is poor doesn't make him insane.

He still is a terrible show host though.

-spence

"I'm trying to offer some constructive perspective rather than simply write Hayes's comments off as those of a mental case."

There is no constructive perspective. Hayes, like most liberals, is a mental case. Being wrong doesn't make you mentally handicapped. However, suggesting that troops shouldn't be called "heroes" because he doesn't approve of the war, indicates positively that he is absolutely deranged. No sane person would ever suggest that.

Like most liberals, he is so driven by radical ideology that he has completely lost any grasp of common sense. He's bonkers, completely, totally bonkers. He's also a mean-spirited, viscous little Tinkerbell.

"Jim, there's nothing I've said that should be taken as a defense of his statement."

No?

You said he was not irrational. You agreed that calling servicemen heroes could be construed as supporting the war (in other words, you claim his premise is not without merit). You said you could see why a liberal might think like he does.

That's not defending him? Spence, there's an old southern sayiing..."don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining".

A child appreciates the difference between supporting a war's purpose, and crediting the foot soldiers with the valor they display. Any child sees this enormous difference. But not Hayes, and not you. You're both too driven by radical ideology to have any semblance of common sense.

I said his comments were not irrational for an anti-war liberal to make. That is not a de facto endorsement, far from it, it's simply a reasoned observation.

Look, many people believe we've become a society desensitized to war and that a military industrial complex has too much influence on our government. The combination of factors some would argue leads to perpetual war...

I've mentioned in past threads an interesting book that discusses some aspects of this by Andrew Bacevich (The New American Militarism) a self described Catholic Conservative who fought in Vietnam, was an Army Colonel and lost his own son in Iraq in 2007.

The point being that these ideas don't exist in a black and white world. The difference though between someone like Bacevich and Hayes is that while they may have similar opinions (i.e. opposition to the Iraq War) one has real world experience while the other is simply an academic. As such there are lessons that are not fully learned. Hayes in his remarks isn't calculating enough of the the up front human cost (i.e. I'm signing a blank check to the US Govt) so he's being quite insensitive and hence is wrong or so I believe.

But to write off his behavior as a mental issue is also reckless. If the lessons of Vietnam have not been fully learned...castigating people like Hayes isn't the way to move forward.

Personally, I think Chris Hayes had his own "teaching moment" right before the camera.

-spence

I was there when the when the troops came home from Vietnam and were treated like crap. To this day I can't understand how the peace nicks could blame the troops, 2/3 or over 2 million of which were drafted.
Not an ounce ofcommon sense in the way they acted. All the things that Jim said above.
The only thing I could think of was their pure leftist hate for "the establishment", while at the same time s#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g off it, still do today, and are now running the country into the ground with little hope of recovery.

Where you sleeping during the Bush admin.? The worse presidency of our life time.

I've seen you (and Jim in Ct) express such hatred on this site for Obama that I just shake my head and thank God that I wasn't raised to have such hate.

Wow, you are quite the judge of people you never met or know little about.
You have no clue who I am or what I believe.
I feel no need to defend myself or my opinions, but I will tell you I don't hate anyone. I wasn't brought up that way and my practicing relegion wouldn't allow me to if I wanted.
Sounds like you have nothing to say about how badly our troops were treated
coming home from Nam or about the far left antics and therefore throw an accusation.
Be very careful in setting yourself up as a personal judge,
"Pride goeth before the fall." :)

I can see the posts - full of hate. It's funny b/c you brought up the issue of "leftist" hate.

It is a disgrace when honorable troops aren't given the repect they deserve. - Is that good enough for you?

Is the quote "be carefull you don't become what you hate"?

"Look, many people believe we've become a society desensitized to war "

No rational, sane person thinks that.

"and that a military industrial complex has too much influence on our government."

Only conspiracy-theory kooks believe that, the same loons who think 09/11 was an inside job.

"The point being that these ideas don't exist in a black and white world. "

Sure they do exist in black and white. Giving soldiers an "atta boy" is NOT THE SAME THING as saying the war is just. Spence, few things in life are as simple as this. How you can fail to admit this is beyond me. It's incomprehensible.

I have never heard anyone conclude that supporting the trioops is the same as supporting the reason for the war. That's an Evil Kineval-size leap to make.

But liberals live in the world of kookiness...

"If the lessons of Vietnam have not been fully learned...castigating people like Hayes isn't the way to move forward. "

If Hayes hasn't learned the lesson from Vietnam, he has a mental disorder. Many people are opposed to the Iraq War. I have never heard anyone hold that against the troops. To do so is irrational.

Once again, I don't see where someone who regularly uses the term "tea baggers" gets off lecturing anybody about tolerance. Either practice what you preach, or find another soapbox to preach from. ANother quote, more relevent here, is "physician, HEAL THYSELF".

They only time I have used the term teabagger (either here or elsewhere) is in response to your rants about liberals and how when something seems to get your dander up (which seems to happen quite a lot) you equate the actions of one individual to everyone you view as liberal.

In other words, it's OK for you to use hateful language towards me, but if anyone else does the same, we are hate-mongers.

No hypocrisy there, nope...

Now your off your accusation.
Please show me a post where I said I hated Obama,and in addition where
I praised Bush.
There is a big difference between hating a person and being deeply concerned
for your country and the future of your Grandchildren because of a person's
domestic and foreign polocies.
I'm sure Obama would be a great guy to hang with and have a beer , but the
first thing I would ask him would be, "WTH are you thinking with your failing
polocies."
Never hated a man, had a right to hate two, but forgave them both for
my own sake.
Take it or leave it Judge, it's the truth. :hihi:

Just responding in kind (and directed at you, not all cons) - if you don't see the difference so be it.

Paul, when I use harsh language, I'm responding in kind, as well. I don't insult people right off the bat, I do it when, in my opinion, they have crossed the line.

For example, Obama. When the thought the mikes were off, he bashed people like me by saying that we cling to our guns and our religion because we are bitter, and because we don't like people qwhose skin is a different color than ours. That's what the man said. I'm not making that up, I'm not taking that out of context. That's why I feel free using belittling language to describe the man. I think he's a really lousy person, and I don't say that because of his policies. I say that because he has shown, repeatedly, that he has no time or use for anyone who disagrees with him.

So again, I see no difference between my use of colorful language, and yours. We both direct it at people we feel deserve it, because they have crossed the line.

No difference...

He's talking more about me, and I'm guilty as charged.

I detest Obama's policies.

I also detest him as a human being. Personally, I have no interest in having a beer with anyone who sat in Rev Wright's church for 20 years (and had Wright baptize his kids and perform his marriage), or with someone who bashes the Supreme Court at the State of The Union address, when the justices are sitting right there, and can't defend themselves.

I'm a deeply loving guy, and I guarantee I give more money and time to charity than Paul S does. But I detest Obama so deeply that I cannot say I don't hate him.

Look at many of the threads you start or the posts you make. They all are about something that you don't like and w/in a paragraph or 2 are soon complaining (ie insulting) about liberals or "liberalism". You do is so much you don't even realize it any more.

Haven't we discussed this previously how you seem to do that?

If that's the case he shouldn't have been directed at me.
I'm still waiting for the proof of his accusation.
Loose cannon.

I'm pretty sure this has run its course....Embargo On.....Lockin it up.