You are right, but it is that there is so much to remember. I am glad you brought it up. Maybe their research dept. should be looking back all the time to make sure we do not miss anything.

I think Newt has not been able to get a lot of money. Romney has a lot. maybe the will go in together and we will have a jolly good time bringing them both down. They were both defeated before.

I hope Obamo does get in office. This way Sharia law can come into this country. Just think, women will have to cover there face. no education for women, they will kill same sex partners. They will cut off your hands if you steal anything. I like it when Obama apologizies for American going into there country and killing them. Obama is doing the right thing. He is allowing sharia law to come into our country. I can see it now. When America runs out of money. Someone has to buy it. Who has alot of oil who can buy this land. Muslims have. I love Obama please get rid of the Christ, the Bible, Marriages, the United Currancy, and have a dictator just like you Obama. To run what is left of our country.

Seriously you should try picking up a newspaper, but it's clear you have a literacy problem.The corporation reference was regarding media ownership so governmental backing of corporations is a completely different topic.

If you could actually comprehend a news story or article or perhaps retain the same you might recall that the CIA DID ADMIT THAT THEY WERE the ones (in conjunction with Israel) who were responsible for Stuxnet. It was by no means minimal. It did completely destroy their enrichment facility. These facts are not hard to find you obviously have a computer use your search engine. I'm assuming that you are getting your facts wrong because you are either getting them from NewsCorp or a similar misinformation site or you have a mental block that prevents you from absorbing fact.

Even so, what on earth do corporations have to do with this? The media actually does have a slight left-wing bias, (excluding fox, which does a lot to balance it out) if you've ever seen the UCLA study on political bias in the news.

Ad hominems aside, you're probably right about Stuxnet being done by Israel, although I cannot in fact find anything regarding the CIA admitting responsibility (using the search terms "cia admits stuxnet responsibility").

I'll concede that it may have caused a good amount of damage initally. However, it would seem that Iran has managed to "quickly replace" the machines damaged. I can't post links, but a quick search for "stuxnet damage" reveals that you're incorrect. It may have caused deaths, but a claim that it "completely destroyed" the program is beyond idiotic. It may have seemed that way at first, but it certainly didn't end up that way.

Read:

But the IAEA’s files also show a feverish – and apparently successful- effort by Iranian scientists to contain the damage and replace broken parts, even while constrained by international sanctions banning Iran from purchasing nuclear equipment. An IAEA report due for release this month is expected to show steady or even slightly elevated production rates at the Natanz enrichment plant over the past year.

“They have been able to quickly replace broken machines,” said a Western diplomat with access to confidential IAEA reports. Despite the setbacks, “the Iranians appeared to be working hard to maintain a constant, stable output” of low-enriched uranium, said the official, who like other diplomats interviewed for this report insisted on anonymity in discussing the results of the U.N. watchdog’s data-collecting…

Look, I'm glad that Obama's taking a hard stance on Iran. He shouldn't be negotiating with them.

Oh, and it's kind of funny seeing an avid follower of Hardball complaining about bias. You guys really are exactly like FOX viewers.

Multi-national corporations own the media. It has been known for quite some time that the news is dictated by what the corporate board members of not only the owners of the network want but also what the board members of the advertisers (who are also multi-national corporations) want. This started back when Reagan changed the scope of our News media in several ways. The main way was allowing board members to show advertisements during the News. When people say News was great back in the old days it wasn't because journalists were better it was because advertisers and board members were literally not allowed to manipulate the News casts. Right after Reagan changed these laws Fox tested them by forbidding a story to be told about the risks of drinking milk because of the hormones injected into our cows. It was forbidden not by Fox but by the advertisers who threatened to pull billions in advertising if the story was released on air. The journalists sued but a judge upheld Reagans new law and now we the people frequently don't hear the truth.

This whole notion that the media leans left is misleading. These studies reflect the WHOLE media like for instance TV Shows. Not just the News Media. It was originally Rush Limbaugh who about 30 years ago started this whole "the media is left leaning" when he read a book by two gents from the FINANCIAL MEDIA who wrote the book explaining that the FINANCIAL MEDIA leaned left. But Rush who is famous for misrepresenting the truth by presenting partial fact started telling everyone that ALL of the media leaned left. But let's be clear, the mainstream American news media leans right. If you want proof tune into Free Speech TV on your cable channel and watch Democracy Now or the Thom Hartmann Show and you will ACTUALLY see left leaning media and realize just how far right the mainstream media is (and how much real news you never get to see in the mainstream media.

As for Stuxnet, no one died. The worm destroyed ALL of Irans "machines." By machines I mean the centrifuges used to refine nuclear material. When this happened there were Homeland Security Officials who made the rounds on the network channels as well as writing articles in the newspapers explaining their involvement (as part of the CIA in conjunction with Israel's secret service), to deploy and then extract the worm. Yes, Iran has had to replace their centrifuges but that was the point. These are expensive, hard to obtain items. Also it put their production of nuclear material, especially weapons grade nuclear material, way behind schedule (by years), which is EXACTLY why Israel was involved.

The point is and was to claim that Obama is guilty of appeasement is ridiculous. The Israelis I'm sure would beg to differ.

Well, the study actually only took news outlets into account (although, of course, the news outlets weren't nearly as bad as outr politicans). This is because journalists are overwhelmingly liberal, but you seem to be seeing right-wing as I see center-left-wing, so ultimately it all ends up as subjective.

The Iranians only dismantled 10% of the machines used to enrich uranium, and almost immediately replaced them. It may have set them back a few years, but the impact was relatively minor on the program as a whole. This is a guy who still has a high probability of having nukes in the next decade. As for whether or not someone died, I read in my desperate search for links that it had in fact caused deaths, but it doesn't really matter so I'll take your word for it.

Entering into negotiations does in fact fit the definition of appeasement. Negotiations involve appeasement almost by design, so it is a fair claim to make that he's appeasing the Iranians.

Quite frankly, I had no position on this issue until I saw Chris' overwhelming doucheyness, but it seems incredibly dumb to make such a big deal over a word. (A word which was used prudently by Romney, if he wanted to rally the Jews against Obama.)

Wrong again. Keep trying to spread your disinformation though. Do you even think before you speak? Stuxnet was an internet style "worm" attack. No person can die from that unless they are a "virtual" person. Do you hear something ringing? That's you clue phone, you need to answer it.

Are you trying to compensate for something? You seem pretty angry. It's cool. Maybe you should try searching for things to back up your claims.

From the DHS website:

A senior Iranian official admitted that the Stuxnet malware, which infected tens of thousands of computers and servers used in Iran’s nuclear weapons complex inflicted serious damage on Iran’s nuclear program, including large-scale accidents and loss of life.

(Note that the damage was quickly repaired, so no, I am not disproving my position.)

Seriously, my friend, you have an issue with using sources to back up your idiotic and false statements. First you claimed that the CIA admitted responsibility for Stuxnet (they didn't), then you claim that the worm destroyed all of Iran's machines (it didn't, not even close), then you claim that the UCLA study took into account all media and now you're calling me an idiot for being right? Not only that, you're focusing on something that is so trivial I decided to take your word for it? What the hell?

Obviously Chris Matthews is a magnet for idiots. I'm still shaking my head at how incredibly stupid you are.

Hey genius were right back to your literacy issues. The report you're reading at DHS is 1. a report on what Stuxnet is capable of and, 2. it CLEARLY says it COULD BE responsible for loss of life. Not that it was. This "could be" scenario "could be" due to any number of adjacent circumstances like retaliation, for instance. 3. Stuxnet IS a worm. If you don't understand that why are you even commenting here? Once again use your browser to go onto an encyclopedia and look up Stuxnet.

Perhaps you should spend some time taking a reading comprehension class.

Then again I believe you simply don't want to see the facts do you. It's like you exist in a bubble that facts simply aren't allowed to penetrate. That's OK though in my America even idiots and morons are allowed to have an opinion, after all Fox News is extremely popular.

You're either a troll or an idiot, but you clearly missed the part about the ten deaths that were caused. It's funny that you're criticizing me for being illiterate when you're so obviously either cherry-picking the article or just being willfully ignorant.

"In recent weeks, Iranian media reported about dozens of large-scale accidents and explosions in Iran's industrial sites, especially facilities dealing with oil and petrochemicals (Before you bring this up, yes, petrochemicals. The fact is that it was caused by Stuxnet. Do you really think that dozens of random explosions the weeks before were a total coincidence?) . Iran reported at least ten deaths in these explosions."

I seriously cannot even believe you brought something so trivial up in the first place (especially after I agreed with you) but I shouldn't be surprised--I'm on MSNBC's site, after all.

Yes you idiot! Petrochemicals have nothing to do nuclear facilities! But if you want to credit the Obama Administration and HOMELAND SECURITY with destroying Irans Petrochemical Plants destruction as well as the destruction to their centrifuges then you are simply making my point, Chris' point and the point that everyone else has been making...Obama is not an appeaser.

I see you read what I wrote below about Obama's success killing and capturing terrorists. To call him an appeaser means that like the articles you are reading you don't understand common english words and grammar, or that you are too polarized to make an unbiased decision.

I really don't know how many times I have to say this. Negotiating. Involves. Appeasing. ALWAYS. If it doesn't involve appeasement it's either a surrender or a demand, not a negotiation. Again, it's fan-freaking-tastic that Obama may possibly be going after the Iranians. It isn't good enough. (And for all we know, it wasn't even Obama. You claimed it was but unless the CIA and Israel completely wiped the Internet of all references to their supposed "admitting guilt" then you can't make any claims to the contrary. We have the word of Iranians, who, need I remind you, officially don't believe the Holocaust happened.)

More illiteracy, I see. Petrochemical facilities were among those hit. It was not, in fact, only petrochemical facilities that were hit. However, if you're really going to make the case that dozens of explosions around Iran's infrastructure weeks before Stuxnet hit were a random coincidence then you're dumber than I thought (and that's saying something.)

I can't express enough how dumb it was to bring up something I agreed with you on and try to use it to further your argument (which, I noticed, has been reduced to calling me an idiot and making baseless claims. Not that it was anything else before.)

Wow I guess the Republican Party are a bunch of Appeasers. So will be any and every Republican President because they have to negotiate with the Dems in Congress. They have to negotiate with other world leaders. They have to negotiate with networks, telephone companies and even their wives.

So why did Romney bring it up in such negative terms? Once again you don't understand the meaning of the word. I apologize for the insults. Good conversation. However please, please read some books and have a more open mind my friend. So you know I did graduate from USMMA (Federal Military Academy), was a professional Naval Officer and a Professional IT Director for two Fortune 100 Companies. I knew ALL about the topic we were discussing from every angle.

Yeah, sorry 'bout that bit of unpleasantness (unless you're going to turn around and say "AHA! You appeased me!" in which case well played).

I tend to consider appeasing a nuclear-capable country whose leader(s) express a desire to kill everyone inhabiting a highly important strategic allied nation into whom we've invested 70 years worth of material a bit different than appeasing those others (except perhaps the wife, lol). There is a such thing as good appeasement, but we clearly have a gap at where to draw the line.

"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed."

Actually, on second thought, this is just an ad hominem. You all know you're doing the actual intelligent liberals a disservice by existing, right?

So, Romney says Obama is practicing a philosophy of "appeasement". He should mean peaceable.

It is a Christian possession. It is very difficult to achieve but not for the peaceable. You can be peaceful and yet not encourage peace. President Obama is peaceable.
“I will hear what the true God will speak, for he will speak peace to his people and to his loyal ones.”—Ps. 85:8.

I'm a Christian, my man, I know. Sorry for coming out so hard. But peace with Iran is complicated, to say the least. If we take a route of appeasement on the nuclear front, then this nation led by psychos has access to one or more devastating WMDs that have the power to kill hundreds of thousands per bomb. That's unlikely to lead to peace with Iran's current leadership.

Again, sorry for coming out so hard--Chris pisses me off.

Let's be practical here. War sucks. It's also going to happen, and I, for one, would rather have a strong president who knows where to draw the line. There's a difference between belligerence and intelligence.

I'd love if we could end war, but as long as it's inevitable, we might as well have a president who knows what he's doing. There's a point at which appeasing (yes, I'm using the word appeasing) Iran becomes dumb, and Obama clearly can't see that.

Idealism is one thing, practicality is another.

Antelope thinks Romney or Newt would be a strong President? These guys waffle on everything. I suppose he thought Bush was a strong President. The truth is Obama has captured/killed more terrorists in three years than Bush did in eight. Obama got Osama, the whole reason we got into Afganistan and Iraq and arguably why we have so much debt now (although massive mismanagement of taxes, funds and policy by the Republicans also helped). Obama incidentally has also arrested, detained and deported mored illegal aliens than an other President in American history.

People who watch Fox news and listen to Clear Channel radio talkers are the least informed people in this nation. Not because they aren't interested in politics but because they are given incorrect facts.

You're giving Obama credit for a program started and controlled for most of its history by Bush (not that I'm a bush fan, of course)and for deporting illegal aliens instead of doing anything substantive to fix the immigration issue? Look, it's great--fantastic, even--that Obama is taking a hard stance on Al Qaeda and even Palestine. Those have little relation to the issue at hand, which is Iran, towards which, evidently, Romney would be stronger than Obama is. You're doing the same thing Chris did in the interview above--changing the subject. I mean, Kennedy was great in the Cuban Missile Crisis, but that doesn't mean he handled Bay of Pigs well, does it?

Why didRomney use the word appeasement to a Jewish audience? Was the use intended to remind people of Hitler? Under the current President it has appeared that the Military has a more clear and precise course on terrorism. The Repulican Strategist appeared to be uniformed on the actual definition.

Appeasement:to bring to a state of peace, quiet, ease, calm, or contentment

If people are calling for Military action, then they must realize that military action is the last result after Diplomatic efforts have failed.

Why did Romney use the word appeasement to a Jewish audience? Was the use intended to remind people of Hitler? Under the current President it has appeared that the Military has a more clear and precise course on terrorism. The Repulican Strategist appeared to be uniformed on the actual definition.

Appeasement:to bring to a state of peace, quiet, ease, calm, or contentment

If people are calling for Military action, then they must realize that military action is the last result use only after Diplomatic efforts have failed.

lol

you're an idiot. At least try to back up your insults with whatever passes for intelligence with you.

1. That's nice, but as I said before, not good enough. Negotiating with insane people is unacceptable.

2. George W. Bush has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion, I might as well bring up Washington's relations with Israel. (There were none.)

3. Your decision, not mine.

No one has forgotton that Obamo had 4 trillion dollars and spent it on his cronies nepotism friends of his. The auto companies are safe until Obamo gets back in office. Because 51 percent of the company is owned buy the government. The rest is owned by other countries. Obamo is smart. He is giving everthing he can to buy votes. But once he gets back into office things will change so fast to the favor of his nepotism buddies who help him out. The American people who have believe in Obamo sh_t will get burned. He is taking away our right to prey, our freedom, have a family, and our Constitution is being taken away form us. Just because of people greed who believe in this liar. His next step is. Obamo wants to become a dictator instead of a President. This way he has the power to stay in office. Because you can't vote a dictator out of office. I do believe that is just to much power for one human to have control over our lives. No one should have control over another person.