What Did Chamberlain Do???

I watched it live and was laughing the entire time. Classic Mathews and made the conservatvie little prick look like an idiot.

That trick Neville works.

Nothing up my sleeve...

Kevin James reminds me of another wacko neocon, Michael Savage.

Weiner. It's Michael Weiner.

Ray

Kevin James reminds me of another wacko neocon, Michael Savage.

I'm very familiar with Kevin James. He's definitely not some Bush lover and not a Neocon either. Nor is he real pro-Iraq war but he is a Republican. He's not too keen on McCain either but Kevin does want to keep his job so he has to go along with some of the rightwinger attitudes of the radio station he's on.

Kevin did come across a little too "over-excited" on this youtube video link of the Chris Matthews show but I think maybe he was a little nervous being on television.

I listen to Kevin James (or tape him) on the radio (KRLA - 1101 AM radio) every night (M-F). He's on from 9-11 p.m. In fact a few months back he sent me two personal emails when we were discussing a particular political issue between the two of us. He's from Oklahoma and was a lawyer but decided to be a radio talk show host instead. He's a good guy -- not as "hyper" as he appeared in this clip.

1101 AM radio = 1100 AM radio

Chris, he may not be as hyper but you can't fake stupid.

"but Kevin does want to keep his job so he has to go along with some of the rightwinger attitudes of the radio station he's on."

In other words he's a liar.

Just another ignorant right wing asshole who can't justify his opinion so he blunders along talking loud and making a fool of himself.

True Blue Bushy.

He's a good guy -- not as "hyper" as he appeared in this clip. Posted by CalifChris

We'll have to consider the source on this.

I guess he's another "Truthseeker" huh?

Wowsers! Thanx a bunch Danni!

Spud totally needed a good laugh.

That ignoranus, Kevin James, personified wot is wrong about the right these days.

"If you can't be right, be wrong at the top of your lungs" seems to be their motto.

Also...

"If you don't know what yer talking about just keep talking faster and maybe folks won't pick up on it."

Spud picked up on it.

So did Mathews and anybody else with a lick of sense who observed the proceedings.

100 pounds of FAIL in a 5 pound sack was that.

Instead of trying to engage in constructive dialogue based on reality and historical knowledge, asswipes like James use loaded rhetoric to try to score political points without having even an inkling of what it is they are talking about.

In point of fact, if ever you've read any of Hitler ramblings (particularily the Borman Documents) you'll know that Hitler was determined to get Neville Chamberlain to say something in 1938 that would give him the excuse to launch his European Attack even sooner than he did.

He bitterly regretted to the end of his days the fact that Chamberlain refused to give him that option.

Chamberlain, whether he was fully aware of the fact or not, gave the UK more time to prepare for the assault against them. Without his so-called appeasement Hitler may well have taken Britain.

All that sed, wot Obama is talking about in terms of talking to ones enemies, simply cannot be compared to appeasement.

Not talking to ones enemies is a sign of weakness and not strength.

Speaking of weak...

Kevin James's arguments were weaker than a new born sloth.

Total fucktard that guy.

Who the fuck can take raving, fascist R-tards like that seriously?

Be Well.

Kevin James reminds me of another wacko neocon, Michael Savage.

Posted by Ray

I may not agree with Mr. (Wiener)Savage, but I bet he would've answered that question in a heartbeat, he's pretty smart.

Kevin James - typical rightwing talking head. Stupid, ill informed, and baselessly inflammatory.

best hardball ever--these are the assholes that can't find canada on a map and they ran the country for the last 7.5 years--fucking awesome to see them falling. looking forward to the complete collapse. go hide in your bubble bath retard.

Kevin James is a loon.

Larry Mohr

PS to RCADE if it violates some rule please remove. I don't want You in hot water because of Moi.

It's possible Hitler's bluff could have been called in 1938. However, the RAF could not have opposed the Luftwaffe that year.

Life is complicated. Bush is a fool. If he had been alive in 1938 his sympathies would likely be with his family's financial interests, not Czechoslovakia.

What I wondered after the show was whether Bush could have answered Matthews question and I doubt seriously that he could have. When you think in talking points questions about history can be a real problem. I wouldn't have thought this was so funny had the tool not been one of these fillibustering loud mouths who think that by bullying their opponent they somehow win the argument.

"best hardball ever--these are the assholes that can't find canada on a map"

Don't need no steekin' map
Yrs,
Douglas "Wrong Way" Corrigan

I don't know whether it is funny or sad.

Can you believe they give this fuck an open mike?

Oh, and Savage always reminds me of Hitler when he really gets going. It really baffles me how one man can be so smart and so stupid at the same time.

I'm very familiar with Kevin James. He's definitely not some Bush lover and not a Neocon either. Nor is he real pro-Iraq war but he is a Republican. He's not too keen on McCain either but Kevin does want to keep his job so he has to go along with some of the rightwinger attitudes of the radio station he's on.
Posted by CalifChris at 2008-05-15 09:11 PM

Are you so sure? He's arguing for Zionists, which include the Neocons Israeli agenda.

I tried looking for the Borman Documents on Wikipedia without success. Anyone?

The reason he was so "excited" - cocaine, obviously.

Please, like thats was not a choreographed hit job.

Come on, James was right, Chamberlain is remembered as a Hitler appeaser. Mathews was a dick and pushed for details, which he probably had just reread himself. I'd bet most Americans wouldn't even know the difference between wilt and nevill.

PS i'm not defending the guy, he probably should have done his research before going on. I just find if funny that everybody is jumping on his back because he was not specific enough to make Mathews happy. By the way did any of you catch Mathews reading from his note as he told james the answer? Nope oh well the moral of the story is the guy that can read it in front of him wins every time.

Chamberlain is remembered as a Hitler appeaser

Exactly.

So Bush was talking out his ass, using demagoguery against the opposition, purely for political purposes, while in a foreign land, addressing a foreign government.

Who in the United States has talked about appeasement besides Bush and the GOP?

The dumbass got caught propagating a lie.

"Because he wasn't specific enough to make Matthews happy...."

He was vague enough to have failed a 12th Grade history exam.

I expect people that pretend to have opinions better than mine to know more than I do.

Come on, James was right, Chamberlain is remembered as a Hitler appeaser.

That wasn't James' point. James was saying there is a comparison between what Chamberlain did and what Obama recommends. In order to make that point, he had to steer completely clear of the actual details, because as Matthews showed, the details destroy the point.

This isn't a story about Matthews or James. It's about the fact that republican fear-mongering talking points rarely stand up to scrutiny, and generally only consist of words without meaning.

I mean, how often did you need to hear "he was an appeaser, he legitimized and energized..." before you realize that James was only quoting talking points while having no idea what those points actually mean, or whether or not they're even valid. The past 7.5 years have been a showcase of this kind of dishonesty, and I for one am happy to see someone be held accountable.

My only regret is that this kind of demonstration wasn't applied to the idiot who made this comparison to his Israeli buddies, the worst president in US history, George W. Bush. I would have paid good money to see that. I bet Bush would have cried.

Want to know about appeasement? Can anyone say "France"en.wikipedia.org

Can anyone say Petain?en.wikipedia.org

"In point of fact, if ever you've read any of Hitler ramblings (particularily the Borman Documents) you'll know that Hitler was determined to get Neville Chamberlain to say something in 1938 that would give him the excuse to launch his European Attack even sooner than he did."

Hitler had already annexed Austria, of which Britain was a guarantor of Austrian independence, and the Austrian government had appealed for help. When Hitler was causing a stink over the Sudetenland. Chamberlain went to Munich, and came back with a "land for peace" treaty. Six months later, Hitler invaded and annexed the rest Czechoslovakia. It is without a doubt the definition of appeasment.

But more to the current context, Obama stated he would talk with our enemies without preconditions.
Talks without strength invariably end in "land for peace". This has shown, via Chamberlain, to be an appeasment policy, that within a short amount of time peace is broken.

There is much "talk" about having the WestBank be a Palestinian state. I realize many of you have never been to Israel, but the WestBank rises above the city of TelAviv. If Israel were to "appease" the Palestinian's and make it sovereign would we, take responsibility for the Qassams on TelAviv?
www.mideastweb.org

The other interesting issue is here is how Amerocentric your views are. Sharon had rebuked Bush about "appeasement" to the Arabs, much like Munich. Bush more than likely had both Obama, and Sharon's comments in mind.
query.nytimes.com

RE:Bormann Documents -
"It was on the eve of Munich that I realized beyond doubt that the enemies of the Third Reich were determined to have our hide at all costs and that there was no possibility of coming to terms with them. When that arch capitalist bourgeois, Chamberlain, with his deceptive umbrella in his hand, put himself to the trouble of going all the way to the Berghof to discuss matters with that upstart, Hitler, he knew very well that he really intended to wage ruthless war against us. He was quite prepared to tell me anything which he thought might serve to lull my suspicions. His one and only object in undertaking this trip was to gain time. What we ought then to have done was to have struck at once. We ought to have gone to war in 1938. It was the last chance we had of localizing the war."

"But they gave way all along the line and, like the poltroons that they are, ceded to all our demands. Under such conditions it was very difficult to seize the initiative and commence hostilities. At Munich we lost a unique opportunity of easily and swiftly winning a war that was in any case inevitable."
www.zogsnightmare.com

It is not weakness to talk, but to come to the table weak and without strength, then you will get rolled. Its been shown throughout history, the Israeli's are very sensitive about it.

Andrea,

Libs have no response for your point and it is a good one at that. Unless you begin negotiations from a position of power, you arent "talking", but being talked to. A talk isnt much if someone else is telling you how things will be...

It is not weakness to talk, but to come to the table weak and without strength, then you will get rolled. Its been shown throughout history, the Israeli's are very sensitive about it.

So we're weak? If we're weak, who's fault is that? This line of argument doesn't bode well for the GOP.

So we're weak? If we're weak, who's fault is that? This line of argument doesn't bode well for the GOP.

If you come to the table automatically willing to give up something of yours, you are coming weak. You must protect your interests, else, you are just getting fucked in the ass...

And?

What are we giving up by talking? Are you equating talk with appeasement? We're talking now.

The failure of neocons to recognize the value of honest diplomacy is probably the single biggest reason why GWB has alienated so much of the world over the past eight years. The narrow mentality is even reflected by many right leaning people on this site. At some point hopefully they will understand that it is not a sign of weakness to be willing to talk with an adversary.

"So we're weak? If we're weak, who's fault is that? This line of argument doesn't bode well for the GOP."

If you come to the table automatically willing to give up something of yours, you are coming weak. You must protect your interests, else, you are just getting fucked in the ass...
Posted by boaz at 2008-05-16 11:36 PM

And since the Israeli have an occupation agenda they certainly don't want equal or even fair discussions. The "interests" that are at stake are mistaken and fabricated, as are the reasons for the Israeli occupation in the first place.

The Israeli are nothing more than brutish Nazi-esque liars - they are stealing every resource and limiting the Palestinians access to them. Water, food and land - all dictated by Israeli. They even arrest their own citizens when police zone off an area. They simply don't want opposition from either side - external or internal.

Chris Matthews was quite just in his handling of Kevin James, I would like to see more blood though. The fleet of Republican talking points parrots have dummied down too much important news - I can't stand the incredibly one-sided BBC World America and especially CNN correspondents who should know better. Even the O'Reilly Factor tends to be more factual - minus Bill's hilarious opinions.

"When that arch capitalist bourgeois, Chamberlain, with his deceptive umbrella in his hand, put himself to the trouble of going all the way to the Berghof to discuss matters with that upstart, Hitler, he knew very well that he really intended to wage ruthless war against us. He was quite prepared to tell me anything which he thought might serve to lull my suspicions. His one and only object in undertaking this trip was to gain time."

This is Bush's argument against Obama bringing diplomacy to Palestinians?! The same displaced and impoverished people who use ROCKS to defend themselves? Who are under HOSTILE occupation by the Israeli? Appeasment from having their homes bulldozed? Hitler, thou name art Bush.

What are we giving up by talking? Are you equating talk with appeasement? We're talking now.

But we are not fighting. You have nothing I want. We are discussing something. If you have something I felt was mine, we would not be talking, You would be picking your teeth up from the ground and looking for someone to help you kick my ass and take back what I took from you. There is a difference..

There is a difference..

Boaz in cuffs, not a pretty sight.......

"Come on, James was right, Chamberlain is remembered as a Hitler appeaser. Mathews was a dick and pushed for details, which he probably had just reread himself. I'd bet most Americans wouldn't even know the difference between wilt and nevill."

I doubt that very much. Chris Matthews, whether you like him or not, it a very well educated, intelligent guy. Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler is not some obscure historical incident. It should be common knowledge of anyone who considers themself adequately enough educated in history to be on the air taling about current events. Kevin James showed the world that he is not qualified to be voicing his opinions and is nothing but a pompous ass speaking in talking points that he doesn't even know the meaning of. SAdly for America millions of even less knowledgeable folks listen to these idiots and form their opinions based on the talking points they repeat. People like Keven James are directly responsible for the mess we are in as a nation today. Were there still a Fairness Doctrine an opportunity would have to be provided for actual facts to be presented when these poorly educated or just plain dishonest right wing nuts broadcast their incomplete versions of reality. As is the case with much of what is wrong with America, it goes back to another person who pretended to know history well enough to govern, Ronnie Raygun (may he rot in hell).

If you have something I felt was mine, we would not be talking,

You mean if I owned something you wanted, like say OIL, you'd try and beat me up. I can see why you don't want to talk.

Since we're discussing negotiating from a position of strength, it's worthwhile to note that threatening war is oft times much more advantageous than fighting one.

Bush, by threat of war, was able to get Saddam Hussein to offer he was willing to leave Iraq if paid to do so and given certain assurances for his safety.

Bush was willing to do neither, insisting upon war, which he (more honestly, us) has since enjoyed in spades.

I'm sure Bush was attempting to take whatever he thought was the masculine option here, because I've suspected masculinity is an issue for him.

If he'd decided to "appease", it is likely regime change beneficial to this country would have been a fact in Iraq without war or occupation.

Did anyone else notice that James clearly thought that the Knesset was the name of the celebration not the legislative branch of gov.

He appears proudly ignorant.

This dude was a dunderhead--

Now on Obama's narcisstic appeaser flak--

article.nationalreview.com

Murphy

Interesting how things come out about people. Explains a lot, really.

So how could W talk about nazi appeasers without mentioning his famous Hitler lovin Grampaw George Prescott Bush?