Chris Matthews owns Kevin James on Hardball

[auralstream]

ENERGIZED! LEGITIMIZED! ENERGIZED! LEGITIMIZED!

[7worldtradee]

2:25 neverlin chambil?

[OsakaNitro]

How is Kevin James famous?

[etest12]

Haha Chris Matthews owns? YEAH RIGHT he says know what your talking about when it comes to history and he says at the end the USS Cole bombing happened during the Bush 1 presidency? What an idiot get it straight Chris Matthews the Cole was attacked on Oct 12th, 2000. That would make it during Clintons presidency. Yeah whenever he has time to research what happened in Munich in 39' with a script he will get it right, but he knows history no more than the other guy.

[tweeetme]

Associated Press 9/2/11 After investigating the more then 70 boxes from Osamas compond. The CIA has reported that most of the boxes contained gay islamic porn. Turns out Osama was watching porn the moment of his death. His favorite was "Mohammed has sex with Goats" CBS is reporting that Michael Moore C and Osama Bin Laden were having a secret Gay love affair. Infact Osama and Moore were to be married next month by Rosie Odonnel it was to be telivised on the Oprah Winfrey Network .

[welcome2thewasteland]

Just say,I don't know.You dumb fucking retard.

[mic187x2]

to think this man was a us attorney and had the power to send people to prison . thankfully he's out of that job.

[standinstann]

This just never gets old =D

[asfaqqq]

I think kevin james thought they were talking about appeasement in the generic sense this entire time and didn't even know what happened.

[lousinup]

OWNS = CONSTANTLY INTERRUPTS

[HelmutHedd]

Matthews tackles a straw man.

[sinkingship5]

Hey freesoul2005, look at Obama righ tnow and tell me with a straight face that Republicans are the ones that are retarded. And by the way you spelled "republicans" wrong and "retarded" so um yea.... I think your the fuck up.....

[RockAfella73]

ROFL i never seen anyone owned so bad on national TV! Just goes to show you how these AM radio hosts spew straight shit out their mouth and the sheeps believe it .THIS IS SOOOO BAD ROFLROLFR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[flyboymd82]

Matthews is a horses ass! Still have that thrill going up your leg douchebag?? Still calling Obama "GOD" douchebag?

I'll tell you what Chamberlin did asshole, He made a deal with the Devil(Hitler for you libtards)and trusted him you DUMB FUCK!! Chamberlan caused WWll by appeasment Chris! What a stupid motherfucker!

[rysw19]

he didn't cause wwii! it was inevitable at that point anyhow. it just delayed the war. you should research a little.

[Sirduckly]

1:41 That high note! Haha Chris Matthews is my favorite political commentor. He owns all these right wing retards, and does it with the correct approach. He owns them and i love him.

[kaisini]

Kevin James is a know-nothing idiot. He's one of those guys who believes that the louder he speaks the truer his words will sound. A complete pr1ck.

[iali00]

Hahaha.... OWNED!!!!!

[jjlljjll]

HAHA!!!

1:50 - Chamberlain energized, and legitimized, and...uh...legitimized...

2:25 - James calls him "Neverlain Chaimbel".

[sannin3]

I like how 95% of the Youtube population have no idea who Neville Chamberlain is and are still laughing at this video. Heck, some still spell appease with a 'c'. And instead of letting this video serve as a wake up call to their ignorance of history and politics, they use Kevin James to make themselves feel smarter.

[uniquehand]

Funny how you are one of the 95% you mentioned.

[CJDiggs]

There so much history, so many major historical milestones that no one, no matter how well read they may be can know of them all let alone recall them. The average dude, like myself, is laughing at this guy not because he doesn't know something, we laugh at him because he is a hot shot know-it-all who gets called on not knowing it all. A pseudo-intellect with the mouth of a verbal bully gets beat down for the world to see on youtube. That's why we laugh.

[keyboardplaya]

"Hey Chris! Hey Chris! What do you mean a blank slate?"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[digitalsampson]

He's an APPEASER!! It's the EXACT SAME THING!....LOL this makes my day.....in a painful sort of way.

[chimichanga776]

i love this clip

[digitalsampson]

Man this is an instant CLASSIC! I love it! it's so hard to watch this guy go down in flames, yet I can't look away as he desperately tries to claw himself back to some semblance of respectability

[smartrip11]

what a d-bag. haha id be the first guy to tell you that i didnt know what happened in '39! Oops!

[pkarley]

I know what he did, - he energized and legitimized, and was an appeacer

[JaredSalvati]

His tiny voice was annoying

[Gacchaman1]

Actually Chamberlain was too hawkish. He very tested Hitler by enticing him into occupying the whole of Czechslovakia, which Hitler did. He accepted as most people did that Germany should get the lands that were mostly Germanic, so at Munich he gave him the Sudentland(not"half of Czechoslovakia"). During the 2 year period be built up the strenght of the RoyalAirForce and was then ready for war when he took Britian into battle over a "farwaway land of which we know nothing". They are all wrong.

[grungebreath]

omg this shit is hilarious.

[totalrapure]

I don't watch "hardball", just saw this on the daily show, but the old guy is being a jackass. From what I could see, the younger guy never meant to say anything that would have required the knowledge of what chamberlan did. He simply meant to discuss whether Obama was appeasing or not. Now the old guy tried to drill him on some history bull shit that this guy isn't paid to know. It's really quite ridiculous and I cannot believe so many people are supporting him.

[slantedeskimo]

well that was the entire point.he was accusing obama of appeasement,referencing the chamberlain hitler example when it wasn't applicable.and because it didn't apply,matthews was simply asking what chamberlain did,and why james thought it was similar to what obama did.i mean if you're gonna reference something,you should at least know what you're referencing.and james said on the daily show he should've wikipedia'ed chamberlain,admitting he didn't even understand his own talking point.

[CHF2]

Dude, Kevin was talking about appeasement without even knowing what the hell it is.

[totalrapure]

Ah, like I said I had not seen the full show, and from what I saw in this clip the young guy didn't reference it at all. If he did, then yes that was a dumb thing to do. It did seem like he knew what the word meant though. Last but not least, thanks for the intelligent reply and not a crazy flame :P

[newfrickinshow]

Wow, Kevin James is an unusually smart conservative pundit, though still an idiot. I wish Mathews would've asked him if he even knows who Neville Chamberlin was other than a "an appeaser."

[whodey7310]

wat an idiot

[johnny3400]

kevin james killed himself shortly after.

[kida97]

Ha... Daily Show ripped this guy too...

[gr3gd24]

ahahahaahaaha this guy is the biggest idiot of all time

[seedfreedom]

dear lord this guy is an idiot.

[whangalang]

That was a bride obliterating bitchslap.

[blader2082]

Mstr Sgt, 3rd Batallion, 3rd ID, US Army. I think the war in Iraq is utter crap! After serving two tours there, we have done absolutely Nothing! and I repeat, NOTHING! to further stabalize the area after we destroyed its infrastructure. The corruption and mismanagement of both the ICDC, Iraqi Army, our Private Contractors, and our own officers has led to more turmoil, weapons in the hands of the insurgency, and a deepening rift between coalition and Arab forces. We never should have gone! NEVER!

[lcm007]

shut the fuck up

[LEV1ATHYN]

WHAT DID HE DO?! Bahaha I love Chris Matthews- Once he gets you by the balls he won't let go!

[freesoul2005]

All reoublicans r retraded, no exception

[phineastbuster]

freesoul2005

Are you "retraded" too. My god, what a fool.

[kida97]

HA... what a retrad (hahahahaha)

[Chabot91]

@freesoul2005 "reoublicans r retraded?" that makes me want to become one.

[radioheadrule]

hooooly shit this is cringeworthy stuff

[hemming57]

Whatta Jerrk!!!

[DWilsonPromo]

This is funny.

Another Republican pundit who crashed and burned on Live-TV.

Chris Matthews rules. Hardball, Kevin, Hardball!!

[thimoneus]

Appeasement: to yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles.... Asking the terrorist government of Iran what they want and conceding to it would be appeasement. Getting out of necessary wars to make terrorists less angry would be appeasement. It is the opposite of confrontation. Appeasement does not have to involve giving away half of a country. Chris is very dishonest.

[chukkufarley]

I'm sorry as of now war with Iran is very unnecessary. and quite frankly the U.S. has supplied Israel with the equipment to target Iran's nuclear reactors on their own. granted it won't be as easy as taking out Iraq's nuclear plant in the early 80's. No one is giving Iran what they want. Thimoneus you calling Chris dishonest is pretty much libel. I find it odd that the most hawkish people in government today are the same people who have avoided regular military service in the past.

[thimoneus]

I don't want war with Iran now, you don't know shit about my military history, and you can legitimately support putting out fires without being a fireman.

[thimoneus]

Chris said the U.S.S. Cole attack happened under Bush. It happened under Clinton! He also harped on an issue Kevin James never brought up. CHRIS IS DISHONEST.

[chukkufarley]

Do you Know that Chris didn't correct himself after this clip? WHY AREN'T YOU CALLING KEVIN DOBSON DISHONEST. coming on a program and just spouting talking points this guy is lazy too lazy to even spend 15 minutes researching the subject before showing up. You're right I don't know about your past military history and I don't give a shit if you served or not you're coming across as a hawk and being hawkish right now is pretty stupid.

[thimoneus]

Supporting a necessary war is not stupid. There are many reasons for the war, and they are all good reasons. If recognizing that is "hawkish", then I hope using the term makes you feel good. But it does nothing to disprove the necessity of the war.

[chukkufarley]

Iraq was not a necessary war. so yes supporting it is stupid. The Intellegence agencies did not determine that Iraq was an imminent threat to the U.S.A. regardless of what the administration wanted the U.S. people to believe. Therefore in this case being Hawkish is stupid. Because we did not "have" to invade Iraq.

[chukkufarley]

I hope the phrase "necessary war" makes you feel better about supporting war without asking why we have to go to war.

[thimoneus]

I did ask why, and that is how I got the answer. Stop pulling bizarre things out of your ass.

We did have to invade Iraq. There are at least eleven good reasons for it, and they are not all about the Hussein being an immediate threat, which he was even if certain officials disagreed. One of the major reasons for the war has been to pave the way for a much further out of the dark ages large region in the Middle East. It is good for future world safety. That is just one reason.

[chukkufarley]

that Fireman analogy is ok if you say we can legitmately support putting out fires without being a fireman even if we started the fire.  Which we did in invading Iraq. We mostly world support or at least consent when we went into Afghanistan (justly imho). However it has come out that the American people have been misled about the reasons for going into Iraq. You can't deny that without being either dishonest yourself. Or you just don't care to find out.

[chukkufarley]

For you info I wasn't referencing you in my first comment about hawkish people. I was referring to most hawks in in the GOP who were old enough got deferments or joined the National guard if they could

[GirlNamedMike]

What a train wreck. How on earth can someone agree to be on a NEWS PROGRAM, to discuss the week's political happenings-including Bush's ridiculous and pathetic attempt to discredit those (Obama and others) who are interested in engaging all nations in discussions during an important milestone in Israeli and Middle East history. Had James been of moderate intelligence he could have out-talked Matthews...but it's apparent-he lacks the sense to, as Green said, "stop digging" from his hole. Moron.

[kopatschek]

Nice, someone missed history classes?

[dogosgear]

Kevin James' voice thoroughly annoys me, especially when he squeaks when he panicking. =/

[zanyjaney]

James' statement wasn't vague. he said Chamberlain was an appeaser. That's pretty clear. If I use my shirt as an example again and say it was blue, that's also very clear isn't it? Or would I have to first understand and explain the way the human eye sees color in order to support my postion on the shirt's color? And if I couldn't then I suppose I wouldn't know what I was talking about and the shirt might not be blue after all. Matthews threw down a Red Herring and everyone's taken the bait.

[kdawg860]

now you're forgetting what the debate was all about. matthews asked james what did chamberlain do that constituted appeasement. he didnt ask, was chamberlain an appeaser. sure it's pretty clear to say yes he is an appeaser if we wanted to know whether or not he was. but when we're talkin about how it's related to obama talking to iran's president we want to know how chamberlin's actions were similar to what obama's intentions are. we need to know details to understand that.

[zanyjaney]

I haven't forgotten the debate. You and many others haven't even properly identified it to begin with. And that's my point. Just as the color of the shirt is irrelevant to the discussion of shirts bleeding in the wash, what Chamberlain did is irrelevant to the discussion of opening dialogue with or appeasing terrorists. My entire point is that the discussion of the true topic never even began because of a trivial and unimportant question. You see things your way and I see them mine I guess.

[kdawg860]

okay let's forget about the matthews and james debate and let's have a mini one of our own. does obama talking to iran's president constitute appeasement? why or why not?

[zanyjaney]

No, Obama talking to Iran's president does not equate to appeasement. It's simply an attempt at communication. If, after talking to them he made unreasonable concessions, then it would cross over to appeasement, and that's what hard liners fear. Communicating with the enemy is potentially a first step toward appeasement, but it could also be the first step in understanding. Hard-liners don't want change. The status quo is good enough. labels and boundaries are clear. Change is frightening

[kdawg860]

so what is your position on talking to/communicating with the enemy? is it the right approach? i want to know your views, not the "hard-liners".

[zanyjaney]

Everyone here is confusing knowledge of a detail with the understanding of a concept. The concept in this case being appeasement. Some staff lackey gave Matthews a simple detail that requires no thought, analysis, synthesis, or evaluation and he used it to make another guy look stupid. It's sad how much value everyone's putting on a detail of a much larger issue. You can't see the forest because of the trees. James is an arrogant dick who likes to hear himself speak. but that's not the issue.

[kdawg860]

so understanding a concept means being able to make a vague statement about it? if you understand the concept of addition can you give the specific answer to 1+1? you need to know details to understand the concepts.

matthews asked what did chamberlain do wrong, and james says he's an appeaser, over and over and over without answering what he did wrong.

so zany if i ask you, what did chamberlain do? would you really respond with, he was an appeaser? or would you tell me what he really did.

[zanyjaney]

If I put a shirt in the washing machine, washed it in hot water, and saw that it had bled and ruined other clothes in the wash, I wouldn't need to be able to tell you the color of my shirt to explain and understand the concept that washing clothes in hot water can make the color bleed. Nor would I have to remember when the incident occured or what brand of shirt it was, or what brand of machine I used. Those very real facts are irrelevant to my ability to understand and relate the concept.

[kdawg860]

so if i asked you how washing clothes in hot water makes a shirt bleed, and you couldnt tell me cuz you didnt know, does that mena you still understand the concept of how a shirt bleeds?

let's go back to appeasement. how is chamberlain an appeaser? if you say you don't know but you say understand the concept of appeasing and that it's weak, are you showing that you understand it? try to convince me that you understand what appeasement is without actually telling me the details.

[zanyjaney]

Chris Matthews, rather than discuss appeasment vs. communication, chose to attack and discredit Kevin James. James was right. Chamberlain was an appeaser, he didn't know the details, but in history, the concepts are more important. I wouldn't say someone didn't have an understanding of Japanese ambitions in WWII because they couldn't tell me how many Carriers attacked Pearl Harbor. These guys are a bunch of egos. They care more about how they look and sound than the real issues.

[sevenslimysnails]

In history the concepts are more important? Have you ever been to school? History is the study and interpretation of past events.

[zanyjaney]

It is widely accepted that "understanding" historical concepts and their contextual relationships is "more" important than knowing details. Knowledge of a detail is considered lower order thinking whereas analysis and evaluation would be higher. James said Chamberlain was an appeaser. That is a fact that anyone with a general knowledge of the topic knows. I think James probably understands the concept of appeasement, but we'll never know because Matthews' objective was clearly not to discuss it.

[sevenslimysnails]

God...

You cannot understand "contextual relationships" if you don't know what happened- that's what context is.

This is not a minor detail, it is the entire subject.

"Appeaser" is a word, you cannot call it history.

I'm finished with this, you're giving me a headache.

[zanyjaney]

The answer Matthews was looking for was Chamberlain giving Czechoslovakia away to Hitler. That's the fact that James didn't know and which was used to discredit him. It's a trivial pursuit question and not the issue at all. The issue is appeasement and they never addressed it because of Matthews only objective was to torch James, which he did. Appeaser is a word used to describe someone who appeases and that is precisely the issue. Knowing about Chamberlain/Hitler and Czechoslovakia isn't.

[Breyker4711]

Knowing the context of the reference used is rather important, when you make the reference. Kevin James proved himself to be a fool, also considering he can't understand the difference between talking with an enemy and giving in to the enemy's demands.

[kdawg860]

Matthews pretty much asked how is Chamberlain an appeaser? and James replied I don't know. So much for understanding the concept of appeasement. zanyjaney, when you understand a concept that means you can explain it, and James could not explain basically what appeasement was. thus he did not understand the concept nor the details.

[zanyjaney]

Wrong! Matthews didn't ask "How was Chamberlain an appeaser?" He asked "What did Chamberlain do?" James didn't know the specifics of what Chamberlain did so he couldn't answer the specific question he was asked. If asked the more general question of how was Chamberlain an appeaser? He could've said that Chamberlain gave in to Hitler's demands in order to placate him. That answer would have been correct and displayed an understanding of appeasement without detailed knowledge of the specifics.

[01296501923654]

He didn't know the details? Haha, that's great! :D

[zanyjaney]

Imagine you know or think you know most of a subject backwards and forwards (and I'm not suggesting Kevin James does) but someone asks you a simple, almost trivial question on it and you don't know the answer. If that person were to think you don't know what you're talking about then they would be quite unreasonable, because really you do know quite a lot. Matthews wanted to make James look like an idiot and he did. But if anyone is willing to disect it they'll see it as a battle of egos.

[rahdisas]

this is ridiculous - if you don't know that Hitler attacked Czechoslovakia or Poland. Then, just say "Chamberlain did nothing while Hitler attacked a neighbouring country" - at least show that you know what appeasement is.

The whole point of bringing pundits is to enlighten the audience about what's going on - I'm sure many viewers didn't know what Chamberlain did and they would have been glad to find out - but for the ignorant pundit.

[mikyh5]

What a shame. Kevin James is a big losser! No more Republican to USA. .......

[dominusi]

yeeeeeeeeessssssssssssssssssss­ssssssss gogogogogogogoogo matthews

[cullenstalin]

When idiots like Kevin James are paid to talk about their opinions, it's no wonder people don't study more in school.

[godzilla1]

OMFG!!!! What a jackass.

[ParabolH]

ahhhhhhhh. chris is the man. that guy was so stupid and its great to hear people standing up and putting people down who are stupid. chris matthews and keith olbermann are beaths of fresh air during this bush dictatorship

[mistymonee]

YOU TELL 'EM CHRIS!!!  LMBO

[markkoelfgen]

I love Chris Matthews. Put him in a wig and I'll date him.