Chris Matthews RELENTLESS On Tea Bagger Sal Russo

I'm not a huge fan of Chris Matthews, but I found this clip highly entertaining. Enjoy.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• chris
• matthews
• msnbc
• pwns
• sal
• russo
• tea
• party
• liberal
• conservative
• democrat
• republican
• michelle
• bachmann
• slavery

[stuntbaby63]

Our Founding Fathers could only do what was realistic and possible. They knew that slavery was evil, but they also knew it couldn't be abolished overnight. The documents they carefully crafted were a shot of slow-acting poison that would eventually bring slavery to its knees and kill it once and for all. That's what Bachman meant. And Chris Matthews is the idiot. "3/5 of a human being" was not racist; It was ANTI-racist! The owners wanted each of their slaves to count for a full vote.

[C0ct0pusPrime]

@stuntbaby63 "The documents they carefully crafted were a shot of slow-acting poison that would eventually bring slavery to its knees and kill it once and for all. That's what Bachman meant."

funny how she doesn't just say what she means and needs you to translate.

""3/5 of a human being" was not racist; It was ANTI-racist! The owners wanted each of their slaves to count for a full vote. "

yeah, because the owner got to vote FOR his slaves, of course they wanted more voting power, dumbass.

[stuntbaby63]

@C0ct0pusPrime "yeah, because the owner got to vote FOR his slaves, of course they wanted more voting power, dumbass" Yes, which is exactly my point. If the slaves were given full voting rights, the slave owners' enhanced voting powers would serve the institution of slavery. Chris Matthews portrayed the "3/5 of a human being" law as a racist attempt to certify the sub-human status of blacks. The truth is that it served the abolitionists' agenda and not that of the slaveholders. See?

[C0ct0pusPrime]

@stuntbaby63 so in your mind the slave owners held the best interest of the slaves first? you think that they used those 3/5 votes to vote NOT to have slaves? where the fuck is your rationality? do you also think that corporations pay their employees top dollar while still trying to make a marginal profit? or do they try to screw the worker in the name of the bottom line? do you support elimination of the minimum wage in order to further screw the living poor too?

wake the fuck up.

[stuntbaby63]

@C0ct0pusPrime wrote, "in your mind the slave owners held the best interest of the slaves first?" No, that's not what I said. The slaveholders wanted each of their slaves to count as a full vote so as to give themselves much greater voting power. The slaves would be forced to vote in support of their owner's pro-slavery agenda. Abolitionists wanted to help the slaves by shrinking the value of their corrupted vote, hence the "3/5 of a human being" classification. Don't you understand?

[C0ct0pusPrime]

@stuntbaby63 dude, its called the 3/5 COMPROMISE...of course i understand....you seem to think that the history books you read were terribly different from the ones i read...or possibly you want to hear what you like.

either way, peace out.

[C0ct0pusPrime]

@knightflyer10 You're an idiot. Thanks to your ignorance and the ignorance of others like you, people like bachmann get into office.

Learn simple grammar, then move on to American history.

[FatimaLouisarg37]

cool ich hab was unanständiges entdeckt

[spacer125]

He BLASTED him. 

[TheLatinoNation]

TEA BAGGERS = BUNCH OF STUPID IDIOTS WANNA BE NATIONALISTS!

[geffel]

2:15 - I think she's thinking of Goldilocks and the Three Bears here, not Four Bears...

(Before stupid cunts start correcting me, it's a pun. I'm punning on 'forebears', OK? And I'm riffing on Bachmann's cretinous nature and the way she speaks to people as if she's telling fairy tales to toddlers. I fucking HATE having to explain jokes, but Yanks never get it)

[Sines314]

While I think the 3/5s compromise was a neccesary evil, there's a huge difference between the founding fathers making a (hopefully temporary) concession to unite the nation, and them fighting tirelessly to end slavery.

Now, Thomas Jeffersons dislike of religion... that's when the right stop about the Founding Fathers. I just don't get the FF reverence of the right wing. They were great men, no doubt, but they were still fallible, and products of their time.

[JBrianBooks]

Cenk Uygur elbow FROM THE SKY!!! ftw! :)

[ilackedtheheart]

Bachmann is such a joke. What happened to passing the torch of liberty to the next generation when you VOTED TO EXTEND THE FUCKING PATRIOT ACT. Also, lets gut social programs, especially now when we need them the most. The working and middle class can just live on the streets. If you want to live a dignified life, well you're just going to have to bootstrap yourself like the grossly wealthy who don't have to pay their share in taxes. Fuck you Bachmann, and fuck you Tea Party (Koch Brothers).

[jschultzVII]

Michele Bachmann is an absolute jabbering idiot. You ask her a question and gives you this long cicular answer that has nothing to do with the question. How anyone could possibly think her and Sarah Palin are people who are smart enough to be president, is beyond me. You want someone who doesn't know where the battles of Lexington & Concord were fought? You want someone who has made a career out of bashing gays?

She's a fucking dolt, and her apologist in this vid is a fucking idiot.

[rictusgate]

Only one thing to say about the theocretin party and their chosen reps - 'Who controls the past, controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.' - G. Orwell, 1984. Purposefully obfusticating and bold face lies regarding historic facts should be jailable offenses - especially when it comes from someone who is supposed to display leadership. What a cunt.

[stuntbaby63]

@C0ct0pusPrime wrote, "of course I understand." Apparently you don't because you asked me a question that makes no sense. You wrote, "in your mind the slave owners held the best interest of the slaves first?" The only way this question makes sense is if you thought I was defending the slaveholders. But how could you possibly conclude that when I clearly stated that the slaveholders wanted to exploit their slaves by corrupting their voting rights? Can you explain this, please. Thanks.