Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content
  • CRYPTO REWARDS!

    Full endorsement on this opportunity - but it's limited, so get in while you can!

Watch Wasserman-Schultz Squirm When Asked "What is the Difference Between a Democrat and a Socialist


Recommended Posts

MSNBC makes Wasserman Schultz look stupid: ‘What is the difference between a Democrat and a socialist?’

 

 

dws-e1438334596771.jpg

 

A top leader of the Democratic Party can’t say what makes its approach to governing different from socialism.

 

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, was caught off guard Thursday when MSNBC host Chris Matthews asked her to explain the difference.

 

She couldn’t answer.

 

The question came up when Matthews asked whether Wasserman Schultz would let Bernie Sanders speak at the Democratic National Convention next year.

 

Sanders, an Independent senator from Vermont, is a socialist who’s running for president as a Democrat.

 

“What is the difference between a Democrat and a socialist?” “Hardball” host Matthews asked Wasserman Schultz.

 

She laughed nervously.

 

“I used to think there was a big difference,” Matthews said. “What do you think it is?”

 

 

“The difference between—the real question is what’s the difference between being a Democrat and being a Republican,” Wasserman Schultz said.

 

Matthews wouldn’t let her dodge.

 

“Yeah, but what’s the big difference between being a Democrat and being a socialist?” Matthews said. “You’re the chairwoman of the Democratic Party. Tell me the difference between you and a socialist.”

 

“The relevant debate that we’ll be having over the course of this campaign is what’s the difference between being a Democrat and being a Republican,” Wasserman-Schultz repeated.

 

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incredible.

Not that Schultz is an idiot, she's proven that many times over the last 4 or 5 years.

 

What's crazy is that MSNBC, and Matthews in particular, have for once aired any semblance of truth.

This is the same Matthews that has attacked everything conservative.

Who in 2013 dedicated his entire Christmas show to attacking Christians, calling all conservatives, and implying Christians in particular, were "A Confederacy of Hate".

 

I wonder, whats up with that?

Are they finally tired of being one of the lowest rated programs in America, have they finally "seen the light", or are they just being hypocrites, so desperately in need of more viewers they are pretending to attack the very doctrine they have so steadfastly been promoting?

I know nothing of the TV rating systems and have not watched any major network in years.

Are the yearly ratings standards about to be calculated and released?

I'm sure if they place at the bottom they would be forced to lower their advertising rates.

This could easily just be a ploy to gather a large number of hits to pad their yearly budget.

 

Which would make more sense than anything else.

I can't see MSNBC suddenly going all conservative.

They would have to fire all their top anchors, pundits, and "advisers".

Then change every variety show, replace their entire staff of reporters, editors, and publishers.

 

The Democratic Party adopted the Socialist Party of America's platform back in the late 1930's.

That's not a "subjective" opinion, it was openly admitted then, and many times since then.

Don't know the official count, but last year 30% of all democratic congressmen were admitted and dedicated socialists.

How can Matthews not know the dem party is the party of mob rules, and individual destruction?

 

You should probably take it for what it is, a momentary glimpse of the reality that MSNBC KNOWS the truth, KNOWS they are lying to America every other day of the year,  but is forced to go against everything they prostitize  is just so much BS, they are owned by the globalists, and they spend their days pandering to the angry zombies demanding more free stuff and less responsibility....DM

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/07/msnbc-cancels-three-shows-amid-transition-211561.html

 

This is politico's take on the changes at MSNBC:

 

MSNBC cancels three shows amid transition

By DYLAN BYERS

 

7/30/15 5:32 PM EDT

MSNBC has formally decided to cancel three programs -- "The Cycle," "Now with Alex Wagner" and "The Ed Show" -- as part of a larger effort to shift its daytime lineup away from opinion programming, network sources told the On Media blog on Thursday.

Alex Wagner and Ari Melber, a "Cycle" co-host and MSNBC's chief legal correspondent, will remain with the network. Ed Schultz, the host of "The Ed Show," will leave the network, as will "Cycle" co-hosts Abby Huntsman, Krystal Ball and Toure. MSNBC President Phil Griffin announced the news in a memo sent shortly after the initial version of this item was published.

The cancellations, which have been expected for some time, come as NBC News chief Andrew Lack moves to refashion the liberal cable channel as a straight-forward news and politics offering, at least in daytime. In September, MSNBC will add a 5 p.m. program hosted by "Meet The Press" moderator Chuck Todd, while Brian Williams, the former "Nightly News" anchor, will serve as the network's breaking news and special reports anchor.

In his memo to staff, Griffin said MSNBC would "unveil a 9am to 5pm schedule" in September "driven by dynamic coverage of breaking news events that are shaping the day" -- a clear indication that daytime will be free from opinion-based programming. Throughout his memo, Griffin referred to MSNBC daytime as a place for "live, breaking news coverage."

As part of the shift, Lack has informed staff that there will be greater integration between NBC News and MSNBC, befitting the original vision for the channel he founded as president of NBC News in 1996. MSNBC's primetime programming -- which includes shows hosted by Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes and Lawrence O'Donnell -- is expected to remain liberal and outspoken.

The changes are also an effort to correct steep ratings declines, which have plagued the network for years.

"Change can be hard," Griffin wrote. "There’s no doubt it’s been a difficult time, but we have exciting opportunities ahead."

 

 

 

:cowboy2:

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Alex Wagner and Ari Melber MSNBC's chief legal correspondent, will remain with the network. 

 

refashion the liberal cable channel as a straight-forward news and politics offering, at least in daytime.

 

while Brian Williams will serve as the network's breaking news and special reports anchor.

 

"dynamic coverage of breaking news events that are shaping the day" - indication that daytime will be free from opinion-based programming.

 

 greater integration between NBC News and MSNBC,  

 

 expected to remain liberal and outspoken.

 

The changes are also an effort to correct steep ratings declines, which have plagued the network for years.

 

" it’s been a difficult time""

 

 

 

Thank you TG, for bringing this over. On a side note, a shout out to you for your unswerving dedication to ensuring "truth in topics", by posting relevant information when applicable. I appreciate your efforts, even on the occasions when I don't want to hear the truth, because I have already made up my mind using irrational emotion and polarized conjecture. This is not one of "those" times, so had to jump at the opportunity to shamelessly pander when there are no consequences.  :tiphat:

 

As for the "new" programming.

Didn't think they were actually going to change stripes, and they're not.

As much as they were chagrined to do so, they had no choice but to admit the only folks buying into their garbage were politicians and other burdens on society. And none of them were spending.

So, in order to attract people that actually worked for a living,(who also happen to be the very same ones that actually buy stuff), they had to stop spewing their delusional rhetoric 24/7.

Otherwise, their limited and dwindling list of advertisers were going to pull out completely. (who is gonna spend $100,000 to air a commercial for new cars to an audience with a credit score of 50 that considers welfare a career choice?) 

In the article referenced, they claimed MSNBC would be as "centered" NBC.   Huh?

Lying Brian is going to be the breaking news anchor?

Just make sure he stays away from helicopters and gets lots of sleep, no telling what he might say.

They are keeping Alex Wagner? 

Alex Wagner quote:

"Get rid of the second Amendment, the right to bear arms. I just think in the grand scheme of the rights that we have; the right of assembly, free speech, I mean, owning a gun does not, it does not tally on the same level as those other Constitutional rights.”

 

That's just one of her MANY wingnut collectivist statements.

 

What is bothersome is not just the fact they are going to pretend they are not a bunch of flaming progressive liberals, it's the fact they have openly declared they will now intentionally mislead and deceive the American public.

They didn't make any pledges or statements promising to offer non-polarized "news".

They only admitted no ones buying their garbage, so they're just going to put it in new packaging, but it's the same old crap.

They'll have to be a little more discerning when trying to force people to hate conservatives during the day, they may even be forced to tell the truth a couple times, but that's only to maliciously convince any day viewers  that their night shows might be of some importance, and then they are still going to be shoveling it out.

 

When,  I wonder, did the American public become so acclimated to the loss of any virtues that the announcement a news channel is going to try a new way of deception, that the mere thought they could get away with it, didn't cause a massive public backlash?

Not that they are finally getting rid of the vile hate, but I'm saddened that just the idea they are going to lie differently didn't melt the blogosphere, and get widespread national attention for the corrupted ethics scam it really is.

 

There's no attempt, or even any mention, of honesty, they never once said they would only report the truth as simple facts, never implied they would make it their motto to always be fair.

 

Where's the virtues?

 

There was a time in this country when any lie, or even a "stretched" truth, would cause immediate and severe consequences.

If any paper printed anything that wasn't true about any person, and that person was harmed, either by defamation of character, or any other loss, that person was able to file a claim for injuries, and the papers always had to pay.

 

But then, there was a time in this country when everyone understood, you had to earn your own living, working humans were respected for their work, and cheating was illegal.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


  • Testing the Rocker Badge!

  • Live Exchange Rate

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.