138 votes

Chris Matthews Gets OWNED By Jan Helfeld!

Jan Helfeld does it again!


Don't forget to bump with a response and vote up so more people can see another ownage moment.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


Like he has authority over everyone.

I'm not part of his 'WE'.

And he admits he doesn't get it.

Of course, he can't discuss anything but issues, he has no principle.


One minute 8 seconds - He said do do...teehee :D

CHECK OUT MY VIDEO! The views stopped overnight when for 'copyright' reasons, mobile viewing was disabled. I want to get to 8,000 - HELP by watching: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-pTvjzHN3I

Do you think it

is wrong to take money from people by force and give it to farmers as a subsidy? That was not that hard to say.

. . . . . . _ . . . _ _ .
. _ . . _ _ . . . . _ _ . . . . . . . _ . . _ . .
. _ . . _ _ . . . . _ _ . . . . . . . _ . . _ . .


I am NO fan of Chris Mathews, I can't stand the pukey mouthpiece but he made way more sense than Helfeld.

Hey Archons', we are taking our planet back and there's nothing you can do about it!

I think someone accidentally

I think someone accidentally reversed the names in the title. The basis upon which Mr. Helfeld's "interview" relies is a fundamentalist ideological one. Since the ideology most DP users employ favors objectivity, one can't deny the objective reality in what Chris Matthews is saying. Jan Helfeld is the liberty movement's hatchet-man, and in my opinion a pandering, clueless hack that completely wastes incredible access to powerful guests by turning superficial libertarian stump speech material into asinine questioning, only resulting in the frustration or amusement of his guests (all of whom recognize his game by the second question unless they're completely brain-dead). Great job, Mr. Helfeld. You proved Chris Matthews isn't a libertarian. Bravo. I can't wait for future substantive, earth-shattering revelations like this.

Don't get me wrong

I like it when people ask the truly important questions but owned? Huh.

I guess I'm not alone

Mathews is a walking dick

Mathews is a walking dick with ears.

Rule of Law

Matthews kept insisting that we are a nation of laws and that the government follows the constitution. He sounded like a school teacher talking to second graders. Perhaps instead, Jan should have asked this simple question:

"What is our recourse if the will of the people and rule of law as defined by our constitutional system has been circumvented by authoritarians, say by illegally obtained information by the NSA being used to bribe justices?"



Whether you think you can or you can't, you're right. -Henry Ford

Matthews showed his..

...Art of practised deception, when
at 4:42 of the interview, reveals his definition of:
According to Matthews:
"There are many people who don't accept the Constitution,
for example, the right to bear arms, they're called posse comitatus, there are a lot of people who don't accept law."

Last I heard the 2nd Amendment is still there.
Only Matthews would deliberately use that term to obfuscate the discussion, and interviewer.

When most Americans hear this phrase they usually make reference to the "Posse Comitaus Act" which, enacted after the Civil War, forbade implementation of Federal Troops anywhere in the US that was NOT Federal land.

Matthews was referring to the more recent name "given" to a reactionary "militia-type" group that had sprung up out west.
All in all, Jan did a great job in cornering him.

"Beyond the blackened skyline, beyond the smoky rain, dreams never turned to ashes up until.........
...Everything CHANGED !!

Jan and Matthews are both

Jan and Matthews are both morons. One is a communist and the other doesn't know his own native language.

I honestly think Helfeld was

I honestly think Helfeld was rude. Mathews is right. If you are going to do an interview then do an interview, if you are going to have a philosophical debate then have a philosophical debate. If this was being done to Paul we'd be pissed.

"A true competitor wants their opponent at their best." Lao Tzu

Not sure if I understand your distinction....

between an "interview" and a "philosophical debate." Jan was asking Mathews about principles which ground all the other issues: basically, what is the proper role of government? Can the government be justified in using violence against peaceful citizens under any circumstances? I don't see how that's in any way "inappropriate."

Sorry Chris if you're accustomed to nonsense interviews where you get tossed softballs (pun intended)...but what Jan did is what an interviewer should do, ask the tough questions, get to the root of the matter, etc.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

the questioning was not odd

the questioning was not odd at all, Chris is an idiot how do you not understand the question. A five year old could have been able to give better responses than chris. He sounded semi retarded, he was asked plain as day questions and couldnt comprehend the words coming out of jans mouth. WTF

Helfeld's approach

doesn't work on someone who doesn't understand what the rule of law is. Matthews' fundamental approach is so different that Helfeld would have to route that out first in order for the two of them to have a conversation. Defining terms is a prerequisite.

Matthews seems to define the rule of law as whatever the majority wants. As long as something was voted on and written down into "law" then that is the law that rules. Helfeld appears to believe that "Thou shalt not steal" is the basis of the law, the rule of law--something unchanging, no matter what or who.

Matthews god is demos (the people) and pure democracy, the tyranny of the 51%, which our founding fathers understood and feared. Matthews would believe that collective man is the measure of all things; Helfeld appears to believe that our rights are unalienable because they come from God.

Under Matthews, whoever can claw his way to the top (Matthews and his ilk, for instance) through popular consensus is god, and knows what's best for everyone. They gain access to the badges and guns to use for their "higher" purpose (that is what demos wants, don't you know).

This is actually what needs to be talked through first or what Helfeld tried to do will never bear fruit--the conversation will be two ships passing in the night, with the canniest talker winning.

"I know what you're trying to do"

"I know what you're trying to do (you're trying to steal my gig)".

I dont know what you all saw

I dont know what you all saw buy I saw Jan get owned.

How do you figure?

He had Chris Matthews scurrying like a cockroach when the lights come on.


Freedom - Peace - Prosperity

I thought Matthews looked

I thought Matthews looked bemused.

Matthew's used to support

Matthew's used to support Goldwater so he clearly knew what Jan was talking about, you could see that in his face. He knows that his position requires the use of force and like many people who support these ideas he evades identifying them for what they are. To go from being almost a libertarian to a gun toting socialist is dispicable.


Matthews ran off!
Felt threatened by the questions and knew he was talking about the IRS and the lobbyists who pander the Congress into making laws for their profit!
“It is the wishes of the people that congress makes laws” There’s a lie, what about NDAA?
Is that a law the people wanted?
He knew he was being handled!


This was a useless interview.

This was a useless interview.

I took nothing out of this.

Very odd questioning.


I can understand where Jan was coming from, but it was extremely poor judgement to keep pressing that issue for 5 minutes. It was insulting to me and Chris Matthews.

Thats like being asked "Do you want children in Zambia to die?" - No, I dont. But, Ron Paul wants to end all foreign aid to Africa. -- His question was just like that! You can't speak in philosophical questions in a 5 minute interview with someone who has a different worldview than you. Keep it simple and tangible.

It's just not an professional way of asking a question.

Huckabee slipped about taxes being theft

Huckabee was on fox and friend this morning where they had a bit about Obama using a reference to the Bible to support his view that he would welcome the government taxing him more so that the government can help the poor more.

Huckabee made a great point that charity is when you give it yourself, not when you wait for the government to come with a gun and take money from you to give to the poor. He slipped. He said that isn't charity, that's theft. Then he realized what he said and said, I mean that's taxes.

Many people can not or will not come to grips that redistribution is really theft. They still cling to the thought that if taxes are legal, anything that we do with that money is OK.

But once you win on this argument, our whole big government system is seen to be what it is. That is why you see Chris Matthews getting so fidgety. They see the truth of the big lie that support their world view and they need to repress it as much as possible or their world falls apart.

Tim Maitski
Atlanta real estate agent
Atlanta real estate website

To add to that, the real

To add to that, the real danger of any government is the belief people hold that government has a legitimate authority over our lives.

Oh please...

If anyone got owned, it was Helfeld. He has no business interviewing anyone, especially other strong personalities (whether we like them or not). He was struggling to "spit it out" and was just failing. Too bad.

I do not agreee he was OWNED by Chris Matthews

If anything, he (Jan Helfield) did not get his point across. Now, had this been Tom Woods, it would have been a diiferent interview entirely.


THis guy is terrrible at interviewing Matthews. It took him 3 minutes to stop the line of questioning and he still couldnt even make his point. All he had to do is state a scenario with his opinion and ask Matthews if he agreed and then debated it from there.

Terrible is right

Libertarians generally base their ideology on a foundation of ethics they hold to be objective and binding for all, as does the Declaration of Independence in that it starts from the statement that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are essential parts of a system of natural law.

It is in this frame of mind that the interview is made. One has to say that it could have been conducted in a much more empathic manner. The viewer forms the impression of a monologoue from the person interviewing, asking not for answers from the interviewee but rather affirmation for the point of view of the questions.

I can't argue with the fact that RP himself debating the issues adheres to a philosophical standpoint of an objectively valid set of ethical principles as well as natural law. If this is done emotivically or sincerely can’t really be said without using a Vulcan mind meld.

Having said that it is important to make the case that RP within the realm of politics still is correct in his analysis of American government, which however flawed in a philosophical sense with regard to the declaration of independence, politically lays the foundation of a natural law for the land. Important to remember here is that it is not the case of an objectively valid set of ethical principles, but an “argument” that can be seen as clad in philosophical terms in order to convince a sufficient portion of the demos to accept the foundations of the federal governmental system.

Most Americans as well as most political scientist will agree that the U.S. Constitution is the finest example of a document in constitutional law in the world, and possibly throughout history. It may have been written with the agenda of reducing the impact of democratical principles, as described in democratic theory by scholars such as Dahl, but it has worked for more than two centuries without any part of it being rendered totally obsolete, and a nation greater than all other nations has risen around it.

RP is a constitutionalist and his a priori use of the Constitution has in effect averted all theoretical criticism from e.g. philosophers and political scientists. What is really amazing how the economical development in the U.S. (and most of the western world) seems to leave both RP and the Constitution right also in that area. I have myself done considerable thinking as to the reasons for all the reemerging bubbles, inflation, overtaxation and enslavement of ordinary people under loans and interest payments. Monetarists are right in that the gold standad won’t prevent deflation crises, which are worse than hyperinflation, but it is the only thing that can control politicans.

In doing this I think RP binds together the Declaration of Independence, the seven articles of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights better than any other politican I ever heard of.

Using a strictly ethical standpoint like in this interview is a much more difficult thing to do, especially since Jan Helfeld seems to have a very slim knowledge of jurisprudence. A lot of people will think that he comes off as a zealot. Then again, he doesn’t have the solid academic background that RP has, and he is a minarchist, not a constitutionalist.

Some time, Rock, when the team is up against it, when things are wrong and the breaks are beating the boys, ask them to go in there with all they've got and win just one for the Gipper.

I know I'm biased...

Completely edited.

Matthews has his way of thinking, I have mine.

I only object to indoctrination.