He makes a good point ... but Chuckie over at MSNBC lets slip a bit of an open secret.

Love Lewis Black and they are right, the sunday morning shows are now no more than PR shows.

Chuck Todd is an idiot.

(01-05-2015 10:48 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Chuck Todd is an idiot.

TOTALLY !

Anyone at msnbc who isn't?

I kind of like Lewis Black, but sometimes he gets annoying.

Who watches the Sunday news shows except connected political insiders?

(01-05-2015 12:00 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Who watches the Sunday news shows except connected political insiders?

I DVR it and watch late Sunday night simply from habit. You are right, I shouldn't, just do.

(01-05-2015 11:09 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Anyone at msnbc who isn't?

Yes, Rhodes Scholar Rachel Maddow for one. Just because she's a lesbian and a liberal doesn't mean you can impugn her intelligence.

(01-05-2015 01:04 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 11:09 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Anyone at msnbc who isn't?

Yes, Rhodes Scholar Rachel Maddow for one. Just because she's a lesbian and a liberal doesn't mean you can impugn her intelligence.

I tend to agree. The few times I've watched Maddow I didn't agree with much of what she said; however, she was articulate in her delivery.

Credentials alone are meaningless. Maddow is an idiot.

Unfortunately for Maddow, the divide between the left’s view of the world (and consequently its rhetoric) and the way the rest of the country views things seems to be increasing, fueling Maddow and the left's rather unhappy cycle.

(01-05-2015 01:04 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 11:09 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Anyone at msnbc who isn't?

Yes, Rhodes Scholar Rachel Maddow for one. Just because she's a lesbian and a liberal doesn't mean you can impugn her intelligence.

Anyone who views the world as she does is not intelligent. Raving mad lunatic is the label I would use.

(01-05-2015 01:51 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 01:04 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 11:09 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Anyone at msnbc who isn't?

Yes, Rhodes Scholar Rachel Maddow for one. Just because she's a lesbian and a liberal doesn't mean you can impugn her intelligence.

Anyone who views the world as she does is not intelligent. Raving mad lunatic is the label I would use.

Thanks to the new rules, we can no longer list the labels that apply to your line of thinking here.

(01-05-2015 03:35 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 01:51 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 01:04 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-05-2015 11:09 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Anyone at msnbc who isn't?

Yes, Rhodes Scholar Rachel Maddow for one. Just because she's a lesbian and a liberal doesn't mean you can impugn her intelligence.

Anyone who views the world as she does is not intelligent. Raving mad lunatic is the label I would use.

Thanks to the new rules, we can no longer list the labels that apply to your line of thinking here.

Under the new rules I just can no longer name any specific liberal here and apply such labels.

(01-05-2015 01:51 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Anyone who views the world as she does is not intelligent. Raving mad lunatic is the label I would use.

And people on the other side say the same thing about Hannity. Let's be honest about it and recognize that not everything should be viewed purely for a political party's point of view. Each issue should stand on its own and not a set of standards to be "conservative" or "liberal".

Sorry but taken as a whole, liberal views are not intelligent.

(01-05-2015 04:16 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Sorry but taken as a whole, liberal views are not intelligent.

So taking that you should live your life wholly based on a text written hundreds of years ago is better? I think you can argue that both ways.

Just looking to liberal cities and policies. An intelligent person must conclude liberalism is a failure and causes massive harm.

(01-05-2015 04:24 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Just looking to liberal cities and policies. An intelligent person must conclude liberalism is a failure and causes massive harm.

Everything in moderation, my friend. You can't just continue to provide more and more services without collecting more in taxes. At some point a community that is efficient and effective becomes top heavy and ineffective. Same thing goes with corporations... typically (admittedly, not always) they end up getting too many managers and it stifles any efficiencies gained.

Take a look at the largest federal contractors (Lockheed, Northrup, etc)... you will see that they are just as bogged down with their corporate structure as the federal government is.