Glenn Beck (1 Viewer)

[E Street Brat]

I don't always agree with Rachel Maddow, but she has forgotten more about politics than Glen Beck will ever learn.

Thank You.If I wanna listen to political hacks I'll listen to Maddow, Olbermann, Hannity, and Coulter.

When I want to be entertained and informed, I'll take Beck.

 

[timschochet]

As far as education/Beck lacking intelligence/Maddow being extremely intelligent: Sure Beck can read some of the talking points but it's pretty obvious he has absolutely no idea about most things. Maddow clearly has a deeper understanding of things, can easily tell while watching.

I probably agree with Maddow's conclusions much more than I agree with Beck's conclusions, but I think statements like this are dangerous. Just becasue I don't agree with him doesn't mean he has no idea what he's talking about. In fact, some of his stuff on the economy appears to be rooted in rational, if disagreeable, reasoning. Sure his histryonics are annoying and (IMO) intellectually dishonest (calling Obama a socialist? A dictator? Really?). But that doesn't mean his core concepts aren't based in rational thinking.

He's a populist, Sweet J, and like all populists, his core concepts are both easy to predict and easy for him to formulate. He offers no insight.

Even if I accepted that, "easy to predict and easy for him to formulate," does not equal "absolutely no idea about most things."

Others might have said that. I didn't. What I wrote is that he offers no insight, nothing new. On any given political issue, I could give you the conservative populist position, and this is what comes out of Beck's mouth.

 

[The Commish]

Others might have said that. I didn't. What I wrote is that he offers no insight, nothing new. On any given political issue, I could give you the conservative populist position, and this is what comes out of Beck's mouth.

And this is my issue with Maddow ( or any of the other on the big networks). I am not saying she's incapable of giving her own opinion/insight/whatever, but she doesn't. I'd love for one of these "experts" to bring a different angle, but they all seem to talk from the same script I'd love some originality out of any of them.

 

[timschochet]

Others might have said that. I didn't. What I wrote is that he offers no insight, nothing new. On any given political issue, I could give you the conservative populist position, and this is what comes out of Beck's mouth.

And this is my issue with Maddow ( or any of the other on the big networks). I am not saying she's incapable of giving her own opinion/insight/whatever, but she doesn't. I'd love for one of these "experts" to bring a different angle, but they all seem to talk from the same script I'd love some originality out of any of them.

This is simply not true with Maddow. I have watched her, both in commentary and interviews, get very deeply into a subject and she often comes up with new approaches. Of course it's true that she starts from a left wing perspective on most matters, but her reasoning is usually much deeper than, for instance, Keith Olbermann. Yet I find Olbermann's show more entertaining in many ways, because she can get dragged down into the nuts and bolts of an issue. Keith, for all his bombast, knows how to keep things moving. As does O'Reilly and Hannity.

 

[The Commish]

Others might have said that. I didn't. What I wrote is that he offers no insight, nothing new. On any given political issue, I could give you the conservative populist position, and this is what comes out of Beck's mouth.

And this is my issue with Maddow ( or any of the other on the big networks). I am not saying she's incapable of giving her own opinion/insight/whatever, but she doesn't. I'd love for one of these "experts" to bring a different angle, but they all seem to talk from the same script I'd love some originality out of any of them.

This is simply not true with Maddow. I have watched her, both in commentary and interviews, get very deeply into a subject and she often comes up with new approaches. Of course it's true that she starts from a left wing perspective on most matters, but her reasoning is usually much deeper than, for instance, Keith Olbermann. Yet I find Olbermann's show more entertaining in many ways, because she can get dragged down into the nuts and bolts of an issue. Keith, for all his bombast, knows how to keep things moving. As does O'Reilly and Hannity.

Wow...I have never seen this. I don't watch her every day though. I have seen her harp on points that are of little to no consequence as if she was having an "ah ha" moment. Is there any possibility that you can remember what she was talking about when she did this? Maybe I can find a link on YT to watch.ETA: I have also seen segment where it appears as if she's going to have a different point of view, but it turns out to be a long winded way of getting to the talking point of the day. That goes back to my comments about getting wrapped up in the delivery rather than the message. In the end, she was saying the same thing her buddy Keith was saying, just in a more eloquent way.

 

[Daywalker]

Beck is like a conspiracy theory show. It's like listening to Coast to Coast but with much more whining. He's a joke and it seems like Fox has cut down a lot of his air time.

 

[Daywalker]

Typical Beck analysis:

Congress asks for more money for "Cash for Clunkers." Obviously that means the Congress are idiots for not prognosticating better. Discussion/thought ends there.

Instead maybe it was very successful and more money is needed.

I don't know either way but Beck/Fox does not even debate it. Just preaching to the choir.

 

[bentley]

Others might have said that. I didn't. What I wrote is that he offers no insight, nothing new. On any given political issue, I could give you the conservative populist position, and this is what comes out of Beck's mouth.

And this is my issue with Maddow ( or any of the other on the big networks). I am not saying she's incapable of giving her own opinion/insight/whatever, but she doesn't. I'd love for one of these "experts" to bring a different angle, but they all seem to talk from the same script I'd love some originality out of any of them.

This is simply not true with Maddow. I have watched her, both in commentary and interviews, get very deeply into a subject and she often comes up with new approaches. Of course it's true that she starts from a left wing perspective on most matters, but her reasoning is usually much deeper than, for instance, Keith Olbermann. Yet I find Olbermann's show more entertaining in many ways, because she can get dragged down into the nuts and bolts of an issue. Keith, for all his bombast, knows how to keep things moving. As does O'Reilly and Hannity.

Maybe I need to watch more of her. I've just seen the clips around her that Choke and the like have posted and she appeared to be nothing more than Olbermann with shorter hair.

 

[Spanky267]

Typical Beck analysis:Congress asks for more money for "Cash for Clunkers." Obviously that means the Congress are idiots for not prognosticating better. Discussion/thought ends there.Instead maybe it was very successful and more money is needed.I don't know either way but Beck/Fox does not even debate it. Just preaching to the choir.

How can you consider cash for clunkers a success. The only way it is a success is if over 200,000 cars have been sold as a result of this program. It's supposed to give $4500 for a new car. That's over 200k cars in a billion dollar program. I seriously doubt that 200K cars have been sold as a resultof this program thus far. But if they have then I'll eat my hat.

 

[Daywalker]

Typical Beck analysis:Congress asks for more money for "Cash for Clunkers." Obviously that means the Congress are idiots for not prognosticating better. Discussion/thought ends there.Instead maybe it was very successful and more money is needed.I don't know either way but Beck/Fox does not even debate it. Just preaching to the choir.

How can you consider cash for clunkers a success. The only way it is a success is if over 200,000 cars have been sold as a result of this program. It's supposed to give $4500 for a new car. That's over 200k cars in a billion dollar program. I seriously doubt that 200K cars have been sold as a resultof this program thus far. But if they have then I'll eat my hat.

So you basically know nothing about the results of this stimulus?

 

[Daywalker]

Typical Beck analysis:Congress asks for more money for "Cash for Clunkers." Obviously that means the Congress are idiots for not prognosticating better. Discussion/thought ends there.Instead maybe it was very successful and more money is needed.I don't know either way but Beck/Fox does not even debate it. Just preaching to the choir.

How can you consider cash for clunkers a success. The only way it is a success is if over 200,000 cars have been sold as a result of this program. It's supposed to give $4500 for a new car. That's over 200k cars in a billion dollar program. I seriously doubt that 200K cars have been sold as a resultof this program thus far. But if they have then I'll eat my hat.

So you basically know nothing about the results of this stimulus?

I don't either. But I'm not ready to go live on national TV and lead with it.

 

[Casting Couch]

Others might have said that. I didn't. What I wrote is that he offers no insight, nothing new. On any given political issue, I could give you the conservative populist position, and this is what comes out of Beck's mouth.

And this is my issue with Maddow ( or any of the other on the big networks). I am not saying she's incapable of giving her own opinion/insight/whatever, but she doesn't. I'd love for one of these "experts" to bring a different angle, but they all seem to talk from the same script I'd love some originality out of any of them.

This is simply not true with Maddow. I have watched her, both in commentary and interviews, get very deeply into a subject and she often comes up with new approaches. Of course it's true that she starts from a left wing perspective on most matters, but her reasoning is usually much deeper than, for instance, Keith Olbermann. Yet I find Olbermann's show more entertaining in many ways, because she can get dragged down into the nuts and bolts of an issue. Keith, for all his bombast, knows how to keep things moving. As does O'Reilly and Hannity.

I agree completely. Olberman get get heavily into some issues with his "special comments" he tosses out every couple of months. Most of the SC's are pure gold.

 

[Daywalker]

Others might have said that. I didn't. What I wrote is that he offers no insight, nothing new. On any given political issue, I could give you the conservative populist position, and this is what comes out of Beck's mouth.

And this is my issue with Maddow ( or any of the other on the big networks). I am not saying she's incapable of giving her own opinion/insight/whatever, but she doesn't. I'd love for one of these "experts" to bring a different angle, but they all seem to talk from the same script I'd love some originality out of any of them.

This is simply not true with Maddow. I have watched her, both in commentary and interviews, get very deeply into a subject and she often comes up with new approaches. Of course it's true that she starts from a left wing perspective on most matters, but her reasoning is usually much deeper than, for instance, Keith Olbermann. Yet I find Olbermann's show more entertaining in many ways, because she can get dragged down into the nuts and bolts of an issue. Keith, for all his bombast, knows how to keep things moving. As does O'Reilly and Hannity.

I agree completely. Olberman get get heavily into some issues with his "special comments" he tosses out every couple of months. Most of the SC's are pure gold.

O"Reilly is bearable but Hannity is closer to J. Springer then a real op/ed show.

 

[Spanky267]

Typical Beck analysis:Congress asks for more money for "Cash for Clunkers." Obviously that means the Congress are idiots for not prognosticating better. Discussion/thought ends there.Instead maybe it was very successful and more money is needed.I don't know either way but Beck/Fox does not even debate it. Just preaching to the choir.

How can you consider cash for clunkers a success. The only way it is a success is if over 200,000 cars have been sold as a result of this program. It's supposed to give $4500 for a new car. That's over 200k cars in a billion dollar program. I seriously doubt that 200K cars have been sold as a resultof this program thus far. But if they have then I'll eat my hat.

So you basically know nothing about the results of this stimulus?

There are no statistics from the government on how many cars have been sold. Every deal has to be logged with the govt. So there should be sales figures available. But we arent hearing about how many cars have been sold through the program. We are only hearing that its about to run out of money. You would think that the administration would be throwing up numbers if they were high. I've searched google to see if I could find some numbers on sales through the cash for clunkers program but I couldnt get and figures.Edmunds.com reports that approximately 200K low mpg cars are traded in every quarter for higher mpg cars. So if almost 200K were traded in a month as a result of this program that would be awesome news and would be worthy of reporting. I don't know much, but I do know that the govt has blown through another Billion dollars and we dont know what we have to show for it besides an appropriation for a couple billion more dollars.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Typical Beck analysis:Congress asks for more money for "Cash for Clunkers." Obviously that means the Congress are idiots for not prognosticating better. Discussion/thought ends there.Instead maybe it was very successful and more money is needed.I don't know either way but Beck/Fox does not even debate it. Just preaching to the choir.

How can you consider cash for clunkers a success. The only way it is a success is if over 200,000 cars have been sold as a result of this program. It's supposed to give $4500 for a new car. That's over 200k cars in a billion dollar program. I seriously doubt that 200K cars have been sold as a resultof this program thus far. But if they have then I'll eat my hat.

Hope you've got some good hat sauce ready, gb.

 

[Spanky267]

Typical Beck analysis:Congress asks for more money for "Cash for Clunkers." Obviously that means the Congress are idiots for not prognosticating better. Discussion/thought ends there.Instead maybe it was very successful and more money is needed.I don't know either way but Beck/Fox does not even debate it. Just preaching to the choir.

How can you consider cash for clunkers a success. The only way it is a success is if over 200,000 cars have been sold as a result of this program. It's supposed to give $4500 for a new car. That's over 200k cars in a billion dollar program. I seriously doubt that 200K cars have been sold as a resultof this program thus far. But if they have then I'll eat my hat.

Hope you've got some good hat sauce ready, gb.

If I can see the numbers I've got the tabasco ready. If its that successful of a program then I'll gladly eat the hat. But if the numbers are really that high you'd think it would be plastered all over the news.

 

[Great Grinchy Trick]

Cash for Clunkers is an enormous joke on the American people. What sounds like a reasonable environmental deal to let people trade in crappy mpg cars for more efficient cars is nothing more than keeping the poor under the thumb of debt. The very people that would benefit from this "deal", those that have clunkers that are paid off, are getting screwed as usual by the carrot on the stick that says you and me will give them money to buy a new car. What a joke....keep trying to inflate the consumer bubble by enticing people to take out more debt and license taxes they already cannot pay down.

Obama and his chicago mob minions don't care about you. The unemployment and GDP numbers that they talk about are provable lies. They are tax cheats and liars...

On the other hand...those that have the means can make a pretty good deal on a car right now.

 

[Gigantomachia]

Cash for Clunkers is an enormous joke on the American people. What sounds like a reasonable environmental deal to let people trade in crappy mpg cars for more efficient cars is nothing more than keeping the poor under the thumb of debt. The very people that would benefit from this "deal", those that have clunkers that are paid off, are getting screwed as usual by the carrot on the stick that says you and me will give them money to buy a new car. What a joke....keep trying to inflate the consumer bubble by enticing people to take out more debt and license taxes they already cannot pay down. Obama and his chicago mob minions don't care about you. The unemployment and GDP numbers that they talk about are provable lies. They are tax cheats and liars...On the other hand...those that have the means can make a pretty good deal on a car right now.

A Beck clone.Far out.

 

[mon]

Glen Beck is what would happen if we gave BGP a tv show.

Are you kidding me? I can't stand Glenn Beck. He's so smarmy and such a smart-###. I want to punch the guy. I could see how he'd appeal to some on the right in the FFA but....in NO way would my show be anything like that.

Sounds like you've given some thought to having your own show. If you're serious, you should definitely start out with a blog. Just think, you could have one place where all your thoughts and views came together, a manifesto if you will, a log of everything. You could make your predictions and at some time in the future people could look back at your blog and see that you were right.

 

[urbanhack]

Geico pulls ads from Glenn Beck show.

 

[Chunky Soup]

Geico pulls ads from Glenn Beck show.

 

[Running with scissors]

Glen Beck is what would happen if we gave BGP a tv show.

Are you kidding me? I can't stand Glenn Beck. He's so smarmy and such a smart-###. I want to punch the guy. I could see how he'd appeal to some on the right in the FFA but....in NO way would my show be anything like that.

Sounds like you've given some thought to having your own show. If you're serious, you should definitely start out with a blog. Just think, you could have one place where all your thoughts and views came together, a manifesto if you will, a log of everything. You could make your predictions and at some time in the future people could look back at your blog and see that you were right.

OMG, OMG, OMG!eedance:

:subscribe:

 

[ElGatoLoco]

Geico pulls ads from Glenn Beck show.

Nice job, now if they can......*distracted*



What was I saying?

 

[george]

.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

 

[Da Guru]

Great news -- yet another major company has acted in response to our campaign

Our campaign against Beck?? Will people ever be able to decide for themselves again?

I never watch Beck, or Hannity or Maddow and Olberman..can`t take any of them anymore.. but do we need people to campaign against a disenting view?

 

[urbanhack]

wtf

 

[tommyGunZ]

Great news -- yet another major company has acted in response to our campaign

Our campaign against Beck?? Will people ever be able to decide for themselves again?

I never watch Beck, or Hannity or Maddow and Olberman..can`t take any of them anymore.. but do we need people to campaign against a disenting view?

It's a sad day when Beck is the leading "dissenting" view amongst conservatives. The fact that he gets ratings is an indictment of the state of the Republican party right now.

 

[Scruff Mcgruff]

DRINK IT DRINK IT DRINK IT

I usually don't find Beck as entertaining as Savage but that was up there.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

What I find interesting is that Beck actually has a mini touring "comedy" show over the summer. While I can't imagine anyone would find him intentionally funny, it's revealing that he tries very hard to avoid being labeled as any kind of serious journalist.

 

[Black&Gold]

a three-hour show of this guy? kill me now.

 

[Black&Gold]

Great news -- yet another major company has acted in response to our campaign

Our campaign against Beck?? Will people ever be able to decide for themselves again?

I never watch Beck, or Hannity or Maddow and Olberman..can`t take any of them anymore.. but do we need people to campaign against a disenting view?

It's a sad day when Beck is the leading "dissenting" view amongst conservatives. The fact that he gets ratings is an indictment of the state of the Republican party right now.

Very true. True Conservatives feel lost without a party and anytime a true Conserative comes to the forefront (Palin), the media attacks with full force.

 

[Black&Gold]

It is possible to be serious and have a sense of humor. A journalist, he is not. He is a Conservative thinker. Conservatives need to have a sense of humor right now because with the leaders this country has right now, a serious depression could happen.

 

[Desert_Power]

Thinker should never be used in a sentence about Glenn Beck.

 

[Desert_Power]

WTMF?

 

[ElGatoLoco]

Good Lord! I hope you're not comparing him to the likes of Buckley.

 

[Gigantomachia]

 

[Neofight]

Got the Colbert treatment last night.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

It is possible to be serious and have a sense of humor.

We're still talking about Glenn Beck, no?

He is a Conservative thinker.

Oh my.

 

[kaa]

Others might have said that. I didn't. What I wrote is that he offers no insight, nothing new. On any given political issue, I could give you the conservative populist position, and this is what comes out of Beck's mouth.

And this is my issue with Maddow ( or any of the other on the big networks). I am not saying she's incapable of giving her own opinion/insight/whatever, but she doesn't. I'd love for one of these "experts" to bring a different angle, but they all seem to talk from the same script I'd love some originality out of any of them.

I've listened to Rachel Maddow's radio show quite a bit in the past. She always struck me as the equivalent of a liberal forum troll. She goes to all the same tactics like putting words in the mouths of conservatives, straw man tactics, misdirection, deflection, class warfare, and a metric ton of Bush bashing. I never found anything intellectual about her show whatsoever.I've listened to Glenn Beck's radio show and it was billed as "the fusion of entertainment and enlightenment". Thinking was de-emphasized in favor of reacting.

 

[kaa]

Of course when it comes right down to it, people like Beck and Maddow are attack dogs. They are a part of the political machine.

Here's how a political machine operates.

1. March out a team of attack dogs to assault the other party where it is in power.

2. Have them relentlessly attack with the primary goal to create the desire among the public for a fresh start.

3. Now the political machine offers that fresh start and the public, which has been pump primed all this time, goes right for it.

An example is 1997-2000. The GOP set a team of attack dogs on Bill Clinton. The goal was not to bring him down as much as it was to create a desire among the public to make a clean break with the status quo. Once that was accomplished, the GOP offered George W. Bush, and the public went for it as he represented "moving on" from the Clinton scandals better than Gore did.

And of course, the democrats did the same thing by relentlessly attacking Bush until the public sought a fresh start, and then they offered Obama.

I would say people like Beck and Maddow have done their jobs extremely well in recent years. The public has not deviated from the political machines.

 

[The Commish]

She goes to all the same tactics like putting words in the mouths of conservatives, straw man tactics, misdirection, deflection, class warfare, and a metric ton of Bush bashing. I never found anything intellectual about her show whatsoever.

And this is my point. These tactics are what lump all these whacks into the same boat for me. None of them are above it. They all do it. Does one say things that more out of bounds than the others at times, yes. But is "being less out of bounds than someone else" really something to strive for? I guess some would say yes. For me, it's not. They are still out of bounds. A foul ball by inches is treated the same way as one that's out by feet.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Others might have said that. I didn't. What I wrote is that he offers no insight, nothing new. On any given political issue, I could give you the conservative populist position, and this is what comes out of Beck's mouth.

And this is my issue with Maddow ( or any of the other on the big networks). I am not saying she's incapable of giving her own opinion/insight/whatever, but she doesn't. I'd love for one of these "experts" to bring a different angle, but they all seem to talk from the same script I'd love some originality out of any of them.

I've listened to Rachel Maddow's radio show quite a bit in the past. She always struck me as the equivalent of a liberal forum troll. She goes to all the same tactics like putting words in the mouths of conservatives, straw man tactics, misdirection, deflection, class warfare, and a metric ton of Bush bashing. I never found anything intellectual about her show whatsoever.I've listened to Glenn Beck's radio show and it was billed as "the fusion of entertainment and enlightenment". Thinking was de-emphasized in favor of reacting.

I'm going to disagree with your characterization of Maddow. Now, it's impossible to deny that she endorses a liberal viewpoint. She's unapologetic about this and makes it very clear. However, she does adhere to a higher standard of fact checking and statistics that a guy like Beck would ever dream of doing.I'm much more comfortable with your labels applying to Olbermann. He has guests on that only echo his viewpoint and routinely throws out accusations and hyperbole that cannot be rationally defended. Even his sympathetic guests have to rein him in at times when Keith throws out a particularly goofy comment in his patented rhetorical style.. something along the lines of "Richard, is it safe to say that George W. Bush is clinically insane?"By contrast, Maddow actually invites guest with dissenting views and is courteous when they actually accept. One particular example is Tim Pawlenty whom she claims to be a "fan" of. She regularly invites people on the show to have a spirited debate and never resorts to cheap mockery or shouting. Her staff is actually quite adept at fact checking and follow up. When she has a conservative guest on the show, she'll often go out of her way to set up the guest with background and ask them politely if she has characterized their view appropriately.I think you are too easily dismissing everyone with a contrary viewpoint there. There are certainly varying degrees. Simply because Maddow is a liberal doesn't mean that she's some kind of clueless shill. I'd say her show is one of the more cerebral liberal opinion shows on the air. I think she's even more fair than Matthews who will sometimes agree with conservative guest merely for the appearance of balance. At least with Maddow you know what you are getting.

 

[Drunken Cowboy]

Got the Colbert treatment last night.

He was ripped worse on The Daily Show. Calling our health care the best in the world one year after talking about how terrible our health care system is.

 

[kaa]

Others might have said that. I didn't. What I wrote is that he offers no insight, nothing new. On any given political issue, I could give you the conservative populist position, and this is what comes out of Beck's mouth.

And this is my issue with Maddow ( or any of the other on the big networks). I am not saying she's incapable of giving her own opinion/insight/whatever, but she doesn't. I'd love for one of these "experts" to bring a different angle, but they all seem to talk from the same script I'd love some originality out of any of them.

I've listened to Rachel Maddow's radio show quite a bit in the past. She always struck me as the equivalent of a liberal forum troll. She goes to all the same tactics like putting words in the mouths of conservatives, straw man tactics, misdirection, deflection, class warfare, and a metric ton of Bush bashing. I never found anything intellectual about her show whatsoever.I've listened to Glenn Beck's radio show and it was billed as "the fusion of entertainment and enlightenment". Thinking was de-emphasized in favor of reacting.

I'm going to disagree with your characterization of Maddow. Now, it's impossible to deny that she endorses a liberal viewpoint. She's unapologetic about this and makes it very clear. However, she does adhere to a higher standard of fact checking and statistics that a guy like Beck would ever dream of doing.I'm much more comfortable with your labels applying to Olbermann. He has guests on that only echo his viewpoint and routinely throws out accusations and hyperbole that cannot be rationally defended. Even his sympathetic guests have to rein him in at times when Keith throws out a particularly goofy comment in his patented rhetorical style.. something along the lines of "Richard, is it safe to say that George W. Bush is clinically insane?"By contrast, Maddow actually invites guest with dissenting views and is courteous when they actually accept. One particular example is Tim Pawlenty whom she claims to be a "fan" of. She regularly invites people on the show to have a spirited debate and never resorts to cheap mockery or shouting. Her staff is actually quite adept at fact checking and follow up. When she has a conservative guest on the show, she'll often go out of her way to set up the guest with background and ask them politely if she has characterized their view appropriately.I think you are too easily dismissing everyone with a contrary viewpoint there. There are certainly varying degrees. Simply because Maddow is a liberal doesn't mean that she's some kind of clueless shill. I'd say her show is one of the more cerebral liberal opinion shows on the air. I think she's even more fair than Matthews who will sometimes agree with conservative guest merely for the appearance of balance. At least with Maddow you know what you are getting.

No I really disagree with you on Maddow. It seems to me you are basically arguing that she is adept at giving herself political cover (i.e. following up with some guests after an interview), which I wouldn't disagree with. But I didn't describe her as someone who uses cheap mockery or shouting. I said she uses the troll tactics of straw men, misdirection, deflection, etc. Those aren't quality aspects of debating and I disagree that she is any better than Beck.

 

[perry147]

Got the Colbert treatment last night.

He was ripped worse on The Daily Show. Calling our health care the best in the world one year after talking about how terrible our health care system is.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

No I really disagree with you on Maddow. It seems to me you are basically arguing that she is adept at giving herself political cover (i.e. following up with some guests after an interview), which I wouldn't disagree with. I didn't describe her as someone who uses cheap mockery or shouting. I said she uses the troll tactics of straw men, misdirection, deflection, etc. Those aren't quality aspects of debating.

I'd love to see some examples of this. I'm sure there are many if you feel this way.

 

[kaa]

No I really disagree with you on Maddow. It seems to me you are basically arguing that she is adept at giving herself political cover (i.e. following up with some guests after an interview), which I wouldn't disagree with. I didn't describe her as someone who uses cheap mockery or shouting. I said she uses the troll tactics of straw men, misdirection, deflection, etc. Those aren't quality aspects of debating.

I'd love to see some examples of this. I'm sure there are many if you feel this way.

Oh let's not go there. Why don't you give me some examples of her fact checking, following up with guests, and politely asking her guests if they characterized their views appropriately then.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

No I really disagree with you on Maddow. It seems to me you are basically arguing that she is adept at giving herself political cover (i.e. following up with some guests after an interview), which I wouldn't disagree with. I didn't describe her as someone who uses cheap mockery or shouting. I said she uses the troll tactics of straw men, misdirection, deflection, etc. Those aren't quality aspects of debating.

I'd love to see some examples of this. I'm sure there are many if you feel this way.

Oh let's not go there. Why don't you give me some examples of her fact checking, following up with guests, and politely asking her guests if they characterized their views appropriately then.

Here you go:

 

[urbanhack]

No I really disagree with you on Maddow. It seems to me you are basically arguing that she is adept at giving herself political cover (i.e. following up with some guests after an interview), which I wouldn't disagree with. I didn't describe her as someone who uses cheap mockery or shouting. I said she uses the troll tactics of straw men, misdirection, deflection, etc. Those aren't quality aspects of debating.

I'd love to see some examples of this. I'm sure there are many if you feel this way.

Oh let's not go there. Why don't you give me some examples of her fact checking, following up with guests, and politely asking her guests if they characterized their views appropriately then.

It won't be her show, but you can watch her Sunday on Meet The Press as she squares off with **** Armey.