Fox Snags Dennis the Menace!

[wbcoleman]

No argument from Ted S. either, I'll wager.

Most of the MSNBC hosts are pathetic.  Maddow does seem to do her research but as I said, her staff will completely ignore important news that is unflattering for democrats while they focus like a laser on some trivial fact that makes conservatives look bad.

I can watch most of the FOX hosts but only because I generally agree with their views.  But when I put my impartial observer hat on I really dislike O'Reilly and especially Hannity.

I can tolerate O'Reilly, barely, but so far as I'm concerned El Sean-bo isn't all that different than Ed.  I prefer the "newsier" aspects of Foxnews.

[Ted S]

I can tolerate O'Reilly, barely, but so far as I'm concerned El Sean-bo isn't all that different than Ed.  I prefer the "newsier" aspects of Foxnews.

I agree completely.

[clistensprechen]

Oh hell, Ed sucks. No argument there. No argument from Ted S. either, I'll wager. Couldn't stand O'Donnell either, for that matter, but then his research got better. Larry still sounds screechy in my ear, but his research has improved and I'll betcha it's the MSNBC research department that made the improvement.

Bottom line--it's more about the research department than it is about the talking heads.

I guess it was the vaunted MSLSD research department which discovered the tingle running up Tweety's leg!   

O_o  Vanna, can I buy a clue please?

[clistensprechen]

No argument from Ted S. either, I'll wager.

Most of the MSNBC hosts are pathetic.  Maddow does seem to do her research but as I said, her staff will completely ignore important news that is unflattering for democrats while they focus like a laser on some trivial fact that makes conservatives look bad.

I can watch most of the FOX hosts but only because I generally agree with their views.  But when I put my impartial observer hat on I really dislike O'Reilly and especially Hannity.

Greta Van Sustren is about all I can stand on Fox, and barely.  It's entirely too great a departure from reality for my tastes. Frankly, I don't know what MSNBC sees in Chris Matthews either, for that matter. Maddow digs up news in scoops and you can't expect her to necessarily cover the same news everybody else covers....unless there's a big-ass-Topic A and the network steps in to do the armtwisting on that.  How much is Maddow and how much is network arm-twisting, perhaps you know better than I do. Just don't pretend that Fox doesn't do the same sort of arm-twisting, if not more.

[wbcoleman]

No argument from Ted S. either, I'll wager.

Most of the MSNBC hosts are pathetic.  Maddow does seem to do her research but as I said, her staff will completely ignore important news that is unflattering for democrats while they focus like a laser on some trivial fact that makes conservatives look bad.

I can watch most of the FOX hosts but only because I generally agree with their views.  But when I put my impartial observer hat on I really dislike O'Reilly and especially Hannity.

Greta Van Sustren is about all I can stand on Fox, and barely.  It's entirely too great a departure from reality for my tastes. Frankly, I don't know what MSNBC sees in Chris Matthews either, for that matter. Maddow digs up news in scoops and you can't expect her to necessarily cover the same news everybody else covers....unless there's a big-ass-Topic A and the network steps in to do the armtwisting on that.  How much is Maddow and how much is network arm-twisting, perhaps you know better than I do. Just don't pretend that Fox doesn't do the same sort of arm-twisting, if not more.

I don't know what you mean by "arm-twisting".  Rachel is the one and only legitimate talent that MSLSD has, but her program is more ideologically driven than anything on Fox save El Sean-bo.  She doesn't "cover" anything aside from the day's DNC and White House talking points, but I'll gladly concede that she does on a great job of presenting the agitprop.

[Don Houston]

No argument from Ted S. either, I'll wager.

Most of the MSNBC hosts are pathetic.  Maddow does seem to do her research but as I said, her staff will completely ignore important news that is unflattering for democrats while they focus like a laser on some trivial fact that makes conservatives look bad.

I can watch most of the FOX hosts but only because I generally agree with their views.  But when I put my impartial observer hat on I really dislike O'Reilly and especially Hannity.

Greta Van Sustren is about all I can stand on Fox, and barely.  It's entirely too great a departure from reality for my tastes. Frankly, I don't know what MSNBC sees in Chris Matthews either, for that matter. Maddow digs up news in scoops and you can't expect her to necessarily cover the same news everybody else covers....unless there's a big-ass-Topic A and the network steps in to do the armtwisting on that.  How much is Maddow and how much is network arm-twisting, perhaps you know better than I do. Just don't pretend that Fox doesn't do the same sort of arm-twisting, if not more.

Fox is out there because it curves to the conservative base.  If it was not a good site politicians would not go on it.  The liberals don't like it because it caters to the conservatives and that is the entire reason.  It's the same reason the hate Limbaugh, the same reason they hate beck and all the rest.  Even Clara would be happy if there were no more Republicans.  The problem that people don't see is that if there was another party that took the place of the Republicans, we would have the same problem over different issues

[Ted S]

The problem that people don't see is that if there was another party that took the place of the Republicans, we would have the same problem over different issues

I think Don is correct. If lightning were to strike and suddenly every American to the right of center were to drop dead in their tracks and only the political left was left, it wouldn't take long for the remaining people to split into two groups. One more conservative than the other.

It seems to be human nature for social groups to divide into us and them.  A nasty third group (bitter enemy) can heal the divide for a while but eventually under peaceful conditions the divide will reappear. This of course is just my opinion.

[wbcoleman]

The problem that people don't see is that if there was another party that took the place of the Republicans, we would have the same problem over different issues

I think Don is correct. If lightning were to strike and suddenly every American to the right of center were to drop dead in their tracks and only the political left was left, it wouldn't take long for the remaining people to split into two groups. One more conservative than the other.

It seems to be human nature for social groups to divide into us and them.  A nasty third group (bitter enemy) can heal the divide for a while but eventually under peaceful conditions the divide will reappear. This of course is just my opinion.

Partisanship is a good thing!

[Don Houston]

IF there was one group, Ted hit the nail.  At some point they would split into a second group only because there are things that they do not like and they would be against them or they would want something different.  It is why our Founding Fathers wanted a two party system.  Now I could see opening it up to more parties, but having a single party in this country would not fare well with the people

[Ted S]

It's kind of funny how many people yearn for broad racial diversity yet seem to roundly reject diversity of thought or belief and diversity of economic conditions.

Some say everybody must think alike, live alike, yet not look alike.  Seems superficial.