Hard to say that he is the one responsible for job creation directly.

Easier to say that he is undermining democracy now. I'll have to dig through your comment word salad for "no collusion" talking points. The truth is coming out.

Urp. I just threw up in my mouth a little...thanks a lot.

Ok....mea culpa. After decades of being the propaganda wing for the far right, I do automatically think anyone willing to defend them must be a fan. I'm not a CNN fan, but I often defend them.

I agree, they offer the "other" side's view, often drafting it themselves. What I can't agree on is them being a source of information beyond what the right's talking points will be. As I noted before, their viewers are astonishingly less informed than people who watch zero news.

I agree, there is slant in most news today, sometimes outright zealous bias, and that's a bad thing no matter who does it.

I am surprised Fox can still think ahead enough to back freedom of the press, especially their nemesis CNN, considering the short sightedness and hyper partisan nature of their hosts and writers....pleasantly surprised. I often hope I'm wrong in my assessments, which are invariably cynical.

They are not old tired talking points, just truth .

An old white lady spouting a bunch of tired talking points to a bunch of white people at a conservative Christian college. This is performance art. Pure babble.

Yep...that seems like a bit of 'please don't throw me in that briar patch, Br'er Fox.' imo. If he could get banned for outrageously disgusting, intentionally provocative, unpatriotic, but technically allowed comments, it seems it would verify to him that liberals (which he believes we all are here) are all poised to censor and silence any voice that disagrees.
I prefer to allow the ugliness of the right to show itself publicly, hiding it does nothing to oppose it and only let's it fester, hidden safely in the dark.

It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.
I prefer the former to the latter two options.

The problem is, much of that awful stuff contradicts the other awful stuff and none of it is consistent. If he genuinely believes it all, there's something seriously wrong. The only belief I can pin down is that belief is fluid and constantly changing, and anything goes if it supports the cause/talking points of the day.

Hi Sagemind,

I'm not offended by your questions or statements. I am guessing you didn't watch much of the video or else you wouldn't be saying all of these prophecies are based on an eclipse. It doesn't a do whole lot for your argument when you skim the video and then mischaracterize the content. This is the atheist MO; come to a premature conclusion based on incomplete information in a rush to falsify the data. Having only a superficial understanding of the subject matter, how would you expect to convince anyone of your position?

The sun being darkened is one of literally dozens (maybe hundreds) of signs that indicate the Day of the Lord, which this video covers. The Jews, and Christians aren't just looking for an eclipse, they are looking at world events, cultural conditions, and a myriad of other things which confirm these prophecies. Without the dozens of other accompanying signs, a simple eclipse wouldn't have any weight in fulfilling these prophecies. The Jewish culture knew about eclipses, that isn't what this is talking about.

This is a very indepth subject. For example, Sir Issac Newton wrote on bible prophecy extensively and said that he considered his work on prophecy more important than his work on mathematics. Based on his studies he corrected predicted when the Jews would return to their homeland. Do you think he just guessed? Read his writings. There is something there a little deeper than atheist talking points.

You've also mischaracterized my faith. I don't believe in God because I was scared and I needed something to lean on. I believe in God because of personal revelation; God revealed Himself to me and showed me that Jesus is the Messiah and the bible is His book. I was content to be a secular agnostic and I wasn't afraid of my death. God wasn't content with that and I responded to His call.

Your oversimplication of faith proves that you don't know a lot about it, or why Christians believe what they believe. I don't think that is very intelligent to dismiss something that you really don't understand. I think your rejection of my faith is mostly based on cherry picking information which has been spoonfed to you by atheist sources instead of a sincere investigation which weighed both sides instead of just one. I would love for you to prove me wrong here.

Have you ever considered giving the claims of Christianity a chance by asking Jesus Christ to reveal Himself to you? Either He is alive and can hear you, or He isn't. If He did give you a sign, would you be willing to follow it?

I'll bet $100 that the first political murder we see this cycle will be a Trump nut killing someone they decide is a dangerous lefty....and another $100 the right will shrink from it by saying he's a lone wolf crazy person and not a real Republican following the talking points to their logical conclusions.....oh wait, that already happened in Charlottesville, where's my $200?

I guess they learned nothing from pizza gate, and why would they, it didn't hurt them a bit when one of their own attacked a pizza parlor full of kids with his rifle looking for Clinton to kill because they told him she was there selling child sex slaves.
Jubus Fucking Christ. They're actually trying to start a civil war spouting this bullshit to impressionable morons with guns and hatred, and they know it. If you're politically left of Reagan, buy some guns, you just might need them soon.
*promote exposing the thinly veiled call for civil war if Republicans lose control.

Is there a pro-gun talking point that was missed? Maybe you wanted her to personally attack a teenage victim?

I suspect you feel it wasn't a fair exchange because the opposing side got to voice opinions. Suppressing the dissenting views is the most effective way to defend the indefensible.

This woman billing herself as the "feminist that gave MRAs a fair shake" is disingenuous. Her "Red Pill" documentary was funded by some of the most vile MRAs like Paul Elam and Mike Cernovich, she portrayed them sullen figures put upon by everyone while completely ignoring things like outright advocating rape / violence against women, and immediately adopted their talking points at the end and since the documentary.

"Feminist converted by MRAs" was a marketing shtick.

It's not about it being not to my liking. It's about it being dishonest and incredibly right biased while claiming to be on the left. It's about the typical one set of rules for one side and a completely different set for the other that is how he makes his "points". It's a style of information that only works with those in the bubble and the ignorant, and it's insulting, no matter which side it comes from. He didn't have a single piece of new information or even a new take. Please don't pretend I don't give right wing ideas consideration. I couldn't point out the flaws if I didn't.

I don't waste my time hearing out the far anything. Extremists are to be educated or ignored, not given a soapbox and our attentive ears repeatedly. I've heard all I need from Nazis, fascists, alt right, antifa, anarchists to know their ideas don't hold up to critical examination, there's no reason to keep listening after that, I won't believe them, so what's to be gained? Hearing this weeks talking points? No thanks.

You can listen to the idiots that tell you these extremists represent the left, I say it's wishful thinking, because that's the only way the right can excuse or deflect from the Nazis and blatant racists the right welcomed into the party to win the last election. (To be clear, I may be left leaning, I'm not a democrat).
I was glad to hear the leadership of the Republicans finally publicly tell the Nazis and KKK that the Republicans don't stand with them and don't want their votes after Charlottesville, and I'm still waiting for a similarly dismissive statement from the Democrats about antifa.

Both (most) extremists groups say and do idiotic, barbaric things and should be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law at every opportunity....no matter what their political affiliation or leaning. Ends justify the means is the mantra of tyrants, and they come in all flavors.

How can I agree or disagree with such a meaningless statement....racial collectivists? enlightenment? I do agree, both act as if they are opposed to freedom, sanity, civil behaviour, and rationality.

@bobknight33

If you have any intellectual honesty you will watch this.

This is the problem with America and most of the developed world (though the problem is probably largest in the US among developed countries), not all the BS talking points about taxes and crap.

Rememer the talking point that 17 intelligence agencies pointed their fingers at Russia for having orchestrated the hacks during the election?

Even the NYT has finally buried that one:

The assessment was made by four intelligence agencies — the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community.

@vil
here is the thing though,and it is something that i find very disappointing.

when maddow came over from air america radio,who worked with such hosts as thom hartman,sam seder,lawrence odonnell,al franken,laura flanders.she was fantastic.

yes,she was a tad biased and the political points she chose to cover tended to lean liberal democrat,BUT her analysis and her ability to break down complicated and complex political issues into easily digested and understood nuggets,was a talent i truly admired in her.

in my opinion,she was the best host MSNBC had on their channel,and proved time and time again just how political saavy she was,and her ability to expose political shenanigans was unmatched by any other host..again..my opinion..but then obama won his second term,and i noticed a shift in her show.

she slowly stopped being so voracious when it came to exposing the more...shall we say..venal and destructive policies obama was beginning to execute,and started making excuses for those activities.apologizing in essence.

ok..ok..she was becoming an apologist for the highest office in amercia.there..happy?

to say that watching this transition bummed me out is a understatement.for years i could always count on maddow to break down and disseminate political talking points,partisan wordplay and reveal the bullshit behind the polished turd.

then here comes the run up to the 2016 election,and i watched maddow,in real time,go from a part-time apologist for obama to a full time apologist for hillary clinton.

you can watch her actively cheerlead for clinton against sanders.even when the DNC was caught RED-HANDED fucking sanders over,maddow downplayed the entire mess,and focused on debbie wasserman shultz,while giving clinton a pass.as if debbie wasserman shultz was in no way connected to hillary..even when the evidence plainly proved that there WAS a connection.

so you are right @vil .
much of how maddow disseminates political situations is eerily similar to RT,when it comes to state sponsored cheerleading.

host:the problem we are being faced with is:apple or oranges.

viewer: but what about those bananas over there? and those cherries.

host:there are NO bananas or cherries!
there are ONLY apples and oranges!

viewer:but i am pretty sure i see bananas and cherries.

host:you are being a pinko commie,and why do hate america? are you a sympathetic terrorist? or just simply a racist?

viewer:sorry i asked.i don't want to be called an unpatriotic racist.

at least that is how i see it.
not saying my opinion amounts to anything more than screaming into a wind tunnel,but i used to really admire maddow.

I think Maddow's argument "We're about to find out if the new President of our country is going to do what Russia wants once he's commander in chief" is utterly moronic. Implying that withdrawing a few thousands troops will mean he's Russia's puppet is intellectually dishonest. No mention of other actions he could take like reversing sanctions or undoing Obama's punishment of specific Russians after that latest reports that would show that. Or other possible justifications he would have for withdrawing the troops. No, just a black and white yes/no based on one action.

It calls to mind the endless repetition of Republican talking points on fox news. They don't expect their viewer to think at all just absorb a few basic scraps of info and come to a firm conclusion that they can easily repeat like a mantra and block all opposing views because they are so sure they are right.

At the end of the day, both the unemployment rate (U-3) and the participation rate have pitfalls and you need to subjectively control for other factors to get a true picture of how employment relates to the economy. Naturally, this makes the topic ripe for politicians to pick and choose the statistics that suit their talking points.