Comments on: Is Morning Joe The New Crossfire?

By: Ann SHort

Ann SHort — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 12:19:51 +0000

The Economics 101 I learned – Early man bartered a side of beef for medicine ferns. Barter became too complex and money became a means of exchange and has nothing else to do with a countries ability to produce. A countries wealth is its ability to produce and natural resources. How much money is cranked out by the government may not matter – as long as people can get the stuff they need (food shelter medical and maybe a TV and car). The money is only a means of exchange!! A depression or recession is only a breakdown it the way the money is spread out so everyone can get the stuff they need. We do not have a real famine or lack of steel to build cars. We only have a breakdown in people getting the money to buy them. We get a breakdown in ethics where the greedy think the money is the stuff and don’t care if the rest of their citizens get stuff or not.

By: gawf

gawf — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 12:29:06 +0000

it belongs on Fox

By: TBH

TBH — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 14:07:03 +0000

it’s become must watch TV for me – post-election. wrt this discussion – I’m surprised at how Joe was able to turn the discussion around on Pat albeit for the last 20 seconds. You’re never going to get deep thoughtful debate on TV like you will in the newspaper, on vlogs/blogs and even on the radio, but the intellectual bar has been raised on this show.

save for Joe’s occasional righty rants. I just wish Mika could articulate her thoughts better as his foil

By: Is Morning Joe The New Crossfire? - Curiosity Blog

Is Morning Joe The New Crossfire? - Curiosity Blog — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 12:55:16 +0000

[...] http://donklephant.com/2008/12/24/is-morning-joe-the-new-crossfire/ [...]

By: Jon

Jon — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 20:28:42 +0000

I tend to like Morning Joe too, but this particular discussion was bland, typical, and amateur. I could point you to ten blogs that make better arguments vis gay marriage than Jonathan Capehart. Neither side really even rebutted the other. Joe compared the gay marriage ballot losses to a sports game–an utterly silly analogy–and no one deigned to rebut it. Buchanan and Barnicle make the ‘definition argument’–nobody challenges them on their definition. Capehart mentions civil rights, but only in an abstract, buzzword-like fashion. It took Joe Scarborough to finally put the equality argument into half-way decent terms, asking Buchanan how gay marriage would affect his own marriage.

I hate television. :)

By: blackoutyears

blackoutyears — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 18:49:53 +0000

Every morning before work. The entertainment segment that Geist does with the resident *expert* couldn’t worthless. Fortunately that’s not what I’m tuning in for. Justin just likes watching Chuck Todd shout down Buchanan and Noonan.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 16:20:12 +0000

I agree with you on this one, Justin. It seems Morning Joe has taken a backwards path to get there, though, as I remember watching it one morning at leats a year ago and Joe was just trying to put out a hatchet job on some Dem, I don’t remember who. Having watched it several times in the last couple of months, the intellectualism of the show has definitely increased and the thoughtful and (mostly) reasoned discussion (erm, debate!) is something I look forward to when I watch it…

… even with J Pat Buchanan.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 13:56:04 +0000

Is McLaughlin really the gold standard?

I knew a guy who drove him around – dude is really weird, reads books about immortality apparently.

I enjoy Morning Joe. That’s the sort of thing a liberal needs to stay quiet about though. :)