In it he argues with one of his "guests" in a way that I find hard to watch. He simply never lets him get a word in, ending up swearing at him. I've seen him do this to Rachel Maddow and just thought he was a bullying putz, but if he's like this on his show all the time, how does he keep his job ? Seriously, how is this the behaviour of a professional broadcaster on any other channel apart from Faux Billo ? To my eyes, it's unbelieveable. You'd be off-air before the first commercial in the UK. keep to the Fen Causeway
I have no idea why Scarborough's still on television. They've changed his time slot about eighty times now, and his ratings always blow. He should go back to Congress. Really, he was the perfect representative for the white trash constituency in NW Florida.
But alcoholic Mormonista Glenn Beck's ratings also blow, and he's still on the air at Headline News.
And Pat Buchanan, who is literally an old Nazi sympathizer and architect of Nixon's Southern Strategy, is still on television, although he doesn't have a show anymore. But at least Pat's balanced out by Rachel on the panels. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
For the panel shows I would like to see the host equipped with a little control which has a mute for each guest, along with a directive to only allow one at a time to comment. If others want to filibuster an ideological opponent, let them do it without being directly miced. In the case of Chris Mathews, they should give mute buttons for Chris to the other panelists. As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
A second reason is that even if that weren't the case, I do not want to give scum like Buchanan any credibility. Just like I wouldn't approvingly cite the Daniel Pipes of the world even if they happened to say something I agreed with. I want racists thoroughly marginalized.
If you get sprayed with shit, you don't slink off and hide in shame! You take a shower, change your clothes and get back in the fight. It is not a question of whether the means justify the ends. Could one have cited a Nazi to bring down Hitler in 1934, regardless of how vile that Nazi was, and one refused to do so because they feared legitimizing that person, what would be the moral content of that decision? Means are only justifiable in terms of the ends they produce. As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
lol! yup, there's an apple that rolled uphill from the tree... ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
