Opinion of Adam Whatshisface (D-OH)

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I can't deal with this anymore.

[Napoleon]

FF

[DINGO Joe]

Stay classy CC

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Stay classy CC

I've been on this forum since 2010. I stopped being classy in like 2012. I don't know if I can even pretend to be a tolerant or good person anymore. I'm done.

[TJ in Oregon]

He can be good whenever he stops reciting talking points and actually bothers to be honest.

[ElectionsGuy]

I think he's a good person but he's such a hack.

[Flake]

I really like him, he's a wonderful person to me, and he's not a troll, so a big FF.

[Deus Naturae]

Seems like a nice guy, but it's annoying how he states Democratic talking points as if they were undeniable facts that should be obvious to anyone with a brain.

[morgieb]

At the very least he seems to be a decent person and has vastly improved from thinking that Bill Clinton could be compared to a character from My Little Pony.

[Mechaman]

Divided.

I have reason to believe, on some of his postings, that he's actually a pretty bigoted person.  However, he seems to be an unexperienced young man who believes what grownups tell him, so maybe I'll withhold judgment for now.

[Niemeyerite]

I prefer Todd Portune.

[Sopranos Republican]

I'll say that he has much improved since about a year ago at this time, even if we disagree often.

[tmthforu94]

I don't take particularly well to someone who calls the church that many of my friends attend "a cult." HP as of late, but I would have given him an FF before that.

[Horus]

Seems to be a nice person, but not really a fan of anti-pot Dems. Also the extreme Mormon hatred seems a bit misplaced to say the least.

[windjammer]

FF

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

He can be overly emotional, angry, hackish, and holds a dangerous level of hatred for those who disagree with him fueled by some of the most psychotic hosts MSNBC has to offer. In short, he’s the leftwing equivalent of a Teabagger.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I don't really know him

[RogueBeaver]

I think he's a good person but he's such a hack.

Plus the anti-Mormonism is offensive.

[Hifly]

FF

[Sol]

FF. He's cool

[LeBron]

I think he's a good person but he's such a hack.

I'll admit, I'm hyped up on MSNBC a lot and agree with a lot of what they say, but I don't agree with the likes of Rachel Maddow or Chris Matthews on everything. For example, I disapprove of Maddow's regular attacks on Rand Paul (and feel she's covering the Christie scandal way too much) and disagree with her stance on marijuana. Matthews, to say the least, isn't as great as he used to be as a liberal strong-hand. And it's not just them. I could easily find something I disagree with almost every MSNBC host on such as Ed Schultz on abortion or Chris Hayes on Edward Snowden. The network also doesn't focus enough on voting rights either and a few hosts will even praise Kasich if his name is ever brought up, so there's another pointer.

Seems like a nice guy, but it's annoying how he states Democratic talking points as if they were undeniable facts that should be obvious to anyone with a brain.

Could you provide an example so I know what you're referring to?

I prefer Todd Portune.

Come February 6th (the day after the deadline), you won't see me talking about him anymore.

I don't take particularly well to someone who calls the church that many of my friends attend "a cult." HP as of late, but I would have given him an FF before that.

I said it used to be! I'm sorry if you or anyone else took offense to that.

He can be overly emotional, angry, hackish, and holds a dangerous level of hatred for those who disagree with him fueled by some of the most psychotic hosts MSNBC has to offer. In short, he’s the leftwing equivalent of a Teabagger.

I already addressed the MSNBC hack issue and I can be emotional sometimes (and apologize if I come off as angry), but the Teabag comment is uncalled for.

And thanks everyone else for all of the positive, neutral, or even negative feedback!

[ElectionsGuy]

I think he's a good person but he's such a hack.

I'll admit, I'm hyped up on MSNBC a lot and agree with a lot of what they say, but I don't agree with the likes of Rachel Maddow or Chris Matthews on everything. For example, I disapprove of Maddow's regular attacks on Rand Paul (and feel she's covering the Christie scandal way too much) and disagree with her stance on marijuana. Matthews, to say the least, isn't as great as he used to be as a liberal strong-hand. And it's not just them. I could easily find something I disagree with almost every MSNBC host on such as Ed Schultz on abortion or Chris Hayes on Edward Snowden. The network also doesn't focus enough on voting rights either and a few hosts will even praise Kasich if his name is ever brought up, so there's another pointer.

Adam, I have an idea. Stop solely watching MSNBC. Seriously, the more you can watch/browse/read other "news" sources the more you can be an independent thinker. Listening to MSNBC or Fox on a near daily basis only locks you into their propaganda. Believe me, I used to watch Fox quite a bit (I still watch the Five and Special Report, the only good shows on there). But the more I started using all different types of propaganda and news, the more I could challenge my believes to really find my political self. I encourage you to do the same

[Hash]

Here's an even better idea: stop watching political crap on any TV channel.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

He can be overly emotional, angry, hackish, and holds a dangerous level of hatred for those who disagree with him fueled by some of the most psychotic hosts MSNBC has to offer. In short, he’s the leftwing equivalent of a Teabagger.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Here's an even better idea: stop watching political crap on any TV channel.

Except for the raw coverage on C-SPAN (minus the call in shows ).