Printable View
Punter, a mutual acquaintance told me you hail from the same state as I do. If you still vote there, you might want to consider the Democrat candidates for the Criminal Court of Appeals, especially for the positions where no Libertarian is running. I suspect they're more likely to implement the liberal ideals you and I believe in, although to be honest I've never studied the positions of the individual candidates.
[QUOTE=RcCollins;443526] Slim to none is as close to never as one will get [snip][/QUOTE]Absolutely not, as a matter of fact it's a huge stretch when you consider "Slim to none" was a reply to a question about the next election, but of course you knew that before you made your fictitious statement, now didn't you, after all you're the one that wrote the question to begin with.
[QUOTE=RcCollins;443526] Wiki is the last source you should use to support any claim, no peer reviewed there, but its about your mind set not the legal definition.[/QUOTE]You seem to be all over the page one post you say we were talking about "party affiliation" now your talking about "mind set." (Apples and oranges.)
What we've been discussing is being an Independent voter, not impartiality. I am definitely not an impartial voter, and I never claimed to be. I believe you have the two confused. I doubt you can find any independent voters who are completely impartial. Some may try, but who is really completely impartial?
Perhaps in the very beginning what you really meant to say or should have said was impartial voters and not Independent voters. If you had said impartial voters this discussion would have never taken place, but to say a person must be impartial before they can be considered an independent is simply laughable. I'll stick with the official definition of an independent such as that listed on wikipedia, which is a much better source than anything you've offered. You can continue to believe in your "accepted logical theory" or any other myth if you like.
This is my last reply to you on this subject because you've offered nothing to support your position, absolutely nothing. I may reply to the last section of your post where you "bothered" yourself to post quotes, if I get time, but only because it's a different topic.
But know this, to change someones words and/or to imply something other than the original intent of those words in order to sensationalize your own position is skulduggery, such deplorable acts seldom go unexposed on this forum.
[QUOTE=Punter127;443611]
But know this, to change someones words and/or to imply something other than the original intent of those words in order to sensationalize your own position is skulduggery, such deplorable acts seldom go unexposed on this forum.[/QUOTE]This is so rich and again hypocritical, you're lecturing me on honestly when you have a history of being called out by other posters here for your own dishonesty and telling "bold face lies". You've exhibited a pattern of saying one thing while doing another but now you're taking a moral high ground to lecture me, please, look in the mirror sir! A few post ago you made the dishonest statement that the attacks seem to be mostly from the left and when I pointed that out to you that it occurs from all sides, you replied that you didn't mean to imply that even though you stated it. You're in absolutely no position to lecture me about honesty with your track record here. I used your own words against you, I said what you said and came to a conclusion and offered plenty to support my point. You refused to accept them because of your ideology. So good to know that you know you're deplorable acts seldom go unexposed on this forum, you should take note of it.
[QUOTE=Punter127;443611]
What we've been discussing is being an Independent voter, not impartiality. I am definitely not an impartial voter, and I never claimed to be.[/QUOTE]We've come full circle on this and you've made my point. Initially I made a statement to another poster and said no independent person could deny it. You chimed in and said you were independent and denied the statement. You made the independent claim presumably to give you credibility with the point you were making because being independent would somehow make you impartial. I said you were not independent because all your post here is about bashing Obama and the Democrats while elevating Republicans I told you that you had made up your mind and therefore not independent.
I did not seek you out and challenge your party affiliation, if I did then you could make the argument you 're making. I responded to you in the context of the original post and said you were an Obama / Democratic Party basher and therefore not independent, but all along it was in the context of this discussion. Now you're trying to spin it to your advantage. Bill O'Reilly does this nightly on his show and most fair minded people knows he is a shill and not independent despite his claim of being one. The fact that you now admit you're not an impartial voter is what the discussion was about all along and you know it because I told you that your bias against the Democrats meant you were not an independent as your mind was made up.
I also told you that if another poster here, claimed to be independent but bashed the GOP at every turn while praising the Democrats at will, you and others would rightly call him out for being a partisan. There's no denying that.
[QUOTE=Punter127;443611]
I doubt you can find any independent voters who are completely impartial. Some may try, but who is really completely impartial?[/QUOTE]You're so wrong about this! By default and by definition true independents are impartial unlike you. That's why they are independent because they don't vote party lines, they vote for the candidates they want or like not the party because they are true independents.
Fellow Mongers,
In my last post I said I would not reply to RcC on the subject of independent voters and I'm not going to, primarily because I think I've proven my point. But I am going to point out a few discrepancies in RcC's statements and you can judge for yourselves who is and who isn't being deceptive here.
Todays post;.
[QUOTE=RcCollins;443623]A few post ago you made the dishonest statement that the attacks seem to be mostly from the left and when I pointed that out to you that it occurs from all sides, you replied that you didn't mean to imply that even though you stated it.[/QUOTE]Now the actual post.
[QUOTE=Punter127;443452]
I just don't understand why you and so many others on the left seem to be unable to hold a debate or discussion without turning to insults. It seems every time you can't make a point or if someone disagrees, here come the insults. How Pathetic![/QUOTE]Clearly stated as an observation and an opinion not an absolute fact. Note the word "seems".
RcC.
[QUOTE=RcCollins;443463]I just don't understand why people don't look at the man in the mirror before they launched these partisans attacks. Many on all sides including independents attack, its not a one way street.[/QUOTE]I replied with a clarification:
[QUOTE=Punter127;443473]I do agree it's not a oneway street and I did not intend to imply it was, but there just seems to be much more of it from the left on this forum. That's just my opinion. [/QUOTE]Apparently he doesn't understand the meaning of the word "seems".
Today he claims his original statement (the one that started all this) was:
[QUOTE=RcCollins;443623]Initially I made a statement to another poster and said no [highlight]independent person could deny it.[/highlight] [/QUOTE]And here is his real original statement:
[QUOTE=RcCollins;441532]Setting your verbal gymnastics aside, the statement below is a factual conclusion [highlight]no independent voter can deny.[/highlight] [/QUOTE]And my reply;.
[QUOTE=Punter127;441551]I'm a (registered) "independent voter" and I deny your so called "factual conclusion", I view your statement as an "argument from ignorance" because it can't be proven or disproven. [/QUOTE]I didn't state or imply impartiality.
RcC seems to have a very convenient memory, but he does make an excellent case for always being "bothered" to use actual quotes.
I'm fairly sure we'll have to endure at least one more unsubstantiated tirade from Mr. RcC. But as far as I'm concerned unless he can substantiate his claims his rants are meaningless.
Time to move on.
Thought some of you guys might like this. Bad Lip Reading of the 2012 Presidential Debates.
[URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgmARwtptoo&sns=fb[/URL]
[QUOTE=Punter127;443452][B]You really can't possibly imagine how much I don't care what you think![/B]
But what in the fuck would a pathetic little loser like you know about intelligent people?
snip- well you can just go fuck yourself for all I care.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Punter127;443478]Bullshit!
You started by post this right behind one of my post.
Btw I'm finished arguing with you, you can have the last insult.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Punter127;441617]You just don't get it do you? snip
. So you can scream your meaningless opinion from the fucking roof tops if you like, snip.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Punter127;443629]
I'm fairly sure we'll have to endure at least one more unsubstantiated tirade from Mr. RcC. But as far as I'm concerned unless he can substantiate his claims his rants are meaningless.
Time to move on.[/QUOTE]You are accusing someone of tirades and rants, the king of tirades and rants? Most accusations you make can be turned right back at you, hypocritical they are. In the very post you start off by stating that you're not going to address the independent voter issue, then you contradicted yourself by doing so. Once again proving your words are meaningless as you typically say and do the opposite thing.
You should thank me for guiding you to having a civil discussion where you 'weren't flipping out with anger, you're welcome.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;443534]Punter, a mutual acquaintance told me you hail from the same state as I do. If you still vote there, you might want to consider the Democrat candidates for the Criminal Court of Appeals, especially for the positions where no Libertarian is running. I suspect they're more likely to implement the liberal ideals you and I believe in, although to be honest I've never studied the positions of the individual candidates.[/QUOTE]Thanks for the suggestion, despite the bogus picture some try to paint of me I always try to look at all the candidates. The only time I rule out a candidate by party (applies both main parties) is if I think they will let the party bosses control them, like so many of the Blue Dog Democrats did.
I'll give your suggestion some thought.
BTW, I agree that you and I fit the definition of true liberals, but I stopped saying I'm a liberal long ago because IMHO the left-wingers have hijacked the word and bastardized it. Similar to what some are trying to do with the definition of an independent voter.
[QUOTE=Punter127;443452]I just don't understand why you and so many others on the left seem to be unable to hold a debate or discussion without turning to insults. It seems every time you can't make a point or if someone disagrees, here come the insults. How Pathetic![/QUOTE]Hear! Hear!
Thank You!
Jax
A TKO for RC Collins.
The word "seems", lost in the torrent of accusations & allegations. The escape clause! Whitewashing of verbal abuse, sugar-coated as metaphors and humor when confronted. Bogus!! For sure, nailed to the cross.
[QUOTE=Punter127;443634]Thanks for the suggestion, despite the bogus picture some try to paint of me I always try to look at all the candidates. The only time I rule out a candidate by party (applies both main parties) is if I think they will let the party bosses control them, like so many of the Blue Dog Democrats did.
I'll give your suggestion some thought.
BTW, I agree that you and I fit the definition of true liberals, but I stopped saying I'm a liberal long ago because IMHO the left-wingers have hijacked the word and bastardized it. Similar to what some are trying to do with the definition of an independent voter.[/QUOTE]I believe most Democrats promote policies that are bad for the economy and bad for me. Normally I don't vote for them at the national level. I used to vote for a Democrat Congressman who shared my views on many issues and was not, at first, controlled by party bosses. In hindsight maybe I should have voted for Clinton when he ran against Dole. Except for raising taxes, Clinton did most things right. He might not have, though, if it weren't for Republicans in Congress.
When it comes to crime and punishment, Democrats on the whole are more in line with my way of thinking than mainstream Republicans. They're not as inclined to lock people up and throw away the key, make possession of pot a felony, impose the death penalty, allow the police to stop you in your car and take and keep all your money without ever charging you, etc. That's why I've voted for them for the Criminal Court of Appeals.
Anyway, your "affiliation" as an Independent means you think for yourself, and that should be applauded. There are too many people out there, both Democrats and Republicans, who don't, and who reflexively support ANY policy and any candidate promoted by their party. That's just bad.
The way the White House and congress is situated now I don't think much is going to happen the next 2 years.
Pres. Obama and the Dems want:
2 yr. Free junior college, tax the rich, paid medical leave, babysitting reimbursement, raise the minimum wage, vocational training, etc.
Republicans want:
Keystone XL Pipeline, stop abortions, NO immigration bill, stop gay marriages etc.
I don't think any of these programs or ideas are going to pass. Obama will be doing a lot of vetoeing and congress and be doing a lot of blocking of these bills.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;443644]I believe most Democrats promote policies that are bad for the economy and bad for me. Normally I don't vote for them at the national level. I used to vote for a Democrat Congressman who shared my views on many issues and was not, at first, controlled by party bosses. In hindsight maybe I should have voted for Clinton when he ran against Dole. Except for raising taxes, Clinton did most things right. He might not have, though, if it weren't for Republicans in Congress.
When it comes to crime and punishment, Democrats on the whole are more in line with my way of thinking than mainstream Republicans. They're not as inclined to lock people up and throw away the key, make possession of pot a felony, impose the death penalty, allow the police to stop you in your car and take and keep all your money without ever charging you, etc. That's why I've voted for them for the Criminal Court of Appeals.[/QUOTE]I agree with you about Democrat policies and will go a step farther and say some of those policies are bad for the American people and often go against our founding principles. The 1996 election was one of those elections where I wanted to vote "none of the above".
I never thought Dole would make a good president and I didn't see Perot a viable option. I saw Clinton as to far to the left especially on health care and the Second Amendment. But I think you're right about the Republicans in Congress keeping him in check. But I also felt both he and the Republicans had sold out the American people with NAFTA. However I must praise him for moving to the center and working with the Republican Congress after the failure of Hillary care.
When it comes to crime and punishment I have mixed emotions. I think there are some crimes heinous enough to warrant the death penalty especially violent crime against children. But I can certainly understand why some people don't support it. I just don't have much sympathy for those who commit violent crimes or repeat offenders.
Having said that I think we have a lot of crimes that should not be considered crimes. For example I think recreational drugs and prostitution should be legal, I believe in euthanasia and the right to die, it's your body and I support individual rights, as long as you don't hurt other people. I also strongly oppose the militarization of local police agencies, if conditions deteriorate to the point of needing military type forces we should utilize the National Guard. The police should be protecters not intimidators, and they should strive to be part of the community and not an occupying force.
While I agree with your thinking about judges, the problem is they can be limited and controlled by the legislative branch with laws such as mandatory sentencing. But it's a good idea for as long as it last.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;443644]There are too many people out there, both Democrats and Republicans, who don't, and who reflexively support ANY policy and any candidate promoted by their party. That's just bad.[/QUOTE]I could not agree more, it seems like they think of it as a sport, their team can do no wrong and wining is everything.
[QUOTE=RevBS;443641]A TKO for RC Collins.
The word "seems", lost in the torrent of accusations & allegations. The escape clause! Whitewashing of verbal abuse, sugar-coated as metaphors and humor when confronted. Bogus!! For sure, nailed to the cross.[/QUOTE]Thanks Rev, you nailed it! Did you see the State of the Union Speech, if so what are your thoughts?
[URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cse5cCGuHmE[/URL]
[URL]http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/01/23/could-john-kasichs-balanced-budget-tour-set-up-2016-bid/[/URL]
Why not? History points to a Republican win in 2016 but they will be bog down by the Immigration swamp that they are so unwilling to compromise on. Romney or Bush? If so, you are saying you really want Hilary Clinton? If not, who? Rubio should be selling lemonade and Cruz, fajitas. But here's a guy that maybe I could check out and be happy with. Obama has set the stage for the US to strengthen and progress forward, and Kasich can cement it with a pragmatic approach.
Upon further review.
[QUOTE=RevBS;443660][URL]http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/01/23/could-john-kasichs-balanced-budget-tour-set-up-2016-bid/[/URL]
Why not? History points to a Republican win in 2016 but they will be bog down by the Immigration swamp that they are so unwilling to compromise on. Romney or Bush? If so, you are saying you really want Hilary Clinton? If not, who? Rubio should be selling lemonade and Cruz, fajitas. But here's a guy that maybe I could check out and be happy with. Obama has set the stage for the US to strengthen and progress forward, and Kasich can cement it with a pragmatic approach.
Upon further review.[/QUOTE]Kasich might be my top pick for President for 2016, who I believe would do the best job of the possible candidates. He was re-elected governor of Ohio in 2014 by 30 percentage points. This is despite him being a Republican, and Ohio voting for Obama in 2008 and 2012. He took on the teacher's unions, repealed the estate tax, cut the income tax, and balanced the budget four years in a row.
[URL]http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/01/republicans_comparing_barack_obama_to_hitler_my_favorite_examples_of_the.htmlere[/URL]
Yes, we are all capable of saying stupid stuff, especially when we are angry. And there are more than enough people who are mad at Obama. Enough to even compare Obama to Hitler. Some of you might recognize yourselves in this article. I mean in the mirror.
[size=+1][B]"RATINGS: FOX #1 FOR 13TH YEAR, MSNBC COLLAPSES BY DOUBLE DIGITS"[/B][/size]
[QUOTE]Ratings for January 2015 show that for the 13th year in a row Fox News beat its left-wing competition at CNN and MSNBC. Fox is the leader in all areas: total viewers and demo viewers. MSNBC had a terrible January, [u]losing -23% of total viewers and -39% of demo viewers in primetime [/u]compared to January of last year. CNN boosted its viewership by double digits but had nowhere to go but up.
CNNs turn to the political left is obviously draining viewers away from MSNBC. CNN has beat MSNBC for seven consecutive months now.
Despite being blacked out from millions of potential viewers due to a (now resolved) dispute with Dish Network for three weeks in this ratings period of January, [b]Fox News is still king.[/b][/QUOTE]If you go back and RTFF you would find what [U]seems[/U] like endless attacks on Fox News, and an attempt to paint Fox as the worst news outlet ever. But how do you stay number one for thirteen fucking years in a row if you're not doing something right?
The attacks on Fox News are nothing more than just another attempt by progressives to destroy the credibility of anyone who stands to the right or just disagrees with them, IMHO.
The only American news station I happen to have is Fox. I have not allowed it to discourage my outlook on life and people. Since the channel is right next to Bloomberg, I do stop there occasionally to get a dose of morning sickness. And to put a crimp on the cobra under my pajamas. Lately, Hannity and O'Reilly have their lost their potency. Now, the sure cure is Megyn Kelley. Her slightly nasal hard tone combined with the stridency of her rapid-fire delivery is the antidote to any aspiring hardness.
Yes, you could make a case about the authenticity of my promising cobra head but that is irrelevant. It is just sad to report that I have witnessed the evolution and loss of american femininity in the course of my life. And it is spreading fast.
The idea that high ratings equates to creditably is so cartoonish that Jerry Springer who has a show with absolutely no redeeming value or credibility but a higher rating that all news shows (including Fox) combined would find this conclusion illogical. Less than 10% of the American populous consistently watch cable news show or are regular devoted viewers so that is the number being fought over here.
Don't remember anyone here attacking Fox but do recall members, myself including saying that Fox was not fair nor credible. Prior to the 2012 elections, every Karl (Rove) Dick (Morris) and Hannity on Fox told their audience the election was in the bag for Romney. They said this despite all the polls that showed Romney was going to lose. We all know how that turned out and Dick hasn't been seen on Fox since.
That Fox is fair or creditable is akin to saying that reality shows whose rating are all higher than Fox and all other cable news shows combined are also credible or real because their rating are the highest. As Mike Tyson would say, that's ludicrous. Take note of how many times Fox has erred with erroneous graphics and wording only to offer insincere five second apologies. Notice that their errors are always made to paint the Democrats and Obama in a negative light.
Fox has been the ratings leader in the cable news programs for some time now but despite their high rating and non-stop Obama bashing they couldn't push their candidates over the finish line in the last two national elections. Surely if they has so much credibility they could have been the difference maker, alas they were not. The car crash effect, the confrontations and the female leg shots all have something to do with the ratings as not only conservatives are watching Fox.
Fox is also the leading news organization with erroneous information 31 percent of the time and Forbes found that Fox News voters are the most uninformed. Not hard to see why after the last two national elections.
[URL]http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/[/URL]
[QUOTE=Punter127;443734]
If you go back and RTFF you would find what [U]seems[/U] like endless attacks on Fox News, and an attempt to paint Fox as the worst news outlet ever. But how do you stay number one for thirteen fucking years in a row if you're not doing something right?
The attacks on Fox News are nothing more than just another attempt by progressives to destroy the credibility of anyone who stands to the right or just disagrees with them, IMHO.[/QUOTE]Fox News is essentially the "news" equivalent of the WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment). All intelligent people understand that both Fox News and the WWE are fake and not to be taken seriously are useful merely for their entertainment value. Not coincidentally Fox New's viewer base is probably identical to the WWE's view base.
I am heading to San Diego, Calif. Do you have a thread for domestic citys?
MSNBC is essentially the "news" equivalent of the WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment). All intelligent people understand that both MSNBC and the WWE are fake and not to be taken seriously are useful merely for their entertainment value. Not coincidentally MSNBC's viewer base is probably identical to the WWE's view base.
[QUOTE=Jackson;443769]MSNBC is essentially the "news" equivalent of the WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment). All intelligent people understand that both MSNBC and the WWE are fake and not to be taken seriously are useful merely for their entertainment value. Not coincidentally MSNBC's viewer base is probably identical to the WWE's view base.[/QUOTE]This isn't a discussion of the merits of MSNBC. Can you really do no better to defend your beloved Fox News than a name swap? In addition to it being lame, it's not even accurate; I guarantee you that the WWE's viewer base IS NOT the same as MSNBC's viewer base.
Fox News.... LOL! The network being sued by the mayor of Paris for slander.
As RC correctly noted, ratings do not equate with credibility. The main reasons Fox News gets higher TV ratings are (i) more Americans are conservative than liberal, (ii) Fox is the only conservative channel among the major media players, and (iii) the conservative demographic is older, and older people are more likely to get their news from TV than from the internet. If you look up the most popular news websites, Fox comes in at #6 behind Yahoo, Google, Huffington Post, CNN and New York Times.
Fox News ratings are also driven by people who tune in not so much to get the news, but to see how Fox News is spinning the news. I'm in that group, though I've been watching less lately, because I more quickly get turned off by some of the trash they peddle as "news". Though it can be amusing too. I have a friend who I've occasionally watched Fox News with for a few minutes, to see what they are saying, and we've often laughed our asses off.
[QUOTE=Esten;443771]Fox News.... LOL! The network being sued by the mayor of Paris for slander.
As RC correctly noted, ratings do not equate with credibility. The main reasons Fox News gets higher TV ratings are (i) more Americans are conservative than liberal, (ii) Fox is the only conservative channel among the major media players, and (iii) the conservative demographic is older, and older people are more likely to get their news from TV than from the internet. If you look up the most popular news websites, Fox comes in at #6 behind Yahoo, Google, Huffington Post, CNN and New York Times.
Fox News ratings are also driven by people who tune in not so much to get the news, but to see how Fox News is spinning the news. I'm in that group, though I've been watching less lately, because I more quickly get turned off by some of the trash they peddle as "news". Though it can be amusing too. I have a friend who I've occasionally watched Fox News with for a few minutes, to see what they are saying, and we've often laughed our asses off.[/QUOTE]Fox is not being sued by the mayor of Paris for lander, total BS from the master of BS.
Fox kicks their ass hands down. Live with Esten its just a fact even though you don't seem to like it. Know what they say in Poland about that Esten, Tough Shitsky.
[QUOTE=Jackson;443389]More propaganda from the King of Propaganda.
First, as we've all discussed in the past, the official unemployment rate is an inaccurate count of the number of people who claim to be looking for work. In other words, if everybody without a job just stopped looking for a job tomorrow, we'd have an unemployment rate of ZERO. The only number that counts is the percentage of citizens who are working, and that number is at 62.7% for Dec 2014, down slightly from 62.8% in Dec 2013.
[URL]http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm[/URL]
Second, we could have been looking at these kind of numbers four years ago if Obama hadn't buttfucked every taxpayer and every employer in the country by borowing trillions of dollars to give to his constituents and by shoving Obamacare up the country's collective asses.
Third, the reason we are now FINALLY showing some signs of economic improvement (abet 4 years late) is because A) the new Republican majority in the Congress has given the job creators in the country reason to be optimistic in the knowledge that Obama'a radical agenda has now been thwarted, and B) oil production on PRIVATE land in the USA has driven down the price of energy, no thanks to Obama.[/QUOTE]Approximately 2.7 to 3 million additional jobs were created in 2014. A new working paper from the nonpartisan National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) indicates 1.8 million of these jobs resulted from cuts in unemployment benefits:
[URL]http://papers.nber.org/tmp/67070-w20884.pdf[/URL]
These cuts in the length of time of unemployment benefits resulted from the Republican House of Representatives refusing to renew programs that expired, and the cuts were fought tooth and nail by Obama.
So the job growth is analogous to your comment about Obama taking credit for increases in oil and gas production. It happened in spite of his policies, not because of them. And, as shown by your Bureau of Labor Statistics link, given the increase in population, the level of job growth wasn't that impressive anyway.
How was it when Bush and his cronies were in office?
[QUOTE=Tiny12;443776]Approximately 2.7 to 3 million additional jobs were created in 2014. A new working paper from the nonpartisan National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) indicates 1.8 million of these jobs resulted from cuts in unemployment benefits:
[URL]http://papers.nber.org/tmp/67070-w20884.pdf[/URL]
These cuts in the length of time of unemployment benefits resulted from the Republican House of Representatives refusing to renew programs that expired, and the cuts were fought tooth and nail by Obama.
So the job growth is analogous to your comment about Obama taking credit for increases in oil and gas production. It happened in spite of his policies, not because of them. And, as shown by your Bureau of Labor Statistics link, given the increase in population, the level of job growth wasn't that impressive anyway.[/QUOTE]
What are the ratings for each State and City.
I tried to find out, but only could find out that FOX are in about 15 or so foreign countries. MSNBC are in about 5.
I would say those stations were bought by Koch (aka COKE Brothers), Murdoch and can in still their bullshit to mid western and southern TV and radio stations, they have more money the Demos.
I am sure the Democrats do not have the money to buy TV and Radio stations like the right can. The workers can not afford to give away their little wages to support the working class party.
I hope you all watch the History channel, because what happen in the past is now happening. Someone said lest we forget the past we will repeat in.
[URL]http://www.history.com/shows/sons-of-liberty/videos/a-dangerous-game?m=5189717d404fa&s=All&f=1&free=false&mkwid=rn6JcTCe|c_pcrid_4313595070_pkw_sons%20of%20liberty%20history%20channel_pmt_e&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_term=sons%20of%20liberty%20history%20channel&utm_campaign=M_Sons[/URL]+of+Liberty&paidlink=1&cmpid=PaidSearch_bing_M_Sons+of+Liberty_sons%20 of%20 liberty%20 history%20 channel.
What Southern States were there at that time still did not support the Colonials. Same as now!
[QUOTE=Punter127;443734]
If you go back and RTFF you would find what [U]seems[/U] like endless attacks on Fox News, and an attempt to paint Fox as the worst news outlet ever. But how do you stay number one for thirteen fucking years in a row if you're not doing something right?
The attacks on Fox News are nothing more than just another attempt by progressives to destroy the credibility of anyone who stands to the right or just disagrees with them, IMHO.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;443780]How was it when Bush and his cronies were in office?[/QUOTE]Agreed. However if someone put a gun to my head and told me I had to vote for Bush or Obama, I'd vote for Bush.
Both these goldman sachs / JPMorgan shills are worthless sock puppets. But as long as there is an " illusion " of choice we're good. And by good I mean good and fucked.
When I've compared some on the left to Chavistas or to Kirchneristas, I didn't really believe it. I was just trying to piss you off. But now I'm beginning to wonder, based on your posts in the Corruption in Argentina thread. As a card carrying member of the American Civil Liberties Union, I contributed to protecting free speech of groups and causes I hated. You on the other hand feel compelled to take freedom of speech away from anyone you disagree with.
The United States has one television news organization that's right of center, Fox News. It has one that's far left (MSNBC) and four that are somewhat left of center (CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC). Fox gets more viewers than any of the others. So what's the solution? Ban purchase of media properties by rich people like Rupert Murdoch, or take away their right to exercise free speech. This is something right out of the playbook of Chavez or Kirchner.
How about Citizens United? They produced and presented a film bashing Hillary Clinton, and aired commercials to promote the film. They of course should be shut down. Michael Moore however had every right to air and promote Fahrenheit 9/11, which was critical of Bush.
Unions and groups of attorneys should be able to exercise their rights to free speech to sway political thought, but businesses should not.
Here's an interesting poll. Scroll about 1/4 down the page until you see the section on Hate Speech:
[URL]https://today.yougov.com/news/2014/10/02/america-divided-hate-speech-laws/[/URL]
Please note that 51% of Democrats would make it a crime to say things that most of us here would find reprehensible. On the other hand, 53% of Independents and 49% of Republicans would protect free speech, even when it involves sexism, racism, homophobia, genocide, etc. This shows something about the mindset of the left vs. Independents and Republicans.
Jackson, I wish you'd quit mis-using the word liberal. Your detractors are anything but.
For accurate score keeping or for those who care, Fox is the leader in the cable news networks wars (MSNBC, CNN, CNBC, Fox) not against the broadcast channels like ABC, NBC and CBS as reported below. NBC news is the current leader followed by ABC then CBS.
I've criticised him before, but credit where credit is due, I agree with him for once.
[URL]http://aattp.org/all-aboard-the-crazy-train-ben-carson-is-now-the-only-gop-voice-of-reason-on-vaccines/[/URL]
I consider posting in this forum a waste of time but I'll give it another try.
Don B.
[URL]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peterschwartz/religion-freedom-and-the-_b_6598524.html[/URL]
DonB the cited article is a reasonable explanation of the differences and a pretty good definition of "moderate Muslim", of which there appear to be few.
As the article points out the Muslim world not experience a similar renaissance as occurred in Europe, breaking down total religious authority resulting in a gradual movement to personal freedom, but remained tied a single political system dictated by their religion therefore leaving them perpetually locked in the 13th century as the rest of the western world moved on.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;443775]Fox is not being sued by the mayor of Paris for lander, total BS from the master of BS.[/QUOTE]
Paris mayor Anne Hidalgo: We intend to sue Fox News
[URL]http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/20/media/paris-mayor-sue-fox-news/[/URL]
CNN analyst urges Fox to settle Paris lawsuit: Unlike US, French have 'criminalized' slander
[URL]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d0b_1421786649[/URL]
Doppel, Fox News likely won't tell you about the lawsuit. It was covered by other networks though. If your point is that the lawsuit is not filed, let's just say the mayor of Paris is [I]planning[/I] to sue Fox News. Check out this Youtube news clip from CNN. First you have a CNN Legal Analyst stating that Fox News was embarrassed, humiliated, and is a JOKE in France (emphasis his). Then later at around 3:40 in the video there's a clip from a TV show in France that is mocking Fox News. They had some guy dressed up as a Fox News reporter out on the streets of Paris, pretty funny. [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPxlxZ7FvNg[/URL].
Every day Fox has some new or recycled garbage. I tuned in today for a few minutes, what do I hear but Bill O'Reilly giving his "Obama has no strategy against ISIS" monologue for the umpteenth time. His point is that because ISIS continues to release more videos, obviously Obama must not have a strategy. I can't fathom what kind of viewer actually believes such a superficial argument, but probably some Fox viewers do. In fact the reality is quite opposite, Obama has a smart strategy of not rushing in to be the world's policeman again and do all the work, but engaging and assisting a regional and global coalition to unite against them. I laughed out loud when O'Reilly then said that Susan Rice was about to give a speech on strategy, and that he believed Fox News was responsible for the Obama administration finally developing a strategy. LOL!!
[URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/05/fashion/the-bruce-jenner-story-goes-from-gossip-to-news.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&[/URL]
1976, Montreal Olympic Games. I was actually there. I saw Bruce Jenner won the gold medal in the decathlon. He was Mr. America, and now or soon to be, he will be Ms. America. I have seen it all now, I can die happy.
Perhaps he got involved with the East German women & steroids. They won 10 out of 14 women track & field finals. But then, the steroids are about masculine hormones, very puzzling. Oh, I got it! It's the evolution of the American man, soon to be in every family & household. You see, he is surrounded by a nest of dominant women who made all the decisions and gets all the media attention. Who cares about an ex-Olympian jock! Like plants, being out of the sunlight, they shrivel & fade away. Let's see what happen to Lamar Odom, then we will know for sure.
Lucky I get all the sun I need from my tennis. I think I will be a cactus.
On Sunday, Jan 11, dozens of world leaders linked arms and marched in solidarity for freedom of the press and to honor those who were killed by terrorists last week. The rally was a response to the massacre at the office of Charlie Hebdo, which was targeted for publishing cartoons mocking the prophet Mohammed. It was the largest demonstration in the history of France.
Don't look for Obama or Biden among the photos of 44 heads of state who locked arms and marched down Boulevard Voltaire in Paris. Nor did they join a companion march the French Embassy organized in Washington on Sunday afternoon.
Read more: [URL]http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/obama-charlie-hebdo-events-no-show-114166.html#ixzz3 QuJbyljE[/url].
[B]Jon Stewart Mocks Obama For Not Participating In Paris Rally: 'Unbelievable![/B]
[URL]http://www.business2community.com/government-politics/jon-stewart-slams-obama-participating-paris-rally-unbelievable-01123096[/URL]
[B]Anderson Cooper Mocks Obama, Biden For Skipping Paris March.[/B]
[URL]http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/01/13/anderson-cooper-mocks-obama-biden-for-skipping-paris-march/[/URL]
[B]Barack Obama's French kiss-off.[/B]
[URL]http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/obama-charlie-hebdo-events-no-show-114166.html[/URL]
"I wish our US President had gone to Paris to stand with our European allies," tweeted James Stavridis, the retired Navy admiral and current dean of Tufts University's Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.
"It's stunning, truly stunning," said Aaron David Miller, who among other responsibilities during his time at the State Department under both Republican and Democratic administrations, helped deliberate over which officials to send to which events. "It's a poster child for tone deafness. ".
Raising hell, reminding us about abuses committed in the name of Christianity.
[URL]http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obamas-speech-at-prayer-breakfast-called-offensive-to-christians/2015/02/05/6a15a240-ad50-11e4-ad71-7b9eba0f87d6_story.html?tid=pm_pop[/URL]
Barack Obama is apparently not Charlie, and everyone's angry about it.
On Sunday, world leaders from 44 nations joined millions of citizens in Paris to honor the victims of last week's terrorist attack on the French magazine Charlie Hebdo. It was the city's largest March since the fall of Nazi Germany in 1944. But one key head of state was conspicuously absent: the president of the United States.
Also absent were Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry, and outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder, who was actually in Paris for a meeting this weekend but still failed attend the massive rally. The USA Ambassador to France, Jane Hartley, did join the March, but that wasn't enough to stave off a wave of anger directed at the Obama administration.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]29442[/ATTACH]
[size=3][B]"[I]You can't handle the Truth![/I]"[/B][/size]