 |
It would be easier for you, but since you made the claim the burden is on you to substantiate it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokugawa
Oh, so you're one of those really, really smart people. What do FEMA death camps have to do with Palin?Quote:
Those of us who have real understanding of the political system know that Palin and Beck are in fact isolating the middle ground. FEMA deathcamps indeed.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
What? That she's an imbecile? Can I take a crack at it?
In the Glenn Beck interview, Beck asked Palin if she'd heard about the Federal Reserve's record profits for last year, and then bemoaned that "nobody's having hearings on the Fed, nobody is looking for a windfall profit tax on the Fed, we can't even open the Fed's books."
Palin responded by thanking Beck for "bringing this to light," adding: "I don't know anybody else who is."
There's a very simple reason why no one else is talking about taxing the Fed's profits or having hearings or even discussing this, because people who know what they're talking about already know that 100 percent of the Fed's profits go to the Treasury. Every single cent.
It's not OK that she doesn't know these things.
excon
Here is what she said about the Fed in her Hong Kong address.
How can we discuss reform without addressing the government policies at the root of the problems? The root of the collapse? And how can we think that setting up the Fed as the monitor of systemic risk in the financial sector will result in meaningful reform?”...“The words 'fox' and 'henhouse' come to mind.... The Fed's decisions helped create the bubble. Look at the root cause of most asset bubbles, and you'll see the Fed somewhere in the background.”.
If I didn't know better I would swear that was Ron Paul making those comments.
It's a case of dumb and dumber and it is a race to find out which is which.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
According to YOU, who are the "bourgoise" and "proletariat"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokugawa
Maybe you should try reading something by G. Washington, T. Jefferson, J, Adams, et al.
Maybe you can tell us why Fox News is destroying the competition if it is so far off base.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skell
The public is deserting the so called "main stream" media because the leftward list is so apparent, and they can't be trusted to tell the truth.
I think its ratings have more to do with its audience than its substance.
And how does it acquire its growing audience, oh media guru?Quote:
Originally Posted by Skell
Fox News Dominates 3Q 2009 Cable News RatingsQuote:
Fox News averaged 2.25 million total viewers in prime time for the third quarter, up 2% over the previous year. That's more than CNN (946,000, down 30%) and MSNBC (788,000, down 10%) combined.
"The O'Reilly Factor" led all cable news programs with an average of 3.295 million total viewers for the quarter, up 12% over the previous year. "Hannity" (2.603 million, up 9%), "Glenn Beck" (2.403 million, up 89%), "On the Record with Greta van Susteren" (2.150 million, up 16%), and "Special Report with Bret Baier" (1.997 million, up 20%) rounded out the top five.
Meanwhile, flagship programs at MSNBC and CNN did not sustain their growth from 3Q 2008: At MSNBC, "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" averaged 1.087 million total viewers, down 12% from the previous year and "The Rachel Maddow Show" averaged 996,000 total viewers (Maddow began the program in September 2008, so a comparison for the quarter would be inaccurate; compared to September 2008, though, Maddow's September 2009 total viewer average is down 40%). At CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360" averaged 1.005 million viewers, down 17% from the previous year and "Lou Dobbs" averaged 658,000 total viewers, down 24%. Larry King and Campbell Brown were both down just slightly in total viewers.
CNN in particular had a rough quarter in the primetime Adults 25-54 demo: the network dropped 39% compared to 3Q 2008, averaging 287,000 viewers.
Clearly the dominance of FOX News channel over all it's competitors has more than a so called fringe group of rabid rightwingers watching.
And Fox would not have picked Palin as a commentator if she was without substance. If ratings suffer because she brings nothing to the table I am sure that she will not have this gig for long.
Hello tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Substance does NOT equal ratings, as the stats you point out show. Oh, it's substance for the empty headed masses, but it AIN'T substance for anybody who got beyond the 5th grade.
excon
That Myley Cyrus is incredibly popular isn't she? She must have an important message for the masses.
So Fox just sucked all the dumb right-wing viewers from CNN & MSNBC? What exactly are you implying here Skell?Quote:
Originally Posted by Skell
Hey, I like Miley AND Billy Ray. He's a good guy. You know why she's popular (I mean besides the fact that she appeals to 11 year olds)? So far she's kept her nose pretty clean, and parents would rather their children be fans of someone besides the Britney Spears' and Lindsey Lohans of the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
The Nazi Party was also the most popular party based on the same divisive policy and fear mongering that Fox News does.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
BTW your avatar is a little creepy.
Hello again, Steve:
It's not about substance or not. It's about the CONVERSATION, as I alluded to in my other post...
Just now on Joe Scarborough, the Governor of Mass was asked whether the people understand the health care bill. He said, "well, it's complicated, as you know...."
TODAY is a little late to be thinking about HOW you're going explain this measure, even to people who have MORE than a 5th grade education. Consequently, the dems shot themselves in the foot.
The Republicans explained it in SIMPLE terms, like death panel, that people can understand... The bill will go up or down, NOT based upon its merits, but because of the CONVERSATION about it.
FOX won the conversation... But, don't think for a minute, that it has ANYTHING to do with substance.
excon
What does that have to do with Miley Cyrus? At least FNC isn't calling for cheating against "these bastards" in elections.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Funny, but I never found her creepy at all.Quote:
BTW your avatar is a little creepy.
Yeah your probably right. The masses were sold a bill of goods last November and ate it up .Quote:
Hello tom:
Substance does NOT equal ratings, as the stats you point out show. Oh, it's substance for the empty headed masses, but it AIN'T substance for anybody who got beyond the 5th grade.
When I see Cyrus running a State I'll get your point.Quote:
That Myley Cyrus is incredibly popular isn't she? She must have an important message for the masses.
Obama promised transparency, again and again and again. That was a big part of the CONVERSATION. So far he's been more transparent on telling the world what the US has done to suspected terrorists than he has on health care negotiations.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
The CONVERSATION from the media and Dems in high places was "teabaggers" were Nazis, racist bigots, domestic terrorists and all other manner of vile beings.
If you want to continue discussing the conversation I'm game.
I know you missed the point. :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The teabaggers were the ones carrying the signs accusing the other side of being nazis.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I don't think you realize when I'm saying that you won.
excon
That was Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
I know you're saying that, just not discussing the conversation from the other side. They're both relevant... and it's far from over.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
The CONVERSATION, as evidenced right here, is that the OTHER guy said it... Whereas, in reality, BOTH sides said it. And, IT became the subject of the conversation, - rather than the underlying policies, and IT remains so to this day, again, as evidenced by OUR conversations right smack here.
That means, YOU WON the conversation. Don't for a minute, though, think you did it because you're RIGHT. You're NOT. You're just better at grabbing sound bites.
excon
And again the difference is 'our side' condemns idiots on ]our side' that may carry an Obama sign with a Hitler mustache, while the other side labels us all.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I think in this case the left was just too good at shooting themselves in the foot. Portraying us as "domestic terrorists" and such, showing news footage to portray us as racist bigots while hiding the fact it was a black man they were filming, shamelessly fawning over Obama like an 11-year-old in the presence of Miley Cyrus, and more importantly, shamelessly ignoring the will of the people.Quote:
That means, YOU WON the conversation. Don't for a minute, though, think you did it because you're RIGHT. You're NOT. You're just better at grabbing sound bites.
It must be awfully lonely and cold at the altitude you inhabit.:DQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
You are quite right, I was referring to Beck of course. My apologies. To be fair to Sarah, she did look quite uncomfortable during her interview with Glenn. Particularly when he pulled out his notebook, in which he had written down all the things they had in common (snigger).Quote:
Oh, so you're one of those really, really smart people. What do FEMA death camps have to do with Palin?
This is a common epistemic error, usually espoused by atheists. I have made a claim, to wit, "Sarah Palin has stated no firm political strategy, for ANYTHING!"Quote:
It would be easier for you, but since you made the claim the burden is on you to substantiate it
You counter with "show me that this is the case". I say that is absurd. It would be far more useful for you to show me such a strategy, as you obviously know what it is.
Perhaps the distinction could best be shown by visiting your local Court. There is one class of people prosecuting, the other is being prosecuted.Quote:
According to YOU, who are the "bourgoise" and "proletariat"?
I'm sure I will. I did have the chance to read Thomas Paine's "The Rights of Man" last month. Quite inspiring, if incredibly naïve. Perhaps you should like to comment on the first chapter (his rebuke of Burke), which I felt would be well read by those who proclaim the primacy of the original constitution?Quote:
Maybe you should try reading something by G. Washington, T. Jefferson, J, Adams, et al.
Paine ;although instrumental in the revolution ('Common Sense' ) could hardly be called a founding father . By the time of the Constitution he was more in line with the French version of revolution. He in fact was a critic of the Constitution as written.
To best understand the founders rationale I go the 'Federalist Papers 'written by Madison, Hamilton ,and Jay .
Please stick to the original topic 'lest these off-topic posts all get deleted.
Sorry ;no can do .I am devotee of Tangentialism.
Have we ever stayed on topic? Why change now?
Since the clearinghouse deleted posts from another thread.
Thank you tomder55, I will indeed read them when I get the chance. Of course I would not dare to suggest that Paine was a Founding Father, however he is the most "relevant" writer (that is to say, closest to the time, place) I have read, apart from the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution itself.Quote:
To best understand the founders rationale I go the 'Federalist Papers 'written by Madison, Hamilton ,and Jay.
America must be the most fascinating country on earth. Also, the craziest.
Yes. We fight an enemy, defeat him, and then help him up and rebuild his country for him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokugawa
Conservatives want to preserve those liberties embodied in the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution, and those qualities of enterprise and self-reliance that made this country great.
Liberals, who should be properly called progressives or socialists want to change the Constitution by whatever means possible, make government bigger and more intrusive, and make most citizens dependent on government for their every need.
They think that government should make everyone equal.
Free men are not equal and equal men are not free.
galveston, you're a legend.
Now that's a scary avatar.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Just a note on who was more fair and balanced last night, besides the Olbermann and Matthews nonsense. Only one cable news network carried both candidate's speeches in their entirety, the other 2 only carried a fraction of Brown's speech.
http://homepage.mac.com/mkoldys/blog...s/speeches.jpg
I have to say ,Coakley's concession was gracious ,Kirk has been cooperative ,and the Dems did not do the shenanigans I expected to stall the results.
Maybe that was also a political calculation ,however the transfer has been to date by the book.
Here's another one worth remembering:Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
You can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him. [Robert Heinlein]
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:35 AM. |