Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on March 29, 2010, 08:53:01 PM
-
Not surprised.
Fox News' Ratings Grow; CNN, MSNBC Plunge
Monday, 29 Mar 2010
CNN continued its huge plunge in ratings for its prime-time programs in the first quarter of 2010 even as Fox News had its best period ever, The New York Times reported Monday night.
In fact, the trend in news ratings for the first three months of this year was only up for Fox, while MSNBC continued its huge plunge, too.
The data backs up the comments of Fox News host Bill O’Reilly, who told Newsmax.TV in an exclusive interview that CNN is stuck to an old model while MSNBC has hired unpopular “guttersnipes” as hosts who drive viewers away in drives.
Editor's Note: See the exclusive Newsmax interview with Bill O'Reilly in its entirety here.
“CNN basically stayed where they were 10 years ago, they didn’t change with the times,” said O’Reilly, host of "The O’Reilly Factor."
“We live in a very intense country right now, a very difficult time. CNN doesn’t reflect that urgency.”
CNN merely reports the news, O’Reilly points out. They do it well, as evidenced by their Haiti coverage.
But Americans already know the news from the Internet and other sources.
“They want analysis and perspective from a cable network,” O’Reilly explained. “CNN doesn’t give you that.”
As for MSNBC, “They made the key mistake of hiring bad people. It’s as simple as that,” O’Reilly said.
How are they bad? “They have a bunch of guttersnipes on their network, that even if you’re a liberal, which is what they sell, you don’t like these people,” he said.
CNN had a slightly worse quarter in the fourth quarter of 2009, but the last three months have included compelling news events, like the earthquake in Haiti and the battle over health care, and CNN, which emphasizes its hard news coverage, was apparently unable to benefit, the Times reported.
The losses at CNN continued a pattern in place for much of the last year, as the network trailed its competitors in every prime-time hour. (CNN still easily beats MSNBC in the daytime hours, but those are less lucrative in advertising money, and both networks are far behind Fox News at all hours.)
Read the full New York Times story here
http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/cnn-fox-msnbc-ratings/2010/03/29/id/354175
-
CNN continued what has become a precipitous decline in ratings for its prime-time programs in the first quarter of 2010, with its main hosts losing almost half their viewers in a year.
The trend in news ratings for the first three months of this year is all up for one network, the Fox News Channel, which enjoyed its best quarter ever in ratings, and down for both MSNBC and CNN.
CNN had a slightly worse quarter in the fourth quarter of 2009, but the last three months have included compelling news events, like the earthquake in Haiti and the battle over health care, and CNN, which emphasizes its hard news coverage, was apparently unable to benefit.
The losses at CNN continued a pattern in place for much of the last year, as the network trailed its competitors in every prime-time hour. (CNN still easily beats MSNBC in the daytime hours, but those are less lucrative in advertising money, and both networks are far behind Fox News at all hours.)
About the only break from the bad news for CNN was that March was not as bad as February, when the network had its worst single month in its recent history, finishing behind not only Fox News and MSNBC, but also its sister network HLN — and even CNBC, which had Olympics programming that month.
CNN executives have steadfastly said that they will not change their approach to prime-time programs, which are led by hosts not aligned with any partisan point of view.
But the numbers are stark: For the network’s longest-running host, Larry King, who has always been regarded at CNN as the centerpiece of prime time because he drew the biggest audiences at 9 p.m., the quarter was his worst ever.
Mr. King’s audience dropped 43 percent for the quarter and 52 percent in March. He dropped to 771,000 viewers for the quarter from 1.34 million in 2009. More alarming perhaps, Mr. King, whose show has been regularly eclipsed by Rachel Maddow’s on MSNBC (and is almost quadrupled by Sean Hannity’s show on Fox), is now threatened by a new host, Joy Behar on HLN (formerly Headline News.)
In her first full quarter competing with Mr. King at 9 p.m. Ms. Behar wound up beating him in the ratings 21 times.
CNN has given no indication that any changes in its lineup are imminent, but recently announced that it would try a series of specials in a talk-show format at 11 p.m. with its current 10 p.m. host, Anderson Cooper. The specials are interpreted by some at the network as a trial run for a new 9 p.m. show with Mr. Cooper.
Mr. Cooper has long been regarded as the strongest host at CNN, but his show has suffered badly as well. For the quarter, Mr. Cooper dropped 42 percent in viewers and 46 percent among the 25-to-54-year-old audience that the news channels use for their sales to advertisers.
In the past, CNN relied on big audiences for Mr. King’s show to deliver viewers to Mr. Cooper. Now Mr. Cooper sometimes finds himself losing to repeats of shows on MSNBC and HLN. (At the other end of prime time, Campbell Brown’s show on CNN at 8 had its worst quarter ever with the 25-to-54-year-old audience.)
Even in the morning, CNN is sliding. Its “American Morning” show dropped behind “Morning Joe” on MSNBC in total viewers for the first time; it still beat the MSNBC show among 25- to 54-year-olds, though it was down 29 percent from a year earlier.
At the same time, Fox News, which had its biggest year in 2009, continues to add viewers. Greta Van Susteren’s show was up 25 percent from a year earlier. Bill O’Reilly, whose show commands the biggest audience in prime time with 3.65 million viewers, was up 28 percent, and Glenn Beck was up 50 percent from a year earlier.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/business/media/30cnn.html?scp=2&sq=larry%20king&st=cse
-
CNN RATINGS FALL
CNN continued what has become a precipitous decline in ratings for its prime-time programs in the first quarter of 2010, with its main hosts losing almost half their viewers in a year.
The trend in news ratings for the first three months of this year is all up for one network, the Fox News Channel, which enjoyed its best quarter ever in ratings, and down for both MSNBC and CNN.
CNN had a slightly worse quarter in the fourth quarter of 2009, but the last three months have included compelling news events, like the earthquake in Haiti and the battle over health care, and CNN, which emphasizes its hard news coverage, was apparently unable to benefit.
The losses at CNN continued a pattern in place for much of the last year, as the network trailed its competitors in every prime-time hour. (CNN still easily beats MSNBC in the daytime hours, but those are less lucrative in advertising money, and both networks are far behind Fox News at all hours.)
About the only break from the bad news for CNN was that March was not as bad as February, when the network had its worst single month in its recent history, finishing behind not only Fox News and MSNBC, but also its sister network HLN — and even CNBC, which had Olympics programming that month.
CNN executives have steadfastly said that they will not change their approach to prime-time programs, which are led by hosts not aligned with any partisan point of view.
But the numbers are stark: For the network’s longest-running host, Larry King, who has always been regarded at CNN as the centerpiece of prime time because he drew the biggest audiences at 9 p.m., the quarter was his worst ever.
Mr. King’s audience dropped 43 percent for the quarter and 52 percent in March. He dropped to 771,000 viewers for the quarter from 1.34 million in 2009. More alarming perhaps, Mr. King, whose show has been regularly eclipsed by Rachel Maddow’s on MSNBC (and is almost quadrupled by Sean Hannity’s show on Fox), is now threatened by a new host, Joy Behar on HLN (formerly Headline News.)
In her first full quarter competing with Mr. King at 9 p.m. Ms. Behar wound up beating him in the ratings 21 times.
CNN has given no indication that any changes in its lineup are imminent, but recently announced that it would try a series of specials in a talk-show format at 11 p.m. with its current 10 p.m. host, Anderson Cooper. The specials are interpreted by some at the network as a trial run for a new 9 p.m. show with Mr. Cooper.
Mr. Cooper has long been regarded as the strongest host at CNN, but his show has suffered badly as well. For the quarter, Mr. Cooper dropped 42 percent in viewers and 46 percent among the 25-to-54-year-old audience that the news channels use for their sales to advertisers.
In the past, CNN relied on big audiences for Mr. King’s show to deliver viewers to Mr. Cooper. Now Mr. Cooper sometimes finds himself losing to repeats of shows on MSNBC and HLN. (At the other end of prime time, Campbell Brown’s show on CNN at 8 had its worst quarter ever with the 25-to-54-year-old audience.)
Even in the morning, CNN is sliding. Its “American Morning” show dropped behind “Morning Joe” on MSNBC in total viewers for the first time; it still beat the MSNBC show among 25- to 54-year-olds, though it was down 29 percent from a year earlier.
At the same time, Fox News, which had its biggest year in 2009, continues to add viewers. Greta Van Susteren’s show was up 25 percent from a year earlier. Bill O’Reilly, whose show commands the biggest audience in prime time with 3.65 million viewers, was up 28 percent, and Glenn Beck was up 50 percent from a year earlier.
.......
hA,HA HA HA,take a look at the last paragraph.Beck up 50% despite the grave predictions from Get Big libs that will be off the air.MSNBC and CNN,as the entire left wing media are failures!!!Air America,THE NEW YORK TIMES they are all failing by record numbers,yet FOX thrives.
-
Most people who care about news get their hard info from the web and listen to cable or radio for analysis and entertainment. Fox is very entertaining since they have a debate with many people.
MSNBC is just unwatchable on any level. CNN is just boring as hell.
-
Greta has a very good show. She doesnt have the hysterics or bs that BOR or Hannity does.
-
CNN executives have steadfastly said that they will not change their approach to prime-time programs, which are led by hosts not aligned with any partisan point of view.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/business/media/30cnn.html?scp=2&sq=larry%20king&st=cse
::) ::) ::)
-
::) ::) ::)
Even funnier is that a commercial on MSNBC has that dope Maddow saying "Im not an idealogue"ha,ha are you kidding me?She says "Im not an activist".This is part of the reason they cant get ratings.They are liars.Hannity says "Im conservative" Beck says "Im conservative" Rush says "Im conservative".Maddow says "Im not an idealogue".How can you take ANYTHING they say seriously after that?They have to lie about what they are.
-
Even funnier is that a commercial on MSNBC has that dope Maddow saying "Im not an idealogue"ha,ha are you kidding me?She says "Im not an activist".This is part of the reason they cant get ratings.They are liars.Hannity says "Im conservative" Beck says "Im conservative" Rush says "Im conservative".Maddow says "Im not an idealogue".How can you take ANYTHING they say seriously after that?They have to lie about what they are.
QFT...you come with the quotes Billy I'll give you that. ;D
-
What does this tell us?
Repubs stay home and watch the news, while Dems go out and pound the pavement to get people elected to enact the legislation they desire (no matter how you feel about the legislation).
Dems own the white house and congress and just passed Stim bill and healthcare. And instead of getting off the couch and knocking on doors for the fall GOP contenders, repubs are bragging about how much couch time they spend with their TV watching tv pundits bitch about the libs.
Shocking. It really is. Proof is in the pudding. Repubs sit home and brag about how awesome their recipe is, while the Dems are making their crap sandwiches and feeding them to america. Gop, get off your asses and get some candidates elected before you brag about how awesome your network is. here's a hint... FOX spent 6 straight months campaigning against that healthcare bill, and Obama still passed it. Maybe that formula needs a little tweaking, huh?
-
I could have told you this would happen when Obama won the election. Kind of a no brainer. I'm sure people like Rush were happy as shit that Obama won.
-
What does this tell us?
Repubs stay home and watch the news, while Dems go out and pound the pavement to get people elected to enact the legislation they desire (no matter how you feel about the legislation).
Dems own the white house and congress and just passed Stim bill and healthcare. And instead of getting off the couch and knocking on doors for the fall GOP contenders, repubs are bragging about how much couch time they spend with their TV watching tv pundits bitch about the libs.
Shocking. It really is. Proof is in the pudding. Repubs sit home and brag about how awesome their recipe is, while the Dems are making their crap sandwiches and feeding them to america. Gop, get off your asses and get some candidates elected before you brag about how awesome your network is. here's a hint... FOX spent 6 straight months campaigning against that healthcare bill, and Obama still passed it. Maybe that formula needs a little tweaking, huh?
This is your steller analyisis. The vast majority of people now identify as independent. The vast majority of major elections since the Presidential election have been won by Repubs. The dems are in trouble in November and the Obama bounce is dropping again. Astute political thinking 240.
-
What does this tell us?
Repubs stay home and watch the news, while Dems go out and pound the pavement to get people elected to enact the legislation they desire (no matter how you feel about the legislation).
Dems own the white house and congress and just passed Stim bill and healthcare. And instead of getting off the couch and knocking on doors for the fall GOP contenders, repubs are bragging about how much couch time they spend with their TV watching tv pundits bitch about the libs.
Shocking. It really is. Proof is in the pudding. Repubs sit home and brag about how awesome their recipe is, while the Dems are making their crap sandwiches and feeding them to america. Gop, get off your asses and get some candidates elected before you brag about how awesome your network is. here's a hint... FOX spent 6 straight months campaigning against that healthcare bill, and Obama still passed it. Maybe that formula needs a little tweaking, huh?
You really are a fucking moron.Republicans have just worked 8-10 hour shifts,gone to their kids ballgame and finally get a chance to sit down and relax before going to bed to do it all again so they can pay for Obamas supporters.Meanwhile ,Obamas supporters just got out of bed at 3pm and noware headed down to the corner to drink a 40 and try to bang a white bitch.
You should thank god that republicans continue to do what they do,or the country will be in such an economin freefall that there will be riots on every street corner.
By the way,how is it that shows like American Idol and dancing with the stars get ratings?I doubt the majority of viewrs are republican.
-
What does this tell us?
Repubs stay home and watch the news, while Dems go out and pound the pavement to get people elected to enact the legislation they desire (no matter how you feel about the legislation).
Dems own the white house and congress and just passed Stim bill and healthcare. And instead of getting off the couch and knocking on doors for the fall GOP contenders, repubs are bragging about how much couch time they spend with their TV watching tv pundits bitch about the libs.
Shocking. It really is. Proof is in the pudding. Repubs sit home and brag about how awesome their recipe is, while the Dems are making their crap sandwiches and feeding them to america. Gop, get off your asses and get some candidates elected before you brag about how awesome your network is. here's a hint... FOX spent 6 straight months campaigning against that healthcare bill, and Obama still passed it. Maybe that formula needs a little tweaking, huh?
PLEASE!!!
Fox was killing MSNBC and FOX, during the 2000s, when Bush was President and the GOP had the House and Senate. Did that mean the GOP was better at pounding the pavement and getting people elected and enacting legislation?
We know how Obama passed this garbage, and no news network could have stopped him. Do you really think Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity could have circumvented the bribery (especially of the most recent sellout, Bart Stupak)? All they can do is get the information to the American people and let them make the call from there.
As far as beating the pavement goes, that's EXACTLY what's happening with this Tea Party movement and the Town Hall meetings last year. People are making their voices heard.
-
What does this tell us?
Repubs stay home and watch the news, while Dems go out and pound the pavement to get people elected to enact the legislation they desire (no matter how you feel about the legislation).
Dems own the white house and congress and just passed Stim bill and healthcare. And instead of getting off the couch and knocking on doors for the fall GOP contenders, repubs are bragging about how much couch time they spend with their TV watching tv pundits bitch about the libs.
Shocking. It really is. Proof is in the pudding. Repubs sit home and brag about how awesome their recipe is, while the Dems are making their crap sandwiches and feeding them to america. Gop, get off your asses and get some candidates elected before you brag about how awesome your network is. here's a hint... FOX spent 6 straight months campaigning against that healthcare bill, and Obama still passed it. Maybe that formula needs a little tweaking, huh?
If this is the case, then well, a Republican would never have won a presidential election.
The Dems are pounding something alright, but is not pavement. They are doing the exact same thing that you do when you see Obama on TV. Pounding your mini me with your right hand.
-
lol. Nothing more I can add to this. :)
-
"You really are a fucking moron."
the fact that a fuccking mod read this shit and let it ride.... jeez.
Fuckit. Enjoy your circle jerk here fellas.
-
"You really are a fucking moron."
the fact that a fuccking mod read this shit and let it ride.... jeez.
Fuckit. Enjoy your circle jerk here fellas.
Ummm,that was a goof because you kept asking "where is the your a moron"it was meant as a joke,it wasnt serious.What happened to you,bad day?
-
Ummm,that was a goof because you kept asking "where is the your a moron"it was meant as a joke,it wasnt serious.What happened to you,bad day?
240 needs to realize that when he posts utter bs people are going to call him out on it.
-
240 needs to realize that when he posts utter bs people are going to call him out on it.
My post was meant as a goof towards him almost begging to be insulted in the posts.It wasnt meant to hurt his feelings or insult him.Well,it was meant to insult him,but as a goof on his posts.
-
no, i like to argue, but it sucks to debate topics when I have to read "your a moron" 100 times a day from people who disagree with me on topics.
Top it off with the moderator agreeing with it... well....
fuck it. enjoy the place. but I dont enjoy it like this. 3 or 4 years ago, this place was civil and there wasn't name calling. I argued with beach bum a lot back then, but 99.9% of the time, there wasn't name calling.
Now, it's like I'm getting 'called out' nonstop in every damn thread, and it makes it really annoying and boring to read. So, hey, carry on. if the mods are cool with it, then that must be how the place is now. so be it.
^
Meltdown :)
-
no, i like to argue, but it sucks to debate topics when I have to read "your a moron" 100 times a day from people who disagree with me on topics.
Top it off with the moderator agreeing with it... well....
fuck it. enjoy the place. but I dont enjoy it like this. 3 or 4 years ago, this place was civil and there wasn't name calling. I argued with beach bum a lot back then, but 99.9% of the time, there wasn't name calling.
Now, it's like I'm getting 'called out' nonstop in every damn thread, and it makes it really annoying and boring to read. So, hey, carry on. if the mods are cool with it, then that must be how the place is now. so be it.
I guess some of us dont know which 240 is posting at times.
-
Oh brother. ::) Man up 240. I was not agreeing with anyone calling you a moron. I didn't have anything to add to the folks who addressed the merits of your explanation for why Fox News continues to hammer CNN and MSNBC in the ratings.
I do not believe ad hominem arguments are effective at all.
-
Oh brother. ::) Man up 240. I was not agreeing with anyone calling you a moron. I didn't have anything to add to the folks who addressed the merits of your explanation for why Fox News continues to hammer CNN and MSNBC in the ratings.
I do not believe ad hominem arguments are effective at all.
As Michael Savage says: "More Patton, and less Patent leather."
-
I guess some of us dont know which 240 is posting at times.
^THIS^
try being consistant 240 and I bet it stops happening ;)
Ive said it before and Ill say it again you bring this shit upon yourself with your antics...dont play dumb and then get upset when you get called out on it ::)
-
no, i like to argue, but it sucks to debate topics when I have to read "your a moron" 100 times a day from people who disagree with me on topics.
Top it off with the moderator agreeing with it... well....
fuck it. enjoy the place. but I dont enjoy it like this. 3 or 4 years ago, this place was civil and there wasn't name calling. I argued with beach bum a lot back then, but 99.9% of the time, there wasn't name calling.
Now, it's like I'm getting 'called out' nonstop in every damn thread, and it makes it really annoying and boring to read. So, hey, carry on. if the mods are cool with it, then that must be how the place is now. so be it.
^
Meltdown :)
Your called out because you say things purposely to get a rise.Then,when you get a rise,you pretend your innocent.In one post your saying your a libertarian and conservative but in every thread you post on you defend things that are the opposite of that.How would you not expect to be called out?
-
Ratings are not indicative of content. Book TV gets some of the lowest ratings on television but the content is stellar and thought provoking.
-
Ratings are not indicative of content. Book TV gets some of the lowest ratings on television but the content is stellar and thought provoking.
Ratings are the reason a show is allowed to stay on the air.Without ratings,there is no advertisers,without advertisers,there is no revenue,without revenue there is no show.The reason MSNBC doesnt get ratings is because IT SUCKS!!!!!The reason FOX gets ratings ois because its good.The reason MSNBC lost 28% of its viewers is because it sucks,CNN lost 50% of its because it sucks,FOX broke records again,because its great.Simple,end of story.Air America is out of buisiness because it sucks,Rush gets 21 million listeners because hes great!VERY SIMPLE EQUATIONS THERE.NFL football get record ratings,the NHL gets no eyes to the sets.Football is great,hockey sucks!
-
What u don't get is that people aren't watching in greater and greater numbers because "they like watching a train wreck". They agree or want to be convinced. They also recognize that they're getting bullshit from MSNBC and CNN has become irrelivant. CNN revolutioned 24hr media...they created it. Their line-up is stale and old. Headline news is great and needed but the BBC and hell even AL Jeezera are better. FOX wants to launch a 24hr newser...that will kill CNN.
-
Ratings are the reason a show is allowed to stay on the air.Without ratings,there is no advertisers,without advertisers,there is no revenue,without revenue there is no show.The reason MSNBC doesnt get ratings is because IT SUCKS!!!!!The reason FOX gets ratings ois because its good.The reason MSNBC lost 28% of its viewers is because it sucks,CNN lost 50% of its because it sucks,FOX broke records again,because its great.Simple,end of story.Air America is out of buisiness because it sucks,Rush gets 21 million listeners because hes great!VERY SIMPLE EQUATIONS THERE.NFL football get record ratings,the NHL gets no eyes to the sets.Football is great,hockey sucks!
I would rather err on the side of content than majority opinion. If majority opinion dictated all television, we would all drown in American Idol, MTV and Survivor- Programs with meaningless, poor intellectual and non-stimulating content whatsoever.
-
Ratings are not indicative of content. Book TV gets some of the lowest ratings on television but the content is stellar and thought provoking.
MSNBC is awful all around. Its not entertaining or informative. The idiot hosts wont even debate anyone in the first place, and secondly, the "content" is horrifically misreperesented and manipulated to the point where most people know it and simply wont watch.
-
I would rather err on the side of content than majority opinion. If majority opinion dictated all television, we would all drown in American Idol, MTV and Survivor- Programs with meaningless, poor intellectual and non-stimulating content whatsoever.
LOL again with the american idol bs
you see to get a more accurate comparison you need to compare like items, when you have one cable tv show constantly beating the others in terms of ratings even though they are reporting on the same thing, same format etc....its probably a good indication that the majority of ppl like that content more than the others...
now american idol is not a new program is it? it isnt only on cable is it? youd be ok comparing it to dancing with the stars or something but you lose alot in comparing it to news networks
-
I would rather err on the side of content than majority opinion. If majority opinion dictated all television, we would all drown in American Idol, MTV and Survivor- Programs with meaningless, poor intellectual and non-stimulating content whatsoever.
American Idol sells because its good entertainment,Survivor sells because its entertainment,MTV gets low ratings.There is ZERO intellectctual content on MSNBC.Its a bunch of libs,using democrat talking points and each mimicking the next show.Maddow is Keith Olbermann in drag.Even her delivery is the same as is her content.IT SUCKS!!!!
Again,there is a reason Rush gets 21 million listeners and Air America went bankrupt.One is great,the other sucks.If MSNC was owned by a company interested in making money,instead of by GE which has money and can take the loss,EVERY host would be off the air.Olbermann is so pathetic even his football pre game show gets the lowest ratings of any of the networks in his time slot.When you can fail with the NFL it proves you are a loser.
-
LOL again with the american idol bs
you see to get a more accurate comparison you need to compare like items, when you have one cable tv show constantly beating the others in terms of ratings even though they are reporting on the same thing, same format etc....its probably a good indication that the majority of ppl like that content more than the others...
now american idol is not a new program is it? it isnt only on cable is it? youd be ok comparing it to dancing with the stars or something but you lose alot in comparing it to news networks
Again,
Ratings are not indicative of content.
-
Again,
Ratings are not indicative of content.
Right, cause MSNBC is full of content? ::) ::)
Whether its leg tingles, the bull dyke who cant stop smirking, the idiot who hides under the desk, or Special Ed, that entire channel is awful on many levels.
-
Again,
Ratings are not indicative of content.
agreed but when you have stations reporting on the same events and one is getting more than the other...why is it you think that ppl are watching that station as opposed to the others reporting on the same thing?
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm content perhaps?
-
agreed but when you have stations reporting on the same events and one is getting more than the other...why is it you think that ppl are watching that station as opposed to the others reporting on the same thing?
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm content perhaps?
People such as myself are watching Book TV for its wonderful content despite its piss poor ratings. I don`t see your point.
-
People such as myself are watching Book TV for its wonderful content despite its piss poor ratings. I don`t see your point.
And others are watching the Military Channel, Bloomberg TV, etc for the same reason. Whats your point TA?
-
People such as myself are watching Book TV for its wonderful content despite its piss poor ratings. I don`t see your point.
if there was another channel lets say book tv2 but you choose to watch book tv the original it would probably be b/c of content.
In comparison from one news channel to another ppl seem to enjoy the content on FOX more so than the others...
why else would you assume that ppl watch FOX more than the others?
-
And others are watching the Military Channel, Bloomberg TV, etc for the same reason. Whats your point TA?
That ratings do not equal content and using viewer-ship as a barometer for gauging whether a program is accurate, intellectual or informative is nonsensical.
-
People such as myself are watching Book TV for its wonderful content despite its piss poor ratings. I don`t see your point.
YOU say it has wonderful content.I say its a bore.I watch old pro wrestling DVDs I think its great and the best entertainment ever,others will say it sucks!!!Who cares what you think is great content.The networks care about selling advertising.Ratings sell advertising which is why the network is on the air.I love it when libs think THEY decide whats great content or informative.I think FOX is a million times better content then MSNBC and the ratings back me up 100%.
-
if there was another channel lets say book tv2 but you choose to watch book tv the original it would probably be b/c of content.
In comparison from one news channel to another ppl seem to enjoy the content on FOX more so than the others...
why else would you assume that ppl watch FOX more than the others?
All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be. But if, as in propaganda for sticking out a war, the aim is to influence a whole people, we must avoid excessive intellectual demands on our public, and too much caution cannot be extended in this direction.
The more modest its intellectual ballast, the more exclusively it takes into consideration the emotions of the masses, the more effective it will be. And this is the best proof of the soundness or unsoundness of a propaganda campaign, and not success pleasing a few scholars or young aesthetes.
The art of propaganda lies in understanding the emotional ideas of the great masses and finding, through a psychologically correct form, the way to the attention and thence to the heart of the broad masses. The fact that our bright boys do not understand this merely shows how mentally lazy and conceited they are.
Once understood how necessary it is for propaganda in be adjusted to the broad mass, the following rule results:
It is a mistake to make propaganda many-sided, like scientific instruction, for instance.
The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan. As soon as you sacrifice this slogan and try to be many-sided, the effect will piddle away, for the crowd can neither digest nor retain the material offered. In this way the result is weakened and in the end entirely cancelled out.
Thus we see that propaganda must follow a simple line and correspondingly the basic tactics must be psychologically sound.
-
That ratings do not equal content and using viewer-ship as a barometer for gauging whether a program is accurate, intellectual or informative is nonsensical.
::) ::)
So who is the arbitor of what makes something accurate, intellectual, or informative?
-
::) ::)
So who is the arbitor of what makes something accurate, intellectual, or informative?
Libs say they do.Why?JUST BECAUSE.
-
All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be. But if, as in propaganda for sticking out a war, the aim is to influence a whole people, we must avoid excessive intellectual demands on our public, and too much caution cannot be extended in this direction.
The more modest its intellectual ballast, the more exclusively it takes into consideration the emotions of the masses, the more effective it will be. And this is the best proof of the soundness or unsoundness of a propaganda campaign, and not success pleasing a few scholars or young aesthetes.
The art of propaganda lies in understanding the emotional ideas of the great masses and finding, through a psychologically correct form, the way to the attention and thence to the heart of the broad masses. The fact that our bright boys do not understand this merely shows how mentally lazy and conceited they are.
Once understood how necessary it is for propaganda in be adjusted to the broad mass, the following rule results:
It is a mistake to make propaganda many-sided, like scientific instruction, for instance.
The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan. As soon as you sacrifice this slogan and try to be many-sided, the effect will piddle away, for the crowd can neither digest nor retain the material offered. In this way the result is weakened and in the end entirely cancelled out.
Thus we see that propaganda must follow a simple line and correspondingly the basic tactics must be psychologically sound.
I wonder where you lifted that tripe from?
-
::) ::)
So who is the arbitor of what makes something accurate, intellectual, or informative?
Depends first and most importantly on the evidence and the irrefutable facts as well as their causation and the ability to pinpoint correlation in a definite manner.
-
I wonder where you lifted that tripe from?
Adolf Hitler
-
Adolf Hitler
It sounded eerily similar to what Obama does and how he pushes his programs. I thought it looked familiar. Thanks for sharing.
-
It sounded eerily similar to what Obama does and how he pushes his programs. I thought it looked familiar. Thanks for sharing.
LOL!!!
TA, you might want to enlighten us with your point of view on the Climategate II thread. We all need a laugh, even if it is at your expense.
-
LOL!!!
TA, you might want to enlighten us with your point of view on the Climategate II thread. We all need a laugh, even if it is at your expense.
Where is the controversy?
NCDC covers only the US Temperature Means and whenever NASA publishes on US means they recompute all means using only USHCN data.
Your article has no point. Perhaps you should read the actual emails in question.
-
All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be. But if, as in propaganda for sticking out a war, the aim is to influence a whole people, we must avoid excessive intellectual demands on our public, and too much caution cannot be extended in this direction.
The more modest its intellectual ballast, the more exclusively it takes into consideration the emotions of the masses, the more effective it will be. And this is the best proof of the soundness or unsoundness of a propaganda campaign, and not success pleasing a few scholars or young aesthetes.
The art of propaganda lies in understanding the emotional ideas of the great masses and finding, through a psychologically correct form, the way to the attention and thence to the heart of the broad masses. The fact that our bright boys do not understand this merely shows how mentally lazy and conceited they are.
Once understood how necessary it is for propaganda in be adjusted to the broad mass, the following rule results:
It is a mistake to make propaganda many-sided, like scientific instruction, for instance.
The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan. As soon as you sacrifice this slogan and try to be many-sided, the effect will piddle away, for the crowd can neither digest nor retain the material offered. In this way the result is weakened and in the end entirely cancelled out.
Thus we see that propaganda must follow a simple line and correspondingly the basic tactics must be psychologically sound.
When I read this the first thing I thought of was the mindless idiots chanting "yes we can" ::)
are you saying that FOX is propaganda and the others arent? or simply that FOX is better at propaganda than the others?
-
All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be. But if, as in propaganda for sticking out a war, the aim is to influence a whole people, we must avoid excessive intellectual demands on our public, and too much caution cannot be extended in this direction.
The more modest its intellectual ballast, the more exclusively it takes into consideration the emotions of the masses, the more effective it will be. And this is the best proof of the soundness or unsoundness of a propaganda campaign, and not success pleasing a few scholars or young aesthetes.
The art of propaganda lies in understanding the emotional ideas of the great masses and finding, through a psychologically correct form, the way to the attention and thence to the heart of the broad masses. The fact that our bright boys do not understand this merely shows how mentally lazy and conceited they are.
Once understood how necessary it is for propaganda in be adjusted to the broad mass, the following rule results:
It is a mistake to make propaganda many-sided, like scientific instruction, for instance.
The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan. As soon as you sacrifice this slogan and try to be many-sided, the effect will piddle away, for the crowd can neither digest nor retain the material offered. In this way the result is weakened and in the end entirely cancelled out.
Thus we see that propaganda must follow a simple line and correspondingly the basic tactics must be psychologically sound.
do you think it possible that ppl relate more with FOX and their views on certain issues than the other channels?
-
FOX and MSN are BOTH political propaganda. Anyone who can't see that, or believes one is and the other isn't... is eitehr blind or stupid. They do the exact same things for the left and the right.
Unfortunately for america, msnbc has been more effective in the last 3 years with making the right look bad and the left look good. FOX has been working jsut as hard and has a bigger audience... but obama won the election over a better canddiate, and he has passed his first 2 major changes.
-
FOX and MSN are BOTH political propaganda. Anyone who can't see that, or believes one is and the other isn't... is eitehr blind or stupid. They do the exact same things for the left and the right.
Unfortunately for america, msnbc has been more effective in the last 3 years with making the right look bad and the left look good. FOX has been working jsut as hard and has a bigger audience... but obama won the election over a better canddiate, and he has passed his first 2 major changes.
agreed and definitly agree that msnbc has been more effective at making the right look bad as opposed to the left but they do have more left leaning stations out there than right...I dont think MSNBC had as much to do with obama winning as it did bush blowback and having a lame duck and palin to run against
-
Not surprised.
Fox News' Ratings Grow; CNN, MSNBC Plunge
Monday, 29 Mar 2010
CNN continued its huge plunge in ratings for its prime-time programs in the first quarter of 2010 even as Fox News had its best period ever, The New York Times reported Monday night.
In fact, the trend in news ratings for the first three months of this year was only up for Fox, while MSNBC continued its huge plunge, too.
The data backs up the comments of Fox News host Bill O’Reilly, who told Newsmax.TV in an exclusive interview that CNN is stuck to an old model while MSNBC has hired unpopular “guttersnipes” as hosts who drive viewers away in drives.
Editor's Note: See the exclusive Newsmax interview with Bill O'Reilly in its entirety here.
“CNN basically stayed where they were 10 years ago, they didn’t change with the times,” said O’Reilly, host of "The O’Reilly Factor."
“We live in a very intense country right now, a very difficult time. CNN doesn’t reflect that urgency.”
CNN merely reports the news, O’Reilly points out. They do it well, as evidenced by their Haiti coverage.
But Americans already know the news from the Internet and other sources.
“They want analysis and perspective from a cable network,” O’Reilly explained. “CNN doesn’t give you that.”
As for MSNBC, “They made the key mistake of hiring bad people. It’s as simple as that,” O’Reilly said.
How are they bad? “They have a bunch of guttersnipes on their network, that even if you’re a liberal, which is what they sell, you don’t like these people,” he said.
CNN had a slightly worse quarter in the fourth quarter of 2009, but the last three months have included compelling news events, like the earthquake in Haiti and the battle over health care, and CNN, which emphasizes its hard news coverage, was apparently unable to benefit, the Times reported.
The losses at CNN continued a pattern in place for much of the last year, as the network trailed its competitors in every prime-time hour. (CNN still easily beats MSNBC in the daytime hours, but those are less lucrative in advertising money, and both networks are far behind Fox News at all hours.)
Read the full New York Times story here
http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/cnn-fox-msnbc-ratings/2010/03/29/id/354175
A real-life beatdown by Fox News on the other networks. :o :)
-
'A real-life beatdown by Fox News on the other networks. '
A beatdown leading to... what exactly?
Obama winning on stim bill, willing on healthcare, and still treading water with half the nation approving of him?
With a 24/7 media machine devoted to destorying his lib agenda, you would think he would have seen a few roadblocks by now. Instead, the nation is still pretty much 50/50 on every issue and party.
I dont think the negative "you're a lib socialist" screams are going to work. maybe something a little more positive?
-
Anybody have a problem with the cut and paste warrior passing of passages of Mein Kampf, as his/her own.
240 u see whats in front of u and no further. Obama got his bill past by threats and bribes. He doomed many dems to defeat in Nov. He got a very unpopular bill passed. He's fucked the country...u see a hand out.
-
Anybody have a problem with the cut and paste warrior passing of passages of Mein Kampf, as his/her own.
240 u see whats in front of u and no further. Obama got his bill past by threats and bribes. He doomed many dems to defeat in Nov. He got a very unpopular bill passed. He's fucked the country...u see a hand out.
Did I not attribute the correct author? Can you please show us where I claim it was mine?
I thought the passage to be more than apt for the discussion at hand. How could it not be?
-
Posting the correct source would be...."From Mein Kampf" or "as Hitler wrote"...not "oh shit 3 easily saw through my bullshit cut and paste job".....dude this is ur MO, u've done it before and u will do it again. Ur shit is weak.
-
'A real-life beatdown by Fox News on the other networks. '
A beatdown leading to... what exactly?
Obama winning on stim bill, willing on healthcare, and still treading water with half the nation approving of him?
With a 24/7 media machine devoted to destorying his lib agenda, you would think he would have seen a few roadblocks by now. Instead, the nation is still pretty much 50/50 on every issue and party.
I dont think the negative "you're a lib socialist" screams are going to work. maybe something a little more positive?
I'm speaking specifically to the fact that Fox News has been public enemy #1 to the White House and it's press corps (NBC and its affiliates, ABC, & CBS), yet their ratings are higher than ever before. That might be a more telling "poll" than any political poll that we see daily.
Bottom line 240, it's an ass whoopin' for the other networks, pure and simple. That's all I'm saying.
As with your argument of Obama winning yada yada yada.... the stimulus was under Bush (I'm still pissed about that), the healthcare law has the public enraged and you cannot deny that, and the ratings will continue to go down. The key number to watch is the independents. Go back and look at the favorability ratings in 2006 when the Bush administration began spending like crazy. You'll notice that the numbers were in favor of the Democratic party with respect to the economy (the number one issue for Americans, though the president went after Healthcare against our will). Today, those numbers are almost an exact flip, with the Republican party having more than 50% of the favorability vs. 39% of the left. Time will tell. I've been saying this all along, from the day that President Obama took office. And I've been right. His numbers are on a steady downward trend.
-
i agree its a ratings ass whooping.
i just wish they'd start kicking some ass in terms of accomplishing their goals. They're like the popular, well-paid doctor whose patients keep on dying on the table.
-
i agree its a ratings ass whooping.
i just wish they'd start kicking some ass in terms of accomplishing their goals. They're like the popular, well-paid doctor whose patients keep on dying on the table.
I hear ya, bro. It will be very interesting to see what what the results are come November. It's amazing to me, because just in 2008 everyone was saying that our vote was more crucial than ever. Not even two years later, I'd say that this November warrants votes every bit as important.
Guess King Solomon was right when he said, "What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun." (Ecclesiastes 1:9)
-
I hear ya, bro. It will be very interesting to see what what the results are come November. It's amazing to me, because just in 2008 everyone was saying that our vote was more crucial than ever. Not even two years later, I'd say that this November warrants votes every bit as important.
Guess King Solomon was right when he said, "What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun." (Ecclesiastes 1:9)
Just what exactly would you be voting for?
-
Just what exactly would you be voting for?
true conservatism
-
true conservatism
Define that notion and show me someone who represents EXACTLY what you define.
-
This is how u debate..with nonsense and then when ur forced to make an actual point, u cut and paste some crap. We don't want barry and his outright attack on American industry, we want lower taxes, we want a foreign policy stance that doesn't alienate the only viable democracy in the Middle East, we want lower taxes...the list is endless. This guy is a friggen disaster.
-
Gotta love this country.
One side wins and immediately people start watching the TV shows that critizice the government.
They're going to polarize people to the point that one of these right-wing militia nutcases is going to carry out a terrorist attack... God forbid though.
It's going to be interesting hearing their excuses when the fingers start pointing in Beck's and O'Reilly's direction...
-
This is how u debate..with nonsense and then when ur forced to make an actual point, u cut and paste some crap. We don't want barry and his outright attack on American industry, we want lower taxes, we want a foreign policy stance that doesn't alienate the only viable democracy in the Middle East, we want lower taxes...the list is endless. This guy is a friggen disaster.
YOUR taxes are lower under Obama. What part of his tax plan do you not understand?
-
We don't want barry and his outright attack on American industry
who's we as far as i remember obama won the election you lost,when you guys are smart enough to run someone besides a senile old man and a retard you might be able to change things, until then keep crying
-
YOUR taxes are lower under Obama. What part of his tax plan do you not understand?
My taxes are lower...hows that. What did I get back? The Bush cuts run out in 2010....and assmonkey wants to pass a bill that he says will raise my energy bill. Sure thing TA, sure thing.
-
We don't want barry and his outright attack on American industry
who's we as far as i remember obama won the election you lost,when you guys are smart enough to run someone besides a senile old man and a retard you might be able to change things, until then keep crying
Maybe he is in Iraq (or was, I dunno) because mother nature intended his type to be in harm's way... for a reason. Namely to take eachother out.
My # 1 goal is to survive, thus I look to minimize taking part in acts that can get me killed in an instant.
Some people don't. And it's no coincidence.
Revels looking for a cause I guess ("defending" the USA is one of them, or so they think).
-
Gotta love this country.
One side wins and immediately people start watching the TV shows that critizice the government.
So why was Fox News beating CNN and MSNBC during the Bush years?
-
Define that notion and show me someone who represents EXACTLY what you define.
Each person represents what they believe in. Some of us have not given up our brain letting a politician define our thoughts/beliefs. It's called individualism.
-
Each person represents what they believe in. Some of us have not given up our brain letting a politician define our thoughts/beliefs. It's called individualism.
You do realize we have a representative Government. It makes no difference what YOU believe in unless YOU run for office. The best you can hope for is matching someone with your ideals or not voting at all.
Again, who matches your ideals and what exactly is Conservatism as you define it?
-
So why was Fox News beating CNN and MSNBC during the Bush years?
I do not know the main reason per se. I know for sure that most of the anti-Bush commentary on the left was so bland, so lame it posed no real threat. The only one calling Bush out, in mainstream media mind you, was Keith Olbermann. On the other hand you had the usual suspects, O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh yelling out the top of their lungs focusing all legitimate public discontent (i.e. high taxes, lower paying jobs, longer working hours, too many layers of government, the government lying to everyone by re-invading a country that had nothing to do with a terrorist attack, Guantánamo, et cetera) on those institutions controlled by the democrats. And the public didn't buy it. Obama won.
Now, the key word here is (widespread) discontent, on both sides of the spectrum. MSNC and all other "leftist media" (I put it into quotes because there's no such a thing, it's a fallacy; the day I see a TV show talking about worker's rights and conditions as much as they tout CEO's lavish lifestyles or the benefits of becoming a currency hoarder will be the day I'll believe it) surely do not represent the core left. I mean, they do hit it right on the head by presenting themselves as the polar opposite of Bush during the later's years of terror, but that's it. Once you only have two options you're fucked. Your discontent is still there.
That's why I laugh at all these Tea Party nutcases, because they stand no chance. Until people realise they have to educate themselves and formulate their OWN opinions they will always fall prey of the mainstream media mermaid melodies, with their two-second solutions to pretty much every conceivable problem, their cool, calm and collected nothing's-wrong attitude and their outright refusal to investigate and present the truth.
Thus, it is not a problem of political options, it's a problem of IQ. It's a very powerful thing you know. You've got this immense mass of "lost" human beings just waiting to be "led". All it takes is one loud voice they can trust. Too bad politicians don't do it anymore, TV personalities do.
Too bad it's the precursor to fascism too.
Interesting years ahead for this nation.
-
You do realize we have a representative Government. It makes no difference what YOU believe in unless YOU run for office. The best you can hope for is matching someone with your ideals or not voting at all.
Again, who matches your ideals and what exactly is Conservatism as you define it?
Yeah, I know how the govt. works, that doesn't mean I need to pigeonhole my beliefs into a certain politician or party.
-
Yeah, I know how the govt. works, that doesn't mean I need to pigeonhole my beliefs into a certain politician or party.
Then I take it you don`t vote.
-
Then I take it you don`t vote.
I wrote in RP in 08...so kinda. However, that is a candidate I'm choosing. It doesn't mean I share the same beliefs as them. You are talking about the way the govt. works (steals), that's fine. However, my beliefs are my own and sure as hell aren't being represented in Washington. My congressman is Ander Crenshaw, I have never voted for the man or any of his opponents...I'm not voting for thieves.
-
I do not know the main reason per se. I know for sure that most of the anti-Bush commentary on the left was so bland, so lame it posed no real threat. The only one calling Bush out, in mainstream media mind you, was Keith Olbermann. On the other hand you had the usual suspects, O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh yelling out the top of their lungs focusing all legitimate public discontent (i.e. high taxes, lower paying jobs, longer working hours, too many layers of government, the government lying to everyone by re-invading a country that had nothing to do with a terrorist attack, Guantánamo, et cetera) on those institutions controlled by the democrats. And the public didn't buy it. Obama won.
Now, the key word here is (widespread) discontent, on both sides of the spectrum. MSNC and all other "leftist media" (I put it into quotes because there's no such a thing, it's a fallacy; the day I see a TV show talking about worker's rights and conditions as much as they tout CEO's lavish lifestyles or the benefits of becoming a currency hoarder will be the day I'll believe it) surely do not represent the core left. I mean, they do hit it right on the head by presenting themselves as the polar opposite of Bush during the later's years of terror, but that's it. Once you only have two options you're fucked. Your discontent is still there.
That's why I laugh at all these Tea Party nutcases, because they stand no chance. Until people realise they have to educate themselves and formulate their OWN opinions they will always fall prey of the mainstream media mermaid melodies, with their two-second solutions to pretty much every conceivable problem, their cool, calm and collected nothing's-wrong attitude and their outright refusal to investigate and present the truth.
Thus, it is not a problem of political options, it's a problem of IQ. It's a very powerful thing you know. You've got this immense mass of "lost" human beings just waiting to be "led". All it takes is one loud voice they can trust. Too bad politicians don't do it anymore, TV personalities do.
Too bad it's the precursor to fascism too.
Interesting years ahead for this nation.
Sort of hard to reconcile this with your prior comments (below). Fox News and its commentators have been leading the ratings during "good" times and bad, regardless of the party in the White House or majorities in Congress. Isn't it possible they're just better at presenting the news and people like their opinion shows more than others?
Gotta love this country.
One side wins and immediately people start watching the TV shows that critizice the government.
They're going to polarize people to the point that one of these right-wing militia nutcases is going to carry out a terrorist attack... God forbid though.
It's going to be interesting hearing their excuses when the fingers start pointing in Beck's and O'Reilly's direction...
-
FOX and MSN are BOTH political propaganda. Anyone who can't see that, or believes one is and the other isn't... is eitehr blind or stupid. They do the exact same things for the left and the right.
Unfortunately for america, msnbc has been more effective in the last 3 years with making the right look bad and the left look good. FOX has been working jsut as hard and has a bigger audience... but obama won the election over a better canddiate, and he has passed his first 2 major changes.
One of the dumbest posts ever.MSNBC has been effective?Really?NO ONE watches it!!!The cartoon network smokes them every night.Its like saying New Orleans is the most effective city because the Saints won the super bowl.Just the most absurd though pattern ever.MSNBC makes the left look bad with idiot liars like Mathews ,Maddow and Olberman.NO ONE WATCHES IT!!!No matter what they say,no one hears or sees it.
-
Believe what you want, BILLY.
If FOX was more effective, Obama might not be shoving crap sandwiches down our throats. BELIEVE ME - if healthcare and stim bill had been defeated, you'd surely be giving FOX credit for it ;)
-
Believe what you want, BILLY.
If FOX was more effective, Obama might not be shoving crap sandwiches down our throats. BELIEVE ME - if healthcare and stim bill had been defeated, you'd surely be giving FOX credit for it ;)
You get pissed off when people call you a moron but here is a good example of you being a moron.A fillabuster proof senate and super majority in the house and you think if FOX was more effective they could have stopped it?Or you think MSNBC pushed it through?I mean thats as stupid as anything Ive ever read here.NO ONE COULD HAVE STOPPED IT!!!THE VOTES WERENT THERE!!!!However,we see that Hussein Obama has given about three or four speeches since healthcare passed and the country HATES it.Despite MSNBC pumping it every night,the country hates it.No one in the country thinks the stimulus bill has created a\any JOBS EITHER WHICH IS WHY THE REPUBLICANS LEAD IN THE GENERIC POLLS NOW.
You are starting to sound like that pasty faced girl Bill Maher.
-
Believe what you want, BILLY.
If FOX was more effective, Obama might not be shoving crap sandwiches down our throats. BELIEVE ME - if healthcare and stim bill had been defeated, you'd surely be giving FOX credit for it ;)
Yeah, because Fox is anti-Obama... ::)
Give it a rest already. Fox is just the better network.
-
Yeah, because Fox is anti-Obama... ::)
Give it a rest already. Fox is just the better network.
240 is really going off the deep end lately with the kneepadding.
-
Anybody have a problem with the cut and paste warrior passing of passages of Mein Kampf, as his/her own.
240 u see whats in front of u and no further. Obama got his bill past by threats and bribes. He doomed many dems to defeat in Nov. He got a very unpopular bill passed. He's fucked the country...u see a hand out.
All I can say about everybody on this thread is that you all idiots.
Up here in canada we wouldn't give up healthcare for anything, I would fight for my life to keep universal healthcare available to everyone in my country.
It makes for a better nation, your society is pretty fucked, and most canadians mostly just laugh at you.
-
Sort of hard to reconcile this with your prior comments (below). Fox News and its commentators have been leading the ratings during "good" times and bad, regardless of the party in the White House or majorities in Congress. Isn't it possible they're just better at presenting the news and people like their opinion shows more than others?
It's more likely that all the major news outlets suck and that they all contribute to the collective stupidity in the U.S.
Now you know.
-
All I can say about everybody on this thread is that you all idiots.
Up here in canada we wouldn't give up healthcare for anything, I would fight for my life to keep universal healthcare available to everyone in my country.
It makes for a better nation, your society is pretty fucked, and most canadians mostly just laugh at you.
Thats why your leaders come here to get health care.
-
Thats why your leaders come here to get health care.
That's why they are now having to add a co-pay on top of everything in certain parts because its broke.
-
Thats why your leaders come here to get health care.
not defending the canadians but since when should we give a flying shit what the leaders of a nation do in relation to what the people want? The history of them doing flaky bizzaro shit contrary to what the people do/want is epic.
-
not defending the canadians but since when should we give a flying shit what the leaders of a nation do in relation to what the people want? The history of them doing flaky bizzaro shit contrary to what the people do/want is epic.
It just shows that even the leaders know their system sucks!!!
-
It just shows that even the leaders know their system sucks!!!
so you disagree with my statement? Since when should we or any others give a shit about what the elite ruling class is doing? Do you really think it proves a point for the rest of us? oh the coultless times it has not certainly stacks up againt the rare occation you can provide otherwise.
-
so you disagree with my statement? Since when should we or any others give a shit about what the elite ruling class is doing? Do you really think it proves a point for the rest of us? oh the coultless times it has not certainly stacks up againt the rare occation you can provide otherwise.
Yes I disagree.The very fact that Obama and the dems exempted themselves out of Obama care proves to me they know it sucks and so they stick us with it and exempt themselves from it.
-
Yes I disagree.The very fact that Obama and the dems exempted themselves out of Obama care proves to me they know it sucks and so they stick us with it and exempt themselves from it.
no, actually you're proving my point. You're just picking and chosing what elite douche serves your point. I'll ask again, since when should the people look to what a fucking politician does as example for what is good for the people or what the people want? Even conservatives don't do that and yet here you are.
-
no, actually you're proving my point. You're just picking and chosing what elite douche serves your point. I'll ask again, since when should the people look to what a fucking politician does as example for what is good for the people or what the people want? Even conservatives don't do that and yet here you are.
What are you talking about?Politicians have great insight into whats coming down the line.Why do you think they are rich?They think the new health care bill sucks,we know this because they opt out.They know where to put their money to avoid taxes,like Charlie Rengel,they know how their legislation will effect the economy and get rich off it,like Al Gore.We should always look to them for whats best for us,because they are the kings of beating the very system they create.
-
All I can say about everybody on this thread is that you all idiots.
Up here in canada we wouldn't give up healthcare for anything, I would fight for my life to keep universal healthcare available to everyone in my country.
It makes for a better nation, your society is pretty fucked, and most canadians mostly just laugh at you.
You would be the first on a plane to the USA to get medical treatment. Why? Because your healthcare system has made the quality of your care worse.
-
All I can say about everybody on this thread is that you all idiots.
Up here in canada we wouldn't give up healthcare for anything, I would fight for my life to keep universal healthcare available to everyone in my country.
It makes for a better nation, your society is pretty fucked, and most canadians mostly just laugh at you.
Yeah, Canada's catch-and-release program for mental health patients has been so successful. ::)
-
You would be the first on a plane to the USA to get medical treatment. Why? Because your healthcare system has made the quality of your care worse.
dude I know so many people that get care right away, we have awesome care for really cheap. Even with the taxes that come along it doesn't matter because it's worth it. For big time surgeries I wouldn't even think of going to the states theres a huge medical center like close to where I live, with some of the best facilities in Canada.
I've never heard of anyone going over to the states to get care. 8)
-
So why was Fox News beating CNN and MSNBC during the Bush years?
Ouch!
-
Define that notion and show me someone who represents EXACTLY what you define.
Sorry about that, Jezebelle, I hadn't checked back on this thread in a while. Wasn't trying to ignore you.
True conservatism to me is having a free market, allowing Americans to donate and offer deeds and services on their own (without government mandating it!), an adherence to the constitution as a living, breathing document, supporter of the choice of life (pro-life), and a strong believe in our Creator (the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob). Those are the things that come to mind immediately, but there's lots more. As far as someone in office that I believe holds true to this mindset would be someone like a Mike Pence, Sarah Palin, Bob McDonald, Halle Barber or some of the new names coming on the conservative scene, like Col. Allen West in Florida as well as Marco Rubio. Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter are some of the old schoolers that I admire. President Reagan is possibly the greatest example of someone who shares and ran the country based on these ideas.
-
Sorry about that, Jezebelle, I hadn't checked back on this thread in a while. Wasn't trying to ignore you.
True conservatism to me is having a free market, allowing Americans to donate and offer deeds and services on their own (without government mandating it!), an adherence to the constitution as a living, breathing document, supporter of the choice of life (pro-life), and a strong believe in our Creator (the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob). Those are the things that come to mind immediately, but there's lots more. As far as someone in office that I believe holds true to this mindset would be someone like a Mike Pence, Sarah Palin, Bob McDonald, Halle Barber or some of the new names coming on the conservative scene, like Col. Allen West in Florida as well as Marco Rubio. Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter are some of the old schoolers that I admire. President Reagan is possibly the greatest example of someone who shares and ran the country based on these ideas.
Reagan wasn't the conservative that many think he was. His fiscal policy was less than stellar.
-
Reagan wasn't the conservative that many think he was. His fiscal policy was less than stellar.
He had to deal with Dem run House and Senate and was miles and away better than Carter or what followed.