I am heading to San Diego, Calif. Do you have a thread for domestic citys?
Printable View
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.