Why Fox has Highest Ratings and MSNBC does not?

I can;t think of much that epitomizes the state of our two party, partisan politics these days than that clip. Either side would tear down our democracy if it meant their side won. People like that don;t give a damn about this country.

 

History is the best indicator of where Liberal ideology and policy has failed. Because of failed liberal ideology and socialist policies, People are getting tired (finally) of the same-old crap from liberals and with that, is the primary reason why so many have hit the mute buttom from the likes of NBC, CBS, CNN and turned up the volume with programs seen on FOX.

Liberals (now masking themselves with a new term: 'progressives') are known for calling us conservatives dumb, stupid, intolerant, racist, nazis, fascists, fat, ugly, tea baggers, neo-cons, hicks, bla, bla,bla.

Now...if liberals were prevented from ever again calling conservatives dumb (or all of the names I listed above), they would be robbed of around 90% of their arguments. To be sure they would always resort to having more polorizing terms like racist, fascist, homophobe, and a few other highly nuanced arguments in their quiver. But not having the word “dumb” or "racist" to throw would nearly cripple them. They can't reinforce their argument, so they scream louder and call us names. I am still waiting for them to say, "my Dad is bigger than your Dad...ha, ha"

You can bet on it...it is sooooo predictable that every consequential conservative or even repubilican to come down the pike is instantly, invariably, always, without exception called "dumb, stupid and yes, racist".

Why? It is liberals inability to mount an intelligent counter-argument when faced with undeniable facts (i.e., Reagan cutting the top marginal tax rate down from 70 to 28% nearly DOUBLED tax revenue coming into the U.S. treasury!)

Today...liberals especially hate being called “liberal,” because they know it describes a “dastardly individual.” They now prefer "progressive"...at least for now.

So are Liberals really so dumb that they must refer to their enemies as dumb? Now I will wait for Tom and others to say how dumb this sounds.

 

Your 911 points are far more accurate than the governments. I wount go as far as saying Bush did it, but i am sure "we" were complicit. Positive.

I honestly believe that 2000 was not massive voter fraud. Do I believe their was fraud? yes, just as in 2008. Fraud was bad when W got elected, but fraud is ok when BO gets elected> That seems to be the view of the hard lefties. Patriot Act was bad when W did it, but it's ok that BO extended it?

Bushes corporate buddies was bad but BO's big pharma deals and union special rules are ok?

Thats what I mean about intellectual honesty. Stand for or against something, but be consistant, otherwise we risk sounding like a blind koolaide drinker.

You have not been here long, or you would have read me skewering McCain constantly, taking W to task for his Medicare crap, his spending, etc etc etc.

I can see both sides and do have solid values. I dont change them depending on who is in the oval office.

Republicans do want reform, just not this reform. To bad they have been locked out of meetings and have had every proposed ammendment slammed shut.

Edit to add: Oh yeah, Limbaugh never said dont donate. He said dont donate to the white house site, but rather to the red cross, you know, kinda like keep the money where it has a better chance to be used properly. His quote was edited and taken out of contest.

That brings up another point. Limbaugh is not on drugs, yet you still pound it every chance you get. So, your against drugs I can assume? When are you going to pound obama on it? Have you read his books? He talked about his old drinking and cocaine days, but is that worse than painkillers?

 

Midas the name calling works both ways try reading the comments in this forum from both sides of the spectrum
Have to agree with you on President Reagan's tax policy it worked rather well the only fly in his ointment so to speak was the raising of the national debt from aprox $700 Billion to $3 Trillion making the USA one of the worlds largest debtor nations, I believe President Bush senior called it Voodoo economics

 

Reagan was only half right.

 

Like in any business...increase sales/revenue doesn't mean one should spend it all (plus some). If I fault Reagan was that he should have told the democratic congress to come back with a balanced budget...and he should of played hard ball and vetoed their budget.

Bush #1 was wrong...this tax policy worked and he later recinded his comment.

 

Thanks for clearing that up.

2-ply green, 200 count. By next Tuesday?

 

I'm impressed. You CAN actually post without pictures, or using the usual animal or cancer references.

Now, not to disappoint. That whole post was dumb.

 

I listened to Limbaugh for years. I was on the road all the time and there was only one FM talk station...so I listened.
Snerdley (excuse the possibly incorrect spelling) would be IMHO, (for lack of a better phrase at present), his 'token black'. Clearly Limbaugh is many things, one of which is a racist. I have no problems making that assertion. The 2000 elections were definitely screwed with BIG time in Ohio...to be intellectually honest though, I never really looked that closely at Florida. But I will and follow up as you suggest.
I own a dvd (Hacking Democracy) (and I've seen it online many times) referring to the hacking of the 'Gems' voting software provided by Diebold in the 2000 elections. It pretty simply laid out and did a live demo of the software being "hacked". (Honestly I think hackers would be insulted as it with the title as it was more akin to opening and dragging a folder around on a desktop that took about two minutes to do). It also showed, using electronic voting machines supplies by Diebold, how voting for one candidate actually resulted in the multiple fraudulent votes for the opponent. These "irregularities" occurred in heavy democratic districts resulting in the "more votes than there were registered voters" FOR Bush. It was pretty simple to understand that fraud was rampant, and favoring Bush where it occurred most frequently.
I admit I've spent way too much time over the past ten years (ever since 911) investigating the governments complex web of crime. Both parties engage in crimes for sure, but the Bush era took it to a whole new level of deceit.
Mind you this was in 2000. TEN years ago that we had issues with electronic voting machines and leaving no paper trail to verify anything. TEN years. The same systems are still in place by the same folks (except Diebold has changed it's name to Premiere Election Systems). Fraud? Yes...rampant on both sides. The Bush crowd clearly has a hidden agenda that we all now know the results of.
I don't know if your assertion about healthcare and the republican is realistic, because they were never close to even discussing it.
I agree they're all corrupt. Ultimately I'd like to throw both parties and all their lobbyists out on their keester and start over.
In my forty plus years of being on this earth...I've seen little evidence of the republicans supporting anybody except the big boys. Seems their unchanging agenda is to keep the rich rich, then make them more rich. They're always against min wage but then want unlimited profit, and more and more and more. I'll never be able to get behind the right. I'm not comfortable with the left, but, republicans just aren't a viable option IMO.

 

I have a great amount of respect for you Jack. You walk it like you talk it. Thank you for being able to see in print someone else's view aligns with mine. You're more honest than the majority of folks on this forum. I am impressed.

I don't like BO extending the Patriot act. That's counter to what he ran on. I'm sure there was fraud this last election too. The races are decided for us, ahead of time. We all just get the illusion of voting. Corrupt voting systems with names changing, and of course...noone accountable.
I despise the hard right for many reasons...I don't have enough time to list them all.
Digging up things that prove fraud and other criminal corporate practices is very easy to do today. Generally, I find out whatever the repubs want, I know it's a safe bet to be against whatever it is. Silly way to decide on potentially serious consequences but when the right takes a stand in a particular way, that locks me in to supporting the opposing side.
Lastly, Jack, if you and Stu were the type of folks or folks like you ran for office representing the right..I'd vote for you. Can we just keep cloning you two guys and make up a new party? Both of you actually think in a coherent manner and aren't afraid to say what they think. I like people like that. Jack and Stu...I like you. Now what about the other 99.99999999999999999% of the right?
Hmmmmm. Yeah....I still hate 'em.

 

Was I wrong? C'mon clear it up for us. You ramble on about Fox news & always include Limbaugh. I simply pointed out that Limbaugh isn't o Fox. Am I wrong? C'mon, answer.

 

What about transparency?
What about an end to pork?
What abount uniting the country? The world?
What about a new kind of Washington?
What about responsible spending?
What about debating healtcare in public? On C-Span?

Isn't this reality also contrary to what "he ran on"?

 

Here is a FOX link.......against Bush. Hmm, how did that happen, I thought they were owned by the repos?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ally-collected-phone-records/?test=latestnews

maybe it's because they report news?

 

Maybe an attempt to generate credibility to try and influence the upcoming election??

 

A plurality of voters entered the polling place intending to vote for Gore. This reality was heavily obscured by generally pro-Bush headlines and misleading articles. I agree Jack with your premise that there were many media outlets reporting as you suggest. Some of the same outlets suggest that Gore would have won the recount if he'd chosen almost any other path of recounting the votes than the way he did choose.
Basically the strategy he employed, in some half a**ed attempt at being transparent, cost him the recount in almost every other method of recount used (other than the one he DID use). If you check some of the counties Bush was to have supposedly won, they were largely black voters. Now I'm sorry...and you can view this any way you want..but largely blacks (and smart whites) DO NOT vote for republicans. That's not racist that's just a fact. Yet Bush won handily in clearly democratic counties (I say very fraudulently via a couple of ways.) They purged many black voters in heavily democratic counties. Of course also the 'machine breakdowns' (cough,cough) in largely democratic areas. You remember Bush election night when they called Florida for Gore initially? They showed Bush watching the returns live and he practically declared that calling it for Gore was incorrect (it obviously turned out that way, but he seemed awful 'cock-sure' that Florida would be his). Of course he was confident...his brother was governor.
Anyway...your premise was correct about Florida. I hope I didn't avoid anything...let me know if I did.
I'm much more "up" on Ohio if you want to go there, or we can leave it at that...your call.
Pleasure exchanging opinions with you Jack. Good day

 

Tom? Ohhh, tom?

 

Tom? Hello!! Tom?

 

Whats wrong with peace, Midas? Why is it libreal trash to have brotherhood? I think(now I'm not too sure of this. Its what I think) that Fox has a more of an older viewership. And the older one becomes the more conservative they get. And there are alot more older than younger people around. Fox news is like a stand up comic. If a joke with a certain theme makes the audience laugh more, they continue in that vien. Had Fox gotten mostly negative feedback from viewers on O'reilly or Hannity. They wouldve been long gone. Its show business. They are nothing more than performers. O'Reilly jumped through the hoop as much as the rest on Inside Editon.

 

Duh! FOX and every other television or cable show is a business. People tune in to the popular shows & advertisers buy space on those shows. If people didn't watch those shows the advertisers wouldn't sponsor them & the shows would be cancelled (think Air America).
What you really need to ask yourself is why people tune in to FOX. The libs would like for you to believe FOX is nothing more than Hannity or BillO when in fact these guys only occupy a small portion of the FOX broadcast day (and to say BillO is anything other than fair & unbalanced is either a serious case of denial or a lack of familiarity with his show- he takes anyone to task he thinks deserves it & always has reps from both sides of the aisle on his show). Hannity is on the air, what, 2 hours a day? The rest of the time (okay, maybe Beck is a bit biased) is simple, straight-forward news. I know many hard-core libs who are diehard FOX watchers because they know the only place to find honest reporting of the true news is on FOX. Sure, they probably turn off Hannity & Beck but they know where to turn to catch up on the day's events.
Back to the original discussion...FOX ratings are the highest because FOX gives the people what they want...they deliver the goods in the manner the viewers demand. There can be no other explanation.

 

Were that completely true, how is MSNBC still on the air? I some cases, I believe you will find that the money/power behind the scenes (Immelt?) is more important that the money actually made.