PDA

View Full Version : OT: MSNBC, better than Comedy Central


snowspot66
04-14-2009, 07:56 PM
Probably not safe for work.<object height="344" width="425">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8i-OWDjOQfI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="344" width="425"></object>

frerottenextelway
04-14-2009, 07:59 PM
:rofl:

misturanderson
04-14-2009, 08:02 PM
That's awesome. On the same level as the "I'd hit it" campaign from McDonald's a couple years ago.

521 1N5
04-14-2009, 08:29 PM
Lol!!!

Broncojef
04-14-2009, 08:44 PM
Nice to see MSNBC still clueless as ever.

Los Broncos
04-14-2009, 08:46 PM
:rofl:

halfcreek
04-14-2009, 08:55 PM
Nice to see MSNBC still clueless as ever.

You just can't make up stuff like "a Dick Army" to lead the teabaggers.

DBruleU
04-14-2009, 09:01 PM
There's a reason MSNBC's ratings are the worst night in and night out.

Broncojef
04-14-2009, 09:06 PM
Just like The Rocky Mountain News, spinning BS slanted stories and then wondering why no one would buy their paper. Boy I sure cried alot when they went outta business. ROFL!

SonOfLe-loLang
04-14-2009, 09:20 PM
Nice to see MSNBC still clueless as ever.

How is MSNBC clueless? The people throwing the "tea parties" are calling it teabagging. On Rachel's show yesterday, she could barely keep a straight face.

By the way, these tea parties are about the dumbest things ive ever heard of. If you go, you deserve to be mocked

DenverBrit
04-14-2009, 09:21 PM
You just can't make up stuff like "a Dick Army" to lead the teabaggers.

Or an "Army of Dick$." Ha!




Edit: Wow, Dick(s) is censored?? Worse than the pathetic networks. ;D

DenverBrit
04-14-2009, 09:25 PM
How is MSNBC clueless? The people throwing the "tea parties" are calling it teabagging. On Rachel's show yesterday, she could barely keep a straight face.

By the way, these tea parties are about the dumbest things ive ever heard of. If you go, you deserve to be mocked

No kidding. They are clueless about the issues they're protesting.

Tax increases for the rich and tax cuts for the 'teabaggers.' Ha!

Archer81
04-14-2009, 09:25 PM
How is MSNBC clueless? The people throwing the "tea parties" are calling it teabagging. On Rachel's show yesterday, she could barely keep a straight face.

By the way, these tea parties are about the dumbest things ive ever heard of. If you go, you deserve to be mocked


Oh yeah...opposing tax hikes on everyone, not just the rich is being clueless. Or maybe you are ok with "stimulus" packages that cost 3.7 tril a pop.


:Broncos:

BroncoBuff
04-14-2009, 09:26 PM
MSNBC's ratings are up and up and up .... and Fox's ratings are down and down and down.

You know, like how the Republicans all got kicked out on their asses?

BroncoBuff
04-14-2009, 09:28 PM
Probably not safe for work.

The REALLY funny part in all this is how Fox's Neil Cavuto said, "FoxNews is not promoting tea-bag day, we are merely covering the story ... the same way we covered the million man march."

The punchline: FoxNews didn't startup until a year AFTER the million man march! ROFL! :~ohyah!: :rofl:

DenverBrit
04-14-2009, 09:29 PM
MSNBC's ratings are up and up and up .... and Fox's ratings are down and down and down.

You know, like how the Republicans all got kicked out on their asses?

Fox hasn't figured out yet how to attack Obama without losing market share.

They're lying in wait in the tall grass.

Archer81
04-14-2009, 09:33 PM
MSNBC's ratings are up and up and up .... and Fox's ratings are down and down and down.

You know, like how the Republicans all got kicked out on their asses?


http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=103890


This is one of several reports that shows Fox is still crushing CNN and MSNBC.

*Edit* And another...

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/179815-Cable_News_Ratings_Fox_News_Still_Tops.php


:Broncos:

BroncoBuff
04-14-2009, 09:54 PM
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=103890

This is one of several reports that shows Fox is still crushing CNN and MSNBC.

*Edit* And another...

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/179815-Cable_News_Ratings_Fox_News_Still_Tops.php

:Broncos:

Overall yes, FoxNews ratings still lead by a wide (though shrinking) margin.

But when you break down the viewer demographics, you'll find that the 55 and over age demo is the bulk of their overall lead. Here's and inside-baseball tip how to tell: watch O'Reilly Factor for example ... pretty frequently his breaks include full 60-second co-op commercials for hearing-aid devices. THAT is reflective of who's watching. Sixty second ads of any kind are kinda rare, but co-op 60 second spots mean only one thing: the advertiser can target their demographic with razor precision. ("Co-op" ads means the network is paid based on how many phone calls and/or purchases the sponsor receives on the # during that show ... Sham-Wow and Snuggie are other examples, co-op advertisers use different 800-phone numbers for each network or show they co-op with). Further along these lines, Fox day-parts are loaded with Social Security disability ads, scooter ads for the diabled, and elderly-targeted ads in general. Nothing wrong with that, but make no mistake, FoxNews is receding based on these factors, and of course based upon Republican losses and discredited policies.

Even more inside these numbers ... the most important and most valuable demographic to most advertisers - the "advertising demo" - is ages 25-49. And in that demo, Olbermann has actually beaten O'Reilly on a handful of nights in '07 and '08 ... a feat considered unthinkable just a year or two earlier ... and Rachel Maddow so detroyed Greta Van Susteren, that she was moved up outta that slot, the repeat of her show late night was pulled, FoxNews abandoned all pretense at objectivity by canning Allan Colmes, and Hannity has that old slot now.


All that said, FoxNews has come into a huge bonanza in just the last six weeks: Glen Beck's ratings are through the roof. I've read more than one Newser blog that says O'Reilly is becoming insecure (isn't that his natural mindset) about his time slot because Beck is such a shoorting star.

I think Beck is a mental patient, but hey, I'm obviously in the minority.

Archer81
04-14-2009, 09:58 PM
According to both articles, and several others, the bulk of fox' viewers are between the ages of 24-55, and growing % wise. This is opposite of shrinking. I understand your inordinate fear of conservatism, because hell, logical thinking scares most insane people, but trust me lil buddy, it will be fine. Fox also has an 86 month streak of leading in the ratings. I know you probably dont think so, but this is a center-right leaning country. One fluke election of a tin man using a 20 year old socialist playbook doesnt change that.


:Broncos:

Shoemaker
04-14-2009, 10:07 PM
I think Beck is a mental patient, but hey, I'm obviously in the minority.

Oh jeez, I've been in that same "minority" for a long time. I watched his "You Are Not Alone" special out of morbid curiosity, and I about died laughing. One of the most hilarious hours of TV I've ever seen, especially considering that he was serious about the paranoid mumbo-jumbo he was babbling.

And I agree that MSNBC has really been on with their mockery of these "Tea Parties" lately. Rachel Maddow in particular was hilarious about it.

What an absolutely ridiculous concept for a protest.

ton80
04-14-2009, 10:10 PM
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=103890


This is one of several reports that shows Fox is still crushing CNN and MSNBC.

*Edit* And another...

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/179815-Cable_News_Ratings_Fox_News_Still_Tops.php


:Broncos:

Never bother using facts, logic, reason when dealing with leftist ideologues. You're simply wasting your time. It is not an effective technique for winning an argument.

halfcreek
04-14-2009, 10:10 PM
Oh yeah...opposing tax hikes on everyone, not just the rich is being clueless. Or maybe you are ok with "stimulus" packages that cost 3.7 tril a pop.


:Broncos:

Where are the tax hikes for anyone making less than $250,000 a year and the tax on those people will be 10% less than they were under Raygun.

BroncoBuff
04-14-2009, 10:10 PM
According to both articles, and several others, the bulk of fox' viewers are between the ages of 24-55.

Of course the bulk of ALL viewers are in the advertising demographic ... that's true for all cable news netowrks. Focus more closely on the details: the majority of Fox's overall LEAD is found in the 55+ age demographic. FoxNews rules that demo. Just watch their sponsors. I've worked in media most of my life and am currently a programming and Internet consultant for two radio groups. But you don't have to be a consultant to know that MSNBC has been a supernova the last 30 months ... a genuine supernova.

halfcreek
04-14-2009, 10:13 PM
Overall yes, FoxNews ratings still lead by a wide (though shrinking) margin.

But when you break down the viewer demographics, you'll find that the 55 and over age demo is the bulk of their overall lead. Here's and inside-baseball tip how to tell: watch O'Reilly Factor for example ... pretty frequently his breaks include full 60-second co-op commercials for hearing-aid devices. THAT is reflective of who's watching. Sixty second ads of any kind are kinda rare, but co-op 60 second spots mean only one thing: the advertiser can target their demographic with razor precision. ("Co-op" ads means the network is paid based on how many phone calls and/or purchases the sponsor receives on the # during that show ... Sham-Wow and Snuggie are other examples, co-op advertisers use different 800-phone numbers for each network or show they co-op with). Further along these lines, Fox day-parts are loaded with Social Security disability ads, scooter ads for the diabled, and elderly-targeted ads in general. Nothing wrong with that, but make no mistake, FoxNews is receding based on these factors, and of course based upon Republican losses and discredited policies.

Even more inside these numbers ... the most important and most valuable demographic to most advertisers - the "advertising demo" - is ages 25-49. And in that demo, Olbermann has actually beaten O'Reilly on a handful of nights in '07 and '08 ... a feat considered unthinkable just a year or two earlier ... and Rachel Maddow so detroyed Greta Van Susteren, that she was moved up outta that slot, the repeat of her show late night was pulled, FoxNews abandoned all pretense at objectivity by canning Allan Colmes, and Hannity has that old slot now.


All that said, FoxNews has come into a huge bonanza in just the last six weeks: Glen Beck's ratings are through the roof. I've read more than one Newser blog that says O'Reilly is becoming insecure (isn't that his natural mindset) about his time slot because Beck is such a shoorting star.

I think Beck is a mental patient, but hey, I'm obviously in the minority.

O'Reilly attacked Beck's position on the handling of the piracy issue. So I think that you are right.

Shoemaker
04-14-2009, 10:17 PM
I understand your inordinate fear of conservatism, because hell, logical thinking scares most insane people...

One fluke election of a tin man using a 20 year old socialist playbook doesnt change that.

I was about to point out the hilarity of your first statement (conservatism and logic are far closer to opposites than they are to synonyms), but I appreciate you saving me the trouble with that second one.

If Obama's victory by 192 electoral votes was a "fluke," then what in the hell do you call Bush's court appointed victory in 2000 and slim 35-EV win in 2004? That old "center-right nation" notion is hogwash; our country has been moving left for years, and two straight crushing electoral victories for the left is hardly a "fluke."

BroncoBuff
04-14-2009, 10:18 PM
Oh jeez, I've been in that same "minority" for a long time. I watched his "You Are Not Alone" special out of morbid curiosity, and I about died laughing. One of the most hilarious hours of TV I've ever seen, especially considering that he was serious about the paranoid mumbo-jumbo he was babbling.

And I agree that MSNBC has really been on with their mockery of these "Tea Parties" lately. Rachel Maddow in particular was hilarious about it.

What an absolutely ridiculous concept for a protest.

OMG thanks for helping me outta the closet ... I have have to admit I LOVE GLEN BECK! I watch him for camp value ... he is just a scream. He's MUCH more entertaining now than he ever was on CNN, I guess Fox has really allowed him to "spread his wings." :~ohyah!:

His first week on the air there he did an entire segment with a super-closeup of his eyes!

50 seconds into this video:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ex695VSHmSs&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ex695VSHmSs&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


You just can't make stuff like that up ... I love that guy.

He's got some seriously mesmerizing baby blues, too :~ohyah!:

Br0nc0Buster
04-14-2009, 10:26 PM
Glenn Beck is a clown

"Im sorry, I just love my country, and I fear for it".......

:spit:

Shoemaker
04-14-2009, 10:32 PM
Glenn Beck is a clown

"Im sorry, I just love my country, and I fear for it".......

:spit:

Don't forget the most obviously fake tears I have ever seen on television.

Soap operas are literally more convincing than Glenn Beck.

Though Colbert tearing him apart for that was hilarious.

Majik
04-14-2009, 10:37 PM
I'd be at the local tea party tomorrow, but have tickets to the Brewers game. I prioritize the Milwaukee Brewers ahead of this hopeless country.

BroncoBuff
04-14-2009, 10:40 PM
Don't forget the most obviously fake tears I have ever seen on television.

:20 in .....

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6HWKzobeya4&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6HWKzobeya4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Xenos
04-14-2009, 10:44 PM
According to both articles, and several others, the bulk of fox' viewers are between the ages of 24-55, and growing % wise. This is opposite of shrinking. I understand your inordinate fear of conservatism, because hell, logical thinking scares most insane people, but trust me lil buddy, it will be fine. Fox also has an 86 month streak of leading in the ratings. I know you probably dont think so, but this is a center-right leaning country. One fluke election of a tin man using a 20 year old socialist playbook doesnt change that.


:Broncos:
I have an inordinate fear of social conservatism, which can be seen in both democrats and republicans. Something like the issue on gay marriage makes me shake my head sometimes. The fact that most Republicans are against it and are viewed as elitist bible thumpers make me shake my head even more. Another reason is guys like O Reilly and Hannity just make me shake my head with their ignorance and stupidity.

I'm mixed on financial conservatism. The only thing is that I don't think cutting taxes work since people tend to save more when that happens as opposed to spending it.

halfcreek
04-14-2009, 10:48 PM
I'd be at the local tea party tomorrow, but have tickets to the Brewers game. I prioritize the Milwaukee Brewers ahead of this hopeless country.

And who would you be teabagging?

Archer81
04-14-2009, 11:24 PM
I have an inordinate fear of social conservatism, which can be seen in both democrats and republicans. Something like the issue on gay marriage makes me shake my head sometimes. The fact that most Republicans are against it and are viewed as elitist bible thumpers make me shake my head even more. Another reason is guys like O Reilly and Hannity just make me shake my head with their ignorance and stupidity.

I'm mixed on financial conservatism. The only thing is that I don't think cutting taxes work since people tend to save more when that happens as opposed to spending it.



I am a fiscal conservative. I tend to be libertarian in my social views. I dont care if two adults want to marry. Thats a side road and not important. It drives me nuts when any president just spends money because they think they can. Thats my issue with Bush and Obama. Dumping cash we dont have to create government jobs is a net loss, nothing was gained from that except a more bloated federal government.

There is a difference between "republicans" and conservatives. I am not a republican, and never will be.

:Broncos:

Xenos
04-14-2009, 11:37 PM
I am a fiscal conservative. I tend to be libertarian in my social views. I dont care if two adults want to marry. Thats a side road and not important. It drives me nuts when any president just spends money because they think they can. Thats my issue with Bush and Obama. Dumping cash we dont have to create government jobs is a net loss, nothing was gained from that except a more bloated federal government.

There is a difference between "republicans" and conservatives. I am not a republican, and never will be.

:Broncos:
I can see the logic in spending to jump start a stale economy. If no one is spending then there is a financial crunch. In this case, the government is essentially the spender of last resort. A substitute to get the flow of cash moving again. Whether it actually works is another thing.

cutthemdown
04-14-2009, 11:40 PM
LOL classic. Maybe they will use dirty sanchez to rally against immigration.

Archer81
04-14-2009, 11:45 PM
LOL classic. Maybe they will use dirty sanchez to rally against immigration.

You should actually wonder why obama wants amnesty. Or maybe turning 12 million illegals into instantcitizens to change voting districts and basically create 12 million instant voters for the left is something you are cool with.


:Broncos:

BroncoBuff
04-14-2009, 11:55 PM
You should actually wonder why obama wants amnesty. Or maybe turning 12 million illegals into instantcitizens to change voting districts and basically create 12 million instant voters for the left is something you are cool with.


:Broncos:

I thought you weren't a Republican? :~ohyah!:

Binkythefrog
04-15-2009, 12:14 AM
"According to both articles, and several others, the bulk of fox' viewers are between the ages of 24-55, and growing % wise. This is opposite of shrinking. I understand your inordinate fear of conservatism, because hell, logical thinking scares most insane people, but trust me lil buddy, it will be fine. Fox also has an 86 month streak of leading in the ratings. I know you probably dont think so, but this is a center-right leaning country. One fluke election of a tin man using a 20 year old socialist playbook doesnt change that."

Good to see that conservatives know what socialism really is:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/weekinreview/01leibovich.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Attacking Obama's policies is fair, but don't call them something they are not. It is easy to simply place a label on policies that people disagree with to help those who can't understand them understand how to hate them. Now, this also applies to many liberals who call conservatives bible beaters or facists or racist or other stupid terms. We all need to look at policies as they are and not mislabel them. This dumb practice of calling everything Obama does socialism only misleads people and prevents them from actually understanding what is going on.

If you want to see socialism, go to Scandanavia or Venuezela. As far as I can tell, the government is not intent on producing all of our food or other consumable goods. While the government is lending billions to banks, I don't see govt people from the Treasury running over the banks and taking control of them. I also don't see the government nationalizing hospitals, oil refinineries, car manufactuers or everything else this country produces.

AbileneBroncoFan
04-15-2009, 12:17 AM
The hypocrisy of Fox "News:"

<table style='font:11px arial; color:#333; background-color:#f5f5f5' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='360' height='353'><tbody><tr style='background-color:#e5e5e5' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/'>The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a></td><td style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align:right; font-weight:bold;'>M - Th 11p / 10c</td></tr><tr style='height:14px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;' colspan='2'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=216561&title=fox-news-fear-imbalance'>Fox News Fear Imbalance</a></td></tr><tr style='height:14px; background-color:#353535' valign='middle'><td colspan='2' style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; width:360px; overflow:hidden; text-align:right'><a target='_blank' style='color:#96deff; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/'>thedailyshow.com</a></td></tr><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><embed style='display:block' src='http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:216561' width='360' height='301' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' wmode='window' allowFullscreen='true' flashvars='autoPlay=false' allowscriptaccess='always' allownetworking='all' bgcolor='#000000'></embed></td></tr><tr style='height:18px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><table style='margin:0px; text-align:center' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='100%' height='100%'><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml'>Daily Show<br/> Full Episodes</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/tagSearchResults.jhtml?term=Clusterf%23%40k+to+the +Poor+House'>Economic Crisis</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.indecisionforever.com'>Political Humor</a></td></tr></table></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table style='font:11px arial; color:#333; background-color:#f5f5f5' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='360' height='353'><tbody><tr style='background-color:#e5e5e5' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/'>The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a></td><td style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align:right; font-weight:bold;'>M - Th 11p / 10c</td></tr><tr style='height:14px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;' colspan='2'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=217706&title=bill-oreillys-right-to-privacy'>Bill O'Reilly's Right to Privacy</a></td></tr><tr style='height:14px; background-color:#353535' valign='middle'><td colspan='2' style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; width:360px; overflow:hidden; text-align:right'><a target='_blank' style='color:#96deff; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/'>thedailyshow.com</a></td></tr><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><embed style='display:block' src='http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:217706' width='360' height='301' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' wmode='window' allowFullscreen='true' flashvars='autoPlay=false' allowscriptaccess='always' allownetworking='all' bgcolor='#000000'></embed></td></tr><tr style='height:18px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><table style='margin:0px; text-align:center' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='100%' height='100%'><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml'>Daily Show<br/> Full Episodes</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/tagSearchResults.jhtml?term=Clusterf%23%40k+to+the +Poor+House'>Economic Crisis</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.indecisionforever.com'>Political Humor</a></td></tr></table></td></tr></tbody></table>

BroncoBuff
04-15-2009, 12:25 AM
Thanks Binky ... the "socialist" tag is pretty silly when you understand what socialism really is. But the word "socialist" still has real shock value, and can create fear (mostly among the FoxNews viewer base ;D) based upon communist hatred from the Cold War years. Being a REAL American meant hating communism ... and "socialism" is linked to it as a kind of "communist light."

And the reality of quasi-socialist nations like Scandanavia as you mentioned, is pretty positive. There is less social and economic dynamism ... it's a bit tougher to foster innovation, and harder to become filthy rich, but the quality of life and living is far better on the whole. Free health care, education, often child care and good pensions and vacations. Their dwindling workforce-aged populations have forced them to open their doors to less sophisticated and ofttimes troublesome immigrants, but if they had kept making babies through the 80s and 90s, their societies would be pretty awesome.

SonOfLe-loLang
04-15-2009, 12:35 AM
I can see the logic in spending to jump start a stale economy. If no one is spending then there is a financial crunch. In this case, the government is essentially the spender of last resort. A substitute to get the flow of cash moving again. Whether it actually works is another thing.

its actually econ 101 to spend through a stale economy. The paradox of thrift is that if everyone saves, no one shops, jobs are lost. The government is spending to keep things afloat in this time of recession. Anyone who doesnt think stimulus is necessary is a moron

cutthemdown
04-15-2009, 12:55 AM
You should actually wonder why obama wants amnesty. Or maybe turning 12 million illegals into instantcitizens to change voting districts and basically create 12 million instant voters for the left is something you are cool with.


:Broncos:

Naw I am firmly against amnesty. I'd like to see immigration be curtailed and resources conserved. Also immigration should be an even mix from all countries, not just latinos from Mexico.

Rohirrim
04-15-2009, 06:48 AM
The Rightards are just living up to their motto: Baaaaa Baaaaa!

Traveler
04-15-2009, 07:03 AM
Exactly what are these folks protesting against? Can't seem to get the same answer from anyone.

colonelbeef
04-15-2009, 07:06 AM
How is MSNBC clueless? The people throwing the "tea parties" are calling it teabagging. On Rachel's show yesterday, she could barely keep a straight face.

By the way, these tea parties are about the dumbest things ive ever heard of. If you go, you deserve to be mocked

seriously. the video is hilarious and the people actually attending these moronic rallies are being used as pawns, as per usual.

Tax rates for those making 250K+ are still at record lows comparatively, and the people who are behind the complaints are the very same who started multiple expensive wars in the first place.

Mogulseeker
04-15-2009, 07:07 AM
MSNBC's ratings are up and up and up .... and Fox's ratings are down and down and down.

You know, like how the Republicans all got kicked out on their asses?

I was about to ask him what Nielsen ratings he saw... it fluctuates by time and day. CNN is the most watched news network, and on some days Fox News is second, on others MSNBC.

broncofan7
04-15-2009, 07:14 AM
You should actually wonder why obama wants amnesty. Or maybe turning 12 million illegals into instantcitizens to change voting districts and basically create 12 million instant voters for the left is something you are cool with.


:Broncos:

EXACTLY. brilliant if not exactly inconspicuous

broncofan7
04-15-2009, 07:28 AM
I thought that MSNBC's coverage of the Iraq 'WAR' was excellent--they really held the Bush admin's feet to the fire and asked the tough questions that should have been asked BEFORE we invaded Iraq in 2003.

However, I lost respect for them and they lost my viewership when I saw the obvious slant and fawning over Barack from the DEM primaries into the general election. O'Reilly can be a hack, Hannity IS a hack but I think that Beck, while overly animated to the point of coming off as mildly insane--expresses many of my points of view, to a greater extent than any other TV commentator outside of Lou Dobbs, who I also enjoy watching. Maddow can be pretty fair as well and I still enjoy Olbermann's worst person in the world segment--but overall with MSNBC putting people like Andrea Mitchell on the air during the regular news day--they really show their bias IMHO.

Broncojef
04-15-2009, 07:37 AM
Bailing out business that have no business being bailed out
Billions and Billions of dollars being printed and lost through the private Federal Reserve...no accountability
A dollar that will be worthless making us slaves to foriegn countries
European countries concerned with our socialist tendencies
Government owning banks and forcing issues because they are government owned
Firing CEOs of private sector companies at the president's request
Spending thats out of control and an unending government program rollout despite obama campaigning for fiscal conservatism
Stimulus bills giving money to people who don't pay taxes
Spending more money in two months than Bush did in 8 years
Tax payer funds in the bailouts going to corrupt organizations like ACORN
The federal government dictating to states how they are run or no money will be given to them.
Tax rates that must go to outlandish levels should we ever truly want to get this debt under control as Obama continually points toward.
Tax laws that are holding corporate growth back and bringing our econmy into an even worse position (we need investing not taxes) thus causing massive job losses and lay-offs.
The list goes on and on. yeah I get the Tea Party thing...

Traveler
04-15-2009, 07:41 AM
I'd be at the local tea party tomorrow, but have tickets to the Brewers game. I prioritize the Milwaukee Brewers ahead of this hopeless country.

Hope the others attending the tea bagging party with you aren't too salty.:yayaya:

Hogan11
04-15-2009, 07:41 AM
Sorry but I can't take anyone who watches Fox News seriously.

Go cry with Glenn Beck

Mogulseeker
04-15-2009, 07:54 AM
Sorry but I can't take anyone who watches Fox News seriously.

Go cry with Glenn Beck

Seriously.

I can understand conservatism. I might even be right-leaning on fiscal matters, and some trivial matters like choice/life, and gun control... but Fox News is so unbelievably unprofessional and biased, and it's obvious too. You talk about the downfall of the watchdog role of the new, it starts with Fox.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/63877/family-guy-fox-y-lady

<object width="512" height="296"><param name="movie" value="http://www.hulu.com/embed/Jp0_9rruBjCR5K8hO0qnVQ"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.hulu.com/embed/Jp0_9rruBjCR5K8hO0qnVQ" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" width="512" height="296"></embed></object>

rugbythug
04-15-2009, 08:00 AM
This is Hilarious. The high and mighty pointing fingers and laughing at people who disagree with them. Ridiculing Fox News while not admitting the bias in there own news shows.

For the Record. I have not watched any news in years. I really don't care. I am too busy trying to get ahead to sit back and watch what other people are doing.

I am a fiscal Conservative and am being dragged to a Tea Party this afternoon.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
04-15-2009, 08:03 AM
http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/political-pictures-edward-r-murrow-hour-news.jpg

barryr
04-15-2009, 08:08 AM
This would get more attention and taken more serious by those(especially many in the media) that are riveted by gay rights parades and pro abortion rallies. Or of course, if Bush was still the president, then no doubt this would get blanket coverage and be used as more "people are not happy with Bush." I bet nutjob Cindy Sheehan will end up having more coverage of the 2 events.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
04-15-2009, 08:12 AM
This would get more attention and taken more serious by those(especially many in the media) that are riveted by gay rights parades and pro abortion rallies. Or of course, if Bush was still the president, then no doubt this would get blanket coverage and be used as more "people are not happy with Bush." I bet nutjob Cindy Sheehan will end up having more coverage of the 2 events.

How can there possibly be more attention paid to this than every network running a story on this every single night? Should it be the only discussion for a full hour of programming? Shall they preempt the basketball playoff race to make sure that this information is looped 24 hours a day?

Bottom line: it's not that interesting. Gay pride parades have gotten about 1/32nd of the coverage of the Tea-Baggers, so your argument is absurd.

"Next up on NFL Total Access: The Teabag movement coming to a city near you."

Yeah. Why don't you go ahead and hold your breath for that one.

Mogulseeker
04-15-2009, 08:15 AM
"The tea baggers, being led by a 'Dick Armey' to protest Barack Obama, for tax policies initiated by George Bush, because Obama wants to raise taxes to 10% less than Ronald Reagan"

rugbythug
04-15-2009, 08:18 AM
"The tea baggers, being led by a 'Dick Armey' to protest Barack Obama, for tax policies initiated by George Bush, because Obama wants to raise taxes to 10% less than Ronald Reagan"

It is a protest against spending, and the taxes that will be associated with paying back said money. But if you believe what people in Washington say then more power to you. But the numbers don't work.

Traveler
04-15-2009, 08:41 AM
This is Hilarious. The high and mighty pointing fingers and laughing at people who disagree with them. Ridiculing Fox News while not admitting the bias in there own news shows.

For the Record. I have not watched any news in years. I really don't care. I am too busy trying to get ahead to sit back and watch what other people are doing.

I am a fiscal Conservative and am being dragged to a Tea Party this afternoon.

You are actually serious. Nary a peep from most fiscal conservatives during the last eights years from 43rd's out of control spending.

Is someone holding a gun to your head and making you go tea bagging?

Mogulseeker
04-15-2009, 08:59 AM
I was about to ask him what Nielsen ratings he saw... it fluctuates by time and day. CNN is the most watched news network, and on some days Fox News is second, on others MSNBC.

Oh by the way, I thought I'd add - MSNBC OWNS Fox news in ever under-55 demographic.

MSNBC = young and vibrant
Fox = old and cynical...

Typical MSNBC viewer weekend: mountain biking, surfing, etc. Nights at the clubs with friends. Laid back, friendly, eager to help.

Typical Fox viewer weekend: goddammit! Get off my lawn, son. Usually in bed by 8, assuming they don't forget to take their medicine.

rugbythug
04-15-2009, 09:27 AM
You are actually serious. Nary a peep from most fiscal conservatives during the last eights years from 43rd's out of control spending.

Is someone holding a gun to your head and making you go tea bagging?

Do you even know any? Every Conservative I knew was loosing their mind and feeling sold out by the last Congress and President. Hence the low approval Ratings.

rugbythug
04-15-2009, 09:28 AM
Oh by the way, I thought I'd add - MSNBC OWNS Fox news in ever under-55 demographic.

MSNBC = young and vibrant
Fox = old and cynical...

Typical MSNBC viewer weekend: mountain biking, surfing, etc. Nights at the clubs with friends. Laid back, friendly, eager to help.

Typical Fox viewer weekend: goddammit! Get off my lawn, son. Usually in bed by 8, assuming they don't forget to take their medicine.

You failed to mention doesn't watch the news.

Pseudofool
04-15-2009, 09:45 AM
Speaking of Glenn Beck and MSNBC. This is an awesome clip of Joe Scarborough yawking it up over Beck's tears. Funny, funny stuff.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mUe8gw-6UGQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mUe8gw-6UGQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

ElwayMD
04-15-2009, 09:45 AM
Do you even know any? Every Conservative I knew was loosing their mind and feeling sold out by the last Congress and President. Hence the low approval Ratings.

It makes them feel better to think that they were the only ones who were pissed at Bush. It's easier to assume that the pollsters magically interviewed only democrats to get the approval ratings rather than admit that conservatives actually were sick of what was going on in Washington too.

Mogulseeker
04-15-2009, 09:48 AM
You failed to mention doesn't watch the news.

LOL Then why has MSNBC owned Fox news since about this time last year?

Pseudofool
04-15-2009, 09:49 AM
I understand your inordinate fear of conservatism, because hell, logical thinking scares most insane people Others have touched this. But this is such a really shallow and arrogant statement.

Everyone feels their idealogical leanings are logical, hence why they believe them.

(And sure, there's nothing illogical about believing that an abstract force (the freemarket) will fix everything. Modernized divine intervention anyone?)

TheElusiveKyleOrton
04-15-2009, 09:49 AM
It makes them feel better to think that they were the only ones who were pissed at Bush. It's easier to assume that the pollsters magically interviewed only democrats to get the approval ratings rather than admit that conservatives actually were sick of what was going on in Washington too.

30% still approved the job Bush was doing. SOMEone was supporting the moron.

ElwayMD
04-15-2009, 09:55 AM
30% still approved the job Bush was doing. SOMEone was supporting the moron.

Don't think anyone denies that. I was talking about the idiotic argument that every damn conservative was walking in lockstep with the Bush administration. If you take 30% as approval that means at least 20% of registered Republicans and conservatives did not approve of what he was doing. Who knows maybe some highly "medicated" democrats actually gave him a positive review too. That's the funny things about polls they aren't anywhere near an exact science and tell us very little under the surface.

gyldenlove
04-15-2009, 09:56 AM
30% still approved the job Bush was doing. SOMEone was supporting the moron.

Only the people who are too old to remember what he did the day before.

Pseudofool
04-15-2009, 10:09 AM
Conservatives who eventually came to oppose Bush should be ashamed they didn't spot the fool much earlier and helped get him reelected in 2004. It's not like some new evidence occurred after then which would lead to such an epiphany.

BroncoLifer
04-15-2009, 10:11 AM
Nary a peep from most fiscal conservatives during the last eights years from 43rd's out of control spending.



You're full of crap. Your response makes it clear that you don't know any fiscal conservatives.

The one, slight consolation we had during those eight years was the knowledge that spending would be much worse if the Dems were in charge of both the Presidency & Congress. And we were right.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
04-15-2009, 10:16 AM
You're full of crap. Your response makes it clear that you don't know any fiscal conservatives.

The one, slight consolation we had during those eight years was the knowledge that spending would be much worse if the Dems were in charge of both the Presidency & Congress. And we were right.

yes, because it's possible to spend more than millions a day on an unnecessary war AND cut taxes at the same time.

:thumbsup:

Traveler
04-15-2009, 10:21 AM
Do you even know any?

That's funny.Hilarious! Of course I do! Nothing directed at you or meant to be racial by my next comment, but, your question is the equivalent of an accused racist saying "Some of my best friends are black."


Every Conservative I knew was loosing their mind and feeling sold out by the last Congress and President. Hence the low approval Ratings.

Still, nary a peep. Even on Fox News.

Traveler
04-15-2009, 10:22 AM
yes, because it's possible to spend more than millions a day on an unnecessary war AND cut taxes at the same time.

:thumbsup:

You can't reason with someone that doesn't want to hear what you have to say.

rugbythug
04-15-2009, 10:27 AM
Conservatives who eventually came to oppose Bush should be ashamed they didn't spot the fool much earlier and helped get him reelected in 2004. It's not like some new evidence occurred after then which would lead to such an epiphany.

You do Realize that you don't get to pick whoever you want for president. It was between Bush and Kerry. People supported Bush because Kerry was worse. Not because Bush was good.

rugbythug
04-15-2009, 10:28 AM
yes, because it's possible to spend more than millions a day on an unnecessary war AND cut taxes at the same time.

:thumbsup:

Please explain the relationship between cutting taxes and general Revenue.

rugbythug
04-15-2009, 10:32 AM
That's funny.Hilarious! Of course I do! Nothing directed at you or meant to be racial by my next comment, but, your question is the equivalent of an accused racist saying "Some of my best friends are black."




Still, nary a peep. Even on Fox News.

Since I don't watch much for news I have no good resources to rebut this. I do know that the Bail out under Bush Generated more phone calls to senators and Congress than anything I have heard of before. As per the Newspaper the nays were in the lead approximately 70-1.

I also Heard multiple Radio Talk Show hosts blasting Bush and his spending various times throughout his presidency.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
04-15-2009, 10:33 AM
Please explain the relationship between cutting taxes and general Revenue.

Please explain how it's not relevant.

Taxes pay for and have paid for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan since they were both started.

When you cut taxes and just print or borrow money, you've got a DOUBLE NEGATIVE.

have you ever balanced a checkbook?

Buying a new car without income is exactly what the Bush administration did by cutting those taxes and continuing the wars, only on a much larger scale.

Tombstone RJ
04-15-2009, 10:37 AM
The REALLY funny part in all this is how Fox's Neil Cavuto said, "FoxNews is not promoting tea-bag day, we are merely covering the story ... the same way we covered the million man march."

The punchline: FoxNews didn't startup until a year AFTER the million man march! ROFL! :~ohyah!: :rofl:

There's been more than one million man march, you flaming liberal tard. :wiggle:

Tombstone RJ
04-15-2009, 10:39 AM
Overall yes, FoxNews ratings still lead by a wide (though shrinking) margin.

But when you break down the viewer demographics, you'll find that the 55 and over age demo is the bulk of their overall lead. Here's and inside-baseball tip how to tell: watch O'Reilly Factor for example ... pretty frequently his breaks include full 60-second co-op commercials for hearing-aid devices. THAT is reflective of who's watching. Sixty second ads of any kind are kinda rare, but co-op 60 second spots mean only one thing: the advertiser can target their demographic with razor precision. ("Co-op" ads means the network is paid based on how many phone calls and/or purchases the sponsor receives on the # during that show ... Sham-Wow and Snuggie are other examples, co-op advertisers use different 800-phone numbers for each network or show they co-op with). Further along these lines, Fox day-parts are loaded with Social Security disability ads, scooter ads for the diabled, and elderly-targeted ads in general. Nothing wrong with that, but make no mistake, FoxNews is receding based on these factors, and of course based upon Republican losses and discredited policies.

Even more inside these numbers ... the most important and most valuable demographic to most advertisers - the "advertising demo" - is ages 25-49. And in that demo, Olbermann has actually beaten O'Reilly on a handful of nights in '07 and '08 ... a feat considered unthinkable just a year or two earlier ... and Rachel Maddow so detroyed Greta Van Susteren, that she was moved up outta that slot, the repeat of her show late night was pulled, FoxNews abandoned all pretense at objectivity by canning Allan Colmes, and Hannity has that old slot now.


All that said, FoxNews has come into a huge bonanza in just the last six weeks: Glen Beck's ratings are through the roof. I've read more than one Newser blog that says O'Reilly is becoming insecure (isn't that his natural mindset) about his time slot because Beck is such a shoorting star.

I think Beck is a mental patient, but hey, I'm obviously in the minority.

Get a life.

Garcia Bronco
04-15-2009, 10:58 AM
Still, nary a peep. Even on Fox News.

WTF does fox news have to do with it? Are you people so glued to your tv sets? The only people that watch beck and limbaugh are fringe liberals. I don't know a soul that watches these shows or listens to these guys but liberals. You can't get you answers from 1 guy in your tv world or one network in your tv world. All you have to do is understand the constitution, it's well within everyone's grasp, and realize no matter which way you slice it our Government is on major fail mode and it doesn't matter which party to happen to sleep with.

rugbythug
04-15-2009, 11:27 AM
Please explain how it's not relevant.

Taxes pay for and have paid for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan since they were both started.

When you cut taxes and just print or borrow money, you've got a DOUBLE NEGATIVE.

have you ever balanced a checkbook?

Buying a new car without income is exactly what the Bush administration did by cutting those taxes and continuing the wars, only on a much larger scale.

You need to take a look at history. Cutting Taxes has Increased Revenue. Not Decreased it. That is the Problem with your Theory. Please take off the blinders and look it up.

TheElusiveKyleOrton
04-15-2009, 11:29 AM
You need to take a look at history. Cutting Taxes has Increased Revenue. Not Decreased it. That is the Problem with your Theory. Please take off the blinders and look it up.

Increased it for WHOM? Cutting taxes cuts money from the federal and state budget. You know, middling things like bridge, road and levee repair. Schools. Health care. Stuff that just isn't important, so long as privately held companies make a buck, right?

Traveler
04-15-2009, 11:31 AM
You need to take a look at history. Cutting Taxes has Increased Revenue. Not Decreased it. That is the Problem with your Theory. Please take off the blinders and look it up.

It has also increased the deficit during Reagan, Bush, & Bush II.

rugbythug
04-15-2009, 11:37 AM
It has also increased the deficit during Reagan, Bush, & Bush II.

This is Incorrect. Revenue is independent of the deficit. The Deficit is Revenue-spending.

rugbythug
04-15-2009, 11:42 AM
Increased it for WHOM? Cutting taxes cuts money from the federal and state budget. You know, middling things like bridge, road and levee repair. Schools. Health care. Stuff that just isn't important, so long as privately held companies make a buck, right?

You are the Clown Prince.

The tax cuts were on Capital Gains and Income Taxes. Which goes into the General Fund. Yet when you lowered the Rates people put more effort and put more money into the system. Rates were lower yet Revenues increased.

Many of the things you list above are paid for by other types of taxes. Of which the rates did not change. IE Schools are a property tax burden. Health Care has it's own special Tax look at your W2. Road and Bridge are paid off of your vehicle tax. These are state and local taxes not affected in any way by federal policy.

rugbythug
04-15-2009, 11:46 AM
Tax Cuts vs. Government Revenue

Why does debate over the effects of income tax cuts on revenues and the budget deficit never end? Do we not have ample empirical data that demonstrates that lowered taxes produce "more" revenue, not less, by stimulating economic activity?
The answer to these questions first requires a little background information.
In each of the last three cuts in marginal tax rates, revenues received by the U.S. Treasury have increased. Coolidge cut tax rates in the 1920s, Kennedy cut marginal tax rates in the 1960s, and Reagan cut them in the 1980s.
Under Coolidge, marginal tax rates were cut from the top rate of 73% to 24%. The economy rewarded this policy by expanding 59% from 1921 to 1929. Revenues received by the federal treasury increased from $719 million in 1921 to more than $1.1 billion 1929. That's a 61% increase (there was zero inflation in this period). Growth averaged more than six percent annually. We are currently growing at 2.5%.
Under Kennedy, marginal tax rates were cut from a top rate of 91% to 70%. In real dollar terms, the economy grew by 42%, an average of 5 percent a year from 1961 to 1965. Tax revenue to the U.S. Treasury increased by 62%. Adjusted for inflation, they rose by one-third.
Under Reagan, marginal tax rates were cut from a top of 70% to 28%. Revenues (from all taxes) to the U.S. Treasury nearly doubled. According to the Budget of the U.S. Government, FY 1997, Office of Management and Budget. Revenues increased from roughly $500 billion in 1980 to $1.1 trillion in 1990.
In each case, the personal income taxes paid by "the rich" increased when their tax rates were cut. The top 10 percent of earners in the Reagan years paid 48% of the income tax burden between 1981 and 1988.
Regarding your remarks about tax hikes, there is a correlation between the Bush and Clinton tax hikes and a change in the revenue received by the Treasury. Martin Feldstien, professor of economics at Harvard, estimates that the U.S. Treasury would have collected two-thirds more revenue during the first three years of the Clinton presidency had his administration NOT raised taxes. It should be stressed, however, that the economy of the 1990s has grown moderately, in spite of tax increases, not because of them.
The reason that much of this data is ignored in debates is politics, pure politics. It pays to engage in class warfare if you are a politician because it divides voters against each other. When the perception is that only the "rich" will profit from a tax cut, such policies become difficult to sell because those labeled as "rich" tend to be in the minority.
In addition, politicians have a stake in keeping the tax code complex because it allows them to extract campaign donations and favors from people and corporations who derive huge benefits from special tax laws and exemptions in return.



http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=676

broncocalijohn
04-15-2009, 11:46 AM
WTF does fox news have to do with it? Are you people so glued to your tv sets? The only people that watch beck and limbaugh are fringe liberals. I don't know a soul that watches these shows or listens to these guys but liberals. You can't get you answers from 1 guy in your tv world or one network in your tv world. All you have to do is understand the constitution, it's well within everyone's grasp, and realize no matter which way you slice it our Government is on major fail mode and it doesn't matter which party to happen to sleep with.

There isnt enough fringe liberals to make Rush's audience that big. In fact, since the bashing of Bush by the Democrat insiders (Carvill), his ratings have gone up. There are always someone new out there that wasnt very political before. ANytime a riot or earthquake happens in SoCal, the talk stations ratings go up as people stay tuned in long after the initial "cover" story has passed. Fringe liberals listen to NPR and Air America.

BroncoBuff
04-15-2009, 11:49 AM
Exactly what are these folks protesting against? Can't seem to get the same answer from anyone.

Yes, there is a serious message disconnect about this thing. The Boston Tea Party was about taxation, not spending. Obama's intention is to CUT taxes for all but the top 2 percent. Is there truly a groundswell of opposition to that?

And if they're protesting just the spending part, yeah I definitely do get that. But where was their outrage when Bush and the all-GOP Congress turned the largest surplus ever into the largest deficit ever? In five short years?


REALITY CHECK ABOUT TAXES: I never see this ever mentioned in discussions of Obama's tax increases for $250,000 and above incomes, but please know that they're not talking $250,000 GROSS income. They're talking about $250,000 TAXABLE income. You start with gross income, take exemptions and some deductions to get ADJUSTED gross income, then deduct itemized deductions and mortgage interest deductions, etc, and only then do you arrive at TAXABLE income, and only then to you go to the tax tables to determine your tax. Accordingly, people can make $400,000 or even $500,000 ... and STILL end up below $250,000 TAXABLE income after deductions/exemptions. And if you drop below that, you have no tax increase whatsoever.

rugbythug
04-15-2009, 11:49 AM
Yes, there is a serious message disconnect about this thing. The Boston Tea Party was about taxation, not spending. Obama's intention is to CUT taxes for all but the top 2 percent. Is there truly a groundswell of opposition to that?

And if they're protesting just the spending part, yeah I definitely do get that. But where was their outrage when Bush and the all-GOP Congress turned the largest surplus ever into the largest deficit ever? In five short years?


IMPORTANT POINT ABOUT TAXES: I never see this ever mentioned in discussions of Obama's tax increases for $250,000 and above incomes, but please know that they're not talking $250,000 gross income. They're talking about $250,000 TAXABLE income. You start with gross income, take exemptions and some deductions to get ADJUSTED gross income, then deduct itemized deductions and mortgage interest deductions, etc, and only then do you arrive at TAXABLE income, and only then to you go to the tax tables to determine your tax. Accordingly, people can make $400,000 or even $500,000 ... and STILL end up below $250,000 TAXABLE income after deductions/exemptions. And if you drop below that, you have no rtax increase whatsoever.


Ahh the old as long as it is not happening to you. The real deal is-Those Tax increases are not going to be enough to cover the spending being done. Thus I don't believe a word of it.

BroncoBuff
04-15-2009, 12:03 PM
Ahh the old as long as it is not happening to you. The real deal is-Those Tax increases are not going to be enough to cover the spending being done. Thus I don't believe a word of it.

Fine, those increases will not cover the spending increases, believe that. But what you can also believe is that the top 2 percent of incomes make roughly 40% of all income. This is a serious problem ... history is replete with societies who started to crumble as the richest became richer and richer.

The top 2% suck huge chunks of money out of the economy, which eventually results in lower incomes on the bottom 98%. Oh sure, SOME of the money starts businesses and creates jobs, but most of these mountains of money are removed from the day-to-day economy and into savings, hedge funds, bonds, gold, stocks. Which is making money from paper, and is not economy-bolstering, job-creating investment.

A great example is the Waltons ... Sam's children. They suck up exorbitant mega-profits, and basically send the money to China. And they pay Americans minimum wages without benefits to basically work for Wal-Mart and for the Chinese manufacturers.

Because that's what they choose to do with their money, I say soak their asses big-time. Hell, give them the 90% top-income tax rate of the Eisenhower era.

BroncoBuff
04-15-2009, 12:04 PM
Ahh the old as long as it is not happening to you.

I've never made $250,000 taxable income ... I'm not sure I've even made half that. Have you?

bronco militia
04-15-2009, 12:04 PM
you're a moron if you didn't think MSNBC did that on purpose

rugbythug
04-15-2009, 12:14 PM
Fine, those increases will not cover the spending increases, believe that. But what you can also believe is that the top 2 percent of incomes make roughly 40% of all income. This is a serious problem ... history is replete with societies who started to crumble as the richest became richer and richer.

The top 2% suck huge chunks of money out of the economy, which eventually results in lower incomes on the bottom 98%. Oh sure, SOME of the money starts businesses and creates jobs, but most of these mountains of money are removed from the day-to-day economy and into savings, hedge funds, bonds, gold, stocks. Which is making money from paper, and is not economy-bolstering, job-creating investment.

A great example is the Waltons ... Sam's children. They suck up exorbitant mega-profits, and basically send the money to China. And they pay Americans minimum wages without benefits to basically work for Wal-Mart and for the Chinese manufacturers.

Because that's what they choose to do with their money, I say soak their asses big-time. Hell, give them the 90% top-income tax rate of the Eisenhower era.

So by your own admission this is really just a emotional thing for you. People who make a lot of money are bad and need to be punished.

While the upper 2% make 40% of the total income generated what do they pay in taxes?

You also seem to think that your soaking them is going to work. It has not in the past and will not in the future. The Rich are not, going to sit still when you try and take 90% of their income. Of all groups this is the most able to avoid paying taxes. Just like Mick Jagger and the Beatles Moved out of England when they were getting killed, so will the rich in this Country.

rugbythug
04-15-2009, 12:16 PM
I've never made $250,000 taxable income ... I'm not sure I've even made half that. Have you?

Well I have not at this point. But I am still only 33. I have around 12 Rental Houses. And am trying to get up to 40-60. When I go to sell those I will have much more than 250k in taxable income. But you can bet your ass I will try to avoid paying taxes to the fullest extent I can.

Shoemaker
04-15-2009, 12:27 PM
Well I have not at this point. But I am still only 33. I have around 12 Rental Houses. And am trying to get up to 40-60. When I go to sell those I will have much more than 250k in taxable income. But you can bet your ass I will try to avoid paying taxes to the fullest extent I can.

Right on! I mean, who wants to pay taxes anyways?

Its not like its required by law or is a civic duty!

Its not like you could afford it if you were making $250,000 a year!

Its not like they go to fund services and amenities you use every single day!

Keep on keepin' on.

ElwayMD
04-15-2009, 12:41 PM
Right on! I mean, who wants to pay taxes anyways?

Its not like its required by law or is a civic duty!

Its not like you could afford it if you were making $250,000 a year!

Its not like they go to fund services and amenities you use every single day!

Keep on keepin' on.

Way to take what he was saying way out of context. Let's put it in perspective. Would you rather work the tax code so that you only have to pay 10% on $250,000 or just pay the 40% that is usually designated for that amount of taxable income? (these are just random percentages so don't go crazy with the these numbers are wrong)

Any human with half a brain will try and pay the least amount of taxes they have to. He didn't say he wasn't going to pay taxes.

halfcreek
04-15-2009, 12:52 PM
This is Hilarious. The high and mighty pointing fingers and laughing at people who disagree with them. Ridiculing Fox News while not admitting the bias in there own news shows.

For the Record. I have not watched any news in years. I really don't care. I am too busy trying to get ahead to sit back and watch what other people are doing.

I am a fiscal Conservative and am being dragged to a Tea Party this afternoon.

Hope you get bagged.

AbileneBroncoFan
04-15-2009, 12:54 PM
Way to take what he was saying way out of context. Let's put it in perspective. Would you rather work the tax code so that you only have to pay 10% on $250,000 or just pay the 40% that is usually designated for that amount of taxable income? (these are just random percentages so don't go crazy with the these numbers are wrong)

Any human with half a brain will try and pay the least amount of taxes they have to. He didn't say he wasn't going to pay taxes.

Then why does anyone who makes less than $250,000 a year vote for the Republican party instead of the Democrats, who represent their economic interests? Does that not mean that anyone who is a Republican that makes less than $250k is an idiot? Or just that they care more about gay people marrying than their own economic livelihood?

rugbythug
04-15-2009, 12:54 PM
Right on! I mean, who wants to pay taxes anyways?

Its not like its required by law or is a civic duty!

Its not like you could afford it if you were making $250,000 a year!

Its not like they go to fund services and amenities you use every single day!

Keep on keepin' on.

I put my money into the community via Charities. Much more effective than the Gov't. You do know you can send a check to the IRS for whatever amount you wish. Please pick up my slack as the good citizen that you are. I will continue trying to avoid paying every dollar I can.(Yet Still pay way more than you do)

rugbythug
04-15-2009, 12:56 PM
Then why does anyone who makes less than $250,000 a year vote for the Republican party instead of the Democrats, who represent their economic interests? Does that not mean that anyone who is a Republican that makes less than $250k is an idiot? Or just that they care more about gay people marrying than their own economic livelihood?

Not everyone is as self serving as you would make them out to be.

BroncoLifer
04-15-2009, 12:57 PM
I put my money into the community via Charities. Much more effective than the Gov't. You do know you can send a check to the IRS for whatever amount you wish. Please pick up my slack as the good citizen that you are. I will continue trying to avoid paying every dollar I can.(Yet Still pay way more than you do)

No rugbythug, you just don't get it -- he's a liberal. He'd rather spend your money. It's much easier.

halfcreek
04-15-2009, 12:57 PM
There's been more than one million man march, you flaming liberal tard. :wiggle:

Cavuto was referring to the one that took place before Fox News existed. Neil is the one lacking mental acuity or at least the ability to use a calendar.

ElwayMD
04-15-2009, 01:07 PM
Then why does anyone who makes less than $250,000 a year vote for the Republican party instead of the Democrats, who represent their economic interests? Does that not mean that anyone who is a Republican that makes less than $250k is an idiot? Or just that they care more about gay people marrying than their own economic livelihood?

LOL at the Democrats representing their economic interests. Unless you are talking about govt. programs that hand out millions of taxpayer dollars to those who are unable or unwilling to take the iniative to better themselves. I'm fairly sure that if the Democrats could hike the taxes on lesser wage earners they would, but then they would lose their voting base. On the other hand a true conservative (which we seriously lack these days in Washington)would keep taxes low on everyone, no matter their income.

That's "fair" right? Isn't that what lefties are always crying about? It not being fair, because they didn't take the enormous amout of possibilities that living in this country allows them and instead expect someone to hand them the American dream?

Kudos though for the cut and paste from the liberal book of lame comebacks on gay marriage. That's not a Democrat vs. Republican fight. It's a religion vs. secular society battle. I know just as many registered democrats who have their pantaloons in a bunch over gay marriage as I do Republicans.

Mogulseeker
04-15-2009, 01:08 PM
Then why does anyone who makes less than $250,000 a year vote for the Republican party instead of the Democrats, who represent their economic interests? Does that not mean that anyone who is a Republican that makes less than $250k is an idiot? Or just that they care more about gay people marrying than their own economic livelihood?

Coming from a person who attends one of the most conservative schools in the country... wow.

Traveler
04-15-2009, 01:28 PM
That's it! Anyone against this administration's so-called socialist agenda must swear to give their use of Medicare and Social Security benefits once they become eligible to particapte in them.

Kaylore
04-15-2009, 01:31 PM
MSNBC's ratings are up and up and up .... and Fox's ratings are down and down and down.
Not really. MSNBC's are the worst of the three cable networks and Fox's new show increased their ratings by 300,000.

rugbythug
04-15-2009, 01:31 PM
That's it! Anyone against this administration's so-called socialist agenda must swear to give their use of Medicare and Social Security benefits once they become eligible to particapte in them.

?

If you are under 40 and expect to see any Social Security your are fooling yourself.

Garcia Bronco
04-15-2009, 01:33 PM
That's it! Anyone against this administration's so-called socialist agenda must swear to give their use of Medicare and Social Security benefits once they become eligible to particapte in them.

How about you don't take the money from me and I won't use it . Win-win. My mother just recently passed away with over 100 G's in here SS account. It was nice of Uncle Sam to give me 240 dollars to put her in the groud with. Buried anyone recently? Tell me how far 240 beans will take you on that.

BroncoLifer
04-15-2009, 01:33 PM
That's it! Anyone against this administration's so-called socialist agenda must swear to give their use of Medicare and Social Security benefits once they become eligible to particapte in them.

No Medicare tax or Social Security tax in returrn for me getting out of those programs? (I'd also need a refund of taxes incurred to date since I've never used either of them.) Sign me up.

Shoemaker
04-15-2009, 01:34 PM
I put my money into the community via Charities. Much more effective than the Gov't. You do know you can send a check to the IRS for whatever amount you wish. Please pick up my slack as the good citizen that you are. I will continue trying to avoid paying every dollar I can.(Yet Still pay way more than you do)

Its great that you donate to charities. People should do that whenever they can. More power to you for that.

But charities, as excellent as they are, do not fulfill the same function as paying taxes does; i.e. providing funding for government programs and services.

I apologize for being too confrontational before, but could you explain to me what your mindset is behind avoiding paying your taxes as much as possible? From what I could tell from your previous posts, affording taxes isn't a problem for you. Do you think the government asks for too much money, or that it will misuse your money, or something like that?

I'm trying not to be antagonistic, I'm just curious as to your reasoning here.

Plus, its ruining my Secret Liberal Plan to spend all your money. ;)

rugbythug
04-15-2009, 01:54 PM
Its great that you donate to charities. People should do that whenever they can. More power to you for that.

But charities, as excellent as they are, do not fulfill the same function as paying taxes does; i.e. providing funding for government programs and services.

I apologize for being too confrontational before, but could you explain to me what your mindset is behind avoiding paying your taxes as much as possible? From what I could tell from your previous posts, affording taxes isn't a problem for you. Do you think the government asks for too much money, or that it will misuse your money, or something like that?

I'm trying not to be antagonistic, I'm just curious as to your reasoning here.

Plus, its ruining my Secret Liberal Plan to spend all your money. ;)

I pay every dollar of Tax required and not a penny more. I structure my business so as to avoid taxes as much as possible. I look for ways to spend that are tax friendly and ways to save that is also Tax Friendly. I pay more than my share of taxes any way you slice it. The Gov't is inefficient and spends my money how it pleases vs How I wish it.

Please realize that there are many different types of taxes and they pay for different things. IE Property Taxes pay for schools. I pay way more property taxes in my business than most. I have Rentals Each of which pays property tax. Multiply what you pay on your house by 20 for what I pay. Plus I am providing housing for people who can't afford to buy a house and in reality the Gov't is getting a deal.

TDmvp
04-15-2009, 02:06 PM
I pay every dollar of Tax required and not a penny more. I structure my business so as to avoid taxes as much as possible. I look for ways to spend that are tax friendly and ways to save that is also Tax Friendly. I pay more than my share of taxes any way you slice it. The Gov't is inefficient and spends my money how it pleases vs How I wish it.

Please realize that there are many different types of taxes and they pay for different things. IE Property Taxes pay for schools. I pay way more property taxes in my business than most. I have Rentals Each of which pays property tax. Multiply what you pay on your house by 20 for what I pay. Plus I am providing housing for people who can't afford to buy a house and in reality the Gov't is getting a deal.


Great post ...
If I tried to go there I would get flamed by Gunns LOL ...

My Dad owns a company , and my friends and most in general think it's like some sorta wet dream fantasy land.

And they also think that he should pay a insane amount of taxes to the point where he might as well make about what a 9-5'er makes .... even tho he has worked 24/7 for 30+ years ... and deserves to make more then most ... cause he does more and earned it .

Everyone else has the same chance he did ... He came from nothing , back when if you got a few oranges in your stocking for Xmas you did well .
If he can go from that to where he is anyone can , and I'm sick of hearing how the poor can't help themselves and the rich should do more ...

Do more ??? that is why they are rich ... they DO more ...

BroncoBuff
04-15-2009, 02:12 PM
This is Incorrect. Revenue is independent of the deficit. The Deficit is Revenue-spending.

Then you must be a big Bill Clinton fan ... the man balanced the budget, where once it was thought impossible.

What an excellent president he was.

TDmvp
04-15-2009, 02:16 PM
Then you must be a big Bill Clinton fan ... the man balanced the budget, where once it was thought impossible.

What an excellent president he was.




http://www.peakradar.com/images/event/30223/Lewis_Black.jpg
Lewis Black :
If you are the type of person who thinks George W. Bush or Bill Clinton where great leaders you are also most likely the kind of person who was inspired by your high school guidance counselor.


Sums it on the last 2 Presidents ....

BroncoBuff
04-15-2009, 02:22 PM
So by your own admission this is really just a emotional thing for you. People who make a lot of money are bad and need to be punished.

I made no emotional appeal ... I stated my opinion that the super-rich take too much money out of the economy, and most of that money - the Waltons' money specifically - is used to fund China's economic growth - which in turn finances our debt - which suffers from an underfunded tax base in part because Wal-Mart et al creates massive numbers of minimum wage jobs in the United States.

I also stated that, for the super-rich, I might advocate a return to Eisenhower's 90% tax rate. Actually, no ... 90% is ridiculous. How about just go back to the tax rates during the Reagan administration?

That'd work for me.

That'd work for America.



While the upper 2% make 40% of the total income generated what do they pay in taxes?
24-27%

Oops! :~ohyah!:

rugbythug
04-15-2009, 02:22 PM
Then you must be a big Bill Clinton fan ... the man balanced the budget, where once it was thought impossible.

What an excellent president he was.

Well since Congress controls the Spending I am more of a Fan of that Congress than the President of that time.

I did like his modifications to Welfare and Nafta.

TDmvp
04-15-2009, 02:27 PM
In Honor of LABF and in his memory really I'll just post a stupid pic without saying much of anything and move along hehe ...

http://rashmanly.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/3278262504_c825667e56.jpg

BroncoBuff
04-15-2009, 02:30 PM
Well since Congress controls the Spending I am more of a Fan of that Congress than the President of that time.

Hahahahaha ... Duplicity, thy name is rugbythug!

You post pages and pages criticizing OBAMA for the current taxation and speding policies ... but then when you're confronted with a mandatory to give credit for budget balancing to the president then, you suddenly spin your argument around to credit the GOP (surprise!) Congress.

What you forget is that Bill Clinton knocked some serious sense into Gingrich, beat his ass down after Newt shut down the federal government rather than submit the budget Clinton wanted.

Clinton won.

Newt lost.


No less an authority than the (now disgraced felon) Speaker Tom Delay wrote this scathing criticism of Gingrish:
"He told a room full of reporters that he forced the shutdown because Clinton had rudely made him and Bob Dole sit at the back of Air Force One...Newt had been careless to say such a thing, and now the whole moral tone of the shutdown had been lost. What had been a noble battle for fiscal sanity began to look like the tirade of a spoiled child..The revolution, I can tell you, was never the same."

Read it and weep, revisionist historians ... Bill Clinton was a budget-balancing superhero! At least you credit him with Welfare Reform ... Newt deserves credit there too.

rugbythug
04-15-2009, 02:33 PM
I made no emotional appeal ... I stated my opinion that the super-rich take too much money out of the economy, and most of that money - the Waltons' money specifically - is used to fund China's economic growth - which in turn finances our debt - which suffers from an underfunded tax base in part because Wal-Mart et al creates massive numbers of minimum wage jobs in the United States.

I also stated that, for the super-rich, I might advocate a return to Eisenhower's 90% tax rate. Actually, no ... 90% is ridiculous. How about just go back to the tax rates during the Reagan administration?

That'd work for me.

That'd work for America.




24-27%

Oops! :~ohyah!:

Bad Cases Make Bad Policy. To pick one group like the Waltons and then try and make policy out of that will usually give you a bad Policy. I am not a Wal-Mart Fan. I don't Shop there. I used to work there. And while I worked their I made more than Minimum Wage-I was a part timer at that. Full Timer has profit sharing and other perks much like any other business. Wal-Mart has a good system they don't require high end employees to get it done. Why should they pay a dollar more than what they need too. If they gave every employee a 10,000k bonus you may have better service that day. But in a month or a year it would be the same.

Taxing the super Rich more is IMO a non starter. They are mobile and smart. They will not sit still and let you roast them like a Frog on a skillet. It is me that pays. I am not rich yet but I am trying to. I have just enough money to be a target but not enough to get away.

Some Day though I will be like the Guy from KingPins!

"Finally Rugbythug is above the law!!"

BroncoBuff
04-15-2009, 02:33 PM
I got a bit too animated there, and a bit too harsh rugbythug, you've definitely made some good points in this thread, no doubt.


We crossed posts here, and in it you proved my first sentence right ^^ ... well done, rep.

rugbythug
04-15-2009, 02:38 PM
Hahahahaha ... Duplicity, thy name is rugbythug!

You post pages and pages criticizing OBAMA for the current taxation and speding policies ... but then when you're confronted with a mandatory to give credit for budget balancing to the president then, you suddenly spin your argument around to credit the GOP (surprise!) Congress.

What you forget is that Bill Clinton knocked some serious sense into Gingrich, beat his ass down after Newt shut down the federal government rather than submit the budget Clinton wanted.

Clinton won.

Newt lost.


No less an authority than the (now disgraced felon) Speaker Tom Delay wrote this scathing criticism of Gingrish:


Read it and weep, revisionist historians ... Bill Clinton was a budget-balancing superhero! At least you credit him with Welfare Reform ... Newt deserves credit there too.

It is Obamas Budget because he is helping write it. And is of the leader of the party who controls both houses. Much like it was Bush's Budget when he was in a Republican Controlled Congress. When those 2 branches of Gov't Oppose each other. Well then it is the Congressional Budget, and the Presidential Veto power.

This Civics lesson brought to you free of charge.

BroncoLifer
04-15-2009, 02:40 PM
Quote:
While the upper 2% make 40% of the total income generated what do they pay in taxes?

24-27%



Bull. In 2006 (the IRS website isn't showing data from '07 or '08) the top 1% paid 39.9% of all income tax receipts. Adding in the next 1% to get to 2% will obviously increase those numbers.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

p.s. I'm not in the top 1% or the top 2%. But the man I work for and who's company provides my job and my living is, which is why I care. If you tax the crap out of him he doesn't have as much reason to try to make money, does he?

ton80
04-15-2009, 02:47 PM
Conservatives who eventually came to oppose Bush should be ashamed they didn't spot the fool much earlier and helped get him reelected in 2004. It's not like some new evidence occurred after then which would lead to such an epiphany.

Bush was the lesser of two evils. Those evils being Gore and Kerry. Typical mischaracterization of conservatives though. Way to think this one through genius.

TDmvp
04-15-2009, 02:49 PM
Bull. In 2006 (the IRS website isn't showing data from '07 or '08) the top 1% paid 39.9% of all income tax receipts. Adding in the next 1% to get to 2% will obviously increase those numbers.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

p.s. I'm not in the top 1% or the top 2%. But the man I work for and who's company provides my job and my living is, which is why I care. If you tax the crap out of him he doesn't have as much reason to try to make money, does he?


good post ....

And to quote my dad ... Has a poor person ever given you a job ?

Killericon
04-15-2009, 03:11 PM
The only grounds on which someone can attack Obama are idealistic. None of his policies have produced anything tangible yet. If you wanna rip into having higher taxes because it's WRONG, that's one thing, but don't say it didn't/won't work, because you can't know and to say that you can accurately project the consequences of said policies is kind of absurd.

AbileneBroncoFan
04-15-2009, 03:31 PM
Coming from a person who attends one of the most conservative schools in the country... wow.

What does that have to do with my own beliefs? Does the fact that I go here because of an excellent education opportunity mean that I must be a conservative, Christian, Republican?

Not everyone is as self serving as you would make them out to be.

No, but people generally only care about themselves. There are genuinely selfless people, but they are exceptions to the rule, not the majority.

LOL at the Democrats representing their economic interests. Unless you are talking about govt. programs that hand out millions of taxpayer dollars to those who are unable or unwilling to take the iniative to better themselves. I'm fairly sure that if the Democrats could hike the taxes on lesser wage earners they would, but then they would lose their voting base. On the other hand a true conservative (which we seriously lack these days in Washington)would keep taxes low on everyone, no matter their income.

That's "fair" right? Isn't that what lefties are always crying about? It not being fair, because they didn't take the enormous amout of possibilities that living in this country allows them and instead expect someone to hand them the American dream?

Kudos though for the cut and paste from the liberal book of lame comebacks on gay marriage. That's not a Democrat vs. Republican fight. It's a religion vs. secular society battle. I know just as many registered democrats who have their pantaloons in a bunch over gay marriage as I do Republicans.

In an ideal world, we could keep taxes to a minimum. However, we face challenges that require large amounts of money to deal with (national security, education, health care, etc.) That's the nature of the beast. I don't expect anyone to enjoy paying taxes, but it's something we all have to do for the benefit of society as a whole. Barack Obama's tax plan favors the overwhelming majority of Americans, and the small percentage that are asked to pay more certainly have the means and financial security to do so.

As for the gay marriage issue, I am aware that religion is the only reason this is even an issue right now (if it weren't for religion the overwhelming majority would be in favor of allowing people to marry who they want because it wouldn't matter to them personally). However, the fact of the matter is that most of the people who are adamantly against it are Republicans. Not all. I'm sure there are some pro-gay Republicans and and some anti-gay Democrats. As a general rule though, Democrats are pro and Republicans anti.

BroncoLifer
04-15-2009, 03:31 PM
The only grounds on which someone can attack Obama are idealistic. None of his policies have produced anything tangible yet. If you wanna rip into having higher taxes because it's WRONG, that's one thing, but don't say it didn't/won't work, because you can't know and to say that you can accurately project the consequences of said policies is kind of absurd.

We can apply lessons from history and/or lessons from other countries to project consequences. This is true for many questions, not just this one.

Of course, we might disagree on history or on the experience in those other countries, but what other choice or data points do we have? Otherwise, you could propose any crazy idea and hide behind "you can't say if it will work so let's do it anyway."

BroncoBuff
04-15-2009, 03:36 PM
Not really. MSNBC's are the worst of the three cable networks and Fox's new show increased their ratings by 300,000.

Your statement they "increased their ratings by 300,00" shows this is probably an unfamiliar area to you, basically anyway, as you're ommitting important factors, without which these numbers have no context. But to the extent there is relevance in your stat there, it probably reflects just the last six weeks and the bump for Glen Beck's phenomenal start.

Of course the basic point you make about MSNBC being 3rd in the overall ratings is correct. But they are 2nd in ad revenue, based largely on their immense growth in the 25-49 "advertising demographic." More important, their three marquee shows - Matthews, Olbermann and Maddow - beat CNN quite regularly, Lou Dobbs' numbers have fallen and Campbell Brown will be cancelled any day now (the rumors are flying). FoxNews cancelled John Gibson, moved Greta van Susteren, and canned Alan Colmes to give Sean Hannity a larger profile. CNN countered the growth of MSNBC's marquee shows about a year ago by expanding Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper's shows to TWO full hours each.

Lots of this growth for these MSNBC shows is mere mirroring of political leanings of Americans in general, failed Republicans and Republican policies, Obamania, and the enormous gains of Democrats everywhere. On the other hand, Rachel Maddow's numbers have definitely leveled off back on Earth after her first few months of supernova ratings ... although I expect the same thing to happen with Glen Beck's phenomenal start, it's just the natural way things go.


But believe me when I tell you that 2007 and 2008 has been a phenomenal period of growth for MSNBC, that's just not debatable, not by anyone in the industry anyway.

MSNBC's day-parts are horrendous, though, no doubt. A ratings dead zone, and a big factor in their #3 in overall ratings ("overall" is the key there). Norah O'Donnell and David Schuster just lost their respective hours of daytime news last week (they hired AirAmerica star Ed Schultz), and Andrea Mitchell might pull outta her hour. And they keep running a revolving door of co-anchors over and over to team with Contessa Brewer. They hired Carlos Watson a couple weeks ago, a crisp, young anchor. We'll see how he does.

Like it or not, the last two years has also been a period of relatively little real growth for FoxNews (by "real" growth I mean outside the natural viewer surge for all news programming in an election year). Youu should also note that ALL news programming has dropped significantly since election day. That's just the way it goes, less people are interested after the election is decided. So the numbvers you're seeing are relative to other programming in the same period, not raw numbers.

Also not a point of debate is that the bulk of Fox's very large - even HUGE - overall lead in raw viewership, is found in the 55+ age demographic. Jst watch the commercials ... I'm telling you, WATCH THE COMMERCIALS.


There are some good public news feeds if you're really interested in this area: Sign up for www.mediabistro.com ... (when they ask what media outler you work for, say "Warpaint Illustrated" :~ohyah!:), and make sure you check e-mail delivery of TV-Newser daily feeds. All you need to know is in there :thumbs:

frerottenextelway
04-15-2009, 03:51 PM
a.) Look at C-Span's ratings. That demonstrates pretty clearly the correlation (or total lack thereof) between objective political coverage and TeeVee ratings.

b.) lololz at the Right who b**** and moan about the ''librul media''. The Right thrives on tabloid journalism, cheap soundbytes, and planned out stories that they drive through repetition.

bb.) As the new media replaces the traditional media, the Right is going to fade into obsecurity. We're already seeing this, take a look at Huffington Post & Daily Kos vs. Free Republic & Red State. You add in the social networking, such as Obama's enormous field army built through that, and the battle is going to be laughable going forward.

BroncoBuff
04-15-2009, 03:57 PM
a.) Look at C-Span's ratings. That demonstrates pretty clearly the correlation (or total lack thereof) between object political coverage and TeeVee ratings.

So true. That's why O'Reilly and Hannity and Olbermann and Maddow and now BECK - all partisan reactionaries - have such high ratings compared to straight news.



b.) lololz at the Right who b**** and moan about the ''librul media''. The Right thrives on tabloid journalism, cheap soundbytes, and planned out stories that they drive through repetition.

bb.) As the new media replaces the traditional media, the Right is going to fade into obsecurity. We're already seeing this, take a look at Huffington Post & Daily Kos vs. Free Republic & Red State. You add in the social networking, such as Obama's enormous field army built through that, and the battle is going to be laughable going forward.

You're correct across the board ... the right has lost close to a generation of new voters, with Clinton's huge (second term) popularity, and then Bush's immense UN-popularity. New voters under 30 are OVERWHELMINGLY Democrats ... and if the right wants to continue to ride Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and the hot-button social issues, they will continue to lose the younger generation of voters.

Gay marriage is a great example - the demographics on that make obvious that it will disappear as an issue within a decade or two, and most states will permit gay marriage. Younger people just don't care ... and thankfully, Republicans just don't see that. ;D

Killericon
04-15-2009, 04:01 PM
We can apply lessons from history and/or lessons from other countries to project consequences. This is true for many questions, not just this one.

Of course, we might disagree on history or on the experience in those other countries, but what other choice or data points do we have? Otherwise, you could propose any crazy idea and hide behind "you can't say if it will work so let's do it anyway."

This is true, but I think politics is a different matter, especially American politics. There's instances of success and failure for both conservative and liberal fiscal policies. When people start to argue about politics, they use history and statistics for support, rather than discovery. The judgment comes before the evidence or the debate(On both sides). There's nothing wrong with that, it just seems to me that people should come out and say it. People who hate Obama aren't going to be swayed by people pointing to liberal fiscal success in the past.

My point is that political debate often masquerades as contention over practical differences when it's rooted in philosophical differences. I don't favour universal health care because it works better, I favour it because I think it's what's right, so if I were to get into a debate about universal health care, and try to support my side of the argument by pointing to successful instances of universal health care around the world would be kind of silly because that's not why I am for Universal Health Care.

It's not that I think Universal Health Care is what would work best, it's that I think it's what's right.

Maybe that's a copout/painting everyone with a broad brush, but I find people using historical evidence like drunks use a light pole, for support instead of enlightenment. The opinion comes before the investigation.

BroncoLifer
04-15-2009, 04:41 PM
My point is that political debate often masquerades as contention over practical differences when it's rooted in philosophical differences.

Yes.


Maybe that's a copout/painting everyone with a broad brush, but I find people using historical evidence like drunks use a light pole, for support instead of enlightenment. The opinion comes before the investigation.

It's interesting how reasonable people can view things differently. To me, historical evidence often more nearly is enlightenment because it provides empirical evidence to apply in favor of or against a theory, and in human endeavors I value empirical evidence over supposition.

That said, I do agree with what I think is your central point --- people often reach baseless historical conclusions between situations (or personalities). Baseless because the circumstances are sufficiently different that the two seemingly similar situations are in fact not comparable. You make a very valid point. I hope I avoid that trap.

Paladin
04-15-2009, 05:18 PM
Oh yeah...opposing tax hikes on everyone, not just the rich is being clueless. Or maybe you are ok with "stimulus" packages that cost 3.7 tril a pop.


:Broncos:

Yeah, I'm okay with it. You sure the F didn't come up with anmything to address the economic problems did you? Teabaggers deserve to be mocked.....

frerottenextelway
04-15-2009, 06:21 PM
This speaks for itself....

http://images2.dailykos.com/images/user/191280/2ndamendment.JPG

Tombstone RJ
04-15-2009, 06:51 PM
Cavuto was referring to the one that took place before Fox News existed. Neil is the one lacking mental acuity or at least the ability to use a calendar.

Well, I'm glad MSNBC knows which Million Man March Cavuto was referring to. I certainly can't tell which MMM he is refering to.

Point being, there's been more than one and it's certainly possible FOX covered a later MMM.

But, that's ok...

Mogulseeker
04-15-2009, 07:23 PM
What does that have to do with my own beliefs? Does the fact that I go here because of an excellent education opportunity mean that I must be a conservative, Christian, Republican?


Not really... but it's a conservative school, that's all.

Kaylore
04-15-2009, 08:10 PM
http://www.peakradar.com/images/event/30223/Lewis_Black.jpg



Sums it on the last 2 Presidents ....

Lewis Black is awesome.

rugbythug
04-15-2009, 08:37 PM
This speaks for itself....

http://images2.dailykos.com/images/user/191280/2ndamendment.JPG

If you think because we live in America you think we are immune to Tyranny and or a total melt down in Gov't you are fooling yourself. It is not a question of If. But only of When. I believe we are one of the oldest Gov'ts in the world. Nothing lasts forever and this won't either. Believe what you want. But America's Super Power Status will not last forever. We will be replaced and when that happens you will want to have the ability to protect yourself and family.

rugbythug
04-15-2009, 08:46 PM
So true. That's why O'Reilly and Hannity and Olbermann and Maddow and now BECK - all partisan reactionaries - have such high ratings compared to straight news.





You're correct across the board ... the right has lost close to a generation of new voters, with Clinton's huge (second term) popularity, and then Bush's immense UN-popularity. New voters under 30 are OVERWHELMINGLY Democrats ... and if the right wants to continue to ride Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and the hot-button social issues, they will continue to lose the younger generation of voters.

Gay marriage is a great example - the demographics on that make obvious that it will disappear as an issue within a decade or two, and most states will permit gay marriage. Younger people just don't care ... and thankfully, Republicans just don't see that. ;D

Cmon. Conservatism has never done well with the younger generations. People become conservative as they grow up and realize that Liberalism is nice on paper and is emotionally beautiful. Yet Fails miserably when practiced.

frerottenextelway
04-15-2009, 08:50 PM
If you think because we live in America you think we are immune to Tyranny and or a total melt down in Gov't you are fooling yourself. It is not a question of If. But only of When. I believe we are one of the oldest Gov'ts in the world. Nothing lasts forever and this won't either. Believe what you want. But America's Super Power Status will not last forever. We will be replaced and when that happens you will want to have the ability to protect yourself and family.

Seems to be a thinly veiled death threat against the President and other Democrats to me. In the context of defending one's self, it doesn't really fit with their protest.

Killericon
04-15-2009, 08:51 PM
Cmon. Conservatism has never done well with the younger generations. People become conservative as they grow up and realize that Liberalism is nice on paper and is emotionally beautiful. Yet Fails miserably when practiced.

LOL

Man, don't try too hard to be condescending, you might sprain something. I like the notion that all liberalism fails. All of it. Always. Cracks me up. This reminds me of a Churchill quote, though...

"If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain."

So, on the plus side, you can't be completely wrong.

rugbythug
04-15-2009, 08:56 PM
Seems to be a thinly veiled death threat against the President and other Democrats to me. In the context of defending one's self, it doesn't really fit with their protest.

I didn't get that out of it at all.

rugbythug
04-15-2009, 09:00 PM
Man, don't try too hard to be condescending, you might sprain something. I like the notion that all liberalism fails. All of it. Always. Cracks me up. This reminds me of a Churchill quote, though...

"If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain."

So, on the plus side, you can't be completely wrong.

Was not going for condescension. And all liberalism may not fail-I don't like to say all, or never to anything. But the basic Tenet of Gov't making better decisions than individuals by themselves I find to be distasteful.

Bronco Bob
04-15-2009, 09:05 PM
You should actually wonder why obama wants amnesty. Or maybe turning 12 million illegals into instantcitizens to change voting districts and basically create 12 million instant voters for the left is something you are cool with.


:Broncos:

Obama would probably win Texas in 2012 if he were to do that.

ohiobronco2
04-15-2009, 09:25 PM
Great post ...
If I tried to go there I would get flamed by Gunns LOL ...

My Dad owns a company , and my friends and most in general think it's like some sorta wet dream fantasy land.

And they also think that he should pay a insane amount of taxes to the point where he might as well make about what a 9-5'er makes .... even tho he has worked 24/7 for 30+ years ... and deserves to make more then most ... cause he does more and earned it .

Everyone else has the same chance he did ... He came from nothing , back when if you got a few oranges in your stocking for Xmas you did well .
If he can go from that to where he is anyone can , and I'm sick of hearing how the poor can't help themselves and the rich should do more ...

Do more ??? that is why they are rich ... they DO more ...

Is that why Paris Hilton is so wealthy? I mean, she did DO more. Just because you are wealthy, it doesn't mean you did it on your own. I do feel for those who have worked their whole lives to achieve the wealth that they have today and are being taxed at a higher bracket under this administration. I will say that I believe there are very few people who make near 250,000 that fit your example above. I think most average every day Americans with 9-5 jobs take issue with the ultra wealthy. Did today's Waltons and Rockefellers do it on their own?

BroncoLifer
04-15-2009, 09:53 PM
[/B]

....Just because you are wealthy, it doesn't mean you did it on your own.....

....I think most average every day Americans with 9-5 jobs take issue with the ultra wealthy. Did today's Waltons and Rockefellers do it on their own?

So you admit that you're driven by envy?

ohiobronco2
04-15-2009, 09:58 PM
So you admit that you're driven by envy?

I'm driven by many things. Sure, envy is one of them, but isn't the most important. Though my post wasn't as much about me, as people in general.

rugbythug
04-15-2009, 10:11 PM
[/B]

Is that why Paris Hilton is so wealthy? I mean, she did DO more. Just because you are wealthy, it doesn't mean you did it on your own. I do feel for those who have worked their whole lives to achieve the wealth that they have today and are being taxed at a higher bracket under this administration. I will say that I believe there are very few people who make near 250,000 that fit your example above. I think most average every day Americans with 9-5 jobs take issue with the ultra wealthy. Did today's Waltons and Rockefellers do it on their own?

This is dumb. The people got paid. What more would you want. If they were irreplaceable they would have gotten paid a lot.

Also please remember you don't tax wealth only income.

Archer81
04-15-2009, 10:37 PM
I think people should keep a majority of what they earn, regardless of how much that is.

:Broncos:

Archer81
04-15-2009, 10:39 PM
Yeah, I'm okay with it. You sure the F didn't come up with anmything to address the economic problems did you? Teabaggers deserve to be mocked.....


Keep taxes low, lower the taxes on business in this country and rewrite the regulations on mortgages. Let companies that have ran themselves into the ground fail and let the market correct itself...its only worked every other time a recession has hit.


:Broncos:

Mile High Mojoe
04-15-2009, 10:55 PM
Bailing out business that have no business being bailed out
Billions and Billions of dollars being printed and lost through the private Federal Reserve...no accountability
A dollar that will be worthless making us slaves to foriegn countries
European countries concerned with our socialist tendencies
Government owning banks and forcing issues because they are government owned
Firing CEOs of private sector companies at the president's request
Spending thats out of control and an unending government program rollout despite obama campaigning for fiscal conservatism
Stimulus bills giving money to people who don't pay taxes
Spending more money in two months than Bush did in 8 years
Tax payer funds in the bailouts going to corrupt organizations like ACORN
The federal government dictating to states how they are run or no money will be given to them.
Tax rates that must go to outlandish levels should we ever truly want to get this debt under control as Obama continually points toward.
Tax laws that are holding corporate growth back and bringing our econmy into an even worse position (we need investing not taxes) thus causing massive job losses and lay-offs.
The list goes on and on. yeah I get the Tea Party thing...

What a great post!

In a few short words you summarized with substance and fact why people are turning out in droves to these Tea Parties. Did you notice that none of the haters out there responded to your post at all? Why?

Because, it’s easier to engage in more divisional partisan bashing and denial about just how much of the tax payers money has been dumped into this enormous black hole than it is to have an honest conversation about it. I’m a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. Let gays get married, don’t make abortions illegal, whatever, I don’t agree with either activity and wouldn’t engage in it personally, instead I’d choose to focus more on the financial and the educational screws ups that have been going in the U.S. for the last 30 years. To often anyone that calls himself a conservative is automatically type cast as some sort of homophobic, bible thumping, gun toting, NASCAR watching, gay hating, racist extremist nut job by the media and the lefties which isn’t always the case.

I’m glad Conservatives are starting to regroup not as Republicans but as Conservatives. I don’t give a damn about the Republican Party, I want someone whether it’s a Rep., Dem. or Independent to step up and say, “Whoa, this thing is out of control, stop writing checks we can’t cash!”

The truth is Obama duped the entire country and whatever water the people are drinking that have been brainwashed them into buying his BS will soon discover the water from his holy well WILL run dry and JOE Q TAXPAYER will pick up the tab. Maybe not today or tomorrow but its coming and it won’t be the rich that make up the different either; it’ll be you, the middle class taxpayer and your kids and grandkids that pick up the tab.

I just hope some level headed leader who isn’t an extremist on either side will step up and bring back some fiscal sanity.

BTW, I’m not a Beck or O’Reilly fan for some of the same reasons others have posted on here but if anyone thinks that Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews or George Stephanopoulos are the collective voice of quote unquote non-biased “Fair and Balanced Journalism” think again. As bad as Beck and O’Reilly are OlBlabbermouth is just as bad or worse. I can’t stand Olbermann, he put the Dick in Dick; he’s the biggest left wing hack of all time. He literally makes Dick Army look like a p***Y. Matthews is an Old School tax and spent Democrat, Georgie Boy is a Slick Willie Clone and Maddow picks up the rear and plays the role of the angry lesbian very well. The 4 Horsemen of Fairness if you live in a liberal plastic bubble I suppose. If you don't I guess you're riding the horse backwards.

I personally don’t go to any of the Network news programs to get news or opinions anymore. I get my news from websites and sources that can be trusted to keep the left and right handed chainsaw out the way to give you balanced and non-partisan reporting.

The media will continue to ignore the smart conservatives that are a part of the Tea Party movement but when the next election cycle comes up in 2010 we'll see just how many voters cling to the “Hope and Change” that Obama promised in his campaign. Most will finally realize they were “Duped and Chained” and start kicking Democrats and Republicans alike who got us into this mess right to the curb where they belong.

AbileneBroncoFan
04-16-2009, 12:29 AM
Not really... but it's a conservative school, that's all.

Indeed it is. I fundamentally disagree with many people here, but that doesn't mean I we can't get along.

AbileneBroncoFan
04-16-2009, 12:30 AM
I think people should keep a majority of what they earn, regardless of how much that is.

:Broncos:

Under Obama's tax plan, no one is being taxed over 50%. It is good to know you approve.

Killericon
04-16-2009, 12:59 AM
Was not going for condescension. And all liberalism may not fail-I don't like to say all, or never to anything. But the basic Tenet of Gov't making better decisions than individuals by themselves I find to be distasteful.

Everyone who isn't an Anarchist believes that the government is better suited to make some decisions than individuals are. We're all just debating over how many.

BroncoBuff
04-16-2009, 02:10 AM
What a great post!

In a few short words you summarized with substance and fact why people are turning out in droves to these Tea Parties. Did you notice that none of the haters out there responded to your post at all? Why?

Why? Because we "haters" note the fact that people did NOT "turn out in droves," as you said. There was less than one thousand people in DC (they blamed it on the weather). And Politico.com played audio recorded off-air from FoxNews's Neil Cavuto where he and a producer said it was probably 5,000 people at the Sacramento Tea-Bag Party .... then nine minutes later on the air he said "at least ten or fifteen thousand." I think this is it:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-zqVsNXh4n8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-zqVsNXh4n8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Extreme journalistic dishonesty ... just like a couple days ago he said, "We're not promoting Tea-Barg Parties, we're just covering the story the same way we covered the Million Man March." That's funny, Neil ... the Million Man March happened a year before FoxNews was even on the air ROFL! LOL

You want "turn out in droves"? Try HALF-A-MILLION protesters turning out in NYC and in Washington in 2004 for the anti-Iraq-war candlelight rallies. Now THAT is "droves."

Really, it's way too soon for this kind of protest ... the bloom is still firmly on the Obama rose. People want to give him some time. Wait six months or more, maybe then you'll actually have something to protest about.

Broncojef
04-16-2009, 04:36 AM
Really, it's way too soon for this kind of protest ... the bloom is still firmly on the Obama rose. People want to give him some time. Wait six months or more, maybe then you'll actually have something to protest about.

Americans can no longer afford to sit on the sidelines and wait for someone to come to the rescue of our country. Things are moving so fast now, Congress and this administration steam rolling rights and spending money to the point if we don't act soon there will be no more America. The Tea parties weren't Democrat vs Republican they were about taking back our country and becoming Americans again. Neither Democrats nor Republicans should be sitting by while the government controls the private sector, establishes pay controls, fires CEOs and dictates business models going forward. The Bailouts kept unsuccessful business models alive and allows the government to now dictate how things will be controlled. The Federal Reserve (a private institution) now controls the banking system and is dictating control over America. Many of Obama's appointees came from this corrupt organization and are driving our policies towards their own success and not America's. Obama ran on a platform of undescribed change and the media gave him a blank check while ridiculing the other candidates. Now Obama appoints criminals such as Geihtner who didn't pay taxes to head the entire financial industry serving as Treasury Sectretary...what a joke, if this had happened under Bush the media would have lost their collective minds. The government is what has got us into this mess, the thought any of them will magically get us out if we continue to play the waiting game is burrying your head in the sand. There is nothing fair about redistributing money/wealth from hard working people who have spent their whole lives busting their ass to get where they are now to fund people who feel entitled. We are the Sons and Daughters of Revolutionaries who risked their lives to throw the first Tea party to start this great country. MSNBC and others making sexual jokes should be ashamed of themselves not praised in a forum such as ours. Wait your six months Buff and let me know what you think then, it might be small now but the outcry will get louder, much louder if we are to continue to exist as a nation. Before you respond to my post take off your Democrat/Republican hat and think as an American.

rugbythug
04-16-2009, 07:12 AM
Everyone who isn't an Anarchist believes that the government is better suited to make some decisions than individuals are. We're all just debating over how many.


I completely disagree with this statement. No one is better suited to make decisions for me than me. The flip side to this coin is that I own my decisions and am prepared to live with the consequences.

Killericon
04-16-2009, 07:23 AM
I completely disagree with this statement. No one is better suited to make decisions for me than me. The flip side to this coin is that I own my decisions and am prepared to live with the consequences.

Well then how can you support a government at all? Seems to me that the government is making decisions on your behalf all the time, even at their most skeletonesque. Decisions about what countries to attack, decisions about international trade...The purpose of a government is to govern. I assert that while 99.9999% of all decisions should be left in the hands of the individual(As they are, IMO), various decisions that are taken for granted need a governmental body to be made. National Defense, Infrastructure, International Relations, and the Taxation to pay for these things are all necessary for the existence of a modern nation state. How could cities exist if there was no government to plan it? One can debate over if the government belongs in hospitals, but I don't understand how you can say that a government isn't better suited to make decisions about national defense and yet maintain that there should be a nation to defend.

rugbythug
04-16-2009, 07:37 AM
Decisions made by the Republic that effect me are not the same as decisions made for me. I think you know what I am saying but for the sake of argument are twisting it to your own way. So please let me clarify. Decisions made by my Gov't should be in my opinion be made at the lowest level possible. This means Counties should decide what road needs redone not states. And Individuals should decide what gun they should or should not have.

Killericon
04-16-2009, 07:52 AM
Decisions made by the Republic that effect me are not the same as decisions made for me. I think you know what I am saying but for the sake of argument are twisting it to your own way. So please let me clarify. Decisions made by my Gov't should be in my opinion be made at the lowest level possible. This means Counties should decide what road needs redone not states. And Individuals should decide what gun they should or should not have.

You appear to be right. We appear to be talking about different things. Sorry about that.

Archer81
04-16-2009, 08:18 AM
Under Obama's tax plan, no one is being taxed over 50%. It is good to know you approve.


Wow. So I am supposed to be happy because the great and powerful O decided I can keep 51% of my income? OH JOY...


:Broncos:

ohiobronco2
04-16-2009, 08:30 AM
This is dumb. The people got paid. What more would you want. If they were irreplaceable they would N'T have gotten paid a lot.
Also please remember you don't tax wealth only income.

I don't really understand what you are trying to say here. My point is not everybody does it on their own. Are Tiger Woods children ever going to HAVE to work to make a living for themselves? Sure, if they are as driven as their father and seemingly have his same work ethic, they'll be a success. IF they work to get out of his spotlight. But they don't have to do anything more than sit at home and spend whatever inheritance they receive. Today's Waltons may be intelligent people, but they never did it on their own, they maintain their power because of precedent and by being surrounded with people who make sound and educated decisions on their behalf.

rugbythug
04-16-2009, 08:42 AM
I don't really understand what you are trying to say here. My point is not everybody does it on their own. Are Tiger Woods children ever going to HAVE to work to make a living for themselves? Sure, if they are as driven as their father and seemingly have his same work ethic, they'll be a success. IF they work to get out of his spotlight. But they don't have to do anything more than sit at home and spend whatever inheritance they receive. Today's Waltons may be intelligent people, but they never did it on their own, they maintain their power because of precedent and by being surrounded with people who make sound and educated decisions on their behalf.

By saying people do not make it on there own I assumed you were talking about business people. People like Bill Gates who Create a Huge Empire but is not the only person at Microsoft. My point was yes he is not doing it on his own but the people who helped him do it are being paid. They deserve no more of his wealth than what they can negotiate and are worth.

Your Point on Trust fund people is emotionally pleasing but is an illfounded one. Like I posted above the difference between wealth and income is time. The Gov't Taxes income. It can not tax wealth. That is income that has been taxed already and is now theirs to do with what they please. So no matter what you think of the Waltons or Baby Tiger their money is their money. The taxes have been paid on it. If a Gov't could levy taxes retroactively we would all be in trouble.

ohiobronco2
04-16-2009, 10:45 AM
By saying people do not make it on there own I assumed you were talking about business people. People like Bill Gates who Create a Huge Empire but is not the only person at Microsoft. My point was yes he is not doing it on his own but the people who helped him do it are being paid. They deserve no more of his wealth than what they can negotiate and are worth.

Your Point on Trust fund people is emotionally pleasing but is an illfounded one. Like I posted above the difference between wealth and income is time. The Gov't Taxes income. It can not tax wealth. That is income that has been taxed already and is now theirs to do with what they please. So no matter what you think of the Waltons or Baby Tiger their money is their money. The taxes have been paid on it. If a Gov't could levy taxes retroactively we would all be in trouble.

Fair enough. I agree with just about everything you are saying above. I give more credit to Bill, because HE was the brains behind the operation. Sure, he has had people help him along the way. Like Stewie says, "a corporation is like a centipede, it operates best when all legs are moving in the same direction :)." In my mind Bill deserves credit (all that comes with it) for what he has created. Also, Bill is a great philanthropist and gives back his great wealth in many ways. I'll never say a negative thing about the man. I also understand the big difference between wealth and income, but that really wasn't central to the arguement that I was initially trying to make. I'm simply stating that not everyone is responsible the their success whether it be wealth, income, or social status.

BroncoBuff
04-16-2009, 10:54 AM
Wow. So I am supposed to be happy because the great and powerful O decided I can keep 51% of my income? OH JOY...


:Broncos:

Do you even know what the top-bracket federal income tax rate was under Ronald Reagan? Under Dwight D. Eisenhower?

AbileneBroncoFan
04-16-2009, 05:07 PM
Wow. So I am supposed to be happy because the great and powerful O decided I can keep 51% of my income? OH JOY...


:Broncos:

Unless you make more than 250K per year, you will keep more of your income than you have the past 8 years under the conservatives. If you do make over 250K, then you've been getting the breaks the last 20 years, and what goes around comes around (and I don't mean that condescendingly, I'm just saying we can't keep lowering taxes on one income group forever).

frerottenextelway
04-16-2009, 05:31 PM
Lololoz. This Dude Gots Some Big Balls. and rocks.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AkOwsIIIe5I&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AkOwsIIIe5I&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Broncojef
04-16-2009, 05:39 PM
Unless you make more than 250K per year, you will keep more of your income than you have the past 8 years under the conservatives. If you do make over 250K, then you've been getting the breaks the last 20 years, and what goes around comes around (and I don't mean that condescendingly, I'm just saying we can't keep lowering taxes on one income group forever).

How about letting some folks pay something...paying nothing or better yet getting a "refund" when you pay nothing in, or in other words making money off the government is ridiculous in our economy. My wife and I have decided to work half the year and take the other half off to stay in a lower bracket. I can live with paying more in if we are on a road to fix things. I didn't vote for Clinton but at least his taxation lead to balanced budget and paying down of debt. Barrack is taxing full bore, making stupid financial decisions for our country's direction and running up debt we won't pay-off for many generations. Worse yet companies are being taxed outrageously, capital gains will rise (no investing) and big company's will contiue to contract and lay people off. Everyone fixates on the 250K number but you can't run the debt we are running or print the money we are printing without deeper taxes hitting those making significantly less money than that. Commercial loans and personal debt will be the next big market busters and by late this next year inflation will eat us alive. Anyone thinking we are almost out of the woods and Barrack's decisions will somehow save us if given time is living in fantasy land.

AbileneBroncoFan
04-16-2009, 08:29 PM
How about letting some folks pay something...paying nothing or better yet getting a "refund" when you pay nothing in, or in other words making money off the government is ridiculous in our economy. My wife and I have decided to work half the year and take the other half off to stay in a lower bracket. I can live with paying more in if we are on a road to fix things. I didn't vote for Clinton but at least his taxation lead to balanced budget and paying down of debt. Barrack is taxing full bore, making stupid financial decisions for our country's direction and running up debt we won't pay-off for many generations. Worse yet companies are being taxed outrageously, capital gains will rise (no investing) and big company's will contiue to contract and lay people off. Everyone fixates on the 250K number but you can't run the debt we are running or print the money we are printing without deeper taxes hitting those making significantly less money than that. Commercial loans and personal debt will be the next big market busters and by late this next year inflation will eat us alive. Anyone thinking we are almost out of the woods and Barrack's decisions will somehow save us if given time is living in fantasy land.

Who said anything about paying for everything for everyone? The wealthiest one percent are not the only ones that deserve a tax break from time to time. The debt was already over 10 trillion dollars when Barack took office, so I don't think you can blame him for "bankrupting the kids." We've been borrowing for a lot longer than the last 3 months. As for paying off the debt, it's time to innovate. I thought we were supposed to be the greatest country on earth, and our economy is supposed to be the best thing under the sun according to all of the Republican businessmen. Are you telling me we can't innovate in something over the next decade (green energy generators perhaps?) and sell it to the rest of the world? We invented the lightbulb, telephone, personal computers, and more recently google and the iPod. Good ol Jindal keeps saying "American's can do anything." But apparently not be creative enough to pay off a debt. Will it be a challenge? Of course. But winning independence was a challenge, ending slavery was a challenge, winning World War II was a challenge, and going to the moon was a challenge. Am I pissed that my generation will have to pay off all of this? Yes. But I am equally pissed that no one seems to think we're up for the challenge. I firmly believe we'll keep with the American spirit and achieve success regardless of the difficulty of the task before us.

Kaylore
04-17-2009, 09:28 AM
Here's the recent Nielsen ratings for all three networks.
http://www.drudgereport.com/

FOXNEWS 3,390,000
MSNBC 1,210,000
CNN 1,070,000
CNN HEADLINE 909,000

FOXNEWS O'REILLY 3,980,000
FOXNEWS HANNITY 3,239,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 2,947,000
FOXNEWS BECK 2,740,000
FOXNEWS BAIER 2,401,000
FOXNEWS SHEP 2,185,000
COMEDY DAILY SHOW 1,777,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,499,000
COMEDY COLBERT 1,446,000
CNNHN GRACE 1,336,000
CNN KING 1,292,000
MSNBC MADDOW 1,149,000
CNN COOPER 1,021,000

rugbythug
04-17-2009, 09:36 AM
Who said anything about paying for everything for everyone? The wealthiest one percent are not the only ones that deserve a tax break from time to time. The debt was already over 10 trillion dollars when Barack took office, so I don't think you can blame him for "bankrupting the kids." We've been borrowing for a lot longer than the last 3 months. As for paying off the debt, it's time to innovate. I thought we were supposed to be the greatest country on earth, and our economy is supposed to be the best thing under the sun according to all of the Republican businessmen. Are you telling me we can't innovate in something over the next decade (green energy generators perhaps?) and sell it to the rest of the world? We invented the lightbulb, telephone, personal computers, and more recently google and the iPod. Good ol Jindal keeps saying "American's can do anything." But apparently not be creative enough to pay off a debt. Will it be a challenge? Of course. But winning independence was a challenge, ending slavery was a challenge, winning World War II was a challenge, and going to the moon was a challenge. Am I pissed that my generation will have to pay off all of this? Yes. But I am equally pissed that no one seems to think we're up for the challenge. I firmly believe we'll keep with the American spirit and achieve success regardless of the difficulty of the task before us.


How about we just spend less? That is the best way to reduce debt in any situation.

broncofan7
04-17-2009, 09:37 AM
Flat Tax.

Tombstone RJ
04-17-2009, 09:58 AM
Why? Because we "haters" note the fact that people did NOT "turn out in droves," as you said. There was less than one thousand people in DC (they blamed it on the weather). And Politico.com played audio recorded off-air from FoxNews's Neil Cavuto where he and a producer said it was probably 5,000 people at the Sacramento Tea-Bag Party .... then nine minutes later on the air he said "at least ten or fifteen thousand." I think this is it:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-zqVsNXh4n8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-zqVsNXh4n8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

1. Extreme journalistic dishonesty ... just like a couple days ago he said, "We're not promoting Tea-Barg Parties, we're just covering the story the same way we covered the Million Man March." That's funny, Neil ... the Million Man March happened a year before FoxNews was even on the air ROFL! LOL

You want "turn out in droves"? Try HALF-A-MILLION protesters turning out in NYC and in Washington in 2004 for the anti-Iraq-war candlelight rallies. Now THAT is "droves."

2. Really, it's way too soon for this kind of protest ... the bloom is still firmly on the Obama rose. People want to give him some time. Wait six months or more, maybe then you'll actually have something to protest about.

1. Thanks for not responding to my posts Buff. Great way to avoid my points.

2. I'm so glad your here to tell people when to protest, thanks! Now, lets hold our hands as we march into Socialism! Obama got what he wanted, don't tell me or anyone else when and what to protest.

Thanks.

The far left has been protesting for years about a plethora of issues. Now some conservatives want to voice their opinion on this new taxation and huge governement spending and the best MSNBC can do is "Tea Bagging"?

Tea Bagging, that's it.

A stooooooopid sexual innuendo. That's the best MSNBC can do to poke fun at a ligitimate social and governmental issue.

Tea bagging--teeeheheehehehe! (ain't we funny 'cause the Right don't "get it").

LAME!!

BroncoBuff
04-17-2009, 10:20 AM
2. I'm so glad your here to tell people when to protest, thanks! Now, lets hold our hands as we march into Socialism! Obama got what he wanted, don't tell me or anyone else when and what to protest.

Thanks.

No way! You and every single one one of us are free to protest whenever and wherever you like. Make no mistake, I would fight for that right, on the street and in the courts.

My reference was to the mostly low turnouts, less than 1000 in Washington. I was suggesting they wait awhile and there'll probably be better support, better turnouts.


The far left has been protesting for years about a plethora of issues. Now some conservatives want to voice their opinion on this new taxation and huge governement spending and the best MSNBC can do is "Tea Bagging"?

Tea Bagging, that's it.

A stooooooopid sexual innuendo. That's the best MSNBC can do to poke fun at a ligitimate social and governmental issue.

Tea bagging--teeeheheehehehe! (ain't we funny 'cause the Right don't "get it").

LAME!!

That is VERY lame ... the tea-bagging thing and the Dick Armey thing, weak-ass. David Schuster should be ashamed of such juvenile attacks on such important issues.

Remember, David Schuster is the one who was taken off the air for a month when he said the Clintons were "pimping out their daugher" for Hillary's campaign. I think he's a low-life ... he's an ex-FoxNews guy, btw.

Kaylore
04-17-2009, 10:38 AM
Remember, David Schuster is the one who was taken off the air for a month when he said the Clintons were "pimping out their daugher" for Hillary's campaign.

Yeah that was low class. You expect some degree of decency in a major news anchor.

BroncoBuff
04-17-2009, 11:05 AM
Here's the recent Nielsen ratings for all three networks.
http://www.drudgereport.com/

FOXNEWS 3,390,000
MSNBC 1,210,000
CNN 1,070,000
CNN HEADLINE 909,000

These numbers alone don't have much relevance without context ...for example, Olbermann was off most of last week and early this week with the death of his mother, and I think O'Reilly was on vacation week before last. Plus the tea-bag parties are an anomaly bump for Fox's rating.

Anyway, here's some recent numbers in more context from MediaBistro.com. The green stars are from before Keith's mom died and the tea-bag parties, and they reflect the basic 77-50 or 3-2 margin for O'Reilly over Olbermann. That margin jumps up for Bill-O when hot-button issues are in the headlines, but also like I mentioned, Olbermann has actually beaten O'Reilly on a handful of nights this past year (in the 25-55 advertsing demo).


http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/9148/47196375.jpg




There is some bump in the April 14 FoxNews ratings because of the teabag parties.

And note that - which was my point after all - the 3 MSNBC marquee shows all defeat the CNN opposition shows in their time slots, they and MSNBC has undergone supernova growth the past two years. CNN used to beat them in every day-part ... obviously that's not the case now.

And as mentioned, look at poor Campbell Brown's numbers ... she's on her way out.


FUNNY NOTE: The ratings have changed so dramatically these past 18-24 months (The Factor used to beat Countdown 4-1, 5-1), that O'Reilly has actually accused the Neilsen people of cooking the books! I'm serious here! Its laughable of course, the vast majority of Neilsen rating are automatically generated and RSS'd to subscribers overnight, but it's true .. Bill has accused them of cheating! He even went so far as to show the names and pictures of Neilsen executives on The Factor, and reporting they contributed to "far left wing" causes. That is just sad :oyvey:

He does the same thing to NBC executives like Jeffrey Immelt ... not because he believes any of the nonsense, but merely because Olbermann calls him out on his "Worst Persons in the World" segment. It's true, and well-known in the industry .... O'Reilly attacks NBC relentlessly, and smears Immelt, Steve Capus and Jeff Zucker, in an effort to bully Olbermann and MSNBC into ceasing Keith's listing O'Reilly as one of the "Worst Persons in the World." Roger Ailes and Capus have had several phone calls about it, and Ailes told him it's well known

So the next time you see Bill-O slamming NBC? Just know it has nothing to do with what he's actually talking about, but instead everything to do with Olbermann's "Worst Persons in the World." True story. That's your Bill O'Reilly.

BroncoBuff
04-17-2009, 11:10 AM
Remember too ... 10 and 11 are REPEAT hours for MSNBC. And they still beat/compete with CNN ;D

Beck's numbers are HUGE, and new of course ... his predecessor had maybe half those numbers, and Hannity's new show has beaten old H&C numbers so far by quite a lot.

So based on these new shows from Hannity and Beck, FoxNews has actually experienced a 6-week "Mini-Supernova."

Haroldthebarrel
04-17-2009, 11:22 AM
Thanks Binky ... the "socialist" tag is pretty silly when you understand what socialism really is. But the word "socialist" still has real shock value, and can create fear (mostly among the FoxNews viewer base ;D) based upon communist hatred from the Cold War years. Being a REAL American meant hating communism ... and "socialism" is linked to it as a kind of "communist light."

And the reality of quasi-socialist nations like Scandanavia as you mentioned, is pretty positive. There is less social and economic dynamism ... it's a bit tougher to foster innovation, and harder to become filthy rich, but the quality of life and living is far better on the whole. Free health care, education, often child care and good pensions and vacations. Their dwindling workforce-aged populations have forced them to open their doors to less sophisticated and ofttimes troublesome immigrants, but if they had kept making babies through the 80s and 90s, their societies would be pretty awesome.

To see somebody actually have a clue on Scandinavia is awesome.
You were pretty spot on on almost all your facts in the second paragraph.
One thing to consider is that while the Scandinavian countries are a lot alike there are differences. For instance, Norway as a oil producing nation have not faced nearly the same economical downtimes as Denmark or Sweden.
We likely would have if we hadnt nationalized our oil though, since then the income would belong to companies like Shell and others.

As part of the Schengen agreement we have to accept people working from other nations that are part of the same Schengen agreement. Meaning that the workforce in our country is expanded in large parts of former Eastern Europeans as well as swedes(and some danes).
On the other hand, we have accepted immigrants from non western countries which with the exceptions of Sri-lankans(sp) have been imo a travesty.
All reported rapes in the last three years are commited by non westerners.
70 to 80 percent of the prison population is of non-scandinavian origin.
And particular the immigrants from Somalia have been and continue to be a huge problem as far as crime and not being part of the working population.
(which is in many ways explanable since most were illiterate, carrying wounds both physically and even more so psychologically and in other ways very far away from the common man in Norway).

So basically you were nearly wrong on the statement regarding the expansion of the workforce through immigrations. Most of these are refugees or in other ways part of the UN agreements, and thus not able to help the social welfare system to maintain itself as far as producing more than they cost.

Where we will be when the oil dries up nobody knows. Likely there will be an economic recession and the social welfare systems also likely will have to be remodeled. But right now, we are experiencing a very good quality of life standard.

Kaylore
04-17-2009, 11:24 AM
I still don't see this "Fox is slipping every day" thing. They're still almost two to one better than the other two networks.

BroncoBuff
04-17-2009, 11:36 AM
I still don't see this "Fox is slipping every day" thing. They're still almost two to one better than the other two networks.
I didn't say that ... in fact, I said FoxNews is having their own "mini Supernova" these last six weeks, with Beck and the new Hannity show. Ratings are through the roof for both these shows. But BEFORE these last six weeks, they had been slipping ... partly due to Obamania. And the vacated John Gibson show was pulling less than half what Glen Beck is doing now, and Hannity & Colmes was a good chunk less than Hannity's rating alone now.

But of course your overall point is correct, FoxNews is a ratings juggernaut, can't argue with that.

Mile High Mojoe
04-17-2009, 11:42 AM
This is what the Tea Party concept is all about for Conservatives.

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h318/gomilehigh/04162009.jpg

Obama’s and the Democrats response to the Tea Parties.

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h318/gomilehigh/090417beelertoon_c20090417020025.jpg

This is what MSNBC, CNN and CBS is more interested in reporting instead.

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h318/gomilehigh/allie.jpg

Tombstone RJ
04-17-2009, 02:30 PM
Remember too ... 10 and 11 are REPEAT hours for MSNBC. And they still beat/compete with CNN ;D

Beck's numbers are HUGE, and new of course ... his predecessor had maybe half those numbers, and Hannity's new show has beaten old H&C numbers so far by quite a lot.

So based on these new shows from Hannity and Beck, FoxNews has actually experienced a 6-week "Mini-Supernova."

I don't like Beck, I refuse to watch him even though he may have a ligitimate argument on some issues.

I also can't stand that Fox dump Colmes(sp?) or the "Hannity and Colmes" show. I'm not a big fan of Hannity either.

I liked Colmes because he was to the point, coherent, and had a great sense of humor.

Shame of Fox for dumping him. They should at least keep him as a paid commentator and rational voice of the Lefts issues.

frerottenextelway
04-17-2009, 04:12 PM
1. Thanks for not responding to my posts Buff. Great way to avoid my points.

2. I'm so glad your here to tell people when to protest, thanks! Now, lets hold our hands as we march into Socialism! Obama got what he wanted, don't tell me or anyone else when and what to protest.

Thanks.

The far left has been protesting for years about a plethora of issues. Now some conservatives want to voice their opinion on this new taxation and huge governement spending and the best MSNBC can do is "Tea Bagging"?

Tea Bagging, that's it.

A stooooooopid sexual innuendo. That's the best MSNBC can do to poke fun at a ligitimate social and governmental issue.

Tea bagging--teeeheheehehehe! (ain't we funny 'cause the Right don't "get it").

LAME!!


The Left put half a million or more in the streets all over America and the world over the Iraq invasion and occupation. We did not have to manipulate the real numbers to come up with 15,000, the size of some AA baseball crowds.

frerottenextelway
04-17-2009, 04:25 PM
Hmmm.......

http://erie-pa.org/photos/pres-obama-approval-ratings.jpg

Atlas
04-17-2009, 06:49 PM
Probably not safe for work.<object height="344" width="425">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8i-OWDjOQfI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="344" width="425"></object>

That is ****ing funny!

Mile High Mojoe
04-18-2009, 12:40 AM
That is ****ing funny!It works both ways. Listen to what Dobbs says about Barfbag and Olberbabblermouth.


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kOycxiaBcGI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kOycxiaBcGI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

TDmvp
04-18-2009, 02:27 AM
It works both ways. Listen to what Dobbs says about Barfbag and Olberbabblermouth.


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kOycxiaBcGI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kOycxiaBcGI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I watched Olbermann the other night when Garofalo was on it ...

First thing that came to my mind was , Yea When I think politically educated relevant people ... I think Janeane Garofalo . Not ...

She is like you took a Great comic like George Carlin ... removed the talent and added more pit and chest hair .

No idea who told her anyone gives a $hit what a mediocre / comic / actor / radio host / whatever she is this week says ...

Killericon
04-18-2009, 02:49 AM
Dobbs is in no place to complain about people on news shows spewing bile and whining about stuff.

BroncoBuff
04-18-2009, 03:02 AM
I watched Olbermann the other night when Garofalo was on it ... No idea who told her anyone gives a $hit what a mediocre / comic / actor / radio host / whatever she is this week says ...

The reason Olbermann/people "give a $hit" is because Bill O'Reilly and Bernard Golberg listed Garafalo on some list of "Liberal Media Conspiracists" or something, so there was some relevance to it.

TDmvp
04-18-2009, 03:05 AM
The reason Keith / people "give a $hit" is because Bill O'Reilly and Bernard Golberg listed Garafalo on some list of "Liberal Media Conspiracists" or something, so there was some relevance to it.

:thumbs:

Yea I did see that on Bill weeks back .

I watch both those bill/keith and Rachel ... God only knows why ...

TDmvp
04-18-2009, 03:06 AM
The reason Olbermann/people "give a $hit" is because Bill O'Reilly and Bernard Golberg listed Garafalo on some list of "Liberal Media Conspiracists" or something, so there was some relevance to it.

funny thing .... If that is what they called her . She did all she could do to prove their point and prove them right ... LOL

TDmvp
04-18-2009, 03:19 AM
ANOTHER THING ... that KILLS me .... while I'm ranting hehe ...

A few weeks ago Keith did this whole segment on Berny and Bill and Repugs who make list and blaming Berny for a shooting , and saying how dangerous it is for those dirty conservative people to make list cause some nut may take it as the sign to do something .

And on and on they went trashing Bill and Berny and Repugs ..

15 mins later AS he does every night Keith does his Worst Person of the World bit ... where they actually COUNT down the days worst people . In list form from 3 to 1 ....

Hmmmm .... Hypocrite much ....

Was one of the most stupid things I ever seen ... I almost emailed BillO to point it out ... and wanted to email Keith and ask him if worst person was a list ? :rofl:

Tombstone RJ
04-18-2009, 09:13 AM
The Left put half a million or more in the streets all over America and the world over the Iraq invasion and occupation. We did not have to manipulate the real numbers to come up with 15,000, the size of some AA baseball crowds.

Three words for you:

Tea bagging---LAME:welcome:

MSNBC sucks balls. You CAN take that to the bank.

And see, I just said "sucks balls" I didn't even have to be teeehehehe creative like the morons at MSNBC.

Mile High Mojoe
04-18-2009, 10:04 AM
Dobbs is in no place to complain about people on news shows spewing bile and whining about stuff.I'll take Dobbs bile over these 2 any day. She’s just certifiably crazy and Olbermann takes Liberalism to a totally outrageous level. People think McCarthyism was dangerous, his mean spirited “McLiberalism” knows no boundaries. His hatred and contempt of people in opposition to it has no equal on TV right now. What’s sad is that there are actually a group of people out there that buy into his insanity.

I don’t care for Hannity, Beck and O’Reilly either but Olbermann is the #1 looney tunes fruitcake of all time. When are we going to get back to some kind of responsible objective reporting where people place principles above personalities?

frerottenextelway
04-18-2009, 10:52 AM
Dobb's isn't a racist, he just doesn't like those cotton picking people.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0Y0W19-N3Ik&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0Y0W19-N3Ik&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

BroncoBuff
04-18-2009, 11:48 AM
I think Lou Dobbs is a little dim, on the intellect scale. At least compared to other news/talk anchors ... and he speaks far too slowly for me, it's irritating.

On the other hand, Olbermann's intellect is off the charts on the other end of the scale, something I've known since watching him in 1987 on sports. But he speaks too fast sometimes.

slyinky
04-18-2009, 01:07 PM
It works both ways. Listen to what Dobbs says about Barfbag and Olberbabblermouth.


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kOycxiaBcGI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kOycxiaBcGI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
I'm sorry. You really find this to be "****ing funny"? Your counter to the Schuster bit is this? I'm not quite sure that in this particular case "it works both ways."

anon
04-18-2009, 04:00 PM
For all those opposed to the rescue plan (which was initiated by Bush and furthered by Obama), what is your alternative to a government-led economic rescue, because it seems as if you are suggesting that there is an alternative course of action that would require less government spending?

Would you simply have let GM, AIG, Citi, and the rest of the banking system fail, and just "let things run their course"?

Or, do you simply not believe the conclusion by economic experts that allowing these "badly run businesses" to fail would have serious repercussions for the country and the world?

Tombstone RJ
04-18-2009, 04:45 PM
For all those opposed to the rescue plan (which was initiated by Bush and furthered by Obama), what is your alternative to a government-led economic rescue, because it seems as if you are suggesting that there is an alternative course of action that would require less government spending?

Would you simply have let GM, AIG, Citi, and the rest of the banking system fail, and just "let things run their course"?

Or, do you simply not believe the conclusion by economic experts that allowing these "badly run businesses" to fail would have serious repercussions for the country and the world?

You are correct, something had to be done, but the crap the House of Reps threw together under the direction of Pigosi and then handed to the rest of congress at the 11th hour was total and utter bush league politics.

I bet you any amount of money that the bail out could have been done with 1/8th that amount of money that is in this spending spree crapola.

The Dems and Obama siezed the moment and maximized it and there was nothing the GOP could do about it.

But Obama is not in any way bipartisan and he is NOT a "uniting" president. Far from it, he's a my way or the highway democrat.

gunns
04-18-2009, 05:18 PM
I still don't see this "Fox is slipping every day" thing. They're still almost two to one better than the other two networks.

With people losing their jobs, and the economic downturn people are preferring comedy. I know that's the only time I turn to Fox.

Tombstone RJ
04-18-2009, 05:20 PM
With people losing their jobs, and the economic downturn people are preferring comedy. I know that's the only time I turn to Fox.

Oh Snap!

Bronx33
04-18-2009, 05:32 PM
You are correct, something had to be done, but the crap the House of Reps threw together under the direction of Pigosi and then handed to the rest of congress at the 11th hour was total and utter bush league politics.

I bet you any amount of money that the bail out could have been done with 1/8th that amount of money that is in this spending spree crapola.

The Dems and Obama siezed the moment and maximized it and there was nothing the GOP could do about it.

But Obama is not in any way bipartisan and he is NOT a "uniting" president. Far from it, he's a my way or the highway democrat.


Word is some of the banks didn't need or even want the money and wanted to return it rather than have the goverment suddenly telling them how to conduct business.

BroncoBuff
04-18-2009, 06:24 PM
With people losing their jobs, and the economic downturn people are preferring comedy. I know that's the only time I turn to Fox.

LOL

Okay, G ... place the following five shows in order of most entertaining to you:

Daily Show
O'Reilly Factor
Colbert Report
Glen Beck
The Office

Bronx33
04-18-2009, 06:26 PM
LOL

Okay, G ... place the following five shows in order of most entertaining to you:

Daily Show
O'Reilly Factor
Colbert Report
Glen Beck
The Office

What if she doesn't watch any of them ( cause i don't)

BroncoBuff
04-18-2009, 06:49 PM
Okay Bronx ... I'll put those in order of the most entertaining to me:

1. Colbert Report
2. Glen Beck
3. The Office
4. O'Reilly Factor
5. The Daily Show

broncofan7
04-28-2009, 12:46 PM
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/april_ratings_fnc_beats_cnn_and_msnbc_combined_115 179.asp


Tuesday, Apr 28
April Ratings: FNC Beats CNN and MSNBC Combined
How's this for cable news domination - Fox News beat CNN and MSNBC combined in every hour from 6amET to MidnightET in both Total Viewers and the A25-54 demo for April 2009.

FNC had the top 11 cable news programs in Total Viewers and 12 of the top 15 in the demo. FNC is the #2 network in Total Viewers on all of cable.

From 9amET on, every program grew by more than 60% in the demo. The 5pmET hour, now occupied by Glenn Beck, is up 212% in the demo and up 128% in Total Viewers. Your World with Neil Cavuto is up 102% in the demo and up 60% in Total Viewers. On the Record with Greta Van Susteren is up 75% in demo and up 55% in Total Viewers.

Fox & Friends has now been #1 for 90 consecutive months, Studio B with Shepard Smith for 80 consecutive months.