Wow!
Jigsaw1695
ATT: Earl, you better skip this as it will cetainly mkae you ill and
upset.
Jigsaw
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cold, hard facts about Fox News
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 05, 2009
1:00 am Eastern
© 2009
I spoke at a recent town-hall forum. The many issues discussed
included the Obama administration's attack on Fox News. Later, one of
the audience members came up to me and sneered, "Well, even you must
admit that Fox News is biased in favor of Republicans."
Separate the opinion guys from the news deliverers. Does Fox focus on
stuff that the others – MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS – do not? Yes. Is
that stuff more critical of liberals and less critical of
conservatives? Yes.
The best gauge is who watches these stations. Fox News Channel, as a
percentage of viewers, includes more self-described libs and indies
than CNN or MSNBC includes self-described conservatives and indies.
Pew Research Center recently studied the cable channel viewers'
politics. CNN? Fifty-one percent liberal, 23 percent independent and
18 percent conservative. MSNBC? Forty-five percent liberal, 27 percent
independent and 18 percent conservative. Don't know about the "fair"
part, but Fox's audience was the most "balanced," with 39 percent
conservatives, 33 percent liberals and 22 percent independents.
I know from my appearances that the audiences differ – at least as to
the e-mail I receive.
Washington elite's message to you: "Shut Up, America!" – Get Brad
O'Leary's book about the effort to muzzle talk radio
When I appear on Fox, as I did to promote my latest book, "What's Race
Got to Do with It," I get mostly approving e-mail. When I get one that
disagrees, the writer points out – using facts, information or
analogies – what, in his or her opinion, undermines my position. But
when I appear on Wolf Blitzer's CNN show – oh, man! Hundreds of
hostile e-mails accuse me of everything but the Lincoln assassination.
Only rarely, such as when someone took exception to the book's premise
– that white racism no longer poses a potent or even significant
factor in America – does anyone argue intelligently, with facts or
information. It's snarl, attack, name-call.
The White House loathes Fox News. President Obama pointedly excluded
Fox while appearing on ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN. Obama's communications
director, on CNN, complained about Fox's year-old coverage of Obama's
campaign. But a Pew Research Center study found that during the last
six weeks of the campaign, 61 percent of CNN's stories on John McCain
were negative, compared with 39 percent on Obama. On MSNBC, 73 percent
of McCain stories were negative, while only 14 percent of stories on
Obama were negative. But 40 percent of Fox News' stories on Obama and
40 percent of those on McCain aired during the final six weeks of the
race were negative. So, of the three major cable news networks, who
can legitimately claim to be more "fair and balanced"?
But let's assume, for the sake of argument, Fox News slants toward
conservatives. On one side stand conservative talk radio, Investor's
Business Daily and some conservative/libertarian publications,
writers, bloggers and, yes, Fox News. On the other stand the New York
Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, the San Francisco
Chronicle, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and even the news section
of the Wall Street Journal, as well as the editorial pages of
virtually every big-city newspaper. It includes PBS, NPR, NBC, ABC,
CBS, CNN and MSNBC. In the 1992 presidential election, for example,
almost 90 percent of Washington-based journalists admitted to voting
for Bill Clinton for president.
But because Fox News is allegedly biased in favor of conservatives,
critics whine like children whose lunch money got snatched.
Conservatives have been pummeled for decades. Now that Fox News and
conservative talk radio give people alternatives, critics squeal as if
being sodomized.
Is Fox skeptical about the "bailout" and Cash for Clunkers or more
likely to blame government rather than "greed" for the housing
meltdown? Yes. Does Fox appear to focus more on Obama's dithering over
his top Afghanistan commander's request for the troops the general
thinks necessary to succeed? Yes. The better question is, why aren't
the others doing the same thing? The double standards and pro-liberal
negligence are mind-boggling. If media malpractice were a crime, many
"reporters" would be on death row.
When the Obama administration claimed 640,000 jobs were "saved or
created" with $159 billion of the "stimulus," many "news" outlets
blithely "reported" this. Do you know that comes to $250,000 per job?!
And the administration claimed half the jobs were teachers. How many
teachers make $250,000 per year? Very little skepticism. Why didn't
"journalists" immediately challenge this as a matter of who, what,
where, when and why? If George W. Bush had done this (God forbid he'd
have supported an $800 billion stimulus package), the mainstream media
would have – and should have – said, "Why, that comes to $250K per
job!"
But as to Fox News, it's BMW – bitch, moan and whine. Oh, the
humanity!
John Rennie
> Wow! You got to read this! Someone actually standing up for Fox.
>
>
> ATT: Earl, you better skip this as it will cetainly mkae you ill and
> upset.
>
> Jigsaw
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The cold, hard facts about Fox News
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post your links, jiggy
http://www.creators.com/opinion/larry-elder/fox-fever-the-latest-pandemic.html
We'll just take one quote and examine it
"When I appear on Fox, as I did to promote my latest book, "What's Race
Got to Do with It," I get mostly approving e-mail. When I get one that
disagrees, the writer points out � using facts, information or analogies
� what, in his or her opinion, undermines my position. But when I appear
on Wolf Blitzer's CNN show � oh, man! Hundreds of hostile e-mails accuse
me of everything but the Lincoln assassination. Only rarely, such as
when someone took exception to the book's premise � that white racism no
longer poses a potent or even significant factor in America � does
anyone argue intelligently, with facts or information. It's snarl,
attack, name-call."
I couldn't stop laughing for some time after reading the
above. No wonder this gentleman got mostly approving e-mails
from Fox News viewers and got castigated by CNN viewers. One
has only to read YOUR posts and those of that pile of shit
who masquerades under the nom de plume of PJ O'Donovan to
realise that racism still poses a threat to America and even
more so now that America has a black president. When are you
going to wake up and see yourself for what you are - a racist?
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
John Rennie wrote:
>
> Jigsaw1695 wrote:
> > Wow! You got to read this! Someone actually standing up for Fox.
> >
> >
> > ATT: Earl, you better skip this as it will cetainly mkae you ill and
> > upset.
> >
> > Jigsaw
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > The cold, hard facts about Fox News
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Post your links, jiggy
>
> http://www.creators.com/opinion/larry-elder/fox-fever-the-latest-pandemic.html
>
> We'll just take one quote and examine it
>
> "When I appear on Fox, as I did to promote my latest book, "What's Race
> Got to Do with It," I get mostly approving e-mail. When I get one that
> disagrees, the writer points out � using facts, information or analogies
> � what, in his or her opinion, undermines my position. But when I appear
> on Wolf Blitzer's CNN show � oh, man! Hundreds of hostile e-mails accuse
> me of everything but the Lincoln assassination. Only rarely, such as
> when someone took exception to the book's premise � that white racism no
> longer poses a potent or even significant factor in America � does
> anyone argue intelligently, with facts or information. It's snarl,
> attack, name-call."
>
> I couldn't stop laughing for some time after reading the
> above. No wonder this gentleman got mostly approving e-mails
> from Fox News viewers and got castigated by CNN viewers.
>
Since CNN has only about eight viewers left, they must be prolific
typists.
> One
> has only to read YOUR posts and those of that pile of shit
> who masquerades under the nom de plume of PJ O'Donovan to
> realise that racism still poses a threat to America and even
>
Really? So you think that Mr O'Donovan and Mr Jigsaw are some sort
of "threat"? Even if you assume their supposed racism, what's the
threat supposed to be?
> more so now that America has a black president.
>
I do wish that the first black president was a Republican. That
would lessen a lot of this tension. But even so, while Obama hasn't
ended whatever you want to call whatever you are complaining about,
he's not made it worse.
> When are you
> going to wake up and see yourself for what you are - a racist?
>
You people love to call folks that, don't you?
--
What I hate about flip flops is the flip and the flop.
Happy99
"Jigsaw1695" <Jigsa...@aol.com> a �crit dans le message de
news:edadf342-e75d-4410...@p19g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
Wow! You got to read this! Someone actually standing up for Fox.
ATT: Earl, you better skip this as it will cetainly mkae you ill and
upset.
Jigsaw
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The cold, hard facts about Fox News
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 05, 2009
1:00 am Eastern
� 2009
I spoke at a recent town-hall forum. The many issues discussed
included the Obama administration's attack on Fox News. Later, one of
the audience members came up to me and sneered, "Well, even you must
admit that Fox News is biased in favor of Republicans."
Separate the opinion guys from the news deliverers. Does Fox focus on
stuff that the others � MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS � do not? Yes. Is
that stuff more critical of liberals and less critical of
conservatives? Yes.
The best gauge is who watches these stations. Fox News Channel, as a
percentage of viewers, includes more self-described libs and indies
than CNN or MSNBC includes self-described conservatives and indies.
Pew Research Center recently studied the cable channel viewers'
politics. CNN? Fifty-one percent liberal, 23 percent independent and
18 percent conservative. MSNBC? Forty-five percent liberal, 27 percent
independent and 18 percent conservative. Don't know about the "fair"
part, but Fox's audience was the most "balanced," with 39 percent
conservatives, 33 percent liberals and 22 percent independents.
I know from my appearances that the audiences differ � at least as to
the e-mail I receive.
Washington elite's message to you: "Shut Up, America!" � Get Brad
O'Leary's book about the effort to muzzle talk radio
When I appear on Fox, as I did to promote my latest book, "What's Race
Got to Do with It," I get mostly approving e-mail. When I get one that
disagrees, the writer points out � using facts, information or
analogies � what, in his or her opinion, undermines my position. But
when I appear on Wolf Blitzer's CNN show � oh, man! Hundreds of
hostile e-mails accuse me of everything but the Lincoln assassination.
Only rarely, such as when someone took exception to the book's premise
� that white racism no longer poses a potent or even significant
factor in America � does anyone argue intelligently, with facts or
would have � and should have � said, "Why, that comes to $250K per
job!"
But as to Fox News, it's BMW � bitch, moan and whine. Oh, the
humanity!
Earl Evleth
a commodius vicus of recirculation' )" <tribuyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Really? So you think that Mr O'Donovan and Mr Jigsaw are some sort
> of "threat"? Even if you assume their supposed racism, what's the
> threat supposed to be?
When a lie is repeated over and over, it catches on. Both are
birthers. The birther lie is believed by a large numbers
of people, mainly Republicans. In a real close election that
could lead to a victory for the liars. We have seen the danger
of that historically. Lies pave the road to totalitarianism.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<tribuyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> John Rennie wrote:
> > When are you
> > going to wake up and see yourself for what you are - a racist?
> >
> You people love to call folks that, don't you?
Yes, we people who are not racists love to try to educate people like
you and Jiggy, Bill. We are kind and believe that there is some hope
for you, despite your moments of racism.
--
The Professor: What's "Friends"?
Satan: A TV show. Six characters in search of a smack in the mouth.
- Andy Hamilton, Old Harry's Game
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
This is wrongheaded. People should be allowed to speak. In the US,
they are allowed to speak. If their ideas have merit, then others
might listen. If they are crap, they likely won't. But trying to
let the government decide the difference is what is dangerous.
Hitler didn't allow free speech.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
> <tribuyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > John Rennie wrote:
>
> > > When are you
> > > going to wake up and see yourself for what you are - a racist?
> > >
> > You people love to call folks that, don't you?
>
> Yes, we people who are not racists love to try to educate people like
> you and Jiggy, Bill. We are kind and believe that there is some hope
> for you, despite your moments of racism.
>
I can't comment on Mr Jigsaw, but I am not a racist.
John Rennie
speak - you should be ashamed of yourself :-(
John Rennie
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
Eh? I can see neither Earl nor Bill opposing free speech here.
I like the birthers. Every time Orly Taitz makes an entertaining noise,
a swinging voter turns Democrat.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" wrote:
>
> John Rennie <john-...@talktalk.net> wrote:
>
> > Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' ) wrote:
> > >
> > > Earl Evleth wrote:
> > >> On 6/11/09 3:44, in article 4AF38D97...@yahoo.co.uk, "Bill Bonde
> > >> { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
> > >> <tribuyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Really? So you think that Mr O'Donovan and Mr Jigsaw are some sort
> > >>> of "threat"? Even if you assume their supposed racism, what's the
> > >>> threat supposed to be?
> > >> When a lie is repeated over and over, it catches on. Both are
> > >> birthers. The birther lie is believed by a large numbers
> > >> of people, mainly Republicans. In a real close election that
> > >> could lead to a victory for the liars. We have seen the danger
> > >> of that historically. Lies pave the road to totalitarianism.
> > >>
> > > This is wrongheaded. People should be allowed to speak. In the US,
> > > they are allowed to speak. If their ideas have merit, then others
> > > might listen. If they are crap, they likely won't. But trying to
> > > let the government decide the difference is what is dangerous.
> > > Hitler didn't allow free speech.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > So Earl it appears you are against allowing this twits the right to
> > speak - you should be ashamed of yourself :-(
>
> Eh? I can see neither Earl nor Bill opposing free speech here.
>
Earl is saying that "lies" shouldn't be allowed. He specifically
refers to the "Birther" lies. I think that the US is not under the
slightest threat from the Birthers.
> I like the birthers. Every time Orly Taitz makes an entertaining noise,
> a swinging voter turns Democrat.
>
I do doubt that. The Birther nonsense is getting about zero serious
airplay. It's not changing hearts and minds. It's the economy,
stupid, will be the mantra in 2010. Who wins comes down to whether
or not Obama and the Democrats are seen as successful on the
economy or not.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
No he isn't, Bill. He is saying that they are dangerous.
> He specifically
> refers to the "Birther" lies. I think that the US is not under the
> slightest threat from the Birthers.
Agreed. Every noise they make strengthens the Democrats.
> > I like the birthers. Every time Orly Taitz makes an entertaining noise,
> > a swinging voter turns Democrat.
> >
> I do doubt that. The Birther nonsense is getting about zero serious
> airplay. It's not changing hearts and minds. It's the economy,
> stupid, will be the mantra in 2010. Who wins comes down to whether
> or not Obama and the Democrats are seen as successful on the
> economy or not.
That's interesting. Especially given that all signs point to economic
recovery, at least in the short to medium term.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
This was my question: "Really? So you think that Mr O'Donovan and
Mr Jigsaw are some sort of "threat"? Even if you assume their
supposed racism, what's the threat supposed to be?" Clearly, if
something is a real "threat", arguments can be made to use the
force of law to protect everyone else from that threat. Limiting
free speech rights is hardly unknown in places such as France.
> > He specifically
> > refers to the "Birther" lies. I think that the US is not under the
> > slightest threat from the Birthers.
>
> Agreed. Every noise they make strengthens the Democrats.
>
I don't believe that the Birthers are a threat and I don't believe
they help the Democrats. They are pretty much a non-event. Although
the court cases make interesting discussion.
> > > I like the birthers. Every time Orly Taitz makes an entertaining noise,
> > > a swinging voter turns Democrat.
> > >
> > I do doubt that. The Birther nonsense is getting about zero serious
> > airplay. It's not changing hearts and minds. It's the economy,
> > stupid, will be the mantra in 2010. Who wins comes down to whether
> > or not Obama and the Democrats are seen as successful on the
> > economy or not.
>
> That's interesting. Especially given that all signs point to economic
> recovery, at least in the short to medium term.
>
If that's true, then that should help Obama and the Democrats. We
aren't seeing improvement in the unemployment picture and any boost
in the economy itself may be due to just the increase in deficit
spending. Underlying problems, such as personal and business debt,
are not cleared yet. I would be cautious.
Mitchell Holman
news:4AF4B1F5...@yahoo.co.uk:
Funny how deficit spending is never a problem as long
as conservatives are doing it.
"Deficits don't matter"
Dick Cheney, Jan 11, 2004
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
It always matters. Deficit spending might be necessary at some
point, but I think that going nuts about it, as seems to be the
case right now, is a mistake.
Earl Evleth
"John Rennie" <john-...@talktalk.net> wrote:
> So Earl it appears you are against allowing this twits the right to
> speak - you should be ashamed of yourself :-(
No, I am for exposing lies. I do on this newsgroup
like with the birthers and similar members of the
flat earth movement.
Earl Evleth
1j8szrn.1prggg8sfplkiN%dia...@notinnedmeat.freakishandunnatural.net, "Mr Q.
Z. Diablo" <dia...@notinnedmeat.freakishandunnatural.net> wrote:
>> I do doubt that. The Birther nonsense is getting about zero serious
>> airplay. It's not changing hearts and minds. It's the economy,
>> stupid, will be the mantra in 2010. Who wins comes down to whether
>> or not Obama and the Democrats are seen as successful on the
>> economy or not.
>
> That's interesting. Especially given that all signs point to economic
> recovery, at least in the short to medium term.
The unemployed do not pay attention to the fact that
money is being made elsewhere.`
As currently projected, unemployment will peak this next Spring
and then slowly come back, certainly not very much by election
time. More likely there are months delays between the statistics
showing a better situation and this changing attitudes.
Daddy Bush sufferred from the fact that the economy was
coming back at the time of the election but it hadn't registered
with voters.
So one does not have to be a political genus to predict that
the Democrats will lose seats in Congress next year. It
is more probable that in the 2012 elections things will have
visibly improved to lead to the reelection of Obama.
We do know that the Republicans have right now no viable
alternative, either in the form of policy or candidate.
They will harp. They did with Roosevelt and criticized
many policies which historically proved correct, and had
nothing to offer.
One notes that in Europe, the "right" has adopted many
of the social protection practices of the "left" over the years.
Important parts of the socialist social agenda are now in place.
The US has a way to come.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Earl Evleth wrote:
>
> On 6/11/09 23:29, in article
> 1j8szrn.1prggg8sfplkiN%dia...@notinnedmeat.freakishandunnatural.net, "Mr Q.
> Z. Diablo" <dia...@notinnedmeat.freakishandunnatural.net> wrote:
>
> >> I do doubt that. The Birther nonsense is getting about zero serious
> >> airplay. It's not changing hearts and minds. It's the economy,
> >> stupid, will be the mantra in 2010. Who wins comes down to whether
> >> or not Obama and the Democrats are seen as successful on the
> >> economy or not.
> >
> > That's interesting. Especially given that all signs point to economic
> > recovery, at least in the short to medium term.
>
> The unemployed do not pay attention to the fact that
> money is being made elsewhere.`
>
You'd think that it would be an incentive to redeploy. Where is the
money being made, head over there! Of course maybe it's only being
made if you know someone who is buddies with Obama.
> As currently projected, unemployment will peak this next Spring
> and then slowly come back, certainly not very much by election
> time.
>
So it's your take that Democrats are screwed?
> More likely there are months delays between the statistics
> showing a better situation and this changing attitudes.
> Daddy Bush sufferred from the fact that the economy was
> coming back at the time of the election but it hadn't registered
> with voters.
>
After the election, Clinton took credit. The expansion was then
Clinton's. Today, the recession is considered Bush's. It's
lose-lise for Republicans, it seems.
> So one does not have to be a political genus to predict that
> the Democrats will lose seats in Congress next year. It
> is more probable that in the 2012 elections things will have
> visibly improved to lead to the reelection of Obama.
>
Really? So you are predicting Obama as a one termer? I sure hope
you are right about that, although I don't wish downer economics on
the world to get that.
> We do know that the Republicans have right now no viable
> alternative, either in the form of policy or candidate.
>
I think that it is policy that Republicans need first. Republicans
do not need to put someone up who gives "hope". That's just not
going to do it.
Earl Evleth
a commodius vicus of recirculation' )" <tribuyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> The unemployed do not pay attention to the fact that
>> money is being made elsewhere.`
>>
> You'd think that it would be an incentive to redeploy. Where is the
> money being made, head over there!
To make money on the stock market you have to already have money.
For those who have no money there is no sense is heading "over there".
Those poor and looking for a job do not follow the DJI.
They often don't read the papers nor look at TV News.
They wish to be entertained and they wish to forget
the problems for a little bit.
But they are mindful that the current system is socialism for
the rich and capitalism for the poor.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Earl Evleth wrote:
>
> On 7/11/09 18:23, in article 4AF5AD2B...@yahoo.co.uk, "Bill Bonde { 'by
> a commodius vicus of recirculation' )" <tribuyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > The unemployed do not pay attention to the fact that
> >> money is being made elsewhere.`
> >>
> > You'd think that it would be an incentive to redeploy. Where is the
> > money being made, head over there!
>
> To make money on the stock market you have to already have money.
> For those who have no money there is no sense is heading "over there".
>
Is the run back up of the markets making money, in your view? What
is it making other than paper wealth again?
> Those poor and looking for a job do not follow the DJI.
> They often don't read the papers nor look at TV News.
> They wish to be entertained and they wish to forget
> the problems for a little bit.
>
Is that why they buy a big screen TV?
> But they are mindful that the current system is socialism for
> the rich and capitalism for the poor.
>
How is that? Most of the US budget goes to social programmes.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
Arguments can be made, Bill, but it doesn't necessarily follow that
those arguments are valid.
> Limiting
> free speech rights is hardly unknown in places such as France.
Free speech has its limits almost everywhere, Bill, although I fail to
see how the above is relevant.
> > > He specifically
> > > refers to the "Birther" lies. I think that the US is not under the
> > > slightest threat from the Birthers.
> >
> > Agreed. Every noise they make strengthens the Democrats.
> >
> I don't believe that the Birthers are a threat and I don't believe
> they help the Democrats.
Yes, but you're wrong about almost everything.
> They are pretty much a non-event. Although
> the court cases make interesting discussion.
They are relatively high profile considering their numbers.
> > > > I like the birthers. Every time Orly Taitz makes an entertaining noise,
> > > > a swinging voter turns Democrat.
> > > >
> > > I do doubt that. The Birther nonsense is getting about zero serious
> > > airplay. It's not changing hearts and minds. It's the economy,
> > > stupid, will be the mantra in 2010. Who wins comes down to whether
> > > or not Obama and the Democrats are seen as successful on the
> > > economy or not.
> >
> > That's interesting. Especially given that all signs point to economic
> > recovery, at least in the short to medium term.
> >
> If that's true, then that should help Obama and the Democrats. We
> aren't seeing improvement in the unemployment picture and any boost
> in the economy itself may be due to just the increase in deficit
> spending. Underlying problems, such as personal and business debt,
> are not cleared yet. I would be cautious.
Yada yada yada. You can definitely be extremely tedious on occasion,
Bill.
Earl Evleth
> Is the run back up of the markets making money, in your view? What
> is it making other than paper wealth again?
Not quite, there is a large liquid asset surplus
right now, over a trillion dollar, in the USA.
it is searching for a place to go away from
short term Bonds which pay zero interest rates
Donna Evleth
> From: "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
> <tribuyl...@yahoo.co.uk>
> Organization: Our legacy is not the lives we lived but the lives we leave to
> those who come after us.
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
> Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2009 19:07:02 +0000
> Subject: Re: Wow!
>
>> Those poor and looking for a job do not follow the DJI.
>> They often don't read the papers nor look at TV News.
>> They wish to be entertained and they wish to forget
>> the problems for a little bit.
>>
> Is that why they buy a big screen TV?
Is that why you bought one?
Donna Evleth
>
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
If Earl thinks that Mr Jigsaw et al. are in violation of
Brandenburg, then apply the laws. The shooter at Fort Hood was
obviously a threat yet nothing was done even after he posted (it
now appears) crazy and threatening materials to the internet.
> > Limiting
> > free speech rights is hardly unknown in places such as France.
>
> Free speech has its limits almost everywhere, Bill, although I fail to
> see how the above is relevant.
>
The limits in the US allow people to say what they think about
issues, including express their views of racial intolerance. That's
really not so true in places like France.
> > > > He specifically
> > > > refers to the "Birther" lies. I think that the US is not under the
> > > > slightest threat from the Birthers.
> > >
> > > Agreed. Every noise they make strengthens the Democrats.
> > >
> > I don't believe that the Birthers are a threat and I don't believe
> > they help the Democrats.
>
> Yes, but you're wrong about almost everything.
>
I'm rarely wrong. You are the one who is usually wrong about
everything.
> > They are pretty much a non-event. Although
> > the court cases make interesting discussion.
>
> They are relatively high profile considering their numbers.
>
How are they high profile? They are filing lawsuits and getting
them tossed out.
> > > > > I like the birthers. Every time Orly Taitz makes an entertaining noise,
> > > > > a swinging voter turns Democrat.
> > > > >
> > > > I do doubt that. The Birther nonsense is getting about zero serious
> > > > airplay. It's not changing hearts and minds. It's the economy,
> > > > stupid, will be the mantra in 2010. Who wins comes down to whether
> > > > or not Obama and the Democrats are seen as successful on the
> > > > economy or not.
> > >
> > > That's interesting. Especially given that all signs point to economic
> > > recovery, at least in the short to medium term.
> > >
> > If that's true, then that should help Obama and the Democrats. We
> > aren't seeing improvement in the unemployment picture and any boost
> > in the economy itself may be due to just the increase in deficit
> > spending. Underlying problems, such as personal and business debt,
> > are not cleared yet. I would be cautious.
>
> Yada yada yada. You can definitely be extremely tedious on occasion,
> Bill.
>
How is speaking directly to the point being "tedious"? The economy
is a major problem of our time. If that is boring you, perhaps you
should eat seal meat and live on an ice floe.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
How is building up another bubble not paper wealth?
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
I didn't buy one. I have a normal CRT TV of modest proportions. I
also don't drive a monster truck.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
> Donna Evleth wrote:
> >
> > > From: "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
> > > <tribuyl...@yahoo.co.uk> Organization: Our legacy is not the
> > > lives we lived but the lives we leave to those who come after us.
> > > Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2009 19:07:02
> > > +0000 Subject: Re: Wow!
> > >
> > >> Those poor and looking for a job do not follow the DJI.
> > >> They often don't read the papers nor look at TV News.
> > >> They wish to be entertained and they wish to forget
> > >> the problems for a little bit.
> > >>
> > > Is that why they buy a big screen TV?
> >
> > Is that why you bought one?
> >
> I didn't buy one. I have a normal CRT TV of modest proportions.
You don't. The institution that you inhabit does.
> I
> also don't drive a monster truck.
Those who are "in care" are generally not allowed to drive anything,
Bill. I doubt that you are an exception.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
Evasion noted.
> > > Limiting
> > > free speech rights is hardly unknown in places such as France.
> >
> > Free speech has its limits almost everywhere, Bill, although I fail to
> > see how the above is relevant.
> >
> The limits in the US allow people to say what they think about
> issues, including express their views of racial intolerance. That's
> really not so true in places like France.
The limits are different in different places, Bill. You continue
failing to demonstrate relevance.
> > > > > He specifically
> > > > > refers to the "Birther" lies. I think that the US is not under the
> > > > > slightest threat from the Birthers.
> > > >
> > > > Agreed. Every noise they make strengthens the Democrats.
> > > >
> > > I don't believe that the Birthers are a threat and I don't believe
> > > they help the Democrats.
> >
> > Yes, but you're wrong about almost everything.
> >
> I'm rarely wrong. You are the one who is usually wrong about
> everything.
And, with that above statement, you demonstrate that you're wrong yet
again. Ironic.
> > > They are pretty much a non-event. Although
> > > the court cases make interesting discussion.
> >
> > They are relatively high profile considering their numbers.
> >
> How are they high profile?
They get oodles of media coverage considering their numbers and (lack
of) actual significance.
> They are filing lawsuits and getting
> them tossed out.
No shit, Sherlock. Perhaps you could say something relevant and
interesting for a change.
> > > > > > I like the birthers. Every time Orly Taitz makes an
> > > > > > entertaining noise, a swinging voter turns Democrat.
> > > > > >
> > > > > I do doubt that. The Birther nonsense is getting about zero serious
> > > > > airplay. It's not changing hearts and minds. It's the economy,
> > > > > stupid, will be the mantra in 2010. Who wins comes down to whether
> > > > > or not Obama and the Democrats are seen as successful on the
> > > > > economy or not.
> > > >
> > > > That's interesting. Especially given that all signs point to economic
> > > > recovery, at least in the short to medium term.
> > > >
> > > If that's true, then that should help Obama and the Democrats. We
> > > aren't seeing improvement in the unemployment picture and any boost
> > > in the economy itself may be due to just the increase in deficit
> > > spending. Underlying problems, such as personal and business debt,
> > > are not cleared yet. I would be cautious.
> >
> > Yada yada yada. You can definitely be extremely tedious on occasion,
> > Bill.
> >
> How is speaking directly to the point being "tedious"?
Stating the bleeding obvious is tedious, Bill.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
I'm the one expressing actual views that are on topic and solidly
stated. All you said was something ambiguous about "arguments can
be made". I'm also not the one claiming that Mr Jigsaw is a threat.
That's Earl.
> > > > Limiting
> > > > free speech rights is hardly unknown in places such as France.
> > >
> > > Free speech has its limits almost everywhere, Bill, although I fail to
> > > see how the above is relevant.
> > >
> > The limits in the US allow people to say what they think about
> > issues, including express their views of racial intolerance. That's
> > really not so true in places like France.
>
> The limits are different in different places, Bill. You continue
> failing to demonstrate relevance.
>
In "different places", any comments that are deemed "hate speech"
can get you criminally prosecuted. So that's limits that are the
government deciding what you can and can't say within the realm of
ideas. We aren't talking about slander or actual threats. We are
talking about free speech limitations.
> > > > > > He specifically
> > > > > > refers to the "Birther" lies. I think that the US is not under the
> > > > > > slightest threat from the Birthers.
> > > > >
> > > > > Agreed. Every noise they make strengthens the Democrats.
> > > > >
> > > > I don't believe that the Birthers are a threat and I don't believe
> > > > they help the Democrats.
> > >
> > > Yes, but you're wrong about almost everything.
> > >
> > I'm rarely wrong. You are the one who is usually wrong about
> > everything.
>
> And, with that above statement, you demonstrate that you're wrong yet
> again. Ironic.
>
You demonstrated you're a prat.
> > > > They are pretty much a non-event. Although
> > > > the court cases make interesting discussion.
> > >
> > > They are relatively high profile considering their numbers.
> > >
> > How are they high profile?
>
> They get oodles of media coverage considering their numbers and (lack
> of) actual significance.
>
The media reports the latest dismissal. Big deal. That twerp who
shot up Fort Hood got more attention.
> > They are filing lawsuits and getting
> > them tossed out.
>
> No shit, Sherlock. Perhaps you could say something relevant and
> interesting for a change.
>
I'm telling you they are not actual threat. That twerp who shot up
Fort Hood is (or at least was).
> > > > > > > I like the birthers. Every time Orly Taitz makes an
> > > > > > > entertaining noise, a swinging voter turns Democrat.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > I do doubt that. The Birther nonsense is getting about zero serious
> > > > > > airplay. It's not changing hearts and minds. It's the economy,
> > > > > > stupid, will be the mantra in 2010. Who wins comes down to whether
> > > > > > or not Obama and the Democrats are seen as successful on the
> > > > > > economy or not.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's interesting. Especially given that all signs point to economic
> > > > > recovery, at least in the short to medium term.
> > > > >
> > > > If that's true, then that should help Obama and the Democrats. We
> > > > aren't seeing improvement in the unemployment picture and any boost
> > > > in the economy itself may be due to just the increase in deficit
> > > > spending. Underlying problems, such as personal and business debt,
> > > > are not cleared yet. I would be cautious.
> > >
> > > Yada yada yada. You can definitely be extremely tedious on occasion,
> > > Bill.
> > >
> > How is speaking directly to the point being "tedious"?
>
> Stating the bleeding obvious is tedious, Bill.
>
Obama et al. seem to be claiming they did something to fix the
economy and that they aren't being tedious. But you seem to think
either we shouldn't talk about that or that they didn't really do
anything and that's too obvious to discuss.
Earl Evleth
>> Not quite, there is a large liquid asset surplus
>> right now, over a trillion dollar, in the USA.
>>
>> it is searching for a place to go away from
>> short term Bonds which pay zero interest rates
>>
> How is building up another bubble not paper wealth?
Bubbles occur in the form unrealized capital gains (paper).
Actual possession of money or the equilvant is not a bubble.
As usual you err in not being able to differentiate
between the virtual and real. Yours is a common
error of counting the chickens before they hatch.
Donna Evleth
> From: "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
> <tribuyl...@yahoo.co.uk>
> Organization: Our legacy is not the lives we lived but the lives we leave to
> those who come after us.
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
> Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:31:21 +0000
> Subject: Re: Wow!
I only assumed you had bought one because you are always talking about them.
Donna Evleth
Earl Evleth
Evleth" <dev...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> I only assumed you had bought one because you are always talking about them.
His next door neighbor, the Jones, had one.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Earl Evleth wrote:
>
> On 7/11/09 22:30, in article 4AF5E6E3...@yahoo.co.uk, "Bill Bonde {
> 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )" <tribuyl...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >> Not quite, there is a large liquid asset surplus
> >> right now, over a trillion dollar, in the USA.
> >>
> >> it is searching for a place to go away from
> >> short term Bonds which pay zero interest rates
> >>
> > How is building up another bubble not paper wealth?
>
> Bubbles occur in the form unrealized capital gains (paper).
> Actual possession of money or the equilvant is not a bubble.
>
Overvaluing assets are bubbles, Earl. You can own the tulip bulbs
and that doesn't change.
> As usual you err in not being able to differentiate
> between the virtual and real. Yours is a common
> error of counting the chickens before they hatch.
>
It is difficult to figure out what the true value of something is.
It is best, in my view, to look at what it costs to replicate. So a
house is worth what it costs to build. A car is worth what it costs
to buy all the parts and put together. This isn't an exact measure
and it can be messed up because the cost to make something can
wildly change. But to look simply at what some crazy person is
willing to pay for something at some instant and insist that's the
value is wrong.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
I'll wait for someone to think that fixing their LCD TV isn't worth
it and then I'll fix it after they discard it. That's the plan.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
I don't know what the Jones have or had.
Earl Evleth
> Bubbles occur in the form unrealized capital gains (paper).
>> Actual possession of money or the equilvant is not a bubble.
>>
> Overvaluing assets are bubbles, Earl. You can own the tulip bulbs
> and that doesn't change.
If you perceived them as representing a capital gains, they
are bubbles. If you have them to plant, they are not.
Their perceived capitial gain is virtual, their potential
of producing a floor is much less so. The speculator
has no intent let them bloom.
>
>> As usual you err in not being able to differentiate
>> between the virtual and real. Yours is a common
>> error of counting the chickens before they hatch.
>>
> It is difficult to figure out what the true value of something is.
There is none that one can establish theoretically. If the value
is the supposed market value, that is virtual, but the value actually
realized is true.
One of the self-deceptions in real estate values of a local
home is that one hears about how much the home is put onto the
market, but all too often the final sales price is not revealed.
For instance, from a local real estate office and their window
advertisement I know that the apartment upstairs from us was put on the
market at 550,000 euros. It was sold in a reasonable time but nobody
advertised the final sales price. I can not ask the new owners because in
France that kind of question is improper. My expectations are that they came
down in price (the 550,000 had some give) and of course, the real estate
agency had its fees. I roughly estimate that the seller received
450,000. The 550,000 was virtual, the 450,000 was true if they
received it, but for the moment it also is virtual.
Many people deceive themselves in believing that the virtual price
is the price they are going to receive on sale. Some are so stubborn
they won't negotiate a lower price. Buyers can be equally as stubborn
because they also will only function in the virtual world.
I have the feeling you are a virtualist.
Earl Evleth
>> His next door neighbor, the Jones, had one.
>>
> I don't know what the Jones have or had.
You had to to keep up with them
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Earl Evleth wrote:
>
> On 8/11/09 18:39, in article 4AF70252...@yahoo.co.uk, "Bill Bonde {
> 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )" <tribuyl...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > Bubbles occur in the form unrealized capital gains (paper).
> >> Actual possession of money or the equilvant is not a bubble.
> >>
> > Overvaluing assets are bubbles, Earl. You can own the tulip bulbs
> > and that doesn't change.
>
> If you perceived them as representing a capital gains, they
> are bubbles. If you have them to plant, they are not.
>
They were "investments". But they didn't consider the cost to
replicate them.
> Their perceived capitial gain is virtual, their potential
> of producing a floor is much less so. The speculator
> has no intent let them bloom.
>
Then he could lose.
> >> As usual you err in not being able to differentiate
> >> between the virtual and real. Yours is a common
> >> error of counting the chickens before they hatch.
> >>
> > It is difficult to figure out what the true value of something is.
>
> There is none that one can establish theoretically. If the value
> is the supposed market value, that is virtual, but the value actually
> realized is true.
>
What if you lucked out and sold off at the top of the lift?
> One of the self-deceptions in real estate values of a local
> home is that one hears about how much the home is put onto the
> market, but all too often the final sales price is not revealed.
>
Isn't that public record?
> For instance, from a local real estate office and their window
> advertisement I know that the apartment upstairs from us was put on the
> market at 550,000 euros. It was sold in a reasonable time but nobody
> advertised the final sales price. I can not ask the new owners because in
> France that kind of question is improper. My expectations are that they came
> down in price (the 550,000 had some give) and of course, the real estate
> agency had its fees. I roughly estimate that the seller received
> 450,000. The 550,000 was virtual, the 450,000 was true if they
> received it, but for the moment it also is virtual.
>
So you don't know but you'll handily guess?
> Many people deceive themselves in believing that the virtual price
> is the price they are going to receive on sale. Some are so stubborn
> they won't negotiate a lower price. Buyers can be equally as stubborn
> because they also will only function in the virtual world.
>
Yet the apartment sold. How could that be?
> I have the feeling you are a virtualist.
>
Your capacity to assign to me various values without any evidence
or thought to what my actual views are is ridiculous. I have the
feeling you are a ventriloquist, throwing your voice to animate me
as I stand astounded.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
No I didn't. I couldn't care less what they thought they needed or
didn't need. I'll buy the things that I believe that I need or
would like.
Earl Evleth
>
>
> Earl Evleth wrote:
>>
>
>
>> One of the self-deceptions in real estate values of a local
>> home is that one hears about how much the home is put onto the
>> market, but all too often the final sales price is not revealed.
>>
> Isn't that public record?
Not here. I checked that out another time with regard to another
place in the building. The French have a enregistration of real
estate, called the Cadastre (www.cadastre.gouv.fr/) which lists
a lot of public information on a piece of property, in particular
who owns it and whether there are outstanding loans, and the
taxes. But not the purchase price. I have visited the offices
which have that information and used the information in the
past. I was mainly interested in outstanding loans and who
was the legal owner of the property. I am a member of our
buildings owner committee and needed the legal owner information
to make sure that those members were actually owners. Many
places in Paris are inherited, meaning the place goes to the
child, if the person is married, the spouse is not automatically
a co-owner. Many in France are married under the "separation de
biens" provision of the law. But inherited money is automatically
covered under that provision.
> So you don't know but you'll handily guess?
In this case I talked it over with one of the other people
in the building, a banker who has purchased a lot of real estate.
This place was sold in a falling market, Paris real estate did not
fall much in the recent drop (less than 10%). Statistics are available
furnished by the notaires (special lawyers who handled, among other
things sales and purchases of property). I know what the average
sales price per square meter is in a particular area. As you might
guess most owners assume the value of their place is close or
superior to that figure (but they are egocentric enough not
to realize it could be less in their case-often Parisian apartments
need work and if so the potential buyer points out the poor condition of a
place for sale. Next, it is standard practice in the "beaux quartiers" for
owners to overevaluate their places by 10-15%. The owners in the poorer
areas actually have a better understanding of the market and their
places are put up for sale at reasonable prices.
>
>
>> Many people deceive themselves in believing that the virtual price
>> is the price they are going to receive on sale. Some are so stubborn
>> they won't negotiate a lower price. Buyers can be equally as stubborn
>> because they also will only function in the virtual world.
>>
> Yet the apartment sold. How could that be?
Because, I believe, they came down from 550,000. My banker "friend"
believe so too. The place was bought by parents for their child
to live in, that means money, possibly cash. The young (under 35)
do not have that kind of money. Inheritance is becoming more and more
the main avenue to higher prices apartments.
>
>> I have the feeling you are a virtualist.
>>
> Your capacity to assign to me various values without any evidence
> or thought to what my actual views are is ridiculous.
I observe. You inability to realize what you are is amazing.