Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
MSNBC Lands In Fourth Place In May
57 views
Skip to first unread message
brattt
May 30, 2013, 8:10:07 AM5/30/13
to
Maddow Hits Ratings Lows
Another month of big crime and disaster news saw the network struggle to
keep up with rivals CNN, HLN and Fox News. MSNBC was presumably expecting
some dropoff from its 2012 numbers, since that was an election year, but
it still landed in fourth place behind the other channels, a victim of
HLN's Jodi Arias-fueled surge and of President Obama's scandal-ridden,
defensive month. Overall, MSNBC saw its lowest total day viewer numbers
since 2007, and its lowest prime time numbers since 2009.
MSNBC's prime time numbers were down across the board. Rachel Maddow
delivered what the Hollywood Reporter said were her lowest total viewing
figures in her show's history, and she even fell behind timeslot rival
Piers Morgan�a very rare victory for the CNN host. Chris Hayes also
delivered sharply lower ratings than the man he replaced, Ed Schultz, did
in 2012. Both of them, along with hosts from Chris Matthews to Al Sharpton
to Martin Bashir, landed in fourth place in their timeslots�a marked
change from their normal second-place status. ("Morning Joe" did manage to
come in second in its slot in total viewers.)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/30/msnbc-may-ratings-maddow_n_3354785.html
Another month of big crime and disaster news saw the network struggle to
keep up with rivals CNN, HLN and Fox News. MSNBC was presumably expecting
some dropoff from its 2012 numbers, since that was an election year, but
it still landed in fourth place behind the other channels, a victim of
HLN's Jodi Arias-fueled surge and of President Obama's scandal-ridden,
defensive month. Overall, MSNBC saw its lowest total day viewer numbers
since 2007, and its lowest prime time numbers since 2009.
MSNBC's prime time numbers were down across the board. Rachel Maddow
delivered what the Hollywood Reporter said were her lowest total viewing
figures in her show's history, and she even fell behind timeslot rival
Piers Morgan�a very rare victory for the CNN host. Chris Hayes also
delivered sharply lower ratings than the man he replaced, Ed Schultz, did
in 2012. Both of them, along with hosts from Chris Matthews to Al Sharpton
to Martin Bashir, landed in fourth place in their timeslots�a marked
change from their normal second-place status. ("Morning Joe" did manage to
come in second in its slot in total viewers.)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/30/msnbc-may-ratings-maddow_n_3354785.html
Dave the Clueless
May 30, 2013, 10:42:32 AM5/30/13
to
JerryFOREX explains: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXoNE14U_zM
-------
JerryFOREX the retard thinks "Cornel Ronald West (born June 2, 1953) is an
American philosopher, academic, activist, author and prominent member of
the Democratic Socialists of America" is a right-winger! LOL! HAHAHAHAH!
What a moron!!!
-------
JerryFOREX the retard thinks "Cornel Ronald West (born June 2, 1953) is an
American philosopher, academic, activist, author and prominent member of
the Democratic Socialists of America" is a right-winger! LOL! HAHAHAHAH!
What a moron!!!
mo_ntresor
May 30, 2013, 10:42:26 AM5/30/13
to
is as tired of the bullshit fighting and nonstop petty bickering too.
only took them a few more years to get there ...
mo_ntresor
risky biz
May 30, 2013, 11:31:04 AM5/30/13
to
On May 30 2013 7:42 AM, Dave the Clueless wrote:
> JerryFOREX explains: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXoNE14U_zM
What was the question?
> JerryFOREX explains: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXoNE14U_zM
What was the question?
halfpastdead
May 30, 2013, 1:25:04 PM5/30/13
to
attack rats are good TV
*****************************************
I saw a bumper sticker about six months ago. It said: "Don't Mex with
Tejas".
---------------------------------------------------------------
brewmaster
May 30, 2013, 2:47:15 PM5/30/13
to
On May 30 2013 10:25 AM, halfpastdead wrote:
> On May 30 2013 7:10 AM, brattt wrote:
>
> > Maddow Hits Ratings Lows
> >
> > Another month of big crime and disaster news saw the network struggle to
> > keep up with rivals CNN, HLN and Fox News. MSNBC was presumably expecting
> > some dropoff from its 2012 numbers, since that was an election year, but
> > it still landed in fourth place behind the other channels, a victim of
> > HLN's Jodi Arias-fueled surge and of President Obama's scandal-ridden,
> > defensive month. Overall, MSNBC saw its lowest total day viewer numbers
> > since 2007, and its lowest prime time numbers since 2009.
> >
> > MSNBC's prime time numbers were down across the board. Rachel Maddow
> > delivered what the Hollywood Reporter said were her lowest total viewing
> > figures in her show's history, and she even fell behind timeslot rival
> > Piers Morgan—a very rare victory for the CNN host. Chris Hayes also
> > delivered sharply lower ratings than the man he replaced, Ed Schultz, did
> > in 2012. Both of them, along with hosts from Chris Matthews to Al Sharpton
> > to Martin Bashir, landed in fourth place in their timeslots—a marked
> > change from their normal second-place status. ("Morning Joe" did manage to
> > come in second in its slot in total viewers.)
> >
> >
> >
>
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/30/msnbc-may-ratings-maddow_n_3354785.html
>
>
> nothing you can do when morons believe Jody Arias or FOX's hypocritical
> attack rats are good TV
doggy, you think ed shultz is good tv, and he is (IMO) one of the biggest
> On May 30 2013 7:10 AM, brattt wrote:
>
> > Maddow Hits Ratings Lows
> >
> > Another month of big crime and disaster news saw the network struggle to
> > keep up with rivals CNN, HLN and Fox News. MSNBC was presumably expecting
> > some dropoff from its 2012 numbers, since that was an election year, but
> > it still landed in fourth place behind the other channels, a victim of
> > HLN's Jodi Arias-fueled surge and of President Obama's scandal-ridden,
> > defensive month. Overall, MSNBC saw its lowest total day viewer numbers
> > since 2007, and its lowest prime time numbers since 2009.
> >
> > MSNBC's prime time numbers were down across the board. Rachel Maddow
> > delivered what the Hollywood Reporter said were her lowest total viewing
> > figures in her show's history, and she even fell behind timeslot rival
> > Piers Morgan—a very rare victory for the CNN host. Chris Hayes also
> > delivered sharply lower ratings than the man he replaced, Ed Schultz, did
> > in 2012. Both of them, along with hosts from Chris Matthews to Al Sharpton
> > to Martin Bashir, landed in fourth place in their timeslots—a marked
> > change from their normal second-place status. ("Morning Joe" did manage to
> > come in second in its slot in total viewers.)
> >
> >
> >
>
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/30/msnbc-may-ratings-maddow_n_3354785.html
>
>
> nothing you can do when morons believe Jody Arias or FOX's hypocritical
> attack rats are good TV
morons I've ever had the displeasure of watching.
risky biz
May 30, 2013, 3:26:39 PM5/30/13
to
On May 30 2013 12:24 PM, brattt wrote:
> On May 30 2013 12:25 PM, halfpastdead wrote:
>
> > nothing you can do when morons believe Jody Arias or FOX's hypocritical
> > attack rats are good TV
>
> Actually people are just hungry to get TWO sides to a story - and to have
> every story reported whether it is good or bad for the White House.
If you're getting your information from television you can get both sides
and still not know what the story is.
> On May 30 2013 12:25 PM, halfpastdead wrote:
>
> > nothing you can do when morons believe Jody Arias or FOX's hypocritical
> > attack rats are good TV
>
> every story reported whether it is good or bad for the White House.
If you're getting your information from television you can get both sides
and still not know what the story is.
brattt
May 30, 2013, 3:24:09 PM5/30/13
to
On May 30 2013 12:25 PM, halfpastdead wrote:
> nothing you can do when morons believe Jody Arias or FOX's hypocritical
> attack rats are good TV
> attack rats are good TV
Hollis2
May 30, 2013, 4:51:23 PM5/30/13
to
Obviously, people are interested in the three scandals and they know that
they're not going to get to see much about them anywhere other than Fox
News.
Yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee sent a letter to the AG
expressing "great concern" that he might have committed perjury. Not one
of the network evening news programs thought that was worthy of mention.
Clave
May 30, 2013, 4:56:33 PM5/30/13
to
"Hollis2" <a3a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:bnqk7ax...@news.ezprovider.com...
<...>
> Yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee sent a letter to the AG
> expressing "great concern" that he might have committed perjury. Not one
> of the network evening news programs thought that was worthy of mention.
Jim
Hollis2
May 30, 2013, 5:25:41 PM5/30/13
to
Obama's approval ratings wouldn't be falling.
Clave
May 30, 2013, 6:57:48 PM5/30/13
to
"Hollis2" <a3a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
LOL @ "flocking"...
> ...and Obama's approval ratings wouldn't be falling.
The current fluctuation is based on the approval of independents, who blow
with the winds anyway. I doubt he's losing a lot of sleep over it.
Jim
Hollis2
May 30, 2013, 9:13:19 PM5/30/13
to
On May 30 2013 6:57 PM, Clave wrote:
> "Hollis2" <a3a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> news:lnsk7ax...@news.ezprovider.com...
> > On May 30 2013 4:56 PM, Clave wrote:
> >
> >> "Hollis2" <a3a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> >> news:bnqk7ax...@news.ezprovider.com...
> >>
> >> <...>
> >>
> >> > Yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee sent a letter to the AG
> >> > expressing "great concern" that he might have committed perjury. Not
> >> > one
> >> > of the network evening news programs thought that was worthy of
> >> > mention.
> >>
> >> Cry "wolf" often enough and people cease to care.
> >>
> >> Jim
> >
> > If people didn't care then they wouldn't be flocking to Fox News...
>
> LOL @ "flocking"...
>
A 24% increase to a new agency that already has more viewers than its next
> "Hollis2" <a3a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> news:lnsk7ax...@news.ezprovider.com...
> > On May 30 2013 4:56 PM, Clave wrote:
> >
> >> "Hollis2" <a3a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> >> news:bnqk7ax...@news.ezprovider.com...
> >>
> >> <...>
> >>
> >> > Yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee sent a letter to the AG
> >> > expressing "great concern" that he might have committed perjury. Not
> >> > one
> >> > of the network evening news programs thought that was worthy of
> >> > mention.
> >>
> >> Cry "wolf" often enough and people cease to care.
> >>
> >> Jim
> >
> > If people didn't care then they wouldn't be flocking to Fox News...
>
> LOL @ "flocking"...
>
two competitors combined is quite a flock.
> > ...and Obama's approval ratings wouldn't be falling.
>
> The current fluctuation is based on the approval of independents, who blow
> with the winds anyway. I doubt he's losing a lot of sleep over it.
>
> Jim
take over the House next year. It was unlikely to start with, but now it
seems even more unlikely. Without control of the House, Obama's agenda is
dead in the water.
Clave
May 30, 2013, 11:38:31 PM5/30/13
to
"Hollis2" <a3a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> On May 30 2013 6:57 PM, Clave wrote:
<...>
>> LOL @ "flocking"...
>>
> A 24% increase to a new agency that already has more viewers than its next
> two competitors combined is quite a flock.
You might have some small point if Fox were actually a news source.
>> > ...and Obama's approval ratings wouldn't be falling.
>>
>> The current fluctuation is based on the approval of independents, who
>> blow
>> with the winds anyway. I doubt he's losing a lot of sleep over it.
>
> Every politician cares about approval ratings. Obama's wet dream was to
> take over the House next year. It was unlikely to start with, but now it
> seems even more unlikely. Without control of the House, Obama's agenda is
> dead in the water.
Believe all the horseshit you need to. I don't mind at all.
> take over the House next year. It was unlikely to start with, but now it
> seems even more unlikely. Without control of the House, Obama's agenda is
> dead in the water.
Jim
Travel A
May 31, 2013, 12:19:12 AM5/31/13
to
Hollis wrote:
At the same time, Fox News ratings are up 24% from May of last year.
Obviously, people are interested in the three scandals and they know
that they're not going to get to see much about them anywhere other than
Fox News.
Yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee sent a letter to the AG
expressing "great concern" that he might have committed perjury. Not one
of the network evening news programs thought that was worthy of mention.
That's right, Hollis. Chris Mathews and Madcow; etc., watch FOX to see
what's going on.
Chris Hayes ratings down sharply from Ed Schultz. Like that wasn't an
easy prediction. They may as well put on a fly buzzing for an hour, as
Chris Hayes.
Travel A
May 31, 2013, 12:34:21 AM5/31/13
to
Oh, and Obama would "lose sleep over it": if his ratings are down, he
won't "win the House back" in the 2014 elections; Republicans will run
on the scandals and the Republicans will gain.
won't "win the House back" in the 2014 elections; Republicans will run
on the scandals and the Republicans will gain.
Travel A
May 31, 2013, 12:30:30 AM5/31/13
to
Clavey blithered:
Not really. When it gets below about 48% it's his base-approval starting
to erode. The scandals drop approval ratings across the board. We're not
talking the "black vote" here, but some Democrat voters actually don't
know that the left wing is bad for them, but they do know a scandal when
they see it.
That's why the left wing media doesn't report, so they can't decide.
The current fluctuation is based on the approval of independents, who
blow with the winds anyway. I doubt he's losing a lot of sleep over it.
I wrote:
blow with the winds anyway. I doubt he's losing a lot of sleep over it.
Not really. When it gets below about 48% it's his base-approval starting
to erode. The scandals drop approval ratings across the board. We're not
talking the "black vote" here, but some Democrat voters actually don't
know that the left wing is bad for them, but they do know a scandal when
they see it.
That's why the left wing media doesn't report, so they can't decide.
Hollis2
May 31, 2013, 3:45:03 PM5/31/13
to
On May 30 2013 11:38 PM, Clave wrote:
> "Hollis2" <a3a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> news:f2al7ax...@news.ezprovider.com...
> > On May 30 2013 6:57 PM, Clave wrote:
>
> <...>
>
> >> LOL @ "flocking"...
> >>
> > A 24% increase to a new agency that already has more viewers than its next
> > two competitors combined is quite a flock.
>
> "New agency?" GMAFB. "Competitors?" LOL.
>
> You might have some small point if Fox were actually a news source.
It's the most trusted news source in the US. Obviously you wouldn't agree
> "Hollis2" <a3a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> news:f2al7ax...@news.ezprovider.com...
> > On May 30 2013 6:57 PM, Clave wrote:
>
> <...>
>
> >> LOL @ "flocking"...
> >>
> > A 24% increase to a new agency that already has more viewers than its next
> > two competitors combined is quite a flock.
>
> "New agency?" GMAFB. "Competitors?" LOL.
>
> You might have some small point if Fox were actually a news source.
with that but you're only one person.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32039.html
>
> >> > ...and Obama's approval ratings wouldn't be falling.
> >>
> >> The current fluctuation is based on the approval of independents, who
> >> blow
> >> with the winds anyway. I doubt he's losing a lot of sleep over it.
> >
> > Every politician cares about approval ratings. Obama's wet dream was to
> > take over the House next year. It was unlikely to start with, but now it
> > seems even more unlikely. Without control of the House, Obama's agenda is
> > dead in the water.
>
> Believe all the horseshit you need to. I don't mind at all.
>
> Jim
from getting things he favors passed into law?
Clave
May 31, 2013, 4:44:56 PM5/31/13
to
"Hollis2" <a3a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> On May 30 2013 11:38 PM, Clave wrote:
>
>> "Hollis2" <a3a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:f2al7ax...@news.ezprovider.com...
>> > On May 30 2013 6:57 PM, Clave wrote:
>>
>> <...>
>>
>> >> LOL @ "flocking"...
>> >>
>> > A 24% increase to a new agency that already has more viewers than its
>> > next
>> > two competitors combined is quite a flock.
>>
>> "New agency?" GMAFB. "Competitors?" LOL.
>>
>> You might have some small point if Fox were actually a news source.
>
> It's the most trusted news source in the US....
>
>> "Hollis2" <a3a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:f2al7ax...@news.ezprovider.com...
>> > On May 30 2013 6:57 PM, Clave wrote:
>>
>> <...>
>>
>> >> LOL @ "flocking"...
>> >>
>> > A 24% increase to a new agency that already has more viewers than its
>> > next
>> > two competitors combined is quite a flock.
>>
>> "New agency?" GMAFB. "Competitors?" LOL.
>>
>> You might have some small point if Fox were actually a news source.
>
LOFL -- stop it, you're killing me...
brattt
May 31, 2013, 6:51:00 PM5/31/13
to
On May 31 2013 3:44 PM, Clave wrote:
> > It's the most trusted news source in the US....
>
> LOFL -- stop it, you're killing me...
Huffington Post Poll
> > It's the most trusted news source in the US....
>
> LOFL -- stop it, you're killing me...
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/04/30/new-poll-viewers-choose-fox-news-over-cnn-as-most-trusted-news-source-n1582800
Slate
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/02/07/ppp_fox_news_poll_americans_viewing_habits_polarized_pbs_only_tv_source.html
Dutch
May 31, 2013, 6:58:02 PM5/31/13
to
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American
public. - H.L. Mencken
brattt
May 31, 2013, 7:20:56 PM5/31/13
to
Clave
May 31, 2013, 7:30:32 PM5/31/13
to
"brattt" <af3...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:k3mn7ax...@news.ezprovider.com...
Jim
brattt
May 31, 2013, 8:23:50 PM5/31/13
to
Clave
May 31, 2013, 9:19:57 PM5/31/13
to
"brattt" <af3...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> It's hilarious that you doubted it - which you obviously did.
Filed with the rest of the stupid shit you believe.
Jim
brattt
May 31, 2013, 9:35:15 PM5/31/13
to
On May 31 2013 8:19 PM, Clave wrote:
> Filed with the rest of the stupid shit you believe.
>
> Jim
to quote you
> Filed with the rest of the stupid shit you believe.
>
> Jim
"LOFL -- stop it, you're killing me... "
harm in just once admitting you were wrong.
10/4
Hollis2
May 31, 2013, 9:53:31 PM5/31/13
to
of the American public."
Obviously, the US didn't get to be the richest most powerful country on
earth for the last century because they were stupid. But I have to admit
that Americans do have poor taste, but this is more than made up for by
rock and roll music.
Bill Vanek
May 31, 2013, 10:22:22 PM5/31/13
to
On Fri, 31 May 2013 18:35:15 -0700, "brattt" <af3...@webnntp.invalid>
wrote:
Clave is really stumbling about lately. He's becoming very small.
I used to think some of his stuff was clever, but these days, he might
just as well reply to everything with a lonely "LOL". There's just
nothing there anymore.
wrote:
I used to think some of his stuff was clever, but these days, he might
just as well reply to everything with a lonely "LOL". There's just
nothing there anymore.
Clave
Jun 1, 2013, 12:18:17 AM6/1/13
to
"brattt" <af3...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> On May 31 2013 8:19 PM, Clave wrote:
>
>
>> Filed with the rest of the stupid shit you believe.
>>
>> Jim
>
>
> to quote you
>
> "LOFL -- stop it, you're killing me... "
Yeah, when he suggested Fox was a news source.
>
>
>> Filed with the rest of the stupid shit you believe.
>>
>> Jim
>
>
> to quote you
>
> "LOFL -- stop it, you're killing me... "
You just don't pay any fucking attention to anything.
Jim
Clave
Jun 1, 2013, 12:19:39 AM6/1/13
to
"Bill Vanek" <bilv...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:nimiq8dancshlrv5k...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 31 May 2013 18:35:15 -0700, "brattt" <af3...@webnntp.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>On May 31 2013 8:19 PM, Clave wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Filed with the rest of the stupid shit you believe.
>>>
>>> Jim
>>
>>
>>to quote you
>>
>>"LOFL -- stop it, you're killing me... "
>>
>>clavie - you are starting to have the same problem as Jerry - there is no
>>harm in just once admitting you were wrong.
>>
>>10/4
>
> Clave is really stumbling about lately...
> wrote:
>
>>On May 31 2013 8:19 PM, Clave wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Filed with the rest of the stupid shit you believe.
>>>
>>> Jim
>>
>>
>>to quote you
>>
>>"LOFL -- stop it, you're killing me... "
>>
>>clavie - you are starting to have the same problem as Jerry - there is no
>>harm in just once admitting you were wrong.
>>
>>10/4
>
Apparently you don't pay any better attention to what really goes on than
PDS does.
Jim
Bill Vanek
Jun 1, 2013, 2:54:37 AM6/1/13
to
Clave
Jun 1, 2013, 2:56:41 AM6/1/13
to
news:vk6jq8tmqhhj78nsu...@4ax.com...
Filed along with the all stupid shit PDS believes.
Dutch
Jun 1, 2013, 2:58:03 AM6/1/13
to
Clave
Jun 1, 2013, 3:11:42 AM6/1/13
to
"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:WZgqt.26457$xl6....@newsfe15.iad...
news. You don't see people get that defensive that quickly unless there's a
personal element involved.
Jim
VegasJerry
Jun 1, 2013, 10:07:11 AM6/1/13
to
On Thursday, May 30, 2013 5:10:07 AM UTC-7, brattt wrote:
> Maddow Hits Ratings Lows
>
.
.> Another month of big crime and disaster news saw the network struggle to
> keep up with rivals CNN, HLN and Fox News. MSNBC was presumably
"Presumably?"
> expecting some dropoff from its 2012 numbers, since that was an election year,
> but it still landed in fourth place behind the other channels, a victim of……
LOL. What a phony dodge. This site pretending to diagnose a rating change? Did any of you actually read the last sentence in the link.
"Fox News, which had a plethora of Obama scandals to
choose from, appeared to have bounced back from its
relatively dire situation earlier in 2013."
You whiners still judging truth by the number of viewers? Did you happen to notice they have not shown your president in any conspiracy, lie or cover-up? NOT ONE!
But this is nothing new for SS the Whiner Bitch: "Oh Look! The home team filled the baseball stadium with the faithful, (but they lost anyway)." It's the very reason this whiney bitch searched for something like this to post. "I know they lie to me; I know they distort facts; I know they keep losing elections; but! but! MORE PEOPLE ARE WATCHING THEMSELVES BEING LIED TO!
SS actually finds some glory in this? She STILL doesn't know that NBC remains the leader in the news? "WOW! Look at all the people watching FOX! As Karl Rove stutters stammers and yells, 'Obama can't have won - I predicted a loss.'"
Yep, count me as one of those laughing viewers. Not only laughing a FOX, but at you wing-nuts that keep watching, day in and day out. Funny how they neglected to mention Rush Limbaugh is still losing listeners and advertisers by the day. Care to know why?
Hell, look at this site's reasoning:
> HLN's Jodi Arias-fueled surge and of President Obama's scandal-ridden,
> defensive month.
WHA! HA~HA! What scandal?
****No conspiracies, no lies, no cover-ups.****
And you think we should all tune in and watch Fox alibiing to you? "Oh! Look! More people tuned in to see, "The Women on Fox, video." "Oh, look, more people watched The Apprentice, so it must be true!" "If you can't get them to watch you lie, use sexy women."
Live with it; you won't see Fox informer you of this:
"NBC, the most watch new in the world." So far for President Obama; No conspiracies, no lies no cover ups. He save us from a depression, pulled us from a recession, overhauled healthcare, saved the American auto industry. We're using less energy; we're importing less energy; the housing market is coming back; the stock market has rebounded (as has your IRA); our deficits are shrinking at the fastest pace in 50-years….
Keep whimpering, losers, (especially SS) I love every minute of it.
Jerry 'n Vegas
> Maddow Hits Ratings Lows
>
.
.> Another month of big crime and disaster news saw the network struggle to
> keep up with rivals CNN, HLN and Fox News. MSNBC was presumably
"Presumably?"
> expecting some dropoff from its 2012 numbers, since that was an election year,
> but it still landed in fourth place behind the other channels, a victim of……
LOL. What a phony dodge. This site pretending to diagnose a rating change? Did any of you actually read the last sentence in the link.
"Fox News, which had a plethora of Obama scandals to
choose from, appeared to have bounced back from its
relatively dire situation earlier in 2013."
You whiners still judging truth by the number of viewers? Did you happen to notice they have not shown your president in any conspiracy, lie or cover-up? NOT ONE!
But this is nothing new for SS the Whiner Bitch: "Oh Look! The home team filled the baseball stadium with the faithful, (but they lost anyway)." It's the very reason this whiney bitch searched for something like this to post. "I know they lie to me; I know they distort facts; I know they keep losing elections; but! but! MORE PEOPLE ARE WATCHING THEMSELVES BEING LIED TO!
SS actually finds some glory in this? She STILL doesn't know that NBC remains the leader in the news? "WOW! Look at all the people watching FOX! As Karl Rove stutters stammers and yells, 'Obama can't have won - I predicted a loss.'"
Yep, count me as one of those laughing viewers. Not only laughing a FOX, but at you wing-nuts that keep watching, day in and day out. Funny how they neglected to mention Rush Limbaugh is still losing listeners and advertisers by the day. Care to know why?
Hell, look at this site's reasoning:
> HLN's Jodi Arias-fueled surge and of President Obama's scandal-ridden,
> defensive month.
WHA! HA~HA! What scandal?
****No conspiracies, no lies, no cover-ups.****
And you think we should all tune in and watch Fox alibiing to you? "Oh! Look! More people tuned in to see, "The Women on Fox, video." "Oh, look, more people watched The Apprentice, so it must be true!" "If you can't get them to watch you lie, use sexy women."
Live with it; you won't see Fox informer you of this:
"NBC, the most watch new in the world." So far for President Obama; No conspiracies, no lies no cover ups. He save us from a depression, pulled us from a recession, overhauled healthcare, saved the American auto industry. We're using less energy; we're importing less energy; the housing market is coming back; the stock market has rebounded (as has your IRA); our deficits are shrinking at the fastest pace in 50-years….
Keep whimpering, losers, (especially SS) I love every minute of it.
Jerry 'n Vegas
VegasJerry
Jun 1, 2013, 10:15:41 AM6/1/13
to
On Thursday, May 30, 2013 7:42:32 AM UTC-7, Dave the Clueless wrote:
.
.> JerryFOREX explains: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXoNE14U_zM
LOL @ Stupid Clueless, still trying to make it about me. Really? You poor fool, this is all you have? Here, have another ass kicking by me:
>> -------
> JerryFOREX the retard thinks "Cornel Ronald West (born June 2, 1953) is an
> American philosopher, academic, activist, author and prominent member of
> the Democratic Socialists of America" is a right-winger! LOL! HAHAHAHAH!
> What a moron!!!
Dave the Clueless makes up a position for me by renaming me; then makes up a position about what he thinks I'm thinking about someone I don't know; then he argues the name he made up and argues against what he thinks I think. Then this moron calls me a moron. Clueless can't really embarrass himself any better than this. This wins; even over the fact this revelation also embarrasses him. What a three-time loser.
Lick you wounds while you're licking your ass, dog.
WHA HA~HA!
.
.> JerryFOREX explains: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXoNE14U_zM
LOL @ Stupid Clueless, still trying to make it about me. Really? You poor fool, this is all you have? Here, have another ass kicking by me:
>> -------
> JerryFOREX the retard thinks "Cornel Ronald West (born June 2, 1953) is an
> American philosopher, academic, activist, author and prominent member of
> the Democratic Socialists of America" is a right-winger! LOL! HAHAHAHAH!
> What a moron!!!
Dave the Clueless makes up a position for me by renaming me; then makes up a position about what he thinks I'm thinking about someone I don't know; then he argues the name he made up and argues against what he thinks I think. Then this moron calls me a moron. Clueless can't really embarrass himself any better than this. This wins; even over the fact this revelation also embarrasses him. What a three-time loser.
Lick you wounds while you're licking your ass, dog.
WHA HA~HA!
VegasJerry
Jun 1, 2013, 10:26:25 AM6/1/13
to
On Thursday, May 30, 2013 5:10:07 AM UTC-7, brattt wrote:
> Maddow Hits Ratings Lows
On Thursday, May 30, 2013 1:51:23 PM UTC-7, Hollis2 wrote:
> Maddow Hits Ratings Lows
> On May 30 2013 3:26 PM, risky biz wrote:
>
> > On May 30 2013 12:24 PM, brattt wrote:
> >
> > > On May 30 2013 12:25 PM, halfpastdead wrote:
> > >
> > > > nothing you can do when morons believe Jody Arias or FOX's hypocritical
> > > > attack rats are good TV
> > >
> > > Actually people are just hungry to get TWO sides to a story - and to have
> > > every story reported whether it is good or bad for the White House.
> >
> > If you're getting your information from television you can get both sides
> > and still not know what the story is.
.
.> At the same time, Fox News ratings are up 24% from May of last year.
Really? Why were they down? And are you still under the impression this is actual News? (Meaning you don't know why they called themselves a "News Channel").
> Obviously,
WHOA! Who called for a conclusion from you?
> people are interested in the three scandals and they know that
> they're not going to get to see much about them anywhere other
> than Fox News.
> Yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee sent a letter to the AG
> expressing "great concern" that he might have committed perjury. Not one
> of the network evening news programs thought that was worthy of mention.
"Oh goodie goodie! We'll get to see some sexy Fox babe make more false accusations against the president because it makes me feel good."
Jerry 'n Vegas
VegasJerry
Jun 1, 2013, 10:31:33 AM6/1/13
to
On Friday, May 31, 2013 12:45:03 PM UTC-7, Hollis2 wrote:
> On May 30 2013 11:38 PM, Clave wrote:
>
> > "Hollis2" <a3a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:f2al7ax...@news.ezprovider.com...
> > > On May 30 2013 6:57 PM, Clave wrote:
> >
> > <...>
> >
> > >> LOL @ "flocking"...
> > >>
> > > A 24% increase to a new agency that already has more viewers than its next
> > > two competitors combined is quite a flock.
> >
> > "New agency?" GMAFB. "Competitors?" LOL.
> >
> > You might have some small point if Fox were actually a news source.
.
> On May 30 2013 11:38 PM, Clave wrote:
>
> > "Hollis2" <a3a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:f2al7ax...@news.ezprovider.com...
> > > On May 30 2013 6:57 PM, Clave wrote:
> >
> > <...>
> >
> > >> LOL @ "flocking"...
> > >>
> > > A 24% increase to a new agency that already has more viewers than its next
> > > two competitors combined is quite a flock.
> >
> > "New agency?" GMAFB. "Competitors?" LOL.
> >
> > You might have some small point if Fox were actually a news source.
.> It's the most trusted news source in the US.
WHA! HA~HA! No, they are NOT! Another fool admitting he believes the Fox lies. See why they lie to you? They keep you watching them.
Now tell us you believe Fox is the most watch news. Please! (Heh)
> Obviously you wouldn't agree
> with that but you're only one person.
Jerry 'n Vegas
VegasJerry
Jun 1, 2013, 10:34:30 AM6/1/13
to
On Friday, May 31, 2013 3:51:00 PM UTC-7, brattt wrote:
> On May 31 2013 3:44 PM, Clave wrote:
>
.> > > It's the most trusted news source in the US....
> On May 31 2013 3:44 PM, Clave wrote:
>
.> > LOFL -- stop it, you're killing me...
> Huffington Post Poll
>
> http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/04/30/new-poll-viewers-choose-fox-news-over-cnn-as-most-trusted-news-source-n1582800
Go ahead, SS, click on your own link and read the headline. Then you'll know why Clave is laughing at you, too.
(I love bitch-slapping the bitch)
VegasJerry
Jun 1, 2013, 10:38:07 AM6/1/13
to
On Friday, May 31, 2013 5:23:50 PM UTC-7, brattt wrote:
> On May 31 2013 6:30 PM, Clave wrote:
>
> > "brattt" <af3...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:k3mn7ax...@news.ezprovider.com...
> > > On May 31 2013 3:44 PM, Clave wrote:
> > >
> > >> > It's the most trusted news source in the US....
> > >>
> > >> LOFL -- stop it, you're killing me...
> > >
> > > Huffington Post Poll
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/04/30/new-poll-viewers-choose-fox-news-over-cnn-as-most-trusted-news-source-n1582800
> > >
> > > Slate
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/02/07/ppp_fox_news_poll_americans_viewing_habits_polarized_pbs_only_tv_source.html
> > >
.
> On May 31 2013 6:30 PM, Clave wrote:
>
> > "brattt" <af3...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:k3mn7ax...@news.ezprovider.com...
> > > On May 31 2013 3:44 PM, Clave wrote:
> > >
> > >> > It's the most trusted news source in the US....
> > >>
> > >> LOFL -- stop it, you're killing me...
> > >
> > > Huffington Post Poll
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/04/30/new-poll-viewers-choose-fox-news-over-cnn-as-most-trusted-news-source-n1582800
> > >
> > > Slate
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/02/07/ppp_fox_news_poll_americans_viewing_habits_polarized_pbs_only_tv_source.html
> > >
.> > You think that makes it any less hilarious?
> >
> > Jim
.> It's hilarious that you doubted it - which you obviously did.
Most trusted news source in the US, and you linked to: "Fox news over CNN as most trusted."
And you can't tell why you're being laughed at?
SS
VegasJerry
Jun 1, 2013, 10:41:26 AM6/1/13
to
On Friday, May 31, 2013 6:35:15 PM UTC-7, brattt wrote:
> On May 31 2013 8:19 PM, Clave wrote:
>
>
> > Filed with the rest of the stupid shit you believe.
> >
> > Jim
>
>
> to quote you
>
> "LOFL -- stop it, you're killing me... "
.
> On May 31 2013 8:19 PM, Clave wrote:
>
>
> > Filed with the rest of the stupid shit you believe.
> >
> > Jim
>
>
> to quote you
>
> "LOFL -- stop it, you're killing me... "
.> clavie - you are starting to have the same problem as Jerry - there is no
> harm in just once admitting you were wrong.
Then admit you were wrong, SS. You saw, "Most trusted news source in the US." Then linked to, "Fox news over CNN as most trusted." And thought it was the same.
Your turn, SS, admit, just once, you were wrong and I never was.
LOL!
brattt
Jun 1, 2013, 11:22:21 AM6/1/13
to
On Jun 1 2013 9:41 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
> On Friday, May 31, 2013 6:35:15 PM UTC-7, brattt wrote:
> > On May 31 2013 8:19 PM, Clave wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Filed with the rest of the stupid shit you believe.
> > >
> > > Jim
> >
> >
> > to quote you
> >
> > "LOFL -- stop it, you're killing me... "
>
> ..
> ..> clavie - you are starting to have the same problem as Jerry - there is no
> On Friday, May 31, 2013 6:35:15 PM UTC-7, brattt wrote:
> > On May 31 2013 8:19 PM, Clave wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Filed with the rest of the stupid shit you believe.
> > >
> > > Jim
> >
> >
> > to quote you
> >
> > "LOFL -- stop it, you're killing me... "
>
> ..
> > harm in just once admitting you were wrong.
>
> Then admit you were wrong, SS. You saw, "Most trusted news source in the
US." Then linked to, "Fox
> news over CNN as most trusted." And thought it was the same.
>
> Your turn, SS, admit, just once, you were wrong and I never was.
>
> LOL!
Jerry - please read the article before responding. Please
>
> Then admit you were wrong, SS. You saw, "Most trusted news source in the
US." Then linked to, "Fox
> news over CNN as most trusted." And thought it was the same.
>
> Your turn, SS, admit, just once, you were wrong and I never was.
>
> LOL!
TruthSeeker
Jun 1, 2013, 1:12:06 PM6/1/13
to
On 31/5/13 10:18 PM, Clave wrote:
> Yeah, when he suggested Fox was a news source.
The only people who claim or believe that Fox is not a news source are
> Yeah, when he suggested Fox was a news source.
extreme left-wing ideologues.
--
TruthSeeker
"On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog."
Clave
Jun 1, 2013, 4:08:25 PM6/1/13
to
"TruthSeeker" <Truth...@nof-nspam.us> wrote in message
news:m6ednXxwWaj7tjfM...@giganews.com...
> On 31/5/13 10:18 PM, Clave wrote:
>
>> Yeah, when he suggested Fox was a news source.
>
> The only people who claim or believe that Fox is not a news source are
> extreme left-wing ideologues.
Proving only the utter lie of your self-chosen nick.
>
>> Yeah, when he suggested Fox was a news source.
>
> The only people who claim or believe that Fox is not a news source are
> extreme left-wing ideologues.
Jim
Pepe Papon
Jun 2, 2013, 3:49:07 AM6/2/13
to
On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 11:12:06 -0600, TruthSeeker
<Truth...@nof-nspam.us> wrote:
>On 31/5/13 10:18 PM, Clave wrote:
>
>> Yeah, when he suggested Fox was a news source.
>
>The only people who claim or believe that Fox is not a news source are
>extreme left-wing ideologues.
Fox definitely sprinkles news reporting in along with their
<Truth...@nof-nspam.us> wrote:
>On 31/5/13 10:18 PM, Clave wrote:
>
>> Yeah, when he suggested Fox was a news source.
>
>The only people who claim or believe that Fox is not a news source are
>extreme left-wing ideologues.
propaganda. I doubt you'll find many people who will argue against
that.
--
Pepe Papon
TruthSeeker
Jun 2, 2013, 3:54:04 AM6/2/13
to
it for yourself? You really think that you are not an extreme left-wing
ideologue?
I don't deny that Fox has a conservative agenda, that shows in their
opinion programming. Nevertheless they are very much a news source,
even the White House accepts their reporters in the press pool.
IMO despite having some right-wing bomb throwers in their opinion
lineup, they are quite a good news source, better than many of the
left-leaning sources. In times of disasters, elections, and other
important breaking news, I often record three sources and compare their
coverage. Have you ever done the same?
BTW, when folks like you complain about my handle, it lets me know what
a good choice it was. Thanks.
Clave
Jun 2, 2013, 4:08:11 AM6/2/13
to
news:VPednZCNiIGAZzfM...@giganews.com...
will admit.
Reasoning by which one could also refer to the average Central Park trash
receptacle as a news source, since they often contain, amongst the garbage,
the day's newspapers.
> You really think that you are not an extreme left-wing
> ideologue?
Extreme? Only to someone looking to vilify anyone to their political left,
ie radical conservative hacks trying desperately (and unsuccessfully) to
pass themselves off as anything close to objective.
A little light reading for you:
http://www.salon.com/2013/05/29/i_was_a_liberal_mole_at_fox_news_from_bill_oreilly_to_roger_ailes_heres_all_the_inside_dope/
Jim
> On 1/6/13 2:08 PM, Clave wrote:
>>
>> "TruthSeeker" <Truth...@nof-nspam.us> wrote in message
>> news:m6ednXxwWaj7tjfM...@giganews.com...
>>> On 31/5/13 10:18 PM, Clave wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yeah, when he suggested Fox was a news source.
>>>
>>> The only people who claim or believe that Fox is not a news source are
>>> extreme left-wing ideologues.
>>
>> Proving only the utter lie of your self-chosen nick.
>
> Because you think Fox is not a news source? How much have you watched
> it for yourself?
As Pepe observed, they do sprinkle news into their propaganda broadcasts, I
>>
>> "TruthSeeker" <Truth...@nof-nspam.us> wrote in message
>> news:m6ednXxwWaj7tjfM...@giganews.com...
>>> On 31/5/13 10:18 PM, Clave wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yeah, when he suggested Fox was a news source.
>>>
>>> The only people who claim or believe that Fox is not a news source are
>>> extreme left-wing ideologues.
>>
>> Proving only the utter lie of your self-chosen nick.
>
> Because you think Fox is not a news source? How much have you watched
> it for yourself?
will admit.
Reasoning by which one could also refer to the average Central Park trash
receptacle as a news source, since they often contain, amongst the garbage,
the day's newspapers.
> You really think that you are not an extreme left-wing
> ideologue?
ie radical conservative hacks trying desperately (and unsuccessfully) to
pass themselves off as anything close to objective.
A little light reading for you:
http://www.salon.com/2013/05/29/i_was_a_liberal_mole_at_fox_news_from_bill_oreilly_to_roger_ailes_heres_all_the_inside_dope/
Jim
Dutch
Jun 2, 2013, 4:23:05 AM6/2/13
to
Clave
Jun 2, 2013, 4:33:38 AM6/2/13
to
news:HjDqt.286113$o7.1...@fed16.iad...
"Rachel Maddow actually ADMITS when she's wrong!!! I KNOW!!! Can you
BELIEVE it????"
Jim
BELIEVE it????"
Jim
Clave
Jun 2, 2013, 4:40:28 AM6/2/13
to
"Clave" <ChrisC...@TheMonastery.com> wrote in message
news:koevpg$ehb$1...@dont-email.me...
Jim
brattt
Jun 2, 2013, 9:32:13 AM6/2/13
to
the news, either one is fine IMHO. When it comes to talking heads that
are all disgusting. The reason I think Fox is probably better (and yet I
don't watch it because I can't stand the personalities) is because they
take more of a stab at the current administration rather than not
reporting on issues that might harm the White House. And before you ask
how I know that because I don't watch Fox, I read the news online and see
who reported on what.
VegasJerry
Jun 2, 2013, 10:23:02 AM6/2/13
to
.> Jerry - please read the article before responding. Please
As usual, SS couldn’t address my post, its questions, or its facts. But she's just gotta play Beldin and post something, ANYTHING; otherwise it's admitting failure.
Look, stupid, it's your place in life to seek TV, radio and editorials that make you feel good, just like tuning in a favorite movie. You join the others here that just can't stop listening to Rush Limbaugh, et al, yell, whine, fabricate and outright lie to you. Hell, it's what built Fox and Limbaugh. You KNOW they twist, lie and fabricate. It's simply to entertain you.
You don't like bad news ("Economy improving under President Obama.") So you intentionally tune in to stations you KNOW will lie to you. Then they tell you, "We're fair and balance," and you KNOW they're not.
Jesus fucking Christ you're stupid. Fox sure knows that. They call themselves the News Channel; they broadcast a popular football game, viewership goes up, they tell you, "More people watch Fox News Channel," and they trick you into believing their News is watched by more people when it's not. Why the fuck do you think they called themselves the Fox News Channel? News?
Then they say, "Look, more people tune into us so we must be telling the truth." And in your stupid, uneducated, southern, single-wide-mentality way, you actually believe them. Look what you're doing right here: "More people tune into these conservative talk shows, so President Obama must be lying. Global Warming must be fake. The economy must be failing."
You Fox, Rush Limbaugh, listeners are a joke. You drink the cool aid, then say, "More people listen to Rush Limbaugh so Conservatives must be right." Since when does a liberal need to listen to a talk show idiot to understand what in the 'legitimate' news?
You lost the election. More people are smart than stupid like you. It's truly a pleasure making fun of you. You're so stupid it fun.
Jerry 'n Vegas
VegasJerry
Jun 2, 2013, 10:25:46 AM6/2/13
to
On Saturday, June 1, 2013 10:12:06 AM UTC-7, TruthSeeker wrote:
> On 31/5/13 10:18 PM, Clave wrote:
>
> > Yeah, when he suggested Fox was a news source.
.
> On 31/5/13 10:18 PM, Clave wrote:
>
> > Yeah, when he suggested Fox was a news source.
.> The only people who claim or believe that Fox is not a news
> source are extreme left-wing ideologues.
And the remainder of legitimate news.
Fox sure fooled you. And you don't even know they went to court in order to force their on-air employees to lie to you. You're the one the rest of us laugh at.
brattt
Jun 2, 2013, 10:39:18 AM6/2/13
to
OK Jerry - you win.
I will never read Huffington Post again.
I will never read Huffington Post again.
FL Turbo
Jun 2, 2013, 10:48:31 AM6/2/13
to
persistence.
They can take the most ludicrous assertion that comes down the road,
and insist that it is the absolute truth.
The meme that Fox is not really a news organization is a perfect
example.
Trying to argue that point with a committed Liberal is no better than
arguing with a 4-year old.
VegasJerry
Jun 2, 2013, 11:54:10 AM6/2/13
to
On Sunday, June 2, 2013 12:54:04 AM UTC-7, TruthSeeker wrote:
> On 1/6/13 2:08 PM, Clave wrote:
> >
> > "TruthSeeker" <Truth...@nof-nspam.us> wrote in message
> > news:m6ednXxwWaj7tjfM...@giganews.com...
> >> On 31/5/13 10:18 PM, Clave wrote:
> >>
> >>> Yeah, when he suggested Fox was a news source.
> >>
> >> The only people who claim or believe that Fox is not a news source are
> >> extreme left-wing ideologues.
> >
> > Proving only the utter lie of your self-chosen nick.
.
> On 1/6/13 2:08 PM, Clave wrote:
> >
> > "TruthSeeker" <Truth...@nof-nspam.us> wrote in message
> > news:m6ednXxwWaj7tjfM...@giganews.com...
> >> On 31/5/13 10:18 PM, Clave wrote:
> >>
> >>> Yeah, when he suggested Fox was a news source.
> >>
> >> The only people who claim or believe that Fox is not a news source are
> >> extreme left-wing ideologues.
> >
> > Proving only the utter lie of your self-chosen nick.
.> Because you think Fox is not a news source?
Nobody said that. It's just you being defensive.
> How much have you watched it for yourself?
> You really think that you are not an extreme left-wing ideologue?
> I don't deny that Fox has a conservative agenda,
> that shows in their opinion programming.
> Nevertheless they are very much a news source,
> even the White House accepts their reporters in the press pool.
> IMO despite having some right-wing bomb throwers in their opinion
> lineup, they are quite a good news source,
> better than many of the left-leaning sources.
> In times of disasters, elections, and other important breaking
> news, I often record three sources and compare their
> coverage. Have you ever done the same?
> BTW, when folks like you complain about my handle, it lets me
> know what a good choice it was. Thanks.
Jerry 'n Vegas
VegasJerry
Jun 2, 2013, 12:01:26 PM6/2/13
to
VegasJerry
Jun 2, 2013, 12:04:36 PM6/2/13
to
On Sunday, June 2, 2013 6:32:13 AM UTC-7, brattt wrote:
.
.> The reason I think Fox is probably better (and yet I don't watch it…..
WHA! HA~HA!
.
.> The reason I think Fox is probably better (and yet I don't watch it…..
WHA! HA~HA!
VegasJerry
Jun 2, 2013, 12:15:35 PM6/2/13
to
On Sunday, June 2, 2013 7:39:18 AM UTC-7, brattt wrote:
> OK Jerry - you win.
>
>
.> I will never read Huffington Post again.
> OK Jerry - you win.
>
>
See what's meant by reading comprehension and stupidity? SS at her finest.
Travel A
Jun 2, 2013, 1:06:17 PM6/2/13
to
The funny part is anyone who thinks FOX is conservative. There'spretend
conservative anchors for ratings, there's RINO commentators and there's
left wing commentators.
"I was a FOX mole." Too funny. Fox is crawling lefties. Lanny Davis,
Dennis Kucinich (sp? whatever) Colmes, Lamont Hill, Beckel, I mean, the
list is endless.
O'Reilly worked for the networks for years and years. He had to suck-up
to the left at warp speed to be Irish stay there that long.
Roger Alies worked on Broadway; Murdoch is half Jewish; Greta is an ex
major "feminist." She only left CNN for FOX to get her own prime time
show. Hannity wants to marry his BiBi.
Coulter wanted Christie and then Romney. Ingraham equally a phony.
FOX is "the McCain" of news.
There is no real conservative news outlet. None.
conservative anchors for ratings, there's RINO commentators and there's
left wing commentators.
"I was a FOX mole." Too funny. Fox is crawling lefties. Lanny Davis,
Dennis Kucinich (sp? whatever) Colmes, Lamont Hill, Beckel, I mean, the
list is endless.
O'Reilly worked for the networks for years and years. He had to suck-up
to the left at warp speed to be Irish stay there that long.
Roger Alies worked on Broadway; Murdoch is half Jewish; Greta is an ex
major "feminist." She only left CNN for FOX to get her own prime time
show. Hannity wants to marry his BiBi.
Coulter wanted Christie and then Romney. Ingraham equally a phony.
FOX is "the McCain" of news.
There is no real conservative news outlet. None.
Travel A
Jun 2, 2013, 1:21:17 PM6/2/13
to
The funny part is anyone who thinks FOX is conservative. There are
pretend conservative anchors for ratings, there are RINO commentators,
and there are left wing commentators on FOX.
"I was a FOX mole." Too funny. Fox is crawling lefties. Lanny Davis,
Dennis Kucinich (sp? whatever) Colmes, Lamont Hill, Beckel, I mean, the
list is endless.
Krauthamer, you MIGHT be a phony news station.
When you have O'Reilly, who worked for the networks for years and years
and had to suck-up to the left at warp speed to be Irish and stay there
that long, you MIGHT be a phony news station.
Roger Alies worked on Broadway; Murdoch is half Jewish and you actually
think he's really against the left? Greta is an ex major "feminist." She
only left CNN for FOX to get her own prime time show. Hannity wants to
marry his BiBi.
Coulter wanted Christie and then Romney. She's a conservative!? Ingraham
marry his BiBi.
is equally a phony.
FOX is "the McCain" of news.
real conservatives doing the news: Buchannan worked for MSNBC, and
always had to "take a dive" in a discusion with his left wing
counterpart. As long as he was on TV, that's all he really care about.
Pepe Papon
Jun 3, 2013, 1:35:29 AM6/3/13
to
>BTW, when folks like you complain about my handle, it lets me delude myself into thinking what
--
Pepe Papon
>a good choice it was. Thanks.
FYP
--
Pepe Papon
Pepe Papon
Jun 3, 2013, 1:39:51 AM6/3/13
to
On Sun, 02 Jun 2013 06:32:13 -0700, "brattt" <af3...@webnntp.invalid>
wrote:
ButMSNBC!
I've previously acknowledged that MSNBC seems to be as biased as Fox
(and, oddly, Joe Long and some other right-wingers jumped on me for
it). The main differences seem to be that MSNBC isn't notorious for
lying like Fox, and the MSNBC has nowhere the amount of influence that
Fox does.
--
Pepe Papon
wrote:
I've previously acknowledged that MSNBC seems to be as biased as Fox
(and, oddly, Joe Long and some other right-wingers jumped on me for
it). The main differences seem to be that MSNBC isn't notorious for
lying like Fox, and the MSNBC has nowhere the amount of influence that
Fox does.
--
Pepe Papon
Travel A
Jun 3, 2013, 5:49:24 AM6/3/13
to
A lie.
FOX has a ton of left wing commentators on the payroll, to give "their
side" in virtually every segment, especially on primetime.
MSNBC doesn't have the "conservative side" at all. Just wall to wall
left wing propaganda.
MSNBC has all real lefties. FOX not only has the left wing commentators,
but the supposedly conservative commentators are RINOs.
FOX has a ton of left wing commentators on the payroll, to give "their
side" in virtually every segment, especially on primetime.
MSNBC doesn't have the "conservative side" at all. Just wall to wall
left wing propaganda.
MSNBC has all real lefties. FOX not only has the left wing commentators,
but the supposedly conservative commentators are RINOs.
Dave the Clueless
Jun 3, 2013, 1:27:23 PM6/3/13
to
On Jun 1 2013 11:07 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
> On Thursday, May 30, 2013 5:10:07 AM UTC-7, brattt wrote:
> > Maddow Hits Ratings Lows
> >
>
> .
> ..> Another month of big crime and disaster news saw the network struggle to
> > keep up with rivals CNN, HLN and Fox News. MSNBC was presumably
>
> "Presumably?"
>
> > expecting some dropoff from its 2012 numbers, since that was an election
year,
> > but it still landed in fourth place behind the other channels, a victim
of……
>
> LOL. What a phony dodge. This site pretending to diagnose a rating change?
Did any of you actually
> read the last sentence in the link.
>
> "Fox News, which had a plethora of Obama scandals to
> choose from, appeared to have bounced back from its
> relatively dire situation earlier in 2013."
>
> You whiners still judging truth by the number of viewers? Did you happen to
notice they have not
> shown your president in any conspiracy, lie or cover-up? NOT ONE!
>
> But this is nothing new for SS the Whiner Bitch: "Oh Look! The home team
filled the baseball stadium
> with the faithful, (but they lost anyway)." It's the very reason this whiney
bitch searched for
> something like this to post. "I know they lie to me; I know they distort
facts; I know they keep
> losing elections; but! but! MORE PEOPLE ARE WATCHING THEMSELVES BEING LIED
TO!
>
> SS actually finds some glory in this? She STILL doesn't know that NBC
remains the leader in the
> news? "WOW! Look at all the people watching FOX! As Karl Rove stutters
stammers and yells, 'Obama
> can't have won - I predicted a loss.'"
>
> Yep, count me as one of those laughing viewers. Not only laughing a FOX, but
at you wing-nuts that
> keep watching, day in and day out. Funny how they neglected to mention Rush
Limbaugh is still losing
> listeners and advertisers by the day. Care to know why?
>
> Hell, look at this site's reasoning:
>
> > HLN's Jodi Arias-fueled surge and of President Obama's scandal-ridden,
> > defensive month.
>
> WHA! HA~HA! What scandal?
>
> ****No conspiracies, no lies, no cover-ups.****
>
> And you think we should all tune in and watch Fox alibiing to you? "Oh!
Look! More people tuned in
> to see, "The Women on Fox, video." "Oh, look, more people watched The
Apprentice, so it must be
> true!" "If you can't get them to watch you lie, use sexy women."
>
> Live with it; you won't see Fox informer you of this:
>
> "NBC, the most watch new in the world." So far for President Obama; No
conspiracies, no lies no
> cover ups. He save us from a depression, pulled us from a recession,
overhauled healthcare, saved
> the American auto industry. We're using less energy; we're importing less
energy; the housing market
> is coming back; the stock market has rebounded (as has your IRA); our
deficits are shrinking at the
> fastest pace in 50-years….
>
> Keep whimpering, losers, (especially SS) I love every minute of it.
>
>
> Jerry 'n Vegas
How many moons does Planet JerryFOREX have?
-------
JerryFOREX the retard thinks "Cornel Ronald West (born June 2, 1953) is an
American philosopher, academic, activist, author and prominent member of
the Democratic Socialists of America" is a right-winger! LOL! HAHAHAHAH!
What a moron!!!
> On Thursday, May 30, 2013 5:10:07 AM UTC-7, brattt wrote:
> > Maddow Hits Ratings Lows
> >
>
> .
> ..> Another month of big crime and disaster news saw the network struggle to
> > keep up with rivals CNN, HLN and Fox News. MSNBC was presumably
>
> "Presumably?"
>
> > expecting some dropoff from its 2012 numbers, since that was an election
year,
> > but it still landed in fourth place behind the other channels, a victim
of……
>
> LOL. What a phony dodge. This site pretending to diagnose a rating change?
Did any of you actually
> read the last sentence in the link.
>
> "Fox News, which had a plethora of Obama scandals to
> choose from, appeared to have bounced back from its
> relatively dire situation earlier in 2013."
>
> You whiners still judging truth by the number of viewers? Did you happen to
notice they have not
> shown your president in any conspiracy, lie or cover-up? NOT ONE!
>
> But this is nothing new for SS the Whiner Bitch: "Oh Look! The home team
filled the baseball stadium
> with the faithful, (but they lost anyway)." It's the very reason this whiney
bitch searched for
> something like this to post. "I know they lie to me; I know they distort
facts; I know they keep
> losing elections; but! but! MORE PEOPLE ARE WATCHING THEMSELVES BEING LIED
TO!
>
> SS actually finds some glory in this? She STILL doesn't know that NBC
remains the leader in the
> news? "WOW! Look at all the people watching FOX! As Karl Rove stutters
stammers and yells, 'Obama
> can't have won - I predicted a loss.'"
>
> Yep, count me as one of those laughing viewers. Not only laughing a FOX, but
at you wing-nuts that
> keep watching, day in and day out. Funny how they neglected to mention Rush
Limbaugh is still losing
> listeners and advertisers by the day. Care to know why?
>
> Hell, look at this site's reasoning:
>
> > HLN's Jodi Arias-fueled surge and of President Obama's scandal-ridden,
> > defensive month.
>
> WHA! HA~HA! What scandal?
>
> ****No conspiracies, no lies, no cover-ups.****
>
> And you think we should all tune in and watch Fox alibiing to you? "Oh!
Look! More people tuned in
> to see, "The Women on Fox, video." "Oh, look, more people watched The
Apprentice, so it must be
> true!" "If you can't get them to watch you lie, use sexy women."
>
> Live with it; you won't see Fox informer you of this:
>
> "NBC, the most watch new in the world." So far for President Obama; No
conspiracies, no lies no
> cover ups. He save us from a depression, pulled us from a recession,
overhauled healthcare, saved
> the American auto industry. We're using less energy; we're importing less
energy; the housing market
> is coming back; the stock market has rebounded (as has your IRA); our
deficits are shrinking at the
> fastest pace in 50-years….
>
> Keep whimpering, losers, (especially SS) I love every minute of it.
>
>
> Jerry 'n Vegas
How many moons does Planet JerryFOREX have?
-------
JerryFOREX the retard thinks "Cornel Ronald West (born June 2, 1953) is an
American philosopher, academic, activist, author and prominent member of
the Democratic Socialists of America" is a right-winger! LOL! HAHAHAHAH!
What a moron!!!
TruthSeeker
Jun 4, 2013, 12:51:08 AM6/4/13
to
On 2/6/13 11:39 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> ButMSNBC!
>
> I've previously acknowledged that MSNBC seems to be as biased as Fox
> (and, oddly, Joe Long and some other right-wingers jumped on me for
> it).
How so? Other that they are even more biased than Fox, which is less
> ButMSNBC!
>
> I've previously acknowledged that MSNBC seems to be as biased as Fox
> (and, oddly, Joe Long and some other right-wingers jumped on me for
> it).
biased than, say, ABC. No news source is without some bias.
> The main differences seem to be that MSNBC isn't notorious for
> lying like Fox,
good, better than many. Brit Hume's analysis is a good as you'll find
anywhere. Shepard Smith is an outstanding straight-news anchor. And
they cover things that other cable and broadcast news avoid (at least
until the story gets too big to keep sweeping under the rug).
Did you see Candy Crowley (CNN) Sunday morning? She's often pretty
blatantly biased. She even jumped into the last Presidential debate on
Obama's side. But Sunday was one of her worst performances in a long time.
I record all of the Sunday morning news shows: "This Week" (ABC),
"State of the Union" (CNN), "Global Public Square" (CNN) -- we rarely
miss any of those. Also "Meet the Press" (NBC), "Face the Nation"
(CBS), "Fox News Sunday" (Fox), "Reliable Sources" (CNN), though we
don't get to watch all of those every week. Then there is "Fox News
Watch" (Fox) on Saturday and "The McLaughlin Group" (PBS) on Thursday --
we never miss those.
> and the MSNBC has nowhere the amount of influence that
> Fox does.
Pepe Papon
Jun 5, 2013, 3:36:52 AM6/5/13
to
On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 22:51:08 -0600, TruthSeeker
<Truth...@nof-nspam.us> wrote:
>On 2/6/13 11:39 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
>> ButMSNBC!
>>
>> I've previously acknowledged that MSNBC seems to be as biased as Fox
>> (and, oddly, Joe Long and some other right-wingers jumped on me for
>> it).
>
>How so?
You claimed, in a sarcastic way, that I didn't have enough information
<Truth...@nof-nspam.us> wrote:
>On 2/6/13 11:39 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
>> ButMSNBC!
>>
>> I've previously acknowledged that MSNBC seems to be as biased as Fox
>> (and, oddly, Joe Long and some other right-wingers jumped on me for
>> it).
>
>How so?
to make that determination.
> Other that they are even more biased than Fox, which is less
>biased than, say, ABC. No news source is without some bias.
>> The main differences seem to be that MSNBC isn't notorious for
>> lying like Fox,
>
>False. Much of their opinion is crap but their straight news is pretty
>good, better than many. Brit Hume's analysis is a good as you'll find
>anywhere. Shepard Smith is an outstanding straight-news anchor. And
>they cover things that other cable and broadcast news avoid (at least
>until the story gets too big to keep sweeping under the rug).
outrage. Sometimes, they succeed.
>Did you see Candy Crowley (CNN) Sunday morning? She's often pretty
>blatantly biased. She even jumped into the last Presidential debate on
>Obama's side. But Sunday was one of her worst performances in a long time.
of them almost always has Fox. The other usually has either CNN or
MSNBC. If CNN is biased, it's certainly very subtle compared to Fox
or MSNBC. That whole "left wing media" meme is a tired, old
right-wing talking point.
--
Pepe Papon
VegasJerry
Jun 5, 2013, 9:00:20 AM6/5/13
to
.> How many moons does Planet JerryFOREX have?
WHA! HA~HA! The Clueless loses again. You couldn't address a single fucking fact. You've been taken in by Fox and now you're embarrassed. You, the guy that, "Gets your facts from Fox." What a fool we've made of you. What a fool FOX made of you. And you even added your FOREX-loss.
Jerry 'n Vegas
mark...@gmail.com
Jun 5, 2013, 9:00:46 AM6/5/13
to
> Missed that. There are several TVs at the gym where I work out. One
> of them almost always has Fox. The other usually has either CNN or
> MSNBC. If CNN is biased, it's certainly very subtle compared to Fox
> or MSNBC. That whole "left wing media" meme is a tired, old
> right-wing talking point.
>
> Pepe Papon
> of them almost always has Fox. The other usually has either CNN or
> MSNBC. If CNN is biased, it's certainly very subtle compared to Fox
> or MSNBC. That whole "left wing media" meme is a tired, old
> right-wing talking point.
>
Pepe, in all seriousness, how is your last statement not completely true going both ways? Can't the right wing side switch left and right and be every bit as truthful in there own biased opinion? Meaning..... "That whole "right wing media" meme is a tired, old left-wing talking point." Aren't you doing nothing more than presenting the exact argument you're accusing them of?
VegasJerry
Jun 5, 2013, 9:07:14 AM6/5/13
to
On Monday, June 3, 2013 9:51:08 PM UTC-7, TruthSeeker wrote:
> On 2/6/13 11:39 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
> > ButMSNBC!
> >
> > I've previously acknowledged that MSNBC seems to be as biased as Fox
> > (and, oddly, Joe Long and some other right-wingers jumped on me for
> > it).
>
> How so? Other that they are even more biased than Fox, which is less
> biased than, say, ABC. No news source is without some bias.
>
> > The main differences seem to be that MSNBC isn't notorious for
> > lying like Fox,
.
> On 2/6/13 11:39 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
> > ButMSNBC!
> >
> > I've previously acknowledged that MSNBC seems to be as biased as Fox
> > (and, oddly, Joe Long and some other right-wingers jumped on me for
> > it).
>
> How so? Other that they are even more biased than Fox, which is less
> biased than, say, ABC. No news source is without some bias.
>
> > The main differences seem to be that MSNBC isn't notorious for
> > lying like Fox,
.> False.
No, abso-fucking-lutely true.
Yesterday NBC had a whole segment laughing at Fox and their viewers. The showed actual Fox footage:
FOX lead Breaking News stories:
BREAKING NEWS: Tonight: Obama's other race speech. (Which turned out to be a 2007 speech at a major university which was covered by all the news and which contained nothing of note).
BREAKING NEWS: Obama is toast! Watch Fox tonight and see Michelle Obama's "Hate Whitey." She is on tape talking about hating whitey. (Which turned out to be more bullshit because there was no tape, and viewers waited for nothing.)
BREAKING NEWS: Michele Bachmann reveals Obama's trip to India costs $200 million a day! (Except it didn’t). This was also on CBS and in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. (Further note, Michelle Bachmann has dropped out of the race. She did it by tape because she was on an 'expensive' junket with other congress people - and movie actor Steven Seagal - "To see what the feeling was in the country where the Boston Bombers were raised." No report yet…).
BREAKING NEWS: O'Reilly Factor: SMOKING GUN in the IRS case! IRS Commissioner Shulman went to the White House 157 times! (Except he didn't, he went 11 times in 4-years). When it was pointed out to idiot O'Reilly that it was just more Fox lies; Fox and O'Reilly ignored it and had Carl Rove on and they had a half-hour discussion about the 157 trips (that we all knew didn't happen).
BREAKING NEWS: Fox reports that congress is going to defund ACORN. (Even thought it hasn't existed for 3-years). Republicans will vote twice on it this week. Oh, and they will probably vote to repeal ObamaRomneyCare for the 38th time.
BREAKING NEWS: Fox Report: Interest on Student Loans will double at the end of this month! (Then they showed a video of Mitch McConnell on the Senate floor saying it was because of Obama(Romney)Care.)
And you call yourself TruthSeaker!
WHA! HA~HA! Suck on that, dipshit, you fell for it again.
Jerry 'n Vegas
Pepe Papon
Jun 5, 2013, 4:22:58 PM6/5/13
to
which is very blatantly right-wing. There's MSNBC, which is very
blatantly left-wing. And there's everything in between.
--
Pepe Papon
Truthseeker
Jun 5, 2013, 4:28:50 PM6/5/13
to
On 6/5/13 1:36 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 22:51:08 -0600, TruthSeeker
> <Truth...@nof-nspam.us> wrote:
>
>> On 2/6/13 11:39 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>>
>>> ButMSNBC!
>>>
>>> I've previously acknowledged that MSNBC seems to be as biased as Fox
>>> (and, oddly, Joe Long and some other right-wingers jumped on me for
>>> it).
>>
>> How so?
>
> You claimed, in a sarcastic way, that I didn't have enough information
> to make that determination.
Care to quote it so we can judge for ourselves?
> On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 22:51:08 -0600, TruthSeeker
> <Truth...@nof-nspam.us> wrote:
>
>> On 2/6/13 11:39 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>>
>>> ButMSNBC!
>>>
>>> I've previously acknowledged that MSNBC seems to be as biased as Fox
>>> (and, oddly, Joe Long and some other right-wingers jumped on me for
>>> it).
>>
>> How so?
>
> You claimed, in a sarcastic way, that I didn't have enough information
> to make that determination.
>> Other that they are even more biased than Fox, which is less
>> biased than, say, ABC. No news source is without some bias.
>
> Please. Fox is as biased as they come. It's a propaganda machine.
as they come" and "propaganda machine" are nonsense, just the fantasies
of the extreme Left. They can't stand alternative views being
expressed. Why do you think "Liberal, open-minded, free-speech-loving"
students shout down Conservative speakers on college campuses? They
can't shout down Fox, so they do what they can, and spread the claims of
lies, propaganda, and partisanship.
...
>> Did you see Candy Crowley (CNN) Sunday morning? She's often pretty
>> blatantly biased. She even jumped into the last Presidential debate on
>> Obama's side. But Sunday was one of her worst performances in a long time.
>
> Missed that. There are several TVs at the gym where I work out. One
> of them almost always has Fox. The other usually has either CNN or
> MSNBC. If CNN is biased, it's certainly very subtle compared to Fox
> or MSNBC. That whole "left wing media" meme is a tired, old
> right-wing talking point.
It's old, and it is a right-wing talking point, but it happens to be
>> blatantly biased. She even jumped into the last Presidential debate on
>> Obama's side. But Sunday was one of her worst performances in a long time.
>
> Missed that. There are several TVs at the gym where I work out. One
> of them almost always has Fox. The other usually has either CNN or
> MSNBC. If CNN is biased, it's certainly very subtle compared to Fox
> or MSNBC. That whole "left wing media" meme is a tired, old
> right-wing talking point.
mostly true.
--
Truthseeker
mo_ntresor
Jun 5, 2013, 4:48:39 PM6/5/13
to
On Jun 2 2013 7:32 AM, brattt wrote:
look at how emotionally invested the clams, pepjerrytards, and mindless
cannucks are in this topic. breathtaking, isn't it?
mo_ntresor
look at how emotionally invested the clams, pepjerrytards, and mindless
cannucks are in this topic. breathtaking, isn't it?
mo_ntresor
Pepe Papon
Jun 6, 2013, 2:28:13 AM6/6/13
to
On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 14:28:50 -0600, Truthseeker
<truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>On 6/5/13 1:36 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>> On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 22:51:08 -0600, TruthSeeker
>> <Truth...@nof-nspam.us> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/6/13 11:39 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>>>
>>>> ButMSNBC!
>>>>
>>>> I've previously acknowledged that MSNBC seems to be as biased as Fox
>>>> (and, oddly, Joe Long and some other right-wingers jumped on me for
>>>> it).
>>>
>>> How so?
>>
>> You claimed, in a sarcastic way, that I didn't have enough information
>> to make that determination.
>
>Care to quote it so we can judge for ourselves?
Not really. I didn't keep a record of it, and I have no desire to
<truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>On 6/5/13 1:36 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>> On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 22:51:08 -0600, TruthSeeker
>> <Truth...@nof-nspam.us> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/6/13 11:39 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>>>
>>>> ButMSNBC!
>>>>
>>>> I've previously acknowledged that MSNBC seems to be as biased as Fox
>>>> (and, oddly, Joe Long and some other right-wingers jumped on me for
>>>> it).
>>>
>>> How so?
>>
>> You claimed, in a sarcastic way, that I didn't have enough information
>> to make that determination.
>
>Care to quote it so we can judge for ourselves?
waste time Googling it. If want to believe that I'm making it up,
then I can't stop you.
>>> Other that they are even more biased than Fox, which is less
>>> biased than, say, ABC. No news source is without some bias.
>>
>> Please. Fox is as biased as they come. It's a propaganda machine.
>
>Please, yourself. Fox has a conservative slant but claims like "biased
>as they come" and "propaganda machine" are nonsense, just the fantasies
>of the extreme Left. They can't stand alternative views being
>expressed.
>Why do you think "Liberal, open-minded, free-speech-loving"
>students shout down Conservative speakers on college campuses? They
>can't shout down Fox, so they do what they can, and spread the claims of
>lies, propaganda, and partisanship.
protest.
>...
>>> Did you see Candy Crowley (CNN) Sunday morning? She's often pretty
>>> blatantly biased. She even jumped into the last Presidential debate on
>>> Obama's side. But Sunday was one of her worst performances in a long time.
>>
>> Missed that. There are several TVs at the gym where I work out. One
>> of them almost always has Fox. The other usually has either CNN or
>> MSNBC. If CNN is biased, it's certainly very subtle compared to Fox
>> or MSNBC. That whole "left wing media" meme is a tired, old
>> right-wing talking point.
>
>It's old, and it is a right-wing talking point, but it happens to be
>mostly true.
propaganda machine for the same reason.
--
Pepe Papon
TruthSeeker
Jun 6, 2013, 9:34:32 PM6/6/13
to
be made of your claims?
--
TruthSeeker
Pepe Papon
Jun 7, 2013, 3:07:36 AM6/7/13
to
On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 19:34:32 -0600, TruthSeeker
<Truth...@nof-nspam.us> wrote:
>On 6/6/13 12:28 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>> On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 14:28:50 -0600, Truthseeker
>> <truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>
>>> It's old, and it is a right-wing talking point, but it happens to be
>>> mostly true.
>
>> Sure it is. Because you say so. And Fox isn't a right-wing
>> propaganda machine for the same reason.
>
>How trite. Do you really not realize that the exact same criticism can
>be made of your claims?
Duh, really? You've finally gotten around to noticing how circular
<Truth...@nof-nspam.us> wrote:
>On 6/6/13 12:28 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>> On Wed, 05 Jun 2013 14:28:50 -0600, Truthseeker
>> <truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>
>>> It's old, and it is a right-wing talking point, but it happens to be
>>> mostly true.
>
>> Sure it is. Because you say so. And Fox isn't a right-wing
>> propaganda machine for the same reason.
>
>How trite. Do you really not realize that the exact same criticism can
>be made of your claims?
these arguments can get? Now, take the next step and realize that it
applies to you, too.
--
Pepe Papon
VegasJerry
Jun 8, 2013, 3:33:59 PM6/8/13
to
On Wednesday, June 5, 2013 1:22:58 PM UTC-7, Pepe Papon wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Jun 2013 06:00:46 -0700 (PDT), mark...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> Missed that. There are several TVs at the gym where I work out. One
> >> of them almost always has Fox. The other usually has either CNN or
> >> MSNBC. If CNN is biased, it's certainly very subtle compared to Fox
> >> or MSNBC. That whole "left wing media" meme is a tired, old
> >> right-wing talking point.
> >>
> >> Pepe Papon
> >
> >Pepe, in all seriousness, how is your last statement not completely true going both ways? Can't the right wing side switch left and right and be every bit as truthful in there own biased opinion? Meaning..... "That whole "right wing media" meme is a tired, old left-wing talking point." Aren't you doing nothing more than presenting the exact argument you're accusing them of?
.
> On Wed, 5 Jun 2013 06:00:46 -0700 (PDT), mark...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> Missed that. There are several TVs at the gym where I work out. One
> >> of them almost always has Fox. The other usually has either CNN or
> >> MSNBC. If CNN is biased, it's certainly very subtle compared to Fox
> >> or MSNBC. That whole "left wing media" meme is a tired, old
> >> right-wing talking point.
> >>
> >> Pepe Papon
> >
> >Pepe, in all seriousness, how is your last statement not completely true going both ways? Can't the right wing side switch left and right and be every bit as truthful in there own biased opinion? Meaning..... "That whole "right wing media" meme is a tired, old left-wing talking point." Aren't you doing nothing more than presenting the exact argument you're accusing them of?
.> Not at all. There's no "right wing media" meme. There's Fox News,
> which is very blatantly right-wing. There's MSNBC, which is very
> blatantly left-wing.
Have you seen the three hours a day of Morning Joe? That is hardly left-wing.
> blatantly left-wing.
Jerry 'n Vegas
VegasJerry
Jun 8, 2013, 3:38:00 PM6/8/13
to
On Wednesday, June 5, 2013 1:28:50 PM UTC-7, Truthseeker wrote:
> On 6/5/13 1:36 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> > On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 22:51:08 -0600, TruthSeeker
> > <Truth...@nof-nspam.us> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2/6/13 11:39 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> >>
> >>> ButMSNBC!
> >>>
> >>> I've previously acknowledged that MSNBC seems to be as biased as Fox
> >>> (and, oddly, Joe Long and some other right-wingers jumped on me for
> >>> it).
> >>
> >> How so?
> >
> > You claimed, in a sarcastic way, that I didn't have enough information
> > to make that determination.
>
> Care to quote it so we can judge for ourselves?
>
> >> Other that they are even more biased than Fox, which is less
> >> biased than, say, ABC. No news source is without some bias.
> >
> > Please. Fox is as biased as they come. It's a propaganda machine.
.
> On 6/5/13 1:36 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> > On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 22:51:08 -0600, TruthSeeker
> > <Truth...@nof-nspam.us> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2/6/13 11:39 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> >>
> >>> ButMSNBC!
> >>>
> >>> I've previously acknowledged that MSNBC seems to be as biased as Fox
> >>> (and, oddly, Joe Long and some other right-wingers jumped on me for
> >>> it).
> >>
> >> How so?
> >
> > You claimed, in a sarcastic way, that I didn't have enough information
> > to make that determination.
>
> Care to quote it so we can judge for ourselves?
>
> >> Other that they are even more biased than Fox, which is less
> >> biased than, say, ABC. No news source is without some bias.
> >
> > Please. Fox is as biased as they come. It's a propaganda machine.
.> Please, yourself.
And the rest of us. What he said is documented truth.
> Fox has a conservative slant but claims like "biased
> as they come" and "propaganda machine" are nonsense, just the fantasies
> of the extreme Left.
> They can't stand alternative views being
> expressed.
WHA! HA~HA!
You remain a fool.
Jerry 'n Vegas
0 new messages