|
Post by Supertramp78 on Oct 27, 2006 15:41:34 GMT -5
As of August of this year, Fox's ratings are down over 20% from the same time last year. CNN is up. MSNBC is up. Granted FOX is still ahead due to the margin they had earlier, but when over 60% of the nation no longer supports the war and all Fox does is promote it, eventually people switch to something else. When over 60% dislike Bush's job performance and even more dislike Cheney, the number of people willing to watch a new outlet devoted to supporting them is bound to weaken over time. So you see FOX share falling in relation to CNN and MSNBC. No surprise really.
Speaking of O'Reily, does the guy have brass ones or what? He is interviewing the President and still manages to slide a plug in for his new book. Amazing.
|
|
|
Post by chicagobob on Oct 27, 2006 15:47:39 GMT -5
Tramp, I heard (on Fox) from an ABC exec that the ABC network is going to reconsider how they report the news to be more inclusive to the "right" viewers.
I cannot expound on this I can't remember any particulars and because I've gotta go, but there was mention of it on Fox yesterday or the day before.
That's almost a confession to biased reporting.
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Oct 27, 2006 15:52:04 GMT -5
David, the "collective good" as a founding tenet of our country seems radically different in concept and execution to the kind of collective good you espouse. Some, or all of it, may be be collectively good. Or not. But it doesn't resemble any collective good I can think of that was part of our founding.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Oct 27, 2006 15:58:43 GMT -5
Don't forget that the real issue here is what the federal government should or shouldn't fund. Any private institution or corporation is free to fund their own fetal stem cell research and some have been doing so. Truth is, there isn't an instituion that is free from the Fedearl touch. ALL univesities accept some Fed money for something. Most corp research is done in partnership with some university gorup. The Fed position affects everything in this country. You can choose you position as your conscience dictates. But don't expect to fall back on some white night institution outside of the Fed reach to get the job done.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Oct 27, 2006 16:49:24 GMT -5
What I hear you saying, David, is that, unless one agrees with your solutions to problems, one does not want to solve those problems. And the only way to be considered "empathetic" is to agree with your solutions.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Oct 27, 2006 16:51:40 GMT -5
Bob Jones? ;D
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Oct 27, 2006 17:00:48 GMT -5
Bob Jones is a University??
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2006 17:06:29 GMT -5
One has to wonder if the fine christian youth attending Bob Jones University outfit themselves with sweatshirts that say "BJU".
And, why doesn't Playboy do some feature on "The Girls of BJU"?
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Oct 27, 2006 17:33:42 GMT -5
dharma, we have a local institution known as Louisiana School for the Deaf. My son played them in basketball. They have a beautiful facility. Their jerseys (and football helmets) are emblazomed with, yep, LSD.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2006 17:57:16 GMT -5
Karlynn. I read your post and wished I was as articulate a 'newbie' as you. Some day my subject will come.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2006 19:33:51 GMT -5
Rush wants to uphold traditional American values; the rugged individualism concept. Rush is straight right wing, not an extremist. Rush is an overfed, money-grubbing oppurtunist who was (and maybe still is) a drug addict. What's worse, he's the type of person who would demand a harsh prison sentence for anyone else with a drug problem, especially if they were poor or working class. He's a liar and a clown, and I couldn't care less how many people listen to him.
|
|
|
Post by guitone on Oct 27, 2006 19:36:38 GMT -5
And just when you thought that only Democrats could be their own worst enemy. ;D I hear that. The GOP has been doing a fine job of shooting themselves in the foot lately. If the Dems had their act together, the GOP wouldn't stand a chance of holding either house. May lose them anyway, but if they do it will be a self-defeat. Tim And this of course is the whole point, if the Dems had their act together, I am wondering if that is an oxymoron?
|
|
|
Post by guitone on Oct 27, 2006 19:41:30 GMT -5
interesting, J, but your two points actually help make Rush's -- 1) that Fox regularly appeared on Boston Legal with considerably less symptoms, and 2) to be off meds is to be symptomatic. That is not what J said, he said the filming days had to be scheduled aroune Mr. Foxes good days....he did not discuss him being off meds...
|
|
|
Post by guitone on Oct 27, 2006 19:49:08 GMT -5
I'm not suprised that the Right is attacking Michael J. Fox, as they have no sense of empathy. I'm not sure what you mean by "the Right", but I'm definitely politically conservative. Okay, listen: I Have A Sense Of Empathy. Evan, this is funny...I think, at least for me, that I have moved more to center, so that means right as I have gotten olcer...and I have a sense of empathy also, although I cannot say I am on the right I can say I am further right than ever before, but still deeply entrenched in my liberal views...and I have to say I agree with the views expressed that Rush is Rush, this of course does not excuse him, he is a jerk.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Oct 27, 2006 20:00:51 GMT -5
Joel,
I explained what I meant by J's assertions actually backing up Rush's. When I said...
In other words, relative to whether or not Limbaugh was "mocking" or merely demonstrating the huge difference between 1) what everyone was used to seeing on "Boston Legal" and 2) the ad -- all that matters is that most of America is familiar with MJFox on Boston Legal and would be as surprised as Limbaugh was that his condition in the ad was so profoundly different. J confirmed that Fox is under much greater control on Boston Legal. That is Rush's point.
When J contends that it is Rush who is "off his meds" it confirms what most people think is the nature of disease and medicine....that "off meds"=symptomatic, and "n meds"-asymptomatic. Trouble is -- and very few people knew it -- Parkinsons' meds don't work that way.
J seemed to merely be slamming Limbaugh, but in doing so confirmed that even he agrees that "off meds"=symptomatic.
|
|
|
Post by guitone on Oct 27, 2006 20:21:15 GMT -5
Joel, I explained what I meant by J's assertions actually backing up Rush's. When I said... In other words, relative to whether or not Limbaugh was "mocking" or merely demonstrating the huge difference between 1) what everyone was used to seeing on "Boston Legal" and 2) the ad -- all that matters is that most of America is familiar with MJFox on Boston Legal and would be as surprised as Limbaugh was that his condition in the ad was so profoundly different. J confirmed that Fox is under much greater control on Boston Legal. That is Rush's point. When J contends that it is Rush who is "off his meds" it confirms what most people think is the nature of disease and medicine....that "off meds"=symptomatic, and "n meds"-asymptomatic. Trouble is -- and very few people knew it -- Parkinsons' meds don't work that way. J seemed to merely be slamming Limbaugh, but in doing so confirmed that even he agrees that "off meds"=symptomatic. Millring, I am not that familiar with parkinson's, only that a good friend of mine developed it a few years ago, and it has been tough, meds have helped. I looked at the video and did not know if there was some acting or not, but I did indeed think that Rush was mocking him either way. I did not see J's post regarding Rush and meds, my mistake, sorry. This is probably, as many of these things, close to our political preferences...I just hate Rush, I listen to him when I can for a few minutes here and there as I believe it is good to know what he is saying and what his "followers" hear and believe... I don't watch much TV and certainly not Boston Legal, as the couple of times I saw it I found it silly at best...so I did not know the MJFox was even on it at all. I have seen him on TV and have seen his tremor and this was indeed the worst I had seen him. Wondering if anyone has seen Sam Waterson (I think that is his name, from Law and Order...he seems to have a head shake of some sort on a commercial I have seen him on and I wondered if he has some issues with Parkinson. Thanks for responding..
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Oct 27, 2006 20:25:16 GMT -5
I've been hanging back, waiting for someone to agree with. Tom wins. Ok, consider the source: I've listened to maybe a total of 2 hours of Rush Limbaugh. My impression of Rush comes mostly from the postions of SF and a guy I know here in town who loves to argue politics and is a Rush devotee. And the impression I get is that Rush is a staunch Bush administration supporter. I don't know if that's simply because he's a devoted Republican and would support any GOP administration, no matter what they did or didn't do. Or if he's so staunchly anti-Democrat that he'd support any administration in opposition to the Democrats, regardless of their policies. Let's assume for the sake of argument that he's a true believer in whatever it is that Bush and the gang of senior neocons at the head of his administration believe. Let's give him that much credit, whether he deserves it or not.
Does that make him a conservative? Good Lord no. Conservatives don't waste the national treasure and risk the nation's future invading, occupying and nation-building, purely out of choice, in oppressive countries that are no threat to our national security and not even a near-term threat to our national interests abroad. If they did, Reagan would have invaded North Korea. Nixon would have invaded China. The GOP Congress would have given Clinton a standing ovation instead of accusing him of wagging the dog. Other things conservatives don't do are massive expansions of entitlement programs, huge growth of federal government (I'm really just hitting the high points here, by the way). Conservatives are cautious, measured...conservative. And they believe in shrinking government, not growing it like a tumor -- or so they've been telling us for awhile now. Nah, these guys, and therefore Rush, are not conservatives. There is almost nothing about their foreign, domestic or war policy that is even remotely conservative.
Are they moderates? Nope. See the paragraph above. Starting a war on faulty intelligence and executing an occupation with inccompetence because you ignored, marginalized, ruined or attempted to ruin everyone who said anything different than the faulty intelligence you wanted to hear...does that sound moderate?
Are they liberals? I don't really even need to type anything here, do I? Of course not.
Tom has it right. These guys -- Bush and his neocon cabal, are opportunists. They heard what they wanted to hear, ignored what they didn't, did everything they could to silence those who would speak otherwise, started an unnecessary war, killed thousands of people, spent hundreds of billions of dollars, pandered to, but did very little for,the religious right and attempted to buy the loyalty of the electorate by out-spending every "tax-and-spend liberal" in nearly half a century, for one reason only: To gain and retain power. Mostly personal power.
They are opportunists, not conservatives. And if guys like Rush are with them, they're not conservatives either. Maybe he's an opportunist too. Maybe he's just a fool. He's most certainly an ass.
Tim
|
|
|
Post by millring on Oct 27, 2006 20:44:48 GMT -5
I could nit-pick, Tim, but, on balance, I don't disagree. Bush + conservatives willing to back him in LOTS of very non-conservative ventures (not the least of which was the Iraq war) -- confusing "Republican" with "Conservative" have probably put to death the real conservative movement.
If there's a positive thing, it's that the left wing of the Democrat party is so extreme -- so unyielding -- that I believe they have forced a sizable portion of Democrats toward a conservative middle. That, coupled with some issues that conservatives and the new, more conservative Democrats can find common ground on (like imigration) may start to change the political atmosphere of the US.
I am willing to offer up the ultimate compromise -- the perfect ticket for the 2008 presidential election. I'll call it the Hoosier 50/50 Solution. Evan Bayh and Richard Lugar.
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Oct 27, 2006 20:52:08 GMT -5
I hope not, John, I think some of the ideas had a lot of merit. I think the execution was a bit sloppy from the git-go, but that's another thread.
Most of us have always been there, John.
Tim
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Oct 27, 2006 21:15:13 GMT -5
Gosh Tim, that's a really thoughtful post.
|
|