PDA

View Full Version : Contrary to a recent Frontline thread, Fox News still dominates CNN AND MSNBC.



ULTRAMAN VH
10-02-2006, 07:38 AM
10 years later, Fox News turns up the cable volume
Posted 10/1/2006 10:46 PM ET E-mail | Save | Print | Reprints & Permissions | Subscribe to stories like this


Enlarge By Eileen Blass, USA TODAY

Faces of news: Daytime anchor Jane Skinner and Fox News chief Roger Ailes, 66.




By Peter Johnson, USA TODAY
NEW YORK — Roger Ailes, the man behind the curtain at Fox News Channel, says he was at a dinner party recently when one of the guests asked him, "Isn't Fox News too conservative?"
"I said, 'Are you comfortable with CNN?' He said, 'Yes.' How about CBS, ABC, NBC? 'Absolutely.' What about The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times? 'Fine.' National Public Radio and PBS? 'Very good.' So I said, 'But this little cable channel is making you crazy? If all the media tipped to the right, I'd probably be the biggest liberal. But you've got to have debate.' "

In just 10 years, Fox News — the channel liberals love to hate — has transformed the cable news landscape with its in-your-face brand of news with 'tude. In the process, it has reduced granddaddy CNN to a distant second and NBC's cable news venture, MSNBC, to an also-ran. Fox News' combative Bill O'Reilly has become a household name, drawing more than 2 million viewers a night. Sean Hannity, Shepard Smith and Greta Van Susteren are cable news stars. On-air barbs by them and Fox News correspondents have ignited debates in journalism circles about whether objective news can stay relevant, particularly in an Internet era that gives ordinary Americans the power to vent about anything in blogs.

The ultimate sign of respect: Comedy Central's Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert riff on Fox News on any given night.

"Many Americans had built up a perception that mainstream American television journalism routinely displayed a liberal bias. Roger knew it and tapped into it," says former MSNBC president Erik Sorenson. "Fox News convinced millions of those viewers that Fox's reporting was indeed fair and balanced, when compared to CNN and broadcast news. That resonated, especially in the wake of 9/11, and was underscored daily with strong, opinionated program hosts in prime time, on their morning show, and even during the day."

Fox, which went on the air Oct. 6, 1996, "didn't want to be an international network," says Tom Rosenstiel of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, a non-partisan media research organization. "They were going to be an American network, which is what their audience was looking for."

Hosts such as O'Reilly and Hannity "bring passion and sincerity to a much-needed discussion of critical issues," CNN's Lou Dobbs says. "And even though those are usually conservative voices, they are important voices."

'Growth era' no more?

As Fox News begins its next decade, the explosive growth that marked its first has ebbed.

Fox News Channel now draws an average of 840,000 viewers daily (6 a.m. to 11 p.m.) — compared with CNN's 448,000 and MSNBC's 270,000. But Fox's average prime-time viewership dipped 35% in the third quarter of this year compared with last year, when Katrina dominated the news. CNN was down 28%, and MSNBC dropped 22%.

As penetration of cable TV reaches a saturation point and with increased competition from the Web, Fox's "job is going to get harder now, just as it got harder for CNN 10 years ago," Rosenstiel says. "The big-growth era in cable seems to have come to an end."

That's why Ailes has been on something of a tear lately. He has been shaking up his daytime lineup some, calling surprise staff meetings, putting more emphasis on Fox News' website by partnering with YouTube in launching "The Blast," a dedicated page in which Fox News provides online video junkies with the craziest moments in news.

"This is hard work every day," Ailes says. "We have to maintain an intensity."

Anchor Shepard Smith says that although the ratings competition "for us is in cable, the Internet is clearly pulling eyes, and anybody who says otherwise is being disingenuous. Ten years ago you couldn't log on to find out what was going on. We need to integrate and use the Internet better. We have a long way to go."

Beyond new-media challenges, Fox News also has been unable to shake — not that Ailes or anyone at Fox seems to care much — the perception that its coverage leans right and, since 9/11, has become increasingly pro-Bush White House.

That perception was fueled last week when former president Bill Clinton accused Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace of "doing Fox News' bidding" by asking Clinton whether he had done enough to catch Osama bin Laden.

Never mind that Wallace's program airs on Fox broadcasting, not cable's Fox News, or whether Clinton's outburst was planned or spontaneous.

"Politicians used to be able to come on TV and read a rehearsed answer, and Cronkite and Huntley and Brinkley and those guys had to swallow it," O'Reilly says. "They couldn't give them the O'Reilly arched eyebrow or tell them they were a pinhead.

"You now have a country that expects analysis on TV, where 10 years ago it only existed on the Sunday talk-show brainiac slot."

Of the Clinton flare-up, Ailes says, "The only thing Chris didn't do is lay down like some other networks did" when they focused on what Clinton wanted to talk about: humanitarian efforts through his global initiative.

All weekend, Fox News extensively covered the scandal involving Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., who resigned Friday after news of inappropriate e-mails to a teenage boy became public. On his program Sunday, Wallace discussed it with guests Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., and former House speaker Newt Gingrich.

Success goes a long way

Fox supporters and detractors agree that credit for Fox's success rests with Ailes, 66, a former Republican Party operative who made his name starting in the '60s in entertainment by producing The Mike Douglas Show.

The success has pleased parent company News Corp. In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the company said Ailes stands to make $15.8 million in salary, bonus and stock this year.

Sitting in his second-floor office here, Ailes says Fox News has changed the TV news game: "Does anybody think Katie Couric (in her new role as anchor of The CBS Evening News) would have a segment called 'Free Speech' if it wasn't for Fox News?"

And Ailes says Dobbs, CNN's formerly staid business anchor, turned to hot-button debates such as illegal immigration after he "took one look at Bill O'Reilly and said: 'This guy is shooting his mouth off about what people really care about. I can do that.' "

(Both CBS and Dobbs say Fox had no role in their decisions.)

Ailes also says Fox News is probably more conservative than other TV news outlets, but only because it has consistently given equal voice to people whom mainstream media traditionally ignored if not disdained: conservatives.

Liberals "hate us for coming on the scene and changing the game and making people look at both sides of issues," he says.

But Robert Greenwald, who produced a film that attacked Fox News, Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism, says objectivity is an unknown concept at Fox.

More times than not, he says, Fox pushes a conservative agenda, albeit with "a wink and a nod. They don't do down-the-middle stuff — in their news or on their opinion shows. By design, they mix the two."

In Greenwald's eyes, Fox News Channel's most significant contribution "has unfortunately been the way news is covered, with the spread of let's-have-a-shouting-match, wrestling news entertainment." But he credits Ailes with "a genius for picking people who can talk to you. He proved that news doesn't have to be homework or spinach."

The accusation that Fox News is on the right-wing bandwagon comes mostly from those who don't watch the channel, says Brit Hume, the former ABC White House correspondent who joined two months after Fox's launch and hosts a daily political news program, Special Report. Some people "look at Fox News and see O'Reilly and Hannity and think, 'That's all they do over there,' " Hume says. "They probably think Bill and Sean are co-anchors and are on 24/7. You'd rather do without the label, but here we're succeeding. We pinch ourselves every day."

Jane Skinner, a daytime anchor, says friends who work at local TV stations around the country are constantly asking her what it's "really like" to work at Fox News — the assumption being that there's a political agenda and that she and others are told what questions to ask or comments to make.

"I laugh," Skinner says. "You can make all the comments about 'fair and balanced,' but they (management) are very much hands-off."

Rosenstiel, who has studied programming of all the cable news channels, says his most recent study shows Fox News journalists "were more likely to offer their opinions about the news, but often those opinions were fairly innocuous, like 'If there's an American victory in Iraq, that's good news.' I don't know anyone who would argue with that, but it's unusual to hear someone say it on TV news."

Besides, Rosenstiel says, "one person's bias is another person's telling the truth on TV. And the way Fox anchors and correspondents talk is very informal, not the stiff, omniscient narrator of traditional broadcast news. They talk like regular people, use plainer language.

"If it's a military conflict, they refer to American troops as 'our' troops. It's hard to argue when an American network does that. It is different from traditional broadcasting, but it's stylistic — not conservative or liberal."

Smith notes that in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Fox was as tough on the Bush administration as any other media outlet: "We were getting fed a pack of untruths and we showed the truth."

It's tough at the top

Anchoring two hours a day with his afternoon Studio B and then at night with The Fox Report, Smith says the toughest challenge for Fox News staffers is to stay ahead of the pack. "You're constantly trying to reinvent yourself, and when others see things that work, they copy them. You have to be the innovator all the time — and that's hard to do."

Says Van Susteren, who jumped from CNN five years ago: "If you think about it, we all do the same stories. We all did polygamy. We all did the war. Hezbollah. We all do missing people.

"But there's a reason people want to watch Fox — and the reason is we enjoy our jobs more and it pushes out to the screen. It gives us more energy and makes us push a little bit further. I think viewers pick up on it."


Posted 10/1/2006 10:46 PM ET E-mail | Save | Print | Reprints & Permissions | Subscribe to stories like this

Related Advertising Links What's this?

Nickdfresh
10-02-2006, 07:44 AM
No one said that "The Government News Channel" (--Tom Brokaw) didn't get bigger ratings than both CNN and MSNBC.

But the article gets things wrong; their viewership has steadily declined.

ULTRAMAN VH
10-02-2006, 07:52 AM
And a BIG GOODMORNING TO YA Nick, how was your weekend??

Nickdfresh
10-02-2006, 07:55 AM
Boring and slightly aggravating.

ULTRAMAN VH
10-02-2006, 08:01 AM
Sorry to read that, but I am sure you will funnel that anger into some great Frontline debate for the upcoming week.

Nickdfresh
10-02-2006, 08:06 AM
I'll probably funnel my aggression into a nice run today.

And "anger is a gift."

FORD
10-02-2006, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I'll probably funnel my aggression into a nice run today.

And "anger is a gift."

Anger is an energy.......
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wzNjmIWbns4"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wzNjmIWbns4" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

LoungeMachine
10-02-2006, 12:07 PM
Yes, let's debate the plasctic meesengers.....

Because the MESSAGE scares the shit out of sheep like Ultramonkey


Where's your defense of Cunningham, Foley, Rice, and the rest of BushCO?

ULTRAMAN VH
10-03-2006, 08:30 AM
Well, well, Lounge McNugget glad you could chime in. Change any thread titles lately, Adolf. As far as debate goes this thread is dealing with how Fox news beats the snot out of CNN and the rest of the libby media year after year. Of coarse you didn't comment on that.
Your arguments against the current Neo Con Administration have merit and even Conservatives are discusted with the Neo Conservatism running rampant within the party.

Nickdfresh
10-03-2006, 08:31 AM
Is this the extent of your political commentary here? Giving a shit about Fox?

Who gives a fuck?

Is this really life's biggest issue?

Nickdfresh
10-03-2006, 08:34 AM
Jesus, it's like debating the color of the deck chairs --on the Titanic™.

ULTRAMAN VH
10-03-2006, 08:59 AM
You didn't seem to have a problem starting a thread about the so called decline of FOX NEWS.

LoungeMachine
10-03-2006, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by ULTRAMAN VH
Well, well, Lounge McNugget glad you could chime in. Change any thread titles lately, Adolf. As far as debate goes this thread is dealing with how Fox news beats the snot out of CNN and the rest of the libby media year after year. Of coarse you didn't comment on that.
Your arguments against the current Neo Con Administration have merit and even Conservatives are discusted with the Neo Conservatism running rampant within the party.


38?

No way in hell are you 38.:rolleyes:

16 tops. Received any text messages from Foley yet?


coarse?

discusted?


Let's discust the coarses you failed to show up for in school.....:D


Pretty funny that it's come to this with you.....cheerleading for a network while Rome Burns......:rolleyes:

fucking moron

LoungeMachine
10-03-2006, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Is this the extent of your political commentary here? Giving a shit about Fox?

Who gives a fuck?

Is this really life's biggest issue?


It's his, that's obvious.....:D

Nickdfresh
10-03-2006, 10:35 AM
Which thread?

ULTRAMAN VH
10-03-2006, 10:57 AM
FOX News Ratings Down Profile Pm Email Search Buddy IP

Fox News Ratings Plummet...

Eat The Press | Rachel Sklar | Posted August 29, 2006 09:20 PM


Somewhere, Keith Olbermann is sticking pins in a Bill O'Reilly voodoo doll: Fox News' ratings, TVNewser reports, are down since August of last year. Like, way down. Like down 28 percent in primetime among all viewers, down 20 percent in primetime in the "money demo" (viewers aged 25-54) and down 7 percent in daytime viewership overall. In fact, the only place Fox is up is during the day, when they managed a ratings increase of just 2 percent, and even then only in the money demo.

And lest you think this is an industry-wide trend, consider this: over the same time period, CNN and MSNBC are up. CNN's up 35 percent during the day -- 46 percent in the money demo -- and up 21 percent in primetime overall, 25 percent in the money demo. MSNBC's ratings increases aren't quite as impressive -- up 6 percent in primetime overall, 8 percent in the money demo, and up 36 percent in the money demo during the day, 26 percent overall.

Link


[Post #1]
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Fox News Ratings Plummet...

Eat The Press | Rachel Sklar | Posted August 29, 2006 09:20 PM


Somewhere, Keith Olbermann is sticking pins in a Bill O'Reilly voodoo doll: Fox News' ratings, TVNewser reports, are down since August of last year. Like, way down. Like down 28 percent in primetime among all viewers, down 20 percent in primetime in the "money demo" (viewers aged 25-54) and down 7 percent in daytime viewership overall. In fact, the only place Fox is up is during the day, when they managed a ratings increase of just 2 percent, and even then only in the money demo.

And lest you think this is an industry-wide trend, consider this: over the same time period, CNN and MSNBC are up. CNN's up 35 percent during the day -- 46 percent in the money demo -- and up 21 percent in primetime overall, 25 percent in the money demo. MSNBC's ratings increases aren't quite as impressive -- up 6 percent in primetime overall, 8 percent in the money demo, and up 36 percent in the money demo during the day, 26 percent overall.

Link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/08/29/fox-news-ratings-plummet_n_28309.html)

quick quote

Nick, it must have been an issue for you, this is your thread.

LoungeMachine
10-03-2006, 11:00 AM
And it obviously offended you.....LMAO

Good thing you were here to jump to their defense, huh 38?

ULTRAMAN VH
10-03-2006, 11:06 AM
Excuse me HERO, but I think Nick can speak for himself.

Nickdfresh
10-03-2006, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by ULTRAMAN VH
Excuse me HERO, but I think Nick can speak for himself.

Wow, I guess I really got owned.

Now maybe you can look around and post in all the other threads and tell me what's going on today?

BTW, I think I was responding to specific "Ha ha! Air America is off the air soon!" And "Bill O'Really rules! Keith Olbermann drools" mentality threads at that time as well.

Nickdfresh
10-03-2006, 02:24 PM
BTW, I noticed Sade is conspicuously absent lately.

DEMON CUNT
10-03-2006, 09:17 PM
Intelligent liberals prefer to read their news.

Fox is for lazy conservatives who need to have their opinions provided for them. Note how often the Roth Army neocons quote the talking points.

The Foley spin last night on Fox was hilarious. They are scared.

http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/attachment.php?s=&postid=968904

ODShowtime
10-05-2006, 08:09 AM
Originally posted by ULTRAMAN VH
As far as debate goes this thread is dealing with how Fox news beats the snot out of CNN and the rest of the libby media year after year.

Great point. There's more stupid people in the US than non-stupid people.

Next.

This is the gayest part:


Fox News — the channel liberals love to hate — has transformed the cable news landscape with its in-your-face brand of news with 'tude.

Nickdfresh
10-05-2006, 11:39 AM
The actual ratings can be seen [url=http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/politics/cablenewsratings.htm[/url]

Nobody said CNN had higher ratings; just that Fox's are consistently going down and CNN's and MSNBC's are consistently rising.

And of course the dumb op-ed bitch cherrypicked the most astounding difference (the daily avg. viewers, the most difficult to actually calculate accurately).

ULTRAMAN VH
10-08-2006, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
The actual ratings can be seen [url=http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/politics/cablenewsratings.htm[/url]

Nobody said CNN had higher ratings; just that Fox's are consistently going down and CNN's and MSNBC's are consistently rising.

And of course the dumb op-ed bitch cherrypicked the most astounding difference (the daily avg. viewers, the most difficult to actually calculate accurately).

Well, Fox news is celebrating it's 5th year in a row as the #1 news channel in America. So I think your Lefty source of info may be a little suspect.

Nickdfresh
10-08-2006, 05:33 PM
Again idiot. They never said Fox wasn't . Reading comprehension is key...

ELVIS
10-08-2006, 05:37 PM
Hmmm...

Yeah, I hope this guy isn't really 38...;)

ULTRAMAN VH
10-10-2006, 08:25 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Again idiot. They never said Fox wasn't . Reading comprehension is key...

Nick, it may be a good idea to take up some anger management classes and meditation might be an option too. You're just not a happy person here lately.

LoungeMachine
10-10-2006, 08:39 AM
Originally posted by ULTRAMAN VH
Nick, it may be a good idea to take up some anger management classes and meditation might be an option too. You're just not a happy person here lately.


Might we suggest some night classes for you at your local junior college, or at the very least a trip to a library?

Nice attempt at misdirection.

You started a moronic thread based on a moronic premise, and you can't even get your facts straight.

Nickdfresh
10-10-2006, 08:49 AM
Originally posted by ULTRAMAN VH
Nick, it may be a good idea to take up some anger management classes and meditation might be an option too. You're just not a happy person here lately.

Gee, maybe it's because you keep bumping this thread up, one that no one really cares about except you, and you keep repeating the same incorrections/lies about what people have supposedly said over and over. I do get irritated when I constantly having to re-explain things.

And perhaps you've been a bit of a troll lately, for the above stated reasons...

ULTRAMAN VH
10-10-2006, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Might we suggest some night classes for you at your local junior college, or at the very least a trip to a library?

Nice attempt at misdirection.

You started a moronic thread based on a moronic premise, and you can't even get your facts straight.

Fact is, Fox is on top and it drives you and your Libby buddies bananas. Go cry a river, Lounge Queer.

FORD
10-10-2006, 11:14 AM
FAUX being #1 in the news is like N"Suck having a number one album. In the long run, it means NOTHING.

Because Justin Timberfuck will never be David Lee Roth and Sean Hannazi will never be Walter Cronkite.

DEMON CUNT
10-10-2006, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by ULTRAMAN VH
Fact is, Fox is on top and it drives you and your Libby buddies bananas. Go cry a river, Lounge Queer.

Not really. It's you neocons that have the deep desire for "victory" or to be #1.

Take a look at the #1 album at Amazon. It's a goddam covers album by Rod "gallons o' sperm" Stewart. That 1 spot doesn't mean that it's any good. It just means that more cockroaches took the bait.

If you want to watch Fox News, go ahead. It's your brain, stupid.

ODShowtime
10-10-2006, 09:25 PM
If you want to watch Fox News, go ahead. It's your brain, stupid.

ultra's probably one of the specials that buys the books fox n friends "write".

ULTRAMAN VH
10-11-2006, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by ODShowtime
ultra's probably one of the specials that buys the books fox n friends "write".

HAR, HAR, HAR, THAT WAS A FUNNY ONE!!!! You're a MADCAP, Atomic Jerkoff.

Warham
10-13-2006, 12:16 AM
Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Not really. It's you neocons that have the deep desire for "victory" or to be #1.

Only losers would want anything less than #1. But coming from a party that's been out of power for 12 years, that's not such a surprise sentiment.

#2 is looking better and better as the years go by.

FORD
10-13-2006, 12:20 AM
Originally posted by Warham
Only losers would want anything less than #1. But coming from a party that's been out of power for 12 years, that's not such a surprise sentiment.

#2 is looking better and better as the years go by.

Remember you said that in about 26 days ;)

Warham
10-13-2006, 12:22 AM
Originally posted by FORD
Remember you said that in about 26 days ;)

I'll stand by that statement.

If both houses switch, I'll eat crow, but I wouldn't count my seats before they are won either.

DEMON CUNT
10-13-2006, 12:23 AM
Originally posted by Warham
Only losers would want anything less than #1. But coming from a party that's been out of power for 12 years, that's not such a surprise sentiment.

#2 is looking better and better as the years go by.

Thank you for further explaining the simplistic view of the world and strange desire for victory that you neocons hold so dear.

Warham
10-13-2006, 12:31 AM
Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Thank you for further explaining the simplistic view of the world and strange desire for victory that you neocons hold so dear.

Again, only a loser would say anything similar.

So, are you saying the Dems have no interest in regaining power, Cunt?

Nickdfresh
10-13-2006, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by Warham
Only losers would want anything less than #1. But coming from a party that's been out of power for 12 years, that's not such a surprise sentiment.

#2 is looking better and better as the years go by.

It's politics, not sports. Losers support corrupt assholes no matter how hypocritcal their message is...

ULTRAMAN VH
10-13-2006, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
It's politics, not sports. Losers support corrupt assholes no matter how hypocritcal their message is...

Well, you supported your hero The Big Dog!!!

Nickdfresh
10-13-2006, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by ULTRAMAN VH
Well, you supported your hero The Big Dog!!!

So what's your point? HTF does my support of "The Big Dog" against partisan smearing, totally devoid of facts and contrary to presentable documents, have any bearing on this?

FORD
10-13-2006, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by ULTRAMAN VH
Well, you supported your hero The Big Dog!!!

For the record, I was EXTREMELY pissed when I found out that Clinton deliberately misled everybody about the blowjob (I don't use the word "lie" because it legally was not)

I took that personally because I worked my ass off campaigning for him in 1992 and 1996.

But as pissed off as I was about that, it doesn't change two facts.

1) The question should have never been asked in the first place.

2) Bill Clinton is STILL a better President than anyone else in my lifetime.

ULTRAMAN VH
10-13-2006, 12:06 PM
OH NO!!! Ford, you can't leave The Gipper off your list.

FORD
10-13-2006, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by ULTRAMAN VH
OH NO!!! Ford, you can't leave The Gipper off your list.

Oh yes I can and I will. Reagan was an actor, not a President. And Poppy wasn't that good. In any of his three consecutive terms. (1980-1992)

EAT MY ASSHOLE
10-13-2006, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by FORD


2) Bill Clinton is STILL a better President than anyone else in my lifetime.

Oh, surely you can find somehting favorable to say about McKinley...

ELVIS
10-13-2006, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by FORD
Reagan was an actor, not a President.


Clinton was a lawyer, not a President...

EAT MY ASSHOLE
10-13-2006, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by ELVIS
Clinton was a lawyer, not a President...

???

I wish this comment made some kind of sense...

amadeus
10-13-2006, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by EAT MY ASSHOLE
???

I wish this comment made some kind of sense...

It does make sense, it just shows that he was better at lying and covering it up. He knew exactly what terminology to use so things he said wouldn't come across as a lie. He was real smooth and charasmatic but that doesn't make him the best President (like FORD said 'in his lifetime').

DEMON CUNT
10-13-2006, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Again, only a loser would say anything similar.

So, are you saying the Dems have no interest in regaining power, Cunt?

Warhead, this is real life not the Tostitos Bowl game.

We live in a country of differing opinions and values.

Our politicians should be concerned with governing and representing not victory.

The two sided paradigm that conservatives base their politics on is eroding our freedoms.

Warham
10-14-2006, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Warhead, this is real life not the Tostitos Bowl game.

We live in a country of differing opinions and values.

Our politicians should be concerned with governing and representing not victory.

The two sided paradigm that conservatives base their politics on is eroding our freedoms.

I'm disappointed. You've lost your edge. RIP Cunt.

DEMON CUNT
10-14-2006, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by Warham
I'm disappointed. You've lost your edge. RIP Cunt.

And I am not surprised by your flaccid responses and inability to engage in the debate you claim to crave.

DEMON CUNT
10-15-2006, 02:30 AM
Lookie lookie!

Olbermann's nightly audience has increased 69 percent, according to Nielsen Media Research. (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/T/TV_KEITH_OLBERMANN?SITE=TXELP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT)

Nickdfresh
10-15-2006, 09:20 AM
And BTW, Olbermann's potential audience is split between watching him, and The Daily Show/Colbert Report, which run opposite to him on Comedy Central in the same time slot. This singular scheduling conflict may cause me to get TiVo™.

Golly, I wonder who has the demographic more craved by advertisers?

Revan
10-15-2006, 09:28 AM
Originally posted by Warham
I'll stand by that statement.

If both houses switch, I'll eat crow, but I wouldn't count my seats before they are won either.

Wasn't there something said by Mr. Ford about Bush winning re-election in 2004 a "statistical impossibility" also? I think I remember browsing across that thread a while back... ;)

Revan
10-15-2006, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by ELVIS
Clinton was a lawyer, not a President...

Best comment yet...

Nickdfresh
10-15-2006, 09:39 AM
Originally posted by Revan
Best comment yet...

How do Elvis' balls taste?

Clinton was a lawyer? Gee. Really!? you mean he had a law degree? Oh, well I guess Ronald Reagan was just a B-movie actor, or Bush is just a failed business man and alcoholic/coke junkie?

Nice cherry-pick...

I would love to see how any of those Presidents would have done with a well-funded anti-democracy lobby opposing them (The Arkansas Project) and a $40 Million investigation, one that was solely-partisan, against them. An investigation that cost about $39.4 million more than the 9/11 "investigation" did BTW...

DEMON CUNT
10-15-2006, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by Revan
Best comment yet...

http://www.library.wisc.edu/libraries/specialcollections/images/frankenstein.jpg

Me hate Clinton, but me not know why. Maybe blowjob? Maybe me just hate peace and prosperity.

DEMON CUNT
10-15-2006, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by Revan
Wasn't there something said by Mr. Ford about Bush winning re-election in 2004 a "statistical impossibility" also?

Unless of course, like 2000, one of the crucial states falls into electoral chaos.

Simply cut the access to voting machines by more than half in the poor parts of Ohio. Giggle and watch as they wait in line for hours to vote.

Republican strategy at it's finest and coldest.

BigBadBrian
10-15-2006, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
And I am not surprised by your flaccid responses and inability to engage in the debate you claim to crave.

Geez..... :rolleyes:

DEMON CUNT
10-15-2006, 06:24 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Geez.....

BigBland- so many posts, yet so little to say.

Revan
10-19-2006, 07:10 AM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
How do Elvis' balls taste?

Clinton was a lawyer? Gee. Really!? you mean he had a law degree? Oh, well I guess Ronald Reagan was just a B-movie actor, or Bush is just a failed business man and alcoholic/coke junkie?

Nice cherry-pick...

I would love to see how any of those Presidents would have done with a well-funded anti-democracy lobby opposing them (The Arkansas Project) and a $40 Million investigation, one that was solely-partisan, against them. An investigation that cost about $39.4 million more than the 9/11 "investigation" did BTW...

Glad I checked back on this thread now. Rather abrasive, Nikki. How do Elvis' balls taste? If I may elaborate? I thought it was a relatively amusing comment at the time, considering Clinton certainly acted more like a lawyer than a President during his duration in the office, at least to my mind. Now, is it the fact that I found Elvis' comment amusing, or the fact that I agreed with him in regards to Yngwie Malmsteen's playing that has you so irate? Or is such vitriol just normal democratic nature when they're on the downside, Nikki? Ahh, never mind, considering all of the "fag talk" going on right now, I think I just answered my own question. Never mind - perhaps this will be the day you convince Elvis and the other Republicans here that you're right, they're all wrong, and all past transgressions will be forgiven once they declare their fealty to the Democratic party? Far be it of me to hold you off from your mission. Carry on, then.

ODShowtime
10-19-2006, 08:19 AM
why is this crappy thread still going?

BTW, I read an article in the paper yesterday that Fox's prime time ratings were down from last year, but they attributed the drop to no Katrina-like stories recently.

Bummer, no incomprehensible natural disasters to ponder.