FOX Strategy Really Paid Off...........Idiots

POSTED BY: captaincdc
UPDATED: Saturday, March 13, 2004 00:47
VIEWED: 21389
PAGE 1 of 1

CAPTAINCDC

Friday, March 5, 2004 5:50 PM

FOX is set to close the key ratings period with major declines in all the major categories: down 21% in households, down 23% in total viewers, down 26% in adults 25-54 and down 29% in adults 18-49. Those dips also mark the largest by any network in each respective category.
That was from www.thefutoncritic.com

Their strategy of getting rid of almost every quality show that actually required the use of a writer really seems to be paying off. They lost a quarter of their viewers in every category during Feb. sweeps. Could not happen to nicer folks I guess. I do hope Wonderfalls is a big hit for them, but I'm afraid they will wind up cancelling it for The Littlest Groom 2.

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.

GEEZER

Friday, March 5, 2004 6:25 PM

Chortle.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

HATEHATEHATEFOX

Friday, March 5, 2004 6:29 PM

You're absolutely right about that! FOX is the right-wing's propaganda machine and I couldn't be happier knowing that Americans are finally waking up to that fact and tuning out.

OTOH, I've heard that Wonderfalls is quite good and I REALLLLLLY want to watch it but I'm soooo afraid that I will like it and then it'll be cancelled. Why oh why couldn't they have taken their show elsewhere? Well, at least I'll feel less guilty about getting the eps from tvtorrents.com.

Oh yeah ... FOX
Hate 'em. Hate 'em. Hate 'em.

~~~~~~~~
Nothing is ever so profoundly regretted as a kind act.
Robertson Davies

FIRESCAPE

Friday, March 5, 2004 7:05 PM

Well the Right needs a propaganda machine when the Left has every other major network spewing their propaganda.

Politics aside, I think Fox deserves it. Firefly, Family Guy, Futurama--all gone; they should just hang a 'talent need not apply' sign over their door.

BROWNCOAT1

Friday, March 5, 2004 7:09 PM

Couldn't happen to a nicer network. Maybe someone at Fox will eventually wise up and can all the execs that make these poor programming choices.

Thanks for the #s CaptainCDC.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

TALLGRRL

Friday, March 5, 2004 7:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Firescape:
Well the Right needs a propaganda machine when the Left has every other major network spewing their propaganda.

Polotics aside,B]

Been listening to Pill-Popper Rush and his cronies, have ya?
Obviously you know absolutely nothing about the media in this country if you think the networks are "spewing" Left propaganda. And the way you spelled politics, with an "o", prooves my point...
Fox has been shilling for the current administration and it's now starting to bite them in the ass. To which I say Yipppeeee!!!!

Other than that...the weasles at Fox are getting their just desserts.
If you have a chance to see the industry publication "Television Week" for the week of 1 March, check out the drek Fox--and all the other networks--have in Development.
Pitiful.

"Take me, sir. Take me hard."

SOUTHERNMERC

Friday, March 5, 2004 7:31 PM

Has fox been the spin machine for the political Right? Sure, and he's right, virtually every other network has been chugging away with the Left side for quite a while. Neither of which is important. What's important is fox is GETTING IT IN THE ASS with a rusty hammer. And band saw. And concrete drill. With the cord still attached so everyone KNOWS whats happening.

Pardon the bitter.

PS. With all the misspellings going on around the web, I would be surprised you noticed if it weren't for the fact that you used his misspelling to jump down on him. His spelling proved your point? Ummm, okay.

Jayne: "How big a room?"

RKLENSETH

Friday, March 5, 2004 7:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HATEHATEHATEFOX:
You're absolutely right about that! FOX is the right-wing's propaganda machine and I couldn't be happier knowing that Americans are finally waking up to that fact and tuning out.

OTOH, I've heard that Wonderfalls is quite good and I REALLLLLLY want to watch it but I'm soooo afraid that I will like it and then it'll be cancelled. Why oh why couldn't they have taken their show elsewhere? Well, at least I'll feel less guilty about getting the eps from tvtorrents.com.

Oh yeah ... FOX
Hate 'em. Hate 'em. Hate 'em.

~~~~~~~~
Nothing is ever so profoundly regretted as a kind act.
Robertson Davies

What would you rather have, a left wing propaganda machine?

Oh, and play Cantr II at www.cantr.net.

HATEHATEHATEFOX

Friday, March 5, 2004 7:50 PM

Quote:
What would you rather have, a left wing propaganda machine?

[political debate]
My dear, you are sadly mistaken if you believe there is such thing as a "left-wing" propaganda machine. TV networks are owned by the rich are the rich are inherently conservative. You should read a book called: What Liberal Media?
[/political debate]

However, I regret my politicization of what should be a celebration of FOX getting its just deserts for cancelling every good show they've gotten their claws into.

~~~~~~~~
Nothing is ever so profoundly regretted as a kind act.
Robertson Davies

KINGOFKOINS

Friday, March 5, 2004 8:02 PM

Quote:
What would you rather have, a left wing propaganda machine?

Personally, I'd prefer no gorramn propaganda in the first place.

--------------------------------
It's sickening how comforting the privacy of the mind can be.
"Bible's broken; contradictions, false logistics. Doesn't make sense." - River
http://stripe.filetap.com

SAMURAIX47

Friday, March 5, 2004 8:16 PM

My dear, you are sadly mistaken if you believe there is such thing as a "left-wing" propaganda machine. TV networks are owned by the rich are the rich are inherently conservative.

[rant]
Most democratic politicians that I know of are pretty well to do... the Kennedys, John Kerry, Al Gore... There are a lot of rich out there with nothing better to do than be politically left so that people don't see how really greedy and power hungry they are. The rich feel like they are doing such a good deed trying to help the down trodden and the lower and middle class, yet that have no concept of life other than where they are at.[/end rant]

Jaymes

HJERMSTED

Friday, March 5, 2004 8:57 PM

Quote:
Well the Right needs a propaganda machine when the Left has every other major network spewing their propaganda.

This is such a myth.

Still trying to figure out where all these "left wing" media outlets are. Been hearing about them for years but have yet to see them on TV.

All I see on American TV is corporate media. Even PBS is becoming corporatized. Corporate = conservative... because it's all about earning money and not offending your sponsors with "controversidal" content.

If the U.S. REALLY had a left wing media, Janet Jackson's breast would NOT have been an "issue" several weeks ago. Americans would have been accustomed to nudity on TV already (like the Europeans are).

I am an unapologetic left winger who would love to see his views expressed on American TV. I have to watch Canadian and British news to get any progressive news at all.

It's a big wide world out there and we Americans live in a corporate media bubble, y'all.

mattro

DUCESTECUM

Friday, March 5, 2004 9:05 PM

Dear Mr. Davies:

Could you please explain to me how to put those cute emoticons in my responses?

Thank you.

and oh yeah (flips bird at fox)

SHOULDA COULDA WOULDA

RKLENSETH

Friday, March 5, 2004 9:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HATEHATEHATEFOX:
Quote:
What would you rather have, a left wing propaganda machine?

[political debate]
My dear, you are sadly mistaken if you believe there is such thing as a "left-wing" propaganda machine. TV networks are owned by the rich are the rich are inherently conservative. You should read a book called: What Liberal Media?
[/political debate]

However, I regret my politicization of what should be a celebration of FOX getting its just deserts for cancelling every good show they've gotten their claws into.

~~~~~~~~
Nothing is ever so profoundly regretted as a kind act.
Robertson Davies

There are left wing propaganda machines just as much as right wing.

And just because you are rich doesn't mean you are Conservative. Most of the left wing ideals came from well to do people and not some poor bastard on the street. And just because someone wrote in a book that there isn't any left wing propaganda machine doesn't make it true. Someone can write a book saying there is and come up with facts just as strong as those found in "What Liberal Media?" And wouldn't "What Liberal Media?" be considered left wing propaganda within itself?

I don't like FOX TV's decision to cancel Firefly but they did. But also must remember it was FOX TV that canceled Firefly not FOX News or any of the other organizations within 20th Century FOX.

Oh, and play Cantr II at www.cantr.net.

BIGBALDHEAD

Friday, March 5, 2004 9:27 PM

Quote:

Nothing is ever so profoundly regretted as a kind act.
Robertson Davies

wow a firefly and RD fan!!! Very Nice to meet you!

bbh

RKLENSETH

Friday, March 5, 2004 9:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hjermsted:
Quote:
Well the Right needs a propaganda machine when the Left has every other major network spewing their propaganda.

This is such a myth.

Still trying to figure out where all these "left wing" media outlets are. Been hearing about them for years but have yet to see them on TV.

All I see on American TV is corporate media. Even PBS is becoming corporatized. Corporate = conservative... because it's all about earning money and not offending your sponsors with "controversidal" content.

If the U.S. REALLY had a left wing media, Janet Jackson's breast would NOT have been an "issue" several weeks ago. Americans would have been accustomed to nudity on TV already (like the Europeans are).

I am an unapologetic left winger who would love to see his views expressed on American TV. I have to watch Canadian and British news to get any progressive news at all.

It's a big wide world out there and we Americans live in a corporate media bubble, y'all.

mattro

First of all what Liberalism are you talking about? Socialistic Liberalism or Jeffersonian Liberalism?

How sure are you that you are really getting progressive news from British or Canadian news agency? The BBC is owned and run by the British government. That would make it sort of like a monopoly. At least in America the media oligopoly so you aren't getting the everything just from one entity. Not much better though.

Now you use an example of Janet Jackson's breast being seen at the Superbowl as some sort of right wing agenda. The facts are that the Superbowl is the most watched program on American TV and many, many people thought that what was done was in bad taste. That is their opinion and that opinion was expressed. I don't think this issue has anything to do with left wing or right wing philosophies. I'm sure there are just as many left wing type people who thought it was bad taste as well considering they are tuning in to watch a football game and not to see Janet Jackson's breast. In the end to me it wasn't a big deal and I personally think it was blown out of proportion but there were many people who thought it was a big deal and I reserved the right not to pay attention to the media coverage.

Oh, and play Cantr II at www.cantr.net.

DORAN

Friday, March 5, 2004 9:35 PM

Fox News has nothing to do with the other Fox networks. Fox News has its fans with both the poor and the rich.. as does Firefly.

PHOENIXSHIP

Friday, March 5, 2004 9:36 PM

Yeah, that's so gorram satisfying. I hope they are still conscious when the last drop of blood drains out of their bodies.

Ahem, sorry.

Just watch... Fox will respond to this by adding more crap. You expect rationality from these juvenile creeps? Might as well expect mercy from a Reaver. It just ain't in their nature.

Brace yourself for Forever Eden 4 (they're skipping 2 and 3 to save money), The Littlest Groom All Stars vs. Crazy Animal Races, and The Surreal Life with the maid from The Jeffersons, Girl in Crowd from Episode 26 of "Saved by the Bell", the kid from "Johnny Socko and His Flying Robot, and Two Girls Walking By The Studio That Day.

Yech. I feel dirty.

"Why're you arguin' what's already been decided?"
Mal to Jayne, "Jaynestown"

HATEHATEHATEFOX

Friday, March 5, 2004 10:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rklenseth:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hjermsted:
Quote:
Well the Right needs a propaganda machine when the Left has every other major network spewing their propaganda.

This is such a myth.

Still trying to figure out where all these "left wing" media outlets are. Been hearing about them for years but have yet to see them on TV.

All I see on American TV is corporate media. Even PBS is becoming corporatized. Corporate = conservative... because it's all about earning money and not offending your sponsors with "controversidal" content.

If the U.S. REALLY had a left wing media, Janet Jackson's breast would NOT have been an "issue" several weeks ago. Americans would have been accustomed to nudity on TV already (like the Europeans are).

I am an unapologetic left winger who would love to see his views expressed on American TV. I have to watch Canadian and British news to get any progressive news at all.

It's a big wide world out there and we Americans live in a corporate media bubble, y'all.

mattro

First of all what Liberalism are you talking about? Socialistic Liberalism or Jeffersonian Liberalism?

I'm sorry but how American! As if you "owned" the entire concept of liberality and are simply "loaning" it out to other countries.
Quote:

How sure are you that you are really getting progressive news from British or Canadian news agency? The BBC is owned and run by the British government. That would make it sort of like a monopoly. At least in America the media oligopoly so you aren't getting the everything just from one entity. Not much better though.

The concern is that you are NOT getting multiple points of view through your supposed oligopoly. Only a few ppl/corps own the majority of media outlets (papers,radio channels,tv stns) so where oh where is this multiplicity? The verticalization of information allows a very few to manage and manipulate the opinions of the many.

May I point out the nonsensical Monica Lewinski "scandal"? Non-news becomes news if repeated loudly and often enough eventually non-affiliated media outlets will pick it up.

Quote:

Now you use an example of Janet Jackson's breast being seen at the Superbowl as some sort of right wing agenda. The facts are that the Superbowl is the most watched program on American TV and many, many people thought that what was done was in bad taste. That is their opinion and that opinion was expressed. I don't think this issue has anything to do with left wing or right wing philosophies. I'm sure there are just as many left wing type people who thought it was bad taste as well considering they are tuning in to watch a football game and not to see Janet Jackson's breast. In the end to me it wasn't a big deal and I personally think it was blown out of proportion but there were many people who thought it was a big deal and I reserved the right not to pay attention to the media coverage.

I think the poster was trying to point out that NO ONE CARES anywhere but in the US. Also, it was a convenient bait and switch to allow your never-actually-elected president a moment's respite from the Democratic campaigning. Which, btw, is ACTUAL news.

In Al Franken's hilarious book, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, he quotes an independent news analysis company (Pew Charitable Trust Project for Excellence in Journalism) that analyzed the tone of coverage during the 2000 Presidential Campaign between Gore and Bush.

The so-called liberal media was MUCH more positive towards Bush (rep) than Gore (dem).

Bush = 24% Positive, 27% Neutral, 49% Negative
Gore = 13% Positive, 31% Neutral, 56% Negative

So, I guess left wingers are pretty stupid to be publishing all those negative stories about Gore. Dammit, THEY cost him the election!

Whatever, I hope your all your sakes that Mr. Kerry will take over come November and you guys can get back to where you were 4 years ago. No deficit, not so many ppl hating you, more of your ppl wor

FLAMETREE

Friday, March 5, 2004 11:14 PM

I have seen fox network news here in Sydney. It is hi-larious for about 5 minutes and then you just have to flick. And no it is not just me I have yet to meet anyone who can actually watch it. If USA wants to improve its image they should stop broadcasting that rubbish.

When I first saw it I thought it was a comedy channel.

However the quality of the rest of the newsa avaliable is very poor as well, yes I do mean the ABC, BBC, CCN hardily left wing except when compared to fox new.

By the way forget comparing the alliance to the nazi's, here they are compared to the USA.

CHRISTHECYNIC

Friday, March 5, 2004 11:31 PM

First off:
Yay.

Second:
I hope for the sake of the republican part that Bush isn’t reelected. If it isn’t his stupidity or lack of understanding of the American political system it’s the fact that Cheney is taking bribes and was financially helping Iraq back when it was supposed to be illegal.

The White House is in a thin bubble and if given time to pop it could devastate the Republican Party.

RKLENSETH

Saturday, March 6, 2004 12:00 AM

Quote:
I'm sorry but how American! As if you "owned" the entire concept of liberality and are simply "loaning" it out to other countries.

Where ever did I say anything for you to think that? There are different forms of Liberalism out there and I am wondering from what area you are coming from because there are obvious differences between them.

First of all, you can't own an idea and since you can't own an idea then you can't loan or sell it to someone else.

It seems now that you are judging my character by a few simple words that you took out of context. Just because someone has a different idea than you or doesn't agree with you then don't insult them as I think you were trying to do. And it seems you think you know so much about America and Americans to say such a comment. You have your right to your opinion and I have my right to mine. Don't squash my opinion by demonizing me.

Quote:
The concern is that you are NOT getting multiple points of view through your supposed oligopoly. Only a few ppl/corps own the majority of media outlets (papers,radio channels,tv stns) so where oh where is this multiplicity? The verticalization of information allows a very few to manage and manipulate the opinions of the many.

May I point out the nonsensical Monica Lewinski "scandal"? Non-news becomes news if repeated loudly and often enough eventually non-affiliated media outlets will pick it up.

Oh, and you are getting multiple viewpoints from monopolistic government media?

If you don't like what you are seeing, instead of bitching about it then go build a media corporation of your own that would compete with the others. There are ways to get your viewpoint out there. A great example is exactly what the both of us are doing now.

Quote:
I think the poster was trying to point out that NO ONE CARES anywhere but in the US. Also, it was a convenient bait and switch to allow your never-actually-elected president a moment's respite from the Democratic campaigning. Which, btw, is ACTUAL news.

Oh, I'm sure that if something similiar was to happen at an event of their own that they would care about it and that their media would make a big deal out of. Considering that the Superbowl is more of an American tradition, it isn't going to effect other people as to what happens.

Quote:
In Al Franken's hilarious book, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, he quotes an independent news analysis company (Pew Charitable Trust Project for Excellence in Journalism) that analyzed the tone of coverage during the 2000 Presidential Campaign between Gore and Bush.

The so-called liberal media was MUCH more positive towards Bush (rep) than Gore (dem).

Bush = 24% Positive, 27% Neutral, 49% Negative
Gore = 13% Positive, 31% Neutral, 56% Negative

So, I guess left wingers are pretty stupid to be publishing all those negative stories about Gore. Dammit, THEY cost him the election!

It depends on what you are defining as Liberal Media or what they are defining it as. And once again, just because some organization puts out some statstics doesn't mean that they are true. Another organization could put out statstics of the same issue and have a completely different result.

Quote:
Whatever, I hope your all your sakes that Mr. Kerry will take over come November and you guys can get back to where you were 4 years ago. No deficit, not so many ppl hating you, more of your ppl working, fewer ppl dying violently, fewer ppl homeless and/or without medical aid. Well done, Shrub.

If Kerry is elected, he won't take over until January.

If people hate me because I am American well then that is too bad for them. Without debt then there is no value to things; the deficit might actually work but you can't get money unless you spend it and the government isn't a bank to accumulate money. Whatever money goes into the government should either be used or go back to the people. Oh and by nationalizing health care the government will only be putting out a whole lot of medical businesses o

RKLENSETH

Saturday, March 6, 2004 12:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
First off:
Yay.

Second:
I hope for the sake of the republican part that Bush isn’t reelected. If it isn’t his stupidity or lack of understanding of the American political system it’s the fact that Cheney is taking bribes and was financially helping Iraq back when it was supposed to be illegal.

The White House is in a thin bubble and if given time to pop it could devastate the Republican Party.

Not a Republican so I frankly don't care. If the Republican Party falls then hopefully that will be a sign that the two party system will end.

Oh, and play Cantr II at www.cantr.net.

CALHOUN

Saturday, March 6, 2004 12:24 AM

Fox Sucks!

Though it saddens me to think that they are prolly making a pretty penny off DVD sales....

GHOLA

Saturday, March 6, 2004 1:12 AM

Okay can someone please show me examples of Fox's so called right wing propaganda as that was apparently how this whole tangent got started

AURAPTOR

Saturday, March 6, 2004 1:19 AM

I'd suggest you would take some time to realize that Fox News ( Fair and Balanced ) is a seperate critter from Fox T.V.

The folk at the news channel are doing a kick tushy job, out drawing cable news viewers and leaving CNN, MSNBC in the dust. I have no probs w/ how FOX NEWS is run.

To the pin heads at Fox T.V. programming...... Here's wishing you run into some damn hungry Reavers. Haa haa haa!

Holy flirking schnitt!

DRAKON

Saturday, March 6, 2004 1:51 PM

First off, Fox News, and Fox Entertainment are two different divisions. While I think it is arguable that Fox News is conservative, I think it is only in comparison to say, CNN, MSNBC, and the network news division.

But the news division really doesn't have anything to do with the entertainment network. If the entertainment side goes down, I don't think that will affect the news division much at all.

I note that those who are saying that the other networks are left wing, only make the statement, and dismiss the charge. Usually in a very insulting manner. It is not an effective argument technique. It just comes across as infantile, and convinces the audience that the speaker is, well, protesting too much.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

DRAKON

Saturday, March 6, 2004 2:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HATEHATEHATEFOX:
Quote:
What would you rather have, a left wing propaganda machine?

[political debate]
My dear, you are sadly mistaken if you believe there is such thing as a "left-wing" propaganda machine. TV networks are owned by the rich are the rich are inherently conservative. You should read a book called: What Liberal Media?
[/political debate]

Ummm... There are plenty of rich liberals, and there is a thought that some rich folks become liberal out of guilt for simply being rich. You have heard the term "limosine liberal" after all.

Besides which, lets face it, the political left is essentially the same old feudal structure of peasants and aristocrats with a different line of BS to sell to the masses. Anytime you try to organize a bunch of folks to do a particular thing, someone has to take the job of co-ordinator, leader, captain, spokesman or commisar. Its the same game, just in a different language.

So who is best "suited" to be the new leftist leaders? The celebrities, the folks you (think you) know. Usually wealth comes from that, or is a derivative of the fact you are wealthy. Having folks complain constantly that you should feel guilt because you are rich, just aids the limosine liberal kind of mindset.

So, while they may be capitalists on their claw to the top, there is no reason to expect them to stay loyal to that system. In fact, once they have made it, it is all the more reason to destroy that system to avoid competitors. Which means working for different, even if unworkable, models of economics.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

DRAKON

Saturday, March 6, 2004 2:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rklenseth:

Not a Republican so I frankly don't care. If the Republican Party falls then hopefully that will be a sign that the two party system will end.

This is the scariest, most illiberal thing I have read to date on this thread. I suppose all those who disagree with you will just have to shut up and take it then, huh?

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

DRAKON

Saturday, March 6, 2004 2:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghola:
Okay can someone please show me examples of Fox's so called right wing propaganda as that was apparently how this whole tangent got started

Fox is "right wing" only in comparison to most (all?) of the other news networks. I have seen from time to time Fox putting liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans in side by side debates. What has usually happened is the Democrat has, well, argued in an ineffective, even counterproductive manner. Started name calling, bulldozing the other speaker (talking over them at a loud volume so as to drown them out,) etc. They make themselves look bad in a side by side comparison.

The Republican usually comes across as polite, and logical. And that in comparison to the debating tactics ultilized by the Democrats, is highly effective. And if the Republican looks good, you MUST be their shill. Even if it means better ratings than CNN, Fox News is still wrong somehow for allowing both sides to argue an issue side by side.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

RKLENSETH

Saturday, March 6, 2004 4:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:
Quote:
Originally posted by rklenseth:

Not a Republican so I frankly don't care. If the Republican Party falls then hopefully that will be a sign that the two party system will end.

This is the scariest, most illiberal thing I have read to date on this thread. I suppose all those who disagree with you will just have to shut up and take it then, huh?

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

No they don't have to shut up but I believe in the pholisophy of George Washington.

Oh, and play Cantr II at www.cantr.net.

SEVENPERCENT

Saturday, March 6, 2004 4:45 PM

What a nice political thread we have going here- And here all I wanted to do was get on and do a little Fox bashing- Nice numbers that you posted, it's no surprise that Fox is going downhill, eventually people get tired of that mindless drivel-
One day, after the reality boom dries up, the network execs are going to take a look around and say, "you mean we need other programs now?" and be Shit Outta Luck- I think it's already starting to happen, and those numbers are the first step-

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

GHOLA

Saturday, March 6, 2004 5:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghola:
Okay can someone please show me examples of Fox's so called right wing propaganda as that was apparently how this whole tangent got started

Fox is "right wing" only in comparison to most (all?) of the other news networks. I have seen from time to time Fox putting liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans in side by side debates. What has usually happened is the Democrat has, well, argued in an ineffective, even counterproductive manner. Started name calling, bulldozing the other speaker (talking over them at a loud volume so as to drown them out,) etc. They make themselves look bad in a side by side comparison.

The Republican usually comes across as polite, and logical. And that in comparison to the debating tactics ultilized by the Democrats, is highly effective. And if the Republican looks good, you MUST be their shill. Even if it means better ratings than CNN, Fox News is still wrong somehow for allowing both sides to argue an issue side by side.

Um okay so what you're saying is that Fox News is wrong for having both arguments being put side by side. Can you please tell me what's so bad about them showing both sides. Wouldn't it be the responsibility of the person in the debate to present their argument in a calm and polite manner?

FAHQ

Saturday, March 6, 2004 5:53 PM

Even the beer chugging, knuckle dragging, belching, farting masses are tuning Fox out?

Imagine that......

Nothing that requires any form of intelligence to understand survives being aired on Fox. Including the broken wind.

"My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle."

SOUTHERNMERC

Saturday, March 6, 2004 7:10 PM

Quote:
Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Drakon:

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ghola:
Okay can someone please show me examples of Fox's so called right wing propaganda as that was apparently how this whole tangent got started
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fox is "right wing" only in comparison to most (all?) of the other news networks. I have seen from time to time Fox putting liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans in side by side debates. What has usually happened is the Democrat has, well, argued in an ineffective, even counterproductive manner. Started name calling, bulldozing the other speaker (talking over them at a loud volume so as to drown them out,) etc. They make themselves look bad in a side by side comparison.

The Republican usually comes across as polite, and logical. And that in comparison to the debating tactics ultilized by the Democrats, is highly effective. And if the Republican looks good, you MUST be their shill. Even if it means better ratings than CNN, Fox News is still wrong somehow for allowing both sides to argue an issue side by side.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Um okay so what you're saying is that Fox News is wrong for having both arguments being put side by side. Can you please tell me what's so bad about them showing both sides. Wouldn't it be the responsibility of the person in the debate to present their argument in a calm and polite manner?

He wasn't saying FoxNews was wrong, just that the debates tend to be slanted towards the Right based on the actions of the participants. Actually, he was saying that ppl consider FoxNews "right" because they show both sides, and the Democrats chosen for debate are prone to histrionics while the Republicans remain calm and polite. This leads to a reduction in credibility of the Democrat while depicting the Republican as more intelligent and reasoned.

Not that this is TRUE, necessarily, just that it paints that picture for viewers. Haven't watched any debates on that channel, so can't really comment. But the impression I have from others who have watched them is that FoxNews is on the "Right" side of politics. Personally, I try to get information from a variety of sources before deciding, but that can be difficult, at times. Best bet is to use your head and think for yourself (which is antithetical to how many politicans want you to think, ie. "their way").

Submitted for your perusal. Edited for spelling (cause I'm nitpicky).

Jayne: "How big a room?"

DYAIRVATREE

Saturday, March 6, 2004 8:07 PM

Fox News Channel or as I call it the scandal channel because it only covers Laci Peterson and Mr. Jackson and never anything close to real news unlike other real news channels, oh wait thats all "news channels" never mind.

Fox network the one that had Firely has nothing to do with that. What I think is going on with Fox network is this. You see at one time Fox was where original and unique shows were put on this is what made the network special. But over time they got more and more into trash T.V. Now the people that really have the power think folk will only like trash. But the new controlers of Fox have yet to get rid of the old programers of Fox. In other words this is why to this day programs of quality still get signed.

So I believe there is a civil war at Fox the new rulers believe in trash,yet the old school still signes shows of quality. In the madness that is your average corperation. The new school tries to sabotage the quality shows as fast as they can lack of advertising moving them around so they can't get ratings they have more control then the old school Fox executives. And just as fast as the new school Fox scum destroy the good shows and get them off the air. The old school Fox folks sign more.

Just a theory but it would explain why Fox keeps on to this day signing new shows of quality only to later sabotage them.

ECMORGAN69

Saturday, March 6, 2004 9:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by captaincdc:
FOX is set to close the key ratings period with major declines in all the major categories: down 21% in households, down 23% in total viewers, down 26% in adults 25-54 and down 29% in adults 18-49. Those dips also mark the largest by any network in each respective category.
That was from www.thefutoncritic.com

Their strategy of getting rid of almost every quality show that actually required the use of a writer really seems to be paying off. They lost a quarter of their viewers in every category during Feb. sweeps. Could not happen to nicer folks I guess. I do hope Wonderfalls is a big hit for them, but I'm afraid they will wind up cancelling it for The Littlest Groom 2.

So, what, is The Littlest Groom 2 not going to be on now?

It definitely couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of ignorant, moronic clowns

They can have my "Firefly" DVDs when they pry them from my cold, dead fingers....

Oh yeah,

you, FOX TV!!

ECMORGAN69

Saturday, March 6, 2004 9:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Tallgrrl:
Been listening to Pill-Popper Rush and his cronies, have ya?
Obviously you know absolutely nothing about the media in this country if you think the networks are "spewing" Left propaganda. And the way you spelled politics, with an "o", prooves my point...
Fox has been shilling for the current administration and it's now starting to bite them in the ass. To which I say Yipppeeee!!!!

To all of you who are throwing the political angle into the argument, let's try to keep our eyes on the shiny ball here. The real point of hating Fox is their low-brow programming aimed at the lowest-common-denominator of viewers, their utter hatred of any quality programming, and the willful stupidity they continue to show at every turn. Whether or not they espouse a certain political philosophy or other is completely beside the point. A good friend of mine, and recent Browncoat convert, is the most liberal of bleeding-heart, dyed-in-the-wool, Clintonite-apologist Democrats out there. He makes the damned Socialists running things over on the other side of the pond seem like Pat Buchanan. Obviously, based on my previous statements, which contain more than a slightly Conservative bias, you might conclude that myself and my friend from work agree on absolutely nothing. As a matter of fact we agree on quite a few things. We both agree that "Firely" totally kicks ass. We both agree that Fox is run by ignorant dung-flinging monkeys. We also both agree that we will never see eye-to-eye on politics, but that's ok, and it's utterly irrelevant.

I could go on even more, but I think I made my point. Let's leave the political blustering and posturing for a different board. We need all the fellow Browncoats we can get...

They can have my "Firefly" DVDs when they pry them from my cold, dead fingers....

Oh yeah,

you, FOX TV!!

SOUTHERNMERC

Saturday, March 6, 2004 10:00 PM

Oop sorry. Let's get this hate back where it belongs.

FOX!!

Jayne: "How big a room?"

ECMORGAN69

Saturday, March 6, 2004 10:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HATEHATEHATEFOX:
...Whatever, I hope your all your sakes that Mr. Kerry will take over come November and you guys can get back to where you were 4 years ago. No deficit, not so many ppl hating you, more of your ppl working, fewer ppl dying violently, fewer ppl homeless and/or without medical aid. Well done, Shrub.

~~~~~~~~
Nothing is ever so profoundly regretted as a kind act.
Robertson Davies

Ok, now I have one political thing I have to say. You sir, based on your statements in your previous posts, must be from outside the USA. People from other countries, and liberals from the USA, seem to be under the misguided notion that we have to go along with the "recommendations" and "suggestions" of other countries. I, sir, think not. I admit I voted for Bush in 2000, and I also admit I will most likely vote for him again this year. One of the biggest reasons for me voting for him over some Liberal Democrat is he, largely, doesn't feel the need to get a "by-your-leave" from the UN, EU, NATO, or any other organization. IMHO, we in the USA have the right to go with our national interests over the wishes and desires of other nations. What that means, in essence, is that nobody gives a good gorram what some hoodlum warrior chief in Africa who happens to be on the UN Human Rights Commission thinks about how the USA conducts her affairs.

IMHO, I think we in the USA should become totally isolationist, since all we do is piss off every other country every time we do anything overseas. Of course, that would also involve eliminating foreign aid, pulling the thousands of troops we have stationed overseas back to our own borders, and telling the rest of the world to gen hou zi bi diu shi

From now on, we could use all the money we save from not sending it out to ungrateful, corrupt international organizations and collapsing military juntas to feed the hungry and shelter the homeless right here in the USA. That would make foreigners and liberals happy. We wouldn't be "interfering" in the affairs of other nations, and we would be fulfilling that do-gooder wish list that all Liberals have handy in their PDAs, in case anyone asks.

Ok, that's enough of my speechifying for now. Oh, and

off Fox TV.

They can have my "Firefly" DVDs when they pry them from my cold, dead fingers....

Oh yeah,

you, FOX TV!!

DYAIRVATREE

Saturday, March 6, 2004 10:20 PM

Yes I agree only by working together can we create the kind of hate that is so, so very needed. You see I sometimes wonder if evil will ever be punished,yes I know it's wrong to doubt.But now Fox is being punished for it's crimes against viewers and all I can say is Fck Fox!

LODRIL

Saturday, March 6, 2004 10:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HATEHATEHATEFOX:

[political debate]
My dear, you are sadly mistaken if you believe there is such thing as a "left-wing" propaganda machine. TV networks are owned by the rich are the rich are inherently conservative. You should read a book called: What Liberal Media?
[/political debate]

You should recheck the figures. The rich are not inherently conservative. If you look to campaign contributions from the last election, you will note that it was Gore and the Democratic party who received the most from individuals in the top tax brackets. Not just a little more, but far and above what Bush received. The facts are pretty clear... the rich, these days at least, are mostly Democrats.

As to Fox news; it's definitely a conservative spin. I actually prefer CNN, because they have a liberal spin and its easier for me to fish the truth out of something I disagree with than it is with a more appetizing story. I could cite numerous examples of blatant slant, but I won't.

It's not really germane anyway, so I should just let it lie. I get frustrated when people spew the 'conservatives are rich' propaganda without looking at the real numbers, and apologize to everyone for the aside. This is all pretty irrelevant since Fox network and Fox's cable news network aren't anymore associated than Fox and the media establishment of Australia and Europe that is mostly run by NewsCorp too.

All of which is to say, YAY! Dropping ratings means a strategy switch. Fox has always been the master of the overly-hasty programmnig strategy switch, so we should see fewer reality shows soon. The bad news, of course, is that even if they stumble onto something good, chances are it won't last long either.

DYAIRVATREE

Saturday, March 6, 2004 10:47 PM

If only our nation stopped funding other nations be they Israel or South Korea what a wonderfull world we could live in. No one would be mad at us for messing with others affairs. Just send all our troops home to defend our own borders sounds good to me. Not likely with the bonesmen vs. bonesmen election though. Either way expect more war.

For those not in the know both Kerry and Bush are both members of skull and bones a secret society based out of Yale. They meet in a tomb on Yale campus and graduate 15 members a year and slightly over 300 are still alive. And two are running against each other for President. Can you get any more anti-democratic?

The mainstream media the "newz" channels would tell everyone but there is to much important Laci Peterson news oh well.

Oh yeah,as I was saying Fck Fox!

ECMORGAN69

Saturday, March 6, 2004 10:54 PM

I like your tagline. "Transformers - The Movie" was totally underrated

They can have my "Firefly" DVDs when they pry them from my cold, dead fingers....

Oh yeah, you, FOX TV!!

ECMORGAN69

Saturday, March 6, 2004 11:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dyairvatree:
If only our nation stopped funding other nations be they Israel or South Korea what a wonderfull world we could live in. No one would be mad at us for messing with others affairs. Just send all our troops home to defend our own borders sounds good to me. Not likely with the bonesmen vs. bonesmen election though. Either way expect more war.

For those not in the know both Kerry and Bush are both members of skull and bones a secret society based out of Yale. They meet in a tomb on Yale campus and graduate 15 members a year and slightly over 300 are still alive. And two are running against each other for President. Can you get any more anti-democratic?

The mainstream media the "newz" channels would tell everyone but there is to much important Laci Peterson news oh well.

Oh yeah,as I was saying Fck Fox!

Right on. Let's leave all the ungrateful foreigners to their own devices, and they can stop bothering us with their holier-than-thou, we-know-better-than-you-foolish-Americans nonsense.

While I'm talking about the gibbering fools overseas, I wouldn't want to exclude our own electorate. The whole notion of "Democrats" versus "Republicans", or "Liberals" versus "Conservatives" is meaningless. It only matters to those of us in the trenches, not to the the clowns in power. It's all smoke and mirrors, and it keeps the foolish sheep down here on the ground from focusing their beer-and-reality-TV-soaked eyes on the important issues in play.

So, in conclusion, let's just worry about pushing "Firefly" to the ignorant among us

They can have my "Firefly" DVDs when they pry them from my cold, dead fingers....

Oh yeah,

you, FOX TV!!

CHRISTHECYNIC

Saturday, March 6, 2004 11:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dyairvatree:
For those not in the know both Kerry and Bush are both members of skull and bones a secret society based out of Yale. They meet in a tomb on Yale campus and graduate 15 members a year and slightly over 300 are still alive. And two are running against each other for President. Can you get any more anti-democratic?

Sorry but what is secret about it? It had to let women in because of public equal rights lawsuits and it's fairly prestigious. You can find out about it on the Discovery Channel and there have been far too many movies based on it.

DYAIRVATREE

Saturday, March 6, 2004 11:40 PM

Yes it's known but try to get Bush or Kerry to talk about it they won't. Movies based about it do you mean The Skulls? And yes they did let women in. How does that mean what goes on is open to the public? Isn't that important in a public official? I think it is and I don't want a President who is a member of a secret society.

Kerry on Meet the Press was asked about it and he refused to talk about it. Bush has been asked about it he refuses to talk about it. Fine you want to think this is just a college club fine. I think it's a wee bit more powerfull than that. A club that graduates only 15 members a year and two of them are running for President. And if Kerry wins it will mean out of the four last Presidents 3 will have been bonesmen.

And yes you and I may have the Discovery channel and watch it too. But the truth is most Americans are clueless about skull and bones. And the mainstream media for the most part does not cover this.

My point is I think this is way more than a club this is an orginization that brings real power. Yes it's on the Discovery channel but most folks don't have that and I be a little less creeped out by the whole thing if I saw or heard it often in mainstream media but I don't

DECKROID

Sunday, March 7, 2004 2:27 AM

Tangent!

My uncle was in Skull and Bones... I have his pin; a skull & crossbones with a number on it. If this 'secret society' is running the country, why the hell is he still working @ Boeing?

End Tangent!

Ok... go se FOX (spit!) used to be a cool network. All the cool shows were on it. What the hell happened?

Other shows being cancelled in the light of Reality Blowback...

Who Wants to Marry a Horse: 18 lovely ladies are competing for the chance at the alter, or should we say Halter?

executioners: From the makers of 'cops', comes the exciting world of the doctor who injects inmates, only we have added a twist! We have swapped the sodium pentothal normally used for lethal injections with a harmless saline solution. Watch as hilarity ensues...

Roads Scholar: What will happen when we take someone with an IQ of 182, put them together with Paris Hilton (IQ 60), and handcuff them together for a laugh-a-minute trip across the US in a Yugo?

HEY! FOX (spit!)

I call her "Vera"

CHRISTHECYNIC

Sunday, March 7, 2004 2:54 AM

All that I'm saying is that it isn't secret. The fact that the whole damn world knows about it means it isn't secret.

Now if I were trying to rule the world I wouldn't have half the people let in be ones who will never have any influence, I wouldn't run it on campus, and I wouldn't do interviews with every moron with a camera that came by.

I would keep it very secret or make is so public you couldn’t miss it every single day. Then I would have the tabloids, which I would own as a result of my money, run stories about us. After that I would make sure that no other source said anything.

If the National Inquirer runs the story but the Discovery Channel doesn’t it’s a secret, it’s a secret because anyone trying to seriously bring it into the light will be laughed back into the dark. If you can find records of who is in it, turn on your TV any given week and see a story on it, it isn’t secret.

I don’t know, Maybe it is heinous, I doubt it but it could be. I do know that it is definitively not secret.

Damn my former secret is out, now everyone knows to check the tabloids to see my plans for world domination. Damn.

BUTTERFLY043

Sunday, March 7, 2004 3:26 AM

WOW What a thread, and can I just respond to this:

>>>IMHO, I think we in the USA should become totally isolationist, since all we do is piss off every other country every time we do anything overseas. Of course, that would also involve eliminating foreign aid, pulling the thousands of troops we have stationed overseas back to our own borders,<<<

You say that like it's a bad thing? You don't acknowledge all the other troops that aren't american that are out there dying needlessly also. More of the British soldiers who died were killed by so called friendly fire than by the enemy!! How grateful should they be.

Anyhoo, to FOX for their stupidity! And I hope they never pick up a decent show again.

Lastly, This thread is quite, QUITE, disturbing. I thought I was on the wrong board for a minute! Keep it shiny eh?

I'd rather be a could-be if I cannot be an are, for a could-be is a maybe who is reaching for a star

ECMORGAN69

Sunday, March 7, 2004 5:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Butterfly043:
You say that like it's a bad thing? You don't acknowledge all the other troops that aren't american that are out there dying needlessly also. More of the British soldiers who died were killed by so called friendly fire than by the enemy!! How grateful should they be.

...

Keep it shiny eh?

You're bang on right. A whole bunch of soldiers from UK, other Commonwealth nations, Pakistan, etc. have served and died in a number of overseas battles that they probably had no stake in, just like American soldiers. The only difference is that these other nations aren't vilified in the UN for either "interfering" in the affairs of others, or "not getting involved soon enough".

So, in order to avoid all this international hatred and bile, we should just pull all our overseas assets back to our borders, and tow the UN building into the Atlantic

While we're at it, we can also dump all the diplomatic vehicles with hundreds of ignored and unpaid summonses into the Atlantic, right next to the UN Building.

Oh, and I definitely agree that this political argument has no place in this thread, or on this board. But I do so hate being left out

They can have my "Firefly" DVDs when they pry them from my cold, dead fingers....

Oh yeah,

you, FOX TV!!

LTNOWIS

Sunday, March 7, 2004 9:19 PM

Quote:
What that means, in essence, is that nobody gives a good gorram what some hoodlum warrior chief in Africa who happens to be on the UN Human Rights Commission thinks about how the USA conducts her affairs.

And of course nobody on Earth cares when that African warlord violates those human rights.

And the whole "screw the UN" approach is why people from the rest of the world hate us. And then other people can't understand why there's so much America-bashing throughout Europe. UN approval was a good idea because it would've reduced this anger. It's perfectly ok to have think that European nations should mind their own gorram business, but you then have to accept their ill will.

LTNOWIS

Sunday, March 7, 2004 9:28 PM

Quote:
I do hope Wonderfalls is a big hit for them, but I'm afraid they will wind up cancelling it for The Littlest Groom 2.

A while ago, I saw the preview for Forever Eden, and they called it "groundbraking." Then I thought "Yeah, just when you think they've hit rock bottom, they sink to a lower level."

I'm glad Fox is failing, as it killed all my shows, but I have doubts. Sure, they're making a lot less money, but reality TV shows cost like 1/4 as much money to make. So they might be having more profits despite their lower ratings.

LTNOWIS

Sunday, March 7, 2004 9:36 PM

Quote:

Not a Republican so I frankly don't care. If the Republican Party falls then hopefully that will be a sign that the two party system will end.

I also don't like the 2-party system. Right now, each party has various aspects that disgust me. I side with the democrats because I hate Bush, but I hate their softness on drugs and immigration, and their reluctance to let people have guns.

PS: sorry for the triple-post, I go through and respond to each post I'm gonna respond to. Frankly, I prefer this to an ultra-long post, as is popular in political boards

ECMORGAN69

Monday, March 8, 2004 3:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by LtNOWIS:
Quote:

Not a Republican so I frankly don't care. If the Republican Party falls then hopefully that will be a sign that the two party system will end.

I also don't like the 2-party system. Right now, each party has various aspects that disgust me. I side with the democrats because I hate Bush, but I hate their softness on drugs and immigration, and their reluctance to let people have guns.

PS: sorry for the triple-post, I go through and respond to each post I'm gonna respond to. Frankly, I prefer this to an ultra-long post, as is popular in political boards

Frankly, I miss Ross Perot.

He kept it interesting.

They can have my "Firefly" DVDs when they pry them from my cold, dead fingers....

Oh yeah,

you, FOX TV!!

ECMORGAN69

Monday, March 8, 2004 3:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by LtNOWIS:
And of course nobody on Earth cares when that African warlord violates those human rights.

And the whole "screw the UN" approach is why people from the rest of the world hate us. And then other people can't understand why there's so much America-bashing throughout Europe. UN approval was a good idea because it would've reduced this anger. It's perfectly ok to have think that European nations should mind their own gorram business, but you then have to accept their ill will.

I would believe in multilateralism more if it didn't seem like the rest of the world thought the USA was worse than whatever problem we were attempting to help solve. As a good SF fan of long standing, I agree that our petty differences here on planet Earth will have to be put aside in order for the lot of us to advance. However, why is it that the USA has to be the one to advance, while the rest of the world gets to retain their petty jealousies and squabbles (ie, Palestine, Central Europe, Africa, etc., ad nauseum...) and then make snotty comments about our behavior at the same time?? With the attitude of the whole lot of holier-than-thou, snooty, self-important non-Americans, it's no wonder that so many Americans believe in the "Screw the UN" approach. In all honesty, I don't give a good gorram what Jackie Chirac, Schroeder, his cat, or Putin think about what the USA "should" do, about anything at all.

Oh, while I'm ranting,

"The Simple Life" and every other reality show on Fox TV.

I just didn't want to leave that out

They can have my "Firefly" DVDs when they pry them from my cold, dead fingers....

Oh yeah,

you, FOX TV!!

DTT

Monday, March 8, 2004 1:28 PM

This thread makes me happy.

"You didn't have to wound that man."
"Yeah, I know. It was just funny."

ECMORGAN69

Monday, March 8, 2004 3:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dtt:
This thread makes me happy.

"You didn't have to wound that man."
"Yeah, I know. It was just funny."

I must admit to a certain satisfaction in lobbing the occasional Apple of Discord like a grenade.

Oh, I finally found where your sig came from. I thought it was from "Safe", but I don't have a photographic memory for scripts

They can have my "Firefly" DVDs when they pry them from my cold, dead fingers....

Oh yeah,

you, FOX TV!!

BROWNCOAT1

Monday, March 8, 2004 3:30 PM

*Sighs*

Shame to see a thread about the fall of Fox degenerate into a political debate, then a debate on isolationism.

Take it elsewhere people. Politics only leads to arguements which have no place in this thread.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

STEVE580

Monday, March 8, 2004 5:32 PM

Right...left...what's the differance, anymore? They're both equally wrong.

100% Libertarian
-Steve

DYAIRVATREE

Tuesday, March 9, 2004 4:23 PM

DYAIRVATREE

Tuesday, March 9, 2004 5:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by LtNOWIS:
Quote:

Not a Republican so I frankly don't care. If the Republican Party falls then hopefully that will be a sign that the two party system will end.

I also don't like the 2-party system. Right now, each party has various aspects that disgust me. I side with the democrats because I hate Bush, but I hate their softness on drugs and immigration, and their reluctance to let people have guns.

PS: sorry for the triple-post, I go through and respond to each post I'm gonna respond to. Frankly, I prefer this to an ultra-long post, as is popular in political boards

Well LtNowis I don't like the the two party system either I think their both parties are corupt and foul.But but to suggest the Republicans are tough on immigration is a joke Bush always without exception wants amnesty for illegals so do most of his fellow Republicans. We have Republican Senate and Congeress and yet nothing is ever done about the illegals who disrespect our nations laws except to give them amnesty.

And I must say to suggest Democrats are soft on drugs they love locking up non-violent drug offenders I wish they were soft on drugs. The war on drugs is an utter failure. Prohabition only creates crime and lawlessness. We should return to the country our founding father created where there was no drug prohabition.

We didn't have any drug laws until the turn of the century. And why did we get these laws was it because drug users were creating crime and havoc no it was because some do gooders thought it was ungodly. Yes we used to have addictive drugs like opium and cocaine,but they never lead users to commit any crimes why? Because these drugs aren't worth anything that is unti you make the illeagal. Then the price goes up a thousand fold and addicts need to commit crime to maintain thier habit. You also end up with stronger and more addictive drugs like heroin why?

First off heroin because it's stronger you can make more money off a pound of that than a pound of opuim. And it's so much more addictive you can ensure more repeat bussiness. The same happened during alcohol prohabition the criminals that ran the alcohol trade prefered hard alcohol to soft for all the same reasons. The only real change that took place before and after alcohol prohabition is now there is a higher consumption of hard alcohol then before prohabition. And just like illegal drugs has spawned insane drugs like heroin and crack, alcohol prohibition spawned the drinking of wood alcohol and moonshine. We need to stop this madness and end the drug war. It hasn't worked in the 90 some years it's existed and it won't work in ninety more.

Liked your point about Republicans and guns though the gun issue is one of the few issues Republicans are still mostly good about.

DYAIRVATREE

Tuesday, March 9, 2004 5:27 PM

Quote:
... All I'm saying is that it isn't secret.The whole damn world knows about it means it isn't secret.

The whole damn world dooesn't know we are about to have an all skull and bones election Christheynic. If even 5 percent of the American people know about it I'd be supprised. I watch mainstream news media news every day except for the examples I mentioned above I never see it mentioned ever for any reason.

Fine if you want to think it's just college club and it's just a coincidence that a club that graduates 15 members a year is running two for the highest office in the land fine.

Perhaps skull and bones conpiracies don't exist that would require people working in secret and not telling everyone what they are really are up too. And if Discovery Channel does a hard hitting investagation and discovers everything is cool maybe it is. And if every bonesmen isn't wildly successful perhaps that proves it. Me I just have a different way of looking at it.

HATEHATEHATEFOX

Tuesday, March 9, 2004 5:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ecmorgan69:
Quote:
Originally posted by HATEHATEHATEFOX:
...Whatever, I hope your all your sakes that Mr. Kerry will take over come November and you guys can get back to where you were 4 years ago. No deficit, not so many ppl hating you, more of your ppl working, fewer ppl dying violently, fewer ppl homeless and/or without medical aid. Well done, Shrub.

Quote:

Ok, now I have one political thing I have to say. You sir, based on your statements in your previous posts, must be from outside the USA.

First of all, sir or madame, I happen to be a MADAME!
Quote:

People from other countries, and liberals from the USA, seem to be under the misguided notion that we have to go along with the "recommendations" and "suggestions" of other countries. I, sir, think not. I admit I voted for Bush in 2000, and I also admit I will most likely vote for him again this year. One of the biggest reasons for me voting for him over some Liberal Democrat is he, largely, doesn't feel the need to get a "by-your-leave" from the UN, EU, NATO, or any other organization. IMHO, we in the USA have the right to go with our national interests over the wishes and desires of other nations. What that means, in essence, is that nobody gives a good gorram what some hoodlum warrior chief in Africa who happens to be on the UN Human Rights Commission thinks about how the USA conducts her affairs.

I happen to be a Canadian, your nearest neighbour and largest trading partner. And what you are saying saddens me a great deal. This kind of thinking is exactly why ppl the world over are angry at and despise you (I am reluctant to say hate).

Your country does NOT have the right to act unilaterally when your actions have global consequences. Might does not make right.
Quote:

IMHO, I think we in the USA should become totally isolationist, since all we do is piss off every other country every time we do anything overseas.

I could be wrong but maybe that because your country acts unilaterally without consulting neighbouring nations and/or the UN!
Quote:

Of course, that would also involve eliminating foreign aid, pulling the thousands of troops we have stationed overseas back to our own borders, and telling the rest of the world to gen hou zi bi diu shi

Your industry leaders (in tight with the Bush family) would never permit it. There's too much money to be made. First from all the armaments for tearing down a nation and then from the gov't contracts to build it back up and then, of course, there's all that yummy OIL! I say again, they would NEVER allow it.
Quote:

From now on, we could use all the money we save from not sending it out to ungrateful, corrupt international organizations and collapsing military juntas to feed the hungry and shelter the homeless right here in the USA. That would make foreigners and liberals happy. We wouldn't be "interfering" in the affairs of other nations, and we would be fulfilling that do-gooder wish list that all Liberals have handy in their PDAs, in case anyone asks.

I can't believe that Liberals are the only ones who dream of feeding the hungry and sheltering the homeless! I am sure that right-wingers must have at least a drop of human feeling for those who suffer.

Plus, your gov't has shown many times that they are quite adept at supporting military juntas and corrupt, tyrannical regimes when it suits their own short-term myopic goals. Why, wasn't Hussein himself graced with weapons etc by the last Republican president? And wasn't it the Iranian guys who got the weapons from the one before him?
Quote:

Ok, that's enough of my speechifying for now. Oh, and off Fox TV.

I quite agree. This thread has nothing but heartache in it for anyone regardless of your political position.

Didn't Voltaire say and Benjamin Franklin quote:
I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

ECMORGAN69

Tuesday, March 9, 2004 7:53 PM

The three things we definitely can agree on:

1) The, uh, "HATEHATEFOX" thing,
2) Our universal agreement that we may disagree, and
3) Our universal right to opine to the rooftops for all to hear.

Oh, and uh, apologies for the "sir" thing. I had a 50% chance of being right, and I figured that it'd be best to be polite anyway

I just want to mention that I loved "Canadian Bacon"

They can have my "Firefly" DVDs when they pry them from my cold, dead fingers....

Oh yeah, you, FOX TV!!

HATEHATEHATEFOX

Tuesday, March 9, 2004 9:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ecmorgan69:
The three things we definitely can agree on:

1) The, uh, "HATEHATEFOX" thing,
2) Our universal agreement that we may disagree, and
3) Our universal right to opine to the rooftops for all to hear.

Oh, and uh, apologies for the "sir" thing. I had a 50% chance of being right, and I figured that it'd be best to be polite anyway

I just want to mention that I loved "Canadian Bacon"

ROTFLMAO! Canadian Bacon? You are too funny. Anyway ... see you at the theatre (or you may say theater) ... see we CAN all get along!

~~~~~~~~
Nothing is ever so profoundly regretted as a kind act.
Robertson Davies

RKLENSETH

Tuesday, March 9, 2004 9:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HATEHATEHATEFOX:
Quote:
Originally posted by ecmorgan69:
Quote:
Originally posted by HATEHATEHATEFOX:
...Whatever, I hope your all your sakes that Mr. Kerry will take over come November and you guys can get back to where you were 4 years ago. No deficit, not so many ppl hating you, more of your ppl working, fewer ppl dying violently, fewer ppl homeless and/or without medical aid. Well done, Shrub.

Quote:

Ok, now I have one political thing I have to say. You sir, based on your statements in your previous posts, must be from outside the USA.

First of all, sir or madame, I happen to be a MADAME!
Quote:

People from other countries, and liberals from the USA, seem to be under the misguided notion that we have to go along with the "recommendations" and "suggestions" of other countries. I, sir, think not. I admit I voted for Bush in 2000, and I also admit I will most likely vote for him again this year. One of the biggest reasons for me voting for him over some Liberal Democrat is he, largely, doesn't feel the need to get a "by-your-leave" from the UN, EU, NATO, or any other organization. IMHO, we in the USA have the right to go with our national interests over the wishes and desires of other nations. What that means, in essence, is that nobody gives a good gorram what some hoodlum warrior chief in Africa who happens to be on the UN Human Rights Commission thinks about how the USA conducts her affairs.

I happen to be a Canadian, your nearest neighbour and largest trading partner. And what you are saying saddens me a great deal. This kind of thinking is exactly why ppl the world over are angry at and despise you (I am reluctant to say hate).

Your country does NOT have the right to act unilaterally when your actions have global consequences. Might does not make right.
Quote:

IMHO, I think we in the USA should become totally isolationist, since all we do is piss off every other country every time we do anything overseas.

I could be wrong but maybe that because your country acts unilaterally without consulting neighbouring nations and/or the UN!
Quote:

Of course, that would also involve eliminating foreign aid, pulling the thousands of troops we have stationed overseas back to our own borders, and telling the rest of the world to gen hou zi bi diu shi

Your industry leaders (in tight with the Bush family) would never permit it. There's too much money to be made. First from all the armaments for tearing down a nation and then from the gov't contracts to build it back up and then, of course, there's all that yummy OIL! I say again, they would NEVER allow it.
Quote:

From now on, we could use all the money we save from not sending it out to ungrateful, corrupt international organizations and collapsing military juntas to feed the hungry and shelter the homeless right here in the USA. That would make foreigners and liberals happy. We wouldn't be "interfering" in the affairs of other nations, and we would be fulfilling that do-gooder wish list that all Liberals have handy in their PDAs, in case anyone asks.

I can't believe that Liberals are the only ones who dream of feeding the hungry and sheltering the homeless! I am sure that right-wingers must have at least a drop of human feeling for those who suffer.

Plus, your gov't has shown many times that they are quite adept at supporting military juntas and corrupt, tyrannical regimes when it suits their own short-term myopic goals. Why, wasn't Hussein himself graced with weapons etc by the last Republican president? And wasn't it the Iranian guys who got the weapons from the one before him?
Quote:

Ok, that's enough of my speechifying for now. Oh, and off Fox TV.

I quite agree. This thread has nothing but heartache in it for anyone regardless of your political position.

Didn't Voltaire say and Benjamin Franklin quote:
I may not agree with what you

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

ECMORGAN69

Tuesday, March 9, 2004 10:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HATEHATEHATEFOX:
ROTFLMAO! Canadian Bacon? You are too funny. Anyway ... see you at the theatre (or you may say theater) ... see we CAN all get along!

~~~~~~~~
Nothing is ever so profoundly regretted as a kind act.
Robertson Davies

Whenever I envision the "Ugly American" abroad, I often think of John Candy in the boat returning to the USA from Canada. The pollution-filed view of Northern NY and the clean, sweet view of Canada. Let's not forget the ultimate irony that John Candy and most of the rest of the cast was, of course, Canadian

Anyway, let's make "Serenity" a box office smash!

Oh, and keep buying FRFLY stocks!

They can have my "Firefly" DVDs when they pry them from my cold, dead fingers....

Oh yeah,

you, FOX TV!!

HATEHATEHATEFOX

Tuesday, March 9, 2004 10:12 PM

Quote:
Could you please, close the html next time? It is kind of hard to read what is being quoted and what you are saying. Thanks!

I'm sorry about that, I did try but when I went back to edit the post, my pc froze and had to be rebooted and then by the time I got back in it seemed pointless.
Sorry.

~~~~~~~~
Nothing is ever so profoundly regretted as a kind act.
Robertson Davies

DRAKON

Wednesday, March 10, 2004 1:56 PM

This has mutated in a very strange direction.

First off, two party systems. This is one of the envitablities of life on planet earth. Any third party that comes along is either going to have their agendas co-opted by one of the major parties, (or usually just the parts that they can agree with) when that third party becomes popular and starts winning elections.

Political parties, like a lot of man made mental constructs are organic critters. They adapt, or die, just like everything else. If they ever want to become a major influence in politics, instead of just color, they have to appeal to a large base, a pluarity of the electorate.

And it seems to be human nature to settle with only two choices. You may have liked Mary Carey's positions in the gubernatorial recall drive here in California last year. And may have wanted to vote for her. But she had no chance against the majority of voters.

Voters tend to think about whom they like, first, and then who has a chance of winning. And that usually falls down to two major parties and a bunch of smaller third parties whose policies and positions get adopted by the major parties once that position becomes so popular as to threaten it.

Also there is the problem of third parties "souring" the process. Think of Perot in 92, and Nadar in 2000. Sometimes a 3rd party candidate does make a big showing and ends up electing the guy that his supporters wanted least. Some of us learned that lesson the hard way in 92, and some others learned it in 2000.

So short of changing human nature, the two party is here to stay. Now, whether the same two parties stay is secondary. (Remember the Whigs?)I know a lot of folks are predicting and hoping for a Republican trouncing come November, but that really does not look to be in the cards.

Right now, the Republicans have a pretty good lock on the House, and more Democrats are challenged in this race than Republicans for the Senate. Which means that the Republicans have a better chance at maintaining or building on their slim majority in the Senate than the Democrats do of taking it back. The economy is doing pretty good (could be better, but still) and looks to be much better come November. There is also the fact that April 15th is not far off, and the voters know whose on the side of those tax cuts, and who wants them repealed. So that works against the Democrats out of the box.

Not to mention the war, which will be the other major issue for the campaign.

As for Skull and Bones, I am not at all sure what the deal is. They still have to run for office, and that means appeal to the voters. Unless they are sacrificing virgins, I don't think its going to be a big deal. There are other more weightier issues to deal with than what either candidate did in college over 30 years ago.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

DYAIRVATREE

Wednesday, March 10, 2004 4:19 PM

In my opinion the only reason Perot lost in 92 was his intentional self sabotage. He was way ahead of Clinton and Bush largely for his anti-NAFTA stance. He was more appealing to the right then the left on most issues, but what pushed him well beyond Clinton and Bush was his stand on Nafta wich both the hardcore right and left could agree on. And the media hated him the right loves to say the media is left but all true left folks I know say otherwise. The point being the media with all their hate drove both sides to him.

And then Perot dropped out something or another to due with his daughters wedding photos? Then he dropped back in but after that he was a joke. I don't know why he ran but it wasn't to win.

Yes if the Reform party had been run by a real canidate not Ross Perot I believe you could have had grounds for a third party. This is because what the Reform party offered would have drawn in the people who only vote democrat or republican because they feel the alternatives are worse.

Most of the definitions of left and right are artificial any way. Most true right-wingers hate Nafta so do left-wingers a whole new way of looking at things could have been formed by these two groups getting together.

My point is if Perot had wanted to win and did. A whole new paradigm could have formed. Now this was a long time ago and I hardly remember what this party was supposed to be about but I do believe they were pro-gun ownership, well gosh so am I and I'm by current standards supposed to be left. I can't recall anything said about environmental issues but with a huge bunch of left folk in there party I doubt they want to piss us off and I bet a bunch of former right would love to be pro-environment. Just as I a former left folk would like to be pro-second amendment.

Why because the current standards don't fit a lot of people. A new party what ever it is could create new standards.I mean who the hell decided gun ownership was right-wing who decided giving a damn about our forests and air and water is left-wing. I mean why not have pro-gun folk be left and environmentalism be a rabid right wing cause?

I like alot of people think these standards are competely arbitrary. For example my doctor he's a born-again Christian yet he gets an environmental magazine by Bible folk which I read in his office every time I go. It's all about doing what the book of Genesis talked about being a care-taker of the Earth and what not. Shows all the bad things being done to our planet. Don't know how he votes but I bet he votes Republican because more of his issues are Republican than not. He has to swallow those enviromental callings for a greater cause.

But perhaps not if there was a third party of power and maybe even a fourth party that was electable.

Now lets just say there was a third party out there. A real third party that could get votes both Democrats and Republicans would have to revitaize themselves just so they didn't become the Whigs. This would help democracy and restore peoples faith.

Look I read one of your posts up top in reaction to someone who said they wanted the two party system destroyed. And your reaction seemed to indicate you thought this was the worst idea you had ever seen. What I don't get is you seem to need duality. Everthing needs to be right-wing or a communist plot one or the other(I kid). The truth is most people hate the right-wing and left-wing paradigm it no longer fits most of us. The question becomes what do you think is so worth while about it because I don't know?

I want a radical pro-environmental,pro-second amendment,pro-school choice, anti-drug war, pro-death penality for murder,pro-prison-eradication for non-violent offenders home incarceration,type party.

Now of course I'm a realist but in what way does voting republican or democrat suit my needs my only hope and the hope, of a hell of a lot of folk is the begining of melding between the current duality in too many new forms.

Here's the new solgan America's diverse why aren't our parties.

And from now on America

DYAIRVATREE

Wednesday, March 10, 2004 8:16 PM

Quote:
...And it seems to be human nature to settle with only two choices.

I have to disagree with that one we have two choices for a reason the game is rigged. Remember when Pat Buchanan ran for president the first time he got 5% of the vote enough to allow him in the Presidential debates in the 2000 elections. Well those elections came around he had a spot in the Presidential debates as determined by law but then.

Here's what happened get this the Bi-Partisan Commission said no. It used to be 5% but now you we've changed the law retroactively so it's now 15%. And yes it's called the Bi-Partisan commission Bi,meaning two. Notice how it's not called the Tri-Partisan Commision which would mean three it's the Bi-Partisan Commission. If thats not rigged I don't know what is.

Pat Buchanan earned the right to speak at the Presidental debates by law. But when the real powers find the law not to their taste it can be changed at random.

Skull and Bones don't worry it will never be a issue. It will not be brought up at any time during the elections. It's not a secret it just all news media know it's not important enough to bring to any ones attention ever.

DYAIRVATREE

Thursday, March 11, 2004 2:50 AM

If anyone is interested in finding out more about Skull and Bones I have an interview with Alexandra Robbins Best Selling author of, Secrets Of The Tomb, Skull and Bones, The Ivy League, And The Hidden Paths To Power.

This is from the radio show Democracy Now and by the way if you have dial up connection you should have no problem listening.

http://stream.realimpact.net/rihurl.ram?file=webactive/demnow/dn200401
22.ra&start=9:54

KOBAYASHI

Thursday, March 11, 2004 3:42 AM

Okay, I haven't read this entire thread, only about the first ten posts... but you wacko liberals make my head spin.

Conspiracy, corrupt 'Big Business', only the right-wing conservatives care about money, no liberal slant to the media, Skull and Bones... geez, do you leftists have a SINGLE original thought about anything? All I hear is the same crap you get from NPR. You are obviously not paying attention if you BELIEVE any of it.

As a conservative I'm not running around saying that 'Rush is right', or Bill O'Reiley is speaking the truth... why is it that you believe everything YOU hear from your liberal media? I can listen to Rush or Glenn Beck and make up MY OWN freekin' mind. Why can't YOU?

Now stop with all the BS. Please.

GETUPKID

Thursday, March 11, 2004 4:14 AM

the people at fox are being a bunch of gou tsao de huh choo-shang tza-jiao duh tzang-huos.

CUDA

Thursday, March 11, 2004 4:15 AM

For god sake, let this thread die...

RKLENSETH

Thursday, March 11, 2004 4:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Cuda:
For god sake, let this thread die...

Right, I agree. Oh, wait. What am I doing?!?!?!?!?

Oh, and play Cantr II at www.cantr.net.

DYAIRVATREE

Saturday, March 13, 2004 12:18 AM

Hi, Kobayashi nice Star Trek reference by the way. I have many original thoughts and I pay a lot of attention. So you think that my discussion on why Pat Buchanan was robbed of his right to speak in the presidential debates given by law at the 2000 elections is leftist huh? And pointing out both Kerry and Bush are Skull and Bones is working for the left huh? How does that work exactly?. I listen to both the "liberal media" and the A.M. radio crowd next time read the last ten posts please.

And you want me to let this thread die Rklnseth well how about this I like irony at least as much as you.

THECRAZYIVAN

Saturday, March 13, 2004 12:47 AM

What idiots! (Stupidest reality TV ever...lilist groom...god...)

~~~~~~~~~~
Take me out to the black.....