66 total posts
(Page 1 of 3)
She really made me laugh...
...one night on Hardball when she started complaining that she can't get any airtime on the "liberal media." After pointing out that she was getting airtime at that very moment, Chris Matthews proceeded to rattle off a list of TV appearances she had made just that day. It was hilarious watching her react to that.
I must have her
that is a deflection protection measure. some here are obsessed with my saying I am not obsessed with here. oh well obsession is obsession. anyway,
ac is another crybaby from the right who calls 'foul' which fuels her vapid vapors. classic persecution complex. she is always being insulted and personally attacked. boo hoo, boo hoo, says the crocodile. she thinks the heat in her kitchen is a culinary delight.
my conspiracy theory is that with all her cash; she has an entourage of pie throwers, shouters, screamers, etc. on her payroll. it is a thin skinned drum to summon her tribe. it works. bringing in the trash with the cash. I must have her more now.
I really don't find her at all attractive
And (at least consciously) it has nothing to do with her personality or politics. I just don't see what the big whoop is about her looks.
You may have her. If it's OK with her, it's OK with me.
I am kidding about 'having' her
she is a mirror breaker. her hair is too phony blonde, too long and her skirts are too short for a middle aged woman. professional opinion: she needs a stylist.
You have it bad. Ar you stalking her yet?
(NT) I am stalking everybody
(NT) must adjust deflector, bad vibes entering
That was long ago ...
... when it was true. And Hardball has only gotten fewer viewers than its former lackluster viewership since.
it is too bad
I like him. matthews, c wallace, dobbs let their guest give their pov. they remain fairly neutral, except dobbs on immigration and outsourcing. I do not learn anything when the pundit strokes himself for the entire show.
I wonder how the 'matthews show'(more like mClaughlin than hardball) does on his sunday nbc slot. as you pointed out msnbc is hardly viewed.
Chris Matthews hasn't let a guest complete a sentence in at least five yeras. He is totally egotistical. It's all about him on that show.
Dobbs is simply pathetic. Wallace is okay.
(NT) who do you like?
History Channel, South Park, PBS...
most of those talking heads type shows are not worth spit, IMHO.
those are good stations
as you know cartoons are in 'my' spittoon. but different strokes and all. I watch cspan also, you see the events as they are happening in congress. then I watch any news network and think "why didn't they watch cspan". sound bites are too biased. I like their morning 'call in' show. I like watching the mod try to remain like a mannequin. it's two sided 'watch' radio.
I like that show too, in small doses...
They have a couple of really lunatic liberals who call in and I always crack up listening to them rant.
now don't forget
the crazy conservatives. unfair and unbalanced is my motto. once a caller got the f word past the screener, the mod didn't even blink. everybody says they are biased unless they agree with the caller. I also like that some are on a first name basis with the mods, that is strange.
The call in hasn't been the same ...
... since they instituted the different lines and give equal time to both sides. It artificially inflates the value of the minority opinion on issues and gives the distorted impression that there are far more people that share that opinion than is true.
let me see the numbers
I could say the same thing about this forum. criticism based on your opinion? do you think you should be the voice of moderation? I still do not know who you think represents your views? the only question that might be easier is: is today considered thursday in the usa?
Your habit of taking my statements and ...
... veering into gibberishland is getting rather annoying.
Anyone that watched CSpan in the early days knows that the callers were heavily skewed to the right. That's WHY in the interest of "fairness" they instituted the calling line policy. That's not a matter of opinion, it's a fact. Brian Lamb said as much in defending the policy when it was instituted.
you might find it annoying
but if you think my opinions are gibberish; that is your opinion. every 'call in' show does not express the majority or the minority. it only expresses the opinions of those who have time to call in. your reply does not explain your statement.
''give equal time to both sides. It artificially inflates the value of the minority opinion on issues and gives the distorted impression that there are far more people that share that opinion than is true.''
Posted by: Evie (see profile) - 06/29/2006 6:14 AM
In reply to: now don't forget by WOODS-HICK
Report offensive post
since turnaround is fair play to you to avoid answers. you criticize but you are afraid to give examples. I still do not know who you consider the perfect pundit, host, whoever. you might need a bigger mitt for hardball.
You continue to make no sense
If a call-in show routinely has 75% of callers favoring "X" and 25% opposing "X", and the show arbitrarily changes it's policy so that it will give equal time to the opinions of the 25% and the 75%, that does indeed artificially inflate the minority opinion and give the distorted perception that more share that opinion than do in reality.
So long as everyone has an equal opportunity to use their telephone and phone in, it is more fair to let the distribution of opinions represent the crosssection of callers than to arbitrarily divide it by any other formula.
of course I disagree
the people that get through to a 'call in show' would be the only ones to give an opinion. what record is kept of people who try and fail. a screener could allow only opinions that are favorable to the ideology of the host.
the host does not answer the phone himself in the order the calls are received. all calls are pre-screened. alternating calls is the only fair way, but the screener has to rely on the honesty of the caller.
there is no equality. those who have the time; call. those who don't; don't. it is impossible to tell what any majority/minority opinion is. your version of the world is that there should be one opinion. that only works for god.
If 75% of callers BEFORE the artificial policy was instituted favored ''X'', then after that, the 75% are unfairly disadvantaged. Let's say you have 100 callers and 20 callers are put on the air during the course of a show. If the opinions of the callers are split 75/25 then those 20 calls if answered randomly will result in an average 15 pro/5 con calls on average. All callers have an equal chance of getting to voice their opinion. With two lines, 10 pro and 10 con, you have 75 callers vying for 10 spots but only 25 callers vying for the other 10 spots. This is patently unfair.
I don't favor one opinion, but I also don't favor inflating the importance of minority opinions by giving preferential treatment to airing them. It may well be impossible to tell what majority/minority opinion is for any call-in show, but the callers are likely representative of the listening audience unless there is some manipulation at the screening level. Nobody is being prevented from voicing their opinion when there is one call in line for all. The total airtime for their opinion will be reflected in the popularity of it. This is fair unless you think that minority opinions deserve some special treatment. IF the opinion is REALLY more widely held then more people will simply have to choose to be politically active, vote, call in, campaign, etc.
I won't keep trying. If you haven't grasped this concept by now, you never will.
I grasped your opinion.
and your current reply is not bs as you state.
adding more words does not add gravitas. why not have the host call himself?
you have not answered; does every one who calls get through? you have not answered; do people with opposing opinions have the time or the inclination to call.
otherwise the majority opinions are all that are heard. which would be a distorted view of what is the majority opinion. that could be determined by the demographics of those whose calls were answered. the demographics of their listening audience would also have to be considered.
where are you getting these figures? is there a chart I could review? you reaffirm my observation that you believe a minority opinion has less worth. the prevailing view of a 'call in' show without equal access has no value. most votes on anything are yes, no. or no opinion. if one does not vote that opinion is not counted. results of any vote are detemined by the majority of those who voted, nothing else.
so your dismissive posture indicates a sandy foundation, my house is built on granite.
that is verified by ny geological survey, hudson highlands
(NT) I won't encourage you further. Bye bye.
It amazes me,W-H...
That you cannot understand a concept this simple. Evie's right; you're wrong.
Go sit in the corner and really think about about it. It is obvious.
Not kidding here. This is really simple to grasp. Even Togo gets it.
sorry no corners in this circle
of confusion. I understand the concept, I do not agree with it. I have agonized over this debate and consulted with my local talmudic scholar. I called myself and realized I had the majority opinion. their was not a murmur from the opposition. while waiting for someone that did not know I was waiting, I waited.
I then spent the last 8.59 hours, stripped to my beginnings. I remained motionless, cool and wet on my power spot at the crest of storm king mountain. a thor stick exploded and blinded my bias. the powerful rumble trembled down the canyon walls past worlds end, past breakneck mountain, and echoed these words that caressed and comforted me;
"this debate has no answer".
or we are debating both sides of the same coin. care to flip.
(NT) Whatever. Have a good weekend.
Which may be the purpose...
but all attempts at "equal time" fall into that conundrum.
CSpan is just ...
... a different set of talking heads mugging for the camera.
You've GOT to be kidding me
Matthews, when he's not drooling over some attractive woman, can't get his conspiracy theories out fast enough!
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 3)