People v. (Fox) News Corp.

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Thomas Tlusty, Feb 8, 2015.

  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    I responded to your misrepresentation, you "mistaken" paraphrase. Those words in your paraphrase were not my words, or my meaning, verbatim or otherwise. I pointed that out.

    You can see the differences for yourself, by quoting your post and mine side by side - as you have avoided doing five times now, for reasons increasingly obvious.
    I never used the term "loosely connected". That was you. You claimed I said Al Sharpton was loosely connected to his own cable TV show.
    Of course. Not only that, I deliberately chose the name of the entity I said Sharpton is marginally connected to, for its meaning, and meant it - that, also, is not as you claim, which invalidates your entire response.

    When you insist on responding to your "interpretations", rather than my posting, repeatedly, after being alerted to the discrepancies and problems, a question of motive arises.

    That's ridiculous. Gingrich is one of the major architects of the modern Republican Congress, and is still a central figure in backroom Republican media strategizing. Half the House owes their political stances and fortunes to his Party influence and his Partisan organization. His race baiting is central, fundamental, a continuation of Atwater and the Reagan Era, a foundation of the Fox media approach.

    Not one Democratic Congressman owes their rhetoric, political stances, and seat in Congress to Al Sharpton's influence and power and political strategies. He's not a central or even significant influence on the rhetoric, strategies, or stances, of Democratic politicians nationally, and never has been. His race baiting, if any, is of little significance to the Democratic Party's operations in Congress or national media approach.

    There is no such thing as "both sides", in this stuff - barring, possibly, gun control, no issue in US political discourse is gridlocked and polarized by equivalent cadres of irrational extremists on "both sides". Certainly not race. Gingrich's calculated and cynical race baiting is a core source of campaign organization, political power, and institutional leverage. Sharpton's, much less twisted, is entertaining a small and localized cable TV market niche.

    Fox has enormous power and influence. Gingrich was part of the acquisition and establishment of that, and the continuation of it now, in defiance of Fox's obligations toward its audience and the public good, otherwise known as "the people". There is nobody playing any such role anywhere near Al Sharpton.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    LOL, your words are not your words verbatim or otherwise. The fact is your words are your words and they are silly and nonsensical. You often contradict yourself. You often argue with yourself.
    It’s not my job to prove your point. If you think you have a point to make by doing a side by side comparison, do it. But you cannot, that’s why you haven’t done it.
    Actually, no I didn’t. I quoted your use of the term “marginally connected” and you think “marginally connected" isn’t the same as “loosely connected”. Do you really think there is a material difference? This gets back to the point I previously made, you like our conservative brethren, must write the dictionary, invent fiction and ignore inconvenient facts, in order to make sense of your beliefs.
    If you think there is a material difference between the terms “marginally connected” and “loosely connected”, OH, please do explain.
    Oh hogwash. Gingrich is an has been who survives by living on what little attention he can procure. Gingrich has no real influence and certainly isn’t a “central figure”. It’s been 15 years since Gingrich was in congress. And that has nothing to do with the role Gingrich or Sharpton play in politics today.

    If you think Gingrich plays a central role in “Republican media strategizing” where is your evidence to support that assertion? Where is your evidence “half the House owes their political stances and fortunes” to Gingrich’s party influence?
    Assuming that to be true, and trusting any of your assertions is a big assumption, just what does that have to do with the role Sharpton and Gingrich currently play in politics? Both are men seeking attention and dependent on that that attention for their livelihood. Both have little integrity and will say and do anything to get the attention they depend on.
    Oh, well perhaps you can provide an example of Gingrich’s race baiting – then maybe not, then probably not. One more thing, MSNBC, and Sharpton’s show isn’t a “small and localized cable TV market niche” as you have characterized it. It’s a fucking national cable networked show and Sharpton has had the show since 2011. Gingrich has had a series of shows and like Sharpton often appears in guest slots on other shows.
    Fox News does have enormous power and influence over right wing nuts. But what does that have to do with Gingrich or Sharpton for that matter? Gingrich is contracted with CNN, not Fox News….oops. Gingrich’s show was on CNN and recently canceled.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Relative to racism, the Nigerian Immigrants are the most educated of all ethnic groups. They also do very well in terms of small business ownership. They are very dark skinned blacks, yet they totally defy the stereo type, because they have an old fashion family based mentality, more in line with conservative values. The high content of their character allows them to overcome the color of their skin. The American blacks stress skin color too much, at the expense of the needs of character; gang banger does not have character. Blacks create a self forfeiting prophesy.

    The reason is the Democratic party does not want the blacks to be self reliant like the Nigerian Immigrants. They don't stress character over color, because so many democratic social programs need dependent bodies with race baiting setting up more programs. The Nigerians Immigrants don't need many of the democratic social programs because they are self reliant.

    The Democratic party was the party of slave owners. Lincoln was from the Republican party. The KKK was part of the democratic party. The Republican party has been helping the blacks since before Lincoln. They formed the NAACP. Republican blacks are more educated and less dependent on government assistance. Yet these are not used as the examples of what can be. This would make blacks less dependent and beholden. That in turn would cause the race baiting industry to decline.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Actually, yes, you did.

    You originally paraphrased my post. I objected to the paraphrase, because it did not say or mean what I posted.
    Yep. Especially in context, where I was not referring to Sharpton's niche market cable TV show as your paraphrase claimed.

    And I'll thank you to respond to my actual posts, rather than your "interpretations", regardless of whether you understand the material differences.

    After Romney, Newt Gingrich was the strongest candidate for the Republican Party nomination for the Presidency in 2012. Here's a recap of his long and still continuing career at the center of Republican national politics in the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich
    and this page has a long list of prominent Republicans - including Sheldon Adelson, btw - who endorsed him for President over Romney: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich_presidential_campaign,_2012

    Al Sharpton on his best day never had one tenth the Party and political influence Gingrich has now, even in the twilight of his odious career. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Sharpton

    Presumably you had something in mind, when you introduced the topic and made the comparison in the first place? My favorite examples would be from his speeches in support of his "Contract With America", and his shepherding of "welfare reform" through Congress (an entire political effort founded in racial politics) but doubtless you have your own.

    And has managed to frame the issues and set the terms for almost all media discussion of political issues in the US. For this power, it owes thanks to Newt Gingrich among others - the man who is most often credited with, for example, "making 'liberal' a dirty word".
     
  8. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    LOL, I’ll thank you to be reality based. I’ll ask you again for the umpteenth time, what is the difference between “marginally connected” and “loosely connected”? You cannot answer that, because there is none. That’s why you refuse to answer the question which has been repeatedly put to you and is the basis for your claims of misrepresentation. The reasons why you cannot explain the difference, is because no material difference exists. Your claim of misrepresentation is a ruse to distract attention from the ridiculous nature of your arguments.

    Unfortunately for you, your words were quite clear. You asserted Sharpton was “marginally connected” to the show which bears his name and which he hosts every weekday evening on a national cable network which you have incorrectly characterized as “small and localized”.
    Gingrich was a candidate for the in 2012, but he lost just as Sharpton lost in 2004 when Sharpton ran for his party’s (i.e. Democratic) nomination in 2004. In the last presidential election cycle virtually every potential national Republican POTUS candidate was a front runner for a few days during the campaign. Both Sharpton and Gingrich are politically active, that was never the issue. There similarity in their political activism and political roles they play was and remains the issue. Both have run for political office, and contrary to your assertions both have had TV programs in which they espouse their political ideologies, and both pander to the more extremes within their parties. And both are wannabe has beens within their political parties and the financial fortunes of both are heavily dependent on the media attention they garner.

    "White folks was in caves while we was building empires.... We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it."[ - Al Sharpton

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Sharpton#2008_presidential_race
    Well that is your belief, but like your other beliefs, it is just another unfounded belief for which you cannot support with evidence or reason. Sharpton has played a significant role in left wing politics just as Gingrich has played a significant role in US politics. That isn’t the issue. The issue is they NOW both play similar niche roles. Each caters to a base of individuals within their party. Both are active in the media advocating their personal and political agendas. Both are former presidential candidates.

    Additionally, Gingrich isn't responsible for Fox News. Ronald Reagan sowed the seeds for what became Fox News when he appointed individuals to the FCC who ended The Fairness Doctrine. That had nothing to do with Gingrich - absolutely nothing.

    PS: Gingrich’s Contract with America scheme occurred 21 years ago and isn’t relevant to this discussion. We are talking about the now and the role each now plays.
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2015
  9. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Oh and where is your evidence to support that claim? Let me guess, just as with everything else you post, you have none. Nigeria has been a very violent place to live, yesterday was the first peaceful transition of power in Nigeria in several decades. Power transitions in Nigeria are typically violent.

    The country is ripe with corruption. It is one of the few places in this world in which slavery is sanction in some portions of the country. Yes indeed, Nigeria is the Republican utopian state. That is why you so idolize it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigerian_organized_crime

    http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2014/02/25/students_burned_alive_in_slaughter_at_nigerian_school.html

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Niger
    If you could actually provide some evidence to support your beliefs you would be more convincing. But you can’t, because evidence doesn’t exist to support your machinations. It’s much easier to feed shit to the gullible and that is what you and your Republican fellows have done and continue to do, because the evidence and reason doesn’t support your assertions. You guys just make shit up.
    Are you really that dense or are you just being duplicitous? All parties were at one time proponents of slavery. Slavery was once legalized in all the colonies and all of the states. So by cherry picking you can make that claim. And you ignore the fact, that the Republican Party of Lincoln isn’t the Republican Party of today. Lincoln fought against “states’ rights”. The modern Republican Party is a strong advocate of “states’ rights”. The Republican Party of Lincoln was for the empowerment and enfranchisement of all blacks. The modern Republican Party is against the enfranchisement of blacks as demonstrated by their illegal voter roll purges in Florida and other states and their voter ID and efforts to make voting more difficult for minorities. The Republican Party of Lincoln some 150 years ago isn’t the Republican Party of today. They are similar in name only. And the same can be said of the Democratic Party. Hell, the Republican Party of Reagan isn’t the Republican Party of today. The Republican Party aided with the advent of the Republican entertainment industry has led to dramatic and radical changes within the Republican Party. The Grand Old Party , isn’t very grand these days.
     
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    I predicted you would gradually approach my actual quote - gone from "loosely affiliated" to "loosely connected", a step in the right direction. You did not, however, say "loosely connected", and neither did I, so who are you quoting?

    Sharpton's tight affiliation with his little cable show, plus the occasional engagement as a panel member on a few talk shows, is his marginal connection with American media; and his influence in that role is pretty much the sum of his political leverage within the Democratic Party. Gingrich draws a comparable audience to his fundraising speeches alone, and they are the wealthy and powerful of American society.

    Or as I put it originally:
    Sharpton has no serious power role or strategical influence in the Democratic Party, and has never had one. Gingrich has had both, in the Republican Party, for decades.
    Please. Not "just as": Anyone can run: Sharpton was never a serious contender, and as he said himself ran for publicity reasons - to get his viewpoint into discussion (and for personal aggrandizement, no doubt). He never won a State primary, never even broke double digits in the percentage vote, but did not drop out until the last minute - because winning the nomination was not his motive.

    Gingrich had real backing and solid prospects, with endorsements from dozens of major names and money from the big donors to win. He was a legitimate, major player backed, openly discussed and evaluated candidate for the Republican nomination, in 2012. He won a couple of State primaries, finished high in several more, and dropped out when he was unable to win the nomination. He was the front runner for the brass ring, for a while. http://www.mediaite.com/tv/tucker-carlson-democrats-were-caught-unprepared-for-newt-gingrichs-rise/ That is a Party status and role Al Sharpton has never come near, and it was far from Gingrich's career peak in power and influence.

    And you know that. You know that from reading the Wiki links I provided for your enlightenment, in case you've been living in a monastery for the past twenty years.

    Again with the paraphrase instead of the quote. I said nothing like that. I said nothing whatsoever about Sharpton's connection with his own cable show. And you have repeated that several times now, after being corrected and referred to the original quote.

    The two word problem again. I characterized it as having a small and localized market niche, and that is accurate. http://www.mediaite.com/tv/friday-cable-ratings-msnbcs-al-sharpton-drops-to-59k-in-demo/

    Comparing that kind of marginal national media presence with Newt Gingrich's twenty five year run as Republican Party heavyweight is silly. And it goes along with the fantasy that Fox's role in American media is as one of two sides, both sides with their extremists, both sides with their Partisan agenda, both sides engaged in a debate over the issues and concerns of the American people.

    Fox is on no such side. It really is Fox vs the Country, or People, not Fox vs the Liberals or whatever.
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2015
  11. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    LOL, again, explain the difference between “marginally affiliated” and “loosely affiliated”. You claim those two terms are substantially different. So explain why. You have been trying to evade proving your assertion that those two terms have completely different meanings. I am still waiting for your explanation as to why you think they are different.

    And none of that changes the fact you asserted on multiple occasions Sharpton was “loosely connected” with TV when in fact he hosts a show on a major cable network. Hosting a nightly show as Sharpton has done since 2011 isn’t “marginally connected as you have repeatedly asserted.
    LOL, dude you are contradicting yourself yet again. This is what you actually wrote:
    You have gone from writing Sharpton was “marginally connected to media talk show entertainment” to “Sharpton’s tight affiliation”, boy talk about a turnaround while acting as if there was something consistent in your posts. The only things consistent in your posts are ignorance and duplicity.

    You wrote, “Sharpton's, much less twisted, is entertaining a small and localized cable TV market niche.” (e.g. Post 81). After being called on your error, you now admit Sharpton’s program isn’t localized. It is a nationally broadcast cable television program. That isn’t small or local as you have asserted.
    Yes Gingrich draws a comparable audience, that is one reason why Gingrich and Sharpton occupy similar roles in their respective parties.
    Ah, you don’t seem to understand, we are talking about the roles they fill today, not what they did almost two decades ago. Yeah, Sharpton was never a serious contender for POTUS, but neither was Gingrich.
    No he didn’t. Gingrich never had the backing he needed. He had ONE billionaire friend. That’s it. Gingrich was in the game to sell books, speaking engagements and to enhance his chances of getting TV engagements. That’s how Gingrich earns his money. That’s how Sharpton earns his money.
    Well your Wiki links might be interesting if they were actually relevant and supported your contentions. But they are not and they don’t. And your “paraphrasing” nonsense is just a ruse to distract from the naked silliness of your posts. You have been repeatedly challenged to prove your claims that you have been materially incorrectly paraphrased when in fact you have been quoted verbatim. That is why you have only been able to make allegations and unable to prove anything.
    There are no problems with words if you use them as they have been defined by use and registered in dictionaries. According to your source, Sharpton’s audience averages 416, 000 people every evening. Fox by comparison averages just over 2 million. That isn’t small and it isn’t local. Sharpton’s show is a nationally broadcast program. That isn’t local as you claim Ice.
    Gingrich doesn’t host a TV program. Gingrich’s program was recently cancelled for failing in the ratings game. And if MSNBC is smart, they will soon cancel Sharpton’s program too. That will be something else they both share.

    I don’t know why you think Gingrich is a Republican heavy weight. He has never been elected to a national office. He was elected to the House of Representatives by voters in one congressional district and he was majority leader in the House who was forced to resign in the midst of a personal scandal some 16 years ago.

    Gingrich isn’t a heavy weight any more than Sharpton is, they both have their followers. But heavy weights, no. And as for your comments about Fox, they are outright kooky. I have no idea as to what you are trying to communicate. Fox is a de facto arm of the Republican Party.

    Ironically, it was Reagan’s elimination of The Fairness Doctrine which spawned “Fair and Balanced” Fox News. If The Fairness Doctrine was still the law of the land Fox News couldn’t be the Fox News we have come to know because Fox News would be required to really be “fair and balanced”. Fair and Balanced wouldn’t be just a marketing device for the ignorant and gullible.
     
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    For the fifth or sixth time, compare my post #56, your misrepresentation by paraphrase in post #60.
    He had the backing of Sherman Adelson. That's a guy who backs legitimate Presidential candidates in the Republican Party, and one of the guys whose backing you need to be a legitimate Republican Presidential candidate. He had enough backing to run a full scale Presidential campaign in 2012 that for a while had him in the lead. He won a couple of State primaries, finished strong seconds and thirds in several others. He campaigned nationally.
    Those are among his sidelines, yes (he has other sources of income based on his famous Washington access and influence - read the Wikilink). Those are also among the standard ways modern US authoritarian corporate interests fund the people who represent them in the Republican Party, how they keep their valuable strategists and lobbyists and heavyweight operatives like Newt in beer and cheese puffs and trophy wives. Do you think Newt actually has to sell his books to readers over the counter? He wouldn't make a nickel.

    That number was for Friday evening, not every evening. It is small (and even smaller when only 60k of them are 25 - 54, the rest being children or their grandparents/babysitters), and it's very localized (not "local", please) - nationally broadcast, but watched only in pockets where its niche audience lives. And the comparison was not with Fox, but with one of Ailes's lesser known minions , a guy named Brett Baier.

    Are we going to hear you claim Brett Baier is five times as powerful in the Republican Party as Newt Gingrich? He's a Republican media clown with five times the audience of Al Sharpton, which you say makes Al some kind of equivalent of Gingrich in Party influence, so - - - -

    But actually, I should probably pay more attention to the implications of this kind of post:
    Y'know, it's possible you didn't leave the rest of the second quote off on purpose, dishonestly, to surround your continuing insults with the appearance of plausible support. It's possible you are honestly out to lunch here, and I"m getting irritated by an honestly confused person I should have sympathy for. But really - enough is enough. The post was perfectly and completely clear, simple, and direct - Al Sharpton's two-bit cable show, hanging on by its fingernails and the virtue of a niche audience nobody else reaches, surrounded by rumors of cancellation since its founding, is - is itself - his marginal connection to media talk show entertainment in the US. It's what I am talking about. He's a niche player even in his main field and industry, let alone a Democratic Party whose strategies and operations he has almost no role or presence in.

    And that's the kind of goofy bs you have to believe in order to keep up the "both sides do it" worldview, the "everybody is trying to do the right thing in their own way" interpretation of the Fox and Friends media operations.

    What a Fox-conjoined, Fox enabled, Fox enabling Gingrich has done to the US, and is continuing to do even as his star wanes, is so much larger and more ugly than anything Sharpton could do if he devoted the rest of his life to destroying his country, that drawing equivalency of any kind between them is complicity with Newt - to hide the man's work is to enable its furtherance.
     
  13. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    For the fifth or sixth time, that comparison doesn’t prove your case. You wrote what you clearly wrote. And you have yet to explain why you think there is any difference between “marginally connected” and “loosely connected”.
    For a day or two Gingrich took the lead in Republican polling after other Republicans candidates collapsed for various reasons. As for backing “legitimate” candidates, I don’t know of anyone who backs illegitimate candidates. Just because Adelson backed Gingrich for a time, that doesn’t make Gingrich a viable candidate. This country has more than one Republican billionaire.
    Actually, he only won one state primary, that being South Carolina and by April 2, he officially suspended his campaign. The following month he endorsed Romney.
    LOL, only in the strange world you inhabit can a national broadcast be construed at “local”. Using your definition of local all broadcasts are local because they are consumed at a specific location. The unpleasant fact for you is using words as they are defined in the dictionary, Sharpton’s broadcast is national. It is broadcast to every home in the nation. That isn’t “localized” as you claim. Nor is it small, hundreds of thousands of folks watch his program. And one more point, the numbers you cited were not just the averages for Friday afternoon. The averages were for all Sharpton’s shows in the preceding month. They were reported on Friday afternoon…oops. It makes no sense to report on just one day of the week.
    What does Brett Baier have to do with the price of tea in China, much less this conversation? Nothing, absolutely nothing….this is just another in a long line of distractions or it is just your inability to hold to a strain of thought.
    Well you should pay more attention to the things you write. You frequently contradict yourself as you did in the post I cited, and at times you argue against your previous posts.

    The unpleasant fact for you is Gingrich’s program on CNN was cancelled in January of this year. And MSNBC might cancel Sharpton’s program too for similar reasons. Gingrich’s program scored low ratings, just as Sharpton’s program has scored low ratings.
    Well, for starters, it isn’t goofy or bull shit, nor do I need to believe it. It’s a fact. Sharpton and Gingrich are both has-beens, each actively feeding at the trough of public attention. That’s how they put bread on their tables. Neither stands a snowball’s chance in Hell of ever being elected POTUS. Just as Sharpton is popular with a significant portion of the black populace, Gingrich is equally popular with a certain right wing constituency. And just as Gingrich isn’t plotting Republican strategy, Sharpton isn’t plotting left wing strategy.

    And now you are indeed incorrectly “paraphrasing me. I have said that the extremes in both parties use the same techniques as you have clearly demonstrated here. That is just a fact. But the parties don’t do it in equal measure. From a tactical point of view, there is no difference between you Ice and our right wing brethren, you just have a diametrically opposite point of view.

    Here is the difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. The Republican Party endorses and inculcates the miscreant behaviors of extremism. The Democratic Party doesn’t. So the Democratic Party has been the party of reason for the last few decades and the Republican Party has become more intellectually and morally deficient, but that doesn’t mean the Democratic Party is without its miscreants.
    I’m a little confused as to what you are trying to communicate. Fox News has nothing to do with Sharpton. Neither Sharpton nor Gingrich created Fox News. As I said before, the foundations for Fox News and Republican entertainment were sown by Ronald Reagan back in the 80’s. I think there can be little doubt Fox News and Republican entertainment has been a detriment to the nation and resulted in millions of very misinformed Americans. But Gingrich isn’t Fox News. I think you are confused, but you just don’t know it.

    As I have repeatedly stated, both Gingrich and Sharpton are inconsequential and between your denials, you seemed to have confirmed that with your last paragraph.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2015
  14. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    One needs to look at the demographics that watches FOX, to infer its information value. The audience tends to be more self reliant, such as small business people. Self reliance requires adaptive intelligence and good information. Dependency does not need adaptive intelligence or even good information, since others think for you.

    You cannot be self reliant, with only bad information. If the self reliant prefer FOX, this is because their self reliance benefits by the information. Liberalism is about emotions, which is better stimulated with drama and gossip. This is more like the format of CNN and others.

    One of the liberal tactics is to falsely accuse someone or something hoping to cause a defensive reaction. Harry Reid accused Mitt Romney of not filling taxes based on some unnamed source. This was a lie and scam, but it required a response, with the hope some type of dirt would appear in the truth to dirty the truth.

    The reason liberals need this tactic is because they cannot compete in the arena of ideas and reason. They need to degenerate the discussion to emotional appeal based on unknown or fabricated sources, that don't apologize after they lie or deceive.
     
  15. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    As with all of your posts Wellwisher, they are long on partisan memes and almost completely devoid of fact and honesty. Let’s look at the demographics. In my family the most ardent viewer of Fox News was my 87 year old demented aunt. If the TV was on, it was tuned to Fox News. She would become enraged and disgusted with the “dem damn liberals” all day long and yelling at her TV. My aunt was never a small business owner. She was a house wife whose husbands were either employed by the “govment” or worked for firms who were contracted with the “govment” and when she worked outside the home, she worked as a low paid clerk. She never went to college. Her husbands never went to college. Let’s look at the other Fox News viewers in my family, they share a couple of traits with my aunt, they are all “govment” workers and none of them have an education in business or economics. My demented aunt was a perfect example of your “adaptive intelligence” in action.

    And according to Nielsen surveys, it appears my family is fairly consistent with national norms. The median Fox News viewer is 68 and getting older with each passing year. While Fox News does well with the nation’s eldest citizens, it is rapidly losing younger folks, you know, the younger demographic – all those small business owners. I am the only small business owner in my family, and guess what, I don’t listen to or watch Fox News as it’s a complete waste of my time.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/01/half-of-fox-news-viewers-are-68-and-older/283385/

    Ironically, the vast majority of those “self-reliant” Fox News viewers are getting “govment” subsidies and are heavily reliant on the “govment” (e.g. Medicare, Social Security, and state welfare programs).
    Well that probably explains why the majority of Fox News viewers are not self-reliant and heavily dependent on government programs and subsidies.
    Oh, and Republicans don’t falsely accuse Democrats? What was all that Birther shit about? Here is one of your many problems Wellwisher, you apparently can only see the memes of the Republican Party and are completely unable to evaluate those memes with facts and reason, and you blindly accept those memes as gospel without a single shred of objectivity, evidence or reason.

    What Reid did was to say he had a source which said Romney hadn’t paid taxes implying Romney had years of zero tax liability while making huge sums of money. Since Reid never disclosed his source and since Romney never disclosed his taxes, we will likely never know the truth of Reid’s accusations. If Reid’s unnamed source was false as you allege, Romney could have easily disproven it by disclosing his tax returns as is the custom. But Romney didn’t disclose those returns nor did he give a reason for not disclosing his returns. Romney was extraordinarily secretive with respect to his tax returns. Romney didn’t make the customary tax disclosures we have come to expect from a presidential candidate.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2015
  16. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    "
    What do you call Republican entertainment? Have you not listened to Republican entertainment? It is nothing but misinformation and emotional appeals.

    Below are comments made by Mark Levin, a Republican talk show host and entertainer:

    “Mark Levin went after NRO writer Patrick Brennan for taking cheap shots at Sarah Palin over her NRA speech this weekend.

    “Here’s what you don’t understand pal,” Levin said to Brennan, who referred to Palin as “no longer a serious political contender.”

    “She’s the most sought after endorsement around, period, in Republican circles…and she’s fighting like hell to save the country.”

    Levin went on, “you may not agree with her — you may not agree with how she speaks or what she says but SCREW YOU! You do nothing.”

    Levin then slammed Brennan by saying “you sit there on your ass and you type away at your keyboard and then you go to your little social circles and you’re proud of yourself, probably sending the link all over the place. Who have you helped? Who have you supported? What have you done?”

    Next Levin took aim at Rod Dreher at The American Conservative, calling him a “nasty creep” for basically writing that Palin’s ‘baptism’ remark was blasphemy and suggesting she was comparing torture to a “holy sacrament of the Christian faith.”

    “Everybody knows what she meant,” Levin said, “everybody knows it was a laugh line.” Levin continues, “But Sarah Palin is easy pickins so they pile on. Tough guy, huh?”

    Levin points out that Sarah Palin is out there “breaking her neck trying to get conservatives elected and trying to keep the base strong” and she’s dismissed by people on “our side.”
    “This is how “our side” treats “our side,”” Levin adds. “You’ll never seen the left or Democrats do that to a woman on their side ever!”

    Imagine the kind of conservative bubble in which the thought of Sarah Palin as a “serious political contender” is considered incontestable. Imagine the kind of conservative bubble in which holding a female who once ran for vice president of the United States responsible for something she said in a public speech is considered an act of sexism and disloyalty.

    To be clear, I’m not offended by this freakshow vulgarian in the least. But as an inveterate rubbernecker, I am amazed by the undying power of the Georgetown Cocktail Party meme on the populist right. They plainly believe that the only reason any conservative would question their dogmas is because of immoral reasons (disloyalty, cowardice, snobbery, a desire to suck up to the Enemy, etc.). This is not how you endure as a political movement, and not how you build up a party. Everybody on the outside of the bubble just looks in and marvels at the strange habits and exotic customs on display.

    Note to Conservatism, Inc.: Mark Levin isn’t the future.”

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/mark-levins-full-throated-tribal-yell/

    And then there is Michael Savage, again another major Republican entertainer, who has been banned from the United Kingdom for being a purveyor of hatred.

    Michael Savage: Banned in Britain
    The outspoken San Francisco radio personality is among 22 people who have been barred from entering the nation as 'hate promoters.'

    LONDON — Britain has just two words for controversial California radio talk-show host Michael Savage:
    Keep out.

    The San Francisco-based Savage, known for his fiery right-wing views, is one of 22 people who have been banned from entering Britain since October, when the government here concluded that they were agents of extremism and intolerance.

    Officials Tuesday publicly identified most of the people on the blacklist, in keeping with the national penchant for "naming and shaming" anyone guilty of a crime, a gross injustice or an outbreak of really bad manners.

    Among those for whom Britain has pulled up the welcome mat are radical Islamist preachers, a Jewish extremist, a pair of Russian gangsters and at least five Americans: Savage, who has attacked the Koran as a "book of hate"; two white supremacist leaders; and a father-daughter team that travels up and down the U.S. vilifying gay people, sometimes with placards using an epithet for gays and proclaiming that God hates homosexuals.”
    http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/06/world/fg-britain-list6

    Unfortunately, this kind of misinformed emotional appeal is the norm with Republican entertainment. It is Republican entertainment. When was the last time any host on MSNBC engaged in this kind of crap? I cannot remember a time. But I can hear it every day by tuning into the conservative entertainment networks.

    The bottom line is you are both grossly uninformed and ignorant or are being duplicitous. Unfortunately, well-informed, intelligent individuals, with any degree of moral fiber have become rarities within the American "conservative" movement. Unfortunately, American "conservatives" are no longer conservative. They are conservative in name only and that is indeed unfortunate for the nation. The nation needs an functional and vibrant two party system. Currently we have a Democratic Party and a Republican Party which is automatically against whatever the Democrats want to accomplish regardless of the merits, regardless of the fact they had supported those objectives right up until Democrats adopted them (e.g. Obamacare).
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2015
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Yes, it does. That's why you will never make it.
    Gingrich's power and influence do not depend on his "popularity". His "constituency" includes the wealthy and powerful inner circles of rightwing corporate Republican political efforts. His marginal media career - which you accurately compare with Sharpton's - is not and has never been his primary source of influence or income. Sharpton's entire career is Gingrich's sideline and occasional, however important, tool. He's centrally connected in the Republican Party and in the circles of rightwing authoritarian power and has been for decades - this is the twilight of his career, now two years after his Presidential bid (partly a gift from his grateful patrons for his decades of service, also a continuation of his contributions), but it's not the end of it: and that career has not been the marginal niche market talk show entertainment corner of Sharpton. Gingrich has some real power and influence in the rightwing corporate support and media operations of the Republican Party, still. Sharpton has never had any such power or influence.

    In your both sides schtick, where the media clowning of the Sharptons and the Gingrich's are equivalent and play similar roles, and the mendacity of the Fox/Republican operation is different in degree rather than in kind, you by necessity adopt an authoritarian viewpoint - which is your political stance on this forum in general (see the Ferguson threads, the gun control threads, the various defenses of the economic stagnation Americans now live in more or less permanently, etc).

    In accordance with this blind spot, you underestimate, I believe, some aspects of fascistic political operations; in this case: loyalty to the band of brothers is paramount. Gingrich is a made man. It's a permanent status, barring betrayal by him - and that will never happen. Dismissing him as a marginal media figure is a mistake. He has never been primarily a media figure in the first place (Beck, Hannity, Coulter, the Great and Powerful Limbaugh, Scarborough, Kelly, - Gingrich has never been among them) - that's just an idiosyncratic hobby and ego-trait that has been occasionally useful to the capos, one aspect of his central and still influential role in the larger operation.
    He's part of their claim to "balance", an occasional guest pundit or panelist. He's loosely affiliated with Fox, to use your term correctly.
    This kind of deflection is deliberate deception on your part. It's a species of lying.
    How interesting. Back to the thread: What Roger Ailes and Newt Gingrich and the rest of that operation did in the 90s ( the Contract For America and the impeachment of Clinton and so forth), solidified by W&Cheney's restoration of the Reagan court, created the structure of the current US Fox/Republican Party alliance and thereby the current US political world.
     
  18. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Well if it does, then why have you not done it? You have been repeatedly challenged to do so.
    Except, Gingrich’s power and influence only exists in your mind and even then it is only transient.
    And it is a limited constituency, limited to one billionaire. And you ignore Sharpton’s constituency which constitutes a significant portion of the black population.
    Sharpton’s media career is no less “marginal” than that of Sharpton. As pointed out to you, Sharpton still hosts a one hour TV show. Gingrich does not. Gingrich has no more support within the Republican Party than Sharpton has within the Democratic Party.
    LOL, the word is “shtick” not “schtick” and it isn’t a shtick, it’s a fact. As has been endlessly pointed out to you, Fox isn’t the issue here. Nor is Ferguson, the economy, or gun control the issue here. It’s the role Gingrich and Sharpton play within their respective parties. This is you throwing everything including the kitchen sink in desperation.
    And you have any proof to support your assertion Gingrich is a “made man”? No you don’t. You are just exhibiting all the Democratic characterizations Wellwisher has leveled at Democrats - emotional and irrational.
    Except the only deflection is the one between your ears. Do you really think your post makes any kind of sense? The conversation was not about Ailes, Fox News, or what Gingrich did or didn’t do in the 90’s. It was about the roles Gingrich and Sharpton NOW play within their respective parties. And as endless pointed out to you, the origins of Fox News and Republican entertainment was sown by Ronald Reagan in the 80’s with the dissolution of The Fairness Doctrine. That had absolutely nothing to do with Gingrich. Further your machinations with respect to the Republican Party are absolutely juvenile in their simplicity. The Republican Party is much more complicated than you seem to be able to comprehend.
     
  19. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    And we reach this stage of your schtick.

    Here's how this started, in post 62 responding to post 60 quote in italics:
    In the ensuing waste of bandwidth, I have made specific references for copypasting and the observation that you had already copypasted parts of my quote, multiple times. I have pointed out that you were going to the trouble of re-paraphrasing, over and over, hand typing each time, when the original references were both right there to be copied and pasted. They're in 56 and 60, remember? Since then I've been sitting back and watching the joe show play out - we're far enough down the thread for you to bring in personal attack, figuring that the origins of the whole thing are buried in the scroll - isn't that right?
    It's the thread topic, and my topic, throughout.
    The primary role Gingrich plays is as a made man and consultant among the inner circles of Republican power, including the ownership and management of Fox media. The role Sharpton plays is niche market media figure with a small following in some areas whose votes he can influence. You are attempting to describe these roles as equivalent.
    Tell Sharpton that, when he's looking for billionaire financial backing for his Presidential runs, or he needs a cushy think tank job to tide him over after the bookkeeper drops the axe on his niche market cable show, or he would like a one-on-one on-air extended softball interview with a prime time major TV show host to explain his views on things and market his latest book/consultancy/run for office.
    About 120, 000 black people, most of them elderly Baptists living in the Washington, DC area, is not a significant portion of the black population.

    If you are talking about his influence beyond his media audience, then Gingrich's personal connections through years of leadership and lobbying and so forth among the Republican power elite come into focus. Little things provide clues - like this: http://time.com/3721048/ben-carson-newt-gingrich/
    And we run into this kind of stuff: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/04/fox-news-gop-candidates-116586.html#.VR2i-rqpr8s Where Politico finds a way to dismiss the role of Fox, something Republicans very much want to see ignored.
     
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2015
  20. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Actually, that isn’t how it began. It began with my post #55
    and your response, post # 59
    Yes, what you have done is make unsupported and often irrelevant allegations. And the specific issue in question was your allegation that Sharpton was “marginally connected” to TV, when in fact the guy is more than marginally connected to TV as he hosts and has hosted an hour long TV every weekday for many years now. You have accused me of incorrectly paraphrasing you when I quoted you verbatim and used the term “loosely connected” to describe your allegation.
    And you have been repeatedly challenged to prove your assertion that there is a material difference between the terms “marginally connected” and “loosely connected”. And you have yet to make your case or even attempt why to explain why you feel “loosely connected” somehow is a misrepresentation.
    Yeah, Fox News is the thread topic, but it has absolutely nothing to do with what we were discussing (i.e. the equivalent relevance of Sharpton and Gingrich in American politics.
    Oh hogwash. Repeating falsehoods doesn’t make them true. Both Gingrich and Sharpton have political connections inside their respective parties. And they are both largely irrelevant. Sharpton and Gingrich both seek to remain relevant my staying in the media spotlight. Gingrich makes his money doing speaking engagements and writing books. Sharpton does the same thing. Both have a number of core supporters within their respective parties, but they will never be viable national candidates because each brings with them a substantial amount of baggage.
    Well, I think Sharpton remembers his last attempt to run for POTUS. I don’t think he will be doing it again, just as I don’t expect Gingrich to run for POTUS again. And I don’t know what your fascination is with “niche” markets. Did you just learn the term? Fox News caters to a niche market of more than 2 million individuals. Is there something wrong with niche markets?
    Oh and where did you get that number? My guess is it’s the same place you get all of your numbers. The Sharpton viewership numbers you cited previously clearly contradict your most recent claim of only 120,000 black followers.
    Contrary to your assertion, according to a PEW study 40% of New Yorkers have a favorable view of Sharpton. That’s more than 120,000 followers as you have asserted. Yeah, both Sharpton and Gingrich have political connections. But that doesn’t mean one is more powerful than the other.

    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/al-sharpton-arguably-now-the-most-powerful-person-in-america/

    http://observer.com/2014/11/despite-negative-numbers-sharpton-touts-quinnipiac-poll-results/

    There is no doubt Fox News employs potential Republican presidential candidates and Republicans and Democrats who have become victims of their own vices. But that has nothing to do with Sharpton and Gingrich.
     
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    The site you quoted from claims 419k Friday viewers for Al's cable TV show - iirc about a third black, an even smaller percentage age 25 -54. So if I say "140,000" mostly elderly black followers of his cable show, are you satisfied?
    Originally (post 60) , you failed to quote me "verbatim". In your subsequent paraphrases you did not use "loosely connected", but "loosely affiliated". And the loose affiliation, connection, whichever, was said, by you, to be with Sharpton's own cable TV show.

    I did not say "loosely affiliated", or loosely anything, and I made no reference to Sharpton's own cable show in particular.

    I said "marginally connected", with the entity "media talk show entertainment". That was and is accurate.

    Your entire paraphrase was a misrepresentation, and you insisted on it for several more posts after being corrected - establishing your dishonesty in the matter.

    Beyond that, I'm out - if you wish to ignore the nature of the operation in which the now (at last) fading Gingrich, the Republican Party he has done so much to organize and establish, and the largely successful Fox with which Gingrich's Party has been mutually cooperating for two decades and more,

    if you wish to play these "both sides" games with people like Sharpton (what's next, MSNBC the liberal equivalent of Fox? ),

    nothing on this planet can stop you;

    or the rest of the both siders, the centrists, the "independents", those insisting on the virtue of compromise and the bilateral nature of gridlock, the entire body of "reasonable people" who simply don't want to face what Fox is doing, for whom, why, and with what success.
     
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2015
  22. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Actually, no I have always quoted you verbatim.
    Yes, indeed you did write “marginally connected” and were quoted as such when you wrote Sharpton was “marginally connected” to cable news completely ignoring or completely oblivious to the fact, the man has an hour long nightly spot on MSNBC which bears his name. What you have repeatedly failed to do is to explain how “marginally connected” is materially different from “loosely affiliated” or “loosely connected” and how you were misrepresented as you have repeatedly claimed.
    Except, that wasn’t the issue under discussion, I have already repeatedly explained to you my position on Fox News. Reagan, not Gingrich, was responsible for the creation of Fox News and Republican entertainment and all the ills that have come with it.
    Where did I say there was a liberal Fox News or Republican entertainment? I didn’t. That is you misrepresenting what I have written. As has been repeatedly explained to you, the issue we were discussing is the equivalent roles played by Gingrich and Sharpton in their respective parties. This is yet another diversion attempt on your part.
    That is a material misrepresentation of what has been discussed. You cannot honestly and intellectually translate the equivalent roles two individuals play within their respective parties to an equivalence of the two political parties at large, which is something you have repeatedly attempted to do during this later stages of this discussion.
     
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Reagan had almost nothing to do with the '90s, beyond providing a mythical "legacy" of true conservatism for campaign rhetoric. That was Gingrich's scene, politically. Fox News was founded in 1996.
     

Share This Page