Come get some, nbc has no clue, they are lost.

Fox IS # 1 in CABLE news, with primetime audience of 3 million morons; he doesn't mention the 3 network news outlets, that have combined primtime audience of 25 million, that dwarfs "Faux News".

I won't deny that 60 seat house pickup by GOP isn't impressive & certainly constituted a "shellacking"; but Dems control Senate with 53 seat majority; by all rights, GOP should control that chamber, but blew it with lousy Tea Party candidates.

On other topic, Eeyorre NOW implying that he doesn't make a lotta $---does that mean he was lying about his financial condition in previous posts ?!-------------

Oh ya! That stuff I watch when I'm waiting in line at the bank.

I agree with you about both Fox and MSNBC, but if CNN tries to be objective, they aren't trying nearly hard enough.

At least you are one of the few left leaning posters here that will at least admit that MSNBC caters every bit as much to the lunatic left as Fox News caters to the lunatic right.

MSNBC is largely leftist propaganda, just as Fox is right wing propaganda, but Fox is much farther to the right than MSNBC is to the left.

1) their morning show is hosted by a former GOP Congressman.
2) Dylan Ratigan just seems to be an odd duck.
3) Ed Shultz is a former Republican who still holds some very conservative views.
4) If Norah O'Donnell was hotter and blond, she'd be gleefully working over at Fox.

Compared to real leftists even Olbermann just seems left of center. Don't believe me? Watch Democracy Now! or Free Speech TV sometime.

I am slightly right of center, you are slightly left of Castro. Agreeing on where the middle truly is would be impossible for us to ever agree on.

Fox News' actual news divsision really isn't that bad, except of course on slow news days where they pander to their lunatic base, like during the Terry Schiavo "crisis". I have to admit, I watched a lot more Fox News before Terry Schiavo than I have been able to bring myself to watch since. I was truly revolted by "Terry all the time" TV.

The other is Turner Classic Movies ( TCM ). I recognize that MSNBC has a "left bias" but, it's MY bias.

Far right conservative Pat Buchannan is an MSNBC analyst ( one of the few conservatives I repect--
partly because he's an intellectual & partly because he was a drinking buddy of the late Hunter S Thompson ).

Ed Schulz is pretty hard left-----I haven't heard him espouse any conservative views.

Lastly, GOD, I wish MSNBC's Norah O Donnell was a provider ( speaking of hot political broads, how come there were no Latinas on mein's picture list ? )

-- Modified on 11/4/2010 8:56:23 AM

The statement about MSNBC sharing "your" bias is one of the most honest statements made around here, As to Mein and his lack of chicas, maybe "he" is the racist we were talking about yesterday? rofl

I used to enjoy Fox News because they shared my bias as well, but after suffering through weeks of Terry fucking Schiavo and the little white chick that dissappeard in Arube, I had had my fill. Now that story about the white girl in Aruba was truly racist, does anybody really think one tourist dissappearing in an island off the coast of Venezuela would be front page news if she were a person of color? Not a fucking chance.

I have to confess, most of the TV news I watch is CNBC. Back in my trading days I used to keep every TV in the house tuned to CNBC, I used to be one of those guys with three computer monitors and a half dozen TVs trying to follow every thing that happened during the trading day.

Man, I would LOVE to fuck her; best tits & legs in the biz.

but communists in general are like that. I won't bore you with my reasons for this.

My problem is that the labels of "left" and "right" is pretty arbitrary, and therefore gets skewed.

I'll give you an example. If "conservative" means anything, it means that you are in favor of conserving the status quo. It's viewed as "what we have is good, don't fuck it up". Progressive means you are in favor of progress. It's a "what we got sucks, let's improve it" philosophy. By this definition, when it comes to the environment the left are conservatives.

If "left" and "right" is to have real meaning, then the "center" would have to be where the majority of the public is at. So for instance, if the majority of the public want a nationalized health care system, then by definition, that is a centrist idea. If the majority of the people think that concealed carry laws are perfectly acceptable, then that is a centrist idea. Now, how are these two views depicted in the media?

If the foundation of our arguments are so diametrically opposed. Starting with our definitions of conservative and progressive. As evidenced by the Tea Party movement, conservatives can be for radical change, and by your own admission progressives can be anything but for change.

So too with your assumptions about health care and concealed carry laws, but I will concede that you are probably not being literal with your examples.

I will concede that left or right is a moving target much dependent on one's own POV. Fiscally I doubt you will disagree that you come down on the extrem left of the spectrum, while I come down maybe not on the "extreme" right, but I will admit to being rather conservative where it comes to fiscal matters, but there again we butt heads on our definition of conservative. lol

...it's fair to say that the definition of "middle" would be where the majority opinion lies? And if not, how do you define it?

The numbers of people on each side of either issue are arguably on a par with each other, so define the middle where it comes to either issue.

Do you have a definition of "Middle" where it comes to either of these issues? I don't, and I guarantee you that whatever definition you put on it, there will be millions on both sides that will vehemently disagree with you.

I know I am answering a question with a question, but I will concede that "most" of the time your definition is probably the most universally accepted one, but like most people I would probably say the the middle is wherever I happen to come down on an issue. lol It's fun being honest isn't it?

but she is getting a little long in the tooth for me now.

nasty look to her, and not in a good nasty way. I'll tell who would fuck your brains out, and that is Michelle Caruso-Cabrera. One helluva a rack. That is what I call a good nasty.

Listening to  Olbermann talking about "this isn't that bad"

What a no credibility hack. Only the biggest shift in seats in 60+ years...

...I'm agreeing with St. here on something, lol. I agree Maria isn't aging particularly well, but I'd have to say she certainly is still fuck-worthy.

doggie style. Maria has a "butter face". (lol).

And yes I will agree with you on Erin Burnett. She has the girl next door look.

Are you actually watching CNBC? Good for you. One of the few shows where you can actually use the news to make a little money, except for Cramer.

Michelle Bachman (spl )was funny when she said to CM I bet you don't have a tingle up your leg now when he rudely said she was in a trance

with yours in the least. I see progressives as those that would most assuredly relieve me of any and all the progress I've made, both personally and professionally, through hard work and ambition, and give it to all the lazy, worthless fucks that never did anything worthwhile. My definition is based on a lifetime looking at the denigration of the work ethic in this country. "The government is gonna do me right". The best example I can think of is the ones that refused to leave New Orleans when advised to do so, and wound up in the Superdome, 'cause the government is gonna take care of me in there.  When I was growing up, there was no FEMA, no Medicare, no Medicaid, WIC, Welfare, food stamps, unemployment benefits, school breakfasts or lunches, and on and on. If you didn't want to work for your pay, you didn't eat. There were difficult times, of course, but neighbors helped neighbors, friends helped friends, and families looked out for each other. Now days, people don't even know their neighbors' names. $14 trillion has been spent on Johnson's "Great Society". Has any 'progress' been made on poverty in the country? Fuck no. There are still people that refuse to get an education, or educate themselves. Any progress been made in the urban school districts, after spending billions on education? Fuck no. Any progress been made on eliminating our dependence on foreign oil after Carter formed the Dept of Energy, and spending hundreds of billions since, on that bloated agency? Fuck no. We import more now than ever before. Progressive's have been doing a bang up job, haven't they? I fear for the future of our country. There are those that say, everything will work out in the long run. I fear it will not. And I will say that republicans have not been done a bang up job either. Until we learn to keep our hands working, and not stuck out, waiting for the government to put money into them, we will get no better. Progressives have created a complete society, and culture, of slackers. As my father would say, "they don't want to work....fuck 'em."

Even defining "middle" is not that simple because of human greed.  If you took a superficial view of the last POTUS election, a large number of folks voted for Obama just because he was black, or just because he promised to give away some social freebie.  Those folks had no clue about any of his advertised policies.  They just wanted a handout and because he was black, they expected to get one.  So where would we classify these people?  But more importantly, assuming the POTUS election was an endorsement of Obama's entire agenda would be a substantial mistake since a large majority who voted for him didn't even know what his agenda was.  And herein lies a partial reason for the events of the past few days.

pussy and you will subvert the fuck out of a thread. LOL to you all and me too!