The Death of Direct Sales

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

What are you talking about Jim? Fox has Alan Colmes who gets a half hour a night where he gets to be shouted down by the likes of Ann Coulter.

[Archive]

Posted By: Tom Boblitt

You're not being objective if you don't see that CBS,NBC,ABC,MSNBC & CNN

ALL

sway to the inside fringe of the far left..........

That's a 5 to 1 count by my numbers..........





edited to add 'inside' to fringe....not to say that they cater to the biggest kooks on the left. Just the left.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

Oh yeah, I forgot about the ugly, feeble lefty representative.
jimB

[Archive]

Posted By: Tom Boblitt

who's on MSNBC or CNN..........?

[Archive]

Posted By: TFerg

I'm going to head for the hills and hide with my cardboard, guns, and religion.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

I don't watch MSNBC, but CNN always has an equal number of voices from both sides and gives them equal time.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Jim- I think MSNBC's Keith Olbermann offers a nice balanced approach.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Give me a break!!!!

Fox News is the only network that comes close to objectivity.

MSNBC is out on the radical fringe with Rachel and Keith, CNN with Campbell whats her name has long been a lefty station and the networks have had it in for the Republicans for years and years.

Studies have shown close to 95% of mainstream media is democrat. Sort of like Hollywood.

Talk radio and Fox are the only place conservatives even have a chance.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Jim- it's show biz. Olbermann and Maddow do what they do to attract a targeted audience. Both are smart, neither are even close to being objective, and choose not to be.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Barry,

I get it. Neither though are CNN, the Networks, the NY Times, Washington Post or the LA Times.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

So why isn't the Republican Party sufficiently represented in the media? What's your spin on it? They're not a very popular bunch, are they?

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

"Fox News is the only network that comes close to objectivity."

Jim,
If that comment was not meant to be facetious, I can never take any of your political comments seriously again. That is the most ludicrous comment I think I have heard on this board. Even neo-cons will admit that Fox is not objective. Be serious!
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Has nothing to do with overall popularity. If you are a mainstram media type you are a liberal or you leave. Chris Wallace and Britt Hume are example of middle of the road guys who joined Fox to get away from the constant liberal bias.

A good book was written on this by ?(Marvin Kalb). Probably not the right name.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anthony S.

The first 7 seconds of the clip are fuzzy and pixilated, but then it clears up...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXaGmHhCpMw

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

CNN was just as complicit with the right-wing-Dubya agenda of attacking Iraq as Fox. It was shameful. I would hardly call that left-wing.
Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

JimB,

Thats because you look at things through a left-wing prism. The left has dominated the mainstream media for so long that when someone who comes along who is balanced it seems to the far left that they must be right wing.

[Archive]

Posted By: ScottDango

if this were not an election year, the market carnage would not be as bad....

the market is discounting an Obama Win, something that would be very bad for the stock market...his view on taxes and on capital gains is a killer and wall street has taken notice....

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

Scott,
That must be it. This is all Obama's fault. LMAO
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Scott,

Of course you are correct. The assumption of an Obama victory is being priced into the stocks. Not the only reason stocks are going down but certainly a major contributing reason behind wall streets lack of confidence.

[Archive]

Posted By: James Feagin

Question. Which of the following have influenced the last two elections more

A.) The mainstream "liberal" print and television media

or..

B.) Right-wing controlled "conservative" radio?

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Probably the liberal mainstream media as they reach a lot more people.

However, Rush, Sean, the Great One, Laura Ingram and others have done a lot to counteract the pervasive liberalism of the mainstream media.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve Murray

"Fox News is the only network that comes close to objectivity."

"Jim,
If that comment was not meant to be facetious, I can never take any of your political comments seriously again. That is the most ludicrous comment I think I have heard on this board. Even neo-cons will admit that Fox is not objective. Be serious!
JimB"

Thank you JimB. No matter what your political affiliation this has to be the most ridiculous statement ever uttered on Net54.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Another member of the radical left is heard from--you must be auditioning for a job on MSNBC or CNN?

[Archive]

Posted By: CoreyRS.hanus

Dan,

"...Obama has said that the tax increase on the wealthiest Americans may have to be put off until the ship is righted."

That helps little. Economic decisions about what risk to take and capital to invest are based on projections of future after-tax income streams. So if a person sees a tax increase as imminent within the next few years, that will depress economic activity NOW.

Scott/Jim,

I believe you're quite correct that the market is anticipating an Obama victory and reacting accordingly. I remember vividly in the summer of 1980 when the market began its bull run the pundits commenting that it was anticipating a Reagan victory.

[Archive]

Posted By: LetsGoBucs

Question for Obama Supporters
Does the association with Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers Bother you and how do you get past it?
--------------

Well, I'm not 100% sure I'm voting for Obama. But the Bill Ayers association seems to me to be very flimsy. Any politician attends all kinds of meetings (goes with the territory). There is no indication of any association outside those meetings save one event hosted by Ayers. Should Obama not have allowed it? Yes. But everyone makes mistakes.

Rev Wright to me isn't an issue. As someone else pointed out, he grew up in a very different time in this country. I don't agree with his preachings, but I very much believe religion to be a private matter and I don't believe that you can take sermons and ascribe them to those that worship.

I think I'm voting for Obama because: 1. We need a change in direction. 2. He has a chance to be an excellent president. 3. Clinton tried to socialize health care and failed and then moved to the center - I hope a similar type thing happens with Obama. I think that he actually doesn't have too many real beliefs - just an agenda to become president. I'm not voting for McCain because I think it will be more of the last 4 years with nothing getting done and spending continuing out of control. Have to go with the potential upside.

In regards to Palin. Why call her a lightweight or a right wing crazy? She seems to be an intelligent person to me. She has definate beliefs (wouldn't it be nice if more of our politicians had principles?). I have no problem with people attacking her experience or her record, but why does it have to get personally negative. Lets keep in mind that we've had some reasonably successful presidents that weren't Phd's - Truman, Roosevelt, Reagan, Jackson....and personally I'd like a president that would use common sense, respect and principles to govern. Even if they don't agree with me on all issues.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

It's easy to be dismissive of Fox News due to the years of it being the only obvious partisan network and also the only one that anyone watched. Therefore you often get the typical knee-jerk, uninformed liberal responses about Fox that you see here. While Fox certainly leans hard right -- and when they do I cringe as it's almost unwatchable -- it is true that MSNBC is way worse to the left. CNN, which used to be a down the middle network has also really moved left over the past few years. Recently a study was done on the political affiliation of the viewership of the three networks and the following came out:

CNN: 51% Democrats, 18% Republicans, 23% independents

MSNBC: 45% Democrats, 18% Republicans, 27% independents

Fox News: 33% Democrats, 39% Republicans, 22% independents

As you can see, the only network that is even remotely watched in equal numbers by Dems and Republicans is Fox. And I think the programming is reflective of that, though I agree that Fox is hardly "fair and balanced" most of the time; it's just more fair more of the time than CNN and obviously MSNBC.

All that being said, watching Rudy on Fox after the VP debate crowing how Palin "destroyed" Biden was pitiful. Same with Hannity and Dick Morris claiming she was the 'greatest communicator' since Reagan. These partisan lies to the viewing public were really outrageous because the one thing we as a country should be able to rely upon is that when you turn on the damn news you get it straight and unfiltered. I appreciate that H & C is not a news show per se but we at least deserve that when the talking heads speak they at least believe what they are saying. And that clearly was not the case at least on that night. And I also understand the networks have to make money but it is a shame that there is no place we can go to get the straight poop on the news and that includes CNN which is truly nearly as bad as MSNBC these days.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Corey,

That someone could actually not believe that the very likely election of Obama and what he is likely to attempt to do shows an incredible naivety and a lack of understanding of the financial markets. Makes one dismiss everything he thinks.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I think most people like to watch news that reflects their own thinking. I find Keith and Rachel immensely bright and entertaining, even though I know if McCain found a cure for cancer they would still find a dark side to it.

I buy into it going in. I don't expect any objectivity.

And while NBC is far from middle of the road I like Brian Williams. He is more even keeled than many others.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ryan Christoff

The best part about political discussions on the board is how unpredictable they are. Who would have expected comments supporting the rightiest right from Tom B. or Jim C. in this thread? And how could we have known that Barry S. and Jim B. would voice their "liberal" opinions? Who among us wasn't shocked to read Jeff's Obama-bashing?

You never know who will say what in these threads.

-Ryan

[Archive]

Posted By: Tom Boblitt

butt because he likes Kalamazoo Bats...............

Oh yeah, and he thinks like you do..........

There's a reason that MSNBC/NBC/GE pulled Keith & Chris Matthews back from further coverage of debates and the election to JUST their own shows. Lack of objectivity..........REPORT the news, don't gleefully try to CREATE the news.

I do like Keith Olberman's checks though........they say 'as seen on tv'

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I know Ryan- this whole thread is much ado about nothing. But people like to vent.

[Archive]

Posted By: Tom Boblitt

I'm still not a proponent of right- or left-wing grading companies.......

p.s. how come Jim B gets quotes around 'liberal' but the rightiest guys dont?

And if you REALLY knew me, you'd know I'm not really the rightiest right. Just right of center. I voted for Clinton both times.

p.p.s. I'm not trying to get David's record for amendments in a thread.....

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

"That someone could actually not believe that the very likely election of Obama and what he is likely to attempt to do shows an incredible naivety and a lack of understanding of the financial markets. Makes one dismiss everything he thinks."

I have a sneaking suspicion that failing banks, a highly questionable $700 billion bailout, a real estate market in the toilet, and a number of other financial indicators might have something to do with Wall St. apprehensiveness right now.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: Pennsylvania Ted

Two years ago the Dems in Congress told us to vote for them and we would get...."CHANGE" ! ! ! ! !

So, many voted for them....and, we got "CHANGE"....change in the form of coins, not $$$$. A year ago the DOW was at 14,000
and gas was less than $2.00.

Well, we got "CHANGE" alright with the DEMS controlling their "Do Nothing" Congress.....no wonder we are in this crises now with
these idiots (i.e., Barney Frank, Schumer, Dodd, etc.). And, for those of you that don't know....they are all DEMOCRATS.

It's no wonder Congress has the lowest rating ever recorded....8%.

Even George Bush has a rating of 25-30%

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

The past 8 years have been a disaster, with our folksy and collegial president that's basically as dumb as a stone. Even his inner circle long ago gave up trying to deny that he just isn't the brightest guy out there. He was elected because he could have been the guy on the next barstool, and look where it got us.

Tbob is 100% correct with his point above that we should definitely want smart people running the country. Why in God's name would we not value and even insist on that, at least? And yet the Republicans once again proudly run under the anti-intellectual banner, and right there is your VP nomination for Palin.

Women should be incensed with how she is being packaged and put out there. We should be hearing endless recitation about skills, knowledge and qualifications. But no - the Republican image machine is basically saying "Look! It's a soccer mom! It's PTA-er! She hunts moose!" That is just horrible, that they would nominate a woman and then emphasize her qualifications in the home and family more than in the professional and political arena. It's insulting.

But people seem to want the guy from the next barstool, or the Treasurer from the PTA. We are here - from the H.L. Mencken quote from many years ago:

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

It's okay to want a balance of personality characteritics, with no one trait - even intelligence - dominating all others. But to aggressively pooh-pooh intellect is frightening. What's even more frightening is that people buy it.

Joann

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

What Joann said!
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

We should demand intelligence from our leaders, as well as from our board members.

And Joann is really smart. Thanks for that post.

[Archive]

Posted By: DMcD

Joann for Vice President !!

[Archive]

Posted By: boxingcardman

Some of the other posts here...

Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectatos Nunc

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Joann, I agree with your sentiment but I think, as I've said above, a lot of the basis for people to think that Palin is dumb is due to the liberal media's bashing of her like no other candidate in recent memory. She's asked which is a Supreme Court decision other than Roe v. Wade that she disagrees with -- and because she can't answer it she's an idiot? (Granted that's one example) I'm not sure how many lawyers could easily come up with an answer while on the spot. Yet Joe Biden talks about FDR going on the television during the Depression and calming the country; except there was no TV then and Hoover was in the White House. And yet there is barely a mention in the mainstream press about this. She is a governor of a state in America and has huge approval ratings in Alaska. It's not like she came out of completely nowhere. Any day you pick up the New York Times you'll find an anti-Palin article on the cover. And I mean just about every single day for the past 5 weeks. It's really appalling that the media believes they should determine who the next president is.

Of course, I do think she's unqualified -- but I feel the same way about Obama. It just is somewhat stunning that there has been way more reporting about "Troopergate" than there has been about Obama's connection to Bill Ayers or Tony Rezko.

[Archive]

Posted By: Tom Boblitt

that Bush isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, he's also not stupid. Some people confuse action that doesn't correspond with what they would have chosen as stupid. I'm sure he's not the ethereal thinker that Barack is, but sometimes that type thinking leads to analysis paralysis. Since he is most likely to be our next president, we'll likely get an opportunity to see how he does away from the teleprompter. I love being told that what we need is the elite thinkers out there. It's nice to know that they can lead the flock so much better..........

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

"Yet Joe Biden talks about FDR going on the television during the Depression and calming the country; except there was no TV then and Hoover was in the White House. And yet there is barely a mention in the mainstream press about this."

So much of this is based on the lenses with which we view the media - I'm pretty sure you know this, Jeff. From my standpoint that Biden clip was EVERYWHERE. They taught my son about it in Social Studies class, for cryin' out loud - really. I read about "Joe Biden the Gaffe Machine" for weeks.

The problem with Palin is that she has done precisely THREE interviews since receiving the nomination, and she has bungled each one of them in a massive, sloppy way. Aside from those interviews and her carefully-scripted speeches, the campaign has not permitted her to speak to the media. While Joe Biden the Gaffe Machine spends his weekends and weekday mornings answering questions on TV talk shows, his opponent is nowhere to be found. And despite the fact that she has only given three interviews, she has been completely unable to articulate a single point. One would think that a person of above-average intelligence who was asked to give just three interviews could anticipate some of the questions (most of them had been asked in the media repeatedly before the interview) and come prepared to answer those questions. If you're not, and you're running for PUBLIC office, you should prepare to be skewered by the media you're spurning.

I don't know if she's stupid or not - I don't know how anyone could. She's not allowed to talk to us.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

Jeff,

My issue isn't that Palin is or isn't smart or whether the media is portraying one or the other. I'm not really sure how smart she is. (And I will admit with considerable embarassment that I couldn't come up with a 2-second answer on the Supreme Court question either. I did come up with an answer, but if there had been a camera and mike on me I absolutely would have verbally stumbled through the question.)

My gripe isn't about the media portrayal. It's that the Republicans - the party that nominated her - are the ones that are so invested in presenting her as your average neighborhood American woman. They are the ones that should be playing up intellect and pointing out skills and qualifications, but they are not. They are focusing on her domestic roles and largely downplaying the professional part. This is a disservice to her and offensive to women in general.

It's unfortunate, because regardless of what anyone may think of her competence or intelligence, surely she deserved better than to be put out there as some cynical display of averageness.

Joann

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Al, I'm not sure which came first: the dearth of interviews or the liberal media attack machine climbing all over her. First question by Gibson to her: "Do you really think you have the experience to run the country?" She responded yes, he then inquired "Doesn't that take some hubris?" So basically whatever she answered to that first question was the wrong answer. She was then asked about the "Bush Doctrine" -- which of course is an amorphous nothing -- there is no such definite thing. I guess I'm still waiting for someone to ask Obama if it took some hubris to start a campaign for president when he had been elected Senator just days before.

As for your recollection as to the media's attacks on Biden v. Palin, Al, you have got to be kidding me. Surely you see the NY Times occasionally -- she's on the cover, getting ripped, EVERY SINGLE DAY. And that's just one outlet. The abuse heaped upon her has been like nothing I have ever seen. I'm not sure why she should agree to be interviewed when she knows full well what is going to happen to her (of course, some of her interviews and comments have been poor so she is part of the problem -- but she is hardly the entire problem). And how come we never hear about Biden's plagarism? Or his lobbyist son? How about those hairplugs and those big fake teeth? Silly crap, right? Not as silly as the liberal media basically turning her into a porn star (oh and repeatedly claiming that her youngest son is really her grandson -- or otherwise claiming that she caused Trig's Down Syndrome).

Someone in this thread complained about how conservative talk radio has previously impacted elections. But keep in mind that conservative radio's audience is nearly all Republicans. Somehow I doubt too many Obama voters are tuning into listen to Rush or Sean; however, many many Republicans read the NY Times and many other leading daily newspapers that are clearly in the tank for Obama.

Meanwhile, I'm hosting a two hour radio show on the most listened-to talk radio station in the country next week; I'll do my best to impact the vote.

[Archive]

Posted By: Tom Boblitt

as GOVERNOR of a state, it should be obvious that she's maybe just a bit above average........also should be clear that as a mayor, she was also a bit above average. The Democrats want to couch Obama as this ethereal (used that one again) thinker that is SO far ahead of any of us that we should bow down to him, accept everything he says, don't investigate his checkered past or associations and roll on. I would also assume that with an 80% approval rating, that puts her just a scosh (sp?) above our other 3 parties who are part of the large 530+ contingent that is garnering an 8-10% overall approval rating.

The other funny thing is that Obama keeps saying that McCain is part of the problem and he's been in DC so long but the gaffe machine's been there about the same amount of time.

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard Simon

Jeff - you stated the Hoover was in the White House during the Depression and not FDR and that Biden committed a gaffe saying that FDR was Pres. during the Depression. If I remember my American History correctly the Depression did not end in 1932, when Hoover was done (thank goodness for that) but continued into FDR's administration.
==

I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.
Unknown author
--
We made a promise. We swore we'd always remember.
No retreat baby, no surrender.
The Boss

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Richard, let me clarify: Biden's gaffe concerned the stock market crash in 1929 not the entire Depression. Specifically, Biden stated "When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, 'Look, here's what happened,'"

Wrong and wrong.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

This is the first time I heard Biden's gaffe. That is pretty goofy.

[Archive]

Posted By: Pennsylvania Ted

To quote Ronald Reagan.....who most of you I'm sure thought he was "stupid", too. As it turns out the three so-called "intelligent"
Presidents in this last century were the worst.....

Woodrow Wilson
Herbert Hoover
Jimmy Carter

History has shown us that IQ, or so-called intelligent Prez candidates (usually based on their ability to articulate) DO NOT necessarily
make the best Prez.
Speaking about IQ....most of you will be surprised to find out that G W Bush's IQ is higher than Gore's.

There is a confluence of many factors and events that make for a good (or great) President. Lincoln in his time was scorned by many.
Yet history has vindicated him....and, the same goes for Truman.

The fact that 7 years after the worst "day of infamy" in our country....we have not been attacked by any form of terrorism (as Britain,
France and Spain have been these past 7 years) will redound to Bush's effectiveness in being a strong Commander-in-Chief.
He, too, will be vindicated when the history of the 1st part of the 21st Century is written.

So, many of you can continue your myopic, uninformed view of what matters in life with your very subjective mindsets. While others
of us will have the intellectual curiosity to seek a broader perspective of what really matters in our lives. The security of our country
is paramount in our lives. Without a safe United States, everything else is moot.
Jeff L....you are one of the few here that understands this.

I have lived long enough to have voted for John F Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter (big mistake), Ronald Reagan,
and both Bush's.

So, for those of you who don't like my politics, don't try to tag me as some "right-wing-nut"........that dog don't hunt !


JOANN

I am really surprised at you....Sarah Palin has achieved, what no other woman has....Mayor to Governor to Vice Presidential candidate.
Isn't this the type of achievement that the woman's movement in America strives for ?

Oh, excuse me....Sarah is not a "flaming liberal" ! !


T-Rex TED

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I think everyone understands the United States has to be safe. Even I know that. Obama knows that too.