Validus Unbound

[He Who Shall Not Be Named 2]

Simple:

 

because as time goes on eventually people will begin to realize that the way Fox backs the Bush/Chaney Junta isn't really news at all, but blatant populist propaganda designed to forward a very specific agenda that has nothing to do with objective truth or journalistic integrity. Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly are nothing more then lying demogogues who would look the other way if Bush was caught raping little girls on camera (they'd claim it was a Lefty conspiracy funded by gay muslims).

You haven't answered my question. Even if we assume the above is true, how does the fact of a Democrat majority in Congress or a potential Democrat President change the Fox News viewing base?

[Validus 0]

Fox news has banked all its credibility on the conservative agenda. As the Republicans become more and more discredited with the war and their moral bankruptcy Fox viewership will diminish...unless of course people want to be spoon fed lies over and over again....

 

One would think that the so-called Right Wingers would eventually see Rupert Murdock and Fox News for what it is and wake up....maybe when we have 10,000 dead soldiers they'll finally see the light. :blink:

[He Who Shall Not Be Named 2]

You still have not identified a causal factor between elected office and viewership. What specifically about a Democrat-controlled government will cause viewership to fall?

 

I don't think the two things are related. In fact, given that Fox News was launched during Clinton's first term and became the #1 cable news station while the Republican majority in Congress was shrinking, it seems that there is an *inverse* relationahip - the more Democrats are in office the more viewers Fox News has.

[A l t e r E g o 9]

Well-

 

After being banned for more then a month by Alterego I am back again..

 

Welcome back, believe it or not I missed you. But your suspension ended on 1-o1-o7, what took you so long coming back?

 

I hoped you spent some time reviewing our TOS and the pinned rules regarding acceptable Kronos behaviour. The evidence so far is you did not, I already had to delete one of your new posts for a personal attack on another member, (within 2 hours of your return! <_< )

 

 

Val I really do appreciate your contributions to this site and especially Kronos and its sub-forums, it needs someone who can speak for the Left in a voice as committed as our resident Righties. It'd be a real shame to lose you. Please, never again force me into actions I despise taking.

 

(Since you only argue with my warning PMs to you,) perhaps some of your fans could keep in touch with you, reminding you to stay within the lines.

 

 

Even though I woke today with a 'lack of sleep hangover', I enjoyed our debating in RT last night. Perhaps with time and attention, your track record of being 99% wrong on every religious topic will improve. :blink:

[Validus 0]

You still have not identified a causal factor between elected office and viewership. What specifically about a Democrat-controlled government will cause viewership to fall?

 

I don't think the two things are related. In fact, given that Fox News was launched during Clinton's first term and became the #1 cable news station while the Republican majority in Congress was shrinking, it seems that there is an *inverse* relationahip - the more Democrats are in office the more viewers Fox News has.

 

Fox has been losing viewers steadily over the last 4 years in direct proportion to the unpopularity of the President and the Republican Party. I would point out to you, Roy, that Fox has never been "the number one news station" any more then they are Fair and Balanced (a laughable lie). CNN has consistently been the top rated news network since it was started. I would also point out that Keith Olberman has also consistently had higher ratings then Bill Orally on the Faux News channel since he started. In short- Fox is loosing views because their viewers are beginning to see them as they are...a trend that will continue as Bush fights a loosing battle against the will of the American people and Iraq.

[Validus 0]

I'm bummed...

 

No more Battlestar for almost a whole year.......how depressing.

 

I'm so fed up with things lately. My son's mother has been beating him so savagely that I called CPS and I recently found out that its the third time they've been called (she also beats her 16 year old son she had before we met and she uses everything from a rubber mallot to an extension cord). It wouldn't bother me so much except that she insists that the kids are lying. She's also a solid Christian who goes to church here in Stockton every single Sunday....I have no idea why. Why do Christians treat their kids so badly? My mother was a Christian and she was so barbaric towards me that I looked forward to her getting drunk so she'd mellow out and go to sleep.

 

As usual money is tight and the war in Iraq is getting worse and worse while that republican Sith Lord George Bush just keeps sending more and more good young men to the sausage machine for nothing...it really makes me sick.

[Kor37 9]

Why do Christians treat their kids so badly?

 

Christians don't treat their kids badly. Only women that you choose to inseminate seem to do that. That makes about as much sense as your ridiculous statement.

 

 

My mother was a Christian and she was so barbaric towards me that I looked forward to her getting drunk so she'd mellow out and go to sleep.

 

 

She probably had a good reason

 

As usual money is tight

 

Try getting a job. Government assistance only goes so far. Read the thread on Social Security to find out why.

[MrPsychic 1]

Hmm, I guess you could always try to get a job from the "evil" and "corrupt" state or federal government, bet if you get one, they won't seem so bad.

[Gummy 0]

I happen to work for the Evil Govt. and have been for 25 years.

I am proud to work for everything that I have.

Work does a body good. Not to mention the soul.

[Validus 0]

Why do Christians treat their kids so badly?

 

Christians don't treat their kids badly. Only women that you choose to inseminate seem to do that. That makes about as much sense as your ridiculous statement.

 

 

My mother was a Christian and she was so barbaric towards me that I looked forward to her getting drunk so she'd mellow out and go to sleep.

 

 

She probably had a good reason

 

As usual money is tight

 

Try getting a job. Government assistance only goes so far. Read the thread on Social Security to find out why.

 

 

Well now aren't we getting rather testy?

 

A few points:

 

1. Anyone that would brainwash their kids to believe in the same unprovable supersticions they have is abusing their kids and taking away their freewill. Simple as that.

 

2. She did have a good reason but I'm pretty sure that's none of your damn buisness.

 

3. For someone who claims to be such a passionate Christian you sure do love your money more then you do anything else...is that what it means to be a Christian? Just praying to Je$u$ for more $$$$$$$$ ?

 

4. I've got a job, thank you very much. Next time try asking instead of assuming as you do with everything else.

 

 

Hmm, I guess you could always try to get a job from the "evil" and "corrupt" state or federal government, bet if you get one, they won't seem so bad.

 

I'm talking about the people who make damaging decisions and the people who carry them out...not road workers and pot-hole-fillers.

[Kor37 9]

MEDIA RECOUNT: BUSH

WON THE 2000 ELECTION

 

 

April 3, 2001

 

 

An Online NewsHour Report

 

More than three months after Democrat Al Gore conceded the hotly contested 2000 election, an independent hand recount of Florida's ballots released today says he would have lost anyway, even if officials would have allowed the hand count he requested.

 

 

The Miami Herald

 

USA Today

 

 

In the first full study of Florida's ballots since the election ended, The Miami Herald and USA Today reported George W. Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to continue, using standards that would have allowed even faintly dimpled "undervotes" -- ballots the voter has noticeably indented but had not punched all the way through -- to be counted.

 

The study, conducted by the accounting firm of BDO Seidman, counted over 60,000 votes in Florida's 67 counties, tabulating separate vote totals in several standards categories.

 

While the USA Today report focused on what would have happened had the Florida Supreme Court-ordered recount not been halted by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Herald pointed to one scenario under which Gore could have scored a narrow victory -- a fresh recount in all counties using the most generous standards.

 

In their reports, the newspapers assumed counts already completed when the court-ordered recount was stopped would have been included in any official count. Thus, they allowed numbers from seven counties -- Palm Beach, Volusia, Broward, Hamilton, Manatee, Escambia and Madison -- to stand, but applied the most inclusive standards to votes in the rest of the state. If those numbers did not stand, the Herald reported, a more generous hypothetical revisited recount would have scored the White House for Gore -- but with only a 393-vote margin.

 

Under most other scenarios, the papers reported, Bush would have retained his lead.

 

The newspapers' review did not include the approximately 110,000 "overvotes" -- ballots cast for more than one candidate. Both papers are planning a separate analysis of overvote numbers next month.

 

Early reaction

Neither President Bush nor former Vice President Gore have thus far commented on the recount's results. But according to White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, Mr. Bush has put the close election behind him.

 

"The president believes, just as the American people do, that this election was settled months ago," he told the Herald. "The voters spoke and George W. Bush won."

 

But former Gore campaign spokesman Doug Hattaway, now working as a Democratic consultant in Boston, said Mr. Gore would have captured the White House had voters' true intentions been determined.

 

"What this shows is that if you count the voter's intent, Gore wins," he told the Associated Press. "If you look for excuses not to count votes, Bush does better."

 

In all, the newspapers' recount cost more than $500,000 and employed 27 accountants.

 

Another recount of all Florida votes -- including both under- and overvotes -- is still in the works under the eye of a consortium of media organizations, including The Associated Press, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal and CNN. That review, conducted by the Chicago-based National Opinion Research Center, is due out next month.

 

How do you like to eat your crow, Validus? Rare, medium or well done?

 

Don't ever call me a liar again!

 

If you don't like that article, heres one from The US Constitution Online:

 

The Aftermath

 

Throughout the nation, people began to take second looks at the Electoral College system. Gore was pretty clearly the popular vote winner, though only by about 500,000 votes out of over 100 million cast. Subjects that used to cause students' eyes to glaze over in civics class were suddenly the focus of barroom, water cooler, and dinner table discussions. Rumors and theories were flying about like so many swarms of mosquitoes. News organizations began their own counts of the disputed ballots, once they became public records, in an attempt to put the issue to rest and to find out, in the words of the Miami Herald, "What went wrong." Most found that Gore would not have overcome his vote deficit, even with the most liberal of standards for counting partially-marked ballots.

 

 

I await your apology for calling me a liar but I'm not holding my breath.

 

Here are some more sources for this info:

 

Florida election recount

The Florida election recount of 2000 was a period of vote re-counting that occurred following the unclear results of the 2000 US presidential election, specifically the Florida results.

 

The National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, sponsored by a consortium of major U.S. news organizations, conducted a Florida Ballot Project comprehensive review of all ballots uncounted (by machine) in the Florida 2000 presidential election, both undervotes and overvotes, with the main research aim being to report how different ballot layouts correlate with voter mistakes.

 

The media companies involved were:

 

Associated Press

The New York Times

The Wall Street Journal

CNN

St. Petersburg Times

The Palm Beach Post

The Washington Post

Tribune Company

Los Angeles Times

Chicago Tribune

Orlando Sentinel

The Baltimore Sun

 

Please note that your favorite newspaper, The Washington Post is included here. I guess you didn't read your Washington Post the day they ran this story.

[Kor37 9]

Your silence on the above post as well as the post on Social Security speaks volumes, Validus. I saw you in here earlier. I know you read it.....

[Kor37 9]

Hmmmm....Day 2 of utter silence.

[He Who Shall Not Be Named 2]

Give him time. He needs to rest up.

[Gummy 0]

Give him time. He needs to rest up.

Rest up from what?

[Kor37 9]

He's not resting up. He's here right now going through his usual Anti-America and Anti-Christian threads but yet ignoring this thread.

[Validus 0]

Hmmmm....Day 2 of utter silence.

 

*sigh*

 

Now I have to gather up all the evidence that proves me right and that will probably take at least a week.

 

What a pain.

[Kor37 9]

Hmmmm....Day 2 of utter silence.

 

*sigh*

 

Now I have to gather up all the evidence that proves me right and that will probably take at least a week.

 

What a pain.

 

 

Oh no....You're not getting away with that one. The question was whether a news organization recounted all of the ballots and reported that Bush would have still won. Obviously, the ballots were recounted and reported on. Whether you believe what they wrote was NOT the issue. You called me a liar and said that no newspaper ever did this. Be a man for once and admit you were wrong. Nobody was asking you if you believed the results and you know it.

[Gummy 0]

Hmmmm....Day 2 of utter silence.

 

*sigh*

 

Now I have to gather up all the evidence that proves me right and that will probably take at least a week.

 

What a pain.

 

 

Oh no....You're not getting away with that one. The question was whether a news organization recounted all of the ballots and reported that Bush would have still won. Obviously, the ballots were recounted and reported on. Whether you believe what they wrote was NOT the issue. You called me a liar and said that no newspaper ever did this. Be a man for once and admit you were wrong. Nobody was asking you if you believed the results and you know it.

Oh, God....another one of these???? I've seen too many of them in the past seven years.

I'm to the point to where I just ignore them now.