Wingnut of the Week

[ironsides]

Unfortunately the political party's here in the U.S. and most likely Canada also are run as corporations with causes as their product. They also pretty much have a lock on who gets major funding.

SirJosephPorter, that is the problem here in the United States politicians are not pretty much independent as you mentioned. It used to be that they could pretty much vote their conscious when the vote was secret, now with everything pretty much open, there is to much scrutiny. A political party can destroy a politician for going against the party.

 

[Cannuck]

The program is non partisan, YJ. ...

CNN tries to be non partisan YJ...

Which is it? Are they non partisan or do they just try to be?

 

[YukonJack]

"CNN tries to be non partisan YJ, Fox does not even make any pretense. It is a mouthpiece of Republican Party and that is that. I just don’t see FOX giving wingnut award to a Republican, the base will scream bloody murder. Fox’s viewership, which is mostly Republican base, will plummet."

On all FOX programs there are always at least one guest who is not a Republican/conservative. The same can not be said about CNN.

Here are some of the 'non partisan' personnel on CNN: Jack Cafferty. Paul Begala. Rick Sanchez. I could go on, but whast for? In your mind these people are non partisan and history shows that you are incapable of being reasonable.

FOX's "O'Reilley Factor" has a segment called "Pinheads and Patriots". Both of these monikers have been attached to both liberals and conservatives in roughly equal measures. Many times O'Reilley just leaves the choice with the viewers.

And do not for moment concern yourself about FOX's viewership. On any given day, at any time slot FOX viewers outnumber CNN viewers by two to one, at least.

"And if she has joined the Green Party (I didn’t know that, and I suspect neither does YJ),....".

Surprise, surprise, SirJosephPorter, I DID know that. That is why I did not question why The CNN wingnuts did not identify Cynthia McKinnon as a Democrat. Seems my subtlety flew right over your head.

 

[EagleSmack]

I'll nominate Ted Kennedy for Grand Wingnut, he has done just about everything in his life, but keeps getting re-elected term after term.

I'll second that nomination.

You are so right... Teddy will die in office. The only thing the Kennedy's do is for the Kennedy's.

Teddy filed his mother's will in Florida so he wouldn't have to pay Mass taxes on her estate when she died. She NEVER lived in Florida but they own a house there. She lived in Massachusetts all her life. They even named a park in Boston after Teddy's mom recently and her only accomplishment is giving birth to Kennedy's.

What a state!

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Unfortunately the political party's here in the U.S. and most likely Canada also are run as corporations with causes as their product. They also pretty much have a lock on who gets major funding.

SirJosephPorter, that is the problem here in the United States politicians are not pretty much independent as you mentioned. It used to be that they could pretty much vote their conscious when the vote was secret, now with everything pretty much open, there is to much scrutiny. A political party can destroy a politician for going against the party.

That may be ironsides, but in USA it is not at all rare for a politician to vote against his party. Just today when they voted to confirm Sotomoyer, Democrats voted for, Republicans against. But Republican Graham voted for her.

This rarely happens in Canada, party discipline is much stronger here, it is almost unheard of for an MP to vote against his party. It does happen, but it is very rare (usually when the party gives permission to its MPs to vote whichever way they want).

 

[SirJosephPorter]

On all FOX programs there are always at least one guest who is not a Republican/conservative. The same can not be said about CNN.

YJ, CNN always has a balanced panel. Whenever they have a Democrat on the panel, they also have a Republican to balance that. FOX usually has three or four Republicans and maybe one Democrat (if any). The Democrat usually is not very articulate, not an eloquent speaker, cannot put forth Democratic case sufficiently, he is usually selected based upon that criteria. Or may be eloquent, articulate Democrats just refuse to appear on FOX.

Here are some of the 'non partisan' personnel on CNN: Jack Cafferty. Paul Begala. Rick Sanchez. I could go on, but whast for? In your mind these people are non partisan and history shows that you are incapable of being reasonable.

Certainly these people are non partisan. So what is your point?

And do not for moment concern yourself about FOX's viewership. On any given day, at any time slot FOX viewers outnumber CNN viewers by two to one, at least.

Sure, FOX viewership is composed almost entirely of Republican base. There are millions of far right, hard right Republicans who constitute Republican base, some of them watch FOX. What is so surprising about that?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Teddy filed his mother's will in Florida so he wouldn't have to pay Mass taxes on her estate when she died. She NEVER lived in Florida but they own a house there. She lived in Massachusetts all her life. They even named a park in Boston after Teddy's mom recently and her only accomplishment is giving birth to Kennedy's.

There is nothing wrong in using legitimate means to reduce taxes, EagleSmack. We all do that. Oh yes, I forgot, you live in Massachusetts.

 

[YukonJack]

SirJosephPorter, when you claim that Paul Begala, Jack Cafferty and Rick Sanchez are "non partisan", do you mean that they are objective, attack Democratic views and defend Republican ones, equally, you not just proved, but underlined my point that you are totally and utterly incapable of being reasonable. None of these three died-in-the-wool liberal Democrats would agree with your assessment of them, in fact they would feel offended by it.

As someone who is too cheap to subscribe to FOX, you have no idea of the composition of any panel on any FOX show. In typical liberal fashion you try bamboozle with unsupported and ridiculous hearsay.

Your last paragraph makes absulutely no sense, either logically or mathematically.
If the number of TV viewership that clearly shows FOX to be superior to CNN, does not matter, then polls that show Obama's approval (?) numbers do not matter, either.
And there is nothing surprising about that.

 

[lone wolf]

Wingnut of the week goes to that fellah who shook a carburetor every which way but loose for two hours to retrieve a breather nut from somewhere down near the throttle....

 

[Ron in Regina]

Forceps???

Magnetic Pick-Up Tool???

Heck...Carpet Tape on a screwdriver?8O

 

[lone wolf]

My brother-in-law wasn't too bright sometimes....

 

[SirJosephPorter]

If the number of TV viewership that clearly shows FOX to be superior to CNN, does not matter,

It depends upon what kind of viewership it is, YJ. Most of the FOX viewers belong to Republican base, they do not represent country as a whole. In the last election FOX enthusiastically supported McCain (along with Rush ‘drug addict’ Limbaugh and all the hate radio host).

Why did that not translate into votes? McCain still lost convincingly. The reason for it is that viewership of FOX, talk radio etc. is overwhelmingly right wing, far right and do not reflect the country as a whole.

So the fact that FOX has a bigger viewership than CNN does not mean that FOX is doing something right, it only means that it is being very partisan. That is why CNN is considered a reputable, respectable news organization, FOX is considered the mouthpiece of the Republican Party.

National Enquirer has a bigger circulation than New York Times or Washington Post, yet most people believe Times or the Post over the Enquirer. It is the same with CNN and FOX.

 

[lone wolf]

Hold throttle open....
Shake once....

 

[YukonJack]

SirJosephPorter, I only compared FOX to CNN. The viewership of these two cable news channels probably reflects the fact that FOX viewers tend to be conservatives and CNN viewers liberal.

That, however, does not correspond to the numbers how the election turned out. Broadcast channels, i.e. ABC, CBS, NBC are overwhelmingly lean towards the left side of the political spectrum. (Witness how they all went out of their way in adoration of Obama and the personal destruction of anyone consevative). Good chance that lot of the viewers of these channels do not have cable, no access to FOX. To all these channels we must add MSNBC, with Chris Matthews (Republican, according to you, once again proving my point elsewhere, about you being incapable of being reasonable) who had tingles up his leg looking at Obama, Keith Olbermann, Chuck Todd, Ed Shultz etc., and you have a media that was and still is totally beholden to the most unqualified and unprepared immature and petulant candidate for the Presidency. MSNBC openly admitted to be a proud supporter of Obama's election.
FOX's "enthusiastic" support for John McCain came nowhere near to CNN and MSNBC's support for Obama. And you really display how little you know, when you claim that Limbaugh supported McCain.

Bottom line is that while all people have access to left-leaning media, not all have access to objective, let alone right-leaning views.

Hence the election numbers.

I rebuked your analogy about the New York Times and the National Enquirer before. The National Enquirer is sold everywhere, while the New York Times is sold in the North East and in some hotel lobbies elsewhere. Mind you, with its extreme liberal views it is losing readership at a rate that the publishers must find alarming.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

FOX's "enthusiastic" support for John McCain came nowhere near to CNN and MSNBC's support for Obama. And you really display how little you know, when you claim that Limbaugh supported McCain.

Rush ‘drug addict’ Limbaugh did support McCain, YJ, maybe you don’t remember. After initial reservations about McCain, Rush went all out in his support for McCain, he called him ‘Mcbrilliant’, after he selected Joan of Ark as his running mate.

I rebuked your analogy about the New York Times and the National Enquirer before

You did nothing of the sort. That analogy only shows that higher circulation (or viewership) does not necessarily mean that it is a better publication. And New York Times is sold nationwide. Even though published from New York, it is considered to be a national newspaper.

And let us say that the two newspapers (Enquirer and Times) were sold side by side everywhere in the country. Are you saying that then both will have equal circulation? No way, Enquirer will always shave a much bigger circulation than Times. But as I said, that does not make it a better newspaper. It is the same with CNN and FOX. I would have no problem believe in what I see on CNN. I wouldn’t’ believe anything I see on FOX unless it is confirmed by a reputable, respectable source (like CNN).

 

[SirJosephPorter]

"And if she has joined the Green Party (I didn’t know that, and I suspect neither does YJ),....". – SJP

Surprise, surprise, SirJosephPorter, I DID know that. That is why I did not question why The CNN wingnuts did not identify Cynthia McKinnon as a Democrat. Seems my subtlety flew right over your head. – Yukon Jack

That is beneath you, Yukon Jack (your post #23). Why the patently false claim, which can be easily proved false? You did NOT know that McKinney belonged to Green Party, you thought that she is still a Democrat. Take a gander at this pearl of wisdom from you, in your post #7.

Also, do you notice that Michelle Bachmann is described - correctly - as a Republican, but there is no mention of Cynthia McKinney’s party affiliation. Clue: she is a Democrat. But, of course CNN 'objectivity' can only go so far.

I can understand posters making false claims, that does happen from time to time. But to make a claim which can demonstrably be proved false? Why, what is the point behind that?

If you didn’t know that McKinney belonged to Green Party, why not say so, why lie about it? I admitted that I didn’t know that, there is no shame in admitting one’s ignorance.

 

[lone wolf]

Naw.... The guy with the carb's still got you beat....

 

[YukonJack]

SirJosephPorter, in my post #7 I meant to finish the sentence: "Clue: she is a Democrat." with a question mark.

Mispunctuation is NOT dishonesty and lying any more than misspelling is.

 

[gopher]

''That's because there are lots of wingnuts that judge somebody solely on the party they belong to or support. ''


Actually, the term wingnut is reserved for Repukeblicans and their wannabes pals. Take's a dingbatted tinfoil wearing moonbeam to defend them but that's the way the far right is.

 

[Cannuck]

I rest my case.