RE: T.V. Ratings for Obama's Speech (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


kittinSol -> RE: T.V. Ratings for Obama's Speech (8/30/2008 7:48:11 AM)

Not wanting to hijack this wonderful thread, I will be direct and quick, since you are into circumvolution this morning [8D] : do you think being pro-choice equates being 'anti-life'?

And yeah, I only want you to reply, because I don't care about anybody else [:)] .




opposingtwilight -> RE: T.V. Ratings for Obama's Speech (8/30/2008 7:50:42 AM)

Do you think being pro life means anti choice?

There is a plethora of choices when it comes to preventing (versus terminating) unwanted pregnancy.




Sanity -> RE: T.V. Ratings for Obama's Speech (8/30/2008 7:58:20 AM)

There is also adoption, and there are some perfectly valid reasons for aborting. And then there are states' rights to choose, vs. a politburo of federal judges dictating laws as if they think they're gods.

And so yes kitten, I am very pro-choice.




gina0055 -> RE: T.V. Ratings for Obama's Speech (8/30/2008 7:58:51 AM)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0Fru4dZLGA

Pat Buchanan on Obama's speech.

OBAMA 08!

God is not a Republican.





kittinSol -> RE: T.V. Ratings for Obama's Speech (8/30/2008 8:01:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: opposingtwilight

Do you think being pro life means anti choice?



That wasn't my question, and again, I asked Sanity, the person I started having the discussion with, what he meant by 'anti-life', nothing else. It strikes me as rather violent rethoric, and I was curious what he meant: I doubt you can read his mind. Feel free to butt in anytime though...

PS: just saw your post, Sanity. Thanks, but it doesn't answer my initial question *sigh*. Oh well, I'll have to stay in the dark.




slvemike4u -> RE: T.V. Ratings for Obama's Speech (8/30/2008 8:09:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

There is also adoption, and there are some perfectly valid reasons for aborting. And then there are states' rights to choose, vs. a politburo of federal judges dictating laws as if they think they're gods.

And so yes kitten, I am very pro-choice.

Sanity,if I may a simple question...are you in favor of Roe v Wade being overturned?and a follow up if I may.When you mention states rights are you advocating a situation where a woman in New Mexico (for instance)has no right to choose for herself,while a woman in California does?




gina0055 -> RE: T.V. Ratings for Obama's Speech (8/30/2008 8:13:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

quote:

ORIGINAL: opposingtwilight

Do you think being pro life means anti choice?



That wasn't my question, and again, I asked Sanity, the person I started having the discussion with, what he meant by 'anti-life', nothing else. It strikes me as rather violent rethoric, and I was curious what he meant: I doubt you can read his mind. Feel free to butt in anytime though...

PS: just saw your post, Sanity. Thanks, but it doesn't answer my initial question *sigh*. Oh well, I'll have to stay in the dark.


Gee Kittin, aren't we happy that McCain's VPILF is a creationist who will make sure us prochoice folk will be brought to the light if they win?  <audibly cringes at the thought>




slvemike4u -> RE: T.V. Ratings for Obama's Speech (8/30/2008 8:17:35 AM)

Gina are you suggesting their wasn't a garden of eden with a talking snake ?Next you will be telling me there is no tooth fairy.....damm it!!!




Sanity -> RE: T.V. Ratings for Obama's Speech (8/30/2008 8:44:27 AM)

Yeah, no, yeah, I'm not going to get into a debate about killing babies with you here mike, maybe some other time. I'll say that I don't think Roe will ever be overturned, and that it's dangerous for the judicial to start legislating, as we've lost an important check in our system of checks and balances once that it's  deemed acceptable for them to do so.

States rights are important as well.




kittinSol -> RE: T.V. Ratings for Obama's Speech (8/30/2008 8:49:35 AM)

There wasn't a garden, but there was definitely a snake. He's half responsible for the need for Roe vs. Wade [>:] . Still no answer to my question, so I'll take it that Sanity believes in the States' right to choose how to legislate abortion rights, and that women should be subjugated to the legislation randomly, luck of the draw, depending on the state they live in.

Thankfully, McCain and his anti-choice vice president won't ever have the opportunity to try and take away women's right to choose, since they won't get elected , will they [&:] ? I'm fiercely attached to my right to choose: strange, isn't it?




opposingtwilight -> RE: T.V. Ratings for Obama's Speech (8/30/2008 9:11:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

quote:

ORIGINAL: opposingtwilight

Do you think being pro life means anti choice?



That wasn't my question, and again, I asked Sanity, the person I started having the discussion with, what he meant by 'anti-life', nothing else. It strikes me as rather violent rethoric, and I was curious what he meant: I doubt you can read his mind. Feel free to butt in anytime though...

PS: just saw your post, Sanity. Thanks, but it doesn't answer my initial question *sigh*. Oh well, I'll have to stay in the dark.


Well you see, there's this thing call c-mail that you can use for questions you only want ONE person to answer. I know, its radical and new but it works really well and it isn't at all difficult to master with just a tiny bit of effort.




kittinSol -> RE: T.V. Ratings for Obama's Speech (8/30/2008 9:54:31 AM)

There is something called courtesy, which requires observation: when a direct question is addressed to somebody, and you feel like answering it, at least specify in your answer that you're aware it wasn't addressed to you, but that you'll answer it anyway - besides, Sanity's romance with me is blossoming, and it would be bad form to write to him privately. I have never spoken to him in private, and without a chaperone... well, it's just not my style [;)] .




SavageFaerie -> RE: T.V. Ratings for Obama's Speech (8/30/2008 10:21:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Celeres

I wonder where they get the number to "prove" that more people watched the DNC than the Olympics. Is it just here in the U.S.? Also, that's 38 million, not including PBS (which I was one of the few who watched it there). 


The ratings numbers come from Neilson

In 2004, for example, Nielsen measured viewership across six networks -- the Big Three broadcasters ABC, CBS and NBC and cable news networks Fox News Channel, CNN and MSNBC -- whereas this year Nielsen added four smaller networks -- BET, TV One, Univision and Telemundo.
Moreover, Nielsen is now including time-shifted viewing by people watching later the same day through digital video recorders -- data not included in previous cycles.
This is directly from the OP's link.

The title of the article is "UPDATE 1-Obama acceptance speech believed to set TV record". 

So the number does not mean that all were watching in that time slot.   Say someone want to watch coverage on one network, records coverage via anothers, wouldnt that be double counting. So there is some distortation in numbers.

The real numbers withholding the dvr factor, which the networks actually get and analyze were lower. Ratings are my sisters job, she is Manager of Audience Analysis for one of the major 3 broadcast networks, and she say that the numbers were okay, they were not over the roof by any means. ( indicating other programming in a particular time slot has been higher in the past)  but her number are only based on the broadcast channels, not including cable. Of course being broadcast channels are only concerned with their numbers and not with additional cable programming.

Neilson just gathers the statstics, those that have access analyse it based on what their objective is. Reuters used the dvr factor which just in my opinion muddies those numbers. Plus factor in that some networks that did broadcast were not included in Neilsons statstics. As you pointed out PBS numbers were not included.

BTW Neilson ratings are based on sample housholds, not every household in the US. Here is a link if you would like to see how they gather their data.
http://www.nielsenmedia.com/nc/portal/site/Public/menuitem.3437240b94cacebc3a81e810d8a062a0/?vgnextoid=130547f8b5264010VgnVCM100000880a260aRCRD

For the record the tv was tuned to the time slot, while my sister did listen to the speech. I had headphones listening to music. I personal am not politically inclined ( I know shoot me and hide me under the rug.) The topic caught my attention by seeing T.V. Ratings not by the full subject because living with sis, I hear about it everyday, including this morning from a dead sleep her yelling damn I have to get the ratings out, which she does via her laptop on weekends.




Owner59 -> RE: T.V. Ratings for Obama's Speech (8/30/2008 10:30:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

Not all women are anti-life.

And if McCain is so reminiscent of Richard Nixon, why did all the Libs dig him so much in 2000. [sm=hippie.gif]



And not all woman are pro coat hanger,either.

In 2000,he was Senator McCain.



Now he`s candidate McCain.

Candidate McCain, voted against Senator McCain`s own legislation.Hello?!

Read: desperate flip-flopper,turn-coat,spineless non-maverick.


Got it?




Maxwell67 -> RE: T.V. Ratings for Obama's Speech (8/30/2008 11:45:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leatherist

He's going to have to do better than make fancy speeches soon.

Mcain is not stupid, he will rip obama's guts out during the election if he doesn;t wise up,and move towards practical solutions-something he has totally failed to do to date.

WHAT "changes?"


If you really care to know, and are not just saying this because you do not want to admit his plans are more solid than McCains, then you have to look.  No one can explain complex policy ideas in a TV appearance, there is far too much detail to be able to really go into it.  He gives the web address (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/) for the site that contains his platform, plans, and policies.  They are quite detailed, actually.  What is more, they are well researched and logical.  If you are going to make a statement like this, you really should read his actual policies.  I am a 'policy wonk' of sorts, myself.  I have spent more than a little time looking at this sort of thing over the years, and I have to say that what he proposes seems very practical.

Contrast that with the stance on issues McCain proposes at his website (http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/) which are for the most part, an optimistically worded rehash of the same policies that the Bush administration is currently using (and we can all see just how well those are working), and perhaps you will change your mind on this.




opposingtwilight -> RE: T.V. Ratings for Obama's Speech (8/30/2008 12:39:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

There is something called courtesy, which requires observation: when a direct question is addressed to somebody, and you feel like answering it, at least specify in your answer that you're aware it wasn't addressed to you, but that you'll answer it anyway - besides, Sanity's romance with me is blossoming, and it would be bad form to write to him privately. I have never spoken to him in private, and without a chaperone... well, it's just not my style [;)] .


How is that courtesy, exactly? I would think it would be redundant. You already knew all those things when you read my post. Thats like me saying, "Hey I know its rude to belch at the dinner table but I'm gonna do it anyway. Just givin' ya a head's up."

Does it make belching any less rude? No ...

Public forum means anyone can (and very likely will) respond. :)




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125