RE: Keeping the TV watching public informed (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


thishereboi -> RE: Keeping the TV watching public informed (1/22/2013 5:08:28 AM)

fr
I would have no problem if fox hadn't shown it, but I know my dad was watching it yesterday and he was watching it on fox, so I have to wonder why people keep saying they didn't.




thishereboi -> RE: Keeping the TV watching public informed (1/22/2013 5:16:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto

History trivia: The last time the losing Presidential candidate of a major political party refused to attend the winner's inauguration was when Republican Thomas Dewey refused to attend President Truman's inauguration.

Until today -

Mitt Romney refused to attend President Obama's inauguration today.


Not according to this.

http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1989/Dukakis-Wishes-Bush-Well-on-Inauguration-Day-With-AM-Inaugural-Rdp-Bjt/id-e964d48f11829b47790a04f6c5f5cd84

"While George Bush was sworn in as president Friday, a subdued Michael Dukakis watched on television, eating a tuna sandwich and sharing his disappointment with his staff. "




GotSteel -> RE: Keeping the TV watching public informed (1/22/2013 5:23:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

I don't see the point (and have never) in watching the Inauguration. What is the difference made between when you woke up and after watching it? Has your life actually changed?


I was interested to hear what the President of the United States had to say regarding his priorities for his second term.




DesideriScuri -> RE: Keeping the TV watching public informed (1/22/2013 5:58:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I don't see the point (and have never) in watching the Inauguration. What is the difference made between when you woke up and after watching it? Has your life actually changed?

I was interested to hear what the President of the United States had to say regarding his priorities for his second term.


And, to fill your interest, I'm willing to bet you watched the inauguration, or recorded it if you couldn't watch it live. I have no problem with it being broadcast, and I have no problem with it not being broadcast.

But, knowing what the President is going to prioritize changed you... how? Did watching him say it change you that reading about it or seeing/hearing it on the 'net after the fact wouldn't have?





GotSteel -> RE: Keeping the TV watching public informed (1/22/2013 12:28:23 PM)

You said that you didn't see the point in watching the inauguration, so I explained the point to you.

To rephrase my answer: intellectual curiosity.

As to how that changes me life. Intellectual curiosity in turn expands ones knowledge. Greater knowledge in turn leads to more informed decisions.




DesideriScuri -> RE: Keeping the TV watching public informed (1/22/2013 12:47:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
You said that you didn't see the point in watching the inauguration, so I explained the point to you.
To rephrase my answer: intellectual curiosity.
As to how that changes me life. Intellectual curiosity in turn expands ones knowledge. Greater knowledge in turn leads to more informed decisions.


I fully grasp what you did. I wasn't re-asking because I felt you didn't explain it. Now, further questions, generally, lead to further answers. I sincerely hope your intellectual curiosity was slaked for the moment and it, in turn, leads to greater knowledge, and, perhaps, even wisdom at some point.

Can you not see that intellectual curiosity also drives one to find out why someone does something one way when it would be much more efficient to do so a different way? If you were to watch a live football game or watch a live broadcast of a game, there is the drama and excitement that goes along with not knowing the final result. It can be difficult, however, if you record a game and watch it after it is over, and still have that same level of drama, especially if you weren't successful in shielding yourself from the results.

Does watching the inauguration via live broadcast do more for you than reading about it or watching a recording?

And, to give you another peek into my mind, I haven't watched an "awards" show for as long as I can remember, and all my adult life, I can't decipher why anyone would want to sit and watch that stuff. I accept that people do. I don't understand it, though.




GotSteel -> RE: Keeping the TV watching public informed (1/26/2013 10:04:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Does watching the inauguration via live broadcast do more for you than reading about it or watching a recording?

No idea I recorded it so I could fast forward through all the award show fluff and just see what the President had to say.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Can you not see that intellectual curiosity also drives one to find out why someone does something one way when it would be much more efficient to do so a different way? If you were to watch a live football game or watch a live broadcast of a game, there is the drama and excitement that goes along with not knowing the final result. It can be difficult, however, if you record a game and watch it after it is over, and still have that same level of drama, especially if you weren't successful in shielding yourself from the results.

Well I don't know how that would apply here, this isn't like election night. But I can say that watching a speech reveals nuances such as emphasis, expressions, body language that wouldn't be present in text for instance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
And, to give you another peek into my mind, I haven't watched an "awards" show for as long as I can remember, and all my adult life, I can't decipher why anyone would want to sit and watch that stuff. I accept that people do. I don't understand it, though.

I can't say I watch those either.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I fully grasp what you did. I wasn't re-asking because I felt you didn't explain it. Now, further questions, generally, lead to further answers.

I suppose I answered what you actually asked as opposed to what you perhaps mean...

I think the point of the OP is that this is one of those examples of why FOX viewers are less informed than everybody else.




BamaD -> RE: Keeping the TV watching public informed (1/28/2013 12:02:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto

I checked the listings for the television coverage of President Obama's swearing-in ceremony today at 11:00 AM EST today. The four non-cable networks:

ABC - Live coverage of President Obama's Inauguration.
CBS - Live coverage of President Obama's Inauguration.
NBC - Live coverage of President Obama's Inauguration.
FOX - JERRY SPRINGER - LESBIAN STRIPPER THREESOME

"No joke - just fact"

And NBC didn't cover the 9/11 cerimonies when everyone else did.




BamaD -> RE: Keeping the TV watching public informed (1/28/2013 12:06:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Does watching the inauguration via live broadcast do more for you than reading about it or watching a recording?

No idea I recorded it so I could fast forward through all the award show fluff and just see what the President had to say.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Can you not see that intellectual curiosity also drives one to find out why someone does something one way when it would be much more efficient to do so a different way? If you were to watch a live football game or watch a live broadcast of a game, there is the drama and excitement that goes along with not knowing the final result. It can be difficult, however, if you record a game and watch it after it is over, and still have that same level of drama, especially if you weren't successful in shielding yourself from the results.

Well I don't know how that would apply here, this isn't like election night. But I can say that watching a speech reveals nuances such as emphasis, expressions, body language that wouldn't be present in text for instance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
And, to give you another peek into my mind, I haven't watched an "awards" show for as long as I can remember, and all my adult life, I can't decipher why anyone would want to sit and watch that stuff. I accept that people do. I don't understand it, though.

I can't say I watch those either.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I fully grasp what you did. I wasn't re-asking because I felt you didn't explain it. Now, further questions, generally, lead to further answers.

I suppose I answered what you actually asked as opposed to what you perhaps mean...

I think the point of the OP is that this is one of those examples of why FOX viewers are less informed than everybody else.

Except that this was
A. Fox entertainment and
B. A local programng decision since fox doesn't do soaps. so it is
C. not relevant in any way




SadistDave -> RE: Keeping the TV watching public informed (1/28/2013 1:47:36 AM)

The Inauguration is not actually a big deal. It happens every time we have a Presidential Election. There's a ceremony and a speech. That's about all there is to it. It's a very predictable event.

It's especially not a big deal that this nitwit was sworn in a second time, because Obama's speeches are also predictable events. The past 4 years has taught any actual thinking person that whenever Obama is speaking, it is not informative in any way. Nor is it intellectually honest. Nor is it going to be even remotely beneficial to the country. They are sycophantic, narcissistic claptrap, and as predictable as the tides.

-SD-




DesideriScuri -> RE: Keeping the TV watching public informed (1/28/2013 4:50:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Can you not see that intellectual curiosity also drives one to find out why someone does something one way when it would be much more efficient to do so a different way? If you were to watch a live football game or watch a live broadcast of a game, there is the drama and excitement that goes along with not knowing the final result. It can be difficult, however, if you record a game and watch it after it is over, and still have that same level of drama, especially if you weren't successful in shielding yourself from the results.

Well I don't know how that would apply here, this isn't like election night. But I can say that watching a speech reveals nuances such as emphasis, expressions, body language that wouldn't be present in text for instance.


I agree watching a speech is better than reading it, and moderately better than listening to it. I'm also the guy that got run up a rail on these boards for putting stock in nonverbal communication.




GotSteel -> RE: Keeping the TV watching public informed (1/29/2013 7:25:10 AM)

quote:


I'm also the guy that got run up a rail on these boards for putting stock in nonverbal communication.

I can't agree with your characterization of why that happened. As I recall you were coming up with a very percular interpretation of a hand wave while ignoring Santorum's long standing consistently stated position which he tried to pass legislation for.




thishereboi -> RE: Keeping the TV watching public informed (1/29/2013 7:30:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel


I think the point of the OP is that this is one of those examples of why FOX viewers are less informed than everybody else.


Well if that was the point it was wrong. Fox ran the inaugeration on their news station.




Notsweet -> RE: Keeping the TV watching public informed (1/29/2013 7:30:49 AM)

FYI--Fox News Channel carried it all day. Fox Broadcast had regular programming.




jlf1961 -> RE: Keeping the TV watching public informed (1/29/2013 7:35:30 AM)

I would have been happy if all the normal networks would have ignored the damn thing. And that goes for any party who wins the election.




DesideriScuri -> RE: Keeping the TV watching public informed (1/29/2013 7:37:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
quote:


I'm also the guy that got run up a rail on these boards for putting stock in nonverbal communication.

I can't agree with your characterization of why that happened. As I recall you were coming up with a very percular interpretation of a hand wave while ignoring Santorum's long standing consistently stated position which he tried to pass legislation for.


Peculiar? Actually, I was the only one that even considered the nonverbal communication that was overtly present. And, for that, I was run up a rail.




GotSteel -> RE: Keeping the TV watching public informed (2/1/2013 6:12:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Peculiar? Actually, I was the only one that even considered the nonverbal communication that was overtly present. And, for that, I was run up a rail.


So overtly present that even after having it pointed out to the rest of us repeatedly we easily reached the consensus that you were imagining things.

The really baffling part is how you still refuse to believe Santorum about what Santorum's position is even after it was shown to you that the guy had written legislation for said position.




DesideriScuri -> RE: Keeping the TV watching public informed (2/1/2013 8:23:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Peculiar? Actually, I was the only one that even considered the nonverbal communication that was overtly present. And, for that, I was run up a rail.

So overtly present that even after having it pointed out to the rest of us repeatedly we easily reached the consensus that you were imagining things.
The really baffling part is how you still refuse to believe Santorum about what Santorum's position is even after it was shown to you that the guy had written legislation for said position.


Your ideology let you see what you wanted to see.




GotSteel -> RE: Keeping the TV watching public informed (2/2/2013 5:25:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Your ideology let you see what you wanted to see.

Here's a reminder of why the consensus that your position is entirely delusional was reached:

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
he was talking against secular humanism.


Bullshit! he never says that, "radical secular ideology" is vague enough that you could make up any excuse for his anti-education stance you want.

But instead of scouring these clips for secret hand signals, read his fucking legislation:

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_Amendment
The Santorum Amendment was a failed proposed amendment to the 2001 education funding bill (which became known as the No Child Left Behind Act), proposed by Republican Rick Santorum (who was at that time the United States Senator for Pennsylvania), which promoted the teaching of intelligent design while questioning the academic standing of evolution in U.S. public schools.


He's a young earth creationist, he's trying to replace science education with his young earth creationist beliefs. I know this is true not just because he has said so but because he has written the legislation to do it.

When he rants about smart people thinking they are superior, this is what he's talking about:

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_Amendment
In response, a coalition of 96 scientific and educational organizations wrote a letter to the conference committee, urging that the amendment be stricken from the final bill, arguing that evolution is, in the scientific fields, regarded as fact and that the amendment creates the mis-perception that evolution is not fully accepted in the scientific community, and thus weakens science curricula. The words of the amendment survive in modified form in the Bill's Conference Report and do not carry the weight of law. As one of the Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns it became a cornerstone in the intelligent design movement's "Teach the Controversy" campaign.


He's angry that scientists know more about science than he does.




DesideriScuri -> RE: Keeping the TV watching public informed (2/2/2013 9:34:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Your ideology let you see what you wanted to see.

Here's a reminder of why the consensus that your position is entirely delusional was reached:
quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
he was talking against secular humanism.

Bullshit! he never says that, "radical secular ideology" is vague enough that you could make up any excuse for his anti-education stance you want.
But instead of scouring these clips for secret hand signals, read his fucking legislation:
quote:

ORIGINAL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_Amendment
The Santorum Amendment was a failed proposed amendment to the 2001 education funding bill (which became known as the No Child Left Behind Act), proposed by Republican Rick Santorum (who was at that time the United States Senator for Pennsylvania), which promoted the teaching of intelligent design while questioning the academic standing of evolution in U.S. public schools.

He's a young earth creationist, he's trying to replace science education with his young earth creationist beliefs. I know this is true not just because he has said so but because he has written the legislation to do it.
When he rants about smart people thinking they are superior, this is what he's talking about:
quote:

ORIGINAL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_Amendment
In response, a coalition of 96 scientific and educational organizations wrote a letter to the conference committee, urging that the amendment be stricken from the final bill, arguing that evolution is, in the scientific fields, regarded as fact and that the amendment creates the mis-perception that evolution is not fully accepted in the scientific community, and thus weakens science curricula. The words of the amendment survive in modified form in the Bill's Conference Report and do not carry the weight of law. As one of the Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns it became a cornerstone in the intelligent design movement's "Teach the Controversy" campaign.

He's angry that scientists know more about science than he does.



Have any unbiased person watch the tape and see what they think.

The "consensus" that my position was delusional was only reached by those who disagree with Santorum's politics, aka, the Usual Suspects. I don't expect you to agree with me. I never have. I've proven that I am educated. I do not take unprincipled stands. Every stand I have has some basis, even if it's a faith in God. Your continued attempts to knock me down aren't working, haven't worked yet, and won't work in the future. The things you quoted here don't prove a fucking thing about the meaning of his comment, nor does it disprove my assertion about his nonverbal communication. You have the choice to ignore that portion of communication, and I expect you will, unless it's your side doing the communicating. Enjoy.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875