RE: Keeping the TV watching public informed

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Keeping the TV watching public informed

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Keeping the TV watching public informed

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

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Keeping the TV watching public informed - 2/8/2013 7:02:15 PM

DesideriScuri

Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HarryVanWinkle
Umm, ALL shows are mindless filler to deliver a mindless audience to the advertisers.

Ooooh, not true. Some shows involve use of the mind, improve the mind, and augment the mind... while delivering them to the advertisers.

_____________________________

What I support:

A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
Personal Responsibility
Help for the truly needy
Limited Government
Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to HarryVanWinkle)

Profile

Post #: 61

RE: Keeping the TV watching public informed - 2/10/2013 9:01:50 AM

GotSteel

Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Because they won't.

We left the party under the same President but you're giving me a hard time because I didn't stay in and try to fix a party which you consider unfixable. Does that strike anyone else as hypocritical?

(in reply to DesideriScuri)

Profile

Post #: 62

RE: Keeping the TV watching public informed - 2/10/2013 9:34:01 AM

DesideriScuri

Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Because they won't.

We left the party under the same President but you're giving me a hard time because I didn't stay in and try to fix a party which you consider unfixable. Does that strike anyone else as hypocritical?

I have philosophical differences with them that aren't going to change. Your stated reason was "reality denial." If that is the case, then your views still won't line up with the Democrats, nor with the Libertarians. I'm thinking they'd line up with the Libertarians moreso than the Democrats, but both of them would be less aligned than the "traditional" Republican platform.

Now, had your reasoning been that your beliefs changed, well, that's a different story altogether, like I said to slvemike4u.

So, have your beliefs changed?

Which party do your beliefs most align with, Democrat, Libertarian or traditional GOP? If it's the last one, then you should have stayed and attempted to "right the ship." If your beliefs don't most align with the traditional GOP platform, and haven't changed, then you were in the wrong party to begin with.

Which is it, then?

_____________________________

What I support:

A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
Personal Responsibility
Help for the truly needy
Limited Government
Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to GotSteel)

Profile

Post #: 63

RE: Keeping the TV watching public informed - 2/11/2013 12:19:26 AM

GotSteel

Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
We left the party under the same President but you're giving me a hard time because I didn't stay in and try to fix a party which you consider unfixable. Does that strike anyone else as hypocritical?

I have philosophical differences with them that aren't going to change.

I have philosophical differences with them as well. I'm extremely pro-reality and they've gotten themselves firmly mired in the anti-reality camp. I don't think that amount of crazy stupid is fixable. I held out hope for a long time and stayed independent but I've recently given up as I've watched the GOP run farther and farther toward the crazy when it's become apparent that the level of crazy they were using didn't work.

We've had overwhelming bipartisan agreement that the GOP Congress are useless asshats, we are well into the time where anyone who loves our country should jump ship in order to elect people who are actually capable of governing.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)

Profile

Post #: 64

RE: Keeping the TV watching public informed - 2/11/2013 12:27:05 AM

GotSteel

Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
If it's the last one, then you should have stayed and attempted to "right the ship."

Actually when it comes to righting the ship the only glimmer of hope is coming from treating that party like lepers. Losing has made them think about reevaluating their platform in a way that electing the least crazy candidate never has.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)

Profile

Post #: 65

RE: Keeping the TV watching public informed - 2/11/2013 4:49:55 AM

DesideriScuri

Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
We left the party under the same President but you're giving me a hard time because I didn't stay in and try to fix a party which you consider unfixable. Does that strike anyone else as hypocritical?

I have philosophical differences with them that aren't going to change.

I have philosophical differences with them as well. I'm extremely pro-reality and they've gotten themselves firmly mired in the anti-reality camp. I don't think that amount of crazy stupid is fixable. I held out hope for a long time and stayed independent but I've recently given up as I've watched the GOP run farther and farther toward the crazy when it's become apparent that the level of crazy they were using didn't work.
We've had overwhelming bipartisan agreement that the GOP Congress are useless asshats, we are well into the time where anyone who loves our country should jump ship in order to elect people who are actually capable of governing.

Their "reality denial," then, was only the proverbial "last straw," and not the entire reason you left. IMO, most of Congress is made up of asshats, and only some are completely useless. "Buying" votes of their electorate with pork barrel funding has to stop somehow. To paint only the GOP as sold out to Corporate Overlords would be reality denial in its finest (and I'm not accusing you, specifically, of that). There has to be a break between money and politicians - yeah, naive, pie-in-the-sky thinking on my part - or else we're going to devolve into a de facto plutocracy.

Last item: I don't care what party affiliation anyone claims. If someone goes in and simply votes Party, that's an abuse of a vote. Not saying you can't vote for candidates from one party, but to simply vote for someone because of a party, is bad.

_____________________________

What I support:

A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
Personal Responsibility
Help for the truly needy
Limited Government
Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to GotSteel)

Profile

Post #: 66

RE: Keeping the TV watching public informed - 2/11/2013 6:42:36 AM

MrRodgers

Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: muhly22222
I honestly couldn't believe this, so I checked tvguide.com myself.
While it didn't list Springer as being what will be showing, it did say "Local Programming,"...which probably means Springer.
I'm sure Fox will be showing it, really...I have to believe this was an oversight on the part of whatever staffer has as their job to report the station's programming.

Or, they are bucking the trend to show their viewers what their viewers actually want to see (not saying that CBS/ABC/NBC viewers don't want to see the inauguration)?

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?

But that goes for all inaugurations and almost all of these speeches. It's like sports championships for anybody not directly involved...one can be happy for the players and staff but it doesn't make a shit pot full of difference for anybody else in society.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)

Profile

Post #: 67

RE: Keeping the TV watching public informed - 2/11/2013 7:32:04 AM

DesideriScuri

Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: muhly22222
I honestly couldn't believe this, so I checked tvguide.com myself.
While it didn't list Springer as being what will be showing, it did say "Local Programming,"...which probably means Springer.
I'm sure Fox will be showing it, really...I have to believe this was an oversight on the part of whatever staffer has as their job to report the station's programming.

Or, they are bucking the trend to show their viewers what their viewers actually want to see (not saying that CBS/ABC/NBC viewers don't want to see the inauguration)?
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?

But that goes for all inaugurations and almost all of these speeches. It's like sports championships for anybody not directly involved...one can be happy for the players and staff but it doesn't make a shit pot full of difference for anybody else in society.

Which is why I still support an TV station showing whatever they think is going to draw the most viewers, regardless of what else is going on. Think you can get more viewers airing Springer, rather than the Inauguration? Run Springer. The OP was ranting against a local Fox affiliate having Springer listed as being aired at that timeslot.

_____________________________

What I support:

A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
Personal Responsibility
Help for the truly needy
Limited Government
Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to MrRodgers)

Profile

Post #: 68

RE: Keeping the TV watching public informed - 2/11/2013 7:57:52 AM

thishereboi

Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: muhly22222
I honestly couldn't believe this, so I checked tvguide.com myself.
While it didn't list Springer as being what will be showing, it did say "Local Programming,"...which probably means Springer.
I'm sure Fox will be showing it, really...I have to believe this was an oversight on the part of whatever staffer has as their job to report the station's programming.

Or, they are bucking the trend to show their viewers what their viewers actually want to see (not saying that CBS/ABC/NBC viewers don't want to see the inauguration)?
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?

But that goes for all inaugurations and almost all of these speeches. It's like sports championships for anybody not directly involved...one can be happy for the players and staff but it doesn't make a shit pot full of difference for anybody else in society.

Which is why I still support an TV station showing whatever they think is going to draw the most viewers, regardless of what else is going on. Think you can get more viewers airing Springer, rather than the Inauguration? Run Springer. The OP was ranting against a local Fox affiliate having Springer listed as being aired at that timeslot.

Yes he was, he also added some trivia in his second post. Then after it was pointed out that Fox did run it and his trivia was bullshit, he disapeared. I guess this thread wasn't as much fun as he thought it would be.

_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert

This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi

(in reply to DesideriScuri)

Profile

Post #: 69