Thread: Thailand Lounge and Chat area
+
Add Report
Results 856 to 870 of 1366
-
07-19-19 06:43 #511
Posts: 3497Originally Posted by EihTooms [View Original Post]
But The Five is a pretty good show. I have yet to find any show on the other networks that presents issues with appropriate discussions from both sides like that. If you can name one on CNN like that please let me know. Of course MSNBC won't have one, but that's a given.
I also like the Gutfeld show. It's a comedy, but they come up with some good points on occasion.
-
07-19-19 05:45 #510
Posts: 5461Originally Posted by Smoothy [View Original Post]
That is not what CNN, MSNBC and regular broadcast news services on ABC, CBS and NBC do.
Notice that there is a bug in the lower left corner of the screen telling the viewer that what they are watching is "NEWS" through every one of those pundit/opinion programs 24/7.
The other channels don't do that. They just identify their channel with their call letters and do not insist you take everything you see and hear on every program to be ABC NEWS, CABLE NEWS or anything of the kind.
But that isn't what FOX NEWS does when they could simply place FN in the lower left corner of the screen as its channel call letters.
That decision was, imo, an obvious a early Roger Ailes concept designed to mislead viewers with an ever present lie placed on their tv screen.
And I guess I am puzzled why Real News needs to be given "both sides" unless there is an interest in promoting and elevating some lie or falsehood as equal to the reportable facts. FOX NEWS' biggest audiences are watching shows being promoted as NEWS that will likely never report much negative news about their favorite GOP figures, even when it is rather unprecedented news. And if they can't avoid it, there will be some noodnik there with no facts but only a rabid opinion that everyone else is lying as though that is an admirable effort to present "both sides" to credible, verified facts.
-
07-19-19 04:22 #509
Posts: 3497Originally Posted by Goatscrot [View Original Post]
I like watching "The Five" on foxnews. I liked The Five better when Kimberly Guilfoyle was on there (hotty), but it's still a light hearted way of reporting and debating the news and I enjoy that. It sounds like you would like Shephard Smith.
-
07-18-19 18:43 #508
Posts: 3682Originally Posted by Smoothy [View Original Post]
We live in a post-truth world.
-
07-18-19 12:57 #507
Posts: 3497Originally Posted by EihTooms [View Original Post]
I find these types of interviews and debates interesting because they actually present both points of view. A channel like CNN never presents the conservative point of view in an educated manner.
Munk debate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxYimeaoea0
Politicon debate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2SDFwu_JR8
-
07-18-19 08:19 #506
Posts: 1222Originally Posted by EihTooms [View Original Post]
I am apolitical although one cannot but be disgusted by the behavior and values of some individuals who get elected to the highest ranks of public office.
ET I feel when discussing consequences of a particular event it is prudent to leave political partisanship out of the discussion as it clouds sound reasoning. I may be wrong but in your somewhat not easy to follow post it seems that you are blaming Bush and the republicans for the shenanigans of Monday Sept 29 when in fact the bill failed to pass because a third of the democratic members of the house voted against it. Don't forget they held the majority after the 2006 midterms 233 to 202.
It was only 2 days to the Wednesday when the senate passed the bill at which time it was generally accepted with the revisions the house would pass it too.
While some details were changed the objective of the bill remained the same to put a floor under the financial system to stop it from collapsing altogether with the ensuing possibility of another great depression.
Was what happened in this relatively small time frame in a crisis which had been brewing for months and months on end, years if you go back to the beginning of the housing collapse the cause of the subsequent fall in stock markets worldwide?
On that ET we will have to agree to disagree.
-
07-18-19 07:09 #505
Posts: 5461Originally Posted by Smoothy [View Original Post]
-
07-18-19 04:22 #504
Posts: 5461Originally Posted by Smoothy [View Original Post]
-
07-18-19 04:12 #503
Posts: 5461Originally Posted by Franciscass [View Original Post]
That assumption came to a shocking halt on Sept. 29,2008. It doesn't matter that 3-4 days later Bush and his fellow Republicans came out and said, "Hey, folks, come on back! We were only kidding. We'll pass it this time, no kidding." Once panic sets in and the mob is racing for the exits, you don't reel them back in with immediate, largely improvised do-overs. Fed Chairman Paulson had been working since early 2008 on that bailout. Due diligence was baked in the market for why it was on the table for a vote and what it would likely mean. That quickly cobbled together do-over 3-4 days later, was not the same bill. Changes had been made in as much of a panic as the stock market investors running for the exits. And nobody thought this one legislation is all we'll need to pull us out of this crisis. It was merely the first one. There would be others. And more "shenanigans" when their time came? No thanks. I'm OUT.
It required a complete change in the political make-up of the Federal Government, replacing the one party well known throughout decades and decades of history for presiding over major economic declines and stock market crashes with the one that is as well known for pulling us out of them. In fact, the "shenanigans" did not even end from that former side. At virtually every step of the follow up measures required to pull us out of the Great Recession and get the stock market back on track for historic gains, the "shenanigans" side slow-walked, obfuscated, delayed, denied, blocked and obstructed them. It is one of the reasons this particular Dem recovery from a Rep decline was slower than the others. So, in a very real sense, the mob that ran for the exits in a panic starting Sept. 29,2008 and did not believe the calls to "come back, everything will be ok" 3-4 days later had it right as long as the Federal Government was in that side's control.
-
07-17-19 15:21 #502
Posts: 1222Originally Posted by Smoothy [View Original Post]
-
07-17-19 14:32 #501
Posts: 3497Originally Posted by EihTooms [View Original Post]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMzJsw3eFRQ
CNN fake Muslim protests.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1gR37Wwakw
Top 4 reasons CNN is called fake news.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igfW_ogd0ZM
Top 10 fake news of 2016.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REPFH2V_EYo
How about the current one where the Dems are calling Trump a racist?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCkt57w3Uu0
ABC fakes crime scene.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YwIkknxE8E
This one just makes me laugh since Don Lemon is such a hypocrite.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LulNAEeTsrc
NBC blows up truck for fake news story.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fslEpQGw0M
-
07-17-19 09:52 #500
Posts: 1222Originally Posted by Smoothy [View Original Post]
-
07-17-19 09:50 #499
Posts: 1222Originally Posted by EihTooms [View Original Post]
I do accept markets are at times driven just as much by physiology as fundamentals and I agree the September 29th shenanigans in the house did not help but that said the bill was passed 4 days later.
I guess you are saying that delay made all the difference to what followed. Possible I suppose but in my opinion unlikely and so I stand by my contention and the commonly accepted explanation of the crash of '08 '09 being caused by a housing crisis that first began to appear back in 2006.
At a bare minimum I think you have to agree that had there not been this housing crisis in the first place there would have been no need for a TARP making whether it passed on Sept 29th or Oct 3rd irrelevant.
If not then ET let's agree to disagree.
-
07-17-19 05:51 #498
Posts: 5461Originally Posted by EihTooms [View Original Post]
-
07-17-19 05:37 #497
Posts: 5461Originally Posted by Smoothy [View Original Post]
The unemployment rate reached and fell below 6% in less than half the time under Obama than Mitt Romney promised his (Mitt's) policies would get it there in his 2012 presidential campaign bid. That is essentially the rate the Fed had established as being "Full Employment" for this era, when we historically begin to see more jobs available than applicants to take them and wage inflation becomes a risk. It was in December 2015, a few months after Donald Trump first announced his run for the presidency when almost no one predicted he would be the Republican nominee much less the president.