The Velvet Room
Get Real Hard

Thread: Thailand Lounge and Chat area

+ Add Report
Page 1 of 35 1 2 3 4 5 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 513
This forum thread is moderated by Admin
  1. #513
    Quote Originally Posted by EihTooms  [View Original Post]
    But MSNBC's Morning Joe Show is hosted by a former GOP Congressman who led the charge and voted to impeach Bill Clinton and rarely had a good word for Hillary Clinton.
    Joke Scarborough has basically lost any credibility. He was Trump's biggest supporter prior to the election. Both CNN and MSNBC had Trump on their shows quite often prior to the election. That was when they didn't expect him to win. I can't even watch Morning Joe anymore because all they do is spew hate. Donny Deutsch is flat out insane. I don't think any of the morning cable news shows are worth watching.

    Here's a discussion of Scarborough making an announcement about him leaving the Republican party in a effort to boost sales for a record he made.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-_FRmd7d7c

  2. #512
    Quote Originally Posted by Smoothy  [View Original Post]
    Although Hannity is absurdly biased, so are MSNBC's Rachel Maddow and CNN's Don Lemon. All three are fake news. Hannity says nothing negative about the President and Maddow and Lemon say nothing positive about the President. It's ridiculous.

    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.
    But Hannity's show is the only one in that group above with the word "NEWS" ever present on the bottom of the screen. And I assume The Five does, too.

    FOX has always misled its audience in that way. And not only visually, but in words as well. When Hannity and O'Reilly before him touted their ratings, they blasted all other news programming as inferior to theirs because they ere the only "Fair and Balanced" news shows. But call them out on their lies and they retreat to "Oh, we're only an entertainment show, we're just expressing our opinion!"

    I appreciate that The Five is an opinion/pundit show on Fox that allows a non GOP voice to be heard and express an opinion, although I still question the motives for presenting "both sides" of verifiable news items. But MSNBC's Morning Joe Show is hosted by a former GOP Congressman who led the charge and voted to impeach Bill Clinton and rarely had a good word for Hillary Clinton. I am sure when he sees or hears Trump doing or saying something positive, he gives him props for it. I have heard him do it. And Maddow always cites the name of the "other side" of an important news item that was invited on her show to give his or her version of it. Sometimes they show up, sometimes they don't.

    Btw, the reason MSNBC doesn't have a straight news only show is because their parent company, NBC, already has a national evening news program for that. But Fox does not. There is no Fox Evening News on the regular national Fox broadcast channel at those times. Probably showing Jeopardy or reruns of Hogan's Heroes then. They do not want to be subject to the same standards of scrutiny for credibility as the ABC, CBS and NBC networks. If they were, their national news reports would naturally fly in the face and contradict what is being said about that exact same news item on their cable channel. Awkward.

  3. #511
    Quote Originally Posted by EihTooms  [View Original Post]
    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.
    Although Hannity is absurdly biased, so are MSNBC's Rachel Maddow and CNN's Don Lemon. All three are fake news. Hannity says nothing negative about the President and Maddow and Lemon say nothing positive about the President. It's ridiculous.

    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.

  4. #510
    Quote Originally Posted by Smoothy  [View Original Post]
    You obviously don't watch foxnews because that's inaccurate. As I mentioned, they do have ridiculous shows like Hannity. However, there are lots of shows on Foxnews that report the news from both sides. I don't see that on any other network.

    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.
    I don't mind that the prime time FOX NEWS programming is dominated by ultra wingnut spin and easily debunked fake news. There is certainly a market for that on cable news and buyer beware. But they obviously make an effort to fool their viewers into thinking they are watching Real News instead of Trump/GOP campaign lies and blather whenever Hannity and the others open their mouth.

    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.

  5. #509
    Quote Originally Posted by Goatscrot  [View Original Post]
    By far the worst channel for "fake news" in the US is Fox.
    You obviously don't watch foxnews because that's inaccurate. As I mentioned, they do have ridiculous shows like Hannity. However, there are lots of shows on Foxnews that report the news from both sides. I don't see that on any other network.

    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.

  6. #508
    Quote Originally Posted by Smoothy  [View Original Post]
    In my opinion, it's pretty easy to pick out what is actual news and what is just narrative regardless of the source. Unfortunately, CNN is almost all narrative these days and very little true factual news. MSNBC has always been just narrative pushing their liberal agenda, but at least they make no secret of that. CNN actually tries to pose as a factual news network, which they are not. Foxnews has shows like hannity which just push the conservative narrative, but they do have some unbiased shows as well which I don't see on the other major cable networks. I prefer watching full raw footage of events, listening to debates and discussions from both sides of the argument, then making my own decisions rather than listening to how any of the news outlets try to spin things.

    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
    The US media is corporate and serves corporate interests. I don't consider any US media to be truly left leaning. When you compare them to media outlets in other developed nations CNN and MSNBC are center right at best. FFS, the Dems in the US are a center right party. I'm certainly hoping the new progressives can push the US a bit more towards the center soon. By far the worst channel for "fake news" in the US is Fox; that is if you can even call it news. It's like listening to Howard Stern. It's amazing entertainment.
    We live in a post-truth world.

  7. #507
    Quote Originally Posted by EihTooms  [View Original Post]
    BTW, are those linked sources really where you go to sort out the Fake News from the Real News?
    In my opinion, it's pretty easy to pick out what is actual news and what is just narrative regardless of the source. Unfortunately, CNN is almost all narrative these days and very little true factual news. MSNBC has always been just narrative pushing their liberal agenda, but at least they make no secret of that. CNN actually tries to pose as a factual news network, which they are not. Foxnews has shows like hannity which just push the conservative narrative, but they do have some unbiased shows as well which I don't see on the other major cable networks. I prefer watching full raw footage of events, listening to debates and discussions from both sides of the argument, then making my own decisions rather than listening to how any of the news outlets try to spin things.

    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

  8. #506
    Quote Originally Posted by EihTooms  [View Original Post]
    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.
    I am not an American although I follow its politics and as an investor its imperative to know what is happening to the markets there.

    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.

  9. #505
    Quote Originally Posted by Smoothy  [View Original Post]
    Yep, most of the mainstream media can't be trusted.

    ...
    BTW, are those linked sources really where you go to sort out the Fake News from the Real News?

  10. #504
    Quote Originally Posted by Smoothy  [View Original Post]
    Yep, most of the mainstream media can't be trusted. I was at this particular rally chanting CNN sucks. Good fun. CNN the next day made it seem like it was an angry mob and that Jim Acosta was in danger, but in reality we were having a good laugh. Then again, CNN is fake news so it wasn't surprising. They don't report the news anymore, they report their narrative.
    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
    No doubt, mainstream media and niche media can and do shade and spin to fit an agenda. The agenda is more often than not just to attract more eyes and ears to their product, not to promote a political side. But economic data isn't a matter of mood, political bias or opinion. Someone can shade and spin all they want. But until the data is shown to be false, having been fabricated for some reason, it is what it is.

  11. #503
    Quote Originally Posted by Franciscass  [View Original Post]
    It is always a matter of speculation as to whether the outcome of a situation would have been different had this or that happened or not particularly one as complicated as a world economic crisis, we simply don't know.

    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.
    I call that Sept. 29,2009 event the trigger for the panic selloff that followed because all evidence points to it being that. It was not a well-reasoned decision by forward thinking stock market investors considering the state of the country's finances and housing. They had almost a year of incremental, almost weekly awareness of that situation in the economy to bail out of the market in large numbers, but they didn't. I believe they didn't because it was assumed there would no "shenanigans" when the time came for the White House and Congress to do what is necessary to prevent another 1929. Housing, financial, banking, savings and loan crises, even (on rare occasion) deep Recessions can exist side-by-side with stock markets that continue on without a major, prolonged crash as long as there is ample reason to think there are enough clear heads willing to do the right thing to prevent a major Crash. We had all of those things during the Reagan and Bush1 years, but only one short term crash into 20% decline that only lasted a few days before recovering and nothing was done differently in terms of legislation in those few days.

    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.

  12. #502
    Quote Originally Posted by Smoothy  [View Original Post]
    Yep, most of the mainstream media can't be trusted. I was at this particular rally chanting CNN sucks. Good fun. CNN the next day made it seem like it was an angry mob and that Jim Acosta was in danger, but in reality we were having a good laugh. Then again, CNN is fake news so it wasn't surprising. They don't report the news anymore, they report their narrative.
    Right on Smoothy, got to go to Fox to get accurate news these days. Mainstream media are just Trump haters and fake news platforms. Same goes for the Washington Post and The New York times.

  13. #501
    Quote Originally Posted by EihTooms  [View Original Post]
    Fake news?
    Yep, most of the mainstream media can't be trusted. I was at this particular rally chanting CNN sucks. Good fun. CNN the next day made it seem like it was an angry mob and that Jim Acosta was in danger, but in reality we were having a good laugh. Then again, CNN is fake news so it wasn't surprising. They don't report the news anymore, they report their narrative.
    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

  14. #500
    Quote Originally Posted by Smoothy  [View Original Post]
    If the interest rate was still zero, the numbers would be even higher for Trump. Interest rates remained zero for the entire Obama Presidency and would still be zero if Obama was President because he would not have invigorated the economy with jobs like Trump has to allow the interest rates to raise above zero. The interest rates remaining at zero for so long was borderline criminal.
    I suppose Smoothy this comes down to whether one is a Trump supporter or not.

  15. #499
    Quote Originally Posted by EihTooms  [View Original Post]
    I agree that was the reason for the financial/housing crash. But I don't believe that was the reason the stock market crashed.

    The stock market remained largely out of a Bear for months, almost a year during the revelations that the banks, rating agencies, regulators and, most importantly, Bush's Office of Thrift Supervision were not doing their job. It was stubbornly holding on within Correction territory through a whole slew of disastrous news and venerable investment institution collapses..
    It is always a matter of speculation as to whether the outcome of a situation would have been different had this or that happened or not particularly one as complicated as a world economic crisis, we simply don't know.

    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.

+ Add Report
Page 1 of 35 1 2 3 4 5 11 ... LastLast

Posting Limitations

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
https://vip-dubai-bunnies.com/all-dubai-escorts-uae/

photocallgirl.com

Page copy protected against web site content infringement by Copyscape