Forum Thread

Lake Martin Topics

(Lake Martin Specific)

111,143 messages

Updated 4/25/2024 7:30:23 PM

Off-Topic

Lakes Online Forum

83,605 messages

Updated 4/25/2024 9:33:24 PM

Boat Maintenance

Lakes Online Forum

5,193 messages

Updated 4/3/2024 3:47:36 AM

Lake Martin Fishing

(Lake Martin Specific)

4,169 messages

Updated 4/16/2024 3:16:57 AM

Jokes

Lakes Online Forum

4,169 messages

Updated 4/15/2024 11:05:05 PM

Sports

Lakes Online Forum

4,260 messages

Updated 3/24/2024 9:24:45 AM

Grilling & Recipes

Lakes Online Forum

2,976 messages

Updated 3/20/2024 11:53:43 PM

Lake Martin SCUBA

(Lake Martin Specific)

169 messages

Updated 5/31/2023 1:39:35 PM

Tallapoosa River Topics

Lakes Online Forum

98 messages

Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM

Forum Usage Rules

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	FoxNews versus the loser left outlets
Date:	2/27/2013 4:50:18 PM

Of the top ten cable news shows the eminently fair and balanced FoxNews comes in at 12.17M viewers and holds six of the top ten slots. The other four of the top ten not on Fox had a paltry $4.69M viewers and two of those four in the top ten were on a comedy channel. What a shocker....not! What is even funnier is that the top two FoxNews shows had more viewers than the four non-Fox combined.

And that is why FoxNews is financially successful and the other outlets are money losers that are regularly laying off employees. Heres the full list from Feb 25.

CABLE NEWS RACE
MON FEB 25 2013

FOXNEWS O'REILLY 3,174,000
FOXNEWS THE FIVE 2,006,000
FOXNEWS HANNITY 2,002,000
FOXNEWS BAIER 1,863,000
FOXNEWS SHEP 1,849,000
CMDY DAILY SHOW 1,610,000
CMDY COLBERT 1,310,000
FOXNEWS GRETA 1,271,000
MSNBC MADDOW 921,000
MSNBC SCHULTZ 853,000
CNN COOPER 788,000
MSNBC SHARPTON 708,000
MSNBC HARDBALL 706,000
CNNHN NANCY GRACE 657,000
CNN PIERS 637,000

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	MM The Cherry Picker
Date:	2/27/2013 8:16:15 PM (updated 2/27/2013 8:17:09 PM)

The Right get their news from FOX since CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and NBC are leftist stations. There are more choices as you like to remind us for thinkers who are Liberals and independents. You need to look at the total ratings for a Fair and Balanced comparison. While FOX has around 2 million viewer for the dinnertime news, the Libs and Ind total around 26 million.

So you keep watching FOX and they will elect Romney for President.

Loser Leftist Outlets

NBC 9,416,000, ABC 8,439,000, CBS 7,377,000

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	MM
Date:	2/27/2013 8:28:47 PM (updated 2/27/2013 8:31:38 PM)

I think GF makes a pretty good point...the one "conservative" and fair and balanced network has a much smaller viewer share than the combined other "liberal" biased outlets. Now I don't perceive them as biased as you claim, but if you are right and they are left leaning and still get the huge bulk of viewers...well doesn't that tell you something about where the country is?

You made it clear to me a week or so back that you got your news from sources other than TV. For a guy who doesn't get his news from any of the cable or broadcast outlets, you sure are quick to heap praise on something you don't listen too and therefore obviously don't know what they are saying. Conversely, how do you know CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, etc, etc are so "biased" if you don't listen to them either?

Name:	water_watcher -	Reply
Subject:	You missed the point
Date:	2/27/2013 8:38:27 PM

The conversation and his point was not about who watches what channel for the nightly news ... surveys have shown that the nightly news ratings typically mirror what is on just prior to the news.

What MM laid out is the "biased" show listing. These are the ones people purposely tune to or not. Many compete with each other in time slots ... yet time and time again the conservative programs kill the liberal ones in ratings.

Name:	wix -	Reply
Subject:	Goof up,
Date:	2/27/2013 9:05:47 PM

Would it mean anything to the "copy and paste" queen to mention that FOX doesn't have a 30 minute news summary program to compete with the o-BAMA network propaganda comedy shows. I usually watch one of those shows at 5:30 just for amusement. It's kind of like watching SNL ,or cartoons, or the idiot who serves as o-BAMA's mouthpiece. Truly amusing.

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	Goof up,
Date:	2/27/2013 9:07:36 PM (updated 2/27/2013 9:09:41 PM)

What's your point?????? That FOX is not news but opinion??????????? We finally agree.

Name:	wix -	Reply
Subject:	Geez, Goof up,
Date:	2/27/2013 9:40:43 PM

Weren't you talking about the wonderful ratings of o-BAMA news puppets in their 5:30 time slot. Well FOX does not have a 30 minute news show at that time, so, as usual, your comparison is no comparison at all. You can't be that dense, can you?

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	Geez, Goof up,
Date:	2/27/2013 10:11:16 PM

Central or Eastern Time Zone? Give me the FOX newscast you want to use? Fact is that cable does not have the viewership as the Big 3.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	No WW
Date:	2/27/2013 11:39:04 PM

As usual you miss the point. To be sure as far as cable TV news is concerned FOX DOMINATES. However, cable TV news does not DOMINATE TV news as a whole. If ALL other outlets are biased toward Obama and the left, as you falsely claim, then you better be concerned because the Obama / left viewership (cable and broadcast) is beating FOX (we distort you comply) hands down! At no time does "unbiased" FOX come anywhere close to having a majority of the TV news viewers...the vast majority are watching those "biased" liberal outlets.

Name:	water_watcher -	Reply
Subject:	Silly man - admit you are wrong
Date:	2/28/2013 7:28:57 AM

Silly man. The point I made was network news viewership is a factor of what is on just prior. That is a fact, it has nothing to do with political leaning. So you can not make the assumption you make. Plus, you can not just compare Fox cable news ... there are also Fox affiliates on a network basis. You are trying to compare apples and oranges.

Additionally, not everyone has cable news so trying to compare the 4 broadcast network channels with a single cable only channel makes you look like the fool you are.

Lastly, as I pointed out ... for people to tune in to Fox cable, PMSBC or CNN ... is a conscious choice an individual makes since that is all that channel is ... it is not like a network station that may have your favorite TV show on just prior and people leave the station on as they go take a dump. So the ONLY comparison is the one MM, which is cable station to cable station since people are actually making a decision which one to tune to and watch.

End of story. You and fish head are wrong.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Silly man - admit you are wrong WW
Date:	2/28/2013 7:49:37 AM (updated 2/28/2013 8:01:39 AM)

The bottom line...consistently well under 25% of the TV news viewers are getting it from FOX...the balance are getting it from the "liberal" TV media, if as you and the L Martin cabal claim...all news TV other than FOX is left wing. You are correct in that the broadcast news is influenced by the holdover of viewers of shows preceding the news...but enough to give them such a huge lead, no certainly not. Yes, watching FOX is a voluntary and conscious choice for those who tune in, the scary part is they think they are getting news when actually these "sheeple" are getting an extreme rightwing brain-washing! FOX is no more "fair and balanced" than MSNBC and it is sad that you won't admit that. So keep thinking that America is behind you and FOX if that floats your boat...just be prepared to eat crow after each national election for probably the rest of your and my life.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	I stated "cable news"
Date:	2/28/2013 8:23:08 AM

Your reading is not much better than your math.

However, I would point out that if you look at past posts when one of the left wing nuts goes rabid on FoxNews I have often pointed out that cable news shows pale in comparison to the left wing network viewership. In fact, I have often stated I would gladly trade FoxNews for aBS, cBS, nBS, WaPo, NYT, et al.

Sorry GF, but this is old news and has already been addressed.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	GF doesn't make a good point
Date:	2/28/2013 8:28:04 AM (updated 2/28/2013 8:33:14 AM)

Drudge reports the cable news results and since you and others on the left are so fixated on Fox I like to keep you posted on how they do relative to their direct competition. As I told GF, I have often pointed out that Fox viewership pales in comparison to the networks. And I would be happy to trade Fox for them. Look back at the posts Archie and you will see I am very consistent in that regard.

But watching the networks says nothing about the views of the country. Just look at the polls Archie, the majority of Americans oppose Obama's policies. It is obvious that we are still a center right nation.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	When did I ever say that?!?!?
Date:	2/28/2013 8:40:13 AM (updated 2/28/2013 8:56:49 AM)

Archie, I am sorry but WW is right. I never, ever said Fox dominates the nightly news and my original post stated unequivocally that it was "cable" news. My point as made stands, the eminently fair and balanced FoxNews dominates the cable news shows. It is inarguable.

But remember, cable and satellite only reaches about 70% of the homes in the country (i.e., of the 130 million homes that have access to cable and satellite only 2/3rds do so). So the networks have access to about 40 million more homes than cable. But more to the point, in 1980 around 60 million watched the network news and by last year it is down to less than 22 million and continues to drop each year while cable news goes up every year.

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	I stated "cable news"
Date:	2/28/2013 12:40:04 PM (updated 2/28/2013 12:41:48 PM)

Then what is your reason for continuing to bring up that Fox leads the cable news when the fact is the Right has only one outlet for their nightly news? i would hope they would win the cable war. 2 million viewers out of 300,000,000 million population will not win elections. The truth is, with your numbers, you prove that the Right wins the battle but the Left wins the war.

DWIP......deal with it please.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	MM I agree
Date:	2/28/2013 1:23:49 PM (updated 2/28/2013 1:26:59 PM)

You did make it clear that you were comparing cable TV. What GF and I tried to point out was the big picture. FOX does obviously dominate the cable news outlets, but cable news is not all of TV. Anyway you cut it, more people get their TV news from the "liberal" outlets overall than from the sole adamantly rightwing national source...FOX.

Now MM I do strongly refute your claim that FOX is "immanently fair and balanced". You (incorrectly) call me a liberal, but I have enough objectivity to recognize the complete, absolute, constant and embarrassing liberal bias of both the news and talking head content at MSNBC. I am amazed that someone as intelligent as you cannot see the reverse bias that is equally obvious on FOX.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Well duh!!!
Date:	2/28/2013 1:29:55 PM

First you claimed something I didn't say and now you are crowing about the left winning?!? Of course the left controls the govt media. Geez GF, pay attention and take your ADHD meds. That's exactly what I have been saying for many, many years. The left also controls unions and the govt school system. I mean....duh! Only folks like Archie don't realize that.

We are dealing with it every day. Unless you were asleep last November you might have noticed an abysmal failure of a president was reelected by a bunch of poorly educated, ill-informed voters that get their news from the govt media and their education from leftists in failed govt schools. And we are reaping what they have sown. Who could have imagined that an affirmative action president would be congratulated for 0.1% GDP growth? Feted for 17% under and unemployment. Cheered for allowing four Americans to die at the hands of Islamofascists and then lying about it for weeks. Patted on the back for adding $5 trillion to our debt in 4 short years.......

I could go on and on but I am too busy DWIPing.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	The most recent poll I see
Date:	2/28/2013 1:32:01 PM (updated 2/28/2013 1:35:50 PM)

indicate that Obama has majority or plurality support on all policy questions in comparison to the GOP on all but 2 of the policy questions asked. I will try to find the poll for you. I agree, we are a CENTER-right nation. Problem is you and the GOP are RIGHT-right so over the horizon that the center is no longer even in sight!

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	I will try to explain once again
Date:	2/28/2013 1:35:19 PM

I think you are very confused as to what I mean by fair and balanced. Fox is the only news outlet that provides balance for the overwhelmingly liberal rest of the media. And they do not hide behind a feigned and obviously false claim of lack of bias like the networks and pBS. I know you do not agree but to use one of your favorite sayings, you have your head in the sand and even GF acknowledges that all the polls point to that bias.

And it "eminently" fair and balanced, not "immanently". If you are going to put quotations on something it implies a quote which means exactly as worded.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	You are confused
Date:	2/28/2013 1:40:28 PM

The poll you are referring to is who voters trust more. Not their agreement on specific issues.

You have to look at polls on the size and intrusiveness of the federal government, the need to reduce deficits and debt, whether Obamacare should be repealed and replaced, etc. You will need to do some real research to get all those numbers but unless you like to be depressed I would not recommend it. Those results were always the great mystery to me since Americans voted for Obama in 2012 presumably knowing they would get the opposite of what they seem to want......but then again, for a low-information voter they probably actually thought they would get the opposite of what the informed among us knew they would get and are in fact getting.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	OK MM
Date:	2/28/2013 1:45:53 PM

Here is an example of FOX being "fair and balanced"

A couple of years ago they had a discussion of Global warming. They pointed out that "some" scientists support warming and "some" do not. Technically that is correct, but if they were Fair as well as balanced they would have also pointed out that 97 scientists support warming for every 3 that do not. They also would not have let the one anti-warming scientist who was, I believe a physicist, completely dominate the discussion over the one warming supporter who was a noted climate scientist. Technically FOX was balanced in allowing both sides to speak, but it was far from fair.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Big mistake
Date:	2/28/2013 2:04:01 PM

You see that is exactly what i am talking about. if you asked the average low-information voter who gets their news from the govt media they would be shocked to learn that even one scientist in the entire world doesn't believe in global warming. Hence the fair and balanced.......eminently so!

But as to the subject at hand, there is no global warming and 100% of informed scientists understand that. But you are probably confusing global climate change with anthropogenic global warming. Any intelligent scientist, of which i am one, would agree that there is global climate change. There always has been and there always will be. But i can assure you that nowhere near a majority of informed scientists believe in AGW and even less in the prescriptions of crackpot groups like iPCC. i could spend days educating you on this but i seriously doubt you have an open mind on the issue.

One suggestion, look at the meteorological criteria for acceptable forecasting. Of the 78 criteria the models used to predict global warming and upon which iPCC relies for their policies fail all but four of them. Hence they cannot account for the Middle Age warming period and they totally got the climate change in the last decade wrong (i.e., they all predicted further rises in global temps over the last decade when in fact it has been stable despite the spewing of massive amounts of CO2).

Should have picked another topic as an example. Want to try again?

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	And look at this poll
Date:	2/28/2013 2:42:09 PM

And since we all agree that the media is dominated by aBS, cBS, nBS and they have so many more viewers then it is obvious that the left is not necessarily winning. So most viewers watch the big networks and only 6% view them as trustworthy I am thinking GF might be onto something as to why they are watching. It sure doesn't seem to be because they trust what is being fed to them.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/february_2013/only_6_rate_news_media_as_very_trustworthy

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	Well duh!!!
Date:	2/28/2013 3:48:15 PM

We accept the fact that we are not perfect. Maybe, the Right needs to do the same in order to win on the national level. Take a look at the education level of the Red States compared to the Blue and then post a logical and honest comment about uniformed and uneducated voters.

Look at HubCap's on target post about the typical Red State voter. Should make you as proud of your fellow supporters as I am with many of my fellow supporters. Try to be honest and avoid the Kool Aid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSKC9SXu4U0

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Perfect response
Date:	2/28/2013 4:10:51 PM

To the left it is all about education levels as opposed to common sense. That is why we have a wildly inefficient, wasteful and failed federal government run by a bunch of Ivy League grads........how's that working out? you are too much GF!

Oh and with regard to the video, I was born in Washington, grew up in Pennsylvania and went to college in Ohio and I can assure you any one of those could have been filmed there and some probably were. There are stupid people everywhere but that doesn't mean they can't have the common sense to vote for limited government, a strong national defense, tried and true family values and lower taxes. Not that they do in those states mind you as they are all blue. He is just has a bigoted view of the south but those of us that lived in the north know much better.

Besides, some of us are of the opinion that nothing is more reckless and dumb than living in a 800 sq ft apartment in NYC that you paid $1M for and can't go out at night out of fear for your life from criminals, where you pay 60% of what you earn in taxes, where you can't afford a car because you can't afford the quarter million dollar parking spot and where you can't get a liter of soda with your pizza order. Now talk about dumb......

And don't get me started on the fools that live in Massachusetts, Illinois and California.........now there's some dummies. I'll take the good old south any day.....take it from one who knows.

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	Imperfect response
Date:	2/28/2013 6:41:44 PM

The last 4 Presidents were gards of IVY league schools. 2 Dems 2 GOP. You like to cherry pick to suit your imperfect concept of history. Atlanta has a much higher crime rate than NYC as a percent of population. A Republican mayor did a wonderful job with the use of a concept called Hot Spotting.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Big mistake..big words
Date:	2/28/2013 10:30:15 PM

OK MM you can spout high falutin jargon with words and acronyms a dummy like me doesn't understand. The bottom line is that the 10 highest average worldwide temperature years on record have occurred in the last 16 years. Now there is a valid discussion to be had on why the earth as a whole is warming but there is no legit claim that warming is not occurring. Do you deny that the average global temperature today is not higher than it was 50 years ago? If you do please provide an unbiased and plain English source to support your belief. NOTE: UNBIASED please.

Maybe someday we can discuss the Greek and Roman orders of architecture or the evolution of the Gothic so I can throw out some little used big words.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Glad to help you understand
Date:	3/1/2013 9:20:35 AM

Archie, I'm glad to help you understand this better because you do seem to have an open mind about this and that is a good thing. The first thing you have to come to grips with is the time frame that you are looking at. Less than 10,000 years ago the state of Ohio was under a sheet of ice one mile in thickness. Since then we have been in a warming period that, while waxing and waning in natural cycles, has continued unabated. And when I say natural cycles I am referring to relatively shorter periods of time, as in the tens to hundreds of years. Hence, we had in the middle ages a warming period with no CO2, no industrialization, nothing anthropogenic that could explain it. That was followed by a cooling period during the time when Dickens wrote Scrooge (recall all the snow they were getting then?). And even more recently, the dire predictions in the 1970s of a coming ice age claimed to be a result of, yes, you guessed it, CO2 emissions. But the ice age didn't happen, the global climate warmed, the prognosticators of doom that don't understand climate science were wrong, and bingo, CO2 is now suddenly causing the warming. That brief history of getting so very wrong alone should be enough to at least make you skeptical.

But here's the problem with the AGW and it is significant. The entire theory of AGW is predicated on models (and even worse, only those models that supported the theory...all others that did not were discarded). I know you live in the world of equations and emperical data as to how to design a structure but the world of modeling is entirely different. You try to predict future outcomes by modeling a complex system using mathematical equations using as many input parameters as you can possibly develop and assign values to. Then you calibrate the model to past results and if that works, to hopefully predict the future. But a model is only as good as the ability to mimic a complex system and to determine the right input parameters and then correctly select them. But the proof of a model at the end of the day is its ability to be calibrated to the past data and its performance into the future. On these two fronts the AGW models have been awful and the AGW proponents know it.

None of the models have been able to account for the warming in the middle ages. They have simply ignored it, hence the scandal of hiding data to manipulate Algore's famous hockey stick picture (which is another issue in itself). More importantly, how have the models done in predicting the last 15 years? Again, it has been abysmal. All of the models predicted a rise in global temperatures over the last 15 years and actually underestimated the CO2 emissions that have occurred. So CO2 emissions were higher than expected and yet for the last 15 years global climates have not gone up. The models upon which AGW is based are flat out wrong and that is the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about except us neanderthal skeptics that are apparently no better than the holocaust deniers (by the way, I've been to a concentration camp, have seen the evidence, read the stories and I believe them).

If the basis for an entire theory is proved to be wrong, one would assume that an intelligent, thoughtful person would question the validity for the theory. So what explains a large group of otherwise intelligent people still grasping solidly to what is clearly a failed concept? My opinion is that it is a combination of being a low information person with little real intellectual curiosity, to follow the money (i.e., grants that AGW scientists need to live on), to the spread the wealth crowd that actually thinks the way to raise underdeveloped countries up is by dropping the standard of living of developed and developing countries, to radical environmentalists that will seize any idea, no matter how hair brained, if it can be used to attack fossil fuels (read Cool It by Bjorn Lomborg), to politicians looking for their next crisis upon which to seize more power and taxpayer money to the well intentioned, environmentally conscious person that really doesn't understand or want to understand the truth but thinks we should do something just in case.

Now as for those orders of architecture, of that I know very little but it sounds interesting. Perhaps start a new thread and I can learn something. Or do you have a good book written for the layman that I can read?

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Now you've done it
Date:	3/1/2013 11:07:48 AM

You have gone and proved my point. First we had GHW "Read my Lips" Bush that was a one-termer, then Clinton who could not keep his zipper up, then we had W that that left foamed at the mouth about the war and deficits and then we have TOTUS who is the worst of all them. And all during this time we had a federal govt spending too much and growing too much. I guess the analogy holds true for either party. Last great President we had went to lowly Eureka College.

But your Atlanta analogy is quite curious. Atlanta has been run by Dems (mayor and council) for as long as I've lived here, which is going on 24 years. Which is why I live in unincorporated Cobb county..... But the vast majority of the improvement in NYC occurred under Rudy and not under Nanny Bloomberg. As one who goes there 2-3 times per year on business I can tell you it is slowly getting worse in NYC.

Quick Links
Lake Martin News
Lake Martin Photos
Lake Martin Videos