I'm tired of having the TWO party system shoved down my throat...

So... this time Clinton/Obama (Dems) OR McCain (freakin lier and liberal)...

Enough... INDEPENDENTS BEWARE! You CAN VOTE FOR YOUR CANDIDATE by WRITE IN! Go for it... show this 2 party system we're tired of the Al GORE/BUSH bullshit! It is coming again... NO to McCAIN and NO TO THE DEM'S SELECTION too!

VOTE W/YOUR BRAINS! Not w/what someone tells you to!

Dems/Repubs... they are all the same... VOTE INDEPENDENT....

What a juvenile viewpoint.

Because of the existence of "heroes" running for office, the entire nation will be magically transformed........???

What we DO have at present, "heroes" and all, is a nation of sad little men, paranoid of half the other countries in the world, and supportive of a government that kills countless thousands of innocent people abroad so they can gain control of the Middle East's remaining oil resources.

Sad LITTLE men (namely BUSH) who is so PARANOID about other countries he is actually CREATING HATE & DISCONTENT!

Yes, people have died... because of BUSH... let's not let it happen again... VOTE INDEPENDENT... the DEMS & REPS (especially McCAIN) offer NOTHING BETTER!

VOTE W/YOUR BRAINS! Not w/what someone tells you to!
But aren't you telling us who to vote for? What if I want to vote for Obama, McCain, or ::shudder:: Hillary?

::shudder:: Hillary?
:rolleyes:

But aren't you telling us who to vote for? What if I want to vote for Obama, McCain, or ::shudder:: Hillary?

Damn it Borg, don't you know all the cool kids vote for the independents?

But seriously though, I do tend to agree... the two party system does mostly suck.

Sad LITTLE men (namely BUSH) who is so PARANOID about other countries he is actually CREATING HATE & DISCONTENT!

Yes, people have died... because of BUSH... let's not let it happen again... VOTE INDEPENDENT... the DEMS & REPS (especially McCAIN) offer NOTHING BETTER!

I agree completely.

And I will be writing in the name of a third party candidate.

Brian Moore....the Socialist Party candidate.

Gladly.

You are claiming that the primary reason newspapers are in decline is because former subscribers disagree with the content found therein. I say that's hogwash. Newspapers are in decline because the same content that was available before, plus a veritable cornucopia of further content, can now be found on the internet -- for free.

I am right about this and I think you know I'm right. And I think any reasonably well-informed and rational person reading these words knows that I'm right about this. But you can't bring yourself to admit it so you retreat into a semantic weasel-hole where you can pretend we're saying the same thing. Well, we're NOT saying the same thing.

The day I 'regurgitate' anything you say is the day they can take me out back and shoot me.

Unfortunately your argument is not sustained by the facts. Newspaper readership has been declining since 1990, long before the internet was even remotely popular. You'll have to try again.


http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/narrative_newspapers_audience.asp

And I will be writing in the name of a third party candidate.

Brian Moore....the Socialist Party candidate.
And we all wish you luck with that, I'm sure. :)

I see John McCain stating in trference to Fidel Castro ''I hope he has the oppertunity to meet Karl Marx very soon''.

Meaning he hopes he dies.

This is a disgraceful comment for a Presidential candidate to make about the President of another nation.
I agree.
Please allow me to agrue your point a la FT:

'Exactly where, in that statement, did McCain say that he **hopes Castro dies**??? All I see in that rather innocuous comment is the rational realization that Castro's health is inarguably in a state of decline, and in recognition of the fact that Karl Marx was the deemed the father of communism (a man whom Castro is sure to hold in high regard), I fail to see any proof of your assertion that he, indeed, "hopes Castro dies".'

And we all wish you luck with that, I'm sure. :)

I heard this weekend that the 'plan' going around in Texas is to vote for Hillary during the primaries... in an effort to keep Obama out of the election. And then, of course, vote Republican in the actual election.

Sounds like something the 'good ole boys' have been busy putting together in a smoky backroom someplace, huh?

;)
SMW

LOL - My FATHER concocted that exact same strategy about a week ago on our way to lunch. He said all the big-ticket republican states should do exactly that. That's too frickin' funny.

LOL - My FATHER concocted that exact same strategy about a week ago on our way to lunch. He said all the big-ticket republican states should do exactly that. That's too frickin' funny.

Yep, never underestimate the power of the old boys club!

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t33/texrose752/bumpersticker.jpg

Please allow me to argue your point a la FT:

'Exactly where, in that statement, did McCain say that he **hopes Castro dies**??? All I see in that rather innocuous comment is the rational realization that Castro's health is inarguably in a state of decline, and in recognition of the fact that Karl Marx was the deemed the father of communism (a man whom Castro is sure to hold in high regard), I fail to see any proof of your assertion that he, indeed, "hopes Castro dies".'

Good argument. You're right.

I cede the point.

LOL - My FATHER concocted that exact same strategy about a week ago on our way to lunch. He said all the big-ticket republican states should do exactly that. That's too frickin' funny.
It's undoubtedly the best strategy the Republicans have at the moment. There are also silly emails floating around claiming he's a radical Muslim terrorist or something like that.

I don't know that many Republicans would be actually able to cast a vote for Hillary, though. It might cause projectile vomiting on contact with the ballot. :eek:

Please allow me to agrue your point a la FT:

'Exactly where, in that statement, did McCain say that he **hopes Castro dies**??? All I see in that rather innocuous comment is the rational realization that Castro's health is inarguably in a state of decline, and in recognition of the fact that Karl Marx was the deemed the father of communism (a man whom Castro is sure to hold in high regard), I fail to see any proof of your assertion that he, indeed, "hopes Castro dies".'
Please allow me to answer this for me :)

Did he send Fidel a 'Get Well' card ?

Good argument. You're right.

I cede the point.

*does a doubletake*:eek:

Did he send Fidel a 'Get Well' card ?
Uh, no, but he may as well have. I mean, after all, those were kind words. ;)

It's undoubtedly the best strategy the Republicans have at the moment. There are also silly emails floating around claiming he's a radical Muslim terrorist or something like that.

I don't know that many Republicans would be actually able to cast a vote for Hillary, though. It might cause projectile vomiting on contact with the ballot. :eek:


http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/files/2008/02/obama_garb.jpg


Perhaps that's why the Clinton folks are sending this photo everywhere - from Obama's trip to Kenya (http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/02/25/photo-showing-obama-in-somali-garb-circulated-by-clinton-campaign-source/) a few years ago.

Yes but the Clinton camp say its not a negative to Obamas character.

Nothing to worrie about then.

I'm sorry, but that's pretty frightening to me. Believe it or not, and Allah willing, that picture will cost him the election.

I'm sorry, but that's pretty frightening to me. Believe it or not, and Allah willing, that picture will cost him the election.Unfortunatly your reaction would be typical of most Americans.

While coming home the guy on the radio was talking to a reporter on the Obama campaign bus live, says Obama is playing it down, tho not too convincingly.

Could be worse, think of all those guys who have let on their Irish over the years.

Clinton
Reagan
Kennedy

Didnt do them any harm.

Is there a racial undertone to the picture do you think ?

Could be worse, think of all those guys who have let on their Irish over the years.

Clinton
Reagan
Kennedy

Didnt do them any harm.
BIG difference, Paul. Enormous, actually. The Irish don't blow people up anymore, and moreover, they never did on our soil. That aside, a good 40% of our population has Irish blood coursing through their veins.
Is there a racial undertone to the picture do you think ?
It's not his race that scares people (per se); it's his creed and loyalties they question, and apparently, FOR GOOD REASON.

I dont know what his creed is, tho obviously his loyalty is to America.

"Obviously"? Hardly. His nest is being feathered here - nothing more, nothing less. Is Ozzie Guillen's loyalty to "America" when he refuses to stand for our national anthem while dedicating our World Series victory to Venezuela in 2005? No, America is the place where, once again, a bunch of fucking assholes can flock to, make tons of money, raise their kids (while teaching them to hate what we stand for), and all the while, these same people (secretly, and some times openly) despise every fiber of our being. We're a nauseatingly diverse grab bag of genetic party favors that people bad-mouth and hate (but ironically enough, have no problem exploiting). Now, one of the people who (possibly) hates our nation has a shot at leading it. Moslem ideology (by virtue of what it entails) preaches hatred; hatred of our lifestyle, hatred of our "values", hatred of our gays, and hatred of our predominant religion, and Barack Hussein Obama (the political wunderkind; a man who up until 1997, no one had ever even heard of before) aspires to "lead" our nation (but refuses to tell us where), and dumb fucking, tie-dye donning, white people are cheering his name because he's "such a well-spoken black man, who deserves being given a shot based on that alone". "Look how 'progressive' we all are...." :rolleyes:

It's fucking pathetic.

"Obviously"? Hardly. His nest is being feathered here - nothing more, nothing less. Is Ozzie Guillen's loyalty to "America" when he refuses to stand for our national anthem while dedicating our World Series victory to Venezuela in 2005? No, America is the place where, once again, a bunch of fucking assholes can flock to, make tons of money, raise their kids (while teaching them to hate what we stand for), and all the while, these same people (secretly, and some times openly) despise every fiber of our being. We're a nauseatingly diverse grab bag of genetic party favors that people bad-mouth and hate (but ironically enough, have no problem exploiting). Now, one of the people who (possibly) hates our nation has a shot at leading it. Moslem ideology (by virtue of what it entails) preaches hatred; hatred of our lifestyle, hatred of our "values", hatred of our gays, and hatred of our predominant religion, and Barack Hussein Obama (the political wunderkind; a man who up until 1997, no one had ever even heard of before) aspires to "lead" our nation (but refuses to tell us where), and dumb fucking, tie-dye donning, white people are cheering his name because he's "such a well-spoken black man, who deserves being given a shot based on that alone".

It's fucking pathetic.

I tend to agree, Prae. I can remember lots of elections in the past where some people thought the wrong candidate could do great harm to this country. However, this is the first one where there actually does seem to be a potential threat... IF his motives aren't 100% pure. No way to tell what's in his heart and electing him to the office of president seems a pretty damn risky way of finding out, 'well-spoken black man' or not.

However, this is the first one where there actually does seem to be a potential threat... IF his motives aren't 100% pure. No way to tell what's in his heart and electing him to the office of president seems a pretty damn risky way of finding out, 'well-spoken black man' or not.
In a nutshell.

Now you two guys are openly Republican, so c'mon there is a slant to your reasoning.

One of the reasons a person must be born in the US to run for President is to protect against this kinda thing.

Now you two guys are openly Republican, so c'mon there is a slant to your reasoning.

One of the reasons a person must be born in the US to run for President is to protect against this kinda thing.

You're right, Paul. Obama is the closest thing there has been to a 'foreign-born' presidential candidate. I liked him better when the campaign first started than I do now. One reason is because of the TV ads he's putting out there. In one, he uses the death of his mother due to cancer at age 53 to tout his healthcare programs ("for the last 3 months of her life, she worried more about the cost of her care than fighting the disease.") And using the fact that his father ran off and left the family when he was a small child, but "I got a great education" to tout his educational programs.

Campaign 101... appeal to the suckers for sympathy votes.

Turns me off.

One more thing... I'm not a dyed-in-the-wool Republican. I've voted for Democrats a time or two and would do so again if I thought they offered the best candidate. But, come on now, Clinton or Obama? What kinda choice is that???

;)
SMW

Now you two guys are openly Republican, so c'mon there is a slant to your reasoning.
No. No "slant" at all; just logic and experience with a side of skepticism on our part.
One of the reasons a person must be born in the US to run for President is to protect against this kinda thing.
Yeah, and usually, those people don't take jaunts to Jakarta for a heaping side of political and religious reeducation. Even more offensive is the fact Obama returned to those areas years later while sporting Moslem garb when he’s supposedly a professed "Christian" :rolleyes:

One more thing... I'm not a dyed-in-the-wool Republican. I've voted for Democrats a time or two and would do so again if I thought they offered the best candidate. But, come on now, Clinton or Obama? What kinda choice is that???

;)
SMW

To be honest, I dont think any one of the three of em would entice me.

To be honest, I dont think any one of the three of em would entice me.

Yeah, to be honest, I totally agree with that statement. But here's what I do believe about John McCain... his patriotism is above reproach. He's proven that by his military service to his country.

Yeah, to be honest, I totally agree with that statement. But here's what I do believe about John McCain... his patriotism is above reproach. He's proven that by his military service to his country.

I aint fussed on McCain, but as you say, his patriotism isnt in question.
I find him a bit extreme, he'll simply continue the policy of the Bush Administration, which I think Americans have had enough of.

Unfortunately your argument is not sustained by the facts. Newspaper readership has been declining since 1990, long before the internet was even remotely popular. You'll have to try again.


http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/narrative_newspapers_audience.asp
Is this the best you can do?

From your own source:

Where are readers going? It is impossible to say fully. Some people may be getting news online, some perhaps from cable television. Some may be opting out of traditional news sources. Others may be sharing copies of a paper among multiple readers. Many people now read newspapers only occasionally, a couple days a week, but no longer everyday. Much of the loss came from people no longer reading afternoon papers. Whatever it is, these people are not paying everyday for the journalism produced by newspapers, even if they are reading it in other outlets such as online.

Not a single mention of dissatisfaction with content being the reason why people are buying fewer newspapers. The reason fewer newspapers are being sold today is blatantly simple: it's the internet, stupid. BTW, your source also says the real decline began in the late 1940's. Do you think that maybe (gasp!) television had something to do with this?

I hate to say it, Waldo, but you need to cede the point.

Is this the best you can do?

From your own source:

Where are readers going? It is impossible to say fully. Some people may be getting news online, some perhaps from cable television. Some may be opting out of traditional news sources. Others may be sharing copies of a paper among multiple readers. Many people now read newspapers only occasionally, a couple days a week, but no longer everyday. Much of the loss came from people no longer reading afternoon papers. Whatever it is, these people are not paying everyday for the journalism produced by newspapers, even if they are reading it in other outlets such as online.

Not a single mention of dissatisfaction with content being the reason why people are buying fewer newspapers. The reason fewer newspapers are being sold today is blatantly simple: it's the internet, stupid. BTW, your source also says the real decline began in the late 1940's. Do you think that maybe (gasp!) television had something to do with this?

better check the graph chief it clearly indicates readership declining from 1990 on. Tell us what it shows (Can we safely assume you know how to read graphs?). Readership wasn't declining because of the internet in '90 or '91 or '92.... was it? It was declining long before the internet arrived and the basis of your 'free' argument.

We both agree that the internet has had an impact. It's merely that the impact is recent which belies your contention that readership declined because of the internet.

Wanna try again?

I hate to say it, Waldo, but you need to cede the point.

Why? His point is that it's free on the internet. Readership was declining before the internet was even around. So clearly it's not because it's free on the internet. It has to be something else. He doesn't want ot acknowledge content, that's ok, then what else?

Wanna try again?No.

Belaboring this discussion seems utterly pointless to me.

I'll tell you what ... if there's even one other poster here who agrees with your absurd assertion (one that you have provided zero evidence or even reasoned argument to support) that the main reason readership has declined is "because readers don't like the content or analysis of the newspapers", I will respond.

But if (as I strongly suspect) you are in a minority of one anent this issue, I think it would be best if we allowed this discussion to die the quiet death it so richly deserves.

No.

Belaboring this discussion seems utterly pointless to me.

I'll tell you what ... if there's even one other poster here who agrees with your absurd assertion (one that you have provided zero evidence or even reasoned argument to support) that the main reason readership has declined is "because readers don't like the content or analysis of the newspapers", I will respond.

But if (as I strongly suspect) you are in a minority of one anent this issue, I think it would be best if we allowed this discussion to die the quiet death it so richly deserves.

Appealing to popular opinion for an argument which you've only offered an intuitive appeal is a rather flimsy form of argumentation, seems a bit demagogic.

You may be disappointed, or not, to read the various reports at this site.
http://readership.org/ They're part of the Media Management Centre at Northwestern. They also subscribe to the absurd notion that content drives readership. And they've done the studies to prove it.

Of particular note were these reports.

The first one is a powerpoint presentation

http://www.readership.org/news/data/ASNE_inside_satisfaction.pps#501,2,What We Already Know


Content Drives Readership

http://www.readership.org/news/data/ASNE_inside_satisfaction.pps#512,7,Slide 7

Content and Increased Satisfaction

http://www.readership.org/news/data/ASNE_inside_satisfaction.pps#502,14,Satisfaction Builds Readership

do read the entire report, you will find it interesting.

http://readership.org/impact/power_to_grow.pdf

The study shows that forces outside newspapers’ control –
such as the explosion of competition, a perceived lack of consumers’
free time, and demographic changes – are dwarfed by
the things that newspapers can control. They include the kinds
and levels of service newspapers provide, the emphasis of news
content, the relevance of the brand the newspaper creates, and
several other large solutions to grow readership.....The study results make it clear that readers want and expect
a wide variety of content from their local newspaper. But
the results identify several topics that, if newspapers were
to do a "better job" with them (and "better" has different connotations,
depending on the topic, as outlined below), the result
would be greater readership of not just those topics but of the
newspaper overall – that is, higher RBS.

For those not inclined to read the entire report or the associated reports at the site the bottom line is....... that content drives readership!

For those not inclined to read the entire report or the associated reports at the site the bottom line is....... that content drives readership!
Did you read the report? It seems quite apparent that the report is suggesting that newspapers can gain readers by improving content, but there is no suggestion in this report that the decline of newspapers is because of lackluster content. In fact, that report is entirely based around what can grow readership, not what has been the cause of its shrinking. In other words, this entire report is a red herring to this debate.

Did you read the report? It seems quite apparent that the report is suggesting that newspapers can gain readers by improving content, but there is no suggestion in this report that the decline of newspapers is because of lackluster content. In fact, that report is entirely based around what can grow readership, not what has been the cause of its shrinking. In other words, this entire report is a red herring to this debate.

You might want to reconsider that matchbox remedial reading course you were thinking about.

What part of the study (right there on page 2, that says Content Drives Readership didn't you understand?

It drives it up and it drives it down. Is that too difficult a concept to comprehend?


We started with this topic. Waldo, newspaper readership would be in decline no matter what they printed. and this There's no need for FT to reconcile the two because waldo's premise is false. Newspaper readership and hence profitability are falling for reasons independent of content -- and the main reason is quite literally staring him in the face

Now shown to be completely and utterly wrong.


Furthermore the study goes on to point out that readership can be increased despite the notion that other sources, because they are free, offer competition. IOW if they improve their content they can win.

I don't see why anybody gives this half-troll, half-sore-loser, the time of day. Just treat him like dharma, let him get the last word, and move on to the next topic. Like, I dunno... John McCain?

:rolleyes:

:shudder: *that picture of Roseanne"

Mind changing that? It looks like a beached whale in labor

Obama is the closest thing there has been to a 'foreign-born' presidential candidate.

How do you figure? He was born in Hawaii in 1961.

You do know that our first nine presidents weren't born in the United States, right?

Mind changing that? It looks like a beached whale in labor

Oh come on, you know he's just going to make it bigger now.

Oh come on, you know he's just going to make it bigger now.

I sure as hell hope you were talking about the picture