Calling someone stand-up a "Liberal" has become an insult...Have you noticed?

[my2¢]

When in the company of Republicans I consider myself fairly liberal. With Democrats, I'm a rather conservative. I say screw the left and right wings and leave it up to the bird brains.

 

[bripat9643]

Kasich is the world's biggest quisling.

Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

See there you go attacking the man and ignoring the message which was the point of my post. Grow up.

I've heard his message. That's how I know he's a quisling.

Somewhere in your education, or lack there of, you failed to learn how to make an intelligent point. See if you want people to understand what you are talking about then you need to explain yourself, use examples, cite quotes, link to articles or videos that back up your arguments. That's a free lesson for you. Youre welcome.

It's not that important to me whether you think he's a quisling. Every Republican knows he is.

Sure. And aliens colonized the earth and built the internet. We all know it's true so I guess no need to give any sort of explaination as to why it's true. Great logic man. Let's keep rolling with that!

Your style of debate is super fun!

I'll repeat it for you because you obviously didn't understand it the first time:

It's not that important to me whether you think he's a quisling.

 

[Slade3200]

See there you go attacking the man and ignoring the message which was the point of my post. Grow up.

I've heard his message. That's how I know he's a quisling.

Somewhere in your education, or lack there of, you failed to learn how to make an intelligent point. See if you want people to understand what you are talking about then you need to explain yourself, use examples, cite quotes, link to articles or videos that back up your arguments. That's a free lesson for you. Youre welcome.

It's not that important to me whether you think he's a quisling. Every Republican knows he is.

Sure. And aliens colonized the earth and built the internet. We all know it's true so I guess no need to give any sort of explaination as to why it's true. Great logic man. Let's keep rolling with that!

Your style of debate is super fun!

I'll repeat it for you because you obviously didn't understand it the first time:

It's not that important to me whether you think he's a quisling.

Then why did you say it twice? The more time you waste dodging having to explain yourself the stupider you look. Just entertainment for me

 

[J.E.D]

Have you noticed nobody likes liberals?

One thing I've come to learn in life is that any person that says, "Nobody likes [insert person or group of people]", isn't a very likeable person, and probably doesn't have many friends.

 

[J.E.D]

The Right has veered toward center over the years

 

[Divine Wind]

Alex Jones, by his own court testimony, is playing a character. He doesn't believe his own shit no matter how many of his fans do.

Hannity is just another talking head seeking to get rich....and is succeeding! Albeit with a few bumps in the road: Hannity Loses Advertisers Over Seth Rich Conspiracy

Still, after O'Reilly imploded and Kelly left, he's the main attraction at Fox.

It's really kind of sad that so many crazies have so few right wing talking heads to emulate.

What sad is that most left wing talking heads are ignored. Sure, Rachel and a few others on MSNBC get to rant and rave, but they're sucking hind tit in 25-54 demographic when it comes to ratings no matter how emotional they are.

TV Ratings: Cable News Viewership Surges in May as Fox News, CNN, MSNBC Log Double-Digit Gains
In total day, Fox News was first in total viewers with 1.42 million viewers and in the demo with 302,000 viewers. CNN was third in total viewers with 821,000 but second in the demo with 274,000. MSNBC was second in total viewers with 925,000 but third in the demo with 221,000.

Ratings and credibility have never been the same thing.

Correct, but like a vote, it doesn't matter who was the "better" candidate; there's just the winner and the loser.

There is no "winner" or "loser" in TV ratings. All they measure is audience size, for one and only one purpose --- setting advertising rates. Unless you're buying or selling TV commercial spots ---- they mean absolutely nothing. Zero.

Further, your implicit premise that "left wing" and "right wing" ideas should be equally expressed by a medium as vacuous as TV is as amusing as it is naïve.

Now you are starting to get a clue. Yes, it's "all about the money". Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's right. Just because someone got 3 million more votes doesn't mean they are not corrupt or deplorable.

What is vacuous is your wrong assumption that I think LW and RW ideas should be expressed equally on television or any other medium. The point you missed is that popularity, right or wrong, is an indicator of how people feel and what they believe. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[BluesLegend]

Have you noticed nobody likes liberals?

One thing I've come to learn in life is that any person that says, "Nobody likes [insert person or group of people]", isn't a very likeable person, and probably doesn't have many friends.

Your projection is noted lib

 

[BULLDOG]

It's really kind of sad that so many crazies have so few right wing talking heads to emulate.

What sad is that most left wing talking heads are ignored. Sure, Rachel and a few others on MSNBC get to rant and rave, but they're sucking hind tit in 25-54 demographic when it comes to ratings no matter how emotional they are.

TV Ratings: Cable News Viewership Surges in May as Fox News, CNN, MSNBC Log Double-Digit Gains
In total day, Fox News was first in total viewers with 1.42 million viewers and in the demo with 302,000 viewers. CNN was third in total viewers with 821,000 but second in the demo with 274,000. MSNBC was second in total viewers with 925,000 but third in the demo with 221,000.

Ratings and credibility have never been the same thing.

Correct, but like a vote, it doesn't matter who was the "better" candidate; there's just the winner and the loser.

There is no "winner" or "loser" in TV ratings. All they measure is audience size, for one and only one purpose --- setting advertising rates. Unless you're buying or selling TV commercial spots ---- they mean absolutely nothing. Zero.

Further, your implicit premise that "left wing" and "right wing" ideas should be equally expressed by a medium as vacuous as TV is as amusing as it is naïve.

Now you are starting to get a clue. Yes, it's "all about the money". Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's right. Just because someone got 3 million more votes doesn't mean they are not corrupt or deplorable.

What is vacuous is your wrong assumption that I think LW and RW ideas should be expressed equally on television or any other medium. The point you missed is that popularity, right or wrong, is an indicator of how people feel and what they believe. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yes, and the fact that 3 million more people voted for Hillary is an indicator that more people wanted someone other than Trump to be president, and believe he was not the best choice

 

[BrokeLoser]

What sad is that most left wing talking heads are ignored. Sure, Rachel and a few others on MSNBC get to rant and rave, but they're sucking hind tit in 25-54 demographic when it comes to ratings no matter how emotional they are.

TV Ratings: Cable News Viewership Surges in May as Fox News, CNN, MSNBC Log Double-Digit Gains
In total day, Fox News was first in total viewers with 1.42 million viewers and in the demo with 302,000 viewers. CNN was third in total viewers with 821,000 but second in the demo with 274,000. MSNBC was second in total viewers with 925,000 but third in the demo with 221,000.

Ratings and credibility have never been the same thing.

Correct, but like a vote, it doesn't matter who was the "better" candidate; there's just the winner and the loser.

There is no "winner" or "loser" in TV ratings. All they measure is audience size, for one and only one purpose --- setting advertising rates. Unless you're buying or selling TV commercial spots ---- they mean absolutely nothing. Zero.

Further, your implicit premise that "left wing" and "right wing" ideas should be equally expressed by a medium as vacuous as TV is as amusing as it is naïve.

Now you are starting to get a clue. Yes, it's "all about the money". Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's right. Just because someone got 3 million more votes doesn't mean they are not corrupt or deplorable.

What is vacuous is your wrong assumption that I think LW and RW ideas should be expressed equally on television or any other medium. The point you missed is that popularity, right or wrong, is an indicator of how people feel and what they believe. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yes, and the fact that 3 million more people voted for Hillary is an indicator that more people wanted someone other than Trump to be president, and believe he was not the best choice

True story...HRC won Loon York, North Mexico (California), the vote from illegitimate classless un-American's including but not limited to; Feminazi's, low-life's and bottom feeders, weirdos, illegals, men in dresses, pole puffers....etc, etc
Trump won the vote from legitimate American's who matter.
MAKE AMERICA AMERICAN AGAIN!

 

[Divine Wind]

What sad is that most left wing talking heads are ignored. Sure, Rachel and a few others on MSNBC get to rant and rave, but they're sucking hind tit in 25-54 demographic when it comes to ratings no matter how emotional they are.

TV Ratings: Cable News Viewership Surges in May as Fox News, CNN, MSNBC Log Double-Digit Gains
In total day, Fox News was first in total viewers with 1.42 million viewers and in the demo with 302,000 viewers. CNN was third in total viewers with 821,000 but second in the demo with 274,000. MSNBC was second in total viewers with 925,000 but third in the demo with 221,000.

Ratings and credibility have never been the same thing.

Correct, but like a vote, it doesn't matter who was the "better" candidate; there's just the winner and the loser.

There is no "winner" or "loser" in TV ratings. All they measure is audience size, for one and only one purpose --- setting advertising rates. Unless you're buying or selling TV commercial spots ---- they mean absolutely nothing. Zero.

Further, your implicit premise that "left wing" and "right wing" ideas should be equally expressed by a medium as vacuous as TV is as amusing as it is naïve.

Now you are starting to get a clue. Yes, it's "all about the money". Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's right. Just because someone got 3 million more votes doesn't mean they are not corrupt or deplorable.

What is vacuous is your wrong assumption that I think LW and RW ideas should be expressed equally on television or any other medium. The point you missed is that popularity, right or wrong, is an indicator of how people feel and what they believe. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yes, and the fact that 3 million more people voted for Hillary is an indicator that more people wanted someone other than Trump to be president, and believe he was not the best choice

Thanks for saying Pogo is wrong and proving my point.

 

[BULLDOG]

Ratings and credibility have never been the same thing.

Correct, but like a vote, it doesn't matter who was the "better" candidate; there's just the winner and the loser.

There is no "winner" or "loser" in TV ratings. All they measure is audience size, for one and only one purpose --- setting advertising rates. Unless you're buying or selling TV commercial spots ---- they mean absolutely nothing. Zero.

Further, your implicit premise that "left wing" and "right wing" ideas should be equally expressed by a medium as vacuous as TV is as amusing as it is naïve.

Now you are starting to get a clue. Yes, it's "all about the money". Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's right. Just because someone got 3 million more votes doesn't mean they are not corrupt or deplorable.

What is vacuous is your wrong assumption that I think LW and RW ideas should be expressed equally on television or any other medium. The point you missed is that popularity, right or wrong, is an indicator of how people feel and what they believe. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yes, and the fact that 3 million more people voted for Hillary is an indicator that more people wanted someone other than Trump to be president, and believe he was not the best choice

True story...HRC won Loon York, North Mexico (California), the vote from illegitimate classless un-American's including but not limited to; Feminazi's, low-life's and bottom feeders, weirdos, illegals, men in dresses, pole puffers....etc, etc
Trump won the vote from legitimate American's who matter.
MAKE AMERICA AMERICAN AGAIN!

Thanks for sharing the Teabaggers point of view.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Correct, but like a vote, it doesn't matter who was the "better" candidate; there's just the winner and the loser.

There is no "winner" or "loser" in TV ratings. All they measure is audience size, for one and only one purpose --- setting advertising rates. Unless you're buying or selling TV commercial spots ---- they mean absolutely nothing. Zero.

Further, your implicit premise that "left wing" and "right wing" ideas should be equally expressed by a medium as vacuous as TV is as amusing as it is naïve.

Now you are starting to get a clue. Yes, it's "all about the money". Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's right. Just because someone got 3 million more votes doesn't mean they are not corrupt or deplorable.

What is vacuous is your wrong assumption that I think LW and RW ideas should be expressed equally on television or any other medium. The point you missed is that popularity, right or wrong, is an indicator of how people feel and what they believe. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yes, and the fact that 3 million more people voted for Hillary is an indicator that more people wanted someone other than Trump to be president, and believe he was not the best choice

True story...HRC won Loon York, North Mexico (California), the vote from illegitimate classless un-American's including but not limited to; Feminazi's, low-life's and bottom feeders, weirdos, illegals, men in dresses, pole puffers....etc, etc
Trump won the vote from legitimate American's who matter.
MAKE AMERICA AMERICAN AGAIN!

Thanks for sharing the Teabaggers point of view.

Am I making this shit up?

 

[BULLDOG]

Ratings and credibility have never been the same thing.

Correct, but like a vote, it doesn't matter who was the "better" candidate; there's just the winner and the loser.

There is no "winner" or "loser" in TV ratings. All they measure is audience size, for one and only one purpose --- setting advertising rates. Unless you're buying or selling TV commercial spots ---- they mean absolutely nothing. Zero.

Further, your implicit premise that "left wing" and "right wing" ideas should be equally expressed by a medium as vacuous as TV is as amusing as it is naïve.

Now you are starting to get a clue. Yes, it's "all about the money". Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's right. Just because someone got 3 million more votes doesn't mean they are not corrupt or deplorable.

What is vacuous is your wrong assumption that I think LW and RW ideas should be expressed equally on television or any other medium. The point you missed is that popularity, right or wrong, is an indicator of how people feel and what they believe. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yes, and the fact that 3 million more people voted for Hillary is an indicator that more people wanted someone other than Trump to be president, and believe he was not the best choice

Thanks for saying Pogo is wrong and proving my point.

Your reasoning ability is pretty screwed up, isn't it? I did neither of those things.

 

[BluesLegend]

What sad is that most left wing talking heads are ignored. Sure, Rachel and a few others on MSNBC get to rant and rave, but they're sucking hind tit in 25-54 demographic when it comes to ratings no matter how emotional they are.

TV Ratings: Cable News Viewership Surges in May as Fox News, CNN, MSNBC Log Double-Digit Gains
In total day, Fox News was first in total viewers with 1.42 million viewers and in the demo with 302,000 viewers. CNN was third in total viewers with 821,000 but second in the demo with 274,000. MSNBC was second in total viewers with 925,000 but third in the demo with 221,000.

Ratings and credibility have never been the same thing.

Correct, but like a vote, it doesn't matter who was the "better" candidate; there's just the winner and the loser.

There is no "winner" or "loser" in TV ratings. All they measure is audience size, for one and only one purpose --- setting advertising rates. Unless you're buying or selling TV commercial spots ---- they mean absolutely nothing. Zero.

Further, your implicit premise that "left wing" and "right wing" ideas should be equally expressed by a medium as vacuous as TV is as amusing as it is naïve.

Now you are starting to get a clue. Yes, it's "all about the money". Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's right. Just because someone got 3 million more votes doesn't mean they are not corrupt or deplorable.

What is vacuous is your wrong assumption that I think LW and RW ideas should be expressed equally on television or any other medium. The point you missed is that popularity, right or wrong, is an indicator of how people feel and what they believe. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yes, and the fact that 3 million more people voted for Hillary is an indicator that more people wanted someone other than Trump to be president, and believe he was not the best choice

It didn't seem to bother you that Bill Clinton failed to win the popular vote...we know but but but that's Different

 

[BULLDOG]

There is no "winner" or "loser" in TV ratings. All they measure is audience size, for one and only one purpose --- setting advertising rates. Unless you're buying or selling TV commercial spots ---- they mean absolutely nothing. Zero.

Further, your implicit premise that "left wing" and "right wing" ideas should be equally expressed by a medium as vacuous as TV is as amusing as it is naïve.

Now you are starting to get a clue. Yes, it's "all about the money". Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's right. Just because someone got 3 million more votes doesn't mean they are not corrupt or deplorable.

What is vacuous is your wrong assumption that I think LW and RW ideas should be expressed equally on television or any other medium. The point you missed is that popularity, right or wrong, is an indicator of how people feel and what they believe. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yes, and the fact that 3 million more people voted for Hillary is an indicator that more people wanted someone other than Trump to be president, and believe he was not the best choice

True story...HRC won Loon York, North Mexico (California), the vote from illegitimate classless un-American's including but not limited to; Feminazi's, low-life's and bottom feeders, weirdos, illegals, men in dresses, pole puffers....etc, etc
Trump won the vote from legitimate American's who matter.
MAKE AMERICA AMERICAN AGAIN!

Thanks for sharing the Teabaggers point of view.

Am I making this shit up?

No. Of course you didn't make that up. I don't think you have the imagination to make up something like that. You relied on people like rush, hannity, and alex jones to make it up, and you just chose to believe it.

 

[bodecea]

Ratings and credibility have never been the same thing.

Correct, but like a vote, it doesn't matter who was the "better" candidate; there's just the winner and the loser.

There is no "winner" or "loser" in TV ratings. All they measure is audience size, for one and only one purpose --- setting advertising rates. Unless you're buying or selling TV commercial spots ---- they mean absolutely nothing. Zero.

Further, your implicit premise that "left wing" and "right wing" ideas should be equally expressed by a medium as vacuous as TV is as amusing as it is naïve.

Now you are starting to get a clue. Yes, it's "all about the money". Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's right. Just because someone got 3 million more votes doesn't mean they are not corrupt or deplorable.

What is vacuous is your wrong assumption that I think LW and RW ideas should be expressed equally on television or any other medium. The point you missed is that popularity, right or wrong, is an indicator of how people feel and what they believe. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yes, and the fact that 3 million more people voted for Hillary is an indicator that more people wanted someone other than Trump to be president, and believe he was not the best choice

True story...HRC won Loon York, North Mexico (California), the vote from illegitimate classless un-American's including but not limited to; Feminazi's, low-life's and bottom feeders, weirdos, illegals, men in dresses, pole puffers....etc, etc
Trump won the vote from legitimate American's who matter.
MAKE AMERICA AMERICAN AGAIN!

"Loon York"...the place trump came from.

 

[Divine Wind]

Correct, but like a vote, it doesn't matter who was the "better" candidate; there's just the winner and the loser.

There is no "winner" or "loser" in TV ratings. All they measure is audience size, for one and only one purpose --- setting advertising rates. Unless you're buying or selling TV commercial spots ---- they mean absolutely nothing. Zero.

Further, your implicit premise that "left wing" and "right wing" ideas should be equally expressed by a medium as vacuous as TV is as amusing as it is naïve.

Now you are starting to get a clue. Yes, it's "all about the money". Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's right. Just because someone got 3 million more votes doesn't mean they are not corrupt or deplorable.

What is vacuous is your wrong assumption that I think LW and RW ideas should be expressed equally on television or any other medium. The point you missed is that popularity, right or wrong, is an indicator of how people feel and what they believe. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yes, and the fact that 3 million more people voted for Hillary is an indicator that more people wanted someone other than Trump to be president, and believe he was not the best choice

Thanks for saying Pogo is wrong and proving my point.

Your reasoning ability is pretty screwed up, isn't it? I did neither of those things.

Believe as you wish, but in your rush to refute me, you refuted Pogo's idea.

 

[BULLDOG]

Ratings and credibility have never been the same thing.

Correct, but like a vote, it doesn't matter who was the "better" candidate; there's just the winner and the loser.

There is no "winner" or "loser" in TV ratings. All they measure is audience size, for one and only one purpose --- setting advertising rates. Unless you're buying or selling TV commercial spots ---- they mean absolutely nothing. Zero.

Further, your implicit premise that "left wing" and "right wing" ideas should be equally expressed by a medium as vacuous as TV is as amusing as it is naïve.

Now you are starting to get a clue. Yes, it's "all about the money". Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's right. Just because someone got 3 million more votes doesn't mean they are not corrupt or deplorable.

What is vacuous is your wrong assumption that I think LW and RW ideas should be expressed equally on television or any other medium. The point you missed is that popularity, right or wrong, is an indicator of how people feel and what they believe. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yes, and the fact that 3 million more people voted for Hillary is an indicator that more people wanted someone other than Trump to be president, and believe he was not the best choice

It didn't seem to bother you that Bill Clinton failed to win the popular vote...we know but but but that's Different

Who told you that?

 

[BULLDOG]

There is no "winner" or "loser" in TV ratings. All they measure is audience size, for one and only one purpose --- setting advertising rates. Unless you're buying or selling TV commercial spots ---- they mean absolutely nothing. Zero.

Further, your implicit premise that "left wing" and "right wing" ideas should be equally expressed by a medium as vacuous as TV is as amusing as it is naïve.

Now you are starting to get a clue. Yes, it's "all about the money". Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's right. Just because someone got 3 million more votes doesn't mean they are not corrupt or deplorable.

What is vacuous is your wrong assumption that I think LW and RW ideas should be expressed equally on television or any other medium. The point you missed is that popularity, right or wrong, is an indicator of how people feel and what they believe. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yes, and the fact that 3 million more people voted for Hillary is an indicator that more people wanted someone other than Trump to be president, and believe he was not the best choice

Thanks for saying Pogo is wrong and proving my point.

Your reasoning ability is pretty screwed up, isn't it? I did neither of those things.

Believe as you wish, but in your rush to refute me, you refuted Pogo's idea.

Perhaps in your mind, but not in the real world.

 

[Divine Wind]

Now you are starting to get a clue. Yes, it's "all about the money". Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's right. Just because someone got 3 million more votes doesn't mean they are not corrupt or deplorable.

What is vacuous is your wrong assumption that I think LW and RW ideas should be expressed equally on television or any other medium. The point you missed is that popularity, right or wrong, is an indicator of how people feel and what they believe. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yes, and the fact that 3 million more people voted for Hillary is an indicator that more people wanted someone other than Trump to be president, and believe he was not the best choice

Thanks for saying Pogo is wrong and proving my point.

Your reasoning ability is pretty screwed up, isn't it? I did neither of those things.

Believe as you wish, but in your rush to refute me, you refuted Pogo's idea.

Perhaps in your mind, but not in the real world.

Feel better about yourself now?

Again, believe as you wish, but the discussion was that just because something is more popular doesn't mean it's correct. I agree with that statement, but you refuted it by you continual recounting of the popular vote.