Quantcast

MSNBC Tops Fox News In The Demo Two Nights In A Row: Is Fox "News" Dying?

American☆Atheist 2012/09/21 12:16:04
Related Topics: Fox News, MSNBC, Fox, 2012, News
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • jean 2012/09/22 22:51:25 (edited)
    no
    jean
    +15
    MSNBC is the bottom of the barrel - you need to update your report. This surprise fluke happened and no ones knows why. Fox news is of course back on top. Maybe its viewers were at a Romney/Ryan rally.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Informe... Stryder 2012/09/23 15:17:51
    Informed Voter
    +2
    He does at that. But it's a sad state of affairs when only thinking people are able to get the joke.
  • Sgt Major B 2012/09/23 00:07:23
    no
    Sgt Major B
    +5
    Who's been passin' out the drugs, again?

    http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it....
  • nbarton2 2012/09/23 00:01:24
    no
    nbarton2
    +5
    How anyone can watch MSNBC and take it seriously is ridiculous. Watching their coverage of the RNC was laughable if they were going for anything but biased coverage. MSNBC makes most news shows look moderate by comparison, while I rarely watch Fox news I would take their coverage over MSNBC any day.
  • joseph ... nbarton2 2012/09/23 02:16:41
    joseph digristina
    +1
    You love being lied to , don't you?
  • nbarton2 joseph ... 2012/09/23 04:03:02
    nbarton2
    +4
    Compared to MSNBC, Fox puts the news out there MSNBC puts their point of view out there.
  • joseph ... nbarton2 2012/09/23 07:17:00
    joseph digristina
    +2
    Really ? Strange, I've never seen any news on Fox, only pure right wing Republican propaganda that Roger Ailes insists upon by orders from Rupert, interspersed with occasional genuine news alerts to throw off the yokels.
  • nbarton2 joseph ... 2012/09/23 15:05:07
    nbarton2
    +2
    Funny of those who voted in the 2008 election; individuals who got their news from Fox news were more informed then other MSM sources.
  • joseph ... nbarton2 2012/09/23 20:58:35
    joseph digristina
    Liar, every study ever done has pointed out the exact opposite. You know most people know how to use Google these days and can prove you're a liar with no facts to support your comment.
  • nbarton2 joseph ... 2012/09/23 22:41:05
    nbarton2
    +1
    Wow you have your head so far up the Liberal a$$ news media you believe the tripe they publish as well. Clearly using a study from 10 years ago asking 3 questions about the Iraq war has garnered this continued fallacy, while you keep believing in your MSNBC I will continue to use internet news sources, and please Google if I paid them enough money they would put my findings at the top of the list and they have already spent their max on Obama's campaign.
  • joseph ... nbarton2 2012/09/24 00:20:22
  • nbarton2 joseph ... 2012/09/24 01:03:37
    nbarton2
    +1
    When logic isn't on your side resort to the profane
  • joseph ... nbarton2 2012/09/24 01:13:58
    joseph digristina
    +1
    Conservative logic is a contradiction in terms,liar.
  • nbarton2 joseph ... 2012/09/24 02:32:50
    nbarton2
    +1
    You are a very insecure person aren't you? I"m sorry that life hasn't treated you well that you feel the need to lash out at people in such a fashion.
  • joseph ... nbarton2 2012/09/24 02:41:59
  • nbarton2 joseph ... 2012/09/24 20:34:13
    nbarton2
    +1
    Yes I'm a robber of the poor and old as well as a RW fanatic and of course you are the sane and rational one
  • joseph ... nbarton2 2012/09/24 21:12:42
    joseph digristina
    Everyone who isn't an RWNJ is, not just me. You Cons are psychotics and always have been. There is no extreme you won't go to. None. Now go away robber of the poor and old.
  • nbarton2 joseph ... 2012/09/25 01:24:11
    nbarton2
    +1
    Keep drinking the kool aid and when Obama gets his way and reinstates the estate tax @ 55% which will apply to everyone, capital gains to 28% and Dividends 39%; increases for everyone. That cuts into people's savings and investments but I guess you don't care about those things.
  • joseph ... nbarton2 2012/09/25 01:38:09
    joseph digristina
    +1
    You lie! That's why I don't care about those things, liar. I've said it already, I'm not one of your stupid Cons who believe any piece of trash you read on right wing web sites. I'm financially illiterate. For example: estate taxes only apply to those worth over 5 million dollars . Try reality , there really is not that much wrong with it that you can't deal with it.
  • nbarton2 joseph ... 2012/09/25 02:19:39
    nbarton2
    +1
    Estate taxes apply to everyone, as do taxes on people's investments that money people have in retirement accounts and stocks and such. I'm not lying but you keep those blinders on and keep being illiterate financially since our economy is going into the toilet and the middle class is paying for it through gas, utilities and food that our President and his administration has failed to manage.
  • joseph ... nbarton2 2012/09/25 02:26:52
    joseph digristina
    Federal estate taxes do NOT apply to everyone. I should damned well know as my mother passed away 3 years ago leaving me hers. I only paid STATE inheritance taxes on a very substantial estate. Get accurate information before you spew your illiterate nonsense.
  • nbarton2 joseph ... 2012/09/25 03:11:56
    nbarton2
    +1
    There was a federal estate tax up until 2010, and inheritance tax is substantially different than estate tax so perhaps you should get your information correct. Estate tax is levied against the person receiving the property; whereas the estate tax is against transfer of a person's assets to his or her loved ones after death the Government does give breaks on this though and it was $5 million but will revert to $1 million in 2013 under Obama.

    While we are talking about taxes let's talk about the President creating an additional $231.5 Billion in regultory burdens in 2011. The total regulatory burden on businesses according to the Small Business Administration is $1.75 trillion. That means in just one year, Obama increased the quasi-taxes on businesses by 13%.
  • joseph ... nbarton2 2012/09/25 03:20:48
  • nbarton2 joseph ... 2012/09/25 03:51:00 (edited)
    nbarton2
    +1
    Wow you really are an angry person yet interesting you comment on one thing but not the facts of the other that has raised taxes on small businesses by 13%. I guess since you can't refute this fact that you will be profane and call me a liar once again showing your ignorance of facts surrounding your Master in Chief. You are just another zombie in the hoard who thinks that the "savior" will make things better while he continues to pass laws and regulations with or without Congressional approval that keeps us in economic failure.

    No the estate and inheritance tax are two very different things but since you are financially illiterate I wouldn't expect you to understand and I am not going to go into the semantics of it all.
  • joseph ... nbarton2 2012/09/25 06:20:56
    joseph digristina
    +1
    Always avoiding the issue and deflecting from the original statement to cover up the fact that inheritance and estate are two words for the same thing. Twisted sisters like you are too annoying to attempt to reason with since you never accept facts as answers , you inevitably wind up trying to justify your errors. There is no point dealing with people who refuse to accept reality. Go live in your alternative universe. And if I chose to use a profane remark, get over it. I don't suffer prudes and others with perennial sticks shoved up their uptight asses. But then ALL Republicans suffer from the same anal retentiveness.
    Excuse me, I need to go count my money that I never had to pay any federal estate tax on. Ta, ta.
  • nbarton2 joseph ... 2012/09/26 04:36:10 (edited)
    nbarton2
    +1
    I'm not very anal retentive, I think that intelligent conversation can be had without name calling,(which is different than using profanity) that isn't being prude that is being cordial. I should expect immaturity from someone like you who can't understand

    Note: state inheritance tax is different than Federal estate tax. Inheritance tax is taxed to the individual who is getting the items; whereas Federal estate tax is tax on the whole of the estate prior to dividing it up. It is a bit more complex for me to explain to someone of your limited scope of financial intelligence but it is quite different and taxed at much different rates and other complicated aspects with which I won't bore you. You probably didn't have to pay estate tax on it because the limit was well over $5 million soon it will only be $1 mil

    Especially for someone who can't explain why Obama raised taxes 13% on Small Businesses and wonders why the economy isn't growing.
  • nerak611 nbarton2 2012/09/28 05:08:17
    nerak611
    Wait! Both Bushes were connected with oil. Also friend's of relatives of Bin Laddin, here in the United States, Massachusetts. Both had financial interest and gain. Bush started an unnecessary war during his term, and ruined the economy. Both Reagan and Bush raised/removed sanctions on oil and banks! The bank promised mortgages to anyone with out a down payment. Made variable interests look much better than fixed rate.Then hit them all with high interest rates. It was BUSH and Reagan who caused the real estate market to crash. Not Obama. All done BEFORE Obama came into office!
  • nbarton2 nerak611 2012/09/28 16:35:14
    nbarton2
    +1
    Actually Clinton removed the regulation on banks as well as the mortgage rates through his administration. You might want to re-check your "facts"
  • nerak611 nbarton2 2012/09/28 19:25:05
    nerak611
    and the Bushes? DId they not remove the regulation of oil?????
  • nbarton2 nerak611 2012/09/28 19:43:47
    nbarton2
    No they did not deregulate the oil industry but you could have looked that up yourself.
  • nerak611 nbarton2 2012/09/28 19:56:24
    nerak611
    The recession question
    Oil At $100 A Barrel -- What Now?
    January 09, 2008|By Steve Yetiv and Lowell Feld
    Oil prices, which a year ago were as low as $50, hit $100 a barrel for the first time the other day. U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and others have warned that high oil prices could seriously damage the U.S. economy. After all, oil price spikes have preceded most U.S. recessions since the 1970s. That includes the price spikes after the 1973 Arab oil embargo, the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the 1980 outbreak of the Iran-Iraq war.

    Is an oil-induced recession on the way? Probably not. For starters, the 1970s oil price shocks were triggered by severe supply disruptions generated by "geopolitical events" - wars, embargoes, revolutions. In contrast, oil prices over the past year have spiked despite no significant supply disruption. Many people point to Iraq, but Iraq today is producing nearly as much oil as it did under Saddam Hussein.

    Studies show that oil shocks driven by supply disruptions cause serious economic damage because they push consumers and firms to reduce consumption much more than shocks caused by other factors.

    Consumers and others may have also learned from past experiences. Oil shocks are, well, less shocking than they once were. Partly as a result, buy...















    The recession question
    Oil At $100 A Barrel -- What Now?
    January 09, 2008|By Steve Yetiv and Lowell Feld
    Oil prices, which a year ago were as low as $50, hit $100 a barrel for the first time the other day. U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and others have warned that high oil prices could seriously damage the U.S. economy. After all, oil price spikes have preceded most U.S. recessions since the 1970s. That includes the price spikes after the 1973 Arab oil embargo, the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the 1980 outbreak of the Iran-Iraq war.

    Is an oil-induced recession on the way? Probably not. For starters, the 1970s oil price shocks were triggered by severe supply disruptions generated by "geopolitical events" - wars, embargoes, revolutions. In contrast, oil prices over the past year have spiked despite no significant supply disruption. Many people point to Iraq, but Iraq today is producing nearly as much oil as it did under Saddam Hussein.

    Studies show that oil shocks driven by supply disruptions cause serious economic damage because they push consumers and firms to reduce consumption much more than shocks caused by other factors.

    Consumers and others may have also learned from past experiences. Oil shocks are, well, less shocking than they once were. Partly as a result, buyers and sellers are not hoarding oil as they did during the oil crises of the 1970s. Nor do we see the type of public agitation that used to become visible when oil prices reached $70 or $80 per barrel.

    Monetary policy also has changed. The Federal Reserve has been cutting interest rates, and that has helped stem the impact of high oil prices. Also, the International Energy Agency, which did not exist during the 1970s Arab oil embargo, now has rules, norms and the experience for managing oil crises. The agency requires its members to hold oil reserves equal to 90 days of their oil imports.

    At the global level, world economic growth is stronger today than during previous oil price spikes, and that appears to be buttressing the American economy. We also need less oil today to produce the same amount of economic output. We have become more efficient in using this resource, so price spikes hurt less today than in the past.

    It is still not certain that the U.S. can avoid a 1970s-style recession. We shouldn't become complacent. High oil prices do hurt, and that pain should remind us all of the crucial need for greater oil independence.

    Steve Yetiv, author of "Crude Awakenings," is a political science professor at Old Dominion University in Virginia. His e-mail is syetiv@odu.edu. Lowell Feld, an economist, worked for the U.S. Department of Energy for 17 years.

    Ads By Google
    Buy Bakken Oil Wells
    Direct Oil Well Ownership Large Potential. Small Investment
    www.breitlingoilandgas.com
    Discount Heating Oil
    Save $150 to $300 per year Nonprofit Organization
    www.massenergy.org
    (more)
  • nerak611 nbarton2 2012/09/28 20:03:35
  • nerak611 nbarton2 2012/09/28 19:43:41
    nerak611
    ME
    INSIDE THE CFPB
    GET ASSISTANCE
    PARTICIPATE
    LAW & REGULATION
    SUBMIT A COMPLAINT
    HOME LEARN ABOUT THE BUREAU CREATING THE CONSUMER BUREAU

    Creating the Consumer Bureau
    Beginning in 2007, the United States faced the most severe financial crisis since the Great Depression. Millions of Americans saw their home values drop, their savings shrink, their jobs eliminated, and their small businesses lose financing. Credit dried up, and countless consumer loans—many improperly made to begin with—went into default. Today, we’re still in the process of recovering.

    For many decades, rising wages and growing savings meant that American families tended to carry only modest amounts of debt. But wage stagnation that began in the 1970s—combined with rising expenses for housing, health care, transportation, child care, and taxes—pushed more families into debt. At the same time, households saw a significant increase in access to credit, and many of the old rules regulating credit were gone. In the 2000s, there were widespread failures in consumer protection and rapid growth in irresponsible lending practices. Many lenders took advantage of gaps in the consumer protection system by selling mortgages and other products that were overly complicated.

    This left many Americans with loans that they did not ful...







    ME
    INSIDE THE CFPB
    GET ASSISTANCE
    PARTICIPATE
    LAW & REGULATION
    SUBMIT A COMPLAINT
    HOME LEARN ABOUT THE BUREAU CREATING THE CONSUMER BUREAU

    Creating the Consumer Bureau
    Beginning in 2007, the United States faced the most severe financial crisis since the Great Depression. Millions of Americans saw their home values drop, their savings shrink, their jobs eliminated, and their small businesses lose financing. Credit dried up, and countless consumer loans—many improperly made to begin with—went into default. Today, we’re still in the process of recovering.

    For many decades, rising wages and growing savings meant that American families tended to carry only modest amounts of debt. But wage stagnation that began in the 1970s—combined with rising expenses for housing, health care, transportation, child care, and taxes—pushed more families into debt. At the same time, households saw a significant increase in access to credit, and many of the old rules regulating credit were gone. In the 2000s, there were widespread failures in consumer protection and rapid growth in irresponsible lending practices. Many lenders took advantage of gaps in the consumer protection system by selling mortgages and other products that were overly complicated.

    This left many Americans with loans that they did not fully understand and could not afford. Although some borrowers knowingly took on too much debt, millions of Americans who behaved responsibly were also lured into unaffordable loans by misleading promises of low payments. Honest lenders that resisted the pressure to sell complicated products had to compete with their less responsible competitors.

    Even those who avoided the temptations of excessively risky credit were caught in its web. Those who never took out an unaffordable mortgage nonetheless saw the values of their homes plummet when neighbors lost homes in foreclosure. Those who used credit cards and home equity lines of credit judiciously saw across-the-board increases in interest rates on credit cards and contraction of outstanding lines of credit. And those who had saved regularly saw their retirement funds lose significant value and their cities and states cut back on services to make up for their own revenue losses. The costs of irresponsible lending were borne by tens of millions of American families.

    In June 2009, President Obama proposed to address failures of consumer protection by establishing a new financial agency to focus directly on consumers, rather than on bank safety and soundness or on monetary policy. This new agency would heighten government accountability by consolidating in one place responsibilities that had been scattered across government. The agency would also have responsibility for supervision and enforcement with respect to the laws over providers of consumer financial products and services that escaped regular Federal oversight. This agency would protect families from unfair, deceptive, and abusive financial practices. The President urged Congress to give the consumer agency the same accountability and independence that the other banking agencies have and sufficient funding so it could ensure that powerful financial companies would comply with consumer laws.

    In July 2010, Congress passed and President Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The Act created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The CFPB consolidates most Federal consumer financial protection authority in one place. The consumer bureau is focused on one goal: watching out for American consumers in the market for consumer financial products and services.

    Read more about how the CFPB will serve American families.
    (more)
  • nbarton2 nerak611 2012/09/28 19:57:14
    nbarton2
    +1
    In 2011, Obama created an additional $231.4 billion in regulatory burdens; to put the $231B in perspective, the total regulatory burden on businesses according to the Small Business Administration is $1.75 trillion. That means in just one year, Obama increased the quasi-taxes on businesses by 13%.

    While he has implemented slightly less regulations than Bush in his first year those have created more costs to the taxpayer than the previous President. Adding more regulation adds more Government employees which adds more burden to the working taxpayer
  • keeper 2012/09/22 23:52:37
    no
    keeper
    +6
    This info is invalid. The Huff is as bad as media matters for skewing the truth.
  • hazel 2012/09/22 23:49:47
    no
    hazel
    +7
    no but your brain is
  • ☆56lady... hazel 2012/09/23 00:09:49
    ☆56lady☆POTL~JLA~PWCM
    +7
    didn't know they had a brain my friend !! LOL:)
  • joseph ... ☆56lady... 2012/09/23 01:55:57
    joseph digristina
    +3
    Hazel's your friend, Oh God, that figures. Oh well, you'll have a shoulder to cry on on November the 6th when that whiny woos you call a presidential candidate concedes the election to Obama. Lucky you.
  • ☆56lady... joseph ... 2012/09/23 02:20:10
    ☆56lady☆POTL~JLA~PWCM
    +5
    Yes, Joseph lucky me . . . . I have a great friend like hazel !!!
    NO !!!!!! Obama will lose . . . in a landslide!!
    in advance a box of tissue . . . for your tears!!
    lucky friend hazel obama lose landslide advance box tissue tears
    no obama
  • joseph ... ☆56lady... 2012/09/23 02:32:20
    joseph digristina
    +1
    I guess if your delusional enough to think Hazel is rational you'll believe anything. I also surmise you don't watch the news on any network other than Fox or you would be aware of that fact that Romney is already going down the tubes. Hell, even the Fox poll has him losing and sinking faster than Rush Limbaugh in a kiddie pond.
  • ☆56lady... joseph ... 2012/09/23 02:51:42
    ☆56lady☆POTL~JLA~PWCM
    +5
    I would rather have a friend like hazel . . . than a delusional one like you !!
    You could surmise correctly except for the fox part I don't watch them either !!

    Obama will LOSE !!

    NOVEMBER 6, 2012
    obama cream of nothing

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2013/05/24 16:51:51

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals