wolf is the one professional, but he needs to fire that cranky man. shep is tolerable.
| Started By | Comment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ohboy |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
they're all having a contest as to who can have the most annoying anchors. and the daytime anchors are as annoying as the evening show hosts, just in
different ways.
wolf is the one professional, but he needs to fire that cranky man. shep is tolerable. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BobbyBrown06 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Does Shep still have Jane Skinner on to do Skinnerville?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
factoryhurl |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
i don't think she's on shep anymore, she does another hour during the day-i think. the only thing i watch on fox is shep and little red eye and greta
if she is covering something interesting.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ohboy |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
crying pays:
gawker: In a report that came out a couple weeks ago but we just noticed, Forbes estimates that Beck made $10 million from his radio show, $2 million from his television show, $5 million from books, $3 million from speeches and personal appearances, and $3 million from his web site. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ohboy |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Forbes The Celebrity 100 Talking Heads
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ZippyDoDa |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I can't believe Howard Stern beat them all in money and TV rank! What's up with that?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bob2559 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
springfeverish wrote: Actually, it's really easy for someone who is a senator or presidential candidate to say how they would do things totally different from the way the sitting president does them. But when they actually take the office, they discover it's not so simple and cut & dried. John Kerry already knows this, he spent eight years doing exactly what McCain was doing, but now that it's his party's guy in office, he's chiding others for doing doing it too. Plus you may have noticed with President Obama, that he's been doing a lot of the same things that candidate Obama pilloried President Bush for doing. Personally, I'd love for NASA to arrange a freak meteor shower that takes out Khatamei, the ruling council of clerics and the Iranian parliament (which is mostly clerics too). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
B DeBrun |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ZippyDoDa wrote: Don't think that's what it means... would be nice to see a link |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ohboy |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
link: http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/53/celebrity-09_The-Celebrity-100_PressClipsRank.html http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/03/forbes-100-celebrity-09-personalities_slide_2.html But I had already included how they did the ratings: "Rankings are generated by combining earnings with other metrics: Web mentions on Google press clips compiled by LexisNexis; TV/radio mentions by Factiva; and number of times a celebrity's face appeared on the cover of 25 major consumer magazines." So TV is based on money and the number of times "Stern" is said on air. I'm more shocked by Glenn Beck. I did not know he existed until recently. And he's such a crybaby freak and in that constant OTT mode. I guess if you have a shtick that pays well, and people are dumb enuf to buy it, go for it....
Last Edited By: ohboy
06/19/09 12:19 PM.
Edited 1 times.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
B DeBrun |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
If you click on the TV rankings, Obama is #1. Stern is #72 on that list. So Stern ranks behind Rush and Beck in that category. JSYK.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ohboy |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
nerd prom:
Last Edited By: ohboy
06/20/09 9:10 AM.
Edited 1 times.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
springfeverish |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This isn't surprising; the GOP has long put ideology over scientific rigor. The remaining 6% of scientists who are Republican must be the ones that
signed that global warming petition (you remember, the one that protocologists or parasitologists could sign as long as they had their BS!).
Only six percent of America's scientists identify themselves as Republicans; fifty-five percent call themselves Democrats. By comparison, 23 percent of the overall public considers itself Republican, while 35 percent say they're Democrats. The ideological discrepancies were similar. Nine percent of scientists said they were "conservative" while 52 percent described themselves as "liberal," and 14 percent "very liberal." The corresponding figures for the general public were 37, 20 and 5 percent. Among the general public, moderates and independents ranked higher than any party or ideology. But among scientists, there were considerably more Democrats (55%) than independents (32%) and Republicans (6%) put together. There were also more liberals (52%) than moderates (35%) and conservatives (9%) combined. "These results were not a complete surprise," said Scott Keeter, Director of Survey Research at Pew, in an interview with the Huffington Post. He said they can be mostly attributed to "the difference between Democratic and Republican parties with respect to issues." The wide ideological and partisan gap among scientists may have been exacerbated by the Bush administration, which often disputed broad scientific consensus on topics such as evolution and climate change. Keeter acknowledged this factor, but said that "many of these disputes probably predate the Bush administration," noting that scientists have favored liberal views in numerous past studies. Religion also plays a role. Republicans tend to promote the centrality of religion more often than Democrats, and while 95 percent of the public said they believe in "God" or "a higher power," only 51 percent of scientists claimed either. "Many Republicans, especially the Evangelical wing of the party, are skeptical of evolution, and have argued for the teaching of creationism and intelligent design in school," said Keeter. The results could merely be a reflection of how scientists see the world, rather than of partisan loyalties. In a series of questions posed, the study found that the answers of scientists were consistently more in line with liberal viewpoints than those of the general public. "The Republican Party has a number of leaders within it who have challenged the accuracy of scientific findings on issues such as climate change, evolution and stem cell research," Keeter told the Huffington Post. "It suggests that scientists who are Republicans might feel some dissonance from the party's position on some things that are important to them.
And while there are Republicans in the scientist sample, there are really not that many," he said.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beefcake |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
That study isn't terribly surprising, especially if they count social sciences as "Science".
And I'll bet if they surveyed engineers, they'd find more conservatives than in the general population. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
B DeBrun |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wonder why spring posted that in this thread. Was the other one locked?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
springfeverish |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There's only so much racist, venom-spewing, bat-shit craziness I can take in one day.
That study isn't terribly surprising, especially if they count social sciences as "Science". I would agree with you about engineers being more conservative. But with less than 23% of the general population refering to themselves as Republicans, I'll bet that a good majority of engineers are independents. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
factoryhurl |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
thanks for posting it, i am avoiding the other thread. <3
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
B DeBrun |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
springfeverish wrote: Where do you get 23? It's over 31-32%. Almost 29% are independent. Dems almost 39% according to: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/party_affiliation/partisan_trends but.......
Trust on Issues
Voters Trust GOP More than Democrats on Eight of 10 Key Issues:
Surveys of 1,000 Likely Voters
Last Edited By: B DeBrun
07/10/09 7:53 PM.
Edited 1 times.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
springfeverish |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The 23% was from the Pew survey. As for Rasmussen, he had the most favorable Republican numbers during the election and consistently undercut Obama by as much as 5 points. Glad to see he's still reliable. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
springfeverish |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The latest Gallop has Republican identification at 28%
Party Identification Gallup's basic measure of party identification -- which does not take into account the partisan leanings of independents -- shows a slight decline in Democratic Party identification in the first quarter of 2009 (from 35% to 34%) and a slight increase in independent identification (from 35% to 37%). There has been no change in Republican identification, which at 28% remains on the low end of what Gallup has measured for the past two decades.
The fact that Democrats hold a six-point advantage on initial party identification compared with a larger nine-point lead on leaned party identification indicates that independents are currently a little more likely to lean to the Democratic Party than to the Republican Party. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
B DeBrun |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
link please for the Rasmussen claim
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||