Cable News Ratings for Tuesday, June 26, 2012

Categories: '

(369) Comments - Add Yours!

1. Suikostinger

   Posted June 28, 2012 at 1:36 PM

   Sorry Tennable. Even Bush said that Saddam and terrorism had no links connected. He said this after the war. Cheney said there were links before we went to war, then after the war he said that he never said that and that there are ABSOLUTELY no links between Saddam and terrorism. Terrorist went there AFTER we started our war….even the head honcho that started the war (Bush) said there was and is NO evidence. Of course in 2008-09 they were still trying to pin him to terrorist but there is still no evidence. He also had no significant WMDS which is what Bush and his men told us, which is why the dems voted to go to war….on false information.

2. Letmethink

   Posted June 28, 2012 at 1:38 PM

   Well Elijah Cummins is walking out. So much for getting to the bottom of Fast and Furious no matter how high it goes.

3. Hillbilly

   Posted June 28, 2012 at 1:38 PM

   Faith3 – You stated, “So if a republican prez’s decides to ease the regs”. How else is the prez going to ease the regs?

   ———————————

   The same way Nobama put them in place. You have no problem with what Nobama & the EPA has done. Now if a republican prez reverses or cuts back on their MATS rule, & you start ragging on them, you will be partisan. (by your definition) I will be the first to remind you of that.

   Again, more partisan battle. I’m not really into it so maybe you should engage with someone else who enjoys saying R POTUS vs Your POTUS.

   Nothing partisan about it. I don’t get why you think pointing out facts is partisan. If you rag Paul Ryan’s plant to save medicare is that partisan? If you don’t like me standing up to your bashing corps & class warfare just say so. If you no longer wanna talk to me just say so.

   Correction: My exact words were, “Thanks for clearing that up”

   No problem. Some of you liberals need guidance. Glad i could help.

4. Steve Perry

   Posted June 28, 2012 at 1:40 PM

   @Tennable

   I don’t blame you for not knowing some of these facts because you’re probably listeing to Right-Wing talk radio or watching Fox News. However, you owe to yourself to start doing your OWN research and not simply take the word of Rush, Hannity, etc.

5. Matthew

   Posted June 28, 2012 at 1:53 PM

   “and 45 + 40 = 85…that leaves 15% undecided. Even someone with little or no knowledge of politics knows that undecided go for the challenger over the incombent…so that really makes it 45 obama, 55 romney…plus or minus one or two points…”

   You’re taking a real polling phenomenon, and burying it under a load of half-truths and false assumptions to come to the conclusion that you want. First of all, to say that all of those that didn’t lean Obama or Romney are undecided is false – A chunk of those are people that will never vote for Romney or Obama, and will go third party.

   Second, if you’re as knowledgeable about polls as you claim, you should know that the phenomenon of undecided voters going for the challenger is LEAST pronounced in presidential elections. The reason undecideds heavily go toward the challenger in state and local elections is because they’re already familiar with the incumbent, and are already leaning toward not reelecting the incumbent, while the challenger is a relative unknown. All a challenger has to do to keep those undecided votes in their pocket is to avoid scandal, and run an anti-incumbent campaign.

   A national campaign is different – A large chunk of the undecided voters in these polls aren’t undecided because they’re unfamiliar with Romney, they’re undecided because they literally haven’t decided who is the lesser of two evils. They don’t want to vote Obama, but they’re not enthusiastic about Romney; Romney is well aware of this, which is why he’s doing everything he can to be an ‘undefinable’ candidate, and avoid taking a hard stance on…well, anything. The more concrete his plans, the more potential there is to drive away those undecided votes. So long as he commits to nothing, he can’t do anything that might make him unappealing to people who aren’t happy with Obama.

6. Tennable

   Posted June 28, 2012 at 1:53 PM

   “Mny of their leaders and fighters went to Iraq way after we arrived. Dude, you need to get your facts straight.”

   And why would they do that if Iraq had nothing to do with Terrorism or the War on said topic? There are the “facts” we get from our armchairs watching cable news, and then there are reasons of loyalty as to way these leaders and fighters you speak of go to Iraq to get killed.

   They were link for sure, maybe not for public knowlege. And how would we know to link them? Of course they were linked. You think they just newly found blind ‘born-again’ loyalty to Iraq?

   More “facts” for you. We had boots on ground in Iraq 4 days after 9/11. So yeah, we got their first (only first for their insurgency). But also, we were fighting a dessolved Iraq army. Where else did they go? They became part of the public and got us good sadley to say. In short, they were always there.

7. Suikostinger

   Posted June 28, 2012 at 1:59 PM

   @Tennable

   “You think they just newly found blind ‘born-again’ loyalty to Iraq?”
   “And why would they do that if Iraq had nothing to do with Terrorism or the War on said topic?”

   REALLY dude!? It’s called we were there, terrorist hates us, they came over to Iraq to attack us…..pretty simple actually. You are THE only person that doesn’t believe this. Even far right winged people that I know in real life accept that Saddam had no ties and that terrorists only came over because we were there and Iraq was a cesspool because of us……

8. Suikostinger

   Posted June 28, 2012 at 2:01 PM

   BTW….

   House votes 255-67 to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in criminal contempt of Congress for withholding documents in the ‘Fast and Furious’ probe.

   Good riddance. He should be held in contempt. Only thing I dislike is that he gets held in contempt for a few dead people yet Bush and his people get off scott free from the lies of the Iraq war which has caused thousand of our men dieing and thousands of families falling apart because of it. But anyway, GOOD that he gets held for criminal contempt.

9. Steve Perry

   Posted June 28, 2012 at 2:15 PM

   @Tennable…”And why would they do that if Iraq had nothing to do with Terrorism or the War on said topic?”

   –I hate to say this, but you are a lost cause. Even most people on the Right know that there was no link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda before we arrived. Bush has already admitted this…along with other members from his Party. Just listen to what Bush has to say on this whole matter of gong to Iraq:

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_A77N5WKWM

   I hope this opens up your eyes a little.

   Also, Bush admitted this directly on an interview with ABC’s Martha Raddatz back in 2008.
   crooksandliars.com/cernig/bush-admits-al-qaeda-wasnt-iraq-invasion-so