View Single Post
  #299   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
RicodJour[_2_] RicodJour[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 633
Default OT Wall street occupation.

On Oct 18, 12:18*pm, "
wrote:
On Oct 18, 11:45*am, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 18, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:


Yes, that's the same totally outraged, and totally clueless
woman. I thought it was really indication, that she refused
to answer the question Jay kept asking. I think she knew
she'd brand herself as a socialist.


Didn't see the show, but it sounds like you enjoyed your
entertainment. *That's good.


Watching Hannity, or any teevee show with a slant may be fun,


Where is there a TV news program that doesn't have a slant?
At least Hannity, unlike NBC, CBS, etc *is honest about it.
And he does regularly have on well known liberals who
disagree with him.


That's why I don't watch TV for news and insight. There are better
ways to get information.

but it's
not educational nor meaningful.


While I'm not a big fan of Hannity, I have to disagree
that it's not educational.


Okay, fair enough. On any particular topic I read news sources from
around the world. People in other countries bring up stuff that isn't
brought up in the home country, for whatever reason. Different ways
of looking at things is always superior to looking at it from just one
perspective.

So I agree that we can learn from anybody, and even from TV. It's the
part about only watching TV, and only one particular program that
seems odd to me. In that situation I think that someone has found
someone who agrees with their way of thinking. It makes it easier to
digest. It doesn't mean it's better information.

But learning is not supposed to be easy. The only things I've learned
that were easy, I already knew a lot about. The difficult things I've
learned caused me to grow more.

*It's exactly the same as watching
Maury or Springer to get a read on how normal people behave. *You
won't find the answer there.


I don't see how you can compare Hannity, where they
are debating budget deficits to Springer having on
sluts talking about having sex with their uncle.


They both represent a subset and pander to an audience.

What you will find is that your personal predilection, the one that
caused you to tune in that particular program in the first place, will
be confirmed. *All will be right with the world.


If it works for you...


R


PS *Jon Stewart or Steven Colbert - comedians - would destroy anybody
in a televised debate. *They'd even let you pick the side they should
be on.


I've seen Stewart engage Bill O'Reilly and he sure didn't come close
to destroying him. * Gee, funny that you criticize Hannity, but
obviously watch those two. If *Hannity is Springer, then what are those two
clowns?


Comedians. Smart comedians who point out idiocy wherever it is
found. I guess you haven't heard Stewart go off on Obama, huh?

BTW, there's very little in this world that should cause someone to
entirely lose their sense of humor. Loved one got cancer? Really bad
time to lose your sense of humor. Like the saying goes - you either
laugh or you cry. I prefer to laugh even when I feel like crying.

R