For GOP only

[Balta1701]

Sort of a catch-22, because in a perfect world the businesses would take these initiatives on their own. My thinking is this though, if the companies are thinking ahead about their long-term viability, why WOULDN'T they?

Because there's very little incentive for these companies to think about their long term viability in that way.

 

Here's the way they look at the system. They control substantial oil reserves. If global oil production peaks and oil production drops by say, 5% over the next 5 years, then over that same time, the value of their oil holdings will probably double or more...if they can keep selling it. They are plenty viable even in the middle to long term as oil production declines, because the decline in oil production is going to continue forcing a skyrocketing of their profit ability. Here's a more detailed summary/case study. The only thing that would short-circuit this effect, where the value of their holdings continues to go up and forces their profits higher and higher is a genuine transition in the energy markets to some other source of energy or to an economy that rapidly is cutting its consumption of oil.

[lostfan]

The answer is obvious to me, there isn't enough money in it. Forcing them to do so would be akin to me saying to you that you have to quit your $100k a year job doing what you want to do, to a minimum wage job working at the soup kitchen, with the possibility of being able to make money later if it is profitable.

That's not what I meant, I was referring more to companies investing more into alternative energy, because at some unknown point in the future that will be the next big thing, and you want to be the one holding the cards as opposed to the one trying to deal to get them. Or you would think.

[southsider2k5]

Because there's very little incentive for these companies to think about their long term viability in that way.

 

Here's the way they look at the system. They control substantial oil reserves. If global oil production peaks and oil production drops by say, 5% over the next 5 years, then over that same time, the value of their oil holdings will probably double or more...if they can keep selling it. They are plenty viable even in the middle to long term as oil production declines, because the decline in oil production is going to continue forcing a skyrocketing of their profit ability. Here's a more detailed summary/case study. The only thing that would short-circuit this effect, where the value of their holdings continues to go up and forces their profits higher and higher is a genuine transition in the energy markets to some other source of energy or to an economy that rapidly is cutting its consumption of oil.

 

Like I said, if there is REALLY money in this, someone will invest in it. There are private equity companies that exist just for finding investments. They don't care about what they make money on, as long as they make it.

[southsider2k5]

That's not what I meant, I was referring more to companies investing more into alternative energy, because at some unknown point in the future that will be the next big thing, and you want to be the one holding the cards as opposed to the one trying to deal to get them. Or you would think.

 

In the meantime, they have their shareholders to worry about.

[NorthSideSox72]

Like I said, if there is REALLY money in this, someone will invest in it. There are private equity companies that exist just for finding investments. They don't care about what they make money on, as long as they make it.

Keep in mind, they ARE investing in it. Companies are growing all over the place doing solar cells, wind power, electric cars, etc. Its happening. But they are small fish, with little capital, so it takes longer. The large energy/oil firms could do it quicker, but have little motivation to do so... yet.

 

[southsider2k5]

Keep in mind, they ARE investing in it. Companies are growing all over the place doing solar cells, wind power, electric cars, etc. Its happening. But they are small fish, with little capital, so it takes longer. The large energy/oil firms could do it quicker, but have little motivation to do so... yet.

 

I'm not talking about the two bit players. I am talking about the huge eight to nine figure worth PE's.

[BearSox]

How in the world does putting MSNBC at 3 to 3.5 when 5 is defined as the middle qualify as calling MSNBC "Un-Biased"?

3.5 is near un-baised. Did I ever say he put it as a 5? No, but 3.5 is way too close to a 5 for MSNBC.

[NorthSideSox72]

I'm not talking about the two bit players. I am talking about the huge eight to nine figure worth PE's.

Then yeah, they are only doing token work. But that will change over time, and in the near future. They'll have no choice, for a variety of reasons.

 

[mr_genius]

Take the challenge and watch 24 hours. I dont think there is a "left of far right" host on the network. Heck, most of them are smug righties who lack any ability to see past their own nose.

 

For the record, I am a central independant and even I see that Fox is far from fair.

 

On a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being far left....

MSNBC is a 3 or 3.5

CNN is probably a 5.6 or 6

Fox News is a 9.5.

 

your posts seem to be 100% pro-Democrat, you don't really seem to be much of an independent. it's kind of weird that the GOP only thread often has more posts from Democrat posters than independents or GOP'ers.

 

 

anyways, here are my rankings

 

On a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being far left....

MSNBC is a 1

CNN is probably a 2

Fox News is a 10

Edited June 12, 2008 by mr_genius

[Balta1701]

your posts seem to be 100% pro-Democrat, you don't really seem to be much of an independent. it's kind of weird that the GOP only thread often has more posts from Democrat posters than independents or GOP'ers.

 

 

anyways, here are my rankings

 

On a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being far left....

MSNBC is a 1

CNN is probably a 2

Fox News is a 10

So you really feel like MSNBC is as far to the left as Fox is to the right? Their evening lineup is something like Abrams, Olbermann, Matthews. Matthews sometimes leans left, but is unreliable enough that Media Matters went after him a couple years ago as their misinformer of the year. On the Fox news lineup, you have Brit Hume, Neil Cavuto, Boll O'Reilly, Hannity and Colmens, and Greta van susteren. And I'm not an expert about MSNBC's morning programming, or their "Hard news" programming either, but Joe Scarborough (former Republican Congressman) still seems to host a show in the morning, while Steve Doocy and the Brown haired guy who's not Steve Doocy clearly come at things from the right on Fox...and at least from my perspective, Fox News's "Hard news" reporting has been amongst the most skewed parts of their network. Do you disagree?

[mr_genius]

So you really feel like MSNBC is as far to the left as Fox is to the right? Their evening lineup is something like Abrams, Olbermann, Matthews. Matthews sometimes leans left, but is unreliable enough that Media Matters went after him a couple years ago as their misinformer of the year. On the Fox news lineup, you have Brit Hume, Neil Cavuto, Boll O'Reilly, Hannity and Colmens, and Greta van susteren. And I'm not an expert about MSNBC's morning programming, or their "Hard news" programming either, but Joe Scarborough (former Republican Congressman) still seems to host a show in the morning, while Steve Doocy and the Brown haired guy who's not Steve Doocy clearly come at things from the right on Fox...and at least from my perspective, Fox News's "Hard news" reporting has been amongst the most skewed parts of their network. Do you disagree?

 

yea i disagree. MSNBC is as far left as FOX is right with commentary. Media Matters doesn't hold much weight with me, and I have also read far Right wing stuff that says FOX is too liberal (which is obviously a crazy assessment). FOX has left wing commentators, but that doesn't prove they aren't totally pro-GOP.

 

as far as considering only hard news, FOX is slanted to the right to about the same measure as ABC, NBC,CBS, CNN, and MSNBC are to the left. When you think about it, FOX doesn't even put on that good of a show, I think CNN has a much better presentation. The only reason FOX has such high ratings is that they are the only right wing news on TV.

Edited June 12, 2008 by mr_genius

[lostfan]

Joe Scarborough tries to hide his bias a lot of times but he is definitely a Republican and doesn't care for Democrats.

 

I don't really see CNN as all that biased. Honestly. I mean which of their anchors brings the bias? All they do is report and interview, really.

Edited June 12, 2008 by lostfan

[mr_genius]

Joe Scarborough tries to hide his bias a lot of times but he is definitely a Republican and doesn't care for Democrats.

 

I don't really see CNN as all that biased. Honestly. I mean which of their anchors brings the bias? All they do is report and interview, really.

 

as far as CNN, it's more of the direction of news (the stories they chose to emphasize). Wolf Blizter and Cooper Anderson are definitely pro-Dem. CNN has also been very pro-Obama, any news network that openly campaigns for a candidate or party, can at best have a 2 or 9 rating with me on the scale we are currently using to evaluate.

[bmags]

I guess I'll jump in the argument. There wouldn't be a big problem with fox if it was just conservative. The problem is they aren't putting substantive conservatives on their shows, we aren't getting a debate with William F. Buckleys, we are getting Rush Lumbaugh's ilk. They have news personality after news personality, very few news magazine shows that are informative. They are a tabloid. Their problem is the same problem as the Chicago Sun-Times. The problem with fox being so highly rated has nothing to do with their politics, rather their dragging of journalism into the trough and being successful by being so shallow. That is the problem w/ ze Fox news.

[mr_genius]

I guess I'll jump in the argument. There wouldn't be a big problem with fox if it was just conservative. The problem is they aren't putting substantive conservatives on their shows, we aren't getting a debate with William F. Buckleys, we are getting Rush Lumbaugh's ilk. They have news personality after news personality, very few news magazine shows that are informative. They are a tabloid. Their problem is the same problem as the Chicago Sun-Times. The problem with fox being so highly rated has nothing to do with their politics, rather their dragging of journalism into the trough and being successful by being so shallow. That is the problem w/ ze Fox news.

 

The entire news media landscape has been on a downslope. Just look at the kind of stuff the New York Times runs. FOX's prime time lineup is commentary with elements of tabloid reporting, but that seems to be the norm lately (Katie Couric is the anchor of CBS nightly news, which is fairly insane). However, this is nothing new for journalism in this country. Back in the WAY old days, the media was way worse than it is now. If you see some of the stuff newspapers would print in the 1800's and early 1900's FOX looks very rational.

[HuskyCaucasian]

your posts seem to be 100% pro-Democrat, you don't really seem to be much of an independent.

Pro-Life

Anti-Gay Marriage / "Civil Liberties"

Moral Conservtive

 

Pro-Universal Health Care

Get out of Iraq

Pro-"little guy"

 

Frankly the Bush/Rove republican party has royally pissed me off. Until things change, I find it hard to support them.

Edited June 12, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[lostfan]

as far as CNN, it's more of the direction of news (the stories they chose to emphasize). Wolf Blizter and Cooper Anderson are definitely pro-Dem. CNN has also been very pro-Obama, any news network that openly campaigns for a candidate or party, can at best have a 2 or 9 rating with me on the scale we are currently using to evaluate.

Ok, I can buy that. I don't really think that much of Blitzer because he just kind of follows the wind, I think Cooper is a really good journalist though. Yeah he's a Dem (as are the majority of reporters), but he at least hides it somewhat and his reporting is accurate. Larry King is Larry King, all he really does is invite guests on to talk about whatever the news item of the day is or interview celebrities. I wish Roland Martin had a bigger role, because he is one of the better journalists on there.

 

I wouldn't say CNN is openly pro-Obama though, they gave a lot of credibility to (what was, in my opinion) pro-Hillary propaganda that didn't have much of any factual basis, and their coverage of it was basically pretending that she still had a chance when the writing's been on the wall since TX and OH. Mostly because it got high ratings.

 

CNN really just emphazes what gets ratings though, that's the bottom line IMO. Their coverage of the war was pretty soft, only looked slightly anti-American in contrast to Fox's blatant cheerleading and touting the party line the whole way. They were called "liberal" or "anti-American" because they referred to the American presence in Iraq as the "occupation" instead of whatever the Bush adminstration-approved phrase was, but the word itself is neutral. What we were (and are) doing is the exact definition of the word, I see nothing "liberal" about it except a guilty conscience from the negative connotation of the word. Now, when you compare CNN to international media (which is what I was mostly watching at the time) like BBC, Sky News, CNN World, and (lol) Al-Jazeera, it was pretty moderate and pro-American.

 

edit: I probably shouldn't have put Sky News on that, they're pretty moderate too.

Edited June 12, 2008 by lostfan

[lostfan]

Back in the WAY old days, the media was way worse than it is now. If you see some of the stuff newspapers would print in the 1800's and early 1900's FOX looks very rational.

lol, yeah I think the SCOTUS ruling on slander/libel changed all that.

[BearSox]

So you really feel like MSNBC is as far to the left as Fox is to the right? Their evening lineup is something like Abrams, Olbermann, Matthews. Matthews sometimes leans left, but is unreliable enough that Media Matters went after him a couple years ago as their misinformer of the year. On the Fox news lineup, you have Brit Hume, Neil Cavuto, Boll O'Reilly, Hannity and Colmens, and Greta van susteren. And I'm not an expert about MSNBC's morning programming, or their "Hard news" programming either, but Joe Scarborough (former Republican Congressman) still seems to host a show in the morning, while Steve Doocy and the Brown haired guy who's not Steve Doocy clearly come at things from the right on Fox...and at least from my perspective, Fox News's "Hard news" reporting has been amongst the most skewed parts of their network. Do you disagree?

Don't even get me started on O'Reilly, this whole election season he has pretty much babied Obama, Hilary, and McCain. He isn't the same guy he was a couple years ago. From watching his latest shows, I can't even tell if he's GOP anymore.

[Cknolls]

Joe Scarborough tries to hide his bias a lot of times but he is definitely a Republican and doesn't care for Democrats.

 

I don't really see CNN as all that biased. Honestly. I mean which of their anchors brings the bias? All they do is report and interview, really.

 

 

Ever hear Jack Cafferty.

[NorthSideSox72]

as far as CNN, it's more of the direction of news (the stories they chose to emphasize). Wolf Blizter and Cooper Anderson are definitely pro-Dem. CNN has also been very pro-Obama, any news network that openly campaigns for a candidate or party, can at best have a 2 or 9 rating with me on the scale we are currently using to evaluate.

Pro-Obama? As far as I saw, CNN was the one network that seemed pro-Clinton.

 

Still though, I think CNN is probably the closest thing to center available, among the TV networks.

 

 

[lostfan]

Ever hear Jack Cafferty.

He's obviously against the war but it seems to me he rips on everybody, and that's the only "liberal" thing about him because mostly what he does is rant and complain. Besides, being for or against the war and the way it's been conducted isn't, or at least shouldn't be exclusive to liberals.

 

I also counter your Jack Cafferty with Lou Dobbs, aka Mr. "I hate immigrants."

[southsider2k5]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan...lle-obama-rumor

 

CNN’s Roland Martin: ‘Idiot Democrats’ Behind Michelle Obama Rumor

Photo of Matthew Balan.

By Matthew Balan | June 13, 2008 - 15:31 ET

 

NewsBusters.org - Media Research CenterCNN contributor Roland Martin, a known Barack Obama sympathizer, surprisingly isn’t buying the argument that conservatives/Republicans are behind the rumored Michelle Obama "whitey" comment. During a segment on Thursday’s "Anderson Cooper 360," substitute anchor Campbell Brown asked Martin, "Republicans have made it clear, pretty much, that Michelle is fair game here. Are you surprised by the intensity of the attacks?" He replied, "I'm not surprised by it, but I think, also, we can't blame Republicans for everything. It's these idiot Democrats that started some of this stuff."

 

When Brown asked what he meant by that, Martin dropped the names of two Hillary Clinton supporters: "[Y]ou had Larry Johnson, a Clinton supporter, who put this whole rumor out of this so-called tape where she used ‘whitey.’ It doesn't even exist. And then you had Bob Beckel, Democratic strategist, who goes on Fox, and he floats the rumor as well. Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot. They can't put this one on conservatives. They started that particular one."

 

Martin’s approach to the "whitey" rumor contrasts with that of the New York Times, who blamed "conservative blogs" for spreading the rumor, as fellow NewsBuster Clay Waters pointed out earlier.

 

After Martin gave his take, Brown turned to CNN chief national correspondent John King, who actually defended the concept that Michelle Obama is a legitimate target in the presidential campaign.

 

JOHN KING: ...There's a difference between rumor, innuendo, and smears...

 

MARTIN: That's right.

 

KING: ...by saying there's a tape. When someone says there is such a tape, we should say, where is it? Prove it. And if we can't prove it, I'm not even sure why we're talking about it on television. In the old days, we wouldn't do that. In the age of the Internet, we've decided, well, it's out there; I guess we can talk about that. I don't think that's a wise approach. But that's a very different thing that her saying, ‘For the first time in my life, I'm proud of my country.’ That is fair game. She wants to be First Lady of the United States. Her husband acknowledges that she has significant influence over him. And, yes, Democrats are going to have to face attacks in which the Republicans say that the Obamas are left-of-center, both on policy and culturally, in America. If she says something in the public arena, that is fair game. What she says is very different from an unsubstantiated rumor.

 

The short Martin/King segment began 25 minutes into the 10 pm Eastern hour of Thursday’s "Anderson Cooper 360."

[HuskyCaucasian]

Pro-Obama? As far as I saw, CNN was the one network that seemed pro-Clinton.

 

Still though, I think CNN is probably the closest thing to center available, among the TV networks.

It's central enough to not really piss off either side on a regular bases. lol

[mr_genius]

He's obviously against the war but it seems to me he rips on everybody, and that's the only "liberal" thing about him because mostly what he does is rant and complain. Besides, being for or against the war and the way it's been conducted isn't, or at least shouldn't be exclusive to liberals.

 

I also counter your Jack Cafferty with Lou Dobbs, aka Mr. "I hate immigrants."

 

Dobbs Hates McCain and Bush cause they are too easy on immigrants.