Daily PUMA Column - Commentary by Alessandro Machi

Showing posts sorted by date for query MSNBC. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query MSNBC. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Monday, February 20, 2012

Fox Television's "Raising Hope" wishes Hillary Clinton had been president.

For us PUMA's, this is as close as we can get to hearing about Hillary Clinton on any television show. Since this show is on Fox TV, there were several digs at Bill Clinton that thankfully I was able to avoid while picking these two delightful pieces.


And on to the show!


Now imagine if every night there was just ONE, just ONE cable news channel that was liberal moderate, or moderate liberal, Hillary's Channel. 


Hillary's channel would be at least as popular as Fox News and expose MSNBC for the progressive regurgitation it became once they chose Barack Obama and George Soro's money over the larger popularity of Hillary Clinton in 2008.



Please Download the Chase Bank Protest Flyer for FREE, and then all that needs to be done is just give a few copies out, it is really that simple.

Sunday, November 6, 2011

MSNBC tribute to Hillary Rodham Clinton's Mother, Hillary Rodham..



Team Hillary is compiling a nice list of Hillary Clinton videos on youtube, including this one from MSNBC about the recent passing of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Hillary Clinton's mother. Simply double click on the image to go to Team Hillary's youtube website.

Please Download the Chase Bank Protest Flyer for FREE, and then all that needs to be done is just give a few copies out, it is really that simple.

Monday, June 27, 2011

Keith Olbermann relieved of his old timer's day broadcasting duties, should we be surprised?

In less than one year's span, two different corporate entities have felt the need to fire Keith Olbermann, the first time (MSNBC fired Olbermann) I entirely agree with, the second one the Yankees should be fined 10 million dollars for firing Olbermann.

In the first case, Olbermann was fired from MSNBC for donating money to democratic politicians whom he had interviewed or was going to interview on his MSNBC TV show. It was also an excellent way to get out of a huge possibly 16 million dollar contract that Olbermann apparently received for his 2008 democratic nomination efforts.

In the second case, Olbermann tweeted a photo of a New York Yankee staffer apparently stealing signs and sending them to the yankee hitters on deck. That pretty much means Olbermann was exposing the New York Yankees cheating, and he should not have been fired for that.

However, I'll never forget his badgering and pummeling of Hillary Clinton during the 2008 democratic presidential nomination race, Olbermann and Arianna Huffington played pivotal roles in overriding blue collar democrats choice for president (Hillary Clinton) as the democratic nominee, and neither have ever been brought to justice for their crimes against the american voter.


Wednesday, May 11, 2011

Why does the U.S. Government allow the Mississippi River to flood dozens of cities on a regular basis? Why won't Barack Obama do something about it?


Barack Obama promised Change, and Change is what I want, darn it!

I wanted a supposedly intelligent president emboldened by his team of rivals to change how the U.S. problem solves recurring issues such as reducing and minimizing the affect of Mississippi River flooding.

I did a little research and the Army Corp of Engineers pre-ordains how deep the Mississippi River will be dredged based on how deep the biggest ships bottoms that traverse the Mississippi extend below the surface of the Mississippi River. The biggest ships may sit 40 feet deep so the Army Corp of Engineers adds seven feet for safety, for the boats!

Isn't that special.
Is it possible the Army Corp of Engineers actually is satisfied with dredging the Mississippi River to a depth that allows shipping lanes to flow freely, but won't go the extra five or ten feet that might prevent virtually all imminent Mississippi flooding that may cause over a billion dollars in damage?
Has a cost / risk dredging versus flooding benefit analysis been done?

If the Federal government spends 40 million to a hundred million dollars a year to dredge portions of the Mississippi river, what would the benefit be if that amount was increased an extra 50 million dollars?

If this year's flood produces a billion or two billion dollars in neighborhood flooding damage, wouldn't spending 50 million extra on the front end be a wise investment if it saves one to two billion dollars on the back end?

Is it possible that the dredged Mississippi River mud might have value as potting soil or for people's gardens? What about calling the dredged up mud Mississippi Mud and selling it across the country?
What if the extra 50 million dollars used to dredge the Mississippi was used to pay returning war veterans to actually assist in the dredging of the Mississippi River?
Yes, a jobs program that creates IMMEDIATE, TANGIBLE jobs and SAVES THE COUNTRY MONEY by REDUCING FLOOD DAMAGE, while also creating a NEW PRODUCT that benefits americans all across the country!
Instead, Barack Obama, (just as George Bush before him), will photo op along the Mississippi River in the coming couple of weeks, grimacing, telling flood victims that the U.S. government is here to help them with low interest rate loans to help repair their flood damaged homes, flood damage that most likely could have been prevented in the first place.

wow.


Saturday, April 30, 2011

George Soros says the right thing about todays political landscape after having done the wrong thing in the past.

Please click here for the most current DailyPUMA article.

I have been stating over and over and over that Fox cable news and MSNBC cable news have polarized the political landscape in this country by reporting stories from a steadfast right, or unflinching left perspective.

I have also stated over and over again that until a third cable news channel starts reporting news from the moderate liberal position, (aka centrist), which perhaps as many as 50% of the population supports as being the closest to their own political beliefs, the U.S. will simply suffocate themselves in a polarizing us versus them war of words.

Along comes George Soros in a News Max article, who basically says the same thing as I have been saying. Here is a quote from George Soros in the News Max article link above that I find just amazing.

Political extremism is “endangering our open society,” he said. “As I see it, the two sides in the current disputes have each got hold of one half of the truth which they proclaim to be the whole truth.” -George Soros

George Soros funded liberal democrat groups that attacked Hillary Clinton while supporting Barack Obama in 2008. George Soros got the guy he wanted in office, yet now he opines that the whores on the left and the whores on the right have all the power and the result is half truths at every step.


Isn't Barack Obama the king of the half truths? Barack Obama has support among Wall Street, yet he also has community based activism support as well, perhaps only a half-truther could accomplish this feat.

So Mr. Soros, put your money where your mouth is and fund a THIRD CABLE NEWS CHANNEL, one that is that neither left, nor right, but one that actually investigates the issues and points out the pro's and cons and perhaps even offers real solutions. And while you're at it, maybe you could apologize to Hillary Clinton for having your minions gang up on her in 2008 and label her polarizing.

Just who is polarizing now, Mr. Soros?

Sunday, April 17, 2011

Should PUMA's back any presidential political candidate in 2012?

In a previous article a few months ago I gave my explanation of where PUMA's have gone after the rigged 2008 democratic nomination contest. In this article, I have to ask the question, why are we supporting any presidential political candidate in 2012?

I just don't think it is wise to back any presidential candidate in 2012 because we are presently being polarized to death by the far right and far left cable news channels known as Fox and MSNBC. I have not watched either Fox or MSNBC for more than a total of an hour or two in the past two years.

While I tend to think that Fox isn't as extreme as MSNBC, neither Fox nor MSNBC cover important issues from a centrist viewpoint. Fox analyzes MSNBC's position, and distances themselves from it, and MSNBC does the same towards Fox.

The result is what I call news regression, news entrenchment, news polarization. No matter who you may like in 2012, be it Palin, Trump, Romney or Obama, the fact remains that the news outlets that report the news will continue to ignore centrist america, what I call the moderate liberal.

A moderate liberal is a liberal that actually cares about the budget and does not want a handout in exchange for their vote. Moderate Liberals tend to be middle aged and older and are family oriented. if you are one of the 70 million americans taking care of an elderly family member, or one of 15 million americans taking care of a parent with alzheimers, you are probably a moderate liberal.

liberalism in moderation.

Yet liberalism in moderation is NOT what either Fox or MSNBC are about. The result is a massive under representation of what moderate liberal americans want, or are interested in, by both Fox and MSNBC.

If you choose to support any mainstream presidential candidate in 2012, you give your blessing to what happened in 2008 as being "one of those things", and now its time to "move on". I would suggest before you give into the temptation of moving on and supporting a presidential candidate in 2012, you fight for a third cable news channel that places itself exactly in the middle of Fox and MSNBC, and you say it whenever the issue of politics comes up.

"I'm not supporting any presidential candidate in 2012 until there is a third cable news option that is exactly in the middle of Fox and MSNBC".

If you don't agree, then you may be validating the 2008 democratic presidential race without any chance for "change" going forward in 2012.



Thursday, April 14, 2011

Ladder to the Moon by Barack Obama's half sister is a tribute to their mother, Stanley Ann Dunham.

One of my biggest pet peeves against Barack Obama was that he was writing his tribute book about his sperm donor father in the early 90's in Bali, even as his mother was being diagnosed and fighting cancer in Hawaii. Barack Obama literally had to fly over where his mother was fighting cancer in Hawaii to go Bali.

I have not been able to find an actual exact Timeline of Barack Obama's book writing in Bali and his mother's battle with cancer in Hawaii, but even if the book was barely finished when Stanley Ann Dunham was first diagnosed with cancer, isn't it odd that a book about his deadbeat and passed father was of such priority that he could not find the time to fight for the life of his still living mother?

Maybe the excuse would be, when Barack Obama was in Bali, his mother had not been diagnosed yet, when the book was finished, then he learned of his mother's conditions, and by then he could not afford the additional time off to be there for his mother.

Ok, I would be able to accept that, assuming it were true, and IF Barack Obama had not OWNED his mother's cancer treatment battle with the insurance companies as if it were his own personal struggle by referring to it during the 2008 democratic presidential campaign against Hillary Clinton, in campaign commercials, and then again in the second debate against John McCain.
It appears that Barack Obama chose to write his book about his deadbeat dad in Bali but then was not there for his mother when she was diagnosed with cancer soon after Barack's book was finished. The press has never asked him about the timing of these two relatively close events in his life.
Would you prioritize writing a tribute book about one of your passed parents and then not personally helping your still living parent in their battle against cancer? Would you then use your own mother's cancer experience, of which it appears you did not participate in, to gain sympathy and votes for your own career?

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

The Polarizing Cable News Channels are ruining the United States.

Barack Obama admires Jamie Dimon. Dimon, Winfrey and Obama all have their business roots in Chicago.

It is silly to criticize Jamie Dimon's tactics while liking Barack Obama. Obama's campaign engineered the biggest pre-paid credit card donation swindle ever perpetrated during a presidential campaign.

Wall street wanted Barack Obama in 2008, not Hillary Clinton, because Hillary Clinton has way less wall street puppet strings attached to her than Barack Obama.

Hillary Clinton can't win in 2012 because cable news reporting is intentionally decisive, pushing people into either supporting MSNBC and Barack Obama, or Fox News and the republican candidate.

Ironically, there is a huge swath in the middle, called main street, who are Hillary Clinton supporters and who have been disregarded and marginalized.

Until we have a cable news network that is not as polarizing as either Fox or MSNBC, nothing will "change".

Isn't it ironic that polarizing cable news channels were the ones that tried to stick Hillary Clinton with the polarizing label in 2008?

Look no further than the Wisconsin collective bargaining ongoing news story. MSNBC didn't focus on numbers, nor intelligent compromise solutions, (such as collapsing the numerous collective bargaining unions into ONE COLLECTIVE). Fox didn't focus on solutions other than simply eliminating collective bargaining.

In the cadence of Charlie Sheen various sloganeering, the new catch word is, POLARIZING!

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Nice Remembrance of Basement Angel from SICKOFITRADLZ.

Before I started Daily PUMA after the November 2008 presidential election, I was originally a member of the Hillary Clinton Forum after having just stumbled into the whole 2008 democratic nomination scam by accident, literally.

A foot injury caused me to be couch bound for about 7 -10 straight days in early February of 2008. During that week to 10 days I watched a whole lot of MSNBC and their bizarre coverage of the 2008 democratic nomination race.
After what can only be described as waterboard torture administered by Keith Olbermann over the airwaves as I recuperated from my foot injury on my couch, I went from being a completely ambivalent democrat over whether or not Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama won, to an angry, angry democrat completely freaked out over the media's completely biased coverage of the 2008 democratic race, coverage that favored Barack Obama.
As time marched forward I began researching the extent of the 2008 democratic caucus fraud, media misdeeds and the profound level of relationship betrayals that it took to finally get Barack Obama over the top. At some point in May of 2008 I came up with the idea to make protest postcards that could be mailed to ALL of the 2008 democratic delegates BEFORE they arrived at the democratic convention.

Each Protest Postcard had a message that related to the 2008 democratic fraud nomination process. My belief was that one protest postcard message in the hands of a delegate might have more impact that a hundred angry emails.

To my surprise, my protest postcard idea was rebuffed by many of the most well known Hillary Clinton supporters and bloggers. I've always believed that it takes a coalition of believers with ideas that makes sense, to make a difference, but I've never been very good at the "politics" of being accepted.

I have contemplated for the past few years what would cause a true Hillary Clinton supporter to not be excited by the protest postcard idea and will address that issue in a further article.

There is a fine line between trying to profit from an idea, and using that idea to help create normalcy and fairness regarding how the media and our own politicians wage their election battles. My fine line was that the only way I could make money from the protest postcard idea was if the postcards actually helped get Hillary Clinton the nomination.

In other words, if 15,000 to 30,000 of these postcards actually got printed and mailed to the few thousand delegates, enough delegates could have been turned to give Hillary Clinton the nomination. Postcard runs of that size would have to make a miniscule amount of profit from each postcard, otherwise I would run the risk of significantly going into the red. If however, only a couple thousand were sent out, I would lose money. So if Hillary wins, I win, if Hillary loses, I lose. Works for me.

I compromised on my original run of protest postcards. I did a thousand each for each postcard, plus a second run of one of the postcards.

lol, I lost money on the protest postcard venture but I felt I handled the procedure the correct way. I would much rather pay to create the postcards with my own money up front, than announce I was making the cards ahead of time to see if I could get enough pre-orders to not risk my own money at all. While getting pre-orders may be good business sense, it flies in the face of supporting a candidate because you believe they will do the best job of anybody running.

Plus, where was the risk if one offers pre-sales? If the protest postcard pre-sale idea is golden, the person with the idea comes off like a true Hillary Clinton supporter without ever having risked their own money. I'm glad I risked my own money, because my conscience is pure, I had a great idea, but not enough places to go to get enough people to back it.

Of all the protest postcard rejections that I received, the most hurtful one was from Lambert Strether at Correntewire (I assume not his real name as that is the name of a literary character). I had just been approved for "membership" at correntewire but because I mentioned my protest postcards more than once, Lambert immediately banned me without any type of additional questioning.

I could not comprehend how people allegedly backing Hillary Clinton would not bend over backwards to help any idea that might help get Hillary Clinton elected in 2008. So from that point on, I just presumed that Correntewire was a faux pro Hillary Clinton site. After I started Daily PUMA later that year, any alleged Hillary Clinton pro site that would post a link to Correntewire, but not Daily PUMA, had some explaining to do, and that's putting it politely. See for yourself, if you see an alleged pro Hillary Clinton site with a link to correntwire, but no link to Daily PUMA, be aware.

All of this is background to what follows next.

Today I came across this remembrance of Basement Angel by SICKOFITRADLZ. Please read this remembrance as it is a nice tribute to Basement Angel.

SICKOFITRADLZ'S tribute helped tie up some loose ends for me as well. Apparently Basement Angel was the one poster at Correntwire who could be counted on to rebuff the anti Hillary nonsense that was posted there as part of the Barack Obama trollingbrigade that went around either CONCERN TROLLING, (AND STILL DOING IT!) or attacking Hillary Clinton without identifying themselves as a Barack Obama supporter.

ONE POSTER?
That's it? Only one poster (Basement Angel) at correntwire could be counted on to attack any and all stupid Barack Obama shills that were against Hillary Clinton?

If anyone reading this was a friend of Basement Angel, why not go to correntwire and find her best Hillary Clinton comments, and do a tribute article about her and include those comments.

Saturday, March 19, 2011

Where PUMA's went after the 2008 democratic fraud nomination process.

(quick update note, July 25, 2012), DailyPUMA is a bit surprised that in 2012 very few former PUMA bloggers have gone to the trouble to actually post their desire for a Hillary Clinton presidency in 2012 on their own blog! Are you Pumas aware that progressive democrats will be backing Elizabeth Warren in 2016?)


Where did all the PUMA's go after the 2008 democratic fraud nomination process? The answer is, everywhere.

And "everywhere" speaks to something that seems to have gone unanalyzed by the alleged pundits.
There were so many different types of Hillary Clinton supporters in 2008, including women, poor, working class, Bill Clinton fans, Chelsea Clinton fans, Hillary Clinton fans, Diverse ethnics, working class men, Republicans who wanted fiscal responsibility, and finally, loyal, loyal democrats.
When all of these Hillary Clinton factions were overruled by a corrupt central democratic alligiance that still remains in power, these multiple Hillary Clinton groups all went their own separate ways. Hillary Clinton supporters truly fractured to all over the political spectrum.

And therein lies the paradox.

There were so many different coalitions that were ready to rally around Hillary Clinton for president in 2008 that when Wall Street realized that Barack Obama would make a much better lap dog president than Hillary Clinton, Clinton supporters went in all different directions as they witnessed the lengths to which the democratic party went to rationalize the kinds of illegal political campaigning that went on in 2008.

While many of the disenfranchised Hillary Clinton supporters didn't see themselves as PUMA's, they are actually all PUMA's who believed being pragmatic was the only choice they really had, (the same type of pragmatism that Hillary Clinton championed within her own political career).

Without even one cable news station that simply reports the news from a moderate middle position, there is no room for Hillary Clinton style of moderate politics in the United States. Instead, we are left with a polarizing cable news junta of Fox and MSNBC, and millions of americans being taken advantage of because there is no real honest news out there, just agenda driven news that goes either far right, or far left.

Without any cable news channels reporting moderate middle news, a Hillary Clinton style of presidency was not possible, especially when a fledgling group of millions of Hillary Clinton supporters had nowhere to go on the cable news channel dial to get truly fair and powerful news reporting with a slant towards finding solutions to existing problems.

We can all see by what happened in Wisconsin and the collective bargaining impasse that neither the ultra conservative republican branch, nor their equally demented ultra progressive whack a noodle liberal democrat counterparts care about anything other than their own voter base, and that will always separate them from Hillary Clinton supporters.

There are blogs on Daily PUMA that cover women's rights and women's continued fight against media bias, there are blogs on Daily PUMA that celebrate younger women's quest to attempt physically demanding adventures on par with their male counterparts, bloggers fighting cancer, environmentally based blogs that bring the latest news on green energy technology breakthroughs, there are also some ultra liberal blogs and ultra conservative blogs, and there are PUMA blogs,
and that is what makes DailyPUMA a special place for those who "get it".

I commend those who have discovered that Daily PUMA blog is a huge time saver when it comes to quickly analyzing news story clips of the day because there is such an interesting cross section of blogs.
Rather than simply surround ourselves with people who all think alike, PUMA's get that Hillary Clinton would have truly been an all encompassing president who would have "worked hard" to make a difference without being as polarizing as either the ultra conservative republicans or progressive liberal whack a noodle democrats have proven to be.

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Is NBC changing from their despicable 2008 political news fraud that they perpetrated on democratic voters? Meet Harriet's Law, um, Harry's Law.


Hmmm, should we go with Harry's Law...

Or should we go with Harriet's Law?

Hey Guys, pretend we have holsters and are about to draw our guns, would you watch then?
Ok, we'll compromise, no guns, but we'll call the show Harry's Law instead of Harriet's Law.

The good news is MSNBC recently parted ways with Keith Olbermann. The additional good news is at the same time, NBC released a new show by David E. Kelley called "Harriet's Law", um, make that "Harry's Law", starring Kathy Bates. Yes, a female in the lead of a legal drama. Ok, it's been done before, but Harriet is more "matronly", and that is what makes Harry's Law a win for humanity.
You mean a matronly female lead actress can carry a show??? Yep. But wait, we'll fool everybody into thinking it's a guy, so that they at least tune in, by calling the show Harry's Law. Then we'll play whack a mole with Harriet in the first few minutes so the guys we fooled into tuning into the show, will like the whack a mole aspect and stick around.
You'll have to see the series premiere to get the meaning of whack a mole.

So the good news is, NBC has approved a show about a matronly lead actress, and the slight down side is they were afraid to call the show Harriet's Law, and instead went with Harry's law. But that is more of a knock on my male idiot brethern who would never even give a show called Harriet's Law a chance, but would tune in to see a show called Harry's Law. (already branded by the "Dirty Harry" Clint Eastwood movies of the past 30 years).

If you watch Oprah, and don't watch Harry's Law, you are a dope. Cut the Oprah watching time down and make time for Harry's Law. The show even has a Hillary Clinton / Barack Obama angle to it. Harriet has to save a young Barack Obama type from being a three time convicted felon, and takes him under her wing for guidance. Ah, if only...

Now if some start up news show other than Fox or MSNBC could see the wisdom in advertising on Harry's Law and catering to the nice people of the world, the people who voted for Hillary Clinton, we could start a real movement, and real change.

Friday, September 24, 2010

Why is Lady Gaga's Meat Dress considered hip, but Sarah Palin standing in front of a Turkey Farm/Slaughterhouse draws a lot of flank?

Click here to see original photo source and article.


When I wrote about Sarah Palin standing in front of a Turkey Farm/Slaughterhouse in November of 2008, I pointed out that raising awareness of how Turkeys are slaughtered for our Thanksgiving enjoyment is not something Sarah Palin should get flack over.

"But, but, she didn't know what was going on in the background" clamored the liberal and progressive community. The truth is, Sarah Palin did not care what was in the background. In my opinion the reason Palin did not care about what was in the background was because we eat Turkeys, and this is how they are prepped. And yet, people like Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann of MSNBC just ridiculed her to no end over the Turkey interview video.

Amazing the flack that Sarah Palin also took over the budget for her wardrobe during the 2008 presidential race. Maybe Lady Gaga's meat dress was "affordable".

So, what about Lady Gaga? Can someone explain why Lady Gaga gets a free pass from the MTV awards and the liberal media for wearing raw meat all over her body and then accepting an award dressed that way while Sarah Palin is vilified for doing an interview in front of a Turkey farm / slaughterhouse?

The two acts are inseparable, and yet, does the liberal media treat them in an equal light?

Thursday, September 2, 2010

Chicago Dentist runs ad supporting Hillary Clinton for President in 2012.


As I stated in a previous article, Hillary Clinton will need a political news channel that won't go in the tank for the biggest democratic progressive spending candidate, (and well before the democratic presidential race was actually decided), which is what happened in 2008.

However, since most new prime time television programming is aimed at the under 35-40 years of age crowd, it becomes difficult to then run news programming aimed at the over 35-40 crowd. Even the late night stand up comedians cater their comedy to the younger people, and of course, part of their "comedy" includes making fun of Hillary Clinton.

There is a built in television production cycle that is funded by Wall Street and the bankster industry and their desire is to financially indenture younger people because revolving credit card debt from a 20 something is the most profitable type of debt there is.

Fox Television is the perfect model of what is needed for the Hillary Clinton voter base, but Fox is primarily a republican channel and even if Fox ran stories exposing the lying and deceit of the democratic party, it would not be reaching the right demographic base.

Another channel is needed. TV Land is catering to the over 35 crowd, but they are somewhat rudderless and clueless and would need to be "guided" into a nightly news programming show that would simply reveal what MSNBC refuses to reveal.

Click here for CNN Story. The comments section was closed very quickly as many Hillary Clinton supporters began commenting.

Saturday, July 31, 2010

What is really stopping Hillary Clinton from becoming President in 2012 and beyond.

There is an underlying reason why Hillary Clinton cannot become president in our lifetime, and it has to do with television.

One of the things I do to take care of mom is find television programs for her to watch so that she isn't on her feet all day long because she is a compulsive worker.

I gotta tell ya, 98% of the stuff on television is not just crap, it is crap directed towards those under the age of 35. I can't tell you the time I have wasted sifting through over a 100 channels trying to find something for mom to watch.

Thank God for TBS and TV Land.

The criteria used when I channel search is, no skanks (there goes ALL OF REALITY TV) and no guns or violence.

My Chase Bank and Bankster research over the past year has revealed to me that both the banksters and the television media have a very similar agenda. THE BANKSTERS AND NETWORK TELEVISION DON'T CARE MUCH ABOUT ANYBODY OVER THE AGE OF 40 when it comes to television programming because the commercials that sponsor those television programs have a specific agenda when it comes to whom they want buying their products and services.

Chase Bank went as far as to screw over A MILLION of their over 35 years of age customers by changing terms on a low interest, life of the loan credit card agreement already in place, and Chase Bank would not allow the older consumer to opt out of the tyrannical change in terms that raised the monthly payment by an additional 150%, either, which was actually against consumer guidelines.

While some of you may already know the banksters and television don't cater to anybody over the age of 40, do you know why that is?

The reason banksters and television programming don't care much about anybody over the age of 40 is because A, those over 40 generally have enough wealth and wisdom to only buy what they need, and B, those over 40 are less likely to have long term debt than the youth of this country.

Television programming and commercials are designed to promote and glamorize behavior that will create long term, indentured debt for the younger crowd. What Banksters and advertisers desire above all else is someone who will be in debt for a very long time. The younger the debtor is, the more profitable of a target they are because they can be indentured for a much longer period of time.

Until television programming is created on a more truly demographic scale, Hillary Clinton cannot win a presidential election because she is a candidate without a television channel to back her up. MSNBC backed up Barack Obama, even when Hillary Clinton was actually still running and Fox News backed up whomever the Republican candidate was going to be.

If there is any rich person out there who likes Hillary Clinton and believes she would be good for this country as President, get control of the TVLAND channel and create a nightly 1/2 hour news show that would cater to the Hillary Clinton crowd; you know, the nice people who care about others and are responsible to their family, and desire to pay their bills.

Not only could TVLAND channel level the playing field in terms of dismissing the idiotic antics of Keith Olbermann and his friends at MSNBC, it would also give Hillary Clinton supporters a channel as a home base and advertisers to support by SPENDING THEIR MONEY on the companies that advertise on TVLAND.


Tuesday, June 29, 2010

How TV Land could affect the 2012 presidential campaign.

It became pretty obvious to Hillary Clinton supporters during the 2008 democratic nomination process that Hillary Clinton was the only major presidential candidate without a television channel.

We know that MSNBC conspired against Hillary Clinton and for Barack Obama. Fox Television was for the republican candidate while the major networks tried to give the appearance of unbiased reporting. However those same "unbiased" major networks tethered their own female talk show hosts into remaining silent about Hillary Clinton in most instances, and then there was Oprah Winfrey, gasp.

The male television talk show hosts all took more shots at Hillary Clinton than her male political counterparts. Jon Stewart will never admit that he took ratings over truth as it endeared him to his younger skewing audience, and as a result he took it to Hillary Clinton far more than Barack Obama.

Even with all the caucus cheating by Barack Obama's side, with the shady dealings of the democratic higher ups cozying up to George Soros and their back room back stabbing deals against Hillary Clinton, the reason Hillary Clinton could not get that final push to victory was because she had no real television base.

Even most female talk show hosts were afraid to show real support for Hillary Clinton because their audience also skewed younger and most of the female hosts were on channels that supported either Barack Obama or the republican candidate. Which brings me to TV Land. I would love to see a 1/2 hour cutting edge evening news / talk show, sort of like a John Stewart show, that skews towards the older demographic, say 40 years and up.
Hillary Clinton supporters are among the nicest and most caring group of voters and Clinton supporters also don't believe in uncontrolled governmental spending either, yet they have no television base.
If you could poll all the rioters after the Lakers 2010 championship victory, (rioting after a championship victory - unreal) I am absolutely certain that 98% either didn't vote, or voted for Barack Obama in 2008. Without any kind of a nightly television base, the best part of america, Hillary Clinton voters, the kind of voters that don't riot after their team wins a championship, will continue to be under represented in the political arena.

I have had a chance to study TV Land and am amazed at how strongly they promote their own original programming. TV Land also skews towards the ideal audience that presently is NOT being represented politically on television, the Hillary Clinton supporters. If TV Land would have the guts to launch a nightly 1/2 hour political talk show for the older crowd, we could begin to see some true balance in how every political demographic is being represented on television.

Until Hillary Clinton supporters get their own 1/2 hour nightly political news and talk show on television, we will continue to be ignored by the demonic party and disrespected by the repuritanical party.



Best Quality VHS to Digital Transfers

Best Quality VHS to Digital Transfers
Serious Customers Welcome.

Share Gadget

10,000 Dollar Grant! Another Great Find from FABULOUSLY40.com

10,000 Dollar Grant! Another Great Find from FABULOUSLY40.com
Would this be a good way to win funds for Louisa's Law ?