(V):
That is capitalism.
It would be unamerican to suggest Jesus is off limits for profitable ventures.
I have heard or read the claim from many Christians that the bible is the all time best seller.

Porn can make you rich and so can selling all things satanic. The occult is hugely popular. yada yada

Artful Dodger: Yes... I hear a soundbite about a man who's worth $6.7 billion dollars. Has used his papers and other media outlets to make governments rise and fall depending on whether they will be 'his friend' and pay homage on results. He is rated by business magazine Forbes the 13TH most powerful person in the world.

"Not exclusively, but predominantly"

Meaningless!!

(V): I agree. Your post is quite meaningless. As it has NOTHING to do with the context anyway. You do have a serious attention deficit problem yes? It even shows in your writing.

Artful Dodger: Yes they can.. But they don't have an audience being told God and Jesus is going to make them rich.

Artful Dodger: The original post I did was about Muppets and Fox. We can go back to that and who killed Kenny if you wish!!

(V): Never heard it in any of the churches I've attended or visited.

(V): Well, actually it was one commentator on Fox, not Fox as a whole. So you got that point wrong anyway. And I did comment. I corrected you when you said liberals are everywhere. I said that in Hollywood, they are as in the print and tv media. At least predominately. That's true. In talk radio, conservative voices out number the liberals but the liberals are there. But commentary and news are NOT THE SAME. But you knew that, right?

Artful Dodger: I said TV preachers... Please stop trying to change the context. ;P

And on the ones we see in the UK, alot of them are promising that God and Jesus will help them with their financial problems.

(V):
He employs the "Argumentum ad hominem" fallacy regularly to avoid arguing the actual point of another's argument.

(V): stop watching them. geez

Artful Dodger: That's an excuse you keep using. But when many commentators on Fox say similar things about Liberals, socialism and communism at every opportunity...

It's more then one!!

last time you tried that you had egg all over your face.

(V): you were talking about the muppets. Show me more than one. More than two??

Artful Dodger:
I don't think so, but feel free to persuade with either a link or an accurate quote.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jl6ekkvWnOE


4 in this link to the fox news article.

Oh yeah DP, you walked away from our last exchange with your tail between your legs. You should stay away from trying to identify logical fallacies and stop pretending to understand logic. It's clear you don't.

(V): Eric Bolling=1 person. I've seen that video. Did you notice that he had TWO OPPOSING views presented?

Artful Dodger: wow.. they really opposed... ... ... hard!!

I guess if they did their Fox paychecks would stop!! eheheheheh

Logic is abused and often chemical biological truths are mixed in to cause a move from binary to at least a trinary system. That languages keep on changing, and you've always got a chance of a ghost in the machine.

.. Especially back when I was at college when punch cards were used to program the mainframe, as we did back then before PC's!!

(V): Should have said two opposite views. And yes, one view presented was completely opposite as she's a well known liberal. Fox has liberals on all the time and it's PROPER to pay them as they are regulars. Some guests don't get money as they are guests being interviewed. But those offering up commentary are called contributors and they are paid. So what.

(V): philosophical logic??? off in left field?

Artful Dodger: "

PROPER to pay them as they are regulars"....

Ships biscuits were trice baked. Very hard after that, but add gravy...

(V): All cable news outlets have paid contributors.

Artful Dodger: Seems there are several languages or varieties of that.

Artful Dodger: Yes... As they do on the BBC. Many once hardened lefties or righties, but softer now on a channel they use to fight with.

Interesting fact that!!

(V): I was speaking of formal logic. But then you knew that, right?

DAMMIT!!

Way to go Fox News and CNN. It is nice to see those networks lying to their viewers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fk-qRU2nAUQ

Specially Fox News. They are so incompetent that they can't even figure out the difference between Greek and Russian writing.

Artful Dodger: Formal logic.... excluding a middle ground... .... yes, I understand the idea, but as having dealt with logic on a formal training ground in the likes of the ultimate logic devices, computers.


.... I find that it's not logical.

A computer uses 01, yet from that it must to operate, be capable of and/or gates as well as yes/no.

Then after reading up I have to ask, are you talking about the Aristotle version or Begriffsschrift?

Übergeek 바둑이: They are relying on their viewers not to know the difference.

eg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MjRV-UTs9o

@toddstarnes
toddstarnes
Cable News Ratings - O'Reilly 3,271,000 Piers Morgan 604,000

Artful Dodger: Damn!! Does that mean he'll be coming back and doing UK TV soon... ... again!

His 'interviews' over here (on ITV) were too choreographed, quite the opposite from his days with NOTW where justified going after celebs lock, stock and two smoking barrels!!

(V): that's not a lot of viewers. Certainly not enough to sustain a show. On YouTube yes, cable no. You have to wonder why MSNBC keeps hiring these liberal nut jobs (Joy Bahar, Al Sharpton....) as they can't pull in any decent ratings. But if they put a good conservative at the helm, they'd easily score over a million viewers. American's are tired of the liberal spin here.

Artful Dodger: Piers Morgan is considered a conservative here in the UK. He certainly had no qualms about working for Murdoch as the editor for the NOTW in the past... can't get any righter than working for Murdoch.

If you are talking about his interviewing style with politicians.... He's an English conservative, not an American one. The difference is bigger than the Atlantic ocean!!

(V):

> Piers Morgan is considered a conservative

What passes for liberal in the USA and Canada is a right wing conservative anywhere else!

The USA has two choices: right wing, and right of right wing. Well, it just shows that the concept of left and right is relative.

(V): What the difference for example with your conservatives and liberals?

Artful Dodger: ...For a start we do not just have two parties, here is a list of all those with a MP or Lord at the mo....

Labour Party
Conservative Party
Liberal Democrat
Scottish National Party (SNP)
Plaid Cymru - the Party of Wales
Democratic Unionist Party (DUP)
Sinn Féin
Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP)
Ulster Unionist Party (UUP)
Respect
UK Independence Party (UKIP)
Independent Labour
Independent Conservative

More so, even within a party there can be a big difference in views on some items. There is no 'tea party' or be a better 'ideology' except of the 'fars' of movements whether left right or central.

Übergeek 바둑이: Of course they are a relative term. A BNP party member considers the Conservatives a leftist group. The Communists consider the Labour party a right wing group.

I mean.. how does Sinn Féin position in political terms the Ulster Unionist Party. Former foes in Northern Ireland's long war!

(V): we have more than two parties too but only two dominant parties. Which of yours dominate? And how do liberals of GB differ from liberals in US?

(V): And what of US progressives? What is your equavalent?

Artful Dodger: It's more of a case of what is considered liberal to the US version of the idea. Our PM (conservative) is in full support of the NHS, as are about 99.99 of politicians. Considering some of the reasons for setting up the NHS and other social systems, it would be considered an insult to many who have served or contributed towards the victory of both world wars. As well as several dozen nails in the coffin for any major UK political party to announce it wants to disband it. UK history lessons teach of the poor houses, the deaths before we got social systems and the NHS.

Plus even the likes of the CBI acknowledge the health of the working population is a asset to businesses.

.. the usual argument in the end comes to how to run things.

As to progressive.. the most would in my mind be the SNP, as they won the right for Scotland to rule itself rather than London. But that is the same as being a State in the USA.

But.. I have to say the word progressive has different meanings. Technically there is no UK equivalent to the US. Your whole political system in some forms is alien to the UK.

eg.. unending tv commercials come elections is not allowed. Sure politicians can get on tv shows or be interviewed, but that is upto the TV stations. Lobbying like in the USA is illegal in the UK. Anybody caught red handed (but not slightly pink handed) is gone, possibly even made an example of... ie not allowed to resign and sacked or even actually facing criminal charges.

... I say "even" after the expenses scandal. Too many MP's would have been sacked if they hadn't been allowed to hand back their expenses money. I also wonder why all those big national building companies were not all in court, rather than the few out of 500+ caught fixing bid prices and other fraud, which cost the public and private sector.

I'm surprised that no one mentioned the death of Christopher Hitchens. So I will. It's a very sad sad day. The world has lost a powerful voice. His intellect resides at the very top with the very brightest. His rhetorical skills were unmatched but by the very few. The world now has a hole in it that won't be easily filled. RIP

Artful Dodger: The news about the Higgs Boson ..... Plus I think Richard Dawkins fills some of the guys boots.

Aye.. he had no room for intellectual dishonesty. The Ol' journalist streak in him.

(V): Dawkins couldn't even wear his socks.

Bernice:

This does not come as a surprise. Specially in a system in which two political parties have monopolized all political power. All representative pseudo-democracies are susceptible to this. Considering the amount of wealth and power involved, we should not be surprised if those in power want to cheat to win elections.

In many countries today Internet voting is being pushed as a way to "entice" voters to participate in elections and increase voter turnout at election time. Instead, computerized systems are easily rigged to manipulate results.

I would say the the USA is the most vulnerable for several reasons. You have a highly polarized political system with two parties that vie for nearly 50% of the vote each. You have highly technified private companies with the capability to program computerized voting systems. You have very wealthy and powerful men who have every interest in making sure that a candidate that represents their interests wins. You have a lobby system that pervades through every sector of your government. While the population votes, all political power resides in the hands of a plutocratic elite that manipulates and corrupts elected representatives. This is just an example of the undermining of the democratic process. I suppose it is up to Americans to protect their democracy and most Americans are too distracted by terror and paranoia to realize that the biggest threat to American democracy is not terrorists or communists, but rather the plutocratic elite that manipulates all western democracies.

The anonymous vote is a disguise pretending that voters want it. In fact, each voter could be issued a code to maintain anonymity while publishing the votes in each district with the code to allow the voters themselves to verify accuracy and complain if not. When a count is questioned, the votes could be decoded for verification purposes.

The world nervously holds it's breath