Actually Olbermann's ratings are pretty bad. His show last quarter finished 27th on cable news networks.

From the 7pm to 11pm he is rated somewhere around 10th.

Limbaugh is the most listened to talkshow host.

Actually Olbermann's total viewers is nearly identical to Limbaugh's audience.

 

Randi Rhods is who you are discussing.

 

Thanks for the comparison between the audience sizes, and the name of the lady I was listening to. :thumb:

 

 

Frances

I bolded the words that made me fall out of my chair in astonishment. :D

As Fastbreak has noted before, and in many threads, he and I have more in common than most of you would imagine.

 

Frances

 

PS - you may now get back in the chair.

Frances, I suppose we just better agree to disagree....[/Quote] I have no problem with that.

 

 

... However, I cannot support destroying human matter that I believe without doubt is a human being just to possibly (not probably although that wouldn't change my opinion) help someone like Fox. Helpless human beings are not spare parts. If I sound unflexible, I am. I suppose my good Catholic education has made me this way (for which I thank the godly nuns).

Thus, my friend, we strongly differ on another issue.

I understand (and appreciate) your education, upbringing, and your religious faith, and the impact that they have had on shaping your world views. From personal conversations with you, I know where you stand, and why. You also know where I stand, and why. Even though we disagree (adamantly at times), I still respect your point of view, and I can only hope that that is reciprocal.

 

 

Frances

Frances, our points of view are deeply embedded. I certainly respect your opinions. We go way back and, contrary to what some probably have concluded fom some of our posts, I consider you a friend.

We just disagree on some issues but that is normal in this society.

Anyone who saw the interview last night should have heard MJF say that he respects the point of view of those who oppose stem cell research based upon their (sic) examination of the issue with regard to their religious, philosophical and moral beliefs. He asks that those people also understand that the same examination may have resulted in the opposite opinion by many people, most especially those affected by the diseases that stemcell research could offer hope in a cure.

 

He said something last night that really got me to thinking. He mentioned using the embryonic stemcells that would already be destroyed because (for instance) no one wanted to use them any longer.

 

I got to thinking...are those that are against stemcell research also against manipulating sperm and eggs to create the artificial means of impregnation? I mean, isn't that as abhorant as stemcell research?

On August 23, 2006, the online edition of Nature scientific journal published a letter by Dr. Robert Lanza (medical director of Advanced Cell Technology in Worcester, MA) stating that his team had found a way to extract embryonic stem cells without destroying the actual embryo. This technical achievement would potentially enable scientists in the United States to work with new lines of embryonic stem cells derived using public funding.

 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nature05142.html

Fox claimed on ABC this weekend he hadn't read about Amendment 2 in Missouri prior to cutting the ads.

So what was his point in saying Talent would criminalize it?

Fox claimed on ABC this weekend he hadn't read about Amendment 2 in Missouri prior to cutting the ads.

So what was his point in saying Talent would criminalize it?

I'm assuming his script was penned by the McCaskill people ...