That RINO O’Reilly is really eating Glen(n)’s lunch, isn’t he? Glen(n) remains well under 1%. That seems pretty weak to me.

Buy gold.
Use gold to buy seeds.

Eats you up, doesn’t it King? LOL

The Real Royal King says:
June 4, 2010 at 10:02 am

Yeah, it’s almost like there’s a difference between Prime Time and Afternoon/Evening programming!

Sorry my morally and ethically perfect friends who, though tempted in every as I, have not sinned. Fact are facts. Because 99.3% of our fellow Americans reject your Messiah just really doesn’t set so well with you, does it. Curses, the facts, the facts, the messy facts!

The King will never understand the difference between comparing the networks to the cable news outlets. It makes him feel better to do it that way, so let him be. I think he’s starting to tear up.

The Real Royal Queen says: June 4, 2010 at 10:02 am. “That RINO O’Reilly”

Hey stupid – O’Reilly has never claimed to be a Republican. O’Reilly is an independent. I watch The Factor sometimes but O’Reilly is way to liberial. O’Reilly makes excuses for the Commie and excuses much of his incompetence.

The Real Royal King says:
June 4, 2010 at 10:34 am

You know, factually you’re wrong on a few levels:

1) Who said Beck (or anyone else) was my Messiah… besides you, of course? When did I say, imply, or lead you to believe that?

2) You assume that of the people watching, the same people watch every night. That’s a false assumption. There is a group of people who will watch sometimes, but not all the time… pushing actual audience size (and this is for everyone) up. What is needed for this is a unique sampling of weekly audience members… but I’m not sure where to find that. Either way, it would be a pretty safe assumption that over 1% watches Beck at least once in any given week.

3) How does your 1% statement compute with book sales? He’s had 5 NYTimes #1 best sellers… do you still think only 1% listens to him?

4) How can Beck have such a small audience, yet garner so much attention from the left? Websites attack him daily. Left-wing pundits do it all the time. Opinion programs on MSNBC and Comedy Central and elsewhere are always after him. There was an organized boycott of Beck after he managed to get someone from the Administration booted. And the White House itself has gone after Beck and his employers. So how “non-influential” could he be?

Really there are only two answers… either he’s much more influential than you want to admit publically (perhaps more irrationality from you), OR he’s not that influential and the left is just scared to death of anyone who speaks negatively about them, and thusly extremely petty and thin skinned.

So there you go, King. Let’s see if you can respond to those points. Ready, set, go.

Dancing with the Stars coming up.

Imnotblue:

Fox News, Beck, Oreilly, Limbaugh etc. are the proverbial double-edged sword for King and his socialist brethren. On one day, they scream that Fox etal must be silenced, they are damaging the discourse, they are swaying American voters with lies and propoganda. Then the next day, they (fox, rush, etc etc) are completely inconsequential because of the “tiny” share of Americans they really reach and persuade.

Which is it King?

They can’t make up their mind, it’s hilarious.

Poor king- the same unconvincing argument to explain why people reject him and his libby pals on cable news programs.

The only statement which warrants any response, the others being ridiculous is:

How does your 1% statement compute with book sales? He’s had 5 NYTimes #1 best sellers… do you still think only 1% listens to him?

Perhaps you ought to look up the total number of books sold and divide it by the US population. As it is, you are really embarrassing yourself. It makes his .6% or .7% television audience look very large indeed. I’ll even allow you to get by without deducting the cases of books FOX and other radical rightist groups buy to give away and warehouse. You’ve already been embarrassed enough.

King, that still doesn’t explain why you get so hyper and rush to explain away Fox ratings. If the audience is as tiny as you claim, why get so worked up every time Fox ratings are mentioned?

King, no one wants to watch your heroes. Face it! No one wants to hear the liberal hate.

Today, that lying lib rep. in CA is taking back what she said about the authors of the AZ immigration bill. Why? Because she was lying.

The Real Royal King says:
June 4, 2010 at 1:08 pm

The only statement which warrants any response, the others being ridiculous is:

In other words: “The only one I think I can answer without either admitting I’m wrong, or appearing a hypocrite is:”

Perhaps you ought to look up the total number of books sold and divide it by the US population.

Do tell… what is that number. You seem to already have the info… so please share!

I’ll even allow you to get by without deducting the cases of books FOX and other radical rightist groups buy to give away and warehouse.

Ah, yes… the old standard. The left-wing mantra of, “the only reason right-wing books sell so well is because they fake sales.” A lie that has never been proven, is completely meaningless, and reeks or desperation by the left. Oh well… I would have expected as much.

You’ve already been embarrassed enough.

Yes, clearly I’m embarrassed. I provide you four strong points… and you respond to one of them. Yes, how embarrassed am I. Run away Kingy… run run when you’re too afraid to answer.

Probably out traveling the world again.

writer says:
June 4, 2010 at 10:39 am
The King will never understand the difference between comparing the networks to the cable news outlets. It makes him feel better to do it that way, so let him be. I think he’s starting to tear up.

You are confusing dishonesty with lack of knowledge. This is an example of trrk’s dishonesty. There are numerous examples of his lack of knowledge, but this isn’t one of them.

To wit, President Obama was elected by about 20% of the American people. That is a factual statement, but a dishonest one in the same vein as trrk’s regurgitation.

By the way, I do know, from experience in New York politics back in the 70s, that there are those on both sides of the aisle who buy large quantities of books as a way of giving politicians money to get favors. I think, but I’m not sure, that there was even talk making the practice illegal. I don’t know if it was ever made illegal for politicians, though I doubt it. It doesn’t make sense that the practice happens for nonpoliticians. What would the buyers have to gain? Also, while I have seen people reading Coulter’s, O’Reilly’s and Malkins books on planes, trains and in waiting areas, I have never seen anyone reading President Obama’s books. Maybe that’s just me and what I notice.

I don’t know, Rich. Sometimes I think the King is genuinely stupid, and other times I think it could all be a put on. For just one example, he rails against racism and calls anyone disagreeing with him a racist, but at the same time he hates the white race. Then he claims that doesn’t count, since whites have never faced the ‘yoke of oppression’. (That’s a quote. Not making it up.) If he actually thinks that way, then is he delusional, or truly stupid, or is the whole thing a put on? If the whole Royal King character is a put on, then although it’s aggravating, it’s a good one. If it’s not a put on, then he is one truly twisted individual no matter how you look at it.

writer says:
June 4, 2010 at 6:21 pm

1) The entire TRRK schtick is just that, schtick. His only purpose is to bait people into responding, not unlike the child that runs into the room and blurts out something outrageous.

2) Honesty and integrity are alien concepts to TRRK , at least in this context, given the frequency with which he contradicts himself.

3) It wouldn’t surprise me if right now he is saying ” It puts the lotion in the basket . “

It is amazing how sane rational thought attracts viewers over the crazy liberal alternatives