Sirius XM radio host Megyn Kelly laid into MSNBC host Joy Reid over a Friday
evening interview that aired on �The Reidout.�

During the interview in question, Reid repeatedly attempted to attack Moms
for Liberty co-founder Tiffany Justice � and in doing so, she found herself
defending pornographic materials in schools and in the hands of children.

WATCH:

Moms For Liberty Founder to MSNBC host Joy Reid:

�In what context is a strap on dildo acceptable in a public school?�

?? @TPostMillennial

pic.twitter.com/r4rUibSbmf

� Oli London (@OliLondonTV) January 21, 2024

Reid began the segment by complaining about some books � particularly some
with explicit LGBTQ+ themes � being �banned,� but Justice pushed back
immediately, noting that there was no actual ban in effect.

�No one is banning books. Write the book, print the book, publish the book
put the book in the public library, sell the book, right? We�re talking about
a public school library,� she said, saying that it wasn�t a ban so much as a
move to ensure that inappropriate materials would not end up in the hands of
young children.

Reid continued down the same path, however, complaining that conservatives
were advocating book bans without knowing what was actually in the books or
by taking certain key words from those books �out of context� in order to
make them sound offensive.

�In what context is a strap-on dildo acceptable for public schools? Tell me
what the context around a strap-on dildo or the rape of a minor child by a
teacher?� Justice asked in response.

Justice was not alone in her assessment of the book Reid mentioned � �All
Boys Aren�t Blue.� Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) read an excerpt of the book
aloud on the Senate floor during a hearing last September, prompting an
awkward response from Illinois Secretary of State Alexi Giannoulias.

�Those words are disturbing coming from your mouth,� Giannoulias said to
Kennedy � but he said nothing about the fact that Illinois allows children
access to those same �disturbing� words.

Sen. Kennedy reads passages from pornographic books Genderqueer and
All Boys are Blue.

The Illinois Sec. of State Alexi Giannoulias responds by saying
"those words are disturbing coming from your mouth."

His state's new law stops parents from being able to remove it from�
pic.twitter.com/eDehdhctQL

� Greg Price (@greg_price11) September 12, 2023

Reid went on to argue that Moms for Liberty should not have the right to
�ban� such books, saying that stories like the one in question might allow an
LGBTQ child to �feel seen.� Instead, she asserted that the parents of those
children should have the right to demand that their children have access to
them.

The argument continued, and Justice suggested that perhaps the more explicit
books should be kept where younger students would not stumble across them by
accident.

�Maybe we can just put all the books with all the graphic sexual content �
the dildos, the raping �� she began, but Reid interrupted.

�I�m so sorry, excuse me, excuse me, excuse me! I have seen tapes of what
Moms For Liberty does, and you all go into school board meetings and you read
graphic stuff,� Reid complained, suggesting that parents drawing attention to
the graphic content was more egregious than the content itself.

�Joy, this is a disingenuous conversation,� Justice shot back. �America used
to understand that there�s a thing called age-appropriate content.�

Kelly�s response to the entire exchange � and Reid�s position in particular �
was simple: �This idiot actually wanted to know what �expertise� [Justice]
has to object to minors in school reading about strap-on dildos & incestual
pedophilia.�

This idiot actually wanted to know what �expertise� @4TiffanyJustice
has to object to minors in school reading about strap-on dildos &
incestual pedophilia. https://t.co/kv2xi7toey

� Megyn Kelly (@megynkelly) January 22, 2024

--
Let's go Brandon!

[snip]

And the rest of us, that is, the vast majority of people
who are actually in a reality based universe, care about
the ramblings of a has-been so useless even Fox dropped
her, just why?

Oh, we don't.

Why do you?

--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

In article <uop8h7$mcm$1@reader1.panix.com>, dannyb@panix.com wrote:

>[snip]
>
>And the rest of us, that is, the vast majority of people
>who are actually in a reality based universe, care about
>the ramblings of a has-been so useless even Fox dropped
>her, just why?
>
>Oh, we don't.
>
>Why do you?

OK, groomer.

--
Let's go Brandon!

On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 20:45:27 -0000 (UTC)
danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:

> [snip]
>
> And the rest of us, that is, the vast majority of people
> who are actually in a reality based universe, care about
> the ramblings of a has-been so useless even Fox dropped
> her, just why?
>
> Oh, we don't.
>
> Why do you?
>
>

You declined to address the point Kelly was making and resorted to an
ad hominem attack. This strongly suggests you are completely unable to
dispute the point.

--
Rhino

In <20240123175133.00005ad2@example.com> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> writes:

>You declined to address the point Kelly was making and resorted to an
>ad hominem attack.

Simply because she's an irrelevant afterthought has been
who doesn't deserve any oxygen, period.

--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 23:39:39 -0000 (UTC)
danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:

> In <20240123175133.00005ad2@example.com> Rhino
> <no_offline_contact@example.com> writes:
>
> >You declined to address the point Kelly was making and resorted to an
> >ad hominem attack.
>
> Simply because she's an irrelevant afterthought has been
> who doesn't deserve any oxygen, period.
>
>

And you STILL haven't addressed the point. Clearly, you have no ability
to make a reasonable argument on either side.

--
Rhino

In <20240123193930.00000b0c@example.com> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> writes:

[snip]

>And you STILL haven't addressed the point. Clearly, you have no ability
>to make a reasonable argument on either side.

Ain't going to bother. Well, maybe if a gentleman
like Richard Henry Lee of Virginia brings it up.

--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

In article <uopinr$a48$1@reader1.panix.com>, dannyb@panix.com wrote:
> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> writes:

>>You declined to address the point Kelly was making and resorted to an
>>ad hominem attack.
>
>Simply because she's an irrelevant afterthought has been
>who doesn't deserve any oxygen, period.

QED, groomer.

--
Let's go Brandon!

no_offline_contact@example.com wrote:
>danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
>> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> writes:

>>> You declined to address the point Kelly was making and resorted to an
>>> ad hominem attack.
>>
>> Simply because she's an irrelevant afterthought has been
>> who doesn't deserve any oxygen, period.
>
>And you STILL haven't addressed the point. Clearly, you have no ability
>to make a reasonable argument on either side.

It's just "danny burstein" 's way of letting you know he has lost the debate.

Or he's fine with child porn.

--
Let's go Brandon!

On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 20:45:27 -0000 (UTC), danny burstein
<dannyb@panix.com> wrote:

>[snip]
>
>And the rest of us, that is, the vast majority of people
>who are actually in a reality based universe, care about
>the ramblings of a has-been so useless even Fox dropped
>her, just why?
>
>Oh, we don't.
>
>Why do you?

Are you new to this independant streaming media thing? Lots of people
do quite well on it, including Kelly.

Oh and you forgot to address the actual issue raised in the thread.

On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 23:39:39 -0000 (UTC), danny burstein
<dannyb@panix.com> wrote:

>In <20240123175133.00005ad2@example.com> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> writes:
>
>>You declined to address the point Kelly was making and resorted to an
>>ad hominem attack.
>
>Simply because she's an irrelevant afterthought has been
>who doesn't deserve any oxygen, period.

Translation: you lack of intellect is showing.

In article <5802ridj4l32q1ihvhnjmvv8q95nbk9sr4@4ax.com>,
NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 20:45:27 -0000 (UTC), danny burstein
> <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >[snip]
> >
> >And the rest of us, that is, the vast majority of people
> >who are actually in a reality based universe, care about
> >the ramblings of a has-been so useless even Fox dropped
> >her, just why?
> >
> >Oh, we don't.
> >
> >Why do you?
>
> Are you new to this independant streaming media thing? Lots of people
> do quite well on it, including Kelly.

Yes, and while I don't know Kelly's actual viewer numbers offhand, it's
not unusual for someone like her to easily outperform the entire
viewership of CNN and MSNBC.

> Oh and you forgot to address the actual issue raised in the thread.

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> In article <5802ridj4l32q1ihvhnjmvv8q95nbk9sr4@4ax.com>,
> NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 20:45:27 -0000 (UTC), danny burstein
>> <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> And the rest of us, that is, the vast majority of people
>>> who are actually in a reality based universe, care about
>>> the ramblings of a has-been so useless even Fox dropped
>>> her, just why?
>>>
>>> Oh, we don't.
>>>
>>> Why do you?
>>
>> Are you new to this independant streaming media thing? Lots of people
>> do quite well on it, including Kelly.
>
> Yes, and while I don't know Kelly's actual viewer numbers offhand, it's
> not unusual for someone like her to easily outperform the entire
> viewership of CNN and MSNBC.

Cue the tootsie pop owl

“One… Two… Three…
Three.“

>
>> Oh and you forgot to address the actual issue raised in the thread.
>

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

atropos@mac.com wrote:
> NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:

>>> And the rest of us, that is, the vast majority of people
>>> who are actually in a reality based universe, care about
>>> the ramblings of a has-been so useless even Fox dropped
>>> her, just why?
>>>
>>> Oh, we don't.
>>>
>>> Why do you?
>>
>> Are you new to this independant streaming media thing? Lots of people
>> do quite well on it, including Kelly.
>
>Yes, and while I don't know Kelly's actual viewer numbers offhand, it's
>not unusual for someone like her to easily outperform the entire
>viewership of CNN and MSNBC.

And now we know why he hates Megyn Kelly!

>> Oh and you forgot to address the actual issue raised in the thread.

Well, there's also that...

--
Let's go Brandon!

On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 15:29:14 -0500, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
wrote:

>“Maybe we can just put all the books with all the graphic sexual content —
>the dildos, the raping …” she began, but Reid interrupted.
>
Heck I was tramatized way back when when I found my mother's birth
control pills in the drawer under the bathroom sink. (I'm talking
about the dispenser with the round clear lid with 31 slots each with a
pill that you rotate to the numbered slot for that day.

I do remember in grade 9 that our councillor/coach (ex pro football
player) asked the boys' class "OK guys you've all seen 'Boy to Man'
several times now - would you like to see 'Girl to Woman'?"

The classroom exploded into cheers. I remember that after seeing the
film I hadn't learned anything new...

On 1/24/24 12:22 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <5802ridj4l32q1ihvhnjmvv8q95nbk9sr4@4ax.com>,
> NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 20:45:27 -0000 (UTC), danny burstein
>> <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> And the rest of us, that is, the vast majority of people
>>> who are actually in a reality based universe, care about
>>> the ramblings of a has-been so useless even Fox dropped
>>> her, just why?
>>>
>>> Oh, we don't.
>>>
>>> Why do you?
>>
>> Are you new to this independant streaming media thing? Lots of people
>> do quite well on it, including Kelly.
>
> Yes, and while I don't know Kelly's actual viewer numbers offhand, it's
> not unusual for someone like her to easily outperform the entire
> viewership of CNN and MSNBC.

Yeah, I guess without pulling stuff out of your ass you'd have nothing
to talk about. Show your proof you motherfucking asshole. Start with
whatever the fuck Tucker Carlson is doing.

>
>> Oh and you forgot to address the actual issue raised in the thread.

On 2024-01-23 20:29:14 +0000, Ubiquitous said:

> Sirius XM radio host Megyn Kelly
> MSNBC host Joy Reid

Eat your heart out sweetcheeks, no below the table camera shots to help
your ratings in radio.

In article
<17adde906714786d$35682$2154774$cad58068@news.newsdemon.com>,
trotsky <gmsingh@email.com> wrote:

> On 1/24/24 12:22 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <5802ridj4l32q1ihvhnjmvv8q95nbk9sr4@4ax.com>,
> > NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 20:45:27 -0000 (UTC), danny burstein
> >> <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> [snip]
> >>>
> >>> And the rest of us, that is, the vast majority of people
> >>> who are actually in a reality based universe, care about
> >>> the ramblings of a has-been so useless even Fox dropped
> >>> her, just why?
> >>>
> >>> Oh, we don't.
> >>>
> >>> Why do you?
> >>
> >> Are you new to this independant streaming media thing? Lots of people
> >> do quite well on it, including Kelly.
> >
> > Yes, and while I don't know Kelly's actual viewer numbers offhand, it's
> > not unusual for someone like her to easily outperform the entire
> > viewership of CNN and MSNBC.

> Yeah, I guess without pulling stuff out of your ass you'd have nothing
> to talk about. Show your proof you motherfucking asshole. Start with
> whatever the fuck Tucker Carlson is doing.

Sure, Hutt, you infected pissflap. A little Googling shows that Tucker
Carlson averages about 6.1 million viewers for each episode of his
streaming show.

By contrast, CNN's prime time numbers average 170,000 viewers, MSNBC
124,000.

On 1/26/24 9:23 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article
> <17adde906714786d$35682$2154774$cad58068@news.newsdemon.com>,
> trotsky <gmsingh@email.com> wrote:
>
>> On 1/24/24 12:22 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <5802ridj4l32q1ihvhnjmvv8q95nbk9sr4@4ax.com>,
>>> NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 20:45:27 -0000 (UTC), danny burstein
>>>> <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>
>>>>> And the rest of us, that is, the vast majority of people
>>>>> who are actually in a reality based universe, care about
>>>>> the ramblings of a has-been so useless even Fox dropped
>>>>> her, just why?
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, we don't.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you?
>>>>
>>>> Are you new to this independant streaming media thing? Lots of people
>>>> do quite well on it, including Kelly.
>>>
>>> Yes, and while I don't know Kelly's actual viewer numbers offhand, it's
>>> not unusual for someone like her to easily outperform the entire
>>> viewership of CNN and MSNBC.
>
>> Yeah, I guess without pulling stuff out of your ass you'd have nothing
>> to talk about. Show your proof you motherfucking asshole. Start with
>> whatever the fuck Tucker Carlson is doing.
>
> Sure, Hutt, you infected pissflap. A little Googling shows that Tucker
> Carlson averages about 6.1 million viewers for each episode of his
> streaming show.

Show me the URL you dumb fucking cunt. URL is short for Uniform
Resource Locator if that helps, and it means the same as a web address.
Regardless, you weren't able to produce one when asked so you lose again.

> By contrast, CNN's prime time numbers average 170,000 viewers, MSNBC
> 124,000.

Yep, pulled out the ass like I said.

On 1/26/24 9:23 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article
> <17adde906714786d$35682$2154774$cad58068@news.newsdemon.com>,
> trotsky <gmsingh@email.com> wrote:
>
>> On 1/24/24 12:22 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <5802ridj4l32q1ihvhnjmvv8q95nbk9sr4@4ax.com>,
>>> NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 20:45:27 -0000 (UTC), danny burstein
>>>> <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>
>>>>> And the rest of us, that is, the vast majority of people
>>>>> who are actually in a reality based universe, care about
>>>>> the ramblings of a has-been so useless even Fox dropped
>>>>> her, just why?
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, we don't.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you?
>>>>
>>>> Are you new to this independant streaming media thing? Lots of people
>>>> do quite well on it, including Kelly.
>>>
>>> Yes, and while I don't know Kelly's actual viewer numbers offhand, it's
>>> not unusual for someone like her to easily outperform the entire
>>> viewership of CNN and MSNBC.
>
>> Yeah, I guess without pulling stuff out of your ass you'd have nothing
>> to talk about. Show your proof you motherfucking asshole. Start with
>> whatever the fuck Tucker Carlson is doing.
>
> Sure, Hutt, you infected pissflap. A little Googling shows that Tucker
> Carlson averages about 6.1 million viewers for each episode of his
> streaming show.
>
> By contrast, CNN's prime time numbers average 170,000 viewers, MSNBC
> 124,000.

More stuff pulled from your anus. Per usual.

On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 04:00:17 -0600, trotsky <gmsingh@email.com> wrote:

>On 1/26/24 9:23 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> In article
>> <17adde906714786d$35682$2154774$cad58068@news.newsdemon.com>,
>> trotsky <gmsingh@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/24/24 12:22 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> In article <5802ridj4l32q1ihvhnjmvv8q95nbk9sr4@4ax.com>,
>>>> NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 20:45:27 -0000 (UTC), danny burstein
>>>>> <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And the rest of us, that is, the vast majority of people
>>>>>> who are actually in a reality based universe, care about
>>>>>> the ramblings of a has-been so useless even Fox dropped
>>>>>> her, just why?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, we don't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do you?
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you new to this independant streaming media thing? Lots of people
>>>>> do quite well on it, including Kelly.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, and while I don't know Kelly's actual viewer numbers offhand, it's
>>>> not unusual for someone like her to easily outperform the entire
>>>> viewership of CNN and MSNBC.
>>
>>> Yeah, I guess without pulling stuff out of your ass you'd have nothing
>>> to talk about. Show your proof you motherfucking asshole. Start with
>>> whatever the fuck Tucker Carlson is doing.
>>
>> Sure, Hutt, you infected pissflap. A little Googling shows that Tucker
>> Carlson averages about 6.1 million viewers for each episode of his
>> streaming show.
>>
>> By contrast, CNN's prime time numbers average 170,000 viewers, MSNBC
>> 124,000.
>
>
>More stuff pulled from your anus. Per usual.

I did a little bit of research for numbers and found a story that
referenced performance number similar to the above. I stopped when
the author referred to his viewers as "white nationalists". That kind
of editorializing is complete crap (as well as a blatant le). Why
can't "journalists" just report news?

In article <RAptN.202130$vFZa.108846@fx13.iad>, gmsingh@email.com wrote:
> On 1/26/24 9:23 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> trotsky <gmsingh@email.com> wrote:
>>> On 1/24/24 12:22 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>> danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:

>>>>>> And the rest of us, that is, the vast majority of people
>>>>>> who are actually in a reality based universe, care about
>>>>>> the ramblings of a has-been so useless even Fox dropped
>>>>>> her, just why?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, we don't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do you?
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you new to this independant streaming media thing? Lots of people
>>>>> do quite well on it, including Kelly.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, and while I don't know Kelly's actual viewer numbers offhand,
>>>> it's not unusual for someone like her to easily outperform the entire
>>>> viewership of CNN and MSNBC.
>>
>>> Yeah, I guess without pulling stuff out of your ass you'd have nothing
>>> to talk about. Show your proof you motherfucking asshole. Start with
>>> whatever the fuck Tucker Carlson is doing.
>>
>> Sure, Hutt, you infected pissflap. A little Googling shows that Tucker
>> Carlson averages about 6.1 million viewers for each episode of his
>> streaming show.
>>
>> By contrast, CNN's prime time numbers average 170,000 viewers, MSNBC
>> 124,000.
>
>More stuff pulled from your anus. Per usual.

In other words, you lost the debate because you could not offer a counter-
argument.

--
Let's go Brandon!

On 1/26/24 10:23 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article
> <17adde906714786d$35682$2154774$cad58068@news.newsdemon.com>,
> trotsky <gmsingh@email.com> wrote:
>
>> On 1/24/24 12:22 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <5802ridj4l32q1ihvhnjmvv8q95nbk9sr4@4ax.com>,
>>> NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 20:45:27 -0000 (UTC), danny burstein
>>>> <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>
>>>>> And the rest of us, that is, the vast majority of people
>>>>> who are actually in a reality based universe, care about
>>>>> the ramblings of a has-been so useless even Fox dropped
>>>>> her, just why?
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, we don't.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you?
>>>>
>>>> Are you new to this independant streaming media thing? Lots of people
>>>> do quite well on it, including Kelly.
>>>
>>> Yes, and while I don't know Kelly's actual viewer numbers offhand, it's
>>> not unusual for someone like her to easily outperform the entire
>>> viewership of CNN and MSNBC.
>
>> Yeah, I guess without pulling stuff out of your ass you'd have nothing
>> to talk about. Show your proof you motherfucking asshole. Start with
>> whatever the fuck Tucker Carlson is doing.
>
> Sure, Hutt, you infected pissflap. A little Googling shows that Tucker
> Carlson averages about 6.1 million viewers for each episode of his
> streaming show.
>
> By contrast, CNN's prime time numbers average 170,000 viewers, MSNBC
> 124,000.
>

Complete and utter bullshit, naturally. Lurn how stuff works.

> The numbers shared by Tubular Labs are not publicly available. The “views” metric that appears under most videos on Twitter refers to the approximate number of users who saw the tweet while scrolling through their timelines — not the number of people who pressed play and started watching.

Not views, shit for brains. Scrolling by something isn't quite the same.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On 1/27/24 3:28 PM, trotsky wrote:
> On 1/26/24 9:23 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> In article
>> <17adde906714786d$35682$2154774$cad58068@news.newsdemon.com>,
>>   trotsky <gmsingh@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/24/24 12:22 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> In article <5802ridj4l32q1ihvhnjmvv8q95nbk9sr4@4ax.com>,
>>>>    NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 20:45:27 -0000 (UTC), danny burstein
>>>>> <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And the rest of us, that is, the vast majority of people
>>>>>> who are actually in a reality based universe, care about
>>>>>> the ramblings of a has-been so useless even Fox dropped
>>>>>> her, just why?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, we don't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do you?
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you new to this independant streaming media thing? Lots of people
>>>>> do quite well on it, including Kelly.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, and while I don't know Kelly's actual viewer numbers offhand, it's
>>>> not unusual for someone like her to easily outperform the entire
>>>> viewership of CNN and MSNBC.
>>
>>> Yeah, I guess without pulling stuff out of your ass you'd have nothing
>>> to talk about. Show your proof you motherfucking asshole. Start with
>>> whatever the fuck Tucker Carlson is doing.
>>
>> Sure, Hutt, you infected pissflap. A little Googling shows that Tucker
>> Carlson averages about 6.1 million viewers for each episode of his
>> streaming show.
>
>
> Show me the URL you dumb fucking cunt.  URL is short for Uniform
> Resource Locator if that helps, and it means the same as a web address.
> Regardless, you weren't able to produce one when asked so you lose again.
>
>
>> By contrast, CNN's prime time numbers average 170,000 viewers, MSNBC
>> 124,000.
>
>
> Yep, pulled out the ass like I said.

Oh, he's right, but it's meaningless.

> The numbers shared by Tubular Labs are not publicly available. The “views” metric that appears under most videos on Twitter refers to the approximate number of users who saw the tweet while scrolling through their timelines — not the number of people who pressed play and started watching.

https://www.nbcnews.com/media/tucker-carlson-show-twitter-rcna89628

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On 1/29/24 8:31 AM, FPP wrote:
> On 1/26/24 10:23 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> In article
>> <17adde906714786d$35682$2154774$cad58068@news.newsdemon.com>,
>>   trotsky <gmsingh@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/24/24 12:22 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> In article <5802ridj4l32q1ihvhnjmvv8q95nbk9sr4@4ax.com>,
>>>>    NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 20:45:27 -0000 (UTC), danny burstein
>>>>> <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And the rest of us, that is, the vast majority of people
>>>>>> who are actually in a reality based universe, care about
>>>>>> the ramblings of a has-been so useless even Fox dropped
>>>>>> her, just why?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, we don't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do you?
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you new to this independant streaming media thing? Lots of people
>>>>> do quite well on it, including Kelly.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, and while I don't know Kelly's actual viewer numbers offhand, it's
>>>> not unusual for someone like her to easily outperform the entire
>>>> viewership of CNN and MSNBC.
>>
>>> Yeah, I guess without pulling stuff out of your ass you'd have nothing
>>> to talk about. Show your proof you motherfucking asshole. Start with
>>> whatever the fuck Tucker Carlson is doing.
>>
>> Sure, Hutt, you infected pissflap. A little Googling shows that Tucker
>> Carlson averages about 6.1 million viewers for each episode of his
>> streaming show.
>>
>> By contrast, CNN's prime time numbers average 170,000 viewers, MSNBC
>> 124,000.
>>
>
> Complete and utter bullshit, naturally.  Lurn how stuff works.
>
>> The numbers shared by Tubular Labs are not publicly available. The
>> “views” metric that appears under most videos on Twitter refers to the
>> approximate number of users who saw the tweet while scrolling through
>> their timelines — not the number of people who pressed play and
>> started watching.
>
> Not views, shit for brains.  Scrolling by something isn't quite the same.

Apparently brainiac doesn't notice when the videos autostart.