Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: BloodEagle on November 28, 2007, 07:43:09 pm
-
Is anyone else watching this? Because it's funny as Hell.
:EDIT:
One of them actually managed to jump from a question involving taxes to an answer involving Hitler. Y-e-e-e-e-a-ah.
:EDIT:
From lead paint, to tanks and missiles. :eek2:
-
Link?
-
It's on CNN. Maybe it's online as well....
Go to http://www.cnn.com and it's in the upper-right corner.
-
Link?
I think he means a CNN debate about YouTube, rather than a debate about CNN on YouTube.
-
BAHAHAHAHAHA
This is great. Guliani even got booed during the gun rights debate.
This is probably the only time I've heard the words "God", "Jesus", and "Bible" repeated so much I think I'm watching some Christian channel.
-
Gee who would have guessed that the youtube debate would be a bad idea....
-
Gee who would have guessed that the youtube CNN debate would be a bad idea....
QFT either way...
-
:lol: @ Yankees vs Red Sox question.
-
BAHAHAHAHAHA
This is great. Guliani even got booed during the gun rights debate.
This is probably the only time I've heard the words "God", "Jesus", and "Bible" repeated so much I think I'm watching some Christian channel.
How anyone can even think about voting for Romney is just amazing, this guy never gives a straight answer about anything. I know all of them are like that to some degree, but he is absolutly the worst. For example, his answer to the waterboarding question: "I will not give a difinate answer about this, when I am president I will get advice from others, blah, blah" He has no opinions about anything.......
-
BAHAHAHAHAHA
This is great. Guliani even got booed during the gun rights debate.
This is probably the only time I've heard the words "God", "Jesus", and "Bible" repeated so much I think I'm watching some Christian channel.
How anyone can even think about voting for Romney is just amazing, this guy never gives a straight answer about anything. I know all of them are like that to some degree, but he is absolutly the worst. For example, his answer to the waterboarding question: "I will not give a difinate answer about this, when I am president I will get advice from others, blah, blah" He has no opinions about anything.......
Isn't that called plausible deniability?
-
Plausible deniability.....
Here's a question for you: Is Hillary Clinton for or against the War in Iraq?
Answer: That depends on who is asking the question.
Its true though - Romney is a very weak debater. Way too wishy-washy. But that's guff that I have will all of the Republican candidates (unless you count Mr. Ron Paul... but um.... he's Ron Paul....). None of them have the guts to say it like it is.
But then again, alot of those questions are rigged (surprise surprise its CNN)- designed to make the candidate look bad whichever answer they give. These mass-appeal debates are therefore, for the most part, completely pointless anyways. Its not about what a candidate wants to do as policy - its about how they can avoid all the laid traps of public speaking.
P.S. (another huuuuge surprise here.... /sarcasm) Hillary plants question in Republican debate: http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/d91f3cba-6a87-4686-92ce-70a16edc311b
-
But then again, alot of those questions are rigged (surprise surprise its CNN)- designed to make the candidate look bad whichever answer they give.
Not really, a lot of these questions are about issues that matter to a lot of people (decaying infrastructure being one of them, and Guilliani's answer was sensible).
On the other hand in the Fox debate, most of the questions were either rediculous, or just generic softball questions. They spent the first 10 minutes talking about who was more conservative, 40 minutes on hillary bashing, and then only 10 minutes talking about actual issues and their proposed solutions.
-
But then again, alot of those questions are rigged (surprise surprise its CNN)- designed to make the candidate look bad whichever answer they give.
Not really, a lot of these questions are about issues that matter to a lot of people (decaying infrastructure being one of them, and Guilliani's answer was sensible).
On the other hand in the Fox debate, most of the questions were either rediculous, or just generic softball questions. They spent the first 10 minutes talking about who was more conservative, 40 minutes on hillary bashing, and then only 10 minutes talking about actual issues and their proposed solutions.
Welcome to the world of diversity of opinion. The exact same and/or worse could be said for the Democrat debates in the "MSM." ALL generic softball questions. Oh lets see... what was one of them... oh yeah: "Hillary, what is your favorite type of flower?"
AWESOME... totally awesome. I'll choose a candidate based upon how they answer questions like that.
Right.... like the non-Fox debates are any better...
-
Right.... like the non-Fox debates are any better...
Not really, but just remember: Fox is Fox. They're inherently at a rung below the others. Most continuous news channels are pretty damn crappy, but Fox just has an extra layer of bull**** smeared all over it.
-
Not really, but just remember: Fox is Fox. They're inherently at a rung below the others. Most continuous news channels are pretty damn crappy, but Fox just has an extra layer of bull**** smeared all over it.
QFT
-
I struggle to find any reason to dislike Ron Paul, he seems to make a lot of sence and seems like a very different kind of politician. He may be on the Republican side but doesnt resemble much about what what I dislike about them as far as I can see. When asked if he would run independantly he said that costs too much money.
-
I struggle to find any reason to dislike Ron Paul, he seems to make a lot of sence and seems like a very different kind of politician. He may be on the Republican side but doesnt resemble much about what what I dislike about them as far as I can see. When asked if he would run independantly he said that costs too much money.
Ever heard the phrase "Too good to be true"?
-
Ever heard the phrase "Too good to be true"?
Yea, but if you're going to vote for someone he seems like the best there. Ive seen videos of him from years ago and he's been saying the same things consistently for years. He seems honest and genuine not something i can say for anyone else there which just seem like slimey politicians. He seems to want to give real answers to questions rather than just dodge them like the rest.
-
Ever heard the phrase "Too good to be true"?
Yea, but if you're going to vote for someone he seems like the best there. Ive seen videos of him from years ago and he's been saying the same things consistently for years. He seems honest and genuine not something i can say for anyone else there which just seem like slimey politicians. He seems to want to give real answers to questions rather than just dodge them like the rest.
I promise saying "let the states decide" isn't dodging the issue. :rolleyes:
-
Hell a good amount of those questions were plants by Edwards or Clinton supporters asking questions designed to make the candidates look like buffoons through the typical cliches of what CNN thinks of Republicans in general.
-
Hell a good amount of those questions were plants by Edwards or Clinton supporters asking questions designed to make the candidates look like buffoons through the typical cliches of what CNN thinks of Republicans in general.
Other than the one question that actually was a plant, do you have any evidence of this from reputable sources?
It's not CNN's fault that most of the candidates were just chasing soundbites (Romney was far more guilty of this than the others).
The entire point of doing the debate like this was that ordinary people can get more involved in the political process, which is exactly what we need given the obscene corperate influence we have today. Not getting the people involved in a democracy is dangerous.
-
Hell a good amount of those questions were plants by Edwards or Clinton supporters asking questions designed to make the candidates look like buffoons through the typical cliches of what CNN thinks of Republicans in general.
Other than the one question that actually was a plant, do you have any evidence of this from reputable sources?
It's not CNN's fault that most of the candidates were just chasing soundbites (Romney was far more guilty of this than the others).
The entire point of doing the debate like this was that ordinary people can get more involved in the political process, which is exactly what we need given the obscene corperate influence we have today. Not getting the people involved in a democracy is dangerous.
Just one plant is ok, right? Like it was a total fluke or something? Take it from me man. I follow these kinds of things all the time, and there are always liberal plants in the Republican debates. How more obvious can it get? They always ask liberal questions to Republican candidates. There are a LOT more issues out there that are much more important to Americans than your run-of-the-mill mainstream-media "topics of debate." On the other side, it is an EXTREMELY rare sight to see a democrat -anywhere- get asked a hardball question. Because even if it does happen, it doesn't get reported. (Murtha marine case, anyone? If you don't know the specific incident I'm talking about, then I rest my case.)
http://media.newsbusters.org/stories/scarborough-total-crap-cnn-didnt-know-gay-questioner-hillary-campaign.html?q=blogs/mark-finkelstein/2007/11/29/scarborough-total-crap-cnn-didnt-know-gay-questioner-hillary-campa
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/11/29/digging-out-the-cnnyoutube-plants-abortion-questioner-is-edwards-supporter/
If the Republicans had a plant in the Democrat debate... the media would be up in arms all about it. More proof of CNN's ridiculousness and double standard - is that you yourself haven't heard of the plants from anybody but me.
-
Oh yeah, that's right, it's all part of a vast liberal conspiracy......... :rolleyes:
-
Oh yeah, that's right, it's all part of a vast liberal conspiracy......... :rolleyes:
Hahaha I see what you did there.
But since when was an obvious bias a conspiracy?
Or is this so-called 'Fox-news bias' an evil corporate/republican conspiracy as well?
-
Most of the questions didn't have any appearent bias and were asking about legitimate things. Believe it or not some people actually do want to know what these guys really stand for, and if the candidate (IE. Romney) won't let us know what the hell he really thinks, whose fault is that? There's this magical thing called "interaction". Because the questions were made by, OMFG, real people, the candidates weren't able to just spit out a memorized answer.
Fox actually is biased, and actually is in bed with the Republican Party. Go watch "outfoxed".
-
Or is this so-called 'Fox-news bias' an evil corporate/republican conspiracy as well?
All jokes aside, FOX News is actually heavily biased. While the 'liberal bias' of other networks like CNN is still somewhat contentious, pretty much everyone can agree that FOX is hands-down the worst and most blatant offender of them all.
Kosh makes a good point, go watch the doco 'Outfoxed' for a good slice of information.
-
I promise saying "let the states decide" isn't dodging the issue. :rolleyes:
Nope, it's one of the things the federal government is supposed to be set up to do.
-
I promise saying "let the states decide" isn't dodging the issue. :rolleyes:
Nope, it's one of the things the federal government is supposed to be set up to do.
He uses that too much. Some issues do need to be dealt with on a federal level. I just get the feeling he doesn't want to say yes or no to major issues, so he just says they're for others to decide, and keeps his ability to deny whatever he wants later.
-
Most of the questions didn't have any appearent bias and were asking about legitimate things. Believe it or not some people actually do want to know what these guys really stand for, and if the candidate (IE. Romney) won't let us know what the hell he really thinks, whose fault is that? There's this magical thing called "interaction". Because the questions were made by, OMFG, real people, the candidates weren't able to just spit out a memorized answer.
The questions weren't even about the big issues. Iraq didn't come up till the 2nd hour. CNN handpicked these questions from the thousands they received. Don't tell me that there weren't questions submitted that asked more important questions than whether or not homosexuals should be allowed in the military. I don't think that issue, or half of the others brought up, are going to decide the primary.
-
It's not about beliefs, never has been. I'm becoming more and more convinced that Democrat and Republican are becoming more and more like the UK Conservative and Labour, the voters argue over the differences whilst the actual parties more or less merge into a single unit, just using different words to achieve the same goals.
I think that's why politics is more and more about attacking the personalities rather than the politics themselves, because otherwise the duplicity of opinion would show, much easier to talk about someone's activities in a night-club than admit that you haven't actually have any new opinions or ideas since you got voted in in the first place.
-
Or is this so-called 'Fox-news bias' an evil corporate/republican conspiracy as well?
All jokes aside, FOX News is actually heavily biased. While the 'liberal bias' of other networks like CNN is still somewhat contentious, pretty much everyone can agree that FOX is hands-down the worst and most blatant offender of them all.
Kosh makes a good point, go watch the doco 'Outfoxed' for a good slice of information.
There is no hope for you, good sir, if that is what you actually believe.
Flipside does have a point. I don't think they're SO far gone that they've merged into a single party yet, but it is certainly getting there. The candidates care too much what the news and opposing party says of them rather than what they believe they should do (a.k.a.)
P.S. Outfoxed is hilarious. They're using the same 'tactics' liberals usually use when trying to attack people they don't agree with. Lack of context (a.k.a. 6-second soundbites), personal attacks with no basis (just speculation). And MOST OF ALL what they don't tell you is that the same thing that Fox does with issues... are the same exact thing every single other news organization in the world does (i.e. cut people off from talking). They're even using a TON of soundbites from people who AREN'T FROM FOX.
I can't believe you guys suck this stuff up. Its Michael Moore all over again. Making an issue out of a non-issue.
-
It's not about beliefs, never has been. I'm becoming more and more convinced that Democrat and Republican are becoming more and more like the UK Conservative and Labour, the voters argue over the differences whilst the actual parties more or less merge into a single unit, just using different words to achieve the same goals.
Agree completely, and have for years. And I've got one word for you, friend. It starts with an "R" and ends in "onpaul".
;);)
edit: seeing McCain getting booed for invoking Hitler and calling Paul an isolationist was priceless. I don't know how many times I've heard that argument and had to swallow my rage, but it's finally all paid off.
-
... are the same exact thing every single other news organization in the world does (i.e. cut people off from talking)
I've never seen another news organization do that.
They're using the same 'tactics' liberals usually use when trying to attack people they don't agree with.
I've never seen that either.
I can't believe you guys suck this stuff up.
I can't believe you believe so much in fox. :p
-
I can't believe you believe so much in fox. :p
Coming from someone who considered (and subsequently posted) a Current Affairs-type report smearing Global Warming as legitimate journalism, it's really not that hard to believe he also holds FOX News in high regard. :rolleyes: