|
17 Apr 08 - 10:19 PM (#2318887) Subject: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Last night in Philly ABC plumbs the depths of tabloid journalism. Stephanopoulos taking dictation from Sean Hanity? Is this the end of his career? Olbermann examines it. |
|
17 Apr 08 - 10:31 PM (#2318893) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Ron Davies Problem is it seems to have been just a ratings chase by ABC--hoping for some fireworks. No realization that it's actually supposed to give information to people trying to decide--not just a feeble imitation of Faux News. At least that appears to be the case from excerpts I've seen. |
|
17 Apr 08 - 10:36 PM (#2318895) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Jack the Sailor Greg Mitchell agrees with you. >>In perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years, ABC News hosts Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos focused mainly on trivial issues as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama faced off in Philadelphia. They, and their network, should hang their collective heads in shame.<< Huffington Post Op Ed |
|
17 Apr 08 - 10:41 PM (#2318900) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: GUEST,Fantasma What, you couldn't win your arguments on their merits in the 'Are You Bitter' thread, so you decide to start another one on the same damn subject? NBC is the direct competitor with ABC. They are badmouthing the debates solely to cast aspersions on THEIR competitors, Charlie Gibson and Georgie Porgie. Huff Po came out for Obama a LOOOOOOOONG time ago. Olberman is squarely in Obama's camp. He is so partisan, I turned him off immediately last night when he began with the whole "tabloid debate" crap. Why are the Obamamaniacs so obsessed with regurgitating cable talk show tabloidism here to "prove" everything they say, hmmmm? If ever there were a thread that screamed for deletion... |
|
17 Apr 08 - 10:47 PM (#2318901) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Jack the Sailor Threads get deleted for personal attacks. I am just criticizing the media. And lets see what The Economist which has no dog at all in the Democratic race and certainly has almost nothing at all in common with ABC "news" let alone competing with them, has to say.... A bizarre debate in Pennsylvania |
|
17 Apr 08 - 10:53 PM (#2318906) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: John on the Sunset Coast Basically what Fantasma said. This debate is basically the first one in which Obama was really pressed, and his supporters don't like it one bit. What I found disturbing was that Stephanapoulos, a former member of the Clinton regime, was one of the moderators. A case for the perception of unfairness in the questioning of the candidates could be made. |
|
17 Apr 08 - 10:57 PM (#2318911) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: GUEST,Fantasma I think that could be partly true, except it wasn't George and Charlie who did the research and came up with the questions. Their staff did that. No, the decision was made to seriously question Obama in a way he simply hasn't been yet. And that REALLY pissed off the anti-Bushites, who plunked their money down on Obama. They believe NO ONE has the right to challenge Obama. Talk about a recipe ripe for dictatorship... |
|
17 Apr 08 - 11:13 PM (#2318922) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Riginslinger The reality of the situation, at least the way I see it, is this was the first debate in which Obama was actually treated as the front runner. |
|
17 Apr 08 - 11:14 PM (#2318923) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Ron Davies So sorry you don't like this thread, Janet. Sounds like you are about ready to take a break from Mudcat and go back to kicking your dog--which, based on your attitude, must be your occupation. I'm surprised you can live on it--who pays you to do it? It certainly is a shame that life has beaten you down so far that you don't recognize the best chance for hope on the political scene in decades. We all-- and especially your dog--hope life starts treating you better soon. And, Sunset John, glad you liked the "debate". Perhaps you'd be interested in the second episode, dealing with the Paul trial (starting 25 April 2008) and Bill Clinton's pardon of Puerto Rican terrorists, among other things. Coming up soon on your National Enquirer cable station. Don't touch that dial. |
|
17 Apr 08 - 11:18 PM (#2318929) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: GUEST,Fantasma Sorry, but I don't have an attitude problem. You, however, do have a perception problem. It is called believing everything you think. |
|
17 Apr 08 - 11:33 PM (#2318935) Subject: Lyr Add: THE GREAT COMPROMISE (John Prine) From: Azizi Somewhat off-topic: I'd like to to call Mudcat members & guests attention to this dailykos diary & comments: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/17/115745/384/715/497625 Let's Be Absolutely Clear About Last Night's Debate by Melody Townsel Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 09:38:30 AM PDT ** In the strange {but imo, interesting} manner that Mudcat threads develop in unexpected, convoluted ways, several commentators to that dailykos diary started quoting lyrics to John Prine songs. Among the song lyrics scattered throughout that diary's comments is this one: THE GREAT COMPROMISE John Prine As recorded by John Prine on “Diamonds in the Rough” (1972)
1. I knew a girl who was almost a lady. |
|
17 Apr 08 - 11:33 PM (#2318936) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Ron Davies Janet-- You "don't have an attitude problem"? Perhaps you'd like to start reading your own posts a little more carefully. Your sour attitude towards humanity in general, I would say, sets a new record for Mudcat. Now, admittedly you can't hold a candle to "Martin Gibson" in the vileness category--but that's OK, he was sui generis--please don't feel the need to compete. We love you just the way you are. |
|
17 Apr 08 - 11:53 PM (#2318943) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Azizi Let me try that again- "Needless to say, I believe that the dailykos diary is also interesting reading because of its comments about the ABC "debate" which is the subject of this thread. ** And, I see that I spelled "develop" with an "e" at the end. My bad. Any other mistakes or typos that I made in that post will have to fend for themselves. ** And, since I'm here, I'd like to add this link to a YouTube video clip of Obama's comments about ABC's tabloid debate that was held on April 16, 2008 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlR9DNfqGD4 Barack Obama in Raleigh, NC I posted this link earlier along with my comments and several comments from http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/DemocraticDebate/comments?type=story&id=4666956 's article about that "debate" in this Mudcat thread "BS: Are You Bitter???": thread.cfm?threadid=110367&messages=152 As of 11:52 PM that abc.com forum had 19085 comments about that "debate". And most of them are very critical of the moderators & ABC television. |
|
18 Apr 08 - 12:31 AM (#2318955) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: katlaughing Stephanopolpous and Gibson did the worst job I've seen in years. I did post to ABC's live blog, fwiw. For those who would like to tell ABC what they thought of the idiocy: Subject: Enough is enough Hi, If you missed the Democratic presidential debate on ABC Wednesday night, Editor & Publisher called it "perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years." Moderators George Stephanopolous and Charlie Gibson spent the first 50 minutes obsessed with distractions that only political insiders care about--gaffes, polling numbers, the stale Rev. Wright story, and the old-news Bosnia story. And, channelling Karl Rove, they directed a video question to Barack Obama asking if he loves the American flag or not. Seriously! I just signed a petition to ABC and other media that says: "Debate moderators abuse the public trust every time they ask trivial questions about gaffes and 'gotchas' that only political insiders care about. Enough with the distractions--ABC and other networks must focus on issues that affect people's daily lives." Want to sign it to? We need a bunch of signers for ABC to take this concern seriously. Click to sign |
|
18 Apr 08 - 12:41 AM (#2318959) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: GUEST Ah, Ronnie, Your comment might have had some credibility with me if you had commented on something I actually wrote. |
|
18 Apr 08 - 12:42 AM (#2318960) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: GUEST,John on the Sunset Coast Post at 12:41 mine. |
|
18 Apr 08 - 05:55 AM (#2319086) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor >>it wasn't George and Charlie who did the research and came up with the questions. Their staff did that.<< No it was they who chose the question, they got their questions from a number of sources, including "man on the street" interviews and most disturbingly, Sean Hannity who can honestly be describe as an anti-journalist. If Sean Hannity and a real journalist ever touched, the world would end in a ball of flame. Lucky for us he works at Fox "News" so the world is safe. |
|
18 Apr 08 - 06:19 AM (#2319107) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor >>From: GUEST,Fantasma Date: 17 Apr 08 - 10:41 PM What, you couldn't win your arguments on their merits in the 'Are You Bitter' thread, so you decide to start another one on the same damn subject?<< What you say is just gibberish, meaningless gibberish. I didn't argue at all in the "Bitter" thread. I just agreed with a few people and made a couple of "peanut gallery" quips about you. However on this thread you made one argument on the fourth post which was blown completely out of the water by the fifth. You make this argument in the seventh thread >>I think that could be partly true, except it wasn't George and Charlie who did the research and came up with the questions. Their staff did that.<< Your argument is preemptively blown away by a link in the first post where Olbermann plays an audiotape of Hannity's radio show. Sean Hannity gives a question to "George" and "George" says he is taking notes. Are you saying that "Sean" is on "George's" Staff? HA HA HA HA HA! If you want to start a thread where the rule is to make the most unfounded, silly accusation you can and hope that no one notices because they are skimming your posts, you should do so. I am sure it would be even more amusing there than the times you have done it here. But this thread is a serious discussion of the media, and you have proven that you have nothing of substance to offer. So run along missy and find something else to do. Are you still doing things out in the "real" world trying to save it? That might be a good place to start. |
|
18 Apr 08 - 07:43 AM (#2319149) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Azizi Barack Obama's statement to Stephen Colbert-"Manufactured Distractions need to be put ON NOTICE": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQLnvz66IN8 |
|
18 Apr 08 - 07:44 AM (#2319153) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: GUEST,Fantasma Azizi, you keep quoting from partisan sources. Your point of view would be more palatable to me if you actually did some of the hard work of finding more objective sources. And really, to all of your Obama supporters--there are so few posters here who aren't voting for Obama, why do you feel the need to keep harping at those who won't, when your candidate has already won? Why not just let it drop? Folkies are nothing if not missionaries for their own opinions. |
|
18 Apr 08 - 07:58 AM (#2319159) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Azizi Here are excerpts from an article some folks here may find interesting: Nash McCabe: The Rest Of The Story- Will Bunch; Philadelphia Daily News April 17, 2008 "The outrage continues to swirl around ABC News and its travesty of a mockery of a sham of a presidential debate here in Philadelphia last night. Meanwhile, this post over on Philadelphia Will Do raised my curiosity over something that seemed a footnote at the time, as I was focusing my fire on the way that Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos were misconducting the debate. It concerned the videotape question that was posed by the woman at top, Nash McCabe of Latrobe, Pa. Here's what she asked: Senator Obama, I have a question, and I want to know if you believe in the American flag. I am not questioning your patriotism, but all our servicemen, policemen and EMS wear the flag. I want to know why you don't. As I watched her question, what I wondered -- and I imagine many other viewers wondered as well -- was where on earth did ABC find this representative of my home state. As a journalist, I kind of assumed that ABC sent a film crew to western Pa., and then culled the most provocative questions from the people that they found. Silly me. In fact, ABC News found Nash McCabe the old-fashioned way -- they read about her, and her thing with the American flag, in the New York Times earlier this month... Read the whole story -- it's fascinating and heartbreaking, and will cause you to reflect some more on the "bitter" Pennsylvania controversial. But there's one more thing about Nash McCabe and insertion into our national political dialogue, and that is the most bizarre twist of all. That original New York Times article (by a former Newsday colleague, Paul Vitello), the one that started this whole ball rolling. It wasn't really about flag pins or patriotism. It was about race. Here's the headline over the picture of Nash McCabe: "In Ex-Steel City, Voters Deny Race Plays a Role." Vitello writes that he found little support for Obama in Latrobe, and crux of his article is this: But when dismissing Mr. Obama, voters in this former steel center, whatever their racial feelings, seem almost compelled to list their reasons, if only to pre-empt the unspoken race question... So, the New York Times is basically stating that many voters are finding odd or vague reasons not to support a candidate who president who happens to be black. And without any thought to the subtext, ABC News plucked one of those reasons and brought it to the center stage of democracy. To be extra clear, none of this is a criticism of Nash McCabe -- my heart goes out to her and her husband, and there is no evidence here that her views on Obama and the flag, which I personally think are misguided, are racially motivated. Instead, it is yet another indictment of ABC News, which was eager to act is if there's no racial subtext to this election, other than its question about affirmative action for Obama's "affluent African-American daughters." Obama's been under fire for the last week for suggesting that Rust Belt voters -- facing a swirl of feelings about the economy and "people who don't look like them" -- are wooed by wedge issues". http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Nash_McCabe_The_rest_of_the_story.html |
|
18 Apr 08 - 08:22 AM (#2319182) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: McGrath of Harlow Why do they call these "debates" anyway? The people on show aren't even allowed to talk directly to each other, let alone discuss or argue. |
|
18 Apr 08 - 08:31 AM (#2319188) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: M.Ted It was pointed out, by Chuck Todd, political news director at NBC, that, with so little actual difference between the candidates positions on most issues, the only differences are in matters of personal style, so the debate becomes about personal style. It is taking Obama an inordinate amount of time to get the nomination--and that is not nearly as complicated as getting us out of Iraq, or getting the economy back on track-- |
|
18 Apr 08 - 08:43 AM (#2319200) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: GUEST,Fantasma Well, you better get used to the heat, because Obama is now the front runner, and the gloves are off. That's the way the game is played, and Obama claiming to be above "politics as usual" won't change that one iota. Here is what I can't figure out. Why are Democrats and their surrogates so fucking gullible and intentionally ignorant? Why do they keep pretending that the system and the process isn't corrupt? You see, that is the disconnect I have. As was pointed out in the Washington Post this morning by political pundit Howard Kurtz: "It is hardly unusual for debate moderators to draw partisan criticism, as NBC's Tim Russert did in October, when liberal commentators accused him of harassing Clinton over driver's licenses for illegal immigrants and other issues. But it is rare for ostensibly neutral media writers and television columnists to pile on with such fervor... Much of the reaction broke along ideological lines. From the right, New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote that ABC's performance was "excellent," adding: "The journalist's job is to make politicians uncomfortable, to explore evasions, contradictions and vulnerabilities." The liberal advocacy arm of MoveOn.org, which has endorsed Obama, said it will run an ad against ABC if 100,000 people sign a petition accusing the moderators of abusing "the public trust" by asking "trivial questions . . . that only political insiders care about." But the sentiments I agreed most closely with in the article about the "debate about the debate" actually came from ABC. Howard Kurtz quotes Jake Tapper: "They were tougher on Obama, yes. He's the front-runner. By any empirical standard, many members of the media don't seem to want to ask Senator Obama tough questions, and Senator Obama doesn't seem to want to answer them. This is the 21st debate. It is the only one where people have complained that the moderators were tougher on Barack Obama than on Hillary Clinton or any other candidate. How on Earth is that possible?" Indeed. The article goes on to mention that NBC's Olbermann, the liberal Sean Hannity IMO, led the charge against ABC (what a surprise). Now, I have a very close friend who is obsessed with electoral presidential politics, and has been since we were in college. She LOVES Olbermann. I find him to be offensive in the very same way I find Hannity, O'Reilly, et al to be offensive. The partisan Dem blogosphere immediately sent it's minions over to the ABC forums after the debate, to flood it with pro-Obama spinners. There was nothing unfair about the debate I watched in it's entirety. If Obama is such a delicate flower he can't handle the hothouse, he needs to get out of the race. Because the scrutiny only intensifies on him from here on out. He did not perform well in the debate. When under tough questioning about the issues of character in the first 40 minutes, he dodged, evaded, and outright lied, and you could tell it in his body language as well as his demeanor. He constantly looked like he was ready to lose his temper, which didn't come off well at all. He also wasn't at all articulate in his answers. The fact that he faltered so badly upon having the character questions asked (ie, the Wright controversy, the comments about PA voters, etc) doesn't bode well for him in the general election, but we'll see. It is clear that his people should have prepped him far better for the character questions. Because nothing will sink a candidate faster than character issues. The fact that he was on such shaky ground in that regard should give people pause, instead of causing them to behave like attack dogs, which is what the rabid Obamamaniacs and their MSM and partisan blogosphere surrogates did before the debate was even finished. |
|
18 Apr 08 - 08:51 AM (#2319206) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: GUEST,Fantasma "So, the New York Times is basically stating that many voters are finding odd or vague reasons not to support a candidate who president who happens to be black. And without any thought to the subtext, ABC News plucked one of those reasons and brought it to the center stage of democracy." Yes, but far more voters are refusing to support a candidate who happens to be a woman. And??? |
|
18 Apr 08 - 09:02 AM (#2319212) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: McGrath of Harlow Point of curiosity. Is "GUEST,Fantasma" the poster who used to be GUEST, guest" until a usurper came along and started using the same label? .............................. "Yes, but far more voters are refusing to support a candidate who happens to be a woman." But how many of those are in fact just refusing to support a particular candidate who happens to be a women? Just as Clinton supporters are refusing to support a particular candidate who happens to be a man. |
|
18 Apr 08 - 09:02 AM (#2319213) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Donuel The new ABC formula is to take the swift boat talking points of Bill OReilly and Hannity and grill the candidates on their involvment. Just what was yout involvment with Vincent Foster's death Mr. Hussein Obama??? hmmmm? On 9-11 your good friend Ayers said he wished he had bombed more, with riends like that, do you need more enemies Mr. Obama? ABC you are sick and you will choke on the socialist bail our of corporate greed and financial high crimes and misdemeanors. You have not served the nation, its people or the constitution of the United States of America. |
|
18 Apr 08 - 11:53 AM (#2319355) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: katlaughing The outrage continues to swirl around ABC News and its travesty of a mockery of a sham of a presidential debate here in Philadelphia last night. travesty- any grotesque or debased likeness or imitation mockery - a derisive, imitative action or speech sham - something that is not what it purports to be; a spurious imitation; fraud or hoax What the hell is an imitation of an imitation of a fraud? That is one of the most poorly constructed descriptions I have ever read! |
|
18 Apr 08 - 12:01 PM (#2319360) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Alice I went to the ABC news web site and responded to their feedback link at the bottom of the home page. I asked if they were part of Fox News now. Also told them the debate looked like real journalism is dead at their network. Alice |
|
18 Apr 08 - 01:55 PM (#2319466) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Riginslinger Hopefully Obama's the bottom will drop out of Obama's poll numbers now, so the media won't look like idiots after the primary, like they did in New Hampshire. |
|
18 Apr 08 - 01:57 PM (#2319469) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Azizi "In an open letter to ABC, journalists and media analysts condemn the network's poor handling of the April 16 Democratic presidential debate". -snip- Here's an excerpt of that letter: "For 53 minutes, we heard no question about public policy from either moderator. ABC seemed less interested in provoking serious discussion than in trying to generate cheap shot sound-bites for later rebroadcast. The questions asked by Mr. Stephanopoulos and Mr. Gibson were a disgrace, and the subsequent attempts to justify them by claiming that they reflect citizens' interest are an insult to the intelligence of those citizens and ABC's viewers. Many thousands of those viewers have already written to ABC to express their outrage... In the words of Tom Shales of the Washington Post, Mr. Gibson and Mr. Stephanopoulos turned in "shoddy, despicable performances." As Greg Mitchell of Editor and Publisher describes it, the debate was a "travesty." We hope that the public uproar over ABC's miserable showing will encourage a return to serious journalism in debates between the Democratic and Republican nominees this fall. Anything less would be a betrayal of the basic responsibilities that journalists owe to their public." http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080505/open_letter Journalists Slam ABC Debate Tactics April 18, 2008 -snip- The journalists signing this online letter were affiliated with one of 20 different media and/or universities. |
|
18 Apr 08 - 02:18 PM (#2319489) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: McGrath of Harlow Why should anyone hope that "the media won't look like idiots"? (Apart from the people with executive responsibility in the relevant media perhaps.) Don't most people just love it when the all-knowing pundits get egg on their face? .......................... "travesty of a mockery of a sham " Can't agree, kat. It's surely just a way of emphasising the point by using a run of linked (near) synomyms. A figure of speech - I'm sure there's an impressive academic term for it. It could have been "a travesty, a mockery and a sham", which wouldn't have strained the syntax, but I think linking with an "of" instead of "an" somehow seems (for me) to improve the rhythm, and doesn't confuse the sense. |
|
18 Apr 08 - 02:27 PM (#2319502) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: katlaughing Well it made me laugh, McGrath. MoveOn.org is putting together an ad they will run on ABC's own website about how poorly the debate was run AND they have over 200,000 signatures on their petition to be send to ABC. They are going for 500,000. Please go sign their petition if you've a mind to: see my link at 1231am |
|
18 Apr 08 - 03:51 PM (#2319555) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor I signed it Kat. |
|
18 Apr 08 - 04:15 PM (#2319573) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Chuck Todd is as bad as the rest of them. But to be fair, its his job to comment on the Horse race. So I guess its his bosses fault. ABC didn't have to make the debate about this distracting trivia. We need to be selecting a President. If they are similar on the position then the debate should be about who can explain their position better. Its the Issues!! Thanks for the Colbert Video Azizi! excellent! |
|
18 Apr 08 - 04:48 PM (#2319588) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Donuel Mr. Stephanopoulos, You have joined the ranks of Heraldo Rivera and Oliver North. You had a chance to do something ethical with your elevated position of having access to power, and you failed. |
|
18 Apr 08 - 04:49 PM (#2319589) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Donuel Mr. Stephanopoulos may you enjoy a comeback the likes of Dennis Miller after he decided to kiss neocon ass. |
|
18 Apr 08 - 04:54 PM (#2319594) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: John on the Sunset Coast Is that breeze I feel coming from Geo. Stephanopolous shaking in his boots from those insults? |
|
18 Apr 08 - 05:10 PM (#2319607) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: artbrooks The purpose of television debates, like all television programing, is to sell deodorants, allergy medication, feminine hygiene products and toothpaste. Anyone who thinks otherwise is seriously confused. |
|
18 Apr 08 - 05:26 PM (#2319620) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: PoppaGator I don't think the outrage over ABC's conduct of the debate has anything to do with being "unfair" or "too tough" on Obama. I think it was a severe disservice to BOTH candidates, as well as to the Pennsylvania electorate and the nationwide audience. After all, they were equally as insistent about beating the dead horse of Hillary's "Bosnia snipers" gaffe as any of Obama's similarly superficial misstatements. That flag-pin bullshit was, of course, the absolute lowest point of the whole exercise, and was directed at Obama. But then, we all know whose dynasty made Georgie S's career. When I signed the MoveOn petition* the other day, I added a paragraph of my own to the canned text saying that, while I may have some reservations about all the network news departments, I was especially disappointed by this performance by ABC, and that I felt certain that both CBS and NBC would have done a more professional job. NBC's Keith Olbermann is indeed blatantly partisan, and makes no attempt to pretend otherwise. I really enjoy him, and have done so since the days when he was an ESPN sportscaster. He is undeniably very witty, and I think that even folks who disagree with his positions can appreciate that. But I certainly respect the opinion of those who can't stand him; they have understandable reason to see Keith as the mirror image of those Fox News and tall-radio right-wing-nuts. I don't agree with them or think they're right, but tht's a matter of opinion; I understand where they're coming from. But ~ this is important ~ I'm sure that NBC would never assign Olbermann to work one of these debates. They'd send the consummately professional Tim Russert for sure, and probably Brian Williams or some other respectable and intelligent corresponent along with him. CBS has their own roster of actual journalists, too, who they could be expected to trot out for a debate. ABC sent a feelgood morning-talk-show host and a former Clinton aide, apparently issuing them a mandate to avoid serious discussion and try to instigate some mutual mudslinging between the principals. *Thanks to Kat for posting the link to that petition here. I considered doing so but never followed through. To those of you who don't agree, don't sign! (As I'm sure you haven't.) Posting the link here was nothing more than providing information to those who might want it, a category into which quite a few folks hereabouts fit quite nicely. |
|
18 Apr 08 - 06:07 PM (#2319642) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Azizi With regard to the video about Obama's remarks in Raleigh, North Carolina whose link I posted in this thread at 17 Apr 08 - 11:53 PM ,a number of hot* YouTube videos have been produced which combine rapper Jay-Z's song "Bush Your Shoulders Off" with Obama's remarks and his demonstration of this gesture. My favorite is this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZJex9Ge2-Q * "hot" here means the YouTube videos have a lot of viewers, favorite ratings, and comments in a small amount of time. For comments about the background and meaning of that gesture, check out this post in the "Yes We Can And Other Videos" thread: thread.cfm?threadid=108722&messages=28#2319632 |
|
18 Apr 08 - 07:09 PM (#2319685) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: GUEST,Fantasma No, this was not the worst debate in history. Not even close. Already the pundits are playing smackdown with each other for whining about tough questions at debates (as well they should). As for Olbermann being too partisan for NBC to put him on the debate moderation team? Think again. MSNBC's first ever Olbermann-moderated debate (Aug 7, 2007) averaged less than one million viewers, and was the lowest rated debate of the 2007 political season. NBC has also put Hardball's Chris Matthews on the debate beat. It is ridiculous. Why can't we go back to League of Women Voters debates? Those actually meant something to voters. |
|
18 Apr 08 - 07:26 PM (#2319692) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Excellent Post Pappagator! Excellent! In fact when MSNBC hosted the debate they did indeed use NBC staffers Russert and Williams to host. Matthews and Olbermann did commentary. To my mind there is a huge gulf between Olbermann and Fixed News (Faux News) Olberman jokes and comments. But he tells the truth. I agree that Gibson and Hillary's poodle tried to be tough on both but as per the number of idiotic questions they asked, they were four times tougher on Obama. But that is to be expected. Hillary is the front runner. Hillary piled on four times. Obama took the tiny piece of high ground he was offered. Hillary cackled. But that was understandable. She is way behind. She was desperate. She realized that she didn't have the luxury of looking Presidential in a forum which is suppose to be an audition for President! I think Stephanpoulous must be looking to switch careers. I wouldn't bet on his surviving on ABC once Obama is elected. But then Obama will be on the Daily show Monday. He was on Colbert last night. Maybe Obama will appear on George's Sunday morning comedy show? |
|
18 Apr 08 - 08:07 PM (#2319714) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: GUEST,Fantasma There have been over 20 debates now, Jack. Do you think just maybe you may not be keeping them all straight? We could always go back to the era when there were NO debates. Would that make you happy? |
|
18 Apr 08 - 08:09 PM (#2319716) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Jim Lad I have never taken any pleasure in watching decent people get conned. Never! However when a group such as this one, spends endless months driving away almost all who oppose them, the temptation to make an exception is almost irresistible. The system has been corrupt from day one and the Democratic party so intent on having a weak candidate represent them that they are even willing to ignore millions of their own voters. And you all support this! Mr. Obama will not take the White House. If he does, Nixon's time in office will look like an episode of "Little House on the Prairie" compared to Obamagate. |
|
18 Apr 08 - 08:31 PM (#2319724) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: GUEST,Fantasma For all the Bush years, everyone here has whined on endlessly about the corrupting influence of money in politics. But when the shoe is on the other foot--especially their boy's extremely golden foot? Like to the tune of raising more money than any candidate in the history of the planet earth? Not so much. |
|
18 Apr 08 - 08:32 PM (#2319725) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: GUEST,Fantasma And actually, Jim Lad--the Mudcat Mafia pulled the same crap when Kerry was the nominee in 2004. Attack doggin' is just their style. |
|
18 Apr 08 - 09:25 PM (#2319744) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: McGrath of Harlow We could always go back to the era when there were NO debates. You are still in it. These aren't debates. |
|
18 Apr 08 - 09:33 PM (#2319749) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor I agree McGrath. Jim Lad. Duck and cover, because Obama will win. He will win because he is by far the best politician of the three. |
|
18 Apr 08 - 10:18 PM (#2319765) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: GUEST,Fantasma |
|
18 Apr 08 - 10:36 PM (#2319775) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: CarolC Let me just second the vote for going back to the League of Women Voters debates. |
|
18 Apr 08 - 10:38 PM (#2319777) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: katlaughing I agree about needing to go back to League of Women Voters sponsored debates. Poppagator, glad you liked the link. Here's a few more op/ed from other press: The politics of pile-on is going on over at ABC as everybody from Obama-friendly MoveOn to a wide array of TV critics are ripping Wednesday's co-moderators Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos for offering "shoddy, despicable performances" in the words of the Washington Post's Tom Shales. The Philly Daily News called it "a train wreck," and Andrew Sullivan, blogging for The Atlantic, called it "one of the worst media performances I can remember - petty, shallow, process-obsessed, trivial where substantive, and utterly divorced from the actual issues that Americans want to talk about." Greg Mitchell in Editor and Publisher called it "the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years." And so on. More to be read HERE. |
|
18 Apr 08 - 10:52 PM (#2319786) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Riginslinger "...Obama will win." Yes, it looks like he's got the nomination pretty well sown up. But what will happen when he has to appeal to the broder public? |
|
18 Apr 08 - 10:57 PM (#2319787) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Ron Davies Jim-- Glad to hear that Obama's time in the White House will make Nixon's corruption mild by comparison. Based on your track record so far, that's wonderful news--since you're the perfect negative indicator. Please, tell us more. |
|
18 Apr 08 - 11:01 PM (#2319790) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor A spirited debate of this subject. >> From: Riginslinger Date: 18 Apr 08 - 10:52 PM "...Obama will win." Yes, it looks like he's got the nomination pretty well sown up. But what will happen when he has to appeal to the broder public? << He will win by a wider margin that the margin over Hillary. |
|
18 Apr 08 - 11:18 PM (#2319794) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Ron Davies Rig-- How will Obama do with the "broder public"? Obama, as the Democratic nominee, will smash McCain. 1) All his current supporters will not only vote for him, but many will do the essential work in the trenches to actually get out the vote. The new voters include huge numbers of young people and a higher turnout of black voters than ever. 2) He will get all the votes of every US voter---Democratic, Republican, or independent, for whom ending the Iraq war is the #1 job. 3) As the Democratic nominee, he will get the votes of all voters who feel the #1 issue is preventing a Republican from getting the chance to name any more Supreme Court justices. This means that Hillary's strongest supporters--for whom protecting Roe v Wade is paramount-- will vote for him. Especially since Hillary herself, trying to protect her options for the future, will campaign--hard--for him. 4) He will get the votes of anybody who feels that overhauling the health care system is vital--not just tinkering with "market-based solutions", which is all McCain's base will allow him. And I know this is true about McCain's limitations--remember, I read the WSJ. 5) He will get large numbers of Hispanics--since he can push--hard--the path to citizenship for illegal immigrants--which, again, McCain's base will not allow. 6) The economy is likely to be still shaky in the fall--and, yet again, McCain's base will not allow any response other than "market-based" approaches. Which will be obviously a band-aid for a gaping wound. 7) Most importantly, all Obama has to do is portray McCain as Bush's 3rd term--and McCain has no chance. The disgust with Bush--among independents--and some Republicans is that deep. The only question still remaining is whether, as the Democratic nominee, he will get YOUR support. Yes or no?--it's time to fish or cut bait. |
|
19 Apr 08 - 01:22 AM (#2319830) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Jim Lad Rezko |
|
19 Apr 08 - 07:07 AM (#2319923) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Bobert Well, one thing is painfully obviuos and that is that we have caught up with the UK in our ***tablid*** mentality... Speaks more of our educational, or lack there of, system... ABCDummed down.... B~ |
|
19 Apr 08 - 07:35 AM (#2319935) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Ron Davies As I recall, Jim, your prediction was that it would be Hillary vs Romney, and Romney would win. That tells us all we need to know about how seriously to take anything you say. But thanks for sharing. |
|
19 Apr 08 - 07:40 AM (#2319938) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Ron Davies Interestingly enough, an argument could be made the "debate" was helpful to Obama--and that Hillary is starting to recognize reality. She admitted--under pressure--that Obama could in fact beat McCain. Her last argument was that he could not---and she's thrown it away. |
|
19 Apr 08 - 07:48 AM (#2319941) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Bobert Yeah, Ron, I believe that the Clinton's have figured out that there is a very distinct possibility that they will loose... Horrors... As fir Clinton beating up on Obama it's all good... When yer getting ready for the real deal ya' need a good sparring partner and she has been just that... |
|
19 Apr 08 - 09:02 AM (#2319964) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: GUEST,Fantasma God, do you not know how RIDICULOUS AND PETTY this makes all of you look? And this morning I open my Google News to a LA Times article that an organized boycott of ABC World News W/Charles Gibson has started! A fucking boycott over a sham MSM debate? Are you kidding me? People are losing their houses through foreclosure, people are being pushed into financial ruin because they can't file bankruptcy anymore, violence in Iraq has resurged, our environment is bloody mess, domestic violence skyrocketing... Any THIS is what middle class Obama supporters are going to go to war with ABC News over? Clearly, your disconnect from Jane & Joe General Election Voter couldn't be more obvious. In case you all hadn't heard, out here in the real world NOBODY GIVES A DAMN IF OBAMA HAD A BAD DEBATE. |
|
19 Apr 08 - 09:11 AM (#2319968) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Ron Davies Janet-- Why don't you go back to kicking your dog? (Or at least take another sedative). Don't worry, ABC will survive the "boycott". Cooler heads will realize, as I've noted, that the only important thing that came out of the "debate" was that Hillary now admits Obama can win against McCain. I note with interest that you have found no evidence to counter my reasons that Obama will smash McCain in the fall. Oh yes--and don't you forget to vote for Obama in November. Thanks, I knew you would. |
|
19 Apr 08 - 09:29 AM (#2319981) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Azizi There's a great deal of difference between saying that that debate was bad and saying that Barack Obama [or Hillary Clinton] had a bad debate. I join thousands [if not millions] of other people saying that the questions that the moderators asked were bad for our country {for a hosts of reasons}. As to whether that tabloid debate was good for Senator Barack Obama, I agree with Ron Davies' 19 Apr 08 - 07:40 AM comments on this thread. In addition to getting Hillary to admit that Obama can win in the general election against John McCain, that debate showcased the differences between old school politics [the debate's moderators, and Clinton] and new school politics [Obama]. I include Clinton along with those moderators because of the way she added fuel to the gotcha questions and even added more smears when she was asked to respond to the comments that Barack Obama made. In contrast, Obama did not go for Hillary's jugular when he could {with regard to sniper-gate and a host of other Clinton-gates that he could have mentioned throughout this debate and throughout the entire primary campaign-but has not]. Obama acts like a gentleman while Hillary acts like one of the boys. And let me say that I also agree with those who have said that politically speaking, Obama is a master at aikido, a form of Japanese martial arts. At his Raleigh, North Carolina speech the day after that debate demonstrated, Barack Obama knows how to take a lemon and make lemonade. See these comments about aikido: "Aikido focuses not on punching or kicking opponents, but rather on using their own energy to gain control of them or to throw them away from you. It is not a static art, but places great emphasis on motion and the dynamics of movement". http://www.aikidofaq.com/introduction.html |
|
19 Apr 08 - 10:24 AM (#2320007) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: GUEST,Fantasma Brush it off, Azizi. Obama is also king of pop culture hype, as he proved with HIS response to the debate. Aikido my ass. Again I'll say it. I watched a debate on a fucking MSM channel. And I'm supposed to be shocked and outraged when they go after the front runner on character issues for the first time in 21 debates? Oh yeah--the candidate who keeps making his character a central issue in his campaign through his presidential autobiographies? You should be kicking up your heels that the MSM is now feeling confident enough to declare (even if it is a de facto declaration) of your boy as the front runner. The front runner, Azizi. There isn't a race card to play anymore. He won the game. He beat the racist system. He won. Or I should see, will be the presumptive nominee after this Tues, if the polls prove accurate this time. |
|
19 Apr 08 - 02:07 PM (#2320153) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Jim Lad And then there's Rezko. Closing your eyes won't make it go away. |
|
19 Apr 08 - 02:20 PM (#2320159) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Jim, If the Rezko flap had had any legs, poodle George would certainly have brought it up. |
|
19 Apr 08 - 03:19 PM (#2320211) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Azizi Have you guys and gals seen this yet? http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/04/the-lincoln-dou.html "The Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858 (Slight Return) by publius Presidential candidates Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas held this debate on April 16, 1858 at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. MODERATORS: CHARLIE GIBSON, ABC NEWS GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABC NEWS MR. GIBSON: So we're going to begin with opening statements, and we had a flip of the coin, and the brief opening statement first from Mr. Lincoln. LINCOLN: Thank you very much, Charlie and George, and thanks to all in the audience and who are out there. I appear before you today for the purpose of discussing the leading political topics which now agitate the public mind. We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object, and confident promise, of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. STEPHANOPOULOS: I'm sorry to interrupt, but do you think Mr. Douglas loves America as much you do? LINCOLN: Sure I do. STEPHANOPOULOS: But who loves America more? LINCOLN: I'd prefer to get on with my opening statement George. STEPHANOPOULOS: If your love for America were eight apples, how many apples would Senator Douglas's love be? LINCOLN: Eight. STEPHANOPOULOS: Proceed. LINCOLN: In my opinion, slavery will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. "A house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. STEPHANOPOULOS: Excuse me, did an Elijah H. Johnson attend your church? LINCOLN: When I was a boy in Illinois forty years ago, yes. I think he was a deacon. STEPHANOPOULOS: Are you aware that he regularly called Kentucky "a land of swine and whores"? LINCOLN: Sounds right -- his ex-wife was from Kentucky. STEPHANOPOULOS: Why did you remain in the church after hearing those statements? LINCOLN: I was eight. DOUGLAS: This is an important question George -- it's an issue that certainly will be raised in the fall. STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you denounce him? LINCOLN: I'd like to get back to the divided house if I may. STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you denounce and reject him? LINCOLN: If it will make you shut up, yes, I denounce and reject him. STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you denounce and reject him with sugar on top? LINCOLN: Yes. STEPHANOPOULOS: No takesies-backsies? LINCOLN: Yes. STEPHANOPOULOS: Whoa, so you would consider a takesie-backsie? LINCOLN: That's not what I meant… DOUGLAS: When I was 11, my grandpappy and I chopped wood and shot bears"... -snip- And there's more. In my opinion, this is a very witty and sad commentary on politics in America today. |
|
19 Apr 08 - 04:01 PM (#2320233) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: katlaughing LOL...good one, Azizi. Thanks for posting the link. |
|
20 Apr 08 - 10:34 PM (#2321173) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Ron Davies There was also a great Lincoln- Douglas cartoon recently, with the "moderator" asking them why they weren't wearing flag-pins. |
|
27 Apr 08 - 10:59 AM (#2326863) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Ron Davies II have very little time now--hope to have more later, but that's unclear--but anybody who thinks Janet is the best informed poster on this thread is himself or herself poorly informed. Just one small case in point. Janet says Obama kicked Hispanics in the teeth by voting for the fence in 2006. She neglects to point out that Hillary did exactly the same. So there's nothing to choose there. Furthermore, Obama came out in favor of drivers licenses for illegal immigrants---the only reasonable position from a public safety standpoint--obviously mostly Hispanic--while Hillary is against this. So Obama is actually preferable from a policy standpoint to informed Hispanics or those who sympathize. Janet's other positions are similarly worthless--to anybody who does a bit of research. |
|
27 Apr 08 - 10:35 PM (#2327280) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Ron Davies Interesting that neither Rig, Janet nor any other poster who likes attacking Obama has come up with one iota of evidence--or even a coherent argument-- that the 7 reasons I cited on 18 April 2008 11:18 PM as to why Obama will beat McCain in the fall are not valid. They like to see their words in print, but are a bit shy on logic and evidence. |
|
28 Apr 08 - 09:58 AM (#2327587) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: GUEST,Fantasma Actually, we largely ignore your flaming because you are a jerk. |
|
28 Apr 08 - 10:04 AM (#2327591) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Riginslinger "5) He (Obama) will get large numbers of Hispanics--since he can push--hard--the path to citizenship for illegal immigrants--which, again, McCain's base will not allow." Good reason to vote for McCain... |
|
28 Apr 08 - 12:49 PM (#2327751) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: GUEST,Fantasma I don't share your xenophobia, Riginslinger. |
|
28 Apr 08 - 10:22 PM (#2328264) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Ron Davies Gee, so sorry I'm not your favorite person, Janet. You know I really like you--or at least the entertainment you provide. But the silence by all Clinton supporters in even trying to come up with a plausible argument against my prediction that Obama will beat McCain handily--and Hillary would be a disaster--is deafening---and telling. You're great at coarse attacks-- but a bit lacking in logic and evidence. You might want to work on that. I mean that in the kindest way. |
|
29 Apr 08 - 11:35 AM (#2328661) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Riginslinger "I don't share your xenophobia, Riginslinger." It's not xenophobia; it's concern for the survival of working class Americans. |
|
29 Apr 08 - 09:48 PM (#2329301) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Ron Davies Wrong, Rig, It is xenophobia--and it's painfully obvious to virtually everybody on Mudcat but you. Only question is whether racism is in there too. To allay that suspicion, perhaps you'd like to give us the names of some current black- and brown-skinned political figures you think highly of. And I'm still waiting for a coherent and logical argument, from any Hillary supporter, as to why my 7 reasons for Obama's beating McCain handily--while Hillary would be a disaster--are not valid. |
|
29 Apr 08 - 09:49 PM (#2329304) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Ron Davies "Wrong, Rig. It...." |
|
29 Apr 08 - 10:30 PM (#2329351) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Riginslinger Let's see, Ron. I have a lot of respect for John Conyers. Remember when they were talking about putting Ronald Reagan's picture on the $10.00 bill, and he stood up in Congress and announced that they ought to put the phoney son-of-a-bitch's (my words, not his) picture on the three-dollar-bill where he belongs. That was pretty much the end of that discussion. And I like Charlie Rangle. He keeps bringing up the point that we need to re-activate the draft so that it isn't only poor people's kids who end up getting shot in Iraq. And I like Maxine Waters and Sheil Jackson Lee, who both see that the best chance to regain the White House is to get behind Hillary. Brown skinned politicians are harder, because they are politicians, after all, and for the most part are trying to capitalize on the issue of illegal immigrants, in a political sense, right now. There were some very good ones in the past, but I think Hispanic politicos have to get aboard the La Vos de Aztlan bandwagon in order to get elected at this point in time. |
|
29 Apr 08 - 10:42 PM (#2329362) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Bobert Ahhhhhh, yo Rigs.... You might wanta ask Joe nicely to remove both yer last post and this one as well... B~ |
|
29 Apr 08 - 10:48 PM (#2329366) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Riginslinger Why? Reality is what it is. |
|
29 Apr 08 - 10:51 PM (#2329371) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Bobert Okay...Yer call... |
|
29 Apr 08 - 11:01 PM (#2329375) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Ron Davies Rig-- Glad to hear you like Charlie Rangel. And Maxine Waters--deluded though she is. If you'd said that earlier, it would have prevented sizable misunderstandings. But as for your verdict on Hispanic politicians--your ignorance is showing again. Is the mayor of L..A. not Hispanic? Yet I don't believe I've heard him endorse the idea of giving parts of the US back to Mexico. Nor has Bill Richardson. Etc. It may be in your nightmares--but eventually you'll have to learn to distinguish between them and real life. It will also help your mental stability. |
|
30 Apr 08 - 12:03 AM (#2329390) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Riginslinger Ron - No! I have not heard the mayor of Los Angeles endorse the idea of giving parts of the US back to Mexico. But I don't think you've interpreted the concept of Aztlan as the followers intended. The mayor is, however, trying to make the city a haven for illegals under the pretext that it would be bad for the economy not to. The question that remains to be asked then is this: who's economy is he worried about? |
|
30 Apr 08 - 12:33 AM (#2329394) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Little Hawk This thread is just a big waste of bandwidth, and I'll tell you why. You ready? Okay, this is why. The *** worst debate in history *** happened on Jan 10th, 1998. That was the time that Chongo and this other ape called Chachi argued from 9 pm till 1 AM in Finney's Bar as to who could hold his liquor better and who had a better eye for good lookin' women. If you'd been there, you'd know what I mean. They could've refloated the Titanic with the hot air generated on that occasion. The worst part of it was that they both claimed to have won afterward! It was about on the level of what I usually hear around this place, actually... ;-) Only they didn't employ nearly so much sarcasm and they weren't quite so personally insulting to one another. Close, but not quite. I would gather that this was probably because they were within arm's reach of one another at the time and aware of the possible consequences of being overly nasty. On the other hand, it might be that they are just basically a bit nicer in their nature than some of the folks around here. Or smarter? Well, that's a possibility too. |
|
30 Apr 08 - 09:55 AM (#2329725) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Riginslinger Ron - Henry Gonzalez was a Hispanic American politician with boat loads of both fortitude and integrity. |
|
01 May 08 - 09:48 PM (#2331147) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Ron Davies Rig: Re: Aztlan: You don't think I've interpreted it as they intended? A little problem with that: it was YOUR suggestion that brought up the absurd idea of returning parts of the US to Mexico. So are you now willing to admit that Aztlan did not intend that? That would be progress--and perhaps mean your nightmares are not so frightening to you. |
|
01 May 08 - 10:04 PM (#2331165) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Riginslinger Ron - My understanding of what The Nation of Aztlan intends is to establish the mexican borders to what they were before the Mexican/American war in the late 1840's. That's why the Absolute Vodka company published the ad they ran a week or so back. They wanted to sell Vodka to Mexican/Americans. They didn't anticipate the huge backlash it generated from European/Americans, who knew very well that that is what The Nation of Aztlan is all about. And the backlash is why Absolute hastily withdrew the ad. However, I think it would be a mistake to assume that they (The Nation of Aztlan) simply want to take the territory back and re-annex it to Mexico. I don't think they are terribly happy with the Mexican government either. They seem to have a Marxist air about them, though that concept is European in origin, so I don't think they would admit it. They are very anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian. They see themselves, in a sense, as the displaced people of North America, and seem to identify with the Palestinian people. A quick vistit to their web-site "La Voz de Aztlan" would quickly inform you of their long range objectives. |
|
01 May 08 - 10:36 PM (#2331184) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Ron Davies Rig-- OK, very interesting. And how much support do you suppose Aztlan has among Hispanics? That's the key. Unless there's a lot of support, your preoccupation with Aztlan is just a self-inflicted nightmare. Why would you want to invent an artificial new problem--don't you have enough real ones? |
|
02 May 08 - 12:33 PM (#2331280) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Riginslinger Ron - This isn't something I've invented. All you have to do is go to the web-site and check it out. There are a lot of real problems. But, thanks to your persistent questioning, I think I have an answer to this one. Prior to the enacting of the immigration act of 1986, few people were terribly polarized on the immigration issue. But that one piece of legislation drew a line in the sand that didn't exist prior. What it did was this: a certain number of illegal aliens--mostly Hispanic, and overwhelmingly Mexican--were granted amnesty. That one development by itself would not have been much of a problem if it hadn't been for the 1965 immigration act that preceded it. The 1965 law gave immigration preference to people through the concept of "family reunification." That meant, in vague terms, if you had a family member who was a US citizen, you were able to gain a few notches up on the climb to legal entry into the country. But if your family was from England, for instance, and they came over on the Mayflower, your extended family in the home country would be removed by so many generations that the concept of "family reunification" didn't mean much. If you'd come from Mexico in 1985, however, and you were granted amnesty in 1986, your extended family was only one border away, and separated by a period of only one year. The real killer, though, concerning the 1986 legislation was this: there were a number of enforcement provisions to the law that were never enforced. By not living up to the promise that the government made to the American people on enforcement, by failing to enforce the law that they themselves passed, illegal immigrants began to pour over the border with the anticipation that there would soon be another amnesty. So that's where we are now. The problem faced by any Hispanic politician is, no matter what he/she may really think about the law, or the issues of immigration, if he/she doesn't support the concept of continued immigration and/or amnesty, he/she risks losing the support of his/her base constituency. Therefore, these politicians are precluded from taking positions they feel might actually be best for the country, or even best for native born Hispanics they are sworn to represent. They are compelled to bow to the pressures of the extreme groups that wish to promote a divisive point of view. That causes friction in the larger social structure of the country and leads to conflict between native born Americans and immigrants. So whether The Nation of Aztlan has any in depth support or not, what support it does have is magnified by the events that went before it. |
|
02 May 08 - 12:48 PM (#2331295) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Donuel I Don't know if GOnzales holds that land should be returned or if he merely uses a rhetorical equation. I do know however that we have a North America and a South America. Those from South America who venture north are called aliens. Those who venture south are called by their proper name. |
|
02 May 08 - 07:22 PM (#2331611) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: artbrooks I live in New Mexico. I am surrounded by Hispanos; I see them, work with them and talk to them. Its pretty easy to do so, because most of them speak only English. Become part of a "Greater Mexico"? I don't think so. |
|
02 May 08 - 10:19 PM (#2331731) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Ron Davies So, Rig, you equate continued immigration to establishing the US-Mexico borders as they were before the Mexican-American War? Continued immigration is going to happen. As for pushing the borders back to 1845--not quite so likely. And, believe it or not, there is a difference between the two--even if Mr. Tancredo and your other sources of wisdom may be trying to blur the difference. Back to the old question, which you, showing off your unparalleled question-dodging skills, have not found time to answer: what evidence do you have of substantial support among the Hispanic community for your border-changing nightmare? If you can't find such support for this idea, just take a few aspirin and rent "The Alamo". And comfort yourself that San Jacinto came afterward. As did Mr. Polk's war, about a decade later, even if Lincoln was against it. And as Art points out, the Hispanics in the US aren't really too eager to rejoin Mexico. It's not exactly Heim ins Reich. Lie down and think about something uncontroversial--like how much Hillary has for years spoken of the importance of gratitude to God as a daily discipline. |
|
02 May 08 - 10:35 PM (#2331743) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Little Hawk Ha! Ha! Ha! (Aww fer chrissake....Ron and "Rig"...what a shame you two never married, eh? And you can now. In San Francisco. Think it over.) Now here's the worst debate in history: Did! Didn't! Did too! Did not! Did too! Didn't! Did! Did NOT!!! Now just copy and paste that about 800 times in a row and you've basically got it. |
|
02 May 08 - 10:43 PM (#2331746) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Ron Davies Perhaps, LH, you haven't noticed we've left the topic behind--surprise, surprise--and we're back to Rig's old nightmare of the Brown Peril--Yellow Peril is a bit outdated. But it will all be worthwhile if it causes Rig to consider how important religion is to Hillary. Perhaps that's what's lacking in his life. |
|
02 May 08 - 10:50 PM (#2331750) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Little Hawk Yes, I've been aware for some time how vitally important religion is to Hillary... ;-) (You can't help but be impressed by a 100 foot tall statue of a Babylonian owl by torchlight, let me tell you!) |
|
03 May 08 - 12:24 AM (#2331775) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Riginslinger Like the man said: "THERE'S NO WAY TO FIX STUPID!" |
|
03 May 08 - 02:08 PM (#2332110) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Little Hawk Take cover, "Rig", the JW's are on their way! (I have alerted them to your presence and advised them that you are in dire need of their spiritual assistance.) By the way, I find it troubling that Ron Davies is too lazy to type out your whole name, "Riginslinger", and instead resorts to the offensive three-letter expletive, "Rig". It's insulting. It also indicates extreme sloth on Ron's part, don't you think? Contemptible behaviour, really! The man should be stripped naked, tied to a stake, and assaulted by Turkish pyygmies, that's what I think. |
|
03 May 08 - 02:11 PM (#2332117) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Lighten up LH jts |
|
03 May 08 - 02:13 PM (#2332123) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Little Hawk You too, Jack. ;-) |
|
03 May 08 - 02:18 PM (#2332128) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: artbrooks I think that his abbreviation indicates that Ron actually, and secretly, agrees with everything Riginslinger has to say...after all, "Rig" means "praise" in Sanskrit... |
|
03 May 08 - 02:19 PM (#2332131) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Little Hawk Ah hah! But he's too shy to say so. |
|
03 May 08 - 02:23 PM (#2332137) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Isn't "Ron" an abbreviation for Ronald? Or even "Ronald Davies?" |
|
03 May 08 - 02:27 PM (#2332141) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Little Hawk By golly, you're right. |
|
03 May 08 - 02:44 PM (#2332154) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: artbrooks Or Rhonda... |
|
03 May 08 - 03:44 PM (#2332187) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Ron Davies I wish I was Art--would have been particularly handy in high school and college. You ask girls: "Would you pose nude for the sake of Art?" "Help me, Rhonda" wasn't very useful. |
|
03 May 08 - 03:56 PM (#2332200) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: artbrooks Seems to me I said something like that once - been married 38 years now... |
|
03 May 08 - 04:24 PM (#2332217) Subject: RE: BS: The Worst Debate in History? From: Little Hawk "Would you pose nude for the sake of Art?" LOL! I love that line. |