Why does the GOP allow the lib media to run the debates?

Aug 2011
758
0
#1
Yeah, I know there was one by Fox, but why allow the lib media talking heads, every single one of them an obama butt kisser, to run the show? The questions are often trivial and utterly ignore giant issues like obama's retreats out of afghanistan and iraq, with absolutely no success to show for his tenure. Likewise his super king sized failures to do anything about iran and their nuke program, or to shape the outcome of the arab spring.

Fortunately, I see that most of the candidates quickly morph the idiot questions into a pre-canned mini-speech (Romney is good at that) but why give them any status at all??

Particularly nauseating is ABC's Diane Sawyer - she sits there continuously grinning as if the whole exercize is amusing to her.

The GOP needs to replace these circus clowns with some astute, informed questioners who can do the job with political neutrality.
 
Jan 2012
49
0
#2
DUDE! I totally can't wait for the Donald's Trump's debate!!!

It's going to be so much more sophisticated than just having a bunch of politicians on stage saying whatever the hell they want to with a total pass by the "journalists." I mean, I can't imagine what the world will be like once the "conservative media" gets a chance!

GO DONALD 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Aug 2011
758
0
#3
DUDE! I totally can't wait for the Donald's Trump's debate!!!

It's going to be so much more sophisticated than just having a bunch of politicians on stage saying whatever the hell they want to with a total pass by the "journalists." I mean, I can't imagine what the world will be like once the "conservative media" gets a chance!

GO DONALD 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yeah, that's just what something as serious as presidential debates needs - another media clown.
 
Oct 2011
152
0
#4
Need brain for running debates .... :)

Yeah, I know there was one by Fox, but why allow the lib media talking heads, every single one of them an obama butt kisser, to run the show? The questions are often trivial and utterly ignore giant issues like obama's retreats out of afghanistan and iraq, with absolutely no success to show for his tenure. Likewise his super king sized failures to do anything about iran and their nuke program, or to shape the outcome of the arab spring.

Fortunately, I see that most of the candidates quickly morph the idiot questions into a pre-canned mini-speech (Romney is good at that) but why give them any status at all??

Particularly nauseating is ABC's Diane Sawyer - she sits there continuously grinning as if the whole exercize is amusing to her.

The GOP needs to replace these circus clowns with some astute, informed questioners who can do the job with political neutrality.
Need brain for running debates .... That is why :)

Look at high school grads : Hannity, Limbaugh
 
Oct 2011
152
0
#7
We all know who Repugs and Dems appeal to ...

Yaaaaa - Scott Pelley, Brian Williams, and the ABC chick - regular EINSTEINS! BLAHHHHHH HA HA HEE HEE GIGGGLE HAR HAR HAR!!!! :p

It is well known that Repugs mostly appeal to non-intellectuals. Repugs prefer low voter turn out. Election day is always a working day (Tuesday) to make sure that working class will not show up for voting in force.

Only mentally retarded can fall for Foxy news commentators Like Oreilly, Hannity, Limbaugh types.
 
Mar 2009
2,751
6
Undisclosed
#8
It is well known that Repugs mostly appeal to non-intellectuals. Repugs prefer low voter turn out. Election day is always a working day (Tuesday) to make sure that working class will not show up for voting in force.
What a load of horse-shit!
 
Aug 2011
758
0
#10
It is well known that Repugs mostly appeal to non-intellectuals. Repugs prefer low voter turn out.
And YOU would be an example of an "intellectual"? (snicker! :p)

What passes for "intellectuals" in this country is leftwing humanities and social science professors who contribute nothing of value to society, leach off the productive people of society by getting paychecks that come from taxes on REAL working people, butt kiss obama, worship statism and hate democracy, and set up policies of racist anti-white discrimination. If every one of them keeled over and dropped dead tomorrow, the country would be hugely improved.
 
Jan 2009
5,841
50
#11
What passes for "intellectuals"
And herein lies the proof that you do not understand what intellectualism is all about (if you think it is something that is subjective like that, something where something can just "pass" for it). Netanyahoo and you are together in that regard.
 
Mar 2009
2,751
6
Undisclosed
#12
And herein lies the proof that you do not understand what intellectualism is all about (if you think it is something that is subjective like that, something where something can just "pass" for it). Netanyahoo and you are together in that regard.
:D I am no "intellectual" as you all know.;) I do think some people get or claim more credit than they deserve. And some are overly impressed by the term
"intellectualism". If they are a true intellectual it will be shown without anyone being told. They don't need a business card saying they are a intellectual.:p
 
Jan 2009
5,841
50
#13
:D I am no "intellectual" as you all know.;) I do think some people get or claim more credit than they deserve. And some are overly impressed by the term
"intellectualism". If they are a true intellectual it will be shown without anyone being told. They don't need a business card saying they are a intellectual.:p
Of course they don't. But there is a difference between being an intellectual (which you might very well be despite thinking you are not Dodge) who disagress with certain ideas for logical reasons and being blatantly anti-intellectual for the sake of being anti-intellectual.
 
#14
Why majority of mid america is RED...

Of course they don't. But there is a difference between being an intellectual (which you might very well be despite thinking you are not Dodge) who disagress with certain ideas for logical reasons and being blatantly anti-intellectual for the sake of being anti-intellectual.
Look at the political map of US.
Mid America is mostly RED
Coastal States are mostly Blue.

Most innovations do not come out of corn fields of Mid America.

There are always exceptions but we are talking of majority.
Majority is Christian religious types growing corn in Mid America who are backers of Repugs.
 
Jan 2009
5,841
50
#15
Look at the political map of US.
Mid America is mostly RED
Coastal States are mostly Blue.

Most innovations do not come out of corn fields of Mid America.

There are always exceptions but we are talking of majority.
Majority is Christian religious types growing corn in Mid America who are backers of Repugs.
There are so many things wrong with those statements that I don't know where to begin.
 
#16
Um....because they luv to irritate the GOP? Actually most media outlets are liberal as are most Lawyers. Good mix "lawyers and Libs"!
One thing I can say is that once Obama begins to debate in the general they will be throwing softballs at him. And that is not a good thing.
 
#17
The great concern is not who mediates the Presidential Debates but rather the lack of qualified and confident participants.

I am not an Obama supporter (though neither do I believe him the root of all evil), there is no one to run against him who has a clear grasp of the real causes of the global economic crisis and how to remedy it. While arguing about what to cut and whom to tax, they ignore the problems with the financial system itself and the fact that it is rapidly reaching the point where it cannot be sustained, not when all wealth is based upon someone else's debt.
 
Last edited:
Aug 2011
758
0
#18
And herein lies the proof that you do not understand what intellectualism is all about (if you think it is something that is subjective like that, something where something can just "pass" for it). Netanyahoo and you are together in that regard.
I should probably start giving two versions of each post - one, a dumbed down version so you can get it. The issue is not REAL intellectualism, but the pseudo-intellectualism of leftwing poseurs. The kind of people who use their classroom as political pulpits. Example: at the beginning of obama's term, he got together a who's who of leftwing economists, the sort of people you would call "intellectuals", to advise him what to do about the economy. Result three years later? Continuing 16% REAL unemployment, people losing their houses and their 401ks, and the intellectuals on his economic advisory panel have all quietly scuttled off. Get it yet Sparky? And the lib media talking heads, obama shills all, CERTAINLY don't qualify as intellectuals by any definition.
 
Jan 2009
5,841
50
#19
I should probably start giving two versions of each post - one, a dumbed down version so you can get it. The issue is not REAL intellectualism, but the pseudo-intellectualism of leftwing poseurs. The kind of people who use their classroom as political pulpits. Example: at the beginning of obama's term, he got together a who's who of leftwing economists, the sort of people you would call "intellectuals", to advise him what to do about the economy. Result three years later? Continuing 16% REAL unemployment, people losing their houses and their 401ks, and the intellectuals on his economic advisory panel have all quietly scuttled off. Get it yet Sparky? And the lib media talking heads, obama shills all, CERTAINLY don't qualify as intellectuals by any definition.
See your response in itself shows that you do not understand what you are talking about. How the hell are you going to stereotype a vast majority of the nation's (and I guess through connection a world's) thinkers with blanket statements like you give? You give no proof (which I know you feel you do not need to, but guess what in an intellectual discussion YOU DO) and are just an anti-intellectual.

As for the economic numbers you point to, you just flatout criticize the numbers without actually looking at what the problems are and what people have been suggesting vs. what has actually been done and what simply [possibly] cannot be fixed. You also don't take into consideration that everything is relative.
 
Aug 2011
758
0
#20
See your response in itself shows that you do not understand what you are talking about. How the hell are you going to stereotype a vast majority of the nation's (and I guess through connection a world's) thinkers with blanket statements like you give? You give no proof (which I know you feel you do not need to, but guess what in an intellectual discussion YOU DO) and are just an anti-intellectual.
Your problem is you can't tell a real intellectual from a fake. And even REAL intellectuals have caused catastrophic problems. Take Karl Marx, a real intellectual: his political philosophy resulted in 100 million dead in the 20th century. Did any gun-and-religion-clinger ever accomplish that?

As for the economic numbers you point to, you just flatout criticize the numbers without actually looking at what the problems are
Baloney - I've gone over that in detail at this very site.

and what people have been suggesting vs. what has actually been done and what simply [possibly] cannot be fixed.
More nonsense from you. obama came in promising to fix the economy, He had the rare one-party control of the presidency and both houses of congress. He had at his beck and call every worshipful leftwing "intellectual" in the country. He even had his infamous tendency to go beyond constitutional limits. He and his pack of "intellectuals" had their chance, and they FAILED. And I like the obamaesq arrogance dripping from obamabots like you - if amateur president obama and his pack can't fix it, it must be unfixable.
 

Similar Discussions