-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Youtube/CNN Republican Debate tonight at 8 EST
- Thread starter Stoney Mason
- Start date
- Status
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
harSon said:
BTW, why aren't there a lot of black New Yorkers who support Rudy? Didn't he save them from "crime and poverty"? Or did he just make them disappear under a blanket of beaucracy/organizations?
Father_Brain
Banned
Gaborn said:
It's what we have, and it's at least more credible than Internet polls.
Stoney Mason
Banned
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Tamanon said:
But no president will fix that.
Panic_Attack
Banned
Live feed of Ron Paul post debate rally: http://weneedronpaul.com/uncategorized/live-feed-of-ron-paul-post-debate-rally/
siamesedreamer
Banned
CNN dropped the fucking ball tonight.
Turns out Keith Kerr was also on the steering committee of Veterans for Kerry.
Turns out Keith Kerr was also on the steering committee of Veterans for Kerry.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
siamesedreamer said:
Err, I think it is obvious that CNN was aware of that to begin with
Stoney Mason
Banned
siamesedreamer said:
I think I'm honestly missing something here so if I am explain it to me...
CNN was commissioned to take youtube videos and from them select relevant questions...
Was there a requirement that you had to prove you've never been involved with a campaign or that you had to be a registered Republican? The question is the question and if his experience is correct and not manufactured what exactly is the complaint? This question of should gays serve in the military had already been asked in a prior debate even.
siamesedreamer
Banned
Gaborn said:
Isn't that why the DEMs have refused to debate on Fox? Worried about staged questions, etc.?
Funny how things have turned out. Not only did Fox put on arguably the best debate so far, but CNN is unapologetically introducing questions directly from the Hillary campaign.
Stoney Mason said:
as near as I can tell the complaint is it was mean to find a gay general that thinks DADT is wrong. This is particularly a dirty trick because he's a democrat and democrats are not allowed to question neo-cons ever. This question would have been acceptable however from a white straight neo-conservative with no gay relatives because otherwise you get a biased questioner who might actually be negatively affected by their policy.
Edit: Are you really asking me to defend the Dems? I can't see myself voting for any of them at all. The only decent candidate from either of the parties is Ron Paul.
miyamotofreak
Banned
Fucking liberals.Gaborn said:
Grizzlyjin
Supersonic, idiotic, disconnecting, not respecting, who would really ever wanna go and top that
Did anyone catch those interviews with the undecided voters that had been giving their reactions throughout the debate? Talk about feeding into the stereotype that undecided voters are idiots, the woman they interviewed said something along the lines of "I don't think I'd vote for Thompson, I don't really care for his television shows too much." Then she totally mispronounced Giuliani somehow. I mean they've only said his name 10,000 times over the course of the night.
miyamotofreak
Banned
The way to stop black on black violence is to make them all watch West Side Story.avatar299 said:
Stoney Mason
Banned
Grizzlyjin said:
It only gets worse as time progress. Wait until you hit the presidential debates between the two candidates. The undecided voters at that point have the same intellect as blocks of wood.
siamesedreamer
Banned
Stoney Mason said:
Its not that the question was unfair (it wasn't).
It just shows a blantant disregard for basic journalistic integrity on CNN's part. And it comes on the heals of the pro-Clinton crowd at the Las Vegas debate.
miyamotofreak
Banned
Fuck yeah.Gaborn said:
Stoney Mason
Banned
siamesedreamer said:
These debates on every network are constant disregards for journalistic integrity. They all suck. I still don't understand the hoopla on whether the question came from a Democrat or a Republican. Like I said, If someone posts a list of rules from Youtube or CNN that says this was disallowed I'll say okay that is wrong but otherwise....
As far as the "pro clinton" crowd in Vegas are you saying CNN stacked the crowd?
siamesedreamer said:
I agree they should have done a minimal check on the general, as a General he was a semi-public figure, at least enough to warrant some sort of check. I think it's a good thing they provided the context he gave money to democrats/was on the steering committee for Kerry even if it was AFTER the debate. But I think you're focusing on the man more because it is such a difficult negative issue for some neoconservatives.
The truth is that the majority of the country believes DADT is wrong and gays should be allowed to serve openly. The truth also is that many gay men have served honorably and performed as a credit to the nation. That puts a negative light on people who want to continue to bar homosexuals from military service and so it's easier to focus attacks on the messenger than address the weak non-answers the candidates gave in response.
siamesedreamer
Banned
Gaborn said:
The guy was handpicked by the last two (probably) DEM nominees for president to be on steering committees for their particular campaigns. That's where my problem begins and ends. I could give two shits about what he asked.
Stoney Mason said:
Well...of course I'll never have any proof.
miyamotofreak
Banned
Please not Hillary. I don't ever want her to be President.
Stoney Mason
Banned
Well I'm going to bed but I'll end on this. As far as I can tell the purpose of these debates aren't to solely ask liberals, "liberal" questions and ask conservatives "conservative" questions. If they didn't research the rest of those people I don't understand them researching that general beyond the fact perhaps that he was indeed a general.
Worthless debate again.
I hate the idea of black on black crime in any fashion. Why focus on black on black crime? Just what would I do to stem it? I would do nothing. Just come up with stuff to combat crime period. It really ticks me off that we segment our violence into these little sub genres and then rally around a single one. Like stopping gun violence, why not target all violence? Inner city poverty? Who cares, address all poverty.
We're not gonna move any further as a people until we lump black on black, black on white, white on black, white on white, asian on asian, whatever on whatever into the same freaking statistic and put as all in the same boat. I wish this line of questioning was outlawed.
DADT is a tough subject for me, I'm not anti gay but I think I'm anti gay when it concerns the military. I mean the stakes are just a little bit higher in the military than in the office. If there's bad interaction in the office productivity can suffer, maybe there's some animosity, wrongful termination, lawsuits or whatever but what's really the worst that happens. In the military you can die. Infantry at the least was very much a man's man field and I don't think an openly gay person would be well received there. It is their right to be, but I dunno. We're in for some tough times and I don't know if now is really the best time for that social experiment, probably should have been implemented during the safer Clinton years so people could adapt so it would be a more non issue than it is no. It's not a gay man's fault that he won't be accepted in all branches and jobs in the military but the consequences of it can be very real. It is a serious question, and ultimately they shouldn't have to hide it.
Gay marriage however I say go for it. We're not exactly the wonderful stewards of marriage we would have ourselves be, and if there's any sanctity of marriage to be saved it seems it'd be better served doing something equally as foolish like outlawing divorce, that'd keep that nuclear family together. Bunch of wimps claiming to support the sanctity of marriage but not take on their fellow hetero's failure in support the very same institution.
Who cares where the questions come from they're questions, from citizens. Hillary Clinton herself should be able to ask questions if they thought it was a good one.
I hate the idea of black on black crime in any fashion. Why focus on black on black crime? Just what would I do to stem it? I would do nothing. Just come up with stuff to combat crime period. It really ticks me off that we segment our violence into these little sub genres and then rally around a single one. Like stopping gun violence, why not target all violence? Inner city poverty? Who cares, address all poverty.
We're not gonna move any further as a people until we lump black on black, black on white, white on black, white on white, asian on asian, whatever on whatever into the same freaking statistic and put as all in the same boat. I wish this line of questioning was outlawed.
DADT is a tough subject for me, I'm not anti gay but I think I'm anti gay when it concerns the military. I mean the stakes are just a little bit higher in the military than in the office. If there's bad interaction in the office productivity can suffer, maybe there's some animosity, wrongful termination, lawsuits or whatever but what's really the worst that happens. In the military you can die. Infantry at the least was very much a man's man field and I don't think an openly gay person would be well received there. It is their right to be, but I dunno. We're in for some tough times and I don't know if now is really the best time for that social experiment, probably should have been implemented during the safer Clinton years so people could adapt so it would be a more non issue than it is no. It's not a gay man's fault that he won't be accepted in all branches and jobs in the military but the consequences of it can be very real. It is a serious question, and ultimately they shouldn't have to hide it.
Gay marriage however I say go for it. We're not exactly the wonderful stewards of marriage we would have ourselves be, and if there's any sanctity of marriage to be saved it seems it'd be better served doing something equally as foolish like outlawing divorce, that'd keep that nuclear family together. Bunch of wimps claiming to support the sanctity of marriage but not take on their fellow hetero's failure in support the very same institution.
Who cares where the questions come from they're questions, from citizens. Hillary Clinton herself should be able to ask questions if they thought it was a good one.
Schattenjäger
Gabriel Knight
Hcukabee's support for the fair tax system troubles me
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Stoney Mason said:
They will say he never would have been satisfied with their answers, etc.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
I FOUND IT!!!
The CNN YouTube Democratic Debate Snowman question!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArhGkNs5uAI
This is FOR REAL!!! They actually asked them that!!
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
The CNN YouTube Democratic Debate Snowman question!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArhGkNs5uAI
This is FOR REAL!!! They actually asked them that!!
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
yeah, there's zero chance that the pro-Clinton crowd in Las Vegas wasn't just a reflection of HRC's strong support in the state...siamesedreamer said:Well...of course I'll never have any proof.
GeneralKird
Member
mAcOdIn said:
So we should ask them large general questions and get even larger vaguer answers? Is the solution to criminal gang violence vs criminal insider trading the same? or inner-city poverty vs rural poverty? If you want any answers from these candidates you need to be as specific as possible. Otherwise you'll just get statistics and assurances from the hopefuls. Someone needs to come up with a solution to reducing black on black crime and gang violence in general. It's a specific problem that is very real and plagues so many. The problem is it probably never affects you consciencely so you can just shrug it off like it can be grouped with 'real issues'. I'd say we're never going to move further as a people until we stfu about pointless ideals such as categorizing problems and just start finding solutions.
perfectchaos007
Member
I like these types of debates. The number one goal in campaigns is to bring young people to the polls. these types of debates are targeted for young people ( 30 and younger )
AEBrock said:
No, your two examples, gang violence and insider trading are two totally different actions, but the color of the perpetrator should never come into play. You don't see a real outcry to stop white insider trading do you? Because they don't break it down that far. Of course the tools to combat gang violence is going to be radically different than the tools to combat insider trading, but the tools to combat gang violence whether white, asian, latino or black is pretty much going to be the same.
Asking specifically how to combat black on black violence is stupid, it's like saying you don't care about white on white, or latino on latino, or any other combination and as a country I don't think we should think like that. As a white person the only person I've known to be murdered was a white woman by a white man and you don't see me asking how to stem white on white violence. And what would a candidate say differently for black on black than latino on latino? Suggest more basketball courts in black neighborhoods, soccer fields in latino neighborhoods, or cosplaying exhibitions in asian neighborhoods? Just what kind of stupid racist stereotypical answer are they looking to hear?
Any attempt to combat inner city violence should be received by everyone living there. I understand education is a big factor in that, maybe they'd be looking to make college more affordable to young kids in an attempt to give them a better shot at a future. I can agree with that, fine throw some scholarship money out there, but should it be aimed at just the poor blacks in that area for example? Would that be fair? Are we really going to further throw handouts at just one segment of the population and watch as another sits in squalor to get a handful of votes?
Everyone living in a neighborhood is in the same boat and I vehemently disagree with picking out specific individuals in the same economic conditions for government aid based on race. I don't care if it's scholarships, school programs, whatever, they should benefit the entire area not one segment.
The Chosen One
Member
mAcOdIn said:
I used to think the very same way about gays in the military. But then I thought about it a little bit more. If you think about it, what you just said could have been said (and probably was said) about "blacks in the military" just 60-70 years ago.
I just don't see how a gay man out on the battlefield makes a squad more vulnerable more or less so than any other man. Granted, I think there needs to be a zero tolerance toward any "improper" behavior and advances by gay individuals. But if men and women are able to be in the military side by side, then they should be mature enough to handle working with those who are openly gay.
I'm not too worried about them not being able to perform it's more the cohesion I worry about. The military was soo weird that if I was an outsider I'd probably think it was already all gay, actually having a gay guy in there would be just too much. The **** that people do that just caused laughs or arguments or maybe a drunken fight or two would really not go over too well if you were gay. I worry more so that if a situation arose that maybe they wouldn't try so hard to have the gay guys back or if you're unlucky enough something with more criminal intent. I do not think that the gay people would be less men than the straight, or that the Army would lower their APFT standards for them like they do women.
Further the whole combat arms environment is pretty much all about calling into question your sexuality every day, it's gonna be hard to motivate them by calling them a fairy or whatnot when they, well, are. the whole mentality would probably just have to change for it to work effectively or maybe put some kind of defense into sexual harrassment cases because they would run rampant if we allowed openly gay people in and afforded them any protection from the straight men.
I might feel differently where I to have joined as a different job but as an infantryman and the stuff we all did, all said, I think it would be very hard for it to work. If I was a cook, or patriot missile operator or something that required me to work in a tent all day with a bunch of other people in a more business or job like function I might have been exposed to a different environment that might be more receptive.
Of course the right answer is we should sit in the barracks and read our TM's, train in the field while treating each other with dignity and respect, and not make fun of each other for any reasons, but I don't see that happening.
Edit: And, sorry for saying this, but women in the military are a pain in the *** when you're in the infantry. I will never fill another sandbag or put up a tent for another woman again. Ever. Do it yourself, why should I build every freaking tent for you people because you're incapable and not expected to be able to carry your on weight when all you're required to do is build your living area and deliver my food? I think I just hated all non infantry personel, telling me I couldn't smoke while resting during training because it may give away our position while I'm chilling in a giant tent city, with various humvees and 5 tons going in and out, surrounded by running generators powering all their laptops and air conditioned tents while I bake in the sun or rain in my fox hole that I have to keep moving every couple of hours because they're not happy with it's placement? /end rant.
I do think there are women that can contribute, I'm against the lowering of the standards for them, as even our dumbest weakest guy had to fill his own sand bags but the women can't? Hold them to the same standard and I wouldn't be so bitter.
Further the whole combat arms environment is pretty much all about calling into question your sexuality every day, it's gonna be hard to motivate them by calling them a fairy or whatnot when they, well, are. the whole mentality would probably just have to change for it to work effectively or maybe put some kind of defense into sexual harrassment cases because they would run rampant if we allowed openly gay people in and afforded them any protection from the straight men.
I might feel differently where I to have joined as a different job but as an infantryman and the stuff we all did, all said, I think it would be very hard for it to work. If I was a cook, or patriot missile operator or something that required me to work in a tent all day with a bunch of other people in a more business or job like function I might have been exposed to a different environment that might be more receptive.
Of course the right answer is we should sit in the barracks and read our TM's, train in the field while treating each other with dignity and respect, and not make fun of each other for any reasons, but I don't see that happening.
Edit: And, sorry for saying this, but women in the military are a pain in the *** when you're in the infantry. I will never fill another sandbag or put up a tent for another woman again. Ever. Do it yourself, why should I build every freaking tent for you people because you're incapable and not expected to be able to carry your on weight when all you're required to do is build your living area and deliver my food? I think I just hated all non infantry personel, telling me I couldn't smoke while resting during training because it may give away our position while I'm chilling in a giant tent city, with various humvees and 5 tons going in and out, surrounded by running generators powering all their laptops and air conditioned tents while I bake in the sun or rain in my fox hole that I have to keep moving every couple of hours because they're not happy with it's placement? /end rant.
I do think there are women that can contribute, I'm against the lowering of the standards for them, as even our dumbest weakest guy had to fill his own sand bags but the women can't? Hold them to the same standard and I wouldn't be so bitter.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
His question was totally valid. The issue at hand is "full disclosure"Stoney Mason said:
It would be similar to scenario where if at a Nintendo press conference, one of the reporters asking questions turned out to be Phil Harrison. His questions could be totally legit and accurate, but you as an audience would still want to know where he's coming from and also to be informed of any possibility of biased motives. It's also like an act of good faith on the part of the questioner just to clear the air and ameliorate charges of bias.
Just to know, ya know? Because it's half the battle.
Edit: Cooper also mentioned this on the post debate analysis, too. Took me a while to find the transcript.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0711/28/acd.01.html
If it wasn't such a big deal, Anderson Cooper wouldn't have gotten embarrassed by this revelation. Full disclosure. Serious Business.
siamesedreamer
Banned
Gaborn said:
Gawd you're dense. If the question had come from an unaffiliated person, then it would have been completely appropriate. It didn't. It came from a person who is working with the Clinton campaign.
I look forward to the next Democrat debate, where Chris Wallace introduces Karl Rove to ask leading questions from the right, since doing that is so important to finding out which of my left-leaning party's candidates I'll put my support behind. I implore you all--especially Stoney Mason, who famously suggested Dems shouldn't go on Fox News-organized debates, because the Republican shills there might ask the Dems a question--to start a letter campaign into the next venue.
It's not really that big of a deal but the sneakyness of it is what irks people.
Let me put it this way. If the Dems went on a Foxnews debate and one of the questions came from a Gulliani staffer would everyone here on the left be having the same reaction?
Let me put it this way. If the Dems went on a Foxnews debate and one of the questions came from a Gulliani staffer would everyone here on the left be having the same reaction?
Stoney Mason
Banned
APF said:
To clarify I said Dems should go on Fox because A.) it isn't a legitimate news organization based on prior reporting and B.) Because that audience doesn't represent there interests so they don't anything by it voter wise. In other words I thought it was bad strategy. Not evil!
If they do go on Fox however, they are open to all legitimate questions. Whether it's Karl Rove asking the questions or Brit Hume (same difference to be honest).
Stoney Mason
Banned
Rentahamster said:
Like I said, I could go either way. It wouldn't have overly bothered me if he had been identified either by himself or the announcer but it doesn't bother me that he wasn't. As far as I can tell none of the other Youtube questioners were researched and vetted to make sure there jobs were legit or they were true conservatives who had signed an oath of loyalty either. As I said, I still don't see the issue whether Cooper apologizes 50 times or not.
- Status