GOP Presidential Debate 15 May 2007

[red states rule]

He wasn't asked to defend what he said. Hannity asked hima question, and Paul was allowed to get maybe three words out of his mouth before Sean launched off on a Republican talking points tirade about why he was "wrong."

He acted EXACTLY like the liberal talk show/debate hosts he rails against, and the reason I quit watching those shows to begin with. I want to hear what the person has to say.

Shouting someone down just proves to me the message is feared.

I did not see the exchange

Normally Sean cuts someone else when he asks them a question and they start talking about something else

Paul did not make any sense about "trying to understand" terrorists - he his history in the primaries

 

[Gunny]

So you would agree then, that he deserves to continue being heard by all Americans?

If the man would get more than 2 minutes a shot, maybe Americans could be better exposed to his ideas. He gets hardly any coverage at all. I don't even see him listed in the top 10 candidates in some mainstream polls, but he's definitely one of the most popular candidates, at least in the online community...which let's face it, carries a significant amount of weight these days. He's being unfairly blacked out, and i tend to wonder why that truely is.

Of course I agree he should be heard. Republicans and Democrats BOTH black out anyone that asks the uncomfortable questions. It's the only TRUE bipartisanship between the two parties ... ensuring there aren't more than TWO parties.

 

[Gunny]

I did not see the exchange

Normally Sean cuts someone else when he asks them a question and they start talking about something else

Paul did not make any sense about "trying to understand" terrorists - he his history in the primaries

No, Hannity launches into his tirade anytime someone doesn't follow the neocon party line to the letter. I wasn't watching the post-debate interviews to hear Sean Hannity's viewpoints on jack shit.

And I will make a simple, logical point ... if you do not understand what motivates your enemy, you make defeating that enemy all that much more difficult. In that sense, Paul made perfect sense.

Sure he's history. He doesn't kiss the two-party-system ass. I don't even know how he mananged to get included in the debates at all. Thinking outside the two-party-system lines is not to be tolerated.

 

[red states rule]

No, Hannity launches into his tirade anytime someone doesn't follow the neocon party line to the letter. I wasn't watching the post-debate interviews to hear Sean Hannity's viewpoints on jack shit.

And I will make a simple, logical point ... if you do not understand what motivates your enemy, you make defeating that enemy all that much more difficult. In that sense, Paul made perfect sense.

Sure he's history. He doesn't kiss the two-party-system ass. I don't even know how he mananged to get included in the debates at all. Thinking outside the two-party-system lines is not to be tolerated.

Hannioty has disagreed with Pres Bush and Republicans on many issues. I have seen him "attack" people in the manner to describe when guests do not answer the question he asked

He is history because he is a kook - not because of the two party system

 

[zappaneese]

I have seen him "attack" people in the manner to describe when guests do not answer the question he asked

nope. he does the same thing you do, you've learned well, young padawan. somebody answers your question and you refuse to hear the answer and just stick to your talking points. how many times on this thread have people told you that hunting down terrorists and understanding their motives are not mutually exclusive. BUT, you continue to say that we just want to hug them. it is a clear case of not having an answer therefore you just bulldog the talking points you are comfortable with.

He is history because he is a kook - not because of the two party system

and, up this point, you have defined his kookiness so well. oh, wait, you've done no such thing.

 

[Gunny]

Hannioty has disagreed with Pres Bush and Republicans on many issues. I have seen him "attack" people in the manner to describe when guests do not answer the question he asked

He is history because he is a kook - not because of the two party system

Hannity disagrees with only those conservatives/Republicans who stray from the fold. It isn't "not answering the question he asks" ... it's not providing the answer he is looking for.

You call Ron Paul a kook; yet, you, Mr Republican Rulebook support that RINO Guiliani?

What you are making VERY clear is you support a political party, NOT the political ideal of conservatism.

 

[pegwinn]

The televised debates are a waste of my time. Everyone weighs in on the rules, the allowed questions, etc. It is scripted to the nth degree.

What I want to see goes something like this.

The debate is held by the FEC. All the designated candidates must show up.

The timekeeper holds up a huge fishbowl that has questions in it gathered from an online site where anyone can ask anything they wish.

The timekeeper draws a question and then randomly selects one person.

The question is asked and the person gets two minutes to answer it. At the 120 second mark the timekeeper cuts the mike of the speaker.

The timekeeper randomly selects another participant to rebut the first speaker. He gets one minute and his mike is cut off.

Repeat until all attendees have answered three questions and rebutted at least two. Because it is random (say by spinning a wheel ala wheel of fortune) it can be over in an hour or go on for hours on end. And it is shown on PBS.

Sign off and schedule the next one for a week later. Repeat until sixty days before the primaries or general election.

IF you fail to appear, you don't get no matching fed $$$ for your campaign.

What the hell, I can dream right?

 

[pegwinn]

What you are making VERY clear is you support a political party, NOT the political ideal of conservatism.

LOL, V ring Guns

 

[Gunny]

The televised debates are a waste of my time. Everyone weighs in on the rules, the allowed questions, etc. It is scripted to the nth degree.

What I want to see goes something like this.

The debate is held by the FEC. All the designated candidates must show up.

The timekeeper holds up a huge fishbowl that has questions in it gathered from an online site where anyone can ask anything they wish.

The timekeeper draws a question and then randomly selects one person.

The question is asked and the person gets two minutes to answer it. At the 120 second mark the timekeeper cuts the mike of the speaker.

The timekeeper randomly selects another participant to rebut the first speaker. He gets one minute and his mike is cut off.

Repeat until all attendees have answered three questions and rebutted at least two. Because it is random (say by spinning a wheel ala wheel of fortune) it can be over in an hour or go on for hours on end. And it is shown on PBS.

Sign off and schedule the next one for a week later. Repeat until sixty days before the primaries or general election.

IF you fail to appear, you don't get no matching fed $$$ for your campaign.

What the hell, I can dream right?

You mean you want these candidates to have to actually think for themselves and shoot from the hip?

That's asking for a thousand yard kill from a snubby .38 special.

 

[pegwinn]

You mean you want these candidates to have to actually think for themselves and shoot from the hip?

That's asking for a thousand yard kill from a snubby .38 special.

Yeah I know. I was hoping that someone would fire up and it would magically land on something relevent. As MLK said, "I have a dream......"

 

[Gunny]

Yeah I know. I was hoping that someone would fire up and it would magically land on something relevent. As MLK said, "I have a dream......"

I really didn't watch the actual debates for the reasons you have stated. They're scripted and no one has to so much as break a sweat.

I think the whole idea is dumb. It takes me back to the televised debates the Democrats held in 1979. I don't recall all of the participants, but they basically got on tv and just butchered one another. If they even HAD a chance to win the election, they screwed themselves out of it. My opinion of televised debates hasn't changed since then.

As far as these current debates are concerned, when the Republicans get a REAL candidate, somebody let me know and I'll watch. This choosing one of the Keystone Cops crap isn't making it with me.

I just happened to turn on the tube and catch the Hannity & Cadaver act at the end. I wish I could remember who they interviewed after Ron Paul. Hannity did a complete 180 and did just about everything but swallow.

 

[pegwinn]

Hannity did a complete 180 and did just about everything but swallow.

Gives a whole new meaning to "Talking Head".

 

[red states rule]

Hannity disagrees with only those conservatives/Republicans who stray from the fold. It isn't "not answering the question he asks" ... it's not providing the answer he is looking for.

You call Ron Paul a kook; yet, you, Mr Republican Rulebook support that RINO Guiliani?

What you are making VERY clear is you support a political party, NOT the political ideal of conservatism.

You must have missed it when Hannity went after Pres Bush and Republicans on not securing the border, spending, the mistakes made in Iraq, and walking away from Reagan conservatism.