GOP whimpering about media already

[Synthaholic]

Most people are for the Keystone Pipeline

False. And the more press those Canadian tar sand spills get the more people don't want it happening here.

I thought Republicans didn't want to create jobs that weren't long-term? That's their argument against infrastructure spending. But creating a short term pipe building project is fine? More hypocrisy.

Most jobs that democrats propose aren't long term jobs. Since democrats are for short term jobs (especially infrastructure spending) then why are they against building a pipeline? More hypocrisy.

This is retarded.

Democrats are against it for environmental reasons, not job reasons.

Republicans favor short-term pipeline projects but are against short-term school or bridge construction.

 

[Synthaholic]

just like most people are for a valid ID for voting. This of course doesn't make it right but it does show some of the weaknesses and uphill battles the democrats are going to have (not to mention Obamacare which most people are still against). I do agree with you about Bernard Shaw and I would characterize his question as a "gotcha moment".

Tell me why an official ID from a North Carolina State University - which is accredited by the state of North Carolina(!) - should not be valid for voting.

Because it might not have a valid address on it? I don't think you need to show a birth certificate or proof of who you are to get a college ID. Let me know if I'm wrong.

Then why don't they just change that?

Make college IDs more comprehensive. All this would be verified at admissions.

Your move.

 

[Synthaholic]

I love it when I make them just quietly slink away.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I love it when I make them just quietly slink away.

Yep. you're just like a turd in a punchbowl...

 

[JohnL.Burke]

False. And the more press those Canadian tar sand spills get the more people don't want it happening here.

I thought Republicans didn't want to create jobs that weren't long-term? That's their argument against infrastructure spending. But creating a short term pipe building project is fine? More hypocrisy.

Most jobs that democrats propose aren't long term jobs. Since democrats are for short term jobs (especially infrastructure spending) then why are they against building a pipeline? More hypocrisy.

This is retarded.

Democrats are against it for environmental reasons, not job reasons.

Republicans favor short-term pipeline projects but are against short-term school or bridge construction.

What is retarded is that there is no environmental reason to be against the Keystone pipeline project, at least according to Obama's own state department analysis. For those against the burning of fossil fuels to begin with, the oil from the pipeline will either go to other countries where it will be processed and used or it will come here where our processing plants are far cleaner and environmentally friendly than say China's, where much of the canadian oil would go.
Also, the canadian pipeline would create more "short term" jobs than Obama's 830 billion stimulus for shovel ready projects.
On top of the obvious points that disproves your posts unsubstantiated assertions (and slight hysteria), I would just add that annual tax revenue from property taxes from the pipeline will be going to local communities which would help pay for schools, hospitals, etc.

[ame=http://youtu.be/mJrdoGxCTzM]Flashback: 'Shovel-Ready' From Lauded To Laughter - YouTube[/ame]

 

[JohnL.Burke]

Tell me why an official ID from a North Carolina State University - which is accredited by the state of North Carolina(!) - should not be valid for voting.

Because it might not have a valid address on it? I don't think you need to show a birth certificate or proof of who you are to get a college ID. Let me know if I'm wrong.

Then why don't they just change that?

Make college IDs more comprehensive. All this would be verified at admissions.

Your move.

Why make college IDs more comprehensive? Don't you need a valid ID to get a school ID? I would assume this is why no birth certificate or proof of address is needed.
Why do I get the impression that this nonissue comes from the same minds that brought us the Obama mask wearing rodeo clown travesty. We are really scraping the bottom of the barrel when it comes to manufactured hypocritical outrage these days.
Anyway, I thought the main reason some on the left were against voter ID was because free IDs are too expensive for poor people. That seems to be the argument anyway.
At least, in the real world, most people are endowed my common sense and are for voter ID. Including a vast majority of democrats.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

I love it when I make them just quietly slink away.

The only person slinking away is your from your own laughable and easily disproved insistence that most people are against the Keystone Pipeline.

 

[Trajan]

I'm going to have to disagree with you. I think the GOP would give their left nut to have a FOX news commentator moderating. Especially if they replaced people like Candy Crowly and George Stephanopoulos. I don't think O'Reilly or Hannity would be in the running for moderator but certainly Bill Chrystal, Brit Hume, Megan Kelly, Charles Krauthammer, Greta Van Sustern might be.

Britt Hume, definitely yes.


anyway, this has been one of the more instructive and revealing threads around for a while,

now in all seriousness, notice how the folks whom have have had a lock on every single slot for every single presidential debate, since day 1, ( I mean having a moderator moderate a pres. debate who is writing a book on the prez...I mean come on, seriously? ) how many chances has that added up to? 30? 40? 100?

yet when you even question that paradigm they get all antsy and start their trademark splenetic gobbledegook unreal, you have to possess a special kind of head up the ass my crap don't stink holier than thou mindset to get worked up because someone even questions your absolute franchise...I mean how dare us for asking..

and then of course when you mention that obama edwards and hillary took a powder on a Fox debate....huh? what?

^^^ Actually believes FOXNEWS is a journalistic enterprise.

hey obama back tracked on that ....of course its simply coincidence that cbs abc nbc cnn pbs are journalistic enterprises and that they have the franchise on moderating but slant left...but, for some reason no one has yet to quantify, they are 'better' journalistic enterprises than fox, because....you think so, there by reinforcing your own bias, how wonderful for you!!!!

 

[Trajan]

No, the Fox commentators would not be a good choice for a debate moderator just as the MSMBC commentators would be a poor choice. Although there are no truly impartial newscasters are commentators, the moderator must have a reputation for impartiality regardless of what their opinions might be. Most Americans know that Fox News is strongly biased to the Right just as they know MSNBC is strongly biased to the Left, more so than the other networks. This is not where you look for an impartial moderator.

What moderators in the past would you consider impartial?

Gwen Ifill, Judy Woodruff, Jim Lehrer, Martha Raddatz, Peter Jennings, Ann Compton, Charles Gibson, Bernard Shaw, Sander Vanocur, Hal Bruno, Marvin Kalb, Norma Quarles, Howard K. Smith, Edwin Newman, Frank Reynolds, Pauline Frederick, Max Frankel, Richard Valeriani, Henry L. Trewitt, Robert Maynard, Jack Nelson, Marilyn Berger, Walter Mears, James Gannon, Frank McGee, etc.


Moderators are bolded. The others were panelists, who asked questions. I wish they would go back to that format.

Past panelists were Brit Hume and Morton Kondrake, so RW-ers haven't been excluded. Barbara Walters was a moderator in 1976, and one other time, I think. Back then she wasn't partisan like she is now. As she has gotten older, she has gotten more Liberal. Helen Thomas was a panelist in the 1970s, for Reuters, and also wasn't a partisan (she never became one, and is only smeared by the wingnuts for her pro-Palestinian views). Carole Simpson, of ABC News, was a moderator, and although she wasn't a partisan, you'll claim she was because she's Black.

But this list includes reporters from the Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, Baltimore Sun, AP, NY Times, WaPo, LA Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Chicago Tribune, Newsday, and more.

So, which are Leftwing partisans?

gwenn ifill was putting together a book on Obama and black politics for publication when she moderated that debate, but of course that doesn't matter, becasue shes somehow better at journalistic enterprises....because...well, because, .....because....

 

[Trajan]

No, the Fox commentators would not be a good choice for a debate moderator just as the MSMBC commentators would be a poor choice. Although there are no truly impartial newscasters are commentators, the moderator must have a reputation for impartiality regardless of what their opinions might be. Most Americans know that Fox News is strongly biased to the Right just as they know MSNBC is strongly biased to the Left, more so than the other networks. This is not where you look for an impartial moderator.

first- I don't know of even anyone here who puts fox on par with msnbc or msnbc with abc or cbs et al.


second- most Americans know or feel that the nets and cnn and pbs are slanted left, its a wash.

Now, if your contention is, that fox is MORE slanted there by yours less so, and are not qualified to moderate a debate, well, it must be nice to always shoot from the moral high ground, where in you own some special dispensation from the normal run of humanity, where in you get to sit in judgment and decide who's worthy or not, becasue you know, you're 'better' and get to accord 'reputation' as to who's fair enough or not.

Ergo- the franchise on fairness is yours....



You guys, man oh man, talk about arrogance.

This is the Echo Chamber speaking through Trajan.

Brought to you by Rush Limbaugh.

the rush card I am sorry the truth hurts.....

 

[Trajan]

I think Bob Schieffer was the best moderator in recent years because he was unbiased and asked questions that mattered both to the candidates and the public. I seriously doubt that the committee would choose anyone that they felt would be biased because both parties must approve of the moderator. A moderator that has made derogatory comments toward either candidate or their campaign, which most Fox News commentators do on a regular basis, would damage the entire process.

I thought Bob Schieffer was alright. I preferred Jim Leher even though he got pillared by the left wing media. As other folks have pointed out though, Gwenn Ifill was working on a book about Obama when she became a moderator which was obviously a conflict of interest. Candy Crowley's insertion of her inaccurate portrayal of Obama's Benghazi speech was certainly over the top (the moderator in the debate should never become the story).
I simply disagree with your generalization of Fox News. Greta Van Sustern has certainly disagreed with Obama, as well as Bush. Why would she be a bad moderator? Because she holds everybody's chestnuts in the fire?
Many moderators have made derogatory comments on right wing presidential nominees and the GOP in general. So it is not as if there is no history of what you seem to be concerned about. After all, your favorite moderator, Bob Schieffer, always had a tumultuous relationship with Romney and yet you don't seem concerned about the derogatory comments that came from Schieffer.

The Romney Campaign's Strange Relationship with Bob Schieffer - Connor Simpson - The Atlantic Wire

It's not a moderator's job to play 'gotcha', or to hold anyone's chestnuts in the fire.

The job is to ask questions that are of concern to the American public, and to keep the candidates from deflecting, or filibustering.

That's it.

so, candy crowley?