[quote]Mick28 wrote:
This is a good idea as long as they don’t talk over each others presentations. No one learns anything if they can’t hear what’s being said. Maybe one moderator there just to keep it flowing smoothly.
Yea, good idea.
[/quote]
It wouldn’t be a spoken debate. It would be completely written like here in the political forums of T-Nation.
[quote]100meters wrote:
It’s almost like your deliberately missing the point. Just say I’m glad Russert lied, or Russert shouldn’t have lied—[/quote]
What is this cryptic nonsense? This is the same useless comeback you used on the Social Security thread - “just say you don’t like SS and you want to do away with it” as a reply to an argument you don’t like criticizing it. Do you have anything other than this one pathetic go-to move?
As for Russert lying - why would he lie? Clinton is a flawed candidate trying to avoid coming down on the sides of issues for political advantage - and it is naturally tying her up. Everyone sees this, including her rivals to her Left.
Obviously you didn’t read the article or view the chart I posted above.
[quote]Did you look at the study, or uh just pull this summary from Drudge?
Because if you didn’t pull it from Drudge then you’re making shit up.[/quote]
Why are you mentioning Drudge? I didn’t - not did I even cite an article from Drudge. It was from Investor’s Business Daily - where is this whine about Drudge?
This is all you have - the candidate you don’t like “lies every day!”…? What, are you 13 years old?
Who is talking about Drudge? Take a Ritalin and keep up.
Enjoy the provided chart.
Seriously, 100meters - your response was just sad to behold. Clinton has problems - you can still wear your “Hillary 08” pin with pride and still objectively discuss her weaknesses, one of which is her trying to “ride the tiger” by staying vague so as to placate the base enough to win the nomination but not disqualify herself in a general election. Every candidate has weaknesses, and Hillary’s inconsistencies are hers. It is a legitimate point for debate. Anyone with a functioning brain stem sees this - left, right, and center.
To be frank, for all your whining about mindless Bush followers - you aren’t any different.
EDIT: posted chart.
Attempt to post chart - the other one didn’t seem to go through.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[/quote]
You just keep going over everything I say without reading it.
It’s not why would Russert lie for the millionth time. He did tell lies, in addition he allowed other candidates to lie without correcting. In fact this debate was like none other in the way they went after one candidate.
again:
RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, I want to clear something up which goes to the issue of credibility. You were asked at the AARP debate whether or not you would consider taxing, lifting the cap from $97,500, taxing that, raising more money for Social Security. You said, quote, �??It�??s a no.�?? I asked you the same question in New Hampshire, and you said �??no.�??
Then you went to Iowa and you went up to Tod Bowman, a teacher, and had a conversation with him saying, �??I would consider lifting the cap perhaps above $200,000.�?? You were overheard by an Associated Press reporter saying that. Why do you have one public position and one private position?
At that AARP debate she had said:
RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, would you be in favor of saying to the American people? "I’m going to tax your income. I’m not going to cap at $97,500. Everyone, even if you’re a millionaire, is going to pay Social Security tax on every cent they make.�??
CLINTON (9/26/07, continuing directly): Well, Tim, let me tell you what I think about this because I know this is a particular concern of yours. But I want to make three points very briefly.
First, I do think that it’s important to talk about fiscal responsibility. You know, when my husband left office after moving us toward a balanced budget and a surplus, we had a plan to make Social Security solvent until 2055. Now, because of the return to deficits, we’ve lost 14 years of solvency. It’s now projected to be solvent until 2041. Getting back on a path of fiscal responsibility is absolutely essential.
Number two, I think we do need another bipartisan process. You described what happened in '83. It took presidential leadership, and it took the relationship between the White House and Capitol Hill to reach the kind of resolution that was discussed.
And I think that has to be what happens again, but with a president who is dedicated to Social Security, unlike our current president, who has never liked Social Security. You can go back and see when he first ran for Congress he was dissing Social Security. So when I’m president, I will do everything to protect and preserve Social Security so we can have that kind of bipartisanship.
And finally, then you can look in the context of fiscal responsibility and of a bipartisan compromise what else might be done. But I think if you don’t put fiscal responsibility first, you’re going to really make a big mistake, because we demonstrated in the '90s it had a lot to do with moving us toward solvency.
RUSSERT: But you would not take lifting the cap at 97-5 off the table?
CLINTON: Well, I take everything off the table until we move toward fiscal responsibility and before we have a bipartisan process. I don’t think I should be negotiating about what I would do as president. You know, I want to see what other people come to the table with.
And on and on it went at last weeks debate. She had never said no, but Russert lied(surely he has access to the transcripts of his own debate)
What had she told Bowman:
“The Democratic presidential contender told an Iowa voter she would be willing to consider an idea that her Democratic rival John Edwards has been promoting raising Social Security taxes on high-income earners.”
But Pumpkin head has happy to let Edwards pile on with:
EDWARDS: [S]he said in our last debate that she was against any changes on Social Security�??benefits, retirement aid, or raising the cap on the Social Security tax. But apparently, it�??s been reported that she said privately something different than that.
And I think the American people, given this historic moment in our country�??s history, deserve a president of the United States that they know will tell them the truth, and won�??t say one thing one time and something different at a different time.
RUSSERT: You stand behind the word �??double-talk?�??
EDWARDS: I do.
Nevermind there had been no double talk, just the normal sensible answer.
So can you please just stop saying why would he lie? He lied, it’s either good or bad or you don’t care.
And yes you posted the chart that generically makes the point I was making. Also in posting it you’ve again glossed over what I wrote. The only reason “dems” get better favor is soley based on Obama getting ridiculous amounts of positive press
(from the study:" * Most of that difference in tone, however, can be attributed to the friendly coverage of Obama (47% positive) and the critical coverage of McCain (just 12% positive.) When those two candidates are removed from the field, the tone of coverage for the two parties is virtually identical.").
If you compare say Clinton and Rudy, the coverage was the same. Again that’s the opposite point you were trying to make. Shorter: The reality is opposite of your biased perception.
But Obama and McCain are included. Let’s say Obama drops out, or the primaries are over, and Hillary gets the nomination instead of Obama. And because he gets the favorable focus, naturally his policies will seem better. So, even if he doesn’t get the nomination, the candidates whose policies mostly resemble his (Democrats) will benefit. Favorable coverage isn’t going to jump from the liberal Obama, to a republican.
It’s good to see lefties admitting to the general bias of the news media. Though they may not approve of which liberal is getting the lion’s share of the friendly spotlight, they’re not arguing that a liberal candidate isn’t. In fact, the argument is that too much is given to one (Obama), while excluding others (Hillary).
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
This ridiculously long campaign season is bad news for Hillary. There is blood in the water and plenty of time for her to get chewed up.
True enough theoretically, but there is no one who is going to be able to eat her lunch.
If the Republicans can refrain from similar tactics the Dems might be in trouble in 08.
The republicans have ZERO chance of beating Hillary. The only way that the dems lose is for Obama rama or some other equally lousy candidate to win the nomination…and that ain’t happening.
One more thing, Rudy’s greatest “liability,” his personal life, is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT off the table with hillary as his opponent.
Can you imagine the FIELD DAY he would have if she even hints at it?
JeffR
But, you’re forgetting one very important detail. The largest voting block who cares about anyones personal life is the religious right. Hillary never had a chance with those voters to begin with. However, Rudy, as the republican candidate, cannot win without them.
So, if Hillary is smart she will have a few of her mercenaries (while she keeps her hands clean) bring up Rudy’s personal life.
The more his personal life becomes a focus the more the religious right stays away.
And one more thing that I forgot to mention: The liberal press will be all over Rudy from the beginning to the end. They want Hillary so bad that they can taste it.
No…it’s not a pretty scene.
[/quote]
Pat Robertson (Founder of the Christian Coalition) endorsed Rudy today.
JeffR
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Attempt to post chart - the other one didn’t seem to go through.[/quote]
Thunder bringing it strong.
lumpy/bradley/100meters, you might want to change your tactic.
No one can reasonably deny that traditional (and plenty of nontraditional) news sources are much more supportive of democratic candidates.
However, when you try to deny this, it ruins any other argument you try to make.
If you wanted to discuss a lefty like russert, you would do well to start with, “russert, a typical lefty hack, is being too hard on one of our own.”
Then, and only then, would people discuss with you whether his questions have merit.
In essence, you strike out before you reach base.
Just a friendly bit of advice from your pal on the Right who doesn’t enjoy trampling on weaklings. Your friend likes his lefties to have a little competence.
There’s no honor in winning debates against an inferior opponent.
Get to work.
JeffR
[quote]100meters wrote:
And yes you posted the chart that generically makes the point I was making.[/quote]
Really? Then you must be up in arms that someone logged in as you and posted this under your name, which is the opposite of what you are saying now:
Also note: the MSM media is a hostile place to debate if you’re a democratic canidate, especially if you are a clinton.
And yet, the report completely contradicts your first statement that MSM media is a hostile place for Democratic candidates.
And you call Russert a liar? No wonder you are so fond of Hillary and her doublespeak, although hers seems calculated - yours, not so much.
As to the rest of your half-coherent babble, it’s barely readable and it doesn’t defend your point - you are obviously cutting and pasting from various sources, but not linking.
Wrong. I merely provided the study to refute your assertion that the MSM was “hostile” to Democratic candidates. If the coverage is the same between Rudy and Hillary, for example, that means - wait for it - the MSM isn’t “hostile” to Hillary. You proved yourself wrong - nice going.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
100meters wrote:
And yes you posted the chart that generically makes the point I was making.
Really? Then you must be up in arms that someone logged in as you and posted this under your name, which is the opposite of what you are saying now:
Also note: the MSM media is a hostile place to debate if you’re a democratic canidate, especially if you are a clinton.
And yet, the report completely contradicts your first statement that MSM media is a hostile place for Democratic candidates.
And you call Russert a liar? No wonder you are so fond of Hillary and her doublespeak, although hers seems calculated - yours, not so much.
As to the rest of your half-coherent babble, it’s barely readable and it doesn’t defend your point - you are obviously cutting and pasting from various sources, but not linking.
If you compare say Clinton and Rudy, the coverage was the same. Again that’s the opposite point you were trying to make. Shorter: The reality is opposite of your biased perception.
Wrong. I merely provided the study to refute your assertion that the MSM was “hostile” to Democratic candidates. If the coverage is the same between Rudy and Hillary, for example, that means - wait for it - the MSM isn’t “hostile” to Hillary. You proved yourself wrong - nice going.[/quote]
Actually the study showed Clinton more negatives than positive.
Please read before posting.
Also Russert is a liar—He did lie ( you keep missing that)
Also you said favorable coverage of Obama and Hillary. That is what I was correcting. She didn’t get favorable coverage, therefore what you said wasn’t factually correct. How’s about just going and reading the study?