That LATimes article is good. I posted up to it at one point but they stopped taking comments after it hit FARK.
I disagree with some of his thoughts [like the one on Biblical Inerrancy] but not for his reasoning. I just don't think the writer understands the meaning [significance] of the question, but unless you come from an area where that view is more prevalent and articulated you really don't get the big picture of the lack of critical thinking skills.
On a religious side note, the owner of the restaurant where I hang out has asked me to talk with my friend the evangelist as he is starting to hit up on the servers and trying to skim free food. Jesus, Mary, Joseph and Young!!!
It is the "YouTubing" of our political process that really pisses me off! The national election of our next President is a very serious matter, and this craze for irrelevant and contrived YouTube questions, designed to do nothing more than "out" the conservative opinions of the Republican candidates, which really bugs me. Those stupid videos are NOT questions, they are clichés pure and simple. And the drive-by media seems to love that shit! I cannot believe that even the Kookbergers here are buying into that crap!!!
So you are saying these candidates were forced to partcipate?
All three cable news networks do it, and it is abominable. These folks want to be part of the spectacle and influence the outcome of the game. Their role should be no greater than that of umpire in a baseball game, but they don't seem to see it that way. I recall idiots at Fox explaining the proper positions for Republican candidates to take (as if to say that taking other positions would deem them something other than Republican), and going to extraordinary measures to ridicule a candidate they fear, all during an actual debate. I recall Chris Matthews actually taking Fred Thompson to task by explaining how he should have answered a debate question, during the debate. The complaints voiced in the Op/Ed piece in the LA Times don't seem to reach quite that level, although I'll admit that I did not see the debate myself.
So you are saying these candidates were forced to partcipate?
Damn right they were forced to participate! What are they going to do walk of the stage? I do wish they would have at least selectively refused to answer some of the most ridiculous and/or offensive questions. But that gets a bit dicey too, since everyone knows that Kookbergers like you will blast them for refusing to answer a question and/or "hiding their true feelings" about a particular issue. When a network like CNN puts that kind of shit out there as a legitimate issue/question they damn well have to say something!
__________________
Don't believe everything you think
So you are saying these candidates were forced to partcipate?
Well, in a practical sense, the answer is yes. If they elect to stay away as a group, that would be different. But if one or two just don't participate, they will be out of the running.
Overall the whole "running for two years" and spending hundreds of millions of dollars to get through the primaries is nonsense. Each candidate should be given the same resources and then forced to win because the meaning of their message is more compelling. As it is, the actual message is becoming secondary to money collecting statistics, and their ability to spend money with the networks. I hear the free speech amendment argument and conclude it does not apply. The political campaign rules should be devised to benefit the American people, not special interests and corporations. The American people would be better off with candidates forced to run on a strict, bare bones budget where the message is the focal point, not the media. Jim
Well, in a practical sense, the answer is yes. If they elect to stay away as a group, that would be different. But if one or two just don't participate, they will be out of the running.
Overall the whole "running for two years" and spending hundreds of millions of dollars to get through the primaries is nonsense. Each candidate should be given the same resources and then forced to win because the meaning of their message is more compelling. As it is, the actual message is becoming secondary to money collecting statistics, and their ability to spend money with the networks. I hear the free speech amendment argument and conclude it does not apply. The political campaign rules should be devised to benefit the American people, not special interests and corporations. The American people would be better off with candidates forced to run on a strict, bare bones budget where the message is the focal point, not the media. Jim
Precisely.
I wonder if some of the vitriol against Hillary is grounded in the fact that she knows and plays this game SO WELL.
The corporate and special interests, sensing a winner, donate to her in ever larger amounts, and are abandoning their typical rouotine of donating principally to GOP candidates. They would not gamble on one they perceived to be a loser.
It is not for free, it is a business investment they made, and they will
demand their payback from Hillary if she gets to be President.
When Big Oil decides to start pouring huge $$$ into her coffers, it is all over.
__________________ "I think God is black. What's the matter, you have a problem with that? Are you afraid He is going to steal the moon or something?"
~~~Sarah Silverman
"Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative"
~~~Oscar Wilde
Linear Mode
