Obama, Clinton to skip Fox-backed debate

1235»

Comments

  • callen
    callen Posts: 6,388
    RainDog wrote:
    But let's be honest, you wouldn't have voted for any of them anyway.

    I don't think Fox News would try to tear down any of the Democratic candidates in any unfair way. Likely they would ask honest and legitimate questions, at least by presidential debate standards. I don't see their not appearing as a sign of fear. Hosting the debates would be a boon for the network; and I see this refusal as the candidates simply not wanting to assist in making Fox, notable for their slant and, to be frank, inaccurate reporting, appear as a reputable news source. Would the Republicans (or the Democrats for that matter) appear in a debate on Comedy Central?
    NO regular Fox viewer is ever going to vote for either of them....
    10-18-2000 Houston, 04-06-2003 Houston, 6-25-2003 Toronto, 10-8-2004 Kissimmee, 9-4-2005 Calgary, 12-3-05 Sao Paulo, 7-2-2006 Denver, 7-22-06 Gorge, 7-23-2006 Gorge, 9-13-2006 Bern, 6-22-2008 DC, 6-24-2008 MSG, 6-25-2008 MSG
  • Milhouse VanHouten
    Milhouse VanHouten Posts: 755
    suntzu98 wrote:
    You really don't see the problem with Presidential candidtates forgoing a debate that may in fact win over "hearts and minds"? The point here is to reach a broad spectrum not just your base, there are many on both sides of the aisle who are upset with one another, maybe to really reform and change you must reach out to those who have been forgotten and do a sponsored debate by a company maybe your ideals are not in line with and that my "liberal" friends is what should happen here.

    The primaries are mostly about motivating the base, the general is more about connecting to the electorate. In any case, why any liberal/progressive/Democrat would agree to appear on Fox News in any capacity eludes me.
    "Of course it hurts. You're getting fucked by an elephant."
  • Purple Hawk
    Purple Hawk Posts: 1,300
    So Libs are all about listening to the other side, they are all about dialogue, so long as they don't have to talk with conservatives....

    but talking with president tom, that's cool.

    and you wonder why you are painted as anti-american. well...duh.
    And you ask me what I want this year
    And I try to make this kind and clear
    Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
    Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
    And desire and love and empty things
    Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
  • Purple Hawk
    Purple Hawk Posts: 1,300
    callen wrote:
    NO regular Fox viewer is ever going to vote for either of them....

    do you even realize that the majority of fox viewers are not republicans?
    And you ask me what I want this year
    And I try to make this kind and clear
    Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
    Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
    And desire and love and empty things
    Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    Purple Hawk wrote:
    do you even realize that the majority of fox viewers are not republicans?
    They're a majority Republican and "independent" conservatives. They're not allowed to vote in the Democratic Primary.
  • suntzu98
    suntzu98 Posts: 100
    If we were talking about a democratic president the hatred would not as publizised as it has been towards the administration as it has been. Bill Maher has never gone after the Dems as hard as he has towards the Reps, don't even try to convince me that he has, the proof is in his guests, Helen Thomas, Barney Frank, Ben Affleck, etc... these are glaring counterpoints to your point, Bill stacks the playing field or have I been watching a different "Real Time"? The most glowing example has been Tony Snow, sit there and tell me Tony Snow isn't a brilliant man, he is and made Bill Maher look like the ignorant irrelevant comedian that he is. Oh before I forget Bill 'ORielly is a registered Independent, and the heated debate that I am sure most of you have seen on YouTube between Geraldo and 'OReilly you wouldn't seen that anywhere else.
    Philly '98 '00 (1 & 2) '03 '06 (1 & 2) '08 (1 & 2)
    East Rutherford '98
    Merriweather '98
    Gorge '05
    Vancouver '05
    Los Angeles I,II '06
    Santa Barbara '06
    Fonda Theater '06
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    suntzu98 wrote:
    If we were talking about a democratic president the hatred would not as publizised as it has been towards the administration as it has been. Bill Maher has never gone after the Dems as hard as he has towards the Reps, don't even try to convince me that he has, the proof is in his guests, Helen Thomas, Barney Frank, Ben Affleck, etc... these are glaring counterpoints to your point, Bill stacks the playing field or have I been watching a different "Real Time"? The most glowing example has been Tony Snow, sit there and tell me Tony Snow isn't a brilliant man, he is and made Bill Maher look like the ignorant irrelevant comedian that he is.

    Well the Republicans have been in power for 6 years now so of course they are going to be the target. While his panel maybe stacked with Democrats he goes after them as well. Look you have the right to your opinion, that's cool. Some people don't like him I do. The thing about Mahr is that he is a comedian, not a political commentator or reporter and he is not on a new channel that labels itself fair and balanced. Hannity and O'Reilly are political commentators and are on a news station that labels itself fair and balanced. Whiloe FoxNews can cater to any audience it pleases but labeling itself Fair and Balanced is an out right lie.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • suntzu98
    suntzu98 Posts: 100
    Mahr should stick to smoking pot and hanging out at the Playboy mansion, and doing his brand of comedy and maybe leave the politics alone just my opinion, maybe you get your news from Jon Stewart as well? It just shows me that the Dems are gonna puss out on every issue in the next election because they always do.....you think its bad now wait 18 months we will be fighting this war on our soil....count on it.
    Philly '98 '00 (1 & 2) '03 '06 (1 & 2) '08 (1 & 2)
    East Rutherford '98
    Merriweather '98
    Gorge '05
    Vancouver '05
    Los Angeles I,II '06
    Santa Barbara '06
    Fonda Theater '06
  • WMA
    WMA Posts: 175
    suntzu98 wrote:
    Mahr should stick to smoking pot and hanging out at the Playboy mansion, and doing his brand of comedy and maybe leave the politics alone just my opinion, maybe you get your news from Jon Stewart as well? It just shows me that the Dems are gonna puss out on every issue in the next election because they always do.....you think its bad now wait 18 months we will be fighting this war on our soil....count on it.

    Congrats then. The dems are obviously doing you a favor.

    I'm glad they aren't taking advice from people who want to see them fail personally ;)
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    suntzu98 wrote:
    Mahr should stick to smoking pot and hanging out at the Playboy mansion, and doing his brand of comedy and maybe leave the politics alone just my opinion, maybe you get your news from Jon Stewart as well? It just shows me that the Dems are gonna puss out on every issue in the next election because they always do.....you think its bad now wait 18 months we will be fighting this war on our soil....count on it.


    Personally I couldn't give a shit about the Democrats. I'm more of a libertarian and as of now am supporting Ron Paul for President. Second no I don't get my news from Jon Stewart I actually get my news from several sources, but thanks for the shitheaded assumption. Lastly if you believe the we need to fight them there so we don't have to fight them here line you really need to pull your head out of your ass. The 9/11 attacks was a fluke a lucky one in a billion shot. If you don't want to fight them here you beef up our security, her not in fucking Iraq. If you don't want to fight them here you stop supporting oppressive regimes like the Al Saud's. Funny thing that Saudi Arabia is one of the largest breeding grounds for militant islamisists but we really don't bother them. We instead attack Iraq, a country with no strong ties to international terrorism.

    Maybe you should start getting your news from Jon Stewart. God knows it's probabaly more accurate than the fecal matter your getting fed.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    suntzu98 wrote:
    Mahr should stick to smoking pot and hanging out at the Playboy mansion, and doing his brand of comedy and maybe leave the politics alone just my opinion, maybe you get your news from Jon Stewart as well? It just shows me that the Dems are gonna puss out on every issue in the next election because they always do.....you think its bad now wait 18 months we will be fighting this war on our soil....count on it.
    Politics is Mahr's brand of comedy, and has been for years.

    And I have to ask, do you really believe that disparate, warring cliques composed mainly of untrained and angry religious fundamentalists will, in the next 18 months, coalesce into a force capable of bringing "war" to our soil?

    So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will win hundred times in hundred battles. If you only know yourself, but not your opponent, you win one and lose the next. If you do not know yourself or your enemy, you will always lose. - Sun Tzu.
  • suntzu98
    suntzu98 Posts: 100
    A fluke? Really? Remember 93 or maybe USS Cole? Or embassy bombings? All under Clinton I might point out and he sat back and got blown by the secratary instead of defending OUR country which is what Bush is doing and will continue to do while in office, so stop with all the bullshit it will happen again unless we do something constructive to stop it.
    Philly '98 '00 (1 & 2) '03 '06 (1 & 2) '08 (1 & 2)
    East Rutherford '98
    Merriweather '98
    Gorge '05
    Vancouver '05
    Los Angeles I,II '06
    Santa Barbara '06
    Fonda Theater '06
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    suntzu98 wrote:
    A fluke? Really? Remember 93 or maybe USS Cole? Or embassy bombings? All under Clinton I might point out and he sat back and got blown by the secratary instead of defending OUR country which is what Bush is doing and will continue to do while in office, so stop with all the bullshit it will happen again unless we do something constructive to stop it.
    That's "war"?
  • suntzu98
    suntzu98 Posts: 100
    Yes It is.
    Philly '98 '00 (1 & 2) '03 '06 (1 & 2) '08 (1 & 2)
    East Rutherford '98
    Merriweather '98
    Gorge '05
    Vancouver '05
    Los Angeles I,II '06
    Santa Barbara '06
    Fonda Theater '06
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    suntzu98 wrote:
    Yes It is.
    That's kewl. Personally, I thought they were terrorist strikes meant to work the U.S. population up into a cycle of fear and violence, hoping to lead us into exhibiting irrational behavior on the world stage, all with the ultimate intent of having us appear foolish and reactionary to our allies and ineffective to our enemies, finally resulting in our diminishing influence as a leader of the free world and only remaining superpower.

    But you're right, that couldn't be the case. If it was, that would mean we were playing right into their hands; and we all know they couldn't possibly be smart enough for that.
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    suntzu98 wrote:
    A fluke? Really? Remember 93 or maybe USS Cole? Or embassy bombings? All under Clinton I might point out and he sat back and got blown by the secratary instead of defending OUR country which is what Bush is doing and will continue to do while in office, so stop with all the bullshit it will happen again unless we do something constructive to stop it.

    USS Cole and the Embassay bombing where not carried out in the US. You specifically said fighting them here, here means the 50 states. Yes those you mentioned where all under Clinton but why do you keep pointing oput the flaws of the Democrats when I have already stated that I do not support the Democrats. Yoe really think that our wonderfull Commander-in-chief is fight a war angainst terrorism. What about the terrorist organization, listed on our State Department's list of terroirist organizations, we are providing
    aid to based in Iraq.? What about the terrorist we have in this very country that our free, Orlando Bosch and soon to be free Luis Posada Carilles. Yes this administration is fighting terrorism so weel that in the past 6 years recruitment is up and Al Qaida has managed to reorganize itself, along with the Taliban, and it back at full force. As far as bullshit is concerned the only bullshit I see here is the one your slinging my friend.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • Rushlimbo
    Rushlimbo Posts: 832
    suntzu98 wrote:
    A fluke? Really? Remember 93 or maybe USS Cole? Or embassy bombings? All under Clinton I might point out and he sat back and got blown by the secratary instead of defending OUR country which is what Bush is doing and will continue to do while in office, so stop with all the bullshit it will happen again unless we do something constructive to stop it.

    Hehehe. Must have been one looooong blowjob to keep him from doing anything at all during his last term. I think you should backup your loyalty to Bush and his policies, here ya go if you wanna do something constructive
    >

    http://www.goarmy.com/flindex.jsp
    War is Peace
    Freedom is Slavery
    Ignorance is Strength
  • suntzu98
    suntzu98 Posts: 100
    Do you deny they happened? My point is they were all a surge to leading up to WTC 2001, or or they not? Had Clinton been president for 9 more months this too would have happened under his watchful eye. This is what is wrong with political debate in its entirety, no on refuses to give an inch when asking for much smaller then that. Admit it, it happened here and it will happen again no matter who is in office Dem or Rep both need to work together, how hard could it possibly be?
    Philly '98 '00 (1 & 2) '03 '06 (1 & 2) '08 (1 & 2)
    East Rutherford '98
    Merriweather '98
    Gorge '05
    Vancouver '05
    Los Angeles I,II '06
    Santa Barbara '06
    Fonda Theater '06
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    suntzu98 wrote:
    Do you deny they happened? My point is they were all a surge to leading up to WTC 2001, or or they not? Had Clinton been president for 9 more months this too would have happened under his watchful eye. This is what is wrong with political debate in its entirety, no on refuses to give an inch when asking for much smaller then that. Admit it, it happened here and it will happen again no matter who is in office Dem or Rep both need to work together, how hard could it possibly be?

    I never said that it will not happen again, anything is possible. Also I never said that Dem and Reps shouldn't work together to better this country. I would love nothing more that to see both parties put their differences aside and work together for a safer better country, but they don't do that. They do anything and everything to promote their side and widen the political rift in this country. That is why I will not vote Dem or Rep, except Ron Paul, because neither party has the leadership ability to reach across the aisle and work with the opposition.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    suntzu98 wrote:
    Do you deny they happened? My point is they were all a surge to leading up to WTC 2001, or or they not? Had Clinton been president for 9 more months this too would have happened under his watchful eye. This is what is wrong with political debate in its entirety, no on refuses to give an inch when asking for much smaller then that. Admit it, it happened here and it will happen again no matter who is in office Dem or Rep both need to work together, how hard could it possibly be?
    Very hard. Too often people think compromise and "working together" means "you need to agree with my side." Take the new war spending bill. Bush says he needs money for the Iraq war, the Democratic Congress says sure, provided you pull the troops out over the course of the next year. Bush says "absolutely not." We've yet to see what the next step is.

    Also, aside from the war, there are major differences between the core supporters of the left and right. The right generally wants abortion outlawed, the left generally wants it to stay legal. No compromise possible. The left generally wants universal healthcare, the right is strongly opposed to that. So, let's say that the right agrees to universal healthcare provided the left agrees to outlawing abortion. That would be working together - do you think it would make anyone happy?

Categories