6

6/6/2007 7:56:33 AM

^^ haha hell yea i saw that

6/6/2007 11:03:18 AM

Line of the night:

"This Administration has a case of the slows!"
-Duncan Hunter

6/6/2007 11:13:14 AM

The first minute's pretty good. Do you think this language will become used a lot more by Republican candidates?

http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/?lnk=v&ml_video=88113

[Edited on June 6, 2007 at 7:01 PM. Reason : .]

6/6/2007 6:54:45 PM

Quote :

"7:02 I liked how the very first question of the debate was responded to by saying I wont answer it because its hypothetical."

That type of question ("Knowing what you know now...) is horrible, pointless, and annoys the shit out of me, regardless of what the topic of the question is. There are better questions to ask. He (Romney?) shouldn't have fought the question, though.

Quote :

"7:04 Also the first time McCain talked, it the bar on how much they like what you’re saying fell into the negatives right away and stayed there."

The only person that likes McCain is McCain.

Quote :

"7:20 Yay, lets all pre-emptively attack Iran. Nukes are on definitely on the table for us to use, b/c Iran has thousands of centrifuges. "

This was another stupid question.

Quote :

"7:36 English official language? No hands raised against it. I guess they are all okay with the whole not having translators in hospitals."

An official language is a non-issue. I'm not sure why it keeps coming up, and I'm not sure why everyone keeps repeating 'not having translators in hospitals' since that has nothting to do with an official language. Nonetheless, the topic was addressed horribly by most of the canidates. What we need is assimilation, not a single language.

Quote :

"7:45 God & Evolution"

Not this shit again. Ron Paul had the only right answer.

Quote :

"7:52 The republicans don't like Romney talking about the gas companies making too much money (and not re-investing it)"

I didn't realize the gas companies were under an obligation to re-invest.

Quote :

"7:59 Romney just had to give a non-apology apology for previously being okay with gays in the military b/c now hes against it while running for president on the republican ticket"

I like Ron Paul's answer about gays in the military.

Quote :

"8:05 Is it okay to pardon Libby? Almost all said I can't answer."

Yet another stupid question.

Quote :

"Anyone else notice that Romney turned a question on why he's for English being the official language and yet was running Spanish ads into selling technology to China?"

Romney == worthless

Quote :

"Reps: white male only Dems: white, black, hispanic, male, female"

I guess I don't judge my canidates by the color of their skin or by what's between their legs like you do.

Quote :

"it's funny how the moderation focuses most of the time on the supposed front runners instead of giving equal fucking time to everyone."

It's funny how the moderator spoke more (19:34) than any canidate (12:44).

----

All in all, more pointless drivel from politicians and talking heads.

[Edited on June 6, 2007 at 8:30 PM. Reason : ]

6/6/2007 8:29:32 PM

Did anyone catch the Presidential Forum on PBS last night. I wish they would have more debates without corporate sponsors.

Talk about entertainment. Kucinich and Gravel were zippin and zappin all over the place.

6/29/2007 9:02:47 PM

i missed it but if you have a link to it somewhere online that would rule

6/29/2007 10:01:15 PM

Quote :

"*** Dem Debate No. 4: Tonight’s CNN/YouTube Democratic debate from Charleston, SC will feature the eight Democratic candidates -- Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Edwards, Gravel, Kucinich, Obama, and Richardson -- responding to video questions submitted by the public. This debate, the first one of the cycle to be sanctioned by the Democratic National Committee and fourth one overall in the Dem race, begins at 7:00 pm ET. Will style trump substance? After all, technology is the star of tonight's debate, which makes normal debate expectations hard to assess. Many of the campaigns seem intent on taking a backseat to the technology. Still, expect the unexpected, right? It's YouTube, and one assumes CNN is going to take advantage of the fact that they can't be held responsible for the user questions. Will they cross some question lines that they wouldn't do with their own moderator? The candidates, we assume, have prepped for that outcome."

7/23/2007 11:07:28 AM

Hey, look, a Washington Post story ragging on Democrat presidential candidates for the YouTube debate. Even I don't think this criticism is fair.

Binary America: Split in Two by A Digital Divide

Quote :

"'Our presidential candidates may all have BlackBerrys, but they have no vision when it comes to bringing all our citizens to the 21st century. If you go to look at the presidential candidate Web sites, the word "Internet" practically doesn’t exist. Breaking the digital divide has not been recognized as a critical issue,' Rasiej continues. Two months ago, TechPresident challenged the candidates to adopt specific policies to get everyone online. 'Declare the Internet a public good in the same way we think of water, electricity, highways,' reads a policy statement. 'Commit to providing affordable high-speed wireless Internet access nationwide,' reads another. So far most of the candidates have not adopted any of it, Rasiej says. 'At one level, the YouTube debate shows that the Web has really become a centerpiece of American political culture,' adds Lee Rainie, director of Pew Internet. 'At another level, it also shows that the debate is not for everybody. It’s certainly not available to all Americans.'"

http://www.freepress.net/news/24802



[Edited on July 23, 2007 at 12:26 PM. Reason : .]

7/23/2007 12:22:43 PM

i'm looking forward to tonight

7/23/2007 4:12:43 PM

I'd like to see a question in regards to immigration reform and how every single one of those canidates voted againsts what the majority of americans wanted by giving amnesty. It would be interesting to just have a simple

"can you explain your reasoning behind voting for the recent immigration bill" You won't hear that questions on a cnn debate though....ohhh well

[Edited on July 23, 2007 at 4:24 PM. Reason : a]

7/23/2007 4:23:10 PM

ahahah. kucinich is for slave reparations.

also: this youtube debate is just as lame as any other debate.

7/23/2007 7:19:33 PM

i like it so far, i'm liking the direct and varied questions

7/23/2007 7:24:43 PM

i can't decide which is worse

this youtube debate or the overhyped Beckham debut on ESPN

7/23/2007 7:39:55 PM

I liked Obama's term "diplomatic surge"

7/23/2007 7:48:36 PM

haha that dude just gave out his cell phone number

too bad anderson cut him off though. would have made some good prank calls..

7/23/2007 8:09:45 PM

holy shit that one old guy is livid. i think he's gonna rip off anderson's head before the night's over with

7/23/2007 8:12:14 PM

Quote :

"holy shit that one old guy is livid. i think he's gonna rip off anderson's head before the night's over with"

Yea, Gravel is a "little" crazy.

7/23/2007 8:20:14 PM

x5 beckam by far

7/23/2007 9:24:47 PM

They talked about gay marriage some this time, but didn't get into don't ask don't tell much. Here was one of the video submitted but not aired that I found a link to from the Edwards website.



he's also responding live to questions being submitted on his website
http://johnedwards.com/watch/debate-webcast/

[Edited on July 23, 2007 at 9:42 PM. Reason : .]

7/23/2007 9:37:54 PM

man i really like joe biden. i didnt really know much about him before this but i like the guy's personality. straight edge and just tells it like it is.

probably not the greatest presidential candidate but a pretty damn good entertainer

7/23/2007 9:51:46 PM

I liked the format. It shouldn't be used for every debate, but every once in awhile down the road would be good.

Very interested to see the questions for the Republicans in September.

2 comments on Hillary:

-Notice she lionized the term liberal when asked what it meant, but refused to call herself one, and then called herself a progressive, a term that has about 10 definitions in political terms (Teddy Roosevelt, Bob LaFollette, a Vermont party to the left of Democrats).

-It pissed me off when she completely ignored that Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton question by saying "I thought it unfortunate Bush was elected in 2000."

[Edited on July 24, 2007 at 9:22 AM. Reason : .]

7/24/2007 9:21:49 AM

Quote :

"Edwards... he's also responding live to questions being submitted on his website "

He probably has the time. Looks like his rating tanked in the Drudge poll taken after the debate. 4% ??? Wake up the fat lady.

Quote :

"2 comments on Hillary:"

Yes she did duck the dynasty aspect. But poor Hillary was born way too late. Her soul is really from anothe era..the era of queens and royalty. You can see it in her face and physical movements...she hates having to grovel to get her power. She wants to be Queen so bad, it's eating her alive.

I hope Obama has the foresight to never make her his VP. I could see her pulling a LBJ/Dealey Plaza deal on him pretty quickly.

7/24/2007 11:06:33 AM

Quote :

"While maintaining his blasé attitude toward the 2008 election on Monday, the former Georgia congressman also took another shot at John McCain for the Arizona senator's namesake campaign finance reform law that closed the door to soft money and opened it to 527s and other independent fundraising groups. "I have no interest in the current political process. I have no interest in trying to figure out how I can go out and raise money under John McCain's insane censorship rules so I can show up to do seven minutes and twenty seconds at some debate." Speaking of debates, Gingrich also slammed the format and the candidates for becoming pawns to MSNBC commentator Chris Matthews. "You're watching an utterly irrelevant, shallow television celebrity dominate everybody who claimed they want to lead the most powerful nation in the world," he said, adding that he refused to "shrink to the level of 40-second answers, standing like a trained seal, waiting for someone to throw me a fish.""

lol

7/24/2007 11:59:50 AM

Out of 2000 submissions, the CNN-YouTube debate only used 50, according to CBS News. In addition, I don't think terrorism was mentioned once, which is ridiculous.

7/24/2007 6:55:37 PM

^ on the contrary, there were questions about terrorism. like this one:

Quote :

"Dear Presidential Candidates: President Bush and Mr. Gonzalez say terrorists are hiding under my bed. If you're elected president, what will YOU do to get rid of the terrorists under my bed? Sincerely, Joey Topeka, KS Age 9 "

7/24/2007 6:59:01 PM

^ Yes, terrorism is not happening.

London bombings toll rises to 37
A series of bomb attacks on London's transport network has killed more than 30 people and injured about 700 others

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4661059.stm

Police find second London car bomb

Quote :

"The vehicle was found to contain very similar materials to those that had been found in the first vehicle in Haymarket earlier today. There was a considerable amount of fuel, and gas canisters. As in the first vehicle, there was also a substantial quantity of nails."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2003808.ece

Quote :

"The intent [of terrorists] is. . .radiological or even nuclear--to include a nuclear yield. I would add, what we see currently is primarily a focus on explosives, explosives that can generate a large explosion, but they're put together with commercially available material."

Admiral Mike McConnell
Director of National Intelligence
Meet the Press
July 22, 2007

http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?f=00&t=s53&g=e10461f7-89e1-415c-aa58-80d1b6f8066e&p=hotvideo_m_edpicks

7/24/2007 7:25:05 PM

terrorism is a crime. task law enforcement (FBI/CIA/MI5/Interpol/UN___) to handle it.

meanwhile, the Sudanese government is engaging in genocide in Darfur. if we'd quit playing these stupid "war on drugs" and "war on terror" games, maybe we could spend some of our resources on solving a humanitarian crisis instead of creating them.

and other than that, we've got serious infrastructure problems that need to be addressed domestically.

you see, people are saying "fuck your terrorist boogeymen. we're not going to continue buying into the politics of fear"



[Edited on July 24, 2007 at 7:55 PM. Reason : ]

7/24/2007 7:54:44 PM

Quote :

"I hope Obama has the foresight to never make her his VP."

Obama/Biden FTW?

^^^^
I think some of the candidates in the other debates put too much emphasis on terrorism, or maybe just too much on specific tenets of it. How many times do we have to hear about the dangerous threat of islamofascisterrorism?

[Edited on July 24, 2007 at 8:17 PM. Reason : ]

7/24/2007 8:17:17 PM

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0707/5081.html

says John Edwards won the debate

the only thing i thought he won after last night was a nomination for father of the year

7/24/2007 8:29:18 PM

Quote :

"meanwhile, the Sudanese government is engaging in genocide in Darfur. if we'd quit playing these stupid "war on drugs" and "war on terror" games, maybe we could spend some of our resources on solving a humanitarian crisis instead of creating them. "

why do WE have to go to the Sudan? Why can't some big international agency actually get off their asses and go do something? Oh, and remind me again how well that whole Somalia thing went? Seems to me that if we'd quit fucking around with other countries and quit sticking our noses where they don't belong, then we'd be doing a whole lot better

7/24/2007 8:48:23 PM

why do WE have to go to Iraq? Why can't some big international agency actually get off their asses and go do something? Seems to me that if we'd quit fucking around with other countries and quit sticking our noses where they don't belong, then we'd be doing a whole lot better

7/24/2007 9:15:08 PM

i don't disagree, actually.

7/24/2007 9:17:37 PM

Quote :

"meanwhile, the Sudanese government is engaging in genocide in Darfur. if we'd quit playing these stupid 'war on drugs' and 'war on terror' games, maybe we could spend some of our resources on solving a humanitarian crisis instead of creating them."

joe_shithead

Enough with you liberals and Darfur already, for fuck's sake. What about the genocide committed against the Kurds by Saddam Hussein? Where was your outrage then? "Conspicuously absent," yes?

Life Under Saddam Hussein: Past Repression and Atrocities by Saddam Hussein's Regime

Quote :

"Human Rights Watch estimates that Saddam's 1987-1988 campaign of terror against the Kurds killed at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 Kurds. The Iraqi regime used chemical agents to include mustard gas and nerve agents in attacks against at least 40 Kurdish villages between 1987-1988. The largest was the attack on Halabja which resulted in approximately 5,000 deaths. 2,000 Kurdish villages were destroyed during the campaign of terror. According to Human Rights Watch, 'senior Arab diplomats told the London-based Arabic daily newspaper al-Hayat in October [1991] that Iraqi leaders were privately acknowledging that 250,000 people were killed during the uprisings, with most of the casualties in the south."

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/19675.htm



PS: Your post reminds me of an exchange in the movie Braveheart. When "Longshanks" King Edward asked his effeminate son Prince Edward what he would do about the insurgent William Wallace, the conversation went like this:

Longshanks: Scottish rebels have routed one of my garrisons and
murdered the noble lord.

Prince: I heard. This Wallace is a brigand, nothing more.

Longshanks: And how would you deal with this brigand?

Prince: Like any common thief. Have the local magistrate arrest him
and punish him accordingly [emphasis added].

Longshanks: Leave us [he tells others in the room]. (Punches his son.) Wallace has already killed the magistrate and taken control of the town.



Such an approach was wrong then and it's wrong now.

[Edited on July 24, 2007 at 11:27 PM. Reason : .]

7/24/2007 11:09:44 PM

Quote :

"Enough with you liberals and Darfur already, for fuck's sake. What about the genocide committed against the Kurds by Saddam Hussein? Where was your outrage then? "Conspicuously absent," yes?"

i don't know about you, but i was in first grade at the time.

7/24/2007 11:34:06 PM

^ Understood. That's why you don't have a lot of context--you haven't lived long enough yet to have much of it.

But where is the outrage about the genocide against the Kurds now? Those people are still dead--and the only way we can help them now is to help a democratic government stand up in Iraq. If we abandon the Iraqis now, many, many more will die--and the entire region will likely become even more destabilized.

BTW, let's face it: Darfur gets so much media play because it's the hip issue du jour. I mean, when you have Brangelina et al championing your cause, it gets play. Hell, Nicholas Kristof came to State during last spring semester to talk about Darfur.

http://www.technicianonline.com/media/storage/paper848/news/2007/02/07/News/Kristof.Calls.For.Action-2702543.shtml

[Edited on July 25, 2007 at 12:24 AM. Reason : .]

7/25/2007 12:23:12 AM

I guess you would want to try and sweep Dafur under the rug when Bush was too busy destroying a country to fulfill a personal vendetta to see what was happening in Sudan. So now that we're so bogged down in Iraq we couldn't possibly send more troops there. Just let the U.N. handle it and anything that goes wrong there you can just blame on their failures. You are such the humanitarian, HookGeezer. It warms my heart.

7/25/2007 12:27:35 AM

^ First, fuck you--once again--for the stupid 'HookGeezer' shit. Second, if you weren't so fucking stupid with Bush derangement syndrome, you would realize that Bush has given more aid to Africa than any other president.

Bush Has Quietly Tripled Aid to Africa

Quote :

"President Bush's legacy is sure to be defined by his wielding of U.S. military power in Afghanistan and Iraq, but there is another, much softer and less-noticed effort by his administration in foreign affairs: a dramatic increase in U.S. aid to Africa. The president has tripled direct humanitarian and development aid to the world's most impoverished continent since taking office and recently vowed to double that increased amount by 2010 -- to nearly $9 billion. The moves have surprised -- and pleased -- longtime supporters of assistance for Africa, who note that because Bush has received little support from African American voters, he has little obvious political incentive for his interest. 'I think the Bush administration deserves pretty high marks in terms of increasing aid to Africa,' said Steve Radelet, a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development. Bush has increased direct development and humanitarian aid to Africa to more than $4 billion a year from $1.4 billion in 2001, according to the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. And four African nations -- Sudan, Ethiopia, Egypt and Uganda -- rank among the world's top 10 recipients in aid from the United States. Beyond increasing aid to Africa, Bush has met with nearly three dozen African heads of state during his six years in office. He visited Africa in his first term, and aides say he hopes to make a return visit next year. Although some activists criticize Bush for not doing more to end the ongoing genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan, others credit him for playing a role in ending deadly conflicts in Liberia, the Congo and other parts of Sudan. Meanwhile, Bush has overseen a steady rise in U.S. trade with Africa, which has doubled since 2001."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/30/AR2006123000941_pf.html

Your post clearly illustrates just how ill-informed you are, you stupid fucking troll.

[Edited on July 25, 2007 at 12:37 AM. Reason : .]

7/25/2007 12:36:35 AM

So giving aid to countries that promise to teach abstinence only programs as well as various other strings doesn't exactly qualify him for a peace prize. If we are indeed at war with "Evil Doers", as he put it, then why haven't we marched in there and toppled the Sudanize government in the name of liberation? But I am sure you will continue to give the Bush regime a free pass for having a double standard when it pertains to countries without vast amounts of oil wealth.

7/25/2007 1:05:29 AM

Quote :

"The president has tripled direct humanitarian and development aid to the world's most impoverished continent since taking office and recently vowed to double that increased amount by 2010 -- to nearly $9 billion."

Quote :

"The moves have surprised -- and pleased -- longtime supporters of assistance for Africa, who note that because Bush has received little support from African American voters, he has little obvious political incentive for his interest."

Quote :

"'I think the Bush administration deserves pretty high marks in terms of increasing aid to Africa,' said Steve Radelet, a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development."

Quote :

"Bush has increased direct development and humanitarian aid to Africa to more than $4 billion a year from $1.4 billion in 2001, according to the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. And four African nations -- Sudan, Ethiopia, Egypt and Uganda -- rank among the world's top 10 recipients in aid from the United States."

Quote :

"Beyond increasing aid to Africa, Bush has met with nearly three dozen African heads of state during his six years in office. He visited Africa in his first term, and aides say he hopes to make a return visit next year [2007]."

Quote :

"Although some activists [foaming left-wing moonbats] criticize Bush for not doing more to end the ongoing genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan, others [non-moonbats] credit him for playing a role in ending deadly conflicts in Liberia, the Congo and other parts of Sudan. Meanwhile, Bush has overseen a steady rise in U.S. trade with Africa, which has doubled since 2001."

7/25/2007 1:22:15 AM

Genocide in Darfur is going to resolve itself by W. throwing more money at it. Yay! Problem solved.

7/25/2007 1:26:27 AM

Quote :

"[Non-moonbats] credit him for playing a role in ending deadly conflicts in Liberia, the Congo and other parts of Sudan."

7/25/2007 1:37:40 AM

I guess "teh evil liberal" media doesn't want us hearing about how swell the Bush regime is. HookGeezer has it all figured out folks!

7/25/2007 1:45:42 AM

7/25/2007 2:03:40 AM

Do the larger pictures help with your failing eye sight you old kook? Because they certainly aren't contributing anything meaningful to the topic of presidential debates. But then again derailing threads is a hallmark of yours.

As for the topic at hand I have not watched much of the debates thus far given that it is far to early for any of it to matter. I do find it amusing some of the blatant pandering that is taking place and the ones who actually make sense (Ron Paul) are decried as loonies.

7/25/2007 2:37:57 AM

I must say, your cries of "HookGeezer" really don't serve to further the debate either, so I'd shut up if I were you.

7/25/2007 2:45:13 AM

so apparently i need to watch abc more...i had no idea that the repubs were debating this morning

8/5/2007 11:09:39 AM

What would their god say about them not keeping the Sabbath holy?

8/5/2007 12:43:39 PM

^^^^

I have to disagree with it being too early to watch the debates. If more of our citizenry watched these early debates and were less complacent in regards to our political process, perhaps we wouldn't have elected President Bush.. twice.

But I suppose you are correct, because it is somewhat moot until the primaries. These early debates, I typically pick out who not to vote for, as opposed to picking out who I would vote for.

And when the primary voters elect a candidate that I would not vote for, I guess that's the point when I become complacent.

8/5/2007 3:43:17 PM

no Republican youtube debate
http://uspolitics.about.com/b/a/208164.htm

because Giuliani and Romney don't want to take questions from real people snowmen.

8/8/2007 7:25:41 AM