KD in CA Posted September 28, 2004 Posted September 28, 2004 Move on, stay positive. Who says, YOUR desire for justice needs to be satisfied? You really think you count in this world as an individual? As long as YOU say put 'em to death, then they die? 48399[/snapback] Who am I? Someone entitled to my opinion on the subject and someone who will vote for pro-DP candidates. You and Adam are the ones whining about executing scumbags. Who are you to say it's "wrong" to do so? I didn't start this thread...just responded
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 28, 2004 Posted September 28, 2004 Who am I? Someone entitled to my opinion on the subject and someone who will vote for pro-DP candidates. You and Adam are the ones whining about executing scumbags. Who are you to say it's "wrong" to do so? I didn't start this thread...just responded 48422[/snapback] Nobody, I guess. Peace.
blzrul Posted September 28, 2004 Posted September 28, 2004 They also required that the podiums be further apart than normal so it wouldn't be apparent that Bush is 5 inches shorter than Kerry. I guess they realize just how superficial people are in their judgements. Of course that would be obvious if they'd visit this place once a week.
MichFan Posted September 28, 2004 Posted September 28, 2004 I guess they realize just how superficial people are in their judgements. Of course that would be obvious if they'd visit this place once a week. Yet another reason I like Bush. Instead of surgically getting himself made taller, he comes up with a simple and creative solution. Kerry on the other hand resorts to Botox and bronzing lotion. Great message for our youth -- if you don't like your appearance just get it taken care of regardless of health risks. Maybe they can do a special edition of Extreme Makeover for Kerry. It could be what he needs to put him over the top in the election.
slothrop Posted September 28, 2004 Posted September 28, 2004 I read in Saturday's paper that the legal document that the campaigns negotiated and recently signed for the debates stipulates that the networks are not allowed to show reaction shots -- shots of a candidate reacting to what the other is saying. In other words, they must only shoot the person who is talking. Odd. It always is fun to watch the other guy fumbling around, grimacing, etc. I especially loved it when Mondale was seen laughing (with everyone else) when Reagan said that he was not going to make age an issue -- Mondale's youth and inexperience. 45635[/snapback] The "unusual rules" are the product of the Commission on Presidential Debates, an "independent" organization formed to run the debates. This is a relatively new organization and there is a growing grassroots movement to abolish it as a perversion of our democracy. Bill Moyers had the auther of a new book (sorry can not remember the title) exposing the commission and the drastic effect it has upon presidential campaigns. The origin of the commission was the '88 election. The two sides negotiated an "agreement" as to how the debate would take place, what questions could be asked, how they were asked, who could ask them, audience make-up. This was the first comprehensive agreement. However, in the past, organizations sponsored and ran the debates. One of them was the non-partisan League of Women Voters. The candidates tried to tell the "league" that the debate they were hosting was subject to the "agreement." The "League" did not back down and siad that it would ask the questions and run the debate they way they always have, not as some pre-conceived media event. The candidates did not show up. It was after that event and the Bush Sr. meltdown to the question "how has the defecit effected YOU personally and if it has not how can you relate to the economic needs of ordinary Americans?" that the Commission was formed. Now, third-party candidates are banned from the debates as Nader and buchanan were last time. Where the slime really lies is the fact that the Commission is funded by large multi-national corporatations, thus corporate power has yet another stranglehold over the political process and shapes the very terms and subject of political discourse. That is simply the death of any democracy, if it ever existed.
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted September 29, 2004 Posted September 29, 2004 Yet another reason I like Bush. Instead of surgically getting himself made taller, he comes up with a simple and creative solution. Kerry on the other hand resorts to Botox and bronzing lotion. Great message for our youth -- if you don't like your appearance just get it taken care of regardless of health risks. Maybe they can do a special edition of Extreme Makeover for Kerry. It could be what he needs to put him over the top in the election. 48624[/snapback] Too bad NIXON didn't have access to that in 1960... Ohh yes, that's right; it's the year that people voted for Kennedy cause he 'looked better on camera'.
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted September 29, 2004 Posted September 29, 2004 The "unusual rules" are the product of the Commission on Presidential Debates, an "independent" organization formed to run the debates. This is a relatively new organization and there is a growing grassroots movement to abolish it as a perversion of our democracy. Bill Moyers had the auther of a new book (sorry can not remember the title) exposing the commission and the drastic effect it has upon presidential campaigns. The origin of the commission was the '88 election. The two sides negotiated an "agreement" as to how the debate would take place, what questions could be asked, how they were asked, who could ask them, audience make-up. This was the first comprehensive agreement. However, in the past, organizations sponsored and ran the debates. One of them was the non-partisan League of Women Voters. The candidates tried to tell the "league" that the debate they were hosting was subject to the "agreement." The "League" did not back down and siad that it would ask the questions and run the debate they way they always have, not as some pre-conceived media event. The candidates did not show up. It was after that event and the Bush Sr. meltdown to the question "how has the defecit effected YOU personally and if it has not how can you relate to the economic needs of ordinary Americans?" that the Commission was formed. Now, third-party candidates are banned from the debates as Nader and buchanan were last time. Where the slime really lies is the fact that the Commission is funded by large multi-national corporatations, thus corporate power has yet another stranglehold over the political process and shapes the very terms and subject of political discourse. That is simply the death of any democracy, if it ever existed. 48629[/snapback] The era of asking tough questions, and going for substance is long over with. Sad, but true... Proof: Debates 2004.
Peter Posted September 29, 2004 Author Posted September 29, 2004 Update Things are getting interesting. It looks like the networks may not go along with these idiotic rules. Good for them.
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 29, 2004 Posted September 29, 2004 Update Things are getting interesting. It looks like the networks may not go along with these idiotic rules. Good for them. 49253[/snapback] God! I hope they let them call each other "Girly Man" and b*itchslap each other! Maybe let the person not speaking make a circle motion with his pen around his temple to signify that the other is crazy! Okay, okay, the b*itchslapping isn't in the rules but, the other two are! One can only dream!! BTW, one comedian brought up, if any mention the word "Vietnam", the "press conference" automatically has to shut down... The rules for this exchange have more pages than the UN charter.
Recommended Posts