Originally posted by agrysonThe debates within the same party is only done during the early phase of the election, known as theprimary phase. That's when a truckload of Republicans and truckload of Democrats run against each other in their own parties to win the party primary. The purpose of winning the party primary is to become that partys Presidential candiate. After the party primary elections, we have one candidate from each party running in the general Presidential election.
Wait, I just read the article... you mean that in America you have "debates" between the same side?! Between Republicans and with only Republicans allowed to ask the questions? That's a publicity stunt, if any party wants to have a big love in, let them pay for it and boradcast it independantly. Televised debate is supposed to have several viewpoints. No ...[text shortened]... /archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2007/05/16/story310968.asp
Now that's national politics![/b]
That's when they have debates that include more than one party. After the primary process.
In the general, we actually get to vote for POTUS. In the primary, people only get to vote for candidates in their own party.
2 edits
Originally posted by telerionI wish there was a DVD or some web sight that could show the
Probably because you're a conservative Republican evangelical. You might protest that you are independent, but effectively you're Republican.
Therefore, Fox seems reasonable and CNN seems like a hack source.
If you were a left-wing liberal Democrat you'd find CNN somewhat biased and Fox obscenely biased.
Personally, I think CNN is better than Fo market. Smart business plan actually given they were the big underdog when they started.
90's Clinton health care debate with all the commercials intact right
where the network put them! You would see the panels were stacked
on them with more for it than against it, so when ever everyone got
their say more were supporting it, but the thing that caused me to
turn off the big three networks was a hard question about cost.
When that was asked they went to some 20 year old in the
audience and asked her, her thoughts on the cost issue. She said it
wasn't the cost but the paper work, and right then they broke away
and ran a prepared piece on hospital paper work, commercial than
the issue was side stepped. In my opinion that had to been setup in
advance, I remember yelling at the TV that night when that
occurred because I wanted to hear that question addressed.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayHow so?
Wow, I think your brain washed! 🙂
Kelly
Like Merk wrote, I like my news with little side discussion. I'm a well-educated person. I don't need a two-bit journalist telling me "what it all means." Fox fails woefully in this regard. All the big networks do. The right-wingers here just tolerate it more from Fox, and the lefties more from CNN.
As for your assessment of my mental state, you're about as dishonest with yourself as some one can be, too cowardly to think on your own. I'm a pretty solid believer in comparitive advantage, so stay yourself and leave the thinking to others.
Originally posted by KellyJayIt obviously takes a sharper mind than yours to discern color commentary from news.
"At least CNN tries to be a news organization."
No they don't, they try to present a world view they have like Fox does!
The issue most have with Fox is that they have been getting just one
slant for so long that they think it is odd to get a different point of
view as if that were a bad thing. It is easy to see the bias when it is
not one you agree with verses one that you do agree with.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJaySo, you're saying that all other networks show a point of view opposite to that of Fox's? And seeing as Fox is undeniably slanted towards the right and about as 'Fair and Balanced' as a drunk, one-legged dictator ... is it fair to assume that you are one of the mindless dolts buying into the 'liberal media' meme?
"At least CNN tries to be a news organization."
No they don't, they try to present a world view they have like Fox does!
The issue most have with Fox is that they have been getting just one
slant for so long that they think it is odd to get a different point of
view as if that were a bad thing. It is easy to see the bias when it is
not one you agree with verses one that you do agree with.
Kelly
3 edits
Originally posted by treetalkI never said opposite, I said they slanted one way! Fox doesn't slant
So, you're saying that all other networks show a point of view opposite to that of Fox's? And seeing as Fox is undeniably slanted towards the right and about as 'Fair and Balanced' as a drunk, one-legged dictator ... is it fair to assume that you are one of the mindless dolts buying into the 'liberal media' meme?
the same way though I admit they do slant another, and as that is
true, people like yourself use words like 'mindless dolts' when
discussing the matter instead of realizing that it is us as a group that
are affected by what we watch and take in, you pretty much make it
personal towards viewers instead of just realizing it is all the networks
Fox included that are spinning things the way see it. So when you see over
and over things like the Networks blowing up trucks and trying to pass
it off as if it were a manufacturing defect, or a network creating fake
documents to smear someone to promote an idea, or putting plants
into a Presidential debate to make it appear like it was something
else, or during a health care debate gloss over some of the though
questions, it does not give you pause instead you still find time to
attack Fox and some of its viewers. Again I did not use the word
opposite point of view!
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayOK - whilst the average person has little say in dictating what they get to watch - unless ratings have more effect than I think they do - I do think that those people who go on and on about the so called liberal media (when that is plainly untrue) are mindless dolts.
I never said opposite, I said they slanted one way! Fox doesn't slant
the same way though I admit they do slant another, and as that is
true, people like yourself use words like 'mindless dolts' when
discussing the matter instead of realizing that it is us as a group that
are affected by what we watch and take in, you pretty much make it
personal towar ...[text shortened]... ack Fox and some of its viewers. Again I did not use the word
opposite point of view!
Kelly
I see a lot of people here and on other sites who quite happily parrot the latest sound bite from the White House or O'Reilly or Limbaugh without being able to back it up with substantive facts - and in the case of the O'Reilly and Limbaugh, these sound bites are quite often absurd.
The use of pithy catchphrases is by no means the sole domain of the Republicans (though, they are a lot better at it) but I think the prevalence of them and the lack of informed discussion about important issues is a sad indictment of the direction the networks are pushing the average viewer.
As for attacking Fox - I can't comprehend why anyone would rank that anywhere other than last in a ranking of objective news networks.
Originally posted by treetalkBecause not everyone is a lefty.
OK - whilst the average person has little say in dictating what they get to watch - unless ratings have more effect than I think they do - I do think that those people who go on and on about the so called liberal media (when that is plainly untrue) are mindless dolts.
I see a lot of people here and on other sites who quite happily parrot the latest soun ...[text shortened]... why anyone would rank that anywhere other than last in a ranking of objective news networks.
2 edits
Originally posted by treetalk“OK - whilst the average person has little say in dictating what they get to watch - unless ratings have more effect than I think they do - I do think that those people who go on and on about the so called liberal media (when that is plainly untrue) are mindless dolts. “
OK - whilst the average person has little say in dictating what they get to watch - unless ratings have more effect than I think they do - I do think that those people who go on and on about the so called liberal media (when that is plainly untrue) are mindless dolts.
I see a lot of people here and on other sites who quite happily parrot the latest soun why anyone would rank that anywhere other than last in a ranking of objective news networks.
I did not say the media was liberal I said they had a slant, even if I
did say that your defense of the media not be liberal was simply
saying it was plainly untrue would not be enough to convince me had I
made that accusation. I said they have a slant, and I also gave
specific examples why I didn’t trust them, which you did not address. I
also acknowledge that Fox also has a slant and in my opinion that is
a good thing as long as nothing is distorted and honest point of view
based on the same facts should simply open up other ways of looking
at something.
I see a lot of people here and on other sites who quite happily parrot the latest sound bite from the White House or O'Reilly or Limbaugh without being able to back it up with substantive facts - and in the case of the O'Reilly and Limbaugh, these sound bites are quite often absurd.
I am not here to defend what other people say, I’m here to express
my point of view. With regard to the White House, O’Reilly, or
Limbaugh and substantive facts I would have to see the sound bites
to agree or disagree if they were in deed absurd or not. Since I did
not bring the White House, O’Reilly, or Limbaugh into this discussion
you did that would make it your job to back up your claims! Simply
making an accusation or simply saying something is, “when that is
plainly untrue” is to do exactly what it is you were complaining about.
The use of pithy catchphrases is by no means the sole domain of the Republicans (though, they are a lot better at it) but I think the prevalence of them and the lack of informed discussion about important issues is a sad indictment of the direction the networks are pushing the average viewer.
I would disagree with you here too, they are both masters at it, it is
up to us to decide if we want to go along with it, or dig a little deeper
into the issues they are trying to make so brain dead simple no one
looks at their ideas very deeply.
As for attacking Fox - I can't comprehend why anyone would rank that anywhere other than last in a ranking of objective news networks.
After looking at you call people mindless dolts who might disagree
with you, I doubt you are being very objective in your assessment of
Fox and its ability to give the news.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayFox lost me when they started refering to Bill O'Reilly as a journalist. And when he said that the kid who was kidnapped and held for 8 years probably enjoyed it. Oh and therte was the time he took credit for winning the war on Christmas. Oh teah, And the time he said that Christ lived 5000 years ago...
Just so I know, why do you believe Fox is bad? I'm sure you have
reasons, but I cannot think of a single American major news outlet
I trust completely and CNN would be the worst of the bunch in my
opinion.
Kelly