Except that Glen is on CNN. I prefer his radio show to his TV show.

Yes, nasty moderators asking questions of candidates.

I haven't had the opportunity to watch a debate yet. Sometimes grown ups get busy and I'm not referring to how children are made.

And so do you have any comments about the debate?

Well, you can't have a true debate with so many participants. It seemed to be Rudy vs. Mitt, McCain vs. All of them, and Paul vs. the world. This presidential campaign is so weird anyway. I have no idea why they're (Demicans and Republicrats) getting wound up so early. Thompson just announced tonight and he's been near the top of the polls for awhile. Not that polls are any indication of who will win just that he hasn't been campaigning like the others and he's still near the top.

And you sir, have the last word. Err, not counting these words...

!

*snaps fingers*
*two large men trag Mystic0 away*
*a faint gunshot is heard*

Glory to the Empire!

The current state of the United States politics is piss poor and we're all part of the problem. I sometimes feel like we've already reached the state of the world in Idiocracy, especially when reading about the founding of the nation.

maybe Ron Paul can just be President Of The Internet since the internet likes him so much more than everyone else does

I really need to start looking at the upcoming candidates. Are there any good, unbiased sites for reading up on each of their views? I really don't want all my opinions to be formed from others views, which have already rubbed off on me a lot.

"Good propaganda"?

My thought's exactly...

Propaganda is not bad by definition.

I checked out [url]www.johnmccain.com[/url] last night. Very good video on the splash page.

...

RON PAUL.

DENTAL PLAN

LISA NEEDS BRACES

Ron Paul needs braces!

???

DENTAL PLAN

COUNTRY NEEDS FENCES

Wow internet arguments

If the democrats can't handle tough questions from FOX News then they have no right to be the President of the United States of America.

Bob Dole '08

How could the democrats be the President of the United States of America?

I'm pretty sure that only one person can fill the post at a time.

I'm quite alright with them not wanting to debate on the network that ran the Obama "madrassa" story without even cursory fact-checking.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120885/

It was a fair story at the time. It had been discovered that the Clinton campaign was uncovering some muslim past about Obama. Besides, I believe the issue came up on Fox and Friends which is a talk show, not a hard news show. Oh, and I fixed your quote.



That's insulting. Did you watch the video? I enjoyed learning more about his naval and, specifically, Vietnam POW experience. Wag the Dog was a good movie inspired by events that took place during the nineties and has nothing to do with McCain's video.

Unless you consider that maybe all media put out by politicians nowadays is manipulated in some form.

Of course it is. Virtually ALL media is manipulated. But that doesn't mean Wag the Dog has anything to do with the McCain video.

1) Recounts a horrific event on a carrier deck
2) Recounts his shoot down and capture
3) Recounts POW experiences
4) His mother tells how his being found out to be a POW was the best news she's ever heard

Some of the reasons I liked the video.

It was never a fair story because it was never accurate (as they'd have known if they'd looked into it), and your fix is wrong.

No it's not. My fix is correct because they didn't need a legitimate reason not to hold the debate on Fox News. All networks make errors in reporting. In that case a couple people latched on to a story in a news magazine that reported on Obama attending a madrassa. The original source was apparently flawed but Fox News never "reported" on it. Some of their commentators did. I don't understand why it is so difficult to differentiate between reporting and commentary. Actually, I think I understand now.

However, I don't really care to defend Fox News. People are always free to choose whatever network they like. But it's pretty dumb to use that Obama example as an excuse for the democrats not going there. That was never given as the reason and the whole madrassa thing was dredged up by Hillary anyway.

I guess the difference between reporting and commentary is that you shouldn't put that much weight on commentary because they don't check their facts.

JON STEWART!
alt, Arnold Schwarzenegger. For the lulz.

Your "fix" simply removed the words "without even cursory fact-checking." Those words are accurate.



I'm well aware of the difference, thanks. I'd like to know why you think it's relevant in this case.



Don't care. Regardless of the number or quality of other reasons given by the Dems, I would not expect them to debate on a network that aired an unresearched smear against Obama, after which the offending host issued a wishy-washy "clarification" that sounded a whole lot more like "Obama and Clinton deny this rumor" than "we screwed up." In the world of real news, when you screw up like this you offer a public apology in which you clearly state what you got wrong and what the actual facts are. Fox as an organization still hasn't, and neither has the talk show host that put the story on the air.



I'm no fan of Clinton, so this doesn't exactly carry a lot of weight with me even if it's true. The purported identity of the source doesn't absolve Fox of responsibility for airing the story and failing to correct it adequately. But if you want to make this claim, some form of proof beyond "Insight Magazine said so" would be in order, wouldn't it?

Commentators are still obligated to check their facts as well, and the vast majority of them do. "I'm a commentator!" is not considered a defense against defamation charges.

Of course, it is true that you shouldn't put as much weight on commentary. That's because commentators are not obligated to be unbiased in their presentation.

I respect your opinion. I just don't feel like dragging this portion of the thread out longer. I would say that by your logic Republicans wouldn't appear on virtually any network because of biased or non fact checked reporting. It's just the nature of the media and if democrats can't handle or tolerate (for lack of a better word) it then it will be interesting to see how they handle larger issues.

Can someone, in one sentence, please explain to me the difference between your Democrats and Republicans?

yes... asses and elephants.