The Difference Between Tough and Inappropriate Questions

[trumptman]

Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/the-difference-between-to_b_97595.html)

Well we finally had that moment. The Democrats, including the media in their war of attrition finally did the unthinkable......they made the Democratic candidates endure a...Republican debate.

You know those Republican debates.... we had them back before the nomination was locked up and discussed the banality of them in threads like this one. (http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=81735&highlight=cnn+debate)

The main contentions of that thread are the main criticisms of the Democratic debate...

ABC has been hiding behind the shell of "we were just asking tough questions" in response to their questionable performance in the Pennsylvania debate. But to see how transparently false that claim is you only have to think about this "tough" question: When did you stop beating your wife?

Now, that's a tough question, partly because it is grossly unfair, partly because it's an ugly insinuation and partly because it's structured in a way where there is no good answer. That doesn't make it a good question.

Hmmmm.... that sounds a little familiar. I think someone owes me royalties.

Frank Rich (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/opinion/20rich.html?_r=1&ex=1366430400&en=355caba0001030c8&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=&oref=login) of the NY Times weighs in with a point also made in that thread..

But viewers of all political persuasions were affronted by the moderators’ failure to ask about the mortgage crisis, health care, the environment, torture, education, China policy, the pending G.I. bill to aid veterans, or the war we’re losing in Afghanistan. Those minutes were devoted not just to recycling the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Bosnian sniper fire and another lame question about a possible “dream ticket” but to the unseemly number of intrusive commercials and network promos that prompted the jeering at the end.

Imagine how much worse the next debate could be. They might start asking Obama if he believes every word of the Bible, why not enough white male voters don't support them, if the loser of the nomination is going to run as an independent, do they accept the support of the Black Panthers/etc.....

I'm sure all of you here will encourage the asking of these "tough" questions in lieu of say....substantive questions being asked. We all know the moderators were merely incompetent and had no agenda. They only asked questions that were important to Democratic primary voters who apparently care more about bitterness than their mortgage, health care or the war.

At least that is what many of you said in the CNN debate thread....:lol:

[addabox]

Huh. As I recall the right wing ire over that debate was mostly about how CNN had nefariously smuggled in Democratic "operatives" to ask questions.

In fact, in the thread you link to, we barely talk about the questions, concentrating (at your behest) on the terribleness of allowing filthy Democrats to ask Republicans questions.

As for the substance, Jesus Christ, are you high? You think being asked about immigration, taxes, the war, abortion, gun ownership, the economy, space exploration, torture, infrastructure, Social Security, farm subsidies, lead in toys, national debt, and cutting government programs are of a piece with grilling Obama endlessly about a remark, his flag pin, his pastor, and a guy he barely knows?

Yes, a couple of the Republican questions were stupid, but not a single one traded in the kind of vapid, junior high, hyper-personalized crap that was tossed at Obama, and to a lesser extent, Clinton, and the number of substantive questions in the Republican debate vastly outnumbered those in the Democratic. Even the most egregiously phrased questions dealt with matters of national policy. Or did I miss the part where they asked McCain 10 questions in a row about how he fucked over his first wife, or the half dozen directed at Giuliani's infidelity?

We all know that television debate questions have gotten worse and worse, trading in glib "gotcha" stuff, but the recent Dem gossip fest was a new low.

Take home message? Even "democratic operatives" can't come up with questions as insulting and trivializing as CNN can, all on its own.

Oh, right, I'm talking to Nick: DISREGARD THIS SPITTLE INFLECTED RANT

[groverat]

I don't see the equivalency between the ABC debate, which was about the politics of personal destruction, and the CNN debate, which was about the politics of platform destruction.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

addabox!

Decaff! Decaff!

If you're not careful you'll get an 'Infraction', and we have to save 'Infractions' for Nick. Or else they wouldn't be unfair. ;)

[trumptman]

Huh. As I recall the right wing ire over that debate was mostly about how CNN had nefariously smuggled in Democratic "operatives" to ask questions.

Well then I would suggest you re-read it and remember a bit more correctly. The Democratic operatives were discovered due to the extremely loaded questions they asked that did not appear appropriate or relevant.

In fact, in the thread you link to, we barely talk about the questions, concentrating (at your behest) on the terribleness of allowing filthy Democrats to ask Republicans questions.

I suppose the post where I listed every single question from the debate and the follow up posts where I specifically listed which ones were loaded and how they were loaded are just imaginary then.

Yes, a couple of the Republican questions were stupid, but not a single one traded in the kind of vapid, junior high, hyper-personalized crap that was tossed at Obama, and to a lesser extent, Clinton, and the number of substantive questions in the Republican debate vastly outnumbered those in the Democratic. Even the most egregiously phrased questions dealt with matters of national policy. Or did I miss the part where they asked McCain 10 questions in a row about how he fucked over his first wife, or the half dozen directed at Giuliani's infidelity?

Well the debates were not down to two candidates at that time. Asking why blacks hate Republicans or why certain Republicans have "too much power" or if they were exploiting 9/11 is just as egregious. Allowing someone to stand up and lecture the candidates about a particular stand is even worse.

We all know that television debate questions have gotten worse and worse, trading in glib "gotcha" stuff, but the recent Dem gossip fest was a new low.

Was it a new low? Apparently it was a new high since it was the highest rated debate.

Take home message? Even "democratic operatives" can't come up with questions as insulting and trivializing as CNN can, all on its own.

Don't you mean ABC? Also remember the conclusions of the other thread..... they aren't "insulting and trivializing" they are simply the "tough questions" that "Democrats want to hear answers to" as determined by the moderators.

I don't see the equivalency between the ABC debate, which was about the politics of personal destruction, and the CNN debate, which was about the politics of platform destruction.

Of course you don't see it. However thanks for the false dilemma.

addabox!

Decaff! Decaff!

If you're not careful you'll get an 'Infraction', and we have to save 'Infractions' for Nick. Or else they wouldn't be unfair. ;)

You don't have to be careful. We can discuss why in PM's.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

You don't have to be careful. We can discuss why in PM's.
You only want to get me somewhere private so you can coddle me.

Straight out of the John McCain playbook.

Tonton! TONTON!

[@_@ Artman]

CNN...ABC...what's the difference?

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g255/artman46/FreeSnap001.jpg

[addabox]

CNN...ABC...what's the difference? (http://www.cnn.com/tshirt/?headline=ABC%20News%20fucked%20up%20the%20Pennsyl vania%20debate&date=1208772622000&hash=4f2e03baf9a0cc4ed25c0dee1d0a56d3&return_uri=http://www.cnn.com/video/%23/video/world/2008/04/20/vanmarsh.uk.food.whip.cnn)

Holy mackerel! Is that spoofed? It can't be for real, can it?

[@_@ Artman]

Holy mackerel! Is that spoofed? It can't be for real, can it?

It was. The Clinton News Network has a "beta" test of their whoring of the media allowing morons to get CNN headlines in T-Shirt form. Unfortunately, they forgot to realize that one could edit these (edit the URL that is). This was a result of a friend's idea of the ABC debates.

Here's the T-Shirt section (http://www.cnn.com/tshirt/?headline=Waste%20food%20dished%20up%20to%20hungry %20diners&date=1208772622000&hash=4f2e03baf9a0cc4ed25c0dee1d0a56d3&return_uri=http://www.cnn.com/video/%23/video/world/2008/04/20/vanmarsh.uk.food.whip.cnn). Have fun!

Sure is a lot more fun than trumptman's tripe. :rolleyes:

[addabox]

I saw that t-shirt! (http://www.cnn.com/tshirt/?headline=Sure%20is%20a%20lot%20more%20fun%20than% 20trumptman's%20tripe!%20&date=1208772622000&hash=4f2e03baf9a0cc4ed25c0dee1d0a56d3&return_uri=http://www.cnn.com/video/%23/video/world/2008/04/20/vanmarsh.uk.food.whip.cnn)

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Good lord, this could be the end of civilization as we know it....

[Hassan i Sabbah]

http://www.cnn.com/tshirt/?headline=John%20McCain:%20%22Tonton%20Is%20My%20C atamite%22&date=1208772622000&hash=4f2e03baf9a0cc4ed25c0dee1d0a56d3&return_uri=http://www.cnn.com/video/%23/video/world/2008/04/20/vanmarsh.uk.food.whip.cnn

[Hassan i Sabbah]

http://www.cnn.com/tshirt/?headline=I%20Have%20A%20Big%20WANG&date=1208772622000&hash=4f2e03baf9a0cc4ed25c0dee1d0a56d3&return_uri=http://www.cnn.com/video/%23/video/world/2008/04/20/vanmarsh.uk.food.whip.cnn

[trumptman]

You only want to get me somewhere private so you can coddle me.

Straight out of the John McCain playbook.

Tonton! TONTON!

Maybe if you gave me more attention (http://www.cnn.com/tshirt/?headline=I cuddled Hassan and all I got was this t-shirt! &date=1208772622000&hash=4f2e03baf9a0cc4ed25c0dee1d0a56d3&return_uri=http://www.cnn.com/video/%23/video/world/2008/04/20/vanmarsh.uk.food.whip.cnn) then I wouldn't need more of your private time.

I saw that t-shirt! (http://www.cnn.com/tshirt/?headline=Sure%20is%20a%20lot%20more%20fun%20than% 20trumptman's%20tripe!%20&date=1208772622000&hash=4f2e03baf9a0cc4ed25c0dee1d0a56d3&return_uri=http://www.cnn.com/video/%23/video/world/2008/04/20/vanmarsh.uk.food.whip.cnn)

I saw that too. (http://www.cnn.com/tshirt/?headline=Bitter%20racist%20white%20Penn%20male%20 for%20Obama!%20&date=1208772622000&hash=4f2e03baf9a0cc4ed25c0dee1d0a56d3&return_uri=http://www.cnn.com/video/%23/video/world/2008/04/20/vanmarsh.uk.food.whip.cnn)

[@_@ Artman]

Hmmm...must be the cookies on their site. They all disappeared there.

[addabox]

See? End of Civilization As We Know It. (http://www.cnn.com/tshirt/?headline=See?%20End%20of%20civilization%20As%20We %20Know%20It&date=1208772622000&hash=4f2e03baf9a0cc4ed25c0dee1d0a56d3&return_uri=http://www.cnn.com/video/%23/video/world/2008/04/20/vanmarsh.uk.food.whip.cnn)

[SDW2001]

CNN...ABC...what's the difference?

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g255/artman46/FreeSnap001.jpg

You know what...you're right: it's totally inappropriate to ask a candidate about his associations, particularly when one of them is with an avowed terrorist. Oh, and that terrorist is a person Obama has given speeches with and served on boards with and been "friendly" with by his own admission. I mean...imagine.

[addabox]

Yes, Bill Ayers, that shadowy, sinister figure, teaching classes to empty rooms at the University of Chicago, receiving no pay, writing books no book store will carry, serving on a board that no one will accept money from, sending people stampeding from the stage when he insists on showing up to participate in the public events he is invited to, secretly meeting with the terror loving mayor of Chicago to further their terrifying plot to reform schools, darting from alley to alley as he lurks his way to picking his kids up from school, never able to attend a PTA meeting...

Because one thing everyone else knows that Obama does not: you must never associate with "avowed terrorists", because if you ever aspire to anything more video store employee, you're going to have to answer some questions.

[tonton]

You know what...you're right: it's totally inappropriate to ask a candidate about his associations, particularly when one of them is with an avowed terrorist. Oh, and that terrorist is a person Obama has given speeches with and served on boards with and been "friendly" with by his own admission. I mean...imagine.

An "avowed terrorist"? Please. :rolleyes:

[Jubelum]

An "avowed terrorist"? Please. :rolleyes:

How is it not "avowed" when his name is on the founding document of a terrorist organization, which committed terrorist acts while he was a leader, and whose girlfriend was killed while making a nailbomb (http://www.fretplay.com/covers/nailbomb-tabs.jpg)? :err:

I think the issue here is the nature of the relationship between BHO and this (evil) clown.

tonton, you'd be better off making a case against the tie between the two than trying to mount a spirited defense of Ayers, honestly.