or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › CNN: We didn't know half the questions were from Democratic operatives, voters, etc.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

CNN: We didn't know half the questions were from Democratic operatives, voters, etc. - Page 3

post #81 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Let's see. Ad hominem, argumentum ad ignorantiam, begging the question. All in one post! Well done!

John Kerry.....not disproved.......equals...........debate questions................

Is there a Latin phrase for "head assplodes"?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #82 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

John Kerry.....not disproved.......equals...........debate questions................

Is there a Latin phrase for "head assplodes"?

Yup. Reductio ad caput assplodum
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #83 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Yup. Reductio ad caput assplodum

Excellent. Ever more useful.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #84 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

My second post in this thread contained every question from both debates as a follow-up to the first post. So regardless of what you may assign as motivations to Malkin and others, I hope you will at least concede that I have desired to discuss the questions themselves.

I do question your desire to discuss the questions themselves.

Addabox pointed out earlier that at least one of the questions you listed for the democratic debate was grossly inaccurate, yet you never responded in any fashion.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #85 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

This is kinda interesting.

The posted "list of questions asked Democrats", which apparently is the basis for deciding that Dems get softball questions and Republicans get questions designed to put them in a bad light, includes this question: "Will my taxes rise if a Democrat is elected?"

Here is a link to the actual question:

"I'd like to know, if a Democrat gets into office, are my taxes going to rise, like usually they do, when a Democrat gets into office?"

Gee, the tone's a little different. I wonder how many other innocuous versions of the questions asked Democrats are bullshit edits, designed to support the theory at hand?

Here's his post again.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #86 of 105
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Well, in a debate, I would expect questions to have some kind of bias. What the hell is the point of the debate if not to ask candidates questions that force them to speak in specifics? At any rate, I don't think this is a discussion of the questions. I think this is about people being upset because the askers were Democrats, as was the premise of this entire thread. That, as I have pointed out a number of times, is a logical fallacy.

You can easily speak in specifics without the question taking a particular positive or negative point of view with regard to the answer.

Now you've attempted to steer this in the direction of questioner bias and if that were the only objection regarding the debate, you would be right that it is a fallacy.

Let's dig into your own sources here.

Genetic Fallacy

The genetic fallacy is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context.

The questions are not loaded merely because the questioner is a Democrat. They are loaded because they contain presuppositions which is the definition of a loaded question.

If I wanted to overlook the actual content of the question and focus on questioner alone... solely as your own definition notes, that would be the fallacy.

That has not happened here. No fallacy has been committed with regard to the genetic fallacy.

Now on to ad hominem circumstancial...

Ad hominem circumstantial

Ad hominem circumstantial involves pointing out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. Essentially, ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a person. The reason that this is fallacious in syllogistic logic is that pointing out that one's opponent is disposed to make a certain argument does not make the argument, from a logical point of view, any less credible; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source).]


If I said, "Look you can't allow an openly gay, Democratic, ex-general to ask a question in this debate because he is only going to speak about homosexual rights in a manner that will attempt to play gotcha with Republican presidential candidates." You would be completely correct in calling that a fallacy. He can be a Democrat, openly gay, an ex-general and still not ask a loaded question.

The fallacy states that just because he is predisposed to make a certain argument, it doesn't invalidate or make the point of that argument any less relevant.

But the complaint here is that the general didn't make any argument. Instead he asked a loaded question and then chastised the candidates using his own fallacy, an appeal to his authority, to dismiss valid and logical concerns related to homosexuals openly serving in the military.

So again, no fallacy.

Quote:
Not since the 1960s. The problem, and you know this, is that you could make this complaint about any nationally televised debate after the Kennedy/Nixon debates. So to complain about crappy questions in this particular debate is sort of like pointing out that to see the sky, one should look up.

Well YouTube and CNN didn't exist in the 60's. Secondly, even if they weren't as substantive as we would have liked, they were still supposed to be MORE substantive. If the other debates were 50% substantive, these were supposed to be higher than that and the reverse happened.

Quote:
The bias of the questioner is irrelevant. That is a logical fallacy.

It is a fallacy if we ignore reality and appeal to the bias of the questioner to substitute for reality. The reality is that with an active military engagement going on and with 5,000 questions submitted, the most substantive thing CNN could think to filter and ask about was a loaded question from a person committing their own logical fallacy attempting to play a game of gotcha. You suggest it is ignorance on the part of CNN. The background of the the questioner along with all the other facts suggests collusion.

Quote:
The broader issue, which someone above pointed out, is that this is all a stunt. All of it. The premise of the debate is that real people will ask questions instead of Tim Russert asking questions. But when 5000 questions are submitted and then producers choose the ones they like, they might as well have had Russert and the producers writing the questions. And those questions are no more or less biased than any the Dems were asked, nor were they any more or less biased than in other debates. Were the questions at times bad? Sure. Were they, at times, stupid? Sure.

We understand that CNN used a claimed attempt to democratize the debate question process as a ruse to continue to do what they have done and foist upon the continued bad results of their own prejudices.

Quote:
But incompetence is not bias. And I believe all of us, left and right, agree that there is something horribly, horribly wrong with our mainstream media.

Incompetence isn't bias, but bias can't be dismissed as incompetence either. In fact if anything the fact that CNN claims to keep changing and investigating the processes that make up their outcome and still end up with the exact same outcome is a pure definition of bias at play.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #87 of 105
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flounder View Post

I do question your desire to discuss the questions themselves.

Addabox pointed out earlier that at least one of the questions you listed for the democratic debate was grossly inaccurate, yet you never responded in any fashion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flounder View Post

Here's his post again.

Do the candidates have to implicate themselves or someone else negatively just to answer the question in some fashion?

No. In fact even the assertion of "as they usually do go up" is only stating a trend and not making a judgment within the question about raising taxes. Can we guess that the gentlemen would probably prefer his taxes not go up? Sure we can do that but to assume that it is negative alone is actually the type of fallacy Midwinter has posted about here. The guy is white, older, sounds a bit buffoonish when asking if taxes are going up so we can justify an inference that he doesn't like taxes.

Compare that to this: Why you think, American men and women in uniform are not professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians?

You cannot directly answer that question without declaring the troops unprofessional in some fashion. The question presupposes that the only reason the current policy is there is due to unprofessionalism of the troops when a desire to be free from sexual advances and harassment, especially in close quarters is a perfectly valid concern that we apply in a number of areas.

Also I never try to ignore a response, so thanks for pointing this out.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #88 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Wow. Ludicrous paranoia? Is that now defined as "being factual?" The general literally was a Democratic operative. Please.

Being co-chair of Hillary Clintons National Military Veterans Group, but also a member of the Log Cabin Republicans, makes one a "Democratic operative"?

This debate was open to the general public to ask questions, not only card-carrying Republicans who'd sworn loyalty oaths and who promised they hadn't had amiable contact with any Democrats for at least ten years.

So, yes, using the conspiratorial-sounding phrase "Democratic operative" to describe this general, and then taking one hyped-up fact along with simply not liking the general tone and quality of CNN's chosen questions, then shouting and pissing and wailing that this must be a vast left-wing conspiracy against the Republican candidates... Yes, I'd call that ludicrous paranoia. Or maybe just pathetic.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #89 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

Being co-chair of Hillary Clinton’s National Military Veterans Group, but also a member of the Log Cabin Republicans, makes one a "Democratic operative"?

This debate was open to the general public to ask questions, not only card-carrying Republicans who'd sworn loyalty oaths and who promised they hadn't had amiable contact with any Democrats for at least ten years.

So, yes, using the conspiratorial-sounding phrase "Democratic operative" to describe this general, and then taking one hyped-up fact along with simply not liking the general tone and quality of CNN's chosen questions, then shouting and pissing and wailing that this must be a vast left-wing conspiracy against the Republican candidates... Yes, I'd call that ludicrous paranoia. Or maybe just pathetic.

Exactly.

But you have to realize this sort of thing isn't going to stop until the election is over. With the Bush administration and the neocons as a whole the boards have been pulled up. So the conservatives ( and yes the ones on this forum ) will try anything for ammo.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #90 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Exactly.

But you have to realize this sort of thing isn't going to stop until the election is over. With the Bush administration and the neocons as a whole the boards have been pulled up. So the conservatives ( and yes the ones on this forum ) will try anything for ammo.

There's also the emergent split between left and right wing blogs, and what that bodes.

There are a number of left leaning sites, like Josh Marshal at TPM, that are doing real investigative journalism. They are endeavoring to fill the hole left by the increasingly lazy, stenographer mainstream press.

OTH, there are a number of right wing blogs that bring to "journalism" a paranoid, conspiracy minded world view. SOP here is to pour over minutiae by googling everything in sight until you get some kind of inconsistency or apparent contradiction with the "official story".

Problem being is that that is typically enough-- any such inconsistency or contradiction is immediately declared to be an artifact of the "liberal media" and the howling ensues, sans any further research. The fact that there have been a number of such explosions of outrage that subsequently proved to be baseless is not, it should go without saying, any kind of moderating influence. Shame is not a quality in abundant supply with the likes of Malkin, or any of the resentment mongers who know a good gig when they see one.

Note also the new, fun twist of attempting to ruin the lives of anyone perceived to be part of the sinister plot, by getting as much personal info as possible and broadcasting it on the web.

Of course, no one paying attention will be surprised as to which kind of story-- solid investigative journalism that unearths new facts around an ignored story, or thunderous indignation over how the liberal media is selling us out-- actually gets play in the "liberal media" itself, although this fact never seems to impinge on the consciousness of the conspiracy theorists.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #91 of 105
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

Being co-chair of Hillary Clintons National Military Veterans Group, but also a member of the Log Cabin Republicans, makes one a "Democratic operative"?

He worked for the Kerry campaign in 2004 and the Clinton campaign now. Exactly when did he have time to convert to the Republican party and join the Log Cabin Republicans?

Additionally since the only source for this is his own claim, and he also claimed to not be associated with the Clinton campaign so CNN would supposedly let him in the debate, he is less than credible in my view.

Quote:
This debate was open to the general public to ask questions, not only card-carrying Republicans who'd sworn loyalty oaths and who promised they hadn't had amiable contact with any Democrats for at least ten years.

Correct but affiliations were supposed to be known and disclosed. Additionally the questions regardless of the background of the questioner were supposed to be screened to insure they were substantive and not of a loaded or 'gotcha' variety.

Quote:
So, yes, using the conspiratorial-sounding phrase "Democratic operative" to describe this general, and then taking one hyped-up fact along with simply not liking the general tone and quality of CNN's chosen questions, then shouting and pissing and wailing that this must be a vast left-wing conspiracy against the Republican candidates... Yes, I'd call that ludicrous paranoia. Or maybe just pathetic.

Well of course you would because you believe the rules go out the window when you want your side to win. As Midwinter's own fallacy points out, the fact that a Republican would call him a Democratic operative does not invalidate the fact that he did in fact, act like one. Accord the claims of CNN he intentionally mislead or obscured his background in order to obtain access. So either he is lying or CNN is lying. I'd prefer to just call them both liars.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #92 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Accord the claims of CNN he intentionally mislead or obscured his background in order to obtain access. So either he is lying or CNN is lying. I'd prefer to just call them both liars.

And it still just adds up to one question in the whole debate. Finding one "Democratic operative" (well, he acts like he is one!) MUST, however, just be the tip of the iceberg of the vast, unseen conspiracy!

That's the Right Wing Noise Machine's modus operandi. Find a "tip" in the smallest real or imagined slight against conservative interests, and then blow your top with manufactured indignation and outrage over the iceberg that you're so, so very sure is always lurking beneath -- whether you believe in the iceberg yourself, or even if you don't but want others to.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #93 of 105
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

And it still just adds up to one question in the whole debate. Finding one "Democratic operative" (well, he acts like he is one!) MUST, however, just be the tip of the iceberg of the vast, unseen conspiracy!

That's the Right Wing Noise Machine's modus operandi. Find a "tip" in the smallest real or imagined slight against conservative interests, and then blow your top with manufactured indignation and outrage over the iceberg that you're so, so very sure is always lurking beneath -- whether you believe in the iceberg yourself, or even if you don't but want others to.

Actually there is a lot more to it than that but we have taken the strongest example so folks like yourself with the most bias might be convinced. Sadly you can't see past your own bias.

Also it isn't as if this came out of the blue. Republican candidates had serious reservations about CNN's credibility and ability to handle this debate. This is why it took place a few months after the Democratic debate. Those reservations were will founded since they spent more time discussing how they feel about the Confederate flag than how they feel about the Iraq war for example.

You don't find it sad shetline that if you were an uninformed voter and tuned into this debate to become informed, you would not have a single iota of information with which to work after having watched this entire debate with regard to Iraq?

That says something very sad and the concerns there in stating that are not those of just the 'right wing noise machine.'

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #94 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

You don't find it sad shetline that if you were an uninformed voter and tuned into this debate to become informed, you would not have a single iota of information with which to work after having watched this entire debate with regard to Iraq?

That would be a better thread topic.

"OMG OMG CNN IS BIAZZZZZED" is not.
post #95 of 105
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

That would be a better thread topic.

"OMG OMG CNN IS BIAZZZZZED" is not.

The problem Shawn is your own bias. You and others desire to label CNN as just continually 'incompetent" with regard to these matters. The pattern isn't incompetence. The pattern is bias.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #96 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

John Kerry.....not disproved.......equals...........debate questions................

Is there a Latin phrase for "head assplodes"?

It was a rant. And i thought it was some good work on my part
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #97 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline View Post

Being co-chair of Hillary Clintons National Military Veterans Group, but also a member of the Log Cabin Republicans, makes one a "Democratic operative"?

This debate was open to the general public to ask questions, not only card-carrying Republicans who'd sworn loyalty oaths and who promised they hadn't had amiable contact with any Democrats for at least ten years.

So, yes, using the conspiratorial-sounding phrase "Democratic operative" to describe this general, and then taking one hyped-up fact along with simply not liking the general tone and quality of CNN's chosen questions, then shouting and pissing and wailing that this must be a vast left-wing conspiracy against the Republican candidates... Yes, I'd call that ludicrous paranoia. Or maybe just pathetic.

Yeah, let's attack the terminology and ignore that he was on her steering committee. Awesome. It's the Clinton spin all over again. I say Democratic operative, you say "former member of a steering committee with loose affiliations to one major Democratic candidate who didn't even know his name." Really, it's pathetic.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #98 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

The problem Shawn is your own bias. You and others desire to label CNN as just continually 'incompetent" with regard to these matters. The pattern isn't incompetence. The pattern is bias.

Nick

So given that logic what how do you gauge Fox News?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #99 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Exactly.

But you have to realize this sort of thing isn't going to stop until the election is over. With the Bush administration and the neocons as a whole the boards have been pulled up. So the conservatives ( and yes the ones on this forum ) will try anything for ammo.

"This kind of thing?" What, Republicans picking on poor little CNN for trying to put on an honest debate? CNN's conduct is indefensible. I believe it was you who said this with respect to Bush:

Quote:
"Either he lied or he was incompetent."

Seems the shoe is on the other foot. Either they didn't realize who these people were because they weren't thorough (very bad) or they DID and used the questions anyway (much worse). Take your pick. 5000 entries, 30 some odd questions, and several that were from declared opposition supporters. Nice.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #100 of 105
I haven't read this whole thread, but I hope everyone can agree that the debates suck. Anything involving the American media sucks. CNN is just about the worst, but they all suck. Suck.
post #101 of 105
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

So given that logic what how do you gauge Fox News?

How many Democratic debates have occurred on Fox News this year? Last I heard the candidates were all ducking the network due to "concerns."

So Jimmac, the network meets with the various campaigns for a few months, irons out the concerns, and the debate is held. Then in the middle of the debate an audience member is given the right to ask a question of the candidates. It is not disclosed but the audience member is a member of President's advisory committee on stem cell and pro-life concerns. The question asked is a loaded one where the candidates have to basically fend off an attack about how they endorse child genocide. Afterwards the moderator follows up by asking the audience member if their question was answered. The audience member ignores the point, and instead, uninterrupted or controlled by the moderator launches into a 60-90 second monologue rant about how terrible all the candidates are for endorsing the presupposition/attack in the question. Thus ignoring even their responses and tarring them with the attack.

Afterwards the network shrugs its shoulders and in a series of conflicting statements contends it screened the audience, but didn't screen the audience because it shouldn't matter. They would have disclosed what they knew, but they miraculously didn't know it even though they flew the audience member in and gave them time at the debate.

Would you call that incompetence or bias? I don't know what you represent, but I'll buy you the plane ticket. I'll moderate the candidate responses, but not the attack of the questioner.

You can call it what you want. I call what I see and the pattern is too deliberate to be an accident.

You can't find me a single poll that likely includes the issues that were discussed as even being in the top ten if they were even included. People care about the war, about the economy, about foreign affairs over all, how about health care for example.

Instead we get a caricature. Guns, god, gays and confederate flags. All these needed to do was drive a pick up on stage with a shotgun rack behind the bench seat.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #102 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

I haven't read this whole thread, but I hope everyone can agree that the debates suck. Anything involving the American media sucks. CNN is just about the worst, but they all suck. Suck.

If you haven't read this whole thread, how could you plagiarize my points so well? HMMMMM???

Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #103 of 105
Damn, busted trying to pass off midwinter's posts as my own, yet again.
post #104 of 105
Thread Starter 
I think the reality is that BRussell and Midwinter are the same person posting across two names to spread out the spamming.

Mid you ever notice all the strange calls and activity when you fall "asleep?" Then there is the matter of making soup and the new cuts and scratches to answer as well.

You CLAIMED those crutches were from jogging, but... we all know better. Then there are the whole coincidental terror alerts whenever you go to England bit as well.


Hmmmm....
Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #105 of 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Damn, busted trying to pass off midwinter's posts as my own, yet again.

Clean room reverse engineered. You're safe.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › CNN: We didn't know half the questions were from Democratic operatives, voters, etc.