DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on September 07, 2010, 06:01:06 PM
-
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) -- U.S. Rep. John Spratt will debate his Republican challenger Mick Mulvaney on Tuesday, but the only people who will get to see any of it have already bought tickets to the sold out dinner at a South Carolina Lions Club.
Reporters will be allowed, but Spratt's campaign asked for no audio or video recording of the debate between the candidates.
Mulvaney's campaign protested the request when agreeing to the debate, then sent out a news release Monday slamming Spratt saying "in this country, we have open debates."
It's the latest indication that Republicans see a good chance to knock off Spratt, the longest serving congressman in the South Carolina delegation and chairman of the House's budget-writing committee.
Spratt was first elected to the sprawling Fifth District in 1982.
No cameras in debate after Spratt's request (http://www.midlandsconnect.com/news/story.aspx?id=507353)
-
just like with concert bans on cameras
which as a matter of fact i never understood
it wont work
cell phones have camera/video/recording
somebody will get around this BS
it's harder for TaxoCrats to hide these days
-
You'll notice no condemnation from Xo, or any leftist punditry. Instead, we have a new obsession, folks in orange suits
-
You'll notice no condemnation from Xo, or any leftist punditry. Instead, we have a new obsession, folks in orange suits
Where is there an obligation to condemn anything you have no control over?
-
Since when is a requirement of control necessary to condem/criticize <enter anything here>
-
Since when is a requirement of control necessary to condem/criticize <enter anything here>
Control isn't necessary to comment. My question concerned the requirement to comment negatively or otherwise upon an issue .
-
You must have erased the post where I was requiring a response. I can't seem to find it, in my archive
-
Then why this snark?
You'll notice no condemnation from Xo, or any leftist punditry. Instead, we have a new obsession, folks in orange suits
-
Precisely what exactly is wrong with it? It was merely an observation. No mandate, no demand, no requirement of any kind. Merely an astute observation.
::)
-
Well it certainly was an incomplete observation, as Pooch, UP, Brass, and myself failed to offer up any comments on the main subject matter of the thread. Which kinda renders the acute observation meaningless, absent a requirement to comment.
-
If such comments were generated from the likes of you, Pooch, or even Up, I can guess where they may have been, on the criticizing table. Being this is a story about Democrats, my observation noted an obvious omission of any such condemnation from those who generally support democrats, cart blanche
So again, not sure what you're getting at, since my observation was specific to leftist punditry. Why would it include critical commentary from the right?? ???
-
No matter the point on the spectrum from which my comments would be based on this particular issue, i find it odd that singling out one poster for failing to voluntarily comment on one of your offerings seems strange.
-
In context I didn't single anyone out, since I referenced Leftist Punditry, which basically encompasses.......anyone with a leftist view. Xo's name was merely used since he's the only one on the left currently posting in the saloon, who fits the parameters of leftist punditry.
Nothing odd there, what-so-ever. Then again, I think you already knew that, which begs the question, why this riding sirs down with the misrepresentation of supposed demands for condemnations by the likes of Xo??
-
Unfortunately, i don't think you made your case that leftist punditry did not comment on this dem candidates actions. Did you do a search and come up empty, or did you just decide to include leftist punditry to give you wiggle room in your obvious barb towards XO.
Argue ideas, not personalities. And yeah i know XO is just as guilty as you of personalizing the debate.
And that was the point of my post. And i do think singling out a non commenter as speaking volumes for an entire spectrum of political thought is not only annoying but pointless to boot , as last i heard there is no requirement to comment.
-
I think I did, since in fact, leftest pundity has NOT been commenting on this Dem Candidate's actions. No, I did not facilitate a serach. Yes, I have been paying attention to the various news outlets, as well as the saloon. And I have yet to hear any serious criticism or condemnation from such sources
So yes, I have argued ideas...this one is the conbtinued non-existent criticism of a Democrat by those on the left, that would be excoriated by everyone, including those on the right, had this been a Republican
Your issue is a misdiagnosed conclusion, that someone I was trying to pick on Xo, and Xo alone. And you'd be wrong, as my commentary has clearly demonstrated. Perhaps your efforts would be more put to use in trying to reign in those who are merely calling each other names, here in the saloon. That would fit far more closely to the notion of advocating the arguement of ideas vs personalities
-
Be it right or left, if you are requesting not to have media available, then you are a bit nervous of the outcome of the debate.
If one was so sure of their point of view and the decisions that they stand behind, then why not shout it out with all that you have?
That is the true purpose of why their is a ban on the audio/video of some who are debating. And for the record, I have no doubt that the Repubs would do the same if in the same shoes. As of late, I see very little difference between most.
When you look at spending, it did not happen alone. When you look at pork, the right are guilty as well. In fact, I find them far more guilty. They were elected to be a leaner working government, not an open check book.
-
There are a couple of points that may be pertinent to this issue.
One: Spratt has Parkinsons
and Two: He is much more comfortable in a townhall style debate and might be holding out for that.
McCain also preferred townhall debates, so did Bush if I recall correctly.
I picked that info up from a discussion about the issue at the Huffington Post, so it is apparently on the liberal punditry radar also.
-
Ahh, so you picked up levels of defense for the act, from the liberal punditry, and not the criticisms'/condemnation I indicated were transparently absent. Kinda reinforcing my point all the more
-
Ahh, so you picked up levels of defense for the act, from the liberal punditry, and not the criticisms'/condemnation I indicated were transparently absent. Kinda reinforcing my point all the more
Actually what i picked up was commentary on the issue. In the same thread on HuffPo not only was there discussion of the reasons for the desire to ban television and audio broadcasting of the event, but also remedies up to and including withdrawing from the race due to health reasons. What i found was an open minded approach to the issue, which to use your phrase was transparently absent from your characterization of the issue.
BTW you can watch the debate here:
http://www.youtube.com/user/jlbetsch#p/c/4F6B00DBB6626E28/0/azYaKkYyE-4 (http://www.youtube.com/user/jlbetsch#p/c/4F6B00DBB6626E28/0/azYaKkYyE-4)
-
Strange, since what I found in your postings was precisely the opposite of what i had referenced. Instead of criticisms for attempting to circumvent an honest open debate on the issues for all to see, we find justifications & defense for it.
And that's meant to be an "open minded approach". wow, not sure I want to see what a close minded approach is
-
And that's meant to be an "open minded approach".
Yeah . All issues are not black and white. There can be mitigating circumstances that make lockstep mindless criticism of the "others" as just plain shortsighted. Especially when your team has done the same damn thing.
McCain held out on the presidential debates for a townhall setting, not because he wasn't a good podium speaker, but because he wanted to get Obama off script.
-
Yes, you are right, there can be rationalizations for such an egregious act of denying a forum for the electorate to see and hear a candidate's positions, in an honest debate. I never claimed otherwise.
Merely criticising it, and observing how the left largely ignores it, or with your example, even defend it
And your use of McCain holds no water since it was still a debate, open for all to see and no limitations in audio or video taken
-
Yes, you are right, there can be rationalizations for such an egregious act of denying a forum for the electorate to see and hear a candidate's positions, in an honest debate.
I did not know the public was barred from attending. I did not know the press was barred from reporting on the event.
Because that would have to have taken place in order to commit "an egregious act of denying a forum for the electorate to see and hear a candidate's positions".
-
Strange, I did not know I put that people were banned from attending in the thread title. You need to work on these software glitches that apparently keep changing the point you keep claiming I'm making
The egregiousness is that it was a forum were only a fixed # of people could attend. My guess is that was a mere fraction of the voting electorate.
Then again, I think you know that as well
-
The egregiousness is that it was a forum were only a fixed # of people could attend. My guess is that was a mere fraction of the voting electorate.
The room where the debate was held was standing room only? That usually isn't the case with congressional elections. I fail to see how folks were denied attendance to the debate. And any limitations on crowd size would be determined by the fire marshal, not the candidates. But in either case you failed to make your case that anyone was denied the right to attend the debate.
-
U.S. Rep. John Spratt will debate his Republican challenger Mick Mulvaney on Tuesday, but the only people who will get to see any of it have already bought tickets to the sold out dinner at a South Carolina Lions Club
I just did.......again. If this were a GOP candidate, it would be MSM attention, with no rationalization efforts, outside of those spokepeoples intimate to the candidate
Your defense of the egregious is duely noted, however
-
Ah they sold tickets to the debate. That is a whole different story. Do you think the candidates should have provided free tickets to those who chose not to buy them on their own?
Is there like an entitlement to pay per view?
The Lions do good charity work for the blind. Glad to see they benefited.
-
Must have missed the part about the banning of video & audio as the crux of this issue, that makes your inquiry moot
Then again, what must be defended, apparently must be defended :-\
-
If you are selling tickets to an event, scarcity makes the price higher. And since the blind benefited from these higher prices, your callousness is duly noted. I'm surprised you are in the health field with an attitude like that.
-
Wow...I didn't realize that elections have now become part of the entertainment business. Here I thought they were about running Government, and who the electorate wishes to have represent them. Break out the disco balls
(and FYI, looking forward to you demonstrating any of my posts that declare my opposition to charging for the event. Another deflection effort I'm afraid. Almost bordering on misrepresentation. Remember that practice what you preach recommendation I was making earlier? Bears repeating apparently)
-
It hardly makes sense to sell tickets to an event if you are also televising it free to the masses. And I believe that was what your gripe was. I'm sure the blind and vision impaired appreciate your concern.
-
Funny, how they do with with sporting events all the time. And cudos to you not finding any comments of mine, deriding or criticising that the event had a paid admission. You inquired as to how the event could possibly have been of a limiting format (The room where the debate was held was standing room only? That usually isn't the case with congressional elections. I fail to see how folks were denied attendance to the debate) I demonstrate how it was, and you then make the illogical leap that I was criticisng that the event was a paid one, with the ridiculous addition of deriding the blind
Debunking your repetative misrepresentation of my position was well worth the few minutes we had in dealing with this
-
Funny, how they do with with sporting events all the time.
Yeah Networks pay big bucks to broadcast sporting events. That is hardly the case with debates and other news events.
If the networks ponied up to televise the debate it would be a different story.
That would bring in more monies for the blind and vision impaired.
-
The point being that here we have events being charged for, but still access to free TV.
Next?
I mean, what is the problem here Bt? Why is it so wrong to criticize a candidate that demands, and gets preferential treatment by denying the very public that will be doing the voting from getting to see/hear him debate his opponent, outside of those fraction of a few that paid to see it??
What's wrong with this picture??
-
The point being that here we have events being charged for, but still access to free TV.
That's not the point at all.
The point is to trash the opposition and the facts of the case be damned.
And one mitigating factor that was not considered but in front of your very eyes was that this debate was sponsored by the Lions Club with ticket sales going towards their vision charities.
-
And what facts are getting "trashed"? The Lions Club is irrelevant, so there's nothing mitigating about it. It could have been held at the YMCA, and all the proceeds going to the Boys & Girls clubs of the USA. It could have been held in a Hospital Conference center, with all proceeds going towards JRA research. None of those have anything to do with the point being made since the beginning of the thread, that of the banning of any/all video & audio, at the behest of 1 candidate, in a debate between candidates, running for major office.
oy
-
You are correct that the beneficiary of the ticket sales is irrelevant. You are incorrect that it being a charity event does not mitigate the ban on live tv and audio. Hannity does freedom concerts all the time and they are not televised, and tickets are sold. . The silence from the right on that blatant disregard of the entitlement to watch the event from the comfort of your couch is duly noted.
-
You are correct that the beneficiary of the ticket sales is irrelevant.
Yet, you jumped right on it, as if it were
You are incorrect that it being a charity event does not mitigate the ban on live tv and audio. Hannity does freedom concerts all the time and they are not televised, and tickets are sold.
AND, the PERFORMANCES, (i.e. the entertainment, i.e. someone's talent) is what the people are paying for. Are you now confirming that the election process is merely entertainment?? Really??
The silence from the right on that blatant disregard of the entitlement to watch the event from the comfort of your couch is duly noted.
Try to stick to apples when doing these comparisons, Bt. Your lemons are getting more sour, by the post
-
AND, the PERFORMANCES, (i.e. the entertainment, i.e. someone's talent) is what the people are paying for. Are you now confirming that the election process is merely entertainment?? Really??
Are you saying that political events can not be staged to benefit charities?
Really?
And do you deny that for many, politics is nothing more than a blood sport, with cheerleaders, logos and a whole lot of bragging for your team?
The whole reason that this forum has been around for 8 years is that politics is entertaining.
-
AND, the PERFORMANCES, (i.e. the entertainment, i.e. someone's talent) is what the people are paying for. Are you now confirming that the election process is merely entertainment?? Really??
Are you saying that political events can not be staged to benefit charities?
NO....are you purposely not paying attention??
And do you deny that for many, politics is nothing more than a blood sport, with cheerleaders, logos and a whole lot of bragging for your team?
Don't have a team, and no, never denied such that wish it so
The whole reason that this forum has been around for 8 years is that politics is entertaining.
Ahhh, there we have it. At least I thank you for your honesty. I wonder why then we still have an Electoral College. Let's just get 3 judges, and every week, we call in to vote out a candidate. We can even have guest former politicians providing advice to those who made it into the next round. May the best singer win the Presidency
Oh wait, that all gets televised. This could get a little tricky
-
Ahhh, there we have it. At least I thank you for your honesty. I wonder why then we still have an Electoral College. Let's just get 3 judges, and every week, we call in to vote out a candidate. We can even have guest former politicians providing advice to those who made it into the next round. May the best singer win the Presidency
Oh wait, that all gets televised. This could get a little tricky
Now you are just being stupid. Of course elections still need to happen. That's what the law says.
But for you to deny that politics is entertainment is just being obtuse. There would be no need for CNN, Fox, MSNBC and talk radio if it weren't. And last i heard those networks pay for punditry.
-
No, the hyperbole was in dealing with your rationalizations, that are starting to get absurd. The "entertainment" quality to politics is in WE, the masses, being completely entertained at the ridiculousness of politics. It's politicians throwing grand fund raisers to preach to their choirs. It's pundits going back and forth, on those networks, you were referring to
A Debate between candidates is not meant or designed to be "entertaining". their answers can be. Their antics can be. Their overt audible "sighing" when their opponent responds to a question can be. But the debate itself is NOT. Is paramount in importance to those who would be possibly voting for this person to be a representative. And for 1 or more candidates to be denied audio and video to the masses who weren't fortunate to have a ticket to the closed event, is really an outrage. Especially this close to the elections.
And for you to defend it, and purposely misrepresent my positions on this, is no gold star event either
-
You do realize that there is no requirement to broadcast a debate, though it is a good idea to allow people to attend, which was the case for this event. I can only suspect that if a conservative had blacked out the debate to enhance the value of the tickets you would be applauding their charitable actions.
Which brings us full circle. Not only were you quick to judge, but there was no requirement on anyone's part to comment on your rush to judgment. And to point fingers at people as if they were required to comment was presumptuous and groundless.
-
Welp, I have to say the "full circle" assessment is correct, in that you've apparently made up your mind I'm part of some team, and simply jumping up and down on a Dem that I'd be giving a pass to if it were a Republican. That's called hypocrisy. That's called duplicity. It's what I call Democrats, liberals, and even Republicans on, when I see it done.
And if you had bothered to go back to the beginning page if this little discussion, you would have caught this little ditty "I have argued ideas...this one is the conbtinued non-existent criticism of a Democrat by those on the left, that would be excoriated by everyone, including those on the right, had this been a Republican
So no, I've been consistent from the get go, including any criticism I'd apply if this were a Republican pulling the same dren. Your defense of these actions by Pratt have also been consistent, which I guess is a good thing, despite it being the wrong thing. Not to mention the egregiously incorrect conclusions of "demands" for condemnation, or how my comments were poorly portraying the good of charitable events
I suppose you could call it a trifecta of wrongness. At least I can, and have demonstrated how so
-
"I have argued ideas...this one is the conbtinued non-existent criticism of a Democrat by those on the left, that would be excoriated by everyone, including those on the right, had this been a Republican
And there is no requirement for anyone to criticize this action, as the facts of the matter trickle out. So your pointing out this absence is little more than a strawman.
Let's review.
There is no requirement to broadcast.
There really isn't any requirement to partake in a debate.
There is no requirement to criticize the absence of broadcasting, by anyone.
But apparently the absence of comment from those on the left shook you to your roots.
The real fact of the matter is that the only opinion that counts is of those voters in that district.
And even voting is not required.
-
"I have argued ideas...this one is the continued non-existent criticism of a Democrat by those on the left, that would be excoriated by everyone, including those on the right, had this been a Republican"
And there is no requirement for anyone to criticize this action
*sigh*.....since you continue to insist I've claimed something that I never have, even having repeatedly demonstrated the opposite, I think we can close this chapter now
It's unfortunate now that pointing out something of note, has now been redefined as mandating answers/responses/criticisms
:-\
I'm sure our patrons will also note how the post you repeated of mine, debunks, that last vestage of incorrect concluding, that of sirs giving a pass to a Republican if he pulled the same dren. For that, I thank you
-
It's unfortunate now that pointing out something of note, has now been redefined as mandating answers/responses/criticisms
You are the one who felt the need to point out the lack of comment from certain quarters.
Or do you now deny that too?
-
Pointing out is NOT the same as demanding
Then again, this was already addressed page 1
-
Pointing out is NOT the same as demanding
Then what was your point
in pointing it out.
-
Asked and answered multiple times already, Bt. You wish a repeat?....ok.....
- "Since when is a requirement of control necessary to condem/criticize <enter anything here>"
- "No mandate, no demand, no requirement of any kind. Merely an astute observation."
- "Merely criticising it, and observing how the left largely ignores it, or with your example, even defend it"
- "It's unfortunate now that pointing out something of note, has now been redefined as mandating answers/responses/criticisms"
My point, was POINTING IT OUT
::)
-
My point, was POINTING IT OUT
To what end?
Why was the lack of response from XO noteworthy? Why would it speak volumes, if as you have already stipulated, there is no requirement to respond?
-
Merely hi lighting (i.e. pointing out) the duplicity of current events & lack of outrage compared to if this were a Republican candidate
Then again this too has been asked and answered........multiple times
-
Couple problems with that.
One it presupposes a given response absent all pertinent facts.
It shows stereotypical thought on your behalf, and a firm lack of belief that individuals are capable of forming their own opinions even if it goes against the grain of a supposed party line.
There really isn't anything to criticize once the facts are known.
-
No, the problem is your assumption of presupposing, in this case, that sirs was demanding a response. It's ironically consistent with your problem of prejudging, and incorrectly pre-labeling me, based on that wrong judgement
It'd be a stereotypical thought if someone from the far left choose to respond, and debunked my deductions. It never came, thus helping to validate it instead.
The problem is then manifested to a much higher level when your presumptions are all shown to be in error, but you insist on continuing to apply them
And that's what's really unfortunate, since the former can simply be an error in judgement. The latter apparently requires a sense of ego, that must be maintained......despite repeatedly how in error you've been demonstrated to have been in
-
No, the problem is your assumption of presupposing, in this case, that sirs was demanding a response. It's ironically consistent with your problem of prejudging, and incorrectly pre-labeling me, based on that wrong judgement
Right. That is why you often suffix the lack of response from the likes of XO and Tee that this lack of non required response speaks volumes.
It'd be a stereotypical thought if someone from the far left choose to respond, and debunked my deductions. It never came, thus helping to validate it instead.
No i believe your demand was that they criticize the actions of the Democrat.Mere comment on the issue did not suffice.
The problem is then manifested to a much higher level when your presumptions are all shown to be in error, but you insist on continuing to apply them.
Such as ?
And that's what's really unfortunate, since the former can simply be an error in judgement. The latter apparently requires a sense of ego, that must be maintained......despite repeatedly how in error you've been demonstrated to have been in
Right. Hit enter declare victory.
-
Bt, your claiming I was mandating others to respond has consistently been shown in error. Your claim that I was simply a GOP supporter bashing a Democrat, who I'd give a republican a pass for the same infraction, was shown to be in error. Your claiming I was dissing charitable events was shown to be in error
HARDLY a "declare victory, hit enter" phenomenon. But nice try
-
Nonsense. You constantly post that a lack of a specific response from the likes of XO and Tee speaks volumes.
What the hell does it say?
-
asked and answered already. It says it speaks volumes ::)
Since this has devolved into you asking the same questions, and making the same misrepresentations, at this point, I think its safe to assume we can <hit enter & declare victory>, since any subsequent questions and proclamations will have undoubtedly have already been answered and debunked many a time earlier, in this thread.
-
It says it speaks volumes
And what does that mean?