You know its bad when Dems ban audio/video from debates

[BT]

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.

[sirs]

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

[BT]

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.

[sirs]

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??

[BT]

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.

[sirs]

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

[BT]

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.

[sirs]

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

[BT]

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.

[sirs]

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

[BT]

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.

 

[sirs]

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

[BT]

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.

 

[sirs]

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

[BT]

"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.