CNN/youtube debate - tonight

[ecoli]

For those of you who don't know, it's the republican debate tonight, at 8 o'clock EDT... I recommend everyone watch it, at least in part.

 

My problem is that I don't have anywhere to watch it Does anyone know if it'll be streamed live onto the internet anywhere? I briefly looked through the CNN website, but I couldn't find it.

[CDarwin]

For those of you who don't know, it's the republican debate tonight, at 8 o'clock EDT... I recommend everyone watch it, at least in part.

 

My problem is that I don't have anywhere to watch it Does anyone know if it'll be streamed live onto the internet anywhere? I briefly looked through the CNN website, but I couldn't find it.

 

You can wait until it goes on YouTube.

[iNow]

I'm not sure if they will or will not play it here, but this link is where it would be IF it were on Youtube streaming...

 

http://www.youtube.com/republicandebate

 

 

Check here too... if nothing else, it may be available after:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/28/debate.main/index.html#cnnSTCVideo

[ecoli]

I found the streaming off the CNN pipeline website.

 

I must admit I was quite disappointed. The same rhetoric from the from runners, same pretty but empty fluff from Huckabee.

 

I can't believe that Tancredo got more time than Paul... that was ridiculous.

[john5746]

I think everyone knows where Paul is coming from now. Get rid of half the government, isolate ourselves from the world and let the states figure it all out. A confederacy if you will.

 

Until they narrow down the debates to at least 4, there is no point in watching, IMO.

[ParanoiA]

I think everyone knows where Paul is coming from now. Get rid of half the government, isolate ourselves from the world and let the states figure it all out. A confederacy if you will.

 

But in a federation both the states and the central government share power. So how do you advocate state power on certain issues without coming off as a confederate? Especially considering that power is never given up - the government never seems to shrink any and it's always incremental. So, do you think you could recognize and realize when your central government gains a disproportionate amount of control?

 

Also, consider the fuction of the central government versus state government. The central government basically gaurantees a base line set of rights that all states must follow. Seems to me, most of the activity in politics should really be happening at the state level. Federal government shouldn't really have that much going on with domestic issues, just ensuring that the constitution is respected among the states. My opinion of course, but it makes more sense to me anyway.

 

Seems like we're so conditioned to meddling at the federal level we can't think otherwise.

 

Also, Dr. Paul doesn't advocate isolationism. He advocates non-military intervention. Funny how your interpretation suggests that the only valid form of interface between governments is through their militaries - alliances and intervention.

 

Spreading freedom and democracy is strongly encouraged - but not by military means. Why is that so out-of-the-question? Or more importantly, why is that considered isolationism?

 

I found the streaming off the CNN pipeline website.

 

I must admit I was quite disappointed. The same rhetoric from the from runners, same pretty but empty fluff from Huckabee.

 

I can't believe that Tancredo got more time than Paul... that was ridiculous.

 

I have had the same impression on previous debates. The democrat debates are more interesting.

[Severian]

I won't watch it because, quite frankly I don't give a ****.

[iNow]

I'm watching now from the Youtube link I shared above, and here's my take. I don't mean this as a Republican attack, since Democrats do similar, but here's what I see:

 

A lot of jingoistic short-sighted hot button talking points with lots of hornet nest rattling rhetoric which appeals to single issue voters and few feasible presentation of plans which strive for resolution to the massive fuster cluck of issues we all face together across our nation and our planet.

 

I am iNow, and I approve this message.

[ecoli]

I won't watch it because, quite frankly I don't give a ****.

should've taken your cue... iNow got it right

 

I'm watching now from the Youtube link I shared above, and here's my take. I don't mean this as a Republican attack, since Democrats do similar, but here's what I see:

 

A lot of jingoistic short-sighted hot button talking points with lots of hornet nest rattling rhetoric which appeals to single issue voters and few feasible presentation of plans which strive for resolution to the massive fuster cluck of issues we all face together across our nation and our planet.

 

I am iNow, and I approve this message.

 

Yes... and CNN didn't help by asking so many irrelevant questions. Even the hand picked 'focus group' didn't care that much about abortion.

 

I was irritated that their was no text messaging poll.

[CDarwin]

According to Fox News, the whole thing was an example of CNN bias, because the questions all sounded like they were asked by Democrats.

[iNow]

According to Fox News, the whole thing was an example of CNN bias, because the questions all sounded like they were asked by Democrats.

 

Of course. What isn't a bias according Fox? Good grief.

[Pangloss]

CNN bias is as obvious as FNC bias, and neither is exactly what its critics like to portray it as.

[ecoli]

According to Fox News, the whole thing was an example of CNN bias, because the questions all sounded like they were asked by Democrats.

 

Well. a few were definitely democrats, by CNN's own admission.

 

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/29/blogtalk-cnn-debate-under-fire/

[Pangloss]

ROFL! If Fox News Channels had pulled something like that it would be on every front page and the top story on every network news show for the next week.

[CDarwin]

I really seemed like the Republican debates were more geared to be "entertaining" than the Democrats'.

 

I don't know if that says something about CNN trying to get ratings, or how lowly they think of Republican viewers, or perhaps some great conspiracy on their part to make the Republicans look foolish.

[ecoli]

I really seemed like the Republican debates were more geared to be "entertaining" than the Democrats'.

 

I don't know if that says something about CNN trying to get ratings, or how lowly they think of Republican viewers, or perhaps some great conspiracy on their part to make the Republicans look foolish.

 

I don't know if it's a wider conspiracy, but a small group of people did pick the questions, so who knows?

 

also, I believe that about 4.4 million people were watching the debate... I think that's the largest (ever? - at least this year). So they got the ratings they were looking for.

[iNow]

also, I believe that about 4.4 million people were watching the debate...

Do you happen to know if that number accounts for online viewers, like me who watched the following day on Youtube?

[Reaper]

This question may seem out of context, but I'm going to ask it anyway. For one, the reason I usually don't comment in the politics forum is because I really don't have that much knowledge of what is going on in that field.

 

But, the question is: Is there any GENUINE difference between the democrats and the republicans? From what I can tell both here and everywhere else, it seems to me that they are really nothing more than prejorative labels that people use to slap on others to catagorize those they disagree with. Any debates that I see are pretty much degrade into personal attacks. And from what I've seen, both political parties seem much far removed from reality.

[ecoli]

Do you happen to know if that number accounts for online viewers, like me who watched the following day on Youtube?

Probably just viewers watching live.

[CDarwin]

Probably just viewers watching live.

 

That's all that counts as far as CNN cares (advertising money is what they're concerned with).

 

But, the question is: Is there any GENUINE difference between the democrats and the republicans? From what I can tell both here and everywhere else, it seems to me that they are really nothing more than prejorative labels that people use to slap on others to catagorize those they disagree with. Any debates that I see are pretty much degrade into personal attacks. And from what I've seen, both political parties seem much far removed from reality.

 

Depends on who you talk to and to which reality you subscribe. People do have genuine political opinions, and they tend to chose their parties on the basis of those opinions. I don't know what better system you could expect.

[ecoli]

This question may seem out of context, but I'm going to ask it anyway. For one, the reason I usually don't comment in the politics forum is because I really don't have that much knowledge of what is going on in that field.

 

But, the question is: Is there any GENUINE difference between the democrats and the republicans? From what I can tell both here and everywhere else, it seems to me that they are really nothing more than prejorative labels that people use to slap on others to catagorize those they disagree with. Any debates that I see are pretty much degrade into personal attacks. And from what I've seen, both political parties seem much far removed from reality.

 

The details of their ideology, and the effect that might have in terms of economics, foreign policy are different.

But, I bet in the long run, these differences wind up being quite subtle, especially between moderate dems and moderate republicans (which I assume are the majority).

With the exception of a few pres. candidates (that are considered long shots) they'll probably wind up compromising on many issues once they get into office... but that's just how the balance of powers tends to work.

 

Right now, I think that any of the mainstream democrats or republicans will have the same affect on our economy (ie. it won't get better).

[Reaper]

Depends on who you talk to and to which reality you subscribe. People do have genuine political opinions, and they tend to chose their parties on the basis of those opinions. I don't know what better system you could expect.

 

 

I'm well aware that people do have genuine political opinions, but what I'm asking is if the 2 parties in question really represent them, or if the two parties are just that, two parties with no discernable difference.

 

And when I speak of reality, I mean acknowledging the actual state of the physical universe.

[ecoli]

Depends on who you talk to and to which reality you subscribe. People do have genuine political opinions, and they tend to chose their parties on the basis of those opinions. I don't know what better system you could expect.

True, but I can't tell you how many people I know (esp younger people) who say... "eww, you're a republican" without really knowing what the conservative ideology is. They just assume, pro-war and pro-social legislation. They don't realize economic responsibility is a big part of it (well, it used to be) and free market business solutions as opposed giving government control.

[Pangloss]

I haven't been able to find a source for this on the net yet, but according to a Eric Burns on Fox News Watch, one of CNN's editors, in trying to defend his network's actions, made the amusing statement "Well you can't Google everyone!" Of course they did somehow find time to set the gay general up with airline tickets and a hotel room. Duh.

 

I can't vouch for the accuracy of that, considering the source (though I happen to like Eric Burns and enjoyed his last book quite a bit), but I thought the quote was worth passing along just for the amusement factor.