All good answers do.Originally Posted by Nessus
All good answers do.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
In Finland, we have saying, knowledge increases anguish. Some rabbit holes are mighty depressing, Hoss
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
You misunderstand the nature of "hangs out in liberal circles." If the moderator of the debate went to Romney's wedding are you seriously suggesting you'd be a - OK with it? Or from 2008 what about the moderator that wrote a book about Obama, race and politics and the historical nature of the race... oh yeah no bias there.
But you do make one good point. That if we tired hard enough almost anyone could be considered biased one way or the other. The only practical solution is to not have the moderator interject their personal views in the debate by requiring them to read the question and that's it. Make it fair. That's all I'm suggesting.
Counter-point, Nalle Wahlroos was a taistolainen, but that's nuance and change and all sorts of lieberal things. What the rational world is telling you is that you're being ridiculous.
Goodness me.
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Who and what?
Exactly.
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
No, that's not all you're suggesting. You're implying that Ms. Crowley is a liberal, bias toward liberals, and moderated unfairly. For all you know she's a registered Republican with right-leaning personal views. You're also suggesting that CNN hadn't vetted her credentials and impartial journalistic history, insinuating CNN is ALSO liberal and biased toward liberals.
Never mind the pesky fact that both candidates and their campaign honchos agreed to CNN as the host, Crowley as the moderator, and the rules of engagement. That included gathering "likely voters who were undecided"*, collecting their questions, and choosing which ones would be asked during the debate.
If you were really concerned about fairness, you'd have dug deeper into who's on the Presidential Debate Commission, and if their influence on the process is fair to the electorate at large. Much easier to simply declare the moderator was biased.
*That's a hard group to identify, pretty small in numbers, and not a very fair representation of the general population, either.
You can also weigh the risk of bias and the expected impact of bias against the expected benefits of having a real debate moderated for real by a real moderator. You know, in much the same way people approach almost all other matters that may involve trade-offs.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
If Romney had gone to the moderator's wedding as an acquaintance of her divorced husband years and years ago, I'd be "ok with it". If I wouldn't be then everyone here would hopefully explain to me that I was being silly and wrong. Don't be a crazy Geegee man
You'll recall, btw, that even Obama's team protested when they learned of how Crowley felt about her role in the debate.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
False dichotomy. Only Mormons could attend Romney's nuptials. Even the bride's parents were excluded. But they did get to go to "the party" afterward.
I'd lay 10 - 1 odds she's voted for Democrats more than Republicans.No, that's not all you're suggesting. You're implying that Ms. Crowley is a liberal, bias toward liberals, and moderated unfairly. For all you know she's a registered Republican with right-leaning personal views. You're also suggesting that CNN hadn't vetted her credentials and impartial journalistic history, insinuating CNN is ALSO liberal and biased toward liberals.
Never mind the pesky fact that both candidates and their campaign honchos agreed to CNN as the host, Crowley as the moderator, and the rules of engagement. That included gathering "likely voters who were undecided"*, collecting their questions, and choosing which ones would be asked during the debate.
If you were really concerned about fairness, you'd have dug deeper into who's on the Presidential Debate Commission, and if their influence on the process is fair to the electorate at large. Much easier to simply declare the moderator was biased.
*That's a hard group to identify, pretty small in numbers, and not a very fair representation of the general population, either.
So we only let people who haven't voted moderate debates? How else can you be certain? How deep does the well run, Lewk?
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Ad hominem.
Why don't you tell us which criticism from the moderator you had issues with? If you're feeling frisky, you may pick one which was directed towards Biden.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
Of course. Both candidates would rather spout their partisan rhetoric uncontested than actaully having a debate. Much easier and safer that way. Just look what happened in the veep debate 4 years ago. Palin cornered just started reciting some prepared nonsense which didn't even come clise to answering the questions. And morons thought she did well in that debate.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
Since you are determined to have a "moderator" put each individuals feet to the fire - how about having two moderators? One Republican and one Democrat. Now there is no bias to worry about because each side gets to have an interrogator.
The bottom line is this - by pulling media figures in for moderation that are supposed to be unbiased is unfair simply because most media figures are biased. The solution can either be to have them not play a part and just read the question or two have two openly biased ones that that can ask follow-up questions to each side.
How about a team of fact-checkers.
If you leave the choreography of a debate to the political parties you will get a game show. The candidates are not to be held accountable to each other, but to us, the people who vote for them. With that in mind there has to be someone who represents us. It's not either candidate's aim to inform us best as possible, but to have the biggest winning chance possible. This is a clear duty for journalism, acting in our behalf, to keep them accountable.
Your two biased moderators is a terrible idea, since their aim also isn't to inform, but try to make sure their party wins. They will be a part of the problem. There has to be a party there who's sole objective is delivering relevant information to the voters at home. That's the point of the debates isn't it? Or is it entertainment? Which side is the best at the game of 'debating'. Which side can get away with the most lies. Which side can dodge the most questions.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
How do you then aim to resolve the problem of biased moderators? Or do you just not care since it benefits the left?
Christ All-fucking-mighty.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
As I suspected.
Please demonstrate the existence and the extent of "the problem of biased moderators" first.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
The so called fact checking in the middle of the debate for one guy.
The allowance of the audience to respond outside of designated times.
The moderator who had Obama go to her wedding.
The moderator from the last election cycle who wrote a book about Obama's historical presidential run.
The fact that Republicans have gotten less time in each of the debates.
The never ending parade of folks who ARE liberal doing the moderation.
But of course to those on the left, having a biased moderator is OK! After all they are going with biased news, biased newspapers and biased professors. Why not biased moderators?
I see now why you thought my idea of a team of fact-checkers was biased towards the left.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
I meant like show that it's a problem, you know, with real and meaningful consequences
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Fair point. Reality does have a well known liberal bias.
Your definition of liberal is so absurdly wide that it would be difficult to find enough moderators if you used it as a criteria for exclusion.The never ending parade of folks who ARE liberal doing the moderation.
There's a man goin' 'round, takin' names
And he decides who to free and who to blame
Liberal - someone who believes in liberal ideas and policy. Evidence of this would be voting for the Democratic party. Evidence of this would be that more journalists self identify as being liberal and journalists tend to be the one that are asked to be debate moderators.
Frankly the idea that any person who covers the news is unbiased is absurd - they either lean to the left or to the right and by far most lean to the left.
Again of course you see *no* problem with the moderator siding with the liberal side because of course they are just "fact checking." Completely ignoring the idea that people cherry pick facts that support their positions.
Like what? Elections decided? Polls viewing the outcome of the race? Or are you suggesting that if it helps the liberal guy win that's not a real consequence?
Do guns make us safer? I can cherry pick facts to indicate yes they make us safer. And you can cherry pick facts to indicate no they don't make us safer.
We can do the same for the cost of Obama's health care plan.
We can do the same for a whole host of issues. Do you really believe that this team of fact checkers are going to be unbiased?
Okay let's go with polls and election victories then for a while, in lieu of silly metrics like word-count.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
What is reality, really?
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/20...tes/?mobile=nc
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
