Republican debate questions on youtube

Larry Kudlow just suggested that the Republicans do the debate and take these issues straight on. Show the difference between the Dem plan and Our plan

Thats a good idea except for the limited time format.
You cant explain complex ideas in a 30 second sound bite.

Larry Kudlow just suggested that the Republicans do the debate and take these issues straight on. Show the difference between the Dem plan and Our plan

Thats a good idea except for the limited time format.
You cant explain complex ideas in a 30 second sound bite.

L0L a Dallas fellow just called in and said he made his own youtube video and and said in it that any candidate that shows up for the youtube debate should be disqualified for the presidency

Good Point from caller Chuck.

Barak Obama would meet with dictators but refuses to do a debate on FOX News. What does that tell ya?

YouTube makes a lot of sense when it comes to a Democrat Party political debate.

Republicans, (the Party for grownups) would be well advised to stay away from that ridiculous Forum when it comes to serious politics.

There have actually been a few good questions asked, Though most are plain goofy and CNN will cherrypick the questions and limit the rebutal time in an attempt to make Republicans look heartless when responding to Po folks and gays and folks concerned about the killing and such

Well...That film segment was lame

Emmit of the unblinking eye is reviewing the screwtube questions as a matter of cinema. L0L

I like it better than his reviews of actual hollywood films

The last caller says Thompson is a genious for avoiding this stuff all together, and so he is. But he is only prolonging his teflon front.

He will have to join the circus at some point and enter the “Big Tent”.
I predict Sept

Well, Hugh Suggests as a final wrap up that Republicans run away from this format.

DFU was hardly on the show, and Im sorry I got it posted to late for you all could hear our fellow freeper.

Im wrapping this up and headed to the Canteen

Here is Tarzana Joe..

Minority Rule

by Tarzana Joe

It is important to listen to the arguments of your opponents. Every debate coach drills that into his teams. But sometimes the arguments of your opponents send the blood rushing to the extremities and it becomes impossible to listen. The urge to respond, the urge to vent the fury, smothers the ability to hear and to understand. Great debaters know just how to infuriate their opponents and make them forget to listen.

But you can learn a lot from listening. Do I paraphrase Yogi here? Try it. Every third debate, decide to resist the rush to rage. Accept that you do not have to win–this once. And listen. You might find something in the semi-din. Clarity.

It happened today. I was listening to the Dennis Prager Radio show. I was also working with the other half of my brain, so there was no grey matter left to formulate a reply to the twaddle I was hearing. I could only listen. Dennis, usually a formidable debater, was in the midst of a blood rush. He was so anxious to respond to each outrageous statement—delivered, as they were with calm smugnitude by a law school professor— that I believe he missed something very important.

At issue was the left’s annual assault on Christmas. All over America, Nativity scenes have been falling like ten-pins before ACLU lawsuits. The wire services bring reports of legal action in smaller and smaller towns each year as the purge exponates into the heartland. I’m sure many municipalities have voluntarily withdrawn from the fields by night to avoid costly litigation. The municipal manger is history. But soon, any governmental acknowledgment of anything except the winter solstice might follow.

The case in point is the uprooting of a Christmas tree from the atrium of the University of Indiana (at Indianapolis) Law School atrium. Law Professor Roisman told a local newspaper, “This is unacceptable at a place that presents itself as inclusive of all people.” And so the decorated Scotch Pine, a secular symbol really, with no direct relationship to Jesus, Bethlehem, shepherds or wise men— falls.

Oh, I know the evergreen was the center of some pagan German winter fests (they probably slept under it when the Octoberfests lingered on into the bleak midwinter). Later, as Christianity spread into the provinces of the Roman Empire, the stubborn Germans accepted Christ but kept their trees. Even later, the more stubborn and Germanic Prince Albert brought the tree to Victorian England so Dickens could write his novels.

Some Christians scorn the tree because of its pagan roots. Many non-Christians accept these dangerous messy firetraps into their homes without a thought of Christ. Regardless, a tree in a public law school atrium is “unacceptable.”

I would be foolish not to admit that most people see the tree as a symbol of the Christian holiday. But just as clearly it is both more and less than that.

Zap. It is gone. It has been replaced by an “Indiana Winter Scene” containing two bare trees, fake snow, and poinsettia plants. I can’t wait until someone leads the left to horticulture and they realize that the poinsettia contains more Christian symbology than the pine does.

Now, I have written for a page and I haven’t even made my point. I must be furious. The point is that in opposing the removal of the tree, Mr Prager made the point that the tree is not offensive but would be welcomed by the majority of people who entered that law school atrium. Why should the feelings of the majority be trumped by the intellectual discomfort of a tiny minority?

His adversary in the discussion, a law professor at the school, replied that we lived in a country where once the majority supported slavery. Thus, the opinion of the majority should be held as having no value when deciding the fate of the tree. To equate the majority’s delight in a tree to their toleration of slavery is to understand neither Christmas nor slavery. Never mind that slavery was never put to a direct vote in this country, her point was made with the holier-than-thou sanctimony that achieves its purest form only in the breath of atheists.

But I was listening. And the professor’s remark suddenly enlightened me.

The tree is not the enemy. Neither is Christmas. The enemy is the majority. The majority is tyranny. The tyranny of morality. The tyranny of temperance. The tyranny of abstinence.

The left knows better. But the majority is too stupid to ever understand that. The left knows that they will never be able to educate or convince the majority. Thus, the majority is to be defied and defiled. If you are part of the majority, you participated in slavery, the oppression of women and the Indian wars. The majority is to be opposed and beaten with the only weapon available in a representative democracy–the fiat of judges.

Once the judges do their work, the majority will adapt to the new ways–even if they don’t have the capacity to understand them. Heck, they might even be able, someday, to witlessly mouth the tenets of the left just like a catechism.

It has already worked with abortion. The majority feels abortion is a horrifying thing— but do nothing about it.

So where ever the majority lives–eating meat, wearing fur and leather, praying, celebrating, marrying–you will find the left attacking. Just listen for it.

How You Play the Game

I thought it was a bad idea to put the Little League World Series on TV. I don’t mean the edited package that aired on Wide World of Sports in the 1970’s. I’m talking about ESPN’s live, wall-to-wall coverage of regional playoffs, pool play and the full week in Williamsport. I know that the network is desperate to air something besides highlights of Superbowl 7, snooker and high stakes poker, but I thought it was a bad idea to put the pressure of cameras and the whole country on the backs of 10 to 12 year old boys.

There was some strutting, trash talk, and tears in the first few years. But watching the games this year, I noticed a change and I changed my mind.

Those kids were playing fundamentally sound baseball. I saw great catches, heads-up base running, and a few neatly-turned double-plays. It was a lot better baseball than the Dodgers and Angels showed this year. And it was far superior to the game that the Oakland A’s displayed last week against the Red Sox. One of the first things a good Little League coach tells his team is “Don’t try to be the umpire.” If Tejada had remembered that, the A’s would be in the Bronx tonight.

But beyond the fundamentals, we saw some of the finest sportsmanship that was broadcast nationally in quite some time. The umpiring –especially the call of balls and strikes–was questionable. The announcers remarked that Little League umps have wide strike zones to encourage the kids to swing and put the ball in play. Fine. But there’s a difference between borderline and south of the border.

Nevertheless, I did not see one boy, not one, even roll his eyes at a bad call. If the guy is called out on strikes, he hustles back to the bench. This has been so refreshing that I have been moved to stop crabbing at the refs in my roller hockey league.

Apparently, the coach-dads have made the point stick that a player takes a bad call like a man. And I mean that as chauvinistically as it sounds. Argue and you’re out of the game. Play ball. The performances of those boys should be the role models for Major Leaguers to follow–not the other way around. No fist pumping. No swaggering to first. No thank you.

Thanks boys. Thanks dads. It is how you play the game.