"Is this the same George Stephanopoulos
who enabled fraud before the American public?"
Posted on 01/10/2012 5:14:45 AM PST by Kaslin
"Is this the same George Stephanopoulos
who enabled fraud before the American public?"
bias = Prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.
partisan = A fervent, sometimes militant supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea.
why do repubs keep appearing in front of these commie morons? They should form their own debates with repub questioners.
George Stephanopoulos is classic example of the term-useful idiot.
Saturday nights debate with Diane and George was just awful. They should be barred from moderating anymore debates, now or later this fall.
Wouldn't you just love to see a debate between Obama and Gingrich with moderators Mark Levin, Mark Steyn and Rush Limbaugh?
It is almost as if they want zero to win.
I did love Gingrich’s slapdown, turning the tables on Stephie by declaring the cramdown of homo “rights” as being state sponsored bigotry against Catholics and Christians.
This is why I do not bother to watch the debates... bread and circuses.... my ideal candidate would be the one to tell the people sponsoring the debates to go to hell and just not participate..
Uhm, yeah, George was disgraceful. /s
He is a political operative and works for the collective. He is just doing his job and I thought he did it rather well, for his side.
These debates aren’t designed to allow the candidates to demonstrate their thoughts on what is important to the country and how they would solve the problem.
No, with each debate, the field is being shoe horned into basically imploding, on themselves...on each other.
If any of these guys want’s to break out from the rest, if they are in another debate where the questions are well, purile, they should intelligently exit the so called “debate” and invite the others to another location where they can each hash out the issues and explain why their ideas are more powerful reasons to vote them as POTUS.
Of course, they would need to have an agenda, much like the main stream media and our side is as good at agendas. No, we are more pragmatic in our approach.
I say that has to change. The liberal media has an agenda and we should have one as well. It should be forceful, resolute and obvious.
I don’t play games with people who can colude with each other to win. I did once and it was against some Ivy League “smart guys”. I forget the card game but they essentially ended up cheating.
They felt like they won even though my hand was superior but under their cheating and on the fly “rules”, they insisted they had won.
NO, the rules are one thing and their victory was hollow for it shallowness.
The media is cheating each of these men out of their opportunity to explain themselves.
I vote for Newt to stop the debate, explain to his friends he has set up a different venue where each can explain his ideas and walk off from this stoopid forum.
Of course, there will have to be others in collusion on the deal but what the heck.
It will raise the visibility of everyone and totally diminish media’s anachronistic thoughts to irrelevancy or at least make them fight for why anyone should give a damn what they think.
Let’s see what the next debate holds. Christmas?
Months ago I suggested Levin, Breitbart, Coulter as a possible three. I think Limbaugh would be too dominant of a personality, which is why I shot a bit lower on the totem poll - or is that pole? But I like your thinking.
Republicans need to go on the offense at debates and every chance they get. Nobody wins by playing defense. The same positions that Stephie was making seem wrong with the candidates in the debate are the same as 0bama’s (gay marriage for one). Tell the truth, get away from the social issues and talk about jobs and the economy. Stephie can only control some of the discussion.
The entire effort of lib moderators is to shift the focus of the debate to social matters to show conservatives as bigots who would enforce their “narrow-minded and hateful” social agenda on the rest of the country. Naturally subjects that are of vital importance to all Americans, like defense and the economy, are way down the list of topics for the lib mods. They want to tell the American public: “see, these nasty, bigoted, Republicans want to force you to go to church on Sunday, and they want to put a camera in your bedroom.” Typical lib tactics.
I would have no moderators in a debate between Gingrich and Obama.
There would be a timekeeper, 45 minutes per subject, and broad subject areas: defense policy, foreign policy, economic policy, homeland, and social concerns.
I think Obama does that ON PURPOSE to give the arab world a sound bite
You can bet that Obama’s affirmation that he is a muslim was played all over the arab world
Isn’t all media that we are exposed to, the main-stream media? What serious media isn’t main-stream?
That's a great idea for the General Election. My suggestion was for the still crowded GOP debates.
Stand up,George.”Oh,God love you;you are.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.