Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Dan J

South Carolina - Fox TV Debate

Rate this topic

18 posts in this topic

I didn't watch the debate live, but from looking at some on-line commentary this morning I know a lot of Ron Paul fans were ringing their hands over perceived mal-treatment by Fox and a stacked audience (mostly neo-con and pro-Gingrich) . They also claim selective use of mic.'s to either amplify or muffle live audience reaction to individual candidates - as they see fit - for TV viewers consumption.

 

Since both Fox and South Carolina are likely hostile territory for Paul, none of this would surprise me. However, after viewing a vid of Ron Paul highlights from last night, I have to say that (in addition to his answers being sensational) he got a pretty positive audience reaction from at least some of them.

 

Anyone that saw this live care to comment on whether the live broadcast differs from the video in terms of the audio portion of live audience reaction?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't catch much of it - but the quote of the night was 'biggest myth since Bigfoot (Romney responding to some of Newt's attacks) and Newt getting in hot water with one of the moderators regarding a supposed racially insensitive comment (the Moderator was African American)....To be honest, I didn't necessarily disagree with Newt's point, but thought it was horrendously poorly worded... However, he's right that a lot of young kids have lost the ambition to break a little sweat and work entry level/minimum wage jobs (it's the 'African Americans on Food Stamp' comments that came with along with his little rant that did his argument in)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Since both Fox and South Carolina are likely hostile territory for Paul"

 

And you think Paul has a better chance in which state and which news outlet?

 

BTW, Ron Paul feels very strongly that taxpayer-funded first class airfare is protected in the Constitution, as the Founding Fathers intended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Truth is, as much as I dislike Gingrich, I also agree with him on the food stamp thing.

His wording and tone of his response to Juan Williams was meant to be red meat for the audience IMO.

 

FWIW - I'd like a candidate to say they will eliminate the food stamp program in it's current form (plastic ATM like card). That's not to say that the hungry wouldn't be fed. They would be given food, not a plastic card, a stamp, or any kind of a voucher that can be misused or traded as money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Truth is, as much as I dislike Gingrich, I also agree with him on the food stamp thing.

His wording and tone of his response to Juan Williams was meant to be red meat for the audience IMO.

FWIW - I'd like a candidate to say they will eliminate the food stamp program in it's current form (plastic ATM like card). That's not to say that the hungry wouldn't be fed. They would be given food, not a plastic card, a stamp, or any kind of a voucher that can be misused or traded as money.

 

Food Stamp thing. 14MM people are unemployed, the largest percent since the Depression. I guess there would be more people on Food Stamps than there were before GWB tanked the economy.

 

320

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Since both Fox and South Carolina are likely hostile territory for Paul"

And you think Paul has a better chance in which state and which news outlet?

 

I'll give you that ALL the MSM news outlets are dishin' him unequal treatment. Fox is just at the top of the heap in that department, IMO.

 

He had a decent chance in NH, and also will in many other state primary's and caucuses yet to come.

 

SC has a large economy based on defense spending, so Paul's views on non-interventionism need to be explained better (esp. there) than the spin the media puts on it.

Actually, his answer on differentiating between military spending and defense spending was great,

as was his pointing out waste (an embassy built in Iraq that's larger than the Vatican).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Don't give a damn about which president had the most unemployment when it comes to food stamps.

I don't like the method by which it's done. I f people need food, give them food, not money or something that can be converted into money.

 

As far as unemployment statistics are concerned - you can bet the ranch many now unemployed would not be if their benefits ran out.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also don't care when someone wants to point out that there are more whites receiving benefits than any other racial group.

This is no surprise, as they still make up the largest percent of the population as a whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't give a damn about which president had the most unemployment when it comes to food stamps.

I don't like the method by which it's done. I f people need food, give them food, not money or something that can be converted into money.

As far as unemployment statistics are concerned - you can bet the ranch many now unemployed would not be if their benefits ran out.

 

I can't imagine the infrastructure (AKA Bureacracy) required to administer the program if we actually gave out food rather than checks/cards. You'd need a national network of food distribution, that is if you didn't sub-contract it out to the current supermarket chains. I agree the current system is broken though.

 

I worked in a large supermarket as a teenager. The store kind of straddled several different socio=economic communities. I remember people handing me food stamps and WIC checks to pay for milk and formula and then handing me cash to pay for beer, soda, chips, cigarettes. I was only 14 at the time, but that didn't make sense to me. If they could afford to buy that other stuff, why were the taxpayers feeding their kids? It wasn't a rare occurance either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see the issue most Reps are having with the field of candidates running. You can see it pretty clearly in the debates. One 1 end of the spectrum you have Romney who has the credentials and the other end of the spectrum you have Newt with all his baggage. BUT on a different spectrum you have Newt the aggressor who would take it to Obama in the election and at the other end you have Romney who seems like a wimp...... Somewhere Paul is either in the middle of those spectrum's or just out in left field all together......

 

I can see why many Reps are resisting Romney, because he comes off weak/wimpy compared to the fire under you ass style of some of the other candidates. And Romney has always been that way. Anyone remember McCain attacking him at debates and Romney just giving the wide eyed look..... Shame there isn't someone who has the credentials and that aggressive style.... I'll still vote for Romney if he's on the top of the ticket without any looney's on the bottom.

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it's just the leery, half glass empty in me, but my gut is sensing an October Surprise concerning Romney. The 'progressives' can't be that glad he is going to be the nominee without good reason. I'm smelling ambush. I'm thinking left-handed compliments from main stream media cheerleaders like 'no one complaining about Romney's Mormonism....yet'. Or TV 'specials' on Mormonism and its 'cult like aspects'.

 

Something about this lame stream coronation bugs me, but I just can't put my finger on it. :squid:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shame there isn't someone who has the credentials and that aggressive style.... I'll still vote for Romney if he's on the top of the ticket without any looney's on the bottom.

John

Ron Paul makes the most sense to me, and he doesn't have the baggage.

 

The ONLY thing Romney has going for him is his promise to repeal Obama Care. That's it. And unfortunately, it isn't enough in my book.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ron Paul makes the most sense to me, and he doesn't have the baggage.

The ONLY thing Romney has going for him is his promise to repeal Obama Care. That's it. And unfortunately, it isn't enough in my book.

 

Let's face it KoQ: A pol's promise ain't worth much.

 

More to the point of Romney's "promise," repealing the ACA would require enough Senate and House members to support the repeal, and then there are loads of legislative complications and political machinations.

 

The ACA is landmark legislation; there is almost zero chance of repealing it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Didn't catch much of it - but the quote of the night was 'biggest myth since Bigfoot (Romney responding to some of Newt's attacks) and Newt getting in hot water with one of the moderators regarding a supposed racially insensitive comment (the Moderator was African American)....To be honest, I didn't necessarily disagree with Newt's point, but thought it was horrendously poorly worded... However, he's right that a lot of young kids have lost the ambition to break a little sweat and work entry level/minimum wage jobs (it's the 'African Americans on Food Stamp' comments that came with along with his little rant that did his argument in)

 

albacized --

the words "African Americans on Food Stamps" were never uttered by Newt. It is common knowledge that 70+% of the people on food stamps are white. Where every you picked up the AA commentary is trying to play the race card and you bit it hard. Obvisously you didn't watch that exchange close enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.