+- The Lurker Lounge Forums (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums)
+-- Forum: The Lurker Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Question on presidential debates (/thread-7905.html)
Pages:
1
2
Question on presidential debates - Nicodemus Phaulkon - 09-23-2004
And think of all the fun they'd have designing logos that would work with pin-striping and grey-flannel!
Say, does the New American Century boys have one yet, beyond the Neo-Con label slapped on them?
"NAC: If it ain't us, it ain't U.S."
"NAC: It's American to question authority; we'll just call you names and belittle you when you do so."
"NAC: We've been around for decades, so now it's too late to really be surprised we're here"
"NAC: You wouldn't believe how thin we can spread the butter; pass over the military, please?"
:P
Question on presidential debates - Obi2Kenobi - 09-23-2004
You first say that every candidate should get free airtime, and then you say that both of them should get equal amounts? Which is it? If it's both, that's terribly unfair (not nearly as much as the Electoral College, but that's another argument for another time) to non-Republicrats (ie: Ralph Nader, Michael Badnarik, etc). If it's all, that's terribly crowded. So I would support a political channel (maybe take channel 1 back? How about channel 0? :lol: ), but it would need some sort of qualification to be in the debate, ballot access in that state would really be all that I support. That (generally) shows effort.
Question on presidential debates - eppie - 09-24-2004
Obi2Kenobi,Sep 23 2004, 10:09 PM Wrote:You first say that every candidate should get free airtime, and then you say that both of them should get equal amounts? Which is it? If it's both, that's terribly unfair (not nearly as much as the Electoral College, but that's another argument for another time) to non-Republicrats (ie: Ralph Nader, Michael Badnarik, etc). If it's all, that's terribly crowded. So I would support a political channel (maybe take channel 1 back? How about channel 0? :lol: ), but it would need some sort of qualification to be in the debate, ballot access in that state would really be all that I support. That (generally) shows effort.Obi, with free airtime I meant without paying. (airtime for free, sorry for the unclear english)
So a standard amount of airtime for every party or person that takes part in the elections. To make sure a lot of people watch these adds, you might force the big commercial stations too give some of their time for such a thing.
On the other hand TV commercials should not be the most important thing in an election. (maybe they should be the least important thing.
Question on presidential debates - Occhidiangela - 09-24-2004
Quote:Maybe he decided to spend his $200 mill on EBay Diablo dupes instead
Funny thing about Diablo dupes is that you really can't shove them anywhere, so he would be safe!
Occhi
Question on presidential debates - Occhidiangela - 09-24-2004
With the continuing mergers, one would have trouble keeping track of who is bought and sold, or paid for, without a dance card. One day, a "public servant" might be wearing a Wal Mart label, and the next day, suddenly he's Nestlé property.
Your Truth in Advertising dream, while a sweet one, comes a cropper via the standard paradox:
If there was any Truth in the process to begin with, we wouldn't need the suggeted labels! <_<
Occhi
Question on presidential debates - --Pete - 09-24-2004
Hi,
The USA has, over its history, become 'election crazy'. There are scads of offices for which people are campaigning. And any argument for free airtime for presidential candidates applies just as well on all these lower levels. However, even if it were restricted to presidential candidates, that would still give access to many people (even more, I'm sure, if indeed one had free access). While you may see the report of only two candidates, or in some rare cases where there has been some notoriety a third like Perot or Nader, there are actually many candidates running. To restrict it to the two main candidates (which we so often do in effect) is to further entrench the two party system that is so great a bane of this nation.
Term limits, campaign funding reform, free airtime, etc. are only band-aids which do nothing to cure a system which is falling apart under the weight of obsolete customs and political corruption. However, this country does not have the will it had two and a quarter centuries ago. The possibility of throwing the bastards out (again) and starting over with a new form more suited to the modern realities is so slim it is well nigh invisible. Until that changes, politics (at least in the USA) will remain a four letter word, and politicians will share the scumhood of lawyers.
--Pete
Question on presidential debates - Occhidiangela - 09-24-2004
Quote:and politicians will share the scumhood of lawyers.
They should, since a great many of them got their start via the Law in the first place. :rolleyes:
Question on presidential debates - Baajikiil - 09-27-2004
I couldn't find a complete list of the rules, but here's a short news story about them: Link
Apparently the rules for these three debates are a full 32 pages long.
EDIT: Wow, just noticed the name of that newsite: "Voice of America". Ouch, that name sounds bad. No I don't read it regularly, it's just a link that popped up in google.