Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Grand Old Party Clings to Grand Old Media: Repub Candidates Refuse YouTube
blog.washingtonpost.com — Only John McCain and Ron Paul agree to participate in Presidential debate on YouTube.
sixthplanet- 1452 diggs
- digg it
- DiggeralToolz, on 10/10/2007, -86/+32In the meantime, the Democrats continue to cower in fear at the idea of appearing in a debate on Fox News. How courageous of them ... NOT!
- 0zzy, on 10/10/2007, -9/+48Republicans have already used their absents for the NAACP debate.
- Timetheos, on 10/10/2007, -6/+15It's Fox Opinion, not Fox News.
- bigturns, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1or rather, Fux'd unNews.
- hoovcluck, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Ok Dan Rather
- bigturns, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1or rather, Fux'd unNews.
- Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12Cower? You're joking, right?
I mean, you do know what a 'boycott' is, right?- Elranzer, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Cowering is what conservatives do best. From congress, from the constitution, from the people, from the "big bad Arab man in the east."
- misterbucket, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5They can't show up on Fox News, that'd be like taking the fight to the enemy and we already know their stance on that!
- hoovcluck, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Sweet Jesus that one made me pee my pants a little bit!
- hoovcluck, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Sweet Jesus that one made me pee my pants a little bit!
- bigturns, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5I am assuming you are a viewer of Fux'd unNews? If so, you can't possible think, for a moment, that what you are watching is unbiased? What you do with your time is your business. Where you get your 'information' is your business. But the truth of the matter is, Fux'd unNews is not today nor has it ever been news.
Fux'd, like most media outlets, is ‘corporate owned’. Corporations exist to generate profits for their investors. Investors follow the best horse. If Fux’d unNews fails to keep such entities happy, under the corporate model, Fux’d unNews execs will get the axe.
Further, Fux’d unNews has been used time and time again by W’s administration to ‘get the word out’ on issues which favor this administration. Such a mechanic is commonly referred to as propaganda.
The content found on Fux’d unNews, and many other networks, is nothing more than glossy piece after glossy piece aimed at delivering advertisement to the desired demographics (you, the product). It is your eyes, the viewer, which are the product being sold to the advertisers of Fux'd unNews. Fux'd unNews will show you whatever ‘truth’ you care to see assuming you come in large enough numbers. It's that simple.
The zeal of those who program for Fux’d unNews to appeal to the fears and fantasies of its viewers without regard for the facts is the basis for those who boycott such as being the opposite of ‘fair and balanced’.
Courage, or a lack thereof, has little to do with those whom reason against allowing a corporate propaganda machine like Fux’d unNews to advertise/officiate such a contest. The opportunities for Fux’d unNews to assail the opposition given such a forum are too great a vise not to have itched.
You would say cowardice. I would say wisdom.- LeadOffMan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3and CNN isn't a corporation owned media crap channel?
Just watch that hack Wolf Blitzer and tell me there's no liberal bias- atheinostic, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Wolf Blitzer doesn't have a liberal bias, he has a pro-establishment, pro-corporate, pro-douchebag bias
- t0ken, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Calling Fox News "Fux'd unNews" does not lend to your credibility one tiny bit.
- LeadOffMan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3and CNN isn't a corporation owned media crap channel?
- eggloaf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2BORAT?
- Matic, on 10/10/2007, -28/+56Is this the kind of party we want in the white-house taking us into the future? YouTube or some derivation of it is here to stay and the YouTube debates were a success (minus the snowman and unnecessary production aids) regardless of what these old guys think. I can't wait for the next democratic debate so I can submit a question myself. I actually want to see America's major cities catch up to the technological advances of Tokyo or surpass them and I don't think a republican in the white-house can pull it off.
- perish, on 10/10/2007, -5/+16Because.... that's totally the job of the Federal government.
- kazamx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Creating a market where competition can function is the job of the federal government. Just look at your broadband market to see where a government that can't regulate right gets you. Even worse go check your mobile phone industry
- 15charmaxwtf, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2So if the Fed ***** it up...everywhere is ***** up. If it's just local then at least it only messes up one small area.
- bmang, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0exactly, kazamx, the government can't regulate anything right..get them out of it completely. Watch competition thrive when that happens.
- kazamx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Creating a market where competition can function is the job of the federal government. Just look at your broadband market to see where a government that can't regulate right gets you. Even worse go check your mobile phone industry
- MEGAMERICAN, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4What exactly was wrong with the snowman? Is there something wrong with having a sense of humor or seeing if candidates have one?
You'll never see most major American cities catch up to Tokyo, and like perish says, that isn't the job of the Federal government. Tokyo and Japan in general is a completely different economic environment than the US in general. Think of the square miles difference and population density difference. It is not economically feasible for companies to upgrade their infrastructure to keep up with new technology. Not even in the major US cities. There really isn't that big of a gap to be worried about anyway. If it is that much better, you could always move there. ;)- Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6But it is the job of the federal government to provide a legal environment that promotes technological advance. You're fooling yourself if you think that government has no effect here.
"It is not economically feasible for companies to upgrade their infrastructure to keep up with new technology."
A company which has a national customer base has the resulting income necessary to keep their infrastructure up-to-date, especially when a LOT of that infrastructure (copper lines, for example) doesn't actually need upgraded, simply maintained.
Mind you, the income of one CEO, these days, is enough money to provide ubuiquitous WiFi-g at full shared bitrate for a city of Philadelphia's size. But we'll just let that go for the moment; after all, CEOs need more money than we do, what with their trophy wives and their spoiled children.
- Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6But it is the job of the federal government to provide a legal environment that promotes technological advance. You're fooling yourself if you think that government has no effect here.
- spyseetuna, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4The technological advances of Tokyo may have recently been hampered by a pretend setback:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/earthquake_sets_japan_back_to_2147 - misterbucket, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3You actually think your question would get handled if you submitted it? The only questions that will get answered are the softball questions from attractive people or ones that make gun owners look like morons. The fact of the matter is that while we're all in the midst of an information revolution here, there are large numbers of people who believe it or not either don't use computers, can't afford one, or have one but don't even know what the heck a webcam is! Go ahead and visit your library, think anyone is using the computer there because they've got a perfectly good one with Internet access at home? Go ahead and rag on the GOP all you want, but they're doing the geekiest thing ever, getting their message out to the biggest audience via the most compatible interface there is - the 'old media.' Lemmings! All of you!
- kazamx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7I would love it if no other candidates turned up. A in depth debate between McCain and Paul would be very interesting. Both have very different options on the direction the US and the republican party should go in the future and both are 'fairly' straight talkers. I would find a debate between these two very interesting.
- MaceSoul, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3Looks to me like one party has a shred of dignity left. The last thing potential presidential candidates need to be doing is taking questions from singing snowmen. It's asinine. Show some decor.
- CMOSLogic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The thing is, it's ALL about 'Decor' NOW...
I put it as 'More ***** lies from both sides, so they can keep funding their politically based money/legislation for bribes routine'
- CMOSLogic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The thing is, it's ALL about 'Decor' NOW...
- perish, on 10/10/2007, -5/+16Because.... that's totally the job of the Federal government.
- understudy, on 10/10/2007, -6/+99The two that are tied in funds—McCain and Paul—interesting.
But YouTube submitted questions should be voted on by YouTube subscribers, and not by CNN as it was this last time around. Otherwise, it's just CNN's debate featuring YouTube on the drums.
_- RuffRidr, on 10/10/2007, -9/+21Yes and I doubt the Republicans would get the same softball treatment from CNN that the Dems got.
- LeadOffMan, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11Of course not
- robdowns, on 10/10/2007, -9/+10Name specific instances of where you feel CNN gave them "softball treatment."
- 0xbaadf00d, on 10/10/2007, -3/+25Q: Who was your favorite teacher, and why?
- SpaceMonkeyZero, on 10/10/2007, -6/+13"What does Liberal Mean to you?"
I'm surprised they didn't get the "If you were a tree, what kind of tree would you be?" - darthmiho, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9and how are those any less lame questions than the "who has the biggest hard on for the right wing" questions we saw in the republican debates?
- tobdubois, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5the "but the other side does it argument" only allows both sides to get away with things that neither side supposedly supports, you know that, right?
- RuffRidr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10The gun control issue is a perfect example. Dozens of questions were submitted about this on YouTube. Which one gets picked? The guy that called the AR-15 his 'baby'. CNN set up the cheap shot, and Joe Biden took it. Nevermind the fact that no one answered the question.
- texpundit, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14"The two that are tied in funds—McCain and Paul—interesting."
I wouldn't say *tied* in funds. They're nearly tied in their fundraising last quarter...but McCain's campaign is in the hole and Paul's is debt free.
To me, that puts Paul ahead. - JesusDeluxe, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6comment dugg for "featuring YouTube on the drums."
- Takalth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You nailed it. As long as it goes through the CNN filter, it still doesn't represent the people.
- bufmike, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Actually it should be voted on by registered republican voters as it is a republican primary debate, not a general election. I would have loved to have picked the questions my senator had to answer (hint: out of the 200k jobs she promised she is at -38k and counting....)
- RuffRidr, on 10/10/2007, -9/+21Yes and I doubt the Republicans would get the same softball treatment from CNN that the Dems got.
- rhysmd, on 10/10/2007, -6/+64"Rep. Tom Tancredo (Colo.), whose "Tancredo Takes" on his YouTube channel draw hundreds of views."
MAN!! Hundreds of views?! On Youtube? *****, I didn't think he was popular at all!- steamedlice, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Oh, yeah... HUNDREDS of views... (rolling eyes).
- Xuvious, on 10/10/2007, -15/+60Republicans made a big stink when certain Democrats said they wouldn't deal with Faux News. Now look at these candidates, doing the very same thing with CNN/Youtube.
- SpaceMonkeyZero, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3payback's a bitch?
- Tuxbunta, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9And your point is? I guess you are trying to say that the Democrats and Republicans are no so different after all.
- Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Well, since Fox News is considerably more biased to the right than CNN is to the left, I'd say it's a matter of the republicans fearing non-favorable reporting (rather than the Democrats boycotting 'reporting' that's biased to a much higher degree than you'll find in their colleagues in the News industry).
Yes. The Main Stream Media is biased. Most of them try to minimize that bias, but it's a fact of life that reporting the news without bias is nigh impossible on a large scale. However, Fox is pretty much the only News venue around that is *intentionally* biased. - gropo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Rather, that's the only tactic the Pro-Jesus-riding-a-dinosaur Party has left? "bah they're ALL corrupt/hypocritical/feebleminded. Both sides of the Aisle!"
"Therefore i vote for the party that... says they want to bleed government dry... Except never gets around to that bleeding part. Or the dryness pert."
Thus devolves to:
"OMGRONPAULNHBBQ VOTING UR CONSHENSES!!"
Nonsense.
- Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Well, since Fox News is considerably more biased to the right than CNN is to the left, I'd say it's a matter of the republicans fearing non-favorable reporting (rather than the Democrats boycotting 'reporting' that's biased to a much higher degree than you'll find in their colleagues in the News industry).
- Muyoso, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4So wait, has ANYONE come out saying they wont participate in the debate? Or have people just not confirmed yet? Oh yea.
- Xuvious, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12I'm only saying that the whole "two party" system is hypocritical. There's no difference between the two but only rhetoric to get into office. Once there they are one and the same. Neither Party will take a stand on principles, that's why candidates like Kucinich, Paul and Gravel stand out so much. Because they stand on principles.
- dolinn, on 10/10/2007, -8/+79FTA: 'Sources familiar with the Guiliani campaign said he's unlikely to participate.'
Best news I have heard all day. It would be nice to have a debate without hearing him spouting off '9/11' every sentence and completely ***** about how he is tough on terror. Granted, it would be hilarious to see people call him out on how full of crap he is, but I would much rather watch three or 4 candidates who actually have some substance and creditibility, then watch Giuliani get a ton of talking time and then spend most of it dodging questions.- x252, on 10/10/2007, -14/+9you mean like Hilliary and Obama did?
- geckofiend, on 10/10/2007, -6/+9I seriously wonder why it is that every time someone criticizes a politician there's always someone who goes "but but the other guy did it too waaaaaaaah". Ever hear the phrase "two wrongs don't make a right"?
- x252, on 10/10/2007, -6/+5I just fail to see the validity of someones point when the party they support is doing the exact same thing, yet criticizing the GOP for it.
- CDHarrisUSF, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11You need to work on your reading comprehension. Everything in that post was directed specifically at Giuliani... not the GOP.
- uptown, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Umm.... That's kinda the whole theory behind the "two wrongs don't make a right" idea.
- Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Boycotting Fox News for its rather infamous political agenda in 'reporting' is a little different than boycotting CNN/YouTube for some kind of slight to their egos (snowman).
- SpaceMonkeyZero, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3A pot walks into a bar, sits down next to the kettle and says "You're black!"
- uptown, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Imus?
- x252, on 10/10/2007, -6/+5I just fail to see the validity of someones point when the party they support is doing the exact same thing, yet criticizing the GOP for it.
- geckofiend, on 10/10/2007, -6/+9I seriously wonder why it is that every time someone criticizes a politician there's always someone who goes "but but the other guy did it too waaaaaaaah". Ever hear the phrase "two wrongs don't make a right"?
- x252, on 10/10/2007, -14/+9you mean like Hilliary and Obama did?
- Archos, on 10/10/2007, -11/+69Their attitude toward this alleged citizen-driven debate is telling. Who will these candidates serve when they get elected?
- dweeb79, on 10/10/2007, -8/+34They will serve Big Business.
- LeadOffMan, on 10/10/2007, -17/+6They need to serve Big Business, Medium business, and small business. If the government doesn't make the environment good for busines then the corporations will leave and take the jobs with them. And then where will you be? Depending on the government?
Leftards are such tools- Timetheos, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2>>
They need to serve Big Business, Medium business, and small business - Timetheos, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7"They need to serve Big Business, Medium business, and small business..."
Only if those businesses serve the people. The goal of corporations is to make money, not employ people.
I say raise the taxes on corporations, and if said corporations spend money towards the people (e.g., hiring in the USA and supplying benefits), then they get large tax breaks. - Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2"They need to serve Big Business, Medium business, and small business."
It's that attitude that's brought you the abusive megacorps of today.
"If the government doesn't make the environment good for busines then the corporations will leave and take the jobs with them."
But if the government is pandering to business, they also have a responsibility to make sure the businesses don't abuse their rights, otherwise the citizenry will oust the government.
"And then where will you be? Depending on the government?"
Nah. I work for myself. I'll leave that question to someone who actually works for someone else.- CMOSLogic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5No, you work for the government, and are allowed to keep some for yourself. Go ahead and try not working for the government for 4 months out of every 12.
- Timetheos, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2>>
- LeadOffMan, on 10/10/2007, -17/+6They need to serve Big Business, Medium business, and small business. If the government doesn't make the environment good for busines then the corporations will leave and take the jobs with them. And then where will you be? Depending on the government?
- neuropsychguy, on 10/10/2007, -14/+8Just a guess - the citizens of the U.S.? Call me an idealist, but I think that the majority of politicians still try to serve their constituents as best as they can (or nearly the best that they can).
- SpaceMonkeyZero, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4With thousands of earmarks!
- rockchops, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6You took the blue pill didn't you?
- Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Wow. You're pretty naive there, friend.
Politicians don't serve the public interest anymore, you know. Too many people get pissed off, as the 'what's best for everyone' doesn't have nearly as quick returns as 'what's best for me'.
- 3tcp, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Not an idealist, just naive. These days, serving the constituents means handing out favors to all the little special interests in your constituency that will organize enough votes for you to win reelection.
The best thing that could happen to this country is congressional term limits. - LadyKofNYC, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4You REALLY think that the majority of politicians still try to serve their constituents as best as they can????? Holy crap!!! PLEASE tell me you're less than 17 years old.
- hoovcluck, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Citizen driven? Did CNN not censor and select the questions they wanted aired?
- Archos, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1That's why I said "alleged citizen-driven" . . . . . .
But still, Ron Paul is by far the most popular candidate on Youtube, while CNN only gives him half the time of what the others get. It would be very suspicious for non-youtubers to hear this. Besides that, 95% of questions for Giulliani will be about his maffia ties, his 911 lies and profits etc. If CNN does not broadcoast one of those questions, it will again add up to the suspicion.
I think this debate will be a win-win situatuation for Paul and I fear for his life... 5 years ago, a same kind of libertarian, Pim Fortuyn, extremely popular, ran for prime minister in the Netherlands, was assassinated just before the elections.
- Archos, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1That's why I said "alleged citizen-driven" . . . . . .
- dweeb79, on 10/10/2007, -8/+34They will serve Big Business.
- dagnabbit, on 10/10/2007, -16/+42This shouldn't be surprising. They're all scared to death of facing real people and their everyday problems and concerns. Since every question won't be about 9/11 or Iraq, they know it will be deer-in-the-headlights time.
- 0xbaadf00d, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13Real questions from real people, chosen by real news network executives.
- darthmiho, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1it's not perfect, but consider how it would go down if the population of the net was the only one that determined what questions got there? either way there had to be some editorial oversight.
- Muyoso, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5Yea, I am sure they will get real questions on real issues, and not questions like this:
"Why are you covering up the 9/11 conspiracy?"
"Why are you racist?"
"Why do you hate gay people?"
and others like that. Hell, when they were in one of their first debates, the freaking OLD media asked them:
"What do you hate most about America?" WTF kind of question is that? The questions between the democrats and the republicans are not even CLOSE to even.- tobdubois, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2"what do you hate most about america" is a legitimate question - surely you don't think everything in america is perfect. I'll project and pick one - the thing i hate most about america is the liberal leaning media.
- Archos, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Rudy would say there's nothing he hates about America. (because the only thing he hates is the bloody audience)
- tobdubois, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2"what do you hate most about america" is a legitimate question - surely you don't think everything in america is perfect. I'll project and pick one - the thing i hate most about america is the liberal leaning media.
- philipl411, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2That's it! You are so smart, I mean, after all a snowman and a gun nut are real people after all
- 0xbaadf00d, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13Real questions from real people, chosen by real news network executives.
- dweeb79, on 10/10/2007, -6/+40I hope they don’t cancel this debate because of only 2 people. It would be a huge stepping stone for both politicians and would lead to almost certain failure for the other candidates. People will view their candidate as weak and unwilling to defend their positions.
I really hope big business CNN doesn’t cancel it.- toekneebullard, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I bet they will. Rather than stand up and basically says the guys who won't do it are pussies, they'll just back down and say, "you guys were right...this is a lame idea"
- minorthreat, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2Only 2 people want to do the debate, not 2 people declined.
- dbz253, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5yes, we know
- bbardlbradd, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5I was thinking this sort of thing would be a go-no-go sort of event... if they don't have everyone, or the important ones that they know their viewers support, they'll just say "Meh... maybe some other time".
I would love more than anything to see McCain and Paul alone debating over YouTube questions. Mainly b/c it'd show how immature the other candidates are, how dedicated the two are, and most of all, they would both get a lot more time to talk about things seeing as there are only two of them. I hope everything works.- steamedlice, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Ron Paul could put some o' dat Libertarian voodoo to work on McCain. :) Hell, I'd watch it.
- monger68, on 10/10/2007, -20/+26Just how many straight-ticket republicans even know what YouTube is? Imagine these dinosaurs trying to address social issues AND technology at the same time. Chilling.
- Botanicus, on 10/10/2007, -7/+6Funny, but on college campuses it is most commonly business and engineers who are republican. Statistically speaking Technology shouldn't be a problem. Social issues I'll leave up to the candidate's track record.
- lewhich, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Where did you go to school?
I'm an engineer and 99% of all programmers I've met are super liberal (the internet itself is a liberal idea)
If you think I'm joking, come here to Silicon Valley and show me one, just one NeoCon!- CMOSLogic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Guess what numbnuts: programming isn't real engineering. And the internet itself is a MILITARY idea.. they're not exactly 'liberal'.
Wtf do liberals eat, leaded paint chips?
- CMOSLogic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Guess what numbnuts: programming isn't real engineering. And the internet itself is a MILITARY idea.. they're not exactly 'liberal'.
- lewhich, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2Where did you go to school?
I'm an engineer and 99% of all programmers I've met are super liberal (the internet itself is a liberal idea)
If you think I'm joking, come here to Silicon Valley and show me one, just one NeoCon! - Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Maybe on your campus. Here the breakdown is mostly comp sci, math, humanities and engineering for the libs, and law, business and theology for the cons. Economists are split down the middle, particularly down the pure market econ for the cons, and socio/macro econ for the libs.
- lewhich, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Where did you go to school?
- 3tcp, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Do you use that as an excuse to just support whatever the democrats tell you to? Everything has two sides and both have good points, if you ignore them then you're just as much of a drone as the republican followers who do the same thing.
- monger68, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I'm not talking about Republicans, not conservatives, not moderates, not liberals.
I am talking about the NeoCons. The straight-ticket voters who worship Bush all the way to the Apocolypse.
Age range 40+, upper middle class, suburban, bible fiends. That is who I am talking about.
And yes, I hate my dad. - Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I prefer to research my own *****.
For example, most republicans aren't sufficiently aware of new technology to accurately predict its impact on economic systems, however, those that *are* are usually better equipped than their democratic counterparts to do so, based on the higher statistical number of republicans with a background in economics.
That said, most of Congress is just too damned old to run this country efficiently. While there's something to be said for experience, it's no good to be completely out of touch with reality.
- monger68, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I'm not talking about Republicans, not conservatives, not moderates, not liberals.
- Botanicus, on 10/10/2007, -7/+6Funny, but on college campuses it is most commonly business and engineers who are republican. Statistically speaking Technology shouldn't be a problem. Social issues I'll leave up to the candidate's track record.
- chowda, on 10/10/2007, -13/+68Rudy was quoted as saying "I 9/11 these debates, why should I have to 9/11 myself by answering 9/11 youtube questions, 9/11!"
- bigturns, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4ha!
- hoovcluck, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2I happen to like Rudy, but that was funny as hell.
- CMOSLogic, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Rudy's a ***** profiteer. Nothing more.
- conceptkid, on 10/10/2007, -16/+10Youtube debate is cool, but for god sakes, USE THE FULL SCREEN BUTTON THIS TIME!! Watch Jon Stewarts version of what he thought of the dem youtube debates, its funny. Typical stuck up REpublican *****, Ron Paul is the only honor you have left in your party. Youtube is the way for us poor people who dont want to drive to the debates to see it and a way for us to get heard. If you cant realize that, you have no right to be president.
- Skas, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3"who dont want to drive to the debates" You lost your substance right about there.
You probably don't care *that* much if you skip debates because you don't WANT to drive there. Sorry, but get over yourself; if you care strongly enough about what you're attempting to spew, you'll make a little more of an effort.- CMOSLogic, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1No, he doesn't want to drive 550 miles to be told turn the ***** around because some bigwigs bought his place in the audience; he's gotta get up and go do his government involuntary servitude in the morning so he can keep his job that has no benefits.
Get a ***** clue
- CMOSLogic, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1No, he doesn't want to drive 550 miles to be told turn the ***** around because some bigwigs bought his place in the audience; he's gotta get up and go do his government involuntary servitude in the morning so he can keep his job that has no benefits.
- Skas, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3"who dont want to drive to the debates" You lost your substance right about there.
- RuffRidr, on 10/10/2007, -9/+29I want to know who picks the questions. Would they get the same softball treatment that the Democrats got?
- Satanael, on 10/10/2007, -5/+18I hope not. Giving hard questions would allow Ron Paul to outshine McCain, and give him the appearance as the only worthwhile republican if its just him and McCain. Yeah, I'm a Ron Paul fanboy.
- IslandDog, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4"Would they get the same softball treatment that the Democrats got?"
Of course not.
- paganmonkeyboy, on 10/10/2007, -15/+14Cowards. Bought and paid for Cowards...
- Tuxbunta, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Cowards how? The questions asked at the Dem debate were no different than the ones asked by audience members is previous debates. This whole youtube debate is overrated.
- chowda, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2have to start somewhere.... if they start allowing users to pick which questions get aired... we'll be on to something.
- Tuxbunta, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Cowards how? The questions asked at the Dem debate were no different than the ones asked by audience members is previous debates. This whole youtube debate is overrated.
- Nougat, on 10/10/2007, -11/+8Honestly, I would have some respect for anyone who, 18 months before the election, said, "You know what? Being on these huge panel interviews, being fed sound bite questions and having to return sound bite answers, is a waste of time which does not serve the interest of the electorate." YouTube or not.
- obliviousfool, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4Awwwww... and I had my question all figured out too.
- Barbarino, on 10/10/2007, -12/+11The whole thing was lame. The traditional style debates are far better.
- steamedlice, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4They should simply invite audience members to ask questions and get follow-up questions from candidates.
- hoovcluck, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5We don't have a place for actual conversation here in America!
We the people can only process 30 seconds of information at a time.
- dracheflieger, on 10/10/2007, -19/+11Ah...two more republicans with balls than in the democraptic party as they _ALL_ refused to attend a FNC sponsored debate because their little wienie handlers are beholden to the left wing extremists...
- manifestdata, on 10/10/2007, -5/+30Do you really think that the youtube debate was that successful. All of the ***** answers were just the usual political rhetoric that would be thrown around if youtube wasn't in the equation. How about a REAL debate where the candidates actually DEBATE instead of coming up with ***** answers that will make the public happy.
And anyone who thinks that the youtube debate was successful, stop ***** kidding yourself. Stop being a sheep and only watching clips on digg and youtube and watch the WHOLE debate. The best conversations were created between the candidates and not some 18 year old college student who believes anything their Political Science teacher tells them.- hayzeus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Dug up 'cause I agree. No follow-up questions, nothing to keep the candidates from answering the question they'd like to answer, rather than answering the actual question. Only slightly less softball than a Larry King interview.
- SOS84, on 10/10/2007, -13/+10Republicans do not want to answer real questions. That would require them to address real issues rather than the wedge issues they use to divide the people.
- 0xbaadf00d, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10When you say "real questions," you mean "who is your fav teacher?," questions in song form, and questions from puppets? The debate got terrible ratings and the questions were silly.
- republicker, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7There is not one politician running this year except Dr. Ron Paul who wants to address any real questions.
- TeamRocket, on 10/10/2007, -5/+20It's not like average person that watches YouTube votes anyways
- Botanicus, on 10/10/2007, -8/+11I'm sure more than 2 will show up for the youtube debate. Republican's havent fled from a debate they've been legitimately invited to. CNN is a liberal media outlet (fox being conservative obviously) But I'd like to see the Democrats on Fox.
- LeadOffMan, on 10/10/2007, -10/+8will never happen, leftards can't handle the thought of an opposing view point being discussed
- TheLoneHoot, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9Aside from the Limbots and Hannitoids, who on planet earth considers CNN to really be "liberal"? ALL the corporate controlled media are whatever label the buying public wants them to be... most actually have a right leaning conservative stance, favoring their corporate sponsors, and their associated industries (e.g., "big pharma"). Even the once-respected PBS has become infested with corporate control.
"Liberal? Conservative? Yeah, whatever... as long as you keep buying Pepsi, Cialis, Nutrisystem, Ford, Burger King... we'll let you label us anyway you want."
--commercial media
- Apokalyps2547, on 10/10/2007, -1/+18"Aside from those two candidates, we haven't heard from anyone else," said Sam Feist of CNN, who's co-sponsoring the debate with the popular videosharing site.
Have they really REFUSED or just haven't signed up yet? The debate is still almost 2 months away.- gregmo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3debate is sept 17th, so like 3 weeks, but still a good point
- sikosmurf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6.... did i miss a month?
- trumasamune, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Wow......3 weeks huh? I hope you're not going to vote.
- gregmo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3debate is sept 17th, so like 3 weeks, but still a good point
- soehner, on 10/10/2007, -7/+25They know they'll be grilled by the general public. They saw what happened to the Dems and probably didn't like the idea of actually having to answer tough questions.
McCain has literally nothing to lose, and Ron Paul would thrive in such a debate. IMO- 3tcp, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Tough questions, are you kidding me?
- soehner, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Compared to the usual, pre-approved softballs served up by the moderators that feed right into their talking points; yes.
- yargthepirate, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3i dunno, I'm trying to think of who my favorite teacher was and it's pretty tricky....
- chukd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I would like some examples of the tough questions the Dems got.
- 3tcp, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Tough questions, are you kidding me?
- 8086ed, on 10/10/2007, -13/+3I thought GOP stood for "Greedy Old People."
- neuropsychguy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9We're not all old! ;-)
- SpaceMonkeyZero, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Who's greedy? The guy who wants to keep his money, or the guy who wants your money stolen to pay for what he thinks it should be spent on?
- rwvalentine, on 10/10/2007, -9/+12Such cutting edge technology!
Have retards upload videos of themselves asking inane questions!
WOW!- conceptkid, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0What technology do you use? get a freaking clue man, the youtube debates are pretty cool actually, you are just jealous you didnt think of it.
- jason469, on 10/10/2007, -10/+7They refuse because they know that there will be some hard questions that they don't want to answer........that and they don't want to be Goatsed.
- SpaceMonkeyZero, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Or there will be questions in the same vein of "When did you stop beating your wife?"
- tomdabomb, on 10/10/2007, -22/+0DIGG.com censores www.prisonplanet.com
Check www.prisonplanet.com- SpaceMonkeyZero, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Waah too ***** bad you conspiracy nut spammer.
- CheckPlease, on 10/10/2007, -11/+1They're sticking with the technology their constituents can understand: AM radio, ham radio, CB, smoke signals, cave paintings, and Fox News. Why get involved with that series of tubes, the Internets?
- bigjimslade, on 10/10/2007, -3/+17The YouTube "debate" was a waste of time. They did what they always do - give some ***** answer, then steer things toward their "talking points."
"What's Up?" Grow up. Jesus. Lots of idiotic questions with understandably idiotic answers.- mepol, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2I like the concept and understand what they were attempting to do, but I have to say, I was dissapointed in the questions chosen. And, of course, the answers were answered by polititians. The Republicans will use this tactic (a waste of time) because they don't want to even want to try to answer questions by the American public. They like their canned, hand-picked audiences.
- SpaceMonkeyZero, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Also, Did CNN/YouTube do anything to make sure that the questions were being asked by Americans?
- chowda, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I think it's a good start... now we just have to allow the viewers to pick which questions get asked and remove CNN from the process as much as possible.
- ridiculicious, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0The YouTube debate idea is still a step in the right direction. The questions were still filtered by the same people who would have asked them in a traditional interview, so the end result was pretty boring.
BUT, since the idea wasn't an overwhelming success on the first try, the best thing to do is abandon it completely. I mean, who needs to hear from the people anyway, right? To get the general public involved in a political discussion in a supposedly democratic society is a complete waste of time.
As a matter of fact what we should do is let the candidates ask themselves the questions, or even better just eliminate the internet altogether because we all know that the news media gets it right every time… and who would ever really want to hear from people in the general public anyway... They're softballers!
- TheLoneHoot, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2Well yew gawt yer boob tube an' yer yew tube, so Ah reckon that thar intarwebnet is nuttin' more'n a bunch o' tubes.
- Abbeygargoyle, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9How many people that watch YouTube would even think about voting Republican anyways? As much as it makes the GOP look like a bunch of Luddites, the bottom line is that their money would be better spent elsewhere.
The Democrats on the other hand, need to harness the Youtube generation as young people have traditionally supportive of their platform (if you don't believe this, check digg political stories submitted).- IslandDog, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3"The Democrats on the other hand, need to harness the Youtube generation as young people have traditionally supportive of their platform (if you don't believe this, check digg political stories submitted)."
Maybe because "young people" haven't been out in the real world yet. Looking at the submitted stories to Digg, I wouldn't be so proud.
- IslandDog, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3"The Democrats on the other hand, need to harness the Youtube generation as young people have traditionally supportive of their platform (if you don't believe this, check digg political stories submitted)."
- moracity, on 10/10/2007, -4/+15The YouTube "debate" was a friggin joke and just made YouTube users look stupid and ignorant. It was a pretty embarrassing moment in U.S history.
- steamedlice, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Didn't CNN make the final call of the selections? Allowing video submitters to hide behind music, animation, hillbilly disguises and dramatic mugging was a bad decision.
- hoovcluck, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Whats wrong with the users being stupid and ignorant? The majority of the American people are stupid and ignorant. Thankfully, most of them don't vote.
- conceptkid, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0you are a joke, the youtube debate is very innovative.
- bovester, on 10/10/2007, -15/+10I was about to read this and then I saw Ron Paul's name in the description.
You guys realize that you've now turned almost every normal Digg user AGAINST this guy?- lokoluis15, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12What? You can't even hear his name without getting pissed off? Calm down, the description is relevant to the title, only those two have agreed to participate in the debate, why get so upset? I don't see you whining about John McCain. This is certainly not Ron Paul spam and would have been just as popular had the two agreeing candidates been different ones. You don't have to flinch at every mention of Ron Paul.
- JMnet, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4@ Bovester
Well maybe this will send you into a digg induced coma:
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron Paul
Ron
- JMnet, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4@ Bovester
- Takalth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Man, if that's what you're basing your political opinions on (Oh no! I have to see the name "Ron Paul" every three pages on Digg. I'm suffering so badly), I sure hope you don't vote. If you want to criticize somebody, you ought to at least have something to criticize.
- lokoluis15, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12What? You can't even hear his name without getting pissed off? Calm down, the description is relevant to the title, only those two have agreed to participate in the debate, why get so upset? I don't see you whining about John McCain. This is certainly not Ron Paul spam and would have been just as popular had the two agreeing candidates been different ones. You don't have to flinch at every mention of Ron Paul.
- blackturtleus, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2My NCLB song/video/question was answered by Richardson and Biden at the CNN/YouTube Democratic Debate. It was kind of exciting. I submitted four song/video/questions and the one they picked was the one that was the most topical and serious. One of the videos I submitted was more entertaining, but it was kind of silly although relevant. Put a dot in front of the "us" in my user name for a link to my video submission and the video showing Richardson and Biden answering my question.
- shinedout, on 10/10/2007, -9/+5Funny how people try to compare Fox News to You Tube in trying to defend Republicans. How are they alike at all? One is completely user generated, you can tap into the bloodstream of america if you want and listen to the voices of the people. The other is completely devoid of ANY view except a neocon terror scare meant to push Americans to fear.
- 3tcp, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9What's all this talk about youtube debates offering 'real questions'? The democrat youtube debate was all cookie-cutter questions that the candidates had sound-byte responses that were developed and focus group tested months ago. There wasn't anything new or innovative about the questions chosen they just picked the same questions that wolf blitzer would have asked.
If the republicans did a youtube debate all the questions would be the kinds of questions that would let conservatives list their talking points just like the liberals did. Instead of 'will you let us gay people get married' it will be 'would you let states decide if gay people can get married'. Instead of 'how can government better control peoples lives' it would be 'how can government better control peoples ethics'.
It will be the same old political ***** of 'what promises will you make that will never get passed or will be completely neutered in the compromises necessary to get them through congress' no matter who runs the debates. - dobba, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Republicans shouldn't worry when CNN picks the questions - they'll make sure the most popular question isn't put to them like they did with the Democrats.
- republicker, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2They would probly just leave Paul out anyway.
- garryw, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3If I hear one more sorry a$$ pathetic Ron Paul whiney comment....
I will be forced to bury it alive. HE GOT HIS INVITATION STOP BITCHIN
- garryw, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3If I hear one more sorry a$$ pathetic Ron Paul whiney comment....
- KevenM, on 10/10/2007, -0/+18Buried yet again under "Misleading Title". They didn't refuse crap yet, they just haven't all responded
- LordSlashstab, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2that's how they work, the ostrich effect
- moocow1452, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2Everybody just needs to sit down and shut up for a couple moments to contemplate this. If no one else shows at the debate, then it will show that the GOP has transcended beyond Youtube and the general public matters not to them. Provided CNN doesn't cancel the debate, we have an intresting 1 on 1 between Ron Paul and John McCain. If they do show up, Youtube will blow them out of the water for the phoneys they are. So no matter what, we all win.
- 3tcp, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3You really think John McCain will waste his time debating Ron Paul by himself? He'd be better off spending his time fund raising or shaking hands at the local diner.
- 15charmaxwtf, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3It would finish him off for good.
- CMOSLogic, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Yep. It would finish off any of em for good.
- 15charmaxwtf, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3It would finish him off for good.
- republicker, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5If you think Ron Paul is a phoney then you should pull your head out of your ass. He is the only one who is not ***** the public around every question. Im guessing you hang on every word Obama says, right.
- IslandDog, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3LOL. Paul is a politician like any other. If you think he's different then you are already fooled.
- 15charmaxwtf, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Look at his record, I dare you.
- IslandDog, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3LOL. Paul is a politician like any other. If you think he's different then you are already fooled.
- tobdubois, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I highly doubt they'd run it with only 2 debaters. Great for politics, not so great for ratings. If enough candidates decide they won't go they can probably all avoid it. Same with the dems and fox, if enough dems had said they thought a debate on fox would be a good thing the rest would be hard pressed to avoid it.
- LeadOffMan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Youtube as the voice of the general public ? I think not
- 3tcp, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3You really think John McCain will waste his time debating Ron Paul by himself? He'd be better off spending his time fund raising or shaking hands at the local diner.
- MadN, on 10/10/2007, -4/+0The real issue is You Tube answers to questions would not be able to disappear as easy as Faux newz interviews.
I say interview them under oath from now on! - fleischner, on 10/10/2007, -6/+7CNN (read: "liberals") chose which video questions to show. I'm sick of this "user-generated" crap. The questions CNN decided to show were in a 20-to-1 ratio of liberal to conservative. And were I a GOP candidate running for president of the United States, I wouldn't want to be asked a question by a cat or a snowman either. The Left is really fond of destroying traditions and dignity. I wouldn't stand for it myself.
- magamiako, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Did CNN "choose" the questions or were there just a large number of the same questions? I can't help but think that you're slightly disconnected with reality here. Real people care about things like the Iraq war and they want us out of it. A large number of young people who have friends, lovers, and relatives that are participating, have participated, or even have died in this "war" want us out of there.
Gay Marriage, Net Neutrality, ANWR drilling, Kyoto--these are all things the "Internet Generation" care about. We hate "big corporations" like the RIAA/MPAA. We want to see advancements in technology, a better reputation with the world, less control by the top 1% of the country and more control to the bottom 99%. These are all real issues.
- magamiako, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Did CNN "choose" the questions or were there just a large number of the same questions? I can't help but think that you're slightly disconnected with reality here. Real people care about things like the Iraq war and they want us out of it. A large number of young people who have friends, lovers, and relatives that are participating, have participated, or even have died in this "war" want us out of there.
- marcushe, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7The Republican candidates are just scared - what would happen if they were asked actual questions from actual american citizens? It wouldn't be the normal censored, direct, prewritten questions that they could easily answer with brainwashing propoganda.
- yargthepirate, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Probably the same thing Democrats would do if they were asked actual questions from actual American citizens. We don't know what that is, though, seeing as how it didn't happen on the previous debate.
- skyh, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0We should probably keep it fair and mention that it's _most_ of the GOP candidates that are full of crap and won't deal with this, not all.
- Arkonnan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Look, we all know these youtube debates are rigged. Questions are screened in advance so the incumbents don't have to strain their brains answering real questions. But the fact that Republicans refuse to participate with average Americans even in a controlled environment makes their disconnect with the common man even more apparent. These people aren't running for office to serve you. They know who they answer to, and it ain't the common man.
- chukd, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Yeah, I see a bunch of the Dems spending all their time with the average american. Private jets instead of sitting in coach with the people they "support". Getting $1200 hair cuts while telling the poor people I am for you. etc... . Face the facts, both Dems and Reps think they are too good for average Americans.
- Arkonnan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2> Face the facts, both Dems and Reps think they are too good for average Americans.
I never claimed otherwise. I referenced Republicans in this instance because they are who the article is written about. Quite frankly, they're all a bunch of crooks imo.
- Arkonnan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2> Face the facts, both Dems and Reps think they are too good for average Americans.
- LeadOffMan, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Libtards are by far the biggest hypocrites. Let me charge $400 haircuts to my campaign, and then let's go on a poverty tour
- CMOSLogic, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1LoL dugg up for 'poverty tour'.
- chukd, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Yeah, I see a bunch of the Dems spending all their time with the average american. Private jets instead of sitting in coach with the people they "support". Getting $1200 hair cuts while telling the poor people I am for you. etc... . Face the facts, both Dems and Reps think they are too good for average Americans.
- jimmy72, on 10/10/2007, -10/+6 Romney quipped, "I think the presidency ought to be held at a higher level than having to answer questions from a snowman."
This is why you fail.- LordSlashstab, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6afraid of a frick'n snowman. Cause that snowman knows about money trails I'm guessing
- jesscott98, on 10/10/2007, -13/+5You Tube is where the children play. And they have proven to be so horribly lopsided that they can't be depended upon to act like adults. Why would the Republicans put them selves in front of people they know hate them and aren't capable of rational thought when around them? Most of the persons who read Digg, watch Youtube for hours on end, and propagate sites like MoveOn are irrational foaming at the mouth Republican haters. So again, why in the world should they put themselves out there in front of such an audience? Of course it would provide them an opportunity to get real questions, not like the freaking softballs tossed at your beloved Democrats. But no answer they would ever give you, honest or not, would make the YouTube moonbats happy.
- CheckPlease, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Yeah, why not just hold a GOP debate at a Cracker Barrel or a Klan meeting to make sure only the "right" people participate?
- hittnrun, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2that was real grown up.
no wonder you moonbats are ignored.- reaganluver, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Alot more grown up than the ignorance you spit! Do you ever think for yourself? You've been told we're all crazy by rush limbra and scat robertson and jerry falwell and you believe it. That just shows how stupid you are. Here's REALITY: both parties suck.... the people who tow the lines for either one are stupid or have an alterior motive. that's it; that's all of politics in five seconds. now go away moonbot. you realize that it's kinda dumb of you to believe everything ya hear..... right?
- reaganluver, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Alot more grown up than the ignorance you spit! Do you ever think for yourself? You've been told we're all crazy by rush limbra and scat robertson and jerry falwell and you believe it. That just shows how stupid you are. Here's REALITY: both parties suck.... the people who tow the lines for either one are stupid or have an alterior motive. that's it; that's all of politics in five seconds. now go away moonbot. you realize that it's kinda dumb of you to believe everything ya hear..... right?
- hittnrun, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2that was real grown up.
- FyberOptic, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2It's not about making Youtube viewers happy, it's for the American people to watch and judge the candidates answers. You, like many republicans, including most of the candidates, fear this most of all. When your party isn't molesting kids, or tampering with votes, or taking bribes, or committing perjury, what exactly are they doing to garner public support? Unjustified wars? Illegal wiretapping? Show me something the "wholesome" conservative camp has done to make anyone want to support their crooked ways.
- CheckPlease, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Yeah, why not just hold a GOP debate at a Cracker Barrel or a Klan meeting to make sure only the "right" people participate?
- jbenson2, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Can't blame them - after seeing the Democratic joke of debate!
- magamiako, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2I thought the youtube debates were mildly successful, but most of the people on here who are commenting probably don't actually vote.
Reasons why Youtube was successful:
-Young people typically do not vote. This is extremely well known. Most will comment politically all day long but are not registered voters or if they are don't actually make it to a polling station. If you were to look at the age range of most voters, they are by and large the older population.
-It got younger people involved in the debates and it gets the message out to the younger, more internet generation. Again, most people of the younger crowd don't watch CNN, Fox News, or other news networks. Many would think it's weird that you even "care" about something like that. But Youtube reaches out to many of them. It's not only a media that they use, it's a format that they're comfortable with and enjoy.
-Instead of sitting there for 2 hours watching a bunch of questions being asked by a bunch of specially privileged media, you could jump to any question and answer you want by scrolling down the youtube page.
-It does allow the public to actually bring up issues that matter to them. While I agree with an above statement that youtube users should be able to vote on the questions, with only a final hand selection by CNN (to filter out junk videos and the like), this is probably the first time in many, many years that the actual public can REALLY become directly involved with the candidates on what we want out of their presidency. They don't allow regular users to have this kind of debate outside of youtube due to the security risks associated with allowing real people around the real candidates. This was a first, and it can only get better over the years.
I liked the idea because I would say that a larger amount of republicans vote than democrats do. From what I've seen around the local universities, there's a larger and more organized conservative movement than any sort of liberal movement. Generally, liberal people seem far more apathetic towards the issue than republicans. The problem is the liberal students allow the republicans to treat them like their "little brothers" so to speak. And this is echoed throughout the internet forums where liberal comments tend to be far more well crafted out with addressing people appropriately using terms such as: Conservative, Republican, NeoCon(New Conservative), while the more conservative republicans end up being able to just say "hehe you silly dem/hippy/treehugger, you're so silly, come here you! *nookie!*" And this is seen on the more "tolerant" discussions.
At any rate, I would have loved to see the republicans enter the Youtube debates. I thought it was a great forum and I really hope they don't stop doing it because of a few crybabies want to shun the internet generation. Though honestly due to the way the republican party works as a whole I really don't think this is hurting their reputation much. Most neocons/republicans just consider Youtube the devil anyway. - qazz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5The Democrats debate was laughable. None of the candidates answers the questions directly, and because the moderator was not the one involved in the question he did not challenge the candidates for better answers. Just adding gimmicks to a debate does not make it more valuable, it devalues the content.
- KevenM, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Agreed, they still have a long way to go to make it effective; however, if this gimmick managed to get more people involved who otherwise would not be, then that's a small credit to democracy
-
Show 51 - 80 of 80 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by