As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
Youtube Caucus Debates Prohibit Gay Marriage/Abortion Questions
Zephyr_Fate
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
As you may have heard, Youtube is participating in a sort-of questionnaire of each of the potential candidates for the '08 election. Many videos have been put up with various users questioning candidates of their political stance on certain issues like the Iraq War, immigration, and other hot issues. However, through a post on the Caucus blog, CNN is having any videos that ask questions about gay marriage or abortion taken off of Youtube... calling them "lobbying grenades". This is done just for the Republican party, because these issues are "Democratic 'gotchas'".
Apparently gay people shouldn't have a voice on Youtube, and we cannot have a "debate of their party" if we happen to mention our rights.
You can read more here:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/21/sneak-peek-at-cnnyoutube-debate-videos/
What do you all think?
Apparently gay people shouldn't have a voice on Youtube, and we cannot have a "debate of their party" if we happen to mention our rights.
You can read more here:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/21/sneak-peek-at-cnnyoutube-debate-videos/
What do you all think?
Zephyr_Fate on
0
Posts
But I don't think that you should prohibit any line of questioning in a political questionnaire on the grounds that the candidate's answer may harm his candidacy.
'cause, you know... That's not how politics is supposed to work.
The strength of the Republican party is NOT having different views. Say there are ten issues that matter to voters, and the Republican party sways a certain way on all ten. Then their is a Republican candidate that matches the party's views in 9 out of 10 issues. BZZT! TOO BAD! Get someone that matches in 10 OUT OF 10!
Really, when you think about it, it's the best way to go as a major political party. Had they not had so many fuckups, they'd probably be doing pretty good still.
These youtube debates are as scripted and vanilla as they get. 10 to 1 someone throws them a softball like "BOXERS OR BRIEFS, TEE HEE!"
Jesus fucking christ.
"There is a relation between homophobia and membership in the Republican party, story at 11"
Though really, it would just end up with Huckabee calling Guliani a godless bastard, and that would honestly be too entertaining for public audiences.
I don't really see this as a "trampling our rights" thing. I see it more as "we would like to hear some differing answers" thing.
i lol'd
Done.
Liberal media?
ahahahahahahahahahaha
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
They're pulling the accepted ones to throw together into their montage or 'debate' thing or whatever and leaving the other ones, not removing them. There is no censorship, no hanky panky, and if you think that a debate between republicans is going to center around gay marriage or abortion, then you're simply naive. All they're doing is not using those. Whoopie doo.
i lol'd
TL;dr- Youtube serves the same purpose that contrived television debates do, except it provides the experience of another media barrier broken and the promise of voice and interactivity for the average people on a scale that seems bigger than before.
Also, Sam, don't be cute and spoiler what was your entire argument in that post. Be up front with your opinion.
The Republican stance is no and fuck no. The Democratic stance usually tends to be "I'm opposed to it personally, but it shouldn't be illegal.". Having their cake and eating it too. You could run for almost any public office on the platform of outlawing abortion and banning gay marriage and get a disturbing amount of votes.
The last numbers I saw, more people were pro-choice, but pro-choice people don't vote in the numbers that the lifers do.
We've had some real stinkers in the white house, but none quite like Bush. I think many of the people who are usually apathetic are going to come out and vote just to help reduce the chances of us getting another one like him.
On the other hand, are abortions and gay marriage the real issues we should be concerned about? I don't know if you guys have noticed, but the value of the US dollar has seriously fucking tanked and that is very very bad for the entire country.
If the GOP has such a hardline stance against gays why would they not want to talk about it in public?
Seems like the Dems aren't the only ones trying to have their cake and eat it too on the issue
The Democratic stance is best described in three words: Safe. Legal. Rare. What that means is that we shouldn't outlaw abortion, but at the same time make it uncommon by giving mothers options and support.
I had this exact same reaction.
No, this is a completely transparent attempt to shield the Republican party from having to face their weakest issue.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Doesn't the argument of "states rights" also invite comparisons with interracial marriage. I thought one of the reasons for that being extended into the southern states was because the federal government mandated that a marriage in one state should be recognized in another.
Disclaimer: I'm English, post based on vague recollections.
While that may be the Democratic party stance, the incumbents frequently take the route of "I don't like it, but it should be legal". Go look at what Kerry said when he was running for the president. It's such a limp-dick answer to the issue.
Simply making it illegal isn't going to solve shit. Safe, rare, and legal is really the only [realistic] answer.
My guess as to why they won't allow these questions, is that the candidates aren't fully researched on the subject and don't really want to be put on the spot. Nobody says you need to be pro-life and intelligent about it, pro-life is good enough.
How on earth is "I don't like it, but it should be legal" a "limp-dick" answer? O_o
I don't like smoking, but I'm not going to clamor we start banning it all together
But taking everything else into consideration, I can't say I really care. There are much, much larger and more important issues facing the US at the moment. And having questions about abortion and gay marriage for the republican debates is unlikely to produce anything productive anyway.
Not to mention the Constitution makes federal decisions trump anything the states do anyway.
It's a fucking debate. Maybe I want to, just maybe, hear them defend the reasoning they used to arrive at their stance.
No because if they're forced to defend their reasoning people might call them bigots.
Didn't you know the rule?
It's acceptable to call one bigot a bigot but it's rude to do so when they travel in groups
O_o
Bwa? The candidates aren't making these decisions, CNN is. The whole point of a debate is to spring questions on people, not to let them monologue a form letter. (Or to force them to say yes or no when they're giving a nuanced answer.) Besides, how does being ignorant on an issue justify ignoring it? I mean, seriously, interrobang.
I haven't seen the issue of abortion or gay marriage come up in ANY recent Republican debate up to this point, so it's not just CNN. They don't want to talk about the issue because they are either unable to defend their position cohesively (I really wouldn't be surprised) or they can't say "because the bible told us not to" without sounding a little... you know.. weird. The only time you'll really see either side talk about either subject at length are at church get-out-the-vote rallies.
It's strange that it's a central issue with both parties, but it's not really brought up all too often.
Either way I'm veering off the central topic, for that I apologize.
C) despite the difference between all three of these things, they all happen to share the fact that just because someone may not approve of them or wish to partake in them does not necessitate the need to legislate them into illegality. Nor does it mean you're taking a "limp-dick" approach by saying "I do not personally approve of it, but my personal view should not be the law of the land."