Muslim YouTube questioner was former CAIR Intern

[stephanie]

The garden is growing..

Former CAIR Intern Asks Question at GOP Debate
Posted 11/29/2007 5:46:00 PM
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/noLw6KpgTaQ&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/noLw6KpgTaQ&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

http://www.cair.com/ArticleDetails.aspx?ArticleID=23858&&name=n&&currPage=1&&Active=1

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

1. That bit where the muslim spoke to our *Presidential Candidates*, was pitiful.
2. And Duncan Hunter said it best.
3. It was a *SLAM DUNK* answer!
4. When you poor muslims have a problem, yes, we will come and bail you out.
5. And you will except it.
6. That doesn't bode well for you in reality, makes you look like a bunch of, *HYPOCRITES*.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[bullypulpit]

The garden is growing..

Former CAIR Intern Asks Question at GOP Debate
Posted 11/29/2007 5:46:00 PM
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/noLw6KpgTaQ&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/noLw6KpgTaQ&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

http://www.cair.com/ArticleDetails.aspx?ArticleID=23858&&name=n&&currPage=1&&Active=1

And your point is? How many soft-balls were lobbed by the moderators at the FOX Noise debates? If the Republican candidates can't deal with questions from less than sympathetic questioners, how can they be expected to deal with those who are truly hostile to America? Stop whining.

[Gaffer]

And your point is? How many soft-balls were lobbed by the moderators at the FOX Noise debates? If the Republican candidates can't deal with questions from less than sympathetic questioners, how can they be expected to deal with those who are truly hostile to America? Stop whining.

The point is these people were hand picked to ask questions. cnn betrayed our trust once again to meet their agenda. These were not hardball questions, they were designed to make the nominees look bad to people like you. I think you will find that not a single questioner was a republican. It just shows you can't trust the dem controlled media.

[bullypulpit]

The point is these people were hand picked to ask questions. cnn betrayed our trust once again to meet their agenda. These were not hardball questions, they were designed to make the nominees look bad to people like you. I think you will find that not a single questioner was a republican. It just shows you can't trust the dem controlled media.

Do you have any evidence to actually support these assertions? Or are you simply repeating the spew of the right-wing bloggers who find it intolerable that the Republican field of presidential candidates are not so different from a bunch of children squabbling in a sand-box?

[Gaffer]

Do you have any evidence to actually support these assertions? Or are you simply repeating the spew of the right-wing bloggers who find it intolerable that the Republican field of presidential candidates are not so different from a bunch of children squabbling in a sand-box?

I don't think enough of you to bother. You would just deny any proof anyway so its a waste of time. Just read and educate yourself. But then if its not left wing moonbattery your not going bother.

[Hagbard Celine]

The point is these people were hand picked to ask questions. cnn betrayed our trust once again to meet their agenda. These were not hardball questions, they were designed to make the nominees look bad to people like you. I think you will find that not a single questioner was a republican. It just shows you can't trust the dem controlled media.

Do you know how stupid you sound? Yes, they handpicked the people who asked questions. Sort of like how the reporters themselves would've handpicked the actual questions if it weren't a youtube debate. DUH. Get a grip on reality. These debates are as objective as they can be. The questions are coming from actual people from outside the media zone. If you think all debates should just be softball questions given to Republican nominees by Republicans, then I think it's dangerous that you have the right to vote. Not to mention the fact that if it were that way, I know you'd have a problem with Democrats being given only softball questions by Democrats. You have a double standard for everyone who doesn't share your pov. That's called hypocrisy. I'm sure you're acquainted with that word.

[darin]

And your point is? How many soft-balls were lobbed by the moderators at the FOX Noise debates?

Logical Fallacy: Red Herring -

Also Known as: Smoke Screen, Wild Goose Chase.
Description of Red Herring

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. Topic A is under discussion.
2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
3. Topic A is abandoned.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.
Examples of Red Herring

"We admit that this measure is popular. But we also urge you to note that there are so many bond issues on this ballot that the whole thing is getting ridiculous."

"Argument" for a tax cut:

"You know, I've begun to think that there is some merit in the Republican's tax cut plan. I suggest that you come up with something like it, because If we Democrats are going to survive as a party, we have got to show that we are as tough-minded as the Republicans, since that is what the public wants."

"Argument" for making grad school requirements stricter:

"I think there is great merit in making the requirements stricter for the graduate students. I recommend that you support it, too. After all, we are in a budget crisis and we do not want our salaries affected."

"Argument" about CNN Planted, primed, agenda-driven "undecided":

"Look at what FOX did! Don't talk about CNN because I can't answer or excuse CNN's bullshit, so I'll change the topic to how bad Fox News is!"

[theHawk]

CNN is known for always being nice to Dems. You notice the lib celebs and politicians will go on Larry King Live, because all he does is throw them softballs. None of them would dare go onto a show like Hannity and Colmes or O'Reilly. And its also why the Dems refuse to go on Fox, God forbid they have to actually answer some real questions. At least the Repubs go to the debates on Fox, MSNBC and CNN....no matter how much of a joke CNN has become and how rediculous the 'YouTube Debates' are.

[Immanuel]

Do you have any evidence to actually support these assertions? Or are you simply repeating the spew of the right-wing bloggers who find it intolerable that the Republican field of presidential candidates are not so different from a bunch of children squabbling in a sand-box?

Or their Democratic counterparts either.

Immie

[Hagbard Celine]

CNN is known for always being nice to Dems. You notice the lib celebs and politicians will go on Larry King Live, because all he does is throw them softballs. None of them would dare go onto a show like Hannity and Colmes or O'Reilly. And its also why the Dems refuse to go on Fox, God forbid they have to actually answer some real questions. At least the Repubs go to the debates on Fox, MSNBC and CNN....no matter how much of a joke CNN has become and how rediculous the 'YouTube Debates' are.

Maybe in your household they're "known" for that. All over the rest of the planet, they're known as the most trusted name in news. :dunno: Larry King throws softball questions at everyone, not just dems. And H&C on Fox is a shouting match, Jerry Springer-esque show that no self-respecting person would go on. Your point is moot.

[theHawk]

Haggy, I could really care less what socialists in Europe and Islamo-thugs throughout Africa, the middle east, and Asia consider their "most trusted name in news".

[avatar4321]

And your point is? How many soft-balls were lobbed by the moderators at the FOX Noise debates? If the Republican candidates can't deal with questions from less than sympathetic questioners, how can they be expected to deal with those who are truly hostile to America? Stop whining.

none. fox is actually quite good at challenging candidates.

Not that the Democrats know what a challenge is. They dont get it from CNN or MSNBC and they are too afraid to go on fox

[bullypulpit]

Logical Fallacy: Red Herring -

Also Known as: Smoke Screen, Wild Goose Chase.
Description of Red Herring

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. Topic A is under discussion.
2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
3. Topic A is abandoned.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.
Examples of Red Herring

"We admit that this measure is popular. But we also urge you to note that there are so many bond issues on this ballot that the whole thing is getting ridiculous."

"Argument" for a tax cut:

"You know, I've begun to think that there is some merit in the Republican's tax cut plan. I suggest that you come up with something like it, because If we Democrats are going to survive as a party, we have got to show that we are as tough-minded as the Republicans, since that is what the public wants."

"Argument" for making grad school requirements stricter:

"I think there is great merit in making the requirements stricter for the graduate students. I recommend that you support it, too. After all, we are in a budget crisis and we do not want our salaries affected."

"Argument" about CNN Planted, primed, agenda-driven "undecided":

"Look at what FOX did! Don't talk about CNN because I can't answer or excuse CNN's bullshit, so I'll change the topic to how bad Fox News is!"

Nice. Introduce your own red-herring in an attempt to deflect relevant criticism of the execrable performance of the GOP candidates in the CNN/YouTube debate. The right wing of the GOP is pissed because none of the candidates are "conservative" enough, and the GOP leadership is in disarray.

Nothing done By CNN made the candidates look like a pack of idiots...They, especially "St. Rudy of 9/11" and "Multiple Choice Mitt", did that all on their own.

[Hagbard Celine]

Haggy, I could really care less what socialists in Europe and Islamo-thugs throughout Africa, the middle east, and Asia consider their "most trusted name in news".

Well then I'm relieved that you don't hold an office of power. A big part of running a country effectively is dealing with and processing opposing view points.

[hjmick]

Nothing done By CNN made the candidates look like a pack of idiots...

You're right, absolutely right. What CNN did only made CNN look like a pack of idiots. A pack of biased, incompetent idiots at that. It's not as if this was a live debate, every question was recorded, there was every opportunity for CNN to give even a cursory check of each person whose question they chose to use. This is evidenced by the way the blogospere blew up within minutes of these questions being asked.

And don't for one second pretend that there would not be an equal amount of outrage had it been discovered that there were questions posed to the Dems by folks with close ties to the GOP and their association had not been divulged.

Personally, I think this should be a non-issue. Every candidate should be willing to field questions from people of all political persuasions. Whether or not they vote for the candidate, if elected, they represent all of us.

[Hagbard Celine]

You're right, absolutely right. What CNN did only made CNN look like a pack of idiots. A pack of biased, incompetent idiots at that. It's not as if this was a live debate, every question was recorded, there was every opportunity for CNN to give even a cursory check of each person whose question they chose to use. This is evidenced by the way the blogospere blew up within minutes of these questions being asked.

And don't for one second pretend that there would not be an equal amount of outrage had it been discovered that there were questions posed to the Dems by folks with close ties to the GOP and their association had not been divulged.

Personally, I think this should be a non-issue. Every candidate should be willing to field questions from people of all political persuasions. Whether or not they vote for the candidate, if elected, they represent all of us.

The president of the US is president of everybody in the US, not just Republicans or just Democrats. Everybody. Who cares what affiliation the girl has? The question she asked was legitimate, so who the f*ck cares? I think McCain gave a pretty decent answer to it.

[hjmick]

The president of the US is president of everybody in the US, not just Republicans or just Democrats. Everybody. Who cares what affiliation the girl has? The question she asked was legitimate, so who the f*ck cares?

That's my feeling.

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

1. But CNN, was holding this debate with the pretence of *Non~Biased* questioneers.
2. We saw that this ended up being,*FALSE*.
3. They further cement their lack of, *CREDIBILITY*.
4. And show their blatant deception of the *CANADIDATES* for the *Presidency of the United States of America*.
5. I think the CNN channel should have its license to broadcast, *REVOKED*.
6. What they did, and do is a crime, if its not it should be.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Hagbard Celine]

Sorry bout that,

1. But CNN, was holding this debate with the pretence of *Non~Biased* questioneers.
2. We saw that this ended up being,*FALSE*.
3. They further cement their lack of, *CREDIBILITY*.
4. And show their blatant deception of the *CANADIDATES* for the *Presidency of the United States of America*.
5. I think the CNN channel should have its license to broadcast, *REVOKED*.
6. What they did, and do is a crime, if its not it should be.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

When and where did CNN state that the questions were going to be non-biased? Nowhere. "Sorry bout that." This debate was held with the pretense that "You ask the questions." That means it was open to everybody. Case closed.

[REDWHITEBLUE2]

CNN= Clinton News Network Rigged this debate to make the Republicans look Bad BUT it backfired 1st thing was that Little queer butt pirate ex general who was a Hillary plant and CNN knew it they even flew him from CA TO FL. of coarse he didn't like the answers. She wants queers to be excepted in the military and be allowed to pursue there sick perverted lifestyle. 2nd after the debate they had so called undecided Republicans in a back room and that one stupid bitch said she's supporting John Edwards after doing a back ground search of her it turns out she's been an Edwards supporter for quite a few years.The only ones CNN is fooling IS the Kool Aid Drinking fools like Hag and Bully :coffee:

[Gaffer]

CNN= Clinton News Network Rigged this debate to make the Republicans look Bad BUT it backfired 1st thing was that Little queer butt pirate ex general who was a Hillary plant and CNN knew it they even flew him from CA TO FL. of coarse he didn't like the answers. She wants queers to be excepted in the military and be allowed to pursue there sick perverted lifestyle. 2nd after the debate they had so called undecided Republicans in a back room and that one stupid bitch said she's supporting John Edwards after doing a back ground search of her it turns out she's been an Edwards supporter for quite a few years.The only ones CNN is fooling IS the Kool Aid Drinking fools like Hag and Bully :coffee:

Hag works at cnn, so he's indirectly paid by the clintons and bully always looks left and walks in circles.

[Immanuel]

When and where did CNN state that the questions were going to be non-biased? Nowhere. "Sorry bout that." This debate was held with the pretense that "You ask the questions." That means it was open to everybody. Case closed.

I didn't watch the debate... can't stomach the crap anymore, but do you really believe that the debate was open to everyone? Sure, anyone can submit questions, but I'm certain the ones that made it were hand selected, in fact, they said on the news here in Tampa that CNN was paying big time overtime having people go through the questions to determine which ones would be asked and which ones wouldn't.

Now, I don't have a problem with this. The Republican Candidates knew the rules (and who made the rules) before they agreed to this format. Seems to me like the field was pretty fair if you ask me.

I also didn't watch the Democratic debate a month or so ago. Maybe those questions were "gifts" to the Democrats, but if so the Republicans have only themselves to blame for accepting the conditions of this debate and not finding a different format or "moderator".

Immie

[Kathianne]

I didn't watch the debate... can't stomach the crap anymore, but do you really believe that the debate was open to everyone? Sure, anyone can submit questions, but I'm certain the ones that made it were hand selected, in fact, they said on the news here in Tampa that CNN was paying big time overtime having people go through the questions to determine which ones would be asked and which ones wouldn't.

Now, I don't have a problem with this. The Republican Candidates knew the rules (and who made the rules) before they agreed to this format. Seems to me like the field was pretty fair if you ask me.

I also didn't watch the Democratic debate a month or so ago. Maybe those questions were "gifts" to the Democrats, but if so the Republicans have only themselves to blame for accepting the conditions of this debate and not finding a different format or "moderator".

Immie
Geez, check out the links. I'm sorry if at this late time I come off as dismissive of those that dismiss, but f that. Enough time has passed to get your head out of your ass.

Considering what CNN was 'caught' at with the Democratic debates, of which there was at least a modicum of excuse; this was unforgivable, CNN is hardly the 'most trusted' with even an etch a sketch.

http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=10316



The CNN/YouTube debacle, Pt. 3 [Karl]

The latest leftward response in support of CNN’s curiously Democrat-flavored GOP debate is not really a defense. But as Dan Quayle once said, the best defense is a good offense:

Googling: A Synonym For ‘Stalking’

Well, at least I’m assuming that’s the definition in the netroots handbook because Todd Beeton of MyDD today accused conservative blogger Michelle Malkin of stalking for daring to use Google to fact-check CNN.

The National Journal’s blogger calls this “bizzare,”and gives a number of good reasons for doing so, not least of which is that “Beeton, Malkin and and bloggers of all political stripes routinely use Google to fact-check journalists, politicians and even each other.” It would have been nice if outlets like National Journal had noticed prior incidents of this lefty idocy, but better late than never.

I would also note the following from Howard Kurtz:

Bohrman said network staffers, struck by Kerr’s “very powerful” question, verified his military service and determined from federal records that he had made no campaign contributions. He said CNN never spoke to Kerr and had Google, which owns YouTube, bring the retired general and about a dozen other questioners to the debate because their videos were likely to be used, although no final decision had been made.

Apparently, CNN also uses Google… just not as a search engine.
Posted by Karl @ 12:09 pm