Hillerbuster

cowtown · 09-23-2007, 02:42 PM

Jes**, she's on every Sunday news show I watch (Stephanopouousousousous, Sheafer, Wallace, Russert), and she will answer the question, any question, in not less than 6,000 words.

The hosts actually have to interrupt her to get to the next question (when she didn't really answer the previous question).

This is the best we have for the world's most important job?

How about answering the question, concisely, and coherently. You know, like people have to in the real world? Even complex issues can be addressed without a half-hour rambling speech.

pwd72s · 09-23-2007, 02:46 PM

so you're the one who watches those propaganda shows.

cowtown · 09-23-2007, 03:01 PM

Also known as "being informed." Anyone else?

DARISC · 09-23-2007, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cowtown

How about answering the question, concisely, and coherently. You know, like people have to in the real world? Even complex issues can be addressed without a half-hour rambling speech.

I couldn't agree more!

When will the dumass polytishuns learn to speak using a limited number of short sentences made of simple words and to avoid trying to talk about complex issues to a TV audience and realize that TV is usually geared to a 9 year old's comprehension level (I could be rong - mite be lower then that even).

tabs · 09-23-2007, 03:15 PM

They have to fill the time slot somehow. If the "Politishuns" said what they were about concisily on a half hour show, what would they fill the other 29 minutes and 30 seconds with.

cowtown · 03:24 PM

Looks like we're zero for two here.

For future reference, DARISC, wordy does not equal competent.

cowtown · 09-23-2007, 03:20 PM

...and nobody recommended short sentences. Only answering the questions. Reading comprehension: it's a wonderful thing.

DARISC · 09-23-2007, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tabs

They have to fill the time slot somehow. If the "Politishuns" said what they were about concisily on a half hour show, what would they fill the other 29 minutes and 30 seconds with.

HAHA! You have a point. Considered wearing a hat?

cowtown · 09-23-2007, 03:24 PM

Not a point at all.

Sheafer: "I have so many questions on various issues but our time is limited."

The 29:30 remaining would be put to good use, but it's not in Hillary's interest to be asked more questions.

cowtown · 09-23-2007, 03:31 PM

The Democrats' last, best hope:

10/2002:

"Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Quaeda members.

Any vote that might lead to war should be hard. But I cast it with conviction....

So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interest of our nation."

DARISC · 09-23-2007, 03:34 PM

[QUOTE=cowtown;3494473Reading comprehension: it's a wonderful thing.[/QUOTE]

It certainly is, often beats an education based on TV sound bites (depending on what one reads, of course). And, regarding oral responses to questions, competence expressed in more than a few words can be mistaken for wordiness if one strongly disagrees with what a person is about to say before the person says it or doesn't comprehend what the person is saying.

Let me guess; you assume that I'm pro-Hillary? Oh, the anger!

cowtown · 09-23-2007, 03:41 PM

Well, you've got to listen to the quote to comprehend, so it doesn't appear to be an issue that affects you one whit.

Actually, I believe she has a few good ideas. Sending a US delegation around the world to express the "end of cowboy diplomacy" is certainly a good thought.

But back to the reading comprehension aspect: you apparently are inferring I'm angry. I'm actually laughing: the original post's subject asked "is this the best [candidate] we have?" If you choose to try to turn that into a "TV sound bite" debate, that's OK, but you're way off the path.

Rearden · 09-23-2007, 04:02 PM

It was very interesting. I was flipping back and forth between Meet the Press and Fox News Sunday. Her demeanor was so different between the two interviewers. With Russert, she was serious and sort of answered the questions. With Mike Wallace, she was giggly like a schoolgirl and fillibustered every question with long non-answers, trying to run out the clock.

kstar · 09-23-2007, 04:53 PM

Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things.

Dan Quayle

Best,

Kurt

DARISC · 09-23-2007, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cowtown

The Democrats' last, best hope:

10/2002:

"Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Quaeda members.

Any vote that might lead to war should be hard. But I cast it with conviction....

So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interest of our nation."

Quote:

Originally Posted by cowtown

Well, you've got to listen to the quote to comprehend, so it doesn't appear to be an issue that affects you one whit.

Whit; great word - not used enough anymore . Both party's politicians were taken in by the intel disbursal fiasco and now both party's politicians are swinging qoutes at each other as if only their adversaries have changed their thinking when the truth is that the Bush/Cheney band of thugs parsing and distorting of the intel that they based their decisions on had them all fooled ( you've noticed that an increasing number of Republicans have thought it over and have fallen out of lock-step with Bush). I'll wager that as many quotes from the Republicans could be assembled by the Democrats that show that current thinking has been changed by the ensuing course of events since the invasion - that's political posturing 101 (and the voters seem to be quite sick of it).

Actually, I believe she has a few good ideas. Sending a US delegation around the world to express the "end of cowboy diplomacy" is certainly a good thought.

I do as well. I happened to catch her on only Fox this afternoon, but listening closely, I didn't find her blatantly dodging any questions or skirting any issues (and believe me, I'm always looking to get infuriated when a politician does - and am seldom disappointed). To the contrary, I listened carefully to what she had to say and felt her responses were fairly concise and not overlong. I actually give ANY guest credit for not letting the talking head interrupt (your word and I agree) just as the guest is finishing the answer to the question asked.

But back to the reading comprehension aspect: you apparently are inferring I'm angry. I'm actually laughing: the original post's subject asked "is this the best [candidate] we have?" If you choose to try to turn that into a "TV sound bite" debate, that's OK, but you're way off the path.

I was responding directly to your "she will answer the question, any question, in not less than 6,000 words", which I felt was an exaggeration and based my personal take as expressed by my comment regarding TV "NEWS" (as opposed to reading in-depth reporting from multiple perspectives, with which you apparently agree judging from your comment on reading comprehension).

So, I could be wrong, but aside from whatever our differences may or may not be regarding the evaluation of individual candidates, we're really not on different wave lengths.

Cheers,

David

cowtown · 06:46 PM

OK David, we may not be all that far apart.

Colin