Fox News interviews a protester on Wall Street

[pocketfullofshells]

You miss the ENTIRE point. . .again!

HE is not from the LEFT!

He is angry, and he is angry at both the right and the left. . .

You are soooo intent in keeping within your little party lines, (and I don't care if you are a "registered Democrats!), that you are not even able to THINK beyond what your "party line" leaders tell you!

So sad!

I spent about a half hour talking and being interviewed on camera by a Ron Paul guy...but its all liberals!

And sad how Halliburton and the lack of MWD are not big deal, but they care so much about a pindrop in the bucket over a solar panel company.

 

[Pandora]

I was just watching fox news (I have not had a chance to watch for a while due to being sick) but they had a segment on the protesters. The New York protesters looked like a bunch of dumb college kids and no one they interviewed seemed too impressive to me, but then they went to a DC protest and interviewed 2 people who really impressed me. One was a younger but not college age man who made some great points. I wish I were able to put the clip on. He was not angry or rambling talking points, he made a whole lot of sense. then they interviewed an older woman, probably retired. She sounded like someone you would find at a Tea Party. I agreed with every single word she said. I really wish I could find a clip of her interview. I really don't understand why either of these people would be involved in these protests because they seemed so reasonable. But if the fear is fox news wont show intelligent people who are for the rally then fear not because I saw two people that impressed me very much but both were in DC so maybe we just have to stay away from the NYC idiots?

 

[BigRob]

Then. . .chooses not to run the interview. . .because the protester picked for looking "dumb" ended up being VERY smart, VERY articulate, and not at all impressed by Fox News interviewer.

Luckily, other people were ALSO taping this interview. . .and here it is!

I am fairly underwhelmed by this video...

If you actually get into policy meetings, these arguments are all non-starters. I will be the first to tell you that there are plenty of very smart liberals out there who argue their positions very well, and quite rationally....just as there are very smart conservatives out there who argue their positions quite well and quite rationally.

It is easy to be sound "smart" when you are moderately informed of what is going on (as most of the population is not)...however, it is another thing entirely to be able to sit down with someone who can argue a position just as well as you can, and then attempt to hash some middle ground that can actually turn into a workable coherent strategy.

 

[Openmind]

I am fairly underwhelmed by this video...

If you actually get into policy meetings, these arguments are all non-starters. I will be the first to tell you that there are plenty of very smart liberals out there who argue their positions very well, and quite rationally....just as there are very smart conservatives out there who argue their positions quite well and quite rationally.

It is easy to be sound "smart" when you are moderately informed of what is going on (as most of the population is not)...however, it is another thing entirely to be able to sit down with someone who can argue a position just as well as you can, and then attempt to hash some middle ground that can actually turn into a workable coherent strategy.

Once again, if this man had taken a position that fit your ideologies, you would have thought he was great!
He didn't take a position that fit MY ideology, but I can see how what he said, on the run, without being "prompted," was clever, articulate, and very true.

So, once again, I believe it is a question of people having "blinders" and only recognizing truth when they meet a specific (and narrow) frame of reference. . .which is what got us into this mess to begin with. . .with both sides!

 

[Little-Acorn]

 

[BigRob]

Once again, if this man had taken a position that fit your ideologies, you would have thought he was great!

No..I would have thought he was moderately informed on the talking points of the day...which hardly translate to anything other than being moderately informed on the talking points of the day.

He didn't take a position that fit MY ideology, but I can see how what he said, on the run, without being "prompted," was clever, articulate, and very true.

What he said was a few scratch the surface talking points that in no one translate to actual policy or governing. I guess you have to sit in on such meetings to actual get that?

So, once again, I believe it is a question of people having "blinders" and only recognizing truth when they meet a specific (and narrow) frame of reference. . .which is what got us into this mess to begin with. . .with both sides!

People can recognize all the "truth" they want..the point is simply that talking points (regardless of how well they are said) don't really translate into policy.

For example:
Talking point: Lower taxes!
Reality: How can we get this through Congress? How is this going to be done? What brackets are we targeting? What will it cost? How long are the cuts going to last? (obviously each of these categories has whole sets of sub-questions as well).

You can be "oh so clever" with talking points, and it adds nothing to the actual debate.

 

[Openmind]

No..I would have thought he was moderately informed on the talking points of the day...which hardly translate to anything other than being moderately informed on the talking points of the day.



What he said was a few scratch the surface talking points that in no one translate to actual policy or governing. I guess you have to sit in on such meetings to actual get that?



People can recognize all the "truth" they want..the point is simply that talking points (regardless of how well they are said) don't really translate into policy.

For example:
Talking point: Lower taxes!
Reality: How can we get this through Congress? How is this going to be done? What brackets are we targeting? What will it cost? How long are the cuts going to last? (obviously each of these categories has whole sets of sub-questions as well).

You can be "oh so clever" with talking points, and it adds nothing to the actual debate.

Well, if you consider that this man was interviewed on a "spur of the moment" by Fox News (probably because he didn't look too smart, more like a "Joe the plumber type" which Fox hoped would put his foot in his mouth and sound as ridiculous as he "looked," he did an amazing job calling "FAUX NEWS" on their bias, and still got a few dig at the WHOLE media, and ALL the politicians, both from the Left and the Right.

Wonder if any of us, big mouths, in this forum could have been that articulate in front of the cameras!

 

[dogtowner]

Wonder if any of us, big mouths, in this forum could have been that articulate in front of the cameras!

I would hope so. the bar is pretty low.

 

[GenSeneca]

Wonder if any of us, big mouths, in this forum could have been that articulate in front of the cameras!

I was at a gas station in '07 and CNN had a camera crew there interviewing people about the price of gasoline. They interviewed me but didn't like what I had to say. Rather than spouting off against "big oil" I pointed out that taxes, both direct and indirect, account for the lions share of a gallon of gasoline and that the price could be drastically lowered by eliminating those taxes.

Well what I had to say didn't fit their template, they wanted people who supported tax hikes on "big oil" as punishment for the high price of gas. Needless to say, the only interviews that were used in their segment were from people who supported the Democrat initiative of raising taxes on the oil industry.

 

[BigRob]

I was at a gas station in '07 and CNN had a camera crew there interviewing people about the price of gasoline. They interviewed me but didn't like what I had to say. Rather than spouting off against "big oil" I pointed out that taxes, both direct and indirect, account for the lions share of a gallon of gasoline and that the price could be drastically lowered by eliminating those taxes.

Well what I had to say didn't fit their template, they wanted people who supported tax hikes on "big oil" as punishment for the high price of gas. Needless to say, the only interviews that were used in their segment were from people who supported the Democrat initiative of raising taxes on the oil industry.

Guess this means that CNN is fake news and out with a clear bias...as others seem to indicate it means for other networks.

 

[Openmind]

I would hope so. the bar is pretty low.

You know it!!!

 

[pocketfullofshells]

No..I would have thought he was moderately informed on the talking points of the day...which hardly translate to anything other than being moderately informed on the talking points of the day.



What he said was a few scratch the surface talking points that in no one translate to actual policy or governing. I guess you have to sit in on such meetings to actual get that?



People can recognize all the "truth" they want..the point is simply that talking points (regardless of how well they are said) don't really translate into policy.

For example:
Talking point: Lower taxes!
Reality: How can we get this through Congress? How is this going to be done? What brackets are we targeting? What will it cost? How long are the cuts going to last? (obviously each of these categories has whole sets of sub-questions as well).

You can be "oh so clever" with talking points, and it adds nothing to the actual debate.

Its hard to fit the whole Debate on a poster card ( or a 30 sec clip on tv)....the key is to get the Debate to actually happen where it matters.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I would hope so. the bar is pretty low.

I know I would be, I have been a few times already. I actuly did a Press Conference once, had 5 different TV crews filming and i was one of 3 speakers.

 

[GenSeneca]

I know I would be, I have been a few times already. I actuly did a Press Conference once, had 5 different TV crews filming and i was one of 3 speakers.

Lucky for you it wasn't a spelling contest.

 

[Gipper]

I was at a gas station in '07 and CNN had a camera crew there interviewing people about the price of gasoline. They interviewed me but didn't like what I had to say. Rather than spouting off against "big oil" I pointed out that taxes, both direct and indirect, account for the lions share of a gallon of gasoline and that the price could be drastically lowered by eliminating those taxes.

Well what I had to say didn't fit their template, they wanted people who supported tax hikes on "big oil" as punishment for the high price of gas. Needless to say, the only interviews that were used in their segment were from people who supported the Democrat initiative of raising taxes on the oil industry.

This kind of thing has been going on for decades (I had a similar experience IN THE 80s). The dumbing down of Americans by the lib media is appalling.

If the media were unbiased, there would be VERY FEW LIBERALS WALKING AROUND. Well...we would have to include the g-schools and all of academia who have successfully indoctrinated many.