I think all of them have been identified as Democratic plants, so far. Perhaps Rogers, who is always on top of the news, can say if there were any who were NOT plants? Rogers?
I'll presume no answer to that one, and since you have gone to such a subtle effort to misdirect the theme of the CNN debacle (which ***EVERYONE*** else is discussing) and their partisan bias in manipulating the questioning, and providing a soapbox for Hillary's support of queerdom. No one seems to see that it was Clinton who instituted "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", and so why are Republicans all of a sudden the creators of that sham?
Anyway, I don't blame you one bit, Rogers! You must be so embarrassed to be associated with this pack of NAZI propagandists, right? Your principles as a trained journalists trashed for you by your party and because you MUST (as a yellow-dog) pull that lever for the jackbooted thugs manipulating, scheming and subverting our political process to gain power ...?
This ends-justifies-the-means philosophy being practiced to lose a war, defame all of the USA's reputation, force divisiveness during combat overseas, use the political process to attack individuals considered "enemies", is exactly that slipper-slope you are progressing down, now .... buy some TRAX(tm) fast or slide right on down into that muckheap, at the bottom ... ?
This story is a tempest in a teapot. The only questioner whose presence at the debate was unfair was the gay soldier. As a member of a steering committee for Clinton, he shouldn't have been allowed to ask a question and hog the mike afterwards. (Actually, he hogged two mikes.)
The partisan ties of some other questioners are inconsequential. Their questions were not unfair and the candidates handled them capably.
Rogers says, "This story is a tempest in a teapot. The only questioner whose presence at the debate was unfair was the gay soldier."
Why am I always over estimating the understanding of my correspondents? I've heard that ALL the questions were planted to lead the inference that Republicans are what "liberals" characterize them as being; i.e., religious nuts, racists, homophobes, beer drinking trailer trash. All the "video" I've seen certainly looks like Saturday Night Live to me, and not in any way serious questions of national importance; especially queers in the military -- like that is equivalent to federally run medical care, the economy (what's left of it after the left gets through with "free" medical care) illegal immigration, international terrorism, the energy crunch, and literally hundreds of more important issues!
... and you defend CNN and their obvious partisan effort (a *conspiracy*) to manipulate the "news", and such an important political issue as a debate to choose a potential future leader of our nation. The clue for those with any sympathy for this effort is that if Republicans/Fox had so manipulated the debate to embarrass and belittle Democratics ...?
You would be having a hissy-fit! When it is Republicans getting shafted by your "team"? You excuse it as "tempest in a teapot" -- the Bard spins, rapidly ...
"As a member of a steering committee for Clinton, he shouldn't have been allowed to ask a question and hog the mike afterwards. (Actually, he hogged two mikes.)"
Since this person was well known to CNN, and who had been a guest interview/expert for them about queerdom, it boggles the mind to see you on your figurative knees .... begging the question of CNN's actions as having "hogged two mikes."
"The partisan ties of some other questioners are inconsequential. Their questions were not unfair and the candidates handled them capably."
The questions, themselves, were attempts to degrade Republicans by ASSUMING that these are touch-stones which characterize them negatively, or in the light they shed; e.g., asking whether they believe every word in the Bible, and as IF that person was actually some reactionary Christian nut job.
It is all a part of the pogrom I've mentioned ...
You think pogroms start as de facto sieges of Polish Jew's neighborhoods? Or, does it start with a poster of a hooked-nosed Hassid sneaking around a corner ...?
Now, CNN is complicit in manipulating the news in coordination with the Democratic party and some of its candidates for president, and along with the help of the minion who apparently defend the ends-justify-the-means form of governmental rule/power.
I think CNN could have done a better job, but the questions chosen were passable. Whether you care to admit it or not, Republicans do care about issues like the Confederate flag, gays in the military, and a candidate's belief in the Bible.
If CNN is the liberal network that you claim, where are the liberals with their own shows? I can't think of anyone on the network who is as avowedly liberal as Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, and CNN's a network that gives Lou Dobbs and Glenn Beck their own shows. The Fox News of the left it ain't.
"I think CNN could have done a better job, but the questions chosen were passable. Whether you care to admit it or not, Republicans do care about issues like the Confederate flag, gays in the military, and a candidate's belief in the Bible."
This is surreal to me, because you can so easily dismiss something that if the shoe were on the other foot, you would be hopping about in anguish over. Then, if I mention that in doing so, you take me (and any reader with some objectivity) for a fool, I'm the mean-spirited one for becoming contentious, right?
I just deleted all the rest of what I had to say ... pearls before swing ... as I can see, now.
Pomme de terre mortelle indique, "Gays, God, Guns and Old Glory! As alliterative as they are illiterate."
Since this is your tautology, and you are Canadian, I think it a bit insulting to call your fellow countrymen: illiterate.
"pearls before swing[sic]"
"Case in point."
A typing error is exactly that -- a typing error. It is not indicative of illiteracy (nor was the mistake made by a Canadian). Indeed, the effort to ignore the meaning of the term, correctly spelled/typed, is more an illustration of putative 'illiteracy', than is the placement of the 'g', and however carelessly edited it may have been before posting.
"More like like "headcase in point" but Spud is feeling merciful today."
I'm always delighted to be made the subject for discussion, Mr. Perfection, and I thought you might have realized that by now. However, with the failure to adequately present an insult in doing so, I must agree with you that seemingly Canadians are pretty much illiterate ... with you as the example, that is.
"I just deleted all the rest of what I had to say."
"Small mercies from the small minded. Be Well."
I love the juxtapositioning of such hypocrisy, Dethspud, it underlines just how unconscious you actually happen to be. Thanks for your attention, though, always nice to get the applause represented by such angst.