Steve Paikin to moderate English debate

[WWWTT]

The point that Steve was respected for the job he has done before was a good one. So far, you have given nothing but your own opinion that he is a bad choice.

I liked him! There! My vote cancels out yours!

Can you give us a cite or anything to substantiate your opinion that the Canadian viewing public doesn't like Steve and how ratings would improve if we had a blind, lesbian bluegrass singer with one leg?

You really should not have been surprised at the reaction to your OP suggestion. This is NOT a leftwing board! We have some leftwing members but we are nothing like that profane, bigotted cesspool called "rubble.ca". You based your argument on some sort of affirmative action selection for a moderator. Most folks on this board see affirmative action as "reverse discrimination", or more simply, just discrimination.

People are people and that's enough! Putting them into quotas is patronizing at best. It's a Star Trek world today, where not only can a black man be a captain or a woman an admiral but even more, NOBODY EVEN NOTICES!

And that's the way it should be!

Man you sound like a baby when a toy is taken away from him

Ok you wanted proof.

Check the voter turn out rates for the last election where a black president was running for office.Its the highest in 40 yrs.I guess the American public do not exactly agree with your current opinion about affirmative action.Actually afirmative action should be now called "its about freakin time why did it take this freakin long cmon hurry up lets go!Action"

Also check the elections Canada website of historical election turnout.The 2008 election had the lowest turnout rate in freakin Canadian history!

Oh and I wonder who moderated that telivised debate?

Don't get me wrong I like Steve!

But voter turnout is a serious issue and the evidence is clear that elections Canada and the media and the politicians have nothing that they can point to to say "Hey its working,more voters are coming out to justify our politacal system"

And thats what this boils down to now isn't it.Justifying the cost associated with our political system!

And Paikin is only a small part of the picture and is only a pupet.He didn't kick in the door of the media producers office and say "Ok I'm calling the shots here and we are doing this my way"

There are many more others responsible for this current line or direction the media is taking towards the telivised debates.

Until there is proof that this direction is working then I am right.Period!

Aswell there is another point I must make and that is low voter turnout is encouraged by some politicians,maybe the conservatives?

You think half these guys would get into office if more people actually came out to vote?

Cmon Bill,Cmon

WWWTT

[Wild Bill]

Ok you wanted proof.

Check the voter turn out rates for the last election where a black president was running for office.Its the highest in 40 yrs.I guess the American public do not exactly agree with your current opinion about affirmative action.Actually afirmative action should be now called "its about freakin time why did it take this freakin long cmon hurry up lets go!Action"

Also check the elections Canada website of historical election turnout.The 2008 election had the lowest turnout rate in freakin Canadian history!

Oh and I wonder who moderated that telivised debate?

Don't get me wrong I like Steve!

But voter turnout is a serious issue and the evidence is clear that elections Canada and the media and the politicians have nothing that they can point to to say "Hey its working,more voters are coming out to justify our politacal system"

And thats what this boils down to now isn't it.Justifying the cost associated with our political system!

And Paikin is only a small part of the picture and is only a pupet.He didn't kick in the door of the media producers office and say "Ok I'm calling the shots here and we are doing this my way"

There are many more others responsible for this current line or direction the media is taking towards the telivised debates.

Until there is proof that this direction is working then I am right.Period!

Aswell there is another point I must make and that is low voter turnout is encouraged by some politicians,maybe the conservatives?

You think half these guys would get into office if more people actually came out to vote?

Cmon Bill,Cmon

WWWTT

I just don't know where to start in making a reply. Your post is about as focused as a fart in a mitt!

First off, who cares about Obama? That's the politics of a foreign country.

Second, is your premise that Steve Paikin being moderator of the debate was personally responsible for the low voter turnout of that election? Seriously?

Then you go on to imply that Steve should have run roughshod over his producers? Who says he could have gotten away with it?

Your next statement borders on sheer arrogance:

"Until there is proof that this direction is working then I am right.Period!"

First YOU chose to define the debate and the choice of moderator as the prime factor in the effectiveness of the debate in motivating voters (you do make the disclaimer that Steve was only a small part of the picture but you write your entire post as if it was the LARGEST part!). THEN you declare that until someone can prove that Steve was a good choice then you must be right!

When you look up "non sequitur", do we see your picture?

Finally, you sum up with the implication that Conservatives are happy with low voter turnout. That just makes no sense at all! Every political party wants to see a bigger voter turnout, as long as the biggest portion is for themselves!

You think the Liberals would want to have a LOW turnout amongst their voters, or the NDP?

As for your final point, if someone chooses not to vote, who gives a damn what he thinks? He has made himself irrelevant, by being too lazy to THINK to formulate a considered opinion and to ACT by getting his ass off the couch and go down to vote!

Perhaps we should stop debating with you. Too much ego and not enough logic. Besides, myself and a lot of others would like to see marijuana legalized. If Harper's boys were to read your posts they would use them as an excuse to keep it illegal for ever, as evidence of alteration of brain chemistry.

Edited April 2, 2011 by Wild Bill

[WWWTT]

I just don't know where to start in making a reply. Your post is about as focused as a fart in a mitt!

First off, who cares about Obama? That's the politics of a foreign country.

Second, is your premise that Steve Paikin being moderator of the debate was personally responsible for the low voter turnout of that election? Seriously?

Then you go on to imply that Steve should have run roughshod over his producers? Who says he could have gotten away with it?

Your next statement borders on sheer arrogance:

"Until there is proof that this direction is working then I am right.Period!"

First YOU chose to define the debate and the choice of moderator as the prime factor in the effectiveness of the debate in motivating voters (you do make the disclaimer that Steve was only a small part of the picture but you write your entire post as if it was the LARGEST part!). THEN you declare that until someone can prove that Steve was a good choice then you must be right!

When you look up "non sequitur", do we see your picture?

Finally, you sum up with the implication that Conservatives are happy with low voter turnout. That just makes no sense at all! Every political party wants to see a bigger voter turnout, as long as the biggest portion is for themselves!

You think the Liberals would want to have a LOW turnout amongst their voters, or the NDP?

As for your final point, if someone chooses not to vote, who gives a damn what he thinks? He has made himself irrelevant, by being too lazy to THINK to formulate a considered opinion and to ACT by getting his ass off the couch and go down to vote!

Perhaps we should stop debating with you. Too much ego and not enough logic. Besides, myself and a lot of others would like to see marijuana legalized. If Harper's boys were to read your posts they would use them as an excuse to keep it illegal for ever, as evidence of alteration of brain chemistry.

Ok Bill I'm going to give you the last word here.

Make it good man.

WWWTT

[Oleg Bach]

I remember Paikin and I singing a duet at some bar..He seemed like a nice enough guy - he was actually there practicing a tune to sing to his wife the next saturday. Anyway that was about 30 years ago...Steve seems not to have aged a drop..I think hemight be a vampire...after all he is on public television..which is assisted by public money..How about we find someone who is not a commie to moderate?

[kimmy]

Ok finaly we are actually talking about this subject and a couple of you guys are making good comments.

Now for me and many other Canadians there has to be a certain percentage of entertainment value in politics for an actual interest.

Entertainment value? So... have Rick Mercer interview the leaders as they fight it out on a paintball battlefield?

Have Cabral "Cabbie on the Street" Richards from The Score hang out with the leaders in a hip urban environment? Hey, he's "ethnic". That would be fresh!

And the last debate sucked the life of any prospect away from that.

And I put the blame squarely on the shoulders of Steve Paikin.

I put the blame squarely on the shoulders of Elizabeth May. The less people the better. As Dilbert would say, the usefulness of a meeting is inversely proportional to the number of people present. A debate with just Harper and Ignatieff would actually be the ideal situation in terms of people actually getting significant information about what the possible Prime Ministers have planned for this country.

The format was terrible too!Just one moderator and all the participants sitting around a table looking at each other.

Hopefully they ditch the kitchen table format.

My ex girlfriend use to hate it when I watched that show,she would just give up and leave the room.Who's fault it that?Anybody but Steves?

Actually, I would say it's your ex-girlfriend's fault.

-k

Edited April 2, 2011 by kimmy

[Oleg Bach]

Actually I don`t mind Steve Paikin. They should have perhaps some high ranking judge or banker moderate all the debates...Maybe our justice minister could do something useful for a change.

[Saipan]

My ex girlfriend use to hate it when I watched that show,she would just give up and leave the room.Who's fault it that?Anybody but Steves?

No. Oprah's.

[Wild Bill]

Ok Bill I'm going to give you the last word here.

Make it good man.

WWWTT

I don't feel any need to have the last word! The point of these discussions is not to win an argument. It's to learn and arrive closer to the truth!

Any husband knows that someone can use tactics to win an argument but not actually be in the right! It's just become not worth it to fight anymore!

So far, I'm not learning anything from you except you personally don't like Harper and Conservatives. So what? I don't like disco or hiphop!

I believe that if you can't play and you can't sing and you can't write good poetry then you rap!

Again, so what? These are just my own personal beliefs. I could say that Ignatieff will never win any gains this election. Unless I give good REASONS and EVIDENCE that enough voters feel that way I am just really spouting my own likes or dislikes.

Don't just tell us what you like or don't like. Tell us what you think voters AS A WHOLE are actually going to do, and WHY! Most of all, don't assume that EVERYBODY likes or dislikes the same as you! They DON'T!

What the nation is going to do this election is much more interesting than just what you or I happen to like.

Edited April 2, 2011 by Wild Bill