By the by, it is a deliverate strategy to have 2 repugnants for every faggit. It has always been that way. I just saw a debate on the Sundance channel... must've been from the 80's.
The show had two invitees: A linguist names Norm Chasky or something like that, and the other was a retired general who supposedly was representing the US army. The subject was about American foreign policy.
The first guy debated that the US army had commited attrocities of war in all these places and that it was currently intervening actively in the internal affairs of all these central American countries, via the CIA.
The guy was interrupted at least 20 times by the retired general, while all responses from the general were "you're lying", not kidding, at least 20 times in a 5 minute span.
At one point the linguist stopped debating the general and focused his debating on the moderator and the camera because this guy's complete illogical ranting was becoming obviouly anoying.
Norm eventually backed what he said with documents that, we now know were real and correct, showed statements, what looked like pictures and I guess proof that backed what he was saying. The general? Nothing. Just kept saying "you're lying" and an occasional "show me proof", which when given (the proof) prompted him to kept saying "you're lying". I mean, if I were the US army I'd be pretty pissed off that that jerkoff was representing me.
Needless to say, the same tactics are being used nowadays: Difuse and repeat. The shows make no secret of this, they call them the 20-second-people, the short-liners. Repugnants are really good at this because they think/operate in that black/white mode: They hit us? We invade their country. Nicaraguan workers go on strike? We send in the CIA. You're either our ally or our enemy.
There is no real debate in the USA right now. The media has become such an intricate part of the policy that one-liners are all you get. Even when Bush made the comment about the "brown people", you had all White House correspondents writing it down as though he was saying something important, when logic should've prompted all these people to get up and say " whaaaaat the fuck!".
Don't get me wrong, there is some debate... in the fringes, but it's mostly on cable and "obscure" channels like channel 13 World, BBC World or the Sundance channel. Sometimes you get a really good debate, but they're few and far between. And we all know that the broadcast channels will never get someone who "deviates" from the official rhetoric.
This is the state of affairs right now. Sad ain't it? I mean, even when they bring in full of shit individuals like "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction"-Cheney (you know, the real president), someone who is out and officially so full of shit he stinks up any place place he goes to, the interviewers still ask them important questions when he has lost all "face". Same with Rumsfeld et al. And Ruppert, King or Scarborough still bring them in for interviews about Iraq, when it is every day more apparent they have no fucking clue.
In the mean time we, the American public, have been relegated to the one-liners and boring speeches that will put you to sleep in a minute or two. But this is intentional, and so is inviting 2 repugnants for every faggit. It is deliverate by nature however: Repugnants have twice fewer brain cells than faggits, and it takes two of them to diggest all the information the liberal is giving them.
Either that or the interviewer wants the liberal to have surround sound rhetoric from the republicans.
