They're afraid. Both sides.
Poll: Gary Johnson Could Win New Mexico, Create Electoral College Deadlock
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
The OFFICIAL Trump/HRC/2016 General Election Thread...
- Thread starter PaulF
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
- Status
They're afraid. Both sides.
Poll: Gary Johnson Could Win New Mexico, Create Electoral College Deadlock
The Atlantic editorial board endorses Hillary Clinton, in only 3rd endorsement in magazine's 159-year history
'The Atlantic' Editors Endorse Hillary Clinton for President - The Atlantic
'The Atlantic' Editors Endorse Hillary Clinton for President - The Atlantic
indiucky
Grandmaster
The elites are in panic mode...USA Today did the same thing...I am telling you GP there is fear out there in the Northeast, Hollywood, and the Beltway over a Trump presidency....
That was last year, they have since unanimously decided to endorse Clinton.
Teamsters Endorse Clinton, Slap Trump
Ah, well.... I wonder who the members are going to endorse?
hitlary supports shipping more union jobs overseas.
I guess if they want to go ahead and move to china that's their choice.
Union leadership couldn't care less about union members, and their jobs, they worship at the Democrat alter no matter what.
I'm not so sure that it's a matter of they want Hillary as it is a matter of they don't want Trump. I don't want Hillary, but I don't want Trump more. It's quite a conundrum for many in the press and for lots of people out here. If the congress manages to stay roughly the same makeup, (provided they didn't well and truly **** in their cornflakes this time) they would at least manage to block the worst of Hillary's machinations. The same can't be said for Trump.
For years I produced and hosted a Public Access television program focusing on political and social issues. The first was The Libertarian Perspective that was a half-hour taped shoot and the other was Libertarians at Large which was a one hour live call in show.
Whenever I would interview people I would always tell them the topics I wanted to cover. I also would ask if there were any questions they wanted me to ask. If there were, I would normally understand why they thought that question was important if I couldn't figure it out.
I wouldn't give them the exact question because I didn't know it. I would only say I wanted to discuss the "war on drugs" or "campaign finance" or "abortion rights" or whatever it was. I would bring up the topic and just let the conversation flow, with what I hoped were intelligent questions and probing deeper into interesting topics.
I also stood by a general format of starting with the national debt, then introducing myself (briefly) and the guest. I would always ask the guest to tell us about themselves. This is SOP for giving a speech, as in, "why should you listen to me." I simply reversed it to give the audience the reason that this guest was knowledgeable about the topic, not just taking my word for it.
There was ONE significant time I deviated from my SOP and acquiesced to a guests refusal to go into a line of questioning. I was doing a taped show on sexual predators, sex crimes and child molesting, including how Indiana law treated this issue. My guest was a LEO that specialized in this line of work. The guest was quite adamant about refusing to discuss any of their background outside of work. I understood why given the nature of the guests line of work and possible concerns for family issues. I respected the guests position and kept things much more "formal" regarding the guests work product and professional history.
That was the only time I ever consciously deviated from having the audience "know" the guest.
If you want to run a show and get guests and have the COME BACK or get others, then you cannot "attack" them!!! I would always present counterpoints, take exception to their position, and offer a more "libertarian" perspective, but I wasn't there to berate, insult, or anger the guest. I liked having a civilized disagreement, not a punching match. I think it also helped that I had a reputation for being fair and respectful to all the guests I had on, as no one ever refused to come on when invited due to any other guest being treated unfairly or rudely. Had I ever gotten such a reputation I wouldn't have been able to get more guests. Who would want to come on a show only to be attacked and berated for 30 minutes? It doesn't play well. I would get in my two cents about where we disagreed and why, but I would always move on and not hammer the guest.
Note also that I never claimed to be an unbiased journalist. I did make it clear that I had beliefs that may differ from theirs. I made no claim to be without an agenda. The guests knew that walking into it.
Regards,
Doug
Whenever I would interview people I would always tell them the topics I wanted to cover. I also would ask if there were any questions they wanted me to ask. If there were, I would normally understand why they thought that question was important if I couldn't figure it out.
I wouldn't give them the exact question because I didn't know it. I would only say I wanted to discuss the "war on drugs" or "campaign finance" or "abortion rights" or whatever it was. I would bring up the topic and just let the conversation flow, with what I hoped were intelligent questions and probing deeper into interesting topics.
I also stood by a general format of starting with the national debt, then introducing myself (briefly) and the guest. I would always ask the guest to tell us about themselves. This is SOP for giving a speech, as in, "why should you listen to me." I simply reversed it to give the audience the reason that this guest was knowledgeable about the topic, not just taking my word for it.
There was ONE significant time I deviated from my SOP and acquiesced to a guests refusal to go into a line of questioning. I was doing a taped show on sexual predators, sex crimes and child molesting, including how Indiana law treated this issue. My guest was a LEO that specialized in this line of work. The guest was quite adamant about refusing to discuss any of their background outside of work. I understood why given the nature of the guests line of work and possible concerns for family issues. I respected the guests position and kept things much more "formal" regarding the guests work product and professional history.
That was the only time I ever consciously deviated from having the audience "know" the guest.
If you want to run a show and get guests and have the COME BACK or get others, then you cannot "attack" them!!! I would always present counterpoints, take exception to their position, and offer a more "libertarian" perspective, but I wasn't there to berate, insult, or anger the guest. I liked having a civilized disagreement, not a punching match. I think it also helped that I had a reputation for being fair and respectful to all the guests I had on, as no one ever refused to come on when invited due to any other guest being treated unfairly or rudely. Had I ever gotten such a reputation I wouldn't have been able to get more guests. Who would want to come on a show only to be attacked and berated for 30 minutes? It doesn't play well. I would get in my two cents about where we disagreed and why, but I would always move on and not hammer the guest.
Note also that I never claimed to be an unbiased journalist. I did make it clear that I had beliefs that may differ from theirs. I made no claim to be without an agenda. The guests knew that walking into it.
Regards,
Doug
New Trump ad could probably use a copy editor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OU67T_Hgko&feature=youtu.be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OU67T_Hgko&feature=youtu.be
I don't want either, either. The SCOTUS choice gives a slight nod to Trump for me as there may be some slim hope he won't nominate his sister. I think if Hillay wins she'll likely have some coattails so there'll be a more willing congress. With Trump. Who knows. Seeing a guy like Cruz kiss the ring is telling.
Bottom line. Either presidency will be further erosion of liberty, the difference being primarily spectrum more than depth and breadth.
indiucky
Grandmaster
NRA says Kaine is rated "F"
Kaine is "proud of it"
At least past Democrats tried to pretend they were OK with guns.
The Blue Dog Democrat is an extinct creature....Many Democrats were very pro gun....Bill Clinton and Al Gore were both very pro gun....
And then they got nominated on the national ticket and "evolved".....
Democrats "evolve", Republicans "flip flop"....
It's not the Democratic Party, it's the Democrat Party. Words mean things...or they used to before we transformed into bizzarro-world.
indiucky
Grandmaster
So I guess your now going to tell me Bruce Jenner thinks he's a woman and that marriage is no longer between a man and a woman??? Come on GFGT...It's not really "bizzarro-world".....I mean if those kind of things happen then yes, maybe we are in "bizzarro-world" but as long as men realize they can't magically transform into women and marriage, by definition, remains between a man and a woman we are a long way from "bizzarro-world"..
Would you like some 'member berries???? They are good....
[video=youtube;WOUw0dIxjYI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOUw0dIxjYI[/video]
So I guess your now going to tell me Bruce Jenner thinks he's a woman and that marriage is no longer between a man and a woman??? Come on GFGT...It's not really "bizzarro-world".....I mean if those kind of things happen then yes, maybe we are in "bizzarro-world"...
Good bye, indiucky! How are you enjoying the snowy weather we're having lately?
- Status
Site Supporter
Latest posts
-
-
-
All the hate... (Anti-Israel College Campus Activity)
- Latest: Flash-hider
-
Staff online
-
d.kaufmanStill Here
Members online
- Scuba591
- Gunguy317
- mmpsteve
- carry205
- MCgrease08
- indykid
- 1775usmarine
- Ingomike
- crookcountygo
- Creedmoor
- Dentoro
- TheGrumpyGuy
- l11
- yeahbaby
- SmolderOutdoors
- vibrationeng
- dung
- brettholycross
- SolidDragon74
- Tombs
- ChooterMcGavin1973
- BehindBlueI's
- Flash-hider
- Bookmark
- Nakatomi
- bwframe
- Lwright
- atlasgalt09
- indyblue
- porchedealer
- INgunowner
- wagyu52
- cmstuard
- ws6duramax
- Zjhagens
- ShawnC
- Farmerjon
- vzdude
- weedsnager
- Bartman
- d.kaufman
- SpinDrift762
- darkon256
- BeDome
- kcruisin
- carachouse
- DFM914
- Indyal
- sendelweck
- darkkevin
