Posted on 05/09/2008 1:50:43 PM PDT by Nony
As Steyn pointed out to them, they did not refute any of the facts he quoted in the piece. You notice how they kept repeating, mantra like, "This is not censorship, the Human Rights Council has been authorized..." and trying to sell their demand-- of a free market magazine to allow them editorial priviledges--as something merely reasonable.
3 on 1. Steyn had an unfair advantage.
Yes, agreed. Steve Paikin did a pretty fair job also. We saw it live up here in Ontario. I looked for it in the Canadian press for a review of this first time confrontation.
Perhaps I did not look hard enough. (laughs).
Wish they had given him more time to respond.
Mark Steyn ping!
Thank me.
True, the guy is so talented. Even 3 against 1 he came off the clear winner.
And I agree with those saying that there is nothing here in our media that compares with a conversation like this. What’s the closest thing? Charlie Rose?
The moderator was actually pretty good. I'd love to see him moderate a Presidential debate. There needs to be an American equivalent of that show. None of the current talk shows, TV or radio, allow two sides to make point/counterpoint arguments. It gets frustrating when a "guest" makes a comment that the opposing view "guest" is not allowed to refute with facts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.