CNN decides, you can't be in debate

[jman19]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: openwheelformula1
lol you neo-cons crack me up.

So what is your opinion on the story?

You didn't direct this post at me, but I stopped reading after "Clinton News Network" and "Hitlary" - and I don't even like Hillary

Ah, so I guess us conservatives can use that as an excuse to not address the points of any posts that contain "Dumbya", "Repugs", or any of the other deragotory terms thrown at us.....

You can do whatever you want, but I tend not to read posts by people who write like idiots, whether they are liberal, conservative, or whatever label you'd like to put on them. And who said I'm liberal? Don't get so defensive

 

[Theb]

Sure he should've been included, but he was never going to win the primary so I'm not crying about it.

edit: Wait, did you say they're excluding him to help Hilary?
Thank you, seriously the coffee just hasn't been kicking in right today and a good laugh has really helped.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
.......Where do you draw the line?..........

Fair question. I googled "top Democratic presidential candidates" and he's listed above Kucinich at #6 (Wiki).

Of course both of those are longshots. But at this point, it's so early, some of the candidates are in primarily to influence the debate/discussion. And that's a very reasonable thing. I think it's good to hear their ideas, and quite an accomplishment if they sway the thinking/discussion even if they don't get elected.

There are only 7 people officially in the race at this point. That's not an unmanageable number in a debate at this point. As we get closer to election, I could see whittling it down to 3 or 4. And I would expect at that time several more will have dropped out - Biden & Dodd for example.

Fern

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: JD50
Thank you, and I will now exercise this right by not addressing DealMonkeys post.

I wasn't talking to you in the first place. I was talking to Mr Mushroom OP who seems to be spending his vacation starting threads to b!tch about liberals and dredging up stupid crap without a link to a credible source. How's that working out for you, Shivetya?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: JD50
Thank you, and I will now exercise this right by not addressing DealMonkeys post.

I wasn't talking to you in the first place. I was talking to Mr Mushroom OP who seems to be spending his vacation starting threads to b!tch about liberals and dredging up stupid crap without a link to a credible source. How's that working out for you, Shivetya?

Oh ok, I stopped reading when you said wingnut so I wasn't sure what you said in the rest of the post.

 

[cumhail]

Where's the link and/or attribution? You should show some pride at reproducing a story that originates at Drudgereport.com.

 

[Narmer]

WTF is a "freeper"?

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Narmer
WTF is a "freeper"?

Often used as a derogotory term for a radical righty, based on the type of people you see post here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/browse.

 

[johnnobts]

they let kucinich in, but not this guy? i also loved what they did in Penn, the stalinist democrat party made sure ralph nader would not be on the ballot. there can be only one party, the democrat party.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
they let kucinich in, but not this guy? i also loved what they did in Penn, the stalinist democrat party made sure ralph nader would not be on the ballot. there can be only one party, the democrat party.

Jesus Christ dude, both parties try to manipulate the ballot for their electoral advantage. Democrats seem to prefer purging reasonable candidates that should be allowed on the ballot, and Republicans seem to prefer purging reasonable voters that should be allowed to have a ballot. It sure is scummy, but you know just as well as I do that neither party is above it. (or even close)

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
While I'm all for a broad range of opinions and all, you realize that with every debate and every election there is always someone who says they should be involved but isn't. And they always cry censorship. At some point there has to be a cutoff, because if not you'll have guys like this in on it. Where do you draw the line?

Anyways, I'm still for letting this guy in.. he doesn't seem THAT far out there. But Shivetya, I would have to say that I'm impressed by how impenetrable your partisanship is. No matter how many times you're shot down for your 'liberal media' crap... you just come right back with it. You truly are immune to reason.

Jonathan the Impaler... no.

Former two term US senator... yes.

Plus, this early on, why not let some of the lower polling candidates be heard? If he's a nut he'll disappear. If he's for real, then he'll find a larger following than he had before. I do agree though that you have to draw the line somewhere. Maybe their standing in the polls? Require than they have to poll at 2% or better on average over X number of polls? Pick five or six polls... Zogby, Rass, Fox, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN... Average the results and see where they fall (Like RCP does).

 

[WHAMPOM]

Why CNN? Why? H$77, maybe they still have standards, barely perceptible, but there.

 

[judasmachine]

reading between the threads here, and correct me if i'm wrong but:

your side is corrupt
my side is corrupt

ok i get, so let's tear the whole thing down and start over, who's with me?

[crickets]

yeah that's what i thought.

at the very least one should be most critical of their own side.