R N C Votes to Boycott CNN/NBC Over Hillary Film

[candycorn]

For a Party with a history of attracting presidential candidates notorious for their lack of debating skills, the RNC has introduced a "face saving" excuse so as not to highlight those embarrassing weaknesses in national debates!

So true ... there are many Right Wing talking-heads who are encouraging the RNC to ban Republicans from ALL debates - on the grounds that any Republican in a debate in dangerous to the Party's health.

Crowley proved that two against one is not a good situation for fair and honest people.

We have a right to a fair playing field, same as anyone else. We don't need hypermanic assistance or resistance from someone who pledged neutrality as a journalist but rendered lockstep party favors in front of God and everybody to her choice for President.

She humiliated the journalism profession.

We're not having it again, and you can take that to the bank with you.

It's going to be fair, and that's that.

Oh brother...

Both parties agree to the moderators for all four debates. Nothing was forced on you by the Democrats.

Google the Commission on Presidential Debates if you don't believe me.

Crowley did no such thing and any sober view of the event would back that up. Romney lost because he sucked as a candidate. Several conservatives here said the same thing.



As for the primary debates, you can do whatever you wish with your partry. The only thing you're accomplishing however is that CNN will comment on whatever happens but you deprive yourself of being able to give the immediate opposing viewpoint. You've basically disqualified yourself from their viewership which, again, is your right to do so. It's a bizarre way to run a campaign when public relations is the basis for the entire enterprise.

 

[eagle7_31]

So true ... there are many Right Wing talking-heads who are encouraging the RNC to ban Republicans from ALL debates - on the grounds that any Republican in a debate in dangerous to the Party's health.

Crowley proved that two against one is not a good situation for fair and honest people.

We have a right to a fair playing field, same as anyone else. We don't need hypermanic assistance or resistance from someone who pledged neutrality as a journalist but rendered lockstep party favors in front of God and everybody to her choice for President.

She humiliated the journalism profession.

We're not having it again, and you can take that to the bank with you.

It's going to be fair, and that's that.

Oh brother...

Both parties agree to the moderators for all four debates. Nothing was forced on you by the Democrats.

Google the Commission on Presidential Debates if you don't believe me.

Crowley did no such thing and any sober view of the event would back that up. Romney lost because he sucked as a candidate. Several conservatives here said the same thing.



As for the primary debates, you can do whatever you wish with your partry. The only thing you're accomplishing however is that CNN will comment on whatever happens but you deprive yourself of being able to give the immediate opposing viewpoint. You've basically disqualified yourself from their viewership which, again, is your right to do so. It's a bizarre way to run a campaign when public relations is the basis for the entire enterprise.

The GOP are not treating those networks any different than the dems attitude towards Fox.
I will agree that Romney sucked as a candidate. You don't send a Chamber of Commerce type like Romney to run against a Chicago democrat thug,.

 

[candycorn]

Crowley proved that two against one is not a good situation for fair and honest people.

We have a right to a fair playing field, same as anyone else. We don't need hypermanic assistance or resistance from someone who pledged neutrality as a journalist but rendered lockstep party favors in front of God and everybody to her choice for President.

She humiliated the journalism profession.

We're not having it again, and you can take that to the bank with you.

It's going to be fair, and that's that.

Oh brother...

Both parties agree to the moderators for all four debates. Nothing was forced on you by the Democrats.

Google the Commission on Presidential Debates if you don't believe me.

Crowley did no such thing and any sober view of the event would back that up. Romney lost because he sucked as a candidate. Several conservatives here said the same thing.



As for the primary debates, you can do whatever you wish with your partry. The only thing you're accomplishing however is that CNN will comment on whatever happens but you deprive yourself of being able to give the immediate opposing viewpoint. You've basically disqualified yourself from their viewership which, again, is your right to do so. It's a bizarre way to run a campaign when public relations is the basis for the entire enterprise.

The GOP are not treating those networks any different than the dems attitude towards Fox.
I will agree that Romney sucked as a candidate. You don't send a Chamber of Commerce type like Romney to run against a Chicago democrat thug,.

The Democrats are more likely to stick to mainstream platforms; true.

Romney would have lost to Obama's barber.

 

[thanatos144]

Oh brother...

Both parties agree to the moderators for all four debates. Nothing was forced on you by the Democrats.

Google the Commission on Presidential Debates if you don't believe me.

Crowley did no such thing and any sober view of the event would back that up. Romney lost because he sucked as a candidate. Several conservatives here said the same thing.



As for the primary debates, you can do whatever you wish with your partry. The only thing you're accomplishing however is that CNN will comment on whatever happens but you deprive yourself of being able to give the immediate opposing viewpoint. You've basically disqualified yourself from their viewership which, again, is your right to do so. It's a bizarre way to run a campaign when public relations is the basis for the entire enterprise.

The GOP are not treating those networks any different than the dems attitude towards Fox.
I will agree that Romney sucked as a candidate. You don't send a Chamber of Commerce type like Romney to run against a Chicago democrat thug,.

The Democrats are more likely to stick to mainstream platforms; true.

Romney would have lost to Obama's barber.

LOL Yea they like to stick with stations no one is watching LOl

 

[candycorn]

The GOP are not treating those networks any different than the dems attitude towards Fox.
I will agree that Romney sucked as a candidate. You don't send a Chamber of Commerce type like Romney to run against a Chicago democrat thug,.

The Democrats are more likely to stick to mainstream platforms; true.

Romney would have lost to Obama's barber.

LOL Yea they like to stick with stations no one is watching LOl

332-206
Scoreboard

 

[thanatos144]

The Democrats are more likely to stick to mainstream platforms; true.

Romney would have lost to Obama's barber.

LOL Yea they like to stick with stations no one is watching LOl

332-206
Scoreboard

Yea it was a damn narrow win

 

[ClosedCaption]

For a Party with a history of attracting presidential candidates notorious for their lack of debating skills, the RNC has introduced a "face saving" excuse so as not to highlight those embarrassing weaknesses in national debates!

So true ... there are many Right Wing talking-heads who are encouraging the RNC to ban Republicans from ALL debates - on the grounds that any Republican in a debate in dangerous to the Party's health.

Crowley proved that two against one is not a good situation for fair and honest people.

We have a right to a fair playing field, same as anyone else. We don't need hypermanic assistance or resistance from someone who pledged neutrality as a journalist but rendered lockstep party favors in front of God and everybody to her choice for President.

She humiliated the journalism profession.

We're not having it again, and you can take that to the bank with you.

It's going to be fair, and that's that.

Is neutrality and allowing someone to blatently lie without correction the same thing? And why are you pro-lying without correction?

 

[Redfish]

The Democrats are more likely to stick to mainstream platforms; true.

Romney would have lost to Obama's barber.

LOL Yea they like to stick with stations no one is watching LOl

332-206
Scoreboard

52/48 popular vote. Not a landslide or a mandate. your boy barely won. Put two large EC states on Romney's side and he wins-----------and the country today would be much much better off.

But you fools gave obozo 4 more years----you deserve what he does to you and this country. You are idiots and you don't even realize it.

 

[drivebymedia]

LOL Yea they like to stick with stations no one is watching LOl

332-206
Scoreboard

52/48 popular vote. Not a landslide or a mandate. your boy barely won. Put two large EC states on Romney's side and he wins-----------and the country today would be much much better off.

One less Conservative hack on the Supreme Court, and we have Gore for 8 years instead of the pathetic Barbara's boy ....



I agree Barbara, we've had enough Bush's !

 

[candycorn]

LOL Yea they like to stick with stations no one is watching LOl

332-206
Scoreboard

Yea it was a damn narrow win

Hardly; of the 10-12 States that were in play, Obama won something like 9-10 of them.
It was a total anhilation electorally.

 

[candycorn]

LOL Yea they like to stick with stations no one is watching LOl

332-206
Scoreboard

52/48 popular vote.

We use the Electoral Vote in the US. Thanks for playing.

Not a landslide or a mandate.

A total landslide when you consider only 10-12 states were in play and Your Presdient won nearly every one of them.

your boy barely won.

Want some cheese with your whine? By the way, Obama is a man.

Put two large EC states on Romney's side and he wins

Oh wow...why stop at 2 when you're dreaming?

But you fools gave obozo 4 more years----you deserve what he does to you and this country. You are idiots and you don't even realize it.

Scoreboard...you're bitching isn't going to change it.

 

[Redfish]

332-206
Scoreboard

52/48 popular vote. Not a landslide or a mandate. your boy barely won. Put two large EC states on Romney's side and he wins-----------and the country today would be much much better off.

One less Conservative hack on the Supreme Court, and we have Gore for 8 years instead of the pathetic Barbara's boy ....



I agree Barbara, we've had enough Bush's !

Gore for 8 years? are you a fucking lunatic? Gore after 9/11?? WTF would that asshole have done? offered carbon credits to the taliban if they agreed to play nice?

as to the SCOTUS, from obozo we got two lesbian left wing females with the combined competence of a frog.

Bush was far from great, but he was 1000% better than the incompetent traitor that you fools elected twice.

 

[Redfish]

332-206
Scoreboard

Yea it was a damn narrow win

Hardly; of the 10-12 States that were in play, Obama won something like 9-10 of them.
It was a total anhilation electorally.

No one said that the electoral vote was close. What I said was that the popular vote----you know, the one person/one vote idea, was close. What that says is that the country was basically divided 50/50 on a per person basis.

 

[GHook93]

...a public defender in New England if she hadn't married Bill Clinton.

Not true at all. I remember reading, I believe, a Times article on her a while back. She actually turned down Bill's marriage proposals for YEARS!!! She created a solid resume working for a variety of law firms and she did this all before she was married and before Bill was a political stooge. In fact she gave up I believe a partnership offer to go back to AK with Bill PRIOR to getting married and prior to him gaining a political office.

Yes she got a lot after that, but don't make it seem like it's simple to win office because you have a husband in power. She earned her senate seat and she should have used her name to her advantage, would you have not?

She does have a nice resume to run for President. US Senator, First Lady and Secretary of State. She also has an extensive record working for a variety of law firms and she was on the corp board of directors for the evil Walmart Corp. She was also a professor of law in AK.

I don't like her politics and I wouldn't vote for her, but be honest on her creditials.

 

[Redfish]

...a public defender in New England if she hadn't married Bill Clinton.

Not true at all. I remember reading, I believe, a Times article on her a while back. She actually turned down Bill's marriage proposals for YEARS!!! She created a solid resume working for a variety of law firms and she did this all before she was married and before Bill was a political stooge. In fact she gave up I believe a partnership offer to go back to AK with Bill PRIOR to getting married and prior to him gaining a political office.

Yes she got a lot after that, but don't make it seem like it's simple to win office because you have a husband in power. She earned her senate seat and she should have used her name to her advantage, would you have not?

She does have a nice resume to run for President. US Senator, First Lady and Secretary of State. She also has an extensive record working for a variety of law firms and she was on the corp board of directors for the evil Walmart Corp. She was also a professor of law in AK.

I don't like her politics and I wouldn't vote for her, but be honest on her creditials.

she has had some job TITLES, but she has never accomplished anything other than being married to the whitehouse rapist.

If you doubt that, please list her accomplishments as senator and SecState. As her law career, can you come up wih any significant case that she handled-------oh, I forgot---Whitewater.

 

[candycorn]

Yea it was a damn narrow win

Hardly; of the 10-12 States that were in play, Obama won something like 9-10 of them.
It was a total anhilation electorally.

No one said that the electoral vote was close. What I said was that the popular vote----you know, the one person/one vote idea, was close.

Ahh, when they start deciding who wins soccer matches based on time of possession, maybe someone will care about that too.

What that says is that the country was basically divided 50/50 on a per person basis.

There are, I have been told so often by you guys, that there are far more conservatives than liberals. I guess that's not the case. Too bad..

No, actually what the big difference is that people who voted for Obama can trust Obama to, at least, try to implement his policies.

Nobody trusted Romney and this is really why you guys are so upset and are still claiming the election was unfair, the debates were unfair, the weather was unfair, and are playing the victim; you contorted your so-called principles of being stedfast and true into voting for someone you knew was a political opportunist. Either the "principles" are a sham or the GOP no longer shares them.

Your choice.

 

[drivebymedia]

52/48 popular vote. Not a landslide or a mandate. your boy barely won. Put two large EC states on Romney's side and he wins-----------and the country today would be much much better off.

One less Conservative hack on the Supreme Court, and we have Gore for 8 years instead of the pathetic Barbara's boy ....



I agree Barbara, we've had enough Bush's !

Gore for 8 years? are you a fucking lunatic? Gore after 9/11?? WTF would that asshole have done? offered carbon credits to the taliban if they agreed to play nice?

as to the SCOTUS, from obozo we got two lesbian left wing females with the combined competence of a frog.

Bush was far from great, but he was 1000% better than the incompetent traitor that you fools elected twice.

Did Toni Scalia decide Bush would handle 9/11 better?

Is that why he forced Florida to stop counting votes?

For a dumb eyetalian, that's quite perceptive ....

 

[drivebymedia]

Nobody trusted Romney and this is really why you guys are so upset and are still claiming the election was unfair, the debates were unfair, the weather was unfair, and are playing the victim

Conservatives are paranoid by nature .... although they don't know it ....

 

[bodecea]

...a public defender in New England if she hadn't married Bill Clinton.

Not true at all. I remember reading, I believe, a Times article on her a while back. She actually turned down Bill's marriage proposals for YEARS!!! She created a solid resume working for a variety of law firms and she did this all before she was married and before Bill was a political stooge. In fact she gave up I believe a partnership offer to go back to AK with Bill PRIOR to getting married and prior to him gaining a political office.

Yes she got a lot after that, but don't make it seem like it's simple to win office because you have a husband in power. She earned her senate seat and she should have used her name to her advantage, would you have not?

She does have a nice resume to run for President. US Senator, First Lady and Secretary of State. She also has an extensive record working for a variety of law firms and she was on the corp board of directors for the evil Walmart Corp. She was also a professor of law in AK.

I don't like her politics and I wouldn't vote for her, but be honest on her creditials.

she has had some job TITLES, but she has never accomplished anything other than being married to the whitehouse rapist.

If you doubt that, please list her accomplishments as senator and SecState. As her law career, can you come up wih any significant case that she handled-------oh, I forgot---Whitewater.

You keep telling yourself that. I'm sure women voters appreciate that kind of attitude that women, no matter their credentials, are just riding their husbands' coattails.

 

[bodecea]

52/48 popular vote. Not a landslide or a mandate. your boy barely won. Put two large EC states on Romney's side and he wins-----------and the country today would be much much better off.

One less Conservative hack on the Supreme Court, and we have Gore for 8 years instead of the pathetic Barbara's boy ....



I agree Barbara, we've had enough Bush's !

Gore for 8 years? are you a fucking lunatic? Gore after 9/11?? WTF would that asshole have done? offered carbon credits to the taliban if they agreed to play nice?

as to the SCOTUS, from obozo we got two lesbian left wing females with the combined competence of a frog.

Bush was far from great, but he was 1000% better than the incompetent traitor that you fools elected twice.

I love Redfish's attitude about women. I really do. I wonder why the RW has so much trouble with the woman voter these days.