Clinton, Edwards talk of limiting debate

[JeffWartman]

It's way too early in the election cycle for this...

Clinton, Edwards talk of limiting debate

Associated Press - July 13, 2007 2:23 AM ET

DETROIT (AP) - Democrats John Edwards and Hillary Rodham Clinton consider themselves among the top presidential candidates.

They were caught by Fox News microphones discussing their desire to limit future joint appearances to exclude some lower rivals after a forum in Detroit Thursday.

Edwards says, "We should try to have a more serious and a smaller group."

Clinton agrees, saying, "We've got to cut the number" and "they're not serious." She also says that she thought their campaigns had already tried to limit the debates and say, "We've gotta get back to it."...

Full story http://www.wluctv6.com/Global/story.asp?S=6784011

 

[CSM]

It's way too early in the election cycle for this...



Full story http://www.wluctv6.com/Global/story.asp?S=6784011

Political strategies make for some pretty interesting discussions which are not necessarily very pretty.

 

[Truthmatters]

I listened to this earlier today and couldnt really hear most of what they were saying.

This is the kind of scandals the dems have this time around.

Too bad the R team has to contend with prison sentances and prostitutes.

 

[hjmick]

I listened to this earlier today and couldnt really hear most of what they were saying.

This is the kind of scandals the dems have this time around.

Too bad the R team has to contend with prison sentances and prostitutes.

And prostitute state representatives.

 

[Edward]

And prostitute state representatives.

Are you speaking of Vitter or is there something even more juicy such as a Republican State Representative having been or currently being a prostitute? Your post intrigues me because it is my understanding that Laurie Bush is a prostitute and runs a prostitution ring out of the White House where she has sex for Republican votes in Congress. Of course, Georgie gets his fair share of Republican members of Congress but its only on the conditon they support the war and then he is more then happy to have sex with them. This is why Bush and Foley were so fond of each other. I had better be careful what I say because none of the above is true and I don't want to end up like Republicans who lie about everything or worst I will end up like Bill Clinton and his boyfriend George H.W. Bush.

 

[hjmick]

Are you speaking of Vitter or is there something even more juicy such as a Republican State Representative having been or currently being a prostitute? Your post intrigues me because it is my understanding that Laurie Bush is a prostitute and runs a prostitution ring out of the White House where she has sex for Republican votes in Congress. Of course, Georgie gets his fair share of Republican members of Congress but its only on the conditon they support the war and then he is more then happy to have sex with them. This is why Bush and Foley were so fond of each other. I had better be careful what I say because none of the above is true and I don't want to end up like Republicans who lie about everything or worst I will end up like Bill Clinton and his boyfriend George H.W. Bush.

Haven't you heard? Florida State Rep. Bob Allen, a co-chair of Republican presidential candidate John McCain's Florida campaign, was arrested on charges that he offered to perform oral sex on an undercover male police officer for $20.

Technically I guess that this wouldn't make him a prostitute since he offered to pay the cop.

 

[Paulie]

First the republicans try to censor Ron, and now the Dems want to censor Kucinich and Gravel.

It's not partisan politics anymore people, it's just blatant censoring of any candidate that dares speak the truth.

This should be really good proof that neither side's "top-tier" candidates will actually move to end the war, and any future aggression on other countries, because the "lower-tier" candidates' message is mostly an anti-war message.

Take from this what you will, guys, but the truth is not hard to see, especially when it's right in front of your face.

 

[dilloduck]

First the republicans try to censor Ron, and now the Dems want to censor Kucinich and Gravel.

It's not partisan politics anymore people, it's just blatant censoring of any candidate that dares speak the truth.

This should be really good proof that neither side's "top-tier" candidates will actually move to end the war, and any future aggression on other countries, because the "lower-tier" candidates' message is mostly an anti-war message.

Take from this what you will, guys, but the truth is not hard to see, especially when it's right in front of your face.

Politics as usual--another truth. Any politician out there is free to run as an independent if he/she doesn't feel the party is treating the fairly, but good luck!

 

[pegwinn]

Crooks and Liars the lot of them. I guess I am an authoritarian. I believe that in order to get federal funding for candidates they should be required to hold debates on a monthly basis. JMO.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

hahaha, oops.

It's way too early in the election cycle for this...



Full story http://www.wluctv6.com/Global/story.asp?S=6784011

 

[red states rule]

It's way too early in the election cycle for this...



Full story http://www.wluctv6.com/Global/story.asp?S=6784011

I am surprised libs are not screaming the tape is fake and it is another right wing conspiracy to smear the Dems

Oh well

The other candidates do not have a chance of winning. The Dems are down to the Three Stooges : Clinton, Obama, and Edwards

The rest should stop wasting the donatiions from their suckers, eh - doners, and call it quits

 

[red states rule]

First the republicans try to censor Ron, and now the Dems want to censor Kucinich and Gravel.

It's not partisan politics anymore people, it's just blatant censoring of any candidate that dares speak the truth.

This should be really good proof that neither side's "top-tier" candidates will actually move to end the war, and any future aggression on other countries, because the "lower-tier" candidates' message is mostly an anti-war message.

Take from this what you will, guys, but the truth is not hard to see, especially when it's right in front of your face.

Censor?

All the idiots you are crying about are out there sharing their insanity with us

The problem is, they did get their message out - and the folks are ignoring them

and rightly so

 

[Paulie]

Censor?

All the idiots you are crying about are out there sharing their insanity with us

The problem is, they did get their message out - and the folks are ignoring them

and rightly so

Congratulations, RSR. A post without the words liberal or democrat.

Insanity? Thanks to our beloved constitution, you have the right to express that opinion.

You just THINK the folks are ignoring them, because a bunch of corporate polls show them at almost no support.

I don't really care much about Kucinich and Gravel anyway, I already know they're out of the race. But Ron Paul is NOT.

He was at 2% for a while in the "mainstream" polls, and then all the sudden he's at 0%, even though his support is staggering, and has grown leaps and bounds by the day. No one even comes close to him as far as the internet goes, which is the one medium that the establishment can't yet censor.

"scientific" polls are conducted by selecting usually 1,000 people, and making a landline phone call to them. It would be childs play for the corporate pigs that put these polls out to hand-pick people that would give specific results in a poll question.

The fact that Ron is supposedly at 1% or less, is what makes idiots like you think he couldn't possibly win, and idiots like people who actually likes him, but don't think he COULD win, vote for someone else.

Sooner or later you will have to just deal with the fact that Ron is a viable candidate. The man speaks the truth, which is something that can't be said for your boy Rudy, or Mitt-flop, or neo-con flip-flopper Fred "i'm not really a conservative because I lobbied for a pro-abortion group for YEARS" Thompson.

Go ahead, call me a Lib. I DARE you.

 

[Annie]

Congratulations, RSR. A post without the words liberal or democrat.

Insanity? Thanks to our beloved constitution, you have the right to express that opinion.

You just THINK the folks are ignoring them, because a bunch of corporate polls show them at almost no support.

I don't really care much about Kucinich and Gravel anyway, I already know they're out of the race. But Ron Paul is NOT.

He was at 2% for a while in the "mainstream" polls, and then all the sudden he's at 0%, even though his support is staggering, and has grown leaps and bounds by the day. No one even comes close to him as far as the internet goes, which is the one medium that the establishment can't yet censor.

"scientific" polls are conducted by selecting usually 1,000 people, and making a landline phone call to them. It would be childs play for the corporate pigs that put these polls out to hand-pick people that would give specific results in a poll question.

The fact that Ron is supposedly at 1% or less, is what makes idiots like you think he couldn't possibly win, and idiots like people who actually likes him, but don't think he COULD win, vote for someone else.

Sooner or later you will have to just deal with the fact that Ron is a viable candidate. The man speaks the truth, which is something that can't be said for your boy Rudy, or Mitt-flop, or neo-con flip-flopper Fred "i'm not really a conservative because I lobbied for a pro-abortion group for YEARS" Thompson.

Go ahead, call me a Lib. I DARE you.

Ron Paul is a libertarian, 'running' as a republican. You are expecting the libertarians to recognize the reason why, while expecting the republicans to give him a bye. Not going to happen, no matter how the organization spams online polls.

 

[Paulie]

Kathianne shows yet another reason why not to continue discussion with her.

I'll remind her about the Republican Party, though...

(From wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States))

Current ideology

Further information: Factions in the Republican Party (United States)
The Republican Party includes large numbers of fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, neoconservatives, and libertarians.

The Republican Party is the more socially conservative and economically libertarian of the two major parties. The party generally supports lower taxes and limited government in some economic areas, while preferring government intervention in others. In the 1980s, the Republican Party was more strongly conservative than before. In his 1981 inaugural address, Republican President Ronald Reagan summed up his belief in limited government when he said, "In the present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."[2] Since 1980, the GOP has contained what George Will calls "unresolved tensions between, two flavors of conservatism -- Western and Southern." The Western brand, wrote Will, "is largely libertarian, holding that pruning big government will allow civil society -- and virtues nourished by it and by the responsibilities of freedom -- to flourish." The Southern variety, however, reflects a religiosity based in evangelical and fundamentalist churches that is less concerned with economics and more with moralistic issues, such as opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage. Noting the waning influence of libertarian philosophy on contemporary Republican ideology, Will describes the current Republican Party as "increasingly defined by the ascendancy of the religious right."[3]

Kathianne should note that Ron fits in with the Republican Party perfectly, with only the one exception of neo-conservatism, which by current definition and perception, doesn't even belong in the Republican Party anyway.

I challenge anyone here to give rock solid evidence that any other current Republican candidate lives up to this definition.

 

[Annie]

Kathianne shows yet another reason why not to continue discussion with her.

I'll remind her about the Republican Party, though...

(From wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States))



Kathianne should note that Ron fits in with the Republican Party perfectly, with only the one exception of neo-conservatism, which by current definition and perception, doesn't even belong in the Republican Party anyway.

I challenge anyone here to give rock solid evidence that any other current Republican candidate lives up to this definition.

You need to get a life junior. I don't have all that much sway on a national level and wouldn't help you on a state level, before this post.

 

[Paulie]

You need to get a life junior. I don't have all that much sway on a national level and wouldn't help you on a state level, before this post.

ok, i have to break my promise Kathianne.

What the fuck are you talking about? Sway on a national level? Help me on a state level? Did you post in the wrong thread again?

 

[Annie]

ok, i have to break my promise Kathianne.

What the fuck are you talking about? Sway on a national level? Help me on a state level? Did you post in the wrong thread again?

Ron Paul is more a loser of GOP ticket than would be Kuchinich. Get a life. All you paulies trolling the net are not going to change that fact.

 

[red states rule]

Congratulations, RSR. A post without the words liberal or democrat.

Insanity? Thanks to our beloved constitution, you have the right to express that opinion.

You just THINK the folks are ignoring them, because a bunch of corporate polls show them at almost no support.

I don't really care much about Kucinich and Gravel anyway, I already know they're out of the race. But Ron Paul is NOT.

He was at 2% for a while in the "mainstream" polls, and then all the sudden he's at 0%, even though his support is staggering, and has grown leaps and bounds by the day. No one even comes close to him as far as the internet goes, which is the one medium that the establishment can't yet censor.

"scientific" polls are conducted by selecting usually 1,000 people, and making a landline phone call to them. It would be childs play for the corporate pigs that put these polls out to hand-pick people that would give specific results in a poll question.

The fact that Ron is supposedly at 1% or less, is what makes idiots like you think he couldn't possibly win, and idiots like people who actually likes him, but don't think he COULD win, vote for someone else.

Sooner or later you will have to just deal with the fact that Ron is a viable candidate. The man speaks the truth, which is something that can't be said for your boy Rudy, or Mitt-flop, or neo-con flip-flopper Fred "i'm not really a conservative because I lobbied for a pro-abortion group for YEARS" Thompson.

Go ahead, call me a Lib. I DARE you.

So when the polls go against you - you ignore them. No wonder your side is not being listened to

Ron will be with McDone very soon - on the sidelines watching the the world go by

 

[red states rule]

Kathianne shows yet another reason why not to continue discussion with her.

I'll remind her about the Republican Party, though...

(From wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States))



Kathianne should note that Ron fits in with the Republican Party perfectly, with only the one exception of neo-conservatism, which by current definition and perception, doesn't even belong in the Republican Party anyway.

I challenge anyone here to give rock solid evidence that any other current Republican candidate lives up to this definition.

You just had your ass kicked by her and you keep coming back for more. Paul is a nut who was smacked down so badly by Rudy in the first debate

That was the moment Paul shot himself in the head and his slim chance for the nomination vanished