John Edwards To Skip Nevada Debate

[TexasTiger 13,028]

Why do you support silencing the media?

You haven't demonstrated that you understand what the word "silencing" means, either.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Nice communist. Drink up.....ol' Georgie Soros depends on you.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

Nice communist. Drink up.....ol' Georgie Soros depends on you.

You haven't demonstrated that you know what the word "communists" means.

[aumd03 2]

I guess the Fox audience is too large for him. Fox is certainly less biased than the CNN (Clinton News Network) or CNBC (Can Never Believe their Crap) or MSNBC (MOMMA Said Never Believe their Crap).

Edwards is still trying to appeal to the Moonbat wing of the Democrat party and can't afford to appear mainstream.

It is primary season, he has to run to the extreme left now. The zag to the middle isnt until after the convention. It says a lot that he would rather run than answer a few questions that are guaranteed to tbe softballs anyway. What will he do when he has to face down a world leader, or order troops into a life threatening situation? Cut and run?

Ahhh, strawmen.

Realistic question...

I'm certain he could hit 'softballs' like this out of the park:

Q Thank you, Mr. President. In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you'd made in your life, and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa. You've looked back before 9/11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9/11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have you learned from it?

THE PRESIDENT: I wish you would have given me this written question ahead of time, so I could plan for it. (Laughter.) John, I'm sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could have done it better this way, or that way. You know, I just -- I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with an answer, but it hadn't yet.

I hope I -- I don't want to sound like I've made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't -- you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one.

Uh...uh...I uh...I uh...umm...uhh.

Good God. He sounded as articulate as some ghetto thug being interviewed at halftime!

Wow, a liberal stereotyping like that. How dare he. I thought only us conservatives were capable of such social injustices.

Texas Tiger,

I'm a little disappointed in you and Tiger Al both. I have noticed over the past few weeks that when you guys are faced with a tough question, you pony up with a more question or some lame comeback like you don't know what silence means. At least participate in a dialogue. I know some on our side participate in name calling and inflammatory statements, but since you guys are an endangered species on here, when you go Helen Keller on us, the discussion stops.

Ok, so here's a statement and I don't think you can come back with a question on:

Support your stance that Fox News should not be allowed at certain presidential debates.

Support your stance that it would be positive for a liberal candidate to skip a debate in which a conservative news source would participate.

My personal stance is that it can only make you stronger, unless you are a charade to begin with. How would you feel if your doctor only took really easy cases? If he's never challenged, he doesn't have to stay as sharp. We all know neither side will really take a tough stance on any issues. Republicans will tout a tough stance on national defense and terrorism. Democrats will distance themselves from Iraq and their role and preach an armageddon message that the recent stock plunges are a sign of impending doom in the economy.

[Tiger Al 0]

Wow, a liberal stereotyping like that. How dare he. I thought only us conservatives were capable of such social injustices.

You're right. I'm sorry. I shouldn't have implied that ALL ghetto thugs are that inarticulate.

[aumd03 2]

Wow, a liberal stereotyping like that. How dare he. I thought only us conservatives were capable of such social injustices.

You're right. I'm sorry. I shouldn't have implied that ALL ghetto thugs are that inarticulate.

Best step off G. Don't mess with the thiz-ugs.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

Texas Tiger,

I'm a little disappointed in you and Tiger Al both. I have noticed over the past few weeks that when you guys are faced with a tough question, you pony up with a more question or some lame comeback like you don't know what silence means. At least participate in a dialogue. I know some on our side participate in name calling and inflammatory statements, but since you guys are an endangered species on here, when you go Helen Keller on us, the discussion stops.

Has a tough question been posed that I overlooked? Have you or your buddies expressed a sincere desire for a dialogue that I overlooked? And I haven’t asked a question in this thread, until this post. I do know what “silenced” means. TIS, and apparently you, clearly don’t.

You said this to Al:

I'm glad to know you are for silencing a segment of the populations voice. I suggest you be a leader and start with yourself.

So you first engaged Al by telling him to silence himself, and then attack him for going “Helen Keller” on you. Are you really serious? Are you really a doctor? BTW, those are sincere questions that I hope you answer.

Your buddy TIS said these gems, none of them actual questions. The second is an unsupported assertion in the form of a question:

You nor your buddy Al have answered why you favor censoring the media.

…

Why do you support silencing the media?

…

Nice communist. Drink up.....ol' Georgie Soros depends on you.

The second one would be like me asking you: “Why do you support child abuse?” It starts with the unsupported allegation that you support child abuse. It also logically leads to my reply, which also was not a question: “You haven't demonstrated that you understand what the word "silencing" means, either.” His assertion was baseless. Edwards hasn’t “silenced the media” or attempted to. I haven’t said a word that indicated I supported silencing the media.

TIS even throws in a gratuitous Soros reference and calls me a communist while implying Soros is a communist. Soros escaped communism, and understands capitalism better than anyone here, especially TIS, and came to America to become one of the world’s most successful capitalists. Other successful capitalists like Ted Turner and Warren Buffet have been called the same here by the utterly ignorant, because they don’t genuflect and kiss Bush’s ass like so many folks here do. Where would any attempt at dialogue be on this forum without a totally irrelevant reference to Soros, Michael Moore or Ted Kennedy? The fact is, there are very few genuine attempts at dialogue on this forum that Al or I might even possibly attempt to join. This one is no different.

Ok, so here's a statement and I don't think you can come back with a question on:

Support your stance that Fox News should not be allowed at certain presidential debates.

Actually, I can come back with a very valid question--- where have I taken such a stance? This is a great example of a strawman argument--- you ascribe a position to me and tell me to argue it. I’ve never taken that position here or anywhere.

Support your stance that it would be positive for a liberal candidate to skip a debate in which a conservative news source would participate.

I haven’t taken that stance up to this point and your statement demonstrates that you, like other “conservatives” who have chimed in on this thread are just having knee-jerk reactions without even taking the time to actually understand what you are reacting to, as evidenced by this question:

Support your stance that Fox News should not be allowed at certain presidential debates.

In the general election, a bi-partisan debate commission arranges debates in conjunction with the candidates and all news outlets, even faux ones, are free to cover them and comment to their heart’s content. During the primaries there are generally scores of debates that are sponsored by various entities, including local affiliates. Especially in early debates, when there are so many folks on stage, some candidates may conclude their time is spent better elsewhere. For example, Wesley Clark chose to not compete in Iowa, so he skipped a debate there and focused on New Hampshire. Fox or any other network can cover the event and show clips from it and comment to their blackheart’s content. What many Dems objected to was allowing Fox to sponsor a Dem debate. It would be like the Republicans allowing Air America to sponsor one of their debates.

This event was scheduled more than 5 months before the primary. Who’s paying attention then? Mostly the most partisan of the partisan voters. In this case, most party activists see Fox as an extension of the Republican party. Contrary the popular belief here that Fox is the counter balance to all the other equally partisan networks, Fox is decidedly different.

These are facts: Fox was started by Rupert Murdoch, a conservative businessman in the tabloid “news” business. When he started Fox “News” he didn’t hire an experienced journalist. He hired Roger Ailes—George H.W. Bush’s campaign manager!!! He had never worked in a news operation, but he had run Republican campaigns and was integrally connected to the Republican apparatus. If you want to imagine what the opposite of Fox News would truly look like, imagine George Soros starting a cable news network and having James Carville run it. Then imagine this Soros/Carville collaboration to repeatedly refer to itself as “far and balanced.” Your heads would explode. David would need to be sedated.

So right now Edwards and others are trying to get the Dem nomination. So this definitely helped him with the voters he is wooing. And if he gets the nomination, the fact that he decided to skip a debate in Nevada more than a year before the general election won’t make a damn bit of difference.

Now you will notice that this thoughtful reply took time, unlike the one’s I was replying to. It is not reasonable for you to expect a thoughtful reply every time you shoot from the hip with an insult.

Good night and good luck.

[MDM4AU 336]

Is there an echo in here?

[Tiger in Spain 0]

Vladimir Putin wouldn't call himself a communist, but look what he's doing to the journalists in Russia. The libs here haven't gone to that extreme yet, but what they are advocating in Nevada is similar. It's an attempt to silence the media and the American people see right through it.

It's kind of funny though. It would seem the smart thing for these liberal ding dongs to do would to be to get their socialist message out to as many people as possible. Every news rating service has Fox News ahead of all its competition by a very wide margin. I hope they keep this up; it only guarantees their kool aid will be drank by Soros/Dean cuckoos. They can't survive with this kind of strategy.

BTW Tex, I got an A in economics.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Silky Pony is trying to do several things here, none of which has to do w/ him being scared of Fox News. ( Though we all know he is )

By threatening to miss the debate, Edwards draws attention to himself, and hopefully away from the Hillary/Obama prize fight that the Dem race is slowly becoming.

By targeting Fox News, Edwards appeals to the moon bat , extreme far Left wing zealots. He's trying to keep himself relevant so far away form '08, and keep the dynamic duo from running away with the race.

The cries from the Left that FAUX news isn't worthy of being called a legit news organization are simply empty claims from insecure children. Chris Wallace and Britt Hume are as solid and competent as any reporters you'll find anywhere. It's the Libs and Edwards who are scared of FAIR news, not the biased news. They know they'll get that we/ the rest of the media.