Does anyone like Edwards?

[Mia]

I do. He's my least of evils this time around. I don't think I have a chance, though. Hillary is destined to go back into that White House. I hope somebody blows her, she needs to chill! She looks like she's ready to peck someone's eyes out :grrrr:

[Buck Laser]

I like him, and will gladly support him if he wins the nomination. But he doesn't quite light a fire for me the way Obama does. He may well move way up in the primaries, and I will be glad to see that.

[lily]

As I said in another thread.........he seems to be the only one that recognizes that there are poor and middle class in this country and I think the way the economy is going, sooner or later people that thought they were middle class are going to get a rude awakening and hopefully start listening to him.

[Cobra]

Not me.

[PatrickHenry]

Well he ain't Bush/Cheney...

[Mia]

As I said in another thread.........he seems to be the only one that recognizes that there are poor and middle class in this country and I think the way the economy is going, sooner or later people that thought they were middle class are going to get a rude awakening and hopefully start listening to him.


The way inflation is going, middle class income gets you a lower-class lifestyle. And people like myself downright poor.:embarrased:

GO EDWARDS, YOU CAN BEAT HER! :help:[hr]
Well he ain't Bush/Cheney...


That's one big thing in his favor! :thumbsup:

[hr]
I like him, and will gladly support him if he wins the nomination. But he doesn't quite light a fire for me the way Obama does. He may well move way up in the primaries, and I will be glad to see that.


What good is a fire that quickly ignites and then burns out? Gimme the coals, they last longer and give off more heat.

[underdawg]

I really like Edwards, I like Kucinich even more but he doesn't stand a chance. If Edwards drops out , then my support is behind Obama.

[ViolaLee]

President Obama and Vice President Edwards is the golden ticket.

[preservanation]

IMO he is a smarmy two-faced lawyer who has already done his part in bringing down the HC and consumer situation is this country.
His policies would only serve to further harm the very people he claims to want to help.
Why anyone would consider him for president is beyond me.

[DANG]

President Obama and Vice President Edwards is the golden ticket.
Edwards/Favre has a nice ring to it! :clapper:
Edwards/Gore
Edwards/Feingold
Edwards/Boxer

I love ya, Viola.
BUT;
Obama had a chance to vote against labeling Iran a terrorist state.
Clinton voted for it. Obama abstained. Thats not a voice for change.... thats more of the same.... and World War III could still come from it!

See, you thought I was going into my rant about the Obama/Ohio vote fraud debacle, didnt you?

[bishop]

oh yeah... edwards is quite the dove when it comes to iran.. sure...

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=161493

During a speech via satellite at a security conference last week in Herzliya, Israel, Edwards joined the chorus of those threatening the Iranian government. "Iran threatens the security of Israel and the entire world," Edwards said, echoing a line peddled by many neoconservatives. "Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons."

A few moments later, he strongly hinted at the need for possible US military action. "To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table," Edwards said. "Let me reiterate – ALL options must remain on the table."

Such a provocative speech seems out of character for the ‘08 contender, at least in political terms. As he's moving left on Iraq---by calling on Congress to deny funding for an escalation of troops and advocating the immediate withdrawal of 50,000 US soldiers---why is Edwards veering right on Iran?

There's a few possible explanations. One, Edwards sincerely believes in a more confrontational Iran policy. Two, he's pandering to win the support and money of hawkish "pro-Israel" voters and donors. Three, he's trying to impress the foreign policy intelligentsia by talking tough.

No matter the rationale, speeches like these won't help Edwards with Democratic primary voters and could potentially injure his presidential prospects. Preventing a war with Iran is as important as getting out of Iraq to many in the peace movement. Indeed, those goals are now intertwined. Edwards can't have it both ways.

[DANG]

I dont see that as an endorsement for pre-emptive bombing that Clinton and the reps seem to be pushing.... by outright labeling them terrorists.

Edwards is a master at diplomacy. I see his tough talk about Iran as a call to reason. Not a call to arms.

The republicons have been exposed as itchy triggers. Iran has more oil than Iraq!!!
I dont see Edwards as a greasy, greedy, oily type.

Thats not his style. He will gather intelligence and NOT mold it to form an agenda for Empire...like you know who.

[bishop]

Edwards is a master at diplomacy. I see his tough talk about Iran as a call to reason. Not a call to arms.

yeah right... just like when his hot rhetoric during the march towards war with iraq turned into real support for the war (until it dawned on everyone that there weren't any wmds). history has shown that if edwards is a master at anything, it's being completely full of it and shifting the way the wind blows.

nobody should have to try so hard to defend a politician - and a politician who requires so much defense isn't worth voting for... thinking that edwards is different from the bunch is some wishful thinking if i ever saw it.

[Mia]

President Obama and Vice President Edwards is the golden ticket.


I thought I saw something like that shaping up in the debate. Reverse it and I'll go for it :thumbsup:

[ViolaLee]

You wouldn't go for it my way?

I'd go for it either way. But probably Obama will be the candidate, as it looks right now.

[Mia]

Obama had a chance to vote against labeling Iran a terrorist state.
Clinton voted for it. Obama abstained. Thats not a voice for change.... thats more of the same.... and World War III could still come from it!






Obama voted 'present' a lot. So if we want a president with a good attendance record, I guess he's our man, but if we want someone to actually make decisions, we need to go another way.

He also told his voters he'd not vote for the Patriot Act or the Iraq war, and then did anyway :shame:[hr]
You wouldn't go for it my way?

I'd go for it either way. But probably Obama will be the candidate, as it looks right now.


No way. The Vice Presidency is a joke - no power. Obama may have charisma, but that's not what we need to run the country.

He's not taking the nomination. He's like a red herring to me, just making sure Edwards doesn't get it. Hillary wins because of this. :grrrr:

[preservanation]

Not a bad analysis, Mia.
I have another idea, (maybe two) why Hillary or the DNC won't take Obama as her running-mate after she wins the nomination.
After a little prodding, I might even share them with you.

[Mia]

nobody should have to try so hard to defend a politician - and a politician who requires so much defense isn't worth voting for... thinking that edwards is different from the bunch is some wishful thinking if i ever saw it.




Is there a politician who doesn't require as much defense? Please name one, I can't think of any![hr]
Not a bad analysis, Mia.
I have another idea, (maybe two) why Hillary or the DNC won't take Obama as her running-mate after she wins the nomination.
After a little prodding, I might even share them with you.


That might happen too. Although I'd prefer she take Edwards. And I don't think they will do that because overcoming the gender AND race barrier at the same time,,,,,that's reaching a bit.

There is really no point in discussing Edwards in any other capacity, I suppose. That damn Obama in the way, riding some wave of infatuation that's going to wear out,,,,,,,,,,puts Edwards to the side and makes it look close between him and Hillary when in reality there is no way it will be anyone but her in the end........... Politics is maddening :fight:

[preservanation]

Politics is maddening For you and me both.

What's exciting is that I haven't seen this sort of open field in my life-time.
Interesting for political geeks, like myself.
I'd trade all the excitement and interest for a clear-cut conservative nominee, such as Thompson or Newt.
"Where is my Reagan....?"
All the libs on the right (Huchabee, McCain, Romney, I'll even throw Rudy in there too) are invoking Reagan's name and it makes me sick.
Just like being important...if you have to proclaim it, you're probably not.

[bishop]

Is there a politician who doesn't require as much defense? Please name one, I can't think of any!

i can think of few politicians whose rhetoric consistently matches their voting records.. a couple such politicians are running for office at the moment.. problem is that lots of lazy minds don't know about their records, or don't care about their records. and since this is the case, these campaigns are little more than window shopping for the candidate who can spew the best sounding rhetoric.

[Mia]

I know. I hate that.

Pres, get all the excitement out of that that you will, it won't make a bit of difference come election time, none of them stand a chance.

This nation is simply too fed up, no way will they vote in another Republican right now. Blame that on Bush.

Me, there's no one I REALLY like on either side.

[preservanation]

One thing I look forward to is actually have a delegate count to pay attention to on Super Tuesday. There very well could be at least three from the GOP and two from the Dems. A lot less predictable in elections past.

What bothers me so far is that moderates and independents have so far selected the GOP front runners. That is a travesty.
Watch for Thompson to pull ahead as soon as conservatives actually get a chance to vote.
All this punditry and talkingheadedness is a bunch of ballyhoo and very misleading.
Hold on to your hats!

[Mia]

I can't get worked up about it. I believe too much in my intuition, I will be shocked if I'm wrong in this case.

[lily]

yeah right... just like when his hot rhetoric during the march towards war with iraq turned into real support for the war (until it dawned on everyone that there weren't any wmds). history has shown that if edwards is a master at anything, it's being completely full of it and shifting the way the wind blows.

I don't know on that one bishop. We're not used to politicians admitting they're wrong and Edwards said his vote on Iraq was wrong before it became fashionable to do it. I think that shows character.[hr]

Watch for Thompson to pull ahead as soon as conservatives actually get a chance to vote.
All this punditry and talkingheadedness is a bunch of ballyhoo and very misleading.
Hold on to your hats!


I doubt it very much. Preservation. He's not being taken seriously, after having to have a crash course on politics. In one of the debates...and don't ask me for a link, 'cuz I'm not going to read the debate of the week to find it.......he thought the Afghanistan war was over.

You also have to do that dirty work of actually getting out and campaigning and he doesn't seem to like to get up early and do it.

[bishop]

I don't know on that one bishop. We're not used to politicians admitting they're wrong and Edwards said his vote on Iraq was wrong before it became fashionable to do it. I think that shows character.

but his admission came when the majority of the country began to think that the war was a mistake.. call me jaded, but edwards was merely taking advantage of an available opportunity. if the standards by which we judge politicians has sunk so low as to give real credence to hollow rhetoric, rather than looking for solid records, then we're definitely in rough shape as far as i'm concerned..

his past commentary and support for the iraq war cannot be discounted, although edwards supporters will undoubtedly do just that.. similarly, his hawkish rhetoric against iran should also cause people to think twice when it comes to trusting this guy.

[lily]

but his admission came when the majority of the country began to think that the war was a mistake.. call me jaded, but edwards was merely taking advantage of an available opportunity. if the standards by which we judge politicians has sunk so low as to give real credence to hollow rhetoric, rather than looking for solid records, then we're definitely in rough shape as far as i'm concerned..

Well.......I don't know if our standards have sunk that low that we take an admission of being wrong as something good......but I take it as a sign of character.

[Fishingriver]

Edwards is definitely my pick, but I fear he is only going to make it a while longer. Not becasue he is ready to throw it in, but because the latest polling is showing that people are drawing down on Obama or Clinton. Clinton is leading but Obama made some gains. Edwards is floating around 11%. His financial support will plummet as soon as people start to percive that we have a candidate. That will likely be next.
The republicans are going to end up with McCain. His numbers are so strong I would be surprised if any other candidate could bridge the divide in their support. It'll be McCain and Hillary I'm guessing.

Here- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_011408.html?hpid=topnews

Edwards would be a good VP choice for either of them. He has the best message even though the media has made sure no one gets to hear it.

[Mia]

I don't know on that one bishop. We're not used to politicians admitting they're wrong and Edwards said his vote on Iraq was wrong before it became fashionable to do it. I think that shows character.

but his admission came when the majority of the country began to think that the war was a mistake.. call me jaded, but edwards was merely taking advantage of an available opportunity. if the standards by which we judge politicians has sunk so low as to give real credence to hollow rhetoric, rather than looking for solid records, then we're definitely in rough shape as far as i'm concerned..

his past commentary and support for the iraq war cannot be discounted, although edwards supporters will undoubtedly do just that.. similarly, his hawkish rhetoric against iran should also cause people to think twice when it comes to trusting this guy.




What else is his record bad on? Almost everyone had theirs smeared by Iraq. It was a tough call at the time, and one that many now regret. Doesn't make them all losers.[hr]
Edwards is definitely my pick, but I fear he is only going to make it a while longer. Not becasue he is ready to throw it in, but because the latest polling is showing that people are drawing down on Obama or Clinton. Clinton is leading but Obama made some gains. Edwards is floating around 11%. His financial support will plummet as soon as people start to percive that we have a candidate. That will likely be next.
The republicans are going to end up with McCain. His numbers are so strong I would be surprised if any other candidate could bridge the divide in their support. It'll be McCain and Hillary I'm guessing.

Here- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_011408.html?hpid=topnews

Edwards would be a good VP choice for either of them. He has the best message even though the media has made sure no one gets to hear it.


Damn media! Always taking away our rights to information. Everytime I try to go to the library or elsewhere, a media bodyguard blocks my way!

If it isn't delivered to prime time TV, it just isn't available, is it?

[DANG]

First, thank you Mia... you are doing just fine against bishop... I would just parrot you If I were to respond to him now.
Edwards is definitely my pick, but I fear he is only going to make it a while longer. Not becasue he is ready to throw it in, but because the latest polling is showing that people are drawing down on Obama or Clinton. Clinton is leading but Obama made some gains. Edwards is floating around 11%. His financial support will plummet as soon as people start to percive that we have a candidate. That will likely be next.
Hang on! A win in South Carolina would give him a huge wave of momentum that will effect other states.

He doesnt have the corporate money that Obama and Clinton have.... but he has something money cant buy.
1) In the south, (unfortunately) race is an issue.... that put edwards in a strong 2nd.
2) The people LOVE him in SC.
And
3) People want change and Clinton represents the status quo. More of the same. It has been Bush Clinton Bush .... does anyone really want another Clinton?
Lets end it here. Now!

edwards looks like the favorite to me. Just relax and drink it all in.

[Mia]

Hang on! A win in South Carolina would give him a huge wave of momentum that will effect other states.

He doesnt have the corporate money that Obama and Clinton have.... but he has something money cant buy.
1) In the south, (unfortunately) race is an issue.... that put edwards in a strong 2nd.
2) The people LOVE him in SC.
And
3) People want change and Clinton represents the status quo. More of the same. It has been Bush Clinton Bush .... does anyone really want another Clinton?
Lets end it here. Now!

edwards looks like the favorite to me. Just relax and drink it all in.




From your lips,,,,,,,,GO EDWARDS!:clapper:

[Pookie]

Well, I'm in NC and of course I like him! I even met him once. My first choice is, of course, Obama, but my second is John Edwards.
Purrs,
Pookie

[bishop]

Well.......I don't know if our standards have sunk that low that we take an admission of being wrong as something good......but I take it as a sign of character.

his admission seems to be the best he can offer.. care to comment on his hawkish remarks regarding iran? seems like a bit of deja vu to me.

What else is his record bad on? Almost everyone had theirs smeared by Iraq. It was a tough call at the time, and one that many now regret. Doesn't make them all losers.

another person who fails to see the connection between edwards' iraq rhetoric and former support of the war, to his new rhetoric on iran (and potential support for another war). fool me once, fool me twice....

he spews lots of hot air about standing up to corporations - care to show me any instances where he's actually initiated such action? edwards realizes that there are millions of sheep out there, mindlessly staring at their tv's, not bothering to see if his record matches up with his rhetoric.

his record shows support for wars (kosovo, iraq, and now based on his rhetoric - iran). he is against balanced budgets, supports israel above all others, voted for the patriot act, etc...

if you can't be bothered to match his record to his rhetoric, that's your problem, not mine.

[Deadshot]

I like Edwards and will vote for him in the Missouri Primary. But I am also realistic and understand that after Februrary the 5th, it'll be either Obama or Hillary.

My hope is for a Obama/Edwards ticket. That would be pretty powerful I think.

[Pookie]

Amen, Deadshot! I'm hoping for an Obama/Edwards ticket too. That'll work!
Purrs,
Pookie

[DANG]

he spews lots of hot air about standing up to corporations - care to show me any instances where he's actually initiated such action? edwards realizes that there are millions of sheep out there, mindlessly staring at their tv's, not bothering to see if his record matches up with his rhetoric.Kinda hard to show money that he didnt accept. Thats the main thing. I could show you the money that Hillary did accept.

I dont have a lobbyist to represent me in Congress. Corporations; however, have a direct line via cash donations.
Corporations have a direct line to almost all of the other candidates.
(The most glaring is Hillary)
John Edwards has accepted zero funds from lobbyists. He has committed himself to never accepting those monies so that it would not influence his policies.
He has made a career fighting corporate injustice. He is a champion of the regular guy. Hillary Clinton has taken money from big business... like healthcare and big pharma.
I am in favor of a strong middle class, but the scales have been tipped to the top 1% elite. The republicons have tax cuts as a major platform.... they always fail to mention that the broad population will not see tax cuts, in fact, they will end up paying for those tax cuts (or rather their childrens children) in the form of insurmountable debt.

The only people getting tax cuts are the mega rich. Thats because they have a lobbyist. How's YOUR lobbyist today??

I dont have one. I need John Edwards to represent me!

Who do the republicons represent?
http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/2416/sbushandsaudislargepo5.jpg
WAR for OIL


his record shows support for wars (kosovo, iraq, and now based on his rhetoric - iran). I can show where he withdrew support (one of the few dems who voted NO to financing the Iraq war) and even apologized for believing bush.

His rhetoric doesnt show support for war with Iran. He says he is opposed to them acquiring nukes. Your knee jerk assumption is that he will BOMB Tehran?
What makes you think he will be as stupid as bush? That would bring World War 3.
Personally I think we are way to tight with Israel. Israel may even have a lot to do with Iraq. Its unfortunate that the next president will inherit a lot of crap. But thats the way it is. I am sure you will find the same rhetoric with all the candidates (you may argue: "Not RON PAUL, NOT Dennis Kucinich".... but are they really candidates?)

There is no viable candidate who more closely represents me and where America should be going, than John Edwards.[hr]I can show you legal cases where he has represented average Americans who were going up against huge corporations to right wrongs.

Would that help?

[Mia]

another person who fails to see the connection between edwards' iraq rhetoric and former support of the war, to his new rhetoric on iran (and potential support for another war). fool me once, fool me twice....

he spews lots of hot air about standing up to corporations - care to show me any instances where he's actually initiated such action? edwards realizes that there are millions of sheep out there, mindlessly staring at their tv's, not bothering to see if his record matches up with his rhetoric.

his record shows support for wars (kosovo, iraq, and now based on his rhetoric - iran). he is against balanced budgets, supports israel above all others, voted for the patriot act, etc...

if you can't be bothered to match his record to his rhetoric, that's your problem, not mine.




Wow, first time on the new forum I get an insult thrown into a debate and it's from you, weird.

Thank you for pointing out what my personal problem may be in this, but do you care to stick to the subject?

You made the assertion that he has a bad record, so I know you know that means it's up to you to prove it, not me to disprove.

For instance, can you tell me how he is against balanced budgets? Or how he is lying about taking on Corporations? My understanding is that's exactly what he spent his law career doing.

And what Dang said, lol. 'Replay' <insert Mia's agreement here>

[bishop]

Kinda hard to show money that he didnt accept. Thats the main thing.

or, you could just look at his voting record instead of dodging my point. the guy rarely meets a spending bill he doesn't vote for - and all spending bills contain tons of sweet deals for corporate interests. he also had no problem taking in all that corporate money just 4 short years ago... but i guess with the passage of 4 years, he's a born again man, eh?

http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/contriball.asp

edwards has also taken in a hefty amount of special interest money, so long as you consider labor groups to be special interests (as i definitely do).

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/01/edwards_and_special_interests.html

and as far as lobbyists in general are concerned, he'll be speaking to loads of them if he's actually going to install his dream of massive government... when he goes and builds all these new federal programs/departments, he'll definitely be collecting input from lobbyists - be it on healthcare, education, labor laws, etc.. he just won't favor the same lobbyists that bush has, but he'll be dealing with lobbyists nonetheless (and so too will congress).

the guy wants huge increases in our corrupt and inefficient government, and has expressed no cogent plan on how to both pay for them in addition to balancing the budget.. as it is, his campaign's spending promises amount to some $1 trillion at a minimum. his website doesn't spend one iota of space talking about how he'll balance the budget (as his lofty spending plans aim to pile on the debt). he hasn't offered up any cogent plan, which would likely be at odds with his spending plans.

and if there's anyone who should understand why healthcare is so expensive, edwards can just look in the mirror. healthcare was his target, when he worked as a predatory lawyer.

Your knee jerk assumption is that he will BOMB Tehran?

hardly a knee jerk assumption.. he tossed out the "all options are on the table" line, which is universally understood to include ALL options insofar as we're still speaking english here.

[DANG]

Kinda hard to show money that he didnt accept. Thats the main thing.

or, you could just look at his voting record instead of dodging my point. the guy rarely meets a spending bill he doesn't vote for - and all spending bills contain tons of sweet deals for corporate interests.

Anybody who votes for any Bill is doing the same thing. Are you saying Nobody should vote for any Bill? That doesnt sound very practical. That also doesnt leave us ANY candidates to vote for. Have fun with that.
Oh and I didnt dodge your point... YOU didnt specify his voting record.

he also had no problem taking in all that corporate money just 4 short years ago... but i guess with the passage of 4 years, he's a born again man, eh?
http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/contriball.asp

edwards has also taken in a hefty amount of special interest money, so long as you consider labor groups to be special interests (as i definitely do).

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/01/edwards_and_special_interests.htmlI am fine with him taking money from unions and labor groups. They more closely represent the people than the lobbyists who represent Gazillionaires. They have been over represented. If there is a hint of hypocrisy... I would rather err in favor of those who are under fed and cant afford healthcare. The middle class is shrinking into oblivion and debt.
I guess you think only Blue Bloods deserve representation.
Should it also be legal to eat the poor for lunch?

the guy wants huge increases in our corrupt and inefficient government, and has expressed no cogent plan on how to both pay for them in addition to balancing the budget.. Ending the war in Iraq will save us trillions. Talk about waste. Hows that rebuilding going in Iraq? He is not going to be dumping truckloads of cash into haliburtons lap.... to NOT get the job done.

Think of how much VA money will be saved once we stop patching up broken troops. The Pentagon budget can be cut in half (I dont know if he will... but it can be)

I think he will roll back the taxes cut bush gave to his base. The elite 1% have not been paying their share of the taxes.
Thats a good thing. The people who can least afford the taxation are paying the largest amount. I know you have a fancy argument for this, but it doesnt change the fact that the lower and middle class will be totally devastated if they miss a few weeks of work.

People have to choose between warmth and food in the winter. If they need medicine ... they could just die from poverty. Because bushs god damned buddys need a new yacht.
as it is, his campaign's spending promises amount to some $1 trillion at a minimum. his website doesn't spend one iota of space talking about how he'll balance the budget (as his lofty spending plans aim to pile on the debt). he hasn't offered up any cogent plan, which would likely be at odds with his spending plans.
Like I already said... end the war, then we will have money for healthcare, education I think he said he would end NAFTA... which sends jobs abroad. If people have more good jobs there will be less national debt. GWB has been feeding us a SH1T Sandwich for so long, you will be surprised how well everything will work itself out just by virtue of him being HISTORY. The air will be cleaner, the food will be better quality, we will have alternative fuels so we wont need to kill people for their fuels anymore.

and if there's anyone who should understand why healthcare is so expensive, edwards can just look in the mirror. healthcare was his target, when he worked as a predatory lawyer.He went after people who were negligent, CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT.... I guess you think we should just look the other way when its a white collar crime, eh? More bush for you, eh?
Your knee jerk assumption is that he will BOMB Tehran?

hardly a knee jerk assumption.. he tossed out the "all options are on the table" line, which is universally understood to include ALL options insofar as we're still speaking english here.But you jump to the worst case scenario. Even peacemonger Dennis Kucinich would go ballistic if Iran initiated a launch sequence or attacked any Americans.
I despise war, but I am 100% in favor of self defense. You attack me or my family and all options are on the table. I do have the arsenal to back that up. We lost Iraq because we were in the wrong.
We are the invaders.... we deserve what they dish out as long as we are tresspassing.



Check out Edwards Presidential Election 2008 Political Courage Test (http://votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=21107) at Project Vote Smart

[Mia]

Bishop, please address my posts. If you make assertions, you should be prepared to back them up.

[jose]

For a view from outside the USA
Do i like Edwards? yes they are a great potato and make the best french-fries

[preservanation]

For a view from outside the USA
Do i like Edwards? yes they are a great potato and make the best french-fries
Maybe, but to think that any Democrat will take Idaho is pie-in-the-sky.

[Mia]

and if there's anyone who should understand why healthcare is so expensive, edwards can just look in the mirror. healthcare was his target, when he worked as a predatory lawyer.



'Healthcare' is pretty broad. Who did he go after, and how was it predatory?

[bishop]

'Healthcare' is pretty broad. Who did he go after, and how was it predatory?

i'll assume you know what he did as a lawyer since you're here stumping for him..

YOU didnt specify his voting record.

to name a few...

Vote 78: S CON RES 20: Hollings Amdt. No.174; To continue Federal spending at the current services baseline levels and pay down the Federal debt. Voted NO.

Vote 70: On the Motion: Motion to Waive CBA re: Craig Amdt.No. 146; To modify the pay-as-you-go requirement of the budget process to require that direct spending increases be offset only with direct spending decreases. Voted NO.

Vote 57: S CON RES 21: S.Con.Res. 21; War With Yugoslavia resolution. Voted YES.

Vote 145: S 1059: Motion to table Specter Amdt. No. 383 as modified; To direct the President, pursuant to the United States Constitution and the War Powers Resolution, to seek approval from Congress prior to the introduction of ground troops from the United States Armed Forces in connection with present operations against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia or funding for that operations will not be authorized. Voted YES.

Vote 147: S 1059: McCain Amdt. No. 393; To authorize an additional base closure round. Voted NO.

Vote 189: S 1234: Motion to Table Dodd Amdt. No. 1157; To terminate prohibitions and restrictions on travel to Cuba. Voted YES.

Vote 314: S 1650: Motion to Table Lautenberg Amdt. No. 2267; To reject indiscriminate across-the-board cuts and protect social security by closing special interest tax loopholes and using other appropriate offsets. Voted YES.

Vote 349: H R 434: Motion to Table Wellstone Amendment No. 2487; To condition trade benefits for Caribbean countries on compliance with internationally recognized labor rights. Voted YES.

Vote 366: S 625: Wellstone Amdt. No. 2752; To impose a moratorium on large agribusiness mergers and to establish a commission to review large agriculture mergers, concentratoin, and market power. Voted NO.

Vote 46: S J RES 14: Motion to Table Hollings Amendment No. 2890; To propose an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections. Voted YES (flag burning amendment).

Vote 251: H R 4444: H.R. 4444; PNTR (Permanent Normal Trade Relations) for China bill. Voted YES.

Vote 16: S 420: Wellstone Amdt. No. 14; To create an exemption for certain debtors that can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the court that the reason for the filing was a result of debts incurred through medical expenses. Voted NO.

Vote 123: H R 1836: Dodd Amdt. No. 695; To limit the reduction in the 39.6% rate to 38% and to replace the estate tax repeal with increases in the unified credit and the family-owned business exclusion so that the savings may be used for Federal debt reduction and improvements to the Nation's nontransportation infrastructure. Voted NO.

Vote 281: S J RES 23: S.J. Res. 23; Authorization for Use of Military Force. Voted YES. (i believe you still think that 9/11 was the government's doing? kind of hypocritical to support a guy who decided to attack afghanistan for 9/11.)

Vote 313: H R 3162: H.R. 3162; Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001. Voted YES.

Vote 78: S 517: Motion to Table Schumer Amendment No. 3030; To strike the section establishing a renewable fuel content requirement for motor vehicle fuel. Voted YES.

Vote 165: S 2514: S. 2514, as amended; National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. Voted YES.

Vote 148: S 2578: S. 2578; Debt Limit bill. Voted YES. (increase the federal debt limit)

Vote 249: H R 5005: H.R. 5005, as amended; Homeland Security Act of 2002. Voted YES. (to create the dept. of homeland defense)

Vote 237: H J RES 114: H.J.Res. 114; Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. Voted YES.

Vote 236: S J RES 45: Durbin Amdt. No. 4865; To amend the authorization for the use of the Armed Forces to cover an imminent threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction rather than the continuing threat posed by Iraq. Voted NO.

Vote 235: S J RES 45: Levin Amdt. No. 4862; To authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces, pursuant to a new resolution of the United Nations Security Council, to destroy, remove, or render harmless Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons-usable material, long-range ballistic missiles, and related facilities, and for other purposes. Voted NO.

Vote 232: S J RES 45: Byrd Amdt. No. 4869, As Amended; To provide a termination date for the authorization of the use of the Armed Forces of the United States, together with procedures for the extension of such date unless Congress disapproves the extension. Voted NO.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/e000286/votes/


Like I already said... end the war, then we will have money for healthcare, education I think he said he would end NAFTA... which sends jobs abroad. If people have more good jobs there will be less national debt.

ending the war and "tax cuts for the rich" will not offset the spending he's proposing. moreover, present-day spending needs to drop by some $300-$400 billion for us to have a balanced budget - something that will be completely impossible if he spends what he's promising to spend... more debt is virtually guaranteed.

as far as nafta goes, do some homework on that one. our manufacturing sector has grown in the long-run due to increased trade. plus, having "more good jobs here" has absolutely nothing to do with there being "less national debt".

[Mia]

'Healthcare' is pretty broad. Who did he go after, and how was it predatory?

i'll assume you know what he did as a lawyer since you're here stumping for him..



Again, you made the claim, and then told me I should already know. When did your debate style become so lazy and rude?

Maybe I just like him because of his smile. So I have no idea what he did as a lawyer. But you made a statement and I asked for clarification, so I don't know why you don't provide it or back off the statement.

[Deadshot]

I like him because he fights for the little guy and wants a resurgence of the Middle Class.

[DANG]

YOU didnt specify his voting record.

to name a few...
Every one of those he voted along party lines. You have to take each of those in context. If they knew then, what they know now.... what massive damage could be stopped!

Vote 281: S J RES 23: S.J. Res. 23; Authorization for Use of Military Force. Voted YES. (i believe you still think that 9/11 was the government's doing? kind of hypocritical to support a guy who decided to attack afghanistan for 9/11.)
I would have rather we had an investigation before we went bombing a country that bush supporters needed for an oil pipeline.

The FBI, to this day, does not have any hard evidence that Osama Bin Laden had ANY involvement in 911 (that means the confession tapes are fakes)...AND 1/3 of the hijackers named by the FBI survived the crashes and lived to deny involvement... they remain free. But, the WH in collusion with republican House and Senate did defraud the minority and the American people.
Mr bush gave Afghan an ultimatum; "Hand over OBL or be Bombed" (paraphrased) Afghanistan said we will arrest him and and turn him over to a fair court. Bush didnt want a fair trial for him. He was not guilty of 911. So he BOMBED them. Edwards was wrong, along with almost everyone else, for voting for war on Afghanistan. He admitted he was wrong about Iraq... as were the vast majority of the House and Senate and the WH... (how many others have admitted the mistake of believing the presiturd?) Maybe some day, when the toxic dust settles mr bush can rebuild that country with his own money.


ending the war and "tax cuts for the rich" will not offset the spending he's proposing. I dont think you understand the extent of the cash hemmorrging. The Cheney WH has cut taxes and borrowed money from China to make up for it.... whats the rationale in that? Remember the Big Lie about how Iraq would rebuild with their own money? We are going broke building another damn country. And theres no end in sight. Unless we put Edwards in. Hillary wont end it. Paul wont be elected, nor will Kucinich.

Edwards voted against war funding in Aug 2004. At risk of being called a troop hater and unpatriotic.



as far as nafta goes, do some homework on that one. our manufacturing sector has grown in the long-run due to increased trade. So all the factory closures are just illusory?
The Cheney administration Re-labelling McDonalds workers and such as "factory workers" is disingenuous...er wait, its just lying. THATS how the "manufacturing sector has grown in the long-run". Lets get honest. Please!

plus, having "more good jobs here" has absolutely nothing to do with there being "less national debt". When more people are working and paying taxes and borrowing less... and needing less help from the government because of less crime and the economy is healthy because the recession is over because people will have money to spend. War is sapping us dry. All the money wasted on war can be diverted to progressive uses. I read a couple days ago that fewer than 1% of people own homes outright. No mortgage or rent.

Young people may think thats just the way it is. But, it hasnt always been so.

People should have the security of owning their own homes. Most people are only a few weeks of unemployment away from disaster.

Or a car accident... or some disease. Will drain any savings... provided they have any savings.

We need a man like John Edwards to get us on track... to restore the American Dream.... anybody remember that phrase?

It was not far fetched not too long ago.

Are you a neo-con now, mr bishop?

~~~~
Edwards could surprise in Nevada!!
He is in a dead heat and people are tired of the bickering between clinton (the neo-cons choice b/c she is their favorite target) and obama.
He could just slip on through betwixt em'

[bishop]

Every one of those he voted along party lines. You have to take each of those in context. If they knew then, what they know now.... what massive damage could be stopped!

nope.. not on every one of them, check again.. and, hindsight is always 20/20. edwards has exhibited poor judgement when making decisions, and should not be trusted to have rectified that character flaw for future decisions (re: his heated rhetoric regarding iran).

Edwards was wrong, along with almost everyone else, for voting for war on Afghanistan. He admitted he was wrong about Iraq...

and he would never make such an admission regarding afghanistan..

I dont think you understand the extent of the cash hemmorrging.

as someone who is first and foremost a fiscal conservative, i certainly do understand how much money's being pissed down the toilet. it's precisely why i'm so skeptical about edwards's lofty spending plans that have no hope of being funded without piling on even more debt.

Lets get honest. Please!

i'll dig up a link for you over at V so you can see the data yourself. too much effort to do research for people who don't want to do it themselves - but, if i can find the thread, i'll send it to you.

Are you a neo-con now, mr bishop?

are ron paul supporters considered neocons?

[DANG]

Every one of those he voted along party lines.

nope.. not on every one of them, check again.. Yes, all of them (on that link you supplied)... except for the ones he didnt vote at all.
Edwards was wrong, along with almost everyone else, for voting for war on Afghanistan. He admitted he was wrong about Iraq...

and he would never make such an admission regarding afghanistan..Not until they start getting honest about OBL. The last Osama Bin Laden video they ran was taped at the same time/place/equipment as the previous video. They (the cons) just photoshopped his beard.
I dont know how long "the powers that be" will continue to catapult that crapfest at us.... but its costing real money and real lives to perpetuate. As long as the masses swallow their shit... they will continue to squat. Thats just the way it is. Edwards may change that. The important thing, though... is that he doesnt create any new false flag events like the current miscreants and derelicts. I believe he is a good soul.

I dont think you understand the extent of the cash hemmorrging.

as someone who is first and foremost a fiscal conservative, i certainly do understand how much money's being pissed down the toilet. it's precisely why i'm so skeptical about edwards's lofty spending plans that have no hope of being funded without piling on even more debt. Well then you dont understand the problem with voting for someone who cant possibly win... meanwhile your vote could have been better cast to remove the "Cons" from DC power. "Con" isnt the abbreviation for "Conservative" anymore.
See the 4th def. of con: con (kŏn) Slang.
tr.v., conned, con·ning, cons.
To swindle (a victim) by first winning his or her confidence; dupe.

n.
A swindle.

adj. Lets get honest. Please!

i'll dig up a link for you over at V so you can see the data yourself. too much effort to do research for people who don't want to do it themselves - but, if i can find the thread, i'll send it to you.

Are you a neo-con now, mr bishop?

are ron paul supporters considered neocons?Its just that, after this current admin of Kleptocrats and spendoholics... the Dems are the new Conservatives. Any republican/libertarian votes stand in the way of balancing the budget. Remember the multi-billion $ surplus cheney inherited? How long did it take for them to go through that ?(Like a frenzied mob of school girls with their daddys credit cards?)

Ron Paul may not be one of them.... but completely eliminating taxes will bring chaos ripe for anarchy. Eliminating taxes is like cutting off your nose to stop the sniffles.
The area you live in may not have to depend on volunteer firemen... what about less fortunate areas that cant afford private firemen?
My area cant afford privatized police, so we will have roaming bands of outlaws taking whatever liberties they are in the mood for.

BTW, I was wrong about thinking there may be some hypocrisy on Edwards part. He was very clear about not taking money from big business. That's the opposite of taking money from working people and unions.

Our country is bankrupt. Republicans did it. Let that sink in.

NOT voting for Edwards is irresponsible and reckless!

I just hope to God he doesnt pardon bush/cheney (seen the pattern?). The facts about Bin Laden will come out in Nürnberg.

[Mark L Hamburger]

Ron Paul may not be one of them.... but completely eliminating taxes will bring chaos ripe for anarchy. Eliminating taxes is like cutting off your nose to stop the sniffles.
The area you live in may not have to depend on volunteer firemen... what about less fortunate areas that cant afford private firemen?
My area cant afford privatized police, so we will have roaming bands of outlaws taking whatever liberties they are in the mood for.


What does the Federal income tax have to do with fire departments and police? States, counties and cities pay for police and fire, it has nothing to do with the federal government.

How about the fact that even after removing the income tax, the government will have as much money as it did in 1997? You stop spending all of that extra money in Iraq, propping up dictators, and subsidizing failing businesses, we'll have a SURPLUS. How hard is that to understand?

[Truth_and_Power]

and if there's anyone who should understand why healthcare is so expensive, edwards can just look in the mirror. healthcare was his target, when he worked as a predatory lawyer.


You are tossing out b.s. talking points. do yourself a favor and check what % of healthcare costs are from litigation.

[DANG]

What does the Federal income tax have to do with fire departments and police? States, counties and cities pay for police and fire, it has nothing to do with the federal government.I could be wrong.
I thought they were subsidized by the Fed.
They get zero fed money?
(economics not my strong suit)

[bishop]

and if there's anyone who should understand why healthcare is so expensive, edwards can just look in the mirror. healthcare was his target, when he worked as a predatory lawyer.


You are tossing out b.s. talking points. do yourself a favor and check what % of healthcare costs are from litigation.


b.s. indeed...

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=3047

An October 2005 report from the Manhattan Institute shows the efforts of trial lawyers to target health care providers for profit are raising U.S. health care costs, says Susan Konig of the Heartland Institute.

The Trial Lawyers, Inc. project at the Manhattan Institute's Center for Legal Policy concludes this area of litigation is significant because "health care represents over 15 percent of the U.S. economy, up from only 5 percent in 1961" according to U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) data.

The authors outline several areas of high cost associated with health care litigation, including:

* Medical malpractice liability -- the "tort tax" on doctors and hospitals -- has grown much faster than overall health care inflation and costs the average American family of four more than $3,300 a year, according to a Tillinghast-Towers Perrin study in 2003.
* Defensive medicine inflates health care costs by encouraging unnecessary procedures and referrals that doctors and hospitals prescribe in order to limit their exposure to future litigation.
* Vaccines are particularly susceptible to litigation, and although Congress has shielded some existing vaccines from liability, new vaccines and other drugs vital to public health threats remain vulnerable.

When a liability system punishes indiscriminately, it does not efficiently deter bad conduct but rather reduces health care access by reducing the supply of doctors, the report's authors say. In addition, consumers are not made safer by product liability litigation over drugs and medical devices: "Such suits inevitably drive innovation from the marketplace that would lead to net health improvements -- not only for U.S. society but for the entire world."

Source: Susan Konig, "Litigation Raising Health Care Costs, Study Says," Health Care News, Heartland Institute, January 1, 2006.

[Mark L Hamburger]

I could be wrong.
I thought they were subsidized by the Fed.
They get zero fed money?
(economics not my strong suit)


Nope, only federal police receive federal funds.