"Edwards is a big fat poopy head."

Give me a break.

I'm flat tired of some of the hypocritical, low-rent astroturf being posted daily about the Edwards campaign and his positions on the issues. Since entering the race he's been staunchly pro-labor and against the corporatist DC insiders who are currently running things on both sides of the aisle. As much as certain people would like to paint him as some sort of flip flopper, he hasn't changed his positions one iota since throwing his hat into the ring.

It's not as if he's running from one end of the spectrum to the other, depending on which way the polls are leaning from week to week. He took a stance on the progressive, populist side of the stage and isn't budging. So what if the positions he now holds are different than those he seemed to hold four years ago? It isn't four years ago. Things that might not have been so obvious then are achingly clear now.

He was wrong on a lot of things back then, and has stated so in no uncertain terms. The attitude certain people have would lead you to believe that they don't think anyone can possibily have a moment of clarity and a revelation about where America truly needs to go to fix our difficulties. Four months ago it was about his haircut and his house. Now it's degenerated into meaningless drivel about total non-issues.

It's always the same shit with these people. Except for the thing about him being opposed to nuclear energy. THAT was new, but, then again, the person who's harping on that isn't one of the usual suspects.

As for the rest of you--you ain't fooling anyone. When post after post after post is about NOTHING but attacking Edwards and defending Clinton (not that the latter comes across as particularly effective considering the source), most of us recognize when someone has a specific agenda and not much else going on within their tiny minds. I may be anti-Hillary, but at least I have something else to say. A LOT of something else to say, when you get right down to it.

Edwards threatens the status quo the way few other candidates do. He says things no one but Dean and Kucinich has ever been brave enough to say out loud. And, let's face it, Edwards is running a far more effective campaign than DK.

I've been supporting Edwards for quite a while...and these attacks have done nothing to change my mind. I'd hazard a guess that, at this point, only a few people have been swayed by them by now. If any at all.

Edwards is scaring people. And, by my lights, he's scaring the RIGHT people. Hillary scares people too, but she doesn't scare the people I WANT our candidate to frighten.

And that speaks volumes. To ME at least.

the OPs 'joke' sub line turned out to be prophetic after all...

was also booed after he aptly ointed out to HRC that $97,500 is NOT middle class, it's the top 6%. I am not an Obama supporter (although I would certainly vote/work for him if he is the Dem candidate) but I thought he hit a homer with that statement.

I would be proud to vote for Edwards.

Although I am still undecided, he would be an excellent choice, and your defense of him is brilliant.

Ahhhh. The anti-Edwards propagandist/troll just made the rare honor of being only the second person added to my ignore list.

the "ignored"s that show up on my screen must be saying. In fact, I've had the opportunity to enjoy that phenomenon right here in this thread.

:applause:

:kick:

"A LOT of something else to say, when you get right down to it."

Yes you're able to complain about Hillary supporters. :woohoo:

Obviously either you've never bothered to read any of my stuff, you're flat out lying, or you're delusional. Which is it?

That's a quality of leadership that Bush sorely lacks.

Sometimes it's flung at people who take non-black-and-white, nuanced positions -- like Kerry. (As opposed to simplistic, consistent, idiotic positions like Bush.)

In Edwards' case, he's accused of flipflopping simply because his "two Americas" campaign of four years ago has developed greater depth and specificity -- and passion. I think he's the same person ( except for the horrible lessons he and Elizabeth are learning together) but otherwise, the difference is that he knows what he's up against now, he's thought more about what needs to happen to bring it about, and he's a better fighter.

I don't know why more Kucinich people aren't switching to Edwards. Edwards' positions are closer to his than anyone else's, and Edwards, unlike DK, is within striking distance.

It's grown more nuanced, but hasn't really changed. The whole "flip/flopper" smear is being thrown by people who don't seem to have any sense of proportion or understanding of the issues. Frankly, the don't have anything else.

Supporting a candidate is not just about that candidate; it's about the positions they hold and the values they represent. DK is the closest to traditional Democratic values of all the candidates. He speaks to me, and I'm not even all that Leftish.

The only way DK is guaranteed to lose is if he drops out, or his supporters quit. The more votes he gets, the more seriously the Party bosses have to take his positions.

Nothing against Edwards, he'd be a fine President I'm sure. But I am sticking with DK until our nominee is decided-hopefully, I can stick with him then, too! (Yeah, it's a longshot, but I'm a walking refutation of statistics already, so why not go for it?)

Hope that answers your question.

elected who more closely matches your views, I think you'd be better off picking someone in the primary who could actually beat HRC. Because DK really doesn't have a chance, but Edwards does.

Otherwise, you're basically saying "all or nothing." And chances are you'll end up with your least favorite candidate as the nominee.

Which won't bother me, since I like our whole field, including Hillary. But I know some DKers will be seriously unhappy if she wins.

...so I don't have a dog in the 'front-runner' fight. Richardson is my least favorite, but I'd be OK with him as Pres. I am not in an all-or-nothing position, in other words.

My goal is not just to have a nominee that can win-any of ours (including Kooch) can beat any of theirs in '08. My goal is to move the platform left a degree or three, and lots of votes for DK will do that. People so often forget that choosing a candidate is not the only purpose of a primary. We also use our votes to help determine the direction of our party for the next half-decade.

I know that many people hunch over the rail, their political Racing Form in hand, trying to pick the winner before the horses actually start running: (remember, we haven't elected a single delegate yet) but I am more interested in how our next president will govern than who it will be. Barring a third straight stolen election, it'll be a Dem, so I am focusing on philosophical matters rather than a horse race.

you should be voting Edwards and using the rest of your time to push for publicly funded elections (which Edwards supports BTW), which is by far THE single best way to dramatically improve the quality of all candidates regardless of party.

You want *a field of strong progressive candidates* who actually stand a chance of being elected and enacting real change? That won't happen with our current election system. If you remove the special interests you have the will of the people left, and the will of the people is for universal health care, good wages, alternative energy and the list goes on and on and on.

Which is why Hillary is, BY FAR, the worst candidate, because of her funding. She's taken more money from the health care industry than any other candidate, democrat *or* republican. And as for money from the defense industry...

If you are in a late state, you have the luxury of being idealistic. Those early state voters, not so much. Sucks, but that is the way it is.

It worked out so well for progressives in 2000 to have Nadarites voting green in the general. Same concept.

I am in one of those VERY late states (PA). The decision will be long made before it gets to me. :(

Nader was a paid Republican operative who worked to take Dem votes in the General, when it was Reep vs Dem.

Kucinich is a loyal Dem who is trying to enlarge the Dem tent, making it more Left-friendly, when it's Dem vs Dem.

Nor do I agree that deciding who is going to win before the first actual voter casts a primary ballot is strategic. To me, it is shortsighted and takes away much of the value of the Primary.

"greater depth and specificity". They CHANGED COMPLETELY.

How can you post something so obviously incorrect?

Why don't you just admit Edwards as a candidate this time around is 180 degrees from his Senate record and last run at POTUS?

The only thing I can come up with is denial.

I'll consider voting for Edwards.

has apologized for the Senate career he keeps trying to hide. The only threat he presents to me is that I think he would be no better than Bush as president (although more intelligent - I'll give him that, at least).

Sorry - I don't trust him and won't vote for him - ever.

And, I don't have a candidate in this race.

No better than Bush as President?

Speaking of drivel.

:eyes:

I think your OP was the lamest thing I've read in a few days, myself.

Edwards knows NOTHING about foreign policy. NOT. A. DAMN. THING. He scares me with his flip-flopping - yes, FLIP FLOPPING because you don't honestly change a position a day later when polling shows you screwed up - on Iran and Iraq.

That's not better than the hard-nosed unresponsiveness from the Bush Administration in my book - and nearly as scary.

It isn't, so I'll be nice.

I'll take what you have to say seriously the minute you post anything remotely intelligible that isn't about bashing Edwards. Not that your delusions regarding him are in any way remotely intelligible, but... :shrug:

YOU are one of the "usual suspects" whose opinion of him is already well known. You add nothing to the debate.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

No wonder you're an Edwards fan.

:P

"YOU are one of the "usual suspects"

YOU have just confirmed it.

JE supporters do not care about FACTS LIKE: co-sponsoring the IWR and then voting for it, to standing by it years later

DID NOT generate or champion any poverty legislation during his 6 years in the senate

and more lately(D-NC) took aim at Iran, warning that the "world won't back down." .....John Edwards, who poses as a peace candidate, declares that we will go to war with Iran before we'll let them break Israel's nuclear monopoly in the Middle East, that should tell us that he didn't seem to learn from his disasterous Iraq vote, ya think?

voting YES to free trade with China

voting YES on the 2001 bankruptcy bill

voting against the 2002 amendment for voting rights to be reinstated to convicted criminals

voting for the Patriot Act

but Oh, I forgot, JE said "I'M SORRY" ..."I WAS WRONG"

Now his supporters are calling people that recall THE FACTS "unintelligible .....delusions... usual suspects..." saying that people that bringing up these facts are adding nothing to the debate. So, what are we supposed to do ignore facts like you do? Join in your little cheer leading squad no matter what this candidate has shown us in the past?

I wish DU were a free speech zone so that I could say how really stupid some Democrats really are for supporting someone with such little experience as a public servant, and with that the little bit experience is loaded with poor judgments.

"Oh but he has such good policies and makes such PURDY speeches!" PATHETIC, Democrats that ignore a man's record of supporting a war that has killed thousands, a man that argued passionately to support Bush to take us into the war, while Gore, Feingold, Kucininch, Kennedy, Obama, Byrd...and thousands of Dems LIKE ME knew that it was a mistake to go into Iraq. Very recently JE threatened IRAN with everything if they were to get Nukes....just like he argued for Iraq. How do you ignore a war mongering, hawk, hypocrite and come to support him as a Democrat?????

Go ahead ignore facts.

I think the message is more important than the messenger. WE may not consider Iran that much of a threat, but obviously they do. I think they're wrong.

His voting record is remarkably similar to Hillary's--to whom most of these people adhere like bloated leeches. But the difference that means something is that he's talking to the people, and attacking the people who damn well need attacked...the Washington insiders and corporate asshats who think they should be running this country instead of We, The People.

Hillary obviously believes THAT'S just hunky-dory. I DO NOT.

I don't think JE is the man he was 4 years ago--just as Al Gore is not the man he was 8 years ago.

But you can cling to whatever dumbass grudges you like. That's what America's about, isn't it?

The messenger implements the message - if he has the competence to be able to do so. The message can be written by ANYBODY and then the messenger can read the words. This is so like Ronald Reagan, His "message" sounds great, people LOVED his messages (which basically boils down to an "actor" delivering "lines", which is what Reagan was pretty much about. I saw thru him back then to and JE is very much the same type of person, minus the Alzehimers.
Bush even used "PURDY" words for his programs "LEAVE NO CHILD BEHIND" aka, screw the schools system, HEALTHY FORESTS aka, cut down more trees HEALTHY SKYES put more co2 into the air. People loved Jim Jones message, without looking at Jim Jones, People loved Hitler, they didn't look at him, the person either. As long as their are people seperating the message from the messenger (they are a package deal) we will have half ass candidates and leaders.

I don't buy into Hillary either, she has a bad voting record as well, I don't trust her either. Both are way too much politicians in the worst sense of the words.

Gore always had his core values intact, he was against the IWR and many other things that JE was for. Gore has changed in his delivery method of his ideas and speaks much more freely now, Gore has evolved, he didn't make a bunch of horrible mistakes as far as this country's policy's go, and then all of a sudden "sees the light", yeah, JE "sees the light" and then talks hawkish about IRAN????????? Gore is consistent in his views. JE is not. Which translates to Gore is a man of moral character that stands by those morals and acts according to those morals, JE is a man who acts according the political mood of the moment. So therefore, I cannot trust a man that doesn't have a firm moral standing in which he makes his decisions and judgements. There is a saying, which I abide by, I judge a man by his ACTIONS not his words, You go by his words and ignore and/or dismiss his actions.

DANGEROUS way to judge.

I'll go as far as to say JE has some good sounding policys, speeches.....but when I look at thoses "words" and add his "actions" he doesn't cut it. Neither does Hillary.

I knew that at 18.

Just another rich asshole trying to convince us that being a rich asshole was GOOD.

Pretty much the opposite of what John is saying.

Try again.

of the speech giver. "Try again"??? Try to understand what I am saying. The words mean very little (even though they can be hypnotic, spellbinding, inspiring...) UNLESS they are backed up by ACTIONS. And Johns ACTIONS/record/evidence.... are what sinks him.

"I'll go as far as to say JE has some good sounding policys, speeches.....but when I look at thoses "words" and add his "actions" he doesn't cut it. Neither does Hillary." DID YOU NOT READ THIS PART OF MY POST???????????

They are not grudges it is EVIDENCE of what this man did while he was in office for 6 short years: He voted and cosponsored a war that I knew was a mistake
He voted for the Patriot Act
He voted for H1-b Visas
He voted w/ Pubs on Bankruptcy to convicted criminals
He voted for free trade w/China
He voted against reinstating voting rights -----------These are the facts of this man's record and during those 6 short years in office he spent over 2 of them running a campaign for V & POTUS. Maybe, if he actually just served out his term, and really studied the issues, he wouldn't have made such poor judgments, but ambition got in the way of the homework that he obviously needed to educate himself on what exactly his votes meant.

His priority has always been to advance his career, not educating himself so that he could do the right things. Saying "I'm sorry, I was wrong" isn't giving back life and limbs to millions. This guy, much like Bush's philosophy, wants a promotion after screwing up so badly. Look at Bush's bud's, all got promoted or awards after doing a miserable job. You seem to subscribe to the same way of choosing successors.

It really shows that if a person is a good enough kiss ass, brown noser, he/she should get the raises and promotions rather than the person who just does a great job. I've seen that for so many years, people work their asses off to do a great job, but time after time the brown noser, kiss ass, slick dick, gets the job because they spend their time promoting themselves to the decision makers. Years down the road though, the imcompetence surfaces and the next kiss ass, slick dick gets the promo, maybe just maybe somebody comes along that has a good record and breaks their ass doing a great job and is good at promoting themselves as well, but those individuals are few and far between

Knowing nothing about foreign policy. As if US foreign policy is difficult to understand.

Edwards appears to have a large moral center. He is a lawyer, so he can negotiate and make agreements. That's all a person needs.

"Knowing nothing about foreign policy. As if US foreign policy is difficult to understand." Are you kidding?????????? FP is very very complex with far reaching ramifications.....

So pot calling kettle black here.

Edwards knows the very most important thing about foreign policy:

IT SHOULD NOT BE RUN BY CORPORATIONS.

he would be coming in with a group of intelligent Democratic advisors. And he could have someone like Wes Clark as VP or Secretary of State. He's smart enough to be able to pick good people -- he won't be a puppet like Reagan in his second term, or the Shrub in both terms.

And whoever is the next President will be choosing at least 2 or 3 new Supreme Court Justices. Edwards' choices would be infinitely superior to those of the Rethugs in the race.

That said, I hope I don't see an Edwards Administration.

It would be one run on sincerely apologizing for the decision made last week.

decisions when necessary and even expressing regret.

It would be a refreshing change from the last 7 years.

So far, one word seems to sum up Bush's presidency in this regard: Unrepentent.

...and in the last two debates he was honest enough to point out that he's, "not perfect". Then after his admission of imperfection he’ll childishly make sure he adds the words, “none of us here are."

Edwards wears a halo because he was big enough to apologize for his IWR vote. ...He'll then hold the failure to apologize against his opponents. I think it’s kind of slimy that he never mentions how he got in bed with Lieberman when he not only voted yes to the IWR, he co-sponsored it!

(PS...Edwards admitted he didn’t even read the IWR...what a loser)

polling says he screwed up.

That's my problem with him. He's not a leader.

He's actually served (Yikes! What a novel idea!) and knows a tad more than any of the current bozos in DoD about the military...:eyes:

How refreshing it would be have cabinet posts filled by those who are actually experts in their fields...:wow:

I don't think he'd want that same position again. He has more power probably as a free agent.

Ever heard of balancing a ticket?

:headbang:
rocknation

So I assume you won't be voting for him when he's the Democratic nominee, in that case?

"Bullshit" and "who cares." First, he knows as much as Bill Clinton certainly did...and he had a pretty good foreign policy. Number two, WE NEED a president who focuses a little bit more on the homefront than overseas. Finally, Edwards is the ONLY one in a very long time to address such "glamorous" issues as poverty, hunger, and health care. Finally, to have a Clark supporter use flip-flop is funny...seems to me I remember Clark being pro-Iraq war until it started going into the shitter. Clark...tons of respect as a military man. Edwards is that rare combination of being a progressive and he can win (check all head to head polls nationally). I'm voting Edward no matter what.

Thanks for your perspective.

It is obvious that Edwards' detractors are living up to the original subject of this thread. "Big fat poopyhead!" is all I hear when you're all like "i don't know i don't trust him i don't know why".

-s

It's a common theme, which is why it's important they select the right sec. of state/defense. Biden would be the perfect cabinet member.

What a load. Awww, I'm sure all the Hillary defenders and supporters will all feel sorry for Edwards and lay off him from now on after reading your post, especially considering how Hillary has never taken any heat herself here on this forum. lol



Let me get this straight. You're actualy comparing John "I not only voted for the war but co-sponsored it, too" Edwards to the likes of Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinich in terms of braveness? Gimme a break!

When it comes to how the rich are screwing the little guy with their unimpeded access to the halls of power, he's right on the money. When it comes to the fact that certain industries have entirely too much say in policy decisions, he's on target. They don't like him and the MSM doesn't like him because he freaks out their advertisers.

That's good enough for me.

of DJK. A wannabe, and as GreenArrow so beautifully put it, a PINO: Populist In Name Only.

And I don't really care how slick his campaign is. I'll call it as I see it.

And yes, I have met JE on several occasions. And those impressions are what I base my opinion on.

hoping that the train is on time....

sitting downtown at the DLC station, one toke over the line......

He is just saying anything he thinks the left wants to hear. And then when he gets called on it like he did recently on This Week ABC show he backtracks on no combat troops in Iraq. Insteaed he says they are "combat expeditions". Nice word play, but its the same thing Hillary has been saying just using a different word.

Edwards shows no sincerity to me and I don't believe most of what he says nowadays.

Oh, and to compare Edwards to Dennis Kucinich is a big insult to Kucinich! Kucinich is miles ahead of Edwards in terms of his ideas and progressive credentials.

Make no mistake, we're in a war. And our side is losing. Edwards is the only one who seems willing and ABLE to step up to the fight. DK may be willing, but he's not able.

did some soul searching.

Seems to me-of course I can't prove this-that he took a step back and reassessed what he had done and WHY he did these things. Namely he was following consultants and "experts" just like everyone else in DC does.

I think he is sincere or he couldn't make it work this long.

Just thought I'd point out the hilarity of the statement. Hillary wouldn't know what sincerity is if it punched her in the face. Edwards actually has fought corporate power before and done so successfully.

Especially coming from a HRC supporter.

Edwards has been on the outside for the past four years, uninsulated from what's been going on in DC and what it's done to the people. Just sayin'.

I'd rank my personal choices for the Dem nomination, but there's really no point. We're each going to vote our own conscience and most will support the nominee when the time comes. Then Al Gore will announce as an independent and everything will be as it should have been in 2000.

Bwahahahahahahaha!!!

won the Democratic nomination if he had run. There would be no point to waiting and then switching parties.

:evilgrin:

can't believe that so many Democrats are vulnerable enough to allow the press to choose their candidate.

There's no way I'll drop my support for JE. The thought of Ms. Bush lite scares me almost as much as Dub declaring martial law!

HRC is like voting for 8 more years of Bush. that will never EVER happen from me.

Is having Edwards own statements and actions being used to evaluate his fitness for office...

The Edwards campaign made a conscious decision to go with a dishonest, personally negative campaign against Hillary...he brought this scrutiny on himself...

More hilbot spin right there, only with Hillary Clinton is bringing up past votes, positions, and donors a "dishonest, personally negative campaign." But hey, that's what double-standards are for!

is because he's renounced his Iraq invasion vote.

:headbang:
rocknation

This is one big K&R!!

Thank you - :hug:

:thumbsup::bounce::kick:

It would have been nice for him and kerry both to stand up for our voting rights last time around to, what happened in OHIO was just plain wrong and the only people who challenged it--->the green party lol

I respect your devotion. You've been snookered, though.

You know, the nasty bastards we curse out regularly.

You think your guy is going to walk away from DU during the primary unscathed?

Especially with his record of: Everything I voted on, supported or said three years ago is now moot?

And fact that he campaigns with a scorched earth strategy of attacking his opponents over and over and over?

Because he is the only dem that CAN win the general election

He didn't do squat for Kerry and that's as good an indicator as anything.

Edwards was under utilized and reallly unused in '04 due mostly to the horrifically bad advise of people like bob Shrum.

are full of shit. They'll owe these corporate gang big time after taking their campaign money, and the rest of us will be screwed as if the Repubs still have control.

He, Edwards is what we used to have as old time democrats. Keep up the good work JRE...you sure have a lots of people feathers ruffled, because you are leaving them behind when it comes to campaigning, sounds to me like this southern boy, has been studying some old time Southern politics, when some of the states were solid blue and when the primary was over, the election was over....Go JRE.

I've been waiting all of my adult life to hear a candidate say the things that John Edwards is saying every day. It is hard for me to see people attack the very message that will pull America up. Hard to understand.

Thanks again for the post.

Edwards is for me! :rofl:

Although to be honest I have no problem ignoring all that other stuff.....I think negative stuff is better than nothing. The corporate media acts like he's not really a contender, even though in polls he consistently beats HRC!

Edwards is a liar and a phony.

Edwards is back to pushing the yarn about growing up with his father, the mill worker. It turns out his father was only an entry level worker for a couple of years. Edwards lies about that, even though he's been caught.

Edwards lies about Hillary Clinton screening audiences and questions. Edwards just put up a new smear site about Hillary today. On the site, Edwards publishes lies about Hillary that he calls jokes. They are jokes until they start getting repeated.

Edwards lied about what he'd do about Iraq. He said no more combat troops when in fact he plans combat.

Edwards lies about Kyl-Lieberman. It doesn't give Bush a ticket for war.

A day doesn't go by where Edwards isn't lying about something. His followers believe that its OK for Edwards to lie because they think he's on their side and on the side of good against evil corporations. A liar isn't on any side but his own. His followers are conning themselves if they believe anything else.

When you get down to it, Edwards uses the same con as the televangelists use. They tell their followers that the are special morally superior folks while everybody else is evil. Only instead of Jesus and sinners it Edwards and corporatists. Supposedly, everybody is a corporatist but Edwards. Being a morally superior follower is an easy ticket for an ego. It requires no self reflection or even self worth. There's no need to evaluate facts are look beyond labels. The superiority is established by determining that everybody else is something terrible.

Many of his followers give almost no answers to any questions about Edwards' honesty or factual issues other than "DLC" and "corporatists." It the same good versus evil dichotomy the the religious right sees. Its impossible to debate facts with them.

So what has the army of the uniquely virtuous done on the net? They've spread lies about Hillary Clinton. They ran a turf war on this site using the recommend function to cover DU with smears against Hillary. Many of the attacks used outright falsehoods and distortions. I think the people who post these lies think they are doing some special great thing for the world.

Up until a few weeks ago, there were almost no negative threads about Edwards. There was a group of people who tried to defend Hillary against the smear tsunami.

Now Edwards and his followers have pushed many people too far. There is a response.

I will not lie about Edwards. If I make a mistake I'll admit it. But, I plan to post as many nasty things about John Edwards as I can on the Internet. Its the only way I can fight back.

Funny you say that. He has always reminded me of a cross between a schmoozing televangelist like Joel Olsteen and one of those monotonous TV conmen who sell crap on TV infomercials that never works.

Good post, btw. I like your style. :thumbsup:

you write

"Up until a few weeks ago, there were almost no negative threads about Edwards. There was a group of people who tried to defend Hillary against the smear tsunami."


factually extremely incorrect. by a light year.


'smear tsunami'?????

how about a duplicitous HRC is called on her duplicity. that's not a smear, that's an observation.

she is roundly disliked and distrusted, by legions beyond Edwards and his supporters. noting such is not a smear, it's just not.

that Edwards is telling. That's a smear.

if she did, then that's her second position.

not a smear. he said it was heard in private and reported by the press. do you deny that she said it privately? was she lying? which time was she lying?

She says to solve our fiscal problems first, then appoint a commission. A commission could consider raising caps.

That's a way of weaseling out of saying what needs to be done because Hillary has no position. God, I am sick and tired of the whole Clinton say nothing machine, first Bill and now her.

There is no SS problem. There's a debt problem. The GOP want to fool Americans into believing the problem is SS so they can write off all the tons of money they borrowed.

SS is solvent for the next 40 years. It solvent because extra was paid in to cover the baby boom. That money is being held in bonds. The problem is, the next generation will have to pay off the bonds. That's a debt problem.

In addition to paying off the SS debt, the next generation will have to pay off all the other debt the GOP rang up too. So, the debt payments they'll have to make will be huge.

They'll have to pay both debts. It won't make a difference to them which one, because it will still be dollars out of their pockets. The only solution to the debt problem is to reduce the total amount of future debt.

The best way to reduce future debt is to balance the budget. That's what Hillary says she'll do first. If all the other debt was paid off, the payments to SS would make up less than half of what the next generation can be expected to pay as things are now. The next generation could then handle SS.

Pretending that something ought to be done about SS before the budget is balanced is just feeding into the GOP created myth that we have an SS problem. That's why Hillary won't bite on it, and won't do anything until our fiscal house is in order.

Too bad that takes time to explain which she doesn't have. She's taking political heat to stick with the correct position. She's honest. That's why I like her.

Good luck with that.

You go ahead and drink up. I feel sorry for you.

Welcome to the Darkside.

:toast:

I DARE YOU TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION.

Edwards scares the living "poopy" out of the MSM. They want Hillary and/or Obama to win the primaries because they (the MSM) can say how far out the far left of the Democratic party is because we nominated a "minority." Regardless of who they are or what they put out there. They know Edwards is viable and has good ideas. He meets and greets the voters every day. And we must remember that it's the voters (we hope) not the MSM (we hope) who elects (we hope) the President. Edwards scares the MSM and the "establishment" out the wazoo. My sister and niece have seen Elizabeth, and she boweled them over. If Elizabeth supports John, even with or because of her illness, then I think he's worth supporting.

Cheers.

:patriot: My respect for Edwards has grown leaps and bounds during this campaign.

I think my respect for Edwards has grown leaps and bounds reading this thread!

Somebody who had such fatally flawed votes (some of us KNEW that those votes were just plain against Democratic standards, imagine that, and we weren't running for POTUS!!!!) should now be given the power to exercise the chance to screw up again so BADLY? We are now to believe that his judgment from this point forward will be so much better? O.K. go for it, you as well have fatally flawed judgment. Don't feel bad, you are not alone, look at the millions that voted for Bush.

Another thing is experience, so that when they enter office we don't lose time on the OJT problem....we don't have the luxury of that waste of time anymore. JE has had little experience in Government, even less in public service.....(service being key here). We went thru that with "W" to, look at what happened there. Again, go ahead, give the guy with the lousy record some OJT and cross your fingers and just hope. Remember, he will be having to figure out how to implement all of his new (some borrowed ideas) plans AND he will have to be making some critical snap judgment decisions to, you know like "W" did when he ignored "Bin Ladin" poised to attack in the U.S." or words to that effect. Hey go for it.

Go ahead do what you want, this is a free country, but it is disgusting that the standards that we are know holding our leaders to are so low.

Meanwhile, I'll keep knocking off one at a time. There are people out there that will eventually use analytical thought and logic when looking at the candidates running for POTUS. Those are the ones I eventually talk to and change their way of looking at this.

I still plan to support Edwards. Anyway all you did was say the same things the MSM has said. You said nothing new it's the same stuff the Washington insiders say all the time.

didn't change millions of people's minds about him either. And here you are claiming to be the same kind of person who will support somebody NO MATTER what the record shows. It isn't what I say, it is what HE HAS DONE! Admit it, it is all in black and white....voting records, speeches....you can wish it all away, but the truth still hurts and the truth exists, by saying that the MSM is saying the same things about him is just giving CREDIT to the MSM and showing how deaf you are to the obvious truth and facts on the guy that you support.

Those Condi Rice set-ups of "We just didn't know the specifics" and "If we knew then what we know now" are nothing but a black flag op that is supposed to convince the American people that
it was the Administration's incompetence and the evil of the Muslims that did 9-11.

Condi also told Willie Brown not to fly on 9-11.

Bush's Admisnistrationhas been the smartest Administration ever.

In less than seven years, they have diverted the nation's wealth almost totally into the pockets of a few.

They are insuring that social programs will be a distant memory.

Their allies, the bank and oil companies, are pleased with them.

They still can spin the mess in Iraq as a victory.

Our "inalienable" rights are gone.

The media is "their" media and I suspect that the voting machinery, both political and electronic, is in "their" pockets as well.

And anything of value I am not mentioning has been taken care of by Bush's signing statements.

If Edwards got in and proved to be 100 times as moral, and half as smart, I 'd be satisfied.

"In less than seven years, they have diverted the nation's wealth almost totally into the pockets of a few.

They are insuring that social programs will be a distant memory.

Their allies, the bank and oil companies, are pleased with them.

They still can spin the mess in Iraq as a victory.

Our "inalienable" rights are gone.

The media is "their" media and I suspect that the voting machinery, both political and electronic, is in "their" pockets as well.

And anything of value I am not mentioning has been taken care of by Bush's signing statements.

If Edwards got in and proved to be 100 times as moral, and half as smart, I 'd be satisfied."

I am so frickin tired of just being "satisfied" with so much less, we deserve better.

Uh, Bush didn't ignore the Bin Laden warnings

Bill (the hideous dope) Richardson said "John Edwards wants to start a class war." I was thinking "where have you been?" The Rich have been conducting a class war against working people for more than a decade.

Another Edwards supporter here.

I just watched the CNN debate and boy was it a setup. I think every candidate's supporters (except Hilliary & Richardson) should be up in arms over it. It was the WORST debate I've ever seen. Wolf Blitzer cut off Obama, Kucinich, Dodd and Edwards almost as soon as they started to speak. They allowed Hilliary to tell Edwards to stop slinging mud and then wouldn't even go to Edwards to respond. At one point Biden made a comment and Wolf says let's go to Hilliary for a response. Biden said...I didn't attack her. Wolf said yeah but she voted for it so she gets a chance to respond. That was totally bogus. Folks this kind of set up in a debate can not be tolerated. They even had a supposedly "undecided" voter wish Bill Richardson a happy birthday. Come on...how many undecideds would know a candidate's birthday. Unbelievable!

I couldn't even watch the CNN commentary because it was so fake. They knocked Obama for not going after Hilliary and called Edwards "angry" (their narrative for Edwards is that he's angry). Hilliary was the one that was angry not Edwards. What a joke. We really have a problem in this country when we don't have a free press.

"Edwards is scaring people. And, by my lights, he's scaring the RIGHT people. Hillary scares people too, but she doesn't scare the people I WANT our candidate to frighten.

And that speaks volumes. To ME at least."


add me to that as well and thank you Mythsaje for such clearity!!

fly

He doesn't frighten me a bit. I do believe that he is sincere.

and donated 20 to Edwards!

He's our best chance for victory against Gouhliani.

Edwards was okay but really not even a good performance. I thought he was a little nasty, actually. He's done a lot better. Hillary and Biden and Kucinich were good. Kucinich rocked!

of Edwards.

The corporations and their lackeys in government are completely out of control and it's past time we did something about it.

You won't hear HRC saying anything about that. Obama will, tentatively, but only because it's obvious how much the message is starting to resonate.

People need to hear that message. And truly take it to heart.

He will re-invent himself until he has pandered to all.

That said last night he was being an asshole. Thats not bashing its just valid criticism.

Hillary scares people too, but she doesn't scare the people I WANT our candidate to frighten."

:applause:

No on Hillary.....Stop royal families


Now freak out Hillary fans.

Sorry...but it had to be said...

:hide:

He does scare the right people and we need change to rid ourselves of the corrupt DC system of government. Edwards and Kucinich seem to be the best hope for real change in American politics--and look at how they are treated. That speaks volumes as well.

NoFederales

Edwards was picture perfect, as usual, but the pundits are debating whether Hillary or Obama won, like they always do... *sigh*:eyes:

Thanks for posting this.

To learn where John Edwards stands on the following issues, go here:

http://www.ontheissues.org/John_Edwards.htm

Abortion, Budget & Economy, Civil Rights, Corporations, Crime, Drugs, Education, Energy & Oil, Education, Families & Children, Foreign Policy, Free Trade, Government Reform, Gun Control, Health Care, Homeland Security, Immigration, Jobs, Principles & Values, Social Security, Tax Reform, Technology, War & Peace, Welfare & Poverty

I challenge anti-Edwards posters, if they insist on attacking him, to attack him on specifics, citing what issues they disagree with him on. I'm sick of the anti-Edwards ranting and fist-shaking. It achieves nothing and is a real turn-off to some of us. The same goes for other anti-candidate posts.