Can anyone explain Edwards being endorsed by nader and Robbins

musicismylife78

So nader and Tim Robbins, antiwar, rabble rousing radicals, whose hearts are always with the anti wto and antiwar crowd, endorse a mainstream candidate who is prowto and nafta, may not be pro war, but isnt antiwar either, and isnt a radical.

What the hell is going on?

Edwards aint gonna listen to Naders opinion on issues just as gore, kerry, clinton and bush and obama wont or dont

Commy

Seems that Edwards is the closest thing to an anti-war canditate that we have. And ending the war should be the biggest issue this election.

lalalalaaaaaaaa

I wouldn't call his comments on Edwards an "endorsement" at all. Nader might still run depending on what happens. If you listen closely to what he said, he's still very suspicious about any democrat running...he touched on the fact that in the primaries, everyone talks a big game like Edwards and Paul are doing right now. But once the nominations are secured, it typically goes right back to the same old crap...meaning the 2 major candidates basically stop criticizing the big corporations, they stop debating on important things like the military budget, and they get into a popularity contest based on their personal "qualities".

distantsun

i think it might be his vehement anti-poverty stance.

edwards is set on bringing back a middle class.

theroachman

Edwards did not make his fortunes on Wall Street or in big business but made quite a lot of his money taking on the corporations.

For someone such as Ralph Nadar it is at least someone who may listen to the real problems are Corporate system is currently mired in.


As for Tim Robbins; as Senator, Edwards did not vote in favor of King George's request for War with out end.

WMA

Edwards has a strong stance on lobbyists. He won't take their money.

He is kinda crippling himself by only accepting public donations, but that is what he is doing.

DriftingByTheStorm

distantsun wrote:

edwards is set on bringing back a middle class.

oh really?

as far as i can tell, the platform hes running on ain't gonna help too much with that.

He wants more benefits & entitlements & less taxes.

That sounds like a SURE way to spend the middleclass in to oblivion if you ask me.

We won't TAX you we'll tax your kids, and inflate the currency so bad to pay entitlements that you'll WISH we just taxed you outright!

gimmesometruth27

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

oh really?

as far as i can tell, the platform hes running on ain't gonna help too much with that.

He wants more benefits & entitlements & less taxes.

That sounds like a SURE way to spend the middleclass in to oblivion if you ask me.

We won't TAX you we'll tax your kids, and inflate the currency so bad to pay entitlements that you'll WISH we just taxed you outright!

kinda like how bush wants more war and less taxes?

SundaySilence

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

oh really?

as far as i can tell, the platform hes running on ain't gonna help too much with that.

He wants more benefits & entitlements & less taxes.

That sounds like a SURE way to spend the middleclass in to oblivion if you ask me.

We won't TAX you we'll tax your kids, and inflate the currency so bad to pay entitlements that you'll WISH we just taxed you outright!

More progressive taxation, union empowerment, and middle class entitlements (health care) will help the middle class, really.

sweetpotato

radiohead33 wrote:

So nader and Tim Robbins, antiwar, rabble rousing radicals, whose hearts are always with the anti wto and antiwar crowd, endorse a mainstream candidate who is prowto and nafta, may not be pro war, but isnt antiwar either, and isnt a radical.

What the hell is going on?

Edwards aint gonna listen to Naders opinion on issues just as gore, kerry, clinton and bush and obama wont or dont

well, neither ralph nader or tim robbins strike me as idiots, just the opposite. not only are they intelligent but also pretty progressive thinkers, so perhaps they are seeing something that you're not.

DriftingByTheStorm

sweetpotato wrote:

well, neither ralph nader or tim robbins strike me as idiots, just the opposite.

Well.
Thats enough for me.
Sweetpotato has weighed in.

:rolleyes:

my2hands

SundaySilence wrote:

More progressive taxation, union empowerment, and middle class entitlements (health care) will help the middle class, really.

i believe that is accurate


i cannot believe the American public is not demanding a universal single payer health care system...

insurance companies must be eliminated... nothing but a bloated middle man

DriftingByTheStorm

my2hands wrote:

insurance companies must be eliminated... nothing but a bloated middle man

Isnt the Federal Government the ULTIMATE BLOATED MIDDLEMAN !?!?!

my2hands

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Well.
Thats enough for me.
Sweetpotato has weighed in.

:rolleyes:

sweetpotato has done her homework... and has done her homework on edwards... so i value her opinion on this matter, and all matters frankly

i just cant get past his votes on iraq and the patriot act... major roadblocks for me...

but i have to 2-5-08 to make my choice... lets see if this swing voter can be swayed

my2hands

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Isnt the Federal Government the ULTIMATE BLOATED MIDDLEMAN !?!?!

no...

please see the last 7 years of "privatizing" the federal government (blackwater, haliburton, etc, etc) if you think corporations or the "free market" is the way to go... such as Mr Paul believes...


lets look strictly at health care... nearly the entire industrialized world is showing us right now that universal health care is providing a better product for a cheaper $...

DriftingByTheStorm

my2hands wrote:

no...

please see the last 7 years of "privatizing" the federal government (blackwater, haliburton, etc, etc) if you think corporations or the "free market" is the way to go... such as Mr Paul believes...


lets look strictly at health care... nearly the entire industrialized world is showing us right now that universal health care is providing a better product for a cheaper $...

Uh.
Was or was the government NOT the middle man in the Haliburton & Blackwater "deals"?

???

Your point makes no sense.

If the government is doing the hiring, the government is the middle man.

In a way, you just proved my point.

Thank you.

If you think the govn't did a great job with those two,
just imagine what they can do with your doctor.

If you value Sweet Potatos opine, that is your problem, not mine.

Commy

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Uh.
Was or was the government NOT the middle man in the Haliburton & Blackwater "deals"?

???

Your point makes no sense.

If the government is doing the hiring, the government is the middle man.

In a way, you just proved my point.

Thank you.

If you think the govn't did a great job with those two,
just imagine what they can do with your doctor.

If you value Sweet Potatos opine, that is your problem, not mine.

The idea in a democracy is to give the people the power...you do that by giving it to the gov't, and thus people, insofar as the country is demcratic

A country is democratic to the extent its people have meaningful say in the decision making process, and I think in the case of the no-bid contracts to Haliburton re Iraq, that should have been a wake-up call to the American people, the country is no longer in their hands, (if it ever was), its time to get things under control again. A gov't should be afraid of its people.

DriftingByTheStorm

Commy wrote:

The idea in a democracy is to give the people the power...you do that by giving it to the gov't, and thus people, insofar as the country is demcratic

A country is democratic to the extent its people have meaningful say in the decision making process, and I think in the case of the no-bid contracts to Haliburton re Iraq, that should have been a wake-up call to the American people, the country is no longer in their hands, (if it ever was), its time to get things under control again. A gov't should be afraid of its people.

Dude i here you.
Not only is it that "a gov't should be afraid of its people", but also people shouldn't be afraid of their government.

Unfortunately that is exactly the case, and you seem to acknowledge that.

THUS, why in gods name would you want to give any thing to them!?!

You can't put the cart before the horse, particularly if the horse is a violent, untrustworth, unruly overgrown mutant of a horse!

Regain control of government and TAKE BACK your rights AND responsibilities. The government is just a bunch of people who cant possibly know or care more about everyone than ANY single entity.

Imagine ANY one company trying to manage the healthcare of the entire nations population.

That means all forms of record keeping for the entire country. If you don't like how Haliburton is fleecing YOU with their War bills imagine this:

A system where EVERYONE is covered by the government. There is no "despised" insurance business. Imagine instead a world where instead of some company trying to decide how much it will cost to cover your ass, the government just picks up the tab. If you are cool with your fat ass smoking neighbor who has 3 motorcycles and hang-glides on the weekend and never puts on sunscreen to protect for skin cancer and has ulcers from the junk food he eats and hernias from lifting weights to heavily having the exact same bill as you, thus transfering HIS premium on to YOUR back, hey that is cool, BUT DIG THIS:

NOT ONLY THAT ... not only that (and also ALL the other poor "innocent" people that you think deserve coverage -- at your expense) ... NOT ONLY THAT, BUT:

The government is picking up the check AND you have to pay the government to deal with the administrative task of " running this system" which means beyond printing out literature and keeping a staff to answer questions and handle any litigation that may be involved with business OR customer\taxpayer claims (even though according to modern constitutional interpretation YOU have NO RIGHT to sue the federal government -- but now they handle administration of YOUR RIGHT TO LIFE and newly deemed "RIGHT" to universal coverage) AND ... AND ... AND ... BEYOND ALL THAT GET THIS ...

IT IS PAYING SOMEONE ELSE TO DO THE REAL WORK.
Who is the HALIBURTON of the medical community going to be? Shit you've got doctors, hospitals, record keepers, payment collectors, whatever the hell ... SOMEONE must keep records, the government has already seemed to take an interest in having your medical records, so it will probably shell out YOUR bucks to create its own billion dollar super system for tracking your life, but the companies themselves will all keep their records too, and they will be billing based on THEIR records ... AND SINCE UNCLE SAM (ahem, YOU, and your children and their children -- since we already run at a massive deficit!) IS PICKING UP THE CHECK, they will be gouging YOU up the ass for it!

The private corporations will all be fucking YOU for their piece of the new government-cheese as much as possible, but everyone else in america who takes care of themself less than you is fucking YOU in the ass REAL HARD as well and so is every fuck who doesn't pay his taxes, and every rich guy who is hiding his billions, and the government still has to pay for all the insane administrative expenses of simply managing such a damn system!!!

I know it sounds like a great idea, but go to most ANY country that has socialized medicine that works and look at those people. I can tell you, having been to holland, that they are ALL skinny ... i mean i saw NO fat people ... and they have access to local foods, unprocessed cheese and meat, milk, and such ... they don't spend all day at mcdonalds, and they get exercise ... they walk alot, and they are considerate, responsible people ...

i'm not saying they are better than us (ok maybe i am), but they certainly have a completely different set of cicumstances more favorable to that kind of system.

We will have bloody hell in america with 100% socialized medicine. It's already bad enough with what we have, which is about 50% government healthcare (look it up).

The government CAN NOT SAVE OR MANAGE A BUDGET. They already proove it year after year. What the hell are they gonna do with all these entitlement responsibilities ...

It's like giving a kid who can't save his $20 montly allowance the responsibility of feeding the cat and dog you gave him. Those poor animals are gonna starve and die!
You don't think its happening with government because inflation and debt are shoving 90% of that burden on to the next generation.

????

Commy

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Dude i here you.
Not only is it that "a gov't should be afraid of its people", but also people shouldn't be afraid of their government.

Unfortunately that is exactly the case, and you seem to acknowledge that.

THUS, why in gods name would you want to give any thing to them!?!

You can't put the cart before the horse, particularly if the horse is a violent, untrustworth, unruly overgrown mutant of a horse!

Regain control of government and TAKE BACK your rights AND responsibilities. The government is just a bunch of people who cant possibly know or care more about everyone than ANY single entity.

Imagine ANY one company trying to manage the healthcare of the entire nations population.

That means all forms of record keeping for the entire country. If you don't like how Haliburton is fleecing YOU with their War bills imagine this:

A system where EVERYONE is covered by the government. There is no "despised" insurance business. Imagine instead a world where instead of some company trying to decide how much it will cost to cover your ass, the government just picks up the tab. If you are cool with your fat ass smoking neighbor who has 3 motorcycles and hang-glides on the weekend and never puts on sunscreen to protect for skin cancer and has ulcers from the junk food he eats and hernias from lifting weights to heavily having the exact same bill as you, thus transfering HIS premium on to YOUR back, hey that is cool, BUT DIG THIS:

NOT ONLY THAT ... not only that (and also ALL the other poor "innocent" people that you think deserve coverage -- at your expense) ... NOT ONLY THAT, BUT:

The government is picking up the check AND you have to pay the government to deal with the administrative task of " running this system" which means beyond printing out literature and keeping a staff to answer questions and handle any litigation that may be involved with business OR customer\taxpayer claims (even though according to modern constitutional interpretation YOU have NO RIGHT to sue the federal government -- but now they handle administration of YOUR RIGHT TO LIFE and newly deemed "RIGHT" to universal coverage) AND ... AND ... AND ... BEYOND ALL THAT GET THIS ...

IT IS PAYING SOMEONE ELSE TO DO THE REAL WORK.
Who is the HALIBURTON of the medical community going to be? Shit you've got doctors, hospitals, record keepers, payment collectors, whatever the hell ... SOMEONE must keep records, the government has already seemed to take an interest in having your medical records, so it will probably shell out the bucks, but the companies themselves will all keep theirs, and they will be billing based on THEIR records ... AND SINCE UNCLE SAM (ahem, YOU, and your children and their children -- since we already run at a massive deficit!) IS PICKING UP THE CHECK, they will be gouging YOU up the ass for it!

The private corporations will all be fucking YOU for their piece of the new government-cheese as much as possible, but everyone else in america who takes care of themself less than you is fucking YOU in the ass REAL HARD.

I know it sounds like a great idea, but go to most ANY country that has socialized medicine that works and look at those people. I can tell you, having been to holland, that they are ALL skinny ... i mean i saw NO fat people ... and they have access to local foods, unprocessed cheese and meat, milk, and such ... they don't spend all day at mcdonalds, and they get exercise ... they walk alot, and they are considerate, responsible people ...

i'm not saying they are better than us (ok maybe i am), but they certainly have a completely different set of cicumstances more favorable to that kind of system.

We will have bloody hell in america with 100% socialized medicine. It's already bad enough with what we have, which is about 50% government healthcare (look it up).

The government CAN NOT SAVE OR MANAGE A BUDGET. They already proove it year after year. What the hell are they gonna do with all these entitlement responsibilities ...

It's like giving a kid who can't save his $20 montly allowance the responsibility of feeding the cat and dog you gave him. Those poor animals are gonna starve and die!
You don't think its happening with government because inflation and debt are shoving 90% of that burden on to the next generation.

????

WE can manage the health care system however we want. I agree, the governing system in the United States is exactly what many great thinkers in the past feared it would become...this massive beauracratized machine managed by the wealthy elite...but the fact remains people need health care, me for example. And we can manage the system however we want-and there are examples in place around the world that are working fairly well for people in more than a few countries. WE can take from them the right ideas, leave the bad ones behind and come up with a nationilzed haealth care system, its not impossible, even with this beast of gov't we have to work with. imo, obviously

the sig says it all

lalalalaaaaaaaa

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

It's like giving a kid who can't save his $20 montly allowance the responsibility of feeding the cat and dog you gave him. Those poor animals are gonna starve and die!

So there's a kid who grows up in a poor home with bad parents who feed him junk food, don't teach him how to save money, and never take him to the doctor for regular check-ups...

When this kid develops some major health complication at a young age and his parents haven't put any money in his little health savings account, are you gonna tell the kid that he should've been more responsible?

With freedom comes more responsibility, but we need social services. They're difficult to manage, but that doesn't mean they should be done away with. They need to be constantly monitored and reformed.

People like you and I could possibly manage our own health costs, but not everyone can. And those people have just as much right to life as we do.

DriftingByTheStorm

Saturnal wrote:

People like you and I could possibly manage our own health costs, but not everyone can. And those people have just as much right to life as we do.

So how are you going to afford to support their right to life, without deeply impacting EVERYONES right to liberty & property?
Look.
I already said i'm not trying to be "unfair" to those who are "innocent" here ... but numbers don't lie.

The government CANT and WONT save and budget appropriately. You want to DOUBLE their responsibility.

Where is the money coming from?

Why is this (universal healthcare) a better \ smarter alternative than to simply give people MORE OF THEIR OWN MONEY back (much much more if you get rid of incometax and social security) and let them decided how to manage their life ... AND ... by removing regulations that strangle the medical industry, allowing REAL CHARITY to take a foothold in this country once more?

REAL CHARITY is rather efficient at assessing who is in REAL NEED. The government SUCKS at it, and they prove it time and time again!

:(