NADER comes out in support of EDWARDS on Hardball

sweetpotato

Great minds and all that.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/22302093#22302093

RolandTD20Kdrummer

sweetpotato wrote:

Great minds and all that.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/22302093#22302093

What's Edwards stance on the Federal reserve?

ledvedderman

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

What's Edwards stance on the Federal reserve?

I don't know, but he was against the assault weapons ban....

Nothing like being a one issue voter.

sweetpotato

ledvedderman wrote:

I don't know, but he was against the assault weapons ban....

Nothing like being a one issue voter.

??

RolandTD20Kdrummer

ledvedderman wrote:

I don't know, but he was against the assault weapons ban....

Nothing like being a one issue voter.

It's a pretty huge issue though, kinda the very ground under your feet huge. I was never a big fan of band-aids when a doctor and stitches are needed.

Why paint the car when the wheels are falling off also comes to mind.

sweetpotato

http://vote-smart.org/npat.php?can_id=21107

If you scroll down to Gun Issues, he says:

"I grew up in a small town where many families owned guns, and I hunted when I was young. In areas throughout the United States, owning a gun is part of a way of life. I respect that way of life, and I believe the Second Amendment protects it. But we have all seen the terrible consequences when guns fall into the wrong hands, and we must do more to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and other people who may pose a danger to themselves or others. I support renewing the assault weapons ban..."

sweetpotato

http://vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=21107

sweetpotato

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

What's Edwards stance on the Federal reserve?

http://ontheissues.org/John_Edwards.htm

John Edwards on Budget & Economy:
Need home rescue fund for those worried about losing homes. (Aug 2007)
Asset gap: Poorest 25% of Americans have negative net worth. (Apr 2007)
Federal budget is a moral document to end American poverty. (Jun 2005)
More funds for education, health care, and defense. (Mar 2004)
Roll back the Bush tax cuts and address real priorities. (Jun 2003)
Voted NO on prioritizing national debt reduction below tax cuts. (Apr 2000)

DriftingByTheStorm

sweetpotato wrote:

http://ontheissues.org/John_Edwards.htm

John Edwards on Budget & Economy:
Need home rescue fund for those worried about losing homes. (Aug 2007)
Asset gap: Poorest 25% of Americans have negative net worth. (Apr 2007)
Federal budget is a moral document to end American poverty. (Jun 2005)
More funds for education, health care, and defense. (Mar 2004)
Roll back the Bush tax cuts and address real priorities. (Jun 2003)
Voted NO on prioritizing national debt reduction below tax cuts. (Apr 2000)

Cut taxes, and RAISE entitlements & defense, AND bail out stupid homebuyers?

???
show me how that works and you've got my vote.

:rolleyes:

RolandTD20Kdrummer

sweetpotato wrote:

http://ontheissues.org/John_Edwards.htm

John Edwards on Budget & Economy:
Need home rescue fund for those worried about losing homes. (Aug 2007)
Asset gap: Poorest 25% of Americans have negative net worth. (Apr 2007)
Federal budget is a moral document to end American poverty. (Jun 2005)
More funds for education, health care, and defense. (Mar 2004)
Roll back the Bush tax cuts and address real priorities. (Jun 2003)
Voted NO on prioritizing national debt reduction below tax cuts. (Apr 2000)

Edwards is pro war and a CFR buddy... I dump him just for that reason alone.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/13432/

Big government...big problems..

sweetpotato

-Doesn't want your vote if you won't vote for blacks or women.

http://ontheissues.org/John_Edwards.htm#Principles_+_Values

sweetpotato

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Cut taxes, and RAISE entitlements & defense, AND bail out stupid homebuyers?

???
show me how that works and you've got my vote.

:rolleyes:

if the ultra-wealthy were taxed appropriately, alot of things would be possible.

and though i agree that people who are facing foreclosure now due to ARM's made their own beds, i believe predatory lenders are as much to blame as the people who desired a roof over their heads when they thought they couldn't afford one. having been in a similar situation (tho i didn't take the bait, i had options), i can understand how the desire to own a home- and a belief in the bullshit the lenders and leaders were spouting about how wonderful the economy was doing- could override your better judgement in that scenario. that doesn't make them stupid, just too trusting, i guess.

sweetpotato

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Edwards is pro war and a CFR buddy... I dump him just for that reason alone.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/13432/

methinks your ass is talking for you.

here's a quote from his address to the CFR. not exactly "pro-war". more like strong but INTELLIGENT defense.

"We need a post-Bush, post-9/11, post-Iraq American military that is mission-focused on protecting Americans from 21st century threats, not misused for discredited ideological pursuits. We need to recognize that we have far more powerful weapons available to us than just bombs, and we need to bring them to bear. We need to reengage the world with the full weight of our moral leadership.

What we need is not more slogans but a comprehensive strategy to deal with the complex challenge of both delivering justice and being just. Not hard power. Not soft power. Smart power."

DriftingByTheStorm

sweetpotato wrote:

if the ultra-wealthy were taxed appropriately, alot of things would be possible.

[... on ARMS and BAILOUT...] that doesn't make them stupid, just too trusting, i guess.

I think the best tax on the wealthy would be a tax on their CONSUMPTION, if we are going to talk about "fair" and "tax" in the same sentence. I don't even want to get in to an argument about predjudicing tax laws towards one income class vs. another ... its a slippery slippery slope ... taxes are NOT the answer, and neither is a government spoon in your mouth and thermometer up your ass.

As for ARMS and BAILOUT, maybe it doesn't make them stupid, per se, but it doesn't make you or I responsible to BAIL THEM OUT!

Learn a lesson, read the fine print next time before throwing your lifesavings at the wind, rolling the dice, and praying to jesus, be responsible & understand finance (i guess all that government schooling that we paid for didn't help too much on the "smarts" front, huh?) and deal with your own problems YOURSELF.

I don't work 50 hours a week to bailout boobs.
And i sure as hell don't do it to pay for people who cant budget enough money for their own healthcare, retirement, living expenses, etc!!!

sweetpotato

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

I think the best tax on the wealthy would be a tax on their CONSUMPTION, if we are going to talk about "fair" and "tax" in the same sentence. I don't even want to get in to an argument about predjudicing tax laws towards one income class vs. another ... its a slippery slippery slope ... taxes are NOT the answer, and neither is a government spoon in your mouth and thermometer up your ass.

As for ARMS and BAILOUT, maybe it doesn't make them stupid, per se, but it doesn't make you or I responsible to BAIL THEM OUT!

Learn a lesson, read the fine print next time before throwing your lifesavings at the wind, rolling the dice, and praying to jesus, be responsible & understand finance (i guess all that government schooling that we paid for didn't help too much on the "smarts" front, huh?) and deal with your own problems YOURSELF.

I don't work 50 hours a week to bailout boobs.
And i sure as hell don't do it to pay for people who cant budget enough money for their own healthcare, retirement, living expenses, etc!!!

yours is a very generous soul. i hear angels singing right now in your honor.

DriftingByTheStorm

sweetpotato wrote:

yours is a very generous soul. i hear angels singing right now in your honor.

If you trade something with someone, would you allow that someone to say, "look, you agreed to receive X in exchange for Y, but i am going to give you XminusN instead, because the neighbor down the street needs N more than you." ... ?

No.
It is MY property, which i EXCHANGED for EVENLY, it is MY PROPERTY, MY RIGHT, AND MY DECISION as to if and how i want to contribute to the needy.

In case you are wondering i have and do contribute to charity.

I would just prefer to have my RIGHT to PROPERTY back and be allowed to exert decisions based on how to allocate that right to myself exclusively.

Why should "the government" be the arbitrator of who gets what and why? Let the markets decide, and let PEOPLE decide what is a worthy cause and HOW to fund that cause!

If you gave people THIRTY TO FORTY PERCENT of their justly earned wages back to them, is it unreasonable to assume they may ELECT to return a PORTION of that back to charity? Or to assume that corporations may elect to build more charity non-profit arms.

Like Ron Paul said, REMEBER WHEN OUR COUNTRY HAD CHARITY HOSPITALS ???
[and don't derail the discussion with a sidetrack on his "never ... people starving" comment. It ONLY happens because of INTERVENTION with free markets -- ie Fed Reserve, etc!]

What happened to the large number of charity hospitals in this country !??!
The GOVERNMENT interfered with the market and put downwards pressure on CHARITY through the establishment of government run tax-payer-funded handouts!

sweetpotato

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

If you trade something with someone, would you allow that someone to say, "look, you agreed to receive X in exchange for Y, but i am going to give you XminusN instead, because the neighbor down the street needs N more than you." ... ?

No.
It is MY property, which i EXCHANGED for EVENLY, it is MY PROPERTY, MY RIGHT, AND MY DECISION as to if and how i want to contribute to the needy.

In case you are wondering i have and do contribute to charity.

I would just prefer to have my RIGHT to PROPERTY back and be allowed to exert decisions based on how to allocate that right to myself exclusively.

Why should "the government" be the arbitrator of who gets what and why? Let the markets decide, and let PEOPLE decide what is a worth cause and HOW to fund that cause!

i swear, i just felt an angel wing brush against my cheek.

you warm the cockles of my heart, ya big lug.

sweetpotato

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

it is MY PROPERTY, MY RIGHT, AND MY DECISION

kinda like a woman's body is hers, right?

DriftingByTheStorm

sweetpotato wrote:

i swear, i just felt an angel wing brush against my cheek.

you warm the cockles of my heart, ya big lug.

Nice selective quote.
Try reading it again.

As far as women and their bodies, yea sure whatever.

If you don't want a baby, don't get pregnant.

Is it really that hard to show some restraint or precausion or to ultimately simply accept the RISKS inherent in your actions (namely, to fuck for fucks sake)?

sweetpotato

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Nice selective quote.
Try reading it again.

As far as women and their bodies, yea sure whatever.

If you don't want a baby, don't get pregnant.

Is it really that hard to show some restraint or precausion or to ultimately simply accept the RISKS inherent in your actions (namely, to fuck for fucks sake)?

sure. but mistakes happen.

are you saying that YOU only fuck to procreate? >shivers at the thought<

my2hands

sweetpotato wrote:

kinda like a woman's body is hers, right?

upper deck left field... homerun

Rats of Multa

sweetpotato wrote:

methinks your ass is talking for you.

here's a quote from his address to the CFR. not exactly "pro-war". more like strong but INTELLIGENT defense.

"We need a post-Bush, post-9/11, post-Iraq American military that is mission-focused on protecting Americans from 21st century threats, not misused for discredited ideological pursuits. We need to recognize that we have far more powerful weapons available to us than just bombs, and we need to bring them to bear. We need to reengage the world with the full weight of our moral leadership.

"What we need is not more slogans but a comprehensive strategy to deal with the complex challenge of both delivering justice and being just. Not hard power. Not soft power. Smart power."

and yet all he has really shown us is his ability to reproduce more slogans.

my2hands

ok, so nader is supporting him now...

looks like i need to continue to take a closer look at mr edwards...


almost 95% of my friends like either obama or edwards... when i say Kucinich they say "who the fuck is that"? haha

DriftingByTheStorm

sweetpotato wrote:

sure. but mistakes happen.

are you saying that YOU only fuck to procreate? >shivers at the thought<

No. Do you have trouble with basic comprehension?

Of course i have and will continue to have sex purely for purposes of sexual and emotional satisfaction.

I will also CONTINUE TO ASSUME THE RISKS AND RESPONSIBILITIES that come with such actions.

If i got a partner pregnant, i would ASK for that child to be carried to term. BUT i would do EVERYTHING NECESSARY to ensure that didn't happen (condom, birth control)!

Do you have a problem with 3rd trimester abortion?

Not to get unintentionaly graphic, but when the "part of a womans body" is removed, thrown in the trash can, and squirms and writhes ... what is your GUT reaction to that "choice" on what to do with "HER body"? Cause it sure looks like ANOTHER PERSONS BODY to me.

???

AGAIN - I have no problem with abortion. If this country wants to allow it, fine go ahead. But don't PRETEND that it is NOT a LIFE.
It VERY CLEARLY is! Is a sprouting seed not alive? Is a fertalized chicken egg not ALIVE? YES AND YES.

The arguments most often used by pro-choicers almost always come from "IT IS NOT ALIVE" or "not a LIFE as defined by 'law' ..." or some other form of false-logic that only serves to help people emotionaly repress the truth of their actions. If you want to value a womans CHOICE over another beings LIFE, fine go ahead and kill a living organism ... but DONT LIE ABOUT IT. Just say that!

What if women laid fertalized eggs?
I get the feeling that people with these arguments would be reconcidering if the "un-life" was OUTSIDE of the womans body!

WMA

I'm pulling for Edwards. I think he has some realistic ideas, that shouldn't be too hard to enact with the Democratic gains most likely coming in the House and Senate.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

In case you missed it. In a nutshell: Pro war...feed the war machine...get out of Iraq whenever it suits the US....i.e. whenever...probably never.

Every candidate condemns Bush now (duh)...so that zero indication on who to vote for.

I can see through this guy already....too easy.

---

Senator John Edwards Addresses the Council on Foreign Relations

Published May 23, 2007

Speaker:
John Edwards

Senator John Edwards, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, gave this May 2007 speech, entitled "A Strong Military for a New Century," at the Council on Foreign Relations.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/13432/

sweetpotato

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

No. Do you have trouble with basic comprehension?

Of course i have and will continue to have sex purely for purposes of sexual and emotional satisfaction.

I will also CONTINUE TO ASSUME THE RISKS AND RESPONSIBILITIES that come with such actions.

If i got a partner pregnant, i would ASK for that child to be carried to term. BUT i would do EVERYTHING NECESSARY to ensure that didn't happen (condom, birth control)!

Do you have a problem with 3rd trimester abortion?

Not to get unintentionaly graphic, but when the "part of a womans body" is removed, thrown in the trash can, and squirms and writhes ... what is your GUT reaction to that "choice" on what to do with "HER body"? Cause it sure looks like ANOTHER PERSONS BODY to me.

???

AGAIN - I have no problem with abortion. If this country wants to allow it, fine go ahead. But don't PRETEND that it is NOT a LIFE.
It VERY CLEARLY is! Is a sprouting seed not alive? Is a fertalized chicken egg not ALIVE? YES AND YES.

The arguments most often used by pro-choicers almost always come from "IT IS NOT ALIVE" or "not a LIFE as defined by 'law' ..." or some other form of false-logic that only serves to help people emotionaly repress the truth of their actions. If you want to value a womans CHOICE over another beings LIFE, fine go ahead and kill a living organism ... but DONT LIE ABOUT IT. Just say that!

What if women laid fertalized eggs?
I get the feeling that people with these arguments would be reconcidering if the "un-life" was OUTSIDE of the womans body!

fyi, i stopped reading this post after "do you have a problem with third trimester abortions?" that's because everything following it is, i'm sure, just more of your intentionally ignorant ranting against something you have no personal experience with, obviously.

and for your further information, i have a problem with any abortion after the first trimester. not that you'd bother to actually ask me that- it's much easier to assume my stance and pidgeonhole me than to actually LISTEN to any possible opposing view.

sweetpotato

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

In case you missed it. In a nutshell: Pro war...feed the war machine...get out of Iraq whenever it suits the US....i.e. whenever...probably never.

Every candidate condemns Bush now (duh)...so that zero indication on who to vote for.

I can see through this guy already....too easy.

---

Senator John Edwards Addresses the Council on Foreign Relations

Published May 23, 2007

Speaker:
John Edwards

Senator John Edwards, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, gave this May 2007 speech, entitled "A Strong Military for a New Century," at the Council on Foreign Relations.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/13432/

it's apparent that you have a problem with the CFR, but i don't think that's edwards' fault nor is it his responsibility to change your mind. vote for ron paul, if you have the chance. go in peace.

DriftingByTheStorm

sweetpotato wrote:

fyi, i stopped reading this post after "do you have a problem with third trimester abortions?" that's because everything following it is, i'm sure, just more of your intentionally ignorant ranting against something you have no personal experience with, obviously.

and for your further information, i have a problem with any abortion after the first trimester. not that you'd bother to actually ask me that- it's much easier to assume my stance and pidgeonhole me than to actually LISTEN to any possible opposing view.

FYI, i stopped reading after "I stopped reading".

:rolleyes:

RolandTD20Kdrummer

sweetpotato wrote:

methinks your ass is talking for you.

here's a quote from his address to the CFR. not exactly "pro-war". more like strong but INTELLIGENT defense.

"We need a post-Bush, post-9/11, post-Iraq American military that is mission-focused on protecting Americans from 21st century threats, not misused for discredited ideological pursuits. We need to recognize that we have far more powerful weapons available to us than just bombs, and we need to bring them to bear. We need to reengage the world with the full weight of our moral leadership.

What we need is not more slogans but a comprehensive strategy to deal with the complex challenge of both delivering justice and being just. Not hard power. Not soft power. Smart power."

He's a CFR buddy. HE's giving speeches at the CFR on military spending! open your eyes on that one....he's in bed (and membership) with the very same people you are trying to vote out!

honestly...that's some funny shit right there.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

sweetpotato wrote:

it's apparent that you have a problem with the CFR, but i don't think that's edwards' fault nor is it his responsibility to change your mind. vote for ron paul, if you have the chance. go in peace.

Just to give you some perspective on the CFR...Cheney himself used to be the director of this special organization. If that's any indication of this little club and who get membership/indoctrinated I don't know what is.

I extremely confident many (many) will be voting for the very thing they think they are voting out. Fooled three times...