NADER comes out in support of EDWARDS on Hardball

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...

sweetpotato

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

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...

Cheney IS the anti-christ, but that doesn't condemn the entire organization and its work. you'll have to do better that the guilt-by-association tactic for this line of argument to work.

regardless of the CFR, i think Edward's own words in that address speak for themselves. and i think what he has to say makes sense.

ledvedderman

sweetpotato wrote:

Cheney IS the anti-christ, but that doesn't condemn the entire organization and its work. you'll have to do better that the guilt-by-association tactic for this line of argument to work.

regardless of the CFR, i think Edward's own words in that address speak for themselves. and i think what he has to say makes sense.

I agree with this. If we're going to go the "guilt by association" way of things, what does that say about Ron Paul being a Republican? Does that connect him to all of the bullshit that's going on now?

my2hands

sweetpotato wrote:

Cheney IS the anti-christ, but that doesn't condemn the entire organization and its work. you'll have to do better that the guilt-by-association tactic for this line of argument to work.

regardless of the CFR, i think Edward's own words in that address speak for themselves. and i think what he has to say makes sense.

i am a big dummy...

what is the CFR?

thanks in advance

sweetpotato

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

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

:rolleyes:

i was just answering the question you yourself posed...

more evidence that your mind is a steel trap.

sweetpotato

my2hands wrote:

i am a big dummy...

what is the CFR?

thanks in advance

Council on Foreign Relations.

here's the speech:

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

RolandTD20Kdrummer

sweetpotato wrote:

Cheney IS the anti-christ, but that doesn't condemn the entire organization and its work. you'll have to do better that the guilt-by-association tactic for this line of argument to work.

regardless of the CFR, i think Edward's own words in that address speak for themselves. and i think what he has to say makes sense.

Which leads me to the conclusion that you know nothing about the CFR. the fact that he is even allowed to be there and speaking shows his true colors. He's a pro establishment talking head.

Thecure

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

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.

no offence but you need military spending. just because a person listens or talks to peopel you don't like doesn't mean that they are in bed with that group.

even Ron paul would spend money are military.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Thecure wrote:

no offence but you need military spending. just because a person listens or talks to peopel you don't like doesn't mean that they are in bed with that group.

even Ron paul would spend money are military.

Yes, but RP would reduce it dramatically back to normal levels before all the empire building conquer the world mentality started. I have yet to hear one democrat (aside from Kucinich or Gravel) or any other republican talk with any (believable) conviction against the MIC establishment, and upholding the constitution. It all sounds like deceptive lip service to me in order to steal votes and continue on with the exact same plan. Steal money from the taxpayers so government can retain all the power to control everything through intimidation.

Thecure

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Yes, but RP would reduce it dramatically back to normal levels before all the empire building conquer the world mentality started. I have yet to hear one democrat (aside from Kucinich or Gravel) or any other republican talk with any (believable) conviction against the MIC establishment, and upholding the constitution. It all sounds like deceptive lip service to me in order to steal votes and continue on with the exact same plan. Steal money from the taxpayers so government can retain all the power to control everything through intimidation.

so i just went to RP website and saw something funny there about the UN and war. do you find this funny.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/war-and-foreign-policy/

Thecure

another strange idea from RP. can you sue me for driving my car that pollutes your air.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/environment/