Edwards kicked ass last night

Options
2

Comments

  • ledvedderman
    ledvedderman Posts: 7,762
    NCfan wrote:
    Please, people - Billary is the same thing as Bush/Rove dressed in a different suit. Who in the hell is rooting for them and why? Are you kidding me?

    If I were advising Senator Obama and he asked for my advice, here's what I would tell him to do.

    1) I would draw distinctions between the Clintons (a) trying to keep Culinary workers from voting in Nevada, b) using fear tactics before the NH primary) and the Bush-Rove politics of the last 4 election cycles.

    2) PRESS THE WAR!!!! That's how you will get white people back on your side. Make the war a bigger problem now than the economy.

    3) Raise the question who really will be running the White House if Hillary is elected? If Bill is doing all of her dirty work on the campaign, will be be running the show in the White House? Do we really need the possibility of 28 years of either a Bush or Clinton in the White House?
    E8toX.gif

    http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
  • stupidcorporatewhore
    stupidcorporatewhore Posts: 761
    jlew24asu wrote:
    for your money maybe. but america does not want a socialist as president. but he did look better then to other 2 idiots bickering at each other.

    we agreed yesterday to have civil debate, I intend to honor that agreement.

    Do you feel Edwards is a socialist because:

    he feels healthcare is a right not a privledge?

    he feels corporations should be accountable for their actions?

    he feels that the rich should be held to the same tax standards as everyone else?

    sounds like the definition of a good american to me. if that's socialism to you then so be it.
  • Nevermind
    Nevermind Posts: 1,006
    stupidcorporatewhore wrote:
    Hillary and Obama bickered a lot, then edwards chimed in and was scoring on them all night!

    Hillary turned in a worthy performance

    Obama seemed kinda awkward

    Gotta get past the haircut guys.

    for my money, edwards is the best electable democrat.
    Yeah, I agree. It was some good acting on all 3 of their parts. I wouldnt say that Edwards was the best. Id have to give it to Obama. Hes got that MLK/Kennedy thing down great.
  • jeffbr
    jeffbr Seattle Posts: 7,177
    stupidcorporatewhore wrote:
    we agreed yesterday to have civil debate, I intend to honor that agreement.

    Do you feel Edwards is a socialist because:

    he feels healthcare is a right not a privledge?

    No, he's a socialist because he wants to nationalize a priviate sector into a government produced and controlled sector. Free speech is a right, not a privlege. That doesn't mean the government provides my speech.
    stupidcorporatewhore wrote:

    he feels corporations should be accountable for their actions?

    Every shareholder believes that corporations should be accountable for their actions. Edwards takes it to the next level and says corporations should be accountable to the government for their actions. They should be capped in the way they compensate employers, etc...
    stupidcorporatewhore wrote:
    he feels that the rich should be held to the same tax standards as everyone else?

    No, he feels that the rich and middle class should contribute more, and that only through distribution of wealth can we create equality. Instead of closing the gap by bringing the poor up, his method is closing the gap by bringing the rich down.
    stupidcorporatewhore wrote:

    sounds like the definition of a good american to me. if that's socialism to you then so be it.

    Fair enough. He sounds like no kind of American I'd want leading the country, but he certainly is entitled to his ideas and opinions.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • stupidcorporatewhore
    stupidcorporatewhore Posts: 761
    jeffbr wrote:
    No, he's a socialist because he wants to nationalize a priviate sector into a government produced and controlled sector. Free speech is a right, not a privlege. That doesn't mean the government provides my speech.



    Every shareholder believes that corporations should be accountable for their actions. Edwards takes it to the next level and says corporations should be accountable to the government for their actions. They should be capped in the way they compensate employers, etc...




    No, he feels that the rich and middle class should contribute more, and that only through distribution of wealth can we create equality. Instead of closing the gap by bringing the poor up, his method is closing the gap by bringing the rich down.


    Fair enough. He sounds like no kind of American I'd want leading the country, but he certainly is entitled to his ideas and opinions.


    Your America is no place I'd want to live.
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    stupidcorporatewhore wrote:
    Your America is no place I'd want to live.

    jeff put it rather nicely......what is wrong with what he said?
  • stupidcorporatewhore
    stupidcorporatewhore Posts: 761
    jlew24asu wrote:
    jeff put it rather nicely......what is wrong with what he said?

    nothing.

    Healthcare if you can afford it? It works in every other first world country on earth, but not here?

    Unchecked corporate power:

    In Britain (a democracy) wal mart is a union shop, their employees make twice what US workers make and they pay full benefits.

    The difference? The British Government tells wal mart they must do it. Here we don't, so they won't.

    According to you and Jeff, that would be "Government control". Whatever happened to the days where government stood up for all and not just the wealthy voices. Perhaps only the rich should be able to vote.

    Guys, I am all for capitalism. I think if you work harder than someone else you should reap more reward.

    However, I would love to call it a day on the "I got mine, fuck the rest of you" thing that seems to be strangulating our society.

    If people are well educated, have good jobs and never worry about getting sick, you probably have less crime.

    As I've said before you guys are entitled to your opinions, I'm entitled to mine. Bottom line, if I can get more people to think my way, we win.

    now that's democracy!
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    stupidcorporatewhore wrote:
    nothing.

    Healthcare if you can afford it? It works in every other first world country on earth, but not here.
    we are a country of 300 million people are growing. do you think we have enough quality doctors and nurses to take care of everyone? dont u think that quality will suffer? I like having the best doctors on earth and I dont mind paying for it. I dont expect a hand out and I wont ask you to pay my bills.
    stupidcorporatewhore wrote:
    Unchecked corporate power:
    you would rather unchecked government power?
    stupidcorporatewhore wrote:
    In Britain (a democracy) wal mart is a union shop, their employees make twice what US workers make and they pay full benefits.

    The difference? The British Government tells wal mart they must do it. Here we don't, so they won't.

    According to you and Jeff, that would be "Government control". Whatever happened to the days where government stood up for all and not just the wealthy voices. Perhaps only the rich should be able to vote.
    . Guys, I am all for capitalism. I think if you work harder than someone else you should reap more reward.
    again, I dont want government telling businesses what to do. government sucks.
    stupidcorporatewhore wrote:
    However, I would love to call it a day on the "I got mine, fuck the rest of you" thing that seems to be strangulating us

    As I've said before you guys are entitled to your opinions, I'm entitled to mine. Bottom line, if I can get more people to think my way, we win.

    now that's democracy!

    good luck
  • stupidcorporatewhore
    stupidcorporatewhore Posts: 761
    jlew24asu wrote:
    we are a country of 300 million people are growing. do you think we have enough quality doctors and nurses to take care of everyone? dont u think that quality will suffer? I like having the best doctors on earth and I dont mind paying for it. I dont expect a hand out and I wont ask you to pay my bills.

    you do pay other peoples bills and they pay yours. Garbage, cops, fire, public education etc. we somehow manage to insure a helluva lot of drivers and it works pretty well. If I can get an operation as timely as I can get my car fixed maybe we got something. Clearing up a chunk of cash will be huge and perhaps doctors can work off their student loans by working in the system. Bottom line, if we don't try anything it definately won't work.
    jlew24asu wrote:
    you would rather unchecked government power? I dont want government telling businesses what to do. government sucks.


    we can't have both? perhaps we should put back the checks and balances. For the People, by the people...anyone? anyone?

    look, we just disagree. I have a sort of a "we're all in this together" thing and you are lookin out for #1. There's nothing wrong with it. If anything, you're in very good company
    jlew24asu wrote:
    good luck

    I truly belive that if I win, we all win. so thanks!
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    stupidcorporatewhore wrote:
    you do pay other peoples bills and they pay yours. Garbage, cops, fire, public education etc. we somehow manage to insure a helluva lot of drivers.




    we can't have both? perhaps we should put back the checks and balances. For the People, by the people...anyone? anyone?

    look, we just disagree. I have a sort of a "we're all in this together" thing and you are lookin out for #1. There's nothing wrong with it. If anything, you're in very good company



    I truly belive that if I win, we all win. so thanks!

    I understand the concept of UHC but I do not believe its practical in America. the red tape, loss in quality, lack of choices, government BS, etc etc. have you been to the DMV? I would support something along the lines of free healthcare for children and seniors. I think we can handle and afford that without raising our taxes. but I do agree with you on one thing......we live in a great country where we are all allowed an opinion and for the most part, majority does win.
  • Kann
    Kann Posts: 1,146
    jeffbr wrote:
    No, he's a socialist because he wants to nationalize a priviate sector into a government produced and controlled sector. Free speech is a right, not a privlege. That doesn't mean the government provides my speech.
    That's not even an argument. How do you compare free speech with health care? A government cannot provide your speech, but it can provide you care. That's just non sensical. And uhc does not equal socialism : european countries are not socialist.
    Every shareholder believes that corporations should be accountable for their actions. Edwards takes it to the next level and says corporations should be accountable to the government for their actions. They should be capped in the way they compensate employers, etc...
    The problem is that some actions lead by some corporation hurt/damage government property : the exxon valdez for instance. And most corporation (along with their shareholders) will not have the well-being of the citizens among their first priorities : for example a corporation polluting the water supplies of region. What should be done? Let the shareholders decide what is best or have the government make sure the corporation is actually accountable for its actions? Shareholders really haven't proved to give a fuck in recent history about the lambda citizen.
    No, he feels that the rich and middle class should contribute more, and that only through distribution of wealth can we create equality. Instead of closing the gap by bringing the poor up, his method is closing the gap by bringing the rich down.
    I call bs. First of all because the gap is not closing but is largely growing and the rich are getting richer while the middle class is getting nowhere. Second of all if you tax a % of an income the higher the income the higher the tax. That's fair. What is not fair is making a 1000$ income family pay the same 100$ tax that a 1 000 000$ income family is paying. Btw, how is that bringing the rich down?
  • oil alternative
    oil alternative Posts: 192
    Obama!!!
    www.myspace.com/rockmastergeneral

    To break down borders and realise that we are one species and then the true patriotism comes from pride and love of the human race, not from the tribes of which we currently are divided, open your eyes your mind will see! - ME
  • sweetpotato
    sweetpotato Posts: 1,278
    [size=+10]EDWARDS!! :p[/size]
    "Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Barack Obama."

    "Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore

    "i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
    ~ed, 8/7
  • jeffbr
    jeffbr Seattle Posts: 7,177
    Kann wrote:
    That's not even an argument. How do you compare free speech with health care? A government cannot provide your speech, but it can provide you care. That's just non sensical. And uhc does not equal socialism : european countries are not socialist.

    No, what is nonsensical is to believe that because something is deemed a right it is also deemed something one is entitled to have provided by the government. And UHC does equal socialism by definition if the government is planning, funding and administrating the system. Sorry about that.

    Kann wrote:
    The problem is that some actions lead by some corporation hurt/damage government property : the exxon valdez for instance. And most corporation (along with their shareholders) will not have the well-being of the citizens among their first priorities : for example a corporation polluting the water supplies of region. What should be done? Let the shareholders decide what is best or have the government make sure the corporation is actually accountable for its actions? Shareholders really haven't proved to give a fuck in recent history about the lambda citizen.

    Oh, please. There are always exceptions to every rule. Exceptions don't disprove rules.
    Kann wrote:
    I call bs. First of all because the gap is not closing but is largely growing and the rich are getting richer while the middle class is getting nowhere. Second of all if you tax a % of an income the higher the income the higher the tax. That's fair. What is not fair is making a 1000$ income family pay the same 100$ tax that a 1 000 000$ income family is paying. Btw, how is that bringing the rich down?

    Robbing from Peter to pay Paul means Peter now has less than he had and Paul now has more than he had. The gap is now narrowed. How do you not understand?

    And your example generally doesn't happen. Someone making a really low income will pay nothing. Someone making a moderate income will pay something. Someone making a large income is in a higher tax bracket. So your "that's fair" example is more accurate. I dont' really understand where you got the notion that someone making $1,000 and someone making $1,000,000 are both paying the same $100 tax.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • stupidcorporatewhore
    stupidcorporatewhore Posts: 761
    jeffbr wrote:
    No, what is nonsensical is to believe that because something is deemed a right it is also deemed something one is entitled to have provided by the government. And UHC does equal socialism by definition if the government is planning, funding and administrating the system. Sorry about that.

    Every other first world country on earth has proved you wrong. We can keep going around and around on this with your primary argument being "no it isn't" but without any kind of evidence to support your argument, you're just plain wrong.
    jeffbr wrote:
    Robbing from Peter to pay Paul means Peter now has less than he had and Paul now has more than he had. The gap is now narrowed. How do you not understand?

    have you been in a coma the last 7 years?
    jeffbr wrote:
    And your example generally doesn't happen. Someone making a really low income will pay nothing. Someone making a moderate income will pay something. Someone making a large income is in a higher tax bracket. So your "that's fair" example is more accurate. I dont' really understand where you got the notion that someone making $1,000 and someone making $1,000,000 are both paying the same $100 tax.

    Warren Buffet, the third richest man in America pays 17% tax, I make considerably less than that and pay 32% tax

    even he has come out to say that isn't fair. In my view, everyone should pay the same % of tax across the board.

    He who has the gold rules, hell they make the rules. Why wouldn't they tip it towards their advantage? Last I checked no one below the poverty line got anyone elected
  • stupidcorporatewhore
    stupidcorporatewhore Posts: 761
    jlew24asu wrote:
    I understand the concept of UHC but I do not believe its practical in America. the red tape, loss in quality, lack of choices, government BS, etc etc. have you been to the DMV? I would support something along the lines of free healthcare for children and seniors. I think we can handle and afford that without raising our taxes. but I do agree with you on one thing......we live in a great country where we are all allowed an opinion and for the most part, majority does win.

    I can't argue with you about the population stetching the system thin. I live in California where Schwartzenegger is proposing uhc on a state level.

    Repubs are of course scared to death because if he can get it going in California, an overpopulated state with an overbloated budget, other states will follow suit.

    So what do you think about it on a state level?
  • jlew24asu
    jlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    stupidcorporatewhore wrote:
    I can't argue with you about the population stetching the system thin. I live in California where Schwartzenegger is proposing uhc on a state level.

    Repubs are of course scared to death because if he can get it going in California, an overpopulated state with an overbloated budget, other states will follow suit.

    So what do you think about it on a state level?

    hard to say really. I think certain states will have a far better system then others, which doesnt sound too fair. for example Cali's might suck while Montana's might be outstanding. tough call.
  • slightofjeff
    slightofjeff Posts: 7,762
    stupidcorporatewhore wrote:

    even he has come out to say that isn't fair. In my view, everyone should pay the same % of tax across the board.

    I know this is only a footnote to your argument, but do you realize how badly this screws the poor?

    If I make $8 million and have to pay 50% in taxes (to pick a round number), I've still got $4 million left. That's plenty to live on.

    But if I make $30,000, and have to pay 50% in taxes ... all of a sudden I've gone from middle class to poor.
    everybody wants the most they can possibly get
    for the least they could possibly do
  • cornnifer
    cornnifer Posts: 2,130
    slightofjeff wrote:
    I know this is only a footnote to your argument, but do you realize how badly this screws the poor?

    If I make $8 million and have to pay 50% in taxes (to pick a round number), I've still got $4 million left. That's plenty to live on.

    But if I make $30,000, and have to pay 50% in taxes ... all of a sudden I've gone from middle class to poor.

    Right on. Its elementary cliche, i know, but its profoundly true in this case: "fair doesn't always mean equal".
    "When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
  • stupidcorporatewhore
    stupidcorporatewhore Posts: 761
    cornnifer wrote:
    Right on. Its elementary cliche, i know, but its profoundly true in this case: "fair doesn't always mean equal".

    absolutely right, I guess I didn't think it out to the end


    slightofjeff wrote:
    If I make $8 million and have to pay 50% in taxes (to pick a round number), I've still got $4 million left. That's plenty to live on.

    I highly doubt a rich person would agree with you.

    however, I'd be more than happy to trade my 32% for Warren Buffets 17%? That'd probably be a good start.

Categories