The caucus/primary season officially kicks off tonight, one day ahead of Iowa, when the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally holds its first-in-the-nation presidential caucus, 8PM, at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue East. Republicans and Democrats alike are invited to join us for this momentum setting event that will surely set the tone for tomorrow’s better known if Johnny-come-lately Iowa caucuses.
And when the caucusing kicks off, expect me to be firmly in the camp of Sen. John Edwards.
It wasn’t an easy decision, and it was a long time coming, but in the end, when I look closely at the campaigns of those Democratic candidates who have gained any sort of traction with voters nationwide, Edwards is the only one who appears to be running as a Democrat. Delivering a consistent message of economic populism at home and abroad, Edwards is the only front-runner who seems to know what he wants to do with the office, and the only one whose specific proposals on health care, regulatory reform and economic justice seem targeted toward addressing the real issues that ail our nation. While other candidates promise hope or experience or competency, Edwards is the only Democrat truly promising change… and change is what we’ll most desperately need after eight years of a Bush Administration that has left our nation balancing precariously on the edge of abandoning the core values that have long nurtured our democracy and our economy.
Don’t get me wrong, if Obama or Clinton (or Richardson, Biden or Dodd) go on to win the nomination, I will enthusiastically support them; each of the others has much to recommend them, and would be the clear choice over any Republican alternative. But it is Edwards who speaks to me and my vision of a more prosperous, free and just America for all our citizens.
Oh… and the fact that polls generally show Edwards as being the toughest Democrat to beat… that doesn’t hurt him in my book either.
I believe Edwards has the ability to take on the corporatist bullies better than anybody else. He’s got the passion to do it and the experience in negotiation and litigation to get it done.
I agree. He’s the best we’ve got. I’ve read that polls seem to show he’d be the hardest to beat for Republicans as well. Don’t know about that for sure. But he sure doesn’t have the baggage of Clinton has nor the vulnerability-sorry to say- of Obama.
And, he is specific in his proposals. He supports pre-K education for all. Recent studies have shown that pre-K is the best indicator that a student will graduate high school.
I like Edwards. I’m willing to say we need Edwards. Absolutely need him.
I’m for Edwards/Obama!
A compilation of candidate opinions. – But it does have annoying popups and banners.
http://www.ontheissues.org/200.....s_Jobs.htm
Goldy,
Is John Edwards the Richard Pope of our time?
The Piper
Let me get this straight Goldy. You’re supporting a candidate that lives in a gazillion square foot resource gobbling estate? A guy who thinks nothing of shilling out four hundred bucks for a haircut?
I wonder, (as I often do about Democrats), what your values really are? Apparently one of those values is hypocrisy.
I will vote for her, IF I HAVE TO, but I will not enthusiastically support Hillary. I don’t trust her and think she is a catalyst for republican activism.
Edwards – Obama would be an excellent team. If they could bury their egos or personal differences, they’d could get a lot done and it will take a lot to get done to clean up the pitiful mess Republicans have made of this country.
And Obama would have a lock on the White House after 8 years.
I’m for Edwards too but I’m reading it doesn’t look good for him after Iowa.
“Laura Stepneski (phonetically): “Good morning. Um, Senator, I was just wondering since you’re on this national poverty tour, how do you justify spending $400 on a haircut?”
Senator Edwards: “I don’t. [Laughter] No excuses. But can I just tell you, you know, some lessons you learn the hard way? I’ve learned my lesson. I got a very cheap haircut a few days ago and I’m going to keep getting cheap haircuts.” “
The fact that Edwards just laid out a clear and reasonable plan to end our involvement in Iraq sure impresses me. Up to now, the only candidates I could possibly stomach voting for would have been Richardson, Kucinich and Ron Paul, and I know damned well neither of them has a snowball’s chance in hell.
Goldy,
“Oh… and the fact that polls generally show Edwards as being the toughest Democrat to beat… that doesn’t hurt him in my book either.”
Not true.
The state head-to-head polls (i.e. the polls that actually count, if analyzed properly) do not support your claim. Clinton is currently the only candidate who clearly beats all Republican candidates in the polls.
Wow! John Edwards got a haircut, and that’s all we can talk about?
I’m hoping for Edwards/Dodd. I don’t need Obama’s homophobic buddies or his penchant for dumping on other Democrats like Al Gore. Frankly, Gore’s forgotten more about what it’s like to reinvent oneself and continue to serve one’s country, and the world, than Obama will ever know.
Of course, this is IMHO, YMMV.
-S
Not haircuts? then how about…
Trade agreements now focus on profits for big multinationals
Q: You have criticized US trade agreements. How do you fashion trade agreements to protect American workers?
A: I think we’ve had a failed trade policy in America. The question seems to have been, on past trade agreements like NAFTA: Is this trade agreement good for the profits of big multinational corporations? And the answer to those questions on the trade agreements we’ve entered into has been yes. It’s been very good for multinational corporations. It has not been good for American workers. And in an Edwards administration, the first question I will ask in every single trade agreement we’re considering is: Is this good for middle-class working families in America? That would be the threshold question. And, second, we will have real labor and environmental standards in the text of the agreement, which I will enforce. And then finally we will end these loopholes that actually create tax incentives for companies to leave America and take jobs somewhere else.
Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate on “This Week” Aug 19, 2007
—
Who would argue with that? Who doesn’t want good middle class working families?
It’s interesting to me that when the subject of John Edwards comes up, Republicans suddenly embrace identity politics. Evidently Republicans believe you can only believe in equality of opportunity if you’re poor. If you’ve made a lot of money through hard work and talent, you’re supposed to kick the rabble to the curb where they belong, I suppose. That Edwards does not hold this view appears to scare the daylights out of them.
http://blogs.thestate.com/brad.....john-.html
The right wing just talks about a haircut and his house.
I bet FDR had nice houses and pricey grooming but his policies benefited the majority of Americans, not just the privileged few.
They’re scared to death of a President whose priorities would be eliminating poverty and helping the middle class gain back the ground they’ve lost since 1980.
12 – No, we are just disgusted at the shameful condescending pandering to the poor. Telling them the deck is stacked against them, while he lives in a 28,000 square foot mansion paid for by suing big corporations. Fucking hypocrite!!! The guy is so fucking creepy, he is downright reptilian.
“Who would argue with that? Who doesn’t want good middle class working families?”
Nincompoops like Edwards and their supporters who don’t realize that those “big multinational corporations” they rail against provide a lot of the jobs for middle class working families. Can you say Boeing?
Sheesh!
Itchy @ 15,
And why is that hypocritical?
Last I checked, going from very humble roots, getting a college education, and earning ones way to wealth and success was still known as living The American Dream.
What the fuck…have you Wingdings become fucking communists now or something?
“The right wing just talks about a haircut and his house.”
Oh jeez, we wouldn’t want to look at the evidence that the man is a complete phony, would we?
That gullible folks overlook the obvious is kind of telling, isn’t it?
15 MGI
It’s so Republican of you to assume that a rich man pledging to fight for the downtrodden must be “hypocrisy.” If you want real hypocrisy, listen to Mitt Romney.
The poor and working class did better under Clinton, and worse under both Bushes. They will do better under any conceivable Democratic administration than under any conceivable Republican one.
John Edwards grew up poor, and became a rich man defending the interests of real people against heartless greedy corporations. Um, what have YOU done?
The deck is stacked against the poor and working class, and has become more so during the present plutocratic administration. It will never be possible to remove all systemic disadvantages of poverty (for example, Jesus told us that there will always be poor people), but we can fight to “unstack the deck,” which is what Edwards will do while your poor sap of a candidate goes home in disgrace.
while he lives in a 28,000 square foot mansion paid for by suing big corporations.
How sweet it is. Holding greedheads accountable. Accountability is something else that gives the right wing terror spasms.
18 BC
So because a rich man has a big house and gets an expensive haircut (true of all of the candidates, BTW), he’s a “phony?” No, he’s jsut rich. I though you guys love rich people. I know, you just don’t like rich people who want to do something for poor people! It’s the Republican contempt for the poor I really don’t understand. It’s so…un-Christian. Are you Christian, Bill? Or are you a phony?
“The poor and working class did better under Clinton, and worse under both Bushes”
Where is your evidence of this Daddy Love? Give me the stats.
Daddy Love says, “I though you guys love rich people.”
How many times do I see it. so many liberals haven’t got the slightest understanding of conservative principles. We just “love rich people”. Is it any wonder that intellectual discussion with folks like Daddy Love is well neigh impossible?
19 – Well if the deck is stacked against the poor and they have no shot, then how the fuck did Edwards get where he is? Do you not see the hypocrasy? I can make it, but you can’t? I can accumulate wealth, but you can’t? I can overcome obstacles but you can’t? This is what I mean when I say he is a fucking hypocrite. Its also incredibly arrogant and condescending, which are some of the most loathsome attributes that one can possess and is one reason why I detest him so much.
You know, I’m actually starting to lean towards Edwards too. Right now, he strikes me as being most serious among the front runners about actually fixing our health care “system” (if it can even be called that), which I think is just about the most urgent domestic issue we face. Our current system is unsustainable and I’m just afraid that in another decade or two health insurance will be so expensive NO ONE this side of Bill Gates will be able afford it.
And I could care less how much Edwards spends on his haircuts! The fact that people consider trivialities like that to be reasons to vote for or against a candidate is a big part of why our country is in the mess it’s in when it comes to our political leaders.
I do also like Obama and Hillary and, like Goldy, will happily support whichever Democrat gets the nomination.
Kiss my Ass.
The Tommy
Lord help you Laura if Edwards gets caught tapping his foot in an airport bathroom. Now that’s something you libs can really get steamed up about!
#24 you nailed it.
MGI,
Please cite where Edwards has told anyone that they have no shot. You seem to want to condemn Edwards for your own misunderstandings of his positions.
Itchy @ 24
“Well if the deck is stacked against the poor and they have no shot, then how the fuck did Edwards get where he is?”
Grow a brain, you fucking moron. Just because it is (objectively) more difficult for children of the poor to get ahead in the world doesn’t mean that NO poor children “make it.” Obviously, Edwards is one of the success stories (or he wouldn’t be running for President).
“Do you not see the hypocrasy?”
No…I don’t. Now I’m just doubting that you know what the word “hypocracy” means.
“I can make it, but you can’t? I can accumulate wealth, but you can’t? I can overcome obstacles but you can’t?”
WTF?????
“This is what I mean when I say he is a fucking hypocrite.”
Ummm…I suspect you don’t know what you are talking about.
“Its also incredibly arrogant and condescending, which are some of the most loathsome attributes that one can possess and is one reason why I detest him so much.”
What is incredibly arrogant and condescending? I mean, besides your completely irrational characterization of Edwards?
The fact that some people do succeed in an unfair system means that the system must be fair?
You guys keep conjuring up these straw men, and you’re going to come down with hay fever (if you haven’t already).
If you are still so duped as to be giddy about Edwards here is something to chew on:
Last week, we learned that Edwards received $55,000 to give a speech, “Poverty, the Great Moral Issue Facing America,” at the University of California, Davis. The poor students who attended were charged more than $17 a ticket. Earlier this month, it was reported that despite the fact he denounces predatory lending and subprime mortgages for the poor, Edwards made nearly $500,000 as a consultant to a hedge fund involved in that business.
The former senator defended his gig on the grounds that he took the job to learn how financial markets relate to poverty. This is a bit like saying you frequent brothels so you can learn where babies come from. But here’s the hilarious part: Edwards said he didn’t know the fund was involved in subprime lending. If he was there to learn about poverty and finance, how did he miss this salient fact? He must be a slow learner. No wonder his former political consultant, Bob Shrum, calls him “a Clinton who hadn’t read the books.”
http://www.jewishworldreview.c.....53007.php3
24 – He got in under the wire. He was in law school when Reagan and Volker was laying waste to the economy.
If what you’re saying is true, then why do we still have so many poor people, so many without health insurance, so many middle class folks who lose everything when they get sick, no real increases in wages, everyone scraping and grasping and stabbing each other in the back for a shrinking piece of the pie?
According to right wing thinking, there should be no poor people because the taxes have been cut and everyone should have easily affordable first class health insurance. But we don’t and what’s the right wing answer?
The poor themselves are to blame, they’re lazy or they’re stupid or if they do work 2 or 3 jobs, they don’t work hard enough. Or Bill Clinton is to blame. Or those leftists or socialists or liberals or the feminazis or whatever the right-wing scapegoat of the day is.
What I find frustrating is the all or nothing mentality of Conservatives when it comes to social issues.
If one person did it all by his own, then nobody else should be given any help.
Sucks to be a child of a conservative then. “Now that you are born, you are on your own. Change your own diaper!”
32 – He quotes Doughy Pantload, a warmonger who’s too pudgy or scared to serve and who’s just authored a hilarious, , discredited-out-of-gate, self-parodying book on “liberal fascism”.
“32 – He quotes Doughy Pantload, a warmonger who’s too pudgy or scared to serve and who’s just authored a hilarious, , discredited-out-of-gate, self-parodying book on “liberal fascism”.
The truth hurts doesn’t it YLB? And in the expected liberal way you attack the messenger rather than the message. With a bit of third grade name calling thrown in for good measure. “Doughy Pantload”? Grow up.
And if you can demonstrate that anything I quoted at #32 is not true YSB have at it.
Oh that’s “YLB”. My mistake
so many liberals haven’t got the slightest understanding of conservative principles.
We’ve seen conservative principles in action the last eight years. And what’s there to show for it?
A two trillion liability from a war started sold with lies.
Lots of foreclosures.
An economy bleeding family-wage jobs for years on the brink of a severe recession.
Lots of crooked Republicans in jail, many resignations in disgrace, more on the way.
Mr. Conservative Principles himself in the White House standing at 30 percent or lower approval. His corrupt VP is even way lower.
I guess the best the right wing can say about “conservative principles” is that “they haven’t really been tried”. Which is a lie.
Cruchon,
I’ll take one quote from DP’s hit piece.
He launched his fortune as an ambulance-chasing lawyer,
That’s a lie. He’s just calling names and doesn’t back it up. You’re a total fool to quote this discredited hack.
You are good YLB at throwing out the lib talking points we’ve all heard over and over.
You aren’t so good at answering my challenge to refute what I posted at #32.
You are prepared to vote for whatever Democratic hypocrite that comes along despite evidence presented.
That doesn’t take much reflection, does it?
YLB challenges,”I’ll take one quote from DP’s hit piece.”
“He launched his fortune as an ambulance-chasing lawyer.”
How did Edwards make his money, YLB? Please do tell.
Cruchon,
Here’s the crowning achievement of governance by “conservative principles”.
http://www.usatoday.com/printe.....02.art.htm
Legal voters are going to be thrown off the rolls. If you guys eke out a win in Nov, this is how you’re going to do it.
This is how you’re going to achieve your next “mandate”.
You are prepared to vote for whatever Democratic
Candidate.
After the last eight years? You’re damn right I am!
I’m not in the habit of rewarding greedheads, warmongers and kleptocrats with more opportunities to do what they do best.
What I find fascinating is how liberals will simply not engage in debate. I ask YLB simple questions. YLB resorts to either name calling when his clock has been cleaned, or ,(as indicated in post #43), changing the subject outright. It’s the “oh yeah, well your mom wears army shoes” school of discussion.
We conservatives generally do better than this.
goldy….what a surprise, you going for the empty headed moron.i mean,i’m SHOCKED! and after you have so strongly supported darcy ….another empty headed moron do nothing too.
both unelectable, both low on qualifications for anything but having their hand in someone else’s pocket.
oh wait! that’s what you like about both of them…you can relate.
the only difference? they have money and you don’t. but you are really hoping that some of that cash will flow your way through your stellar sucking up techniques……..
and edwards and darcy both don’t give a rip about their families either………wow, it’s like you have met your peeps FINALLY. heh heh heh……
“greedheads, warmongers and kleptocrats ”
Does this kind of leftist ranting say it all? Rational people don’t talk like this.
47 – Ok I’ll refine it a bit for your conservative tastes:
“the avaricious, the proponents of bellicose foreign policy options and those who see government service as a means to enrich both themselves and their patrons”
I think the former is more concise and to the point.
re 15: Edwards believes in Jesus more than the Republican candidates do.
He’s the Jesus Believer’s candidate.
Bill Cruchon is such a blind pimp for the wingnut cause.
And just wait Christmasghost, these folks will happily support Hillary because “it’s time for a woman”. Trust me, we will hear that annoying refrain for months if she becomes the Dem’s candidate. Give me strength.
What Dems really care about is power, and growing government so that nearly everyone is a government dependent. It’s all about duping the public into believing “it’s time for a change” (or if Hillary should be the candidate “it’s time for a woman”). Why should they bother to actually tell anyone what they actually would do once in office?
Bill C.: Can a blind pimp evaluate the worth of that which he pimps for. I think not.
What’s more, I think that Edward’s believes in Jesus more than you do.
“headless lucy”,
I love it when you talk to me like this.
@38 YLB
“conservative principles” Can you spell oxymoron? Making it, getting rich, screwing the world .. are these”principles?”
re 51: Bill Cruchon says: “Trust me….”
I wouldn’t trust an inadequate Jesus believer like you with a nickel!
re 53: I’ve caught you reading my blog a few times. I’ve never sought you out for anything. You are not worth my time.
ghost @ 46,
Your calling John Edwards an “empty-headed moron” is just precious. He did not achieve the success he has achieved by being an empty-headed moron. He is a very intelligent and gifted fellow. His political differences with you do not justify your characterizing him as stupid. Tell me, do you think your guy, GWB, is even close to Edwards with regard to intellectual ability? I guess name-calling substitutes for reasoned discourse in your world.
BC,
The truth hurts doesn’t it YLB?
What “truth” are you talking about? You’ve cited one person’s opinion, who, in turn, supports his opinion by citing someone else’s opinion. Try citing meaningful facts, for a change, and try not to leave out important facts before you start asking other people whether or not the truth hurts.
By the way, is there some reason you’re unable to form your own opinion such that you need to go around finding other people’s opinions to fill the void?
It’s worth noting that, even if we take Jonah Goldberg’s opinion as established fact, it doesn’t support your contention that Edwards is a hypocrite. Goldberg’s opinion is that Edwards isn’t exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer, which certainly doesn’t make Edwards a hypocrite.
For what it’s worth, one of my concerns about Edwards is that he’s not as bright as I’d hope for a President. Despite that opinion, I’ll take Edwards over any of the current Republican candidates any day of the week and twice on Sundays.
“I wouldn’t trust an inadequate Jesus believer like you with a nickel!”
Show me, Lucy, where I have indicated that I am a “Jesus believer”.
Have you ever heard of the word “prejudice”?
A word leftists seem to call their own. Yet I find it abused time and again by leftists such as you, Lucy.
Don Joe says,”By the way, is there some reason you’re unable to form your own opinion such that you need to go around finding other people’s opinions to fill the void?”
What in the world are you talking about? I’m saying Edwards is a phony. What “meaningful facts” are you referring to?
@ 17 Darryl,
@19 Daddy Love
@30 Darryl
Edwards log cabin roots are rather overstated. Even Lincoln’s claims to a log cabin origin were more nearly true.
He does come from a lower middle class family. His Dad was a Clemson fan whoi was fully employed. Edwards the young un got into Clemson but failed ot make it as a football player. He lost his support at Clemson, scholarships don’t follow intellect, to a NC state school and decided to be a lawyer.
Amongst the current crop, Biden and Obama can both make far more impressive claims but Nixon, Johnson, Truman. Bill Clinton or Reagan would easily match any of these guys in overcoming origins.
Frankly, calling anyone up there now working class is a bit silly. Most of his life Edwards has been well off and he married well as well. I do not diss his class qualifications, but the povertu bit is way overplayed in his case.
For comparison, my Dad grew up in the Depression, ran booze (inter alia) to get through school, etc. My closest friend grew uo in Jersey City with a Father who could never speak English. Etc,
And if you think Edwards was poor, look at some of our locals: Rin Sims, Darct Burner, hell even Paul Allan might be thought of as poor if Edawards is te standard and I guess that means my Dad miuyst have starved tro detahe before i was conceived.
If anyone deserves “roots” credits it is BHO. We have not has a major American pol with comparably “interesting” background since Jackson or Hamilton. Barack at least has had to deal with the incredulity our society conveys on folks who reflect light poorly. I guess HRC could claim gender bias but I think here Wellesley/Yale legacy denies that privilege to her.
Edwards law career is impressive .. JE is (as shows on the tube) a great guy at arguing a case.
That said, where I there ANY evidence that this is nnot just one more case fro a TV lawyer? Haircut aside, there is no evidence form Edwards private life or form his term in the Senate that he takes poverty seriously.
I also have concern ab out competence. While I know litigators who have learned everything from molecular biology to Baysian math in order to maker their cases, as a class courtroom attorneys are a facile bunch .. more given to arguing a case than to arriving at an objective answer. In Edwards case, where is the evidence he can actually run an enterprise? Other than court room law, his major accomplishments seem to be designing the nice house. His activities as a Senator and later as a foundation head have not been remotely impressive.
My bottom line, I would hire Edwards to sell my case anyday. I am just not confidant that it is HIS case. He seems to me of all the Dems t be the best at pandering.
As examples,
JE supports the NEA, AFT folks who oppose evaluating teachers to get them better salaries. Why is this? He is pandering.
JE has said silly things about getting out of Iraq. He does not have a plan, he has a Winnebago visions that is hopefully mobile enough to move off WallMart Parking lot when the time comes. Why is this? He is too smart to believe this. He is sucking up to a client and then .. nce he has the case will suggest a plea bargain!
JE has made a lot of his health plan but the claim thathe can implement it without involving the stake holders is idiocy. Another arrogant attorney tried that already.
JE’s stand on global trade is simplistic to the poit f being worth a tickle and a wink,
So …
I too could b=vote for any of these guys, but would rank them by competnence:
Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Hillary, Obama, Edwards
by speaking ability
Obama, Edewards
I stand open for anyone who wants to tell me why I am wrong. In the emanstime, If I get my work done on time, I do plan on bringing those Costco IOUs for ObanaBrats at Costoc.
I’m saying Edwards is a phony.
Actually, you were saying that Edwards is a hypocrite, and using Jonah Goldberg’s piece to back up that opinion.
If you want to, now, argue that Edwards is a “phony,” then “meaningful facts” would include a statement where he claims to be something coupled with evidence that he is not what he claims to be.
@10:
You are so very right. If Obama wants to run on the Unity ’08 ticket, he can go right on ahead, but he shouldn’t expect my vote when he does little but repeat right-wing talking points. The man is so, so not ready for prime time.
I would support Edwards, just hoping he will actually FIGHT this time. I still remember how poorly he did in his debate against Darth Cheney. That was very disappointing. But it looks like he might be ready to kick some ass this time.
I still think my first choice in Feb will be for Dodd, just because he’s showing some real spine on civil liberties issues that seriously need to be addressed.
Oh you can’t just hand this to me Seattle Jew,
“My bottom line, I would hire Edwards to sell my case anyday. I am just not confidant that it is HIS case. He seems to me of all the Dems t be the best at pandering.
The best Dem candidate is the best at “pandering”? How revealing is this? Exactly why I do not agree with the left. They want candidates that “pander” to people so they can scoop them up into another government dependent interest group.
Republicans believe in opportunity. Democrats believe in pandering. Barf.
bill……….yup, i am waiting for all the “it’s time for a woman” crap too. it should be “precious” to use leftie’s new favorite word.it sure beats his old favorite words, though.
yes…time for a woman huh? well, as a woman i feel that i can say this to all of you. i mean, i am a woman, right? so i can say it…..
what a load of crap!
time for a woman? get real. until all you proglodytes decide to choose your next SURGEON based on the fact that “it’s time for a woman” and that’s all….don’t even bother to say it.
and how can i forget that hillary is about as much a woman as goldy is a man, anyway………
but kids…think about it. can you get any more sexist or racist than to say it’s time for a woman/black/insert anyone here………???
nope…you can’t. even robert KKK byrd cringes every time he hears it.
the best way to choose any candidate for the presidency is to choose them as if they are going to be holding YOUR heart in THEIR hands. in other words…BASED ON QUALIFICATIONS ONLY.
and lefty, if you think ‘success’ is based only on how much money you have [and not HOW you got that said money] than you are even more vapid than i originally thought. edwards is a cheap thief. that’s all. he has done more to hurt the middle class that he harps on so much than most CEO’s of big corporations ever will. the only people that get rich when a lawyer does are the parasites that work for him.
and edwards will NEVER get elected. it just won’t happen. he makes most people’s skin crawl…or can’t you read the polls for yourself? sheesh….he couldn’t stay elected in his own state….does that not tell you anything????
Unlike you and the rest of you liberal cowards Don Joe I take you up on your challenge.
Edwards has been arguing that there are “Two Americas”.
Which one does he live in? And more importantly Don, and a question you gutlessly avoided, how did he get there?
seattle jew……”While I know litigators who have learned everything from molecular biology to Baysian math in order to maker their cases, as a class courtroom attorneys are a facile bunch .. more given to arguing a case than to arriving at an objective answer. In Edwards case, where is the evidence he can actually run an enterprise?”
i could not agree with you more.
litigators are really good at hearing themselves talk and argue but they aren’t very good at the follow through. edwards would be a disaster as president.
and yes….he is a good panderer. why would anyone want that? oh…except goldy that is…….
look at it this way. edwards’ wife is dying ,he has more money than he will ever need, no real plan to make america a better place…he is just power hungry. so, if your wife [who has already lost a child] is dying from cancer and you are a rich guy with nothing to bring to the national table what do you do if your name is edwards?
why, ditch the boring fat sick wife and kids and run into the light…… of the cameras.
and this is who goldy wants to be president? so, insanity is hereditary in your family goldsters?
Unlike you and the rest of you liberal cowards Don Joe
Oh, piss off, you sniveling little twit. If you’ve got an argument to make, make it, and at least try to make it a cogent argument.
Which one does he live in?
The one where he had an advantage that other people don’t. I’m surprised you can’t figure out that one by yourself.
And more importantly Don, and a question you gutlessly avoided, how did he get there?
Gutlessly avoided? Either you didn’t see my comment @ 31, or you don’t understand the point. Take your pick, but shove the “gutless” crap back up your ass where it came from.
Libs are so cocky about their prospects in 2008. But what do they have? Edwards, who for all the world appears to be a slimy hypocritic lawyer. Hillary, who is a tired old 1960’s communist who hitched her star to her husband and missed her only chance in ’04. Then there is Obama, a bit wet behind the ears but my suspicion is that he will be the ultimate nominee. He’s the only Democratic candidate I’d like to have a beer with. I may disagree with Obama but he seems like a genuinely decent man.
@1 Passion. Baggage. Vulnerability. That sums up the three Democratic contenders in a nutshell.
I don’t see the point of supporting a non-contender, even though Sen. Dodd deserves our vote of gratitude for his recent yeoman’s service in blocking Bushit.
Clinton’s baggage weighs too heavily, but not only that, she’s in the pocket of the corporatists. Her campaign money is coming from the people who supported Bush, and her fundraisers are the people who raised money for Bush. Even if nothing else was wrong with her, that by itself would wave a huge red flag.
Obama, in my opinion, is naive and unprepared to be president. He would get eaten for lunch by the lions. He’s also a lousy debater.
Edwards strikes me as something of a phony. He talks a good game, but I’m not convinced he’s sincere, nor do I believe he can sell himself to a plurality of voters. He choked in his 2004 debate with Cheney; I’m not confident he won’t do that again.
None of them are satisfactory.
If the Washington primary were held today, I’d vote for Mike Huckabee! Why not? The Democratic primary is only a beauty contest, with all the delegates already chosen in the Feb. 8 caucuses. But the GOP will choose half of its delegates in the primary, so it’s worthwhile to vote as a Republican on Feb. 19 and help those idiots choose THEIR candidate — they’re too fucking irresponsible and stupid to do it themselves without our help!
What we need is a GOP candidate who will stand out like a wart on a cockroach’s ass. Huckabee is the man!
I want to hear Gov. Huckabee tell the American people about his plan to abolish science education and force America’s public schools to teach creationism to our kids so future doctors, biologists, scientists, and engineers will think mutating viruses are supernatural punishment for evil behavior, not a product of government germ warfare labs.
I want to hear Gov. Huckabee explain why little girls deserve to be raped if they’re related to Bill Clinton, while it’s okay for little boys to lynch dogs in Boy Scout Camp if they’re related to Mike Huckabee.
I want to hear Gov. Huckabee shill for his plan to replace the progressive income tax with a 40% sales tax couple to a rebate scheme that would create a vast new entitlement program that would dwarf social security and public assistance combined.
Yep, Mike Huckabee is my go-to guy for November! He perfectly reflects the superstitious ignorance of his party and its voters — and he’s as stupid, crazy, dishonest, incompetent, and evil as they are!
And, best of all, he’s an Arkansas cracker. That’ll play just right in America’s urban areas where the 2008 election will be decided. He might even take all 22 GOP senators running for re-election down with him! Let’s hope so.
To sum up, I’m voting for Mike Huckabee in the Feb. 19 primary because he’s the best GOP candidate that Democrats could choose. As for choosing a Democratic candidate … hell, even Mickey Mouse could do a better job than any Republican.
Roger Rabbit Endorses Mickey Mouse
See #70 above.
Hmmm….judging by the frantic response of our home-grown wingfucks (putting Ghost in that category since she chooses to do her sputtering here–maybe she can’t get her neighbors to listen to her) it would appear that they really really really don’t want to see Edwards get the Democratic nomination. Like their national mouthpieces (Rush, Laura, Michelle et al, whose every word they repeat like so many parakeets) they seem to be pretty well licking their chops over the prospect of running against Hillary. This can only suggest that the Publican leaders at least think they have some way already figured out that’s going to make beating her a slam dunk.
“68 Don Joe,
You surely haven’t read my earlier posts regarding liberals’ tendencies to resort to playground profanity rather than actually engage in discussion.
I can play you folks like a violin.
73 Bill, the only thing you’re playing with is yourself.
Rabbit supports Huckabee. Exactly why I don’t.
Edwards a phony?
He’s the the most real thing ever to happen compared to the Mittster.
#74, “73 Bill, the only thing you’re playing with is yourself.”
Do I need to keep saying it? Why would anyone reading this blog trust you children to run anything?
I hope Cruchon’s for McCain.
He doesn’t need nearly as much Geritol or Viagra as that washed-up non-entity Fred Thompson.
“He’s the the most real thing ever to happen compared to the Mittster.”
Now we are about to have some really revealing fun.
Tell me YLB why you object to the “Mittster”?
ghost
My definition of “success” has nothing to do with accumulation of wealth. John Edwards reached the acme of achievement in the courtroom, which is a highly competitive environment. You might not think much of what lawyers do, but we would live in a much more authoritarian, repressed, and corporate nation without them. You, my dear, would have far less liberty and security if not for what trial lawyers do. John Edwards also was elected senator in a red state. That’s quite an achievement. He is highly successful by any rational definition of success. Moreover, through his work, he has made the world a better place.
You surely haven’t read my earlier posts regarding liberals’ tendencies to resort to playground profanity rather than actually engage in discussion.
So, you behave like a twit, and then say “neener neener” when people call you a twit. If that helps you to feel better about yourself, then be my guest. I’ll simply note that you’ve now given up on any attempt to present a cogent argument.
@64 Bill Cruchon
Are you kidding, Reoricans do not PANDER??
Hmmm..
less see ..
Mr. Romney stands right … right . oh yeh right there—>
on issues he used tho stand somehere else on. Hmmm
And good o’ Giuliani, the bib vivant transdressing Mafia hunting Cop cum mayor of NYC … were DOES he stand on abortion?
And wo wa sit I saw being kissy kissy woth Pat Robertson??
Nahhh…
Dems may Pander, but the woid for the Rpricans is worse.
Good for you, Goldy. Edwards would make a wonderful president and I can hardly wait for him to win in Iowa.
David
http://www.homesteadbook.com/blog
Tell me YLB why you object to the “Mittster”?
He’s less genuine than a used car salesman and that’s being kind.
Don Joe says, “I’ll simply note that you’ve now given up on any attempt to present a cogent argument.”
Please, “Don Joe” set forth an issue which we might discuss, or restate an issue which I have not presented a “cogent argument”. I’m game anytime.
@67 Christmasgost
Tx but no Tx.
A good litigator like Ms. Edwards and Mr. Edwards BELIEVES all out in whatever he is being paid to say. I suspect the two of them ..atb least for now .. believe in their message. My concern is with follow through. It is one thing to be selling Vegimite, it us another thing to serve it to your own kids.
@69 Bill
Come on down to DL toinight .. I’ll buy you that beer and give you an IOU!
Please, “Don Joe” set forth an issue which we might discuss, or restate an issue which I have not presented a “cogent argument”.
You’ve claimed that Edwards is a hypocrite, and I’ve pointed out where your argument has failed. Either try again, or concede that your argument was less than cogent.
SeattleJew says at #82,
“Hmmm..
less see ..
Mr. Romney stands right … right . oh yeh right there—>
on issues he used tho stand somehere else on. Hmmm
And good o’ Giuliani, the bib vivant transdressing Mafia hunting Cop cum mayor of NYC … were DOES he stand on abortion?
And wo wa sit I saw being kissy kissy woth Pat Robertson??
Nahhh…
Dems may Pander, but the woid for the Rpricans is worse”
I’m not making any of this garbage up.
Good lord. I understand you are a Professor at the UW, SeattleJew.
I think I want some of my tax money refunded.
The garbage you spew is hard to believe. In particular that stuff about Giuliani “transdressing” shows what a boob you must be. That was for a charity event. Do you even understand tongue-in-cheek? You are an idiot.
It’s hard to remain civil when reading this pure junk.
And no SJ I don’t drink with wild-eyed 1960’s liberal looneys. Been there, done that.
For those leftists who read this stuff but do not comment;
Have you noticed how your buddies fade away like fog on a spring morning when they are challenged to actually debate their ideas?
Do you notice their profane, infantile responses?
Does their behavior make you wonder?
For those leftists who read this stuff but do not comment;
Do you notice how little Cruchon is worth anyone’s time?
Don Joe says at #88, “You’ve claimed that Edwards is a hypocrite, and I’ve pointed out where your argument has failed. Either try again, or concede that your argument was less than cogent.”
Oh no, must I really do this again?
“As part of his efforts to combat global warming, Senator John Edwards announced today that he will make his campaign “carbon neutral.” Edwards believes global warming is one of the great challenges facing America and the world and that we can all take immediate action to decrease the amount of carbon we produce. By conserving energy and purchasing carbon offsets, the Edwards campaign will offset the carbon emitted by Edwards and his staff’s campaign travel, and the energy used in his campaign headquarters and field offices.”
The man is a phony. Can the average joe purchase “carbon offsets”? Of course they cant, not without parting with a good deal of cash. Only phonies like Edwards and Gore can afford to do so while pulling the wool over their supporters eyes. You idiot liberals lap this stuff up like the obedient lap dogs you are. And “carbon offsets” are nothing but crapola that let elite Democrats continue to live their consuming lifestyles. They pretend they are helping the environment and make you looney green voters happy because you are too stupid to see through it all.
@89…BC…
Cut poor SJ some slack. He’s trying his level best to emulate the highly attuned level of sarcastic political commentary that’s a hallmark of the HA Happy Hooligans. Sadly, though, as a satirist and purveyor of irony and searing riposte, SJ shouldn’t quit that day job at the UW.
As a combatant in the battle of wits, SJ is an excellent research scientist. Still…I’m told by my sources among the HA Happy Hooligans that he’s not a bad guy, just not all that good in the clinch.
Political debate isn’t for the faint of heart or thin of skin…
Speaking of which…Heard about the sign posted at, I think, the Des Moines Holiday Inn? Advertising the HRC KFC bucket? Features two very thick thighs, a couple puny breasts, and a whole bunch of left wings.
NOTE TO SJ: This is humor, satirical in nature, and well under the level of garbage posted here seemingly every couple minutes by Rabbit and many, many, many of the HA Happy Hooligans. If The Darcy wants to play in the political sandbox, then she, too, better get used to being on the receiving end of it, hard and biting though it may be; it goes with the territory.
And…it’s free speech!
The Piper
The Crutch is a victim. I feel sorry for him.
re 94: I saw your picture the other day on HA. Do you call that stiff grimace a smile?
“Do you notice how little Cruchon is worth anyone’s time?”
Do you notice how YLB has no interest in actual debate about issues?
It’s always the same with the left…ad-hominem attacks, and name calling.
Is it really that difficult to actually have a discussion?
The Crutch is a weak Jesus-believer and a phony.
re 97: Mr. haircut critic wants to ‘debate’ the facts. The facts you choose to debate on are trivial, however.
“The Crutch is a weak Jesus-believer and a phony.”
And that’s about the best you can do.
Piper,
A voice of sanity in the wilderness. I’ll buy you a beer,(or a Scotch), any time.
Hey Goldy!
Is this: http://latimesblogs.latimes.co.....ews-e.html a metaphor for the Edwards campaign?
“To cap off his four-year campaign to win Iowa’s Democratic caucus Thursday night, John Edwards planned a 36-hour marathon bus tour…
But 12 hours into the political odyssey — billed as Edwards’ “Marathon for the Middle Class” — his Main Street Express bus began making very disturbing noises in western Iowa. In darkness, the bus with the entire Edwards entourage pulled over at a service station and was abandoned.
Oh, the awful symbolism for a political campaign struggling to overcome a new Des Moines Register poll showing him behind Hillary Clinton and way behind — like eight points — this senatorial upstart Barack Obama in what everyone admits is a make-or-break contest for Edwards’ presidential hopes in the Hawkeye state, where he finished second to John Kerry in 2004.
A few minutes late in Iowa’s rural society is perfectly acceptable. This is, after all, the agricultural Heartland where the weather is the first item on the radio news, not the last. But 45+ minutes late on a holiday night before a normal workday in 5-degree temperatures seems like a lot longer. “When he’s president he can call the shots,” hollered one person, who at least arrived an Edwards supporter, “Get him in here!”
“We’ve got to work in the morning!” griped another.
Edwards’ worried staff assured reporters that the main Main Street Express bus really hadn’t broken down. They said the troubled vehicle was left behind in Council Bluffs out of “an abundance of caution.”
Looks like the 36-hour bus tour might get to at least 40.”
Is John Edwards the Michael Dukakis of our time?
He may do well in Iowa, possibly even in NH, but when it comes to Super Tuesday, he will be toast! He’ll be lucky to get work as a busboy at one of HRC’s fundraisers!
Looks like the scofflaws (see Postman) at the SEIU have once again backed not a dark horse, but a very blind and lame one!
Again…how many mirrors has he worn out staring at himself and primping in them? I’ve lost count!
The Piper
24
Hypocrisy: feigned high principles–the false claim to or pretense of having admirable principles, beliefs, or feelings.
For you to support yourr claim of hypocrisy on John Edwards’ part, you would have to first prove that he claims to have these beleifs and/or priciples, then prove that he in fact does not hold the beliefs you claim he claims to.
You have done neither.
@96…HL…
I had thoughts of you in my mind when the pic was taken…and I took it out on the rabbit.
The Piper
Oh no, must I really do this again?
Until you come up with a cogent argument, yes.
Let’s see if we can parse your latest attempt, which appears to be that Edwards is a phony by virtue of the fact that he is able to take action (i.e. purchase carbon credits) that others are unable to take. One wonders what your argument would be if Edwards did not take action he is able to take.
@103…DL…
That Johnny Boy lives like a king in a palace bought and paid for with money extorted in junk science lawsuits – see http://opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110005361 – that only served to line his pockets and ratchet up the cost of healthcare all the while pissing off his neighbors – see http://www.newsobserver.com/114/story/562899.html – gives the lie to his pious pronouncements on the campaign trail.
The guy is a huckster, a combination of the worst of Prof. Harold Hill, Elmer Gantry, and Huey P. Long. He’s a demagogue and a charlatan and in love with himself.
Actually, that makes him a pretty typical liberal!
The Piper
“Let’s see if we can parse your latest attempt, which appears to be that Edwards is a phony by virtue of the fact that he is able to take action (i.e. purchase carbon credits) that others are unable to take. One wonders what your argument would be if Edwards did not take action he is able to take.
No Don Joe my argument is exactly that Edwards was able to take the “action” that he is “able to take”
You don’t get it at all. I’d have lots more respect for him if he admitted to his lifestyle without apologizing for it. I don’t care what kind of lifestyle Edwards has. Republicans don’t run around dictating how others live. What I object to is his phony attempts to disguise it and act like he stands for “middle class America”. I further object to his pandering to the “green” contingent by his silly “carbon offsets”. The man is a phony.
Piper @ 106: ” . . . Johnny Boy lives like a king in a palace bought and paid for with money extorted in junk science lawsuits . . .”
Citing the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page as fair comment on issues of civil litigation? C’mon, man, you could not have gone to a more unreliable source. WSJ’s editorial page has never met a tort reform it didn’t support. From your old legal education, you should know that “junk science” is an insurance industry phrase for scientific opinions that don’t help the industry. With Frye and Daubert motions, true junk science does not get to the jury. And, claiming that jury verdicts amount to extortion reflects an unhealthy respect for the best judicial system in the world. John Edwards earned his money fair and square and we are all better off for his contributions to corporate accountability.
Piper has it at #106. Goldy is no dummy and yet he supports this phony creep for President?
You sure have to wonder.
22 BC
Unemployment reached record lows under Bill Clinton. Do you need a quote from a government source? It was widely reported and thus common knowledge. At the time, economists were scratching their heads at the phenomenon of unemployment dropping lower than what had previously been regarded as “full employment.”
Nearly 23 million new jobs were created during President Clinton’s time in office, the most ever created under a single administration. Again, widely reported common knowledge. GW Bush’s record in comparison is anemic to say the least.
Bill Clinton expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit for 15 million working families. What have the Bushes done for the EITC?
“The Census report shows that only the well-to-do are doing well in the Bush economy, while the typical American family has lost ground during the first six years of this administration. Since taking office, the President’s policies have left middle class families’ real incomes significantly lower, nearly 5 million more Americans living in poverty and the ranks of the uninsured have swelled by 8.6 million people. Only the wealthiest American household’s incomes are rising faster than inflation, and the poorest households continue to fall further behind. The divergence btween the “haves” and the “have nots” in the Bush economy stands in marked contrast to the second term of the Clinton Administration when economic gains were broadly shared.”
http://www.jec.senate.gov/Docu.....elease.pdf
“From 2000 to 2005, however, real median household income fell by 2.7 percent. That drop occurred despite a 2.4 percent average annual in-crease in inflation-adjusted gross domestic product (GDP) over the same period.”
http://jec.senate.gov/Document.....me2006.pdf
Should get you started while I mine the original source materials. The JEC used Census Bureau figures.
“Citing the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page as fair comment on issues of civil litigation?”
And what sources would you cite?
Piper,
While your argument is only slightly better than Bill’s, it’s not all that much better. ‘Course, I have to give you props for the rhetorical sleight of hand in a grammatical construct that implies that his work on behalf of his clients is what was pissing off his neighbors. Honestly, however, the notion that Edwards is a huckster because, as an attorney, he did his job well is not exactly an earth-shattering argument. If given enough time, I might even come to believe you’d see the circularity in your argument.
Bill,
You’re right. I don’t get it, and that’s not because I’m dense. It’s because there’s nothing in your argument to “get”. In what way is Edwards dictating how other people should live?
Oh and what a surprise Daddy Love cites the Chuck Schumer( d) intrepretation of government statistics.
So John Edwards sued a few hospitals based on the theory that was thought to be true at the time but now isn’t?
Is there any greater conceivable crime?
How does this establish either point of a claim that he professes to hold beliefs that he in fact does not?
113 BC
And what a surprise that BC attacks the messenger. Seesm to me you complained about that very tack. Does that make you a “phony?”
107 “Republicans don’t run around dictating how others live.”
Oh, really?
Don Joe says at #112, “In what way is Edwards dictating how other people should live?”
Well, from Edwards’s own website:
“Global warming is a crisis that could fundamentally change our planet, creating hundreds of millions of deaths and starvation. Edwards will restore our energy independence by asking Americans to be patriotic about something other than war and building a new energy economy based on clean renewable energy and energy efficiency.”
Deliberately vague to be sure. Does he wish to dictate how we live? Duh!
ArtFart says, “107 “Republicans don’t run around dictating how others live.”
Give me an example, Art. Bet you can’t.
118 – I seem to remember certain Republicans like Craig and Foley looking down their noses at the “homosexual lifestyle”.
And maybe a certain Republican like Vitter touting “family values”?
Come on Art…and the rest of you. Give me an example of how Republicans dictate how people should live.
You won’t be able to because it isn’t true.
It’s just one of the myths leftists believe without ever having the intellectual honesty to truly examine it.
Leftists want to control behavior in many ways. Seatbelt laws, helmet laws, smoking laws, taxing food that they deem “unhealthy” it goes on and on. I forgot, which party wants to dictate how people should live?
Crutchless @ 111
Actually, a fair source in the mainstream media with regard to civil litigation is hard to identify. The prevalence of terms in the MSM such as “ambulance chasers,” “junk science,” “greedy trial lawyers,” and “frivolous lawsuits” is entirely unjustifiable. A nice moderate periodical like The Nation would be a more reasonable source to consult on issues concerning our civil litigation system.
And the best you can do is trot out the tired old stuff about Craig, Vitter, and Foley.
I guess that is preferable to a real discussion.
Seatbelt laws, helmet laws, smoking laws, taxing food that they deem “unhealthy” it goes on and on.
So I should breathe your smoke and pay higher medical and insurance bills for the cracked skulls that land in emergency rooms.
proud leftist says at #121
Crutchless @ 111
“Poud leftist at Actually, a fair source in the mainstream media with regard to civil litigation is hard to identify. The prevalence of terms in the MSM such as “ambulance chasers,” “junk science,” “greedy trial lawyers,” and “frivolous lawsuits” is entirely unjustifiable. A nice moderate periodical like The Nation would be a more reasonable source to consult on issues concerning our civil litigation system.”
Can anyone here makes sense of this nonsense? It’s the kind of crap liberals feed to each other in their government cubicles every day. Does it ever need to make sense? Apparently not.
@121…PL…
The Nation? Moderate? Now that statement is an example of junk analysis.
Face it…trial lawyers, especially the tort bar, are well known for being “ambulance chasers,” users of “junk science,” “greedy trial lawyers,” and filers of “frivolous lawsuits.”
That you are a member of the bar certainly means you take umbrage with these assertions. But they’re routinely made because there’s ample evidence for them, and John Edwards is a poster boy for their excesses.
The Piper
Crutchless @ 124
You are a parody of a conservative. I am grateful for the pleasure you provide me. You accuse us of not being able to engage in “cogent” argument”? You wouldn’t know a cogent argument if you were gagging on one.
By the way, with regard to who wants to tell who how to live their lives: who wants to abolish abortion? who wants to tell families that their brain-dead relative cannot die with dignity? who wants laws about which consenting adults can fuck who? Bill, you’re becoming tedious. Piper at least recognizes humor–you don’t have that function.
YLB says, (in response to my comments),
“Seatbelt laws, helmet laws, smoking laws, taxing food that they deem “unhealthy” it goes on and on.
“So I should breathe your smoke and pay higher medical and insurance bills for the cracked skulls that land in emergency rooms.”
Exactly my point, YLB! You libs can’t wait to tell us how to live. What’s next for you loonies, outlawing motorcycles? You’d have less cracked skulls, wouldn’t you?
Nazis.
What’s next for you creeps, outlawing mountain climbing? Snowboarding, general aviation?
And you have the nads to accuse conservatives of “taking away our rights”.
Bill
Is there some strange dictionary wherein “asking” is a synonym for “dictating”?
Oh by the way, Proud Leftist, I have had to deal with the death of close relatives and have had to make those horrible decisions.
How does that fact bolster your position?
Bill
Is there some strange dictionary wherein “asking” is a synonym for “dictating”?
Look. It would be nice if you would reference the comment you are addressing. Maybe we actually could have a discussion.
“Bill, you’re becoming tedious.” My favorite compliment. It means I’m making at least some of you lefties think.
Bill,
It would help if you remembered what you wrote only slightly more than an hour ago:
Now, how does “asking Americans to be patriotic” equate to dictating how we live?
Well, Don Joe, how would you intrepret ““asking Americans to be patriotic”?
Would it affect what Americans drive? What they eat? How they get to work? I don’t know. Perhaps you can tell me?
Well, Don Joe, how would you intrepret ““asking Americans to be patriotic”?
Why is there any need to supply an interpretation?
“Why is there any need to supply an interpretation?”
Because you don’t have the common decency of mounting a discussion.
What’s next for you creeps’
It’s a total waste of time dealing with you Cruchon. I’m reminded of what a losing wingnut spewed at me over at (un)SP shortly after Gregoire was certified for Governor. He said,
“I’m going to enjoy seeing you twist in the wind.”
Indeed.
Sheesh, “Don Joe” you aren’t even able to mount the most feeble argument to defend your position? Wow.
Because you don’t have the common decency of mounting a discussion.
Thank you for playing, but, by your own standard, you just lost.
Wanna try again?
Sheesh, “Don Joe” you aren’t even able to mount the most feeble argument to defend your position?
Well, at present, my position is that you’re an idiot, and you’ve been doing an absolutely wonderful job of making my point for me.
“It’s a total waste of time dealing with you Cruchon.”
Your are right. Why waste your time when you can’t address any of my political points?
I hate to declare victory, but what reasonable person readiing this would not see it clearly?
@140…BC…
With apologies to Bob Marley…
I can see clearly now, Don Joe has fallen,
I can see his idiocy outta my way
Gone is that dim bulb, dark insults unkind
It’s gonna be a bright (bright), bright (bright)
Sun-Shiny day.
Threads will make sense now, that PITA is gone
All of the bad comments will disappear
Here is the rainbow I’ve been prayin’ for
It’s gonna be a bright (bright), bright (bright)
Edwards-free day.
Look all around, there’s nothin’ but no Don Joe
Look straight ahead, that gassbag can blow
I can see clearly now, Don Joe has fallen,
I can see his idiocy outta my way
Gone is that dim bulb, insults unkind
It’s gonna be a bright (bright), bright (bright)
Edwards-free day.
As we all hum the tune gleefully!
The Piper
141…
Curious…how soon before Darryl, the tolerance censor, deletes my parody of Johnny Nash’s classic, “I Can See Clearly Now?”
Probably quicker than John Edwards can file a get-rich-quick class action lawsuit where the plaintiffs end up with a $5 off coupon toward their next medical procedure made hundreds of dollars more expensive by his lawsuit, which generated massive legal fees for his own pocket.
Just remember…that video clip of him primping in the mirror? Think Dukakis and tank…It will get played and played and played until every average, middle class Joe and Jane will want to strangle the guy for the preening prig he is.
The Piper
Piper,
Your poetic license might have a bit more force if you had taken the time to correct this straw man first:
http://www.horsesass.org/?p=4055#comment-724744
Or, since Bill seems unwilling to answer a perfectly legitimate question, perhaps you can explain why the word “asking” in the text he quotes from Edwards’ web site ought to be transformed into “dictating” through creative rhetorical interpretation?
Thanks Piper,
I imagine libs think we conservatives are a humorless bunch.
On the contrary, we conservatives think libs are a humorless lot. And we are right.
Have a nice time libs at your next protest march,(complete with papier mache Bush and Cheney puppets),and your vegan feast afterwards. Barf!
We’ll be enjoying a couple of steaks, thank you!
goldy, you might be interested in this, especially since we all know that yahoo is just another right wing crazies group, right?
according to yahoo news……….
24 — Number of times Edwards referred to special interests, corporate interests or greedy companies in a recent stump speech.
0 — How often he referred to unions as a special interest.
0 — How often Edwards mentioned that his former campaign manager runs a union-backed organization that is airing ads supportive of Edwards, raising questions about possible illegal coordination.
fascinating, no?
“Don Joe” says, “Or, since Bill seems unwilling to answer a perfectly legitimate question, perhaps you can explain why the word “asking” in the text he quotes from Edwards’ web site ought to be transformed into “dictating” through creative rhetorical interpretation?”
How many times do I need to say it, “Don Joe” or whatever your real name is, if you wan’t to have an honest discussion I would gladly do so. Most conservatives would as well. We aren’t ashamed of our beliefs.
How many times do I need to say it, “Don Joe” or whatever your real name is, if you wan’t to have an honest discussion I would gladly do so.
We were having an honest discussion right up to the point where you questioned my decency. Not that it bothers me, but there really was no justification for you to go ballistic.
You asked me how I would interpret something that’s written in plain English. Your question assumes that the text requires interpretation, and I’m questioning the validity of that assumption. Not only that, I did so politely by asking you why you think the text needs interpretation.
Now, you can explain why the text requires some kind of interpretation, or you can get back to the unhinged personal attack for which you’ve chastised other folks in this comment thread. Your choice.
This is all I need to know about this guy to disqualify him as a candidate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQFhdFfl6rM
He just re-wrote the constitution in 1 min.
please run John Edwards as the Democrat nominee for President…
Tell me “Don Joe” what you are talking about?
“since Bill seems unwilling to answer a perfectly legitimate question, perhaps you can explain why the word “asking” in the text he quotes from Edwards’ web site ought to be transformed into “dictating” through creative rhetorical interpretation?g about.”
Can “Don Joe” produce commentary that is worth addressing? I think probably not. He must be a university professor. His incomprehensible garbarge is what we all pay for.
@143…DJ…
That I pointed out a failure in the Canadian single-payer health system isn’t a strawman, it’s merely what the Vancouver Sun reported.
That Demo Prexy candidates WITHOUT EXCEPTION all endorse moving closer to, if not actually emulating, such a system rather than backing away from greater governmental involvement in health care insurance isn’t in dispute.
For you…with apologies to Harold Arlen and E. Y. Harburg…
You could while away the hours, smokin’ MJ flowers
Goin’ against the grain.
And your head would be poppin’ while
Your thoughts are awful sloppin’
‘Cause you han’na gotta brain.
In your drawers you wouldn’t piddle, potty’s not a riddle,
Down your leg it will not rain.
Your thoughts will be so moldy
you could be another Goldy,
‘Cause you han’na got a brain.
Oh, you could tell us why you’re such a bore.
You could think of why you’ve always stunk before.
And then you’d sit, and stink some more.
You would not be just a flushin’ your bowl all full and gushin’
Your floor be needin’ a drain.
Wide-stance pants just like Larry, to keep ’em dry, you’re no fairy,
Still…you han’na got a brain.
I know where you can get some straw wholesale…
The Piper
@89 . Bill Cruchon
WHAT!!! Yiu mean Giulinai is not a trans-sexual?? I am shocked! He looks so good in a wig I figured …
oh well.
If you can not see that kissing Pat Robertsons’ rings is pandering, ther eis ni hope. God is going to get us all.
Piper,
No one claims that the Canadian system is perfect. There are some, including the World Health Organization, who claim that it’s better than ours, but that’s not a claim that can be rebutted via anecdotal evidence in general and certainly not by picking Meeks’ situation while ignoring Nataline Sarkisyan’s.
Bill,
Since Piper @ 150 addressed my commentary, one would have to conclude that I am capable. Ball’s back in your court, sport. Are you going to explain why you think it’s necessary to interpret something that’s written in plain English?
I’m for Edwards, he’s the top white male. I want to win and in this country the white male wins. Besides, I agree with his populism. A plaintiff’s attorney would have perfect training to be predident.
@95 Piper
I am not at all disappointed that you do not find my wit worthwhile.
What isa fellow to do when faced with such .. passionate intellectuals as yourself?
Why just the other day I was telling Jim, my friend the run away slave, “Jim, we is so lucky to be ‘sposed to folks whoknow the truth! What the world be if folks rever asked what it was that they were being fed?”
Jim, being lots smarter that I, just smiled …
Cruchon: A guy who thinks nothing of shilling out four hundred bucks for a haircut?
You’ve got a point here. Imagine how many skanky prostitutes and how much bathroom sex you can buy for $400…
Pat Robertson? Are you really that deluded SeattleJew?
I don’t really imagine so. But I do believe that you are a harmless goofball of the first order.
You make fun of Pat Robertson. I’m no fan of his. But you live in a loopy left sphere. What does concern me is that you loons want to impose your twisted view of reality on young people,(the same way your hated Christians do).
I don’t go along with you people. You are more than willing to indocrinate young people with communism and you don’t give it a second thought.
@155…Skagit…
Spare us taxing our imaginations and tell us, Skagit, from your own experience how many skanky prostitutes and bathroom sex have you purchased for $400? You do, after all, profess to be an expert!
The Piper
@120 Bill Cruchon
Come on Art…and the rest of you. Give me an example of how Republicans dictate how people should live.
Is this a lollipop? Fore free>>
Lessee
sunday laws
abortion laws
censorship
water boarding
cannot go t Cuba laws
must listen to prayer rules.
can not walk near lajke cuz it is “owned”
must not fuck doggy style laws
do not burn my flag laws
kee wealth in the family laws
only rich kids can go to school laws
women can’t voye laws .. ok that is changed
can’t see photos I like laws
craete huge debt for my kids laws
pretend something called “God” created the world laws
dess right or else laws
don’t smoke herbs laws
don’t buy drigs from Canada laws
goitta get to the caucus.
@154…Steve…
Careful…when you use literary referances to parody, you implicitely endorse their merit and place in the cultural pantheon.
With “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” you’ll get yourself into trouble with the politically correct crowd who object to Clemens/Twain’s perfect ear for dialogue and his use of language common in his day and heard on the Mississippi.
When faced with such intellecutals such as I? Wink and know that a grain of salt and good sport make it palatable.
The Piper
Lessee
sunday laws
abortion laws
censorship
water boarding
cannot go t Cuba laws
must listen to prayer rules.
can not walk near lajke cuz it is “owned”
must not fuck doggy style laws
do not burn my flag laws
kee wealth in the family laws
only rich kids can go to school laws
“women can’t voye laws .. ok that is changed
can’t see photos I like laws
craete huge debt for my kids laws
pretend something called “God” created the world laws
dess right or else laws
don’t smoke herbs laws
don’t buy drigs from Canada laws
goitta get to the caucus.”
Is this not a lot of pathetic garbage I don’t know what is.
Does anyone else find this disturbing?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQFhdFfl6rM
This last demonstration only puts an explanation point on what I’ve said all along. Leftists can not argue political points on face value. They call names, and divert. It’s what they do because they don’t have the honesty to actually have an honest discussion.
leftie@80…….”ghost
My definition of “success” has nothing to do with accumulation of wealth. John Edwards reached the acme of achievement in the courtroom, which is a highly competitive environment. You might not think much of what lawyers do, but we would live in a much more authoritarian, repressed, and corporate nation without them. You, my dear, would have far less liberty and security if not for what trial lawyers do. John Edwards also was elected senator in a red state. That’s quite an achievement. He is highly successful by any rational definition of success. Moreover, through his work, he has made the world a better place.”
OHMYGOD…………..i couldn’t stop laughing. that’s just a classic!a classic i tell you!
wow….and this is why so many americans despise attorneys and their apologists…the far left.what is destroying our constitution are lawyers[judges] legislating from the bench, and their counter parts… the attorneys that try their cases in the court of public opinion.
you can’t be serious? do you realize the DAMAGE most trial lawyers have inflicted upon this nation and our laws? can you read? have you ever had any life or business experience?
have you MET any litigators?
WOW, WOW, WOW………really, this is just TOO telling of your lack of experience.
my ‘dislike’ for attorneys as you put it is based on experience. lot’s of it.and it’s not so much dislike as complete lack of respect for 99% of them.most of them are lazy liars that you have to beat into doing anything.except billing…they are great at that. what they are really afraid of though is pretty much what the average liberal is afraid of….an intelligent, educated, savvy individual.or worse yet…..a populace that is savvy to their particular brand of BS.
seattle jew @86……HUH? not surprising but as usual you really aren’t making any sense other than to show us that you won’t agree with a republican even if you do. interesting…….
bill@89…..it gets more interesting when you learn that seattle jew isn’t just an idiot on here…he is at “work” too.and here’s the really scary part…the guy that can’t spell, can barely read and has no respect for real FACTS [seattle jew] is a RESEARCHER. so he is raping away your tax dollars. start paying attention to when and how often he posts. it’s fascinating.unless of course you happen to have scleroderma and then you will wonder what in the hell the government is thinking giving this idiot lab space and YOUR money. lookee here:http://depts.washington.edu/mc.....php?id=144
i’ll bet peta doesn’t like him very much. but he wouldn’t do anything to be a hypocrite right? i mean all liberals mean what they say and follow the party line right?
wrong…..
and YLB……..”Seatbelt laws, helmet laws, smoking laws, taxing food that they deem “unhealthy” it goes on and on.”
uh huh…..do you know how many of those were pushed by the left?? i’ll give you a hint. john edwards+ smoking…it’s a thinker…….
RS
No. Next question?
Enjoying how Don Joe can’t respond.
Cruchon
You are absolutely incapable of recognizing fair argument. SeattleJew @ 158 annihilated you. You, however, being of a rightist bent, have no clue what just happened. Keep posting, puppy, you make those of us on the left look so much smarter.
Since Bill won’t actually answer my question, I’m left to infer:
1) When a Republican-controlled Congress passes laws that restrict our freedoms, that’s not dictating how people should behave.
2) When Democrats ask us to do something, that is dictating how people should behave.
Gee Don,
I guess you’d be for running a few constitutional ammendments then?
Let’s see
It is a right under the constitution to have health care, go to college, come here illegally and become a citizen, but not to own a handgun.
He’s right there are two Americas. The one all of us live in under the Constitution of the United States, and then the one he tries to pander to sheep about, the la la land he describes above…
Ah did that rant the no sane person can comprehend at #158 count as some kind of intellectual victory?
Not for me.
RS
No, sport, I’m just not at all impressed with your hyperbole regarding off-the-cuff answers to a few shotgun questions.
Ah did that rant the no sane person can comprehend at #158 count as some kind of intellectual victory?
Not for me.
Bill, I think just about everyone here would agree that, in your mind, you’re incapable of losing an argument.
“1) When a Republican-controlled Congress passes laws that restrict our freedoms, that’s not dictating how people should behave.”
What law did the “Republican controlled Congress” pass that restricted your freedoms?
I think it should be a right that we all have a house. And a boat and a plane. But why stop there? It is a right for everyone to have free access to legal aid. It is a right that we all have watches, plasma tv’s and ipods…..
What law did the “Republican controlled Congress” pass that restricted your freedoms?
I’m waiting, you goofball liars.
@169
Yeah, I agree, I mean it was “shotgun questions”, easy to mix up rights and privelges.
I mean that must have been some kind of pressure he was under there….
As President it would be much easier
What law did the “Republican controlled Congress” pass that restricted your freedoms?
Pick one. If it’s not a budget bill, the effect of any law is to restrict our freedoms.
What law did the “Republican controlled Congress” pass that restricted your freedoms?
I’m waiting, you goofball liars.
If you have a brain in your head you would know what party wants to take away your rights.
RS
You’re ignoring the “off-the-cuff” part, which is keeping your comments in the realm of hyperbole.
Two quick points:
A right doesn’t have to be enumerated in the Constitution for something to be a right. That’s generally subject to a broad policy debate, which usually involves more than off-the-cuff answers to a bunch of quick questions.
There is a good deal of gray area regarding handguns and the Second Amendment. Pointing out the existence of that gray area doesn’t imply that any one stance is correct over all others, but it does mean that reasonable arguments can be made both ways.
Piper Scott: how can you possible consult for anyone with a reading comprehension level of -10? Imagine – look it up in Merriam Webster.
Or check with your friend Larry Craig. I imagine he’d know.
Oh yes, let us bring up Larry Craig. Much easier than actually talking about political points. Jerks.
Bill,
You asked, for a second time, “What law did the “Republican controlled Congress” pass that restricted your freedoms?”
So, you’re incapable of looking up major legislation passed by various Republican-Controlled Congresses? Or, does, say, the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act not restrict our freedoms?
If you didn’t see my latest thanks on the Condos is Ballard thread, again I say thanks. Great book and good ideas.
Now, Larry Craig – easy? Yes, I agree.
Regarding laws the Repugs passed restricting freedoms? None. They didn’t pass any laws. They by-passed that whole legislative option and moved straight to “just do it.” Or, was-a-Dem-on-duty-when-they-eavesdropped-on-your-email-telephone-transmissions?
Sorry, I forget.
Skagit
I did see it, but have been shelled by peanuts enough to preclude acknowledging in a way that I thought was appropriate. I’m glad you liked the book.
re 100: No. I can do much better than that. Just wait and you will discover once again how well I can shut-you-down.
Cruchon: the legendary debater who never loses an argument.
A legend in his own mind, that is.
Too much trolling here. I’ll puke for a moment, here.
How is Larry Craig not a political point, trolls?
“I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations…. The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home.” James Madison
The Crutch’s and Piper’s how “odd” calm, superior indifference to the frontal attack on our Constitutional rights is such that Goebbels would be proud.
They are insipid anti-intellectuals with shallow intelligence and totally lacking wisdom or courage. Without talking points and attitude they would disappear from the conversation.
re 189: This shallow, partisan reading of current and historical events is glaringly obvious in Jonah Goldberg’s juvenile rant about John F. Kennedy being a ‘cult of personality’ type of fascist.
Reagan and Bush, however, escape Goldberg’s sievelike analysis.
But, then again, his book is not to prove a historical thesis, but to get in some cheap and easily refuted nonsense that will only convince a Crutch or Piper who is already a DUPE.
Revisionist history and easy profits. Well, the right is all about hypocrisy and money. What else would one expect?
@156 nice thing about Bill he is even less knowledgeable than Pipe .. I have hope for Pipe, Bil????
Is Bill real?? maybe I will ask harvey if he knows?
Billdoes remind me of a certain sock puppet who shows up here pretneding to be a jazz musician? Hmm.
Yep Bill .. I do find Robetson and his ilk … disgusting.
BTW, I fought aagainstt the commies .. what have you done?
Do you even know anything about Communism? Can you name the three pillers or seven contingencies?? I will bet not!
You remind me of a lecture I once heard about in which Marcuse used the dialect properties of materialism to explain the inevitable failure of free markets in titanium!
I tell you, this one one awesome experience.
@4 et al. — The size of Edwards’ house and how much he pays for haircuts are irrelevant. This is America, where most people believe that a guy is entitled to a big house and expensive haircuts if he can afford them, asshole! When someone runs for president, what’s relevant is not how he lives but how his policies will affect how YOU live, and Edwards is spot-on. The middle class is being attacked by the greedheads and workers are getting screwed by the GOP; he will change that. His policies are just what ordinary Americans need. The GOP benefits only a privileged few.
P.S., I notice you don’t criticize Republicans who live in big houses and pay a lot for haircuts … why is that, you fucking hypocrite? Never mind, we all know the answer … you’re just looking for an excuse — any excuse — the criticize a Democratic candidate. Well, try this on for size, Republican: In 10 months, we’re going to clean your clock!
@15 “No, we are just disgusted at the shameful condescending pandering to the poor.”
Please don’t, don’t, don’t tell us about all the wonderful things Republicans have done for the poor — you’re already disgusting enough without adding shameful condescension to your rap sheet.
@16 “Nincompoops like Edwards and their supporters who don’t realize that those ‘big multinational corporations’ they rail against provide a lot of the jobs for middle class working families.”
Really? Every time I pick up a newspaper, I see another story about how many people are getting laid off by this or that Big Corporation … small businesses employ far more people than Big Bidness, and nearly all the job creation is by small businesses. I guess that makes YOU a nincompoop, huh.
@24 Ya know, we’re not even asking for a level playing field … all I want is the same tax rate for working people that rich investors get.
For years, we’ve listened to Republicans pontificate about how bad taxes are, their negative effect on incentive, etc. … then why did so little of the Republicans’ tax cuts filter down to wage earners? Why are they so focused on cutting taxes ONLY FOR UNEARNED INCOME?
Let me tell you something. I don’t work or produce anything! Why should I? I have no incentive to work! If I worked, I would pay twice the tax rate that I pay on the FREE MONEY I get by playing the stock market! Congerss doesn’t want me to work. This is obvious from the fact that a succession of Republican Congresses voted to punish work by taxing earned income at the highest rates in the tax code! Only saps work. I live off the fat of the land like Republicans do! That way, I get to pay Republican tax rates.
@32 “Earlier this month, it was reported that despite the fact he denounces predatory lending and subprime mortgages for the poor, Edwards made nearly $500,000 as a consultant to a hedge fund involved in that business.”
Bill — does this mean you’re going to denounce the hedge fund guys who make in excess of $1 billion a year for flipping companies? (BTW, what does that PRODUCE?)
(patiently waiting)
@32 Cruchon — since when are Republicans conservatives? What rock have you been under? Republicans ceased to be conservatives quite some time ago.
Good night.
wow! This thread is already up to 200 posts! That’s more than the Recycled Trotskyites’ sucky little blog gets in a whole fucking month!
Rabbit says @32 “Cruchon — since when are Republicans conservatives? What rock have you been under? Republicans ceased to be conservatives quite some time ago”
What post were you reading, Rabbit? Surely quite a leap even for you. I was merely quoting a snippet of the ample evidence available that John Edwards is a hypocrite of the first order. That you lefties fawn over phonies like Edwards,and Hillary cracks me up.
Just how, Don Joe, does the “Family Entertainment and Copyright Act” restrict your freedoms? Near as I can tell it only takes away your ability to profit by bootlegging someone else’s creative work.
You folks have to dig awfully deep to find actual instances of Republicans “taking away our freedoms” as you put it.
Seattle Jew’s rambling stream of conciousness list, including things such as,”Sunday Laws”(what are they?) “abortion laws” (shame on us for wanting to protect innocent life),”must listen to prayer rules” (name one law any Republican supports that would do that), only shows how paranoid leftists have become and how they base their beliefs about conservatives not on facts but knee-jerk emotionalism.
After 200+ posts here (and the usual name calling I expect from the enlightened left) no one has addressed why one would support Edwards for President.
Bill,
You still haven’t explained why a text written in plain English needs to be interpreted. Were I you, I’d probably be making comments denigrating your courage and common decency. Since I’m me, however, so I’ll just thank your for being such an incredibly useful evidentiary data point.
“You still haven’t explained why a text written in plain English needs to be interpreted.”
Pray tell Don Joe just what you are referring to? I’ll be happy to respond.
Near as I can tell [the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act] only takes away your ability to profit by bootlegging someone else’s creative work.
We had existing laws that already made that illegal. One of the things the FECA made illegal is using your cell phone to capture a portion of a movie in a theater regardless if how, or even whether, you distribute that portion.
Exactly, Don Joe. What makes you lefties think you have the right to bootleg the creative work of others?
Are you against copyright laws as well?
And by the way, do you not realize that Hollywood,(which is primarily left), was likely behind the FECA?
Pray tell Don Joe just what you are referring to? I’ll be happy to respond.
Oh, I think you know perfectly well what I’m talking about. Just about everyone else does. In any event, scroll back up to comments 132 through 134, and answer the question now that you’re no longer apoplectic.
What makes you lefties think you have the right to bootleg the creative work of others?
Go back and read the law. Bootlegging is irrelevant. The act is illegal even if you don’t distribute the capture.
‘Course, one could also note that the original copyright laws do, indeed, restrict our freedoms, which is the point. You never asked me about laws that, somehow, unjustly or unfairly restrict our freedoms. You simply asked about laws that restrict our freedoms, apparently being ignorant of the notion that the basic purpose of most laws is to tell us precisely what we can and cannot do–i.e. dictating how we should live our lives.
You’re just a game player, Don Joe. I’ll specifically address any topic you choose. Good grief!
I’ll say it again. To support the oft said claim of lefists that the “Bush Administration has taken away our rights” you have to dig awfully deep.
The irony is that the one law you cite, Don Joe, I strongly suspect was actually backed by the left.
You’re just a game player, Don Joe.
I’m not the one who is steadfastly refusing to answer a legitimate question.
I’ll specifically address any topic you choose.
Except the one issue I’ve asked you to address.
Good grief!
No kidding!
To support the oft said claim of lefists that the “Bush Administration has taken away our rights” you have to dig awfully deep.
Which isn’t a point of fact that anyone here has raised.
#198 Rabbit, “Bill — does this mean you’re going to denounce the hedge fund guys who make in excess of $1 billion a year for flipping companies? (BTW, what does that PRODUCE?)
(patiently waiting)
Of course not, Roger. You miss the entire point. Name me one hedge fund manager that makes a billion a year “flipping companies”. I bet you can’t.
The point I’m making is John Edwards doesn’t walk his talk. Neither does Al Gore, but that is another long subject.
The point which escapes you is that Edwards,(like Gore), is a hypocrite and a phony. Leftists are experts at pointing out phonies on the right. It amazes me that you fall for the charlatans on your own side so easily.
Don Joe, “I’m not the one who is steadfastly refusing to answer a legitimate question.
(I said),”I’ll specifically address any topic you choose.”
Except the one issue I’ve asked you to address.
So ask me again! I have no idea what “topic” you are referring to.
I’ll do my best to respond. If you just want to keep playing silly games that is your choice.
re 210: The trouble with the Bush administration is not so much the laws they pass as the existing laws they break.
Crutch: How do you justify Bush’s repeated brreaking of the FISA law?
Here’s some background for you on the subject:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler......scism.html
“Reporting by the Rocky Mountain News and court documents and testimony in a case involving Qwest Communications strongly suggest that in February 2001 Hayden saluted smartly when the Bush administration instructed NSA to suborn AT&T, Verizon, and Qwest to spy illegally on you, me, and other Americans. Bear in mind that this would have had nothing to do with terrorism, which did not really appear on the new administration’s radar screen until a week before 9/11, despite the pleading of Clinton aides that the issue deserved extremely high priority.”
Crutch: The tricky way you approach a subject convinces me that you are a willing and conscious traitor to the ideals of America.
There is no: “In other words, what you are saying is
Has Bush been “spying” on you, Lucy? Has he been spying on anyone you know?
Of course not. If Bush was really concerned about you and your opinions I would think Horsesass.org would not exist.
Now if you want to talk about those on the left who genuinely want to squelch free speech by restoring the “fairness doctrine” we might really have something to discuss.
You are scared of the wrong people.
“Crutch: The tricky way you approach a subject convinces me that you are a willing and conscious traitor to the ideals of America.”
Once again, an ad-hominem attack.
You can’t help yourselves.
re 217: No. That is not an ad hominem attack. It is an attack based on reasoned analysis of the facts.
I’m giving you credit for knowing that Bush breaks the law in his surveillance activies, and in other areas.
You, however, ignore this fact and choose insead to ask what laws have been passed by the Republican Congress that impinge on our freedom.
That is tricky, adversarial, and leads to nothing but opaque verbiage on your part that, I believe (because the evidence leads me to believe) is ‘tricky’ in the worst sense of Dicky.
Oh good lord.
You aren’t one of those 911 conspiracy followers are you, Lucy?
“Dicky”? Hmmm, are you referring to Cheney, or Nixon?
Too funny.
I hate to be the one to tell you and Hillary Lucy, but the 1960’s ended a long, long time ago. Take the advice of the left’s favorite websites and “Move on”.
re 219 & 220: I did not say anything about conspiracies or 9/11.
I simply reminded you of the fact that the Bush administraion has been illegally suveiling citizens since before Feb. of 2001.
I then asked you how (or if) you would justify this illegal surveillance?
By-the-by, Crutch, don’t you think labeling me as a conspiracy theorist is just the sort of ad hominem attack you’ve been decrying?
Lucy says “By-the-by, Crutch, don’t you think labeling me as a conspiracy theorist is just the sort of ad hominem attack you’ve been decrying?”
I didn’t label you at all. I merely asked the question. Libs are so touchy!
I’d be concerned if I actually thought the Bush Administration was illegally wiretapping innocent citizens,(since before Feb 2001). What do you think Bush wants to do, round up liberals and send them to concentration camps? Oh wait, that’s the kind of thing lefties do…I almost forgot.
Again I ask you (rather than “label” you) if you are a 911 conspiracy theorist?
Bill,
How do you manage to stay on that rhetorical merry-go-round without getting dizzy? Or, perhaps, you are getting dizzy, which would explain a lot.
Did you not go back and read comments 132 through 134, or is it apparent to everyone but you that your responses to the questions I’ve asked are evasive?
Don Joe says, “Bill,
How do you manage to stay on that rhetorical merry-go-round without getting dizzy? Or, perhaps, you are getting dizzy, which would explain a lot.
Did you not go back and read comments 132 through 134, or is it apparent to everyone but you that your responses to the questions I’ve asked are evasive?”
Another ad-hominem attack.
I’ve asked you repeatedly Don Joe to ask me once again the questions that you feel I am evading. How difficult can that be?
ad-hominem
You keep using that word. It might be more effective if you knew what it meant. That way, you could use it properly once in a while.
lucy@222……..what about hillary’s holding 40,000+ IRS records and FILES on her “enemies” while HER HUSBAND was the president??? HMMM? i put the “her husband” part in caps because hillary never did get that no one elected her, and i’m pretty sure you don’t understand that either. and they won’t be electing her this time around either.
and bill…..you will never get any of these non thinkers to ever actually think on their own. they are incapable of it.
just go and reread some of seattle jew’s bullshit and then remember that this man is doing research. he cannot spell, cannot keep things straight,has a brain pan the size of a mouses and yet? he is getting grant money from the government.
can you imagine what his data must look like?
hey stephen …why don’t you share with everyone here the names of the BIG PHARMA companies that are paying you too?
come on…don’t be shy. i know who they are…….
come on stephen…you are always calling republicans liars…you wouldn’t want to be one too, now would you?
ad-hominem is a method by which one attempts to discredit an argument by attacking the deliverer of the argument. Or do you have an alternative definition?
Is everyone on this blog cursed with a lack of self-awareness?
Christmasghost says, “and bill…..you will never get any of these non thinkers to ever actually think on their own. they are incapable of it.”
How well I know it. Libs are a snarling, angry bunch of people. Particularly those who grew up in the ’60’s. I count some of my friends I grew up with back then in this category. I know better than to discuss politics with them, they usually end up all “offended” and tend to start screaming. Libs love to believe they are open minded. Only if you agree with their beliefs.
Another TJ says,”Is everyone on this blog cursed with a lack of self-awareness?”
Is this post a good candidate for the “Snotty Condescending Comment Hall of Fame”?
It gets my vote.
bill….too true. i have a few of those “friends” too, and funny thing, though no one EVER takes them seriously[and this is in california] it’s okay by them because they take themselves waaay too seriously already. they don’t even notice.
the ones that are the most annoying? the goldy’s of the world. he isn’t old enough to be a 60’s loser…..it’s even worse than that. he’s a 60’s WANNA BE loser. how sad is that?
he ,and the others, have so little imagination that they can’t even come up with their own shtick.
and i love their rationalization of censorship….don’t you?
Thanks for illustrating my point. Cheers.
another tj……..okay, you poor thing. that’s just sad……..
and drinking so early in the day? wow….i would just hate to think that facts drove you to it…….heh heh heh
Christmasghost, younger lefties like Goldy I imagine are products of a politically correct educational establishment that has long been taken over by the left. I don’t notice that they really examine why they believe leftist dogma. They don’t know any conservatives and they wouldn’t talk to them if they did. They hate Fox News but have never watched it. They hate Rush Limbaugh but have never heard him. They accuse those they disagree with of bias but are unable to see it in themselves. It’s all about the liberal feel-goodism they’ve had pounded into them ever since they started in day-care.
Another ad-hominem attack.
Hold that thought for a minute.
I’ve asked you repeatedly Don Joe to ask me once again the questions that you feel I am evading. How difficult can that be?
It’s not so difficult as it is tedious given that I have, a) already asked the question, and b) twice, now, told you where you can find the question you haven’t asked (comments 132 through 134 in this thread), at which point, all you have to do is use the scroll bar. How difficult can that be?
As for whether or not my comment above is an ad-hominem argument, allow me to quote you:
ad-hominem is a method by which one attempts to discredit an argument by attacking the deliverer of the argument.
I have, at no point, argued that your argument is invalid because you are being a pratt. I’ve merely pointed out that you’re being a pratt.
I have, at no point, argued that your argument is invalid because you are being a pratt. I’ve merely pointed out that you’re being a pratt.
Ding! Ding! Ding!
We have a winner.
Don Joe, after infinite patience with you perhaps I am merely left with responding in the manner I see so often on this blog. Stick it up your ass.
Bill,
Stick it up your ass.
You’ve been trying to do that for two days now.
I have to say, I don’t think a more whiny-assed, piss-ant shit-head has graced these hallowed halls than you, Bill. Most people, when cornered in a bogus argument, will apologize and move on. You, on the other hand, have dragged this out to a record-breaking level of evasive polemics and personal insults (of which you claim to be aloof, but obviously aren’t).
And, to reiterate: I’m not saying that your argument is shit because you’re an idiot. I’m saying you’re an idiot because your argument is shit.
One more chance Don Joe. Where was I cornered in a “bogus argument”?
Give me the decency of answering specifically. Whatever point you feel you must have made escapes me. Please don’t keep referring me back to old posts. Let’s have a dialogue for heaven’s sake.
I’ve attempted over and over again to engage with you. Are you willing to have an honest discussion and perhaps a bit of disagreement?
You’re all steamed up about my comments at #132 and #134?
How so?
I think I answered your question at #132 pretty well. It made you mad but you weren’t able to mount a response, were you? No, you just posted an evasive response at #134.
Remind me again why it’s nearly impossible to have a discussion with lefties.
“I have to say, I don’t think a more whiny-assed, piss-ant shit-head has graced these hallowed halls than you, Bill.”
Coming from the left there is almost no higher compliment you could pay me.
re 223: “What do you think Bush wants to do, round up liberals and send them to concentration camps? Oh wait, that’s the kind of thing lefties do…I almost forgot.”
Just another one of your innocent questions that is NOT an ad hominem attack?
That’s the kind of thing authoritarian extremists of the right or left do. I believe you are an authoritarian of the right who is blind to your own evil.
Didn’t answer my questions did you Lucy? Was 911 a big Bush conspiracy or not? Asking questions does not constitute an ad-hominem attack. It constitutes an attempt at dialogue.
Bill,
First of all, I’m not all steamed up. I am amused.
Secondly, I asked you how you managed to translate the word “asking” to mean “dictating”. Frankly, I think you knew, at that point, that your claim of Democrats “dictating” (your word) how we should live wasn’t backed up by the quote you provided. Rather than acknowledge this, however, you chose to divert attention away from your rhetorical sleight of hand. If that’s not, fundamentally, dishonest behavior in the intellectual realm, then I really don’t know what qualifies.
Lastly, my response to 134 was not at all evasive. Your initial answer at 132 completely failed to address the glaring difference in meaning between the words “asking” and “dictating”, and chose to focus on the behaviors that we were being asked to undertake. You brought up the issue of interpretation, and I merely asked you why we should even inject interpretation into the discussion.
The rest has been you dancing a jig, and the rest of us wishing you had a bit more Michael Flatley influence in your step while being quite impressed with how rapidly you can twirl.
I stand by what I said Don Joe. I believe Democrats such as John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, and Al Gore want to “dictate” how we live, rather than “ask” us.
That’s my opinion. Do you know what the word “opinion” means? Or is an “opinion” not allowed in your liberal universe?
I merely ventured my “opinion” for crying out loud. Perhaps it differs from yours. Is that reason for the top of your head to blow off?
This entire tiresome discussion, Don Joe, is a classic illustration of what is wrong with inflexible leftists.
I stand by what I said Don Joe. I believe Democrats such as John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, and Al Gore want to “dictate” how we live, rather than “ask” us.
You can stand on your head, for all I care. What’s the basis for this belief?
You are certainly entitled to whatever opinion you want to have. You’re entitled to the opinion that the grass is blue and the sky is green. If you want that opinion to be taken seriously outside the confines of your own noggin, however, you’re going to have to come up with more than just a flat assertion that whenever Democrats use the word “ask” they really mean “dictate”.
I think you doth protest too much Don Joe.
If you don’t believe liberals are the folks that brought us bicycle helmets, want to nationalize healthcare, restrict what we drive and force us to take mass transit, ban our fireplaces, and tax food they deem harmful to us you live in a fantasy land.
And I didn’t even mention how liberals restrict your right to cut down a tree on your own property. Or in the case of rural King County they “dictate” how a person can use their land.
But liberal Democrats don’t want to “dictate” how we live. Oh please.
How many examples do I need to cite for you to understand my point?
Got more if you need them.
Bill,
No, but if you think this is solely the purview of liberals, then you certainly are living in a fantasy world. I live in Woodinville (the city proper, not way out in the boonies). Try rezoning your 2 acre parcel so you can build six houses on it. And, if you think the folks in my Woodinville neighborhood are generally liberal, then you’re really living in fantasy land. I learned early on that discussing politics amongst my neighbors was not going to be a reasonable way to win friends and influence people.
Both liberals and conservatives want to dictate how people behave. They’re just interested in different behaviors. Conservatives, for example, don’t want our teachers to give our children a comprehensive sex education, and, to the extent that conservatives have succeeded in this endeavor, unwanted teen pregnancies have been on the rise.
The difference between liberals and conservatives isn’t in the extent to which each wants to dictate how we behave. The difference is in the rationales behind those efforts to dictate how we behave. For example, liberals want a comprehensive sex education, because, as data shows, it results in fewer unwanted teen pregnancies. Conservatives want a restricted sex education, because anything but an abstinence-only education violates their puritan sensibilities.
And, if you think that last sentence is a mischaracterization of the Conservative point of view, then perhaps you can explain Wendy Wright’s remarks on FOX news a few nights ago about the motives of people who want a complete sex education.
Conservatives seem to not grasp the concept that collective behavior can have negative aggregate results. For example, if only a few of us want to burn some steaks on the grill for dinner, then the particulate emissions aren’t likely to have a negative affect on anyone. On the other hand, if we mash together more burning steaks along with a lot of smoke-spewing fireplaces and the right weather conditions, we can, collectively, create a circumstance that aversely affects people who have respiratory ailments.
So, no, the difference isn’t in what various politicians want to dictate. The difference is in the basis that politicians use to decide when and what to dictate.
Correction. That should read “difference isn’t in that various politicians”
bill and don joe………..bill gets it, but sadly, joe, you do not.
your point that both PARTIES [remember….we are not talking about individual americans we are talking about political parties with agendas] want to tell people how to live and when and where is valid, BUT,even you [if you are being honest] would have to admit that you are much more likely to hear “there ought to be a law” coming out of some lefties mouth.the left, as a whole, is knee jerk reactionary to any “facts” [talking points] that they are fed.second hand smoke, helmet laws, stupid drug laws were the right’s idiocy but the left was still cheerleading, ad nauseum…….
classic example: is the earth getting warmer? yes it is and it MUST be out fault[oh, please!] forget all that scientific stuff about the suns solar flares, forget that this pattern has happened many many times in earth’s past [greenland,anyone???], and that we are repeating a pattern that is close to around the turn of the century. why forget it? because al gore said so.
as with that ‘sicko’ moore, cuba’s health “care” system MUST be the best…because he said so.
i have never seen so many non-thinkers in my life.
joe…here’s something i am just asking you to consider:
have you noticed that people are not allowed to have a PERSONAL opinion anymore? if someone even makes a statement that years ago would have just automatically been considered nothing more than their personal opinion it is now considered a “STATEMENT”. yup…..if i say i like red beans than what i am really saying in liberal land is that EVERYONE SHOULD LIKE RED BEANS or they must be a fascist pig.
it has been pretty slick the way the 60’s retreads have been carefully socially engineering things ….but i think their time is about up.
aren’t you tired of repeating things that you either know absolutely nothing about other than what was fed you, or you know they are untrue but you are pushing an agenda? have you even considered that maybe that agenda isn’t so good for this country and the PEOPLE in it?
and what’s more….have you even considered that fact that you know even better than i do that you really don’t know much of anything? are there any successful liberals that post here?and i mean in the real sense. because if you can’t make the grade financially and personally you have what to say again?
that is what i keep pondering. i cannot name even one far leftie that has been a success in anything and yet, here they are telling everyone how to live their lives, and how to run the country.
but never any real ideas….just critiques of the actual WORK everyone else…the producers…are doing. and that’s easy.
but then, i always have to come back to the one four letter word that isn’t a favorite of every left wing parasite on here….W-O-R-K.
maybe that’s it…………
So may I take it that you concede the argument, Don Joe? You even go as far as to say,
“Both liberals and conservatives want to dictate how people behave.” A grudging and not entirely accurate admission. But I’ll take it.
What an amazing change from all the ranting you’ve done for the last 24-hours. You could have saved yourself all that trouble if you had dared to be honest with yourself.
“Conservatives seem to not grasp the concept that collective behavior can have negative aggregate results.”
Translation? We liberals are smarter that you are and we will “dictate” how you should conduct your lives.
What a bunch of anal, meddling assholes.
Ghost,
I get that you believe in some stereotypes about conservatives vs liberals. What neither you nor Bill seem to grasp is that your stereotypes are superficial caricatures and not at all accurate.
The rest of your screed consists of nothing more than denial after denial of scientifically established facts, and it’s this denial of scientifically established fact that earns most of you conservatives the disdain you get from liberals. Stop denying science, and you’ll find liberals more open to a reasoned discussion with you.
Bill,
So may I take it that you concede the argument, Don Joe?
No. I’ll concede half the point, but that’s not the entire argument. You drew it up this notion of dictating as a point of distinction between liberals and conservatives. That’s bullshit. Moreover, you’ve accused Edwards of hypocrisy for asking people to change their behavior on the basis that you think the word “asking,” as used in that particular text, is some kind of code word. That argument has, to be kind, fallen flat on its face. If you’re going to suggest I concede anything, wouldn’t it be at all appropriate for you to concede that your reading of the Edwards campaign site is more than just a tad problematic?
Moreover, your plaintive wail about liberals just wanting to dictate how people live is a hand-wave that avoids having any discussion about why in some cases it’s entirely appropriate for government to dictate how people live. It’s called “governance”. It’s why we have a government in the first place. These are basic principles that you simply want to toss out the window for no other reason than the fact that you don’t like having someone tell you that you can’t do something even when you doing it hurts other people.
We liberals are smarter that you are and we will “dictate” how you should conduct your lives.
Again, you have the “implies” operator pointing in the wrong direction. If you insist on refusing to engage in issue debates based on this “dictation” pablum, then you run the risk of having your government tell you that you cannot do something you think you should be able to do.
I love this from Mr. Don Joe who has implied in post after post,(to paraphrase), “how dare you Bill accuse liberals of wanting to dictate how we live”,
Don Joe says,”Conservatives seem to not grasp the concept that collective behavior can have negative aggregate results. For example, if only a few of us want to burn some steaks on the grill for dinner, then the particulate emissions aren’t likely to have a negative affect on anyone. On the other hand, if we mash together more burning steaks along with a lot of smoke-spewing fireplaces and the right weather conditions, we can, collectively, create a circumstance that aversely affects people who have respiratory ailments.”
Is this not nutcase stuff? Nah, leftists never want to dictate our behavior.
Don Joe admits, “Moreover, your plaintive wail about liberals just wanting to dictate how people live is a hand-wave that avoids having any discussion about why in some cases it’s entirely appropriate for government to dictate how people live”
Yes, Don Joe it is appropriate for government to dictate how people live. I’ve not said otherwise. Keeping rapists and murderers in prison is an appropriate use of government. So is protecting the lives of unborn children.
Telling people what vehicles they can drive, forcing them to take mass transit, or as you seem to incredibly imply here, “For example, if only a few of us want to burn some steaks on the grill for dinner, then the particulate emissions aren’t likely to have a negative affect on anyone. On the other hand, if we mash together more burning steaks along with a lot of smoke-spewing fireplaces and the right weather conditions, we can, collectively, create a circumstance that aversely affects people who have respiratory ailments.”
Banning barbecues and fireplaces? Do you lifestyle nazis ever stop? No, you want, as I have said, to “dictate” how ordinary people live.
Do I have you pegged correctly? Reckon so. And you lefties have the nerve to call us on the right nazis. Give me a break!
Bill,
Telling people what vehicles they can drive…
Gads, that’s vague. We do have different licenses for different kinds of vehicles, but, somehow, I don’t think that’s what you have in mind. Do you really think anyone without any training whatsoever should be allowed to hop into a semi and start driving it down the street?
No, I wouldn’t attribute that nutty a stance even to you. I think this is more of your hyperbole about the Edwards’ web site where you seem to have this mental block about the difference between asking people to take certain actions vs actually proposing laws that would go well beyond merely asking people. That leap is one that’s in your mind only, and I really have no idea why you refuse to admit that point.
No one has proposed any laws about what kind of car you can and cannot drive. Of course, if we keep using oil the way we’re using it, what kind of car you drive will be dictated to you, and it won’t be dictated by the government or by liberals. It will be dictated by the kind of fuel you can afford.
You inferred, “Banning barbecues and fireplaces?”
Um. No. That would be a faulty inference. Some heavily populated counties have burn bans that are based on weather conditions. These are temporary burn bans, and there are exemptions (e.g. people for whom a wood-burning stove is their primary source of heat). I wouldn’t advocate these same laws in a sparsely-populated area, and I’m certainly not even contemplating an all-out ban on barbecues and fireplaces.
Of course, you’re convinced that I’m a Nazi, so the very idea that any such nuance would be inherent in my comment would never occur to you, would it? After all, why let a little thing like reality interfere with the mental caricature you’ve constructed about me?
Do I have you pegged correctly?
Not by a long shot. You make too many presumptions. Presume less. Ask more often. And, when you do ask, make the question a legitimate question that seeks to clarify, not a loaded question that assumes facts not in evidence.
re 245: You didn’t ask me about whether I thought 9/11 was a conspiracy.
I never even broached the subject. You simply declared that I WAS a conspiracy theorist.
Pulled it out of your ass, as it were. Now you are gloating that I have not answered a question that you never asked. I’d hate to have to be your mental therapist.
joe, joe, joe……tisk tisk tisk.
get my science straight ,huh?
are you kidding? what do you think i do for a living you boob?
it’s fools like you that [though probably well meaning] are parroting talking points that you don’t even understand.
are you now going to tell me that the new york times is a right wing fanatical group that doesn’t know what they are talking about either?
read and be happy…….
http://www.newsmax.com/insidec.....ode=4230-1
Ghost,
Tsk, tsk indeed. I’m talking about peer-reviewed science, and you conjure up a newsmax summary of a John Tierney article–the very same John Tierney who took his sweet time figuring out what the peer-reviewed science really means before begrudgingly removing himself from the skeptic camp.
The irony is, if you go read Tierney’s original article, he’s basically lamenting the fact that popular news coverage of the science stinks–a critique that would carry far more weight if Tierney didn’t exclude his own writings from the criticism.
And, no, Ghost, I’m not going to claim that the New York Times is part of some right-wing conspiracy. I am, however, going to note that you clearly don’t understand the difference between peer-reviewed science and the opinions of a science journalist. In terms of fact, the difference between the two is like day and night respectively.
don joe………….the difference between peer reviewed science and an article written about something scientific can be NOTHING. it all depends on who wrote the original paper and who is reviewing it.
i take it you have never published a scientific paper, right? well…here’s the ugly truth of it all.if you are publishing a paper and YOU happen to be THE GUY[or girl] that everyone wants to kiss up to [or you are spouting off on the latest cause du jour for the masses] you could basically write that the sky is green tea and have other “scientists” come out of the woodwork to agree with you [and kiss your ass].
sadly…this happens all too often. is it that obvious? no, not usually. but that is the reality of it.
the opinions of a good science journalist are as good as their honesty and as good as the papers they are reading combined. that’s all. no day or night about it.
it’s not magic. and if you think that global warming is caused by man, or that this is an unnatural event then you are just nuts. do people harm the environment? yup…they sure do.are they causing global warming? no…they are not. contributing to it yes….talk to china and india.
or better yet, have that bastion of great thinkers from the left bill “the thief” gates do it for you….after all, his people are already there.
seriously though………peer reviewed is good, but don’t go thinking it is beyond monkey business………because sadly, it is not.
have you read anything written by seattle jew?
i rest my case………
Wow. Let’s just impugn the integrity of every scientist who participates in the peer-review process, because that’s exactly what’s required in order to believe the things you believe about that process.
To be sure, there is a certain level of politics involved in the process. That’s inevitable in any human endeavor. However, you grossly overstate the result. The politics affects whether or not something gets published, but it does not affect the quality of the work that gets published. The gate-keepers, if you will, are not the same folks who review the work before it gets published.
If anything, the result is that some good science doesn’t get published, but to say that this politics results in junk science requires us to believe that the people doing the review, people who have absolutely no personal stake in the outcome of the work, have no integrity whatsoever.
And, yes, I’ve read some of Steve’s stuff. He’d be the first to tell you that his opinion on anything isn’t worth anything more than anyone else’s opinion. If you don’t believe me, ask him.