My Photo

Linkeroos

GooglyMoogly

« Using "Slap Shot" to guide your life | Main | Bam! »

Comments

Sue

John Edwards is right when he says we should demand honesty, but given the amount of times he's lied he honestly doesn't think he needs to be honest.

He might've been born with a plastic spoon in his mouth but by the time he was in high school he was "upper middle class" (and that's according to high school friends).
----------
Attorneys never lie, and especially not Edwards, right?

In a case in 1985 he told a jury "I have to tell you right now —— I didn't plan to talk about this —— right now I feel her [Jennifer], I feel her presence. [Jennifer's] inside me and she's talking to you . . . And this is what she says to you. She says, 'I don't ask for your pity. What I ask for is your strength. And I don't ask for your sympathy, but I do ask for your courage."

Wow, was/is he a medium or possessed? next he'll be saying "God told me to".
--------------
November 13, 2005:
Edwards: "The argument for going to war with Iraq was based on intelligence that we NOW know was inaccurate. The information the American people were hearing from the president -- and that I was being given by our intelligence community -- wasn't the whole story. HAD I KNOWN THIS AT THE TIME, I never would have voted for this war."

November 20, 2005:
Bob Graham: "What I knew Before the Invasion." Graham tells us that EVERYONE ON THE SENATE SELECT INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE KNEW THAT BUSH WAS LYING ABOUT WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. Graham begins like a good, loyal Democrat, telling us that his colleagues were deceived, at least "most" of them. But he then tells us that the Senate Select Intelligence Committee knew better. John Edwards was a member of that Senate Select Intelligence Committee, and he voted for the war.

May 1, 2007:
For his part Edwards is now exposed by Senator Durbin's disclosure that the Senate Select Intelligence Committee knew that the administration was lying in the lead-up to the war on Iraq. Durbin excuses himself from hiding the truth from the public by saying the committee was sworn to secrecy. But that was a time to come forward with the truth and take the consequences--even jail--to stop a war based on lies. And it is even worse to have been on that committee and to have voted for the war. John Edwards was on that committee. John Edwards voted for the war. It turns out that John Edwards did in fact know then what he knows now! Durbin is the second Senator to have outed Edwards in this way, the first being former Senator Bob Graham.

He cosponsored Lieberman's S.J.RES.46, the Iraq War Resolution, and also later voted for it in the full Senate to authorize the use of military force against Iraq, saying on October 10, 2002 that "Almost no one disagrees with these basic facts: that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a menace; that he has weapons of mass destruction and that he is doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons; that he has supported terrorists; that he is a grave threat to the region, to vital allies like Israel, and to the United States; and that he is thwarting the will of the international community and undermining the United Nations' credibility."

In an October 10, 2004 appearance on Meet the Press, Edwards told Tim Russert "I would have voted for the resolution knowing what I know today, because it was the right thing to do to give the president the authority to confront Saddam Hussein...I think Saddam Hussein was a very serious threat. I stand by that, and that's why [John Kerry and I] stand behind our vote on the resolution." ~wikipedia

It's all fine and dandy for him to "demand" things of the other candidates and congress, but yet he "quit" being a Senator where he himself could have helped do something... Of course the whole time he was in the senate he did nothing but back "Bushco."
-------------------
He said he worked at the hedge company to “make money” but mostly “to learn about financial markets and how they relate to poverty”…?Supposedly he’d already made millions and how is consulting to a hedge fund going to be helpful in understanding poverty?

"Hedge funds are investment pools that are relatively unconstrained in what they do. They are relatively unregulated (for now), charge very high fees, will not necessarily give you your money back when you want it, and will generally not tell you what they do. They are supposed to make money all the time, and when they fail at this, their investors redeem and go to someone else who has recently been making money."

If Edwards had to learn about hedge funds, why was a hedge fund paying him to provide consultation services. See, people pay consultants to teach them, not the other way around. If Edwards really wanted to understand poverty, he probably should have taken a university class on that topic, but one has to pay to go to classes, and one gets money, lots of it, to learn about poverty consulting to hedge funds when one doesn't understand financial markets.
-----------------
He's a member of the CFR who's goals are One World Government and they have way to much influence over our government. So are most of the other candidates.
----------------------
(Fred Thompson was also an Attorney/Lawyer... Also on the Senate Select Intelligence Committee... Also voted to go to war based on lies... Also a member of the CFR... And is Also running for President. spooky)


I could go on but hopefully you get the picture. :)

Vicky

I still have a hard time with someone who expounds on the plight of the impoverished while living in what...a 40,000 square foot house, or thereabouts?

Puddinhead

John Edwards' candidacy aside, what's the deal with the Canadian fuckmook in question? Do they adhere to one of those "alternate histories" with the point of divergence coming around 1812?

"It didn’t go well for the Americans. The British used their vast sea power to attack the United States...They launched an attack on New Orleans, gaining control of the Mississippi. And then they sailed up the Chesapeake, into the Potomac to invade Washington D.C."

One, I think he has his chronology slightly out of order there. But two, and more importantly, the British attacked New Orleans and gained control of the Mississippi??? They did?? Have the descendants of Andrew Jackson been made aware of this?

ashley

So Sue, tell me who you like at this point. Fred? If so, just tell me why. I am really am open to suggestions. Keep in mind, they have to be advocates for rebuilding the levees and so on.

Uh, and who said attorneys never lie? Where did you get that? Not from me.

Also, I haven't heard Fred say a single word about NOLA. Am I wrong?

Vicky, I live in a 1450 sf house with my wife and 3 kids -- I can't even fathom a 40k sf house.

PH -- yeah, that article annoyed me so I had to put it in here just so others could see it. Please, send a letter to the editor there pointing out exactly what happened at NOLA. I have no doubt you would be more eloquent thatn I.

I'm also sure that the British can confirm 2037 casualties compared to the 71 of the Americans.

ashley

Oh, I followed the "bio" of the author of the Canadian missive. He's not Canadian. He's Tom DeWeese, founder of the "American Policy Center".

Ray

"I still have a hard time with someone who expounds on the plight of the impoverished while living in what...a 40,000 square foot house, or thereabouts?"

So Vicky, which viable candidate who is not a millionaire are *you* going to vote for?

ashley

I think the only non-millionaire candidate is Kucinich...

Oh wait, you said "viable".

Varg

You can find a thousand reasons not to vote for a candidate. If I disqualified everyone for the one thing I don't like about them, I wouldn't vote for anyone.

I currently support Edwards and then any democrat candidate, because he has been down here stumping for new Orleans and, of all the candidates, He is positioning himself as the one he is most committed to South Louisiana. He's been down here many times and that helps too - not as a photo op but because, if someone is down here, then they can obviously see that some rebuilding still needs to occur.

But hey, screw all that because he lives in a big house.

Wait, what?

And since I've become an independent again, i was set to open my mind about who to vote for. And then as soon as I did that, the GOP made it their official position to tell South Louisiana to fuck itself. So back to the Dems I go.

I'm voting for Edwards because I think my area will get the best representation with that candidate. Know what? I'm voting for Jackie Clarkson for the same reason.

GentillyGirl

Our country is currently in an unjust war that has dragged for too many years, the Gulf Coast is still shattered from the effects of 2005 and the health-care system needs fixing.

For what it's worth, Edwards is the person that is addressing these issues, and I like what I hear. From the others all I hear are lies and side-stepping from the fat assed elephants and the brain dead and ball-less (ovary-less) jackasses.

Edwards is the only one of the "in the running for Prez" crowd that champions the Gulf Coast. The fact that the others don't really mention this topic speaks volumes about the content of their characters and their hearts.

To be whole a Nation must take care of it's own first. Our "house" is damaged and must be repaired, then we must bring our kids home from the quagmire that is Iraq, and our children need healthcare.

For those three items alone, John Edwards is the ONLY choice.

'Nuff said.

Vicky

I AM voting for Kucinich. I think we need people who live their values, for a change.

Vicky

And BTW...this is why we need serious campaign reform - so that people don't have to be a millionaire to run for president. There should be no contributions whatsoever. The government should give each candidate the same funding (paid for by the taxpayers). He who simply spends the most money (and is most beholden to the corporations) wins, with the system we have now.

ashley

Vicky: look on the "issues" section of Kucinich's website. Tell me if you find a single word about New Orleans.

I voted for him in 2004, I campaigned for him, and if he got enough votes I was asked to be a delegate at the DNC for him.

He doesn't mention NOLA, he has no plan for us. He doesn't care about us. If he really did, he'd say something, dammit.

Charlotte

Kudos to Vicky for standing up for her convictions. Classy lady.

ashley

So it's Edwards' fault he's successful, and doesn't live in a shack?

Karen Dalton-Beninato

Hi Ashley,

Thanks for the link. I have to say Edwards seemed very open and committed to New Orleans, based on a first impression in a quick second line parade interview.

David Dorsey

One must note that the media seem to avoid mention of John Edwards and focus on a contest between Clinton and Obama. We can now entertain as possible the nomination of Obama. We, or I at least, cannot remotely imagine that he could win election.
Therefore I am guilty of holding a conspiracy theory that the best chance the Republicans have in the general election is if Clinton or Obama is nominated since either of them would arouse insuperable hostility among too many Americans.
Edwards as candidate could be elected, and perhaps the media consider this the greatest, indeed the only threat to the underlying structure of power and privilege at present. Indeed, Edwards declares such intention, and that is why he is being effectively silenced. Please expose the errors in the factual premises or the conclusions of this speculation.

Mark

In the last Democratic debate the moderator asked each candidate what their New Year resolution is going to be.

In a very honest moment Obama said he had a problem of being to "timid".

The GOP in a general election will go after Obama using Obama's own words against him. A timid candidate to the Republicans is a weak candidate they would just love to go after him. Is Obama to timid to stand up against special interest groups, lobbyist ,bad trade deals, and other nations who would love to do us harm? Wait a second maybe that's what the multi- national corporation want a timid president? The way I see it, it would be a win win situation for the multi- national corporation. If a Republican wins they would have one of their own like Bush in the White House or if Obama would win he would be to timid to stand up to them.

One thing the Democrats do not need is a timid candidate, going up against the Republicans' attack machine.
John Edwards has proven he is not timid and would be a strong candidate for the Democratic Party. The last thing our nations needs with all the Problems we have here at home and abroad, is a timid president.

Here is a quote From Senator Obama from the debate transcript: "And so I have to constantly remind myself not to be timid, not to be distorted by the fears of losing in order to make a real difference in the lives of the American people."

Elaine N. Ramey

SCREW YOUR OWN SELF. DON'T VOTE FOR JOHN EDWARDS !

ashley

Elaine N. Ramey learned, a bit late, how to use teh Google.

Petamiga

Truly, Mungowitz is never wrong. From the link above:"Democratic presidential cadetnaids can count on three states for sure: California, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York."It's FUZZY MATH!

Matthana

Wow!!! I alternated beteewn laughing out loud and staring in wonderment watching this. You guys definitely got game.What stood out for me David, is how much you trusted technique copycat , and you technique went first with that in a way that your friend just went along with you into a level of fun-ness I haven't experienced before.I had an aha moment watching this around the whole presumed difficulty of having to pay attention to the pitch of your voice (which has been an offputting thing about Mandarin before) that's one of the very things that makes technique copycat so fun and so irresistable here.Wow.More please!

Tanto

, the networks won't ddiece what can or cannot be said because they are worried that the advertisers won't buy spots. here, as long as the technology exists, everyone is on even ground -you are your own network your own channel you are your own editor. we are in essence channeling our voices to one another, independent of big media -if you or i don't like what edwards (or any other politician) is saying we can counter his argument and get discussions going. we don't have to hope that our letter to the editor gets read or published.. we are the reader, the viewer, the editor, the writer, the audience, the producer, the citizen, the bullshit detectors, the enablers.lines are being broken. new forms of communication are being built. we are able to shape that. you are able to have the power back in your hands as it should be -so you can speak your mind.the government works for us, we work for the government it is symbiotic. this is a way we can hold our representatives accountable. give voices to the good ones. judge for ourselves who we want to support and who we don't.the difference is in the power. and now the ball is back in our court. so where's your racket (er, videoblog)? ;)

The comments to this entry are closed.