• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

White House Wannabe's

Cal

Well-known member
MoGal said:
Hot Dry Place - Yes I understand what you are saying.......... BUT, BUT
they couldn't do it today right now, but look around and start thinking about things..............

Who would have thought that our entire manufacturing industry would be gone?
Who would have thought we would have a president who thinks the Constitution is just a "GD piece of paper"
Who would have thought our country would be reduced to a nation who cannot live without imports?

They didn't do that overnight, it was over a period of time......... and over a period of time ......... think about it.

The European nations don't allow individuals to own guns........ that's the plan for us too you know............. and how do you propose to go against someone who has a gun and you don't? Have you seen Quigley Down Under? Are we gonna be the ones on the mountain with sticks?

Just some thoughts.
Gosh, I wish I wasn't getting ready to leave overnight and had more time, but your assumptions about the manufacturing industry, Bush and the Constitution....and about everything else are just absurd. I know katrina and Texan don't think you're an idiot, but IMO that has nothing to do with intelligence and everything to do with common sense, which you are severely lacking. If nothing else, people need to chime in on your posts and point out the ones from the "tinfoil hat zone" just so skulls full of mush that happen to log on here won't be unduly influenced by your nonsense.
 

Cal

Well-known member
MoGal said:
Maybe there is some hope for one Democrat wannabe: at least it sounds good..... now, is it all talk? or can he walk it as well? But at least here is an insight to what is wrong with congress and we need to enact laws to KEEP OUT LOBBYISTS!!!!

Edwards Goes After the 'Corporate Democrats' -- Is This a Turning Point for His Campaign?
By Joshua Holland, AlterNet
Posted on August 26, 2007, Printed on August 26, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/60748/
On August 23, John Edwards showed his populist mettle, firing a broadside against corporate America and, more significantly, corporate Democrats, the likes of which hasn't been heard from a viable candidate with national appeal in decades.

Edwards is en fuego right now, and if he keeps up the heat, his candidacy will either be widely embraced by the emerging progressive movement or utterly annihilated by an entrenched establishment that fears few things more than a telegenic populist with enough money to mount a credible campaign.

"It's time to end the game," Edwards told a crowd in Hanover, New Hampshire. "It's time to tell the big corporations and the lobbyists who have been running things for too long that their time is over." He exalted Washington law-makers to "look the lobbyists in the eye and just say no."


Real change starts with being honest -- the system in Washington is rigged and our government is broken. It's rigged by greedy corporate powers to protect corporate profits. It's rigged by the very wealthy to ensure they become even wealthier. At the end of the day, it's rigged by all those who benefit from the established order of things. For them, more of the same means more money and more power. They'll do anything they can to keep things just the way they are -- not for the country, but for themselves.


[The system is] controlled by big corporations, the lobbyists they hire to protect their bottom line and the politicians who curry their favor and carry their water. And it's perpetuated by a media that too often fawns over the establishment, but fails to seriously cover the challenges we face or the solutions being proposed. This is the game of American politics and in this game, the interests of regular Americans don't stand a chance.

It's a structural argument, and Edwards didn't pull punches in calling out his fellow Democrats, saying: "We cannot replace a group of corporate Republicans with a group of corporate Democrats, just swapping the Washington insiders of one party for the Washington insiders of the other." The rhetoric was a clear signal that Edwards is going to beat the drums of reform as a contrast to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in the primaries.

About a third of the speech focused on the trade deals that Bill Clinton championed, and his argument that those "wedded to the past" can't provide the answers was a barely-veiled rebuke of the Clintonian arm of the party, and the media's chosen "front-runner" for the nomination.

If Democrats are engaged in an existential struggle between the party's establishment and its grassroots, Edwards is obviously betting that the grassroots' passion and energy will trump the Machine Democrats message apparatus -- this was a speech that was not written by the usual coterie of Beltway consultants.

The most striking aspect of Edwards' speech was his implicit argument that class still exists. For years, both parties have obscured the divisions that are so prominent in modern American society, painting a picture of a country in which we're all part of an entrepreneurial class with more or less similar interests -- a key ingredient in the false "center" to which politicians and Beltway pundits kow-tow. "Let me tell you one thing I have learned from my experience," Edwards said last week. "You cannot deal with them on their terms. You cannot play by their rules, sit at their table, or give them a seat at yours. They will not give up their power -- you have to take it from them."

It was an explicit rebuke of Obama's "new politics" -- Obama recently told the Washington Post that "the insurance and drug companies can have a seat at the table in our health-care debate; they just can't buy all the chairs." Obama's approach to "cleaning up Washington" is not bad, but ultimately tinkers around the edges of a corrupted legislative system.

Edwards is not so conciliatory on the subject. "For more than 20 years, Democrats have talked about universal health care," he said. "And for more than 20 years, we've gotten nowhere, because lobbyists for the big insurance companies, drug companies and HMOs spent millions to block real reform."

Contrast that naked confrontation of corporate power with the tepid appeals to working Americans that were a trademark of John Kerry's 2004 campaign. In announcing his candidacy, Kerry offered a bit of demagoguery about CEOs -- he segued from bashing Cheney and Halliburton --and boldly promised to end tax breaks "that help companies move American jobs overseas." Also in his plan for corporate accountability: "No more contracts for companies, no matter how well-connected they are, until they decide to do what's right."

Hillary Clinton's economic proposals track with the thinking popular among the ostensible "progressives" at the DLC and the Third Way -- policies that give Americans the "opportunity" to save for retirement, a decidedly centrist approach to spiraling college costs and other familiar policies from the 1990s. She's not a fair trader nor a free trader, she says -- she's for "smart trade," "pro-American" trade.

Edward's speech about the economy isn't the only time that he's strayed from the bounds of "respectable" discourse in Washington. In May, he said that the "war on terror" was a political "bumper sticker" that the administration used to "justify everything [Bush] does: the ongoing war in Iraq, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, spying on Americans, torture."

Edwards isn't the only candidate in the race making such bold statements, of course. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) has long spoken of economic issues in the kinds of terms Edwards used last week. But John Edwards was the vice presidential nominee on a presidential ticket that won 59 million votes and he's raised $23 million in the current cycle (20 times what Kucinich has raised), and that means that corporate media is forced to cover him. So far, they've mocked him, written stories about his haircuts, pushed shadowy innuendo about his personal business dealings and suggested his focus on poverty is disingenuous or hypocritical, but they simply can't write him off as a member of the fringe. Unlike Kucinich, they can't ignore him.

John Edwards is becoming a very different kind of candidate, and his growing message of empowerment and attack on the corporate class may prove to be the most interesting story of campaign 2008.

Joshua Holland is an AlterNet staff writer.



http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/26/ftn/main3204737.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_3204737

(CBS/AP) Congress should continue to push for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq regardless of what top military advisers say in their progress report next month, Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards said Sunday on Face The Nation.

"I think they should not submit a single funding bill to the president for the war that doesn't have a timetable for withdrawal," Edwards told Bob Schieffer. "And I think they should use whatever legislative tool is available to them, including filibuster."

The former North Carolina senator started the last day of his four-day bus tour of New Hampshire outside Manchester's City Hall, where he told several hundred people that they should ask themselves two key questions when the report is released. First, has Iraq made progress toward a political solution? And second, how long will troops be deployed if there is no progress?

Edwards has said if he were president, he would remove about 50,000 American troops immediately, with the rest redeployed over about nine months. A troop withdrawal would show the Iraqi government that it needs to find a political compromise to end the conflict, he said.

"There has to be some compromise between Maliki and the Shia-led government and the Sunni leadership," Edwards said. "Otherwise there'll never be stability and security in Iraq. And Maliki, who has been, clearly, a weak leader, needs to be focused on that job."

Meanwhile, Sunday, Iraq's beleaguered prime minister lashed out at Democrats who have called for his ouster.

"There are American officials who consider Iraq as if it were one of their villages, for example Hillary Clinton and Carl Levin. They should come to their senses," al-Maliki said.

Al-Maliki struck back in the final days before the American commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus is due in Washington for his September progress report.

The Shiite prime minister said a negative report by Petraeus would not cause him to change course, although he said he expected Petraeus would "be supportive of the government and will disappoint the politicians who are relying on it" to be negative.

Edwards said the prime minister is focusing on the wrong issue.

"I think that Maliki should quit worrying about Democrats and the presidential campaign in America and start worrying about what he needs to do in his own country," Edwards said.

"I mean, everyone knows that at the end of the day, as the Iraq Study Group has said and most of us have said at this point, there can be no military solution in Iraq. There has to be a political solution," he said.

Edwards stopped short of saying al-Maliki should resign.

"I think that's something for them to decide, not for us to decide," Edwards told Schieffer.

The former Senator from North Carolina said that there was no way of predicting what would happen if the U.S. withdrew its troops from Iraq.

"The truth is there are no good choices and no one can predict with any kind of accuracy exactly what's going to happen in Iraq," Edwards said. "We're going to maximize the chances of success, we're going to do this in an orderly and responsible way, but there's no way to know with certainty what will happen."

© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

**** has been put here under the fair use act.... for discussion and education purposes. *****
Yeah, you betcha, Edwards doesn't know anything but how to milk frivolous lawsuits. Probably the worst candy-ass cut-and-run, surrender queen, disaster of the whole bunch. Also interesting how you believe that "manufacturing is dead" in one post and then post another about "It's time to tell the big corporations and the lobbyists who have been running things for too long that their time is over." Don't suppose they're manufacturing anything, do ya?
 

katrina

Well-known member
I know katrina and Texan don't think you're an idiot, but IMO that has nothing to do with intelligence and everything to do with common sense, which you are severely lacking. If nothing else, people need to chime in on your posts and point out the ones from the "tinfoil hat zone" just so skulls full of mush that happen to log on here won't be unduly influenced by your nonsense.

That's the idea Cal....... There is a ton of this nonesense going around and Mogal brings it to us in a nonthreatening attitude so that we can with common sense turn it around........ Even though we know it's way out there if we come down heavy handed then it turns lurkers and posters off. She'll come around to common sense and realize......
 

MoGal

Well-known member
None of us know what it will be like in 2026, but here is one person's thoughts on it. While you may say, they must be wrong........ what if they aren't?

HotDryPlace: This is what I was talking about, over a matter of time, things can deteriorate.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Spivey/phyllis17.htm

What will it be like in 2026??
 

Cal

Well-known member
MoGal said:
None of us know what it will be like in 2026, but here is one person's thoughts on it. While you may say, they must be wrong........ what if they aren't?

HotDryPlace: This is what I was talking about, over a matter of time, things can deteriorate.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Spivey/phyllis17.htm

What will it be like in 2026??
Gosh, were doomed. I think the only hope we have left is if the hillbillys crossbreed with the Messykuns. :roll: :roll:
 

Latest posts

Top