Democratic Debate

Onceler said:
Maybe someone should tell Bill & Melinda Gates that they really have no right to be addressing poverty, because they're so rich and have such a big house. Dick Morris should hop right on that one...
Click to expand...
He doesn't appear to be running for President.
 
Onceler said:
Edward's "Hair" commercial was brilliant.

I thought he'd be one of the leaders at this point, but the right-wing smear machine got the job done on him, which is unfortunate, because - for my money - he's the best candidate out there.

Even last night, Dick Morris trotted out the predictable "snake oil salesman" about Edwards on "Hannity & Colmes". When Colmes challenged him on it, he was like "C'mon, Alan - he lives in a 30,000 square foot home & talks about poverty."

Not a heckuva lot is ever going to get done on poverty if anyone with money is prohibited from discussing the issue.
Click to expand...

It gets you so mad. Poor people can't talk about poverty, because no one gives a damn what poor people say, and FOX news isn't putting homeless guys on Hannity and Colmes to address poverty, and neither is Hardball.

But rich people cant' talk about it either, because that makes them "snake oil salesman" or, "hypocrites".

So what is the answer? Let's just not talk about poverty, like we haven't been talking about it all along. And that's exactly why they do this, because they don't want people talking about it.
 
Damocles said:
He doesn't appear to be running for President.
Click to expand...

Please. The calls of "hypocrisy" on Edwards have to do with the fact that he is rich, and gives speeches on poverty (and - gasp! - actually collects fees for those speeches).

Do you agree with the sentiment behind that? Does that make sense - that someone is a hypocrite to have a big house, and still care about poor people?
 
Onceler said:
Please. The calls of "hypocrisy" on Edwards have to do with the fact that he is rich, and gives speeches on poverty (and - gasp! - actually collects fees for those speeches).

Do you agree with the sentiment behind that? Does that make sense - that someone is a hypocrite to have a big house, and still care about poor people?
Click to expand...
Bill Gates also doesn't collect fees when speaking about poverty.

And all I am doing is making the point that Gates and Edwards are not comparable because they are not in the same circles. When running for office you open yourself to criticism you otherwise would not endure.
 
"And all I am doing is making the point that Gates and Edwards are not comparable because they are not in the same circles. When running for office you open yourself to criticism you otherwise would not endure."

Fair enough on the comparison. However, while a candidate for office certainly opens himself up to criticism, that doesn't make the criticism sound or justified.

Honestly, there is so much talk of Edwards' "hypocrisy" for being rich, having a big house & speaking about poverty, particularly on Fox, that it can't help but have a stifling effect on the national dialogue regarding the issue. If we want all of our rich people to just "act rich," and model themselves after Marie Antoinette, and steer clear of trying to help the poor lest they open themselves up to similar criticism...what's the end result of that?
 
Onceler said:
"And all I am doing is making the point that Gates and Edwards are not comparable because they are not in the same circles. When running for office you open yourself to criticism you otherwise would not endure."

Fair enough on the comparison. However, while a candidate for office certainly opens himself up to criticism, that doesn't make the criticism sound or justified.

Honestly, there is so much talk of Edwards' "hypocrisy" for being rich, having a big house & speaking about poverty, particularly on Fox, that it can't help but have a stifling effect on the national dialogue regarding the issue. If we want all of our rich people to just "act rich," and model themselves after Marie Antoinette, and steer clear of trying to help the poor lest they open themselves up to similar criticism...what's the end result of that?
Click to expand...

Conservative utopia baby!
 
Does wingnuttia and Fox-topia have any substantive criticism of Edwards policies pertaining to poverty? Or, is haircuts, and house size the best they can come up with?
 
Cypress said:
Does wingnuttia and Fox-topia have any substantive criticism of Edwards policies pertaining to poverty? Or, is haircuts, and house size the best they can come up with?
Click to expand...

Well, in fairness, they haven't been able to ascertain his penis size, or I'm sure they'd be on that too.
 
Darla said:
Well, in fairness, they haven't been able to ascertain his penis size, or I'm sure they'd be on that too.
Click to expand...


lol

Oh, I forgot wingnuttia's other substantive criticism of Edwards: he's the "Breck Girl" candidate. Or, he's a girly man. Or a "f*ggot". Real substantive stuff.
 
Darla said:
I just finished watching the Democratic youtube debate on CNN.

The best part of the night, was when they had some real yahoo on, who asked the candidates to talk about their opinions on guns, because he wanted to know that "his baby" was going to be safe. Then, he leaned over and picked up some kind of gigantic automatic, or, semi-automatic weapon and said "this is my baby."

And Joe Biden says "I'll tell ya, if that's his baby he's got problems." And then went on to state that the guy probably just disqualified himself from owning any kind of gun on account of mental instability. It was so great!

And, then this, which came as a big surprise to me.

If Hillary wins, she's picking Edwards as her running mate, and he's going to take the spot. After watching them tonight, I have no doubt.
Click to expand...

I didn't expect to be very interested as I think it is much too soon.

However, I was pleasantly surprised (I will edit and add to this AFTER I have read the other responsies.) See you later:
 
Darla said:
I just finished watching the Democratic youtube debate on CNN.

The best part of the night, was when they had some real yahoo on, who asked the candidates to talk about their opinions on guns, because he wanted to know that "his baby" was going to be safe. Then, he leaned over and picked up some kind of gigantic automatic, or, semi-automatic weapon and said "this is my baby."

And Joe Biden says "I'll tell ya, if that's his baby he's got problems." And then went on to state that the guy probably just disqualified himself from owning any kind of gun on account of mental instability. It was so great!

And, then this, which came as a big surprise to me.

If Hillary wins, she's picking Edwards as her running mate, and he's going to take the spot. After watching them tonight, I have no doubt.
Click to expand...
I missed this last part. When did she say that???
 
Darla said:
No, she didn't say that. I just feel very strongly after watching them, that she is going to pick him. They are simpatico. In unison. I think they have already talked.
Click to expand...
Meanwhile , back at the ranch, I came up with the following thoughts.

1. Dodd, Biden, and Richardson were the only ones who looked Presidential.
2. I fully agre with Dodd's idea of universal Service. and have for a very long time.
3. For me, Kucki is out. He reminds me too much of Perot. He may be smart, but he sounds Kooky
4. To me Biden is too opinionated and I only agree with him on one issue.
5. On a bright note. When questioned on what Rep they would pick if they had to. the only name stated (twice) was Hagel, who, at this point is my over-all first choice, even if he hasn't declared (course others might have been named by other persons, but were not reported.
6. I truely think that the present front runners are not desireable as candidates for various reasons, unless the republicans can not come up with a reasonable candidate.(Obama would have a chance in 4 to 8 years. then he would be up against Jeb. (That would be interesting)
 
Last edited:
Wow, I just don't find Chris Dodd presidential at all, and in fact he annoys me more than any of them, and I wish he would drop out. I never have had any idea what he is doing by even running.
 
Cypress said:
LOL - yeah, whats up with the kumbaya stuff? I has some doubt that Edwards was a heart-felt populist until last night. He solidified his populist street cred with me last night.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Populists often scare me, because, more often than not, they're riding a wave of emotional, rather than rational, sentiment. I mean, if you look at all the leaders in history who've come into power under that, you'd know what I meant. Any wave of populism is scary, because the part of democracy that usually keeps it work - our differences in opinion, that allow us to debate and compromise - usually falls apart and there's a dictatorship of a dangerously uniform majority - a bunch of sheeps.

We do need to come together. I once read something - inconsistency is the mark of an open mind. We don't need someone who's going to push something forever whether or not it's working, someone like Bush. I want someone who's willing to try a lot of things and admit whenever they are wrong.
 
Cypress said:
Yes. Last polls I looked at, Edwards was leading in Iowa. Its those state polls that matter, more than national polls. I saw some fire and passion there in Edwards, that I don't see in obama/clinton/richardson.
Click to expand...

Yeah - a system is clearly a messed up system whenever a person wins a primary because he's won three or four states.
 
Cypress said:
I think Edwards was on fire last night.

I especially like the part, where Hillary, Obama and others were blathering on about the need to come together and find bipartisan solutions. And Edwards responded: screw that. We need somebody who will stand up and do the right thing, by standing up against big pharma and big corporate special interests -- that we needed someone who stands up for working people.
Click to expand...
You already passed the IPO killing Sarbanes-Oxley which is essentially the business equivalent of asking every citizen to record everything they do in a day to see if they did anything criminal.
Bigtime overkill, what you really need is to stop overregulating business so we can get back to the American prosperity we enjoyed before leftwing idiots passed so many fucking laws regulation industry.
The cost for it is over $1.4 TRILLION in lost productivity and counting
http://www.simon.rochester.edu/pdf/sarbanes_oxley.pdf
- what a stupid, stupid waste for a few billion mistake by Enron and a couple others. The cure is thousands of times worse than the disease.
 
TheDanold said:
You already passed the IPO killing Sarbanes-Oxley which is essentially the business equivalent of asking every citizen to record everything they do in a day to see if they did anything criminal.
Bigtime overkill, what you really need is to stop overregulating business so we can get back to the American prosperity we enjoyed before leftwing idiots passed so many fucking laws regulation industry.
The cost for it is over $1.4 TRILLION in lost productivity and counting
http://www.simon.rochester.edu/pdf/sarbanes_oxley.pdf
- what a stupid, stupid waste for a few billion mistake by Enron and a couple others. The cure is thousands of times worse than the disease.
Click to expand...


HaHa, isn't that the truth. You should see the number of auditors we have to staff in our office now to comply with S-0. The number of unproductive hours and the cost is off the charts negative. Most people don't understand I believe because they don't see it. For those that do S-O is scary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top