John Edwards must want my vote - Dallas Cowboys Forum

jterrell · 08-06-2007

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...talk-up-trade/

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards will unveil what aides are calling a “new, transformational approach to how this country thinks about trade” in a speech he is scheduled to give later this morning.

In remarks to be delivered in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Edwards calls current trade policies a “bad for working Americans,” and says when “Washington” evaluates trade deals the main question asked is “is it good for corporate profits.”

Keeping with his theme from Saturday’s YearlyKos convention, aides say Edwards will “continue to make the case that lobbyists in Washington exert too much influence and it’s time for the Democratic Party to reject their contributions.”

Trade issues will be a focus for Edwards this week. He will join the other Democratic presidential candidates at the AFL-CIO’s forum on Tuesday night in Chicago.

– CNN Senior Political Producer Sasha Johnson
------------------------

Edwards was only my 3rd or 4th choice amongst just the democrats and below both Paul and McCain whom I at least respect even if disagree with. BU this is my bread and butter issue for the most part and he has been pretty consistent on this issue starting in his attempt 4 years ago to win the nomination.

Being anti-big business is the surest way to win my vote.

If he really pushes this it will certainly cause me to take note.
As his written plan for America did 4 years ago.

Eric_Boyer · 08-06-2007

special interests and lobbiests are a direct result of the democratic platform to include general welfare as an enumerated power (a switch in time to save nine)

A democrat is not going to solve this problem because they would have to admit that too much government power is the cause and it is a direct result of their actions in the last century.

jterrell · 08-06-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric_Boyer

special interests and lobbiests are a direct result of the democratic platform to include general welfare as an enumerated power (a switch in time to save nine)

A democrat is not going to solve this problem because they would have to admit that too much government power is the cause and it is a direct result of their actions in the last century.

That is both untrue and comical.

These special interest and lobbies are paid for by big business to get around the fact the government monitors, regulates and polices them.

I will grant you wouldn't have them if we had a laissez-faire approach but then we'd also have only a handful of mega-corporations running our entire world.

People do not realize that money is such a big factor and separating the special interest money from infiltrating the government is the only way you assure elections and laws are not bought and paid for.

In a completely free market all we'd find is that Japan could in fact own our country. The corporations have no souls and no loyalty to any particular country. The are only loyal to the almighty dollar/yen/euro and free market policy allows that to be taken to an extreme.

Crown Royal · 08-06-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by jterrell

That is both untrue and comical.

These special interest and lobbies are paid for by big business to get around the fact the government monitors, regulates and polices them.

I will grant you wouldn't have them if we had a laissez-faire approach but then we'd also have only a handful of mega-corporations running our entire world.

People do not realize that money is such a big factor and separating the special interest money from infiltrating the government is the only way you assure elections and laws are not bought and paid for.

In a completely free market all we'd find is that Japan could in fact own our country. The corporations have no souls and no loyalty to any particular country. The are only loyal to the almighty dollar/yen/euro and free market policy allows that to be taken to an extreme.

Who fired you?

Eric_Boyer · 08-06-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by jterrell

That is both untrue and comical.

These special interest and lobbies are paid for by big business to get around the fact the government monitors, regulates and polices them.

I will grant you wouldn't have them if we had a laissez-faire approach but then we'd also have only a handful of mega-corporations running our entire world.

Government power does far more to prop up monopolies then it does to discourage them.

But that is besides the point. The fact is our special interest industry is a direct result of the democratic platform to strip power from the states or the people and give it to the federal government.

in 1780 our federal government spent $5 for every man, women, and child in the country. In 1910 we spent $8. In over 140 years the figure went up only $3 per person.

During the reign of terror known as the FDR years we made all kinds of changes that gave the federal government power to take care of us from crade to grave. By the end of his term we were spending $68 per man,women and child.

Corporations certainly took notice - and the lobbiest indiustry was born. Today we spend $10,000 per man,women, and child.

FDR created is problem and until you hear Edwards or the other statists admit it, don't expect them to solve the problems they created.

AtlCB · 08-06-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by jterrell

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...talk-up-trade/

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards will unveil what aides are calling a “new, transformational approach to how this country thinks about trade” in a speech he is scheduled to give later this morning.

In remarks to be delivered in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Edwards calls current trade policies a “bad for working Americans,” and says when “Washington” evaluates trade deals the main question asked is “is it good for corporate profits.”

Keeping with his theme from Saturday’s YearlyKos convention, aides say Edwards will “continue to make the case that lobbyists in Washington exert too much influence and it’s time for the Democratic Party to reject their contributions.”

[View Full Quote]

If Edwards continues to take money from the trial lawyers and the unions, he is a hypocrite. Big corporations aren't the only one's with deep pockets for lobbyists. Unions, trial lawyers, environmental groups, and foreign countries all have deep pockets for lobbyists.

Eric_Boyer · 08-06-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtlCB

If Edwards continues to take money from the trial lawyers and the unions, he is a hypocrite. Big corporations aren't the only one's with deep pockets for lobbyists. Unions, trial lawyers, environmental groups, and foreign countries all have deep pockets for lobbyists.

Agreed.

What happened JTerrell? When I left 4 years ago you were a guy that made sense. Now you are lock step with the the democratic party and BrainPaint makes sense?

Insert Twilight Zone music here.

jterrell · 08-07-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtlCB

If Edwards continues to take money from the trial lawyers and the unions, he is a hypocrite. Big corporations aren't the only one's with deep pockets for lobbyists. Unions, trial lawyers, environmental groups, and foreign countries all have deep pockets for lobbyists.

I don't disagree there at all.

But his takes I agree with and at least he is stating them.

All of these candidates are taking money from somewhere, money may not win elections but a lack will certainly lose them.

I especially agree that our current trade agreements are bad for Americans.

He was on my list of most disliked politicians for exactly the reason you state but he does become relevant for me if he is at least addressing issues I consider crucial.

jterrell · 08-07-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric_Boyer

Agreed.

What happened JTerrell? When I left 4 years ago you were a guy that made sense. Now you are lock step with the the democratic party and BrainPaint makes sense?

Insert Twilight Zone music here.

ROFL. Who exactly made you arbiter of political worthiness?

I think you have a poor memory.

I was stating 4 years ago Hillary would be President and laughing at GWBush and his supporters which I thought included you. Not much has changed.

I have not been fired except twice in my entire life. Neither any time recently and once was in high school. But I work in corporate America and understand the business perspective and slant. I have worked for Verizon/GTE, Bank of America and a federal government arm. Outsourcing is rampant and corporations are increasingly short-sighted with shady financial dealings meant to make a lot of money for a few people in the interim with no regard for long-term effect on the economy, employees or company itself.

Everyone is up in arms over Social Security but pensions, 401Ks and other retirement plans are now all but void except in the highest levels of a corporation.

People love to have these theories and ideas but seldom seem interested in actually carrying them out to their logical conclusions.

AtlCB · 08-07-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by jterrell

I don't disagree there at all.

But his takes I agree with and at least he is stating them.

All of these candidates are taking money from somewhere, money may not win elections but a lack will certainly lose them.

I especially agree that our current trade agreements are bad for Americans.

He was on my list of most disliked politicians for exactly the reason you state but he does become relevant for me if he is at least addressing issues I consider crucial.

My problem with John Edwards is that about half of his campaign contributions come from lawyers. Tort reform needs to happen in this country and most of his money comes from people who don't want these changes to happen. When these guys win multi-million dollar suits against the large corporations, these companies simply shift the cost of higher insurance premiums onto you and I - the consumer.

Eric_Boyer · 08-07-2007

My problem with Edwards is he tells people what he thinks they want to hear.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...6498-2,00.html

Quote:

Edwards had told Kerry he was going to share a story with him that he'd never told anyone else—that after his son Wade had been killed, he climbed onto the slab at the funeral home, laid there and hugged his body, and promised that he'd do all he could to make life better for people, to live up to Wade's ideals of service. Kerry was stunned, not moved, because, as he told me later, Edwards had recounted the same exact story to him, almost in the exact same words, a year or two before—and with the same preface, that he'd never shared the memory with anyone else.

This is pretty big news I would think. The 2004 presidential hopeful basically calls the 2004 VP hopeful a big fat liar.

Seems like news to me

Ben_n_austin · 08-07-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by jterrell

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...talk-up-trade/

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards will unveil what aides are calling a “new, transformational approach to how this country thinks about trade” in a speech he is scheduled to give later this morning.

In remarks to be delivered in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Edwards calls current trade policies a “bad for working Americans,” and says when “Washington” evaluates trade deals the main question asked is “is it good for corporate profits.”

Keeping with his theme from Saturday’s YearlyKos convention, aides say Edwards will “continue to make the case that lobbyists in Washington exert too much influence and it’s time for the Democratic Party to reject their contributions.”

[View Full Quote]

I'm right behind you. And he knows how the system works. If he's about what he says he is, he'd do a damn good job, domestically. And you can't get any worse than Bush on foreign policy, so what the heck?

Ben_n_austin · 08-07-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric_Boyer

special interests and lobbiests are a direct result of the democratic platform to include general welfare as an enumerated power (a switch in time to save nine)

A democrat is not going to solve this problem because they would have to admit that too much government power is the cause and it is a direct result of their actions in the last century.

You put too much credence in party affiliation. And it's lobbyists...

**BrAinPaiNt** · 08-07-2007

I think you guys are just jealous of Edwards because he has sexy hair.

I know from exp that people are jealous of men with sexy hair.

On a serious note.

Would ANYONE here actually vote for Edwards as President...say in the primaries.

Of course some would vote for him in the regular election because they would vote dem not matter what.

But I am talking if they had a choice of dems to vote for would anyone here actually vote for Edwards?

Eric_Boyer · 08-07-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by AnyGivenSunday

You put too much credence in party affiliation. And it's lobbyists...

I put credence in verifiable historical facts.

Is my spelling of lobbyist all you have to counter with? The democrats are to blame for the increase in govenrment power that brought us general welfare and eventually lobbyists. If you disagree, then bring something to the debate other then a dictionary.