Doesn't John "Girlie Man" Edwards have a mind of his own. Why isn't he complaining? He is pathetic and a wimp. At least we don't have Bill coming out and yelling about Edwards.
I'm curious, who is running for president, Fred or Jeri?
We know who wears the pants in the Edwards' family, and it isn't Breck Girl.
Jay, I'm glad you have such a good sense of humor. Comparing the wives of hypocrite girlie man Edwards and Thompson is downright laughable. Elizabeth Edwards is the attack dog in the Edwards campaign and Jeri Thompson is in the background and she lets her husband speak for himself. Can't the girlie man speak for himself?
This is a good question Jay, I wish you would answer it instead of making your usual ridiculous he said/she said comparrison.
John Edwards is using Elizabeth to do his attacking for him
Conservatives 1, Liberals 0.
Congratulations. You have continued to keep the debate about things other than issues. That's a great strategy, by the way, seeing as we are the one's who win when actual issues get discussed. As long as you can keep the focus on John Kerry's windsurfing, or Al Gore's supposed pathological lying, or Edwards' hair, you've got a fighting chance.
Unless John Edwards was campaining in 1994, he didn't propose this issue first - Hillary Clinton had this crap-tacular idea a decade ago.
seeing as we are the one's who win when actual issues get discussed.
scott:
Thanks for the great laugh. Whenever "issues" are discussed, it is LIBERALS like you who are the first to resort to personal attacks. I've never met a liberal who's been able to stick to the 'issues' because liberal ideology is 100% wrong on 99.999% of issues.
Are you not even curious Scott to discuss why John edwards has his wife doing his dirty work?
Why is he afraid to get his hands dirty?
Is he going to send her to negotiate with Iran because he does not want to be too close.
How and why people do what they do matter Scott.
No, I'm really not that curious, Fred. That kind of inside baseball politicking crap can stay on TV where professionally angry talking heads tell everyone what to think and who's ahead in the grand ol' horse race but hardly ever discuss a candidate's actual position on anything.
Let's be honest here, Fred: you couldn't even tell me what his position is on Iran without running to Google. But you do know how much his haircut cost.
Amy, once again we have not only a difference of opinion, but a fundamentally different perception of reality.
Amy, once again we have not only a difference of opinion, but a fundamentally different perception of reality.
I know that. I live in the real world.
The "real world" where Saddam had WMD and was tied to al Qaeda; the real world where gay marriage harms traditional marriages; the real world where global warming is a hoax; the real world where the surge is "working" in some meaningful way... Say what you will about the real world, Amy, but by my lights you've never even visited it.
scott:
Time and again, I've tried in past arguments to engage you in discussion - YOU'VE constantly skirted our outright avoided my questions, while simultaneously spouting the same ignorant, tired, fluff as the comment above. You parrot the liberal line time and again whereas I've been critical of Republicans - including George W. Bush - when they've done stupid, inappropriate, or misguided things.
YOU won't hear arguments to the contrary and you won't address questions when I ask them.
Al-Qaeda is in Iraq. Ever heard of "Al-Qaeda in Iraq"?
As for WMDs, tell that to the Kurds Saddam destroyed with WMDs.
Same sex marriage harms traditional marriage because it denies that a stable, two-parent, opposite sex family is the foundatoin of civilization and has been - in America and elsewhere - for centuries. Not to mention the very real threat same-sex marriage poses to freedom of religion and freedom of thought.
As for global warming and the surge - it's ironic you're willing to simultaneously believe the people who say the surge isn't working, while you ignore and deny the people who question global warming. Talk about selective hypocrisy.
And you accuse me of not living in the real world?
Right.
Amy
Al Qaida and AQIA are different organizations.
Saddam and the Kurds? Wrong decade, wrong war.
Marriage as it is practiced in America is a fairly recent construct. Economic family structures are more likely than the model you cite. Large portions of the world today see marriage differently than you or I do.
Same sex marriage as a threat to Freedom of Thought? What?
Same sex marriage as a threat to Freedom of Religion? Nobody sees the option of same sex marriage as a replacemnt for traditional marriage except the paranoids and you're not one of them. Right?
Global warming and the surge? Sorry. You lost me in your convolutions there.
Respectfully
jb
Al Qaida and AQIA are different organizations.
And more importantly, the latter group didn't even exist until after we invaded and botched the occupation, let's remember.
So the murals of the Twin Towers found by our troops in Iraq was what --- high art?
Terrorist anywhere need to be dealt with on their soil, or we'll deal with them on ours. Do any of you deny Saddam and his sons were dictators and terrorists?
Same sex marriage as a threat to Freedom of Thought? What?
In Canada, people have been arrested and prosecuted for citing Biblical references that prohibit homosexuality and/or speaking out against it. I'll find the sources if you wish.
Likewise, here in the USA, sex ed classes are being taught in ways that include and sometimes glorify such behavior - and when parents object, the courts have ruled they have no right to do so, that their children are property of the schools.
And my point here is that it won't be enough to allow same-sex marriage, just as it's no longer enough to say "Do what you want, but I disagree with you." Anything less than enthusiastic approval is met with criticsm and harsh punishment.
http://sweetness-light-forum.com...cgi?
ArtNum=1082
I classify that as a threat to freedom of thought, wouldn't you?
As for global warming and the surge:
scott has made it clear he believes Al Gore and those who say global warming is manmade and a severe threat to the planet. He consideres them "experts" on the subject. He repeatedly criticizes anyone who questions their motives or findings.
At the same time, he does not believe the experts (read: General Patreaus) who say the surge is working, and attacks those who support the surge and the wider war on terrorism.
It's true that the war has it's dissenters, but I think it's rather hypocritical to consider the dissenters who question global warming moronic while considering the dissenters who question the Iraq war patriotic - especially when the enemy in this war has made its goals explicitly clear (America's defeat and destruction), while the outcomes (and causes) of global warming change on a daily basis.
Mrs. Edwards is a sympathic figure because she is ill with cancer and when she goes after Clinton (or anyone else) it almost puts them in a no win situation. Dare I say they are using her and her illness to advance Edwards politically? Who wants to be seen as "attacking" the good, loyal, supportive wife with terminal cancer? I sure wouldn't....
You nailed it Fair Play.
Same with Murtha, he can attack our troops without cause because he is a veteran damn it. How dare you question the hero (traitor) Murtha!
They trot out Elizabeth to do the dirty work so Johnnie does not have to soil his hands.
It is all calculated.
Terrorist anywhere need to be dealt with on their soil, or we'll deal with them on ours.
There were no terrorist threats to the United States in Iraq that would have justified our invasion and occupation of that country. Period. To the extent that we see the same kinds of terrorist there today, they are there precisely because we bungled the occupation and gave them an opening. And it must be pointed out that if the native Iraqi sectarian groups could come to some political agreement among themselves, they could handle AQ-in-Iraq group handily and without our help. They are after all only a small portion of what's going on there.
Do any of you deny Saddam and his sons were dictators and terrorists?
I'm somewhat uncomfortable with your use of the word "terrorist" here, as it conjures up images of the Trade Towers. That association is totally wrong and a big part of why we are in the wrong country doing the wrong thing for the wrong reason. The fact that Saddam was a bad man doesn't make what we did a good idea. People like him exist all over the world. Should we invade them all as a matter of critical has-to-happen-now importance? Nobody sane thinks so. And don't kid yourselves about what a fantastic favor we've done for the Iraqi people. They are far worse off today than they were before we invaded. Whether we can help them do better in the future is unknown at this point, but today they are definitely not better off.
In Canada, people have been arrested and prosecuted for citing Biblical references that prohibit homosexuality ...
Yes, do please find those sources.
sex ed classes are being taught in ways that include and sometimes glorify such behavior
And sources for this as well.
the courts have ruled they have no right to do so, that their children are property of the schools.
And this.
Anything less than enthusiastic approval is met with criticism
from your more fair-minded neighbors, no doubt. Which is really something you should take up with them.
and harsh punishment.
Citation,pls k thx.
I classify that as a threat to freedom of thought, wouldn't you?
No. I think it's perfectly reasonable to revoke tax-exempt status from land that is only available to the public on such a discriminatory basis.
He consideres them "experts" on the subject.
Actually I consider actual experts experts on the subject. And those experts are mostly on my side in this, not yours.
He repeatedly criticizes anyone who questions their motives or findings.
Well the question does occur to me often, but only because they have so often been caught having these incredible conflicts of interest - like being paid by oil companies and so on. Surely you're aware of that kind of thing?
At the same time, he does not believe the experts (read: General Patreaus) who say the surge is working
The join
(continued)
The joint chiefs of staff were all against it. And how did that surge "report card" come out, anyway? Seems to me that it wasn't all that positive. In any case, I wasn't against it per se; I simply failed to see what it could really accomplish absent a serious effort at fixing the country politically, which has not happened.
and the wider war on terrorism.
Oh, I support it. Really. I just think we should not prosecute that war by invading a country that had nothing to do with said terrorists and which apparently posed no threat to us in the first place. I would rather see bin Laden in tiny smoking pieces where he belongs. Remember him? Guy with a beard, keeps showing up in videos? Get this - he's not in Iraq! Furthermore, there are a lot of smart people who say that invading a country full of Muslims, killing tens of thousands of them, and sparking a civil war which displaces millions of them isn't the best way to win their hearts and minds. Go figure! In short, I would like to see is go after the right people, in a smarter, more effective way.
It is all calculated.
What makes me laugh is the implication that this isn't precisely what Republican candidates do, too. It's how the game is played, Fred, you know that. Figuring these kinds of things out is why campaigns have advisors, after all.
But you're disgusted (disgusted!) by it when you think you see a Democrat doing it. The disingenuousness of your outrage is showing.
I don't know why you male democrats would support a male candidate who runs and hides behind his sick wife's skirt. You're MEN for cripes sakes!
To me, he looks like the whole wimpy and timid "she-male" caricature of manhood that the feminist movement worked so hard to create in the 60's.
I want a president who doesn't have to run to his wife to have an opinion or to stick up for himself.
Did she run onto the Senate floor crying foul each time someone disagreed with him?!
Go home, mommy, and let Johnny at least attempt to look like a man this country (and foreign leaders) could respect.
Wow, exaggerate much?
Still waiting for the male Democrats to disavow this girlification of the male species...............chirp....chirp....chirp.
No Scott she does not.
John Edwards is running to be the President of the United States.
And what is going to do if he wins the first time he has to face a tough issue? Trot out the wife?
Leaders lead.
BTW, big of Obama to take a pass yesterday on the Moveon vote.
Another wimp.
The strongest man in your field is Hillary.
scott.
how the hell is she exagerrating?
every "attack" has come from Mrs. Edwards.
What a baby. if nothing else, he's calculated that no one would DARE attack a cancer survivor.
Edwards is a joke.
You want this guy with his finger on the button?
Scratch that. his wife would do it.
"The strongest man in your field is Hillary."
MRQ, baby!!
Commenting by HaloScan
