| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"JTEM" |
| Date: |
24 Jan 2008 02:44:36 PM |
| Object: |
I like Edwards |
I really like John Edwards, hionestly, but I can't
say I like this video:
http://www.johnedwards.com/watch/native-son-movie/
I seems to me that Edwards has the right message at
the right time, offering real substance instead of fluff.
And, with the bad economy, the timing for Edwards'
message couldn't be better. What it all means is that
if he's not getting votes it's not because Democrats
don't like what he's saying or disagree with him. It's
because of something else.
Edwards is in the unenviable position of being the
white man in an historical election sporting both a
woman and a black guy. He doesn't need to sell
his message harder -- not when Obama has no
substance, and economic disparity was never a
Clinton priority. What he need to do is adopt another
message, a SECOND message in addition to the
first.
John Edwards needs to convince the voters, assure
the voters that it's okay to vote for the white man.
John Edwards has to tell the voters that it's okay to
vote for the white man, that it doesn't make them
racists or sexists, that it doesn;t mean they believe
a black man or a woman can't be President.
Don't do this, John Edwards, and you lose, you lose
big.
.
|
|
| User: "Savageduck" |
|
| Title: Re: I like Edwards |
24 Jan 2008 07:05:53 PM |
|
|
On 2008-01-24 12:44:36 -0800, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> said:
I really like John Edwards, hionestly, but I can't
say I like this video:
http://www.johnedwards.com/watch/native-son-movie/
I seems to me that Edwards has the right message at
the right time, offering real substance instead of fluff.
And, with the bad economy, the timing for Edwards'
message couldn't be better. What it all means is that
if he's not getting votes it's not because Democrats
don't like what he's saying or disagree with him. It's
because of something else.
Edwards is in the unenviable position of being the
white man in an historical election sporting both a
woman and a black guy. He doesn't need to sell
his message harder -- not when Obama has no
substance, and economic disparity was never a
Clinton priority. What he need to do is adopt another
message, a SECOND message in addition to the
first.
John Edwards needs to convince the voters, assure
the voters that it's okay to vote for the white man.
John Edwards has to tell the voters that it's okay to
vote for the white man, that it doesn't make them
racists or sexists, that it doesn;t mean they believe
a black man or a woman can't be President.
Don't do this, John Edwards, and you lose, you lose
big.
Well for the primary Edwards has my vote. I think that once the smoke
clears after BIG Tuesday there is going to be amore even distribution
of delegates.
I also think if Edwards isn't able to secure the nomination he will be
the "King Maker" at a brokered convention.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: I like Edwards |
24 Jan 2008 07:30:04 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:05:53 -0800, Savageduck <savageduck@savage.net> wrote:
On 2008-01-24 12:44:36 -0800, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> said:
I really like John Edwards, hionestly, but I can't
say I like this video:
http://www.johnedwards.com/watch/native-son-movie/
I seems to me that Edwards has the right message at
the right time, offering real substance instead of fluff.
And, with the bad economy, the timing for Edwards'
message couldn't be better. What it all means is that
if he's not getting votes it's not because Democrats
don't like what he's saying or disagree with him. It's
because of something else.
Edwards is in the unenviable position of being the
white man in an historical election sporting both a
woman and a black guy. He doesn't need to sell
his message harder -- not when Obama has no
substance, and economic disparity was never a
Clinton priority. What he need to do is adopt another
message, a SECOND message in addition to the
first.
John Edwards needs to convince the voters, assure
the voters that it's okay to vote for the white man.
John Edwards has to tell the voters that it's okay to
vote for the white man, that it doesn't make them
racists or sexists, that it doesn;t mean they believe
a black man or a woman can't be President.
Don't do this, John Edwards, and you lose, you lose
big.
Well for the primary Edwards has my vote. I think that once the smoke
clears after BIG Tuesday there is going to be amore even distribution
of delegates.
I also think if Edwards isn't able to secure the nomination he will be
the "King Maker" at a brokered convention.
That would be a dream come true, for Lefties like me, for whom the Democrats have been pretty
much lying around, trying to look like Eisenhower, ever since the Nixon years.
But I suspect you overestimate Edwards' throw-weight. Cunter -- oops, I meant Coulter was,
as usual, playing to right-wing groundlings with her comment on Edwards, but she tapped into
something that the fat, blurry, mostly unconscious entity that is the electorate/marketplace
is very sensitive to: the guy is too nice, too unthreatening, too gentle-spoken, even while
representing a serious threat to the real-world interests of the money sector. If it weren't
so easy to character-assassinate him, they'd have to shoot him. For real.
--
Apostate a.a. #1931
..sig currently undergoing maintenance
want a free or premium posting account with Teranews?
https://secure.usenetbilling.com/newbilling/manageaccount.cgi?referredby=1089312943&action=Create+New+Account&vendor=teranews
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Savageduck" |
|
| Title: Re: I like Edwards |
24 Jan 2008 11:19:16 PM |
|
|
On 2008-01-24 17:30:04 -0800, Apostate
<godless.*****@yeehaw.org.invalid> said:
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:05:53 -0800, Savageduck <savageduck@savage.net> wrote:
On 2008-01-24 12:44:36 -0800, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> said:
I really like John Edwards, hionestly, but I can't
say I like this video:
http://www.johnedwards.com/watch/native-son-movie/
I seems to me that Edwards has the right message at
the right time, offering real substance instead of fluff.
And, with the bad economy, the timing for Edwards'
message couldn't be better. What it all means is that
if he's not getting votes it's not because Democrats
don't like what he's saying or disagree with him. It's
because of something else.
Edwards is in the unenviable position of being the
white man in an historical election sporting both a
woman and a black guy. He doesn't need to sell
his message harder -- not when Obama has no
substance, and economic disparity was never a
Clinton priority. What he need to do is adopt another
message, a SECOND message in addition to the
first.
John Edwards needs to convince the voters, assure
the voters that it's okay to vote for the white man.
John Edwards has to tell the voters that it's okay to
vote for the white man, that it doesn't make them
racists or sexists, that it doesn;t mean they believe
a black man or a woman can't be President.
Don't do this, John Edwards, and you lose, you lose
big.
Well for the primary Edwards has my vote. I think that once the smoke
clears after BIG Tuesday there is going to be amore even distribution
of delegates.
I also think if Edwards isn't able to secure the nomination he will be
the "King Maker" at a brokered convention.
That would be a dream come true, for Lefties like me, for whom the
Democrats have been pretty
much lying around, trying to look like Eisenhower, ever since the Nixon years.
But I suspect you overestimate Edwards' throw-weight. Cunter --
oops, I meant Coulter was,
as usual, playing to right-wing groundlings with her comment on
Edwards, but she tapped into
something that the fat, blurry, mostly unconscious entity that is the
electorate/marketplace
is very sensitive to: the guy is too nice, too unthreatening, too
gentle-spoken, even while
representing a serious threat to the real-world interests of the money
sector. If it weren't
so easy to character-assassinate him, they'd have to shoot him. For real.
The corporate right is holding its breath hoping for a Clinton or Obama
candidacy. That they would love for November. Clinton has been vilified
for the last 17 years, and even the most disillusioned Republican or
Republicrats will find it difficult to hold their nose and swallow
Hillary. Obama might fare better, but he will also be fighting
prejudice.
I think he would be able to survive character assasination as a
"litigation attorney" countering with the demonstrable corporate
corruption of the last eight years, which has been detrimental to all
but the corporate royalty.
Edwards is a real threat to them and they need to have him lose the
primary race, as he would be a winner in November. I think that one of
the reasons the "corporate media" have ignored him, is to marginalize
him sooner, because he will be hard to beat later.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: I like Edwards |
28 Jan 2008 02:39:58 AM |
|
|
Savageduck <savaged...@savage.net> wrote:
The corporate right is holding its breath hoping for a
Clinton or Obama candidacy.
I couldn't disagree more. I haven't seen the media this
one sided (towards a particular candidate) since the
2000 election, when our once "free press" began it's
more than half-a-decade love fest with George Dubya
Bush.
The very last time a member of congress (either house)
was caught in some sort of shady looking real estate
deal, it was Duke Cunningham, and he was eventually
sentenced to prison. But it comes out that Obama bought
his home for $300 thousand BELOW market price, and
what little media coverage I've seen has all boiled down
to these two points:
#1. "It's not illegal to pay less than market value."
#2. "The Clintons had there own shady real estate deal,
Whitewater."
Oh, really? Just like the Clintons, an independent prosecutor
spent $40 million and many years investigating the
matter, only to determine that no wrong doing took place?
Here's the problem:
It's UNETHICAL!
Ethics deals with the appearance of wrongdoing. You
behave a certain way, follow certain proceedues, because
doing it a different way would lay you open to the charge
of wrongdoing.
Notarizing your own signature isn't an ethical violation
because it automatically means that you're attempting
to defraud someone... pretend you signed something
long before you actually did for example. It's an ethical
violation because it leaves the possibility open. If you
hadn't notarized your own signature, on the other hand,
no such implication exists.
A politician getting real estate at $300 thousand below
market price *IS* cause for investigation. And I don't
mean it's an excuse for one, I mean it's a loud cry for
an investigation! It does look shady. Period. It very well
could be a bribe. Period. Like in the case of Duke
Cunningham, someone could be using the real estate
transaction in an attempt to launder a bribe.
If the media continues it's Obama love fest, not only will
he nail the Democratic nomination, but he'll cruise to a
victory in November.
I only hope it's not the kind of "Victory" the media led us
to in 2000....
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: I like Edwards |
28 Jan 2008 01:57:31 AM |
|
|
In article <200801242119168930-savageduck@savagenet>,
Savageduck <savageduck@savage.net> wrote:
On 2008-01-24 17:30:04 -0800, Apostate
<godless.*****@yeehaw.org.invalid> said:
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:05:53 -0800, Savageduck <savageduck@savage.net>
wrote:
On 2008-01-24 12:44:36 -0800, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> said:
I really like John Edwards, hionestly, but I can't
say I like this video:
http://www.johnedwards.com/watch/native-son-movie/
I seems to me that Edwards has the right message at
the right time, offering real substance instead of fluff.
And, with the bad economy, the timing for Edwards'
message couldn't be better. What it all means is that
if he's not getting votes it's not because Democrats
don't like what he's saying or disagree with him. It's
because of something else.
Edwards is in the unenviable position of being the
white man in an historical election sporting both a
woman and a black guy. He doesn't need to sell
his message harder -- not when Obama has no
substance, and economic disparity was never a
Clinton priority. What he need to do is adopt another
message, a SECOND message in addition to the
first.
John Edwards needs to convince the voters, assure
the voters that it's okay to vote for the white man.
John Edwards has to tell the voters that it's okay to
vote for the white man, that it doesn't make them
racists or sexists, that it doesn;t mean they believe
a black man or a woman can't be President.
Don't do this, John Edwards, and you lose, you lose
big.
Well for the primary Edwards has my vote. I think that once the smoke
clears after BIG Tuesday there is going to be amore even distribution
of delegates.
I also think if Edwards isn't able to secure the nomination he will be
the "King Maker" at a brokered convention.
That would be a dream come true, for Lefties like me, for whom the
Democrats have been pretty
much lying around, trying to look like Eisenhower, ever since the Nixon
years.
But I suspect you overestimate Edwards' throw-weight. Cunter --
oops, I meant Coulter was,
as usual, playing to right-wing groundlings with her comment on
Edwards, but she tapped into
something that the fat, blurry, mostly unconscious entity that is the
electorate/marketplace
is very sensitive to: the guy is too nice, too unthreatening, too
gentle-spoken, even while
representing a serious threat to the real-world interests of the money
sector. If it weren't
so easy to character-assassinate him, they'd have to shoot him. For real.
The corporate right is holding its breath hoping for a Clinton or Obama
candidacy. That they would love for November. Clinton has been vilified
for the last 17 years, and even the most disillusioned Republican or
Republicrats will find it difficult to hold their nose and swallow
Hillary. Obama might fare better, but he will also be fighting
prejudice.
I think he would be able to survive character assasination as a
"litigation attorney" countering with the demonstrable corporate
corruption of the last eight years, which has been detrimental to all
but the corporate royalty.
Edwards is a real threat to them and they need to have him lose the
primary race, as he would be a winner in November. I think that one of
the reasons the "corporate media" have ignored him, is to marginalize
him sooner, because he will be hard to beat later.
I voted for Edwards already. I sent in my California mail in ballot on
Friday. I had hopes for Kucinich, vain it turned out, but since he's
out, Edwards is my choice. Hopefully he'll stay in and if he doesn't get
the nomination, at least there will be a progressive voice to be heard.
If the nomination goes to the convention, he could be a 'kingmaker'.
I agree that the corporate controlled media are doing their best to
minimize him. At least ther's the internet.
--
John #1782
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
