Edwards the caped phony performs hero imitation

[creeksneakers2]

Edwards ad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xm6zze1pWyM

Text:

"When I’m president, I’m going to say to members of Congress and members of my administration including my cabinet, I’m glad that you have health care coverage and your family has health care coverage. But if you don’t pass universal health care by July 2009, in six months, I’m going to use my power as president to take your health care away from you."

Edwards can't possibly take away health care from the members of Congress. It would take an act of Congress to do it. If everybody in Congress is corrupt, as Edwards often alleges, why would they vote away their health care?

The Edwards wolf ticket is also in violation of the 27th amendment which says:

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

The whole ad is another example of how Edwards runs his con jobs. Edwards portrays himself as the heroic lone sheriff riding in to the lawless mining town. Edward taps into a group that likes to believe they are uniquely virtuous moral crusaders fighting a world where all the rest of us are totally corrupt. Being with Edwards is being with the good guys to them. But Edwards is fooling them in this ad. Edwards is a phony.

[rjones2818]

1. Edwards is a lawyer.

'Nuff said!

[slick8790]

28. What's your problem with lawyers?

Buying in to the right wing "trial lawyer" slur?

[rjones2818]

66. Nah...

In my family we've had four lawyers, all of them I'd trust with my life. There are good lawyers and bad lawyers and lawyers who will do whatever they have to do to win. I think JE's one of the last ones. I don't trust a word he says as he's changed a great deal from what he represented himself as during the 2004 campaign season, which doesn't surprise me as he's a lawyer.

[Hieronymus]

93. Would you not have gone after the company whose filters sucked the insides

out of a young girl? They knew the filters were capable of that.

[rjones2818]

95. Ah...

So JE does know about product liability! And yet he voted to expand trade with China, knowing that they didn't have the safeguards we would expect here in the US.

That's Dennis' point.

[MethuenProgressive]

121. A good lawyer would know what he proposes is against the law.

[surfermaw]

129. His problem with Lawyers is he is probably a Bush supporter

Bush couldn't get in a Southern Law School.....had to go back to Yale for a masters in business, on daddies coattal

[Girlieman]

29. Look at Pakistan

It's the lawyers in the street fighting for the rule of law.

not the CEOs.

get a clue.

[w4rma]

42. Hillary and Obama are lawyers. Edwards, however, is better skilled at being a lawyer. (nt)

[rjones2818]

65. No wonder they're at the bottom of my list!

I knew there was something...

[Edith Ann]

92. Really

I bet they won't be when you need a good trial lawyer. I hope you never do.

[rjones2818]

96. I've got a family of them.

Trust me when I say I'll go to them before I'd go to HRC, JE or BO.

[penguin7]

128. The people I know that have needed lawyers like them the least.

[surfermaw]

131. Then he will be Thanking God

For a lawyer and a jury, sometimes that is all some men have.

[vssmith]

58. Most of the candidates of both parties are lawyers

[Bluebear]

59. What, librarians are more honorable?

[rjones2818]

64. Yes!

:evilgrin:

:hide:

[nashville_brook]

76. so's Clinton.

[Edith Ann]

91. lawyer

Trial lawyers are not adding to the cost of insurance. Several years ago California capped awards and the insurance still went up. They used the "old trial lawyer" ploy to get it passed. They didn't advertise the continued costs. Without trial lawyers to hold corporations accountable, the American population would be nothing but expendable cash cows. People who do harm intentionally or unintentionally all want one thing and that is not to be accountable. How would you feel if your child or someone you loved was hurt by a problem a corporation or hospital knew was a problem and built the cost of the lawsuits into the cost of their product or worse yet they were never held accountable. Look at the drug companies. They put products out on the market and then spend millions to advertise them to the public. People go to the doctor and want their drugs no matter what. Instead of the doctors deciding what you need the drug companies advertise what they want you to buy. With little over site from the food and drug administration these people have it timed to maximize their profits before the dying starts. Look at all the recent drug recalls and deaths from these drugs. Check out cosmetic surgery. People think this is a beauty treatment and are surprised when someone dies. You shouldn't be. There is the same risk with a face lift as with heart surgery. These risks are minimal to high depending on your condition. But it isn't a day at the Clinique counter. I've always wondered why it's ok for corporate lawyers to make money but not trial lawyers. By the way not having to have accountability is a right wing value.

[penguin7]

130. viox proves your point

The lawyers are getting 4 billion dollars here. 2 billion for the plaintiff, 2 billion for the defense.

viox is a powerful anti-inflammatory. Also, the product information always stated that high blood pressure was a side effect. The lawyers in this matter are basically stealing the People's money.

And then look at medicine, hospitals can only practice quality control with an open system. The lawyers force the hospitals to be secretive. In medicine the lawyers endanger our health.

The American people are a cash cow and the lawyers are doing the milking.

[blm]

2. He should run this ad

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg

Bad Character will always show.

[last_texas_dem]

3. Good point

Clinton joining in with the 'pugs to bash Kerry over that fabricated "controversy" was such a calculating and nasty move on her part.

[creeksneakers2]

6. That clip

is 50% of BLM's DU post inventory.

[blm]

8. shows Hillary's character 100% for what it is.

Rendell being good to you?

[asdjrocky]

50. It's a very good clip.

I mean, if I got one hell of a right hook... I'm gonna use it.

Here's about 50% of my posts:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Burson-Marsteller

The Machine behind The Clinton Machine

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

[jgraz]

54. She probably would have come off better if she had wiped the drool off her chin first

[kestrel91316]

4. My, my. Somebody SURE doesn't like lawyers, do they?

You tell me exactly who you favor in this race and I'll tell you who I think is a phony. Deal?

[creeksneakers2]

73. Are you talking to me?

I didn't say anything about lawyers. That was some other guy.

[penguin7]

133. There are some lawyers I respect

Barry Scheck, Roy Black and the guy that went to bat for Al Gore in Florida come to mind.

But there is a hell of a lot to be angry about with respect to our legal system. I may be more informed and more angry than most people. But it is pretty obvious that the public in general is disgusted to some degree or other with lawyers working the legal system.

This reason alone dooms Edwards in any try for president. But with Edwards there are other reasons also--Edward's Iraq war history coming in as a close second.

[Capn Sunshine]

5. Aren't these right wing talking points?

Seriously, this is not constructive, and pretty immature. I hate this crap during primary time.

[creeksneakers2]

7. Since Edwards and Limbaugh work together

I am attacking a source of right wing talking points. Not repeating them.

[last_texas_dem]

9. So by that standard

when Clinton joined in with the Repugs to attack Kerry over that bullshit incident that blm included in a post a few above this one, wasn't she "a source of right wing talking points"? So, those who don't like her would be justified in making scurrilous attacks on her as well, right?

[creeksneakers2]

18. All the Democrats said the same thing as Hillary in the clip

Kerry made the gaffe just before the 2006 election and the media frenzy was upsetting the party plan. Anyway, Kerry made a mistake and should have apologized. Instead, Kerry tried to live down his weak responses from 2004 by refusing to apologize. That made the story bigger. Hillary and the rest of the party didn't want to fight over the stupid story and when they got Kerry to finally apologize everything got better. Hillary said the media should move on and that's what they did.

As far as scurrilous attacks, I don't know what you are talking about. Scurrilous attacks are made on Hillary here continuously. I'm just evening the score.

[last_texas_dem]

25. Yes, and I felt that all of the Dems,

and it wasn't all of them but it was far more than it should have been, were backstabbing a good man when they pretended as if he had actually meant to insult the troops with his comments.

I don't like the scurrilous attacks coming from the supporters of any of the candidates, but from what I have read on here the Clinton supporters don't need any help in increasing their nastiness level.

[creeksneakers2]

26. So, Hillary wasn't really using right wing talking points

as claimed here.

[last_texas_dem]

27. She was using the same talking points against Kerry

that the right-wing was so, by the same logic you use when you say that Edwards is using right-wing talking points when he criticizes Clinton over some of the same things Repugs criticize her over, she is using right-wing talking points.

[creeksneakers2]

75. Edwards isn't using the same claims as everybody else in

the party. He alone has gone overboard. Watch the debates. Even the other candidates who would benefit from a Hillary loss are calling Edwards on his negative attacks.

[karynnj]

48. Very little of that is true

Kerry did apologize to the troops if they were offended on Tuesday. the story hAd broken on Monday. The distrorted chronology came from Schumer who demanded an apology on Thursday. Kerry spoke Monday morning in Seattle, cancelled appearances, appeared by phone on Imus on Tuesday than did not appear anywhere until after the election. All the stuff with Hillary was more than a day later. The story was dying down, the internal polls showed no damage BEFORE HRC stabbed Kerry in the back. To say she is cold as ice may be an understatement.

The fact is the test for the speech existed before he left out one word. Kerry did NOTHING wrong, he only misread a joke. I would have had no problem if Hillary had said Kerry stuck his foot in his mouth. The thing I can NEVER forgive is that she implied that he would insult the troops, which he never in his his life has done. The same can not be said of at least one HRC associated person. Kerry has been an advocate of veterans for over 3 decades.

IF the CLINTON forces continue to distort this they may loss the votes of people like me.

[frogcycle]

61. precisely

nobody - NOBODY* - actually believed Kerry intended the interpretation that was ascribed to the botched joke. Period. EVERYONE who used it to slam him is a lying sack of self-serving shit.

*ok, maybe some reeeallly far-righties with iq's below about 70 MIGHT have actually thought he had suddenly shown his true colors. Same sort who deny evolution and think the moon landing was staged.

[bvar22]

70. So you DO admit that the OP is a "Scurrilous attack"?

"Scurrilous attacks are made on Hillary here continuously. I'm just evening the score."

Do you also believe that it is OK to torture Iraqis "because Saddam tortured his own people"?

I have always opposed letting the lowest common denominator decide for me which values I embrace.

[creeksneakers2]

74. One possibility is that enough people will get pissed off

at the tone going around that they'll end the same kind of thing being done to Hillary. I pray for peace.

I haven't stooped to the lowest level though. Other than adding hyperbole, I will only attack Edwards when I believe I have a solid case against him.

This isn't torture.

I don't let the lowest common denominator decide for me either.

[blm]

89. Baloney. Clinton and Schumer FORCED that perception and planted it with Dem operatives

just like they planted that heyjohn website that claimed Kerry was hoarding money and not helping congressional Dem candidates when the truth was that Kerry donated and helped more Dem candidates than ANY OTHER Democrat.

[blm]

10. Heh...and Hillary WASN'T working w/Rush, Rove, Bush and McCain when she joined them

in their attack on John Kerry with a KNOWN LIE?

[mtnsnake]

32. The only Democrat who wanted to work w/McCain was Kerry when he courted him for his VP

and McCain refused. That had to be the most embarrassing moment in the history of Democratic campaigns, to court a friggin Republican for our VP running mate. :puke:

[struggle4progress]

69. Wow: another wingnut talking point! In fact, Kerry never approached McCain with such a proposal.

The wingnuts spread that crap around. Kerry said it wasn't true, and so did McCain.

[blm]

80. The casual mention of a unity ticket was distorted into an offer by the rumormongers.

Odd that someone so disgusted by the idea of McCain being mentioned casually in a 2003 private discussion would not be turned off by Hillary's PUBLIC on-camera support for Bush's AND McCain's RW smears in 2006.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg

[mtnsnake]

83. Kerry's sent out feelers, and that was pointed out by some of Kerry's own fans right on this forum.

Of course he never approached McCain himself.

[struggle4progress]

85. Media Matters: Right-wing chorus echoed Bush-Cheney '04: McCain was Kerry's "first choice"

Wed, Jul 7, 2004 7:29pm ET

Radio host Rush Limbaugh; FOX News Channel hosts Sean Hannity and Steve Doocy; and MSNBC's Joe Scarborough all ran with the Bush-Cheney '04 campaign talking point that "John Kerry's first choice for a vice presidential running mate, United States Senator John McCain" despite the fact that, as Media Matters for America previously noted, the Associated Press reported in June that McCain's chief of staff, Mark Salter, had said, ''Senator McCain categorically states that he has not been offered the vice presidency by anyone." ...

http://mediamatters.org/items/200407070005

[karynnj]

104. As one of the "Kerry fans", that is not true

Kerry did not send out feelers to see if McCain would accept. The ONLY thing Kerry said was that before 2004, there was a discussion around the time when Jeffords switched to Independent. Kerry spoke to McCain about leaving the Republican party. Unless he was willing to become a Democrat, there was no offer. This was BEFORE their differences on Iraq.

[Flarney]

11. Edwards and Limbaugh work together?

Weak.

[creeksneakers2]

19. I've provided links

Edwards ads turn up on RushLimbaugh.com. Rush plays clips of Edwards on his show. Edwards piles on with GOP attacks.

[asdjrocky]

51. so you listen to Rush?

Yuck! No wonder you are twisted.

Robert Kennedy was a lawyer.

[blm]

67. We've provided you with links of TeamClinton acting like RWers and it doesn't bother you one bit.

Historian Douglas Brinkley:
http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354

Clinton on Larry King defending Bush on war in June 2004 (his book tour):
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/

James Carville working with the enemy on election night:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward


Hillary in Oct 2006:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg


Which one of these is inaccurate in its account and I will remove it.

[Nutmegger]

12. That is a disgusting smear against a fine Democrat.

You hatred knows no bounds. Frankly it's disgusting that you would stoop so low.

Take that crap off of DU. Disagree if you want, but leave that crap at the door.

:puke:

[creeksneakers2]

20. Its a valid hit.

Show me the flaw in the logic.

I'll gladly quit posting about Edwards when the Hillary smears stop. Tonight they are saying she stacked the debate audience. No proof of that, just innuendo.

They lie about Hillary all the time. I provide links and facts to be debated.

[mtnsnake]

34. Where are you when thousands of "disgusting smears" get hurled at Hillary 24/7?

Everyone knows that many many of them simply aren't true, yet very few speak up on her behalf because they get drowned out by the disgusting movement that's out to soil her good name on this forum. I'm not saying that you're one of those people doing it, btw, just that you ought to go after those people, too.

[blm]

81. Don't answer the RW lies - focus on answering the real problems reClinton2.

And that is the continuing protection of BushInc - something this nation cannot AFFORD again.

http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

[mtnsnake]

82. Oh geez, here we go again with you pushing Parry's book on us for the thousandth time.

Why don't you take your anti-Bill Clinton propaganda to the Rush Limbaugh show, where it will be very well received, I'm sure.

[blm]

84. Limbaugh would complain that Poppy Bush was protected throughout the 90s?

What makes you believe that?

It's only anti-corruption, open government Democrats who cared enough about our party and this nation's constitution to point it out.

[mtnsnake]

86. I didn't say that. I said you ought to take your rightwing anti-Clinton jibberish to Limbaugh

where it would be received with open arms and make great fodder for one of his disgusting shows.

[blm]

90. Limbaugh is FOR opening the books on BushInc that Clinton closed? Since when?

I think you'll say anything at this point and hope someone believes you.

[mtnsnake]

99. How do you know so much about Rush Limbaugh, blm?

Just askin'

[blm]

119. I know he doesn't want the books opened on BushInc just like you and Bill don't.

Because if I - and other anti-corruption, open government Democrats - want those books on BushInc opened, then it stands to reason that pro-closed government advocates like Limbaugh, the Bushes, the Clintons and their devoted defenders would be set against my view.

I want the books opened on IranContra, BCCI, Iraqgate and CIA drugrunning. The Bushes, the Clintons, Limbaugh and other closed government defenders do NOT.

[mtnsnake]

120. haha, you just proved that it's sheer speculation on your part, as is most of your stuff

Because if I - and other anti-corruption, open government Democrats - want those books on BushInc opened, then it stands to reason that pro-closed government advocates like Limbaugh, the Bushes, the Clintons and their devoted defenders would be set against my view.

Like I said....pure speculation. :smoke:

[blm]

122. You claim that I side with Limbaugh when Limbaugh is nowhere near an open government

Democrat who believes books should be opened on all the crimes of office of BushInc.

YOU are trying to get gullible people to believe that anyone who questions Bill Clinton's protection of Poppy Bush throughout the 90s on extremely serious matters is repeating Limbaugh.

So keep talking - you are proving that the person closer to Limbaugh on the issue of keeping BushInc protected is Bill Clinton and his defenders of his protective actions for BushInc are following him down that same path - you all want BushInc's protection to continue and you prove it every day.

[mtnsnake]

123. Where did I claim that? Your the one who acts like you know what he stands for. See above posts

All I did was ask how you know so much about him? :shrug:

[blm]

125. A member of FAIR throughout the 90s. I know he'll say and do anything to protect BushInc.

So - he certainly has NOTHING in common with me.

Can you name the Democrats who believe Poppy Bush did not deserve to be further investigated in the outstanding matters that were pending in IranContra, Iraqgate, BCCI and CIA drugrunning?

[mtnsnake]

126. I'll take a stab at it

Can you name the Democrats who believe Poppy Bush did not deserve to be further investigated in the outstanding matters that were pending in IranContra, Iraqgate, BCCI and CIA drugrunning?

John Kerry, wasn't it? I remember once when you were telling us all the usual stuff about Clinton coverups and all, concerning Pooppy, and someone proved to you that Kerry also knew about it but did not come forward with what he knew. I remember it clearly.

[blm]

127. Except that is false. Kerry never had the access to documents he REQUESTED and he REQUESTED

that further investigation be continued.

So, why would you even attempt to spin Kerry's report that STATED CLEARLY that there were TWENTY OUTSTANDING MATTERS in BCCI that needed further scrutiny just to protect the man who DEEP-SIXED the investigations?

Are you that desperate to protect the wrongs of Clinton on this issue that you would pretend that Kerry was to blame - the person who requested the documents and further investigation?

[surfermaw]

132. Way to go Elizabeth

[Capn Sunshine]

17. Edwards and Limbaugh work together? Where ? IN Bizarro world?

I've seen some specious stuff on DU before, but that is RICH> :rofl:

[Viva_La_Revolution]

56. ...

Limbaugh: John and Elizabeth Edwards "turned to ... politics" instead of God after cancer news
http://mediamatters.org/items/200703230015

Elizabeth questions Limbaugh's draft deferment
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1007/Elizabeth_Takes_on_Limbaugh.html

Edwards criticizes Limbaugh's comments
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-09-28-1486729219_x.htm

Limbaugh attack Edwards again..Uses Couric’s interview…
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/26/limbaugh-attack-edwards-againuses-courics-interview/

Limbaugh Smears John Edwards
http://atheism.about.com/b/2004/09/11/limbaugh-smears-john-edwards.htm

:eyes:

[creeksneakers2]

72. That was before Edwards went into full Hillary smear mode n/t

[blm]

98. And in 2003-4 when it was Clintons undermining Kerry, then Kerry-Edwards

how did THAT make you feel?

And, as a recent Vanity Fair article makes clear, when Gore's people said they were screwed over by the Clintons and their loyalists how did THAT make you feel?

[mtnsnake]

101. You could give Tokyo Rose a run for her money, blm

blah blah blah...Clintons screwed Kerry, Clintons ruined the world, Kerry ran a great campaign...blah blah blah...Kerry had a dynamic personality, Kerry never made any gaffes, Clintons sleep with the Bushes...blah blah blah...Robert Parry says Clintons are crooked, so does the Pope, Clinton pardoned the Mafia...blah blah blah blah blah.

[blm]

115. Interesting that you always use invented charges to mask the actual charges.

Facts annoy you, so you dress them up to make it easier for you to maintain your faithful devotion to the Clintons.

[creeksneakers2]

107. I feel annoyed at being handed the Kerry video every time

I defend Hillary or attack Edwards. I haven't seen the Vanity Fair article, so I can't comment on it.

When are you going to respond to something instead of just hurling accusations back?

Was Edwards lying when he said he would take away Congress's health care or not?

[blm]

116. It's YOUR double standard - if that mirror annoys you then act responsibly

and change the reflection you get back.

[Renew Deal]

117. That does not bother Edwards detractors.

They'll post anything. I wonder if they are part of a republican psyops campaign.

[The Traveler]

13. **sigh**

This has been well covered in other threads on this board. Do a search. The strategy is clear. I shall summarize briefly because this subject is boring me pissless. Legistlation is introduced to removed health care coverage from the compensation of Congressmen. At this point, Congress people are going to have to vote for it or not ... and that gives the President the opportunity to bludgeon them with the bully pulpit. Edwards has explained this.

Would this strategy work (i.e. force Congress to do something about health care)? Frankly, I am not that optimistic about it. But it would at least expose tender feet to the fire.

[Lord Helmet]

14. man, that's harsh

[illinoisprogressive]

15. that is such a stupid video. Edwards is not phoney.

Just by the way he looks at Elizabeth you see someone with deep caring inside.
And he really cares about the poor and those who have been left out.

[Jai4WKC08]

114. You sound like Bush looking into Putin's eyes

Politicians, ministers, and trial lawyers all share one common trait. They are first and foremost actors. And they are most successful when they find a gullible audience.

Examine Edwards' record to see how much he really cares about the poor, and forget what he says or the way he looks.

[mtnsnake]

16. "caped phony" lol! And here I thought he was the Populist Tech Crusader

Thanks for posting this revelation, btw, about our caped crusader or whatever the hell he is. Glad to recommend.

[venable]

21. creeksneakers2, caped phony, looks ridiculous in this post nt

[creeksneakers2]

23. Its a response in kind. n/t

[1corona4u]

22. I totally agree

and I'm glad I'm not the only one that sees it.

[mitchum]

24. Congratulations...you are my first IGNORE ever

maybe not the last...
but you receive your honor by being the shrillest of the Shillarys (and that is quite an accomplishment)
Once again, congratulations

[AlCzervik]

30. Everybody hates lawyers until they need one.

[creeksneakers2]

78. I didn't say anything about lawyers.

That was some other guy.

[slick8790]

31. It's not a violation of the 27th amendment.

Not in my opinion. It depends on whether you consider healthcare compensation or not. I'd fully expect this (if passed) to go to the supreme court. and it's worth taking it there too.

Secondly, show me where Edwards says "everyone in congress is corrupt".

Sure, it's fun to bash lawyers. How about next time you need one you go and represent yourself? God forbid you should have a "trial lawyer" representing you. Sorry, but i'll take a trial lawyer over a corporate lawyer any day.

Your RW talking points only make you look foolish.

[creeksneakers2]

37. I didn't say anything about Edwards being a lawyer.

Somebody else did. Were it not for lawyers I would have had severe problems a few times. I wanted to be a lawyer myself but I'm not smart enough.

Edwards uses terms like "corrupt system" to portray himself as the guy who is going to bring honesty back to government. He says "defenders of the corrupt system" which means the defenders are corrupt as well. He paints himself alone as the one who is pure because he refuses donations from lobbyists.

Its an accusation of corruption to imply that members of Congress would only care about health care if their own was on line.

* Thank you for disagreeing with me about the 27th amendment. Its one of the few responses with substance to substance I've received.

[slick8790]

39. Gotcha.

My apologies about the lawyer comment. Long threads confuse me, especially at 11 pm.

I'm not entirely sure what the protocol in terms of votes or procedures needed to get a straight up and down vote on healthcare. But in any case, i'd assume the republicans would be the ones holding up the process, trying to preserve their relevance in their soon to be smaller minority. It might be easier to pass a law taking away healthcare from congress than creating it. maybe it could even be done through rules committees or something, i don't know. I'd have to look in to it more to give you a better answer.

Either way, constitutional or not, it's encouraging to me to see a candidate who would go this far to try and get healthcare for all the people who don't have it.

[mahina]

33. This would come under the heading of personal attacks.

It does nothing to elevate or inform the debate. It's a very dishonorable and low tactic that says more about the speaker than it does about Edwards.

[creeksneakers2]

38. Its backed up with quotes from Edwards and explains why they

aren't genuine.

[mahina]

55. Consider the difference between these statements. One is a personal attack

and the other isn't.

Here he said x. Here he said Y. These statements are not consistant.

and

He is a phony.

One is factual and objective. The other is a subjective judgement. One will be much more credible and less incendiary than the other.

If your objective is to persuade, the objective approach is more productive. If your objective is to inflame, then please disregard.

Then there are the rules.

[creeksneakers2]

79. Edwards is going way beyond making inconsistent statements

He's carrying out a fraud. He knows he won't have power as president to take away health care from members of Congress yet he's promising he'll do it.

[Mythsaje]

35. Coming from a supporter of the "Grand Theft Auto"

and "Flag Burning Amendment" Democratic candidate...

Someone's pissing in the wind.

[mtnsnake]

36. There you go perpetuating another lie about Hillary

She never supported a "Flag Burning Amendment". We've been over this a thousand times, but you just love saying it, don't you.

For the 1001st time, Hillary never supported any flag burning amendment. She supported legislation to criminalize desecration of the American flag. She OPPOSED a consitutional ban on desecrating the flag. That is a fact. Look it up if you don't believe that.

[depakid]

40. Now that doesn't make any sense

If laws against "flag desecration" are inconsistent with the First Amendment, i.e. unconstitutional- then why would Hillary Clinton (who's a lawyer in her own right) support enacting a statue that she knows ought to have no effect on appeal?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[mtnsnake]

41. You can twist it, interpret it any way you want. She never supported a flag burning amendment

or any other change to the Constitution regarding flags or anything else. She opposed a constitutional ban, and that's why she supported the other legislation.

[depakid]

43. What's being twisted?

I asked a simple question based on some reasoning.

Seems to me what you're saying is that she supports enacting an unconstitutional law.

My guess is that's a 'lil bit different than what's gone down.

[mtnsnake]

44. The only question is, did she support a flag burning amendment. She did not

but if you want to argue that she did in some convoluted way, well just knock yourself out. Later...

[depakid]

45. No- the question is as I stated

For the sake of discussion, I was curious about:

1. Substance: What's her position on the issue?

2. Process: If she stands by the rule of law as defined by the judiciary, then why support legislation that one knows has already been ruled unconstitutional?

See the conflict there?

Not trying to slam you- not at all. Just (hopefully) sharing a critical think.

[asdjrocky]

52. Shhhhhh....

Never say "Substance" to them... it really pisses them off.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Burson-Marsteller

Fact

http://www.prwatch.org/node/6213

More facts.

Not that they will even look at them. It's a sad sick world.

[mtnsnake]

63. buzz off

ya little gnat.

Or stick to the subject at hand. We'e talking about the flag, not tobacco. Wake up.

[mtnsnake]

62. I apologize for not getting off on this sideways tangent last night

It was late and I was only interested in correcting the poster about the fact of the matter, which I did.

Once again, here we go:

It was said by someone that Hillary supported a flag burning amendment.

I corrected that by saying she did not. She supported legislation to make it illegal to desecrate the American flag, but she opposed any change to the Constitution.

Bottom line to this particular matter: Hillary Clinton never supported a flag burning amendment, any which way you want to look at it.

As far as her position, she co-sponsored the other legislation in order to thwart off any change to the Constitution. She vehemently opposed any flag burning amendment. That much I know because I remember her speaking about it more than once when she was explaining her position.

With all respect to you and to the other question or questions you're asking about substance and how the two relate or the rest of what you're wondering, I honestly don't have the background in law or whatever it takes to answer that. If you'd really like to discuss those questions with people who do know the answers to them, why don't you just start a thread on it? Not being snarky, just trying to tell you that there are other people on this forum who could answer your questions a lot better than I can.

BTW, here is a link to the flag burning legislation thing:
http://www.fac.org/news.aspx?id=16155

By The Associated Press
12.06.05
WASHINGTON — Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is supporting new legislation to criminalize desecration of the United States flag — though she still opposes a constitutional ban on flag attacks.

I don't mind that anyone criticizes the fine Senator from New York about her co-sponsoring flag legislation, but they should always be corrected when they say she supported a flag burning amendment, because she never did.

Peace

[smalll]

46. .

[liskddksil]

47. Speaking of Mudslinging

Another personal attack on Edwards. I'll say it again the people responsible this are doing your candidates no favors by posting this crap.

[asdjrocky]

53. So true....

I came into this a couple of weeks ago not hating HRC at all,
really. But for me, life has been a lot about who your friends are,
you know, who you associate with. I liked Edwards, but I didn't hate Hillary.
It's getting harder and harder not to hate her. They make me go find out
stuff about her I didn't even want to know.

If it's a strategy, it's a dumb one.

Obsms supporters and DK supporters have for the most part been decent, sane people.
But the hate these Edwards haters / Clinton supporters spew, well it's just sad,
I'd never hang out with these people.

[CyberPieHole]

49. Kick and recommend n/t

[wiley]

57. I agree. Now he's exploiting union workers as well.

He won't be able to do anything for us anymore than he can do his con game scan with healthcare.

[Edith Ann]

60. Taking health care from congress

Yes, It would take an act of congress. He would send a bill to congress and no they won't vote for it. The American people might pay attention and begin to notice that they are paying taxes for congress to have health insurance when congress is denying them coverage and refusing to control the insurance companies. This may result in some members not being reelected. This isn't a con it is a wake up call to the electorate.

[creeksneakers2]

71. A bill to end health care for members of Congress

would never come up for a vote. Not even in committee.

[Edith Ann]

88. Doesn't matter

It will still make people wonder why they pay taxes to provide health care to politicians unwilling to assist them and their families with this problem. It would create a dialog. Insurance companies are profiting by not taking care of the sick. It was recently reported that insurance companies are paying bonuses to employees who manage to get policies of the sick canceled. Congress could stop this. It isn't claims made or trial lawyers that have caused insurance premiums to go up, it is the need to make more profit this month than last month. They do this on the backs of the consumer. Medicare came into effect because insurance companies stopped selling medical insurance to you when you turned 65. It's crazy to have to pay $1400.00 a month for any medical insurance but we pay it for bad insurance. We aren't costing the company money. Our deductibles are too high.

[creeksneakers2]

108. I agree with most of what you said but Edwards said

He'd use his power as president to cut the health care for Congress off. He can't possibly do that and he knows he can't. Edwards is selling BS, plain and simple. He didn't say anything about embarrassing Congress.

[Edith Ann]

109. Still doesn't matter

We all know if Edwards sends a bill to congress to cut their health insurance it won't be heard. But he can get on TV and support the bill. He can show people, taxpayers, that their needs aren't being met but congress is getting it's needs met at their expense. Taxpayers can then put the pressure on congress to at least provide some relief and service for the people. It isn't a matter of money. It is a matter of priorities. GB wants to spend money on a war and war profiteering, JE wants to spend money on the American people and our infrastructure. This will provide jobs and health care for the people of America, instead of allowing the few to continue to rape us. Did you ever get the feeling the Enron's rape of the California people was a dry run for GB's rape of America.

[nashville_brook]

87. absolutely. well said.

and welcome to DU!

[Amerigo Vespucci]

68. What a refreshing lack of bias or agenda in that subject line...

...I immediately know we're going to be discussing the pros and cons of Edwards as a viable candidate.

Oh...wait...that was the headline I saw in ANOTHER thread.

Never mind.

[frogmarch]

77. Oh, I get it now.

Edwards-bashing threads such as this one are using "Please don't throw me in that briar patch!" psychology, and are really designed to bolster support for Edwards.

Clever.

[SOS]

94. The 27th Amendment

is aimed at ending automatic salary increases for the Congress.
Health care is not mentioned in the amendment.
If free gold-plated health services were to be determined by a court as being part of their pay, then Edwards wiould have to wait until 2010 to do the right thing.

[creeksneakers2]

97. It doesn't say salary or increase

It says vary and compensation. Health care is part of legislative compensation.

In the ad, Edwards promises to do it all after six months with his power as president.

That ad is fraudulent. Edwards could never ever ever ever take away health care benefits from Congress if he was president.

[BlueStater]

100. You know, despite the turds you clowns have flung at Edwards lately...

...you still haven't convinced me that Hillary is any better an alternative.

[Tellurian]

103. Except for the newcomers namely Obama and Edwards flinging attacks..what other Democrat

besides DK has had anything negative to say about Senator Clinton? I'm beginning to like DK, however he's unelectable. Not to say some of his ideas can't be implemented after the election.. but for now, he's the extreme. And even DK defended Senator Clinton from the vicious Edwards attacks!

[Tellurian]

102. .Edwards is a professional Liar..

I don't understand. Are Edwards supporters illiterate or something? Edwards Senate record is a ball and chain around this man's neck proving unequivocally he has been a prime supporter of the Neocon agenda the entire time he was in the senate...and they choose to ignore it!

[Nutmegger]

105. No

John Edwards threw the voodoo on us, that's all.

On the other hand, I really don't understand the Clinton support but I won't disparage you guys/gals.

[Tellurian]

111. Agreed, Edwards threw on his Bankruptcy Voodoo..along with the Republicans...

Edwards talks about Poverty. What about the Poverty he is forcing on the Middle Class who have gone into foreclosure and lost their homes? Edwards went above and beyond voting with Republicans, to punish those seeking relief in Bankruptcy. Just as he did co-sponsoring the Iraq War Resolution.

Not someone I would consider for a Democratic Presidency, who cares more about voting with the opposition, ingratiating himself to Republicans than the people who elected him to represent them in the Senate.

Here is his Bankruptcy Vote:

http://votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V2657&can_id=21107

[mtnsnake]

112. They're "something" alright, but I doubt if it's Democrats

Let's face it, if someone was a Republican mole coming to this forum for the sheer purpose of bringing down the Democratic frontrunner, Hillary Clinton, who would be the candidate you would choose to hide behind? It would be none other than John Edwards, who supported the neocon agenda better than any other candidate when he was in Congress. Fakes hiding behind a phony.

I'm not saying there aren't plenty of genuine Edwards supporters, but it's obvious as the day is long that a certain bunch of them are here with only one purpose in mind, to bring our top Democratic candidate down. Anyone can tell who the true Edwards supporters are and the ones who are only hiding behind him just to demean their number one enemy, Hillary Clinton.

[Flabbergasted]

106. George Bush couldn't possibly torture our enemy, He's a Christian.

[ileus]

110. The creators of this video better watch out, I smell a lawsuit after J drops out.

[Tellurian]

113. I don't think so..Since when is showing the typical Edwards Grandstanding a crime..

From his mouth to God's ears!

[mmonk]

118. Well thanks to bush and congress, he'll have extraconstitutional

powers when he takes office. He'll be the decider.

[GreenArrow]

124. "It's Alright! It's Okay!

There's something to live for! John Edwards told me so"!