Edwards Makes A Killing Talking About Poverty

[maineman]

you never answer any question, what the fuck are you talking about. show me where you have answered any of the questions I posed above. all you do is bullshit and cut and paste other people's opinions. it is getting so boring.

 

[red states rule]

you never answer any question, what the fuck are you talking about. show me where you have answered any of the questions I posed above. all you do is bullshit and cut and paste other people's opinions. it is getting so boring.

Your partianship blinds you from seeing the answers MM

Pretty Boy is like Al Gore - saying one thing while doing another

 

[maineman]

so... basically... wealthy and successful people are not allowed to be proponents for policies that help the poor?

wealthy people who want to help develop public policy around the subject of poverty are automatically hypocrites?

 

[red states rule]

so... basically... wealthy and successful people are not allowed to be proponents for policies that help the poor?

wealthy people who want to help develop public policy around the subject of poverty are automatically hypocrites?

How the hell is he helping the poor?

He is making millions TALKING about them - but he is not DOING anything to help them

 

[maineman]

How the hell is he helping the poor?

He is making millions TALKING about them - but he is not DOING anything to help them

how do you think that public policy gets changed? do you think that elves come in while we sleep at night and change them? Or do you think that policy issues need to be raised, public awareness heightened, alternatives debated, and preferences determined?

elves? is that your final answer?

 

[red states rule]

how do you think that public policy gets changed? do you think that elves come in while we sleep at night and change them? Or do you think that policy issues need to be raised, public awareness heightened, alternatives debated, and preferences determined?

elves? is that your final answer?

Not with libs money that is for sure

Edwards will make sure his taxes do not go up - let the other people pay for it

 

[maineman]

Not with libs money that is for sure

Edwards will make sure his taxes do not go up - let the other people pay for it

that's not so...and you didn't answer the question....again.

how can you call the tripe you dribble "debate"?

 

[red states rule]

that's not so...and you didn't answer the question....again.

how can you call the tripe you dribble "debate"?

IO really do not expect YOU to see liberal hypocrisy

 

[maineman]

and the point was....you said

How the hell is he helping the poor?

He is making millions TALKING about them - but he is not DOING anything to help them

and I showed you that by talking about poverty, he is helping to change public policy about poverty.... and you do not even have the grace to admit that I answered your question and showed you that he is, in fact, doing something to help them. what a coward you are. you get your ass handed to you all the time and you NEVER admit it.

 

[red states rule]

and the point was....you said

How the hell is he helping the poor?

He is making millions TALKING about them - but he is not DOING anything to help them

and I showed you that by talking about poverty, he is helping to change public policy about poverty.... and you do not even have the grace to admit that I answered your question and showed you that he is, in fact, doing something to help them. what a coward you are. you get your ass handed to you all the time and you NEVER admit it.

and that is all Pretty Boy is doing - talking

while making frequent trips to the bank to make deposits

 

[maineman]

and that is all Pretty Boy is doing - talking

while making frequent trips to the bank to make deposits

you really are a pathetic coward. you never admit when you are wrong....ever.

 

[red states rule]

you really are a pathetic coward. you never admit when you are wrong....ever.

If you ever do and Hell freezes over - I will

 

[maineman]

If you ever do and Hell freezes over - I will

I doubt you will...you never have so far.

 

[red states rule]

I doubt you will...you never have so far.

You have not proved me wrong

Pretty Boy is a typical lib yu love and adore

Says one thing and does another

Then you defend him like a good little liberal

 

[maineman]

so you are saying that the act of advocating for any cause is NOT "doing" something to help that cause?

When suffragettes spoke out for the right of women to vote, they were not DOING anything to help women?

When Martin Luther King gave his speech on the Mall, he was not DOING anything to help black americans?

"Speaking" is not "doing" anything? Is that your point?

I wonder then, what George Bush DOES to help America.

 

[red states rule]

so you are saying that the act of advocating for any cause is NOT "doing" something to help that cause?

When suffragettes spoke out for the right of women to vote, they were not DOING anything to help women?

When Martin Luther King gave his speech on the Mall, he was not DOING anything to help black americans?

"Speaking" is not "doing" anything? Is that your point?

I wonder then, what George Bush DOES to help America.

They went out and did something - Pretty Boy is doing nothing except making millions and doing nothing about the "problem"

Which is why he lost in 04 - all talk and nothing else

 

[maineman]

They went out and did something - Pretty Boy is doing nothing except making millions and doing nothing about the "problem"

Which is why he lost in 04 - all talk and nothing else

what they DID was speak about issues... and raise public awareness. Just exactly like Edwards is doing, you class envious hypocrite!

And if he's all talk and nothing else, I bet you'd still trade your fucking bedroom in your mom's trailer for the house and life that talker has, eh?

 

[Truthmatters]

its grandmas basement

 

[red states rule]

what they DID was speak about issues... and raise public awareness. Just exactly like Edwards is doing, you class envious hypocrite!

And if he's all talk and nothing else, I bet you'd still trade your fucking bedroom in your mom's trailer for the house and life that talker has, eh?

I am sure Pretty Boy will think about the poor as he sits back in his limo heading for another speech about poverty (where he will pocket $55,000)

The left sufferes from wealth envy - it seems on of the lefts talking points fit Pretty Boy

The rich are getting richer

 

[red states rule]

what they DID was speak about issues... and raise public awareness. Just exactly like Edwards is doing, you class envious hypocrite!

And if he's all talk and nothing else, I bet you'd still trade your fucking bedroom in your mom's trailer for the house and life that talker has, eh?

Maybe Pretty Byt should take notes on what he does say

Like most Dems he keep changing his talking points

To bad there are many sources that keep good notes

John Edwards on 9-11: 'We Should Treat It As An Act of War'
Posted by Rich Noyes on May 24, 2007 - 12:12.
In a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations on Wednesday, Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards rejected the “metaphor” of the “war on terror” that America has been fighting since the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

But appearing on ABC News on September 11, 2001, just a few hours after the attacks occurred, Edwards left no doubt how he felt the country should respond to al Qaeda’s terrorism, declaring “We should treat it as an act of war.”
Video: Real (398 KB) or Windows (442 KB) plus MP3 (65 KB)

ABC’s World News last night and Good Morning America this morning offered no coverage of Edwards’ 9/11 flip-flop. A report on Edwards’ speech posted on ABCNews.com offered no hint that Edwards had used their airwaves on 9/11 to push for a “war” response to terrorism, i.e., a war on terror.

Instead, ABC’s Raelyn Johnson offered a mild summary of Edwards’ new anti-war on terror stance, including his claim that the “war on terror” is a “discredited ideological pursuit.”

In an address to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, Edwards framed the current situation in Iraq around Bush administration policies that he opines have strained the military and increased the threat of terrorism, specifically the global war on terror.

“We need a post-Bush, post-9/11, post-Iraq American military that is mission-focused on protecting Americans from 21st century threats — not misused for discredited ideological pursuits,” said Edwards.

“The question is, what should replace the war on terror?” he asked.

Reading the entire speech (posted at RealClearPolitics.com), Edwards plainly argued that the “war on terror” reaction to 9/11 was a mistake that has only aided our enemies:

By framing this as a “war,” we have walked right into the trap that terrorists have set--that we are engaged in some kind of clash of civilizations and a war against Islam.

The “war” metaphor has also failed because it exaggerates the role of only one instrument of American power — the military. This has occurred in part because the military is so effective at what it does. Yet if you think all you have is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail.

But back on September 11, 2001, Edwards — who had only been in the Senate for a few months — managed to snare Barbara Walters for an interview in which he boasted about the work he’d done to beef up American security, and vowed that the terrorists would see a “resolute,” “powerful” response.

When Walters asked if that meant war, Edwards replied that if the attacks were proven to be the work of another state, it would certainly be war, and that in any event “I think we should treat it as an act of war.”

An excerpt from ABC’s live coverage, from around 10:05pm EDT on September 11, 2001:


BARBARA WALTERS: Senator Edwards, you’ve had concern now for quite a while about terrorist attacks and had wanted more security. What should have been done?

SENATOR JOHN EDWARDS: Well, actually, Barbara, there are some of us who have been working on some legislation--a law that’s directed at doing specifically that. Senator Graham, Bob Graham, Dianne Feinstein and I along with others, have drafted legislation before this incident occurred that does three things. One, puts more resources, more money into fighting terrorism, counter-terrorism. Two, coordinates all of the federal agencies, and I think there are 41 of them that are involved — who are involved in counter terrorism; it creates a terrorism czar, to oversee that effort. And third, gives the director of the CIA more legal authority to do what needs to be done to fight terrorism.

I might add, Barbara, I think that the people who have committed this act — these acts on the United States, who killed all those innocent men and women and children today, underestimate the American people. And I think what they’re about to find out is the American people are strong, they are courageous, and they are resolute. And our response will be powerful.

WALTERS: Is this war?

Sen. EDWARDS: I think when--whenever we see the kind of attack we saw on the United States to--today, certainly if it were state sponsored it would be war. And I think we should treat it as an act of war.

WALTERS: How do we combat this kind of terrorism?

Sen. EDWARDS: We need more money spent on combatting terrorism, which is such a serious threat to the American people. We need to coordinate, to make sure that all of our agencies are working together in a coordinated fashion to fight these folks. And number three, we need to make sure that the legal authority is in place so that the director of the CIA, the Central Intelligence Agency, can do what’s necessary to fight these people.

http://newsbusters.org/node/12971