Apparently both hate it enough that neither partakes of it.

Heh, this just reminds me of Bill Maher's routine about Bush and Gore's bullshiat surrounding how much they loved their wives in the 2000 election as a reaction to Clinton's infidelity (Bush got "caught" grabbing Laura's ass/Gore and Tipper sucking face) - "I FARK MY WIFE! I LOVE MY WIFE!" "OH, FARK YOU, BUDDY, YOU'RE NOT TAKING WIFE-FARKING AWAY FROM ME, GORE!"

bearsfolks: Apparently both hate it enough that neither partakes of it.

Because as everyone knows, nobody who's rich could possibly impose any policies that benefit the poor more than the rich or ever give two shiats about them.

...

As they haggle over who's more touchy-feely for the poor and down
trodden just to cover all their voter bases, it touches my heart to
know that they, the "haves", sincerely care so very much. Enough so
that those of us that are "have-nots", but are working our tails
off trying to get there, will never achieve our goal because we're
stuck in the middle paying for all their teary-eyed caring ways while
they are damn sure going to protect themselves, the "already
haves".

I wonder how many $500 haircuts Edwards could afford if Clinton gave him all the money she's taken in campaign contributions from corporations? Lots, I suspect.

How come no thread about Clinton's dead-beat brother?

Cyberluddite:

Right on! Limousine liberals might save us all!
(Seriously, I don't mean that in the pejorative sense at all.)

bearsfolks: Apparently both hate it enough that neither partakes of it.

You do know that Edwards grew up poor. He went to college, got good grades, became a lawyer and made tons of money... you know the american dream

/why do you hate america?

butterchik: Right on! Limousine liberals might save us all!

I don't understand why neo cons allude that liberals who make money are evil. I mean are they only ones who are allowed to be rich?

/should they be a chevy liberal rather than a limousine liberal?

Did you guys know Al Gore lives in a house? Hypocrite!

SeismicJizzer:

Never understood that either. I always thought that it was the love of money that was the root of all evil, not money being the root of all evil.

I always had a lot of respect for FDR because of the focus on poverty. He really had no concept of what it's like whatsoever. Clearly the Depression put it in the forefront of his policy, but the man had cajones for being a rich guy running for President when the Depression was at its worst (1933). You can debate either way the effectiveness of the NLRB and the Agricultural Adjustment Act, but man, the dude did his damnedest to keep the country together.

We Want Roosevelt! The World Wants Roosevelt! (Democratic Convention 1940)

SeismicJizzer: bearsfolks: Apparently both hate it enough that neither partakes of it.

You do know that Edwards grew up poor. He went to college, got good grades, became a lawyer and made tons of money... you know the american dream

/why do you hate america?

And he made his money in that most venerable of American professions: chasing ambulances.

/NC native, so I've dealt with this guy for over a decade.
//His current poverty bender is entertaining, but the best he can shoot for is a veep nod.
///Obama / Edwards? In my White House? It's more likely than you think.
////Whee, slashies!!!

Occam's Chainsaw

/NC native, so I've dealt with this guy for over a decade.

Dealt with him, or had angry, talk radio-induced thoughts about him?

El_Dan: Occam's Chainsaw

/NC native, so I've dealt with this guy for over a decade.

Dealt with him, or had angry, talk radio-induced thoughts about him?

Dealt with him personally (all he has to do is smile and you're convinced he just sold you something you didn't need), dealt with the "Lauch Faircloth will eat your children" political campaign, and had to claim him as one of our own. I avoid talk-radio like the Black Plague.

For a politician, he's really not that bad of a guy. Definitely better than some choices the Dems could field... *coughHillarycough*

John Edwards really does hate poverty, so much so that he can't stand the thought of parting with the millions of dollars he has to help others be less poor.

FTFA "Let me just be clear," said Edwards. "Ending poverty in this country is the cause of my life, and I am completely committed to it."

A years-long track record proves this statement to be true, and all the neocons can say is that he gets hair cuts and lives in a house? Explain to me again why the Republican party still exists.

John Edwards gets testy when Hillary Clinton suggests she hates poverty more than he does

"Hey, she can't hate poverty more than me! I invented hating poverty (no, wait; that was Al; he invented everything). I hate poverty more! And I have the money to prove it! (true, according to my tax forms I've donated less than $70,000 to charity in the past 3 years, but that's because I'm so busy hating poverty! And that whole thing about my wanting my less affluent neighbors to move away from my house was just a rumor started by my wife. Pay it no mind.)

John Edwards father was management?

That sack of douche, he always makes it sound like his dad was making minimum wage in the mill.

/just goes to show you can't trust anyone...

Not defending Edwards or Hillary, but on the other side of the coin, what would a legitimate campaigner for the poor look like then? Mike Gravel? But everyone dismisses him because he doesn't have any money. It just seems like a catch 22 here.

Whatsleft: Not defending Edwards or Hillary, but on the other side of the coin, what would a legitimate campaigner for the poor look like then? Mike Gravel? But everyone dismisses him because he doesn't have any money. It just seems like a catch 22 here.

Something like this. (new window)

Whichever of them is the wealthier obviously hates poverty more.

SeismicJizzer:
You do know that Edwards grew up poor. He went to college, got good grades, became a lawyer and made tons of money... you know the american dream

/why do you hate america?

I would prefer someone who came by their wealth ethically.

Descartes: John Edwards father was management?

That sack of douche, he always makes it sound like his dad was making minimum wage in the mill.

/just goes to show you can't trust anyone...


The guy is a farkin' LAWYER. That's your first clue right there.

Don't get me wrong, stretching the truth like that is a positive boon in the adversarial court system we have. If I were going to court, I'd want a lawyer who could push the boundaries.

BUT, I sure as Hell wouldn't trust them otherwise. Well, let me say that I will always trust a lawyer to look out for what is in their own best interests, and if I need one it is my job to make sure our best interests coincide.

The problem is that the habit of 'stretching the truth' bleeds into their political life. It is no coincidence that the majority of politicians, especially at the state and federal level, are also politicians. Ask yourself, who else makes a good politician? Actors, the other group used to lying for a living.

Cyberluddite: bearsfolks: Apparently both hate it enough that neither partakes of it.

Because as everyone knows, nobody who's rich could possibly impose any policies that benefit the poor more than the rich or ever give two shiats about them.

Normally this would be a Godwin, but it's actually in context here.

Hitler did far more to pull the American population out of poverty than FDR ever did. Heck, even some of Hoover's policies were more effective.

FDR was a cool guy, but policywise his primary legacy was a dramatic increase in the occurence of departments expanding into areas with which they were never originally intended to deal, which tends to put more economic strain on the employed. Making it harder to go from unemployed to employed-- yeah, real big help there, almost as big as the shell-game 'retirement plan' with the magical vanishing money.

Hillary can't be President. She's a girl.

Jim_Callahan: Cyberluddite: bearsfolks: Apparently both hate it enough that neither partakes of it.

Because as everyone knows, nobody who's rich could possibly impose any policies that benefit the poor more than the rich or ever give two shiats about them.

Normally this would be a Godwin, but it's actually in context here.

Hitler did far more to pull the American population out of poverty than FDR ever did. Heck, even some of Hoover's policies were more effective.

FDR was a cool guy, but policywise his primary legacy was a dramatic increase in the occurence of departments expanding into areas with which they were never originally intended to deal, which tends to put more economic strain on the employed. Making it harder to go from unemployed to employed-- yeah, real big help there, almost as big as the shell-game 'retirement plan' with the magical vanishing money.


There is actually some evidence that Roosevelt's policies actually prolonged the Depression. In the end, that makes things worse for the little guy by making it harder to get a job. The economy was still in the toilet until Roosevelt (and Congress) started gearing the nation up for war back in 1938 or 1939. True, unemployment fell quite a bit (partly due to government 'make work' programs like the CCC and WPA), but even so it remained at 9% right up until 1942. For perspective, since 1948 there have only been two years when unemployment was that high: 1982 and 1983.

dittybopper: For perspective, since 1948 there have only been two years when unemployment was that high: 1982 and 1983.

Funnily enough under the president who tried harder to destroy everything that was created under FDR than any other.

Nastyboy: Hillary can't be President. She's a girl.


That's absolutely the most sexist thing I have heard on Fark. Of course Hillary can be President, same as any other man.

As long as Hillary doesn't get testes.

she doesn't have testes, does she?

DOES SHE!!?

The funniest thing is that both of them are the kids of Textile industry workers. Even though papa Edwards was in management, I'd still say that's being from the south he was closer to poverty than anything in Park Ridge, Il, which is where the Rodhams lived.

Pro Zackshe doesn't have testes, does she?

Yeah, Bill's, she took'em when she started the senate campaign.

But seriously, we're in a pile right now. There's one candidate who's spending any serious time talking about the economy, Ron Paul, and he's batshiat. Allow me to explain, he wants to return to a gold standard, a deflationary policy, while we have an enormous amount of public and private debt. This would make it harder to pay off china, and harder for everyone to pay off their debts, at a time when national saving sucks. I agree that the Fed under Greenspan caused some problems, like creating a serious moral hazard problem with the multiple large scale bailouts. We're committed to inflation of the same (or higher) rate assumed when the debt was issued. Uncle Ben wants to keep the money supply growing at the same rate as the economy, like any good monetarist, but he can't 'cause of Al's magical moral hazard show. And then we have health care, free market, a classic asymmetric information economic failure, and socialized medicine, which invites several of the classic problems with social goods (free rider, resource allocation, inequitable access). Nobody has been willing to consider other solutions, Singapore has a forced saving plan which works for them, and there are other possible policy options that haven't be tried. The thing the world doesn't realize is that if the US stops being the market that pays off innovation in medicine then new advances and new drug in the whole world slows considerably.

Fark the social conservatives, fark the think of the childerns libs, can't we get some folks to man up, stop the snowball problems, and not buy us any more problems than necessary?

Nope, the only people how pursue power do it for corruption or ideology, sometimes we get lucky and it's both.

Aarontology: dittybopper: For perspective, since 1948 there have only been two years when unemployment was that high: 1982 and 1983.

Funnily enough under the president who tried harder to destroy everything that was created under FDR than any other.


Nice try, but those were actually due to factors outside of Reagan's control.

Here is the historical record:

1970___4.9
1971___5.9
1972___5.6
1973___4.9 - Beginning of 1973 'Gas Crisis'
1974___5.6
1975___8.5
1976___7.7
1977___7.1 - Jimmy Carter Takes Office
1978___6.1
1979___5.8 - Beginning of 1979 'Oil Crisis'
1980___7.1 - Iran-Iraq War starts
1981___7.6 - Ronald Reagan takes office, 'Tanker War' starts
1982___9.7
1983___9.6
1984___7.5
1985___7.2 - Ronald Reagan second term
1986___7.0
1987___6.2
1988___5.5 - Iran-Iraq War ends
1989___5.3 - George H W Bush takes office

Unemployment peaked in Reagans second year, after a three year upswing.

Generally, a system as large and as complex as the US economy doesn't turn on a dime. It takes at least a year or two for major things to turn around. It also takes time to get policy changed in Washington, D.C., especially with a hostile Congress. I remember the political climate back then: The Democrat controlled Congress was just as obstructionist against Reagan as they are with GWB, but more effective because they actually had a decent majority.

Is it fair to blame Reagan with high unemployment in his second and third year in office? Not really, and by the time he left office unemployment was at it's lowest rate since 1970. Unemployment had been reduced by 24% from when he took office, and by almost 50% from when it hit it's peak. Not too bad.

You will also note that unemployment shot up for events that directly effect the price of oil. Really, the politics have little to do with unemployment. After a major event effecting oil prices, unemployment shoots up for 3 to 4 years. It just so happens that the high unemployment rates of 1982 and 1983 were the result of a triple whammy: The 1979 Oil Crisis (caused by the Iranian Revolution), the Iran-Iraq war started in late 1980, and the so-called 'Tanker War' that started the year after that.

Of course, you being a member of the He-Man Reagan Haters Club, I wouldn't expect you to have the depth of knowledge to realize that, or even the skills and patience to be able to use Google to figure it out for yourself, like I did.

Edwards is the worst candidate running for office today. He's flip-flopped on every issue he tackled as a senator. How are we supposed to judge his "experience" if everything he believed when he was a senator, and voted on, is something he argues against now? China trade (for), NAFTA (for), Universal Healthcare (against), Iraq war (for), etc.

He claims to be the champion of the poor, but said nothing while the company he worked for "studying the roots of poverty" took full advantage of Caribbean tax havens and of the poor through their predatory lending. Where was that fighter for the poor then?

Additionally, he began walking Pickett lines with Union members once he decided to run for President. Prior to that he had never done so because it would have hurt him politically in his home state. Ugh, it's beyond me how anyone can support his douche bag.

Pro Zack: As long as Hillary doesn't get testes.

she doesn't have testes, does she?

DOES SHE!!?


I can't answer that, but if I pulled what her husband pulled, my wife would most certainly have a pair of testes.

Mine, sitting in a jar.

this douche bag....damn spell check didn't catch that!

Shadow writer:
Additionally, he began walking Pickett lines with Union members once he decided to run for President.



Unavailable for comment.

dittybopper: Shadow writer:
Additionally, he began walking Pickett lines with Union members once he decided to run for President.

Unavailable for comment.

Darn, didn't catch that one either...I give up. sigh.

dittybopper: Nice try, but those were actually due to factors outside of Reagan's control.

You're over analyzing my statement. I was merely commenting on Reagan and his aversion to the policies of the New Deal.

And yes, I hate Reagan, but not for the unemployment. Calling ketchup a vegetable gets big douchebag marks, as does his snuggling up with the religious right. And the massive budget and spending deficits. And that he was probably suffering from Alzheimer's while in office. And ignoring the AIDS problem for so long. And his support for the war on drugs, which I admit has been carried on under all presidents since it's inception.

And don't get snarky with me simply because I have a disagreement with you politically. It comes across as childish.

Shadow writer: dittybopper: Shadow writer:
Additionally, he began walking Pickett lines with Union members once he decided to run for President.

Unavailable for comment.

Darn, didn't catch that one either...I give up. sigh.


Actually, using 'Pickett' and 'Union' in the same sentence made me think of Pickett's Charge at first, but that was just too easy.

What, no Edwards primping anim from A_D? Could it be because he was banninated (yet again) for posting that disgusting Hillary Clinton photoshop yesterday? Good riddance, troll.

I guess it's time for afternoon_mighty etc. to establish yet another alt to continue the fight on behalf of the hedge-fund set against the 99.9% of the rest of us.

Research the history of John and Elizabeth Edwards and decide for yourself what kind of people they are. I've done so, and I believe that John Edwards is a good and honest man who would make a great president, and Elizabeth Edwards would be a great first lady.

John Edwards actually cares about others less fortunate than himself. Edwards worked his ass off from nothing to get to where he is on the basis of his brains and his grit. He understands what it's like to have all the odds against you, yet to still succeed in spite of that.

Certainly You Jest I believe that John Edwards is a good and honest man who would make a great president

lol

MFL: Certainly You Jest I believe that John Edwards is a good and honest man who would make a great president

lol

Thanks for the substantive post, MFL. Care to elaborate?

Probably not.

Occam's Chainsaw

Whatsleft: Not defending Edwards or Hillary, but on the other side of the coin, what would a legitimate campaigner for the poor look like then? Mike Gravel? But everyone dismisses him because he doesn't have any money. It just seems like a catch 22 here.

Something like this. (link to Mother Teresa)

Mother Teresa's idea of helping the poor and the sick was to make them feel good about being poor. Not exactly the person who'd want to get people out of poverty.

I just personally don't like who and what he is.

"Despite the almost complete absence of scientific basis for these [medical malpractice] claims, cerebral palsy cases remain enormously attractive to lawyers," Huber wrote.

"The judgments or settlements related to medical malpractice lawsuits that focused on brain-damaged infants with cerebral palsy helped Edwards amass a personal fortune estimated at between $12.8 and $60 million. He and his wife own three homes, each worth more than $1 million, according to Edwards' Senate financial disclosure forms. Edwards' old law firm reportedly kept between 25 and 40 percent of the jury awards/settlements during the time he worked there"

"He sued nurses, doctors, hospitals. The reputation he had was -- he never wanted to hear that nobody did anything wrong. If you even walked by the door of an alleged malpractice incident, you were gong to cough up money too,".


Did 'Junk Science' Make John Edwards Rich? (new window)

FTA: That is why yesterday I introduced legislation to raise the minimum wage to $9.50 by 2011, and link the minimum wage to Congressional pay raises after that

What? Why would you link minimum wage to Congressional pay raises? If it is going to be linked to anything (which I don't think it should), it should be linked to inflation. This makes no sense whatsoever.

Certainly You Jest: What, no Edwards primping anim from A_D? Could it be because he was banninated (yet again) for posting that disgusting Hillary Clinton photoshop yesterday? Good riddance, troll.

I guess it's time for afternoon_mighty etc. to establish yet another alt to continue the fight on behalf of the hedge-fund set against the 99.9% of the rest of us.

Research the history of John and Elizabeth Edwards and decide for yourself what kind of people they are. I've done so, and I believe that John Edwards is a good and honest man who would make a great president, and Elizabeth Edwards would be a great first lady.

John Edwards actually cares about others less fortunate than himself. Edwards worked his ass off from nothing to get to where he is on the basis of his brains and his grit. He understands what it's like to have all the odds against you, yet to still succeed in spite of that.

Nothing I've seen, including his record as an attorney can convince me of that. Add to that what I mentioned in my Boobies here today his changing his mind about so many things he voted for/against in the senate mostly because it was politically expedient, just like his change of mind now that he is running for President and he comes off to me like the democratic version of Mitt Romney.

I mean, its even apparent in how he is running for President. He questions Hillary's taking of "special interest"/lobbyists money, and yet he does so as well. The only difference is that she takes money from Federal lobbyists whereas he takes it from state lobbyists with interests in Federal legislation.

He's not pro-labor. If he was he would have stood with union members at picket lines during his one term as senator. He didn't. Why? Not only was he not as pro-union as say Sen. Biden for example, but he was also a more centrist candidate. I mean, when he ran for President in 2004 he ran, on most issues, to the right of John Kerry, including with regard to issues of national security. Now, because again, it is politically expedient, he is running to the left of everyone but Kucinich.

I don't particularly like Hillary's campaign, but I'd rather she win than have Edwards as the nominee because he would get massacred in the national election. Think Kerry=flip flopper was bad, wait till you get Edwards in that position. Additionally, he has no foreign policy experience, no real one at least. Even Obama has more, and his resume on that score is pretty thin.

If Edwards becomes the nominee that would almost guarantee my voting for a republican, and I'm not the only democrat who feels that way. You want to lose the next election, go with Edwards.

Jonny Wilkinson: What? Why would you link minimum wage to Congressional pay raises? If it is going to be linked to anything (which I don't think it should), it should be linked to inflation. This makes no sense whatsoever.

I think it's because those in Congress have given themselves pay raises more times than they have raised the minimum wage. That way Congress will either have to raise minimum wage, or they will cut down on giving themselves pay raises they clearly do not deserve.

Shadow writer:Nothing I've seen, including his record as an attorney can convince me of that. Add to that what I mentioned in my Boobies here today his changing his mind about so many things he voted for/against in the senate mostly because it was politically expedient, just like his change of mind now that he is running for President and he comes off to me like the democratic version of Mitt Romney.

I don't know how this happened. I wrote (Boobies, and that somehow was changed to boobies. I did not mean my first ever post, but rather Weeners...odd, but cracked me up when I re read it.

Aarontology:
I think it's because those in Congress have given themselves pay raises more times than they have raised the minimum wage. That way Congress will either have to raise minimum wage, or they will cut down on giving themselves pay raises they clearly do not deserve.

Or more likely if the Democrats are in control, they don't give a damn about what effect raising minimum wage will have, and give themselves pay raises anyway.