OK, why don’t you tell us which of the two Americas pays the taxes? What Edwards was peddling in that speech was a pack of lies. If you want to call that “criticism” don’t blame me when you get called on it.
Almost true. CNN on Enron stock.
The shameful thing was that the top executives kept assuring their employees, largely unsophisticated stockholders, that the stock would recover all the while selling their own as fast as they could find buyers.
OK. Anyone who bought Enron stock could sell it whenever he wished to. I’m not sure how a publicly traded company can prevent someone from selling stock, but I can’t get too worked about a company putting restrictions on stock it gives to its employees.
And these Enron executives who make up part of the two Americas… Are we talking about one American that is in prison and another America that is not in prison? If that’s the case, then I guess I can agree with Edwards.
I would have had no objection if you had just said you disagreed with him, or evan that it was a pack of lies. Calling it “class warfare” is hyperbolic hysteria and right out of the Republican playbook.
Further discussion of Edwards’s economic ideas should go in another thread.
Is that supposed to be some type of rebuttal? The “Republican playbook”? Yeah, I’ve got Bush on the phone right now feeding me lines. :rolleyes:
Now that I can agree on. This thread is supposed to be about Hillary.
If you substitute hysterical, loaded terms that are currently in vogue by one party for actual attempts at political discourse, don’t be surprised when you sound like a lemming-like member of that party.
Lots of people asked you for clarification. The best you offered was a ludicrous exaggeration and rolleye smilies. I’m supposed to be able to rebut that?
Oh no. I’m disagreeing with you. It’s “John Mace warfare.”
The stock the employees bought was part of the Enron retirement fund and Enron controlled the management of that fund. They did in fact restrict employees from selling such stock for a couple of weeks.
Are you seriously arguing that all Americans are equal in economic status and the power to control their surroundings?
Back to Hillary Clinton, I can understand the thinking behind saying that she’s already weathered the worst of the attacks. The problem is that I think the attacks might be the least of her problems.
Her biggest issue might be projecting a lack of personal warmth. I think it’s easy to underestimate the importance of personality in a presidential candidate.
But, I don’t like her for other reasons, so I might be projecting a coldness on her that others don’t see.
No. I’m arguing that Edwards’ description of “two Americas” is not only an attempt to pit one economic class against another, but that that it is factually incorrect. I find that just as despicable as Bush and Cheney’s attempt to paint an us versus them picture of the larger world.
Again back to HRC … (Edwards doesn’t stand a chance anyway so why bother debating about him and his so-called vision for America?)
Which is more important in an election, the number of people who like you, or the number of people who dislike you? Or more pertinently, who is more likely to come out and vote?
Let us presume that more people vote against someone than for the other contender. Will the well established distaste many have for HRC be enough offset by a distaste for the Party that has screwed things up so badly as of late? If she runs who will have more people stay home or vote for Bloomberg? Dems who dislike her (and there are a sizable number of us) or disillusioned Pubbies who can’t rally around any of the current crop?
Edwards didn’t say “class warfare”, the term was used to deride and slur his position. So far as I know, no one on the progressive-left wing uses the term, it is only used by their opponents derisively, as it was used herein. We generally favor a term like “economic justice” No one is more aware of the antiquated obsolescence of Marxist theology than the left.
And, not surprisingly, we resent being burdened with it, as though we need to account for it and apologize for it. We see injustice, we are committed to change. We would be happy for your support, but we will not pretend that obstruction is harmless.
The real problem with Democratic candidates when it comes to issues of economic justice is that they feel compelled to pander to the middle class: if its class war, its the comfortable against the obscenely comfortable. It is a happy thing that there are so few genuinely poor people in our country, the unhappy result is that their political power is minimal: they have no money to contribute, they are not meaningfully organized, they are the orphans of democracy. “Fuck the poor!” is redundant.
To close on a stirring note: this is our country, John, sea to shining sea, amber wave, purple mountains, the whole shebang…ours. If a man derives his wealth from our country, he derives his wealth from us. It is ours, he has it on loan. His children are no better than our own, no more deserving of opportunity, no more deserving of good health, no more deserving of education to the full extent of talent and ability. If that be class warfare, well, then, make the most of it.
We would be pleased to have your intelligence and skills on our side. Lord knows, the struggle is vexing and the returns meager. It is not a wise move, if self-interest is your lodestone. But we have chosen, and you must as well: lead, follow, or get out of the way.
Bull. Fucking. Shit. Stop claiming to own the lives of other people. That’s what the hell is wrong with authoritarianism, whether the term du jour is “progressive” or “Marxist”. Jesus. The left won’t be happy until it has destroyed capitalism and made everybody poor.
A rose by any other name, pal. Call it “kissing puppies” if you like, what Edwards is peddling is factually incorrect. Let’s start with his first assertion that one American pays the taxes. Which America is that? Enlighten us.
It be class warfare. I hope, for the Democrats’ sake, that they do not make that either their explicit or implicit platform.
Well, that’s one of the more chilling statements I’ve read on the board in a while.
It’s also one of the best examples of complete ignorance of what wealth creation is that I’ve read for a while.
Honestly, John, what actual harm do you envision resulting from class warfare so defined? What makes it a bad idea?
Those who wanted to believe would never have voted for Kerry in the first place. It’s the middle 20% that politicians fight over. The Swift boaters had been stalking Kerry for decades. He should have seen the attacks coming and had a plan to deal with them. You yourself just pointed out how such a counter-attack might have worked, pointing out Bush’s own war record, pointing it out loudly and frequently in simple easily digestible sound bites. This might have won him the small number of Ohioans he needed to win. Instead he acted like a deer in the headlights. I doubt Clinton’s going to make the same mistake. (Assuming she wins the primaries.)
Why? Before 2004 he was just another senator.
So, if I quote you, and say “neener neener!”, then I have rebutted your argument? Hell, had no idea it was that easy!
Oh, Lordy yes! I personally know people who have hated his guts for more than thirty years! He led the Viet Nam Veterans Against the War, may the Good Lord bless and keep each and every one!