NationStates Jolt Archive

Just been reading about the stances and proposed policies of the three main Democratic candidates, and while coming away with a disdain for Hillary, I have to say I really like the universal health care policy of Edwards, it's good to see as the US is supposedly so prosperous, that you can use that money to benefit the common people of America and give them health security. So Americans, as far as my opinion goes, if Edwards becomes the official candidate come election, you should vote for him, Obama is good too though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards#Universal_health_care
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_John_Edwards#Health_care

I'm leaning toward one of the two.

I go Obama first, them Edwards. I'd wholeheartedly support either one come general election: hell, if Obama sputters in the primaries and drops out, I'm switching right to him.

No, I won't be voting for Johnny Haircut. :p I've seen too many interviews he's done - he doesn't exactly inspire confidence in his abilities or ideals, to say the least.

I like Edwards and Obama too......Please elect one of them...and there is nothing wrong with an expensive haircut...

I like Edwards and Obama too......Please elect one of them...and there is nothing wrong with an expensive haircut...

There is when there's nothing *under* that haircut. ;)

Looking at it economically speaking, forget party loyalty, universal healthcare does not help the society over all. Yeah, it would certainly be nice, but until the world is not run by money it won't work. One must look past the high costs of prescriptions, medical procedures, etc, to see the greater good. The vast majority of that money is reinvested, which in turn helps the rest of the world. There is a reason nearly 90% of new drugs, and medical innovations come from the US, and its not because of socialization.

Now, like I said, it sure as hell would be nice. But if it was to be implemented in a way where it drastically hurts the innovators we all suffer.

"One of the things we ought to be thinking about is some level of mandatory service to our country, so that everybody in America not just the poor kids who get sent to war are serving this country." - John Edwards

nothx. here's an idea: don't go to war in the first place.

There is when there's nothing *under* that haircut. ;)

He seems to have more under there than your current "fearless leader"

He seems to have more under there than your current "fearless leader"

I doubt it. But keep in mind, President Bush isn't running in '08. ;)

"One of the things we ought to be thinking about is some level of mandatory service to our country, so that everybody in America not just the poor kids who get sent to war are serving this country." - John Edwards

Nice little bit of demagoguery, but then why should facts ever enter a campaign?

Edwards is a no go with me. For one, he changed political direction after 2004, which strikes me as far too oportunistic. For another, he's running an attack-dog campaign. For a third, I don't trust him. He smells bad to me, and I trust my intuition.

Plus, fuck universal service. It's always the old fogeys suggesting it, since they'll never have to do anything.

I just don't trust Edwards...there's something about the way that he smiles...Its not like Cheney's smile, it seems to alude to something more...sinister...

Wouldn't it be great if so many people wrote in "None of the above" that they had to redo the election with different candidates?

I just don't trust Edwards...there's something about the way that he smiles...Its not like Cheney's smile, it seems to alude to something more...sinister...

What could possibly be more sinister than Cheney's smile? It's positively creepy.

Meh.

No, I won't be voting for Johnny Haircut. :p I've seen too many interviews he's done - he doesn't exactly inspire confidence in his abilities or ideals, to say the least.

And our current President does? He seems to have succeeded just fine in the last election despite a complete lack of these qualities.

If the past has taught us anything, it's that ability is not neccessary to be president.

My perfect ideal awesome situation would be an Obama/Edwards ticket. I, like a lot of people have a slight trust issue with Edwards, as VP that wouldn't bea big deal, and his advantages would still come to the table. And Obama as POTUS would be great because I trust him a lot, and that would be a nice change compared to a lot of previous Presidents.

Just been reading about the stances and proposed policies of the three main Democratic candidates, and while coming away with a disdain for Hillary, I have to say I really like the universal health care policy of Edwards, it's good to see as the US is supposedly so prosperous, that you can use that money to benefit the common people of America and give them health security. So Americans, as far as my opinion goes, if Edwards becomes the official candidate come election, you should vote for him, Obama is good too though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards#Universal_health_care
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_John_Edwards#Health_care

Edwards is not much more than an opportunist and demagouge cloaked in the garb of an old-line isolationist/nationalist mixed with a failed attempt to channel JFK. He's nothing special.

The US could easily afford universal health care or even universal welfare, you just need to not give it to the rich upper class interests so much.

And our current President does? He seems to have succeeded just fine in the last election despite a complete lack of these qualities.

If the past has taught us anything, it's that ability is not neccessary to be president.

Once again, I could care less whether President Bush has an IQ of -12; he's not running. ;)

I look at the current field of candidates, and I'm simply not impressed by Edwards, in any way - at all. And remember, I didn't say Edwards *couldn't* win, but rather, that I hope he doesn't. I agree that almost anyone can win if they play the media right.

There is a reason nearly 90% of new drugs, and medical innovations come from the US, and its not because of socialization.
The US government spends shitloads to operate the labs that develop those drugs.

Edwards is a no go with me. For one, he changed political direction after 2004, which strikes me as far too oportunistic. For another, he's running an attack-dog campaign. For a third, I don't trust him. He smells bad to me, and I trust my intuition.

Plus, fuck universal service. It's always the old fogeys suggesting it, since they'll never have to do anything.

Agreed on all points.

Universal service...when did Edwards propose that??

Edwards is an idiot and his smile makes me puke.

I am still highly suspicious of Obama.

I am leaning towards one of the republicans and if I say it people will probably flame me to oblivion.

Posi, you are so wrong it is not even funny. The vast majority of the money US pharmaceutical and biomedical companies reinvests into them are from their profits. For the most part, those corporations reinvest nearly 15% of their income into R&D, which if you were to compare to other industries you would see is astronomical.

Saying that the US government pays “shitloads” to these companies is not a viable argument, why? Because by saying “shitloads” you have already shown your bias. Look at the numbers objectively, and you will see that the government does not float these companies (like they do with airlines, Amtrak, etc). Yes, there are the exceptions, such as GlaxoSmithKline or Hoffmann-La Roche, but those two companies are extremely subsidized by their respective (GB and Switzerland) governments substantially. While American examples Pfizer, J&J or Merck predominately spend their own money.

So honestly, if you think socialized welfare is a good thing that is your opinion. However, economically it will never work effectively. Why? Because:
1. People are greedy
2. Companies make money
3. The government screws up everything
You may want to bring up examples in Europe, but in 20 years their systems will fail. The younger generation is much, much smaller than those retiring, thus making the amount of money being put into socialized programs inadequate. Which in turn will cause a grave situation when it comes to healthcare, welfare, etc in countries where it is predominate. Just like here in the US the Social Security system, if left unchanged, WILL fail within our lifetime.

edit: spelling

Edwards is an idiot and his smile makes me puke.

I am still highly suspicious of Obama.

I am leaning towards one of the republicans and if I say it people will probably flame me to oblivion.
Fred Thompson is about ready to declare...

Edwards creeped me out in '04. Now that '08 is here, I'd rather have him as president than Obama or that snake.

I just don't trust Edwards...there's something about the way that he smiles...Its not like Cheney's smile, it seems to alude to something more...sinister...

1) More sinister than Cheney?

2) Cheny smiles?

1) More sinister than Cheney?

2) Cheny smiles?

You see, the thing about Cheney as compared to Edwards is, is that Cheney pretty much comes out and pretty much admits to eating babies for fun, albeit in a form of speech more akin to a snarl than true language.

Edwards on the other hand, well, you look at him and you just know, he's a closeted baby eater, and probably equally as voracious as Cheney. I mean, you could tell it in that debate at Case. They connected, they had something deep, something more fundamental than merely being opposing VP candidates...they both loved the baby, and couldn't quit.

You see, the thing about Cheney as compared to Edwards is, is that Cheney pretty much comes out and pretty much admits to eating babies for fun, albeit in a form of speech more akin to a snarl than true language.

Edwards on the other hand, well, you look at him and you just know, he's a closeted baby eater, and probably equally as voracious as Cheney. I mean, you could tell it in that debate at Case. They connected, they had something deep, something more fundamental than merely being opposing VP candidates...they both loved the baby, and couldn't quit.

I don't get that vibe form Edwards at all. Anyway, it's moot. According to the polls the Dems will commit political suicide by picking Hillary.

Just been reading about the stances and proposed policies of the three main Democratic candidates, and while coming away with a disdain for Hillary, I have to say I really like the universal health care policy of Edwards, it's good to see as the US is supposedly so prosperous, that you can use that money to benefit the common people of America and give them health security. So Americans, as far as my opinion goes, if Edwards becomes the official candidate come election, you should vote for him, Obama is good too though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards#Universal_health_care
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_John_Edwards#Health_care

i like him cause bullets will bounce off his hair,same as they would have with reagan and clinton.

kiddin aside..he seems ok...i cant stand hitlery or obama...so that choice has been made for me,
i actually like fred thomson(sp)..he seems like a real repub...small gov..etc.
but to the meat of the op....something needs to be done with healthcare,and now!
the richest country in the history of the world...and we have a joke of healthcare compared to just about anyone other then 3rd world countries.
truly the downside of the freemarket and capitalism rearing it's ugly face.

imho,the gov has basic responsibilities..national security,trade and the safety of it's people..i consider physical health to be included in safety.

I don't get that vibe form Edwards at all. Anyway, it's moot. According to the polls the Dems will commit political suicide by picking Hillary.

And praying for a Ross Perot for the modern era.

I don't get that vibe form Edwards at all. Anyway, it's moot. According to the polls the Dems will commit political suicide by picking Hillary.

Yay.

"Lets select another ultra-liberal as our nominee, and lose!"

Yay.

"Lets select another ultra-liberal as our nominee, and lose!"

Actually, as a matter of fact, because of your Dear Leader, it's pretty much assured that a Democrat will win the election, the mid-terms showed that. Bush created the political atmosphere with Iraq, neutering the Constitution etc that would allow for the far left to gain a foothold in Congress, and eventually the White House.

2) Cheny smiles?

Not anymore.

The only thing I have to say on the subject of Edwards is that conservatives need to start getting their mockery straight. I'm seeing way too many of them call Edwards "the Bret Girl." It's "Breck Girl" for heaven's sakes!

I've already thrown my support behind Ron Paul. John Edwards consider gun ownership a "privilege", not a right (which it is in the 2nd amendment.) so Johnny Boy won't be getting my vote, the same with Hillary with her violent game hating and "Let's take the profit from the oil company, yea that'll solve things!" and Obama, because of inexperience.

If I can't get Obama, I'll go with Edwards.

ETA: I'm so sick of the remarks about Obama being inexperienced. Some of the WORST presidents in US History had tons of experience. Between that comment, and every little thing they're trying to do to discredit Obama (remember Fox News and the Would you vote for a Smoker bs?), it's enough to make me pull my hair out. Grief.

Fred Thompson is about ready to declare...

:eek: you know me too well.

I'm against all forms of discrimination regarding race. If someone is an asshat, he is an asshat regardless of whether he is white, asian, moslim or black. We shouldn't make allowances (i.e. positive discrimination) for races, but neither should we fall into the trap of labelling certain types of antisocial behaviour with particular races, which, in my view, is more to do with socio-economic factors rather than race.

Edwards??? No. I don't like his economic policies.

At least John Edwards has the courage to say that his vote for the war in Iraq was wrong, whereas the others are not even admiting that they voted for the war resolution.

However, I have a very big problem with a medical malpractice lawyer (that is how he made his fortune) now saying that he can fix the health care system. Hell, it was the lawyers that messed it up to begin with with ridiculous lawsuits.

But, hey, we know he cares about the little people. That is why he built that mansion/estate in rural Orange Co NC (where I work), and has publicly criticized his neighbor for putting a "Gulliani 2008" sign on his own property. And because the same neighbor does some target shooting in his own property, he is called an intimidating threat by the Edwards. Way to care about the little people and their liberty John.

Vic

I just don't trust Edwards...there's something about the way that he smiles...Its not like Cheney's smile, it seems to alude to something more...sinister...

Because fuck intellect! Let's judge people on facial features! Very Fahrenheit 451

If I can't get Obama, I'll go with Edwards.

ETA: I'm so sick of the remarks about Obama being inexperienced. Some of the WORST presidents in US History had tons of experience. Between that comment, and every little thing they're trying to do to discredit Obama (remember Fox News and the Would you vote for a Smoker bs?), it's enough to make me pull my hair out. Grief.

Ok, lets say that the USA has another 9/11, but this time on a grander scale and more deadly, do you think Obama 3 years of being a senator (not even being in any leadership position) will prepare him for that? I think not, so excuse me for wanting someone who had leadership experience in office.

"One of the things we ought to be thinking about is some level of mandatory service to our country, so that everybody in America not just the poor kids who get sent to war are serving this country." - John Edwards

nothx. here's an idea: don't go to war in the first place.

Yeah, but maybe Americans will actually vote then.

Ok, lets say that the USA has another 9/11, but this time on a grander scale and more deadly, do you think Obama 3 years of being a senator (not even being in any leadership position) will prepare him for that? I think not, so excuse me for wanting someone who had leadership experience in office.

I think that he couldn't be worse then what you've done in the past, I think he might take less hardcore ways to slove the problem then a more confident person would and be more willing to listen.

I think that he couldn't be worse then what you've done in the past, I think he might take less hardcore ways to slove the problem then a more confident person would and be more willing to listen.

For all the wrong that he did, I thought George W. Bush Jr. handled 9/11 pretty well.

For all the wrong that he did, I thought George W. Bush Jr. handled 9/11 pretty well.

He didn't do a bad job with that, but the rest of his presidency has been a clusterfuck. Now, call me crazy, but I'm voting for a candidate on the certainty that he will have to deal diplomatically with hostile allies internationally and a dedicated opposition party domestically, not on the possibility that terrorists will attack America again. The president's role in emergencies is as a figurehead at best, in any case, so I'm more concerned about who president will appoint to deal with possible emergencies and their experience, rather than the experience of the president himself.