NationStates Jolt Archive

Edwards to quit White House race
Democrat John Edwards is leaving the race for the White House after failing to win any of the party nomination contests held so far, officials say.

His team said the former North Carolina senator had decided not to continue.

He lost Iowa's caucuses, came third in New Hampshire, admitted getting his "butt kicked" in Nevada, and came third in his native South Carolina.

In the Republican field, ex-New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is expected to drop out later and endorse John McCain.

The withdrawal of Mr Giuliani, who came a distant third in Florida's Republican primary on Tuesday, would leave Arizona Senator Mr McCain facing ex-Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.

It is not yet clear if Mr Edwards will endorse either of the two current Democratic front-runners - New York Senator and former First Lady Hillary Clinton, and Illinois Senator Barack Obama.

Wife's cancer

He is expected to publicly announce the end to his second White House bid in New Orleans, where he formally launched his campaign in 2006.

His website said he was to make a speech on poverty at a community project at 1300 local time (1900 GMT) on Wednesday.

Mr Edwards's wife Elizabeth announced last year that her breast cancer had returned, but an Edwards aide told CNN television his reason for dropping out had nothing to do with her health.

The BBC's Vincent Dowd in Washington says if Mr Edwards urges his supporters towards either of the two main Democrat contenders, that could be an important influence in the race.

Mr Edwards received 14% of the Democratic vote in Tuesday's Florida primary - although that contest was largely symbolic after a row between the state's Democrats and the party nationally.

He also fought for his party's nomination in 2004, losing out to John Kerry, but ran a strong enough second in the race to grab the number two slot on the vice-presidential ticket.


Linky (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7217838.stm)

I wonder who this will help? I'm hoping that the speculation that Barack and John have been splitting the anti-Hillary vote and that his supporters will go to Obama, though if he ends up endorsing Senator Clinton, that will be a strong boost for her-- hopefully that won't happen.

Just please Lord don't let his support go to Clinthulu...

As I'd said before in another thread, I'm surprised he didn't stick out Super Tuesday. It seemed like his plan all along was to go through Super Tuesday, amass as many delegates as he could, and then offer them up to whomever would give him the best offer.

and then there was two (like there wasn't already of course)

One less anti-homosexual out of the race. Finally.

One less anti-homosexual out of the race. Finally.

Erm...


How exactly is Edwards anti-homosexual?

How exactly is Edwards anti-homosexual?

looking like that and not being gay is a crime in many states ;)

Arn't there MANY more important things to worry about concering someone who's running for the President of the United States of America...the most important position in the world....than if he likes gay people or not?

Perhaps his positions on foreign policy, the need of government, domestic policy, immigration, ecuducation....just to list a few...

I hate it when Americans care so much about issues like abortion and gay marriage and stuff..and don't focuss on the real, important issues.

THOSE ARE NON-ISSUES!


One less anti-homosexual out of the race. Finally.

Erm...


How exactly is Edwards anti-homosexual?

Erm...


How exactly is Edwards anti-homosexual?

The fact that he's staunchly against gay marriage is one, and the fact that he looks like somebody just steamrolled his puppy when they mention the issue to him is another...

...If that's not anti-homosexual, then what the fuck is?

According to this source NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer

Four in 10 Edwards supporters said their second choice in the race is Clinton, while a quarter prefer Obama, according to an Associated Press-Yahoo poll conducted late this month. Both Clinton and Obama would welcome Edwards' backing and the support of the 56 delegates he had collected.

Posted by LHC, I always expected about 50 % of Edwards supporters to back Obama but according to these sources thats not the case. So it looks like Hillary has the field wide open now to the Democratic nomination if that poll source holds up.

By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer
11 minutes ago

DENVER - Democrat John Edwards is exiting the presidential race Wednesday, ending a scrappy underdog bid in which he steered his rivals toward progressive ideals while grappling with family hardship that roused voters' sympathies, The Associated Press has learned.

The two-time White House candidate notified a close circle of senior advisers that he planned to make the announcement at a 1 p.m. EST event in New Orleans that had been billed as a speech on poverty, according to two aides. The decision came after Edwards lost the four states to hold nominating contests so far to rivals who stole the spotlight from the beginning — Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.

The former North Carolina senator will not immediately endorse either candidate in what is now a two-person race for the Democratic nomination, said one adviser, who spoke on condition of anonymity in advance of the announcement. Clinton said Wednesday that Edwards called her to inform her about his decision.

Obama told reporters Edwards had exited the race in a "classy" way. "I think he's run a great campaign," said Obama, who aides said also spoke with Edwards Tuesday night and asked for his endorsement.

In a statement from his campaign, Obama said Edwards "spent a lifetime fighting to give voice to the voiceless and hope to the struggling, even when it wasn't popular to do or covered in the news."

"While his campaign may end today, the cause of their lives endures for all of us who still believe that we can achieve that dream of one America," the statement said.

Four in 10 Edwards supporters said their second choice in the race is Clinton, while a quarter prefer Obama, according to an Associated Press-Yahoo poll conducted late this month. Both Clinton and Obama would welcome Edwards' backing and the support of the 56 delegates he had collected.

Edwards waged a spirited top-tier campaign against the two better-funded rivals, even as he dealt with the stunning blow of his wife's recurring cancer diagnosis. In a dramatic news conference last March, the couple announced that the breast cancer that she thought she had beaten had returned, but they would continue the campaign.

Their decision sparked a debate about family duty and public service. But Elizabeth Edwards remained a forceful advocate for her husband, and she was often surrounded at campaign events by well-wishers and emotional survivors cheering her on.

Edwards planned to announce his campaign was ending with his wife and three children at his side. Then he planned to work with Habitat for Humanity at the volunteer-fueled rebuilding project Musicians' Village, the adviser said.

With that, Edwards' campaign will end the way it began 13 months ago — with the candidate pitching in to rebuild lives in a city still ravaged by Hurricane Katrina. Edwards embraced New Orleans as a glaring symbol of what he described as a Washington that didn't hear the cries of the downtrodden.

Edwards burst out of the starting gate with a flurry of progressive policy ideas — he was the first to offer a plan for universal health care, the first to call on Congress to pull funding for the war, and he led the charge that lobbyists have too much power in Washington and need to be reigned in.

The ideas were all bold and new for Edwards personally as well, making him a different candidate than the moderate Southerner who ran in 2004 while still in his first Senate term. But the themes were eventually adopted by other Democratic presidential candidates — and even a Republican, Mitt Romney, echoed the call for an end to special interest politics in Washington.

Edwards' rise to prominence in politics came amid just one term representing North Carolina in the Senate after a career as a trial attorney that made him millions. He was on Al Gore's short list for vice president in 2000 after serving just two years in office. He ran for president in 2004, and after he lost to John Kerry, the nominee picked him as a running mate.

Elizabeth Edwards first discovered a lump in her breast in the final days of that losing campaign. Her battle against the disease caused her husband to open up about another tragedy in their lives — the death of their teenage son Wade in a 1996 car accident. The candidate barely spoke of Wade during his 2004 campaign, but he offered his son's death to answer questions about how he could persevere when his wife could die.

Edwards made poverty the signature issue of both his presidential campaigns, and he led a four-day tour to highlight the issue in July. The tour was the first to focus on the plight of the poor since Robert F. Kennedy's trip 40 years earlier.

But even as Obama and Clinton collected astonishing amounts of money that dwarfed his fundraising effort, Edwards maintained a loyal following in the first voting state of Iowa that made him a serious contender. He came in second to Obama in Iowa, an impressive feat of relegating Clinton to third place, before coming in third in the following three contests.

The loss in South Carolina was especially hard because it was where he was born and he had won the state in 2004.

At Edwards headquarters in Chapel Hill, N.C., two staffers debated on how best to answer the phones, saying "John Edwards for president" no longer seemed appropriate.

Associated Press Writer Mike Baker in North Carolina contributed to this report.

Arn't there MANY more important things to worry about concering someone who's running for the President of the United States of America...the most important position in the world....than if he likes gay people or not?

Perhaps his positions on foreign policy, the need of government, domestic policy, immigration, ecuducation....just to list a few...

I hate it when Americans care so much about issues like abortion and gay marriage and stuff..and don't focuss on the real, important issues.

THOSE ARE NON-ISSUES!

Honestly, I wish they were non-issues and that we could just leave everybody to their own devices, but in reality, it's not that simple.

I wish it were, but it isn't.

How are they non-issues, the candidates stance on these "non-issues" can have a great effect on what freedoms/rights many citizens have.


Also way to make your point:

Lewks lak he gowt a 'durn faen ecuducation 'der eeyun Flahwridah.

Arn't there MANY more important things to worry about concering someone who's running for the President of the United States of America...the most important position in the world....than if he likes gay people or not?

Perhaps his positions on foreign policy, the need of government, domestic policy, immigration, ecuducation....just to list a few...

I hate it when Americans care so much about issues like abortion and gay marriage and stuff..and don't focuss on the real, important issues.

THOSE ARE NON-ISSUES!

How are they non-issues, the candidates stance on these "non-issues" can have a great effect on what freedoms/rights many citizens have.


Also way to make your point:
Perhaps his positions on foreign policy, the need of government, domestic policy, immigration, ecuducation....just to list a few...

How are they non-issues, the candidates stance on these "non-issues" can have a great effect on what freedoms/rights many citizens have.


Also way to make your point:[/QUOTE]
Yes..because making spelling errors from writing fast in a political debate about issues facing our country makes me uneducated...

There are other things to worry about. It should be up to the states to worry about this....the federal government has many more important things to worry about that the states simply can't deal with. Direction of economic progress, foreign policy, immigration are a few...for instance. But instead of political and economic issues, our national scene is flooded by morality issues.:rolleyes:
Lewks lak he gowt a 'durn faen ecuducation 'der eeyun Flahwridah.
Between California and Florida...I'd say I did get a good education...and multiple universities in Florida would agree with that....based on their accepting of my application....
Honestly, I wish they were non-issues and that we could just leave everybody to their own devices, but in reality, it's not that simple.

I wish it were, but it isn't.
It could be..if people just stopped worrying about the wrong things.
For example: Edwards drops out of the run for the most powerful office in the world.
"One more anti-gay person out"....

Arn't there many more important things concerning Edwards we could talk about? Economic principles, views for Iraq, views for foreign policy, views on education....ect ect

I guess Mr. $400 haircut couldn't cut it hehe, but he feels pretty!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2AE847UXu3Q

Well, considering our country is currently really backwards and fucked up, Id say that I think domestic issues, like how we treat everyone here and such, are fucking issues. You may disagree that those are the most important, and thats your right, but to me, civil liberties are the issues I vote on, be it wiretapping, the patriot act, torture, and, yes, even gay marriage. So back off.

Ok, lets talk about another serious issue. When will Dr. Paul finally use that thing between his ears and drop out?:p

Ok, lets talk about another serious issue. When will Dr. Paul finally use that thing between his ears and drop out?:p
When just representation is returned to the American people and the word of freedom is heard from coast to coast.

Long live freedom and liberty!
http://www.e2cweb.com/images_art/american%20flag.jpg

It could be..if people just stopped worrying about the wrong things.
For example: Edwards drops out of the run for the most powerful office in the world.
"One more anti-gay person out"....

Arn't there many more important things concerning Edwards we could talk about? Economic principles, views for Iraq, views for foreign policy, views on education....ect ect

Nah, I mostly don't like Johnny Boy for that, though there are many other things for which I dislike him... That just happens to be my #1 Beef (yeah one word, bitches) with him.

His excessive spending on his rather bulbous, potato-like appearance also irks me. The people who say he's good-looking are, well... Way off. And then there's my complete dissatisfaction with just about anything he says. I seriously think he's dishonest just about every time he opens his mouth, as opposed to about 85% of the time for other politicians.

When just representation is returned to the American people and the word of freedom is heard from coast to coast.

...unless your black, gay, or a woman. Or maybe jewish.

...unless your black, gay, or a woman. Or maybe jewish.

Don't forget Iranian...

According to this source NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer

Four in 10 Edwards supporters said their second choice in the race is Clinton, while a quarter prefer Obama, according to an Associated Press-Yahoo poll conducted late this month. Both Clinton and Obama would welcome Edwards' backing and the support of the 56 delegates he had collected.
That is interesting, the support for Clinton amongst Edwards supporters. If such is true, it certainly bodes well for Clinton and flies in the face of what others on these boards have been insinuating.

Go Hillary!! :)

Arn't there MANY more important things to worry about concering someone who's running for the President of the United States of America...the most important position in the world....than if he likes gay people or not?

Perhaps his positions on foreign policy, the need of government, domestic policy, immigration, ecuducation....just to list a few...

I hate it when Americans care so much about issues like abortion and gay marriage and stuff..and don't focuss on the real, important issues.

THOSE ARE NON-ISSUES!
Is there anything that you don't hate?

That is interesting, the support for Clinton amongst Edwards supporters. If such is true, it certainly bodes well for Clinton and flies in the face of what others on these boards have been insinuating.

Go Hillary!! :)

*knocks CanuckHeaven unconscious and stuff him in a body bag*

Nothing to see here folks, what he meant to say was Boo Hillary, yes Boo! :p

It could be..if people just stopped worrying about the wrong things.
For example: Edwards drops out of the run for the most powerful office in the world.
"One more anti-gay person out"....

Arn't there many more important things concerning Edwards we could talk about? Economic principles, views for Iraq, views for foreign policy, views on education....ect ect

I can't think of any issue that any candidate could have a position on of more importance than those issues that directly affect the rights of their constituients(I suspect I've spelled that horribly wrong. Oh well). Consider: How many people have an opinion on Hitler's economic polices? How many have aan opinion on his treatment of certain groups of German citizens?

Arn't there MANY more important things to worry about concering someone who's running for the President of the United States of America...the most important position in the world....than if he likes gay people or not?

Perhaps his positions on foreign policy, the need of government, domestic policy, immigration, ecuducation....just to list a few...

I hate it when Americans care so much about issues like abortion and gay marriage and stuff..and don't focuss on the real, important issues.

THOSE ARE NON-ISSUES!
Unless you happen to be gay, or believe that we should live in a nation where people have equal protection under the law, or that the state (in terms of government, not the States) shouldn't make decisions on who and how you love or your body. If there weren't people trying to actively restrict these things they would be a non-issue. Pretending that the people who are against these infringements are worried about a non-issue is willfully ignorant and simple minded.

You want to get steamed about a non-issue, here ya go, champ:
I guess Mr. $400 haircut couldn't cut it hehe, but he feels pretty!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2AE847UXu3Q

Arn't there MANY more important things to worry about concering someone who's running for the President of the United States of America...the most important position in the world....than if he likes gay people or not?

Perhaps his positions on foreign policy, the need of government, domestic policy, immigration, ecuducation....just to list a few...

I hate it when Americans care so much about issues like abortion and gay marriage and stuff..and don't focuss on the real, important issues.

THOSE ARE NON-ISSUES!

Right, people having their rights withheld is a non-issue. :rolleyes:

Right, people having their rights withheld is a non-issue. :rolleyes:

Well, as much as I hate to say it, TAI has a point. I wouldn't go so far as to call gay marriage a non-issue, but we Americans do have a tendency to focus on inflammatory social issues (gay marriage, abortion, etc.) as opposed to the real, life and country changing issues surrounding the economy and foreign policy. People being denied their rights is serious, but the President only has limited control over that. It's really up to Congress, and seeing as the democratic Congress has yet (to the best of my knowledge) to do anything...

Don't forget Iranian...

Or a "Leftist".

Arn't there MANY more important things to worry about concering someone who's running for the President of the United States of America...the most important position in the world....than if he likes gay people or not?

Perhaps his positions on foreign policy, the need of government, domestic policy, immigration, ecuducation....just to list a few...

I hate it when Americans care so much about issues like abortion and gay marriage and stuff..and don't focuss on the real, important issues.

THOSE ARE NON-ISSUES!

All this whining about important issues from a person willing to quote Phil Collins in a signature. It's hard to know how to respond. How about with HAVING A PRESIDENT WHO DOESN'T LIKE GAYS MEANS HAVING A PRESIDENT WILLING TO MARGINALIZE SOME 8-10% OF THE POPULATION.

I guess Mr. $400 haircut couldn't cut it hehe, but he feels pretty!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2AE847UXu3Q

Wow, Willy, you've just duplicated yourself (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13410553&postcount=18). That's exactly the same post you dropped in the Rudy Drops Out thread.

You've officially become an outlet of right-wing talking-point radio and TV. You didn't even bother to change one word. How truly sad. At least this thread is actually about Edwards.

Or a "Leftist".

Or people who's parents aren't natural born citizens

Hell, I bet we could make a 10 - 20 page thread just doing this.

When just representation is returned to the American people and the word of freedom is heard from coast to coast.

Long live freedom and liberty!

Whatever you say, Featherston.

Well, as much as I hate to say it, TAI has a point. I wouldn't go so far as to call gay marriage a non-issue, but we Americans do have a tendency to focus on inflammatory social issues (gay marriage, abortion, etc.) as opposed to the real, life and country changing issues surrounding the economy and foreign policy. People being denied their rights is serious, but the President only has limited control over that. It's really up to Congress, and seeing as the democratic Congress has yet (to the best of my knowledge) to do anything...

I do have to ask: would you say it wasn't a big deal if, say, a president wanted to ban interracial marriage? Or even ban racial minorities from marrying at all?

Remember, the president does have veto power, as well as a fair amount of influence-- especially on members of his own party.

I guess Mr. $400 haircut couldn't cut it hehe, but he feels pretty!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2AE847UXu3Q

You know what? Applause. Unbridled applause.
I'm glad to see another homophobic candidate drop out, but I'm worried about who's still left ...

Arn't there MANY more important things to worry about concering someone who's running for the President of the United States of America...the most important position in the world....than if he likes gay people or not?

Perhaps his positions on foreign policy, the need of government, domestic policy, immigration, ecuducation....just to list a few...

I hate it when Americans care so much about issues like abortion and gay marriage and stuff..and don't focuss on the real, important issues.

THOSE ARE NON-ISSUES!

How are cival rights a non-issue? It seems to me that giving equal rights to all Americans is a huge issue.

Well, as much as I hate to say it, TAI has a point. I wouldn't go so far as to call gay marriage a non-issue, but we Americans do have a tendency to focus on inflammatory social issues (gay marriage, abortion, etc.) as opposed to the real, life and country changing issues surrounding the economy and foreign policy. People being denied their rights is serious, but the President only has limited control over that. It's really up to Congress, and seeing as the democratic Congress has yet (to the best of my knowledge) to do anything...

The president has the "limited control" to veto anything that Congress passes. I would rather elect a president who will pass bills that favor equal rights for all Americans than a president who will veto such bills.

Well...that leaves Obama, Clinton and, of course, Mike Gravel...You would think Edwarswould have at least tried to outlive Gravel, considering he hasn't gotten 1% in any primary yet. I expect Edwards to endorse Obama, which helps him considering even when he's lost his primaries he's picked up a ton of delegates. I supported Biden and was disappointed when he dropped out but I've since endorsed Obama.

One less anti-homosexual out of the race. Finally.

A peculiar way to describe the Breck Girl :p

Honestly, I wish they were non-issues and that we could just leave everybody to their own devices, but in reality, it's not that simple.

I wish it were, but it isn't.

They are non-issues. Do you really think gay marriage and abortion are really as important as the national debt? the war? immigration? troubled economy?

Gay marriage and abortion are nowhere near as important as these other issues. Once the important issues get taken care of, then the government can worry about secondary issues such as gay marriage and abortion.

They are non-issues. Do you really think gay marriage and abortion are really as important as the national debt? the war? immigration? troubled economy?

Gay marriage and abortion are nowhere near as important as these other issues. Once the important issues get taken care of, then the government can worry about secondary issues such as gay marriage and abortion.

If a president can only deal with one or two issues in his presidency, he is not qualified for the job.

I do have to ask: would you say it wasn't a big deal if, say, a president wanted to ban interracial marriage? Or even ban racial minorities from marrying at all?

There's that same old tired argument trying to equate interracial marriage, which can produce children, from so-called gay "marriage," which can't. It's not the same issue and repeating it won't make it so.

Non-heterosexuals already have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as heterosexuals do. The fact that they choose not to exercise that right doesn't convert that choice into a denial of equal rights.

Crap, I was hoping Hitler *cough* I mean, umm, Hillary would drop out.

That's got to be the most blatant Godwin I've ever seen...

Crap, I was hoping Hitler *cough* I mean, umm, Hillary would drop out.



:rolleyes:

There's that same old tired argument trying to equate interracial marriage, which can produce children, from so-called gay "marriage," which can't. It's not the same issue and repeating it won't make it so.

Non-heterosexuals already have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as heterosexuals do. The fact that they choose not to exercise that right doesn't convert that choice into a denial of equal rights.


Umm...considering that they dont have romantic interest in members of the opposite sex...yes, yes it does.

There's that same old tired argument trying to equate interracial marriage, which can produce children, from so-called gay "marriage," which can't. It's not the same issue and repeating it won't make it so.

Non-heterosexuals already have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as heterosexuals do. The fact that they choose not to exercise that right doesn't convert that choice into a denial of equal rights.

Repeating the whole 'bears children' nonsense doesn't make that true, since we don't see people running around invalidating childless marriages.

Your second paragraph is so monumentally stupid it doesn't deserve much of a response at all. Even you can't be buying that line of bullshit.

Even you can't be buying that line of bullshit.

Of course not, this is the U.S., we give bullshit away for free.

Linky (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7217838.stm)

I wonder who this will help? I'm hoping that the speculation that Barack and John have been splitting the anti-Hillary vote and that his supporters will go to Obama, though if he ends up endorsing Senator Clinton, that will be a strong boost for her-- hopefully that won't happen.

You know, I'm not so sure endorsing is a good thing. I mean look at Rudi Giuliani and Ted Kennedy- They actually bring more hatred than support. I don't think Edwards is as hated as they are, but it does almost seem that endorsements are backfiring this year.

Your second paragraph is so monumentally stupid it doesn't deserve much of a response at all. Even you can't be buying that line of bullshit.


Yes he can. And he does.

There's that same old tired argument trying to equate interracial marriage, which can produce children, from so-called gay "marriage," which can't. It's not the same issue and repeating it won't make it so.

Non-heterosexuals already have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as heterosexuals do. The fact that they choose not to exercise that right doesn't convert that choice into a denial of equal rights.

They do not however have the right to marry someone that they want as their 'life-partner' so no they don't have equal rights. Would you have the same attitude if the situation was reversed; that the accepted definition of marriage was two men or two women?

Well, as much as I hate to say it, TAI has a point. I wouldn't go so far as to call gay marriage a non-issue, but we Americans do have a tendency to focus on inflammatory social issues (gay marriage, abortion, etc.) as opposed to the real, life and country changing issues surrounding the economy and foreign policy. People being denied their rights is serious, but the President only has limited control over that. It's really up to Congress, and seeing as the democratic Congress has yet (to the best of my knowledge) to do anything...

The true reason we focus on social issues is because emotional issues are the easiest way to win people over. As a general rule, humans more often make decisions based on emotion than on logic. Furthermore, most voters vote retrospectively which simply means they look at the previous president and compare him to the candidate. They seldom vote for what the candidates could do- which is where foreign policy, etc. comes in. Despite that, it's usually the economy that decides the election, because voters (and reporters) are selfish and the economy affects us all directly.

What happened to our economy under the current President Bush is why my friend says "The Republicans couldn't win this election if they ran Jesus carrying out Resurrection." The current state of the economy reflects badly on the president's party.

To sum up, the 'non-issues' have less power than you are accusing them of.

When just representation is returned to the American people and the word of freedom is heard from coast to coast.

Long live freedom and liberty!
http://www.e2cweb.com/images_art/american%20flag.jpg

Dream on. Dream on. Dream on. Dream until your dream come true.:p Couldn't resist.

+5 points for the Harry Turtledove reference.

Do I get anything for Aerosmith?

Whatever you say, Featherston.

+5 points for the Harry Turtledove reference.

Obama, Clinton, and Gravel are definitely three people. I went to public school, so maybe im adding wrong.

Gravel hasn't done much name promotion so he gets forgotten a lot.

and then there was two
Obama, Clinton, and Gravel are definitely three people. I went to public school, so maybe im adding wrong.

There's that same old tired argument trying to equate interracial marriage, which can produce children, from so-called gay "marriage," which can't. It's not the same issue and repeating it won't make it so.

Non-heterosexuals already have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as heterosexuals do. The fact that they choose not to exercise that right doesn't convert that choice into a denial of equal rights.

This makes as much sense as saying that paraplegics have the same right to use the stairs as those who can walk, so we don't need to build them access ramps.

+5 points for the Harry Turtledove reference.

What can I say? I love his books, and the opportunity was just too much for me to not do it.

This makes as much sense as saying that paraplegics have the same right to use the stairs as those who can walk, so we don't need to build them access ramps.

Well, of course it does. You should pull yourself up by your bootstraps and get to walking already, you lazy cripple. :rolleyes:

Seriously, that logic doesn't work. Homosexuals don't want to marry for the sake of children. They want the rights they deserve, rights like visitation, shared taxes, ect ect, and they want it so they can live with their partners in peace. Why is this so wrong?

What can I say? I love his books, and the opportunity was just too much for me to not do it.

The same thought has occurred to me more than once reading Mitanni's posts.

Is this question for me, or Mitanni? I support gay marriage. And as a lifelong paraplegic, I thought the parallell relevant.

Oh, I was asking Mitanni. I know how you feel.

Well, of course it does. You should pull yourself up by your bootstraps and get to walking already, you lazy cripple. :rolleyes:

Seriously, that logic doesn't work. Homosexuals don't want to marry for the sake of children. They want the rights they deserve, rights like visitation, shared taxes, ect ect, and they want it so they can live with their partners in peace. Why is this so wrong?

Is this question for me, or Mitanni? I support gay marriage. And as a lifelong paraplegic, I thought the parallell relevant.

Quite frankly, I'm glad. He's the one that I least wanted to be the Democratic nominee.

EDIT: Oh wait, are we talking about teh gheyz now?

Quite frankly, I'm glad. He's the one that I least wanted to be the Democratic nominee.

Agreed. My favorite candidate dropped out earlier, but I maintain that Edwards lost Kerry the last election.

Agreed. My favorite candidate dropped out earlier, but I maintain that Edwards lost Kerry the last election.

I should rephrase. Edwards is the person who I'd least want as the nominee of the people that acually had a chance. I'd much prefer his Huey Long-like populism to the elf Kucinich or Mr. AWB himself Joe Biden.

The fact that he's staunchly against gay marriage is one, and the fact that he looks like somebody just steamrolled his puppy when they mention the issue to him is another...

...If that's not anti-homosexual, then what the fuck is?

http://www.aximsite.com/boards/images/smilies/rolling2.gif

I should rephrase. Edwards is the person who I'd least want as the nominee of the people that acually had a chance. I'd much prefer his Huey Long-like populism to the elf Kucinich or Mr. AWB himself Joe Biden.

My favorite was Richardson, and I know he never had a chance, so I'm not arguing with you. Calling Kucinich an elf is demeaning to elves. Though, I know someone who swore they'd vote for Kucinich in order to have a First Lady with her tongue pierced.

Also way to make your point:
Yes..because making spelling errors from writing fast in a political debate about issues facing our country makes me uneducated...

There are other things to worry about. It should be up to the states to worry about this....the federal government has many more important things to worry about that the states simply can't deal with. Direction of economic progress, foreign policy, immigration are a few...for instance. But instead of political and economic issues, our national scene is flooded by morality issues.:rolleyes:

Between California and Florida...I'd say I did get a good education...and multiple universities in Florida would agree with that....based on their accepting of my application....

It could be..if people just stopped worrying about the wrong things.
For example: Edwards drops out of the run for the most powerful office in the world.
"One more anti-gay person out"....

Arn't there many more important things concerning Edwards we could talk about? Economic principles, views for Iraq, views for foreign policy, views on education....ect ect[/QUOTE]

While I agree with you that there are issues that are far higher up on the food chain than homosexuality, it is an important civil issue. Of course it's the number one issue to gay people because why wouldn't you take up your own cause? I'll leave my comments about "multiple universities in Florida" to silence. My final comment is that spelling mistakes are not an indication of education.

My favorite was Richardson, and I know he never had a chance, so I'm not arguing with you. Calling Kucinich an elf is demeaning to elves. Though, I know someone who swore they'd vote for Kucinich in order to have a First Lady with her tongue pierced.

Richardson wanted to suck the Great Lakes dry to feed the Westerners. I could not stand for that.

One less anti-homosexual out of the race. Finally.

Well thats a relief. Man it's good that there is only one political issue anymore huh?

Agreed. My favorite candidate dropped out earlier, but I maintain that Edwards lost Kerry the last election.

I maintain that Kerry lost Kerry the election. But in the fashion of Kerry's politics, I may well flip-flop in a moment or so, whatever I think will be most popluar at any given time.

I maintain that Kerry lost Kerry the election. But in the fashion of Kerry's politics, I may well flip-flop in a moment or so, whatever I think will be most popluar at any given time.



Rommney flip flops too. Just pointing that out.


Kerry's wife lost Kerry the election.

Kerry's wife lost Kerry the election.

:D

I had a friend (both of us were turning eighteen in '04) who thought that she would like to see Theresa (sp?) as the first-lady. Apparently she said that America could call her "Momma T" I was disgusted, and refrained from laughing in my friend's face.

This makes as much sense as saying that paraplegics have the same right to use the stairs as those who can walk, so we don't need to build them access ramps.

Paraplegics are physically crippled and are incapable of using stairs. Non-heterosexuals are capable of marrying individuals of the opposite sex but choose not to. You fail.

BTW: there is no intrinsic reason why we "need to build them access ramps." Congress decided to impose this obligation, IMO in order to give trial lawyers yet another cause of action to enrich themselves and finance further campaign contributions.

Umm...considering that they dont have romantic interest in members of the opposite sex...yes, yes it does.

Whether they have "romantic interest" or not is irrelevant to the issue of whether they have the same right as heterosexuals. Lack of "romantic interest" only goes to the motivation for their choice not to exercise their equal right to marry a person of the opposite sex.

There's that same old tired argument trying to equate interracial marriage, which can produce children, from so-called gay "marriage," which can't. It's not the same issue and repeating it won't make it so.

So you would agree that sterile couples, old couples, and couples that use contraception should not be allowed to marry, then? If you wouldn't, then your position is self-contradictory and therefore wrong.


Non-heterosexuals already have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as heterosexuals do. The fact that they choose not to exercise that right doesn't convert that choice into a denial of equal rights.
:rolleyes:
http://www.idrewthis.org/comics/idt20060329equality.png
:D

Non-heterosexuals are capable of marrying individuals of the opposite sex...
...and not capable of marrying individuals of the same sex. Therefore they don’t have an equal right of marriage.

You’re being deliberately obtuse if your line of argument is that homosexual couples are trying to gain the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

there is no intrinsic reason why we “need to build them access ramps.”
They. Don’t. Have. (Working) Legs.

Paraplegics are physically crippled and are incapable of using stairs. Non-heterosexuals are capable of marrying individuals of the opposite sex but choose not to. You fail.

BTW: there is no intrinsic reason why we "need to build them access ramps." Congress decided to impose this obligation, IMO in order to give trial lawyers yet another cause of action to enrich themselves and finance further campaign contributions.

Ooooh, you're a cartoon. Good to know. But seriously, real arguments are more interesting in the long run. Any idiot can pretend to be an idiot.

Repeating the whole 'bears children' nonsense doesn't make that true, since we don't see people running around invalidating childless marriages.

Bearing and raising children is, was and always will be the primary purpose of marriage. "Childless marriages" are capable in theory of producing children of the husband and wife. Childless marriages are also capable of adopting children and acting as father and mother. Thus, no one needs to be "running around invalidating childless marriages."

Same-sex so-called "marriages" are capable of neither. Fact.

Your second paragraph is so monumentally stupid it doesn't deserve much of a response at all. Even you can't be buying that line of bullshit.

I cannot think of a time I gave a rat's ass about your opinion of any paragraph I've ever posted. Although you are good for a laugh.

Ooooh, you're a cartoon. Good to know. But seriously, real arguments are more interesting in the long run. Any idiot can pretend to be an idiot.

God, a straight line like that doesn't come around very often :p

There's that same old tired argument trying to equate interracial marriage, which can produce children, from so-called gay "marriage," which can't. It's not the same issue and repeating it won't make it so.

Non-heterosexuals already have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as heterosexuals do. The fact that they choose not to exercise that right doesn't convert that choice into a denial of equal rights.

I personally liked the person equating the power of a President to truly shift people on these issues. One of these people equated not being for gay marriage with Hitler "not being for" other types of people. It's an impassioned issue so don't expect people here to give up on it. The economy, terror, budget, wars on two fronts, social security, all of this stuff just is more pressing. Do you people really think that we can allow gay marriage and allow these other issues to affect your jobs, your safety, and your future? Sure, you could marry your husband, but you won't have a job or perhaps your life. Seriously, try to back down from the personal investment to the cause and realize there are other things that would fuck up your life much more if they were out of control.

Gay rights are important, but as I've said before I think the government shouldn't even be involved in the business of marriage. Marriage in the government's views should be that of a business contract. They should grant civil unions (contracts) to any human being that want to marry another human being. As for marriage, leave that to the religious entities that are involved. If Catholics don't want to accept it then maybe the other protestant denominations would. Sorry, I'm libertarian and believe personal freedom trumps government intervention. Government is too big and we could scrap a lot of costs for unnecessary services. So please don't confuse me with being anti-gay, I just believe there are more important things we need to tackle.

Bearing and raising children is, was and always will be the primary purpose of marriage.

I disagree. And since there is no proof either way, than, well, we'll have to say thats a matter of opinion. But your pathetic enough to try and claim otherwise, so Ill wait.


I cannot think of a time I gave a rat's ass about your opinion of any paragraph I've ever posted. Although you are good for a laugh.


Now you know how 90% of this board feels about you.


EDIT- Same sex marriages are perfectly capable of adopting and raising children just fine. There is no evidence to show that same sex marriages cannot raise an adopted child just fine.

Paraplegics are physically crippled and are incapable of using stairs. Non-heterosexuals are capable of marrying individuals of the opposite sex but choose not to. You fail.


It's theoretically possible to use the handrails and...


Sure, they might be legally capable of marrying someone of the opposite sex, but many wouldn't be mentally capable of accepting something that isn't natural to them for the rest of their lives.

Let's go with a more hypothetical analogy. A person is starving and severely allergic to rice. The only food anyone will give him is rice because of a government ban on other foods. He has the choice to eat rice but he doesn't because of the allergic reaction. Granted, lack of sex doesn't have the same affect as starvation, but the analogy is no less relevant. Should the government lift the ban on other foods?

Bearing and raising children is, was and always will be the primary purpose of marriage.
“Love, love love...” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLxTpsIVzzo)

Bearing and raising children is, was and always will be the primary purpose of marriage.

Actually, that's bullshit. For a good deal of history and in many cultures, marriage was primarily for forging political alliances. Indeed, in Anglo-Saxon culture, the word used for wife literally meant "peaceweaver."

Good of you to tryto understand history, though.


"Childless marriages" are capable in theory of producing children of the husband and wife. Childless marriages are also capable of adopting children and acting as father and mother. Thus, no one needs to be "running around invalidating childless marriages."

Same-sex so-called "marriages" are capable of neither. Fact.


Same-sex couples can adopt; studies have shown that children raised by gay parents turn out just as well as those raised by straight parents. You may choose to reject empirical evidence if you wish, but that just makes your opinion stupid.

To get this thread slightly closer to its original topic - I'm confused as to how Edwards is terribly "anti-homosexual."

Let's see: http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/lgbt/















Yeah, that sure sounds like he hates and despises gay people and wants to deny them as many rights as possible...


Maybe it's the hash talking, but I can definitely remember him saying that he was against gay marriage... And him being rather annoyed by the subject.

To get this thread slightly closer to its original topic - I'm confused as to how Edwards is terribly "anti-homosexual."

Let's see: http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/lgbt/

He supports civil unions to guarantee gay and lesbian couples the same rights as straight couples, including inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights, equal pension and health care benefits, and all of the 1,100 other legal protections government affords married couples.

Edwards supports the full repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act. He also believes same-sex families should be treated in the same manner as other families by our immigration laws.

he opposes divisive Constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriages.

Workers should be judged by the quality of their performance, not their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Edwards opposes the current "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy on gays and lesbians serving in our military. The military ought to treat all service members equally and in a way that promotes national security, without regard to their sexual orientation.

Edwards believes that gay and lesbian parents should be able to adopt children just like any other parents.

We should strengthen the ability of law enforcement to investigate and prosecute hate crimes based on race, gender, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability or gender identity.

Yeah, that sure sounds like he hates and despises gay people and wants to deny them as many rights as possible...

Maybe it's the hash talking, but I can definitely remember him saying that he was against gay marriage... And him being rather annoyed by the subject.

Well, he's with pretty much all the other Dems in going for the rather silly plan of "let's let them marry each other, but just call it a 'civil union' so as not to piss off the religious right too much." I think it's stupid to have to hedge about equality, but at the same time, he does actually want to give homosexuals equal rights, even if under a different name. That's a heckuva lot better than anything the Repubs would do.

(I do believe, though, that he gave an interview a while back in which he explained that, since he was raised as a Southern Baptist, he's still personally unsure of the morality of gay marriage - BUT he doesn't think his feelings on the subject should have anything to do with the law of the land. Personally, I'm cool with that.)

Well, he's with pretty much all the other Dems in going for the rather silly plan of "let's let them marry each other, but just call it a 'civil union' so as not to piss off the religious right too much." I think it's stupid to have to hedge about equality, but at the same time, he does actually want to give homosexuals equal rights, even if under a different name. That's a heckuva lot better than anything the Repubs would do.

(I do believe, though, that he gave an interview a while back in which he explained that, since he was raised as a Southern Baptist, he's still personally unsure of the morality of gay marriage - BUT he doesn't think his feelings on the subject should have anything to do with the law of the land. Personally, I'm cool with that.)

Yeah, I probably took it a bit harshly... Though I'm personally unsure of exactly how I should have taken it, as I was raised (actually, I pretty much raised myself...) with the view that everybody is different, and shouldn't be judged as greater or lesser just because of who they are.

And do keep in mind that I happen to live in Southern Baptist Central (Houston), so I tend to take "I don't believe this feeling or that feeling should have anything to do with the law" with a grain of salt.

...and not capable of marrying individuals of the same sex. Therefore they don’t have an equal right of marriage.

You’re being deliberately obtuse if your line of argument is that homosexual couples are trying to gain the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.


They. Don’t. Have. Legs.

I have legs. Two of them, in fact. They don't work, but I have them. ;)

Paraplegics are physically crippled and are incapable of using stairs. Non-heterosexuals are capable of marrying individuals of the opposite sex but choose not to. You fail.

BTW: there is no intrinsic reason why we "need to build them access ramps." Congress decided to impose this obligation, IMO in order to give trial lawyers yet another cause of action to enrich themselves and finance further campaign contributions.


Are you seriously saying that the only reason I can enter public buildings or use public transportation is to make some lawyer rich? Did you really dare to say something that insulting? Who the HELL do you think you are, and what the FUCK is wrong with you? You know, I'd love to sit here and trade insults with you, but I'm a busy man, and you're not worth getting myself forumbanned. So let me just leave and say that I wish you a long, happy, healthy life and may you never, through injury or illness, find yourself with a disability. Because I seriously doubt you could handle it. You wouldn't last a month. You're not nearly strong enough.

I have legs. Two of them, in fact. They don’t work, but I have them. ;)
Apologies for the misunderstanding of the term.

The complete lack of logic or empathy in Mitanni’s post sorta blindsided me.

According to this source NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer

Four in 10 Edwards supporters said their second choice in the race is Clinton, while a quarter prefer Obama, according to an Associated Press-Yahoo poll conducted late this month. Both Clinton and Obama would welcome Edwards' backing and the support of the 56 delegates he had collected.

Posted by LHC, I always expected about 50 % of Edwards supporters to back Obama but according to these sources thats not the case. So it looks like Hillary has the field wide open now to the Democratic nomination if that poll source holds up.

If or when Hillary gets the democratic nomination, since Obama is the only other candidate left standing with a decent amount of delegates at that, there is going to be alot of presure at the democratic convention for Hillary to offer Obama the Vice Presidential nomination.

What do you all think if Hillary wins the nomination will that be the democratic ticket Hillary Clinton - Obama? Can she afford not to offer the Vice spot to Obama? How well the African American vote react if she does not offer Obama the Vice spot?

By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer
11 minutes ago

DENVER - Democrat John Edwards is exiting the presidential race Wednesday, ending a scrappy underdog bid in which he steered his rivals toward progressive ideals while grappling with family hardship that roused voters' sympathies, The Associated Press has learned.

The two-time White House candidate notified a close circle of senior advisers that he planned to make the announcement at a 1 p.m. EST event in New Orleans that had been billed as a speech on poverty, according to two aides. The decision came after Edwards lost the four states to hold nominating contests so far to rivals who stole the spotlight from the beginning — Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.

The former North Carolina senator will not immediately endorse either candidate in what is now a two-person race for the Democratic nomination, said one adviser, who spoke on condition of anonymity in advance of the announcement. Clinton said Wednesday that Edwards called her to inform her about his decision.

Obama told reporters Edwards had exited the race in a "classy" way. "I think he's run a great campaign," said Obama, who aides said also spoke with Edwards Tuesday night and asked for his endorsement.

In a statement from his campaign, Obama said Edwards "spent a lifetime fighting to give voice to the voiceless and hope to the struggling, even when it wasn't popular to do or covered in the news."

"While his campaign may end today, the cause of their lives endures for all of us who still believe that we can achieve that dream of one America," the statement said.

Four in 10 Edwards supporters said their second choice in the race is Clinton, while a quarter prefer Obama, according to an Associated Press-Yahoo poll conducted late this month. Both Clinton and Obama would welcome Edwards' backing and the support of the 56 delegates he had collected.

Edwards waged a spirited top-tier campaign against the two better-funded rivals, even as he dealt with the stunning blow of his wife's recurring cancer diagnosis. In a dramatic news conference last March, the couple announced that the breast cancer that she thought she had beaten had returned, but they would continue the campaign.

Their decision sparked a debate about family duty and public service. But Elizabeth Edwards remained a forceful advocate for her husband, and she was often surrounded at campaign events by well-wishers and emotional survivors cheering her on.

Edwards planned to announce his campaign was ending with his wife and three children at his side. Then he planned to work with Habitat for Humanity at the volunteer-fueled rebuilding project Musicians' Village, the adviser said.

With that, Edwards' campaign will end the way it began 13 months ago — with the candidate pitching in to rebuild lives in a city still ravaged by Hurricane Katrina. Edwards embraced New Orleans as a glaring symbol of what he described as a Washington that didn't hear the cries of the downtrodden.

Edwards burst out of the starting gate with a flurry of progressive policy ideas — he was the first to offer a plan for universal health care, the first to call on Congress to pull funding for the war, and he led the charge that lobbyists have too much power in Washington and need to be reigned in.

The ideas were all bold and new for Edwards personally as well, making him a different candidate than the moderate Southerner who ran in 2004 while still in his first Senate term. But the themes were eventually adopted by other Democratic presidential candidates — and even a Republican, Mitt Romney, echoed the call for an end to special interest politics in Washington.

Edwards' rise to prominence in politics came amid just one term representing North Carolina in the Senate after a career as a trial attorney that made him millions. He was on Al Gore's short list for vice president in 2000 after serving just two years in office. He ran for president in 2004, and after he lost to John Kerry, the nominee picked him as a running mate.

Elizabeth Edwards first discovered a lump in her breast in the final days of that losing campaign. Her battle against the disease caused her husband to open up about another tragedy in their lives — the death of their teenage son Wade in a 1996 car accident. The candidate barely spoke of Wade during his 2004 campaign, but he offered his son's death to answer questions about how he could persevere when his wife could die.

Edwards made poverty the signature issue of both his presidential campaigns, and he led a four-day tour to highlight the issue in July. The tour was the first to focus on the plight of the poor since Robert F. Kennedy's trip 40 years earlier.

But even as Obama and Clinton collected astonishing amounts of money that dwarfed his fundraising effort, Edwards maintained a loyal following in the first voting state of Iowa that made him a serious contender. He came in second to Obama in Iowa, an impressive feat of relegating Clinton to third place, before coming in third in the following three contests.

The loss in South Carolina was especially hard because it was where he was born and he had won the state in 2004.

At Edwards headquarters in Chapel Hill, N.C., two staffers debated on how best to answer the phones, saying "John Edwards for president" no longer seemed appropriate.

Associated Press Writer Mike Baker in North Carolina contributed to this report.

Apologies for the misunderstanding of the term.

The complete lack of logic or empathy in Mitanni’s post sorta blindsided me.

No offense taken -- from you, anyway. Mitanni's another matter.

I have legs. Two of them, in fact. They don't work, but I have them. ;)




Are you seriously saying that the only reason I can enter public buildings or use public transportation is to make some lawyer rich? Did you really dare to say something that insulting? Who the HELL do you think you are, and what the FUCK is wrong with you? You know, I'd love to sit here and trade insults with you, but I'm a busy man, and you're not worth getting myself forumbanned. So let me just leave and say that I wish you a long happy life andmay you never, through injury or illness, find yourself with a disability. Because I seriously doubt you could handle it. You wouldn't last a month. You're not nearly strong enough.

:fluffle:

I'd prefer a hugging emoticon but I'll go with this.

Maineiacs, I have always respected you because of your strength, your courage, and your convictions. I am truly in awe and inspired.

Don't let New Mitanni get to you. He's a cruel jackass, and sadly he keeps getting away with it, so he's not worth paying attention to.

:fluffle:

I'd prefer a hugging emoticon but I'll go with this.

Maineiacs, I have always respected you because of your strength, your courage, and your convictions. I am truly in awe and inspired.

Don't let New Mitanni get to you. He's a cruel jackass, and sadly he keeps getting away with it, so he's not worth paying attention to.

Thank you. :fluffle: Mitanni doesn't really anger me so much as annoy me. I've been dealing with his ilk for my entire life, and it's just a case of c'est la même vieille merde. Believe me, although he did insult me, I've been on the receiving end of far worse and far more clever insults.

I'll miss Edwards. He had great hair.

The perfect Democratic candidate would have Edward's lustrous hair, Obama's chocolate skin and Hillary's massive dick.

I'll miss Edwards. He had great hair.

The perfect Democratic candidate would have Edward's lustrous hair, Obama's chocolate skin and Hillary's massive dick.

Oh snap.