| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:50 pm Post subject: Interesting pro-John Edwards article |
 |
|
The world is gaping with awe � and disbelief � at the prospect of a black or female President of the United States. Let's listen to the white guy from the Deep South.
from the Independent |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Milwaukiedave
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Location: Goseong
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I didn't read the whole article, but I skimmed it. Edwards would be my second choice for sure (early on when I was undecided I sent money to both his and Obama's campaign), but the problem is things are fading for him fast.
He needs a win prior to Feb 5th to stay in the race. It's do or die time for his campaign. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The writer of the article writes him off completely. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Edwards is a socialist and should be written off.
Such a man should never be put in control of the world's greatest economy. I watch his demise with some relief, but mostly glee. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Them is some very stereotypical Louisville, KY, USA views right there buddy... 
Edwards seems to want to stick up for the common man and is a critic of corporate power and greed. Seems reasonable enough to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Milwaukiedave
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Location: Goseong
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Like I said, I have mixed views on Edwards, but would vote for him if my first choice dropped out. In terms of voting, Oregon holds one of the latest primaries in the nation (in May), so I probably won't have any say in who the nominee is anyway (other then volunteering/contributing). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Czarjorge
Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 4:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Edwards is a socialist and should be written off.
Such a man should never be put in control of the world's greatest economy. I watch his demise with some relief, but mostly glee. |
If he was a full-on socialist I would support him, but he's not. (Let's not forget that the greatest President of the last century was often called a socialist. Go FDR, *beep* Truman.) The reality is Edwards merely panders in the middle class. He would gut HHS, especially funding for low income/disability housing. His supposed intention to increase taxes on the wealthy and decrease taxes on the middle class do nothing for the poor. A real socialist stands for the poor, not the bourgeoisie. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Czarjorge wrote: |
| Let's not forget that the greatest President of the last century was often called a socialist. Go FDR |
FDR was actually a borderline Communist. I'll hereby admit that he ran the war well; he had a lot of practice with Executive management after micro-managing the economy into a perpetual recession.
This gets me to my point: in an int'l economy, heavy gov't top-down intervention is anaethema to a sound economic policy.
Edwards inspires no confidence that he has any idea what he is talking about. He rails on against corporations. Hello? Publically traded corporations are so 1990s. This is the post-Enron/Sarbanes-Oxley era. We've handicapped corporations and hindered Americans' ability to invest into publically traded companies. No, this is the 2000s, the age of the private equity firm.
Furthermore, Edwards wants to halt NAFTA. NAFTA has been a great success, and he has used misleading calculations to make correlated short-term job loss into a kind of casualty figure for NAFTA.
The man is not fit for a Cabinet position, much less the Presidency. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 11:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Czarjorge wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
Edwards is a socialist and should be written off.
Such a man should never be put in control of the world's greatest economy. I watch his demise with some relief, but mostly glee. |
If he was a full-on socialist I would support him, but he's not. (Let's not forget that the greatest President of the last century was often called a socialist. Go FDR, *beep* Truman.) The reality is Edwards merely panders in the middle class. He would gut HHS, especially funding for low income/disability housing. His supposed intention to increase taxes on the wealthy and decrease taxes on the middle class do nothing for the poor. A real socialist stands for the poor, not the bourgeoisie. |
I haven't heard Edwards described quite in that way, but I like it.
I've long thought there needs to be a party that focuses on the needs of the Middle Class rather than the current system where things tend to focus either rich or poor.
---
Regarding Edwards in general. I really liked him in 2004, and thought he should have got the nomination back then. His campaign this time around isn't as impressive. Actually he's up against two superstars of the Democratic Party at this time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 2:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Czarjorge wrote: |
| Let's not forget that the greatest President of the last century was often called a socialist. Go FDR |
FDR was actually a borderline Communist. I'll hereby admit that he ran the war well; he had a lot of practice with Executive management after micro-managing the economy into a perpetual recession.
This gets me to my point: in an int'l economy, heavy gov't top-down intervention is anaethema to a sound economic policy.
Edwards inspires no confidence that he has any idea what he is talking about. He rails on against corporations. Hello? Publically traded corporations are so 1990s. This is the post-Enron/Sarbanes-Oxley era. We've handicapped corporations and hindered Americans' ability to invest into publically traded companies. No, this is the 2000s, the age of the private equity firm.
Furthermore, Edwards wants to halt NAFTA. NAFTA has been a great success, and he has used misleading calculations to make correlated short-term job loss into a kind of casualty figure for NAFTA.
The man is not fit for a Cabinet position, much less the Presidency. |
You can't be a "borderline" Communist. Communism is a completely state-run economy (well, to be totally accurate, "true" Communism is the absence of any state, but this theoretical stage has never been and will never be achieved).
Saying FDR was a borderline Communist is like saying GWB is a borderline fascist: it betrays the writer's bias and nothing else. Neither man was far out of the mainstream of American politics.
Calling Edwards a socialist is more open to interpretation. Just about everyone in America is a socialist with respect to certain sectors (like the military and the post office). Socialism is a matter of degree. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stillnotking wrote: |
You can't be a "borderline" Communist. Communism is a completely state-run economy (well, to be totally accurate, "true" Communism is the absence of any state, but this theoretical stage has never been and will never be achieved).
Saying FDR was a borderline Communist is like saying GWB is a borderline fascist: it betrays the writer's bias and nothing else. Neither man was far out of the mainstream of American politics. |
Sure I can call him a borderline Communist! Let me spell it out for you: FDR was a leftist authoritarian, but not in the tradition of Mao or Lenin. FDR was fine with dictating to individuals how much crops they could grow in the fear that they might open up a black market in wheat.
If that isn't Communism, strict price controls and government enforcement and suppression of private production, than what is? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Czarjorge
Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 1:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I think a borderline Communist is a Socialist. Regardless, by your standards, was Nixon a Communist, Kuros? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 6:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| stillnotking wrote: |
You can't be a "borderline" Communist. Communism is a completely state-run economy (well, to be totally accurate, "true" Communism is the absence of any state, but this theoretical stage has never been and will never be achieved).
Saying FDR was a borderline Communist is like saying GWB is a borderline fascist: it betrays the writer's bias and nothing else. Neither man was far out of the mainstream of American politics. |
Sure I can call him a borderline Communist! Let me spell it out for you: FDR was a leftist authoritarian, but not in the tradition of Mao or Lenin. FDR was fine with dictating to individuals how much crops they could grow in the fear that they might open up a black market in wheat.
If that isn't Communism, strict price controls and government enforcement and suppression of private production, than what is? |
Communism is a fundamental and all-encompassing theory of politics and the role of the state. If he wasn't in the tradition of Lenin -- and he wasn't -- then he's not a Communist.
I'm sure you can cite examples of FDR bludgeoning private enterprise or farms with the power of the state. I can cite similar examples for every single American President ever elected. None of them were Communists or "borderline Communists", whatever that is.
Again, this is like claiming George W. Bush is a borderline fascist because of Guantanamo Bay (for example). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 6:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Czarjorge wrote: |
| I think a borderline Communist is a Socialist. Regardless, by your standards, was Nixon a Communist, Kuros? |
Not really. Communism and socialism are two different animals. Socialism characterizes a certain theory of economics and is pretty much limited to that sphere. Communism is a model of government.
The term has been abused by generations of conservatives, but Communism, properly speaking, is still the political philosophy first articulated by Marx and Engels and later put into practice by Lenin, Mao, Castro etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djsmnc
Joined: 20 Jan 2003
Location: Dave's ESL Cafe
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
