Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 62
  1. #31
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    20,453

    Re: "Change" is the buzzword for every candidate so ...

    ^^^ How does their not being the same thing have to with this?

    Not chicken... chicken shit.

  2. #32
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    In the charred ruins of Ascalon
    Age
    37
    Posts
    6,666

    Re: "Change" is the buzzword for every candidate so ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    ^^^ How does their not being the same thing have to with this?
    You compared them and I said they weren't the same thing or even close, that's pretty clear cut

    Not chicken... chicken shit.
    Right.

  3. #33
    Joined
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    6,596

    Re: "Change" is the buzzword for every candidate so ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    ^^^ How does their not being the same thing have to with this?

    Not chicken... chicken shit.
    If you really really genuinely believe that, then that's your prerogative. I see it as either a blatant rejection of reality, partisan politics, or just a pure delusion. Edwards has the mentality that negotiation is giving in partly to what the greedy, big name corporations want. It has nothing to do with being chicken. If anything, it is brave and bold to stand up to lobbyists, that are often times important to presidential candidates. But whatever I can't expect such a partisan Republican to be reasonable about an issue like this.
    Last edited by Computerwiz; 01-11-2008 at 05:43 AM.

  4. #34
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    In the charred ruins of Ascalon
    Age
    37
    Posts
    6,666

    Re: "Change" is the buzzword for every candidate so ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Computerwiz View Post
    If anything, it is brave and bold to stand up to lobbyists, that are often times important to presidential candidates.
    Voters are also important to candidates. He's not a coward but I wouldn't call his beliefs anything but angry populism (much like Mitt Romney's illegal immigration comments) to get votes.

  5. #35
    Joined
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Home
    Posts
    6,888

    Re: "Change" is the buzzword for every candidate so ...

    Wiz,

    This is the primaries. Edwards needs to get votes. Not just any old votes. He needs votes from Democrats and he's competing against other Democratic candidates. Saying that he won't deal with corporations isn't liable to alienate too many of his potential voter base.

    So, how do you determine what is genuine and what is rhetoric tossed out there in an attempt by a candidate clearly in the #3 position?

    "Ooooh, look at me. I'm not going to talk to those big mean corporations."

    Those big mean corporations just so happen to provide jobs, lots and lots of jobs. You think the wages are too low? Well, maybe they are. Now maybe, just maybe, there is a link between the millions of undocumented workers we've got roaming around the country. Do you think it might be a good idea to formulate a system whereby companies could check the citizenship of potential hires and then tell those big mean corporations (and every other employer) 'use it or we're coming down hard on you'?"

    Ya see there are legitimate reasons to talk to the people with whom you have a problem.

    Now I suppose you might think, well, he could just create such a system and force employers to use it without talking to them. Sure, I suppose he could. It strikes me as wise, however, to talk to employers and hear what they have to say as they deal with the issues every day and might actually have something constructive to add. Talking to them does not require agreeing with anything they say. Not talking with them requires remaining ignorant about what they might have to say.

    The whole notion reminds me of typical 4-year old behavior. Yeah, let's have a President who goes off and pouts about anything that doesn't explicitly agree with his outlook of the world.

  6. #36
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    20,453

    Re: "Change" is the buzzword for every candidate so ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Cobra_nVidia View Post
    You compared them and I said they weren't the same thing or even close, that's pretty clear cut
    If they were the same thing, there would be no reason to compare.

    They are however, both entities made up of large groups of people that have an effect on the United States and in turn , need to be dealt with by our government. So the idea of talking to one group while insisting the other will not be met with is a valid comparison to look at. Your idea of discarding the concept out of hand is as ridiculous as Edwards' idea of discarding discussions with corporations out of hand.

    The reason for comparing them is to show how he would choose to handle different things... talk to enemies... not talk to American corporations.

    His plan is simply outrageous.
    Last edited by Dutchcedar; 01-11-2008 at 10:18 AM.

  7. #37
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    In the charred ruins of Ascalon
    Age
    37
    Posts
    6,666

    Re: "Change" is the buzzword for every candidate so ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    If they were the same thing, there would be nothing to compare.
    True and completely unrelated to this discussion.

    The reason for comparing them is to show how he would choose to handle different things... talk to enemies... not talk to Americans. Its simply outrageous.
    I believe his point - whether he's lying, an idiot, or whatever - is that they have tried to work with the companies and it has failed. And that they are actively working against the interests of the people. The fact that they are American doesn't matter and it's a weak argument.

  8. #38
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    20,453

    Re: "Change" is the buzzword for every candidate so ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Cobra_nVidia View Post

    I believe his point - whether he's lying, an idiot, or whatever - is that they have tried to work with the companies and it has failed. The fact that they are American doesn't matter and it's a weak argument.
    They've tried and failed before being elected to the job? That's simply ridiculous. Especially when viewed against his willingness to sit down with North Korea where there has been no success.

    And a leader of America not being concerned that they are American doesn't matter? That's outrageous.
    And that they are actively working against the interests of the people.
    Corporations are working against the interests of the people? How in hell can you come up with clap-trap like that? They're made up of the "people". Your comment sounds like something we would expect to hear from a communist manifesto.

  9. #39
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    In the charred ruins of Ascalon
    Age
    37
    Posts
    6,666

    Re: "Change" is the buzzword for every candidate so ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
    They've tried and failed before being elected to the job? That's simply ridiculous.
    Edwards hasn't tried and failed as president, true. Not sure one has to have been president to have some ideas on how to change government.

    Especially when viewed against his willingness to sit down with North Korea where there has been no success.
    Limited Success.

    And a leader of America not being concerned that they are American doesn't matter? That's outrageous.
    Interesting. So, even if he believes that Corporations are unwilling to let go of their influence in Washington, he has to treat them well because they are American? Interesting argument.

    Corporations are working against the interests of the people? How in hell can you come up with clap-trap like that? They're made up of the "people". Your comment sounds like something we would expect to hear from a communist manifesto.
    Rhetoric aside, Corporate leaders are not made up of the people. I have never heard any rational economist pervert Adam Smith's idea of the "invisible hand" to imply they are somehow putting the interests of workers first.

    EDIT: And by the way, don't quote something out of context. I was explaining Edward's argument, not my own. Although anyone who thinks Corporate leaders put their workers first is insane.

  10. #40
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    20,453

    Re: "Change" is the buzzword for every candidate so ...

    Rhetoric aside? Why? I don't think your comment that "...they (corporations) are actively working against the interests of the people..." is rhetoric worth overlooking. Instead, I'd be interested in understanding how you can believe that the organizations that employ the majority of our population and fuel our economy are "actively working against the interests of the people" when its those very people who they rely on not just for their success, but for their existence. And... that those corporations are made up of those people... even the corporate leaders... yeah, they're people too.

    You can dismiss it as rhetoric, but its your own and again, it sounds like something from a communist manifesto. The idea of unilaterally deciding how corporations should change, dictated by an American president, without their input, sounds equally like the stuff of communism.

  11. #41
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    20,453

    Re: "Change" is the buzzword for every candidate so ...

    Let me ask a simple question.

    You and I decide to form a corporation that will manufacture new and improved cedarnVidia widgets. We're gonna hire TLR members to manufacture them. What should be our primary concern... cedarnVidia widgets or TLR members? Keep in mind that if the widgets fail, the TLR members will still get paid until the failure breaks our bank account, leaving them to beg for jobs at jimz enterprises.

  12. #42
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Kern River Valley, CA
    Age
    71
    Posts
    21,595

    Re: "Change" is the buzzword for every candidate so ...

    jimz enterprisesÖ

  13. #43
    Joined
    May 2002
    Location
    Twain Harte, CA
    Posts
    20,453

    Re: "Change" is the buzzword for every candidate so ...

    ^^^ Its a dastardly place, but the girls are cute.

  14. #44
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Kern River Valley, CA
    Age
    71
    Posts
    21,595

    Re: "Change" is the buzzword for every candidate so ...

    ^^ Cute girls or no girls I value my kneecaps to much.

    I’d probably end up in the "Junior" Gotti division...

  15. #45
    Joined
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Kern River Valley, CA
    Age
    71
    Posts
    21,595

    Re: "Change" is the buzzword for every candidate so ...

    The way I look at lobbyists is you canít completely quit talking to them because that helps nobody. What needs to be done is make the process a little more transparent/above board. No more special favors and no more backroom deals. Lobbyists should go through the same process to gain access to politicians that you or I would. That includes business and all other special interest groups both left and right.

    To say lobbyists and special interest groups donít influence Edwards is as naive as can be. You can start by looking at his ties with moveon, dkos and the far left wackos. Myself I think heís owned by the far left elements of the party.

    my 2 centavos.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •