|
![]() ![]() ![]() |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) |
![]() |
mondo joe
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 04:38 PM Original message |
How Could Edwards Hope to Be Pure Enough? Remember This Guy? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Rosemary2205
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 04:43 PM Response to Original message |
1. Ya, that Nader thing didn't work out too good. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
depakid
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 04:46 PM Response to Original message |
2. Apologist rhetoric |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mondo joe
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 04:48 PM Response to Reply #2 |
4. Right, because America hates nothing more than people with big houses. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Ken Burch
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 05:16 PM Response to Reply #4 |
21. If Oprah was actually running for president, her absurdly affluent lifestyle would get brought up. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
meow mix
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 04:49 PM Response to Reply #2 |
5. and instantly, global warming becomes a meaningless non-issue |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mondo joe
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 04:54 PM Response to Reply #5 |
8. If Edwards' home was the greatest factor impacting global warming you might have a point. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
depakid
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 05:09 PM Response to Reply #8 |
16. All I've heard in support so far are shallow "memes" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sandnsea
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 05:13 PM Response to Reply #8 |
19. EVERYBODY does |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mondo joe
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 06:26 PM Response to Reply #19 |
34. That's why a candidate's stand on POLICY matters more than the lightbulbs |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sandnsea
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 06:41 PM Response to Reply #34 |
40. Bull. Shit. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mondo joe
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 06:44 PM Response to Reply #40 |
41. So FDR couldn't take initiative to help the poor because he was rich. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sandnsea
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 07:11 PM Response to Reply #41 |
45. He nearly went broke helping people |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mondo joe
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 07:12 PM Response to Reply #45 |
47. So if you think the lightbulbs in Edwards' house matter more than policy he's fight |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sandnsea
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 07:20 PM Response to Reply #47 |
49. Light bulbs & tents - diversionary bullshit |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mondo joe
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 07:23 PM Response to Reply #49 |
52. And then we have the purity test. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sandnsea
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 07:27 PM Response to Reply #52 |
54. More diversionary bullshit |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mondo joe
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 07:31 PM Response to Reply #54 |
55. Actually, I don't judge poor people for shopping at WalMart either. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sandnsea
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 07:40 PM Response to Reply #55 |
62. So nobody is challenged to change? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mondo joe
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 07:49 PM Response to Reply #62 |
65. I don't think judging people encourages them to change. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sandnsea
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 08:07 PM Response to Reply #65 |
73. More bullshit |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mondo joe
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 08:09 PM Response to Reply #73 |
74. Recommending isn't demanding change, and if you think Edwards was not JUDGED |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sandnsea
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 08:35 PM Response to Reply #74 |
85. He was not judged, he got some very mild criticism |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mzmolly
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 08:23 PM Response to Reply #73 |
80. Al Gore recommends being carbon neutral. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sandnsea
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 08:33 PM Response to Reply #80 |
84. Not enough |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mzmolly
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 08:40 PM Response to Reply #84 |
88. I think it's fine to challenge. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mondo joe
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 08:43 PM Response to Reply #88 |
89. And now we're back to my original post! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mzmolly
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 08:47 PM Response to Reply #89 |
91. Exactly! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sandnsea
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 08:53 PM Response to Reply #89 |
93. From people who have the money??? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mondo joe
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 08:58 PM Response to Reply #93 |
95. Yes - from them. Do you need perfection or will you take improvement? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sandnsea
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 09:13 PM Response to Reply #95 |
99. It's IN their control |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mzmolly
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 09:18 PM Response to Reply #95 |
101. Seems like "selective perfection" to me? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sandnsea
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 09:20 PM Response to Reply #101 |
103. Only on your part |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mzmolly
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 09:25 PM Response to Reply #103 |
105. What I choose to ignore are pathetic arguments, which is why you are now on IGNORE. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Sherman A1
![]() |
Mon Jan-29-07 04:17 AM Response to Reply #52 |
111. SO we should instead have a purity test for our discussions? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mzmolly
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 07:33 PM Response to Reply #49 |
56. Why the double standard? Here is what you said about Kerry in the past primary season: |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mondo joe
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 07:35 PM Response to Reply #56 |
57. . |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mzmolly
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 07:36 PM Response to Reply #57 |
58. Bummer, can't see the pic? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mondo joe
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 07:36 PM Response to Reply #58 |
59. try again! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mzmolly
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 07:38 PM Response to Reply #59 |
60. Cute. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sandnsea
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 07:38 PM Response to Reply #56 |
61. I've already said they're included |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mzmolly
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 07:48 PM Response to Reply #61 |
64. It's obvious Kerry's homes are not energy independent. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sandnsea
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 08:04 PM Response to Reply #64 |
71. No it isn't |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mzmolly
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 08:18 PM Response to Reply #71 |
77. Yes it is. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sandnsea
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 08:30 PM Response to Reply #77 |
82. ALL - is the definition confusing??? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mzmolly
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 08:38 PM Response to Reply #82 |
87. Not confusing at all considering the hypocritical source. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sandnsea
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 08:52 PM Response to Reply #87 |
92. I have |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mzmolly
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 09:06 PM Response to Reply #92 |
97. Kerry has said he doesn't have solar panels/shingles on his homes: |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sandnsea
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 09:18 PM Response to Reply #97 |
102. First, "yet" Second, did you read the rest? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mzmolly
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 09:24 PM Response to Reply #102 |
104. So, you are ok with assuming the best about Kerry and demanding |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sandnsea
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 09:32 PM Response to Reply #104 |
106. Hello??? I'M NOT |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mzmolly
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 05:37 PM Response to Reply #5 |
29. There are ways to offset ones impact on the environment, as I've said before. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Jim Sagle
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 04:58 PM Response to Reply #2 |
12. Edwards doesn't need apologetics. Real Democrats know that. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
depakid
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 05:07 PM Response to Reply #12 |
15. Sleepwalking |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mondo joe
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 05:11 PM Response to Reply #15 |
17. Ralph Nader Thanks You for Your Vote. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
depakid
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 05:32 PM Response to Reply #17 |
26. Future generations thank you |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Jim Sagle
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 06:37 PM Response to Reply #15 |
38. Other voters won't give a flying fuck unless the RNC-controlled media tells them to. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Ken Burch
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 05:25 PM Response to Reply #12 |
24. Wow, Jim, that's the first non-insulting and non-obscene post you've done in months now. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mzmolly
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 05:33 PM Response to Reply #2 |
27. What would people do without the phrases "apologist" and "DLC?" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
depakid
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 06:15 PM Response to Reply #27 |
32. DLC is a relatively "new" thing |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mzmolly
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 07:20 PM Response to Reply #32 |
50. Well, it's even less original then I initially surmised. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
depakid
![]() |
Mon Jan-29-07 03:44 AM Response to Reply #50 |
110. Touche' |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mzmolly
![]() |
Mon Jan-29-07 05:33 PM Response to Reply #110 |
117. You're too kind Depakid. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Sherman A1
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 04:48 PM Response to Original message |
3. So if I understand this correctly |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mondo joe
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 04:51 PM Response to Reply #3 |
6. Congrats -- you did not understand correctly! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Sherman A1
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 05:07 PM Response to Reply #6 |
14. My apologies for participating in this discussion |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Ken Burch
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 05:20 PM Response to Reply #6 |
22. The lesson of 2000 was NOT that we have no right to ask anything from anti-GOP candidates. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
depakid
![]() |
Mon Jan-29-07 05:26 PM Response to Reply #6 |
115. On the other hand |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
frogcycle
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 05:01 PM Response to Reply #3 |
13. discussing positions and actions is fine |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Surya Gayatri
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 04:51 PM Response to Original message |
7. Thanks mondo joe... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
boobooday
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 04:54 PM Response to Original message |
9. One point I would like to make . . . |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
pwb
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 04:54 PM Response to Original message |
10. if the neocons say look over here? look over there. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sandnsea
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 04:57 PM Response to Original message |
11. Hypocrisy |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SaveElmer
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 05:13 PM Response to Original message |
18. Spot on...K&R...nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Bucky
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 05:14 PM Response to Original message |
20. Not sure who you're comparing us to, but DU didn't exist in 2000. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mondo joe
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 06:32 PM Response to Reply #20 |
37. It's clearly not addressed to all progressives. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Ken Burch
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 05:24 PM Response to Original message |
23. Edwards' house doesn't personally concern me that much. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mondo joe
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 06:30 PM Response to Reply #23 |
36. I have NO objection to looking at every candidate's stand on policy. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Ken Burch
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 06:59 PM Response to Reply #36 |
42. I agree with you about the freakin' house, ok? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mondo joe
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 07:01 PM Response to Reply #42 |
43. Sure. But they'll be on anything for anyone, and if they can't find it they'll make it up. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Ken Burch
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 07:12 PM Response to Reply #43 |
46. If he's nominated, let's hope you're right. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mondo joe
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 07:14 PM Response to Reply #46 |
48. The funny thing - for me anyway - is that I'm not partial to Edwards. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Ken Burch
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 07:21 PM Response to Reply #48 |
51. As you have repeatedly said. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mondo joe
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 07:25 PM Response to Reply #51 |
53. On this we don't agree. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Ken Burch
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 07:41 PM Response to Reply #53 |
63. Gore has also moved considerably leftward since 2000. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mondo joe
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 07:51 PM Response to Reply #63 |
66. On matters of policy we don't know where he'd be because he isn't running. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Ken Burch
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 07:57 PM Response to Reply #66 |
68. I don't think progressives got what they wanted. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mondo joe
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 07:59 PM Response to Reply #68 |
69. I'd still maintain that what the party or candidate gets out of an election is |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
noamnety
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 08:32 PM Response to Reply #46 |
83. OR ... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Ken Burch
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 08:57 PM Response to Reply #83 |
94. Since none of the prospective nominees are saints, we need to do BOTH |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
noamnety
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 09:12 PM Response to Reply #94 |
98. I'm with you there. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mzmolly
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 05:32 PM Response to Original message |
25. Marvelous post! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Rex
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 05:36 PM Response to Original message |
28. Didn't you hear? Gore and Clinton had the most corrupt administration |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
dad
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 05:37 PM Response to Original message |
30. s |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mondo joe
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 06:27 PM Response to Reply #30 |
35. Talk about not learning your lesson. You sound happy that Gore lost. NT |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Jim Sagle
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 06:39 PM Response to Reply #30 |
39. So the last six years are all worth it because Gore is a better world citizen because of it. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Ken Burch
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 07:52 PM Response to Reply #39 |
67. Gore would still be conservative if he'd won in 2000. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mondo joe
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 08:00 PM Response to Reply #67 |
70. Gore would have been a "SLIGHT improvement over Bush"? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Ken Burch
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 08:05 PM Response to Reply #70 |
72. Well, with a congress that would've been GOP throughout his term |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mondo joe
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 08:11 PM Response to Reply #72 |
76. If you really think Gore would have been only a slight improvement over Bush |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Ken Burch
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 08:18 PM Response to Reply #76 |
78. What's the practicality in supporting a Democrat |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mondo joe
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 08:21 PM Response to Reply #78 |
79. I guess avoiding 911 and the Iraq war alone would have been a MUCH greater |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Ken Burch
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 08:26 PM Response to Reply #79 |
81. You're assuming Gore would've been able to prevent 911 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mondo joe
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 08:35 PM Response to Reply #81 |
86. Indeed, I am. And given Bushco's documented incompetence I think it's a fair |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
fujiyama
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 10:19 PM Response to Reply #81 |
108. . |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Ken Burch
![]() |
Mon Jan-29-07 08:20 PM Response to Reply #108 |
120. That may be the most concise post in DU history. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Jim Sagle
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 11:59 PM Response to Reply #67 |
109. Pitiful. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Ken Burch
![]() |
Mon Jan-29-07 01:28 PM Response to Reply #109 |
112. Yes, the truth about the DLC is pitiful. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Jim Sagle
![]() |
Mon Jan-29-07 07:47 PM Response to Reply #112 |
118. Gore certainly helped w steal 2000 with his soft campaign. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Ken Burch
![]() |
Mon Jan-29-07 08:16 PM Response to Reply #118 |
119. In any case, we will never know. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mzmolly
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 08:46 PM Response to Reply #30 |
90. Al Gore never needed Nader in him. He's the same man he always was. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Ken Burch
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 09:05 PM Response to Reply #90 |
96. Gore may not have "needed Nader in him"(weird image there, btw)... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mzmolly
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 09:13 PM Response to Reply #96 |
100. In all honesty, most Greens I know are Green because they want legalized Marijane. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Ken Burch
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 10:14 PM Response to Reply #100 |
107. You don't know many of them, then. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mzmolly
![]() |
Mon Jan-29-07 05:32 PM Response to Reply #107 |
116. Actually, I DO know many of them. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
saltpoint
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 06:07 PM Response to Original message |
31. My take on Nader is that he is a hell of an intelligent guy who |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Ken Burch
![]() |
Mon Jan-29-07 02:42 PM Response to Reply #31 |
113. Of course, if you're going to talk about Michael Moore's role in 2000 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Clark2008
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 06:20 PM Response to Original message |
33. I love Al. Loved him back then, too. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Straight Shooter
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 07:03 PM Response to Reply #33 |
44. To you, Clark2008 ... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
KoKo
![]() |
Sun Jan-28-07 08:10 PM Response to Original message |
75. I've Met Al Gore and Knew him back in the 80's and John Edwards is No Al Gore! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Tom Rinaldo
![]() |
Mon Jan-29-07 02:55 PM Response to Original message |
114. In fairness, Moore opposed the Democratic Party nominee in 2000 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Sat Sep 07th 2024, 06:48 PM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) |
![]() |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC