John Edwards is an A-hole

[Chump Bailey]

Well, this liberal agrees with you whole-heartedly. Edwards is an empty suit. A Democratic version of George Allen. Blah.

[panel]

Let me ask you Republicans this: Is it possible to competetively run for President these days without riding around on private jets, with bodyguards, etc? No. It's not. So what Republicans/faux news is really saying is that people who run for President can not advocate conservation.

Of course in order to run a presidential campaign that has a fair shot to win, you need to be able to fly, but here is the thing, why does a politician get to decide that a chance for HIM to be president and further his career, and get his name out is worth pollution, but that a chance for me to explore the world is not OK.

[Midnight Judges]

Of course in order to run a presidential campaign that has a fair shot to win, you need to be able to fly, but here is the thing, why does a politician get to decide that a chance for HIM to be president and further his career, and get his name out is worth pollution, but that a chance for me to explore the world is not OK.

I don't think anyone has suggested it's not OK for you to explore the world.

[Cskin]

I drive a big effing SUV because I like them... I like knowing when I hit something that I'm more than likely going to survive.... and I drive one because I have a right to buy whatever effing car/truck I want as long as I can afford the sale price of it, the personal taxes associated with it, and the gas and maintenance needed to operate it. Any questions?

Additionally, when the ****roach politicians in Washington decide... via legislation, what kind of car I can drive... that's when I know it's time to pack up and move somewhere else. Because... if they're telling me what kind of automobile I must buy then they must be telling me other things I must do that goes beyond the powers authorized to them by the Constitution.

Finally, let the market decide when it becomes inconvenient for me to own a SUV.

PS. Edwards is a bleeding heart, Blame America (or in his case both Americas), appeasing liberal without a chance of becoming POTUS.

[Kilmer17]

I think Edwards is going to emerge as the ture leftist candidate before all is said and done and really give Hillary fits.

He's starting to get some traction.

[Destino]

I wouldn't ban SUV's I'd just ramp up the required fuel standards. Can't make an SUV that gets 30mph? Tough ****. I trust the economic system to find a way to make it happen if those are the terms. The auto-industry resisted SEAT BELTS for crying out loud. Listening to folks whine these days we shouldn't have those in every car because governments shouldn't force car makers to do anything.

Also I don't understand the SUV thing for kids. Most people I know that drive SUV's have one that has a single row of seats in the back. That doesn't make for much more room (if any) then a standard four door car. I think people just like them and they are more socially acceptable then a minivan which actually has seating and gas advantages over just about every SUV.

Also the safety thing is crap - I can't imagine driving a car that will likely flip over when I take evasive action. I have avoided many many accidents (in fact, never been in one) because I've reacted quickly. An SUV has a longer stopping distance and is less nimble meaning that in reality you are less likely to be able to avoid getting into an accident. Screw that.

BTW - I expect those raggin on Edwards for his hair to get on Mitt (wtf kind of name is that) for his expensive make up. Another Log Cabin perhaps?

[Kilmer17]

I agree with the fuel standards part.

Here's the answer to the next two points though.

YES and SUV is more likely to tip over. But that's not a common accident. The common accident is the rear end or t-bone, both of which an SUV is OVERWHELMINGLY safer. So I'll risk the roll over in exchange for the other.

As for kids and SUVs. It's not about your kid needing space. It's about your kid needing space, his stuff needing space, toys, dvds, games, diaperbags, gym bags, balls, change of clothes, beach stuff.

Then add in that your kid is never alone. He always seems to have a friend with him, who has stuff needing space, toys, dvds, games, diaperbags, gym bags, balls, change of clothes, beach stuff.

That's the reason. Our parents had stationwagons for the same reasons.

[Predicto]

I agree with the fuel standards part.

Here's the answer to the next two points though.

YES and SUV is more likely to tip over. But that's not a common accident. The common accident is the rear end or t-bone, both of which an SUV is OVERWHELMINGLY safer. So I'll risk the roll over in exchange for the other.

As for kids and SUVs. It's not about your kid needing space. It's about your kid needing space, his stuff needing space, toys, dvds, games, diaperbags, gym bags, balls, change of clothes, beach stuff.

Then add in that your kid is never alone. He always seems to have a friend with him, who has stuff needing space, toys, dvds, games, diaperbags, gym bags, balls, change of clothes, beach stuff.

That's the reason. Our parents had stationwagons for the same reasons.

All of that is true. But a Minivan serves all those purposes better and it gets better gas mileage to boot.

[helptheSKINS]

All of that is true. But a Minivan serves all those purposes better and it gets better gas mileage to boot.

How about trucks? I have a truck that gets about 21/17 for personal use. I do agree that if they had to, the auto industry could make vehicles more fuel efficient.

[Kilmer17]

All of that is true. But a Minivan serves all those purposes better and it gets better gas mileage to boot.

Yep, which is why I have one.

It comes down to a choice between the two. Make the automakers improve the fuel standards and it wont matter. But dont tell Jimmy he cant have an SUV. Make him pay more for it.

[Chachie]

You guys are hilarious with your "Dems this" and your "Repubs that." :no:

ALL politicians are greedy, hypocritical, power-hungry attention whores. They ALL promise us things while running and do whatever the corporations want them to when elected. They ALL claim to be spiritually perfect patriots and ALL of them are corruptible, weak, and numb to the plight of the downtrodden. They will ALL exploit any disaster, economic hardship, or human tragedy to garner money and votes. The only good president is an ex-president.

IMHO, ANY person who desperately wants to hold a public office is automatically not worthy of it. ANY celebrity who's not willing to give up his fame/fortune for a cause should be ignored. He/she is in it for the tax relief.

CLOSE the GD thread!!!

[Predicto]

Yep, which is why I have one.

It comes down to a choice between the two. Make the automakers improve the fuel standards and it wont matter. But dont tell Jimmy he cant have an SUV. Make him pay more for it.

I do not disagree. I'm not sure that anyone (except Cskin) has ever suggested such a ban.

[thedoc4454]

Well, I can't believe I agree with Predicto on this, but the mpg that trucks and suv's get in this country is rediculous. Case in point, I have a 1992 olds custom crusier that runs like a top. It's one of the biggest cars ever built, and I get just over 22 mpg on the highway. Now how can a 4000 lbs car that's 16 years old get better mileage ( it's an 8 cyclinder ) than some new suv's and pick ups, unless Detroit doesn't give a rats rear end.

Also could anyone please explain to me why cars and trucks all go approximetly 300 to 350 miles between fill ups? Frankly, I'd like a gas tank that's 40 gallons with 30 mpg. I hate going to the gas station.

[tizzod]

You guys are hilarious with your "Dems this" and your "Repubs that." :no:

ALL politicians are greedy, hypocritical, power-hungry attention whores. They ALL promise us things while running and do whatever the corporations want them to when elected. They ALL claim to be spiritually perfect patriots and ALL of them are corruptible, weak, and numb to the plight of the downtrodden. They will ALL exploit any disaster, economic hardship, or human tragedy to garner money and votes. The only good president is an ex-president.

IMHO, ANY person who desperately wants to hold a public office is automatically not worthy of it. ANY celebrity who's not willing to give up his fame/fortune for a cause should be ignored. He/she is in it for the tax relief.

CLOSE the GD thread!!!

Well, I guess that just about takes care of that!

[Johnny Punani]

You guys are hilarious with your "Dems this" and your "Repubs that." :no:

ALL politicians are greedy, hypocritical, power-hungry attention whores. They ALL promise us things while running and do whatever the corporations want them to when elected. They ALL claim to be spiritually perfect patriots and ALL of them are corruptible, weak, and numb to the plight of the downtrodden. They will ALL exploit any disaster, economic hardship, or human tragedy to garner money and votes. The only good president is an ex-president.

IMHO, ANY person who desperately wants to hold a public office is automatically not worthy of it. ANY celebrity who's not willing to give up his fame/fortune for a cause should be ignored. He/she is in it for the tax relief.

CLOSE the GD thread!!!

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

It's more then people, it's the whole process itself. Washington was right. Political parties SUCK!!!!

[Chachie]

Tizzod/Punani 2008!

[rincewind]

I hope I never become famous. Must suck not being able to have an opinion.

[81artmonk]

I'm just curious how you can say you are for the poor and little guy when you have the money he has?? It just doesn't sit right. He may be sincere, but when you pay $1200 for a haircut, and than say you are fighting for the poor, it isn't right

[LApunkrocker72]

I will definitely vote for any Democrat over any Republican in the 2008 election. And I think John Edwards would make a good President.

The Democrats may not be perfect but at least they are not as corrupt and greedy as the hypocritical Republican party. The Republican party, to me, is getting more and more Hitlersque. In my home state of California, the GOP is trying to ram through a legislative act that would split the state's 55 electoral votes! Now if California voted Republican most of the time, you think the GOP would try this? I don't think so.

But you know what our country really needs? A three or four party system. If you had a legit three-party or four-party system, it would weed out most of the corruption in both the Democratic and Republican parties. With the added competition, the Democrats and Republicans would (hopefully) get back to the task of serving the American people instead of big businesses. After all, government are supposed to serve the people.

[81artmonk]

I will definitely vote for any Democrat over any Republican in the 2008 election. And I think John Edwards would make a good President.

The Democrats may not be perfect but at least they are not as corrupt and greedy as the hypocritical Republican party. The Republican party, to me, is getting more and more Hitlersque. In my home state of California, the GOP is trying to ram through a legislative act that would split the state's 55 electoral votes! Now if California voted Republican most of the time, you think the GOP would try this? I don't think so.

But you know what our country really needs? A three or four party system. If you had a legit three-party or four-party system, it would weed out most of the corruption in both the Democratic and Republican parties. With the added competition, the Democrats and Republicans would (hopefully) get back to the task of serving the American people instead of big businesses. After all, government are supposed to serve the people.

What you are stating is true, but it doesn't all have to do with electoral votes. Most of the reasoning is that voting districts are set up to allow incumbants almost unhindered re-election in thier districts. They are doing it in order to keep seats open and accessible to who the voters elect, and not allowing an incumbant access to being re-elected over and over again. Which in theory is a good idea.

It's trying to get rid of career politicians......on both sides.

[Destino]

I

YES and SUV is more likely to tip over. But that's not a common accident. The common accident is the rear end or t-bone, both of which an SUV is OVERWHELMINGLY safer. So I'll risk the roll over in exchange for the other.

Rear end and the T-bone? Didn't I mention stopping distance, maneuverability, and tipping over? I've seen dozens of SUVs that have been tboned sitting on their sides. Stopping distance makes them more likely to rear end you and their weight more likely to cause you harm.

Sure they are safer for the driver inside but they are much more dangerous to everyone else on the road. This is one of the reasons many consider SUVs a selfish choice. Forgetting the fuel economy, they are a vehicle that says "as long as I'm safe screw the rest of you".

[PeterMP]

Sure they are safer for the driver inside but they are much more dangerous to everyone else on the road. This is one of the reasons many consider SUVs a selfish choice. Forgetting the fuel economy, they are a vehicle that says "as long as I'm safe screw the rest of you".

Actually, I think there was a pretty good study done that shows that they aren't safer simply because you are more likely to be in an accident. For any given accident, you are more likely to walk away unhurt, but if you take into account that you are more likely to have an accident then that balances out the decreased probability of getting hurt in one accident. Simply stated if you are less likely to get hurt in an accident by half, but twice as likely to have an accident, then your probability of getting hurt due to an accident over an extended period of time hasn't really changed. I'll see if I can find it, but don't have much time today.

[Joe Sick]

I think Edwards is going to emerge as the ture leftist candidate before all is said and done and really give Hillary fits.

He's starting to get some traction.

That was my point. He is the only candidate that beats the Republican frontrunners. Populists do well in general elections.

I'd just as well not go through another year of accusations against the Clintons and stupid blue dress jokes. Plus, Hillary tries to be so tough that she ends up being a Republican lite, like most DLCers.

At the start, I liked Richardson. He has mounds of foreign policy experience, including dealing with the axis of evil. The Mountain West is an emerging area for Democratic voters and he is also hispanic.

I'm liking Edwards, the more I hear of him. I still don't understand the expensive haircut attack. Seems like a guy who is rich, and still advocates for the poor, is a better candidate. He is not helping himself or his buddies out. If a person advocates policy that would personally lose him money, isn't that an indication that the person really believes his actions are best for the country?

Edwards-Obama? Probably not, not enough experience, but I could definitely get behind Edwards-Richardson. The sooner we get rid of this moron president and his cronies, the better!

[Kilmer17]

"In my home state of California, the GOP is trying to ram through a legislative act that would split the state's 55 electoral votes! Now if California voted Republican most of the time, you think the GOP would try this? I don't think so."

Ram through?

It's supported by half of the people in CA. How is that ramming through?

I think it's hysterical. I hope it happens. That's how you'll get a true 3rd party candidate. Because the SF and Berkley areas will vote for some communist and they'll get that electoral votes.

It'll never happen though, because the Dems dont want change, they only want change that allows them to keep power in CA Electoral votes.

I personally wouldnt mind seeing this enacted nationwide. I dont think the EC needs to be changed, but if we had to, this is the way.

[Kilmer17]

That was my point. He is the only candidate that beats the Republican frontrunners. Populists do well in general elections.

I'd just as well not go through another year of accusations against the Clintons and stupid blue dress jokes. Plus, Hillary tries to be so tough that she ends up being a Republican lite, like most DLCers.

At the start, I liked Richardson. He has mounds of foreign policy experience, including dealing with the axis of evil. The Mountain West is an emerging area for Democratic voters and he is also hispanic.

I'm liking Edwards, the more I hear of him. I still don't understand the expensive haircut attack. Seems like a guy who is rich, and still advocates for the poor, is a better candidate. He is not helping himself or his buddies out. If a person advocates policy that would personally lose him money, isn't that an indication that the person really believes his actions are best for the country?

Edwards-Obama? Probably not, not enough experience, but I could definitely get behind Edwards-Richardson. The sooner we get rid of this moron president and his cronies, the better!

I have to think that Edwards is the one that the GOP really fears.