Liberal Icon- John Edwards!!

Maybe some of us just think Edwards is a scumbag?

 

Myself included David along with many others here.

You know what is most amusing about this thread though. THE TITLE.
You titled it LIBERAL ICON-JOHN EDWARDS!!

Can you really explain to the class where you came up with this? How is he a "liberal icon"? What is the definition of a liberal that would see him as an icon?

Too many grey areas and I'm thinking not a lot going on in a particular grey area when you post this garbage.

Really.

Is John Edwards a piece of trash? I won't argue that. Nor will I argue that there are MULTITUDES of politicians that are trash. It's really why we are at the point we are at.

In the meantime keep beating that horse. It speaks volumes to anyone that even considers thinking outside "the box".

 

Actually, the "liberal icon" thingy came from a headline I saw on one of the national broadcast news networks, sorry I do not remember which one. But hey, Edwards was a golden boy in the party it the recent past, was he not? Senator? Presidential candidate? VP nominee? Plus, if I'm not mistaken, he wears the tag of Liberal rather proudly.
Does that explain it for you?

 

I'm sure that a lot of politicians are scumbags. Focusing exclusively on one side or the other as many here often do simply propagates the myth that the other side is somehow better by the sheer volume of insults hurled. It also serves to paint the entire political system with one brush in an absolutist mentality. It does not surprise me that people take the simple-minded approach to political analysis in their diatribes. The media has had to dumb the news down to 5 second sound bites in order to get ratings and then they equate those news ratings with actual factual reporting. The higher the ratings, the more factual your news MUST be, RIGHT? Not when you take into account how dumbed down the news has become. And who buys into all of this, a heck of a lot of Americans whose personal situations get worse and worse every day while they help to maintain the system that is killing them. Kind of makes one envy a lab rat eh?

 

Or the Edwards story just happened to be the "news of the day" on the day I started the thread, right?

 

There are certainly things that the government needs to do. Roads and infrastructure. Defense. Mint money. Control the borders. Etc. But, just because they need to do those things does not mean they are great at it or are models of efficiency.

But, the problem does not really exist with just the government. The problem is really with the people. The majority of people want the government to do almost everything but they want to pay it to do almost nothing.

Healthcare reform could not be a better example. How popular is it? Very popular. If you do poles, a big majority of people want healthcare reform and they even want to insure the uninsured. But, they want someone else to pay for it (taxes) or they want someone else's existing plan to be affected, not theirs or they want a current program they don't (or won't ever) use to be cut and not one that they utilize.

 

Bureaucracies weren’t created because people liked them. They were created because they get large scale projects done better than any other method out there. Government is a necessary institution and the whipping boy for the Republican Party and this entire country would fold up if government didn’t exist or even was weakened to the point of ineffectiveness. The middle ground is government where necessary and free enterprise where possible. Currently we have a weak government and nothing near free enterprise.

 

I am not sure how any government that can fight 2 unpopular wars for years and years, detain prisoners indefinitely without trial, buy an auto company and influence who runs it, decide which companies in an industry (finance) are allowed to fail and which survive through bailouts, and creates the Patriot Act - just to name a few things - can ever be considered weak in any meaning of the word.

Government is necessary but that does not mean it is efficient. It means that we need the government to do some things and are willing to put up with the inefficiency and waste to have a sustainable society.

If the government was efficient, it would at least be able to come close to balancing its books or be able to at least see breaking even every once in a while instead of getting worse and worse in that regard every single year and by greater and greater amounts.

 

Healthcare reform is popular because, aside from the obvious corporate problems associated with the monopoly, many people see this issue as a shining example of the hypocrisy that is corporate America today. They see lots of CEO's (and other criminals) being rewarded for literally crushing people's lives, executives, folks in Washington, all gaining from essentially stealing, and the people themselves either can't afford to be sick because of the associated greed of said elitists, or lose their economic viability when they get sick. Healthcare is completely broken, as is the politics in Washington. Healthcare also represents some token of an attempt by legislators to begin fixing what is wrong. (that the right wing of course, opposes). They see noone going to jail, noone accountable in any way for the destruction of our economy, instead being rewarded. Healthcare represents a beginning to start bailing out main street instead of elite street.

 

And yet, people still don't want to pay for it. Look at that union bribe in the bill. The unions basically said..."Tax 'their Cadillac Plans, not MINE!" And that is from the unions which are supposed to be for the people (And yes, in full disclosure, I am in a union).

And that pretty much sums up most of the population's viewpoint on government programs. We want it but we want someone else to pay for it.

 

Perhaps that view originates from folks watching corporations monetarily rape society as a whole? Just a thought.

 

Or it is that we are conditioned by the government that they will take care of us and we don't have to really pay for it at all. Trust us. We can just borrow the money and give you everything you want. It's not real debt. Just sit back and be fat, dumb and happy. No worries.

 

Funny..I thought that was a republican ideology. Sit back, be fat, take care of the rich and they'll take care of you? I think Reagan started that "trickle" that is now a raging river.

 

It's both their ideologies. Otherwise, neither would be able to gain power.

 

Ahhh...I see..that kind of ideology they can agree on. Depends on the number of zeros to the left of the decimal place. I knew that.

 

It's not so much the number of zeroes - which probably just vary depending upon what party is in power and even out in the end - as much as what legislation is up for debate.

Democrats had to have made a killing in this healthcare debate. Not much sense in lobbying the Republicans as they were voting no to anything. Party Of No, right?

But, the Democrats could be easily bought. They must have gotten most of the $280 million spent in 2009 by healthcare companies (half by Big Pharm, BTW). Not to mention the $25 million or so in campaign contributions.

 

Dems also were on the receiving end of the $668 million the unions have spent over the past few years 98.6% of the time. Now that's some major corporate support there folks!

 

Pharma companies hedging their bets perhaps?

Hey man....that's just capitalism at work!! That's "just how business is done". A republican staple to any elitist society!

 

There is no bet hedging in this one. Pharm knew they would get the deal (and future profits) from the party (and President) in charge...

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/aug2009/drug-a07.shtml

It's not exactly Fox News but I imagine you would like this source better.