mr_genius

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 26, 2007 -> 09:20 PM) George W. Bush and the Iraq war say hi. "USA! USA!"

More John Edwards news. http://www.charlotte.com/209/story/335264.html

haha, thats a great move.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 11:16 PM) http://access.minnesota.publicradio.org/ci.../factoids.shtml http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/polit...es/wh041798.htm http://modestneeds.typepad.com/modestneeds...020_vision.html well, John Edwards definitely has the Goracle beat as far as charity goes. Maybe I have been unjustly harsh on the poor guy. I'm sorry John Edwards, you're the best. I need to stop posting in this thread

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 11:06 PM) How much has Bush donated for embryonic stem cell research? Probably $0. I'm pretty sure he thinks it's the devil's science. or something like that.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 10:58 PM) Wow, all the republicans here are in favor of handouts to fight poverty. Well, if John Edwards wants massive wealth redistribution he should start with his own money

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 10:43 PM) Why not disclose your donations for the forum? why? you saying I should run for president ? I contribute between 11- 15% of my earnings to different charities. My parents always donated 15% of their salary to charity, and that was an influence on me. The only ones that are consistent are donations to U of I, art grant donations, and money to the red cross. Other money just goes to random charities I hear about.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 10:37 PM) Shall we get into a debate about percentages here? 4% more than 4% is 4.16%. If Edwards contributes at a rate of 8%, he contributes at a rate 100% greater.... 9%, as referenced earlier, 125% greater. impressive, by you and him

more 2008 polling info http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/20...t/national.html

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 08:25 PM) One could, if one were so inclined, make the argument that the Democrats' loss of the Southern/Segregationist Democrats really starting with Nixon's southern strategy helped make the Democrats into a minority party for the better part of 30 years, with only Watergate and Ross Perot giving the Dems even a shot at the White House until the nations' demographics finally began to reach a point in the past few years where they could stage a comeback. With the fact that the Republicans are also in the process of losing the Hispanic vote for a long time, if the strength the Democrats show in my generation winds up holding to some extent, then the Republicans as they exist now will have no constituency left on which to build a majority. After the Democrats finally abandoned segregation as a policy, then southern voters were up for grabs. Obviously the Republicans wouldn't tolerate those policies in their party either, but they did realize a lot of one issue voters now had to abandon that issue and would be available. The Democrats still continued to win southern states, even up to Clinton. As far as your dreams of having one political party (the super dems) , it's not going to happen . Voters are more loyal to issues and ideals than a Donkey or Elephant logo. I would see more outside parties gaining momentum. For example, you would have the evangelicals and there ilk all voting together, a center-right GOP, a center-left Dems, and far left party. Also, G.W. Bush is a huge liability for the GOP. After a flop of a presidency, like Jimmy Carter or GW Bush, the opposition party always gets much stronger.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 06:51 PM) Given the desertion of the GOP by people under 30, that doesn't surprise me. Four years ago, voters under 30 voted for the Dem nominee 54-45. Truth is that the GOP is losing its party for at least a generation right now. The GOP, like any party is going to have to adapt. If you remember, the Democrats used to have a large pro-segregation faction. ** Dem states used to be colored red by the media. States Rights Democratic party in orange. ** http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...e1948-Large.png

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 07:46 PM) I've been pretty consistant with my arguments concerning Edwards. Just about all the posts questioning Mr.Edwards have been.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 07:06 PM) I just find it funny how the argument shifts. First it was, he doesn't give anything at all. When that's shown its not true, it's he doesn't give over a sustained period of time. When that's shown to be not true, it's he doesn't give enough and he made investments in funds that had holdings in subprime mortgages. The posts have said, all along, that he is really generous with other peoples money but not his own. No one said he never donates anything, no one ever said he doesn't give a percentage of his income over a sustained period of time. I know that I said he gives a low percentage for someone that advocates massive wealth redistribution, and have said so the whole time. Your attempt to say you some how "proved someone wrong" is just not the case. And your claims that your post made the discourse change is suspect, seeing that I read that article before you even posted it (it's where I got his windfall cash total).

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 05:06 PM) Edwards donates a significant amount of his income to charity and works for poverty reduction, whether you want to believe it or not. i call bs. 8% is very low for someone who claims to be a "premier poverty fighter". Walmart, yes the evil devil, donates a higher percentage of it's net earnings than Edwards. here's another stat http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m402..._24/ai_95309979 The guy donates a mere 4% more than people who can barely afford to give a contribution.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 04:58 PM) John Edwards donated, a shade under 9% of his income between lol, thats extremely low for someone who wants to be the premier poverty warrior in the land. well, I guess he has been self-appointed.

They also need to somehow tie the GW Bush regime to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age C'mon CNN, you can do it. Just be creative.

QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 03:49 PM) Is 20% any less arbitrary than what he currently gives? It would be a huge improvement. Between 1994 -2003 he earned roughly $40,000,000. 20% of that would help a lot of people. If he truly wants to help the poor a large donation such as that would show he truly wants to be a positive factor is ending the problem, not just some phony politician. Any number will be arbitrary, but certain levels of generosity do show a true intent of help.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 03:34 PM) So exactly how much is he supposed to give for you to be happy? 100% of his income? Is he supposed to become homeless in order for you to not think he's a hypocrite? how about 20%? Your arguments always veer off into ridiculous statements like "Why do you think he should donate 100% of his income!". No one has said that, you aren't even addressing any of our statements with a legitimate counter.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 03:31 PM) Does your candidate even care about poverty? What do they plan to do about it? What are there stances? Do they even have a message? I think every candidate cares about poverty. He stances and policies are all about everyone else paying for his programs, even though he sure as hell doesn't give any substantial portion of his fortune to end poverty. It is legitimate to criticize someone running for president who takes no leadership by example. He's a phony.

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 03:25 PM) Please tell us who you plan to vote for and the percentage of net income they donate to charity each year. the candidate I plan to vote for isn't preaching to everyone else about how they aren't doing enough to stop poverty. The Edwards issue is that of hypocrisy and lack of leadership. If he wasn't making "look how great I am too poor people" a centerpiece of his campaign I don't think anyone would be calling him out on his lack of generosity and his large speaking fees .

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 10:54 AM) I look at his charitable contributions and think he's less hypocritical than a lot of people in the field. The amount he donates is very small compared to income and net assets. For someone who is constantly on his soap box pointing his finger at everyone else, he gives basically nothing. I donate more of my annual salary to charity than he does, so take that, John Edwards. ps. Please spare me the obligatory "but he raises awareness" post. Everyone is aware of poverty, he is grandstanding.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 23, 2007 -> 07:53 PM) And you are missing the beauty of telling voters that they can have all this stuff and someone else will pay for it. The GOP way. They cut our taxes with the promise that all those deficits, with interest, will be paid by other tax payers. Actually, tax cuts have increased government revenue through growth of the economy. Of course, if you spend a trillions of dollars to blow stuff up in Iraq, you will still end up with a deficit. However, the Iraq war will end and that spending will curtail. However, the Democrats plan to give everyone everything for free is an expense that they plan on keeping for the foreseeable future. So what exactly aren't you and other believers in the Democrats entitled too? Ok, free house, free food, free energy resources, free tuition, free health care, and free transportation is what is on the list now. What is next? I do think the government should help people who really need it. I am even in favor of free tuition and health care for truly poor people. But that is not the democrat plan, everything for free for everyone. government takes it all for you.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 23, 2007 -> 07:30 PM) that's our problem. no it is not! texsox, what you don't understand about socialism is that it works perfectly. no one has to work, things like free housing and tuition magically appear, everything gets done on time... it's perfect. but, I wouldn't expect someone from Texas to understand these principles. so, why don't you just go to the rodeo or whatever and talk about how great you think GW Bush is. good day sir.

Kucinich sees UFO i guess the UFO even smelled like roses http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2007/10/..._book_clai.html

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 23, 2007 -> 06:13 PM) Misspoke my ass. I think the Senate Dems need to send Mitt Romney a signed letter showing their disapproval. that would teach him.