I dare,no I double dare....no I double dog dare anyone who did'nt in the back of their mind think this guy was a fraud raise your hand.
Rusty is pissed off that Edwards dind'nt at least get elected as VP....shit,I wished Obama had made this scumbag Attorney General...could you just imagine the theater that would be playing out...this would have been better then watching the O.J. or Casey Anthony trials rolled into one.
Remember when John (Breck Girl) Edwards was the darling of the left?
So, every development in this case is breaking nooz on Fox? Me, I doubt this will go anywhere. In any case, Edwards is done in politics. I hope he goes back to championing policies to help the poor. I was an admirer of his goal of eliminating poverty in the US. I think Edwards was a good man who let "celebrity" go to his head.
As Edwards is someone who got rich on lying in the courtroom in order to profit from it and destroy the careers of good people (see his efforts to get OB-GYNS to pay for genetic birth defects), it is very clear that Edwards is a very bad man.
I'm all for eliminating poverty, but Edwards started his plan by impoverishing dedicated professionals who were doing their job (the victims of his frivolous lawsuits)
WD said: "So, every development in this case is breaking nooz on Fox?"
Definition of nooz:
Real dictionaries that actual informed people use, like Websters, OED, etc: word does not exist.
Urban Dictionary, a joke dictionary of absolutely no serious worth (WD's preferred choice:
"n) An onomatopoeic phenomenon that describes itself; the sound you make when saying the word "nooz". "What's a nooz?" "It's that." "It's what?" "It's the sound you make when you say 'nooz'."
A person who has few experiences at something. A beginner. The boy playing soccer over there is a nooz. ----------------
It's clear that WD is using words without any regard to meaning. Again.
Using the term "nooz" is a way of pointing out that Fox is a propaganda channel. Do a Google search on "Fox Nooz" and you'll get thousands of results.
Also, you're lying about Edwards and showing your arrogance and contempt for our judges and juries... the informed individuals and experts that actually decided these cases.
Frivolous lawsuits are thrown out of court. Edwards won, therefore the courts determined that the lawsuits were not frivolous.
"Using the term "nooz" is a way of pointing out that Fox is a propaganda channel. Do a Google search on "Fox Nooz" and you'll get thousands of results."
In actual fact, it is no more and no less a propaganda channel than MSNBC. Which you happen to like.
Seriously, the mispellings make you look like a moron.
"Also, you're lying about Edwards..."
You need to do some research into the frivolous lawsuits he was involved in.
"Frivolous lawsuits are thrown out of court"
Or, as in the case of the McDonalds hot coffee one, and the Edwards lawsuits, the liars win them.
Or do you seriously think that OB-GYNS can cause genetic birth defects?
"Edwards won"
Which made him far and away the most despicable man running for the Democratic nomination in 2008. He won, and innocent doctors paid the price. Edwards laughed all the way to the bank.
dmarks: In actual fact, it is no more and no less a propaganda channel than MSNBC. Which you happen to like.
I don't "happen" to like MSNBC. I like them because they are far more truthful in what they do.
Fox = propaganda arm of the Republican party.
MSNBC = Opinion journalism channel that features left-leaning pundits (and Joe Scarborough).
dmarks: Seriously, the misspellings make you look like a moron.
In your opinion, which I do not care about. Also, it isn't a "misspelling" if it's intentional.
dmarks: You need to do some research into the frivolous lawsuits...
Wikipedia says, "Edwards won a $3.7 million verdict on behalf of his client, who had suffered permanent brain and nerve damage after a doctor prescribed an overdose of the anti-alcoholism drug Antabuse during alcohol aversion therapy".
I guess dmarks redefined "innocent" to mean a doctor who screwed up.
John Edwards couldn't have "laughed all the way to the bank", since there was nothing to laugh about. Although he did probably feel good about securing justice for the parents of children who were harmed.
And I see you ignored my point about your arrogance and contempt for the judges and juries who decided these cases.
No more and no less than MSNBC is the propaganda arm of the Dems.
" I don't "happen" to like MSNBC. I like them because they are far more truthful in what they do."
Objectively, they aren't any more truthful. In fact, they lie a lot. And when the lies are pointed out to you, do do the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and go "neener neener neener". The real facts are that you like them, and have no problem when they lie because they are on your side.
"In your opinion, which I do not care about. Also, it isn't a "misspelling" if it's intentional."
IF there is one thing worse than accidental stupidity, it is intentional stupidity.
So, a bunch of immature partisans call Fox News. "Fox Nooz". You can find it in Google.
You can also find in Google the following:
- lots of people calling CNN "Klinton News Network"
- lots of people calling MSNBC "PMSNBC"
- lots of people who use "gay" as a garden-variety insult.
Just because a lot of others act unintelligent and in a lowbrow fashion doesn't mean you have to also.
As for Edwards destroying people for fun and profit, check into the lawsuits over genetic cerebral palsy.
This link shows the scam Edwards ran where he lied enough in court to get innocent people blamed for genetically-caused cerebral palsy.
"And I see you ignored my point about your arrogance and contempt for the judges and juries who decided these cases."
I will address it square on: How can a judgement in which an OB-GYN is punished for causing a genetic birth defect be anything other than frivolous???.
I'm glad that Edward's lifetime of deplorable public and private behavior has finally caught up with him.
dmarks: No more and no less than MSNBC is the propaganda arm of the Dems.
More. Much, much more so. You only say this because you like Fox, but can't defend their lying (it being so well document). Thus you attempt to slime MSNBC by saying they are the same (even though the evidence says otherwise).
dmarks: IF there is one thing worse than accidental stupidity, it is intentional stupidity.
Well, since neither applies to my labeling of what Fox does "nooz", I'll ignore what you said, as it has nothing to do with this discussion.
dmarks: How can a judgement in which an OB-GYN is punished for causing a genetic birth defect be anything other than frivolous?
This comment shows how misinformed you are regarding the case. Edwards never claimed this. He said the hospital and doctor were to blame "for failing to determine if the patient understood the risks of a particular procedure".
He didn't claim the doctor caused a genetic birth defect.
I applaud John Edwards' work as a trial lawyer and his defense of people whose children were harmed due to their physician's negligence. In this he was truly a champion of regular people.
WD said: "More. Much, much more so. You only say this because you like Fox"
Actually, I say this because I am able to step back and look at it a lot more objectively than you do, ever.
Like Fox? I used to. I can't stand more than a few minutes of Hannity anymore. I detest O'Reilly, and the 9 PM scientologist with marbels in her mouth has been on my "don't watch list" from day one.
"Thus you attempt to slime MSNBC by saying they are the same (even though the evidence says otherwise)."
It is not "sliming" to be accurate. Of course the blind mindless drones who love MSNBC will deny it lies and is propaganda... the same as with the Fox fanatics toward Fox.
"He didn't claim the doctor caused a genetic birth defect."
Actually, he did in the cases I am referring to which involved genetic birth defects. A decent man would pay back the ill-gotten money. A scumbag crook with a good haircut would keep the money.
"I applaud John Edwards' work as a trial lawyer and his defense of people whose children were harmed due to their physician's negligence. In this he was truly a champion of regular people."
I actually agree with some of this. There were some good cases Edwards was involved in. Considering how vindicative and greedy and immoral he is, maybe he wasn't looking. In any case, it did happen. Too bad there were also many cases in which Edwards lied in court to soak and rob from innocent people, such as the OB-GYNs who cannot scientifically cause birth defects.
dmarks, the slanted hit piece you link to is anti-trial lawyer BS. There is no author given, but I'd bet a lot of money the person who wrote it is a Right-winger.
John Edwards followed the rules and won his cases. That is what a lawyer is supposed to do.
And you suggesting his "lies" were so good that they convinced multiple juries that something that is impossible actually happened... it's nonsense. If the defense was so incompetent that they weren't able to counter those claims - then they deserved to lose.
Again, this just shows your contempt for the judges and juries that actually heard these cases and made the tough calls. dmarks thinks he knows the truth more so than the people who were there and listened to the evidence... what arrogance!
dmarks: It is not "sliming" to be accurate.
Well, then my accusation stands, as you have yet to say anything accurate in this (ongoing) discussion.
Also, I don't "love" MSNBC. The bigwigs there forced out Keith Olbermann even though he's single handedly responsible for making them what they are today.
"And you suggesting his lies were so good that they convinced multiple juries,,,"
Of course. As a slick, amoral, avaricious man, he was quite good at it.
"Again, this just shows your contempt for the judges and juries that actually heard these cases and made the tough calls. dmarks thinks he knows the truth more so than the people who were there and listened to the evidence... what arrogance!"
On this, I am informed. It is not possible for an OB-GYN to cause genetic birth defects, despite your growing repetitiveness that it possible.
Edwards was doing his job by lying for his clients so they could get rich, but that does not make him any less of a terrible human being.
dmarks: Of course. As a slick, amoral, avaricious man, he was quite good at it.
Baloney. In fact, I say Edwards took these cases because of his morals. Granted, there is a case to be made that he was lacking in morals when he cheated on his sick wife, but in regards to the cases he took as a trial lawyer, I'd say this was in line with his desire to help the poor. He did it for the right reasons... to help parents of injured children.
dmarks: On this, I am informed. It is not possible for an OB-GYN to cause genetic birth defects, despite your growing repetitiveness that it possible.
How can I say something repetitively when I've yet to say it once? This comment makes no sense.
"Baloney. In fact, I say Edwards took these cases because of his morals. "
Which proved he didn't have any. Only an evil man would lie in a court of law in order to get innocent doctors to "pay" for the fact that the parents were carrying defective genes.
"I'd say this was in line with his desire to help the poor"
Check out Dr Murray: "“The overwhelming majority of children that are born with developmental brain damage, the ob/gyn could not have done anything about it, could not have, not at this stage of what we know”
The WND articlegoes on to say: "Nevertheless, some of Edwards’ critics say his extraordinary oratorical skills overcame the latest science, enabling him to persuade juries that doctors were at fault for the cerebral palsy in infants."
There you have it. John Edwards, A slick liar with no morals who is able to soak innocent people through a blatant abuse of our legal system. I also take it that you have no personal knowledge of these issues, WD. You speak like you do. I have been involved in this for decades.
dmarks: ..some of Edwards' critics say his extraordinary oratorical skills overcame the latest science, enabling him to persuade juries that doctors were at fault for the cerebral palsy in infants...
Bullshit. John Edwards doesn't have magic oratorical skills. World Nut Daily (AKA Birther HQ) is lying.
As for who needs the reading comprehension lessons, that would be you. You accused me of saying something I never said. I did not say a doctor could cause a genetic birth defect. Quote more where I said it if you think I'm wrong. You won't be able to.
You've been involved with this for decades? I don't believe it.
Also, swelling the ranks of the poor is the Republican's goal. During his presidency GWb excelled at this. But swelling their ranks does not help them at all. John Edwards' goal was to eliminate poverty. That was one of the planks in his platform when he was running for president.
dmarks: Then perhaps it is a result of your sloppy wording, when you deny and lie about his frivolous lawsuits.
No sloppy wording, just your inability to comprehend the written word. And frivolous lawsuits are thrown out of court. The judge and jury didn't think the cases were frivolous.
dmarks: Typical WD: when in ignorance about something, lie about it.
You gave zero proof of your claims and I said I don't believe them. That isn't a lie, except perhaps in the dmarks' dictionary (dmarks' own personal dictionary that contains all the words he's redefined).
dmarks: And it is much more a goal of Democrats... using your logic. Check out the black poverty rate under Obama.
Check out the fact that the last president crashed the economy and we're still dealing with the consequences. Also check out how Congressional Republicans and Republican state governors are trying to prolong the recession in hopes the voters will blame Obama and vote for Romney.
dmarks: More fool you. If he had put in his platform as well antigravity cars and moon colonies, you'd worship him more.
So what you're saying is that ending poverty is as likely as anti-gravity cars and moon colonies? I can see why you'd say this. If we did do what was necessary to end poverty there would be less money for the wealthy elites that dmarks worships. This is something that dmarks could absolutely NOT abide.
"Check out the fact that the last president crashed the economy..."
And how the current President had the opportunity to turn it around. but crashed it far worse. Increasing unemployment by 20%, increasing the national debt by 50%, causing gas prices to double (which actually was in keeping with an administration promise).
"Also check out how Congressional Republicans and Republican state governors are trying to prolong the recession in hopes the voters will blame Obama and vote for Romney."
Which isn't true at all, as they are working hard to undo Obama's policies and thus enable recovery.
"So what you're saying is that ending poverty is as likely as anti-gravity cars and moon colonies?"
I'm skeptical of plans. Especially bad plans. And Edward's policies which moved away from poverty reduction.
"If we did do what was necessary to end poverty there would be less money for the wealthy elites that dmarks worships. "
I don't worship them. In fact, I want their power reduced.
The sad reality, gentlemen, is that both parties are hugely "connected". Mr. Obama claimed throughout his campaign with Hillary that he was against the individual mandate and, boom, all of that money from the insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies came rolling in and he was suddenly for it. The average person can only look in amazement.
25 comments:
I dare,no I double dare....no I double dog dare anyone who did'nt in the back of their mind think this guy was a fraud raise your hand.
Rusty is pissed off that Edwards dind'nt at least get elected as VP....shit,I wished Obama had made this scumbag Attorney General...could you just imagine the theater that would be playing out...this would have been better then watching the O.J. or Casey Anthony trials rolled into one.
Remember when John (Breck Girl) Edwards was the darling of the left?
Edwards may very well have taken a dive on Bunnys oyster to get that million.
The terms, "empty suit" and "limousine liberal" come to mind, no?
So, every development in this case is breaking nooz on Fox? Me, I doubt this will go anywhere. In any case, Edwards is done in politics. I hope he goes back to championing policies to help the poor. I was an admirer of his goal of eliminating poverty in the US. I think Edwards was a good man who let "celebrity" go to his head.
Not to mention his hair.
As Edwards is someone who got rich on lying in the courtroom in order to profit from it and destroy the careers of good people (see his efforts to get OB-GYNS to pay for genetic birth defects), it is very clear that Edwards is a very bad man.
I'm all for eliminating poverty, but Edwards started his plan by impoverishing dedicated professionals who were doing their job (the victims of his frivolous lawsuits)
WD said: "So, every development in this case is breaking nooz on Fox?"
Definition of nooz:
Real dictionaries that actual informed people use, like Websters, OED, etc: word does not exist.
Urban Dictionary, a joke dictionary of absolutely no serious worth (WD's preferred choice:
"n) An onomatopoeic phenomenon that describes itself; the sound you make when saying the word "nooz".
"What's a nooz?"
"It's that."
"It's what?"
"It's the sound you make when you say 'nooz'."
A person who has few experiences at something. A beginner.
The boy playing soccer over there is a nooz.
----------------
It's clear that WD is using words without any regard to meaning. Again.
Will said: "Not to mention his hair."
Dennis Miller once commented that John Edwards was just a vehicle for a haircut to get around town.
Using the term "nooz" is a way of pointing out that Fox is a propaganda channel. Do a Google search on "Fox Nooz" and you'll get thousands of results.
Also, you're lying about Edwards and showing your arrogance and contempt for our judges and juries... the informed individuals and experts that actually decided these cases.
Frivolous lawsuits are thrown out of court. Edwards won, therefore the courts determined that the lawsuits were not frivolous.
"Using the term "nooz" is a way of pointing out that Fox is a propaganda channel. Do a Google search on "Fox Nooz" and you'll get thousands of results."
In actual fact, it is no more and no less a propaganda channel than MSNBC. Which you happen to like.
Seriously, the mispellings make you look like a moron.
"Also, you're lying about Edwards..."
You need to do some research into the frivolous lawsuits he was involved in.
"Frivolous lawsuits are thrown out of court"
Or, as in the case of the McDonalds hot coffee one, and the Edwards lawsuits, the liars win them.
Or do you seriously think that OB-GYNS can cause genetic birth defects?
"Edwards won"
Which made him far and away the most despicable man running for the Democratic nomination in 2008. He won, and innocent doctors paid the price. Edwards laughed all the way to the bank.
dmarks: In actual fact, it is no more and no less a propaganda channel than MSNBC. Which you happen to like.
I don't "happen" to like MSNBC. I like them because they are far more truthful in what they do.
Fox = propaganda arm of the Republican party.
MSNBC = Opinion journalism channel that features left-leaning pundits (and Joe Scarborough).
dmarks: Seriously, the misspellings make you look like a moron.
In your opinion, which I do not care about. Also, it isn't a "misspelling" if it's intentional.
dmarks: You need to do some research into the frivolous lawsuits...
Wikipedia says, "Edwards won a $3.7 million verdict on behalf of his client, who had suffered permanent brain and nerve damage after a doctor prescribed an overdose of the anti-alcoholism drug Antabuse during alcohol aversion therapy".
I guess dmarks redefined "innocent" to mean a doctor who screwed up.
John Edwards couldn't have "laughed all the way to the bank", since there was nothing to laugh about. Although he did probably feel good about securing justice for the parents of children who were harmed.
And I see you ignored my point about your arrogance and contempt for the judges and juries who decided these cases.
"Fox = propaganda arm of the Republican party."
No more and no less than MSNBC is the propaganda arm of the Dems.
"
I don't "happen" to like MSNBC. I like them because they are far more truthful in what they do."
Objectively, they aren't any more truthful. In fact, they lie a lot. And when the lies are pointed out to you, do do the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and go "neener neener neener". The real facts are that you like them, and have no problem when they lie because they are on your side.
"In your opinion, which I do not care about. Also, it isn't a "misspelling" if it's intentional."
IF there is one thing worse than accidental stupidity, it is intentional stupidity.
So, a bunch of immature partisans call Fox News. "Fox Nooz". You can find it in Google.
You can also find in Google the following:
- lots of people calling CNN "Klinton News Network"
- lots of people calling MSNBC "PMSNBC"
- lots of people who use "gay" as a garden-variety insult.
Just because a lot of others act unintelligent and in a lowbrow fashion doesn't mean you have to also.
As for Edwards destroying people for fun and profit, check into the lawsuits over genetic cerebral palsy.
This link shows the scam Edwards ran where he lied enough in court to get innocent people blamed for genetically-caused cerebral palsy.
"And I see you ignored my point about your arrogance and contempt for the judges and juries who decided these cases."
I will address it square on: How can a judgement in which an OB-GYN is punished for causing a genetic birth defect be anything other than frivolous???.
I'm glad that Edward's lifetime of deplorable public and private behavior has finally caught up with him.
dmarks: No more and no less than MSNBC is the propaganda arm of the Dems.
More. Much, much more so. You only say this because you like Fox, but can't defend their lying (it being so well document). Thus you attempt to slime MSNBC by saying they are the same (even though the evidence says otherwise).
dmarks: IF there is one thing worse than accidental stupidity, it is intentional stupidity.
Well, since neither applies to my labeling of what Fox does "nooz", I'll ignore what you said, as it has nothing to do with this discussion.
dmarks: How can a judgement in which an OB-GYN is punished for causing a genetic birth defect be anything other than frivolous?
This comment shows how misinformed you are regarding the case. Edwards never claimed this. He said the hospital and doctor were to blame "for failing to determine if the patient understood the risks of a particular procedure".
He didn't claim the doctor caused a genetic birth defect.
I applaud John Edwards' work as a trial lawyer and his defense of people whose children were harmed due to their physician's negligence. In this he was truly a champion of regular people.
WD said: "More. Much, much more so. You only say this because you like Fox"
Actually, I say this because I am able to step back and look at it a lot more objectively than you do, ever.
Like Fox? I used to. I can't stand more than a few minutes of Hannity anymore. I detest O'Reilly, and the 9 PM scientologist with marbels in her mouth has been on my "don't watch list" from day one.
"Thus you attempt to slime MSNBC by saying they are the same (even though the evidence says otherwise)."
It is not "sliming" to be accurate. Of course the blind mindless drones who love MSNBC will deny it lies and is propaganda... the same as with the Fox fanatics toward Fox.
"He didn't claim the doctor caused a genetic birth defect."
Actually, he did in the cases I am referring to which involved genetic birth defects. A decent man would pay back the ill-gotten money. A scumbag crook with a good haircut would keep the money.
"I applaud John Edwards' work as a trial lawyer and his defense of people whose children were harmed due to their physician's negligence. In this he was truly a champion of regular people."
I actually agree with some of this. There were some good cases Edwards was involved in. Considering how vindicative and greedy and immoral he is, maybe he wasn't looking. In any case, it did happen. Too bad there were also many cases in which Edwards lied in court to soak and rob from innocent people, such as the OB-GYNs who cannot scientifically cause birth defects.
dmarks, the slanted hit piece you link to is anti-trial lawyer BS. There is no author given, but I'd bet a lot of money the person who wrote it is a Right-winger.
John Edwards followed the rules and won his cases. That is what a lawyer is supposed to do.
And you suggesting his "lies" were so good that they convinced multiple juries that something that is impossible actually happened... it's nonsense. If the defense was so incompetent that they weren't able to counter those claims - then they deserved to lose.
Again, this just shows your contempt for the judges and juries that actually heard these cases and made the tough calls. dmarks thinks he knows the truth more so than the people who were there and listened to the evidence... what arrogance!
dmarks: It is not "sliming" to be accurate.
Well, then my accusation stands, as you have yet to say anything accurate in this (ongoing) discussion.
Also, I don't "love" MSNBC. The bigwigs there forced out Keith Olbermann even though he's single handedly responsible for making them what they are today.
"And you suggesting his lies were so good that they convinced multiple juries,,,"
Of course. As a slick, amoral, avaricious man, he was quite good at it.
"Again, this just shows your contempt for the judges and juries that actually heard these cases and made the tough calls. dmarks thinks he knows the truth more so than the people who were there and listened to the evidence... what arrogance!"
On this, I am informed. It is not possible for an OB-GYN to cause genetic birth defects, despite your growing repetitiveness that it possible.
Edwards was doing his job by lying for his clients so they could get rich, but that does not make him any less of a terrible human being.
dmarks: Of course. As a slick, amoral, avaricious man, he was quite good at it.
Baloney. In fact, I say Edwards took these cases because of his morals. Granted, there is a case to be made that he was lacking in morals when he cheated on his sick wife, but in regards to the cases he took as a trial lawyer, I'd say this was in line with his desire to help the poor. He did it for the right reasons... to help parents of injured children.
dmarks: On this, I am informed. It is not possible for an OB-GYN to cause genetic birth defects, despite your growing repetitiveness that it possible.
How can I say something repetitively when I've yet to say it once? This comment makes no sense.
"Baloney. In fact, I say Edwards took these cases because of his morals. "
Which proved he didn't have any. Only an evil man would lie in a court of law in order to get innocent doctors to "pay" for the fact that the parents were carrying defective genes.
"I'd say this was in line with his desire to help the poor"
How? By swelling their ranks?
"This comment makes no sense."
Take some lessons in reading comprehension.
Check out Dr Murray: "“The overwhelming majority of children that are born with developmental brain damage, the ob/gyn could not have done anything about it, could not have, not at this stage of what we know”
The WND articlegoes on to say: "Nevertheless, some of Edwards’ critics say his extraordinary oratorical skills overcame the latest science, enabling him to persuade juries that doctors were at fault for the cerebral palsy in infants."
There you have it. John Edwards, A slick liar with no morals who is able to soak innocent people through a blatant abuse of our legal system. I also take it that you have no personal knowledge of these issues, WD. You speak like you do. I have been involved in this for decades.
dmarks: ..some of Edwards' critics say his extraordinary oratorical skills overcame the latest science, enabling him to persuade juries that doctors were at fault for the cerebral palsy in infants...
Bullshit. John Edwards doesn't have magic oratorical skills. World Nut Daily (AKA Birther HQ) is lying.
As for who needs the reading comprehension lessons, that would be you. You accused me of saying something I never said. I did not say a doctor could cause a genetic birth defect. Quote more where I said it if you think I'm wrong. You won't be able to.
You've been involved with this for decades? I don't believe it.
Also, swelling the ranks of the poor is the Republican's goal. During his presidency GWb excelled at this. But swelling their ranks does not help them at all. John Edwards' goal was to eliminate poverty. That was one of the planks in his platform when he was running for president.
"Bullshit. John Edwards doesn't have magic oratorical skills"
He does. It's common among politicians.
"You accused me of saying something I never said. I did not say a doctor could cause a genetic birth defect."
Then perhaps it is a result of your sloppy wording, when you deny and lie about his frivolous lawsuits.
I am glad you now agree that a lawsuit to sue a doctor over causing genetic birth defects is frivolous.
"You've been involved with this for decades? I don't believe it."
Typical WD: when in ignorance about something, lie about it.
"Also, swelling the ranks of the poor is the Republican's goal. During his presidency GWb excelled at this. "
And it is much more a goal of Democrats... using your logic. Check out the black poverty rate under Obama.
"John Edwards' goal was to eliminate poverty. That was one of the planks in his platform when he was running for president."
More fool you. If he had put in his platform as well antigravity cars and moon colonies, you'd worship him more.
dmarks: Then perhaps it is a result of your sloppy wording, when you deny and lie about his frivolous lawsuits.
No sloppy wording, just your inability to comprehend the written word. And frivolous lawsuits are thrown out of court. The judge and jury didn't think the cases were frivolous.
dmarks: Typical WD: when in ignorance about something, lie about it.
You gave zero proof of your claims and I said I don't believe them. That isn't a lie, except perhaps in the dmarks' dictionary (dmarks' own personal dictionary that contains all the words he's redefined).
dmarks: And it is much more a goal of Democrats... using your logic. Check out the black poverty rate under Obama.
Check out the fact that the last president crashed the economy and we're still dealing with the consequences. Also check out how Congressional Republicans and Republican state governors are trying to prolong the recession in hopes the voters will blame Obama and vote for Romney.
dmarks: More fool you. If he had put in his platform as well antigravity cars and moon colonies, you'd worship him more.
So what you're saying is that ending poverty is as likely as anti-gravity cars and moon colonies? I can see why you'd say this. If we did do what was necessary to end poverty there would be less money for the wealthy elites that dmarks worships. This is something that dmarks could absolutely NOT abide.
"Check out the fact that the last president crashed the economy..."
And how the current President had the opportunity to turn it around. but crashed it far worse. Increasing unemployment by 20%, increasing the national debt by 50%, causing gas prices to double (which actually was in keeping with an administration promise).
"Also check out how Congressional Republicans and Republican state governors are trying to prolong the recession in hopes the voters will blame Obama and vote for Romney."
Which isn't true at all, as they are working hard to undo Obama's policies and thus enable recovery.
"So what you're saying is that ending poverty is as likely as anti-gravity cars and moon colonies?"
I'm skeptical of plans. Especially bad plans. And Edward's policies which moved away from poverty reduction.
"If we did do what was necessary to end poverty there would be less money for the wealthy elites that dmarks worships. "
I don't worship them. In fact, I want their power reduced.
The sad reality, gentlemen, is that both parties are hugely "connected". Mr. Obama claimed throughout his campaign with Hillary that he was against the individual mandate and, boom, all of that money from the insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies came rolling in and he was suddenly for it. The average person can only look in amazement.
Post a Comment