Needs of the Many

Bring Your Lies & Half-Truths … I Will Destroy Them

Archive for the ‘John Edwards’ Category

Hillary Says Buy Health Insurance Or I’ll Garnish Your Wages

Posted by Casey on February 3, 2008

It’s so nice to hear her admit it though, but remember she claims she doesn’t support socialized health care. That’s only a “right wing attack” on her. When she was confronted about how her socialized health care plan, and how it would harm minorities, she flat out denied this would be the case. However, with her most recent statements on garnishing your wages … one can’t help but imagine a poor black family that chooses to pay their rent over buying insurance having their pay suddenly taken away from them by Hillary. What’s more important Hillary, a roof over your head or health care?

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to have workers’ wages garnisheed if they refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans.

Remember, Hillary said she doesn’t support socialized medicine. So why did she attack Obama for not requiring everyone to get health insurance?

The New York senator has criticized presidential rival Barack Obama for pushing a health plan that would not require universal coverage. Clinton has not always specified the enforcement measures she would embrace, but when pressed during a television interview, she said: “I think there are a number of mechanisms” that are possible, including “going after people’s wages, automatic enrollment.”

Hmmm, require everyone to get coverage, if they don’t … punish them by garnishing wages. Yeah, that’s not socialized medicine.

Clearly Hillary is going after Edwards supporters, and Johnny’s official endorsement. Remember Edwards wanted to garnish wages also, and there was a little scandal involving Hillary and Edwards teaming up a while back.


Posted in Democrats, Election, Hillary, John Edwards, Medical | Comments Off on Hillary Says Buy Health Insurance Or I’ll Garnish Your Wages

So, Now John Edwards Is A Conservative On Immigration?

Posted by Casey on November 6, 2007

We all know that Edwards doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of winning the Democratic nomination. Mainly because he’s a kook, and not a smart one either. However, he has latched onto the most important issue among 2008 voters … immigration.

Most Americans support a hard-line stance on illegals, and Edwards has (up to this point) been the exact opposite of what the American people want on this issue.

We must remember that there is an election to win, and Edwards being himself hasn’t been getting it done. So … it’s time for the tried-and-true Democrat strategy to gain ground in an election … change yourself.

Huffington Post:

At the debate and on ABC’s This Week this past Sunday, Edwards drew a distinction between himself and Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, saying he disagreed with New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s proposal to grant drivers licenses to undocumented immigrants. Clinton backs the proposal as a way of solving crimes and promoting road safety.

Moreover, Edwards said that while states should have say over the issue until comprehensive reform can be passed, once reform is enacted, licenses should only be granted to those immigrants who are on the path to citizenship.

Now his base (Huffington Post, Daily Kos types) are not too happy with his complete reversal of his stance on illegals.

Edwards’ stance contrasts sharply from what he advocated as the Democratic vice presidential candidate in 2004, when he was unequivocal in his support for issuing driver’s licenses to the undocumented.

So how does a candidate who has embraced progressive stances on many critical issues from 2004 to 2008 shift conservative on immigration? The answer, some analysts say, lies in the political dynamics of Iowa, the first caucus state.

First off, I’d like to point out that Edwards’ new stance on licenses is not a conservative position as is being stated in the quoted post. True it is more conservative than the typical liberal stance, but not quite conservative.

As for this being a tactic to win the all important Iowa … it’s more likely than not, very true.

I’ve been reading what some liberal bloggers have been saying about Edwards’ turnaround, and they seem to miss the point. They are critical of Edwards because this new stance is “conservative”, but that is not the issue. The crux is that Edwards, like Clinton, has decided that it is more important to lie to potential voters in order to win. I credit Obama for not having done this.

We now have two of the three Democrat front-runners who have openly shown you their willingness to tell you what you want to hear rather than what they believe. That should be far more upsetting to liberals than Edwards taking a “conservative” stance on an issue.

Posted in Election, HuffPo, Hypocrisy, immigration, John Edwards, Voter Fraud | Comments Off on So, Now John Edwards Is A Conservative On Immigration?

Edwards Actually Has A Good Idea

Posted by Casey on September 7, 2007

I’ve been saying this since I was in the military in the 90’s. There is already some cooperation between some nations, and it is very effective. The organization should be volunteer as far as combat personnel are concerned, and only allow intelligence sharing that is strictly terrorist related. As long as there are protections from sharing info vital to national security, and the independence of those nations is respected … it’s a damn fine idea.


Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards is proposing an international organization to fight terrorism through shared intelligence.

This is far better than his previous plan to combat terrorism.

He then attacked Bush as being the only guy in the history of the world to make mistakes with terrorism, and he said some other stupid, untrue things … like:

“Today, terrorism is worse in Iraq, and it’s worse around the world,” Edwards said in excerpts provided by his campaign. “It means the results are in on George Bush’s so-called global war on terror and it’s not just a failure, it’s a double-edged failure.”

Notice he failed to address Clinton’s policies, and he did not give a reason why global terrorism shot through the roof in 1998. You and I know it was the fatwas, but he doesn’t.

The interesting part of his comments that terrorism is worse around the world is technically false, and at best a spin.

As you can see from the graph below from the Terrorism Knowledge Base … global terrorism is WAY DOWN this year from last.

If you look at this graph, you will see that terrorism in Iraq is also far less this year than last.

He also failed to note that outside of Iraq and the war in Israel last year … global terror was significantly reduced. You can’t count Iraq and Israel in the terror count because they were battlefields, and the argument has always been that the rest of the world was/was not safer since Iraq. Well, it is, and there is no way to deny it.

Now that those corrections have been made in what Edwards had to say … his plan is still good.

“Those nations who join will, by working together, show the world the power of cooperation,” Edwards said. “Those nations who join will also be required to commit to tough criteria about the steps they will take to root out extremists, particularly those who cross borders. Those nations who refuse to join will be called out before the world.”

I really don’t know what he means by “called out.” This seems to be Edwards’ version of Obama trying to act tough because they have a reputation for being weak. We all know Edwards won’t do anything but talk about countries who refuse. He won’t take any real action against those nations that don’t support anti-terrorist activities, and he’s been critical of others who do want action against those countries.

He did make a very laughable statement in his speech regarding the Cold War.

Edwards accused Bush of focusing on Cold War institutions designed to win traditional wars instead of cooperation with allies to take out small hostile groups. He also accused him of “an exclusively short-term focus on the enemy we know” and “a foreign policy of convenience that readily does business with whoever is available and regularly turns a blind eye when our allies behave wrongly or fail to cooperate.”

Once again another Democrat completely ignores the coalition of allies assisting us in this conflict. Even though there are more of them than the first time around.

The rest of his statement was hypocrisy at its best. He is willing to turn a blind eye to our allies doing bad things, and the Dems are notorious for continuing to focus on Cold War institutions that are now obsolete. That is the focus of appeasement.

Posted in Democrats, Hypocrisy, International, Iraq, John Edwards, Military, Terrorism | Comments Off on Edwards Actually Has A Good Idea

John Edwards Asks: Is Cuba’s Healthcare System Run By The Government?

Posted by Casey on August 29, 2007

H/T: Newsbusters

As reported by ABC …

When an Iowa resident asked former senator John Edwards Thursday whether the United States should follow the Cuban healthcare model, the 2004 vice presidential contender deflected the question by saying he didn’t know enough to answer the question.

“I’m going to be honest with you – I don’t know a lot about Cuba’s healthcare system,” Edwards, D-N.C., said at an event in Oskaloosa, Iowa. “Is it a government-run system?

Newsbusters astutely points out that it is difficult to believe than any adult, let alone a former senator and presidential candidate, would not know that Cuba runs their own healthcare.


Posted in Democrats, Election, Humor, John Edwards, Medical | Comments Off on John Edwards Asks: Is Cuba’s Healthcare System Run By The Government?

Remember When John Edwards Said All Of The Money He Received From News Corp Went To Charity? Yeah, He Lied.

Posted by Casey on August 13, 2007

After Edwards attacked Hillary for accepting money from Murdoch we discovered that he too had accepted money from Murdoch. When confronted with such truth Edwards did as Edwards does … he lied. He said that all of the hundreds of thousands of dollars he was paid by News Corp went to charity. What he forgot to mention was that two of those charities included his daughter and senior political aide … oops!


“Every dime of the money they gave to me has gone to charity,” Edwards told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer earlier this month, suggesting News Corp. was trying to “silence” him because he opposes media consolidation. “This is a personal attack in response to me saying something that is not personal: I do not believe we should consolidate the media.”

His spokesman, Eric Schultz, said the charities include Habitat for Humanity and College for Everyone. Edwards did not mention the previously unreported fees to Prince and to Edwards’ daughter.

This guy must be sharing Obama’s fact checker because they are both all over the place.


Posted in Democrats, Election, Idiots, John Edwards | Comments Off on Remember When John Edwards Said All Of The Money He Received From News Corp Went To Charity? Yeah, He Lied.

Are Hillary & Edwards Teaming Up?

Posted by Casey on July 13, 2007

Check out this little chit chat that Hillary and Edwards engaged in after the debate.

They discussed limiting the number of candidates to be allowed at the debates, and Hillary even called some other candidates “not serious.” Hillary also fessed up to an official campaign policy of limiting the debates.


Kucinich is uber pissed!

Posted in Censorship, Democrats, Hillary, John Edwards | Comments Off on Are Hillary & Edwards Teaming Up?

Doctors Responsible For Terrorist Attacks In London, Scottland

Posted by Casey on July 2, 2007

Yet another piece of evidence to prove that poverty is not the cause of terrorism. Sorry John Edwards … looks like you were wrong.

Posted in John Edwards, Terrorism | Comments Off on Doctors Responsible For Terrorist Attacks In London, Scottland

John Edwards’ Daughter Picks Hillary

Posted by Casey on June 21, 2007


At least we know he’s a good father. He did teach his child to think after all.

Posted in Education, John Edwards | Comments Off on John Edwards’ Daughter Picks Hillary

John Edwards Will Fight Terrorism With Peace Corps

Posted by Casey on June 8, 2007

This is neither a joke or spin if that’s what you’re thinking. Edwards is actually proposing to fight terrorism with a peace corp type entity. Now that’s thinking John … that’s thinking.

NY Sun:

Senator Edwards is outlining a new national security strategy that hinges on the creation of a 10,000-person civilian peace corps to stem the tide of terrorism in weak and unstable countries.

Mr. Edwards’s plan, which he presented in Manhattan yesterday, comes less than a week after he called President Bush’s war on terror a “bumper sticker slogan” and said the current national security strategy has not made America safer.

Oh boy. Does anyone remember being told by your teachers to just walk away, or try talking to a bully? It didn’t work, did it? The only thing that did work was to sock that bully right in the nose so he left you alone. When are people going to realize that some people just can’t be talked to.

The plan Mr. Edwards presented yesterday — which he dubbed “A Strategy to Shut Down Terrorists and Stop Terrorism Before It Starts” — calls for a 10,000-person “Marshall Corps” to deal with issues ranging from worldwide poverty and economic development to clean drinking water and micro-lending. He said investing in those areas would shore up weak nations and help ensure that terrorism does not take root there. That, he said, would allow the country to stop potential terrorists before they even join the ranks.

Ah yes … the old premise that poverty causes terrorism. What a shame that we don’t have any proof of that in any western country. Sure our poor may get involved in crime, but there is a difference. That whole bin Laden millionaire thing must not be a concern for Edwards.

You can’t run the country if you don’t understand the idealogical issues here. Edwards has yet to explain how his 10,000 strong peace corp is going to counter the effect of Islamic schools that preach killing the infidels.

Edwards wants to make this a cabinet level position which will require assistance from our allies. He’s not well versed on history folks … I know.

He drew some criticism from people who deal with this issue regularly.

The president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, Clifford May, said he was “skeptical” of Mr. Edwards’s proposal.

“Humanitarian aid is a good thing. I approve of that. But it doesn’t really have much to do with the causes of terrorism,” Mr. May said. ” Mohamed Atta, the lead terrorist on 9/11, was based in Germany, was well-educated. The causes of terrorism are several, but poverty is not one of them.”

Edwards also wants to shift tactical decisions from the military to civilians.

Mr. Edwards is also proposing shifting more responsibility for tactical and operational decisions to military personnel from civilian leaders.

LGF had this to say about Edwards:

John Edwards is trying to get to the left of Dennis Kucinich (who wants to replace the Department of Defense with a “Department of Peace”) by proposing that we “fight” a nonexistent war on imaginary terrorists by creating a peace corps.

There’s nothing like starting your weekend off with a presidential hopeful wanting to fight a non-existent war with a peace corp, and allowing civilians to make the tactical decisions instead of the military.

Posted in Idiots, John Edwards, Terrorism | Comments Off on John Edwards Will Fight Terrorism With Peace Corps

John Edwards Says War On Terror Is A Political Slogan, A Bumper Sticker. Hillary Says We Are Safer Because Of Bush?

Posted by Casey on June 4, 2007

Edwards is the most annoying kind of idiot there is. We all know this isn’t the first time he’s said that he doesn’t believe the War on Terror is real, but this is the first time he’s been stupid enough to say it one day after a terrorist plot was foiled right here in the United States.

It happened today at a Democratic debate hosted by Saint Anselm College in Manchester, N.H.

Not only did Hillary disagree with Edwards, but she said we ARE safer because of Bush’s policies. Everyone grab your coats, and snowboards, cause hell has just frozen over.

Here’s how it went down …


Democratic presidential candidates clashed on Sunday over whether the Bush administration had made the country safer from terrorism after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards called President Bush’s global war on terrorism a “political slogan, a bumper sticker, that’s all it is” in the second televised debate pitting the eight Democratic contenders.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who is the front-runner in national polls, said she did not agree with Edwards characterization of the war on terrorism.

As a senator from New York, “I have seen first hand the terrible damage that can be inflicted on our country by a small band of terrorists.”

Meanwhile, the non-existant war on terror hit home this weekend.

As fun as it was to see Hillary and Edwards go at it … there is nothing in the world sweeter to hear than this:

Still, she said, “I believe we are safer than we were.”

HOLY MOTHER OF GOD! She actually admitted that we are safer, and Bush’s policies have been working … at least to a degree.

Kucinich had some interesting things to say as well:

Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich said the war on Iraq should not just be blamed on Bush, but on the Congress that authorized it.

U.S. troops “never should have been sent there in the first place,” he said. Rather than debate timetables and benchmarks, the Democratic-controlled Congress should “just say no money, the war’s over,” he said.

What a novel idea … actually blame those responsible for sending the troops in the first place.

Iraq wasn’t the only topic that yielded noteworthy responses.

To a question on whether English should be the official language in the United States, only former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel raised his hand in the affirmative.

But Obama protested the question itself, calling it “the kind of question that was designed precisely to divide us.” He said such questions “do a disservice to the American people.”

No Obama, if you take an elementary look at history you will see that a single national language unites a nation … it never divides it.

Posted in Democrats, Hillary, John Edwards, Terrorism | Comments Off on John Edwards Says War On Terror Is A Political Slogan, A Bumper Sticker. Hillary Says We Are Safer Because Of Bush?