Kerry picks Edwards
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23

Thread: Kerry picks Edwards

  1. #1
    Senior Member RoadClosed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,834

    Kerry picks Edwards

    Well after a few turn downs, Kerry finally has a vice president to run with and it's his former rival John Edwards. Guess he wasn't good enough for a nomination, as far as political views go, be he's now the running mate of a man he once opposed?
    West of House
    You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
    There is a small mailbox here.

  2. #2
    AO Antique pwaring's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    1,409
    Risky move in a lot of ways, bringing former opponents on board. Kerry could be putting Edwards in a position to challenge the leadership (if you can do that in American politics), on the other hand he could be converting an otherwise vocal opponent. Bit of a gamble...
    Paul Waring - Web site design and development.

  3. #3
    AO Ancient: Team Leader
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    5,197
    "Flush the Johns in 2004"

    Works for me.....
    Don\'t SYN us.... We\'ll SYN you.....
    \"A nation that draws too broad a difference between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards, and its fighting done by fools.\" - Thucydides

  4. #4
    Senior Member RoadClosed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,834
    America doesn't work like a parlimentary type government. John #2 won't be able to challenge the leadership of John #1 until the next general election in 2008. Then he would have to win his party nomination over Kerry, assuming he is elected. And since Kerry would be the encumbant el presidente it's not likely unless he totaly screws up but doesn't get impeached. Not like a parliment where elections can be called when it's adventageous to either party.
    West of House
    You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
    There is a small mailbox here.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,161
    Well now I know for sure kerry will not be president just by who he picked. Because money talks and bullsh!t walks. The last thing wallstreet needs is a trial lawyer by profession turned VP. Anyone with even the slightest bit of knowledge in trading will tell you this is bad. People care about money first over silly politics. He could have picked sharpton and been better off.


    But everyone knew who he was going to pick 4 months ago. So why did he act like its some big unknown? Both of them are millionaires trying to appeal to the "poor metro" "poor south" poor poor poor! *sigh* Both live cobblestones & marble streets away from the beltway.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    central il
    Posts
    1,779
    Umm how is this deferent then ragen/bush I...we have a long tradition in this country of former advecaries running together.....Lincon/Johnson anyone
    Who is more trustworthy then all of the gurus or Buddha’s?

  7. #7
    Senior Member RoadClosed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,834
    It just seems funny that a few weeks ago they were at one anothers throats and attacking pretty harshly. And not just a little bit. Now all smiles. I don't remember Reagan and Bush attacking one another but I was more interested in Pink Floyd and Carter at the time.

    Personally I think the dems should have went for John #2 to begin with, but the ONLY thing they were concerned with is "electability" In my mind they chose exactly everything they hate about Bush, which lead me (among many things) to determine that the majority only care about men and power and image and not real issues. In fact their focus on the issue of the day jumps all across the spectrum, and I am not talking about using data to make choice changes, i am talking about pure BS at it's core meaning. Most don't even know or give a **** what Kerry talks about as long as it's something like "damn republicans" Heck, his policies are not that far from Bush on current world affairs, except the stance that America should never stand alone in it's decisions. Something that grates my like chalk on a blackboard.
    West of House
    You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
    There is a small mailbox here.

  8. #8
    AO Antique pwaring's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    1,409
    Well, if he can't challenge for leadership then Kerry seems to have made a sensible decision then - bringing one of your previous opponents onto your side is a smart move from a political point of view.

    As for Wall Street not liking him, well I don't know much about the guy's policies so I couldn't say about that. However, in terms of qualifications I'm better suited to run the country than our present Chancellor, Gordon Brown, so him being a lawyer probably doesn't matter that much.
    Paul Waring - Web site design and development.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    460
    Originally posted here by Tiger Shark
    "Flush the Johns in 2004"

    Works for me.....
    i couldn't agree more... first we have someone running for president who has changed his mind and vote in senate on practically everything important, and now we have him running with a lawyer....

    as my momma always told me an honest lawyer is the best example of an oxymoron...

    i am thinking emphisis on the moron part
    [gloworange]find / -name \"*your_base*\" -exec chown us:us {} \\;[/gloworange] [glowpurple]Trust No One[/glowpurple][shadow] Use Hardened Gentoo [/shadow]
    CATAPULTAM HABEO. NISI PECUNIAM OMNEM MIHI DABIS, AD CAPUT TUUM SAXUM IMMANE MITTAM

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,161
    so him being a lawyer probably doesn't matter that much.
    Of course it does, it means a great deal to people who make most or some of they're money in stocks like myself.

    A quip Tort Reform
    Hes not just any lawyer he is a trial lawyer which wallstreets obviously should and does feel disturbed about. Edwards is against the tort reform obviously.

    The economic benefits of tort reform
    http://www.house.gov/jec/tort/tort/tort.htm

    Tort Reform
    Senator Edwards’ stance on tort reform is clear. He is inflexibly opposed to anything that resembles tort reform. Edwards made a fortune as a personal injury trial lawyer, and he actively embraces the dark underbelly of our broken legal system. More than 4 out of every 5 dollars donated to Edward’s PAC comes from trial lawyers. Edwards even helped squash a bill that would have imposed limits on lawsuits in the wake of September 11. He also helped pass legislation that makes it easier to file lawsuits against HMOs, and opposes caps on malpractice suits. He also voted against protecting computer companies from frivolous lawsuits after Y2K and against capping the settlements.
    http://www.cse.org/informed/issues_t...?issue_id=1460


    Just recieved an em@il hours ago from wallstreet journal www.WSJ.com warning about edwards.

    The markets and economy are just now recovering through the 4 year projected disturbance after 9/11, aswell as a inherited recession.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •