http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Yjk3OGY3MDI4NjcyMGZjZjhjZTY2NDhmZTlkODhkMWI=

If not before, now his campaign =

Bill Cosby is saying the same things, and he's getting speaking engagements left and right.

The fact is, there's a huge percentage of black males that have no wish to integrate into society, and I think there's nothing wrong with people opening a dialog about the issue. As Cosby has shown, people are ready to discuss it, and see what we can do to fix it.

Sounds like its out of context.

But, see, Bill Cosby is black. So he's allowed to say these things.

POKEMON?! POKEMON WITH THE POKE AND THE MAN THE GUY WHO DOES THE THING AND SOUNDS LIKE THIS EH-WRAH WRAH WRAH WRAH.

I didn't realize that I saw this on MTV. I sufferred through a few minutes of his dribble. Anyway, here is a link with a video: http://www.breitbart.tv/html/6142.html

Polls show Edwards at 11%, Obama at ~25%, and Hillary at 40-something-percent. No other Democrat has more than 5%. I don't think Edwards has a chance.

In Iowa, Edwards has been winning for months.

I've been winning with your mom for months!
...sorry i couldn't help it!

Well, Democrats certainly wouldn't want Edwards as the nominee. Not if they want to have a shot at actually winning.

The Dems have a shot at winning, period. No one they nominate will change this. They could nominate Chris Freaking Dodd and I'd still give them even odds.

I think you severely underestimate the bad rep Bush has thrown on the conservatives. Regardless, Democrats have a chance to win, even if Hillary takes the spot (unfortunately). I wouldn't mind Edwards, he seems just about the right mix of mid and dem to me. He's certainly better than the number one nominee right now.

You need to take your bias off national politics--a lot of people became disenfranchised with bush over the years, and a lot of conservative/republican friends I have have even said they want a democrat in office to even things out.

Right, like there's a big difference anyway. Conservatives are supposed to stand for smaller government but Bush has increased the size of the government and government spending more than any other president in history. He signed into law virtually every bill that got to his desk (no matter who sponsored it). He did everything he did in Iraq with the full blessing of the house and senate, including democrats. If you think you're going to get something different by voting in a democrat, you are wrong. Instead of focusing on the issues the candidates are throwing at you in their speeches and debates, go look at their voting record.

I know this Brian, he's a neo-con--basically a democrat who believes in god and war.

But the democrats controlling the white house, no matter their voting record, would allow us to get a lot more things passed which would end this war, get our troops back home, among other things. Sure, might we see no end to the Big Brother-esque laws thrown into play? Not quite yet. Give it a term or two, then we'll have conservatives back in play, and then we'll see some change done that way. Right now, ending the war is my (personal) priority, so I'd rather have a democrat in office either way.

And like I said, Edwards seems like the best candidate (to me).

Who else keeps seeing this topic as "No minority report for..."?

me

Except they all voted for the war. And continue to vote for the constant fuding increases.

I am not a democrat. I don't believe that abortion is okay. I don't believe that the rich should be taxed at a higher rate than the poor. I don't believe in "welfare" and free health care for the lazy (although I have no problem funding health care for children or those truly in need). I don't believe in property taxes tied to the inflated "value" of the property is the right way to go. I hate big government.

I am not a republican. I don't believe the death penalty is okay, if only because of the hundreds of people who have been proven innocent after they were condemned to death (using dna evidence). My respect for our nation's armed forces notwithstanding, I don't believe we went to war for a good cause. Even if we did, the entire thing was mismanaged. I don't believe the countless loopholes the rich use to get out of paying their fair tax rate should exist. I don't believe it should be our government's responsibility to manage who can get married. I don't believe corporate lobbying should be able to affect lawmakers as it currently does.

There are countless more examples on either side that prove that both parties are completely fakking brain dead. The people elected to "serve" simply serve themselves and their own, and they say screw everyone else.

The way I see it, they only vote for the war so they can keep their spot in the hierarchy. I could be wrong, my view could be skewed, but in my eyes the votes for the war are really a vote so that they don't stand out as "terrists" or "haters of freedom" or whatever nonsensical term that the white house has tagged them with. Once we have Bush out of office, and once we have someone who really is TRYING to pull out of Iraq, we could see some changes.

I agree with your secondary point though--the only way to get what you want is to use the politicians, but so far we're letting the politicians use us. I plan on doing some research in the next year and hopefully coming up with some kind of a decent voting scheme, even if my vote doesn't count (well for presidency).

So they're scared of doing the "right" thing because they will be called names?

How else can you explain why the dems voted to authorize military force against Iran last week? Seriously?

It's probably not so much the names, but the bad stigma that they can get in the next vote for being called such. Think about it, if you're equated to a terrorist, what do you think the opposition's going to campaign next time you're up for re-election?

Pretty much everybody voted for the war because it was the right thing to do. Democrats rightly gambled that they would have a better time justifying why they voted the way they did than to vote against it and have to explain that. There are absolutely no real conservatives who are thinking about voting Democrat because of Bush. Bush and the Republicrats did not attempt to govern conservatively when they had virtually absolute power. They paid for that in 2006 but of course mid second term is almost always against the president, historically.

Edwards will appeal to the flaming far left of the population but that is such an extreme minority that that is why I think Repulicans would love him to be the nominee.

Wow. To think that anyone actually believes this way actually saddens me. I thought all that idiocy was gone with 2003 or 4 or so. Looks like I was wrong.

I thought the same. Oh well.

You've finally said something I can agree with.

I would have said this, but the Republicans also have no shot at winning. But thanks to partisan (fanboy) politics one of them will no matter how little they deserve to.



That rhetoric has been flying around for eight years. No one cared then, and no one cares now. Did you miss the whole "support out troops" crap fest?

US politics makes me laugh. And then im sad because you blokes could annihilate any/all of us at any time.

and me.

Well actually, you've said many things I agree with mystic

Well, you have to give it to the terrorists now. Lately almost all of their rhetoric is straight out of the DNC playbook. Gosh, they're even concerned with global warming now.

No surprise there.

None at all, I agree.

This thread sucks more than both political parties.

I wouldn't count it out so fast...old people, which is the majority of our voting demographic, take that kinda nonsense to heart.

I thought the Annihilatrix took care of that...

omgz terrists luv teh dems!!1

Seriously.

I think wookie just called all global warming activiists -- erm, I mean, scientists... I think he just called them all terrorists.

Theres also a huge percentage of whites, indians, asians, insert race here that have no wish to integrate into society.

Like me.