Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Edwards will one day be president

  1. Jul 28, 2004 #1

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    This guy is a superstar. I just watched his speech at the convention. WOW! Edwards has the ability to connect with people at a core level. If he is half the man I believe him to be, and barring disaster, I think Edwards will be a fixture from here on for a very long time to come. I caught a look on T Kennedy's face at one point when the crowd was going nuts. Kennedy was beaming like a proud new father.
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 29, 2004 #2
    I agree that Edwards could be one of Kennedy's bustards.
  4. Jul 29, 2004 #3
    Who knows, maybe we'll get 8 years Kerry/Edwards, then 8 Years Edwards/Obama, then 8 Years Obama/Republican woman, then peace and prosperity for all times...

    It could happen...

  5. Jul 29, 2004 #4
    No chance in hell.
  6. Jul 29, 2004 #5
    No offense, but why, as a Canadian, do you seem to have such strong convictions about what will happen in American politics?
  7. Jul 29, 2004 #6
    Am I not allowed an opinion on American politics?

    Canada is a neighboring Country to the USA. We share the largest border in the world.

    The Government you put in place may have an effect on how friendly it is to do business with your country as well.

    Anyways, no chance in hell for Kerry
  8. Jul 29, 2004 #7

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Well, if you support this voting record by CSE Chairman and former House Majority Leader Dick Armey - the voice of your link - then you probably won't like Edwards. No argument here:

    Block research funding for embryonic stem cells. (Jul 2001)
    Voted YES on banning human cloning, including medical research. (Jul 2001)
    Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)

    Voted YES on Constitutional amendment prohibiting Flag Desecration. (Jul 2001)
    yadda, yadda...should protect a piece of cloth over freedom of speach....yadda, yadda...nothing more important to worry about...yadda, yadda

    Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
    Voted YES on Amendment to prohibit burning the US flag. (Jun 1999)
    Voted NO on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)
    Voted YES on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999)
    Voted NO on maintaining right of habeus corpus in Death Penalty Appeals. (Mar 1996)
    Voted YES on making federal death penalty appeals harder. (Feb 1995)
    Voted NO on replacing death penalty with life imprisonment. (Apr 1994)
    More prisons, more enforcement, effective death penalty. (Sep 1994)
    Voted YES on prohibiting needle exchange & medical marijuana in DC. (Oct 1999)
    Voted YES on requiring states to test students. (May 2001)
    Voted YES on giving federal aid only to schools allowing voluntary prayer. (Mar 1994)
    Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)
    Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)
    Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)
    Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)

    Voted YES on banning soft money donations to national political parties. (Jul 2001)
    Voted NO on banning soft money and issue ads. (Sep 1999)

    Voted YES on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)

    Voted YES on banning physician-assisted suicide. (Oct 1999)

    Voted NO on strengthening the Social Security Lockbox. (May 1999)


    As far as I'm concerned this only reflects favorably on Edwards. I am glad to vote for the guy that Dick Armey opposes. We know how he thinks.

    Just another good reason to vote for Kerry/Edwards. :wink:
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2004
  9. Jul 29, 2004 #8
    I only happened to catch the last 30 seconds of Edwards speech, but I do agree, I think after the vice presidency (let's hope), he'd have a great shot at becoming president.

    I think the reason why he didn't win the democratic nomination for president is simply because he looks too fresh faced and inexperienced to be president. But he is a damn good speaker.

    I saw Barack Obama's speech the other day. He's a rising star, don’t you think? I'm not sure about any of his policies but he is also a very good speaker and very passionate...though this is hardly the only reason why someone should vote for someone, but he seems like he would be able to rally support for himself though.
  10. Oct 18, 2004 #9
    Edward's stem-cell stance is snake oil

    Dr. Charles Krauthammer wrote an execllent article on exposing more of the Kerry/Edwards lies.

    Anything to get elected
    Dr. Krauthammer points out

    What Dr. Krauthammer failed to points out was how the Democrats, at their National convention, took advantage of the Reagan family in their time of grief.

    The Democrats are so desperate to win at all cost, they have resorted to grave robbing. They have become little more than ghouls.
  11. Oct 18, 2004 #10
    I saw "Edwards will one day..." and though it was talking about Edwards Air Force Base. I think that was the first time i missed home since i moved. Bah, fie on you!
  12. Oct 18, 2004 #11

    Double ouch.


    Wow this is looking bad

    Oh he's one of those guys is he? It's almost like he's picking exactly the things I think are important and doing exactly what I disagree with.

    So I guess http://www.cse.org/informed/issues_template.php?issue_id=1460 is a partisan website, but does that mean that these aren't his stances on the issues?
  13. Oct 18, 2004 #12
    Outcast, let me get this straight.

    John Edwards touts the promise of Stem Cell research, saying people who are paralyzed could be able to walk again if Kerry is president and allows more and better stem cell funding. This, after there have been tests in which laboratory rats had been paralyzed, had stem cells injected into their spine, and regained nerve tissue and mobility. A few days lator, Christopher Reeves dies, and John Edwards is a ruthless bastard.

    MEANWHILE, back in the whitehouse.

    "Simply stated, there is now no doubt Saddam Hussein has weapons of Mass Destruction"
    - Cheney, 8/26/02

    "We do know that Saddam Hussein is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon"
    - Rice, 9/10/02

    "It's not knowable how long that conflict could last. It could last, you know, six days, six weeks, I dobut six months"
    - Rumsfeld, 2/7/03

    "We're dealing with a country that can really finance it's own reconstructoin, and relatively soon"
    Wolfowitz, 3/27/03

    "We know where (the weapons) are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, north and south somewhat."
    - Rumsfeld, 3/30/03

    and finally

    "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended."
    Bush. 5/01/03

    So after all that, which you probabally dismiss or think isn't important, you're going to hold it against John Edwards that Christopher Reeves died?
  14. Oct 18, 2004 #13
    To begin with, we were not talking about Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, or Bush, we are talking about Edwards, Kerry and the Democrats.

    I'm not sure why you say that Edwards was a "ruthless bastard" because Chris Reeves died. Edwards was a ruthless bastard before he ever ran for the senate. He made his money in lawsuits against doctors and the medical industry. You know they type of lawsuits that drive up the cost of malpractice insurance and drive up the cost of research. You know research like in stem cell research.
    http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2004/08/02/gvl10802.htm [Broken]

    How can that be???? I thought Kerry said
    You must have not have read this. Either that or you are dismissing it as unimportant.
    If there were 35,000 shipments of stem cells available, would that make a difference?

    Yes, he and the trial lawyers that drive up the cost doing research are partly to blame.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  15. Oct 18, 2004 #14
    So I was right, you completely dismissed them. The current administration was 100% wrong about the reason they took us to war on, but you don't seem to mind, you only seem to care that John Edwards said people like a famous actor could benefit from stem-cell research, and said actor died.

    You want to point out a specific case in which he ruthlessly sued a doctor or the medical industry where it wasn't just? You know, the reason their are lawyers like him are to protect people who get hurt by doctors etc. Was Edwards being ruthless when he sued a pool parts company because their filter sucked out a little girls colon? Please elaborate how edwards suing against doctor incompetency or corporate negligence affected stem cell research in any way.

    John Kerry is a politician. He distorts the facts, as all politicians do, let us try to hold our discourse to a higher standard than the rhetoric of politicians. However, it is true that bush has banned federal funding for any lines of stem-cells that weren't already being used in August 2001.

    Yeah, it'd make a difference if more groups of scientists had thousands more stem cell lines and more funding towards the research.

    Again, explain to me how trial lawyers suing doctors and corporations make it harder for the government to give money to people who want to do stem cell research.
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2004
  16. Oct 18, 2004 #15
    I will do everything in my power to make sure that doesn't happen. Edwards is scum.
  17. Oct 18, 2004 #16


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    What a crock of $#!t ! Ron Reagan is a part of the Reagan family. And he's been voicing his opinions both before and after the DNC.

    Oh, and by the way, I think Dr. Krauthammer is despicable neo-con. I remember an op-ed he wrote for the Post about a year ago, where he doctored an transcript in order to diagnose Howard Dean as mentally unstable.
  18. Oct 19, 2004 #17
    Did I say that Ronald Reagan was not part of the Reagan family? I'm not sure where you came up with that one from. Anyway Reagan never made many public appearances after leaving office in 1988. I don't recall him expressing his opinion on anything prior to the DNC. Since he died shortly before the DNC was held, I don't believe he was expressing his opinion after the DNC.

    Dr. Charles Krauthammer
    Yeah, sounds like a real neo-con.
  19. Oct 19, 2004 #18


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Dear Outcast,

    you are as blindly misinformed as you are stubbornly opinionated.

    On your first point, it seems clear that you are not aware of the difference between Ron Reagan, the openly democratic son of the former President, and his father. Nor do you, in fact seem to be aware of the existence of this son.

    On your second point, please Google "krauthammer neocon" and you will receive sufficient validation to my claim. What he did 25 years ago has little to do with what he thinks now. Krauthammer is openly neocon and admits it quite plainly.
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2004
  20. Oct 19, 2004 #19
    The name of the thread is Edwards will one day be president. You went off topic with the war in Iraq and the Bush administration. When I pointed it out that "we were not talking about......", you acted like you won a major debate.

    Its not just one case, its his whole medical malpractice carreer. He should have stuck to swimming pools. Edwards' malpractice suits leave bitter taste
    Valerie Lakey and John Edwards
    You need to learn to read English. Either that or you are a real politician the way you distort everything you read. Where did I say
  21. Oct 19, 2004 #20
    You are correct, I stand corrected on both statements.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook