Edwards now claims he's being shut up

Stinger · 07-27-07, 06:48 PM

This is hilarious if it weren't so telling about Edwards. The man who was conspiring last month with Hillary to shut up the other Democrat candidates now complains about being shut up.

"an intense minute and a half from John Edwards in Creston, Iowa, yesterday in which he heatedly tells an audience that the attention to trivia (I assume the reference here is to his haircuts) is "not an accident" and that "they want to shut me up" to silence his message about ending the war and universalizing health care. He warns, in the video segment posted by his campaign, that if we don't beat back these unnamed oligarchs, "They're going to control the media. They're going to control what's being said."
He doesn't go into detail about who "they" are, other than a reference to people who make $100 million a year, and compares them to the (actual well-funded, conservative) operation that put the Swift Boat ads on air. He also doesn't explain exactly how this corporate-media collaboration works, but his audience seems to be rapt.
Here's from his remarks:

This stuff's not an accident. Nobody in this room should think this is an accident. You know, I'm out there speaking up for universal healthcare, ending this war in Iraq, speaking up for the poor. They want to shut me up. That's what this is about. "Let's distract from people who don't have health care coverage. Let's distract from people who can't feed their children.... Let's talk about this silly frivolous nothing stuff so that America won't pay attention."
They will never silence me. Never.
If we don't stand up to these people, if we don't fight em, if we don't beat them, they're going to continue to control this country. Thye're going to control the media. They're going to control what's being said. They do not want to hear us talking about health care for everybody."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmi...hut_me_up.html

This man is so phony and now he's claiming the GRWC is after him.

Doremus Jessup · 07-27-07, 07:12 PM

Much like W, this dumbass doesn't realize that he is killing his own party.

bhkad · 07-27-07, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doremus Jessup

Much like W, this dumbass doesn't realize that he is killing his own party.

You don't know what you are talking about. You are hurting your own cause.

Doremus Jessup · 07-27-07, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhkad

You don't know what you are talking about. You are hurting your own cause.

How do you figure?

bhkad · 07-27-07, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doremus Jessup

How do you figure?

W has the truth on his side and ALL the Dems are holding their breath hoping that they can torpedo the Administration before the 08 election. W is sitting in the catbird seat and there isn't much he can say that would change this.

The Surge is working and the American people are taking notice.

The reasons for the invasion have not been revealed but when they are all but the most rabid anti-American-Bushies-War fanatics will recognize that the Dems are wrong and HAVE been.

The Dems are trying to manufacture a Watergate-style scandal so they might have a chance to create a left-wing 'Caliphate.'

W isn't hurting anything and Edwards is irrelevant. And if you just read all my posts you would know better. Because you don't you are hurting your cause.

Here's a replay of an important revelation that will have a bearing on every Democratic Party move between now and Nov 08.

Quote:

The American left wants a return to the 1970s -- without Jimmy Carter. (Okay, without disco, either.) They want a cowed GOP. They want control of the institutions and the branches. They want a miserable, defeated country they can manipulate. And they want it all under the gaze not of the Saint of Plains, but of Hillary Rodham Clinton, who can assure that left-wing predominance will continue for a generation or more.

Will they get it? That's a question worth some thought. Because as it stands, neither of the program's necessary elements is coming to fruition. The war is not being lost, and their great political scandal has fizzled.

The other half of the equation was Watergate. Vietnam would not have been anywhere near as much a disaster without it. Watergate paralyzed the Nixon administration. It turned Nixon himself from an odd, unlikable, but incredibly capable politician to a half-crazed ghost sobbing in the Oval office in the middle of the night. It transformed his last great triumph -- the Paris peace accords that ended the war on an acceptable standoff -- into ashes. The left wing of the Democratic Party, shepherded by people like George McGovern and Mark Hatfield, proceeded to undercut the settlement as quickly as they could manage. Two separate appropriations acts passed in June 1973 cut off all further aid to the countries of Southeast Asia. (A third such act passed in August 1974 has gained more attention but it only duplicated the effects of the first two.) From that point on it was a matter of time. Nixon resigned a little over a year later. Less than a year after that, in April 1975, Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia all fell.

(The price tag for this, which liberals don't care to bring up, was over 2 million dead in Cambodia, 165,000 dead in Vietnam, another 200,000 plus drowned and murdered on the high seas during the exodus of the boat people. Laotian numbers can only be estimated but must have been in the thousands. The price of Indochinese "peace" was nearly twice that of the war itself.)

And that, in case you were wondering, is what Plamegate was about. The Democrats needed a scandal - and not merely a run-of-the-mill, everyday scandal, but a mega-scandal, a hyper-scandal, something that would utterly cripple the administration and leave it open to destruction in detail. The targets were Karl Rove and Dick Cheney, held by the MoveOn crowd to be the actual brains behind Adolf W. Chimp. When nothing at all could be dug up on the administration principals, the scandal was effectively over. Knocking off a vice-presidential aide might cause excitement within the Beltway, but nobody in the real world could be expected to care. It may be a bitter thought to I. Lewis Libby that he was taken down through sheer proximity, like a bystander during a drive-by shooting, but it was in the very best of causes. Libby's sacrifice not only saved the administration, it may well save tens of thousands of Middle Eastern lives in the years to come. (This also explains why the President was so circumspect in dealing with the investigation - he knew exactly what the opposition was up to, and could afford to give them no ammunition whatsoever.)

Plamegate ended last Thursday with a judge throwing Plame's suit out of court on strictly technical grounds. (This is something of a disappointment - I would really have liked to see what that pair of hustlers would do when cross-examined by a competent defense attorney.) People like John Conyers are trying to create a conflagration by blowing on the embers of the attorney firings and the vice-presidential subpoenas. To no avail. Scandals, like forest fires, occur only when conditions are perfect. Through their failed efforts, the liberals have in effect set a backfire, surrounding the administration with wide barriers of burned-over ground. The Democrats themselves have rendered Bush unassailable, and all the slumber parties, the empty votes, and the rhetoric are intended to camouflage that fact. Bush will have hard days yet, but he will not be Nixonized. He will be able to fight his war as he sees fit.

That means a continuation of the surge, and of the strategy of General Petreaus. Will that be enough? It's impossible to say. But the past few months have been the most surprising in the entire Iraq saga to date. I have a feeling that Al-Queda (and the media, and the Democrats), will have a few more surprises coming in the months ahead.

American Thinker: The Surge Succeeds

Everyone needs to read this.

Doremus Jessup · 07-27-07, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhkad

And if you just read all my posts you would know better. Because you don't you are hurting your cause.

Sorry, but I gave up with those after the 50+ consecutive posts of:
"THE MUSLIMS ARE COMING. THE MUSLIMS ARE COMING."

Sergeant Stinger1 · 07-27-07, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stinger

This is hilarious if it weren't so telling about Edwards. The man who was conspiring last month with Hillary to shut up the other Democrat candidates now complains about being shut up.

"an intense minute and a half from John Edwards in Creston, Iowa, yesterday in which he heatedly tells an audience that the attention to trivia (I assume the reference here is to his haircuts) is "not an accident" and that "they want to shut me up" to silence his message about ending the war and universalizing health care. He warns, in the video segment posted by his campaign, that if we don't beat back these unnamed oligarchs, "They're going to control the media. They're going to control what's being said."
He doesn't go into detail about who "they" are, other than a reference to people who make $100 million a year, and compares them to the (actual well-funded, conservative) operation that put the Swift Boat ads on air. He also doesn't explain exactly how this corporate-media collaboration works, but his audience seems to be rapt.
Here's from his remarks:

This stuff's not an accident. Nobody in this room should think this is an accident. You know, I'm out there speaking up for universal healthcare, ending this war in Iraq, speaking up for the poor. They want to shut me up. That's what this is about. "Let's distract from people who don't have health care coverage. Let's distract from people who can't feed their children.... Let's talk about this silly frivolous nothing stuff so that America won't pay attention."
They will never silence me. Never.
If we don't stand up to these people, if we don't fight em, if we don't beat them, they're going to continue to control this country. Thye're going to control the media. They're going to control what's being said. They do not want to hear us talking about health care for everybody."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmi...hut_me_up.html

This man is so phony and now he's claiming the GRWC is after him.

---
I agree that this is hilarious!!!
The GRWC??? The 'GREAT RIGHT WINGED CLOWNS'

?
Hey I know of many that are afraid of clowns.

bhkad · 07-27-07, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doremus Jessup

Sorry, but I gave up with those after the 50+ consecutive posts of:
"THE MUSLIMS ARE COMING. THE MUSLIMS ARE COMING."

Ahhhh! That tells us that all the terrorists need to do is trigger enough false alarms and you will stop paying attention.

You Americans are so easy to defeat.

Chanda · 07-27-07, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhkad

Everyone needs to read this.

Americans listened to conservatives promoting the Iraq war in 2003. Turns out it was based on lies and hundreds of thousands of Americans and Iraqi civilians have lost their lives in what seems to be an unwinnable war. Why should we listen to pro-war conservatives now? BTW, the surge doesn't seem to be working either:

Quote:

BAGHDAD, June 3 — Three months after the start of the Baghdad security plan that has added thousands of American and Iraqi troops to the capital, they control fewer than one-third of the city’s neighborhoods, far short of the initial goal for the operation, according to some commanders and an internal military assessment.

The American assessment, completed in late May, found that American and Iraqi forces were able to “protect the population” and “maintain physical influence over” only 146 of the 457 Baghdad neighborhoods.

In the remaining 311 neighborhoods, troops have either not begun operations aimed at rooting out insurgents or still face “resistance,” according to the one-page assessment, which was provided to The New York Times and summarized reports from brigade and battalion commanders in Baghdad.

The assessment offers the first comprehensive look at the progress of the effort to stabilize Baghdad with the heavy influx of additional troops. The last remaining American units in the troop increase are just now arriving.
Violence has diminished in many areas, but it is especially chronic in mixed Shiite-Sunni neighborhoods in western Baghdad, several senior officers said. Over all, improvements have not yet been as widespread or lasting across Baghdad, they acknowledged.

Commanders Say Push in Baghdad Is Short of Goal - New York Times

The silenced majority · 07-27-07, 10:17 PM

Maybe if Edwards' message was actually different from Hillary & Obama's people might pay more attention to him.