Gotta look pretty to campaign

[albed]

Donations to John Edwards' campaign fund were used for 2 $400 haircuts and expensive beauty spa sessions to keep the supporter of the nations poor looking his best.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/...rss_topstories

Also

Edwards, 53, who has made alleviating poverty the central theme of his candidacy, has been criticized for building a 28,000-square-foot house for $5.3 million

I guess nothing helps the poor like splurging on yourself.

[Mazer]

Just imagine what it costs to keep that old hag Clinton from looking like a train wreck.

[Nicobie]

Originally Posted by Mazer

Just imagine what it costs to keep that old hag Clinton from looking like a train wreck.

My vote will be based on who has the best gams.

It's as good as any other benchmark.

At least the pricks/kunts can't lie about that.

[albed]

That's suprising. I expected people to pick up on the hypocricy and lack of ethics of a wannabe president using money given for campaigning to indulge himself in luxuries while voicing sympathies with the poor.


Instead it seems people think superficial appearance is more relevant.


Maybe for a liberal it actually is.

[Mazer]

Nobody expects the kind of guy who would parade his chronically, possibly terminally ill wife around the country for political gain to feel ashamed of his hypocrisy, so there's really no point in bringing it up. He should have dropped out of the race when it became clear that his wife's failing health would be the focus of his presidency. If people are willing to let such an obvious mistake slide then $400 haircuts aren't gonna faze them.

[theknife]

my my, such cattiness like a couple of bitchy old ladies - all out of relevant topics, are we? i guess it's understandable, tho - your party has been hijacked by incompetent corrupt nitwits, not a true conservative left in the GOP. no wonder you're so bitter.

[Mazer]

We weren't talking about the GOP now were we? Have you nothing to say about the Democrat candidates? You could talk about how Obama is the only one who isn't an embarrassment to the Dems. No?

[albed]

Well I've actually provided examples of democratic corruption and hypocrisy while all theknife can manage is his neverending predictions that this or that republican is soon to be kicked out of office.

Are you holding your breath waiting for Gonzales' termination knife? If so you'd be brain dead by now...but you already were ever since your prediction of Cheny's and Rove's departure, you just don't know it. Maybe when your organs are harvested you'll get a clue.

[theknife]

Originally Posted by Mazer

Have you nothing to say about the Democrat candidates? You could talk about how Obama is the only one who isn't an embarrassment to the Dems. No?

the 2008 Prez elections just aren't on the radar for me yet - ending the war is far and away the most pressing issue for this country. besides, the run-ups to the primaries is all theater this point, no substance from anybody, just posturing and symbolism...the most interesting potential candidates, imo, are Chuck Hagel and Al Gore.

[Mazer]

The Dems won't let Bush end the war before they get a chance to put one of their own in the White House so that person can end the war. Mark my words.

[JackSpratts]

Originally Posted by Mazer

The Dems won't let Bush end the war before they get a chance to put one of their own in the White House so that person can end the war. Mark my words.

no, the republicans aren't going to end the war. bush has veto power the dems can't override without their votes.

if the republicans wanted it over it would be finished.

they know it's a lost cause so the reps will let this fester until we elect a democratic president. this way at least they can shift blame to a democrat for leaving this civil-war "before we could 'win' it."

meanwhile the american bodies pile up.

- js.

[albed]

Yeah at about one twentith the rate of Iraqi bodies.

The dems got elected by promising to end the war in Iraq so why would they actually end it when they can keep using it in future elections to get the dumb sucker vote?

The Republicans want to win the war, not end it, and they're more interested in the well being of their country instead of winning elections.

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by JackSpratts

no, the republicans aren't going to end the war. bush has veto power the dems can't override without their votes.

If the they weren't more interested in playing politics the Democrats would work with the president, send him a funding bill he'd be willing to sign, and before you knew it the they would have gained enough political capital to force Bush to begin staged withdrawals. They could say, "We want Iraqis to win this war, not us," and people would support them, myself included. Their cooperation would mean they were looking forward to a positive outcome at the end of the war. Unfortunately they don't give a damn what happens to Iraq in the end, and while Bush is still president every American soldier who dies guarantees their dominance in the next election. They're not in the business of saving lives, which is why this war won't end before 2009.

[JackSpratts]

Originally Posted by Mazer

If the they weren't more interested in playing politics the Democrats would work with the president, send him a funding bill he'd be willing to sign, and before you knew it the they would have gained enough political capital to force Bush to begin staged withdrawals. They could say, "We want Iraqis to win this war, not us," and people would support them, myself included. Their cooperation would mean they were looking forward to a positive outcome at the end of the war. Unfortunately they don't give a damn what happens to Iraq in the end, and while Bush is still president every American soldier who dies guarantees their dominance in the next election. They're not in the business of saving lives, which is why this war won't end before 2009.

you're already spreading the blame onto the democrats which serves to make my point. the democrats didn't begin the iraqi invasion. many voted bush the authority but only if truly needed. bush the comander in chief was the only one who could send in the troops and he did so under false pretense, thus abusing that authority. he can remove them from this iraqi civil war whenever he wants, but he won't and the republicans know it. the best they can hope for is to obscure the origin and dissolution of this republican morass and shift it onto democrats.

- js.

[Mazer]

So you're saying this is the Republicans' war to loose. I agree. Because Democrats didn't start this war they have everything to gain from advertising how bad it is, a job made easier by the rising body count. I wouldn't go so far as laying blame for the war on them, but they do benefit from it politically. Both parties have their share of opportunists, and those among the Democrats fully understand that they swept congress because of the war's unpopularity. But in times of peace the people tend to elect a president from one party and a congressional majority from the other, so if the war ends before Bush's term then the Dems' chances of taking the White House are slim. For them it all comes down to a simple choice: they can end the war or they can win the presidency (it's unlikely they'll do both). Knowing what you know about politicians in general, which choice do you suppose they'll make?

On a side note, implying that the sectarian conflict in Iraq is none of our business because it constitutes a civil war is lame. If it is a civil war then we are responsible for starting it and that makes it our business.

[Sinner]

I will quote a a professor at a major research university, a registered Democrat, a liberal by some measures, but a radical conservative relative to the large majority of his colleagues.

http://engram-backtalk.blogspot.com/...zing-iraq.html

These foreign fighters are not "insurgents." Instead, they the al Qaeda terrorists who have been drawn to Iraq like flies. Al Qaeda uses precisely that method (suicide bombings), it is a terrorist organization (i.e., they indiscriminately target civilians), they have stated their intention to slaughter Shiites, they claim many of these spectacular bombings, and the U.S. military attributes almost all of them to al Qaeda. By contrast, there is not one shred of evidence that I have encountered to suggest that these mass-casualty suicide bombings are being carried out by Sunni Baathist insurgents as part of a civil war. Al Qaeda terrorists target Shiite civilians for indiscriminate slaughter because their whole plan to provoke civil war in Iraq, not because they are fighting in that civil war to defeat the Shiites. It's a good plan, not foreseen by anyone, and it has been working fairly well.

All of this brings me to the important point I'd like to re-emphasize today because of a new article that just came out in the prestigious Foreign Affairs magazine (which I'll get to shortly). What is critical to understand, and what even prominent thinkers cannot seem to assimilate, is that there is a distinction between two kinds of violence in Iraq:

1. Sectarian violence between Shiites and Sunnis as they seek to defeat each other (which can be reasonably construed as being part of a civil war)

2. The indiscriminate slaughter of Shiite civilians by al Qaeda suicide bombers as they seek to provoke Shiite-vs.-Sunni conflict (which cannot be reasonably construed as being part of a civil war)

As violence of the first kind has decreased of late (i.e., as the civil war has abated), violence of the second kind has increased significantly (i.e., efforts to re-ignite the civil war have ramped up). That's what the evidence shows, and those who are paying attention to the details know that. Those who aren't paying close attention, such as Harry Reid, just see confirmation that Iraq has descended into civil war. Yet Reid, who has never shown the slightest understanding of the role played by al Qaeda in Iraq, has the audacity to claim that Bush is in a state of denial.

Harry Reid fails to see what al Qaeda has been doing which is provoke a civil war and convince Americans the war is lost.