Today I was privileged and honored to hear a True American Hero speak. He spoke of what Americans could do to make this world a better place.
He spoke about educating children around the world, raising the minimum wage to a living wage for all people, affordable health care and insurance for all Americans, working to end bigotry and hatred, letting students who qualified get their tuition and books by working 10-20 hours a week. He spoke of an America which takes it’s place as a partner for good instead of being a bully.
He explained a plan to bring 50,000 soldiers home immediately and remove the rest from Iraq in a year. He spoke of using diplomacy to reach out to all nations and make the world a safe place for everyone. He spoke of traveling the world to speak not just the leaders or the elite but to the citizens. He spoke of working to stop global warming by finding renewable alternative power sources and with this new technology creating thousands upon thousands of jobs that have been lost in America.
Most important, he spoke of the American People joining in a partnership to make this a better country and a better world. He spoke of people working together with their elected officials and their communities to tear down the walls of poverty, ignorance and intolerance. He gave me hope for a better world that I have not felt since I listened to the recorded speeches of JFK and Martin Luther King, Jr. Today I heard an American Hero who wants to be President because he wants to make the World a better place and not just win a title.
I am talking about Sen. John Edwards. No politician has moved me to tears in decades but John Edwards did. If we as Americans work together, we can make a difference and with John Edwards at the helm, America can once again become the Great Nation it is meant to be. I was an Edwards supporter before going to San Antonio to hear him speak. I am now an Edwards Disciple. I truly believe John Edwards can help Americans turn our country into a Great America and release the potential for greatness in all.
While I like Edward’s message a lot, his behaviour and past performance give me some serious reservations. He was on the Intelligence committee that failed to double check what was presented to them. He was a vocal and self-aggrandizing advocate of the War. He even co-sponsored legislation to let the war happen. He was one of the few people in a position to have done the job right the first time and he failed miserably. His hindsight is sure 20/20, and he sure is sorry now. While that puts him one peg above W, we need someone who got it (and gets it) right from the get go. Someone who got it right not because of a general pacifism or abhorence of war, just of “dumb wars.”
Well, there isn’t anyone running on the Democratic side who got it that is electable. I would rather have someone who admits his mistake and is willing to make a difference now.
A. Not getting it.
B. Getting it, but deciding it would political be suicide to dissent.
Not getting it. Can’t go far with stupid in the tank.
Not getting it. Can’t go far with stupid in the tank.
He was my choice amongst those in the running but after reading his interview with beliefnet.com, I’ve had to reconsider. Several things he said bothered me including his support of school prayer.
Hi comment about school prayer was he could see quiet time for private prayer but not teacher lead. Of course I am against school prayer in any form but I can see it being allowed as long as religion is not being forced or taught at school.
But not everyone accepts the concept of god. Yet he supports time for personal prayer. What will atheists be doing at that time? And will the school allow prayer rugs for those needing them? Too many questions arise. This whole thing is troubling to me.
We had a “moment of silence” in homeroom when I was in high school (and yes, I got nudged for talking through it). Is that what he’s talking about, but giving it a religious name?
I still get in trouble for talking through prayers much less silent moments. LOL
meditate, contemplate the stupidity of ones praying to a higher power instead of believing in their own power to make a difference, or take a nap.
In practice, this has almost invariably resulted in children who are NOT of the predominant faith being forced to either behave as though they belonged to it (which is, for many, blasphemous, and is certainly a violation of the First Amendment by ANY standard), or be ostracised by their classmates, usually (but not always) at the direction of the teacher or the class bullies. This is especially the case in areas where the dominant religion (or specifically the teacher’s faith) is evangelical or fundamentalist Christianity. I’ve seen a couple of children who were Jewish get a pass, but the Muslims and the nonAbrahamic faiths, as well as the atheists and agnostics, get it in the teeth.
And Edwards is simply wrong: Freedom OF Religion MUST include Freedom FROM Religion, or it is as meaningless as a neocon campaign promise. Children in a classroom or at a school function are in all significant respects a captive audience; they cannot walk away without severe and inevitable personal consequence.
In the minds of those arguing for school prayer, Freedom Of Religon extends only to Evangelical or Fundamentalist Christianity – others need not apply. An evangelist’s right to practice is superior to your right to be left alone, and your right to practice is subordinate to his right to be left alone. He can preach at you, but you can’t preach at him.
Were these NON Christians arguing that all children should be forced to act in accordance with their customs, the question would never even be taken up for discussion, and those arguing for it would swiftly find themselves without a community in which to live.
This is not even remotely a slippery slope, given the nature of the discussion. The people arguing for “school prayer” are openly and publicly desirous of replacing a Constitutional Republic with a theocracy based on their interpretation of their book… and they are not and will never be either moderate or accepting of anything less. When they receive any accommodation they will immediately push for more; when compromise is suggested it will be demanded of the other side and not them. There is no “happy medium” here.
as I have said I am opposed to it and i think his answer is away to appease some of the right wing nuts. I don’t think it would ever get approved. I know I would work like hell to stop it from happening as would the rest of the moderate and liberal world. I really do not believe this is even an issue this election.
I guess it depends where you are.
Austin is about the only part of Texas that I’ve seen where the Separation Clause even exists. (Most Houstonians seem to think that the Bill of Rights begins with the Second Amendment, skips to parts of the 4th and 5th, and goes straight from there to the Tenth.)
I’ve not in the last 12 years attended any public or governmental function that did NOT begin with a Judeo-Christian prayer – except one, where the council member who was delegated to find a minister that week had the sheer undiluted gall to bring in a minister from the local Nation of Islam mosque. THAT one time the council dispensed with the prayer – on “Separation of Church and State” grounds (!).
(I seem to recall that the Dallas City Council by mistake oncinvited a Wicca priest to do the invocation. When they found out what Wicca was he was summarily UNinvited, which created an undGodly furor, and he eventually DID do an invocation. Immediately thereafter, as I understand, they told off funds and hired a full-time ‘nondenominational’ chaplain straight out of Southwestern Theological Seminary.)
When dealing with wannabe theocrats, “throwing a bone” means they get a warmup before they go after your leg all the way to the neck.
Don’t get me wrong. Of the available options, Edwards is currently my least despised – but the question remains whether I can in conscience vote for or support ANYONE who flatly states that my right to be free of other people’s religious strictures is less important than their right to impose them on me.
I think you have to look beyond one issue. I know I am on several points because I think he can make a difference.
That moment of silence is a 60-second billboard with the words “This is Where School Prayer Died.”
The time is spent brooding about which kid and his parents are responsible for the fact that the class can’t take this perfectly convenient time for sacrificial vocalizations.
The “moment of silence” is just a political stepping stone. It’s like mailing everyone a check every year for $0.00 in recognition of their birthday; it makes everyone keenly interested in what that zero should be replaced by.
Apparently they took my good advice and ran with it.
Yikes, this was meant for another thead. Sorry, refinish.
no problem
During the last election I was hoping that Edwards would have won the nomination instead of Kerry. While I am sure no candidate will ever match up to all my ideals Edwards certainly for me is way out in front of all the others. I’ve said it before that he seems to be the only white politician who talks about and to Black people and has consistently, not just when it suits him politically…or panderingly as most white politicians do when an election is coming up.
I just read this morning also that he will not be participating in that stupid Nevada debate to be put on by Faux News…good for him…maybe Hilary can use his time to suck up to Faux.
Hasn’t he also come out and said that the idiotic ‘don’t ask/don’t tell’ code should be scrapped?
He made this statement the day the bill was introduced and it took several more days before any other Democratic Candidate made a response at all.
of how the game is played now, Edwards is the best candidate the dems have, i.e.
1.) the ever important looks and brains combo.
2.) humility– yeah, he’s a big success but he comes from a blue collar family, worked his way up.
3.) speaks well.
4.) from the South (ala Carter, Clinton).
5.) while he did screw up with supporting the Iraq fiasco, I’m not certain there’s more baggage related to his voting record.
downside:
1.) a bit too status quo. i.e. wouldn’t change a thing regarding U.S./Israel relations. in fact, in one of his town hall meetings not long after he announced, he aped wingnut talking points on Israel. that was very disappointing.
well and if only one down side, that makes him a damn sight better than any of the others in mu opinion. Like I said he is not perfect but there is no perfect candidate. After researching them all, he is my choice.
map second.
as well.
I’m not asking for a “perfect” candidate– but I think we can agree there’s a big problem with certain U.S. policies continuing on and on over a period of decades– regardless of which political party controls the white house.
one of those policies clearly involves Israel. given the importance of Israeli positions and actions in the ME region, the inability over the last twenty years to achieve a real peace– it’s absurd to continue to give “financial aid” and arms to Israel.