John Edwards "not comfortable around those people"

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 29 2007 @ 10:10 PM
link   
John Edwards says he is uncomfortable around gay people?

www.edgeboston.com...


Presidential hopeful Senator John Edwards has been quoted in a new book as saying of gays that he’s "not comfortable around those people."



"He’s frequently been absent when gay voters could have used his voice," Naff wrote. "For example, during the July 2004 congressional debate over a federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, the Senate rejected the amendment in a 50-48 vote. The only senators absent during the vote? Edwards and running mate Sen. John Kerry. How convenient."


Can you imagine what the outcry would have been if it would have been a Republican uttered this nonsense?

Why is the media silent on this? Wait...I know ...Edwards is a Democrat...plain and simple double standard in the media. NON-STORY...Case closed!




posted on May, 29 2007 @ 10:26 PM
link   
Edwards doesn't have a snowball's chance of becoming the Democratic nominee, regardless of these kinds of little ripples in the campaign.

Edwards is so far out of touch with reality, he makes John Kerry and most liberal elites seem like homeboys straight from the 'hood.

Besides, what's the problem with his saying that he's not comfortable around gays. Gays aren't comfortable around straights and don't mind saying so--case in point.

Yeah, if a Republican candidate said it, it would be on local six o'clock news and every other news outlet imaginable, but what else is new.

[edit on 2007/5/29 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on May, 29 2007 @ 10:38 PM
link   
That's ok, there wont be a new president anyway.

We will be in a dictatorship.

Nothing to worry about.



posted on May, 29 2007 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
We will be in a dictatorship.


I won't be holding my breath.

Have you ever read the US Constitution?

It really is a remarkable document that has held this country together for nigh on to 231 years.

I'd think that someone who fled a country like Cuba that has lived under a repressive dictatorship for nearly 50 years would throw that word around just a little more responsibly.



posted on May, 29 2007 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
We will be in a dictatorship.


Probably.

One run by that notorious Clinton crime family...



posted on May, 30 2007 @ 06:55 AM
link   
Sorry that i'm so liberal with the "D" word, however, you must not be informed about Bush's signing papers that would give him extraordinary powers?
And Grady, Yes, it is because i went through opression that i am so worried now. What i went through as a child was very traumatic. I heard the bombs falling so close to our home, I saw the tanks on the streets, the Russians, it left me traumatized.

What do you want from me?



posted on May, 30 2007 @ 08:02 AM
link   
At least he's honest. Would we rather he says he's full of love for gays, and later prove he was lying? So he's uncomfortable around gays, doesn't mean he hates them, it means he doesn't, in all likelihood, understand the preferences. Nor does it equate to intolerance. I'm no fan of Edwards, he has no shot at the Democratic nomination, but neither is he a monster.

DG, if nothing else you are consistent...All Presidents have vast unstated powers during wartime. He can not cancel elections, rather will not, even if he could. Lincoln didn't, he weilded even more power than Bush ever dreamed of...Franklin Roosevelt didn't, and he's the closest thing to a dictator our country has ever had, since Lincoln. Both these men wielded enourmous, almost unchecked, power. Bush doesn't wield anything even resembling that much power.

Trust me, I'm no Bush-fan, but he's not a monsterous dictator, or even a wanna-be dictator. He's just a man who's probably going to be glad when his two terms are up, and can go home to Texas. 'Course many of us are going to be glad, too.



posted on May, 30 2007 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
What do you want from me?


Clairty and Honesty.

The directive to which you refer does not implement a dictatorship, but in these times when massive attacks on the US or massive natural disasters on the scale of Rita and Katrina, such measures are more necessary than in the past.


President Bush has signed a directive granting extraordinary powers to the office of the president in the event of a declared national emergency, apparently without congressional approval or oversight.

It was issued with the dual designation of NSPD-51, as a National Security Presidential Directive, and HSPD-20, as a Homeland Security Presidential Directive.

The directive establishes under the office of the president a new national continuity coordinator whose job is to make plans for "National Essential Functions" of all federal, state, local, territorial and tribal governments, as well as private sector organizations to continue functioning under the president's directives in the event of a national emergency.

www.worldnetdaily.com...


The source is one that is not very well respected on this board, but it is the only one I can find that is original.

www.worldnetdaily.com...

Google News Search



[edit on 2007/5/30 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on May, 30 2007 @ 06:30 PM
link   


Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

www.worldnetdaily.com...


The source is one that is not very well respected on this board, but it is the only one I can find that is original.

www.worldnetdaily.com...

Google News Search



[edit on 2007/5/30 by GradyPhilpott]


Grady

Don't apologize for using WorldNetDaily. You don't see liberals apologizing for using the New York Times. If anything WorldNetDaily may be a more reliable source?

Do you think the New York Times would even run a story about John Edwards and his discomfort with gays. If it where a Republican it would be on the front page!

[edit on 30-5-2007 by RRconservative]

[edit on 30-5-2007 by RRconservative]



posted on May, 30 2007 @ 07:53 PM
link   
If this is true, that John Edwards said he's not comfortable around gay people... My question is, so what? I'm not comfortable around KKK members, but that doesn't mean I don't support their rights to have and express their opinions, to live just like everyone else. I'm not comfortable around corporate executives. "Those people" give me the willies. But that doesn't mean that I think they deserve any less than anyone else. Or that I wouldn't support or fight for their equal rights.

Some people draw conclusions where none are apparent.

There's no rule that presidential candidates are required to be comfortable around everyone. If John Edwards isn't comfortable around gay people (and he made this comment 9 years ago...) big deal. I'm not comfprtable around some people either.

And Grady, no the president's directive doesn't implement a dictatorship in itself. It just sets everything up so that he can, with one swift decision, implement one without ANYONE'S agreement or approval.

dg, sweetheart, you will be proven right.


Edit: And RR, what are you doing reading the Edge?


[edit on 30-5-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on May, 30 2007 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
dg, sweetheart, you will be proven right.


So, you believe that somewhere between now and January, 2009, GW Bush will set himself up as dictator by fiat on the basis of the recently signed NSPD-51, National Security Presidential Directive, and HSPD-20, Homeland Security Presidential Directive and you're smiling about it?



posted on May, 30 2007 @ 08:44 PM
link   
This story ain't even a tempest in a teapot.

Sorry drama vampires.

Edwards is a straight man. Do you think personally he has much in common with gay men? Probly not a lot.

He definitely isn't gonna do any gay bashing or legislating against the gay community.

How many straight men out there "feel comfortable" around gay men?

At the risk of sounding like I'm "gay bashing", I really don't see this as being any kind of real issue (with regards to Edwards' campaign).



posted on May, 30 2007 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Oh its not an issue at all just more of the same from RR.

If it had been a Republican candidate they would have probably said "I don't like (or more likely, I hate) those queers or faggots" instead; and that is one of the real differences between the parties, insensitivity. Hell conservatives like RR think that they should be allowed to use the n word simply because blacks do.... Talk about ignorant and out of touch.

Edwards if anything should be given marks for his honesty... being honest is not a highly regarded trait in any politician from either party.



posted on May, 30 2007 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Oh its not an issue at all


You're right, it's not, but only because Edwards doesn't have a chance in hell of becoming the Dem nominee, let alone President.



posted on May, 30 2007 @ 09:04 PM
link   
What I was trying to convey, I had trouble putting down. But you pretty much nailed it. Its an issue of honesty. And Edwards' honesty was, um, bracing to some. But candor, nonetheless.

We could definitely use more of it.



posted on May, 30 2007 @ 09:07 PM
link   
Edwards has more of a shot than many think.

He's done a lot of groundpounding and work in the last couple years. He's more popular in the early voting states than most people realize.

Clinton and Obama just get all the ink.



posted on May, 30 2007 @ 09:20 PM
link   
If I had my druthers I would rather vote for Edwards than Hillary or Obama any day... and I would vote any of those three over the losers running as Republicans.

Say what you will about Edwards, he is a class act.



posted on May, 30 2007 @ 09:21 PM
link   
While I do think a lot of straight men feel uncomofrtable around gay men, I can't give Edwards any wiggle room for honesty here.

He has two strikes against him, honesty wise: he's an attorney and a politician. Neither one is known for their honesty. In general.

Actually, for the life of me, I can't imagine why he even uttered the statement



posted on May, 30 2007 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
While I do think a lot of straight men feel uncomofrtable around gay men, I can't give Edwards any wiggle room for honesty here.


would you give wiggle room to a politician who just lied about his feelings (on this matter)?


He has two strikes against him, honesty wise: he's an attorney and a politician. Neither one is known for their honesty. In general.


does it make a difference that as a lawyer he made his name and fortune representing the little people who normally have no voice? I can't gig him a bit about the living he and his wife have earned. I won't go all class warfare on them. And he didn't make his fortune being a vulture.



posted on May, 30 2007 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

would you give wiggle room to a politician who just lied about his feelings (on this matter)?

I don't feel it's necessary to make this declaration.
What's the point? This homophobia on his part is none of the public's business. Let him talk to his shrink.


does it make a difference that as a lawyer he made his name and fortune representing the little people who normally have no voice?

What what I know of his record, :shk:
en.wikipedia.org...
www.nationalreview.com...

While I feel for those who are injured in this life, I am against unreasonably large settlements that often further drive up medical coslts, especially malpractice insurance for doctors who have done no wrong.





top topics
 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join