Well, I am glad you are getting off of your usual Cheaters-Are-Scum bandwagon to make an exception for the Breck Girl.

“To be a successful politician, you have to have the cocky optimism and self-confidence that leads you to think that you can have affairs and get away with it.”

You deny, and now explain.

You poor deluded hack.

Weird how much this hurt, when I first heard about it last year. Again, foolish to expect better - but you worked for him, Amanda. How to deal with the weird mix of feelings on all this? (Hating on JMC is an obvious route, but a little too….)

I am disappointed when people I admire have affairs, but that is about it.  When people scream about the libruls and their adultery, and are caught in it themselves, I have very little sympathy for them.  (Hmmm, which states have higher divorce rates?  Did you know atheists have lower divorce rates than any Christian denomination?)

BTW, Amanda, did you hear about the Barack Obama = left behind antichrist ad?  Unfortunately, I don’t think the real antichrist will come forward and do a parody.  Pity, that.

I don’t hate Edwards for this, and had he become the nominee, he still would have gotten my vote.

At the same time, I can’t say that given his wife’s condition that this isn’t a bit saddening to hear - if there’s anybody in this mess who I feel great sympathy for it is Elizabeth Edwards.

All that said, I don’t see why this is a big story.  John Edwards is not the Democratic Nominee, John Edwards will not be Obama’s running mate, and John Edwards doesn’t currently hold public office (unlike Sens. Vitter and Craig).  To me, it’s an unfortunate personal situation for Edwards and his family, and that’s it.

I must admit, though, that I’m sorta glad that he didn’t win the nomination in light of this - not because it would have cost my support, but I fear it would have cost the support of enough of the American electorate to guarantee that John McCain would become the 44th POTUS.

I don’t know if he took moral high horse positions, but he certainly made his wife a campaign tool by touting them going to Wendy’s and renewing their vows, by accepting a Father of the Year Award…he certainly used his marriage and his wife as political advantages…

I have precisely no interest in what a bunch of people O’ve never met do in their private lives. I also don’t care what politicians do when it doesn’t affect policy.

But we live in a real country, and a lot of voters don’t see things my way, and unlike mere sexism or racism their prejudice against personal betrayal has some valid points in its favor. Edwards was running to be the standard bearer and public face of the Democratic Party; he was running to put all of our eggs in his basket ... a basket he’d apparently failed to tell us was constructed of tissue paper soaked in gasoline. That’s not cool.

The Enquirer is so full of crap, it takes a real die-hard to swallow their garbage.  How the hell is anyone supposed to take a rag that constantly promotes alien sitings and psychic powers as serious news?

What I really hope will happen is that McCain takes the bait and says something about this.  Then maybe the fact that he married his current wife a month after divorcing his first wife, who was disabled and not wealthy or politically connected, will become the story is should have been.

You know that’s not how this works, Amanda.  If anything, Edwards’ infidelity will become a shield that every wingnut can throw up to prove that McCain’s cheating didn’t matter.  For me, but not for thee.  Democrats are worse.  Blah blah blah.

And McCain is on a tar-and-feather Obama kick.  Going off and taking cheap swipes at the bronze medal winner of the Presidential nomination contest isn’t going to do him any political favors.  He’s savy enough to know that at least.

McCain’s cheating was entirely different.  You see, um… well, it’s like this, he… well, uh… ... ... ... what was the question again?

I seem to recall that you have condemned cheaters plenty of time on your blog!

And I don’t see how you can arbitrarily make a distinction between cheaters and johns when *some* cheaters use financial means or power to seduce their partners. Look at Christie Brinkley’s scum ex-husband. Look at the man who was escorting what’s her name, the Spitzer girl, around town a few weeks ago. Is he simply a cheater, or a john? Who cares? He is still a louse.

In any case, I am secretly delighted that Edwards turned out to be unfaithful. I don’t know why, but it makes me oh so happy! At least he’s a human, I guess.

For the sake of argument, forget the ethics of the affair itself.. can you imagine if he won the nomination and this came out after the convention?  It most probably would’ve guaranteed four more years of Republican rule.. for the sake of his dick.  The arrogance here on Edwards’ part is breathtaking.  I guess a President McCain just isn’t such a big deal to someone with multiple millions in the bank.

You deny, and now explain.

Yes, because Amanda totally had photographic proof of Edwards’s affair all along, and was hiding it because she’s a hack. She couldn’t possibly just have been waiting to jump until someone was actually guilty of something. Or do you think you’re writing Edwards directly?

Amanda /= Responsible for Edwards’s penis.

Zifnab25 said:

The Enquirer is so full of crap, it takes a real die-hard to swallow their garbage.  How the hell is anyone supposed to take a rag that constantly promotes alien sitings and psychic powers as serious news?

Agreed, but at least to the extent that he did in fact have an affair, you can’t accuse them of reporting a wholesale fabrication in this story.

They did get this one at least half-right.  As far as the baby allegation goes, I don’t know.  I would like to take Edwards denial as the truth, but I can’t say I’d be shocked if that’s a lie too… but honestly, I don’t really care.

The whole mess is a bit sad, but it should be a matter for the Edwards to deal with, not for the talking heads to dedicate airtime to.

And I don’t see how you can arbitrarily make a distinction between cheaters and johns when *some* cheaters use financial means or power to seduce their partners

That you think seduction and prostitution are the same thing…makes so much sense. Wow. You suck on so many levels.

That the woman involved in more age-appropriate takes away the thin thread of justification people had for hating on Clinton for the Lewinsky scandal.

I believe that the thin (or not) thread of justification for hating on Clinton had as much to do with the fact that he had a professional, supervisory relationship to Lewinsky.  At any rate, that, more than age, seems like a relevant difference to me.

Where I part company with you about Edwards is that (good) politicians should be expected to not do things that are politically idiotic.  And after Hart, let alone after Clinton, Democratic politicians have to understand that any sexual infidelity will come at a significant political price (whatever the post-Lewinsky polling may have suggested).  That’s not right or fair. But it’s the way the game is currently being played.  I’ve never bought the “politicians are manly men so of course they’ll cheat” view. Politicians are people. And their job involves getting elected. So we have every reason to be frustrated if politicians we support behave in ways that unnecessarily jeopardize their ability to get elected.

On the other hand, I agree that the inner workings of the Edwards’ marriage is none of our business.

What about the fact that he funneled $114,000 of his Presidential campaign donations to his mistress to produce a video for which she had no prior experience to make and which has never been used in his campaigns?

I know his infidelity may not be the equivalent of the likes of Vitter, and the rest of the Republicans, but there are enough shady elements in there that he cannot simply get a pass.

What I really hope will happen is that McCain takes the bait and says something about this.

Not just McCain—any McCain surrogate/supporter/propagandist who condemns Edwards should immediately be asked whether they also condemn their own candidate on the same grounds. But let’s not get our hopes up—the media are desperate to run away from the subject of McCain’s adultery. It might make him mad and get them kicked off the bus. Plus there’s this sense that some questions are fair game for your generation but just impertinent to ask of grandpa. In his day standards were different.

Otherwise—yeah, none of our business, but because lots of voters *make* it their business it would have been a major, self-imposed handicap and risk had he won the nomination. An unforgivable gamble with the hopes and faith and futures of the people who supported him.

The One True Vegan wrote:

You deny, and now explain.

Yes, because Amanda totally had photographic proof of Edwards’s affair all along, and was hiding it because she’s a hack. She couldn’t possibly just have been waiting to jump until someone was actually guilty of something. Or do you think you’re writing Edwards directly?

Amanda /= Responsible for Edwards’s penis.

No kidding.

How anyone could extrapolate personal fault in Amanda for John Edwards indiscretions is beyond the pale.

Is everyone who ever supports anyone who ever did anything less than scrupulous in their life personally responsible for that person’s mistakes, Foucault?

Glass houses, bud.  Glass houses.

Whoa. I was really supporting Edwards before he dropped out, and felt very disappointed at the time, but now I’m just glad he wasn’t our nominee, because the panty-sniffers are all going to be having a great time working themselves up into a huge, smug, self-righteous shit fit over this.

Well, no one much spilled their beer when it came out during the impeachment proceedings that Henry Hyde had had an affair (or, as he put it, “youthful indiscretion”). And he was a sitting politician actively trying to remove the President of the United States. So for a guy who is not in office or running for office, this should attract even less attention, right?

Except for the IOKIYAR factor, of course.

Robin Rhea wrote:

I know his infidelity may not be the equivalent of the likes of Vitter, and the rest of the Republicans, but there are enough shady elements in there that he cannot simply get a pass.

So what exactly is it that you suggest we do?  Should he be drawn and quartered in a public circle?  Should we talk about this for the next six months and in the process cause his INNOCENT FAMILY to have to suffer the pain of watching their husband and father be publicly humiliated ad infinitum?

Look - I think he was wrong, I imagine he probably did hurt his family in the process, and I wish that this had never happened.  Beyond that, there’s nothing more for me or anybody else who isn’t DIRECTLY INVOLVED in this affair to say or do on this subject.

What do you propose be done about this?

Foucault, there is a difference between condemning cheaters and calling them scum.

I think the paternity test might vindicate him on the “love child” (either way, the one Enquirer photo is too hazy, etc. to be anything but horse manure.)

DTG,

Nothing should probably be DONE, but I don’t think progressives’ attitudes should be, “Oh well, he wasn’t against gay marriage so it isn’t that big of a deal” He put his wife out as a spokesperson for his campaign and flaunted their marriage knowing that he was sleeping with his EMPLOYEE (or employing his mistress, whichever you prefer) and he took campaign donations from everyday Americans and gave them to his mistress. I think I would at least like to see Amanda exhibit an opinion other than the one I listed above.

Should he be drawn and quartered in a public circle?

No, he should be taken to task for having run for president when he had the potential to endanger the Democratic party’s chances in 2008.

Edwards’ affair doesn’t hurt us, because his nomination failed. However, had his race for the nomination succeeded, we’d be facing a disaster of massive proportions. I have no problem with pointing out his sheer idiocy of running for president knowing that his campaign could have been derailed and taken a lot of downticket races down along with him.

“Remember that Clinton’s infidelities improved his public approval ratings.  Hell, maybe this will be good for Edwards’ reputation. “

Yes, at least nwo we can understand why he paid $400 for a haircut!

I agree this is disappointing but not surprising.  I think the worst part about this is that Elizabeth really had a bullhorn with regard to universal health care and he has just sabotaged his own political career which will probably lead to a shrinking from the public for awhile.  Of course, I think she is personally and politically smarter than he is so—hopefully—she will use this to give herself an even louder bullhorn.

So, how do you like your goat?

“That you think seduction and prostitution are the same thing”

They are the same in the sense that you break the vow you made to your wife to be faithful in either scenario.  Of course you doubly break it when you seduce because usually there is an emotional element as well.

Yeah, I was really disappointed by this too… what a waste.

But yeah, if Edwards were some moral crusader for family values, this would be a lot more pertinent than it is. As it is, I’m just put off by the fact that he could have a wife as awesome as Elizabeth and feel like he needed something on the side.

And I should have read the Edwards story more carefully. 

Since it turns out that, like Lewinsky, Hunter worked for Edwards (or perhaps was hired by Edwards because she was sleeping with him), the age difference may in fact be the biggest difference between the two cases.

I continue to think that the professional relationship makes the sexual relationship problematic in both situations (or perhaps vice versa depending on whether the affair or the job began first for Edwards and Hunter).

Tyro said:

No, he should be taken to task for having run for president when he had the potential to endanger the Democratic party’s chances in 2008.

Edwards’ affair doesn’t hurt us, because his nomination failed. However, had his race for the nomination succeeded, we’d be facing a disaster of massive proportions. I have no problem with pointing out his sheer idiocy of running for president knowing that his campaign could have been derailed and taken a lot of downticket races down along with him.

Your point is certainly valid, and he does deserve to be criticized for potentially jeopardizing the Democratic Party’s chance to win the White House in November.

I officially criticize him for jeopardizing the Democratic Party’s chance to win the White House in November.

Are we good now?

He screwed up - and he COULD HAVE screwed up the Dems chances in November.  But he didn’t.  If I have a child who accidentally leaves an oven mitt by an open flame on the stove and I discover it before it catches fire and burns down the house, I’m probably going to be less upset with my kid than if it did cause the house to burn down.

This just seem so uncharacteristic for either a Democrat or Republican.

“That you think seduction and prostitution are the same thing”

They are the same in the sense that you break the vow you made to your wife to be faithful in either scenario.  Of course you doubly break it when you seduce because usually there is an emotional element as well.

Are you:

1) Deliberately missing the point as a way to make some subtle point of your own?

or

2) A sociopath?

My official stance is that unless it’s a matter of hypocrisy, it’s none of your damn business.

Would this qualify?  John Edwards in 1999:

“I think this President has shown a remarkable disrespect for his office, for the moral dimensions of leadership, for his friends, for his wife, for his precious daughter. It is breathtaking to me the level to which that disrespect has risen,”

Live by the sword, et cetera.

Yes, this is really really bad because Elizabeth Edwards has no agency, and he used her and then betrayed her.

Gah!

I found out about this on Fox News, which was playing in the waiting room while my car was being fixed.  They seemed positively gleeful about the news.

Are you:

1) Deliberately missing the point as a way to make some subtle point of your own?

or

2) A sociopath?

LOL, Seraph, this is a both/and blog.

Edwards, as far as I know, has never been a “sanctity of marriage” wanker,

In the Clinton impeachment he did say:

when I walked in here the first day of this impeachment trial I was 100 percent completely open to voting to remove this President.

And I have to tell you all something, my friends on this side of the aisle, that wasn’t a hard thing for me to do. I think this President has shown a remarkable disrespect for his office, for the moral dimensions of leadership, for his friends, for his wife, for his precious daughter. It is breathtaking to me the level to which that disrespect has risen.

In context, you might infer that he is talking about Clinton’s moves to impede the investigation, but invoking the wife and kids makes it pretty clear he is condemning Clinton for cheating.

Bonus side question: How does having sex with someone and then funneling hundreds of thousands of dollars to them not qualify you as a john?

Yes, at least nwo we can understand why he paid $400 for a haircut!

Yep.  Edwards got an expensive haircut.  What a fucking fairy, right?

McCain, on the other hand, drops thousands of dollars at a time on the craps tables and has to be pulled away by his aides:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1819898-2,00.html

Much manlier.  And that’s what’s important, isn’t it?

Amanda wrote:  “Edwards, as far as I know, has never been a “sanctity of marriage” wanker, and so this is officially None Of Our Business, and anyone who dogged him on this story should be fired on the principle that they don’t know journalism from rooting around in the trash.”

From an interview with Edwards by Katie Couric in 2007:

Couric: Harry Truman said, “A man not honorable in his marital relations is not usually honorable in any other.” Some people don’t feel comfortable supporting a candidate who has not remained faithful to his or her spouse. Can you understand their position?

Edwards: Of course. I mean, for a lot of Americans, including the family that I grew up with ... it’s fundamental to how you judge people and human character: Whether you keep your word, whether you keep what is your ultimate word, which is that you love your spouse, and you’ll stay with them.

Couric: Do you think ... what about people who use that as a way to evaluate a candidate? In other words, there have been a number of fine presidents according to some analysts ...

Edwards: Right.

Couric: ... who have certainly not been sort of exhibited the greatest moral character ...

Edwards: Right.

Couric: ... when it comes to infidelity ...

Edwards: Right.

Couric: I guess is what I’m getting at.

Edwards: Yes.

Couric: So how important do you think it is in the grand scheme of things?

Edwards: I think the most important qualities in a president in today’s world are trustworthiness, sincerity, honesty, strength of leadership. And certainly that goes to a part of that. It’s not the whole thing. But it goes to a part of it.

Couric: So you think it’s an appropriate way to judge a candidate?

Edwards: Yeah. But I don’t think it’s controlling. I mean, I think that, as you point out, there have been American presidents that at least according to the ... stories we’ve all heard, that were not faithful, that were in fact good presidents. So I don’t think it controls the issue. But I think it’s certain ... something reasonable for people to consider.

What McCain did was thirty some odd years ago, Edwards did this two years ago (though its probably still going on, I smell horseshit). So, thats the difference. Ones old news, the other is new, and happened after he decided to run for President.

Amanda,

Ken just provided you with your requested heaping portion of hypocrisy.

Is it your damn business now?

Well, I don’t have a lot to say but that I’m disappointed in Edwards, and glad that he didn’t win the nomination.  Not that he wouldn’t have made a great president, but that this crap would have overshadowed his campaign and issues.  I hope this dies down quickly, since it’s irrelevant since Edwards is no longer running for anything, but I’m fairly sure it won’t. 

When Bob Livingston, the newly named Speaker of the House, was revealed to be a frequent patron of S&M;parlors, the media dropped it immediately after he resigned.  But if a retired Democratic politician had an affair that was over several years ago, there will be a press frenzy that lasts for months.  It seems Democrats are just held to higher standards.  Or maybe the press is just in the tank for the Republicans.

I am disappointed, but that’s about it.  Wanting public integrity and private virtue to be totally congruent is one thing, demanding it of anyone—even our leaders—is another.  And I liked JE’s statement today—no weaseling, just an out-and-out complete apology.

Of course, the real problem—as with Spitzer—isn’t the infidelity or the hypocrisy but the streak of self-destructiveness.

The worst thing about this is his wife is CANCER STRICKEN and he was cheating on her. Thats just extremely low, low , low.

I don’t care at all about the affair thing, but I don’t think Edwards deserves a pass on this.  His infidelities are his own business, but he sought the nomination of my party while knowing that he was carrying around a ticking time bomb that, had he been nominated and it went off afterward, would have meant losing the election and consigning Americans to four more years of a broken health care system, war, income inequality, and State of the Union addresses that make my ears bleed if I accidentally turn on the TV while they’re happening.  What’s worse, he turns what could have been a small and surmountable time bomb (he issues a non-denial when it first surfaces and invokes the privacy of his family, who are “working this out”) into a ginormous one (he lies indignantly for months before he’s caught on camera and has to confess at a point in the story when there’s no way his contrition will come across as sincere, and furthermore is in no position to convince anyone that he isn’t lying this time when he says he hasn’t fathered an illegitimate baby).  And what’s up with the baby anyway?  It isn’t his because the timing is wrong?  No other reason?  Does that mean he wasn’t using birth control?  He’s trying to convince me to vote for him while engaging in behavior that has the potential to leave the Democratic party with a presidential candidate who has fathered an illegitimate love child with a much younger woman while his wife is stricken with cancer?

Edwards should have all the affairs he wants, but I’m not letting him off the hook for showing that he’s more interested in a little on the side, and in his nice-guy reputation, than he is in keeping the Republicans as far away from the White House as humanly possible.

Mark B wrote:

Not that he wouldn’t have made a great president, but that this crap would have overshadowed his campaign and issues.

He wouldn’t have made a great president, because there’s not a chance in hell he could have gotten elected with this hanging over his shoulders.  The witch-hunt against Bill Clinton would have seemed like child’s play compared to what Rush et al would have done to Edwards with this.  The fact that Elizabeth is suffering from a potentially fatal condition would make the Right even more bloodthirsty in their public shaming of Edwards.  And their strategy would have worked to a tune of 300+ EVs for John McCain.

It would have been a total flipping disaster had Edwards gotten nominated.  Pragmatically speaking, thank the almighty Flying Spaghetti Monster that it’s a scenario we didn’t have to face.

What draws the American mind, like a moth to the flame, about sexual behaviour.This foolish and excessive concern with what others do in their bedrooms shows an unseemly undemocratic streak in the national character. The subjects of this Cotton Matherism should just tell the Peeping Toms to get themselves f——d literally and metaphorically-then you could all grow up.

Well, I am glad you are getting off of your usual Cheaters-Are-Scum bandwagon to make an exception for the Breck Girl.

Wow, it’s pretty amazing how people can continue the homophobic slurs even after the story comes out that he was having an affair with a woman.  You’d think it would be enough proof that he’s not gay since he, you know, fucks women, but I guess not.

I find this story fascinating in the same way that I found the story of Brad Pitt cheating on Jennifer Aniston fascinating:  interesting, but not exactly essential to my life.  Since Edwards holds no political office and is not running for office, it’s gossip, not news.

Sorry, but no excuses for Edwards, as much as I like the guy. While cheating doesn’t prevent married politicians from being good leaders (hypocrisy on public policy excepted), I don’t think the fact that a lot of them can’t control their zippers is particularly acceptable. There’s not much you can do to put a positive spin on this one, and while I’m now relieved he didn’t get the nomination (what a disaster that would have been) I’m disappointed that he won’t get the AG or VP slot.

While I reserved judgment in this case because of a lack of solid evidence, I can’t honestly say I’m surprised. I’ve had the misfortune to meet and work with failed models and actors and party girls like Rielle Hunter, self-important hacks who re-invent themselves up by reading a few books about business, politics or spirituality and then combine that with their fading good looks to acquire a meal ticket (jobs, babies, fame, etc.) from powerful older horndogs like Edwards.

Speaking of which: Vicki Iseman—still missing.

Edwards should have all the affairs he wants, but I’m not letting him off the hook for showing that he’s more interested in a little on the side, and in his nice-guy reputation, than he is in keeping the Republicans as far away from the White House as humanly possible.

His political career is pretty much over, and rightly so.  I’m not going to get all worked up about what might have happened if he’d gotten the presidential or VP nod, because it didn’t happen, so it’s a moot point.

I can think he’s an asshole all I want but, again, this affects my day-to-day life about as much as finding out that Billy Crudup left Mary Louise Parker for another woman when she was 7 months pregnant with his son.  Scummy, and I think less of him, but it’s not going to really affect me personally.

Yes, this.

BTW, I f*cking dare McCain to say anything about Edwards’s affair, given that he’s been guilty of a similar thing in the past (leaving his wife, who’d been handicapped in an accident, for Cindy, whom he’d been seeing for about a year before he and his wife divorced).

Edwards lied about the affair, touted his strong family and support for Elizabeth, and paid off his victim with hush money.  I’d say that is hypocrisy, not just human weakness.

He wouldn’t have made a great president, because there’s not a chance in hell he could have gotten elected with this hanging over his shoulders.

Well, when I said ‘he would have made a great president’, I was speaking hypothetically.  Sure, he can’t get elected now, but that was decided in January, when he dropped out of the race.  There’s no doubt in my mind that Edwards has the qualities to be a great president, even though I now know that he cheated on his wife.  He was my first choice, but now, obviously, Obama seems to be the wiser choice.  Obama certainly seems to be doing a better job of running a campaign that Edwards did.

I think Edwards still have a role to play in the Obama administration, but it’s going to be diminished after this scandal.

Edwards lied about the affair, touted his strong family and support for Elizabeth, and paid off his victim with hush money.

His victim?  Are you kidding me?  Are we going back to Victorian days where women had no sex drive and were mere victims of male lust?

Mistress, yes.  Girlfriend, sure.  Victim?  Puh-lease.

I understand your position, Amanda - and I agree that if Edwards had taken, say, the Al Gore route and not run for president, but simply exerted a public moral force in favor of greater equality, I’d think you were right. But he ran for president with his mistress in his campaign. This isn’t cockiness, this is a slap in the face of everybody who supported him - like me, for instance. Such a thing was bound to come out - I mean, how stupid could one be not to know that? We have had enough of this kind of politician to last a lifetime. I don’t expect them to sacrifice one bonbon, one dollar bill, one lunch, one anything as they enjoy being rich famous and powerful. After all, I’m resigned to the fact that the governing class is almost universally composed of egotistic scum, who don’t even have the modicum of morals the old time Mafia used to have.  But Edwards could have decided not to run. He coulda been fucking honest.  The Democratic party missed a bullet here. And Edwards has burned a lot of people. I don’t think this bodes well for his future.

I’m not going to get all worked up about what might have happened if he’d gotten the presidential or VP nod, because it didn’t happen, so it’s a moot point.

Oh, I agree.  I think the only reason to mark his behavior as “Wrong” as opposed to just “wrong” is as a warning to any future candidate who thinks he’s slick enough to pull something like this off.

As for the election at hand, I wonder if it might be a good thing.  After all, no matter how McCain responds, it recalls his own similar behavior.  Either he’s silent and there’s a lot of whispering about why he can’t very well weigh in here when he also cheated on his vulnerable wife and lied about it, or he’s judgmental and there’s an opportunity for the press (which loves only one thing more than McCain: a “hypocrisy” story) to remind everyone about why that’s so ironic.  Meanwhile everyone who’s not sure they’re ready to vote for a black guy or a woman gets to mull over the fact that the only other Democratic candidate would have been worse in a very concrete way.  I’m looking on the bright side of this one.

The worst thing about this is his wife is CANCER STRICKEN and he was cheating on her. Thats just extremely low, low , low.

We know he was hiding the affair from the public, which is common sense given the phoney and prurient Puritanism the MSM pushes. What we don’t know if he was hiding it from his wife. As with Clinton, for all we know they had an “arrangement.”

What I don’t understand is, spousal permission or not, why these guys always go for the same nasty and indiscreet type of mistress/one-night-stand.  Interesting to a point for me, but ultimately that part of the story isn’t my problem but theirs.

And like Edwards is the first politician—or first rich man—to to hire his mistress.  He also won’t be the last.

Again, I’m irritated with him, but I don’t see any point in rending my garments over this.  He’s dead in politics now.

If you’re curious to see a big ol’ list of politicians behaving badly, take a gander through the Political Graveyard.  At least Grover Cleveland had the balls to admit he had an illegitimate child.

Button-collecting, Mike?

I do wonder though, Amanda, and just perhaps you could answer this question,,, just what was it like being alone with John Edwards?

professordarkheart wrote:

As for the election at hand, I wonder if it might be a good thing.

What’s going to be funny is watching the Coulters, Hannitys and Limbaughs of the world try their damnedest to smear the Obama Campaign because of Edwards’ affair.  I don’t see how they can possibly do it in any credible way, but boy will they try.

Of course, when have they ever been known to start smear campaigns in a credible way?

You’re such a smear merchant it’s absurd.  John McCain asked his wife for a divorce over a year before she finally gave him one, so him getting married right away means nothing except you lefties somehow only think someone’s private life is private if they’re a liberal.

As for McCain, how does having sex with someone, then absorbing millions of dollars from them not qualify you as a whore?

I never claimed McCain wasn’t a whore.  In fact, quite the opposite, I think McCain is a big fat whore.

My point is that people exchange sex for money all the time.  Singling out johns as especially worthy of scorn requires that you ignore that fact.

“I do wonder though, Amanda, and just perhaps you could answer this question,,, just what was it like being alone with John Edwards?”

But I do know what being alone with McCain would be like.  It’s exactly like being alone…except for the extra asshole…
MikeEss on 08/08 at 06:29 PM

Oh! So, you do care! But about McCain. I see.

Now I do agree with “We’d be better off leaving POTUS unfilled for 4-years than seating McCain in the oval office” if that is applied to Obama and Clinton too.

Hey!

I got an idea. Let’s elect politicians who don’t have dick’s to ‘lead them astray..’

OH…

Okay, forget it….

Nevermind.

Remember that Clinton’s infidelities improved his public approval ratings.  Hell, maybe this will be good for Edwards’ reputation.

OTOH, Wayne Hays didn’t fare so well. 4 months later he resigned from congress. We’ll have to wait to see how this plays out.

Amanda, you’re being way too nice to him comparing your judgment to his.  In fact, that’s really just wrong, it’s not just nice.  Now we know that Edwards has made some really bad decisions.  He had no business at all in the race.  He had to know that this would surface at some point.  After all, he’s not a republican and the press won’t give him a do over.

No Amanda, your judgment was fine, it’s Edwards that has lost a lot of respect in my eyes.  I don’t judge for him for his affair.  We humans are notoriously frail in that regard.  It’s the decisions he made after the affair that diminish him in my eyes.

We don’t live in a time where politicians can have flawed and human private lives.  That’s totally ridiculous but it is the way it is.  Ignoring that is impossible.  Were that it was different…

cameo wrote:

You’re such a smear merchant it’s absurd.  John McCain asked his wife for a divorce over a year before she finally gave him one, so him getting married right away means nothing except you lefties somehow only think someone’s private life is private if they’re a liberal.

Well, Mr. Worthless Colostomy Bag,  don’t you think that maybe someone’s private life should be private if they are a private citizen (not a currently elected official) who is currently not seeking public office?

By the way - given your righteous indignation on this matter - have you thought about sending letters to Republican Senators Vitter and Craig - two PUBLIC officials - demanding their immediate resignation for their sexual misconduct?  Or is that a private matter for them since they are Republicans?

So Amanda,

I see you enjoy Edwards “cocky”.

Edwards personal dealings are no big deal and should, in fact, be ignored.  Yet you draw correlaries with McCain and think McCains personal dealings are an issue, in fact, should be given more coverage.  So should personal issues BE an issue or not?

Or they should be ignored only if you enjoy the “cocky”?

You’re such a smear merchant it’s absurd.  John McCain asked his wife for a divorce over a year before she finally gave him one, so him getting married right away means nothing except you lefties somehow only think someone’s private life is private if they’re a liberal.

Not according to Carol McCain, he didn’t.  And not according to Ronald and Nancy Reagan, who distanced themselves from McCain for years over the divorce. 

Are you calling Nancy Reagan a liar?

You’re such a smear merchant it’s absurd.  John McCain asked his wife for a divorce over a year before she finally gave him one, so him getting married right away means nothing except you lefties somehow only think someone’s private life is private if they’re a liberal.

McCain has admitted to having an unspecified number of affairs after he returned from Vietnam and before he met Cindy.  That said, his adultery has never been one of the reasons that liberals don’t think he should be president.  It’s just a nice little bonus, since it prevents him from making that stupid argument about anyone else.

Gracchus -

I understand what you’re tyring to say, but I don’t like dishonesty. Maybe I’m old fashioned. I just don’t like it.

Its not the sex, I don’t care if people have “open” relationships or not. Just be honest about it. If you can’t do that, don’t go into public life. Liars suck.

Whats more, when someone breaks an oath to the closest person in their life, it doesn’t make me trust them to uphold an oath to the Constitution. Thats all.

Cognitive Dissonance anyone?!?!

Two things, cameo,

1)  According to the religious people that have endorsed McCain, marrying one woman, and then another, is adultery. 

2)  He started dating his current wife before he ever asked for a divorce.  They met in April of 1979.  He never denies cheating on his first wife, and blames himself for the marriage’s end.

Edwards personal dealings are no big deal and should, in fact, be ignored.  Yet you draw correlaries with McCain and think McCains personal dealings are an issue, in fact, should be given more coverage.  So should personal issues BE an issue or not?

I didn’t realize that Edwards was the Republican candidate for President.  Who knew?

Don’t we already know everything about McCain’s situation? He is already confessed to being a cheater in his book, I thought.

But then what would expect from someone with blog ads such as:

# Pamela Anderson’s Extreme Video See what all the controversy surrounding Pamela Anderson’s new video is about.

Watch as this sexy icon lays it all out in this very graphic video.

Viewers beware: This material may not be suitable for everyone!
Read more…

“if Edwards were some moral crusader for family values,”

Give me a fucking break.  He is MARRIED.  Same standards apply to anyone married, unless there’s an agreement between partners to allow adultery.  Their marriage isn’t anyone’s business, but DAMN, he cheated on his wife, and as a special touch, while she was battling cancer!  Tough shit if people have an opinion about it!  That’s how life works, FFS. 

My ex-husband wasn’t a “moral crusader for family values,” but it sure didn’t make it okay when the motherfucker cheated on ME while I battled cancer!  Christ, you people excusing this are ridiculous.  Take the partisan blinders off and think: what kind of asshole does this shit?  What if you were in Elizabeth Edwards’ shoes?  Would YOU trust this guy?  And what kind of arrogant prick thinks he is immune to scrutiny?  Oh right…Gary Hart, Bill Clinton, and now John Edwards.  Hubris, indeed.  They answer to nobody, least of all their WIVES. 

Also, spare me the “who cares” crap - you all know as well as the biggest wingnuts do that if this were Mitt Romney or hell, Rudy Giuliani, in the exact same position, you’d be going apeshit.  In fact, I may dig through the archives here to find out what you all have had to say about Giuliani’s marital history.  You sure seem to have a lot to say about McCain, and you don’t even have the stupid, untrue story right.  HA!  David Vitter?  No, it’s not the same as Vitter.  Vitter didn’t run for President, and his wife doesn’t have cancer, and his wife isn’t a major factor in his political career.  He’s still not excused, though—he’s a heartless asshole, just like Edwards.  Funny how you all act like Vitter (of whom you likely had never heard, prior to his scandal) is a HUGE deal, but Edwards is nobody’s business.  PMSL!

Nail your secretary and you’ve betrayed your wife’s trust, but if you keep your politics clean, who cares?…
MikeEss

Now that is genius! Is that how you prefer others to treat you?

Thanks for being stupid!

Spartacus wrote:

OTOH, Wayne Hays didn’t fare so well. 4 months later he resigned from congress. We’ll have to wait to see how this plays out.

I’m sure that sometime in the next few months John Edwards will meet a similar fate and have to resign from his public office as well…

Oh, wait…

Anyway isn’t everyone glad Barack Obama is our nominee?

Had Edwards been our nominee, the election just would have ended.

Had Hillary Clinton been our nominee, everyone would have been reminded of Bill’s problems.

Horaay! We made the right choice!

My ex-husband wasn’t a “moral crusader for family values,” but it sure didn’t make it okay when the motherfucker cheated on ME while I battled cancer!  Christ, you people excusing this are ridiculous.  Take the partisan blinders off and think: what kind of asshole does this shit?  What if you were in Elizabeth Edwards’ shoes?  Would YOU trust this guy?  And what kind of arrogant prick thinks he is immune to scrutiny?  Oh right…Gary Hart, Bill Clinton, and now John Edwards.  Hubris, indeed.  They answer to nobody, least of all their WIVES.

Wow, someone with integrity. Who woulda thunk it.

Horaay! We made the right choice!
Ben D.  on 08/08 at 06:59 PM

Are youo gay? Not that there is anything wromg with that. But are you gay?

I just wonder, considering Elizabeth Edwards reads blogs, what she’s thinking when she sees people like Amanda and others whom she likely respects/respectED, showing absolutely zero empathy for her in this situation.  I’m pretty sure I can imagine what she thinks, though.  Insult to injury, I’d think.

Whats more, when someone breaks an oath to the closest person in their life, it doesn’t make me trust them to uphold an oath to the Constitution. Thats all.

I understand what you’re saying, but life’s more complicated than that.  You can still trust people that make mistakes, especially if they relate to their personal life, you just trust them less.

In any case, it’s kind of irrelevant, since he’s retired from office and not running for anything.

Normally, I’d agree, but cheating on a woman with cancer is beyond assholery.

Straight as an arrow, Bug. Though I’m not sure why you care so much.

Now do I get my goddam troll points?…

Sorry—I think my tongue may have been so firmly in cheek that my previous post came across as serious!

I briefly considered writing a troll-bot myself to see if I couldn’t wipe out the McCain campaign financially by forcing them to send me millions of tchotchkes…

And yeah, I can’t work myself up about this one earlier. It’s an ugly, messy issue for a family that has very little to do with mine.

John Edwards is one step removed from a televangelist. The fact that people who are so critical of religious frauds (and rightly so) couldn’t see that this guy—despite his obvious phoniness—was the Democratic version of one, leaves me somewhat amused.

Cognitive Dissonance anyone?!?!

That’s putting it mildly.

# Pamela Anderson’s Extreme Video See what all the controversy surrounding Pamela Anderson’s new video is about.

It’s an ad for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), not a porn ad.  There’s a whole thread about it near the bottom of the page, because we think PETA were assholes for presenting one ad for Amanda’s approval and substituting a fake porn come-on for the final ad. 

We’ve been discussing it for days, actually, but thanks for coming in ignorant and making a fool of yourself.

So, wait, you’re arguing that by saying this is none of the public’s business, she’s disrespecting Elizabeth Edwards?

How so?  Elizabeth Edwards knew about the affair in 2006.  http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5441195&page=1

So it seems that Elizabeth Edwards DOES think it is none of the public’s business.

Edwards was running a faux campaign for President. He solicited donations under false pretences; I donated to that campaign, I want my money back.  As long as I get my money back, I couldn’t care less what happens next.

Whether you think that his private life is his own, reality is this would make him infinitely less electable. It was a matter of his choices; and I assume that candidates that I support are not making such choices.

So using some “filmaker” as a cum dumpster, while plying your family values on the campaign trail; while your cancer ridden wife is standing by your side is okey-dokey?

Got it.

Fahering a bastard while running for President is okey-dokey too?

Got it.

You guys are right.

Fuck McCain!

This is probably the most pointless flame war, over the biggest non-story that I’ve ever seen.

You wingnuts just don’t understand do you?

First of all, fuck you.  I’m no wingnut.

Secondly, no shit about Giuliani’s infidelity.  I said I may just review the record to see how much smack talk there’s been around here about it, considering he’s no “crusader for family values.” 

But like Bug said - some of you are suffering severe cognitive dissonance.  Got integrity?

we think PETA were assholes for presenting one ad for Amanda’s approval and substituting a fake porn come-on for the final ad.

^^^  THIS.  Quoted for truth.

“you all know as well as the biggest wingnuts do that if this were Mitt Romney or hell, Rudy Giuliani, in the exact same position, you’d be going apeshit.”

At this point in the election, with neither of them chosen to be McCain’s VP?  Probably not.  Hell, Rudy’s had so many affairs that he’d have to come up with some exciting new twist to get our attention.  His current wife only got our attention because of the animal cruelty thing.

We’d be having some good fun at their expense, but not much moral outrage.  Unless it turned out that Mitt had treated his mistress the way he treated his Irish setter.

Say, what is it with recent Republican candidates and cruelty towards dogs, anyway?

When I read this over at CNN, I was wondering why he made a public statement about anything? He’s not a candidate, it’s none of my business, so just fade away into the background and run a foundation or something. Then I read this:

But Don Fowler, a former Democratic Party chairman, said this week that Edwards might be forfeiting a major role at the party’s upcoming convention in Denver—or in a future Democratic administration—unless he cleared the air.

“I think the longer these allegations go unanswered and unresponded to, the more difficult it is for the people producing the convention to give him a prominent spot,” Fowler said.

So he had to clear the air to have some sort of future in the Democratic party and leadership? Talk about ego. Please,  just go away. Ya know you did it, you know it’s going to be an enormous ass ache, you know it’s going to be a sink hole, why didn’t you just retreat into the background and keep your mouth shut.

Another Elizabeth,

I do not understand your 7:11 post.  Also, do you have any response to my 7:08 that Elizabeth herself has known for two years and chose not to break the story and to support her husband’s candidacy?

Another Elizabeth wrote:

Funny how you all act like Vitter (of whom you likely had never heard, prior to his scandal) is a HUGE deal, but Edwards is nobody’s business.

So what you’re saying is that as long as they aren’t and weren’t running for POTUS, it’s OK for an elected official to engage in extramarital affairs with prostitutes, and they should be left alone.

I’m sure you were out there championing the “Leave Eliot Spitzer Alone!” campaign in the middle of his personal crisis.

And before you spout off about Spitzer’s hypocrisy because of his previous job as New York AG, make sure that you also address Vitter’s hypocrisy because of his use of the “Sanctity of Marriage” BS rhetoric in his political campaign talking points.

The fact of the matter is - John Edwards is NOT an elected official, and he is NOT currently running for POTUS.  David Vitter and Larry Craig are both elected officials, and neither has resigned.  And people like you never demanded that they reisgn, but I’m sure you were the type spouting your Republican bullshit demanding Eliot Spitzer’s crucifixion a few months ago in the midst of his scandal.

McCain is currently running for POTUS.  And since you GOP assholes made it fair game to attack all Democratic elected officials and those Democrats actively seeking high office (and apparantly those NOT actively seeking such offices, as well) for any indiscretion they’ve ever had, you fucktwats deserve every bit of smear you get.

What the hell do you want AE?  Are we not acting shocked enough that a politician turned out to be an asshole? OMG NOWAI!

Some people have better things to do than waste their emotional energy getting enraged about Edward’s dumbfuckery, because it really has nothing to do with us.  He holds no office and isn’t running for any office either.  McCain, on the other hand, is still running for President, in case you hadn’t noticed.

Edwards was running a faux campaign for President. He solicited donations under false pretences; I donated to that campaign, I want my money back.  As long as I get my money back, I couldn’t care less what happens next.

See, now this is the one thing I can see getting enraged about.  If he cheated on his wife but he’s no longer running for office or no longer holds office that is, frankly, his business.  It makes him an asshole, but it’s not really something the public should be sticking their noses into since he’s not in office anymore.

If he took the money that was donated to his campaign and used it to pay off his mistress, that’s something else.

Leaving aside the considerable public humiliation of Mrs. Edwards and her children (regarding which they have my every sympathy) I think that I’m probably fairly alone in being glad that this happened.  Edwards showed himself to be gutless and useless as a VP candidate and cowardly and ineffectual in defending his people when the GOP went after them.  This scandal (pointless as it may be) pretty much puts paid to the chance of him playing any significant role in a possible Obama* administration, and that’s a very good thing.  He’s a spineless turd, a jellyfish and the Dems are well rid of him.
.
.
.
* - You don’t think that the GOP is going to walk away from this when they can possibly cheat their way to victory for the 3rd time running, do you??

Seeker6079, you’ve just made the best post of this thread.

Amanda, I’m a fan, but this is really one of your weakest posts ever. You come off sounding like a total sycophant. “Maybe this will be good for Edward’s reputation”. C’mon. Sadly No! should really tear this one apart. Seriously, this is at the level of “Because shut up, that’s why”.

@ half the commenters here- This has nothing to do with John McCain. This is about John Edwards being a cobag. McCain is also a cobag, but it has nothing to do with this and doesn’t mitigate what a motherfucker Edwards is at all. If nothing else, this piece of shit thought so highly of himself that he risked torpedoing the democrats chances this fall. Screw him. The wrong person in that marriage got cancer.

“Edwards, as far as I know, has never been a ‘sanctity of marriage’ wanker…” - Amanda Marcotte

John Edwards on the Lewinsky Scandal, ca. 1999:
(http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/john_edwards_in_1999)

“I think this President has shown a remarkable disrespect for his office, for the moral dimensions of leadership, for his friends, for his wife, for his precious daughter. It is breathtaking to me the level to which that disrespect has risen.”

So yeah.

What Mark B said at 5:35.  The main double standard is that the Edwards thing will go on an endless CMSM loop, to be repeated ad infinitum.  That’s the real difference between how they treat Dems and the GOP; the Craig thing was an aberration arising out of the silly, public prurience of it and the gay angle.  GOP scandals certainly get reported, but are quickly withdrawn from general circulation and hidden in the stacks by the corporate media librarians.

Seeker6079, you’ve just made the best post of this thread.

Agreed.  I was never an Edwards fan, and he really pissed me off in 2004 by bending over for Dick Cheney in the VP debates, so I’m not all that upset that he’s shot himself in the foot.  Too bad, so sad, let’s move on.

Heh,  I knew you’d come up with something especially mind bending to excuse the silky one.  But, this is more crazee than expected.

Jealous that it wasn’t you?

Thanks for the compliment, Ben D.  Shame we’re both straight.

What a load of unadulterated shit.  Any man who will cheat on his wife will cheat on anybody.  We have now established beyond a shadow of a doubt that Edwards is a liar who will fuck over any person on Earth.  That is far, far more relevant than the non-issue of hypocrisy that moonbats always get their panties in a twist over.

What a load of unadulterated shit.  Any man who will cheat on his wife will cheat on anybody.

And you’re going to vote for admitted serial adulterer John McCain anyway?

BuhBuh Ray,

It has to do with John McCain, who is running for POTUS, getting a media cakewalk for something that Edwards is getting beat up over (adultery while spouse is suffering from a serious injury/illness).  That’s the angle.  They always try and paint our party as the party of slutty-slut-sluts, but if we do the math, they’re the ones who’re out doing more adulteratin’ divorcificatin’ and sexually preying on the underaged.

Rielle Hunter’s national inquirer spread got treated more seriously that the NY Times article about John McCain’s inappropriate relationship with a lobbyist.  Which was inappropriate EVEN IF IT WAS ENTIRELY NONSEXUAL.  And which was serious enough that people who worked for him were concerned.

People need to stop judging the sexual activities of others. If you are not in a relationship with the person in question then it is none of your business This is a family matter and shame on the press for pushing this issue all to grab attention and headlines. As long as he is not doing something illegal the public does not need to know..He could swing naked from a chandelier and get his rocks off wearing diapers it still shouldn’t matter..People need to focus on whether or not the man does his job because that is the reason he is in the public eye in the first place.

“And you’re going to vote for admitted serial adulterer John McCain anyway?”

A pretty big ASSumption on your part.  Does making it help you feel better about a man who fucked over his wife, claimed he didn’t love the woman he was screwing and claims that he and his campaign workers passed Hunter around like a cum dumpster.  McCain is a piece of shit but that is a giant upgrade over your scumbag hero.

“That the woman involved in more age-appropriate takes away the thin thread of justification people had for hating on Clinton for the Lewinsky scandal. “

Uhhhh, what? You don’t think the cheating itself was enough? 

Really, you’re winning at Twister on this one.

Ismone,

I entirely agree with you about McCain’s media treatment and the slutificating, and that’s precisely why I’m so outraged at Edwards behavior. We can document that the media frame isn’t accurate, the republicans can demonstrate that it isn’t, we can complain about it forever, it won’t change. We know the reality of the situation, so our politicians damn well better have the good sense to keep their noses clean. If they want extra-marital ass, they better stop being politicians. Period. To continue to run for office when you know you have that baggage is egotistical and irresponsible to the extreme. Moral arguments aside (and I think there’s plenty to indict Edwards there), on strictly utilitarian grounds this behavior is entirely beyond the pale.
There’s plenty wrong with McCain and the media, and it should be examined, but it doesn’t need to be married to this story. We should be big enough to criticize our own without any “but, but, but…”

“What about the fact that he funneled $114,000 of his Presidential campaign donations to his mistress to produce a video for which she had no prior experience to make and which has never been used in his campaigns?”

PLEASE: when there’s money sloshing around, ALL SORTS OF unqualified people get tapped to ‘produce’ videos.  And it pisses me off.  (Especially when they ask for your advice.  Fuck you, EMP!)

Atrios got it perfectly:

The public: Edwards was a fucking idiot for running for president, and betrayed a lot of his supporters by doing so.

The private: everything else is between Edwards and his family. Not for the rest of us to figure out how this is supposed to affect their relationships and their marriage.

I see your point, Ray.  But I think you’re holding dems. to too high of a standard.  Some of the bastards will cheat, and many politicians get away with getting extra-marital ass.  (I.e., George H.W. Bush, Lyndon B. Johnson).

I’m disappointed in Edwards, but I do see Amanda’s point when she says “their business is now public property because they treat your business like it’s public property.”

I’ve gotta say, this is the lowest level of discourse I’ve ever seen on Pandagon, on both sides.

dear fucking god. amanda, i just knew when i saw this on yahoo news that every asshole with no life would be here flying up your ass with the burning stupid. \
jessilikewhoa on 08/08 at 07:41 PM

No worries, there’s plenty of room.

“Eric, haven’t been around too long, have you…?”

Yeah, I have personally sunk WAY past this level of discourse on several occasions! Please give credit where credit is due.

Also, to Mnemosyne: I don’t consider “Breck Girl” to be a homophobic slur. For me, it’s always been a comment on Edwards’ vanity.  I thought he was a coward and lacking in leadership skills after Amanda’s problems with the religious right. But this just goes to show that the “everyman’s” miner boy is really an elitist at heart who wants women who will revel in his story while his wife is ill.

Tyro et al - that’s the worst thing, surely, that if he had the nomination, and then this came out, it would be disastrous. Hopefully, unlike how it would in the UK, this won’t have an effect on voting patterns?

But aside from the fact that John+Elizabeth’s marriage is none of our business, especially now - are people really saying that having an affair makes you a terrible person (and not fit to lead - if it happened at a slightly less opportune moment?) Don’t want to sound stupid, but where *I* live (mainly UK, and a bit in Germany, France and Poland) these things have had much bigger influences on politics than they should - like, a good minister having to resign because she/he had an affair 20 years ago? Or smoked pot (as a teenager). Although no-one would say that it is a good thing to do to your partner - why do we expect better from politicians, who are only people, after all, then we do from everyone else? Especially if you don’t preach about the “sanctity” of your own relationship. After all, no-one knows what someone else’s relationship is like-sometimes even when it is your friends, let alone strangers. Shyame though, ‘cos Edwards seemed like the awesomest bloke to take charge…

jessilikewhoa wrote:

and can you maybe mod out all the comments using the phrase “cum dumpster” as theyre really triggering? thanks.

Can we also include the phrase “LOL! Go bleed to death would ya.” from crapsacks like Dan in your request as well?

To Another Elizabeth: Obviously, if there is no prior agreement between couples, that is different - but some couples do make these arrangements. I know that with my boyf I did, and it was only after 7 years that I ever “did the dirty”, and it was previously arranged as a possibility. He was still deeply hurt, but we worked through it, and several years later - still together.

The fact is, we know nothing about these two individuals’ lives, and should stay out of it. Well, that’s my personal view - open to alternatives, though - that’s why I come here!

“I should have known this thread would get filled with assholes who are angry at Edwards because he got laid and they, being wanker right wingers, can’t.”

I should have known this thread would be another example of Amanda’s selective vision, where some loser whom she happens to like does something totally sleazy so she feels obligated to defend him.

Edwards is a spineless hypocrite who condemned the Clintons (as did his ugly cancer stricken wife), only yo do the same thing but worse: actually paying the woman who fucked him to make a film about him. Clinton at least did not pay sexy young Monica to flash her thong or give him head.

And Amanda’s pathetic effort to validate Edwards’ fling as “age appropriate” is about as helpful as telling us they used condoms. Who cares? I would prefer if the ugly Jack Ritter look-alike screwed someone hotter than he is, but that didn’t happen. At least Spitzer had good taste!

@Amanda…apparently unless you stand up and denounce the man you are not showing sympathy..BULLSHIT..we should be talking about the invasion of privacy.  Is anyone talking about how the publicity is effecting her..sensationalism for the sake of profit is sickening. All of this “discussion” makes it that the much harder on her.

Also, to Mnemosyne: I don’t consider “Breck Girl” to be a homophobic slur.

Have you missed the part where you’re calling him a “girl” as a slur?

Oh sorry: I did mean John Ritter. And I, too, liked John Ritter well enough.

Even though Edwards does resemble him a little bit, I apologize for tainting your childhood crush with the slime of the day.

“Have you missed the part where you’re calling him a “girl” as a slur?”

I’m a girl too, so I certainly don’t consider Breck Girl a slur!

Distwalker:

McCain is a piece of shit but that is a giant upgrade over your scumbag hero [Edwards].

OK, let’s go with this defense over why you would vote for McCain over Edwards.

But the fact is, you seem to still be clinging to the following claim you made previously:

Any man who will cheat on his wife will cheat on anybody.

That said, I guess I can assume that you’ll be voting for Obama - who has no known marital infidelity in his past - over McCain, right?  Since “any man who will cheat on his wife will cheat on anybody” seems to be your primary argument against Edwards, will you apply a similar standard to McCain?  You apparantly know that he’ll cheat on the public - you said so yourself - so that leaves you with only one logical choice - Barack Obama.

Or is this “cheating” rhetoric just some partisan bullshit that you’re spewing, crapforbrains?

(extended pause)

Yeah, that’s what I thought.

A pretty big ASSumption on your part.  Does making it help you feel better about a man who fucked over his wife, claimed he didn’t love the woman he was screwing and claims that he and his campaign workers passed Hunter around like a cum dumpster.  McCain is a piece of shit but that is a giant upgrade over your scumbag hero.

I’m just going to let this hang out there so the people who’ve actually read my comments in this thread know that you flunked Reading Comprehension 101.

And, yes, I know you’re going to vote for McCain, if only to show all of us Dhimmicrats who do things like not nominate Edwards.  You did notice that Edwards is not the Democratic nominee, right?  It’s this black guy—Barry somebody—not John Edwards.

I’m a girl too, so I certainly don’t consider Breck Girl a slur!

So you’re not using Breck Girl as a slur when you refer to John Edwards?  You’re complimenting him on his lovely hair?

I understand what you’re tyring to say, but I don’t like dishonesty. Maybe I’m old fashioned. I just don’t like it.

Its not the sex, I don’t care if people have “open” relationships or not. Just be honest about it. If you can’t do that, don’t go into public life. Liars suck.

Unless you’re a rock star or actor with a crazy reputation to begin with, you can’t have an open marriage in America and be in public life. So as far as the Idiot America was concerned, any politician would have to lie about this personal issue between him and his wife (assuming there was one) to be in public life.

I don’t like deception, either, especially since I supported Edwards before moving to Obama. But I do expect it to a certain degree when it comes to all politicians, which is why I stopped working for them years ago. So that part of this situation is a fairly minor sin as far as I’m concerned—he was gonna betray me on something, it was only a question of what and how bad. I was more angry at Edwards over the campaign’s shoddy treatment of Amanda than I am over his lying about his personal life.

The larger problem I have with Edwards is that he endangered the entire bloody Democratic campaign, and had he been nominated could have handed the Presidency to McCain. But he wasn’t nominated, so the issue is a minor “what if” annoyance. He would have made a great AG, though. A shame.

And for the noisy right-wing trolls out there, any opinions on the K-Street’s answer to Hollywood’s Rielle Hunter, Vicki Iseman?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicki_Iseman

Yeah, didn’t think so.

nobody gives a shit whether edwards got laid, amanda. so no, condemning edwards’ character does not mean we are anti-sex conservatives, so put your silly argument to rest. and by the way, just because he told his wife in 2006 about the affair doesn’t mean he told her the affair would continue. He might have (and probably) told her that he had the affair but would end it. Otherwise, why do you think his wife would have been in tears when the AP writers talked to her. If it was something she knew was happening since 2006 and accepted, why would she cry. And all you assholes who comment here, don’t tell me she is fucking crying because of her all-important husband’s career being ruined by the scandal. Amanda you and your sycophants are immature and have bad judgement of character, I’m glad that is now exposed.

“So you’re not using Breck Girl as a slur when you refer to John Edwards?  You’re complimenting him on his lovely hair?”

Yes, his lovely hair is actually his best quality.

Foucault wrote:

I’m a girl too, so I certainly don’t consider Breck Girl a slur!

The cutesy glib act isn’t fooling anyone.

Since you’re female and apparantly you don’t consider it a slur to call someone who is clearly male a “Breck Girl,” is it OK if we start calling you “Right Guard Boy”?

“He would have made a great AG, though. A shame.”

Yeah, totally. A pinko commie swing of the pendulum is exactly what we need after Alberto Gonzales and his minions royally fucked things up to the right.

Since you’re female and apparantly you don’t consider it a slur to call someone who is clearly male a “Breck Girl,” is it OK if we start calling you “Right Guard Boy”?

That’s totally fine with me! I gender bend all the time. And at least I’ll smell good.

“My official stance is that unless it’s a matter of hypocrisy, it’s none of your damn business.”

Umm…I think you might want to rethink that statement…

“I think this President has shown a remarkable disrespect for his office, for the moral dimensions of leadership, for his friends, for his wife, for his precious daughter. It is breathtaking to me the level to which that disrespect has risen,” - John Edwards, on Bill Clinton, 1999.

Gracchus-

You bring up a good point. It SHOULD be possible in America to run for office as a non-married person who likes to have several girlfriends (or boyfriends) and not have your integrity questioned. As long as you’re not making sacred vows, then its none of my business. I guess the fact that its impossible to run as a bachelor in American politics (hi, Charlie Crist!) and not have questions come out mitigates this somewhat. Not totally, though.

I’ve seen it asserted that nearly all politicians fool around on the campaign trail, just as a great many athletes do, partly because of the opportunity, but mostly because they’re risk-takers by definition. We’re kidding ourselves if we think this sort of behavior is rare.

If this were happening with a European politician people would be chuckling over it instead of fuming. I wish more Americans were as mature about sexual issue.

Sorry; skipping comments to say directly to Amanda- thank you for this post. Your point of how it’s high time to stop giving McCain a pass on his infidelity is a valid one, especially in light of just HOW rabid the MSM coverage was on the Edwards story this afternoon.

I’d far rather that this had remained a private story, as he no longer is running and is not currently holding public office. But since the MSM focuses on all matters sordid and tabloidesque, FAIR IS FAIR.

Well, I’m not surprised, but I am dissapointed.  Sorry- I DO think Cheaters Are Scum.  And as Amy points out upthread, Edwards was pretty hypocritical- he lambasted Clinton for cheating, then turned around and cheated on his terminally ill wife.  Sorry, but thats the low point of Lowsville, as far as I’m concerned.  Of course, the breaking news here in MO is the state rep who has been indicted for having sex with a 14 year old AND her mother, which is lower than Lowsville…

I don’t really care who someone fucks, to be blunt, but I DO care when someone in public service fucks someone over.  It’s hard to trust someone who could do things like that to people they allegedly love.  It doesn’t give me much faith in their fair and honest treatment of totally anonymous constituents.

Yeah, totally. A pinko commie swing of the pendulum is exactly what we need after Alberto Gonzales and his minions royally fucked things up to the right.

“Pinko Commie”? I haven’t heard any educated person—including libertarians, and including people like Robert Conquest or Richard Pipes—use that insult unironically since 1989 about any American, let alone a left-centre Democratic Presidential aspirant.

I have to wonder about the ignorance of someone who uses that term with the earnestness you do.

Look! His wife has been ill and probably unable to attend to his needs. While it’s not her fault, it’s not his fault either! A man has needs!!!!!!!!!

I didn’t care who Clinton screwed, I don’t care who Bush screws…

Psst! Mikeess… hate to break it to ya, but Bush is screwing US and he’s been doing it for a looooong time.

And if ya get an extra troll button for this thread, can ya share?

“Pinko Commie”? I haven’t heard any educated person—including libertarians, and including people like Robert Conquest or Richard Pipes—use that insult unironically since 1989 about any American, let alone a left-centre Democratic Presidential aspirant.”

Okay okay you’re right: “pinko commie” was totally inappropriate and lacking in irony.

How about “commie pinko?”

How about “left-leaning spineless piece of shit who is prone to throwing money at people who will suck his cock and tell him how special he is?”

You bring up a good point. It SHOULD be possible in America to run for office as a non-married person who likes to have several girlfriends (or boyfriends) and not have your integrity questioned.

I don’t know if “should” is the word I’d use, unless we’re talking about utopia. Most successful politicians (i.e. the ones who get elected to and stay in office) in any country understand that “should” is a luxury they don’t have. So, like Edwards, they lie, and you can only hope that they’ll be better leaders than politics demands.

A politician is an employee, and a person.  To be a good politician requires you to perform your duties to us quickly, efficiently, and properly.  You can be despicable and still be a good politician — just like you can be a good scientist, engineer, doctor, lawyer, etc.

After the last 8-years, I’d take Clinton and a string of eager interns any day of the week…

Putting aside the question of whether having a president be effective at the things Bill Clinton was effective at (ripping up the welfare safety net, encouraging media consolidation, moving the Democratic Party to the right, funding Ahmed Chalabi under the “Iraq Liberation Act of 1998,” etc.) is a good thing, you have to acknowledge that the Lewinsky scandal derailed the Clinton presidency.

I agree with you that the sexual behavior of a president shouldn’t be a matter of grave public concern. But long before he became involved with Lewinsky, Clinton knew that his sexual peccadilloes were an opening for a potentially politically fatal GOP attack. And yet he had the affair anyway.  Under the political standards of the 1990s, this was not performing his duties effectively or efficiently.

And, yes, I know you’re going to vote for McCain, if only to show all of us Dhimmicrats who do things like not nominate Edwards.

I have no intention of voting for McCain… not that it matters.  I have no idea as to whether McCain is a cheater or not.  If he is, it in no way diminishes the fact that Edwards is a piece of shit who today announced that he cheated on his ill wife, told the world he didn’t love Hunter (is that supposed to be mitigating?) and that she is a slut he and a campaign aid handed back and forth until one of them knocked her up with a bastard child.  He then insulted our intelligence by telling us that the affair ended in 2006 even though he was secretly visiting her in her hotel room at 2:00am three weeks ago.  He said he is “hopeful” there will be a paternity test as if a paternity test is a random act of nature over which he has no control.  Attacking John McCain won’t make this Edwards piece of shit look any better.  It will only deviate from the topic of the post on which we are commenting.

Okay okay you’re right: “pinko commie” was totally inappropriate and lacking in irony.

How about “commie pinko?”

How about “left-leaning spineless piece of shit who is prone to throwing money at people who will suck his cock and tell him how special he is?”

Too late, Foucault—in one post and with one phrase you’ve destroyed your own credibility on this blog in a way comparable to what Edwards lost his in American politics. So, y’know, congratulations on that.

“Pinko Commie”—laughing here, and not the “with you” kind of laughing.

I just wonder, considering Elizabeth Edwards reads blogs, what she’s thinking when she sees people like Amanda and others whom she likely respects/respectED, showing absolutely zero empathy for her in this situation.

Huh?  How do you know I have “no” sympathy for her?  I have tons.  I also respect her enough not to presume what she’s feeling or thinking right now.

Having gone through a media circus with over a hundred horrifying comments in her local large city newspaper when my sister’s death made the front page for 3 days running, let me AGAIN say thank you, Amanda, for your respect and compassion for Mrs. Edwards.

I may not always agree with you, but I respect you quite highly right now.

And jessicalikewhoa? For a “kid”, you’ve got your head on straight, hon and YOU ROCK.

Don’t let them intimidate you into shrinking from the term ‘commie’. Foucault.  They yuck it up and pretend to be too urbane and sophisticated to take the term seriously, but they know what they are.  They are redistributionalists with no respect for entrepreneurialism, industry, free trade or the market economy.  They may not be Marxist/Leninists but they are most certainly commies.

Yep, it sure is comparable, the way I have destroyed my credibility in the eyes of an idiot.

My pseudonymous persona will never get over your disapproval because, like Edwards, I will never again be able to work in my chosen field. My life’s aspirations will be shattered. My hardworking miner’s son reputation will be replaced by the sleazy-pinko-commie-guy-who-screws-around-while-his-wife-is-dying meme.

And I will never be able to step into a room without people snickering behind my back or clutching their purses to their mouths so they can vomit in them.

Oh my life is RUINED! How could you do this to me, Mucchus?

I have no idea as to whether McCain is a cheater or not.

Too bad that would be sooo hard to figure out.  Google is hard work.

In any case, let’s stick to what’s important: a man who holds no office and isn’t running for any office has been caught cheating on his ill wife.  Let’s not muddy this up by talking about a man who is actually running for President who cheated on his ill wife, because what’s that got to do with anything?

What McCain did was thirty some odd years ago…

So was his Vietnam service. Guess that’s no longer relevant either?

“Don’t let them intimidate you into shrinking from the term ‘commie’. Foucault.  They yuck it up and pretend to be too urbane and sophisticated to take the term seriously, but they know what they are.  They are redistributionalists with no respect for entrepreneurialism, industry, free trade or the market economy.  They may not be Marxist/Leninists but they are most certainly commies.”

Thank you Distwalker. I promise you that I will never shrink from the term “commie.” It is an heirloom that I will bequeath to John Edwards and other scumbags who write for The Nation. But I love your term “redistributionalist” so I will borrow it and experiment with some new insults for Edwards.

Edwards is a pinko commie redistributionalist who wants to make sure that every dumb blonde gets her fair supply of his semen. He is so committed to social equality for the cancer-free babes who fuck him that he pays them $100 000 for the yearly fuck rather than $2000/hour.

Don’t forget to check for commies under the bed and in the closet before you go to sleep tonight, Distwalker!

Booga booga!  We’re comin’ for yer entrepreneurialism!

If this thread proves anything, it is that jessilikewhoa is totally correct: Pandagon needs to mechanically delete any comment using the term “cum dumpster”.  The level of psychopathic misogyny that goes into that term is way too much for me.  The kind of cockroaches who write such things are well portrayed on this Hanin Elias video.

All of this arguing about Edwards, McCain, etc. and their infidelities is laughable.
They are POLITICIANS, for gawds sake! Politicians lie, cheat, and scam as a way of life. Anyone that feels ‘their guys’ are different is a fool.

Parliament of whores, all of them.

Let’s not muddy this up by talking about a man who is actually running for President who cheated on his ill wife, because what’s that got to do with anything?

Talk about it all you want, I don’t give a damn.  It isn’t, however the topic of this post and your reason for going off topic here is a retarded delusion that diverting attention to McCain’s sleazy behavior will somehow make Edwards look less sleazy.  It won’t.  I just makes you look sleazy for defending him.

“Parliament of whores, all of them.”

Yes, but it’s better to be a pinko commie’s whore because he flies you to Africa and pays you $100,000 for your “contributions.”

I am only disgusted that, unlike civilized countries, this country is still so fucking adolescent and hypocritical about sex. Well, OK, I’m ALSO disgusted that IOKIYAR.

“Don’t forget to check for commies under the bed and in the closet before you go to sleep tonight, Distwalker!”

If they are, they wouldn’t be the first communists who have tried to kill me and failed.  Nor would they be the first that I have killed.

“I am only disgusted that, unlike civilized countries, this country is still so fucking adolescent and hypocritical about sex. “

I am disgusted that so many morons believe that cheating, lies, infidelity and family betrayal is “civilized” nothing more than “sex”

“Yes, but it’s better to be a pinko commie’s whore because he flies you to Africa and pays you $100,000 for your contributions.”

Sign me up! It’s great work if you can get it. But I prefer the Italian Riviera, if possible, please!

Foucault now you’re just mailing it in. I prefer my trolls witty and amusing.

If you can’t get some good zingers out of this then you’re hopeless. Right now you’re showing that you’re far more obnoxious than clever. Breck girl and commie? Really? That’s the best you can come up with?

I rate your trolling a D+.

Log Cabin, I think you’ll need to call up the Edwards campaign directly. Or maybe someone from Pandagon can interview you first to make sure you have the right qualifications:

Full of praise
Ego-stroker
Willing to travel
Quick to rationalize
Able-bodied
Cancer-free
Shampoo user
Pinko Commie proclivities
Sensitive clit (I just threw that in there because I think Edwards would like that, but I’m sure he would settle for anything with legs)

Rush Limbaugh was right about Edwards.  Face it.  It’s just one more instance in which I agree with him.

Don’t let them intimidate you into shrinking from the term ‘commie’. Foucault.  They yuck it up and pretend to be too urbane and sophisticated to take the term seriously, but they know what they are.  They are redistributionalists with no respect for entrepreneurialism, industry, free trade or the market economy.  They may not be Marxist/Leninists but they are most certainly commies.

Another one? What are you guys, Birchers? McCarthy fans hoping that Anne Coulter will throw you a mercy lay?

I’ll give you this, Distwalker, you know more $10 words than poor Foucault, who’s still gathering up his pennies. A couple of quibbles, though: you’ll find that the average fiscal conservative in this country (i.e. those who make less than six figures) doesn’t support free trade. And Republicans who make more than 7 figures a year, well, you (not me, but you) would be surprised to find out that they’re not averse to a little Chinese-style crony capitalism.

As it happens, I am an entrepreneur who, among other things, gives paid investment advice to some of the most rapacious capitalists that day-trader-mentality schlubs like you would ever want to meet. And in grad school, I went head-to-head with real Marxist profs, who’d debate you into the ground, sincerely defending the points made by Conquest and Pipes inside the seminar room and points made by Mises and Friedman outside of class. And they gave me grudging respect for doing so. Some “commie,” eh?

The only reason we (educated people with a level of political sophistication beyond an 8th grader’s) “yuck it up” is because we’re delighted to learn that real people speak like the cartoon characters Dale Gribble and George Liquor.

If they are, they wouldn’t be the first communists who have tried to kill me and failed.  Nor would they be the first that I have killed.

Ooooh, a tough guy. Listen, the Special Forces guys and Jarheads I’m acquainted with don’t brag about that stuff. But they did tell me that the REMFs do.

Why is “Breck Girl” a Homophobic slur?  I think it’s more a Metrophobic slur, no?

Distwalker, why is John Edwards’s sex life any of your goddamn business? Who the hell elected you to be the moral arbiter of the universe?

People like you, who can barely control their prurient interest and try to disguise it as moral reprobation, make me a hell of a lot sicker than Edwards ever will.

Pandagon needs to mechanically delete any comment using the term “cum dumpster”.  The level of psychopathic misogyny that goes into that term is way too much for me.

Yeah, it is OK for Edwards to use Hunter like a cum dumpster and publicly announce that he fucked her but that he didn’t love her but, please, don’t type the term here.  Gotchya.

Why is “Breck Girl” a Homophobic slur?  I think it’s more a Metrophobic slur, no?

I think he uses it because the salon where he sweeps up exclusively uses Pantene products.

“As it happens, I am an entrepreneur who, among other things, gives paid investment advice to some of the most rapacious capitalists that day-trader-mentality schlubs like you would ever want to meet. And in grad school, I went head-to-head with real Marxist profs, who’d debate you into the ground, sincerely defending the points made by Conquest and Pipes inside the seminar room and points made by Mises and Friedman outside of class. And they gave me grudging respect for doing so. Some “commie,” eh?”

So you’re a consultant who couldn’t find a real job in academia? Nice. I’m sure the only “grudging respect” you ever received from your Marxist professors was when they realized you could never cut it in the profession and decided to let you submit your thesis and get on with your vulgar life.

“The only reason we (educated people with a level of political sophistication beyond an 8th grader’s) “yuck it up” is because we’re delighted to learn that real people speak like the cartoon characters Dale Gribble and George Liquor.”

Uh huh.  And then the cosmopolitan sophisticates get together over a pinot and, without irony, discuss the “fascist” aspects of Bushitler’s American Gleichschaltung.  Whatever.

By the way, real educated people I’m acquainted with don’t brag about their “grad school” experiences.  High school drop outs often do, however.

I just returned from the afterlife to let everyone know that there is nothing outside the text.  Oh, and Foucault is a sexually frustrated hack.

So you’re a consultant who couldn’t find a real job in academia? Nice. I’m sure the only “grudging respect” you ever received from your Marxist professors was when they realized you could never cut it in the profession and decided to let you submit your thesis and get on with your vulgar life.

Nope, a consultant who happened to go to grad school. There are a few of us out there. Not everyone who goes to grad school wants to end up in academia—and for many, grad school cures us of that desire.

Nice to see you’re capable of sympathising with my Marxist profs (who were really nice folks for “Commie Pinkos”) over my intransigence, though.

I’m diverting attention to McCain because, as a man who’s actually running for President, he is relevant.  Edwards, a private citizen who is running for jack shit, is not.  Sorry, I only have time to care about a very few extra-marital affairs, and those of private citizens I’ve never met don’t qualify.

By the way, it’s entirely possible to have sex with someone you don’t love without thinking of them as a subhuman dumpster.  I should say, it’s possible for decent people to do so, though obviously not for Distwalker.

And this is the same Foucault who was calling us all provincial re: Elliot Spitzer.

If you feel like being a contrarian, at least be interesting.

And Distwalker, try for some reading comprehension, the post is about McCain.

If you were worth anything as a consultant, you would actually be an analyst at a company with health care and the other benefits of being a real worker, Gracchus. As a pinko commie sympathizer, you should know that. Did you go to grad school at the Banana Republic for Fat-Ass Motherfuckers? I thought so. 

Here are some $5 dollar words for your money-grubbing mitts. Gather them up and maybe you will have enough to supplement your weekly salary.

I can smell your overweight posterior shifting in its chair, trying to find a way to load that heavy pastrami sandwich into your paunchy mouth. I know your brain is spinning sideways at an angle in concentric circles now, trying to remember where exactly you left the proof of your pre-Boomer identity.

“Distwalker, why is John Edwards’s sex life any of your goddamn business?”

I don’t give the least little damn about his sex life.  I do find it interesting, however, when a moralizing little creep who spent the last several years preaching to America about what constitutes an ethical and just society turns out to be a lying, cheating, betrayer of his family and probably his bastard child.

That is an entirely different topic than his sex life so, please, refrain from discussing his sex life.  I don’t want to hear it; I just ate.

Neko Onna wrote:

Of course, the breaking news here in MO is the state rep who has been indicted for having sex with a 14 year old AND her mother, which is lower than Lowsville…

I assume that you are talking about Missouri REPUBLICAN State Representative Scott Muschany?

Funny the massive amount of vitriol being spewed forth here by the conservatives over a non-elected official non-candidate Democrat having an extramarital affair with a CONSENTING ADULT when there have been several instances of pedophilia within the ranks of the Republican party.

Can you tell me the last time a Democrat was caught diddling a kiddie?  Because I can think of several recent episodes of Republicans doing it in the past few years.

And Distwalker, try for some reading comprehension, the post is about McCain.

Only as a diversionary tactic.

Paging Vicki Iseman… Paging Vicki Iseman…

Hmm. Still missing, it seems:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-kelly/missing-sex-money-mystery_b_91891.html

Oh, I’m sorry- what about McCain’s involvements again??

I am not committed to any single position.  As a troll, I simply try to maximize mayhem.  It feeds the gaping holes in my psyche, left there by my unloving parents.

Distwalker, do you also think Martin Luther King’s (not that I’m comparing Edwards to him, so don’t try to misread me that way as a diversion) is vitiated by his sexual proclivities? If not, why not?

By the way, I also don’t give a crap about McCain’s marital history. I care that he’s crazy, ignorant, corrupt and senile.

News flash: trolls thrive on negative attention.

You are debating with Dumb and Dumber. Why?

Funny the massive amount of vitriol being spewed forth here by the conservatives over a non-elected official non-candidate Democrat having an extramarital affair with a CONSENTING ADULT when there have been several instances of pedophilia within the ranks of the Republican party.

If you are referring in any way to me, you will find no instance of me defending a Republican.  Criticizing John Edwards does not equate to defending Republicans.

Uh huh.  And then the cosmopolitan sophisticates get together over a pinot and, without irony, discuss the “fascist” aspects of Bushitler’s American Gleichschaltung.  Whatever.

Ah, “whatever” ... always a devastating tack in a debate. I salute you, sir!

But really, I prefer (as I suspect you do, judging by your familiarity with the term “<i>Gleichschaltung<i>”) the term “rootless cosmopolitan.” And since I have a palate as simple as your wit, I’ll take a nice merlot or cab instead of a pinot.

By the way, real educated people I’m acquainted with don’t brag about their “grad school” experiences.  High school drop outs often do, however.

Not bragging. Lots of people go to grad school—not you, perhaps, but lots of people. I mentioned it because I know how fond you folks are of pointing out what a nest of Marxist “pinko commies” American campuses are. Figured I’d get some simple-minded anti-commie props from you for taking them on, but you guys are never satisfied.

“And this is the same Foucault who was calling us all provincial re: Elliot Spitzer.

If you feel like being a contrarian, at least be interesting.”

The difference is that Spitzer had style. He picked a good-looking hooker who was good at being a hooker. Spitzer didn’t conceal the nature of the relationship with flights to Africa to make films glorifying his penis. He just bought the girl a train ticket to Washington.

No so with Chairman Mao, commie son of a miner. That red bastard was all set to move in to the White House and paint it puce. He was busy secretly ordering miniature Lenin statues from Russia, ready to decorate the streets with them. Had he succeeded (snicker snicker) we would all be diving from the turrets of the Kremlin right now.

foucalt, seriously, NO ONE takes you seriously here aside from your fellow fundies. you shot your credibility with me long ago, and did it in this thread right from the start with the ‘breck girl’ idiocy, through the ‘ugly’ comments…my god, really? are you five? you expect anyone to give a fuck about you if your idea of intelligent debate is to fling childhood insults? you’re a mental midget and i am not sure why you come here, since lliberals just upset you so much.

Trolls are only satisfied while receiving the attention that the real world has denied them.

Well, now a defense of a guy who trotted out his cancer stricken wife for political gain while at the same time was fucking around on her is lovely.

You are so lovely.

Yes, nothing to see here, move along, move along.

LOL, Newt! Newt! Newt!

Distwalker, do you also think Martin Luther King’s (not that I’m comparing Edwards to him, so don’t try to misread me that way as a diversion) is vitiated by his sexual proclivities? If not, why not?

I don’t know much about King’s sexual proclivities, but if he knowingly betrayed the woman he promised to be loyal to in a solemn ceremony before God, the state, his family and friends, then yes, his moral authority is much diminished.

I care that he’s crazy, ignorant, corrupt and senile.

Fair enough.  Me too.  Still doesn’t have dick to do with Edwards.

foucalt, seriously, NO ONE takes you seriously here aside from your fellow fundies

Not even Foucalt takes Foucalt seriously.

God trolling here is so easy I’m amazed I haven’t been banned more times myself.

you’re a mental midget and i am not sure why you come here, since lliberals just upset you so much.

Foucalt comes here to troll. Duh. Jesus is this rocket science? Welcome to the internet.

“foucalt, seriously, NO ONE takes you seriously here aside from your fellow fundies.”

It’s amazing, though, how many comments I receive with my name in them! For people who don’t take me seriously anymore, you sure do want to communicate with me.

It’s okay: I understand your need for approval from great beings such as myself. And I understand that Gracchus needs a weight loss program, which is what keeps him typing away at the computer while he masturbates frantically and looks up multisyllabic words in his Google thesaurus.

And I love it when aging Boomers call people “Sir.” It has that condescending-I-never-got-over-being-a-misfit-geek-who-everyone-ridiculed ring to it.

I come here, chibi, because I have no friends in meatspace.  Because I have deep-seated and well-grounded feelings of inadequacy, I try to provoke people here to generate at least a modicum of human interaction.  My life is empty.  I realize that.  I honestly am hoping for universal health care so that I can get the psychotherapy I sorely need.

I am honestly hoping for a diet that works so my ass doesn’t fall through my polyether pants.

If you were worth anything as a consultant, you would actually be an analyst at a company with health care and the other benefits of being a real worker, Gracchus

Yes, because like you the only career I can conceive of is one that involves working 9-5 in a huge megacorp, chained to my cubicle by my health plan. Sucker.

I can smell your overweight posterior shifting in its chair, trying to find a way to load that heavy pastrami sandwich into your paunchy mouth.

Well, you got me on the “sitting in a chair part.” And I could stand to lose 5lbs. But red meat only once a week, and this isn’t the night.

I know your brain is spinning sideways at an angle in concentric circles now, trying to remember where exactly you left the proof of your pre-Boomer identity.

I think you’re confused. As I noted, it’s pre-Boomers who use the term “pinko commie,” not post-Boomers like myself.

I am not committed to any single position.  As a troll, I simply try to maximize mayhem.  It feeds the gaping holes in my psyche, left there by my unloving parents.

Ah, ok ... so you weren’t being serious about the “pinko commie” stuff after all. Just empty trolling. All clear now.

I don’t know much about King’s sexual proclivities, but if he knowingly betrayed the woman he promised to be loyal to in a solemn ceremony before God, the state, his family and friends, then yes, his moral authority is much diminished.

Yup, a troll.

Oh, and John 8:1-11.

News flash: trolls thrive on negative attention.

You are debating with Dumb and Dumber. Why?

Sorry, Margalis, the commie pinko stuff was too much fun to pass up. But now that he’s come clean that it was just a wheeze, I’ll stop.

“Yes, because like you the only career I can conceive of is one that involves working 9-5 in a huge megacorp, chained to my cubicle by my health plan. Sucker.”

No, because you are clearly undesirable to both academia and to the corporate workplace. I[m not the sucker, I don’t work 9-5 either. I’m just a grad school person like yourself, only I actually plan to use my education and not work part-time helping day-traders figure out how to turn on their computer and check their stocks.

You are to investors what Ashley Dupre is to Eliot Spitzer: a vessel. And you don’t get health care, either.

I am honestly hoping for a diet that works so my ass doesn’t fall through my polyether pants.

uh oh, Foucault, in trying to make me his sockpuppet, just tried to fist me. Sorry, man, I don’t swing that way.

Yup, a troll.

Golly yes!  Anybody who defends the ethic of honoring a solemn oath of fidelity is either a troll or a bourgeois fool drowning in his own false consciousness.  Nobody really believes in that stuff anymore.

Why would McCain take the bait? He’s no reason to. The media will do that for him. They’ll make sure its at least a 3 day wonder—and tar Obama with it if at all possible.
McCain can sit back and take the free ride.

Certainly not Republicans.

No, because you are clearly undesirable to both academia and to the corporate workplace.

You better believe it! Thank goodness.

I’m just a grad school person like yourself

Congratulations. Bob Jones University? The Recently Accredited School of Chiropracty?

But now that he’s come clean that it was just a wheeze, I’ll stop.

Most of the time I pretend to be a married woman.  It’s part of what happens to me when I’m off my meds.  Sometimes I pretend to be in a graduate program too.  I am earning a masters in lackluster trolling.  At least that’s what the guy with all of the Rolecks watches in his coat tells me when I give him my tuition payments.

“I know a lot of people with mental issues, had a few myself over the years, and alcohol just makes these problems worse. “

You missed the prison thread where we discussed why people with substance abuse issues belong in jail. Could you please go back there and read up on the reasons? And what is this, confessional night? I am impressed at how many people seem to think that admitting to their own alcoholism or mental squirrels is relevant to the topic at hand: John Edwards. I bet he fucked his pricey bimbo dead sober, and with only delusions of grandeur to augment his other disability, that being pinko communism.

honestly, up until this post i thought foucalt was at least somewhat serious. since the dissolution into bratty child antics, yeah, wow. that turned into a trainwreck real fast.

Thinking about that thread about the death penalty and child rapists, I am reminded that I favor rape in prison.  I’d like to share a cell with Sean Hannity if possible.

honestly, up until this post i thought foucalt was at least somewhat serious. since the dissolution into bratty child antics, yeah, wow. that turned into a trainwreck real fast.

At this point, it’s a bit of a write-off. First someone sockpuppets my monicker, then someone else sockpuppets Foucault @10:24PM. When someone starts victimising the troll, it’s time to call it a day.

“You better believe it! Thank goodness.”

I’m surprised you would take pride in that. Maybe you should consider your obnoxious persona and try to figure out if that translates into your real world behavior? I’m sorry that you could never learn to integrate yourself into society, but that’s what happens to the mentally ill sometimes: they slip through the cracks of society and end up playing alone.

I hope you will one day reach a recovery stage and get a real job.

Oh, come on, whoever you are: stop stealing Foucault’s name. He’s perfectly capable of making a fool of himself on his own.

Oh, I’m sure the person who is imitating me is a disgruntled commie loser who is sad that their candidate’s life was ruined by his penis.

There are a lot of these people out there. It is so unfortunate that they are envious of those who believe in the capitalist system and its methods of punishment, which include capital punishment. I don’t understand why those who object to rape in prison don’t share that same abhorrence when it comes to protecting victims by killing those who violated them.

If you don’t want to be raped in prison, then don’t take the measures that will surely land you there!

I’m surprised you would take pride in that.

You’re surprised mainly because you have a dearth of imagination (except, of course, about commie-pinko plots).

No imagination leads to limited options. And limited options leads to an even narrower, angrier mindset. As you’re learning in your own life, it’s a vicious, troll-producing cycle.

Surely in 250 comments this has been mentioned, but Did You Know that we (thrice) elected a president who had fathered a child out of wedlock?  Over a century ago?

Seriously, if it was good enough for a three-term 19th century POTUS, Edwards ain’t no thang.

I’ll also repeat what I’ve said about it to other people.  Edwards doesn’t even hold political office anymore.  What kind of shambles his personal life is in is none of my business.

Gracchus ,

I apologize for making jerky remarks about your work. You are probably great at whatever it is that you do, and you’re right that academia and the 9-5 corporate world are not the only options. So I take it back about the Banana Republic.

As you can see, it isn’t easy being me on this blog. It comes with a price, because people admire my views on the death penalty and crime, so they feel a need to emulate me. I wish I could create some distance between myself and my commie fan club, but you know how these Marxist professors and their minions are: they just want to be totalitarian about everything, and they want to share everything, including personae.

I am happy to share Foucault, since I ripped off the moniker, too. From a dead gay guy, to boot. So if anyone has a right to him, it’s all his pinko sympathizer brothers and sisters who are so lacking in imagination and spelling skills that they try to impersonate me.

No one can do it. No one can be the same Foucault as me, but you can die trying!

Gracchus, FYI, our real troll named Foucault is female…

Ah, thanks for the update. Late to the party.

Foucault, sorry if I mistakenly assumed you were male—unlike most evil liberals I’m politically incorrect that way. But to be honest I don’t like being fisted/sockpuppeted by either gender.

“Edwards doesn’t even hold political office anymore.  What kind of shambles his personal life is in is none of my business.”

Had he not reduced his life to shambles, it is likely he would have been tagged by Obama as his choice for attorney general or even vice president.  He is - or was - still very much a player in American public life and, therefore, his moral and ethical lapses are relevant political conversation.

All of this arguing about Edwards, McCain, etc. and their infidelities is laughable.
They are POLITICIANS, for gawds sake! Politicians lie, cheat, and scam as a way of life. Anyone that feels ‘their guys’ are different is a fool.

THIS is exactly the kind of stuff that makes me go apeshit!  No, I’m sorry, but I refuse to accept the whole idea that politicians should get a pass when they do horrid things, because, hey, they’re POLITICIANS!  WTF?  These are the people you are entrusting to make decisions of public policy which will have profound effects on your life and every other citizen’s life.  If they do terrible shit, it’s because WE let them get away with it!  Every time you let a politician get away with lying, cheating, stealing, etc, you give them tacit approval of that behavior, and no disincentive to continue that behavior.  I hope this sticks to Edwards, and if he ever, say, wants a position in an Obama administration, I hope this disqualifies him.  I hope people look at the shit McCain pulled on his first wife, and come to the conclusion that a guy who would leave his injured wife and go shopping for a sugar Mommy while still married to her is probably NOT a guy we want to entrust with big, life-or-death decisions that involve making calls that go against his own personal interests.  If a person can’t be trusted to do right by the people he calls family, how can we trust him to do right by people he doesn’t even know?

I assume that you are talking about Missouri REPUBLICAN State Representative Scott Muschany?

Yes, DTG, the very same.  A big “family values” kind of guy, by all accounts.  It figures.

“No imagination leads to limited options. And limited options leads to an even narrower, angrier mindset. As you’re learning in your own life, it’s a vicious, troll-producing cycle.”

I see you’ve moved on to projecting, now. I guess you must be speaking from your own experiences here. It surely gets frustrating being a stand-alone to those analysts who make hundreds and thousands of dollars a year, no?

Anyhow, I did apologize to you above because I was unnecessarily rude when there was no need. I thought it was you impersonating me, but I realize now that you couldn’t know my history of values, since you are fairly new to this community. Yes, I do delight in the application of the death penalty when it is warranted, as it was for the Mexican scum puppy who raped and murdered two teenagers and then joked about it. I hope he was raped in prison during his 19 odd years of living off the American tax payer when he should have been executed with a gun up his ass long ago.

And yes, I do believe in male circumcision because it has been scientifically proven to reduce the risk of AIDS and HIV-transmission. But of course Mike Ess (hippie music educator of bullshit that he is) doesn’t believe in science. He is just a person who prefers to lust after Amanda’s inaccessible ass.

“you think its totally wrong for people to engage in sex without love?”

Nope.  Not as long as everybody agrees that it is nothing more than sex. 

It is wrong, however to have an illicit affair with a person and then, when discovered, publicly declare that you don’t love that person - whether you do or don’t - in an attempt to frame that lack of love as mitigating in the betrayal.  Edwards claiming that he had sex but didn’t love her is as goofy as Clinton claiming he smoked weed but didn’t inhale.  Both are pathetic except the weed didn’t end up looking like a whore.

Had he not reduced his life to shambles, it is likely he would have been tagged by Obama as his choice for attorney general or even vice president.

Oh, sorry, I didn’t know we were playing horseshoes here.

In that case—you know, had I not decided to attend a small public university as an anthropology major and then chosen to work in the entertainment industry after college, it is likely that I would have been tagged by Obama as his choice for attorney general or even vice president.  And you don’t even wanna know what kind of skeletons I’ve got in my closet.

Seriously?  We could go around all day about X Odious Fucker and her/his actions and how they are SHAMEFUL because, had things gone significantly differently, it hypothetically could have happened that they might have eventually been placed in a position of importance.

Sorry, Amanda. Edwards was willing to endanger the whole Democratic Party enterprise, and there is no excuse. Even his saying there is no excuse is no excuse.

“He is just a person who prefers to lust after Amanda’s inaccessible ass.”

...hey!  Don’t project your feelings about Jesse onto me!…”

Come on, old man, fess up! You’ve wanted to jump her bones—let’s call it win her approval—for years. You’re so transparent and so pathetic at the same time.

“Oh, sorry, I didn’t know we were playing horseshoes here.”

We aren’t.  You are, however, being intellectually dishonest when you portray Edwards as a non-public figure.  Until today it was well known he was bound to get some appointment by Obama.  It was well known that he had not yet released his delegates.  It was well known that he would most likely receive a prominent speaking position in Denver.  He was still out on the campaign trail as a major Democratic figure.  He was nothing like a private citizen and every bit a public, political figure.  If this was about your neighbor two doors down, nobody would give a shit.  The fact is that Edwards pursued the white-hot spotlight with passion, financing and boundless energy.  He wanted to live in the spotlight and now he is.

Edwards was willing to endanger the whole Democratic Party enterprise, and there is no excuse.

Now THAT I agree with. But that doesn’t excuse the asinine and utterly hypocritical “rules of the game” without which that would not be the case.

Any progressive who thinks politicans should be disqualified for lack of strict adherence to conventional bourgeois sexual mores should try asking a gay or lesbian friend what he or he thinks of that idea. (Be prepared to duck.)

It surely gets frustrating being a stand-alone to those analysts who make hundreds and thousands of dollars a year, no?

No. And the Wall Street analysts that I know make either a respectable 5 figures (the ones just starting out) or 7 figures a year (it’s a star system). They all work as hard if not harder than I do, and no-one’s measuring “big swinging dicks” outside the firms (that’s a broker thing), so I’m certainly not complaining about where I stand vis-a-vis either group.

Anyhow, I did apologize to you above because I was unnecessarily rude when there was no need. I thought it was you impersonating me, but I realize now that you couldn’t know my history of values, since you are fairly new to this community.

Well, from what I’ve seen thus far, you sound like quite a piece of work. As noted, I can’t take you seriously with all the commie-pinko talk, so I’ll leave you to your anger and violent fantasies and let others engage you. Have fun!

I am reminded that I favor rape in prison.  I’d like to share a cell with Sean Hannity if possible.

Foucault on 08/08 at 10:28 PM

Oh my bloody Mesus! What did Sean fucking Hannity DO to deserve THAT sort of fate???

THIS is exactly the kind of stuff that makes me go apeshit!  No, I’m sorry, but I refuse to accept the whole idea that politicians should get a pass when they do horrid things, because, hey, they’re POLITICIANS!  WTF? 
...
If a person can’t be trusted to do right by the people he calls family, how can we trust him to do right by people he doesn’t even know?

Every person has failings, it’s much more complicated than “this guy cheated on his wife therefore he can’t be trusted with nukes.” Someone might cheat on their wife for personal / sexual reasons that have nothing to do with their ability to run a nation. Your reasoning is much too reductive for me.

I do agree with the first half though, being a politician should if anything mean you are held to a higher standard, not a lower one. Tyranny of low expectations and all that.

You are, however, being intellectually dishonest when you portray Edwards as a non-public figure.

Where did I ever claim that Edwards isn’t a public figure?

I said he doesn’t currently hold political office. 

In a world where people can’t tell the difference between who is a politician currently holding public office and who is a talking head on the teevee who might maybe eventually do such-and-such, I think I’d agree that not everyone deserves the vote anymore just on the basis of being an adult US citizen…

Foucault wrote:

Yes, I do delight in the application of the death penalty when it is warranted, as it was for the Mexican scum puppy who raped and murdered two teenagers and then joked about it.

Indeed.

And since apparantly you deemed his ethnicity and/or nationality relevant enough to include in your post, I can only assume that you were even more incensed by his crime than you would have been had it been a white guy.

Racist asshat.

“why does a woman having sex with a man of her choosing make her look like a whore?”

It doesn’t and I don’t think she does.  This is about Edwards, not her.  Why should Edwards announce to the world that he didn’t love her?  Why does that matter?  He had no reason to say it except that he believed that it would somehow make his infidelity less serious.  Basically, he threw her under the bus.  “I didn’t love her” is code for “Dude, I was just fucking her, it didn’t mean nothing.”

If Hunter loved him, it was a really shitty thing to do.  We can all agree.  If she didn’t love him and just enjoys meaningless sex with effete metrosexuals, it was still a nasty thing to do because it publicly reveals her sexual attitudes to the whole damned world.  Basically Edwards has defined Hunter in one of two ways: A woman he was manipulating into fucking him or a as a 42 year old woman who screwed him and his campaign workers for emotionless fun and manged to get herself knocked up.  The bottom line is that publicly declaring his lack of love for her was self-serving as hell.

If it turns out the child is, after all, his daughter.  Then claiming he didn’t love her was a foul thing to do to a innocent little girl.

Well, you’ve caught me on a bad night. Usually I am much sweeter.
In any case, best of luck to you and I will look for your name in the Wall Street Journal. I’m sure you don’t actually go by Gracchus, but all the best.

And I don’t really hate pinko commies. I just strongly dislike the idea of redistributing property and cultural capital and other forms of renumeration. People should work for what they have, and those who can’t work hard enough should expect to have less. Would you be happy if you had to share your income or your office with someone who was not pulling their own weight? That is exactly what most redistributors want: to take the dredges of society and put them in some sucker’s closet or bedroom.

Au revoir, people. I must also retire. Did I mention that I have finished composing my masterpiece dissertation? I will publish it later this year, so suck on that!

Any progressive who thinks politicans should be disqualified for lack of strict adherence to conventional bourgeois sexual mores should try asking a gay or lesbian friend what he or he thinks of that idea. (Be prepared to duck.)

Equating cheating on your wife with being gay?

Swing and a miss.

It doesn’t sound like the Edwards had an open marriage. Being faithful to the spirit of your marriage is not “adherence to conventional bourgeois sexual mores” - it’s not being a jackass.

Where did I ever claim that Edwards isn’t a public figure?

I said he doesn’t currently hold political office.

I don’t see the relevance of whether or not he holds political office.  When you intensely and passionately pursue life in the public eye, you end up living in the public eye.  That is true whether you are John Edwards or Britney Spears.  Nobody gives a damn what you or I do, but then you and I didn’t devote our lives to begging people to look at us, did we?

“I should have known this thread would get filled with assholes who are angry at Edwards because he got laid and they, being wanker right wingers, can’t.”

Amanda - what is it that you think makes Edwards so irresistable that the wanker right wingers don’t have?  Don’t forget - he didn’t just “get” laid, he “got” sex “from” at least two women at the same time, albeit not together.  That’s like two ludes away from a manage.  Edwards is a stud, and so much better at using women than the wankers who want to but can’t!!!!! Feminizm!!!!!! Eleventy!!!!!!!!

I would add that people might view McCain’s alleged adultery differently because he was involuntarily separated from his wife without communication or correspondence for five or six years, while he was held in a tiger cage, poked with a pointy stick, and beaten daily.  Some people might conclude that such an experience would change a man, and do irreparable damage to a relationship such that it might be impossible simply to resume it upon return.  Some people, but not you, as I understand it.  You have higher standards, I see.

“And since apparantly you deemed his ethnicity and/or nationality relevant enough to include in your post, I can only assume that you were even more incensed by his crime than you would have been had it been a white guy.

Racist asshat.”

Not at all. I am an equal opportunity, affirmative-action death penalty advocate. I believe that ALL rapist scum and brutal murderers should die, regardless of their race or religion. The only reason I mention the Mexican’s nationality is because his homeland made such a stink about trying to prevent the pathetic sack of shit from being executed. They went to the World Court, they played with George W. Bush’s heartstrings, they tried to threaten and cajole and do all sorts of Mexican siesta-style things to defer this execution.

But in the end, the punk when down. Thirty three years old. He was nineteen when he raped and murdered two innocent Texan teens who happened to wander into his gang’s initiation ceremony. He was drunk or high or both. This is why I think that people who abuse drugs should go to prison and/or rehab to get straight: so they can avoid destroying their own lives and those of others. Boo hoo hoo for him.

Distwalker wrote:

Until today it was well known he was bound to get some appointment by Obama.

Really?  Gotta link to back up that claim?

I’m pretty sure his name was being batted around even less than Hillary Clinton’s for the VP spot (and hers has all but fallen off the radar), and though some in the blogosphere had made overtones about him as a possible AG, nothing substantial on that front had emerged.

So how exactly was it “well known” that he was bound to get an appointment in the Obama Administration?  Well known by who?

You’re making a lot of baseless assumptions here.  The only one you made in that post was that he likely would have spoken at the DNC in two weeks.  That’s all you got.

I’m not making a comparison. I’m pointing out the FACT that the Pharisees do make it. You’re being irresponsible in not dealing with the consequences of your view in the actually existing political landscape.

It doesn’t sound like the Edwards had an open marriage. Being faithful to the spirit of your marriage is not “adherence to conventional bourgeois sexual mores” - it’s not being a jackass.

That’s a private matter between him and his wife. (The dissolution of the barriers between public and private in this country has become pathological.) And we all behave like jackasses at one time or another- politicians, with their enlarged egos, probably being especially prone to jackassery. Let he who is without sin…

And, the Martin Luther King question to you, as well.

“Really?  Gotta link to back up that claim?”

Yeah, probably several thousand.  If you really wanted to see them, you would find them.

Not that it matters.  Edwards voluntarily and passionately pursed life in the white-hot spotlight.  Now that he achieved it, he gets to live there.

Foucault wrote:

People should work for what they have, and those who can’t work hard enough should expect to have less.

Right.

I’m sure Cindy McCain had to work her ass off at being born to a wealthy beer distributor.  It was all her hard work that helped pay for their six houses, Ferragamo shoes, and McAncient’s political career.

Why won’t you all just accept me?  Can’t a girl be a troll and be loved?

“do all sorts of Mexican siesta-style things”

Clarification? Link to same?

I would add that people might view McCain’s alleged adultery differently because he was involuntarily separated from his wife without communication or correspondence for five or six years, while he was held in a tiger cage, poked with a pointy stick, and beaten daily.

You win the thread. Nobody is going to top that McCain was forced to cheat on his wife via torture.

I didn’t realize that part of his torture was being poked with a stick if he refused to insert his dick into a woman other than his wife. Those Vietnamese really are quite devious!

I don’t see the relevance of whether or not he holds political office.  When you intensely and passionately pursue life in the public eye, you end up living in the public eye.  That is true whether you are John Edwards or Britney Spears.  Nobody gives a damn what you or I do, but then you and I didn’t devote our lives to begging people to look at us, did we?

Wow, so you also think it’s perfectly acceptable to get all up in the business of other totally private citizens who happen to find themselves in the public eye?  You’re also deeply angry that Brad Pitt had the nerve to cheat on Jennifer Aniston?  Because, wow, you must have a lot of time on your hands. 

The reason I think there’s a difference between a currently-in-office politician getting involved in a scandal like this is that those are the people who create and enact public policy.  So, for instance, if Edwards was currently the Democratic nominee for POTUS, I would be upset about this debacle because it would throw a wrench in my party’s hopes to gain more political ground, possibly in a long term sense.  When the Clinton scandals went down, my main concern was (and still is) the massive amounts of time and energy that went into dealing with that rather than actually getting anything done.  If, say, my “other” senator, Chuck Schumer, were to be caught with his pants similarly down, I would wonder how that would be used as ammo by Republicans, especially at the state level, and how his work in the senate was suffering over it, and how much work he wasn’t getting done because instead he was giving press conferences about his the whereabouts of his cock.

If Britney Spears wants to get all wacked out on coke and traipse around without panties on?  That’s her problem.

“there is a massive difference between cheating just physically, and cheating emotionally.”

There is also a massive difference between the following…

1) Privately telling your wife the woman you cheated with meant nothing to you.

2) Telling the world the woman you cheated with meant nothing to you.

The former does no harm to the other woman.  The latter tells the world, as I pointed out above, that the other woman was either used or is just the type of woman who sleeps with married men and gets knocked up.  See? 

When Edwards told his wife she meant nothing to him, he was privately protecting his wife and his marriage without harming Hunter.  When he did it publicly, he was protecting his public image at her expense.

If Hunter loved him, it was a really shitty thing to do.

Have you read her history? I did when this was just Kaus spreading rumours, and I recognised the type of woman she was immediately. The kind of love you’re talking about didn’t play a part on her side.

If she didn’t love him [...] it was still a nasty thing to do because it publicly reveals her sexual attitudes to the whole damned world.

Again, read her history. Her sexual attitudes (secondary goals though they were) were very clear to anyone who was interested. She took the risk of trying to hook up with a very high-profile guy, and now she’s getting burned. But the book deal (ghostwritten, of course) will sooth it like aloe vera.

Iwill agree that it was a slimy and somewhat superfluous statement for Edwards to make, but not for the reasons you claim. If Rielle Hunter (AKA Lisa Druck) is taking offense, it’s because (as sometimes happens with her type) she started believing her own BS.

Steve LaBonne I have no idea what the Martin Luther King question is, nor do I care.

I don’t give a shit that Edwards cheated on his wife. My point was merely that being faithful to your spouse is not some dowdy and dull adherence to convention. I agree it’s a private matter, but trying to portray adultery as breaking free from the bonds of the mundane is a bit absurd.

People should work for what they have, and those who can’t work hard enough should expect to have less.

I agree, which is why we should have a 100% estate tax and eliminate all trust funds for family members.  If we want to reward hard work and only hard work, why let some people start 50 meters ahead of everyone else in the 100-meter dash?

Wow, so you also think it’s perfectly acceptable to get all up in the business of other totally private citizens who happen to find themselves in the public eye?

What part of the words “intensely and passionately pursue” didn’t you understand in the sentance, “When you intensely and passionately pursue life in the public eye, you end up living in the public eye”?

There is a huge difference between when a person passionately pursues life in the public sphere and when a person, through happenstance, just finds himself there.

“do all sorts of Mexican siesta-style things”

Clarification? Link to same?”

Here you go:
http://www.balloonmaniacs.com/images/mexicanmanwithsomreroballoon.jpg

Just kidding, here is the real thing:

“Mexico Tries to Stop U.S. Executions”
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/19/america/hague.php

“Daily Revolt: Bush Tries to Stop Execution of Mexican Killer of 2 Teen Girls.”
http://rivsys.blogspot.com/2007/10/bush-tries-to-stop-execution-of-mexican.html

U.N Concern at 50 Mexicans on Death Row
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL8664183

About time for the author of this website to go on another of her hate-filled rants about those “paternalistic” yada yada yada about the man she was going to try to get elected to show those “evil” conservatives up.

Were you around the campaign long enough to know that Edward’s was shagging this skank?  Would you have resigned your position and blew the whistle for the greater good or would you have kept silent like a good little girl? 

Isn’t it amazing that with all your hatred of conservatives you would have been working for you claim so much to hate?  Even now after Edwards has completely made you look like a twit, you lash out not at him but at John McCain, simply because he has a (R) after his name.

“I will agree that it was a slimy and somewhat superfluous statement for Edwards to make, but not for the reasons you claim. If Rielle Hunter (AKA Lisa Druck) is taking offense, it’s because (as sometimes happens with her type) she started believing her own BS.”

Then we are in complete agreement.  I am not attempting to protect Hunter’s honor.  Hell, for all I know there isn’t the least little bit of honor to protect.  I am only addressing Edwards’ motivation for saying what need not have been said.

Amanda, you are wrong.  Flat out wrong. 

“Edwards, as far as I know, has never been a “sanctity of marriage” wanker, and so this is officially None Of Our Business, and anyone who dogged him on this story should be fired on the principle that they don’t know journalism from rooting around in the trash.  Hypocrisy is a story; human weakness is not.”

There are several reasons to be extraordinarily upset with Edwards because he slept with another woman, and to overlook these reasons because he overlooked the bad juju that ensued after hiring you is not sound reasoning.  But let’s look at the reasons why those of us who are not ex-Edwards campaign bloggers are upset:

—Whether or not he is a “sanctity of marriage” wanker, he is a man who touted his Christian beliefs and slept with another women while married.  That, in and of itself, speaks of hypocrisy.  One cannot have it all ways.  Either one is a Christian and obeys the decalogue, or one isn’t. 

—Cancer.  CANCER!  He cheated on his wife, the mother of his children, when she had cancer.  Think about that for a bit.  It should make you wonder about the man, what he is really made of.  Emotional weakness or looking for solace when he was upset over the prospect of losing his wife aside, he banged another women when his wife was fighting for her life.  Period.  The ick factor in that cannot be ignored.  I am a phone sex operator and I have heard it all, and yet I am still appalled that the man did that to his wife because now she is in the position of having to make some dreadful choices while battling an incurable disease. 

—He used his wife and children as an integral part of teaching America about who John Edwards is.  He presented himself as a man who adored his wife - and undoubtedly still does - and as a strong, Christian family man.  Having sex with a woman who is not your wife defies the very character he was trying to sell America and he deserves every bit of egg on his face that he gets.

And the next is the main reason I would hiss if the man ever came into the room:

—He ran for public office when he knew he had a skeleton in the closet.  Hell, he was actively creating the skeleton as he ran for the Democratic nomination.  What would have happened if he’d won?  President McCain, that’s what. 

I am a sex industry worker.  I understand the idea of human weakness.  But the fact is, this nation has been run into the dirt because Bill Clinton could not keep his dick in his pants and the Christian right tired of his antics, conflating what one man did with what the Democratic Party was about.  Clinton fatigue dogged Gore in 2000 and what did we end up with?  The largest federal deficit in history, a quagmire in Iraq and the worst economy imaginable, with no end in sight unless Obama pulls it out.  It will be hard with comrades like Edwards.

The stakes are too damn high for us to look at this as a private matter that is none of our business.  Edwards could have caused another rent in the fabric of the Democratic party, one that we cannot afford, and defending him because he was once your boss shows a remarkable lack of respect for the integrity of the Democratic Party.  And that is my business.

King was a serial adulterer. The question is, does that diminish his ideals and his accomplishments for you?
Should he have removed himself from public life as people are saying Edwards should have done?

agree it’s a private matter, but trying to portray adultery as breaking free from the bonds of the mundane is a bit absurd.

Where you got the idea that I did so is quite a mystery. Please learn to read.

My point is simply the old-fashioned one that private matters are private. Nobody is perfect and to insist that everyone in public life behave perfectly in private is to hand an enormous club to the Pharisees of the right. Because as we’re seeing, it’s not THEIR bad boys who are destroyed by this puritanical standard- they are always forgiven by their own.

“but what is wrong with sleeping with who you choose, accidentally getting pregnant, “

Much of the worst pathology of modern society is caused by that kind of casual attitude toward family.

When you intensely and passionately pursue life in the public eye, you end up living in the public eye.  That is true whether you are John Edwards or Britney Spears.  Nobody gives a damn what you or I do, but then you and I didn’t devote our lives to begging people to look at us, did we?

So if you had been the judge in the case where Jennifer Aniston was sunbathing behind the walls of her own backyard and a paparazzi jumped over the fence and took pictures of her, you would have found in favor of the photographer?  After all, by being a public figure she gave up any and all claim to privacy, right?  The public has a right to know that she sunbathes topless when she’s at home.

Oh for the love of humanity, people! You expect a troll and I try to be the best one that I can be, and then you get offended!

Please: let’s have some balance. Either let me be the best and meanest troll that there is, or let’s call the whole thing off and I will be more of myself. But we can’t have it both ways.

To Jessi and Mnem: I don’t believe that those with disabilities should be disqualified from living up to their full potential in our society. I think there should be measures taken to protect the financial and physical well-being of the disabled. At the same time, you already know how I feel about redistributing things that belong to a family or an individual and handing those things over to strangers.

This ain’t Cuba, amigos. You get what you earn. And those who cannot work should be provided for by the greater society, so that their needs are met.

“You win the thread. Nobody is going to top that McCain was forced to cheat on his wife via torture.

I didn’t realize that part of his torture was being poked with a stick if he refused to insert his dick into a woman other than his wife. Those Vietnamese really are quite devious!”

Yeah, um, that’s what I wrote allright.

Just to get something clear - is Amanda’s argument that Liberals/Progressives promulgate absolutely no moral standards, whatsoever, at least as applied to sexual behavior - and thus their sexual lives, howsoever they may intersect with their public lives - are off limits?

Because, if this is the case, I think we should work this into more of our campaigns.

-He ran for public office when he knew he had a skeleton in the closet.  Hell, he was actively creating the skeleton as he ran for the Democratic nomination.  What would have happened if he’d won?  President McCain, that’s what.

Edwards knew the rules of the game, and thus deserves to be chastised for taking such a risk. At the same time, those rules need to be criticized, not blindly accepted.

Not only that, margalis, but the horrifying flashbacks McCain suffered caused him to put it to Vicki Iseman decades later!!! And who knows how many others…

I’ve changed my mind- let’s put McCain into the White House and watch him pork the press corps… wadda y’all say? Might be good for a laugh…

jessilikewhoa wrote:

while others have attacked this statement quite well, i just want to point out that it fucking drips in able-ism. yeah! whooo!!!1111!!!!111!!!! let those cripples and retards dieeee!!1111!!!1!!! these colors dont run!!!!1!!!!1!!!

Agreed.  The point I - and I believe Mnemosyne - were trying to make is that it is absurd for Republican trolls like Foucault to spout off about how the poor are only poor because they don’t work hard enough and all rich people are rich because they work harder.

The fact is - the very richest people in America, in general, got there the old-fashioned way.  They inherited it.  They didn’t work any harder than the poor person working 60 hour weeks in a shit job just trying to pay their basic bills, and Foucault’s assertion to the contrary is utter bullshit.

<blockquote>“backyard and a paparazzi jumped over the fence and took pictures of her, you would have found in favor of the photographer?”</blockqoute>

I would have found him guilty of trespassing.  If he took the photo with a telephoto lens from the roof of a nearby roof on which he had permission to be, I would have found him guilty of nothing.

This ain’t Cuba, amigos. You get what you earn.

And Bill Gates’ kids haven’t earned a dime—they were just lucky enough to be born to rich people.  Therefore, there should be a 100 percent estate tax so they can start with a clean slate like everyone else.  Or are you arguing that because her great-grandfather was a good businessman, Paris Hilton really is superior to all the rest of us plebes who have to work for a living?

The funny thing, of course, is that Bill Gates agrees with me—he’s giving his kids a token amount and giving the rest to charity the way his father did.  Of course, his “token amount” is a couple hundred thousand dollars, but at least his heart’s in the right place.

“The fact is - the very richest people in America, in general, got there the old-fashioned way.  They inherited it. “

True, but the right to pass on wealth to your children has little to do with their right to receive it and everything to do with your right to dispose of your property as you see fit.

I would have found him guilty of trespassing.

I thought celebrities gave up all privacy rights when they decided to become celebrities?  Which is it?

Then we are in complete agreement.  I am not attempting to protect Hunter’s honor.  Hell, for all I know there isn’t the least little bit of honor to protect.  I am only addressing Edwards’ motivation for saying what need not have been said.

If I had to guess, it was a misguided way to affirm publicly “I love my wife” (which itself may or may not be true). He would have been better off keeping his mouth shut or (since Idiot America demands a statement to read in US Magazine) “I made a mistake, and publicly apologise to my family and to those who supported my campaign.”

That, at least, would have been true and productive. And then we could focus on Idiot America’s pathological and hypocritical Puritanism and fascination with controlling other people’s sex lives.

Read all of those already, foucault- and still waiting for clarification of what “Mexican sort of siesta-style things” means.

Hazarding a guess, though…

“This ain’t Cuba, amigos.”

Still claiming not to be a racist?? Okay. Neither are Rush or your bunkmate Hannity…

Au revoir, people. I must also retire. Did I mention that I have finished composing my masterpiece dissertation? I will publish it later this year, so suck on that!

Foucault on 08/08 at 11:12 PM

Done for me (which means I’ll have another 4 and counting comments, right foucault?).

G’night folks… don’t forget to wash your hands when you’re done playing with your troll.

“Therefore, there should be a 100 percent estate tax so they can start with a clean slate like everyone else. “

Bill Gates earned his wealth by creating it from nothing.  Why would you deny him the right to disperse his post tax dollars as he sees fit?  You would allow him to spend it or give it to charity.  Basically you believe Bill Gates can do whatever he wants with his money except give it to his children.  Why would you deny him that right?

“Agreed.  The point I - and I believe Mnemosyne - were trying to make is that it is absurd for Republican trolls like Foucault to spout off about how the poor are only poor because they don’t work hard enough and all rich people are rich because they work harder.”

I actually dislike most Republicans as much as I dislike the socialist left-leaning Edwards style politician.

I am a Democrat or a liberal as we call it. But I sensed from the very beginning that there was something deeply unsavory about Edwards and his wife (who was also a moralizing little witch when it came to the Clinton scandal, though I do feel badly about her cancer).

I just had the gut feeling when the problems began to arise with Amanda’s role as Edwards’ blog manager that he was a coward who would sell her out, or let her bow out politely, in order to save his own ass.

And now, when it comes to things that actually matter, he is operating in exactly the same self-serving manner: “Go ahead and be hard on me because you can’t be harder than I have been on myself.” In short: “Please go easy because I am too much of a pussy to acknowledge this affair as what it is: an abuse of my marriage and an abuse of public funds.” The worse thing is the way he has dismissed the mistress as someone whom he did not love. I don’t care if he loved her or not. But saying that as an excuse does not exactly win my sympathies.

“That, at least, would have been true and productive. And then we could focus on Idiot America’s pathological and hypocritical Puritanism and fascination with controlling other people’s sex lives.”

What the hell is it with you simpletons?  Why are simple concepts so hard for you to grasp?  I have yet to see anybody talk about their sexual positions, stamina, fetishes or frequency.  Nobody gives a flying fuck about his sex life!  This is about Edwards’ infidelity, lies, betrayal and profoundly poor judgment.  Why in the hell is that so hard for moonbats to grasp?

“I just want trolls that try harder, is that too much to ask? hell, foucault, our most prolific troll as of late actually sort of likes and respects me in a strange way.

a girl just can’t win.”

I *do* like you and respect you, Jessi. I often say a lot of shit here that I only half-mean. I don’t even know why I do it. But I wish you all the best. You are young, smart, and have a lot going for you in that you are more interesting than most of the old-timers who post here.

Anyhow, I am seriously off to bed now. Sweet dreams, froggies. And look on the bright side: at least we are not John Edwards tonight!

“And Bill Gates’ kids haven’t earned a dime—they were just lucky enough to be born to rich people.  Therefore, there should be a 100 percent estate tax so they can start with a clean slate like everyone else.”

I find that, rather than getting bothered about what someone else has inherited, working at accumulating some wealth of my own is a much better use of my time.  The fact that Paris Hilton has inherited wealth doesn’t deprive me of a damned thing.  Hating her and demanding a 100 percent estate tax doesn’t do me very much good either - other than misdirecting my motivation.  A clever individual might even figure out how to separate a fool (Paris) from her over-abundance of money.

It’s very quaint when trolls try to get all serious, as if everyone is going to forget that they were trolling 30 seconds earlier.

It’s like a very special episode of Full House.

True, but the right to pass on wealth to your children has little to do with their right to receive it and everything to do with your right to dispose of your property as you see fit.

Not really.  Or at least not in the real world wherein the Constitution wasn’t rewritten by Ayn Rand.

You do not have the right to dispose of your property as you see fit.  For instance I see fit to blow every penny I make on pretty shoes.  Except I have the misfortune of getting this annoying notice every year about how I owe the government $X.  Which means that I’m not able to dispose of as much of my property as I see fit on shiny shiny toys. 

Similarly, yeah, there’s really nothing keeping our government from passing legislation that regulates the amount of money that can be inherited.  Rich people would hate that, and it’s unlikely to ever happen in our current political climate.  But there’s certainly nothing in the Constitution that protects against it.

I often say a lot of shit here that I only half-mean. I don’t even know why I do it.

I’ll take “thrives on negative attention and wasn’t hugged enough as a child” for $200 Alex.

Calling yourself a liberal democrat then making homophobic slurs and whining about commies - it’s certainly endearing.

Basically you believe Bill Gates can do whatever he wants with his money except give it to his children.  Why would you deny him that right?

Because it sets up an aristocracy that doesn’t seem to realize that they are an aristocracy.  George W. Bush, grandson of a senator, son of a president, from a very wealthy family, is convinced that he got where he is today on his own merits with no help from his family.

The only way to have a truly level playing field is to dismantle that aristocracy.  Why are you arguing in favor of allowing aristocrats to control the country with inherited wealth?  Don’t you think people should work for what they have instead of having everything handed to them?

“But there’s certainly nothing in the Constitution that protects against it.”

You are right.  On the other hand there is nothing in the Constitution that protects abortion either but that doesn’t prevent a few million babies from being murdered every year.

It’s very quaint when trolls try to get all serious, as if everyone is going to forget that they were trolling 30 seconds earlier.

On second thought, I don’t mean anything I write here.  Not a lick of it.  It’s all just a way for me to get attention from all of you.

“But there’s certainly nothing in the Constitution that protects against it.”

Read it (the Constitution) again, or perhaps for the first time.

Oh and here are some other things our government does not presently allow Bill Gates to spend his money on:

Hookers
Blow
A nuclear arsenal
Malaysian slave girls (or boys, for that matter)
10 backup kidneys
Every other software company in the world
20 million votes for Barack Obama
His own specially dedicated member of congress who will personally work for the Bill Gates agenda and nothing else

I’m sure others can think of more, but that’s a start, right?  Clearly, the US government does not guarantee us the right to spend our money as we see fit.

I find that, rather than getting bothered about what someone else has inherited, working at accumulating some wealth of my own is a much better use of my time.

I lay back and rely on my trust fund to keep me afloat.  And, no, I’m not kidding.  I’d probably work a lot harder if I didn’t know that I never really have to worry about money.

Hint:

“nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”

Read it (the Constitution) again, or perhaps for the first time.

Oh, did I miss teh part where it says the government can’t interfere with my disposition of my property? That means I don’t have to pay taxes! Yippee!

Idiot.

“Why are you arguing in favor of allowing aristocrats to control the country with inherited wealth? “

Because it beats the hell out of living in a society where others steal your wealth just because they can.  The wealth I create through my own industry should go to my children, not your lazy ass.

Also, dead people don’t have rights, Constitutional or otherwise.

“I lay back and rely on my trust fund to keep me afloat.  And, no, I’m not kidding.  I’d probably work a lot harder if I didn’t know that I never really have to worry about money.”

And you might find that working hard - at something - is a worthwhile use of your time.  Either way, I wish you all the best and congratulate you on your fortunate position - I hope to provide my children with a similar measure of economic independence one day.

“nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”

Clearly you haven’t been paying much attention to the recent SCOTUS brouhaha re eminent domain.

The wealth I create through my own industry should go to my children, not your lazy ass.

If you “create wealth” all by yourself on an unpopulated island, you’re entitled to make such a sweeping claim. Otherwise, not so much.

“here are some other things our government does not presently allow Bill Gates to spend his money on:”

Please.  Prohibiting the sale of cocaine is in no way similar to seizing his assets for redistribution.  Now run along.  The grown ups are talking.

“Oh, did I miss teh part where it says the government can’t interfere with my disposition of my property? That means I don’t have to pay taxes! Yippee!

Idiot. “

The Fifth Amendment, as quoted by me above.  A 100% Estate Tax is an unconstitutional taking. 

I find that reading and learning about subjects helps me form a useful opinion about things.  You might want to try it before you express your opinions.

Libertards are so cute when they affect to patronize their betters. Kind of like a 3 year old wearing his dad’s clothes.

“Clearly you haven’t been paying much attention to the recent SCOTUS brouhaha re eminent domain.”

Those takings were “justly compensated.”  It doesn’t say “government can’t take property,” it says government can’t take property without due process and/or just compensation.

A 100% Estate Tax is an unconstitutional taking.

You went to Liberty University Skool of Law, I take it.

Foucault wrote:To Jessi and Mnem: I don’t believe that those with disabilities should be disqualified from living up to their full potential in our society. I think there should be measures taken to protect the financial and physical well-being of the disabled. At the same time, you already know how I feel about redistributing things that belong to a family or an individual and handing those things over to strangers.

This ain’t Cuba, amigos. You get what you earn. And those who cannot work should be provided for by the greater society, so that their needs are met.

Again you rant about the evil of wealth redistribution while at the same time making the assanine claim that everyone who is wealthy got that way because they “earned” it, and as such they must “deserve” their wealth.

Please… I implore you - aside from being made up from Jim Hensley’s man juice - what in God’s name did Cindy Hensley McCain ever do to “earn” the millions of dollars she has?

“If you “create wealth” all by yourself on an unpopulated island…

Cripes.  It is like talking to a five year old.  I also make payroll every two weeks with which my employees are buying homes, cars, college educations, etc.  I also pay dividends to my investors.  I also pay interest to my creditors.  I also create wealth up and down the supply chain.  I also pay a hell of a lot of taxes at the federal, state, county, municipal and school district level.  When all that is done, I get a little for myself and I god damned well should be able to pass that margin on to my own children without parasites like you trying to seize it.

Eminent domain has nothing to do with taxes.

I think we’ve run into a crowd that views all taxes as “theft.” Ha. This will be entertaining.

Because it beats the hell out of living in a society where others steal your wealth just because they can.

You may have missed the part where all of this happens after you’re dead.  You’re not under the impression your money follows you to the afterlife, right?  Once you’re dead, it’s of no use to you anymore.  While you’re alive, you can use your money to buy your children the educational opportunities that people like Barack and Michelle Obama had to work their asses off in order to get.  Make a big enough donation to Harvard and they don’t care if your kid has an 0.2 GPA.

Why do you want have your children grow up to be celebutantes who are most famous for their sex videos and their lack of underwear?  Don’t you really love them?

Prohibiting the sale of cocaine is in no way similar to seizing his assets for redistribution.  Now run along.  The grown ups are talking.

Yes, actually it kind of is.  Because it shows that the government most certainly can tell you how you can dispose of your property.  You cannot, for instance, spend your money on cocaine, or trade anything of real or perceived monetary value (including sexual favors) for cocaine.  If there were clearly stated rights to do whatever the fuck you want with your “property” right there in the Constitution, all drug laws would be blatantly unconstitutional. 

I can take it further, if you want—say by looking at the words “dispose” and “property” more literally.  Because I can scan in a copy of the big notice the city of new york sends out every year instructing residents on how to properly dispose of garbage via the MANDATORY BY LAW recycling program.  Which has been in effect for plenty long enough for the SCOTUS to shoot it down if there was, in fact, any sort of right to literally dispose of your literal property however you see fit.

“Libertards are so cute when they affect to patronize their betters. Kind of like a 3 year old wearing his dad’s clothes.”

Please go away now, instead of doubling down on your embarrasing performance. 

FYI, I am in no wise a Libertarian.

<blockquote>I also make payroll every two weeks with which my employees are buying homes, cars, college educations, etc.  I also pay dividends to my investors.  I also pay interest to my creditors.</blockqutoe>Which means that “your” wealth creation cannot happen without the collaboration of many other people and without the existence of an intricate network of laws and social institutions that you had no hand in building.

I agree, talking to you IS like talking to a five-year-old.

“Yes, actually it kind of is.”

No, it absolutely isn’t.  Police laws are profoundly different than the seizure of property and I your dog’s breakfast of reasoning doesn’t make enough sense to address.

Funny how “you get what you earn” immediately morphed into “you get what you earn, and um, also what you don’t earn.”

Doesn’t quite have that same ring.

“people like Barack and Michelle Obama had to work their asses off in order to get.”

ROTFLMAO!! Please. Yer killin me.

The Fifth Amendment, as quoted by me above.  A 100% Estate Tax is an unconstitutional taking.

Once you’re dead, you’re no longer a legal person.  Right now, the government allows you to leave your property to your children, but that’s a courtesy.  There’s no requirement for them to do that, because once you’re dead, you no longer exist legally.  That’s why rich people spend so much time tying their money up in trust funds and foundations—once they’re dead, the government can do pretty much whatever they want.

Just as you can’t libel the dead, you can’t steal from the dead, because they don’t own the property anymore.  They’re dead.

“You went to Liberty University Skool of Law, I take it.”

You’re close - University of Pennsylvania School of Law.  Our books had almost all of the Constition in them.

True, but the right to pass on wealth to your children has little to do with their right to receive it and everything to do with your right to dispose of your property as you see fit.

You’re missing the point, dolt.  Asshole Repukes like you love to make the assertion that rich people are rich because they work harder and poor people are poor because they are lazy.

You yourself just acknowledged that this isn’t often the case at all.

So if the premise of an argument against wealth distribution is that people should only get rewarded if they work hard for something, how in the hell do you justify someone being born into a billion dollar trustfund.  They didn’t do shit to earn it other than getting lucky with who their parents were.

Police laws are profoundly different than the seizure of property and I your dog’s breakfast of reasoning doesn’t make enough sense to address.

Can someone please translate this from stupid to English?

ROTFLMAO!! Please. Yer killin me.

Because factory worker’s daughter Michelle Robinson from the South Side of Chicago started off in life with the exact same advantages of a George W Bush?

Wow.  You really are naive about how people actually live, aren’t you?  You’re probably astounded that your employees are buying color TVs.

“Which means that “your” wealth creation cannot happen without the collaboration of many other people and without the existence of an intricate network of laws and social institutions that you had no hand in building.”

All of whom are taking part in the wealth being created and enjoying the fruits of my - and their - industry.  Your argument was that I don’t live on an island so I have to pay others for their part in wealth creation. Well I absolutely am and there is no justification for you to steal 100% of what I create.

Here is the good news.  Assholes like you will never get anywhere with your desire to steal the wealth of others.  You will continue to parasitize society, but never to the degree your greedy heart desires.

Our books had almost all of the Constition in them.

Evidently including even the imaginary parts, like the clauses that ban inheritance taxes.

What hard “work” has Michelle Obama ever done?  None.  Bush has done infinitely more work than either of those two clowns.

“Just as you can’t libel the dead, you can’t steal from the dead, because they don’t own the property anymore.  They’re dead.”

This is simply not true.  Look, I understand what you are saying, from your philosophical/ideological point of view, and it is somewhat consistent and valid within itself, but this is simply not the state of affairs (legally speaking) under the United States Constitution.  What frightens me is that you cavalierly throw around a 100% Estate Tax (assuming no exemptions of credits) like candy.

Every person has failings, it’s much more complicated than “this guy cheated on his wife therefore he can’t be trusted with nukes.” Someone might cheat on their wife for personal / sexual reasons that have nothing to do with their ability to run a nation. Your reasoning is much too reductive for me.

Except, of course, Edwards HIMSELF is the one who said this affair represented “disloyalty to his core values.”  Frankly, I think “disloyalty to core values” should have EVERYTHING to do with disqualifying someone to run a nation.  How on Earth is it reductive to say a person who can’t be trusted to be honest with his intimates, when he himself marks that as a core part of his value structure,cannot really be trusted to be honest with people (us) he has no real connection to, or no real stake in treating well?

And even if Edwards thought honesty was not a core value, I do.  I think its a very big deal.  I don’t give a crap about his sexual compatibility issues.  However, how he deals with stuff like that does matter when it points to a disregard for honesty.

Police laws are profoundly different than the seizure of property

You insist that the US government guarantees us the right to “dispose of our property as we see fit” (your words, I believe).  I have provided countless examples, from taxation to eminent domain to drug laws to city waste disposal ordinances, that indicate that no such right is currently recognized by our government. 

Also, the idea that drug laws are part of some special category called “police laws”, somehow outside the bounds of the Constitution, is hilarious.

Not to mention, of course, that you have every right to distribute your wealth to friends, family members, that nice waitress at Peter Luger, pretty much whoever (aside, of course, from the heavy regulation on things like charities and political donations), while you’re still alive.  Write each kid a check for $20 mil right now.  Nobody’s stopping you.  But after you die?  I don’t know if you’ve heard this, but when you die, you cease to exist.  It’s not your property anymore.

nothing he nor i have done merits this disparity.

Did your mommy tell you there would be no disparities in life?  If she did, she did you a profound disservice.

What hard “work” has Michelle Obama ever done?  None.  Bush has done infinitely more work than either of those two clowns.

I your dog’s breakfast of reasoning doesn’t make enough sense to address.

So there.

Your argument was that I don’t live on an island so I have to pay others for their part in wealth creation. Well I absolutely am and there is no justification for you to steal 100% of what I create.

By your own admission, YOU did not create it by yourself. And again, we’re NOT only talking about the people who work for you. We’re also talking about the very elaborate social and legal institutions that enable you to enforce contracts, borrow money, etc- institutions that do not come free of charge, and to which you in turn have legitimate obligations. Good luck with your “wealth creation” in the state of nature.

What hard “work” has Michelle Obama ever done?  None.  Bush has done infinitely more work than either of those two clowns.

OK, sorry, I can’t come up with a response for this.  But it’s so hilarious I thought it bore repeating.

“Evidently including even the imaginary parts, like the clauses that ban inheritance taxes.’

You know, I understand that your ability to comprehend lanuage is not the best, but I challenge you to find a single statement (by me) which stated that all Estate Taxes are unconstitutional.  If you read what I wrote, I stated that a 100% Estate Tax is an unconstitutional taking.

What hard “work” has Michelle Obama ever done?  None.  Bush has done infinitely more work than either of those two clowns.

Ah, yes.  Because the only way two smart, driven black people could get ahead is by cheating, right?  There’s no possible way they could have worked hard, studied hard, and advanced themselves since their families didn’t have any money.

No, they must have cheated in some way.  I’m sure they only made Barack the head of the Harvard Law Review because they felt sorry for him.  That’s how it works at Harvard, you know.

“somebody seriously misinterpreted who were the good guys and who were the bad guys when watching disney’s robin hood.

Perfect.  You want to rob from the rich.  That about sums it up.  God parasites like you make me sick.  First because you suckle at the teat of society for your entire life and, second, because you think you deserve something more.  You don’t deserve what you already get.

If you read what I wrote, I stated that a 100% Estate Tax is an unconstitutional taking.

And you have a Supreme Court decision to back that up. Right?

What frightens me is that you cavalierly throw around a 100% Estate Tax (assuming no exemptions of credits) like candy.

And if I were anything other than a random commenter on a blog talking shit on a boring Friday night because I don’t feel like watching reruns of “M*A*S*H” with my husband, you might have a point.  But as I am not a politician, not a lawyer, and have no political ambitions, this is all going to remain idle chit-chat on the internet.  I’m pretty sure that even the Soviet Union at its most repressive didn’t have a 100% estate tax.

Pink Dinkins:

Our books had almost all of the Constition in them.

And exactly what the fuck is a “Constition”?

“We’re also talking about the very elaborate social and legal institutions that enable you to enforce contracts, borrow money, etc- institutions that do not come free of charge, and to which you in turn have legitimate obligations.”

Dumbass: it is all being paid for by me and people like me right now.  You don’t need to steal all of what I have left for that.  It is being paid for you greedy little fuck.

“no, but assholes like you insist that if i tug my bootstraps hard enough i can be on equal footing with the wealthiest of trust fund kids, and that my friend, is total and utter bullshit.”

No, I would say that if you bothered to roll out of bed before 11:00 A.M., managed to look like a presentable human being, stayed away from the recreational drug use and put forward some effort, you could support yourself and perhaps live a somewhat comfortable life. 

I grew up in a neighborhood that you wouldn’t visit in an armored HummVee on Easter Sunday Morning, and I live rather well - so yes, you can do it too.

No, wait, I finally see what Distwalker is saying.

You see, George Bush loves to clear brush on his ranch and has taken record amounts of vacation time as POTUS in order to fulfill his brush clearing responsibilities.  The Obamas, as attorneys, make their money sitting at desks all day, writing, talking, typing, thinking, etc.  In the absence of any evidence that they do equivalent amounts of physical labor, Bush, by virtue of his manual labor on the ranch, has done more work than the Obamas have.

Except, of course, Edwards HIMSELF is the one who said this affair represented “disloyalty to his core values.” Frankly, I think “disloyalty to core values” should have EVERYTHING to do with disqualifying someone to run a nation.

Is that better or worse than not having core values?

How on Earth is it reductive to say a person who can’t be trusted to be honest with his intimates, when he himself marks that as a core part of his value structure,cannot really be trusted to be honest with people (us) he has no real connection to, or no real stake in treating well?

People do strange things when it comes to sexual desire. People cheat - a lot of people cheat. And then they lie about it for obvious reasons.

I don’t believe that you can know the character of a person from one thing they’ve done, no matter how wonderful or terrible. Human beings are more complex than that.

Now personally I never liked Edwards anyway. But determing the essential character of a person from one incident and using that to disqualify them (or in the case of McCain, qualify) rubs me the wrong way. And I’d point out that Clinton was a better President than Bush Jr.

“shorter asshole: whaaaaaa whaaaa whaaaa all the toys are mine! you can’t play with them! i’m telling my mommy!

Yeah, that might be me but you are the creepy predator lurking in the shadows watching the baby and his toys coveting what he has waiting for your chance to take what is his.

ou don’t need to steal all of what I have left for that.

You don’t get to decide unilaterally how much you “should” get to keep and how much the society without which your efforts would be impossible can exact from you in return. Life’s tough all over, buddy.

The Obama’s have accomplished exactly nothing in their lives other than a world class job of self promotion.  The ratio of acclaim to accomplishment with these two is at least a million to one.

Dumbass: it is all being paid for by me and people like me right now.

It’s also being paid for by me and everyone else on this thread.  Or are you under the impression that people who make less than $100,000 a year don’t pay any taxes?  Why are you insisting that only you should benefit for something that I also paid for?  I’m going to be paying for Bear Stearns’ mortgage-buying idiocy for years to come—why do I have to pay out without ever seeing a benefit because a bunch of fund managers couldn’t tell their asses from a hole in the ground?

In the words of Justice Holmes, “while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking.” Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 415, 43 S.Ct. 158, 160, 67 L.Ed. 322 (1922)

This applies specifically to regulatory takings, but will do the trick for the purposes of the within discussion.  Now, please go away.

<blockquote>Distwalker:

What hard “work” has Michelle Obama ever done?  None.  Bush has done infinitely more work than either of those two clowns.</b>

I just blew my drink through my nose laughing…

Yeah, Bush has been so successful and industrious in his life…

Getting a cushy position in the Texas Air National Guard while less fortunate people served their country in Vietnam?  Check.

Running a few oil companies into financial ruin?  Check.

Spending 8 years in the White House and still failing to correctly pronounce the word “nuclear” even once in those 8 years?  Check.

But Mnemosyne, Bear Stearns represents the good old American no-holds-barred capitalist way: socialize the risks, privatize the profits. Works great for assholes like our Repuglitrolls.

This applies specifically to regulatory takings, but will do the trick for the purposes of the within discussion.

They actually let you graduate from law school? Epic fail in at least two ways: taxes are not “takings”, and dead people don’t have property rights.

“Or are you under the impression that people who make less than $100,000 a year don’t pay any taxes?

A lot of them work for me paying those taxes with the pay they receive created by my enterprise.  I pay taxes over and over.  The revenue my business makes pays the pay checks and then the recipients of those pay checks pay more taxes.  People like me do orders of magnitude more for this society than parasites like you trying to find ways to suck more out of society.

Distwater, you are an angry, bitter, jealous man who can’t stand the thought that some nobody from Hawaii is doing better than you, so you have to claim that you coulda had a law degree from Harvard, a lecturer position at the University of Chicago Law School, and an 11-year career in elected office just like Barack Obama if you’d felt like it.  But you didn’t and yet you totally know you’re better than him.

Very sad.

i don’t believe for a second you are anywhere near wealthy.

I don’t believe I am either because I am not.  The salary I make is modest.  I hope to build my business to a point that I might be wealthy some day, however.  I plan on doing it through my own industry, however.  Not by your plan of stealing it from somebody else.

A lot of them work for me paying those taxes with the pay they receive created by my enterprise.  I pay taxes over and over.  The revenue my business makes pays the pay checks and then the recipients of those pay checks pay more taxes.  People like me do orders of magnitude more for this society than parasites like you trying to find ways to suck more out of society.

Yes, that’s right, all of your employees sit around on their asses all day looking for ways to steal from you and you’re the only one who does any real work.  Why should you even have to pay them since you do all the work anyway?

“They actually let you graduate from law school? Epic fail in at least two ways: taxes are not “takings”, and dead people don’t have property rights. “

Look, I’m not going to conduct an ad hoc ConLaw class for someone who uses the term “epic fail” seriously.  We have nothing to say to one another, as you insist upon remaining wholly ignorant of takings jurisprudence.  I do belive your position is that the government can take all of a class of property (say, your house) if they call it a tax.  Very well - convince someone else of an equal level of heroic ignorance.

The Obama’s have accomplished exactly nothing in their lives other than a world class job of self promotion.

Wow.  Man, I don’t want to be your kids if you seriously don’t consider things like graduating from Ivy League universities, editing the Harvard Law Review, becoming a US senator, holding an executive position at a prestigious research hospital, being a professor at a top tier law school, and the like to be accomplishments.  I hope you’ve set aside some of their trust funds for therapy.

Mnemosyne you are an angry bitter jealous person who can’t stand the thought that somebody might being doing better than you, so you fantasize about ways of stealing what they have.

“Chicago Law School, and an 11-year career in elected office just like Barack Obama if you’d felt like it.”

Nope.  Affirmative action isn’t available for me.

Pinkie, you sure talk big for someone retarded enough to think dead people can be property owners.

I your dog’s breakfast of reasoning doesn’t make enough sense to address.

All your base are belong to us.

Yeah, that might be me but you are the creepy predator lurking in the shadows watching the baby and his toys coveting what he has waiting for your chance to take what is his.

Keep it up folks, this is quickly approaching epic thread territory.

Mnemosyne you are an angry bitter jealous person who can’t stand the thought that somebody might being doing better than you, so you fantasize about ways of stealing what they have.

I don’t have to steal a thing.  Like I said, I was lucky enough to be born to a wealthy family.  I am what you hope your children will be some day—idle and rich.

Pinkie, you sure talk big for someone retarded enough to think dead people can be property owners.

Are you retarded enough to believe that the ability for dead people to leave their property to others isn’t the law of the land?  Are you retarded enough to not understand that trusts exist?

Pink Dinkins wrote:

Look, I’m not going to conduct an ad hoc ConLaw class for someone who uses the term “epic fail” seriously.

Says the moron who just wrote the term “Constition” 25 minutes ago.

Nope.  Affirmative action isn’t available for me.

That’s right.  All 3 million votes that Obama got in Illinois in 2004 were affirmative action votes.  They took all the votes that they would have given to a deserving white man and gave them to Obama instead.

I can see it now, the long line of weeping white men who were squeezed out of elective office because of those laws that require minority candidates to get affirmative action votes.  They were qualified for that job, but the voters gave it to a black man!  Just like in this commercial.

“aaaaannnnnnnnnd he’s a racist. “

They both took advantage of affirmative action. Michelle’s test scores were not high enough to get into Princeton.  Even she acknowledges that.  There is nothing racist about stating the fact.

I love how moonbats toss out the racist card the first chance they get.

“All 3 million votes that Obama got in Illinois in 2004 were affirmative action votes. “

If Jack Ryan handn’t self destructed so Obama could run virtually unopposed, you would have never heard of him.

“Pinkie, you sure talk big for someone retarded enough to think dead people can be property owners.”

OK, I’ll make it so simple even you can understand -

Congress passes an Estate Tax that takes 0% of Estates where the Decedent is White and heterosexual; 100% if the Decedent is black or a homosexual.

Constitutional?

I mean, the blacks and gays are dead, correct?

Distwalker:

Are you retarded enough to believe that the ability for dead people to leave their property to others isn’t the law of the land?

I’m pretty sure dead people don’t have the “ability” to do anything other than umm… decompose.

Are you retarded enough to not understand that trusts exist?

Again with the goalpost shifting.

Nobody here is saying that you do not currently have the ability to leave your property to others after you die.  We’re saying that there’s no direct Constitutional protection of those abilities.  As an extension of the idea that the US government does not currently recognize the right of everyone to dispose of their property as they wish.  Current policy regarding inheritance taxation, trusts, etc. is just that—current policy.  I forget what any of this has to do with the price of tea in China, but there you go.

Are you retarded enough to believe that the ability for dead people to leave their property to others isn’t the law of the land?

It’s the STATUTE law of the land. Unlike you, I’m not retarded enough not to know the difference between that and the Constitution. No matter how much you bloviate about this, you’re full of crap.

“I’m pretty sure dead people don’t have the “ability” to do anything other than umm… decompose.”

You ever hear of a thing called a will?  With it, the wishes people who are dead are executed every day in this country.

I’m not retarded enough not to know the difference between that and the Constitution.

Why don’t you go back and show me where I said anything about the constitution in this thread?

“Wow.  Man, I don’t want to be your kids if you seriously don’t consider things like graduating from Ivy League universities, editing the Harvard Law Review”

This is an innocent question - does anyone know what Barack Obama’s class rank at Harvard Law School was?  Editor of Law Review is an elected position, so merely having been elected to something is not in se evidence of objective excellence.  I do think that Senator Obama is an extraordinarily intelligent man, I’m just trying to quantify his academic performance. (in truth, I don’t think that being “good at law school” is all that significant either way, and there are far more accurate measures of fitness for office)

If Jack Ryan handn’t self destructed so Obama could run virtually unopposed, you would have never heard of him.

And if Bush’s daddy hadn’t been the 41st President of the United States, Dubya would still be snorting coke with his fratboy buddies and running businesses into the ground.

What’s your point?

If Jack Ryan handn’t self destructed so Obama could run virtually unopposed, you would have never heard of him.

Jack Ryan was already running behind when his sex scandal came out.  Somehow people always forget that and have this wishful fantasy that Ryan would have, like, totally come from behind and shown that uppity black man who’s boss!

The Republican was always going to lose in that race—Ryan himself was considered a bit of a sacrificial lamb and once he dropped out, they couldn’t even find anyone else in the Illinois Republican Party willing to run because half the party leadership was under indictment or in jail.

But, please, continue to tell yourself that the only way Barack Obama got 70 percent of the vote in Illinois was affirmative action.  You’re really starting to crack me up.

Well ladies, it has been fun but I am out of here.  This has been my first and last time posting on this site.  Bye.

With it, the wishes people who are dead are executed every day in this country.

And that could be changed by changing the laws, without running afoul of the Constitution.
Furthermore, even now a small percentage of them are already prevented from transferring all of their property as they wish by inheritance taxes

By the way, even before Ryan self-destructed, he was running 22 points behind Obama

Wow, that affirmative action’s some powerful stuff!  It even gets into the polls and pushes down the white man’s numbers when he doesn’t deserve it!  Is there anything affirmative action can’t do?

Michelle’s test scores were not high enough to get into Princeton.  Even she acknowledges that.

Which puts her a long ways ahead of someone like Bush, who as far as I’m aware has never publicly acknowledged that he was in no way academically qualified to attend Yale or Harvard.  And no, there’s nothing classist about stating that fact. 

Having actually applied to and attended university not all that long ago, I’d also wonder how one could know that their test scores weren’t high enough, or what that even means.  Last I heard there was no official SAT cutoff for admission to even the most elite universities.  Or if there is such a cutoff I doubt any university would release such numbers to the public (and as far as I know you don’t get a special Secrets Of The Universe packet when your husband is elected to the senate).  Every single one of my college application packets stressed that admissions were decided by a number of different factors, with no one criterion trumping the rest.  An otherwise ideal candidate who scored a 1450 rather than a 1570 is unlikely to be denied admission merely on the basis of SAT scores.  So while it’s possible Obama has made self-effacing comments about feeling like she didn’t have the SAT score to get into Princeton, there’s no way she could actually know that she was only admitted because she was black.

Is there anything affirmative action can’t do?

Apparently it can’t give Republicans brains. Even though there’s no question they’re historically disadvantaged in that department.

I suspect that Distwalker makes less money than I do. I wonder if he’d be willing to send me a check covering our difference in taxes? Seems like right now he is leeching off my hard work.

You ever hear of a thing called a will?  With it, the wishes people who are dead are executed every day in this country.

In my will I’m wishing to be revived immediately and given a new young body, since everything everything you wish for in a will apparently magically happens.

This is an innocent question - does anyone know what Barack Obama’s class rank at Harvard Law School was?

I have no idea what this means, but WikiAnswers says, “He was ranked A212 out of T3829.”

For what it’s worth, John McCain was ranked 894th out of 899 at the Naval Academy.  But I’m sure it was because of affirmative action holding him back!!1!!1one!!!

“‘Escheat’ provision of Indian Land Consolidation Act of 1983, providing for escheat to Indian tribe of small undivided property interests that are unproductive during year proceeding owner’s death, effected “taking” of tribal members’ decedents’ property without just compensation; decedents lost right to pass on valuable property to their heirs. Indian Land Consolidated Act, § 207, as amended.” Hodel v. Irving, 481 U.S. 704, 107 S.Ct. 2076 (1987)

Editor of Law Review is an elected position, so merely having been elected to something is not in se evidence of objective excellence.

As far as I’m aware, you generally have to be at least in the top 10% of your class to even be considered for any position on a law review, and it’s extremely competitive.  Usually considered to be a major feather in your cap and a big step towards things like important judicial clerkships and spots at the really important firms.  It’s not really a popularity contest, no. 

Not to mention, wow, still very happy not to be one of your kids.  If I graduated from Columbia, was admitted to Harvard Law, prospered enough to get onto the Law Review and be hired to a major Chicago law firm, leave that job to accept a teaching post at another top tier law school, and you STILL didn’t consider any of that something to be proud of, I’d probably hang myself.

When the waitress is late with my coffee at breakfast tomorrow, I’m going to blame it on affirmative action.

For what it’s worth, John McCain was ranked 894th out of 899 at the Naval Academy.  But I’m sure it was because of affirmative action holding him back.

Sure, you might think “John McCain - he’s kind of dumb” but then you have to remember that he was poked with a stick a bunch of times.

Makes you see his academic failings in a new light don’t it?

“As far as I’m aware, you generally have to be at least in the top 10% of your class to even be considered for any position on a law review”

No - you can “write on” for consoderation for the editorship.

“Not to mention, wow, still very happy not to be one of your kids.”

That’s the other guy, not me.  I’m sure you wouldn’t want to be my kid, but perhaps for other reasons.

I’m sure you wouldn’t want to be my kid, but perhaps for other reasons.

M-l-st-t—n

Who would like to buy a vowell?

“M-l-st-t—n

Who would like to buy a vowell? “

Another Internet tough guy - because your argument was going so well, of course.

No - you can “write on” for consoderation for the editorship.

Perhaps, but again, if you “write on”, it’s not really the same thing as putting it up to a “who’s the sexiest 3L” poll.  You have to, like, write stuff.  And it has to be so good that it puts you ahead of all the folks who automatically qualified because they were at the head of the class.  Which I would assume speaks well of a person’s merits. 

Keep in mind, also that this is the Harvard Law Review we’re talking about, and not some silly college paper just anyone can walk in and be allowed to edit.  Your insinuation that Obama wasn’t really qualified to do such a thing, just popular and good at winning elections and AFFIRMATIVE ACTION!!!!!!!! is ridiculous.

“Keep in mind, also that this is the Harvard Law Review we’re talking about, and not some silly college paper just anyone can walk in and be allowed to edit.  Your insinuation that Obama wasn’t really qualified to do such a thing, just popular and good at winning elections and AFFIRMATIVE ACTION!!!!!!!! is ridiculous.”

I didn’t insinuate anything, nor did I mention AA.  If you’ll recall, having gradated from a top-tier Law School, and (more importantly) being acquainted with what these schools produce, I’m not sure that this is the best measure of fitness for office anyway.  In other words, 98% of Law Review types are memorization machine, Idiot Savant wierdos, without the ability to reflect and process ambiguous data.  I’m not saying this is what Obama is, and perhaps his non-traditional achievement of the Editorship is, in fact, a better credential (to me) than had he simply been No. 1.

“nah pink, really, the way you phrased it made that or some other type of inflicted violence the first conclusion. you made being your child sound like a fate worse than death.”

Well, see, I think that you are projecting here.  I meant the Oboe lessons - she wouldn’t like the coerced Oboe lessons one bit.

“srysly, if teh AFFIRMATIVE ACTION!!!!1111!!1!1!11! is that fucking magical, my next question is, can i get it just for having a vagina, or do i need to be a POC too? cos if my vagina can get me into harvard and a seat in the senate, well, its high time i buy my vagina something special.”

I don’t think that it is fair for you to pretend that Senator Obama’s racial makeup isn’t a large part of what makes him (for some) an avatar of change, wherein change is something to be greatly desired.  It is reasonable, for better or for worse, to perceive Senator Obama as the exemplar of Affirmative Action - whether as a success or unnecessary indulgence.  I do believe that he himself admits as much.

I’m not sure that this is the best measure of fitness for office anyway.  In other words, 98% of Law Review types are memorization machine, Idiot Savant wierdos, without the ability to reflect and process ambiguous data.

Former editors of the Harvard Law Review include about half of the sitting Supreme Court justices, a long list of prominent politicians, and the presidents of several extremely prominent universities.

The idea that Law Review doesn’t serve as a good recommendation for public office is like saying that breaking athletic records doesn’t serve as a good recommendation for a spot on the Olympic team.  The whole point of Law Review is that it’s a major indicator of future success at whichever legal avenue you choose to pursue.

I also find it hilarious that someone who suddenly claims to have attended a top tier law school needs to deride law review types as a bunch of eggheads ill-equipped for real world success.

If you’ll recall, having gradated from a top-tier Law School, and (more importantly) being acquainted with what these schools produce,

One thing they don’t produce: good spellers.

What happened to the dude who claimed that the only people who brag about where they graduated from were high-school dropouts? Perhaps he would like to chime in again with a zinger of his own.

Ok I too laughed at the Oboe.

I don’t think that it is fair for you to pretend that Senator Obama’s racial makeup isn’t a large part of what makes him (for some) an avatar of change, wherein change is something to be greatly desired. 

That has nothing to do with affirmative action. Affirmative action is a system, not people’s attitudes.

I would also point out that McCain’s racial makeup is a large part of what makes him (for some) an avatar of seriousness and conservatism and trustworthyness.

“Former editors of the Harvard Law Review include about half of the sitting Supreme Court justices, a long list of prominent politicians, and the presidents of several extremely prominent universities.”

You’re assuming that they would make good Presidents and Commanders-in-Chief.  It is a totally different skill-set.  Doing well (GPA-wise) in Law School is entirely a matter of memorization and maniacal preparation.  Being a good lawyer - let alone executive - requires other attributes rarely found in those people.

Development of judgment, dealing with ambiguous and contradictory facts, persuasiveness, character, moral courage,command presence - none of these things are found in abundance on a Law Review staff.  OCS at Quantico, yes. 

“I also find it hilarious that someone who suddenly claims to have attended a top tier law school needs to deride law review types as a bunch of eggheads ill-equipped for real world success.”

Suddenly?!?  For starters, they ain’t so good at business development, and rely upon people like me to get them paying clients to bill.

“That has nothing to do with affirmative action. Affirmative action is a system, not people’s attitudes.

I would also point out that McCain’s racial makeup is a large part of what makes him (for some) an avatar of seriousness and conservatism and trustworthyness.”

He is an exemplar of AA meddling - successful, yes?  Most people can’t name their State Senator, and that office was the height of Senator Obama’s political achievement a mere three or four years ago.  Has there ever been another major party nominee to have taken Senator Obama’s route to the nomination of any race?

White-ness would have applied to any of the other candidates of either party save half of Richards, so unless you can demonstrate that McCain was chosen because he was more privilegy-white than Romney or Huckabee . . .

I sleep now.

You’re assuming that they would make good Presidents and Commanders-in-Chief.  It is a totally different skill-set.

I think it’s fair to say that if getting shot down in a plane is a qualification for President then so is being editor of the Harvard Law Review.

Anyway the original point here was that Obama is a lazy bum who never worked a day in his life and never accomplished anything. I don’t think anyone still talking actually believes that.

Oops I stand corrected, apparently Pink Dinkins does believe that.

I find it funny that Obama benefits from his race while John “I’m not the scary black guy” McCain doesn’t, even as some voters admit they simply refuse to vote for a black man.

McCain is the Republican nominee because he isn’t as weird as Romney or as crazy as Huckabee, and because there are still people who maintain, despite the evidence, that he’s an honest man.

It goes without saying that no one not white could be nominated by the Republicans. Although Irving Wallace contemplated the prospect of a black President a few decades ago, few Democrats ever contemplated the possibility either. But here we are.

And why, in a thread discussing the repercussions of someone else admitting infedility are we arguing about Obama anyway?

I, for one, don’t particularly resent my father’s philandering, except to the extent that my father’s lover attempted to mother me. Arrrgh! One mother is enough! It is entirely right, though, that our families have bonded to at least the extent that we share memorial services when somebody dies.

And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make, and it doesn’t vary inversely with the square of your distance to the wet spot. As it happens, I don’t hang out with my father’s girlfriend’s kids, but I’m happy to hug them.

“Hypocrisy is a story; human weakness is not.”  Why is hypocisy the only human weakness worthy of discussion?  Stalin was a brutal tyrant who killed tens of millions, but does he get a pass because he wasn’t a hypocrite?  (Note: Edwards is a hypocrite, given his comments about the Clinton impeachment issues, although the real issue was perjury, not “just sex.”)

Why is it so hard to say that cheating on your ill wife is morally reprehensible?  Why is that hard to say?  The “hypocrisy bad, other crap okay” standard makes no sense—either something is morally evil or it isn’t—unless you believe that the ONLY evil is to fall below your own standards.  That means that people with no standards can commit no wrong.

And no, Amanda, you cannot rationally dismiss anyone who disagrees with you as not getting enough sex.  That is juvenile and transparently moronic.

It is rational to say that Edwards’ moral bankruptcy is irrelevant to whatever agenda you might have, but that isn’t the same as saying that he isn’t morally bankrupt merely because he might be irrelevant.

Another way to put it is that if John Edwards thought that he was so damn important to the salvation of the free world, couldn’t he have kept it in his pants and not jeopardized his entire campaign?  Isn’t that a really bad reflection on his character that he would risked his oh, so important quest for the White House just for some sex on the side?

Just more evidence, to those who had any doubt, that John Edwards cares more about himself than any bigger cause.  He was willing to risk it all, for what??

Well I’m glad to know that this won’t devolve into a bunch of assholes saying “HAR HAR YER FORMER BOSS HAD AN AFFAIR MARCOTTE”.  Now to read this comment thread…

“He was willing to risk it all, for what??”

Um, is fucking really all that big a deal?

Over at chez Myers we’ve read about squid sex, we’ve read about spider sex, and at some point I, at least, wondered, where is the fun in that? The act itself, for those species, more nearly resembles feeding an infant than our familiar mammalian rumpy-pumpy, which is itself kinda comical.

We can’t help dignifying fucking - the half of our books and movies that aren’t about killing are about fucking - but we ought to limit the extent to which we take it seriously.

Holy cow: don’t you people sleep?

Reading Elizabeth Edwards’ statement this morning about the helicopters flying over her house and the reporters in her driveway finally did cause me to feel badly for the family. I hope this settles down soon, since he is no longer of any relevance to the campaign.

“I think it’s fair to say that if getting shot down in a plane is a qualification for President then so is being editor of the Harvard Law Review. “

Flying the jet in the first place was a display of physical courage.  McCain’s behavior for the following five plus years was an extraordinary display of moral courage, as well as a testament to McCain’s loyalty to the United States.  These are tremendous virtues, and I prefer, for once a virtuous President.  (I speak of Messers Clinton and Bush the lesser)  I don’t really think that Harvard Law Review compares, actually.

Also,  back to Edwards - anyone would trust a man who thinks that there is such a thing as “99% honest[y]” is a tremendous fool.  http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12405.html

Wow, sure didn’t take long for people go from saying none of this was true because it was a tabloid trash from the National Enquirer to now demanding more from McCain from the rumors the New York Times printed but never provided concrete evidence of.

Edwards- forgive and forget, move along, no one’s business, no hypocrisy whatsoever.

McCain- Fess up to all the rumors from off the record sources, now!  We demand answers, you sanctimonious hypocrite!

Unbelievable how people can excuse what they want to with all sorts of inconsistent reasoning because they like what they hear from that person and believe his message.

Two Americas:

One where whoring around behind your cancer-stricken wife’s back is no big deal.

Another where it says something about your character.

I gotta say that anybody who couldn’t tell Johnny Boy was totally full of shit is either blind, insane, nuts or a hard core asshole.

I mean, he is a fucking LAWYER.

what of the argument that it actually might be worse if Edwards had cheated on his wife while the cancer was in remission than not? Certainly, the conventional wisdom is that piling on the suffering to a cancer victim is the worst thing a person can do. But if the affair truly wasn’t emotional, and Edwards was in it for the pure physical sexual activity that is part and parcel of a healthy relationship which his wife could temporarily not provide due to her health, then if Edwards was sleeping with another woman while he COULD physically be with his wife, this seems to me to reflect even more poorly upon Edwards. I can understand a smart, independent woman like Elizabeth Edwards understanding her husbands needs have to be met from another source because of fate- I struggle with the idea that when she was through the worst of it he then saw fit to fulfill his needs elsewhere.

Why is it so hard to say that cheating on your ill wife is morally reprehensible?

Of course it’s morally reprehensible.  But when Russia and Georgia have started a shooting war, is it important to the future of the country? 

I know everyone loves gossip, and there’s nothing more fun than watching someone pompous take a fall.  But, again, this is on the level of demanding that we condemn Billy Crudup for being morally reprehensible because he left his 7-months-pregnant girlfriend for another woman.

Nope.  Affirmative action isn’t available for me.

Didn’t we find out this week that Obama didn’t even put his race on his application to Harvard?