DUmmies Watch Former Hero Edwards Being Investigated
It's hard to remember now but only a little over a year ago, John Edwards was THE choice of most of the DUmmies for the nomination. Of Hillary, The One, and the Breck Girl, the latter was overwhelmingly preferred. Even the carefully non-committal Pied Piper Pitt claimed Edwards was his preference but, in typically safe fashion, only AFTER Edwards dropped out of the nomination race. This shows you just how much the DUmmies were able to discern just how much of a phony Edwards was. And now that Edwards is being investigated for funneling campaign funds and maybe his pet poverty program dough for payoffs to his mistress, the DUmmies are looking upon their erstwhile hero with great sadness as you can see in this THREAD, "Feds are looking at Edwards' campaign." So let us now watch the DUmmies express deep sadness at the fall of John Edwards in Bolshevik Red while the commentary of your humble correspondent, wondering if there is a Playstation3 sale at Walmart, is in the [brackets]:Feds are looking at Edwards' campaign
[Why don't they just ask Johnny Boy? He'll tell them the truth, right?]
Feds are looking at Edwards' campaign
Investigators dig through records to see if donors' money was used to cover up affair with campaign worker.
By Mandy Locke
[And all this time I thought his donors' money was used to buy stuff like a Playstation3 on the sly from Walmart.]
RALEIGH Federal investigators are sifting through the records of money that helped John Edwards' presidential campaign to determine if any was used to keep quiet his affair with Rielle Hunter.
[For a long time, the MSM was performing this task for him gratis.]
Edwards, a Democrat and former U.S. senator, acknowledged the investigation to The News & Observer.
“I am confident that no funds from my campaign were used improperly,” Edwards said in a statement.
“However, I know that it is the role of government to ensure that this is true. We have made available to the United States both the people and the information necessary to help them get the issue resolved efficiently and in a timely matter. We appreciate the diligence and professionalism of those involved and look forward to a conclusion.”
[What's amazing here is that Edwards has millions of bucks. Just look at his vast North Carolina estate. The payoffs were only $15,000 per month but he was apparently too cheap to pay out of pocket and, as a result, now faces this investigation. Now on to the DUmmie reaction...]
What a fall...I really like Edwards. I was always riveted by his speeches. I had such high hopes for him. Turns out, he's just as average as the rest of us.
[Just as slimy as the average DUmmie. p.s. Thank you, Head DUmmie Skinner for restoring the old DUmmieland format. Now I don't have to copy the first sentence and the body of the DUmmie posts separately. Your cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated since it definitely facilitates my DUFU producing ability.]
Nothing like an affair to spur the Feds on . . . while corrupt capitalism destroys America--!!!
[Oh, yeah. We all remember how Edwards made big bucks from a hedge fund...but ONLY in order to study poverty in America.]
I suppose it is because I am an old crank that the Feds are digging around in Edwards' files to see if his girlfriend got money, that makes me see red. They could use their time better by digging around in TORTURE files. Edwards has been punished by the whole country as well as his wife and he will continue to be punished. Enough is enough! He left the stage a long time ago.
[TORTURE files full of info about prisoners being overfed orange glaze chicken and rice pilaf. Oh, and that air conditioning set to freezing levels of 69 degrees rather than allow the prisoners to merely swelter in the tropical Gitmo heat.]
Holder should purge the DoJ of EVERY Repuke appointee tomorrow any of them who didn't get fired are corrupt partisans who have no business getting tax money to practice their version of the law. Then as soon as their replacements are in office, all of the Repukes should be investigated and imprisoned - in real prison.
[Being a Republican is a Thought Crime. Case closed. No trials needed.]
I hope Edwards simply used his own money, but funneled it through his friends so Elizabeth wouldn't see it.
[So you're saying that you hope that Edwards is merely a liar, not a crook and a liar.]
I agree that Edwards could have justified the haircut, but that is not what he chose. He chose to say that he had intended to pay it out of his own money, but there was an error on the part of the person who made the payment from his campaign fund when the barber's bill showed up there. Do I believe that? No. I think he or someone speaking for him told the barber to bill his campaign.
[And bill the campaign for that cucumber cream facial.]
This is a simple case of political corruption, caused by John Edwards. No relationship to the other matter.
[Remember that he was once the hero of most DUmmies and given their seal of approval.]
ever since I saw his interview on Nightline about the affair, I have no more trust for Edwards
[But until that moment you suffered gullibility in the extreme.]
I thought so long before that. This guy is a snake-oil salesman. I have no idea how many posts I had deleted on here for saying that the guy was a lying, two-faced, charlatan who shouldn't be trusted. Oh well. Being right doesn't pay the bills. Poor schmucks who donated to his campaign are out of luck though - no money will be going back to them.
[How about the poor DUmmie schmucks who donated to lying, two-faced charlatan BBV Bev Harris?]
I know the nature of the political process, so I should not be surprised, but I am sadend. I sincerely hope that President Obama, a product of the same system, is indeed something Different. However, I don't expect anything New until we have Campaign Finance Reform and Paper Ballots counted in public.
[President Obama, product of the Chicago political machine, corrupt? Naw! Impossible!]
I'm more and more convinced that his populism was a cynical BSing act. Smooth-talker with self-control issues..
[Are you actually casting aspersions upon his claim that he made big bucks from a hedge fund in order to investigate poverty in America?]
He always came off sleezy.
[Posting that a year ago in DUmmieland would have meant a tombstoning ceremony for you.]
I thought Edwards was honest and captivating when he spoke of the two Americas. And he may well still be truthful about that. Men tend to lie about their peccadillos, while remaining honest in other aspects of their lives and profession.
[DUmmie Indiana Green: I BEEEEEEEEELEEEEEEVE!!!]
I can't believe the suckers around here. couldn 't believe it before the news of the affair came out, can't believe it even more now.
[Is that you, Bev Harris?]
When the word came out about this affair I felt so sad for Elizabeth. She has a terminal form of cancer, she's lost her son, and now her husband, the man who swore to love her no matter what fathered a child with some twit because the girl said he was HOT? Come on now.
[I'm too sexy for my face! Too sexy for my face!]
I never could stand johny hedge fund. I knew he was a corporatist phony long before his stupid little affair. He was a war cheering asshole. he went to work for a very sleazy hedge fund and invested big bucks in it. hey, he made money off of NO victims and rank mortgages. and why should he be above the law? I can't believe there are still people here so blind and f*cking stupid that they still believe he ever gave a shit about anyone but himself.
[You mean his hedge fund shtick wasn't for investigating poverty?]
I hated that JE was a coporatist creep who lied his ass off and used poverty issues for his own gain. people who care about poverty do not vote for shitty bankruptcy bills and they sure as f*ck don't go to work for big bucks for hedge funds and lie about it.
[Your reservation aboard Edwards' bus during his next poverty tour has just been canceled.]
John Edwards' "Two Americas" populist rhetoric was all an act.
[GASP! Next you will be telling me there is no Santa Claus!]
I can't believe how dumb I was for trusting this man. I voted for him in the primary. Is he a psychopath, like Bernard Madoff, do you think?
[Hey, John Kerry can vouch for him.]
John Edwards even had the look in his eyes at certain times that screamed "evil!" at me. I have no doubt he has had serious psychiatric issues for years. I know, diagnosis from afar is pointless, but speculation? I can do that with the best of them!
[That look in his eyes sure had you hypnotized with awe not so long ago.]
i, too, voted to him in the primaries. i think that he would have made a good president . . . without this character flaw, of course.
[Just one teenie weenie flaw.]
Democrats get investigated, Republicans walk. Same as it ever was.
[Yeah, Republicans walk but only after they conveniently lose their elections. Just ask Ted Stevens.]
I weep. What a disappointment.
[John Edwards has another bridge to sell you.]
posted by PJ-Comix at 6:13 AM
29 Comments:
I am always amazed at the level of self-delusion the Democratic Socialist base is willing to do to themselves. John "Empty Suit" Edwards was and is a phony and a super narcissist. His mistake was to say in public what The Obamassiah never did - the open description of his fantasy universe which had nothing to do with reality.
Edwards also lacked the capacity to effectively fake sincerity, something both Clinton and The Obamassiah were vastly superior at doing.
"Empty Suit" Edwards is now watching the last act of his life on the public stage proceed. However this turns out, he'll be a political never-was pretty-boy who will soon be nothing other than a very brief footnote in DSA and American history if that.
Oh, Jerome!
Silky will 'rehabilitate' himself, perform a slobbering 'apology' on Larry King, and all will be forgiven.
He's only a (democrat) human, after all.
"Feds are looking at Edwards' campaign "-DUmmie
THAT DAMN BUSH!... oh wait.
Holder should purge the DoJ of EVERY Repuke...all of the Repukes should be investigated and imprisioned...Good idea, it worked for Joe Stalin back in the 30s. Up against the wall, Repuke motherfucker.
"I am always amazed at the level of self-delusion the Democratic Socialist base is willing to do to themselves." jerome gasbag goolsby
It's amazing, isn't it? Take for example...
"Louisiana Sen. David Vitter has apologized for his telephone number showing up on the old phone records of Pamela Martin and Associates, the alleged prostitution ring run in the nation's capital by Deborah Jeane Palfrey."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288740,00.html
"We’re talking about, among other things, Diaper Fetishism. That’s right folks, according to a trusted inside source, Vitter was well known among other Canal Street Brothel patrons to like diapers"
http://susiemadrak.com/2007/07/11/17/05/carl-jung-genius-10/
"Vitter was not asked to resign. Instead, he got a standing ovation from the GOP."
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2008/03/12/wheres-spitzers-standing-ovation/
Standing ovation. Edwards gotten any of those lately?
Once again, jerome, thanks for being the completely clueless yet delicious vat of pureed carrots and frozen peas you are. You're a treasure.
"I have no problem with people voluntarily helping out those who are meaningful and valuable to their lives." CL
"I do have a problem with government forcing people to help out those who will not help themselves." CL
I'm cheating. This is from an earlier thread that's about to be eaten up. But CL's horrifyingly compelling and I thought we all should celebrate.
I pretty much agree with all of it except the "those who will not help themselves" part. Doesn't the concept of helping someone advance the notion that they can't do it without your help? Why would you offer to help someone if they were capable of helping themselves? In other words, you're full of shit.
Then there's the bigger question - who's forcing who? You're already paying for people who need help whether you think so or not. That's a done deal. The insurance companies are passing it on to us anyway. Would you rather pay unregulated premiums to an off-shore insurance company or would you rather the practice be made standard by our government? Regulated. How would that be forcing you to do something different than what you're all ready doing in spades?
"In other words, you're full of shit."
No, t-man: the welfare state advocates are the ones full of shit. The ones who think "the government" is omniscient enough to demand it be omnipotent as well are the ones who are full of shit. In other words you're the one who's full of shit!
"From each as they choose, to each as they are chosen!" Robert Nozick
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy,_State,_and_Utopia
(Although Rothbard makes a better case for anarcho-capitalism. http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/1_1/1_1_6.pdf )
I cite Nozick, as he blows John Rawls ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Theory_of_Justice ) out of the water. Rothbard blows Nozick out of the water in his turn.
Anarchy is the only state that can be justified by argument from natural rights. All others appeal to irrationality, emotion, and religious "duty" to parasites.
"Why would you offer to help someone if they were capable of helping themselves?"
Paternalism. Keeping people safe from themselves.
Elitism. "We're so much smarter than those poor folks, it's our God-given right and duty to force them into the right way to live."
(See also "Nudge" http://www.amazon.com/Nudge-Improving-Decisions-Health-Happiness/dp/014311526X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241557082&sr=1-1 )
Arrogance.
Power-lust.
etc.
etc.
t-man, I'll bet this sounds familiar to you:
Why Do Intellectuals Oppose Capitalism?
http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/cpr-20n1-1.html
Were you disappointed by downward mobility? Is that what makes you so bitter about Capitalism and self-interest?
TROGLAMAN - The Official Hate-Mongering Anti-American Guttersnipe of the DUmmie FUnnies - power-slammed his head squarely up his ass with pile-driver efficiency and spewed mental excrement everywhere....I like how you convinently ignore that Vitter was an abarration (the GOP has an impressive record of terminating the political careers of such people) while true perverts and reprobates (Barney Frank is a prime example running a homosexual brothel out of his residence) in the Democratic Socialist Party get not only get continually re-elected, they get lauded as outstanding public servants and after their death get lauded as true giants in the nation's political landscape.
Next time you want to be so scantimonious, Guttersnipe, try picking a subject you won't look like such a flaming jackass for trying to act intelligent about (if that is possible, which I doubt). You also need to remember that power-slamming your head up your ass when you are incapable of responding to a statement because you lack intellectual depth and/or moral character only underscores what a waste you are. You've come on here repeatedly and put up one hate fueled rant after another (probably also fueled by your best friends Jim Beam and Jack Daniels) and frankly, you bore the hell out of damn near everybody.
Next time you decide to power-slam your head up your ass, Guttersnipe, do us all a favor - do it so well you permanently disappear.
"The ones who think "the government" is omniscient enough to demand it be omnipotent as well are the ones who are full of shit. In other words you're the one who's full of shit!" CL
Sure.
Did I say "the government" was omniscient and omnipotent (which is pretty much the definition of God despite you left out 'perfect')? As a matter of fact, anyone referring to anyone or anything as "omniscient and omnipotent", according to me, troglaman, has been classified a fucking lemming. I have made myself clear about this again and again, CL. I don't mind that you don't know that. But characterizing me as believing government can be "omniscient and omnipotent" is about as far from the truth as you can get.
Which boils down to this: You're scarily full shit. A walking bio-hazard.
Please, I beg you...consider a colostomy. Your large intestine could burst at any moment and shower those that love and care about you with a mushroom cloud of shit. Not to mention the poor innocents in the Taco Time at the time of the explosion.
After the operation, and for the love of God and all that's Holy, never forget to burp the bag.
"Next time you want to be so scantimonious, Guttersnipe..." Juniper Jerome
Oh, jerome. You're a barmpot and a berk (and possibly a bint). You're a manky grotty munter who fancies himself a minger nancy.
But above all else, you're a nosey parker who's off one's onion.
I imagine you a pikey munter. Which, of course, you are. A pikey pillock.
Go home.
"...Would you rather pay unregulated premiums to an off-shore insurance company or would you rather the practice be made standard by our government? Regulated. ..."
Whether the insurance company is offshore or not is irrelevant. Do you think that makes any difference in this global economy? If they do business in the US, the US government regulates them, just as all other countries regulate them if they do business in those other countries.
What the hell is an "unregulated premium" anyway? What "practice" is to be "made standard by our government?" You have no idea what you're spouting off about.
You're a parrot of the statists' talking points. Troggie want a cracker!
I would much rather have dozens and dozens maybe even hundreds of insurance companies competing with each other for my business. I do NOT want those companies "competing" with the government.
No one and nothing can compete with the government's guns. (Not even the "rightwing extremist" groups "hoarding" guns and ammo that DHS is propagandizing against).
You certainly have a scatological hangup t-man. You need a braincase colostomy.
"If they do business in the US, the US government regulates them, just as all other countries regulate them if they do business in those other countries." CL
Then why do they move off-shore? More specifically, why did Halliburton move to Dubai? Perhaps because they were LESS regulated?
Your dismissal of the subject of regulation is just fucking stupid. It is the ONLY reason to pick up and move. Car factories do it. Pig farmers do it. Food manufactures do it. Chemical companies do it. And they do it with a Post Office Box. Offshore. In Dubai, or Mexico, or UAE, or the Caymans. It doesn't matter the fucking factory's in the US. As long as headquarters are offshore, regulations don't apply (the real reason is the cocksuckers can't get caught for breaking regulations BECAUSE they're offshore.). My insane beagle understands this.
But you're obviously OK with this bullshit, CL. It makes perfect sense to you because you actually think the US regulates "just as all other countries regulate them". That's how this whole "offshore" thing bangs around in your little brain pan.
Evolution at work, my friends. Step right up.
Everything moves offshore because of regulation? What does that say for regulation?
What about taxes? Corporate taxes are higher here than just about every other country.
What about wages? Unions restrict the labor pool, demand less production and higher wages.
In short, companies and corporations have just about EVERY incentive there is to move offshore and nearly none to stay here. All because of government interference, looting, and regulation.
Who's being stupid here honestly?
All because of government and labor union interference, looting, and regulation.
"In short, companies and corporations have just about EVERY incentive there is to move offshore and nearly none to stay here. All because of government interference, looting, and regulation." CL
OK. You saying all regulation's wrong? On some fundamental level?
You saying all taxes, or as you say "looting", is all bad?
We've been through this before, CL. Just because you repeat it, again and again, doesn't make it true. The last time we went through it, you awarded me with a mia culpa.
Where's the line with regards to deregulation? Define it. Because I already know you're not advocating anarchy. Or are you? Is there one example you can give me where regulation would be appropriate? Is there one example you can give me where taxes are appropriate? Let me hear you advocate for regulation and taxation. On the other hand, let me hear you advocate for no regulation and no taxes which is, by the way, anarchy.
It's one or the other. Instead of writing another long, dumbassed walk-back, say nothing. Just walk away.
The mea culpa was for a fact I misrepresented, not an opinion I wrote if you recall trogladouche. I don't recall you EVER giving a mea culpa for misrepresenting a fact as you have done innumerable times here, including 4 times in your last post alone.
Many people much smarter than either of us make a very good case for anarchy. I agree with many of them as their fundamental moral view is correct: namely "don't cross my borders and I won't cross yours".
I pointed you to a couple of them above. Here's another one:
http://www.bu.edu/law/faculty/scholarship/workingpapers/abstracts/2004/pdf_files/BarnettR080904.pdf
If you're too lazy (or afraid) to read then there's nothing to your argument but disagreeableness and a penchant for building strawmen to attack. But then that's been apparent for a long time.
Here's another one you'll probably like, as it points out some of Rand's inconsistencies:
http://isil.org/ayn-rand/childs-open-letter.html
Is all regulation wrong, CL? Or not.
Because if you argue 'self regulation' then you argue regulation.
Are all taxes wrong?
Because if you argue any sacrifice for the common good, you become 'taxed'. You give to get. You argue socialism.
If you want to give up your insurance premiums to off shore interests who make their profits by denying your claims, go for it. I doubt anything coming up in terms of health care will prevent you from exercising your right to be monetarily stupid. You'll be able to buy whatever you want. Never fear.
Did I hear you right?
If you're advocating anarchy, then you've joined the dark side, CL. Simple as that. Your ethics have left the building.
You keep going back over the same BS I responded to many times earlier, trog. Have you nothing new to say?
I guess not. Your world is upside down and inside out.
Anarchy is not the dark side: it is the world of individual responsibility, mutual self-interest, voluntary cooperation, and voluntary benevolence. It is the world of positive freedom as its single regulation is "don't violate others' rights."
The world you advocate is collectivism and statism: the world of parasitism, human sacrifice, lootery, violation/denial of individual rights, tyranny of the state, and use of force for the "common good" as determined by dictators. That my friend is the dark side.
No wonder you keep repeating the same crap -- your Reason has been destroyed by inconsistencies and logical fallacies. You have to blank out those contradictions by parroting the same mantras over and over.
"Anarchy is not the dark side." CL
"No rulership or enforced authority."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy
There you go. That's what CL wants. No police (no enforced authority). No Army. No order. None. Anarchists don't like law.
I can decide to murder someone without consequences. Anarchy, after all, is anarchy. There are no rules. Anyone can do what ever the fuck they want.
CL's OK with this. He wants this kind of world.
Sounds fun. Rape and pillage time.
Move to Somalia, CL. You'll be happy as a clam.
Another strawman, trog. And you pointed to the wrong wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
You'll note in that article there are several differing forms of Anarchism, even a collectivist version (anarcho-syndicalism). The common thread is lack of centralized government to restrict individual liberty (rights) and claim exclusive monopoly over use of force.
Positive freedom.
Read Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia -- he argues that "mutual protective agencies" will evolve to replace police. Unfortunately he takes that to be de facto formation of a minimal state that will demand exclusive right to use force. He's wrong about that, but he does a decent job of showing that government is morally unjustifiable.
"Positive freedom." CL
Positive freedom. Think about that for a second.
What if I want 'negative freedom'? That'd be OK, right?
Except now you're going to have to define 'positive freedom' as opposed to 'negative freedom' while knowing 'true freedom' knows no such boundary. True freedom is anarchy. Morality becomes fluid, as anyone worth his weight in galt knows.
I'm pretty sure I understand your vision, CL. Seems a little too randy for me.
"True freedom is anarchy. Morality becomes fluid, as anyone worth his weight in galt knows."
First statement true, second false. Why do you keep insisting that freedom and morality are at odds t-man?
"Why do you keep insisting that freedom and morality are at odds t-man?" CL
Because they are. Am I free if I am constrained by morality? No. Simple.
Post a Comment
<< Home