Scratch John Edwards Off List of Dem Veep Possibles

Quote:

Kind of arrogant, don't you think? Probably plays well with those who worship him

who, your windbagness, do you consider a "worshipper" of Edwards?

snood wrote:

Quote:

Kind of arrogant, don't you think? Probably plays well with those who worship him

who, your windbagness, do you consider a "worshipper" of Edwards?

Classic snood.

Well, this sure validates a lot of Occum Bill's doubts about Edwards' character.

snood wrote:

Well, this sure validates a lot of Occum Bill's doubts about Edwards' character.

Good of you to mention. Thanks.

Also good to see so many of you finally figuring out the man is a scumbag. The "pretending to channel a dead baby for money" thing should have told you all you needed to know. Filling his pockets with an ever increasingly clear bogus medical pseudo-science was as much a staple as it was pure scumbaggery. Cheating on his wife sucks too, but it is hardly Edwards' worst sin.

Instead of 'sacrificing himself' as BBB stated, Edwards was asking us to believe:

a. he didn't have an affair with Hunter

b. Hunter's child was not his

Now that he has admitted that he lied through his teeth regarding a. why should anybody believe him on b. ?

John Edwards, former US Senator (D-NC), stated in a Dec. 19, 2007 interview with Katy Couric titled "Candidates Offer Views on Infidelity" on CBS Evening News:

"[Katy] Couric: So how important do you think it [infidelity] is in the grand scheme of things?
[John] 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."

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.

And Edwards again in 1999 (about Clinton's infidelity)

Edwards wrote:

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.

source

slkshock7 wrote:

And Edwards again in 1999 (about Clinton's infidelity)

Edwards wrote:

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.

source

There's no doubt at all that there are some serious moral issues involved here. Let's put this in perspective. How many people have died because of Edward's lies? Do you need to borrow my fingers to complete your count?

JTT wrote:

slkshock7 wrote:

And Edwards again in 1999 (about Clinton's infidelity)

Edwards wrote:

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.

source

There's no doubt at all that there are some serious moral issues involved here. Let's put this in perspective. How many people have died because of Edward's lies? Do you need to borrow my fingers to complete your count?

Zero...so what's your point?

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

snood wrote:

Quote:

Kind of arrogant, don't you think? Probably plays well with those who worship him

who, your windbagness, do you consider a "worshipper" of Edwards?

Classic snood.

Yeah, okay - you sure got my number alright.


But what did you mean by "those who worship Edwards"? I am clear that there's a popular meme about Obama "worshipers", but wasn't aware there was any such scuttlebutt over Edwards. Are you aware of anyone even rumoring that people have some kind of inordinate "Edwards worship"?

Or were you just blustering out of your ass again?

A moron with a Bush fixation wrote:

There's no doubt at all that there are some serious moral issues involved here. Let's put this in perspective. How many people have died because of Edward's lies? Do you need to borrow my fingers to complete your count?

Zero...so what's your point?

slkshock7 wrote:

A moron with a Bush fixation wrote:

There's no doubt at all that there are some serious moral issues involved here. Let's put this in perspective. How many people have died because of Edward's lies? Do you need to borrow my fingers to complete your count?

Zero...so what's your point?

Not so fast. Edwards made his fortune suing doctors for not performing cesarean sections under certain conditions, despite there never having been a consensus that they were necessary... and the fact that throughout his career it became increasingly apparent that they were not (really clear now). Edwards is widely considered a pioneer of this sleazy strategy that rewards scumbags for exploiting tragedy by targeting innocent doctors. Subsequently; Cesarean rates more than doubled at least in part because doctors became uncomfortable making medical judgments that could be second guessed for profit by scumbag's like Edwards. Cesarean deliveries are several times more likely to be fatal than vaginal deliveries and have resulted in thousands of additional deaths since their dramatic increase in frequency. Now we can't know how many cesareans in the last 2 decades were actually necessary and how many were the results of Edwards & Co.'s profiteering on human tragedy... let alone directly attributable to Edwards himself. It really isn't quantifiable... but I think it's safe to say "some."

Of course, this has little to do with this thread beyond providing a history that suggests Edwards was always too big of a scumbag for high office. The moron who brought it up can't seem to find a thread to make his idiotic anti-Bush rant for the 147,000th time.

(Remora )

Not so fast. Edwards made his fortune suing doctors for not performing cesarean sections under certain conditions, despite there never having been
... let alone directly attributable to Edwards himself. It really isn't quantifiable... but I think it's safe to say "some."

Of course, this has little to do with this thread beyond providing a history that suggests Edwards was always too big of a scumbag for high office.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Not so fast. Edwards made his fortune suing doctors for not performing cesarean sections under certain conditions, despite there never having been
... let alone directly attributable to Edwards himself. It really isn't quantifiable... but I think it's safe to say "some."

Of course, this has little to do with this thread beyond providing a history that suggests Edwards was always too big of a scumbag for high office.

Well, Bill, you've shown clearly that you can address this most heinous of crimes, that good ole bit of American capitalism, litigation. And let's acknowledge that, yes, his motives may well have been crass, without good moral judgment, ... .

Now where does that leave sanctimonious ole Bill. You run around screaming about how immoral this that and the other thing is and yet you fail to address the most morally repugnant things of all.

Your holier than thou attitude really is too much. It's hypocrisy at the highest level.

Once again,

"Why have we never heard anything about Bill's concerns of the character of Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Bolton, Feith, Tenant, Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, ...?

These are much more quantifiable, Bill and yet, what do we get from you, zippo, nothing, nada, ... .

Maybe it wouldn't seem so blatantly hypocritical if you didn't splash all over your postings just what a morally upright guy you are.

Maybe it wouldn't seem so blatantly hypocritical if you didn't splash all over your postings just what a morally upright guy you are.

Do quote and highlight the portion of my post you got that from.

snood wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

snood wrote:

Quote:

Kind of arrogant, don't you think? Probably plays well with those who worship him

who, your windbagness, do you consider a "worshipper" of Edwards?

Classic snood.

Yeah, okay - you sure got my number alright.


But what did you mean by "those who worship Edwards"? I am clear that there's a popular meme about Obama "worshipers", but wasn't aware there was any such scuttlebutt over Edwards. Are you aware of anyone even rumoring that people have some kind of inordinate "Edwards worship"?

Or were you just blustering out of your ass again?

Continued classic snood.

Thank you.

Kind of arrogant, don't you think? Probably plays well with those who worship him, but not so much everyone else, and certainly not with the press that can still hurt him. (Remember Gary Hart?)

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

snood wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

snood wrote:

Quote:

Kind of arrogant, don't you think? Probably plays well with those who worship him

who, your windbagness, do you consider a "worshipper" of Edwards?

Classic snood.

Yeah, okay - you sure got my number alright.


But what did you mean by "those who worship Edwards"? I am clear that there's a popular meme about Obama "worshipers", but wasn't aware there was any such scuttlebutt over Edwards. Are you aware of anyone even rumoring that people have some kind of inordinate "Edwards worship"?

Or were you just blustering out of your ass again?

Continued classic snood.

Thank you.

But seriously, oh brain-that-feeds-on-itself, where did you get that "Worshipers of Edwards" thing? Surely it would be an effortless thing for you to provide an answer to such a simple question.

Here is the passage to which I refer, to any following our jovial exchange:

Empty-ego-full-of-words said:

Quote:

Kind of arrogant, don't you think? Probably plays well with those who worship him, but not so much everyone else, and certainly not with the press that can still hurt him. (Remember Gary Hart?)

So, I will ask you once again, he-who-is-most-impressed-with-himself-for-no-apparent-reason, who do you refer to when you say "those who worship" Edwards?

If you still dodge the very simple question, I will take it as evidence that you have no answer, were spinning bullshit for effect with the throwaway "worship" reference, and are so lost in your own bullshyt that you don't even notice it when you look stupid.