If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   John Edwards apparently has two women for his two Americas   (radosh.net) divider line 532
    More: News  
•       •       •

55823 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Dec 2007 at 7:40 PM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



532 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-12-18 11:01:54 PM
rush_limbaugh_sent_me: I think you need to get some better sources. :)

Kerry Reneges on Promise to Release Military Records
Dave Eberhart and Chuck Noe, NewsMax.com
Wednesday, April 21, 2004


Check the date of the article you posted and the one I linked to.

Also LOLNEWSMax!
 
2007-12-18 11:02:44 PM
rush_limbaugh_sent_me: You can attack NewsMax as a leftwinger but you can't prove that Kerry release his records because he didn't and NewsMax is exactly right.

I know for a fact that Fart Machine posted the link proving this to you. I know you ignored it the first time. I know you'll ignore it the second time. But I'll post it here anyway, in case someone reads your posts and mistakenly believes you.


Kerry released his records biatches (new window)
 
MFL
2007-12-18 11:02:53 PM
MR_DING Nice straw man. So people are not allowed to be succesful? I don't see you complaining about the CEO of Kaiser, Blue Cross or Glaxxo Smithkline having a huge house.

There is a difference between making money and sucking money.
 
2007-12-18 11:03:36 PM
Lawnchair: rush_limbaugh_sent_me:
I didn't think liberals had a problem with Craig soliciting sex in a public restroom. That's what conservatives cricitized Craig for.

I'm a liberal and I have a moderate problem with soliciting sex in bathrooms (and a big problem with having sex in bathrooms). Barney Frank doesn't (AFAIK) solicit sex in bathrooms. That's because he's not a hypocrite and so can walk freely into any gay bar in America.

Now, I also have a problem with undercover sting operations. Particularly ones meant to entrap people who aren't going to get the news that a sting op is running (i.e., the transient travelers). But, I think soliciting should be against the law (and posted as such) and uniformed policemen should enforce it on the rare instance they directly see it.


How do you know Barney Frank doesn't solicit sex in public restrooms? It's possible he has and just didn't get caught.

I don't give a crap about Craig. You brought him up. The only thing I knew about the guy prior to his playing footsie in a public restroom was that he was very anti-Patriot act, very worried about the invasion of privacy. Then he goes to a public restroom to have gay sex. To me that contradiction was the most amusing thing about the entire fiasco. Other than the idea of some loser cop sitting on a crapper all day waiting on some gay dude to make a pass at him. And liberals say there are jobs that no Americans will do in their justification of illegal immigration. :)
 
2007-12-18 11:05:21 PM
MFL: It is the amount they have to pay for it. Which is passed down to you and me the consumer.

I got a solution for dat yo. Universal Health Care. I'll need generous medical care for all of the gun shot wounds I will likely suffer as I move to the forefront of the Nerd Rap Scene.

I'm hoping to get Icy Hot Stuntaz to open for me.
 
2007-12-18 11:05:33 PM
The_Gallant_Gallstone: rush_limbaugh_sent_me: You can attack NewsMax as a leftwinger but you can't prove that Kerry release his records because he didn't and NewsMax is exactly right.

I know for a fact that Fart Machine posted the link proving this to you. I know you ignored it the first time. I know you'll ignore it the second time. But I'll post it here anyway, in case someone reads your posts and mistakenly believes you.


Kerry released his records biatches (new window)


I agree that he released them. But why did it take two years? And why did he not allowed them to be released until well after the election was settled? That's the question even the Kerry-friendly Boston Globe was asking....("The lack of any substantive new material about Kerry's military career in the documents raises the question of why Kerry refused for so long to waive privacy restrictions.")
 
2007-12-18 11:06:14 PM
images.askmen.com


to hell with this argument going on. would you hit this?
 
2007-12-18 11:06:20 PM
Prospero424: The_Gallant_Gallstone: NewsMax.... that's golden....

Well, that's just what you liberals say! You liberals just can't think straight. Liberals are the liberals that liberal... liberal... liberal... lib...

(Heavy breathing)


The liberal attacking Newsmax as a source didn't notice in the article that Newsmax is actually reporting what the pro-Kerry Boston GLobe reported about Kerry....he didn't release all of his military records and medical records associated with his time in the military.
 
2007-12-18 11:08:19 PM
BravadoGT: I agree that he released them. But why did it take two years? And why did he not allowed them to be released until well after the election was settled?

I'm not President of the Kerry Fan Club. I'm just posting against the false assertion that Kerry never released his records. Yeah, he dragged his feet and was a douche about it. I can admit that, because unlike Rush_Limbaugh_Sent_Me_To_Score_Oxy , I'm not a partisan hack.

But the fact is that he released them.
 
2007-12-18 11:08:58 PM
Edwards 2008

Because farking over his wife is only a good start on farking the rest of the country.


/ You KNOW he wants to
// Your taxes, let me show them to you.
/// The Nanny States of America
/|/ It's OK if you're rich and entitled
|/ He's not a hypocrite. He's never shown any ethics
|// Fark Edwards before he farks you.
 
2007-12-18 11:10:05 PM
BravadoGT: MR_DING:

My contention is: Your link proves nothing. Furthermore, it doesn't say what you think it says. Look, I put myself on the line here. It should be easy to prove me wrong. John Edwards is telling everyone that he takes zero money from PACS and lobbyists. He challenged Obama and Clinton to do the same. You think they haven't tried to prove him wrong? Do you think you could if they haven't?

Ok, fine. Here is ANOTHER link from Open Secrets.

According to Edwards' OWN disclosures, as of September, 2007, he has taken $11,587 from PACs.

Link (new window)

That's more than "a penny."


Sometimes money temporarily slips through. It has all been returned thus far.

"We take every precaution possible, but sometimes people slip through, and when we find lobbyist money we refund it immediately," said Edwards spokeswoman Colleen Murray.

Link (new window)



$11,587 ? LOL. What influence would that buy?

It's been a pleasure. You fail.
 
2007-12-18 11:11:53 PM
I Eat Laser For Breakfast: to hell with this argument going on. would you hit this?

images3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2007-12-18 11:14:39 PM
Every time I fill out one of those internets thingys that tell me who I should vote for according to my beliefs, it come up John Edwards. Is that a bad thing?
 
2007-12-18 11:15:06 PM
BravadoGT: I agree that he released them. But why did it take two years? And why did he not allowed them to be released until well after the election was settled? That's the question even the Kerry-friendly Boston Globe was asking....("The lack of any substantive new material about Kerry's military career in the documents raises the question of why Kerry refused for so long to waive privacy restrictions.")

Probably because Kerry was indecisive about a great many things during his campaign, such as first ignoring the Swift Boat Vets accusations then addressing them after the damage was done. His medical records fit the same MO. Kerry probably thought it was nobody's farking business because it was a distraction and then finally releases them a year too late.

There's no conspiracy here. He was a lousy candidate with a tin ear for diffusing political attacks.
 
MFL
2007-12-18 11:15:18 PM
I Eat Laser For Breakfast
to hell with this argument going on. would you hit this?

That is just the best thing I have seen all day. God bless you.
 
2007-12-18 11:16:13 PM
John Edwards and Barack Obama have been the most vocal among the Democratic presidential hopefuls in decrying the influence of lobbyists on government, to the point of both men declaring they will not take campaign contributions from federal lobbyists or political action committees.

"It's time to tell the big corporations and the lobbyists who have been running things for too long that their time is over," Edwards said last month in New Hampshire. Obama has joined in the condemnation of lobbyist money and influence in politics, running television ads highlighting his stance and earning a standing ovation at the YearlyKos presidential candidate forum in Chicago for attacking New York Hillary Rodham Clinton's defense of the lobbying sector.

Edwards has gone so far as to publicly challenge his fellow presidential candidates, as well as both the Democratic and Republican parties, to forgo donations from lobbyists. Except for Obama, all have demurred.

But for all the rhetoric, that doesn't mean the pair aren't taking money from lobbyists.

snip

Officials with the Edwards and Obama campaign organizations declined to comment publicly on the precise methods they use to detect and deflect donations from lobbyists, which they say they attempt to do before any check hits their bank accounts. But an analysis of FEC filings from the candidates covering financial activity through June 30 reveals that both lean toward a narrow definition of lobbyist contributions.

Both Edwards and Obama have accepted significant amounts in donations from employees of firms that maintain the top 15 federal lobbying practices based on 2006 receipts. Edwards - formerly a highly successful North Carolina trial lawyer who received many campaign contributions from legal professionals during each of his campaigns - accepted approximately $20,000 in donations from self-reported attorneys and staff at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Hogan & Hartson LLP, The PMA Group, DLA Piper, Covington & Burling LLP, and K&L Gates. None was found to be registered as lobbyists with the Senate Office of Public Records.

Edwards' totals are peanuts, though, compared with those of Obama's, who also practiced law before entering politics. Obama has received more than $160,000 in contributions from employees at the Akin Gump, Hogan, DLA Piper, and Covington & Burling firms, as well as at Patton Boggs LLP, Dutko Worldwide, and Holland & Knight. Though none of these contributors was registered as lobbyists in 2007, at least 10 were registered as recently as last year.

Contributions such as those are what fog the "no lobbyist money" policy. When individuals work for firms that earn millions each year lobbying the federal government or have themselves built up lobbying practices, even if they aren't registered as such in the current year, it at least raises the question of whether the donations are entirely divorced from any association with lobbying.

Are the Obama and Edwards pledges mere window-dressing as some critics say, or do they represent a meaningful effort to throttle the influence of lobbyist money?


That's from an anti-Edwards site (Link (new window)), but quoting the Congressional Quarterly.

Does anyone think these large contributions from partners, associates and staff at law firms are something other than contributions from the law firms themselves, slightly disguised?

Not trying to attack Edwards myself. I think this no lobbyist/no PAC money shtick is meaningless, but you can't blame a candidate for trying to get people to pay attention to him.
 
2007-12-18 11:16:31 PM
From the "Patriot Ledger", some paper in Boston I think:

Although Kerry ultimately did sign a waiver - in 2005, after the presidential election - the information remains available only to members of the media and not the general public, critics charge. They also would like to see Kerry's journal and self-made films covering his Vietnam service.
 
2007-12-18 11:16:34 PM
MR_DING: $11,587 ? LOL. What influence would that buy?

In North Carolina? Pretty much. The most recent Speaker of the House is in the federal slammer after being convicted of bribery. The amount? $4,000. Hell, even I have that much in the bank. I needs to buy me a senator.

But at least our politicians stay bought. After the former speaker was indicted he refused to resign until the last minute and continued to dole out patronage. And from jail he has been arranging for his son's business to "win" state contracts even though he's rarely the lowest bidder.

North Carolina, just like a good prom date - cheap and stupid.
 
2007-12-18 11:17:18 PM
Sunny Ray: Is that a bad thing?


thumbnail.search.aolcdn.com
That's a good thing. That's not a bad thing.
 
2007-12-18 11:18:46 PM
MR_DING: BravadoGT: MR_DING:

My contention is: Your link proves nothing. Furthermore, it doesn't say what you think it says. Look, I put myself on the line here. It should be easy to prove me wrong. John Edwards is telling everyone that he takes zero money from PACS and lobbyists. He challenged Obama and Clinton to do the same. You think they haven't tried to prove him wrong? Do you think you could if they haven't?

Ok, fine. Here is ANOTHER link from Open Secrets.

According to Edwards' OWN disclosures, as of September, 2007, he has taken $11,587 from PACs.

Link (new window)

That's more than "a penny."

Sometimes money temporarily slips through. It has all been returned thus far.

"We take every precaution possible, but sometimes people slip through, and when we find lobbyist money we refund it immediately," said Edwards spokeswoman Colleen Murray.

Link (new window)



$11,587 ? LOL. What influence would that buy?

It's been a pleasure. You fail.


1. You proudly declared that Edwards hasn't taken a penny from PACs.
2. I showed you 1,158,700 pennies he's taken and reported from PACs as of Sept 07. (it's probably more by now, seeing how much closer we are to the primaries and all) You don't declare money you don't keep.

Who failed?
 
2007-12-18 11:19:37 PM
Damn, who gives a crap? It feels like this election has been going on for 10 years now. I'm already so fed up with all of them, the media coverage, and being forced to care what Joe Iowa thinks that come election time, I'll write in "Who gives a shiat".
 
2007-12-18 11:20:20 PM
Shaggy_C: Sunny Ray: Is that a bad thing?

That's a good thing. That's not a bad thing.


Well, I guess that settles it. : )
 
MFL
2007-12-18 11:20:43 PM
MFL: It is the amount they have to pay for it. Which is passed down to you and me the consumer.

The_Gallant_Gallstone I got a solution for dat yo. Universal Health Care. I'll need generous medical care for all of the gun shot wounds I will likely suffer as I move to the forefront of the Nerd Rap Scene.

I'm hoping to get Icy Hot Stuntaz to open for me.


There is definatly a method to your madness you crazy bastard.
 
2007-12-18 11:21:07 PM
keypusher: Does anyone think these large contributions from partners, associates and staff at law firms are something other than contributions from the law firms themselves, slightly disguised?

That's spotty logic; are your statements on Fark official communications from your place of employment itself, slightly disguised?

I'm not trying to be overly snarky, but it's hard to say where the business ends and the employees begin. For the most part, their personal interests are related to their job, which would mean that, in a lot of ways, they as people share the same goal as the corporation. It doesn't mean it's some thinly veiled conspiracy being propagated down from the evil CEOs...
 
2007-12-18 11:21:50 PM
keypusher: Does anyone think these large contributions from partners, associates and staff at law firms are something other than contributions from the law firms themselves, slightly disguised?

MR_DING does.
 
2007-12-18 11:21:55 PM
Poison: Damn, who gives a crap? It feels like this election has been going on for 10 years now. I'm already so fed up with all of them, the media coverage, and being forced to care what Joe Iowa thinks that come election time, I'll write in "Who gives a shiat".

Why the hell are you in a politics forum if you don't want to hear what "Joe Iowa" thinks about the election?
 
2007-12-18 11:22:11 PM
rush_limbaugh_sent_me: From the "Patriot Ledger", some paper in Boston I think:

I think it's a paper from Boston... I don't have a date, or a link.
Maybe it was on a fortune cookie. Probably wouldn't pass muster as a verifiable source in the classroom, but those damn akademiks are just another method of liberal brain-washing.
 
2007-12-18 11:22:21 PM
Poison: Damn, who gives a crap? It feels like this election has been going on for 10 years now. I'm already so fed up with all of them, the media coverage, and being forced to care what Joe Iowa thinks that come election time, I'll write in "Who gives a shiat".

I'll write in, "Yo Mama."


/just sayin'
//she makes great bacon and eggs
///by the way
 
2007-12-18 11:23:06 PM
/mystery poster of comment #4 in linked article
//it was just too easy
 
2007-12-18 11:23:06 PM
And someone please tell me how to tell one of these candidates from the other. ANY one of them would say any damned thing to look popular and "above all the mud slinging". Hypocrites. Hate them all.

And why do states like Iowa and New Hampshire get to decide who the frontrunners are?

Been to both states. Don't want either deciding this.
 
2007-12-18 11:23:06 PM
If you're running for president of the U.S. and you cheat on your wife who has terminal cancer, you're campaign is $#!@% over.

Waiting for confirmation, of course, but...

/OBAMA '08!
//Dude has all that money and he couldn't spring for birth control?
 
2007-12-18 11:23:14 PM
Poison: Damn, who gives a crap? It feels like this election has been going on for 10 years now. I'm already so fed up with all of them, the media coverage, and being forced to care what Joe Iowa thinks that come election time, I'll write in "Who gives a shiat".

16 days.
 
2007-12-18 11:23:21 PM
MFL: There is definatly a method to your madness you crazy bastard.

It's all... part of the plan.

/just watched the so very tight Dark Knight Prequel.
 
2007-12-18 11:23:41 PM
your vs. you're = !@%$#
 
2007-12-18 11:24:50 PM
Poison: Damn, who gives a crap? It feels like this election has been going on for 10 years now. I'm already so fed up with all of them, the media coverage, and being forced to care what Joe Iowa thinks that come election time, I'll write in "Who gives a shiat".

Why the hell are you in a politics forum if you don't want to hear what "Joe Iowa" thinks about the election?


Because I'm Joe American. And I don't care what Joe Iowa thinks.
 
2007-12-18 11:25:14 PM
The_Gallant_Gallstone: rush_limbaugh_sent_me: From the "Patriot Ledger", some paper in Boston I think:

I think it's a paper from Boston... I don't have a date, or a link.
Maybe it was on a fortune cookie. Probably wouldn't pass muster as a verifiable source in the classroom, but those damn akademiks are just another method of liberal brain-washing.


I don't have a link and a date? http://ledger.southofboston.com/articles/2007/11/07/news/news12.txt

The problem with you pretentious liberals is you run off at the mouth and then I make you eat your words every single time. :)
 
2007-12-18 11:26:57 PM
Poison: Poison: Damn, who gives a crap? It feels like this election has been going on for 10 years now. I'm already so fed up with all of them, the media coverage, and being forced to care what Joe Iowa thinks that come election time, I'll write in "Who gives a shiat".

Why the hell are you in a politics forum if you don't want to hear what "Joe Iowa" thinks about the election?

Because I'm Joe American. And I don't care what Joe Iowa thinks.


Or you are a whiny biatch. :)
 
2007-12-18 11:27:12 PM
Shaggy_C: make it go away in 16 days. Help me.
 
2007-12-18 11:29:06 PM
rush_limbaugh_sent_me: The problem with you pretentious liberals is you run off at the mouth and then I make you eat your words every single time

Or we're bringing you up to standards. My comment got you to post the link. For your next lesson, I will teach you how to use Fark's handy link inclusion feature.

Link like this and you won't look like a total n00b
 
2007-12-18 11:29:13 PM
rush_limbaugh_sent_me

No, just an average American fed up with the whole damn thing. Like any of them have a plan for anything.

Dick Nixon's remains in 2008
 
MFL
2007-12-18 11:29:50 PM
MFL: There is definatly a method to your madness you crazy bastard.

The_Gallant_Gallstone It's all... part of the plan.

/just watched the so very tight Dark Knight Prequel


I hope the next one doesnt suck. That first one was about as good as it gets.
 
2007-12-18 11:32:44 PM
I don't care what any of you Farkers say, anyone that cheats on their wife is a farking scumbag. The is especially true if your wife is ill.
 
2007-12-18 11:33:41 PM
MFL: I hope the next one doesnt suck. That first one was about as good as it gets.

Agreed. When I first heard Heath Ledger was the Joker, my reaction was WTF. But he seems to have a handle on it. Here's a link to the trailer that came out with I Am Legend.


Dark Knight Trailer (Fo Realz) (new window)
 
2007-12-18 11:34:09 PM
DaSwankOne: I don't care what any of you Farkers say, anyone that cheats on their wife is a farking scumbag not getting any tang at home. The is especially true if your wife is ill.

Now that it's fixed...
Good point DaSwankOne! THIS!
 
2007-12-18 11:34:37 PM
Shaggy_C: keypusher: Does anyone think these large contributions from partners, associates and staff at law firms are something other than contributions from the law firms themselves, slightly disguised?

That's spotty logic; are your statements on Fark official communications from your place of employment itself, slightly disguised?

I'm not trying to be overly snarky, but it's hard to say where the business ends and the employees begin. For the most part, their personal interests are related to their job, which would mean that, in a lot of ways, they as people share the same goal as the corporation. It doesn't mean it's some thinly veiled conspiracy being propagated down from the evil CEOs...


The analogy between coordinated donations from a company and random fark postings by an employee is pretty weak, but the point about it being hard to determine where business ends and work begins is a good one. I have no doubt that individual partners in plaintiffs' firms who donate to Edwards genuinely support him. On other other hand, if "donations" are being made by the guys in the mailroom (as has happened in the past), then clearly the law firm is skirting the law to get around contribution limits.

More generally, though, it's just silly to pretend that by not taking money from PACs you're somehow insulating yourself from special interests. Plaintiffs attorneys are a very powerful special interest in this country. You can argue whether they are good or bad (I tend toward the latter view myself), but you can't deny that they are a special interest.

I think Fortress Investment was second on Edwards' list? Here's their board. Not bad guys AFAIK, but not exactly the common folk either.

Link (new window)
 
2007-12-18 11:36:49 PM
The_Gallant_Gallstone: Dark Knight Trailer (Fo Realz) (new window)

Downtown Chi sure looks sweet. One of my buddies got to be an extra in one of the daytime scenes.
 
MFL
2007-12-18 11:37:58 PM
Poison Because I'm Joe American. And I don't care what Joe Iowa thinks.

Iowa is a farked up place. People that do business over there regular basis will know what I'm talking about. That is why we are farking morans for having it be the first primary. In 3 weeks weeks the front runner won't be Obama or Giuliani it will be Kirk Ferentz.
 
2007-12-18 11:41:49 PM
rppp01a: Uh, who cares?

Don't try to legislate against what you are doing (see: Senator Wide Stance), and I don't care who you sleep with as long as it is consensual.


Some people are hesitant to trust Edward's vow to uphold the constitution when he can't uphold his marriage vows.
 
2007-12-18 11:42:16 PM
I would totally bang John Edwards.

Okay, not when he's married.

Okay, not when his wife has cancer.

But any other time, I'm all over that.
 
2007-12-18 11:43:25 PM
DaSwankOne: I don't care what any of you Farkers say, anyone that cheats on their wife is a farking scumbag. The is especially true if your wife is ill.

Perhaps they have an "understanding?" I certainly know others that do, and their spouses aren't even terminally ill. What business is it of ours either way? Is a cheater somehow less qualified to lead the country than, say, someone so stupid that he doesn't accept basic scientific concepts and prefers to pretend the world was made by the Great Sky Spirit about 6K years ago?
 
Displayed 50 of 532 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report