A John Edwards-Rielle Hunter Timeline
[Guest post by DRJ]
Here’s a timeline for anyone interested in the John Edwards – Rielle Hunter story.
From a report by McClatchy’s Washington DC bureau on Lisa/Rielle through 2005:
1970’s 1960’s-1980’s – Lisa Druck was born in Fort Lauderdale FL and lived in Florida until 1984, including 2 years at the University of Tampa.
1987 – Twenty-something Lisa is living in New York City and the inspiration for novelist Jay McInerney’s literary character Alison Poole:
“McInerney, whose books portrayed the cocaine-fueled atmosphere of New York City in the 1980s, based his third novel, “Story of My Life,” on his time with Druck and their friends. One character, Alison Poole, was specifically modeled after her, McInerney said in a 2005 magazine article. He said that she had “intrigued and appalled” him.
The story, in Breathe Magazine, was primarily a transcript of a discussion between Hunter and McInerney following their reunion in Manhattan that year.
“For me you’re a little bit frozen in time, a little bit Alison Poole, the 21-year-old party girl in that book who runs around New York going to nightclubs, doing drugs, and abusing credit cards,” McInerney said.
She replies that she did a lot of drugs, but adds that she was struck by her character’s “need for truth.”
“That’s definitely a theme in my life — seeker of truth,” she tells him.”
1991 – Druck moved to LA to become an actress and married Alexander “Kip” M. Hunter III, son of Boulder CO DA Alex Hunter. (Fox News reports Hunter lived in New York and maintained a law office there from 1990-2005, but both McClatchy and Fox indicate Druck and Hunter married and lived in LA.)
1994 – Druck legally adopted the name Rielle (pronounced Riley) Hunter and she focused on writing scripts, none of which are listed in the IMDB except for Billy Bob and Me (below) in which she’s the writer, producer, and star.
2000 – Rielle released the comedy short Billy Bob and Me. Her divorce from Alex Hunter was finalized the same year: “She received $5,000 a month for all of 2000 and then $4,000 a month for the next year, and then the spousal support ended.”
2001-2005 – Rielle focused on spirtual awakening, attended retreats, and in 2004 “started a foundation promoting higher consciousness, and set up a Web site: beingisfree.org, in which she posted the Breathe Magazine story, photos of herself and other spiritual seekers, including a swami, an astrologer and a Malibu healer.” The website was taken down after the 2007 National Enquirer article.
2006 – According to Fox News, Hunter introduced herself as a producer to Edwards’ staff at an event for Edwards’ supporters. She briefly met Edwards, who at that time was considering but had not announced his Presidential bid:
“Less than a month later, she and her video production company, Midline Productions, had a six-month contract worth more than $100,000 to produce a series of videographed “Webisodes” following Edwards on the campaign trail, which included trips to Africa and Iowa. The videos were posted on Edwards’ political action committee. They have since returned to the Internet on YouTube.”
July 2006 * – Payments to Midline Productions began in July 2006 and lasted until April 2007:
“The first check cut to Hunter’s film company, Midline Groove Productions, was written on July 5, 2006, for $12,500, according to campaign finance reports.
Midline Groove Productions was incorporated in Delaware on June 30, 2006, according to business records.
In a four-month span, Edwards’ political action committee paid $100,000 to Hunter’s newly formed video production company for four Web videos. That was followed by two smaller payments totaling $14,461 from Edwards’ PAC, the last one coming on April 1, 2007.
It was unclear why the campaign stopped paying Midline.”
October 2006 to early 2007 – Fox News reports that Rielle, along with “New York party planner” Mimi Hockman and “experienced ad man” Colin Weil, set about to film John Edwards in more relaxed settings:
“Weil told me that the filming of the segments occurred from October 2006 to the end of that year. But in early 2007 the campaign decided to shelve them. “I thought it was a wimpy move,” said Weil. “The whole idea was to show Edwards not as a Ken doll — which he looks like — but in a more relaxed setting.”
December 28, 2006 – John Edwards announces his Presidential campaign.
March 2007 – Elizabeth Edwards announces that her breast cancer, originally diagnosed in 2004, had returned and spread to a rib.
Approximately May 2007 – Rielle Hunter becomes pregnant around this time, 9 months before her daughter is born in February 2008.
June 7, 2007 * – John Edwards receives the Father of the Year award in New York City.
October 2007 – The National Enquirer reports John Edwards and Rielle Hunter had an affair. According to a friend, the affair ended because they both felt guilty.
December 2007 – The National Enquirer releases an updated story with pictures of a pregnant Rielle, denials of paternity from Edwards, and Rielle’s claim that Andrew Young was the baby’s father.
January 30, 2008 – John Edwards abruptly ends his Presidential campaign.
February 27, 2008 – Rielle Hunter’s daughter is born.
April 2008 – John Edwards’ withdrawal from politics is so complete that the New York Times mentions it.
May 14, 2008 – Edwards endorses Obama. The press wonders why Edwards waited so long to make his endorsement.
June 2008 – In an August 9, 2008, interview, National Enquirer editor-in-chief David Perel claims Edwards met with Rielle and her daughter in LA at the Beverly Hilton sometime in June 2008.
July 22, 2008 – The National Enquirer reports it caught Edwards meeting Rielle and daughter at the Beverly Hilton on July 21, 2008.
August 8, 2008 – John Edwards admits to ABC News that he had a sexual affair with Rielle Hunter and that he repeatedly lied about it, but denies paternity and paying her hush money.
* [Sections added 8/11/08.]
— DRJ
I obviously don’t have enough to do.
Note to Justin Levine re: when the affair ended: The October 2007 National Enquirer article quotes its source as saying both Rielle and Edwards claimed they had ended their affair because they felt guilty. It doesn’t provide a specific date.
UPDATE: Justin, see Not Rhetorical’s comment 14, below.
DRJ (9d1be2) — 8/10/2008 @ 3:34 pmJanuary 30, 2008 – John Edwards abruptly ends his Presidential campaign.
February 27, 2008 – Rielle Hunter’s daughter is born.
— Hmm. Did the latter beget the former? rather, did the knowledge that the latter would eventually come to light beget the decision of the former?
Icy Truth (d05099) — 8/10/2008 @ 3:42 pmYou forgot the 1950’s to the 1990’s
Perfect Sense (9d1b08) — 8/10/2008 @ 4:24 pmThe era of “Sleep with a Kennedy for World Peace.”
Thereby establishing the right and obligation of Democrats to sleep around to make the world a better place.
At this point, the Fox-News crowd is in utter gloat-heaven — I’ve rarely see conservatives as happy as they’ve been the past couple of days.
By the way, apparently Ms. Hunter (aptly named) also was the inspiration for certain female characters of Bret Easton Ellis, author of “American Psycho” and other heartwarming fireside tales.
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/08/allow_bret_easton_ellis_to_int.html
Phil (6d9f2f) — 8/10/2008 @ 4:33 pm‘Apparently’, Phil thinks it was all her fault.
Icy Truth (d05099) — 8/10/2008 @ 4:35 pm‘Apparently’, Phil thinks it was all her fault.
No, I just think she’s an interesting character.
The only wrongdoers here I see are the ones who are taking huge pleasure in seeing a family humiliated.
Phil (6d9f2f) — 8/10/2008 @ 4:42 pmthe name Rielle (pronounced Riley)
And just when I thought this whole story couldn’t get any more hilariously awful.
mona (25894d) — 8/10/2008 @ 4:52 pm1970’s-1980’s – Lisa Druck was born in Fort Lauderdale FL and lived in Florida until 1984, including 2 years at the University of Tampa.
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/10/2008 @ 5:09 pmUnless I am not getting you right DRJ but how can she be born between 1970 and 1980 and be in her forties? I understand she is about 45.
Hey, Phil,
Who here has expressed pleasure over the Edwards’s family pain? (or “Edwards’s family-pain”, which has a different meaning).
Icy Truth (d05099) — 8/10/2008 @ 5:17 pmPhil – All this attention is not helping Ms. Hunter and her baby. She is being humiliated by this and she was not the one repeatedly lying to the public as I recall.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/10/2008 @ 5:20 pmlove2008,
That came from the McClatchy link and I think it’s intentionally vague on its part and on mine. Rielle must have been born around 1964-1966; I’ve seen different reports that give her current age as 42-44. However, I can’t find an actual birth date and year.
DRJ (9d1be2) — 8/10/2008 @ 5:20 pmGlory! Glory! Hallelujah! Love finally has a reason to gloat. Yes, Rielle was born in 1964; DRJ technically made an error. Whoo-hoo!
Icy Truth (d05099) — 8/10/2008 @ 5:21 pmGee, love. Maybe now you feel emboldened enough to debate substantively.
Baby steps . . . baby steps.
Icy Truth (d05099) — 8/10/2008 @ 5:24 pmRegarding Justin Levine’s post (for which “the comment form is closed at this time”): John Edwards’ own statement, separate from the interview, said the affair lasted “for a short period in 2006. It ended then.”
Not Rhetorical (483101) — 8/10/2008 @ 5:25 pm#12
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 8/10/2008 @ 5:27 pmAnd you didn,t even know about John McCain’s first wife who was also sick. The one he dumped for the hot and rich Cindy. Whoo-hooo!
Who here has expressed pleasure over the Edwards’s family pain?
Are you kidding? The Olympics are in full swing, Russia and Georgia are in a war, and on this blog there have been literally 12 posts in the past two days about Edwards cheating on his wife. This blog and its peers (the various outrage-peddlers on TV and on the Internet) are virtually orgasmic over this story.
Phil (6d9f2f) — 8/10/2008 @ 5:33 pmYou seem to be having a real hard time paying attention. I said that I did know about her and that I did know that you were talking about her. I am the one who is the McCain supporter here, remember?
Icy Truth (d05099) — 8/10/2008 @ 5:35 pm#16 – No, I’m not kidding, Phil. Where is this “orgasmic” expression of pleasure?
————————————————–
#17 was for “love”
Icy Truth (d05099) — 8/10/2008 @ 5:38 pm#16
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 8/10/2008 @ 5:38 pmWhat else do they have to talk about Phil? Watch how this connects to Obama’s bad judgment for shaking Edwards’ hands. Soon he will be lumped in the same place with people Wright, Ayers, Farrakhan, etc. That’s the whole conspiracy here. It’s not really about Edwards. It’s about Obama.
#17
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 8/10/2008 @ 5:45 pmStop trying to cover up your ignorance on that subject. It makes you look weak and pathetic. You did not know about it and when confronted you did your research and discovered the truth and now you want to act as though you knew all the while. Nice try spot. But not good enough.
This blog and its peers (the various outrage-peddlers on TV and on the Internet) are virtually orgasmic over this story.
Comment by Phil — 8/10/2008 @ 5:33 pm
You, my dear sir, may speak for yourself. Your crudely worded accusation notwithstanding, we are not reveling in the humilation to Edwards’ family. Many of us, including me, have specifically said so in these threads.
To the contrary: it’s the very fact that Edwards humiliated, hurt and harmed his own family so thoroughly, particularly his sick wife (or just in remission wife – A poster at HotAir comments brilliantly on that here), not to mention making people fools who were defending him and letting honest people be painted as liars, is what is CAUSING all the outrage. John Edwards is not a victim, and BTW neither is Rielle Hunter. They and they alone are responsible for the wreaking all this hurt and humiliation on everyone around them.
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 8/10/2008 @ 5:51 pmBack to the topic. What makes John Edwards so sure that that baby is not his? Why is he so sure enough to assert it in public? If he could confess to the sex, why couldn’t he also confess to the child? What is there to hide? If he knew the child was truly his, why would he not admit it? What is left to lose? Well, guess we will never know till a paternity test is carried out. If it is ever agreed upon and done. If he really wants this controversy to be put to rest, the sooner he does it, the better for him.
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 8/10/2008 @ 5:54 pmLet’s keep the focus on John Edwards and keep his lies, deceptions, and manipulations front and center. Yes, it takes two to tango, but it’s the Silky Pony who is orchestrating events, arranging pay-offs, and constructing the cover story. All with the active assistance of his allies in MSM.
Who but an established Democrat Party insider, a “Progressive,” could count on the MSM to cover for his sordid hanky-panky, while at the same time insulting the voting public with an idiot dodge so transparent as to be laughable?
Ropelight (cb4838) — 8/10/2008 @ 5:54 pmJohn McCain is married to his former mistress.
Edwards isn’t even running. How stupid can you people be?
Levi (74ca1f) — 8/10/2008 @ 6:01 pm#20 – love2008
Excuse me, sir. You are now venturing into Levi/jharp/BigIslandDave territory. That post is pretty amusing coming from the one who accused me of being the nasty one.
I’m the one who lives in Arizona; I’m the one who has voted for McCain for Senator four times. Feel free to disagree with my opinions 100% of the time; feel free to call me a liar not at all.
Icy Truth (d05099) — 8/10/2008 @ 6:03 pm#22 – This is more like it. What he has to hide is a revelation that might literally cause the even-more-premature death of his wife.
Icy Truth (d05099) — 8/10/2008 @ 6:06 pmlove2008 #22:
Edwards might be reluctant to confess that he was involved with another woman after March 2007 when his wife learned her cancer had recurred and spread.
DRJ (9d1be2) — 8/10/2008 @ 6:09 pmPhil – Since Silky and Rielle brought this one themselves, how does pointing that out make us bad actors?
Racists
JD (5f0e11) — 8/10/2008 @ 6:12 pm#25
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 8/10/2008 @ 6:19 pmBack on topic Icy. You are not a liar. If you say you were trying to be sarcastic, I am ready to take your word for it. No need wetting your pants over it. 😉
And to your comment #25, What is this “Revelation” you speak of?
Phil, your attempt to maintain the self-delusion of your superior moral position seems to be in tatters now.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/10/2008 @ 6:20 pm#26
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 8/10/2008 @ 6:30 pmEdwards might be reluctant to confess that he was involved with another woman after March 2007 when his wife learned her cancer had recurred and spread
That, DRJ is the crux of the matter!
Phil #16:
Lighten up, Phil. I’m watching the Olympics and cheering for Michael Phelps like everyone else. I saw Costas interview Bush and read about the Bush-Putin “words” on the Georgia conflict. And I’ve read how world leaders and Obama cautioned Russia and Georgia to exercise restraint, while McCain condemned Russian aggression.
I guess I could do a post showing McCain’s initial reaction was right but I’d rather watch and wait. Oh, and don’t forget I also posted on Hillary’s emails. But overall this is a lazy weekend and I’m content to add my 2 cents about John Edwards.
DRJ (9d1be2) — 8/10/2008 @ 6:35 pm#28 – In my opinion the child is his, and he either knows it or suspects it. When you tell one big lie telling another follows as a matter of course. I think he is stalling on the paternity issue (he says he’s willing to take a paternity test and 24 hours later she says NO? — he is controlling the dialogue, making himself look like the guy who is now doing the right thing) in order to spare Elizabeth further public humiliation for as long as possible, or forever (what is for Elizabeth forever).
Icy Truth (d05099) — 8/10/2008 @ 6:44 pmDRJ….while you’re at it…what’s for supper?
I’m hungry…
reff (b68a4f) — 8/10/2008 @ 6:45 pmTo those who want this blog to talk about Russia: I’m not sure what this blog could say that would be informative on that subject. It’s a tragedy. they could comment about how other media organizations aren’t giving the war top billing either, I guess, but some of them are.
That kind of story is one where the MSM is still dominant. There might be other blogs, ones like Blackfive, that will be more helpful.
the Edwards story is at least largely a story about media bias, which is a core topic here, so I’m not surprised it’s being bled for all it’s worth.
Juan (4cdfb7) — 8/10/2008 @ 6:52 pm#32
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 8/10/2008 @ 7:00 pmFor the sake of the life of Elizabeth, isn’t it better to give John Edwards the benefit of the doubt and let this child issue rest in peace. For the sake of his ailing wife. Since the truth may prove disastrous to her life, why don’t we support John Edwards and ask that the truth remain….well, untrue.
DRJ – President Bush was good with Costas. I hope Phelps pisses on those French fux in the relay tonite. The gymnastics team survived a shitty night. Those Chinese girls couldn’t have been more than 12 years old.
JD (5f0e11) — 8/10/2008 @ 7:02 pmI have been giving him the benefit of the doubt and his wife, too. But his accusers seem to me to be meeting their burden of proof now.
And you know what pisses a jury off the most? When the defendant lies to them.
nk (e38352) — 8/10/2008 @ 7:05 pmlovie – Why in the world would John Edwards be given the benefit of the doubt, for anything, now?
JD (5f0e11) — 8/10/2008 @ 7:05 pm#39
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/10/2008 @ 7:16 pmNot for him. For his sick wife who doesn’t need to hear the devastating news of a love-child somewhere. Trying to save a life here, people!
There’s no virtue in victimhood. It’s counter-survival.
nk (e38352) — 8/10/2008 @ 7:21 pm#41
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/10/2008 @ 7:27 pmAnd who is the real victim here nk?
Wait a minute – you’re now asking for a vow of silence for the very same wife who fronted for her husband, all in the full knowledge of his past trangressions? The very same person who strived mightily to maintain the fabrication of their “perfect” marriage, who allowed her husband to use her illness as a campaign prop the entire time?
I’m speechless.
Dmac (874677) — 8/10/2008 @ 7:30 pm#41
And who is the real victim here nk?
Comment by love2008 — 8/10/2008 @ 7:27 pm
Who cares? The world is better off when victims go out of the gene pool. Somebody who is not a victim stays in the gene pool.
nk (e38352) — 8/10/2008 @ 7:36 pm#43
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/10/2008 @ 7:36 pm….I’m speechless.
Precisely how I want you to remain on this. Speechless!
Grow up, love2008, Elizabeth Edwards has been a part of the whole charade.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/10/2008 @ 7:39 pmComment by love2008 — 8/10/2008 @ 7:36 pm
Well, if anyone ever doubted you were a full fledged liberal, this comment will be the proof of it. “Free speech for me…” and all that.
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 8/10/2008 @ 7:40 pmlove2008,
People refer to you as both “he” and “she.” So I can refer to you correctly, is it OK to ask if you are male or female? Sorry if you said this before and I missed it. (BTW am female in case you didn’t know.)
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 8/10/2008 @ 7:42 pmI have always wondered about Socrates’s “I would rather be wronged than do wrong”. It seems to me that if you do wrong you are the only one who tarnishes his soul but if you allow yourself to be wronged you are tarnishing both your transgressor’s soul and yours as well.
nk (e38352) — 8/10/2008 @ 7:44 pmComment by nk — 8/10/2008 @ 7:44 pm
Very interesting. Do you mean that the harm that is done to you (that you allow to be done) damages you? Because in that case the one who does wrong is responsible for the harm.
If you mean you harm yourself by failing to protect someone (in this case yourself) from wrong, your criteria would apply.
Had always agreed w/ Socrates on that before, because you couldn’t control if someone did evil to you (and even bearing it patiently, in Catholic theology – don’t know about your Orthodox theology but I suspect it is similar, is actually listed as a spiritual work of mercy). Gonna have to think about that some more.
Which did you mean though?
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 8/10/2008 @ 7:49 pmif you allow yourself to be wronged you are tarnishing both your transgressor’s soul and yours as well.
Should have asked what you meant re: this too – how would your transgressor’s soul wronged, in that case…?
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 8/10/2008 @ 7:51 pmOf course you do. Unfortunately, Elizabeth Edwards raised no objections to John’s campaign, his acceptance of a Father of the Year award, or his denials of an affair while being considered for the VP or SCOTUS. This is not occurring in a vacuum and the cover-up is the story, moreso than the affair. If he had admitted it and apologized to those he deceived, it would be a done deal. He didn’t and dragged his wife, his mistress, the baby, and probably many others down with him. If you don’t want to talk about it, feel free to keep your mouth shut. Telling others to stop talking about it is more your style though, isn’t it?
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 8/10/2008 @ 7:54 pmnoyk – I think nk was pointing out how incredibly racist you are.
JD (5f0e11) — 8/10/2008 @ 7:56 pmComment by JD — 8/10/2008 @ 7:56 pm
😛 Socratist!
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 8/10/2008 @ 7:57 pmlove2008, while I do feel sorry for Elizabeth Edwards, she is a primary villain in this incident. She knowingly lied to the American people as they made the tough choice of who is fit to lead (in an office that has often been dishonest… so character is a top point). She also lied about those who brought the truth to light about what is possibly a multimillion dollar scam.
Elizabeth Edwards is still calling the hard working peons far beneath her liars, when they are clearly telling the truth, and she is almost certainly aware of it.
So if they choose to push the issue of paternity to vindicate themselves, it hardly makes sense to tell them not to for the sake of the person persecuting their reputation… Elizabeth being one such person.
It’s also not fair to Frances Hunter.
Juan (4cdfb7) — 8/10/2008 @ 7:58 pmreff #34 – Chicken fried steak, of course.
JD #37 – You could live at my house. The only conversation I’ve heard tonight concerns the lousy French and how we need to beat the Chinese gymnasts. And George W. looked and acted more like his father than I’ve ever seen him.
NK #38 – Amen to that. The only thing worse than a woman scorned is a jury that thinks it’s been lied to.
DRJ (9d1be2) — 8/10/2008 @ 8:01 pmIt’s obvious that the baby is the victim here.
I thought liberals were all about protecting the chirren.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/10/2008 @ 8:01 pmPeople who are sinning don’t always understand that they’re sinning until they get a cold slap in the face. Nathan confronting David over Bathsheba is the classic example. You have to let the motherfucker know that what he’s doing is wrong even if it’s only “My King, you are that man” or “Go ahead, make my day”.
nk (e38352) — 8/10/2008 @ 8:04 pmI cheer for France, to false start, in every race. Just like I say a little prayer that the 18 will run out of gas.
JD (5f0e11) — 8/10/2008 @ 8:09 pmI kind of feel bad for that French lass named Manattee.
JD (5f0e11) — 8/10/2008 @ 8:17 pmanglophobe!!!!!
reff (b68a4f) — 8/10/2008 @ 8:21 pmGo HOFF!!!!!
reff (b68a4f) — 8/10/2008 @ 8:21 pmDamn British!!!
reff (b68a4f) — 8/10/2008 @ 8:22 pmComment by nk — 8/10/2008 @ 8:04 pm
Totally makes sense, and now I understand what you mean. (You’re making the same point as Ezekiel 33:7-9, I see now.) You’re right.
It strikes me that Jesus Himself did this many times. He didn’t keep going off on the Pharisees just because it satisfied His need to vent. He was trying to wake them up; it was an act of love toward them. Maybe they would wake up and maybe they wouldn’t, but He gave them the slap in the face they needed.
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 8/10/2008 @ 8:23 pm“Go ahead, make my day”.
Comment by nk — 8/10/2008 @ 8:04 pm
Every time I see that line now I think of the National Lampoon (print) parody called “Pride and Extreme Prejudice” where Elizabeth Bennett rebuffs Lady Catherine with a cool, “I shall have no objection, your ladyship, to your continuing, since by so doing, you shall render my afternoon quite agreeable.”
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 8/10/2008 @ 8:27 pmScrew France. Funny that the only people they are willing to fight is the US, and then. only in a swimming pool.
GO PHELPS !!!!!
JD (5f0e11) — 8/10/2008 @ 8:27 pmI am going to denounce myself in advance, but it is odd to see a black man in the swimming competition.
JD (5f0e11) — 8/10/2008 @ 8:30 pmUSA USA
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/10/2008 @ 8:31 pmViva la USA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
JD (5f0e11) — 8/10/2008 @ 8:32 pmJD,
How sweet. The trash-talker is the one who lost it for the French.
DRJ (9d1be2) — 8/10/2008 @ 8:32 pmSuck that, France. Fuckers.
JD (5f0e11) — 8/10/2008 @ 8:33 pmIncredible….ain’t it???
And, they shut that loud-mouthed frenchman up, didn’t they???
reff (b68a4f) — 8/10/2008 @ 8:35 pmDRJ – France did not lose it, we won it. That was a lot of heart, something the Frogs were obviously lacking in.
JD (5f0e11) — 8/10/2008 @ 8:35 pmCheese eating surrender monkeys. I fart in your general direction.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/10/2008 @ 8:35 pmHow do you surrender in a swimming pool???
reff (b68a4f) — 8/10/2008 @ 8:37 pmRaces like that are why the Olympics are so fun.
JD (5f0e11) — 8/10/2008 @ 8:38 pmYou know why the frenchman stayed in the water after his ass-whipping, right???
Pissing all over himself….glad the Americans got out of the water before he did….
reff (b68a4f) — 8/10/2008 @ 8:38 pmAlright. Phelps is a mutant.
#74 is a winner.
JD (5f0e11) — 8/10/2008 @ 8:41 pmDid you catch the American calling them the Frenchies?
DRJ (9d1be2) — 8/10/2008 @ 8:45 pmJust think if we had a better swimmer during the third leg, we’d have destroyed France…
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 8/10/2008 @ 8:45 pm#77
I just assumed the sissy was crying… 🙂
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 8/10/2008 @ 8:47 pmBut, we did destroy them….they broke the world record by 2 seconds, and we beat that….we crushed the fastest 100m swimmer in the world with the fastest ever relay split…
Scott, it was a serious ass whipping…
USAUSAUSAUSAUSAUSA
reff (b68a4f) — 8/10/2008 @ 8:47 pmI can see why the French need to be fast, whether swimming or running away, but why do we?
nk (e38352) — 8/10/2008 @ 8:48 pmnk…someone’s got to lead them….or they just run off and surrender….
reff (b68a4f) — 8/10/2008 @ 8:49 pmFor a laugh try googling French military victories. Better to go with DEFEATS. France became the first and only country to lose two wars to the Italians.
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 8/10/2008 @ 8:50 pmNo reff, it wasn’t. The third swimmer cost us a good second.
We beat them by .08 We’d have beat them by at LEAST 1 second had it not been for a weak 3rd leg…
We won because of an amazing anchor. We almost lost because of a weak 3rd.
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 8/10/2008 @ 8:52 pmSo we can get to the fighting, so we can kick ass sooner…
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 8/10/2008 @ 8:53 pmAgain, I am not sure if I enjoyed us winning as I did watching those smelly, poufty, aroogant cheese eating surrender monkeys lose.
FWIW – When USA hoops had Deron Williams (GO ILLINI) and Chris Paul in the backcourt, they were devastating.
JD (5f0e11) — 8/10/2008 @ 8:54 pmCP 3….
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
reff (b68a4f) — 8/10/2008 @ 8:56 pmBut, for the Olympics….he is actually CP 13…
reff (b68a4f) — 8/10/2008 @ 8:56 pmScott, as a recovering track coach, who hated sprint relays, as this 4×100 free would be compared to, I never consider the weakness of one leg when dealing with a team….the team overcomes, because the reality is that there is always a slowest, and a fastest….in this case, the fastest did what he had to do….
I’ll even bet you that the third leg swam a PR….
reff (b68a4f) — 8/10/2008 @ 8:58 pmForgive me. I did watch the swimming competitions this afternoon. They were all extraordinary athletes. The term “amateur” means something entirely different when it comes to them.
nk (e38352) — 8/10/2008 @ 9:00 pmI used to be on swim team, and I agree…
But we didn’t trash the Frenchies like we could have…
But yeah, it was sweet seeing the look on the frenchies’ faces…
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 8/10/2008 @ 9:01 pmWe clearly need an Olympic post.
DRJ (9d1be2) — 8/10/2008 @ 9:03 pmOne more thought….Phelps, the greatest individual swimmer in the world, was not leading after the first leg…the Austrialians were…and he broke the American record in the 100 free on his leg….
A relay always takes more than one man….your criticism of one leg of an Olympic champion, world record holding relay team is way off the mark….
reff (b68a4f) — 8/10/2008 @ 9:03 pmI would point out, DRJ, that of us YOU are the only one able to do so. 🙂
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 8/10/2008 @ 9:04 pmWhat a great ending to a great day. Night, y’all.
JD (5f0e11) — 8/10/2008 @ 9:04 pmIt shall be done, Scott. I just need to get motivated.
DRJ (9d1be2) — 8/10/2008 @ 9:06 pmNight, JD and family.
DRJ (9d1be2) — 8/10/2008 @ 9:06 pmYou don’t have to, DRJ… I’m just sayin… 🙂
And I too head to bed, to try and stave off a cold.
Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec) — 8/10/2008 @ 9:15 pm“I’m French! Why do you think I have this outraaaageous accent, you silly Arthur King?
Icy Truth (d05099) — 8/10/2008 @ 9:15 pmMy household just recovered from illnesses, Scott, so you have my sympathy.
DRJ (9d1be2) — 8/10/2008 @ 9:19 pmHoly Grail, right Icy? I loved the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow, the rabbit and just about everything in that movie.
DRJ (9d1be2) — 8/10/2008 @ 9:22 pmRight, DRJ. The best trivia about that movie is that it was financed by Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin. Ultra-cool all around.
Icy Truth (d05099) — 8/10/2008 @ 10:23 pmC ‘mon Phil. Your gang still regards Monica as the stalker of a good man. The day you libroots call a dirty old boss a lech for going after a young worker, you’ll get a round of applause.
And a PRE-EMPTIVE for ya. They yanked his law license for a reason. Lying under oath.
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 8/10/2008 @ 11:18 pmSTOP THE PRESSES!!!!
Edwards lied to ABC!!
The timeline listed above is incorrect, per this:
“By Sam Stein of Huffington Post
John Edwards’ False Assertion During The ABC Interview
John Edwards made a false assertion about the nature of his extramarital affair with Rielle Hunter during an interview with ABC on Friday night.
Asked by correspondent Bob Woodruff to detail the beginnings of his romantic relationship, he said that it started after Hunter was hired to direct a series of documentary films for his One America Committee.
WOODRUFF: When you hired Ms. Hunter, that was back in 2006, the committee hired in July 2006, paid her $114,000 to make films for you… Uh was the affair going on when you hired her?
EDWARDS: No. No. And again, I always said this to you, I don’t think I’m going to go through the details of this, I already did it with Elizabeth– uh, she was hired to come in and produce films and that’s the reason she was hired.
WOODRUFF: But this had nothing to do with the fact that you were having an affair with her?
EDWARDS: Same answer. Same answer — no I did not.
WOODRUFF: So you hired her before it even started?
EDWARDS: That is correct.
A review of political action committee payments, contemporaneous reporting, and emails obtained by the Huffington Post reveal this statement to be false.
Edwards and Hunter initially met each other sometime during the winter of 2006 (either late December 2005 or early January) in a hotel restaurant in midtown Manhattan. It would be another seven months before Edwards would first pay her for the documentary work. As Woodruff rightfully noted, the initial check cut to Hunter’s film company was written on July 5, 2006, for the cost of $12,500.
What happened in between that winter meeting and the start of filming? Emails sent by Hunter suggest that her romance with Edwards was in full bloom that spring. In early April, Hunter wrote about a trip she had taken to North Carolina to see the man whom she affectionately referred to as “my love lips.”
A week later she wrote another email in which she described the mental anguish of “being in love with a (still somewhat dysfunctional) married man.”
Indeed, the circumstances surrounding Hunter’s professional life resoundingly suggest that Edwards hired her as a front to continue their relationship. For starters, she had virtually no film experience prior to being asked by the former Senator to make documentaries. Moreover, Hunter’s film company, Midline Groove Productions, was started in the spring of 2006 – months after she and Edwards first met — suggesting that it was created for the sole purpose of working with him.
As Colin Weil, a film consultant on the project told the Huffington Post back in October 2007: “Neither of them [Hunter and her business partner and friend Mimi Hockman] had done tons and tons of stuff before hand…”
In the context of admitting to an affair, it may seem innocent for Edwards to have misled ABC about the starting point. But the precise date is important. Over the course of nine months Edwards would spend more than $114,000 of the One America Committee’s budget on Hunter’s films. Whether he did that in an effort to have Hunter around or as a legitimate documentary project would likely make a difference to those who thought they were contributing to a poverty-eradication effort.”
Ed (841b4a) — 8/10/2008 @ 11:59 pmI wouldn’t be too hard on the French 4×100 team. They figured they would smash the record, then carelessly translated that to smashing all the other competitors including the US which was getting all the buzz. The French did smash the record, but our guys swam even more incredibly and inched out the French, smashing the record by a few hundredths better than the French did.
Like someone said above, the French didn’t blow it, our guys just did an incredible job to win a memorable race. Victory is even sweeter when you beat a terrific team to win.
I’m not a big fan of the French, but in this case we should be gracious about a terrific victory over a worthy opponent that showed how good our guys are.
Ken from Camarillo (aa2192) — 8/11/2008 @ 1:14 amFrog apologist!
Icy Truth (5db3e3) — 8/11/2008 @ 2:26 amFrenchies. Loved it.
JD (75f5c3) — 8/11/2008 @ 5:36 amRd – I think the real question is who had more cost effective extra-marital relationships, John Edwards or Eliot Spitzer. When you throw in all the support of Edwards’s friends, Silky’s dalliance looks pretty expensive. Can democrats be fiscally responsible?
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/11/2008 @ 6:02 amGood morning, JD. Re your #67. It’s weird to see the myth of less buoyancy due to greater muscle and bone density still being around. My daughter takes swimming lessons at a nearby university which has an olympic size swimming pool. There are black children there, ages five and up, and that leads to a reasonable explanation. These kids are from the affluent nearby suburbs. Most black kids in the Chicago area still do not have convenient access to an olympic size swimming pool winter and summer. I think an analysis of the economic backgrounds of swimmers will give a better picture than a comparison by race.
nk (e38352) — 8/11/2008 @ 6:09 amnk – I was just making a visual observation. It is the exception, not the rule.
JD (75f5c3) — 8/11/2008 @ 6:28 am#112
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/11/2008 @ 7:24 amSuper duper Racist. Coated with cream and spiced!
JD, denounce yourself 100 times!
I know, JD. I was remarking generally about the myth. It was absolutely not my intention to imply that you believe it.
nk (e38352) — 8/11/2008 @ 7:37 amnk – I know. It was just so striking, visually. And it was so cool that he helped up bitch slap that cocky French team.
JD (75f5c3) — 8/11/2008 @ 7:39 amEd #106,
Thanks for the extra information. I think it’s consistent with what McClatchy and Fox reported but it states the date Edwards and Rielle Hunter first met was either December 2005 or January 2006. My timeline lists it (vaguely, I admit) as sometime in 2006.
I will try to find a link and add the information about the July 2006 check but I haven’t seen anything to suggest video work began before October 2006.
DRJ (8b9d41) — 8/11/2008 @ 8:00 amBrain McBride on the U.S. soccer team is our insurance agent’s son-in-law. I just found out this morning. (Kind of wish I hadn’t had the opportunity to, though.) 😉
nk (e38352) — 8/11/2008 @ 8:44 am“Brian*
nk (e38352) — 8/11/2008 @ 8:44 amWhat happened, nk?
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 8/11/2008 @ 8:50 amMy wife hit a parked car backing out of a parking spot. How? I don’t know. I suspect it’s a girl thing, with a biological explanation, perfectly natural and nothing to worry about. 😉
nk (e38352) — 8/11/2008 @ 8:55 am*sigh*
See, this is why they used to not let them drive…
…
If you don’t mind, I believe I will start running for my life now…
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 8/11/2008 @ 9:08 amI don’t have a problem with a wife (Elizabeth Edwards) who knows about her husband’s affair and still loves him enough to keep it private and backs her husband’s candidacy. That’s Love Folks.
I wouldn’t have a problem with this man leading our country.
Having said that, in the political climate we live in where you can’t take a dump without the press knowing what color it is, he made a grave mistake and it pisses me off. It was sleazy and he should of known better.
Oiram (983921) — 8/11/2008 @ 9:38 amI half agree with Oiram. A wife knowing about an affair and forgiving her husband and standing next to him during a bid for the nomination for the WhiteHouse, I can believe and support that.
A guy that would cheat on his wife while attempting to seek said nomination?
That’s what I like to call “poor impulse control”, and I most certainly would have a problem with such a man leading this country.
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 8/11/2008 @ 9:44 amI see your point Scott and I respect it whole heartedly.
I’m conflicted, because I don’t have a problem with the affair itself, but yet, yes “poor impulse control” should be a matter of discipline, which is definitely needed in a president.
Oiram (983921) — 8/11/2008 @ 9:52 amJD wrote: I am going to denounce myself in advance, but it is odd to see a black man in the swimming competition.
Unusual? Yes. “Odd?” No. “Odd” would be an accurate way of describing the Jamaican bobsled team…or Dara Torres’ physique. Her body looks like “fitness celebrity” John Basedow’s; her “game face” makes her look like Vanilla Ice.
A black man atop the medal stand getting a gold in swimming. Imagine that! somewhere, Al Campanis is spinning in his grave.
L.N. Smithee (d1de1b) — 8/11/2008 @ 10:05 amL.N. Smithee #127,
See comments 111 through 116.
nk (e38352) — 8/11/2008 @ 10:10 am#124 – Oiram
“knows about her husband’s affair and still loves him enough to keep it private and backs her husband’s candidacy”
— The problem with this is that her love for him takes the form of (apparently) believing that it’s more important for him to become POTUS than for him to be honest with the American people. I don’t care how much she believes in his positions on the issues or his ability to lead; there is something wrong with responding to his betrayal by attempting to protect his political career. It’s almost like she felt that it would somehow be her fault if the revelation of his indiscretion were to drive him from public service. Then again, maybe her desire to shield their family from public scandal and shame was her only motivating factor, and protecting his career was merely a by-product of that effort.
Icy Truth (9779ca) — 8/11/2008 @ 10:19 amOiram wrote:
That’s “love” for her blackmail-bait husband. It’s NOT love for the people or the nation such a weasel would preside over.
Soooooo, let me get this straight: You say what Edwards did during his Presidential campaign (and conventional logic indicates he continued to do long after he would like to admit) was “sleazy,” yet you would not have “a problem with this man leading our country.”
Yup. That makes perrrrfect nonsense.
L.N. Smithee (0931d2) — 8/11/2008 @ 10:21 amIcy Truth wrote: It’s almost like she felt that it would somehow be her fault if the revelation of his indiscretion were to drive him from public service. Then again, maybe her desire to shield their family from public scandal and shame was her only motivating factor, and protecting his career was merely a by-product of that effort.
Well said, and I think it could be simplified even further: John and Elizabeth Edwards are the political version of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker.
L.N. Smithee (0931d2) — 8/11/2008 @ 10:30 amPoor impulse control is the guy who gets elected first and then starts cheating on his wife. To cheat on his wife first and then run for office, knowing full well that the scandal is out there, is much worse in my book.
Xrlq (b71926) — 8/11/2008 @ 10:43 am#130 L.N., I base my candidate on the issues. I don’t need to know what is “private” between him/her and their spouse.
Again, having said that, he shouldn’t have down it, and he certainly shouldn’t have done it knowing that a huge percentage of our population disagree with me on my first sentence here.
How hard is that to understand L.N.? I hate wearing my shirt and tie everyday, but I do it because that’s what’s required of me to keep the job that I like.
Your probably baiting a Democrat who most likely agrees with you here, you should be careful.
Read #124 – #126
Oiram (983921) — 8/11/2008 @ 11:09 amLook. It’s likely the money was/is a substantial amount. The campaign finance director already said he paid Rielle to relocate out of town because of local media interest. One America campaign money is likely the source of her fees and salary with potential funneling and laundering. At the very least, she was hired as a documentary filmmaker with no experience as such.
Those are the issues.
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 8/11/2008 @ 11:22 amCouldn’t agree with you more #132
Oiram (983921) — 8/11/2008 @ 11:26 amYou said “likely” a little too much for my tastes their Vermont on #134.
That’s an issue in itself.
Oiram (983921) — 8/11/2008 @ 11:27 amI beg to differ with you L.N. on comment #131.
Tammy Faye and James run their whole business or rather faith business on moral values.
It’s written in their bible.
Last time I checked, a president is not required by any law or constitution to be faithful to his wife.
Oiram (983921) — 8/11/2008 @ 11:30 amAgain I respect the wishes of what Americans expect from their candidate………. just as long as it goes across both political aisles.
Last time I checked, a president is not required by any law or constitution to be faithful to his wife.
— Only the law of public opinion as reflected at the ballot box.
Icy Truth (9779ca) — 8/11/2008 @ 11:38 amThank You Icy #138. If you read the thread, you know I agree with you whole heartedly.
Sorry to be so off topic on this, but where were you when it came to the publics opinion on our war on Iraq?
Again, I apologize being off topic.
Oiram (983921) — 8/11/2008 @ 11:52 am#136
C’mon Oriam. The One America campaign director already said he paid her to relocate. The story is quickly unfolding: the SB dude is paying out money while getting payments from the campaign. You will eat your words. This wasn’t good clean fun. Too much of a paper trail already. But poor Hillary, huh.
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 8/11/2008 @ 11:57 amOiram/Amabo,
You also misquoted me. I said the money was/is a substantial amount. We already know it is. We also know some of its origins.
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 8/11/2008 @ 12:07 pmOiram wrote:
It is my belief that every politician must enter into a de facto Faustian pact because of the very nature of politics. Nobody who doesn’t have a huge ego goes into the business, and nobody who isn’t ready to shade the truth to varying degrees understands the job.
But as Lord Acton said, “Power corrupts; Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Ideally, you want to select someone who risks being further corrupted vs. one who is thoroughly corrupt already before getting to the “absolute power” stratosphere. Character IS an issue in elections, and only those who back someone that can’t measure up denies that fact. In addition, whether or not a politician has a private life that makes him subject to extortion IS an issue.
Well! I’m glad to hear that. So I am sure that you were and are horrified (with a capital “Hor”) that the MSM in Chicago made finding out every detail of the divorce of Republican Senatorial candidate Jack Ryan a priority so they could clear the way for the election of Barack Obama.
Am I endorsing the notion of going to public ess-ee-eks clubs with one’s spouse? No Wayne L! If someone had proof that Ryan was up to those shenanigans in his current marriage (the allegations were filed in 1999), that would be an issue as well.
But that situation — which, unlike the Edwards affair, was just between Ryan and his wife, actress Jeri) is nothing compared to a candidate acting like Sgt. Schultz as campaign finance guy financed a lavish lifestyle for his mistress to the tune of five figures in cash a month (and perhaps six figures in value of housing and accommodations) as he SIMULTANEOUSLY portrays himself as the loving husband caring for a terminally ill spouse.
If you don’t see that as a character issue, it says quite a bit about your own. (Ooooooh! How dare I say that!)
L.N. Smithee (ecc5a5) — 8/11/2008 @ 12:12 pmThis is true. This is the crux with many liberal arguments. It usually stops right at the point where free speech is good for everyone. It’s only okay for liberals. They then adopt a don’t look/don’t see policy which masquerades as decency.
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 8/11/2008 @ 12:20 pmNo, it is most certainly not. However, it is not asking too much to have a candidate that does not lie to our faces, repeatedly, and intentionally.
The public gets to make decisions about who they elect to be the President. The public is not involved in decisions in re. national security. Kind of a fundamental difference there, Oiram.
JD (75f5c3) — 8/11/2008 @ 12:37 pm#142 L.N.
Regarding Republican Senatorial candidate Jack Ryan’s divorce. Divorces are public, affair’s are not.
Oiram (983921) — 8/11/2008 @ 12:47 pmNo, it is most certainly not. However, it is not asking too much to have a candidate that does not lie to our faces, repeatedly, and intentionally.
The public gets to make decisions about who they elect to be the President. The public is not involved in decisions in re. national security. Kind of a fundamental difference there, Oiram.
Comment by JD — 8/11/2008 @ 12:37 pm
Yep.
no one you know (1f5ddb) — 8/11/2008 @ 12:48 pmOiram wrote:
This is the statement Icy Truth made with which I agreed:
Anyone can be a preacher in America; if you can’t become ordained in an established denomination, that’s fine — you can start your own religion. But you will be limited in the money and power you wield until you have access to millions of TV-watching armchair churchgoers who, for reasons of their own, won’t get off their duffs and walk into a meeting of worship.
The Almighty already knew what Jim Bakker (and Jimmy Swaggart, and Ted Haggard [partial list]) were up to, but he didn’t issue lightning bolts to dispatch them. Their continuance in their television ministry was dependent on Bakker’s reputation as someone who was fit for the job, and that alone — it didn’t necessarily matter that Bakker was unfaithful. Once the truth about Jessica Hahn (and perhaps others) and his wasteful, lavish spending was revealed, his flock had a choice: Forgiving, and continuing to follow him with eyes wide open, or close their pocketbooks and change the channel. They chose the latter. The same would have happened to Edwards if he admitted cheating on his cancer-surviving wife.
Face it, Americans — to their credit — are not yet to the point where the President can act like Nicolas Sarkozy has. IMHO, that’s one of the reasons why Rudy Giuliani will never be a credible candidate.
L.N. Smithee (ecc5a5) — 8/11/2008 @ 12:50 pmFunny. That divorce was sealed until someone had the temerity to run against Baracky the Lightworker.
JD (75f5c3) — 8/11/2008 @ 12:50 pmThe scummiest moment during that interview was when Edwards said (and I paraphrase): “Elizabeth’s cancer was in remission at the time — not that that’s an excuse.” Typical ambulance-chaser rhetoric; divert the spotlight to the victim in a backdoor manner, thereby making the responsible party (in this case himself) look more remorseful. It’s like a guy up on charges for beating the crap out of a 250-pound linebacker saying, “At least it wasn’t a hundred-pound woman”.
Icy Truth (9779ca) — 8/11/2008 @ 12:54 pmI didn’t mean “more remorseful”. I meant that by mentioning that her cancer was in remission he was attempting to diminish the atrociousness and the hurtfulness of his offense.
Icy Truth (9779ca) — 8/11/2008 @ 12:58 pm#142 L.N. comments to me.
“If you don’t see that as a character issue, it says quite a bit about your own. (Ooooooh! How dare I say that!)”
Yeah, how dare you say that. LOL, but I understand where your coming from.
Look at it this way L.N., Republicans generally use family values as much as Democrats use the environment to get elected. Republicans generally make us Dems cringe when they bring up the hypocrisy of Gore using a private jet. This is the same thing.
Oiram (983921) — 8/11/2008 @ 1:03 pm#149 Icy, I agree with you on that as well.
You guys have to tear someone down even when they are agreeing with you.
I guess it might get boring preaching only to your choir all day.
Oiram (983921) — 8/11/2008 @ 1:06 pmLook at it this way L.N., Republicans generally use family values as much as Democrats use the environment to get elected. Republicans generally make us Dems cringe when they bring up the hypocrisy of Gore using a private jet. This is the same thing.
I’d say that Republican’s advocate more personal responsibility and less government involvement and Democrats typically use class warfare and fear mongering…
G (722480) — 8/11/2008 @ 1:18 pmOiram wrote: Regarding Republican Senatorial candidate Jack Ryan’s divorce. Divorces are public, affair’s are not.
Nonsense. “Affairs” (once again, you’ve ignored the extortion aspect out of Edwards’ dalliance) are only as private as the people who know about them. Somebody in the know has been feeding the National Enquirer information about Rielle Hunter and her kid, and unlike the Ryans’ divorce papers, they weren’t legally sealed. That is, of course, until some judge (Robert Schnider, anyone?) decided that the some portions of the Ryans’ split he agreed to seal four years before needed to be released to the Chicago Tribune and WLS-TV.
Why the change? “[T]o show there is no favoritism [in the courts] to the rich and the powerful,” and that “if Mr. Ryan doesn’t like the way it’s spinning, well, then, he’s going to have to spend his time and money” to spin things in his favor.
Yeah, judge — no favoritism for “the rich and the powerful,” as if millionaire Ryan could possibly buy spin that wouldn’t be overwhelmed by Illinois’ biggest newspaper.
L.N. Smithee (ecc5a5) — 8/11/2008 @ 1:30 pmNow correct me if I’m wrong, if someone decides to marry Ryan the papers are un-sealed??? correct?
Look, I’m not saying it was wrong to expose Edwards here. He did what he did and it was wrong, I’ve said that 1001 times today.
Oiram (983921) — 8/11/2008 @ 1:40 pmAll I’m saying is that, issue wise, it does not matter to me. I care about the issues. And I care about electibility.
#153 Too bad our president doesn’t follow your guidelines there for a Republican. Don’t impeach him though.
Oiram (983921) — 8/11/2008 @ 1:44 pmOiram wrote: You guys have to tear someone down even when they are agreeing with you.
I guess it might get boring preaching only to your choir all day.
If you are saying cheating on your wife is wrong, so what? Everyone should already think so, and you don’t get a Scooby Snack for agreeing — it’s like congratulating a physicist for counting to ten. But you and others are tempering your disdain for Edwards’ actions in ways similar to Clintonoids’ defense of the Slickster, who argued that The Big Creep’s the most egregious sin was the sex, and not perjury and the fact that the POTUS tried to fix a civil suit against him.
For some reason, you think that if he was elected President, he wouldn’t do to the electorate what he did to Elizabeth (in a figurative sense) and Rielle (literally). That’s nuts.
L.N. Smithee (ecc5a5) — 8/11/2008 @ 1:46 pmThe whole persona of Edwards is a contrived visage, in an attempt to get elected, Oiram. Some sort of moral center has to be there, or you get people like Clinton and Edwards.
JD (5f0e11) — 8/11/2008 @ 1:47 pmHey, he was literal with Elizabeth as well. I think they’re all his kids.
Icy Truth (9779ca) — 8/11/2008 @ 1:49 pmYes, JD a moral center does need to be there, but when you have a wife who still stands by her man, this to me is the definition of morality.
This idea that a president has to be above infidelity is a relatively new thing. We’ve done pretty well for 200 years up until Clinton.
I know your feelings about Clinton so don’t spew them at me please. You have to at least consider the fact that right or wrong if Clinton’s infidelities weren’t exposed he might have gone down as one of our greatest presidents.
Reagan had infidelities too, divorced etc. By the time he got the white house he was old enough to keep his you know what in his pocket.
Oiram (983921) — 8/11/2008 @ 1:54 pmIcy Truth: Hey, he was literal with Elizabeth as well. I think they’re all his kids.
I don’t know if that was true during the affair. This is a Newsweek reporter’s account of what Hunter said about Elizabeth:
BTW — Turns out Hunter is another disciple of Oprah’s new fave guru, Eckhart Tolle, and was preaching to Edwards about him constantly. She also spoke of Edwards then the way many speak of Obama now. Obamaniacs, drop to your knees and thank God she didn’t get her claws into him.
L.N. Smithee (ecc5a5) — 8/11/2008 @ 1:56 pmOiram – I think Clinton was one of the great politicians of our time, not a great President, even without the bald faced lies.
JD (5f0e11) — 8/11/2008 @ 2:04 pmThere should have been a “(snip)” in-between the first and second paragraphs. Mea culpa.
L.N. Smithee (ecc5a5) — 8/11/2008 @ 2:10 pmSee I knew you would say that #162 JD. Your coming from one perspective, me from another on Clinton.
Now please consider perspectives. Because liberals will throw you a hundred reasons why Reagan was not a great president. Conservatives want to put him on the one dollar bill right? (I’m being factitious of course, but you get the idea).
How would you feel about Reagan had he lied about sex? Which everyone does. Especially if the reason he lied and then eventually perjured himself was a path formed by a liberal (Linda Tripp)??
Reagan had his share of infidelities when he was a young man. By the time he got to the White House (pre viagara) his libido was diminished……… unless he’s Superman……. Oh wait, you all might think he was Superman. 🙂
Oiram (983921) — 8/11/2008 @ 2:16 pm155-Look, I’m not saying it was wrong to expose Edwards here. He did what he did and it was wrong, I’ve said that 1001 times today.
All I’m saying is that, issue wise, it does not matter to me. I care about the issues. And I care about electibility.
I understand that this Edwards thing isn’t an issue to you, but I’m guessing, to 80% of voting Americans, it sure is.
If Edwards was the presumptive Democrat Presidential Candidate, he would have been forced out. A man is only as good as his word, and if he violates the trust with his wife, whom he is married to before God and is seeking the highest office in the world, This only indicates that you can’t trust Edwards and that his word or words on the issues is bunk. Furthermore, I can see and accept that it just isn’t an issue to you. Thats fine, you are your own person with your own beliefs. But I hope you know you are in a very small minority there.
G (722480) — 8/11/2008 @ 2:25 pmI know it’s an issue to 80% of Americans G #165, that’s why he screwed up. I’ve said that here 1002 times.
I’m not in a small minority in that it’s a whole other ball game when your spouse stands next to you.
Love is there, no matter how you cut it.
As wrong as Edwards was, and as much a right 80% of the country has to accept it as a top issue for president. They also have to accept that the true meaning of “Family Values” is what Elizabeth is advocating…….. and to some extent also John Edwards himself.
Divorce goes against the face of family values.
Elizabeth Edwards would of preferred that this remain private correct? Shouldn’t she be given the benefit of the doubt as to whether or not Edwards can be trusted?
They stayed together, that’s admirable in my book……and God’s my friend.
Oiram (983921) — 8/11/2008 @ 2:47 pmNow you rip on Reagan? Lol…
How would you feel about Reagan had he lied about sex? Which everyone does. Especially if the reason he lied and then eventually perjured himself was a path formed by a liberal (Linda Tripp)??
Reagan had his share of infidelities when he was a young man. By the time he got to the White House (pre viagara) his libido was diminished……… unless he’s Superman……. Oh wait, you all might think he was Superman. 🙂
So, let me get this straight, you can only deal with hypotheticals, and when reality rears its ugly head, you switch back to a new hypothetical?
Reagan had his share of infidelities when he was a young man. Did he? I mean, I can imagine he did, but what about when married to Nancy? See, I think most people are forgiving, thus this whole “learning from the error of my ways…” As I remember, Reagan was once a rather large liberal (though, liberal back then isn’t liberal today).
Which everyone does. Right! Nice assumption there.
By the time he got to the White House (pre viagara) his libido was diminished… Lets see, you know Reagan’s personal sex history, intriguing.
And as for my take on Reagan, by far the best president in my lifetime;
G (722480) — 8/11/2008 @ 2:49 pmI’m not ripping on Reagan. I don’t expect you to follow the thread, but I was explaining to someone how times have changed as far as what Americans and the Media expect from our officials as far as fidelity to their spouses. Something changed in the last decade.
My point was that with Clinton’s popularity in the 90’s suddenly it became a priority of Americans, specifically Conservatives that we have a faithful to your wife president. No hypotheticals as far infidelities in the last 200 years of presidents. Didn’t matter then, mattered in the 90’s because in the eyes of most Americans, right or wrong Bill Clinton would of been Reaganesque……….. had it not been for his affair that was brought to our attention by Linda Tripp (Conservative working in the Clinton White House)
Oiram (983921) — 8/11/2008 @ 3:01 pmFamily values? First off, you dont’ know the inner workings of Edwards marriage, nor do I. Being that she stayed with him, during a time of great need whereas both John and Elizabeth needed each other for different reasons. I don’t quite know if she is with Edwards for love, or for their children, or for her own desires, but lets talk in a year to see if she divorces him.
My interest in this story is how the media ignored it full force. A story, which first broke as he was running to be the President of the United States of America.
G (722480) — 8/11/2008 @ 3:04 pmBill Clinton was walking dynamite. Linda Tripp was just the detonator of sorts. If not her, someone else. Abuse of power catches up..
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 8/11/2008 @ 3:14 pmSo you can say with certainty that we had 200 + years of faithful to their wives presidents Vermont?
Really? I mean we can start with Kennedy if you like.
Oiram (983921) — 8/11/2008 @ 3:26 pm#171
So you can say with certainty that we had 200 + years of faithful to their wives presidents Vermont?
Really? I mean we can start with Kennedy if you like.
I see no claim being made on that. But why start with Kennedy when you have FDR?
G (722480) — 8/11/2008 @ 3:27 pmThe issue isn’t cheating; the issue with Clinton wasn’t cheating. We learned on 60 Minutes long before the WH that he was a serial cheat. He wasn’t punished for cheating. But you know that.
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 8/11/2008 @ 3:35 pmOne of our greatest presidents G #171. I’m going to take your word on his infidelities, but o.k. there is one.
If you question his place as one of our greatest presidents, I suggest you re-read history.
Oiram (983921) — 8/11/2008 @ 3:37 pmO.k. #173…… what was Clinton punished for?
Oiram (983921) — 8/11/2008 @ 3:37 pm#161 – L.N. Smithee
The chief villain in this saga was Elizabeth Edwards. “Someday,” Rielle said, “the truth about her is going to come out.”
— What truth? that she’s really a mean, evil shrew? As Benny Hill (what? I can’t use Monty Python for everything) said, “Big ——- deal!” [The BBC or the ITV, whoever it was, wouldn’t allow him to say “f-ing”, so he just left in that great pause and let the audience fill in the blank with their imaginations.] I hope you don’t believe that silliness.
Icy Truth (9779ca) — 8/11/2008 @ 3:39 pmLying under oath. Obstruction of justice. Screwing with evidence and a civil case. My question is..
Who the hell are you?
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 8/11/2008 @ 3:40 pm#169 What ever happened to the Media checking to make sure a story was factual before breaking it?
I mean we basically at that point had one person’s word against another.
Oiram (983921) — 8/11/2008 @ 3:42 pmReagan committed no sideshows during his term. Stick with a Dem president for your example. JFK, LBJ, Clinton.
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 8/11/2008 @ 3:43 pm#177 Who am I?
Your asking that here?
That’s funny Vermont.
Oiram (983921) — 8/11/2008 @ 3:52 pmNobody made that 200+ year assertion but you, Oiram. Setting up strawmen and burning them in effigy seems to be a recurrent theme with you.
JD (5f0e11) — 8/11/2008 @ 3:58 pmI want to know who you are so I can send Mom the tutoring fee. American history… it don’t come cheap.
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 8/11/2008 @ 4:06 pm#75 by Oiram – He was punished for lying under oath in a civil sexual harassment trial. He obstructed justice, was impeached, and disbarred. Even if you toss that down the memory hole, he was not a great President. He passed on most of the big issues, and was the beneficiary of the irrational exuberance of the dot-com bubble. But he was one hell of a politician.
JD (5f0e11) — 8/11/2008 @ 4:07 pmOiram, against the republican attack machine. Like a pack of rabid dogs, they strike at everyone who dares to oppose the common meme. Even when the person agrees with them to an extent. Don’t let them break you Oiram.
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 8/11/2008 @ 4:14 pmOiram wrote: Elizabeth Edwards would of preferred that this remain private correct? Shouldn’t she be given the benefit of the doubt as to whether or not Edwards can be trusted?
He can’t be trusted, and the brazen lies, the phony contract, and the labyrinthian backchannel of money and payoffs as he was trying to convince us he was an icon of devotion proves it. It was Elizabeth’s decision to hide that truth from us to preserve her marriage, but her campaigning for a lying snake while pretending he deserved “Father of The Year” honors makes her no better in my eyes.
Don’t confuse their marriage with the Presidency.
BTW – Edwards was honored as 2007 “National Father of the Year” by the “Father’s Day / Mother’s Day Council, Inc.” but he was one of several recipients of the honor. Among the others: Hulk Hogan. And in 2005, Donald Trump was honored. The Council may want to rethink its criteria.
L.N. Smithee (0931d2) — 8/11/2008 @ 4:17 pm#179, Thanks for proving my whole point of my threads here Vermont.
We suddenly care whether or not a president or candidate has been faithful.
I personally think we started caring right around the time Clinton’s legacy needed a bashing from the “supposed” right wing moral majority.
Something needed to be done, or else Clinton’s legacy would of been “Reaganesque”.
Oiram (983921) — 8/11/2008 @ 4:19 pm#185
“Don’t confuse their marriage with the Presidency.”
L.N. I’ve been trying to tell you that all day. Not sticking though apparently.
Oiram (983921) — 8/11/2008 @ 4:21 pm#179 – VN
Reagan committed no sideshows during his term. Stick with a Dem president for your example. JFK, LBJ, Clinton.
— Don’t forget FDR!
Icy Truth (9779ca) — 8/11/2008 @ 4:25 pm#184 Thanks Love.
It’s difficult though.
I keep telling these people that they should branch out the way we do here. They should try some of this on liberal sites.
Ultimately that’s why I’m here, I got tired of preaching to my choir over there.
If your reading Vermont…… that’s who I am.
Peace everyone.
Oiram (983921) — 8/11/2008 @ 4:25 pmlove2008 wrote:
Yeah, Oiram! Keep holding tight to that lie!
Icy Truth wrote:
I would never take the word of a nutty slut like Hunter, but on Elizabeth, I don’t know what to believe. I had a modicum of respect for Mrs. Edwards because in 2005, she scolded Democratic Underground commenters that were cheering breast cancer to victory over Laura Ingraham. But knowing that she had the chance to save the nation from being run by a man she knew was a lying weasel and failing to do so has made me reexamine her character. Until I have exculpatory evidence, she’s down there with Hillary.
L.N. Smithee (0931d2) — 8/11/2008 @ 4:27 pm#183 JD,
I’ll take 8 years of Clinton over the past 8 years of Bush.
Oil prices, weak dollar, budget deficit…… do you really want me to go on?
Oiram (983921) — 8/11/2008 @ 4:28 pmOn Clinton’s very best day, he could only dream od actually being Reagan-esque.
JD (5f0e11) — 8/11/2008 @ 4:30 pmWhere did I compare Clinton and Bush, or are you just playing whack-a-strawman again?
JD (5f0e11) — 8/11/2008 @ 4:33 pmOiram wrote: “Don’t confuse their marriage with the Presidency.”
L.N. I’ve been trying to tell you that all day. Not sticking though apparently.
It’s “not sticking” because it doesn’t make sense. You seem to think that if he became POTUS, his character would somehow turn on a dime, and he would treat the nation better than he treated his wife. Why would you believe that knowing the kind of schtuff he was before, up to, and AFTER his campaign?
L.N. Smithee (0931d2) — 8/11/2008 @ 4:34 pmI call BS on Oiram. Mario claims to want to branch out, but all it does is argue with strawmen and the caricatures of conservatives dancing around in its head.
JD (5f0e11) — 8/11/2008 @ 4:35 pm#174
One of our greatest presidents G #171. I’m going to take your word on his infidelities, but o.k. there is one.
If you question his place as one of our greatest presidents, I suggest you re-read history.
Oh, no question about FDR being a great president. I’ve never really looked into FDR having mistresses and whatnot, nor do I really care to, it is just my belief that he was a great president.
G (c0157b) — 8/11/2008 @ 4:42 pmWhy is it that folks like Oiram trot out the “everybody lies about it” meme every time this comes up?
JD (5f0e11) — 8/11/2008 @ 4:47 pmComment by JD — 8/11/2008 @ 4:47 pm
Because that fantasy is the only way they can justify the lies to themselves. It’s not surprising that the fantasy is like a adolescent’s rebellious (and false) whine: “But EVERYBODY’S doing it!”
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 8/11/2008 @ 5:06 pmIf you live in a glass house, don’t throw stones. “He that is among you without sin, let him cast the first stone.” John Chapter 8 verse 7. Atleast I know John McCain won’t.
McCain’s First Wife Speaks Out
——————————————————————————–
McCain likes to illustrate his moral fibre by referring to his five years as a prisoner-of-war in Vietnam. And to demonstrate his commitment to family values, the 71-year-old former US Navy pilot pays warm tribute to his beautiful blonde wife, Cindy, with whom he has four children.
But there is another Mrs McCain who casts a ghostly shadow over the Senator’s presidential campaign. She is seldom seen and rarely written about, despite being mother to McCain’s three eldest children.
And yet, had events turned out differently, it would be she, rather than Cindy, who would be vying to be First Lady. She is McCain’s first wife, Carol, who was a famous beauty and a successful swimwear model when they married in 1965.
She was the woman McCain dreamed of during his long incarceration and torture in Vietnam’s infamous ‘Hanoi Hilton’ prison and the woman who faithfully stayed at home looking after the children and waiting anxiously for news.
But when McCain returned to America in 1973 to a fanfare of publicity and a handshake from Richard Nixon, he discovered his wife had been disfigured in a terrible car crash three years earlier. Her car had skidded on icy roads into a telegraph pole on Christmas Eve, 1969. Her pelvis and one arm were shattered by the impact and she suffered massive internal injuries.
When Carol was discharged from hospital after six months of life-saving surgery, the prognosis was bleak. In order to save her legs, surgeons
had been forced to cut away huge sections of shattered bone, taking with it her tall, willowy figure. She was confined to a wheelchair and was forced to use a catheter.
Through sheer hard work, Carol learned to walk again. But when John McCain came home from Vietnam, she had gained a lot of weight and bore little resemblance to her old self.
Today, she stands at just 5ft4in and still walks awkwardly, with a pronounced limp. Her body is held together by screws and metal plates and, at 70, her face is worn by wrinkles that speak of decades of silent suffering.
For nearly 30 years, Carol has maintained a dignified silence about the accident, McCain and their divorce. But last week at the bungalow where she now lives at Virginia Beach, a faded seaside resort 200 miles south of Washington, she told The Mail on Sunday how McCain divorced her in 1980 and married Cindy, 18 years his junior and the heir to an Arizona brewing fortune, just one month later.
Carol insists she remains on good terms with her ex-husband, who agreed as part of their divorce settlement to pay her medical costs for life. ‘I have no bitterness,’
she says. ‘My accident is well recorded. I had 23 operations, I am five inches shorter than I used to be and I was in hospital for six months. It was just awful, but it wasn’t the reason for my divorce.
‘My marriage ended because John McCain didn’t want to be 40, he wanted to be 25. You know that happens…it just does.’
Some of McCain’s acquaintances are less forgiving, however. They portray the politician as a self-centred womaniser who effectively abandoned his crippled wife to ‘play the field’. They accuse him of finally settling on Cindy, a former rodeo beauty queen, for financial reasons.
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 8/11/2008 @ 5:32 pmL.N. Smithee- regarding Father of the Year Hulk Hogan. Perhaps even worse than Edwards for upsetting the marital apple cart. Hulk was apparently banging one of his daughter’s young friends.
LBJ was rather infamous for availing himself of female white house staff while on the road.
I don’t know. Look at the wives of FDR, Truman and Eisenhower..Eleanor,Bess and Mamie, not exactly raving beauties. Ike carried on in Europe in WWII.
Liberals never had problems with Clinton’s cheating. He had something like 500 bimbos on the side as Governor of Arkansas. Ok, some were not bimbos and didn’t ask for it.
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 8/11/2008 @ 5:33 pmlove, love, love –
Again, 29 years ago, versus . . . FRIDAY.
Icy Truth (9779ca) — 8/11/2008 @ 5:59 pmAgain, Carol McCain supports John McCain’s candidacy.
Again, John McCain was not a candidate for elected office at the time of his affair.
Also, John McCain never fathered a child out-of-wedlock; nor did he dole out thousands of dollars of money collected from campaign contributors in order to support a mistress and a bastard child. How do you think they feel knowing that he used some of the money they gave him for the purpose of becoming POTUS to take care of his whore?
What is more, John McCain is an Adulterer and his present companion, Cindy, an Adulteress. If, and only if he really says he is a Bible believing Christian. But if not, he needs to tell us what and “who” he really believes in. Because if he claims to be a true follower of Christ, then he is leaving in sin. Jesus said,
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 8/11/2008 @ 6:06 pm” And I say unto you, whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and whosoever marrieth her which is put away, doth commit adultery” Matthew 19:9.
“what therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.” Matthew 19:6
At least John Edwards is better than McCain. Yes, he cheated on his wife, which to me is horrible and cruel, but at least he did not kick her away, when she was sick, vulnerable and in need of his love and care, to marry another woman. They are still married. Am I condemning John McCain? No. But if you guys are going to beat up a man for his mistake, be sure you are not living in a glass house. It could come back to haunt you.
lovie – That interpretation leaves out the complete context.
JD (5f0e11) — 8/11/2008 @ 6:10 pmTruth,truth, truth.
#201
Again, 29 years ago, versus . . . FRIDAY.
Wrong. 29 years ago and last Friday, will both belong to history tomorrow. But I understand your bias.
Again, Carol McCain supports John McCain’s candidacy.
Very weak point Icy. And Elizabeth Edwards does not or did not support John? Does that make it all right?
Again, John McCain was not a candidate for elected office at the time of his affair.
Oh! that makes sense. Cheat on your wife as long as you are not running for elected office! BTW, he was also at that time being celebrated as a war hero. That to me puts him in the spotlight as a role model. He could endure incarceration and torture in Vietnam for 5 years but he could not endure with his wife for a year!?
Also, John McCain never fathered a child out-of-wedlock;
Another stupid point. Just listen to yourself! But he had an affair out of wedlock. Have you also heard of “birth control pills”?.
nor did he dole out thousands of dollars of money collected from campaign contributors in order to support a mistress and a bastard child.
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 8/11/2008 @ 6:32 pmI don’t know about that? That is still under investigation. Besides, he is a jerk. No sympathies for him. So also is McCain.
How do you think they feel knowing that he used some of the money they gave him for the purpose of becoming POTUS to take care of his whore?
I think they feel betrayed. Like I said, he messed up. Big time. So also did McCain.
#186
Well, until you read the historical facts again (or if ever) you’re simply in denial. Classic liberal omissions, an effort to support your ‘feelings.’
READ JD’s response at #183 for the actual facts:
snip.
Look, had things happened the way you try to foist on us, WJC would’ve been cleared and back to business, maybe suing for damage to his name and also to get his LAW LICENSE back.
John Edwards and One America: I was one of the last to put the John Edwards details together. I didn’t remotely consider the fact that E.E. was also fooling the campaign’s supporters. Basically presenting a false front with their marriage to solicit money and support. I originally posted that the story was complete more or less, and let’s move on. Was that ever wrong. This involves big money transfers, shady relationships, seedy characters, laundering, misappropriated funds, what else? Maybe bribery and a general misuse of public trust. A potential CiC here. A possible VP or AG, remember? You guys, love’08 and Oriam, still want to defend that??? Nuts. I’m sure as hell not.
I didn’t see the implications of this story until they were actually listed and rolled out. Just really, really hard to defend John Edwards, now.
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 8/11/2008 @ 6:49 pmWhile you can still try to say it’s all about a public figure’s personal life, the money trail doesn’t support that. Ten years ago, the president’s lying under oath and obstruction of justice also does not qualify as part of a quick fling. So next urban tale, please?
#189 Mario
Oh.. This my delicious guilt-free calorie-free splurge where I get to gloat that your Big Board Bloggers won’t allow opposing opinions. Try it. Try posting as a dissenting voice and see how much they embrace diversity over at HuffPo. Clue. THEY DON’T. They edit out the opposing viewpoints. I tried, so have others.
You again are treated to something you completely take for granted: the chance to spout and rant at a conservative blog. But the little people, the insecure libs, don’t let anything through at their heavily censored hangouts. Their homes are segregated. No opposing viewpoints allowed. Ha! Any chance I can have a seat at the back of the bus?
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 8/11/2008 @ 7:00 pmJesus, love. Get a brain. Elizabeth Edwards has been campaigning for the White House. Working the media and soliciting donations for her husband’s run. John McCain has been paying Carol’s medical bills in full for 30 – 40 years, decades before his national run. Is there a difference?? What do you think?
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 8/11/2008 @ 7:05 pm#205
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/11/2008 @ 7:12 pmYou guys, love’08 and Oriam, still want to defend that??? Nuts. I’m sure as hell not.
Are you deliberately trying to obsfucate and misread my position on this issue or what? I have said over and again on this subject, John Edwards messed up. No excuse. He has with one single act of foolishness and lust, fueled by pride, destroyed his political legacy. My point is that John McCain did something similar or worst and no one wants to even speak one word of disapproval. Making your judgment biased and lacking in integrity. BTW, who are we to judge any one? I condemn both of them and forgive both of them. Now can we move on?
Rielle’s friend says they hooked up, then he hired her. That’s even worse. Was the PAC laundering money or paying for his mistress to hang around with Edwards? Is that what campaign donations are for?
Kate Coe (a29b57) — 8/11/2008 @ 7:15 pmBecause your point is a lie. It’s not similar and it’s not worse. The fact you keep repeating it doesn’t make it less a lie.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 8/11/2008 @ 7:16 pm#208,
The answer appears somewhere in post #209:
Do you see why McCain’s act was less than admirable but not comparable? It’s not the judge ye stone glass house stuff.
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 8/11/2008 @ 7:19 pmlovie – I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it is clear that your Baracky love has short circuited your brain. Your distorted view of McCain’s history is dishonest, at best.
JD (5f0e11) — 8/11/2008 @ 7:21 pm#207
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/11/2008 @ 7:24 pmThe little “brain” I have tells me you are biased, prejudiced and blind. Which makes you a hypocrite. Answer one question, for me. What McCain did to his faithful, loving wife who needed him desperately at her greatest time of need, leaving her for a fresh new deal, Cindy. Was he justified? Was it right? But then, impartiality is not always one of your strong points as you have repeatedly demonstrated over this matter.
Keep spinning it till you get dizzy and fall on the ground. Just don’t fall into fire!
I explained plainly why they are not the same here. You never responded… as you rarely do when called on your lies.
And water is wet. 😉
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 8/11/2008 @ 7:27 pmRuined Edwards’ political legacy? Give me a fuckin’ break.
JD (5f0e11) — 8/11/2008 @ 7:28 pmLocked in the Attorney General slot more likely.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 8/11/2008 @ 7:31 pmOne more question. Please clear me on this. John McCain, dumping his sick, wheel-chair-ridden wife for another is right. Right? “Yes” or “No” would be okay.
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/11/2008 @ 7:33 pmStashiu3, I doubt that very much. There’s a fair amount of anger at former Sen. Edwards over this among Democrats — that he had been so stupid as to have an affair while running for President offends many of his erstwhile allies. Under these circumstances, it’s hard to imagine a Democratic politician naming him to a cabinet post.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/11/2008 @ 7:34 pmlovee…
Another Drew (f60308) — 8/11/2008 @ 7:38 pmPlease set me straight, but didn’t all of this McCain messyness occur before he ran for the House of Representatives?
If so, How is it similar?
I know aphrael, I should have added a sarc tag. Apologies sir. Hope you are doing well. I’m sure many of the Dems are also unhappy that he allowed them to come to his defense and look foolish. Too many idiots on both sides of the aisle.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 8/11/2008 @ 7:38 pmAnd water is wet 😉 You msut be quoting a wise man, Stash. Phelps, Coughlin, Piersol adding to another good day in Beijing.
JD (5f0e11) — 8/11/2008 @ 7:38 pmlovie – Have you quit beating your dog? Yes or no? Have you quit eating children for breakfast? Yes or no?
JD (5f0e11) — 8/11/2008 @ 7:41 pmbtw JD, DRJ forwarded your pics to me, thanks. Beautiful baby… rather looks like Mom I guess. You’re more … rugged (NTTAWTT). 😉
Seriously though, great pics and you guys look nice together.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 8/11/2008 @ 7:41 pmGee, lovey.
Another Drew (f60308) — 8/11/2008 @ 7:43 pmJust did a Google search, and it seems that John married Cyndi in 1980. And ran for Congress in 1982.
And the similarities with John Edwards is???
Let me understand you Stashiu3, based on that comment you posted:
Because a murderer who says they’re not guilty even though they know they did it and were convicted for it is exactly the same as someone who is ticketed for speeding and quietly pays the fine.
They both did wrong, so condemn them both. Circumstances don’t matter
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/11/2008 @ 7:44 pm…the two offences are not the same. Okay. But sorry, things are not always the way you want them to be, they are what they. It’s called reality. I am sorry but I don’t share your distorted and myopic world view.
And, just who has been paying the Vet bills for your injured dog?
Another Drew (f60308) — 8/11/2008 @ 7:44 pmlove2008, as I’ve said before… best description of you is “deranged but superficially functional”. You won’t know reality for years, if ever. Funny how you went from ingratiating and obsequious when you first came here to this. Couldn’t keep up the facade of normalcy, eh? Ask your doctor if you can up the dosage.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 8/11/2008 @ 7:50 pmApparently, love2008 approves of loveless marriages. What a good little Muslim wife she would make. Obama’s # 314th in her dreams?
nk (e38352) — 8/11/2008 @ 7:51 pmMcCain suffered much more in the intervening years, asshole (love2008). Broken arms. Broken legs. Physical torture. Mental torture. Starvation. Neither was the person the other had married when they met again. Asshole!
nk (e38352) — 8/11/2008 @ 7:57 pmI know it hurts to have your man scrutinized like that. It’s hard. I know.
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/11/2008 @ 7:57 pmBut one thing I have gained from listening to some of you bigots is that, it is okay for a man to cheat on his sick wife and even dump her for another hot luv. As long as he is not running for political office.
So it’s not really what you did, but when you did it. Makes perfect sense now.
Kate Coe #209 makes a good point and she’s been following this story for awhile. I’ve read some of her posts on the subject.
DRJ (a5243f) — 8/11/2008 @ 7:58 pmNot my man and he’ll never have my vote. Ever. Doesn’t mean you get to smear him and tell lies here. You are truly deranged.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 8/11/2008 @ 8:01 pmAnd where the hell does “you bigots” come from? There had best be an apology coming.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 8/11/2008 @ 8:02 pm#229
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/11/2008 @ 8:03 pmAnd nk. You are confused and deranged. Insulting you won’t be any less as cruel as insulting a retard. So I won’t.
love 2008,
I don’t like what John McCain did to his first wife and McCain is not my favorite Republican. But he admitted he treated his wife poorly, unlike most politicians and many people in everyday life, and his poor conduct occurred years ago when he was in his late 20s/early 30s. Experience and maturity helps most of us make better decisions. It didn’t help John Edwards but it seems to have made a difference for John McCain and that makes him acceptable to me.
DRJ (a5243f) — 8/11/2008 @ 8:09 pmlovie – Read nk’s @ 229. Not that a few facts could ever change your mind. Facts did not lead you to your position, so they will not help change your mind. Usually you are just wrong. Today you are being aggressively dishonest.
AD – lovie is keeping her local vet in business.
Stashiu – thanks. My girls get all of their good traits from my Better Half. They get their sunny disposition and natural athletic ability from me 😉
JD (5f0e11) — 8/11/2008 @ 8:10 pm#232
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/11/2008 @ 8:15 pmYou talk like a moron Stash. What lie have I told about John McCain’s marital life here? Disprove it. Prove me wrong. That John McCain did not abandon his first wife for his second companion. Somebody reading your comment will think you have anything to back it up.
Hint: Calling something “a lie” does not make it so. Except in your little, confused brain. And secondly, a man cannot be “smeared” with the truth. Why? Because it is the truth, dummy!
He did not abandon his first wife, lovie. They divorced. Neither was the same person that they were prior to his time as a POW. They both admit that they were broken people at that time.
Have you quit torturing your cat?
JD (5f0e11) — 8/11/2008 @ 8:28 pmEnough name-calling.
Also note that I’ve edited the post to add a section and link regarding payments to Rielle Hunter’s video company starting in July 2006. Thanks to Ed #106 for the tip.
DRJ (a5243f) — 8/11/2008 @ 8:28 pm#235
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/11/2008 @ 8:33 pmYou can always rely on DRJ to say the truth. Something I can’t say for some people here.
I don’t like what John McCain did to his first wife and McCain is not my favorite Republican
In other words, what he did was wrong. How difficult is that for you to admit. Instead you want to justify his behavior with stupid and useless talking points. And for you, nk, at #229
McCain suffered much more in the intervening years, asshole (love2008). Broken arms. Broken legs. Physical torture. Mental torture. Starvation. Neither was the person the other had married when they met again. Asshole!
Boo-hoo! So because he came back and saw that his wife was not the person he fell in love with, meaning his love for her was based on her physical qualities and not on who she was. He had fallen in love with her body and when that body changed, the love went off the window! A very good insight on the true John McCain. I don’t think justifying this action is helping John McCain. Stop being an idiot and shut your mouth. You are not helping.
Your lie is that the two situations are the same, which has been pointed out to you many times. They are not the same, and your attempts to make them so are dishonest.
Also, divorce is not abandonment if it’s mutual. His ex-wife supports his campaign, both verbally and with a $750.00 donation (perhaps more, I don’t know).
McCain did not lie about his divorce. He didn’t have an affair while campaigning and pretending to be a family man. He didn’t accept a Father-of-the-year award while having an affair. He didn’t lie about an affair while seeking the Presidency of the United States. He didn’t divert campaign donations to support his mistress and keep her quiet. He didn’t go on national television and continue to lie. And he didn’t do any of what you are obsessed with in the past year… it was 30 years ago.
Now, where does the “you bigots” come from? Point to one thing I’ve ever said anywhere, online or in real-life, that suggests I’m a bigot. Your knee-jerk accusations any time you are challenged has crossed the line. You had best apologize, and it better be sincere, or I swear one of us will be banned because I’m not letting this go. Anyone here who knows anything about me will tell you how seriously I take my oaths.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 8/11/2008 @ 8:34 pm#204 – love2008
Elizabeth Edwards does not or did not support John? Does that make it all right?
— Carol McCain never kept his affair a secret while he was running a campaign; she never deceived the electorate. John McCain’s affair was public knowledge before he ever ran for anything.
Oh! that makes sense. Cheat on your wife as long as you are not running for elected office!
— McCain was wrong to have an affair, but the differences between him and Edwards vis-a-vis running for POTUS are substantial and meaningful.
Another stupid point. Just listen to yourself! But he had an affair out of wedlock.
Icy Truth (9779ca) — 8/11/2008 @ 8:37 pm— The liberal obsession with equating everything continues. I’m afraid that I will have to insist that an affair that results in a child, from a woman that Edwards says he does not love and, as far as we know, has no intention of marrying after Elizabeth passes, is worse than an affair that results in marriage and the births of legitimate children.
You are a simpleton Lovey.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/11/2008 @ 8:38 pmlovie – There were 2 broken people in McCain’s first marriage.
Have you quit starving old people?
JD (5f0e11) — 8/11/2008 @ 8:42 pmYour knee-jerk accusations any time you are challenged has crossed the line. You had best apologize, and it better be sincere, or I swear one of us will be banned because I’m not letting this go. Anyone here who knows anything about me will tell you how seriously I take my oaths.
Comment by Stashiu3 — 8/11/2008 @ 8:34 pm
love2008,
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 8/11/2008 @ 8:43 pmSounds like you should settle with your opponent quickly.
#230 – But one thing I have gained from listening to some of you bigots is that, it is okay for a man to cheat on his sick wife and even dump her for another hot luv. As long as he is not running for political office.
Icy Truth (9779ca) — 8/11/2008 @ 8:45 pm— Well, it’s not surprising that that is what you’ve “gained”, just as it’s not surprising that not a single person here said it.
#239
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 8/11/2008 @ 8:56 pmI respect DRJ. She has said “Enough name-calling!..”. #239.
I will abide by that rule.
If you want us to continue this conversation, I suggest you do the same.
And to Stashiu3, at comment #241, What are you going to do about it? Just curious.
Abide by the oath… one of us will end up banned. I guarantee it. Do you stand by your comment? Do you have any evidence of bigotry at all? If not, your course should be pretty clear and you should take it.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 8/11/2008 @ 9:04 pmlove2008,
Thank you for calling a cease-fire but I think we need to clear up one additional item. Intentionally calling people racists and bigots is inflammatory in this post-racial world — JD excepted, but that’s the point he’s trying to make by “overusing” the word racist. So please justify why you called people bigots in your comment 230 or let’s withdraw it.
DRJ (a5243f) — 8/11/2008 @ 9:05 pmWith all respect to you DRJ, merely withdrawing it is not sufficient. I stand by what I said… a sincere apology or one of us will end up banned. Nobody is going to call me a bigot or racist and get away with it. Ask JD how his “racist” thing started in the first place.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 8/11/2008 @ 9:15 pmI denounce and condemn y’all, just in case you were wondering.
I am a bigot towards people that tell bald face lies, like Silky.
JD (5f0e11) — 8/11/2008 @ 9:17 pmRight. Broken, not sick. And they were separated, not trying to enchant the world with tales of their enduring love for each other. Oh, and there’s another thing missing from the comparison.
Pablo (99243e) — 8/11/2008 @ 9:21 pm#249
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 8/11/2008 @ 9:33 pmDRJ, from my understanding, a bigot is a prejudiced and intolerant person. Intolerant of any opinions differing from his own. One who refuses to see things from other people’s view point. Especially when he knows they are telling the truth. This behavior has been shown on this thread especially on this topic. Where people just refuse to call a spade a spade. Twisting, spinning and distorting what they know is a proven, historical fact. I just don’t see how someone will stand and justify John McCain’s infidelity because it happened before he ran for office. That is not the point. The point is, did he do the right thing? To which you were the first to acknowledge that yes, what he did was wrong. Was John McCain right by cheating on his first wife and later divorced her. Only to wed Cindy the next month! It was wrong! And to continue to deny it comes off as bigotry.
Stash – If I remember correctly, the impetus for me demonstrating the absurdity of the accusations of bigotry and racism was one of the trolls accusing Stash of same. From that point on, it has been my goal to take the Left’s overuse of the terms, and extend that out to the point where those words no longer have any meaning. Policy difference? Racist. Vote for a Republican? Racist. Love the US? Jingoistic bigot.
JD (5f0e11) — 8/11/2008 @ 9:40 pmlovie – You are aggressively lying about the circumstances and context of McCain’s divorce, despite repeatedly having had this pointed out to you.
JD (5f0e11) — 8/11/2008 @ 9:44 pm#250
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 8/11/2008 @ 9:46 pmAnd to Stashiu3, if you are not a bigot, why are you acting like one? I mean, my comment at #230 was more of a general statement. Not particularly directed at anyone. Why are you the only person making a case of it, if you are not a bigot?
But one thing I have gained from listening to some of you bigots is that….
Where does that statement refer to you in particular? Why get offended over it when you are not it? Are you a bigot?
Exactly my friend, we teamed up on that doofus and shut him up for good soon afterwards. You took that and ran with it, demonstrating how indiscriminately they toss those slurs at people. She (love2008) can believe I’m stupid or deranged, my comments stand on their own and others can judge them against hers to see who has lost touch with reality and who makes sense. I won’t let her get away with calling me racist or bigoted though, no matter how she wants to redefine the terms.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 8/11/2008 @ 9:48 pm#255.
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 8/11/2008 @ 9:54 pmAnd JD, stay out of this! Please!
lovie – That was a good one. Call people bigots. When they defend themselves, that is proof of their bigotry. You should be embarassed.
JD (5f0e11) — 8/11/2008 @ 9:54 pmRe: #253
To which I reiterate: Who said that what John McCain did was not wrong? I challenge you to cite the post numbers where that sentiment is expressed. My point, and I believe the point of some others here, is that beyond the basic fact of ‘they both cheated on their wives’ there are pronounced and substantive differences between the two cases; to whit, I quote myself:
I’m afraid that I will have to insist that an affair that results in a child, from a woman that Edwards says he does not love and, as far as we know, has no intention of marrying after Elizabeth passes, is worse than an affair that results in marriage and the births of legitimate children.
— To which I add that it is a huge problem to be actively engaged in deceiving the American people whilst running for the presidency. John Edwards was doing that; John McCain has not, and never has, done that. Frankly, to suggest that ‘cheating is cheating’, and that the differences in the details are unimportant, displays two-dimensional thinking. The very real possibility that Edwards staying in the field, despite this indiscretion, affected the outcome of the primary race should be proof enough of the staggering historical difference between the two similar acts.
Icy Truth (f4a81f) — 8/11/2008 @ 9:56 pmlovie – I will stay out of this when you choose to quit lying. So far, you have shown no signs of stopping.
JD (5f0e11) — 8/11/2008 @ 9:58 pmNow I have to prove I’m not a bigot? I don’t think so. Can’t prove a negative… just like the “Have you stopped beating your dog?” questions. Did you miss that point above? It wasn’t just me you called a bigot, but being part of the group doesn’t make it ok.
Even taking out the racial component usually associated with being a bigot, show anything that demonstrates my intolerance to anyone’s lifestyle or identity. Exposing lies, logical fallacies, and false moral equivalencies is not bigotry or racism.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 8/11/2008 @ 10:04 pmLove2008,
Stashiu is actually the one who defended Michelle Obama’s prime slot on the DNC speakers’ schedule. He posted a list of wives and family members who spoke at past conventions. All good info. Still don’t think she should open the event. It certainly sends a message as to the tone they wish to set.
I’m sorry I said get a brain. Silly but mean. You don’t hurt your animals. You do want Obama in at any cost, no matter that he is simply a prop candidate. He’s not the man for the job, expecially with the Georgia matter right now. Scary times for sure and we need a person who will lead this country, not favor Europe.
Now, that said… you still haven’t answered your own statement and how it applies to Martin Luther King, who sadly, was a womanizer. So what do we do about that?
Good night everyone and have a pleasant tomorrow.
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 8/11/2008 @ 10:07 pm#261
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 8/11/2008 @ 10:15 pmJD, point out my lie. Read my posts and point out or quote exactly what I have said here that is a lie. I challenge you to do that.
love2008,
Bigots are intolerant to opinions – especially to racial or ethnic groups. It’s a loaded, inflammatory word.
DRJ (a5243f) — 8/11/2008 @ 10:22 pmIt’s been pointed out to you several times already. They are not nearly the same situation. Saying that they are is a lie. JD already stated this in #255, as have I in multiple comments.
But, since you insist…
#15: He didn’t “dump” her, they amicably divorced. #199: Again, she’s supportive of him, how others choose to spin the story, supposedly on her behalf is dishonest.
#202: You say John Edwards is better than McCain, but you’re not condemning John McCain. Calling him and his wife adulterers is pretty condemning.
#204: Putting the strawman that we’re giving him a pass when nobody said that is dishonest. It’s also irrelevant to the current election cycle. Same with the birth control pills point. The fact is that Edwards fathered a child with his infidelity and McCain didn’t… nice of you to acknowledge it even though you didn’t realize it at the time.
#208: First, it wasn’t a single act… it was ongoing during his campaign. Second, it was not similar or worse than McCain. Third, nobody has said they approved. Finally, here you admit you condemn them both when earlier you denied it.
#217: again, he didn’t “dump” her. It was mutual and amicable.
#230: Another multiple-dishonest comment. First, she wasn’t sick, she was disabled from injuries… that’s not any better, but your characterization is dishonest and inaccurate. Second, he didn’t “dump” her. Third, nobody said it’s ok for a man to cheat on his wife, so that strawman still doesn’t fly. Fourth, doing it while running for office pretending to be a family-friendly candidate and accepting a Father-of-the-year award is definitely different than doing it as a private citizen. It reflects directly on the honesty of the candidate and their fitness for office. McCain never lied about his history. Finally, nobody said it’s not what you did but when is dishonest, although saying what you do and when might be closer to the truth.
#240: Nothing supports the conclusion that McCain’s first marriage was solely based on physical appearance. Saying that is vile and extremely dishonest.
This is more “for the record” as it won’t change your mind I’m sure.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 8/11/2008 @ 10:55 pmAre you intolerant of the opinions of others Lovey? Are you a bigot?
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/11/2008 @ 11:11 pmYou left out this:
John Edwards accepts the Father Of The Year award, June, 2007.
PrestoPundit (ff5e16) — 8/11/2008 @ 11:16 pm[Good point. Thank you, PrestoPundit. — DRJ]
It’s included with the fisking of comment #230:
😉
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 8/11/2008 @ 11:23 pmStashiu3 – #269 – accepting a Father-of-the-year award
Depending on the evaluation criteria for the award, Father-of-the-year may actually be more accurate than we might think.
Apogee (366e8b) — 8/11/2008 @ 11:28 pmlovesick08…
McCain himself has said in the past he acted poorly towards his first wife after he returned from the Hanoi Hilton. Not knowing the specifics of his relationships with his now wife Cindy from that time, I’ll stipulate for this that he was in a relationship with her before his divorce from his first wife. But, I will argue the sense that he did choose to divorce his first wife, and since I am sure you did not serve in the military, find your face on the wrong end of a gunbarrel, and then serve 5 1/2 years of abuse in a prisoner of war camp, you probably have no sense of what it was to be who McCain was at that time.
So, how did he handle his situation? He filed for a divorce from his first wife, agreed to support her most expensive need, her medical costs, for the rest of his life, supported the children from that marriage, including being a father to the children in whatever way he could, then remarried, and lived a life that most would consider exemplary in the face of the failure of his first marriage.
I would say that McCain professed his character of the early 1970’s was not the best a man, especially a Navy Man (Semper Fi! BTW) and then changed the behavior to that more acceptable to his own moral character, and that of society.
What did John Edwards do? He professed his charactern in a manner that reflected a high level of competence, used that as a focal point of his presidential campaigns, used his wife, and her illness, as more focal points of that character…
While all the while lying to everyone, starting with his wife, his campaign, the American People, about that same character that he said made him presidental material.
What so many here have been trying to tell you about the differences between McCain/Edwards boils down to this: while both have had a similar character flaw, one faced his flaw and answered that flaw with actions that any person would consider right, both morally and ethically, while the other lied to everyone and everything he could while hiding his flaw, and in the end, even tried to abuse those who loved him by enlisting them in hiding and lying about him….
If you can’t see the difference, just as you have insinuated that you can’t see the difference in Clinton’s similar flaw (It was about sex!!!..NO, IT WASN’T ABOUT SEX, IT WAS ABOUT A SITTING PRESIDENT LYING UNDER OATH….did he say he would “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States…so help me God???) then you don’t have the ability to make rational choices when presented with them….
And, a voter like you scares the hell out of me…
reff (b68a4f) — 8/11/2008 @ 11:33 pm#270 Apogee
*snort*
Yes, their evaluation criteria is rather suspect, isn’t it? They also named Hulk Hogan who was having issues.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 8/11/2008 @ 11:37 pmHowdy, clearly not JD, but I’ll take that challenge on pointing out your lies…
#12
And you didn,t even know about John McCain’s first wife who was also sick. The one he dumped for the hot and rich Cindy. Whoo-hooo!
That is a dishonest way to describe it. For one thing, McCain got married in July 1965, became a P.O.W. in October 1967, was released March 1973. He was a P.O.W. for 5 and a half years. By then he’d been married what 2 years before being captured? He was a P.O.W. for twice that of his marriage, he was tortured, only he knows the horrors. Maybe he couldn’t find happiness with Carole. His marriage ended officially in October 1980, though who knows how long they were separated (I’m guessing a year).
19- That’s the whole conspiracy here. It’s not really about Edwards. It’s about Obama.
20-You did not know about it and when confronted you did your research and discovered the truth and now you want to act as though you knew all the while. Nice try spot. But not good enough.
40- Not for him. For his sick wife who doesn’t need to hear the devastating news of a love-child somewhere. Trying to save a life here, people!
I truly doubt that as your motivation. Elizabeth Edwards is a big person in big people land, she already knows John’s the father. (yes, I’m in her head, along with a little common sense).
184. – Oiram, against the republican attack machine. Like a pack of rabid dogs, they strike at everyone who dares to oppose the common meme. Even when the person agrees with them to an extent.
199.-
While technically not your lie, you never pause to ask yourself “Why does Carole support McCain?”, that and that’s just garbled filth. Furthermore, its so disconnected from any context and one sided. One would have to be brainwashed to accept that as the story.
202- What is more, John McCain is an Adulterer and his present companion, Cindy, an Adulteress. If, and only if he really says he is a Bible believing Christian. But if not, he needs to tell us what and “who” he really believes in. Because if he claims to be a true follower of Christ, then he is leaving in sin. ….
….At least John Edwards is better than McCain. Yes, he cheated on his wife, which to me is horrible and cruel, but at least he did not kick her away, when she was sick, vulnerable and in need of his love and care, to marry another woman. They are still married. Am I condemning John McCain? No. But if you guys are going to beat up a man for his mistake, be sure you are not living in a glass house. It could come back to haunt you.
Wow, I gather from this you aren’t a christian yourself, christians commit sins ask forgiveness (the whole Jesus died for our sins…) Then you go and compare Edwards to McCain, in which, the differences cannot be better described then by 242 (Icy Truth). The situations are night and day. Furthermore, its 30 years ago. McCain’s entire political career began 2 years after his divorce. (Not during his bid to become President, or even Senator)
204-Wrong. 29 years ago and last Friday, will both belong to history tomorrow. But I understand your bias.
Lets see, 29 years ago, clearly documented and McCain has admitted fault, ex-wife still supports McCain politically ect… versus last FRIDAY, of which, the entire mass media just totally blew off the story, WILLINGLY LOOKED THE OTHER-WAY, I don’t think will have a full account of this situation for at least five years if not a decade.
Still in 204 Have you also heard of “birth control pills”?. Huh? You talking to Mr. Edwards or Mr. McCain? you then continue your lie of comparing the situations as the same.
230- But one thing I have gained from listening to some of you bigots is that, it is okay for a man to cheat on his sick wife and even dump her for another hot luv. As long as he is not running for political office.
So it’s not really what you did, but when you did it. Makes perfect sense now.
You either have rocks in your brain, or just are willfully being untruthful.
237 – You talk like a moron Stash. What lie have I told about John McCain’s marital life here? Disprove it. Prove me wrong. That John McCain did not abandon his first wife for his second companion. Somebody reading your comment will think you have anything to back it up.
Hint: Calling something “a lie” does not make it so. Except in your little, confused brain. And secondly, a man cannot be “smeared” with the truth. Why? Because it is the truth, dummy!
240- In other words, what he did was wrong. How difficult is that for you to admit. Instead you want to justify his behavior with stupid and useless talking points… (nk’s 229-McCain suffered much more in the intervening years, asshole (love2008). Broken arms. Broken legs. Physical torture. Mental torture. Starvation. Neither was the person the other had married when they met again. Asshole!)
…Boo-hoo! So because he came back and saw that his wife was not the person he fell in love with, meaning his love for her was based on her physical qualities and not on who she was. He had fallen in love with her body and when that body changed, the love went off the window! A very good insight on the true John McCain. I don’t think justifying this action is helping John McCain. Stop being an idiot and shut your mouth. You are not helping.
I mean, that’s so clearly such a dishonest response (I.E. totally ignoring the statement you are quoting, Why should anybody bother communicating with you?)
Finally,
264- JD, point out my lie. Read my posts and point out or quote exactly what I have said here that is a lie. I challenge you to do that.
I’m clearly not JD, but willing to give my attempt at compiling your lies, just to be clear that you know your lies, and that perhaps you can address them, or address the other questions you completely ignored, or brushed off. It also looks like you owe whomever you called bigots an apology. Not that I want to see you banned, or whatever, though something tells me you secretly want to get banned to somehow come up with the next absurd argument “Right wing blogs banned me for commenting on McCain’s affair” Anyway toodles.
Study.
G (c0157b) — 8/12/2008 @ 12:28 amhateMcCain2008 wrote:
Oh, really? Tell us why he needs to tell “us,” hatey, and while you’re at it, define “us.”
Oh, gawd…
First of all, you make it sound like McCain’s not supporting Carol financially, which he always has. BUT JOHN EDWARDS DOESN’T HAVE TO KICK ELIZABETH AWAY. SHE’S GOT TERMINAL FREAKING CANCER!
You were asking for evidence you had lied in this thread? DING!
If McCain ran for President while dumping Carol and marrying McCain, there would be something resembling a fair comparison. But he has already been thoroughly beaten rhetorically for his treatment of his first wife — every extensive story on the subject of his marriage features old friends that have never forgiven him.
I have never been a fan of McCain because my views are overwhelming conservative, and he is not. But when it comes to a duel of McCain’s character vs. Edwards’, consider this: Nearly three decades after McCain left Carol for Cindy, the vaunted, legendary New York Times used its front page to accuse him (kinda sorta) of messing around on Cindy with a lobbyist who looked like a younger version of her. His response: he quickly held a press conference with Cindy by his side, denied the charges (which were later exposed as baseless), and then answered EVERY SINGLE QUESTION he was asked.
(Since then, no more allegations from the Times and other pro-Obama outlets on the topic of McCain’s fidelity since marrying Cindy. Might it be because they already took their best shot?)
OTOH, John Edwards was accused of adultery by the tawdry, disrespected National Enquirer supermarket tabloid, and after lying about the story having truth to it, he ran from its reporters like a scared rabbit when caught red-handed, hiding in a men’s bathroom. That’s presidential, isn’t it? Then, when he finally had to admit much of the Enquirer story is true, he didn’t hold a press conference, he gave an single interview on the opening day of the Olympics that was — by agreement — limited in length and shown only once after local news.
Then he had the nerve to continue to question the veracity of the newspaper that he had just admitted nailed him! And unlike the McCain story in the NYT, the Edwards story is far from over, because his story doesn’t pan out!
The June 9, 2008 London Daily Mail story that you partially quoted used Carol McCain cruelly. BTW, you didn’t use the original title: “The wife U.S. Republican John McCain callously left behind.” Ah, there’s nothing like fair and balanced journalism, eh?
Here’s what writer Sharon Churcher and two other writers buried near the end of the Mac bashfest (bold mine):
What do you think, Ms. 2008? Think Carol McCain appreciated being made into a conduit for a vicious hit piece? You think Carol’s heart was warmed by anonymous “friends” of hers saying of her “Carol always insists she is not bitter, but I think that’s a defence mechanism”? Think she enjoyed being referred to as “wrinkled” (DUH! She’s 70!) and “a ghostly shadow over the Senator’s presidential campaign”?
L.N. Smithee (3bad27) — 8/12/2008 @ 1:16 amIMO love2008 should man up, or woman up, as the case may be, and apologize to all of us, especially to Stashiu3, for calling us “bigots” in this thread.
It won’t kill you, love2008. It will give evidence of your maturity in admitting to what could be explained, best case, as an extremely poor word choice in the heat of posting.
And, the best reason of all (quite relevantly to the whole point of this entire thread), it’s the right thing to do.
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 8/12/2008 @ 3:19 amP.S. If you really did mean that “bigot” meant merely “intolerant of others’ opinions,” you would have to be the only one on the thread accepting the label, since you are the only one who said he/she (whichever you are) didn’t want someone else to be speaking.
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 8/12/2008 @ 3:35 amOops. Fell asleep. Looks like several pointed out your serial dishonesty on this thread, lovie.
JD (5f0e11) — 8/12/2008 @ 4:10 amRacists
JD (5f0e11) — 8/12/2008 @ 4:25 amToday’s day by day cartoon is quite apropos of the thinking of Lovey and the far left in general.
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 8/12/2008 @ 5:04 amIt is easy to be confused between the mindset of Russian currently and what moonbats are attempting against GOP.
http://www.daybydaycartoon.com
And let’s not forget bald faced, brazen lying about the affair when confronted. Instead of admitting what he had done, he attacked those who called him on it until the evidence against him became overwhelming (just like Bill Clinton, IIRC.) And he’s still lying about being the baby daddy.
Pablo (99243e) — 8/12/2008 @ 5:58 amWhat say you, lovie?
JD (75f5c3) — 8/12/2008 @ 6:00 am#281
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/12/2008 @ 6:52 amAbout what JD?
What say you about the multitude of points where people have shown you to be dishonest, uninformed, or just flat out lying above?
JD (75f5c3) — 8/12/2008 @ 6:55 amlovie’s been beat like a drum in this thread. Not to mention shown for the lack of character he accuses others of.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/12/2008 @ 6:59 amSPQR – I tried to be nice.
lovie – Is your apology to Stashiu forthcoming?
JD (75f5c3) — 8/12/2008 @ 7:09 amApparently, about the same as here, JD. Which is to say absolutely nothing of substance. Lovey isn’t one to make concessions or admit to being wrong.
Pablo (99243e) — 8/12/2008 @ 7:12 am#224
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/12/2008 @ 7:35 ami>Gee, lovey.
Just did a Google search, and it seems that John married Cyndi in 1980. And ran for Congress in 1982.
And the similarities with John Edwards is???
You failed to include when John McCain divorced his first wife. He dissolved his first marriage in April 1980 and married his second wife, Cindy, in May, 1980. One month gap!
When a man engages in sexual congress with a woman who is not his wife, while still married to his wife, he is committing adultery. If this said affair with Cindy had started sometime after divorcing his wife, it would be a diifferent matter. But this is not the case here. It would appear that his first marriage ended because of his infidelity.
What similarites? They both cheated on their wives while still married to them. In addition, both wives were cheated on during times of physical and health challenges.
Doubling down on the lies this morning ?
JD (75f5c3) — 8/12/2008 @ 7:43 amJust to be clear, I know you put appears in there, which was an attempt to give you some wiggle room. However, the words of McCain and his ex- directly refute your assertion.
JD (75f5c3) — 8/12/2008 @ 7:44 amLovey – McCain had already been back from Vietnam for seven years at that point. His wife’s injuries were nothing new at that point.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/12/2008 @ 7:45 amdaley – Lovie has her narrative, and she is sticking to it, like a good soldier.
JD (75f5c3) — 8/12/2008 @ 7:46 amAnd you know that happened how, exactly? Hint: you don’t.
Both McCains were dealing with the after effects of severe physical trauma. Elizabeth Edwards is fighting for her life. And what life is that? One where the love of it continues betraying her to this day while she supports and defends him.
Pablo (99243e) — 8/12/2008 @ 8:45 amFor what it’s worth, luv2H8’s problem is that he (I will continue to use “he” until & unless love personally corrects me) believes that we are excusing the egregiousness of John McCain’s offense against his first wife (Carol). The fact that myself and others have specifically, strenuously, and repeatedly explained that the act of adultery was nominally the same — not sure if he would accept the difference between someone who cheats with the intent of winding up with the mistress, and someone who cheats with the arrogant expectation (as expressed in the Nightline interview) that his wife will take him back — does not seem to resonate.
The distinction between how their indiscretions relate to the 2008 presidential race doesn’t seem to be registering with love at all. To him ‘cheating is cheating’, pure and simple; the different outcome, the wildly different timeline, the fundamental difference of someone who lied to the American people versus someone who did not . . . love thinks it is nothing more than an effort at spin on our part. Thus the simplistic mantra that ‘adultery is adultery’ and distinctions don’t matter, no matter how distinct they are. I’m tellin’ ya, it’s the moral relativism disease run rampant; it’s the liberal gleichheit über alles (equality above everything) mindset: “If we just treat everything as equal, peace & love and the end of all conflict will follow.” There was a reason behind Mao making everybody wear the same outfit everyday.
Icy Truth (f4a81f) — 8/12/2008 @ 8:53 amLove, in case of you missing it, my 273 is totally directed at you, furthermore I list a detailed time line of his marriage. Your blatant ignoring of it is just pathetic. So why should anybody have further dealings with you, being a total liar, and wearing your faith on your sleeve?
G (722480) — 8/12/2008 @ 8:55 amLovey does seem to acknowledge differences but is deeply concerned with pondering the nuances of the Edwards marriage as evidenced by this disturbing comment from another thread:
On a more serious note, John Edwards has not been as truthful as he needs to be.
1) Why did he get into this affair? Was the pressure of his wife’s cancer taking its toll on him? Was he feeling she was growing old on him. He is 54 and she is 59. Did he get tired of what he was seeing when they were alone, naked, in the room? Was he feeling she no longer could fit into his growing needs? Did they discuss this? Did her cancer exacerbate her physical appearance? Was he feeling choked off knowing he had to be faithful to her no matter her condition? Did he show signs to her that he was no longer really happy with his sexual life? Did she understand and agree with him to support whatever decision he took-so long as he was happy? Was she privy to this affair from day one? Did she always know about the other woman and had to live with it, so as to not lose him?
2) Was having a baby part of the arrangement? Did he break their bedroom agreement by getting her pregnant? Is she willing to forgive him and accept this shame as long as there was no child coming out of it? Did John Edwards at a point get so involved with this “strange woman” emotionally that she felt she needed something to hold, something that would increase her self worth. Something that will make her not to see her self as his slut. His whore. Was this baby her only way of self redemption? Or wait, was the baby meant to be a secret between John Edwards and this woman? A secret that will only be revealed after the anticipated passing of Elizabeth? Was this woman his fall back from the expected loss of his precious wife?
More Questions in my next installment.
Comment by love2008 — 8/9/2008 @ 4:08 pm
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/12/2008 @ 8:58 amWhat a silly thread I was part of. All this for a man who will never be president.
People, we all have bigger fish to fry.
Oiram (983921) — 8/12/2008 @ 9:01 amBtw, lovie, did AZ have a statute against adultery in 1980?
Another Drew (bfaaf5) — 8/12/2008 @ 9:01 amIf not, it would not be a crime; and, the Constitution says that the imposition of a religious test is im-permissable.
Your blatant ignoring of it is just pathetic.
Comment by G — 8/12/2008 @ 8:55 am
love2008 ignores lots of things on these threads, even when she specifically asks for answers to questions and gets them. Am getting quite tired of her marked rudeness.
daley – Lovie has her narrative rude and false accusation of bigotry, and she is sticking to it, like a good soldier.
Comment by JD — 8/12/2008 @ 7:46 am
no one you know (1f5ddb) — 8/12/2008 @ 9:06 am293. I think that there is this conception among the leftists that the right is prominently controlled by the Religious Right and that the best way to confront them is by bring up others sins. I’m not saying one’s faith isn’t important at all, nor a non-issue. Simply stating that it seems rather silly to see some hardcore leftists start discussing religion and faith…
G (722480) — 8/12/2008 @ 9:06 amCurses – Strike function foiled again!
no one you know (1f5ddb) — 8/12/2008 @ 9:08 amNo one you know – Strike. No strike. I understood.
JD (5f0e11) — 8/12/2008 @ 9:13 am“People, we all have bigger fish to fry.”
Oiram – Go fry them. I anyone forcing you to be here?
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/12/2008 @ 9:15 amI apologize to love2008 for my insults in my comments 228 and 229. And to everyone else as well.
nk (e38352) — 8/12/2008 @ 9:15 amThen 296 just deflects this as silly and non-important. Classic.
Hey people, we are fools for getting upset that the media ignored this huge story while Mr. John Edwards was running for president. We are fools for our interest and concern that campaign contributions went to Edwards mistress. We are fools for not being in uproar about McCain’s divorce that happened 29 years ago. And that we are fools for our interest because, wait for it, Edwards is “a man who will never be president.”
Which, that does bring up a great line in the 2004 presidential debates. When asked to describe the difference between John Edwards and Dick Cheney, President Bush says “Cheney can be president.” Classic.
Anyway, I say we are fools for even bothering to discuss this with an obvious liar. Its a shame really. I’m all for civil discussion, but when one person is lying to make their point, why bother responding to them after they still continue to evade or distract. I’m not making a blanket statement, I do see some people liberals/democrats/leftists who are actually interested in debate or discussion.
G (722480) — 8/12/2008 @ 9:16 amlove2008 pathetically wrote: They both cheated on their wives while still married to them. In addition, both wives were cheated on during times of physical and health challenges
For some strange reason, you have a need to establish grounds on which McCain — who, to our knowledge, hasn’t cheated on Cindy since marrying her almost three decades ago — and a guy who may have broken campaign finance laws to pay off a bimbo he knocked up less than two years in the past and who continues to lie about it.
Don’t think you’re fooling anybody. We all see right through you. We see the twisting and turning you’re doing in your mind trying to make a fresh, open wound the equivalent of a scar still visible over nearly half a lifetime of healing.
Why, love? Was Obama actually your second choice? Would you really rather have had Edwards, and now your world is crashing down around you now that you know he’s a phony?
L.N. Smithee (a0b21b) — 8/12/2008 @ 9:20 amPeople, we all have bigger fish to fry.
Mmmm. I am in the mood for some smelts, floured and fried in olive oil with just a lemon squeezed on them after taking them out of the pan for seasoning.
nk (e38352) — 8/12/2008 @ 9:22 amStop It, nk.
Another Drew (bfaaf5) — 8/12/2008 @ 9:24 amI just had breakfast, and it’s far too early for lunch…
300- You actually have to type in “strike” in there or it
won’t workWhen you push the button it just has an “s”
G (722480) — 8/12/2008 @ 9:25 am#299 G,
Not “Prominently controlled”, your right about that. But reliant on the religious right, definitely.
As an Example:
Both parties have their extreme fringes that they rely on for victories in all levels of office.
A significant percentage of the right relies on end of the world religious nuts.
A significant percentage of the left relies on Communist nuts.
Both could be said are bad for the country, yet they coexist with their respective parties.
When I say significant, I mean without them the parties don’t stand a chance.
Oiram (983921) — 8/12/2008 @ 9:26 amRush is now playing a Paul Shanklin parody of the Edwards saga based on Haddaway’s “What is Love?”
It’s cute, but not one of Shanklin’s better ones. It’s no “Barack the Magic Negro” or “When I Saw That Derriere” or “Osama Obama” (“Waitress! Were’s my sandwich?!”)
L.N. Smithee (a0b21b) — 8/12/2008 @ 9:28 amAnother Drew #307,
I have to wait until tomorrow because Wednesday is fresh fish day in Chicago.
nk (e38352) — 8/12/2008 @ 9:31 am#297 – Another Drew
did AZ have a statute against adultery in 1980?
— Drew, I’m sure we did, and I’m sure it was enforced as stringently as similar measures have been across the country during the past 50 years (read: hardly ever if at all). BTW, I believe (I’d take the time to look it up but my wife just barked at me to go do something) that John McCain’s official state of residence at the time was Florida.
Icy Truth (f4a81f) — 8/12/2008 @ 9:32 amStill funny to me how some on the right made fun of Edwards for being Gay. Rush, Coulter and their disciples.
Can we expect an apology from them, now that we know Edwards is not? (Just kidding)
Still it reflects the silliness of some of these gas bags.
Oiram (983921) — 8/12/2008 @ 9:33 amG wrote: I’m not saying one’s faith isn’t important at all, nor a non-issue. Simply stating that it seems rather silly to see some hardcore leftists start discussing religion and faith…
Particularly precious to me is lovey’s insistence that McCain “needs to tell us what and “who” he really believes in. Because if he claims to be a true follower of Christ, then he is leaving in sin.” Like she really wants to go back down the road of whether HER candidate’s really a Christian.
L.N. Smithee (a0b21b) — 8/12/2008 @ 9:37 amI apologize to love2008 for repeatedly calling him a “liberal”. I’m going to go out right now, join Opus Dei, and proceed to flagellate myself to a bloody pulp.
The shame. . . . The shame!
Icy Truth (f4a81f) — 8/12/2008 @ 9:38 amHey, Oiram! Those fish ain’t gonna fry themselves! Get crackin’!
L.N. Smithee (a0b21b) — 8/12/2008 @ 9:39 am313…
Another Drew (bfaaf5) — 8/12/2008 @ 9:42 amRush, IIRC, never accused JE of being gay – that might have been one of Ann Coulter’s satirical attacks.
Rush always referred to JE as “The Breck Girl” for his perfect hair…
even JE’s wife made asides about her husband’s hair.
“When I say significant, I mean without them the parties don’t stand a chance.”
Oiram – You are not mentioning the largely solid black block vote the democrats have come to rely upon.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/12/2008 @ 9:45 amAs was noted above, Oiram, you came here by your own choice. Don’t let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya.
JD (5f0e11) — 8/12/2008 @ 9:45 am#303
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 8/12/2008 @ 9:47 amNk. Apology accepted. I also want apologise for what I said to you. Still working on that temper.
Making fun of Silky’s masculinity, or lack thereof, is not the same a calling Silky a f@g, Oiram.
JD (5f0e11) — 8/12/2008 @ 9:49 amTwo standard lib debating tactics on display here: 1) Oiram’s “move on, the topic isn’t relevant” claim; and, 2) The “you’re not arguing in the correct way” argument, spouted by U-no-who (and I don’t mean the poster that goes by that name).
Icy Truth (2d1519) — 8/12/2008 @ 10:01 am#321 That is so funny to me. I can’t believe you don’t see the silliness that I see.
They accuse a man of homosexuality, and would of jumped up and down screaming “I told you so!! I told you so!!” had Rielle Hunter been a male.
Silliness
Oiram (983921) — 8/12/2008 @ 10:03 am309 -#299 G,
Not “Prominently controlled”, your right about that. But reliant on the religious right, definitely.
Correct. Though, it isn’t a good idea for people who aren’t religious, or don’t have faith, to suddenly “get it” and start condemning, or blasting others for being sinners.
As an Example:
Both parties have their extreme fringes that they rely on for victories in all levels of office.
A significant percentage of the right relies on end of the world religious nuts.
I’d like to see you back up your claim with facts there. First though, lets deal with “significant” as that is a perspective word. To me significant would be something large. Furthermore, I’d be less questioning of your claim if you simply said “pro life” nuts, than “end of the world” nuts.
A significant percentage of the left relies on Communist nuts.
Again, what is significant? 10%? 20% 30% Furthermore, I think the communists turned into other venues, environmentalism, social activism…
Both could be said are bad for the country, yet they coexist with their respective parties.
Hmm… Lets look at the religious whack jobs… They get stopped from taking over government with the whole “Separation of Church and State” thing. To the “communists” or I’ll say environmentalists, (note, I’m a self described environmentalist) its become quite like a religion if you will on its own. It seems they adopt some insane mantra and run with it. For example, I talk to some of my “hippie friends” who took time off to stop the big evil government from putting in a sidewalk at a public park. One of my friends even went so far with me to tell me of the evils of train transportation in the U.S. Then, their opposition to nuclear energy is well, ignorant.
So to compare as I see it, on one hand the christian right, who seem to want to push for the “pro-life” movement, out lawing abortion or preserving their place in society. To the communist or environmentalist that want to cripple our energy, economy, and seek to have government involved in too many instances where people go to government for support.
When I say significant, I mean without them the parties don’t stand a chance.
Using that definition of significant, I know groups that would be significant for both, especially christians who are democrats (the non-hard-left people) or for the right the conservatives, you know, people who don’t like too much government, want lower taxes, less government interference in lives…
G (722480) — 8/12/2008 @ 10:04 amSo, she came back and completely ignored DRJ (then being taken to the woodshed by multiple commentators) this time? What happened to the great respect and deference love2008 supposedly has?
Patterico and DRJ, do either of you want to step in before this goes further and give love2008 some direction? I would contend that she has had every opportunity extended. If you’d rather not, it’s certainly up to you… I’m still willing to follow through with my earlier promise. One of us will end up banned.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 8/12/2008 @ 10:04 amMario -If Rielle had been a man then it would have been a homosexual relationship, no?
You equate calling someone a fag and jokes about masculinity. I simply pointed out that they are not the same. I can understand how it makes your argument easier, but that does not make them the same.
JD (5f0e11) — 8/12/2008 @ 10:08 amThey accuse a man of homosexuality, and would of jumped up and down screaming “I told you so!! I told you so!!” had Rielle Hunter been a male.
In my opinion, Edwards is a lipstick lesbian. (We used to say “lavender and lace” instead of “lipstick” in my time.)
nk (e38352) — 8/12/2008 @ 10:10 amJD: agreed that they are not the same, but I think it’s fair to say that often jokes about masculinity are taken as being implicit jokes about sexuality. The two topics are tightly enough tied together that disambiguating them is difficult at best … and it’s not entirely clear to me that the people who were making jokes about former Sen. Edwards’ masculinity intended that the joke not be taken as implicitly about sexuality.
(That is to say: it’s not fair to assume that the joke was intended as being about sexuality; but it’s equally not fair to assume that it wasn’t, given how tightly the topics are usually tied).
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/12/2008 @ 10:13 am#324 G, your twisting what I said. As an example, I used “End of world religious right wingers”. You assume I’m lumping right to lifers in their. I’m not. I know that they are made up of people who do not condone believing in an apocalyptic ending for humanity.
As far as my wording “Significant”: When you look at the last two elections, significant can mean as little as 1 % of the extremes of a party.
Oiram (983921) — 8/12/2008 @ 10:20 amInteresting #327 nk says:
“In my opinion, Edwards is a lipstick lesbian. (We used to say “lavender and lace” instead of “lipstick” in my time.)”
These kind of comments aren’t helping to get people on board with the Republican agenda.
Oiram (983921) — 8/12/2008 @ 10:22 am(Friendly Advice)
aphrael – Fair enough. But that was not the point that Mario was making. He said that many, including Rush (who I do not listen to) called Silky a f@g. In order for his point to be accurate, you have to conflate the 2 issues. I happen to see a differnce between the 2, but can understand how some would conflate the 2. YMMV.
JD (75f5c3) — 8/12/2008 @ 10:23 amYup, making fun of Silky is a bad thing, nk. This is also a distraction that is doing nothing to help Michelle keep fresh fruit in their home FOR THE CHILDREN !
Racists
JD (75f5c3) — 8/12/2008 @ 10:25 amStashiu, if you follow thru on that promise you’ll be speaking for many of us. Direct your launch at Oriamoriori, too.
It’s ludicrous to let a foul-tempered poster (and/or an ignorant poster) pick fights, spew garbage and then return to ignore a mountain of fact-based responses.
Love2008 should be banned. Not for asking questions, but for taking up space with endless personal attacks and a refusal to respond to posts. Ridiculous.
Oh, and Oriamio it’s good you’re here – –
You won’t read any type of debate at the bleeding lib blogs, where the moderators BAN opposing views. It’s not particulary inclusive for a crowd that brags about diversity ad nauseam. But that’s your group.
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 8/12/2008 @ 10:26 am329, you are twisting what I said. Re-read this bit… I’d like to see you back up your claim with facts there. First though, lets deal with “significant” as that is a perspective word. To me significant would be something large. Furthermore, I’d be less questioning of your claim if you simply said “pro life” nuts, than “end of the world” nuts.
To me, “end of the world nuts” I.E. the rapture is coming! Does not seem to make up a significant portion of the christian right. And its not that I don’t know any personally (I know two) its that I don’t see it in my face, i don’t see their perspective broadcast in the media, and I don’t see them in any large organized movement. Thus, I asked you I’d like to see you back up your claim with facts there.
In other words, prove it, I’m a fair guy, and you have the chance to educate me.
But then you say 1 % of the extremes of a party. So One Percent of the Extreme edges of each side… You may want to re-think that one.
oh and in your 330. These kind of comments aren’t helping to get people on board with the Republican agenda.
So you claim we have a specific “Republican” agenda?
G (722480) — 8/12/2008 @ 10:30 am#326 DJ,
So it’s o.k. for respectable political talk show hosts like Rush and Coulter to insinuate jokingly about a man’s sexuality, while his wife is diagnosed with cancer.
And then accept that this person had a heterosexual affair while his wife was diagnosed with cancer.
How much money is Rush making this year?
Someone must be listening to his nonsense, I’m guessing your one of them DJ.
Oiram (983921) — 8/12/2008 @ 10:32 am^ For a liberal guy, you sure are hung up on the gay agenda. Ever hear of nuance?
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 8/12/2008 @ 10:34 amYes their is an agenda. And I’m all for it. I seriously think we need somewhat of a balance in our politics. I’ve said that many times here before.
We need good Republicans to balance out the bad lefties who could ruin this country. I happen to lean on the left, but I recognize the need for laizes fare government.
As far a my “1 % being significant” statement:
Oiram (983921) — 8/12/2008 @ 10:36 amI have no idea what the actual numbers are, but I do no that if they are as little as 1 %, in a close election that’s all you need.
Have not listened to Rush in literally years, Mario. You are wrong about yet another thing. SHOCKA!
JD (75f5c3) — 8/12/2008 @ 10:37 amOiram,
You are the only one who is trying to equate uber-metrosexual with gay. Gay men are still men as far as I can see. Edwards is a primpy girl. That hair. Those teeth. Gaah, what kind of a man shows off his million-dollar molars when he smiles?
nk (e38352) — 8/12/2008 @ 10:38 amAnd water is a little wet.
JD (75f5c3) — 8/12/2008 @ 10:39 am#336
Nah, I’m not hung up on the gay agenda, Rush and his disciples are though. And yes I do understand nuances.
Oiram (983921) — 8/12/2008 @ 10:40 am337-I have no idea what the actual numbers are, but I do no that if they are as little as 1 %, in a close election that’s all you need.
The problem with that, is we don’t elect our president by popular vote, so one would have to break down this significant 1% of people to each state.
G (722480) — 8/12/2008 @ 10:48 amOiram, still, I’d love to see a link, or something at least a half attempt at providing me with something that will back up your claim.
G (722480) — 8/12/2008 @ 10:51 am#333
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/12/2008 @ 10:57 amVN. I perceive that you are caught up in a gall. Your anger towards me has the markings of bitterness and yellow bile. It’s beginning to get really personal.Are you angry with me because I support Obama? Well, deal with it. That someone does not agree with your own world view, does not make the person, an enemy. We just don’t agree.
Prior to post #313 the word “gay” does not appear in this thread. For his next trick he will explain how the Obama campaign are not the ones playong the race card.
Icy Truth (95c92c) — 8/12/2008 @ 10:59 am344-
VN. I perceive that you are caught up in a gall. Your anger towards me has the markings of bitterness and yellow bile. It’s beginning to get really personal.Are you angry with me because I support Obama? Well, deal with it. That someone does not agree with your own world view, does not make the person, an enemy. We just don’t agree.
People are “angry” with you because you are lying, furthermore, you are evading, and not to speak for any others, but I could give a flying flip that you are planning to vote for Obama. Thats great, I mean it, I don’t look at you as the enemy for having your own opinion, perspective or political beliefs. But I do want you to stop lying and evading.
G (722480) — 8/12/2008 @ 11:03 amVermont #333, I’m not saying that all liberal blog sites don’t censor, sure some do. You get kicked out of some of them, I have from right wing sites too.
I’m not telling you to go to Huffington post either. I don’t know if they censor opposing views, but it’s a trashy blog site. After all we don’t feel like arguing over Britney’s current state of mental health.
But my point is, you keep trying and trying. It’s easy to tell us you get blocked on all liberal sites. Quite frankly it’s a cop out my friend.
Oiram (983921) — 8/12/2008 @ 11:03 amRe: #333
— I do not agree; love2008 should not be banned. However, I think that there does need to be a certain minimum level of civility maintained, as well as an understanding of the difference between benign comments such as “what color is the sky in your world?” and the use of explosive terms like “bigot” and “liar”.
Icy Truth (95c92c) — 8/12/2008 @ 11:06 am#347 – Oiram
— If I can give HuffPo credit for one thing (and it may well be the only thing I give them credit for), it is that they have never censored one of my posts. Not that there weren’t plenty of requests by the so-called open-minded “progressives” on that site for the powers-that-be to do so.
Icy Truth (95c92c) — 8/12/2008 @ 11:12 amI love it #345, thanks for another example of a right winger playing the “Obama plays the race card” card.
Icy Truth writes on #345:
“Prior to post #313 the word “gay” does not appear in this thread. For his next trick he will explain how the Obama campaign are not the ones playong the race card.”
Oiram (983921) — 8/12/2008 @ 11:14 amNot that it shouldn’t be acceptable to call someone a bigot or a liar when you can provide ironclad proof that such is the case. For myself, I much prefer to tell someone that they’re wrong and then explain, in as much detail as necessary, why I think that is the case.
Icy Truth (95c92c) — 8/12/2008 @ 11:17 amICY #349 we can finally agree on something!
Now tell that to Vermont regarding his comment on #333 that he is routinely censored by lib sites.
Oiram (983921) — 8/12/2008 @ 11:18 am351- Do you feel that was not done?
G (722480) — 8/12/2008 @ 11:19 amFor myself, I much prefer to tell someone that they’re wrong and then explain, in as much detail as necessary, why I think that is the case.
It’s also preferable, IMO, to presume error rather than deliberate lying when interpreting the falsehood of someone else’s words. 🙂
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/12/2008 @ 11:19 amOiriam, I’ll tell you what; let’s both keep a running tally of how many times race is mentioned during the speeches at each of the conventions. Then we can meet here and compare notes. Allusions to race, such as “opportunities for all Americans” or “diverse backgrounds”, will count.
Icy Truth (95c92c) — 8/12/2008 @ 11:26 am“Liar” is not an explosive term when used towards someone who is lying. By the same token (no pun intended), calling someone a bigot who is actually exhibiting bigoted behavior should be acceptable. It becomes inflammatory when used indiscriminately and without any evidence. Like “racist”, it becomes meaningless except as an insult.
There is nothing I’ve said here, anywhere else online, or in real-life that love2008 can point to that would support her calling me a bigot. It was even pointed out that the only one who met her “revised” definition in this thread was her. I’m not calling for her to be banned… I’m insisting on a sincere apology for an unwarranted slur. She’ll give it, or this will escalate until one of us is banned. Our hosts can short-circuit this at any time by banning me. It depends on what type of site they want to maintain.
I’m also not picking a fight with Oiram or anyone else. He didn’t call me a bigot or racist (as DRJ said, JD is an exception and I support the point he makes). If Oiram wants to fight, he can start it… I’ve already apologized to him once for saying something that wasn’t justified by his comments. I don’t like many of his positions, or how he presents them sometimes, but as frustrating as he can sometimes be he is respectful of others and is arguably commenting in good faith. After unjustly calling him a troll before, he deserves a lot more patience from me and will get it.
love2008 can’t make the same claim to good-faith. She continues to make evasive and dishonest comments while ignoring valid criticism. I’m not letting this go, come what may.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 8/12/2008 @ 11:29 am#355
Icy – I’m sorry, I just don’t have that kind of motivation to do that. Just the fact that you feel the need to do that says something about your inclinations.
Why not just pay attention to the issues, look at what both are saying beyond race and go from there?
Oiram (983921) — 8/12/2008 @ 11:31 am#351 – G
— That wasn’t directed at you or anyone specifically; I’m just encouraging anyone that dishes out potentially inflammatory accusations to back them up with facts and examples (as you did in #273, and Thank You for the positive mention).
Icy Truth (95c92c) — 8/12/2008 @ 11:32 amI agree, although I would quibble and say “initially presume error”. When the lies are repeated over and over after being refuted multiple times, that’s not an error… it’s lying.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 8/12/2008 @ 11:34 am#357 – Oiram
Icy – I’m sorry, I just don’t have that kind of motivation to do that.
— That’s okay. I promise to give an honest accounting.
Just the fact that you feel the need to do that says something about your inclinations.
— My inclination is to follow the credo of radio host Dennis Prager: first tell the truth, then give your opinion. You lay all of the facts out on the table and then you decipher what it all means.
Why not just pay attention to the issues, look at what both are saying beyond race and go from there?
Icy Truth (95c92c) — 8/12/2008 @ 11:43 am— If everything Obama says was beyond race I would then do that. Maybe you can advise the campaign to (forgive my use of a rude acronym) STFU up about race, something he has not done since the day before his Philadelphia speech. Then, and only then, will this all cease.
300- You actually have to type in “strike” in there or it won’t work
When you push the button it just has an “s”
Comment by G — 8/12/2008 @ 9:25 am
Thanks – appreciate the info. 🙂
no one you know (1f5ddb) — 8/12/2008 @ 11:46 amWhoops! Putting “up” after STFU was redundant and unnecessary and should not have been done.
Icy Truth (95c92c) — 8/12/2008 @ 11:47 am— Courtesy of the Department of Redundant Redundancies Department
NOTE TO: Stashiu3 and love2008.
As I understand it, Stashiu3 is offended because love2008 called a group of commenters in this thread “bigots” and Stashiu3 believes he was included in that group. Stashiu3 views being called a bigot as a claim that he’s prejudiced against people of other races or ethnicity. Love2008 says she used the word “bigot” to mean a person who is intolerant of other opinions and she thinks that fairly describes Stashiu3 and others in this thread.
At this point, I need Stashiu3 and love2008 to agree or disagree with what I’ve written. If you disagree or want to add something, please explain your position and concerns in one comment. Once you’ve stated your concerns, we’ll try to resolve this or submit it to Patterico to resolve.
DRJ (a5243f) — 8/12/2008 @ 11:48 amIcy – This is the difficult national discussion about race. If you weren’t such a racist, it would not be so difficult. Or something like that.
JD (75f5c3) — 8/12/2008 @ 11:48 amlovie should retract and apologize. I will not be holding my breath.
JD (75f5c3) — 8/12/2008 @ 11:49 amPragmatist!
Icy Truth (95c92c) — 8/12/2008 @ 11:50 amStashiu3:
I didn’t see your comment 356 before I posted my last comment. If you want, that can be your statement of position.
DRJ (a5243f) — 8/12/2008 @ 11:52 amI agree completely with Stash, with a minor exception. Like I try to point out, the use of calling people bigots and racists has grown to the point that the words are becoming meaningless. They are as predictable and as common as calling someone Ma’am or Sir, likely even moreso, given the declining lack of manners in our society. I understand Stash’s position, and even admire it. But lovie means nothing by it since the terms themselves are growing to be without meaning.
JD (75f5c3) — 8/12/2008 @ 12:00 pm#362
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/12/2008 @ 12:03 pmNo need Icy. We know you that well. One of the reasonable minds left here.
Stashiu, at 356:
I’ve been mostly staying out of this, but I feel compelled to jump in now. 🙂
JD is an exception and I support the point he makes
JD calling you a racist is sort of like him calling me a homophobe, which I’ve never objected to, because I see the good-natured jest in it. 🙂
After unjustly calling him a troll before, he deserves a lot more patience from me and will get it.
Our first interaction involved you unjustly accusing me of trollish behavior; to your credit you apologized for it, and have always conducted yourself in a polite and honorable fashion with respect to me since then. Because of the way you handled that interaction, I have a great deal of respect for you as one of the most reasonable posters on this site.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/12/2008 @ 12:05 pmHey, JD – raciste!
Sorry. Just practicing for when Bambi takes over and orders us all to learn frog as a second language.
Icy Truth (95c92c) — 8/12/2008 @ 12:08 pmI agree, although I would quibble and say “initially presume error”. When the lies are repeated over and over after being refuted multiple times, that’s not an error… it’s lying.
Fair enough, although I think it’s also important to give each new person the presumption of error. It’s unfortunately quite easy to fall into the presumption that, because everyone in group [x] knows that [y], new person [z] must, too.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/12/2008 @ 12:08 pmaphrael – Would you give lovie the “presumption of error” vis a vis this thread?
Racist
JD (75f5c3) — 8/12/2008 @ 12:12 pm#363
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/12/2008 @ 12:17 pmI leave everything in your hands DRJ. I have full confidence in your judgment, whatever it is.
Thank you for the opportunity. I have gained a lot.
DRJ, here is my position in one comment (although I agree with the essence of your summary).
love2008 responded directly to me in #225 and her next comment in #230 was where she called a group of us bigots. It’s reasonable to conclude I was part of that group. Besides the racial and ethnic connotations, ever her assertion (in #253) that it describes someone intolerant of others opinions is a false accusation. Disagreement with false statements is only being intolerant of lying, not honest opinions. Which of us has demonstrated tolerance and which one wants anyone who disagrees with them to shut up?
In #256, she essentially repeats her claim that I am a bigot (or she says I wouldn’t have objected so strongly). I challenged her to provide any evidence about me that would support that claim, which she ignored. Granted, she has to ignore that challenge if she wants to avoid admitting she was wrong, because she’s not going to find anything showing me to be a bigot by any definition.
She should either provide evidence that I am a bigot or give a sincere, unqualified apology when called on her unjustified slur. Failure to do one or the other will end up with one of us banned, that’s a promise. I’m not letting her off the hook on this.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 8/12/2008 @ 12:18 pmMy apologies to those invested in dispute, there are valid points at issue, however…
I hate to be an “I told ya so” but if my words at #23 had served as a guide, we wouldn’t be in this back and forth, finger pointing, name calling, spat. Others have tried to keep comments on point as well. So, how about it?
I’ll start. John Edwards and his wife are lying about his affair. Most likely, the baby is his, and the money trail tracks back to ex-Senator John Edwards (D-NC). Lots and lots of people close to Mr and Mrs Edwards know one heck of a lot more about this sordid little dust-up than they are letting on, at least for now.
I don’t buy it for one nano-second that the Clintons are only now becoming aware of the shifty sand on which citizen Edwards built his political house of cards. Bill and Hill do their homework, you can take that to the bank. Keep your eye on the prize: It’s the Whitehouse, stupid.
So, lets keep in mind that presidental politics can be like a finger pointing at the moon, too much focus on the finger, rather than where it’s pointing, and you miss all the heavenly glory.
Ropelight (4a83c9) — 8/12/2008 @ 12:22 pmOiram wrote: I love it #345, thanks for another example of a right winger playing the “Obama plays the race card” card.
Telling the truth is not playing a card.
You know the truth, Oiram. In the wake of the surprising success of the “Celeb” ad, Obama lashed back. When he barnstormed through Missouri two weeks ago and came to the part of his stump speech about “He doesn’t look like the Presidents on those dollar bills,” pro-‘bama moonbat media figures interpreted it as the race card, since he had earlier explicitly suggested that GOP campaigns would be reminding the electorate that he’s black.
That’s why looney lefties like Bill Press, Joshua Micah Marshall, Bob Herbert, and Keith Olbermann sprung into action, slavishly contorting themselves to suggest the McCain campaign was subliminally filling vacant minds with images suggestive of a priapic Obama violating pure white chicks, hoping to reap the benefits of latent fears of miscegenation.
L.N. Smithee (ecc5a5) — 8/12/2008 @ 12:23 pmNice try.Pathetic.JD, good question. I’d been ignoring this thread (the topic doesn’t really interest me; as a Democrat, I’m pissed at former Sen. Edwards for his poor choice to conduct an affair while running for the Presidential nomination, and am sufficiently tribal to not want to talk to a bunch of conservatives about it) until I saw Stashiu was commenting here. 🙂
So, rereading:
* a number of love2008’s comments early in the thread strike me as being trollish and designed to provoke rather than discuss.
* it doesn’t seem to me that many of love2008 comments are making the kind of claim which is susceptible to presumption of lying or error; they seem to be generally oversimplifications designed to make a partisan political point. That kind of rhetorical polemicism seems designed to provoke (and or to garner cheers from one’s allies) rather than discuss and understand.
So I think I would have given the presumption of error at the start; and while I wouldn’t go so far as to accuse love2008 of lying later on, I do think the comments indicate a lack of interest in discussion, or of understanding nuance … basically, I think that love2008 doesn’t care if the comments are based in fact or not.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/12/2008 @ 12:25 pmГрузия, Грузия, весь день до конца Как раз старая сладостная песня Держит Грузия на моем разуме Talkin’ ‘ поединок Грузия I’ m в Грузия Песня вас Приходит как сладостно и ясно как лунный свет через сосенки Другие рукоятки достигают вне к мне Другие глаза усмедутся нежо Все еще в мирных сновидениях я вижу Руководства дороги назад к вам Грузия, сладостное Грузия, отсутствие мира я нахожу Как раз старая сладостная песня Держит Грузия на моем разуме Другие рукоятки достигают вне к мне Другие глаза усмедутся нежо Все еще в мирных сновидениях я вижу Дорога водит назад Она всегда водит назад к вам I’ m в Грузия, Грузия, сладостном Грузия Отсутствие мира, отсутствие мира я нахожу Как раз эта старая, сладостная песня Держит навсегда Грузия на моем разуме Как раз старая сладостная, сладостная песня Держит навсегда Грузия на моем разуме
Icy Truth (95c92c) — 8/12/2008 @ 12:27 pmaphrael, you’ve been on the blogroll at my (now temporarily sparse-posting) site since I started it. Now, if your name wasn’t so damn close to alphie’s, I wouldn’t have looked so foolish at our first interaction. 😉
Seriously though, you deserve more credit for that than I do. Being patient and gently pointing out my error instead of firing back took a lot more maturity and tolerance than I had demonstrated towards you. All I did was admit I screwed up… not nearly as hard when you get as much practice as I do. Ask my wife. 🙂
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 8/12/2008 @ 12:28 pmDing, ding, ding !!! We have a winner.
JD (75f5c3) — 8/12/2008 @ 12:31 pmA relatively cleaner translation:
Грузия, Грузия, весь день до конца Как раз старая сладостная песня Держит Грузия на моем разуме Говорить о Грузия Я в Грузия Песня вас Приходит как сладостно и ясно как лунный свет через сосенки Другие рукоятки достигают вне к мне Другие глаза усмедутся нежо Все еще в мирных сновидениях я вижу Руководства дороги назад к вам Грузия, сладостное Грузия, отсутствие мира я нахожу Как раз старая сладостная песня Держит Грузия на моем разуме Другие рукоятки достигают вне к мне Другие глаза усмедутся нежо Все еще в мирных сновидениях я вижу Дорога водит назад Она всегда водит назад к вам Я в Грузия, Грузия, сладостном Грузия Отсутствие мира, отсутствие мира я нахожу Как раз эта старая, сладостная песня Держит навсегда Грузия на моем разуме Как раз старая сладостная, сладостная песня Держит навсегда Грузия на моем разуме
— For those who think I’m on crack (I swear, my drug of choice is Aspartame), that’s “Georgia On My Mind” in Russian.
Icy Truth (95c92c) — 8/12/2008 @ 12:33 pmI guess that proves that sometimes our drug of choice is sometimes unavailable, so crack will work as a substitute?
*ducks*
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 8/12/2008 @ 12:35 pmIcy Truth: perhaps ‘Georgia on my mind’ in translation belongs in the Georgia thread, not the Edwards thread? 🙂
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/12/2008 @ 12:35 pmDon’t know many crackheads, eh? 😉
*ducks and runs for cover this time*
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 8/12/2008 @ 12:37 pmaphrael wrote:
Depends. After firing Rielle Hunter, did Edwards hire anyone named Georgia?
L.N. Smithee (ecc5a5) — 8/12/2008 @ 12:39 pmStashiu3: no, I know very few. The drugs of choice of my friends are mostly marijuana and hallucinogens.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/12/2008 @ 12:42 pm#347
You’re lucky to post your fool nonsense here. Especially since your ability with nuance is less than stellar. Never was it posted that I get blocked on ‘all’ liberal sites. Interesting that your leading voice over at Huffington doesn’t even warrant your stamp of approval.
Catch the nuance in full detail: I posted one response, two times at PuffHo. Make of it what you will. It certainly underscored the love’08 lib-fib style of debate: if you don’t agree, you’re not one of us! You’re r a c i s t.
You? Not worth another breath. love’08 though with her constant cries of screaming Obama! like anyone here cares who she votes for. She’s voting for a fellow black Muslim and that’s that. As she says with typical arrogance, get used to it.
And everyone who cut-N-paste answers through the night, adding in nice italicized touches, very good work. It’s excellent to hammer love with her own mangled reasoning and poor grasp of language. (“Caught up in gall.” WTF?)
But the O!bama 2008 fan-book gives supporters a list of talking points from which never to deviate. So love is a good little comrade, telling me I’m:
“biased, prejudiced and blind!”
And here she is after hurling nasty at everyone last night. Can’t even respond to anything posted. She’s a waste of time and should be banned. Instead of responding to dozens of posts and a direct request for a follow-up answer, she plays dumb and dumber. (Although, granted, it’s probably not an act).
“About what, JD?”
She’s good for the thread count, though… and that’s not a bad thing. Arianna, y’ listening?
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 8/12/2008 @ 12:53 pmI was ducking from Icy. I gave up most caffeine for “wife-reasons” (she was worried about my health) and ice cream along with a ton of other things for health-reasons (doctor’s orders). Drug of choice is now limited to about a dozen beers a year. (yes, smoking 1/2pk of cigarettes a day should count as a drug, but a nurse shouldn’t be smoking, so that should stay between us, ok? Thanks. 😉 )
I miss the ice cream the most. French Vanilla (should that be “Freedom Vanilla”? hmm….) with strawberry topping and Cool Whip. *sigh*
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 8/12/2008 @ 12:56 pmI think my “Georgia On My Mind” post had the desired effect . . . a little intentional diversion from the tit-for-tat squabbling, just for a little while.
On another note, I eat ice cream because of my wife, if you know what I mean. If it wasn’t for that I would be picking up a glass pipe.
Icy Truth (95c92c) — 8/12/2008 @ 2:16 pm#387, I suspect you aren’t being exactly forthright. Sure, funny cigarettes and perception altering substances no doubt have their fans and adherents, but I’m thinking you neglected to give booze its proper place. It’s my drug of choice.
Ropelight (4a83c9) — 8/12/2008 @ 4:49 pm#388
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 8/12/2008 @ 5:44 pmhe’s voting for a fellow black Muslim and that’s that. As she says with typical arrogance, get used to it.
At least we now know where that lie comes from. A lot of people still believe Obama is a Muslim. The mask is coming off, VN. Your hatred and **** is showing. Point of correction, Obama is not a Muslim. What does that make you? A liar and a racist. Point two, I am not a Muslim. If you had any modicum of sense and brains left in you, you would have noticed it in some of my threads. To stand there and call me a Muslim, shows how stupid, foolish, racist and bigoted you truly are. You are an old stupid fool. Shame on you, Liar! You belong to the generation that won’t let this country move forward. You are proud, arrogant and disgusting. You are also a liar and a deceiver.
Secondly, DRJ, I want to apologize to Stasiu3 for the misunderstanding. He is not a bigot. He is a true American. But I know who the real bigot on this thread really is, Vermont Neighbor. And I can prove it. If I am going to be banned for this, so be it. SHE IS A LIAR, A BIGOT, A RACIST AND AN OLD FOOL! People who come to blogs like this to spread vicious lies about fellow Americans are the true enemies of America. They keep sowing seeds of discord, suspicion and hatred among those who are supposed to be One Nation Under God. I am calling on Patterico and DRJ, to show proof of good faith and ban this old racist from this blog before she causes irrepairable damage to many. Spreading lies about a Presidential candidate is not part of responsible and civil debate. I am waiting to see what you will do about this.United we stand, divided we fall. It is time to put away all of our bitterness, hatred, unforgiveness, pride and arrogance and unite against our common enemy. God bless the United States of America and God give us victory over our real enemies. God bless you all.
What race are Muslims?
Again, what race are Muslims?
JD (712926) — 8/12/2008 @ 5:48 pmlove2008 wrote:
But earlier in this same thread, she wrote this:
Questioning whether or not John McCain believes in Jesus Christ, love?!
Doctor, heal thyself. You’re a hypocrite.
L.N. Smithee (a0b21b) — 8/12/2008 @ 5:55 pmAh, Love, glad to see you take the bait. LOL.
G (c0157b) — 8/12/2008 @ 6:00 pm#394
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 8/12/2008 @ 6:20 pmAgain let me make myself clear. When I called John McCain an Adulterer, I wasn’t just trying to condemn. My aim was to do the opposite. If you are going to beat up and condemn John Edwards for his infidelity, what about John McCain? I am not and have never tried to defend Edwards. I have said, he messed up. Big time. I also said, he has not been as truthful as he needs to be. I personally believe that that child could be his. But who knows?
My point has always been that this whole mess up of Edwards hurts John McCain. How? It will cause the spotlight to be upon his past mistake, which he has apologised for. Right now there is a new YouTube video that tries to lump John McCain with people like, Edwards, Clinton, Rudy and others. My aim is basically to offer advice. Maybe I am wrong. But I know this constitutes a major distraction from the real issues.
And LN Smithee. I perceive you are either a minister or a church worker. I may be wrong. Try to take a more balanced and neutral position on things like this.
So lets see, using the “logic” earlier on in this thread. Love2008, why are you in such an uproar over this claim of being a muslim? Is being a muslim a bad thing? You seem pretty intent on defending that claim, so intent, one would assume it is true.
G (c0157b) — 8/12/2008 @ 6:20 pmlove2008, it is pretty amusing how the more you claim you are being clear, the more silly you are.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/12/2008 @ 6:21 pm398 – pretty amusing?
LOL, understatement of the year.
G (c0157b) — 8/12/2008 @ 6:31 pm#397
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 8/12/2008 @ 6:39 pmI am proud of my faith. If
Obama were a Muslim, I would be the last person to vote for him. But as it turns out, he is not. Saying he is, is lying. Asking what is wrong with being a Muslim as regards who becomes the next President of this country, founded on principles of Christianity is either deliberately trying to be obtuse or mischievous. A Muslim CANNOT be President of America. At least not in this generation. Call me what you like, I don’t care.
And SPQR, #398, why don’t you just go and sleep or take a walk. You are very boring!
LOL, just priceless love. Again, what is wrong with a muslim being president? Or muslim politicians for that matter? Last I checked, the Jedo-Christian principles that founded this country went to great lengths to put in freedom of religion. Will a muslim President somehow wave his magic wand and undo these foundations in our government? Do explain.
G (c0157b) — 8/12/2008 @ 6:54 pmLovey – We are all children of god on this site. I don’t know how you can continue to be so hateful.
daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/12/2008 @ 6:56 pm1. Actually, that’s thirdly/fourthly/whatever… hard to tell through the spittle.
2. Addressed to DRJ, and while apologies from you to her are certainly in order for abusing her patience with you, I’m not DRJ.
3. “Want” is not the same as “Do”. Specifically, saying you want to apologize is not the same as giving an apology, sincere and unqualified or not.
4. It’s Stashiu3, not Stasiu3… forget it, you’re on a roll (shades of “when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor”!)
5. “misunderstanding”? Are you kidding me? There was no misunderstanding here, on your part or that of anyone else. Pretending it was is another evasion.
That’s just one sentence. Now, an ethical person with character would make the corrections and show a bit of humility for being so mind-numbingly wrong. That you’re incapable is self-evident. You know what though? I’m done with you. Just remember that I never called for you to be banned. The way that everyone here shredded your “nicey-nice” BS and exposed you for the hypocrite and liar you are is enough. Your credibility here is completely gone and your games will not work anymore. Trying to evade proving your own points by giving “homework” or ignoring the frequent fiskings of your dribble is going to be called out more often from now on. Count on it. For example:
Doesn’t jibe with:
The sad thing is, I still think Obama will probably win in November, although he certainly doesn’t deserve it. I won’t vote for McCain, but I won’t vote for Obama either (no matter what Xrlq thinks about it). No matter who wins, they will have my support of their Presidency, as well as my criticism of any mistakes I believe them to be making. I wish them well because that’s best for the country, not because they’re in a particular party.
For now, I’m off for a bit to help my youngest deal with homework. Believe it or not, love2008 has helped prepare me for this… he’s working with irrational numbers. I would encourage the rest of you to ignore love2008 until she can discuss things reasonably. Just don’t expect it anytime soon.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 8/12/2008 @ 7:00 pm#401
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/12/2008 @ 7:11 pmJust one question for you G, are you saying that a Muslim can and should be President of this country?
Well I beg to defer. Not that I hate Muslims, there are a lot of good Muslim who love peace. But considering the threat we face today, of Islamic fundamentalism who hate freedom and this country, it is important we know that our President is a Christian. Or are you seriously advocating a Muslim Presidency? Or are you just trying to be silly!
love2008, how can you accuse others of being silly when you can’t even reconcile your own comments in the thread?
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/12/2008 @ 7:13 pmWell I beg to defer.
Umm…
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 8/12/2008 @ 7:26 pm#401
Just one question for you G, are you saying that a Muslim can and should be President of this country?
Well I beg to defer. Not that I hate Muslims, there are a lot of good Muslim who love peace. But considering the threat we face today, of Islamic fundamentalism who hate freedom and this country, it is important we know that our President is a Christian. Or are you seriously advocating a Muslim Presidency? Or are you just trying to be silly!
A muslim sure can become president. I make no claim as “should” be president nor do expect people to elect a muslim in the near future. But sure, a muslim sure can become president. I don’t know of any law stating otherwise. But your statements, kinda smell of bigotry, IMO. Note, I’m guessing you aren’t a bigot and I am not calling you one now.
The threat we face today are from islamic extremists, not muslims in general. At no time did I advocate having a muslim president. I just asked you your view on it.
G (c0157b) — 8/12/2008 @ 7:27 pm#403
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/12/2008 @ 7:27 pmThank you very much Stashiu3. And may God bless you in all your endeavours.
Wow!
Along with the ‘fairness doctrinesque’ comment in #396 (“Try to take a more balanced and neutral position on things like this”), this outright religious bigotry is sad to read. I hope the info that the current makeup of the SCOTUS includes 5 Catholics and 2 Jews doesn’t leak out.
Whoops.
Icy Truth (95c92c) — 8/12/2008 @ 7:28 pmWhat race are Muslims, lovie, and why do you think that they should be be able to be President?
Bigot
JD (5f0e11) — 8/12/2008 @ 7:38 pmVermont Neighbor is supposed to be banned for being racist and intolerant, but now we’re supposed to have a religious test for the Presidency of the United States? Something expressly forbidden by the Constitution? Pfffttt.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 8/12/2008 @ 7:38 pmI hope the info that the current makeup of the SCOTUS includes 5 Catholics and 2 Jews doesn’t leak out.
Whoops.
Comment by Icy Truth — 8/12/2008 @ 7:28 pm
🙂
Except of course Catholics are Christians. But maybe love2008 doesn’t think so. Not all (other) Christians do…
Am quite surprised to see both the extreme offense taken at the possibility that someone might consider one a Muslim, and the insistence that we must have a Christian president of the US.
Would be truly interested in hearing love2008’s reasons for both of these but given his/her reply rate on this board am not holding my breath waiting for them. Unfortunate, since it might have helped me understand love2008’s POV better. Oh well.
Strange though. Not sure what I ever did to love2008 but it must have been terrible. Perhaps he/she will tell me someday so I can make amends if needed.
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 8/12/2008 @ 7:39 pmFunny how so many people of religion have a problem with Mitt Romney’s. Lots of bigots on the fundamentalist right who would only be too happy with a Huckabee presidency. I don’t much care what religion Obama truly is, but his barnd of Christianity sure does tolerate some gravely unchristian tenets. What sort of character would sit thorough twenty years of Wright’s BS venomous vitriol merely for street cred? And only dump him when things got too hinky politically?
Anyone notice that lovesick spells some words in Canadian style? I’m wondering if it is even an American citizen? Or perhaps the educational system has changed since I learned the three R’s.
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 8/12/2008 @ 7:41 pmStrange though. Not sure what I ever did to love2008 but it must have been terrible. Perhaps he/she will tell me someday so I can make amends if needed.
For the record, had typed this then decided not to include it in my post. But it came through anyway. Perhaps it’s better that it did. I never insulted you once, love2008, always address you civilly and your rudeness, especially given your stated desire to me and others not to be rude, is baffling I guess. That’s what I was thinking when I originally typed the above.
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 8/12/2008 @ 7:42 pmFunny how so many people of religion have a problem with Mitt Romney’s.
Comment by madmax333 — 8/12/2008 @ 7:41 pm
Unfortunately this is very true, and don’t understand it either.
He was my first choice in the primaries BTW, though he wasn’t perfect he was the best conservative candidate in the race at that time IMO.
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 8/12/2008 @ 7:46 pm#406 no one you know: Inconceivable! heh
Freudian slip if there ever was one.
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 8/12/2008 @ 7:46 pm#407
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 8/12/2008 @ 7:48 pmThen I take back the “silly” comment. You know, at this point you never who is trying to gang up on you. Maybe I am becoming a little paranoid.
I agree with you. Not all Muslims are terrorists. In the face of threat of Islamic extremism, America cannot afford to play nice about having a Muslim President. At least not now.
^ Let us know when you earn enough points for that Obama lawn sign. Pullin’ for ya, kid.
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 8/12/2008 @ 7:56 pm#415 I was somewhat surprised that Guliani performed so poorly. It seems likely that Huckabee made things more difficult for Romney. Also Thompson seemed so hesitant and lethargic. No way could I vote for Huckabee or Paul. I’d never vote for her, but prefer Hillary as dem nominee, even if she were to win as likely to cause fewer problems to the country than the magic negro. What’s with the rumors of Kerry being vetted as potential VP for Big Zero?
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 8/12/2008 @ 7:58 pmAlso wondering about the large amount of possible cyanide found in Denver. Otherwise just waiting for the dem circus to come to town there.
So far, the only overt and demonstrable bigotry has come from lovie. Projection. All of our bigotry must be in code-words.
JD (5f0e11) — 8/12/2008 @ 8:02 pm#404
Well I beg to defer
should actually be “I beg not to defer.”
And No One I know, #412
Strange though. Not sure what I ever did to love2008 but it must have been terrible. Perhaps he/she will tell me someday so I can make amends if needed.
Comment by no one you know — 8/12/2008 @ 7:39 pm
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 8/12/2008 @ 8:04 pmin what way have I been rude to you? I have always thought of you as a wonderful, reasonable person.
^ Put on your galoshes. We’re stepping in it now.
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 8/12/2008 @ 8:06 pmOkay… so you want the coronation today ? Why wait till January, right?
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 8/12/2008 @ 8:09 pmI thought he had actually meant to say I beg to DIFFER. We’ll never know. All I know is I’ve been deemed a racist because I belittled the annointed one, the big zero, the magic negro urkel obamalamadingdong. I’m an old white cracker and had oodles of fun playing with the paultards some months back and that dude nor luap is an old white doofus from out DRJ’s way, I reckon. So that makes me an equal opportunity hater. Any news if his primary opponent might knock him off?
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 8/12/2008 @ 8:15 pmMy humble apologies if I’ve offended any paulbots on this site. He’s been in Congress forever and I have to compare him in some ways to Obama as far as not accomplishing anything germane, but rather being a symbolic vote for intransigence.
The word “defer”, apart from meaning to postpone or to hold over, put off, set back, also means to submit to, yield to another’s wish or opinion. Accede, give in, bow, submit. In the context of my usage in Well I beg not to defer, I was saying I was not going to yield or submit to that view point.
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/12/2008 @ 9:01 pmSo you were being clear?
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/12/2008 @ 9:15 pm#413 – madmax333
What sort of character would sit thorough twenty years of Wright’s BS venomous vitriol merely for street cred?
— Answer 1: Someone willing to do anything to get elected; Answer 2: We never have found out how often he actually attended services.
And only dump him when things got too hinky politically?
— Barack is loyal to Barack. In that sense he truly is the opposite of W.
Anyone notice that lovesick spells some words in Canadian style?
Icy Truth (95c92c) — 8/12/2008 @ 9:57 pm— Well, British-style (Canadians use it as part of their loyalty to the Crown), Yes.
#412 – no one you know
Except of course Catholics are Christians. But maybe love2008 doesn’t think so. Not all (other) Christians do…
— That’s one of the reasons why I mentioned it; the other is that Catholics only represent 24% of the US population, but constitute 56% of the SCOTUS. Even worse, Jews are 1% of the population but 22% of SCOTUS! Horrors!!! How can this be – in the progressive land of equality?
Icy Truth (95c92c) — 8/12/2008 @ 10:07 pmLove2008,
If Obama were a Muslim, I would be the last person to vote for him.
Why? ISTM that whether a man is a Muslim, or a Catholic, or a Jew, or a Taoist, or a Hindu is irrelevant to his qualifications for office.
Stashiu3,
No matter who wins, they will have my support of their Presidency, as well as my criticism of any mistakes I believe them to be making. I wish them well because that’s best for the country, not because they’re in a particular party.
Amen to that.
aphrael (9e8ccd) — 8/12/2008 @ 10:24 pmlove2000hate wrote: And LN Smithee. I perceive you are either a minister or a church worker. I may be wrong.
Wouldn’t be the first time.
If you’re calling me unbalanced from your skewed vantage point, I must be doing just fine.
L.N. Smithee (3bad27) — 8/12/2008 @ 11:43 pm#430
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/13/2008 @ 2:51 amI can see you are not a man of peace. Even when I make effort to show you respect, you continue to act like a snub. You have never said any kind word to me. All you do is to wait for my next comment to pounce on it, even when you know the spirit with which they are made. Sorry for calling you a Christian. Should have known from your behaviour that you are not. Hope your fans are proud of you.
in what way have I been rude to you? I have always thought of you as a wonderful, reasonable person.
Comment by love2008 — 8/12/2008 @ 8:04 pm
??
So…that is why you pointedly ignore my and others’ comments or questions, addressed specifically to you – or you post a long opinion and, when replied to substantively, pointedly ignore that (thought we couldn’t see you on the thread later?).
Always appreciate a compliment but this one does not appear sincere, given your behavior to me and others. It takes someone going quite far however before I will accuse them of a purposeful lack of truthfulness. Every other possibility should be exhausted first.
So I will take your bewilderment at face value and conclude that you are, even at this late posting date, very unfamiliar with blog etiquette.
Link to your complete reply to a specific request that you give a general reply to many posts addressed to you and/or your points
Of course not every individual post can be responded to. But when asked a specific question personally addressed to you, or in the middle of a disagreement and someone has clearly taken the trouble to adress your points about said disagreement, they deserve the courtesy of at least one reply, even if it’s a general one if many are disagreeing w/ you, if you are still around. Not to do so, especially when people can clearly see you are still on the thread, is not to acknowledge another’s presence and is therefore very rude.
I suspect this little soapbox lecture of mine is thoroughly unneccesary – several people on this very thread, as well as others, have already told you that ignoring so many people’s posts wasn’t acceptable – but at least you have no possible excuse from now on for such (I will take you at your word – again – and assume inadvertent) rudeness to everyone. But rudeness it is.
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 8/13/2008 @ 3:23 amnoyk – It seems to respond to inflammatory points. Ask it a serious question, and silence ensues.
JD (75f5c3) — 8/13/2008 @ 6:03 am#428 Icy Truth-
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 8/13/2008 @ 6:42 amSo sad that women are way under represented on SCOTUS. Those nasty neocons exacerbated the situation by condemning Bush’s effort to install Harriet Meirers. And why the excess of Italians? Perhaps the Mafia has some influence? I’d have been happy to see, racist that I might be, a black woman in guise of Janice Rogers Brown as an associate justice. Of course the dems would have fought that tooth and nail even though they claim sympathy for minorities. Another oreo doesn’t fit their world view, but it would have been interesting to see what sort of bullshit mr. bork ’em Fatboy Kennedy and Biden could up with in hearings.
I see L.N. Smithee had been deemed against peace… the shame! War-what is it good for? Give peace a chance. Kumbaya. We are all God’s children. Change! Hope! More fresh fruit.
#427,
May I suggest an additional entry to your list of reasons why THE ANNOINTED ONE (TAO) attended Reverend Wright’s Sunday Hate Fests for over 20 years?
TAO, and Ms TAO, were there in the pews for the simple reason they liked the messenger and agreed with the message.
It wasn’t until TAO’s underhanded attempt to blame his own white grandmother for Reverend Wright’s racism blew up in his face that HE did exactly what HE said HE could never do.
The poet is long dead and little read now, so isn’t likely to object to my efforts: (Bonus points for correct identification)
“Write THE ANNOINTED ONE’s words in sand and running water.”
Ropelight (4a83c9) — 8/13/2008 @ 8:20 amCatullus: “What a woman says to her ardent lover should be written in sand and running water” [paraphrase]?
Nice reference BTW.
And JD’s observation at # 433 seems to me to have been proved pretty true, at least so far.
no one you know (1f5ddb) — 8/13/2008 @ 8:34 am#435
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/13/2008 @ 8:41 am“Annoint”? What does that mean? Is that an English word?
Maybe Lovesick is right? From Bloomberg.com: Iowa GOP ex-congressman Jim Leach and ex-Senator RINO Lincoln Chafee support Obama. “I also have no doubt that a lot of Republicans and Independents are going to be attracted to his call for a new era of non-ideological, bi-partisan decision-making.” At last. The Obama we have hoped! for will change! and compromise with Republicans at last?? There is a God! Praise the Lord, pass the loot and pork the ladies.So denial really IS a river in Eygpt??
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 8/13/2008 @ 8:54 am#436
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/13/2008 @ 8:58 amWhy don’t you try asking a question, instead of trying to join issues with everyone on this blog. As you know, I can’t always be available to respond to every comment here. And secondly, I am not under any obligation to answer every commenter on this blog. But I see you as one I can talk with. There are others like that. Concerning your last point about the “bigot” comment, I have already taken it back and directed it to one commenter here who has brazenly displayed behaviour deserving of it.
Thirdly, I am not perfect. I try to be the best I can be and leave the rest to God. Whatever opinion you or anyone here choose to have of me, is none of my concern. I know who and whose I am.
Another bonus question:
Who said, “It’s a shallow man who knows himself.”
noyk, Right on. 2 flashes.
Ropelight (4a83c9) — 8/13/2008 @ 9:23 amlove2008 at ,
Why don’t you try asking a question, instead of trying to join issues with everyone on this blog.
I have asked you several direct questions, asked of you by name, every one of which has been met with silence while you continued to post new things on the same threads, a few of which were in response to questions asked by you to me and to which I took the trouble to politely respond.
But this is not about me. I’m not the only one you consistently ignore, and I’m far from the most ignored one.
As you see from my comment # 436, I understand very well that you can’t respond to every single comment, particularly when there are several people disagreeing with you at once. There are ways to be civil though: “to all you guys saying X, this is what I think.”
But when making a point of ignoring people by addressing another who may not even have asked for it (have seen you “talk” to others through DRJ, whom I know you like, while refusing to respond to any other respectful post), as you do frequently, you shouldn’t be surprised that people think of you as rude.
Thanks for telling me that you see me as a reasonable and civil person. I truly appreciate that. I confess to not being able to return the sentiment just now. This is because every time you chose to pointedly ignore my questions or direct addresses to you, my opinion of you went down a little bit more.
Unfortunately that’s what a lack of civility does to people, and that, my dear love2008, is why you have so many people addressing you disrespectfully right now.
Not because you are a liberal. Because you treated them (including me) disrespectfully first.
Is this reversible? Of course it is. Today’s choices very quickly turn past reputations around. Make a point of always addressing people respectfully (you really don’t now, you know) and stop ignoring them. I guarantee you that sooner than you think, the dissings and names you get called which seem so unfair to you now, WILL stop and people will see you as someone they want to talk to.
/Mom voice off. 🙂
no one you know (1f5ddb) — 8/13/2008 @ 9:31 amWho said, “It’s a shallow man who knows himself.”
Comment by Ropelight — 8/13/2008 @ 9:23 am
LOL – no idea. Bet someone will though.
no one you know (1f5ddb) — 8/13/2008 @ 9:33 amAt this point I have to agree with Max and No one (434, 432).
When you floated back on the thread yesterday morning, responding to JD’s request that you answer a night’s worth of posts, you played dumb with a passive-aggressive answer. In my opinion, that was time to ban you. Obviously this isn’t my blog. But it is my opinion.
You at least should’ve said something to cover the replies and the people who took time to post. You didn’t. You played cute which underscored your need to incite anger and disappear. Or as NOYK wrote, you pop up on the thread and keep posting, but with no response to direct queries. This is unacceptable. Especially when coupled with an arrogant response (“About what, JD?”).
And in other news. Truthfully, I thought you were Muslim. It wasn’t an attack. Last week, you wrote on a previous thread every possible explanation as to your personal faith and belief system. You wrote something to the effect of it doesn’t matter who or what you worship, avoiding any possible inclusion of the G word. I posted what seemed to be obvious: your trying to explain to a hostile crowd. I specifically wrote: what she’s trying to say is she’s Muslim. You never agreed or disagreed. In fact, you just disappeared. I figured you were happy to retire the subject. Your beliefs aren’t my business, but your posts here are.
The reasons Obama is a danger are many. I only look at his actions, statements and proclamations to know a socialist when I see one. Sorry; it’s where my vote’s going and it’s not in the box with the big Zero next to it.
Obama has never been renounced by Muslims and has strong Muslim roots. Personally (and we probably disagree), I feel he got into the Chicago church scene to build up a voting bloc. If the man is a Christian it means about as much to me as if he were Muslim.
For about 30 seconds, way back, I thought hey maybe this guy could be a good candidate. Maybe the catchword has some meaning. Unfortunately some brief googling showed disturbing facts that relate to Obama himself. Christian, Muslim or atheist doesn’t matter. This man is a prop, barely hoisted through the IL Senate and faking his way ever since.
But here’s good news. He still has a solid chance in Nov. More than the anti-Bush vote is the disinterested crowd… the young vote and those who are not educated. He’s all surface slick. It takes some reading and thinking to determine the flaws in his candidacy. If the DNC is lucky, potential voters won’t take the time. (Off topic: the Chicago machine will pad the voting box.)
We’ll see. But as it all rolls out, people who aren’t voting O aren’t racist. That dog won’t fight. He’s merely a prop candidate with an empty political record and disturbing belief system. No matter the religion.
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 8/13/2008 @ 9:42 amI doubt anybody expects you to respond to every comment here, Love, but you seem to just ignore the comments or even the point the other person is making in your response.
For instance: your 396 “And LN Smithee. I perceive you are either a minister or a church worker. I may be wrong. Try to take a more balanced and neutral position on things like this.”
When LN Smithee replies with 430 – Wouldn’t be the first time.
Then you come back with 431 I can see you are not a man of peace. Even when I make effort to show you respect, you continue to act like a snub. You have never said any kind word to me. All you do is to wait for my next comment to pounce on it, even when you know the spirit with which they are made. Sorry for calling you a Christian. Should have known from your behaviour that you are not. Hope your fans are proud of you.
First of, you’re insulting. Secondly, I don’t see any effort by you to show respect. Asking if he’s a church worker or minister? A sign of respect? Huh? Then directly after the question, you tell him to be more “balanced” and “neutral”
Then the whole “sorry for calling you a Christian” which, you never did.
To sum up, how I feel about you, especially knowing that you don’t care, I return your words to you. From you 392.
Spreading lies about a Presidential candidate is not part of responsible and civil debate. I am waiting to see what you will do about this.
and also
You are also a liar and a deceiver.
G (722480) — 8/13/2008 @ 9:43 amlovie – What race are Muslims? Why do you call racism when someone notes that Baracky was born to a Muslim father? And why is it that you are bigoted against Muslims?
JD (5f0e11) — 8/13/2008 @ 9:51 amlove 2008, I’m pretty sure you’re a plant. But I can’t say you’re not ‘representative’ of the large percentage of Obama voters. In that sense, your contributions are worthy.
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 8/13/2008 @ 10:01 amRopelight. Best post ever.
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 8/13/2008 @ 10:09 am***sigh***
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 8/13/2008 @ 10:29 amOkay. ok ok ok ok! If I have shown myself to be rude and arrogant to people on this blog, I apologise. But sometimes we start off as nice, kind people but end up hardened by other people’s behaviour. It is not my intention to be rude or ignore folks. But sometimes when you try to be nice, some people perceive it as being weak and patronizing. I don’t insult people. It’s not my nature but sometimes people just get on your nerves. This apology however does not suggest that I am changing my opinion on some of the points I have made so far. I am entitled to my opinion, after all, as you all are entitled to yours. Until, of course that opinion is proven wrong, beyond all reasonable doubt.
Can we all get along now……
Nobody implied otherwise. You’ve been asked to respond, even in bulk, to posters and specific questions throughout this thread. You have not, and you have not been polite to L.N. or me as just two examples. Still you refuse to play nice with others.
Illuminating.
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 8/13/2008 @ 10:36 amMr Vermont Neighbor,
Thanks, but the credit really belongs to Catullus, he’s the man. I’m only a… well, I’m just not too sure right now. nk, on another thread, doesn’t think much of me just now.
Ropelight (4a83c9) — 8/13/2008 @ 10:39 amComment by love2008 — 8/13/2008 @ 10:29 am
Love2008,
That’s a nice start, and thanks for the civil reply. Of course you’re entitled to your opinions; as VN pointed out, no one said otherwise. As you see from VN’s response, and probably others to come, it will take more than one respectful interaction from you to convince everyone that you mean what you say about intending to be civil from now on, and that’s to be expected. But looks like you’re off to a good start if that’s what you intend.
And….your reply to one or two of the specific questions in the thread, esp the most recent ones, when you have time, might be a good start. 🙂
no one you know (1f5ddb) — 8/13/2008 @ 10:47 amI am still interested in knowing what race a Muslim is.
JD (75f5c3) — 8/13/2008 @ 10:59 amI thought eating fruit was slimming. With so much low-hanging fruit around here, I’m getting fat (ok, fatter).
“If” is a qualification… love2008 can’t do unqualified apologies.
Another qualification. Also, see last point.
I think we’ve shown this is demonstrably a lie. Just my opinion, YMMV.
See last point.
Clearly a lie, not an error.
I submit it’s closer to her true nature than anything else she’s said.
But love2008 gets to define what’s reasonable because certainly she’s right and nearly everyone else here is wrong.
Ok, last point. Did I call it?
Heh.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 8/13/2008 @ 11:06 amWow,
I have been reading this convoluted thread here, convoluted by me and all others commenting.
It started out as a post about a politician who has no chance of becoming president coming out about his affair.
Edwards isn’t the first and probably wont be the last, and that goes for both sides of the aisle. I think we can agree on that right?
We are all intelligent people here are we not?
Shouldn’t we move on?
Oiram (983921) — 8/13/2008 @ 11:18 amThis post is two days old 🙁
Well, I was waiting for a “love2008 is a hypocritical liar and should be called out on every evasion, mischaracterization, and falsehood until she learns to comment responsibly or leaves in shame only to return with another name” post.
Didn’t seem to be coming. 😉
I agree it’s on both sides and will happen again most likely. Beating it to death is possibly instructive to the next politician considering something stupid (unlikely, but hope springs eternal!), fun in it’s own right (and I’ll do it to a conservative idiot just as strongly as to a liberal idiot, if not stronger), and low-calorie. Hanging on this thread really hasn’t kept me from keeping up with comments on other posts, although I don’t often comment on them.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 8/13/2008 @ 12:05 pmThat is a pretty generous and flawed characterization. He came out because the truth finally started getting reported, all he was trying to do was get in front of the story. Though he may not have a chance to be President, he already ran as the Dem VP candidate, and his name is routinely bandied about as a potential Attorney General, Allah save us all.
JD (75f5c3) — 8/13/2008 @ 12:18 pm“Allah Save Us All”????
Are you a Muslim JD???
What race are you?
Do you come from Muslimenia?
Just Kidding 🙂
Peace as always.
Oiram (983921) — 8/13/2008 @ 12:30 pmOiram – I am not a Muslim. My Better Half was born a Buddhist, and I have a few Muslim aunts and uncles by marriage, Iranians. Unlike those caricatures that many on the Left have, this conservative has an incredibly ethnically diverse family, and the religions span from Catholic to Buddhist to Muslim to Episcopal.
JD (75f5c3) — 8/13/2008 @ 12:56 pm#458 JD
I didn’t mean to offend you JD in comment #457. I was just making light of argumentative comments on this post.
Make no mistake about it, the Right has it’s share of caricatures as well. I realize that about my party please be aware it exist in yours as well.
Peace Brother
Oiram (983921) — 8/13/2008 @ 1:40 pm#452
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/13/2008 @ 5:12 pmJD. Islam is not a race. Islam is a belief system. Anyone can be a Muslim. White, Black, Hispanic, Asia. Just like Christianity. It’s not a race. It is a religion.
Oiram – You did not offend me.
lovie – If that is the case, why did you call someone racist for saying that Baracky was born to a Muslim father? Do you pay attention to your own words?
JD (5f0e11) — 8/13/2008 @ 5:49 pm#460
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/13/2008 @ 6:55 pmLets not kid ourselves JD. You know that one of the ways Obama has been attacked during this election year is by spreading lies about his religion. Saying he is a secret, closet Muslim. Yes we know there is nothing wrong with his being a Muslim,if he is, but what is the aim of sowing such lies? Fear. It is the Rovian method of creating an impression of a politician to scare people away from him. If you are paying attention to the general feeling of people about Islam, the word “Islam” and “Muslim” means to some gullible folks, “terrorist”. In this post 9/11 era, that is not a good image for a black Presidential candidate to carry around. Yes we know there are some good Muslims, but we don’t want them leading the free world now. That is why fighting that lie is very important.
Then as far as the “racist” issue goes, the following comment was not made in good faith:
She’s voting for a fellow black Muslim and that’s that. As she says with typical arrogance, get used to it.
First of all, that statement is a mischievous lie. Apart from being completely wrong seeing that I have never indicated my race on this blog.
The key word that comes off as racist in that comment to me is “fellow black Muslim..” It sounds like a mindless unintelligent stereotype borne out of xenophobia. And you know there are many other ways to use the “N” word that does not start with the letter “N”. To keep saying Obama is a Muslim, when you know he is not neither can you prove that he is, tells me that you have other reasons why you detest him and the best way is to cloak it under Islam. It is a sophisticated, veiled form of racism.
I have never said he was a Muslim, lovie. I have said that he was born to a Muslim father. That is beyond dispute. He also attended a Muslim school as a young boy. That is beyond dispute. He is a Christian, in a hatey kind of Church. I like that sophisticated code-word racism bullshit you just tossed out there. Predictable.
JD (5f0e11) — 8/13/2008 @ 7:03 pm#463
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/13/2008 @ 7:36 pmRacist!
(Ducks under a small wooden stool)
See, it is not quite the same coming from you, since that word has been rendered nearly meaningless by it overuse by your side of the aisle.
JD (5f0e11) — 8/13/2008 @ 8:16 pm^ All these things are true. Actually, they’re almost disposable when you look at the laundry list of reasons this man is, in order: duplicitous, arrogant, unworthy insincere and inexperienced. My opinion? YOU BET.
Further, I’ve read that being born of a Muslim parent automatically makes one Muslim. Can’t really tell you more than I’ve read it in several serious discussions. Can’t say it’s true; and don’t know that it’s not. Louis Farrakhan needs to denounce Obama, as Muslims do with wayward apostates.
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 8/13/2008 @ 8:39 pmI agree, and thanks for the mention.
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 8/13/2008 @ 8:41 pm#450 ropelight,
Hopefully both sides will come to a truce! But I would never dare try to speak for the eloquent nk. We all go thru scuffles and kerfuffles, at least I do. It’s the web world.
Just remember what Steve Perry said. Not as great as Catullus, but:
Don’t stop … believin‘ … !
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 8/13/2008 @ 8:48 pm#465
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 8/14/2008 @ 5:11 amI actually meant it as a joke. 🙂
But no one beats you at it, JD. I must say, it comes to you naturally. Thank you for your time.
No problem, bigot.
JD (75f5c3) — 8/14/2008 @ 6:02 am#466
Further, I’ve read that being born of a Muslim parent automatically makes one Muslim.
Yes just as being born of a Christisn family automatically makes one a Christian. But if that child grows and decides not to follow the religion of his parents and chooses instead to become say, a Muslim, will he still be considered a Christian? No.
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/14/2008 @ 6:19 amWhat makes someone a Christian? According to the Bible, we are told that ” That if thou shall confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shall believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” Romans 10:9,10.
So, if Obama chooses to not follow the religion of his parent and instead embraces Christianity by doing what the above scripture has said: Believe in Jesus and Confess Him as Lord, if he has done that, he is a Christian. He is a Believer. So it is wrong to keep saying he is a Muslim because his father was a Muslim. He is now an adult and has reached the age of accountability. Meaning he has a right to choose whom he will worship. And to the best of our knowledge, he has chosen Christ. Just like many Muslim-turned Christians in America and around the world, he is no longer a Muslim but now a believer in Christ. By the way, the Bible refers to everyone who is not a Jew as a Gentile. An outsider of the covenant. But Jesus has broken the wall that divides us and has made one out of many nations and races and creeds and belief systems. Now we are all one in Christ, if we believe in Him and confess Him to the world. “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heir’s according to the promise.” Galatians 3:27-29.
What is my point? No one has the right to tell someone else he or she is not a Christian except God Himself. Because only He knows His own.
As far as we know, Obama confesses and believes in Jesus. Obama attended a Christian church for over twenty years. Yes you may call it a racist, whacky, crazy church. But a church it still is. As long as the gathering is a gathering in the name of Jesus, and He is the center of worship, it is a Church. Matthew 16:20.
Obama has never confessed Islam neither has he ever been sighted praying in a mosque.
There is no evidence to back up any claim that he is a Muslim. Trust me, I have searched and found them to be lies. But as far as I know, judging by the above scriptural test, he is a Christian.
#470
love2008 (0c8c2c) — 8/14/2008 @ 6:37 amJD! “You called me a Bigot? One of us is going to get banned today, I swear it!” Guess who said it. Twenty Points for the right answer.
You are not bigoted against Muslims? They are good people, just not worthy or capable of being President. Go back and read this thread, and when you get to the parts where you start talking about Muslims, replace those words with blacks, Mexicans, Asians, etc … and see if it does not make a little more sense.
You called us all bigots, yet on this thread, the only bigoted statement has come from your fingertips.
JD (75f5c3) — 8/14/2008 @ 6:42 am#473
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/14/2008 @ 7:09 amJD. Come on! I am kidding with you. I was actually trying to sound like someone who kept saying, if I didn’t apologise for calling him a bigot one of us was going to be banned. I asked you to guess who it was. Loosen up. It’s not like you to be edgy. You are JD. In my opinion, the funniest guy I have ever met on this or any other blog. The way you interject that “Racist” comment is just too classic. Yes I know I am a bigot. I don’t deny that. But I was only kidding, again. Maybe I am not very good at it. No harm intended.
I got that, lovie. I will go back to my humorous ways, as my serious side is not amusing you. And we all know I exist to amuse you.
Humorist.
JD (75f5c3) — 8/14/2008 @ 7:20 amlove finds her/himself in the very position that JD IMHO sets up with his deliberate, all-encompassing use of the term “racist”. love attempted to lay the “bigot” label on someone who did not deserve it, but that (claimed) attempt at humor was beyond the parameters of historical performance, so was considered an attack.
Another Drew (249078) — 8/14/2008 @ 7:42 amNow, love attempts to back out, but finds that credibility is an issue.
Welcome to the “Racial Wars”, love.
JD, through his indiscriminate use of the term attempts to discredit its’ use as an avenue of attack. The term carries so much baggage that to falsely accuse someone – in a serious manner – is devastating.
JD’s habit of labeling everything, and everybody, as “racist” is a known quantity, and is discounted as “Well, there goes JD again”.
Like nuclear weapons, “racist” is a weapon that needs to be kept in its’ scabbard until all other weapons have been used to non-effect; but, it has to be used only when appropriate.
Personally, I find that in most discussions, it is more useful (to encourage a meaningful discussion) to accuse someone of bigotry, than racial-prejudice. Bigotry is far more encompassing: I, personally, am highly bigoted when it comes to broccoli (me and GHWB – at least I have some prominent company in this).
Of course, if you’re not serious in your discussions, and all you wish to do is provoke, then…
Go for it!
But, don’t be surprised when the reaction is not something you can deal with (as someone famously said: Don’t bring a knife to a gun-fight).
#476
It is not my intention to sound provocative. But I get your point, AD. Working on it.
And JD,
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/14/2008 @ 8:07 amIronist!
Nobody said that. Put the 20 points in my account.
Then write, “I am a liar.” 500 times on regular typing paper. When you’re done with that, fold it up until it is all sharp corners. Finally, insert where you talk out of.
Repeat until honest commenting becomes a habit.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 8/14/2008 @ 8:13 pmI am a liar! I am a liar! I am a liar! I am a liar!
I am a liar! I am a lia!r I am a liar! I am a liar!
Comment by Stashiu3 — 8/14/2008 @ 8:13 pm
It’s ok Stashiu3. Don’t be so hard on yourself. Even liars like you can be forgiven.
love2008 (1b037c) — 8/15/2008 @ 12:37 pmComment by love2008 — 8/15/2008 @ 12:37 pm
Stashiu3 is correct. No one said what you “quoted.” You can go back in the thread and look up what he did say, if you like.
no one you know (1ebbb1) — 8/15/2008 @ 12:49 pmnoyk,
Just another example of love2008 not commenting in good faith. It wasn’t even an accurate paraphrasing… just another lie. If she had been trying to paraphrase, it would have read, “You called me a bigot and I don’t believe it’s justified. Either provide proof of your slur or apologize. Failure to do one or the other will end up with one of us banned because I won’t let it rest until I’m satisfied or thrown out.”
But love2008 won’t admit which of us is lying. She’s demonstrated over and over how she reacts to being called out on it. The main thing is that now, every time she lies on a thread, I (or anybody who wishes) can link to my comment #478 and then ignore her. That’s all she deserves until she can comment in good faith.
Stashiu3 (460dc1) — 8/15/2008 @ 2:17 pmlove08, please get your infractions down next time. No race baiting allowed.
Vermont Neighbor (a066ed) — 8/15/2008 @ 2:54 pm