I tried to link to my brother-in-law's blog, to stay within the tradition here for citing sources on the P&R board, but I could only find this NY Times link. Sorry.
Looks like old Edwards may face campaign finance corruption charges. Too bad; so sad. Because while he was barebacking some chick nicknamed Bunny, to the point of pregnancy, and then she refused to have the abortion he wanted, I couldn't decide if that jumped the shark for me, or if the fact he did it while his wife was dying of cancer. Another caring Democrat bites the dust.
I blame George W Bush. Don't you?
Looks like old Edwards may face campaign finance corruption charges. Too bad; so sad. Because while he was barebacking some chick nicknamed Bunny, to the point of pregnancy, and then she refused to have the abortion he wanted, I couldn't decide if that jumped the shark for me, or if the fact he did it while his wife was dying of cancer. Another caring Democrat bites the dust.
I blame George W Bush. Don't you?
Rachel Lambert Mellon Bunny
Born August 9, 1910 (1910-08-09) (age 100)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Lambert_Mellon
for young bimbos. Both politicians are pieces of shit. Hardly an epiphany in this thread. The point ?
I am not justifying what Edwards did. I know his wife was sick, blah, blah, blah. And I am a conservative GOP who does not like him
BUT, this Scarlet Letter damnation of him is beyond me. I heard moderate and liberal talk shows talking about his as if he were the worst thing since DDT.
He had sex. He was weak of the flesh. He gave into temptation. It isn't admirable, but it ain't that horrific.
Sometimes I think that society is more puritanical than it was 40 years ago. Every one knew JFK was screwing around, but he wasn't treated like a pariah.
While we allow hard core porn and all sorts of slutty behavior in our 14-year old girls and boys, if an adult does waht Edwards did he is slime.
Hey. It ain't that bad. As I say, not admirable, but it isn't the end of the world.
Looks like old Edwards may face campaign finance corruption charges. Too bad; so sad. Because while he was barebacking some chick nicknamed Bunny, to the point of pregnancy, and then she refused to have the abortion he wanted, I couldn't decide if that jumped the shark for me, or if the fact he did it while his wife was dying of cancer. Another caring Democrat bites the dust.
I blame George W Bush. Don't you?
They seem a lot more relevent in whether John Edwards truly deserves our disdain. Sorry but judging politicians on how they treat there cancer ridden wives is not a priority to me, anymore than I judge the lying cheating whore mongers that frequent this board.
What I do find amusing is how many of the partisan type posters here manage to overlook the same trangressions when "their guy" does it, but want to hang the other guy for the same sin in his personal life. At least Pri, you and me seem to be above that type of thing. or at least we "seem" to be. lol I have to confess, it's hard not to bash someone you can't stand with whatever sins he has committed, even if "your guy" has committed the same sin.
That is another layer. But still, a politican who siphonse small change isn't as horrific as the level of contempt that has been heaped upon him.
As I said, nothing he did is good or praise worthy. But the level of attack seems way beyond his transgressions.
GA - I would like to claim a little non-partisan credit. I am not bashing the other guy. Rather, I came to a rather strong defense of someone I personally dislike and disagree with. But I clearly was not in the "hang-em-high" crowd. (I have more contempt for him as a eco-promoter who lives a lavish life with a huge carbon foot print than I do for his other flaws.)
What I do find amusing is how many of the partisan type posters here manage to overlook the same trangressions when "their guy" does it, but want to hang the other guy for the same sin in his personal life. At least Pri, you and me seem to be above that type of thing. or at least we "seem" to be. lol I have to confess, it's hard not to bash someone you can't stand with whatever sins he has committed, even if "your guy" has committed the same sin.
But apart from his "transgressions" of attempted infanticide, dead wife and corruption — he seems like a real nice, caring guy. The kind of guy you would want to have a wine cooler with.
As I said, nothing he did is good or praise worthy. But the level of attack seems way beyond his transgressions.
GA - I would like to claim a little non-partisan credit. I am not bashing the other guy. Rather, I came to a rather strong defense of someone I personally dislike and disagree with. But I clearly was not in the "hang-em-high" crowd. (I have more contempt for him as a eco-promoter who lives a lavish life with a huge carbon foot print than I do for his other flaws.)
What I do find amusing is how many of the partisan type posters here manage to overlook the same trangressions when "their guy" does it, but want to hang the other guy for the same sin in his personal life. At least Pri, you and me seem to be above that type of thing. or at least we "seem" to be. lol I have to confess, it's hard not to bash someone you can't stand with whatever sins he has committed, even if "your guy" has committed the same sin.
When I stated "Pri, you and me" You are the "you" I was referring to, and I was giving you props in that regard.
I too find John Edwards loathesome, but not for what he has done to his wife, that's a personal issue and is quite frankly none of my business. You also won't find me trying to bash Clinton for a blowjob, Tiger for his affairs, or even Charlie Sheen for, well you name it with Charlie Sheen. lol There is a lot to despise about John Edwards without bringing up his personal life. I do find it ironice when people bash John Edwards, yet defend Newt Gingrich, or vice versa. People sometimes are completely blind to their own hypocrisy.
Sorry. I have the bad habit of reading too fast. And talking too fast.
I agree with the three you mentioned, although I disliked Clinton for other reasons. Sexual harassment suits were the brainchild of the left. Before Clinton, I remember one of the NOW bigwigs say that office sex between people of unequal position was the same as rape. Yeah, stupid, but she said it. Then The Pres boffs an intern and it was not such a big deal. Finally, he commits perjury in the sexual harrasment investigation.
My dislike for Bill was not that he had sex with that woman, but that the left suddenly forgot its stance against workplace sex and tolerated the perversion of the law suit they created.
Then only thing I have against Tiger is I want his money and he won't give it to me.
I too find John Edwards loathesome, but not for what he has done to his wife, that's a personal issue and is quite frankly none of my business. You also won't find me trying to bash Clinton for a blowjob, Tiger for his affairs, or even Charlie Sheen for, well you name it with Charlie Sheen. lol There is a lot to despise about John Edwards without bringing up his personal life. I do find it ironice when people bash John Edwards, yet defend Newt Gingrich, or vice versa. People sometimes are completely blind to their own hypocrisy.
Edwards is such a fucking dipshit. I don't know the details of these campaign finances charges, but if he broke the law then he should be prosecuted.
-- Modified on 3/2/2011 3:10:29 AM
Comparitively speaking Newt is more honest about being a SOB.
Looks like old Edwards may face campaign finance corruption charges. Too bad; so sad. Because while he was barebacking some chick nicknamed Bunny, to the point of pregnancy, and then she refused to have the abortion he wanted, I couldn't decide if that jumped the shark for me, or if the fact he did it while his wife was dying of cancer. Another caring Democrat bites the dust.
I blame George W Bush. Don't you?
So he'd be more honest about being a hypocrite too. 
committing perjury, not for cheating on his wife. He lied under oath in his deposition to a federal court judge in Arkansas, concerning the Paula Jones investigation. Most people go to jail for perjury. Guess a sitting president is exempt from that, huh.
I don't care to relive the Monica sucky sucky debate, but you know as well as I do, that he was impeached for committing perjury when asked about cheating on his wife. It was a nothing more than a perjury trap, and we all know it. Not that Clinton shouldn't have been impeached, he did plenty to warrant it, but that was beyond the pale.
-- Modified on 3/2/2011 1:13:11 PM
Ah, what does Monica Lewinski have to do with the Paula Jones case? Your time line is a little off.
...In fact, to the best of my recollection, the Lewinsky case was part of the Jones case and Slick Willy's perjury was not directly related to Jones but to whether he had sex with Monica. That's why her jizz-stained dress was a key piece of evidence and why the loathesome Linda Tripp was involved. It was Trip who told Monica to hold onto the dress. When the DNA test proved it had Willie's splooge on it, the impeachment gang was off to the races.
inicky46, yeah, I think you are right, but there were initially two impeachment charges. One was for perjury, and the other was for obstruction of justice. Each involved Paula Jones, but the first involved Lewinsky. In addition, there were two minor charges that were dropped, as was the obstruction of justice charge. I still believe Clinton should have gone to jail, like any private citizen would have, for perjury, sitting president or not. Scooter Libby certainly did.
...because Bush commuted his sentence before he'd served a single day in jail. There's also a HUGE difference between what Clinton did and what Libby did. Clinton lied about a sexual act. Libby leaked info that:
1) destroyed the career of a dedicated CIA officer
2) ruined many active CIA clandestine operations relating to WMDs
3) cost the lives of people overseas who were assisting the CIA in efforts to find WMDs.
If you can conflate the two, well, don't expect me to agree.
-- Modified on 3/4/2011 12:57:04 PM
Sorry, but Libby did no such thing. You are correct in saying he was not incarcerated by the commutation of his sentence by GWB before he was to be jailed. However, his 2 year probation, $250,000 fine, 400 hours of community service, and his disbarment did take effect. Your items 1,2,and 3 are misinformation at best. Richard Armitage is the self admitted individual that 'outed' Valerie Plame, not Libby. Libby was convicted of perjury, in which he lied to the FBI, under oath, during the investigation. In fact, one of the three individuals in Clinton's Justice Department that wrote the law concerning the outing and punishment for that, Jamie Goerlick, testified that the outing law did, in fact, not apply to Plame, as she was an analyst riding a desk in Langley. She was not a field covert operative, and had not been so for over the 7 previous years. Items 2 and 3, I can find nothing to verify your statements. Please advise.
Well, your statement was that Libby went to jail so I was simply responding to that. I'm not suggesting he didn't suffer as a result of the trial but he certainly spent no time in jail. As for the rest, while it's true Armitage did the actual "outing" Libby, as Cheney's chief of staff, orchestrated the whole thing, so to pretend he was innocent of all but lying is silly. And, yes, I know that at the point she was "outed" Plame was riding a desk. But the other facts are correct. You can read them in her book and no one has seriously disputed their veracity.
Look, this is a very uncomfortable incident for dyed-in-the-wool Republicans because:
1) Joe Wilson was a diplomat who'd served Bush Sr., so this pitted one Republican against another.
2) It was more important to Cheney to send a message that all opposition to the Iraq policy would be brutally squashed than it was to consider the impact of outing Plame. It's ironic, then, that the fallout was damage to our national security and the hunt for WMDs (real ones, not the mythical ones in Iraq), which was why they dragged us into Iraq to begin with.
That doesn't make him different. Again, comparitively speaking, he's more honest than Edwards and Clinton combined.
Newt is the scum that raises to the top. Clinton and Edwards are turds that don't even float.
Both men fail at family values (don't we all). Edwards also fails at feeling your pain, to use a Clintlesque lie.
-- Modified on 3/2/2011 10:49:25 AM
and particularly so since he and his Republican buddies tried to ram "Family Values" down every one's throats.
Their agenda of non-family values or change or whatever the new lie is.