Ok just an opnion of a "deginerate bitch"
But if YOU where in office wouldnt you get a finer piece of ass???
After JFK and his bro the "quality" of political mistresses has declined.
It proves he's human. How awful. Who would you rather have, a guy like Clinton who slept around but ran the country well, or a guy like Bush, who (probably) does not cheat on his wife, but has repeatedly lied to his country, and in the process run our country into the ground. When I vote for a person running for public office, I am choosing an elected official. I am not choosing a friend or a spouse. When the moronic media shows as much interest in the lives of men and women that are being sacrificed in Iraq as shows in the sex lives of politicians and celebrities, it will be a great day for our country.
As nice as the "every human has flaws" view is do you think this will serve as ammo from the opposing parties? will the American people realize sexcapades are not relevant?
the other side has so many scandals it wouldn't be too smart to get into that game. I'd rather have a human that makes mistakes and learns from them than a robot that thinks he's always right and is intractable and inflexible.
The Republicans will exploit whatever they can get their hands on. Do they want to talk about the economy? About the biggest foreign policy blunder of the last 40 years? I don't think so. They'd definitely rather talk about sex. Let's be serious. These are the scumbags that ran a certified draft dodger for president, yet had the balls to accuse a guy who volunteered for combat of cowardice. So, yes, for certain, the Republicans will stoop to any level to win. They are the party of the gutter.
The real question is this: Will it work? You know, maybe, just maybe, the American people are tired of taking it up the ass for corporate America. Maybe watching thousands of working class kids get killed for nothing has turned everyone's stomache. Maybe seeing the economy go down the tubes has got Joe six-pack thinking. We'll see. After all, they won the last two elections only by stealing them. We'll see, we'll see.
He is a despicable man. In the campaign he paraded about touting his family values, pimping his heroic support of his wife suffering from cancer, and all the while he knew, and apparently most of the media knew as of about December of last year, that the allegations were true. Yeah, sure, defend him, it's all about those evil Republicans.
Let's go to pragmatic politics. He obviously knew about this, as did his wife and advisors, by his own admission, in 2006, yet he still ran, and was not the third option as the Democratic nominee for president, Barrack hadn't caught fire yet. And in December of 2007, before the first primary ballot had been cast, he, and pretty much all of the press knew of these allegations, yet reported nothing, and he ran, on family values. Change the parties, would the "allegations" have been a non-story?
He is a despicable man. He cheated on his cancer stricken wife, and then ran on his family values, pimping out his support of her as a qualification for the presidency. He is a despicable man, and nothing about his behavior has anything to do with Republicans.
He is a despicable man.
Well at least this is end of him. I got tired of his whining about the poor pretty earlier on, and couldn't wait for him to drop out. Glad this will be the end of him. Givec his overall insignificance, I just hope the press doesn't linger on it forever.
I wouldn't say that what he did was right but I view these types of issues as more personal than an indictment of what their overall contibuton could be or how that impacts their judgement in other areas. The fact is that many on this board are admittedly guilty of the same thing. But to the larger issue of politicians or other senior officals being guilty of the same offenses, if all those who have cheated were run out of government we would have an immediate reduction in the size of government that would be staggering. Both chambers of the congress would probably have difficulty in attaining a quarum. This is not new but goes way back. Every administration and congress from Reagan forward (that's are far back as I can directly speak to) has been rife with this kind of conduct. Most countries take this with a grain of salt unless something occurs to embarass the government or the country as a whole. It's time we all grew up and opened our minds a little and focused on the much larger issues we are faced with rather than sensationalizing sexual behavior.
A man did a despicable thing. If he were your neighbor you wouldn't hesitate to say so. I know I brought up the pragmatics of politics, but I thought it just highlighted his absolute disregard for anyone but himself. I also brought up the hypocrisy since that lately seems the only sin worthy of sanction.
He is a bad man because he cheated on his sick wife, abused the trust of others and lied to the public whose trust he sought. What on earth does that have to do with anyone other than himself?
Well since you asked it does have some larger context. Other people covered for him. So, ask yourself who, why and why you should trust them ever again.
He's most likely off the VP short-list, which is good thing IMO. I voted for Edwards in the 2004 primaries and was very disappointed in his showing then. He should have *roasted* Cheney like the pig that he is, and he blew it! He also couldn't have even gotten back into the Senate if he ran that year either. I like him and his wfie a lot (any gal that will go to Wendy's on their anniversary is OK in my book...lol...), but he's a loser when it comes to electoral politics. He's not running for office anymore though...so it won't hurt the Democratic Party a bit.
So, just to review AN, you think Edwards is despicable right?? I'm not sure if you made that clear enough...lol...
By his own admission, Edwards felt he shouldn't have to answer to anyone for anything he did.
That attitude is fine and well if you're the grand poobah of the local elks lodge, but Edwards ran for the most coveted job in the world. When you are Prez, you have to make life and death decisions. If you feel that you don't have to answer to anyone, that is not the job for you. He should go back to suing drunk drivers and truck drivers (he used to be an injury lawyer).
Like Clinton, he got that:"I'm a rockstar" attitude. When you begin to believe the glowing things people write about you, you're doomed. You begin making regrettable choices. I know njscfan worships Clinton, so this is why I'm about to make this point-when Clinton decided to cheat on his wife, he didn't pick some high profile porn star or actress that men lust after, he chose an impressionable kid on his staff. Granted, she was an adult-but just barely, and clearly not ready for the glare of the spotlight. He's no better than the man who notices the 14 year old down the street without a father, alienated from her mother. Screwing her is like shooting fish in a barrel. The man holds the highest job in the world, and the best he can do is to boink some bippy on his staff, puh-leez.
It is a fact that two thirds of married couples in the US cheat, but we try to pretend it is not so. At least in Europe they're open about it.
I'm old fashioned though. I've never been married, but if I take an oath in front of God and everyone that I will love, honor, and cherish, I will, and not just until some bippy is available, and I can get away with it. If the marriage is no longer working for you, get out. You have no business being married if you require the confidence of more than one woman. If you feel that you do, you should make a lot of money and live in a compound on the Utah/Arizona border.
"I think I made it clear enough I'm not sure people understand."
I didn't understand. The fact that he "cheated" on his wife, ill or healthy, makes him despicable? The fact that he spouts off about family values could be seen as despicable, but I doubt you're anti-family values.
Lying? His is a lawyer for God's sake . . . Oops, I understand, now. ;)
I judge Clinton, Edwards and any other politician by their effectiveness as a politician, not something else. Clinton ran the country well. I could not care less what he was like in his personal life. (By the way, Clinton had sex with a consenting adult. As far as I can tell, she did not regret the encounter. So why is it our business?) I apply the same standards to Republicans by the way. The fact that Guiliani cheated on his wife doesn't bother me. What matters is whether he was or was not effective as mayor.
I think Edwards was an ok politician, although I never voted for him. But he is not diminished in the least in my mind by this. It is irrelevant. And he did not, contrary to AN's comments, run on a "family values" platform. He ran on an economic platform, and a pretty good one at that.
As for tuscl's moralists -- first, the vast majority are guys who are not married (and probably never will be). Respectfully, you don't know shit about marriage, and you should try to be less judgmental about other people's lives. A very large percentage of married people have sex outside marriage. There is a reason for that -- when you get married, your sex drive does not automatically change. Lifelong monogamy is a debatable goal. Given the large percentage of people who cheat, I think un-married people who don't know what they are talking about should tone down their judgmental rhetoric.
There is a small percentage of tuscl moralists who are married. But from what I can see, they are usually very very old guys who no longer have sex with anyone. Your choice to live a celibate life is your choice, but please don't impose it on other people. Some of us have very active and happy sex lives and we intend to continue those lives. If that makes some of the old geezers jealous or frustrated, you know what, tough shit.
Not surprising to me that the denizens of strip clubs are so interested in clucking their tongues about other people's sex lives. I guess it all goes back to being a voyeur.
First post asked if this is a bad reflection on the party. The answer is that's hardly possible. The democrats have been overtaken by such reprehensible people nothing could make them look worse than they already look.
Edwards proved himself a ridiculously counterfeit individual long before this. His brand of law was a new low point in jurisprudence.
This won't hurt the present democrat nominee with his main supporters. They are motivated primarily by one of two things, one of which is hatred of America. (The other of which is hardly a positive motivator; it's mere lack of thinking.)
Personally, I'd rather the President Of The United States of America have strong character. Not perfect, but certainly less than scandalous. More blabber about how the republicans are a gutter party, yeah right, and the Dems are such noble people. Sure, the republicans have a far better propaganda machine but the dems are not voted into office because their message never resonates with the voters. The dems are a scattered party trying to make everybody happy, never taking a hard stance on anything, trying to please all the people all the time. What a joke. At lease Georgie will let you know how he truly feels, like when he supported a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. I would be open to voting for a democrat but none of them is inpiring. They talk in platitudes and their only position on issues seems to be to take the opposite of the republicans. Long live the GOP!!!
I actually agree with much (almost all) of what DickJohnson says about the Democrats. They have been an "all things to all people" party with no clear ideology for a long time. And like Dick says, the Republicans have had a very clear ideology for a long time. Unfortunately, the Republicans ideology is wrong on almost every possible issue, and the last 8 years have inflicted lasting damage on our country. I would love the Democrats to develop a backbone, and I would love to see them be willing to lose elections for the sake of standing up for their beliefs. (To use the example Dick gives, I would love to see the Democrats candidly state that gay people should be allowed to marry.) If the Democrats started taking clear positions, they might lose some elections initially, but in the long run they would develop a winning platform.
But in the meantime, while we are waiting for the Democrats to locate their balls, only a masochist could ask for a continuation of what we've suffered through for the last 8 years. We need to get Obama in the White House, if nothing else, just to stop the damage.
I am not an Edwards fan but I do not care what he does with his private life. I do however, care if he is a LIAR. That is a characteristic I do not want in my president. I am a Libertarian and agree that Bill Clinton did a good job as president. I suspect that the majority of Americans could care less what he did with Miss. Monica, but most of them do care that he LIED about it. I can't remember if Guiliani lied about his affair but I would not approve of that either if he did. All of these guys (including Edwards) have a problem in their personal life that causes them them to take such a risk outside of their marriage. Look how quickly Elliot Spitzer fell from the top. I wish the country could get over its obsession with the personal lives of other people, not just politicians.
You know, it's Christianity in this country that's the real underlying problem. I say a little action on the side in a marriage/relationship is fine, providing the wife/partner agrees to it (she'll probably want the same options for her). That would eliminate the need for lying which is the biggest problem (not for the least reason that it just shows the cheater did not have the balls to state what he really wanted in the first place. Did not trust his partner to be able to deal with it.)
Now that's how it should be. But no politician can take that line, or more reasonable positions on a number of issues, because of the friggin' power Christians still have. Not until we get beyond that will things start to get better.
It's the old double standard - when an R does something like this he is condemned as the phony that he is by everyone including members of his own party, but when a D does it we're all supposed to forgive and forget. Bullshit. The man has proven that he has no morals, ethics or character. AN is right.
No one is completely honest all the time. Anyone who pretends to be 100% honest is the biggest liar of them all. There's no reason we should hold politicians to a higher standard than we hold ourselves. The idea that a politician should be more or less likely to lie than any other normal human being is silly.
I do care, however, when politicians lie about matters that affect the public welfare. When Larry Craig lies about being gay, I don't care. When Bill Clinton lies to Hillary, I don't care. But when Bush lies about WMDs, then I care very much, because his lies cost actual lives. This strikes me as one of the clearest distinctions in the world.
As far as this having anything to do with Christianity, I don't think so. I seem to recall that it was Jesus Christ who pointed out to a mob that was about to stone to death a woman who was a prostitute, that the person without sin ought to throw the first stone. That strikes me as a rather excellent argument for being a little less judgmental about other people, and I am not sure I have ever heard the point better made. Genuine Christianity ought to have something to do with being charitable and understanding, and ought to have nothing to do with being a self-righteous judgmental prig.
Bobbyl, you are on the edge of being correct but not quit there. It's not Christianty that's at fault although it is a mechanism. If you consider that some of the nations of the world, particulary the Hispanic countries, Italian and in fact many of the European nations are more heavily Christion than the U.S. It has more to due with radicalism within any religion. Our forefathers were in truth radical and we as a people have not had the time to completely get beyong that as is the case in some countries. One notable exception would be the fundamentalist Islamic cultures where that radicalism and subsequent lack of tolerance for anything sexual supresses sexual tolerenc in the extreme. In the other christian nations there is far more tolerence and acceptance in sexual matters.
Really, FONDL, John Edwards has absolutely no morals, no ethics and no character? None whatsoever? You've never met the guy, but if one of children walked up to you right now, you'd have no problem telling them, "you're father is a man utterly without morals, ethics or character." How can you even write something so asinine? You're so fucking perfect, I guess you've never done anything wrong in your whole life, right? You've never lied? You've never done anything immoral? You're perfect, and you feel comfortable passing absolute moral judgment on another man you've never met, and a man who has done an abundance of good with his life. (And, by the way, his wife has obviously forgiven him, but she must be crazy, and you must be 100% right.)
And all this is coming from some old pervert who visits strip clubs. Give me a fucking break. FONDL, if you're so pristine, why don't you post your real name and address, so we can subject YOUR life to public scrutiny? If you're the one without sin, why are you posting under a false name?
clubman: Well one might be tempted to say it's literalism. However, I think the literalists are often right about what the bible say one a number of issues: abortion, extra-marital affairs, evolution. So it's really Christianity itself that's the underlying problem on so many issues. If the other countries take softer lines and are better because of it, I say it's because they are less "literal" = less Christian. Just because some nominally say they are Christian does not make them actually so.
Heck, I don't think Christianity is even compatible with real world politics. Would Jesus support the bombing of anyone? But sometimes it needs to be done.
Bobbyl: I fear that the Roman Catholic Chruch which is the dominant religion in the vast majority of the countries I eluded to, would take umbridge at your ascertain that they were less christian. The fact is that the percentage of "practicing" christians in these countries is signifiacantly hiher than here. It is the people that make the judgements that matter and in the U.S. it is more a function of the loudest voices. Unfortunatley the most vocal of these is the "moral majority" only they are a minority and with their own share of scandals. Again, I'm not saying that I approve of his actions, what I'm saying is that our obsession with this is ridiculous as with most things even remotely related to sex.
"you're father is a man utterly without morals, ethics or character."
I don't even think I could say that about President Bush. I guess I could say that he is filth and that Bin Laden and friends greatly appreciate him. Is that good enough? :)
Anyone who is running for the highest office in the US should be held to a higher standard than an ordinary scumbag cheating on his wife who happens to be dying of cancer. Seeking sympathy from voters in the meantime is just despicable. Those actions speak a lot louder than words about what kind of character you have. Supporting people like this speaks only about your own character. Despicable. Only out for themselves and what they can get for themselves. This is a major reason why I think this country may be headed towards hell in a handbag. I think we still have about 47 years left before most human life on this planet is destroyed so go ahead and live it up.
Hey, he is just being considerate of his dying wife. Why bother her for a nooner or boner when you can have a 18 year stripper taking care of your MANLY needs for a couple of Franklins. Franklin did support "cheating," did he not? :) If not, then he supported that which is far more despicable----sleeping with disgusting dames.
I for one don't want the President of the U.S. to be dickless or balless or sexless merely because he's got a ball and chain. Hey even prisoners get dessert now and again. Perhaps if these nut job politicians were getting better quality sex from hot strippers, then there be fewer wars and other true evils. It oughta be made like France, a mandate that leaders have at least one hottie if married and preferable more.
Anyone who dares disagree with this important message is despicable and dumb and drab! :)
New law, mandatory concubines for president of the US. Cheating on your wife while running for office and trying to get sympathy because your wife is dying of cancer, despicable. Everyone has their standards. Clinton just smiled and said he didn't have sexual relations. I respect liars a lot more than those who lie and try to get our sympathy at the same time.
On the other hand just think if Edwards had been Hillary Clintons's VP? She'd kick him out faster than you can spit. People would start questioning her decision making ability. Then Mr. Clinton would speak and blow it off. He might just say Mr. Edwards was going thru some hard times.
Give me a break Dudester...as if Monica didn't know what she was getting into in the first place. These two people were adults, and you don't show your thong panties to the President of the USA if you're not his wife...or unless you *are* the President of the USA...lol...
"They are motivated primarily by one of two things, one of which is hatred of America. (The other of which is hardly a positive motivator; it's mere lack of thinking.)"
I want you to hold onto that line of thought "how" like it's your best girl...squeeze it tight and never let it go, because by thinking that way you & your kind will likely never been in power again in our lifetimes...and that (as Martha Stewart would say) is a good thing...
"I would love to see the Democrats candidly state that gay people should be allowed to marry."
See, the thing is...gay marriage will be the law of the land soon enough. The ball is rolling faster & faster now in that direction, and it's just a matter of time...no matter what any politician says. Look at what's happened in states that have allowed gay marriage or civil unions...they get a slight increase in tourism (people coming to get hitched for the weekend) and nothing else "bad" happens.
"It's the old double standard - when an R does something like this he is condemned as the phony that he is by everyone including members of his own party, but when a D does it we're all supposed to forgive and forget."
Yet more nonsense from another old fool...
"I seem to recall that it was Jesus Christ who pointed out to a mob that was about to stone to death a woman who was a prostitute, that the person without sin ought to throw the first stone."
The problem is...that's not the type of "Christianity" that a lot of people practice in this country.
"I think the literalists are often right about what the bible say one a number of issues: abortion, extra-marital affairs, evolution."
Please, where does the fucking Bible say anything about abortion or evolution?? Give me break you idiot...
"47 years" huh?? Not 46 or 48?? Unbelievable...
Edwards never really had much of a chance of being anyone's VP I suspect...even before this recent nonsense...
bobbyL states, "christianity is the real underlying problem" LMAO at that one. Thats just so he doesn't feel the guilt due to his lack of moral conscience. Also Njscfan says the republicans are wrong ideologically. Hmm. I became a republican after I looked around and noticed I was being taxed on my income, my properties, sales tax whenever i purchase anything(10% here), i paid an inheritance tax once(nearly 50%), etc...In the area I live in there is now an proposal to tax bottled water, dems in congress would like to impose a stupid carbon tax, I have a dumb-ass tollway tax every time I drive on the exprway(which btw was supposed to be temporary), we all pay state/federal taxes with every gallon of gas we buy, which btw, is on a percentage basis greater than the oil industry's profit margin right now. I am not a rich man but I like to keep my money, or spend it how I choose, not giving the FRIGGIN gov't nearly one-third of it. We live in a fuckin business society not some overtaxed nanny state. Thats why I vote republican, because as an aphorism they want you to keep more of your money not to give it to some reditributing democrat!!!ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!!!!! BTW these are only a few examples I can think of right now regarding taxes. I'm sure we can all come up with some more!!!!!!!!!
I think you're living in the past, Dick.
The Republicans, far from being a capitalist/business part are just as nanny state as the Dems. Might have been time when the Repubs were more capitalistic, but that is ancient history now.
George Bush ever turn down money to anyone? Heck, with a $500 billion deficit and a $9 trillion debt, what's another billion, or even tens of billions here and there?
Oh well. The American public lives in a completely solipistic non-reality were there is no consequence to any of their actions (witness the credit collapse. Hmmm... If you borrow money you are going to have to repay it... duh!)
Only a few more decades of American dominance and then China and India will be the real players at this rate.
true..the republicans have seriously lost their way..but I count on them to find their way back to whats best for the country long b4 the dems. Oh, btw, I remember reading recently some moron politician, either R or D, floating some dumb-ass idea for a sin tax placed on strip club patrons. the money would go to rape crisis centers or something like that. ABSURD!!!!
"the republicans have seriously lost their way"
I've heard more than a few Republicans state that President Bush will be vindicated by history. That means more government higher taxes and or issuing more money; also, mandates, licenses, et al for businesses which translates into higher costs and or less variety.
"If you borrow money you are going to have to repay it... duh!"
Maybe or maybe not. Also, you are going to have to repay it with what? (e.g. a 1970 dollar wasn't the same as 1974 dollar) An execellent book that I'd highly recommend to anyone is "Invest in Debt," by Jim Napier (it is about investing in second mortgages) and he was very cognizant about paying or receiving "cheaper" dollars.
[view link]
"The man has proven that he has no morals, ethics or character."
He "cheated" meaning he showed that he wasn't merely another castrated American male; at least when it comes to getting a little honey.
He sought sympathy, if true, what is wrong with that? Sometimes during hard times it is nice to hear kind words or wishes of support from other people.
He continues to seek political office. And, what is wrong with that? His wife may very well have been living vicariously thru his successes. She might have wanted to see him as the successful Alpha male even moreso than he wanted it.
He had congress with a woman while his wife was sick with cancer. So what? That somehow means he loves his wife any less and besides we don't know what understanding he actually had with her aside from the ongoing public show.
He may have been a low-life stinking-scumbag----oops, I keep forgetting he's a lawyer: That is like a licensing reguirement so blame the government. But, remember lawyers are the ones protecting all our supposed freedoms! LOL! To the flag wavers who think they have a bunch of rights and freedoms, they ought to be on their hands and knees kissing the wonderful lawyers' feet.
43 comments