| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Kurt Nicklas" |
| Date: |
04 Jun 2007 11:55:31 AM |
| Object: |
!Yet Another Hilarious Post About The Breck Girl |
John Edwards: 21st Century Marie Antoinette
Special to FreeRepublic ^ | 3 June 2007 | John Armor (Congressman
Billybob)
Posted on 06/03/2007 7:28:35 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob
This is my first complete column about John Edwards. I hope it'll also
be the last. The bottom line for us in North Carolina is quite clear.
Edwards didn't run for reelection to the Senate because if he had, he
would have lost.
That ought to tell folks elsewhere in the nation something useful. Why
should anyone take him seriously for President, or even Vice
President, when those who know him best - in his own state - don't
take him seriously as a mere Senator?
Plus there are more immediate defects in the Edwards campaign this
time around. He has violated the late-night Comedy Rule. Any candidate
who has done enough ludicrous things that the late-night comedians get
larger laughs about them than about the current President, is
electronic road kill.
Let's review Edwards' recent personal disasters. But first, let's
review the history of Marie Antoinette. She never said, "Let them eat
cake." She said, "Let them eat brioche," which is actually practical
and not really insulting. Yet the Queen had a reputation for being a
wastrel with no sympathy for common folk.
The primary reason she was beheaded was not so much anything that she
said or did, but who she married. King Louis XVI earned his beheading;
his wife largely inherited hers. Not that I am suggesting John Edwards
has earned beheading. The last American to face that fate from a
government was Tom Paine. As a member of the French Assembly, he
earned a decree of execution from Robespierre for urging mercy for the
King and Queen of France. But I digress.
Let's review what Edwards has done. He built the largest house in
Orange County, North Carolina, with enough space for ten normal
families in it's 28,000 square feet. But that was before this year.
The recent events get worse.
We'll go from the ridiculous to the sublime. A $400 haircut is
ridiculous. And what was his excuse? He didn't arrange it, and he
didn't know how much it would cost.
Hey, when I walk into any establishment, I have a serious clue about
the prices to be charged. A Mercedes dealership not only looks
different from a Ford dealership. It even smells different. And
there's a lot less difference between those two cars, than between an
honest-to-God haircut and the $400 "do" that Edwards got.
The bigger items are these: Edwards took a half-million dollar part-
time job for a New York hedge fund which engaged in subprime
mortgages. In the meantime, he gives speeches decrying predatory
lending practices. As for why he took that job, he said he wanted to
"learn about poverty." The jokes just wrote themselves.
It's hard to say what's the worst mistake Edwards made. The latest one
to be revealed is in the running for top of the line, or bottom of the
line, depending on how you look at it. He gave a speech at U Cal. at
Davis on "Poverty, the Great Moral Issue Facing America." He got
$55,000 for that speech. Students were charged $17 a ticket to hear
his words of wisdom.
Lastly, Edwards created a "charity" to deal with "issues concerning
poverty." But, according to Business Week magazine, it spent 70% of
its money on travel for Edwards and salaries for staffers who, in
short order, joined Edwards' new campaign.
In short, Edwards has one of the most pronounced tin ears for
political reality in modern America. And no one should take this self-
promoting fool seriously, given his proven incapacity.
I've read the polls. I know that Edwards might win in Iowa or New
Hampshire, which are his targets for trying to keep his sad candidacy
alive for another day. If that strategy works, I won't see any reason
to write about Edwards again. He should be dead and buried,
politically, after the ad hoc national primary on 5 February. And if
the ultimate Democratic nominee has the good sense to choose anyone
other than Edwards for Veep, Edwards will cease to exist as a
politician.
What about the people who are foolish enough to vote for Edwards in
his targeted states? Well, the simple truth is that some voters, some
times, are dumber than road lizards. Think about it; aren't those the
kind of voters that a candidate like Edwards deserves? Let's just hope
there aren't too many of them.
About the Author: John Armor practiced in the US Supreme Court for 33
years. He lives in the 11th District of North
Carolina.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1844298/posts
.
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: !Yet Another Hilarious Post About The Breck Girl |
06 Jun 2007 11:45:27 PM |
|
|
"Kurt Nicklas" <nicklask@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1180976131.492044.55000@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
We'll go from the ridiculous to the sublime. A $400 haircut is
ridiculous. And what was his excuse? He didn't arrange it, and he
didn't know how much it would cost.
Are you jealous that Edwards is rich enough to afford an "if you have to
ask, you can't afford it" haircut?
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: !Yet Another Forgettable Post from the Freepers |
04 Jun 2007 12:52:23 PM |
|
|
"Kurt Nicklas" <nicklask@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1180976131.492044.55000@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
John Edwards: 21st Century Marie Antoinette
Special to FreeRepublic
Free Republic???
'nuff said.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: !Yet Another Hilarious Post About The Breck Girl |
04 Jun 2007 01:12:18 PM |
|
|
Kurt Nicklas wrote:
John Edwards: 21st Century Marie Antoinette
Posted on 06/03/2007 7:28:35 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob
This is my first complete column about John Edwards. I hope it'll also
be the last.
Heartfelt agreement.
The bottom line for us in North Carolina is quite clear.
Edwards didn't run for reelection to the Senate because if he had, he
would have lost.
Wishful thinking.
That ought to tell folks elsewhere in the nation something useful. Why
should anyone take him seriously for President, or even Vice
President, when those who know him best - in his own state - don't
take him seriously as a mere Senator?
Here's what people should say: What the ***** do we care about your opinion?
That's all that this is.
Plus there are more immediate defects in the Edwards campaign this
time around. He has violated the late-night Comedy Rule. Any candidate
who has done enough ludicrous things that the late-night comedians get
larger laughs about them than about the current President, is
electronic road kill.
It didn't hurt Bush in '00.
Let's review Edwards' recent personal disasters. But first, let's
review the history of Marie Antoinette. She never said, "Let them eat
cake." She said, "Let them eat brioche," which is actually practical
and not really insulting. Yet the Queen had a reputation for being a
wastrel with no sympathy for common folk.
Actually, the line is apocryphal. There is no evidence she said it. The line
was coined by Jean-Jacques Rousseau in 1766 when M-A was just 10 and well
before she ascended to the throne of France.
The primary reason she was beheaded was not so much anything that she
said or did, but who she married. King Louis XVI earned his beheading;
his wife largely inherited hers. Not that I am suggesting John Edwards
has earned beheading. The last American to face that fate from a
government was Tom Paine. As a member of the French Assembly, he
earned a decree of execution from Robespierre for urging mercy for the
King and Queen of France. But I digress.
This whole screed has been one big digression.
Let's review what Edwards has done. He built the largest house in
Orange County, North Carolina, with enough space for ten normal
families in it's 28,000 square feet. But that was before this year.
The recent events get worse.
Ad hom.
We'll go from the ridiculous to the sublime. A $400 haircut is
ridiculous. And what was his excuse? He didn't arrange it, and he
didn't know how much it would cost.
Hey, when I walk into any establishment, I have a serious clue about
the prices to be charged. A Mercedes dealership not only looks
different from a Ford dealership. It even smells different. And
there's a lot less difference between those two cars, than between an
honest-to-God haircut and the $400 "do" that Edwards got.
Yeah...big deal. If this is the sin you're leading off with then he's better
off than any Republican candidate. And seriously, has anyone heard of a $400
haircut? I mean, I can see $100, but $400 is ridiculous.
The bigger items are these: Edwards took a half-million dollar part-
time job for a New York hedge fund which engaged in subprime
mortgages. In the meantime, he gives speeches decrying predatory
lending practices. As for why he took that job, he said he wanted to
"learn about poverty." The jokes just wrote themselves.
Most of what he made from Fortress was from investments. Very little was
salary.
It's hard to say what's the worst mistake Edwards made. The latest one
to be revealed is in the running for top of the line, or bottom of the
line, depending on how you look at it. He gave a speech at U Cal. at
Davis on "Poverty, the Great Moral Issue Facing America." He got
$55,000 for that speech. Students were charged $17 a ticket to hear
his words of wisdom.
Are students poor? What's your point? Edwards didn't make $17 a head, UC
Davis did to cover his speaking fees. That $55k was the most he earned
speaking in the past 12 months.
Why is it that conservatives can build enormous houses and charge
exhorbitant speaking fees but no one calls them on it. Giuliani regularly
commands $100k. Last year at Oklahoma State University, Giuliani requested
and received travel on a private jet that cost the school $47k on top of the
speaking fee. Giuliani has earned $9.2 million in speaking fees since 2006.
The moral of the story is: IOKIYAR
Lastly, Edwards created a "charity" to deal with "issues concerning
poverty." But, according to Business Week magazine, it spent 70% of
its money on travel for Edwards and salaries for staffers who, in
short order, joined Edwards' new campaign.
I haven't seen this at all but it doesn't surprise me. It often takes years
for a charity to get to the point where less than half of its revenues are
eaten by operational costs.
In short, Edwards has one of the most pronounced tin ears for
political reality in modern America. And no one should take this self-
promoting fool seriously, given his proven incapacity.
And, like, that's just your opinion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate" |
|
| Title: Re: !Yet Another Hilarious Post About The Breck Girl |
04 Jun 2007 06:00:45 PM |
|
|
On Jun 4, 11:12 am, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
Kurt Nicklas wrote:
John Edwards: 21st Century Marie Antoinette
Posted on 06/03/2007 7:28:35 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob
This is my first complete column about John Edwards. I hope it'll also
be the last.
Heartfelt agreement.
The bottom line for us in North Carolina is quite clear.
Edwards didn't run for reelection to the Senate because if he had, he
would have lost.
Wishful thinking.
That ought to tell folks elsewhere in the nation something useful. Why
should anyone take him seriously for President, or even Vice
President, when those who know him best - in his own state - don't
take him seriously as a mere Senator?
Here's what people should say: What the ***** do we care about your opinion?
That's all that this is.
Plus there are more immediate defects in the Edwards campaign this
time around. He has violated the late-night Comedy Rule. Any candidate
who has done enough ludicrous things that the late-night comedians get
larger laughs about them than about the current President, is
electronic road kill.
It didn't hurt Bush in '00.
Let's review Edwards' recent personal disasters. But first, let's
review the history of Marie Antoinette. She never said, "Let them eat
cake." She said, "Let them eat brioche," which is actually practical
and not really insulting. Yet the Queen had a reputation for being a
wastrel with no sympathy for common folk.
Actually, the line is apocryphal. There is no evidence she said it. The line
was coined by Jean-Jacques Rousseau in 1766 when M-A was just 10 and well
before she ascended to the throne of France.
The primary reason she was beheaded was not so much anything that she
said or did, but who she married. King Louis XVI earned his beheading;
his wife largely inherited hers. Not that I am suggesting John Edwards
has earned beheading. The last American to face that fate from a
government was Tom Paine. As a member of the French Assembly, he
earned a decree of execution from Robespierre for urging mercy for the
King and Queen of France. But I digress.
This whole screed has been one big digression.
Let's review what Edwards has done. He built the largest house in
Orange County, North Carolina, with enough space for ten normal
families in it's 28,000 square feet. But that was before this year.
The recent events get worse.
Ad hom.
We'll go from the ridiculous to the sublime. A $400 haircut is
ridiculous. And what was his excuse? He didn't arrange it, and he
didn't know how much it would cost.
Hey, when I walk into any establishment, I have a serious clue about
the prices to be charged. A Mercedes dealership not only looks
different from a Ford dealership. It even smells different. And
there's a lot less difference between those two cars, than between an
honest-to-God haircut and the $400 "do" that Edwards got.
Yeah...big deal. If this is the sin you're leading off with then he's better
off than any Republican candidate. And seriously, has anyone heard of a $400
haircut? I mean, I can see $100, but $400 is ridiculous.
What I recall is that the person came to Edwards to give him the
haircut. I think it was given on a plane trip. I don't think you will
get most any barber to travel out of town for even a hundred.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kurt Nicklas" |
|
| Title: Re: !Yet Another Hilarious Post About The Breck Girl |
04 Jun 2007 06:36:35 PM |
|
|
On Jun 4, 2:12 pm, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
Kurt Nicklas wrote:
John Edwards: 21st Century Marie Antoinette
Posted on 06/03/2007 7:28:35 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob
This is my first complete column about John Edwards. I hope it'll also
be the last.
Heartfelt agreement.
I expect it will be so you both will be pleased.
The bottom line for us in North Carolina is quite clear.
Edwards didn't run for reelection to the Senate because if he had, he
would have lost.
Wishful thinking.
Absolutely true.
That ought to tell folks elsewhere in the nation something useful. Why
should anyone take him seriously for President, or even Vice
President, when those who know him best - in his own state - don't
take him seriously as a mere Senator?
Here's what people should say: What the ***** do we care about your opinion?
That's all that this is.
I say that about yours all the time.
Plus there are more immediate defects in the Edwards campaign this
time around. He has violated the late-night Comedy Rule. Any candidate
who has done enough ludicrous things that the late-night comedians get
larger laughs about them than about the current President, is
electronic road kill.
It didn't hurt Bush in '00.
Cause it never happened.
Let's review Edwards' recent personal disasters. But first, let's
review the history of Marie Antoinette. She never said, "Let them eat
cake." She said, "Let them eat brioche," which is actually practical
and not really insulting. Yet the Queen had a reputation for being a
wastrel with no sympathy for common folk.
Actually, the line is apocryphal. There is no evidence she said it. The line
was coined by Jean-Jacques Rousseau in 1766 when M-A was just 10 and well
before she ascended to the throne of France.
Nitpicking.
The primary reason she was beheaded was not so much anything that she
said or did, but who she married. King Louis XVI earned his beheading;
his wife largely inherited hers. Not that I am suggesting John Edwards
has earned beheading. The last American to face that fate from a
government was Tom Paine. As a member of the French Assembly, he
earned a decree of execution from Robespierre for urging mercy for the
King and Queen of France. But I digress.
This whole screed has been one big digression.
Let's review what Edwards has done. He built the largest house in
Orange County, North Carolina, with enough space for ten normal
families in it's 28,000 square feet. But that was before this year.
The recent events get worse.
Ad hom.
We'll go from the ridiculous to the sublime. A $400 haircut is
ridiculous. And what was his excuse? He didn't arrange it, and he
didn't know how much it would cost.
Hey, when I walk into any establishment, I have a serious clue about
the prices to be charged. A Mercedes dealership not only looks
different from a Ford dealership. It even smells different. And
there's a lot less difference between those two cars, than between an
honest-to-God haircut and the $400 "do" that Edwards got.
Yeah...big deal. If this is the sin you're leading off with then he's better
off than any Republican candidate. And seriously, has anyone heard of a $400
haircut? I mean, I can see $100, but $400 is ridiculous.
The bigger items are these: Edwards took a half-million dollar part-
time job for a New York hedge fund which engaged in subprime
mortgages. In the meantime, he gives speeches decrying predatory
lending practices. As for why he took that job, he said he wanted to
"learn about poverty." The jokes just wrote themselves.
Most of what he made from Fortress was from investments. Very little was
salary.
So what. The point is he did it for profit and said he was doing it to
"learn about poverty".
Edwards is a laughable hypocrite.
It's hard to say what's the worst mistake Edwards made. The latest one
to be revealed is in the running for top of the line, or bottom of the
line, depending on how you look at it. He gave a speech at U Cal. at
Davis on "Poverty, the Great Moral Issue Facing America." He got
$55,000 for that speech. Students were charged $17 a ticket to hear
his words of wisdom.
Are students poor? What's your point? Edwards didn't make $17 a head, UC
Davis did to cover his speaking fees. That $55k was the most he earned
speaking in the past 12 months.
Edwards is a SUPER hypocrite.
Why is it that conservatives can build enormous houses and charge
exhorbitant speaking fees but no one calls them on it.
Because of Edwards posturing.
The people of North Carolina understand the hypocrisy of living in a
20+ million
dollar house and whining about poverty and the "Two Americas" if you
don't.
Giuliani regularly
commands $100k. Last year at Oklahoma State University, Giuliani requested
and received travel on a private jet that cost the school $47k on top of the
speaking fee. Giuliani has earned $9.2 million in speaking fees since 2006.
Guiliani doesn't posture as just a good ole po' boy.
The moral of the story is: IOKIYAR
No, the moral of the story is: EIAHAYATSTKI.
Lastly, Edwards created a "charity" to deal with "issues concerning
poverty." But, according to Business Week magazine, it spent 70% of
its money on travel for Edwards and salaries for staffers who, in
short order, joined Edwards' new campaign.
I haven't seen this at all but it doesn't surprise me. It often takes years
for a charity to get to the point where less than half of its revenues are
eaten by operational costs.
BWAHAHAHAHA!
In short, Edwards has one of the most pronounced tin ears for
political reality in modern America. And no one should take this self-
promoting fool seriously, given his proven incapacity.
And, like, that's just your opinion.
He's proven his point.
There ARE two Americas:
One part of America KNOWS John Edwards is a fraud.
The other part has not yet realized it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: !Yet Another Hilarious Post About The Breck Girl |
04 Jun 2007 09:33:51 PM |
|
|
Kurt Nicklas wrote:
The bottom line for us in North Carolina is quite clear.
Edwards didn't run for reelection to the Senate because if he had,
he would have lost.
Wishful thinking.
Absolutely true.
Well, since he never ran, there is absofuckinglutely no way you could know
that even if you had poll numbers (which I see you don't) that said Edwards
would lose to a politically resurgent Meadowlark Lemon by 45 points.
That ought to tell folks elsewhere in the nation something useful.
Why should anyone take him seriously for President, or even Vice
President, when those who know him best - in his own state - don't
take him seriously as a mere Senator?
Here's what people should say: What the ***** do we care about your
opinion? That's all that this is.
I say that about yours all the time.
Bravo, Einstein. Which is why I choose to back up my opinion with facts when
I can.
Plus there are more immediate defects in the Edwards campaign this
time around. He has violated the late-night Comedy Rule. Any
candidate who has done enough ludicrous things that the late-night
comedians get larger laughs about them than about the current
President, is electronic road kill.
It didn't hurt Bush in '00.
Cause it never happened.
ROFL...they were making fun of Shrub on SNL during the campaign. But if you
are going to quibble, there is no way anyone can overtake the comedic value
of the putz currently in the White House.
Let's review Edwards' recent personal disasters. But first, let's
review the history of Marie Antoinette. She never said, "Let them
eat cake." She said, "Let them eat brioche," which is actually
practical and not really insulting. Yet the Queen had a reputation
for being a wastrel with no sympathy for common folk.
Actually, the line is apocryphal. There is no evidence she said it.
The line was coined by Jean-Jacques Rousseau in 1766 when M-A was
just 10 and well before she ascended to the throne of France.
Nitpicking.
Of course it is. Just as the whole M-A ***** of the article was a massive
digression that added nothing to the article. I merely added my little bit
as an interesting aside to anyone who is interested in history and as a
barometer for how hopelessly out of depth the writer is.
Most of what he made from Fortress was from investments. Very little
was salary.
So what. The point is he did it for profit and said he was doing it to
"learn about poverty".
Who's to say he didn't learn anything. If you wanted to study say the effect
that personal income has on one's ability to get a reasonable mortgage,
where the ***** does it say you have to sell off your 401k. If I told you
that, you'd say, and rightly so, one thing has nothing to do with the other.
Edwards is a laughable hypocrite.
That's right. Since he has money but wants to help the poor, he's a
hypocrite. Typical Republican hogwash.
It's hard to say what's the worst mistake Edwards made. The latest
one to be revealed is in the running for top of the line, or bottom
of the line, depending on how you look at it. He gave a speech at U
Cal. at Davis on "Poverty, the Great Moral Issue Facing America."
He got $55,000 for that speech. Students were charged $17 a ticket
to hear his words of wisdom.
Are students poor? What's your point? Edwards didn't make $17 a
head, UC Davis did to cover his speaking fees. That $55k was the
most he earned speaking in the past 12 months.
Edwards is a SUPER hypocrite.
Way to engage the argument. You have no answer so you do the Usenet
equivalent of yelling louder. Sheesh, I'm sorry. As far as neocon Usenet
arguments go, I'll take Fred Stone over you any day.
Why is it that conservatives can build enormous houses and charge
exhorbitant speaking fees but no one calls them on it.
Because of Edwards posturing.
Are you sure? What evidence can we look at to see if that's so. Edwards
reported nearly $400k in charitable donations in 2006. Is that posturing
too? What evidence, aside from your say-so, do you have that Edwards is
posturing.
See how this works, big boy? Evidence, not hearsay carries the day.
The people of North Carolina understand the hypocrisy of living in a
20+ million
dollar house and whining about poverty and the "Two Americas" if you
don't.
More hearsay. Here's a clue: When you want to speak for the people of North
Carolina, you may want to post some evidence...like, um, polls...to support
your claim. Otherwise, it's just your opinion.
Besides, the house is valued at $6 million, not $20 million.
So how does one go about making change for the poor? Does one have to sell
everything they own and walk around in sack cloth just to avoid the
appearance of hypocrisy/
Giuliani regularly
commands $100k. Last year at Oklahoma State University, Giuliani
requested and received travel on a private jet that cost the school
$47k on top of the speaking fee. Giuliani has earned $9.2 million in
speaking fees since 2006.
Guiliani doesn't posture as just a good ole po' boy.
No...he's a fucking broken record...I was the mayor during 9-11...I was the
mayor during 9-11...I was the mayor during 9-11...I was the mayor during
9-11...I was the mayor during 9-11...I was the mayor during 9-11...I was the
mayor during 9-11...ad nauseum.
The moral of the story is: IOKIYAR
No, the moral of the story is: EIAHAYATSTKI.
Let me guess...Everything is a hoot after you ask the Swede to kiss it. That
makes sense! Thanks! It's all so clear.
Here's another clue, dipshit. If you're really that dim that you don't know
what my acronym stands for, try googling it.
Lastly, Edwards created a "charity" to deal with "issues concerning
poverty." But, according to Business Week magazine, it spent 70% of
its money on travel for Edwards and salaries for staffers who, in
short order, joined Edwards' new campaign.
I haven't seen this at all but it doesn't surprise me. It often
takes years for a charity to get to the point where less than half
of its revenues are eaten by operational costs.
BWAHAHAHAHA!
Sorry, that term is reserved for atheists. We already have one atheist
conservative here. That's our catch limit. Please leave and don't come back
until you have some real arguments.
In short, Edwards has one of the most pronounced tin ears for
political reality in modern America. And no one should take this
self- promoting fool seriously, given his proven incapacity.
And, like, that's just your opinion.
He's proven his point.
He's proven nothing. Everything is just his slanted opinion. I'm no huge fan
of Edwards, but this kind of mudslinging is just too characteristic of
neocon dimwittedness that is gobbled up by the fans of Hannity and Limbaugh.
Get real or get lost.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kurt Nicklas" |
|
| Title: Re: !Yet Another Hilarious Post About The Breck Girl |
05 Jun 2007 10:53:09 AM |
|
|
On Jun 4, 10:33 pm, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
Kurt Nicklas wrote:
The bottom line for us in North Carolina is quite clear.
Edwards didn't run for reelection to the Senate because if he had,
he would have lost.
Wishful thinking.
Absolutely true.
Well, since he never ran, {unimportant response mercy-snipped}
{Yawn}
That ought to tell folks elsewhere in the nation something useful.
Why should anyone take him seriously for President, or even Vice
President, when those who know him best - in his own state - don't
take him seriously as a mere Senator?
Here's what people should say: What the ***** do we care about your
opinion? That's all that this is.
I say that about yours all the time.
Bravo, Einstein. Which is why I choose to back up my opinion with facts when
I can.
Your "facts" are certainly distinguished by their absence so far.
Plus there are more immediate defects in the Edwards campaign this
time around. He has violated the late-night Comedy Rule. Any
candidate who has done enough ludicrous things that the late-night
comedians get larger laughs about them than about the current
President, is electronic road kill.
It didn't hurt Bush in '00.
Cause it never happened.
ROFL...they were making fun of Shrub on SNL during the campaign.
Proof?
Let's review Edwards' recent personal disasters. But first, let's
review the history of Marie Antoinette. She never said, "Let them
eat cake." She said, "Let them eat brioche," which is actually
practical and not really insulting. Yet the Queen had a reputation
for being a wastrel with no sympathy for common folk.
Actually, the line is apocryphal. There is no evidence she said it.
The line was coined by Jean-Jacques Rousseau in 1766 when M-A was
just 10 and well before she ascended to the throne of France.
Nitpicking.
Of course it is. Just as the whole M-A ***** of the article was a massive
digression that added nothing to the article. I merely added my little bit
as an interesting aside to anyone who is interested in history and as a
barometer for how hopelessly out of depth the writer is.
No, you added your "little bit" because you can't resist releasing
your smarminess
on the world when ever you feel it appropriate.
Most of what he made from Fortress was from investments. Very little
was salary.
So what. The point is he did it for profit and said he was doing it to
"learn about poverty".
Who's to say he didn't learn anything.
LOL
Awww, I hope he at least learned how to deal in subprime mortgages for
that
poor half of America. He's gonna need a new career after he fails to
get on the
ticket next year.
If you wanted to study say the effect
that personal income has on one's ability to get a reasonable mortgage,
where the ***** does it say you have to sell off your 401k. If I told you
that, you'd say, and rightly so, one thing has nothing to do with the other.
Yes, you and the other Edwards defenders just keep throwing out
schlock like
that to excuse your boy!
Edwards is a laughable hypocrite.
That's right. Since he has money but wants to help the poor, he's a
hypocrite. Typical Republican hogwash.
Let him use his own money to help the poor, 'cause like most
democrats,
especially of the Populist bent like Breck Girl, they want to use OUR
money
to pay for their programs.
....To say nothing else about payoffs to Big Labor and the trial
lawyers who've supported
his campaigns.
It's hard to say what's the worst mistake Edwards made. The latest
one to be revealed is in the running for top of the line, or bottom
of the line, depending on how you look at it. He gave a speech at U
Cal. at Davis on "Poverty, the Great Moral Issue Facing America."
He got $55,000 for that speech. Students were charged $17 a ticket
to hear his words of wisdom.
Are students poor? What's your point? Edwards didn't make $17 a
head, UC Davis did to cover his speaking fees. That $55k was the
most he earned speaking in the past 12 months.
Edwards is a SUPER hypocrite.
Way to engage the argument. You have no answer so you do the Usenet
equivalent of yelling louder. Sheesh, I'm sorry. As far as neocon Usenet
arguments go, I'll take Fred Stone over you any day.
You'll take me and you'll like it, pinhead.
Why is it that conservatives can build enormous houses and charge
exhorbitant speaking fees but no one calls them on it.
Because of Edwards posturing.
Are you sure? What evidence can we look at to see if that's so. Edwards
reported nearly $400k in charitable donations in 2006. Is that posturing
too? What evidence, aside from your say-so, do you have that Edwards is
posturing.
Did I say, posturing? I meant to say posing.
See how this works, big boy? Evidence, not hearsay carries the day.
The people of North Carolina understand the hypocrisy of living in a
20+ million
dollar house and whining about poverty and the "Two Americas" if you
don't.
More hearsay. Here's a clue: When you want to speak for the people of North
Carolina, you may want to post some evidence...like, um, polls...to support
your claim. Otherwise, it's just your opinion.
Like, um, I talk to people from NC everyday, bozo. I live about an
hour from Edwards
multi-million dollar mansion. Edwards barely won election in '98.
Everyone was up
in arms almost from the start of his term over things like missed
votes. Look at
what effect his presence had on the ticket in NC. Nothing.
Edwards would have gotten trounced and he knew it. But the senate seat
was just
a stepping stone for him.
Besides, the house is valued at $6 million, not $20 million.
There you're right.
In short, Edwards has one of the most pronounced tin ears for
political reality in modern America. And no one should take this
self- promoting fool seriously, given his proven incapacity.
And, like, that's just your opinion.
He's proven his point.
He's proven nothing.
Merely your opinion which counts no more than the next moron in
alt.atheism.
Everything is just his slanted opinion. I'm no huge fan
of Edwards, but this kind of mudslinging is just too characteristic of
neocon dimwittedness that is gobbled up by the fans of Hannity and Limbaugh.
Get real or get lost.
You do LOVE me! You truly do.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: !Yet Another Hilarious Post About The Breck Girl |
05 Jun 2007 12:52:18 PM |
|
|
Kurt Nicklas wrote:
On Jun 4, 10:33 pm, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
Kurt Nicklas wrote:
The bottom line for us in North Carolina is quite clear.
Edwards didn't run for reelection to the Senate because if he had,
he would have lost.
Wishful thinking.
Absolutely true.
Well, since he never ran, {unimportant response mercy-snipped}
{Yawn}
This is your version of King Arthur yelling, "Run away! Run away!"
Of course it is. Just as the whole M-A ***** of the article was a
massive digression that added nothing to the article. I merely added
my little bit as an interesting aside to anyone who is interested in
history and as a barometer for how hopelessly out of depth the
writer is.
No, you added your "little bit" because you can't resist releasing
your smarminess
on the world when ever you feel it appropriate.
Take for what it's worth. To you it's smarminess. To others with a little
intellectual curiosity, it's an interesting aside. Nonetheless, it clearly
indicates the writer doesn't know his history despite wasting precisely
18.4% of the article mentioning it. There's your fact.
So what. The point is he did it for profit and said he was doing it
to "learn about poverty".
Who's to say he didn't learn anything?
Awww, I hope he at least learned how to deal in subprime mortgages for
that poor half of America. He's gonna need a new career after he fails to
get on the ticket next year.
Well, thanks for conceding the point. See how easy it is to admit you're
wrong?
If you wanted to study say the effect
that personal income has on one's ability to get a reasonable
mortgage, where the ***** does it say you have to sell off your 401k.
If I told you that, you'd say, and rightly so, one thing has nothing
to do with the other.
Yes,
Again, thanks for conceding the point. This is going well!
Edwards is a laughable hypocrite.
That's right. Since he has money but wants to help the poor, he's a
hypocrite. Typical Republican hogwash.
Let him use his own money to help the poor, 'cause like most
democrats, especially of the Populist bent like Breck Girl, they
want to use OUR money to pay for their programs.
Alleviating poverty requires systemic change. Personal donations don't do
*****. Ushering systemic change is what leadership is all about. Do you have
any idea what his ideas are for alleviating poverty? Most of it won't cost
the taxpayers a nickel.
For example, you brought up predatory lending. Holding these cretins
accountable for preying on poor folks will actually save taxpayers money in
the long run since federal guarantees will not be implemented if loans don't
go into default.
While the US is second only to Ireland (they've come a long way) in per
capita GDP, it's poverty level (12.2% of the population, up from 9.7% in
2000) is on par with borderline 3rd world countries like Bulgaria. Since
1999, median income in the US has dropped nearly 14%. Where's that vaunted
"compassionate conservatism"?
...To say nothing else about payoffs to Big Labor and the trial
lawyers who've supported
his campaigns.
Ahhh...the trial lawyer bogeyman of conservative rural America. How quaint!
I like how you put it though. "To say nothing else ..." and then you proceed
to say nothing else.
Way to engage the argument. You have no answer so you do the Usenet
equivalent of yelling louder. Sheesh, I'm sorry. As far as neocon
Usenet arguments go, I'll take Fred Stone over you any day.
You'll take me and you'll like it, pinhead.
What a singularly childish remark. I guess that's what we can come to expect
from you.
Why is it that conservatives can build enormous houses and charge
exhorbitant speaking fees but no one calls them on it.
Because of Edwards posturing.
Are you sure? What evidence can we look at to see if that's so.
Edwards reported nearly $400k in charitable donations in 2006. Is
that posturing too? What evidence, aside from your say-so, do you
have that Edwards is posturing.
Did I say, posturing? I meant to say posing.
What? Can't you read your own writing? It's right up there about 5 lines up.
Jeez...you weren't the kid the teachers like to call on during class, were
you? So, Einstein, what's significant difference is there between the two
statements or did you just have nothing meaningful to say. Since they are
equivalent, I'll take the latter.
More hearsay. Here's a clue: When you want to speak for the people
of North Carolina, you may want to post some evidence...like, um,
polls...to support your claim. Otherwise, it's just your opinion.
Like, um, I talk to people from NC everyday, bozo. I live about an
hour from Edwards
multi-million dollar mansion. Edwards barely won election in '98.
So Bush barely won the election in 2000. What's your point? How did that
work for him in 2004?So you talk to people every day, do you? Is that a
random sample of households? Let's see the demographics. What is your sample
size? What is the margin of error?
Don't have anything like that? Fine. It's your opinion. Whether you like it
or not, that's the upshot. Now you can stamp your feet and hold your breath
and keep claiming that you know he wouldn't have won, but the fact is it's
beyond anyone's knowledge.
Everyone was up in arms almost from the start of his term
over things like missed votes. Look at what effect
his presence had on the ticket in NC. Nothing.
That's all well and good, but running for Senate and running as the Veep on
a ticket with a Massachussetts liberal are two different things.
As regards missed votes, if people were complaining about that then they are
politically naive. A missed vote can be a political tool, especially if you
are in the minority party.
Nonetheless, let's look at the numbers. In the first four years of his term,
Edwards missed a total of 6/1305 votes according to the WashingtonPost.com
(I can give you a specific link if you want). Wow, 0.45%! No wonder everyone
was ready to run him out on a rail!
Now let's look at the other senator, Mr. Jesse Helms. He missed 222/1305
votes over the same period. Over 17%. Now I understand Jesse was a bit ill,
but that's not the point. The point is that your claim must be bogus.
Missing 0.45% of votes is negligible and among the lowest for all senators.
Edwards would have gotten trounced and he knew it. But the senate seat
was just a stepping stone for him.
That may be so. The point is that neither you nor the writer of the article
nor even John Edwards could possibly know this absent it actually happening.
Polling data would help tighten up the confidence intervals, but without
even that this is pure conjecture.
Besides, the house is valued at $6 million, not $20 million.
There you're right.
It's a big sucker for sure. The article below says 28,000 sf but the main
house is only (yeah, ONLY...LOL) 10,000 sf. Pretty huge, but my cousins have
a comparable house here in Atlanta where real estate prices much higher.
http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=3848
The big building is a recreation building that has a basketball court, a
squash court, two stages, a bedroom, kitchen, bathrooms, swimming pool.
Pretty cool, but that wouldn't be considered part of actual living area.
In short, Edwards has one of the most pronounced tin ears for
political reality in modern America. And no one should take this
self- promoting fool seriously, given his proven incapacity.
And, like, that's just your opinion.
He's proven his point.
He's proven nothing.
Merely your opinion which counts no more than the next moron in
alt.atheism.
I'll take that as a compliment. There are a lot of pretty smart folks here
that I couldn't hold a candle to intellectually. Talk.origins is even more
daunting. Try that out sometime. Nonetheless, my objective in this thread
was not necessarily to prove anything, but merely to play devil's advocate.
The author made certain claims in his article that neither he nor you could
substantiate.
Everything is just his slanted opinion. I'm no huge fan
of Edwards, but this kind of mudslinging is just too characteristic
of neocon dimwittedness that is gobbled up by the fans of Hannity
and Limbaugh.
Get real or get lost.
You do LOVE me! You truly do.
Whatever gets you through the day, man.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kurt Nicklas" |
|
| Title: Re: !Yet Another Hilarious Post About The Breck Girl |
05 Jun 2007 05:14:51 PM |
|
|
On Jun 5, 1:52 pm, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
Kurt Nicklas wrote:
On Jun 4, 10:33 pm, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
Kurt Nicklas wrote:
The bottom line for us in North Carolina is quite clear.
Edwards didn't run for reelection to the Senate because if he had,
he would have lost.
Wishful thinking.
Absolutely true.
Well, since he never ran, {unimportant response mercy-snipped}
{Yawn}
This is your version of King Arthur yelling, "Run away! Run away!"
Nah, it's my version of being bored...
Of course it is. Just as the whole M-A ***** of the article was a
massive digression that added nothing to the article. I merely added
my little bit as an interesting aside to anyone who is interested in
history and as a barometer for how hopelessly out of depth the
writer is.
No, you added your "little bit" because you can't resist releasing
your smarminess
on the world when ever you feel it appropriate.
Take for what it's worth. To you it's smarminess. To others with a little
intellectual curiosity, it's an interesting aside. Nonetheless, it clearly
indicates the writer doesn't know his history despite wasting precisely
18.4% of the article mentioning it. There's your fact.
It's your opinion only, Smarm-boy.
So what. The point is he did it for profit and said he was doing it
to "learn about poverty".
Who's to say he didn't learn anything?
Awww, I hope he at least learned how to deal in subprime mortgages for
that poor half of America. He's gonna need a new career after he fails to
get on the ticket next year.
Well, thanks for conceding the point. See how easy it is to admit you're
wrong?
Reread what I said.
If you wanted to study say the effect
that personal income has on one's ability to get a reasonable
mortgage, where the ***** does it say you have to sell off your 401k.
If I told you that, you'd say, and rightly so, one thing has nothing
to do with the other.
Yes,you and the other Edwards defenders just keep throwing out
schlock like
that to excuse your boy!
Again, thanks for conceding the point. This is going well!
What are you talking about? You're becoming incoherent again.
Edwards is a laughable hypocrite.
That's right. Since he has money but wants to help the poor, he's a
hypocrite. Typical Republican hogwash.
Let him use his own money to help the poor, 'cause like most
democrats, especially of the Populist bent like Breck Girl, they
want to use OUR money to pay for their programs.
Alleviating poverty requires systemic change (translation: government
programs). Personal donations don't do
*****.
Well, I can imagine what YOUR charitable donations amount to, loonboy!
Ushering systemic change (translation: setting up big government programs) is what leadership is all about. Do you have
any idea what his ideas are for alleviating poverty? Most of it won't cost
the taxpayers a nickel.
Let's resurrect Lyndon Johnson. You'd like his ideas...
For example, you brought up predatory lending. Holding these cretins
accountable...
John Edwards worked for cretins?? I'm shocked! Shocked!
...To say nothing else about payoffs to Big Labor and the trial
lawyers who've supported
his campaigns.
Ahhh...the trial lawyer bogeyman of conservative rural America. How quaint!
I like how you put it though. "To say nothing else ..." and then you proceed
to say nothing else.
So Edwards ISN'T supported by Big Labor and trial lawyers??
Way to engage the argument. You have no answer so you do the Usenet
equivalent of yelling louder. Sheesh, I'm sorry. As far as neocon
Usenet arguments go, I'll take Fred Stone over you any day.
You'll take me and you'll like it, pinhead.
What a singularly childish remark. I guess that's what we can come to expect
from you.
Only in answer to your own childishness, pinhead.
Why is it that conservatives can build enormous houses and charge
exhorbitant speaking fees but no one calls them on it.
Because of Edwards posturing.
Are you sure? What evidence can we look at to see if that's so.
Edwards reported nearly $400k in charitable donations in 2006. Is
that posturing too? What evidence, aside from your say-so, do you
have that Edwards is posturing.
Did I say, posturing? I meant to say posing.
What? Can't you read your own writing? It's right up there about 5 lines up.
Jeez...you weren't the kid the teachers like to call on during class, were
you? So, Einstein, what's significant difference is there between the two
statements or did you just have nothing meaningful to say. Since they are
equivalent, I'll take the latter.
Let it be posing then.
More hearsay. Here's a clue: When you want to speak for the people
of North Carolina, you may want to post some evidence...like, um,
polls...to support your claim. Otherwise, it's just your opinion.
Like, um, I talk to people from NC everyday, bozo. I live about an
hour from Edwards
multi-million dollar mansion. Edwards barely won election in '98.
So Bush barely won the election in 2000. What's your point?
What is YOURS?
How did that
work for him in 2004?So you talk to people every day, do you? Is that a
random sample of households? Let's see the demographics. What is your sample
size? What is the margin of error?
I'll put mine against anything else you have. Any charts? Polls?
Conversations with N.C. voters
lately?
Don't have anything like that? Fine. It's your opinion. Whether you like it
or not, that's the upshot.
It's more than you have.
Everyone was up in arms almost from the start of his term
over things like missed votes. Look at what effect
his presence had on the ticket in NC. Nothing.
That's all well and good, but running for Senate and running as the Veep on
a ticket with a Massachussetts liberal are two different things.
Not when your presence on the ticket is supposed to "deliver" the
South, goofy.
Edwards would have gotten trounced and he knew it. But the senate seat
was just a stepping stone for him.
That may be so. The point is that neither you nor the writer of the article
nor even John Edwards could possibly know this absent it actually happening.
Polling data would help tighten up the confidence intervals, but without
even that this is pure conjecture.
Merely your opinion which counts no more than the next moron in
alt.atheism.
I'll take that as a compliment. There are a lot of pretty smart folks here
that I couldn't hold a candle to intellectually.
Any of the BAHWAH knights, probably.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: !Yet Another Hilarious Post About The Breck Girl |
05 Jun 2007 07:57:13 PM |
|
|
Kurt Nicklas wrote:
Take for what it's worth. To you it's smarminess. To others with a
little intellectual curiosity, it's an interesting aside. Nonetheless, it
clearly indicates the writer doesn't know his history despite wasting
precisely 18.4% of the article mentioning it. There's your fact.
It's your opinion only, Smarm-boy.
Nope. Word count the article.
So what. The point is he did it for profit and said he was doing
it to "learn about poverty".
Who's to say he didn't learn anything?
Awww, I hope he at least learned how to deal in subprime mortgages
for that poor half of America. He's gonna need a new career after
he fails to get on the ticket next year.
Well, thanks for conceding the point. See how easy it is to admit
you're
wrong?
Reread what I said.
Yes. You concede he could learn something from the experience. Thanks again!
You do this so well!
Again, thanks for conceding the point. This is going well!
What are you talking about? You're becoming incoherent again.
I said: "If I told you that, you'd say one thing has nothing to do with the
other." Your next word was "Yes". Again, thanks for conceding the point.
Alleviating poverty requires systemic change (translation: government
programs). Personal donations don't do *****.
Well, I can imagine what YOUR charitable donations amount to, loonboy!
Which is completely irrelevant, segue boy!
Ushering systemic change (translation: setting up big government
programs) is what leadership is all about. Do you have any idea what
his ideas are for alleviating poverty? Most of it won't cost
the taxpayers a nickel.
Let's resurrect Lyndon Johnson. You'd like his ideas...
Sorry, I've had enough with the fucking Texans, thanks very much.
For example, you brought up predatory lending. Holding these cretins
accountable...
John Edwards worked for cretins?? I'm shocked! Shocked!
Obviously, you have trouble connecting dots to the wrong places. You could
have a great career in the Bush Administration's anti-terrorist task force.
Please try to think clearly.
...To say nothing else about payoffs to Big Labor and the trial
lawyers who've supported
his campaigns.
Ahhh...the trial lawyer bogeyman of conservative rural America. How
quaint!
I like how you put it though. "To say nothing else ..." and then you
proceed
to say nothing else.
So Edwards ISN'T supported by Big Labor and trial lawyers??
Again, you have trouble connecting dots to the wrong places. If you're going
to put words in my mouth then please try and figure out what the right ones
should be. Here's a clue: I never disputed that he is supported by certain
interest groups. Think about it. Once you figure that out, go back to the
previous exchange.
*****. You are the biggest dullard I have seen yet here. Even Duke isn't this
stupid!
Way to engage the argument. You have no answer so you do the Usenet
equivalent of yelling louder. Sheesh, I'm sorry. As far as neocon
Usenet arguments go, I'll take Fred Stone over you any day.
You'll take me and you'll like it, pinhead.
What a singularly childish remark. I guess that's what we can come
to expect
from you.
Only in answer to your own childishness, pinhead.
Wow...that's really taking me back. How does it go again? "I'm rubber,
you're glue...?"
Like, um, I talk to people from NC everyday, bozo. I live about an
hour from Edwards
multi-million dollar mansion. Edwards barely won election in '98.
So Bush barely won the election in 2000. What's your point?
What is YOURS?
Not too smart, eh. Please try and keep up. You implied that Edwards, if a
candidate, would have had trouble winning because the race was so close in
'98. I countered saying that this is not necessarily so since Bush's first
election (and second for that matter) were closer than Edwards' election.
Do you know how close it was, that first election? 81,000 votes out of
2,000,000. It's not a landslide, but it ain't all that close either. Once
again, you've exposed yourself just like when you claimed that people hated
Edwards for missing votes (which I noticed that you clipped that point
without responding).
How did that
work for him in 2004?So you talk to people every day, do you? Is
that a
random sample of households? Let's see the demographics. What is
your sample
size? What is the margin of error?
I'll put mine against anything else you have. Any charts? Polls?
Conversations with N.C. voters
lately?
It's your claim. It's up to you to either support it or retract it. Debate
101. Debate doesn't work any other way. Sorry, this is not for the
intellectually lazy. Fortunately, there is the Internet. So intlellectual
sloth is permitted to a point.
Don't have anything like that? Fine. It's your opinion. Whether you
like it
or not, that's the upshot.
It's more than you have.
If you have any problem with any of my claims, you are encouraged to be
skeptical. But no, all you do is make unsubstantiated claims.
Everyone was up in arms almost from the start of his term
over things like missed votes. Look at what effect
his presence had on the ticket in NC. Nothing.
That's all well and good, but running for Senate and running as the
Veep on
a ticket with a Massachussetts liberal are two different things.
Not when your presence on the ticket is supposed to "deliver" the
South, goofy.
So just being on the ticket is supposed to automatically overcome centuries
of bigotry against Catholics, right? Look. I understand that it was the
"good college try" and all, but ***** you backwoods folk wouldn't elect a
Papist if your life depended on it.
*queue the banjo*
I'll take that as a compliment. There are a lot of pretty smart
folks here
that I couldn't hold a candle to intellectually.
Any of the BAHWAH knights, probably.
But not you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kurt Nicklas" |
|
| Title: Re: !Yet Another Hilarious Post About The Breck Girl |
05 Jun 2007 08:32:09 PM |
|
|
On Jun 5, 8:57 pm, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
Kurt Nicklas wrote:
Take for what it's worth. To you it's smarminess. To others with a
little intellectual curiosity, it's an interesting aside. Nonetheless, it
clearly indicates the writer doesn't know his history despite wasting
precisely 18.4% of the article mentioning it. There's your fact.
It's your opinion only, Smarm-boy.
Nope. Word count the article.
You actually word counted the article,Bumstead?!?
You get the Gold Star of the week!
So what. The point is he did it for profit and said he was doing
it to "learn about poverty".
Who's to say he didn't learn anything?
Awww, I hope he at least learned how to deal in subprime mortgages
for that poor half of America. He's gonna need a new career after
he fails to get on the ticket next year.
Well, thanks for conceding the point. See how easy it is to admit
you're
wrong?
Reread what I said.
Yes. You concede he could learn something from the experience. Thanks again!
You do this so well!
You've yet to learn to read. Thanks for the confirmation.
Again, thanks for conceding the point. This is going well!
What are you talking about? You're becoming incoherent again.
I said: "If I told you that, you'd say one thing has nothing to do with the
other." Your next word was "Yes". Again, thanks for conceding the point.
Alleviating poverty requires systemic change (translation: government
programs). Personal donations don't do *****.
Well, I can imagine what YOUR charitable donations amount to, loonboy!
Which is completely irrelevant, segue boy!
Not at all. Your own hypocracy is fair game, right?
Ushering systemic change (translation: setting up big government
programs) is what leadership is all about. Do you have any idea what
his ideas are for alleviating poverty? Most of it won't cost
the taxpayers a nickel.
Let's resurrect Lyndon Johnson. You'd like his ideas...
Sorry, I've had enough with the fucking Texans, thanks very much.
You'd love his War on Poverty. It's JUST what you have in mind!
For example, you brought up predatory lending. Holding these cretins
accountable...
John Edwards worked for cretins?? I'm shocked! Shocked!
Obviously, you have trouble connecting dots to the wrong places. You could
have a great career in the Bush Administration's anti-terrorist task force.
Please try to think clearly.
You think so clearly you must have worked for the Kerry campaign.
So why did Edwards take a job with those cretins? What could he have
hoped
to learn from them??
...To say nothing else about payoffs to Big Labor and the trial
lawyers who've supported
his campaigns.
Ahhh...the trial lawyer bogeyman of conservative rural America. How
quaint!
I like how you put it though. "To say nothing else ..." and then you
proceed
to say nothing else.
So Edwards ISN'T supported by Big Labor and trial lawyers??
Again, you have trouble connecting dots to the wrong places. If you're going
to put words in my mouth then please try and figure out what the right ones
should be. Here's a clue: I never disputed that he is supported by certain
interest groups. Think about it. Once you figure that out, go back to the
previous exchange.
So which Big Labor and trial lawyer organizations support him?
Only in answer to your own childishness, pinhead.
Wow...that's really taking me back. How does it go again? "I'm rubber,
you're glue...?"
I don't know how it goes. You're the sophomore here. You tell me.
Like, um, I talk to people from NC everyday, bozo. I live about an
hour from Edwards
multi-million dollar mansion. Edwards barely won election in '98.
So Bush barely won the election in 2000. What's your point?
What is YOURS?
How did that
work for him in 2004?So you talk to people every day, do you? Is
that a
random sample of households? Let's see the demographics. What is
your sample
size? What is the margin of error?
I'll put mine against anything else you have. Any charts? Polls?
Conversations with N.C. voters
lately?
It's your claim. It's up to you to either support it or retract it. Debate
101. Debate doesn't work any other way. Sorry, this is not for the
intellectually lazy. Fortunately, there is the Internet. So intlellectual
sloth is permitted to a point.
If I have 10+ years of living in North Carolina - let me do the math
for you that
means during Edwards entire stint in the Senate - with the resulting
contact
with local news media and the opinions of dozens of people over the
years
and you have, well, NOTHING to support you then I win.
:-)
Don't have anything like that? Fine. It's your opinion. Whether you
like it
or not, that's the upshot.
It's more than you have.
If you have any problem with any of my claims, you are encouraged to be
skeptical. But no, all you do is make unsubstantiated claims.
And all your claims are unsubstantiated. Yawn.....
Everyone was up in arms almost from the start of his term
over things like missed votes. Look at what effect
his presence had on the ticket in NC. Nothing.
That's all well and good, but running for Senate and running as the
Veep on
a ticket with a Massachussetts liberal are two different things.
Not when your presence on the ticket is supposed to "deliver" the
South, goofy.
So just being on the ticket is supposed to automatically overcome centuries
of bigotry against Catholics, right?
I guess Kerry thought so, right?
Look. I understand that it was the
"good college try" and all, but ***** you backwoods folk wouldn't elect a
Papist if your life depended on it.
LOL
Oh, you're a bigot besides being an ignorant hypocrite.
Knew you were.
I'll take that as a compliment. There are a lot of pretty smart
folks here
that I couldn't hold a candle to intellectually.
Any of the BAHWAH knights, probably.
But not you.
Yes, you couldn't hold a candle to me.
Thanks for admission.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: !Yet Another Hilarious Post About The Breck Girl |
06 Jun 2007 12:31:08 AM |
|
|
Kurt Nicklas wrote:
On Jun 5, 8:57 pm, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
Kurt Nicklas wrote:
Take for what it's worth. To you it's smarminess. To others with a
little intellectual curiosity, it's an interesting aside.
Nonetheless, it clearly indicates the writer doesn't know his
history despite wasting precisely 18.4% of the article mentioning
it. There's your fact.
It's your opinion only, Smarm-boy.
Nope. Word count the article.
You actually word counted the article,Bumstead?!?
I know...it's a weakness I suppose. I'm a data driven guy.
You get the Gold Star of the week!
Fine. I deserve that. But facts is facts.
Yes. You concede he could learn something from the experience.
Thanks again! You do this so well!
You've yet to learn to read. Thanks for the confirmation.
You quoted: "I hope he at least learned how to deal in subprime mortgages."
That is an implicit avowal that he could have learned something, is it not?
Alleviating poverty requires systemic change (translation:
government programs). Personal donations don't do *****.
Well, I can imagine what YOUR charitable donations amount to,
loonboy!
Which is completely irrelevant, segue boy!
Not at all. Your own hypocracy is fair game, right?
But my hypocricy or lack thereof is not in question here...ergo it is
irrelevent. Do try to stay on topic. I know it's hard for you hyperactive
video generation twits, but nonetheless...do try.
Ushering systemic change (translation: setting up big government
programs) is what leadership is all about. Do you have any idea
what his ideas are for alleviating poverty?
Most of it won't cost the taxpayers a nickel.
Let's resurrect Lyndon Johnson. You'd like his ideas...
Sorry, I've had enough with the fucking Texans, thanks very much.
You'd love his War on Poverty. It's JUST what you have in mind!
If fucking Jesus Christ came out of Austin, cured the lame, got the Sabres a
Stanley Cup, gave me 50 large, and made peace between the Muzzies and the
Jews, I would tell him to suck my hairy balls. Lyndon Johnson can wait in
fawking line.
Obviously, you have trouble connecting dots to the wrong places. You
could have a great career in the Bush Administration's
anti-terrorist task force. Please try to think clearly.
You think so clearly you must have worked for the Kerry campaign.
So why did Edwards take a job with those cretins? What could he have
hoped to learn from them??
Again...and let me be clear...I never characterized Fortress as cretins. You
did. Do try not to put words in my mouth. I called predatory lenders
cretins. You do see the distinction, right? I mean, ***** all man, half the
fucking time I'm explaining perfectly understandable sentences to you like I
would have to for a fucking 10-year-old. Fucking read before you think.
Think before you post.
So Edwards ISN'T supported by Big Labor and trial lawyers??
Again, you have trouble connecting dots to the wrong places. If
you're going to put words in my mouth then please try and figure out
what the right ones should be. Here's a clue: I never disputed that
he is supported by certain interest groups. Think about it. Once you
figure that out, go back to the previous exchange.
So which Big Labor and trial lawyer organizations support him?
What does it matter? What Big Labor and trial lawyer organizations have
supported Bush the past 8 years? Do you think they are so dumb as to only
contribute to one party?
So now, what you really want to do (and I can't believe I need to explain
this) is show the quid pro quo. If you can't, then everything is mere
mudslinging.
By the way...quick question...what trial lawyer organizations do you suppose
support Edwards? Why do you think they support him?
Only in answer to your own childishness, pinhead.
Wow...that's really taking me back. How does it go again? "I'm
rubber, you're glue...?"
I don't know how it goes. You're the sophomore here. You tell me.
Oh, brother. Did you mean the "sophomoric" one? Two different things, bra,
Hahahaha, What a maroon!
If I have 10+ years of living in North Carolina - let me do the math
for you that
means during Edwards entire stint in the Senate - with the resulting
contact
with local news media and the opinions of dozens of people over the
years
and you have, well, NOTHING to support you then I win.
Sorry. You claimed that there was discontent that Edwards was missing votes
in the Senate. I showed that was wrong. You claim that you have some kind of
informal poll that will support your claim that Edwards would have lost.
When first you made the claim, it was just people you knew in and around the
rural area near his home. Now you are including the local news media (as if
that lends any credence). But in neither case do you have any supporting
evidence...not even an anti-Edwards editorial in the local KKK rag...to so
much as give an ounce of credit to your claim.
Yeah...you win dude...you win a rusty Bozo button.
Don't have anything like that? Fine. It's your opinion. Whether you
like it
or not, that's the upshot.
It's more than you have.
If you have any problem with any of my claims, you are encouraged to
be skeptical. But no, all you do is make unsubstantiated claims.
And all your claims are unsubstantiated. Yawn.....
I guess you missed all that data I gave from objective sources. Sorry if you
don't understand what constitutes evidence. Here's a bit of advice. You
probably don't want to become an engineer or a policeman where this talent
is valued. Burger flipper is more your line.
Everyone was up in arms almost from the start of his term
over things like missed votes. Look at what effect
his presence had on the ticket in NC. Nothing.
That's all well and good, but running for Senate and running as the
Veep on
a ticket with a Massachussetts liberal are two different things.
Not when your presence on the ticket is supposed to "deliver" the
South, goofy.
So just being on the ticket is supposed to automatically overcome
centuries of bigotry against Catholics, right?
I guess Kerry thought so, right?
Apparently. So what? Who the ***** gives a ***** what that idiot thinks?
Thanks for conceding the point. Again! Damn. You are just one big
motherfucking concession speech.
Look. I understand that it was the
"good college try" and all, but ***** you backwoods folk wouldn't
elect a Papist if your life depended on it.
Oh, you're a bigot besides being an ignorant hypocrite.
Knew you were.
That's right...calling out bigotry is being bigoted. War is Peace. Freedom
is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. For pete's sake, even Kennedy didn't get
20% of the vote in North Carolina. Yeah. Real progressive folks there in
Carolina. They nearly had a collective coronary when Lieberman was the VEEP
candidate.
I'll take that as a compliment. There are a lot of pretty smart
folks here
that I couldn't hold a candle to intellectually.
Any of the BAHWAH knights, probably.
But not you.
Yes, you couldn't hold a candle to me.
Try and follow the antecedents. It's not that hard. My 8-year-old nieces can
parse a sentence better than you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kurt Nicklas" |
|
| Title: Re: !Yet Another Hilarious Post About The Breck Girl |
06 Jun 2007 05:06:57 AM |
|
|
On Jun 6, 1:31 am, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
Kurt Nicklas wrote:
On Jun 5, 8:57 pm, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
Kurt Nicklas wrote:
Take for what it's worth. To you it's smarminess. To others with a
little intellectual curiosity, it's an interesting aside.
Nonetheless, it clearly indicates the writer doesn't know his
history despite wasting precisely 18.4% of the article mentioning
it. There's your fact.
It's your opinion only, Smarm-boy.
Nope. Word count the article.
You actually word counted the article,Bumstead?!?
I know...it's a weakness I suppose. I'm a data driven guy.
No, you're driven by smarminess.
You get the Gold Star of the week!
Fine. I deserve that. But facts is facts.
Meaningless facts is meaningless facts.
Which is completely irrelevant, segue boy!
Not at all. Your own hypocracy is fair game, right?
But my hypocricy or lack thereof is not in question here...ergo it is
irrelevent. Do try to stay on topic. I know it's hard for you hyperactive
video generation twits, but nonetheless...do try.
No, actually it IS fair game here.
Ushering systemic change (translation: setting up big government
programs) is what leadership is all about. Do you have any idea
what his ideas are for alleviating poverty?
Most of it won't cost the taxpayers a nickel.
Let's resurrect Lyndon Johnson. You'd like his ideas...
Sorry, I've had enough with the fucking Texans, thanks very much.
You'd love his War on Poverty. It's JUST what you have in mind!
So why did Edwards take a job with those cretins? What could he have
hoped to learn from them??
Again...and let me be clear...I never characterized Fortress as cretins. You
did. Do try not to put words in my mouth. I called predatory lenders
cretins.
So Edwards DIDN'T take a job with predatory lenders? Just what ARE
subprime
lenders anyway? I think you're confused.
So Edwards ISN'T supported by Big Labor and trial lawyers??
Again, you have trouble connecting dots to the wrong places. If
you're going to put words in my mouth then please try and figure out
what the right ones should be. Here's a clue: I never disputed that
he is supported by certain interest groups. Think about it. Once you
figure that out, go back to the previous exchange.
So which Big Labor and trial lawyer organizations support him?
What does it matter? What Big Labor and trial lawyer organizations have
supported Bush the past 8 years? Do you think they are so dumb as to only
contribute to one party?
The issue is Edwards not Bush. Do try to stay on topic.
You're a "data driven guy". Give us some names.
So now, what you really want to do (and I can't believe I need to explain
this) is show the quid pro quo. If you can't, then everything is mere
mudslinging.
By the way...quick question...what trial lawyer organizations do you suppose
support Edwards? Why do you think they support him?
I asked you first.
Only in answer to your own childishness, pinhead.
Wow...that's really taking me back. How does it go again? "I'm
rubber, you're glue...?"
I don't know how it goes. You're the sophomore here. You tell me.
Oh, brother. Did you mean the "sophomoric" one? Two different things, bra,
Hahahaha, What a maroon!
You do know what sophomore means, right? Have a look in the mirror.
If I have 10+ years of living in North Carolina - let me do the math
for you that
means during Edwards entire stint in the Senate - with the resulting
contact
with local news media and the opinions of dozens of people over the
years
and you have, well, NOTHING to support you then I win.
Sorry. You claimed that there was discontent that Edwards was missing votes
in the Senate.
Yep.
I showed that was wrong.
No, you asserted it. There is a difference.
You claim that you have some kind of
informal poll that will support your claim that Edwards would have lost.
Only the informal poll of living in the state his entire term of
office.
You, on the other hand, have nothing.
When first you made the claim, it was just people you knew in and around the
rural area near his home. Now you are including the local news media (as if
that lends any credence). But in neither case do you have any supporting
evidence...
not even an anti-Edwards editorial in the local KKK rag...to so
More bigotry noted.
much as give an ounce of credit to your claim.
I've got a lot. You've got nothing but bigotry.
Again, I win!
I
Yeah...you win dude...you win a rusty Bozo button.
Don't have anything like that? Fine. It's your opinion. Whether you
like it
or not, that's the upshot.
It's more than you have.
If you have any problem with any of my claims, you are encouraged to
be skeptical. But no, all you do is make unsubstantiated claims.
And all your claims are unsubstantiated. Yawn.....
I guess you missed all that data I gave from objective sources. Sorry if you
don't understand what constitutes evidence. Here's a bit of advice. You
probably don't want to become an engineer or a policeman where this talent
is valued. Burger flipper is more your line.
You have no evidence, chum. Period.
Everyone was up in arms almost from the start of his term
over things like missed votes. Look at what effect
his presence had on the ticket in NC. Nothing.
That's all well and good, but running for Senate and running as the
Veep on
a ticket with a Massachussetts liberal are two different things.
Not when your presence on the ticket is supposed to "deliver" the
South, goofy.
So just being on the ticket is supposed to automatically overcome
centuries of bigotry against Catholics, right?
I guess Kerry thought so, right?
Apparently. So what? Who the ***** gives a ***** what that idiot thinks?
Thanks for conceding the point. Again! Damn. You are just one big
motherfucking concession speech.
Oh, you're bigotted against Catholics AND Southerners, huh? You're
just
one floating mass of contradictions.
Look. I understand that it was the
"good college try" and all, but ***** you backwoods folk wouldn't
elect a Papist if your life depended on it.
Oh, you're a bigot besides being an ignorant hypocrite.
Knew you were.
That's right...calling out bigotry is being bigoted.
See, you can't even SEE your own bigotry against the South.
I'm surprised you'd even defend Edwards, good ole boy that he is.
War is Peace. Freedom
is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. For pete's sake, even Kennedy didn't get
20% of the vote in North Carolina. Yeah. Real progressive folks there in
Carolina. They nearly had a collective coronary when Lieberman was the VEEP
candidate.
Wow, you got through that without mentioning white sheets, cotton
bales, cornpone,
banjos or darkies!
I'll take that as a compliment. There are a lot of pretty smart
folks here
that I couldn't hold a candle to intellectually.
Any of the BAHWAH knights, probably.
But not you.
Yes, you couldn't hold a candle to me.
Try and follow the antecedents. It's not that hard. My 8-year-old nieces can
parse a sentence better than you.
Then they can parse rings around you, chum.
Go back to grammar school.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: !Yet Another Hilarious Post About The Breck Girl |
06 Jun 2007 01:26:50 PM |
|
|
Kurt Nicklas wrote:
It's your opinion only, Smarm-boy.
Nope. Word count the article.
You actually word counted the article,Bumstead?!?
I know...it's a weakness I suppose. I'm a data driven guy.
No, you're driven by smarminess.
Smarminess? *****, this twit devotes one fifth of an article to a pathetic
attempt to compare a politician and a 18th century French queen based on a
false attribution and at the same time tries to give a lesson on French
translation (which he obviously misinterprets too). If that ain't
smarminess, nothing is.
You get the Gold Star of the week!
Fine. I deserve that. But facts is facts.
Meaningless facts is meaningless facts.
I'm sorry if you cannot see the meaning. It's pretty obvious. But then
evereything is a challenge for you, isn't it?
Which is completely irrelevant, segue boy!
Not at all. Your own hypocracy is fair game, right?
But my hypocricy or lack thereof is not in question here...ergo it is
irrelevent. Do try to stay on topic. I know it's hard for you
hyperactive video generation twits, but nonetheless...do try.
No, actually it IS fair game here
Just as discussing Paris Hilton's brazilian is fair game. Irrelevent, but
fair game.
Ushering systemic change (translation: setting up big government
programs) is what leadership is all about. Do you have any idea
what his ideas are for alleviating poverty?
Most of it won't cost the taxpayers a nickel.
Let's resurrect Lyndon Johnson. You'd like his ideas...
Sorry, I've had enough with the fucking Texans, thanks very much.
You'd love his War on Poverty. It's JUST what you have in mind!
So why did Edwards take a job with those cretins? What could he have
hoped to learn from them??
Again...and let me be clear...I never characterized Fortress as
cretins. You did. Do try not to put words in my mouth. I called
predatory lenders cretins.
So Edwards DIDN'T take a job with predatory lenders? Just what ARE
subprime lenders anyway? I think you're confused.
No, he worked for Fortress, an assett management firm. It has never been
implicated by NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo in his investigation of
subprime lenders. Do you really want me to explain to you what they are?
So which Big Labor and trial lawyer organizations support him?
What does it matter? What Big Labor and trial lawyer organizations
have supported Bush the past 8 years? Do you think they are so dumb
as to only contribute to one party?
The issue is Edwards not Bush. Do try to stay on topic.
My point is that every elected politician in the history of this country,
perhaps the world, takes money from interest groups. Why you all of a sudden
think Edwards is being devious beyond what even your boy Bush has done is
completely illogical. I'm sure you understood that, but you decided to wave
your hands and run away.
You're a "data driven guy". Give us some names.
Read it yourself:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/industrybucks.htm
Only in answer to your own childishness, pinhead.
Wow...that's really taking me back. How does it go again? "I'm
rubber, you're glue...?"
I don't know how it goes. You're the sophomore here. You tell me.
Oh, brother. Did you mean the "sophomoric" one? Two different
things, bra, Hahahaha, What a maroon!
You do know what sophomore means, right? Have a look in the mirror.
Sure...a sophomore is a 2nd year secondary school student. Sorry, sporto,
I'm degreed twice over.
Sorry. You claimed that there was discontent that Edwards was
missing votes in the Senate.
Yep.
I showed that was wrong.
No, you asserted it. There is a difference.
It's not an assertion if I gave you data. Here it is again in case you
missed it:
In the first four years of his term, Edwards missed a total of 6/1305 votes
according to the WashingtonPost.com (I can give you a specific link if you
want). Wow, 0.45%! No wonder everyone was ready to run him out on a rail!
Now let's look at the other senator, Mr. Jesse Helms. He missed 222/1305
votes over the same period. Over 17%. Now I understand Jesse was a bit ill,
but that's not the point. The point is that your claim must be bogus.
Missing 0.45% of votes is negligible and among the lowest for all senators.
You claim that you have some kind of
informal poll that will support your claim that Edwards would have
lost.
Only the informal poll of living in the state his entire term of
office.
Which means ***** all.
You, on the other hand, have nothing.
You and the author both claimed Edwards would not have been reelected. You
are the one that needs to back up the claim. I don't have to back anything
since it's not my claim. If you don't understand how debate works, that's
not my problem. You are wrong and you are either too pigheaded to admit it
or too stupid to realize it.
not even an anti-Edwards editorial in the local KKK rag...to so
More bigotry noted.
Awwww...making fun of racists hurts your feelings, eh?
much as give an ounce of credit to your claim.
I've got a lot. You've got nothing but bigotry.
Classic projection.
I guess you missed all that data I gave from objective sources.
Sorry if you don't understand what constitutes evidence. Here's a
bit of advice. You probably don't want to become an engineer or a
policeman where this talent is valued. Burger flipper is more your
line.
You have no evidence, chum. Period.
How about the evidence that refutes your claim regarding Edwards voting
record? I've reproduced it. You must have seen it. If you disagree with it
then you need to come up with something more to reject it.
So just being on the ticket is supposed to automatically overcome
centuries of bigotry against Catholics, right?
I guess Kerry thought so, right?
Apparently. So what? Who the ***** gives a ***** what that idiot
thinks? Thanks for conceding the point. Again! Damn. You are just
one big motherfucking concession speech.
Oh, you're bigotted against Catholics AND Southerners, huh? You're
just
one floating mass of contradictions.
One has to wonder how you possibly made that rationailzation. How do you
preceive my bigotry against Catholics. I merely called out the fact that no
Catholic nominee for president has done well in the south.
As for southerners, I live in Athens, GA. I am bigoted against bigots. Most
folks here are not bigots.
That's right...calling out bigotry is being bigoted.
See, you can't even SEE your own bigotry against the South.
Wrong. Bigotry against bigotry. Hell, I live further south than you do,
dipshit.
I'm surprised you'd even defend Edwards, good ole boy that he is.
Well, if that's the way you see it, fine. I was merely trying to point out
the logical fallacies in the article. The only reason it seems that I'm
supporting Edwards is because the article is an anti-Edwards screed.
I am not now, nor have I ever been, a supporter of his candidacy.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: !Yet Another Hilarious Post About The Breck Girl |
04 Jun 2007 02:13:58 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 16:55:31 -0000 there was an Ancient Kurt Nicklas
<nicklask@bellsouth.net> who stoppeth one in alt.atheism
John Edwards: 21st Century Marie Antoinette
Special to FreeRepublic ^ | 3 June 2007 | John Armor (Congressman
Billybob)
Posted on 06/03/2007 7:28:35 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob
Well, I'm impressed by the source. Do we have any proof this guy even
lives in North Carolina?
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
.
|
|
| |
