POLITICS <== Post Your Dumb Opinions Here

by **dajafi** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 16:56:36

Yeah, but Edwards didn't pay.

(His contributors paid, but that was after the fact.)

by **TenuredVulture** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 16:59:56

dajafi wrote:Yeah, but Edwards didn't pay.

(His contributors paid, but that was after the fact.)

Either you pay upfront, or you pay for the wining and dining, either way, you pay.

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 18:24:33

dajafi wrote:Yeah, but Edwards didn't pay.

He will. Oh, he will.

by **Bakestar** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 18:47:18

I guess my campaign contribution went toward rubbers. Or pregnancy tests?

by **pacino** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 18:49:17

Bakestar wrote:I guess my campaign contribution went toward rubbers. Or pregnancy tests?

Likely the latter as it certainly didn't go towards the former.

by **drsmooth** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 18:51:40

Houshphandzadeh wrote:Call me crazy, but while your wife is battling cancer seems like a sort of reasonable time to get a little on the side.

"I agree. In fact I think it's your right as an American!!"

\

by **Monkeyboy** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 19:14:09

VoxOrion wrote:
Houshphandzadeh wrote:Yo check this out:

"Those who are good with hammers see nothing but nails."

Sit on that.

There's a better variation to this:

"When you only know how to use a hammer, all problems begin to look like nails."

....and the Phillies version: When Daulton crashed his car, he was getting hammered with Nails.

by **dajafi** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 20:56:47

Bakestar wrote:I guess my campaign contribution went toward rubbers. Or pregnancy tests?

Yeah, I was thinking how pissed I'd be if I'd sent him money.

Also, that his whole shtick was (essentially) that he was Mr. Moral Crusade when evidently he was fucking around on his cancer-stricken wife.

by **pacino** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 20:57:56

dajafi wrote:Also, that his whole shtick was (essentially) that he was Mr. Moral Crusade when evidently he was $#@! around on his cancer-stricken wife.

So what though?

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 21:00:00

pacino wrote:
dajafi wrote:Also, that his whole shtick was (essentially) that he was Mr. Moral Crusade when evidently he was $#@! around on his cancer-stricken wife.

So what though?

Katie Couric:
Some have suggested that you're capitalizing on this.

John Edwards:
Here's what I would say about that.

First of all, there's not a single person in America that should vote for me because Elizabeth has cancer. Not a one. ...

But, I think every single candidate for president, Republican and Democratic have lives, personal lives, that indicate something about what kind of human being they are. And I think it is a fair evaluation for America to engage in to look at what kind of human beings each of us are, and what kind of president we'd make.

by **pacino** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 21:02:10

That's what he said, who cares what he said. This is sorta like Gingrich, Craig, Clinton, , etc.

Why should their personal business matter if they're not breaking a law?

by **Monkeyboy** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 21:03:28

The Wall Street Journal has a story on the Obama as Anti-Christ ad I mentioned earlier.

[url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121816422728523227.html]McCain Web Ad Is Accused
Of Linking Obama to Antichrist[/url]

McCain can't inspire the religious right, so he figures scaring them will get the same result. Motivate the base and get them to the polls, no matter what it takes.

And what's with all the lobbyists in McCain's campaign after saying he would keep them out? I guess he couldn't plug into the GOP machinery without taking a bunch of them onboard. [/quote]

by **TenuredVulture** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 21:03:54

pacino wrote:That's what he said, who cares what he said. This is sorta like Gingrich, Craig, Clinton, , etc.

Why should their personal business matter if they're not breaking a law?

I think character does matter. The fact that Bush couldn't handle his liquor was probably a good indication he couldn't handle the Presidency. I don't care if he stopped drinking, indeed, to me, his inability to meet world leaders and toast with a proper drink is, to me, embarrassing as an American.

by **dajafi** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 21:05:37

(edit: this was in response to hoya's quote)

Yeah, but it's not even that. More like the people I was (gently) arguing with online about Edwards, eight or so months ago, seemed to be making the case that Edwards was the only Democrat telling it like it is about the economy and the true depth of our problems. Hillary was part of the problem (true), and Obama lacked the toughness to really fight the entrenched interests (also probably true), but Edwards--by the sheer moral force of his critique and charisma--could make the walls come tumbling down.

Now, perhaps pacino is asserting that his extramarital sex has nothing to do with his critique; my wife reminded me that Martin Luther King was a serious p-hound too. And it's a fair point. But in our media culture, actual hypocrisy is less damning in practical terms than the perception of hypocrisy, especially when (whispers) sex! (end whisper) is involved.

by **pacino** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 21:05:42

TenuredVulture wrote:
pacino wrote:That's what he said, who cares what he said. This is sorta like Gingrich, Craig, Clinton, , etc.

Why should their personal business matter if they're not breaking a law?

I think character does matter. The fact that Bush couldn't handle his liquor was probably a good indication he couldn't handle the Presidency. I don't care if he stopped drinking, indeed, to me, his inability to meet world leaders and toast with a proper drink is, to me, embarrassing as an American.

That's fairly irrational.

by **Monkeyboy** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 21:05:46

pacino wrote:That's what he said, who cares what he said. This is sorta like Gingrich, Craig, Clinton, , etc.

Why should their personal business matter if they're not breaking a law?

well, craig was breaking a few laws, and most likely broke a few in the past that didn't happen the day he was caught.

by **TenuredVulture** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 21:08:26

pacino wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:
pacino wrote:That's what he said, who cares what he said. This is sorta like Gingrich, Craig, Clinton, , etc.

Why should their personal business matter if they're not breaking a law?

I think character does matter. The fact that Bush couldn't handle his liquor was probably a good indication he couldn't handle the Presidency. I don't care if he stopped drinking, indeed, to me, his inability to meet world leaders and toast with a proper drink is, to me, embarrassing as an American.

That's fairly irrational.

I don't think so. Do you really want a guy who can't deal with liquor running the country? What if he relapses? Addiction is a mental illness. I don't want someone who is mentally ill being President of the US. Or, if you disagree, and you think alcoholics are simply weak, well, still, you don't want that guy as President.

by **pacino** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 21:10:43

TenuredVulture wrote:
pacino wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:
pacino wrote:That's what he said, who cares what he said. This is sorta like Gingrich, Craig, Clinton, , etc.

Why should their personal business matter if they're not breaking a law?

I think character does matter. The fact that Bush couldn't handle his liquor was probably a good indication he couldn't handle the Presidency. I don't care if he stopped drinking, indeed, to me, his inability to meet world leaders and toast with a proper drink is, to me, embarrassing as an American.

That's fairly irrational.

I don't think so. Do you really want a guy who can't deal with liquor running the country? What if he relapses? Addiction is a mental illness. I don't want someone who is mentally ill being President of the US. Or, if you disagree, and you think alcoholics are simply weak, well, still, you don't want that guy as President.

Bush formerly doing coke and being a drunk has nothing to do with his ability to be the head of state. There are plenty of functional former addicts in society...you probably know several. Your irrational comment was the one about him not toasting a foreign head of state...as though that matters in anything. So he drinks water, a head of state gets pissed and we're in WWIII?

by **TenuredVulture** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 21:16:37

pacino wrote:Bush formerly doing coke and being a drunk has nothing to do with his ability to be the head of state. There are plenty of functional former addicts in society...you probably know several. Your irrational comment was the one about him not toasting a foreign head of state...as though that matters in anything. So he drinks water, a head of state gets pissed and we're in WWIII?

OK, I could see the whole not toasting thing being a bit irrational. But just because former addicts can become productive members of society, work as professionals and so forth doesn't, In my opinion, change the fact that I believe, because of the stakes of the job, and its nature, such a problem disqualifies someone from being President of the US.

For others, the poor judgment or lack of self-control that leads a person to commit adultery might be a similar problem.

I don't think the Presidency is like other jobs.

Look, I won't vote for fundamentalists either, and I'd be reluctant to vote for a Baptist. There's lots of characteristics that in my mind disqualify someone for the Presidency.

by **Monkeyboy** » Fri Aug 08, 2008 22:06:23

I linked to the WSJ story about the Obama-AntiChrist ad, but this one from Time is much better and actually explains the symbols in the ad, as well as the emails going around.

Here

Archived

POLITICS <== Post Your Dumb Opinions Here