ArgusRun: ph0rk: ArgusRun: [cdn.wg.uproxx.com image 600x338]

Pam scares me.

It's embarrassing, but I identify with her. Overweight, massively horny, totally crude and pretty violent.

/plus I hand out blow jobs like puffy stickers
//but I drink less

Uh, what's a "puffy sticker?"

Nobody wants to see an OLD biatch tearin' off anything - especially when she's biatchin' about somethin'!

bronyaur1: This stupid piece of crap deserves everything coming his way. That said, I have no interest in following this sad, tawdry spectacle.

This is what our national media wants to cover, so it does.

Buffet: Nobody wants to see an OLD biatch tearin' off anything - especially when she's biatchin' about somethin'!

There's no "A" in biatch.

Genevieve Marie: He also called his mistress and the mother of his child a "crazy slut" while denying he was the father.

Seriously, John Edwards is a pretty fantastic representation of what misogyny looks like. It looks like that.

It's also often in a position of power.

*shudder*

to be fair, the liberal media has often portrayed her as a crazy slut.
and we all know you can't trust a cray slut when they accuse you of being the babies father.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0 8/08/rielle-hunter-all-about-j_n _1 17793.html

Nrokreffefp: freewill: His private life should have no bearing on his political career, its as simple a concept as ad hominem attacks being logical fallacies. .

I was thinking about this earlier; that sentiment keeps cropping up in politics whether its the French/Italian presidents, Senators/Representatives, Presidents, or potential candidates, or even that guy from the IMF.

Think about this: what if his private life is something he's ashamed of? Doesn't that open a man (or woman) up to all kinds of potential for blackmail and extortion? In all seriousness, frankly once someone has command of most/all of the military and/or nuclear codes, or great power over national policy, damn right their private life has a bearing on their political actions. If they've got a deep dark secret they want left alone, and someone suddenly brings it up and says 'do this or I'll tell the world', isn't that reason enough to want full disclosure from the people we elect to lead us?

Honestly I don't care if a politician has a mistress or two, a kid out of wedlock, or youthful drug use. If they perhaps were involved in a negligent death but were found innocent, I'm still willing to accept that people make mistakes and learn from them and maybe become better leaders because of it. I do not however think it's acceptable to sweep things under the rug. Own up to it and show how it's made you stronger, but don't excuse it as 'your private life'. It's the 21st century, if you want that much power, you have no private life. God knows I've made mistakes personally and professionally, but I won't lie about them and I believe they've shown me how to handle future situations where I might have floundered in the past.

Buffet: Buffet: Nobody wants to see an OLD biatch tearin' off anything - especially when she's biatchin' about somethin'!

There's no "A" in biatch.

There is an "I" in your mom tho

He is a jackass. Elizabeth Edwards in her prime:

If he's lucky, very lucky, his daughter might forgive him enough to sit at his deathbed when the day comes for him to pass.

ArgusRun: ph0rk: ArgusRun: [cdn.wg.uproxx.com image 600x338]

Pam scares me.

It's embarrassing, but I identify with her. Overweight, massively horny, totally crude and pretty violent.

/plus I hand out blow jobs like puffy stickers
//but I drink less

We can work on the drinking...

/otherwise, how YOU doing...?

Nrokreffefp: freewill: "He didn't have much of a reaction," Ms Reynolds said.

That would be because he is a farking monster.

You should read "The Prince". Machiavelli said (according to my reading) that the ruler was essentially a sacrifice to immorality for the good of a society. Edward's lack of reaction was simply good sense. His private life should have no bearing on his political career, its as simple a concept as ad hominem attacks being logical fallacies. You don't know the details of their relationship, unbunch your panties. This account certainly makes her sound like a psychotic moron to me, even if she was wronged. Women should not marry influential or wealthy men and expect fidelity, it is probably the easiest road to heartbreak.

I'm with you for most of this save for the fact that he used his family as part of his act.

It's fair game to call you out on your charade when you use it as part of your image.

ladyfortuna: Nrokreffefp: freewill: His private life should have no bearing on his political career, its as simple a concept as ad hominem attacks being logical fallacies. .

I was thinking about this earlier; that sentiment keeps cropping up in politics whether its the French/Italian presidents, Senators/Representatives, Presidents, or potential candidates, or even that guy from the IMF.

Think about this: what if his private life is something he's ashamed of? Doesn't that open a man (or woman) up to all kinds of potential for blackmail and extortion? In all seriousness, frankly once someone has command of most/all of the military and/or nuclear codes, or great power over national policy, damn right their private life has a bearing on their political actions. If they've got a deep dark secret they want left alone, and someone suddenly brings it up and says 'do this or I'll tell the world', isn't that reason enough to want full disclosure from the people we elect to lead us?

Honestly I don't care if a politician has a mistress or two, a kid out of wedlock, or youthful drug use. If they perhaps were involved in a negligent death but were found innocent, I'm still willing to accept that people make mistakes and learn from them and maybe become better leaders because of it. I do not however think it's acceptable to sweep things under the rug. Own up to it and show how it's made you stronger, but don't excuse it as 'your private life'. It's the 21st century, if you want that much power, you have no private life. God knows I've made mistakes personally and professionally, but I won't lie about them and I believe they've shown me how to handle future situations where I might have floundered in the past.

When our politicians are committing us to wars that slaughter a hundred thousand innocents, I could really care less how they act on a personal level. I care what they intend to do with my taxes. Does he want to promote adultery? I dunno, but I do. I don't think that you have enough knowledge to either determine that he is ashamed of what he did, or whether he should be, or even whether it was a mistake.

His daughter has been in court with him.

/sad

MAYORBOB: Demo

yes, thank goodness you retards voted for King Retard instead of a Libtard

MAYORBOB: And just think, at one time, there was a metric shiatload of Democrats who thought this pantload deserved to be president. Thank God his pier collapsed before his ship came in.

/whoops

Nrokreffefp: freewill: "He didn't have much of a reaction," Ms Reynolds said.

That would be because he is a farking monster.

You should read "The Prince". Machiavelli said (according to my reading) that the ruler was essentially a sacrifice to immorality for the good of a society. Edward's lack of reaction was simply good sense. His private life should have no bearing on his political career, its as simple a concept as ad hominem attacks being logical fallacies. You don't know the details of their relationship, unbunch your panties. This account certainly makes her sound like a psychotic moron to me, even if she was wronged. Women should not marry influential or wealthy men and expect fidelity, it is probably the easiest road to heartbreak.

I was going to ignore this, but I see that you're serious, so I'll say this:

I read The Prince a long time ago, but I don't believe that Machiavelli suggested that your personal life is or even should be irrelevant to political success (which is how the conversation about your post seems to have gone). Image is everything, and you should ensure that you have a beneficial one. The separation between personal morality and political action is that personal morality can interfere with political success, so such choices should be made objectively, detached from personal morality.

In short, it's not a license to stick it in the crazy. Quite the opposite. Supposing his wife was a psychotic moron, a person of even limited sense would realize that that is all the more reason not to leave a loaded gun laying around, just waiting for her to find it and start shooting.

Now, you may feel that Edwards' lack of reaction was some kind of calculated, controlled decision, fair enough, but I think that you're giving him an awful lot of credit. I think he just didn't give a shiat, and was arrogant enough to think that he didn't need to look like he did, either.

freewill: Nrokreffefp: freewill: "He didn't have much of a reaction," Ms Reynolds said.

That would be because he is a farking monster.

You should read "The Prince". Machiavelli said (according to my reading) that the ruler was essentially a sacrifice to immorality for the good of a society. Edward's lack of reaction was simply good sense. His private life should have no bearing on his political career, its as simple a concept as ad hominem attacks being logical fallacies. You don't know the details of their relationship, unbunch your panties. This account certainly makes her sound like a psychotic moron to me, even if she was wronged. Women should not marry influential or wealthy men and expect fidelity, it is probably the easiest road to heartbreak.

I was going to ignore this, but I see that you're serious, so I'll say this:

I read The Prince a long time ago, but I don't believe that Machiavelli suggested that your personal life is or even should be irrelevant to political success (which is how the conversation about your post seems to have gone). Image is everything, and you should ensure that you have a beneficial one. The separation between personal morality and political action is that personal morality can interfere with political success, so such choices should be made objectively, detached from personal morality.

In short, it's not a license to stick it in the crazy. Quite the opposite. Supposing his wife was a psychotic moron, a person of even limited sense would realize that that is all the more reason not to leave a loaded gun laying around, just waiting for her to find it and start shooting.

Now, you may feel that Edwards' lack of reaction was some kind of calculated, controlled decision, fair enough, but I think that you're giving him an awful lot of credit. I think he just didn't give a shiat, and was arrogant enough to think that he didn't need to look like he did, either.

You read the Treatise poorly. It was not directed at you, or anyone like you. It was directed at Lorenzo DeMedici, who was essentially an inherited tyrant. You are not 'a Prince', and as such, you are regarded as chattel to be manipulated by Machiavelli.

Also: Machiavelli would mock the idea that a religious institution like marriage should constrain the actions of a prince. He openly stated that a ruler only keeps promises when they benefit him or increase his power.

Spad31: Ladies, if your man is on the National political stage and worth millions, assume he's farking someone else in addition to you.

Because he CAN, that's why.

/it is known

I think Al Franken would disagree with this. He seems genuinely happily married.

Point02GPA: His daughter has been in court with him.

/sad

I would tell my father to go to hell and rot if I were her. He is a scumbag of the highest order and she is stupid for even supporting him.

You guys are missing the funny part.

Edwards is in trouble because of campaign finance laws. Incumbent politicians love those laws, because it makes it so much more difficult for grass roots types to run against them. So step one in any 'outsider' campaign is; a couple million dollars of legal work, before you can even start fund raising.

When an incumbent ignores those laws; they aren't prosecuted. Look at all of Hillary's violations - an outsider would have gone to prison over all that Chinese funny money.

But now it looks like Edwards is going to prison; because he embezzled from his own campaign. They finally screwed one of their own, with their 'protect the incumbent' horseshiat.

It's Wonderful.



He should never have come out of that toilet.

Nrokreffefp: ladyfortuna: Nrokreffefp: freewill:

When our politicians are committing us to wars that slaughter a hundred thousand innocents, I could really care less how they act on a personal level. I care what they intend to do with my taxes. Does he want to promote adultery? I dunno, but I do. I don't think that you have enough knowledge to either determine that he is ashamed of what he did, or whether he should be, or even whether it was a mistake.

You really missed the point there. When they have secrets due to immoral behavior, they become MUCH easier to manipulate.

Also as Gen Marie said, "He also called his mistress and the mother of his child a "crazy slut" while denying he was the father." To me, that indicates a great deal of shame and denial. I'm guessing if you looked at still photos of him during the whole media exposure of the situation, he'd exhibit it clearly.

Tits or GTFO....oh wait...she didn't have any....

Nrokreffefp: freewill: "He didn't have much of a reaction," Ms Reynolds said.

That would be because he is a farking monster.

You should read "The Prince". Machiavelli said (according to my reading) that the ruler was essentially a sacrifice to immorality for the good of a society. Edward's lack of reaction was simply good sense. His private life should have no bearing on his political career, its as simple a concept as ad hominem attacks being logical fallacies. You don't know the details of their relationship, unbunch your panties. This account certainly makes her sound like a psychotic moron to me, even if she was wronged. Women should not marry influential or wealthy men and expect fidelity, it is probably the easiest road to heartbreak.

I think it has more to do with Edwards meeting Type I (personality) criteria for psychopathy than anything else.

The guy was a smooth-talking, skin-deep charmer, pathological liar, deceiver, and a self-centered, grandiose narcissist. The flagrant lack of empathy, combined with what can only be described as proto-emotions - he obviously lacked the capacity for forming any sort of complex emotions - the only emotion he ever showed was outrage/anger when others attacked his character, is what was on full-display here. There was no Machievellian cogs turning in his head; the only thing he was thinking was, "Why the fark won't this biatch just farking die already?"

His wife was exhibiting what can only be described as soul-crushing pain, and he lacked the ability to empathize with her in the slightest; it will probably be revealed that he was angered that she had the audacity to confront him in public where reporters may be watching.

/plus, malpractice attorneys = the ultimate definition for parasitic lifestyle
//I wouldn't put it past him to have murdered her as she started to get more and more "in the way" - the breast cancer would have provided him with a perfect cover for her demise

John Edwards staffer testifies his late wife Elizabeth tore off her shirt and bra during an argument. COME AT ME, BRO BRA

Cosmic J: I think Al Franken would disagree with this. He seems genuinely happily married.

I met Franken when I was waiting tables at Red Robin and am pretty sure he and is wife have a 'Special Arrangement'. I'm not saying he invited me back to his hotel, just to the men's room.

Cosmic J: Spad31: Ladies, if your man is on the National political stage and worth millions, assume he's farking someone else in addition to you.

Because he CAN, that's why.

/it is known

I think Al Franken would disagree with this. He seems genuinely happily married.

Let's revisit this when he starts a campaign for Prez. I would say he's hardly been "vetted" yet. Somehow entering the national stage has a way of starting the skeleton revival.

Elizabeth: COME AT ME BRO!

John: UMADBRO?

Nrokreffefp: ou read the Treatise poorly. It was not directed at you, or anyone like you. It was directed at Lorenzo DeMedici, who was essentially an inherited tyrant. You are not 'a Prince', and as such, you are regarded as chattel to be manipulated by Machiavelli.

*eyeroll* OK, guy. You're the one trying to use Machiavelli to rationalize an aspiring ruler who, needing the support of the people to acquire power, embroils himself in national scandal and makes himself an object of national fun and scorn, all for what he branded "a crazy slut", yet I'm the one who read it poorly.

Nrokreffefp: Also: Machiavelli would mock the idea that a religious institution like marriage should constrain the actions of a prince. He openly stated that a ruler only keeps promises when they benefit him or increase his power.

I'm not clear on where you're drifting off, here. For Machiavelli, immoral action always has to be on the table, because sometimes, it's what works. However, if moral action, or at least the appearance of moral action, serves the ruler's aims best, that is preferable. The goal is always the maintenance or expansion of power. That's the crucial point: success in this respect is what constrains the ruler's behavior.

Edwards' pursuit of personal vice, allowing his desires to jeopardize his political aspirations, is not merely the absence of Machiavellian thinking, it's actually something Machiavelli specifically warns against, calling out lasciviousness by name, because this is what happens.

So the staffer's late wife, who was also named Elizabeth, tore off her shirt & bra during an argument?

/dnrtfa
//or any of the above posts

Cate got the square face.

Nrokreffefp: freewill: "He didn't have much of a reaction," Ms Reynolds said.

That would be because he is a farking monster.

You should read "The Prince". Machiavelli said (according to my reading) that the ruler was essentially a sacrifice to immorality for the good of a society. Edward's lack of reaction was simply good sense. His private life should have no bearing on his political career, its as simple a concept as ad hominem attacks being logical fallacies. You don't know the details of their relationship, unbunch your panties. This account certainly makes her sound like a psychotic moron to me, even if she was wronged. Women should not marry influential or wealthy men and expect fidelity, it is probably the easiest road to heartbreak.

Don't know much about Edwards, but my inner pedant feels compelled to point out that many people believe that The Prince was intended as satire.
http://www.historytoday.com/vincent-b arnett/niccolo-machiavelli-%E2%8 0 %93-cunning-critic-political-reason

Is that how she broke a rib?

TWX: He's a slimeball for cheating on his wife while she was ill and slowly heading toward death from it.

He doesn't hold a candle to Newt Gingrich, who cheated at least twice.


Skyrmion: Never trust anyone with Lego hair.


You may be on to something here...

zena: jmr61 Sorry but being a piece of shiat is not a crime and this prosecution will fail. There was no crime. He'll walk.

I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you on that one. He isn't being charged with being a piece of shiat - which, as you said, is not a crime. However, he has been charged with violated federal election laws that limit campaign contributions. He has been charged with failing to accurately report donations (some of which are alleged to have been obtained illegally). And he has been charged with using donated funds to hide his mistress and her pregnancy. Basically, he is accused of using money that was supposed to go towards his campaign to hide/take care of his baby's mama. I think he was indicted on at least five or six counts.

This is the "Let's get Al Capone on Tax Evasion" Method.

goodwynn: He is a jackass. Elizabeth Edwards in her prime:




And this is her revenge beyond the grave. Her "I'm Dying and My Husband is a Douchebag" Tour on all the relevant talk shows sealed it.

TWX: He's a slimeball for cheating on his wife while she was ill and slowly heading toward death from it.

He doesn't hold a candle to Newt Gingrich, who cheated at least twice.

I don't know if it's entirely fair to compare number of offenses to egregiousness; they're two very different situations, and while there are degrees, in this case they shoot off in entirely different directions. Can't we just agree they're both the scum of the Earth without bringing politics into things?

jmr61: Sorry but being a piece of shiat is not a crime and this prosecution will fail. There was no crime. He'll walk.

He's not charged with adultery; he's charged with embezzling campaign contributions. The adultery only comes up in a case like this because it gives him a motive: in this case, acting as a sugar daddy. But to show that his motive came from it, you have to prove that it happened. In that regard, it's not unlike Clinton's perjury case.

Whatever the result of the trial, I think we can all agree that he is a wretched, horrible human being.

If only that were a crime...

I knew he was a piece of crap before this hit the news.

Coming this fall on BRAVO:

RIELLITY

Follow the exploits of batshiat crazy New Age political starfarker Rielle Hunter as she stumbles across this astral plane in search of meaning, child support. This week: Rielle castrates a barista with her teeth for failing to make her latte skinny; John Edwards ignores her calls and gets shanked in the shower by the Aryan Nation.

Dude, I don't want to hear this. I liked Elizabeth Edwards a lot. She had bad taste in men, but she was a good person otherwise.

Millennium: In that regard, it's not unlike Clinton's perjury case.

So, you're saying it should be dismissed, with prejudice?

what i think is hilliarious is people like sean hanity calling edwards a horrible person for all this, but never mentioned one thing about newt doing the same exact thing to his cancer wife.

It gets better: Edwards wanted Bunny Mellon to mortgage her estate in Virginia and give him the proceeds ($50 million) for his "poverty" foundation.

Yep, he tried to screw an old lady out of her house.

Nightsweat: Dude, I don't want to hear this. I liked Elizabeth Edwards a lot. She had bad taste in men, but she was a good person otherwise.

Nope, she was a whiny shrew who was only tolerated by Raleigh society because of John's money. The old guard (the Proctors, the Bartons, etc) of NC families wouldn't have much to do with her or her grasping husband. That's the real reason he built that house in Chapel Hill - it was clear they would never be accepted by the "Five Points" crowd, who understood that he was just a jumped-up sandlapper and she was a social climber.

Oh, and she well knew of his proclivities - he was a p-hound from way back. But like a lot of wives who tolerate bad husbands, all she could see was a chance at re-decorating the Oval Office. Like Hillary Clinton, she wasn't so mad at his cheating, she was mad because she recognized that his stupidity at getting caught ruined her chance at the White House.

Was it really a row or did she just hear someone say "Hey, Liz! Show us your tits, girl!"

This is pretty much how I see every lawyer in Congress. He's a sociopath.

sanriosucks: Do I have to be the first one to say that Elizabeth was kind of hot, in that martha stewart, kay bailey hutchinson sort of way?

I'm going to have to disagree and agree. I would say better than Martha Stewart and Kay Bailey Hutchinson but still in that realm.

/Probably wouldn't turn her down if propositioned

ladyfortuna: Nrokreffefp: freewill: His private life should have no bearing on his political career, its as simple a concept as ad hominem attacks being logical fallacies. .

I was thinking about this earlier; that sentiment keeps cropping up in politics whether its the French/Italian presidents, Senators/Representatives, Presidents, or potential candidates, or even that guy from the IMF.

Think about this: what if his private life is something he's ashamed of? Doesn't that open a man (or woman) up to all kinds of potential for blackmail and extortion?

Yes, this is why when applying for private sector jobs that require a military background check/clearance you have to answer questions about all your sexual relationships, debts, club memberships, porn likes/dislikes/habits etc.

If anyone has any dirt on you it can be used against you and you are therefore a threat to security.

So, um, yeah, the private life has a lot of bearing on the job he was running for and any other public job as well.

Nightsweat: Dude, I don't want to hear this. I liked Elizabeth Edwards a lot. She had bad taste in men, but she was a good person otherwise.

Really,
How long did you know her?