John Edwards should never be president

[Lynn7]

He may have been a good lawyer but for someone who wants to run for president and believes in the extreme inequality of Americans (his two Americas philosophy) for him to go out and have $400 haricuts and get facials shows that he does not know how to make good judgements about how to conduct himself in a campaign where you are trying to win the hearts and minds of voters. Yeesh.


Article (http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2007/04/19//news/local/doc4626f3bd6f2f2920813459.txt)

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Lynn7
He may have been a good lawyer but for someone who wants to run for president and believes in the extreme inequality of Americans (his two Americas philosophy) for him to go out and have $400 haricuts and get facials shows that he does not know how to make good judgements about how to conduct himself in a campaign where you are trying to win the hearts and minds of voters. Yeesh.


Article (http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2007/04/19//news/local/doc4626f3bd6f2f2920813459.txt)


Well that puts Rudy out of the running...

Do you happen to have the reciepts of other politicians' personal expenses?

[Tuukka]

$400 sounds pretty cheap, since every predidential candidate surely uses high-end stylists to handle these things.

[Thrizzle]

lol, glad to see Matt Drudge covering the hard hitting issues of the day.

[Badbird]

People who have more money than the eaverage person spend more money than the average person.

Think of all those extra tax dollers he just spent to help school!

This is such a stupid argument. So if you make lots of money, you should automatically give up every indulgence and give that money to charity instead? We could all do that. Instead of buying Hummers and Mustangs, we should all buy Kias instead. We should settle for a nice 19 inch TV and not blow a wad on a 50 inch HD.

We should all just settle with dial up internet access instead of being spoiled with high speed. Yeah, the pages might load slower, but knowing you gave that extra $15 a month to that AIDS charity makes you feel better.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Anybody who won't vote for somebody because of the cost of his haircut shouldn't be voting in the first place.

[Cyclonus]

Dunno, 400 bucks still sounds like a lot for a haircut--but that's the last thing I think of whenever I need to decide where to cast my votes.

[bigred760]

Originally posted by Cyclonus
Dunno, 400 bucks still sounds like a lot for a haircut--but that's the last thing I think of whenever I need to decide where to cast my votes.

I know; I doubt he's the only one with expensive tastes in things where most of us would be happy with paying pennies for.

[The Postmaster General]

Hypocrisy? Like GH Bush saying Americans should be more like The Waltons?

The liberal ideals of The Waltons are pretty far seperated from The Bushes

The Cloudburst 11/11/76
John-Boy sells "John-Boy's Meadow" to a mining company to meet payments on his printing press. Ike and Corabeth follow suit. What everyone does not know, is that the company plans to strip mine which will ruin the land.

The Hunt 10/5/72
John Boy prepares to go on his first hunt and distresses over taking an animals life.

The Fire 1/11/73
A young girl's father objects to Miss Hunter teaching Evolution. During a drunken rage he burns down the school and is killed in the fire.



This goes on-and-on, for 10 seasons!!! My point is that ideals aren't the same thing as a lifestyle. I'm sure Bush had good intentions when citing the ideals of the TV mountain family, but much like many of his other brethren, he can't see past superficialities to what should matter most.

Criticizing the price of a haircut is also superficial.

[AceD]

I'm guessing Lynn isn't totally serious, but if that's the only reason you won't vote for someone, then I do think that's incredibly short-sighted and small-minded. Instead, why not vote for someone who makes their decisions and sticks to them, like good ol' Rudy.

Wait. :rolleyes:

As has been said, though....I love Drudge, but come on.

[Squid Vicious]

I agree with the title of this thread. But that's about it.

[Lynn7]

He's entitled to get a $400 haircut, of course! But when you want to be president and you are trying to appeal to the poor, is this the best way to go about it? :D

But, I would like to say that the fact that he has a $400 haircut and gets a $250 facial suggests to me that he is a little vain, lol! His hair does not look like it is that great anyway but that is just me. I'll bet he could get the same cut for less without having to go to GreatCuts or Costcutter, lol!
Also, he gives Rush Limbaugh some good ammo- Rush has already been known to call him the "Breck Girl" from the last election.

Plus, don't blame Drudge for the story- it was from the Boston Globe and Jay Leno had a little fun with the story in his monologue last night.

Here's another source:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8OJOO2O0&show_article=1

This one talks about the campaign paid the bills but he has to pay them back. It was all a big mistake. Right. Why didn't he just use his credit card?

[The Postmaster General]

I'm getting sick of this stereotype of poor people, as if we dislike anyone who is stinking rich.

[QUENTIN]

Haircut for John Edwards
Cost: $400

Illegal War for George W. Bush
Cost: $500,000,000,000+
69,000+ lives
3.4 million Iraqi citizen's homes
America's integrity at home and abroad

Yeah, of course I don't like either, but I think this is a case where it's easy to pick the lesser of two evils. I can also guarantee you Lynn that the majority of Republican politicians you support get extravagantly expensive haircuts, facial treatments, make-up artists, etc... Think about how much a stylist on call for the president can charge. They're not only all excessively wealthy, but they're important public figures as well and they know they will be on T.V., they all take care of themselves in more expensive ways than they "should". Using an expensive haircut as a reason not to vote for someone is among the silliest of many silly reasons I've heard bandied about and is all the more ridiculous because legitimate claims can be made about Edwards' malfeasance as a lawyer (like all wealthy assholes, he didn't legitimately pay his taxes). Can we keep the discourse about serious matters instead of latching on to every single insignificant story that could possibly be used to criticize one's political opponents?

[The Postmaster General]

Edwards isn't being criticized for his haircut, he's being criticized for saying he wants to help the poor.

[QUENTIN]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Edwards isn't being criticized for his haircut, he's being criticized for saying he wants to help the poor.

I guess that's true, isn't it? Essentially the argument being made is "He can't get an expensive haircut and fight to help the poor, that makes him a hypocrite. Conservative politicians avoid that hypocrisy by not even pretending to care about the poor, good for them"

[Thrizzle]

How very un-christian of him.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by QUENTIN
Haircut for John Edwards
Cost: $400

Illegal War for George W. Bush
Cost: $500,000,000,000+
69,000+ lives
3.4 million Iraqi citizen's homes
America's integrity at home and abroad

Yeah, of course I don't like either, but I think this is a case where it's easy to pick the lesser of two evils. I can also guarantee you Lynn that the majority of Republican politicians you support get extravagantly expensive haircuts, facial treatments, make-up artists, etc... Think about how much a stylist on call for the president can charge. They're not only all excessively wealthy, but they're important public figures as well and they know they will be on T.V., they all take care of themselves in more expensive ways than they "should". Using an expensive haircut as a reason not to vote for someone is among the silliest of many silly reasons I've heard bandied about and is all the more ridiculous because legitimate claims can be made about Edwards' malfeasance as a lawyer (like all wealthy assholes, he didn't legitimately pay his taxes). Can we keep the discourse about serious matters instead of latching on to every single insignificant story that could possibly be used to criticize one's political opponents?

You are misunderstanding me- I am saying he has the right to get a $400 haircut. What I am questioning is his lack of judgement in doing it while trying to get the Democratic presidential nomination. Someone running for president needs to know how to position themselves for appeal to the voters- that is basic. Why do you think Hillary settled in Chappiqua (sp) New York instead of NYC- she needed to appeal to the non-city voters. She already had the NYC voters in the bag.

Look at how Kerry helped hurt himself while windsurfing during his campaign. Even his Democratic handlers for the last election were scratching their heads over that one (after the election). I think one of them wrote a book about that misstep as well as others. Couldn't he wait until he got elected before resuming that passtime?

When you are running to be PRESIDENT of the US is it worth a little self-denial to appeal to the masses. Hypocritical? Sure but that is the way to get elected. People want to see someone who says they care for the poor, doing for the poor, and not getting high priced haircuts- once you are in you can do what you want. It's a question of judgement. I think we can all agree that Hillary is pretty savvy this way.

And for the record- I would criticize a Republican candidate for the same thing. I think it's generically stupid.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
When you are running to be PRESIDENT of the US is it worth a little self-denial to appeal to the masses. Hypocritical? Sure but that is the way to get elected. Hypocritical?

By your statements, you think a better president is one who is well-liked by being hypocritical than one who true-to-their-beliefs and snubbed.

What?

[EVILxxx]

I can think of better reasons not to vote for Edwards.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
By your statements, you think a better president is one who is well-liked by being hypocritical than one who true-to-their-beliefs and snubbed.

What?

It has to do with if he is smart enough to maneuver through the political waters. Like Clinton getting himself known as the first Black president because of how he chose to act and who he decided to visit (Going to Black churches etc). I am not bashing Clinton here by the way just using him as an example of someone who was a smart politician.

Edwards was the one who used the phrase "Two Americas"- he set himself up for certain expectations of how he would behave. To me someone who feels deeply for the poor would feel guilty spending that much on a haircut when he knows that he could get a $100 haircut and donate the rest for other people to get haircuts.

I do find it funny that so many Dems in power are such elitists though, considering how the general public percieves them as being more in touch with the poor than the Republicans are.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

That's absolutely nothing. I got a haircut from a guy once who cut Bush Sr.'s hair and he said Bush paid $1000 for his haircuts, including tips. These guys probably should care about their hair, because as sad as it is some people probably do consider that an issue.

[KcMsterpce]

Oh my goodness. A rich bastard has spent hundreds of dollars on a haircut. That makes him completely unworthy for supporting the poor, and being trusted for president. Man1

[The Heart Collector]

Lynn won't vote for a man who spends 400 dollars on a haircut, but if he spent all that money on cocaine and booze for a considerable period of his life practically daily then that's cool, because whatever, HE FOUND JESUS OK.

[Jon Lyrik]

Whining about this shit is like people who whined about Kerry being an elitist rich boy from Boston and Bush being the salt of the earth. Politicians being rich, corrupt corporate puppets who spend $400 on a haircut? Wow, what a fucking revelation.

[QUENTIN]

I think it's clear that I, and it seems many other schmoes, really did misinterperet Lynn. Re-read her original post. Despite the inflammatory thread title, she's not really complaining that Edwards got a $400 haircut because he can't or shouldn't or it makes him a hypocrite. She seems to just be saying it is bad for his PR isf he gets a $400 haircut and runs on a "help the poor" platform. She's just (I think) questioning his judgment while he's in the spotlight. I'm inclined to agree with her, that yes behaving like a rich man can and will be used against you in the conservative press if you've got a popular "Two Americas" philosophy. However, I think it's practically impossible for people running for president to not behave like the rich people they are, like suggesting Al Gore travel by canoe and whatnot if he's going to oppose global warming. Everyone does it though, there is no candidate with a chance in this race who isn't spending thousands of dollars trying to perfect their image for the cameras and so this complaint can really only stem from the idea that "If you're gonna be rich, you have to be an elitist asshole. You can't dare enjoy the spoils of your wealth and also care about others."

In regards to the article about this, it is stupid petty bullshit to focus on and it makes me sad that the media would waste their time reporting on this when so many more important, often critical events go on entirely without press coverage. But so it goes.

[Jamesadin]

I think my feelings on the issue has been properly stated by most people in this thread.

[The Heart Collector]

Originally posted by QUENTIN
I think it's clear that I, and it seems many other schmoes, really did misinterperet Lynn. Re-read her original post. Despite the inflammatory thread title, she's not really complaining that Edwards got a $400 haircut because he can't or shouldn't or it makes him a hypocrite. She seems to just be saying it is bad for his PR is he gets a $400 haircut and runs on a "help the poor" platform. She's just (I think) questioning his judgment while he's in the spotlight. I'm inclined to agree with her, that yes behaving like a rich man can and will be used against you in the conservative press if you've got a popular "Two Americas" philosophy. However, I think it's practically impossible for people running for president to not behave like the rich people they are, like suggesting Al Gore travel by canoe and whatnot if he's going to oppose global warming. Everyone does it though, there is no candidate with a chance in this race who isn't spending thousands of dollars trying to perfect their image for the cameras and so this complaint can really only stem from the idea that "If you're gonna be rich, you have to be an elitist asshole. You can't dare enjoy the spoils of your wealth and also care about others."

In regards to the article about this, it is stupid petty bullshit to focus on and it makes me sad that the media would waste their time reporting on this when so many more important, often critical events go on entirely without press coverage. But so it goes.

Well, as you said.. What do you want him to do? Run his campaign dressed like a homeless person?

Frankly, if he WASN'T getting 400 dollar haircuts I'd think it was a ploy to seem 'authentic'.

[The Postmaster General]

What Lynn proposes didn't work for Ralph Nader - his style was a big joke in Washington - in fact, I remember several critics stated he should spend his money on more decent haircuts and a new suit.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by QUENTIN
I think it's clear that I, and it seems many other schmoes, really did misinterperet Lynn. Re-read her original post. Despite the inflammatory thread title, she's not really complaining that Edwards got a $400 haircut because he can't or shouldn't or it makes him a hypocrite. She seems to just be saying it is bad for his PR isf he gets a $400 haircut and runs on a "help the poor" platform. She's just (I think) questioning his judgment while he's in the spotlight. I'm inclined to agree with her, that yes behaving like a rich man can and will be used against you in the conservative press if you've got a popular "Two Americas" philosophy. However, I think it's practically impossible for people running for president to not behave like the rich people they are, like suggesting Al Gore travel by canoe and whatnot if he's going to oppose global warming. Everyone does it though, there is no candidate with a chance in this race who isn't spending thousands of dollars trying to perfect their image for the cameras and so this complaint can really only stem from the idea that "If you're gonna be rich, you have to be an elitist asshole. You can't dare enjoy the spoils of your wealth and also care about others."

In regards to the article about this, it is stupid petty bullshit to focus on and it makes me sad that the media would waste their time reporting on this when so many more important, often critical events go on entirely without press coverage. But so it goes.


Yes, thank you! That is exactly my point. Just think of how much value he would've gotten if he had shown up at the local barbershop for a haircut? It would have been great pr- instead, Leno has been running jokes on the $400 haircut all week and it has been shown that more people get their news from the comedy shows than they do from the actual news shows. It just was not a savvy move- that and also using his campaign donations to pay for the two $400 haircuts and the $225 facial. When this was discovered, he reimbursed the campaign but the damage is done.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
What Lynn proposes didn't work for Ralph Nader - his style was a big joke in Washington - in fact, I remember several critics stated he should spend his money on more decent haircuts and a new suit.

Nader could look like Robert fucking Redford and still fail to get more than 3% of the vote.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Yes, thank you! That is exactly my point. Just think of how much value he would've gotten if he had shown up at the local barbershop for a haircut? It would have been great pr- instead, Leno has been running jokes on the $400 haircut all week and it has been shown that more people get their news from the comedy shows than they do from the actual news shows. It just was not a savvy move- that and also using his campaign donations to pay for the two $400 haircuts and the $225 facial. When this was discovered, he reimbursed the campaign but the damage is done.


Well, normally I'd agree with you but Edwards has benefitted enormously from his good looks. Although you are right and he should be going into these local barbershops, he simply can't afford a bad hair day or else that's two or three votes right there. I hate to say it, but people really do look at that kind of thing.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
Nader could look like Robert fucking Redford and still fail to get more than 3% of the vote.

I'm mostly referring to how he was ripped on for how he looked. Lynn mentions how Leno makes fun of Gore, but Leno ripped on Naders looks even worse. So the fuck what? It's Jay Leno, its a discussion about how someone has their hair combed.

If this shit matters, then where was the backlash when cowboys wear makeup? George Bush is supposed to be some rough & tough varmit, but gets spa treatments and stuff.

I know what she is saying, it hasn't been that unclear at any point, I just don't get why we spend year after year talking about how we are sick of "playing politics" and all of a sudden it's like, "Oh a good president should be deceitful and distruthful to win votes - Bravo! Bravo!" I'm just like - what the hell?

If in weeks time, Gore goes to Grandpa Ice Cube's Barbershop or some shit, then Lynn's team would be somehow using that as an insult, Jay Leno would still be making jokes, meanwhile people are getting blown up all over the world. Strangely though, these explosions seem to rarely, if ever, occur in barbershops.

[Lynn7]

Bubba- presdiential politics are fun to discuss from every angle. You are right that everything they do is up for criticism and comedy and at the end of the day, we each will go to the polls and cast a vote and we can know pretty much now khow we will vote (I will vote conservative) except maybe not specifically the person- that remains to be seen.

Right now it is all minor stuff to talk about. The issues will be more serious of course.

[shoe1985]

I honestly don't care about this whole topic much. I wouldn't vote for Edwards and I am a Democrat. Rich people spend lots of money on stupid stuff, but we could say that about the poor too. The poor would pay to get a brand new car, house, video games, computers, and the list could go on and on.

Really only three people have impressed me so far that are running: Clinton, Obama, and Mccain. I am all for Mccain though. I like his ideas, and would vote him before the other two. Now Obama has good ideas, but like other people have been saying, something doesn't feel right about him. Hillary could be good, but expectations will be high after how good her husband was.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by shoe1985
....we could say that about the poor too. The poor would pay to get a brand new car, house, video games, computers, and the list could go on and on.


Great point.

[Beenthere]

I don't care much for the expensive haircut.

But if he indeed has a close tie with George Soros he better not be a president. I don't want someone like Soros to pull the strings.

[Lynn7]

Edwards Discusses Time at Hedge Fund

May 8 04:17 PM US/Eastern
By NEDRA PICKLER
Associated Press Writer



WASHINGTON (AP) - AP Video Democrat John Edwards said Tuesday that he worked for a hedge fund between presidential campaigns to learn about financial markets and their relationship to poverty—and to make money too.
In an interview with The Associated Press, the former North Carolina senator said his yearlong, part-time position with Fortress Investment Group helped his understanding of the connection but he has more to learn. Edwards has made eradicating poverty a focus of his second White House bid.

Edwards, a multimillionaire after years as a trial lawyer, would not disclose how much he got paid for a year of consulting beginning in October 2005. He said the amount will be revealed when he releases his financial disclosure forms due May 15.

Asked if he had to join a hedge fund to learn about financial markets, Edwards replied, "How else would I have done it?"

He said he considered going to an investment firm such as Goldman Sachs, but Fortress was the most natural fit. Presented with the suggestion that he could have taken a university class instead, he said, "That's true."

"It was primarily to learn, but making money was a good thing, too," the 2004 vice presidential nominee said in an hourlong interview with AP reporters and editors.

Hedge funds, now numbering more than 9,000 in the U.S. with assets estimated to exceed $1 trillion, traditionally cater to the rich, as well as pension funds and university endowments, but are increasingly luring less wealthy investors.

Fortress Investment Group, founded in 1998, describes itself as "a leading global alternative asset manager" with approximately $35.1 billion in assets under management as of December 31, 2006. The company is headquartered in New York with affiliates around the world.

Fortress was the single biggest employer of Edwards donors during the first three months of the year. Donors who listed "Fortress" as their employer contributed $67,450 to Edwards' campaign and supporters who identified their employer as "Fortress Investment Group" gave $55,200 to the campaign, according to Federal Election Commission records.

Hedge funds also have another connection to the Democratic presidential race—Chelsea Clinton, daughter of Edwards' rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, works for a firm called Avenue Capital Group.

Edwards said it's fair to ask questions about whether there is a contradiction between campaigning against poverty while working for a hedge fund designed to make rich people richer. But he said the job was a complement to his position as the head of a poverty center at the University of North Carolina, something he said he didn't describe adequately when asked about the hedge fund during the first Democratic debate last month.

[notchreturns]

You know, for someone with the money to spend, a 400 hundred dollar haircut isn't that much. There are hairdressers who charge 15$ and there are hairdressers who charge $400. That's how it is the world.

It's like hating on someone cause they bought a Benz when they could have gone for the Focus.

And I don't see how Edwards being rich and trying to make more money is him being a hypocrite when he wants to help the poor? Maybe the money is for his children, going towards his campaign, towards some sort of charity, etc.

[Lynn7]

It is fine that he wanted to work for a hedge fund but why does he try to feed this idea that he did it to learn about financial markets and their relation to poverty? Doesn't he think the general public is too stupid to see beyond what he is trying to sell?

And when he is asked if he couldn't have taken a university class to learn these things he says "That's true" as if he had never thought of that?

[The Postmaster General]

Lynn, did you stop learning about nursing when you started working/interning in the field, or did you learn more than by going to school alone.

Edwards has already been to college, and made himself. He has leaned what he should have learned in the books and in the classroom - anyone in that situation is in a positions to take it to the next level. The idea that he would have been just as well off taking night classes at a community college is absurd. EVERYONE AGREES that the knowledge you gain in the work force and hands-on-experience serves a greater purpose than receiving an education alone. I mean, except when they can twist that truth into a negative for political purposes.

The question that Edwards responded to was a fucking stupid smart ass remark by someone who thought they were being clever, but didn't actually think it out - It's really moronic, the criticisms about Edwards. He replies with good humor. If Edwards listened to his detractors, we'd have lockdowns on barbershops, airports and now we can add schools to that list. For the life of me, I don't see how anyone can say with a straight face that it would be more acceptable for a presidential candidate to fly commercial airlines and attend public schools. I don't care how much Edwards wants to help the poor, common sense is being thrown out the window by criticisms of him not acting like he's poor.

[Lynn7]

I am a big fan of classroom education. But let's put that aside and I'll give you the point that sometimes hands on experience is better.

If Edwards was really primarily motivated to learn about the financial markets and how it affects the poor, why choose hedge funds? He is a millionaire. Does he really need to make more money as he learns about the poor. (And how do you learn about the poor through working on hedge funds? I think you can learn about the rich and wealthy there, for sure).

I suggest to you that this is a man who is motivated by money, power and influence in his life. I don't see much evidence about how he cares about the poor and their way of life. So why doens't he stop saying that the "Two Americas" is his big platform and get real. He is the best example of the rich American. Actions speak louder than words, right?

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I suggest to you that this is a man who is motivated by money, power and influence in his life. I don't see much evidence about how he cares about the poor and their way of life. So why doens't he stop saying that the "Two Americas" is his big platform and get real. He is the best example of the rich American. Actions speak louder than words, right?


As opposed to this president who was born into money, power and influence, whereas John Edwards created his on his own.

Would you be happier if a candidate who was poor addressed the issue of "Two Americas"? Of course you know this will never happen because in order to run for high political office you need lots of money, which means you'd have to be rich, or receive massive amounts of contributions. So by your logic, no candidate should be allowed to address the issue of the broadening gap between the rich and the poor because they're not poor enough to address the issue; therefore the issue should not be addressed.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by electriclite
As opposed to this president who was born into money, power and influence, whereas John Edwards created his on his own.

Would you be happier if a candidate who was poor addressed the issue of "Two Americas"? Of course you know this will never happen because in order to run for high political office you need lots of money, which means you'd have to be rich, or receive massive amounts of contributions. So by your logic, no candidate should be allowed to address the issue of the broadening gap between the rich and the poor because they're not poor enough to address the issue; therefore the issue should not be addressed.

Here is the way I consider your comments.

First I wonder how much money George HW has and the fact that he has 4 or 5 kids that he will leave the money to.

Then I wonder how much money George W has made and how much money he has personally. I know Laura didn't come from money so it would have to be his or what he will inherit.

Then I look at how George W spends his time and his power and influence. He doesnt seem to be into designer clothes, fast cars,and when he throws a big shindig for the Queen he invites people like Peyton Manning and Elizabeth Hasslebeck when he could be inviting very wealthy and influential people who can help him become mega rich the way Bill Clinton has in his ex-presidency.


Then I think that George W has never gone around talking about the 2 Americas.

If John Edwards wants to talk about the 2 Americans I expect to see certain things. I expect to see him not getting $400 haircuts which is associated with the rich American. I expect him not to live in splendor which is what the rich American would do. Why would he go around complaining about the life he is living? It does not make any sense to me.


If Barack Obama wants to talk about it I am probably OK with it as long as he does not have a luxurious life-I don't know much about him personally so I am not sure.

People do not have to be poor to address the issue but if they are wealthy and really concerned I think they might feel bad when they spent $400 on a haircut cause they would realize there are some people who can't afford to get haircuts at all. My friend went through a bad time many years ago where the family had no work and was not on welfare. She could not afford to get her kids haircuts and had to do it herself (and not being a hairdresser she felt very bad about this).

I do screen the candidates for hypocrisy. He is guilty of hypocrisy in my opinion.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Ok, did anyone ever actually read the thing I posted about how I met a guy who cut George H.W.'s hair and got paid $1000, not including a tip? Those people are living it up even more than Edwards is. Besides, do we even know the story behind who Edwards gets his haircuts from? Maybe his wife is close friends someone who's an extremely good and expensive barber.

Besides, like I said earlier if anyone's vote is actually changed because of the $400 haircut then that person is too fucking stupid to be voting in the first place.

[Lynn7]

So you are Ok with people saying they beleive one thing and acting in the way they are proclaiming against?

Edwards hates the 2 Americas but gets $400 haircuts.

Bobby Kennedy known for being a big environmentalist and yet defending his right to fly in a private plane?

Ok. I'm just not into that.

If George HW got a haircut for $1000 I would like to see that article. And also I would say that he has not proclaimed a disdain for the 2 Americas so although I would think he was an idiot for paying that much I would have to say at least he is not being hypocritical along with his stupidity.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Lynn7
So you are Ok with people saying they beleive one thing and acting in the way they are proclaiming against?

Edwards hates the 2 Americas but gets $400 haircuts.

Bobby Kennedy known for being a big environmentalist and yet defending his right to fly in a private plane?

Ok. I'm just not into that.

If George HW got a haircut for $1000 I would like to see that article. And also I would say that he has not proclaimed a disdain for the 2 Americas so although I would think he was an idiot for paying that much I would have to say at least he is not being hypocritical along with his stupidity.

Due to your open-mindedness and willingness to look at things on a much deeper level, I'm not going to argue further. You're hitting the same points we've touched on much earlier. As we've said about a thousand times, a life of wealth and privilege does not necessarily mean one shouldn't speak out in favor of those with less. In fact, it makes him look better in the end that he's speaking out in favor of the poor as opposed to most Republicans who just play the family values/national security/"they're going to raise your taxes" card.

Besides, there is no "article," I simply got a haircut from a guy who cut H.W.'s hair once.

And let me state for the record that I do not plan to vote for Edwards in the primary. The man doesn't even have his own formed opinion of gay marriage yet.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Lynn7
First I wonder how much money George HW has and the fact that he has 4 or 5 kids that he will leave the money to.

Then I wonder how much money George W has made and how much money he has personally. I know Laura didn't come from money so it would have to be his or what he will inherit.

You just got done talking about how John Edwards continues to get rich off of hedge funds because he wants to stay rich, but then when it comes to turn that high-powered perceptive eye towards the Bush DYNASTY (that's right dynasty! 3 generations of men in public office!) all of a sudden you feel the need to dig a little further and explore the various avenues available to explain down their wealth.

Gimme a freaking break, Lynn! They're the RICH and WEALTHY. And the number one priority of the rich and wealthy is to preserve their wealth. The Bush family has ties to oil contracts, a varied stock portfolio in the millions, million dollar houses in various states, and on top of that they have have people whose sole job is to make sure that wealth accrues interest! Trust me, that money ain't disappearing, not for a long while anyway.

See unlike Edwards who sees money, power and influence as a goal to work towards, the Bush family sees it as a family inheritance to be passed down.

Originally posted by Lynn7
Then I look at how George W spends his time and his power and influence. He doesnt seem to be into designer clothes, fast cars,and when he throws a big shindig for the Queen he invites people like Peyton Manning and Elizabeth Hasslebeck when he could be inviting very wealthy and influential people who can help him become mega rich the way Bill Clinton has in his ex-presidency.

What? Because he owns a ranch and drives a pick up? Do you know the amount of staff he has to hire to keep that place running nice and pretty while he's away? All so when he comes back the heat is on, the horses are kept maintained, the porch is clean and the grass doesn't overgrow? That's serious bucks.

Congratulations, you've never seen him party with famous celebrities.... Just the super rich, sheiks and Fortune 500 CEOs who People magazine may not feel are all that interesting (unless they're dating a celebrity) but those in the know of business find it extremely important to be kept abreast of.




Originally posted by Lynn7
Then I think that George W has never gone around talking about the 2 Americas.

Oh he never made it a platform, but come campaign time he's done his fair share of talking about the poor little people. It comes in every campaigning politicians' script.

Originally posted by Lynn7
If John Edwards wants to talk about the 2 Americans I expect to see certain things. I expect to see him not getting $400 haircuts which is associated with the rich American. I expect him not to live in splendor which is what the rich American would do. Why would he go around complaining about the life he is living? It does not make any sense to me.

What? You want him to take a vow of poverty or something? Btw, did you do any sort of research into any charities he may donate his wealth to?

If he hasn't, then feel free to continue ripping him a new one, I'll join ya.


Originally posted by Lynn7
If Barack Obama wants to talk about it I am probably OK with it as long as he does not have a luxurious life-I don't know much about him personally so I am not sure.

Less wealthy than the Bushes, probably on par more or less with John Edwards.

Originally posted by Lynn7
People do not have to be poor to address the issue but if they are wealthy and really concerned I think they might feel bad when they spent $400 on a haircut cause they would realize there are some people who can't afford to get haircuts at all. My friend went through a bad time many years ago where the family had no work and was not on welfare. She could not afford to get her kids haircuts and had to do it herself (and not being a hairdresser she felt very bad about this).

He should feel bad about getting a $400 haircut, he SHOULD feel really freaking bad buying $800 worth of food and letting it go to waste just because he can, or dropping $8.000 for diamond encrusted rims, or up to a grand on clothes for a freaking chihuahua. Thanks to VH1's "The Fabulous Life", poor people know who to REALLY hate and get pissed off at.

The guy is screwed either way, because you talk about hypocrisy and basically say he should be who he is, which happens to be wealthy. I know people who are the children of rich people and they tried to distance themselves from their wealth and "play poor" but all it did was insult those of us who were actually hard up, because we knew that when the shit hit the fan, they'd have a back up whereas us in the same situation had none.

So for you its either don't talk about the poor unless you are poor, or pretend like you're not as rich as you really are for appearance sake.... which is hypocritical.

Originally posted by Lynn7
I do screen the candidates for hypocrisy. He is guilty of hypocrisy in my opinion.

The line you drive to reach judgment upon those who fall out of your ideology maybe straight as an arrow, but when it comes to pointing that same harsh criticism towards those who appear to fall within your belief system, all of the sudden the trajectory gets twisted off into a multitude of directions.

[The Postmaster General]

The thing is that by "Two Americas" Edwards isn't talking about the poor eating the rich. He isn't talking about a war that must be won. He is brining awareness regarding just how bad poverty is.

If Edwards was saying rich people suck, I think Lynn would have a valid point, but Edwards is not saying that.

As a nurse, Lynn - Do you ever feel hypocritical caring for patients who have ailments you don't have yourself? Does working with people who have emphysema make you consider taking up smoking as a way to better relate to the patients?

You do not have to have the needs of the person you are trying to help.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
Due to your open-mindedness and willingness to look at things on a much deeper level, I'm not going to argue further. You're hitting the same points we've touched on much earlier. As we've said about a thousand times, a life of wealth and privilege does not necessarily mean one shouldn't speak out in favor of those with less. In fact, it makes him look better in the end that he's speaking out in favor of the poor as opposed to most Republicans who just play the family values/national security/"they're going to raise your taxes" card.

Besides, there is no "article," I simply got a haircut from a guy who cut H.W.'s hair once.

And let me state for the record that I do not plan to vote for Edwards in the primary. The man doesn't even have his own formed opinion of gay marriage yet.

If John Edwards was a millionaire who got $400 haircuts and went out and spoke in favor of helping the poor and worked at making a difference for them, that would be fine.

Unfortunately, Edwards is running for President and is using that as a ploy to reach out to the masses to get elected. During the years when he was not running for President, he was working on a hedgfund- not out acting on behalf of the poor. I look at people's actions and compare them to their words.

Not to get jumped on for bringing up Clinton again but he is a perfect example for this kind of thing. When he was president for 8 years he was beloved by the black people. He attended their churches and spoke in favor of the black community all the time. Someone (Maya Angleou?) called him the "first black president". It was all touching except that since he has left office has he continued working with the black community? Has he dedicated his life to helping them? Nope. He is making speeches etc and having a good old time. He is entitled to do that and I am glad he is having fun but was he really moved by the problems in the black community? His influence could've made a big impact but he does not use his influence for that.

Sooooo, his actions and his words are not matching up.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by electriclite
You just got done talking about how John Edwards continues to get rich off of hedge funds because he wants to stay rich, but then when it comes to turn that high-powered perceptive eye towards the Bush DYNASTY (that's right dynasty! 3 generations of men in public office!) all of a sudden you feel the need to dig a little further and explore the various avenues available to explain down their wealth.

Gimme a freaking break, Lynn! They're the RICH and WEALTHY. And the number one priority of the rich and wealthy is to preserve their wealth. The Bush family has ties to oil contracts, a varied stock portfolio in the millions, million dollar houses in various states, and on top of that they have have people whose sole job is to make sure that wealth accrues interest! Trust me, that money ain't disappearing, not for a long while anyway.

See unlike Edwards who sees money, power and influence as a goal to work towards, the Bush family sees it as a family inheritance to be passed down.



What? Because he owns a ranch and drives a pick up? Do you know the amount of staff he has to hire to keep that place running nice and pretty while he's away? All so when he comes back the heat is on, the horses are kept maintained, the porch is clean and the grass doesn't overgrow? That's serious bucks.

Congratulations, you've never seen him party with famous celebrities.... Just the super rich, sheiks and Fortune 500 CEOs who People magazine may not feel are all that interesting (unless they're dating a celebrity) but those in the know of business find it extremely important to be kept abreast of.






Oh he never made it a platform, but come campaign time he's done his fair share of talking about the poor little people. It comes in every campaigning politicians' script.



What? You want him to take a vow of poverty or something? Btw, did you do any sort of research into any charities he may donate his wealth to?

If he hasn't, then feel free to continue ripping him a new one, I'll join ya.




Less wealthy than the Bushes, probably on par more or less with John Edwards.



He should feel bad about getting a $400 haircut, he SHOULD feel really freaking bad buying $800 worth of food and letting it go to waste just because he can, or dropping $8.000 for diamond encrusted rims, or up to a grand on clothes for a freaking chihuahua. Thanks to VH1's "The Fabulous Life", poor people know who to REALLY hate and get pissed off at.

The guy is screwed either way, because you talk about hypocrisy and basically say he should be who he is, which happens to be wealthy. I know people who are the children of rich people and they tried to distance themselves from their wealth and "play poor" but all it did was insult those of us who were actually hard up, because we knew that when the shit hit the fan, they'd have a back up whereas us in the same situation had none.

So for you its either don't talk about the poor unless you are poor, or pretend like you're not as rich as you really are for appearance sake.... which is hypocritical.



The line you drive to reach judgment upon those who fall out of your ideology maybe straight as an arrow, but when it comes to pointing that same harsh criticism towards those who appear to fall within your belief system, all of the sudden the trajectory gets twisted off into a multitude of directions.

As I have said in other posts I just don't see Bush living the life like the Paris Hiltons of the world. He lives humbly. Youa re right- I'm sur ehe has staff etc but I think it would be fair to say that for a rich person he lives a simple life.

I do have a problem with people who waste money when other people are starving and yet I know that I am a hypocrite too on this for not giving up my cable tv to help a poor family. But I do excuse people those kinds of luxuries but it would make me feel creepy to spend $400 on a haircut for hair that is going to grow back in 3-4 weeks. If I feel icky about it I can't help how I feel.

I don't know about Bush and his megalomaniac friends. How does Laura fit in with them? Doen't make a lot of sense to me the way he lives his life- the way he chose his wife (a smalltown librarian) and the fact that his kids are teachers. Doens't seem like a megalomaniac lifestyle to me.


I dont' think I have had harsh criticism toward Edwards. I just think he might be trying to appeal to the masses by talking about 2 Americas but he doesn't feel strongly enough about it to really do something meaningful about it. Hedgefunds are not meaningful to the poor.Ask a poor person how Hedgefund knowledge would help them get along in life.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
The thing is that by "Two Americas" Edwards isn't talking about the poor eating the rich. He isn't talking about a war that must be won. He is brining awareness regarding just how bad poverty is.

If Edwards was saying rich people suck, I think Lynn would have a valid point, but Edwards is not saying that.

As a nurse, Lynn - Do you ever feel hypocritical caring for patients who have ailments you don't have yourself? Does working with people who have emphysema make you consider taking up smoking as a way to better relate to the patients?

You do not have to have the needs of the person you are trying to help.

That is true but i think a better analogy would be if I was teaching people to quit smoking but then went home and smoked a pack a day.

People should just practice what they preach or stop preaching to others. If Edwards was saying we should all make sacrifices to help the poor and this is what I am doing then that might be an enticing message. But he is not. He is just talking about the 2 Americas- to divide and appeal to the "poor" masses. I dont think it is working.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
People should just practice what they preach or stop preaching to others.


Yeah, but doesn't part of Christianity say that it is God's Will for you to lead others towards a better life when given the chance? Or am I off base on that one?

[Lynn7]

We aren't supposed to lead people to a better life. Are you talking about evangelism, cause that is something different.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
We aren't supposed to lead people to a better life. Are you talking about evangelism, cause that is something different.


I might be thinking of Jehovah's Witness. (?)

Either way, I don't think hypocrisy is a deadly sin or anything. Does the bible state that you can't help people without helping yourself?

[jeo4]

Originally posted by Lynn7
We aren't supposed to lead people to a better life. Are you talking about evangelism, cause that is something different.

Sorry, but that's not true.

For someone who professes to be a Christian, your comments are often far from the majority of them.

[Lynn7]

Jeo4

Sorry, but that's not true.

For someone who professes to be a Christian, your comments are often far from the majority of them.
__________________________________________________ ______




Far from the majority of what?

We (Christians) are not supposed to lead people to better lives without evangelism if that is what you are saying. I asked Bubba if he was talking about evangelism. In the Bible the only way to a better life is through belief in Jesus Christ which leads to salvation and a better quality of life and an eternity in heaven. According to the Bible, apart from Christ, all talk of a better life is all smoke and mirrors. I don't think Bubba was talking about evangelism. I think he meant as pertaining to ecology etc.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
I might be thinking of Jehovah's Witness. (?)

Either way, I don't think hypocrisy is a deadly sin or anything. Does the bible state that you can't help people without helping yourself?

Hypocrisy is just not matching talk to actions. If I went around saying we need to be forgiving to those who sin against us but then I do not forgive then it is a deadly sin cause I am not following God's commands. However, if Edwards says he hates the two Americas and gets a $400 haircut or chooses to work for a hedgefund to learn about the poor, then that is not a deadly sin except it is stupid politics.

I don't know if the bible says you can't help people without helping yourself but I do know that i feel very good when I help others, so it is true for me.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Jeo4

Sorry, but that's not true.

For someone who professes to be a Christian, your comments are often far from the majority of them.
__________________________________________________ ______




Far from the majority of what?

We (Christians) are not supposed to lead people to better lives without evangelism if that is what you are saying. I asked Bubba if he was talking about evangelism. In the Bible the only way to a better life is through belief in Jesus Christ which leads to salvation and a better quality of life and an eternity in heaven. According to the Bible, apart from Christ, all talk of a better life is all smoke and mirrors. I don't think Bubba was talking about evangelism. I think he meant as pertaining to ecology etc.

Did you happen to catch that thing on Anderson Cooper last night (although I know you don't watch CNN) called "What is a Christian?" It addressed a lot of the questions asked by you as well as other schmoes here. If you have TiVo try catching it because I think it's the kind of thing that might interest you.

[jeo4]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Jeo4

Sorry, but that's not true.

For someone who professes to be a Christian, your comments are often far from the majority of them.
__________________________________________________ ______




Far from the majority of what?

Christians.

Originally posted by Lynn7
We (Christians) are not supposed to lead people to better lives without evangelism if that is what you are saying. I asked Bubba if he was talking about evangelism. In the Bible the only way to a better life is through belief in Jesus Christ which leads to salvation and a better quality of life and an eternity in heaven. According to the Bible, apart from Christ, all talk of a better life is all smoke and mirrors. I don't think Bubba was talking about evangelism. I think he meant as pertaining to ecology etc.

This makes more sense to me, although I still disagree with it. Evangelism isn't the only motivation for helping others to live better lives. The only one who can save us isn't here according to scripture. And we can still be saved. However, it is commanded in the Bible to love one another. And that includes helping others.

[Lynn7]

I never said we weren't supposed to help people and be kind to others but it does not say we need to lead people to better lives- the only better life in the bible is the one that includes Jesus as savior. In fact, there is a part in the bible that says if a fellow Christian falls into sin and won't repent we are actually supposed to put them out from the church so they can be turned over to Satan and then they will realize their error and return to God. Because a better life is not just feeling happy with what you are doing but it is life with God. Sometimes people have to hit bottom before they can turn things around.

And so as far as the original question was asked, that is what I meant.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
Did you happen to catch that thing on Anderson Cooper last night (although I know you don't watch CNN) called "What is a Christian?" It addressed a lot of the questions asked by you as well as other schmoes here. If you have TiVo try catching it because I think it's the kind of thing that might interest you.

I didn't see it and I couldn't find that it was going to be on again. Let me know if you see it again. Generally I do not watch shows about God on A&E or CNN cause they use a lot of very liberal (not in a political sense) theologians who interpret the scriptures figuratively as opposed to literally.

[The Postmaster General]

You know who shouldn't be president?

This guy:

http://www.quirkyjapan.or.tv/homeless_life01.jpg