John Edwards: Twisted Douche Supreme

[gah]

It sucks that in the marginalization of himself, his issue has too become marginalized.

Issues are way more important to me than personalities.

I'm actually a cult of personality.

[alcoholandcoffeebeans]

It sucks that in the marginalization of himself, his issue has too become marginalized.

Issues are way more important to me than personalities.

I'm actually a cult of personality.

i'm the smiling face on your t.v. ...

[Alumni]

It sucks that in the marginalization of himself, his issue has too become marginalized.

Issues are way more important to me than personalities.

Issues are more important, but I don't think Edwards' was going anywhere. If Obama hadn't reinvented himself from his old, activist days, he might have been able to champion poverty reduction. But then he won the presidency precisely becuase he convinced everyone that he was safe, even "postpartisan."

On policy, I bet Obama and Edwards agree on a lot more than they disagree. But between health care, jobs, Afghanistan, reregulation of Wall Street, and Cap & Trade, Obama's going to be damn lucky just to be batting .400

[fauxpaxfauxreal]

Issues are more important, but I don't think Edwards' was going anywhere. If Obama hadn't reinvented himself from his old, activist days, he might have been able to champion poverty reduction. But then he won the presidency precisely becuase he convinced everyone that he was safe, even "postpartisan."

I think these are two seperate issues that end up entwined together.

I agree with what you said wholesale, but this repackaging of Obama (even a repackaging throughout the primary campaign) is what made me rethink Obama as a "great" choice half way through the election cycle.

It saddens me that his supporters were so intent on getting a "win" that they lost sight of the issues that they were supposed to be "championing".

This country still has much soul searching and direction finding to do.

[sophist]

Issues are more important, but I don't think Edwards' was going anywhere. If Obama hadn't reinvented himself from his old, activist days, he might have been able to champion poverty reduction. But then he won the presidency precisely becuase he convinced everyone that he was safe, even "postpartisan."

I think these are two seperate issues that end up entwined together.

I agree with what you said wholesale, but this repackaging of Obama (even a repackaging throughout the primary campaign) is what made me rethink Obama as a "great" choice half way through the election cycle.

It saddens me that his supporters were so intent on getting a "win" that they lost sight of the issues that they were supposed to be "championing".

This country still has much soul searching and direction finding to do.

Seriously, stop.  Again, the guy you championed is the purpose of this thread, and as more, and more information becomes public and we see just how horrible a human being John Edwards is, yet, you think Obama and his supporters are lost?  LOL, really Faux, LOL.  Stop, you sound like an idiot, for real, no joke.  I think you're a smart guy but you sound delusional in these posts.  Accept the fact that
a) The person most fitted to be in the Whitehouse is in the Whitehouse

b) Edwards is a lying sack of self indulgent shit who deserves to die alone and never serve the public again

c) Soul searching is the last thing we need (the election is proof enough that we are turning this country around), what we need is action and that is what we are doing.  Even your golden boy (or perhaps golden shower better describes Edwards) would be compromising on the issues, that's politics. 

d) His "book" (I use apostrophes because it is filled with so many platitudes it reads like a down syndrome version of Nietzsche's aphorisms) is full of watered down and trite economic ideals that in reality would do little to help improve poverty. 

[fauxpaxfauxreal]

Sophist.  The person most fitted for the White House probably never ran.  You have no idea what my ideals are or why I believe what I do.  There is nothing watered down about the economic ideals proposed by the book, perhaps you haven't even read it.  Quoting specific parts of the book you disagree with would help further your point. 

Also, perhaps you should look into an ideal called forgiveness.  Apparently, Ms. Edwards believes in it, and she is the person who was harmed the most by John's actions.  I think that the spirit of this thread is counter-productive to the ideals that you purport yourself to have.

Perhaps you are among those in this country who I believe need to do a little bit of soul searching.

Epic thread, bruh.

[sophist]

Sophist.  The person most fitted for the White House probably never ran.  You have no idea what my ideals are or why I believe what I do.  There is nothing watered down about the economic ideals proposed by the book, perhaps you haven't even read it.  Quoting specific parts of the book you disagree with would help further your point.

You demonstrate on a daily basis that you have no understanding of economic policy, and arguing for Edwards again only further proves this.  You want specifics, here you fucking go. 

1) Raising the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour is one of the most retarded things I have ever read.  Do you understand that the bulk of businesses in this country are small business and their greatest challenge is overhead?  This additional overhead would smother them.  Think about it, he is arguing to increase the cost of business without increasing profit, that is a terrible idea.  It puts added pressure on the business to work longer hours with the risk of not even seeing additional profit.  Edwards was a hell of a lawyer, but he has no grasp of economics, neither do you apparently.  The only way to avert increased fixed cost is to increase the price in which you charge your customers, thus raising the cost of living -FAIL.  Care to try again? 

2) That whole affordable homes concept worked out well didn't it?  Do I even need to debunk his idea of "affordable housing"?  I think not

3) Restructuring schools won't do it, learning is cultural.  We have a culture that isn't prone to learning, so again he fails.  Having the best education means nothing if you put nothing into it, just ask W, he spent his time doing blow and drinking rather than taking advantage of a quality education. 

4) Create jobs?  how?  where?  Creating jobs doesn't equate to growth.  This is a fallacy of the left.  Government created jobs are just as likely to fail as they are to create growth.  Plus it puts the burden of taxes on the people.  This is Obama's flaw as well.  We will pay for that. 

Any economist knows that the removal of poverty is done through GDP growth, and his plan completely neglects that.  Rather than following in the foot steps of Keynes, he negates Keynes and he fails.  Keynes got how to improve the lower end of the spectrum.  Go read Keynes and burn the garbage that is Edwards' book.  Keynes argued that regulation of industry while allowing local economies to thrive via capitalist means was the greatest way to growth. 

Honestly, I have lost all respect for you for the fact that you cite Edwards as an Economic source, really?  You're not going to even bother reading the works of real economists ?  Seriously, this baffles me how you haven't read Keynes.  It's a must read for any liberal, just as Friedman is a must read for any conservative.  Any person that has read Keynes immediately knows that Edwards ideas are garbage, and that he is putting his ideals prior to being pragmatic in economic terms.   

Also, perhaps you should look into an ideal called forgiveness.  Apparently, Ms. Edwards believes in it, and she is the person who was harmed the most by John's actions.  I think that the spirit of this thread is counter-productive to the ideals that you purport yourself to have.

This is flawed logic.  Example: because my buddy jumps off a bridge I should too?  right  :roll: keep the fan boy love alive.  Don't make an appeal to popularity.  It's one of the most common logical fallacies.   

Perhaps you are among those in this country who I believe need to do a little bit of soul searching.

Epic thread, bruh.

LOL.  Keep the Edwards fluff alive! 

You'll do like you always do which is back peddle and distort your opinion.  Accept the fact you are wrong and Edwards is wrong.  It's okay, take this epic self'd and pwn'd in stride. 


Now some funny pictures to lighten the mood:







and

[fauxpaxfauxreal]

I have not reffered to "John Edwards dot com", I have reffered to his book _Ending Poverty in America_.

If you had read the latter and not the former when formulating your response, you would understand how idiotic and wrong headed you sound.

Perhaps next time I mention a book and the ideas contained within the book, you should debunk the ideas contained within the book as opposed to ideas contained on a website created after the book was published.

I realize that ending poverty here takes a lot more than economic measures proposed on the website Johnedwards.com, but clearly you do not desire to constructively discuss how we would end poverty in America, you are more interested in making someone else look lame so that you look infinitely more intelligent.  This is extremely counter productive, and yet understandable, which is why I suggested you do some soul searching.

Good luck with that, I hope you feel better about yourself now that you have pointed out the faults in others.

[sophist]

........and yet you still refute nothing, which is on par with you.  I'm still waiting here how his arguments are sound.  BTW, it's clear the website bases it's idea on the book, but I like how you failed to point that out.  Thanks for that. 

Keep up the good work fluff buy. 

[fauxpaxfauxreal]

It's clear that you haven't read the book.

It's also clear that you possess the philosophy of "contempt prior to investigation", a philosophy which cannot be argued against, nor disproven.

Until you read and discuss what you read within the book, I will not argue with you.  Nice use of name-calling and strawmen.

[sophist]

It's clear that you haven't read the book.

It's also clear that you possess the philosophy of "contempt prior to investigation", a philosophy which cannot be argued against, nor disproven.

Until you read and discuss what you read within the book, I will not argue with you.  Nice use of name-calling and strawmen.

I never called you any names.  I stated your ideals are "retarded" or "idiotic" but that is your ideals and not you.  In other words, I am insulting your argument and not you.  I see a difference, in that calling your idea retarded does not mean you are retarded, it just means that single thought is stupid to me. 

I do call Edwards a douche, and if you feel differently, well I dunno what to say.  I think he's a text book definition of it, but despite that, I still argue against his plan in my last post.  So squealing Ad Homeniem is of little use here.   

Do you know what a straw man is?  Really?  I didn't refute the argument through metaphor or simile.  Either of these is required for a straw man.  I argued through straight fact.

The only option to debunk me is to refute the economic arguments I have made, but I know you can't.  Just as I stated before, you display a lack of economic knowledge. 

[fauxpaxfauxreal]

I was referring to your use of "fluff-boy" as name calling.

As far as a straw-man is concerned, using the personal life of a politician to attack the ideals of that politician or the scruples of those who happen to agree with those ideals is most definitely a straw-man.

Even if all of the answers to all of our questions were found in that book (they aren't), you would have never been able to even give it a chance because of your desire to feel good because of the failings of others.  Perhaps if the success of others made you feel just as good as their failings, you might find political discourse a little less frustrating.

[Superfreakie]

I want to mention a couple things but I am not wading into this argument. First off, Edwards did not author the entire book and, for the most part, his contribution is that of editor, which I believe you are both aware. On page one of this thread, I hastily commented that the book is a fantastic read although I now believe this statement deserves clarification. I did not enjoy it for the economic ideas it is loosely trying to coalesce into a macroeconomic template for, as Sophist has highlighted, there are glaring failures. But then again, in the book's defense, it does not ultimately conclude with concrete policy. That being said, I did enjoy it for the varying points of view it elucidates on poverty, albeit from a left leaning vantage point. Understand, I am not American, and so I relish gleaning new perspectives to approaching multi-faceted arguments and dilemmas that plague western societal models.

Seeing as an economy by its very nature is fluid and in a constant state of flux, there is thus no overarching economic policy that trumps all other models. That being said, if given only one option in a serious economic downturn, I would most probably defer to a Keynesian macroeconomic approach, although obviously modernized to suit the respective conditions. But considering the effectiveness of Keynesian economics, look at mess the U.S. is currently in and extricating itself from. The approach to unfreeze credit through bank bailouts is rooted in Keynesian economics.

Unfortunately, under the guise of "time is of the essence", a hodgepodge lending infrastructure was erected so as to facilitate the movement of funds with little if any impedance. However, as any proponent Keynesian economic methodology will tell you, the success of Keynesian economics, for the most part, may only be realized if strong regulatory frameworks are in place to prevent abuses. Frameworks which the U.S. did not have and still doesn't. As a result, some stunningly nefarious business moves have played themselves out with ramifications beyond predictability. Suffice it to say, I am quite intrigued to see how history will untangle and interpret this mess. Then again, America's attention span prevents any development of long term memory, so no worries, eh!     

[fauxpaxfauxreal]

Superfreakie, I agree with a lot of your assessment on the book.  It is not written by Edwards, it is in fact a collection of essays written mostly by members of the Economic and Business schools at UNC Chapel Hill.  Edwards is mainly credited as the compiler.

While it is easy to pick apart specific parts of policy as harmful, I feel that if we got everyone on board with desiring poverty to be eliminated, that the policy would evolve naturally from that.  As it stands now, the policy cannot evolve, because not everyone desires poverty to be eliminated.

Hopefully, the upper class will first see how they stand to benefit from the elimination of poverty and second how they stand to become harmed from the propagation of poverty... at that point, I feel as though we can make specific headway towards solutions that stand to benefit us all.

[Guyute]

I remember during the VP campaign my wife and I talking about him.  Any time he got near 1 of Kerry's daughters he would put his hand on her back and start rubbing it.  It was so creepy.