Wednesday, May 02, 2012

The Harder They Fall

From "The Rant" archives:

"What the hell is wrong with the Democrats? For the first time since George McGovern thirty-six years ago, we have a Democratic candidate for the presidency who actually sounds like a Democrat. There's nothing vague about John Edwards' message - you know where he stands on every issue of any importance to average Americans. Unlike Barack Obama, whose heart is in the right place but who talks in poetic generalities, and Hillary Clinton - who is heartless - John Edwards has a definite, tangible vision of the new direction he wants to take America. Why isn't he catching on? Why are the American people so easily led - like sheep - by the corporate media? What in tarnations is goin' on here???"

-Tom Degan, 27 January 2008

Somebody please shoot me.

I got a brief glimpse into the character of John Edwards very early on during the campaign of 2004. It was on someone's manicured lawn somewhere - possibly John Kerry's. Edwards had just been announced as Kerry's choice for running mate and the two men gathered their respective families together for a short and sweet photo-op. When it was over, everyone involved proceeded up an incline toward the house. Edwards put his arm around the waist of Kerry's daughter, leaving his dying wife Elizabeth just standing there. She stood frozen for a couple of seconds and then awkwardly started up the hill behind the party. The most amazing thing about this scene was that - to the best of my knowledge anyway - none of the major network news outlets picked up on it - not even FOX Noise. When the story of the betrayal of Elizabeth Edwards finally became part of the public domain, I was not quite as shocked as you might have been. My mind kept going back to that scene.

The Cliff Notes:

During
his 2008 quest for the presidency, candidate John Edwards gets his mistress Rielle Hunter (photo left) a job as the campaign's official videographer. Hunter becomes pregnant with Edwards' child. When the press gets wind of the story, Edwards persuades his aid and longtime (onetime) friend Andrew Young (not to be confused with Jimmy Carter's UN ambassador) to claim paternity. Young's wife Cheri is also in on the deception. Hunter is spirited away ala Dick Cheney to an undisclosed location. Her "living expenses" are paid for by an elderly, mucho-multi-millionaire named Rachel "Bunny" Mellon. When the truth is finally exposed, Elizabeth Edwards leaves her husband of four decades. She dies on December 7, 2010. The Feds say that the payments to provide for Hunter's comfort are in direct violation of campaign finance laws. The Youngs are cooperating with prosecutors. John Edwards is now being tried on corruption charges and is facing thirty years in federal prison.

I need to take a shower.

This is just too painful to even think about, much less donate an entire column to. One can only imagine the pain and humiliation that poor Elizabeth Edwards went through during the final months of her all-too-short life. Johnny was apparently grooming Rielle to take over as First Lady the moment his wife drew her last breath. Class act!

The fact that this contemptible jackass was number two on their national ticket less than ten years ago is not going to do the Democrats a bit of good in this campaign year. The Republicans are desperate for issues to exploit as the November election rears its nasty head. You can bet the farm that as the magic day approaches, this sad and ugly incident will bec
ome a major talking point. Pictures will be resurrected from the photo-morgues of news agencies all across the country that will show the smiling, vice-presidential wannabe John Edwards embracing candidate John Kerry. Rush Limbaugh is going to have a blast with this one. I can hear it now:

"Ladies and gentlemen, THIS is the REAL face of the Democrat party! That they would let a horrible cad like John Edwards be part of the national ticket tells me more than I want to know! This is a party that thrives on shame! I need a fix."

John Edwards i
s finished as a public person. Richard Nixon was able to slither his way back from Watergate to become a respected (by some) author and foreign policy adviser. A scandal involving prostitutes ended the political career of New York governor Elliot Spitzer. Today he is the host of a program on Al Gore's Current TV and is doing quite well for himself. These guys - and more than a few like them - are proof that (contrary to the old adage) there are indeed second acts in American life. There will be no second act for John Edwards. His carefully scripted play has closed for good. When this public humiliation is all over he will disappear. He will pop up in an occasional "Whatever became of" article but that's about it. You will never see or hear from him again.

Without Barack Obama as part of the equation, Edwards might very well have gotten the Democratic nomination four years ago. Had that happened, the scandal would have bro
ken just after the convention. It would have killed the progressive cause on Election Day - and Sarah Palin would today be a seventy-six-year-old heart beat away from the presidency. That's beyond reckless on the part of John Edwards. That borders on the criminally insane.

The funny thing is that according to those in a position to know, Edwards made his name as a politician for no other reason than the fact that he was a he was a world champion bullshit artist; the trial lawyer supreme. He was absolutely clueless on all matters of foreign and domestic policy. Those close to him say that he never read or studied anything. It was noticed by the press that whenever he traveled he never had any reading or writing material in his possession. It can be said without exaggeration that the guy spent more money per year on haircuts than he did on books.
This was an empty suit - shallow, self-absorbed, totally void of substance.

Does he deserve to go to prison for thirty years? I don't think so. It's not clear to me that these were in fact "campaign funds" that were used to keep Rielle Hunter quiet and comfy. I can't see him doing any time in the slammer quite frankly. His punishment has already been imposed. He will be remembered by history as
a scoundrel and a fool. His sentence will be political Siberia. It must be the bitterest of pills for him to swallow. Bon appetit, Johnny.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
tomdeg
an@frontiernet.net

SUGGESTED READING:

Sleepwalking Through History
by Haynes Johnson

The Best of Times
by Haynes Johnson.

These two books are about, respectively, life in America during the administrations of Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. Both of them I think will be valua
ble sources for historians a century from now. It doesn't get much better than Haynes Johnson. I can't wait for his book on the Dubya years.

SUGGESTED VIEWING/LISTENING:

"Something" by The Beatles

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzkhOmKVW08

Yesterday Martin Scorsese's documentary on George Harrison, Living in the Material World, was finally released on DVD. I saw it last night for the first time and I can tell you that it's worth the price of the ticket. The above link is to the rarely seen promo film that the Beatles did for his masterpiece, Something.

64 Comments:

At 7:27 AM, Blogger Lydia said...

...and I hope he is sentenced to all thirty years, for the obvious reasons and also because I initially liked him a lot too, Tom, and felt really duped when we learned what a worm he is.

 
At 10:47 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tom,
With this thread, you now are the second liberal democrat I respect. After Jon Lovitz.

What bothers me is how the news media covered or failed to cover Edwards. They allowed you and others to be fooled by the scum bag, for reasons I would ask others to speculate on.

 
At 10:59 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Trenches(http://thetrenches.us/)

You've failed, media.

You've had over three years to vet President Barack Obama. Yet in three years in office and over a year of campaigning beforehand, you have either been oddly uninterested or purposefully ignorant of Barack Obama's educational history. You were, however, quite interested in George Bush's transcripts.

This uncharacteristic absence of curiosity about an American president alarms us. At $15 trillion, our nation's debt is the highest it has ever been - and it keeps growing. We're not convinced that Barack is as smart as you media elitists keep insisting he is.

We therefore offer in reward $10,000 to anyone who provides the college transcripts of President Barack Obama. Occidental, Harvard, Columbia...any would represent more intellectual curiosity about the leader of the free world than the media has demonstrated since Obama won the Democrat primary.

Upon obtaining any of these transcripts, please contact war[at]thetrenches[dot]us for verification and payment. This offer goes into effect immediately.

Media, your stranglehold on the truth ends NOW. Let the vetting begin.

Bellum Letale

Let's "spread the wealth around" to vet the prez. If you'd like to donate to this initiative (so we can increase the bounty) or our upcoming initiatives, click the donate button.

Donate

Happy May Day, leftists!

 
At 12:29 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tom,
With this thread, you now are the second liberal democrat I respect. After Jon Lovitz.

What bothers me is how the news media covered or failed to cover Edwards. They allowed you and others to be fooled by the scum bag, for reasons I would ask others to speculate on.

 
At 12:29 PM, Blogger Tom Degan said...

Jon Lovitz, huh? That puts me in pretty good company I guess. Thanks!

All the best,

Tom

PS - For the record, I'm not a Democrat.

Cheers!

 
At 12:31 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tom,

Dammed good company!

Democrat or not, an honest man.
thank you.

 
At 12:44 PM, Blogger Joanne said...

John Edwards did not catch on because of his poor public appearance. I always felt he did not appear to love his wife and his downhill with me started there.

 
At 2:56 PM, Blogger Yellowstone said...

And thden how many aldulterous affairs does it take to be alienated from the GOP - - huh Newt?

 
At 6:58 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

CHARLESTON, W.Va. — Democrat Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin said he – like Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va. – does not know if he will vote for President Barack Obama or Republican Mitt Romney in the fall.

“I do not believe that either candidate has a real understanding of what is important to West Virginia,” Tomblin said Tuesday.

Tomblin said in statement released by his campaign that he was a “loyal member of the Democratic Party” but was concerned by fellow Democrat Obama’s “misguided policies.” [...]

Tomblin is not alone in his indecision.

Manchin, who is by far the state’s most popular politician, said late last month that he did not know whether he would vote for Obama or for Romney.

“I am just waiting for it to play out. I am not jumping in one way or another,” Manchin told the National Journal. “I’m worried about me. I’ve said it’s not a team sport. You need to go out and work for yourself.”

 
At 10:22 AM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

John Edwards turned out to be another slimeball pretty boy, and possibly a criminal. Another slippery cheater, to say the very least. Plenty of that ilk in DC.

I think most politicians have at least some sociopathic nature deep down. They know damn well people get killed as a consequence to their policies.

That still didn’t make Edwards wrong on policy during the campaign.

All we had were his words back then, and those words happened to be to the left of Obama. He may have lied to his wife and others, but his opinions on the issues, sincere or otherwise, were far more on track with solutions to the Big Mess.

For perspective, Bush and Cheney also lied and are criminals. Whose lies were fatal to hundreds of thousands?

They usually all get elected before the real treachery comes out, and that is usually far worse for all of us than a guy who didn't even get elected, right?

 
At 10:44 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What do you know, more hypocrisy from Obama – he’s like a gold mine of hypocrisy! CNS News finds that back in 2006, when Obama was opposing Bush and the war on terror, Obama made clear that he’s so tired of terrorism being used as a ‘wedge’ issue in our politics, especially for electoral purposes.

Of course, this was before Obama decided that to do the same thing by saying that Romney wouldn’t have gotten Bin Laden like he did, you know, using terrorism as a wedge issue, instead of running on his record of high unemployment, high energy prices, anemic growth, etc.

Couple of things, Bush isn't running for President, and DD is not voting for Obama any way.

 
At 12:35 PM, Anonymous Harry from Prison said...

lol anonymous at 10:44 AM

That unvetted skinny smoker with the big ears we elected to be President thinks we won't remember all his flip flops.

I'm glad Tom Degan may have finally taken his blinders off to report the dirt on lefties too.

Edwards actually tried to have another man admit to being the father of his out of wedlock love child.

Of course Dave somebody had to drag in an irrelevant comment about Bush and Cheney. Is it also Bush's fault that Edwards is a dirtbag?

 
At 3:15 PM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Harry from Prison (a.k.a., Just the Fascist!, Moduspropogandi, Just My Two Cents, Anonymous, and a host of others...) asked...

"Is it also Bush's fault that Edwards is a dirtbag?"

Absolutely not! No more than it is Edwards' fault that Bush II (and Cheney) are war criminals! Of course, by virtue of the fact that Bush III has continued many of his predecessor's foreign policy exploits and has refused to prosecute Dubya for his war crimes (many self-disclosed: 269 and counting...), many of these hideous and grotesque instances most probably will find accountability shared by our current warlord. The previous nitwit (and his right-hand henchman) obviously is overcome with fear and loathing, and is afraid to leave U.S. sanctuary.

 
At 3:20 PM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Hey Harry from Prison!, is there room in your cell for Bush and Cheney? Maybe you'd like to share a bunk with them...

 
At 5:04 PM, Anonymous Lisa said...

Tom, loved this post. I am living right outside Raleigh, so this takes up most of the local news coverage. I happened to catch wind of this when a picture of a pregnant Rielle taken outside a Cary NC ob-gyn showed up for a split second on the Huffpo. I called a friend immediately and when I got back on my computer and tried to find the link to direct my friend to, the story had disappeared COMPLETELY in a weird kind of black-ops way.

 
At 5:04 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

War criminals? So is Obama, based on what DD and JG post here. Who the f will liberals blame in a year? What they are doing now is so lame its hard to believe it they think their lies still work, but if lies are all you got, what else can you do, but continue to lie.
Shows how dishonest Dave and Jeff truly are.
But wait the peaceful OWS movement will save the day, on May Day no less. HA.

 
At 5:08 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Edwards policy was right? Dave, cell block 14 needs a clean up, get your head out of your ass and get over there with your mop to clean up.

 
At 7:30 PM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Anonymous (a.k.a., Harry from Prison, Just the Fascist!, Moduspropogandi, Just My Two Cents, and a host of others) asked...

"Who the f will liberals blame in a year?"

Enablers like you, of course, who prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that ignorance runs rampant within American society.

I blame all corporatists -- whether Republican or Democrat. You're just not bright enough to have figured this out. Which, not coincidentally, brings us back to the paragraph above this one.

 
At 9:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Tom and other seekers of the truth.

Note that there were no posts containing name calling until the post by Jefferson's guardian @ 3:15. Until that post the only persons being discussed were public figures, Bush, Channey, Edwards, Obama. Fair game for a political blog.

But with his typical inability to stay on task, Jefferson guardian has felt the only way he can support his risky, extreme left, liberal position which is out of the
mainstream of the majority of Americans is to do as you
can see in his posts above. The record shows that true dialog is impossible as long as Tom allows Jefferson to hijack his blog.

 
At 11:23 PM, Blogger Modusoperandi said...

Anonymous "To Tom and other seekers of the truth."
Ironic, considering you still haven't read that page that you hadn't read when you smeared its author, hadn't read when you smeared its author a second time, and I suspect still haven't read.


"Until that post the only persons being discussed were public figures, Bush, Channey, Edwards, Obama. Fair game for a political blog."
Can you clutch your pearls any tighter? Should I have the fainting couch brought out?


"But with his typical inability to stay on task…"
10:59 am, potentially related to Edwards (also, copy 'n' paste)
6:58 pm, not even tangential to Edwards (also, copy 'n' paste
10:44 am, not even tangential to Edwards. (also, copy 'n' paste)
Etc.
Shorter Modusoperandi: "At worst that's a tu quoque."

"The record shows that true dialog is impossible as long as Tom allows Jefferson to hijack his blog."
Quick, link some unrelated story! Link that Lovitz audio again! Link, man, link like your life depends on it! Link!

 
At 1:17 AM, Blogger Suzan said...

Still a better candidate than Liebermann, but hey. I liked both John and Elizabeth and thought their tragedy was used for others' goals. An American Tragedy for real.

He still is the only candidate we've had in decades with a personal knowledge of what poverty does to people, who was willing to speak out on it every day.

My legal experts, etc., say the evidence is not there for Edwards' conviction on any relevant point of law. The donations from Bunny Melon don't actually reach criminal legal limits. Sorry.

Much as the posse hate to hear.

He's been chased by the Jesse Helms' Federal appointees in NC for years so they will have their fresh meat.

It's true. He's no more a saint than most of the others.

Except for Bush and Cheney and Bush and Reagan and Nixon and Johnson and Kennedy and Slick.

So have at 'em.

Only Ford and Carter get off on these grounds.

And you remember what happened to them.

And don't even think about going back to Eisenhower.

S

 
At 1:21 AM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

With your indulgence and forgiveness, this will be my only off topic post.

Modus, kind sir, I do believe I could use those smelling salts, for I’m about to swoon.

Note that there were no posts containing name calling until the post by Jefferson's guardian @ 3:15.

Well, isn't that precious? The troll was nothing but polite, and on topic, until someone in the mirror ruined the thread by distracting us off the subject and getting personal.

Someone is so obsessed with me that at least five comments were made about lil' ol' me by this person...immediately after my relevant comment on Edwards and other, even more treacherous, liars.

So much attention! Five times, no less! Goodness, gracious! That’s a lot of male attention. I’m not accustomed to such passion from other men. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

My admirer offers a veritable parade of projection, lies, personal digs, and accusations. Very much, I dare say, like a teenage girl’s conflicted feelings, and fantasies, about the older guy who won’t pay her any attention. Perhaps we see the fine line between attraction and repulsion?

I'm touched and flattered that my obsessive fan wants to talk about me all the time. However, I must suggest we make an effort to be mature adults here, instead of emotional and infatuated adolescents.

I declare! I blush at all the attention. (Smelling salts, now, if you would be so dear, Mr. Operandi.)

-----
A note:

Dear fanatic little troll,

Get a grip, lad. It’s not all about me.

No matter how sweet you are on me, no matter how envious you are of my dangerous, real man’s job, no matter how insecure your feelings of manhood and your intellect may be, no matter how angry you feel about my utter disrespect for you, no matter how obsessed you are with me, please, try to stay on topic.

Perhaps if you clear your mind of thoughts of me, you may learn something.

 
At 9:38 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The troll (a.k.a. Dave Dubya)was nothing but polite, and on topic, until someone in the mirror ruined the thread by distracting us off the subject and getting personal.

My advise, ignore him, he has little man syndrome

 
At 9:39 AM, Anonymous Vanessa said...

Dave DramaQueen Dubya,

after all that hyperbole of your last post, what does Bush and Cheney have to do with John Edwards being a sack of shit? please answer the question without all the drama.

 
At 12:01 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

MO, the Canadian stalking troll, note that there were no posts containing name calling until the post by Jefferson's guardian @ 3:15. Until that post the only persons being discussed were public figures, Bush, Channey, Edwards, Obama. Fair game for a political blog.

Did you not read this part?

 
At 4:24 PM, Blogger Modusoperandi said...

Anonymous, do you not see that your "inability to stay on task", diplomatically, easily matches [George]* Jefferson's guardian?
Do you have the vapours? Would you like to? I know a guy.


* Spoiler Alert!

 
At 4:47 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

mo,

i need your honest opinion as you are a man of very deep wisdom. can a prison guard ever become a philosopher king?

 
At 5:05 PM, Blogger Modusoperandi said...

Anonymous "mo, i need your honest opinion as you are a man of very deep wisdom. can a prison guard ever become a philosopher king?"
I don't see why not. Why do you feel the need to denigrate another's profession and, through that, smear the man under the uniform?

Now I need your honest opinion: in your opinion, as a seeker of the truth, are you, Anonymous, ever going to read that page that you hadn't read when you smeared its author, hadn't read when you smeared its author a second time, and I suspect still haven't read?

 
At 5:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

By Charles C. W. Cooke


In light of the May Day arrests of the Cuyahoga 5, the Occupy Wall Street–affiliated group of men who planned to blow up a bridge in Cleveland, Ohio, I called the Southern Poverty Law Center to find out of they had any plans to start tracking the Occupy movement. The first person I spoke to was so shocked by the question that she paused for a good 15 seconds before promising to put me in touch with a representative. This she eventually did, however, and after a game of cat-and-mouse — the person she’d found for me was busy “hosting an international conference on right-wing extremism,” natch — we managed to touch base and I to pose the question: “Do you have any plans to start tracking Occupy Wall Street after a hate group tried to blow up a bridge?”

“No, I don’t think so,” he said. “We blogged it right away when it happened.” I asked him why he thought this deserved only a blog post, and he explained that the SPLC only deals with “hatred of people based on class characteristics,” which a little more pushing revealed meant “immutable characteristics such as a person’s eye or skin color.” “So,” I asked, “Occupy doesn’t count because it doesn’t hate people based on their innate characteristics?” He assented, but didn’t explain adequately why SPLC is vocal on “Islamophobia,” for example — whatever Islam is, it is not an “immutable” characteristic — and why it concerns itself with matters of traditionalist Catholic theology.

“We did go after the eco-terrorists,” he told me. “But that was because they’d adopted the same tactics as the abortion activists: vilification, the use of ‘Wanted’ posters, highlighting the names and whereabouts of people’s children and spouses.” And then he went on a long speech about “anti-abortion extremists” that had very little to do with what I was asking, but no doubt made him feel good. I met this with silence, so he said that, really, the SPLC only tracks those who commit violence or who seek to destroy whole systems in the name of an ideology.

“Isn’t that exactly what happened in Cleveland?” I asked. “These five men, all linked with Occupy Wall Street, attempted to blow up a bridge as an overture to the wholesale destruction of Cleveland, Ohio, and in the name of anarchism. They also looked to blow up the Republican convention.”

“They were anarchists,” he repeated.

“Yes?”

He paused. “We’re not really set up to cover the extreme Left.”

This was at least honest. He must have heard me thinking, because he continued, “Some people ask why we don’t cover prison gangs or the Crips and the Bloods, because they are violent, too. But they aren’t political, you see.”

“But Occupy is political,” I suggested.

Back to the honesty: “Well, take it if you will, or won’t.”

“Fair enough.”

He felt the need to keep explaining, so I let him. We only ever cover left-wing groups when they have a right-wing component, he told me. For example, “when anarchist groups are infiltrated by those on the right; Neo-Nazis, that sort of thing.”

 
At 5:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I asked whether this was a little like the way the French do masculine and feminine plurals; that if there are a thousand women and one man, it becomes masculine. In other words, that the SPLC covers a group if there is even a minute “right-wing” component. “Yes, I suppose so,” he said.

I left it there, but I couldn’t help feeling that there was a little bit of a syllogism going on; that being that “Left” equals “good,” and “Right” equals “bad,” and therefore anything “Left” couldn’t be “bad” unless it were infiltrated by the “Right.” In my time covering Occupy Wall Street I have seen anti-Semitism, black nationalism, class hatred, and threats of violence; there have been rapes, a few murders, and now some domestic terrorism. One would have thought that these things would be sufficient warrant for a group like the Southern Poverty Law Center to stand up and take serious note, but, as I learned yesterday, there’s one problem: They’re just “not set up to cover the extreme Left.”


Tom will understand this, hats off to him.

 
At 5:36 PM, Anonymous Anonymous2 said...

mo,

what do you think of the Occupy Wall Street–affiliated group of men who planned to blow up a bridge in Drew Carey's hometown of Cleveland, Ohio? What if you, Drew, or a relative was on that bridge when it got blown up?

do you care to make a comment?

it looks to me the OWS crowd is a big shitstain, do you concur?

 
At 7:20 PM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Anonymous2 (a.k.a., Anonymous, Harry from Prison, Just the Fascist!, Moduspropogandi, Just My Two Cents, and a bunch of others), asked...

"...what do you think of the Occupy Wall Street–affiliated group of men who planned to blow up a bridge in Drew Carey's hometown of Cleveland, Ohio?"

That they're not affiliated with Occupy Wall Street. The following is from your own source of lies and deceit and corporate-state propaganda: "
While the persons arrested Monday evening by the FBI have participated in Occupy Cleveland events, they were in no way representing or acting on behalf of Occupy Cleveland.
" [Emphasis and italics added]

 
At 7:37 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

JG,
As we know, Edwards and Clinton are slimeball cheaters, but Newt is Mr. "Family Values".

An interesting aspect of the linked FOX(R) story is the Republican hypocrisy.

"I think most people involved with the Occupy Movement are innocent, but it creates an environment that encourages criminal behavior," said Rep. Peter King, (R-N.Y.), who heads the House Committee on Homeland Security. "What they [occupiers] do is create a climate for wackos to carry out their plans."

Said King: "Irresponsible words have irresponsible consequences. Once you have something incited you can't stop it."

Except when it’s Ted Nugent, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, ad museum who “create a climate for wackos to carry out their plans”.

That would be completely different because it's ok if you're a Republican.

 
At 7:53 PM, Anonymous Virginia said...

Tom Deegan,

I'm really getting scared.

The following picture of the Supremes laughing at Obama looks to me like they are about to strike down ObamaCare:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/04/Obama-to-Supremes-Dont-You-Dare

 
At 9:55 PM, Blogger Modusoperandi said...

Anonymous "In light of the May Day arrests of the Cuyahoga 5, the Occupy Wall Street–affiliated group of men who planned to blow up a bridge in Cleveland, Ohio"
0. What Jefferson's Guardian said, but in a somber baritone intead of his soothing tenor.
1. Nice copy 'n' paste. I particularly like how it names no names. "She" and "he" must be pretty high up in an unmentioned part of the unmentioned part of the organization to be allowed to answer the phones. Better get O'keefe on this one!
(Further pause for engoogling)
2. The page you copy/pasted was published on May 4. SPLC ran a page on May 1 (the same day as the arrests), meaning that they pre-beat you (via Breitbart) to the punch.
3. Take that, somehow, John Edwards?

"it looks to me the OWS crowd is a big shitstain, do you concur?"
1. Yeah, take that, dirty airline pilots, modern veterans and elderly veterans! It's your fault that some anarchists are doing bad things!
2. Take that, somehow, John Edwards?
∞. Have you read that page that you hadn't read when you smeared its author, hadn't read when you smeared its author a second time, and I suspect still haven't read?

 
At 9:56 PM, Blogger Modusoperandi said...

Jefferson's Guardian "That they're not affiliated with Occupy Wall Street. The following is from your own source of lies and deceit and corporate-state propaganda:"
The first thing you learn in hippie school is to cater to, then deny, the very groups that hinder your efforts!

Dave Dubya "An interesting aspect of the linked FOX(R) story is the Republican hypocrisy."
Everybody knows that a college student protesting the, um, skynormous increase in university costs (as well as the fact that, as far as I know, student loans are the one kind of debt that can't be absolved with bankruptcfy) and arguing about jobs during a recession (instead of the approved Very Serious People subject of The Deficit) is one step away from some homeless guy crapping on a cop car! That's just common sense. First, they're protesting at Kent State, next they're kettling themselves between a fence on three sides and the National Guard, then they're forcing their filthy hippie bodies on good American bullets!

"Said King: 'Irresponsible words have irresponsible consequences. Once you have something incited you can't stop it.'
Peter King lacks self-awareness.

Virginia "I'm really getting scared. The following picture of the Supremes laughing at Obama looks to me like they are about to strike down ObamaCare:"
1. If they do, cheer! Then, instead of the nibbling-around-the-edges of the ACA you'll be back to the old status quo! Hello, medical bankruptcy! Pre-existing condition leading to denial of coverage? You betcha! Who needs Death Panels when you don't have coverage at all, can't afford to use the coverage you have, have coverage that doesn't cover what you need or have coverage that gets cancelled by the insurance company once you start using it? Woo!
2. Take that, somehow, John Edwards?

 
At 10:30 PM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Modusoperandi: "The first thing you learn in hippie school is to cater to, then deny, the very groups that hinder your efforts!"

I, too, graduated from hippie school, and safely tucked away those same valuable lessons. They've served me well!


"Take that, somehow, John Edwards?"

Thank you for staying on topic.

 
At 7:40 AM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Tom, I thought the same thing about Living in the Material World. I rearranged my schedule in order to watch it when it premiered on HBO. I've since watched it a couple of more times. What a beautiful and intimate tribute to a wonderful and soulful man! You can't say you weren't especially moved when Ringo related the story about the last time he visited George, or when Olivia described the illumination in the room upon his spirit exiting his body.

It's well worth double the price of a ticket!

 
At 9:19 AM, Anonymous Anonymous2 said...

"I blame all corporatists -- whether Republican or Democrat. You're just not bright enough to have figured this out. Which, not coincidentally, brings us back to the paragraph above this one."


Communitarian corporatism

Ancient Greece developed early concepts of corporatism. Plato developed the concept of a totalitarian and communitarian corporatist system of natural-based classes and natural social hierarchies that would be organized based on function, such that groups would cooperate to achieve social harmony by emphasizing collective interests while rejecting individual interests.

 
At 11:52 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

When a liberal starts a sentence with "Everybody knows", what follows will be a lie.

 
At 12:09 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Everybody knows anonymous trolls know what they're talking about.

 
At 1:45 PM, Anonymous Anonymous2 said...

Dave Dubya and Jefferson's Guardian are good buddies here and they remind of one of my favorite shows "Gilligan's Island."

I picture DD as being a little obese so he can be the Skipper watching out for his little buddy Gilligan played by JG.

JG is always quick to defend the Skipper.

thanks DD and JG for providing humor to Toms blog!

 
At 12:02 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tom,
Do you believe what we know now about John Edwards would have been uncovered much sooner, IF he had been vetted as well and as soon as Herman Cain?

 
At 3:24 AM, Blogger Modusoperandi said...

Anonymous "Do you believe what we know now about John Edwards would have been uncovered much sooner, IF he had been vetted as well and as soon as Herman Cain?"
Edwards
Started: December 28 2006
Outed: October 2007
Cain
Started: January 12 2011 (officially in May)
Outed: October 2011

I'm not seeing a whole lot of difference there, other than Politico got the latter scoop and the Enquirer the first.

 
At 8:48 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Johnny Reid "John" Edwards is an American politician, who served as a U.S. Senator from North Carolina. He was the Democratic NOMINEE for Vice President in 2004. He sought the Democratic Party's nomination in the 2004 presidential election. He eventually became the 2004 Democratic candidate for vice-president, the running mate of presidential nominee Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts.
In an August 8, 2008, statement,and an interview with Bob Woodruff of ABC News, Edwards admitted the affair with Hunter in 2006,



He was not "Outed" until October 2007. I guess you are correct, there wasn't much difference in the way the two were vetted.

 
At 10:46 AM, Blogger RedStateFred said...

JG, you want a cracker?

 
At 12:25 PM, Anonymous John said...

Tom,

I have to agree with your assessment. 'Something' is one fine piece of songwriting - and beautifully done...

 
At 2:40 PM, Blogger Modusoperandi said...

Anonymous "Johnny Reid 'John' Edwards is an American politician, who served as a U.S. Senator from North Carolina. He was the Democratic NOMINEE for Vice President in 2004. He sought the Democratic Party's nomination in the 2004 presidential election. He eventually became the 2004 Democratic candidate for vice-president, the running mate of presidential nominee Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts.
In an August 8, 2008, statement,and an interview with Bob Woodruff of ABC News, Edwards admitted the affair with Hunter in 2006
He was not 'Outed' until October 2007. I guess you are correct, there wasn't much difference in the way the two were vetted."
(emphasis mine)
Read that through again.
His affair was outed in 2007 (when he was running for the 2008 nom). He admitted in 2008 that in 2006 he had the affair. As far as I'm aware, 2004 preceded 2006.
(This is partly moot if it turns out that Edwards had affairs before 2006, but that assumes facts not in evidence)

 
At 8:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

MO,
If Edwards had been vetted like Cain was,a his affair(s) would have be found out bout in 2006. Are all Canadians as stupid as you?
Jeez what a libtard!

 
At 11:29 PM, Blogger Modusoperandi said...

Anonymous "MO, If Edwards had been vetted like Cain was,a his affair(s) would have be found out bout in 2006. Are all Canadians as stupid as you? Jeez what a libtard!"
Please stand for a moment of silence while Anonymous ducks into his own punch.

 
At 12:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Where was the vetting process when this crook ran for office?

In 2008 Detroit Democrat Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick pleaded guilty to two felonies and was sentenced to serve time in jail.
Just a year earlier Barack Obama was lavishing praise on his close friend.

And Kwame was a speaker at the Democratic National Convention.
Now he’s in jail and his crimes are still being uncovered.

A recent investigation revealed that a pension plan organized by former Detroit Mayor, and Obama supporter Kwame Kilpatrick, cost Detroit nearly $500 million.

 
At 3:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe we should have vetted candidate Obama just a little more, based on the people he has appointed and their positions?

A senior Obama administration official defended the efficacy of “class warfare” on his personal blog Monday by quoting the political philosopher and communist theorist Karl Marx.

Rick Bookstaber, who currently serves on the Financial Stability Oversight Council, the federal body established under the Dodd-Frank Act to “ensure the stability of our nation’s financial system,” took issue with conservative commentator Tucker Carlson’s accusations that liberals were engaging in “class warfare” by seeking to blame the nation’s fiscal problems on a small number of wealthy individuals.

“There is little that matches the artfulness of the rich in waving off criticism of the widening income gap as ‘class warfare,’” Bookstaber wrote. “And there is little that matches the gullibility of the rest in following along.”

“I am not picking sides in this war,” he added, “but I believe such a war is justifiable, and indeed ultimately inevitable.”

Bookstaber explained further, citing Marx:

During the industrial revolution class warfare centered on the length of the working day. A tightly defined working day only appeared with the advent of the industrial revolution. Before then laborers worked when they needed money, and then quit for a time once they fulfilled their needs. But regimentation and a dependable workforce became necessary once there was machinery to run and capital invested, and so with industrialization came the an enforced workday. So it is not surprising that Marx stated the central battle of class warfare at the time in terms of the working day:

The capitalist maintains his rights as a purchaser when he tries to make the working-day as long as possible, and to make, whenever possible, two working-days out of one. On the other hand, the peculiar nature of the commodity sold implies a limit to its consumption by the purchaser, and the laborer maintains his right as seller when he wishes to reduce the working-day to one of definite normal duration. There is here, therefore, an antinomy, right against right, both equally bearing the seal of the law of exchanges. Between equal rights force decides. Hence is it that in the history of capitalist production, the determination of what is a working-day, presents itself as the result of a struggle, a struggle between collective capital, i.e., the class of capitalists, and collective labour, i.e., the working-class. – Marx, Das Kapital

Marx’s work was widely appropriated throughout the 20th century by countries such as China and the former Soviet Union. Tens of millions of people were slaughtered under those regimes.

 
At 3:48 PM, Blogger Modusoperandi said...

Anonymous "A senior Obama administration official defended the efficacy of “class warfare” on his personal blog Monday by quoting the political philosopher and communist theorist Karl Marx.
First, thanks for [another] copy 'n' paste. You're gonna end up with repetitive stress injuries from all that Ctrl-C/Ctrl-Ving.
Second, original source.
Third, Marx. Booga booga!
Fourth, has anybody else noticed that it's only class warfare when it's bottom-up?
Fifth, have you read that page that you hadn't read when you smeared its author, hadn't read when you smeared its author a second time, and I suspect still haven't read.

 
At 11:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

6th, is that the best spin you can do to avoid admitting Obama was not vetted?

 
At 3:45 AM, Blogger Modusoperandi said...

Anonymous "6th, is that the best spin you can do to avoid admitting Obama was not vetted?"
He didn't pop up from Kenya for his presidential run.
Barack Obama: Illinois Senate 1997-2004, Senator from Illinois 2005-2008; a decade of Moderate Establishment generally non-confrontational public service as roughly a New Democrat or a Rockefeller Republican. And two books. (and, since then, three years of nibbling around the edges)
But, ooooo, scary padre! Community organizer [*snicker*]! New Black Panthers! Van Jones! ACORN! Shirley Sherrod! Ground Zero Mosque! And now, guy who mentions Marx, accurately, on the subject of the never ending conflict between Capital and Labour (but the Soviets murdered a bunch of their own people, so class warfare must not exist!).
...
You're never going to read that page, are you?

 
At 11:57 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

MO
Nope, not as long ask me too.

I have attempted to open a meaningfully dialog with liberals before by agreeing to buy and read what they recommend in exchange for their doing the same for me. In every example I have kept my end of the deal, but was lied to by the liberal as they refused to do as they said they would.

I'll give you another example of liberal dishonesty. JG removes my post from his blog because in part it has section copied and pasted from author I credit. Says he wont allow that, yet in that very same thread, 80% of his post is copied and pasted from other authors. Can you say double standard?

These are just a couple of the reasons I respect Tom and the way he runs his site. Honest, fair, and rarely from Tom, personal.

MO you can ask me until Canada splits into several mini nations, and I will not read what you ask me to because of my personal experience I sited above.

 
At 12:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

MO lets see how you spin this:

John Edwards.

The now disgraced former Senator from North Carolina made his name, and his money, as a trial lawyer. In a 1985 case, he convinced a jury that a doctor’s negligence was responsible for a child’s cerebral palsy. He argued that had the doctor performed a c-section earlier, the girl would not have been disabled. He went so far as to channel the girl in court for the jury:

“I have to tell you right now — I didn’t plan to talk about this — right now I feel her, I feel her presence,” he said in his record-setting 1985 lawsuit on behalf of Jennifer Campbell, born brain-damaged after being deprived of oxygen during labor. “She’s inside me and she’s talking to you. . . . And this is what she says to you. She says, `I don’t ask for your pity. What I ask for is your strength. And I don’t ask for your sympathy, but I do ask for your courage.’ “

The jury awarded the plaintiff $6.5 million. The New York Times reports this verdict led to more lawsuits:

In the decade that followed, Mr. Edwards filed at least 20 similar lawsuits against doctors and hospitals in deliveries gone wrong, winning verdicts and settlements of more than $60 million, typically keeping about a third. As a politician he has spoken of these lawsuits with pride.

“I was more than just their lawyer,” Mr. Edwards said of his clients in a recent essay in Newsweek. “I cared about them. Their cause was my cause.”

The effect of his work has reached beyond those cases, and beyond his own income. Other lawyers have filed countless similar cases; just this week, a jury on Long Island returned a $112 million award. And doctors have responded by changing the way they deliver babies, often seeing a relatively minor anomaly on a fetal heart monitor as justification for an immediate Caesarean.

 
At 4:13 PM, Blogger Modusoperandi said...

Anonymous "MO Nope, not as long ask me too."
Then we're done here. I don't mind you wasting your own time. I do mind when you waste mine.

 
At 6:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As long as you and your liberal friends are dishonest, you are 100% correct, we are done here.
It is never a waste of my time to counter your lies and deceit with a response that might cause one of those who read Tom's blog to pause and think twice about swallowing your bilge.

 
At 7:10 PM, Blogger Modusoperandi said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 7:14 PM, Blogger Modusoperandi said...

Anonymous "As long as you and your liberal friends are dishonest, you are 100% correct, we are done here."
Oh, balderdash. You came here. You copy/pasted from another site. I, after hunting down and reading the original source by the original author recommended that you read it, pointing out that what you were told it said (and gleefully repeated) wasn't what it actually said (even going so far as to point out that the very bit you quoted even conflicted with what they wanted you to think it said). You ignored that and pasted more of the same, as though repeating a lie makes it true. I told you again to read the original source, even linking directly to it. You again refused.
If there are bad faith arguments being made in this supposed dialogue between us two, Anonymous, they are not being made by me.

"It is never a waste of my time to counter your lies and deceit with a response that might cause one of those who read Tom's blog to pause and think twice about swallowing your bilge."
Throwing crap at the wall, ignoring critiques of same, repeat, then claiming victory is not countering lies and deceit. That's what a two year old does.
Adults discuss. Communication is two ways.
I mean, golly, I've been reading, researching and rebutting most of what you've been saying. Then you just toss another load as though the previous exchange never happened. That's not countering lies and deceit. That's what a two year old does.
You're the one making bad faith arguments, not me.

 
At 7:28 PM, Anonymous Just The Half Wit said...

We conned-servatives don't respond to questions and we don't provide information.

We are trolls, and are here only to annoy, distract and smear.

Like two year olds.

 
At 11:45 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ha Ha Mo, I see your wasting your time again. Couldn't keep you word for even a day.
Typical.

 
At 11:06 PM, Blogger CHRIS said...

Thank you so much for posting your site's link today on the NYT.
I bookmarked it and will visit your comment page often.:)

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home