Hypocrite Edwards Caught on Money

TheDanold

TheDanold

Unimatrix
Edwards chastizes Clinton over $20,000 in donations from Murdoch, while he himself got $800,000. This is just like other case where Edwards railed on against rich employers not paying enough for Medicaid while he himself used loopholes to avoid paying tax for it.
What a dirty, dirty hypocrite.

"John Edwards, who yesterday demanded Democratic candidates return any campaign donations from Rupert Murdoch and News Corp., himself earned at least $800,000 for a book published by one of the media mogul's companies.

The Edwards campaign said the multimillionaire trial lawyer would not return the hefty payout from Murdoch for the book titled "Home: The Blueprints of Our Lives."
http://www.nypost.com/seven/0803200...h_nationalnews_charles_hurt__bureau_chief.htm
 
I haven't any other details on this story, but isn't there a difference between private earnings & campaign donations?
 
So profits from selling a book is the same as campaign contributions ?
You regress to Newt there Dano ?
 
Onceler said:
I haven't any other details on this story, but isn't there a difference between private earnings & campaign donations?
Click to expand...
I guess you could argue that, but the Edwards team chose not to comment, yet they did comment on other things, so I would suspect they know full well it looks hypocritical and are hoping it just blows over.
 
TheDanold said:
I guess you could argue that, but the Edwards team chose not to comment, yet they did comment on other things, so I would suspect they know full well it looks hypocritical and are hoping it just blows over.
Click to expand...

That's a lot of assumption. The comment I saw said something like "we're more than happy to have that money go to organizations like Habitat for Humanity," since he donated most of his earning to charity.

There is a huge difference between private earnings & campaign contributions. This thread is another waste of hot air from the Danold.
 
Spinspeak stinks whether it comes from my mouth or the mouths of others.
I am working on my spinning problem though....
Except in sarcastic posts :D
 
Are you really equating having a Book published by someone and then earning the 800,000 in book sales profits to getting a political donation as the same thing.

How were they to even know the company was owned by Murdock?

Did Murdock EVEN own that company at the time he published with them?

Should no one write an article for the wall street journal now?


Please people this is just too obscure a relation to Murdock.
 
"Edwards chastizes Clinton over $20,000 in donations from Murdoch, while he himself got $800,000."

This 1st line epitomizes the dishonesty of Dano. When I read this, I was bummed; the implication is clearly: Clinton got $20K in donations, while Edwards got $800K in donations. This would have been indefensible.

Naturally, once you read a bit further, you find out that it's apples & oranges, without a trace of hypocrisy. Very sad.
 
Onceler said:
That's a lot of assumption. The comment I saw said something like "we're more than happy to have that money go to organizations like Habitat for Humanity," since he donated most of his earning to charity.

There is a huge difference between private earnings & campaign contributions. This thread is another waste of hot air from the Danold.
Click to expand...
So why didn't Edwards say what you did?

And saying he donated THAT money to charity is suspect. After all Edwards receives tens of millions, if he donates say a couple million to charity he can pick and choose "whose" money he sent to charity depending on who ended up controversial as a donor. It's really EDWARDS money.
 
TheDanold said:
So why didn't Edwards say what you did?

And saying he donated THAT money to charity is suspect. After all Edwards receives tens of millions, if he donates say a couple million to charity he can pick and choose "whose" money he sent to charity depending on who ended up controversial as a donor. It's really EDWARDS money.
Click to expand...

Maybe because he knows that once you comment on something like this, it feeds the story, even if the portrayal is completely dishonest (just like the way you portrayed it with that 1st line in the post)?

Give it up, man. This is uber-pathetic, even for your...
 
Onceler said:
"Edwards chastizes Clinton over $20,000 in donations from Murdoch, while he himself got $800,000."

This 1st line epitomizes the dishonesty of Dano. When I read this, I was bummed; the implication is clearly: Clinton got $20K in donations, while Edwards got $800K in donations. This would have been indefensible.

Naturally, once you read a bit further, you find out that it's apples & oranges, without a trace of hypocrisy. Very sad.
Click to expand...
LOL, why didn't Edwards simply say that then hmmm? Clearly the subtleties are different but the reality and the perception is not, Edwards knows that.

This is why you are so dishonest, you try and play lawyer, rather than see things as they appear to honest regular people.
 
"This is why you are so dishonest, you try and play lawyer, rather than see things as they appear to honest regular people.
"

Uh-huh - and your dishonest, knee-jerk reaction is "the way they appear to honest people?"

Idiot. Edwards EARNED $800K privately. This is a 180 degree difference from a campaign contribution.

I appreciate that you get embarassed by these threads once you post them, and can't remove them from the board, so this is what you're left with...a handful of exaggerated, baseless assumptions that supposedly all "honest people" are REALLY thinking..

I try to deal in facts....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top