Hypocrite Edwards Caught on Money

"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."

It's pretty funny that you acknowledge here that perception is more important than the actual truth when it comes to "hypocrisy", at least in Danoworld...
 
Dano seriously. Please quit making conservatives look stupid.

getting money from a book published by one of his 5 bajillion media companies is ENTIRELY different than accepting campaign contributions.

You hit a new LOW today also. lol
 
Onceler said:
"

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


Obviously you are not good at math.... with all of the spin Dano put on this story it is actually a 1980 degree spin. You forgot to factor in the five times Dano spun completely around with this before adding in the obvious 180 degrees.
 
Oh, well - Dano split.

The worst part about this is that he realizes how embarassing this is, but after a week or so passes he'll start including it with any references to Edwards as "fact," as in: "Liberal Dem Hypocrite Edwards, who took $800K of Murdoch's money after telling other Liberal Hypocrite Dems not to, stoops to new low by talking about poverty when he himself has millions...."
 
The fucking item is front page and center on America's biggest independent news site and links to the New York Post. There was absolutely nothing I had to spin, that was how the story was done and that is how it was taken.
It appears hypocritical, deal with it.

I expect better from you Super, again if Edwards (who is a lawyer) really agreed with Lorax's legal interpretation, he would have come out and said it, instead he declined comment because he damn well knows it's embarassing and appears hypocritical.
 
I should add that Edwards has (countless times) bashed Murdoch and Fox News (he is even the top Dem leading the boycott of debating on Fox), and yet he has no problem doing a book deal with him to make them both bigtime richer.
If he hates the man so much, why would he take his money, book deal, donation or what have you. The principal matters more than the payment method.
 
TheDanold said:
I should add that Edwards has (countless times) bashed Murdoch and Fox News (he is even the top Dem leading the boycott of debating on Fox), and yet he has no problem doing a book deal with him to make them both bigtime richer.
If he hates the man so much, why would he take his money, book deal, donation or what have you. The principal matters more than the payment method.
Click to expand...

Your link is for the NY Post. Owned, and operated at a yearly loss, by Rupert Murdoch.
 
Duhla said:
Your link is for the NY Post. Owned, and operated at a yearly loss, by Rupert Murdoch.
Click to expand...

Yes they even mention that in the article just so people are clear. It's still a big newspaper as you should well know living there and the biggest independent news site thought it intriguing enough to put it front and center as their top hit.
 
TheDanold said:
Yes they even mention that in the article just so people are clear. It's still a big newspaper as you should well know living there and the biggest independent news site thought it intriguing enough to put it front and center as their top hit.
Click to expand...

As I said, and I'll type slow this time...your link is to the NY post.

A right wing tabloid rag, operated at a financial loss every year, so old man Murdoch has another public forum to masturbate in.

What is the "biggest independent news site"?

Are you deranged?
 
A couple of FYI's:

When you say "it links to the NY Post," you should know that, to any knowledgeable New Yorker, that's the same as saying "it links to the National Enquirer" (except that the Post is more conservative than the Enquirer).

Also, Edwards slammed Murdoch for the proposed acquisition of the Wall Street Journal, and his words about campaign money were directly tied to that. I assume his book deal happened before that...maybe you could search out the "countless quotes" from him to verify that.

There really isn't any hypocrisy here. If you're contention is that he's a "dirty, filthy hypocrite" simply because ignorant conservatives will draw that conclusion, it's really not much to go on. Truth & facts generally prevail...
 
TheDanold said:
I should add that Edwards has (countless times) bashed Murdoch and Fox News (he is even the top Dem leading the boycott of debating on Fox), and yet he has no problem doing a book deal with him to make them both bigtime richer.
If he hates the man so much, why would he take his money, book deal, donation or what have you. The principal matters more than the payment method.
Click to expand...
Well, it seems that Rupert is a bit more, shall we say, Fair and Balanced? Yeah, Fair and balanced than previously assigned.

;)
 
TheDanold said:
The fucking item is front page and center on America's biggest independent news site and links to the New York Post. There was absolutely nothing I had to spin, that was how the story was done and that is how it was taken.
It appears hypocritical, deal with it.

I expect better from you Super, again if Edwards (who is a lawyer) really agreed with Lorax's legal interpretation, he would have come out and said it, instead he declined comment because he damn well knows it's embarassing and appears hypocritical.
Click to expand...

Dano... I agree that Edwards could have come out and explain better, but this is no better than the non stop bullshit Cypress posts.
 
Onceler said:
A couple of FYI's:

When you say "it links to the NY Post," you should know that, to any knowledgeable New Yorker, that's the same as saying "it links to the National Enquirer" (except that the Post is more conservative than the Enquirer).

Also, Edwards slammed Murdoch for the proposed acquisition of the Wall Street Journal, and his words about campaign money were directly tied to that. I assume his book deal happened before that...maybe you could search out the "countless quotes" from him to verify that.

There really isn't any hypocrisy here. If you're contention is that he's a "dirty, filthy hypocrite" simply because ignorant conservatives will draw that conclusion, it's really not much to go on. Truth & facts generally prevail...
Click to expand...

Well, it is a good balance for the city... leftist shit in the Times, rightest shit in the Post. NY is simply full of shit. :)
 
Onceler said:
A couple of FYI's:

When you say "it links to the NY Post," you should know that, to any knowledgeable New Yorker, that's the same as saying "it links to the National Enquirer" (except that the Post is more conservative than the Enquirer).

Also, Edwards slammed Murdoch for the proposed acquisition of the Wall Street Journal, and his words about campaign money were directly tied to that. I assume his book deal happened before that...maybe you could search out the "countless quotes" from him to verify that.

There really isn't any hypocrisy here. If you're contention is that he's a "dirty, filthy hypocrite" simply because ignorant conservatives will draw that conclusion, it's really not much to go on. Truth & facts generally prevail...
Click to expand...

Now Lorax, he didn't just talk about the Wall Street Journal deal, Edwards went on with the usual delusional leftwing rant of Fox being against them:

"The time has come for Democrats to stop pretending to be friends with the very people who demonize the Democratic Party." - John Edwards
http://johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/20070802-media-consolidation/

I mean, LOL, do you really expect this board to believe that in the last year of doing the book deal (2006), afterwards Edwards suddenly found out how much he hated Fox and gee if only he had known before the book deal that way he could have refused their money!
ROFL!

Every Democrat is a lawyer, I swear...
 
I would never deny the left-wing bias of the Times, though it is MUCH better written than the Post.

The Post is a real rag, in the classic sense. The Times has at least made an effort to have a counterpoint over the years (better when Safire was working for them; it's been spottier since).
 
Onceler said:
I would never deny the left-wing bias of the Times, though it is MUCH better written than the Post.

The Post is a real rag, in the classic sense. The Times has at least made an effort to have a counterpoint over the years (better when Safire was working for them; it's been spottier since).
Click to expand...

I try not to read either... they are worse than alcohol at killing da brain cells. They too often appear to be nothing more than parrots of the right or left talking points of the day.
 
This must mean that Edwards, giving that he is in the contractual employ of the publisher of his book, is a tool of Murdoch.... Because you know that Fox News is supposedly the slave of the owner of the company that produces it....

Interesting...

:blah:
 
Superfreak said:
I try not to read either... they are worse than alcohol at killing da brain cells. They too often appear to be nothing more than parrots of the right or left talking points of the day.
Click to expand...


That's true of a lot of the media. I think if you're intelligent & you know what you're getting, that's all that matters.

I'm nothing w/out my Sunday Times. And I know Frank Rich is a screaming leftie, but for me, he just nails it....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top