Cynical Nation

I completely understand why you posted this, but is it really such a big deal? Yes, coming from Edwards this might seem a bit much (as it would seem from just about all the privileged candidates, which is just about all of them, I guess), but shouldn't we all think twice about a lot of things?

It's the hypocrisy that apparently even most well meaning Liberals (folks like K, Fred and Bob, NOT BW or Barely) don't seem to get.

Capitalism is great precisely because it delivers the most prosperity to the most people.

Likewise socialism is hideous precisely because it delivers a "perverse equality," a universal subsistance poverty for all, but a few "rulers."

Capitalism is the CURE for poverty, just as socialism is the embracing of deprivation.

It's not that John Edwards is a great Capitalist, taking on the other sharks and thriving....NO, he's never done that.

He made his initial fortune in Civil litigation that he based on junk science (it's since been proven that very few cases of CP are caused by problems during delivery)...the result of that malicious litigation was that he got rich and poor women had a real tough time finding OBGYNs and getting pre and post natal care in the states where he practiced.

After Kerry/Edwards was defeated in 2004, he managed a Hedge Fund, but not just ANY Hedge Fund, a predatory one that invested over 60% of its monies in Fortress Financial, a company that foreclosed on the very victims of Katrina that Edwards professed such concern for.

Often those poor people involved with Fortress Financial couldn't get the foreclosure orders off their properties even after working out repayment terms and making those payments to their lenders.

NONE of that is illegal - sleazy, maybe even unethical....like Gore's faux "Carbon Offsets," but to decry the worst form of Capitalism - that which makes the bulk of its monies predating off the poor, while being such a fiscal predator yourself, is worse than being a mere hypocrit....that kind of self-righteousness (like John Dillinger decrying bank robbers) is particularly odious and hateful.

Hey, keep my name out of your rantings!

"It's the hypocrisy that apparently even most well meaning Liberals (folks like K, Fred and Bob, NOT BW.....) don't seem to get.

Hey JMK,
I will not get lessons on whether I am good meaning or not from someone who admires fascist regimes, like the one in Chile, and praises the "economic miracle" of Pinochet, like you do. Or someone who admires Ann Coulter and calls her "great historian", like you do. . I never accused you of not being "good meaning". You are just completely confused and you don't understand basic concepts in political history. But I never said you are not "good meaning".

It's Milton Friedman's economic miracle and it reversed the economic ravages of the Allende regime - an inflation rate approaching 1000%. sky-high unemployment, terrible economic conditions for most Chileans.

Socialism = equality - the "equality" of universal slavery and universal deprivation.

Capitalism = economic freedom.

EVERY major religion is built upon the premise that "Those who will not work, will not eat." THAT'S economic freedom.

Look, it's very simple, if you decry Capitalism because a couple of dictators (Sukarno and Pinochet) were convinced to try it, by an economic icon (Dr. Friedman), then you surely must see that socialism is far more and irrevocably tainted by its direct association with the likes of Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc.

In fact, socialism requires thuggery and brutality to exist, as no free man will willingly surrender his hard earned property to the state, while Capitalism is the natural state of man - "I've got mine, you go get yours."

That's human nature in a nutshell....and for the most part, human nature, like all nature, is a very beautiful thing!

Getting back to the "why" regarding Silky Pony. I think he is simply too dim to see his own hypocrisy, just like Algore. Bill&Hill know exactly what they are about, and have learned how to avoid making their true motives clear. When one plays the race/class card, sublety is required. You can't just say, "I think we should make those rich Crackers pay for everything"; especially if you're a rich cracker.
(And please, no puns about everything tasting better on a rich cracker.)

Barry,
I think you are wrong. You fell for the classic shallow republican propaganda. I think that the ridiculous attempts of the right-wing propaganda machine to discredit Edwards by attacking his haircuts and an SUV that he owns reflect total desperation. In Fox News (I think it was Hannity's show) they were even saying that he should not be flying with a private airplane (!!!). How ridiculous is that? All serious presidential candidates fly with private jets.

The republican propaganda machine knows that they can not win on serious debates on policies. And they pick silly things to discredit strong candidates like Edwards (which in all polls beats easily any republican candidate). But times have changed. We are in the post-Rove era. I believe this short of attacks on Edwards and other democrats will backfire in the next election. In fact, I believe that Edwards will be the next president of the USA. Remember me on that.

I guess that's possible Paul, but it sure strains credulity.

Perhaps Edwards has spent so much time in front of dumb juries that went for his junk science arguments that OBGYNs were responsible for most CP births that he thinks everyone else is that stupid.

And again, for those who like Edwards, I'm not bashing his predatory practices on the poor - there's nothing illegal about making money off of junk science fueled lawsuits and there's nothing illicit about investing in Fortress Financial, the company that Edwards Hedge Fund was heavilly invested in that foreclosed on many of those Katrina victims.

What I find deplorable is an unber-Capitalist bashing Capitalism, better to just shut the fuck up and make your money, without the nauseating guilt trips.

Blue, don't you think that when you own an entire fleet of SUV's, that it's a bit hypocritical to tell Americans to give up theirs? If not, why not?

"Blue, don't you think that when you own an entire fleet of SUV's, that it's a bit hypocritical to tell Americans to give up theirs? If not, why not?"

Come on Barry. Get real. For starters you dont even now that the SUV's belong to him. They probably belong to his security men or his staff. They may even belong to the secret service that protects presidential candidates. Just in case you forgot, he is running for president! Seriously :)
What amazes me is that the right-wing media [and you as a matter of fact :)] focus on the ...."hypocrisy" of Edwards , while according to them all the republican candidates are not not hypocritical at all (?) The truth is that it will take pages and pages to list facts relating to the hypocrisy and dishonesty of people like Giuliani or Romney and rest... And I am sure you are aware of that.

WoW!

Even when you attempt to make an argument you fail to make a cogent one, BW.

Edwards does own numerous gas guzzling cars (and yes, the government uses SUVs too), and Edwards lives in a 20,000 sq ft home and flies in private jets....

The proper defense for that goes, "Look, Barry, there are only perhaps 1000 top elected officials in this country (over 500 in Congress, then the members of the Executive Branch,, major Dept heads, etc), there are 300 MILLION American citizens, at least 20% of those (appx 60 MILLION) living oppulently. THERE'S where the savings can be made. Restricitng the lives and lifestyles of our rulers is counterproductive as they do all this for our benefit, but restricting the lives and lifestyles of all those piggy people who earn over $150,000/year, well THAT'S where we can really effect some real changes and so that's where the restrictions should be focused. John Edwards has done so much good, just like Michael Chertoff, Condi Rice, Ted Kennedy, G W Bush and all our other leaders have, that those folks DESERVE to live oppulently. But why should a mere doctor or investor live that way?"

Please pay attention to this, because I won't make your arguments for you again."

Barry,
There is a poster in your board that keeps addressing me and writing incoherent statements, while I have asked him not to do so any longer :) Would please ask him to focus on something else instead? I made clear to him that I will not be responding to him, but he does not seem to get it :) Please talk to him :) Thanks much.

I made the ONLY argument that can be made for your position BW.

Your claim that "Other's are equally hypocritical to Edwards," is foolishly inane.

Most Republicans, like ALL Conservatives and almost all Libertarians laud Capitalism, and celebrate success as a virtue and deride failure as a character defect (not trying hard enough, or being self-destructive, etc.).

There's nothing hypocritical about, say, Mitt Romney living oppulently, as he does not deride Capitalism and pretend that poverty is caused by other more successful people's "greed" (taking more than their fair share of the pie). Romney celebrates Capitalism and seeks ways for more people to earn ever more money.

To be a hypocrit, you have to extoll and espouse one lifestyle (ie. austerity) in order to "help the poor" (Edwards), or "save the environment (Gore), while living lavishly yourself and buying non-existent "carbon off-sets," etc. while demanding that others make the real (actual) sacrifices.

THAT'S hypocrisy!

Well, I don't know if the man does or does not own SUVs. I'm still trying to find out if the lawn on his estate is green or not considering the massive water use restrictions put into place in Chapel Hill (and the all the other surrounding communities due to the extreme draught conditions down here in NC)

Just a side thought, but I doubt Hillary will offer positions to either Obama (too much star power) or Edwards (an utterly unserious person). I don't think she'll want Obama stealing any of her thunder or Edwards wasting anyone's time...

John Edwards is indeed a hypocrite, and although he may not be stupid, he certainly assumes the rest of us are. Liberals don't like it much when their "Do as I say and not as I do" mentality is pointed out. Whether it is John Edwards' fleet of SUV's or the Limo Liberal's blathering about the rich paying their fair share business as they hide their money from the tax man. The Republicans may be inept but at least they are less expensive and less insulting than the Social Justice Crusaders of the Left.

"Whether it is John Edwards' fleet of SUV's or the Limo Liberal's blathering about the rich paying their fair share business as they hide their money from the tax man." (JtM)


The cruel irony of the "tax the rich" charge is that those hurt/taxed most are always those with less disposable income (lower wages).

No one (not even the BWs and DBKs) would argue that "Yes, higher income earners, like physicians, lawyers, etc. ARE, in a sense "the rich," at least from an income earning stance," BECUSE that's NOT who voters think of, nor mean, when THEY hear "the rich." They're thinking of those who are truly rich and don't rely on income for their wealth - the Kennedy's, the Heinz-Kerry's, the Trump's, the Bloomberg's, etc.

Income tax hikes DON'T impact the truly rich at all because they don't rely on income for wealth.

And higher income earners CAN and DO simply defer more of their earnings when income taxes rise and take more of it up front as they go down.

The ONLY workers who can't do that are generally those earning above $50,000/year and less than $200,000/year. Those folks are generally mortgaged to the hilt, paying for their kid's schooling, etc.

They're too "rich" to get any government programs and too poor to avoid being reemed by tax hikes.

Investors won't get hurt.

They can make as much money "shorting" a market when tax rates rise and investment dollars are made more scarce as they can betting long on a Bull market. Even those with 401-Ks and 457s can simply avoid the effects of a tax induced stock market retrenchment by switching to "Stable Income" funds, like money market and bond funds.

Carter's economic fiasco created an entire generation of Reagan Democrats." Carter won ONE state...ONE, single, solitary state (Mass) in 1980! One more than the failed Keynesian policies of LBJ, Nixon, Ford and Carter deserved!!!

I'm just glad it was Carter (a direct disciple of LBJ's) left holding the bag and not a good man, like Ford, who wasn't able to effect the changes that Reagan was five short years later.

Could a re-run of those (LBJ - Carter) Keynesian same policies do anything else but create another generation of anti-Liberals?

Nope.