He’ll still have access to her assets, if he raises his children. The assets go with them.
well yea, guess he is a lawyer no way around that one,
yet it still seems a noble gesture. she’d already figured she wasn’t going to beat him.
And this way the kids know…
Fine upstanding example of a human being, John Edwards has asked his gf to marry him. It was so thoughtful of him to wait until the body of his first wife got cold. The wait was probably excruciatingly painful.
John Edwards is a Democrat and Trial Lawyer. Thus, he is guaranteed to find a way—by hook or by crook—to get his mitts on that money. It’s in the DNA of both Democrats and Trial Lawyers to take other people’s money. Combine the two and you get an unstoppable money grabbing machine. And he’ll probably find a way to avoid paying a cent in taxes on any of it to boot. Hey, hair products cost money! Poor Johnny boy needs to keep his hair looking good.
John Edwards is a Democrat and Trial Lawyer. Thus, he is guaranteed to find a way—by hook or by crook—to get his mitts on that money. It’s in the DNA of both Democrats and Trial Lawyers to take other people’s money. Combine the two and you get an unstoppable money grabbing machine. And he’ll probably find a way to avoid paying a cent in taxes on any of it to boot. Hey, hair products cost money! Poor Johnny boy needs to keep his hair looking good.
Yeah, no republicans have any moral defects, just Democrats and trial lawyers (whatever that phrase means).
BTW, I meant to say, “Personal Injury Lawyer” not “Trial Lawyer.” I hope poor Johnny boy doesn’t sue me for the mistake. If he does, I’ll threaten to muss up his hair. That should keep him at bay.
I’m sure T-S had heard of Tu Quo Que, just as I’m sure you, Rocinante, have heard of Ad Hominum. I think we all realize that a great many people have substandard ethics, and that seems to show up quite strongly among politicians of both stripes. (I wouldn’t want to be accused of Tu Quo Que so I won’t mention Neut Gingrich’s escapades or of the inhabitants of the Avenue C boarding house in D.C.). While we can recognize that Edwards’ sexual transgressions were strongly immoral, he did lose a great deal as a result of them, and we cannot really assume his financial behavior in relation to his children would also be unethical.
You forgot to mention William Bennett, author of The Book of Virtues and his rather unvirtuous gambling problem. You also forgot to Mention Rush Limbaugh, who spoke out against drug abuse, losing his hearing from his drug abuse.
You see, unlike liberals, I can point out the hypocrites on both sides of the political spectrum. But here’s the point: This thread isn’t about Newt Gingrich, William Bennett or Rush Limbaugh. It is about John Edwards! And just because I point out that Edwards is a scumbag (and a money grubbing Democratic Personal Injury Attorney) is not an ad hominem. It’s a fact. Just as saying Rush Limbaugh is a drug abuser is not an ad hominem. It’s a fact. These boards are full of vitriol against all manner of Republicans - some of it more than deserved. But god-forbid one washed-up Democrat gets called on the carpet for his scumbaggery. Skepticism shouldn’t be limited just to liberals.
Yes, John Edwards IS a scumbag, and we are lucky he was NOT elected president. Elizabeth was the brain of the outfit, I hope she had enough foresight to be able to outwit the shenanigans he is almost certain to pull out of his ass.
Oh really, Rocinante, you don’t consider your posts ad hominem
John Edwards is a Democrat and Trial Lawyer. Thus, he is guaranteed to find a way—by hook or by crook—to get his mitts on that money. It’s in the DNA of both Democrats and Trial Lawyers to take other people’s money. Combine the two and you get an unstoppable money grabbing machine. And he’ll probably find a way to avoid paying a cent in taxes on any of it to boot. Hey, hair products cost money! Poor Johnny boy needs to keep his hair looking good.
Every sentence after the first is a clear example of attacking the person rather than offering actual evidence for your contentions.
It appears that you detest liberals and Democrats, but that’s not really sufficient to conclude their actions are despicable as a matter of course.
Hey TeachScience, ever teach the Tu quoque logical fallacy?
I’m quite familiar with the Tu quoque fallacy. Fortunately it isn’t at play here. Pointing out your clear bias against Democrats and “Trial Lawyers”
isn’t a stating that your claim is untrue, just that his political party and occupation have no bearing on it.
I still fail to see where Edwards being a Democrat or a lawyer has any bearing on his craven behavior.
This is not an example of defending him, he’s a crass, vain man and treated his late wife and family
horribly.
Pointing out your clear bias against Democrats and “Trial Lawyers”...
Yes, I do have a bias against Democrats…and Republicans. Did you see my post above calling out Bennett and Limbaugh for their hypocrisy? Since it was late, I forgot to mention Larry Craig (opposed gay marriage, arrested in men’s room for gay solicitation) and George Bush (pro war on drugs yet he shoveled more coke up his nose than Tony Montana). You see I have a bias against both Democrats and Republicans because they have both demonstrated their hypocrisy and scumbaggery time and time again.
TeachScience - 07 January 2011 11:58 PM
isn’t a stating that your claim is untrue, just that his political party and occupation have no bearing on it.
I disagree. Those two do have a bearing on it. Democrats and personal injury lawyers do take people’s money! It’‘s what they do. They know all the loopholes and all the tricks of how to go about doing it.
TeachScience - 07 January 2011 11:58 PM
I still fail to see where Edwards being a Democrat or a lawyer has any bearing on his craven behavior.
I didn’t say his cheating was because he was a Democrat. I’d imagine both Republicans and Democrats cheat on a nearly equal basis. I was pointing out how his being a Democrat and a Personal Injury Lawyer are the perfect storm of a money grubbing machine who would know all too well how to get that money and have no problem doing so.
TeachScience - 07 January 2011 11:58 PM
This is not an example of defending him, he’s a crass, vain man and treated his late wife and family
horribly.
Then we both are in agreement about that. Very sad situation for her and the kids.
Skepticism shouldn’t be limited just to liberals.
