PDA

View Full Version : John Edwards Wins for Funniest Quote of the Campaign


1951Campbell
08-21-2007, 10:03 AM
ABC News' Rick Klein Reports: When an Iowa resident asked former senator John Edwards Thursday whether the United States should follow the Cuban healthcare model, the 2004 vice presidential contender deflected the question by saying he didn't know enough to answer the question.

"I'm going to be honest with you -- I don't know a lot about Cuba's healthcare system," Edwards, D-N.C., said at an event in Oskaloosa, Iowa. "Is it a government-run system?"

:rolling:

Here's the full story:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/08/sicko-twister.html

Ballz' standard lecture on context forthcoming. ;)

CaptainBallz
08-21-2007, 10:06 AM
http://www.wpclipart.com/medical/headache.png

fquaye14ten
08-21-2007, 10:15 AM
:rolling:

Here's the full story:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/08/sicko-twister.html

Ballz' standard lecture on context forthcoming. ;)

sweeeee000p

Palehose13
08-21-2007, 10:21 AM
I don't see the big deal. There have been a lot worse quote coming from the mouth of the current POTUS.

Prope
08-21-2007, 10:45 AM
Plus it is only August, 2007. We have 14 months of stupid things to come out of the mouths of the candidates.

SABRSox
08-21-2007, 10:47 AM
I didn't hear this much about Rudy claiming to be on the WTC site as much as the rescue workers were.

He was there a total of 29 HOURS. WTC workers, 180 work DAYS, on average.

That's far more stupid (and insulting) than this Edwards quote.

Palehose13
08-21-2007, 10:50 AM
Plus it is only August, 2007. We have 14 months of stupid things to come out of the mouths of the candidates.

Ah. Very true. We shall have a ton of comments to look forward to!

http://forums.wtf.com/images/smilies/suicide[1].gif

fquaye14ten
08-21-2007, 10:51 AM
i think the public is just immune to rudy saying and doing stupid shit :shrug:

(prepares for the wrath of cira)

1951Campbell
08-21-2007, 10:51 AM
I didn't hear this much about Rudy claiming to be on the WTC site as much as the rescue workers were.



Then you missed the hilarious chart in the New York Times.

Palehose13
08-21-2007, 10:52 AM
Then you missed the hilarious chart in the New York Times.

Who reads that rag?

SABRSox
08-21-2007, 10:59 AM
Then you missed the hilarious chart in the New York Times.
They charge for their online paper. Capitalist pigs... :)

Prope
08-21-2007, 11:03 AM
I'd like to see said chart.

SABRSox
08-21-2007, 11:14 AM
BTW, here's a better Edwards quote:

How do we bring about big change? And I think that's a fundamental threshold question. And the question is: Do you believe that compromise, triangulation will bring about big change? I don't. I think the people who are powerful in Washington--big insurance companies, big drug companies, big oil companies--they are not going to negotiate. They are not going to give away their power. The only way that they are going to give away their power is if we take it away from them. And I have been standing up to these people my entire life. I have been fighting them my entire life in court rooms -- and beating them. If you want real change, you need somebody who's taking these people on and beating them.

That's probably the best show of leadership from any candidate I've seen so far.

Prope
08-21-2007, 11:20 AM
but but but, he's a TRIAL LAWYER!!!!!

Tort Reform!! Err, Malpractice caps!! Err, TRIAL LAWYER!!

ewokpelts
08-21-2007, 12:57 PM
i think the public is just immune to rudy saying and doing stupid shit :shrug:

(prepares for the wrath of cira)
they're having more fun with rudy's kids supporting obama

Palehose13
08-21-2007, 01:01 PM
BTW, here's a better Edwards quote:



That's probably the best show of leadership from any candidate I've seen so far.

:thumbsup:

That was beautiful.

they're having more fun with rudy's kids supporting obama

:omg:

Even his kids don't make good decisions.

ewokpelts
08-21-2007, 01:08 PM
:thumbsup:

That was beautiful.



:omg:

Even his kids don't make good decisions.would you rather have them supporting thier cocksucker father who just might be dumber, and therefore worse, than ol idiot boy bush?


sides, i'm down with the barack.

1951Campbell
08-21-2007, 01:14 PM
They charge for their online paper. Capitalist pigs... :)

I only buy the paper edition. Why should I pay for news that I can't read on the can? :D



That's probably the best show of leadership from any candidate I've seen so far.

Populist demagogic drivel. What's next, mentioning crosses of gold? :jagoff:

Also, making a jury spend money that isn't theirs by saying that the plaintiffs' dead child talking to him from beyond the grave is a far cry from getting the aforementioned industries and Congress to do what he wants.

but but but, he's a TRIAL LAWYER!!!!!

Tort Reform!! Err, Malpractice caps!! Err, TRIAL LAWYER!!

I thought his job was "son of a mill worker." :shrug:

;)

Prope
08-21-2007, 01:28 PM
I thought his job was "son of a mill worker." :shrug:

;)
Touche.

Palehose13
08-21-2007, 01:35 PM
would you rather have them supporting thier cocksucker father who just might be dumber, and therefore worse, than ol idiot boy bush?


sides, i'm down with the barack.

No. Barak is ok, but too green for '08.

Pick a name, Buddy
08-21-2007, 01:49 PM
BTW, here's a better Edwards quote:



That's probably the best show of leadership from any candidate I've seen so far.

Originally Posted by John Edwards
How do we bring about big change? And I think that's a fundamental threshold question. And the question is: Do you believe that compromise, triangulation will bring about big change? I don't. I think the people who are powerful in Washington--big insurance companies, big drug companies, big oil companies--they are not going to negotiate. They are not going to give away their power. The only way that they are going to give away their power is if we take it away from them. And I have been standing up to these people my entire life. I have been fighting them my entire life in court rooms -- and beating them. If you want real change, you need somebody who's taking these people on and beating them and that is the Trial Lawyers lobby!


Paraphrased: "My special interest lobby is bigger than yours!"

maurice
08-21-2007, 02:17 PM
Ah, I see. It's all very clear now. Camp hates Edwards because he was an immensely successful trial lawyer.

The system is retarded, but some of my best friends are successful trial lawyers.

Don't hate the playa. Hate the game.

1951Campbell
08-21-2007, 08:49 PM
Ah, I see. It's all very clear now. Camp hates Edwards because he was an immensely successful trial lawyer.

The system is retarded, but some of my best friends are successful trial lawyers.

Don't hate the playa. Hate the game.

Pfft. Don't pull a Dump Jerry and simply default to defending any attorney (and by "any attorney" I mean Edwards).

I'd respect Edwards more if he'd just put an ad on the back of the phone book, drive a Mercedes with gold trim, and dispense with the self-righteous save-the-world crap. I don't need decamillionaire tort jockeys lecturing me about freedom, justice, and the American way. I take my mental health defense, prisoner litiagtion, and Children and Youth Services appointments, but he's some friend to the downtrodden because he cherry-picked a few big-bucks tort cases? Get the fuck outta here.

maurice
08-21-2007, 08:54 PM
Don't pull a Dump Jerry and simply default to defending any attorney (and by "any attorney" I mean Edwards).

My reply didn't defend him, and I certainly don't defend trial lawyers generally. (Back in my civil litigation days, I used to gleefully destroy them for a tidy hourly fee; good times.) Rather, it is you who are pulling a Reverse Dump Jerry by hating on someone because they're a trial atty. To wit:

just put an ad on the back of the phone book, drive a Mercedes with gold trim, and dispense with the self-righteous save-the-world crap. I don't need decamillionaire tort jockeys lecturing me about freedom, justice, and the American way.

QED.

Remember when you used to opposed ad hominem / identity arguments?

BTW, who's your millionaire candidate of choice?

1951Campbell
08-21-2007, 09:06 PM
My reply didn't defend him, and I certainly don't defend trial lawyers generally. (Back in my civil litigation days, I used to gleefully destroy them for a tidy hourly fee; good times.) Rather, it is you who are pulling a Reverse Dump Jerry by hating on someone because they're a trial atty. To wit:

QED.

Remember when you used to opposed ad hominem / identity arguments?

BTW, who's your millionaire candidate of choice?

I'm not hating on him because he's a trial lawyer. I'm hating on him because of the inherent contradiction in shaking down entities with a shit-ton of money and then going home with 1/3 of the shakedown and then acting like he's Mother Theresa for doing so. Pointing out that actions undercut words is never an ad hominem, counselor. ;)

Anyway, I'm voting for Ron Paul.

Also, we need to add "pull a Dump Jerry" to the lexicon. :)

maurice
08-21-2007, 09:15 PM
Pshaw! Hating on a trial lawyer for "shaking down entities with a shit-ton of money and then going home with 1/3 of the shakedown and then acting like he's Mother Theresa for doing so" is like hating on women for peeing sitting down.

Palehose13
08-21-2007, 09:19 PM
Pshaw! Hating on a trial lawyer for "shaking down entities with a shit-ton of money and then going home with 1/3 of the shakedown and then acting like he's Mother Theresa for doing so" is like hating on women for peeing sitting down.

:confused:

I'm supposed to be sitting?

CaptainBallz
08-21-2007, 10:44 PM
Pshaw! Hating on a trial lawyer for "shaking down entities with a shit-ton of money and then going home with 1/3 of the shakedown and then acting like he's Mother Theresa for doing so" is like hating on women for peeing sitting down.

I think what Campbell is trying to say is that one can't take monied powers to task for abuses of their monied power and make any significant amount of money doing so. It automatically makes one a hypocrite.

Am I close??

Would I also be close in pointing out that that's not very libertarian-y?

1951Campbell
08-22-2007, 06:48 AM
Pshaw! Hating on a trial lawyer for "shaking down entities with a shit-ton of money and then going home with 1/3 of the shakedown and then acting like he's Mother Theresa for doing so" is like hating on women for peeing sitting down.

:rolling:

I think what Campbell is trying to say is that one can't take monied powers to task for abuses of their monied power and make any significant amount of money doing so. It automatically makes one a hypocrite.

Am I close??

Would I also be close in pointing out that that's not very libertarian-y?

Pretty close. Powerful people with a lot of money who get sanctimonious about other powerful people with a lot of money are pretty annoying.

However, Ballz, there is nothing not very libertarian-y about merely pointing this out. I'm not saying Edwards should have his millions taken away from him. Unlike Edawrds, I'm not advocating any government action against folks like Edwards. In President 1951Campbell's world, Edwards would have a much lower taxes, and he'd be free to put that money back into his foundation(s) and wield his influence in the private sphere.

CaptainBallz
08-22-2007, 08:26 AM
Pretty close. Powerful people with a lot of money who get sanctimonious about other powerful people with a lot of money are pretty annoying.

I guess the key difference is what these people do with their power, especially in relation to those that don't have it. I don't think all residents of the upper echelon are created the same.

However, Ballz, there is nothing not very libertarian-y about merely pointing this out. I'm not saying Edwards should have his millions taken away from him. Unlike Edawrds, I'm not advocating any government action against folks like Edwards. In President 1951Campbell's world, Edwards would have a much lower taxes, and he'd be free to put that money back into his foundation(s) and wield his influence in the private sphere.

I'm pretty sure that even with the current tax code, most of the upper 20% have quite a bit of free capital to invest in whatever private enterprise they wish too. Either way, I would not equate universal healthcare with a bully tactic against poor, wittle insurance companies and their mega-millionaire CEO's ...

MeanFish
08-22-2007, 05:09 PM
:rolling:

Here's the full story:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/08/sicko-twister.html

Ballz' standard lecture on context forthcoming. ;)

I don't know if he was kidding or not, but I'd rather have a president who admits when they don't know something than one who simply wings it. I don't have much love for the Manny Ortez fans of the world.