Edwards is scum for what he did, but is this really the burning issue of the day? Did Greg Jarret hear a word she said?
[youtube]to35KSemVbs[/youtube]
Okay it's fox, but come on.
Printable View
Edwards is scum for what he did, but is this really the burning issue of the day? Did Greg Jarret hear a word she said?
[youtube]to35KSemVbs[/youtube]
Okay it's fox, but come on.
It is the nature of all televised media to over-do, wouldn't you say?
Time was allotted to address the Edwards story, and the respondent acknowledged Edwards' mis-steps.
She then tried to steer the segment towards the Georgia/Russia set-to, seemingly attempting to change the subject; Jarrett resisted the change and stuck to the subject of the segment, which was...Edwards.
What of it?
Nothing new here.
It all goes to my frustration about priorities.
I don't expect it to go unreported, we do live in a Jerry Springer society. It was just the wall to wall coverage of something that deserves no more than a quick report.
I get the impression they feel hard done by that Edwards is not the candidate and so are pushing the what if.
My point here is that with all the problems we have why is the private life of an ex lawmaker so important? Are we still in that place?
Edwards is/was a candidate for AG.
Helluva leap for a mere tort lawyer, and, sorry, I would want to know about the ossified contents of his closet in that light.
As an aside, it appears his paramour is trying to save him more possible embarrassment by refusing the patrimony test.
Question:
Are we/should we be allowed to draw any conclusions from this, or is propriety questionable on the basis of the "privacy" issue?
Funny - why doesn't he just resurrect his legal career and become even richer?
Is he no longer a "brilliant" lawyer, or is it an ego thing?
You mentioned an AG position, so tell me what these virgin until married appointees have done/did to the justice dept. Purity from sins of the flesh does not equal competence or purity in upholding the law.
If you wish to make a case about his ability to do the job based on relevant experience then we would probably not be too far apart.
I have no respect for his legal career.
I have no respect for the ideas he has proffered.
Apart from that, I give weight to the prospective personal behavior of any candidate.
Does conduct in office matter at all to you?
What about his legal career? Did he do something illegal or do you just dislike the field he practiced in?
You can take it as read that I know you wouldn't agree with his political views, but the AG and justice dept. are supposed to be non political. So do you feel he would politicize the dept? (just one on a list of things this administration did). I want the justice dept. to return to working for the people, not the president.
Character and personal life behavior are lower on my list than relevant qualifications, experience and competence. The last 8 years have shown that.
BTW. where did you get the information that he was a candidate for that position? Is it just speculation or is there a list somewhere I've not been told about? I got an E.mail saying Hilary Clinton is going to be the next Supreme court nominee if Obama wins. Perhaps her name is on the same list.
His field and the tactics it employs.Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocate
Non-political?Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocate
Supposed to be?
Are you serious?
Wtf are we talking about here, Auntie Beeb?
Btw-
Justice is great, if it is written and practiced in the abstract.
What about the 8 years before that?Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocate
Qualifications?
Experience?
Competence?
Do you posit the Clinton administration had any of these?
Ex- (or other-than-ex) presidential candidates (especially those who are lawyers) are always prime appointees for any spot in the cabinet, don'tcha know.Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocate
Have you been living on Truk Island or something. :blink:
So it was just speculation then and not fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4His field and the tactics it employs.
An honest answer I guess. I will add that I don't think he would be a good choice. Probably for some of the same reasons, probably for some different reason to yours. I can only guess at your objections. Then again I don't know that much about his law qualifications.
Non-political? YesQuote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocate
Supposed to be? Yes
Are you serious? And yes. They may be political appointees but they are supposed to uphold the law without a political agenda.
Wtf are we talking about here, Auntie Beeb?
Btw-
Justice is great, if it is written and practiced in the abstract.
What about the 8 years before that?Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocate
Qualifications?
Experience?
Competence?
Do you posit the Clinton administration had any of these?
I didn't like Clinton, but there was far greater competence than this lot.
Ex- (or other-than-ex) presidential candidates (especially those who are lawyers) are always prime appointees for any spot in the cabinet, don'tcha know.Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocate
Have you been living on Truk Island or something. :blink:
[QUOTE=devilsadvocate;2928972]Oy vay...:pinch:Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4;
Non-political?[COLOR=RedYes[/COLOR]
Supposed to be? Yes
Are you serious? And yes. They may be political appointees but they are supposed to uphold the law without a political agenda.
Wtf are we talking about here, Auntie Beeb?
Btw-
Justice is great, if it is written and practiced in the abstract.
What about the 8 years before that?Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocate
Qualifications?
Experience?
Competence?
Do you posit the Clinton administration had any of these?
I didn't like Clinton, but there was far greater competence than this lot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocate
As it has ever been.Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocate
Again (again): whats new? :dabs: