« Reformation | Main | Synchronicity »

Edwards charges $55,000 to speak to students... about poverty

Some things just blog themselves....

Edwards charges $55,000 to speak to UC Davis students about poverty

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, who recently proposed an educational policy that urged "every financial barrier" be removed for American kids who want to go to college, has been going to college himself -- as a high paid speaker, his financial records show.

The candidate charged a whopping $55,000 to speak at to a crowd of 1,787 the taxpayer-funded University of California at Davis on Jan. 9, 2006 last year, Joe Martin, the public relations officer for the campus' Mondavi Center confirmed Monday.

That amount -- which comes to about $31 a person in the audience -- included Edwards' travel and airfare, and was the highest speaking fee in the nine appearances he made before colleges and universities last year, according to his financial records.

It sounds like a lot but you know the man has expenses...


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Edwards charges $55,000 to speak to students... about poverty:

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Clinton Proposes Pre-K Access For All Kids

Comments (114)

<a href="http://www.chicago... (Below threshold)

heh.

"He [Giuliani] commands $100,000 for a speech, not including expenses, which his star-struck clients are happily willing to pay. In one speech last year at Oklahoma State University, Giuliani requested and received travel on a private Gulfstream jet that cost the school $47,000 to operate. His visit essentially wiped out the student speakers annual fund"

[...]

In another speech, at a charity fundraiser in South Carolina in February 2005, Giuliani also commanded a $100,000 fee, though he donated $20,000 of it to the event. After he was criticized by a local official, he ultimately decided to donate an additional $60,000.

Giuliani reportedly received more than $200,000 for another speech, given to benefit an Australian research hospital in 2003. When it was disclosed two years later that the hospital netted only $15,000, the revelation sparked widespread criticism in Australia. Months later, after The New York Observer picked up the story, Giuliani threw his own fundraiser for the hospital.

<a href="http://ww... (Below threshold)
Brian:
The former mayor of New York made $9.2 million on a speaking tour in 2006 and 2007. Here is a look at who paid him and how much.
Since we wont be seeing t... (Below threshold)
Sultanofsham:

Since we wont be seeing this story on the evening news maybe Hillary or Obama can use it in an ad since pretty boy is ahead of both in Iowa.

And Edwards donated how muc... (Below threshold)
Ran:

And Edwards donated how much back to the college?.. and Rudy is running on a "save the poor" agenda?.. hmmm.. and Clinton gets what?.. geeze.. your logic escapes me!.. or IS there one!

Whats next, Ted K giving ... (Below threshold)
Gianni:

Whats next, Ted K giving a speech about drinking and driving in Mass while with a young female passenger?

Well, yes Lee and Bryan, yo... (Below threshold)
David:

Well, yes Lee and Bryan, you do have a mighty shiney nickle. Its not that he charges so much and the disconnect between that the nature of the speech. ALso note that he charges private schools "only" $40,000.

I am sure that Al Gore and Billy Jeff make more per speech that Rudy.

<a href="http://he... (Below threshold)
Brian:
Giuliani's biggest single source of income between January 2006 and February 2007 came from speaking engagements around the world. He grossed $11.4 million in speeches.


...
Edwards received about $395,000 in paid speeches

Yay, a pissing contest abou... (Below threshold)
Garion:

Yay, a pissing contest about who makes more! I think that the point was that it was pretty ironic to charge so much for a speech about poverty. It's pretty humerous, you have to admit.

Lee, Brian,...Um, ... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Lee, Brian,...

Um, Rudy may have made an unGodly amount as a speaker, but how often did was he paid $55K to talk about...poverty?

Um, second point. If OSU didn't want their speaker funds wiped out, then why have Rudy come speak when OSU obviously knew they parameters of having him coming to speak? They didn't have to pay it if they didn't want to. Rudy didn't wipe out their funds; OSU compiled and wiped out its own funds.

Um, final point (again). How many of Rudy's speeches last year were about...poverty?


Nice try, fellas, but as usual your dogs don't hunt.

Well nickel boy, irony is l... (Below threshold)
David:

Well nickel boy, irony is lost on you isn't it.

So the position here is tha... (Below threshold)
Brian:

So the position here is that it's OK for Republican candidates to rake in millions in fees because they don't talk about poverty?

Show me a candidate who doesn't talk about poverty, and a) you're lying, and b) that's a pretty poor choice of candidate.

OSU obviously knew they parameters of having him coming to speak

Right. And UC Davis knew also. So if they were OK with it, why aren't you?

The Politics of Envy In the... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

The Politics of Envy In the Service of the President with the Fake Ranch, Part XL

or: further proof the Republican party has been hijacked by opportunistic putzes.

I think Lee and Brian were ... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

I think Lee and Brian were just pointing out that Edwards' speaking prowess trails behind Gulanni's every bit as much as his political aptitude.

Wow Lee and Brian totally... (Below threshold)
Sultanofsham:

Wow Lee and Brian totally miss the point with a failed "he's just as bad" misdirection attempt.

Edwards is playing himself up as the anti-poverty candidate. Maybe Lee or Brian would like to say something about Edwards looking like a major hypocrite since that's what the post was about. Saying look over there at that guy isn't really a defense although it sure seems to be about all that you left wing apologists can ever come up with. Really, would either of you like to be a man and step up to defend or condemn Edwards actions but at least try to stay on topic?

The reason revelations like... (Below threshold)
sanssoucy:

The reason revelations like this scald Silky Pony and fail to bother Giuliani is that the latter isn't scampering around the country talking like he lives in a hollow tree.

In a word: hypocrisy.

Next pretty boy will jet to a speaking engagement in a chartered 747 and scold the crowd about their carbon emissions.

SS

For a bit of perspective, m... (Below threshold)
cirby:

For a bit of perspective, many celebrities charge a lot, too.

William Shatner, for example, makes well over $100,000 for a one-hour speech and a "meet-and-greet" for corporate clients.

Ann Coulter supposedly gets $30,000, and Michael Moore $35,000 for paid appearances.

Ralph Nader, on the other hand, only gets about $15,000.

I am sure that Al Gore a... (Below threshold)
Brian:

I am sure that Al Gore and Billy Jeff make more per speech that Rudy.

Since Al Gore is coming to ASU as a private citizen and will being giving essentially a "lecture" on global warming, he charges a speaker fee of $100,000 plus expenses.
The former mayor of New York made $9.2 million on a speaking tour in 2006 and 2007. Here is a look at who paid him and how much.

...
Suffolk University: $100,000
Wiles University: $100,000

And that's just the university fees. You should see how high Giuliani's fees go for corporate clients.

In other words... WRONG!

According to Forbes, Bill C... (Below threshold)
David:

According to Forbes, Bill Clinton was ranked 89 and Rudy 94 in 2005. Stupid greedy democrats, putzes.

You libs are missing the wh... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

You libs are missing the whole point, probably intentionally. Conservatives insist people can become wealthy by doing things for themselves, so we don't care when candidates who hold these views make money taking that message to others... it fits the message. Liberals insist that people are poor because government is not spending enough on them, then become wealthy taking the money that should be going to the poor people they are talking to. That's hypocricy.

It's like flying in a private jet: Gore and Limbaugh both do it, but only one of them is hypocritically telling common folks to ride bikes more to fend off Global Warming (TM)

Wow Lee and Brian total... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Wow Lee and Brian totally miss the point with a failed "he's just as bad" misdirection attempt.
Edwards is playing himself up as the anti-poverty candidate.

I don't miss the point at all. The point is that you gleefully disqualify a candidate from discussing poverty in his campaign because he's rich. While simultaneously forgetting that every single rich Republican candidate in this and previous elections also discussed poverty in their campaign.

What's that? Edwards discusses it more than you think he should? Well, deal with it. It should be discussed more.

It's like flying in a pr... (Below threshold)
Brian:

It's like flying in a private jet: Gore and Limbaugh both do it, but only one of them is hypocritically telling common folks to ride bikes more to fend off Global Warming (TM)

Hypocrisy aside, assuming that riding bikes is a good thing, is it better to tell people to ride bikes, or to not tell them to ride bikes?

Point being, you're letting your gleefully partisan response to perceived hypocrisy get in the way of rational evaluation of what is actually being said.

There are two america's. On... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

There are two america's. One where you talk about poverty and charge $55,000.00. Where you get $400.00 haircuts that your "people" arranged for you, where you have a 23,000 sq. ft. custom home built. Then there is the other where people work for a living and pay too much tax. ww

Well at least liberals are ... (Below threshold)
macofromoc:

Well at least liberals are smart enough not practice any of that tripe they preach. Whether it be Teddy's windmills, or Gore's limos, or Chumpsky's Yacht's capitalism rocks!

I'm sure they'd all welcome you liberal ranters at the same Country Clubs too. Unless they're just use you as pawns, but I'm confident that's not the case.

Brian, you're being stupid.... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

Brian, you're being stupid. We're not jumping on Edwards for making money or Gore for flying private jets, we're jumping on them for being hypocritical.

Oh...right... "Hypocrisy aside..."

You're not here to debate, your hear to redirect scrutiny.

Disclaimer: I don't like Jo... (Below threshold)
Chris G:

Disclaimer: I don't like John Edwards. I think he is a fraud trying to game the system with his "silky pony" hair, and his boyish good looks. No person has been protected by the media outside of Hillary Clinton like Edwards has. Sure Katie Couric and George Stpehanapolous did hit piece interviews on Edwards for the benefit of Hillary, but the MSM is strangely silent on his wealth, when it consistently makes a "some people say" case when it comes to the wealth of Republicans.

And no one has mentioned Edwards was polling around 25% even as he was running for VP as a Senator. The reason he got in the race in '04 was because he knew he was not going to win reelection as a Senator, which he initially won by basically outspending his opponent with his own wealth.

Edwards is trying to be the second coming of Bobby Kennedy, but is trying to make 2007, a year with a record stock market, , tax revenues, social spending, growing middle class, and
almost full employment into 1967. That is just not the reality.

And let us not forget Edwards sending his cancer striken wife out to talk about the rabid Republican living across the street with the slummy property, even if he is too poor to fix up his property. If you're going to be Bobbby Kennedy II, at least get your wife up to speed on her role as caring first lady to be for the poor.

Let's not forget about the cancer striken wife also going on Hardball with Chrissy Matthews and basically saying the only reason Bush did not go to New Orleans as fast as he did to Va. Tech was because Black people were New Orleans. He actually went to Mississippi because that state's governor had already set up a command center by Tuesday, while New Orleans did not have one set up until Friday when the Federal government set one up.

Note: I'm deeply sorry about his wife's illness and mean her no disrespect. I just think it's lame of Edward's to send his wife out to do his wet work. If my wife had inoperable cancer, I would be taking a world cruise or knitting sweaters with my wife. I would not be campaigning, and I definitely would not have her out campaigning.

I am glad that UC... (Below threshold)
doubled:


I am glad that UC Davis has $55,000 to spend on a 'poverty' talk. Must mean that no one needs a scholarship or financial assistance. Maybe poverty ain't so bad here in the 'two America's'?

OMG! It's the he Free Marke... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

OMG! It's the he Free Market at work.

Like the MSM , these los... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

Like the MSM , these losers are here to protect their hypocrites and frauds ,it's election time.

To the DemocRats , every day is Holloween.

Disclaimer: As a rule, I... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Disclaimer: As a rule, I really don't like to sink to cheapshots, but sometimes rules call for bending:

Brainless Brian, you've completely missed the hysterical hypocrisy in charging $55K to talk about...I'll say it again...LOL...poverty!

You really look like an ass for attempting to defend something as laughably indefensible as this. And to tell the God's honest truth, I would find equally laughable if it had been Rudy or any other GOP speaker charging $55K to lecture me on....poverty.

<a href="http://wizbangblog... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Beat you to it.

Forget the speach fee's. Lo... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

Forget the speach fee's. Look at the poverty ? center Edwards represents. They siphon off 75%+ of the donations for 'salary and expenses'. Worse than the Red Cross and I never thought that possible. Edwards is just another criminal lawyer, and that's doesn't mean representing criminals, he is the criminal. Even Hanoi John thinks and stated he lost the election because of the Silky Pony.

I am loathe to defend Edwar... (Below threshold)
Matt:

I am loathe to defend Edwards, Lee or Brian (like the latter two need it).

What better way to fight poverty than by making $55,000.00 for a speech? It can show the students that if they stay in college, get law degrees, sue the bejeebus out of doctors etc., you can beat personal poverty. The more money you make the more you can give to charity in order to lower your tax bill.

I won't talk about the hypocrisy of it all because Edwards is a lawyer turned politician, and politician and hypocrisy are redundant.

Don't you need to make mone... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Don't you need to make money to get out of poverty? So are you people so twisted that you think Edwards should work for free? Is that the example he should make-work for free to get of poverty?

$55,000 would only pay for ... (Below threshold)
hermie:

$55,000 would only pay for 137 haircuts.

What better way to fight... (Below threshold)
Taltos:

What better way to fight poverty than by making $55,000.00 for a speech? It can show the students that if they stay in college, get law degrees, sue the bejeebus out of doctors etc., you can beat personal poverty. The more money you make the more you can give to charity in order to lower your tax bill.

You forgot channeling.

Wow Brian you just cant se... (Below threshold)
Sultanofsham:

Wow Brian you just cant seem to step up and either defend or condemn Edwards. Its just spin spin spin. Be a man and address the topic instead of trying to distract from it. You dont seem to be missing the point so much as lacking the ability grasp what hypocrisy is in word or deed when its done by one of the left wing.

When you go to his website and find stuff like this on it his butt better not be out there getting 55k to speak about it to a bunch of students:

"Ending Poverty in America: How to Restore the American Dream," a collection of essays discussing new, innovative ideas about how to fight poverty, is released to bookstores today. The book is edited by Senator John Edwards, Marion Crain and Arne L. Kalleberg. Edwards has called poverty "the great moral issue of our time," and has worked hard to expand opportunities for all Americans. During the past two years, he served as the Director of the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. In addition to co-editing the book, he also wrote the conclusion.

More like a great lack of moral issue. Another great case of liberal "do as I say not as I do".

Solutions to ending poverty focus on making work pay, helping people build assets and strengthening families and communities. The book is also meant to shine a spotlight on the issue of poverty and spark a national dialogue about what we can do as a nation to end it.

I'd guess he's aready come up with a way of ending poverty for hair stylist. And nothing shines the spotlight on something better than getting caught talking the talk without walking the walk. This guy is the perfect poster child for the jackass party.

The average annual costs fo... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

The average annual costs for an on-campus resident at UCD is $24K and $43K for non resident. There are 23.5K undergraduates (residents) so that is $564M. I think they can afford to pay the cost.

"Um, Rudy may have made ... (Below threshold)

"Um, Rudy may have made an unGodly amount as a speaker, but how often did was he paid $55K to talk about...poverty?"

Desparate conservatives, reaching for straws...

What difference does it make what the subject is? The costs for a tuition,books, etc. for a year at University of California, Davis runs what - -$20,000 a year?

And Edwards is supposed to reduce or eliminate his speaking fee because the SUBJECT -- not the audience -- but the SUBJECT of his speech has to do with poverty?

Do you people ever listen to the idiotic arguments you pose?

Great minds think alike, Ba... (Below threshold)

Great minds think alike, Barney - and I suspect your figures are more accurate than my guess. Thanks!

Barn:1) Is Edwards... (Below threshold)
hermie:

Barn:

1) Is Edwards actually 'working', or campaigning?

2) Is Edwards' finances that bad that he actually needs $55,000 to make a speech when he can 'work' for a hedge fund, or even go back to being an ambulance chaser, er lawyer? I doubt that the silky pony needs to fight his way out of 'poverty'.


"So are you people so twist... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

"So are you people so twisted that you think Edwards should work for free? Is that the example he should make-work for free to get of poverty?"

I'll be "charitable" and explain this to you again, Barney. If you're really against poverty and "Two Americas" you do something like this:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=chadiha_jeff&id=2873279
Note that this athlete, who undoubtably lives in a smaller home and pays less for haircuts, not only didn't charge to tell people his views on poverty, he fronted a cool million to give people a chance to improve themselves... just to start.

Heh. Barney, why do you even bother showing up any more?

"Heh. Barney, why do you... (Below threshold)

"Heh. Barney, why do you even bother showing up any more?"

I suspect he truly enjoys making people like you look like a jackass, Brainy.

Barney says: "The average ... (Below threshold)
doubled:

Barney says: "The average annual costs for an on-campus resident at UCD is $24K and $43K for non resident. There are 23.5K undergraduates (residents) so that is $564M. I think they can afford to pay the cost."

I am sure they can afford it . My point is about Edwards making it sound like the rich in America have acheived it at the expense of the poor. If this is true , then the $55,000 should be spent on student's who can't afford UC Davis. Otherwise, they are just making Edwards richer at the expense of the poor who won't get an education at UC Davis without that assistance.

This Edwards speker's fee s... (Below threshold)
Wieder:

This Edwards speker's fee story is just PURE REPUBLICAN BULLSHIT.

What kind of f**king hypocrites are you idiot Wizfools? Edwards received a standard fee for the speech, not unlike the fees that Giuliani gets that enabled him to earn $10million from speeches.

DOES SOMEONE HAVE TO BE IMPOVERISHED TO QUALIFY FOR SPEAKING ABOUT POVERTY?

You people are total assholes.

And there is Lee, also unw... (Below threshold)
Sultanofsham:

And there is Lee, also unwilling to condemn or defend Edwards actions. First it was "LOOK AT WHAT Giuliani is doing" and since that didnt work now its "What difference does it make what the subject is?".

He's speaking on poverty while collecting 55k for it. Thats the difference. Do the skidmarks burn from it going right over your head Lee? Do you have any hair left up there? If you want to defend him take a position on what he did. "What difference does it make" isnt one and either is the cost cost of books and tuition, nor is look and what (insert name here) is doing.

bainy, that is a great stor... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

bainy, that is a great story and I hope more people of means will give generously. That is not the situation with Edwards. Edwards was motivating college students to get involved and become activists for programs to end poverty, and not help them get out of poverty.

This place desperately need... (Below threshold)
Farmer Joe:

This place desperately needs a better quality of troll.

You Edwards supporters are ... (Below threshold)
Mike:

You Edwards supporters are really clueless. Edwards is a hypocrite because he wants me and other Americans to sacrifice via higher taxes, but isn't prepared to sacrifice anything himself.
It's just like Gore asking us to sacrifice by getting rid of the SUV, but then flying around in airplanes.
Edwards doesn't really care about poverty. He just thinks it's a good way to lure in some liberal voters. I wish him luck with that, because he'll be a very easy opponent to beat in 2008.

I suspect he truly enjoy... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

I suspect he truly enjoys making people like you look like a jackass, Brainy.

Unlike Lee, who enjoys making himself look like a jackass.

I'm willing to speak to org... (Below threshold)
mantis:

I'm willing to speak to organizations about the phenomena of exorbitant speaking fees. My fee is $100,000.

Plus expenses.

Desparate conservatives,... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Desparate conservatives, reaching for straws...

No, what smacks of desperation and what is so idiotic (to use your own words) are your feckless attempts to not laugh at what is clearly a laughable speech to be making. It's hypocritical beyond measure. The SUBJECT is precisely the point.

And no, no one ever said or even suggested that Edwards should reduce his speaking fees; that's just plain disingenuous to say. Should he maybe pick another, less grossly hypocritical subject to speak on? You bet your ass he should.

It's like Abbie Hoffman speaking about military strategy.

Even attempting to compare Rudy's speaking fees with Edwards' speaking fees on the subject of (LOL) poverty is the most nonsensical of comparisons. No, correction: it's just plain dumb.

mantis:Now THAT wa... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

mantis:

Now THAT was damn funny! LOL

This Edwards speker's fe... (Below threshold)
Sultanofsham:

This Edwards speker's fee story is just PURE REPUBLICAN BULLSHIT.

Yah its all that mean old Carl Roves fault aint it?

Edwards received a standard fee for the speech

Yah they held a gun to his head. Take the money or else. I know, I know. If it wasnt a "standard" fee and if he wasnt forced to take it he would have done it gratis right?

not unlike the fees that Giuliani gets that enabled him to earn $10million from speeches.

10 mil from speaking about poverty right? No? Does the term "red herring" mean anything to you cause your attempt to excuse his being a hypocrite sure smells like a load of dead fish.

DOES SOMEONE HAVE TO BE IMPOVERISHED TO QUALIFY FOR SPEAKING ABOUT POVERTY?

No and no one said they have to be. Another red herring that has nothing to do with the topic.

You people are total assholes.

Totally?

You disingenuous little twi... (Below threshold)

You disingenuous little twit.

"No, what smacks of desperation and what is so idiotic (to use your own words) are your feckless attempts to not laugh at what is clearly a laughable speech to be making. It's hypocritical beyond measure. The SUBJECT is precisely the point.

And no, no one ever said or even suggested that Edwards should reduce his speaking fees; that's just plain disingenuous to say. Should he maybe pick another, less grossly hypocritical subject to speak on? You bet your ass he should."

Note the slant of the quoted article -- it's all about 'da money... baby.

Edwards charges $55,000 to speak to UC Davis students about poverty

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, who recently proposed an educational policy that urged "every financial barrier" be removed for American kids who want to go to college, has been going to college himself -- as a high paid speaker, his financial records show.

The candidate charged a whopping $55,000 to speak at to a crowd of 1,787 the taxpayer-funded University of California at Davis on Jan. 9, 2006 last year, Joe Martin, the public relations officer for the campus' Mondavi Center confirmed Monday.

That amount -- which comes to about $31 a person in the audience -- included Edwards' travel and airfare, and was the highest speaking fee in the nine appearances he made before colleges and universities last year, according to his financial records.

Do you always lie, Peter - or was this just a weak moment...

Sultanofsham, you missed th... (Below threshold)
Wieder:

Sultanofsham, you missed the fact that Paul had a post that inadvertently shows just exactly how goddamned drooling dumb the usual gaggle of yipping Wizpuppies are here at Wizbang.

You mindless automaton jerks have just helped Paul stage the latest test of Pavlov's experiment.

Now, there's a milkbone for eeryone.

Attack the person, not his ... (Below threshold)
average wizbang poster:

Attack the person, not his message. Typical when you can't argue the facts Edwards is talking of, like a sleazebag lawyer you go to the gutter and attack the messenger.

It makes your arguements look real valid.

No, what smacks of despe... (Below threshold)
Brian:

No, what smacks of desperation and what is so idiotic (to use your own words) are your feckless attempts to not laugh at what is clearly a laughable speech to be making. It's hypocritical beyond measure. The SUBJECT is precisely the point.

No, what is idiotic is the position that rich politicians (and when you're talking about presidential candidates, that's most of the top ones) are not allowed to discuss poverty as a platform in their campaign. Or if they do, then they are required to donate or eliminate their speaking fees.

Should he maybe pick another, less grossly hypocritical subject to speak on? You bet your ass he should."

Do those who campaign on the terror threat donate their speaking fees to local law enforcement agencies? What did Giuliani do with his $9-11 million? Did he buy the NYC police and fire departments the new radios the 9/11 Commission said they needed? Do those who campaign on "values" donate their speaking fees to religious charities? Do those who campaign on anti-abortion donate their speaking fees to anti-abortion groups? Do those who campaign on five different issues split their speaking fees among five different groups?

And then on top of all that, some of you want to shut down the thinking part of your brains and just hide behind the black-and-white "do you defend him or condemn him?" schtick.

LOL, mantis!... (Below threshold)

LOL, mantis!

Brian:The poin... (Below threshold)
marc:

Brian:

The point is that you gleefully disqualify a candidate from discussing poverty in his campaign because he's rich.

I failed to see anyone in the thread "disqualify" ANY candidate from opining on poverty. He and all the rest can speak to the issue til the cows come home.

Please, if you see a statement above saying "HEY asshat, your "disqualfied" quote it, if not drop the childish diversion and quit making sh*t up.

What's that? Edwards discusses it more than you think he should? Well, deal with it. It should be discussed more.

Why should it be discussed more?

In a country where "poverty" is defined as seventy-six percent of poor households having air conditioning.

Or

Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars and ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

It falls way down the list of campaign priories.

Edwards "poor dog" don't hunt, at least not without a their cable TV.

Awww you can do better th... (Below threshold)
Sultanofsham:

Awww you can do better than that Wieder. Its not that hard to comment about the topic without ranting and attacking the site and people on it. Got anything worth say or should you just be ignored like the rest of the DU style trolls?

How much of the 7% tuition ... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

How much of the 7% tuition increase students are facing goes to pay for things like this?
Which students will be hit hardest, which part of John Edward's "Two Americas" do they live in?
Not the one John lives in.

I failed to see anyone i... (Below threshold)
Brian:

I failed to see anyone in the thread "disqualify" ANY candidate from opining on poverty. He and all the rest can speak to the issue til the cows come home.

Playing your word games again, marc? Or is your inability to read acting up again?

Should he maybe pick another, less grossly hypocritical subject to speak on? You bet your ass he should."

It falls way down the list of campaign priories.

So don't vote for him.

mantis:I'm wil... (Below threshold)
marc:

mantis:

I'm willing to speak to organizations about the phenomena of exorbitant speaking fees. My fee is $100,000. Plus expenses.

It appears as though mantis is the single light at the end of this tunnel and actually GETS the point.

That can't be said for all the howling monkeys in the thread.

(My apologies in advance to... (Below threshold)
PeterLe:

(My apologies in advance to Paul, Jay etc....)


Lee:

OK, since you apparently want to go down this path and delve into name-calling, I'll sink to your level: You're a humorless fuckwit who's completely missed the fucking laughable hypocrisy in charging $55K to talk about a subject he knows fucking jackshit about. Period. And no, he doesn't have fucking leg to stand on.

And if you don't like the way article was reported, go to the fucking reporter and complain. Furthermore, other than what you highlighted that "suggests" he lower his fees, does nothing of the fucking sort. The article does not come to that judgment at all, except in your pee-brained little mind.

Finally, if you don't like the tone of this, well, good. I don't like being called a "twit" and, especially a "liar". And I guarantee you this: you would NEVER say THAT to my face without you going to the deck right after saying it, tough guy sitting behind a computer screen.

No, what is idiotic is the position that rich politicians (and when you're talking about presidential candidates, that's most of the top ones) are not allowed to discuss poverty as a platform in their campaign. Or if they do, then they are required to donate or eliminate their speaking fees.

You're an idiot, too, Brain. No one ever said he should not charge or even discuss it (poverty). Get a clue.

Brian:It falls... (Below threshold)
marc:

Brian:

It falls way down the list of campaign priories. So don't vote for him.

I wouldn't vote for him in a one horse race.

As far as "word games," Should he maybe pick is far from disqualifying the Silky Pony.

"Hey Pony, you are hear-by banned and ineligible to speak on the topic of poverty under threat of disbarment from the Shyster Lawyers of America Society."

THAT"S being disqualified!

Clue - Brian:Aren'... (Below threshold)
marc:

Clue - Brian:

Aren't they antonyms?

No, what is idiotic is t... (Below threshold)
Sultanofsham:

No, what is idiotic is the position that rich politicians (and when you're talking about presidential candidates, that's most of the top ones) are not allowed to discuss poverty as a platform in their campaign.

No one said that Brian and you know that. Whats idiotic is people trying to defend someone getting 55k to speak about poverty by whining about other peoples speaking fees that have not one thing to do with P O V E R T Y. Get it??

Or if they do, then they are required to donate or eliminate their speaking fees.

No one said they should do this either. WTF? You guys on the left hearing voices or something? What is going to happen is that when you 55k for speaking about poverty, 400 dollar haircuts after setting yourself up as the anti-poverty cadidate your going to get bashed as a hypocrite. Is it that hard to grasp?

And then on top of all that, some of you want to shut down the thinking part of your brains and just hide behind the black-and-white "do you defend him or condemn him?" schtick.

No we just want you to stick to the topic at hand instead of draging everything under the sun that doesnt have anything to do with Edwards fee for speaking about poverty since that is what the post was about after all. God forbid you left wingers try and deal with the matter at hand for once. Its not hard sunshine. Give it a try.

PeterLe:Mind the f... (Below threshold)

PeterLe:

Mind the fucking language, will ya?

Oh, and has anyone tried to use the "chickenhawk" argument against Edwards? That unless he's been really, really poor, he has no business discussing the matter publicly?

J.

Hey - lying twit:... (Below threshold)

Hey - lying twit:

"I'll sink to your level: You're a humorless fuckwit who's completely missed the fucking laughable hypocrisy in charging $55K to talk about a subject he knows fucking jackshit about."

He's not poor, and never has been poor, so he's not qualified to speak on the subject of Poverty? You really are a twit.

"The article does not come to that judgment at all, except in your pee-brained little mind."

And an angry little twit, at that.

"tough guy sitting behind a computer screen."

And, uhm - you're sitting "where" exactly, as you throw out these threats at me, you big-talking hunk of spunk?

My apologies sincerely, Jay... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

My apologies sincerely, Jay Tea. I almost deleted the whole thing, but I was pretty lava hot. Won't happen again.

Peter F. (misposting myself as PeterLe...god, I hope there's not something Freudian in that...)

Truman wouldn't allow Jews ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Truman wouldn't allow Jews in his house, so when he recognized Israel he was just a hypocrite?

He's not poor, and never ha... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

He's not poor, and never has been poor, so he's not qualified to speak on the subject of Poverty? You really are a twit
------------------------------------------------
Typical example of liberal hypocrisy: so someone who does not serve in the army cannot support the Iraq war? (as Jay pointed out).

This is another example where the liberals are coming out when the "truth" about their nature are exposed. AT least the conservatives would wage war against the congress leaders to clean up their corruption. The liberals will defend their liberal s*age!

More examples of their hypocrisy here
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_052207/content/01125114.guest.html
Left Ignores Torture by Terrorists

http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2007/05/excerpt_of_the_day_the_democra.php
Those figures exceed the then-unprecedented total for the 2006 GOP version of the same bill, despite Democrats' promises last year to clean up the Republicans' culture of corruption epitomized by the explosion of earmarks between 1996 and 2006.

"He's not poor, and neve... (Below threshold)

"He's not poor, and never has been poor, so he's not qualified to speak on the subject of Poverty? You really are a twit
------------------------------------------------
Typical example of liberal hypocrisy: so someone who does not serve in the army cannot support the Iraq war? (as Jay pointed out)."

It must be an Twit epidemic! It was Peter LeSpunk who made the claim that Edwards wasn't qualified to speak on the subject of Poverty because he receives big speaking fees.

Typical liberal? no, just typical off-the-mark babble from the right

You guys are forgetting tha... (Below threshold)

You guys are forgetting that Giuliani is a Republican and therefore is expected to be greedy.

It must be an Twit epidemic... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

It must be an Twit epidemic! It was Peter LeSpunk who made the claim that Edwards wasn't qualified to speak on the subject of Poverty because he receives big speaking fees.

Typical liberal? no, just typical off-the-mark babble from the right
-------------------------------------------------
Just typical liberal spin to defend the liberal s*age

wh*tever...... (Below threshold)

wh*tever...

You guys are forgetting tha... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

You guys are forgetting that Giuliani is a Republican and therefore is expected to be greedy.
-------------------------------------------------
You guys are forgetting that Edwards is a Democrat and therefore is expected to lie about his concern about poverty (all he cares is a big speaking fee. Just as the communists claim that they care about poor!)

No one ever said he shou... (Below threshold)
Brian:

No one ever said he should not charge or even discuss it (poverty). Get a clue.

Umm, except YOU YOURSELF SAID THAT!

Should he maybe pick another... subject to speak on? You bet your ass he should.

Oh, are you going to play word games like marc and say that since you used the word "maybe" then you weren't actually saying he should "pick another subject"? If that's your way to weasel out of responsibility for what you said, then it's not worth continuing a discussion with you.

Besides that, the point of this entire thread is that Edwards is speaking about poverty while collecting a large fee, and that is hypocritical. So to avoid being hypocritical, the clear implication is that he should either a) avoid speaking about poverty (something that was even explicitly stated), or b) avoid collecting a large fee. And if your position is truly that he should do neither, then you shouldn't have any problem with him on this issue.

So these claims that "no one said he shouldn't do those things" are bizarre at least. And rather than acknowledge that, people like marc resort to word games where instead of responding to a point constructed using multiple words and sentences, they latch on to one particular word and then scour the thread for the verbatim use of that word, only to declare the point invalid for lack of finding it. Hey marc, "disqualify" means "make unfit". If you don't think that a primary theme of this thread is that Edwards is unfit to lecture on poverty, then you're just being disingenuous.

Oh, don't bother scouring the thread for use of the word "unfit".

This whole thread is just m... (Below threshold)
Gianni:

This whole thread is just more proof that libs only abort the smart babies, and the ones that survived are in dire need of Ritalin.

Edwards speaking about poverty is akin to Manute Bol lecturing on dwarfism.

Wonder if the libtards will get that one.

Are all liberal progressive... (Below threshold)
Kat:

Are all liberal progressive democrat(ic) commenters all as obtuse as Barney and Lee? Can there be any common sense on the left or is it all 'feelings'.
Barf.

...less grossly hypocrit... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

...less grossly hypocritical subject...

Funny how you conveniently left THAT out of what I said....it's rather an important clause. But more importantly than that...

The word "maybe" isn't a semantical escape hatch I placed in the sentence in case of emergency, no. Two things are happening here:

1.) You're failing to quote me in context: What you quote of me was in answer to a strawman brought up by Lee who said:

"And Edwards is supposed to reduce or eliminate his speaking fee because the SUBJECT -- not the audience -- but the SUBJECT of his speech has to do with poverty? May 22, 2007 04:17 PM

Up to that point, no one had brought THAT subject up. Did I respond? Yes...May 22, 2007 04:55 PM. Why? Because it was a strawman. And how did I respond? With a thought: I opined--in a very roundabout way, I'll admit--that Edwards and his handlers clearly gave no forethought to the laughable hypocrisy he was putting forth. If you want to label that a "suggestion", fine, go ahead. But you do so lacking the context in which I wrote it.

And Edwards, like any other speaker accepting such a large fee to speak about poverty deserves to be laughed at. As do you for attempting to defend him.

You guys are forgetting ... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

You guys are forgetting that Edwards is a Democrat and therefore is expected to lie about his concern about poverty (all he cares is a big speaking fee. Just as the communists claim that they care about poor!)

That's not true. 'Liberals' love to give other people's money to the poor.

So to avoid being hypocriti... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

So to avoid being hypocritical, the clear implication is that he should either a) avoid speaking about poverty (something that was even explicitly stated), or b) avoid collecting a large fee.
------------------------------------------------
He can speak about poverty with no or small fee to cover his travel expense if he truly cares about it. THis is a perfect example of Brian's spin (club). He is here to distract and defend the liberal sew*ge.

It seems to me that the onl... (Below threshold)

It seems to me that the only point worthy of taking out of this silly debate is that student speakers bureaus should all get together and dictate the caps on speaking fees -- the fact that any university - public or pivate - would shell out $100k for a damn speech.

They have to understand that it is worth more to the speaker than to the school.

Who's bargaining for these nitwits???

Let me rehash AGAIN Edwards... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Let me rehash AGAIN Edwards hypocrisy.

1) Makes speeches bashing Walmart, then tries to use his name to get one of those Playstations at Christmas time that everyone was waiting in line for. He tried to get one special ordered for himself. But remember: Walmart is evil. Unless of course he's shopping there.

2) Worked for a hedge fund corp that uses offshore tax shelters for the rich that he has RAILED against in the past

3) Complaining about students not being able to afford college and then charging $55,000 to charge about poverty at a PUBLIC school

4) Getting $400 haircuts and pretending to be a man of the people and concerned about the Two Americas.

And so on and so on.


Edwards is a hypocrite. Period. End of story.

But nice try lefties. Thanks for attempting to play.

"Is that the example he sho... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

"Is that the example he should make-work for free to get of poverty?"
Barney 4:04

"Edwards was motivating college students to get involved and become activists for programs to end poverty, and not help them get out of poverty"
Barney 4:44

So... Edwards, as a millionaire, shouldn't set an example and "work for free"...also know as charity work... when motivating college kids to "get involved and become activists ," which will be at least partially attained through charity work? Is that your position? Have you EVER made a comment you haven't totally reversed yourself on in a matter of hours or less?


"'Heh. Barney, why do you even bother showing up any more?'

I suspect he truly enjoys making people like you look like a jackass, Brainy."

He'd have to actually accomplish that first, Lee.


As an aside, I apologize for the delay in my response. I was at football practice.

He can speak about pover... (Below threshold)
Brian:

He can speak about poverty with no or small fee to cover his travel expense if he truly cares about it. THis is a perfect example of Brian's spin (club). He is here to distract and defend the liberal sew*ge.

Well, your first point only corroborates what I've been saying all along, and what others claimed I made up. So thanks for proving me right, and directly supporting my so-called "spin".

Funny how you convenient... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Funny how you conveniently left THAT out of what I said....it's rather an important clause.

No, it's wholly unimportant, which is why I left it out, so those confused by too many words would see more clearly. You stated that he should pick another subject. Your suggestion of which other subject he should choose (a "less grossly hypocritical subject") is beside the point.

You're failing to quote me in context:
...
Up to that point, no one had brought THAT subject up. Did I respond? Yes

The context of your response does not change your statement. If anything, the context makes your statement even more clear, since it acts as a direct counterpoint to what was suggested. You were asked if he should have eliminated his fee. You responded no, but "you bet your ass" he should pick another subject. Context doesn't help you.

And Edwards, like any other speaker accepting such a large fee to speak about poverty deserves to be laughed at. As do you for attempting to defend him.

Right, because we should do all we can to discourage people--especially rich people--from trying to address poverty.

And no one answered my question of how much of Rudy's $9-11 million fees he donated to help terror preparedness. If Edwards is a hypocrite for collecting a fee for lecturing on poverty, then Rudy is a hypocrite to lecture on the dangers of terror if he doesn't donate his fee to related causes.

But once again, IOKIYAR.

Hee, hee. I just love the ... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Hee, hee. I just love the never-ending Edwards saga that just keeps on giving.

You dims crack me up. Great stuff--couldn't have made it up if I tried.

I like this PeterLe guy. W... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

I like this PeterLe guy. Where did he come from.

Fuck all pee-sized brain twits like Lee! Yeehaw!

The context of your resp... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

The context of your response does not change your statement.

Like hell it doesn't; it changes the entire charge of your argument that I (or others) were the first to suggest he attempt another subject; that's wholly untrue. As I pointed out, Lee guided the conversation to that subject.

Your lack of ability to put things into context and give that context the weight it rightly deserves so that the proper meaning is not lost or confused or misinterpreted is aggravating. And so WHAT if I passingly suggest he find another subject; it's the equivalent being told by one's mother "maybe you should think before you speak." Does that mean you do it? No. It's not a direct order; it's your choice to make an ass out of yourself if you want to.

Right, because we should do all we can to discourage people--especially rich people--from trying to address poverty.

Who's discouraging them? I just think it's laughable for a guy as wealthy as Edwards to, ya know, not waive that fee this one little old time out if he's going to talk about poverty.

I don't think you'd find Bill or Melinda Gates charging a speaking fee to talk to an audience about poverty....or Bono....or Sam Walton....

Brian:If that'... (Below threshold)
marc:

Brian:

If that's your way to weasel out of responsibility for what you said, then it's not worth continuing a discussion with you.

Is that a promise?

Oh please let it be.... for all concerned and on all topics.

Anywho... and far as trying to weasel out of something you've already proven to be a master at first making an unsubstantiated claim and then weaseling out by being unable to back it up by direct quote.

"first making an unsubstant... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"first making an unsubstantiated claim and then weaseling out by being unable to back it up by direct quote."

It's a disease and what makes the party of democrats "THE PERPETUAL FRAUD".

Got to give the PEE-BRAINS a WEE bit of credit for if they did not realize this fact they wouldn't get so pissed off and frustrated having to defend their puke scum party of criminals. The joke is on them. They are pathetic. They "KNOW IT" and they hate it. The most laughable part about it all , is that it's my choice ,LOL. They wake up every single day intent on defending their communist criminal lying frauds.

It sucks to be them and THEY KNOW IT,LOL.

Beautiful hat, Peter LeSpun... (Below threshold)

Beautiful hat, Peter LeSpunk.

"Who's discouraging them? I just think it's laughable for a guy as wealthy as Edwards to, ya know, not waive that fee this one little old time out if he's going to talk about poverty"

What a jackass. Would Giuliani or any of the other Republican candidates have waived the fee? Of course not, and this idiot can't see the hypocrisy of his statements, so he keeps repeating the argument, even arguing with himself saying he didn't mean to say what he said because what he said isn't what he meant to to say, so for emphasis he says it again.

I wonder if Peter would waive a fee for a speech he gives on logical arguments, since he obviously has no experience in that regard.

lee, showing his hypocrite ... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

lee, showing his hypocrite side as well. Go over to his wizbang blue site and write "jackass" etc. in HIS comments sections and he deletes them!! Hah, fucking spineless little douche bag.

"PeterLe:Mind the ... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

"PeterLe:

Mind the fucking language, will ya?

Posted by: Jay Tea"

Jay, thank you for once again showing us the difference between wizbang and wizblue, regulated by the spineless douche lee, who only wants to stifle speech on HIS site.

"He's not poor, and never h... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

"He's not poor, and never has been poor, so he's not qualified to speak on the subject of Poverty? You really are a twit"
------------------------------------------------
"Typical example of liberal hypocrisy: so someone who does not serve in the army cannot support the Iraq war? (as Jay pointed out)."

I love this! lee, tell your boy Edwards to get to being poor or shut is damned mouth! Afterall, those of us who have never served have no room to talk about Iraq, eh?!! Go on, spin away....

"I love this! lee, tell ... (Below threshold)

"I love this! lee, tell your boy Edwards to get to being poor or shut is damned mouth! "

right, what D-Hoggs said.

D-Hoggs,I just assum... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

D-Hoggs,
I just assumed that the lack of comments on Lee's posts were because he wasn't interesting enough to garner any. It hadn't occured to me that he was deleting dissent. If true, so much for the hope that Wizbang Blue would be an open forum for the discussion of "progressive" thought and opinions. Sad to think that it may turn into just another echo-chamber.

There are two Americas: One... (Below threshold)
mantis:

There are two Americas: One for those without, and one for those with sunken treasure!

Too funny. I don't know why these goofballs above defend this guy. Oh wait, yes I do.

Apparently lee is blind to ... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

Apparently lee is blind to his blatant hypocrisy of telling us we can't discuss Iraq if we've never served yet Edward's can discuss poverty. (which nobody argued he couldn't, just that it's pretty damned funny he does in light of his actions & lifestyle)

Anyway, SCSIwuzzy, I speak from experience, my comments were deleted by lee on HIS blog. Pretty open and progressive forum huh. As far as turning into another echo chamber, it's hard for that to happen when thats all its ever been.

"Apparently lee is blind... (Below threshold)

"Apparently lee is blind to his blatant hypocrisy of telling us we can't discuss Iraq if we've never served yet Edward's can discuss poverty."

No, apparently you're an idiot, because I didn't say that.

"Anyway, SCSIwuzzy, I speak from experience, my comments were deleted by lee on HIS blog."

And you're a lying idiot at that. You were warned about using profanity and when you persisted in a follow up comment that follow-up comment was deleted because of profanity, and when you resubmitted the same comment without profanity it stayed.

Right lee, you were NEEEEVE... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

Right lee, you were NEEEEVER part of the idiots and their chicken hawk arguments. BULLSHIT!!

Soooo, you're saying you DID delete comments? Thats what I thought. Fucking pussy.

"Right lee, you were NEE... (Below threshold)

"Right lee, you were NEEEEVER part of the idiots and their chicken hawk arguments. BULLSHIT!!"

No, I've never made that argument, D-hoggs. As susual, you dont' have any idea what you're talking about, and are lying instead.

And I deleted your comment when you used language like that used here after you were warned to not do it, and when you reposted the comment with asterisks (like "f*cking), I let it stand.

Meow....

So did you or did you not d... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

So did you or did you not delete my comment lee? Because I claimed you did, you called me a liar, then admitted you did. Fucking liar.

Read what I wrote, D-Hoggs,... (Below threshold)

Read what I wrote, D-Hoggs, and if you need help understanding what I wrote ask your mom for help with the big words.

Me: "my comments were delet... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

Me: "my comments were deleted by lee on HIS blog"

lee: "...you're a lying idiot"

lee: "I deleted your comment when you used language like that"

I expect an apology for calling me a liar lee. Won't expect it though.

Kevin, I have a question, when WizbangBlue started, a bunch of us argued that lee shouldn't have his own blog, etc... etc..., but we were ASSURED that it was not lee's blog, that he would just write there. So why is it that he has the power to give warnings and delete comments that are common place on WizBang Main? Seems like his blog to me.

I read what you wrote lee, ... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

I read what you wrote lee, you wrote that I was a liar for saying that you deleted my comments. Then you admit that you deleted my comments. So whats the problem lee? Apparently you are the one having a serious problem reading what was wrritten. Once again, I said: "my comments were deleted by lee on HIS blog"

Is this, or is this not true? I don't care what the comments were deleted for, I simply stated that the comments were deleted. Is that or is that not true?

Each writer at Wizbang Blue... (Below threshold)

Each writer at Wizbang Blue moderates their own posting's comment thread, D-Hoggs -- just like Wizbang -- and each writer can delete comments that are inappropriate -- just like Wizbang.

Paul can delete comments from this thread if he chooses. Does that make Wizbang "his blog"?


lee answer the question pos... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

lee answer the question posed at you, quit ignoring the fact that you called me a liar for simply stating that you deleted my comments. Is that, or is that not true?

Me: "my comments were deleted by lee on HIS blog"

lee: "...you're a lying idiot"

lee: "I deleted your comment when you used language like that"

kevin, as far as what lee is stating about deletion of comments, why is it that every other writer has one standard but lee has another? If this is the case, I suggest each writer write a disclaimer as to what gets sand in their crotch and will cause them to delete comments like lee.

D-Hoggs, as much as I feel ... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

D-Hoggs, as much as I feel like I need a shower whenever I defend Lee, you are misconstruing his words.
He said he deleted your comment, and in the same comment said why.
While part of me laughs to see one of the troll brigade get his words twisted in the way they typically twist others', you're better than that. Calm down, have some some dip.

Thanks SCSI (I think) - and... (Below threshold)

Thanks SCSI (I think) - and note also D-Hoggs that your comment was not deleted after you redacted the profanity -- and that's why I called you a liar.

Ultimately your comment got through and was published exactly as you'd written it, I just had to convince you to take out the profanity. First I warned you, and you ignored the warning in your reply and just piled on more profanity, so I deleted your reply until you resubmitted it without the profanity.

In the end, the only words of yours that weren't published was the profanity.

Your characterization and rantings suggesting something else happened just point out your dishonesty and lack of integrity -- and that's fine. I'm happy to let you make a fool of yourself as you've done here (and as I do on occasion, certainly), just do it without the profanity on my threads at Wizbang Blue, is all I ask.

Obviously Paul applies a different standard when it comes to foul language, and to each his own. It's Kevin's policy to let writers police their own threads, and that's ok with me, and with Paul and everyone else here, I suspect.

Dishonesty lee? I understan... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

Dishonesty lee? I understand why you deleted my comment, thats not the point, the point is that you DID indeed delete one of my comments, plain and simple, and when I stated such, you called me a liar. Regardless of whether my future comment stood, you DID INDEED delete my comment and THAT IS ALL I STATED. So fuck you. You have zero leg to stand on calling me a liar for stating you deleted my comment. If I stated that you deleted my comment and never let my next one stand, you would be right, I would have been lying, but that is NOT what I said. Once again, I said plain and simple, that you deleted my comment, you called me a liar for that, and that is wrong. So who's being dishonest know lee? Douche-bag.

SCSIwuzzy, I am misconstrui... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

SCSIwuzzy, I am misconstruing nothing, I plainly stated that lee deleted my comments. That is TRUTH. He called me a liar, then proceeded to agree that he deleted my comments. I never said why he did, just that he did. So I ask you as well as lee, once again, did lee or did lee not delete one of my comments like I plainly stated?




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy