|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 12, 2007 21:59:30 GMT -5
Yet more hypocracy from the Democrat Party- what a shocker! www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/10/AR2007051002277.htmlEdwards Says He Didn't Know About Subprime PushThe hedge fund that employed John Edwards markedly expanded its subprime lending business while he worked there, becoming a major player in the high-risk mortgage sector Edwards has pilloried in his presidential campaign.
Edwards said yesterday that he was unaware of the push by the firm, Fortress Investment Group, into subprime lending and that he wishes he had asked more questions before taking the job. The former senator from North Carolina said he had asked Fortress officials whether it was involved in predatory lending practices before taking the job in 2005 and was assured it was not. Edwards said yesterday that he recalls being told at the time of his hiring that some of Fortress's private equity holdings did lend to start-up businesses, which is why he asked about predatory lending practices. But he could not recall whether the firm's partners told him it had a major stake in Green Tree.
"Those are the things I remember," he said. "They may have told me more." Had he learned that Fortress owned a loan servicer with a history of predatory lending practices, he said, "I would have asked some very specific questions about it." Fortress's growing role in the subprime lending market provides a second contrast between the firm's business practices and the positions Edwards has taken as the presidential candidate who has made poverty a major campaign theme. The Washington Post reported last month that Fortress's partners and its foreign investors benefited from the kind of offshore tax breaks Edwards has criticized as a candidate.
Last month, Edwards announced a plan to fight predatory lending. He said that an increase in subprime loans and predatory mortgages was resulting in a surge of foreclosures that risked "devastating communities," and that "shameful lending practices . . . are compromising our strength as a nation."
Disclosure forms to be released on Tuesday will show how much Edwards was paid for his work at Fortress, which lasted until December 2006, when he stepped down to run for president. He has received $167,460 in campaign contributions from Fortress employees and their families, his largest sum from a single company.
There's so much hypocracy here that it's hard to know just where to begin.
It is reasonable to assume that Edwards was paid some amount to act as a consultant to Fortress, so is it also not safe to say that Edwards benefitted personally from subprime lending practices which he says he deplores?
I call upon John Edwards to give an amount of money equal to whatever he earned from Fortress to a nonprofit charity.
The last paragraph points out that his campaign has unquestionably benefitted from his employment with Fortress to the tune of $167,000.
I call upon John Edwards to return the campaign contribution from Fortress on the basis that he deplores the activity the company engages in and should not, on principal, benefit from such practices.
Imagine for a moment if the politician in question were Dick Cheney and the campaign contributions were from Haliburton. Would the MSM cover anything else?
Then there's the remarkable lack of curiosity that Edwards shows towards his employer. Perhaps his attitude was, 'so long as the checks to me don't bounce, I don't care how they earn their money.'
Says Thomas Lifson (h/t American Thinker):
If we take Edwards at his word, do we want a president who fails to ask obvious questions of bureaucrats, who is so incurious about the deeper details that he is easily bamboozled? Either he is a liar or an incompetent. There are no third options.
Does nobody among the Democrat pretenders for President have any ethics at all? I'm talking >GOOD< ethics here...we know they all have bad ethics; that's not news anymore (except, apparently, to the MSM).
|
|
|
Post by lawman on May 12, 2007 22:36:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by deovindice on May 13, 2007 6:33:44 GMT -5
Frankly, WOMI, this comes as no surprise. The man's a lawyer. What are we to expect from lawyers? Granted, Bush isn't a lawyer and he turned out to be, in my estimation, as bad a president as we've seen. Yet the vast majority of politicians are indeed lawyers. The legal industry (I use the word in place of profession which it is no longer) is viewed in the same light as the used car business. It's held in the same esteem as Islamic fundamentalism. Who better to bend the law to the limit and manipulate the law to the advantage of the highest bidder than those who immerse themselves in the study of the law? We really need some small-time farmers and small businessmen in the race who are willing to work outside the confines of the party structures. Hell, I'd even settle for an actor.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 13, 2007 6:56:29 GMT -5
"We need to begin by making college more affordable and accessible," she said. "I think we need to take on the student loan industry and send a clear message they will be held accountable for the way they treat and mistreat students and families."
She is pushing a "student borrower bill of rights" that sets payments as a percentage of income and keeps fees and interest rates reasonable. "I don't believe that you should be subjected to bait-and-switch programs where they tell you what it's going to be and then they change it on you," she said. Demos still pushing the student loan thing? Changing the monthly payment by reducing the interest rate will only make school more affordable by a little bit each month, but how does it make it more affordable by those who don't get loans? What about those who have been saving for their children's college for years? The price tag keeps going up and that is what they should focus on since public schools are government subsidized. Talk about "bait and switch"! How many times do you go into an auto dealership and the salesperson asks "what kind of monthly payment are you looking for"? Demos like to feed on the "monthly payment" mentality rather than focusing on the total price tag. Read this: Halving Student Loan Interest Rates Is Unaffordable and Ineffective
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 13, 2007 12:43:59 GMT -5
law-
Valid point.
However, if I started to go into creating threads just to list all the shenannigans, hypocracy and illegalities Hillary Clinton has been involved in, I'd probably crash the server. No public network has that much storage space....
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 13, 2007 12:50:51 GMT -5
deo-
Not that I disagree with you on most of what you said.
However, Edwards deserves special attention because of how he's running his campaign.
He's always prattling on about there being "two Americas"- one for the rich and one for the poor- and how he's a 'man of the people'. He even kicked off his Presidential campaign from the Ninth Ward in New Orleans.
So that's what he SAYS.
But what is it that he DOES?
Well, he used shamefully fraudulent legal tactics in order to line his own pockets.
He's in the process of building a 20,000 square foot house (and clear-cutting forestland to make room for it!)
He gets $400 haircuts and tries to bill his campaign for them.
He gets a high-apid job as a consultant for a company that deals in, among other things, 'predatory' lending practices, accepts a paycheck AND campaign contributions for them. and then claims to be against the very practices he says he deplores.
oh...and one of Fortress' subsidiary companies is in particularly hot water for going on a foreclosure rampage.
In NEW ORLEANS.
In the NINTH WARD.
You know...where Edwards launched his bid for President.
|
|
|
Post by lawman on May 13, 2007 13:02:49 GMT -5
law- Valid point. However, if I started to go into creating threads just to list all the shenannigans, hypocracy and illegalities Hillary Clinton has been involved in, I'd probably crash the server. No public network has that much storage space.... My point: She da man! And NO LAUGHING MATTER! She's the one.....THE ONLY ONE..... that IS GOING to be nominee for the Dems......and this Country's 'thinking' is so screwed up
that NO candidate of ANY other 'party' has a chance to be President! So, why waste time on the 'tiny fish'' you can't fry? Unless a Merciful ''Act of God'' happens, she's the next 'dictator' of the 'hapless' U.S.A.!
|
|
|
Post by deovindice on May 13, 2007 13:46:31 GMT -5
deo- They're all crooks. Kerry got expensive haircuts. He lives an opulent lifestyle. I believe Clinton held up air traffic in order to get a haircut. Bush used Eminent Domain in order to get a ball stadium built. Of course, we know Gore preaches green while mining, and that's after having invented the internet. There are two Americas. One for the rich, and one for the poor. It has always been so, and should the day come that Edwards really does come on down to be "one of the people" is the day I'll vote for him. I have no fear in making that statement. He's not about to live the way I do. He's a hypocrite. As I said, he's a lawyer. I don't begrudge him having a large home. Really. I just detest how he came by his wealth. Women don't even spend that much on their hair. He never ceases to amaze me.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 13, 2007 15:21:30 GMT -5
law-
Again, no disagreement from me.
However, I do have a method here, 'e'en tho there be madeness to it.'
I think you'd agree that the last thing the MSM wants to do is to shine the light of truth on Hillary Clinton because even the most casual examination of her record would show that she is, in fact, a criminal. Much of the MSM wants- desperately wants- her to be President.
So the MSM is willing and eager to look at the other candidates, building them up and tearing them down at the whims but, all along, making the case that these other Democrats are viable candidates. Anything to keep you from 'paying attention to the man behind the curtain (Hillary).'
But if that light of truth can be shone at the other Democrat candidates and show that none of them are qualified and/or ethical enough to be viable Presidential candidates, the focus will inevitably turn to the one 'man left standing'- Hillary.
Clear away the chaff and the wheat is what remains to be picked (or, hopefully, picked over).
If the public finds out the truth about Hillary- where she's really from, what shaped her thinking, her insatiable thirst for raw, naked power, her amorality, her Marxist tendencies, her real agenda, the crimes she has either participated in or condoned or covered-up- I think the public will find her unelectable. Supposedly 50% of them already do- won't take much to move that total so high that she is mathematically eliminated.
Now lest it be said that I'm biased (OK...I am a teensy bit biased), I want the MSM to ask the tough questions of the candidates of my Party. That should be the job of the MSM.
But asking Romney if he had premarital sex with his wife? (no joke...Mike Wallace actually asks that on 60 Minutes tonight).
Either ask that question of ALL candidates or NONE of them (preferably none).
I'd love to hear Hillary deal with that one.....
Mike Wallace: Senator Clinton, did you have premarital sex with your husband?
Hillary Clinton: I'm sorry...whose husband?
Mike Wallace: How many husbands have you had?
Hillary Clinton: Mine or other women's?
(Did I mention I love "Clue"?)
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 13, 2007 15:39:33 GMT -5
Mike Wallace: Senator Clinton, did you have premarital sex with your husband? Hillary Clinton: I'm sorry...whose husband? Mike Wallace: How many husbands have you had? Hillary Clinton: Mine or other women's? (Did I mention I love "Clue"?) Uh, you're wrong here. It would be more like (if she was being truthful): Mike Wallace: Senator Clinton, did you have premarital sex with your husband? Hillary Clinton: I don't recall, its been too many years. I will tell you that we've not had marital sex.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 13, 2007 20:26:47 GMT -5
Well, they did at least once- Chelsea being the byproduct.
I could think of only one other possibility, but I don't recall seeing a bright star in the East, doubt I could find three wise men in the Clinton cabinet, and would have to ask Monica about a possible Second Coming.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 24, 2007 19:48:16 GMT -5
Edwards keep this up, he might deserve his own thread: newsbusters.org/node/12962AP Article on Edwards and ‘War on Terror’ Ignores Candidate’s PastAP's article reads in part: To set this up, Wednesday’s AP piece began (emphasis added):
Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards on Wednesday repudiated the notion that there is a "global war on terror," calling it an ideological doctrine advanced by the Bush administration that has strained American military resources and emboldened terrorists.
In a defense policy speech he planned to deliver at the Council on Foreign Relations, Edwards called the war on terror a "bumper sticker" slogan President George W. Bush has used to justify everything from abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad to the invasion of Iraq. But did he feel there was no "war on terror" in 2004 when his Presidential running mate John Kerry (did you know he served in Vietnam?) said in his nomination acceptace speech at the Democrat party convention: We will double our Special Forces to conduct terrorist operations, anti-terrorist operations, and we will provide our troops with the newest weapons and technology to save their lives and win the battle. And we will end the backdoor draft of the National Guard and reservists.
[…]
As president, I will fight a smarter, more effective war on terror. Now one would assume that the two were on the same page regarding this issue....but "The Breck Girl" was uncharacteristically mum. Might that have been because, in October, 2001 on "The O'Reilly Factor" (back when Democrats weren't too scared to appear on Fox News), Edwards said: “I think that we will be united with the President throughout this war on terrorism," Now granted that was a long time ago. maybe those $400 haircuts somehow damage the long-term memory. But you'd think he might've remembered what he said one day before Kerry's quote at the Democrat Convention: None of us will ever forget where we were on September the 11th. We all share the same terrible images, the towers falling in New York, the Pentagon in flames, a smoldering field in Pennsylvania. We share a profound sadness for the nearly 3,000 lives that were lost.
And as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I know that we have to do more to fight the war on terrorism and keep the American people safe. We can do that. Now of course Edwards is running for President and is the absolute darling of the anti-war Left in this country (and in the Middle East too one supposes). So it seems that his positions are as malleable as his hair isn't. A Democrat presidential candidate flip-flopping? Whoda thunk it?
|
|
lawman
Apprentice Cog
Posts: 237
|
Post by lawman on May 24, 2007 23:57:19 GMT -5
Maybe he Truly is...''Man of the People!'' At least on this subject! news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070525/ap_on_el_pr/edwards_bushEdwards assails Bush, GOP rivals
By PHILLIP RAWLS, Associated Press Writer
May 24, 2007 10:30 PM MONTGOMERY, Ala. - Democratic presidential contender John Edwards argued on Thursday that President Bush has made the nation less safe and the Republican candidates are trying to become "a bigger, badder George Bush."
Edwards' remarks came one day after he challenged the idea of a global war on terror, calling it an ideological doctrine advanced by the Bush administration that has strained the U.S. military and emboldened terrorists.
Bush told reporters Thursday that Edwards' view was naive.
A short time later, during an appearance in Montgomery, Ala., Edwards answered back: "George Bush has made America less safe and less respected in the world. What we are seeing now in this campaign is John McCain (news, bio, voting record), Rudy Giuliani and the other Republicans running for president of the United States are trying to be a bigger, badder George Bush. Is that really what America wants over the next four years?"
Edwards, who supports a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq, said he would keep the country safe by going "after terrorists where they are."
"There is an entire new generation of young people in the Islamic world sitting on the fence," he told reporters, and their status as adults "depends on whether America can change this dynamic that George Bush has created that America is a bully, that we are selfish and that we don't care anything about what is happening in other parts of the world."
At least one Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, scoffed at Edwards' comments on the global war on terror.
"Remember that old Edmund Burke quote, it's a famous quote, 'The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.' And that, I am afraid is the boiled down version of what John Edwards said, is that good men should do nothing. Put their head in the sand and hope it all goes away," Romney told an audience in Jacksonville, Fla.
The Edwards campaign later issued a statement, saying: "We don't need more political huffing and puffing, we need a smart strategy that uses American power to stop terrorists from hurting us and to stop people from becoming terrorists in the first place."
Edwards was making his first campaign trip to Alabama since entering the race. He met privately with several prominent Democrats at the Alabama Education Association headquarters, including Lt. Gov. Jim Folsom Jr., and veteran civil rights lawyer Fred Gray of Tuskegee. He also attended a $1,000-per-person fundraising reception hosted by the plaintiff law firm of former Lt. Gov. Jere Beasley.
Alabama has moved its presidential primary to Feb. 5, an increasingly crowded date with about a dozen states planning to vote.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 25, 2007 6:32:04 GMT -5
You know what's missing from all of this? Actual mention of a real strategy! Its easy to say: Edwards answered back: "George Bush has made America less safe and less respected in the world. What we are seeing now in this campaign is John McCain (news, bio, voting record), Rudy Giuliani and the other Republicans running for president of the United States are trying to be a bigger, badder George Bush. Is that really what America wants over the next four years?" OK, what are you going to do? Not words, not "we need something different", actual strategy. Unless you can give details, please "shut thy mouth". "There is an entire new generation of young people in the Islamic world sitting on the fence," he told reporters, and their status as adults "depends on whether America can change this dynamic that George Bush has created that America is a bully, that we are selfish and that we don't care anything about what is happening in other parts of the world." Which Islamic people are you talking about, the fascist ones who train to kill by dying? Or the ones [in Iraq] who are now able to do things they never did, like buy cell phones, satellite dishes, new cars? Oh wait, there are some negatives, just like the dumbing of our culture: Oprah has a fan base in Iraq. Iraqi mothers fret about the amount of time their teenagers spend watching "Star Academy," an Arabic-language cross between "American Idol" and "The Real World."
And an ad for the satellite channel MBC's new lineup - which includes "Inside Edition," "Jeopardy!" and "60 Minutes" - declares: "So you can watch what THEY watch." Have to admit, that's funny. Seems Iraq is not ready to be THAT western ;D. Back to the topic at hand. "Remember that old Edmund Burke quote, it's a famous quote, 'The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.' And that, I am afraid is the boiled down version of what John Edwards said, is that good men should do nothing. Put their head in the sand and hope it all goes away," Romney told an audience in Jacksonville, Fla. OK, Mitt. Thanks for the quote. We know you can repeat some other person's words. What words do you offer that give us real confidence that you know what should be the next move? The Edwards campaign later issued a statement, saying: "We don't need more political huffing and puffing, we need a smart strategy that uses American power to stop terrorists from hurting us and to stop people from becoming terrorists in the first place." HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA -- so where is it?!? Are you not also just "huffing and puffing"? Please people, when will a candidate come forward and offer real strategy instead of hollow words that meaning nothing other than tell us which vague direction you are headed in? Its like gettting in car with someone and asking "Where are we going?" The reply "North". Yep, says alot.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 25, 2007 10:43:55 GMT -5
kevin-
You're asking the kind of questions the MSM just won't ask of a Democrat and the one media outlet that will ask the tough questions of them- Fox News- they avoid like the plague.
I really can't blame Edwards for not espousing a plan for a couple of reasons:
1) He has no idea what he'd do- except he wouldn't do it like Bush did.
2) Democrats won last November without outlining a plan for, well, anything- except that whatever they did do they wouldn't do it like Bush did. Hmmm...sounds vaguely familiar... So if they won without showing their hand- assuming they have one- in 2006, one really can't blame Edwards for 'dancing with the one what brung her'.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 25, 2007 10:47:51 GMT -5
Forgot to post this one earlier....
Recently, Edwards gave a speech to students at a college in California.
For a speech lasting a bit over an hour, Edwards was paid $55,000.
The subject of the speech?
POVERTY
You just can't make this kind of stuff up.
Will Mr. Edwards take that speaking fee and donate it to a charity that, in sharp contrast to Mr. Edwards himself, actually does something to help the poor?
He's declined comment so far- from his 28,000 square foot 'humble abode'.
I think that particular silence really does speak very loudly.
|
|