Monday, November 20, 2006

John Ewdards always likes low prices. Always.

Former Sen. Edwards Acknowledges Staffer Asked Wal-Mart for PlayStation 3
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. said Thursday that a staff member for former Sen. John Edwards — a vocal critic of the retailer — asked his local Wal-Mart store for help in getting the potential 2008 presidential candidate a Sony PlayStation 3. Edwards said a volunteer did so by mistake.

"By mistake." Rrrriiiiiiggggghhhhttttttt.

34 comments:

Anonymous said...

It's over drop it get on with your life. Your guys took it in the ass.Admit it there are other things taht are more important.

Anonymous said...

It's over drop it get on with your life. Your guys took it in the ass.Admit it there are other things taht are more important.

Anonymous said...

Wal-Mart is the giant corporation that Hillary Clinton used to sit on the board of directors, right?

Bryan Saxton said...

So, what exactly does this prove?

: JustaDog said...

Was there something wrong in a pro-union Democrat shopping at Wal-Mart?

Most all of them do because they are more competitive than the union stores, lol.

Anonymous said...

Oh, I'm positive the staffer made a mistake. Of course, the mistake was getting caught.

Does this mean Senator Handsome has to find a new scapegoat?

Bobkatt said...

The only thing this proves is the general idea that our elected royalty expect that they are above the common fray and entitled to cut in line because of their title. In this case I guess they were wrong. This is one point I will concede to WalMart. To find out my real view of WM see my Blog.

Bryan Saxton said...

Agreed, Bobkatt.

rickyragg said...

Irony, tee-hee.

Now Edwards must lie and trip all over himself backpedaling and then seek forgiveness from his masters - organized labor.

I love it.

Kaelri said...

Yeah. This was a newsworthy post.

BEAR said...

Please note that regardless of how indicative this event is of the attitudes and practices of john edwards, hillary, b.j., jon carry, ted kennedy, dan blather, nancy pelosi, william (gee, how did that $90,000 get in my freezer?) jefferson, john murtha, turban durbin, algore, the sheehan twit, ted (the flood is your own fault) kulongclownski, eric (how do you like your water bill, now?) sten, sam (you'll love this tram) adams, vera (hey, kids, let's cover a freeway!) katz, alcee (so what if I was convicted and impeached for bribery?) hastings, robert (recruiter for the kkk) bird, et al, we will never see any liberal held to account for any misdeed or crime by their lefty anti-American pals. Any verbiage (look it up, idiot kaelri) from the lefties that appears to acknowledge even the existence of right and wrong, and which may even seem to admit their own intellectual and moral and ideological failure, is mere pretense, without the slightest sincerity or hint of substantive change. Until such time as the liberals come to terms with their own words and self-delusion, there is little hope for their redemption, and no point in taking anything these idiots say as serious comment. The official position of the lefties is enumerated very well by the comment from anon 7:38. Let us not forget it.

Bryan Saxton said...

Wow, Bear, that's one hell of an inference you've pulled out of that. I think that your comment was made out of an attempt to discredit democrats without having anything to discredit them with.

People seem to assume too much. You forget that it was an overzealous volunteer who attempted to make the purchase. It very well could have been a mistake.

If it was Edwards fault, then so be it. He's a politician, and I for one am not a huge fan of politicians. Democrats are just as corrupt as Republicans are. The only reason I vote Dem is because they tend to push for what I think is right.

As far as the "anti-american liberal" comments, by definition, a liberal is more patriotic than a conservative (which is actually at the other end of the dichotomy, look up the roots of the words and you'll know what I'm talking about).

Kaelri said...

Bear,

The "lefties" do not have an "official position." There is no office. Leftism is not an organization, if indeed it can even be defined as something at this point. It still seems like you apply the label to pretty much everyone who disagrees with you, and you've even got this paranoid belief that they all have a secret agenda that involves the destruction of American culture.

But, as you requested, I have indeed vindicated this version of "verbiage." Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose. :)

You've put forth a very unhelpful position, though. You claim that whenever someone you call a "lefty" appears to... man, that's really one hell of a claim. Anything we say that "appears to acknowledge even the existence of right and wrong" is "pretense." In other words, if I tell you that I believe in what I say and do, you're gonna assume I'm lying.

If that's the case, then there's not much I can do to help you except to suggest that you move somewhere like Saudi Arabia or North Korea, where differences of opinion and judgment are as totally non-negotiable as you seem to idealize.

Because although Anon 7:38 didn't make much of an argument, he's right. We won. We lying, immoral, unethical, atheist, socialist, opportunist, sophist, baby-killing gay-loving miscreants are in control of the Congress of the United States of America, because that's the democratic will of the American people.

Am I saying you can't disagree or dissent? That because we won the election, we have the omniscience and purity of character of God himself? No. Keep disagreeing. I look forward to it.

But what the election does mean is that the moral or intellectual failings of "the lefties" is not as obvious as you'd like everyone to think. The majority of the population of this country disagrees with you. If you think you can win them over again, then I wish you all the luck in the world. But you're going to have to start using some logos and ethos and pathos, my friend, because self-righteous ranting and tabloid-esque name-calling do not - never did - hold water.

BEAR said...

Hey, b.s., your continuing refusal to actually shovel out your own stall indicts your specious and counterfeit ideology. I am reminded of the still deafening silence from the self-proclaimed leaders of the "religion of peace." You, and they, believe that mouthing platitudes and denials is equivalent to taking action. You attempt to deflect responsibility by claiming that lefty, anti-Americans (that's dems to you, b.s.) are "just as corrupt as republicans." Then you reiterate you support for those you have just addressed as corrupt. Wow, there's a gutsy stand for the rule of law. But wait! You won't clean house (as Conservatives usually and properly do), because someone else is corrupt, also! Shezaam....intellectual honesty and morality get thrown under the bus again by you anti-American phonies, and it's.....oh yeah, the republicans' fault. Thank you for so proudly making my point.....sheesh.

BEAR said...

Idiot kaelri, by embracing anon's response, you embrace the continuing lefty tactic of maintaining that no act from a fellow anti-American is so egregious as to warrant discipline, or even acknowledgement. Throw the shovel away, and quit digging....sheesh.

Kaelri said...

Read the post and try again.

Bryan Saxton said...

Bear-

A) Thank you for yet again spewing out another substanceless rant. You seriously said a lot without saying anything worth mentioning. Well, except for

B)You won't clean house (as Conservatives usually and properly do), because someone else is corrupt, also!

Wow. That was a good one. Best laugh I've had in a long time.

Anyway, I suggest you eliminate your baseless over-generalizations that amount more to insults instead of actual topics of debate and start making specific examples. Until then, none of us will be able to take you seriously.

Bryan Saxton said...

Also, Bear, this is in response to your islamophobic statement you made. I think this person said it best...

Shadab Ahmed Siddiqi (Knoxville, TN) wrote on Oct 26, 2006 at 9:17 AM:

Much of the anti-western rhetoric which is circulated in American media outlets from the extreme fringe elements of the Wahhabis, including that of the membership of al Qaeda, is rooted in ideology that has not been around for more than two and a half centuries. Their concept of perpetual jihad against the lands of the non-Muslims is an idea that has no foundation on which to stand in an age of global civilization. The followers of traditional Islam, those who make up the vast majority of Muslims, are not terrorists, for the traditional law they follow forbids killing civilian non-combatants under any and all circumstances. Anyone who has traveled through North Africa, or Pakistan, or Turkey, or Egypt, or Indonesia, or the Levant (Jordan, Palestine and Syria) knows how Muslims behave. Travelers will find them to be very decent and kind people, and may often return feeling safer in Muslim lands than in many places where Muslims are not.

Islam, especially that which is practiced in America, is practiced by Muslims who are well educated, well rounded people and are interested in decent jobs and strong families. One out of every three Muslims living in the United States has earned at least a bachelors degree. Muslims living in America are some of our best doctors, engineers, and professionals. They are, for the most part, law abiding citizens with good values and conservative moral behavior.

But on the flipside, there are always those propagandists who hate Muslims, and for some religious zeal or other ideological conviction, they wish that others will do so as well. Approximately 1.5 billion humans on the globe are Muslims, and if to err is human, we can expect that Muslims will also sometimes fall into error. It is easy to magnify the actions of a few in order to discredit the many. When Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols brought terror to the federal building in Oklahoma City, we did not demonize their entire religious affiliation. As Muslims, we have nothing to be ashamed of, for the extremist sects that leech onto our faith have nothing to do with orthodox Islam, and its absence of tolerance is seen by our scholars as a perversion of a tradition which championed intellectual and moral achievement for more than fourteen-hundred years. The killing of civilians is not only abhorrently wrong but simply immoral, therefore whenever and wherever an innocent life is lost we should feel that it is a crime.

In the past, various religious movements have given rise to criminal, extreme and abhorrent behavior by practitioners of their faith, but have been rejected by the majority in that religion. The most familiar example in these parts is that of the Klu Klux Klan. Although they preached a fiery brand of Christianity, most Christians would detest their values and ideology.

Such is the case of al Qaeda, the base of operations responsible for a saga which arrived at the doorstep of this nation on September 11th. Their militants purport to be Muslims, and have carried out savage attacks in the name of their brand of Islam. As it has been pointed out the doctrine of the terrorists flies in the face of fourteen centuries of classical and traditional Islam, and has not existed for more than two and a half centuries.

Classical Muslim jurists have and will always be uncompromisingly relentless toward rebels whom jurists have categorized as those who use stealth attacks and, as a result, spread terror. Muslim jurists have and will always consider terrorist attacks against any and all unsuspecting and defenseless victims as heinous and immoral crimes. Such terrorists have always been treated as worst type of criminals and brigands.

Within the category of crimes of terror, classical jurists included abductions, poisoning of water wells, arson, attacks against wayfarers and travelers, assaults under the cover of night and rape. With such crimes, regardless of the religious or political convictions of the perpetrators, Muslim jurists demanded the harshest penalties, including death. Such penalties are the same whether the perpetrator or victim is Muslim or non-Muslim. And it is because of this tradition that pre-modern terrorists had become so notorious in Islamic history. It is only recently, since the rise of post colonial Islamic movements and the seemingly limitless resources of Saudi funding of Wahhabism, that the tables may seem to have turned. The crisis is further perpetuated by the most extreme elements of the religion holding the megaphones, and distributing mind-numbing images of beheadings and senseless slaughter of innocents to be broadcast and rebroadcast throughout our homes.

Many of these groups imported their core ideologies from national liberation struggles against imperialism and have deviated from their Islamic heritage. Terrorism is part of the historical legacy of anti-colonialism and is not the legacy of Islamic law. According to the Islamic juristic tradition, terrorists find only one sector and it lies outside the fold of a traditional acceptance in Islam.

Benjamin Franklin was quoted has having said that they that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

If we allow the threat of terror to permeate every aspect of our daily lives, then those that commit terrorism have reached their ultimate goal. Is our priority as a republic to be a nation of bullet proof security at the expense of essential liberty? If Franklin were here, as stated he would say in this case that we deserve neither of the two. Now we must head the warning of James Madison who once said, "The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home."

rickyragg said...

"Anyway, I suggest you eliminate your baseless over-generalizations that amount more to insults instead of actual topics of debate and start making specific examples. Until then, none of us will be able to take you seriously."

Oh, I don't know bs. As the author of the profound "substanceful" comment: "So, what exactly does this prove?", you should be careful of accusing others. Hypocrisy is a terrible thing to waste.

A) How many of you are there; or do you presume to speak for others here? Perhaps that lefty kaelri will allow you to pull her strings, but all your other friends are named anon.

B) If you're able to seriously take yourself seriously, you shouldn't have any trouble with bear.

C) It's good to see that you've improved your spelling - now you just need to work on your substanceless vocabulary.

...or would that be insubstantial?

TC said...

Hey, it really comes down to the Democrats motto "Do as I say you should do, not as I do." John (The ambulance chaser) Edwards is just showing his super liberal hypocritical nature.

Gee I’ve noticed that the only people who hate Wal-Mart are Communists and Labor Unions. But then Communists, Socialists love labor unions. Labor unions for the most part are Communist/Socialist in nature. They restrict freedom, control others lives and crush the human spirit of achievement.

Yeah yeah, BS and Kaelri you’re probably livid at the above, but you know what…just head out to the any of the “Progressive-Democrat” totalitarian websites like the Communist Party USA website or Political Affairs Magazine and you’ll have all the proof you need…Communists, Democrats and Labor Unions walk hand in hand when it comes to Wal-Mart.

I must say with the recent news that Wal-Mart is giving butt loads (pun intended) of money to Homosexual groups I would have thought you guys would be doing all your shopping there. Oh but I forgot Democrats hate gays, or is it just Republican gays? After you Democrats went after Mark Foley equating his homosexuality with pedophilia but celebrating your party’s own homosexual pervs (Garry Stubbs) I guess it’s selective homophobia.

Ric said...

Was Edwards For Low Prices before he was Against them?

Bryan Saxton said...

ricky-

Your post has done two things:

A)You've told me you don't like my stance regarding the issue.

B)You've given the same right wing attack on the "left" (which does not exist in the manner that you say it does).

C)I'm sorry you don't like my choice in words.

D)As far as grammar goes, not all of us copy and paste our posts into Word before we post them.

E) Since you're good at arguing for Bear, why don't you defend this:

"I am reminded of the still deafening silence from the self-proclaimed leaders of the "religion of peace."

Bryan Saxton said...

Oh yeah, and I'm glad to see that the red scare is still alive and well. Seriously, people, the cold war is over.

TC said...

Hey BS, the cold war may be over, but communism is not dead it's alive and well in N. Korea, Cuba, China and the Democratic Party. A tour of the various Commie/Progressive websites will verify. In fact the Communist Party USA, the Peoples Weekly World, and the rest of the commie sites endorsed which Party in this last election??? Oh yeah they endorsed Democrats...Seriously BS you don't have a clue.

TC said...

For the folks like BS who are in denial about the link between the Democrat Party and the Communist Party and their mutual agenda...check out the article at Political Affairs Magazine - Marxist Thought Online.

http://politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/4431/1//

terry said...

Ric - Yes, many Americans were For Low Prices before they understood our economic and potentially our political future was being exported to China.

Bryan Saxton said...

Do you seriosly not see the problem with this? It is just as viable to say that the facist party is in league with the conservative party and votes conservative, therefore, all conservatives must be facists.

Anonymous said...

"Benjamin Franklin was quoted has having said ..."

"James Madison..."

I love it when lefties use historical quotes completely outside of and apart from their context. Reminds me of the character Kevin Kline played in "A Fish Called Wanda."

Seriously, does anyone know why they're so fascinated by bumper sticker bromides?

Kaelri said...

Outside and apart from their context? There's not a single point in the history of government when they weren't deeply relevant.

"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home."

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

The context is the abuse of government's power over its citizens. It is exactly the same context in 2006 that it was in 1755 and 1787. (Also, in 1776: "...to secure these [unalienable rights], Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.")

These are fundamental American values we're talking about.

Bryan Saxton said...

"Hey BS, the cold war may be over, but communism is not dead it's alive and well in N. Korea, Cuba, China and the Democratic Party."

You're serious? No political scholar would argue that North Korea, Cuba, or China is a communist country. They are, however, excelent examples of authorative dictatorships. China is the only modern government that even comes close to apearing as a communist country. Even so, it has an authoritarian social structure with a liberalized economy.

I think it would be more accurate to group all Republicans in the category of facist americans for the establishment of an authoritarian government than it is to group the democratic party as a modern communist party.

Scottiebill said...

John Edwards is a phony, just like his running mate two years ago.

Anonymous said...

Being a malpractice lawyer I found this article to be very informative. Help is out there and it’s easier to find if you know what you’re looking for.

Steve said...

Great post! I needed some info like that to get things running better. If you ever need motorcycle transport then go with these guys. Fast and pro.

Steve said...

Great post and informative. Finding the right abogado is very important when you need to deal with a law situation.