John Edwards hates Wal-Mart

Wow.

We've gone to a non-story about one of Edwards' unpaid volunteers trying to snag a PS3. to the evils of Wal-Mart (well documented), to ground gerbils and hamstsers, to Poindexter (as usual) pulling out the usual right wing talking points, none of which make any sense.

Well, at least Edwards isn't a Muslim because then Hondo would show up.

 

Maybe if Edwards paid his people, instead of making them 'volunteer,' they wouldn't have to shop at Wal-Mart.

 

Yeah, right. Probably half the people any of us work with don't read their own newspaper, yet we expect a volunteer to know everything a candidate stands for.

Also, we'd expect a volunteer not to use the candidate's name in order to strongarm a retailer. But then on some newspapers we'd expect staffers to know taking freebies is wrong, yet we have to spell out in great detail in writing in company handbooks what's OK and what isn't, and some greedy pigs still try to circumvent it.

You don't believe Edwards because you don't want to, not because you can't.

Exactly right.

Anyway, unless 6-year-olds have changed a lot since I was one, we didn't know enough about attire to criticize anyone about it to their face. I know I was 12 before anyone made fun of my stuff. My mom had bought me these kind of hideous two-toned (brown and black) shoes, and a kid I was friends with pointed at my shoes in front of a bunch of kids and said, "Them's vaudville shoes!" I've hated people (and two-toned shoes) ever since.

 

You shouldn't be shocked.

Every thread in this section turns political, and men and women who are part of the same business —and, in many ways, have a lot in common — start bashing each other.

Sometimes, I'd like to add my two cents here, but I'm afraid of the thrashing I'd get from people whose posts on other parts of this site I agree with.

 

Jump right in, Hawk.

It's only silly if you can't understand that it's silly.

 

Learn to spell and then we'll talk.

BTW - still on the job till his replacement is confirmed genius.

BTW II - Why am I not surprised that you jumped to the defense of Edwards when he was clearly in the wrong here. Don't "you people" know how to just admit to a mistake and apologize?

 

Chris, what specifically was Edward's mistake?

That one of his volunteers, without his knowledge or permission, took it upon his/herself to make a phone call?

Man, you guys will spin yourself into the fifth dimension.

 

JR - go fuck yourself asshole

 

I love the lecture on just admitting fault and apologizing from a guy who has labeled Rummy a "great American." Maybe you could define irony for us later.

And poindexter, stick to the anti-Muslim stories from obscure newspapers. You're much more adept at making your idiotic points when the only effort you put forth is copying and pasting.

As for the topic at hand, isn't it just possible that the damn volunteer did, in fact, take it upon himself to do this? God forbid we use a little common sense and actually think about this shit for a second. Even if Edwards or his wife had told these people to find the kids a PS3, do you actually believe either of them said, "Call up Wal Mart, let 'em know you're looking for one for the family of the guy who calls their stores evil"? Of course not. Hell, he might've told the workers to find one, but do you actually believe he suggested where they call?

3,000 dead in Iraq, hundreds dying over there every day and this is the shit we're "debating."

 

Dog - assuming for a moment that the volunteer did this all on his own. Do you not see the irony that John Edwards is giving speeches about the evils of Wal-Mart yet his to his own volunteers it is the first place they think of buying something?

The rich trial lawyer Edwards is disconnected even from his own staff.

And we haven't even gotten to the irony that Edwards pretends to like Wendy's because its where him and his wife had their first anniversary dinner together but Wal-Mart is somehow evil? Wal-Mart is a workers paradise compared to Wendy's and the other fast food franchises.

 

And as "I know he is, but what am I?" enters the fray, we say farewell to common sense and drift into the land where Donald Rumsfeld isn't a senile old dolt with blood on his hands and John Edwards is bad, bad, really bad because he doesn't live in a small shoebox in the middle of the road but doesn't think other people should be forced to do so, either.
Cue arguments now about how the Kennedys sholuldn't have talked ever about poverty because they were rich.

 

The Edwards story is amusing in the same way that stories about Hollywood stars arriving at Global Warming summits in SUV's is amusing. I am not surprised for one moment that you either don't get the humor or are too unwilling to get off your high horse to look at it rationally.

(Just one "L" in "shouldn't" BTW)