Still Hating America.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
no. it shows he is full of shit. if he wants to help the poor he could in real time. again it's just how I see it, you don't have to see it that way. I think more people would fall on my side on this one though, so the stories need to continue.

maybe you can get some webcrawlers out there to gather email accounts and start mass mailing your blog cite to people to combat the effect?

You know, he probably doesn't give cash to every homeless person who approaches his car either. Doesn't mean that he's not concerned.

Given what he's doing, choosing to spend his money on his appearance is a good call. He probably can do more good by looking good than not.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You don't have a problem with him tipping a barber $180 for a $20 haircut. That's not about how much he's spending, that's about calling him rich.

So you think I'm the hypocrit. Free country.

I'm assuming a barber who is getting some portion of $20 might need the money, that is, he is part of the "other America."

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I can't read his stuff often because he desperately needs an editor, but his description of this stupid story about Edwards' haircuts is spot-on, particularly re the roles of Mickey Kaus and The New Republic, and the poses they strike as they shovel this shit.

I don't have a problem with him spending anything he likes on his hair. I just thought it was funny because I think he's such a plastic piece of shit.

The man filed hundreds of frivolous lawsuits in his life (statistically, when you sue for a living, to keep what are called "referral lawyers" referring to you, and to keep up cash flow, you can't help but bring many frivolous suits). He's a guy who made a boatload doing something the morality of which is very grey. He's also a prima donna. That's all fine and dandy. Nobody got rich honestly.

But when he goes out and foments class warfare to gin up votes from the classes of people whose envy he's exploited to make himself rich, I don't think making fun of his hair is at all a guilty pleasure.

John Edwards is the worst whore of the bunch, and he ought to be laughed at.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070418/D8OJ2NI80.html

So how much more money does this mean Hillary and Obama get in the next few weeks?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Doesn't mean that he's not concerned.

John Edwards isn't concerned for anything but his own ambition. None of them are, in either party. That's fine. Being a whore is ok. Being a whore and holding yourself out as pristine is not.

People single him out as particularly full of shit becuase he is. Edwards is a bigger plastishit McCandidate than Hillary or McCain or Romney, and those three would sell their children for the office.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
off to Fu.

Seriously, I don't remember commenting much on the Wisconsin case, other than to note that it's exceedingly rare for a federal appeals court to overturn a jury verdict and order the immediate release of a prisoner, and that it seems suspicious that a USA would bring a case with no evidence in an attempt to influence an election and subvert the democratic process, and that Congress has a duty to exercise its oversight function to investigate whether any abuses occurred.

But I think the Lam and Iglesias firings are more egregious. Let's talk about them.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Seriously, I don't remember commenting much on the Wisconsin case, other than to note that it's exceedingly rare for a federal appeals court to overturn a jury verdict and order the immediate release of a prisoner, and that it seems suspicious that a USA would bring a case with no evidence in an attempt to influence an election and subvert the democratic process, and that Congress has a duty to exercise its oversight function to investigate whether any abuses occurred.

But I think the Lam and Iglesias firings are more egregious. Let's talk about them.

ok. Provide a link to the blog cite where you got your opinions then we can engage.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
So how much money can a guy spend on a haircut before you think he's a hypocrite for caring about poverty? And if he's running for office, how much can he spend to have the guy come to him (to save time for his schedule)? Does that money get included in the figure you consider for unquestionable grossness, or is that more like other campaign expenses? If the latter, do discount stories from news outlets that lump the two together, or do you prefer to be less discriminating?

I pose the same question back to you. How much money should a guy be entitled to make before the government decided he's in a different tax bracket?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
ok. Provide a link to the blog cite where you got your opinions then we can engage.

Huh. I formed my opinions after reading news accounts of the matters. Where do you get your opinions?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
John Edwards isn't concerned for anything but his own ambition. None of them are, in either party. That's fine. Being a whore is ok. Being a whore and holding yourself out as pristine is not.

People single him out as particularly full of shit becuase he is. Edwards is a bigger plastishit McCandidate than Hillary or McCain or Romney, and those three would sell their children for the office.

The only friends of mine, both true believers, that worked on campaigns in 2004 went to work for John Edwards. I don't know what his true motivations are, and neither do you. But I do know that he inspired some very smart, very successful people to give up a few months of their lives for him in the very genuine belief that he could help make this country into a better place.

Were they whores? Possibly. Certainly they would have benefited with political appointments had he prevailed as president or vice president. But both of them are very strong idealists, and both have personally achieved rags to riches* success. I think they wouldn't have signed on had they not been convinced that he believed in what he was saying.

I didn't vote for him, and I'm unlikely to vote for him in the future.

*normal definition, not Sebby definition.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
So you think I'm the hypocrit. Free country.

I'm assuming a barber who is getting some portion of $20 might need the money, that is, he is part of the "other America."

Do you have the same problem with fine food and drinks being served at campaign events? I suspect that Councilman Foghorn's staff at the last dinner I went to could have served fries and cheeseburgers instead of the "boeffe tenderloin avec pommes frites," and given the $100 difference in price directly to City Harvest.

Edwards knows all about the "other America." After all, he made his millions filing suits on behalf of them when they were horrifically injured. I wasn't aware, Hank, that your standards for who could speak for the poor were so stringent. I guess that Edwards should be like St. Francis of Assisi, and sell all of his possessions to wander naked in the wilderness to preach the Gospel of the Two Americas. I'm sure that if only he did that, you would listen to him.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
The only friends of mine, both true believers, that worked on campaigns in 2004 went to work for John Edwards. I don't know what his true motivations are, and neither do you. But I do know that he inspired some very smart, very successful people to give up a few months of their lives for him in the very genuine belief that he could help make this country into a better place.

Were they whores? Possibly. Certainly they would have benefited with political appointments had he prevailed as president or vice president. But both of them are very strong idealists, and both have personally achieved rags to riches* success. I think they wouldn't have signed on had they not been convinced that he believed in what he was saying.

I didn't vote for him, and I'm unlikely to vote for him in the future.

*normal definition, not Sebby definition.

I worked in his game for a few years. I know his motivation. He's deluded himself into believing he's a white knight. Nothing's lower than a man who can't admit the grey of what he does for money.

He's very persuasive. I'm not shocked he can create True Believers, and if those believers work in his industry, what he;s preaching is right up a lot of their alleys. George Bush inspired many many smart idealists to follow him. I hardly think that's a basis upon which to judge a politician. It's just part of their business.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
So you think I'm the hypocrit. Free country.

No, I didn't say you're a hypocrite. I said your reason for liking the story doesn't have to do with purported hypocrisy. It's that you like painting him as a guy who gets $200 haircuts.

I find arguing about hypocrisy boring. I've said this before.

I'm assuming a barber who is getting some portion of $20 might need the money, that is, he is part of the "other America."

The hairdresser, too. He works for a living.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I find arguing about hypocrisy boring. I've said this before.

Everybody who wants to believe in either Republicans or Democrats finds it boring. The simple reason is that they're all fucking hypocrites, and nobody wants to admit he's advocating one bag of hypocrisy over another.

You can call me a cynic all you like, but you can't show me one face - save a loon like Kucinich - in the current crop who isn't a Hypocrite and a liar and owned by a corporation.

*Wall St was pouring money into Edwards before the cancer thing. He knows both sides of the aisle when it comes to cash.

[bi-partisanship fairy]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop




The hairdresser, too. He works for a living.

In fairness to Hank and in the spirit of bi-partisanship, pretending that Joseph Torrenueva, owner of an exclusive Beverly Hills hair salon, who commands $400/hour for a haircut is in the same socio-economic class as the average (for sake of argument we will use average) barber is absurd and a gentleman and scholar such as yourself, Tyrone, should be ashamed for not being intellectually and morally honest here.

By the by, a quick (and admittedly imperfect) google survey pulls up an average salary of $19k/year for a barber.

Anecdotally, for what it is worth, I have dined at the home of an average barber and I have dined at Vidal Sassoon's house, and those are two distinct Americas.