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

[Birdzeye]

The fact I am right is all the validity required.

That you have to shout it out with large fonts doesn't make you're right (it doesn't ), nor does it impart any validity to your argument.

[Hobbit]

And large fonts don't add validity either.

Let me see if I can explain this in a way you can understand.

First off, let's start with the old adage, "Actions speak louder than words." Now that we have that out of the way, let's examine what Edwards is doing.

Edwards has taken it upon himself to cure poverty. Now, he could do like many churches and philothropists do and give away even small chunks of his MASSIVE fortune (which, by the way, he got by falsely accusing doctors of being the sole cause of cerebral palsey) to things like homeless shelters and soup kitchens. Instead, he spends his MASSIVE fortune on MASSIVE houses, MASSIVE cars, and MASSIVE investments. There's nothing wrong with that, but if he keeps all of his money, then how does he help the poor? Well, he goes around telling other people to help the poor. He asks people who have but a tiny fraction of what he has to give away more than he has to help the poor. Not only that, but he advocates that the government forcably take away what those people have and give it to the poor. Well, surely if he's truly advocating that those who make far less money than him give so much of it away, then he must surely be giving his time to help the poor, right? Wrong! He charges a MASSIVE fee for each of his appearances. If, instead of speaking, he told them to give that money away or if he gave the money away to the poor, like he's telling other people that they have a moral obligation to do, then the money he collects from a single appearance would accomodate a family of four in a lower-middle class lifestyle for an entire year. Instead, though Edwards just takes the money and spends it on MASSIVE haircuts and MASSIVE face lifts. It's a simply matter of "Do as I say, not as I do." If Edwards really believed what he was telling people, rather than just trying to get votes from the poor, then he would either not charge for his appearances or he would give them to the poor.........MASSIVE

[lily]

The fact I am right is all the validity required.

Well.....I don't know about anyone else, but that extremely informative and insightful reply convinced me!

[Birdzeye]

Let me see if I can explain this in a way you can understand.

First off, let's start with the old adage, "Actions speak louder than words." Now that we have that out of the way, let's examine what Edwards is doing.

Edwards has taken it upon himself to cure poverty. Now, he could do like many churches and philothropists do and give away even small chunks of his MASSIVE fortune (which, by the way, he got by falsely accusing doctors of being the sole cause of cerebral palsey) to things like homeless shelters and soup kitchens. Instead, he spends his MASSIVE fortune on MASSIVE houses, MASSIVE cars, and MASSIVE investments. There's nothing wrong with that, but if he keeps all of his money, then how does he help the poor? Well, he goes around telling other people to help the poor. He asks people who have but a tiny fraction of what he has to give away more than he has to help the poor. Not only that, but he advocates that the government forcably take away what those people have and give it to the poor. Well, surely if he's truly advocating that those who make far less money than him give so much of it away, then he must surely be giving his time to help the poor, right? Wrong! He charges a MASSIVE fee for each of his appearances. If, instead of speaking, he told them to give that money away or if he gave the money away to the poor, like he's telling other people that they have a moral obligation to do, then the money he collects from a single appearance would accomodate a family of four in a lower-middle class lifestyle for an entire year. Instead, though Edwards just takes the money and spends it on MASSIVE haircuts and MASSIVE face lifts. It's a simply matter of "Do as I say, not as I do." If Edwards really believed what he was telling people, rather than just trying to get votes from the poor, then he would either not charge for his appearances or he would give them to the poor.........MASSIVE

You too, eh? Why don't you try making sense instead of abusing those large fonts?

[darin]

You too, eh? Why don't you try making sense instead of abusing those large fonts?

Try addressing his Very well-thought-out comments instead of nit-picking on his font. Substance, ya know?

[Hobbit]

You too, eh? Why don't you try making sense instead of abusing those large fonts?

It was a stab at adding humor to the post. If you'd care to read it instead of criticize the font, maybe you'd get the point.

[Birdzeye]

It was a stab at adding humor to the post. If you'd care to read it instead of criticize the font, maybe you'd get the point.

I don't think you're ready for the Comedy Club.

[Abbey Marie]

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, who as a Democratic presidential candidate 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

If these fees were paid by the University, then Edwards took and pocketed $55,000 that could have been used for scholarships for the poor to attend- the very thing he was supposedly trying to achieve by his speech. It's always up to someone else (cough: taxpayers :cough) to help, though, isn't it? Johnny is damn sure getting his. Quintessentially hypocritical.

[Hobbit]

I don't think you're ready for the Comedy Club.

If I change the font back to normal size on all words, will you read the post and address the points rather than critique the format, or do you realize that there's no defending this and you're just dodging the question?

[Birdzeye]

Try addressing his Very well-thought-out comments instead of nit-picking on his font. Substance, ya know?

Prefaced with the snide "Let me see if I can explain this in a way you can understand."

When someone posts that crap, one has to question whether the poster has any interest in serious discussion.

[loosecannon]

Johnny is damn sure getting his. Quintessentially hypocritical.

anybody who makes a million dollars in a year is damned sure getting theirs in an inherently unfair and socially irresponsible way.

But examining this thread one would think that only Edwards greed is objectionable.

Guilianni charges universities 3 times as much. No prob.

Guys make 200 times that ammount/year to chase a ball, no prob.

Lee raymond took a $400 million retirement package, no prob.

EVERY presidential candidate needs to be on a continual circuit making similarly profitable presentations to afford the campaign, no prob.

The school INVITED Edwards to speak at that price, no prob.

But Edwards is a problem, even at bargain rates, because he chooses to use that venue to discuss poverty, after he is invited to do so.

Could ya'll be any more shallow and self serving in your selective judgements?

[loosecannon]

do you realize that there's no defending this and you're just dodging the question?

I think your position is indefensible. And hypocritical, and ironic.

[Birdzeye]

anybody who makes a million dollars in a year is damned sure getting theirs in an inherently unfair and socially irresponsible way.

But examining this thread one would think that only Edwards greed is objectionable.

Guilianni charges universities 3 times as much. No prob.

Guys make 200 times that ammount/year to chase a ball, no prob.

Lee raymond took a $400 million retirement package, no prob.

EVERY presidential candidate needs to be on a continual circuit making similarly profitable presentations to afford the campaign, no prob.

The school INVITED Edwards to speak at that price, no prob.

But Edwards is a problem, even at bargain rates, because he chooses to use that venue to discuss poverty, after he is invited to do so.

Could ya'll be any more shallow and self serving in your selective judgements?

[darin]

Prefaced with the snide "Let me see if I can explain this in a way you can understand."

When someone posts that crap, one has to question whether the poster has any interest in serious discussion.

Likewise, when I have to use snide remarks to focus your and others' attention 'on the point', I wonder if you guys have ANY real interest in anything but stirring the proverbial pot.

See how that works?

[Abbey Marie]

anybody who makes a million dollars in a year is damned sure getting theirs in an inherently unfair and socially irresponsible way.

But examining this thread one would think that only Edwards greed is objectionable.

Guilianni charges universities 3 times as much. No prob.

Guys make 200 times that ammount/year to chase a ball, no prob.

Lee raymond took a $400 million retirement package, no prob.

EVERY presidential candidate needs to be on a continual circuit making similarly profitable presentations to afford the campaign, no prob.

The school INVITED Edwards to speak at that price, no prob.

But Edwards is a problem, even at bargain rates, because he chooses to use that venue to discuss poverty, after he is invited to do so.

Could ya'll be any more shallow and self serving in your selective judgements?

If anyone, including Giuliani, charged that much to discuss reducing poverty, I'd criticize him, too. The 'poverty' topic is what makes our "judgments" re: Edwards' hypocrisy far from selective, and actually right on target. The question is, why do you refuse to understand it?

How about addressing my point that he took money that could have been used for scholarships for the poor?