But i have to defend John Edwards because this is ridiculous. Yes i understand the argument that he's the one who had the "two America's" statement, but that doesn't make him a hypocrite. Lets not attack people for being successful.
Sitting on 102 secluded acres — surrounded by trees and defended by no-trespassing signs — the 28,000-square-foot estate that Edwards and his family call home has presidential privacy.
CONTINUED
Now if you want to attack him for THIS I'm with you.
7 comments:
Rhino I am not sure about this, because on one hand they ALL have lavish homes. But on the other, its a hell of a statement about consumption. "Over the top" says the neighbor.
I have had the argument many times about if its wrong to be a wealthy hippie. To talk about consumption and be consumptive...I think simple living as a value does mean some practicing what one preaches, but simple living is in the eye of the beholder. I know some people whose idea of simple is pretty damn lavish. Eco-yuppies? Edwards is not advocating simple living. So...people have the right to self determine their materialism I guess?
Sure, part of his message is about poverty. But part of America is also about mobility. Damn I just dont know.Damn you Rhino!
Regarding the bloggers:
I think we put out there what we put out there and are often judged accordingly. If we put our names to an opinion (post, whatever) I suppose we have to stand by our words...I personally am not into having an employer google my real name and see drunk MySPace rants. People need to get with reality, most staffers google.Watch your online ass.
I dont see why people want them fired though? They do not even represent the views of Edwards necessarily...they are views as private citizens. On their own blogs.
i don't care if they get fired or not but the attack seems reasonable in todays political environment.
As far as consumption is concerned. I don't think he represents himself as a hippie, but i honestly don't follow him too much so i don't know if he's going to claim to be a tree hugger to appeal to the green whacko's like yourself. I guess we'll have to wait and see. Either way he doesn't stand a chance of winning the dem. nomination so i guess it won't matter.
Well what Im saying is that if he isnt talking about consumption, why is his consumption an issue?
You dont have to be poor to talk about poverty. And singling him out when they all have huge homes is kind of stupid. Like people talked about the Heinze money as though Dubya was a working stiff.
It stupid.
You think the attack was reasonable? I think attacking people for their own views is ok. Expected.
But attacking Edwards for what employees say? Do you think candidates should be held responsible?
I posted it in forums to see what people at TBR think, many read Shake's Sis and Pandagon blogs. I'm curious about this question.
If people choose not to be anonymous I guess they better think and buy into what they post if they have high hopes.
I think attacking him for NOT firing them is ok. He's got people working for him who are clearly anti religion. So if he wants to pander to any of that base, which he will by pretending to go to black churches etc. then he should have let them go.
Personally i wouldn't fire someone for expressing their views or offending anyone because i believe in free speech, but we both know that if they had said something that offended black people or gays, or if they had questioned global warming or whatever they would be out on the street.
It's always a double standard with politicians. you can offend the wasp, but don't dare offend any of the "victims"
In any case their views dont have to represent his. I have lots of crazy views and they dont pertain to my employer and neither do your crazier views.
I think if you use your name and blogging to get a job, then your behavior is fair game. But I dont think he should have let them go. He should have just said "opinions expressed by employees are their own". Or something.
There is a huge difference between how many of us conduct ourselves online and how we are in a political environment.
Im trying to think of an example of the reverse though, what you said. Im drawing a blank though.
Its probably advisable that all political campaigns have a policy prohibitting staff and blogging. The smallest companies fire people for it so its not inconceivable.
I have read cases where companies have fired bloggers because they blogged about privileged info or it pertained to their jobs or hurt business..but I have not seen a case where just blogging itself is outright banned-totally. Its freedom of speech. Would that hold? Now if you project an image thats at odds with a company or role, maybe. Like if a teacher posts nude drunk wet t shirt pictures for students to find googling her. Something like that.
But blogging should not be taken lightly by people. If you shoot your mouth off or your fingers then people have the right to form opinions about you based on how you conduct yourself.
And you take what you get. Sure he should keep them but people have the right to form whatever conclusions thay want about it, people can and will criticize whatever they like.
Post a Comment