ADDED: Let me front-page something Clyde said in the comments to yesterday's post noting the death of Elizabeth Edwards:
This is probably an inappropriate question, but if as some have speculated, she knew the end was near and stopped taking the drugs: Did she decide to check out in December before the Death Tax kicks back in in 2011? Dying before January would be very lucrative for heirs, as opposed to hanging on until January 1st and having her estate get slammed with a 55% tax (or I think 35% if the deal Obama made with the Republicans goes through)...AND: Irene said:
Rich people like Elizabeth Edwards plan for death, and their lawyers draft dispositions that minimize the impact of the estate tax. She knew she was dying, and she probably had a plan that gave a good chunk to charity. She also had plenty of warning since her initial diagnosis, and she could take advantage of making lifetime gifts to her children.I didn't realize they were still married. Did they stay married as a tax-planning scheme?
If she didn't plan, then everything passes to John Edwards without any tax implications. They're still married, and there is an unlimited marital deduction for spouses.
Posts
211 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 211 of 211On a happier note, I read that the Lockerbie bomber is getting ready to croak in Libya. And I suspect that we can all hold hands, sing "Kumbayah" and agree that it will be a good thing when he dies.
None of that "no man is an island" bullshit when a terrorist bites it.
HdHouse: in case you run out of definitions for evil,....well look therein.
Yes, its "evil" to have less sympathy for Elizabeth because she lied and used her disease as a political prop to shield John.
The attacks by you libtards are hysterical - you whine about us being vile and evil, but you can't point to a post as an example, and then you are vile and evil about it.
HdHouse: John and Elizabeth Edwards have proven themselves the perfect match. On the one hand, you've got a lying, hypocritical, power-hungry narcissist. And then there's her husband.
Stay classy, Libtard...
Yes, its "evil" to have less sympathy for Elizabeth because she lied and used her disease as a political prop to shield John.
1. No expression of emotion, whether positive or negative, is required.
2. Lied about what? Elizabeth had cancer; the cancer killed her.
3. How did her cancer shield John?
4. From what did her cancer shield John?
Synonym to Fen:
swamp
Fen wrote:
Everyone who wants to ignore her role in the scam because she had cancer.
What exact role did she play in the scam? What did she know and when did she know it? If in fact she knew early on and allowed it to go forward (the affair that is) and she was ok with it, then what business is it of yours? So he had an affair and his wife said she dind't want it to get out into the public. If she is able to deal with it internally why can't you?
I think by then the self-destruct button is long gone. Thats the hole in your argument - you claim she was motivated to save a family that was already destroyed.
I don't ultmitately know the degree to which Elizabeth was aware of her husbands infidelities and when she knew and how involved she was in the "coverup". And you aren't that aware either. But if your assertion is that she was aware from the getgo, then again, what is the beef? It's her marriage she's trying to protect. She's the wronged party, and if she is STILL trying to protect the relationship, then ultimately where is the harm and why are you so adamant about slamming her for behaving privately in a private matter about a relationship you have no knowledge of and have no control over. Get out of their bedroom.
>br?
Who said her family was destroyed? Until the Enquirer basically outed Edwards, her family was getting along quite nicely. Now, noone is privy to the conversations amongst Elizabeth and John as to what would happen after the presidency (ie she may put on a happy face but say she'll never speak to him again when they're alone for example), but they were stil married when the scandal blew up. So then, really, the only person saying their family was destroyed is YOU. Why are you determining the success or failure of their family or what they dynamic of that family must consist of? In France, husbands often have mistresses, and the wives attitude is, have your mistress, but don't let it get out and embarass me. If people are having affairs under that type of arrangement and the wife is ok with it, then isn't that really the end of the story? And note, you're damning Elizabeth Edwards because she supposedly knew that Edwards was having an affair. Ok, so if she knew and didn't rat out the bastard, then isn't she in fact ok with it, at least outwardly? Then where's the scandal and coverup? You are not married to either party, so the fact that you think Elizabeth should tell you about her husbands affair is irrelevant.
Also, POTUS belongs to the nation, he serves us. Not his family.
Bullshit. The president still has a first wife. He doenst give up his family because he's president.
Fen wrote:
Everyone who wants to ignore her role in the scam because she had cancer.
What exact role did she play in the scam? What did she know and when did she know it? If in fact she knew early on and allowed it to go forward (the affair that is) and she was ok with it, then what business is it of yours? So he had an affair and his wife said she dind't want it to get out into the public. If she is able to deal with it internally why can't you?
I think by then the self-destruct button is long gone. Thats the hole in your argument - you claim she was motivated to save a family that was already destroyed.
I don't ultmitately know the degree to which Elizabeth was aware of her husbands infidelities and when she knew and how involved she was in the "coverup". And you aren't that aware either. But if your assertion is that she was aware from the getgo, then again, what is the beef? It's her marriage she's trying to protect. She's the wronged party, and if she is STILL trying to protect the relationship, then ultimately where is the harm and why are you so adamant about slamming her for behaving privately in a private matter about a relationship you have no knowledge of and have no control over. Get out of their bedroom.
>br?
Who said her family was destroyed? Until the Enquirer basically outed Edwards, her family was getting along quite nicely. Now, noone is privy to the conversations amongst Elizabeth and John as to what would happen after the presidency (ie she may put on a happy face but say she'll never speak to him again when they're alone for example), but they were stil married when the scandal blew up. So then, really, the only person saying their family was destroyed is YOU. Why are you determining the success or failure of their family or what they dynamic of that family must consist of? In France, husbands often have mistresses, and the wives attitude is, have your mistress, but don't let it get out and embarass me. If people are having affairs under that type of arrangement and the wife is ok with it, then isn't that really the end of the story? And note, you're damning Elizabeth Edwards because she supposedly knew that Edwards was having an affair. Ok, so if she knew and didn't rat out the bastard, then isn't she in fact ok with it, at least outwardly? Then where's the scandal and coverup? You are not married to either party, so the fact that you think Elizabeth should tell you about her husbands affair is irrelevant.
Also, POTUS belongs to the nation, he serves us. Not his family.
Bullshit. The president still has a first wife. He doenst give up his family because he's president.
"She had 3 beautiful children, only one of whom died young. "
Wow - she's doing great for an impoverished Rwandan!
Fen wrote:
Why? Because someone of us aren't showing what you deem is the proper level of sympathy? For a woman who already used that sympathy once to manipulate PR for her husband?
How did she manipulate sympathy to manipulate PR for her husband? Be specific. If she had cancer, how should she have had dealt with that so as to not manipulate PR for her husband? If her son died how should she have dealt with that so as to not manipulate PR for her husband? Those are simply things that happened.
Fen wrote:
Yes, its "evil" to have less sympathy for Elizabeth because she lied and used her disease as a political prop to shield John.
The attacks by you libtards are hysterical - you whine about us being vile and evil, but you can't point to a post as an example, and then you are vile and evil about it.
You are viciuosly rude and insinuate that the woman dying of cancer is somehow manipluating PR for her husband in a lying fashion to get her husband elected, is using the death of her son in a cynical fashion to help her get her husband elected, and say you have less sympathy and then get mad that we are suggesting you are behaving like an ASSHOLE. Sorry, you're behaving like an ASSHOLE. Then Althouse makes the utterly asinine argument that we should have less sympathy for her because her husband had a big cokc and she was successful. and only lost ONE son (which she then cynically used to get her husband elected). You lose one son, and then tell me how it feels. That's just extremely callous, and we're calling you on it. Yes, you can apply any amount of sympathy you ant to any person you want for any reason, but we similarly can you you uncivil and callous for doing so.
And those insinuations you're making are not in fact neutral statement. Please back them up. If she had cancer, she had cancer. I could see if she lied about having cancer you could say she was being duplicitious, but should she lie and say she doesn't have cancer so as to not give her husband an advantage? That's simply a given. Any sympathy generated is from the person who will give them sympathy. And if they find that her having cancer is sympathetic, well then there you go.And if she has cancer and her son dies, those aren't non real events. And will tend to generate sympathy naturally, because most people naturlaly are sympathetic to people who's son died.
Cite?
Because your paraphrasing is atrocious. You need to learn to quote the text you are criticizing. You're making up stuff about what people here actually said.
Post a Comment