Charlie Rose

liyqff  05/23/2011 09:42 PM Report

Hello, everybody, the good shoping place, the new season approaching, click in.

Welcome to http://www.fashion-long-4biz.com

Air Jordan (1-24) shoes $35

UGG BOOT $50

Nike shox (R4, NZ, OZ, TL1, TL2, TL3) $35

Handbags ( Coach Lv fendi D&G) $35

T-shirts (polo, ed hardy, lacoste) $16

Jean (True Religion, ed hardy, coogi)$34

Sunglasses ( Oakey, coach, Gucci, Armaini)$15

New era cap $16

Bikini (Ed hardy, polo) $18

FREE SHIPPING

http://www.fashion-long-4biz.com

http://www.fashion-long-4biz.com

http://www.fashion-long-4biz.com

http://www.fashion-long-4biz.com

http://www.fashion-long-4biz.com

http://www.fashion-long-4biz.com

===?http://www.fashion-long-4biz.com ?===

===? http://www.fashion-long-4biz.com ?===

===?http://www.fashion-long-4biz.com?===

===?http://www.fashion-long-4biz.com?===

===?http://www.fashion-long-4biz.com?===

===? http://www.fashion-long-4biz.com ?===

===? http://www.fashion-long-4biz.com ?===

This is a shopping paradise

We need your support and trust!

=== http://www.fashion-long-4biz.com ===

ajdex  05/21/2010 03:35 PM Report

@Bumpcity

It is disgusting that you would even think to blame Mrs. Edwards in John's affair. I am sure that both of them had their faults but for you to even insinuate that the fault lies with her cancer is pathetic and an insult to cancer patients and lovely women who have been cheated on.

carolyncaraway  05/27/2009 12:27 PM Report

Watching Charlie Rose's interview with Elizabeth Edwards, I am particularly impressed by her authenticity and candid humanness with her struggle to find hope, look beyond pain and find goodness. She is an inspiration. It is obvious she has faced her demons with much courage, bravery, and intelligence. She is deserving of many blessings. I look forward to reading her book.

tartufe  05/17/2009 10:11 PM Report

Afterthought again, didn't the 'other' woman threaten or attempt blackmail for her silence? If so mercenary works.

tartufe  05/17/2009 10:07 PM Report

bumptious - you abruptly switched from "very possible" to fait accompli. "Perhaps" her withdrawal ...."

Besides if your common sense or your doctor can't defuse your 4-hour erection you're too great a security risk to be president. A role in the hay for the code to the black box with the secret decoder ring to 10,000 nukes in our arsenal of folly. And that world-ending indiscretion would be Elizabeth's errant libido's fault?

Here's a counter-conjecture (since they're so easy) perhaps realizing how hollow John was beneath that pompadour, her ardour dissipated in tandem. Or his libido took a powder because of her new deficiencies?

Valid conjecture, sex may be an elephant somewhere, but assigning it to he, she or them is problematical. Indeed its potentially still hovering. Blame will be the last healer if so.

bumpcity  05/17/2009 09:04 AM Report

Although I didn't hear Ms. Edwards admitting to a loss of sexual desire from her breast surgery (removal?) and related cancer treatments I think it's very possible that a loss of libido occurred as a side effect. Her withdrawal from sex, both enjoying and giving, and possibly expressed in very subtle mannerisms opened the door to her husband's affair.

And I think it's wrong for her to assume that the other woman had a mercinary motive in the affair. It's just as reasonable that the other woman acted exclusively from just plainly having a strong sexual appetite which matched John's. It's possible. In my opinion Elizabeth should take some responsibility for John's indiscretion.

myke  05/15/2009 11:48 PM Report

Charlie, Greetings! One of your best works yet: Today's interview with Elizabeth Edwards. By the way, I noticed an essence - a shared fundamental - between the two of you. Might you have been friends before this? She allowed you much. I have been mesmerized by every appearance of Elizabeth Edwards in the media of late. She is bright, audacious, articulate, spiteful, faithless without reckless pursuit; a willful woman of rare elegance (there is no other here, no name will ever be spoken); all of which I find endearing.

Cancer or no, John or not she will have her miracle now that reason has proven an unfailing partner. I wish her well; pronounce her blameless, if not without blemish.

She deigns not venture into the badlands to visit a curse on the poacher and bring demise upon an innocent (David, a man much loved by God suffered no less at the hand of the Almighty).

P.S. To John of stout limb and charitable Christian member: patience is virtue.

JMM  05/15/2009 07:29 PM Report

If we’re looking for social reasons for what happened in the marriage, consider the following.

A mere hundred years ago, the process of divorce was updated in the courts. Although the US took away rights, by banning inter-state divorce, the UK made divorce more affordable. The separation orders that were put into place to “protect women from the cruelty of men” weren’t sufficient. Married women, with children, were simply deserted. Couples were choosing not to marry. And so finally, the reason for divorce was no longer limited to just adultery; grounds were extended to desertion, insanity, and a spouse’s death sentence being commuted to life. At that time, it was decided that men and women were now supposed to be treated equally. The ability, thus option, of divorce is important.

You may reduce marriage to an economic partnership, but it’s not sold that way. I once heard that colors for fashion, interior design, and cars were coordinated for each new season. I’m not sure how that is done, but it would be interesting if people could correlate the social myths that are sold or perpetuated closer to reality. That means attention would have to be given to the coordination of the “idealized life” for both genders. For instance, if it is admirable for men to have a marriage partner and a mistress or partners for casual sex, then by all means, women ought to be considering the old ways, where the woman owns the property, chooses who sleeps there, and as the children are only known to be hers, property and titles is passed down only through her children.

JMM  05/15/2009 07:29 PM Report

If we’re looking for social reasons for what happened in the marriage, consider the following.

A mere hundred years ago, the process of divorce was updated in the courts. Although the US took away rights, by banning inter-state divorce, the UK made divorce more affordable. The separation orders that were put into place to “protect women from the cruelty of men” weren’t sufficient. Married women, with children, were simply deserted. Couples were choosing not to marry. And so finally, the reason for divorce was no longer limited to just adultery; grounds were extended to desertion, insanity, and a spouse’s death sentence being commuted to life. At that time, it was decided that men and women were now supposed to be treated equally. The ability, thus option, of divorce is important.

You may reduce marriage to an economic partnership, but it’s not sold that way. I once heard that colors for fashion, interior design, and cars were coordinated for each new season. I’m not sure how that is done, but it would be interesting if people could correlate the social myths that are sold or perpetuated closer to reality. That means attention would have to be given to the coordination of the “idealized life” for both genders. For instance, if it is admirable for men to have a marriage partner and a mistress or partners for casual sex, then by all means, women ought to be considering the old ways, where the woman owns the property, chooses who sleeps there, and as the children are only known to be hers, property and titles is passed down only through her children.

tartufe  05/15/2009 04:04 PM Report

Another. Clinton falls in this category. As smart as he is his wisdom is (was) a no-show.

tartufe  05/15/2009 03:46 PM Report

An afterthought: are flaming pompadour-over-the-forehead-male vanity ball-busters? They deem themselves so cutesy and irresistible, that god, society and the world's masses will forgive any and all transgressions, from blatantly stupid infidelity to openly marketing a senate seat.

tartufe  05/15/2009 03:35 PM Report

Was this voyeurism instructive? Useful? It was of course melancholy, largely predictive. Maybe serendipitous that John wasn't successful in his bid - as I once desired. Be careful what you wish for, eh? Two characterless presidents back-to-back would have put a cherry on top of our failing empire. Plus his choice of a quisling was appalling. She is decidedly not attractive enough to risk a dog biscuit on, let alone a career and family. Age will do her as much mischief as her scheming, black heart.

charlizecourriers  05/15/2009 03:14 PM Report

Hasn't she heard of gift certificates for the, what's his name, the john in her life?

REMant  05/15/2009 01:55 PM Report

Intriguingly, it has, of course, been, and I think still is, John's focus to bring about the kind of reform discussed in the preceding segment. In any case, his wife wisely divorced her jealousy from the interest of the children. Personally, I think divorce should be prohibited in families with underage children unless there are extenuating circumstances. It seems to me that the same forces, which are destroying the middle class, are destroying the nuclear family. Marriage is primarily an economic relationship, and while it is hard to separate causes of divorce from consequences of it, it seems clear to me that the independent nuclear family is the essence of middle class society, which is not a mere matter of the relative share of the wage pool. For whatever reason one may give, the increased participation of women in the workforce is part and parcel of the rise of a corporate socialism, and simultaneous reduction in the marital relationship to a purely contractual, or even incidental, one. We can probably trace an evolution from tribe to extended family, to nuclear family, to what we might call the contractual family that appears prevalent today. In traditional societies men's and women's spheres are quite separate, as, I think, they are becoming again, along with a change in the relative importance of them. The rise and fall of middle class and nuclear family also coincide with the rise and fall of Protestantism, and from this point of view nothing could be more dysfunctional than Catholicism. Indeed this was among Luther's primary concerns.