http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/08/edwards.affair/index.html
My only comment is, why do something like this now? I realize lots of people cheat on their wives, and politicians probably more than anyone else. But if you are a politician today in this age of media scrutiny, do you honestly expect to get away with it, especially if you just ran for president? If I had been on the ticket as a VP candidate the last election, has run for president this election, and was a VP hopeful, I wouldn't do anything that could get me in trouble or stir up controversy.
So? The chump never had a real shot at the presidency anyhow, what with all the Obama-love being drummed up. I swear, Obama couldn't fulfill all the hype about himself unless he started walking on water & curing the blind.
Sometimes I wonder if Obama has Peter Molyneux on his board.
Sometimes I wonder if Obama has Peter Molyneux on his board.
Strudel Lumpycakes wins the thread! :heehee
You know, I don't see how this is any of our business. The guy screwed up in his private life. That's his problem. I don't really care.
I think what happens in the bedroom isn't really our business. But in Edwards case I think it is revealing. His wife has cancer, and he has projected an image of himself as the family man. Still I don't much care what he does. Others do, and it shows terrible judgment on his part that he would risk so much when he was planning to run for president.
You know, I don't see how this is any of our business. The guy screwed up in his private life. That's his problem. I don't really care.
+1 . By the way, didn't his wife have some sort of cancer? Depending on what it is, that might seriously hurt his sexual life. It would not make what he did ok anyway, not by a long shot, but it would be more understandable imo.
But yes, from a political standpoint it was a stupid thing to do. Still, imo he's far from the worst offender in the field and I hope he could rescue his political career despite that blunder.
+1 . By the way, didn't his wife have some sort of cancer? Depending on what it is, that might seriously hurt his sexual life. It would not make what he did ok anyway, not by a long shot, but it would be more understandable imo.
But yes, from a political standpoint it was a stupid thing to do. Still, imo he's far from the worst offender in the field and I hope he could rescue his political career despite that blunder.
I don't know, having an affair when your wife is dying of cancer, somehow makes it less understandable to me. I mean, she is dying. He can't wait?
"'I Lied. It's Friday. Can I go to Denver now?"
Politicians have a long and honored tradition of cheating on their wives. Its nothing new, nothing exciting, and nothing important. Its about as shocking as water being wet and the sky being blue.
My brother's comment was "If a democrat isn't having an affair, he's doing something wrong."
Another comment I've heard was "At least democrats cheat on their wives with women."
Seriously, though, I can't be bothered to care if he slept with a woman he wasn't married to.
I think the better question is "Who cares?"
Politicians have a long and honored tradition of cheating on their wives. Its nothing new, nothing exciting, and nothing important. Its about as shocking as water being wet and the sky being blue.
My brother's comment was "If a democrat isn't having an affair, he's doing something wrong."
Another comment I've heard was "At least democrats cheat on their wives with women."
Seriously, though, I can't be bothered to care if he slept with a woman he wasn't married to.
Usually I don't care what politicians do. I didn't care that Clinton had an affair while in office (though I do think perjuring himself was worthy of scorn). But in this case, Edwards specifically presented himself as a family man. In such instances, I think it is fair to criticize a politician who demonstrates such hypocrisy. I also think it is fair to question the character of a man who cheats on his wife when she is dying of cancer.
I don't know, having an affair when your wife is dying of cancer, somehow makes it less understandable to me. I mean, she is dying. He can't wait?
She has a terminal illness, but that doesn't mean she'll die today or tomorrow. I think it would be somewhat different if he could not have sex with her for, say, the last year. Again, that's just guesswork, but I could see his point in such a case.
At any rate, it's a tawdry affair, but he's not being the VP nominee so the only ones it should concern are his wife and his family.
Aw man, for a second there I thought you meant John McCain.
I don't know, has he tried to present himself as a family candidate? As if. At least Edwards is still with his first wife.
Strudel Lumpycakes wins the thread! :heehee
+1.
I think the better question is "Who cares?"
Politicians have a long and honored tradition of cheating on their wives. Its nothing new, nothing exciting, and nothing important. Its about as shocking as water being wet and the sky being blue.
My brother's comment was "If a democrat isn't having an affair, he's doing something wrong."
Another comment I've heard was "At least democrats cheat on their wives with women."
Seriously, though, I can't be bothered to care if he slept with a woman he wasn't married to.
Exactly. The only questions that matter are "Will he cut the size of Goverment?" and "Will he help remove laws that trample on American Civil Liberties?" If the answer is no to either of those questions, then he doesn't deserve to be elected.
Exactly. The only question that matters is "What will he do with the power he is invested with".
Fixed for my opinion. Smaller government isn't necessarily better government, YMMV.
Quite frankly, I still think there are much bigger scumbags than Edwards in politics - US or worldwide - but he's not getting the be a VP in 2009, either.
Fixed for my opinion. Smaller government isn't necessarily better government, YMMV..
Fair enough. Though I'd argue that since we can't agree on what we want the goverment to spend money on, the correct answer is for it not to spend it on anything (other than the few common good items, like Roads, Police, Fire, and the like). But I already know I'm a smaller goverment nut.
Quite frankly, I still think there are much bigger scumbags than Edwards in politics - US or worldwide - but he's not getting the be a VP in 2009, either.
One can hope.
The problem is that the media had deliberately kept quiet on the story even during Edward's VP run, enough they, during the same period, they had slimed McCain based on nothing more than an easily-disproven mean-spirted partisan rumor - and made it front page news.
The story here, is the behaviour of outlets like the New York Times, in particular, as well as other news agencies, which displayed such an insanely obvious double-standard, that just proved the point many Republicans (in particular) have maintained all along.
The problem of this story isn't that he had an affair and all that. That's between he and his wife, and mistress, and love-child apparently. Let's face it, Edwards was 'done', politically, as of 2004.
The problem is that the media had deliberately kept quiet on the story even during Edward's VP run, enough they, during the same period, they had slimed McCain based on nothing more than an easily-disproven mean-spirted partisan rumor - and made it front page news.
The story here, is the behaviour of outlets like the New York Times, in particular, as well as other news agencies, which displayed such an insanely obvious double-standard, that just proved the point many Republicans (in particular) have maintained all along.
valid point.
The problem of this story isn't that he had an affair and all that. That's between he and his wife, and mistress, and love-child apparently. Let's face it, Edwards was 'done', politically, as of 2004.
The problem is that the media had deliberately kept quiet on the story even during Edward's VP run, enough they, during the same period, they had slimed McCain based on nothing more than an easily-disproven mean-spirted partisan rumor - and made it front page news.
The story here, is the behaviour of outlets like the New York Times, in particular, as well as other news agencies, which displayed such an insanely obvious double-standard, that just proved the point many Republicans (in particular) have maintained all along.
Would have to agree with you here. Hearing someone shout about the media being biased is dismissable, quite easily, but the media has more or less exposed it's intent quite clearly.
You realize what this means? Every, single, newscaster, even your friend, Brian Williams, is now an enemy of the Republic.
Quite frankly, I still think there are much bigger scumbags than Edwards in politics - US or worldwide - but he's not getting the be a VP in 2009, either.
Most people in politics are scummier than Edwards, which is really kind of sad. Its pretty much downhill from there.
The problem is that the media had deliberately kept quiet on the story even during Edward's VP run, enough they, during the same period, they had slimed McCain based on nothing more than an easily-disproven mean-spirted partisan rumor - and made it front page news.
Not really. The problem is that the story started in the National Enquirer. The media didn't keep quiet on it so much as the wrong people published it first.
The National Enquirer, for those who don't know, is a very trashy tabloid, and tabloids in the US often make stuff up. No tabloid is as awesome as the now-defunct Weekly World News, but the reality is that people are guillible enough they even believe stuff like "Russia plans to blow up moon", the patently absurd; the fact of the matter is that something like the National Enquirer is pretty close to that in terms of crediblity, so the news media at large tends not to pay any attention to it.
In short, who are you going to believe - people who say Opera randomly gained 500 lbs, or people who don't say that?
I'm going to go with the latter, and once the Edwards campaign denied it, the media basically didn't want to look like a bunch of idiots by repeating a story which started in a trashy tabloid.
I might also add that while McCain obviously claims nothing went on, the fact of the matter is that his aides have basically said that they were worried something was going on, and honestly, why would they make it up? Its not like he's not had multiple wives in the past; its nothing particularly new for him.
The story here, is the behaviour of outlets like the New York Times, in particular, as well as other news agencies, which displayed such an insanely obvious double-standard, that just proved the point many Republicans (in particular) have maintained all along.
Reality has a well-known liberal bias. *rolls eyes* In short, the Republicans are pretty much known liars when it comes to media bias. Look at Fox News for what they consider "fair and balanced" to be.
Reality has a well-known liberal bias. *rolls eyes*
Feel free to accredit the person who made the quote, because it really does nothing but hurt your argument when you try to 'borrow' jokes without a nod to it's creator.
In short, the Republicans are pretty much known liars when it comes to media bias. Look at Fox News for what they consider "fair and balanced" to be.
Oh, definitely, Republicans do have one newstation blatantly in their favor. However, Democrats have several who try to hide it. I'm not a real buddy of either, but I damn prefer someone who doesn't dance around it.
Quite frankly, I still think there are much bigger scumbags than Edwards in politics - US or worldwide - but he's not getting the be a VP in 2009, either.
*Cough*Putin*Cough*
*Cough*Mugabe*Cough*
Also, add anyone who wantonly kills their own citizens for no apparent reason. By that, I mean the government killing civilians.
Oh, definitely, Republicans do have one newstation blatantly in their favor. However, Democrats have several who try to hide it. I'm not a real buddy of either, but I damn prefer someone who doesn't dance around it.
Several? I count one - MSNBC. And its nowhere NEAR as bad as Fox is. Of course, its pretty hard to be as bad as Fox, as really, Fox has more in common with TV stations in countries like China.
Oh, definitely, Republicans do have one newstation blatantly in their favor. However, Democrats have several who try to hide it. I'm not a real buddy of either, but I damn prefer someone who doesn't dance around it.
From what I have noticed so far, it's not exactly Republicans vs Democrats but person-for-person. I do not quite say McCain has been slimed - his "straight talk" reputation was created by the media in spite of some policy swerves and imo less then perfect moral record, and is still being maintained by quite a few sources. I did not follow the Republican Primaries closely, but I think Huckabee was treated fairly well as well. Obama, too has had a fairly supportive media so far, maybe for curiosity reasons, and apart from the imo overblown Wright affair, he has little to be unhappy about.
OTOH, Hlllary Clinton's relationship with the press was, to put it mildly, rocky. MSNBC, supposedly a left-leaning media, was ripping into her on a regular basis - arguably with more zeal than they had for McCain. Heck, I think Bill O'Reilly treated her with more respect than Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann, and that is saying something. Giulianni, also, had a bit of a tricky affair with the media - although afaik he had Fox's initial support, some other outlets were less respectful.
Today there is so much money for them no matter what they say or do that they can afford to slough off the veneer of bias. That some people find this offensive, a violation of some imagined noble ideal, simply illustrates that the vast majority of folks are still as clueless and naive as they were when this "media objectivity" dupe was first adopted more than a century ago.
Today there is so much money for them no matter what they say or do that they can afford to slough off the veneer of bias. That some people find this offensive, a violation of some imagined noble ideal, simply illustrates that the vast majority of folks are still as clueless and naive as they were when this "media objectivity" dupe was first adopted more than a century ago.
People really only object when you have 'reporters' like Keith Obermann, Dan Rather, et al, still try to claim to be unbiased. We also know, thanks to the recent CNN and CBS scandals, that several major news outlets will outright lie in order to push their own agenda - again while claiming to be unbiased.
I would much rather listen to a reporter that's honest with his biases (such as either Brit Hume or Shepherd Smith) then listen to one that claims to be 'above' such things while lying to you (Dan Rather, et al).
Oh, and the reason that the media was so against Hillary? Obama was the bigger 'left-wing star', and the MSM want him. Of course, they ALSO really hope that some right-wing radical kills him, too...
Oh, and the reason that the media was so against Hillary? Obama was the bigger 'left-wing star', and the MSM want him.
Of course, the dems have three items on their "to do list" this season:
1. Get out from under the Clinton thumb, finally! Check.
2. Gain more seats in Congress. Can probably check that one off.
3. Regain the White House. Oh, not so fast there, kids...
Of course, they ALSO really hope that some right-wing radical kills him, too...
That's a bit much. Even as president, Obama is the little kid on the playground, and he'll be easy for Dean and the DNC to control.
Of course, the dems have three items on their "to do list" this season:
1. Get out from under the Clinton thumb, finally! Check.
Not entirely sure. I wouldn't count Hillary out, especially if the race turns ugly, more comes out, and Obama loses. (To say nothing of what might happen AFTER he loses).
2. Gain more seats in Congress. Can probably check that one off.
I think they're more vulnerable than they realize. While it's true that Kennedy, Pelosi, Reid, etc, are all not going anywhere, having a nine-percent approval rating for a Democrat Congress isn't going to go over well. The Democrats are very vulnerable (particularly if you throw drilling into the mix), but I doubt Republicans would be able to capitalize.
3. Regain the White House. Oh, not so fast there, kids...
I don't see Obama winning. It's possible, I suppose, but it would mean a HUGE turnout of 'voters' (early 20-somethings, college students, etc) that have, historically, just not voted. Ask Kerry, Dean, and Gore how well that worked out for them.
That's a bit much. Even as president, Obama is the little kid on the playground, and he'll be easy for Dean and the DNC to control.
Ah, but I said the 'MSM' not the 'DNC'. The MSM will want the mega-story that fits their overall biases and narrative. An assassinated Obama would make a 'racial martyr' that will fill made-for-TV movies for the next 30 years... another Kennedy, with a racist angle to boot.
Ah, but I said the 'MSM' not the 'DNC'.
Fair enough. It's the same gang of kids, but each has their own agenda, true.
People really only object when you have 'reporters' like Keith Obermann, Dan Rather, et al, still try to claim to be unbiased. We also know, thanks to the recent CNN and CBS scandals, that several major news outlets will outright lie in order to push their own agenda - again while claiming to be unbiased.
Its funny how you say those, but compared to Fox, what they did is nothing.
And in reality, Dan Rather got screwed.
You know what's funny?
Much as everyone hit those documents... no one ever proved them to be forgeries. They simply could not validate their authenticity.
Now, do I think they're real? I don't know. I do know Bush skipped out on National Guard duty, but I don't know that there's evidence supporting the authenticity of those documents.
It doesn't really matter, though, as the fact remains that Bush dodged the draft, then skipped out on National Guard duty as well, which we knew prior to those documents.
I would much rather listen to a reporter that's honest with his biases (such as either Brit Hume or Shepherd Smith) then listen to one that claims to be 'above' such things while lying to you (Dan Rather, et al).
Except Fox News claims to be fair and balanced. They DON'T admit they're a propaganda outlet.
Oh, and the reason that the media was so against Hillary? Obama was the bigger 'left-wing star', and the MSM want him. Of course, they ALSO really hope that some right-wing radical kills him, too...
Its because that's the story they wanted to tell.
I think they're more vulnerable than they realize. While it's true that Kennedy, Pelosi, Reid, etc, are all not going anywhere, having a nine-percent approval rating for a Democrat Congress isn't going to go over well. The Democrats are very vulnerable (particularly if you throw drilling into the mix), but I doubt Republicans would be able to capitalize.
Anyone who thinks that the Congressional approval rating is meaningful is kidding themselves, and in reality, its bad for the Republicans, because they're percieved as being in control.
I would LIKE to say that that was one of the most rediculous assertions I've read on these forums in all my time here - - - but I've seen your other posts.
Dan Rather got screwed? Dan Rather, the poster-child for media bias in the last 20 years?
I would LIKE to say that that was one of the most rediculous assertions I've read on these forums in all my time here - - - but I've seen your other posts.
I was referring to that specific instance.
I was referring to that specific instance.
You do realize that every single assertion you made about that was wrong. In fact, Dr Cox would like a word with you.
You do realize that every single assertion you made about that was wrong. In fact, Dr Cox would like a word with you.
Clearly not, as you were unable to refute any of it, and instead resorted to plugging your ears and yelling.
People really only object when you have 'reporters' like Keith Obermann, Dan Rather, et al, still try to claim to be unbiased. We also know, thanks to the recent CNN and CBS scandals, that several major news outlets will outright lie in order to push their own agenda - again while claiming to be unbiased.
I would much rather listen to a reporter that's honest with his biases (such as either Brit Hume or Shepherd Smith) then listen to one that claims to be 'above' such things while lying to you (Dan Rather, et al).
Suit yourself; I would prefer a network that, if it finds someone is biased, actually tries to do something to rectify it than one that seems to think having reporters admit their bias is fine.
Oh, and the reason that the media was so against Hillary? Obama was the bigger 'left-wing star', and the MSM want him. Of course, they ALSO really hope that some right-wing radical kills him, too...
Oh, right. Well, it would sell, but in the long term having an African-American president might be a more interesting story, so I doubt they are hoping someone kills him just yet.
Of course, the same logic may apply for their relatively supportive attitude towards McCain - and there are still a lot more journalists who continue to say how deep down he's a great, straight-talk honest guy and wonder why he is acting like he is. I guess having a guy his age and with a propensity of verbal blunders that nearly rivals Bush would be great for them - they can count on him providing fresh comedy material at least once per week.
Of course, the same logic may apply for their relatively supportive attitude towards McCain - and there are still a lot more journalists who continue to say how deep down he's a great, straight-talk honest guy and wonder why he is acting like he is. I guess having a guy his age and with a propensity of verbal blunders that nearly rivals Bush would be great for them - they can count on him providing fresh comedy material at least once per week.
I'm sorry, but saying that McCain has anywhere close to the amount of support to even be in the same league as Obama's Support is absolutely ridiculous.
Clearly not, as you were unable to refute any of it, and instead resorted to plugging your ears and yelling.
No, I resorted to mocking you. As you clearly are incapable of discussion. So I decided to have some fun instead.
Suit yourself; I would prefer a network that, if it finds someone is biased, actually tries to do something to rectify it than one that seems to think having reporters admit their bias is fine.
That's just the thing though.. everyone is bias in some capacity. There's no such thing as a purely objective human. I would much rather a reporter, of any stripe, be up front about where they're coming from than try to cipher it or pretend that they're sticking to fact-based reporting.
If I see a story from, say, Shephard Smith, I know that he has a moderately-right-wing bent and can cipher accordingly with ease. That, to me, is far more useful than trying to figure out what level of bias, or outright BS, a New York Times reporter is giving as they pretend not to be bias.
Of course, the same logic may apply for their relatively supportive attitude towards McCain - and there are still a lot more journalists who continue to say how deep down he's a great, straight-talk honest guy and wonder why he is acting like he is.
McCain was the media darling for being an Anti-Bush Republican for the last decade... but he was pushed aside for 'Obama' pretty quickly. Now that Obama is losing his sheen and losing polls left and right, SOME in the press are going back to the 'devil they know'.
Yes, cheating on his wife, his very sick wife, is wrong. Liberals being depraved and amoral, gee, what a shocker..
But the fact that the media was focusing on him, and not digging into Obama's past to criminalize him. (And I'm not talking about him not standing up for the pledge of alleigence, I'm talking about him joining radical organizations like the black panthers and American communist party) Only shows that the new world order wants to keep you distracted with the irrelevant.
That whole fiasco sickened me. It was worthless to the political system. John Edwards is a nobody, and the Ilumminati knows it.
Wait. Are you speaking for the Illuminati?
Are you a member of the Illuminati?
I am part of a secret society, but not The Illumminati.
And because I like to point out the obvious and repeat trendy sayings.
This thread just jumped the shark.
If goblin_pride can do it then I can do it too.