Edwards is having an affair?

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

So you are sure it didn't happen?

Happened or not, Enquirer will NEVER be a "good source."

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

So you are sure it didn't happen?

Yeah, About as sure as I am that Cheney is not a robot and that bat boy never led anyone on a police chase in a stolen mini cooper.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Yeah, About as sure as I am that Cheney is not a robot and that bat boy never led anyone on a police chase in a stolen mini cooper.

The Enquirer wrote those stories???? Or are you channeling your skepticism to an unrelated newspaper because you so desperately want to love the Golden Boy who has really never done anything politically worthwhile?

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

The Enquirer wrote those stories???? Or are you channeling your skepticism to an unrelated newspaper because you so desperately want to love the Golden Boy who has really never done anything politically worthwhile?

It's funny that you and people like you hate this "golden boy" who has "really never done anything politically worthwhile" so much that you'd take this story and wait on pins and needles for the outcome...hoping Edwards is indeed a typical man and has cheated.

I am trying to figure out why this is even a story to begin with.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

The Enquirer wrote those stories???? Or are you channeling your skepticism to an unrelated newspaper because you so desperately want to love the Golden Boy who has really never done anything politically worthwhile?

Weekly World News, what's the difference? Neither one are credible sources. They are supermarket rags that print stories on "celebrity celluite!" OMG! Seriously, this stuff is a joke. These sources are so utterly laughable, I can't believe anyone other than those with double digit IQ's would give it even a second glance. Please come back to reality. Stop reading supermarket tabliods. They are rotting your brain.

It's YOU that wants to believe it's true despite the fact that the only source reporting it has no credibility whatsoever.

[7960]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Look it must be true! It's the weekly world news and they have a picture!!!

I'm not sure why we're posting things not reported by the enquirer but here's another "bad source"

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by 7960

I'm not sure why we're posting things not reported by the enquirer but here's another "bad source"


http://www.americanheritage.com/assets/images/articles/web/20070118-Drudge-Report.jpg[/IMG]

You keep beating that same dead horse "OMG LEWINSKY"...the differences are vast. There wasn't ONE place reporting the Clinton stuff...there were several. There was also Linda Tripp and tapes.

Also, if I recall correctly, Drudge didn't really "break" the story. It was Time or Newsweek or someone who already knew the story and was sitting on it.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by 7960

I'm not sure why we're posting things not reported by the enquirer but here's another "bad source"

So if you just want to use any old source, I will quote jim in accounting who said it wasn't true. He is just as credible if not more so than the Enquirer. I will also cite myself. I said it wasn't true.
What's the difference? You found one article in a notoriously unreliable celebrity gossip supermarket rag of a newspaper and suddenly it's true.. it's true because you like what it says, regardless of the fact that it has no credibility. You can believe it if you wan't I guess, but forgive me if I laugh out loud when you cite them as your source.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

You keep beating that same dead horse "OMG LEWINSKY"...the differences are vast. There wasn't ONE place reporting the Clinton stuff...there were several. There was also Linda Tripp and tapes.

Also, if I recall correctly, Drudge didn't really "break" the story. It was Time or Newsweek or someone who already knew the story and was sitting on it.

Drudge has no journalistic integrity. They print stories before they can verify them. Sometimes they will get it right and sometimes they will get it wrong. In either case, thier story has no credibility untill it's corroborated by other sources who have taken the time to verify.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

You keep beating that same dead horse "OMG LEWINSKY"...the differences are vast. There wasn't ONE place reporting the Clinton stuff...there were several. There was also Linda Tripp and tapes.

all of that was unknown to drudge when he reported it.

[7960]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

So if you just want to use any old source, I will quote jim in accounting who said it wasn't true. He is just as credible if not more so than the Enquirer. I will also cite myself. I said it wasn't true.
What's the difference? You found one article in a notoriously unreliable celebrity gossip supermarket rag of a newspaper and suddenly it's true.. it's true because you like what it says, regardless of the fact that it has no credibility. You can believe it if you wan't I guess, but forgive me if I laugh out loud when you cite them as your source.

it'll make it that much more sweet when he gives his "I'm sorry" speech

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by 7960

all of that was unknown to drudge when he reported it.

What? Drudge isn't a reporter. A REPORTER already had the story ready to print. He put out a rumor he heard. Nothing more.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

What? Drudge isn't a reporter. A REPORTER already had the story ready to print. He put out a rumor he heard. Nothing more.

All you're really saying is that the media has a history of covering up affairs for top Democratic officials. The media has been acting sketchy with Edwards and doesn't seem to have any desire to investigate. If it had been a top GOP official like Guilianni do you think they'd be responding the same way?

The photo the Enquirer released is garbage. But, if I recall correctly Edwards was at the hotel, he was in somebody else's room, and it was very late at night. Whether he was in her room having an affair is still open for question, but that would be enough to piss off my gf.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by JaJae

All you're really saying is that the media has a history of covering up affairs for top Democratic officials.

No, no I am not saying that at all. The fact of the matter is that the story was ready to print in the next issue. Those magazines don't print daily. Someone leaked to Drudge the story was coming...he put it out. That has nothing to do with Democrat, Republican or cover-up.

Originally Posted by JaJae

The media has been acting sketchy with Edwards and doesn't seem to have any desire to investigate. If it had been a top GOP official like Guilianni do you think they'd be responding the same way?

Rudy DID have affairs and frankly, I didn't hear enough about it to remember it. Could it also be possible that the media sees that this story is complete bullshit and refuses to print anything about it because it is complete bullshit? Also...just because they don't put anything out doesn't mean they haven't investigated.

Originally Posted by JaJae

The photo the Enquirer released is garbage. But, if I recall correctly Edwards was at the hotel, he was in somebody else's room, and it was very late at night. Whether he was in her room having an affair is still open for question, but that would be enough to piss off my gf.

So the photo is complete garbage but the story isn't? Why?

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by 7960

it'll make it that much more sweet when he gives his "I'm sorry" speech

I won't be holding my breath waiting for that.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by JaJae

The photo the Enquirer released is garbage. But, if I recall correctly Edwards was at the hotel, he was in somebody else's room, and it was very late at night. Whether he was in her room having an affair is still open for question, but that would be enough to piss off my gf.

Comparison is invalid. I don't know you but I don't think you were a Senator, VP candidate and Presidential Candidate and wants to eradicate poverty....stuff like that probably means a lot of late night meetings, believe it or not people can be in hotel rooms for reasons other than sex. It could of just been a convenient and comfortable place to discuss business at night.

I don't know why he was there, but we can't forget the context.

[lew]

It's true



ABC News: Edwards Admits to Sexual Affair; Lied as Presidential Candidate

[lew]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Dude come on. The enquirer? NExt thing you are going to tell us is that the Bat Boy appeared in the smoke of the WTC and Bush has an alien baby with Nancy Reagan.

If it's true?

Hey Bush just fucked his dog in the ass. If that's true, is he done?

Well of course he would be done IF it were true.

For the record, his campaign is already done : mamoru: He stands no chance.

Originally Posted by Scrum

The enquirer as a source?


Really?

Originally Posted by SoFlaJDM

this has to be an all time low

Originally Posted by David Octavius

It is your bias, you must know that the credibility of that publication is suspect at best, for god sakes it's on the grocery checkout counter next to soap magazines.

Just because you may not like a person or really believe he is a certain way doesn't make him so. I don't like Ann Coulter but you don't see me posting stuff about her adams apple and rumors she is a tranny - as much as I would find that hilarious.

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Those people are stupid. Don't be like them.

Originally Posted by David Octavius

First of all you guys are acting like it is proven he did something..umm the "source" is the National Fucking Enquirer! That proves nothing, not even the possibility that he may of cheated..are you conservatives so desperate to make liberals look bad that you stoop to this level??

I guess you have too since so called conservatives have become so corrupt and inept that it's embarrassing for you guys to talk about them regarding issues so the only way to support your guys is to bash the other side.

Originally Posted by Scrum

Or it's a bullshit story by a tabloid.

Originally Posted by motivez

I can't believe anyone would actually take this seriously. What a joke.

Maybe we can get some WND articles by Chuck Norris next

Originally Posted by SoFlaJDM

your e-cred went down tremendously with this one

Originally Posted by Roonie

The enquirer..... you got to be kidding me!!! This thread is gay (not happy).

Originally Posted by bheld

This thread is a disgrace.

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

So did a lot of lies and smears...like about Clinton folks beating their wives and Kerry having an affair with a girl who met him in public

he's had to retract more stories...or should I say..."make them disappear" then any other high-traffic website or "news service" in existence

Originally Posted by Scrum

That guys is barely a peg better than the inquirer himself. No surprise that he would report that garbage.

Originally Posted by bheld

Maybe you should have waited to post until that time then instead of falling for a transparent slime job. The Enquirer? Drudge?

What a sucker you are. Way to do your part in the campaign to take down the only Dem with a shot that isn't in the pocket of the establishment.

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Sooo, now that some months have passed, has the enquirer "story" been proven true as 7960 predicted it would be???

Originally Posted by motivez

And maybe that one actually happened, and the other didn't.

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Are people forgetting there was a big story about Kerry cheating...and it ruined a girls life...and it was proved to a 99% fact that all she ever did was shake his hand...in public...and she dating a guy in the campaign and neither of them had access to the top tier of the campaign

It was all her bitchy friend trying to get on the news by saying she had a breaking story

Originally Posted by Scrum

Still nothing other than the enquirer making claims. I don't blame them for banning people for posting that trash. Too bad we don't meet those standards.

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

According to the national enquirer. The publishers of Bat Boy, and the evil devil in the smoke of the world trade center. They have zero credibility. Absolutely zero.

Originally Posted by SoFlaJDM

did they get the money shot?

no, but really... a picture of him standing there with some lady won't really convince me of anything

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

A picture of what? Two naked people having sex? Oh you mean two adults standing next to each other under a caption " Edwards having affair!" as per the usual enquirer nonsese...

You are going to have to to better than grocery store tabliod garbage. There was a picture of bat boy on thier cover too. Come on, you are smarter than this. I think you just want to believe it so badly that you will accept any source no matter how unreliable it is.

Originally Posted by Donkey®

This gets more and more pathetic as the months go by. I bet all those 9/11 alien abduction conspiracy nuts are hoping you take their "proof" a little more seriously now that you're one of them.

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I won't be holding my breath waiting for that.

Quoted for hilarity

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by lew

Quoted for hilarity

Honestly... Anyone who trusts the enquirer is an ass clown. Now that the story has been confirmed by another news outlet who actually takes the time to verify, it's worth talking about. I will still poo poo on any story broken by the Enquirer

[saabguy]

"But there are remaining questions over the identity of the father. A former campaign aide Andrew Young has reportedly claimed he is the father."


That's called "taking one for the team."