Edwards is having an affair?

[7960]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Celebrity News | Photos | Crime | Gossip National Enquirer Magazine


Yes...I hope they get the Pulitzer for the Mark David Chapman article.

did you miss the part where it was originally reported by the NY Daily News and NOT the enquirer?

assuming you didn't actually read the article and just saw the headline (because that's typical for you), tell me what they got wrong. did they make it up? is there a lie in the article? did they photoshop a roach's head on him and say he's bugboy?

please, tell me why you bothered to waste that few seconds and make that post.

[saabguy]

NE is a pretty trashy publication, but the story they reported is pretty trashy as well, so it's right up their alley. i'd expect them to scoop everyone else. it's not like they were reporting on israeli/palestinian relations...

how do you catch a jewel thief? hire another jewel thief. how do you catch a dirtbag senator? hire some dirtbag NE reporters.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by 7960

No, what's happening is THIRTY YEARS AGO the enquirer was trash, it was a joke, our parents made fun of it. But THIRTY YEARS AGO they changed and started researching stories and publishing TRUE things corroborated by FACTS they'd paid for. You don't like the topics of their stories so you continue to hold onto your ignorant opinion of them. Fact is for the last THIRTY YEARS the enquirer has been NOTHING like what you've been making them out to be. They didn't publish batboy, they didn't write about cheney/robot, they do have lots of gossip-like articles but they are backed by investigated reporting. So stick with your programing/believability thing, but as long as you're using what was true THIRTY YEARS AGO to form your opinion, your opinion is going to be crap.

I respectfully disagree that the Enquirer is a legitmate news source. It was and still is a celebrity gossip magazine. It's not a credible or serious news source. You will not be able to convince me otherwise.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by 7960

did you miss the part where it was originally reported by the NY Daily News and NOT the enquirer?

assuming you didn't actually read the article and just saw the headline (because that's typical for you), tell me what they got wrong. did they make it up? is there a lie in the article? did they photoshop a roach's head on him and say he's bugboy?

please, tell me why you bothered to waste that few seconds and make that post.

Because you continually defend them as real journalists. Real journalists report on real stories. Look at that webpage...what stories on there are even newsworthy?

[7960]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

You will not be able to convince me otherwise.

and we're right back to "intentional ignorance"

[7960]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Because you continually defend them as real journalists. Real journalists report on real stories. Look at that webpage...what stories on there are even newsworthy?

here's one.

<B>JOHN EDWARDS ADMITS AFFAIR!</B> - Celebrity News | Gossip - National Enquirer

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by 7960

and we're right back to "intentional ignorance"

You're entitled to that opinion I guess.

[JaJae]

Her family says the baby looks like Edwards. They also said they think Edwards should take a paternity test, but the mother doesn't want the public attention.

Roxanne goes on to say, "I've seen the pictures of the baby she looks like John Edwards. She's got his eyes and jaw line and lips, but she does have Rielle's nose."

Edwards Fathered Hunter's Baby, Say Hunter's Sister And Friend

Edwards may now be investigated for campaign finance issues regarding money that was sent to the mother of the child with no daddy on the birth certificate whose family members say looks a lot like Edwards.