POS John Edwards

[GoPackGo]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/2534983/John-Edwards-former-mistress-Rielle-Hunter-rules-out-paternity-test.html

What would the mistress have to lose by getting a paternity test?
If she gets one, and it's Edwards kid, she'll be getting a huge chunk of child support.
Q: Why would she pass that up?
A: She was already getting paid a chunk of change to go live in a mansion in California and wait until the Edwards wife dies so she can be the new Mrs. Edwards. The woman is crazy!

[texaspackerbacker]

But, as woody allan said..the heart wants what the heart wants

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I guess Ol' Woody means like a not-all-that-hot Oriental step-daughter.

It's true, though, sexual cheating transcends the political spectrum, and most of us need to be careful about casting stones.

The REAL ISSUE here, though, is the sinister leftist media and its double standard of covering up and/or diminishing the significance of leftist philanderers and perverts, while exploiting and over-covering Republican/conservatives with similar or lesser scandals.

I disagree...the media loves to see the mighty fall. A spitzer is commonly known as being outted for banging whores now. they will go after anyone that gets them headlines and this too transcends party affiliation....jmo.

The difference is that they only pile on to save their shred of credibility when the situation is abolutely hopeless and obvious if its a left winger--like Clinton, Spitzer, Hart, etc. whereas they are leading the pack of wolves long before there is even any evidence when it's a conservative--example: the NY Times witch hunt about McCain cheating. They cover up and try everything they can to deny and mitigate the leftist scandals--as with the sham Purple Hearts that got Kerry out of Vietnam, as brought out by the Swiftboaters, and all of the crap about close associates of Obama.

[MadScientist]

sure, except the guy wanted to be president. If he cant be faithful to his wife, how the heck would he treat us? I also heard he might speak at the DNC. I hope so, like the year they had Jim Carter and Mike Moore doin a hang--classic.

So who are you going to vote for? You've just said McSame can't be trusted. It's well documented that he screwed around on his disabled wife before dumping her for a beer heiress.

If you're voting on the guy without affairs, you gotta go with O.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The difference is that they only pile on to save their shred of credibility when the situation is abolutely hopeless and obvious if its a left winger--like Clinton, Spitzer, Hart, etc. whereas they are leading the pack of wolves long before there is even any evidence when it's a conservative--example: the NY Times witch hunt about McCain cheating. They cover up and try everything they can to deny and mitigate the leftist scandals--as with the sham Purple Hearts that got Kerry out of Vietnam, as brought out by the Swiftboaters, and all of the crap about close associates of Obama.

Really, i seem to recall the press jumping all over clinton's bimbo eruptions well before it was absolutely hopeless and obvious.

It is just too easy.

[mraynrand]

I'd probably go with the less we know about private sex lives, the better. Honestly, I'd rather not know about toe tappin' Larry Craig or JFK using the secret service as an escort service, J Edgar Hoover cavorting in dresses, etc. Probably too late to put that genie back in the bottle. Now I gotta look at that Miley Cyrus on the Star or Enquirer every time I check out groceries. Libs deserve some heat for pushing the envelope of acceptability and conservatives deserve some heat for holier than thou attitudes that make 'em look like total hypocrites when they get busted. Now with Edwards in this particular situation, there is an issue with campaign finance laws too - as with Clinton there was the obs. of justice and perjury - or like Rudy G using public funds to drive around the mistress. That's fair game, but ya gotta leave the personal sex crap out of it, if possible. Hard to draw that line, I guess.

[Freak Out]

Free Love!

[texaspackerbacker]

The difference is that they only pile on to save their shred of credibility when the situation is absolutely hopeless and obvious if its a left winger--like Clinton, Spitzer, Hart, etc. whereas they are leading the pack of wolves long before there is even any evidence when it's a conservative--example: the NY Times witch hunt about McCain cheating. They cover up and try everything they can to deny and mitigate the leftist scandals--as with the sham Purple Hearts that got Kerry out of Vietnam, as brought out by the Swiftboaters, and all of the crap about close associates of Obama.

Really, i seem to recall the press jumping all over clinton's bimbo eruptions well before it was absolutely hopeless and obvious.

It is just too easy.

As I said ...... "The difference is that they only pile on to save their shred of credibility when the situation is absolutely hopeless and obvious if its a left winger--like Clinton ......".

I saw a tabloid headline the other day that an Obama divorce is coming soon. If this prospect was about a Republican, you just know the NY Times and the rest of the leftist mainstream media would be all over it.

[MadScientist]

The difference is that they only pile on to save their shred of credibility when the situation is absolutely hopeless and obvious if its a left winger--like Clinton, Spitzer, Hart, etc. whereas they are leading the pack of wolves long before there is even any evidence when it's a conservative--example: the NY Times witch hunt about McCain cheating. They cover up and try everything they can to deny and mitigate the leftist scandals--as with the sham Purple Hearts that got Kerry out of Vietnam, as brought out by the Swiftboaters, and all of the crap about close associates of Obama.

Really, i seem to recall the press jumping all over clinton's bimbo eruptions well before it was absolutely hopeless and obvious.

It is just too easy.

As I said ...... "The difference is that they only pile on to save their shred of credibility when the situation is absolutely hopeless and obvious if its a left winger--like Clinton ......".

I saw a tabloid headline the other day that an Obama divorce is coming soon. If this prospect was about a Republican, you just know the NY Times and the rest of the leftist mainstream media would be all over it.

The tabloids have been saying W and Laura are splitting up as soon as dimwit is out of office, and W has been dicking Condi for some time. I don't recall the NY Times running with any of that.

[The Leaper]

That's fair game, but ya gotta leave the personal sex crap out of it, if possible. Hard to draw that line, I guess.

I see your point. IMO, it isn't so much the SEX that is the issue here...but the COVERUP. The cheating is one level of dishonesty...then the coverup is another level.

When you are running for the most powerful position in the nation, I think it is fair that just about everything is on the table in relation to your honesty and trustworthiness.

[Deputy Nutz]

John Edwards is a douche...and that is being unfair to any self-respecting douche.

I don't care if this kind of behavior is almost expected these days in Washington...that hardly is reason to excuse it or overlook it as Ty suggests. That is EXACTLY the kind of mentality that will allow us to continue to elect these kind of pompeous jackasses into office.

I agree, if your wife is all messed up from cancer and the treatment and isn't available for sex, and you just can't stand blowing another wad into puff's tissue, then at least fuck a prositute. Then we can all simply assume he just wanted a piece of ass to deposit his boy butter on. Instead he fucked an aide, or whatever she calls herself. relationship, sex, leads me to believe it was a little more than just sex, he was two timing his dying wife.

Fuck politics, if this was your buddy you would punch him in the face for being an asshole.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The difference is that they only pile on to save their shred of credibility when the situation is absolutely hopeless and obvious if its a left winger--like Clinton, Spitzer, Hart, etc. whereas they are leading the pack of wolves long before there is even any evidence when it's a conservative--example: the NY Times witch hunt about McCain cheating. They cover up and try everything they can to deny and mitigate the leftist scandals--as with the sham Purple Hearts that got Kerry out of Vietnam, as brought out by the Swiftboaters, and all of the crap about close associates of Obama.

Really, i seem to recall the press jumping all over clinton's bimbo eruptions well before it was absolutely hopeless and obvious.

It is just too easy.

As I said ...... "The difference is that they only pile on to save their shred of credibility when the situation is absolutely hopeless and obvious if its a left winger--like Clinton ......".

I saw a tabloid headline the other day that an Obama divorce is coming soon. If this prospect was about a Republican, you just know the NY Times and the rest of the leftist mainstream media would be all over it.

Are you that dim? The press most certainly was piling on clinton and searching for bimbos...or do you think the clintons wanted to go on 60 minutes and talk about his indiscretions.

It is just too easy.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

That's fair game, but ya gotta leave the personal sex crap out of it, if possible. Hard to draw that line, I guess.

I see your point. IMO, it isn't so much the SEX that is the issue here...but the COVERUP. The cheating is one level of dishonesty...then the coverup is another level.

When you are running for the most powerful position in the nation, I think it is fair that just about everything is on the table in relation to your honesty and trustworthiness.

If the cheating involves some sorta thing that relates to campaign finance or laws broken..that is fair game.

But, covering up an affair? C'mon..that is basic human nature. He could have done that to protect himself or to protect his wife from the hurt (of course not cheating woulda done that as well).

Men and women cheat. Pols cheat. That is life.

And, if we are going to look at their trustworthiness...then i guess we can only keep obama since we KNOW mccain cheated. We also know his wife abused prescription drugs..and we are pretty sure Mccain helped cover it up.

[texaspackerbacker]

The difference is that they only pile on to save their shred of credibility when the situation is absolutely hopeless and obvious if its a left winger--like Clinton, Spitzer, Hart, etc. whereas they are leading the pack of wolves long before there is even any evidence when it's a conservative--example: the NY Times witch hunt about McCain cheating. They cover up and try everything they can to deny and mitigate the leftist scandals--as with the sham Purple Hearts that got Kerry out of Vietnam, as brought out by the Swiftboaters, and all of the crap about close associates of Obama.

Really, i seem to recall the press jumping all over clinton's bimbo eruptions well before it was absolutely hopeless and obvious.

It is just too easy.

As I said ...... "The difference is that they only pile on to save their shred of credibility when the situation is absolutely hopeless and obvious if its a left winger--like Clinton ......".

I saw a tabloid headline the other day that an Obama divorce is coming soon. If this prospect was about a Republican, you just know the NY Times and the rest of the leftist mainstream media would be all over it.

Are you that dim? The press most certainly was piling on clinton and searching for bimbos...or do you think the clintons wanted to go on 60 minutes and talk about his indiscretions.

It is just too easy.

Tyrone, you dipshit, not only did the leftist mainstream media only jump on the bandwagon when it was dead obvious that there was a veritable plethora of Clinton bimbos. They did their level best to discredit and make life miserable for the women, as well actually to try and paint Clinton as a victim of his accusers or at least as someone who was good naturedly and forgiveably compulsive.

Also, giving coverage to the sex aspect tended to minimize the more sinister and downright criminal lying about it--including under oath.

Also, Clinton had three distinct categories of scandalous behavior: sexual, financial, and political.

Grudgingly joining in and acknowledging the obvious philandering allowed them to ignore or cover up the more serious stuff--nuclear applicable computer technology to China in return for campaign financing, giving the anthracite coal monopoly to Indonesia--again in return for campaign financing, the suspicious death of Ron Brown, the criminal indictment of literally more than half of his cabinet, etc.

On top of everything else, the bit of coverage given to a few of the many Clinton sex scandals allowed the leftist media to carry the "moral equivalence" scenario to a ridiculous extent both in quantity and quality with regard to Republican misdeeds, in comparison to Clinton. .

[Scott Campbell]

I don't condone this horse shit from either party. Neither the act itself, or any of the political exploitation of the unfortunate outcome.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The difference is that they only pile on to save their shred of credibility when the situation is absolutely hopeless and obvious if its a left winger--like Clinton, Spitzer, Hart, etc. whereas they are leading the pack of wolves long before there is even any evidence when it's a conservative--example: the NY Times witch hunt about McCain cheating. They cover up and try everything they can to deny and mitigate the leftist scandals--as with the sham Purple Hearts that got Kerry out of Vietnam, as brought out by the Swiftboaters, and all of the crap about close associates of Obama.

Really, i seem to recall the press jumping all over clinton's bimbo eruptions well before it was absolutely hopeless and obvious.

It is just too easy.

As I said ...... "The difference is that they only pile on to save their shred of credibility when the situation is absolutely hopeless and obvious if its a left winger--like Clinton ......".

I saw a tabloid headline the other day that an Obama divorce is coming soon. If this prospect was about a Republican, you just know the NY Times and the rest of the leftist mainstream media would be all over it.

Are you that dim? The press most certainly was piling on clinton and searching for bimbos...or do you think the clintons wanted to go on 60 minutes and talk about his indiscretions.

It is just too easy.

Tyrone, you dipshit, not only did the leftist mainstream media only jump on the bandwagon when it was dead obvious that there was a veritable plethora of Clinton bimbos. They did their level best to discredit and make life miserable for the women, as well actually to try and paint Clinton as a victim of his accusers or at least as someone who was good naturedly and forgiveably compulsive.

Also, giving coverage to the sex aspect tended to minimize the more sinister and downright criminal lying about it--including under oath.

Also, Clinton had three distinct categories of scandalous behavior: sexual, financial, and political.

Grudgingly joining in and acknowledging the obvious philandering allowed them to ignore or cover up the more serious stuff--nuclear applicable computer technology to China in return for campaign financing, giving the anthracite coal monopoly to Indonesia--again in return for campaign financing, the suspicious death of Ron Brown, the criminal indictment of literally more than half of his cabinet, etc.

On top of everything else, the bit of coverage given to a few of the many Clinton sex scandals allowed the leftist media to carry the "moral equivalence" scenario to a ridiculous extent both in quantity and quality with regard to Republican misdeeds, in comparison to Clinton. .

You are as always changing your tune. You stated that they did it when, "when the situation is absolutely hopeless and obvious."

Quite clearly, the bimbo eruptions were prior to clinton being elected. Quite clearly the situation was far from hopeless and obvious.

the rest of the stuff you bring up isn't relevant..it is a different timeframe.

Too easy.