Secondly, I find it hilarious that anybody on the Dem side can, with a straight face, point out McCain's shortcomings regardless of their veracity. After all, they lived and breathed the mantra, "A man's personal sexual conduct outside his marriage has no bearing on his ability to be a good President." Even the act of discussing it beyond saying, "It makes no difference to me because it's his personal business," is hypocritical in the extreme, because to do so negates everything you've stated as being the truth in the Clinton years.
Republicans, on the other hand, because we hold sexual misconduct as being a moral and poitical failing, are free to hold court on this subject as often as we please. But Dems, please refrain from participating in any more discusssion on politician's sexual trysts. You lost the right to do so two administrations ago.
Totem
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- edwards, what was he thinking?
edwards, what was he thinking?Follow
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You are aware that the Enquirer has been pursuing this story for over a year, right?
Um... Except that they were right about this one. The question you have to ask is: "Was only a tabloid covering this because it was really tabloid trash, or was it because they were the only ones who would?".
At the end of the day, the information they were operating on was the same information anyone else could have followed up on and verified for themselves. But none of the "big guys" did. What's amusing is that when questioned on this while he was still running for president Edwards constantly dismissed the claims as "tabloid trash". Seems like that was circular, doesn't it?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Um... Except that they were right about this one.
Huh.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
knoxsouthy wrote:
Damien,
or lack thereof. Had Cheney been in this situation we would have talked about it ad nauseum over a month ago.
Quote:
You're complaining that the liberal media is ignoring this story, yet admit that your only source of what's going on in the liberal media is the allakhazam message boards?
or lack thereof. Had Cheney been in this situation we would have talked about it ad nauseum over a month ago.
And if David Vitter was a Democrat, Fox News would have lambasted him instead of making excuses like "Wow I can't believe someone would invade his privacy like that!" Bill O'Reilly doesn't usually surprise me, but when he started defending him saying things to the madam's lawyer like "you're a leech looking to make some money and don't care if you destroy a good man and his family"
But come on, if it was ANY democrat who did the SAME thing, he would applaud that lawyer for searching for the truth. The rest of Fox News is the same way.
They gloss over the fact that Guiliani and McCain both had affairs, but somehow they're not evil like John Edwards.
I've found liberal media to be much more fair when a democrat does something wrong, than how the conservative media acts when a republican does something wrong.
Edited, Aug 12th 2008 9:23am by DaimenKain
Um... Except that they were right about this one. The question you have to ask is: "Was only a tabloid covering this because it was really tabloid trash, or was it because they were the only ones who would?".
Yeah, you know the evidence is air tight when such luminaries of the news world as:
Fox "Fist Bump, or Terrorist Fist Jab!!?" News,
The Washington "Women wearing pants. Affront to god?" Times
The Wall "Taxes don't need to exist magical fairy dust will fix everything" Street Journal
Drudge
Townhall.com
Limbaugh
Hannity
and on and on and on and on
ALL decided it wasn't credible.
Are you on fucking drugs, is that your problem? You think there was a conspiracy that included the media outlets who intentionally run stories they absolutely know are false for political reasons? Really?
I know in your crazy, mixed up world where reason counts for nothing, and turning out to be correct with a wild guess is equally valid as building a conclusion from logic, but here, in the real world, even blatantly partisan hack outfits require some tiny shred of evidence before printing stories about marital affairs. Like when McCain was ******* blond bimbo #19,234 back in 2000. Numerous credible sources. As opposed to zero. See, ten people telling you McCain will **** anything with a skirt and blond hair is different than absolutely no one telling you the same about Edwards.
That's why none of the ******* nutjob blogs you read reported this, even though they reported the M. Obama "whitey" video that was going to be HUGE!!! HUGE!!! Remember? EVEN THEY, literally repeaters of chain email gossip weren't sold enough on this to go with it.
That it happened to be true is absolutely ******* meaningless. The guy who wins Powerball got that right, too, but oddly no one reported the week before on his magical ability to predict which balls would be chosen.
Why do you think that is, Captain Oblivious?
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Paraphrase for succinctness: even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
knoxsouthy wrote:
Smashed,
That's exactly what I think. Had the media covered this story back when it broke it's likely Hillary would have won the Iowa caucus thereby ending any chance for an Obama presidential bid. The DNC, along with the media, were not going to let this happen.
Quote:
You think there was a conspiracy that included the media outlets who intentionally run stories they absolutely know are false for political reasons?
That's exactly what I think. Had the media covered this story back when it broke it's likely Hillary would have won the Iowa caucus thereby ending any chance for an Obama presidential bid. The DNC, along with the media, were not going to let this happen.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
knoxsouthy wrote:
Had the media covered this story back when it broke it's likely Hillary would have won the Iowa caucus thereby ending any chance for an Obama presidential bid.
538.com wrote:
Iowa actually didn't turn out to be that close, with Obama defeating Edwards by 7.9 points and Hillary Clinton by 8.1 points. For Clinton to have beaten Obama, she would have needed (as Wolfson correctly points out) about two-thirds of those Edwards voters.
The thing about Iowa, however, is that unlike virtually any other electoral contest, second choices matter, since Democratic caucus rules dictate that a voter may caucus for her second-choice candidate if her first choice does not achieve the 15 percent of the vote required for viability. As such, Iowa pollsters did a lot of work in trying to determine voters' second choices. And in virtually every survey, Clinton did rather poorly as a second choice: an average of several surveys in December showed that she was the second choice of about 20 percent of voters, as compared with 25 percent for Obama and Edwards (an even later version I have sitting on my hard drive showed the second-choice breakdown as Edwards 30, Obama 28.5, Clinton 23.5)
So the odds are that, if John Edwards had dropped out on the morning before the Iowa caucus, Obama would have won by more points rather than fewer.
The thing about Iowa, however, is that unlike virtually any other electoral contest, second choices matter, since Democratic caucus rules dictate that a voter may caucus for her second-choice candidate if her first choice does not achieve the 15 percent of the vote required for viability. As such, Iowa pollsters did a lot of work in trying to determine voters' second choices. And in virtually every survey, Clinton did rather poorly as a second choice: an average of several surveys in December showed that she was the second choice of about 20 percent of voters, as compared with 25 percent for Obama and Edwards (an even later version I have sitting on my hard drive showed the second-choice breakdown as Edwards 30, Obama 28.5, Clinton 23.5)
So the odds are that, if John Edwards had dropped out on the morning before the Iowa caucus, Obama would have won by more points rather than fewer.
Edited, Aug 12th 2008 10:47am by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
knoxsouthy wrote:
So that's your excuse for why the mainstream media completely ignored the story?
Quote:
And yes Hillary would have easily gotten two thirds of Edwards voters, which were mostly women.
There's no reason to believe that people who were going to vote for a young* senator from S. Carolina running on a change rhetoric would have broken 2:1 against a young senator from Illinois running on a change rhetoric. Maybe in later primaries but not in the Iowa caucus.
*Well, he looks it, anyway
Edited, Aug 12th 2008 9:08am by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
knoxsouthy wrote:
You're ignoring the most important characteristic of Edwards supporters, they were women.
Assuming you're correct, had they voted for Clinton the first round, you might have a point.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Wolfson was probably trying to salvage his reputation knowing that the Atlantic was going to be publishing this exposé of the Clinton campaign, drawn from leaked e-mails sent in by ex-staff members. The level of dysfunction and number of missed chances is just mind boggling and Wolfson was at the head of it all.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Yeah, "We would have lost anyway" is pretty weak considering all the missteps.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
knoxsouthy wrote:
The conservative talk shows did talk about it (I specifically remember Rush and Boortz), but stopped when they saw no one else was taking it seriously.
So, they figured, "hey those liberal guys aren't covering this, so let's just forget about this Democratic presidential candidate cheating on his wife who has cancer thing"
That's what you're saying?
DaimenKain wrote:
knoxsouthy wrote:
The conservative talk shows did talk about it (I specifically remember Rush and Boortz), but stopped when they saw no one else was taking it seriously.
So, they figured, "hey those liberal guys aren't covering this, so let's just forget about this Democratic presidential candidate cheating on his wife who has cancer thing"
That's what you're saying?
No. He's saying that if no one on the broadcast networks picks up a news story, it doesn't go anywhere. Fox News did stories on Wright for 8 months before you probably ever heard of the guy. It's really not that complex of a system. If it doesn't appear on ABC, CBS, or NBC, it doesn't really exist to the masses. A cable news network can work the story for months and almost no one will know about it.
The point in this case was that it was perceived as "tabloid trash" because no one in the mainstream media investigated the story. It's the cart leading the horse.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Fox News did stories on Wright for 8 months before you probably ever heard of the guy. It's really not that complex of a system. If it doesn't appear on ABC, CBS, or NBC, it doesn't really exist to the masses.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Fox News did stories on Wright for 8 months before you probably ever heard of the guy.
Who? Wait, did he invent the airplane? Because that was HUGE!
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
gbaji wrote:
DaimenKain wrote:
knoxsouthy wrote:
The conservative talk shows did talk about it (I specifically remember Rush and Boortz), but stopped when they saw no one else was taking it seriously.
So, they figured, "hey those liberal guys aren't covering this, so let's just forget about this Democratic presidential candidate cheating on his wife who has cancer thing"
That's what you're saying?
No. He's saying that if no one on the broadcast networks picks up a news story, it doesn't go anywhere. Fox News did stories on Wright for 8 months before you probably ever heard of the guy. It's really not that complex of a system. If it doesn't appear on ABC, CBS, or NBC, it doesn't really exist to the masses. A cable news network can work the story for months and almost no one will know about it.
The point in this case was that it was perceived as "tabloid trash" because no one in the mainstream media investigated the story. It's the cart leading the horse.
So, then, he's saying that ABC/CBS/NBC sat on a ratings BONANZA for political reasons?
Recent Visitors: 170
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (170)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- edwards, what was he thinking?
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC