John Edward admits to affair. Says the kid is "not mine"

Classy, if true. Idiot. IF true.

[quote=“NYDaily”]Former Edwards aide Andrew Young says the ex-senator and his former mistress, Rielle Hunter, once made a sex tape, according to someone who has seen Young’s book proposal.

St. Martin’s Press just inked a deal with Young, who also says in his proposal that, contrary to his public statement last year, he is not the father of Hunter’s infant daughter — Edwards is. Edwards has denied that.

Young says that his belief in Edwards ran so deep that he agreed to take the fall for the candidate, inviting the pregnant Hunter to live with him, his wife, Cheri, and their three children. Later, after Hunter delivered the baby, Young and his family moved to a different home in California.

While he was unpacking, Young discovered a videocassette, according to the book pitch. Hunter had been hired by the Edwards campaign to videotape the candidate’s movements, but this one is said to have shown him taking positions that weren’t on his official platform.

The purported sex tape confirmed to Hunter that Edwards was even more reckless than he thought.

According to our source, Hunter confided to Young that she and Edwards talked about getting married should the candidate’s cancer-stricken wife, Elizabeth, pass away, even discussing what music they’d play at their wedding.[/quote]

[quote=“Jaboney”]Classy, if true. Idiot. IF true.

[quote=“NYDaily”]Former Edwards aide Andrew Young says the ex-senator and his former mistress, Rielle Hunter, once made a sex tape, according to someone who has seen Young’s book proposal.

St. Martin’s Press just inked a deal with Young, who also says in his proposal that, contrary to his public statement last year, he is not the father of Hunter’s infant daughter — Edwards is. Edwards has denied that.

Young says that his belief in Edwards ran so deep that he agreed to take the fall for the candidate, inviting the pregnant Hunter to live with him, his wife, Cheri, and their three children. Later, after Hunter delivered the baby, Young and his family moved to a different home in California.

While he was unpacking, Young discovered a videocassette, according to the book pitch. Hunter had been hired by the Edwards campaign to videotape the candidate’s movements, but this one is said to have shown him taking positions that weren’t on his official platform.

The purported sex tape confirmed to Hunter that Edwards was even more reckless than he thought.

According to our source, Hunter confided to Young that she and Edwards talked about getting married should the candidate’s cancer-stricken wife, Elizabeth, pass away, even discussing what music they’d play at their wedding.[/quote][/quote]

viewtopic.php?f=86&t=63472&start=70

Already being discussed here. Do you think Edwards has shown a holier-than-thou attitude in the past? :laughing:

“Sex tape”? It might open a whole new genre of election TV ads. :ponder:

[quote=“MikeN”]At least now we know what Edwards campaign song would have been:

“Billie Jean is not my lover
She’s just a girl who claims that I am the one
But the kid is not my son
She says I am the one,
but the kid is not my son”[/quote]

good one

[quote=“tommy525”][quote=“MikeN”]At least now we know what Edwards campaign song would have been:

“Billie Jean is not my lover
She’s just a girl who claims that I am the one
But the kid is not my son
She says I am the one,
but the kid is not my son”[/quote]

good one[/quote]

Where do you think the title of this thread came from. :laughing:

Guess what news enterprise is up for a Pulitzer? Yes, the National Enquirer. Yeah, the publication that the working people enjoy to read at the supermarket line. When this story was first brought up, there were a number of Democrat supporters on Forumosa that laughed at the source and clearly believed Edwards when he lied to the American people.

What a sleaze of a politician, lawyer, and human being. I hope the Enquirer wins–to laugh at the elitist East-coast publications that didn’t get it right. :laughing: :laughing: And to laugh at the Forumosans that were too smug, elitist, and snobby to consider that all new sources should be read and sometimes even believed. :smiley:

[quote]
By being the first and, largely, the only publication pursuing the Edwards story through his denials of the affair and of fathering a child out of wedlock, The Enquirer is under consideration for a Pulitzer Prize, and it has strong support for its bid from other journalists. The success has Mr. Levine considering opening a Washington bureau to look for more dirt among politicians [/quote]
msnbc.msn.com/id/35759356/ns … ?GT1=43001

I guess we need to start taking those two-headed alien love child stories more seriously.

I notice Edwards is under indictment for misusing campaign funds now.

Let me get this straight - the Enquirer does one good story out of what - a billion? - and you’re gonna turn this into a screed against “elitist” East-coat papers and “snobby” democrats who want to see proof before the smear campaign sets in? And the right’s got those bastions of truth and fairness Fox “News”, the Washington Times, the WSJ editorial page, ranting and railing and calling it “news”?

Hogwash… the real elites are the uber-rich right wingers who subsidize the shepherding of undereducated and mostly poor white underclass into voting against their own best interests economically and politically. The anti-intelligentsia always talk about “elites” when they have weak or no rational arguments, like on evolution, climate change, abortion rights, health care, social safety nets, progressive taxation, gun control - elites elites elites, blah blah blah, we’re the patriots, you hate your country… just sad, man.

[quote=“TwoTongues”]

Hogwash… the real elites are the uber-rich right wingers who subsidize the shepherding of undereducated and mostly poor white underclass into voting against their own best interests economically and politically. [/quote]

How dare the white underclass disagree with the leftist bureaucrats and vote against the leftists politicians. After all, their best interests are paying high taxes to support second rate social programs thought out by third rate minds. Right? :laughing:

Most neocons support the theory of evolution.

On climate change, we just don’t know. It’s the absolute certainty of the Climate Change crowd that disturbs me. It strikes me of being full of human arrogance. The temperatures have gone up and down for thousands of years during natural cooling and warming periods. But such intellectual giants and original thinkers as Al Gore must be correct, no? :smiley:

I’m pro-choice. When a woman wants to choose she should have that right. However, that freedom should also be applied to patients in countries where private health care options are illegal. They should have that right to choose between public and private options. Unfortunately, many people that preach pro-choice in some countries are also very much against any private health care options. Hypocritical don’t you think? :smiley:

Breed entitlement and laziness. Let me get this straight. You think Johnson’s Great Society was a success? :laughing: :laughing: It wasn’t until Clinton’s welfare reform that significant improvements in unemployment were seen.

More like a redistribution of wealth. Why punish or even tax successful companies at all? They are providing employment and putting lots of money into the community. Yet, local, state, and federal taxes are often punitive. Is it any wonder that companies fail and businesses move shop to the developing world?

Crriminals will always be able to get a hold of firepower. Gun control only hurts law abiding citizens

Not as sad as your unoriginal commentary. :laughing: :laughing:


This is the kind of non-elite journalism America needs.

Strangely you took some of the right wing positions as a personal comment on yourself, which obviously it was not, instead of my description of the positions that the right wing elite take for either themselves or in order to help control the white underclass. Neocons should believe in evolution as they are more educated - my point is they use the anti-evolution platform to control the undereducated.

Saying that social safety nets in general breed laziness is throwing the baby out with the bathwater and, as usual, a blanket statement that is entirely manure. Inefficiency and fraud are always gonna be there, and enforcement and prevention must be increased (which costs money), but not having a strong unemployment retraining mechanism, good retirement plans that don’t rely on the stock market, free quality education, and good temporary unemployment programs is inexcusable in this day and age - and again, the rest of the first world does a far better job at this.

Redistribution of wealth is a good thing when the wealthy are ridiculously so, when the gap between rich and poor or even rich and middle class gets too high, and when basic services are not available to the poor. Of course wealth is and should be redistributed, it’s the very nature of personal taxation and the basis of what any caring society and government should be doing. The extent of the redistribution can be argued, but use of the term “redistribution of wealth” as a negative in and of its own is another propaganda success for the right.

The biggest lie that the gun lobby perpetuates is that gun control is only about reducing the guns or types of guns available over the counter, but it’s a straw man argument. Tightly controlling the purchase of guns and elimination of the production of some types of guns reduces overall access which will reduce crime, and then of course increased enforcement to reduce the illegal arms trade - it goes hand in hand. Simply claiming that “criminals will somehow get their hands on weapons” is neither true nor the point - making it harder and harder to get access to guns will reduce crime, but you need both gun control measures and increased interdiction of illegal trade. And the argument that guns are needed to protect a citizen from an encroaching government is ludicrous and insulting to anyone with a working thought process. Every other first world country hasn’t got it wrong, the US does.

Truth trumps originality, and those are the factual planks of the right wing platform. Plus, not much time for poetics when I’ve got real work to do…

Don’t all retirement plans in developed countries, including generous defined pensions for teachers, government employees etc. all rely on the stock market? If you look at the investments in these plans, they invest in stocks, international currencies, bonds and numerous other investment vehicles. Furthermore, individuals in less generous non-defined pensions still have the choice to pick the investments that define their plan (e.g. people in Canada choosing RRSPS). While defined plans are much better, they both still rely on the stock market. Which plans don’t?

Free quality education? Turn it into a commodity? No thanks, I’d prefer the stratified education of the United States and the UK, over countries where all educational institutions are of the same quality (Canada, Cuba, Sweden etc.). And affirmative action, in my honest opinion, makes a high-class education worth less as Clarence Thomas mentioned when he graduated from Yale Law School.

Temporary EI programs? The problem is misuse. The person that works half the year and then skis while on EI for six months. The welfare mother with her classy DVD player, Prada shoes, and big screen TV that doesn’t want to look for a job. The Che-loving suburban stoner that works for the minimum time and then leeches off the system while smoking ganja and eating mom and dad’s food. First world plans still have too much room for misuse IMHO.

I would argue that high taxes (especially local municipal taxes) to pay for the social experiments of local up and coming city politicians are a huge waste of money. In most cases, higher taxes hurt the lower middle class working people. Anyone working in Taiwan should be a fan of trickle down economics. Even the blue collar people in Taiwan travel more than the middling classes in North America and Europe. They invest more, travel more, and eat out more than their counterparts in North America and Europe. And yet, economic migrants from these regions come to Taiwan and still cling to the home model. Fascinating indeed.

The purpose of pension-type programs is to ensure that the pension exists at the end with at least a basic rate of return, it is most certainly not an investment vehicle for the vast majority of under- to middle-class workers, only for upper-class workers - and these are precisely the people who are the subject of my comments. To get that insurance requires extensive knowledge and experience, and diversification of portfolios, and access to information that the vast majority of individuals do not have and will never have. In these programs, the choice given to investors is extremely limited (usually to a handful or a few dozen plans) - and that’s the way it should be if the goal is reliability. In fact, I tend to agree that the use of the stock market in even these large pension and retirement plans should be limited or banned, as it can be too risky for the goal of the program - witness all the people who have lost their retirement in the dotcom crash and now again with the housing market - the goal is not maximizing return, it’s ensuring return, and stocks are not the way to go there. They most certainly do NOT do better if they are supposed to retire in a crash part of the cycle. Just because they do better on average than less risky programs does not mean that is the optimal solution - they essentially got lucky. Would most people take a 66% chance to have a million dollar in 30 years, or a 95% chance to have $700,000 in 30 years (as an example)?

That sounds really like a total non-sequitur and hyperbole. As is the comment that a “high class” education being worthless because of affirmative action - it’s 1000% untrue, the top flight school degree is still an advantage in the technical and management fields. You have any other ideas on how to bring African Americans as a whole back up to the White-Asian income level (my guess is you’ve got the tried-and-true “they shouldn’t have any advantages, it’s a meritocracy”)? But that’s for another post.

Which was part of my point - you’ve always got misuse, it must always be watched and prevented, but you don’t hammer the program into oblivion (like US welfare) or do a cheapy implementation because of that, you fix it. The US has very thin retraining programs and they are not universal or widespread.

Taxes go to a million different things! Discretionary spending in the national budget, behind defense, debt servicing, and the few giant programs (social security, medicare, nationally-covered health care, and so on) is a very small percentage - and those programs I list are hardly social experiments of local government.

Trickle down economics has been discredited for 20 years, only the selfish and greedy in US politics still consider it to be effective - it was nonsense during the Reagan years and everyone could see it, but it sure does make rich people richer! Just because they have more money to invest in the stock market, which is supposed to create more and better jobs, is entirely unreal - in bad times the money goes into savings, the very rich always have tax dodges or overseas shelters and programs that get them out of even their already too-low taxes, in good times the money may make it more into stocks and companies, but even then, you have the super-faulty assumption that these days, increasing investment in a company means more ad better jobs - the stock market responds very positively to shipping jobs overseas, cutting of jobs for “efficiency” (real or not), and increases in technology that result in reduction of jobs - this is one of the main reasons the stock market system in the US is so screwed up!