Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SilentZ who wrote (406065)	8/13/2008 9:41:12 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571598

>> I wish that this could be seen as a private matter Now that the news is out, I don't know that there is value in going over and over the story. But it SHOULD have been reported. When a presidential candidate cannot keep commitments to his spouse, it is a story of national interest, because he is making commitments to voters and they need to know if he is not trustworthy. The same applies to Obama and McCain. McCain, we know, is a man of commitment and responsibility because he has 30 years of history behind him and has consistently stuck with positions that he has taken, often against those in his party. Obama, OTOH, seems to have a real problem with keeping these commitments (you know, like campaign financing, drilling, yada, yada), so if there were a problem with him keeping commitments in his personal life don't you think we need to know that?

To: SilentZ who wrote (406065)	8/13/2008 10:55:19 AM
From: longnshort	Respond to of 1571598

"They just waited till they had more to go on than the National Enquirer." lol like his confession, they would NEVER reported it if it wasn't for that. I liked how Edwards said it wasn't his family's fault so don't blame them. The guy is a psycho, but we repubs knew that when he ran for VP.

To: SilentZ who wrote (406065)	8/13/2008 11:00:17 AM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571598

Z, > Nope. They're covering it vigorously and eagerly now. They just waited till they had more to go on than the National Enquirer. The traditional media can be pretty irresponsible, but even they can't count the Enquirer as their main source for a story. It's all too convenient to say, "Oh, it was just the National Enquirer. We couldn't find other sources to corroborate." It was obvious the mainstream media tried their very best to deny this controversy even existed. Plus, there wasn't anything new that came forward since the National Enquirer broke the story. The only reason why the mainstream media was forced to confront the issue was because it didn't fade away and the cover-up by the mainstream media became a story in itself. Now ABC comes forward and claims to have broken the story in the first place? Yeah right, and a fake fax from Abilene, TX, isn't fake. Anyway, politicians cheating on their wives is not really news to me anymore. I followed this story only because the mainstream media was obviously active in trying to cover it up. Tenchusatsu

To: SilentZ who wrote (406065)	8/13/2008 11:11:46 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571598

No, my previous statement still stands. I would not trust the National Enquirer to publish news. I don't like it when Ted posts that Bush is a drunk and that Laura's been sleeping in a hotel waiting to divorce him... I tend not to say anything because the rest of us "liberals" don't jerk each other off over that story the way you guys have been doing over this one. First of all, my extremist liberal friend, I did not get the news about Laura Bush staying in the hotel and Bush being drunk from the National Enquirer. I lived in the gossip capital of the country for several years.......I know whom to contact to find out sh*t. So instead of making disapproving comments about me under your breath, why don't you ask me how I found out? Secondly, the National Enquirer happens to have a rather good record of ferreting out stories the MSM manages 'to miss' inspite of its being called a tabloid. Apparently you were unaware of its reputation. Its why when I heard the news about Edwards, my reaction was not "IT'S THE FUCKING NATIONAL ENQUIRER" like yours was. In fact, when I heard the Nat. Enquirer was onto the story, I suspected it was true. And I'm not taking the "next step." I'm very unhappy with John Edwards over this, and I'm pretty relieved now that he's not the Dems' presidential candidate. I wish that this could be seen as a private matter (like it would be in pretty much any other country or like affairs used to be seen in this one), but we all know, and Edwards knew, that this is a dealbreaker. Even if the affair started and ended two years ago and the kid isn't his (I'm not sure I either way, and I personally don't care), he knew years ago that he'd be running for President in 2008, so by not keeping his dick in his pants, he could've killed the Democrats' chances of winning the White House in 2008. What an asshole. Dude, you were the one who thought Edwards was "dreamy" to use your word to describe him. In fact, the warning signs were there that this guy did not have both feet planted in the ground.....the 'dreamy' hair, the 'dreamy' $400 haircuts and the 'dreamy' 28,000 sq ft mansion were all warning signs. Edwards has always seemed a bit facile to me and the news of the last week seems to support that POV. In addition, he seems to be an inveterate liar And finally, Z, stop judging me. I am very tired of it. You don't know me nearly as well as you seem to think you do.