Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Wade Smith and Jim Cooney; are Edwards lawyers....
Topic Started: Jan 29 2010, 05:50 PM (5,222 Views)
Joan Foster

abb
Jan 30 2010, 11:16 AM
Mason
Jan 30 2010, 09:24 AM
The N&O had a rep on the local radio saying there was no way they could've exposed or discovered this story.

It was the same show/station as the guy that allowed the Duke case to be misrepresented on his show (more than once). The Radio host agreed there was nothing to be done.
They lie.
You know..it takes me two paragraph's and 15 minimum adjectives to say what Abb says PERFECTLY in two words. :bunn:

You nailed it, friend.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill Anderson
Member Avatar

Joan Foster
Jan 30 2010, 11:19 AM
abb
Jan 30 2010, 11:16 AM
Mason
Jan 30 2010, 09:24 AM
The N&O had a rep on the local radio saying there was no way they could've exposed or discovered this story.

It was the same show/station as the guy that allowed the Duke case to be misrepresented on his show (more than once). The Radio host agreed there was nothing to be done.
They lie.
You know..it takes me two paragraph's and 15 minimum adjectives to say what Abb says PERFECTLY in two words. :bunn:

You nailed it, friend.
What we have to understand is that the MSM is not the "objective" referee in reporting. The N&O had a vested interest in John Edwards being the next president, as it WOULD GIVE THE N&O THAT PRECIOUS ACCESS TO THE WHITE HOUSE. It was in the interest of the paper to look the other way as Edwards and his campaign were imploding into a major sex scandal.

Furthermore, MSM journalists like to think they are above something like mere sexcapades, which is something for the National Enquirer to be handling. After all, they are RESPECTABLE, and the desire for "respectability" was and is a major theme of Progressivism, and the MSM is a creation of the Progressive Era. All of these things ensured that the N&O would not be the entity that would break any sex scandal stories about John Edwards.

The National Enquirer employs more fact checkers than does the New York Times. That hardly means that all of its stories are true, but we also know that many stories in the NYT are not true, either. :)

:bill:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

Bill Anderson
Jan 30 2010, 11:31 AM
That hardly means that all of its stories are true, but we also know that many stories in the NYT are not true, either.
"This was not exactly the truth, but then, what is, exactly?"
Howell Raines (b. 1943), U. S. Journalist.
From his book Whiskey Man, 1977

Raines, you all will remember, was the Executive Editor of the NY Times during the Jayson Blair scandal.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rusty Dog
Member Avatar

Mason
Jan 30 2010, 09:24 AM
The N&O had a rep on the local radio saying there was no way they could've exposed or discovered this story.

It was the same show/station as the guy that allowed the Duke case to be misrepresented on his show (more than once). The Radio host agreed there was nothing to be done.

Was this N&O rep Ruth Sheehan?
Edited by Rusty Dog, Jan 30 2010, 11:52 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joan Foster

Bill Anderson
Jan 30 2010, 11:31 AM
Joan Foster
Jan 30 2010, 11:19 AM
abb
Jan 30 2010, 11:16 AM
Mason
Jan 30 2010, 09:24 AM
The N&O had a rep on the local radio saying there was no way they could've exposed or discovered this story.

It was the same show/station as the guy that allowed the Duke case to be misrepresented on his show (more than once). The Radio host agreed there was nothing to be done.
They lie.
You know..it takes me two paragraph's and 15 minimum adjectives to say what Abb says PERFECTLY in two words. :bunn:

You nailed it, friend.
What we have to understand is that the MSM is not the "objective" referee in reporting. The N&O had a vested interest in John Edwards being the next president, as it WOULD GIVE THE N&O THAT PRECIOUS ACCESS TO THE WHITE HOUSE. It was in the interest of the paper to look the other way as Edwards and his campaign were imploding into a major sex scandal.

Furthermore, MSM journalists like to think they are above something like mere sexcapades, which is something for the National Enquirer to be handling. After all, they are RESPECTABLE, and the desire for "respectability" was and is a major theme of Progressivism, and the MSM is a creation of the Progressive Era. All of these things ensured that the N&O would not be the entity that would break any sex scandal stories about John Edwards.

The National Enquirer employs more fact checkers than does the New York Times. That hardly means that all of its stories are true, but we also know that many stories in the NYT are not true, either. :)

:bill:
Bill, just one comment to your post re:

"Furthermore, MSM journalists like to think they are above something like mere sexcapades, which is something for the National Enquirer to be handling. After all, they are RESPECTABLE, and the desire for "respectability" was and is a major theme of Progressivism, and the MSM is a creation of the Progressive Era."

The NYT had no problem reporting on its front pages a highly suspect, unsourced rumor about McCain's affair with a lobbyist. Bet the N&O picked it up too. Ahh, but in that case...THAT was different.



Edited by Joan Foster, Jan 30 2010, 12:14 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joan Foster

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7111826/John-Edwards-the-ultimate-American-politician.html


"In the book, Young also reveals that Edwards, whose 2008 presidential campaign was an indignant crusade against poverty, would complain about going to events where "fat rednecks try to shove food down my face".

At one point he asked: "I know I'm the people's Senator, but do I have to hang out with them?"

Edwards, an Atkins Dieter, was already famous for his $400 haircuts. Young recounts that his boss would demand "HairTec Thick & Strong Shampoo for Fine, Fragile Hair".

When Young demanded money to cover the costs of keeping Hunter in hiding, Edwards responded that he could come up with more cash once his wife died.

His reaction to Hunter's pregnancy? She was a "crazy slut".

Oh, and there was a sex tape of Edwards and Hunter that Young managed to locate in the mistress's hat box - and is now the subject of a restraining order granted to Hunter, whose affidavit states demurely that the video is of a "very private and personal nature".

The only thing that Edwards seems to be denying about Young's book is a claim that just before a union forum he made his aide cut out a "made in the USA" label from his suit so it could be sewn in place of the candidate's "made in Italy" label."

snip


The title of Young's book is The Politician. That's appropriate because it's become a term of abuse and derision. During a Capitol Hill hearing on Wednesday when Tim Geithner, the Treasury Secretary, was being given a good kicking by all, an Ohio congressman thundered: "I want to assure you... that you are absolutely a politician."

Obama, of course, ran against "politics as usual" and promised to be transparent and bipartisan - something different. But so far he's turned out to be just like the rest of them in Washington.

Against this backdrop, the Edwards scandal merely feeds the sense of cynicism about the American political class that has been gathering pace for years.

Edwards talked about his love for his wife while he was entertaining his mistress in the marital bed. He championed the poor while expressing contempt for them. Obama made promises about televising health care negotiations and then did everything behind closed doors.

Well, Americans ask, what do you expect? They're politicians. "


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

The following bill of particulars in the $18,000 monthly support payment drew the quote below: I really had to laugh at the last line:

Saw this elsewhere but the $18k Hunter is demanding each month is:
$3,000 mortgage, $400 gas/electric, $75 water/sewer, $50 snow removal, $100 lawn care, $500 maintenance, $100 phone, $160 cell phone, $100 cable tv, $575 auto insurance/registration/maintenance/gas/oil/etc., $1,000 food at home and household supplies, $300 non-prescription drugs/cosmetics/etc., $800 restaurants, $600 clothing, $100 dry cleaning, $250 hair care, $400 domestic help, $300 medical, $30 eye care, $150 dental, $800 medical insurance, $400 club dues and memberships, $300 sports and hobbies, $300 camps, $800 vacations, $1,500 private preschool, $320 child's lessons, $2,100 babysitting, $500 entertainment, $100 alcohol and tobacco, $75 newspapers and periodicals, $400 gifts, $25 professional expenses, $1,200 security guards, $100 birthday parties.

The list is hilarious but the best of all is $100 for alcohol and tobacco for a kid who isn't even two yet!
Quote Post Goto Top
 
cks
Member Avatar

Truth Detector
Jan 30 2010, 12:39 PM
The following bill of particulars in the $18,000 monthly support payment drew the quote below: I really had to laugh at the last line:

Saw this elsewhere but the $18k Hunter is demanding each month is:
$3,000 mortgage, $400 gas/electric, $75 water/sewer, $50 snow removal, $100 lawn care, $500 maintenance, $100 phone, $160 cell phone, $100 cable tv, $575 auto insurance/registration/maintenance/gas/oil/etc., $1,000 food at home and household supplies, $300 non-prescription drugs/cosmetics/etc., $800 restaurants, $600 clothing, $100 dry cleaning, $250 hair care, $400 domestic help, $300 medical, $30 eye care, $150 dental, $800 medical insurance, $400 club dues and memberships, $300 sports and hobbies, $300 camps, $800 vacations, $1,500 private preschool, $320 child's lessons, $2,100 babysitting, $500 entertainment, $100 alcohol and tobacco, $75 newspapers and periodicals, $400 gifts, $25 professional expenses, $1,200 security guards, $100 birthday parties.

The list is hilarious but the best of all is $100 for alcohol and tobacco for a kid who isn't even two yet!
I would add to the hilarious bit the cell and telephone usage as well. :laughin: :laughin: :laughin:
Edited by cks, Jan 30 2010, 12:44 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cks
Member Avatar

One other thought about the the monies requested......does Rielle even plan on taking care of her child? It would seem, from the bill of particulars, that between having a nanny, babysitting, lessons, camp, and all the other things little Frances Quinn will be doing, there would seem little time for quality time with mom - unless that is the time spent smoking and drinking!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joan Foster

To your point, Tony... (the article is quoting from the book "Game Change"... not Andrew Young's book.)


http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/758063--dimanno-the-sordid-tale-of-mr-and-mrs-john-edwards


"Elizabeth Edwards' cancer had returned, diagnosed as incurable. This was further tragedy for a couple that had earlier lost their eldest child, 16-year-old Wade, in a freak car accident. Yet Mrs. Edwards elicits almost no sympathy in the telling of the airport anecdote after the authors' character vivisection – stripping away every pretense attached to the woman's Mother Teresa public image, depicting her as fraud and shrew, maniacally controlling and irrational, ugly in her ambitions and aura of entitlement, the bullying force of terror behind a puffball dumb husband.

The couple's aides were caught in the middle, feeling like "battered spouses" themselves, Game Change observes of the Mrs. Edwards dissonance. "The nearly universal assessment among them was that there was no one on the national stage for whom the disparity between public image and private reality was vaster or more disturbing. What the world saw in Elizabeth: a valiant, determined, heroic everywoman. What the Edwards insiders saw: an abusive, intrusive, paranoid, condescending crazywoman."

snip


Even in America, land of second and third acts and an endlessly forgiving public, there surely can be no rehabilitation for John Edwards. The best he can shoot for is to be ignored while he quietly goes about doing good deeds, as demonstrated recently in Haiti. But there's slim likelihood of fading out, not with today's publication of a tell-all book by the one-time aide and designated fall-guy who originally agreed to John Edwards' pleas that he claim paternity of Hunter's baby; not with Hunter demanding from that individual, Andrew Young, return of a nudie video of she, pregnant, in Edwards' embrace, allegedly in Young's possession, according to court documents obtained by The Associated Press; not when a recent poll of North Carolina voters shows "historically" high disfavour numbers – a 15 per cent approval rate, the most unpopular nadir ever recorded by Public Policy Polling.

No one, apparently, has dared to conduct opinion polling on Elizabeth Edwards. But the fact remains that she was complicit in her husband's lies throughout the year that she knew of his infidelity, knew of the scheming and monstrous manipulation to extract Edwards from his predicament in order to keep the nomination bid rolling, even when the cancer recurrence would have provided the couple a graceful exit. She wanted that damn Democratic nomination at least as much as her spouse, when neither was fit for public office and missus-of.
Edited by Joan Foster, Jan 30 2010, 12:56 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
Rusty Dog
Jan 30 2010, 11:51 AM
Mason
Jan 30 2010, 09:24 AM
The N&O had a rep on the local radio saying there was no way they could've exposed or discovered this story.

It was the same show/station as the guy that allowed the Duke case to be misrepresented on his show (more than once). The Radio host agreed there was nothing to be done.

Was this N&O rep Ruth Sheehan?
No, she's a regular on that show, but they had some guy come and shill.

He defended the entire MSM, while criticizing the Nat. Enq.

If you recall, for some time, the non-reporting of the John Edwards escapades was excused because he didn't hold office.

How'd that work out for Sarah Palin?

If not for the Enquirer, John Edwards would be Vice-President.

.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
I heard Al Gore interviewed just a month or so ago.

The interviewer laughed and apologetically asked Al Gore about the naysayers and critics - and said they keep talking about the way you travel, trying to tear you down.

Al Gore chuckled along with the interviewer and simply said, I offset all my travel.

That was it, that was all he needed to say. No one questions him or the scheme of "offsetting" one's pollution.

What is Elizabeth's Carbon Footprint now in that 30,000 square foot home?

Why is no one asking if that place is really necessary?

Edited by Mason, Jan 30 2010, 01:07 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cks
Member Avatar

Joan Foster
Jan 30 2010, 12:54 PM
To your point, Tony... (the article is quoting from the book "Game Change"... not Andrew Young's book.)


http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/758063--dimanno-the-sordid-tale-of-mr-and-mrs-john-edwards


"Elizabeth Edwards' cancer had returned, diagnosed as incurable. This was further tragedy for a couple that had earlier lost their eldest child, 16-year-old Wade, in a freak car accident. Yet Mrs. Edwards elicits almost no sympathy in the telling of the airport anecdote after the authors' character vivisection – stripping away every pretense attached to the woman's Mother Teresa public image, depicting her as fraud and shrew, maniacally controlling and irrational, ugly in her ambitions and aura of entitlement, the bullying force of terror behind a puffball dumb husband.

The couple's aides were caught in the middle, feeling like "battered spouses" themselves, Game Change observes of the Mrs. Edwards dissonance. "The nearly universal assessment among them was that there was no one on the national stage for whom the disparity between public image and private reality was vaster or more disturbing. What the world saw in Elizabeth: a valiant, determined, heroic everywoman. What the Edwards insiders saw: an abusive, intrusive, paranoid, condescending crazywoman."

snip


Even in America, land of second and third acts and an endlessly forgiving public, there surely can be no rehabilitation for John Edwards. The best he can shoot for is to be ignored while he quietly goes about doing good deeds, as demonstrated recently in Haiti. But there's slim likelihood of fading out, not with today's publication of a tell-all book by the one-time aide and designated fall-guy who originally agreed to John Edwards' pleas that he claim paternity of Hunter's baby; not with Hunter demanding from that individual, Andrew Young, return of a nudie video of she, pregnant, in Edwards' embrace, allegedly in Young's possession, according to court documents obtained by The Associated Press; not when a recent poll of North Carolina voters shows "historically" high disfavour numbers – a 15 per cent approval rate, the most unpopular nadir ever recorded by Public Policy Polling.

No one, apparently, has dared to conduct opinion polling on Elizabeth Edwards. But the fact remains that she was complicit in her husband's lies throughout the year that she knew of his infidelity, knew of the scheming and monstrous manipulation to extract Edwards from his predicament in order to keep the nomination bid rolling, even when the cancer recurrence would have provided the couple a graceful exit. She wanted that damn Democratic nomination at least as much as her spouse, when neither was fit for public office and missus-of.
Joan - you are so right. EE is just as much a narcissist as her husband. She felt that she was entitled to the White House and NOTHING was going to stop her from achieving that address. As cold as this sounds, the return of her cancer was just another useful card, like the card of their son's death, that was played while claiming not to be using it. Tragic mother who had lost a son, tragic cancer stricken mother of two young children who stoicly went about her daily life with her loving and adoring husband - the White House would be her prize where she could out Hillary Hillary in her care and concern for others all the while as a brillant lawyer who put her own career aside for her husband's. She would be a much more appealing figure than Hillary - she was smart, marginally better looking, had two cute little children plus an older, intelligent daughter. She could be the creme de la creme of first ladies. The only problem was those pesky National Enquirer reporters and their nasty gossip - if they could be threatened into submission (this was tried by the msm by suggesting that the newspaper was always wrong about everything) then all would be well - money could buy off Rielle who, anyway, could probably be threatened as well (after all, EE considered herself the brains, her husband stupid, and Rielle a bimbo). Unfortunately, the National Enquirer didn't cave (funny thing about them, they are like the energizer bunny who just keeps on going) and Rielle may be a bimbo, but she was not as dumb a bimbo as EE thought.

EE should have remembered - never underestimate your opponent; to do so is to make the first of a series of fatal mistakes.
Edited by cks, Jan 30 2010, 01:11 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic »
Add Reply