On Jul 26, 2008, at 9:44 AM, boo_lives wrote:
What sort of hateful idiot takes an old, completely unsubstantiated
National Enquirer article, which doesn't even provide a name of one
piece of evidence, and calls it "revent revelations" and talks
about it as fact?
Someone who's desperate?
Hey, guess what. Edwards is a lawyer. If the allegations are
untrue, maybe he knows someone that can refute them and go after the
Enquirer. That is, since according to Sal, the accusations are so
baseless.
Lawson, let's call it like it is.
Sorry your understanding of law is about as deep as your preferred
source of reading material. You actually think everything rags like
the enquirer publish has been proven true or else they can be sued
successfully??
Thanks, boo, that's what I was thinking. Obviously the Enq knows
they can't be sued or else they wouldn't print trash as if it were
"fact."
I was kind of wondering why I hadn't seen the "revelations" before
lurk posted them, then I saw where they came from.
Really scraping the bottom of the barrel, aren't we, lurk? If this
is how you and others support the Repugs, heaven help them. You
and your party deserve each other.
Sal
