--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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?
Actually, Boo appears not to be aware of the current story. > >> 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." Actually the Enquirer has been successfully sued a number of times for printing false information (by Carol Burnett, for instance). The Enquirer is a very mixed bag. It's a big mistake to dismiss an Enquirer story out of hand, because it has done some solid reporting. Unfortunately, it looks as though the current Edwards story may be true (just like a similar story the Enquirer broke about Jesse Jackson some years ago). And Barry, the reason it's of interest is not because we need to know what Edwards does in his private life, but because if the story is true, it's going to affect his *public* life. He's a possible vice-presidential candidate, and even if that doesn't work out, there's been speculation that Obama would appoint him to his cabinet, possibly as attorney general. If the Enquirer story turns out to be true, those possibilities are very likely down the tubes. > 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? Not, as it happens. It's already hit the MSM (the LA Times, for one), but the MSM is being appropriately cautious until it can confirm the story. It's being taken seriously, in other words. If this > is how you and others support the Repugs, heaven help them. You > and your party deserve each other. Lurk is quite right to point out that it isn't *only* Republicans who have some problems with "family values." That's the case even if the Edwards story is false.
