KittyWampus
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Aug-06-08 03:24 PM
Original message |
What does a bogus picture of John Edwards in a tabloid have to do w/upcoming Presidential Election? |
Araxen
(826 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Aug-06-08 03:25 PM
Response to Original message |
|
another thread about it. Congrats. :nuke::nopity:
|
gateley
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Aug-06-08 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
4. I don't think it matters (another thread) |
|
We're not naive and we know the story is out there. Ignoring it doesn't gain anything, and discussing it doesn't hurt anything, IMO. :shrug:
|
KittyWampus
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Aug-06-08 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
5. I have no fucking interest in talking about the bogus crap. I want to know in what context |
|
it becomes a valid topic in this forum.
|
JuniperLea
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Aug-06-08 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
7. It is a valid topic because this is a smear of all Democrats |
|
And Edwards could be asked to assume a role in Obama's cabinet. If not VP, then somewhere else.
|
KittyWampus
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Aug-06-08 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
8. So any tabloid crap about any Democrat is valid since any of them might be in Obama's Admin? |
JuniperLea
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Aug-06-08 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
11. Do you understand the nature of information in our society? |
|
Do you know that regardless of debunking down the road, most people will take the first thing they heard as fact and never rewrite the memory?
Edwards is probably just the first of many. They have nothing. The photos are bogus as all hell. Yet there will be some who give it cred, and we need to be aware.
Use hide thread if you don't want to deal.
|
Pyrzqxgl
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Aug-06-08 03:27 PM
Response to Original message |
2. The Beginning of a smear of anyone who might be a part of an Obama Administration? |
HelenWheels
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Aug-06-08 03:28 PM
Response to Original message |
3. Big business wants to keep Edwards out of Obama's administration |
|
They know that as AG they aren't safe to continue to do their dirty business and as a supreme court justice he would really be a threat to them. The rest of the democrats, those in contention for appointments in Obama's administration, seem all to willing to turn a blind eye to their underhanded ways.
|
KittyWampus
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Aug-06-08 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
6. not buying it. there are plenty of reform minded people who could serve in an Obama Admin |
|
Edited on Wed Aug-06-08 03:32 PM by cryingshame
and would "threaten" corporate interests the way some fancy Edwards would.
But that is pretty thin excuse for bringing the topic up in this forum, isn't it?
|
JuniperLea
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Aug-06-08 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
|
After all the post-primary Hillary hating threads, this OP seems completely apropos.
|
avaistheone1
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Aug-06-08 03:36 PM
Response to Original message |
10. Let's not forget the bogus stories Drudge ran during the Kerry campaign |
|
about Kerry having an affair.
It turned out to be all lies.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Wed May 01st 2024, 02:04 PM
Response to Original message |