John Edwards indicted by grand jury

He has the right to privacy of this affair. If Americans also thought eating pickles made a bad candidate, then spending money on hiding pickle eating would be justified. Why? Because, pickle eating or legal sexual relations doesn't affect a person's ability to do politics or change their stance on issues. Americans got it coming if they want to add things into politics that don't matter, like private extra-marital affairs. At this point, Americans have decided it really is a political issue, which should be allowable to handle with political funds. It's all about political strategy to hide it. Hiding legal things is unfortunately not a crime, no harm done. But, hiding illegal things should be. This sex was legal. No harm done and it's sex in American is a politically related issue. When Americans get over their sexual hang ups, then we wouldn't see this nonsense spending.

Another example of the judicial system during an economic crisis wasting effort on moral issues. We don't have the time or money to waste on this stupidity. Our energy needs to be spent on more pressing issues. When will government wake up?

I'm with Empire.

Listen, the guy may be a douche in his personal life, but most politicians are.

In short, there is no connection between his personal douchiness and his ability to lead. Therefore, it's none of our goddamn business and it's pretty pathetic really that we expend so many resources trying to hunt down where politicians stick their dicks.

I want my tax dollars back. I frankly don't care where his dick's been. I care if he can lead. And the answers to those two questions aren't even in the same room.

MistressNomad said:

I'm with Empire.

Listen, the guy may be a douche in his personal life, but most politicians are.

In short, there is no connection between his personal douchiness and his ability to lead. Therefore, it's none of our goddamn business and it's pretty pathetic really that we expend so many resources trying to hunt down where politicians stick their dicks.

I want my tax dollars back. I frankly don't care where his dick's been. I care if he can lead. And the answers to those two questions aren't even in the same room.

Click to expand...

Some people really amaze me. All you care about is his ability to lead? Sounds like the stuff I heard about Bill Clinton all over again. Try to think outside the box a little and ask yourself this question: If he screwed over his wife will he screw over me, someone he does not, or ever will know?

What a trusting, naive soul you are. Oh, and by the way, the check's in the mail...

Μολὼν λαβέ;1059539236 said:

Some people really amaze me. All you care about is his ability to lead? Sounds like the stuff I heard about Bill Clinton all over again. Try to think outside the box a little and ask yourself this question: If he screwed over his wife will he screw over me, someone he does not, or ever will know?

What a trusting, naive soul you are. Oh, and by the way, the check's in the mail...

Click to expand...

Yes, that's all I care about. Power and leadership ability is pretty negatively correlated with being a nice guy to know in real life. There is no reason for me to think being a douche in life leads to being a bad leader - historically the opposite is true.

And no, I don't care. Because practically every good leader is a douchebag. And it's not my job to legislate his marriage, and I don't want to be paying for such a ridiculous thing.

Has nothing to do with naivety, though thanks for you condescension. It's just that it doesn't matter.

Μολὼν λαβέ;1059539236 said:

Some people really amaze me. All you care about is his ability to lead? Sounds like the stuff I heard about Bill Clinton all over again. Try to think outside the box a little and ask yourself this question: If he screwed over his wife will he screw over me, someone he does not, or ever will know?

What a trusting, naive soul you are. Oh, and by the way, the check's in the mail...

Click to expand...

He didn't screw over his wife. People have the right to do what they want with their body. The idea of human ownership supposedly ended with slavery in this country. I admit, it's nice when people can find the one and only perfect person that's so perfect, no one else turns them on. Unfortunately, this is not human nature as proven by divorce rates, not to mention all the boyfriends/girlfriends we all go through beforehand. If he had committed a crime against his wife, now you could say he screwed over his wife. But he didn't. He is just like 99% of most Americans, we've had more than one significant other in our lives. Wow! What a suprise! Was the first person you met the person you are with now? Have you ever fantasised about another? How is the act of actually carrying out a fantasy proof of harm to another? You will have to show how an orgasm with a later lover causes physical harm to a prior lover. I'm curioius how you will prove that one. Also, it is a socio-biological fact that men are designed for polygamy, as proven biolgoically and historically in society. It's no surprise they like more than one woman. It doesn't mean we need to consider it in a negative way. Jealously is a mental disorder.

empireofreason said:

He didn't screw over his wife. People have the right to do what they want with their body. The idea of human ownership supposedly ended with slavery in this country. I admit, it's nice when people can find the one and only perfect person that's so perfect, no one else turns them on. Unfortunately, this is not human nature as proven by divorce rates, not to mention all the boyfriends/girlfriends we all go through beforehand. If he had committed a crime against his wife, now you could say he screwed over his wife. But he didn't. He is just like 99% of most Americans, we've had more than one significant other in our lives. Wow! What a suprise! Was the first person you met the person you are with now? Have you ever fantasised about another? How is the act of actually carrying out a fantasy proof of harm to another? You will have to show how an orgasm with a later lover causes physical harm to a prior lover. I'm curioius how you will prove that one. Also, it is a socio-biological fact that men are designed for polygamy, as proven biolgoically and historically in society. It's no surprise they like more than one woman. It doesn't mean we need to consider it in a negative way. Jealously is a mental disorder.

Click to expand...

So their wedding vows, which probably had clauses about honor, pledging faithfulness, and "until death do we part" has no meaning to you? So if you pledge these things to your wife as a condition of marriage and then have a child with another woman while you are still married, that's not screwing over your wife?

Interesting concept; I can't wait for this reply... opcorn2:

Μολὼν λαβέ;1059539236 said:

Some people really amaze me. All you care about is his ability to lead? Sounds like the stuff I heard about Bill Clinton all over again. Try to think outside the box a little and ask yourself this question: If he screwed over his wife will he screw over me, someone he does not, or ever will know?

What a trusting, naive soul you are. Oh, and by the way, the check's in the mail...

Click to expand...

Newt Gingrich 2012 | Winning the Future Together

Deuce said:

Newt Gingrich 2012 | Winning the Future Together

Click to expand...

Newt ended his political career in a similar manner. The party is over for him as well.

Μολὼν λαβέ;1059539312 said:

So their wedding vows, which probably had clauses about honor, pledging faithfulness, and "until death do we part" has no meaning to you? So if you pledge these things to your wife as a condition of marriage and then have a child with another woman while you are still married, that's not screwing over your wife?

Interesting concept; I can't wait for this reply... opcorn2:

Click to expand...

The marriage vows you mention impose expectations on humans that have proven to be unrealistic. We say these vows with the best intentions, but the reality is, situations change in our lives, and we change. If you really love someone, you will want them to have the best things life can offer. That may not be you, so if you want them to be happy and you really love them, then let them go. They should feel the same for you. That's a realistic vow in life. Who's the naive one now?

empireofreason said:

The marriage vows you mention impose expectations on humans that have proven to be unrealistic. We say these vows with the best intentions, but the reality is, situations change in our lives, and we change. If you really love someone, you will want them to have the best things life can offer. That may not be you, so if you want them to be happy and you really love them, then let them go. They should feel the same for you. That's a realistic vow in life. Who's the naive one now?

Click to expand...

This.

I am so tired of people pretending the real problem here is "degredation of society." As though cheating and lying and miserable marriages were any less common back in the "good old days" before accessible divorce. No. People just stayed miserable longer. That's the only difference.

Humans are not built for life-long commitment. We are too cerebral, too horny, and we live too long. The longer we're living the more obvious this is getting. We ARE built for empathy, but unfortunately people's expectations of "forever" sometimes over-rule their empathy, in favor of mutually misery, because doing the empathetic thing means they have to admit that things just don't work this way.

Don't blame the system for your unrealistic expectations. The system is doing the best it can with a failed concept.

Nature has in store many penalties when breaking up if we have offspring. I'm sure this is where the vows get most of their significance. If people don't have children, or the children are full grown, the consequences seem to be neglible. Due to the amount of energy we have available to us compared to times of the past, we can weather a divorce and get away from the misery, if misery is what it has become. I'm not so sure misery really is why most people would break up. This atleast hasn't been the case for me or for others I know, most of the time. I think most people who break up just find circumstances they prefer more as time goes on and things change.

and to think that this dude with the pretty hair was once within a butterfly ballot of becoming just a heartbeat away

i was already old when teddy kennedy garnered a third of his party's support FOR PRESIDENT, including winning primaries in new york, california, pennsylvania and jersey, eleven years AFTER mary jo

and many still lionize a former two term president who, it's pretty hard to deny, is a SERIAL adulterer if not abuser of women

and now we got this anthony i-wanna-waiver weiner in brooklyn who tells the public he was hacked but who can't seem to bring himself to tell authorities he was hacked, who, according to the young lady in washington who received what is everywhere being called "the lewd photo," was probably trying to send it to his porn star correspondent when he accidentally whisked it to washington instead

it all comes down to character

empireofreason said:

Nature has in store many penalties when breaking up if we have offspring. I'm sure this is where the vows get most of their significance. If people don't have children, or the children are full grown, the consequences seem to be neglible. Due to the amount of energy we have available to us compared to times of the past, we can weather a divorce and get away from the misery, if misery is what it has become. I'm not so sure misery really is why most people would break up. This atleast hasn't been the case for me or for others I know, most of the time. I think most people who break up just find circumstances they prefer more as time goes on and things change.

Click to expand...

Hey, my parents splitting up was pretty much the best thing that ever happened to me up to that point. I knew they were unhappy. Kids aren't dumb.

Either way, the end result is that the expectation of 60-year monogamous relationships is just not realistic, for whatever the reason the couple breaks up. And if they're unable to, misery is a common result.

But, another part of this is how much longer childhood has gotten. The length of the average long-term, highly compatible relationship is 7-10 years. By that point, kids were typically capable of becoming more a part of the tribe and needed their parents less. That is, if both their parents were even alive by that point, which they often weren't. It's not like a 2-decade childhood has always been the norm.

Kids today aren't that much different (if they grew up in that kind of society they'd do just as well), except that the body of knowledge is so huge that trying to learn what you need to function in our society in under 2 decades is pretty damn hard. But a 10-year-old is competent enough in the context of a primitive tribe.

In short, there was no reason, back then, for humans to combat the natural course of their relationships for the sake of children. Children didn't stay children anywhere near as long. And parents didn't live as long.

probably the biggest losers in the edwards affair, outside its traumatized victims, are the comprehensive elements of what some like to call the lamestream media

i mean, to be SCOOPED by the enquirer

for A YEAR

while the pretty boy is RUNNING for the highest office in the land

winning 30%, for instance, of his party's support in iowa

making the future president's "shortlist" for veep

it is what it is---the legacy

pray for mrs edwards, her stepchild...

Μολὼν λαβέ;1059539312 said:

So their wedding vows, which probably had clauses about honor, pledging faithfulness, and "until death do we part" has no meaning to you? So if you pledge these things to your wife as a condition of marriage and then have a child with another woman while you are still married, that's not screwing over your wife?

Interesting concept; I can't wait for this reply... opcorn2:

Click to expand...

Don't forget the in sickenss and in health part of the vows he took He is such an asswipe and hope he goes to prision.

Middleground said:

Hmmmmm. I was always under the impression that men's brains were in their dicks. :2razz:

Click to expand...

Part of me is saying not to listen to this negative talk. :mrgreen:

As I understand it, the 900 grand was given for the purpose of keeping his gf housed.

The feds say the money was therefore used to conceal a secret that would have hurt him politically.

If the donors gave it for that purpose (to support Hunter), and it was used for that purpose, and everyone agrees on that, is it illegal?

Slimy and ridiculous, yes, but illegal?