Once again, let's see if light on the darkness of deranged blogs helps people THINK CRITICALLY before they run off the cliff with the screams of their glee...
BLogged by one of our favorite twisters of truth and fact...
"Edwards Expecting Lovechild"
What he fails to mention is several fold...
One..it's a tabloid story from National Enquirer run in mid October - 11th to be exact. And if ya notice...since then...not much else has come out on it...because it quickly appeared to be the stuff of tabloids.
The story might originated with a contributor to the Huffington blog, who seemingly noticed some videos withdrawn from Edward's site, that had some connection to this aide. In classic stupid-human form, the person lept to a conclusion that the removal of the videos was probably because this woman's pregnancy was linked to Edwards...of course!!! Somehow, National Enquirer got hold of the lack of that lack of logic, and in tabloid fashion, ran with it. In fact, it seems the videos removal was connected to campaign law.
Two months of story time on a woman pregnant with a married presidential candidate's 'lovechild' while said candidate is married to a woman fighting cancer...what...do you think this guys name is Newt? Gulliani? Two months...and nothing further has 'emerged.'
Wait...I forgot...more disinformation supplied in Chicken Little form has emerged.
It's so damn easy to check facts on the web. Soooooooo damn easy...
Sheesh.
Copy & paste to friend: (Click inside box; Ctrl + C to copy; Ctrl + V to paste)
|
|
read more blogs!
Blogs by observed50:
|
|
|
|
|
| Edwards, Love Child, & WTF... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
hoftner
|
Dec 19 @ 12:55PM
|
|
|
|
jimbo242
|
Dec 19 @ 1:06PM
|
|
Was this blog tagged truth?
Truth is a rare animal when it comes to politics and I think most intelligent people understand that. It's the low-lifes that perpetuate a lie that don't deserve to breathe my dirty air.
|
|
PROVIDENCE_BOSTON
|
Dec 19 @ 1:19PM
|
|
Good Blog !
I would NOT use the term dis-information.
I would use the term straight out LIAR to describe that blogger .
And I agree with you! It is very easy to check facts on the web and also confirm those facts from a second and third source.
I wonder why many people however don't bother to take the time to do so ?
|
|
SweetNapaGuy
|
Dec 19 @ 1:30PM
|
|
I doubt that the original intent of the blog in question was misinformation. It reeks of the "forwarded email of information that mirrors our preconceived notions" that has oft been the basis of dozens of blogs over the last few months.
Like all forwarded emails, one should check the veracity before trusting it.
|
|
travelwoman
|
Dec 19 @ 1:39PM
|
|
I'm always surprised how much time Americans can spend on the sex life (or supposed sex life) of their candidates or elected government members.
Wouldn't it be more interesting to check out their political background, program and agenda?
If the above mentioned sex life happened between consenting adults, I really don't see the importance...., or does anybody think it would bend his judgement on national matters in one way or another?
(In some European countries [i.e. France, Switzerland...] the sex stories of a candidate or president are not important. They get splattered over the front pages of the equivalent of the National Enquirer, but no one changes his/her intentions vote because of these stories. Why would they...???)
.
|
|
chris549547
|
Dec 19 @ 1:47PM
|
|
  
|
|
SweetNapaGuy
|
Dec 19 @ 1:55PM
|
|
In South America, there was two politicians running for office. One of them was known to be a legendary womanizer.
The other politician ran with the slogan, "Vote for my opponent. He just could be your father."
Bad slogan. The womanizer won by a landslide. Even societies more socially conservative than the USA admire the virility of their leaders.
|
|
IB4U
|
Dec 19 @ 1:58PM
|
|
[/URL]http://www.nationalenquirer.com/john_edwards_love_child/celebrity/64426[/URL]
Try this article, you may be surprised
|
|
travelwoman
|
Dec 19 @ 2:00PM
|
|
SNG....
it's not about their virility....
Their sex life just isn't important in regards to politics, or at least it shouldn't be (unless they run for office in some kind of fundamentalist religious country where extra-marital sex is condemned by law....)
.
|
|
observed50
|
Dec 20 @ 12:22PM
|
|
SweetNapa> Thanks for pointing out that possibility of why such blogging appears on here with such alarming consistency. Do bloggers often have the capacity to do blast emails out to people who sign up? If we are aligned with someone else's point of view, then it would make sense that like with all other forwarded junk, we might assume someone else checked on the veracity of something. Our friend sends us an email about Gates sending us $1,000 for follow-up email, we want to believe they checked out to see if true, because no friend would send me a buffoons attempt to make us all idiots...
would they??? 
Jimbo> Sorry to hear about your air! 
Providence> I resist the urge to label an actor for a behavior. This happens often enough from the blogger, with such zeal, that I have to sense he really must believe what he writes...at the level of its accusation. I don't sense that such voices know what is real, as much as they are absorbed in what they want to believe, want to find as real. The chorus of voices that jump up to support the disinformation are equally so absorbed in what they want to believe, that the facts of something, the reality of something, is immaterial. Interpretation and editorial commentary are what is of greatest importance.
|
|
observed50
|
Dec 20 @ 12:32PM
|
|
Travel> Politics in the US has been drifting into a more and more powerless experience for people since the US's rise to global hegemony. With the rise of power of the military-industrial complex, and the ever more pernicious influence of large money on obfuscation and disinformation through pacs and issue groups, more and more Americans have less and less real information on which to judge candidates. Instead, we get Swift Boating, Edward's babymaking, drug use 30 years ago, and so on, to help us vote on people by the sense of whether or not we'd like em to marry our daughters (and maybe soon, sons).
Add to that a nation that allows religious conservatives to keep twisting government and public life to be dominated by the culture wars used to split the country so Reagan could win, and you have a nation mesmerized by what someone's genitalia are doing. While watching genitals, we think it's unnecessary for us to know the industrial and business sector voices that have the ear of the president and his handler, the vice president.
Chris> All that head pounding...I hope your head feels well soon!
Sweet Napa> Love the electioneering slogan! Whoa! Great to vote for your dad eh?!
|
|
observed50
|
Dec 20 @ 12:56PM
|
|
IB4U> Thanks for the link. There are a number of things about Enquirer 'reporting' that are important to lift.
Note how few sources are identified making the disparaging accusations and interpretations. 'Political insiders' and "a source extremely close to the 43-year-old divorcée ".
A few things should puzzle us. Suppose the story has legs. How, in two months times, in the middle of a muddled race for primary supremacy, has the only 'news' of note on this been two articles from the National Enquirer? Two months time, in a period of hyper-scrutiny, with competing interests who would love to cut the legs out from under another candidate, and a 'new's' organization like Fox who would love nothing more than to have a sex-scandal with a 'liberal devastate a career as has happened with Republicans, how can the only news be two articles of innuendo and a 'close confidant' who after two months, is still an unnamed source? Does that make sense to you? Under a microscope, and the Enquirer is the only one able to buy a story? What exactly is a 'political insider?' Inside to what? Is that a self-description, or a real person?
There's nothing in the story that surprises me, in its construction and vagueness. Sort of like reading one's horoscopes. I have no idea whether Edwards is dad or not, but making public spectacle of rumor as if truth, is deadly and dangerous to reputations and careers. If you're going to try and besmirch people, at least have facts to make the accusation capable of standing on its own. Let news stand on fact, and not on what I want to hear.
|
|
redbronze
|
Aug 10 @ 2:20PM
|
|
|
I take it as "funny" that even though this was the National Enquirer that it was in truth "the truth" Smile.. DNA testing I think is to be done on said child with no father listed on her birth certificate.. It is ungracious of us to think that everyone in office is to be held at a higher standard than our own. Time and time again the one who has mentioned infidelity the loudest is usually the one partaking in it. There is a quote here that I cannot remember about the one speaking the loudest is probably the one who is most guilty. Ahhh well time and telling..
|
|
imlost2
|
Aug 10 @ 8:45PM
|
|
|
No one seemed to care if Jefferson cheated, or Kennedy, or even Clinton who was the President for Gawds sake at the time anymore, why care about Edwards? I am sure the House and Senate are full of them if disclosed. Latest news is the baby has another man who has stepped forward and is claiming the baby, so the woman has slept with someone else too? Hmmmm what about her morals, why isn't she in the news? Actually she is, recently she hopes Edwards will still marry her. Why won't she cooperate then and do the paternity test? Is she protecting Edwards or worried the child isn't his? More politics, smolitics. Personally I think who sleeps with whom should be private and those running around with cameras are schmucks. tc Lost
|
|
observed50
|
Aug 11 @ 9:28AM
|
|
Red> I thought of this December blog with Edwards recent admission of an affair. I had to smile in terms of the source being the Enquirer, and how long it took for something else to emerge other than Enquirer blather. That the story started breaking again with the Enquirer supposedly catching he and she in a hotel didn't bring any greater credibility, as it is so difficult for that 'source' to have credibility. But...utlimately, it turned out to be true.
'1' for the Enquirer. Does this mean I should give credibility to the alien and multi-headed babies stories?? 
Lost> I hadn't heard much about her except she wants to spill something about Elizabeth Edwards. She wants to marry him?? Nothing like marrying a person with whom you cheat, in the hopes s/he won't cheat on you...like you are special and not worthy of cheating. Another sad story on human frailty and the confused nature of the role of sexuality in the US - we want to be enticed by it all over the place, but don't really do anything, be pure and chaste.
|
|
|