Comments on: Its Okay, He Didn’t Love Her

By: Roy M

Roy M — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 20:32:59 +0000

j green,

yes, I think I was unfair to Richard on that point. Very unfair. I apologise.

Sorry.

By: At least he didn’t love her — Cranach: The Blog of Veith

At least he didn’t love her — Cranach: The Blog of Veith — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 13:10:16 +0000

[...] that he didn’t love his mistress, as if that someone made it better. I was glad to find Richard Miniter explaining why saying such a thing is so contemptible. I mean, I would also find it despicable if [...]

By: John

John — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 11:57:30 +0000

The reason there was no peep from the feminist movement is because of the D that appeared on every ballot after Edwards’ and Clinton’s names. If that letter were an ‘R’ they would be having cows in great quantity, demanding penis control legislation, etc.

By: j green

j green — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 00:17:11 +0000

Roy M is analyzing Miniter’s mind by saying that’s the way Miniter thinks? Miniter said that’s the way no-longer-gay-Johnny abviously thinks. Miniter is recounting facts and attributing the theory based on his actions. Miniter didn’t have the affai–but that Roy M takes offense with the mindset proves that’s its disturbing, but the deep offense should be directed at John Edwards the perpetrator, not Miniter the writer about the perpetrator. This is a classic case of shooting the messenger. By your logic, anyone who wrote about the Son of Sam’s mindset is a sicko even though we all know who the sicko is. Perhaps the critics who make these unfair criticisms of writers are also equally qualified to be labeled as sickos like the Son of Sam himself.

By: RJ

RJ — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 21:09:37 +0000

I think his wife has very dirty hands in this mess. I think that such a reality might come out if they both enter into that dark world of shrinks and decide to tell the truth and answer all questions put forth honestly.

However, should we expect “lawyers” to do such? Are they even capable? Plato had his ideas, written 2300 years ago: I’m not sure truth is part of a lawyer’s very being!

By: MarkO

MarkO — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 19:57:10 +0000

John Boy loves only himself. Did you see the way he is holding his love child? It reminds me of a Peter DeVries line that goes somethng like this: “We’re not lovers, we’re f**kers.”

Maybe the only true thing in the entire interview. I’m looking for illegal use of campaign funds. Coming to a supermarket near you because the MSM will not go there while the Big O is on parade.

By: GeoffB

GeoffB — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 18:57:51 +0000

Roy M: Richard was summarizing what Edwards said and what it added up to, not making his own judgments.

By: Virginia Harris

Virginia Harris — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 15:32:57 +0000

Sex and the Suffragettes

Elizabeth Edwards can choose how to handle her husband’s philandering – she can stay or she can go. That wasn’t always so.

Thanks to the suffragettes, women have choices in their lives.

But most people are totally in the dark about HOW the suffragettes won.

Betcha don’t know which president had a love child while running for office, and how that helped women win the vote.

Now finding out the sexy, shocking truth is as easy as opening your e-mail.

“The Privilege of Voting” is a new e-mail series that follows eight women from 1912 – 1920 to reveal ALL that happened to set the stage for women to win the vote.

Two beautiful and extremely powerful suffragettes — Alice Paul and Emmeline Pankhurst are featured, along with Edith Wharton, Isadora Duncan, Alice Roosevelt and two gorgeous presidential mistresses.

There is a ton of heartache, and lots of hot affairs on the rocky road to the ballot box.

Presented in a unique sequential e-mail series that makes discovering history fast and FUN! Each exciting episode is about 10 minutes – perfect to enjoy during coffeebreaks, or anytime.

Subscribe free at

http://www.CoffeebreakReaders.com/tpovpage.html

By: Jerry T.

Jerry T. — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 14:00:27 +0000

She’s a starfucker. He’s just a fuckin idiot!

By: Roy M

Roy M — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 13:45:05 +0000

Here is my favorite contrast in the piece.

“First, it is ungentlemanly and cowardly to say it….”

“That makes her a whore”

Here is the nastiest line in the piece

“It means he thought of poor Rielle Hunter as an object to be used.”

Leaving aside that ‘poor Rielle Hunter’ is the women Richard just called a whore, it is nasty because of what it tells us about Richard’s mind. Apparently there are two kinds of people in his mind those who are loved and objects to be used. Scary.