Edwards admits to extramarital affair

[abcdefz]

The kid is not my son....


From CNN:

(CNN) -- Former U.S. senator and Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards admitted to an extramarital affair in an interview with ABC
News, the network reported Friday. He denied being the father of the woman's child, as had been alleged in tabloid reports.

Speaking to the network for a story to be aired Friday night, Edwards acknowledged the affair with 42-year-old Rielle Hunter, which began
after she was hired to make documentary videos for his campaign, ABC said.

He said he has not taken a paternity test, but that the timing of the affair rules out the possibility that he could be her baby girl's father.

Edwards, of North Carolina, had repeatedly called reports of the affair "lies" but refused to discuss them further.

The former North Carolina senator announced in January that he was dropping out of the 2008 Democratic presidential race.

"It is time for me to step aside so that history can blaze its path," he said in New Orleans, Louisiana.

With his wife, Elizabeth, and children at his side, Edwards said he couldn't predict "who will take the final steps to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue,"
but he said it would be a Democrat.

He trailed Sen. Hillary Clinton and Obama in the early contests. He came in third in key races in New Hampshire and South Carolina.





...his 126 delegates are up for grabs.

[saz]

too bad, considering he probably won't be able to run again for any higher office, but then again he's not the first politician to have an affair. i'm sure he'll continue with his anti-poverty work. this doesn't really concern me anymore than larry craig's liasons, and edwards isn't holding office, so it may be non-story fairly soon.

[RobMoney$]

In 2006, Edwards' political action committee paid $100,000 in a four-month span to a newly formed firm run by Hunter, who directed the production of just four Web videos, one a mere 2 1/2 minutes long.


Ruh-Roh Shaggy.

[DroppinScience]

I'm wondering if they'll have a Maury Povich-style paternity test thing where we get to find out who the father really is. :p

But yeah, I guess he won't be a VP candidate anytime soon.

[RobMoney$]

too bad, considering he probably won't be able to run again for any higher office, but then again he's not the first politician to have an affair. i'm sure he'll continue with his anti-poverty work. this doesn't really concern me anymore than larry craig's liasons, and edwards isn't holding office, so it may be non-story fairly soon.

He also lied about this story altogether when it first broke two years ago.


The National Enquirer first reported on the affair in October 2007, and Edwards denied it.
"The story is false," he told reporters. "It's completely untrue, ridiculous."


I doubt it'll ever be a non-story for Edwards. His political career is over. He's lost all credibility. It's kind of hard to get people to vote for you when you are an admitted adulterer and liar.

[Whatitis]

too bad, considering he probably won't be able to run again for any higher office, but then again he's not the first politician to have an affair. i'm sure he'll continue with his anti-poverty work. this doesn't really concern me anymore than larry craig's liasons, and edwards isn't holding office, so it may be non-story fairly soon.


Such the mudslinger.

[NoFenders]

He's toast. Nobody likes a liar and a cheat. Epsecially after they've been caught.


:cool:

[QueenAdrock]

Really? I thought you still liked Bush.

Either way, shame on Edwards. It doesn't surprise me; there have only been 3 presidents in history that have not had affairs. I'm sure plenty of senators and ex-senators have had infidelities as well. It's commonplace among politicians, and it's sad. Apparently his wife and family members knew about the affair since 2006, so why the hell didn't he cut off the affair then? Did he just not care about what they thought, or did they not care about the affair and figure it "came with the territory"? I mean, jeez.

[saz]

well, clinton lied his ass off when the lewinsky story broke. and if presidents were allowed to run for a third term, he probably would've won, considering his high approval rating at the time. and rob you're a huge clinton fan, i think you probably would've voted for him if he ran again in '00, despite his affair and subsequent lying about it.

when politicians have affairs, fool around, and then lie about it, it doesn't really bother me. it's really a personal matter between the politician and his or her family. but lying about going to war and the reasons for going to war are inexcusable.

Such the mudslinger.

:confused:

[EN[i]GMA]

What pisses me off about this is he ran for President knowing this, and hiding it.

Imagine if he, miracle of miracles, had won the Democratic primary, and then this broke.

He would be fucked, and thus WE would be royally fucked.

If you want to lie about your personal life, whatever, I don't give a shit, just don't do anything that would fuck over the rest of the country.

Asshole.

[RobMoney$]

well, clinton lied his ass off when the lewinsky story broke. and if presidents were allowed to run for a third term, he probably would've won, considering his high approval rating at the time. and rob you're a huge clinton fan, i think you probably would've voted for him if he ran again in '00, despite his affair and subsequent lying about it.

when politicians have affairs, fool around, and then lie about it, it doesn't really bother me. it's really a personal matter between the politician and his or her family. but lying about going to war and the reasons for going to war are inexcusable.

What does Bush lying about WMD's have to do about this? Don't fall into that partisan mudslinging trap of "Well, their side lies too". (I'm pretty sure that's where whatitis was going with his comment too.)

And the difference with Clinton is he followed rule #1 in politics. DENY, DENY, DENY until they prove it. Then still find some way to DENY it.
He never admitted his affair which left his supporters with something to hold on to. He also had a great track record and the country was doing great at the time.

I agree with you that it doesn't affect your ability to do your job as a politician, but most folks don't feel that way because they live under the guise that politicians are honest people.

[Bob]

i don't get why public figures have such a hard time keeping it in their pants. i don't have any problems not having sex, what's wrong with them?

[saz]

bush lying about wmds is something that pisses me off, whereas i could care less if a politician is fooling around on their spouse. i mentioned it because lying to wage an unnecessary war has resulted in thousands of young dead americans, hundreds of thousands of dead iraqis, etc. whereas clinton just lied about sex, and no one got killed or blown up. yeah, democrats and republicans lie and most of them are full of shit. not only did bush sell an unecessary war with lies, but so did lbj with vietnam and that war was far worse, in fact it was utter insanity. i'd say that 10% of dems and 1% of republicans are genuine. greens and libertarians are far more genuine.

sorry i don't buy the argument that clinton actually had a strategy, but yes america was in much better shape. i really think that, especially after the lewinsky scandal passed, americans just didn't really care because having an affair generally doesn't effect a politician's capability of doing the job, despite the christian right wanting americans to care. larry craig is gay, so what.

[ms.peachy]

I can't figure out why I'm supposed to care if a guy (or gal, for that matter) has an affair, and then denies it, unless they are being a complete hypocrite about it. For example, if you are running on some kind of 'traditional family values' bollocks platform and being all anti-everybody-who-isn't-heterosexual- with-2.5-kids-living-in-a-big-suburban-house-and-driving-a-minivan-to-church whilst in the meantime you are paying 17 year old rent boys to suck your cock in the back room of the local Kings and Queens club, then yeah I got a problem with that. But if you're just some schmuck who fooled around on your spouse, then, you know, I don't think it's a great idea but we're all human.

[yeahwho]

I can't figure out why I'm supposed to care if a guy (or gal, for that matter) has an affair, and then denies it, unless they are being a complete hypocrite about it. For example, if you are running on some kind of 'traditional family values' bollocks platform and being all anti-everybody-who-isn't-heterosexual- with-2.5-kids-living-in-a-big-suburban-house-and-driving-a-minivan-to-church whilst in the meantime you are paying 17 year old rent boys to suck your cock in the back room of the local Kings and Queens club, then yeah I got a problem with that. But if you're just some schmuck who fooled around on your spouse, then, you know, I don't think it's a great idea but we're all human.

Your right, he'll be dragged through the mud and tossed up for everybody to read about. It's a story that will be crammed down our throats here in the US for the next week, maybe two, whether we care or not. I just don't care about it. So many other pressing issues confronting our lives here and abroad.

He's done, that's the political death knell for anyone holding public office. It's unfortunate and sad for his family. I'm surprised a bit by his behavior in the denial, glad I was never too enthralled by his political style.

Lawyers :rolleyes:

[abcdefz]

I can't figure out why I'm supposed to care if a guy (or gal, for that matter) has an affair, and then denies it, unless they are being a complete hypocrite about it. For example, if you are running on some kind of 'traditional family values' bollocks platform and being all anti-everybody-who-isn't-heterosexual- with-2.5-kids-living-in-a-big-suburban-house-and-driving-a-minivan-to-church whilst in the meantime you are paying 17 year old rent boys to suck your cock in the back room of the local Kings and Queens club, then yeah I got a problem with that. But if you're just some schmuck who fooled around on your spouse, then, you know, I don't think it's a great idea but we're all human.


Actually, family and morality were things he repeatedly spoke of in his campaign, so... yeah.

[Documad]

Actually, family and morality were things he repeatedly spoke of in his campaign, so... yeah.

And didn't Edwards criticize Bill Clinton for his poor judgment re sex?

[ms.peachy]

Then, you know, that's the bed he's made for himself and he'll have to lie in it - no pun intended. I still can't be convinced to care that much about it, though.

[abcdefz]

Basically, he kind of tied in the family/morality thing when they announced his wife had cancer. Which now looks really really cheap.

[yeahwho]

Basically, he kind of tied in the family/morality thing when they announced his wife had cancer. Which now looks really really cheap.

He is really cheap, the bar is set pretty low on both Edwards and the woman involved. I'm no moral crusader but I'd like to think I would leave somebodies wife alone and not try and have sexytime with her while her husband was going through chemo or some other life threatening situation.

Hey though, I was pretty fucking disappointed when Clinton tried to deny the Lewenski affair.

Bill should cancel his Democratic convention affair and go counsel Edwards. The Republicans will be making hay of this in a big way, that stuff works really good on about 20% of the US electorate.

[saz]

i think their affair ended in '06, before elizabeth edwards' cancer returned. it's no excuse as he's a total hypocrite, however he did tell his family about it before her cancer came back.

in hindsight i don't think edwards had much of a political career after losing this year's convention. at best he could've been appointed to a position in a future administration, and i wouldn't really be surprised after a few years or so, when this is well over with, that he's appointed to some anti-poverty task force if obama is elected. after all, it's not as if he pulled an eliot spitzer.

edit: you have to love the media. they're currently drooling over this story, yet many in the press quickly jumped to the defence of mccain when the new york times raised questions about his relationship and involvement with vicki iseman (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/21/AR2008022101410.html). i don't care that mccain may have had an affair, but the media's hypocracy is ridiculous.

[DroppinScience]

Actually, family and morality were things he repeatedly spoke of in his campaign, so... yeah.

At the same time, he did also admit that he "sins every single day" so while he espoused family and morality, he also admitted he was a human with flaws.

I overall agree with peachy's assessment of how much we should care about a politician's infidelity. It's disappointing for this to happen to Edwards, but at least he didn't inappropriately IM pages, have a wide stance in a bathroom stall (at the same time as actively supporting gay marriage bans, etc.), or lead an anti-corruption crusade while seeking the company of prostitutes.

[DroppinScience]

edit: you have to love the media. they're currently drooling over this story, yet many in the press quickly jumped to the defence of mccain when the new york times raised questions about his relationship and involvement with vicki iseman (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/21/AR2008022101410.html). i don't care that mccain may have had an affair, but the media's hypocracy is ridiculous.

To be fair, wasn't there a credibility gap with that allegation?

[yeahwho]

These guys should get together and start a superhero consortium of sorts, you know, President Bill Clinton, New Jersey Governor James McGreevey, Idaho Senator Larry Craig, Louisiana Senator David Vitter, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, Senator Edwards and all the rest of them.

They could fly in and out of some sort of strange hidden tunnel and cheat on their wives if needed to help stop the terrorism.

[yeahwho]

And didn't Edwards criticize Bill Clinton for his poor judgment re sex?

Something like Bubalicous!

[NoFenders]

I think the main thing missed with all of this, is it's yet another example of how shitty our society has become. There's people here saying whatever he does is his business.Fine, except when you were just running for President.I think even he should know that there'll be a spotlight on him for bit, even if he isn't running anymore.But worse than that, look at how weak we are. It really seems that ever since Slick Willy got caught cheating and lying to the American public a lot of people just chalk up sex scandal to every political figure. Like it's ok. Acceptable is a better word for this mindset. How sad is that. What do you tell your kids about this?? I'd really like to know what our youth takes from the adults in todays society. So far, from what I've seen, kids today are about money,greed, and selfish desires. The "He's a politician, they all cheat. Every one of'em did it." Can not help at all. It only justifies a selfish mind. Selfish comes to mind when I think of a guy who cheats on his wife. These things are clues as to what would have been if we had him as a candidate. One said, we would be fucked if he was the nominee. Assuming he would lose because of the affair. When in all reality, we would be even more fucked if he was the nominee and we never new about it. Say he won. We would have a weak guy who gives into temptation as President. Now I know why I never bought the home cookin attitude from Edwards.

Not sure if I should be mad at the media or Edwards. I think they are both scum anyway.

:cool:

[abcdefz]

I guess the question is: are politicians expected to be moral leaders or role models?

I know the question comes up with athletes and, to some extent, some celebrities (depending mostly on their persona). But what about politicians?

I think with politicians, it should be expected. These are people who make decisions about society for a living, so they should be expected
to show sound judgment themselves. If someone's filled for bankruptcy, would you want them handling your finances?

[saz]

presidents and politicians have been fooling around since the dawn of the 19th century. few presidents haven't slept around. it's always been like that. i don't think people find this behaviour, cheating on your spouse, acceptable, but rather they don't care. they don't care because not only is it a personal matter, but also cheating generally doesn't affect a politician's capability of doing the job. people don't have to tell their children anything, because this isn't a critical issue that affects every man, woman and child in the country. it's an issue between the stupid cheating politician and his wife.

edwards never had a chance at the nomination. the media completely ignored him, as they were too obsessed with their contrived high school popularity contest between obama and hillary. the media have been patronizing him and wagging their proverbial, collective finger at him and saying shame. meanwhile, john mccain is also running for president, has secured the republican nomination, yet he has had his own affairs in the past, including the possibility of a more recent one with vicki iseman. but considering that mccain is the darling of the corporate media, they were scolding the new york times for raising questions about mccain's relationship with iseman. plus, giuliani not only may have had an affair with cristyne lateganohad, but he also had an affair with judith nathan while in office, and charged taxpayers to have her chauffered around town. so, if the media are going to preach and lecture edwards, they shouldn't forget to include the others.


"Actually, pondering Edwards' futile quest for the nomination gives me more respect for the guy. The fact is, Edwards was the only explicitly progressive candidate, and he knew he wasn't going to win, but he kept at it, spending lots of money (including a bit of mine) because he wanted to get those pesky issues about working class people out there on the table, and no one else did (or at least, only Hillary did, and only after Edwards forced her hand). Every Edwards supporter knew that in the Capitalist Golden Age, where our "leaders" are prized for their Midas touch, someone had to speak up for plain old social and economic decency. So he did.

But don't come crying to me about what if he'd won. He wasn't going to win and everyone knew it. He was the stalking horse for Hillary and Obama and he stayed in the race long enough to to put his issues on the table. Edwards has called himself a narcissist. My guess is, with regard to sex, he's just a guy. I've know a lot of guys who reacted to misfortune by going out and getting stupidly laid, haven't you?

But going out and getting stupidly laid and then coming home and reconciling with the wife is not the same as going out, getting stupidly laid, then divorcing the crippled wife and marrying the pretty young thing (and taking out your marriage license before the divorce is final). One is stupid. The other is cruel. Brutal. Heinous. And well within the moral capacities of our Republican presidential candidate."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-smiley/my-edwards-diary-day-two_b_118254.html

[abcdefz]

The "they've always done it" argument is illogical and you should know better.

And how can you say cheating doesn't generally affect a person's job performance? Are you kidding? If only because of the time it takes
to arrange the stuff which could be spent on other things; if only because there's invariably stress (even if the cheater doesn't think it's
immoral, there are the demands of the others involved, the possible suspicions, the stress of trying to maintain a secret with more than
one person involved....). The affects shit, even if you think the person's reasoning and decision-making are unaffected. It's like saying
that the fact that Presidents get about four hours' sleep a night doesn't affect things.

[saz]

no, it isn't illogical at all. thomas jefferson was sleeping with one of his slaves while in office.

when clinton was messing around with lewinsky, did the economy or the country go down the toilet? no. or jfk? no. after the lewinsky scandal was over with, americans didn't care and when clinton left office, he had a high approval rating. i'm not a clinton fan, but he left the country in very decent shape, with budget surpluses.

i think that the person's reasoning and decision-making in regards to staying faithful to their spouse is affected, but not in say, matters of running the country.

[NoFenders]

We should just throw away morals and such and trade them in for cash??

Since Jefferson did it, (by the way she was more than a side fuck, he was in love with another woman, it wasn't an intern nor movie star nor commerical producer) that makes it acceptable??

We should only judge them if they do a shitty job after they screw around right??

As long as you do your job, fuck around. It's the American way. Really sad.

:cool:

[saz]

no, it is the cheating politician who throws away their own morals when they cheat, not the voter or tax payer.

i wasn't stating that what jefferson did, or what eisenhower, jfk, or clinton etc did was acceptable. my point was that politicians have been fooling around for a long time.

when a politician fools around on his or her spouse, that is their problem or dilemma. it's their personal matter. personally i think it's wrong for anyone to fool around on their spouse, but again it's their personal business. we can judge the individual in question, and condemn them for cheating, for sure. it is heartbreaking for their spouse. but as long as it is not affecting their overall job performance, i'm not going to care.

[NoFenders]

Ok, understood, but why is it such common place to just excuse the political figure. Why should it be assumed that if you are in polotics, you are a cheater. Where will this get us?? My point is for people to say something besides "He's a political guy, they all screw around." And how do you know it doesn't effect their overall job performance. Don't you think there's better ways to spend your time when you tell your wife your working late, other just going out and fucking around. How about actually working late?? Then there's the entire coverup that takes a huge amount of time out fo your life, just to save face. This isn't working. And the stress once things are leaked has to be insane. So much that he probably couldn't do or think of anything else. Good thing Slick Willy had an office (which he lied to as well) to keep things in track while he fucked around.

:cool:

[yeahwho]

We should just throw away morals and such and trade them in for cash??

Since Jefferson did it, (by the way she was more than a side fuck, he was in love with another woman, it wasn't an intern nor movie star nor commerical producer) that makes it acceptable??

We should only judge them if they do a shitty job after they screw around right??

As long as you do your job, fuck around. It's the American way. Really sad.

:cool:

Since women in the United States had practically "No Rights" during the 1700's does it shock or surprise anybody that the woman he had sex with was his slave and not a professional business woman?

It's just LOL funny you would mention that the "other woman" was not a intern nor movie star nor commercial producer.

Nope, after 10 years of marriage Martha Wayles Skelton Jefferson who gave birth to six kids died. Thomas Jefferson never remarried. She was the perfect wife in many ways, it was she who instituted the brewing of beer at Monticello, which continued until her husband's death.

[RobMoney$]

I think the main thing missed with all of this, is it's yet another example of how shitty our society has become. There's people here saying whatever he does is his business.Fine, except when you were just running for President.I think even he should know that there'll be a spotlight on him for bit, even if he isn't running anymore.But worse than that, look at how weak we are. It really seems that ever since Slick Willy got caught cheating and lying to the American public a lot of people just chalk up sex scandal to every political figure. Like it's ok. Acceptable is a better word for this mindset. How sad is that. What do you tell your kids about this?? I'd really like to know what our youth takes from the adults in todays society. So far, from what I've seen, kids today are about money,greed, and selfish desires. The "He's a politician, they all cheat. Every one of'em did it." Can not help at all. It only justifies a selfish mind. Selfish comes to mind when I think of a guy who cheats on his wife. These things are clues as to what would have been if we had him as a candidate. One said, we would be fucked if he was the nominee. Assuming he would lose because of the affair. When in all reality, we would be even more fucked if he was the nominee and we never new about it. Say he won. We would have a weak guy who gives into temptation as President. Now I know why I never bought the home cookin attitude from Edwards.

Not sure if I should be mad at the media or Edwards. I think they are both scum anyway.

:cool:


Edwards never had a chance. He defines the term "Phony Politician".
He makes Obama look like Patton.

[NoFenders]

Since women in the United States had practically "No Rights" during the 1700's does it shock or surprise anybody that the woman he had sex with was his slave and not a professional business woman?

It's just LOL funny you would mention that the "other woman" was not a intern nor movie star nor commercial producer.

Nope, after 10 years of marriage Martha Wayles Skelton Jefferson who gave birth to six kids died. Thomas Jefferson never remarried. She was the perfect wife in many ways, it was she who instituted the brewing of beer at Monticello, which continued until her husband's death.

Since you know this much, you'd think you'd know how he felt about his mistress. He brought her to France with him.

The reason I went with your Jefferson example is exactly the point you made. The other women involved with other men (as most are) were just objects of lust. A moment where one dropped the ball for the sake of a fuck. This wasn't the case for Jefferson. He actually loved the girl. I highly doubt any of the previous mentioned felt anywhere near that for their flings.



:cool:

[abcdefz]

no, it isn't illogical at all. thomas jefferson was sleeping with one of his slaves while in office.



Um... how does that make it right? Just because there's an historical precendent -- even a preponderance of
evidence -- doesn't make something right.

"Oh -- people have killed other people for a long time; it's okay!"

[yeahwho]

Edwards never had a chance. He defines the term "Phony Politician".
He makes Obama look like Patton.

You'll enjoy this cartoon (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20080812/Cartoon20080812.gif) from our local paper.

[saz]

i don't think it's common place to excuse the political figure, but rather with people in general. if i know of someone who is cheating on their spouse, i consider that to be their personal business. sure, it is wrong to cheat, but again it's their business.

it's assumed that you're a cheater if you're in politics or hold public office, because well, politicians generally stink in that aspect. there are very few and far between of them who are genuine, or who stay true to their political convictions.


Edwards never had a chance. He defines the term "Phony Politician".
He makes Obama look like Patton.

i agree that he was dumb for cheating and is a hypocrite. however hill and bill aren't exactly genuine either.

[abcdefz]

Our paper had a cartoon where one spouse is reading a newspaper headline about the affair and the
other spouse says "So THAT explains the four hundred dollar haircuts..."

That cuts a couple of ways, I guess.

[saz]

Um... how does that make it right? Just because there's an historical precendent -- even a preponderance of
evidence -- doesn't make something right.

"Oh -- people have killed other people for a long time; it's okay!"

i wasn't saying, nor have i been saying that cheating is right. it's wrong. i've stated that already.

you previously stated that the "they've always done it" argument is illogical, and i replied that it isn't illogical, because politicians have been fooling around for a long time. just because i pointed out that politicians have been fooling around for a long time, doesn't imply that i think it is right.

[yeahwho]

Since you know this much, you'd think you'd know how he felt about his mistress. He brought her to France with him.

The reason I went with your Jefferson example is exactly the point you made. The other women involved with other men (as most are) were just objects of lust. A moment where one dropped the ball for the sake of a fuck. This wasn't the case for Jefferson. He actually loved the girl. I highly doubt any of the previous mentioned felt anywhere near that for their flings.



:cool:

I know enough to get be by, I just thought your historical perspective of the 1700's woman was funny. Seeing how the 1700's woman in the USA had about 0 rights and basically just represented the family.

Jefferson could not be in a relationship with a professional business woman because there were no professional business women in the 1700's.

I'm finding explaining this fact to you even funnier, he supposedly fathered more kids with his "er" slave (s) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Hemings) that he went on tour with him to Europe. I'm sure we would have more conclusive evidence of that today in Americas more open society with it's technological medical advances and all.

I wouldn't get all misty eyed over Jefferson's Love affair (s).

[NoFenders]

I gave you no clue as to my perspective of the woman of the 1700s.

I didn't realise Monica was professional. (Oh there's so many ways you could go with that.)

It wasn't some girl that he met at a party and fucked once or twice.

Who's getting misty eyed? My point is that the relationship wasn't one of temporary lust. It was one where he truely felt for the girl. So much that he'd bring her around with him. At that time it was unheard of, especially with a slave. It's not a very good comparison is all I'm saying. Comparing Jefferson to the likes of Slick Willy, JFK,Edwards, that gov of NY. These were all guys who met some girl that was star struck and fucked them. maybe once, maybe twice, amybe 10 times, but it was just a fuck. Nothing more. There was actual substance to Jefferson. I'd have an easier time explaining that to my kids than what these selfish egomaniacs do.

For somebody who thinks they get by, I often wonder how. Try not to jump on the attack whenever you see me post.It'll make you a little more tolerable. Just a little.

:cool:

[yeahwho]

I gave you no clue as to my perspective of the woman of the 1700s.
:cool:

Yes you did,

We should just throw away morals and such and trade them in for cash??

Since Jefferson did it, (by the way she was more than a side fuck, he was in love with another woman, it wasn't an intern nor movie star nor commerical producer) that makes it acceptable??

We should only judge them if they do a shitty job after they screw around right??

As long as you do your job, fuck around. It's the American way. Really sad.

Historians universally agree Jefferson fathered multiple children with multiple slaves, so WTF. What are you trying to prove? That he was some sort of classy guy in the ladies department?

[NoFenders]

Yes you did,





Good grief man. You're really stretching there man. Yeah, you know I totally though there was movie stars and commercial producers in the 1700s. Thanks for setting me straight oh wise one. Get a hobby bud. You're really losing it.

And to answer your question, what I'm trying to prove is that comparing Jefferson to any of the before mentioned isn't quite right. He had serious feelings for this girl. Your historian findings are the first I've heard of such nature. He had 6 with Martha, and possibly 7 with Sally. He wasn't a typical slave owner where he'd sleep with multiple women. Some of the slaves in his home were his kids, and he educated them to the best he could. He lived this life in secret, not because of his pride, but because of his love for his family. So that's my point. Everyone of these other guys were just out for some action. They feared being caught because it would tarnish their image. I highly doubt they ever once considered how it would effect the mistress.Selfishness. Plain and simple. Jefferson wasn't in this department, at least not in my book. You should read it.

:cool:

[yeahwho]

It's good to put things in there historical perspective. It would of been real creepy is if Edwards did father kids with his slaves.

Or even more creepier if Jefferson was in a Beverly Hills Hotel banging away on a commercial producer.

As far as criteria for which affair was sleazier I will abstain. At least Jefferson was a widow. And wore a wig rather than getting $600 haircuts on the campaign stump. And Jefferson penned this in one of letters,

"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

He had the right idea's going on. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/tj3.html)

[Documad]

You have to be kidding me!

Thomas Jefferson OWNED Sally Hemmings. She had no choice in who she could "love". She had no free will. What he did would be rape today. Jefferson didn't even free her in his will.

And yes, our expectations for men in power have changed over the years. Men used to be able to sexually harass the women who worked for them without fear. Now that shit is illegal.

[yeahwho]

You have to be kidding me!

Thomas Jefferson OWNED Sally Hemmings. She had no choice in who she could "love". She had no free will. What he did would be rape today. Jefferson didn't even free her in his will.

And yes, our expectations for men in power have changed over the years. Men used to be able to sexually harass the women who worked for them without fear. Now that shit is illegal.

I hope your not mixing me up with NoFenders... dude creeps me out with his justifications on the slave relationship. And I think he wrote a book about Slave/Master relationships.

And to answer your question, what I'm trying to prove is that comparing Jefferson to any of the before mentioned isn't quite right. He had serious feelings for this girl. Your historian findings are the first I've heard of such nature. He had 6 with Martha, and possibly 7 with Sally. He wasn't a typical slave owner where he'd sleep with multiple women. Some of the slaves in his home were his kids, and he educated them to the best he could. He lived this life in secret, not because of his pride, but because of his love for his family. So that's my point. Everyone of these other guys were just out for some action. They feared being caught because it would tarnish their image. I highly doubt they ever once considered how it would effect the mistress.Selfishness. Plain and simple. Jefferson wasn't in this department, at least not in my book. You should read it.

Oh yeah, Sally Hemings was 15 years old at the time. Sort of makes History crazy interesting.

"Jefferson could date any eligible woman in the world," says John Works, a white descendant. "Why would he have an affair with a 15-year-old slave?" (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040705-658313,00.html)

[ms.peachy]

Oh what a great thread to start this morning off with; thanks guys, alwas good to begin things with a good laugh. Jefferson in love, towering moral hero. Ha, that's great!(y)

[AceFace]

oOoOoOoOoO. juicy interview.

http://www.citizenjanepolitics.com/2008/08/12/they-connected-as-souls/

[kaiser soze]

This is my toy, this is my gun....one is for killing, one it for fun

SEX! The real WMD!

while thousands more perish in an illegal war....

[NoFenders]

oOoOoOoOoO. juicy interview.

http://www.citizenjanepolitics.com/2008/08/12/they-connected-as-souls/


What is it with you girls?? It seems like every girl talks through and through about every relationship with every man in their life. I never understood that. Men rarely ever talk about their sex life. But girls sit and talk for hours about it. Just strange the things women do and don't.

:cool:

[NoFenders]

Jefferson in love, towering moral hero. Ha, that's great!(y)

Don't worry, I'll be here all year. (y)


:cool:

[NoFenders]

Oh yeah, Sally Hemings was 15 years old at the time. Sort of makes History crazy interesting.



Same age my great grandmother was married at. What's your point??

Also the same age 2 of my uncles were killed at war.

Age back then meant very little, especially with life expectancy.


:cool:

[NoFenders]

while thousands more perish in an illegal war....

You're so deep dude. Here, take a hit of this...........


:cool:

[abcdefz]

Kind of interesting that Abe Lincoln -- largely considered to be our greatest president so far -- was also pretty deeply moral. Yeah, it
definitely took him too long to flip on slavery, but he got it done. (y)

[NoFenders]

You have to be kidding me!

Thomas Jefferson OWNED Sally Hemmings. She had no choice in who she could "love". She had no free will. What he did would be rape today. Jefferson didn't even free her in his will.

And yes, our expectations for men in power have changed over the years. Men used to be able to sexually harass the women who worked for them without fear. Now that shit is illegal.


Whatever Doc, I said who he loved. It was love that kept his secret. Not selfish fuck and run bullshit. That's my point. And no, nothing has changed other than law as far as expectations of men in power. People still just accept it as this thread has shown. I'm pretty certain Sally didn't feel harassed. Seeing as though her family were set free, and she was as well by another woman after Jeffersons death. Fairly certain he wanted it that way, since everybody knew his love for the girl.

:cool:

[QueenAdrock]

Men rarely ever talk about their sex life.

As a woman living with three other male roommates, this is not true. I know how many girls they've slept with, whether it was good, and funny quirks the girls did in bed. I remember in particular, my roommate describing how one of the girls made noises like a howler monkey. They get pretty damn detailed. They're actually much, much worse than my female friends.

[yeahwho]

Same age my great grandmother was married at. What's your point??

Also the same age 2 of my uncles were killed at war.

Age back then meant very little, especially with life expectancy.


:cool:

So your grandfather really was a pretty classy guy, he actually wed the woman he loved and had children with.

My point is this, you have some sort of fucked up answer for everything that happens from your own egotistic life experience. Somebody must of forgot to tell you that opposing views and other lives are being lived and they actually could be more in depth and interesting than yours.

We're all from someplace, we all have families and histories, so fucking what? I'm positive all of us posting here know about history and life expectancy rates throughout America's and mankinds history.

My point is exactly what my point is. Your annoying condescending tone about how slave girls were the thing and that's the way it was, it doesn't really sound so great. It wasn't all that great. It was not a noble aspiration. History is not always pretty and we should go ahead and say it, there lesson's to be learned here. If Jefferson were alive today how do you think he would feel about half of his own relatives shunning the Hemmings?

[NoFenders]

If Jefferson were alive today how do you think he would feel about half of his own relatives shunning the Hemmings?


He'd probably be upset. They are afterall his children.

My point still is, society is fucked up because of people like Edwards who assume that their "special". They feel they deserve the extra peice of ass, almost entitled to getting action on the side. This attitude is then released to society and taken instantly accross the board. Kids today see nothing wrong with divorce. They have no sense of reality because of what they see and hear on tv and what their parents do and say.More and more people are getting divorced because it's easy to do. There's no sense of self worth anymore. Atleast not the true form. When people say, "He's a polotician, they all cheat" they're sending a very bad message to everyone that can hear it. While it may be true for the people that came and went before us (no pun intended), it doesn't need to stay as a common factor in polotics.

If all your ranting and such is to make point that slavery was bad, great, I agree with you.

Other than that, "My point is exactly what my point is" is kinda confusing.

Jefferson was in love. Was he totally right in everything he did?? No. But was he better than all these other guys getting caught with their pants down? Yes. In many more ways than just one. It was a different time back then. So things were certainly done differently. Would the same thing fly in todays world? No.

That right there is my point. If you don't like it, or would like to play with words a little more, go right ahead. I really could care less.

:cool:

[Bob]

As a woman living with three other male roommates, this is not true. I know how many girls they've slept with, whether it was good, and funny quirks the girls did in bed. I remember in particular, my roommate describing how one of the girls made noises like a howler monkey. They get pretty damn detailed. They're actually much, much worse than my female friends.

and as a male with male friends, i can also say that this is not true (that is, what nofenders said is not true, what queenadrock said is true)

like the other day, my buddy says "yeah i fucked the shit out of this slave girl the other day but no, it's cool man, i love her, i'm gonna keep doing her and maybe take her to france" and i was all "high five brosef"

[NoFenders]

Wow Bob, that was epic. You're really getting along well. Good for you!

:cool:

[abcdefz]

I remember a friend telling me he had literally fucked the shit out of a girl.

But some friends are quiet, too. Just depends. Usually we'd know who scored, but not necessarily detail unless it was a one-nighter.

[Bob]

I remember a friend telling me he had literally fucked the shit out of a girl.


i'm not sure if that's a story i would ever want to tell people. literally, i'm not sure if i would or not. on the one hand it's pretty funny but on the other hand it's also gross and i guess pretty misogynstic too, so...yeah i dunno, i'd have to think about it

[yeahwho]

He'd probably be upset. They are afterall his children.

My point still is, society is fucked up because of people like Edwards who assume that their "special". They feel they deserve the extra peice of ass, almost entitled to getting action on the side. This attitude is then released to society and taken instantly accross the board. Kids today see nothing wrong with divorce. They have no sense of reality because of what they see and hear on tv and what their parents do and say.More and more people are getting divorced because it's easy to do. There's no sense of self worth anymore. Atleast not the true form. When people say, "He's a polotician, they all cheat" they're sending a very bad message to everyone that can hear it. While it may be true for the people that came and went before us (no pun intended), it doesn't need to stay as a common factor in polotics.

If all your ranting and such is to make point that slavery was bad, great, I agree with you.

Other than that, "My point is exactly what my point is" is kinda confusing.

Jefferson was in love. Was he totally right in everything he did?? No. But was he better than all these other guys getting caught with their pants down? Yes. In many more ways than just one. It was a different time back then. So things were certainly done differently. Would the same thing fly in todays world? No.

That right there is my point. If you don't like it, or would like to play with words a little more, go right ahead. I really could care less.

:cool:

The affair with Sally Hemming's isn't something that would of ever been acceptable by today's standards. It really wasn't all that acceptable when Thomas Jefferson was alive. His vision and contribution to our Country has never been diminished because of his affair, in fact it has actually portrayed him as being much more human and vulnerable to human weakness as we all are, who are "human's" that is.

This is a link (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9906E3DA123FF932A35752C1A96E9582 60&fta=y) (please do not click on that link NoFenders, it will ruin your purity of thought) I'll copy and paste a portion....

The report is based on blood samples collected by Eugene A. Foster of Charlottesville, Va., a retired Tufts University professor of pathology. The finding undercuts the position of historians that Jefferson did not have a liaison with the slave some 28 years his junior, as had been speculated. And it confirms, but with a surprising twist, the oral tradition that has been handed down among Sally Hemings's descendants.

The new evidence, to be reported in Thursday's issue of Nature, is likely to send historians scurrying to re-evaluate Jefferson, particularly his role in the anti-slavery movement. It may also have a wider resonance. The accusation of an affair with Hemings, one of several charges considered in a mock impeachment trial staged by the Massachusetts State Legislature in 1805, was indirectly denied by Jefferson.

''Now, with impeccable timing, Jefferson reappears to remind us of a truth that should be self-evident,'' the historian Joseph J. Ellis and the geneticist Eric S. Lander write in an accompanying commentary on the new report. ''Our heroes -- and especially Presidents -- are not gods or saints, but flesh-and-blood humans.''

Today Society as a whole has changed since the 1800's and the divorce rate has been at or around 50% the past several decades in America. Sex is used to sell everything from soda pop to cars. Provocative entertainment and media are intertwined as if human's must have it to survive. Birth control is the norm and has been since the 70's. This is the World I'm living in today.

And yes I'm absolutely sure Slave's we're treated mush worst physically, mentally and sexually than Sally Hemming's, the Jefferson mock impeachment trial was considered one of the longest lasting soap opera's of it's day. The speculation was rampant then.

So why in today's society do you feel as if Edward's has done something more than just merely reflect the times he's living in... as did Jefferson?

How is your thinking not a double standard? What is your criteria for historical perspective?

[yeahwho]

I remember a friend telling me he had literally fucked the shit out of a girl.

But some friends are quiet, too. Just depends. Usually we'd know who scored, but not necessarily detail unless it was a one-nighter.

You know you might be able to sell toilet paper with that anecdote.

[Bob]

You know you might be able to sell toilet paper with that anecdote.

http://www.stephaniesyjuco.com/antifactory/blog/shitbegone.jpg

[yeahwho]

http://www.stephaniesyjuco.com/antifactory/blog/shitbegone.jpg

The after sex with abcdefz's friend's toilet paper

[Bob]

for when you cum so hard you shit the bed

[yeahwho]

for when you cum so hard you shit the bed

best. sales. pitch. ever.

[abcdefz]

i'm not sure if that's a story i would ever want to tell people. literally, i'm not sure if i would or not. on the one hand it's pretty funny but on the other hand it's also gross and i guess pretty misogynstic too, so...yeah i dunno, i'd have to think about it



I think the extraordinary gross stuff is what guys are more likely to tell.

Like the time I came hard enough that some came out this girl's nose. :o

[RobMoney$]

So who gave Turd get a-z's password?