kapkomet Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 26, 2009 -> 01:49 PM) By the way, I'm sorry but I just have to. Rush Limbaugh Yesterday blamed Sanford's affair on sorrow relating to, I'm sure you guessed it...Obama. Michael Savage...of course, one-upped it today. People actually believe and listen to this. By the millions. Anyway, sorry, I just had to. They were just too damn ridiculous. These guys can't keep their peckers in their pants (outside of their marriage) and that's Obama's fault? What bulls***. However, there is a word called satire that a lot of people here don't seem to get regarding any comment like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearSox Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Savage's points aren't that crazy. First off, how did the newspaper get all the emails in the first place? Also, if you are a conspiracy theorist, Sanford takes a ton attention away from the cap and trade bill. Also, it seems Savage and Rush are pissed about all the media attention for Sanford and Ensign and the lack of it for Edwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanOfCorn Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 QUOTE (BearSox @ Jun 26, 2009 -> 04:55 PM) Savage's points aren't that crazy. First off, how did the newspaper get all the emails in the first place? Also, if you are a conspiracy theorist, Sanford takes a ton attention away from the cap and trade bill. Also, it seems Savage and Rush are pissed about all the media attention for Sanford and Ensign and the lack of it for Edwards. I don't know about that. I think Edwards was raked pretty well over the coals. Not to mention, Elizabeth Edwards was all over the talk shows for a week or two with her new book and they did ask about it. Ensign hasn't been a huge deal. Sanford SHOULD be a huge deal. And not only that, what about Blago. Last I checked...Democrat...and he was all over the news for a LOOOOOONG time. So, really, lib media crapola just needs to go away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted June 26, 2009 Author Share Posted June 26, 2009 Lack of media attention for Edwards, really? It was front page news, all over the place. So was Blago and Spitzer. No liberals got a free pass for f***ing up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jun 26, 2009 -> 02:54 PM) These guys can't keep their peckers in their pants (outside of their marriage) and that's Obama's fault? What bulls***. However, there is a word called satire that a lot of people here don't seem to get regarding any comment like this. Limbaugh read an email later in the show asking if he was serious and he said he was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 QUOTE (BearSox @ Jun 26, 2009 -> 05:55 PM) Savage's points aren't that crazy. First off, how did the newspaper get all the emails in the first place? Also, if you are a conspiracy theorist, Sanford takes a ton attention away from the cap and trade bill. Also, it seems Savage and Rush are pissed about all the media attention for Sanford and Ensign and the lack of it for Edwards. My guess? Mrs. Sanford (who discovered the affair by finding a letter around the same time) When the Edwards story broke, could someone please tell me what state he was the governor of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Jun 26, 2009 -> 05:03 PM) I don't know about that. I think Edwards was raked pretty well over the coals. Not to mention, Elizabeth Edwards was all over the talk shows for a week or two with her new book and they did ask about it. Ensign hasn't been a huge deal. Sanford SHOULD be a huge deal. And not only that, what about Blago. Last I checked...Democrat...and he was all over the news for a LOOOOOONG time. So, really, lib media crapola just needs to go away. No one would acknowledge the Edwards affair for a long time. The only place that picked it up was the Enquirer until Edwards came clean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jun 26, 2009 -> 05:33 PM) My guess? Mrs. Sanford (who discovered the affair by finding a letter around the same time) When the Edwards story broke, could someone please tell me what state he was the governor of? When the Edwards story started he was running for President... of the United States. Everyone ignored the story at that time because it was in the Enquirer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 26, 2009 -> 06:24 PM) When the Edwards story started he was running for President... of the United States. Everyone ignored the story at that time because it was in the Enquirer. I could have swore that he was well out of the race before the story really started. Edit, assuming this article is dated correctly, you are right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 26, 2009 -> 08:25 PM) I could have swore that he was well out of the race before the story really started. Before it really started, sure. Because no one else would report it when he was really in the race. They just left it alone in the tabloids. That is kinda their point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearSox Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jun 26, 2009 -> 05:33 PM) My guess? Mrs. Sanford (who discovered the affair by finding a letter around the same time) I doubt that... while she was/is pissed, she doesn't seem like the type that would want to completely ruin his political career and have all this stuff wide open in a scandal. She knew about the affair for at least a couple of months, and I assume they tried to keep it private. However, I guarantee the Argentina trip over Father's Day weekend really pissed her off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted June 27, 2009 Author Share Posted June 27, 2009 (edited) QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 26, 2009 -> 09:24 PM) When the Edwards story started he was running for President... of the United States. Everyone ignored the story at that time because it was in the Enquirer. Yeah but it was the f***ing Enquirer though. Sure they ended up being right, but... it's the Enquirer. Had to be taken with a massive grain of salt. What if this story had broken in the Enquirer, as opposed to him disappearing for almost a week? Edited June 27, 2009 by lostfan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearSox Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 27, 2009 -> 12:33 AM) Yeah but it was the f***ing Enquirer though. Sure they ended up being right, but... it's the Enquirer. Had to be taken with a massive grain of salt. What if this story had broken in the Enquirer, as opposed to him disappearing for almost a week? Yeah, but John McCain's made up affair with a lobyist was on the front page of the New York freaking times and was big news for at least a week. I guarantee you if the Enquirer broke the story about Sanford or Ensign, the media would be covering the s*** out of it... do you really think the media didn't cover the story because it was reported by the Enquirer and not because it was a liberal who was running for president??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted June 27, 2009 Author Share Posted June 27, 2009 (edited) QUOTE (BearSox @ Jun 27, 2009 -> 01:39 AM) Yeah, but John McCain's made up affair with a lobyist was on the front page of the New York freaking times and was big news for at least a week. I guarantee you if the Enquirer broke the story about Sanford or Ensign, the media would be covering the s*** out of it... do you really think the media didn't cover the story because it was reported by the Enquirer and not because it was a liberal who was running for president??? That made up story went nowhere though because it was all bulls*** and didn't even say anything. There was probably more discussion on how it was bulls*** than the article itself. The MSM didn't run with it, nobody's accusing the NYT of being objective either. That'd be like expecting Sean Hannity to not be an apologist for conservatives. Something comparable as far as starting credibility goes - remember a couple of years ago when you posted an article about how Obama supposedly snorted coke and got head from some random dude? Edited June 27, 2009 by lostfan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 26, 2009 -> 09:26 PM) Before it really started, sure. Because no one else would report it when he was really in the race. They just left it alone in the tabloids. That is kinda their point. It seems there were several occasions where the Globe, Enquirer et al were talking about a Bush family divorce. I think the Globe was talking about a potential Obama divorce last week, in fact. Frankly, I feel better about the press in my country when they arent taking their cues about where the priorities are from the supermarket checkout line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearSox Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 (edited) QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jun 27, 2009 -> 12:57 AM) It seems there were several occasions where the Globe, Enquirer et al were talking about a Bush family divorce. I think the Globe was talking about a potential Obama divorce last week, in fact. Frankly, I feel better about the press in my country when they arent taking their cues about where the priorities are from the supermarket checkout line. I'd feel better about the press if they weren't all bending over for Obama. Yep, you gotta love a press where a national television network does an all day infomercial that only talked about how awesome Obama is and that his healthcare reform idea is the best thing everzzzzzzz!!! Edited June 27, 2009 by BearSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 because tv networks = newspapers. What was CNN covering before twitter called them out about Iran? They have no resources. It does appear though, that the NY times really ignored that whole Spitzer story by breaking it first and breaking every development shortly thereafter. Spitzer being a republican and all. Sometimes a place can get it right. This time, the State has been the leader. When have we talked about the State on here before? When? Ever? Liberal media in one of the most republican states in the union. Damn them for reporting the truth. Thank God that Edwards is still adored on the left, instead of being chastised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 QUOTE (BearSox @ Jun 26, 2009 -> 09:55 PM) Savage's points aren't that crazy. First off, how did the newspaper get all the emails in the first place? it's this thing called reporting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 I'll admit, when I first saw the Enquirer thing (in here probably) about Edwards, I was highly skeptical. Not because I liked Edwards, in fact I think it was known I really didn't like him... but as someone said earlier, it was the damn Enquirer. Once it started to appear this wasn't just grocery store checkout line crap, then I started believing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearSox Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 27, 2009 -> 03:57 AM) it's this thing called reporting. lol, what? The e-mails came from his personal e-mail account. Either someone hacked into his account or he left the computer on and someone jumped on. And the newspaper got it from an annoynmos source over 2 months ago. Michael Savage's theory of the DHS or NSA accessing his e-mails isn't that crazy. Why wouldn't Obama want to eliminate his opponents one by one. I'm not saying that's the case, but the conspiracy theorist inside me kinda believes it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 QUOTE (BearSox @ Jun 27, 2009 -> 10:47 AM) lol, what? The e-mails came from his personal e-mail account. Either someone hacked into his account or he left the computer on and someone jumped on. And the newspaper got it from an annoynmos source over 2 months ago. Michael Savage's theory of the DHS or NSA accessing his e-mails isn't that crazy. Why wouldn't Obama want to eliminate his opponents one by one. I'm not saying that's the case, but the conspiracy theorist inside me kinda believes it. If you were to assume that this theory has even the remotest possibility of being true (which is a huge leap anyway)... wouldn't the smart political thing be to hold onto that until after Sanford is already nominated for Prez or VP, or is a major competitor for it? Eliminating him now HURTS Obama, doesn't help him, because it opens the door for someone else who might be clean. So the silly conspiracy theories on this make no sense, even if you look at it as being something he'd do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 27, 2009 -> 12:19 PM) If you were to assume that this theory has even the remotest possibility of being true (which is a huge leap anyway)... wouldn't the smart political thing be to hold onto that until after Sanford is already nominated for Prez or VP, or is a major competitor for it? Eliminating him now HURTS Obama, doesn't help him, because it opens the door for someone else who might be clean. So the silly conspiracy theories on this make no sense, even if you look at it as being something he'd do. Actually the source has been revealed. Seems that Sanford's mistress had a significant other in Argentina who discovered the affair by snooping in her email... and "paid it forward." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 QUOTE (BearSox @ Jun 27, 2009 -> 04:47 PM) lol, what? The e-mails came from his personal e-mail account. Either someone hacked into his account or he left the computer on and someone jumped on. And the newspaper got it from an annoynmos source over 2 months ago. Michael Savage's theory of the DHS or NSA accessing his e-mails isn't that crazy. Why wouldn't Obama want to eliminate his opponents one by one. I'm not saying that's the case, but the conspiracy theorist inside me kinda believes it. emails are the most unsafe communication tool one can use while in office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 27, 2009 -> 12:12 PM) emails are the most unsafe communication tool one can use while in office. top secret notes written on paper airplane is worse. it's burned me a few times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted June 27, 2009 Share Posted June 27, 2009 QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jun 27, 2009 -> 12:18 PM) top secret notes written on paper airplane is worse. it's burned me a few times. A few of my carrier pigeons have been intercepted on occasion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts