Comments on: Edwards update: paternity and legal language

By: FairestWitness

FairestWitness — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 20:58:06 +0000

If this fiasco isn’t the epitome of a trial lawyer/politician, I don’t know what else would be. John Edwards can’t even tell the truth when confessing he’s a liar.

By: WadeZ

WadeZ — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 20:48:07 +0000

Peter G, if you look at the poll Kos only gives one reply Yes, you can’t vote Bunk No, I guess like true liberals they only give you one choice, theirs.

By: Barry Dauphin

Barry Dauphin — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 17:11:59 +0000

Hey, one day the kid will want to know the identity of the father, especially if there’s a portion of a trial lawyer’s worth of inheritance to consider.

By: Bob_R

Bob_R — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 01:04:36 +0000

Well, he has a lot of years ahead of him. Maybe some time around 2030 I’ll be willing to listen to what Johnny has to say. He might be able to do something constructive with his life between now and then. If McCain went through his divorce in 2006 he wouldn’t be a candidate now (and probably would have had the brains not to run). It’s the idea that we ought to elect them WHILE they are acting like fools that I mind.

By: MarkO

MarkO — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 20:00:29 +0000

John Boy has agreed to take any test that will “establish the fact that I am not the father of any baby.”

Not even an IQ test can do that. In fact, no test can do what he wants so he doesn’t have to take one. Read the words.

By: Lem

Lem — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 15:30:53 +0000

I have a little voice whispering in my ear.

Wasn’t the CW that the French, witch had Mitterrand mistress attend his funeral along with the widow, our cultural superior?

Didn’t they look down on us, along with the MSM over Bill and Monica?

I guess it’s like sort of Bentsenesk.

Senator Edwards, I knew Bill Clinton; Bill Clinton was a friend of mine. Senator, you’re no Bill Clinton

By: Fred Beloit

Fred Beloit — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 15:09:32 +0000

I have a hard time envisioning this press conference:

Hunter: I am announcing today that I will not subject my baby and my husband to the ordeal of a test that is not necessary. He is NOT the father of my baby.

Press: Oh OK. We understand.

By: Anita Hope

Anita Hope — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 14:38:28 +0000

According to the Investigator from the Nat. Inq. they also met in June at the Hilton, he stated last night on a

TV interview. It should be easy to trace both of their monthly get togethers as well as the other involved

man. I think our country has more important problems to continue so much space to a slimmy character, so

we need to stop hurting his wife and family and fill the front pages, the blogasphere, and TV, with real news

and the Olympics. A couple gets attacked on opening day, one is dead and one is in the hospital, American

Citizen’s, by a chinese nationalist, this is hardly mentioned till this am, WHY ?

By: cthulhu

cthulhu — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 06:49:35 +0000

“I am and have been willing to take any test necessary to establish the fact that I am not the father of any baby, and I am truly hopeful that a test will be done so this fact can be definitively established.”

What odd wording. I wonder if it’s clearer in the negative:
“I am not, and have not been willing to take any test necessary to establish the fact that I am the father of any baby….”

OK, so he’s willing to take any tests so long as the outcome is preordained? Somehow this sounds like something a sleazy lawyer might say.

By: Dick Stanley

Dick Stanley — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 05:01:56 +0000

A little WD-40, applied judiciously (so to speak) should get those old bumper stickers off.