Edwards admits to affair,

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Is it cheating if it's just emotional and not physical?

If yes, then what if the object of the emotional attachment is an inaniminate or virtual object/personality?

Hell yes!

So I can keep my lightswitch in my pants and still 'cheat'? Damn.

Edited August 8, 2008 by A.J.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Is it cheating if it's just emotional and not physical?

If yes, then what if the object of the emotional attachment is an inaniminate or virtual object/personality?

Hell yes!

So I can keep my lightswitch in my pants and still 'cheat'? Damn.

Hell yes to the first question. The second one has too many multi-syllable words and I'm confused.

[Empress of Groovy 373]

Is it cheating if it's just emotional and not physical?

If yes, then what if the object of the emotional attachment is an inaniminate or virtual object/personality?

Hell yes!

So I can keep my lightswitch in my pants and still 'cheat'? Damn.

Hell yes to the first question. The second one has too many multi-syllable words and I'm confused.

What about melon dispensation?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I wonder if the apple pie really feels like it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The only reason I give a ####### about this news is because it vindicates the National Enquirer.

So all you haters who were hating on the Enquirer need to apologize!

You have to admit the National Enquirer doesn't have a particularly sparkling reputation for the quality of its journalism...

It should follow then that any apology they deserve must be back-handed.

"Sorry National Enquirer - you're not quite as $hit as we all thought. This time..."

They tend to be good with these high-profile investigative stories.

I don't think the NYT or any of the dinosaurs of the old media even know how to investigate anymore.

Perhaps not - but all the National Enquirer seems to be interested in is who is f*cking who.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Is it cheating if it's just emotional and not physical?

If yes, then what if the object of the emotional attachment is an inaniminate or virtual object/personality?

Hell yes!

So I can keep my lightswitch in my pants and still 'cheat'? Damn.

Hell yes to the first question. The second one has too many multi-syllable words and I'm confused.

What about melon dispensation?

melon who?

For what it’s worth, Elizabeth Edwards apparently became aware of the relationship in 2006, and the affair went on while her cancer was in remission.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/

[HAL 9000 96]

The only reason I give a ####### about this news is because it vindicates the National Enquirer.

So all you haters who were hating on the Enquirer need to apologize!

You have to admit the National Enquirer doesn't have a particularly sparkling reputation for the quality of its journalism...

It should follow then that any apology they deserve must be back-handed.

"Sorry National Enquirer - you're not quite as $hit as we all thought. This time..."

They tend to be good with these high-profile investigative stories.

I don't think the NYT or any of the dinosaurs of the old media even know how to investigate anymore.

Perhaps not - but all the National Enquirer seems to be interested in is who is f*cking who.

Isn't that pretty much the case for what most people want to read anyway?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The only reason I give a ####### about this news is because it vindicates the National Enquirer.

So all you haters who were hating on the Enquirer need to apologize!

You have to admit the National Enquirer doesn't have a particularly sparkling reputation for the quality of its journalism...

It should follow then that any apology they deserve must be back-handed.

"Sorry National Enquirer - you're not quite as $hit as we all thought. This time..."

They tend to be good with these high-profile investigative stories.

I don't think the NYT or any of the dinosaurs of the old media even know how to investigate anymore.

Perhaps not - but all the National Enquirer seems to be interested in is who is f*cking who.

Isn't that pretty much the case for what most people want to read anyway?

Well Celebrity News is an entity unto itself - but it can serve the purpose of distracting people from issues that they should perhaps be more concerned with (like the economy or gas prices). If reality TV gets more attention than the running of the country - that's pretty depressing.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Oil is on the way down!

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=OIL#cha...ource=undefined

[Ban Hammer 14,569]

Oil is on the way down!

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=OIL#cha...ource=undefined

all it needed was for edwards to come clean.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Oil is on the way down!

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=OIL#cha...ource=undefined

all it needed was for edwards to come clean.

Maybe the market anticipates him using less oil-based hair products, now that looking hawt for hunter is no longer important.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

[Peikko 1,575]

Each individual case has it's ethical dilemas, viz-a-viz affairs. It's not a sexually mature relationship but that was not my point. My question still is, does it make any sense to hold politicians up to such high moral standards in terms of sexual fidelity? I think not when we allow everyone else in every other sphere of life to have a career despite what they do in their private lives. Again I ask, are we really suggesting that only the sexually 'pure as the driven snow' person is capable of holding political office? If so, I think we need to be more even handed in our scrutiny. Othersise, let them get on with it.

[Teacher Mark 53]

The only reason I give a ####### about this news is because it vindicates the National Enquirer.

So all you haters who were hating on the Enquirer need to apologize!

You have to admit the National Enquirer doesn't have a particularly sparkling reputation for the quality of its journalism...

It should follow then that any apology they deserve must be back-handed.

"Sorry National Enquirer - you're not quite as $hit as we all thought. This time..."

They tend to be good with these high-profile investigative stories.

I don't think the NYT or any of the dinosaurs of the old media even know how to investigate anymore.

Perhaps not - but all the National Enquirer seems to be interested in is who is f*cking who.

BREAKING NEWS: Now Edwards is f*cking Matt Damon!

[yogib37 3]

Another human being caught being human, pwnd!

Yes, cheating is very human.

However, not all humans do it.

nor all democrats do it.

Seems the Reps. get cought with their hands in the cookie jar a lot more then the Democrats.