I’m going to assume you just prefer to put people on in these comments, and not be serious about any discussion. That’s the only way I can possibly rationalize your “responses”.

Wow.

Yes.

How about discussing this with ME, as opposed to some caricature of me that you have created based upon your stereotypes.

You don’t debate too well, do you? First you complain about my “style” and how insulting I am, then you become a hypocrite by dishing out a few insults of your own. Poor insults, I might add. Maybe it’s you who needs a “style”. At least I’m entertaining.

Speaking of hypocrisy, what would you say if tabloids accused George W. Bush of sex scandals and using drugs? Oh wait, they have! Yet the MSM didn’t report those stories, either — and you assholes never batted a fucking eyelash about it.

No wonder I have trouble taking morons like you seriously.

MY point (to Matt initially, by the way) has merely been that if the Enquirer breaks a story such as this one, their history has shown that it can’t be 100% dismissed simply due to who the publication is.

Do you realize how many stories the Enquirer has been wrong on? Do you? IT’S A SUPERMARKET FUCKING TABLOID! People have made fun of these things for decades! Just because their fat, ugly ass prick is lucky enough to strike pussy every once in a great moon in no way means that they are a reliable news source.

I have no doubt that other reputable media WILL report on this if it does.

WHICH IS WHAT I’VE SAID ALL ALONG! Jumpin’ Jesus on a pogo stick, have you even read any of my comments?

For a journalist you don’t seem to be able to follow a specific discussion too well. I have never been screaming anything about liberal bias in this “love child” story. How about discussing this with ME, as opposed to some caricature of me that you have created based upon your stereotypes. How about conversing like real people with differing opinions?

MY point (to Matt initially, by the way) has merely been that if the Enquirer breaks a story such as this one, their history has shown that it can’t be 100% dismissed simply due to who the publication is. They are obviously out in left field (no pun intended) on many stories, but have nailed some pretty significant ones too. Is this just smoke or is there substance? FOX News has advanced and verified a portion of the hotel story (but I’m sure you don’t regard anything they print as legitimate reporting), so we’ll soon see if there are any legs to this incident or not. I have no doubt that other reputable media WILL report on this if it does. Just because they all don’t jump on it during the same news cycle doesn’t mean its rubbish, especially a very sensitive story such as this one.

That is all I’m saying. If you want to scream at someone who is whining about liberal bias in this instance, you’ll need to find a different target.

And don’t try twisting the points around, either. “Just because the story hasn’t broken…” wasn’t the point of this conversation. Since I need to remind you, I’ll let you know that the point was that all you fucking tardbags are complaining about supposed liberal media bias because they haven’t yet reported on baseless accusations made by the National Fuckin Enquirer. I told you why the MSM probably hasn’t touched this story — and my reasons are very plausible. I know this because I’m a journalist; you’re not. So learn your fucking place in these discussions. In reply to my comment, you complain about my “style” and how this is your “opinion” like that has anything to fucking do with the matter; and this is even before you try twisting the original point of the conversation.

All of this tells me that you lost the debate. Get over it, fuckwad.

If you think that not one MSM journalist or editor in the country (or overseas) has looked into this story to see if it’s plausible — and that they wouldn’t report it because of liberal bias — then you’re a fucking moron who doesn’t deserve to have an opinion on these matters. And you may complain “I HAVE AN OPINION! LOOK AT ME, I’M SO SPECIAL!@!@#one!!#$1111!”, but it’s certainly not an educated opinion.

Commenter: I have an opinion that may or may not prove out to be correct. We shall see.

You: #&UJ&*%$#@#^&**$*8*UYY^%EE#$$%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just because the story hasn’t broken (if there is one) within the perfect timeline in your head, doesn’t necessarily mean it never will.

Honestly Craig, do you think that no MSM reporter or editor has checked this story out to see if it has any legs? Any credibility at all? Do you honestly think that every reporter and editor of every mainstream media outlet — including the Murdoch owned ones like the Wall Street Journal — are so liberally biased that none of them have look into this story?

If you do believe that, you’re an idiot. (Or as I put in more strongly in my last comment, you’re a chest slapping drooling fucking retard.)

Use some critical thinking skills ferchristsake. Yes, we all know that the Rush Limbaugh popping pills story was broke by the National Enquirer, but the MSM didn’t bite on that story until they verified it. And they could verify it in that case because the Enquirer reported that Limbaugh was being investigated — call up the agency responsible for the investigation and ask them if it’s true, and whammo. A story! But with the Edwards story, there is no verification — none whatsoever. No photographs and, apparently, no audio of surprise interviews with Edwards. I’m a blogger and occasionally a reporter, and when reporting I keep a digital camera and voice recorder on me at all times. If I’m going to report something, I’m going to have evidence to back up my assertions. That’s called journalistic responsibility — which the Enquirer’s reporter apparently has none of whatsoever because he has not produced any evidence of his allegations.

And subsequent MSM queries into the matter — which have surely happened — have come up blank.

I mean, fucking duh asshole. I can’t believe I have to explain this fucking shit. Ever thought of thinking of yourself for once before hopping on the looney toon fucking bandwagon? Moron.

I’ll try to make my very measured point one last time in hopes that Tas’s head doesn’t explode again. This “love child” story has been hanging around on the fringes for a while now. Yes, clearly it may be nothing but a circumstancial puff of smoke. But occasionally smoke leads to a fire. The National Enquirer has an earned rep for many loony stories, but it is an unavoidable truth that they have also accurately broken some significant scandals in the political/celebrity world. I don’t think people are asking for this story to be swallowed whole on the basis of the current story being presented. And they shouldn’t. But to give it zero credence just because its the Enquirer, is deliberately ignoring past precedent.

Regardless of their well-earned tawdry reputation, it is the same publication that either broke, or provided accurate, early-on breaking news on issues such as Rush Limbaugh’s drug abuse, Gary Hart’s dalliances, and OJ Simpson’s murders, and other high-profile stories. So, although one shouldn’t give such a story automatic credibility, it also shouldn’t be dismissed out-of-hand simply due to who the publication is.

Somehow I doubt that you were quite so dismissive about NE’s story regarding Rush, when it first came to light.

The man prostituted his cancer-ridden wife for campaign donations. Yeah, there’s no goat or dildo involved. But the utter hypocrisy and revelation that John Edwards is undeniably a bad human being should warrant a bit more coverage than this.