Aug
6

Goat Sleaze




Posted at 7:22 by Tintin
ABOVE: Mickey Kaus, with that glow that only
goat irrumatio can bring


Goat bukakke enthusiast Mickey Kaus on the John Edwards tabloid “scandal” — you knew it had to happen … again:

Why write about the Edwards scandal? Here’s a short clip-’n'-save response to those (including many friends) who argue the Edwards scandal shouldn’t be pursued–or at least pursued too vigorously — even if it is true: …

Perhaps Kaus ought to also prepare a clip-’n'-save on why its unfair for us to accuse him of blowing goats — even if it is true. Instead, he uses a straw man — that people are saying the story shouldn’t even be investigated — to spread the rumor about Edwards even if it isn’t true.

It’s silly to say “he’s just a private citizen”–he’s much less of a “private citizen” than, say, William Bennett was in 2003 when Jonathan Alter and Joshua Green torpedoed Bennett’s career by revealing his gambling habits.

What makes the scandal awful and unpleasant–as opposed to the Bennett scandal, which was delicious–is that Edwards has a very ill wife. But, as Susan Estrich has noted, that’s also what makes Edwards’ alleged behavior awful and unpleasant–more objectionable than anything Bennett was accused of doing.

Except, of course, that the allegation that Bennett was a high-stakes gambler was true and was admitted by Bennett himself, whereas the Edwards allegation is an unsubstantiated claim by a supermarket tabloid and hasn’t been admitted by Edwards. But since he has a sick wife, Kaus thinks it would be irresponsible not to spread those rumors.

How irresponsible was it to seek the party’s nomination knowing that this scandal was lurking around, ready to explode? What if he’d won?

In other words, if its rumored that you’re having an affair, you must forswear campaigns for public office. On the other hand, if it’s rumored that you blow goats, you can still be a columnist at Slate and repeat sensational tabloid allegations as if they were absolute truth.

If the scandal is true, it almost certainly means that during the campaign Edwards presided over an elaborate coverup involving at least a) having an aide wrongly claim paternity and b) having other aides go out and lie to reporters.

And if the stories of Kaus and the goats is true, it almost certainly means that Kaus and Slate have presided over an elaborate cover-up involving at least a)payments of hush money to keep the goat quiet and b) numerous misstatements by Kaus about why he keeps licking his lips.

212 Comments »

  1. RandomObserver said,

    August 6, 2008 at 7:33

    How irresponsible was it to seek the party’s nomination knowing that this scandal was lurking around, ready to explode?

    Stupid doesn’t even begin to describe this. It’s not just irresponsible to be involved in a scandal, now it’s irresponsible to live your life normally if there are rumors of scandal…gotcha…

  2. Jrod said,

    August 6, 2008 at 7:42

    How irresponsible is it for Democrats to run for President, knowing that somebody is bound to gin up some bullshit scandal about you, and further knowing that Mickey Kaus will flog said bullshit scandal for all it’s worth?

    Mickey Kaus is only looking out for his own party, the Democrat Party, when he suggests that it’s unseemly for Democrats to run for President if there’s even a slight chance that some checkout-line rag might run an unsourced scandalous story about that candidate alongside tales of Oprah’s diet and UFO sightings.

  3. Andre said,

    August 6, 2008 at 7:53

    I don’t know if Mickey Kaus blowing goats is a “scandal”, per se…more like a lifestyle choice.

  4. sophronia said,

    August 6, 2008 at 8:04

    If William Bennett’s career was torpedoed, how come I still see his nasty ass opining about evil liberals on Fox from time to time? How come he and his wife are still raking in money from the government for their values-education scam? It’s not like the guy would have some higher-profile position if people hadn’t discovered what a massive hypocrite he is.

    Honestly, goat blowing is too good for the likes of Mickey Kaus.

  5. Anne Laurie said,

    August 6, 2008 at 8:05

    I swear, I’m beginning to think that Mickey Kaus wants Edwards to humiliate him in public… just show up at the goat ranch Slate editorial offices one day with a horsewhip and treat Mickey the way Mickey’s always wanted to be treated.

    Or maybe it’s Elizabeth Edwards setting Mickey’s fevered, goat-lathered imagination aspin.

    Either way, you’d think it would be humiliating enough to be outed as a goat-fellator, without having strangers point in the street and say, “There’s Mickey Kaus, the goat-blower who hates progressives and cancer patients… “

  6. dim-witted badger said,

    August 6, 2008 at 8:42

    and i thought fucking pelicans was bad

  7. Ted Williams said,

    August 6, 2008 at 8:43

    No comment on the whole ridiculous Edward’s thing, seriously, Wonkette has that covered, and the whole Fort Dietrick clusterfuck has always been just too weird (makes me almost start believing the 9-11 Truth) but you guys might enjoy this website.

    Tiny comment columns are cool.

  8. Smut Clyde said,

    August 6, 2008 at 9:05

    Kaus ought to also prepare a clip-’n’-save on why its unfair for us to accuse him of blowing goats — even if it is true. Instead, he uses a straw man

    You would think that loose straws would get up his nose and tickle.

  9. Ted Williams said,

    August 6, 2008 at 9:07

    Just skimmed this one but it hates on the fukkin Swiss and Muammar and mentions Max Mosley, so it might be good.

  10. Smut Clyde said,

    August 6, 2008 at 9:07

    goat irrumatio
    Should that not be “irruminantio”?

  11. owlbear1 said,

    August 6, 2008 at 9:18

    Why write about the Edwards scandal? Here’s a short clip-’n’-save response to those (including many friends) who argue the Edwards scandal shouldn’t be pursued–or at least pursued too vigorously — even if it is true: …

    Desperate plea for abuse?

  12. Ted Williams said,

    August 6, 2008 at 9:21

    Allow me to discuss myself and maybe something i sorta know about Hayek.

  13. Ted Williams said,

    August 6, 2008 at 9:27

    I too despise the Swiss, but Muamar is cool.

  14. Major Woody said,

    August 6, 2008 at 11:30

    I really don’t care about Kaus’s goat-blowing habit. It’s the goat-felching that I find hard to stomach. So to speak.

  15. Anonymous said,

    August 6, 2008 at 11:59

    Or maybe it’s Elizabeth Edwards setting Mickey’s fevered, goat-lathered imagination aspin.

    Well, at least in Kaus’ defense, Elizabeth Edwards is pretty darned hot.

    Now on to the fisking!

    1.

    It’s silly to say “he’s just a private citizen”–he’s much less of a “private citizen” than, say, William Bennett was in 2003 when Jonathan Alter and Joshua Green torpedoed Bennett’s career by revealing his gambling habits.

    Bill Bennett, who at the time popped up on CNN as a serious non-hypocritice to comment about anything that might vaguely have anything to do with morality? As opposed to Edwards, who since dropping out of the race has: – endorsed Obama, campaigned for anti-poverty action and umm, had a great comedy bit on Colbert. The only time Edwards has appeared in media outside of that has been: as part of this smear story and as a speculative running mate. And that’s it.

    And BTW, Bill Bennett is still popping up on CNN as a serious non-hypocritice to comment about anything that might vaguely have anything to do with morality.

    2. Well he doesn’t actually say anything here. The argument that John Edwards is just as much a hypocrite as Bill Bennett because Mickey Kaus says so is laughable. Who does he think he is – Stone Cold Steve Austin?

    3.

    Relevance.

    Interesting Mickey should bring that word up. Other than it’s appearance here, relevance has nothing at all to do with this article. But his point’s wrong anyways. If your view of Edwards is as low as possible (i.e. John Edwards exists only as the husband of Elizabeth Edwards) then why should it matter what he does or doesn’t do?

    4. Here’s where it starts to break down. Even if the National Enquirer story is true (in which case W should be submitting urine tests every morning) – Edwards would only be guilty of behaving like John McCain. Well, actually, that would piss me off – but my point is that, after a media orgy, the story would probably have totally disappeared. Oh, wait – he’s not a Republican – maybe Kaus does have a point other than the one at the top of his head.

    5. If this, if that. I think if Mickey Kaus was really interested in media cover-ups, there is a long list of other places he should start.

  16. javafascist said,

    August 6, 2008 at 12:02

    Who knew that the primary job qualification of every journalist was the inability to ignore a sex scandal, real or imagined? No one could have predicted that the nation would go to shit when these are the people in charge of forwarding the conversation. It doesn’t help that the second qualification appears to be an appalling but laughable lack of self-awareness.

  17. Mickey Kaus said,

    August 6, 2008 at 12:09

    Write for Slate for years, and do they call you a pundit? But blow one goat…..

  18. amk said,

    August 6, 2008 at 12:36

    You spelt “bukkake” wrong. Jeez. Although I don’t know what a method for preparing noodles has to do with goats…

  19. The Goat Family publicist said,

    August 6, 2008 at 12:42

    We kindly request that Sadly No! readers respect the privacy of my clients and stop this sensationalist smear campaign against this wonderful all-American goat family with traditional values. Whatever youthful indiscretion Mr. Goat had engaged in with Mickey Kaus – even if true – are in the past and God has forgiven him.

    It is obvious that Mickey Kaus is trying to profit from this sordid affair by generating cheap publicity, in the process sullying the stellar reputation of Mr. Goat. We urge the Sadly No! readers to refrain from rushing to judgement about my client and instead focus on Kaus’s recent fascination with sheep and donkeys.

    Sincerely,

  20. Arky - Cthulhusexual said,

    August 6, 2008 at 12:56

    Yes! Editors should order reporters to drop everything and follow up on every story the Enquirer has ever run! Elvis is out there siring children on female sasquatches and those irresponsible bastards don’t care!

    Dear me. If I didn’t know any better I’d say certain people want the NE to have an air of legitimacy. The saddest thing is no one at the NE takes their own shit seriously. Watching buffoons caper with delight over anything that rag puts out is like watching the bone wearing natives of Dumb-Dumb land worship a discarded car tire.

    What makes the scandal awful and unpleasant–as opposed to the Bennett scandal, which was delicious–is that Newt Gingrich has a very ill wife. But, as Susan Estrich has noted, that’s also what makes Gingrich’s alleged behavior awful and unpleasant–more objectionable than anything Bennett was accused of doing.

    Also, the rumors about Gingrich turned out to be true, which made it a real scandal v. … not.

  21. Gary Ruppert said,

    August 6, 2008 at 13:13

    The fact is. this is the selective bias in the liberal media. Republican supposedly abandons wife (Gingrich, McCain myths)=end of career. Democrat, especially liberal one, abandons wife-no story and spin spin spin to cover it up. The truth will come out.

  22. August J. Pollak said,

    August 6, 2008 at 13:52

    Republican supposedly abandons wife (Gingrich, McCain myths)=end of career.

    1. “Supposedly?” So you’re arguing that McCain and Gingrich may have not actually left their first wives?

    2. Being the Republican nominee for president after 26 years in Congress is the “end of a career” for John McCain?

    Did I miss a really bad attempt at a joke here or did no one tell me Gary was actually retarded?

  23. Hoosier X said,

    August 6, 2008 at 14:06

    Did I miss a really bad attempt at a joke here or did no one tell me Gary was actually retarded?

    That is the question, innit?

    That is always the question.

  24. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    August 6, 2008 at 14:09

    The truth will come out.

    Well Gary, we all wish Truthy would just accept who he is, but he’s almost as self-delusional as you are, so it may be a while yet. Don’t worry though, the two of you can still continue your illicit affair in private.

  25. Gary Ruppert said,

    August 6, 2008 at 14:20

    The fact is, the liberals are trying to spin that the careers of these republicans should have ended because of the alleged affairs, when the fact is, they haven’t. It also did not work. But liberals should get a free pass. Not buying it here in the Heartland.

    You can’t read so good, can you?

  26. Gary Ruppert said,

    August 6, 2008 at 14:22

    The fact is, McCain will win in a landslide. We’ve got all kinds of plans for the Obamessiah that you liberals worship as a God. here in the heartland, the truth will come out.

  27. jcasey said,

    August 6, 2008 at 14:24

    Irrumabo ego vos et pedicabo. . .

  28. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    August 6, 2008 at 14:30

    I love the footnote:

    **–For purposes of this item, I’m assuming we’re reaching the next-to-final stage of the natural progression in cases like this: 1) Too horrible and shocking; it can’t possibly be true; 2) It’s not true; 3) You can’t prove it’s true; 4) Why are you trying to prove it’s true? 5) It’s disgusting that you’ve proved it’s true; 6) What’s the big deal anyway?

    Notice how he’s skipped the real Step 1) Oh look, the National Enquirer has another ridiculous story. I wonder how they’re going to bring Elvis into it.

    For the purposes of this comment I’m going to assume that Mickey Kaus can’t control his goat-blowing urges, because I can’t imagine that even Mickey Kaus would believe that goat-blowing isn’t morally reprehensible.

  29. Krassen said,

    August 6, 2008 at 14:33

    If the scandal is true, it almost certainly means that during the campaign Edwards presided over an elaborate coverup involving at least a) having an aide wrongly claim paternity and b) having other aides go out and lie to reporters.

    You call that a coverup?

    What about the elaborate coverup of how Angelina Jolie gave birth to Martians? Why is the media not covering that, huh?

  30. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    August 6, 2008 at 14:49

    One of the wingnut tendencies I marvel at is the constant need to believe that progressives don’t stand for anything. A sort of “la-la-la-I-can’t-hear-you” approach to understanding the question. The key to the goat-blower’s argument is that Edwards had no platform or positions on any issues except that his wife is awesome (although, Elizabeth Edwards is awesome). It’s a very similar assumption that underlies a lot of criticism of Obama.

    Sadly, the media seems to believe that idiots and morons who are unable to google a candidates name + the word “issues” are the best people to be writing about those candidates.

    But anyways, it seems that Chupa-Kaus-ba is really saying that John Edwards’ campaign was solely about character and thus character attacks are kosher. I wonder if he’ll apply the same standard to other candidates who campaign on the strength of their biographies?

    Actually, I don’t. Mickey Kaus is an immoral and shamelessly dishonest hack.

  31. pedestrian said,

    August 6, 2008 at 14:51

    McCain didn’t abandon his first wife, she recognized his need for someone younger and less disabled and bowed out gracefully.
    She may not be a biker beauty queen but he still thinks of her fondly from time to time.

  32. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    August 6, 2008 at 14:52

    What about the elaborate coverup of how Angelina Jolie gave birth to Martians? Why is the media not covering that, huh?

    Well, I selflessly volunteer to give Angelina Jolie a complete and thorough physical investigation in order to test the veracity of… umm… uhh… yeah. Selflessly volunteering myself I am.

  33. happy goat said,

    August 6, 2008 at 14:53

    You’ll never get me to admit anything about that night in August. My lips are sealed.

  34. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    August 6, 2008 at 15:16

    McCain didn’t abandon his first wife,

    Just because Carol Shepp McCain bears no ill will to her ex does not make that statement true. Would it be irresponsible to look into it a little more deeply or would it be irresponsible not to?

    Except for signing the property settlement, Carol did not participate in the divorce. A court summons and other paperwork sent to her during the proceeding went unanswered.
    In April 1980, the judge entered a default judgment and declared the marriage dissolved.

    A month later, McCain married Cindy in Phoenix, where the couple would move.

    And let’s not forget John McCain’s own words regarding the divorce:

    But my marriage’s collapse was attributable to my own selfishness and immaturity more than it was to Vietnam, and I cannot escape blame by pointing a finger at the war. The blame was entirely mine.

    And what did Maverick McAsshole do that even he had to accept blame?

    Mr. McCain has acknowledged running around with women and accepted responsibility for the breakup of the marriage, without going into details.

    No details? But we need details!

    But his supporters and his biographer, Robert Timberg, all suggest that the marriage had already effectively ended and that the couple had separated by the time he met Cindy, his present wife.

    That might be the most soothing way of explaining a politician’s divorce from a disabled wife and his remarriage to a wealthy heiress, but it does not jibe with accounts of family members and friends…

    Yet at precisely the time that Mr. Smith was a guest in what appeared to be a happy household, in April 1979, Mr. McCain accompanied a group of senators on a trip to China. The Navy threw a big cocktail party for the group during a stopover in Honolulu.

    ”John and I were talking, and then somebody tapped me on the shoulder and I turned around and exchanged a few words,” said Albert A. Lakeland, then a Senate staff member. ”When I turned around, John was gone. I looked around, and he was making a beeline for this very attractive blond woman.

    I think we all know who this blond woman was:

    Over the next six months, Mr. McCain pursued Miss Hensley aggressively, flying around the country to see her, and he began to push to end his marriage. Friends say that Carol McCain was in shock…

    Mr. McCain’s three children in the first marriage were less forgiving at first, and none of them were in attendance when he married Cindy. No one blamed Cindy, however, for she seemed shy and it was clear that Mr. McCain had been the pursuer.

    Carol Shepp McCain may be behaving like an adult about John, and that may very well reflect her honest feelings about things. Then again, she may be doing it because she values the GOP more than herself.

    But in Mickey Kaus style, for the purposes of this comment I’m assuming that John Sidney McCain the Third has threatened his ex-wife with grevious violence and complete and total ostracization of their children if she doesn’t toe the line.

  35. ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,

    August 6, 2008 at 15:27

    javafascist said,

    August 6, 2008 at 12:02

    Who knew that the primary job qualification of every journalist was the inability to ignore a sex scandal, real or imagined?

    They did a fine job of ignoring the “Jeff Gannon”‘ overnighters at the White House.

  36. Nuff Ced McGreavey said,

    August 6, 2008 at 15:46

    I’ve heard that Bestiality is considered a requirement for the fast-track employee at Slate.

    Do you know if specific species are required or would that night in Key West with a Red Grouper suffice?

  37. Dragon-King Wangchuck said,

    August 6, 2008 at 16:08

    FYWP.

    The linky for the first Carol McCain quote above (15:16) is:
    http://www.azcentral.com/news/specials/mccain/articles/0301mccainbio-chapter5.html

    And while I’m tossing out four-letter acronyms, FUTK.

  38. g said,

    August 6, 2008 at 16:15

    Errmmm….not being a National Enquirer reader, can someone fill me in on what the supposed Edwards scandal was?

  39. BSD said,

    August 6, 2008 at 16:21

    Leaving aside whether it’s true or not (my money is on “not”), is this the first time Republicans have admitted it’s improper, or maybe even wrong to abandon your first wife in her time of need.

  40. smiling dog said,

    August 6, 2008 at 16:22

    I’m just going to admit that I think the story is true. I’ve just seen too much of this and, frankly, the National Enquirer has been more accurate than most of the mainstream media over the past couple of decades.

  41. mextremist said,

    August 6, 2008 at 16:22

    goat bukakke enthusiast. brilliant.

  42. Righteous Bubba said,

    August 6, 2008 at 16:35

    frankly, the National Enquirer has been more accurate than most of the mainstream media over the past couple of decades.

    No.

  43. Leon Trotsky, Exile-in-Mexico said,

    August 6, 2008 at 16:37

    What, you don’t think Ted Kennedy is a space alien, RB?

    Now who’s the naive one!

  44. Goat Whores 'R' Us said,

    August 6, 2008 at 16:38

    We, the aforementioned goat whores, must vehemently protest the slur against the name of all goats. Mr. Kaus paid us for services rendered; it was purely a business transaction. No goat would let Mr. Kaus touch him except in the name of Mammon. “Gay for Pay” is our motto, after all.

    Our confidentiality claus prohibits us from telling the world that it was our plentiful, silky hair that brought us to Mr. Kaus’ attention. As the world can see, the top of his head is as bald, and Mr. Kaus is obsessed with hair. He has been known to rub it all over his face in intimate moments.

  45. PopeRatzo said,

    August 6, 2008 at 16:45

    “irrumatio”? God, the things I learn reading Sadly,No!

  46. christian h. said,

    August 6, 2008 at 16:47

    Kaus may be afraid to ask the real questions, but I am not. So, what’s the connection between Edward’s affair with an aide and the murder of Lady Di by space alien agents of MI-5??? How is the former Chicago City Comptroller involved, and where are his files???

  47. maya said,

    August 6, 2008 at 16:48

    The other day on the supermarket checkout line, I read that Laura Bush is going to divorce the Commander Guy because of his ongoing affair with Condi/ drinking/ continual whippings with Saddam’s pistol . Shouldn’t we be expecting a presidential resignation, like, yesterday?

  48. javafascist said,

    August 6, 2008 at 16:50

    They did a fine job of ignoring the “Jeff Gannon”‘ overnighters at the White House.

    Good point. Perhaps it contained too much of that icky ghey sex for them? Perhaps it was tribal and even they couldn’t turn on one of their own (no matter how dubious his credentials)?

    But most likely, IOKIYAR rules apply and that’s all we liberal children need worry about. The (diaper-wearing, wide stance pissing, page propositioning, wet-suit wearing, philandering, wife pimping) grownups are in charge, after all. Thank you, Traditional Media. May I have another?

  49. Simba B said,

    August 6, 2008 at 16:52

    Excuse me, but I believe this is relevant to all your Internet traditions.

  50. neil said,

    August 6, 2008 at 16:52

    i’m just adding another comment here so that the narcissistic dick-wad thinks billions and billions read your fun-making of his vapid idiocy.

    and it’s no doubt ‘true’ mickey-boy… when we take over you’re the first whitey we’re gonna git.

    you’ll be writin’ on toilet paper behind bars… you little shit.

  51. Mallard Fillmore said,

    August 6, 2008 at 16:55

    Mr. Kaus is obsessed with hair. He has been known to rub it all over his face in intimate moments.

    Sunday feature for certain.

  52. woody, tokin librul said,

    August 6, 2008 at 16:57

    Mickey Kaus DOESN’T blow goats?

    Oh, no?

    Well, what is he holding in his tightly clenched jaws, and what’s leaking provocatively from the corner of his moth in that foto?

    Goat Cum!!!

    Here we have irreversible evidence that Kaus Really DOES blow goats.

  53. sagra said,

    August 6, 2008 at 17:25

    I just heard a rumor that McCain is having an affair with an anti-gay gay congressman. Now, I probably wouldn’t have heard it if I didn’t talk out loud to myself, but now that it’s out there, wouldn’t it be irresponsible not to speculare?

  54. sagra said,

    August 6, 2008 at 17:46

    But his supporters and his biographer, Robert Timberg, all suggest that the marriage had already effectively ended and that the couple had separated by the time he met Cindy, his present wife.

    Ah, the old “my marriage is effectively ended, but don’t call me at home” pickup line. Ain’t it a classic? Cindy’s lucky she was rich, or she would have been spending a lot of holidays alone by the phone.

  55. W.E.B. Adamant said,

    August 6, 2008 at 18:06

    The slight photoshopping done on that picture made me gag a little.

  56. stringonastick said,

    August 6, 2008 at 18:09

    Let’s see, Goatboy can speculate about Edwards possibly being unfaithful, but the rest of the media rolls over and hits the snooze button again over the forged letter ordered by Bush officials to get the Iraqi war started. Nothing to see here folks, move along…

  57. W.E.B. Adamant said,

    August 6, 2008 at 18:18

    While it doesn’t count for much at all, I did see it on CNN this morning, but from what little I saw, it spent more time giving the White House a chance to respond than letting the book stand on its own.

    If you make the news boring enough, nobody will care enough to watch it – no matter how important it is.

  58. GoatBoy said,

    August 6, 2008 at 18:22

    I can what with the what now, string?

  59. jim said,

    August 6, 2008 at 18:27

    Hmm – either Edwards has had/has affair, uh, like anyone finds that on a par with say, secret torture-prisons … or he’s faithful to his hubby – gets a big “who gives a flying whoop-doop” either way here.

    Damn: Brangelina are fostering ET-babies & Elvis is out there somewhere humping YETI?! Wow! You BET I’ll buy all 12 issues to get every juicy tidbit – it’s journalism’s finest chapter! Now, on to today’s horoscopes …

  60. jim said,

    August 6, 2008 at 18:29

    What happens in the goat stays in the goat.

  61. Rightwingsnarkle said,

    August 6, 2008 at 18:32

    In all of the enthusiasm for the ‘Micky Kaus blows goats’ story, you’ve lost sight of the victim.

    Think of the goats, people. The goats.

  62. Scott said,

    August 6, 2008 at 18:37

    Has Kaus ever denied that he slobs goat knobs?

  63. pedestrian said,

    August 6, 2008 at 18:39

    GoatBoy said,

    August 6, 2008 at 18:22

    I can what with the what now, string?

    Aw, relax. Did i complain when Bob Novak ran me down in a crosswalk?

  64. Bitter Scribe said,

    August 6, 2008 at 18:44

    Is that really a picture of Kaus? If it is, Philip Roth ought to sue.

    Why is he picking on a candidate who dropped out of the race months ago? Why does Slate carry him? Why does he even exist?

  65. mikey said,

    August 6, 2008 at 19:21

    what’s leaking provocatively from the corner of his moth in that foto?

    Goddam, I hate those leaky moths.

    Worse than a squeaky caterpillar…

    mikey

    Oh, and I dunno, Goatboy, but maybe Mickey Kaus threads are not the safest place for you to frolic? Just guessing here…

    mikey

  66. mndean said,

    August 6, 2008 at 19:21

    Jrod,
    Didja really say Democrat party? Without quotes? Niiiice. Just keep feeding that wingnut meme.

  67. Jersey Tomato said,

    August 6, 2008 at 19:22

    Why doesn’t Mickey, who presumably is paid to look into the things he writes about, get up off his ass and look into the story? Investigate, Mickey. I invite you to do it. I dare you to do it. I beg you to do it. But, you can’t, can you? Because you don’t know how and it’s too much work. And, by the way, if you actually try to publish something damaging about a non-public figure (like the mother of the alleged love child) and you do so in error, you can be sued. It’s so much easier to sit around and “opine” on the imagined peccadillos of someone who is smarter, richer, sexier, and so much more successful than you. Feh. I don’t believe the goat story, just because I know that goats have higher standards.

  68. Charles Giacometti said,

    August 6, 2008 at 19:32

    Why did you Photoshop that pic to clean up Kaus’ face? The version I have has his face covered with goat smegma.

  69. Lesley said,

    August 6, 2008 at 19:37

    Off topic but funny: Paris Hilton lobs one back at McCain for his Obama attack ad (made all the more amusing by the fact that her parents are donating money to his campaign).

    “Hey America, I’m Paris Hilton and I’m a celebrity, too. Only I’m not from the olden days and I’m not promising change like that other guy.”

    “I’m just hot,” Hilton said, speaking as she reclined in a pool chair in a revealing bathing suit and a pair of pumps.

    “But then that wrinkly, white-haired guy used me in his campaign ad, which I guess means I’m running for president. So thanks for the endorsement white-haired dude.”

    “I want America to know that I’m, like, totally ready to lead,” she said.

    She then discusses energy policy, and suggests a hybrid of McCain’s offshore oil drilling plan and Obama’s incentives for new energy technology.

    “Energy crisis solved! I’ll see you at the debates bitches,” she said

    …..

    Hilton’s mother, who with her husband donated $4,600 to McCain’s campaign earlier in the year, has said McCain’s ad is “a complete waste of the country’s time and attention at the very moment when millions of people are losing their homes and their jobs.”

  70. Rightwingsnarkle said,

    August 6, 2008 at 19:37

    The version I have has his face covered with goat smegma.

    No smegma on Mickey’s favorite goats. He likes them clean. And circumcised.

    Now semen, well, that’s another matter entirely.

  71. mat said,

    August 6, 2008 at 19:51

    I’ve heard a very credible rumor that Kaus’s relationship with his goat lovers has progressed to scat-related activities. Of course, if one tosses a couple of ground-up roofies into a clover path, one can get a goat to do just about anything. At least that’s what Mr. Kaus allegedly said to someone who told someone else who told someone else and I heard if from them.

    It could all be malicious rumors, but one never knows.

  72. fadegeophile said,

    August 6, 2008 at 19:54

    What? Did I just hear that Mickey Kaus blows goats?

    I hadn’t heard that Mickey Kaus blows goats!

    Would it be responsible to speculate that Mickey Kaus blows goats?

    It would be irresponsible to not speculate whether Mickey Kaus blows goats.

    But, Wow, just hearing that Mickey Kaus blows goats really makes me wonder about if Mickey Kaus really blows goats.

  73. Mickey Kaus blows goats said,

    August 6, 2008 at 19:55

    WordPress blows goats, too, so leave me alone!

  74. Bleating Heart Liberals said,

    August 6, 2008 at 20:20

    Four legs good, Mickey Kaus better!

  75. sagra said,

    August 6, 2008 at 20:24

    Hilton’s mother, who with her husband donated $4,600 to McCain’s campaign earlier in the year, has said McCain’s ad is “a complete waste of the country’s time and attention at the very moment when millions of people are losing their homes and their jobs.”

    What? The peasants have no homes? Let them stay at a Hilton!

  76. anonymous 37 said,

    August 6, 2008 at 20:26

    I’ve always thought that Mickey Kaus, leaving aside the political content of his posts, is the single least readable blogger out there. He is an irredeemably shitty writer.

    And that’s why I have to ask you guys — has Kaus spent any time addressing the Enquirer’s claims that Bush had started to drink again? My guess is that he didn’t, but there’s no way that I’m going to read his blog on Slate to find out. And the obvious follow-up question is: if Kaus has not, why should anyone take his arguments about the Edwards story seriously?

  77. Andy said,

    August 6, 2008 at 20:41

    “The version I have has his face covered with goat smegma.”

    http://www.clybucca.com/pageo/smegma.html

  78. An Outhouse said,

    August 6, 2008 at 20:53

    Isn’t Mickey’s lack of a denial an acknowledgment of truth?

  79. goober said,

    August 6, 2008 at 21:08

    Shorter Clif:

    “Although the alleged Edwards ‘scandal’ has been repeated over and over by traditional (and non-traditional) media outlets, I choose to focus on Mickey Kaus’ coverage (for reasons known only to me) by introducing a non-sequitur, nonsensical parallel that I magically pulled out my bunghole.”

  80. sagra said,

    August 6, 2008 at 21:08

    Why hasn’t Mikey Klaus released his veterinary records?

  81. goober said,

    August 6, 2008 at 21:11

    This “shorter” business sure is fun. It’s a cheap, intellectually vacuous way to avoid real debate. It’s like hitting the “Easy Button” instead of actually using one’s brain.

    Which would explain it’s popularity and almost exclusive use on the left.

  82. mikey said,

    August 6, 2008 at 21:14

    New troll, fake troll or sockpuppet?

    You Decide…

    mikey

  83. D.N. Nation said,

    August 6, 2008 at 21:16

    Shorter Goober:

    She should have died hereafter;
    There would have been a time for such a word.
    To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
    Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
    To the last syllable of recorded time,
    And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
    The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
    Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
    That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
    And then is heard no more: it is a tale
    Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
    Signifying nothing.

  84. Bigby said,

    August 6, 2008 at 21:17

    Of COURSE Kaus never gets around to investigating anything. The Peter Principle Piece of Shit just sits in his robe all day til it’s time to drink (goat spooge). To keep up that ‘lifestyle’ he knows better than to hawk bullshit about anyone but Democrats. He’d be doing obituaries at the Altoona Mirror if he said a peep about Dry Drunk Dubya. No, his job is to drive FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) about Dems to stay on the gravy train. This is, probably, a direct result of Karl Rove having actual pictures of him actually blowing goats.

    With Journamalism, you either agree with their agenda and love the Ends Justify The Means thing, which makes you a treacherous asshole, or you were doing some lousy gig, sold your soul for cash and know it will end the second you display a conscience about what’s being done in this country in your name, which makes you a fucking cowardly whore (and even that’s unkind to whores because quite a few of them, unfortunately, sell their bodies out of necessity to live or for other unpleasant reasons, not to ensure regular cocktail weenies with Broder and Rove and private school for their children).

    People like Kaus have to keep telling themselves everyone would do the same thing he does if they were in his shoes.

  85. Susan of Texas said,

    August 6, 2008 at 21:26

    Goober thinks we’re debating, which is why he’s a goober.

    Not to mention that one doesn’t debate goat-blowers over National Enquirer articles. The goat-tainted spittle gets everywhere.

  86. Tehanu said,

    August 6, 2008 at 21:28

    Honestly, goat blowing is too good for the likes of Mickey Kaus.

    I’m a little confused. Is Mickey blowing the goats, or are they blowing him?

  87. pedestrian said,

    August 6, 2008 at 21:29

    “Although the alleged Edwards ’scandal’ has been repeated over and over by traditional (and non-traditional) media outlets, I choose to focus on Mickey Kaus’ coverage (for reasons known only to me) by introducing a non-sequitur, nonsensical parallel that I magically pulled out my bunghole.”

    By that logic, shouldn’t you be attacking Obama, not us? Not here, somewhere where you can be effective.

  88. Susan of Texas said,

    August 6, 2008 at 21:31

    Well, there was that night on Malta, when the moonlight went to the goats’ head, and Kaus’ sweet words of love made the goats lose their inhibitions. But they regretted it the next day.

  89. pedestrian said,

    August 6, 2008 at 21:33

    That goat could do so much better.

  90. Rightwingsnarkle said,

    August 6, 2008 at 21:34

    Hey! Lookit what I magically pulled out of my bunghole – peanuts!

  91. Tehanu said,

    August 6, 2008 at 21:37

    Susan, thanks for clearing that up. Now if I could only get the image of Mickey in the moonlight out of my head…

  92. Charlie Brown said,

    August 6, 2008 at 21:37

    I got a rock.

  93. Bigby said,

    August 6, 2008 at 21:41

    Welp, Goober, ya ol’ asshole, I guess since this unimpeachable source said it, it must be true:

    http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/63426

    It was also on Craig Kilbourne, AmericaBlog, Capitol Hill Blue, about 200 YouTube vids, The Guardian, etc. (I notice you weren’t too specific about all those ‘serious’ news outlets also covering the story, nor which of them were like your goat-fellating pal Kaus in just reporting the ‘controversy’…I’m sure if you’re referring to Political and National Review wrt Edwards, you’ll give us CHB and The Guardian on Bush, right?).

    Although, I’m on your (Bush ass-kissing) side on this one, Goob; I don’t really believe Bush is drinking. That Enquirer story is just so implausible! In it Dubya felt so bad about Katrina and the Iraq war he downed a Texas Sized Shot of Whiskey! I mean, we know Dubya is a callous, pitiless, self-centered, ruthless, cold-blooded bubble-boy asshole so there is just no way Katrina and the war started him to drinking again!

  94. anonymous 37 said,

    August 6, 2008 at 21:52

    Of COURSE Kaus never gets around to investigating anything. The Peter Principle Piece of Shit just sits in his robe all day til it’s time to drink (goat spooge). To keep up that ‘lifestyle’ he knows better than to hawk bullshit about anyone but Democrats. He’d be doing obituaries at the Altoona Mirror if he said a peep about Dry Drunk Dubya. No, his job is to drive FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) about Dems to stay on the gravy train. This is, probably, a direct result of Karl Rove having actual pictures of him actually blowing goats.

    I guess I’m not terribly surprised by that, but it does take some chutzpah to selectively flog the Edwards Enquirer story while ignoring the Bush Enquirer story. What it must be like to be Mickey Kaus, I can only imagine while shuddering in horror.

  95. Mickey Kaus blows goats said,

    August 6, 2008 at 21:54

    I’m a little confused. Is Mickey (Kaus) blowing the goats, or are they blowing him?

    It would be irresponsible not to speculate.

    And did you add something to that picture?

    Dude. Gross.

  96. anonymous 37 said,

    August 6, 2008 at 22:06

    anonymous 37 said,

    August 6, 2008 at 21:52

    Incidentally, are your servers in Paris or something?

  97. dualdiagnosis said,

    August 6, 2008 at 22:29

    Edwards and love child= true

    Kaus and goats= false

    Those are my bets, any takers?

  98. SomeNYGuy said,

    August 6, 2008 at 22:37

    John Edwards has a love child, but it was born a goat. When Mickey Kaus found out, he threatened to expose the scandal unless he got the exclusive right to blow the goat. William Bennett notarized the deal memo.

    Mysteries solved.

  99. John Edwards Scandal: Enquirer Photos Give MSM a BIG Smoking Gun | DBKP - The Worldwide Leader in Weird said,

    August 6, 2008 at 22:43

    [...] take is likely one that we’ll see repeated in the big-boy media in the coming days [Goat Sleaze]: In other words, if its rumored that you’re having an affair, you must forswear campaigns for [...]

  100. Righteous Bubba said,

    August 6, 2008 at 22:43

    Those are my bets, any takers?

    Uh, sure. If I lose I will acknowledge it, adding that this is not the point at all, and if you lose you will acknowledge it, adding that this is not the point at all.

  101. slippy hussein toad said,

    August 6, 2008 at 22:57

    Kaus is despicable. I’m upgrading my rumor from blows goats to chases wheel-chair bound children with a taser then eats them alive from the feet on up.

    Did I also mention Fuck Mickey Kaus?

  102. Dave Latchaw said,

    August 6, 2008 at 23:28

    To say that Mickey Kaus blows goats is not entirely accurate. Mickey Kaus blows dead goats.

  103. sagra said,

    August 6, 2008 at 23:30

    Is it just me or does somebody at GOP.com want to hit Obama in the head with a pipe.

  104. Rightwingsnarkle said,

    August 6, 2008 at 23:38

    I thought it was physically impossible, but Mickey Kaus both sucks and blows.

    Goats.

  105. Lesley said,

    August 6, 2008 at 23:44

    If you were a goat would you let Mickey near you? Give the goat some credit.

  106. dualdiagnosis said,

    August 6, 2008 at 23:46

    Ok Bubba, Tell me what the point is.

    Is it, shoot the messenger? How about demonizing an enemy?

    The facts surrounding Edwards and his cheating on his cancer stricken wife have been around long enough to have been debunked if false.

    Edwards, who has said, by the way, that we should judge candidates based on their private behavior, has acted strangely for a man who claims innocence (ie. Hiding in a bathroom stall for 15 minutes)

    I’ll go with Mickey’s observation and say that you and others here are somewher in between #4 and #5-
    1) Too horrible and shocking; it can’t possibly be true; 2) It’s not true; 3) You can’t prove it’s true; 4) Why are you trying to prove it’s true? 5) It’s disgusting that you’ve proved it’s true; 6) What’s the big deal anyway? …

  107. Gary Ruppert said,

    August 6, 2008 at 23:46

    The fact is,

  108. Southern Beale said,

    August 6, 2008 at 23:52

    I, for one, welcome our new tabloid news overlord.

    Seriously, why haven’t we covered any of their other hot scoops? It’s a mystery to me …

  109. pedestrian said,

    August 7, 2008 at 0:02

    The facts surrounding Edwards and his cheating on his cancer stricken wife have been around long enough to have been debunked if false.

    That is a thing of beauty, right there. If you are a parody troll you have earned a sticker.

  110. His Grace said,

    August 7, 2008 at 0:02

    The facts surrounding Edwards and his cheating on his cancer stricken wife have been around long enough to have been debunked if false.

    Edwards, who has said, by the way, that we should judge candidates based on their private behavior, has acted strangely for a man who claims innocence (ie. Hiding in a bathroom stall for 15 minutes)

    Umm, I can’t speak for Righteous Bubba, but if my wife was severely ill with cancer, and the tabloids accused me of cheating on her, I wouldn’t know how exactly to respond… but that’s just me. Do you have some sort of manual I can borrow?

  111. Gary Ruppert said,

    August 7, 2008 at 0:06

    The fact is

  112. Righteous Bubba said,

    August 7, 2008 at 0:09

    Ok Bubba, Tell me what the point is.

    The point is that via Kaus-style journalism the charge of blowing goats is meaningful.

  113. Leon Trotsky, Exile-in-Mexico said,

    August 7, 2008 at 0:11

    I come, not to demonize, but to accuse Micky Kaus of blowing goats. The facts of his goat-blowing have been around long enough to be debunked, if false.

  114. mikey said,

    August 7, 2008 at 0:17

    The facts surrounding Edwards and his cheating on his cancer stricken wife have been around long enough to have been debunked if false

    Dood, what part of proving a negative do you not understand?

    What part of the WHOLE FUCKING POINT are you missing?

    Lemme help you out here, ’cause I guess you’re a little slow:

    The facts surrounding Kaus and his goat blowing have been around long enough to have been debunked if false

    mikey

  115. fadgeophile said,

    August 7, 2008 at 0:25

    The facts surrounding Edwards and his cheating on his cancer stricken wife have been around long enough to have been debunked if false.

    This is exactly what were saying about Mikcey Kaus blowing goats. We have been accusing him of this for like over a year, and he has never credibly denied the rumors, therefore they are true…or something.

    Q.E.D. See ya at the debates, bitchez!!1!

  116. fadgeophile said,

    August 7, 2008 at 0:25

    Oooo, ooo, ooo!

    Can I haz sticker, peddy?

  117. Thrillhouse said,

    August 7, 2008 at 0:43

    Instead of taking all of that time and space to explain to us why he needs to talk about the story on the off chance it’s true and what the various implications would be, couldn’t he spend some time finding out whether or not it’s true? I know that’s not really how journalism works anymore, but it would be nice.

  118. Oh no you don't said,

    August 7, 2008 at 0:48

    I don’t want to be too critical but I believe that there is a factual error in your post.

    The part of the post that says:

    “a)payments of hush money to keep the goat quiet”

    Should I believe read:

    “a)payment of hush money to keep the goats quiet”

    Thanks.

  119. Krassen said,

    August 7, 2008 at 0:56

    In general, I am tolerant of man-goat relationships, however, what is most disturbing in this story is that the goat’s partner has been recently diagnosed with foot-and-mouth disease.

  120. fadgeophile said,

    August 7, 2008 at 0:58

    I think that’s foot-in-mouth disease.

  121. Susan of Texas said,

    August 7, 2008 at 1:25

    I have it on very good authority that a certain important Republican official was caught in the bathroom with his male assistant by the police. I guess this means that it would be perfectly okay to spread this rumor because it’s been out for a while and nobody’s disproved it.

    And heaven knows he’ll have plenty of company in the VIP Gay Sex Scandal Club.

  122. Susan of Texas said,

    August 7, 2008 at 1:26

    No goats were involved. It’s not like he’s Mickey Kaus.

  123. Jrod said,

    August 7, 2008 at 1:34

    Jrod,
    Didja really say Democrat party? Without quotes? Niiiice. Just keep feeding that wingnut meme.

    Ever since my old friend irony died, I’ve had to settle for sarcasm.

    The point is that Kaus is a Repug in Dem’s clothing. In any case, using Democrat instead of Democratic is less a meme than a schoolyard bully name-calling. Yes, I used name-calling as a noun, wanna fight about it?

    Edwards, who has said, by the way, that we should judge candidates based on their private behavior, has acted strangely for a man who claims innocence (ie. Hiding in a bathroom stall for 15 minutes)

    Maybe he had Taco Bell for dinner and had to take a shit? If going to the bathroom was evidence of an affair, my girlfriend would have dumped my cheating ass long ago.

    She lives in Canada, that’s why you’ve never met her. *sob* (Note to mndean: I am being completely serious.)

  124. MzNicky said,

    August 7, 2008 at 1:53

    Investigate, Mickey. I invite you to do it. I dare you to do it. I beg you to do it. But, you can’t, can you? Because you don’t know how and it’s too much work.

    With this, Jersey Tomato nails the difference between an actual real journalist (remember them?) and its current incarnation, the bloviating pundiwhore, who in this particular case also happens to be a goat-blower.

    By the way, Goat-Boy: Ever consider giving yourself a new pseudonym? I for one feel somewhat obliged to self-censor on Mickey Kaus posts in deference to my affection for you and your comments, which rather annoys me.

  125. MzNicky said,

    August 7, 2008 at 1:57

    Lesley: Paris Hilton and her parents can all blow my goat, if I had one. I’ve had CNN on all day at work and if I have to look at that smug privileged snot-face for one more news cycle I’m going to go postal on my boss. Well, that’ll be my excuse anyway.

  126. MzNicky said,

    August 7, 2008 at 1:59

    … claims that Bush had started to drink again?

    Again and again I must ask the question: Does anyone really think he ever quit?

  127. MzNicky said,

    August 7, 2008 at 2:01

    Isn’t Mickey’s lack of a denial an acknowledgment of truth?

    It would be irresponsible not to speculate that this is indeed central to the point.

  128. MzNicky said,

    August 7, 2008 at 2:07

    Which would explain it’s popularity and almost exclusive use on the left.

    goober (your label, not mine, although I applaud your introspection): The third-person singular possessive pronoun does not require an apostrophe, you fucking ignoramus. And “shorter” is a lefty exclusive primarily because righties are too fucking stupid to have thought of it.

    Thank you for your time and attention.

  129. Jrod said,

    August 7, 2008 at 2:09

    Bush probably quit just enough to justify to himself that he quit.

    I mean it’s not like he’s going on a bender every night? A couple drinks in the evening to take the edge off hardly counts as drinking. And who really cares what happens on the weekend? It’s not like he’s getting plastered before meeting foreign dignitaries. I mean you can hardly notice if he just knocks back a couple at lunch, so what’s the big deal? etc. etc.

  130. MzNicky said,

    August 7, 2008 at 2:18

    Jrod: Our old friend irony having died a painful death, I’m assuming there’s sarcasm a-hoy in that comment.

  131. pedestrian said,

    August 7, 2008 at 2:50

    Oooo, ooo, ooo!

    Can I haz sticker, peddy?

    For poking a hole in goober’s logic? Well, alright, but only a red star.

  132. Jrod said,

    August 7, 2008 at 3:05

    MzNicky: That’s always a good assumption when I’m posting here.

    Having spent a good chunk of my life in the presence of addicts and alkies, however, I wouldn’t be surprised if Bush does think like this. He also has the good ol’ “born-again” trick that helps make anything you do afterwards right and correct.

    In any case, if I was in Bush’s shoes I’d be drinking heavily. To muster the courage needed to commit seppuku.

  133. MzNicky said,

    August 7, 2008 at 4:21

    It’s actually more dishonorable if he’s not drinking heavily, when you think about it. Which is central to some point.

  134. dualdiagnosis said,

    August 7, 2008 at 5:51

    If Edwards fails to clear up the story in short order, he risks party officials deciding not to have him speak or, if they do, creating a distraction from a week focused on Barack Obama accepting the nomination.

    “If there is not an explanation that’s satisfactory, acceptable and meets high moral standards, the answer is ‘no,’ he would not be a prime candidate to make a major address to the convention,” said Don Fowler, a former Democratic National Committee chair.
    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/46637.html

    Friends and former staffers refuse to comment now, though they helped Edwards last fall by dismissing an October story in the Enquirer of a sexual relationship between Edwards and a campaign videographer when it initially broke.

    “Sorry cannot help you on this one,” wrote Jennifer Palmieri, a former top Edwards aide, in an e-mail Wednesday. (h/t Mickey!)

  135. Righteous Bubba said,

    August 7, 2008 at 5:53

    If Edwards fails to clear up the story in short order

    AAAAAAAIIIIIIIRRRRRRRR BAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLL

  136. Mickey Kaus' Mom said,

    August 7, 2008 at 5:59

    Miiiiiiiiickeyyyyyyyyy!!!

    Stop that right now!

    You’re going to spoil your dinner if you fill up on goat spooge again.

  137. Candy said,

    August 7, 2008 at 7:06

    GoatBoy, I’ve always meant to ask: Is your name a nod to John Barth? Because that would be really great.

  138. dualdiagnosis said,

    August 7, 2008 at 8:12

    Instead some Democrats say convention organizers will try to avoid the lingering questions if Edwards himself doesn’t talk.

    “He absolutely does have to [resolve it]. If it’s not true, he has to issue a stronger denial,” said Gary Pearce, the Democratic strategist who ran Edwards’ 1998 Senate race. “It’s a very damaging thing. … The big media has tried to be responsible and handle this with kid gloves, but it’s clearly getting ready to bust out. If it’s not true, he’s got to stand up and say, ‘This is not true. That is not my child and I’m going to take legal action against the people who are spreading these lies.’ It’s not enough to say, ‘That’s tabloid trash.’ ”
    http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/story/1167499.html

    An appearance at the convention would only highlight the unresolved story, said Chris Lehane, a Democratic consultant and former aide to then-Vice President Al Gore. It’s when the moment can drive the news media coverage.

    “You want to address these issues long before you get to that point,” Lehane said. “Otherwise people who haven’t written about it before, now start writing about it.”

  139. Jrod said,

    August 7, 2008 at 8:38

    Yes, because John Edwards is what this Presidential race is all about! How can anyone vote Democratic when the Dem to Puke scandal ratio reaches 1 to 30?!?! They can’t, that’s how.

  140. Susan of Texas said,

    August 7, 2008 at 14:37

    You keep paddling, dude. You don’t look stupid at all.

  141. slippy hussein toad said,

    August 7, 2008 at 18:49

    dualdiagnosis said,

    August 6, 2008 at 23:46

    The facts surrounding Edwards and his cheating on his cancer stricken wife have been around long enough to have been debunked if false proven if true.

    FIFY

    dualdiagnosis said,

    August 7, 2008 at 5:51

    If Edwards fails to clear up the story wrestle this pig in short order, he risks party officials deciding not to have him speak or, if they do, creating a distraction from a week focused on Barack Obama accepting the nomination that will play into the hands of the smarmy pricks in the Conservative media

    FIFY

    malfunctioning dualdiagnosis robot said,

    August 7, 2008 at 8:12

    Some Democrats lingering questions John Edwards bzzt crackle fuzz blah blah hot air distraction bzzt crackle fuzz must answer to phony scurrilous charges made by a bunch of scrummy smear merchants to keep the narrative going our waybafaslklakdsjlkjdf.

    FIFY

    Also, you do realize that I’m now researching your own personal goat-blowing fetish? I understand that according to some whore I just met on the Las Vegas strip, you order several live baby goats delivered to a hotel room every night, and they are never seen again. I know, it’s just a rumor, but it would be irresponsible of me to fail to speculate.

  142. dualdiagnosis said,

    August 7, 2008 at 20:29

    Young is a former assistant to Edwards and Hunter was hired by the Edwards campaign to produce some short films about John Edwards. Andrew Young is married and has children. Along the way — and during the campaign – it seems that they began having an affair that resulted in Ms. Hunter’s pregnancy. Around the same time, a horrible rumor surfaced that it was Senator Edwards who was having the affair.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-stranahan/john-edwards-needs-to-sto_b_117298.html

    What I suggest Senator Edwards SHOULD have done is state,
    “You’re confused. It wasn’t me who had the affair with Ms. Hunter; it was Andrew Young. Both of them have already admitted it publicly. As the son of a mill worker, I tell you that if I had known that Mr. Young and Ms. Hunter would leave me hanging out to dry, I would have cut off our relationship with a eight and half inch compound miter saw. Instead, I have tried to shield them even at the expense of my own reputation. I have allowed these rumors about me to continue even though I knew the truth out of a misguided sense of loyalty to these people. So, with deep regret I must both renounce and reject my former friends and employees.”

    …Obviously, it was the affair between Young and Hunter that caused this entire mess. If this is all true, then their affair set off a chain reaction that ended with an innocent man being accused falsely…

    ..John Edwards has taken the fall for these two for far too long.

  143. dualdiagnosis said,

    August 7, 2008 at 20:37

    From NPR May 22nd, “Talk of The Nation”-

    ELIZABETH EDWARDS: Honestly, there wasn’t. I mean, I guess I grew up in a household that was a very open household, and John and I have always had a very open home, where we have very few secrets from anyone. We always say there’s a bunch of 28-year-old boys running around, who’ve seen me in every nightgown I own. So I wasn’t particularly private to begin with, and politics kind of cures you a little bit of that anyway. People want to peer in your closets, and you sort of make a bargain that you’re going to let them.

  144. dualdiagnosis said,

    August 7, 2008 at 20:42

    But is there anything else? Maybe the Democratic National Convention, coming up in a little more than two weeks? “Obviously, the convention has not been our driving force behind the story,” Perel says.

    “The reporting takes however long it takes. It took seven months to go from the December story to the [Beverly Hilton] meeting….But if it happens to be a happy coincidence — if the story just happens to be breaking around that time, in terms of maximum exposure —” Perel pauses. If the convention wasn’t part of the timetable before, it is now. The Edwards pictures might make a nice splash with the Democratic delegates gathered in Denver.

    http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=M2RiMzNjZDc3ZmJjODg0MDkzZTMzMWQyZGI3ZTE5MGM=

  145. dualdiagnosis said,

    August 7, 2008 at 20:47

    John Edwards, who has been a rumored vice-presidential pick for Barack Obama, said in Denver on Tuesday he expects his crusade to reduce poverty to play a prominent role during the Democratic National Convention.
    –Denver Post July23rd
    http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_9964246target=

  146. Righteous Bubba said,

    August 7, 2008 at 20:48

    Uh, you’ve already missed the point. It’s also obvious what you think the point is. Get over it.

  147. dualdiagnosis said,

    August 7, 2008 at 21:04

    Hey Bub-

    There is a big difference between making something up about someone for the hell of it or to hurt them and a story like this which is staring you right in the face.

  148. Righteous Bubba said,

    August 7, 2008 at 21:08

    There is a big difference between making something up about someone for the hell of it or to hurt them and a story like this which is staring you right in the face.

    As I said, you miss the point and continue to prove it. But let’s take your point at face value: why exactly do you give a shit about where the Edwards penis might wander?

  149. mikey said,

    August 7, 2008 at 21:12

    There is a big difference between making something up about someone for the hell of it or to hurt them and a story like this which is staring you right in the face.

    Of course there is. It’s called an “Agenda”…

    mikey

  150. dualdiagnosis said,

    August 7, 2008 at 21:29

    Agenda?

    The story should be ignored because it may hurt his chance at Attorney General?

    During a joint 60 Minutes interview focusing on his wife’s illness, Edwards explicitly linked his behavior in that struggle and his fitness for public office:

    Katie Couric:
    Some have suggested that you’re capitalizing on this.

    John Edwards:
    Here’s what I would say about that.

    First of all, there’s not a single person in America that should vote for me because Elizabeth has cancer. Not a one. ..[snip]

    But, I think every single candidate for president, Republican and Democratic have lives, personal lives, that indicate something about what kind of human being they are. And I think it is a fair evaluation for America to engage in to look at what kind of human beings each of us are, and what kind of president we’d make.
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/24/60minutes/main2605038.shtml

  151. Righteous Bubba said,

    August 7, 2008 at 21:33

    Hmm. So are there Republicans who stray from their wives when their wives are going through some kind of medical problem? If so, what might their names be?

  152. Jrod said,

    August 7, 2008 at 21:35

    Prove that the baby is Edwards’ or shut the fuck up.

  153. dualdiagnosis said,

    August 7, 2008 at 21:42

    What does the story have to do with party affiliation?

  154. Righteous Bubba said,

    August 7, 2008 at 21:52

    What does the story have to do with party affiliation?

    I asked you why you cared about the story and you haven’t answered. If it hasn’t got anything to do with party affiliation then what’s your interest in this guy’s penis?

  155. dualdiagnosis said,

    August 7, 2008 at 22:08

    It’s a big story because the man who ran on his superior honesty and purity of motive for the highest office in the land, was touting his relationship with his cancer stricken wife as proof of his compassion and dedication at the same time, if true, he was sleeping with and impregnating Rielle.

    If true, why would he risk damaging his party’s chances in Nov?

    If true, how low is a man who would do this to a wife suffering from a life-threatening disease?

    If true, it would reinforce the feelings of many people that he was a complete fraud.

    How is it not a story?

  156. Righteous Bubba said,

    August 7, 2008 at 22:20

    It’s a big story because the man who ran on his superior honesty and purity of motive for the highest office in the land

    You know that he lost the primary bid by a wide margin, right?

    Who is actually running for president right now? Do they claim superior honesty and purity of motive? Are these candidates married? Which of them deserted the wife with medical troubles for an heiress?

    There could be a more important story there.

  157. dualdiagnosis said,

    August 7, 2008 at 22:26

    The McCain story is out there, there is a story on it on instapundit right now, and I am sure that it will continue to be brought up.

    Edwards just a couple of weeks ago reversed course and signaled that he was open to accepting VP or serving in some capacity in a possible Obama administration.

    I understand why you and many on the left and in the MSM want to ignore this and bury it. I just want to shine a light on it.

    The story will come out in all it’s glory sooner or later. Better if Edward’s just dealt with these two (Hunter/Young) who have left him on the hook for their behavior.

  158. Righteous Bubba said,

    August 7, 2008 at 22:36

    I just want to shine a light on it.

    I believe we all know about it. Your obsession over it is kinda creepy and self-defeating, given that precisely the kind of turd you accuse Edwards of being is running for president right now.

    Better if Edward’s just dealt with these two (Hunter/Young) who have left him on the hook for their behavior.

    Um, I suppose I should have expected this from the refuse-to-get-the-point guy but I think you misunderstood that HuffPo article.

  159. dualdiagnosis said,

    August 7, 2008 at 22:38

    Personalized Results 1 – 10 of about 2,210,000 for mccain divorce. (0.17 seconds)

    Google.

  160. Bill S said,

    August 7, 2008 at 23:03

    What about the poor goats? Won’t somebody please think of the goats?

  161. slippy hussein toad said,

    August 8, 2008 at 1:01

    dualdiagnosis said,

    August 7, 2008 at 22:08

    It’s a big story because the man who ran on his superior honesty and purity of motive for the highest office in the land, was touting his relationship with his cancer stricken wife as proof of his compassion and dedication at the same time, if true, he was sleeping with and impregnating Rielle.

    If true. . .

    If true, why don’t you get off your worthless ass and go get the story? Or would you rather just fart up the Internet with speculation?

  162. Doctorb said,

    August 8, 2008 at 1:31

    Okay, so as soon as Dick Cheney proves that he isn’t a replicant sent back in time by the Chinese Government of the (as of yet alternate) future for the purpose of destroying the US government and economy, and George W Bush announces that he’s stopped beating his wife, I think we do need John Edwards to address this very important issue.

    The Cheney thing is going to be difficult, because the highly advanced technology of the (as of yet alternate) future Chinese Government is capable of creating replicants that are completely indistinguishable from real humans, and probably carbon-dating him won’t work either.

  163. (: Tom :) said,

    August 8, 2008 at 1:49

    And if the stories of Kaus and the goats is true, it almost certainly means that Kaus and Slate have presided over an elaborate cover-up involving at least a)payments of hush money to keep the goat quiet and b) numerous misstatements by Kaus about why he keeps licking his lips.

    a) will never work.

    The goat will just eat the hush money, then they’ll have to pay him off all over again.

    But – moneylicious goat smegma might go a long way towards explaining b).

    Would it be irresponsible not to speculate?

  164. Realist said,

    August 8, 2008 at 3:47

    How is it not a story?

    Like so:

    If true,

    If true,

    If true,

    Is the RupperTron 5000 on the fritz again? I’ll have to check the scripts.

  165. dualdiagnosis said,

    August 8, 2008 at 8:16

    Whoa dude, deja vu!

    This is so like the Lewinski deal, the lengths people went to, the willful blindness.

    LOL! Don’t they feel like complete idiots and tools now.

    If this was not a story, if the evidence so far did not make it highly plausible, there would be no commenters here about it, no one would give a sh*t and it would disappear from lack of belief or total complete boredom.

    There would be 0 interest in defending him because there would be 0 evidence, it would be so obviously unbelievable, and it would make no sense.

  166. Doctorb said,

    August 8, 2008 at 21:23

    Yeah there’s great evidence, I mean you got that blurry picture of some guy who doesn’t look like John Edwards, and he’s holding a baby. Plus I think that he was seen with Bat Boy getting advice from space aliens.

  167. Righteous Bubba said,

    August 8, 2008 at 21:30

    If this was not a story, if the evidence so far did not make it highly plausible, there would be no commenters here about it

    Ah, another 9/11 truther.

  168. dualdiagnosis said,

    August 8, 2008 at 22:08

    LOL!

  169. k said,

    August 8, 2008 at 22:23

    oops… – story about Edwards is true.
    on ABC News.

  170. moops said,

    August 8, 2008 at 22:27

    ….and it turns out that it is true. Edwards just admitted to the affair on Nightline ABC

    so, goober here was right, and you were all wrong. He is tool for writing a story with nothing to back it up, and you are all losers for defending Edwards with nothing to back it up.

    ta da!

  171. moops said,

    August 8, 2008 at 22:29

    and Sadly No drops another notch in credibility.

    still higher than many, but when you end up looking as dumb as Slate’s dumbest, that is not high praise.

    [Clif adds: Ah, moops, you missed our point. We never said that Edwards didn't have an affair; there was no way to know one way or the other. Our point was that Kaus didn't either and was openly defending his right to spread rumors. Rather than having the taxpayers pay you to use government computers to leave stupid comments, why don't you get back to work and do what we pay you to do, okay?]

  172. dualdiagnosis said,

    August 8, 2008 at 22:48

    Blind partisanship is dangerous and makes people do things they would normally not do.

    I expect there will now be a wave of supporters who will come to his defense, just like for Clinton, and say that this was not really sex, that it’s nobody’s business anyway, if this was Europe it would be no big deal, America is too f*ck’n puritanical, cheating on his wife is not indicative of his honesty, maybe Elizabeth told him to go out and get some because of her illness, and that this is not “news”.

    Tell that to Edwards who is making it a goddamned special on ABC.

    [Clif adds: You won't find me defending Edwards at this point. Once Edwards admits the affair, the story has legs and is no longer simply rumor-mongering bubbling up from the perfervid imagination of a guy who blows goats.]

  173. Righteous Bubba said,

    August 8, 2008 at 22:51

    I expect there will now be a wave of supporters who

    Y’know it’s just not that big a deal, right?

  174. dualdiagnosis said,

    August 8, 2008 at 23:02

    I’ll put you in the no big deal column.

    Edwards on Clinton-
    “I think this President has shown a remarkable disrespect for his office, for the moral dimensions of leadership, for his friends, for his wife, for his precious daughter,” Edwards said in 1999. “It is breathtaking to me the level to which that disrespect has risen.

    Edwards has told associates that when he endorsed Obama, he was promised a coveted prime-time, broadcast speaking slot at the Democratic National Convention later this month.
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12402_Page2.html

    Edwards today admitted the National Enquirer was correct when it reported he had visited Hunter at the Beverly Hills Hilton last month.

    The former Senator said his wife had not known about the meeting.

    So let me get this straight – he claims he ended his affair with Hunter over 9 months previous to February 2008, and that he previously admitted the affair to his wife. Yet for some reason, he still saw fit to visit her at a Beverly Hills hotel at 2:30AM last month and didn’t bother to tell his wife this time. Am I reading this correctly???

    Oh wait, there’s more…

    Edwards denied paying any money to Hunter to keep her from going public but said it was possible some of his friends or supporters may have made payments without telling him.

    He said he would ask questions about any possible arrangement.

    Ok there…..

    So I guess we are supposed to now believe that Edwards had an affair with Hunter that somehow ended. Then AFTER the affair with Edwards ended, Hunter had ANOTHER affair with Edwards’ (married) aide Andrew Young, and managed to get pregnant by Young.

    Riiiight. That’s something we should all believe. After all, Edwards and Young have declared that to be the truth, and we know what a great a great track record they have for telling people the truth – unlike the ‘tabloid trash’ that the Enquirer dishes out.
    http://patterico.com/2008/08/08/why-edwards-denial-about-paternity-doesnt-pass-the-smell-test/

  175. monkey knife fight said,

    August 8, 2008 at 23:04

    I think the point all along is that if the New York Times or The Washington Post or Newsweek had broken this story, then we would have all believed it right from the get-go. However, this story was broken by a tabloid, a gossip rag, an outlet that will publish *anything* just to sell more copies. So, about that Bush drinking again and Laura divorcing him? How’s that coming along?

    Edwards is a real shitbag for cheating on his old lady like that, but he’s not exactly breaking new ground by doing so. This quote from People magazine is just the start of the silliness surrounding this whole thing:
    “I’m just so surprised and disappointed,” a source close to Edwards tells PEOPLE. “We put in all that time and effort and poured our souls into this campaign. It’s really unfortunate, too, that what he did now dilutes his credibility on the poverty issue, where he really had the change to make a difference.

    Uuuhhhh…how so? What does his fucking around on his sick wife have to do with his fight to end poverty? Snap out of it and get some freakin’ perspective. It’s not like he made it his mission in Congress to create laws and otherwise use his power to deny equal rights to adulterers. *cough*closedgayrepublicanhomophobes*cough*

  176. moops said,

    August 8, 2008 at 23:08

    so moderator Clif will use IP logs to slag unpopular posters.

    ….Sadly No! drops another few notches. nice integrity.

  177. dualdiagnosis said,

    August 8, 2008 at 23:11

    monkey knife- His credibility is gone he accepted Father Of The Year during this, when he was working for the overseas hedge fund he said he was researching poverty, maybe tonight on ABC he’ll say that he was researching breast cancer when he was with Rielle.

  178. Righteous Bubba said,

    August 8, 2008 at 23:25

    His credibility is gone

    So was Bill Clinton’s, except that, you know, Clinton left office a popular president. I wonder if it was because all the handwaving that Republicans did made them look idiotic?

  179. dualdiagnosis said,

    August 8, 2008 at 23:27

    All the people who supported the Clintons back in the day sure got a wake up call during the primary.

    Partisan blindness.

  180. Righteous Bubba said,

    August 8, 2008 at 23:29

    All the people who supported the Clintons back in the day sure got a wake up call during the primary.

    I’m not sure what you mean by this.

  181. Riechlu said,

    August 9, 2008 at 1:03

    Page 6 reported this story late last year.

    We’re patiently awaiting an over-the-top apology by SN!

  182. monkey knife fight said,

    August 9, 2008 at 2:53

    Why? People who rely on tabloids for news stories are fair targets for ridicule.

  183. dualdiagnosis said,

    August 9, 2008 at 7:55

    [posted by Justin Levine]

    It truthfully scooped the rest of the media that Dick Morris was ordering hookers while advising President Clinton.

    It truthfully scooped the rest of the media on Rush Limbaugh’s addiction to pain killers.

    It truthfully scooped the rest of the media on Jesse Jackson fathering a love child.

    [Updated addition] It truthfully scooped the rest of the media when it published a photo of O.J. Simpson wearing Bruno Magli shoes – a critical piece of evidence in his murder/wrongful death trials.

    It truthfully scooped the rest of the media on John Edwards’ affair.

    Yet people are still disgracefully allowed to dismiss this great paper as merely being ‘tabloid trash’ that is not worth believing.

    Some of these stories might not have even been reported at all had it not been for the Enquirer. Yet there are people out there that would rather have the truth swept under the carpet of history than admit that the Enquirer is a legitimate news outlet that is running circles around other national papers.

    It is astonishing that some people still give the benefit of the doubt to lying, scum-sucking politcians over The Enquirer. Most other papers in this country should take lessons from it. The Enquirer is a national treasure – one of the few remaining fearless bastions of truth left.

    Still wanna bet that its wrong about the ‘love child’ angle to the Edwards story?

    http://patterico.com/2008/08/08/how-many-more-times-does-the-enquirer-have-to-prove-itself-before-people-stop-dismissing-it/

  184. dualdiagnosis said,

    August 9, 2008 at 9:05

    Woodruff asks about the picture of Edwards holding the baby, and Edwards goes on about how he can’t say what that picture is. Woodruff has the wit to ask him, “But are you saying you don’t remember holding that child of Miss Hunter?” Edwards, tellingly, goes back to the photograph:

    EDWARDS: I’m saying you asked me about this photograph, I don’t know anything about that photograph, I don’t know who that baby is. I don’t know if the picture has been altered, manufactured, if it’s a picture of me taken some other time, holding another baby — I have no idea. I was not at this meeting holding a child for my photograph to be taken I can tell you that.

    Pay attention here. He does not say he didn’t hold the child. He only says he didn’t pose for a photograph and is refusing to authenticate the photograph. This has a real smokescreen feeling to it that to me this suggests that he did hold the baby.

    Woodruff follows up:

    WOODRUFF: You did say you did meet her at a hotel in California.

    EDWARDS: She was there, Mr. McGovern was present, and that’s where the meeting took place.

    WOODRUFF: But you don’t remember a baby being there?

    EDWARDS: No.

    Finally, cornered, he says “no.” A lie?

    http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/08/because-of-recent-string-of-hurtful-and.html

  185. dualdiagnosis said,

    August 9, 2008 at 10:39

    June 2007- John Edwards – Father of the Year Award

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ow1pwtFpvq8&eurl

  186. dualdiagnosis said,

    August 9, 2008 at 10:49

    June 2007- Father Of The Year Award

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ow1pwtFpvq8&eurl

  187. MzNicky said,

    August 9, 2008 at 17:53

    dualdiagnosis: Once you’ve finished wanking off all over the place down here, please clean up after yourself. Thanks so much.

  188. dualdiagnosis said,

    August 9, 2008 at 20:46

    Mickey on the story December 2007

    Video here-
    http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/7636?&in=00:08:30&out=00:14:06

    “Edwards averts scandal (so far)” (05:36)

  189. whatismyip said,

    April 17, 2013 at 1:19

    I’ve been surfing on-line greater than three hours today, but I by no means found any attention-grabbing article like yours. It’s
    beautiful value sufficient for me. In my opinion, if all
    website owners and bloggers made just right content material as
    you did, the net can be a lot more useful than ever before.

  190. which witch board game said,

    April 17, 2013 at 13:58

    When some one searches for his required thing, thus he/she wants to
    be available that in detail, thus that thing is maintained
    over here.

  191. virtual offices beverly hills said,

    April 23, 2013 at 18:59

    Hi there, i read your blog occasionally and i own a similar one and i
    was just wondering if you get a lot of spam responses? If so how do you prevent
    it, any plugin or anything you can recommend? I get so much lately it’s driving me insane so any help is very much appreciated.

  192. Dennis said,

    May 7, 2013 at 18:30

    That is a very good tip especially to those fresh to the blogosphere.
    Simple but very precise information… Many thanks for sharing this
    one. A must read article!

  193. bevlkerung said,

    May 9, 2013 at 22:36

    Hi mates, how is all, and what you want to say concerning this article, in my
    view its actually amazing in support of me.

  194. westen said,

    May 10, 2013 at 2:39

    I know this site presents quality depending articles and additional
    material, is there any other web site which gives these kinds of data in quality?

  195. schnell said,

    May 10, 2013 at 4:22

    I am really impressed with your writing skills and also with
    the layout on your weblog. Is this a paid theme or did you modify it yourself?

    Anyway keep up the nice quality writing, it’s rare to see a nice blog like this one these days.

  196. erhalten said,

    May 10, 2013 at 6:29

    Do you have a spam problem on this blog; I also
    am a blogger, and I was wanting to know your situation; we have developed
    some nice methods and we are looking to exchange
    solutions with other folks, please shoot me an
    e-mail if interested.

  197. klar said,

    May 13, 2013 at 12:45

    With havin so much content do you ever run into any problems of plagorism or copyright infringement?
    My website has a lot of completely unique content I’ve either written myself or outsourced but it seems a lot of it is popping it up all over the internet without my agreement. Do you know any methods to help stop content from being stolen? I’d certainly appreciate
    it.

  198. geht said,

    May 14, 2013 at 11:30

    This excellent website certainly has all the info I wanted
    about this subject and didn’t know who to ask.

  199. http://foro.cecam.es/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=36055 said,

    May 14, 2013 at 14:31

    Spot on with this write-up, I actually believe that this website needs a lot more attention.
    I’ll probably be returning to read more, thanks for the information!

  200. cokolwiek said,

    May 14, 2013 at 21:13

    For hottest news you have to go to see world-wide-web and on the web I found this
    web page as a best web site for newest updates.

  201. heart disease facts said,

    May 18, 2013 at 13:09

    Hi there, just became aware of your blog through Google, and found
    that it is really informative. I am going to watch out
    for brussels. I’ll be grateful if you continue this in future. Lots of people will be benefited from your writing. Cheers!

  202. vegas virtual offices said,

    May 20, 2013 at 3:15

    Every weekend i used to visit this site, for the reason
    that i wish for enjoyment, since this this web page conations genuinely pleasant funny
    stuff too.

  203. ansicht said,

    May 21, 2013 at 3:48

    If you wish for to grow your know-how simply keep visiting this site and be updated with the latest news posted here.

  204. vincegironda.com said,

    May 31, 2013 at 14:23

    ?vincegironda.com Maca? jej nogi, za? siedz?ca vis-a-vis
    dubel nie wiedzia?a, kiedy ma si? oszcz?dzi?.
    Gdy s?u??cy w?lizn?? si? r?k? poni?ej sukienk? Zosi tudzie? zacz?? kluczy? ni? w kierunku krocza,
    podwijaj?c przy tym sukienk? natomiast ukazuj?c nieomal?e ca?e nogi dziewczyny,
    patrz?cy na owo Albert za? Maja dodatkowo si? podniecili.
    Ch?opiec na posy?ki przysun?? w?asny fotel a?
    do Majki tudzie? obj?? j? w pasie.
    Zobacz na tej stronie: anonse dziewczyn.

  205. http://www.newdy.org/ said,

    June 2, 2013 at 22:59

    Hi there colleagues, how is the whole thing, and what you desire to say regarding this piece of writing, in my view its truly amazing in favor of me.

  206. www.calkiemwcipke.pl said,

    June 29, 2013 at 7:46

    Hello to all, as I am genuinely eager of reading this webpage’s post to be updated daily. It consists of fastidious stuff.

  207. anchor text said,

    June 30, 2013 at 18:54

    Hello! I could have sworn I’ve been to this blog before but after looking at some of the articles I realized it’s new to
    me. Anyhow, I’m definitely pleased I found it and I’ll be bookmarking
    it and checking back frequently!

  208. konta firmowe said,

    July 1, 2013 at 5:49

    I think the admin of this website is really working
    hard for his web page, for the reason that here every
    information is quality based information. konta firmowe

  209. The Simpsons Tapped Out Hack said,

    July 15, 2013 at 10:10

    Hurrah, that’s what I was searching for, what a material! present here at this webpage, thanks admin of this web page.

  210. hair removal procedure urdu for women said,

    July 20, 2013 at 1:26

    Thanks , I’ve just been looking for information about this subject for a while and yours is the greatest I have came upon till now. However, what concerning the bottom line? Are you certain about the source?

  211. YouTube Likes said,

    July 24, 2013 at 17:15

    Howdy, I do believe your web site could possibly be having internet
    browser compatibility issues. Whenever I take a look at your
    blog in Safari, it looks fine however, when opening in I.
    E., it has some overlapping issues. I simply wanted to give you a quick heads up!
    Other than that, great site!

  212. washington said,

    July 28, 2013 at 21:59

    This post will help the internet people for creating new weblog or even a weblog from start to end.

Leave a Comment

  • Things of Interest

  • Meta Goodness

  • Clunkers

  • httpbl_stats()