JOHN EDWARDS GOT CAUGHT- GUESS WHO ELSE -THE OBAMA SCANDAL

5/1/2010

We'll John Edwards got caught with his pants
down guess who else got caught ?

Cheers..Joe

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/obama_cheating_scandal_vera_baker_video_/celebrity/68589

The National Enquirer???

Give us a break, Joe.

Ann

5/2/2010

Well they were the ones who caught
John Edwards, I don't think they would
risk a libel suite ?


Cheers,....Joe

They get hit with libel suits all the time, Joe, and lose a lot of them.

Any time they actually report the truth is purely coincidental. That kind of journalism does so much harm.

You are a good guy, Joe. Don't believe the tabloids, OK?

Ann

5/2/2010


Ann...

Okay....


Cheers...Joe

Note that the article does not confirm the suspicion but details the $million that will go to anyone who provides proof - and even that is heresay.

Personally, my experience is that powerful men have high sexual appetites and opportunity throwing itself in their direction. Yes, they should use their intellect and not their desire, especially in positions of power and influence where they are held to a high standard of morality. Truth is, the sexual drive is also powerful and without intellect.

I don't think powerful men or women should be held to a lower standard of conduct than any other human being. They should use discretion in their personal affairs and not put their consitituents and other responsible people at risk.

I also don't believe that people with a lot to contribute to the well-being of others should be damned for an error in judgment; many such errors open their overall judgment into question, especially when harm to innocent people (wives, family, supporters, even participants) occurs.

I remember a time when a woman who was engaged in an affair with a married man (or an affair period!) kept her mouth shut about it, not wishing to bring shame on either of them. Anyone who found out would find a way to quietly persuade the parties to end it if scandal might be the result. Today, it's a route to fame and fortune.

Many people who have contributed to society in major ways had lovers and affairs that were known but not public. People looked the other way; often there was unspoken consent by spouses who could not maintain their lifestyles if they left in a huff. Consensual relationships are private business. I find the whole tabloid and commercial news media exploitation for monetary gain disgusting and disreputable. I can just see Walter Cronkite reporting on someone's dalliance.

I know people who work through these things and save families and marriages. However, when it all goes public, the chances of that are reduced. Shame, shame on those who get their enjoyment from someone else's pain.

DK,
I share your views. It is a fact that the most successful people are highly sexed. Do we hear about affairs with unsuccessful people?

Unsuccessful people's affairs aren't interesting :-)

In today's environment, a woman who has an affair with a married pipefitter isn't likely to get her own talk show.... or a book deal.

Gossip is full of them in a school system or work environment; but it remains gossip (of which I also don't approve because it's also harmful).

5/2/2010

When I grew up late 1950's , early 1960's if
it went public what Kennedy was doing, his
career would have been finished and the
Kennedy name would have been mud, today
there is no morals, just like what Clinton got
away with, he should have been impeached.

Cheers..Joe

If we are going to find leaders who do not "lust" after sex outside of marriage, then we need to look more toward women. In general, men are externally oriented and intellect has little capacity to interfere with their desires; in fact, more intellect and power seems to increase their desire for risky encounters.

Women, on the other hand, are generally more risk averse (the high is not in the risk but in the intimacy itself). Therefore, women are less likely to be stupid when it comes to extramarital encounters. Of course, these are generalities based on scientific research regarding the sexual response. The distribution of hormones varies as much from woman to woman and man to man as it does between women and men.

There is some evidence that intellectually astute and powerful women get their high from the power itself and are less likely to seek sexual encounters, regarding them as far less exciting than their career responsibilities.

Machiavelli has tried to tell us that morality does not necessarily make on a good leader, in fact, it is more often a hindrance. Take the cases of Clinton and Bush. Clinton proved to us he was not a "moral" leader, but when he left office, this "tax and spend liberal" left us with a surplus. It took his "moral" replacement to turn that surplus into the biggest deficit ever, and leave our current president with the fallout.

It seems to me that it would do us all well to sit down and read The Prince.

Ann

And President Carter appears to be a man of morals; yet, he is not considered one of our dynamic presidents. He is also a man of high intellect (there goes the intellect/power equals questionable behaviors theory).

The sex drive is powerful. Some channel this drive into productive pursuits while some just go with the flow.
My take on it is this: The blood flows from the brain to fill the sex organ. Rational thought is gone. After the act, the organ withers and the blood flows back into the brain, often to the regret of the person.

Solution: A person, who has little control and finds the blood flowing into the organ, should walk to a window, lay the enlarged organ over the sill, and slam the window down on the organ causing the blood to immediately flow back into the brain.

5/3/2010

Abe..

That is true, but funny...


Cheers..Joe

Unlike women, men have two heads to think with...the big head, and the little head. More often than not, we think with the little head. My feelings on the matter? There are guys who are horn dogs, and guys who wish they were.