Breck Girl Spotted With ‘Alleged’ Mistress And ‘Alleged’ Love Child! - With Video
Yes, fellow Dollardites, it’s true.
The MSM has been reduced so far down the journalistic ladder that it appears a classic grocery store check-out tabloid has replaced them (MSM) in actually investigating and reporting news …
John Edwards is still mumbled about as one of Hussein’s possible Veep selections. (I personally think Hussein will pick N.M. Gov. Bill Richardson … but that’s another discussion.)
Anyhow, recall the alleged girlfriend and resulting baby?
Seems the former senator and trial lawyer who channels ‘dead’ babies while in court has been spotted in a [secret] meeting with said woman and baby … and ONLY the Enquirer is following and reporting it.
I seem to recall some of yunz guys hinting around at this story in the last week in various comments threads …
[Enquirer Exclusive]
SEN. JOHN EDWARDS CAUGHT WITH MISTRESS AND LOVE CHILD!
Vice Presidential candidate Sen. John Edwards was caught visiting his mistress and secret love child at 2:40 this morning in a Los Angeles hotel by the NATIONAL ENQUIRER.
The married ex-senator from North Carolina - whose wife Elizabeth continues to battle cancer — met with his mistress, blonde divorcée Rielle Hunter, at the Beverly Hilton on Monday night, July 21 - and the NATIONAL ENQUIRER was there! He didn’t leave until early the next morning.
Rielle had driven to Los Angeles from Santa Barbara with a male friend for the rendezvous with Edwards. The former senator attended a press event Monday afternoon with L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa on the topic of how to combat homelessness.
But a months-long NATIONAL ENQUIRER investigation had yielded information that Rielle and Edwards, 54, had arranged to secretly meet afterward and for the ex-senator to spend some time with both his mistress and the love child who he refuses to publicly acknowledge as his own.
The NATIONAL ENQUIRER broke the story of Edwards’ love child scandal last year, when Rielle was still pregnant and Edwards was still considered a strong candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Both parties denied the NATIONAL ENQUIRER report and a close friend of Edwards’ came forward and said he was the father of Rielle’s baby. But sources told the NATIONAL ENQUIRER a far different story - they revealed that Edwards was engineering a massive cover up of his shocking infidelity.
Sources came forward after that story appeared and told The NATIONAL ENQUIRER that Edwards and Rielle had met secretly several times, so that he could see his baby and continue his relationship with Rielle.
The NATIONAL ENQUIRER learned ahead of time that one such meeting was set for yesterday.
At 9:45 p.m. (PST) Monday, Edwards appeared at the hotel, and was dropped off at a side entrance. NATIONAL ENQUIRER reporter Alan Butterfield witnessed the ex-senator get out of a BMW driven by a male companion and stroll into the hotel.
Said Butterfield: “Edwards was not carrying anything. He walked in alone. He was wearing a blue dress shirt with the sleeves rolled up. He was looking around nervously before he entered the hotel.
“Once inside, he interestingly bypassed the lobby and ducked down a side stairs to go to the bottom floor to catch the elevator up - rather than taking the elevator in the main lobby. He went out of his way not to be seen.”
Meanwhile, Rielle had reserved rooms 246 and 252 under the name of the friend who had accompanied her from Santa Barbara, Bob McGovern. Rielle was in one room and McGovern was in another with her baby. This allowed her and Edwards to spend time alone, a source revealed.
Edwards went out of the hotel briefly with Rielle, they were observed by the NATIONAL ENQUIRER and then went back to her room, where he stayed until attempting to sneak out of the hotel unseen at 2:40 a.m. (PST). But when he emerged alone from an elevator into the hotel basement he was greeted by several reporters from the NATIONAL ENQUIRER.
Senior NATIONAL ENQUIRER Reporter Alexander Hitchen asked Edwards why he was visiting Rielle and whether he was ready to confirm that he was the father of her baby.
Shocked to see a reporter, and without saying anything, Edwards ran up the stairs leading from the hotel basement to the lobby. But, spotting a photographer, he doubled back into the basement. As he emerged from the stairwell, reporter Butterfield questioned him about his hookup with Rielle.
Edwards did not answer and then ran into a nearby restroom. He stayed inside for about 15 minutes, refusing to answer questions from the NATIONAL ENQUIRER about what he was doing in the hotel. A group of hotel security men eventually escorted him from the men’s room, while preventing the NATIONAL ENQUIRER reporters from following him out of the hotel.
Said reporter Hitchen: “After we confronted him about seeing Rielle, Edwards looked like a deer caught in headlights!
“He was clearly surprised that we had caught him at this very late hour inside the hotel.
“Some guests up at this late hour watched the spectacle in amusement from a staircase nearby.”
Meanwhile, Rielle’s friend McGovern also refused to answer any questions from the NATIONAL ENQUIRER or offer any explanation for her meeting with Edwards.
The Edwards “love child” scandal drew international press attention after the NATIONAL ENQUIRER published a blockbuster investigation about the politician in our Dec. 31, 2007 print edition.
We reported that Rielle, a woman linked to Edwards in a cheating scandal earlier last year, was more than six months pregnant - and we reported that she told a close confidante that Edwards was the father of her baby!
Edwards denied the affair and that he was the father, and in a bizarre twist, a close friend of his, Andrew Young, said he was the father. Young, 41, was married at the time with three children. The NATIONAL ENQUIRER has learned he still is married.
Sources told the NATIONAL ENQUIRER exclusively that Edwards had engineered a massive cover up of the affair and love child scandal and that Young was taking the blame for his good friend. At the time Rielle had been relocated from the New York area to Chapel Hill in Edwards’ home state of North Carolina, where she was living in an upscale gated community down the street from Young. Strangely, Young even had Rielle to his house for dinner with his wife and kids, the NATIONAL ENQUIRER has learned.
Young has been extremely close to Edwards for years and was a key official in his presidential campaign.
Rielle is a self-described filmmaker whose company was hired by a pro-Edwards group called One America Committee. She was paid $114,000 to produce videos for Edwards’ campaign and worked with him on those videos.
After our story last December, reporters from other media outlets asked Edwards about the report during a campaign stop in Columbia, S.C.
Edwards responded: “The story is false. It’s completely untrue, ridiculous,” adding: “Anyone who knows me knows that I have been in love with the same woman for 30-plus years.”
Rielle issued her own statement, saying in part: “The innuendos and lies that have appeared on the Internet and in the NATIONAL ENQUIRER concerning John Edwards are not true, completely unfounded and ridiculous.”
But a source told the NATIONAL ENQUIRER: “Now that it seems to have blown wide open, Rielle may get her wish - all she wants is for John to marry her and for them to live happily ever after with their baby. She’s tired of running and living a lie.”
A representative for Rielle had no comment on last night’s meeting with Edwards.
John Edwards `splains it away:
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
It’s bad enough to be an adulterer, but while your wife is dying of cancer?! Democrats are almost totally devoid of any semblance of morality.
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:04 pmwhat is the problem ? If he is in love with that woman, doesn’t mean that he is careless for his spouse
I see that, also the persons who pretend to be God believers have the higher rate for divorces
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:24 pm“..all she wants is for John to marry her and for them to live happily ever after with their baby…”
Yeah THAT’S happening?
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:27 pmhe is filthy rotten bastard. his wife is dying and he is out banging some chick. gotta agree with A.S, this is the morality of the left on display
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:30 pmCheck out that vid, the Breck Girl still lookin’ like a possum in the headlights…what a pos LIARs these RAT politicians are!
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:30 pmWhat an asshole
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:46 pmPersonally, I luxuriate in his misery. Not a very nice thing to do, but fuck it, he has been screwing not just this broad but the good people of NC and all the rest of us taxpayers for years.
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:57 pmthere is a big deal with the “alcove” stories in your country. What’s the problem ? that happens even in the christian republican party, anyone the divorce rate there ?
though that man isn’t courageous, he should assume the fact (that he had sex with that woman),
July 23rd, 2008 at 2:02 pmor he should argue with a spermogramme of a fat man
Anyway, because of his attitude, he deserves to be told to fuck off, IMO
So that makes it okay? Moral equivalence is not an argument, its a personality flaw.
July 23rd, 2008 at 2:25 pmNot surprised.
July 23rd, 2008 at 2:32 pm“Moral equivalence is not an argument, its a personality flaw.”
you can catalogue it whatever you want, it a human comportment ; being supposely a good christian doesn’t preserve you from the same behaviour ; you just have to disguise it with corrected holy words
July 23rd, 2008 at 2:56 pmIt’s not as if he claims to support any moral standard. That’s why it is not hypocrisy when dems go way over the line that constrains people who do believe in right and wrong. Situational ethics can justify anything. Its the difference between men who do what is right in their own eyes and those who try to obey God’s standards.
Franchie:
Last I heard, divorce rates for people who claim to be born again believers were the same as in the general population. That does not make it right or excuse it.
When Jesus commanded us to love everyone, He did not have to add “even sinners” because we all are sinners.
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:35 pmfranchie must dig polygamy
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:39 pmLast I heard, divorce rates for people who claim to be born again believers were the same as in the general population. That does not make it right or excuse it.
of course not, this is then rather hypocryt to throw the stone to a person that makes “sins”, as none is safe from them
it’s though Edwards personnal attitude that is condamnable in this article, not the fact that he made a “sin” ;
Well, I don’t know the real plot in that story, could be also that the woman is tricking him, anyway publically, he hasn’t any “sense of honnor”, it’s a “couard”"
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:59 pmpo·lyg·a·my (p-lg-m)
n.
1. The condition or practice of having more than one spouse at one time. Also called plural marriage.
2. Zoology A mating pattern in which a single individual mates with more than one individual of the opposite sex.
[French polygamie, from Late Latin polygamia, from Greek polugami : polu-, poly- + -gami, -gamy.]
Polygamy : Also called plural marriage,
It’s not the case here
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:13 pmfranchie,
im pretty sure we’re not talking about the ’sin’ being the biggest factor here. its the fact that his poor wife is dying of cancer and he is out fucking around behind her back. pretty damn sad and no need to make it seem any better than it is. if you ask me that is pretty damn despicable.
well thats the part that pisses me off at least.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:45 pmHis closed eyes… and blinking said it all…. Caught. Guilty. ….Asshole, typical scumbag, democrat liberal (excuse for being redundant)
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:50 pmKurt, OK, though we don’t know the ground story, may-be his wife perdonned him and let him meet that woman again
the problem is that as a public man, a politician, he can’t assume the “objective truth”
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:06 pmSorry my bad. I meant free-lovin’. That and polygamy get mixed up all the time.
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:42 pmI bet she keeps fabric swatches in the trunk of the Volvo. A girl needs to be ready to redecorate on a moments notice…Like when his wife dies.
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:53 pmIf this story is true..
“the problem is that as a public man, a politician, he can’t assume the “objective truth” ”
Yes that is one of the primary fucked up things from this situation. The physical act of cheating on his wife, is bad but possibly forgivable is what I’ve taken from your posts. The parts left out are that his wife has cancer which makes it that much worse (I doubt she told him to find someone, even so, he should stick by her regardless, but that is my opinion so you can dismiss that if you like) With that said even if he can be forgiven, forgiving someone doesn’t mean you trust him. And “trust him” in this situation means trust the man with a political office knowing he betrayed his wife, how do you think his morality will be at play when making decisions for a stranger-constituent.
July 23rd, 2008 at 6:04 pmA simple swab of his and the kids’ cheeks would settle it all. I’ll bet he’s all over that idea, huh? lol
July 23rd, 2008 at 6:24 pmFranchie, the story is not about some born again christian and the divorce rate of God fearing people, the story is about an ex-senator, who might be the next democratic vp, who lied, (I guess I could look that up in a dictionary and give the proper meaning…) this might help you out, Maybe he should have a Time out period for doing a no no.
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:54 pmWhy do libbies always try to twist things around and pass the buck, when one of their own gets caught doing the wrong thing (oh and Franchie, when your wife is fighting cancer, and she is your wife, it is wrong), they never seem to be accountable for their own actions.
Franchie you are as typical as all libbies, I doubt on Mrs Edwards death bed, inbetween kimo sessions, she leaned over to her Husban, father of her children for the past 30 years and said “…Go ahead, fuck away, pork her blue….” (fish called wanda..loved that movie).
“the problem is that as a public man, a politician, he can’t assume the “objective truth””
lmao
July 23rd, 2008 at 9:40 pm“Anyway, because of his attitude, he deserves to be told to fuck off, IMO”
“it’s though Edwards personnal attitude that is condamnable in this article, not the fact that he made a “sin””
>Why is his attitude “condamnable”?
July 23rd, 2008 at 9:55 pmsully, is it the fact that I used your favorite expression that makes you hilarant ?
“Why is his attitude “condamnable” ?
Because that story has become a public affair, and instead of denying it in that non “noble” way, he should publically acknoledge it for “true”, the facts are against him.
Ans as a woman, I wouldn’t like that the man who was/is supposed to be my “lover” would deny it in such non glorious ways, I would be very humiliated, though I don’t know if she doesn’t participe equally in putting “smog” on this comedia dell’ arte ; policy implies peculiar behaviours sometimes.
Also, as a woman I say that he is an Asshole and that he should go and see the Greeks,
and as a (supposed) US citizen I’d like him to say wether he regrets it because his family has suffered, or that he can’t do anything about it because he is really in love with that woman, but that he is still loocking after his ill wife.
Conclusion :
It’s too late for him, he has shown the amplitude of what he can achieve, we have precise attributs for his behaviour : a poltron, couard, rampant, not a warrior !!!!
Now, comparing to what a politician experiences in France are, the life of that man would have been cooler here.
The medias wouldn’t have chased him (private life), even if they knew all about it they would stay quiet, unless that person is a “Le Pen”… remember Mitterand, until his death, we never saw a picture of his daughter and of his 2nd “official” wife, anyway, he had so many occasional “wives” during his political life.
Giscard was known to be a “hot” rabbit either, never seen his “fianciees in the medias,
Chirac also, though he chose to go to Japan
Sarko, that’s the one who acknoledges publically all his conquests (or defaits)
for that, he is more in the tradition of our kings,
That is also why the kind of adventures don’t chock us, generally speacking.
though, we have personnally the choice to think that these persons are assholes, depends on our beliefs, moral conception… though, that isn’t a valuable raison to empech them to pursue their political carrier and be efficient.
Mitterand was one of ours cleverest and “evil” politicians, the others had/have their own qualities, but far less efficient than a Mitterand or a de Gaulle (BTW he was the lonely “right” man, no extra-adventures, God believer, Church attendant…no corruptable)
But I can’t see that Edwards is serein with his adventures, then he should get out of the scene, voilà !!!!
I hope I replied to the few persons that objectionned me
July 24th, 2008 at 3:39 amHere’s a tip–Christian, non-Christian, Republican, Socialist/Democrat sex outside of marriage is wrong. I will not do business with a cheater, work for a cheater or vote for a cheater. If they will do something like that to the person they espouse to love then just imagine what they could do to you.
July 24th, 2008 at 5:22 amI personally never-EVER had sex outside marriage…it works.
Rush will be on a poll today—gotta listen.
Any guy dumb enough to hump a broad that ugly and not wear a rubber is not qualified to be President of the USA.
July 24th, 2008 at 6:49 amfranchie,
July 24th, 2008 at 7:21 amso it’s only “condamnable” because you would be humiliated if it were to happen to you?
The silkie pony is no longer a politician but he’s still an ambulance chasing lawyer. He knows he’s had and is trying to prevent the loss of X-million precious ill gotten American dollars. Watching him squirm is some fun!
July 24th, 2008 at 7:46 amsully, I was putting myself into Hunter’s mind ; though it’s not only condamnable because of a supposed humiliation, but also because I would be worried if he was cheating his family either, this isn’t anyway my cup of tea.
It’s a different perception on one’s behaviour wether your on your side of the pond, and on our side : people see the christian moral on your side, here we see more the sense of honor, and he hasn’t !
well, we also had a politician that had an affair while his wife was interned in an hospital for hystery and mind problems : Chaban-Delmas ; though this didn’t make lot of noise, he was known as a great resistant, good prime minister, good mayor of Bordeaux… so none emphasized his adventure ; he maried his girl-friend after his wife deceeded.
July 24th, 2008 at 7:47 amwhere does the sense of honor come from?
July 24th, 2008 at 8:59 ama long, long story, sully….
once upon a time… I’ll tell you later on
July 24th, 2008 at 9:08 amwhatever
July 24th, 2008 at 11:31 ami’m always curious where moral relativists get their sense of outrage and judgement
the “sense of honnor” is as old as our civilisation, it was then connoted with a warrior award for his braveness and reliability in Greece and Roma.
This relation to braveness and reliability were also the virtues of our “chevallerie”, though, at the same time, also appeared the notion of “courtoisie”, a kind of noble reffinement ment for the respect and the behaviour that chevalliers had towards the ladies.
We speak here of the nobleness class, that only was educated ; the villans were not supposed to adhere to this code, they were not “free” to behave according to a “deontology” but had to obbey to their “seigneur”.
As those chevalliers were also educated , they used to know the signification of beauty and virtue, that were in the philosophs scriptures.
Though not only the chevaliers in the noble class were educated, also the “ladies”.
The ladies defined the code of “amour courtois” from when is issued the remanent “sense of honnor” till the last century in our society
you could be married, (marriages were mostly a family arrangement) and have a “virtual” love reverement for another woman.
The men that were “educated” ought to be discreet, respect the ladies, protect them, as well as not making bad things that would undermine their legal spouse
This “aristocratic” behavoiur influenced the “bourgeoisie”, hence the “galanterie” that replaced “courtoisie” ; though the spirit had no more to be related with high feelings, more of a cast privilege, that also included the christian notion of chastety (reserved to the women) in order to preserve the legitimy of a clan that had properties, that should only be inherited by “legal” children.
The bourgeois who had enough money to “maintain” a misstress, hired an appartment for her, but not in the same town, he was responsable of her living ; we can’t speak here of virtual amour courtois, but of trivial amour.
whoever they were, chevallier or bourgeois, there was always the notion of responsability that conducted their behaviour.
That is why a behaviour such as Edwards, by us is not conceivable.
Generally our men are happy to show that they manage a few aventures, but they get a complicated life either, trying not to hurt any of their “ladies”.
Though this is becoming rare since a few decades. Women earn their life since the seventies, and they are the ones now that chose their partners, that throw them away.
The code of honnor has become code of authenticity, if you don’t love your partner anymore (as sexual partner) then you leave him/her.
Now I don’t know a person that would go away knowing that his/her partner has a grave illness, almost since the HIV diseases appeared ; empathy prevails then.
uh, don’t know if I responded to your expectation…
there are many dissertations that could be made on the subject, though I tightened it to the french society
July 24th, 2008 at 11:58 am“moral relativists”, you could include yourself in that category, no problemo !!!!
July 24th, 2008 at 12:02 pmcher petit professor of amorality
hou hou where are you papy conscienscness ?
July 24th, 2008 at 1:33 pm““moral relativists”, you could include yourself in that category, no problemo !!!!”
How is that?
July 24th, 2008 at 5:22 pmthe fatman that regreted not having a fatman spermogramme for a paternity contest
a kinder tale I suppose that you invented to say that you have a big del with a dick
July 24th, 2008 at 5:33 pmno reply ?
désolée, j’ai une bonne mémoire
et tu n’étais pas particulièrement de bonne humeur ; je n’avais pas mérité ton agressivité
July 25th, 2008 at 1:19 amaggressiveness? nonsense, i asked nicely where you get your sense of indignation and judgement. i’ve gotten everything BUT an answer. that’s OK… it’s to be expected from one who’s sense of those things depends on their own point of view.
July 25th, 2008 at 7:08 am“it’s to be expected from one who’s sense of those things depends on their own point of view.”
yeah, im nobody but me, didn’t it occur to you ?
OK, I don’t expect you becoming suddenly honest ;
from where your supposedly morally superior ? one thing is sure, that’s only a vernice as far as your concerned
July 25th, 2008 at 7:25 am“from where your supposedly morally superior ?”
from my belief in ‘objective truths’. in this instance, that there are important moral ‘lessons’ that are true whether you believe in them or not.
a concept which you have denied relevant or even existent.
your sense of outrage and condemnation HAS to have come from somewhere.
July 25th, 2008 at 9:01 ammost likely SOMEONE in your history believed other than you and passed those ‘lessons’ down within your ancestry somehow.
i was just curious if you had any clue WHERE.
what are your “objective moral truths” ? that are not theorical and not your “fond de commerce” ?
what is my sense of outrage and condemnation ?
I never pretend to be a “moral” model, though I am allowed to live in serenity with my conscience
according to my experience, there are no moral concepts that are eternel, only the natural enclinment for “good” that we inherit as soon as we were born.
July 25th, 2008 at 9:57 am“what are your “objective moral truths” ?”
The question is whether or not there are any. Do you believe that gravity is an objective truth? Assuming that you do… where exactly is it that you draw the line? Where do you STOP believing in ‘objective truth’? At morality? I find it remarkable that you do not see the self-refuting nature of the claim that there are no ‘objective truths’. The very fact that you believe morality is relative is ‘objectively true’.
“what is my sense of outrage and condemnation ?”
Your condemnation of Mr. Edwards’ actions. The topic of the thread. Remember? You judge his actions as unacceptable.
“according to my experience, there are no moral concepts that are eternel,”
Yes I know. Hence the reasons for my questions.
” only the natural enclinment for “good” that we inherit as soon as we were born.”
Where did you get that idea? Is it an ‘objective truth’ that we are born with a “natural enclinment for “good””?
July 25th, 2008 at 10:34 amyour not responding to “what are your objective moral truths”, though as an experienced “speaker” you make an ellipse and focuses again on my supposed wrong moral perception. What you ansewered me is more alike “verités de Lapalisse” ( http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapalissade )
I had like you to enumerate your moral truths princips or if you can’t, give me a link that illustrates them
What do you find “objectionnable” in what I said about Edwards attitude that you don’t agree with me ?
Apart he is not of your party, do you think the way he is denying his affair is correct ? or is it because he has an extra-conjugual adventure ? or because his wife has a cancer ?
You are a grown-up, so am I, and we both know that the life stream is not as a whole, “black or white”, that things happens, that don’t fit the acceptable commun politically correct, though you must put things in situation and leave the individual “truths” to their place, (that we imagine as “true” though they could be suppositions) and sort out only those objective truths that are not publically acceptable in the context of a politician carrier
For me, he just fucked up the publically acceptable,
The rest is private
“Where did you get that idea? Is it an ‘objective truth’ that we are born with a “natural enclinment for “good””?
Well, I have been reading scientific reports that say that the “altruism” instinct is innate, through diverses experiences with babies, or animals … apes, dolphins, elephants, whales…
IMO, as a person that understands aesthetics as expressions of the “beautiful”, in their own particular system of thought or vision, it’s difficult to empathy with the “evil”, or take without a doubt what is commonly accepted for “evil” for granted. I try to understand the motives and clear out the universal part of them.
May-be I am “twisted” in your own opinion,
that’s the way I fonction.
and it ain’t a sociopath comportment, sometimes an “esprit de contradiction” is evident, when I feel like to have fun,
July 25th, 2008 at 11:58 amnot in that discussion though !
“your not responding to “what are your objective moral truths”,”
No. It is you who are not responding. Properly it is necessary to first agree on the premise of the ‘debate’ which in this instance is the existence of ‘objective truth’.
However I did give you one that you deceptively argue around and that was gravity. Do you believe you can fly? If not then why not? And if not, then at what point do ‘objective truths’ cease to exist? At morality?
And your assertion that my questions are tautology (de Lapalisse) are ridiculous. I asked simple and very straight-forward questions which you yourself evade with jibberish.
July 25th, 2008 at 1:54 pmok, we’ll never get somewhere “ainsi” !
Let me reformulate it : your the teacher, I am the naive ignorant
so what are your objective MORAL truths, that exist as the totologic evidence of gravity ; ok, gravity has a formule since Newton, then I had like the formules of your moral evidences that exist as does the objective truth of “gravity” ?
don’t “fly” away from the basic questionnement,
July 25th, 2008 at 2:21 pmplease, Monsieur le Professeur
Finally getting somewhere.
July 25th, 2008 at 3:24 pmNow, I also asked where you draw the line on what is and what is not ‘objective truth’ and why.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-572077907195969915
the objective truth of tonight, is that I am wasting my time trying to bring you into a simple conversation
I don’t have a theory for drawing a line of what is or not an objective truth, just the intuitive perception of it ; generally it doesn’t induce me in error, it keeps me safe in many situations, I understand quickly how the persons fonction, if they are good intentionned or not.
Also I don’t get much involved in the public life (anymore), I am, now, more of a “contemplative” and studious person (yes). So, the moral ethic questionnement is merely often virtual.
The line is more deontoligical, for my job, for my relations. Even for my family, I draw the line of independance : Im not envahissant, if one needs me, then he/she knows where to find me and I am helpful as much as I can.
I don’t forecast a reaction according to a princip, but according to what I perceive of a situation, though the invisible line tells me if it’s ok to get involved with people, if I am not getting in trouble with their choices.
In any case that would not be for a bad agenda. May-be also, egoistically I don’t want to waste my “precious time” in vain occupations and or relations.
En résumé, as far as “essential truths”, I don’ rely on logical deductions.
Only in my “practical” life, I try to keep a logical raisonnement
Mr Sphinx, tell me where is the next enigme
July 25th, 2008 at 5:00 pmI do not desire a “simple conversation”.
I only asked a very few simple questions that I hoped you would/could answer.
deontological? LOL
tell the truth… you just looked that word up.. lol
you contradict yourself yet again when you say “I don’ rely on logical deductions”
How do you determine what kind of moral choices are required, forbidden or permitted? The consequences?
July 25th, 2008 at 5:24 pm“deontological? LOL
tell the truth… you just looked that word up.. lol”
yeah toujours la même tactique, déstabiliser l’adversaire en niant toute objective truth that he/she may tell,
do you think that only a professorship mufti knows what the life is alike for the “others” ?
yes, there are deontological rules in my business, may-be that word is too strong, connoted to the high-educated professions ; though if they weren’t, then no custommers, also no need high schoools and universities to train people that choose that profession
OK, I ment logical raisonnement instead of deductions, (it’s a bit late here)
though effectively the deductions are a choice, made logically, the expression of them need a support, wether a formal writing as I do here, or a clear idea of what fonctions for the “good” of the majority, as being myself a participant in that society.
je suis fatiguée, je n’ai plus les idées claires, demain est un autre jour (verité de lapalisse) pour la suite
I had like you tell me also “How do you determine what kind of moral choices are required, forbidden or permitted? The consequences?”
That was my basic request
July 25th, 2008 at 6:19 pm“I had like you tell me also “How do you determine what kind of moral choices are required, forbidden or permitted? The consequences?”
So ????????????????????
I tell ya, its your brainwashing, wether of “Biblish” reform origin and of puritan capitalism origin, that are tied together in the anglo-saxon societies.
Though if you look at them more carrefully, you see that their ambition is not to participate to the world development,as equilibrium, but to the world flux of businessses equilibrium control.
In that perspective, sex adventures are the evilest ; they disturb men from achieving their goal, make money !!!
Do ya know, what they dare to make to the poor males, cut their foreskin so that they can’t feel the everyday sensuality with their different senses (view, gustative, touch, odorat, as a natural titillement ? their willy isn’t enough sensible and need stronger excitments, such as alcool or the attraction of a “sin” excitement ; Were/aren’t also in the anglo-saxon countries that you find the greatest entreprenors of porn moovies and live sex productions ; serial killings of women happen there more often than in catholic countries ; there is an unsane visualisation of the sexual interactions between men and women), and be disturbed from their defined goals : make money !!!! they also invented the competition spirit, that replaced their lack of epicurianism.
OK, that might had been the motor for scientific progresses… though I can’t see that the european countries that hadn’t the “capitalism” erected as their first moral guide, had less abilities to achieve progresses ; the energies were more devoted to the delightness of the human relations, (amour courtois, esprit chevalleresque) of the spirit delights (arts, litterature… coocking)
this biblical spirit of the reform made that the anglo-saxons, the dutchs… followed another path, that made them embody us as their immual concurrent, their mirror ugly face.
so, tell if I didn’t catch your life motivations ?
according to what I read from your litterature on that board, that fits !!!!!
Now, revenons à nos moutons !!!!
my moral choices are the ones that are not against the fondamental nature of the whole mamalian specie (education in a family, (the elders), altruism and empathy for my “semblables”), that are also the natural criteriums for the surviving of our specie in an evolutionable world.
the forbidden ones are the conter-natural ones, or the promotion of them (such as sex devience, homo-sexuality as a cultural goal : that was the case in Greece and Romain during their decadent times)
the permitted ones are the ones that don’t undermine or hurt a member of the “clan”
the consequences, : social opprobe !!!
though I wouldn’t go till the fate of an Antigone… though she assumed her act !!! deliberately she disobbeyed to the polis law, arguing that there was a higher “moral” request for herself (only) the bury of the fallen Polynice, her brother, without that he wouldn’t have the acess to the eternal life.
Knowing that she would become a state ennemy, that her fate would be death penalty, she chose the spiritual and natural ties : the clan blood, the clan spirituality to a exceptional declared law by the usurpator Creon.
Now, in that exemple, we can see that there are sometimes higher moral obligations that of the state ones where we live…
So, sully, I hope I have cleared up a little more the subject ; escuse me if I am not academic, and not quoting some former brillant moralists…
I said once that I haven’t got the “esprit scolaire”…
July 26th, 2008 at 3:34 amlol… that’s quite the word salad there franchie
July 26th, 2008 at 1:30 pmyeah ? and isn’t it appetisant ?
though if you need the recept, I can provide you the references
you don’t want me to buy your recept ? still not found it !!!!
July 26th, 2008 at 2:09 pmuh, no… i certainly do not want the recipe for that blizzard of nonsense
July 26th, 2008 at 3:25 pmit does show rather well though the massive confusion that relativist thought brings to someone like you
I don’t want you to miss that, might be helpful for you
“Circumcision is “normal” among Americans. Normality is associated with cultural values. What is familiar becomes a cultural value. Circumcision is familiar.”
cf also puritan victorian Britain
http://www.math.missouri.edu/~rich/MGM/primer.html
http://www.circumstitions.com/Maps.html
http://www.nocirc.org/symposia/first/riner.html
the non sense is YOU that can’t accept what is different from your beliefs, are they beliefs though ? can’t see you can develop them apart your same supposed inspired farts
I have had an aperçu of your fairness
MERCI
July 26th, 2008 at 5:08 pmThe Clinton Connection
Roger Altman, who has a controlling stake in the National Enquirer, is a former official in Bill Clinton’s administration. Some wags believe the magazine poured resources into the love child story to scupper John Edwards’s chances of beating Hillary Clinton for the presidential nomination.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4406814.ece
the “black or white” behavioural strategy failed here, didn’t it ?
July 27th, 2008 at 6:42 amI have had an aperçu of your fairness
MERCI
> Likewise.
July 27th, 2008 at 10:20 amI asked very simple, direct questions and you chose obfuscation. That makes it clear that you are not comfortable in your own ‘belief’ in relativism.
sully, t’es trop compliqué, en plus, tu me fais raconter n’importe quoi ; tu sais très bien à quoi t’en tenir sur ma moralité et mon état d’esprit, depuis presqu’un an tu me surveilles.
Tu ne voudras jamais me donner raison, alors arrêtons ce jeu idiot. Je n’ai plus envie de démontrer quoi que ce soit.
Penses ce que tu veux, ça ne changera pas mon mode de vie.
July 27th, 2008 at 10:51 amI have no desire whatsoever to change your lifestyle.
July 27th, 2008 at 12:06 pmI was curious to learn how relativistic morality actually functions in the world, hence my questions.
I was asking for my own edification. I am curious if the American saying “There are no atheists in foxholes” was true and I have come to believe that it is. Moral relativists like yourself rely heavily on a sense of security and will trade liberty for security to continue that belief.
That’s all.
I’m done here.
non, tu jouais à un jeu idiot ;
je ne crois pas un mot de ce que tu dis ; tu cherchais à me dominer, c’est dans ta nature.
je te parie n’importe quoi qu’on peut recommencer ce jeu n’importe quand, parce tu as besoin de montrer que tu es le plus fort.
July 27th, 2008 at 1:02 pmrely heavily on a sense of security and will trade liberty for security - to continue that belief.-
quel belief ?
ok, la sécurité joue un rôle, instinc de survie !
C’est aussi la raison pourquoi je m’étais mariée ; j’ai eu de la chance de ne pas me tromper de personne ; il est vrai que j’ai un sens inné pour “ressentir” intrinsequement comment les gens vont se comporter avec moi.
Toi aussi, tu recherches la sécurité. Tu vas continuer à faire “chier” le peuple jusqu’à ce que tu la trouves ; ça va être plus difficile parce que tu es un”homme”.
Généralement les femmes attendent qu’on les protège,alors c’est mal “barré” pour toi qui est d’essence féminine.
Ne me parles pas de tes grandes prétentions morales : elles volent en éclat à la moindre alerte !
July 27th, 2008 at 2:51 pmI have no desire to ‘dominate’ you, I do not even know you.
July 27th, 2008 at 3:03 pmI do hold that moral relativism such as that which you continually display is a significant problem in the world today. And your and many others willingness to trade liberty for the security necssary to continue their self absorbed commitment to their own perceptions of morality will be the downfall of modern civilization.
Evidence of the truth of that is in every piece of news available.
sully, it’s evident that you can’t physically, though virtually, you attempted many times to make me look like a “demeuré” (retarded)
your problem is that you want to enclose the persons in your prism of values, though you don’t hold the “objective truth”. Your anglo-saxon way of viewing the surviving of the western world is only dating from a couple of centuries, to make it large. While we handled it from millenariums.
We had many attempts to reduce us as a nation of obbeissant and devoted laborors to a foreign power.
Though we are still there, with our irritant spirit.
The foreigners have always been absorbed and became part of our mainstream blood.
Idem for our muslims, they are progessively integrating our values ; though it takes a bit more time than of for the others, because of their religion. I am positive, we’ll manage it.
I also think that we’ll need to quit EU for that. The EU communauty has become a melting pot of veals.
While in anglo-saxon countries they are becoming a conter power communauty
You should come over and take a breath of the atmosphere yourself, instead of relying on the MSM, that have always a agenda.
Please, not just for one day like our editorin in chief, but if you have time, take a month to cross our country, hire a car and wander at the adventure.
After that, you’ll have a better perception
July 28th, 2008 at 2:22 amI was thinking of your expression “foxholes”,
it is speaking of you why you chose it.
Fox is definitely the the animal that would describes your personality the best.
hiding in a secret hole, going out in “furtive apparitions”, snatching a small prey in the meanwhile, keeping it alive in the bottom of the hole, in order to interpret the fragrances of the outside that he doesn’t dare to face.
July 28th, 2008 at 4:40 am“…you attempted many times to make me look like a “demeuré” (retarded)”
Well stop posting retardedly. Seriously, do you not realize you are posting on a board that does not share your views on things like God, truth and morality?
“your problem is that you want to enclose the persons in your prism of values, though you don’t hold the “objective truth”.
I was attempting to get you to discuss reality, not “values”. They are NOT the same thing to a large part of the world. It is obvious that they are to you though. That’s what I was trying to learn more about. I asked you very simple questions which you still have not answered. I even tried to start someplace I was sure we could agree which was gravity. You could not even see your way to agree that gravity was objectively true.
“Your anglo-saxon way of viewing the surviving of the western world is only dating from a couple of centuries, to make it large. While we handled it from millenariums.”
Yes you have. As I noted you Europeans have continually traded liberty for personal security. I’m personally quite ashamed to consider a people that would do such a thing as an ‘ally’. America really does not have very much in common with Europe. Sometimes language. Sometimes a ‘common enemy’. But that’s really about it. It is abundantly clear that we do not share the European ‘view’ of reality. I cannot fathom why any American politician would not only care about Europe but would want to emulate it. Apparently suffering from the same moral/political relativity virus.
“You should come over and take a breath of the atmosphere yourself, instead of relying on the MSM, that have always a agenda.”
I have spent more than my share of time traveling the world, including Europe. And I am a longtime student of world history. My views are not ‘MSM reliant’. I have absolutely no desire to return to Europe. Not very impressive.
As for your “fox” post… I don’t think I’ve read anything more absurd than that in quite some time. ‘Interpret fragrances’?
July 28th, 2008 at 6:47 am“interpret fragrances” in an imaginated language for animals, means interpret the external signs
“Well stop posting retardedly. Seriously, do you not realize you are posting on a board that does not share your views on things like God, truth and morality?”
I do know that this “board” doesn’t share my views on God, truth and morality, though this isn’t a reason why I should avoid of coming in. Like you did for me, I wanted to understand better how the kind of people fonction.
I also remember how the Frenchs were viewed when I first came over this site.
You know perfectly that if I would have played the “french citizen” part, I would have been thrown away.
Within my different postings getting better along, I can also better show what I really think.
If I can manage that a few persons get a more positive approach with what the Frenchs are really alike, then for me it is a warm recompense.
I don’t think that the Frenchs as a whole population hate
the Americans.
“It is abundantly clear that we do not share the European ‘view’ of reality.”
That is evident, but you have to consider the 2 different perspectives. It’s a natural and logic inclination that our both continents will act separatly from now, and will agree sometimes on common goals.
“I cannot fathom why any American politician would not only care about Europe but would want to emulate it.”
Then ask your polititians why they want to ; it’s evident that what works in our continent can’t in the same way in yours. The cultural background has been differencied within those couples of centuries.
“Apparently suffering from the same moral/political relativity virus.”
That appears so in your mind, though it wouldn’t have been otherwise considerating our history.
The moral relativity came also from your country with the “hippie fashion.
So, don’t put all the shit on our side.
“I asked you very simple questions which you still have not answered. I even tried to start someplace I was sure we could agree which was gravity. You could not even see your way to agree that gravity was objectively true.”
why should I have said that I agree on “gravity”, it’s evident and not questionable.
Now, you wanted me telling that my moral have no basement.
I asked you to enumerated what are those objective moral truth”, that I should conform with.
I guess them though, but if you write them down, I would be able to express my point.
July 28th, 2008 at 8:23 amdid you write the article “the operative term is “hubris”"
July 28th, 2008 at 8:41 amon the “american thinker” ?
“I do know that this “board” doesn’t share my views on God, truth and morality…”
Well that’s the discussion (such as it is) isn’t it? What are your views? We agree that there is such a thing as “objective truth”, i.e., gravity exists, water is wet, fire is hot… yet you do not agree that that concept could extend beyond that level into morality. My question remains how and where do you draw ‘the line’? Is rape immoral and, if so, does that remain true even though someone ‘believes’ that it is not immoral?
And no, I did not write that article on hubris but I do recognize hubris and the author is quite correct. Too bad it has taken till now for others to recognize it in Obama. To me, it is a sin against creation. The very sin that makes evil possible in our world.
July 28th, 2008 at 1:02 pmPremier commandement: Je suis le Seigneur ton Dieu.
Deuxième commandement : Tu ne prononceras pas le nom de Dieu en vain
Troisième commandement : Se souvenir de sanctifier les jours festifs
OK, this is the problem, I am not sure that this God is the real one, though I don’t spit on his pics, neither I critic or ironise on those who attend his cult places
Quatrième commandement : Honore ton père et ta mère
Cinquième commandement : Tu ne tueras point
Sixième commandement : Tu ne commettras pas d’adultère
Septième commandement : Tu ne voleras pas
Huitième commandement : Tu ne feras pas de faux témoignages
Neuvième commandement : Tu ne désireras pas la femme de ton prochain
Dixième commandement : Tu ne convoiteras pas le bien du prochain
no problem with the latter commandemants
Is rape immoral and, if so, does that remain true even though someone ‘believes’ that it is not immoral?
sure it’s immoral, also regarding the civil laws. It’s a crime against a person integrity, that destroys her/his personnality.
The “ubris” article is well written, a pleasure to read it.
July 28th, 2008 at 2:11 pmI don’t understand why you absolutely want to read my “categoric” statements on morals ; it reminds me when you asked me to prononce my opinion on the Pals.
Does that count so much for you ? is it like a pact ?
I know that the people are requested to prononce allegence to your country when they apply for emigrating there.
Im not. Though I don’t usely undermine your country.
Often my interventions are ment to justify the french position whent it’s been attaqued.
The ironical or derision part is a personnal game. Though I have acknoledged that it isn’t always well understood.
I am aware, now that I understand better your language and write it down, that I should not be ambivalent while expressing my view.
I try to be more clear, not always easy though.
July 28th, 2008 at 4:08 pm“sure it’s immoral, also regarding the civil laws. It’s a crime against a person integrity, that destroys her/his personnality.”
Well then we agree that morality can be objectively true. That an action by an individual can be moral/immoral whether anyone ‘believes’ it or not.
Where do our civil laws come from?
“I don’t understand why you absolutely want to read my “categoric” statements on morals ; it reminds me when you asked me to prononce my opinion on the Pals.”
Well, like I said, I wanted to try and better understand the belief (which you have said you hold) that morality is relative to the person, situation and their ‘perspective’.
“The “ubris” article is well written, a pleasure to read it.”
Yes it was.
July 28th, 2008 at 6:39 pm“That an action by an individual can be moral/immoral whether anyone ‘believes’ it or not.”
hey, you also practice ambiguity !
Where do our civil laws come from?
so far we know in our western civilisation,
from bible, from Greece , and Roman codes.
Though there are also natural laws, that JJ Rousseau put in evidence, the human specie tends innately to altruism as a princip of preservation.
Normally, a good system of laws doesn’t go against those natural laws either.
Well, like I said, I wanted to try and better understand the belief (which you have said you hold) that morality is relative to the person, situation and their ‘perspective’.
well, I rather ment that a moral behaviour is individual, regarding those immuable civil or moral universal laws.
Tu aimes couper un cheveu en quatre
July 29th, 2008 at 1:39 amThe gap between objective and subjective morality is much wider than the splitting of a hair.
Your ‘belief’ that moral behavior is individual and therefore ’subjective’ is in fact the reason the world is in the turmoil it is today.
You’ve agreed that morality is ‘objective’ in the instance of rape and you’ve provided no instance where it cannot be objective in other instances.
You continuing to assert morality is “individual” shows that you are indeed a very confused person.
Good luck with that.
July 29th, 2008 at 10:34 amBut if you continue to make statements that imply subjective morality should be accepted, I will argue them again.
ok c’était une image raccourcie pour ta façon d’argumenter, je constate qu’elle ne te convient pas ;
on ne peut pas dire que tu as l’esprit très clair non plus ; si tu ne poses pas l’énoncé d’une manière plus explicite, alors tu obtiens les réponses en parallèle.
il faut qu’on définisse chacun notre façon de comprendre les choses, peut-être arriverons-nous ainsi à nous entendre
Im not at home, and I can’t stay on my brother’computer, the whole family are asking me to let off.
I’ll be away for a while, need to change my ideas and air ;
check my place for news
July 30th, 2008 at 10:56 amcan you give me a definition of an objective,
and a subjective morality ?
MORAL : avoir un bon moral = to be optimist
MORAL is something that we keep in mind as an invisible angel, that drives us to “good”, therefore to the beauty of soul (my general definition as a person that always evaluates the world as a hole for aesthetics)
I am loosing my latin with you, cause I am the only one that have told evasive “stories” about morality, but you haven’t, your not showing any example, except the “objective truths” of gravity, water is wet, fire is hot… hey, does your school teaching concern kindergarten classes ?
Your ‘belief’ that moral behavior is individual and therefore ’subjective’ is in fact the reason the world is in the turmoil it is today.
You continuing to assert morality is “individual” shows that you are indeed a very confused person.
why is it that as an “individu” that I would not be able to behave morally ? the individu in question is “educated”, knows a bit of politics (more locally, OK) knows also what fonctions or not in her country… You seem to believe that for me there aren’t superior values that are worth of fighting for.
Yes, there are : PATRIOTISM, freedom of thought, of writing, of religion.
I don’t want to add freedom of speech, this is the difference with your country. If we want that a “relative” peace rules our social activities, we keep from hurting or insulting our “com-patriot” neighbours. This is what I call sometimes my euphemism. I do practice it a lot, french deformation culturelle !
Though we must fight for liberty for the whole communauty. Everyone should be able and allowed to have his/her own interpretation of religiosity.
Voltaire did, Zola did…
Though the idea of freedom should not be a value with different levels according to one’s communauty interpretation, but a higher ideal, that also should be guaranted by our State laws.
The political appreciations are inherent to one’s country history -ours had a different evolution than yours- It has always had a more “collective” adventure - the Revolution didn’t think of an individual adventure, but of a state adventure with a “moral” mission : bring liberty, egality, fraternity to the world nations. While the “american dream” was and is an individual dream. If I wanted, as a citizen of the 18th century, to choose an individual adventure, then, I would have probably chosen your country as a patry.
Now, I am born in France, a social democraty, it would be “suicidaire” of me to fight for a political system that is of your historical experience. My attention focuses more then on the respect of the legacity and justice.
Otherwise, as a psycho-human, I am entitled to say, that my moral standards are higher than yours considerating what you have said on your “sexual experiences” (or you were “winding”), that are more of a dellusional “collectionnor”. Can’t see you appreciate a human being so.
I am not a confuse person at all, and also, not sectaire
where it cannot be objective in other instances
I gave you the exemple of the 10 commandements ;
Many times you called me a “moral relativist”, probably cause my sentences played that role. I was more in representation for whatever silly controversion.
the political morality you referred to is a bit of the unknown or bizarre parametre by us. We have the habit to question and discuss all the moral and or amoral things : tradition of intellectualism oblige !
I have sometimes hard time not to find you “psycho-rigide”, or may-be not to think to my severe father, that’s the good side of our conversations
while I often mean a more “psycho-human” approach, yeah, of a moral relativist !
Hey, you must be right !!!!!
did I say it ?
August 3rd, 2008 at 6:13 pm