wackyjer:But some of these posts are arguing that there isn't any evidence, and that's just intellectually dishonest.
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you? Exactly what "evidence" is there? He visited a former staffer late at night and then avoided reporters. That's "evidence" that he fathered the baby? Even though the mother says he didn't? Even though another man has come forward to say it's actually his baby?
Help us out. What "evidence" is there? Is it truly the case that if a politican appears anywhere near a baby that is not part of a scheduled, publicized photo op, it is to be assumed that he is the father?
wackyjer: Evidence is something that would tend to prove or disprove a fact in question.
And the mother saying, "He isn't the father," isn't evidence? Another man coming forward saying, "I'm the father," isn't evidence?
wackyjer: If the question is "Did Edwards father a child by Rielle Hunter?" then you've really got to admit that there's evidence on both sides of that question.
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you? Exactly what "evidence" is there that Edwards is the father? All we know is that he visited a former staffer late at night and then avoided reporters. So if a politician appears anywhere near a baby that is not part of a scheduled, publicized photo op, it is to be assumed that he is the father?
That's the standard of "evidence"? Physical proximity to a baby is evidence of paternity?
wackyjer: Sure, the reports and pictures of hotel shenanigans are not ironclad DNA test results, but you lose some credibility if you can't acknowledge that they raise questions, no?
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you? Talk about losing credibility. The only reason Edwards would ever visit a woman who had a baby is because he's the father? We're gonna have a hard time with the anti-discrimination lawsuits:
"Do you have a baby? If so, we cannot hire you to work on the campaign because if the candidate is ever seen with you and your baby, that will be considered evidence that he is the father."
wackyjer: They at least qualify as evidence that Edwards may have some continuing connection to Hunter and the baby, right?
Hmmm...she's an ex-staffer. She has a baby. Yep! That's proof positive that he's the father! That other man who claims that no, he's the father? Irrelevant. Her statement that he's not the father? Piffle! Edwards touched a baby, therefore it must be his!
wackyjer: Everyone's entitled to make their own determinations of credibility
Your right to have an opinion does not come with a certificate of sanity. Just because you have an opinion doesn't mean it is justified.
wackyjer: some of these there-is-no-evidence and the-pictures-must-be-photoshopped posts are crossing over into fingers-in-ears, la-la-la-la-la-la territory.
Talk about "la-la-la territory." The idea that Edwards must be the father simply because he was seen with a baby is credulous at best.
