Nudist lobby stands up for skinny-dipping lawmaker

[eagle59]

well the media may have lost intrest in this lowly congressman who went skinny dippin due to the fact that caught a real news story about a royal who got naked and danced around in his hotel room with women. Oh my, who would believe that a healthy young man would do such a thing. It's horrible, dancing and playing pool while naked. What are we to think! News at 6, tune in for details and the juicy pics that we paid gazillions of dollars to get so you can see this live!!! Geesh, give me a break!

[nimrod]

Yes and the national media although they knew about his philandering said nothing until the "coverage" by the National Enquirer forced them to cover the story.

Do you have proof of this? Although I do not think that it matters, the Edwards story was widely covered, where this, as I said before, was just a blurb and nothing more has been said about it except for here.

[nimrod]

well the media may have lost intrest in this lowly congressman who went skinny dippin due to the fact that caught a real news story about a royal who got naked and danced around in his hotel room with women.

I will repeat my comment from the thread that as talk about this: [sarcasm]He must be a Republican for the media to cover it.[/sarcasm]

[richinoregon]

Do you have proof of this? Although I do not think that it matters, the Edwards story was widely covered, where this, as I said before, was just a blurb and nothing more has been said about it except for here.

How does one prove something didn't happen? It's impossible to prove something doesn't or didn't exist, all that one can do is say that he doesn't have any evidence. If you can show me evidence that the major media covered the story (other one paragraph on page fifty or something like that) before the National Enquirer broke the story, then I will stand corrected.

As to the skinny dipping, it should never have made a blurb. It's kind of like saying "OMG he showers naked!"

[nimrod]

How does one prove something didn't happen? It's impossible to prove something doesn't or didn't exist, all that one can do is say that he doesn't have any evidence. If you can show me evidence that the major media covered the story (other one paragraph on page fifty or something like that) before the National Enquirer broke the story, then I will stand corrected.

You show dates of when the National Enquirer broke the story compared to when it was in other media. You made the statement back it up with facts, the burden of proof lies on you. But even if you do, it does not prove if this was covered just because he is a Republican.

[richinoregon]

You show dates of when the National Enquirer broke the story compared to when it was in other media. You made the statement back it up with facts, the burden of proof lies on you. But even if you do, it does not prove if this was covered just because he is a Republican.

Just a quick perusal of Google shows that National Enquirer was the first to break the scandal, and an article by someone who has done more research on John Kerry in Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ed...marital_affair states "The affair was initially reported by The National Enquirer, a US supermarket tabloid newspaper, but was given little or no coverage by many sources in the US mainstream media."

But as to the error of logic, demanding proof for the non existence, you can come back to my reply and claim that I had omitted evidence and there is no way for me to refute because there is no way to prove evidence is not omitted. If you feel that I have omitted evidence you need to show me.

I still stand on my statement that it wasn't until after the Enquirer broke the story that the mainstream piled on."

[nimrod]

But as to the error of logic, demanding proof for the non existence, you can come back to my reply and claim that I had omitted evidence and there is no way for me to refute because there is no way to prove evidence is not omitted. If you feel that I have omitted evidence you need to show me.

I did not demand proof for something non existant. Where did I ask for proof of something non existant? You make a comment as if it is a true event, I ask for proof, you come back telling me there is a logic error and I am asking for something that is non existant, do you see any logic in that? You tell me there is a rock that rotates by itself, I say prove it, you respond with "you are demanding proof of the non existant", that just tells me you are lying.

I asked for proof that the "media" did nothing until the National Enquirer broke the story, which would be easy enough to prove by showing the dates of when different media sources reported the story as compared to the National Equirer, but even then the media did cover it considering the National Enquire is part of the media. How long did they sit on the story before deciding to release it? It was an offhand, rhetorical question, for I do not care if they did or not as I said with my comment of, "Although I do not think it matters...".

I still stand on my statement that it wasn't until after the Enquirer broke the story that the mainstream piled on."

You can stand by it all you want, I do not care who broke it first, and I still do not see how this forum and a news blurb here and there is piling on. It is more like "oh yeah that happened", then nothing more.

You are making more of this then need be, as all those saying that is was only covered because he was a Republican.

[Barnard]

I think that we too should show our support to raise awareness that nudism or skinny dipping isn't so abnormal. It just seems to me that there are alot more people who tolerate nudism then society is willing to let known. It's like the GOP's repeatedly dirty attempts to keep Ron Paul silent.