SUBSIM Radio Room Forums

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)
-   General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)
-   -   John Edwards, sleezebag: This guy could've been President (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=160554)

August 01-22-10 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frau kaleun (Post 1243101)
Yeah but she was just jealous cuz he's so much prettier than she is. And he can father children, whereas the sex change made adoption her only viable option.

Rawr, hiss! :DL

AVGWarhawk 01-22-10 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frau kaleun (Post 1242803)
I dunno. Beer and sex has got to be right up there.


Top 10 at the very least. :03:

AVGWarhawk 01-22-10 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring (Post 1242968)
About fathering that kid, isn't this the guy that Ann Coulter said was a "fag". I'm really confused now. :hmmm:

Maybe he is bi-sexual. :hmmm:

frau kaleun 01-22-10 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk (Post 1243114)
Top 10 at the very least. :03:

If it tops out at 10, I prolly won't need the beer. :O:

frau kaleun 01-22-10 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk (Post 1243115)
Maybe he is bi-sexual. :hmmm:

by-sexual

couldn't pass it by without gettin' some

OneToughHerring 01-22-10 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FIREWALL (Post 1242984)
Maybe he'll be Tigers roomate at that sex rehab. :haha:

Yea, but he'll be at the 'straight ward'. The republicans will be over at the pedophile, rapist and the airport bathroom sex - wards. :haha:

Quote:

Originally Posted by frau kaleun (Post 1243124)
by-sexual

couldn't pass it by without gettin' some

:har:

SteamWake 01-22-10 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring (Post 1243365)
Yea, but he'll be at the 'straight ward'. The republicans will be over at the pedophile, rapist and the airport bathroom sex - wards. :haha:



:har:

and the Dem's will be in the get away with murder ward :salute:

OneToughHerring 01-22-10 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteamWake (Post 1243368)
and the Dem's will be in the get away with murder ward :salute:

And the republicans will be in the get away with genocide - ward.

But then again people like John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson would be there too for starting the Vietnam war so it's not that simple when it comes to US politics now is it?

AVGWarhawk 01-22-10 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring (Post 1243365)
Yea, but he'll be at the 'straight ward'. The republicans will be over at the pedophile, rapist and the airport bathroom sex - wards. :haha:



:har:


Were any of those republicans in line for the position of president? :hmmm:

Snestorm 01-22-10 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring (Post 1243370)
And the republicans will be in the get away with genocide - ward.

But then again people like John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson would be there too for starting the Vietnam war so it's not that simple when it comes to US politics now is it?

Sounds pretty bi-partisan.

Torvald Von Mansee 01-22-10 10:41 PM

Well, the United States eliminates MANY people from high office for the most silly of moralistic reasons. Are you gay? An atheist or agnostic? In fact, you can be religious but with the wrong religion, i.e., anything but Christian. You simply will never be president.

August 01-22-10 10:59 PM

People have a right to vote for whoever they want for whatever ridiculous reason they want and there's just no way around it. But some folks also claimed with equal fervor that a black man would never be President and they were shown to be wrong so I think anything is possible.

Aramike 01-23-10 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Torvald Von Mansee (Post 1243884)
Well, the United States eliminates MANY people from high office for the most silly of moralistic reasons. Are you gay? An atheist or agnostic? In fact, you can be religious but with the wrong religion, i.e., anything but Christian. You simply will never be president.

So wait - are you suggesting that we prohibit voting based upon whatever ideology one wants?

Thought-police, anyone?

Sarcasm aside, indeed you are correct in those things. But why is that wrong? If the majority of the population believes in those values and elects someone who represents their beliefs, what is the problem with that?

I can't imagine there is one, unless you don't believe in democratic representation. In that case, your values are also not shared by most and therefore not welcome to lead.

Heh, maybe we should have two presidents - one for the majority, and one to represent everyone else. And then, when they disagree...

Why is it that the left always whines about the US not respecting other cultures, when people like you are a clear example of someone not respecting ours?

OneToughHerring 01-23-10 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aramike (Post 1243973)
Sarcasm aside, indeed you are correct in those things. But why is that wrong? If the majority of the population believes in those values and elects someone who represents their beliefs, what is the problem with that?

What is the problem if an entire nation has been brainwashed into thinking that, for example, atheists/agnostics are evil, unamerican, can't be elected into office, etc.? You might as well ask what was wrong with racial segregation that you had not so long ago and in many ways still have.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:24 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2025 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.