John Edwards, sleezebag: This guy could've been President - Page 2

August · 01-22-10, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frau kaleun

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!

AVGWarhawk · 01-22-10, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frau kaleun

I dunno. Beer and sex has got to be right up there.

Top 10 at the very least.

AVGWarhawk · 01-22-10, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

About fathering that kid, isn't this the guy that Ann Coulter said was a "fag". I'm really confused now.

Maybe he is bi-sexual.

frau kaleun · 01-22-10, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Top 10 at the very least.

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

frau kaleun · 01-22-10, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Maybe he is bi-sexual.

by-sexual

couldn't pass it by without gettin' some

01-22-10, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FIREWALL

Maybe he'll be Tigers roomate at that sex rehab.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by frau kaleun

by-sexual

couldn't pass it by without gettin' some

SteamWake · 01-22-10, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

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

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

01-22-10, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteamWake

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

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

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

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

01-22-10, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

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

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?

01-23-10, 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aramike

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.

01-22-10, 10:41 PM	#26
Torvald Von Mansee Sea Lord Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: CA4528 Posts: 1,693 Downloads: 3 Uploads: 0	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. __________________ "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you" - Leon Trotsky

01-22-10, 10:59 PM	#27
August Wayfaring Stranger Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 23,206 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	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. __________________ Flanked by life and the funeral pyre. Putting on a show for you to see.