McCain cheated on his wife!!!!!

[Karen Kraft]

Obama made poo-poo in his big-boy pants!!!!!

Obama made poo-poo in his big-boy pants!!!!!

Yes, it's true !!!!

Of course, he was only 10 months old at the time, but that makes him at least as bad as McCain and Edwards!

I know what's important at election time !!!!

 

[Cade Is Here]

Now, in English, you inbred hillbilly fuck.

Oh yeah you are one of those racist ebonic fucks.. I forgot.

 

[MechaBlade]

KWEE!!!!!!!!!!

:3

And what's a "kodokuga" and why is it number one?

 

[MechaBlade]

Well, except for the fact that he was born in Kenya.

That seems to matter.


... a lot ...

Proof or it didn't happen.

 

[renard_ruse]

He did!

Cindy is the other, younger, richer woman.

Its cause he oozes sexual confidence. Or is that only a good thing when its a black man doing the oozing?

 

[Morcheeba]

Its cause he oozes sexual confidence. Or is that only a good thing when its a black man doing the oozing?

Heh...

 

[pinkstarfish]

Stunning avatar you're sporting now, too bad you've become one of those faux cut/paste political gurus now with an Obama-support thread just above this about McCain.

I could say so much more but I'll stop here.

Like I care.

 

[Cade Is Here]

Heh...

yeah look at her last anti-mccain alts ..just fake stuff..

 

[NewEnglandGirl]

Thank you. And sorry it took me so long to get back to you.

 

[Morcheeba]

Like I care.

Oh ouch! Thanks for wasting a post on me, though.

 

[pinkstarfish]

Oh ouch! Thanks for wasting a post on me, though.

Oh, no!!!

May I have it back?

 

[pinkstarfish]

Thank you. And sorry it took me so long to get back to you.

No problem.

 

[Karen Kraft]

Proof or it didn't happen.

No, it is the duty of the person claiming the affirmative to make proof.

Obama claims he was born in Hawaii, but hasn't presented the requisite proof.

Ball's in his court, not in anyone else’s -- no requirement to prove a negative -- here or in politics.

Example: Prove you didn't cheat on your Spanish exam in 19xx. See?

I, we, the American voter does not have to “prove” that Obama was born in Kenya, England, Venus, Atlantis. It is incumbent upon Obama (his only chance ever to be associated with that word) to prove he meets the requirements to service as President in the unlikely event he gets elected. To take office and have it later be shown that his documentation was “casual” or “informal” as we used to say, would constitute a high crime or misdemeanor, as that term is used you-know-when.

 

[MechaBlade]

Oh, no!!!

May I have it back?

Lol, nice.

 

[EvelynTreemont]

Ok, not that I am a giant flaming Republican or anything, but is it really so much more awful to have more marriage fall apart, find someone new, (poor timing of course, something he clearly should have dealt with better) separate from and then divorce your wife and then marry your new SO? I mean, is that so much more awful than publicly humiliating your wife repeatedly and turning international focus to your infidelities, or cheating on your wife while she is battling terminal cancer and then paying your mistress off with campaign funds? Is there really that much of a difference in how nasty each of these situations is? Also, is this how we should really pick a president? All I heard during the Clinton issue was how the president's private life shouldn't be a public concern and how his private life shouldn't impact his public persona. Well, if it shouldn't be, then it shouldn't be. It can't only be a concern for a candidate you don't support.


There are plenty of reasons to either support or not support McCain, depending on how you feel. The issue of marriages and possible or confirmed affairs is really a poor way to make one's political decisions.

 

[MechaBlade]

No, it is the duty of the person claiming the affirmative to make proof.

he was born in Kenya.

This is an affirmative statement. Proof or it didn't happen.

 

[Legenda]

At the first Repub debate, the Mormon was the only one on stage with just one wife.

 

[The Greek]

Ok, not that I am a giant flaming Republican or anything, but is it really so much more awful to have more marriage fall apart, find someone new, (poor timing of course, something he clearly should have dealt with better) separate from and then divorce your wife and then marry your new SO? I mean, is that so much more awful than publicly humiliating your wife repeatedly and turning international focus to your infidelities, or cheating on your wife while she is battling terminal cancer and then paying your mistress off with campaign funds? Is there really that much of a difference in how nasty each of these situations is? Also, is this how we should really pick a president? All I heard during the Clinton issue was how the president's private life shouldn't be a public concern and how his private life shouldn't impact his public persona. Well, if it shouldn't be, then it shouldn't be. It can't only be a concern for a candidate you don't support.



There are plenty of reasons to either support or not support McCain, depending on how you feel. The issue of marriages and possible or confirmed affairs is really a poor way to make one's political decisions.

Nicely put. You dare to bring common sense and challenge the hypocritical thinking in this Pink Kool-Aid Thread. My compliments

 

[JustSkye]

Ok, not that I am a giant flaming Republican or anything, but is it really so much more awful to have more marriage fall apart, find someone new, (poor timing of course, something he clearly should have dealt with better) separate from and then divorce your wife and then marry your new SO? I mean, is that so much more awful than publicly humiliating your wife repeatedly and turning international focus to your infidelities, or cheating on your wife while she is battling terminal cancer and then paying your mistress off with campaign funds? Is there really that much of a difference in how nasty each of these situations is? Also, is this how we should really pick a president? All I heard during the Clinton issue was how the president's private life shouldn't be a public concern and how his private life shouldn't impact his public persona. Well, if it shouldn't be, then it shouldn't be. It can't only be a concern for a candidate you don't support.


There are plenty of reasons to either support or not support McCain, depending on how you feel. The issue of marriages and possible or confirmed affairs is really a poor way to make one's political decisions.

You don't think, even remotely, that this is even a small judge of character for any of them?

 

[EvelynTreemont]

Nicely put. You dare to bring common sense and challenge the hypocritical thinking in this Pink Kool-Aid Thread. My compliments

Thanks, I appreciate it. I understand the sentiment of this thread, I am not a fan of cheaters either, but I really wish people would talk about an issue instead of why their team is better than all the other teams.

 

[Wrong Element]

Ok, not that I am a giant flaming Republican or anything, but is it really so much more awful to have more marriage fall apart, find someone new, (poor timing of course, something he clearly should have dealt with better) separate from and then divorce your wife and then marry your new SO? I mean, is that so much more awful than publicly humiliating your wife repeatedly and turning international focus to your infidelities, or cheating on your wife while she is battling terminal cancer and then paying your mistress off with campaign funds? Is there really that much of a difference in how nasty each of these situations is? Also, is this how we should really pick a president? All I heard during the Clinton issue was how the president's private life shouldn't be a public concern and how his private life shouldn't impact his public persona. Well, if it shouldn't be, then it shouldn't be. It can't only be a concern for a candidate you don't support.


There are plenty of reasons to either support or not support McCain, depending on how you feel. The issue of marriages and possible or confirmed affairs is really a poor way to make one's political decisions.

I agree that you can't tell people what they should think is important, although I would simply propose that the media treat all the candidates equally when it comes to these sorts of infidelity issues. No one will seriously argue that McCain has had to answer the same questions in this campaign that Clinton did in 1992.

I also think that the candidate of the party that holds itself up as being endorsed by God, being more "pro-family" etc, is open to particular issues of hypocrisy here. I haven't seen any of McCain's high profile supporters in the religious right explain why this character flaw is less of a big deal now than it was with Clinton. (I know the reason why--they care more about politics than about religion or about someone's actual character--but it would still be entertaining to hear them sputter.)

 

[Morcheeba]

Oh, no!!!

May I have it back?

Why of course! Stash that wasted one away and use it for when you try to match wits with the other REAL political gurus in here.

You started off (haha) well with your 'Obama oozes Sexual Confidence' thread. Now this one full of your cut and pastes at the beginning, carry on as it's your thread yet again!

 

[EvelynTreemont]

You don't think, even remotely, that this is even a small judge of character for any of them?

Oh of course it is, but it is impossible to say the one brand of infidelity is magically better or worse than any other brand.

 

[EvelynTreemont]

I agree that you can't tell people what they should think is important, although I would simply propose that the media treat all the candidates equally when it comes to these sorts of infidelity issues. No one will seriously argue that McCain has had to answer the same questions in this campaign that Clinton did in 1992.

I also think that the candidate of the party that holds itself up as being endorsed by God, being more "pro-family" etc, is open to particular issues of hypocrisy here. I haven't seen any of McCain's high profile supporters in the religious right explain why this character flaw is less of a big deal now than it was with Clinton. (I know the reason why--they care more about politics than about religion or about someone's actual character--but it would still be entertaining to hear them sputter.)

I think the fact that with Clinton it was while he was in the White House meant that it was a bit more... pressing? for there to be answers given, but I do agree that the media is often blatantly slanted one way or another (it tends to change with the wind sometimes) which really impacts what people are exposed to in order to make their decision.

I guess I would rather someone talk about an issue rather than who is to blame for what disaster or who slept with whom in 1983 or wherever anyone goes to church or doesn't.

 

[The Greek]

I agree that you can't tell people what they should think is important, although I would simply propose that the media treat all the candidates equally when it comes to these sorts of infidelity issues. No one will seriously argue that McCain has had to answer the same questions in this campaign that Clinton did in 1992.

I also think that the candidate of the party that holds itself up as being endorsed by God, being more "pro-family" etc, is open to particular issues of hypocrisy here. I haven't seen any of McCain's high profile supporters in the religious right explain why this character flaw is less of a big deal now than it was with Clinton. (I know the reason why--they care more about politics than about religion or about someone's actual character--but it would still be entertaining to hear them sputter.)

True, but why does the Its OK to Schtoop your Intern in the Whitehouse, lie about it and Potentially Open the Presidency to a Sexual Harassment Suit Party care