doitover wrote: Normally I'd agree but fooling around on your wife while she is fighting cancer is kind of low. Kind of like dumping your badly injured wife for a wealthy trophy wife would be a pretty good indication of your true character.
Okay... but what effect does that have on the people he represents or his ability to do his job or act as a leader?
Maybe it's just me. I think that as long as people are consistent with their moral code it doesn't say anything about their ability to lead. Clinton would have told you that he didn't see anything wrong with fooling around. I'm guessing but I think if you were a confident of either Edwards or McCain, they would very likely have believed there behavior was wrong but did it anyway. I think that sort of thing is a serious flaw in character.
Same is true of Obama. I think he believes that keeping a family together is very important. I'd be very disappointed to hear that he was fooling around because it is something he is pretty opposed to.
Salanis wrote:doitover wrote: Normally I'd agree but fooling around on your wife while she is fighting cancer is kind of low. Kind of like dumping your badly injured wife for a wealthy trophy wife would be a pretty good indication of your true character.Okay... but what effect does that have on the people he represents or his ability to do his job or act as a leader?
doitover:
Your post made my head explode. Are you happy now?
It's a stretch to say that Democrats want to knock the rich down a notch.
Let's see. Obama is in favor of:
The Republicans tten to feel there should be no regulation and no taxation.
Anarchists want no taxation and no regulation. I don't think you'll find a Republican/Libertarian who will tell you there should be no taxation to pay for our Military, Infrastructure, Schools, Public Libraries, etc.
The Democrats sanely look at the history of humanity and understand that that's stupid.
Well, I suppose I'll go back to being insane and stupid now, as this whole being smart and logical thing is pretty 'tiring.'
doitover wrote: ... I'm pretty relaxed about this because I don't think Obama's going to win. ... Normally I'd agree but fooling around on your wife while she is fighting cancer is kind of low. Kind of like dumping your badly injured wife for a wealthy trophy wife would be a pretty good indication of your true character. ...
skappes and Hess agreeing again!!! What, is the world ending this evening or something? Oh, that's in November.
And Salanis, if someone is telling the U.S. people what a great guy he is because he is standing by his sick wife and his children, and get a father of the year award, then takes the award and goes and impregnates his mistress that night (or pretty darn close), than I would say that was someone that I wouldn't trust for anything, including looking after my best interest, your best interest and skappes' best interest instead of his dick. I'd say he was a very poor leader. Maybe you would trust people who would lie to your face and lie to their loved ones (or family anyway), and boink anything they pick up in hotel bars while they are out of town with the sick wife at home, but I don't trust people like that. I'd say that person was just looking after Numero-Uno and that Numero-Uno ain't you and me. Oh, wait, he's a trial lawyer. That's right. We should have expected that from him, and he said he's sorry, so it's all OK now, right?
What I'd like to know is what does the DNA on the baby say? In some states, a baby born to a single mother has to have a father listed on the birth certificate, and if momma says "I dunno" then a social services investigation starts up so they can track the daddy down and make him pay up for the next 18 years. If they need a warrant for the DNA, they get one. What's the story on this kid? Or is that why momma and baby took a Learjet off the mainland?
I really do think it was a Klinton dirty tricks job that took Edwards out. Someone did it. Who has motive? Who has opportunity? Who has a long history of dirty tricks up to and including murder?
Yes, yes it does.
I agree with most of Obama's tax plans by the way and yes it's going to hurt me a bunch.
I'd like to see us spending less money, but if we aren't I'd like to see us collecting the taxes to cover it because if there is one thing that will wake people up to government spending it will be having to pay for it. I also think a draft should be mandatory when we are at war.
poopshovel wrote: doitover: Your post made my head explode. Are you happy now?
Salanis wrote:Jensenman wrote: This is the same mainstream media which spread the Larry Craig story far and wide immediately.There's a big difference between banging a chick who's not your wife and banging random guys in public bathroom stalls. Larry Craig was well known for his stance on how evil the homosexuals are... and was then found to proposition guys in public restrooms. To quote a soundbite from SNL: "I'm not bothered by that you were trying to have gay sex in a public restroom. I'm bothered by the fact that you were trying to have *any* sex in a public restroom." Aside from that there are two big differences: what Larry Craig did was against the law; Edwards took the initiative and publicly admitted his mistakes. Taking responsibility tends to defuse the situation by getting everything over with quickly.
Edwards admitted NOTHING until pictures of him with the girl were posted, along with a couple of fuzzy pics of him holding the kid. After all that brave talk about him being a family man and how he was going to keep a stiff upper lip about his wife's inoperable cancer, he porks a campaign staffer. Classy guy.
Larry Craig may very well have propositioned guys in a restroom; I wasn't there to see for myself (thankfully). He originally pleaded guilty to a lesser charge for the same reason Edwards kept a lid on his infidelity. Classy guy there, too.
Say what you want, there was a DAMN big difference in how the media treated the two.
Now, JM, let's get the Edwards story straight. He was porking her first, then he brought her on to the campaign staff at over $100K to make "internet movies" about the candidate. Oh, and she had zero movie making experience prior to that. Maybe her cell phone took movies or something.
Yeah, but skappesitover will still give him a free pass 'cause he's a Dimmycrat.
Obma could win in a landslide come November, then the country could implode trying to pay for all the handout programs he wants, then the Islamic militants could level DC due to cuts in military spending and doitover would say 'But he's a Democrat and he really cares about poor people and the country always does better under a Democrat President so we need to treat him like a hero.'
Dr. Hess wrote: Now, JM, let's get the Edwards story straight. He was porking her first, then he brought her on to the campaign staff at over $100K to make "internet movies" about the candidate. Oh, and she had zero movie making experience prior to that. Maybe her cell phone took movies or something.
Oh, I bet he knew from personal experience that she was good on film, even if the videos were never released to the internet. 
Perhaps it would be more apt to say that, by stepping up and admitting what he'd done, he took the ball out of the media's court. He got the story out and over with all at once, rather than letting the media control it and milk it with every new piece of evidence.
He also wasn't having gay sex. It's not as fun to be shocked and outraged when there isn't gay sex involved.
Edit: On the topic of taxes. I'm all in favor of raising taxes to lower the deficit, or at least slow how quickly we rack it up. I want to do that because it will save me money by not paying the interest when I'm older and more successful. Yeah, I want older/wealthier people from my parents' generation to pay more money, because they were the ones who racked up this debt and I shouldn't be shouldered with it in 15-25 years. Not to say I like the other programs of either candidate, but I don't see either party as wanting to spend less money than the other.
At best -- and being charitable -- Edwards is an idiot and a hypocrite.
jensen said:skappesitover
Awwww fudge. Is "doitover" a "skappes" in disguise!? I'm taking my berkeleying football and going home.
Fudge and berkeleying football are not painting a pretty picture of your weekend.
poopshovel wrote:jensen said:skappesitoverAwwww fudge. Is "doitover" a "skappes" in disguise!? I'm taking my berkeleying football and going home.
Sadly, you're almost there.
There's a 3' long cake that shoots vanilla pudding roughly fifty feet waiting for me when I get home. Guess what it's shaped like. Oh, and the Steelers game starts 30 minutes after launch time (tomorrow.) So you were REALLY close.
Salanis wrote: What he did was in poor taste and not especially moral. But it was not illegal. Many of us don't give a E36 M3 what politicians want to do in private with other consenting adults.
That depends on where you are in the country.
But I do agree with staying out of the bedroom, but when you get caught doing something that you defiled someone else for, while you are supposed to be a good and honest leader..........well, it just doesn't sit right with me.
Guys, you have to learn how to read skappesitover. See, the important part of his posts is that he is the Voice of the D's. Whatever the party line is, that's what he writes. What he is writing now is that the D's have acknowledged that Da O has the proverbial snowball's chance in hell of being elected President. That's not news. Whenever I have pointed this out (based on my own assessment), ignorant keeps saying "that's not what the polls I'm seeing say." Well, today, even before the conventions, that's what the polls are saying, with Little Mac not even trying and the entire MSM geared up as an O cheering section. Today, I'd put Da O at 30% probabilty and dropping. It could easily go Reganesque 2 in the electorial college. Anyway, skappes says that the D's have now thrown O under the bus, with his grandma, preacher, Syrian money man (currently in jail), etc. However, the phunny part is that the D's (according to the skappes report) attribute this to Da O being half black and all us hicks out here "clinging to our guns" and being racists black haters, and not to Da O being a racist Communist hater of America, surrounded by various other racists, bigots, Communists, and terrorists. That's the real joke. Next up, The Lizzard Queen in '12. Wait for it.
Um, that's not exactly what the polls are saying: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html#chart
Jensenman wrote: [Huckleberry Hound] Heavens to murgatroyd! [/Huckleberry Hound]
That was actually Snagglepuss who said that:
Tim Baxter wrote: Um, that's not exactly what the polls are saying: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html#chart
I'll believe that in November.
I get the feeling this is how he's going to win it:
You'll need to log in to post.
