And in the slang used in my neighborhood, bogus has a wider variety of meanings than you curerently ascribe to it.
You’re just upset that I have pointed out that your OP is stupid and irrelevant to choosing a candidate this November.
It proves only that some years ago, she was a seriously messed up person. Some of the finest people it has been my privilege to call friend have overcome major chemical problems. Some others did not, and they’re dead.
On the other hand, it isn’t a cure-all. An asshole who has overcome a chem dep is oftimes still an asshole. Just less of one.
But, she sure is one cold lookin’ woman, be like boning an igloo.
[QUOTE=Kevbo]
Is it just me, or does it seem like Cindy McCain was the Paris Hilton of her generation?
[/QUOTE]
Well, to my knowledge, she wasn’t videotaped in a sex act which was widely distributed on the internet. To my knowledge.
But I hear there’s a video going around of her husband with three Vietnamese ladyboys and a goat.
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
I heard she can make death rays come out of her eyes, and we don’t need that in the White House.
[/QUOTE]
Well, I’m not sure who I’m voting for yet… but this puts one more mark in the McCain column.
[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
I see you have switched what you said. Before it was the story that was bogus, now it is the claim in the story that is bogus.
The story might be stupid and it might be irrelevant, but that does not mean that it is fake or bogus.
[/QUOTE]
Shut the fuck up, you fucking troll.
I think each voter decides was is relevant and what is not. That might be one of many relevant issues. For whatever reason, the First Lady matters to me. Maybe it’s because so far that is main role of a woman in the White House.
[QUOTE=Siam Sam]
They’d have to lock up the silverware when she went anywhere on a state visit.
[/QUOTE]
Horse apples. The woman’s been a recovering addict for what, 14 years, now.
[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
I don’t know why Michelle Obama is getting such a hard time in the media, when Cindy McCain is fucking scum.
[/QUOTE]
You’re just a little late to the party. Like 14 years…
[QUOTE=Giraffe]
I’m not saying we shouldn’t attack Cindy McCain because it’s mean, I’m saying we as voters shouldn’t care about either spouse because it’s irrelevant. Any voter who makes his/her decision about who should be the next President of the United States based on the First Lady is a retard.
[/QUOTE]
For myself, I’d already decided not to vote for McCain. Reading about his wife just makes me not sorry that I already decided that.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
An organism that has an all-consuming hatred for all other lifeforms, which would be utterly helpless without its mechanical shell? Hokay.
[/QUOTE]
You know, I have no problem with imagining a room full of republicans yelling "Exterminate! exterminaaaaaate!".
I pretty much figured they did that anyway.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
To me, the only reason it’s an issue is that the GOP has targeted not only Michelle Obama in some very nasty ways, but virtually anyone Barack Obama has ever come in contact with. If they want to play the association game – especially with spouses – then what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Senator Obama has said that he will not make Cindy McCain a campaign issue. McCain has refused to make a similar pledge about Michelle. Fine. Senator Obama is too much of a gentleman to mention that John McCain is married to a charity-robbing junkie, but I certainly am no such gentleman.
[/QUOTE]
So…it doesn’t matter when we do it, we’re right. It matters when you do it, you’re wrong.
Hypocrite as always, don’t ever change DtC, don’t ever change.
[QUOTE=Weirddave]
So…it doesn’t matter when we do it, we’re right. It matters when you do it, you’re wrong.
[/QUOTE]
No, moron.
You (generic you) may prefer not hitting below the belt when fighting, but when fighting with someone who has an extensive record of hitting below the belt, and has already hit a few times below the belt, you’d be stupid not to hit below the belt, because you’d put yourself at a disadvantage and will get beaten up.
Yeah, because we’ve NEVER had a recovering addict as a FL before. Isn’t that right, Two and a Half Inches of Trolling Stupidity?
We are all ignoring a basic issue that goes to the heart of why Cindy McCain did what she did.
Have some sympathy. Wouldn’t YOU need painkillers to live with John McCain on a daily basis?
[QUOTE=Argent Towers]
But I hear there’s a video going around of her husband with three Vietnamese ladyboys and a goat.
[/QUOTE]
Please tell me a spin-f*ck chair is involved!
[QUOTE=Carol Stream]
THere’s nothing bullshit about it. She’s an addict, and she did whatever it took to feed the addiction. She should be pitied, if anything.
[/QUOTE]
She’s been pitted, instead!
I’d just like to point out that if the addiction of a spouse were a disqualifier, we would have been sparred both President Ford and the candidacy of Michael Dukakis. And while some people might think that would have been a good thing on balance, I personally think that the political system is served better by more people running than fewer.
Both Betty Ford and Kitty Dukakis later contributed a lot to anti-addiction efforts, and Cindy McCain is involved in charitable activities as well. So all of these women and their spouses have, in their own ways, contributed a lot to help others. I think we should agree about that even as we disagree about certain political issues.
If we’re going to bring up old shit about the McCains, how about the Keating 5?
[QUOTE=Boyo Jim]
Personally, I think we could use more junkies in the White House, not that I’ll vote for McCain. I’m tired of the War on Drugs. I want it to be replaced with a War FOR Drugs.
[/QUOTE]
Oh great, so how we’re going to invade British Columbia too?
Well, our current Republican First Lady killed Michael Dutton Douglas.
Those 'publicans really pick winners for wives.