Page 2 of 2
Re: An Interesting Editorial in Support of Obama
Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 1:22 am
by Diogenes
smackaholic wrote:After reading a bit of that site I think I'd actually prefer hitlery.
God, what a fukking tard.
If either Mary Poppin's retarded brother or Satan's daughter win in November, you'll be longing for the good old days of Jimmy Carter.
Re: An Interesting Editorial in Support of Obama
Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 5:24 am
by BSmack
smackaholic wrote:After reading a bit of that site I think I'd actually prefer hitlery.
God, what a fukking tard.
What do I fucking care? You were going to vote for McCain this fall anyway.
Re: An Interesting Editorial in Support of Obama
Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 2:33 pm
by Terry in Crapchester
War Wagon wrote:The GOP's most fervent wish is that Clitnon be nominated.
To anyone who's been paying any attention whatsoever to this campaign, that statement is as Marcus Allen-esque as they come. And that's precisely why the Democrats should nominate Obama. Why should the Dems give the Republicans exactly what they want?
Re: An Interesting Editorial in Support of Obama
Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 4:46 pm
by BSmack
mvscal wrote:Terry in Crapchester wrote:To anyone who's been paying any attention whatsoever to this campaign, that statement is as Marcus Allen-esque as they come. And that's precisely why the Democrats should nominate Obama. Why should the Dems give the Republicans exactly what they want?
It makes no difference. Neither one of them is even remotely presidential.
Dream on.
Re: An Interesting Editorial in Support of Obama
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 1:05 am
by War Wagon
mvscal wrote:Neither one of them is even remotely presidential.
None of them ever are, until inauguration day.
Except for Reagan.
Re: An Interesting Editorial in Support of Obama
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 2:55 pm
by Goober McTuber
War Wagon wrote:mvscal wrote:Neither one of them is even remotely presidential.
None of them ever are, until inauguration day.
Except for Reagan.
That was just an act.
Re: An Interesting Editorial in Support of Obama
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 3:26 pm
by BSmack
Goober McTuber wrote:War Wagon wrote:mvscal wrote:Neither one of them is even remotely presidential.
None of them ever are, until inauguration day.
Except for Reagan.
That was just an act.
Don't burst his bubble. Whitey also believes Rayguns was an All American at Notre Dame.
Re: An Interesting Editorial in Support of Obama
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 3:57 pm
by Mikey
Uncle Ronnie giving a young GW Bush some pointers on how to look "presidential":
Re: An Interesting Editorial in Support of Obama
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 5:11 pm
by Cuda
Mikey wrote:Uncle Ronnie giving a young GW Bush some pointers on how to look "presidential":
Juan McCain claims it's him, not Bush in that photo
Re: An Interesting Editorial in Support of Obama
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 5:20 pm
by Terry in Crapchester
War Wagon wrote:mvscal wrote:Neither one of them is even remotely presidential.
None of them ever are, until inauguration day.
Except for Reagan.
Let's not forget, this was a man who referred to his wife as "Mommy" (and whose youngest child was in her 30's at the time, btw).
Too bad Freud wasn't still alive in the 80's. He would've had a field day with that one.
Re: An Interesting Editorial in Support of Obama
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 6:27 pm
by Cuda
He called Nancy "mommy"- big fucking deal.
A for the guy who calls his wife Hillary, the shrinks really would have a field day with him- and with her too!
Re: An Interesting Editorial in Support of Obama
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 8:22 pm
by Goober McTuber
I Know He Is But What About Him – And Her smack. Way to really bring it, Cooter.
Re: An Interesting Editorial in Support of Obama
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 11:00 pm
by War Wagon
Terry in Crapchester wrote:
Let's not forget, this was a man who referred to his wife as "Mommy"
Maybe it made her hot. At least she wasn't stalking strip joint patrons.
Re: An Interesting Editorial in Support of Obama
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 11:53 pm
by Shlomart Ben Yisrael
War Wagon wrote:Terry in Crapchester wrote:
Let's not forget, this was a man who referred to his wife as "Mommy"
Maybe it made her hot. At least she wasn't stalking strip joint patrons.
No, just astrologers.
Re: An Interesting Editorial in Support of Obama
Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 5:38 am
by War Wagon
BSmack wrote:
Whitey also believes Rayguns was an All American at Notre Dame.
Not really, but I'm starting to wonder just what the fuck your problem is.
Shove the Whitey gloss up your ass, you duplicitous, backstabbing piece of shit.
Re: An Interesting Editorial in Support of Obama
Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 6:31 am
by Diogenes
War Wagon wrote:BSmack wrote:
Whitey also believes Rayguns was an All American at Notre Dame.
Not really, but I'm starting to wonder just what the fuck your problem is.
He's a Democrat. By definition that means he's either evil, insane or stupid.
In his case option C.
Re: An Interesting Editorial in Support of Obama
Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 4:02 pm
by Goober McTuber
War Wagon wrote:BSmack wrote:
Whitey also believes Rayguns was an All American at Notre Dame.
Not really, but I'm starting to wonder just what the fuck your problem is.
Shove the Whitey gloss up your ass, you duplicitous, backstabbing piece of shit.
Did you guys used to be buddies?
Re: An Interesting Editorial in Support of Obama
Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 5:23 pm
by BSmack
Goober McTuber wrote:War Wagon wrote:Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:38 am
Did you guys used to be buddies?
He'll be fine. The Budweiser was hitting a little extra hard. Sadly, nobody taped any of his phone messages.
Re: An Interesting Editorial in Support of Obama
Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 7:04 pm
by Shlomart Ben Yisrael
Goober McTuber wrote:War Wagon wrote:
Shove the Whitey gloss up your ass, you duplicitous, backstabbing piece of shit.
Did you guys used to be buddies?
Hmmm...bestest pals...
Re: An Interesting Editorial in Support of Obama
Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 12:10 am
by Cuda
mvscal wrote: vacuous,
You realize Mikey is going to get all huffy over this, don't you?