• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Did Obama play Hide-the-Baloney with Vera?

Did Obama play Hide-the-Baloney with Vera?

  • Yeah Baby!

    Votes: 9 50.0%
  • Ugh, No.

    Votes: 9 50.0%

  • Total voters
    18
  • Poll closed .
How very classy. Throw crap at the wall and hope it sticks.

There isn't a single person that is now on this site, has ever been on this site or that will ever been on this site that has any means to know the answer to this ridiculous, inflammatory, and borderline liable claim. Nothing but a pure, unadultrated, unsubstantiated character assassination attempt. Unworthy of anything more than contempt.


Translation: How dare anyone attack my messiah like this!
 
Translation: How dare anyone attack my messiah like this!

Just a point Caine: it's possible to defend some one without worshiping them. Not sure if you can handle it, but most of us can. I have on this board defended both Cheney and Bush(Bush quite recently). Trust me when I say I worship neither. If you do not have better arguments than this, you might just want to give up.
 
Just a point Caine: it's possible to defend some one without worshiping them. Not sure if you can handle it, but most of us can. I have on this board defended both Cheney and Bush(Bush quite recently). Trust me when I say I worship neither. If you do not have better arguments than this, you might just want to give up.


Re-Read the original comment. The strong language used. The poster seems extremely offended by the suggestion.

Personally, like I mentioned earlier, if it WERE true, or something DID happen, I would have chalked it up to being in an "open relationship" before I would say, HE IS AN EVIL CHEATER! ARRRRR!. Then waited to see if Michelle got pissed.
 
Re-Read the original comment. The strong language used. The poster seems extremely offended by the suggestion.

Personally, like I mentioned earlier, if it WERE true, or something DID happen, I would have chalked it up to being in an "open relationship" before I would say, HE IS AN EVIL CHEATER! ARRRRR!. Then waited to see if Michelle got pissed.

I get real tired of the "messiah" type comments. They are weak, inherently.

I always said that about Clinton. If he wanted to cheat, so what? We are not the injured party, Hillary would be, and if she puts up with it, for whatever reason(and open relationship seems likely between those two), who are we to get upset? Now, there is more to the story than just cheating, and that is a whole other kettle of fish, but for just the cheating, I would bet money they both allowed the other the right.
 
I get real tired of the "messiah" type comments. They are weak, inherently.

I always said that about Clinton. If he wanted to cheat, so what? We are not the injured party, Hillary would be, and if she puts up with it, for whatever reason(and open relationship seems likely between those two), who are we to get upset? Now, there is more to the story than just cheating, and that is a whole other kettle of fish, but for just the cheating, I would bet money they both allowed the other the right.


Like Ive said before, I work/deal with the more wealthy "affluent" people in my city. One may (or may not) be surprised to find out that many of them are in these "swinger" clubs. I guess thats what wealthy people do. I wouldn't hold politicians to a standard above that, I think it has something to do with the level of stress some of these people deal with, coupled with the fact that all their peers and neighbors are doing it.
 
It is still my opinion that at least 51% of the people that voted for Obama did so because he was a black man and had a good chance of being our first Black president and no more reason than that.

Not one poll supports you in this, you know.

If that was the case, how come Jesse Jackson didn't win? Or Carol Mosley-Braun? Why then didn't liberals support Clarence Thomas? Why then don't they support Michael Steele?

There's a word for people who only see race, you know.
 
I get real tired of the "messiah" type comments. They are weak, inherently.

I always said that about Clinton. If he wanted to cheat, so what? We are not the injured party, Hillary would be, and if she puts up with it, for whatever reason(and open relationship seems likely between those two), who are we to get upset? Now, there is more to the story than just cheating, and that is a whole other kettle of fish, but for just the cheating, I would bet money they both allowed the other the right.

I generally agree with you, with the exception of hypocrisy. A politician who touts their "moral superiority" should be outed if their actions don't match their words. John Edwards and his perfect marriage is one example. The many politicians who scream about gay rights while being in the closet is another.
 
This poll lacks an I don't care option. I have to agree with Groucho, the only time this sort of thing matters is if the politician uses whatever as a reason to be elected.

I did not vote for Obama because of his family values. I voted for him because I thought he had good ideas and the validity of those ideas have nothing to do with extramarital affairs. However, I do have some concern because if it is true, it will harm his ability to implement those ideas.

Also, this poll is stupid because we have no evidence on whether he did cheat on Michelle or not. All we have is an Enquirer article. If other news outfits begin to pick this up, it will be worth paying attention to, but not before than. This means that we have to vote on the poll based on opinion that is not backed up by any real evidence.
 
Last edited:
It is still my opinion that at least 51% of the people that voted for Obama did so because he was a black man and had a good chance of being our first Black president and no more reason than that.

Maybe some black folks, but I can't imagine anyone being stupid enough to vote for anyone on that basis. It would be like me voting for Hillary because she has a vagina. Which frankly, I find unimaginable.
 
Maybe some black folks, but I can't imagine anyone being stupid enough to vote for anyone on that basis. It would be like me voting for Hillary because she has a vagina. Which frankly, I find unimaginable.

There are some who do though. I seem to remember a theme of certain females voting republican because Palin was the V.P. candidate and they were bitter over Clinton not getting the nomination.
 
Maybe some black folks, but I can't imagine anyone being stupid enough to vote for anyone on that basis. It would be like me voting for Hillary because she has a vagina. Which frankly, I find unimaginable.

Agreed.

Mind you, there are always people who vote for "This person is like me." They vote for the politician from their home state, or is Irish like them, or Baptist like them or whatever. However, even in those cases they have to like the person first. The "like me" is always secondary. It's why black politicians don't always win even in black dominated districts, for instance.

To think that Obama was elected solely because he was black is absurd. If anything, it hurt him in certain parts of the country. I'd venture to say that if he had been considered white, he would have done even better.
 
The biggest way you could get the majority of Obama's supporters to turn against him?




Turn him into a white guy.........

He's half way there.
 
Not one poll supports you in this, you know.

If that was the case, how come Jesse Jackson didn't win? Or Carol Mosley-Braun? Why then didn't liberals support Clarence Thomas? Why then don't they support Michael Steele?

There's a word for people who only see race, you know.

You have to have someone who sounds like they know what the hell they are talking about and aren't a racist to begin with.

Also, it helps to have someone who talks about taking from the rich and giving to the poor.

And, I don't recall mentioning just liberals, so I don't know why you are so focused on them.

Im focusing on people who just voted for Obama to "make history".
 
Maybe some black folks, but I can't imagine anyone being stupid enough to vote for anyone on that basis. It would be like me voting for Hillary because she has a vagina. Which frankly, I find unimaginable.


If stuff like this wasn't effective why do you think they chose Palin to be the VP?
 
So then isn't it equally despicable when the left makes false character attacks against conservatives? It's all disgusting. However, this is coming from a non partisan source, the National Enquirer. I don't think it was so much an Obama character attack as much as it was a very shocking tabloid article that people will read. They post this stuff to shock people so that they will buy their magazine, it's not a right-wing attack on the president. However, Obama does need to address this and prove his innocence, not lie like Clinton did.
no, he does not need to address this OR prove anything. why don't you prove you don't screw goats?
 
If stuff like this wasn't effective why do you think they chose Palin to be the VP?

Because of her vast intellectual prowess, obviously.
 
I bet you would be wrong, and I bet I have publicly on these very boards stated the exact same thing about republican politicians. I am 100 % consistent in my stand here. Politicians should have a certain amount of privacy, and who they sleep with has zero bearing on their job.

To prove the point, here is an example of my defending the private life of a republican:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news/47755-gop-governor-eyeing-senate-run-outed-film-tomorrow.html#post1058014636

Then, you deserve a dog bone.;)
 
Maybe some black folks, but I can't imagine anyone being stupid enough to vote for anyone on that basis. It would be like me voting for Hillary because she has a vagina. Which frankly, I find unimaginable.

Then, why did you vote for Obama?
 
Maybe some black folks, but I can't imagine anyone being stupid enough to vote for anyone on that basis. It would be like me voting for Hillary because she has a vagina. Which frankly, I find unimaginable.

I find her having a vagina rather unimaginable as well, but I attribute that to refusing to allow my imagination to even go there.

lalalalalalalalalalalaala I can't hear my thoughts :no: :crazy3: :2sick1:
 
It shows that the person is morally lacking and untruthful and not someone we want in charge of our country. If someone cannot be faithful to thier spouse what makes us think they would be faithful to the people?

I dont care if they are rep, dem, ind, I feel if they have shown such a display if dishonesty they should not be allowed to hold a public office. (not saying he has done this).

Well firstly this thread is beyond idiotic. Stupid, sensless, unfounded, flamebait and all of that other good stuff....

But hypothetically speaking;

Who gives a crap?

You see most of us Europeans really don't give a toss one way or another about the family values of a politician. Why?

Because we aren't related.

They get hired to do a job, they do it, or don't. And thats what we judge them on.
Do you fire a good accountant because he wants to marry his boyfriend? Do you ask your lawyer if they have ever had an affair? Do you quiz the gardner about his highschool doobie smoking? How about that DUI the electrical contractor got back in 1988?
 
Impeach Obama!!! :mrgreen:
 
Well, it's just best to nip things in the bud. Something like this most definitely will go more mainstream and by then it will be harder to handle. He is innocent until proven guilty, but the American populace still remembers Clinton and doesn't necessarily always take things the rational way.

I am reminded of Hamlet
"The lady doth protest too much" He opens his mouth on this and all of his detractors scream "LIAR! SEE HE'S DENYING IT!" And the moderates think, "Well there is no smoke without a fire".

The best thing the Whitehouse can do is point and snicker at the National Enquirer

But god bless your innocence.
 
Well firstly this thread is beyond idiotic. Stupid, sensless, unfounded, flamebait and all of that other good stuff....

But hypothetically speaking;

Who gives a crap?

You see most of us Europeans really don't give a toss one way or another about the family values of a politician. Why?

Because we aren't related.

They get hired to do a job, they do it, or don't. And thats what we judge them on.
Do you fire a good accountant because he wants to marry his boyfriend? Do you ask your lawyer if they have ever had an affair? Do you quiz the gardner about his highschool doobie smoking? How about that DUI the electrical contractor got back in 1988?

People do give a crap.

It is a reflection of character, and if you cannot trust your leader to be honest and faithful to his wife and children, then he isn't fit or disciplined enough to lead the greatest nation on earth. Not by a mile.

Character matters. The founding fathers stressed this.
Common sense alone suggests it.
Perhaps you would like your daughter to be married to a scoundrel?
I wouldn't want him in my house, as a business partner, let alone president.

Like many Americans, I want a man of character to lead, and not some politi-freak that ingested large quantities of hate speech, as Obama had done for decades... and is now projectile vomiting all over us.

Character counts.

Too bad our leadership lacks this vital ingredient.

.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom