How long before John Edwards is implicated....

by **CharlieDontSurf** » Wed Jul 07, 2004 11:19 am

in a sex scandal? Take a look at this picture of his wife on the far left (no pun intended) and take note of the size of her.

Now, John Edwards is a good looking guy, a Democrat, and relatively young. I predict that it won't be long before someone comes forward with some information about an illicit affair with some bimbo; probably a young staffer.

Any thoughts?

by **Mr. Slayer** » Wed Jul 07, 2004 11:30 am

Yup. It will be the secretary or someone else and we all will know soon. But what I think is dumb is that for instance: Clinton was a great politician. And people meddleing with his personal "affairs" almost got him impeached. I don't think just because a politician "fools" around he should be fired from his position....Hell I think some people admired Clinton fro what he did.

by **Tommy Boy** » Wed Jul 07, 2004 11:31 am

what about a male secretary or something?

LOL

by **Colonel Ingus** » Wed Jul 07, 2004 11:32 am

what about a male secretary or something?

You'll have to wait til the dem's put Hillary forward in '08:D

by **Mr. Slayer** » Wed Jul 07, 2004 11:33 am

Originally posted by Colonel Ingus
You'll have to wait til the dem's put Hillary forward in '08:D

by **CharlieDontSurf** » Wed Jul 07, 2004 11:38 am

IRT Slayer and Clinton: I work for the government and if I'm not allowed to pork some cow on the job, then no one is; even Bubba!

By the way, Clinton WAS impeached. He just wasn't convicted. When you consider that Ronald Reagan had so much respect for the Oval Office that he always wore a coat and a tie, it puts into perspective how screwed up Clinton was.

by **Mr. Slayer** » Wed Jul 07, 2004 11:44 am

Originally posted by CharlieDontSurf
When you consider that Ronald Reagan had so much respect for the Oval Office that he always wore a coat and a tie, it puts into perspective how screwed up Clinton was.

Edit: And I am not any Clinton fanatic I just don't think anybody should have their job jeprodized for a personal matter like that.

by **COL.BUKKAKE** » Wed Jul 07, 2004 11:50 am

Originally posted by Colonel Ingus
You'll have to wait til the dem's put Hillary forward in '08:D

My guess would be a female adulterous afair again for the Clinton's on this one Ingus.

By the way Slayer, when your President, nothings "personal affairs", how bout showing some respect for the Nation, and keeping your dick in your pants for awhile.

That sleeze bag is a sexual perv, who thought for years he can run amuck with his pants down, just because of the title he held, whether it be in Arkansas or D.C.

I'm all for getting laid (or head), but how about having some self control.

by **Colonel Ingus** » Wed Jul 07, 2004 11:51 am

Although much rampant attack dog behavior was performed upon Mr Clinton I think to the average person the rational is this.

"If I was the most powerful man in the free world Hell Yes I would getting a blow job in the office!"

I think what pissed the average guy off was why the hell it was someone like Monica? DUDE! SCORE WITH A HOTTIE!

I mean come on guys! lets face it. Monica is a melancholy babe. Head like a melon and a face like a collie!

SHOW SOME RESPECT FOR THE OFFICE!

At least JFK was banging what was considered the hottest women in the country. Bill had no respect for the position he held.

by **CharlieDontSurf** » Wed Jul 07, 2004 11:54 am

But when you bring your private matters out in public (regardless of how little they are

) you forfeit your privacy. Especially when the taxpayers are paying you and the rent on the office of where you're getting serviced.

by **Mr. Slayer** » Wed Jul 07, 2004 12:01 pm

Originally posted by CharlieDontSurf
Especially when the taxpayers are paying you and the rent on the office of where you're getting serviced.

Good point.

by **King** » Wed Jul 07, 2004 12:22 pm

I have a HUGE problem with this thread.... just because someone's wife/husband/whoever is big doesn't mean that that guy is unhappy with her/him/them. I'm sorry but its very inconsiderate for anyone to automatically assume that anyone will have an affair because their signifcant other is not to what society says they should be.

I really hope your signifcant other is extremely happy with you all... im sure there are no faults in the way you look or in your personality...

Way to single fat people out and say that they aren't acceptable mates.

by **CharlieDontSurf** » Wed Jul 07, 2004 1:30 pm

Lighten up guy; I was just making an observation and statistically speaking, an accurate one. My opinion (and I have a right to express it here BTW) is that if you don't try to remain attractive to your spouse, they may begin to look towards others that are attractive. My wife and I pledged this to each other before we were married not to take each other for granted.

Your response is yet another thing wrong with this country's direction. Quit being overly sensitive and worrying about other people being politically incorrect.

by **Xenius** » Wed Jul 07, 2004 1:48 pm

She's not currently pregnant is she?

by **CharlieDontSurf** » Wed Jul 07, 2004 2:05 pm

No, I don't think so. Also I would like to add that she is not what I would call 'fat'. But I would assume that with John being a good looking guy among all those impressionable young interns, he would indeed be tempted.

How long before John Edwards is implicated....

How long before John Edwards is implicated....

Who is online