# McCain's Ex-Wife



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

It has started............ the digging of dirt.

Now that Hillary Clinton has at last formally withdrawn from the race for the White House, the eyes of America and the world will focus on Barack Obama and his Republican rival Senator John McCain.

While Obama will surely press his credentials as the embodiment of the American dream - a handsome, charismatic young black man who was raised on food stamps by a single mother and who represents his country's future - McCain will present himself as a selfless, principled war hero whose campaign represents not so much a battle for the presidency of the United States, but a crusade to rescue the nation's tarnished reputation.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1024927/The-wife-John-McCain-callously-left-behind.html


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Wow, she's not nearly as pretty as the new wife.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

George Washington supposedly had an affair with a married woman. Ben Franklin was the Hugh Hefner of Paris. Andrew Jackson's common Law marriage with a still legaly married woman was a source of attack. FDR had an affair, Ike supposedly one with his brit driver, Kennedy's had Monroe and slick Willie anything warm. I just filled my Toyota with a $50. Milk went up another .05 and I'm praying my interview for a P/T job for $10 an hour ( used to e good money for survival work) across the street monday is successful. Most of the people I know haven't even seen their incentive check yet and an online friend blew his brains out in Florida when the police came to evict him. I heard about it this AM from a guy moving from upstate Michigan and the family home for better work in California. He asked me how it was. I told him to learn to speak spanish as well as Oba won Kenobi. Eye Candy first ladies? To quote Rhett, " Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn."


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

BertieW said:


> Wow, she's not nearly as pretty as the new wife.


Agreed.... Of course, considering her medical history, it's understandable.

Hey...McCain was a wanker to his first wife and traded up for a younger, sexier, wealthier model. Big deal. People get divorces every day over much worse.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

TMMKC said:


> ...Hey...McCain was a wanker to his first wife and traded up for a younger, sexier, wealthier model. Big deal. People get divorces every day over much worse.


Yep! And I do hope Mr. McCain receives the same good-natured treatment they gave Mr. Kerry over his second wife. Mr. Beer and Mr. Ketchup seem to have a lot in common, beyond being very ambitious former servicemen that became totally enchanted with the magical ways of power in Washington, DC.

That being said it seems the former Mrs. McCain has only nice things to say about her ex-husband so the value of this "news" is probably going to be of not much use. For instance, there probably won't be any visits by the aggrieved former spouse to Larry King.

Let McCain supporters hope, though, that he's been far more able than most male senators in keeping his zip up.

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*adultering/divorcing Republican = dog bites man*

Let's focus on the prospective First Lady (). She was a drug addict for years and _John either didn't notice or didn't care_. *She stole drugs from a charity*. Her lawyer attempted to sue the whistleblower on her drug theft for extortion ().

:teacha: In closing, Cindy McCain is an addict that stole drugs from a charity.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> :teacha: In closing, Cindy McCain is an addict that stole drugs from a charity.


So instead of being First Lady you're saying that she's better suited to serving in Congress?

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I want to hear Rush Linbaugh's take on this one.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Go back to the early primaries ... that's when it was discussed.

I brought it up here then and no one seemed to think it was relevant to his charater except me.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

This is why our quality of government (at all levels) is going to sh**. The really good potential candidates refuse to subject themselves and their families to this type of unrealistic and (at times, unfair) 'destructive' scrutiny! A while back, friends suggested I run for our county sheriff's position. These days, I get asked why I declined to run. This is why!


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Ksinc,

Funny that you seem to hold it against him when his ex-wife doesnt. Almost as funny as the fact that you once mentioned that one of the reasons you don't join the military is bc the loss of income and separation might cause your wife to leave you. It seems that you are willing to give yourself a hypothetical out while refusing to extend McCain, who suffered through seven years of hell, the same courtesy.

Other than that, do you enjoy living in a glass house?

Karl


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

Kav said:


> I want to hear Rush Linbaugh's take on this one.


Rush is no fan of McCain. Is anyone?

No mention of what happened to the first wife's first husband that I saw. I assume he was divorced by her for McCain.

Considering the current state of marriage in America today I don't think there can be too many stones thrown over this mess, but I'd say it's pretty much as it appears.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

AlanC said:


> Considering the current state of marriage in America today I don't think there can be too many stones thrown over this mess, but I'd say it's pretty much as it appears.


I'm surprised that most don't care because he didn't do it today, but when it was more rare. I think something like that matters in the context of the times more than in today's context including the resulting history of McCain's political career funded by Cindy's Dad and his business partners (Charles Keating). Maybe post-Clinton it's a moot issue. However, I keep my vows and consider it important, but I should have been born in 1845 anyway. LOL One of the things I like about Romney is he seems to have been able to handle raising a family and managing a household pretty darn well and he puts a lot of emphasis on the family unit. A lot might do that, but he seems to walk the talk as well. I think that's a good example and a basic test of competence and faithfulness.

McCain is embarrassing on so many different levels ...


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Truth be told, if there was a NONE OF THE ABOVE option on our ballets I dare say we'd all punch it. This includes me voting for Nader and not McCain at this point in the race. This is America dammit all! We can, and should do a whole lot better than this police lineup. I don't care about who they sleep with. I care about still having my own place to sleep next year.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Kav said:


> Truth be told, if there was a NONE OF THE ABOVE option on our ballets I dare say we'd all punch it. This includes me voting for Nader and not McCain at this point in the race. This is America dammit all! We can, and should do a whole lot better than this police lineup. I don't care about who they sleep with. I care about still having my own place to sleep next year.


Michael Bloomberg is looking better by the second.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

TMMKC said:


> Michael Bloomberg is looking better by the second.


Other than his business success what do you know that you like about him? I don't know much/anything about him other than bloomberg.com


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

ksinc said:


> Other than his business success what do you know that you like about him? I don't know much/anything about him other than bloomberg.com


My comment was only half-serious (should have used a  or something). That told, there's a lot about Bloomberg that appeals to me: strong business credentials and a bent toward fiscal conservatism, great rags-to-riches background, social moderate, supports stem-cell research, strong no-nonsense leadership qualities and reasonably popular (70 percent approval rating by what I've read). On the downside....little to no foreign policy experience and he'd have a hard time relating to voters outside of big cities. Not sure if he knows McCain's ex or not:icon_smile_big:.

Sorry in advance for the thread deviation.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

ksinc said:


> McCain is embarrassing on so many different levels ...


Not quite as embarassing as a man who threatenes strangers on the internet, feels qualified to comment on other people's marriages and admits he would feel more comfortable in an era where slavery was legal and women couldn't vote, though.

The above comment is almost inane as AlanC asking if McCain has any fans. Almost but not quite.

Karl


----------



## David V (Sep 19, 2005)

*I'm SHOCKED...*

SHOCKED!!!

At that image of McCain in that awful fitting tuxedo and that horrid tie.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

Karl89 said:


> The above comment is almost inane as AlanC asking if McCain has any fans. Almost but not quite.


I simply asked the question. Are you a fan? Did you support him in the primary?

I don't see how anyone who calls himself a conservative could be in any way excited about McCain.

At this point I'll likely vote for Barr.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

TMMKC said:


> My comment was only half-serious (should have used a  or something). That told, there's a lot about Bloomberg that appeals to me: strong business credentials and a bent toward fiscal conservatism, great rags-to-riches background, social moderate, supports stem-cell research, strong no-nonsense leadership qualities and reasonably popular (70 percent approval rating by what I've read). On the downside....little to no foreign policy experience and he'd have a hard time relating to voters outside of big cities. Not sure if he knows McCain's ex or not:icon_smile_big:.
> 
> Sorry in advance for the thread deviation.


I don't understand people that are conservative fiscally and then want the government to fund stem cell research. That seems inconsistent to me.

It's like Medicare Part-D; it may be compassionate, but it's not conservative.

I saw Rudy Guiliani interviewed on H&C and he was asked about Bloomberg for VP and he answered by asking for which party. LOL

Bloomberg would certainly meet my test in that I will only follow someone who has been more successful than me (also Romney). McCain and Obama both fail that test. Although my Wife doesn't make what Cindy makes! LOL


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

AlanC said:


> I simply asked the question. Are you a fan? Did you support him in the primary?
> 
> I don't see how anyone who calls himself a conservative could be in any way excited about McCain.
> 
> At this point I'll likely vote for Barr.


The distinction of simply asking a question is lost on the lower 97% 

I am considering Barr too. I'm not sure I can do it, but we'll see. If McCain picks Huckabee I'm definitely out. I was sure I couldn't vote for McCain before, but now I'm waffling. It's a lose big - lose bigger situation for sure.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

A vote for Barr is a vote for Obama. Isn't there something to be said for the lesser of two evils? Certainly Obama is far more likely to promote policies that promote social issues you disagree with and high taxation than McCain is.

You might do well to think about what you really want for the future.

I am no Bush fan and am well aware of how Ralph Nader got Bush elected.

(To me, McCain is far closer to what I believe is wise for our country than Obama is.)


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

I'm another conservative who can't vote for McCain. This story confirmed my position. Anyone who abandons his wife is slime.

The problem is that the bulk of the GOP split its votes among several candidates instead of lining up behind one, thus leaving the Republican In Name Only to walk through and claim the nomination. Even a worse choice than Bob Dole in my opinion.

Maybe the Republicans will learn their lesson in 8 years and pick a real candidate. But we may be toast by then.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

So conservatives would rather get Obama elected to do all the damage he will certainly do because they don't get everything they want??

A lot of you will be paying the higher taxes. You are least likely to like the social things Obama will certainly do.

A lot of your stuff is not what the mainstream is into any more, at least right now. So if you folks and Ann Coulter don't have your way, you will cause someone far more destructive than McCain would ever dream of being to get power with a Congress packed to enact every destructive economy-slowing thing Obama will dream of.

This is interesting. Pathetic, but interesting.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

For what it's worth, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and several others have done far more damage to the conservative cause with their self-serving, self-promoting, egotistical and flat-out nasty behavior and public presentation than any liberal or McCain could possibly have done.

This behavior in regard to this important election just proves my point. It turns off a lot of people who might be convinced of your points if they could get past the obnoxious behavior so they could listen to the suggested policies.

(The idiots like Al Francken, etc. on the left have the same problem.)


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

AlanC,



AlanC said:


> I simply asked the question. Are you a fan? Did you support him in the primary?
> 
> I don't see how anyone who calls himself a conservative could be in any way excited about McCain.
> 
> At this point I'll likely vote for Barr.


I am a fan. I did vote for him in the primaries. And its obvious a man who has been elected four times to the Senate, is now the nominee of his party for President and who has a reasonable shot at becoming POTUS has fans. I don't ask that you agree with McCain and his viewpoints or even to vote for him but it seems beyond silly to ask a question that has an obvious answer.

Karl


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Once more, Nader did not get Bush elected. Nader exercised his constitutional rights and ran like anyone else who meets the basic qualifications. And I, exercising my constitutional rights voted for him. My vote is not by default the property of the two major political parties in this country. To assume this is no less oppressive than the one party communist system. No, the Democrats lost all by themselves and since Dickie Gephart never carried through his threat to 'get even' and reply to my calling him out, and Scream Dean merely played fascist in excluding Nader from the ballet in several states last time around. They 'got their football back all to themselves' and still lost. I consider the matter closed. I don't waste my time, or my vote on pussies.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Kav said:


> Once more, Nader did not get Bush elected. Nader exercised his constitutional rights and ran like anyone else who meets the basic qualifications. And I, exercising my constitutional rights voted for him. My vote is not by default the property of the two major political parties in this country. To assume this is no less oppressive than the one party communist system. No, the Democrats lost all by themselves and since Dickie Gephart never carried through his threat to 'get even' and reply to my calling him out, and Scream Dean merely played fascist in excluding Nader from the ballet in several states last time around. They 'got their football back all to themselves' and still lost. I consider the matter closed. *I don't waste my time, or my vote on pussies.*


That would make a great bumper sticker slogan. :icon_smile_big:

I agree with you about the two party system.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> That would make a great bumper sticker slogan. :icon_smile_big:
> 
> I agree with you about the two party system.


It is amazing that about 75% seem to hate both party's nominees yet we are stuck with them.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

ksinc said:


> It is amazing that about 75% seem to hate both party's nominees yet we are stuck with them.


Isn't it that way just about every election cycle? People must be really, really fickle.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

ksinc said:


> It is amazing that about 75% seem to hate both party's nominees yet we are stuck with them.


Do you support the instant runoff vote? I like the idea of ranking candidates in order of preference.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Laxplayer said:


> Do you support the instant runoff vote? I like the idea of ranking candidates in order of preference.


Or shoe size:icon_smile_big: (this is a clothing thread after all).


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> Do you support the instant runoff vote? I like the idea of ranking candidates in order of preference.


I think I'd like to see all the primaries on one day. I think all these people wouldn't be hanging on to Thompson and Huckabee hoping they pick up momentum. It's sort of like they say the courts know they are going to be reviewed so they aren't so conservative with their rulings because a mistake can always be reversed. It causes a bit of ambivalence if not pure experimenting.

In the event that a McCain was winning with 36% against two people like Huckabee and Romney - a run-off would work for me. Sure. Would it change anything? I don't know.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Maybe we need a second primary, as in...Are you sure you want to stick with this guy now that you know more about him? :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> So conservatives would rather get Obama elected to do all the damage he will certainly do because they don't get everything they want??
> 
> A lot of you will be paying the higher taxes. You are least likely to like the social things Obama will certainly do.
> 
> ...


Which is worse, to have someone you know is your enemy in power, or to have someone who's an enemy but pretends he is a friend?

McCain is not a Republican, and he's demonstrated he's ready to sell himself to anyone who will give him power.

What McCain did to his wife he will do to us.

https://thehill.com/leading-the-news/democrats-say-mccain-nearly-abandoned-gop-2007-03-28.html

https://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-03-10-mccain-vp_x.htm

https://www.mydd.com/story/2007/4/3/11936/97033


----------



## radix023 (May 3, 2007)

Kav said:


> Once more, Nader did not get Bush elected. Nader exercised his constitutional rights and ran like anyone else who meets the basic qualifications. And I, exercising my constitutional rights voted for him. My vote is not by default the property of the two major political parties in this country. To assume this is no less oppressive than the one party communist system. No, the Democrats lost all by themselves and since Dickie Gephart never carried through his threat to 'get even' and reply to my calling him out, and Scream Dean merely played fascist in excluding Nader from the ballet in several states last time around. They 'got their football back all to themselves' and still lost. I consider the matter closed. I don't waste my time, or my vote on pussies.


However, in some circles it is accepted truth that Perot made enough impact to elect Clinton over Bush (41).

a few thoughts spurred by this thread:
1) no big fuss was made over Kerry (a Catholic politician) marrying his way up the inheritance/money tree (may be sour grapes on my part)
2) Gingrich is the high water mark for despicable. When a person is fighting a serious, life-threatening disease, you need to put aside your issues and support them every way you can to help them prevail and continue their life. (on balance I find Gingrich still perceptive and well-meaning (his apparent values do appear to me to support the common good with this divorce being a major exception)).
3) even though Bushes 41 and 43 aren't Catholic, they seem to have made full commitments to their (singular in each case) brides.

PS
on an unserious note, in the 2004 cycle, I have reports that the Secret Service codename for Cindy McCain was 'cougar'.

PPS
although as a Catholic, I don't believe in divorce (and I'm not sure I agree with the annullments granted to various Kennedys), I will not stand in judgement of another person's marriage that ends in divorce. Each couple makes its own fate and it's really only between them and God


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

radix023 said:


> PPS
> although as a Catholic, I don't believe in divorce (and I'm not sure I agree with the annullments granted to various Kennedys), I will not stand in judgement of another person's marriage that ends in divorce. Each couple makes its own fate and it's really only between them and God


This is my only area of disagreement (not necessarily with your PPS, but on the whole McCain's divorce & re-marriage is not an issue) - that I don't stand in judgement of McCain either. If McCain was Joe Six-pack his marriage and my life would never cross laser beams. If I met McCain I would not mention or question his divorce to him in an effort to insult him. Unfortunately, McCain has made character an issue. I actually think that is a good thing that he has brought this issue forward as an important one in a President. However, it requires me as a discerning voter to inform and educate myself on his personal history. I am not going to just accept "Well, he says he has character so he must have it." There's a big difference between saying I don't like that and may choose not to vote for him for an office that I think the country needs a good example of a strong family man in and judging someone. When I look at the issue McCain brought forward the best man that displays character on that issue is Romney. I do not like the tabloid-type reporting about McCain either. It's simply enough to know he left he his wife for a younger model. Lots of guys have done it.

""

I have no problem being judged in the same way and by the same measure on the issue of honoring one's vows. YMMV. 

FWIW, In general I see no problem with marrying up financially, or people getting divorced as long as they modified their vows. Everything in life is negotiable. When you get married just say, "I vow to be married to you until you irritate the crap out of me enough." Then it's not an issue I have to consider when you ask to be my President.

Give Obama his due if he continues his vetting well. I'm a little suspicious on the Larry Sinclair situation. I can't imagine someone lying about that to the point of going to court, but maybe.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Obama is a lot more likely to believe in and do the things that you dislike than McCain is.

Besides, who granted the 10% at most who believe in all the farthest right things the right to control the Republican Party and all our lives anyway?? If you can't compromise and do the smart things necessary to control what you can, you probably deserve to end up pretty much out of the discussion, I suppose.

Oh well, I'm not rich, so my taxes won't be raised, and my education level will keep me working at something as long as I'm willing to sell my house for what I can get for it and move to where the job is. If Right-Wing Conservatives really want Obama to be president and are willing to passive-aggressively cause it, they probably deserve Obama.

Obama is naive and will be bad for the country, but because the Republicans were irresponsible enough to put in Bush and prop him up for 8 years, we will probably be stuck with Obama. The Conservatives with their childish games are just ensuring it. They will hurt themselves a lot more than me, probably. Oh well.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Obama is a lot more likely to believe in and do the things that you dislike than McCain is.
> 
> Besides, who granted the 10% at most who believe in all the farthest right things the right to control the Republican Party and all our lives anyway?? If you can't compromise and do the smart things necessary to control what you can, you probably deserve to end up pretty much out of the discussion, I suppose.
> 
> ...


I don't know if you are replying to me since your post wasn't really responsive/relevant to what I said. However, as a Conservative I am not totally convinced that having an honest naive man will be worse than a dishonest jaded man as President. McCain lies far to easily. It's an interesting contrast between his refusing to leave Vietnam on principle and some of the things he has said and done since meeting the young siren. Again, that's an old tune. To ignore is it is what would be a childish game IMHO. Some of the stuff the Left is saying about Cindy is true (like the drugs and the mob.) Some of the stuff they say about the Senator is true as well. Most of it isn't particularly flattering if you exclude his heroic service in Vietnam. It's difficult for me to find anything McCain has done other than the surge since leaving Vietnam that I support. As I have pointed out and no one likes to hear, even the one piece of foreign policy he really influenced, the vietnam reconciliation post-1973, angered a lot of people (Vets, POWs, and family members of) because of the "presumed dead" language. Check out what Ross Perot thinks of McCain.

Take something else for example, his tortured lies regarding his bill not being amnesty, but he's heard the people, but hasn't changed his mind, and won't vote for the same bill because the same exact bill won't come up again. It's sociopathic/pscyhopathic; whichever.

I'm also not particular concerned with the Republican party. I think you are totally off the reservation when you say something like "the right" to control the party. Conservatives don't and aren't thinking that way at all. What we are thinking is that the party (establishment) thinks they have "the right" to control our vote. That somehow we are obligated to support whatever loser wins the Republican nomination. We aren't.

Both McCain and Obama seem to thin skinned to be President.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I was actually responding to Beresford. If you want to see what Obama can and will do with a Democratic Congress, it won't be pretty.

I don't like McCain's stance on immigration, but I don't like Obama's stance on much of anything. 

I dislike the far right and the far left. The Far Right's inability to handle power well led to this situation. I'll repeat my opinion that Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter have done more to alienate the public and cause the Right to lose its ability to dominate things than anyone on the left, including the media has. The Far Left will be free to do a lot of damage now. Politics involves compromise which sometimes entails changing positions as realities in the public opinion arena change. I doubt there is a politican alive who does not twist the truth a bit.

Because we, as people, are imperfect and demand the impossible, anyone who wants the ability to help lead us has no choice but to "put the best construction on everything". I doubt that Obama is any more honest than McCain. I saw plenty of political dancing around the Wright and Ayres issues.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I was actually responding to Beresford. If you want to see what Obama can and will do with a Democratic Congress, it won't be pretty.
> 
> I don't like McCain's stance on immigration, but I don't like Obama's stance on much of anything.
> 
> ...


Thanks.

Ok, so say they are tied for honesty. Where would you fall out simply on naive vs. jaded? Maybe jaded has a place, but not in a guy that claims to be a reformer with character or whatever. I just don't think that ship will sail very far.

As an imperfect people I do not demand the impossible. I found a candidate of reasonable character, credentials, and experience and he lost. The only objection I have is that somehow I am obligated to support the man that lied knowingly, publicly, and repeatedly on the Saturday before the Florida primary to close him out in concert with the Republican establishment simply because of his religion (IMHO).


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

You are not obligated to do anything. 

If you do anything besides voting for McCain, you are helping Obama to be elected, just like Nader caused Bush to be elected, no matter who argues otherwise. 

You will certainly not like most of what Obama does. McCain has a track record and while there may be some politicking, etc (the consensus building most of the far left and far right ignore because it is more fun to compete with others they agree with to see who can be most obnoxious??), his track record and his base will keep him far more toward the center/right than Obama will even think of getting.

Right wing conservatives know this; I won't play any more games to the effect that McCain and Obama have similar politics, they don't. If right wingers want the days of Ronald Reagan to return, perhaps learning to be effective politicians instead of obnoxious blustering rabble rousers would be a first step. (Reagan, in public, always conducted himself with dignity and respected even Tip O'Neill even as he worked to push the country in an more conservative direction.)

You are free to do as you wish. 

Please don't delude yourself into thinking that any of the conservative leaders of today are "Reagans." One of the rules of the game of politics is that you have to be effective. Playing well with others, recognizing what is achievable and being logical are requirements.

When will the far left and far right realize they are the same people and just have different paths to the attention and power they crave, not to mention their domination fantasies?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Please don't delude yourself into thinking that any of the conservative leaders of today are "Reagans."


Trust me. That isn't the problem.


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

> 2) Gingrich is the high water mark for despicable. When a person is fighting a serious, life-threatening disease, you need to put aside your issues and support them every way you can to help them prevail and continue their life. (on balance I find Gingrich still perceptive and well-meaning (his apparent values do appear to me to support the common good with this divorce being a major exception)).


I think Gingrich is another total slimeball, and someone I would never support. And my position is that character runs true and you can judge a person's public character, as well as his private one, by the way he treats those closest to him. I don't know whether you know the latest on Gingrich. He last tried to rehabilitate himself preparatory to another fortunately failed presidential bid by coming on "Focus on the Family" (I think it was last fall) and confessing that he had committed adultery yet again, now cheating on his latest wife, but that he had taken it to God and God had forvigen him. What a crock!!! It was a total preemptive strike by Gingrich to get it out before the media could, and to get himself "absolved of his sins." And here was Dobson just lapping it up and saying what a godly man Gingrich was. (Dobson obviously has some huge divergences between what he preaches and what he is willing to accept to get one of "his people" in power.) I'm listening to this on the radio as I'm driving to work and am about to throw up.



> although as a Catholic, I don't believe in divorce (and I'm not sure I agree with the annullments granted to various Kennedys), I will not stand in judgement of another person's marriage that ends in divorce. Each couple makes its own fate and it's really only between them and God.


To me it's not the divorce per se that's wrong. For example, everyone in my church knows that our senior pastor is divorced and remarried. But the reason is his first wife was having an affair behind his back (this was before he went to seminary), filed divorce against him and left him for the other man. He was the innocent party, and we and our denomination accept that situation. In fact, he's one of the godliest people I know. Similarly, I can't fault Ronald Reagan; I've never heard that the reason his first marriage fell apart was that he was fooling around with other women, it was more that he and his wife's lives were both going in opposite directions.

But when a man is fooling around on his spouse and committing adultery, or where the divorce is the result of his not being faithful and having someone on the side or leaving his wife for another just because she just isn't what he wants any more and he abandons her, I hold that against him as a serious mark of a poor character.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

You do seem to think more deeply about these things than do a lot of people. 

I don't always agree with you, but you don't seem to be a "knee-jerk" guy. So many of the conservatives that are going in that direction appear to be that way to me. (However, I fully admit that I have not no polling or research; it is just a guy opinion.)

If people would put some though into this instead of letting disappointment rule their decisions, they might be happier with the end result three years from now. I don't have much to lose and won't be hurt that bad, I suppose.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I agree with you Beresford, I don't like what McCain appears to have done to wife number one. However, from what I can see, Obama maintains friendships with some really destructive people. That does not show a lot of character, either. 

If he is just using them to gain power, that is not good and does not show much character. If these are true friendships, I worry about who will be influencing him.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Ksinc,



ksinc said:


> It's simply enough to know he left he his wife for a younger model. Lots of guys have done it.
> 
> 
> > That statement proves how simple minded you are, alonng with a few other things. I am sure you think you have a window on McCain's soul and know his marriage intimately but you don't. And while you freely admit that you won't join the miltary bc you fear a six month absence might cause your wife to leave you, you refuse to give acknowledge that perhaps seven years of separation and seven years of captivity and torture as a POW might have taken its toll on McCain's marriage. That you have the gall to sit in judgement, considering the circumstances, speaks only to the fact that you are an arrogant twit.
> ...


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I don't have much to lose and won't be hurt that bad, I suppose.


That's a strange answer considering the rest of your posts, isn't it?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Should a Ross Perot, Ralph Nader or indeed, a former president ( T.R.) win the presidency what would happen? Would the Democrats file suit under their political theory of two party spoils? No, I think after the Huffingtons, Deans and Gehphardts stop the temper tantrums something else. I imagine the Democrats might actually remember what they are supposed to be and address issues beyond gay or McCain's marriage. I'm tired of the Dog and Pony show while the circus tent is about to catch fire. The romans had circuses too. Once more, my vote for Nader was a vote for Nader, not Bush. If I go to the motel with a redhead, the bleach blond crossdresser's success with the other Johns is not my fault.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Not really, ksinc. If the conservatives want to cut off their nose to spite their face, it won't be a good thing for the country. I, personally, will survive. I'm not wealthy, but can support myself in two different fields if necessary. I will have to make the best of a situation that will probably prove to be far from ideal.

I don't like some of the changes Obama will bring about, but in the end, I don't see gay marriage and abortion as things that will affect me that much. I feel those who engage in those things are sinful, but I have other things that I care about. 

The people who are speaking of abandoning McCain will hate the judges that Obama will appoint that will bring about a lot of things they will hate. The tax increase won't affect me, although they could be the straw that breaks the back of my current employer; however, the overall economy, which will be hurt by Obama, is more of a cause of that.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Kav, in an ideal world, you are right.

In our current system, dragging votes away from one of the two on the top to cast a "protest" vote for someone who can't possibly win effectively helps the person running against the candidate who would probably (not certainly, but probably) have gotten most of those votes.

It does nothing for the person who will be lucky to get 10% of the vote except to stroke their ego.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Not really, ksinc. If the conservatives want to cut off their nose to spite their face, it won't be a good thing for the country. I, personally, will survive. I'm not wealthy, but can support myself in two different fields if necessary. I will have to make the best of a situation that will probably prove to be far from ideal.
> 
> I don't like some of the changes Obama will bring about, but in the end, I don't see gay marriage and abortion as things that will affect me that much. I feel those who engage in those things are sinful, but I have other things that I care about.
> 
> The people who are speaking of abandoning McCain will hate the judges that Obama will appoint that will bring about a lot of things they will hate. The tax increase won't affect me, although they could be the straw that breaks the back of my current employer; however, the overall economy, which will be hurt by Obama, is more of a cause of that.


Ok. I was just contrasting your passion with your statement that it wouldn't affect you much. Seemed odd. I can see what you are saying about social issues, but the overall economy and issues like the union cards and health insurance taxes are going to cripple us all. There's also his equal pay deal where the government is going to classify workers and employers are going to have to standardize job descriptions.

One of the things I try to beat in the heads of my mentees is to rid themself of the phrase "job security" and think in terms of "market security." Having any kind of dual/blended skill-set is a big key to that. So, I agree with you on the different fields as options. We are also diversifying our income into international markets so we have some cashflow if the US goes towards depression. I don't think it will, but it pays to be prepared. It's an interesting world with so many mini-markets and globalization being the micro and macro themes. Plenty of opportunities exist for those that have credentials, skills, and some creativity. I am completely focused on finishing this CPA Exam. It's amazing the number of people that know me that can't figure out why I am taking it since I am not going to 'practice' public accounting. However, my other credentials qualify me for several different TLAs once I have the CPA that are going to be extremely valuable in the next 10-15 years. Most of which I already qualify for once I have the CPA. Like the CPA.CITP tag, the CVA, and the CFFA, for example, that really certify me as a triple-threat. I was talking with someone last night who is doing a similar strategy and trying to particpate, but also detach themselves from the economy. It's a strange new world


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

There are a lot of things he will do that will inhibit employers' flexibility. Now I'm reading about a new thing where they are mandating sick leave. They are stating studies that show it will actually save employers money. If it really will, smart employers will adopt it. 

Government does not need to mandate it.

I'm more of a centrist, but I worked as an auditor five years in our state government, and the civil service is a system that destroys incentive and enthusiasm. It should be involved in as little as possible. 

(I'm not all that big on cramming my religion down people's throats like a lot of the more conservative types. The best way to combat sin is by setting a good example and by educating people, not by forcing people to submit against their will. I'm not also all that big on the liberals legally forcing their opinions on others.)


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Ksinc,
> 
> Funny that you seem to hold it against him when his ex-wife doesnt. Almost as funny as the fact that you once mentioned that one of the reasons you don't join the military is bc the loss of income and separation might cause your wife to leave you. It seems that you are willing to give yourself a hypothetical out while refusing to extend McCain, who suffered through seven years of hell, the same courtesy.
> 
> ...





Karl89 said:


> Not quite as embarassing as a man who threatenes strangers on the internet, feels qualified to comment on other people's marriages and admits he would feel more comfortable in an era where slavery was legal and women couldn't vote, though.
> 
> The above comment is almost inane as AlanC asking if McCain has any fans. Almost but not quite.
> 
> Karl





Karl89 said:


> Ksinc,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Ksinc,

The funny thing is that you think you actually make salient points in your arguments. You don't even merit the sympathy to be considered sad and once again I am overjoyed that you won't be voting for McCain as he need not be sullied by your support.

Karl


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Ksinc,
> 
> The funny thing is that you think you actually make salient points in your arguments. Howard looks like a Nobel Laureate preparing to travel to Stockholm compared to you. You don't even merit the sympathy to be considered sad and once again I am overjoyed that you won't be voting for McCain as he need not be sullied by your support.
> 
> Karl


*STFUYLB*


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Ksinc,

It will get worse if I disagree with you and point out your foolish statements? By worse do you mean you will call me names or again threaten me with violence? Its hard to believe you are really 39 bc you have the mentality of a seven year old with the mindset of someone from the 19th century.

You really cant be such a dunce can you? This is really some sort of peformance art on your part right? Again I predict that there is a greater than zero chance of your name being followed by the words "went postal" in the near future.

Karl


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Ksinc,
> 
> It will get worse if I disagree with you and point out your foolish statements? By worse do you mean you will call me names or again threaten me with violence? Its hard to believe you are really 39 bc you have the mentality of a seven year old with the mindset of someone from the 19th century.
> 
> ...


If you weren't lying, insulting, and stupid it wouldn't be a problem, but you are and it is. A small problem with a simple solution -> STFU.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Ksinc,

Pretty rich coming from someone like you is is crass and crude beyond belief, likes to threaten people with physical violence and tries to intimidate those who disagree with him into silence.

Any why do you think you can take liberties with my user name when you yourself cried like a baby (to compare you to a little girl would be unfair to little girls) when I simply addressed you by your given name? But unlike you I won't whine to the moderators. 

Now go post some inane reply, I expect nothing more of you.

Karl


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Ksinc,
> 
> Pretty rich coming from someone like you is is crass and crude beyond belief, likes to threaten people with physical violence and tries to intimidate those who disagree with him into silence.
> 
> ...


I have no problem with people who disagree with me. People do it all the time.

I have a problem with people who think they can get away with things they can't or cry when someone is going to hold them to account.

I have a problem with *YOU*. The problem is: you are a big LIAR.

There's a big difference between calling names and calling someone out.

You've been called out repeatedly for your lies and the facts have been given and you act like a COWARD. Instead of owning up to your lies; you post insults and assume that which you are not entitled.

If you had any self-respect at all and weren't a pathetic, lying, littlebitch you would shut up.

If we're making predictions; I predict someday you'll probably slit your wrists like a pussy.


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

Okay guys, we get it. You don't like each other. It's probably time to take it to PM if you want to continue.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Ksinc,

You sure know how to turn a phrase. And odd that you see someone disagreeing with you as a lie. You seem to be paranoid. But no worries, no one is out to get you, as you aren't important enough. You are a perfect example of the limits of a mediocre intellect (and mediorce is being charitable.)

But I will let you have the last word as we all stand spellbound at your command of the English language. And any words you don't quite understand in this post, just try and sound them out or get your wife to help you - I am sure she would be astonished by some of your posts.

Karl


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

Time to cool off, Karl. Don't say you weren't warned.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I see one party suspended in this . Apparently while it takes two to fight , our impartial moderators struggle counting past one when it comes down to impartiality.


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

I see you too have a hard time reading, Kav. He was suspended not for the crap he (and ksinc) spewed before my warning, but for not stopping when I asked. Do you see a post by ksinc after my warning? I don't. And if you have a problem with the moderator's decisions, please have the guts and decency to take it to PM as per the Ask Andy rules.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Karl elected to continue the argument and lost out. I will try to contact him through other channels to see what is going on. As much as I consider Karl to be a friend I believe Teacher was right to step in.

P.S. I pretty much agree with Forsberg. :icon_smile:


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Must be from reading all those proscribed books in Fargo like J.D. Salinger and Darwin. I apologise


----------

