Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: SIG220 on February 21, 2008, 02:27:04 AM
-
Several investigative reporters from the New York Times have been working on uncovering a possible extra-martial affair that John McCain had with a woman 31 years his junior 8 years ago when he first ran for President back in 2000.
They have unearthed a wealth of evidence pointing to a possible romantic relationship between the two that took place back then.
Should this matter? Are ethics and morality especially relevant in light of McCain's history of fighting for ethics reform? Must a President be faithful to his spouse, in order for the country to trust him to be faithful to the American people?? What about Clinton's affairs? What about ones that we now know that Presidents Kennedy, Eisenhower, and Franklin Roosevelt all had??
Here is a link to the NY Times investigative report, and the evidence they have discovered:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html
Or is this perhaps a dirty political witch hunt, only coming out now that McCain is all but assured the Republican nomination??
-
I couldn't be worse than an asexual president who helped cover up her husband's extra-marital affairs for political reasons now could it?
-
Originally posted by SD67
I couldn't be worse than an asexual president who helped cover up her husband's extra-marital affairs for political reasons now could it?
So are you saying that she is not telling the truth when she says that she believed Bill when he said that he was innocent all of those many years?? And did not know that he was really cheating??
-
ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzz......
-
Originally posted by SIG220
So are you saying that she is not telling the truth when she says that she believed Bill when he said that he was innocent all of those many years?? And did not know that he was really cheating??
Apart from the oblivious sarcasm dripping from the comment, there is ample evidence that shows Hillary knew of Bill's indiscretions. She was even known to comment on them, sometimes in inappropriate circumstances.
By having this knowledge she also was therefore complicit in helping to cover them up in the face of the general public.
-
Originally posted by rpm
ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzz......
-
Originally posted by rpm
ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzz......
You mean you are not interested in what the candidates are doing in their bedrooms???
-
Originally posted by SIG220
You mean you are not interested in what the candidates are doing in their bedrooms???
New York Times??????
They haven't a clue about anything thats going on in the real world, much less McCain's bedroom.
-
There are almost no sources to say this is true
-
This kind of crap almost makes me want to vote for McCain.
-
lefty ny times smear tactic .. plain and simple
-
I'm not interested in what the candidates are doing in their bedroom. I am interested in what they are doing on the job in their office and.. if they lie under oath about it.
If you get caught having sex in your office with an underling or.. anyone for that matter.... I bet you get fired.
lazs
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
This kind of crap almost makes me want to vote for McCain.
I think it's just a counter to the Obama Drug fueled gay sex allegation.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by SIG220
You mean you are not interested in what the candidates are doing in their bedrooms???
No.
-
Something smells really wrong with both their un-named sources and their timing. Why didn't they run this back in December when the article was actually written?
Imho, someone is pulling the NY Times' strings...
Here is another news story for you;
"The New York Times Is Full of Crap" according to source.
-
I watched a Democratic investigator on TV last night. He said his committee investigated it thoroughly and found that there was no evidence, the claims themselves could not possibly have been true and there was no one who would back them up. Basically, even he was certain the entire accusation was contrived and was only going forward due to politics.
-
Gee ny times huh. Let me guess, it might not be related to a candidate from that same location would it. A candidate that has a history of negative campaigning. Naahh, it couldn't possibly be anything like that!
-
To sum up the story. a few of JM former staff "thought" he "might" have had an affair but provide no evidence of there of.
Sig states ......They have unearthed a wealth of evidence pointing to a possible romantic relationship between the two that took place back then.
I want the NYT to put of or STFU.
This was their way to bring up the Keating scandal with out looking like the Democrat lap lickers they are.
-
Originally posted by Delirium
Something smells really wrong with both their un-named sources and their timing. Why didn't they run this back in December when the article was actually written?
Because they wanted McCain to get the nom. If they'd run it back then, it is possible that the Mitt would have done better...they think John is easier to beat .. and in this case .. smear.
-
Originally posted by rpm
ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzz......
I'll go with that.... and somebody please tell Matt Lauer to STFU, please....
-
Remember folks, the Republicans are the part of light. They didn't do anything wrong, and if they did, they did it for the right reasons and you should thank your lucky stars that they had the fortitude to do it. The Democrats, on the other hand, exist as shadowy vespers, attaching themselves to the moral fabric of our country and vampirically sucking it dry. A black ichor runs through their veins in place of patriotic American red blood, and the baleful glances they shoot at you contain an ill-concealed lust for your freedoms.
It says right in the bible that thou shalt not suffer a democrat to live, so walk through life with your head held high, ever watchful for the damning influences of their steady encroachment, and don't forget to vote the party line.
;)
btw, vote Ron Paul.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Remember folks, the Republicans are the part of light. They didn't do anything wrong, and if they did, they did it for the right reasons and you should thank your lucky stars that they had the fortitude to do it. The Democrats, on the other hand, exist as shadowy vespers, attaching themselves to the moral fabric of our country and vampirically sucking it dry. A black ichor runs through their veins in place of patriotic American red blood, and the baleful glances they shoot at you contain an ill-concealed lust for your freedoms.
It says right in the bible that thou shalt not suffer a democrat to live, so walk through life with your head held high, ever watchful for the damning influences of their steady encroachment, and don't forget to vote the party line.
;)
btw, vote Ron Paul.
Hehe, I was just gonna say that when Bill did it, it was important, but if John did it, it is not.
Your version is much more eloquent:)
shamus
-
the question about McCain should not be one about inappropriate personal relationships. It should be about having a close personal working relationship with a lobbyist that has business being overseen by a committee he (McCain) was chairing at the time.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
the question about McCain should not be one about inappropriate personal relationships. It should be about having a close personal working relationship with a lobbyist that has business being overseen by a committee he (McCain) was chairing at the time.
Bingo
-
Originally posted by Yeager
the question about McCain should not be one about inappropriate personal relationships. It should be about having a close personal working relationship with a lobbyist that has business being overseen by a committee he (McCain) was chairing at the time.
isn't that the job of a lobbyist? To talk to politicians?
-
It isn't the lobbyist who would be in trouble for this, they're just doing their job. The problem is if an elected official allows the lobbyist to succeed too thoroughly at the expense of his or her constituents.
-
some people don't understand what a lobbyist is.
A lobbyist is a person hired by a group to look out for that groups interests in the affairs of government.
-
Originally posted by Shamus
Bingo
Yes I dunno...
maybe he was confused?
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/02/20/us/20mccain-190a.jpg) (http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/07/31/convention.wrap/story.cindy.mccain.jpg)
:D
-
Originally posted by john9001
some people don't understand what a lobbyist is.
A lobbyist is a person hired by a group to look out for that groups interests in the affairs of government.
John9001, your message suggest that you may be somewhat confused, I hope I can help. If the story was true, then the lobbyist would not be the one in trouble. The politician having the affair with the lobbyist would be because it would create the appearance of the lobbyist having undue influence on the elected official.
So again, yes, the lobbyist is doing her job, really well in fact. It's the politician that could be in trouble.
-
If you are going to make an accusation like that you better have the facts to back it up. Maybe its true, almost certainly its not from what I have heard.
-
Agreed, any accusation like this needs some serious fact checking and demands a high standard of evidence. Attempting to manipulate the public through insinuation is poisonous to democracy.
If the media gives a rumor legs, then they're doing a terrible thing. If, however, they can demonstrate conclusively that there's real evidence supporting it, then it could be a legit story.
-
Could anything be worse than selling military secrets to China for campaign money? Even murdering those who threaten your career or selling thousands of pardons isn't as bad imo. You've got to stoop pretty low to establish a new presidential precedent.
-
Even if he turns out to be sleazing... he's no Bill Clinton.
-
Thomas Jefferson had one too with his wife's half sister.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
the question about McCain should not be one about inappropriate personal relationships. It should be about having a close personal working relationship with a lobbyist that has business being overseen by a committee he (McCain) was chairing at the time.
And that, is exactly what it is about. It's amazing everyone seems to be zeroed in on a sex angle... the big deal is that he was palling around with a lobbyist that was actively involved in his dealings with the FCC which he was ruling on.
-
Who really cares. If hes getting it on with women half his age, then good for him. When Slick Willy was getting serviced in the oval office the economy did well. So if McCain is getting some in the white house then maybe the economy will be good again.
-
It is interesting that the NY Times endorsed McCain as their republican candidate. I'd wonder about what the next few days of this story will bring. I would seriously wonder if a mainstream paper such as the Times would fictionalize this story.... they must feel they have a pretty solid foundation for the story.
I'll wait to render judgement until the rest of the facts come out. The article is interestingly bland in it's details... It might be a case of the facts being a little more substantial than they may have wanted to release.
I hold my judgement for a while, whatever the case.
-
Originally posted by C(Sea)Bass
Who really cares. If hes getting it on with women half his age, then good for him. When Slick Willy was getting serviced in the oval office the economy did well. So if McCain is getting some in the white house then maybe the economy will be good again.
Sir sex is one thing. I don't care where and when the guy gets his willy wet. I don't care when or where ANY republican or democrat does.
Getting friendly with a senator that is on a deciding committee that is dealing with the industry you are a lobbyist for.... is completely another.
It is wrong and it was the original reason for the capitol being moved from NY to the then "swamplands" of Virginia....Lobbyists were getting way too much access to lever holders and deciders in power.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
And that, is exactly what it is about. It's amazing everyone seems to be zeroed in on a sex angle... the big deal is that he was palling around with a lobbyist that was actively involved in his dealings with the FCC which he was ruling on.
He as dose others has lobbyist on his election staff. It's not uncommon. The bigger questions are :
1. The NYT was forced to run the story sooner then they had planed do to competitors
If so then when were they planning to run it? Perhaps in August when it would do the most harm?
2. If the NYT had this story in December as is implied when they said the sat on the story, Then why did they indorse JM.
Perhaps to set him up for a primary win so they could assassinate him with this head shot later.
3.They story of 4 pages has about two paragraphs about the alleged affair, the rest is about the Keating 5, four democrats and JM,
A blatant attempt to dredge up a 20 plus old news story
-
Originally posted by JBA
A blatant attempt to dredge up a 20 plus old news story
well, there is no bad news out of Iraq, so they have to print some "news".
-
Originally posted by texasmom
Even if he turns out to be sleazing... he's no Bill Clinton.
I knew Bill Clinton.
Bill Clinton was a freind of mine.
John McCain is no Bill Clinton.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I knew Bill Clinton.
Bill Clinton was a freind of mine.
John McCain is no Bill Clinton.
True, he was unsuccessful at dodging military service during Vietnam, unlike Clinton.
-
Originally posted by SIG220
True, he was unsuccessful at dodging military service during Vietnam, unlike Clinton.
In order to be unsucessful at dodging, I would think one must have attempted to dodge.
I am not aware that McCain attempted that. With a Admiral for a father, I would think that McCain volunteered.
My post was a paraphrase from political history.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
And that, is exactly what it is about. It's amazing everyone seems to be zeroed in on a sex angle... the big deal is that he was palling around with a lobbyist that was actively involved in his dealings with the FCC which he was ruling on.
There is yet to be any evidence that Mr Straight-talk tried to get this lobbyist's wishes through--he DID ask (wrote a letter) the FCC to stop delaying a decision affecting the lady's company in question--no evidence he tried to influence the outcome of said decision.
So typical---NYT could have run this before New Hampshire, when McCain was an outsider and Romney was the likely nominee--they run adoring story after adoring story of McCain, either neutral or negative coverage of Romney---now that McCain is the likely nominee, they try to torpedo him with an 8 year old-thus-far-unprovable story. Perhaps now McCain will grasp that being a thorn in the Gop's side and garnering lavish praise from the Times is fine until there is a candidate that the Times REALLY wants to succeed
-
Originally posted by SIG220
True, he was unsuccessful at dodging military service during Vietnam, unlike Clinton.
Umm...McCain went to Annapolis?
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Umm...McCain went to Annapolis?
That makes sense.
The bad omen on the horizon is that the only president to have attended the Naval Academy was Jimmy Carter.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
That makes sense.
The bad omen on the horizon is that the only president to have attended the Naval Academy was Jimmy Carter.
And probably the most honest and moral President in our history.
-
Honest & moral, yes. A great prez, maybe not so much.
-
Oops, it looks like she slept with more politicians than just McCain:
(http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/12335/thumbs/s-ISEMAN-large.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Eagler
lefty ny times smear tactic .. plain and simple
And where was the time comments on Osamas Wifes screw up?Page buried?The times threw out unsubstantiated bs just to try to help Hilldog.Plain and simple BS.
-
And lets not forget how John Boys major combatant in the rep race said hes never known him to be less than an honorable man.Had this been a dem issue with Obama Hilldog would have gut him like a fish over this bs.
-
And probably the most honest and moral President in our history.
====
Jimmy Carter is an honest and moral man, without doubt, but your slagging an awful lot of good men by using that word, probably.
-
Perfect example of how the media is used to control the public to decide who the next president will be.
-
The times endorsed mccain because they thought that he was the worst republican candidate.. that he was more like a liberal democrat than the rest.
They are now trashing him because he has it cinched and no matter what.. they don't want any republican to win.
Not sure what moray is saying. Moray..are you saying that you can't be "friendly" with someone if they are a lobbyist? like the brady bunch with all those high profile democrats? I am not sure what you mean by "friendly".
lazs