PDA

View Full Version : Rowdy McCain Caught In Lie About Physical Attack



Gayle in MD
04-21-2008, 10:36 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/20/john-mccain-charles-grass_n_97626.html

This Washington Post Article, no doubt, is just the beginning of more that will surely surface regarding McCain's emotional issues which seem to be caused from his overall mental problems, his belief that his war service should insure that all agree with him, at all times, about all issues, or else, he'll stick his long blade right through your back.

Since he has admitted, himself, in his book, that he was a punk in his youth, with behavior issues, and an uncontrolable temper, perhaps people will be able to see through his playhouse 90 styled "Act" which is so obviously designed to make him appear just one step away from the Dali Lama, as he attempts to whisper his way into the White House, fists tightly controlled at his side.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

Deeman3
04-21-2008, 10:45 AM
Gayle,

He probably is a maniacal serial killer but give him some slack on his hands clenched at his sides. He was tortured and his arms have been very restricted in the years since he lounging around in a Viet Cong prison camp.

So, when he stuck a long blade into someone's back, was there footage as he dodged sniper fire? I even hear he pretended to be on a jet that exploded on a carrier deck back then. Wait, they do have film of that. Wanna blame him now for the bomb going off or wait til later? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

sack316
04-21-2008, 10:58 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/19/AR2008041902224.html

figured I'd post a link to the actual Washington Post article that your Huffington Post article refers to. Indeed his temper is an issue, but it is a divided opinion as to whether or not it is to the benefit or detriment of his capabilities. I'll leave that thought to each person to decide for themselves, just felt it only right to present the words in their entirety rather than a few snippets from Huffington, whom I don't read regularly but a quick browse through appeared a little left of center.

Sack

p.s. aren't tantrums of the great Bill Clinton fairly common knowledge? Where do "purple face" rantings and "clenched fists" rantings rank with each other on the scale? I mean, his fuse was short but apparently we were all gravy under him.

Gayle in MD
04-21-2008, 11:01 AM
If you read the Article, you'll understand the reference to the clinched fists.

Gayle in Md.

sack316
04-21-2008, 11:05 AM
A clenched fist leaves no finger pointed outwards to press a button /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif



Sack

Gayle in MD
04-21-2008, 11:15 AM
Thanks, Sack,

I guess you didn't see it, but the link was right there on the page that I did link, on Huffpo. I used that link because I didn't know if others could access the whole article from the Wapo web site. The article can be read in full, from the link I provided.

I think it is the consistency of his attacks, verbal and otherwise, over the years, which worry me about McCain.

I believe, having done a fair share of study in the field of psychology over the course of my lifetime, that his problems arise from attitudes which are deeply rooted in his personality. Given the many people I know personally who have seen him in action, over a period of years, I must say, the article is a fair assessment of his M. O., in my opinion.

Losing control of one's senses, can hardly be considered an advantage, regardless of what circumstance one faces at the moment, IMO.

I believe we will get a good deal more information on things like this, in the coming months. I know there are many more stories that will be documented by others, who have been treated in the same manner, by McCain. This is just the tip of the iceberg, as they say.

Gayle in Md.

sack316
04-21-2008, 11:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thanks, Sack,

I guess you didn't see it, but the link was right there on the page that I did link, on Huffpo.
</div></div>

oops, tired blind eyes did not see it originally, my apoligies /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

My guess is, with the anger issues, it will all come out in the wash over the coming months. Once the general election rolls around, with all the added pressure along with opposing viewpoints being fired away at will in debates and such, we will see how he handles it. If he manages to take all the things to come in stride I believe it will help his cause tremendously--- as it will appear stories such as this were blown out of proportion. If, however, he flies off the handle and loses it, obviously the opposite will occur and could cost him big time. As with many things this election season--- we'll just have to wait and see what happens.

And again, sorry if I came off slightly smart-assed in my first response with the link and all, I re-read it and saw that it may have come off that way. Indeed, I am a smart-ass... but that particular post was not intended that way /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Sack

eg8r
04-21-2008, 11:34 AM
If he is elected I guess we will just have to see who's temper was worse, the Clintons or the McCains. The one way to tell is to see who broke more lamps. The clintons do hold the record for that.

eg8r

eg8r
04-21-2008, 11:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Indeed his temper is an issue, but it is a divided opinion as to whether or not it is to the benefit or detriment of his capabilities.</div></div> Why would you even bother debate this with Gayle. She is completely ignoring the long history of bad tempers by the Clintons and trying to make McCain out to be some villain. She does not think the clinton's tempers impede on their capabilities but she definitely thinks differently about any Rep running for office.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
04-21-2008, 11:41 AM
No problem, Sack. I like the huffpo website because one may link up to so many newspapers without going through that whole process most of them require. On Wapo, and a few others, I have complete access, Because I am a subcrriber.

You can understand, I'm sure, why I wouldn't think these stories are being blown out of proportion, since I've been hearing about them for decades, from personal friends. That's why I feel safe in saying, that there are surely many more to come.

I think a man like McCain, in the White House, would be very dangerous indeed.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
04-21-2008, 11:44 AM
As usual, Ed, you make accusation for which you have, and provide, no proof.

Nothing new about that. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

I don't think I've read about Bill Clinton, or Hillary, having to be restrained by their fellow party members. Please enlighten us, oh great one, but provide some proof, for a change. Sarcasm and accusations are cheap.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
04-21-2008, 12:14 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't think I've read about Bill Clinton, or Hillary, having to be restrained by their fellow party members. Please enlighten us, oh great one, but provide some proof, for a change. Sarcasm and accusations are cheap.</div></div> If you have not read about their tempers then maybe you need to open your eyes and quit reading your biased reports. If I made it up then how was Sack aware of it?

eg8r

pooltchr
04-21-2008, 05:54 PM
Ed,
We've all read and heard accounts of Hillary's temper even as just first lady. She was known to share her wrath with anyone around if the mood struck.
But we can't say anything bad about the Clintons in front of Gayle. Her partisan blinders have her dead set against any Republican, and I still haven't figured out if she supports Hillary because of her feminism zeal, or because she just hates men. Either way, you aren't going to get through to her. Hillary is the symbol of downtrodden women everywhere, and in Gayle's eyes, that's good enough to make her presidential material. Don't try to confuse her with facts.
Steve

Qtec
04-21-2008, 07:06 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/20/john-mccain-charles-grass_n_97626.html

This Washington Post Article, no doubt, is just the beginning of more that will surely surface regarding McCain's emotional issues which seem to be caused from his overall mental problems, his belief that his war service should insure that all agree with him, at all times, about all issues, or else, he'll stick his long blade right through your back.

Since he has admitted, himself, in his book, that he was a punk in his youth, with behavior issues, and an uncontrolable temper, perhaps people will be able to see through his playhouse 90 styled "Act" which is so obviously designed to make him appear just one step away from the Dali Lama, as he attempts to whisper his way into the White House, fists tightly controlled at his side.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif </div></div>

WOW!!! McCain is a psycho killer. A loose cannon! I guess the LW dominated press in the USA will be running this 24/7.

Can't wait for the week long FoxNews expose.


LMAO

Q

sack316
04-21-2008, 10:13 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> If I made it up then how was Sack aware of it?

eg8r </div></div>

Actually it was referenced in the original Washington Post article that was used here in the first place /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

But I was indeed aware of such things beforehand. Indeed the purple face has been the fodder for many stories.

In the interest of fairness (odd as it may seem on this board, some of us do at least attempt to get an understanding of where the other side is sitting--- even if we don't agree), but in the interest of fairness... the accounts I've heard or read about Bill included quite the temper and some hissy fits, they were relatively short lived (my best estimation is maybe after a nights sleep he was over it for then)... but the burn on McCain seems to be that his fits evolve into grudges being held.

But then again I'm OK with that, I still wear my "We Will Not Forget" T-Shirt... I tend to possibly hold a grudge for extended periods of time... I could see myself seeking long term revenge on one that may have wronged me... for some reason I see those as "human" qualities and traits--- be they for better or worse.

And even if "holding grudges" is the key difference between the two, I'm curious as to how long we'll be hearing about how poorly Bush did... if holding grudges is a bad thing afterall (?)

Sack

Sack

eg8r
04-22-2008, 06:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Actually it was referenced in the original Washington Post article that was used here in the first place

But I was indeed aware of such things beforehand. Indeed the purple face has been the fodder for many stories.
</div></div> The only person to even remotely act like I just made that up is the one that is the most biased on this board. Her head is stuck in the sand and she will make up whatever story she can in hopes it will help a pitiful Democratic showing on election day. She is beginning to notice the Dem party has put two terrible candidates up for nomination and they have potentially really screwed up this election. With such a great opportunity for the Dems to just sweep through the elections this year they throw up two pitiful candidates and the best argument they have right now (when not fighting with each other) is that McCain sometimes cannot control his temper.

eg8r

eg8r
04-22-2008, 06:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hillary is the symbol of downtrodden women everywhere, and in Gayle's eyes, that's good enough to make her presidential material. Don't try to confuse her with facts.</div></div> We keep hearing about all this experience of hillary's yet it gets shot down every time. The woman has no more experience than Obama other than sitting in her fancy seat in the senate and voting along party lines.

eg8r

Deeman3
04-22-2008, 07:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hillary is the symbol of downtrodden women everywhere, and in Gayle's eyes, that's good enough to make her presidential material. Don't try to confuse her with facts.</div></div> We keep hearing about all this experience of hillary's yet it gets shot down every time. The woman has no more experience than Obama other than sitting in her fancy seat in the senate and voting along party lines.

eg8r </div></div>


Ed,

You know, I was thinking last night while watching Chelsie Clinton in Philadelphia for her Mom. She spent 8 years in the White House, she was on all those trips with gunfore ablaze! Maybe that qualifies her for the presidency! I mean, she has the pantsuits. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif Think about it.

eg8r
04-22-2008, 07:51 AM
My vote is for Chelsea. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

Gayle in MD
04-22-2008, 08:07 AM
LOL, yeah, Steve, you have surely proven over the years the great respect you show for women, and being capable of acknowledging all the dreary results of the Bush administration, and the last majority Republican Congress, proves how unbiased you are.

When a person can't admit that going into Iraq was a disasterous mistake, that the REpublican Party, Bush et al, lied into this war, that Bush's tax cuts favor the wealthy, that both this war, and the war in Vietnam, were/are militarily unwinnable, Civil wars, and that this administration has shown the greatest abuse of American troops, EVER, well, suffice it to say, you're certainly no beacon of unbiased thought. That said, you also have the distinction of having made the most sexist post ever posted on this web site. That hardly qualifies you to accuse me of hating men, simply because you can't admit to the Republican messes we're facing at this time.

If you think that Americans are going to rush out to vote for more of this Republican created mess which country is in at present, you're still living in La La Land. I believe you made the statement not so long ago, "If the Democrats are doing so good how come they can't raise money like the Republicans." Not the exact words, but surely the intent behind the statement.

I suppose you're ready to back off that one atleast?

Desperate as the Republican Party is at present, their right wing BS will never achieve the results for which they are famous, muddying up the waters to lead the country away from the important issues. Americans can add two and two, and results of Cheney's secret oil deals, are all to obvious at the gas pumps, as hedge fund operators continue to make billions upon billions, and big oil's profits go through the roof, people know what's happening, and they're not going to vote for more of the same. Republicans statements about market driven costs, are a joke, and throwing around the socialist word, doesn't countr for much to the average American Middle Class family which has felt the results of Bush's policies long enough to know that they are not going to vote Republican in the Fall.

All the insults in the world, won't change that. Democrats will take the White House, and a majority in both houses. Hillary and Obama, will run together, if necessary, but this country is not going to Vote Republican, and that is more than clear in dollars and cents.

McCain, wouldn't be where he is if he hadn't been captured by the Vietnamese, Obama probably wouldn't be where he is if he was both black, and a great orator. Hillary wouldn't be where she is if she hadn't been First Lady, but this country wouldn't be where it is right now if Republicans hadn't made so many blunders, told so many lies, kept so many secrets, and borrowed us into colossal debt.

Since you're aainst raising taxes to plow us out of debt, just how do you propose to pay it down?

Since any assistance for AMericans is called socialism, by you, and is your perpetual, incorrect statement, I'm sure you're fine with Bush borrowing trillions from a communist country, and the facist nation he is creating, along with his determination to drive down wages, drive up oil prices, and create another low wage slave society in America, which is already revolting against this government, even though they aren't even Americans.

Thanks, Reagan, for ignoring our immigration laws. Every mess we're facing, can be tracked right back to Republican policies, including the creation of the terrorist nation.

Gayole in Md.

Gayle in MD
04-22-2008, 08:18 AM
LOL, don't worry about the Democrats, Ed, they're collecting money at over twice the rate of the Republicans.

Democrats have not one, but two candidates that their bas is thrilled over. If you thing McCain has a shot at the White HOuse, you're dreaming.

Meanwhile, keep on doing what you always do, denying reality, blowing things out of proportion, and using the Right wing rhetoric to cover up for the gross incompetence of your party.

LOL, Nothing demonstrates Republican fantasy more than listening to them try to build the case that Democrats are in trouble. The Washing Press Core is right wing, but they can't pull it off this time. Too many Middle Class people are suffering, they can't be fooled anymore.

Gayle in Md.

pooltchr
04-22-2008, 05:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> "If the Democrats are doing so good how come they can't raise money like the Republicans." Not the exact words, but surely the intent behind the statement.

<span style="color: #FF0000"> Obama seems to be doing ok in that area. Hillary, on the other hand, has already had to dip into her personal account for about $5M if memory serves me correctly. And the word is if she doesn't win big in PA, her donations will really take a nosedive. They are spending all their money beating each other up.</span>

I suppose you're ready to back off that one atleast?

Democrats will take the White House, and a majority in both houses. Hillary and Obama, will run together, if necessary, but this country is not going to Vote Republican, and that is more than clear in dollars and cents.
<span style="color: #FF0000"> Can we hold back comment on that statement until after November?</span>

McCain, wouldn't be where he is if he hadn't been captured by the Vietnamese, Obama probably wouldn't be where he is if he was both black, and a great orator. Hillary wouldn't be where she is if she hadn't been First Lady, <span style="color: #FF0000">
Are you saying that we as Americans are voting simply because someone is a former POW, a well spoken black man, or the wife of a former president? 3 very poor reasons to choose the leader of our country in my opinion.</span>
Since you're aainst raising taxes to plow us out of debt, just how do you propose to pay it down? <span style="color: #FF0000">The same way I would do it in my own home faced with that situation...cut out excess spending! </span>

Since any assistance for AMericans is called socialism, by you, and is your perpetual, incorrect statement, I'm sure you're fine with Bush borrowing trillions from a communist country, and the facist nation he is creating, along with his determination to drive down wages, drive up oil prices, and create another low wage slave society in America, which is already revolting against this government, even though they aren't even Americans.
<span style="color: #FF0000"> I don't know why I bother. How many times do I have to say I don't support GW's economic policies before you understand?</span>


Gayole in Md.



</div></div>
<span style="color: #FF0000">In all my life, I have yet to meet anyone who can twist things around the way you are capable of doing. If I said the sun rises in the East, you could find a way to find fault with it, and blame all Republicans that California is being treated unfairly because the east coast gets to see the sunrise first every day. </span>

Gayle in MD
04-23-2008, 05:31 AM
" Obama seems to be doing ok in that area. Hillary, on the other hand, has already had to dip into her personal account for about $5M if memory serves me correctly. And the word is if she doesn't win big in PA, her donations will really take a nosedive. They are spending all their money beating each other up. "

This has nothing to do with my sentence. I was obviously referring to the Democratic Party, vs. the Republican party.


"Are you saying that we as Americans are voting simply because someone is a former POW, a well spoken black man, or the wife of a former president? 3 very poor reasons to choose the leader of our country in my opinion."

I am addressing the fact that all the effort that some here have put into painting Hillary as having road into her political campaigns, solely by being a former First Lady, can also be lodged at both other candidates, running in this election, along quite a few of our former presidents.


"The same way I would do it in my own home faced with that situation...cut out excess spending! "

I agree, subsidizing big oil, for example, ass backwards way to free us from oil dependency. If anything, we should have subsidized our automobile industry, here, to push ahead with higher cafe' standards, which instead, Bush reduced. Throughout his administration his policies have been oil friendly, and subsidizng billions to an industry which is recording record profits, Nation Building on the other side of the world, and paying for it by borrowing huge amounts of money from communist countries, running up National deficits, Trade Deficits, and spending half our money on defense, represents the bulk of spending, and losses, and is exactly the kind of spending, and waste that has us in a recession which is denied by Bush,.... laughable. If you didn't twist everything I write, I wouldn't have to recap everything.


" don't know why I bother. How many times do I have to say I don't support GW's economic policies before you understand? "

About as long as it takes you to understand that I'm talking about REPUBLICAN POLICIES.

Gayle in MD
04-23-2008, 05:43 AM
One of your funnier posts, Ed, and a real commentary to your partisan blinders.

Democrats are out raising money of REpublicans by two to three times. But you go right on a head and believe what you must, and call everyone else liars, accuse them of wearing the blinders, and ignore the facts.

Democrats have created a unprecedented excitment, bringing in huge numbers of people who have never voted before, pushed McCain almost completely out of the public eye, and you think they're in trouble, solely because that's the right wing media spin.

As usual, you're way off base.

When Hillary and Obama announce they're running together, you'll be calling that a lie. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

I don['t think they even like one another, but I can assure you, they would bite their lips and end up higging and kissing, before they will let McCain get any opportunity to win.

The Democrats have candidates that even the most radical right wing is calling a dream ticket, and you and Steve think they're in trouble.

BWA HA HA HA, :Dand I'm the partisan in blinders. Too funny! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

pooltchr
04-23-2008, 05:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">" policies have been oil friendly, and subsidizng billions to an industry which is recording record profits, </div></div>

Here is another example of how easily people can be led. Profits are not the way business is measured. Profit MARGINS are a true measure of how well a business is doing. The oil companies are operating at about 9-10% margins. But that doesn't push the emotional button of the public. So the media reports profits in dollars as opposed to margins. The record breaking profits are naturally expected when demand continues to increase. But the margins remain reletively stable.
I work for a small company ($6M in sales last year) that operates at about 18% profit margin. We don't have billions invested in supertankers, pipelines, refineries, or oil drilling platforms, and we don't have a worldwide market to serve.
So we had far less in profit than Exxon, but those who have invested in our company got a better return on investment.
Welcome to business 101.
Let's say you invest $5M to start a business and make $1M in profit the first year.
I, on the other hand invest $5K to start a business and make $1800 in profit the same year. Your PROFITS were much higher, but my MARGINS were better.
Had you taken your $5M and invested it in 1,000 little companies like mine, you would have made $1.8M. And nobody would bat an eye since you did it $1800 at a time.
It's too easy to blame "big oil". You should try digging a little deeper and learning all the facts. The truth will set you free!
Steve

eg8r
04-24-2008, 08:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Since any assistance for AMericans is called socialism, by you, and is your perpetual, incorrect statement</div></div> The way we use socialism is totally correct so let me spell it out for you...Assistance as you put it means taxpayers money. Who pays the extreme majority of taxes? The rich. So what we have is the government taking extreme amounts of tax money from the rich to give to those who need it.

Here is the first definition I found on socialism...

a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

If any more help understanding your socialist desires is needed, just ask.

Your welcome, Gayole. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
04-24-2008, 08:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here is another example of how easily people can be led. Profits are not the way business is measured. Profit MARGINS are a true measure of how well a business is doing. The oil companies are operating at about 9-10% margins. But that doesn't push the emotional button of the public. So the media reports profits in dollars as opposed to margins. The record breaking profits are naturally expected when demand continues to increase. But the margins remain reletively stable.
I work for a small company ($6M in sales last year) that operates at about 18% profit margin. We don't have billions invested in supertankers, pipelines, refineries, or oil drilling platforms, and we don't have a worldwide market to serve.
So we had far less in profit than Exxon, but those who have invested in our company got a better return on investment.
Welcome to business 101.</div></div> Steve you are wasting your time. Gayle is the lead sheep here.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
04-24-2008, 09:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Extremist right wing definitions don't really interest me. History does. The present administration spends our tax dollars subsidizing corporate oil, which isn't doing a damned thing to refine more oil, and bring prices down, and you're fine with that? Cheney organizes our energy policy in secret, and we end up with gas prices through the roof, but you're fine with that? Bush prosecutes a war, while cutting taxes, and borrowing from a communist country, while it is basically stealing from us causing huge trade deficits, and you're fine with that? The military Industrial Complex is nearly half our government expenditures, and their contractors are proven corrupt, and bilking us left and right, but you're fine with that? Bush, outlaws buying pharmeteuticals from other countries where prices are lower, after getting huge contributions from that industry for both his campaigns, but that's OK? Put a Bush in the White House, and there will be war in the Middle East, and gas will go up. WE have a whole cabinet full of big oil people, and look where we are.

Anyoone who thinks the rich pay their fair share of taxes is nuts. There are literally trillions of dollars hidden in the Carribbean, compliments of a perfectly legal loophole, provided for the rich, by these same idiots who scream socilaism everytime this government does anything at all to assist Americans who work hard, pay their taxes, and get screwed over left and right by those with all the money and power. The Middle Class takes the brunt, not the rich.</div></div>

Gayle in MD
04-24-2008, 09:14 AM
Unprecedented Profit margins. Unprecedented profit margins for big oil, and pharmeceuticals, both of which were the largest contributors to both Bush campaigns, both of which have driven up their prices, and Bush signing laws, and holding secret energy meetings, and waging which destablizes the oil industry, and drive up prices, just like his daddy did.

A whole line up of generals promoting his policy in Iraq on all the cable news channels, and all of them invested in war contracts.

An entire organization, The American Enterprise Institute, pushing for regime change in Iraq, all invested in war contracts, and oil.

I'll remind you that it was a Republican General who warned us of this very situation. Dwight David Eisenhower. Bah Bah Bah, Ed, I'm sure you get a real good health care plan working in the defense industry.

eg8r
04-24-2008, 03:51 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Democrats have created a unprecedented excitment, bringing in huge numbers of people who have never voted before</div></div>Now that is funny. Just to clue you in, those people you "think" never voted before are the Reps out helping string along coattail-riding hillary.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When Hillary and Obama announce they're running together, you'll be calling that a lie. </div></div> I will be calling what a lie? I cannot wait to see who backs down first. If hillary runs as Pres and Obama as VP then we will have whitey holding back the blacks and if Obama runs as Pres and hillary as VP he will be labeled a sexist. These labels will all be set by the left in the party long before Rove has a chance to swoop in and swift boat them.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don['t think they even like one another, but I can assure you, they would bite their lips and end up higging and kissing, before they will let McCain get any opportunity to win.
</div></div>Exactly. They are not running based on their principles or what they believe in they are running just to get in office and if it means sucking it up to the one person they have just dug into the ground then so be it. Neither of them have our country's interest at heart, they just want the mailing address.

eg8r

pooltchr
04-24-2008, 06:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Unprecedented Profit margins. Unprecedented profit margins for big oil, and pharmeceuticals, </div></div>

First it was profits, now it's profit margins. Do you even understand the difference? And what facts do you have to back up your statement regarding unprecedented profit MARGINS?
Steve

jayalley
04-24-2008, 07:38 PM
Gayle,your relentess string of nasty attacks on McCain as a human being is bordering on the bizarre. I read these posts in slack-jawed amazement. What did this guy ever do to you to become such an obsession for you? You come off as nasty and brutish. For all of your purported expertise in psychology, you don't exhibit much self-awareness. Ugh !

Sid_Vicious
04-24-2008, 07:43 PM
"For all of your purported expertise in psychology, you don't exhibit much self-awareness. Ugh !"

It is called awareness by being openly subjective, and by actually reading ALL prospectives. "Openly" is the operative word friend...sid

eg8r
04-24-2008, 08:42 PM
She has no facts. The lead sheep is about to fall off the cliff and she does not even see it. She is just spouting off with her mouth about a ton of stuff she knows nothing about. Her problem with this thread is that there is not a talking head on TV telling her what to say so she is quietly changing what she previously said hoping no one would notice.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
04-26-2008, 07:40 AM
Fortunately, you're never right, Ed, so if all this is supposed to irritate me, forget it.

McCain is irrelevant. Americans have seen through this bunch of fascist crooks. Now McCain proves to us that he is against equal pay for equal work for women, against giving our troops what they deserve when they finally get out of the failure in Iraq, and against protecting our troops, now and in the future, from torture.

No body is even paying any attention to McCain. The air waves are all about Obama, and Clinton, and they stomp McCain both in fund raising, and in every single important state.

As the gas lines form, and the economy continues to slide, and Americans have to choose between food or medicine or gas, only nuts like you wil continue to support Republicans, the biggest pork barrel spenders in history.

I dare say, McCain, surrounded with all his lobbyists, for the Military Industrial Complex, big oil, and big pharmeceuticals, and his AEI buddies, even his rich wife won't be able to bail him out.

We've lost eight years in removing ourselves from dependency on Middle East oil, addressing our global climate crises, and ferring up allies. Eight years, gone, and nothing to show for it but our children's huge debts, compliments of George Bush, McCain's great buddy, and a stronger al Qaeda, stronger Iran, stronger Talliban, and a crumbling infrastructure here at home, while George Bush tap dances on the White House Steps, the rest of us, who aren't on his war payroll, like you are, are repulsed.

But then, I don't expect any of that to annoy you. You're on the defense payroll, right?

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
04-26-2008, 09:03 AM
This is the most ridiculous post of yours so far.

If you think corporations that are making the greatest profits ever recorded in the history of AMerican enterprise, are not making record profits, and need to be subsidized with our tax dollars, in spite of the fact that they have refused to refine enough oil to keep the price of oil reasonable, don't try teaching economics 101. Milti million dollar retirement pay offs, and billions in subsidies.

You just lost any hope of ever being taken seriously by yours truly.

Business NEVER correctly reports earnings and costs. Too bad you missed the testimony when the American Oil Cartel testified.

Gayle in MD
04-26-2008, 09:06 AM
Look it up, it's all right there on C-Span's website. You can watch the whole testimony of the American Oil CEO's. Your statement is absurd. Record Profits, dont' lead to losses. Multimillion dollar salaries, and retirement plans, and our tax dollars helping to pay them.

Redistribution of wealth.

eg8r
04-27-2008, 07:03 PM
Are you going to answer my question?

eg8r

eg8r
04-27-2008, 07:08 PM
So you are back to just referring to profits? Your reference to C-Span's website is funny. If you don't understand the difference between profit and profit margins why on Earth do you think people will think you understand what you are reading about when that subject comes up? You are a regurgitating sheep that does not know what you are talking about. You just want to keep "spreading the word". Instead of blasting McCain about economics you might want to take a few courses yourself. I am sure you have plenty of time. The only problem is that like the rest of your sheep you don't want to actually understand any of this you just want to regurgitate what someone else has said during your Sunday morning flop in front of the tv.

eg8r

sack316
04-27-2008, 07:33 PM
something just hit me regarding two different discussions (I think).

Big pay, fantastic benefits, and remarkable retirement plans= Bad
Bad pay, poor benefits also= bad

not seeing a winning way here. I wonder why nobody ever tried just making everybody equal, no matter what job they do /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Sack

pooltchr
04-27-2008, 08:12 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">something just hit me regarding two different discussions (I think).

Big pay, fantastic benefits, and remarkable retirement plans= Bad
Bad pay, poor benefits also= bad

not seeing a winning way here. I wonder why nobody ever tried just making everybody equal, no matter what job they do /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Sack </div></div>

Thanks for a great observation!
Steve

Deeman3
04-28-2008, 07:12 AM
With all this talk about McCain's hostile temper, this weekend someone said that like Hillary, MccCain did lose his temper on occasion. Unlike Hillary, he would lose it against fellow Senators or persons who were of the same rank as him, people who could defend themsleves where Hillary would lose her temper against underlings and aids who had to stand there and take it.

Of course, the one exception would be Bill. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r
04-28-2008, 02:01 PM
Gayle likes to think my opinions on politics are driven by my employer. The only issue is that she is too partisan to actually listen to anyone because her preconceived, straight from her rear, notions take over all sensibility.

eg8r

Deeman3
04-28-2008, 02:45 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">something just hit me regarding two different discussions (I think).

Big pay, fantastic benefits, and remarkable retirement plans= Bad
Bad pay, poor benefits also= bad

not seeing a winning way here. I wonder why nobody ever tried just making everybody equal, no matter what job they do /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Sack </div></div>


You have found it my friend, redistribution of the wealth, equal pay for all, no incentive to imporve beyond what you feel is enough. Hey, that's the great system they now have in Russia and it is certinly working there. Just try to complain about it in a socialist system. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Gayle in MD
04-28-2008, 05:24 PM
Deeman,
I don't know who said that, but if you ever come to maryland, I will personally fill my great room with former Senate Office Employees and let you hear their McCain horror stories for yourself.

When a grown man throws glass objects and makes holes in the wall over uneven curtain rods, or jumps up on a chair to be tall enough to look down at a taller man, a Senate Air Conditioning shop employee, to scream and cuss him out, I'd say he has emotional problems.

That's an old building, and those guys are always up against it trying to keep the temperatures even, and the plumbing working, and such, but if you ever run into anyone who has ever worked in the Sanate Office building, just ask them who the A-Hole is, and they will surely tell you John McCain.

Try to imagine the worst punk you knew in high school, and you'll have McCain in a nutshell, and I do mean NUT. He treats others like they're not good enough to walk on the same ground as he does. Won't even look up when he passes those blue collar guys in the hallways. He looks at them with contempt, like they're beneath him just because he's a Senator.

I've known those guys since I was in grade school. They're not BSers. I'd be happy to introduce them all to you, including those on the Capital Police Force, you'll hear the same story from them, as I have written here. Your analogy couldn't be further from the truth. He's the son of an admiral who is about as elitist as one could ever find. Barry Goldwater didn't like John McCain, and was resentful when McCain's daddy called him up to ask Goldwater to back his son in his first campaign in Arizona. Goldwater came through, but hated doing it.

I can't ever recall statements from Sanators in a candidate's own party, stating that his (McCain's) behavior should disqualify him from running for the presidency. McCain is not presidential material. Nothing could be more dangerous than having a man like him in the Oval Office.



Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
04-28-2008, 05:33 PM
I'm not changing anything. The whole world knows the oil CEO's are gouging the American people. The whole world knows that Halliburton and their subsidiaries are robbing us blind in Iraq. The whole world knows that they have sold our troops bad water, and hiked up prices, and failed to deliver their tasks.

This is nothing but a big scam, and our kids are dying for it. Saddam was no threat. He had no WMD's. he had no connections to AlQ, or 9/11, and McCain's entire campaign ir wrought with lobbyists, and Bush's lying Generals, who are all invested in the same contractors that are making a killing in Iraq.
]
Big Oil is robbing us blind, and recording the greatest profits ever recorded in history, and you and Steve think their profit margins are in the doldrums?


BWA HA HA HA HA...you're irrelevant, Ed. You're irrelevant, and Valarie was not just a secretary.

wolfdancer
04-28-2008, 07:02 PM
$200 a barrel for oil thanks to the shrinking dollar, and Warren Buffet says the coming recession will be even worse then is imagined...some folks have hinted at a depression.
Not too late now to exchange your dollars for yuans...or even pesos.
Maybe when the middle class is eradicated, and the new world order is established....maybe then...
I wonder what they will put in the Bush Library....since all relevant documents are being shredded daily????
Only things left will be:
the Presidential Pardon
and the "reassuring photos"
Mission accomplished..re the war
Help is on the way....re Katrina
Calming the kids....re 911

Gayle in MD
04-28-2008, 07:14 PM
Well, one thing is for sure, there won't be any pictures of the flag draped coffins of our brave, dead soldiers, just the right wing talking points, and the same ol' Republican re-writing of history.

I wish you could have seen the whistle blowers testifying today about Halliburton's colossal scam on American tax payers. Everytime one of these righties on here talks about cutting spending, I almost choke!

Iraq has been a huge windfall for the Neocon Repiglican hawks, too bad there's so much blood on all that money.

"If ya have to hide it, it isn't democracy."

Imagine, yapping about profit margins, when you're talking about the greatest profits ever recorded in history!

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
04-29-2008, 07:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Deeman,
I don't know who said that, but if you ever come to maryland, I will personally fill my great room with former Senate Office Employees and let you hear their McCain horror stories for yourself.

When a grown man throws glass objects and makes holes in the wall over uneven curtain rods, or jumps up on a chair to be tall enough to look down at a taller man, a Senate Air Conditioning shop employee, to scream and cuss him out, I'd say he has emotional problems. </div></div>Sounds exactly like hillary, I guess your only left to vote for Obama.

eg8r

eg8r
04-29-2008, 07:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm not changing anything. The whole world knows the oil CEO's are gouging the American people. The whole world knows that Halliburton and their subsidiaries are robbing us blind in Iraq. The whole world knows that they have sold our troops bad water, and hiked up prices, and failed to deliver their tasks.
</div></div> There you go with the strawman. Steve and I were not referring to what the whole world knows about halliburton or selling bad water to troops.

READ CLOSELY AND TURN YOUR MOUTH OFF UNTIL YOU ARE THROUGH READING...You started your rant referring to PROFIT. Steve told you that PROFIT is not the telling number that people "in the know" look at. The IMPORTANT figure is PROFIT MARGIN. When he pointed this out (and you obviously do not have a grasp of the difference between the two) you switch and used PROFIT MARGIN in your next response. When Steve mentioned that he noticed this your next response only referenced PROFIT. This is what lead to me pointing out the head sheep keeps switching back and forth. It is fine that you don't understand the difference between PROFIT and PROFIT MARGIN no one cares, but don't switch back and forth like they are the same thing and then when it is pointed out you go on some rant and begin blaming Halliburton and Oil CEOs.

eg8r

Deeman3
04-29-2008, 08:00 AM
Gayle,

Then what we have in effect, is a race for the highest office in the world where all are very flawed in some major way. It is sad. If McCain is that bad, he may not be a good president.

So, in effect, we have:

A) A black man who has terrible associations with known radicals that will haunt him ans us forever.

B) A madman Senator who may stalk the halls of the White House looking for persons to kill in their sleep.

C) Another Senator who has will do anything to win the office and may nuke Iran at the first opportunity.

What a dog's breakfast we face!

Gayle in MD
04-30-2008, 09:30 AM
Deeman,
McCain is not presidential material, IMO, and in the opinion of many REpublicans. Clinton had a temper, but he never got violent, and the next day, there were no grudges held, as the article states. McCain's behavior is entirely different. Mind you, I've been hearing about this for years, from personal friends.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"You will damn well do this. You will make this a holiday. You're making us look like fools," he privately exploded two decades ago at a stunned group of Arizona Republicans who opposed creating a state holiday in remembrance of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

Early during their days together in the Senate, Smith came to believe that McCain often used his temper as a strategic weapon, that if he "couldn't persuade you, he was going at least to needle you or [sometimes] belittle you or blow up into trying to have you believe you were beneath him, so that you'd be less likely to challenge him. He needed to be the top guy."

Smith admits to not liking McCain, a point he has often made over the years to reporters. "I've witnessed a lot of his temper and outbursts," Smith said. "For me, some of this stuff is relevant. It raises questions about stability. . . . It's more than just temper. It's this need of his to show you that he's above you -- a sneering, condescending attitude. It's hurt his relationships in Congress. . . . I've seen it up-close."

Smith, whose service in the Navy included a tour on the waters in and around Vietnam, said he stood stunned one day when McCain declared around several of their colleagues that Smith wasn't a real Vietnam War veteran. "I was in the combat zone, off the Mekong River, for 10 months," Smith said. "He went on to insult me several times. I wasn't on the land; I guess that was his reasoning. . . . He suggested I was masquerading about my Vietnam service. It was very hurtful. He's gotten to a lot of people [that way]."

While in the course of a policy disagreement at a luncheon meeting of Republican senators, McCain reportedly insulted Pete V. Domenici of New Mexico with an earthy expletive. Domenici demanded an apology. "Okay, I'll apologize," McCain said, before referring to an infuriated Domenici with the same expletive.

Salter insists that many of McCain's run-ins with colleagues and activists have resulted from McCain's conviction that his honor in some way has been questioned. "If he feels a challenge to his integrity, then he'll say something," Salter said. "If he thinks you betrayed him . . . he'll tell you, he'll be angry. . . . But he's also exceedingly forgiving."

During the early 1990s, McCain telephoned the office of Tom Freestone, a governmental official little known outside Arizona's Maricopa County. McCain had an unusual request. He wanted Freestone, then chairman of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, to reject a job applicant named Karen S. Johnson, whose last governmental position had been in the office of a former Arizona governor and who had just interviewed for a position as an aide in Freestone's office.

According to two employees in the office, McCain told Freestone that the applicant's past political associations left her carrying unflattering baggage.

The pair of Freestone staffers thought it odd that a U.S. senator would even know that Johnson had applied for a job in their office, let alone that he had taken time out of his workday to pick up a phone and weigh in on a staffing matter so removed from the locus of Washington power. But McCain's disenchantment with Johnson was personal: A few years earlier, he had an angry exchange with her while she was the secretary for Republican Arizona Gov. Evan Meacham, who was impeached and forced out of office for campaign finance violations.

Around the time of Meacham's ouster, Johnson said, McCain paid a visit to him. Johnson recalled that McCain swiftly used the opportunity to lecture Meacham: "You should never have been elected. You're an embarrassment to the [Republican] Party."

A stupefied Meacham just stared at the senator. An indignant Johnson, as she tells the story, snapped at McCain: "How dare you? You're the embarrassment to the party."

As Johnson and another person working in Freestone's office remember, the surprised supervisor told Johnson about McCain's objections to her. "But I'm hiring you anyway," Freestone told her.

For Johnson, McCain's call raised questions as to whether he bore a lasting animosity against anyone who ever challenged him. "Everyone in [Freestone's] office thought it was all ridiculous . . . and petty," remembers Johnson, a devout Republican conservative who today is an Arizona state senator.

"Senator McCain says he has no recollection of ever making a phone call to block a job for Karen Johnson," Salter said.

During roughly the same period, McCain requested the firing of an aide to Arizona's senior U.S. senator, Dennis DeConcini, according to two top figures in DeConcini's office.

The aide, a veterans affairs expert named Judy Leiby, first ran into problems with McCain in the late '80s, when she sought to correct what she regarded as a McCain misstatement about DeConcini's record on a veterans issue. She was attending a Phoenix meeting between McCain and some veterans when she rebutted a McCain assertion that DeConcini, a Democrat, favored a bill that included a cut of some veterans benefits. "That is incorrect," Leiby said, detailing the specifics of DeConcini's position as McCain listened stonily.

Sometime afterward, McCain called DeConcini and asked that he dismiss Leiby, insisting to the senator that his aide had become a toxic, partisan figure. According to the two people in the office, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, DeConcini defended Leiby and, praising what he characterized as her bipartisan fairness and expertise, urged McCain to give her a second look. McCain refused, repeating his demand that Leiby be fired.

DeConcini "politely told McCain to go to hell," according to a source close to the conversation, adding: "Not once in [DeConcini's 18-year Senate tenure] did another senator ask for an aide to be dismissed. Not once did anyone speak about an aide like that."

Episodes such as the Johnson and Leiby incidents, along with McCain's oft-chronicled blowups on Capitol Hill, have led critics to say he has a vindictive streak, that he sees an enemy in anyone who challenges him.

"I heard about his temper more from others," said Grant Woods, McCain's first congressional chief of staff, who is generally regarded as McCain's closest confidant in his early political years. "According to them, he really unleashed on some of them, and they couldn't figure out why. . . . It happened enough that it was affecting his credibility with some people. If you wanted a programmed, subdued, always-on-message politician, he wasn't and will never be your guy."

Woods helped orchestrate McCain's first House campaign in 1982 and worked to get him elected to the Senate in 1986. That year the Arizona Republican Party held its Election Night celebration for all its candidates at a Phoenix hotel, where the triumphant basked in the cheers of their supporters and delivered victory statements on television.

After McCain finished his speech, he returned to a suite in the hotel, sat down in front of a TV and viewed a replay of his remarks, angry to discover that the speaking platform had not been erected high enough for television cameras to capture all of his face -- he seemed to have been cut off somewhere between his nose and mouth.

A platform that had been adequate for taller candidates had not taken into account the needs of the 5-foot-9 McCain, who left the suite and went looking for a man in his early 20s named Robert Wexler, the head of Arizona's Young Republicans, which had helped make arrangements for the evening's celebration. Confronting Wexler in a hotel ballroom, McCain exploded, according to witnesses who included Jon Hinz, then executive director of the Arizona Republican Party. McCain jabbed an index finger in Wexler's chest.

"I told you we needed a stage," he screamed, according to Hinz. "You incompetent little [expletive]. When I tell you to do something, you do it."

Hinz recalls intervening, placing his 6-foot-6 frame between the senator-elect and the young volunteer. "John, this is not the time or place for this," Hinz remembers saying to McCain, who fumed that he hadn't been seen clearly by television viewers. Hinz recollects finally telling McCain: "John, look, I'll follow you out on stage myself next time. I'll make sure everywhere you go there is a milk crate for you to stand on. But this is enough."

McCain spun around on his heels and left. He did not talk to Hinz again for several years. In 2000, as Hinz recalls, he appeared briefly on the Christian Broadcasting Network to voice his worries about McCain's temperament on televangelist Pat Robertson's show, "The 700 Club." Hinz's concerns have since grown with reports of incidents in and out of Arizona.

In 1994, McCain tried to stop a primary challenge to the state's Republican governor, J. Fife Symington III, by telephoning his opponent, Barbara Barrett, the well-heeled spouse of a telecommunications executive, and warning of unspecified "consequences" should she reject his advice to drop out of the race. Barrett stayed in. At that year's state Republican convention, McCain confronted Sandra Dowling, the Maricopa County school superintendent and, according to witnesses, angrily accused her of helping to persuade Barrett to enter the race.

"You better get [Barrett] out or I'll destroy you," a witness claims that McCain shouted at her. Dowling responded that if McCain couldn't respect her right to support whomever she chose, that he "should get the hell out of the Senate." McCain shouted an obscenity at her, and Dowling howled one back.

Woods raced over, according to a witness, and pulled Dowling away. Woods said he has "no memory" of being involved, "though I heard something about an argument."

"What happens if he gets angry in crisis" in the presidency?" Hinz asked. "It's difficult enough to be a negotiator, but it's almost impossible when you're the type of guy who's so angry at anybody who doesn't do what he wants. It's the president's job to negotiate and stay calm. I don't see that he has that quality."

</div></div>