John McCain - personal life

E

Eddie Haskell

Matt 02-12-11
Forum Member
Feb 13, 2001
4,595
41
0
26
Cincinnati
aclu.org
The corporate media and our right wing friends here at MJ's have had a wonderful week roasting John Edwards the former democratic senator from North Carolina who ran an unsuccessful bid to win the democratic party nomination for president of the United States.

Why hasn't the corporate media focused on the personal life of the WINNER of the republican party's nominee for president of the United States? Can you imagine what would have happened to Mr. Obama's campaign had he cheated on his first wife, and married a rich young chick who didn't disclose how she makes her money?

Seems like the corporate media is more interested in exposing the tawdry details of the personal life of a man who is not going to be president rather than the tawdry details of a man who is in a dead heat for the presidency.

But stay tuned for the latest pastor scope!

Eddie

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/...tements-that-conflict-with-the-public-record/
 
J

Jabberwocky

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 3, 2006
3,491
29
0
Jacksonville, FL
In his 2002 memoir, ?Worth the Fighting For,? McCain wrote that he had separated from Carol before he began dating Hensley. ?I spent as much time with Cindy in Washington and Arizona as our jobs would allow,? McCain wrote. ?I was separated from Carol, but our divorce would not become final until February of 1980.?

An examination of court documents tells a different story.

Yes, McCain committed adultery ? and then was far from truthful about it.


McCain did not sue his wife for divorce until Feb. 19, 1980, and he wrote in his court petition that he and his wife had ?cohabited? until Jan. 7 of that year ? or for the first nine months of his relationship with Hensley.

Although McCain suggested in his autobiography that months passed between his divorce and remarriage, the divorce was granted April 2, 1980, and he wed Hensley in a private ceremony five weeks later. McCain obtained an Arizona marriage license on March 6, 1980, while still legally married to his first wife.

McCain, not surprisingly, doesn?t want to talk about the subject. Asked for comment, his campaign spokesperson said, ?Of course we will not comment on the breakup of the senator?s first marriage, other than to note that the senator has always taken responsibility for it.?
 
gardenweasel

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
the differnce is that the nyt`s already smeared mccain incorrectly early in the game...

"With almost one voice today, members of the mainstream media and regular readers of The New York Times (NYT) are speaking words of anger toward that newspaper after they ran a story yesterday on the front page about the possibility that John McCain had been romantically involved with a lobbyist, eight years ago, and also that he did favors for that same person while serving in the US Senate. Today in an on line chat between NYT editors and newspaper subscribers, New York Times officials said they were surprised at the level of outrage about their story. Apparently, the powers that be at the NYT do not get out that much because if they traveled outside of the New York City liberal-plex they would have discover that their credibility was already shot with most of the rest of the country"

front page news in february......

unsubstantiated...no proof whatsoever..on the front page...

the edwards stuff is factual...out there since 2007...and the msm refused to touch it...
the old double standard....

thankfully,there is justice after all...;)
 
D

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Well at least we have got one honest person left running for Prez.
Lets not go into heresay with old John. He wrote a book with a lot in it. Heresay that of course made him look good.
How ever a lier and a cheater you can't make look good. He can ask to be for given. And see in Nov if he is believed.
 
E

Eddie Haskell

Matt 02-12-11
Forum Member
Feb 13, 2001
4,595
41
0
26
Cincinnati
aclu.org
Republicans are not that sloppy. They would have been shot long before they printed the first words of the story. But again, the point of this thread is the corporate media is focused on the personal life of a former candidate for president when the ACTUAL candidate has some pretty real, juicy, soap opera quality, crap on his resume.

I can't picture you not posting an ad nauseum number of threads (with links to Fox News, Washington Times, and other right wing website you haunt) about Mr. Obama's lack of character, lack of morals, lack of everything under the sun had he left his first wife if she had become disfigured and overweight for a much younger, prettier, richer, politically well connected babe prior to the end of the marriage. Ya think, Wayne.

Liberal media???????

Eddie
 
Last edited:
DOGS THAT BARK

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,489
167
63
Bowling Green Ky
Don't think sloppy is correct adjective to explain diff between some peeping out of bathroom like a deer in headlights--and Mac.

Have you already forgot my story on when the shit hit the fan everyone runs--just some in diff directions. ;)

If Edwards was smart he'd just stuck his hand out door and gave em the ole---:nono:
:142smilie
 
T

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
Eddie Haskell said:
The corporate media and our right wing friends here at MJ's have had a wonderful week roasting John Edwards the former democratic senator from North Carolina who ran an unsuccessful bid to win the democratic party nomination for president of the United States.

Why hasn't the corporate media focused on the personal life of the WINNER of the republican party's nominee for president of the United States? Can you imagine what would have happened to Mr. Obama's campaign had he cheated on his first wife, and married a rich young chick who didn't disclose how she makes her money?

Seems like the corporate media is more interested in exposing the tawdry details of the personal life of a man who is not going to be president rather than the tawdry details of a man who is in a dead heat for the presidency.

But stay tuned for the latest pastor scope!

Eddie

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/...tements-that-conflict-with-the-public-record/
Click to expand...

When you have a person like Pelosi immediately taking impeachment off of the table and making constitutional lawyers livid, why be surprised at this? Democrats are just as bad as the Media. There was once a time where i always thought maybe the democrats had a master plan because nobody with an ounce of brains could possibly sit on information like they do. Now nothing surprises me.
 
E

Eddie Haskell

Matt 02-12-11
Forum Member
Feb 13, 2001
4,595
41
0
26
Cincinnati
aclu.org
Spongy:

My guess, and its only a guess, is that the democrats took impeachment off the table because they didn't want to use this as a tool of whichever party gains a majority in the house. I don't think there is much question in any thinking person's mind that the crimes commited by Bush and Cheney are impeachable offenses. But politically they couldn't be perceived as a tit for tat, get back at you, party.

Believe me, I not only wanted them impeached but tried for treason, so I'm sympathetic. Further don't take this as a defense of Democrats. They were the biggest pussie party on the planet (say that five times in a row) when the big criminal cherry picked the evidence and called for an invasion of Iraq (other than Kucinich).

I'm telling you guys, both parties suck (only the republicans do it more and under the guise of mom, God and country). Answer is REAL campaign finance reform and ban lobbyists.

Republicans will fight this the most using 1st amendment arguments. killing the country but keeping the crooks in office. BS BS BS BS BS BS

Eddie
 
T

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
Eddie Haskell said:
Spongy:

My guess, and its only a guess, is that the democrats took impeachment off the table because they didn't want to use this as a tool of whichever party gains a majority in the house. I don't think there is much question in any thinking person's mind that the crimes commited by Bush and Cheney are impeachable offenses. But politically they couldn't be perceived as a tit for tat, get back at you, party.
Click to expand...

Well most know the neocons would have slimed it up making it look like the Dems are trouble makers and slso holding up necessary work that needs to get done in the country. What is sad is that the Dems have no backbone to fight something like this. How hard can it be? Get a few guys in the party who actually have some balls to get the message across. How in the world do the neocons go after Clinton for eight years for next to nothing but the Dems are terrified to do the same thing? What the dems do is just wait for the Republicans to self destruct and hope the win just falls in their lap instead of just taking the fukin thing like they could, if they had some balls and some common sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Bet on MyBookie
Top