Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Is marrying well good preparation for serving as the president of the United States? . . . . He's always had a net underneath him throughout his political career -- in his case, a net woven of homespun 24K gold.

And, once again his wife made him sign a prenuptial agreement when they were wed: "Which begs the question: If his own wife doesn't trust him with her money, why should we trust him with ours?"

If his wife is not sure about her husband's character. Are you?

W]hat do you consider a fair wage? He considers a fair wage a wife with 500 million. So, he had to find a company that had one. Well, there aren't too many of these companies that have little heiresses running around that are single, have 500 million that some guy can marry into. . . .

You got sugar daddy wife now. He worked his way up from a blue blood to a platinum American Express card, and it doesn't have his name on it.

He has lived the life of a millionaire living off the inherited wealth of his wife. He did not have to work for his fortune, he never had to worry about the money he earned, the taxes he paid, he is not effected (sic) when these neighborhoods are destroyed and working class families lose the largest asset in their retirement plans -- their home's value.

He's a kept man. He lives off the money made by other men and left to their daughters or wives.

If he has an economic plan, I think the one I'd like to hear about is how to snooker millionairesses into marrying me and living off them. I mean, that is not an, a, a trivial point.

Now, having a wife who provides you with a private jet and eight multimillion-dollar vacation homes provides for a comfortable life. But is this the right preparation for becoming president? . . .

His wives' wealth always gave him a safety net. He was going to be taken care of whether he succeeded professionally or not. . . .

Whether he wins or loses the presidency, he will still be living like a king. For most people, that would be a blessing. But for someone who wants to be the president of the United States, having such a significant fallback position is actually a curse.

Alas, there is yet one other important consideration that should get us all thinking. Before they married, she made him sign a prenuptial agreement. Which begs the question: If his own wife doesn't trust him with her money, why should we trust him with ours?

dbackjon wrote:These commentators are just brutal...

Is marrying well good preparation for serving as the president of the United States? . . . . He's always had a net underneath him throughout his political career -- in his case, a net woven of homespun 24K gold.

And, once again his wife made him sign a prenuptial agreement when they were wed: "Which begs the question: If his own wife doesn't trust him with her money, why should we trust him with ours?"

If his wife is not sure about her husband's character. Are you?

W]hat do you consider a fair wage? He considers a fair wage a wife with 500 million. So, he had to find a company that had one. Well, there aren't too many of these companies that have little heiresses running around that are single, have 500 million that some guy can marry into. . . .

You got sugar daddy wife now. He worked his way up from a blue blood to a platinum American Express card, and it doesn't have his name on it.

He has lived the life of a millionaire living off the inherited wealth of his wife. He did not have to work for his fortune, he never had to worry about the money he earned, the taxes he paid, he is not effected (sic) when these neighborhoods are destroyed and working class families lose the largest asset in their retirement plans -- their home's value.

He's a kept man. He lives off the money made by other men and left to their daughters or wives.

If he has an economic plan, I think the one I'd like to hear about is how to snooker millionairesses into marrying me and living off them. I mean, that is not an, a, a trivial point.

Now, having a wife who provides you with a private jet and eight multimillion-dollar vacation homes provides for a comfortable life. But is this the right preparation for becoming president? . . .

His wives' wealth always gave him a safety net. He was going to be taken care of whether he succeeded professionally or not. . . .

Whether he wins or loses the presidency, he will still be living like a king. For most people, that would be a blessing. But for someone who wants to be the president of the United States, having such a significant fallback position is actually a curse.

Alas, there is yet one other important consideration that should get us all thinking. Before they married, she made him sign a prenuptial agreement. Which begs the question: If his own wife doesn't trust him with her money, why should we trust him with ours?

Thoughts? Personally, I think this is all over blown - who cares that someone married rich?

dbackjon wrote:These commentators are just brutal...

Thoughts? Personally, I think this is all over blown - who cares that someone married rich?

SuperHornet wrote:. McCain is a proven military leader.

travelinman67 wrote: , whose wife has thrown him out,

dbackjon wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:. McCain is a proven military leader.

How is McCain a proven military leader?

Admiral Leighton “Snuffy” Smith, Jr., USN (Ret.):

Admiral Smith: “I have had the honor of knowing Senator McCain for quite some number of years. I think that we met down at Cecil Field when he was beginning his tour in VA 174. I was on my way to a squadron at the time. I can tell you that the squadron he was given, he was assigned to was a very large squadron, a very difficult squadron to command because it had enormous responsibilities with respect to maintenance schedules and training of pilots and enlisted personnel for all of the fleet squadron. I would judge his capabilities based on the product that I got from the replacement training squadron that Senator McCain commanded, he did a spectacular job there. His military experience, rather his leadership experience at that squadron in it of itself is noteworthy. But also in Washington later in Senator McCain’s career when he was in the office of Senate Legislative Affairs and I worked with him because I had a job over on the personn el side. I’ve also watched him on the Senate Armed Services Committee. It is inconceivable to me that anyone would take a shot at Senator McCain’s military service or say he lacks any experience because he didn’t command troops in wartime. Senator McCain has shown capabilities, a command style that most people envy and General Clark is way off base on this one.”

Senator John Warner (R-VA):

Senator John Warner: “Let me start back in 1973, I was Secretary of the Navy under Nixon and then Ford and worked with John McCain when he was released from the prison camps and returned to resume his career in the United States Navy actively. I’ve also spent the last 17 years as either Chairman or Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and during that period of time I got to know General Clark quite well, worked with him professionally and actually travelled with him to the Balkans and Kosovo and frankly had a regard for his military capabilities. And I was utterly shocked when I saw this yesterday, knowing Clark as I have, that he would in a disrespectful way attack one of his fellow career military officers. I also have served in the Senate with Barack Obama, we have a good friendly relationship, and to the extent that he had knowledge of this I find it an exercise of poor judgment to allow individual like Clark with t he least experience in politics of all of them, trying to come in and do this attack.”

“As I have said, I have been on this Committee now 30 years and John has been on roughly 20 or a few more. We have been working side by side. I have been in the Oval Office with I think, I just ran a calculation, five presidents when matters of national security were discussed and the president sought the advice of Members of Congress. And I know on one or two of those occasions John McCain was with me. And as I draw on my own experience dealing with the White House many years and been on the Committee, John has gotten experience that Obama simply doesn’t have.”

As retired military officers, we share a natural hesitancy to engage actively in politics. There is a healthy discomfort in our profession with any political involvement because the country rightly depends on our military to support any commander in chief with our best military advice and our actions. But two factors compel us to speak out now and openly support John McCain for President: first, the surprising and inaccurate questioning of his record by some of Senator Obama’s leading supporters; and second, the importance to our national security of winning the war we are fighting.

The United States is confronted by many threats to its security and prosperity. Most significantly, we are engaged in a broad conflict with Islamic extremism against enemies espousing the same radical and violent ideology whose full dimensions the American people first glimpsed on September 11, 2001. Success in this war will require not only victory in the “hot” conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, but as well a balanced and integrated application of all elements of America’s national power as we work with our allies around the world to marginalize radicals and build a shared vision for peace with moderate Islam.

We are privileged to have had the opportunity to serve this country in uniform for most of our adult lives. We have had the honor of commanding young Americans of the same caliber and tenacity as those who today remain on the front lines, willingly sacrificing their own well-being and security and offering their lives in order to preserve our freedom. They deserve, and the American people demand, leadership of proven character — leadership that will always put America’s interests ahead of personal gain and political party.

It is our experience as former senior military officers that also gives us great concern about certain foreign policy positions staked out by Senator Obama. We are acutely aware that ill-conceived policies will have serious, if not tragic, consequences for military commanders, the troops they lead, and the nation. We are particularly concerned about his public statements, including his call for a withdrawal from Iraq, unconditional talks with the leaders of rogue states, and the return to a law-enforcement approach to protecting our country from terrorists.

This country has learned the peril of treating terrorists and their state sponsors as little more than a law enforcement problem. We are unanimous in our view that the failures of the past should not be repeated, and we believe that John McCain’s long record of national service, and his demonstrated judgment on matters of national security, make clear who can best defend this country abroad, and assure peace and prosperity at home.

Through a lifetime of service in uniform and in Congress, John McCain has consistently displayed the wisdom and courage to do the right thing for America regardless of the cost to him personally. It is for this reason, above all others, that we endorse John McCain for President, and it is for this reason that we stand with him now as he continues his long history of service to this country.

James B. Davis, General, USAF (RET.)
Ronald J. Hays, Admiral, USN (RET)
James L. Holloway, Admiral, USN (RET)
Jerome L. Johnson, Admiral, USN, (RET)
P.X. Kelley, General, USMC, (RET)
James J. Lindsay, General, USA (RET)
John Michael Loh, General, USAF, (RET)
Leighton W. Smith, Admiral, USN (RET)
Carl Stiner, General, USA (RET)
Donald C. “Deese” Thompson, Vice Admiral, USCG, (RET)
Howard B. Thorsen, Vice Admiral, USCG, (RET)

dbackjon wrote:These commentators are just brutal...



Thoughts? Personally, I think this is all over blown - who cares that someone married rich?

HI54UNI wrote:

dbackjon wrote:These commentators are just brutal...



Thoughts? Personally, I think this is all over blown - who cares that someone married rich?

This is soooo much more important than a discussion on social security, balancing the budget, health care, etc.

dbackjon wrote:But that's not necessarily the case, say senior military officials and political analysts. In interviews with Salon this week, several experienced military officers said McCain draws mixed reviews among military leaders, and they expressed serious doubts about whether McCain has the right temperament to be the next president and commander in chief. Some expressed more confidence in Obama, citing his temperament as an asset.

It is not difficult in Washington to find high-level military officials who have had close encounters with John McCain's temper, and who find it worrisome. Politicians sometimes scream for effect, but the concern is that McCain has, at times, come across as out of control. It is difficult to find current or former officers willing to describe those encounters in detail on the record. That's because, by and large, those officers admire McCain. But that doesn't mean they want his finger on the proverbial button, and they are supporting Clinton or Obama instead.

"I like McCain. I respect McCain. But I am a little worried by his knee-jerk response factor," said retired Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, who was in charge of training the Iraqi military from 2003 to 2004 and is now campaigning for Clinton. "I think it is a little scary. I think this guy's first reactions are not necessarily the best reactions. I believe that he acts on impulse."

"I studied leadership for a long time during 32 years in the military," said retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Scott Gration, a one-time Republican who is supporting Obama. "It is all about character. Who can motivate willing followers? Who has the vision? Who can inspire people?" Gration asked. "I have tremendous respect for John McCain, but I would not follow him."

"One of the things the senior military would like to see when they go visit the president is a kind of consistency, a kind of reliability," explained retired Gen. Merrill McPeak, a former Republican, former chief of staff of the Air Force and former fighter pilot who flew 285 combat missions. McPeak said his perception is that Obama is "not that up when he is up and not that down when he is down. He is kind of a steady Eddie. This is a very important feature," McPeak said. On the other hand, he said, "McCain has got a reputation for being a little volatile." McPeak is campaigning for Obama.

Stephen Wayne, a political science professor at Georgetown who is studying the personalities of the presidential candidates, agrees McCain's temperament is of real concern. "The anger is there," Wayne said. If McCain is the one to answer the phone at 3 a.m., he said, "you worry about an initial emotive, less rational response."

Most recently, Wayne has been studying Clinton's personality. "I just gave a presentation on Hillary's temperament for the presidency. I came to the conclusion that it is not really a good presidential temperament, with one caveat -- if you compare it with McCain's."


http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/ ... _in_chief/

Obviously mixed reviews on this...

but of course, that is not the purpose of this thread...

There is no question that McCain has more national security experience than either Obama or Clinton. His five-and-a-half-year ordeal as a prisoner of war in Vietnam established him as a legitimate American hero. He served his first term in Congress starting in 1982 (when Obama was still an undergraduate at Columbia University) and has continued to be a leader on national security issues for most of his career, including serving on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

John Lehman, the Navy secretary during the Reagan administration and a McCain supporter, said he has known the Arizona senator for 30 years. Lehman said that in comparison with some of the people he has worked for, such as former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, "John McCain is a pussycat."

"I have never seen him really lose it and really be just passionately furious," Lehman said. "When I have seen him lose his temper, it is for effect."

Lehman suggested that national security experience is the far more important issue. "It creates a matrix for judgment, not only with events. It also gives you a depth of knowledge of people and institutions," he explained. "You would not go to have brain surgery in a crisis to someone who is fresh out of medical school."

McCain's outbursts have only occasionally been captured by the press. The most recent episode appeared to have occurred last May, when McCain was embroiled in immigration reform negotiations with Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas. Cornyn accused McCain of "parachuting" in on the negotiations. During the heated exchange that followed, McCain screamed "Fuck you!" at Cornyn, according to news reports at the time. McCain later apologized.

dbackjon wrote:But that's not necessarily the case, say senior military officials and political analysts. In interviews with Salon this week, several experienced military officers said McCain draws mixed reviews among military leaders, and they expressed serious doubts about whether McCain has the right temperament to be the next president and commander in chief. Some expressed more confidence in Obama, citing his temperament as an asset.

It is not difficult in Washington to find high-level military officials who have had close encounters with John McCain's temper, and who find it worrisome. Politicians sometimes scream for effect, but the concern is that McCain has, at times, come across as out of control. It is difficult to find current or former officers willing to describe those encounters in detail on the record. That's because, by and large, those officers admire McCain. But that doesn't mean they want his finger on the proverbial button, and they are supporting Clinton or Obama instead.

"I like McCain. I respect McCain. But I am a little worried by his knee-jerk response factor," said retired Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, who was in charge of training the Iraqi military from 2003 to 2004 and is now campaigning for Clinton. "I think it is a little scary. I think this guy's first reactions are not necessarily the best reactions. I believe that he acts on impulse."

"I studied leadership for a long time during 32 years in the military," said retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Scott Gration, a one-time Republican who is supporting Obama. "It is all about character. Who can motivate willing followers? Who has the vision? Who can inspire people?" Gration asked. "I have tremendous respect for John McCain, but I would not follow him."

"One of the things the senior military would like to see when they go visit the president is a kind of consistency, a kind of reliability," explained retired Gen. Merrill McPeak, a former Republican, former chief of staff of the Air Force and former fighter pilot who flew 285 combat missions. McPeak said his perception is that Obama is "not that up when he is up and not that down when he is down. He is kind of a steady Eddie. This is a very important feature," McPeak said. On the other hand, he said, "McCain has got a reputation for being a little volatile." McPeak is campaigning for Obama.

Stephen Wayne, a political science professor at Georgetown who is studying the personalities of the presidential candidates, agrees McCain's temperament is of real concern. "The anger is there," Wayne said. If McCain is the one to answer the phone at 3 a.m., he said, "you worry about an initial emotive, less rational response."

Most recently, Wayne has been studying Clinton's personality. "I just gave a presentation on Hillary's temperament for the presidency. I came to the conclusion that it is not really a good presidential temperament, with one caveat -- if you compare it with McCain's."


http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/ ... _in_chief/

Obviously mixed reviews on this...

but of course, that is not the purpose of this thread...

dbackjon wrote:BTW - I was just having a little Friday fun...

The quoted comments were all by REPUBLICAN Pundits like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, etc, from 2004, talking about JOHN KERRY!!


GOTCHA!!!

travelinman67 wrote:

dbackjon wrote:BTW - I was just having a little Friday fun...

The quoted comments were all by REPUBLICAN Pundits like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, etc, from 2004, talking about JOHN KERRY!!


GOTCHA!!!

...I'm registering over at DU as dbackjim...to start posting pro McCain, anti-Obama, pro-Christian remarks...

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:Note to self...dback is more of a prankster on this site than he is on AGS. Caution...you may end up liking the guy more than you already do and if he is a smooth talkier...Oh shit! this isn't my sub conscience anymore is it?

dbackjon wrote:These commentators are just brutal...

Is marrying well good preparation for serving as the president of the United States? . . . . He's always had a net underneath him throughout his political career -- in his case, a net woven of homespun 24K gold.

And, once again his wife made him sign a prenuptial agreement when they were wed: "Which begs the question: If his own wife doesn't trust him with her money, why should we trust him with ours?"

If his wife is not sure about her husband's character. Are you?

W]hat do you consider a fair wage? He considers a fair wage a wife with 500 million. So, he had to find a company that had one. Well, there aren't too many of these companies that have little heiresses running around that are single, have 500 million that some guy can marry into. . . .

You got sugar daddy wife now. He worked his way up from a blue blood to a platinum American Express card, and it doesn't have his name on it.

He has lived the life of a millionaire living off the inherited wealth of his wife. He did not have to work for his fortune, he never had to worry about the money he earned, the taxes he paid, he is not effected (sic) when these neighborhoods are destroyed and working class families lose the largest asset in their retirement plans -- their home's value.

He's a kept man. He lives off the money made by other men and left to their daughters or wives.

If he has an economic plan, I think the one I'd like to hear about is how to snooker millionairesses into marrying me and living off them. I mean, that is not an, a, a trivial point.

Now, having a wife who provides you with a private jet and eight multimillion-dollar vacation homes provides for a comfortable life. But is this the right preparation for becoming president? . . .

His wives' wealth always gave him a safety net. He was going to be taken care of whether he succeeded professionally or not. . . .

Whether he wins or loses the presidency, he will still be living like a king. For most people, that would be a blessing. But for someone who wants to be the president of the United States, having such a significant fallback position is actually a curse.

Alas, there is yet one other important consideration that should get us all thinking. Before they married, she made him sign a prenuptial agreement. Which begs the question: If his own wife doesn't trust him with her money, why should we trust him with ours?

Thoughts? Personally, I think this is all over blown - who cares that someone married rich?

bench wrote:
You were definitely using your out-loud voice, dude