McCain's character

Clearly, whether or not they have cheated with or without their wife's knowledge, it does not make them a bad President or a good one. Nothing you have written is definitive proof of that.

Bush 41's infidelity is suspect as was RR's when he was married to Jane Wyman and courting Nancy,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Show me ACTIONS that he's taken, not awards he's been given.

McCain-Kerry
McCain-Kennedy
McCain-Feingold
Opposition to GWB's tax cuts
Opposition to the Freedom to Farm Act of 1996 (which ended milk price supports)

Since when is a man's morality and character not mutually dependent?

Facts are facts. The majority of Presidents have cheated on their wives for most of this century.

I give up.

flaja wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Show me ACTIONS that he's taken, not awards he's been given.

McCain-Kerry
McCain-Kennedy
McCain-Feingold
Opposition to GWB's tax cuts
Opposition to the Freedom to Farm Act of 1996 (which ended milk price supports)

What this shows is he is willing to work with others to enact legislation.

flaja,

Quote:

Since when is a man's morality and character not mutually dependent?

So a man with loose morals is also a man of bad character?
Is that what you are saying?

Does the name Bill Clinton mean anything to you?

Yet you and others constantly defended his character, even after it was proven he had no morals.

Why have you changed your tune now?

woiyo wrote:

flaja wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Show me ACTIONS that he's taken, not awards he's been given.

McCain-Kerry
McCain-Kennedy
McCain-Feingold
Opposition to GWB's tax cuts
Opposition to the Freedom to Farm Act of 1996 (which ended milk price supports)

What this shows is he is willing to work with others to enact legislation.

What it shows is McCain's willingness to cave in to the other side.

I have no idea what McCain's policies, ideas or plans are beyond the fact that he said he was willing to be in Iraq for 100 years. That's all I needed to hear to completely wipe him off my radar.

flaja wrote:

woiyo wrote:

flaja wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Show me ACTIONS that he's taken, not awards he's been given.

McCain-Kerry
McCain-Kennedy
McCain-Feingold
Opposition to GWB's tax cuts
Opposition to the Freedom to Farm Act of 1996 (which ended milk price supports)

What this shows is he is willing to work with others to enact legislation.

What it shows is McCain's willingness to cave in to the other side.

This is funny!!!
If he refuses to work with the dems, he gets called an obstructionist or a partisan hack.
If he works with the dems he gets accused of "willingness to cave in to the other side".

And both of those are coming from the same person.

He works with Democrats but the end result is legislation that is liberal to the core.

flaja wrote:

He works with Democrats but the end result is legislation that is liberal to the core.

And you don't like anything liberal, right?

So, for whom are you going to vote in November?

Ticomaya wrote:

flaja wrote:

He works with Democrats but the end result is legislation that is liberal to the core.

And you don't like anything liberal, right?

You're just now realizing this?

Quote:

So, for whom are you going to vote in November?

Likely nobody.

Foofie wrote:

The reason why I believe this continued concern with who is, or is not, an adulterer, is based on ignoring one fact. Some of us are monogamous, some of us are polygamous. Just like the animal kingdom.

Quote:

If you are an animal you can justify anything. By your standards any man who rapes a little girl is just an animal so it is natural to him. Ken Lay was just an animal so whatever he stole was justifiable. Adolf Hitler was just an animal, so it was natural for him to kill 6,000,000 in cold blood.

Incorrect statement: "If you are an animal you can justify anything." Most animals don't have our big brains to justify anything, yet they are still animals. I however was just pointing out that some animals are monogamous, others polygamous. And, some animals birth with eggs, others the baby is in the mother.

But to claim, "by my standards" is just putting words in my mouth with an incorrect extrapolation. It is not "natural" to rape anyone, since as animals with big brains we developed a society that makes certain things taboo. Like incest is a taboo in our human society.

Being an animal/mammal does not give anyone license. But, as an animal/mammal, we do have to reproduce a certain way, and eliminate waste products in our bodies a certain way, and eat things that were once alive.

The fact remains, some of us human animals are by nature monogamous, and others by nature are polygamous. That fact might correlate in some way why some people only have one marriage in their lives and others have several marriages. Perhaps, it is like some people have brown hair, and others blond hair. But, that natural instinct has nothing to do with the way lower animals act, or sociopathic individuals act.

My position just accepts that the moral code that marriage vows insist on, might be broken, by those humans (aka human animal/mammal) that has an instinct for polygamy. It does not reflect on the individual person's character. Our religions might like to claim that it does, but like religion has people believing in a Supreme Being that doesn't even exist.

P.S. I believe your misunderstanding of the word "animal" was based on its colloquial/slang meaning; I was using it like a biologist.

McCain caught in yet another lie about who he has and hasn't met.

http://www.americablog.com/2008/02/mccain-lied-again-this-time-about-never.html

With video.

Cycloptichorn

McCain caught in yet another lie about who he has and hasn't met.

http://www.americablog.com/2008/02/mccain-lied-again-this-time-about-never.html

With video.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

McCain caught in yet another lie about who he has and hasn't met.

http://www.americablog.com/2008/02/mccain-lied-again-this-time-about-never.html

With video.

Cycloptichorn

Cunningham is evidently a complete dumbass, and I'm sure you'll agree.

Unless, of course, you are now wanting to concede that Cunningham is a man whose opinions we ought to trust?

Didn't think so.