31
   

CIA Chief Petraeus resigns as result of extra-marital affair

 
 
DrewDad
 
  3  
Reply Tue 13 Nov, 2012 02:40 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:
she was "throwing herself" at you. What could you do? You're only a man.


I don't think it's normal to cheat on your spouse, whether you're a man or a woman.

Agreed. When one is tempted, the proper response is to get the hell away from the person who is the temptation.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Nov, 2012 02:44 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
The comment about Franklin is hilarious. He never married. He did live with a married woman whose husband had fled debt with her dowry


Franklin consider himself married and most to the people of that day also consider him in a marriage so single he was not. He had two children by her and have her raised another son that was his but not her. The relationship last for his and her lives.

When he was a young man he went to england leaving the love of his life behind and she married a no good sob when he was gone who shortly afterward disappear on her never to be seen again however the law was such she could not get a divorce not even knowing if her husband was alive or dead so both Franklin and her decide to settle for a common law arrangement instead of risking being charge with bigamist it her husband had shown up alive.

Now days she would have been able to get the marriage annulled or she could get a divorce but once more they held themselves out as married for the remainder of their lives.


DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Tue 13 Nov, 2012 02:48 pm
@DrewDad,
On the lighter side, According to This Denver TV Station, Paula Broadwell Wrote a Book Called All Up In My Snatch
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Tue 13 Nov, 2012 02:52 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
But they managed to do it more quietly, and discretely, than is really possible with the sort of scrutiny, and 24/7 media coverage, that goes on today


Hamilton Firefly needed to go public and had printed a full pamphlet detailings his affair with the married lady and how her husband had blackmail him to defend himself from the charge that he was in partnership with the husband to defraud the people when he was the first treasury secretary of the US.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Tue 13 Nov, 2012 03:24 pm
@BillRM,
First, he was not married. Second, you have completely avoided the issue of leadership. Was that when he was the Postmaster General? Idiot.
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Tue 13 Nov, 2012 03:33 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
I believe in personal loyalty and personal responsibility

It's nice, for a change, to hear someone defending the need to maintain trust in a relationship, rather than putting forth all sorts of excuses for behavior that betrays that trust.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  2  
Reply Tue 13 Nov, 2012 04:12 pm
I believe most of us want to live lives of principle.....right up until the exact moment principle comes at cross hairs with self interest.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Nov, 2012 04:15 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
First, he was not married


If a couple hold themselves out as married for many many decades I would consider them married even if you do not. As the relationship last so long that there were little likelihood that her first husband was still alive somewhere for the whole length of their partnership they would in fact be married by common-law married laws that was just as valid as any other manner of getting married at the time.

Quote:
Second, you have completely avoided the issue of leadership. Was that when he was the Postmaster General? Idiot.


POSTMASTER general are you implying that was all he happen to had been!!!!!!!!!

He happen to be main ambassador/European agent for the congress and he was the one who got the foreign support from arms to loans and then troops and French warships that first allow the colonies to hold on during the revolutionary war and then to win it.

It was his abilities alone that allow us to have the means to win our independents and given the communication time lag of that era there was little direction from congress possible and he was acting largely as a independent agent under only very broad guidelines.

So yes, he did show leadership in fact great leadership in winning not only foreign governments support but public support in Europe of the time.

We might had been able to win without Washington but there is no way we could had won without Franklin.

InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Nov, 2012 05:06 pm
In an October 26 speech at the University of Denver, Paula Broadwell stated that the CIA had taken some Libyan militiamen into custody, and that that is what had prompted the attack. The attackers were attempting to liberate these militiamen. She had also stated that this info was still being vetted at the time.

The CIA has since denied that there were prisoners held at the annex.

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/11/11/did_petraeus_mistress_reveal_new_benghazi_details
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Nov, 2012 02:46 am
@BillRM,
You don't know what the **** you're talking about. When it comes to history, you never know--you just make **** up. He was never the "main ambassador" to anywhere, and ambassadors don't hold high profile leadership posiitions.

I can see why you'd want to argue trivialities such as this though--it meust be a relief to you that no one is holding your feet to the fire for your inferential claim that men who cheat on their wives make better leaders.

Idiot.
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Wed 14 Nov, 2012 03:13 am
@blueveinedthrobber,
Millions of people are married and remain married without having extramarital affairs. Millions of people work all their lives in positions of trust and never betray that trust. Millions of people work all their lives with access to the funds of their company or of individuals and never steal a dime.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Nov, 2012 05:28 am
@Setanta,
Yes he did not get France involved in helping us first with undercover aid and then with direct and open military force and he did not get large loans not only from France but from other European nations.

Those ships of the line and those French troops at Yorktown was not the direct result of his actions and efforts.

Second, my position had never been that cheating on a spouse were a marker for being a better leader just that one way or another it does not matter.

We had have great leaders who were loyal and great leaders who was not loyal to their married vows.

If however Franklin had been ban from public service due to his personal life we would not had won the revolution and he is not the only key person in our history that were vital to our nation that cheated on his wife be the wife common law or otherwise.

BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Nov, 2012 05:36 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
Millions of people are married and remain married without having extramarital affairs. Millions of people work all their lives in positions of trust and never betray that trust.


Being honest in matters such as not stealing from your employer and not cheating on your mate does not and never had a one to one connection.

Hamilton never stole a dime of government.public funds but he sure the hell cheated on his wife.

In fact as I already wrote due to his dealings with the blackmailing conman husband of the woman he were cheating with he was charge by his enemies with doing so as secretary of the treasury and needed as a result to issue a pamphlet with the details of both his affair and the husband blackmailing attempts.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Wed 14 Nov, 2012 05:50 am
@BillRM,
Our first major loans came from Holland, which made sense, as we were already buying arms and gun powder from them in the West Indies. We got substantial aid from France after the Saratoga caompaign, a significant military event in which Franklin played no part. France and Spain went to war at sea with England in the belief that it was in their best interest.

So, no, the ships and troops provided us by France were not the direct result of anything Franklin did, and would have been the natural consequence of our demonstrating that we had a good shot at winning.

I really can't believe that you actually were stupid enough to suggest that we could have won without Washington, but not without Franklin. You're a bigger idiot than i though. Ambassaors, and negotiators who work out the details of loans are a dime a dozen, and that includes Franklin. Franklin was all show, a PR effort.

Quote:
Second, my position had never been that cheating on a spouse were a marker for being a better leader just that one way or another it does not matter.


Liar.

BillRM wrote:
If anything we need more such childish men as they seems to average far better leaders then the ones who as far as we know where pure of heart.


That was your post #5166252

As usual, you display a shallow, comic book "knowledge" of history. All this bullshit about Franklin reads like something out of a 1950s elemetary school textbook of favorite American historical fables.

Idiot.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Wed 14 Nov, 2012 05:53 am
@BillRM,
I have no idea what this babbling drivel was thought to be in aid of, but my post was in resopnse to a comment made by BVT. Piss off, idiot.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Nov, 2012 06:21 am
@Setanta,
Idiot indeed as we was a small group of colonies of England that there was great question that we would exist to repaid any of our loans and other aid that Franklin arrange for us.

No Franklin was not someone that could had been replaced by the likes of Adams.

In fact of all Americans of the time he had by far the most standing and respect in Europe due to his many achievements.

If fools like you would have you ways great men who are not loyal to their mates would not be allow to take part in public service and in the case of Franklin we would likely to still belong to England as a result.

An if we won our independent somehow without Franklin the finance system that Hamilton set up that serve the new nation well and one of the reasons we was able to grow into a world power would had been missing as we can not have a man who would cheat on his wife is such a position of power/trust by the so call reasoning I had seen on this thread.



izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Wed 14 Nov, 2012 06:23 am
@BillRM,
Like Canada and Australia still belong to England.
Mame
 
  4  
Reply Wed 14 Nov, 2012 06:39 am
@BillRM,
I really wish you would speak better (i.e. complete) English. It's damn difficult understanding what the hell you are trying to say with your mixed up tenses and incomplete wording. A few commas wouldn't go amiss, either. One has to re-read your drivel several times, putting in commas, in order to try to make sense of it. Very annoying.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Wed 14 Nov, 2012 06:44 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
If fools like you would have you ways great men who are not loyal to their mates would not be allow to take part in public service and in the case of Franklin we would likely to still belong to England as a result.


God you're a jackass. I suggested nothing of the kind. That's a pathetic straw man.

Nation B does not go to war with Nation C on behalf of Nation A, unless Nation A can show a reasonable probability of staying in the war and surviving. On that basis, because of the second battle of Satatoga, France came to our aid. More than any other individual, we owe our survival as a nation and our triumph in our revolution to one man--Benedict Arnold. I'm sure you'll howl over that one, but that will just further demonstrate how f*cking little you know about the history of the United States.

Franklin was a self-promoting road show, and his part could have been played as effectively by any one of dozens of individuals.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Nov, 2012 06:44 am
@izzythepush,
Canada play their position on our border to get a lot better deal then they would likely had gotten otherwise from England over the last two hundred years or so.

Nothing like being able to threaten to go to another lover if your current lover does not treat you right.
 

Related Topics

General David Petraeus - Question by gollum
well that's a thought - Discussion by dyslexia
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/04/2022 at 02:10:14