Comments for Cindy McCain says she'll never release her tax returns »
Posted By not2needy 1 year, 6 months ago in News"You know, my husband and I have been married 28 years and we have filed separate tax returns for 28 years. This is a privacy issue. My husband is the candidate,"
Read Full Story at news.yahoo.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 474 of 475 Comments
-
Neutral
not2needy1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FTA:
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said Cindy McCain's refusal to release her tax returns gives the appearance of a double standard on the part of her husband.
"What is John McCain trying to hide?" Dean said in a statement. "Throughout this campaign, he has acted like his own calls for openness and accountability apply to everyone but himself. Now he thinks he can bring that same double standard to the White House."
Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton filed joint tax returns with their spouses and publicly released those returns.
If Cindy McCain were to become the first lady, she should do like every first lady before her, and release her tax information. Everyone already knows she's a multimillionaire, so what is she trying to hide.
PLUS, what self respecting man lives with a woman for 28 years and allows her to have this kind of control. Money can't buy everything. What would the cons say if this was Michelle Obama.
Reply-
Neutral
questionseverything1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
mccain trying to play both sides against the middle...releasing his tax returns to look "semi-normal" all the while riding around in his multi millionare wifes priv jet
yet he has the nerve to call obama an "elite" when the obamas just got their student loans paid off when his book made money
the sad part is with the msm being the corp shills they r a big segment of the population doesnt get to hear the truth
Reply-
Neutral
not2needy1 year, 6 months ago
-
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: Retracted by user12 Replies
-
-
-
Neutral
Beau78901 year, 6 months ago
-
Neutral
StarLord1 year, 6 months ago
-
Neutral
Aidenag1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Hensley Family had a ton of shady/illegal dealings with Mob figures involving liquor distribution and horse tracks.
The key people her father had dealings with were Kemper Marley, Sr., and Clarence "Teak" Baldwin.
Marley, a mobbed up "businessman" was widely thought to be the the person who ordered the Car bombing of a Arizona investigative journalist(Don Bolles) who was digging into his illegal activities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Bolles
And Clarence Baldwin was a convicted bookmaker with heavy mob ties. Who was a full partner with Hensley for Ruidoso Downs Race track.
Cindy's father even had a felony conviction in fact for falsifying liquor records, and concealing the existence of his mob connected business partners in Ruidoso Downs. The felony conviction should have stopped him from even being allowed to create the Hensley booze empire, but for some reason he was allowed to create a liquor distribution company as a convicted felon.
Reply-
Neutral
Aidenag1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Continued:
These facts are all widely known(at least to those in Arizona over the age of 40), as McCain was grilled over these mob connections during his first congressional run in 1986.
You can check out more info about it at these links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Hensley
http://www.samsedershow.com/node/2470
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=5...
http://www.democrats.com/john-mccain-married-to...
Reply-
-
Neutral
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I would call that 'asked...and answered'
TY for the info
---
Are connections to a loudmouthed preacher with a clean record more damning, or being married to a bunch of mob money?
I'm sure this lack of transparency will not translate into another secretive presidency tho. uh-huh...
Hopefully enough people will get smart come election time and counteract the automatic GOP voters and the 'party of God' religious folks.
some of those folks, and there are a few in my family, listen to their TV minister and vote accordingly regardless
It's how Bush got re-elected
Reply-
Neutral
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"You know, my husband and I have been married 28 years and we have filed separate tax returns for 28 years. This is a privacy issue. My husband is the candidate,"
I like that last sentence a lot
'My husband is the candidate'
yet her husband, the candidate, had no issue with exploiting a slightly less intimate relationship, which unlike the McCains had no illegality in it, the Obama/Wright relationship
white washed walls and hypocrites
his legendary flip-flopping alone is enough to disqualify him, let alone his continuation of Bush's policies and this stuff
I guess I should rest easy and be assured he won't get elected, but I dunno
Voters seem to weigh with a very strange scale and value system
Reply -
Neutral
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 6 months ago
-
doggammitComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive
-
-
-
doggammitComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Beau78901 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You mean because she doesn't actually have to state where the money came from on her return?
Where there's a record of income and of money paid out--at the very least on Schedules A, B and C--there's a starting point for an enterprising reporter to trace where the money comes from and where it goes, even if it's not specifically stated on her return.
In addition, when dealing with mob money, there's always a question of money laundering. Again certain indicators of questionable sources and destinations of her money would show up in a detailed tax return, though it would take further investigation to prove exactly what those sources and destinations were.
Remember, Al Capone was finally convicted only of tax evasion.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Teech1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
By now, it's no secret that I am NOT a fan of John McCain.
"You know, my husband and I have been married 28 years and we have filed separate tax returns for 28 years. This is a privacy issue. My husband is the candidate,"
And she's right!
I don't give a rats ass where Obama goes to church or what his idiot minister said or does. Likewise, I don't care where Cindy gets her money. It's HER money!
Come on! Can it be any dirtier than the millions all candidates take from Big Oil, Big Insurance, Big Pharm, or Big Business of any sort?
And, I ask you in all seriousness, is there any other way to finance a presidential campaign ?????
Reply-
Neutral
not2needy1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
With Cindy's 100 mil, she could have financed her hubby's, but i have to agree with raats, a few posts down, it doesn't really look like she wants her hubby to be President. Maybe she doesn't want the publicity, would be hard to be high on Oxycoten all the time with cameras in your face constantly.
Reply-
Neutral
Teagen1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Now let's not start the name calling. Cindy went through rehab and has been a big advocate for people getting help. As to her drugs of choice, it was more of the Vicodin and Percocet. Both are very addictive and perhaps the Oxycodone/Acetaminophen should be removed from the market. This isn't the first time nor will it be the last, we've seen someone lose control because of it. But back on topic, she's been to rehab and is successful at keeping clean.
As to being first lady, why would she. Move into a smaller home in a bad neighborhood?
Reply-
Neutral
Lurch1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Of course, she stole from a charity because her own family and accountants track her money so closely. The trappings of wealth I guess. But on top of that felony, she illegally bought a controlled substance, another felony.
Why isn`t she/wasn`t she in jail? Too elite for peasant jail I guess.
So why won`t the home-wrecker release her taxes if she has nothing to hide? The Clintons did. The Obamas did.
Knowing that almost all of McCains tax-deductible charitable giving went to his own charity, which donates to the schools his kids go to, sure sounds like a tax cheat to me. Hey, if you are rich enough, the law doesn`t apply. If not, you pay taxes and pay the piper if you break the law.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
TemplarScribe1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Teech said: "I ask you in all seriousness, is there any other way to finance a presidential campaign?"
Damn straight there is. It's called publicly financed campaigns.
It's very simple: NO private funding of any kind can be used for any election from the state level on up. Any donations go to fund the race, and are split evenly between all eligible candidates for that office. And all public airwaves will be required to provide air time at NO cost, evenly, just as the funding is provided evenly to all candidates.
FYI, there is nothing in the Constitution protecting campaign financing, not a word, not even a mention of individual parties. And as Thomas Jefferson once said, "If I had to join a political party in order to get into heaven, I'd rather not go."
Until we have politicians who aren't bought by special interest groups or managed by insider-controlled parties, the charade of "free elections" will be simply that: a charade.
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
Teagen1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't know which side you're talking about here. In my home state of Wisconsin, between the teachers unions, trade unions, Indian Casinos, road builders and donations from the George Sorros front groups, conservatives get killed here all of the time. I'd like to see McCain/Foolsgold reworked eliminating the 503's and other front groups from making commercials.
Reply-
Neutral
Lurch1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I would like to see the current McCain/xxx law enforced, starting with McCain.
He took out a multi-million dollar loan based on public funding and then, when he gets the nomination and private money is guaranteed, he claims the public-financing law doesn`t apply and spends over the legal limit. If he is not limited by public financing, then he took out the loan illegally based on future income that was not expected/guaranteed.
Reply -
doggammitComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
Neutral
Teech1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
TS, you are a clear thinker. I'd vote for your publicly financed campaign law in an instant. It would completely transform American politics...for the better. I especially like the "even split" provision. Corporations can give all they want, but it won't go into the coffers of a bought and paid for candidate.
Kudos to you.
Reply-
-
Neutral
Jaydee401 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
A good bit of information here HM if you want to look.
http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=gen...
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive4 Replies
-
-
-
Neutral
Klarissa1 year, 6 months ago
-
-
-
-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive1 Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Since you love to talk about Bill Clinton so much, perhaps the question you should ask (and one which is actually relevant to the story) is why Cindy shouldn't be obliged to release her tax info when Bill Clinton had to release his.
Reply-
-
-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Exactly. So wouldn't it have been just as acceptable for Hillary to decline to show *her* tax records based on the same reasoning being used here--that her husband has a right to privacy? Why should McCain and his spouse be able to exploit such a loophole if no other candidates can? If we agree that candidates have to show their records then we should apply rules uniformly.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
Teagen1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
John Kerry and Ted Kennedy never did either when they were running for the Presidency, as it their right. Unless you're going to change the Constitution, there's no reason to.
As to other reports, I'd still like to officially see John Kerry's military records. I suspect there are many discrepancies with his "confessions" in Congress when compared to his actual record.
Reply-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive4 Replies
-
-
-
Neutral
1-2-Oscar1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"PLUS, what self respecting man lives with a woman for 28 years and allows her to have this kind of control."
Perhaps he is a self-respecting man who also has respect for a woman. Or would you rather we return to the days when women were considered the property of their husbands and were not legally able to own businesses or other property, or to sign binding legal contracts?
Reply-
Neutral
not2needy1 year, 6 months ago
-
Neutral
1-2-Oscar1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In John McCain's home, it is altogether possible that "the left hand always knows what the right hand is doing." Releasing the tax returns to the media has nothing to do with whether the McCain's communicate with each other.
I understand that you have been married for seventeen years--I think that is enough time for you to understand that the two people who are involved in each marriage have to work out their own ways of doing things. Your method of keeping everyone in line will not necessarily work for me, and it may not work for the McCains.
Reply-
Neutral
not2needy1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
1-2-O, What you say can very well be true. However, disclosure of tax statements is something that has been done by the candidates and their spouses ever since i can remember, even if the wife had no income.
Cindy McCains adamant refusal saying she is not the candidate, goes completely against McCains stance on openness and accountability.
It also shows how hypocritical things have been handled by the media, blowing the issue of Obama's pastor completely out of proportion, while he was merely a family friend, not a spouse.
Basically, it just appears that there is something to hide here, and you know as well as i do, if this had been Bill Clinton, or Michelle Obama refusing to disclose their tax information, the media would have had a field day with it.
Reply-
Neutral
1-2-Oscar1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The media has always been hypocritical, and never more so than this year, when a former Clinton staffer was selected to question the candidates in the Pennsylvania Democratic "Debate."
Cindy McCain's stance is exactly what women's rights advocates have been looking for for many years. However, since most of them have chosen to back Sen. Clinton, a woman who has always said the right words but has no record of upholding feminist principles, I expect that these organizations will join in the condemnation of Mrs. McCain, even as she demonstrates that she has the backbone to stand up to her critics.
Reply-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
>>Cindy McCain's stance is exactly what women's rights advocates have been looking for for many years.
I have to disagree. She is the spouse of a presidential candidate. The financial activity of ALL in the household can tell a lot about the family - AND the candidate. It can tell how truly honest (s)he is.
Like N2N said, think about what would've happened if Bill Clinton or Michelle Obama had refused.
Reply -
Neutral
bubba21 year, 6 months ago
-
-
-
Neutral
nostalgia1 year, 6 months ago
-
-
Neutral
nostalgia1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What rules apply to candidates releasing tax returns?
Are there any rules which apply to wives?
I don't believe that Teresa Heinz Kerry ever did release her entire tax return - only a summary. That was in the presidential race. I don't think she ever released them for the Senate races
Reply-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Individual income tax returns â;; including those of public figures â;; are private information, protected by law from unauthorized disclosure. Indeed, the Internal Revenue Service is barred from releasing any taxpayer information whatsoever, except to authorized agencies and individuals.
Like all other citizens, U.S. presidents enjoy this protection of their privacy. Since the early 1970s, however, most presidents have chosen to release their returns publicly.
http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/Web/P...
Theresa Heinz Kerry DID release PART of her 2003 tax information.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200804180007
Reply-
Neutral
nostalgia1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Theresa Heinz Kerry DID release PART of her 2003 tax information."
That's what I said - a summary
"two-page document" showing "total income of $5,073,554 last year."
"most presidents have chosen to release their returns publicly." And a president or candidate should in my opinion
I just never thought that a wife should be dragged into it. She isn't running for office
Reply-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"I just never thought that a wife should be dragged into it. She isn't running for office."
--But as the rules exist, the candidate's spouse will or won't be"dragged into it" based on the manner in which they choose to file their taxes. I don't see how that's fair.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
All I'm saying is that regardless of how couples file their taxes, Bill Clinton's tax records should be no more or less open to public scrutiny than Cindy McCains. How is it fair that the public is privy to more information about the Clinton family than they are the McCain family based simply on how they chose to file?
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I didn't care.
And I don't care now.
That is not the point.
The media and the Republicans wanted Theresa to release her tax returns.
But for Cindy McCain, it is fine and dandy for her to not do so.
Double-standard by the media and the Republicans.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive5 Replies
-
-
-
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Poor little misguided Cindy. Little does she realize that's the first thing Dems are goin after once Hillary and Obama's duel comes to an end in a few weeks. And much like her makeup, things are gonna get REALLY ugly. Ugly and scary. ;-(
Reply-
-
-
-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive
-
-
-
Neutral
StarLord1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
1. While I disapprove of Mrs. McCain's decision, it is hers to take.
2. Sen. McCain can't force her to release her tax records, you know.
3. They've been filing separate tax returns since 1980. I'd say that this means that it's not a cheap gimmick.
Reply-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"They've been filing separate tax returns since 1980. I'd say that this means that it's not a cheap gimmick."
--The thing is, what's to stop all aspiring Presidential candidates from using their spouses to shield their questionable financial activities. I'm not saying that's the case here but he got was elected to Congress not long after marrying her. I don't think it's overly far fetched to think his future political aspirations might have been a consideration before they were married.
Reply -
Neutral
Lurch1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
> 2. Sen. McCain can't force her to release her tax records, you know.
He`s running for president. If he cannot control the financial docs of his own family, why would we want such a pu%%y whipped dweeb to run (er, ruin) the country.
He cannot control the Republican Party in NC, he cannot control his wife, his cannot control his temper, he cannot control the people in his party breaking the Geneva Convention...
Why did the Republicans nominate this guy again? Oh yeah, he`s a flip-flopper who`s easily manipulated and controlled by others. The perfect Republican WH president.
Reply-
Neutral
StarLord1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Oh, please. Next, you'll say that any husband who doesn't keep his wifey on an allowance is "pu%%y-whipped".
Stop insisting on double standards here.
As for the rest:
1. If you want someone who can "control" everything in sight, be warned: you'll get them.
2. Cannot control his temper? Please explain...
3. Cannot control his wife: see original reply.
4. Cannot control his party - well, guess what: he is one of 49 Republican senators. Not the RNC Chairman.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
humemacdonald1 year, 6 months ago
-
Neutral
not2needy1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Are you married hume? My husband and i have only been married 17 years, and we share tax information, file together, i know what's going on in my own house, and so does he! That's my point...
Cindy McCain doesn't get a free pass, enough free passes for the McCains/ She has stolen from her foundation, forged prescriptions, among other things, all of which she had no consequences, not even a record. Now she refuses to disclose her tax information! More of the same, and apparently the one in control, but there is a reason for it, and it's not because she's paying tooooo much taxes!
Reply-
Neutral
humemacdonald1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Are you married hume? My husband and i have only been married 17 years, and we share tax information, file together, i know what's going on in my own house, and so does he! That's my point..."
Until recently I was for 15 years and we filed separately, but Canada has a completely different tax system so you can't equate the two. I have to disagree with your comment though not2needy. Mainly, because I feel that McCain is right in asserting that she is not an extension of her husband, but a separate individual with privacy rights. I would feel the same way if someone made $20 a year or $20 million. Sure, she might be a tax evader, but that is for the IRS to determine, and is a private matter.cont'd
Reply-
Neutral
humemacdonald1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I was brought up that a woman should be in control of her own money. Even my grandmother maintained that a woman should have her own account, and what she does with it is nobodies business but her own.
Yes, in most relationships a degree of financial openness is a given but not a prerequisite, so I don't think any type of moral judgment about the relationship is appropriate.
As well, I think Canadians are more prone to clearly delineate between a candidate's private and personal life. I don't remember anyone ever talking about a candidate's religion , let alone what their pastor says. So, I think the whole American obsession with the minutia of a candidate's life is detrimental to democracy as it encourages the media to focus on the superfluous.
Reply-
Neutral
not2needy1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's that double standard that makes this so bizarre hume. Holding Obmam accountable for things his pastor says, yet NOT holding McCain responsible for things his wife has done, and actually things that he has kept her for being held accountable for.
I want my own income! I don't want to ever feel that i am dependent on anyone. However, my husband and i pool our incomes and keep nothing separate. We both get what we need and want with no problems, but everything is in the open.
My brother and his wife have that kind of marriage, everyting separate, and they are constantly battling over who is going to pay what. They married late in life and chose to do it that way because of their ages and grown children involved, but they are both miserable with it.
Personally, i think the McCains have been married for too many years for this to still be an obstacle for them. Does she support him or not? If so, she isn't exempt the same requirements of any other hopeful First Lady.
Reply -
Neutral
humemacdonald1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I understand where you are coming from not2needy. You know it's funny, I used to work as a personal banker and I always found it was the couples that didn't keep things separate were the ones arguing in my office about how the other spends money-lol, go figure.
Reply-
Neutral
tanglang1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"yet NOT holding McCain responsible for things his wife has done"
What has she done? At this point you have no evidence of any wrongdoing on Cindy McCains part. You just want there to be something there so bad that you will go to any length to find something. It is really quite sad.
Reply-
Neutral
not2needy1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
tang.
Here is a link, from a newspaper in Phoenix, Az. Not that you will bother to read it, but it is proof that she did what i said, and there was no denials about it.
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1994-09-08/news/...
Reply-
-
-
-
Neutral
not2needy1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Her father was a felon, see the links provided by Aidenag, and the apple doesn't fall far from the tree! In light of the fact that she is so adamant about not providing her tax information, she leaves herself open for speculation and worst case scenerios.
Reply-
Neutral
tanglang1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
My father was a felon. (Until he was exonerated that is) That does'nt have sht to do with the price of tea in China! Baracks father was a muslim. Does that mean he is one too? NO! You yourself said that. Michelle Obama would not release her thesis statement. (After reading it I understand why. What a b*tch.) Were you upset about that too?
Reply-
Neutral
not2needy1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
However, Cindy McCain is on the board of her father's business. Which is a great deal more influence than Baracks father had on him and i don't know how much or what influence your father had on you.
I never made any statement regarding Michelle Obama's thesis statement, i haven't read it, she's not running for president, and i could care less.
Therein lies your double standards, Barack MUST be judged by his wife, but McCain, yet again, gets a free pass. What an ignorant jerk you are.
Reply-
Neutral
tanglang1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I am a consultant for the company my father works for.
OH! So Michelle is not running for president and therefore deserves privacy but Cindy McCain is a different story???
It would appear that YOU are the one calling for a double standard!
"What an ignorant jerk you are."
Thanks babe. ; )
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
amazed1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm impressed n2n -- you must know every Star/National Enquirer type site on the entire web.
There were no facts in this link -- just smears and inuendos, but as usual you got your rush to judgement for anyone you disagree with -- they're not just wrong they must be evil hypocrites.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
*for tanglang*
"yet NOT holding McCain responsible for things his wife has done"
'You just want there to be something there so bad that you will go to any length to find something. It is really quite sad.'
read AD's posts and links on the 1st page
Not2's point was about associations
maybe this will help:
ask yourself who'd you'd rather owe a G to when the Pats lose, Reverend Wright, or Clarence Baldwin?
if you answered 'Wright' to that question, there may be some hope for you yet
[I hate when my first try at posting disappears: I'm always sure it was better]
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
not2needy1 year, 6 months ago
-
Neutral
amazed1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
whether they keep their finances separate or not is not a moral issue. Each year I do my taxes jointly and then I do them separately to determine which is going to serve me better and lower the tax bite.
If you recall when Hilary (I think -- or was it Obama) said that they didn't want to release their their tax return until they were the official candidate, I said they shouldn't have to.
Cindy McCain is NOT a candidate for office. If she doesn't want to disclose, I don't think she should have to. You all applauded Theresa Heinz and Hilary Clinton when they refused to be pigeon-holed as traditional first wives.
Now, if you can find where John McCain was demanding that Hilary or Obama release their income tax returns (not saying he didn't -- it's an issue I don't pay much attention to), then I agree this is somewhat hypocritical, however, if he hasn't it's a non-issue.
She's not going to be President, even if he gets elected.
Reply-
Neutral
questionseverything1 year, 6 months ago
-
Neutral
not2needy1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
amazed!
It was Hillary who didn't want to release her tax info, but she was hounded to death, so she went ahead and did it.
NOW, the double standard here is the big stink the repubs made in 2004 about Teresa H. Kerry's tax information, so she released it. NOW, it's acceptable for Cindy McCain to NOT release hers?????? Because she's not running for president!!!!!! YET, Obama has been raked over the coals about his pastor, of whom he doesn't live with, nor sleep with, and has no control over. EGAD!
Reply-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You mean that it is not of concern what the beliefs of a candidate for president is. Looking at Wrights sermons for the past 20 years and looking at some of Obama's books shows a common thread of racial viewpoint.
That concerns me greatly.
Reply-
Neutral
Lurch1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Looking at what Obama has written and said, he is a firm believer in personal accountability, especially for black males. In fact Obama laid into black males for being the worst fathers, absent, MIA, and unsupportive of their children financially and otherwise. Not racist in a John McCain or Hagee way, that`s for sure, but if you are offended by that plz let us know how and why.
On the other hand, the Rev Moon has been preaching that Jesus failed and he is the new `Messiah` since long before he began his thirty plus year relationship with the Republican Party and the Bush family in particular. Rev Moon told his followers not to eat burgers because they are from America and America is evil, yet he`s in bed with the cons all these years. The Rev Moon bedded hundreds if not thousands of wives on their wedding nights to `bless` their wombs with his `holy seed`. He has spent billions promoting the Republican Party.
That should concern you much more.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
tanglang1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
N2N, I never once cared about teresa's tax returns. As a matter of fact, I don't know anyone who was. So forgive me for not falling for this.
Obamas pastor is a whole nother can o beer. The fact that obama stayed there for two decades tells us that he agreed with wrights message. You would have to be real naive or real stupid to think otherwise.
I do like how you said that obama has no control over his pastor when you and I know that he does. He could have left at any time during his two decade long stay. Why didn't he?
Reply-
Neutral
not2needy1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Of course you're right tang, in your mind.
McCain could have left Cindy when she was caught stealing, smuggling and addicted. I admire the fact that he didn't, but with his political aspirations, didn't he realize this would come back to haunt him.
Reply-
Neutral
Lurch1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It is my right to know who I am voting for, their beliefs, and how they got where they are today.
If the McCains have done something so illegal they cannot open up their taxes, they should have chosen to continue hiding under the rock and should not have chosen to run for office in the first place.
What is the home-wrecker, thief, drug addict hiding? Is she a tax cheat too? I have the right to know if a candidate for president is a tax cheat or is married to one. Don`t even try to move the goal posts on this one, especially not after what the cons did to the Clintons.
No, you guys made your own bed, now quit yer whining and sleep in it.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You imply - as the media has - that soundbites from one sermon and a few recent statements by Wright "automatically" prove that those brief remarks were the SAME thing he said for the last 20 years.
And that is false. Obama didn't "leave" that church any time over the last 20 years, because Wright didn't say - every day or every week - the same soundbites from the same sermon every day of his life for the last 20 years!
To stretch one sermon and some remarks from a couple of interviews into 20 YEARS of "hate-speech" is disingenuous.
The neocons want the public to "fall" for that "20 years" stuff that THEY invented and YOU swallowed.
Meanwhile, you ignore the inflammatory remarks - past and present - of so-called fundamentalist "Christian" preachers like John Hagee and Rob Parsley, whom McCain SOUGHT for their support of his candidacy.
Double-standard, media right-wing bias.
Reply -
raats6662Comment removed: Retracted by user15 Replies
-
-
Neutral
StarLord1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
1. Hillary Clinton did, eventually, release her and Bill's tax return. They have paid over $30 million in taxes post-White House. I'd say that the USA has done very well out of the Clintons.
2. What Wright said is only part of the issue. The other part is that he's been saying it for 20 years, and Obama chooses to stay in his congregation. Further, Obama donates an average of $500 per week to that church. Not a good way of showing disapproval for Wright's remarks, IMO.
3. Cindy McCain is not running for any office. Hillary Clinton is, as is Barack Obama. Point: the standards really are different across that data point.
Reply-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You do NOT know that Wright has said for the last 20 years what was extracted out of ONE 7 year old sermon and a couple of recent interviews. There is NO proof of that!
To stretch one sermon and some remarks from a couple of interviews into 20 YEARS of "hate-speech" is disingenuous.
The neocons want the public to "fall" for that "20 years" stuff that THEY invented and YOU swallowed.
Theresa Heinz Kerry was also NOT running for any office in 2004. But, the media and the Republicans railed about her unwillingness to publish all of her tax returns.
Double-standard media right-wing bias. Period.
Reply -
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
>>What Wright said is only part of the issue. The other part is that he's been saying it for 20 years, and Obama chooses to stay in his congregation.
You're basing Wright's career on a 30 second sound bite. He's had almost 40 years of service. That's not even a second a year.
And why hasn't anyone else in the multi-racial congregation shown offense at his remarks? Did you hear the whole sermon, of which on 20-30 seconds has been aired?
And you think a person's preacher is more influential than his/her spouse? What if her tax returns show fraud & other "immoral" activities? What's that say about hubby?
But it's alright to badger the Democrats, but not the Republicans, but what you're saying.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
StarLord1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Excuse me?
Senator McCain is anti-abortion, an issue which can be argued either way (although I, personally, am pro-choice).
If you REALLY don't want an unexpected pregnancy, abstinence is 100% effective. And he hasn't said that his preferred rulings are ones which will strip a woman's right to choose to say no.
Re-examine your statement, please.
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Whether or not anyone "applauded" Theresa Heinz or Hilary for not releasing their returns, there is a double-standard here.
For sure, there will not be another peep out of the media or from the Republicans with any complaints that Cindy did not release any tax returns.
But, when Theresa Heinz released part of her tax returns, that still was not good enough for the media and for the Republicans in 2004. There were a lot of articles and stories complaining about it.
So, other than this story - where Cindy has announced that none of her tax returns are being published - there will very likely be little to nothing else said in the media about it.
For a Republican, its all ok. If Cindy's husband were a Democrat, there would be many more stories about it, akin to the Obama/Wright media blitz.
Reply-
-
-
-
Neutral
not2needy1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Absolutely!
When Hillary hadn't released her tax information it was a major issue, even The View made an issue of it. Today, The View didn't even mention Cindy McCain, instead they interviewed Marcia Cross.
Had this been Michelle Obama, they would have been all over it.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
mntnman444Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned2 Replies
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
moxxxxxxxxxx1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The spouse who has most to lose - or doesn't want their finances publicized will place their money in the other's account. Some people work in professions that place them at risk for losing everything. It just a matter of sensible finance management.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
dunkirk1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well then I guess she should find private quarters if hubby wins the presidency since she wouldn't want to let his [position as President interfere with her skimming from her charities and forging prescriptions for herself or using hte fact that hes President to gain an advantage. ROFLMAO, but then again since he doesnt have a snowballs chance in hell of winning it wont matter.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
mntnman444Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned23 Replies
-
ML2007Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Republicans made an issue out of John Kerry's wife not releasing her tax returns in 2004, even when she did at least release part of that information.
But, I fully expect the hypocritical Republicans to fully defend Cindy McCain's decision to release NONE of her tax information, and I expect the media to basically ignore it or defend it subsequent to this 'official' announcement.
Behold the double-standard ...
Reply -
-
-
-
mntnman444Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned1 Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Spadecaller1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The presidential candidate should be married to a partner that accepts the responsiblility to the nation, as well.
Their cooperation to share important information like tax returns should be imperative to even run for office. The people have the right to know exactly who the President is married to; otherwise he should not run for office.
McCain's wife insists that she is not the candidate; then what is she doing campaigning for him? You can't have it both ways and expect the public to trust them.
The only reason that she refuses to submit her tax returns is that she has something to hide and knows that technically she can get away with it. "Their" decision to conceal her financial records was carefully thought out.
Reply-
-
-
-
Neutral
not2needy1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Haven't you and your ilk held Obama accountable for things his pastor said, didn't you all also demand tax returns for Hillary, which subsequently provided you with Bill's information? Why shouldn't McCain be held accountable for his wife, he's been married to her for 28 years, share children, sleep together, and she will be living in the WH if he's elected, SO I WANT TO KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT HER, just as you judged Michelle Obama.
Yet again, you expect and demand a free pass for the McCains, HELLS BELLS, even the article says it's hypocritical.
Reply-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
LOL
You can't understand the difference between listening to a pastor for 20 years and is your close friend and mentor and the financial records of the wife. I'm more interested in what she says. Just like I have become disgusted with what Obama's wife says.
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You CANNOT prove that Wright repeated soundbites from one sermon for the last "20 years".
Same disingenuous stretch of one sermon and a couple of recent interviews that suddenly turns in the 20 YEARS of 'hate-speech'.
Ridiculous ...
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
humemacdonald1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Perhaps she does have something to hide, I don't know or care but would hope that she would be audited if suspected of tax evasion.
Spadecaller I really don't understand why you think that the spouse has a responsibility to the nation as well.
Our last PM, Chretian had a wife that other than at the high-points of a campaign, was pretty well out of sight, and that was completely acceptable in my country. The assumption that it should be otherwise is really quite foreign. I guess I really don't see the basis for the position so perhaps some of you could expound on it. Cheers!
Reply-
Neutral
not2needy1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's the way things have been here since women started having income to file taxes on and had husbands who ran for president. Teresa H. Kerry didn't want to disclose her returns either, but she did, as support for her husband. In the meantime, republicans made a major issue of it.
Reply -
Neutral
Spadecaller1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
humemacdonald
The reason that I say that about the spouse is for national security. If the wife has an issue or is vulnerable in any way it can compromise the ability of the President to make decisions that are in the best interests of the nation.
(Aren't you glad to know that Laura did not head up a committe for sticter penalties against drunk driving?)
Reply-
Neutral
humemacdonald1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I see the need for disclosure when a conflict of interest might be present. For example Paul Martin, a former PM , millionaire and shipping "tycoon" was required to disclose his financial holdings( and immediate family members), for transparency purposes, and to ensure that a conflict of interest between personal financial gains and public policy was not present.
Beyond this, I guess I still don't understand the imperative.
Reply-
-
Neutral
HannibalBarca1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Great to see you back HM: In 1994 I started my own business, and P. Martin was minister of finance, he raised my taxes while he registered his ships off - shore to escape taxes, only this came out later, he also sold out to his son whem he became PM.
In this regard I and all other people have a right to know who is the most crooked, and if looking at income tax returns do it as it is part of the job, just like all the perks they get.
Reply-
Neutral
humemacdonald1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hi HB-yes I agree. If it wasn't disclosed until later than that is a fault of the system in practice because in principle financial conflict of interest is supposed to be transparent.
I still believe that the traditional view of a first lady's role has to be amended to reflect modern society. Right now it seem like the standards set are practically Victorian. It will not be until we see "first husbands" that I think this attitude will change.
For us, I don't think the "first lady" role was quite so significant or visible so it probably made the split between public and private a bit more of an easy transition.
As always, just an unsubstantiated opinion-lol Cheers!
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
idyll1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't think Cindy gets it. In a campaign where a flag lapel pin can become a major issue, she's just asking for trouble. There is no such thing as privacy in a 21st century presidential compaign. Plus, this issue is wide open for exploitation. I can see the MoveOn YouTube commercial in my mind now.
Reply-
Neutral
not2needy1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
lol, you got that right.
I don't think i can find the gray area with this. If she supports and loves her husband and really wants to see him win, then this should be a cake walk for her.
I don't have 100 million dollars, but out of love, respect and support for my husband, it wouldn't be an issue for me at all.
Reply
-
-
Global_WarmerComment removed: Abusive57 Replies
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sample MSM stories.
President Reagan today brought the government to a halt by not signing the Appropriations Bill that the Democratic Congress presented to him.
The Republican Congress today brought the government to a halt by not giving President Clinton an Appropriations Bill that he could sign.
MSM Newspapers and the TV News. Remember them. Always the Republicans fault.
Reply-
-
Neutral
walden31 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yeah, I was watching Morning Joe the other day on MSNBC. Mind you this is the same Joe Scarborough that had a dead intern found in his office. He got a TV show. Now compare that to Gary Condit who was run from office because an intern of his was found dead in a public park.
Anyways, his co-host was lamenting how Hillary Clinton changes positions like the hands on a clock. I'm no Hillary fan, but it was blatantly obvious politicking.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
mamasan1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Once again double standard for Republics.
Just like Sen David Vitter...he gets caught with a hooker and all the Cons say...so what.
While Spitzer gets caught with one and all the Dems say...quit your job bub!
David Vitter still is a Senator while Sptitzer quit with dignity.
Oh yeah that other gay guy...oh Mr. Wide stance...he still has his Senate job too!
Reply-
-
Neutral
not2needy1 year, 6 months ago
-
-
-
Neutral
Teagen1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think most of us were concerned with former staffers claiming rape by the former Governor. Once, perhaps it's a jilted mistress but 4 times? That's a pattern. As a woman, I'm confused how the media refuse to listen to them yet when Anita Hill went after Judge Clarence Thomas, they listened to her. Again, double standards if you're liberal or you're attacking a conservative.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
LOL
There are many Democrats to choose from. Liberals embrace them.
Jerry Studds is a prime example. He was censured for sexual relationship with underage male page in 1983. He and the page made no secret about it and were proud of it. He was given the lightest censure there was. He was then praised for being a forward thinker by most Democrats. That praise for what he had done was continued until he died a while back and was part of his eulogy.
Libs embrace and praise people like him. Then a Republican is set up and sends an instant message and the hypocrite Liberals scream and destroy his career for political gain.
Reply-
Neutral
HannibalBarca1 year, 6 months ago
-
Neutral
Teagen1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
End is correct though if you read with understanding. The DNC, unlike the GOP circles the wagons and defends most of their problem members. Studds is a good example. Sleep with a 17 year old and we'll make you a chairperson. Usually, the GOP can't toss them under the wheels of a train, even if they haven't been convicted of anything. Clinton was actually impeached and guilty of lying under oath yet he remained in office. Again, different standards and it has a lot to do with who controls the media in the USA. If the media was honest, they'd really be asking more about Obama.
Reply-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There was NO law broken by Studds - the teenager was of consenting age according to the law.
Clinton remained in office because he was never convicted of anything.
Clinton lied about his sex life - no one died as a result of that lie.
Hundreds of thousands of people have died because of a war based on lies. But the Bush administration gets away with it.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The "underage" male was NOT underage according to the LAW.
And THAT is why all the Congress could do was 'censure' him.
You obviously consider gay relationships as filthy and vulgar.
So, I guess you feel the same way about David Vittner, Larry Craig, and Mark Foley - right?
Oh, I forgot - they were all "set up" or "framed". A Republican would NEVER be gay or adulterous or a pornographer ... like Ted Haggard ...
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
Teagen1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
mamasan, that's rather rare with the GOP. Because so many of them depend upon the conservative religious right, usually they can't wait to toss the accused under the train. Sometimes even before they've been charged much less convicted. Your party has a terrible record of protecting the guilty.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
texangelwings1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If she wants to be First Lady, she must be above reproach! If her income is a part of her husbands life, she should be willing and submit her Income Tax records, the same as her husband! I wonder why she wouldn't want to submit her Tax records?
Thanks not2needy!
Reply-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
tanglang1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
N2N, I just went through and read the comments on the last 25 stories that you and I both commented on looking for the one where ou called me a racist. I will check the next 25 tomorrow. What I did find, was you calling Klarissa and LibsRfunny a racist. Saying some crap about since your husband is black and our son is half black you can spot a racist a mile away. You yourself make things personal on a daily basis. So you should not complain about others doing so.
One of our mutual friends sent me aPM a while back asking why I was being so hard on you. I sent him/her the link to the very offensive comment you made to me. Whn he/she retruns I will ask him/her to send me the link back so I can post it for you.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Teagen1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
When you live in the United States of America and you tell a crowd in my home town that the only time you've ever been proud of America is when your husband who is black, is running president, you've got some things to explain. The funnier part here is in the next press release from his campaign is that is doesn't matter that he's black, right after Michelle made it an issue. She's a part of the elitist cheese and whine crowd who complains that all of the world's problems are caused by America. That plus she is also tainted by the same Rev. Wright and his hate speech. From family photos, she was in church right along with Barack when the hate sermons were preached.
Reply-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
See ... ONE statement out of context and Michelle is "unpatriotic" or is "dissing" America.
Brilliant ... and the media played it that way because that is what they wanted people to THINK.
You have ABSOLUTELY NO proof that Wright preached "hate" every Sunday for the last 20 years, so your generalization that he did that is erroneous.
Again, you took the media bait and with a few soundbites you generalized that Wright a chronic "hater".
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
joelatuna991 year, 6 months ago
-
Neutral
tanglang1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Wow N2N. Between your pos for this douche calling a woman a "Broad", and this little doozy from page one "PLUS, what self respecting man lives with a woman for 28 years and allows her to have this kind of control." you have shown us that your husband must have your ass in check.
I would ask you to respond back but I would not want you to have to go ask him for permission.
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
not2needy1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I didn't say Cindy McCain shouldn't be an equal, moreso i stated that she is the one in control, which places her as the "more equal' in the marriage.
She either supports her husband or she doesn't, that's what it boils down to. If this is all she is being asked to do, the whole world already knows she's uber wealthy, so what does she have to hide? This is something YOU should be asking yourself, since you support McCain. We who don't support him ask because we have had enough surprises from our elected or should i say appointed leaders.
Reply-
Neutral
Teagen1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I am confused, in doing a search, I found Nancy Pelosi didn't fully disclose much and neither did Harry Reid. The 4th and 5th highest seats in power and they didn't, go figure, double standards again.
As first lady, Cindy would have to put her wealth into a blind trust. So it really doesn't matter how much she has or what she owns. She wouldn't have control over it for 4 or 8 years.
I think this is a whole lot of nothing. Must be a slow news day for the DNC.
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ok .. then all of the Republicans "in power" are subject to the same 'request' of full disclosure. There are minority leaders in the house and Senate, so what would be 'good' for the Democratic leaders is also 'good' for the Republicans.
And, in future, NO one should ever be asking ANY spouse of ANY candidate to fork over their tax returns.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
not2needy1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Neither was Rev Wright, and Obama wasn't sleeping with him every night, nor would Rev Wright be living in the WH. I want to know what's going on with Cindy McCain, if she want's her husband to be president, we deserve to know that she has no more skeletons than we already know about. HAHAHA
Reply-
Neutral
Teagen1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No he didn't sleep with him but he did attend his church of hate for 23 years. In those 23 years Obama seems to have never heard the hate speech and contributed thousands. So he either is lying or ignorant when it comes to hate speech.
As to Cindy, since you're opening the floor, have you heard about the daughter they adopted from Africa? Seems John was on a flight visiting refugee camps and Cindy picked up a child that was destine to die because there was no food left for her. When the McCains went back to the plane Cindy was still holding the child. Without a word spoken, they brought her home and she's a part of their family ever since. A photo op like that and they didn't make a big deal out of it, because it was the right thing to do. That's the difference between Obama and McCain.
Reply-
-
Neutral
Teagen1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Again you're missing my point. I really don't know if you're too liberal to see something good in someone not from your side of an argument or if it's simply ignorance brought on by public schools. I think it's commendable that Brad and Angeline help where they can. I think they're rather odd but if it works for them and the kids do well, great. What surprised me was that John and Cindy are on a tour to see first hand the suffering of others and they bring home a daughter. The press never talks about it which I think is sad. How many other people would have tried helping in this way if it were made easier.
As to qualified, perhaps you should read up on Senator McCain's record. As a non-McCain fan, I've done a bit of research on him. I'm very impressed with his career in the Navy and in the Senate. Unlike some of his colleagues who went to Nam for the photo ops, he was a real hero and earn my respect. That plus my vote.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
AGAIN ...
Unless YOU sat in the pews of that church EVERY Sunday for the last 23 years, you have NO IDEA what Wright said for the VAST majority of that whole time.
So your statement that Wright preached "hate" for 23 years is erroneous and slanderous. And it is YOU that is lying or is ignorant for making unfounded, unprovable statements.
ONE incident of saving a child - which is a GOOD thing, no argument - is suppose to absolve the McCains for ALL of there other imperfections? Meanwhile, ONE association by Obama of a friend who is a preacher - where the insinuations of that association are not proven - is enough to totally NEGATE anything positive that Obama has done?
So disingenuous and hypocritical ....
Reply-
Neutral
Teagen1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What? Are you friggen crazy? When was the last time your minister suggested America was a bad place to live. When was the last time your minister said Bush was a Nazi or that Israel should be destroyed? Or better, that the government was creating drugs and germs to kill you off.
I have a better question, how do you think your side would react if McCain or Bush went to a White Power Rally? I'm willing to bet there would be an uprising from sea to shinning sea. Yet Obama has been a member of a church that preached hate and racism from the pulpit for over 23 years, and it's okay. Huh? Just when I think you liberals have hit bottom you start digging again.
Reply-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
See, you keep saying "hate and racism from the pulpit for 23 years" when you have NO proof of that whatsoever. I haven't "agreed" with what Wright said - WHEN he said - but to paint him as a CONSTANT hater is "digging" on your part.
ALL of those soundbites came from ONE SEVEN YEAR OLD sermon.
John Hagee has called the Catholic Church the "Great ******" and has also equated it with Nazis. He has said that the Anti-Christ will rise out of the European Union and will also be Jewish. He has said all Muslims are trained to kill. John McCain continues to say he is proud of Reverend Hagee's endorsement.
Rod Parsley believes America was founded to destroy Islam and that Islam is an "anti-Christ religion" brought down from a "demon spirit." McCain says that Parsley is "a spiritual guide".
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Manicdude1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
A lot of you use the argument that Cindy Macain is guilty of this and that and therefor should bequired to disclose her tax info. The simple fact is that regardless of her position in society, she has not been convicted of any crime or done time for doing so. Why shouldn't she be afforded the very same rights you and I are where none of the crap you are shoveling here can be used in any court of law in the good ol' U.S. of A?
C'mon, Just because a few Dems wives buckled to the whims of the G.O.P. and social pressures doesn't mean ALL women are stupid, does it?
Reply-
Neutral
not2needy1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That's just it, i'm not afforded the same rights Cindy McCain is. If i had been caught smuggling drugs internationally, forging prescriptions and stealing, i would still be in prison, and you know it!!! McCain called in his big guns to get her off without so much as a charge, but only when she got caught! Nothing was done about her drug addiction before she was caught.
What choices did the Dems have, the repugs had it all over tv, newspapers, talk shows, and any other venue they could find, making their demands. It's high time they got a little taste of what they have been dishing out for years.
Face it, they're a bunch of perv, dopies, and wh0re mongers, while totin their Bibles and preaching the wages of sin, oh and add hypocracy to that list of faults.
Reply-
-
-
-
Neutral
fourthtunz1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Rush limbo, I like it!
Theres too much hate on both sides and it's Rush's job to keep that going so we don't get together and change the fixed game that is our government.
I think Clinton and McCain are both too dirty.
What do we know about Obama?
He hasn't really committed to getting us out of Iraq has he?
Like to know more about what he is going to do.
Reply-
JohnQPublicComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Teagen1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You're worried about a write off? Clinton was caught selling pardons and renting out the Lincoln bedroom and you didn't have a problem with that. Cindy might fly in her own plane and you're mad? You folks need a better hobby.
Add to that, with the money the McCain's have, you don't think they'd employ an army of accountants? They're not going to make a mistake like that. The media loves Obama and hates McCain. They will cross every "t" and dot every "i".
Reply
-
-
Neutral
NurseSnow1 year, 6 months ago
-
Neutral
not2needy1 year, 6 months ago
-
-
-
Neutral
StarLord1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
However, Cindy McCain has not preached race-hatred and damnation of the United States. Rev. Wright has.
John McCain has not donated (on average)$500 per week to Cindy McCain for over 10 years. Obama has donated these amounts to Rev. Wright, while claiming to have disapproved of his sermons all along.
Reply-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There you go again, taking soundbites from one sermon and morphing it into 20 years of "preached race-hatred and damnation of the United States".
Unless YOU sat in that church for the last 20 years of Sundays, you have absolutely NO idea what Wright has said every one of those Sundays for every one of those years.
Obama contributed to his church, not to his preacher, and Obama NEVER claimed "to have disapproved of his sermons all along".
And you know that - just your usual twisting of a few soundbites to fit your agenda of portraying Wright - and thus Obama - as "bad, bad, bad".
Inane ...
Reply -
JohnQPublicComment removed: Retracted by user6 Replies
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Teagen1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
On the money, I agree, you want that info available, change the laws. On Obama, it should be questioned. He made his church attendance a huge part of his campaign in the past. It was supposedly a huge part of his life. He's not the first candidate who feels religion is important, but that church's former leader is a bad guy. He's preached hate and anti-white American crap for 23 years. For Barack not to understand hate speech is confusing at best. He contributed thousands and attended hundreds of services. How could he miss the hate spewing from Wright's mouth. He either agrees with the hate or is stupid. As a candidate for president, I'm not sure what scared me more.
Reply-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
As some of your right-wing buddies have noted regarding Cindy - to diminish this whole story and/or its merits - Wright is NOT the one running for President.
AGAIN - you do NOT know that Wright has "preached race-hatred and damnation of the United States" for the past 20 years because you are basing that on media soundbites.
You have absolutely NO idea whether or not Wright has "preached hate and anti-white American crap for 23 years" unless you sat in that church every Sunday for the past 23 years. You are good at blanket generalizations based on a few phrases from a few sermons and/or interviews.
So, there may have been NO hate to "miss" - you don't know that it was ever there outside of what you have heard on TV.
What IS scary is that McCain SOUGHT the endorsement of hate-monger 'preachers' like Hagee, Roberston, and Parsely. McCain apparently believes "that" kind of religion is important. That DOES scare me ....
Reply-
Neutral
Teagen1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't see the big deal on Cindy's tax records. As to Wright, I've heard enough to know a racist bigot when I hear one. You guy took Imus off the air for talking stupid. It wasn't meant to be racist it was just an old guy trying to be funny. Well, his show was taken off the air. We have a guy who has on more than one occasion claimed the American government wanted to kill all black people. His sermon that I heard referred to white Americans as crackers. I'd say that's racist. Then the "not God Bless America but God D--n America" kind of ended the question for me.
On your other comments, I don't really know them. In searching for them it seems they're ministers but that's really the extend of my search. Now they may have baggage I don't know. What I do know, none of them have ever made comments as hateful as Wright did.
Reply-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Wright hasn't been "on the air" and I didn't do anything about whether or not Imus was ON the air. I don't like him but I don't LISTEN to him.
There isn't a big deal about her tax records.
But when Theresa Heinz Kerry didn't want to release her tax records, the media and the Republicans consistently complained about it. It is very likely that after this story dies there will be NO complaining by the media and any Democratic complaints will never get any media attention.
McCain's preacher endorsers HAVE made hateful comments.
ohn Hagee has called the Catholic Church the "Great 'hore'" and has also equated it with Nazis. He said that the Anti-Christ will rise out of the European Union and will also be Jewish. He said all Muslims are trained to kill. John McCain says he is proud of Hagee's endorsement.
Reply-
Neutral
Teagen1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So you're saying one Christian church is attacking another one. You say one is protestant and the other is Roman Catholic. Wow, 500 years ago the RC was burning people alive for not believing and you want me to take a side here? While I may not agree with his comments, at least the ones I've found, I haven't found the same level of crap that Wright said. As to Wright, we've heard several interviews he's done over the last couple of days and he's not helping Barack at all. As to his sermons or messages, they had most of his sermons on line you could order the CD's or down load them. When this hit the fan, that part of the site went dark.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
Teagen1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Interesting. Islam seems to be at war with the USA and one of us will have to win. So he's more right than wrong there. As to the demon spirit, that's a good description of a suicide bomber, wouldn't you agree? Strapping bombs to you chest to kill innocent civilians? That's not a nice person, sounds like a demon to me.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Teagen1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Tell you what, you've had control of the congress and the senate for over a year. What the heck have you actually done? I mean outside of the raising of taxes, bogus "stimulus" checks and the non-binding resolutions. What did you guys do?
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
abntv1 year, 6 months ago
-
-
Neutral
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's a strange idea, abntv:
Jesus addressing the Republican National Convention; and denouncing the love of money as the root of all evil, and condemning those that love to pray in the open for show; commanding everyone to no longer return evil for evil;
saying to the Bush's base: "give all that you have to the poor, then come, follow me".
Ok, at that point I see him being torn to pieces; but the dems are just holding the coats.
Reply-
Neutral
Teagen1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Jesus also supported marriage between a man and a woman. He wasn't liberal. If you hurt a child he recommended the millstone and jumping into a well as being better punishment then what faced you on judgment day. Suicide was forbidden by Jewish Law. I suspect he'd have something to say to the Pro-Death, I mean pro-choice crowd at the DNC.
As to giving everything up, you're missing the bigger picture preached by Christ. He made it clear those who followed him would have to sacrifice everything to follow him. But to those who believed but didn't actually drop everything and follow had a place too. You had your shepherds and you sheep. All have a place according to Christ. I hope I didn't go too preachy but this is how I see things.
Reply-
Neutral
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If you want to turn a scripture on its head, draw a bigger picture around it. Don't we all know that trick?
Jesus forbade divorce. Those who divorced and remarried were adulterers. McCain, Rush, Newt, and Reagan excepted, of course.
Jesus called money unclean, he said love of it was the root of all evil, he said it was impossible for a rich man to be saved.
But strangely, this does not prevent churches from preaching that God wants them to be wealthy today.
He forbade violence, and revenge and retribution. These are modern conservative values.
And hey, last, for the record, if you hurt a child, I also recommend the millstone-around-your-neck method of correction. You can draw a bigger picture of that as you plunge downwards.
Reply-
Neutral
Teagen1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I would agree divorce is a bad thing and should be avoided however the bible, the old Testament did show reasons for divorce. As to Christ forbidding it, you're getting your testaments mixed up. The Scripture that commands us not to pull apart "what God has put together" deals with "what GOD has put together!" If God did not put the marriage together, we shouldn't be in it in the first place. If we are in such a marriage, we can get out.
As to some of your other comments, I won't disagree on money or power for that matter, being a root to evil. But used properly they can be the roots of great joy when used for good. As to your last comments, I was speaking of abortion directly. The pro-choice crowd likes the term choice when in the end it usually means the death of the fetus. That would be Pro-Death. But as liberals, it's difficult to sell death so choice it is.
Wow and all over Cindy's refusal to share her financials.
Reply-
Neutral
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Nuh uhh.
You know the text as well as I do.
Jesus said:
"Moses allowed divorce, because of the hardness of your hearts. However, in the beginning, it was not so; what God has brought together, let no man put apart.
Anyone who divorces their spouse and takes another, except it be for adultery, commits adultery; and caused another to commit adultery."
His words are exact and clear; and your interpretation is exactly meant to unclear it.
Not to get on anyone's case; most of my friends are divorced.
But my point is what I said before; that if Jesus were to appear at a political convention, he would say hard things; and those who consider they have God in their pocket, would be outraged by his words.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Jesus also was NOT judgmental of sinners and he DID associate with them and was drawn TO them. He did NOT shun or berate "sinners".
In fact, it was the Pharisees that criticized Jesus BECAUSE he associated with "sinners".
Jesus would have the same thing to say to the lovers of money or the pro-choice or the adulterers or the divorcers or the child molesters -- if he sees them as "sinners" he would tell them that they should seek forgiveness from God and he would tell the other people around him that are "holier than thou" to either cast the first stone or move along.
Lest you forget, the ONLY people Jesus criticized and lamented were the Pharisees, the RELIGIOUS LEADERS of his day.
You said it yourself - ALL have a place according to Christ that follow him. Your judgmental opinion of pro-choice people or of people who commit suicide or of gays is the type of judgment that Jesus criticized the Pharisees for.
Reply-
Neutral
Teagen1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That depends upon how you look at things. He will judge us in the end. As to associating with sinners, you have to read more into that. In that time period, by simply talking to them was considered sinful by the Old Testament. You wouldn't think of eating with them much less anything else. In the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus says, "Don't judge lest you be judged yourselves," he also says, "Beware of false prophets. They have the appearance of harmless sheep when all the while they are fierce wolves eager to eat you alive." Isn't it obvious, now, that a judgment has to be made here? Doesn't Jesus himself insist that we make a judgment of some sort? How else are we to distinguish between defenseless sheep and marauding wolf? How else survive?
Reply-
Neutral
Teagen1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Immediately after warning us disciples about dust-speck and pine tree and how we mustn't be blind to our own depravity, Jesus adds, "Don't give what is holy to the dogs; and don't throw pearls before pigs â;; because pigs and dogs (he's speaking here of humans) don't appreciate the value of what you put in front of them. They will only turn on you and devour you." Plainly Jesus is telling us that either we exercise judgment here or else we invite victimization.
Reply-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes ... intellectual and spiritual judgment. That is NOT the same thing as "passing judgment" on who is the sinner.
Jesus wants us to continue to be able to KNOW what is right and what is wrong, what is of God and what is not.
But, standing in the place of Jesus or God by pronouncing condemnation or by shunning or ostracizing the "sinners" is the OPPOSITE of what Jesus taught.
Re-read the parables of the woman caught in adultery and the rich young ruler.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes, Jesus will judge us in the end. But he did not give us the right to judge other LIKE HE WILL judge.
He didn't say to be ignorant of sin - he said, and the other New Testament books say - to love the sinner, be good to your enemies.
"The truth shall set you free". He said to be careful to know the truth, but he didn't say to destroy or hunt down or berate those "false prophets".
Make an intellectual and a SPIRITUAL judgment, but don't look down on others and consider yourself superior because you know better. Reach out to those people instead of condemning them.
Your 'point' about the Pharisees and the Old Testament is EXACTLY what Jesus was pointing out. He brought a new understanding of God and of how to treat our fellow man. The Pharisees were so ingrained in their legalistic traditions, and they were so into their own self-righteousness, that they totally missed it.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
raats6662Comment removed: Retracted by user10 Replies
-
-
-
Neutral
cowboygrandpa1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't really care about how much she has or pays. I don't really care about that for all the candidates. They are all pretty much crooked in one way or another. A good CPA tax man can make all kind of things work for you. These people have the money for some of the best.
What makes you think you are even looking at a true picture of their income or dealings?
My real question is who are they in bed with financially and who stands to profit the most from their election? We all know who will suffer the most.
Reply-
Neutral
humemacdonald1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree Cowboygrandpa. The Dem Rep issues, double standards re. Obama or Heinz are another issue entirely. The only issue under debate, in my opinion, should be if the spouse of the candidate should be( out of some type of public"duty" as some have suggested) or is legally required to publicly disclose their tax returns.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
boatmich1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Cindy doesn't pay taxes
With that kind of income and a good tax attorney
She is probably on the receiving end of federal funds.
(Yours and My tax dollars)
Thanks Ronny Raygun and the Bushes.
So why would She (or John) want that info public.
Reply-
Neutral
Teagen1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And I'm hear risking my butt to defend your right to free speech....
How does President Reagan's name get dragged into this one. Tax cuts? I think we've seen they do help the economy. If that's your point, okay, I guess. The reason you don't give the tax cut to the poor most people under $30K don't pay much in taxes. Then again, how much do you make answering those surveys from your mommy's basement?
Reply-
Neutral
bubba21 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Most poor people "don't pay much in taxes" because they DON'T HAVE MUCH OF AN INCOME.
It is the PERCENTAGES.
I help several below-poverty-line people with their taxes. The government DOES take taxes out of their pay, just like everyone else.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
nostalgia1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm certain there isn't a double standard now, is there? (sarcasm off)
I thought that the screeching that went on about Teresa Heinz Kerry releasing her returns was ridiculous
It's her money and she was NOT running for office
I feel the same way about Cindy McCain
I wonder how many demanding that Cindy McCain release her returns were also calling for Teresa Heinz Kerry to release hers????
Reply -
-
Neutral
jesh1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton filed joint tax returns with their spouses. THEY FILED JOINTLY, THEY ARE THE CANIDATE . the IRS saw her tax return she is not the canidate so she is not obligated to give anyone finacial statements . it would just give Mcains oponents something else to complain about ,so stop whining . I like to see bill clinton order his wife what to do . or barack for that matter both women are strong and independent . so Mcain married a ritch ,indepenent, beuteyfull blond now thats a offence worth punishment
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
mntnman444Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned1 Reply
-
-
Neutral
fourthtunz1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This thing is getting blow way out of proportion.
You have the right not to vote for McCain if this is an issue.
The real issue in my mind is that McCain really is a Millionaire, do we want another millionaire in the white house?
I think Obama has more in common with most of us.
That said I would rather have Ron Paul, seems like the only one that has said right up front what he is going to do.
Have to vote for the lessor of three evils I guess?!
Reply -
-
-
-
-
mntnman444Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned1 Reply
-
-
-
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.