Posted on 01/28/2010 11:19:29 AM PST by ConservativeMind
Didn’t one of the Bush Boy have something to do w/ this as well?
If I were you, I would have noted that this article is from 2008. My first clue was the mention of Governor Palin and Troopergate investigation.
Sep 19, 08 01:49 PM
I did note the date. What’s it to you?
You can tell the others posting old news on JD Hayworth that their information is just as old.
Didn’t one of the Bush Boy have something to do w/ this as well?
Neil Bush was involved in the Silverado Savings & Loan fiasco...I believe. It was not the Lincoln/Keating Five.
Glad this article on John Sidney McCain was reposted. Not only McCain is treasonous...he is a lot more corrupt than many make him out to be.
I realize the date was in the small print near the article, which can be and is often overlooked. What I meants was you might have considered posting that this was an old article yourself. What’s it to me? Not much. I just thought I’d point it out in case you hadn’t noticed it was an oldie.
I don’t care what the article is about nor whom it is about, nor who posts it. I just think it would be a common courtesy to point it out.
Caribou, I PUT THE DATE WITH THE YEAR IN THE DATE FIELD!
Shut up, already.
This article is a partisan hit job designed to influence people who don’t know the facts. McCain’s part in the scandal was a walk on walk off. He was naive and when he realized he had been maneuvered into looking like he was trying to exert influence he immediately withdrew. No stain on him and no stain on Sarah Palin following multiple non-substantive complaints by the same person who was on an all out smear campaign. I believe that the personal, and Alaskan government expenses and the disruption to the business of being Governor that these attacks caused was the reason Palin stepped down, in the people’s interest.
Why was he formally reprimanded by the Senate Ethics Committee, then?
You make it sound like he had no involvement. If so, a bi-partisan ethics panel shouldn’t have struck out at him.
Looking at the info in the article, it interests me what you chose to address here.
McCain treachery duly documented, or a publication date that was clearly noted in the posting...
Part of the problem is that senators life to live a millionaire’s life style on a smaller income. Doesn’t help that there are always man real millionaires in the Senate. His wife, of course, was from a wealthy family. Keating, of course, was a kind of “Madoff’type, and fooled a lot of people including Mother Theresa.
“Caribou, I PUT THE DATE WITH THE YEAR IN THE DATE FIELD!
Shut up, already.”
I already acknowledged that. I only further explained myself because you didn’t understand why I said what I said.
Thanks . That was a close one . I was almost going to vote for Neil Bush for United States Senator from Arizona .
Forgive me for not understanding, but if you saw the proper year applied to the article in my posting, why would you say, “If I were you, I would have noted that this article is from 2008.”?
The article’s date is right there next to the website name and the author in my thread posting. Since the thread was posted with the proper date, how else should I have posted the date???
Good grief. You’d certainly think after the intense scrutiny of McCain during the presidential campaign, anyone on a forum such as this would know McCain’s history by now. And again, I made a simple suggestion. I expect liberals to fly out of their skin at the drop of a hat, they’re just so damned defensive. I’m rather disheartened to see this sort of reaction from a fellow conservative.
In my best Glenn Beck voice, I assure you that I will NEVER, EVER, EVER MENTION THAT AN ARTICLE IS AN OLD ONE AGAIN. ME BAD.
Because I have had this happen to me before. Where I’ve read an article not realizing it was old, until informed by someone else, because I had not noticed the date near the title. However, I have read old articles, where the person who posted it, also made a comment....ya know, in the “comment” area of the very 1st post on the thread....or they put a metion of the date in bold letters, in parenthesis, next to the headline....where they informed the readers that they had posted an old article.
I am so sorry my comment has upset you so much. I never intended for your thread to become a discussion on dates. For heaven’s sake, get a grip.
And his being a RINGER for Zero is proof positive.
What a load of horse crap!
The article is factual as it relates to McCain.
McCain participation with Keating took place over seven years, some walk-on.
He accepted $13,000 in perks from Keating and did not report it as required by Congress. That alone should have gotten him booted.
The icing on the cake was McCain joining with four other sitting U.S. Senators to confront a banking regulator. He did it not just once, but twice.
McCain stated in his oun book, “I knew it was wrong, but Keating wouldn’t take no for an answer.”
It is reported that McCain didn’t advocate for Keating in those meetings, as if that would absolve him. When five sitting U.S. Senators demand a meeting, intimidation is the a major factor.
This banking regulator told the Senators he had referrals ready to go. Those referrals were not filed for more than a year after that meeting, and during that year many more people were cheated out of their life savings by Keating.
The meeting with the Senators had a real tangible impact, and McCain was an integral party to it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.