ForumGarden

Is there nothing that can't be found on Wikipedia? :yh_worshp

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_McCain



John McCain would later say, "My marriage's collapse was attributable to my own selfishness and immaturity more than it was to Vietnam, and I cannot escape blame by pointing a finger at the war. The blame was entirely mine."[25] Carol McCain would later say: "The breakup of our marriage was not caused by my accident or Vietnam or any of those things. I don't know that it might not have happened if John had never been gone. I attribute it more to John turning 40 and wanting to be 25 again than I do to anything else."[25] John McCain's biographer, Robert Timberg believes that "Vietnam did play a part, perhaps not the major part, but more than a walk-on."[30] According to Carol, her husband's five-year captivity in Vietnam had left him wanting to "make up for lost time,"[1] and John put it this way: "I had changed, she had changed....People who have been apart that much change."[30]

McCain and Hensley were married on May 17, 1980 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain



People change. A 28-year marriage says nothing of loyalty??

Accountable;1003365 wrote: Is there nothing that can't be found on Wikipedia? :yh_worshp

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_McCain



John McCain would later say, "My marriage's collapse was attributable to my own selfishness and immaturity more than it was to Vietnam, and I cannot escape blame by pointing a finger at the war. The blame was entirely mine."[25] Carol McCain would later say: "The breakup of our marriage was not caused by my accident or Vietnam or any of those things. I don't know that it might not have happened if John had never been gone. I attribute it more to John turning 40 and wanting to be 25 again than I do to anything else."[25] John McCain's biographer, Robert Timberg believes that "Vietnam did play a part, perhaps not the major part, but more than a walk-on."[30] According to Carol, her husband's five-year captivity in Vietnam had left him wanting to "make up for lost time,"[1] and John put it this way: "I had changed, she had changed....People who have been apart that much change."[30]

McCain and Hensley were married on May 17, 1980 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain



People change. A 28-year marriage says nothing of loyalty??


Hey Accountable, didn't i just know you would find it for me :yh_party

Your a star!.

Doe's any-one really believe in their right minds that any man, even a future President, would not be affected by five years in captivity?

Doe's any-body really believe, he would not come out a changed man?

Where is his compassion?

My Uncle came out of three years in captivity in a Japanese Prisoner of war camp.

Doe's anyone want to say that he should have shrugged it off and been the same man? :-1

A vow is a vow. Period.

RedGlitter;1003937 wrote: A vow is a vow. Period.


I respect your views on the sanctity of marraige. Tell me, What if this had been reversed?

Let's say, Carol McCain never had a car crash?

Let's say that John McCain spent five years in captivity only to come out and find his wife had changed and had commited adultery?

What if Carol McCain didn't have that car crash and many many years later, she wanted to run for senate?

You would be offering the hand of forgivness. I find it wholly hypocritical.

I am truely sorry for the way Carol McCain has suffered but John McCain did not cause her car crash or her suffering as a result of it. - Fact -- Crap happens.

I don't see this as his fault. Have you read Accountable's post?

It is nothing short of proganda in a vain attempt to hamper his campaign trail.

If this were Obama we were talking about, i would be defending him in exactly the same way.

Do you think that HRH Prince Charles should not be our future King of England, because he cheated on Diana with Camilla?

We do, because life goe's on. We all have to suffer to become better people.

What is worse? John Mccain who has flagged up his failed marraige BEFORE is campaign trail? Or Clinton, who commited adultry whilst in office and worse still, lied about it?

"I repeat, i did not have sexual relations with that woman".

Did you kick him out of office? No, you let him carry on. Hypocricy.

My sincere apologie's for hogging Redglitters thread and taking it off on a tangent.

I just want to put this on for galbally in light of our I.R.A. feelings raised on this thread.

Half the nation rejoiced when the terrorist organisation the I.R.A tried to blow up Margaret Thatcher and her cabinet in my home town.

I said galbally that Hyde Park was different for personal reasons and offered you the name "Sefton".

"Sefton" caused more outrage in the United Kingdom :-1 than The "Brighton Bombing of Thatcher's Government" and here's why.

It's not about politics this time folks.

SEFTON

Sefton was an army horse stabled in Knightsbridge Barracks.

Sefton joined the British Army in 1967 starting as a riding school horse, and he quickly became a favourite among new recruits. By 1975 he had joined the Household Cavalry Mounted Regiment.

THE IRA BOMBING

On July 20th 1982 at 10.40am Sefton was en route to The changing of HM The Queens Guard, with 15 other horses from his regiment. The morning tradition was shattered when a nail bomb planted by the IRA detonated near by, killing 11 people, injuring 50 and killing 7 horses, and injuring Sefton and 8 of his stablemates.

Sefton sustained serious injuries including a severed jugular vein, wounded left eye, and 34 horrific wounds all over his body. His rider Trooper Pederson noted that Sefton responded so bravely that when the bomb exploded there was no chance of being thrown. After dismounting, Pederson- who was in severe shock - could do little to help, but a soldier, one of scores that had run down from the barracks, took off his shirt and used it to apply pressure to Seftons horrific neck injury.

Sefton endured 8 hours of surgery, a record length for horse surgery in 1982. Each of his 34 wounds had it's own special challenge, some included dislodging shrapnel from his bones. That evening after surgery the veterinarians caring for him gave him a 50/50 chance of surviving the shock and extreme blood loss. Over the next months he made continual progress and his nurse was quoted "He took everything in his stride". During his time in hospital he recieved huge quantities of get well soon cards, mints, and donations reaching almost $1,000,000 were collected to construct a new surgical wing at Royal Veterinary College - which was a aptly named "Sefton Surgical Wing".

Sefton returned to his duties with his regiment, and with pricked ears and no fuss he passed the exact spot where he recieved such horrific injuries. That year he was awarded Horse of the Year, and with Pederson back in the saddle took center stage at the Horse of the Year Show, to a standing ovation.

On August 29th 1984 Sefton retired from The Household Cavalry, and moved to The Home of Rest For Horses at Speen, Buckinghamshire. There he became an instant attraction and was noted for his love of rolling in the mud. At the age of 30, Sefton passed away, a National Hero

Since his death, horses that would normally stand no chance of survival have lived due to his contribution to the country.

Sefton R.I.P.

oscar;1004468 wrote: My sincere apologie's for hogging Redglitters thread and taking it off on a tangent.

I just want to put this on for galbally in light of our I.R.A. feelings raised on this thread.

Half the nation rejoiced when the terrorist organisation the I.R.A tried to blow up Margaret Thatcher and her cabinet in my home town.

I said galbally that Hyde Park was different for personal reasons and offered you the name "Sefton".

"Sefton" caused more outrage in the United Kingdom :-1 than The "Brighton Bombing of Thatcher's Government" and here's why.

It's not about politics this time folks.

SEFTON

Sefton was an army horse stabled in Knightsbridge Barracks.

Sefton joined the British Army in 1967 starting as a riding school horse, and he quickly became a favourite among new recruits. By 1975 he had joined the Household Cavalry Mounted Regiment.

THE IRA BOMBING

On July 20th 1982 at 10.40am Sefton was en route to The changing of HM The Queens Guard, with 15 other horses from his regiment. The morning tradition was shattered when a nail bomb planted by the IRA detonated near by, killing 11 people, injuring 50 and killing 7 horses, and injuring Sefton and 8 of his stablemates.

Sefton sustained serious injuries including a severed jugular vein, wounded left eye, and 34 horrific wounds all over his body. His rider Trooper Pederson noted that Sefton responded so bravely that when the bomb exploded there was no chance of being thrown. After dismounting, Pederson- who was in severe shock - could do little to help, but a soldier, one of scores that had run down from the barracks, took off his shirt and used it to apply pressure to Seftons horrific neck injury.

Sefton endured 8 hours of surgery, a record length for horse surgery in 1982. Each of his 34 wounds had it's own special challenge, some included dislodging shrapnel from his bones. That evening after surgery the veterinarians caring for him gave him a 50/50 chance of surviving the shock and extreme blood loss. Over the next months he made continual progress and his nurse was quoted "He took everything in his stride". During his time in hospital he recieved huge quantities of get well soon cards, mints, and donations reaching almost $1,000,000 were collected to construct a new surgical wing at Royal Veterinary College - which was a aptly named "Sefton Surgical Wing".

Sefton returned to his duties with his regiment, and with pricked ears and no fuss he passed the exact spot where he recieved such horrific injuries. That year he was awarded Horse of the Year, and with Pederson back in the saddle took center stage at the Horse of the Year Show, to a standing ovation.

On August 29th 1984 Sefton retired from The Household Cavalry, and moved to The Home of Rest For Horses at Speen, Buckinghamshire. There he became an instant attraction and was noted for his love of rolling in the mud. At the age of 30, Sefton passed away, a National Hero

Since his death, horses that would normally stand no chance of survival have lived due to his contribution to the country.

Sefton R.I.P.


Somewhat off topic Oscar, but no doubt this was certainly a remarkably well loved horse, I never though I would say that line in context of the IRA Campaign, but there you go life is strange sometimes.

Anyway, back to the issue, MCCain: War Hero or Dwarfish philanderer? You decide!

Galbally;1004554 wrote: Somewhat off topic Oscar, but no doubt this was certainly a remarkably well loved horse, I never though I would say that line in context of the IRA Campaign, but there you go life is strange sometimes.



Anyway, back to the issue, MCCain: War Hero or Dwarfish philanderer? You decide!
Why would he give money to dwarves? :-2

Galbally;1004554 wrote: Somewhat off topic Oscar, but no doubt this was certainly a remarkably well loved horse, I never though I would say that line in context of the IRA Campaign, but there you go life is strange sometimes.

Anyway, back to the issue, MCCain: War Hero or Dwarfish philanderer? You decide!


The point was galbally, The British thought more of the Horse than Margeret Thatcher :wah:

Now Mccain -- Dwarfish?? that's a bit personal.

British streo-type jokes?? I love them

Accountable;1004561 wrote: Why would he give money to dwarves? :-2
Because they're short of money :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

You know, as I read this entire post, I could not get over the one common vein throughout.

It all boils down to selfishness and perspective doesn't it? Wanting something for "ourself" at the expense of another.

Whether that is freedom from a marriage that is no longer convenient, exciting, worth the time...use your own adjective.

Or someone else's land, profits, oil, husband, wife...

Freedom to rule one's own destiny.

Freedom to serve God in our own way.

Perspective, as fragile as that is, guarantees us an unending war with someone over something doesn't it?

I am kinda sad for all of us...except for the horse. He lived well, served well, died well. Good for him.

oscar;1004567 wrote: Because they're short of money :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl


Short of money...good one Oscar!

Lisamree;1004584 wrote: Short of money...good one Oscar!


In this country, it's atually against the law to call anyone a dwarve. Honestly.

Under our laws, we have to refer to them as "The Vertically challenged".

Bald men must be refered to as "The folicaly challenged". I swear.

We had an announcement in Britain today. I have to think that i have never known this in the history of Brisish government but Spot will put me right if i'm wrong. The opposing party to our government has said that it will join with the opposition and back Gordon Brown in his policies to help Britain in the fight to keep our country afloat in the financial crisis.

Would Mccain and Obama do this? Could they?

You know, they (republicans and democrats) said they would work together in the crisis, worked on a bailout for 3 days, then on the day they were to vote Pelosi (lHouse speaker for those who don't know) made a speech blowing the whole thing up by blaming the opposing party for all of our woes.

Interesting news bulletin, she may be up for ethics charges for a payment from her campaign fund to her husband. Don't know all the details.

Back to topic though...I like McCain. I think he has a good grasp on foreign issues, isn't afraid to stand up if needed. I think Palin was a "popular" pick, actually I heard that a "blogger" got McCain's attention on her.

I think her enviornmental stands are frightening. But I am conservative, so we agree on the definition of marriage, abortion. Those are my 2 make or break issues. I don't waiver on those.

Obama is one of those very gifted speakers who can bring people of varying backgrounds together for a cause. But I don't think he'd be the best candidate, and he is too liberal in the wrong areas for me.

I don't know much of anything about Biden. His dedication to his community, his family, from what little I know is quite impressive though...

Did ya'll see the debate last week, will you watch the VP this week? My sister works for Washington University is taking classes so she has a ticket. I'm so jealous!

Okay first Oscar, I should probably let you know that I like to do my own thinking so let's not guess on what I wouldn't do and I won't do that to you either. . So that said let me answer your questions to the best of my ability. I just got in here to see them, sorry to be coming in late.

Let's say that John McCain spent five years in captivity only to come out and find his wife had changed and had commited adultery?

What if Carol McCain didn't have that car crash and many many years later, she wanted to run for senate?

You would be offering the hand of forgivness. I find it wholly hypocritical.


A vow is a vow. Husband or wife, doesn't matter. When you have sex outside your marriage, the marriage is over. I have NO RESPECT for infidels. A cheating wife is as bad as a cheating husband. I make no distinction between the two and no, I would not be voting for an adulterer.

I am truely sorry for the way Carol McCain has suffered but John McCain did not cause her car crash or her suffering as a result of it. - Fact -- Crap happens.

I don't see this as his fault. Have you read Accountable's post?


No he didn't cause the crash. He did however let his wife down in her darkest hour. Was she screwing around on him while he was a POW? Did she leave him when he didn't return home? McCain showed himself to be a loser. That's as simple and as polite as I can put it.

Yes, I read Acc's post. What about it?

If this were Obama we were talking about, i would be defending him in exactly the same way.


And if we were talking about Obama, I would be sticking it to him just as I am with McCain. There's no difference.



Do you think that HRH Prince Charles should not be our future King of England, because he cheated on Diana with Camilla?


Yes, that is exactly what I think. Precisely. It does not speak well of the British people that they tolerated this lowdown cheater. He should have been canned. However I do realize if that were common policy, you'd have no royal family. There'd be none left to choose from. And for the record Camilla the homewrecker is as much to blame as is Charles. They deserve each other.

What is worse? John Mccain who has flagged up his failed marraige BEFORE is campaign trail? Or Clinton, who commited adultry whilst in office and worse still, lied about it?

"I repeat, i did not have sexual relations with that woman".

Did you kick him out of office? No, you let him carry on. Hypocricy.


They are equally as bad. Clinton was great. Until he blew it. He lost my respect and my support by just that one thing. I cannot accept your blame for his remaining in office as I am not that powerful, nor can I accept you're calling me a hypocrite for the same reason. Again for the record, Hillary lost my respect for riding his coattails to the senate when she should have kicked his cheating ass to the curb.

Accountable;1004561 wrote: Why would he give money to dwarves? :-2


Erm, thats a philantropist, a philanderer is a man who likes to....ahem.....with lots of ladies. :wah:

Lisamree;1004582 wrote: I am kinda sad for all of us...except for the horse. He lived well, served well, died well. Good for him.


Madam, that is the line of the week here on FG. Bravo! :wah:

oscar;1004588 wrote: In this country, it's atually against the law to call anyone a dwarve. Honestly.

Under our laws, we have to refer to them as "The Vertically challenged".

Bald men must be refered to as "The folicaly challenged". I swear.

We had an announcement in Britain today. I have to think that i have never known this in the history of Brisish government but Spot will put me right if i'm wrong. The opposing party to our government has said that it will join with the opposition and back Gordon Brown in his policies to help Britain in the fight to keep our country afloat in the financial crisis.

Would Mccain and Obama do this? Could they?


Well there was a government of National Unity formed during the Second World War so its not entirely unprecedented, and they generally all pitch in when there is an actual honest-to-goodness crisis, which is what this is. After all, if the "whole sucker goes down", they go down with it.

RedGlitter;1004774 wrote: A vow is a vow. Husband or wife, doesn't matter. When you have sex outside your marriage, the marriage is over. I have NO RESPECT for infidels. And if we were talking about Obama, I would be sticking it to him just as I am with McCain. There's no difference.

Yes, that is exactly what I think. Precisely. It does not speak well of the British people that they tolerated this lowdown cheater. He should have been canned. However I do realize if that were common policy, you'd have no royal family. There'd be none left to choose from. And for the record Camilla the homewrecker is as much to blame as is Charles. They deserve each other.

They are equally as bad. Clinton was great. Until he blew it. He lost my respect and my support by just that one thing. I cannot accept your blame for his remaining in office as I am not that powerful, nor can I accept you're calling me a hypocrite for the same reason. Again for the record, Hillary lost my respect for riding his coattails to the senate when she should have kicked his cheating ass to the curb.


There seems to be a lot of word confusion today, I don't think people who are accussed of infidelity in marraige are normally termed "infidels", that's more a religious term, and normally associated with non-muslims, which of course McCain is, though we are all infidels (unless some of you are muslims, if this is so then I apologize, inshallah and all of that).

As for people's marriage failing, I think it bears no relevance to their ability to be effective national leaders, and it shouldn't even be a question unless something criminal has occurred. People who lead democratic societies have a right to a private life, just like the rest of us, and if it goes wrong that their business. After all, they are not religious leaders. I understand why some people may feel the way Red does, but I certainly don't feel the same about my leaders and to be honest I think its a little prurient.

To be honest if everyone in life who committed a sexual indiscretion or suffered a marital failure was barred from jobs or positions in society, we wouldn't have a lot of people doing very much.

Galbally;1004788 wrote: Erm, thats a philantropist, a philanderer is a man who likes to....ahem.....with lots of ladies. :wah:
OOooohhhhh. *scribbling notes* :yh_glasse

Galbally;1004788 wrote: Erm, thats a philantropist, a philanderer is a man who likes to....ahem.....with lots of ladies. :wah:


Now i know that it's you in that pic for sure, if i were 20 yrs younger and there was no MR Oscar, i would be a .... Ahem ..... On the first Air Lingus to Ireland.

Mind you, the last time i used that airline, the rear gunner was sick. :wah::wah:

Galbally;1004791 wrote: There seems to be a lot of word confusion today, I don't think people who are accussed of infidelity in marraige are normally termed "infidels", that's more a religious term, and normally associated with non-muslims, which of course McCain is, though we are all infidels (unless some of you are muslims, if this is so then I apologize, inshallah and all of that).

As for people's marriage failing, I think it bears no relevance to their ability to be effective national leaders, and it shouldn't even be a question unless something criminal has occurred. People who lead democratic societies have a right to a private life, just like the rest of us, and if it goes wrong that their business. After all, they are not religious leaders. I understand why some people may feel the way Red does, but I certainly don't feel the same about my leaders and to be honest I think its a little prurient.

To be honest if everyone in life who committed a sexual indiscretion or suffered a marital failure was barred from jobs or positions in society, we wouldn't have a lot of people doing very much.


Well said

Galbally;1004790 wrote: Well there was a government of National Unity formed during the Second World War so its not entirely unprecedented, and they generally all pitch in when there is an actual honest-to-goodness crisis, which is what this is. After all, if the "whole sucker goes down", they go down with it. I know galbally, I didn't refer to the war pact as that was war and this is financial crisis. That was in the threat of invasion from Germany and Russia. This is not in the center of invasion. (yet). Party Unison was vital then as our whole country lives were at risk.

The oppostiton may have come out to back The Prime Minister, of course, they want to save their investments as well. I am not so blind that i think they are doing it because they love Gordon Brown. It's again down to greed from the money men and protecting their assets.

If it were full scale war, there would be a coalition government formed to fight the enemy.

By the way America. If my "Sun" is correct in it's reporting: ummmm What exactly was a stealth bomber doing 20 miles out of our British air space?? Heck, i'd love to have seen it.

RedGlitter;1004774 wrote: Okay first Oscar, I should probably let you know that I like to do my own thinking so let's not guess on what I wouldn't do and I won't do that to you either. . So that said let me answer your questions to the best of my ability. I just got in here to see them, sorry to be coming in late.



A vow is a vow. Husband or wife, doesn't matter. When you have sex outside your marriage, the marriage is over. I have NO RESPECT for infidels. A cheating wife is as bad as a cheating husband. I make no distinction between the two and no, I would not be voting for an adulterer.



No he didn't cause the crash. He did however let his wife down in her darkest hour. Was she screwing around on him while he was a POW? Did she leave him when he didn't return home? McCain showed himself to be a loser. That's as simple and as polite as I can put it.

Yes, I read Acc's post. What about it?



And if we were talking about Obama, I would be sticking it to him just as I am with McCain. There's no difference.





Yes, that is exactly what I think. Precisely. It does not speak well of the British people that they tolerated this lowdown cheater. He should have been canned. However I do realize if that were common policy, you'd have no royal family. There'd be none left to choose from. And for the record Camilla the homewrecker is as much to blame as is Charles. They deserve each other.



They are equally as bad. Clinton was great. Until he blew it. He lost my respect and my support by just that one thing. I cannot accept your blame for his remaining in office as I am not that powerful, nor can I accept you're calling me a hypocrite for the same reason. Again for the record, Hillary lost my respect for riding his coattails to the senate when she should have kicked his cheating ass to the curb.


Redglitter, if you check, i used the word "Hypocritical". Not Hypocrite.

There fore, i was refering to your government -- not YOU personally. I was certainly not blaming you for Clinton staying in office.

It's a little like "we" in Britain. When we say "we", we are refering to the Royal "We", not an individual.

As for offensive words betwween our nations.

The word T**t in my Oxford English dictionary is of:

"Polarising of female sexual anatomy: Word- Offensive to British females but men think it is an everyday word and quite mild."

It was not used to cause offense deliberately. If it caused offence, then you have my apology.

The word "Yoeman" to a British, Scottish and Irish man is deeply offensive. It is similar to us calling you a "Redneck".

Further more, to Lisamree, "Cranky" is highly offensive in Britain and Scotland.

That belongs to the "Fandabedozee party" founded by Jeanette Cranky.

I did not get upset when these words were used. I am fully aware that we have words that mean entirely different things between our countries.

Tolerance-- Now that's a good word.

oscar;1006750 wrote: Redglitter, if you check, i used the word "Hypocritical". Not Hypocrite.

There fore, i was refering to your government -- not YOU personally. I was certainly not blaming you for Clinton staying in office.

It's a little like "we" in Britain. When we say "we", we are refering to the Royal "We", not an individual.

As for offensive words betwween our nations.

The word T**t in my Oxford English dictionary is of:

"Polarising of female sexual anatomy: Word- Offensive to British females but men think it is an everyday word and quite mild."

It was not used to cause offense deliberately. If it caused offence, then you have my apology.

The word "Yoeman" to a British, Scottish and Irish man is deeply offensive. It is similar to us calling you a "Redneck".

Further more, to Lisamree, "Cranky" is highly offensive in Britain and Scotland.

That belongs to the "Fandabedozee party" founded by Jeanette Cranky.

I did not get upset when these words were used. I am fully aware that we have words that mean entirely different things between our countries.

Tolerance-- Now that's a good word.


Tolerance is a great word! I LOVE the idea that we give each other the benefit of the doubt before taking offense. Let's ask a question concerning definition and intent BEFORE we rail on each other...sorry, not sure if rail translates. Before we accuse and get angry.



By the way...Hoss, you the MAN!