Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What happened, Sanrene, is that our posts got crossed in posting -- you sent me a reply PM, while I was posting what you just read. So, what I said still stands. From what you have indicated, you were not familiar with repping and leaving messages, and, apparently, did not see many of them -- so it is understandable that you did not see it then.
Sometimes you will notice that as you are typing a reply to a post, that another one has appeared before yours gets on the board -- that is what happened here. At any rate, don't worry about it. We can, hopefully, be peacefully done with the other.
Ooops, see, I was just going to submit this, when I saw LaySayFair's post!! (Good thing I checked this time and it was visible!) So, now there's that post before mine -- I was hoping mine would be first....but that's okay!
As for my "story," (which is a true account), you do not need to believe it. If my story was so different from someone else's, then it would be more justifiable to ask for clarification or more information. Mine was merely just one of many....believing this one story amongst many doesn't make much difference in the scheme of things.
And in regard to TexDav -- you're right that discipline is important. And I know that war time is different. I was only tying the past to the present -- just a small correlation. I was always very disciplined as a parent, because I know what happens to kids who are not disciplined -- however, there are ways to be very disciplined, but to not be abusive. Some people do not know how to do that and cross the line to emotional and physical abuse in the name of discipline. They just blow up!
I definitely do not believe in mixed messages nor letting kids get away with things -- instant consequences in my household -- but on the flip-side, rewards were there, too. Consistency is important -- and that ties into the whole anger issue, which we have beat to death here. Unfortunately, anger can continue and not abate -- or if it does, it can be too late. I'd still stay away from the angry one -- too much rests on how people get along in this global society, and there are too many risks if somebody's temper gets us further into hot water.
As for Obama being racist -- I'll watch that as it goes along. Being bi-racial, he'll have to fight both sides -- should be interesting!
Anyway, I told my one little story, and others contributed their input. Thanks to all. Sorry it got off-track, and maybe another thread can bring it in together in a better way. Guess I won't be visiting political threads again for at least another year!!
Night all!
Wisteria
Thanks for the great posts , Wisteria. Don't let any poster drive you off..it was nice to see your calm reasoned answers to her rantings...we need more like you..stick around!!!
Thanks for the great posts , Wisteria. Don't let any poster drive you off..it was nice to see your calm reasoned answers to her rantings...we need more like you..stick around!!!
Yes this is a forum not a court of law. Seems like a reasonable story to me, MCCain's issues with keeping his temper are pretty well known, people that want to support him will of course get defensive about it.
I think the fact McCain slid under the radar for most of the Republican nomination and only at the end somehow pulled out a victory means he is still pretty untested in regards to handling the Press and his flip flops and other tough questions.
I think Obama will in fact enter the general election much more "battle hardened" from his bruising with Hilary, and McCain could entertain us with a meltdown soon enough.
I think it is fascinating, too, that people are being so negative about things that are common knowledge amongst those who were there. You don't have to believe me -- go check it out for yourself -- it's not hard to do. I assume most of you aren't even close to his age, so you're assuming an awful lot about times you probably don't even know about. Besides, how many of you know him personally? Sounds like no one, so far......
My friend was not a pilot -- he was a nuclear weapons specialist on the naval ships -- was in the Cuban Missile Crisis, etc. Yes, he, unfortunately, has really bad memories of experiences of planes crashing (even on-board the ships -- sometimes I guess the pilots couldn't navigate those small areas). It's a time he still has PTSD with. He was a military lifer .... for what it's worth.
Plus, considering he's one of my best friends, and is a military man, I wouldn't be so quick to assume what you think you know about me. I merely stated what many have stated -- that as we get older our memories do begin to go -- it is just human biology.
Look, if I have a good military friend, who just happened to serve with him, what is the attack against me, and why do I have to call him out on it? I merely stated that I knew someone who served with him, and what was said about McCain. These men on board suffered enough. My main points were the age and memory loss, and the temper -- which I just don't believe is good in leadership, as I work in a law enforcement agency, and I know that people are closely backgrounded and psychologically tested because of those kinds of responses - it is just not safe to have a loose cannon in command!
Geez, you'd think I was waving an Obama flag or something....get it together folks -- you know nothing about me, politically. It's just common-sense that someone with an anger-management problem shouldn't be in charge of others.....
Forget it, it's useless to bring up the obvious because obviously no one wants to acknowledge it. Sorry.
Actually, I find this fascinating since my father was stationed at Fort Ord during the Vietnam War so... He was in the Air Force. So, again, who was your friend? Perhaps my father knew him? We lived in numerous locations around the Monterey Bay back then -- but like all military people, my dad got transferred pretty frequently (but we were in Monterey for 6+ years).
My father actually signed up during WWII and had an extremely long career in the service. My father has never had much of a temper at all, despite having many bad memories (mostly from WWII, not Vietnam).
So, you care to back this up with some facts? This all seems so nebulous now.
From what I understand, his military experience was mostly confined to being a POW -- I knew people in the Vietnam War, and I admire those who had to fight for us. However, his experience as a POW, doesn't give him military leadership qualities -- just a history as a POW, mostly.
Just for the record, McCain spent a lot longer in the Military than just those 5 years as a POW. According to his biography on Wikipedia:
Quote:
McCain graduated from the United States Naval Academy in 1958 and became a naval aviator, flying attack aircraft from carriers. During the Vietnam War, he nearly lost his life in the 1967 USS Forrestal fire. Later that year while on a bombing mission over North Vietnam, he was shot down, badly injured, and captured as a prisoner of war by the North Vietnamese. He was held from 1967 to 1973, experiencing episodes of torture and refusing an out-of-sequence early repatriation offer; his war wounds would leave him with some lifelong physical limitations.
He retired from the Navy as a captain in 1981 and, moving to Arizona, entered politics.
By the way, does anyone happen to know why presidential candidates don't have to go through a strict background check and a psychological exam???
I'm not very political, but I have to admit that having someone with anger issues does scare me. I mean, he'd have to deal with other leaders of countries and all sorts of interpersonal relationships -- it sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.
I don't want to do another thread, but I'm just curious if anyone knows why in such an important position dealing with people from all over the world and the country, why a psychological test isn't administered, and why there isn't a huge background check?? Somehow it just doesn't make sense. Instead we just have these obstinate news stories of "he said, she said," and finger-pointing instead of facts. I'm really curious why there is no psychological exam -- being a world leader is very different than sitting in the Senate.
Thanks.
Hey! I had a friend who grew up with Dubya. Seriously. And he always told me Dubya was the biggest goofball around. I think everyone in Washington knew this since they all grew up around there. (George Sr. had lots of jobs in Washington.)
No, they don't have a psychology test. It's a little late now, dontcha think? They let Dubya into the highest office. Why not the next nutso?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
