Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 11-14-2012, 09:22 AM
 
3,448 posts, read 3,126,554 times
Reputation: 478

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Singlelady10 View Post
Because thinking with the head below is DIFFERENT than thinking with the one on your neck. Some soldiers, federal employees, DOD cheat. They don't sell classified information. In fact my former brother in law is a serial cheater and has access to highly sensitive information no one accuses him of selling classified information, Again you have no reason to put that out there without evidence. There were officers in my unit that cheated while their commanders covered it up, but they never once accused them of selling military info. Those are two separate psychological and moral issues. While cheating is not illegal in the civilian world, selling classified information is. Both are illegal in the military.
Ok...I see your point.

So now we know there are people all over the military who have access to classified stuff, and are willing to cheat on their wife.

So now...the enemy knows there are people all over the military who fancy, fancy babes and are willing to cheat something, even their wife if they are married..

So heres the question...

once the enemy knows the guys with classified info are into these fancy babes and will even continue with their wife and all things in life apart from below the belt stuff, with the two sided lie...

whats to stop the enemy from getting just the right babe out on a mission for a wild affair in order to get close to classified info, and maybe even get some stuff worth 100's of thousands or tech data that the enemy would like to build a bomb, plane, know operations more clearly, bend the rules alittle, catch off guard with unexpected questions ....add to known information ect....don't forget, the wiser warrior tries to keep the opposition close, that is a rule in life that no one person made up and there are good and obvious reasons for it, plus the leader would be the most import both by the amount of classified stuff and example. Leadership is about example in many ways.

Last edited by stargazzer; 11-14-2012 at 09:32 AM..

 
Old 11-14-2012, 09:23 AM
 
1,637 posts, read 1,877,418 times
Reputation: 1240
Quote:
Originally Posted by bongo View Post
Bull- show me any proof up to this date that Jill Kelley has taken any inappropriate actions that warrant any of these words.


Thousands of flirtatious emails with someone other than her husband and you are seriously questioning her floozie status. LMFAO.
 
Old 11-14-2012, 09:28 AM
 
Location: West Michigan
12,372 posts, read 9,292,757 times
Reputation: 7364
Quote:
Originally Posted by smittyjohnny38 View Post
How would you describe Broadwell? The OP wasnt being politically correct. You seem like a classy lady, so Im going to ask you to be intellectually honest and in your own words please describe how you would assess Broadwell.
I would call her an adulterer, cheater and an opportunist---which would all equally apply to Petraeus regarding his personal (not professional) life. None of us knows enough about her or her character to call her a 'floozie' or 'promiscuous' which denotes a person who goes after anything that moves. For all we know, these two could have genuinely thought they were in love at one point during the affair or the affair just happened without either one of them setting out to have an affair.
 
Old 11-14-2012, 09:30 AM
 
1,637 posts, read 1,877,418 times
Reputation: 1240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayland Woman View Post
I would call her an adulterer, cheater and an opportunist---which would all equally apply to Petraeus regarding his personal (not professional) life. None of us knows enough about her or her character to call her a 'floozie' or 'promiscuous' which denotes a person who goes after anything that moves.


LOL... You called her an adulterer, cheater, and,opportunist that's three bad things. The OP only called her two bad things. Is that you Judge Judy? Thanks for your honesty, I think you are both correct.
 
Old 11-14-2012, 09:32 AM
 
8,411 posts, read 7,399,570 times
Reputation: 6407
Quote:
Originally Posted by stargazzer View Post
Ok...I see your point.

So now we know there are people all over the military who have access to classified stuff, and are willing to cheat on their wife.

So now...the enemy knows there people all over the military who fancy, fancy babes and are willing to cheat something, even their wife if they are married..

So heres the question...

once the enemy knows the guys with classified info are into these fancy babes and will even continue with their wife and all things in life apart from below the belt stuff with the two sided lie...

whats to stop the enemy from getting just the right babe out on a mission for a wild affair in order to get close to classified info, and maybe even get some stuff worth 100's of thousands or tech data that the enemy would like to build a bomb, plane, know operations more clearly, add to known information ect....don't forget, the wiser warrior tries to keep the opposition close, that is a rule in life that no one person made up and there are good obvious reasons for it.

Just because you shack up with a mistress doesn't mean you are telling classified information. My ex and husband and friends had access to classified information but we never discussed it with anyone not even each other.

Your points are not valid because you might as well say a liar will disclose classified information. Heck that's 95% of America. Pleaseee. What is the point of sharing with a mistress if he can have any women within reach for the goods? Military just doesn't go around sharing this information like you think. It's more complex. If that was the case, few people would have a clearance and have access to information.
 
Old 11-14-2012, 09:37 AM
 
Location: Dublin, CA
3,807 posts, read 4,265,527 times
Reputation: 3984
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha View Post
what is it about a floozie that attracts powerful men?
Its not the "floozie." Its the woman and/or women period. Simply put, powerful men are Type A Personalities. They are very egotistical by nature. As such, ONE of the way they feed their ego's is through sex. The more women they have sex with, the more their ego's are fed.

Patreus is/was a very powerful man and I can gurantee you, this is just the tip of the iceburg. There are many other women out there. Look at all the presidents and their sexual escapades. Kennedy anyone? Bill Clinton? Look at recent CEO's of major corporations?

ANY male in the position of power, doctors, police officers ,et al get more tail then anyone knows and, for that matter, wants to know and/or admit. It just goes with the terrority.
 
Old 11-14-2012, 09:39 AM
 
Location: Portland, OR
9,855 posts, read 11,899,903 times
Reputation: 10028
Quote:
Originally Posted by stargazzer View Post
whats to stop the enemy from getting just the right babe out on a mission for a wild affair in order to get close to classified info, and maybe even get some stuff worth 100's of thousands or tech data that the enemy would like to build a bomb, plane, know operations more clearly, add to known information ect....
Hmmm... that sounds a lot like:

spy (sp)n. pl. spies (spz) 1. An agent employed by a state to obtain secret information, especially of a military nature, concerning its potential or actual enemies.
2. One employed by a company to obtain confidential information about its competitors.
3. One who secretly keeps watch on another or others.
4. An act of spying.

v. spied (spd), spy·ing, spies (spz)
v.tr.1. To observe secretly with hostile intent.
2. To discover by close observation.
3. To catch sight of: spied the ship on the horizon.
4. To investigate intensively.

v.intr.1. To engage in espionage.
2. To seek or observe something secretly and closely.
3. To make a careful investigation: spying into other people's activities.

You didn't know this was done? Has in fact been done for thousands of years? For every 007 there are 50 women whose job it is to seduce key targets in order to compromise them and/or obtain intelligence from them. Even if the woman can obtain the intelligence without sexual intercourse, her handler(s) are not likely to consider the mission complete without that key indicator of success. So... what's your point?

H
 
Old 11-14-2012, 09:41 AM
 
3,448 posts, read 3,126,554 times
Reputation: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Singlelady10 View Post
Just because you shack up with a mistress doesn't mean you are telling classified information. My ex and husband and friends had access to classified information but we never discussed it with anyone not even each other.

Your points are not valid because you might as well say a liar will disclose classified information. Heck that's 95% of America. Pleaseee. What is the point of sharing with a mistress if he can have any women within reach for the goods? Military just doesn't go around sharing this information like you think. It's more complex. If that was the case, few people would have a clearance and have access to information.
Well firstly its hardly reasonable to suggest the friends and so on can be compared to the leader. For example, do you mean to tell me that people in this depth, if contacted by someone, and properly prof executed over time, would refuse a 100 million dollar proposition if they knew, there was no way of getting caught, and don't forget the quality of individual you are bringing forward are cheaters to begin with.

Lets face it, a womanizer and lier to his own family, if properly set up over time with a massive amount of one time chance doe can't get caught, is not a good idea for anything...all he could see is all the dreams come true, a harem for as long as he likes. I don't know how the heck there could be an answer to this question.
 
Old 11-14-2012, 09:47 AM
 
8,411 posts, read 7,399,570 times
Reputation: 6407
Quote:
Originally Posted by stargazzer View Post
Well firstly its hardly reasonable to suggest the friends and so on can be compared to the leader. For example, do you mean to tell me that these people you know, if contacted by someone, and properly prof executed over time, would refuse a 100 million dollar proposition if they knew, there was no way of getting caught, and don't forget the quality of individual you are bringing forward are cheaters to begin with.

Lets face it, a womanizer and lier to his own family, if properly set up over time with a massive amount of one time chance doe can't get caught, is not a good idea for anything...all he could see is all the dreams come true, a harem for as long as he likes. I don't know how the heck there could be an answer to this question.
MY friends are leaders actually. Most officers and senior NCO are leaders. I think 30 years in jail outweigh 100 million. So yes I know many soldiers including myself that would pass money for freedom. Look at the soldiers that gave up six figure incomes to serve their country. Stop turning a affair into a money game. This isn't Fox News. Shame on you to question the integrity of our military that die and spend years from their family for your freedom. You can't be proud of your unfounded assumptions.
 
Old 11-14-2012, 09:52 AM
 
Location: Portland, OR
9,855 posts, read 11,899,903 times
Reputation: 10028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil306 View Post
Its not the "floozie." Its the woman and/or women period. Simply put, powerful men are Type A Personalities. They are very egotistical by nature. As such, ONE of the way they feed their ego's is through sex. The more women they have sex with, the more their ego's are fed.

Patreus is/was a very powerful man and I can gurantee you, this is just the tip of the iceburg. There are many other women out there. Look at all the presidents and their sexual escapades. Kennedy anyone? Bill Clinton? Look at recent CEO's of major corporations?

ANY male in the position of power, doctors, police officers ,et al get more tail then anyone knows and, for that matter, wants to know and/or admit. It just goes with the terrority.
Phil... relax... in spite of their seemingly insatiable appetite for illicit tail, there are only so many 4 star generals, Presidents and Hedge Fund Managers. There are still plenty of available floozies for you and me. I suspect Petraeus has had far fewer floozies than in your fevered imaginings. It might be Paula is the only one(!), or that there is at most another or two ... in 37 years of marriage... I'm ok with that math. You clearly aren't, but, sadly, these guys aren't asking for your permission, or approval. I believe that there are powerful men who do not abuse their influence sexually... if they abuse it in some other way are they better than an equal or even 'lesser' man who commits sexual indiscretions but whose personal code of conduct mandates that they be scrupulous in their business or other dealings?
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.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:32 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top