How is this not talked about when it comes to John McCain.

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Bluehorseshoe
    SBR Posting Legend
    • 07-13-06
    • 15018

    #1
    How is this not talked about when it comes to John McCain.
    Keating Five
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Jump to: navigation, search
    Semi-protected
    Alan Cranston (D-CA)

    Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ)
    John Glenn (D-OH)

    John McCain (R-AZ)
    Donald W. Riegle (D-MI)

    The Keating Five were five United States Senators accused of corruption in 1989, igniting a major political scandal as part of the larger Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s. The five senators, Alan Cranston (D-CA), Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ), John Glenn (D-OH), John McCain (R-AZ), and Donald W. Riegle (D-MI), were accused of improperly intervening in 1987 on behalf of Charles H. Keating, Jr., chairman of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, which was the target of a regulatory investigation by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB). The FHLBB subsequently backed off taking action against Lincoln.

    Lincoln Savings and Loan collapsed in 1989, at a cost of over $3 billion to the federal government. Some 23,000 Lincoln bondholders were defrauded and many elderly investors lost their life savings. The substantial political contributions that Keating had made to each of the senators, totalling $1.3 million, attracted considerable public and media attention. After a lengthy investigation, the Senate Ethics Committee determined in 1991 that Alan Cranston, Dennis DeConcini, and Donald Riegle had substantially and improperly interfered with the FHLBB in its investigation of Lincoln Savings, with Cranston receiving a formal reprimand. Senators John Glenn and John McCain were cleared of having acted improperly but were criticized for having exercised "poor judgment".

    All five of the senators involved served out their terms. Only Glenn and McCain ran for re-election, and they both succeeded. McCain would go on to become the Republican nominee for president in 2008.

  • ryanXL977
    SBR Posting Legend
    • 02-24-08
    • 20615

    #2
    not sure why. but it should
    this man has committed a lot of crimes, from bombing innocents in vietnam, to crashing multiple planes and killing american servicemen

    he also voted for the illegal war in iraq
    Comment
    • capitalist pig
      SBR MVP
      • 01-25-07
      • 4998

      #3
      Originally posted by ryanXL977
      not sure why. but it should
      this man has committed a lot of crimes, from bombing innocents in vietnam, to crashing multiple planes and killing american servicemen

      he also voted for the illegal war in iraq
      Ok Ill bite please post one crime he was charged with? If not you are spreading lies and violating the terms of SBR by slandering someone.

      later
      Comment
      • ryanXL977
        SBR Posting Legend
        • 02-24-08
        • 20615

        #4
        both vietnam and iraq are illegal wars based on lies and misinformation. nobody debates those points my friend.

        my friendsssssss
        my friendssssss
        Comment
        • TPowell
          SBR Posting Legend
          • 02-21-08
          • 18842

          #5
          ryan, how old are you?
          Comment
          • ms61853
            Restricted User
            • 04-10-07
            • 731

            #6
            Originally posted by Bluehorseshoe
            Keating Five
            From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
            Jump to: navigation, search
            Semi-protected
            Alan Cranston (D-CA)

            Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ)
            John Glenn (D-OH)

            John McCain (R-AZ)
            Donald W. Riegle (D-MI)

            The Keating Five were five United States Senators accused of corruption in 1989, igniting a major political scandal as part of the larger Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s. The five senators, Alan Cranston (D-CA), Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ), John Glenn (D-OH), John McCain (R-AZ), and Donald W. Riegle (D-MI), were accused of improperly intervening in 1987 on behalf of Charles H. Keating, Jr., chairman of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, which was the target of a regulatory investigation by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB). The FHLBB subsequently backed off taking action against Lincoln.

            Lincoln Savings and Loan collapsed in 1989, at a cost of over $3 billion to the federal government. Some 23,000 Lincoln bondholders were defrauded and many elderly investors lost their life savings. The substantial political contributions that Keating had made to each of the senators, totalling $1.3 million, attracted considerable public and media attention. After a lengthy investigation, the Senate Ethics Committee determined in 1991 that Alan Cranston, Dennis DeConcini, and Donald Riegle had substantially and improperly interfered with the FHLBB in its investigation of Lincoln Savings, with Cranston receiving a formal reprimand. Senators John Glenn and John McCain were cleared of having acted improperly but were criticized for having exercised "poor judgment".

            All five of the senators involved served out their terms. Only Glenn and McCain ran for re-election, and they both succeeded. McCain would go on to become the Republican nominee for president in 2008.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five
            Perhaps for this reason?

            The Ethics Committee ruled that the involvement of McCain in the scheme was also minimal, and he too was cleared of all charges against him. McCain was criticized by the Committee for exercising "poor judgment" when he met with the federal regulators on Keating's behalf.

            The report also said that McCain's "actions were not improper nor attended with gross negligence and did not reach the level of requiring institutional action against him....Senator McCain has violated no law of the United States or specific Rule of the United States Senate.
            Comment
            • ryanXL977
              SBR Posting Legend
              • 02-24-08
              • 20615

              #7
              yes, any report the government puts out, i will believe
              well done ms
              Comment
              • tacomax
                SBR Hall of Famer
                • 08-10-05
                • 9619

                #8
                Originally posted by Bluehorseshoe
                Senators John Glenn and John McCain were cleared of having acted improperly but were criticized for having exercised "poor judgment".
                ms61853 told me that it was Obama who advised McCain in this deal. That's why they're keeping it low profile.
                Originally posted by pags11
                SBR would never get rid of me...ever...
                Originally posted by BuddyBear
                I'd probably most likely chose Pags to jack off too.
                Originally posted by curious
                taco is not a troll, he is a bubonic plague bacteria.
                Comment
                • JC
                  SBR Sharp
                  • 08-23-05
                  • 481

                  #9
                  Originally posted by ms61853
                  Perhaps for this reason?

                  The Ethics Committee ruled that the involvement of McCain in the scheme was also minimal, and he too was cleared of all charges against him. McCain was criticized by the Committee for exercising "poor judgment" when he met with the federal regulators on Keating's behalf.

                  The report also said that McCain's "actions were not improper nor attended with gross negligence and did not reach the level of requiring institutional action against him....Senator McCain has violated no law of the United States or specific Rule of the United States Senate.
                  You mean the same way that Obama's actions [with respect to Ayers, Rezko, and Wright] were not improper nor attended with gross negligence and did not reach the level of requiring institutional action against him....Senator (Obama) has violated no law of the United States or specific Rule of the United States Senate?
                  Comment
                  • Bluehorseshoe
                    SBR Posting Legend
                    • 07-13-06
                    • 15018

                    #10
                    Originally posted by ms61853
                    Perhaps for this reason?

                    The Ethics Committee ruled that the involvement of McCain in the scheme was also minimal, and he too was cleared of all charges against him. McCain was criticized by the Committee for exercising "poor judgment" when he met with the federal regulators on Keating's behalf.

                    The report also said that McCain's "actions were not improper nor attended with gross negligence and did not reach the level of requiring institutional action against him....Senator McCain has violated no law of the United States or specific Rule of the United States Senate.
                    He got of the hook......


                    Reactions

                    Not everyone was satisfied with the Senate Ethics Committee conclusions. Fred Wertheimer, president of Common Cause, which had initially demanded the investigation, thought the treatment of the senators far too lenient, and said, "[The] action by the Senate Ethics Committee is a cop-out and a damning indictment of the committee,"[41] and "The U.S. Senate remains on the auction block to the Charles Keatings of the world."[61] Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen, called it a "whitewash".[61] Jonathan Alter of Newsweek said it was a classic case of the government trying to investigate itself, labelling the Senate Ethics Committee "shameless" for having "let four of the infamous Keating Five off with a wrist tap."[62] The New York Times ran several editorials criticizing the Ethics Committee for having let the senators off lightly.[63] Margaret Carlson of Time suspected the committee had timed its first report to coincide with the run-up to the Gulf War, minimizing its news impact.[61] One of the San Francisco bank regulators felt that McCain had gotten off too lightly, saying that Keating's business involvement with Cindy McCain was an obvious conflict of interest.[64]
                    Comment
                    • JC
                      SBR Sharp
                      • 08-23-05
                      • 481

                      #11
                      McCain was a lot tighter with Keating than Obama ever was with Ayers, Rezko, or Wright.
                      Comment
                      • ms61853
                        Restricted User
                        • 04-10-07
                        • 731

                        #12
                        Originally posted by JC
                        You mean the same way that Obama's actions [with respect to Ayers, Rezko, and Wright] were not improper nor attended with gross negligence and did not reach the level of requiring institutional action against him....Senator (Obama) has violated no law of the United States or specific Rule of the United States Senate?
                        Let's look at the difference.

                        McCain met with regulators on behalf of Keating. Nothing improper happened. That was 20 years ago and Mccain has shown that he will never enter into such questionable situations again.

                        Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist who killed people and got off on a technicality. Wright is a black nationalist who spouts hate speech. Rezko is a convicted criminal who Obama from whom Obama has received business favors.

                        None of these relationships have been investigated. Obama only recently "distanced" himself from these folks when it became politically expedient.
                        Comment
                        • reno cool
                          SBR MVP
                          • 07-02-08
                          • 3567

                          #13
                          There are many crimes of the highest order that no one will be charged with, though they should be. Not the least of which is the illegal invasion of Iraq, or attempted genocide in Vietnam.
                          bird bird da bird's da word
                          Comment
                          • ryanXL977
                            SBR Posting Legend
                            • 02-24-08
                            • 20615

                            #14
                            Originally posted by ms61853
                            Let's look at the difference.

                            McCain met with regulators on behalf of Keating. Nothing improper happened. That was 20 years ago and Mccain has shown that he will never enter into such questionable situations again.

                            Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist who killed people and got off on a technicality. Wright is a black nationalist who spouts hate speech. Rezko is a convicted criminal who Obama from whom Obama has received business favors.

                            None of these relationships have been investigated. Obama only recently "distanced" himself from these folks when it became politically expedient.
                            what is it ayers did 40 years ago that obama should be in trouble for? what iis it wright said that obama should be in trouble for? what exactly did they do? seriously, you are going to hold the actions of ayers at age 30 against him but not the actions of bush or anyone else. how do you pick and choose where to be self righteous?
                            Comment
                            • daggerkobe
                              SBR Posting Legend
                              • 03-25-08
                              • 10744

                              #15
                              McCriminal.
                              Comment
                              • Bluehorseshoe
                                SBR Posting Legend
                                • 07-13-06
                                • 15018

                                #16
                                Originally posted by ms61853
                                Let's look at the difference.

                                McCain met with regulators on behalf of Keating. Nothing improper happened. That was 20 years ago and Mccain has shown that he will never enter into such questionable situations again.

                                Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist who killed people and got off on a technicality. Wright is a black nationalist who spouts hate speech. Rezko is a convicted criminal who Obama from whom Obama has received business favors.

                                None of these relationships have been investigated. Obama only recently "distanced" himself from these folks when it became politically expedient.
                                Nothing improper happened???

                                John McCain's wife was partners with Keating on a business deal. That's not an obvious conflict of interest????
                                Comment
                                • ryanXL977
                                  SBR Posting Legend
                                  • 02-24-08
                                  • 20615

                                  #17
                                  ms, go read about hagee then get back to us about wright
                                  Comment
                                  • ms61853
                                    Restricted User
                                    • 04-10-07
                                    • 731

                                    #18
                                    Originally posted by Bluehorseshoe
                                    Nothing improper happened???

                                    John McCain's wife was partners with Keating on a business deal. That's not an obvious conflict of interest????
                                    Should there be an immediate publicized investigation into Obama's dealings, too? (McCain was exonerated)

                                    There was an investigation into Mccain; why not an investigation of Obama?
                                    Comment
                                    • ryanXL977
                                      SBR Posting Legend
                                      • 02-24-08
                                      • 20615

                                      #19
                                      you sure dont answer questions
                                      what dealings with ayers? he didnt appoint ayers to a board of education he is on, a republican lady did. so what is it he did wrong. did obama bomb something? did he plot to bomb somehting? what is it he did
                                      tell us all
                                      Comment
                                      • ms61853
                                        Restricted User
                                        • 04-10-07
                                        • 731

                                        #20
                                        Originally posted by ryanXL977
                                        what is it ayers did 40 years ago that obama should be in trouble for? what iis it wright said that obama should be in trouble for? what exactly did they do? seriously, you are going to hold the actions of ayers at age 30 against him but not the actions of bush or anyone else. how do you pick and choose where to be self righteous?

                                        If Obama's dealings with Ayers are no big deal, then why is he lying about them now?
                                        Comment
                                        • Bluehorseshoe
                                          SBR Posting Legend
                                          • 07-13-06
                                          • 15018

                                          #21
                                          Originally posted by ms61853
                                          Should there be an immediate publicized investigation into Obama's dealings, too? (McCain was exonerated)

                                          There was an investigation into Mccain; why not an investigation of Obama?

                                          OJ was exonerated for murder. So what!!!!


                                          You don't thing he did anything wrong???
                                          Comment
                                          • ryanXL977
                                            SBR Posting Legend
                                            • 02-24-08
                                            • 20615

                                            #22
                                            debating with this guy is like running around in circles. i now realize this.

                                            have a nice day dude. im sure you will convince many people to vote mccain
                                            Comment
                                            • picantel
                                              SBR MVP
                                              • 09-17-05
                                              • 4338

                                              #23
                                              Originally posted by ms61853
                                              Let's look at the difference.

                                              McCain met with regulators on behalf of Keating. Nothing improper happened. That was 20 years ago and Mccain has shown that he will never enter into such questionable situations again.

                                              Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist who killed people and got off on a technicality. Wright is a black nationalist who spouts hate speech. Rezko is a convicted criminal who Obama from whom Obama has received business favors.

                                              None of these relationships have been investigated. Obama only recently "distanced" himself from these folks when it became politically expedient.
                                              more crap from crap. Obama was 8 years old when it happened. However, that is ok right? McCain was 98 years old when the keating happened 20 years ago.
                                              Comment
                                              • ms61853
                                                Restricted User
                                                • 04-10-07
                                                • 731

                                                #24
                                                Originally posted by picantel
                                                more crap from crap. Obama was 8 years old when it happened. However, that is ok right? McCain was 98 years old when the keating happened 20 years ago.
                                                So if Timothy McVeigh had gotten off on some technicality and became employed by some right wing college, and McCain developed an alliance with him, then McCain should get a free pass on that?

                                                Question: If Hussein Osama were applying to become a CIA agent, could he even pass a background check for the job given his alliances? Why won't anybody seriously look into this guy's background?
                                                Comment
                                                • ms61853
                                                  Restricted User
                                                  • 04-10-07
                                                  • 731

                                                  #25
                                                  Originally posted by Bluehorseshoe
                                                  OJ was exonerated for murder. So what!!!!


                                                  You don't thing he did anything wrong???
                                                  Should there be an immediate, highly publicized investigation of Obama? You don't think he did anything wrong?
                                                  Comment
                                                  • Bluehorseshoe
                                                    SBR Posting Legend
                                                    • 07-13-06
                                                    • 15018

                                                    #26
                                                    Originally posted by ms61853
                                                    Should there be an immediate, highly publicized investigation of Obama? You don't think he did anything wrong?
                                                    You refuse to answer questions. It's amazing.


                                                    If I asked you a yes or no question, would you answer it???
                                                    Comment
                                                    • picantel
                                                      SBR MVP
                                                      • 09-17-05
                                                      • 4338

                                                      #27
                                                      Originally posted by ms61853
                                                      Should there be an immediate, highly publicized investigation of Obama? You don't think he did anything wrong?
                                                      Of course Obama did. He was obviously paid a quarter to be the lookout for Ayers. I also hold him responsible for all hurricanes, my crappy sex life, and the pesky rash on my crotch.
                                                      Comment
                                                      • ms61853
                                                        Restricted User
                                                        • 04-10-07
                                                        • 731

                                                        #28
                                                        Originally posted by reno cool
                                                        T, or attempted genocide in Vietnam.
                                                        Are you talking about the what the Communists did after the cowardly Democrats invited the North Vietnamese to invade South Vietnam after we left in 1973?
                                                        Comment
                                                        • JC
                                                          SBR Sharp
                                                          • 08-23-05
                                                          • 481

                                                          #29
                                                          Originally posted by ms61853
                                                          Should there be an immediate, highly publicized investigation of Obama? You don't think he did anything wrong?
                                                          Investigation for what, whether or not he helped plant the bombs when he was 8?
                                                          Comment
                                                          • reno cool
                                                            SBR MVP
                                                            • 07-02-08
                                                            • 3567

                                                            #30
                                                            no I'm talking about what the US did. "The Communists" asshole were Vietnamese.

                                                            What the US did in an effort to prop up an unpopular government, is torch the country literally.
                                                            bird bird da bird's da word
                                                            Comment
                                                            • JC
                                                              SBR Sharp
                                                              • 08-23-05
                                                              • 481

                                                              #31
                                                              Originally posted by ms61853
                                                              Are you talking about the what the Communists did after the cowardly Democrats invited the North Vietnamese to invade South Vietnam after we left in 1973?
                                                              We had no business in Vietnam. Congress never declared war.
                                                              Comment
                                                              • ms61853
                                                                Restricted User
                                                                • 04-10-07
                                                                • 731

                                                                #32
                                                                Originally posted by reno cool
                                                                no I'm talking about what the US did. "The Communists" asshole were Vietnamese.

                                                                What the US did in an effort to prop up an unpopular government, is torch the country literally.
                                                                You dis little knowledge of Vietnam. Only revisionist propaganda.

                                                                I'll just tell you that Vietnam was an extension of the Truman policy of containment.
                                                                Comment
                                                                • ryanXL977
                                                                  SBR Posting Legend
                                                                  • 02-24-08
                                                                  • 20615

                                                                  #33
                                                                  and what an idiotic policy it was, designed to allow the us to spend immense amounts on weapons and bombs we did not need

                                                                  truman was an awful president, a military industrial sellout piece of garbage
                                                                  Comment
                                                                  • reno cool
                                                                    SBR MVP
                                                                    • 07-02-08
                                                                    • 3567

                                                                    #34
                                                                    Oh Truman policy of containment. Well I'm sorry, god forbid I ever say anything against policy.
                                                                    bird bird da bird's da word
                                                                    Comment
                                                                    • ms61853
                                                                      Restricted User
                                                                      • 04-10-07
                                                                      • 731

                                                                      #35
                                                                      Originally posted by ryanXL977
                                                                      and what an idiotic policy it was, designed to allow the us to spend immense amounts on weapons and bombs we did not need

                                                                      truman was an awful president, a military industrial sellout piece of garbage
                                                                      And the Soviet Union now?
                                                                      Comment
                                                                      Search
                                                                      Collapse
                                                                      SBR Contests
                                                                      Collapse
                                                                      Top-Rated US Sportsbooks
                                                                      Collapse
                                                                      Working...