digg

Join DiggAbout

Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!

See the original image at huffingtonpost.com

Baptist Minister Asks McCain:"Did You Call Your Wife A C**t?

huffingtonpost.com — At a town hall forum in Iowa today, Sen. John McCain was asked about a story from Cliff Schecter's controversial recent book, The Real McCain, which alleges that during a 1992 campaign stop, McCain angrily called his wife a "trollop" and a "c**t" in front of aides and reporters.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • killbert24, on 05/02/2008, -71/+188So that means 'yes'. Failure to answer a question means you are guilty.
    • oldhick, on 05/02/2008, -68/+70Right, so when Obama refuses to answer questions because he has the dignity not to stoop to the level of gutter politics, we'll just assume he's guilty as charged. Come on people. No candidate would dignify that question with a response. Grow up.
      • rabidbob, on 05/02/2008, -20/+45Sorry, wrong. Any man worth his salt who didn't do it would say "no, I didn't". Hell, any man worth his salt who did do it would say "Yes I did, and I'm sorry". Sadly politicians are generally not worth their salt, or excretement for that matter.
        • unreg, on 05/02/2008, -27/+21At what point do the questions become absurd?

          Let's ask Obama "So when did you stop beating your wife"
          • rabidbob, on 05/02/2008, -6/+2"At what point do the questions become absurd?"

            Did you or did you not do OT8?
        • ayeroxor, on 05/02/2008, -11/+26unreg: God damn, you're some kind of idiot. If it was established or postulated by people in high places that Obama had previously beaten his wife, that question would be valid. But that's not so. What is so is that it has been postulated by people in high places that McCain had called his wife a *****, therefore this question was valid.

          Any man who would call his wife a ***** and attempt to evade the repercussions is a no-class coward who deserves to be called out on it, and the same goes for any person who would defend such a person.
          • kevlarbaboon, on 05/03/2008, -2/+1You're such a *****.
          • Enasni1212, on 05/03/2008, -0/+2Kevlar, did you call ayeroxor a *****? Just answer the question, please.
        • awtripp, on 05/02/2008, -2/+22actually it'd be "Yes, I did, and the ***** deserved it."
      • DevilDriver, on 05/02/2008, -8/+13Sorry but I don't see this as gutter politics. McCain snapped in public and if that's his temper, we need to know it.
    • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 05/02/2008, -45/+27Lets suppose someone was writing a book called "The Real Barrack" about how two-faced Obama is and right after releasing it, he goes on tour selling his book and alleges that Obama called his wife, Michelle, a hoar and told her to shut the ***** up.

      Lets also suppose that the only source for this allegation is the author and some reporters from Fox News.

      Would liberals act like sheep, as they are now, and be quick to believe, or would they question the validity of the allegations?
      • apothekari, on 05/02/2008, -7/+25It's spelled "Whore" by the way.
        • Spuy767, on 05/03/2008, -0/+2I think he's using the 4chan dictionary.
      • noisician, on 05/02/2008, -2/+9either that or he meant "hoar" as in old and grey haired
        :)
      • ayeroxor, on 05/02/2008, -6/+5Who would have thought someone of your obvious intellect would have such trouble spelling common English words...
      • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 05/02/2008, -5/+6My remark must have spot on if the only thing you can find wrong is that spelled whore incorrectly.

        So once again, would believe the allegations of a hit-piece author and some Fox News reporters if the story was about Obama?
        • byronne, on 05/02/2008, -3/+4No, that wasn't the only thing wrong. The entire post is incomprehensible. I don't know what you are asking.
      • nomadxx7, on 05/03/2008, -3/+1To answer your fairly ridiculous question DRINKREDBULL I'll take a stab at it. First off if for one another news source reported other than Fox I'd have to say to possibly look into the allegations. The thing about this case is that it was done in front of reporters and aides (plural not singular) so I'm sure you can get people to corroborate the story that McCain called his wife a C**T. If you example is that Fox News said something negative about Obama I'd personally tune out what they say because for the last 8 years Fox has been a propoganda puppet for BushCo. Also, seeing that most non-issues against Obama have been put on the table and debates wasted with stupid questions (ABC Democratic debate) I'd say that if there was a minor hell even insignificant allegation that Obama called his wife a nappy ho or whatever that EVERY MSM newsite would be on top of the story like Eliot Spitzer on his prostitute. Since MSM seems to enjoy bashing Obama for what Wright has to say or that he doesn't wear a flag lapel pin, WHY (and I mean WHYYYYYYY) is whatever McCain says a non-issue or perfectly OK? (i.e. calling your wife a ***** or even that he didn't disown his own minister for some colorful comments).

        So though you make a valid point if the shoe was on the other foot, it's hard to listen to what you say when you use a very biased source that would "drop" this bomb on the public and also that Obama has had to defend himself for stupid issues that an intelligent American would not give too ***** about. I want real issues and if reporters can validate or deny these allegations (and I personally haven't seen reporters deny it) then I say it's a valid question to ask. Personally I don't need a President that gets mad at a foreign country because of a difference of opinions and then resorts to name calling or stereotypes to convene his message (I could just see McCain getting mad at the Pakistani president and then calling him a raghead)
    • Arcesius, on 05/02/2008, -15/+83Although I do think he called her a *****, I don't think not answering a question means you're guilty.
      • asspants, on 05/02/2008, -13/+2double negative
        • StrangeFamous, on 05/02/2008, -0/+8Simply split the sentence up if you're confused.

          "This is what I DON'T think:
          Not answering a question means you're guilty."
        • jwoelmer2, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1sometimes double negatives have more effect, though they shouldn't be used everywhere
          • nomadxx7, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1They may have more dramatic effect but technically it's still improper English. It's easier and proper to use a straight forward sentence versus negating a negative statement. Just really confusing to me :)
      • KibibyteBrain, on 05/03/2008, -0/+7In fact, sometimes is better not to give some questions the dignity of an answer. But I don't think this was the case here, although I wouldn't totally hold it against McCain without further evidence. Even so, McCain is human, I can forgive him for having an imperfect relationship with his wife, there have been worse between good people. But it makes you doubt his qualifications for a high pressure position of the importance of the Presidency, if true.
      • BlaenkDenum, on 05/03/2008, -1/+1"You have the right to remain silent"...BUT WE KNOW YOU'RE GUILTY, BITCH!
      • giveer, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1"I don't think not answering a question means you're guilty."
        Well, someone never studied 'A Man for All Seasons' in school...
        [is anyone even gonna get a classical theatrical reference in here?] never mind....
        • Spuy767, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1What does this have to do with Estes air conditioning?
    • RepubOperative, on 05/02/2008, -65/+10Barack Obama looked pale (hard to do for a black man....hehehehe) and wan at what he called his "big press conference" about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright on Tuesday afternoon. Numb. Chastened. Defeated. (and still black but pale?)

      Extolled for his eloquence, Obama stuttered and stammered his way through the question-and-answer session. It appeared he was having an out-of-body experience.

      Who knew that the greatest threat to his presidential campaign would come from the preacher who married him, baptized him and prayed with him? Barack Obama should have known. That's who. Take that judgment and shove it on a pretty campaign poster.

      "Yes, we can"? Try "Yes, you should have."

      In the 24 hours leading up to the news conference, Obama's campaign too slowly grappled with how to handle the aftermath of Wright's whirlwind weekend tour of hatred:

      From Dallas, where he decried his "public crucifixion," to Detroit, where he entertained NAACP bigwigs with impersonations of white people, mockeries of classical music and "white" marching bands, and lectures on racial brain theories, to the National Press Club, where he preened, strutted and head-wagged his way through an hour of bitter black liberation theologizing.

      At first, Obama downplayed Wright's public appearances. But Obama now tells us he had to wait 24 hours to convene a press conference to denounce Wright's National Press Club speech because he "hadn't seen it." After all this time on the campaign trail, we're back to the Obama-as-clueless-naif narrative again.

      When he finally did view the Washington speech, Obama explained, he was "shocked" and "outraged" and "saddened" because "the person I saw was not the person that I'd come to know over 20 years."

      What a load of pure, unadulterated horse manure.

      Anyone with eyes can see that Wright's performances are finely honed, time-tested acts. His anti-white, anti-American, "imperialist"-bashing shtick was not developed overnight or over the past few years. He's been peddling AIDS conspiracies for decades.

      He's been grievance-mongering about slavery for decades. He's been flirting with the Nation of Islam, which provided security for his speeches, for decades. He's been a shouting left-wing radical for decades.

      Obama's best-selling "Audacity of Hope" is named after the first sermon of Wright's that he heard — decades ago — in which the pastor of racial resentment inveighed against an environment "where white folks' greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere."

      Yet only now has Obama concluded that Wright's sermons are "a bunch of rants that aren't grounded in truth." Welcome to the Jive Talk Express.

      A reader of mine who is a clergyman e-mailed after Obama's press conference: "As a pastor, I have this take: It is inconceivable that Obama had no knowledge of Wright's views after 20 years as a member of that church. As a pastor, my heart-held, deepest beliefs and passions cannot be silenced. It is what I am.

      "If I were given a microphone at the National Press Club, I would not speak on something that I had guardedly kept secret for most of my life. No, I would go to my main point, the center of my ministry, the core of my passion, to speak truth as I know it to be.

      "How can Obama actually claim that this is news from his pastor? His mailman, butcher or plumber? No problem. His pastor? No way!"

      It's not Wright who has changed his loony tune.

      It was just last year that Obama was telling the Chicago Tribune that Wright was his sounding board for truth: "What I value most about Pastor Wright is not his day-to-day political advice. He's much more of a sounding board for me to make sure that I am speaking as truthfully about what I believe as possible and that I'm not losing myself in some of the hype and hoopla and stress that's involved in national politics."

      It was just this March, in his Philadelphia racial reconciliation speech, that Obama was urging us not to dismiss Wright as a "crank or a demagogue" and protesting that he could "no more disown him than I can disown the black community."

      Now, realizing how gravely his self-serving association with Wright has wounded his campaign, Obama himself has attempted to do both those things — and expects the American public to believe him when he weakly and belatedly asserts that "when I say I find (Wright's) statements appalling, I mean it."

      As those of us with non-European brains might put it: You be trippin', Barry.


      http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=2 ...
      • atlantocide, on 05/02/2008, -6/+24"Barack Obama looked pale (hard to do for a black man....hehehehe) and wan at what he called his "big press conference" about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright on Tuesday afternoon. Numb. Chastened. Defeated. (and still black but pale?)"
        We get it. You are a racist.
        • MacEnvy, on 05/02/2008, -4/+12Just report him for spamming and move on. He's really not worth the effort. He WANTS you to respond - it's how he gets his rocks off.
        • asspants, on 05/02/2008, -13/+4As soon as I read the first sentence, I was prepared to scroll down and find the ***** calling him a racist, but apparently there was only a few who dug up one. Congratulations retards you've pointed out something glaringly obvious, do you feel special?
          • nomadxx7, on 05/03/2008, -1/+5And yet your name is asspants. Pardon me if I don't really listen to what you have to say Mr. Asspants
          • asspants, on 05/03/2008, -1/+1hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, nice comeback, too bad the only come was in the back of your throat
          • eliot2000, on 05/04/2008, -1/+1True. and yet...your name is still "asspants." Sorry, can't get past that.
          • asspants, on 05/05/2008, -1/+1but the thing is your stupid comments would have no point if my name was not asspants, so it begs me to ask the question, why even bother commenting? you have contributed nothing, just as pointing out that the original poster was a racist brought nothing to the discussion, you're failures at life.
      • jdotter, on 05/02/2008, -5/+11Anything by Malkin gets filed in the "useless drivel" category along with items from other professional opinionists like Rush, Hannity, Coulter and the rest of those mouth-breathing wackos.

        Also, your comment is irrelevant and unrelated to this story-
        • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 05/02/2008, -6/+5You forgot Huffington, Olberman, and Rhodes.
      • rennie246, on 05/02/2008, -3/+10And that unnecessarily long diatribe has what to do with this story exactly? Digging you down for the useless verbal diarrhea.
      • glasnostic, on 05/02/2008, -3/+6troll
    • Culled, on 05/02/2008, -5/+54And yet the founding fathers felt otherwise, hence the 5th amendment. Failure to answer a question is not proof one way or the other.
      • bonhoeffer, on 05/02/2008, -6/+24Failure to answer is a refusal to dignify the question. Appropriate in this setting.
      • quisph, on 05/02/2008, -7/+4This isn't a court of law. He doesn't have to answer the question, but we don't have to presume that he's innocent, and we don't require proof beyond reasonable doubt before we draw our conclusions. Knowing this, it would be stupid for him to dodge the question -- unless he's guilty.

        No, it isn't proof. But it is evidence.
      • sgtpppr, on 05/02/2008, -3/+7People here don't believe in the constitution. They believe in their team winning at all costs.
        • highstriker, on 05/03/2008, -1/+2People elsewhere really aren't that different...
      • sassip, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1So.... they weren't married?
    • ethanpack, on 05/02/2008, -19/+8Yeps. In law it is called "Admission by Silence"
      • unreg, on 05/02/2008, -10/+8Please sight the relevant statue. Oh that's right, your talking out your ass again.
    • Muncher, on 05/02/2008, -6/+43"Failure to answer a question means you are guilty."
      *facepalm*
    • leetdood, on 05/02/2008, -2/+17Anybody who says otherwise is clearly a terrorist.
      /sarcasm
    • WNW3, on 05/02/2008, -5/+12Anyone who has been married can be sympathetic to this I think. Harsh language isn't really a reason not to vote for someone. Getting in bed with Pat Robertson, now THERE is a reason not to vote for someone
    • mirunit, on 05/02/2008, -3/+3Hilarious, that is all I have to say. Ask Obama the same question and see if he dignifies it with a response. The reality is that only something you want to be true may in fact be true.
      • StarlessKnight, on 05/02/2008, -3/+3Q: "Senator Obama, did you call your wife a *****?"
        Obama: "No."
        Q: "... Okay then."

        Without some sort of supporting evidence, even hearsay, concerning a specific instance of him calling his wife a *****, the question is completely pointless, meaningless, and a waste of time. Even if the story is false, regarding McCain, at least they have a specific instance in mind to question him on.
        • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 05/02/2008, -2/+2What if the only evidence comes from someone writing a hit-piece book on him?
        • n00854180t, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1@DRINK: Except the only supporting evidence is multiple witnesses, a video showing the incident and several independent stories corroborating the incident. So "what if?" doesn't even apply. He didn't answer because saying "No." would have been lying.
    • skyshock1, on 05/02/2008, -4/+2And furthermore... a "Trollop"? WTF is that?
      • StrangeFamous, on 05/02/2008, -0/+5The same thing as a Strumpet.
      • DogHumpsMonkey, on 05/02/2008, -0/+6It's like an old-timey skank
      • L0t3k, on 05/03/2008, -0/+4John McCain: Vote 16th Century Pirate for President!
    • nonymous666, on 05/02/2008, -3/+1His answer should have been, "No, I called her Sis' "
    • taradisiac, on 05/02/2008, -4/+3Why the hell is he getting dugg???
    • Sogui, on 05/02/2008, -4/+19No sir, nothing suspicious about Huffington Post here:

      The book that claims McCain called his wife a ***** has no evidence or names behind the claim, and was written by HUFFINGTON POST BLOGGER 'Cliff Schecter".

      The claim from this book was first leaked early to the HUFFINGTON POST and these stories hit DIGG multiple times.

      Then a HUFFINGTON POST contributor asks John McCain this ridiculous question in hopes of getting some kind of reaction out of him, ironically hoping to prove his point that McCain has a crazy temper, McCain calmly responds and the internet assumes that not answering such an audacious question is "guilty".

      From Iowapolitics.com:

      In an interview with IowaPolitics.com, Parrish said his intentions were simple in posing the question to McCain. The former Joe Biden campaign worker stressed he is very concerned about the Republican presidential nominee's temperament.

      "We have a man whose temper can get the best of him," Parrish said. "What I am worried about is his temper. Our country is in a serious crisis. This election is the most significant one since 1860. It appears America is asleep -- so I stood up and asked the question."

      Parrish signed in as a Huffington Post contributor and was taking pictures at the town hall meeting.

      He handed out a leaflet prior to the event alleging McCain called his wife the name in 1992 while on the campaign trail running for re-election in the Senate.

      The leaflet asked members of media why they were focusing on the controversial statements made in the past by Democratic candidate Sen. Barack Obama's pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright and ignoring the alleged comment McCain made to his wife.

      "Barack Obama spent three weeks defending that," Parrish said afterwards.

      "Why does the news media continue to ignore this outrageous statement by John McCain, but fixates on Barack Obama's truthful observation that some people are bitter?" the leaflet reads.

      Why? Oh I dunno because the Wright comments are available on VHS, while the McCain comments can only be found in the Huffington Post's books and blogs?
      • obamayomama, on 05/02/2008, -0/+5Why is it that so much of the journalistic refuse from the Huffington Post seems to end up tops on Digg? It would seem that there should be a limit to how much bs people accept from there. The only thing worse than HP is Firedoglake and Jane "sandpaper snatch" Hamsher... saw her on ABC spewing crap about McCain's wife. These people are the lowest. I'm happy to note that Jane is looking rough these days too.
    • Calcularius, on 05/02/2008, -8/+1...and his lack of answer shows that HE is the pussy!
    • LibertyForever, on 05/02/2008, -6/+6McCain has called this story a "complete fabrication" in the past. He is not going to dignify it with an answer every time an Obamabot mentions it. But the fact that you bring it up constantly says a lot about the quality and depth of your so-called "movement".
      • quisph, on 05/02/2008, -0/+7Actually, it was campaign spokesperson and alleged astroturfer Jill Hazelbaker, and not McCain himself, who called it a "complete fabrication." Maybe she was there when the incident, um, didn't happen. Of course, she would have been about 12 years old at the time.

        If you have an actual reference to McCain denying the story, I'll stand corrected. But I won't hold my breath.
        • obamayomama, on 05/05/2008, -1/+0It's not a "story." At least not to anyone who isn't a partisan hack like yourself.
    • rpetty, on 05/02/2008, -1/+3seems to me his temper was under control after the question...
  • abby11, on 05/02/2008, -27/+5THATS DISTURBING!WMD!
    • RepubOperative, on 05/02/2008, -37/+6May 01, 2008
      Obama and Rip Van Winkle - Asleep for 20 Years

      It's a thrill a minute with the Democrat Presidential nomination-seekers. However, with regard to Obama, it seems that a clue comes every twenty years. It took two decades immersed in the hate-filled windwash of Rev. Jeremiah Wright before Obama was clued in and said, "This is enough!"

      And, interestingly, Obama didn't come to the realization by himself. It was the loss of support for his presidential campaign and polling results that convinced Obama to jettison Rev. Wright. It's like his only reliable political consultant is Rip Van Winkle.

      [To refresh memories, Rip Van Winkle was a man who missed everything occurring around him for 20 years because he was asleep. It's a story by American author Washington Irving.]

      Based on history, Obama characteristically lacks the ability to correctly react within a reasonable time period to threatening and damaging situations. He didn't react for 20 years to circumstances which have now greatly injured his political aspirations.

      I contend that a question must be asked. Does America want in the Oval Office a man who is incapable of recognizing hate-America windwash?

      There is, of course, another argument. Specifically, Obama didn't fail to recognize the hatred for America spewed by Rev. Wright, instead, he is a disciple of the hate-America philosophy. Take your pick. Obama is either clueless OR he possesses the hate-America ideology.

      http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/192537.php
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rip_Van_Winkle
      • abby11, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1YOU SHOULD BE EMBARRASED!YOU GET BURRIED!HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH!
    • haiduz, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1There's a reason they are called republicunts
  • Yatata, on 05/02/2008, -12/+170audiences at these things are such sheep
    • aliengoods, on 05/02/2008, -9/+29For some reason, they seem to be in awe of this douchebag. And the Obama crowd doesn't get off the hook either. I hate it when people listen to politicians as if their every word was gospel.

      Disclaimer: Obama supporter, but not fanatic
      • RepubOperative, on 05/02/2008, -59/+4Obama supporter, but not fanatic...with lips still on the black mans *****.
        • enclaved, on 05/02/2008, -3/+30You're a *****.
        • atlantocide, on 05/02/2008, -3/+20You're a waste of oxygen.
        • SpinningHead, on 05/02/2008, -5/+20Are you jealous that Bushs ***** is too small for your big fat racist mouth?
        • CthulhuDawn, on 05/02/2008, -0/+8Obvious troll is obvious.
      • temporaryescape, on 05/02/2008, -0/+2many other professions are payed to be in awe of a douchebag...
    • whiterice0, on 05/02/2008, -22/+12From the mouth of one of Obama's sheep.
    • stillasleep00, on 05/02/2008, -2/+12Holds true for any candidate. Yes, even Obama and Paul.
    • sgtpppr, on 05/02/2008, -1/+2There is nothing more insane than rabid campaign groupies. Seriously, there has to be more to life than crying over your candidate. The crowd at a lot of the campaign speeches look like Heaven's Gate. It applies to all candidates too. It's another form of that weird obsession people have with being associated with someone famous.
      • HeyaBILL, on 05/02/2008, -0/+2Heaven forbid someone takes an interest in politics. America needs less people caring and paying attention. Everyone should be just as jaded and cynical as you. That would make America a much better place.
        • sgtpppr, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1Those speeches don't attract people who 'take an interest in politics' like people in the manson family didn't attract those who 'take an interest in utopian society'.
  • proliance, on 05/02/2008, -48/+70Was this guy so stupid he couldn't phrase the question so it wouldn't be so crude? He should have been escorted from the building for using that language in public.

    How about "Sir, I'm concerned about the rumor that you may have called your wife a disgusting name in a fit of anger. Do you feel that a person who can't control his emotions is qualified to be president of the United States?"
    • AussieJo, on 05/02/2008, -16/+30According to the article, he was escorted from the building, and questioned by the secret service. The more important point is if the report is true, why would John McCain think it was appropriate to use that language in public (or in private for that matter) and why did he not address the question?
      • malman4, on 05/02/2008, -7/+5And why would any one really care?
      • taradisiac, on 05/02/2008, -5/+2Why should he address the question? Is clearly nothing but slander.
    • stilesja, on 05/02/2008, -5/+30I don't know why you are being dugg down, that seems like an infinitely better way to ask the question if you truly wanted the answer and not just the attention for asking it.
      • crawf061, on 05/02/2008, -1/+4Which makes me doubt the fact that it was a Baptist Minister that posed the question. Typically people that make a living speaking publicly don't stutter/pause so much while asking a question.
      • quisph, on 05/02/2008, -1/+2I disagree. Yes, there is certainly a more diplomatic way to phrase the question, but proliance's version is not it. Asking McCain whether some vague, hypothetical person is qualified to be president is an entirely different question from "Did this happen? Yes or no."

        McCain wouldn't even have to *try* to dodge the issue in his answer to proliance's question; the dodge is already there.
    • ncc74656m, on 05/02/2008, -4/+11Simple answer. SHOCK VALUE.

      The guy asked the question in a specific way to provoke a reaction. I'd say he actually failed, McCain somehow shrugged that one off.
    • ProjectGSX, on 05/02/2008, -2/+8That was my reaction as well.. the person asking the question did a horrible job of it. Almost like he didnt want McCain to answer in the first place. Simply referencing the book in question and asking if he had used those words towards his wife would have been sufficient and not given McCain the ammo he needed to shoot the question down.
    • onanobj, on 08/07/2008, -1/+0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use-mention_distincti ...
    • xRand0mx, on 05/02/2008, -5/+10OH MY GOD EVERYONE FREAK OUT THE MAN SAID A BAD WORD. I don't give a crap what McCain said or what this guy said or why it has anything to do with this campaign. I do however think it is rather funny how much people freak out of a WORD.
      • cersad, on 05/02/2008, -1/+3Well, it is silly how words obtain their offensiveness, but it's the meaning of the word accepted by the culture at large that makes it a problem. See, the word "*****" at its most basic level just refers to the female genitalia, but in its use towards women as it has developed in the English language gives underlying connotations of abuse against the woman in question and the implication that said woman is only good for her sexual capacity.

        Just a little bit degrading, and more than that it shows a lack of restraint. When you're young, of course making swear words taboo seems silly, but when you're old as McCain (who was alive before women and blacks were treated as equals, I might add) you can't try and pretend that it's "just a word" because you've lived long enough to see the offense that foul words can cause.
      • highstriker, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1If the story is true- it's relevant because it would mean that McCain has a rather bad temper. And you don't really want a president who can't control his temper, and can't watch his language. If he'd be that rude towards his wife, who's to say he wouldn't lose his temper and be just as rude to the leader of another nation? It's not something to solely vote on a candidate about, but it does affect his character, and that's definitely important.
    • thecheat1, on 05/02/2008, -2/+4I completely agree, the guy asking the question just seemed like he was there for show. Which is why McCain didn't answer, I'm fairly certain I would've done the same thing.
    • StarlessKnight, on 05/02/2008, -1/+2I agree the question could have, and probably should have, been phrased in a more respectful manner; nonetheless, words only have the power you give them. By shunning and trembling before words like "*****" you do nothing more than empower people to use them against you.
    • itsthehumidity, on 05/02/2008, -1/+1These are all good points. But I'm not sure if the shock factor of saying "*****" would work in that case anyway because people would focus on you, not McCain or the question as much. Bringing up the book without expletives might make him nervous, and you might get a more meaningful reaction. I'm glad someone's doing something though, McCain's dangerous.
    • joeanon, on 05/03/2008, -1/+2Better yet, how about you don't pretend you can write at a journalistic level.

      called your wife a disgusting name... cmon... you sound like a high school kid trying to look smart.

      Our President is torturing, spying and launching propaganda campaigns against his own nation and your dumb ass is worried about somebody asking McCain a question that's too crude.

      What's wrong with you people. President used to cuss and journalists USED to have balls. You're brains are so filled with political correctness you'd rather bury your head in the sand than listen to the truth.

      Using ***** is public simply isn't justifiably illegal, as nor would be escorting a person out for asking tough questions. Just as arresting people for assembling without a permit is not justifiably legal since these are CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

      You can't enforce laws that don't really exist because of some untangible and ever changing moral stance you conveniently want to make at mostly inappropriate times.

      While your constitution is being ***** on, people like you are worried about a journalists saying *****. Get a clue man. You do you're country a great disservice to focus on the little things while boldly ignoring the huge lack of accountability and honesty in politics and journalism.

      It's likely what we need more of, is LESS political correct ***** and fewer dumb ass citizens who think it's their duty to enforce a non existent moral platform that varies with every new year.
  • carterartist, on 05/02/2008, -13/+115heck, even Bill admitted to breaking drug laws. McCain cannot admit/deny to a curse word?
    • fleischner, on 05/02/2008, -2/+9But he didn't inhale.
      • RadiatedAnt, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1Obama admits to breaking a drug law and he did "inhale" beacause that was the point as he so elegantly put it.
    • bonhoeffer, on 05/02/2008, -8/+2"*****" is an obscenity; not a curse.
      • Wartyboskfapped, on 05/02/2008, -0/+10curse:

        n. profane or obscene expression usually of surprise or anger;
        "expletives were deleted" [syn: curse word, expletive,
        oath, swearing, swearword, cuss]
      • carterartist, on 08/07/2008, -0/+1and an "internal secularian disagreement with outbursts of violence" is not the same as a civil war, nor is "Torture" the same as "harsh indepth questioning tactics for those who would resist or become hard customers".
    • TheSwashbuckler, on 05/02/2008, -1/+2Most women would find it hard to forgive him. A fair number of men as well...
    • cnot3, on 05/02/2008, -0/+4He didn't call her a *****, he was just saying that she is a cont-cont-cont-continuing inspiration to him. Come on, he's old, he stutters from time to time.
    • mdonato, on 05/02/2008, -4/+2So much for family values. McCain, if nominated, will not win the Presidency. Ron Paul is the GOP's only hope.
  • jforjools, on 05/02/2008, -7/+43Ah, the eloquent non-denial.
  • jjive, on 05/02/2008, -29/+222Did you mean *****?
    Why did you censor the word *****?
    Only a ***** would be so ***** to censor such a *****-tastic word.
    *****, *****, *****, *****, *****...
    • evilcaptain, on 05/02/2008, -2/+21If you keep certain words taboo, It's easier to control those who think they should be.
      • Dewhead, on 05/02/2008, -3/+10I am a big fan of freedom of speech and oppose censorship on all levels--even the FCC's censorship of our airwaves. Saying words like this in public is disrespectful and very low class and says volumes about the man who said it. Censorship puts a mask on one's true beliefs and character. I say lets take off the masks so we can all see the haters, cretins, and the low lifes.
        • 4321234, on 05/02/2008, -2/+2"I say lets take off the masks so we can all see the haters, cretins, and the low lifes."
          Do you mean the pastor or the candidate?
    • Planets, on 05/02/2008, -1/+19http://img517.imageshack.us/my.php?image=88814263q ...
      • stepfresh, on 05/02/2008, -0/+6weird.. not censored for me. (unless im missing something?)
        • Pimpalicious316, on 05/02/2008, -0/+9you can turn language filtering on in your digg preferences
        • basevillin, on 05/02/2008, -0/+3There's a profanity filter in your viewing preferences.
        • Dokument, on 05/02/2008, -0/+8hey, if you type your digg password it comes up censored to the rest of us. try it
          • bjornski, on 05/02/2008, -0/+7************

            Works for me.
          • fxu1989, on 05/02/2008, -0/+7a1b1c1d1

            Oh boy, I sure hope this gets filtered!
          • theaceoffire, on 05/02/2008, -0/+31 |2 |3 5m4|27

            O.o are you sure it is working?
          • mattbeetee, on 05/02/2008, -0/+4*******

            That's so cool how does it do that?!
          • aquadeluxe, on 05/02/2008, -1/+1*****

            does it work?!
    • Fullvinyl, on 05/02/2008, -13/+5There's censorship, and then there's good taste and judgment. Just because you have the right to be crude doesn't mean you should abuse that right.

      ***** *****.
    • jtbell04, on 05/02/2008, -4/+2I want to know why McCain was using British profanity, the pillock.
      • TrevorPace, on 05/02/2008, -2/+3That's not exclusively British.
        • jforjools, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1Well, the 'trollop' part of the phrase certainly hasn't been used in recent decades around these parts.
    • StrangeFamous, on 05/02/2008, -2/+3http://a0.vox.com/6a00c2252d36648e1d00d414436f006a ...

      read it.
    • TheHappyRobot, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1***** =D
    • pilobilus, on 05/02/2008, -0/+3Stop the presses, prominent ***** says ***** in public. No, wait, we ***** print that.....
    • jjive, on 05/02/2008, -0/+4It's just a word, puppy dogs won't die if you say it.
      • Goodanswer, on 05/03/2008, -0/+2But I heard heads will fall off of defenseless baby seals if you DO.
    • andj, on 05/04/2008, -0/+2its not john mccain - its john mccunt
  • Dumbledorito, on 05/02/2008, -7/+54I'm sure he'll tell McCain that the proper, more godly term, is "wanton harlot."
  • HotttCarl, on 05/02/2008, -7/+25I said "runt"
  • renagadex2, on 05/02/2008, -14/+71"We have a man whose temper can get the best of him," Parrish said. "What I am worried about is his temper. Our country is in a serious crisis. This election is the most significant one since 1860. It appears America is asleep -- so I stood up and asked the question."
    • Nexiec, on 05/02/2008, -4/+2Sometimes you need to let someone know that they are being a bit of a *****, it doesn't mean that you are angry when you say it. Like this minister, he is being a bit of a ***** by asking such an irrelevant question. I am not angry at him, but he needs to stop being a *****.
    • Johneeeee, on 05/03/2008, -1/+1On problem is it a lie. This "Baptist Minister" is in fact a Huffington Post reporter being filmed by another Huffington Post stooge. So like everything else pulled by the Political Left in this campaign, it a lie.
  • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 05/02/2008, -34/+27Stay classy dems.
    • bjornski, on 05/02/2008, -4/+12As your Republican VP would say, "Go ***** yourself".
    • pintomp3, on 05/02/2008, -3/+5Three reporters from Arizona, on the condition of anonymity, also let me in on another incident involving McCain's intemperateness. In his 1992 Senate bid, McCain was joined on the campaign trail by his wife, Cindy, as well as campaign aide Doug Cole and consultant Wes Gullett. At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain's hair and said, "You're getting a little thin up there." McCain's face reddened, and he responded, "At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you *****." McCain's excuse was that it had been a long day. If elected president of the United States, McCain would have many long days.
  • aebo06, on 05/02/2008, -17/+6Not that there's anything wrong with calling your wife a c**t.
    • nonymous666, on 05/02/2008, -1/+4Not at all if she likes to be talked to dirty.
  • mentallyinhell, on 05/02/2008, -4/+40Say what you want about religion, these people have balls.
  • rjc5056, on 05/02/2008, -4/+29I told them to say "beloved AUNT!!!!"
    • Culled, on 05/02/2008, -0/+6Dugg for the "Curb Your Enthusiasm" reference.
    • bjornski, on 05/02/2008, -3/+1"Ooooh, I get it. 'MY HAIRY AUNT'. How could we have missed that one?"
    • Picaroon, on 05/02/2008, -0/+3Damn I love that show.
    • amida, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1Pretty good. Pretty, pretty good.
  • tillerman00, on 05/02/2008, -7/+6Hilarious.
  • Hollowpoint, on 05/02/2008, -8/+3I'm going to assume he started with trollop and raged his way up to *****, as I'm pretty sure they're not interchangeable.
    • dumpyhumpy, on 05/02/2008, -1/+5RTFA
      It was "at least I don't plaster makeup on like a trollop, you *****."
  • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 05/02/2008, -26/+18Here's a real shocker. This ingrate who asked this question actually writes for HuffPo.

    http://iowapolitics.com/index.iml?Article=125056
    IowaPolitics.com: Questioner booted for rude language says he's worried by McCain's temper

    "We have a man whose temper can get the best of him," Parrish said. "What I am worried about is his temper. Our country is in a serious crisis. This election is the most significant one since 1860. It appears America is asleep -- so I stood up and asked the question."

    Parrish signed in as a Huffington Post contributor and was taking pictures at the town hall meeting.
    • prisskitajoe, on 05/02/2008, -6/+13So what, he writes for HuffPo. The person who recorded Obama's "bitter" comment also works for HuffPo. What difference does it make? If the words are against Obama, it's ok, but if it's against Clinton or McCain people like you discredit it. Your bias is very clear.
    • dumpyhumpy, on 05/02/2008, -5/+7...what exactly in his ingrateful for?
  • oldhick, on 05/02/2008, -18/+80Anyone here's who is an Obama fan should condemn this type of *****. Obama's message is one of hope and optimism. He repeatedly talks about trying to raise the debate above the level of gutter politics that seems to be sweeping in from the Hilary camp.
    Follow his example and don't support this kind of filth.
    • Dewhead, on 05/02/2008, -13/+5Gosh, you must actually believe what Obama has said. I admire your idealism. It's too bad his other supporters don't look at it that way.
      • oldhick, on 05/02/2008, -0/+4I doubt he'll be getting my vote. But that doesn't mean that I don't admire many parts of his message. I wish all of our candidates could have his optimism and desire to keep the dialog on the issues.
        • vpshockwave, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1So who is getting your vote (out of curiosity) ?
    • vorbalhorde, on 05/02/2008, -3/+10You're getting dugg down for correctly stating Obama's message of hope and higher thought. Sad, sad moment for Digg.
    • dinot, on 05/02/2008, -1/+10Don't know why you're getting dugg down when you're absolutely right. This is stupid.

      - Obama supporter
    • goomba323, on 05/02/2008, -2/+1Though I am an Obama supporter and I agree with his attitude of trying stay "above the fray" and offering a "different kind of politics".....this, "my friends" was hilarious.
    • defwheezer, on 05/02/2008, -4/+2OldHick = Old Troll
    • d3mag0gu3, on 05/03/2008, -1/+1Retard have you watch the fake articles and videos that are being posted on digg by the obamabots ( probably with guidance from the Obama campaign )? Every obamaspam on digg is gutter politics.
    • Greenkayak, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1His temper is legendary and it was first reported from a source besides an opposing political campaign. If it is false, then this is dirty politics. But if it is TRUE, then it is a valid question and point from an ordained Minister.
      • oldhick, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1What does the "ordained Minister" part have to do with it? Its somehow a more valid question coming from one? Really, what ordained minister would use that language and exhibit such a lack of respect and tact?
  • LonewackoDotCom, on 05/02/2008, -6/+16The Secret Service handling of this was questionable:
    http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/007673.html
    It would be great if someone would try to ask McCain a real question about flaws in his policies, but obviously that's too much for the nutroots to handle.
    • Goodanswer, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1Wow that article made the Secret Service look worse than the Gestapos.
  • Planets, on 05/02/2008, -9/+3Great candidates we this time around, eh?

    http://www.forumammo.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10071 ...
  • cobbwobbles, on 05/02/2008, -17/+14mccain is fodder in the general election, either candidate will destroy him
    • ender7074, on 05/02/2008, -11/+10LOL what planet have you been living on? All polls show McCain destroying both dem candidates. Get your facts straight.
      • VicHislop, on 05/02/2008, -0/+8Facts straight? What are you talking about? At least backup your claim with a citation and/or data. (This goes to both of you.)

        http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/presi ...

        As you can see by a listing of "all polls" McCain is certainly not destroying Obama (nor is the alternative true either). A definite race, with each candidate doing well in the recent polls taken. Keep in mind though that this is with the media obsessing over Obama and Clinton, while McCain gets to sit back pretty much unscathed. That will change once Clinton steps down and the general election begins.
      • makeitloud, on 05/02/2008, -0/+3Um.. Fox polls don't count. Fox isn't even a news network.
    • exomni, on 05/02/2008, -5/+4Not really. Neither Hillary or Obama could beat McCain. Both democratic candidates are way too vulnerable:

      Obama will be finished off because:

      1. Muslim name "Barack Hussein Obama"
      2. Muslim school for two years.
      3. He's black, and while lots of white voters feel all good about the idea they'll be willing to vote for a black candidate, as you analyze black campaigns for senate and governorship, you find that the closer it gets to election the more willing voters are to find any excuse not to vote for the black candidate. I'm not being racist, I'm just saying this is what you see consistently in black political campaigns especially at statewide offices.
      4. His pastor says "God damn America", support Farakhan, and thinks the US invented HIV.
      5. He claims religion to attract conservative voters, but anyone who looks at his church will be alienated by the black centrism.

      Clinton will be finished off because:

      1. She's a woman.
      2. She's yet another Clinton, nobody wants the continuation of these political dynasties.
      3. Everyone hates her for how she's handled the campaign with Obama.
      4. Everyone hates her because she's a Clinton.
      5. She voted for the war, the Patriot Act, etc etc.



      Really, neither candidate stands much a chance against someone who is:

      1. A moderate/conservative without many contentious positions.
      2. Is a "war hero".
      3. Has multiple times the experience of either democratic candidate.
      4. Is a republican.


      McCain will be president in '09, and I will lapse further into depression. You heard it here first.


      Not that I'm not going to fervently campaign for Obama. One must always have hope no matter what the odds.
      • Luxembourg, on 05/02/2008, -0/+2You're missing the lessons of history -- a bad economy works against the incumbent party. And the '06 congressional race showed that candidates who want to bring our troops home from Iraq can clean up. Surge or no surge, we're no closer to "victory" over there, and American casualties are piling up again.

        War hero? McCain is basically Bob Dole but with a bad temper. Oh, and imagine the Democrats running ad after ad of McCain posing with George "28 percent" Bush. Any Democrat should be able to win this one.
        • DubBucket, on 05/02/2008, -0/+0Operative word is "should". Problem is, Bush "should" have never made office in the first place. We have the technology, so we "should" be using cleaner more renewable energy sources. We "should" be colonizing Mars by now, we "should" have ended hunger and have world peace by now... doesn't make it so. exomni makes a good point, you just don't want to hear it.
  • PolishLogic, on 05/02/2008, -7/+23After almost 30 years of marriage, I'm sure it happened more than once.
    • carabou, on 05/02/2008, -1/+1Something tells me not to respond to this as it will only admit to guilt...NOT condoning it, but it's not earth shattering if it happened once in 20 years rite?
      • jforjools, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1just once?

        he was in his 50s when he did this...in front of his campaign staffers...and even some members of the press...when his wife had made what is described as a playful remark about his hair thinning a bit. (I think she was playing with his hair at the time)

        do ya really think he's done this only once?
  • colomboj, on 05/02/2008, -21/+11Really now! Who hasn't called their wife, girlfriend, or life partner, a *****?
    • aladrin, on 05/02/2008, -4/+14Just about everyone with any common sense or decency.
      • taradisiac, on 05/02/2008, -4/+0Have you ever called a guy a "dick"? If you believe in gender equality, it is the same thing.
    • Culled, on 05/02/2008, -2/+2Gay men.
    • diggduggDOOM, on 05/02/2008, -0/+5Not me. I prefer "doodoohead".

      Much more effective.
      • bjornski, on 05/02/2008, -1/+1How do you get mad enough for "make-up sex" when using words like that? I'd be giggling too loudly to be mad enough for a grudge-*****.
        • TheThirdLevel, on 05/02/2008, -1/+1Dugg for *****, I'm stealing that.
    • abby11, on 05/02/2008, -1/+2ILL JUST CALL YOU DICK!
  • futureisours, on 05/02/2008, -20/+15yeah right, this minister was baiting him. Look at how McCain handled the situation on such a sensitive subject. Shows presidential calm.
    • zenmasher, on 05/02/2008, -3/+1Yes....that was perhaps the least effective way of handling the situation...and frankly disappointing. He could easily have used other language that would have forced McCain's hand, but he gave him an out like an amateur who wanted to say ***** out loud. tee hee...did you hear what I said...McCain said if first...tee hee.
  • enclaved, on 05/02/2008, -9/+18The worst part is the bit about 'He was not charged in the incident' what the ***** would you charge that ***** for? All he did was stand up and ask another ***** if that ***** called his ***** wife a *****. I'm glad the ***** in the secrect service had to question this ***** to find out if he was a threat to the respect levels of the rest of the ***** in the room. I'm sorry that my freedom to say ***** offends your *****'s sensitivity.
  • coyote1284, on 05/02/2008, -3/+18Duck Hunt?
    • 4321234, on 05/02/2008, -3/+5No. You're probably thinking of Dick Cheney. This is a different *****.
    • yellowfish04, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1Da' *****
  • tman84, on 05/02/2008, -6/+12Well now I'm definitely not voting for him. The media really does a great job of distracting morons. We've completely forgotten any of the issues important in the upcoming elections, no one discusses problems and their solutions, it's just a big internet flamewar now.
    Bravo, we really deserve any misery that comes our way.
    • Culled, on 05/02/2008, -2/+2Wait, wait, wait. Because of he allegedly called his wife a ***** 16 years ago you're not voting for someone who you were apparently considering before? And then you complain that the media doesn't cover real issues?
      Pot meet kettle.
      • rennie246, on 05/02/2008, -0/+5I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic.
        • Culled, on 05/02/2008, -0/+2Rereading the post it looks like you're probably right. I apologize.
          • tman84, on 05/02/2008, -0/+5No biggie, I was definitely being sarcastic. But that was my whole point. what would this really accomplish? It's not changing anyone's mind, its just distraction material.
          • burketo, on 05/02/2008, -0/+2as apposed to most of the stuff on digg....
  • skeletorcares, on 05/02/2008, -8/+14Thats an admission of guilt to me.
  • cajungator2, on 05/02/2008, -12/+6I am so voting for this guy when the elections come up! He doesn't take sh!t from anyone especially his wife!
  • corbettkroehler, on 05/02/2008, -5/+11Wow! Senator McCain's temper is legendary. If he did this, though, he sure deserves to be dinged for it!
  • jayscot, on 05/02/2008, -11/+10Ah the Huffington Post...big time moderates over there aren't they?
    • andj, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1if you define somebody who doesnt call his wife a ***** - as being moderate - then yes.
      And its not john mccain - its john mccunt
  • Caalro, on 05/02/2008, -6/+13LOL
    I CANT STOP LAUGHING.

    LOL
  • EvilDoer, on 05/02/2008, -16/+6This is the best the hippies have?
    • abby11, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1NOPE JUST WAIT WEVE JUST GOT STARTED!
  • JonTheGoose, on 05/02/2008, -5/+28"No no no, you mis-heard me. What I said was 'May I have a DOLLOP of whipcream on this delicious BUNT cake you made for me?' "
  • insanebrain, on 05/02/2008, -3/+7Who gives a ***** ?
    • userperson, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1Slave traders in the seedier part of asia?
      No they sell. Pimps rent.
      I supposed no one GIVES one, nor should they -- good point.
  • cthulhukb, on 05/02/2008, -3/+44Dugg for getting a Baptist minister to say "*****".
    • bjornski, on 05/02/2008, -1/+2That part had me chuckling too.
    • jforjools, on 05/03/2008, -1/+3All the better since McCain currently identifies himself as a baptist.
      • bjornski, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1Which is funny, since he's Episcopalian.
  • techweenie, on 05/02/2008, -7/+16Being noble 45 years ago doesn't mean you're the right man for the most important political job in the world. McCain has shown zero integrity in the past 7 years, and this non-denial will only raise the profile of the book.
    • flavioribeiro, on 05/02/2008, -1/+6How exactly was McCain noble 45 years ago?

      Being a bad pilot, getting shot down over Vietnam and being a POW does not make you noble or a hero, and specially not a good candidate for president.
      • MetalPig, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1Refusing to leave a POW camp until everyone who was captured before you has been released is noble - and heroic, at the very least, to the people in the POW camp.

        I agree that it doesn't qualify him for president - but ~45 years ago, he did indeed perform nobly.
      • Nerotique, on 05/02/2008, -0/+0If he were that bad of a pilot, he wouldn't have survived the crash. Contrary to what you may believe, planes don't fly without wings.
      • exomni, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1techweenie had a good point, you're just an *****.
      • hinchb, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1Because only bad pilots get shot down, right?
        • flavioribeiro, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1No, but he graduated 5th from the bottom of his class of nearly 1000, and lost 5 planes in training.

          With that in mind, re-read my comment.
    • userperson, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1So you're saying he's presidential material? see history / see the competition. He's not all that different from all of the other horrible background noise.
  • p0s3r, on 05/02/2008, -12/+11Now this is a clear example of the new politics of Hope & Change! The guy who asked this is a Huffpo contributor. Could you imagine the liberal outrage if this question was asked of The Obamessiah (pbuh) from a MichelleMalkin.com or littlegreenfootballs.com contributor?
    • swrostmore, on 05/02/2008, -3/+6Obama never badmouthed anybody, and if he did it would be on Drudge instantly. PS nobody gives a ***** about Malkin or "littlegreenfootballs.com," they post things far more offensive than this on a daily basis and nobody cares because they are irrelevant.
      • p0s3r, on 05/02/2008, -4/+2Did you even bother to try and comprehend the words that were on your screen before you posted? I'll repeat. This question was asked by a Huffpo contributor. Imagine the outrage if Obama had gotten asked a similar question by a redstate.com contributor.
  • DangerCollie, on 05/02/2008, -7/+1Am I the only one who thinks "trollop" sounds like a good thing? Almost sounds like lollipop. It's like calling a woman a "slut." Kind of two-edged sword, suggesting she's not too picky about who she sleeps with. Which means she probably won't have any problems getting a date.
    • CHAD3814, on 05/02/2008, -0/+0trollop : a vulgar or disreputable woman; especially : one who engages in sex promiscuously or for money
      so he basically called his wife a ***** whore, nice.
  • Owwmykneecap, on 05/02/2008, -7/+7So he's not allowed to have been angry and in an argument with his wife 16 years ago?
    • makeitloud, on 05/02/2008, -0/+2According to the book, it wasn't an argument, but rather an extreme reaction by McCain to an innocent, playful jab from his wife.
  • koick, on 05/02/2008, -3/+8If you have c**t in your arsenal, why would you use "trollop"?
    • 4321234, on 05/02/2008, -0/+10McCain grew up in the 1700's.
    • timeless159, on 05/02/2008, -1/+0I think Trollop is in Stewie Griffin's arsenal.
    • userperson, on 05/02/2008, -1/+1for variety and color. You can say ***** ***** ***** ... repetitively, but especially if you're going to be orator you need variety in the language to make it flow and bump along.
    • KidFlash2, on 05/03/2008, -1/+1A trollop is a whore. Calling a woman a ***** is like calling a man a prick.

      I cast my vote for trollop as the more offensive term. And, you won't get bleeped for saying it!
      • queenbee93, on 05/03/2008, -1/+0It's an archaic old english term. It's like calling a man a swain--most people would have no clue what was being said or implied. Or calling a person a poltroon --most people would not even get upset. Language is to communicate. We all know what a ***** is and it is far worse than calling a man a prick--prick is equivalent to jerk--a ***** is lower than a whore and means a woman with no worth, image, or even name other than her vagina and the usage of it. Women who enjoyed being gang banged or pissed on are often referred to as *****.
        • KidFlash2, on 05/03/2008, -1/+1No, it doesn't insinuate getting gangbanged or being pissed on. Strangely arousing, but all in your smutty head. A whore is a prostitute, a ***** is equivalent to bitch or a less-than-friendly term for the vertical smile. Those words do not share a common meaning.

          First definition from http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=prick , "(n) *****, bastard, *****, *****, *****, mother *****, *****, prick, whoreson, son of a bitch, SOB (insulting terms of address for people who are stupid or irritating or ridiculous)"

          For *****, http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=***** "(n) bitch (a person (usually but not necessarily a woman) who is thoroughly disliked) 'she said her son thought Hillary was a bitch'."

          But, of course, her son was wrong. Hillary is a *****. Get over yourself, it's not worse just because it's about a woman. That argument doesn't have wings. Rebuttal?
  • thedogfatherx, on 05/02/2008, -11/+5That baptist minister is a *****. What a stupid question that is completely irrelevent.
    • sindex, on 05/02/2008, -1/+3Is it? I guess having the MSM covering what Wright said and pushing the attention and tacit blame to Obama is more relevant than actual words coming out of an actual candidate's mouth for you.
      • thedogfatherx, on 05/02/2008, -1/+1Thats entirely different. Obama sitting in with Wrights speeches for 20 years is much different.
        • sindex, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1Different than McCain being such an emotional and insolent child that he can't publicly control his temper for the last 20 years? Yes, it is in fact a different situation. It does not, however, excuse McCain's behavior in any way.
  • SJSancheese, on 05/02/2008, -7/+7hahaha, i love this. mccain for the lose.
    honestly, even Hilary Clinton would be better.
    • userperson, on 05/02/2008, -1/+1Don't be fooled they'd all be the same yo!
  • chrissku, on 05/02/2008, -1/+7I would like to have heard his answer.
  • cubicledrone, on 05/02/2008, -5/+8What's the current real unemployment rate? Why have wages been stagnant for 35 years? Can we please talk about fixing the ***** now? Please?
    • userperson, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1yeah we're all no better off than we were in the 70's. *eye-roll*
      granted politicians have little to do with it either way or it's matter of them getting OUT OF the way instead of trying to fix things, and making them worse in the process.
      • cubicledrone, on 05/02/2008, -0/+0We aren't better off than we were in 1972. The average inflation-adjusted wage in 2002 was LESS than it was in 1972. That means 30 years of inflation came right out of our pockets. Now, want to take a wild guess why the economy sucks?
  • fsjenkins2000, on 05/02/2008, -11/+9I think the correct response to that answer is " who hasn't called their wife a *****"
    • bjornski, on 05/02/2008, -2/+3In some of those fights, you DO dig deep for the most offensive words you can say. Even if you regret them later.

      /divorced
      //agree 100% with above poster
    • userperson, on 05/02/2008, -2/+6Decent human beings who care about them.
      • DubBucket, on 05/02/2008, -1/+1obvious virgin says what?
        • userperson, on 05/02/2008, -2/+3Indeed, I don't call girls I care about '*****', I must be a virgin.
          I need to start being vicious and offensive so I can get some, because people love being mistreated.
          I also need to project my problems onto other people. Man so many things to do ... and I thought I was just killing time on digg.

          Thanks for your comment.
    • mikelist, on 05/02/2008, -3/+5i have been married for 33 years, and i've never called my wife that, even in anger, even when she wasn't present.
      to use that kind of abusive language in front of people who don't even know him or her is unthinkable, and suggests mental or emotional instability.
    • emomakesmecry, on 05/02/2008, -2/+2Married men who love their wives.
  • mlvassallo, on 05/02/2008, -1/+6When did the inquisitor become a Baptist Minister? I've seen this story three times on Digg today and this is the first mention of that.
  • mrogi, on 05/02/2008, -6/+27What kind of question is that to ask a Presidential candidate? How low into the gutter is the news media willing to take the line of questioning?
    "Senator Clinton, did you ever detect the stench of Monica Lewinsky's vagina on your husband's penis?"
    • raoulduke87, on 05/02/2008, -4/+5Well, when Presidential candidates act as low-class as these bastards have been for the past 16 months, they deserve to be questioned in a harsh, no-***** manner.

      • jerrycurley, on 05/02/2008, -1/+2What has McCain done during his campaing that has been low class. Specifically?
        • KidFlash2, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1A presidential candidate who calls Vietnamese people, "gooks". Very high class.

          McCain failings, GO GO GO.
    • gymbrall, on 05/02/2008, -3/+6yeah... cause that's the same...
    • bjornski, on 05/02/2008, -4/+4I'm fully expecting to hear those questions if she does get the nomination somehow. And not by Democrats.
    • exomni, on 05/02/2008, -3/+4What the *****? The News Media wasn't asking him that question, an average voting citizen was.
      • jerrycurley, on 05/02/2008, -2/+1And a supposedly "news media" posted it. Then again, no one will EVEr confuse huffington post with news or media.
    • ats314, on 05/02/2008, -1/+6Or more importantly, "President Clinton, did you ever detect the stench of Huma Abedin's vagina on your wife's penis?"
    • BradBrown, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1Or possibly, "President Clinton, did you ever detect the stench of ass when rimming Al Gore?"
  • Barbrady, on 05/02/2008, -1/+6This nut is an Obama supporter and worked for Joe Biden.
    http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/05/democrat ...
    • andj, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1mccunt is a bigger nut

      anyone who calls his wife a ***** and expects to run for office is .......................(fill in the missing word)
  • CurtisLow101, on 05/02/2008, -4/+3Say NO to McWar!
    • userperson, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1Because Hillary and/or Obama will bring the troops home! Eventually ... Maybe ... when it's safe to ... if they're not part of the 'residual peace-keeping force'.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 121 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.