John McCain truly is a man for "ALL" the people!

Link

-- No choice for President (No@Not.Him), February 24, 2000

Answers

Just in case anyone is wondering, the Link is to a Breaking Story on Drudge not to the porno website McCain is advertising on.

-- No choice for President (No@Not.Him), February 24, 2000.

Wonder if the last years of Rome were equally nutsy to those we're currently experiencing?

-- TheresSomething (Wrong@Here.com), February 24, 2000.

He's got Klintoon's vote! I'll bet Bubba goes to research that ad at least twice a day, maybe more often.

Gotta keep currnet with what those dastardly Republicans are up to, you know.

WW

-- Wildweasel (vtmldm@epix.net), February 24, 2000.

He's got Klintoon's vote! I'll bet Bubba goes to research that ad at least twice a day, maybe more often.

Gotta keep current with what those dastardly Republicans are up to, you know.

WW

-- Wildweasel (vtmldm@epix.net), February 24, 2000.

I called the Washington State "McCain 2000" folks and ask for more information. The guy answering acted incredulous and stated that he hadn't heard anything about it. Let's see what they say when I call back in an hour. (How can you not know about a news story on Drudge? I find it hard to believe that I was the first to call.)

It should be interesting to watch the mainstream news people here. Will they run the story or not?

-- ElCoyote (ElCoyote@Wasteland.com), February 24, 2000.

this is a non issue. I just went to this website, and if there is porn available there, there is no way of knowing. There are four posibilities here; 1)either this thread is bogus, 2)or the Drudge repost is bogus, 3)or McCain's banner has been hijacked(that's if there is an Asian porno site available at this web sight, 4)or whoever authorized this campaign expenditure was misled as to what kind of content might be on any given page....someone go there and come back and refute me. There is nothing there....come to think of it, maybe whoever started this rumor is trying to get hits to this web sight to collect some advertising revenue.

-- Vern (bacon17@ibm.net), February 24, 2000.

Oh, such an easy challenge.

I've already done so. I spoke with the McCain's Washington State Director and was told that yes, some ads did run on a porno site. He "thinks" they are not being run their anymore, but cannot be certain.

Now, if this story is a month old (and it is), then even if it was inadvertant on McCain's part (and I'm sure it was), they haven't been too concerned about removing the ad now, have they?

I don't think it's that big a deal, but these things add up.

The party with scores of drunk underage kids, the accusation that a Bush pollster called a 14 year old boy, insulted McCain to the point of causing tears. (Right out of the Clinton heart-strings bag). Now the poor judgement by someone to put the ad on a porno site.

Truman said "the buck stops here", McCain just keeps saying "it's not my fault".

A true leader.

-- ElCoyote (ElCoyote@Wasteland.com), February 24, 2000.

Vern,

Here's the contact info for the magazine that broke the story, If you want to make sure that its "Bogus" then you should call them and ask why they printed it?

Harvard Current Magazine 177 Cabot Mail Center Cambridge, MA 02138 (617) 493-5839 hcurrent@hcs.harvard.edu

For more information contact: Dona Kim or Daniel Levine (617) 493-7430 or 493-3898

Do us a favor and report back after you talk to them.

-- No choice for President (No@Not.Him), February 24, 2000.

Vern, At least you bothered to check the web address quoted in the Drudge story. You are right. There's no porn there. If one carefully reads the story by Drudge, McCain purchased a set amount of advertising to be used THROUGHOUT web sites hosted by theglobe.com. I am not a McCain supporter, but I hate to see careless rumor-mongering by any side.

-- liu (lookitup@dictionary.com), February 24, 2000.

Right on! Vote for Bush. Give the gift that keeps on giving. SNIP----------------------------------

One may also fairly conclude that the Bushes are blessed and protected beyond reason by those portions of the publics brain that have turned to mush. What other explanation but public stupidity explains the denouement of the Texas Rangers deal? As everyone knows, George W. used $600,000 from the Harken stock sale to buy a tiny slice of the Texas Rangers; and when the Rangers were sold last year for $250 million, the second-largest amount ever paid for a baseball team, George W. emerged with more than $14.9 million. What had made the ball club so valuable was a gift from the public  a $200 million stadium mostly paid for by a sales tax that the citizens of Arlington, Texas, had overwhelmingly voted to assume.

Incredible. Ordinary folks  most of whom probably have a hard time meeting their mortgage payments  dug into their pockets to make George W. a rich man. But wait. Its worse than that. Forget George W. for a moment. His reward was penny-ante compared to what some of his fellow owners got  men like Richard E. Rainwater, the mastermind of it all, the guy who allowed George W. to buy into the Rangers in the first place. Rainwater, rated by Fortune magazine as one of the 400 richest men in America, is the sorcerer who devised the investment strategy that elevated the Bass family from millionaires in the 1970s to billionaires in the 1990s. He probably owns the U.S. Treasury. And yet Texans are paying a sales tax to make him richer? Unbelievable.

-- foobar (foo@bar.com), February 24, 2000.

Hey there foobar, you sure you want to open that can of worms?

You do know, I hope, that your lunatic McCrank has his dope-stealing dope-addict McWife's BOOZE EMPIRE BUCKS in HIS hip pocket, don't you?

But I guess McCrank can condemn others for what HE does, and get away with it. What a PERFECT replacement for Clinton, huh? We'll never notice the crown change heads.

He likes talking about how he hates lobyests -- but doesn't mention how they buy and own him as they wine and dine him.

He likes to say how he's against gun control -- but doesn't mention how he's created a record of voting FOR gun control legislation, in some cases RESURRECTING dead bills.

He likes to say how he's pro-life -- but doesn't like to talk about how he says that if his daughter "chooses" an abortion, it's her "choice" and he'll "support her" in "her choice".

He likes to say that he's a conservative -- but doesn't like to talk about how he ACTS like a LIBERAL.

He's a lying two-faced hypocrite with a temper like vesuvious.

If he gets elected, it will mean another four years of Clinton, but with less hair, and less self control.

-- Charles Underwood Farley (chuck@u.farley), February 24, 2000.

Stuff like this happens all too often. We contract out web ads with another site, and a few times I noticed web ads advertising gambling sites. (Hint: our management and web site is definitely NOT pro-gambling.) This resulting in much bitching and moaning to the web ad guys.

-- lurker (lurker@lurker.org), February 25, 2000.

GO CHARLES!!! YOU'RE AWESOME.

-- Just Curious (jnmpow@flash.net), February 25, 2000.