BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 15 Mar 08 - 06:47 PM

Fair trade.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Mar 08 - 06:44 PM

Maybe we can talk them into taking out all of the Kingdom Halls and leave everything else alone.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 15 Mar 08 - 04:39 PM

Of course we are threatened by weapons of mass destruction. We are also threatened by relatively minor weapons of intermittent mayhem which will really unsettle us. A meat-packing plant here, a water filtration system there, a kindergarten here, a subway there. A florist shop, a Kingdom Hall, a radio tower.   mg

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 15 Mar 08 - 03:17 PM

This just in on my Google News Reader:

John McCain now the favorite in U.K. to win the Elections

The Republican presidential candidate John McCain is now the favorite to win the 2008 U.S. Elections with some of the odds makers abroad. After leading on the betting sheets for months, Barack Obama has been downgraded with some of the more popular British bookmakers and Sen. John McCain has become the new favorite to win the race in November. "With controversy raging over whether the Democrat Primaries in Michigan and Florida should be counted or even re-scheduled, confirmed Republican candidate John McCain has been backed from 6/4 to 5/4 favourite with William Hill to win the race to the White House," the bookmaker's representative Graham Sharpe told OGPaper. Hills have lengthened former favorite Barack Obama from 5/4 to 11/8 second favorite, with Hillary Clinton offered at 3/1 and Al Gore 50/1.

But not all odds makers are willing to take the risk and "jump ships" so quick. Another British online bookmaker, Bet365, remains confident that Barack Obama will be the next U.S. President. At Bet365 Obama is still the favorite with odds 10/11, followed by John McCain at 7/4, while Hillary Clinton holds underdog odds of 18/5. The situation is similar at the North American bookie BodogLife, where Obama leads with odds 1/1, John McCain would pay out on 7/4 and Clinton is sitting on 7/2.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 09:33 PM

The only big bully to have ever used WMD is the US of A. The Big Ones. The minute we had 'em. Those awe inspiring clouds over Japan.

So, lots of pot calling kettle colors there.

MAD isn't any more quaint than detente at this point in history. We just call MAD detente the Bush Doctrine now. We've evolved, you see. We are liberators. Welcomed. Etc, etc.

The Clinton/Obama/McCain campaign (I see it all as the same gibberish mix) are running the opposite way of WMD, nuclear war, the neo-con neo-arms race (did you REALLY think the shooting down of the satellite was to keep us safe? Puhleez!), AND THE ECONOMY, STUPID!!!

SHHHHHHHHHH!!!! Don't say the 'E' word. Or the 'G' word (for gas).

Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no....

Well, you catch the drift, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 09:01 PM

It does not need to be a nation: a small dissident group can build a 10-20 KTon fission device for about $1/2 million and six months, as long as they are willing to die. And there seems no lack of those willing to die in attacking us.

If they are willing to die in attacking us then the threat of retaliation is meaningless.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Amos
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 06:46 PM

SOrry, Bruce. I could have sworn you directly implied the condition of us being threatened by WMD had recently been or currently was a fact. I guess I over-justified the context of your remark. Sorry.

It seems to me on the face of it that a decent government, if it were going to operate on the notion that we were so threatened, should provide its people with the facts on which it bases that perception.

When W did so, the facts were poppycock -- Nigerian uranium and aluminum tubes and links between Saddam and Al Qeda, and WMDs in the desert -- they were al, apparently, figments of someone's overheated fears.

That does not mean they always will be. I hear you with regard to N Korea. The Russians are mor eon our side of things than they were back in the Cold War, and the Chinese are self-limiting -- they have too much inertia toward a middle class society, I htink, to put it at risk by going whacko all of a sudden. Not that I would put it completely past them.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 06:24 PM

Peace,

I will have to disagree with you. Even a "small" nuclear war will establish that the use of nuclear weapons is acceptable in combat. Unless of course the side starting the use of WMD is removed from the face of the earth- but I doubt that would qualify as a "small" war.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Peace
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 06:16 PM

We probably need a small nuclear war to put the idea of a major nuclear war in perspective. We seem to have learned bugger all from Chernobyl.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 06:07 PM

Amos,

I can neither confirm nor deny...

But I said
"And by some, especially those with active nuclear programs, as being unwilling to "risk American lives" even when we are threatened by WMD."

NOT the same thing, as you know. You want me to start telling the world what YOU said, and change the words and meaning?

Will you state that the US is NOT threatened by nuclear weapons, and other WMD? I am sure that the Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, Iranians, and others will hate to hear that all their efforts are null and void since YOU do not recognize the threat.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 06:02 PM

"I don't think there are any nations who see us that way or will see us that way no matter who wins in November. Do you honestly think there are? "


1. Yes, I do honestly think there are nations that will think that.

2. It does not need to be a nation: a small dissident group can build a 10-20 KTon fission device for about $1/2 million and six months, as long as they are willing to die. And there seems no lack of those willing to die in attacking us.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Amos
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 05:18 PM

Bruce:

When were we being threatened by WMD?

Do you have some intelligence the rest of us are not privy to on the subject?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 04:01 PM

And by some, especially those with active nuclear programs, as being unwilling to "risk American lives" even when we are threatened by WMD.

I don't think there are any nations who see us that way or will see us that way no matter who wins in November. Do you honestly think there are?

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 03:52 PM

"the US is perceived by some as being anxious to go to war. "

And by some, especially those with active nuclear programs, as being unwilling to "risk American lives" even when we are threatened by WMD.


And it is the PERCEPTION of THOSE nations that will get us into a nuclear war, regardless of what OUR intent or desire is.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: artbrooks
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 03:19 PM

A point you are missing is that being PREPARED for war, and being perceived as WILLING to go to war, will PREVENT one from going to war.

I expect that one could come up with an equal number of examples on either side of that argument: WW3 vs Vietnam, for instance, or the Pig War between the US and Great Britain vs the Franco-Prussian War.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 02:54 PM

A point you are missing is that being PREPARED for war, and being perceived as WILLING to go to war, will PREVENT one from going to war

That is just what the 'Great Powers' thought in 1914.

I actually agree with you up to a point, a country does need to be seen as willing to go to war. The problem I see now is that the US is perceived by some as being anxious to go to war.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Peace
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 02:22 PM

Write and ask him. My question still stands. Yours has no standing at all, pdq. And you know it.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: pdq
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 02:20 PM

Has Canada's prime minister killed 1.4 million people? Just curious.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Peace
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 02:03 PM

Cheney--long may he rot--visited the tar sands. Does the USA feel it has an 'interest' in that part of Canada?

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Amos
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 02:01 PM

fight when our interests are threatened.



Bruce:

Our interests are threatened by low-cost labor in India, by pollution being generated in China, by better manufacturing in Japan, and by our own media who distort and pollute our intellectual environment and promulgate reactive, non-analytical thinking and pushbutton emotions in the publics they are supposed to serve with reliable information.

Our interests are threatened by special interests who put their own coffers above the national good in every discussion, and their profits above the good of their customers.

Our interests are threatened by cocaine peddlers and teachers who will not consult the understanding of their students.

None of these call for military solutions, do they? So, exactly what threats to our interests should be met with precipitate armed violence, or the rattling of sabers?



A

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 01:56 PM

Amos,

A point you are missing is that being PREPARED for war, and being perceived as WILLING to go to war, will PREVENT one from going to war: Conversely, being unprepared for war and/or perceived as unwilling to engage in war has, and seemingly (vice human nature) will in the future, gotten many nations into wars they did not desire.

I do not advocate war as the solution to all problems: But I will not cripple this country by stating we will not fight when our interests are threatened.

Wishing human nature was different might sound good, but when the lion sleeps with the lamb, the lion is well-fed and the lamb is dinner.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Amos
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 01:42 PM

I greatly appreciate that, old friend. I hope you'll be at the next Getaway.


I would not for a minute say McCain was Bush. I think he is much smarter than Bush in many ways. I mean more intelligent, not more wiley.

But I think he has an overlap with Bush in his proclivity for armed engagement as a tool of diplomacy. I base this on his history, and what I have heard him say about the future wars we face, in his view. I respect that he feels he is simply confronting the tragtic but unavoidable nature of the world. But that postulate is (IMHO) a terrible foundation for national affairs.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 12:43 PM

McCain is not Bush. The ems have shown they cannot win running on the "I'm not Bush!" ticket- they have to stand for something on their own. This is one of the strong points that Obama has.

But to claim that because Bush did X, McCain is X is stupid- and I do not take you for a stupid person.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Peace
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 12:37 PM

Yeah. All this 'hide the weenie' stuff from Republicans and Democrats is getting boring. The up side is that someone other than the taxpayers is getting fu#ked for a change.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Amos
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 12:36 PM

BB:

Killing people in order to be perceived as willing to kill is a very, very slippery slope, pal. WHile it might serve our purposes once in a while to be perceived as possibly psycho, engaging in psycho act to prove it is very risky. Nixon and Kissinger tried this during the Paris talks, sending live nuclear bomber wings straight toward Russian airspace on a high-risk chance at cowing the NV into seeking terms of peace under Russian pressure. It worked pathetically badly, you will recall.

I am not unwilling to kill. ANd I don't think the government should be, in any absolute way.   But I am not going to start elective attacks on others in order to prove it. That way madness lies.

If W had spent one tenth of the money he has spent on his Big Bloody War at establishing HumInt networks on the ground, he could have taken ODay, Bookay, and Saddam out with one well-placed cruise missile. His problem is that he is too dumb to know when he doesn't know enough.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 12:28 PM

By precedent, it is OK for Democrats to have affairs. It is the money-laundering and Mann act violations that will get him.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Peace
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 12:27 PM

I just noticed the thread title and thought I'd say that it's not a good time to be talking about Dems and snatch, what with Spitzer and Kristin and all . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 12:24 PM

"Sorry to get you riled up, but I would prefer a politician who was going to try to avoid war where possible. I think pursuing war is dumb."


Then why do you support a candidate whose policies INCREASE the likelyhood, both of war in general, and nuclear war specifically?


The easiest way to start a nuclear war is to be PERCEIVED ( regardless of what one might actually do) as being unwilling to respond to a WMD attack- THAT is the entire basis of MAD- That we WILL destroy the world if anyone uses WMD on us or our allies.

The PERCEPTION that we will not is the surest way to get such a war started, by miscalculation of what our reaction will be. Please read how WW I started, and what Hitler would have done if he had been forced to back down in Czechoslovakia.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 12:18 PM

"Who sang Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran?"
\
The Capital Steps, back in 1991 or 92...

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Amos
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 12:16 PM

Gigi:

It is my impression that you -- and to some degree Bruce -- are seeing hatred in posts of mine where none was inserted in the orgination thereof. This is a common problem with written thread exchanges, because there are many clues missing that would be present verbally. I get impatient and exasperated, but hate is not something I put into my posts except on rare and very extreme cases.

I do use strong language, on occasion, to make it completely clear what I am seeing and talking about, but to add to that element an interpretation of hatefulness is inaccurate.

I think we all get angry when seeing our precious viewpoints messed with, to some degree, and the degree to which we allow some time for reflection before jumping uin response to that temporary irritation is really the measure of civilization in this kind of messag exchange; I cannot tell you the number of times I have abandoned a half-written message because I concluded it was reacting to something that possibly wasn't actually there. Or because I concldued it was taking up a gauntlet not worth bending for.

There are a few things I do hate, and one of them is promoting the need for violent assault on others, the selling of war as a "good idea". I know of no conditions under which war is a good idea, even though I have to say I have known some where it seemed unavoidable. Being stuck in such a view of the world is, to my way of thinking, one of the most dangerous conditions a person can be in; offering W as a case in point should allow me to rest my case on that issue.

Aside from that, however, although I am often energetic, I do not feel a smidgen of hatred toward you, toward Bruce, toward Hillary Clinton, or even to John McCain, whom I respect in many ways despite my disagreement with his militarism.

One thing I am constantly returning to, when sparks fly here, is the ancient spiritual rule about seeing, in others, what one is, oneself, generating, popularly known as projection. I do this, and it is an inherent human flaw. I try to remember it whenever I find myself outraged or aghast or annoyed at _______ (fill in the blank). Because at some level I know that for me to be so sensitized to _____, I must have generated a certain amount of same my own self.

This is a healthy perspective and exercise, which I recommend.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 08:51 AM

That bullshit quote about 'like a member of my own family' to innoculate himself?

No way, I say. You can't pick your family, but you sure as shit pick your preacher, and whether or not to praise him.

This is just one many examples one can find of the hypocrisy of the Obama campaign. Wolf in sheep's clothes, IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 08:49 AM

And this is from the Baltimore Sun:

By Michael Hill | Sun Reporter
    January 16, 2008

CHICAGO - The packed house at Trinity United - some 3,000 in all - had been in the pews for almost two hours, energized by a 200-voice choir and a rousing dance performance Sunday, when the Rev. Jeremiah Wright stepped up to speak.

Wright is well-known in Chicago and in the black church world for taking over a small United Church of Christ congregation in 1972 and turning it into an 8,000-member powerhouse. More recently, his name has become familiar as the longtime spiritual mentor of Barack Obama, who joined the church in 1988 - a move Obama says was important to shaping his identity as an African-American.

The connection has thrown a spotlight on some of Wright's more controversial remarks in a church that advertises itself as "unashamedly Black and unapologetically Christian" - at times espousing a black liberation theology that can sound as exclusionary as Obama's message is inclusionary. He has also equated Zionism with racism.

On Sunday morning - amid intensified crossfire between Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Obama over the use of race in the Democratic presidential campaign - Wright was preaching from the Gospel of John, using his powerful style to link the story of the loaves and fishes to a contemporary political message.

Man should not put limits on what God can do, but that's what people always do, he told the crowd. Just as God made five loaves and two fishes feed thousands, God has provided liberators for blacks in the past - from Nat Turner to the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., and now Barack Obama. But, Wright said, there were always reasons not to follow them.

Some argue that blacks should vote for Clinton "because her husband was good to us," he continued.

"That's not true," he thundered. "He did the same thing to us that he did to Monica Lewinsky."

Many in the crowd were on their feet, applauding - amazed, amused and moved by the fiery rhetoric of their preacher, who is about to retire.

It is just such rhetoric that has made Wright's remarks an occasional staple on conservative talk shows. They often make the rounds in anti-Obama e-mail.

On occasion, the Illinois senator has distanced himself from Wright. In the past, the campaign has issued statements saying that Obama does not agree with all of Wright's comments. An invitation to Wright to give the invocation at Obama's announcement of his presidential candidacy last year was rescinded at the last moment, reportedly to keep the spotlight on Obama and not on Wright.

Just yesterday, Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen noted that a magazine associated with Trinity United once named Louis Farrakhan as its person of the year, praising the Nation of Islam leader. Cohen called on Obama to denounce such praise of Farrakhan, known for statements deemed anti-Semitic.

In a statement released by his campaign last night, Obama responded to questions about Wright's comments on Sunday.

"As I've told Reverend Wright, personal attacks such as this have no place in this campaign or our politics, whether they're offered from a platform at a rally or the pulpit of a church," he said. "I don't think of the pastor of my church in political terms.

"Like a member of my own family, there are things he says at times with which I deeply disagree," he said. "But as he prepares to retire, that doesn't detract from my affection for Reverend Wright or appreciation for the good works he has done."

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 08:42 AM

I'm guessing this is what Poppagator is referring to (which is no surprise to any of us who actually bothered to find out about Obama before jumping on the love fest bandwagon). This is from the NYT:


    "The whole controversy might have been forgotten in the swell of gospel sound except Mr. McClurkin turned the final half hour of the three-hour concert into a revival meeting about the lightning rod he has become for the Obama campaign.

    He approached the subject gingerly at first. Then, just when the concert had seemed to reach its pitch and about to end, Mr. McClurkin returned to it with a full-blown plea: "Don't call me a bigot or anti-gay when I have suffered the same feelings," he cried.

    "God delivered me from homosexuality," he added. He then told the audience to believe the Bible over the blogs: "God is the only way." The crowd sang and clapped along in full support....

    Mr. McClurkin's support for Mr. Obama could signal to some black evangelical voters that race and religion are more important than Mr. Obama's support for gay rights."

I can't wait to see how the hateful Mudcat Obamamaniacs spin Obama's obviously anti-gay, right wing preacher...

Seems Obama is having a bit of a problem with the Jewish community these days too. Tsk, tsk.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 08:34 AM

I'm far to left of the so-called liberals around here beardedbruce, and I couldn't agree with you more.

The hatred they spout at the people who disagree with them is quite astonishing. The only thing more astonishing than their hate filled posts, is the fact that they are so unaware of their own behavior.

Amos often engages in the same hate filled speech Bobert does, but uses more gentlemanly English to do it. And katlaughing is the most manipulative, un-self-aware person in Mudcat, IMO. Maybe it is that New Age manipulativeness that is so vicious. It is very passive aggressive.

These people figure that it is all just fine to demonize the Republicans, regardless of who the Republican is, what their positions are, etc. The have nearly as much contempt for people who don't affiliate and identify themselves with either of the 2 parties in the US. Clearly, these are people that in 3D life have some control issues.

And they are really, really intolerant of any views and opinions that don't agree with their own.

And that most certainly is NOT the 'enlightened high road' they claim to be taking, because they support a candidate who claims to be doing the same, while doing something quite different. Perhaps that is why they find it so easy to identify with Obama?

Machiavellian is as Machiavellian does, so to speak.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Amos
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 11:37 PM

Jaysus, Bruce!!

I see a big difference between sayig that we should seek peace while being prepared for war, a balanced perspective, and the hard nosed prediction there will be more wars.

Sorry to get you riled up, but I would prefer a politician who was going to try to avoid war where possible. I think pursuing war is dumb.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: GUEST,jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 11:28 PM

Bruce

Who sang Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran?

McCain is going to be campaigning for the war in Iraq until November 4, no matter how you try to spin it. Obama will be campaigning against.

Try to associate Obama with the war all you want. No one will believe you. I don't call anyone McWar. I think McAged would be better.

and "Hitlery" is plain stupid.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 11:16 PM

PDQ said...

>>>Rev. John Hagee may have some vile things to say, but he lives in Texas. He has no direct association with McCain.<<<

Pdq, please watch this video. You will see film of Hagee and McCain on a stage with "McCain for President" in the back ground. Hagee's endorsement is obviously an official part of the campaign. The straight talk Express has picked up an anti-Catholic voice.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23620951#23620951

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 11:00 PM

American soldiers will be in the Middle East for a long time, if not as a separate force, as units with United Nations Forces, regardless of who wins the next election.
Canada's prime minister has just extended the use of Canadian troops in Afganistan. Some film clips on the BBC yesterday showed them in a pretty heavy engagement. UK forces are committed as well.

Pakistan is unable to control their northern provinces; this may be the next place where Americans will be fighting.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 09:41 PM

"I'm sorry to tell you this, but there will be more wars..."

And you claim that this is NOT a true statement? Do you have any idea of what human nature is? That does not make him as warlike as Obama stating he will attack Iraq if Al Quada is shown to be acting there after the US withdrawal. So "Oh Bomb Ah! it will be from now on.


"You can throw all the spume you want at me about the rational expectations of liberals versus those who share your bitter and jaded view of the world. "

NO. I will throw all the words I want about the irrational expectations of liberals, against all past human nature and present cultures, versus a realistic view that takes into account what has happened in the past, and how people are presently reacting, based on their cultures.

If you don't like my words, that's ok by me. But don't give me any more BS about " hateful speech " when you are prepared to justify it against those who disagree with you, then claim all will be peace and flowers forever in the future regardless of what the intent of various nations that we do not have control over.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Amos
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 06:18 PM

I'm not in this equation, Bruce. You asked why it is fitting to call John "McWar". It is because of remarks of his like "I'm sorry to tell you this, but there will be more wars..." etc. And "Let's stay for 100 years".

You can throw all the spume you want at me about the rational expectations of liberals versus those who share your bitter and jaded view of the world. But the answer to the question lies in John McCains remarks, not in my post.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 06:16 PM

Sorry, Amos, you have been reading too much liberal propaganda.

McCain has acknowledged thet we may have troops in Iraq for a long while- As we still have troops in both Japan and Germany - How many years after WW II?

Hillery and Barack have both made statements that they will withdraw immediately, then go back to war if there are attacks on American interests.

IMO, the course of action advocated by the Democratic candidates will result in far more bloodshed, and loss BY ALL SIDES than the drawdown of troops with a small garrison force as invited by the Iraqis that McCain advocates.




But then, liberals are all baby killers and advocates of the total destruction of the world by mutual nuclear destruction.


Or do you claim that you can make judgement about others, but no one can judge YOU?

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: katlaughing
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 04:04 PM

I have just been learning about Parsley. He makes Hagee look like a red herring. If anyone truly thinks McCain should be president, I would urge a careful reading of the following:

ednesday March 12, 2008, 1:22 pm
Televangelist Rod Parsley, a key McCain ally in Ohio, has called for eradicating the "false religion." Will the GOP presidential candidate renounce him?

McCain hailed as a spiritual adviser an Ohio megachurch pastor who has called upon Christians to wage a "war" against the "false religion" of Islam with the aim of destroying it.

On February 26, McCain appeared at a campaign rally in Cincinnati with the Reverend Rod Parsley of the World Harvest Church of Columbus, a supersize Pentecostal institution that features a 5,200-seat sanctuary, a television studio (where Parsley tapes a weekly show), and a 122,000-square-foot Ministry Activity Center. That day, a week before the Ohio primary, Parsley praised the Republican presidential front-runner as a "strong, true, consistent conservative." The endorsement was important for McCain, who at the time was trying to put an end to the lingering challenge from former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, a favorite among Christian evangelicals. A politically influential figure in Ohio, Parsley could also play a key role in McCain's effort to win this bellwether state in the general election. McCain, with Parsley by his side at the Cincinnati rally, called the evangelical minister a "spiritual guide."

The leader of a 12,000-member congregation, Parsley has written several books outlining his fundamentalist religious outlook, including the 2005 Silent No More. In this work, Parsley decries the "spiritual desperation" of the United States, and he blasts away at the usual suspects: activist judges, civil libertarians who advocate the separation of church and state, the homosexual "culture" ("homosexuals are anything but happy and carefree"), the "abortion industry," and the crass and profane entertainment industry. And Parsley targets another profound threat to the United States: the religion of Islam.

In a chapter titled "Islam: The Deception of Allah," Parsley warns there is a "war between Islam and Christian civilization." He continues:


I cannot tell you how important it is that we understand the true nature of Islam, that we see it for what it really is. In fact, I will tell you this: I do not believe our country can truly fulfill its divine purpose until we understand our historical conflict with Islam. I know that this statement sounds extreme, but I do not shrink from its implications. The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore.

Parsley is not shy about his desire to obliterate Islam. In Silent No More, he notes—approvingly—that Christopher Columbus shared the same goal: "It was to defeat Islam, among other dreams, that Christopher Columbus sailed to the New World in 1492…Columbus dreamed of defeating the armies of Islam with the armies of Europe made mighty by the wealth of the New World. It was this dream that, in part, began America." He urges his readers to realize that a confrontation between Christianity and Islam is unavoidable: "We find now we have no choice. The time has come." And he has bad news: "We may already be losing the battle. As I scan the world, I find that Islam is responsible for more pain, more bloodshed, and more devastation than nearly any other force on earth at this moment."

Parsley claims that Islam is an "anti-Christ religion" predicated on "deception." The Muslim prophet Muhammad, he writes, "received revelations from demons and not from the true God." And he emphasizes this point: "Allah was a demon spirit." Parsley does not differentiate between violent Islamic extremists and other followers of the religion:


There are some, of course, who will say that the violence I cite is the exception and not the rule. I beg to differ. I will counter, respectfully, that what some call "extremists" are instead mainstream believers who are drawing from the well at the very heart of Islam.

The spirit of Islam, he maintains, is one of hostility. He asserts that the religion "inspired" the 9/11 attacks. He bemoans the fact that in the years after 9/11, 34,000 Americans "have become Muslim" and that there are "some 1,209 mosques" in America. Islam, he declares, is a "faith that fully intends to conquer the world" through violence. The United States, he insists, "has historically understood herself as a bastion against Islam," but "history is crashing in upon us."

At the end of his chapter on Islam, Parsley asks, "Are we a Christian nation? I say yes." Without specifying what actions should be taken to eradicate the religion, he essentially calls for a new crusade.

Parsley, who refers to himself as a "Christocrat," is no stranger to controversy. In 2007, the grassroots organization he founded, the Center for Moral Clarity, called for prosecuting people who commit adultery. In January, he compared Planned Parenthood to Nazis. In the past Parsley's church has been accused of engaging in pro-Republican partisan activities in violation of its tax-exempt status.

Why would McCain court Parsley? He has long had trouble figuring out how to deal with Christian fundamentalists, an important bloc for the Republican Party. During his 2000 presidential bid, he referred to Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell as "agents of intolerance." But six years later, as he readied himself for another White House run, McCain repudiated that remark. More recently, his campaign hit a rough patch when he accepted the endorsement of the Reverend James Hagee, a Texas televangelist who has called the Catholic Church "the great whore" and a "false cult system." After the Catholic League protested and called on McCain to renounce Hagee's support, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee praised Hagee's spiritual leadership and support of Israel and said that "when [Hagee] endorses me, it does not mean that I embrace everything that he stands for or believes in." After being further criticized for his Hagee connection, McCain backed off slightly, saying, "I repudiate any comments that are made, including Pastor Hagee's, if they are anti-Catholic or offensive to Catholics." But McCain did not renounce Hagee's endorsement.

McCain's relationship with Parsley is politically significant. In 2004, Parsley's church was credited with driving Christian fundamentalist voters to the polls for George W. Bush. With Ohio expected to again be a decisive state in the presidential contest, Parsley's World Harvest Church and an affiliated entity called Reformation Ohio, which registers voters, could be important players within this battleground state. Considering that the Ohio Republican Party has been decimated by various political scandals and that a popular Democrat, Ted Strickland, is now the state's governor, McCain and the Republicans will need all the help they can get in the Buckeye State this fall. It's a real question: Can McCain win the presidency without Parsley?

The McCain campaign did not respond to a request for comment regarding Parsley and his anti-Islam writings. Parsley did not return a call seeking comment.

"The last thing I want to be is another screaming voice moving people to extremes and provoking them to folly in the name of patriotism," Parsley writes in Silent No More. Provoking people to holy war is another matter. About that, McCain so far is silent.


David Corn is Mother Jones' Washington, D.C. bureau chief.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Amos
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 04:01 PM

BB:

Because John McCain has postulated more war, not less; while Obama and Hillary have to various degrees promoted less war. That's why.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 03:43 PM

YOU have not- the BTW was a comment in general. In specific, it is Bobert who seems incapable of being " beguiled so by hatred?"

It seems to me that it is acceptable here to make comments about conservatives that, if made about liberals would cause censure and extensive negative comments.

MANY conservatives have the same goals and desires as liberals- but have determined that the path to those goals is NOT the one presented by the current "liberal establishment" As in the case of liberals who disagree with the methods of conservatives, shouldn't the conservatives be allowed to present their points without the nasty verbal attacks that some here take pride in?

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Peace
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 03:23 PM

"BTW, why is it that is seems acceptable to have people call McCain "McWar", but not to call Obama "Oh Bomb A" or HRC "Hitlery Clinton"?"

Would you be kind enough to quote where I have done that, Bruce?

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 03:20 PM

Let's maybe cut McCain the same slack we're cutting Obama.

BTW, why is it that is seems acceptable to have people call McCain "McWar", but not to call Obama "Oh Bomb A" or HRC "Hitlery Clinton"?

Do I detect a slight liberal hypocracy around here?

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 03:06 PM

Yeah, I'll have to admit that was one of the few times I actually felt sorry for McCain. When that Hagee guy came out to endorse him, what could McCain say? He didn't want to piss off Hagee's supporters, but if he didn't he risked pissing off everybody else.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: pdq
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 03:01 PM

Yes, indeed. We need to concentrate on who and what the candidates are and not on who and what their fringe supporters are.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: Peace
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 02:43 PM

It's a cast-iron SOB when assholes endorse candidates. Let's maybe cut Obama the same slack we're cutting McCain.

Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
From: pdq
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 02:40 PM

McCain rejects anti-Catholic views

By LIBBY QUAID, Associated Press Writer
Fri Mar 7, 3:45 PM ET


"NEW ORLEANS - Republican presidential candidate John McCain on Friday repudiated any views of a prominent televangelist who endorsed him last month 'if they are anti-Catholic or offensive to Catholics.'

McCain has come under fire since televangelist John Hagee endorsed him on Feb. 27, but until Friday his response had been tepid. The Arizona senator merely said he doesn't agree with everyone who endorses him. He said Friday he had been hearing from Catholics who find Hagee's comments offensive.

Hagee, leader of a San Antonio megachurch, has referred to the Roman Catholic Church as 'the great whore' and called it a 'false cult system' and 'the apostate church' — 'apostate' means someone who has forsaken his religion.

On Friday, McCain took a stronger stance on Hagee's views in an interview with The Associated Press.

'We've had a dignified campaign, and I repudiate any comments that are made, including Pastor Hagee's, if they are anti-Catholic or offensive to Catholics,' McCain said.

'I sent two of my children to Catholic school. I categorically reject and repudiate any statement that was made that was anti-Catholic, both in intent and nature. I categorically reject it, and I repudiate it,' McCain said.

'And we can't have that in this campaign,' McCain said. 'We're trying to unite the country. We're uniting the country, not dividing it.'

He was responding to one critic in particular, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, who raised the issue in a Thursday conference call with reporters.

'She made the attack. I am responding by saying that I am against discrimination and anti-Semitism, anti-Catholic, anything racial, and I have proved that on the campaign trail,' McCain said.

Hagee's endorsement had been intended to shore up McCain's support among evangelical or born-again Christians, many of whom distrust McCain for some of his more moderate views and his willingness to work with Democrats.

McCain gave the interview backstage as he prepared to address the Council for National Policy, a group of the country's most influential social and Christian conservatives.

The council meets three times a year, with discussions strictly off-the-record to promote frank discussion, according to participants. His appearance was televised in a separate holding room for journalists.

Members asked McCain only a couple of tough questions, including one on illegal immigration. McCain has come under fire from fellow Republicans for supporting an eventual path to citizenship for those here illegally, but now he says securing the border is his top priority.

'We would have to, obviously, secure our border first,' McCain said.

Asked about the influence of religion in his life, McCain said, 'It is an important factor in my life, obviously, very important.'

McCain also invoked his faith at a campaign event Friday morning at the headquarters of Chick-fil-A Inc. in Atlanta. The company's founder, S. Truett Cathy, is a devout Baptist who closes his restaurants on Sunday so his employees can rest and honor God.

'It's harder and harder trying to do the Lord's work in the city of Satan,' McCain said of Washington.

He praised former GOP rival Mike Huckabee, who won the Georgia primary, mentioning Huckabee's comment in a debate, 'They asked Governor Huckabee, who as you know was a Baptist minister, what would Jesus do. He said, `Jesus would be smart enough not to run for public office.' '

And he said that illegal immigration is a Judeo-Christian issue as well as a national security issue.

Also Friday, McCain said tax cuts and job training are needed to lift an economy that is either in recession or is headed toward one. McCain, who has said economics isn't his strong suit, was responding to a report showing widespread job losses amid the housing and credit crisis.

The Labor Department said employers cut jobs by 63,000 in February, the most in five years.

'I think the fact of the matter is, many American families are hurting very badly, particularly those in states like Ohio, Michigan, parts of Illinois, those states that really relied on manufacturing jobs and saw those jobs leave,' McCain said. 'And we as a nation have not done enough to help those workers find new employment, new training, new education.'"