 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ...
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: Riginslinger Date: 12 Mar 08 - 09:33 PM Frankly, I think Amos is a lot more objective than that. I just don't think he's taking into account all of the snare traps that have already been set for Obama. I just watched a few minutes of "Hannity and Colmes"--I know, I know--but they were running a tape of Obama's ex-preacher telling a bunch of followers how awful Bill Clinton was for having a relationship with Monica. I think folks are going to see this preacher as a raving maniac, and associate Obama with the preacher. I'm sure that's the image they're trying to project. And they haven't really even gotten started yet. As soon as they are certain that Obama is the nominee, it's going to be like the USS Missouri shooting at a mouse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: katlaughing Date: 12 Mar 08 - 09:59 PM That will be nothing compared to the idiot McCain actively sought an endorsement from: John McCain recently sought and embraced the endorsement of a nutbag named John Hagee. This anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic pastor can be seen in a great YouTube video going over an illustration of "the beast" (which I think represents something bad) as if it were a diagram of an atom. He believes Katrina destroyed New Orleans because of a gay-pride march, and that the Pope is the "anti-Christ." There's more on all three candidates and religion in the same excellent op/ed piece at the Vail Trail. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: Amos Date: 12 Mar 08 - 10:09 PM I am aware of how desperately the slimers and sangers and slanderers and defamers will turn to to try and make nothig out of a good human being. I have seen it before, and heard all the justifications, and as far as I am concerned it is thinly disguised insanity. We get very small doses of it here, with the sarcasm and the sniping, but its nothing compared to the wild, where they will tear a man limb from limb on any excuse they can find --even if doing so harms the larger community. That's pretty osycho, you ask me. Gigi, you are confusing me with someone else, probably your father. I have my point of view, and I express it as clearly as I can. I rail against covert and slanderous knockings, but then, being human, I sometimes give in to writing them myself. I ain't no saint, just a guy with a big mouth, but I do not require that people agree with me. I do expect them tto think clearly and say what it is they have to say plainly. Just pure bias on my part, I guess. Sorry if it disgruntles you, but I never promised to gruntle you anyway. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: GUEST,Stranger Date: 12 Mar 08 - 10:12 PM Louis Farrakhan wholeheartedly endorsed Obama and he is the biggest racist, anti-semite there is. Can you support Obama standing right next to Farrakhan? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 12 Mar 08 - 10:15 PM Hagee is a smart weasel who knows how to play on the fears of the common folk and has built a fortune from them. He has many followers in Texas who will listen to him and politicians spurn his support at their own risk. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: Amos Date: 12 Mar 08 - 10:33 PM Stranger, you're missing the point. George Bush endorsed John McCain, too. Obama has made it clear he condemns Farrakhans insanities. Why did you leave that part out of your little hate bullet? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: pdq Date: 12 Mar 08 - 10:40 PM "That will be nothing compared to the idiot McCain actively sought an endorsement from...a nutbag named John Hagee. This anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic pastor..." Care to give even one shred of evidence that McCain actively sought this guy's support, or are you just making up the facts as you go along, as usual. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: Amos Date: 12 Mar 08 - 10:43 PM "The McCain/Hagee story picks up steam (Updated below - Update II - Update III) The McCain/Hagee story is growing, though still not as much as it ought to. My new friends from the Catholic League emailed earlier to advise that Bill Donohue was being interviewed for tonight's program of The Situation Room on CNN. Blogs at The Washington Post and ABC News today covered the growing scandal from the anti-Catholic bigotry perspective, with the latter actually featuring the unbelievably inflammatory You Clip -- found by Ann Althouse, which I posted yesterday and which is now being distributed by the Catholic League -- of a shirt-sleeved Pastor Hagee spewing the creepiest, most hateful bile imaginable about Catholicism ("This is the Great Whore of Revelation 17")." Excerpted from this site. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: GUEST,Stranger Date: 12 Mar 08 - 10:48 PM Amos, don't be a hypocrite like Spitzer. You have been about hate here for years. Obama says many things properly. If you believe everything, you are quite naive. Farrakhan has a big following. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: artbrooks Date: 12 Mar 08 - 11:28 PM It is unfortunate that Senator McCain didn't come right out and reject Mr. Hagee's endorsement. What he did say is, ""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. 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." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: Amos Date: 12 Mar 08 - 11:30 PM Yeah, well Stranger Guest Guest, screw you too. How's that? You are so far off the mark you are barking at your tonsils. Oh, I'm sorry. Was that hateful? Can't imagine what got into me. Tsk, I must be really losing it. So solly. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: Jack the Sailor Date: 12 Mar 08 - 11:42 PM pdq, Check this out, Hagee and McCain on the same stage and McCain saying that he is very proud of the endorsement. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULeBsdSGZx4 >>>Louis Farrakhan wholeheartedly endorsed Obama and he is the biggest racist, anti-semite there is. Can you support Obama standing right next to Farrakhan?<<< Stranger can you show us a picture of Obama standing next to Farrakhan during or since the endorsement? Check the URL I just posted. McCain and Hagee, thick as thieves. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: katlaughing Date: 13 Mar 08 - 12:29 AM Ho-hum, attack instead of debate and cite... 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 John 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. Click for MORE Oh, and McCain rejects what Hagee said, but then defends him that his words were taken out of context? How can one take " "The Great Whore, an apostate church, the anti-Christ,and a false cult system." out of context?" What McCain has said, so far: "Well, obviously I repudiate any comments that are anti-Semitic or anti-Catholic, racist, any other," McCain said. "And I condemn them and I condemn those words that Pastor Hagee apparently — that Pastor Hagee wrote. I will say that he said that his words were taken out of context, he defends his position. I hope that maybe you'd give him a chance to respond." He can't make up his mind about any of them. Eight years ago he was condemning the evangelicals. By courting them so much, now, he will lose a large bloc of Catholic voters who had supported him. Q, I disagree: McCain is an abortion-rights foe but his failure to support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and backing of embryonic stem-cell research are among the political heresies that some conservative evangelicals cannot forgive him for. With the influential James Dobson, the founder of the conservative advocacy group Focus on the Family, already saying he will not vote for McCain, analysts say evangelical turnout -- or lack thereof -- could be key on November 4. "It's possible that the lack of enthusiasm for McCain could lead to a lower turnout among evangelicals in the fall," said Scott Keeter of the Pew Research Center. That scenario could tilt the election in favor of the Democrats as Republicans have come to rely heavily on an evangelical community energized to get out and vote by its opposition to abortion rights and gay rights. More from HERE. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: GUEST,Guest Date: 13 Mar 08 - 06:22 AM I doubt McCain will lose a large bloc of anyone over this, because it is a tempest in a teapot. Now that we are in a horse race lull, the media is going running after anyone who says any stupid thing, and claims to be 'endorsing' a candidate. Next thing you know, the MSM will be quoting Amos and katlaughing for their 'expert' views on the race, and their hate filled speech against anyone who isn't on 'their' side. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: Bobert Date: 13 Mar 08 - 09:47 AM Seems that Amos and kat ain't got the ***hate market*** captured, G.G.... You certainly come across as having yer fair share of it yerself... But then agian, you will say that I do and then Amos will say he doesn'y and then you will say he does and blah, blah, blah... Labelin' folks as "haters" is old school... It's Bush/Rove tactics... It doesn't make anyone's positions more credible but less so... That's why many of us like Obama... He's beyond that polorization mentality... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: Amos Date: 13 Mar 08 - 09:55 AM McCain's actual spiritual adviser is a rabid anti-Islamist. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: katlaughing Date: 13 Mar 08 - 11:24 AM hate filled speech LMAO...that's rich, really, really rich! And you hope to have credibility? LOL! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: Amos Date: 13 Mar 08 - 12:14 PM FEar and hate go hand in hand. The politics of fear-mongering are ancient in our history, and they work to the shame of thinking humans. Because for fear mongering to work, all that is needed is for individuals to succumb to it, giving up their powers of reasons, differentiation, their ability to see clearly, their power over data, and give in to the low-grade, low-quality emotionalism. The consequence of buying fear from those who sell it are the placing of self into bondage; there is no-one who is as throoughly enslaved as the person who is chained up by fear. Craven slavery is much more common than often noticed, because it is acheived by the hypnotic drumming of PR machines and terrifying generalizations about how dangerous the world is. This is very economical; you do not have to buy chains and whips to enslave people using fear, because, once you strike the right buttons, the individuals provide their own chains, and include woeful, willing subordination and compliance into the package. Here;s what we really have to fear, and it is only two things: fear-mongers and fear itself. The invitation to hate is also an invitation to fear. We would do well to decline both. These bonds are much easier to fight back against than swords and chains. You can drop your sculls, and walk out of the galley-hold, anytime. The masters of your fear are phantoms, and like all phantoms, they will vanish when you say boo to them. We have nothing to fear but fear itself. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: pdq Date: 13 Mar 08 - 12:49 PM Obama's Farrakhan TestBy Richard Cohen Tuesday, January 15, 2008 "Barack Obama is a member of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. Its minister, and Obama's spiritual adviser, is the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. In 1982, the church launched Trumpet Newsmagazine; Wright's daughters serve as publisher and executive editor. Every year, the magazine makes awards in various categories. Last year, it gave the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to a man it said 'truly epitomized greatness.' That man is Louis Farrakhan. ' Maybe for Wright and some others, Farrakhan 'epitomized greatness.' For most Americans, though, Farrakhan epitomizes racism, particularly in the form of anti-Semitism. Over the years, he has compiled an awesome record of offensive statements, even denigrating the Holocaust by falsely attributing it to Jewish cooperation with Hitler -- 'They helped him get the Third Reich on the road.' His history is a rancid stew of lies. It's important to state right off that nothing in Obama's record suggests he harbors anti-Semitic views or agrees with Wright when it comes to Farrakhan. Instead, as Obama's top campaign aide, David Axelrod, points out, Obama often has said that he and his minister sometimes disagree. Farrakhan, Axelrod told me, is one of those instances. Fine. But where I differ with Axelrod and, I assume, Obama is that praise for an anti-Semitic demagogue is not a minor difference or an intrachurch issue. The Obama camp takes the view that its candidate, now that he has been told about the award, is under no obligation to speak out on the Farrakhan matter. It was not Obama's church that made the award but a magazine. This is a distinction without much of a difference. And given who the parishioner is, the obligation to speak out is all the greater. He could be the next American president. Where is his sense of outrage? Any praise of Farrakhan heightens the prestige of the leader of the Nation of Islam. For good reasons and bad, he is already admired in portions of the black community, sometimes for his efforts to rehabilitate criminals. His anti-Semitism is either not considered relevant or is shared, particularly his false insistence that Jews have played an inordinate role in victimizing African Americans. In this, Farrakhan stands history on its head. It was Jews who disproportionately marched for civil rights and, in Mississippi, died for that cause. Farrakhan and, in effect, Wright, despoil the graves of Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goodman and, of course, their black colleague James Chaney. I can even see how someone, maybe even Obama, could dismiss Farrakhan as a pest, a silly man pushing a silly cause that poses no real threat to the Jewish community. Still, history tells us that anti-Semitism is not to be trifled with. It is a botulism of the mind. The Obama and Clinton campaigns are involved in a tasteless tussle over the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. What is clear from rereading King's celebrated 'I Have a Dream' speech of Aug. 28, 1963, is how inclusive that dream was -- 'all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, 'Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!' ' This, though, is not Farrakhan's dream. He has vilified whites and singled out Jews to blame for crimes large and small, either committed by others as well or not at all. (A dominant role in the slave trade, for instance.) He has talked of Jewish conspiracies to set a media line for the whole nation. He has reviled Jews in a manner that brings Hitler to mind. And yet Wright heaped praise on Farrakhan. According to Trumpet, he applauded his 'depth of analysis when it comes to the racial ills of this nation.' He praised 'his integrity and honesty.' He called him 'an unforgettable force, a catalyst for change and a religious leader who is sincere about his faith and his purpose.' These are the words of a man who prayed with Obama just before the Illinois senator announced his run for the presidency. Will he pray with him just before his inaugural? I don't for a moment think that Obama shares Wright's views on Farrakhan. But the rap on Obama is that he is a fog of a man. We know little about him, and, for all my admiration of him, I wonder about his mettle. The New York Times recently reported on Obama's penchant while serving in the Illinois legislature for merely voting 'present' when faced with some tough issues. Farrakhan, in a strictly political sense, may be a tough issue for him. This time, though, 'present' will not do." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: Amos Date: 13 Mar 08 - 12:55 PM PDQ, I am terribly sorry, but this is kneejerk bullshit. It is predicated on the notion that an individual equals his church equals its pastor equals some demagog his pastor likes. None of which is in the least bit true. A man does not equal his church. Nor should his church have any bearing on the merit of his ideas or his performance in a public arena; at least, in this country. If it does so, it is because of people who engage int his kind of sloppy linkage between things, saying that things should be associated in fear and fog when they should not be at all, given the least effort and mental clarity. A church does not equal its pastor. People just do not work that way. Painting these pictures of "automatic association" in order to make generalized, sweeping assertions of danger, evil, treachery, or other lurking threats is just panicmongering foolishness, and beneath you. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: pdq Date: 13 Mar 08 - 01:09 PM Rev. John Hagee may have some vile things to say, but he lives in Texas. He has no direct association with McCain. Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr., is Obama's personal spiritual leader. Obama has been going to Wright's church and listening to Wright's hatred for various people, Jews in particular, for many years. If he did not agree with the man, Obama could walk out. He never has. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: Peace Date: 13 Mar 08 - 01:27 PM "Farrakhan's Support For Obama? Hugely Controversial. Hagee's Backing Of McCain? No Problem. By Eric Kleefeld - February 28, 2008, 5:11PM Barack Obama was questioned at Tuesday night's debate by Tim Russert and Hillary Clinton about repudiating Louis Farrakhan's endorsement — which Obama said was unsolicited — in the strongest terms possible. He was repeatedly badgered by Russert, and was forced to disown Farrakhan over and over again. The very next day, John McCain appeared onstage in Texas with Pastor John Hagee, an influential activist in the Christian Zionist movement. Hagee's comments about world affairs can make Farrakhan seem pedestrian at times: He eagerly awaits the Armageddon, considers the Catholic Church to be the Anti-Christ, and has said that Jews brought their own persecution upon themselves. But when it came to McCain's rather controversial backer, the press hardly batted an eye. Seems like a pretty clear double standard, right? Some readers might remember Hagee from this video put out last year by Max Blumenthal, from Hagee's Christians United For Israel conference. During the event, Hagee proclaimed that the United States must consider a preemptive strike on Iran, and also said that Jews had been responsible for their persecution throughout history because of a failure to properly accept God: Blumenthal only scratched the surface here — Hagee is a colorful character, to say the least. More available after the jump. Very much like Farrakhan, Hagee has regularly made remarks about current events and other religions that many would find alarming. But unlike Farrakhan, he has never truly faced the scrutiny of the mainstream press, and major politicians like Joe Lieberman and John McCain have freely associated with him. In 2006, Hagee laid out his views on eschatology in a book called Jerusalem Countdown, in which he claimed that sources had told him a year earlier about world events to come — and amazingly enough, all those predictions had come true over the past year. Next on the agenda, according to his March 2006 interview in Human Events: Israel would go to war with Iran before May 2006. And from there, Hagee eagerly anticipated an all-out world war against Iran and Russia, followed by the Second Coming. On the right, Bill Donohue of the Catholic League is objecting Hagee's extremist writings, particularly his denunciations of the Catholic Church. For example, Donohue pointed to instances in which Hagee has referred to the Catholic Church as, "The Great Whore," an "apostate church," the "anti-Christ," and a "false cult system." Is Tim Russert going to repeat any of that to McCain, in the same way he read out Farrakhan's "gutter religion" line about Jews? "Senator Obama has repudiated the endorsement of Louis Farrakhan, another bigot," Donohue wrote. "McCain should follow suit and retract his embrace of Hagee." So here's the question: Will the same media outlets who have hammered Barack Obama about Louis Farrakhan's uninvited endorsement now ask John McCain to denounce and reject the support of John Hagee, which was actually sought and publicly accepted?" Neat article I felt was worth posting to this thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: PoppaGator Date: 13 Mar 08 - 01:39 PM I've been supporting Obama all along, and still (so far) view him as the best alternative, but I'm very disappointed and concerned about what we've recently learned about his pastor. I would have thought he was a smart enough politician to disassociate himself from such a divisive personality. Chicago is a big city; I'm sure there are many other parishes to which he could have redirected his allegiance, perhaps even within the UCC denomination, whose leadership would have better represented his true spiritual values ~ assuming (as we'd all like to believe) that Rev. Wright does not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: katlaughing Date: 13 Mar 08 - 01:40 PM McCain called Parsley a great "spiritual advisor." Scroll down and watch the video, esp. from about 2:05 on: Click Here. That's some advisor he's chosen. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dems: Can they snatch defeat from ... From: pdq Date: 13 Mar 08 - 02:40 PM McCain rejects anti-Catholic viewsBy 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.'" |
|
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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 03:43 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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 - 08:49 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 - 08:51 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 12:28 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: 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 |
