AP reported McCain's "conce[ssion]" that it probably was a "mistake" to seek Hagee's endorsement, but not his assertion that he's "glad to have" it
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: The AP reported that Sen. John McCain "conceded it was probably a mistake to seek and accept the endorsement of televangelist John Hagee" but did not report McCain's statement moments later that "I'm glad to have his [Hagee's] endorsement." Hagee has made controversial statements about Hurricane Katrina, women, homosexuality, the Catholic Church, and Islam.
An April 20 Associated Press article about Sen. John McCain's appearance on ABC's This Week reported that "McCain conceded it was probably a mistake to seek and accept the endorsement of televangelist John Hagee" but did not report McCain's statement moments later in the same interview that "I'm glad to have his [Hagee's] endorsement." Hagee has made controversial statements about Hurricane Katrina, women, homosexuality, the Catholic Church, and Islam.
In contrast to the AP, ABC's Political Radar blog reported:
Presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., admitted this morning that it was a mistake to accept the endorsement of Evangelical pastor Rev. John Hagee. When asked in an exclusive "This Week" interview with George Stephanopoulos if it was "a mistake to solicit and accept his endorsement", McCain replied "oh, probably, sure." Despite admitting his error, McCain made clear he's still "glad to have his endorsement."
McCain spoke out against Hagee's "condemning of the Catholic church," but added that "I admire and respect Dr. Hagee's leadership... I admire and appreciate his advocacy for the state of Israel, the independence of the state of Israel." McCain has previously admitted to soliciting Rev. Hagee's endorsement.
From the April 20 edition of ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos:
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS (host): Well, you say that he should condemn these comments. A lot of Senator Obama's allies and others say that you should condemn the comments of Reverend John Hagee, an evangelical pastor.
McCAIN: Oh I do. And I did. I said that those -- any comments that he made about the Catholic Church, I strongly condemn of course.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Yet you solicited and accepted his endorsement.
McCAIN: Yes, indeed, I did. And I condemned the comments that he made concerning the Catholic Church.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But you're going to hold on to his endorsement. Your own campaign acknowledges that you should have done a better job of vetting Pastor Hagee. So was it a mistake to solicit and accept his endorsement?
McCAIN: Oh, probably. Sure. But I admire and respect Dr. Hagee's leadership of the -- of his church. I admire and appreciate his advocacy for the state of Israel -- the independence and freedom of the state of Israel. I condemn remarks that are made that has anything to do which is condemning of the Catholic Church. But --
[crosstalk]
STEPHANOPOULOS: So you no longer want his endorsement?
McCAIN: I'm glad to have his endorsement. I condemn remarks that are in any way viewed as anti-anything. And thanks for asking.
From the April 20 AP article, "McCain: Cutting taxes more important than balanced budget," by Hope Yen:
McCain conceded it was probably a mistake to seek and accept the endorsement of televangelist John Hagee, who has referred to the Roman Catholic Church as "the great whore" and called it a "false cult system."
The Arizona senator said he had condemned Hagee's remarks about Catholics, and said it was different than the way Obama has responded to questions about his own relationship with William Ayers, a 1960s-era radical who in an interview published on Sept. 11, 2001, said he didn't regret bombing government buildings.
Go get 'em John!
[end sarcasm}
pop,
Perhaps you missed this part of the McCain quote found near the end?
McCain: I condemn remarks that are in any way viewed as anti-anything.
Prince,
Good point. I found the comment rather funny myself. However I think it was used in reference for any and all 'anti" statements by Hagee. Feel free to disagree.
I think you'll have a difficult time convincing anyone that McCain's comparison of Sen. Coburn "brings babies into life" comment to mean McCain thinks life begins at birth. McCain, to my knowledge, has consistently been pro-life.
No, he has not been consistent. As with many issues, he has tried to have it both ways on this one.
And while it suits him politically to be "pro-life" now, this remark might indicate what he really thinks.
It's a weasely cheat for McCain to say he opposes any anti this or anti that statements when Republican anti this and that filth is couched in the language of pro this and that.
pop,
It is not just the Republicans who try to get away from the "anti-" label. Do you know any Democrat contenders who's positions might be described as any of the following:
anti-war
anti-big-business
anti-rich
anti-military
anti-life
anti-religious
anti-gun
And yet, their policy positions could in some instances be characterized that way?
AA forgot a couple that the demoncrat condenmors are:
Anti-truth
Anti-good judgement
Nobody gives a f*** about anything a Republican like you has to say. You have no standing whatsoever to speak about judgment. Jerks who think like you conservative pinheads are what gave us Rumsfeld, Cheney, Gonzales and a war for torture and spoil.
Your supid trickle down economics have left us bankrupt. Your ignorant rush for privatization has left our infrastructure in shambles. Your hatred of science and reason have set back, for at least a generation, any progress toward a green, energy independent economy.
You people are punks.
Careful there, Roundhouse. You're setting yourself up for a tongue-lashing from one of the MMFA schoolmarms.
Remember, conservatives can post lies and debunked talking points, insult everybody's intelligence and waste their time with off topic regurgitations of Dittohead pablum.As long as they don't use the words "moron" or "idiot", and restrict their attacks to vague and indirect insults, they should be treated as royalty.
Otherwise, the crying starts. Oh, the crying.
I know they do that crap on purpose, just to get a rise out of lefties. But it's petty, it's passive aggressive. To hide behind that veneer of civility like they do is a cowardly way to live.
Just say what you feel phil. It's liberating.
Saying that, I recognize I've been seemingly pretty pissed lately and if that puts fellow libs off their lunches let me know about it. Is it effective to berate these thugs for the havoc their way of thinking has incurred or should I seek to find common ground?
As I stand today I just can't get with being cordial about or with conservatives anymore. They've screwed the pooch with their destructive worldview, yet they still have the nerve to sit in judgment of liberals. They're punks, straight up punks and they offer nothing worthy of commendation in my view.
Am I wrong? (cons need not reply, I ain't hearin' ya right now)
Case by case Round House. There are a few that I don't much care what they say, but will on the occasion try to get them thinking. Even the apparent professionals. Practice different approaches as you like, I don't have a problem with what you do. The form of the debate, if it exsists, is often just grounds for another, often deflecting, argument.
You do have to be careful of the seduction of righteous anger. You start finding excuses to get to that state.
Thinking and getting someone to think is the best way to open up a dialogue. But at the risk of calcifying my opinions, I'm more interested in persuasion than dialogue. If cons here would show they were operating in good faith, I'd invite dialogue. But they typically don't. They come here with veiled insults and barely masked enmity, so I'd rather demonstrate that cons like phil, stranger, pov, columbus etc. are insulting parasites on the body politic.
Cons learned long ago that persuasion is easier once the other side is deemed untrustworthy. The bad news is they lied about liberals to persuade honest folks, the good news is liberals don't need to lie about modern day cons. The evidence of their moral, social and economic failures as well as the deadliness of their policies are abundant.
I don't know what to tell you, Roundhouse... you got me on board. If a conservative wants to actually debate the facts... if they want to engage in a meaningful exchange of ideas and philosophies... it becomes something that is challenging, entertaining, and expands our knowledge and command of reason. But if they're here to sneeringly "expose all you liberals for the hypocrites that you are" and to dutifully dump lies, media cliches, and long debunked talking points that they've been given by Rush and Insanity etc, then I'm more than willing to step out into the alley with them. The left became far too willing to ignore these sort of intellectual assaults throughout the 80s and 90s, and it was to our (and the nation's) political detriment. We too often pretended that if we simply ignored these obnoxious buffoons, then they would simply go away... that it was beneath our dignity to respond to such ugly, aggressive behaviour.
The black shirts, naturally, perceived this as weakness, and joyfully went about the business of lying and distorting and jeering... and winning elections. They used their sizable financial resources to buy up the supposedly liberal media, creating a massive echo-chamber for their smears, deceits, and vein-popping perversions to transition on in to the mainstream. They proved that they thoroughly understood the lessons of Joseph Goebbels.
This is kind of the whole reason for the existence of Media Matters, isn't it? We're here to expose this sort of pernicious misinformation (or... often... DISINFORMATION), because democracy requires an educated, knowledgable citizenry in order to function. When the media chooses to advance the interests of the nation's power elite over those of the vast majority of its people, when it enthusiastically romanticizes the indiscriminate use of violence and intimidation as instruments of state, then our choice is one of accepting these manipulations or resisting them. Just as it was a fatal mistake for European liberals to passively accept the rise of fascism in the 30s, so it would be an equally fatal mistake for us to do so now. We've watched them take too many of our rights and our liberties over the last seven plus years. We can't afford to watch them take any more.
So, yeah, I'm with you when you want to get down in the cyber-trenches with some of the modern-day black shirts who hoot, and howl, and degrade us, and outright lie. They need to be confronted, and it is THEY who determine the nature of that confrontation. It can be a collegial exchange, or it can be a brawl... that's really up to them and the level of respect that they choose to show us.
I think you understand what ewestone was talking about; we need to heed his cautions about the seduction of righteous anger. Other than that, if these wingers want to couch their so called invocations of civil discourse in deleterious rightwing frames I see no reason to meet them in the middle.
I try to have normal conversations with you people, but you don't care to have them. If you want to whine about crying, then look in the mirror. You whine as good as solon and this guy roundhouse. I've had discussion with each of you and none of you can hold your own without resorting to namecalling. You call me cowardly, but I don't see a one of you who will converse without your "petty, passive aggressiveness". I really don't give two hoots what ANY of you think of me, I state my side of an arguement and you people attack the person and ignore the subject. Maybe you don't like it when you are shown to be wrong and hypocritical (mainly hypocritical)...to bad, go cry a river somewhere. When any of you grow enough balls to argue with a conservative without resorting to childish behavior I'll respect your ideals. I'm not going to be holding my breath.
The funny thing is you whine about me posting lies and debunked talking points. Put your money where your mouth is... when have I done either? Here, I'll give you some help, since you don't like doing any of the work yourself:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200803270010?f=h_latest + http://mediamatters.org/items/200803310013#comments + http://mediamatters.org/items/200803210009#comments + http://mediamatters.org/items/200804040008#comments + http://mediamatters.org/items/200803180009#comments + http://mediamatters.org/items/200803180009#comments
Still not happy with me doing your work for you? Do you want me to read them also? Ok, I'll find some more examples of me stating my case and recieving whiney, crybaby replies with no substance.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200804090011#comments + http://clips.mediamatters.org/items/200801250016?show=1 + http://mediamatters.org/items/200804180008#comments
Still not enough? Keep reading, I got more. Any time I speak with you people all I get are whiney, crybaby replies. Do you people do anything other than that? I would ask for some examples, but you've told me you don't like to do your own work. That you prefer others do it for you. Typical liberal.
In your very first post on your first link you jump in with that stupid guilt by association attack line and call edenscape a hypocritical arse.
Screw you. You're flippin' stupid if you call what you do debate.
Faker.
You wanna claim an intellectual pretext for posting here at just about the time we start laying into your bs with some righteous anger. You're a fraud.
You're here to demonize the spirit of liberalism, plain and simple. You suffer from the same lust for dominance that so many of your fellow Republicans desire. When they're not throwing stones, they're using every extent of their considerable influence to squelch untidy outburts of dissenting citizens. It's no suprise though, the 20%ers will stop at nothing to maintain control of a culture that is progresively passing them by. Remember how they tried to shut down Spocko when he dared exercise his right as a citizen to voice his opinion?
You're a punk, phil but if you ever come to the table with something other than veiled insults and delusional misrepresentations, I'll be here to welcome you. There will be no time for recriminations in that moment.
"In your very first post on your first link you jump in with that stupid guilt by association attack line and call edenscape a hypocritical arse."
And rightly so. He was being just that. But, I didn't see "arse" being used. In fact I didn't see any name calling, other than hypocrit (well earned).
"You're flippin' stupid if you call what you do debate."
I give honest opinionated responses, unlike your name-calling laden hate-mongering statements with no real counter to anything being said other than hatred.
"You wanna claim an intellectual pretext for posting here at just about the time we start laying into your bs with some righteous anger. You're a fraud."
Righteous? Because you don't agree with me, then I'm automatically wrong? Oh yeah...that's really "righteous". Why don't you try explaining your case instead of whining about a dissenting voice being in 'your' liberal site?
"You're here to demonize the spirit of liberalism, plain and simple..... When they're not throwing stones, they're using every extent of their considerable influence to squelch untidy outburts of dissenting citizens."
And, what do you call what you're doing? Allowing dissenting voices?? I don't think so.
"if you ever come to the table with something other than veiled insults and delusional misrepresentations, I'll be here to welcome you."
Hasn't happened yet, why would I expect it to happen in the future? I certainly have NO problem calling liberals hypocrits. How is that "veiled"? I'll flat out say what I want to say. No different than you. Wow! Talk about hypocritical. You say what you want about conservatives but when faced with the same against liberals you whine like a little girl claiming "NO FAIR"! Get over yourself and except the fact that I'm talking to you on an equal playing field just like the rest of you. When you stop whining about having a dissenting voice present I'll stop calling you a hypocrit.
Dude, you're weak and blind.
"Let me ask your hypocritical ars a question: would you let any 20-year member of the church Benny Hinn pastors (and good friend of Benny Hinn) run for president without asking the same question I am asking??"
- philib / Saturday March 29, 2008 8:56:05 AM EDT
- Reply to this comment / Flag this comment
And it's not just because I disagree with you that you're automatically wrong, it's because the people you think in harmony with have failed us with your ideas on foreign policy and economics. Don't even try to tell me it's all rosy out here. People can barely afford gas to get to work or buy milk let alone make payments on a luxury item like a healthcare plan. Nevermind, that conservatives want to nickel and dime citizens by putting a price tag on a person's health. Yeah, privatize. Privatize because the industry will meet your needs at just a few cents more, you can afford a few cents more. Privatize for the profit of a handful of CEOs and share holders the one cultural indicator of a society's committment to humanitarianism; equal access to quality healthcare. You want to make education a commodity too, it's always profit first instead of well-being with you guys.
See, you guys think people wind up poor through poor choices or a lack of knowledge and ability to succeed in your market fundamentalist economy, an economy by the way that devalues labor by considering it a cost to be reduced instead of an investment to be nurtured. But alas people are poor because they can't make enough money from their labor to invest in things like education and healthcare that empower them to prosper. So here you cons come along and tell us that if you could just keep more of the money you pay in taxes, you'll have that ability to buy yourself a nice secure slice of the American dream. See the American dream of true prosperity for you cons is something to be purchased instead of a commonwealth to be shared through mutual responsibility.
The punishmnent of poverty, the lack of influence, is justified to you guys in the unconscious logic of conservatism that states, "if you're poor it's because you are undisciplined, if you are undisciplined you cannot be moral, therefore you deserve your poverty."
I mean I don't know who you conservatives think you are but you certainly are not who you say you are. You say you are guided by your family values and ethic of personal responsibility and then you let the poor citizens of New Orleans drown and blamed everyone else for your inaction. Do you treat your family like that? Let 'em drown? You didn't treat Terry Schiavoe's family like that, you were all up in their business because you just cared so much.
Sick.
"arse" and "ars" are spelled differently, with two totally seperate and different meanings. That's the best you can do? lol
"And it's not just because I disagree with you that you're automatically wrong, it's because the people you think in harmony with have failed us with your ideas on foreign policy and economics. Don't even try to tell me it's all rosy out here. People can barely afford gas to get to work or buy milk let alone make payments on a luxury item like a healthcare plan."
You mean "in harmony" with those of your ilk who want to get us into ANOTHER war is better and more deserving of "automatically" being right? You'll make "payments" on healthcare through your idea too. It's just the payment will go directly to your leaders pockets. So, saving a few cents from going into conservative pockets is worse than allowing more cents to go into liberal pockets. Of course I understand you being upset about that. You're greedy.
"You want to make education a commodity too, it's always profit first instead of well-being with you guys."
When did learning how to put a rubber on a cucumber become educational for a elementary child? You aren't worried about who gets a quality education, you just worry about your liberal agenda being furthered at the expense of human lives.
"See, you guys think people wind up poor through poor choices or a lack of knowledge and ability to succeed in your market fundamentalist economy"
You guys think everyone being in 'government hand-out lines' means you're rich. You think the government should be in control of every aspect/decision of a family's choices. You want to tell them what religion to learn, what knowledge to learn, what job to have, what car to drive, what food to eat, what clothes to wear, ect... Perhaps the 'free market system' is too complicated for some to succeed in (I'm sorry you can't figure out how to do it). But, it is certainly better than having the government tell me what to do/where to go/when to go there. I think I don't live in Russia/Cuba for a reason (BTW, just how good are those health care facilities in those countries? Would you choose to go there or stay here to have open heart surgery?)
"See the American dream of true prosperity for you cons is something to be purchased instead of a commonwealth to be shared through mutual responsibility."
Right, I don't want to live in a communist state. If you do, then you should think about moving to one. I don't mind a little personal responsibility. Do you?
"the unconscious logic of conservatism that states, "if you're poor it's because you are undisciplined, if you are undisciplined you cannot be moral, therefore you deserve your poverty." "
That's your opinion and has never been anywhere near mine. If you've developed a distorted sense of reality, don't blame everyone else for your problems. Wait, that IS the liberal logic isn't it? To blame everyone else for your own failures?
"You say you are guided by your family values and ethic of personal responsibility and then you let the poor citizens of New Orleans drown and blamed everyone else for your inaction. You didn't treat Terry Schiavoe's family like that, you were all up in their business because you just cared so much."
Hypocrit! Conservatives are the most giving people of any. Maybe when you tell me that liberals were the ONLY ones over there helping "the poor citizens of N.O." you'll have a point. Otherwise, just another typical liberal attempt to create sympathy through disaster.
And, Shaivo? Wow, you must believe in "no personal responsibility". If I remember correctly, didn't Michael share a home with another woman who fathered his children after the "accident"? Didn't her parents agree to accept responsiblity of the care for their daughter so Michael could move on with his life? Didn't Michael say "NO, I've already moved on and want to kill her, so you can't take care of her"? So, your liberal morals think it's ok to lie/cheat/steal as long as you leave no witnesses? Darn, that must be what the conservatives do wrong, we leave witnesses.
You sound more and more like Rush Limbaugh and the other ilk that hate and despise McCain. I am sure they love to have you on their team.
Ann Coulter is another McCain hater. You are in great company.
Correction:
Coulter is simply a hater. The object of her ire is of no consequence. She lives to hate in its purest form.
wz,
I must have missed the vote where you were elected to speak for everyone.
:-)
AA , you are not allowed to have a different view, you are wrong, stupid, dumb, we "hate" you.
That is usually how the mafia on here go after different views and opinions.
"the mafia"
That's cute. Did you get that from Rush?
Why are you here?
No I got the Mafia from watching the Godfather on A&E last weekend.
I am here to discuss media current issues, just like the rest of us.
"That is usually how the mafia on here go after different views and opinions"
And this advances the discussion of the MEDIA - how?
Hey AA, why don't you go down your list and tell us which persons are representative of those things. I will expect a person's name attached to every item.
What are you yacking about now?
Julia,
My "anti-" note was in reply to the one above where someone (I am too lazy to go back and look,) argued the Republicans are being deceptive when they state their "anti-positions" in a positive way. My reply was tongue-in-cheek. I simply listed off the top of my head some positions, typically held by liberal Democrats and cast them as being "anti-..." in order to make the point that that Democrats also try to avoid their positions as being "anti-".
Hope that helps.
It doesn't help. You obviously had someone in mind when you said Democrat (sic) contenders. Now ante up with the names.
So, is AA reply to me just now a lie, a weasel, a lisel or the truth? Colonel Sanders is standing by with a delicious basket for the winner.
I simply listed off the top of my head some positions, typically held by liberal Democrats and cast them as being "anti-..." in order to make the point that that Democrats also try to avoid their positions as being "anti-". AA
Which typical liberal Democrat is holding the anti-rich, anti military, or any of the other positions on your list? No tongue necessary.
Julia,
I fail to see your point. Obviously you know who are the Democratic contenders.
Just take the 'anti-' positions I listed and state them in a positive fashion For the Democratic candidate of your choice. example, something like "anti-life" could be stated as "pro-choice" and assign it to either Obama or Clinton. I do not care.
So I call is a Leisel. Between a weasel and a lie. "High on a hill stood a lonely goatherd..."
But this is too anti. Pro life is a weasel. You basically think that abortions will automatically disappear if you make them illegal? Didn't work pre-Roe v. Wade.
Pro life means you oppose the death penalty as well as all wars of choice, right?
I'd have to call it a lie, followed by a weasel to avoid backing up the lie, so you may be right with leasel.or liesel (sp)
"I fail to see the point", on the other hand, can usually be taken as gospel coming from AA.
You guys slay me.
If you don't like the reference I made, that is okay with me.
anti-rich - Don't both candidates say they'll repeal tax cuts for the rich?
anti-military - Perhaps Hillary's "suspension of disbelief" comment basically calling the commander of our Iraqi forces Gen. Petraeus a liar can be construed as anti-military.
Obama says he will end the War in Iraq, cut defense spending on weapons, and basically work to gut the military.
Julia, I don't agree with your 'perpeptual war' statement so do you want to back that up? Huh? Are you weasling? Lying?
Honestly, some of you seem so invested in your ideology that you take every difference of opinion as an excuse to characterize it as lying or weaseling or make derogatory comments about the person with whom you disagree.
Why not just discuss and leave the childish comments to the Col? :-)
anti-rich - Don't both candidates say they'll repeal tax cuts for the rich? And this is "anti-rich?!" Aren't they Americans too? Some of them actually care about this country and are concerned about the neo-con "borrow and squander" tax policy. You do realize that the Bush administration is spending money it doesn't have & they don't even put spending for Iraq in the annual budget.
anti-military - Perhaps Hillary's "suspension of disbelief" comment basically calling the commander of our Iraqi forces Gen. Petraeus a liar can be construed as anti-military. No it isn't. Not voting for veteran's benefits can be construed as anti-military. Criticising a general who isn't able to speak freely isn't at all anti-military.
Obama says he will end the War in Iraq, cut defense spending on weapons, and basically work to gut the military. Again, cutting spending on weapons that the military doesn't want or need and that are obsolete before they are even built is not "gutting the military." This is ridiculous. Who has been gutting the military for the past eight years? Not Obama.
As for the Colonel, if you don't like his humor that's up to you. But he often makes very relevant and to the point remarks which you usually ignore.
Oh, super, another crybaby post from AA. Can you post that bible verse about leaving childish things behind again? It was pretty funny coming from somebody with about the most childlike world view I've ever seen in an adult.
Yes, AA, the only reason people here call you an idiot on a regular basis is because they disagree with you. Really, that's what happens. It has nothing to do with your lying, plagiarizing, backpedaling,insults and utter cluelessness. Nothing to do with your needing things explained over and over, or your army of feeble strawmen. It's just all those other people who don't understand you. They're the idiots. That's it.
Doofus.
AA culls his "knowledge" from suspect and very partisan sources and wonders why we think he lies. I've said it before to no avail, I expect better from a person calling themselves a Christian. I expect better from someone not calling themselves a Christian too. I guess a nerve was hit when you were challenged to back up your specious suppositions. It has nothing to do with disagreeing with a thoughtful opinion. A lying opinion, borne of lying eyes and ears, is what I loathe. If you don't want some deserved abuse, don't abuse the truth. Expect to be called out and take it like a man.
There are a couple of them here, Juliajayne. Completely flabbergasted when their BS is questioned, but never able to support it. Easier to make up a story about everybody else hating different opinions.
Most posters here are pretty polite, and even give the biggest pinheads a lot of slack, but my patience wears thin with the dishonest and delusional types who insist they want to discuss issues, but go into a tantrum when they're pressured to actually discuss rather than spew.
Need a list with names? Here, I'll help you out. But, I'm sure you already knew this. You want 'reasons' each was placed where they were placed? Check out there web sites and do some homework. I realize liberals want everything done FOR them, but this time you'll have to do your own work.
anti-war; Obama, Clinton
anti-big-business; Clinton, Obama
anti-rich; Clinton, Obama
anti-military; Obama, Clinton
anti-life; Clinton, Obama
anti-religious; Obama, Clinton
anti-gun; Clinton, Obama
anti-truth; Clinton, Clinton
anti-good-judgement; Obama
So it's other peoples' jobs to research your hallucinations? You're a lazy idiot, Philib. Why do you expect other people to back up your name-calling?
*BTW, notice that I called you an idiot, but that opinion is supported by your post.
"So it's other peoples' jobs to research your hallucinations? You're a lazy idiot,"
I don't have to resort to childish name calling when I have nothing constructive to say. And I'm not the one who can't hold a conversation without childish namecalling.
Liar--Philib
Fool--Philib
Moron--Philib
Notice I did the exact same thing you did Philly. Just pulled insulting idiocy out of my ass and attributed it baselessly to someone. You are an idiot though that is clear.
Funny you would mention that list AA,
anti-war-I would hope that every candidate sees war as a last resort and is therefore, anti-war. McCain promises that there will be more wars. I don't see that as a tacit admission that he is a war monger, but he is unapologetic.
anti-big-business-Just because McCain wants to lower corporate taxes doesn't mean that the other two are anti.
anti-rich-Again, putting taxes where they were doesn't make anyone "anti-rich."
anti-military-McCain has said he is not on board with the new GI Bill (he said he will come up with a new proposal, but has not yet). He has also spoken out against more rest for the troops between tours. He missed 10/14 Iraq votes last year and vetoed almost every chance he's had. I understand some have had some pork, but McCain being the well-connected lobbyist man himself should either come up with new bills or figure out another way.
anti-life-Depends on when you think life begins. McCain was, in your definition, "anti-life" in 2000, and he is in my definition anti-life now by continuing this Iraq policy.
anti-religious-He is happy to have the support of an anti-Catholic bigot, yet renounces those sentiments. How does that work exactly? Has he renounced Parsley?
anti-gun-This one has always been curious to me. I have to have a license to drive a car in this country, but not to own a gun? Hmmmmmm.
people without a driver's license are not restricted from buying a car. people drive without licenses or insurance. cars are a bigger cause of death than guns. most homicides are a result of criminal activity, these are people that wouldn't get your precious gun license. people with dui's drive anyway. my point: criminals don't care about your well-being or your restrictive laws.
btw, everyone is pro-choice and pro-life in there own way. these are misnomers. i, personally don't hide my 'anti's' with a pro... i am anti-crime, anti-40% of my paycheck taken for taxes, anti-government telling me what is good for me, (i.e. anti-smoking laws and anti-gun laws) anti-flag burning, anti-emo/techno/disco crap, i am also anti-war, except in the case that another country or entity want to destroy my freedom... in which case i'm, most certainly, anti-evil.
McCain: I condemn remarks that are in any way viewed as anti-anything
AA, you were happy to apply a "guilt by association" to Obama for his relationship with Rev. Wright but somehow McCain seeking Pastor Hagee's endorsement should be excused since McCain said he condemned his remarks?
Hagee's anti gay remarks must be acceptable to the McCain campaign since they appear afraid to repudiate them, his anti-Catholic remarks once condemned by McCain, now wants to give Hagee to benefit of the doubt?. Oh and one must add Rod Parsley, a man who McCain has called a "spiritual guide," a man who has also called Islam a "false religion" and has advocated war against it and various other bad things. Why is it acceptable for so called "religious adviser's" of McCain to spout hate? Why does Obama get the "guilt by association" tag but McCain gets a free pass?
Sorry but it sounds like you're practicing HYPOCRISY.
Pearlene,
Good questions. See my reply to Deezelnuts below.
AA, that's bullsh*t and you know it.
You accuse Deeznuts of racism but trot out that handy excuse that a "campaign staffer" didn't vet out Hagee as a reason McCain was not aware of Hagee's comments? Some how this "campaign staffer" is the reason McCain said this yesterday?
Stephanopoulos: So was it a mistake to solicit and accept [Hagee's] endorsement?
McCain: Oh, probably, sure.
... followed a few seconds later by this.
Stephanopoulos: So you no longer want his endorsement?
McCain: I'm glad to have his endorsement.
Added to that McCain, with Parsley by his side at the Cincinnati rally, called the evangelical minister a "spiritual guide."
Now let's look at Parsley: 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 of course 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.
So Muslim Americans, American members of Plan Parenthood, American Gay and Lesbian's should feel more comfortable with McCain as their President? Somehow the things that Hagee and Parsley say are soooo different than Rev. Wright becuase they only want to destroy the "bad things" like homosexuality or adultery or Islam? GET REAL!
McCain went out and SOUGHT the endorsement of these nutty white evangelicals and YOU think that's different. AGAIN HYPOCRISY
I'm glad to have his endorsement. I condemn remarks that are in any way viewed as anti-anything.
What's funny is that this is almost verbatim Obama's response to endorsements by Farrakhan and Wright.
Why wasn't it good enough then?
Oh, right. Because Obama, Farrakhan and Wright are black...
Deez,
It looks like you are being racist to come up with that conclusion.
I think the difference, in case you haven't heard, is that fact that Obama has a 20 year relationship with his own pastor, and consulted him before running plus had him as his consultant as opposed to McCain's passing relationship for the purposes of an endorsement with Hagee.
Lets stipulate that we all believe the comments from both pastors are equally objectionable. Obama's wants us to believe he didn't know of Wright's positions after being a member of Wright's congregation for 16 years. I think it strains credulity to believe Obama was ignorant of Wright's positions.
Now, do you suppose McCain sought out Hagee's endorsement because he knew of Hagee's feelings toward the Catholic Church? Does that make sense McCain would be so tone deaf politically to antagonize 50 million Catholics in order to get the endorsement of a preacher with maybe 25,000 constituents? Or would it make more sense that McCain's staffers had not fully vetted Hagee when seeking his endorsement? I think it strains credulity to think McCain would seek the endorsement of Hagee had he known Hagee's anti-Catholic rants.
Therein lies the difference. One has to willfully ignore the obvious to believe Obama did not know about Wright's positions just the same as one has to ignore the obvious to believe McCain did know of Hagee's positions.
So Hagee is this unknown guy that McCain and his staffers knew nothing about, yet they wanted his endorsement.
Very Interesting!
Skeptic,
Why is it everyone is trying to twist my words. If you recall, I said Hagee wasn't vetted by McCain staffers, not that he was unknown.. *sheesh*.
ps. Col. You're reminding me again of that little dog in the cartoon that followed the big dog named Butch around pretending that he was also important saying, "Can we do it again Butch? Can we? Can we? Huh Can we?" :-)
I've never seen anyone who writes more posts with nothing more to say other than to make derogatory comments in an indirect way so you don't have to address the person whom wrote those comments. I appreciate the fact that you are obsessed with me and feel the need to write what really is nothing after most of my posts. Instead you simply rely on childish attempts at putdowns why not try discussing the issues and leave the insults back on the playground?
Yikes, "Big Dog" (I'm assuming that was you as the "important" one in your little cartoon fantasy), you're going a little beyond your usual harmless clown territory into downtown creepyville here. You may want to go take a nap.
Seriously, if you get this upset at having your BS exposed, blaming everybody else is not going to help you. Get it together, sport. I'm not the only person you've accused of these things. Do you really not ever consider that it's your own inability to understand things, and not that everybody else doesn't make any sense?.
Your poor little victim act is really getting boring..
If you recall, I said Hagee wasn't vetted by McCain staffers, not that he was unknown.. *sheesh*.
So...what you're saying is...
...if a candidate doesn't "vet" an endorsement beforehand, he's...not responsible for the views of the endorser.
Then let us hear no more about Wright and Farrakhan!
No, no. Of course that's not what you're saying. That would totally destroy your argument, right?
Nope...
No wait...that is what you're saying. It's no different, really, from the dozens of other spun version of the McCain/Hagee connection we've been hearing from the wingnuts for weeks. Get some new material. This one's been through the wash so many times it's starting to fade.
This must be repeated. Rev. Wright & his church is a dynamic force in the community with many outreach programs. Taking several of his sermons over a lifetime of community activism diminishes his work for the community he served. He is a former marine. He lived through many years of horrible discrimination.
I wonder if you or I could have overcome the way he did, and whether you or I might still carry some anger at the past (and the subtle racism that still goes on.)
Mary
Fair is Fair. I said before that Wright was a disgrace and a symbol of racism and division. He is. He may have done all the great things you say, but in the end the man is a bigot who has lined his own pockets. It is always fair to use ones words against them
Hagee said terrible things as well. He deserves all the criticism he gets, as does McCain for seeking or accepting the mans endorsement. Hagee and Wright both abused their positions and both deserve what they get.
amen! 'they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of livin'. when your runnin' down my country, hoss, you're walkin' on the fightin' side of me' - merle haggard.
if planes would have hit his chicken coop he might chirp another song.
Have you listened to Merle lately?
newzhound
it is sad that your definition of truth is so skewed, to the point that you dont even find some of his comments to be objectionable let alone out right lies.
He can't go to the recruitment office until he finds his flag lapel pin he lost out the window of his big SUV while screaming a Lee Greenwood song.
Somehow, I don't think he'll ever find it.
I think the difference, in case you haven't heard, is that fact that Obama has a 20 year relationship with his own pastor, and [blah blah blah]
Wonk-wonk-wonk!
And if Obama had thrown his pastor of 20 years under the bus you'd be all over his ^ss for it, probably call him "another anti-christian Dem" or something equally absurd. I don't believe for a second that there is any way Obama could have done right in your view, so save the lame comparisons and semantics. You hate Obama first, and attempt to justify it second.
And, for the record...I didn't find anything particularly objectionable with any of what Wright said. And woe to anyone who says I hate America.
How is it possible that Obama could not have done the right thing no matter what he did....if...as you say...Wright did not say anything objectionable? The left wing talking points get hard to follow after a certain point dont they!!
And I am still wating for an explanation about how Wright said the gove created aids to kill black people is not objectionable.
For the record, I was mocking your interpretation of the events. Wright did nothing wrong. Nothing.
Obama, on the other hand, in your view, has done everything wrong. And no mountain of facts is gonna get in the way of your smears.
For example, there's absolutely no evidence of Wright saying anything about "the government invented AIDS and used it on the black community."
I checked.
Frankly, I'm ashamed at myself for not looking it up sooner. But, lo, Wright never actually said that.
Never.
Not once.
N-E-V-E-R
In fact, there's not a single reputable primary source for that quote. Not one.
I urge everyone to look it up. On their own. I simply googled "Wright AIDS" as a starting point and went from there. The more I dug, the more wingnutty the articles became. It was a big Internet echo chamber, with everyone linking to each other but NEVER to an original source for the comment.
Funny how that works.
Damn liberal media...
Nice try.
I saw that clip. He doesn't say what people claim he says.
Deeznuts wrote: I don't believe for a second that there is any way Obama could have done right in your view. (bold added)
POV wrote : duhhhhhh.......
Keep talking Senator. We want to get to REALLY know you.
Now that your have said the above on National TV and confirmed what you meant, I hope that the McBushies don't start crying when these words are used in the upcoming election. Senator, you are a walking, talking example of the Republan party. Lie, cheat, falsify and flip-flop to win at all costs.
W.A.R.,,,WE ARE REPUBLICANS...W.A.R....WE ARE REPUBLICANS
Well, this should put the whole issue behind him. Gramps has clearly said that he approves of Hagee, but does not agree with his more controversial remarks. What more would our media ask of a candidate? That he denounce or reject the man? That he address every individual remark one by one, and repeatedly? Don't be ridiculous,that would be insane.
And I'm giving away a free 6 piece extra crispy basket to the first wingnut who posts the arbitrary list of requirements for this to be important. You know, the one that coincidentally describes Obama/Wright, but not McCain/Hagee.
Col.
1. Why is this here...where is the miss-info
2. Ummm Liberal media....McCain missunderstood
3. He um apologized to anyone offended by anything at any time or place
4. Come on Col....I am just hungry...it is lunch time and I could really use that free chicken. I am doing the best I can here on an empty stomache
No, not that list, POV. I'll give you some key words and phrases; "20 years", "baptized his kids","officiated his wedding",and the unspoken one "is not a Republican".
And besides, I wasn't offeriing any chicken, just a basket. As soon as I eat the chicken, and tear the basket into 6 pieces I'll send it to you.
Col
Thats just cruel. Teasing a man with the implication of chicken, and then dashing my hopes.
D.A.M.N. WE ARE DEMOCRATS... D.A.M.N. WE ARE DEMOCRATS...
(D. Democrats A. Against M. McCain N. Naturally) :-)
Hahaha... Here's how you can get one.
Get a t-shirt
Get a marker
... :-)
Another idea for a shirt:
MSM:
Media
Supporting
McCain
I was so disappointed initially when I saw Obama taking hits because of his affiliations and endorsers, but I realized there really is three separate standards for which the candidates are judged. McCain is not as liked by his own party because he isn't "staunch" enough, so he's judged on his "staunchness," Hillary is a woman so she's judged by how macho she is or isn't and Barack is just black, so he's judged by whatever the hell people want to judge him on.
This really is silly when you look at the condition this country is in. The dollar is going down faster than Paris Hilton at a Beverly Hills party, our real estate market is basically owned by China, illegal immigration is rampant and we're discussing who our next leader knows or has shaken hands with. I will say this until the election folks - 4,000 plus U.S. lives lost how many more innocent Iraqi lives wasted and what has been the benefit? Democracy in the Middle East?!?
but let's have one thing understood -
whatever it is, I'm against it!
And even when you've changed it or condensed it,
I'm against it!'
- "I'm Against It" Words & Music by Bert Kalmar & Harry Ruby
- Sung by Julius (Groucho) Marx in "Horse Feathers"
I still don't like the elderly.
But I do know that it's wrong and I'm no longer going to make hateful ageist statements. Unless it's absolutlely necessary.
That doesn't mean I like it, or them.
You know what, I'm going back to calling McCain "Gram...."
No, No, I'm going to be good.
(I'd better call my Hateful Ageists Anonymous sponsor.)
Colonel, Colonel, I need help!
I still don't like the elderly.
LOL King, I can't stand some of those old farts either. :-)
I kills me the way McCain answers these questions. The sub-text is "I can say anything I want about this because you and the rest of the main-stream media will not push it. I condemn his remarks but I need to suck up to the fanatical right and I'll get a free pass on this."
Amen. If you're gonna scrutinize Obama for his affiliations and hold him to higher esteem in his associations shouldn't the same be done for all the candidates?
There's a different measuring stick. Accept it. It'll make this election season more tolerable.
Hmmm, so it's still all about associations, with a "televangelist" no less?
You know, this would make perfect sense, and be of the utmost importance, if what America was suffering from was arthrirtis in the hands or other joints, or suffering from a difficulty in walking (that both requires and is evidenced by, a cane or crutches, or a wheelchair, to get you up onstage), or even if what America was suffering from was deafness in one or both ears (where the afflicted go onstage to be HEALED...)
I used to watch the Rev. Ernest Angley HEAL those totally or partially deaf Believers: he used to place both his HEALING hands on each side of the Believer's head, placed over the ears, and the Rev. would close his eyes tightly, and speak to the Demon that was causing the deafness... and it was compelling, hypnotic even... and at the height of addressing the deafness-causing Demon, Ernest would suddenly, almost violently, jerk his hands away from the head/ears of the Believer, and scream out loudly "Demon be GONE! Brother, be HEALED!"
And Ernest would then snap his fingers at either side of the head of the now hopefully HEALED Believer, to see if they could hear the SNAP! And the Believer, often with tears in their eyes, would nod their stunned and startled head that yes, I can now hear...
"I AM HEALED!" they'd say aloud, to the amazed and mesmerized audience in the auditorium, many of whom now also had tears in their eyes, at the spectacle of HEALING, and at an apparent Miracle of Faith.
I loved it, and still do.
Anyway, so that's where we are now, in a presidential campaign: we're stuck on "televangelists".
America must be terribly lame I guess... deaf or dumb or gimpy in the knees or maybe arthritic in the hands.
Now more than ever, we need a "televangelist", a Faith HEALER... we need the Rev. Ernest Angley, now more than ever I guess.
Great, another person who saw and was fascinated by Ernest Angley. He had quite a show. He made the present televangelists look normal. Stocky broad shoulders, eyes bugging out, very weird grin and giggle, and those "healings." Healed a lot of deaf people right there on the tee vee. Always covered their eyes and asked them to repeat what he was saying to prove their deafness had been healed. "Say Baaae-bee!"
And then the money pitch. We almost tossed him a couple of bucks because he was so entertaining. And he never that I saw railed against the Catholic church or gays (maybe he did, don't know)
He's still on my teevee. In fact, he owns his own station supported through his Cathedral Buffet restaurant.
Only $7.99 for lunch - healings are x-tra.
What a long career with all those whacks on the forehead! Found on the google an onion-type piece about him:
http://carbolicsmokeblog.blogspot.com/2006/07/ernest-angley-heals-mans-concussion.html
I fully agree that Magee is a bigot and in not throwing him under the bus, McCain is as wrong as Obama not to throw his lunatic bigot preacher under the bus.
One distinction. Obama CHOSE Wright as his pastor. He sat there for 20 and listened to Wright's racist crap. He exposed his daughters to that hateful invective. It is no wonder why his wife hates America.
McCain did not choose Hagee as his preacher - he merely accepted his endorsement (and was wrong to do so).
His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI: "God Bless America!"
Rev. Wright: "No, no, no, God Damn America the US of KKKA"
Says it all, doesn't it?
You know... the NEW RACISM... the one that only black people (and white liberals) are guilty of.
What' the matter with you? I shouldn't have to explain this to you. Don't you listen to Rush? ;o)
Also, Obama chose his church not his pastor.
McCain sought Hagee's endorsement, he didn't just accept it.
And, you have no clue!
No, it says nothing.
And you do realize that when the pope says "God Bless America" he means it literally, and he says about other nations too, he doesn't use it as a catchphrase to minimize criticism the way empty-headed false patriots do.
His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI: "God Bless America!"
Rev. Wright: "No, no, no, God Damn America the US of KKKA"
Says it all, doesn't it?
How about Deutschland Uber Alles? Does that have the feel-good qualities that stir your heart?
Obama CHOSE Wright as his pastor
LOL
McCain CHOOSE BOTH Hagee and Parsley, heck McCain called evangelical minister Parsley a "spiritual guide."
The Holy Father obviously has a greater understanding of American history than 99% of the people posting here. America liberated his country from a hateful ideology. America rebuilt his country. America protected his country from another hateful Godless ideology (Communism). He is grateful.
He understands that our greatness is rooted in our freedom - especially freedom to worship. Our greatness does not emenate from the government. Liberals see America as a hateful negative country. The Holy Father recognizes our inherent optimism. Because he understands US history he sees us as a uniquely special country.
That is why he says God Bless America! He loves the US more than Wright and Obama.
No, the "left" applies the same standards. That's why you see "the left" thinking it was right for Obama to distance himself from Farrakhans endorsement, and why "the left" is wondering how McCain can get away with NOT distancing himself from Hagees endorsement.
Anything else you want explained?
Well, you just blew that whole post by calling McCain "the straight talker". Does that mean his words don't zig zag and they come out in a straight line? I have to take that literally since he's changed his positions so much these last few years.
The whole point of the MMFA was to highlight the very fact that there is a double standard. One for Democrats and another for Republicans. Obama bad, McCain okay, for the same infraction. Get it.
McCain only feels Hagee's support was a mistake because he then will not have to answer to the "religious right." If he thought they would vote for him he and Hagee would be best buddies.
BTW I agree with Hagee's views on the Catholic Church.
"McCain only feels Hagee's support was a mistake because he then will not have to answer to the "religious right." If he thought they would vote for him he and Hagee would be best buddies.
BTW I agree with Hagee's views on the Catholic Church."
Great job, you have exposed yourself to be a bigot. If you made a similar statement about an anti-Semite you would probably be banned by this site. What aspect of Catholicism offends you? The call for peace? The call for justice? The command to love one another?
You hate Catholics. Who else do you hate? Blacks? Jews? Hispanics?