The McCain Thread

[Malice]

I find it funny, that Lieberman who was a Democrat, who is now "Independent" is publically backing McCain a Republican.

Man that pissed off a few Democrats.

[Matt]

In all honesty, it makes sense. The Democrats back doored him. He may not have ever been a real Democrat, but he was in their party and held a senate seat and they tried to oust him. That being said, I am suprised he didn't back Clinton. I know Liberman is big on media censorship and so is Hillary (one of the reasons I won't vote for her)

[rdh007]

Lieberman is teh suxxors!!1!

(Did I say that right?)

[Excel]

Speaking of someone wanting to stay relevant...

[Malice]

Lieberman is teh suxxors!!1!

(Did I say that right?)

Um, I hate AOL...

[Matt]

Speaking of someone wanting to stay relevant...

I know...Malice entirely ripped off my endorsement thread. He just can't handle that I am the rockstar moderator in these parts :o :cwink: :woot:

[The Senator]

I am not a fan of Joe Lieberman. I wouldn't be surprised if he joins the Republican Party following the election.

[Malice]

I know...Malice entirely ripped off my endorsement thread. He just can't handle that I am the rockstar moderator in these parts :o :cwink: :woot:

*snickers*
Darn you Matt and your little dog too!

[Matt]

I am not a fan of Joe Lieberman. I wouldn't be surprised if he joins the Republican Party following the election.

Y'know, if McCain wins the nomination, it honestly wouldn't suprise me to see him offer Lieberman the VP spot.

[Matt]

*snickers*
Darn you Matt and your little dog too!

Don't talk about Immortalfire that way! :cmad: :cwink:

[Raiden]

I am not a fan of Joe Lieberman. I wouldn't be surprised if he joins the Republican Party following the election.

I think he stays with the Democratic party because he has the seniority within the party's rank & file, whereas in GOP he'd considered to be a newcomer. However, Lieberman has disappointed me because the Dems did pick him as a VP nominee back in 2000, and he has sided alot with the GOP in the Congress (esp. his support for the Iraq war). It's no wonder his party was angry at him.

[Malice]

I love it honestly...F**K the parties imo...rep and demo

[The Senator]

Y'know, if McCain wins the nomination, it honestly wouldn't suprise me to see him offer Lieberman the VP spot.

Same here. I'm almost counting on it, actually.

[Malice]

Y'know, if McCain wins the nomination, it honestly wouldn't suprise me to see him offer Lieberman the VP spot.

I would be interested in that...
McCain and Lieberman are actually quite close friends...so that might realistically happen.

[Matt]

I love it honestly...F**K the parties imo...rep and demo

Amen to that :up:

[Matt]

I would be interested in that...
McCain and Lieberman are actually quite close friends...so that might realistically happen.

It would actually be really interesting to watch. On one hand, McCain is already going to have enough trouble reaching out to his party's base. Then again, in many ways, Lieberman is more conservative than McCain. But McCain also has trouble reaching out to democrats...and I don't think Lieberman will help him. John Kerry on the other hand would probably clinche the presidency for him. But he told Kerry no, so I doubt Kerry would accept his offer.

[The Senator]

I think he stays with the Democratic party because he has the seniority within the party's rank & file, whereas in GOP he'd considered to be a newcomer. However, Lieberman has disappointed me because the Dems did pick him as a VP nominee back in 2000, and he has sided alot with the GOP in the Congress (esp. his support for the Iraq war). It's no wonder his party was angry at him.

If the Democrats win a few more seats this year in the Senate, I have a strong feeling that the party is going to oust him from his role as chairman of the Homeland Security committee. If that happens, I have a gut feeling that he'll at least caucus with the Republican party.

In that case, I would expect the Republican Party to make a deal with him which would carry over his seniority. The Democrats did that when Jim Jeffords left the Republican Party in 2002, and it would give Lieberman no real reason to stay with the Democrats. If Lieberman does join the GOP, his transition will be highly publicized, and I bet the Republican Party will want to take advantage of it as much as they can.

[Raiden]

If the Democrats win a few more seats this year in the Senate, I have a strong feeling that the party is going to oust him from his role as chairman of the Homeland Security committee. If that happens, I have a gut feeling that he'll at least caucus with the Republican party.

In that case, I would expect the Republican Party to make a deal with him which would carry over his seniority. The Democrats did that when Jim Jeffords left the Republican Party in 2002, and it would give Lieberman no real reason to stay with the Democrats. If Lieberman does join the GOP, his transition will be highly publicized, and I bet the Republican Party will want to take advantage of it as much as they can.

I don't know if the Dems will let Lieberman got to the GOP. Despite their anger with him, it will create more trouble for them if he caucus with GOP. However, with his endorsement of McCain in this election, I think he might jump ship if McCain picks him to be his running mate. Of course, McCain will have to win GOP nomination first...

[CorpusBlack]

I would be interested in that...
McCain and Lieberman are actually quite close friends...so that might realistically happen.

It's funny how things can play out in politics. At this rate, nothing would surprise me.

I love it honestly...F**K the parties imo...rep and demo

*tips hat.

[The Senator]

I don't know if the Dems will let Lieberman got to the GOP. Despite their anger with him, it will create more trouble for them if he caucus with GOP. However, with his endorsement of McCain in this election, I think he might jump ship if McCain picks him to be his running mate. Of course, McCain will have to win GOP nomination first...

If Lieberman becomes McCain's running mate, you can damn well bet that the Democratic leadership will kick him out of the party if McCain loses the election.

[Kel]

I know...Malice entirely ripped off my endorsement thread. He just can't handle that I am the rockstar moderator in these parts :o :cwink: :woot:


Wrongamundo!!!!!!!

[Kel]

If Lieberman becomes McCain's running mate, you can damn well bet that the Democratic leadership will kick him out of the party if McCain loses the election.

Umm, Lieberman is an independent........he can do damn well what he pleases.......:yay: With or Without the Democrats blessing....

[CorpusBlack]

Umm, Lieberman is an independent........he can do damn well what he pleases.......:yay: With or Without the Democrats blessing....

Which means he can kick the Democrats in the balls as many times as he wants from here on out.

[Kel]

It would actually be really interesting to watch. On one hand, McCain is already going to have enough trouble reaching out to his party's base. Then again, in many ways, Lieberman is more conservative than McCain. But McCain also has trouble reaching out to democrats...and I don't think Lieberman will help him. John Kerry on the other hand would probably clinche the presidency for him. But he told Kerry no, so I doubt Kerry would accept his offer.

The Republicans I know, like Lieberman........but yes, the staunch Republicans may have a problem with it.....the thing is............the staunch Republicans are just like the staunc Democrats.....they vote a straight party ticket......so that IMO won't be a real issue....

[bell110]

Lieberman :down I hate that guy.

[Matt]

The Republicans I know, like Lieberman........but yes, the staunch Republicans may have a problem with it.....the thing is............the staunch Republicans are just like the staunc Democrats.....they vote a straight party ticket......so that IMO won't be a real issue....

Unless Bloomberg decides to run. He could appeal to the staunch fiscal conservatives Republicans that defected for Perot and the staunch social liberal Democrats that defected for Nader

[Kel]

Unless Bloomberg decides to run. He could appeal to the staunch fiscal conservatives Republicans that defected for Perot and the staunch social liberal Democrats that defected for Nader


Bloomberg.......:yay:

[Raiden]

Unless Bloomberg decides to run. He could appeal to the staunch fiscal conservatives Republicans that defected for Perot and the staunch social liberal Democrats that defected for Nader

Bloomberg is the only non-Dems I'd consider supporting. I used to like McCain but he has really turned into Bush's lapdog.

[The Senator]

Umm, Lieberman is an independent........he can do damn well what he pleases.......:yay: With or Without the Democrats blessing....

The same thing goes for the Democratic party, then. Since he isn't a Democrat, they have the right to kick his ass out of the Democratic leadership, which is what they should have done in the first place.

[CorpusBlack]

The same thing goes for the Democratic party, then. Since he isn't a Democrat, they have the right to kick his ass out of the Democratic leadership, which is what they should have done in the first place.

What? :huh:

[Matt]

Bloomberg.......:yay:

Are you a fan as well, Kel? I personally love the idea of a third party candidate who funds his own campaigns, has limitless resources, and is in absolutely no one's pocket.

[Matt]

Bloomberg is the only non-Dems I'd consider supporting. I used to like McCain but he has really turned into Bush's lapdog.

I feel the same way. How anyone could endorse a man who has called your adopted child your Vietnamese love child and state that you went crazy in a POW camp is beyond me...

[CorpusBlack]

Are you a fan as well, Kel? I personally love the idea of a third party candidate who funds his own campaigns, has limitless resources, and is in absolutely no one's pocket.

That's my personal goal one day.

[The Senator]

What? :huh:

I didn't think I needed to explain that, but okay. Lieberman is an independent who caucuses with the Democrats. He's not technically a member of the Democratic Party. Before becoming an independent, Lieberman had seniority. He was the ranking member on the Homeland Security Committee, and the Democrats offered him the chairmanship of that committee to guarantee that he would caucus with the dems, thereby ensuring a Democratic majority in the Senate. Lieberman has since played the Democratic Party. He won't support their number one issue-- ending the war in Iraq-- but he is still allowed to caucus with the dems and hold a position of power in the Senate.

I have become so disgusted with Joe Lieberman that I personally think the Democratic party ought to kick his ass off the Homeland Security committee, which would give him nothing to lose, thereby allowing him the perfect opportunity to switch sides-- which is what he should have done a long time ago. I honestly think that they will do this in 2009, since the Democrats will probably win two or three senate seats, which would allow them to keep a majority even if they did kick Lieberman out.

[kedrell]

I would be interested in that...
McCain and Lieberman are actually quite close friends...so that might realistically happen.

I'd f**kin' love that! If they won we'd finally have a more moderate voice in the White House, both as Prez & Vice-Prez. I'm sick of all the right-wing religious nutjobs & their commie/socialist wacko counterparts. Lieberman's one of only 2 Dems I've ever liked anyway, the other being Bill Richardson, but that's more cause he's just a nice guy and he dropped out anyway.

[hippie_hunter]

Speaking of someone wanting to stay relevant...

Actually Lieberman is very relevant in the Senate. He represents the Democratic majority in the Senate. If they pissed him off again like they did in his re-election campaign, he could give the majority to the Republicans if he decided to no longer caucus with them.

So as Kel said he can do whatever he damn well pleases and as CorpusBlack said he can kick the Democrats in the balls over and over as many times he wants and get away with it.

[hippie_hunter]

It would actually be really interesting to watch. On one hand, McCain is already going to have enough trouble reaching out to his party's base. Then again, in many ways, Lieberman is more conservative than McCain. But McCain also has trouble reaching out to democrats...and I don't think Lieberman will help him. John Kerry on the other hand would probably clinche the presidency for him. But he told Kerry no, so I doubt Kerry would accept his offer.

I don't think the Democratic vote would matter if it were McCain/Lieberman.

Republicans will vote for a Republican President, there's no way the Republicans will have another Ross Perot for a while and the Democrats won't have another Ralph Nader, they'll try and ensure that by telling and scaring their voters that if they vote third party the opposing side will end up in the White House.

The independent/moderate vote would flock to a McCain (Republican)/Lieberman (independent Democrat) ticket. Due to their history of being willing to work with the opposition unlike what George Bush, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid have done. The fact that the ticket is composed of a moderate conservative and a moderate liberal who can work very well together.

And yes Lieberman is a rather moderate liberal, he's pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control, supports enviromental efforts, against Social Security privatization, supports a larger effort into health care, etc. His hawkish foreign policy beliefs, his criticism on the entertainment industry, and his willingness to work with Republicans is what gives him the reputation of a DINO.

[hippie_hunter]

Bloomberg is the only non-Dems I'd consider supporting. I used to like McCain but he has really turned into Bush's lapdog.

Meh, McCain only really did it so he could try and get the Republican nomination and woo the evangellical vote. Since they've pretty much rejected him, I felt the spirit of pre-suck up McCain start to return.

[Matt]

I don't think the Democratic vote would matter if it were McCain/Lieberman.

Republicans will vote for a Republican President, there's no way the Republicans will have another Ross Perot for a while and the Democrats won't have another Ralph Nader, they'll try and ensure that by telling and scaring their voters that if they vote third party the opposing side will end up in the White House.

The independent/moderate vote would flock to a McCain (Republican)/Lieberman (independent Democrat) ticket. Due to their history of being willing to work with the opposition unlike what George Bush, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid have done. The fact that the ticket is composed of a moderate conservative and a moderate liberal who can work very well together.

And yes Lieberman is a rather moderate liberal, he's pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control, supports enviromental efforts, against Social Security privatization, supports a larger effort into health care, etc. His hawkish foreign policy beliefs, his criticism on the entertainment industry, and his willingness to work with Republicans is what gives him the reputation of a DINO.

If Bloomberg gets in the race (and sources are claiming he has formed an exploratory committee), he could very well off-set the moderate support of Lieberman and McCain as he is pretty much the ultimate moderate. He could also take some of the fiscal conservative support away. At the same time, he would take a lot of the socially liberal votes away from Democrats. And unlike Nader, he has enough money to run a REAL nationwide campaign that could off-set any third party fear mongering from either side. He could really cluster-**** both sides.

[hippie_hunter]

If Bloomberg gets in the race (and sources are claiming he has formed an exploratory committee), he could very well off-set the moderate support of Lieberman and McCain as he is pretty much the ultimate moderate. He could also take some of the fiscal conservative support away. At the same time, he would take a lot of the socially liberal votes away from Democrats. And unlike Nader, he has enough money to run a REAL nationwide campaign that could off-set any third party fear mongering from either side. He could really cluster-**** both sides.

But here's the thing, would Bloomberg really run against a McCain/Lieberman ticket. Most of his beliefs would be covered. Pro free trade. Supporter of the Iraq War. Fiscally conservative. Supporter of immigration. Pro stem cell research. Pro-enviroment.

The only major difference is that a Bloomberg ticket would be pro gay rights and pro abortion while a McCain/Lieberman ticket would be neutral.

I really doubt that Bloomberg would run if there was a McCain/Lieberman ticket because voters would be essentially voting for the same guy either way. I only see Bloomberg running if candidates like Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton took the ticket.

[Raiden]

The independent/moderate vote would flock to a McCain (Republican)/Lieberman (independent Democrat) ticket. Due to their history of being willing to work with the opposition unlike what George Bush, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid have done. The fact that the ticket is composed of a moderate conservative and a moderate liberal who can work very well together.

And yes Lieberman is a rather moderate liberal, he's pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control, supports enviromental efforts, against Social Security privatization, supports a larger effort into health care, etc. His hawkish foreign policy beliefs, his criticism on the entertainment industry, and his willingness to work with Republicans is what gives him the reputation of a DINO.

Would Republican voters vote for a VP who is pro-choice, pro-gay, and pro-gun control? If McCain won and something happened to him (like his health issues), Lieberman would become the Prez and GOP will have a moderate-to-left commander-in-chief as their president.

[Matt]

But here's the thing, would Bloomberg really run against a McCain/Lieberman ticket. Most of his beliefs would be covered. Pro free trade. Supporter of the Iraq War. Fiscally conservative. Supporter of immigration. Pro stem cell research. Pro-enviroment.

The only major difference is that a Bloomberg ticket would be pro gay rights and pro abortion while a McCain/Lieberman ticket would be neutral.

I really doubt that Bloomberg would run if there was a McCain/Lieberman ticket because voters would be essentially voting for the same guy either way. I only see Bloomberg running if candidates like Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton took the ticket.

Hmm, a fair point. I think if Bloomberg is to run though, he would enter the campaign before McCain has the nomination locked up (as this Republican primary is going to be a real fight for the nomination) and well before he can start deciding on running mates.

Speaking of Bloomberg, what are your thoughts H_H? Go to the third party thread and share them with us. Personally, the more I read on the man, the more I love him.

[hippie_hunter]

Would Republican voters vote for a VP who is pro-choice, pro-gay, and pro-gun control? If McCain won and something happened to him (like his health issues), Lieberman would become the Prez and GOP will have a moderate-to-left commander-in-chief as their president.

Most members of a political party are nothing but ignorant sheep. They'll vote for Republicans or Democrats simply because of their party affiliation.

And the GOP leadership would most likely scare evangellical voters and other conservatives that voting for a conservative third party would cause a Democratic victory.

[Matt]

Most members of a political party are nothing but ignorant sheep. They'll vote for Republicans or Democrats simply because of their party affiliation.

And the GOP leadership would most likely scare evangellical voters and other conservatives that voting for a conservative third party would cause a Democratic victory.

Both points are true, but that is what intrigues me about Bloomberg. He has the money and resources that no other third party candidate has before. He could easily be sending out his own messages with just as much frequency and on a national level in order to off-set the two parties'. I think at the very least, he could make an incredibly strong showing and maybe open the eyes of some people and let them see that we do have alternatives.

[Malice]

You know what I absolutely abhore...
Strait party voting...
They dont know anything of the people, they simply vote all Democrats or all Republicans...

I dont think that has any place on a ballot

[hippie_hunter]

Both points are true, but that is what intrigues me about Bloomberg. He has the money and resources that no other third party candidate has before. He could easily be sending out his own messages with just as much frequency and on a national level in order to off-set the two parties'. I think at the very least, he could make an incredibly strong showing and maybe open the eyes of some people and let them see that we do have alternatives.

I think that there is no way in hell that Bloomberg would run with a McCain/Lieberman ticket. He'd be negating himself along with McCain/Lieberman leading to a Democratic victory, which I doubt either of them want. If a McCain/Lieberman ticket happened, I'd imagine that Bloomberg would endorse them.

Bloomberg if Bloomberg is going to run, I'd imagine that he's waiting to see who the Republican front-runner will be after Super Tuesday. I'd doubt he'd run if Giuliani or McCain became the frontrunner, but if Thompson, Huckabee, or Romney got the spot then I'd see him announce it come March.

[Matt]

Probably an accurate summation.

[cookiva]

You know what I absolutely abhore...
Strait party voting...
They dont know anything of the people, they simply vote all Democrats or all Republicans...

I dont think that has any place on a ballot

I have a friend who did that in 04. I showed him some of the people he voted for, and he was disgusted. He called himself a republican (his family is, and we all know how family can influence politcal ideas), and now is a very individually minded moderate. He felt so bad that he voted straight party.

[CorpusBlack]

I have a friend who did that in 04. I showed him some of the people he voted for, and he was disgusted. He called himself a republican (his family is, and we all know how family can influence politcal ideas), and now is a very individually minded moderate. He felt so bad that he voted straight party.

We all know what happens when you put all your eggs in one basket.

[Matt]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gfhk6o1Jr_acakpTb4uZoSTZ11VQD8ULQKMO0

Hehe :up:

[rdh007]

Is this why Mann Coulter is voting for Hilary?

[The Professor]

Hurts go goooood, come on baby make it hurt so gooood

[The Senator]

Hahahaha!

This is almost like when Reagan used "Born in the USA" as his campaign song... only to be told it was about the atrocities committed by the US during Vietnam.

[jaguarr]

http://voanews.com/english/2008-02-10-voa21.cfm

Bush Says McCain a True Conservative By Paula Wolfson
White House
10 February 2008

Wolfson report - Download (MP3) http://voanews.com/voanews_shared/images/audio_icon.gif (http://www.voanews.com/mediaassets/english/2008_02/Audio/Mp3/LCR%20Wolfson%20US%20Politics%202345327%20021008%2 0nc.Mp3)
Wolfson report - Listen (MP3) http://voanews.com/voanews_shared/images/audio_icon.gif (http://www.voanews.com/english/figleaf/mp3filegenerate.cfm?filepath=http://www.voanews.com/mediaassets/english/2008_02/Audio/Mp3/LCR%20Wolfson%20US%20Politics%202345327%20021008%2 0nc.Mp3)

President Bush is seeking to ease conservative fears about Arizona Senator John McCain - the frontrunner for the Republican Party's presidential nomination. But, as VOA White House Correspondent Paula Wolfson reports, Mr. Bush still is not offering a formal endorsement.
http://voanews.com/english/images/AP_McCain_Kansas_08feb08_210.jpg John McCain speaks at an airport rally in Wichita, Kansas, 8 Feb 2008Senator McCain is way ahead in the race for delegates to the Republican Party's nominating convention. But former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, his only major challenger, is not giving up.
While he has been careful not to choose sides, President Bush is clearly aware that some of the party's staunchest conservatives do not want to see McCain get the nomination. They consider him a maverick and out of step with their views on issues such as immigration, tax policy, and campaign reform.
The president preached party unity at a conservative gathering on Friday. And in a follow-up interview on national television, he stressed this wing of the party has nothing to fear from John McCain.
http://voanews.com/english/images/AP_Bush_prayer_bkfst_07Feb08_210.jpg President George W. Bush addresses national prayer breakfast in Washington, D.C., 07 Feb 2008"I know him well," said President Bush. "I know his convictions. I know the principles that drive him. There is no doubt in my mind that he is a true conservative."
Mr. Bush told the Fox News Sunday program both McCain and Huckabee have conservative records. But he acknowledged that McCain will have to work hard to bring the various factions of the Republican Party together.
"I think if John is the nominee, he has got some convincing to do to convince people that he is a solid conservative," said Mr. Bush. "And I will be glad to help him if he is the nominee."
McCain's strong showing in the 22-state Republican contests held last Tuesday earned him the frontrunner status. One of his challengers, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney suspended his campaign last Friday, leaving Huckabee as McCain's only major challenger.
http://voanews.com/english/images/AP_US_Mike_Huckabee_04feb08_210.jpg Mike Huckabee campaigns in Chattanooga, Tennessee, 4 Feb. 2008Huckabee won victories Saturday in Louisiana and Kansas. He told NBC's Meet the Press that he intends to stay in the race, saying there is still a chance that McCain will lack the necessary delegates to wrap up the nomination before the convention.
"People say is not it a rather complicated and convoluted path to victory? You bet it is! But it is a real easy path to defeat," said Mike Huckabee. "All I have to do is walk off the field and the game is over."
Huckabee said his supporters remain energized going into the next round of contests Tuesday in Virginia, Maryland and Washington, D.C. He said not one has asked him to follow the lead of Mitt Romney and leave the race.






So, what do you think? Does Bush backing McCain help or hurt him? Bush is at his lowest approval ratings ever at around 30%. Is he just scaring conservative voters away by backing McCain or will it help him?

jag

[rdh007]

Tying himself to Bush when he's at 30% doesn't make much sense to me, but then electing Bush in 2000 (-ish) and 2004 (-ish) didn't either. :dry:
http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee144/rdh007/bush_mccain_400.jpg

[The Senator]

It helps McCain win over fence-sitting Bush-conservatives, but it hurts him with everyone else.

[Handsome Rob]

Bush calling McCain a true conservative only solidifies in my mind that he is not.

Because Bush isn't one, himself.

[jaguarr]

Tying himself to Bush when he's at 30% doesn't make much sense to me, but then electing Bush in 2000 (-ish) and 2004 (-ish) didn't either. :dry:
http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee144/rdh007/bush_mccain_400.jpg

:lmao:

Bush calling McCain a true conservative only solidifies in my mind that he is not.

Because Bush isn't one, himself.

Exactly why McCain ought to be worried about having Bush endorse him.

jag

[StorminNorman]

Anyone considering to vote for McCain isn't not going to support him just because Bush backs him - and anyone that thinks thats a possibility isn't being rational.

So since there is no harm from this - I suppose all it could do is help him with a small group.

But I don't even see that happening.

[Carcharodon]

It's really rather funny, considering McCain distanced himself from Bush and the Iraq war early on.

Then, all of a sudden, he's Bush's lapdog, and he has been for quite some time now. Think the switch was coincidental with his presidential bid? :cwink:

[jaguarr]

Anyone considering to vote for McCain isn't not going to support him just because Bush backs him - and anyone that thinks thats a possibility isn't being rational.

So since there is no harm from this - I suppose all it could do is help him with a small group.

But I don't even see that happening.

Don't you think it might scare of some people that might have otherwise voted for McCain, though? Republicans or moderate conservatives that dislike Bush but were for McCain up until Bush started backing him?

jag

[StorminNorman]

Don't you think it might scare of some people that might have otherwise voted for McCain, though? Republicans or moderate conservatives that dislike Bush but were for McCain up until Bush started backing him?

jag

No. Not at all. Anyone that has such a radical hatred of Bush that they will dislike anything he likes would not consider voting for a Republican to begin with.

This has no negative impact, what so ever, to McCain.

Now if Bush CAMPAIGNS for him personally - that will cause a problem. A statement of support, however, does nothing at all. In the end this is a Republican President giving words of support to the Republican Presidential Candidate of the Future.

If this was for Romney - it would have no impact at all. Since it is McCain with a bad history with the GOP - it could have some (though incredibly limited) impact on a very small handful of Republicans.

[jaguarr]

No. Not at all. Anyone that has such a radical hatred of Bush that they will dislike anything he likes would not consider voting for a Republican to begin with.

I'm not so sure about that. I know a lot of Republicans/true conservatives that despise Bush and what he's done with the Presidency. They would have gladly voted for a Republican who wasn't a Bushie.


Now if Bush CAMPAIGNS for him personally - that will cause a problem. A statement of support, however, does nothing at all. In the end this is a Republican President giving words of support to the Republican Presidential Candidate of the Future.

Not entirely unpossible:

"I think if John is the nominee, he has got some convincing to do to convince people that he is a solid conservative," said Mr. Bush. "And I will be glad to help him if he is the nominee."

jag

[StorminNorman]

I'm not so sure about that. I know a lot of Republicans/true conservatives that despise Bush and what he's done with the Presidency. They would have gladly voted for a Republican who wasn't a Bushie.

Hating Bush because of what he has done is one thing. Hating Bush with so much intensity that you would STOP supporting a man you would normally support JUST because Bush gave a statement of support is something entirely different.

Not entirely unpossible:

No - because McCain's campaign won't allow it. His campaign is NOT run by idiots. They took Thompson's campaign this year. Bush can volunteer to do as much as the McCain campaign WANT him to do - and it will be very little when the campaign REALLY starts up.

[Matt]

Bush isn't a true conservative though :huh:

[jaguarr]

A five year old could have taken Thompson's campaign. :huh:

At any rate, I do know Republican conservatives that definitely not vote for McCain because of their hatred for Bush, so I do know it's a possibility.

jag

[StorminNorman]

Bush isn't a true conservative though :huh:

No. No he is not. But he still has a few that THINK he is and perception is reality.

[StorminNorman]

At any rate, I do know Republican conservatives that definitely not vote for McCain because of their hatred for Bush, so I do know it's a possibility.

jag

If you have friends that planned on voting for McCain but do not simply because Bush backed them - then your friends are idiots.

I mean did they expect the REPUBLICAN President to NOT support the Republican candidate?

IF that is the case - they need to get real.

[jaguarr]

If you have friends that planned on voting for McCain but do not simply because Bush backed them - then your friends are idiots.

I mean did they expect the REPUBLICAN President to NOT support the Republican candidate?

IF that is the case - they need to get real.

They fall into the co-worker category rather than the friends category. And, yes, that's the sort of folks they are. Whattyagonnado? *shrug* I just wonder how many more people are out there like that?

jag

[StorminNorman]

They fall into the co-worker category rather than the friends category. And, yes, that's the sort of folks they are. Whattyagonnado? *shrug* I just wonder how many more people are out there like that?

jag

Damn
:(

[Matt]

A five year old could have taken Thompson's campaign. :huh:
jag

Thompson campaign easily had the initial support to be the front runner right now and win the nomination if he actually...y'know, campaigned.

[jaguarr]

Damn
:(

It's really interesting to hear them bashing Bush this past year or two, because they were solidly on his dick before that. Now they've sort of got this little ongoing ***** session going over him and anyone connected to him in any fashion. They were total Romney supporters before he bowed out. I suspect I'll get to hear all about how Huckabee is the only clear choice, now that Mitt's out of the running. They are definitely the type that would not vote out of protest if anyone they think is a Bushie were to win the nomination (I've even heard one of them say exactly that, so it's only a matter of time before they all share that ideal). I'm not defending them. I'm just saying they exist and it stands to reason that there are probably more out there just like them.

jag

[jaguarr]

Thompson campaign easily had the initial support to be the front runner right now and win the nomination if he actually...y'know, campaigned.

He was working four hours a day, Matt! What more did you want from the man!? :cmad:

jag

[Matt]

He was working four hours a day, Matt! What more did you want from the man!? :cmad:

jag

He did need his 6 naps a day :csad:

[StorminNorman]

It's really interesting to hear them bashing Bush this past year or two, because they were solidly on his dick before that. Now they've sort of got this little ongoing ***** session going over him and anyone connected to him in any fashion. They were total Romney supporters before he bowed out. I suspect I'll get to hear all about how Huckabee is the only clear choice, now that Mitt's out of the running. They are definitely the type that would not vote out of protest if anyone they think is a Bushie were to win the nomination (I've even heard one of them say exactly that, so it's only a matter of time before they all share that ideal). I'm not defending them. I'm just saying they exist and it stands to reason that there are probably more out there just like them.

jag

I am honestly amazed.

I assumed anyone that was so irrationally anti-Bush would simply of never considered voting GOP this go around.

[StorminNorman]

He did need his 6 naps a day :csad:

Beauty Sleep! :cmad:

[Matt]

Beauty Sleep! :cmad:

Speaking of beauty...his wife would've made the hottest first lady EVER :csad:

http://www.celebrityhack.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/jeri-thompson-01.jpg

[jaguarr]

I am honestly amazed.

I assumed anyone that was so irrationally anti-Bush would simply of never considered voting GOP this go around.

I would have assumed that as well, since Bush and the neo-cons that are running things behind the scenes are so connected and really, it's those people that you'd need to be worried about, not Bush. You would think they'd just swear of the party altogether, knowing that the people in the back room are such a problem. But, there are people who still really want to believe in the party but just find it increasingly difficult to do so (thanks to Bush and the people in the back). It sort of begs the question of how many Republicans are feeling completely disenfranchised with the Republican Party to the point that they'll opt to not vote or even vote against them, either out of apathy or just to get their message across?

jag

[jaguarr]

Speaking of beauty...his wife would've made the hottest first lady EVER :csad:

http://www.celebrityhack.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/jeri-thompson-01.jpg

She's got his eyes. :(

jag

[StorminNorman]

I would have assumed that as well, since Bush and the neo-cons that are running things behind the scenes are so connected and really, it's those people that you'd need to be worried about, not Bush. You would think they'd just swear of the party altogether, knowing that the people in the back room are such a problem. But, there are people who still really want to believe in the party but just find it increasingly difficult to do so (thanks to Bush and the people in the back). It sort of begs the question of how many Republicans are feeling completely disenfranchised with the Republican Party to the point that they'll opt to not vote or even vote against them, either out of apathy or just to get their message across?

jag

Thats why the GOP needs Hillary to win.

A lot of bitter Republicans will vote GOP just to keep her from the White House.

I don't think they will do the same for Obama.

[jaguarr]

Thats why the GOP needs Hillary to win.

A lot of bitter Republicans will vote GOP just to keep her from the White House.

I don't think they will do the same for Obama.

I would tend to agree with you about that.

jag

[SuBe]

Bush calling McCain a true conservative only solidifies in my mind that he is not.

Because Bush isn't one, himself.
Agreed. Bush is the only President in US history to Double the Size of Government.

Way to go "Conservative"! :cmad:

[rdh007]

Thats why the GOP needs Hillary to win.

A lot of bitter Republicans will vote GOP just to keep her from the White House.

I don't think they will do the same for Obama.
Which is why I prefer Obama to Hilary.

[Superman]

http://home.comcast.net/~wizardofwhimsy/festermccain.jpg

[jaguarr]

http://home.comcast.net/%7Ewizardofwhimsy/festermccain.jpg

:lmao:

jag

[Arkady Rossovich]

McCain is more of a man than Bush. McCain was a POW while Bush was AWOL.

[rdh007]

^This is truth. It's also what makes his affection for Bush after about 2002/2003 so patently offensive and the biggest reason I preferred Romney.

[teseract]

http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee144/rdh007/bush_mccain_400.jpg

Wow, Brokeback Mountain II: Broke in Washington

"Love is a force of campaign endorsements."

[ScottyBBadd]

Speaking of beauty...his wife would've made the hottest first lady EVER :csad:

http://www.celebrityhack.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/jeri-thompson-01.jpg

H-e-double toothpicks yeah.

[ScottyBBadd]

Some say G.W.Bush is not a conservative.

[Lightning Strykez!]

Bush is endorising him as a conservative? George himself doesn't qualify for the title...it's like Stevie Wonder trying to lead Ray Charles to water. :down:

Making himself an ally with Bush at this point in the game is going to hurt him something fierce.

[rdh007]

Some say G.W.Bush is not a conservative.
He's not. I don't agree with real conservatives at all, but at least there's logic to what they propose. That cat I can't figure out at all.

[teseract]

He's not. I don't agree with real conservatives at all, but at least there's logic to what they propose. That cat I can't figure out at all.
Full Ack, paleo-conservatives are all right. Neo-Cons like Bush are just Nanny State proponents with a right wing leaning.

[comicgirl]

Commence trash talking............

[The Senator]

I like McCain's stance on immigration. Besides that, I'm not a fan.

[LuiECuomo]

I like McCain's stance on everything but immigration. Heh.

[The Senator]

I like McCain's stance on everything but immigration. Heh.

Proves we're opposites, doesn't it? :o

[bunk]

The latest McCain scandal courtesy of The New York Times...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23263742/

[LuiECuomo]

Proves we're opposites, doesn't it? :o

What would you prefer to be? My Bizarro or my Black Adam? :D

[The Senator]

What would you prefer to be? My Bizarro or my Black Adam? :D

I'd prefer to be your Superman :O

[hippie_hunter]

He's better than Obama and Clinton. I'm voting for him in the election. I support his stance on immigration. I support what he says about fiscal responsibility. He works with the Democrats. His plan for Iraq is better than Obama's or Clinton's since they can't even withdraw correctly.

[LuiECuomo]

I'd prefer to be your Superman :O

???

[The Senator]

???

Thuperman?

Sorry, an attempt at gay humor.

[LuiECuomo]

Ah...I got it. I'm flattered, jman. :D

[YsoSerious]

The latest McCain scandal courtesy of The New York Times...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23263742/

Statement issued Wednesday by Sen. John McCain's campaign:
It is a shame that The New York Times has lowered its standards to engage in a hit and run smear campaign. John McCain has a 24-year record of serving our country with honor and integrity. He has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists, and he will not allow a smear campaign to distract from the issues at stake in this election.
Americans are sick and tired of this kind of gutter politics, and there is nothing in this story to suggest that John McCain has ever violated the principles that have guided his career.

What I think is really bad is they wait until Hillary is seemingly done to release this, since she and her hubby Bill have done much worse things.

[SuBe]

Statement issued Wednesday by Sen. John McCain's campaign:
It is a shame that The New York Times has lowered its standards to engage in a hit and run smear campaign. John McCain has a 24-year record of serving our country with honor and integrity. He has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists, and he will not allow a smear campaign to distract from the issues at stake in this election.
Americans are sick and tired of this kind of gutter politics, and there is nothing in this story to suggest that John McCain has ever violated the principles that have guided his career.

What I think is really bad is they wait until Hillary is seemingly done to release this, since she and her hubby Bill have done much worse things.
Agreed. The Story doesn't even have a source. It is all crap. Google Huma Abendin. See what you all can learn about her and her supposed relationships.

[kronos251]

Statement issued Wednesday by Sen. John McCain's campaign:
It is a shame that The New York Times has lowered its standards to engage in a hit and run smear campaign. John McCain has a 24-year record of serving our country with honor and integrity. He has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists, and he will not allow a smear campaign to distract from the issues at stake in this election.

Americans are sick and tired of this kind of gutter politics,

and there is nothing in this story to suggest that John McCain has ever violated the principles that have guided his career.



Exactly.

[souvlaki]

Agreed. The Story doesn't even have a source. It is all crap. Google Huma Abendin. See what you all can learn about her and her supposed relationships.

Yeah, I have a feeling this will blow up in the NY Times' faces, and may just energize conservatives around McCain. The only way this makes sense is if there is more to this story than the NY Times is letting on, and they are just sitting on it until McCain denies it. If that happens, well played on the part of the NY Times. On the other hand, if they have been sitting on this since December, and didn't release it back when it could have made a difference makes it just look like the NY Times were deliberately trying to sabotage the general election for the republicans. Especially considering they endorsed McCain for President. This whole thing is pretty shady on both sides.

[Genesis 1.0]

Well he urged Bush today to veto a bill that forbids harsh interrogation methods and I'm sure that'll be fodder for the pundits.

[Superman]

Well he urged Bush today to veto a bill that forbids harsh interrogation methods and I'm sure that'll be fodder for the pundits.Nope, They can't get past this BS about that woman in 2000 to talk about something that's important like that.:whatever:

[jaguarr]

Looks like he's got some issues with the FEC:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/21/fec_poses_fresh_problem_for_mc.html?hpid=topnews

jag

[Genesis 1.0]

Looks like he's got some issues with the FEC:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/21/fec_poses_fresh_problem_for_mc.html?hpid=topnews

jag

SO basically he applied for the money but never actually had to use it but since his withdrawl seems to be in doubt, he may still have those anaconda like restrictions on his spending? There's no way he can adhere to that glass ceiling until September's convention.

Damn John, it just seems to get worse and worse.

[The Chairman]

McCain scares me for some reason. He reminds me of Cheney, and I disagree with him on illegal immigration and the fact that he wants to continue the war.

[jaguarr]

SO basically he applied for the money but never actually had to use it but since his withdrawl seems to be in doubt, he may still have those anaconda like restrictions on his spending? There's no way he can adhere to that glass ceiling until September's convention.

Damn John, it just seems to get worse and worse.

Between this and the lobbyist scandal, things aren't going well for him this week, that's for sure.

jag

[Genesis 1.0]

Between this and the lobbyist scandal, things aren't going well for him this week, that's for sure.

jag

To Hell with the week, things haven't been going well for some time now.

[Arkady Rossovich]

I personally think this is a smear campain against McCain. I do not support Republicans..but i know a set up is there. Why now? When he is about to win the nomination?

[The Senator]

I personally think this is a smear campain against McCain. I do not support Republicans..but i know a set up is there.

PhD that **** :up:

[redfirebird2008]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7837.html

This is scumbag behavior right there. Obama is right. The wheels on the Straight Talk Express have fallen off. Using your fundraiser list as collateral for a loan after having a privacy policy that claims you won't sell their personal information? You've gotta be kidding me!

[jaguarr]

To quote J. Manspice's custom user title...."There will be blood!".

jag

[Iron Fist]

I can't stand McCain. If he becomes president, i'll be the first one to leave the country. :up:

[hippie_hunter]

Is it just me or do I find it to be immature when someone says that "if [insert politician here] is elected, I'm leaving the country."

[Iron Fist]

Say what you think about it, it's how I feel about the situation.

[Venom'sDad]

If McCain becomes president of the United States, I'm staying put. :hehe:

[redfirebird2008]

Say what you think about it, it's how I feel about the situation.

Meh. If you survived GWB you can survive anyone. :cwink::woot:

[jaguarr]

Is it just me or do I find it to be immature when someone says that "if [insert politician here] is elected, I'm leaving the country."

If McCain becomes President I'm having you deported. :up:

jag

[hippie_hunter]

Meh. If you survived GWB you can survive anyone. :cwink::woot:

Well put...very well put :up:

[hippie_hunter]

If McCain becomes President I'm having you deported. :up:

jag

:csad:

[jaguarr]

:csad:

:hehe:

jag

[The Senator]

I can't stand McCain. If he becomes president, i'll be the first one to leave the country. :up:

I'm actually leaving the country, regardless of who becomes President :woot:

[Poetic Chaos]

I was visiting my brother last week in San Diego. He's in the Marines and a bunch of his friend are too. I think it's ironic that all the military moms are probably going democratic to try and end the war while all of their soldier sons are voting McCain. At least all the ones I've met.

[Iron Fist]

Meh. If you survived GWB you can survive anyone. :cwink::woot:

That's very true, but still, I despise McCain.

[redfirebird2008]

That's very true, but still, I despise McCain.

Believe me, I can't stand him right now either. He has flip-flopped on the Bush tax cuts and waterboarding recently in order to pander to the right wing electorate.

[kronos251]

I was visiting my brother last week in San Diego. He's in the Marines and a bunch of his friend are too. I think it's ironic that all the military moms are probably going democratic to try and end the war while all of their soldier sons are voting McCain. At least all the ones I've met.


I know what you mean. My cousin is in the army and has served in Iraq since 2003.. as do some of my relatives are also serving in the "balikatan" exercises in Mindanao, Philippines..


Most soldiers are not political, in a sense they choose not to play the high-handed PUNDIT, and so they try to avoid as much as possible any controversial comments and/or political debates - as should be - therefore, they would rather have their actions speak for themselves by casting their vote for the candidate who really knows how to address the issues, regardless of the party the candidate is coming from.

As for parents voting for another party, our folks, and folks that we know of, don't quite share that sentiment; they say that it IS understandable to vote for the end of the war.... Everybody wants that.... but it would seem a veritable slap to their sons' and daughters' faces, and would simply insult them by cutting off their long hard-fought efforts.

[jaguarr]

Man...McCain just keeps handing over more and more ammo to be used directly against him in the general election:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/23/us/politics/23lobby.html?bl&ex=1204002000&en=ae0d714ce3b8d3ae&ei=5087%0A

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/24/johnmccain.uselections2008

jag

[comicgirl]

Believe me, I can't stand him right now either. He has flip-flopped on the Bush tax cuts and waterboarding recently in order to pander to the right wing electorate.
Don't forget making nice-nice with Jerry Falwell after calling him a dangerous demi-god in '00. Letting the Reps paint him as a nut with lingering PTSD. Sorry, don't like him anymore.

[The Senator]

I will never vote for McCain due to his lingering support for the Iraq war and inability to stay true to his once-famous maverick roots. However, if he becomes President, I think I could live with that for four years.

[Venom'sDad]

LOL... Juan Williams is losing credibility over the McCain/NYTimes story. I just love it.

[Shifty]

It would be something to have a president whose hosted SNL and cameoed on 24 and in Wedding Crashers.

[That'ssuper!]

Even as an Australian I can see that this McCain fellow is the best canidate for the your American president. I see that the other two are just fighting like their three. How funny Australia has better candidates than that.

[The Senator]

Even as an Australian I can see that this McCain fellow is the best canidate for the your American president. I see that the other two are just fighting like their three. How funny Australia has better candidates than that.

No, you have a better system. Your elections take three weeks; ours take three years. Plus, you don't elect the President/ PM outright as we do; you essentially vote for the leader of whichever party it is that comes to power. That's how we should do it here, so we can avoid this stupid money-spewing festival-extravanganza we're forced to endure every four years, which results in arguing on every channel and in every household, only to get stuck with someone whose only accomplishment is that they know how to suck and blow at the same time. God bless the American Presidency!

[hippie_hunter]

I don't find a problem with the system (asides from the Electoral College), it's just the people in it.

[Zen]

For McCain supporters, whats your take on the information in this article...

The Myth of The Surge (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/18722376/the_myth_of_the_surge)

[jaguarr]

I don't find a problem with the system (asides from the Electoral College), it's just the people in it.

The fact that the system can be hijacked and derailed by corrupt people like it has been is sort of an illustration of why the system needs some fixing. :huh:

jag

[Marx]

McCain scares me for some reason. He reminds me of Cheney, and I disagree with him on illegal immigration and the fact that he wants to continue the war.

So I'm NOT the only one that has that opinion! http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

He's better than Obama and Clinton. I'm voting for him in the election. I support his stance on immigration. I support what he says about fiscal responsibility. He works with the Democrats. His plan for Iraq is better than Obama's or Clinton's since they can't even withdraw correctly.

McCain's "stance" on Iraq is more of the same failed and flawed policies that got us into this mess in the first place. IMO.

[Genesis 1.0]

So I'm NOT the only one that has that opinion! http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif



McCain's "stance" on Iraq is more of the same failed and flawed policies that got us into this mess in the first place. IMO.

Heh, another one.

So just what policy do YOU see as acceptable in the current race?

[Marx]

Heh, another one.

So just what policy do YOU see as acceptable in the current race?

That's simple - A Democratic one.

[Genesis 1.0]

That's simple - A Democratic one.

*Headache*

You and Sinewave must shop at the same grocery store or something.

SO basically as far as you're concerned, any Democratic policy is better than something from the right. Am I correct?

[Marx]

*Headache*

You and Sinewave must shop at the same grocery store or something.

SO basically as far as you're concerned, any Democratic policy is better than something from the right. Am I correct?

I fundamentally disagree with what the Republican Party stands for. I take it that as far as you're concerned, any Republican policy is better than something from the left?

[Genesis 1.0]

I fundamentally disagree with what the Republican Party stands for. I take it that as far as you're concerned, any Republican policy is better than something from the left?

Heh, unlike you, I haven't and will never say something so generalized. In fact, I've argued against this same type of bias.

As to what the Party stands for, you have no idea what it stands for nor what it's founded on. All you see is what's in front of you today and you're basing your partisan comments thus.

[Marx]

Heh, unlike you, I haven't and will never say something so generalized. In fact, I've argued against this same type of bias.

As to what the Party stands for, you have no idea what it stands for nor what it's founded on. All you see is what's in front of you today and you're basing your partisan comments thus.

I answered you with the exact opposite of what you just said to me. I asked you the same kind of question you asked me. I can assure you that I am fully aware of what the Republican Party was founded on and what it represents. I'm alot more saavy in politics than you are giving me credit for. This is a discussion thread for respectable conversations. I will not be insulted by anyone. Good day.

[StorminNorman]

Instead of getting defensive - why do you give specific problems you have with the Republican Party?

But, then again, why be reasonable?

[Marx]

Instead of getting defensive - why do you give specific problems you have with the Republican Party?

But, then again, why be reasonable?

With all due respect Norman, I've obviously come into the wrong thread to explain my discontent with the Republican Party. I'm not really in the mood to get "flamed." I've come to find that it is extremely difficult to discuss policy and issues with anyone who is on the "extremes" of anything. I'm not going to accuse anyone of that, but when I get a response like the one that I have earlier in this thread - an insulting, completely disrespectful one - I figure, why bother? Why waste my time trying to explain something to someone who has no regard for anyone else's opinion. I will never, and would never insult anyone else's intelligence. It's probably best I bow out of this thread. Hopefully I can catch up with you in a different one! :cwink:

[souvlaki]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28mccain.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1204177285-OCt9stzDC/et2oAb2O6bYQ

Anyone hear about this? There is some debate over whether or not McCain is constitutionally allowed to run for President.

[rdh007]

Instead of getting defensive - why do you give specific problems you have with the Republican Party?

Can I?

- Abortion. Either try to end it or stop making it the way you get people with two teeth and no money to vote for a party that wants to create a system of landed royalty. Good job milking it, though, I'm jealous.

- "Neo-Cons" Whatever that means anymore. The world is not ours for the taking. Ron Paul is the only one of you (and his kind) that makes any sense to me. If you want smaller government and therefore smaller taxes, you can't peek your nose into everything I do and every other country does, and you certainly can't grow the size of government.

- Tax and spend liberals like me want to spend what we have. Borrow and spend philosophy is not conservative philosophy, it's stupid philosophy. This is where Bill Clinton made sense to me. We need a surplus to pay down this incredible amount of debt we've got. The national debt worries me as much as anything but the disappearing bees. You can't spend more than you have.

- The economy exists to serve us. Not we it.

- The middle class. The Republican Party has adopted several stances designed (perhaps not always consciously) to end the middle class. The middle class is the most important segment of society, and if the Republicans continue to gain power (as evidenced by the relative conservatism of the two Democrats left) this place will look like a random Central American country where there is a landed gentry that runs the country and 95+% of the population is dirt poor and nearly or completely illiterate.

- A couple of things I like:
- Your organization and the way you do business. I'm jealous.
- The welfare reform Clinton signed in the 90s. He was the best Republican president ever. Besides Lincoln. And stop counting Lincoln.

[Genesis 1.0]

Instead of getting defensive - why do you give specific problems you have with the Republican Party?

But, then again, why be reasonable?

:huh: :huh: :huh:

Hell, I was just asking a question, I have no idea why he gave me the British equivalent of 'F___k Off'.

I don't think there's any one Democratic, Independent, or Liberal minded person I've actually insulted aside from Tesseract and he doesn't really count.:o

[Iron Fist]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/politics/28mccain.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1204177285-OCt9stzDC/et2oAb2O6bYQ

Anyone hear about this? There is some debate over whether or not McCain is constitutionally allowed to run for President.

I saw it, he was not born in the USA. :hehe:

[That'ssuper!]

I have a history major, that's false. All you need to be is an American citizen for 14 years to be president. It works very similarly in my part of the world.

[souvlaki]

I have a history major, that's false. All you need to be is an American citizen for 14 years to be president. It works very similarly in my part of the world.

Maybe you should stick to discussing the politics of your own country, because I dont think you are as knowledgeable about US politics as you think you are.

[jaguarr]

I have a history major, that's false. All you need to be is an American citizen for 14 years to be president. It works very similarly in my part of the world.

Are you the new Jourmugand or something? :huh:

jag

[Iron Fist]

I have a history major, that's false. All you need to be is an American citizen for 14 years to be president. It works very similarly in my part of the world.

Really? :whatever:

[jaguarr]

McCain received his formal endorsement from President Bush yesterday at a White House luncheon. Kiss Of Death, Johnny Boy! Kiss Of Death!

jag

[jaguarr]

Already some mixed views over McCain's endorsement by Bush:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/05/mccain.readers/

jag

[Raiden]

Already some mixed views over McCain's endorsement by Bush:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/05/mccain.readers/

jag

I'd like to see how McCain can distant himself from the Bush Administration after receiving endorsement from W. Bush.

[jaguarr]

Get ready for more offshoring if McCain wins the election:

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2008/03/03/daily37.html

Looks like he's gearing to pick right up where the Bushies left off; in the pocket of their corporate masters. :down

jag

[Iron Fist]

Get ready for more offshoring if McCain wins the election:

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2008/03/03/daily37.html

Looks like he's gearing to pick right up where the Bushies left off; in the pocket of their corporate masters. :down

jag

Uh, i'm getting sick to my stomach already. :whatever:

[Arkady Rossovich]

McCain is just a milder and more open minded version of Bush. Expect basically the same thing,but i will admit this. He looks like a good President...think about it. "President McCain" it does sound good. A damn shame he isn't a Democrat.

[Iron Fist]

President "midget" McCain, I like that better. :o

[The Chairman]

So I'm NOT the only one that has that opinion! http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif

Even my own father, who's voting for him agrees. I wouldn't McCain as much as say Huckabee. I could've lived with Romney as well. Huckabee scared me because he sounded like he wanted to turn America into a full fledged theocracy which, despite being a Christian, kind of scares me.

I can't vote, as I've stated several times, but if I could I'd go for Obama. A main purpose of this election is to unite America again since the last 8 years have divided us, and I can't see as a divisive a figure as Hilary pulling off such a feat. Obama seems honest and dedicated enough to make the effort to bring us together.

[jaguarr]

Bush is even SAYING we'll get more of the same with McCain:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/06/bush_says_mccain_will_stay_the_course_in_iraq/

Ugh. This is enough to make me vote for Hillary. :(

jag

[Raiden]

Bush is even SAYING we'll get more of the same with McCain:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/06/bush_says_mccain_will_stay_the_course_in_iraq/

Ugh. This is enough to make me vote for Hillary. :(

jag

I think whoever won Dems' nomination should paint McCain as "4 More Years of Bush" in the WH. That should alert voters on what they will get if McCain wins the election.

[jaguarr]

I think whoever won Dems' nomination should paint McCain as "4 More Years of Bush" in the WH. That should alert voters on what they will get if McCain wins the election.

That will absolutely be their strategy. He's just making it easier for them to do it.

jag

[Arc-Light]

Bush is even SAYING we'll get more of the same with McCain:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/06/bush_says_mccain_will_stay_the_course_in_iraq/

Ugh. This is enough to make me vote for Hillary. :(

jag

Wow how disappointing, what a puppet..........

[rdh007]

Wow how disappointing, what a puppet..........

I voted for him in the Republican primary in 2000 because Gore had it wrapped up. McCain vs. Gore would've made me think in 2000 before I voted. Now, he's just sold his soul to get to the White House. Most of them do this, but we don't have to watch it play out in front of us. :down
Exhibit A:
http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee144/rdh007/bush_mccain_400.jpg

[redfirebird2008]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cN10_6pyshQ

[Mr. Credible]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cN10_6pyshQ

if that's not a real ad that's being played on tv, it really ought to be.

[Rated-X]

Guess who wants the VP position?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0308/Romney_says_hed_take_Veep_calls_McCain_Big_Dog.htm l

[Matt]

That would be the worst possible choice for McCain.

[The Senator]

That would be the worst possible choice for McCain.

It would also be the worst move ever for Romney, who could very well run and win in 2012.

[Matt]

Crazy prediction...IF the Democrats win in 2008...and right now I do not believe they will because Hillary is going to sink whoever the nominee is (be it Obama or herself by dragging this out until people get sick of both of them) but if they do...some governor you've never heard of who is young, conservative (but not tied to the neo-cons like Bush), charasmatic, and attractive is going to come out of nowhere (ala Bill Clinton) to beat Clinton or Obama in 2012. We are due for a 1 term president and these rockstar candidates that the media has created can never live up to the image both their campaigns and the media created for them. There is bound to be disappointment when after all the talk of change, things essentially remain the status quo. I honestly think Sarah Palin is a possibility if she does not sign on as McCain's running mate (and considering she is pregnant she probably won't be). Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota and Bobby Jindal of New Orleans and Matt Blunt of Missouri are other possibilities.

[Chris B]

To jump in on the VP discussion for a minute, recently I've come to believe that Mark Sanford from South Carolina would be the ideal running mate for John McCain. He's a young, Southern Governor with a solid conservative record on social issues and reenforces McCain's message of fiscal responsibility. He seems like a decent fit.

[lazur]

The Obama thread has 3,179 replies. The McCain thread has 86 (87 with mine)...

Just an observation. :P

[The Senator]

The Obama thread has 3,179 replies. The McCain thread has 86 (87 with mine)...

Just an observation. :P

McCain and the Republican primary are about as exciting as a can of spam, so it only makes sense. :o

[The Senator]

Crazy prediction...IF the Democrats win in 2008...and right now I do not believe they will because Hillary is going to sink whoever the nominee is (be it Obama or herself by dragging this out until people get sick of both of them) but if they do...some governor you've never heard of who is young, conservative (but not tied to the neo-cons like Bush), charasmatic, and attractive is going to come out of nowhere (ala Bill Clinton) to beat Clinton or Obama in 2012. We are due for a 1 term president and these rockstar candidates that the media has created can never live up to the image both their campaigns and the media created for them. There is bound to be disappointment when after all the talk of change, things essentially remain the status quo. I honestly think Sarah Palin is a possibility if she does not sign on as McCain's running mate (and considering she is pregnant she probably won't be). Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota and Bobby Jindal of New Orleans and Matt Blunt of Missouri are other possibilities.

Matt Blunt has zero chance, considering he's a very unpopular, one-term governor. Bobby Jindal might have a chance, but that depends how good a job he does cleaning up Louisiana. He'd have the same factors Obama has... ethnicity, inspiring backstory... with a full, stellar resume to run on (he was well-established in the House before he became governor). I think Jindal would be a very good choice for the Republicans in 2012.

But I honestly think Romney will pull a Reagan and become the immediate, pragmatic frontrunner. His 'graceful' exit proves that he's positioning himself for a run in the future, and many Republicans will remember that when primary season arrives. I know it may be way too soon to make predictions... but I think Romney/ Jindal will be the 2012 GOP ticket, which might crush whoever the Democrat is, especially if they manage to screw up big time... which isn't out of the realm of possibility...

[Marx]

"The presumptive Republican presidential nominee said he was concerned about Iran developing nuclear weapons and said he planned to work closely with European allies to create strict sanctions that would be harmful and compelling to Iran's trade, diplomatic and financial institutions if he is elected president."

This coming from the same man that changed the lyrics of the Beach Boy's song "Barbara Ann" to "Bomb Iran."

We can't even figure out Afghanistan and Iraq! Can someone help me understand why they would vote for McCain? :huh:


http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/18/mccain.comments/index.html

[blackcobra]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMaaDbGgsKA&eurl=http://truthabouttrinity.blogspot.com/



Conservatives, please, I want to see all of you renounce, and reject everything this pastor is saying. This is much worst then anything Pastor Wright has said. This is quite chilling. Proof that the so called liberal media is myth.

[The Senator]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMaaDbGgsKA&eurl=http://truthabouttrinity.blogspot.com/



Conservatives, please, I want to see all of you renounce, and reject everything this pastor is saying. This is much worst then anything Pastor Wright has said. This is quite chilling. Proof that the so called liberal media is myth.

I haven't watched the video, but I know plenty about McCain's religious issues.

McCain has a history of religious problems. First, he was an Episcopalian, then tip-toed out of that church and became a Baptist so he could pander to evangelical voters. His current pastor thinks Hurricane Katrina was God's revenge on New Orleans for having a gay pride parade earlier that year. That alone disgusts me.

But I think a fundamental difference between McCain and Hagee, if one has to be made, is that McCain has only been a Baptist for a few years, versus Obama's relation to Wright which has lasted for two decades. However, Obama did one better by at least trying to distance himself from Wright, while McCain explicitly sought Hagee's endorsement last year and the two have stood hand in hand several times on the campaign trail.

It's nice to know that if either McCain or Obama are elected, both will have received advice and political help from hate-spewing imbeciles. That's certainly going to do wonders for society :up:

[lazur]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMaaDbGgsKA&eurl=http://truthabouttrinity.blogspot.com/



Conservatives, please, I want to see all of you renounce, and reject everything this pastor is saying. This is much worst then anything Pastor Wright has said. This is quite chilling. Proof that the so called liberal media is myth.

I wouldn't call myself a 'conservative', not socially anyway, but the guy was talking about ABORTION - not a deliberate action on the part of the government to cause 'genocide' to any particular race. He pulled out a statistic, which is indeed factual, that 25% of all African American babies have been aborted, thus equating the 'circumstance' to 'genocide'.

He also did not 'insult' America, or make blatantly false accusations about something our country is perceived to have done.

I do not equate the two, sorry.

[Memphis Slim]

I wouldn't call myself a 'conservative', not socially anyway, but the guy was talking about ABORTION - not a deliberate action on the part of the government to cause 'genocide' to any particular race. He pulled out a statistic, which is indeed factual, that 25% of all African American babies have been aborted, thus equating the 'circumstance' to 'genocide'.

He also did not 'insult' America, or make blatantly false accusations about something our country is perceived to have done.

I do not equate the two, sorry.


And we as black people are participating in the killing of our own babies!!! That's not just a "white man" conspiracy. Rev, Wright supports Roe v Wade in one of his rants! It's insane!!

[bell110]

I say we don't vote for ANYBODY who goes to church.

[Tron5000]

I say we don't vote for ANYBODY who goes to church.

I say you're just afraid of people who have a close relationship with their God.

[bell110]

So, I was watching the news, and McCain and Lieberman were hobnobbing around in Israel. Makes me wonder about the possibility of a McCain-Leiberman ticket.

[bell110]

I say you're just afraid of people who have a close relationship with their God.

No, I have a close relationship with God. It just seems some people who go to church are down right whacky.

[Matt]

Lieberman has already said he would not do it.

Though it would be an interesting event.

Firstly, Democrats would lose control over the Senate, wouldn't they? They have a 51-49 control, correct? I'd assume if Lieberman agreed to be McCain's running mate, he'd caucus with the Republicans (hell, the Democrats would throw him out). Making it 50-50 with Cheney breaking ties.

Still, Lieberman would make a horrible choice for McCain. McCain is going to need a young, energetic, charasmatic, minority. Not another old, white, Washington insider.

[Tron5000]

No, I have a close relationship with God. It just seems some people who go to church are down right whacky.

But you previously said "ANYBODY who goes to church." Now you amend that to "some people who go to church"? Well, which is it? Shall we discount every individual who attends church, or should we analyze each individual to determine whether or not they are "down right whacky"? Which is it?

[Matt]

But really, when are we going to start hearing more talk about McCain's VP choice? He should be making his search very public while the Democrats attack each other. It will keep him on the front pages, but not in a negative light such as saying things that suggest invading Iran.

[The Senator]

I personally don't care much about which religion a candidate follows. They can be a Christian, a Jew, Muslim or Hindu, and that would have zero effect on who I vote for. Mind you, there are exceptions, such as the Westboro Baptist Church, but for the most part, religion is the least of my concerns when I vote.

The problem with Wright has nothing to do with which religion Obama follows, nor whether he believes in what Wright preached during his sermons. What matters is Obama's obvious lack of judgment. It isn't a wise move to appoint someone to a top position in your campaign if they have a history of spewing hate speech. In my opinion, I would have concerns over whether I could trust a candidate to appoint the right people to his cabinet or other political positions, when he hired someone like Wright. It makes me question what an Obama administration might look like, and I'm worried because after this incident, I honestly can't answer that. So my concern is judgment, rather than faith.

[SuBe]

I personally don't care much about which religion a candidate follows. They can be a Christian, a Jew, Muslim or Hindu, and that would have zero effect on who I vote for. Mind you, there are exceptions, such as the Westboro Baptist Church, but for the most part, religion is the least of my concerns when I vote.

The problem with Wright has nothing to do with which religion Obama follows, nor whether he believes in what Wright preached during his sermons. What matters is Obama's obvious lack of judgment. It isn't a wise move to appoint someone to a top position in your campaign if they have a history of spewing hate speech. In my opinion, I would have concerns over whether I could trust a candidate to appoint the right people to his cabinet or other political positions, when he hired someone like Wright. It makes me question what an Obama administration might look like, and I'm worried because after this incident, I honestly can't answer that. So my concern is judgment, rather than faith.
100% agreed Jman.

[bell110]

I thought Lieberman already swiched to Independent after he lost his democratic nom for the senate.

[Matt]

He is, but he caucuses with Democrats.

[The Senator]

But really, when are we going to start hearing more talk about McCain's VP choice? He should be making his search very public while the Democrats attack each other. It will keep him on the front pages, but not in a negative light such as saying things that suggest invading Iran.

I mean.... VPs aren't usually decided until the summer. I think McCain would be wise to let his campaign work in increments. Right now, he's going around the country and the world, meeting with leaders and respected officials, while showing us how capable he is on international affairs (whether you agree with his politics or not, he is certainly doing a good job of meeting with folks abroad and striking up early relationships/ alliances). In a few months... he'll search for and have his VP... and the two will focus explicitly on the homefront... then you've got the convention, then the last few weeks of campaigning, and it's over.

Obviously, whoever McCain picks as his VP will be crucial, since the man will probably croak during his inauguration speech. But he doesn't want the press to start focusing on his VP search closely, only to have national interest die down by the time he announces his running mate in June or July.

[bell110]

But you previously said "ANYBODY who goes to church." Now you amend that to "some people who go to church"? Well, which is it? Shall we discount every individual who attends church, or should we analyze each individual to determine whether or not they are "down right whacky"? Which is it?

Yes, only some people who go to church are whacky, but we should discount anybody who goes to church just to be on the safe side. :cwink:

[The Chairman]

McCain's pastor is just big an ******* as Obama's.

What I think is worse in McCain's situation than Obama's is that McCain joined the church to win over the religious right.

[Excel]

Who Cares Enough With Peoples Pastors!

[Kel]

Here is the thing with me.....


1. My problem is not with Obama staying at the church for 20 years when his pastor preaches periodically what we have heard. He said he didn't agree....thats good enough for me.

2. My problem is not what Wright believes........he's an American he has the right to believe that, that's why it is great to be an American, you can believe such things, and still walk the streets...*smiles*

3. My problem is the judgement of Obama to put this man as a member of his campaign, knowing (and he has since said that he knew his pastor's thoughts on these subjects) that his pastor preached things that Obama himself calls "wrong and divisive".....not good judgement in my opinion.......and a judgement that is now biting him in the ass. LARGELY .....

4. As far as McCain's pastor......he can believe what he wants as well....who cares? It's his right to do so.......but is he a part of McCain's campaign.....does McCain call him, his spiritual advisor, and as much a part of his family as his grandmother???????

5. Both pastor's are extreme in their beliefs.......but the judgment of the two presidential nominees in this election are very different.


Also, @The Chairman, I could say the same thing about Obama joining his church 20 years ago after moving to Illinois wanting to begin his political career. A man who was raised by white grandparents, from Hawaii, half white, half black.......Hmmmmmmmmmm.....this church in particular would be a major medal of honor among black voters........so, sorry but that argument is weak in my opinion. Also, this is not just something I blew out my ass for todays debate.....it has been discussed in depth among many political analysts...

[Tron5000]

Who Cares Enough With Peoples Pastors!

Agreed. Who really cares about the men who spiritually guide and lead the people who want to run this nation?

[Excel]

3. My problem is the judgement of Obama to put this man as a member of his campaign, knowing (and he has since said that he knew his pastor's thoughts on these subjects) that his pastor preached things that Obama himself calls "wrong and divisive".....not good judgement in my opinion.......and a judgement that is now biting him in the ass. LARGELY

Which is why I think we should believe Obama when he said he didn't know...he's run an extremely strong, smart, and organized campaign. I am sureif he had known what Wright had said he woulda been gone. It doesnt make any sense.

[Excel]

Agreed. Who really cares about the men who spiritually guide and lead the people who want to run this nation?

I can personally gaurentee you McCain and Obama war wayyyyy to strongly minded to be really influenced by what their Pastors tell them.

[redfirebird2008]

Kel, to answer your question, McCain has called Parsley his spiritual adviser.

[Mr Sparkle]

And we as black people are participating in the killing of our own babies!!! That's not just a "white man" conspiracy. Rev, Wright supports Roe v Wade in one of his rants! It's insane!!

what does this have to do with McCain's pastor?

[Mr Sparkle]

4. As far as McCain's pastor......he can believe what he wants as well....who cares? It's his right to do so.......but is he a part of McCain's campaign.....does McCain call him, his spiritual advisor, and as much a part of his family as his grandmother???????



regardless of the official title.
is a person's pastor NOT his spiritual adviser?
if not, then what's the point?

[Tron5000]

I can personally gaurentee you McCain and Obama war wayyyyy to strongly minded to be really influenced by what their Pastors tell them.

You can "personally gaurentee [sic]" this? Based on the amount of time you've spent with them on a personal basis?

I can personally guarantee you're full of it.

[Excel]

Cool; someone explain me to why we should care about this?? Unless McCain is saying or trying to do the same thing, explain to me what difference it makes.

[Goddessreicho]

What about the news with McCain firing the adviser who leaked the Wright video in the first place?

This is not the first time that McCain put his foot down on his own campaign when defending Obama's personal life.

Even I will admit, that's mighty fine of the man. Obama's fellow dem's won't even do that. *coughcough*

[Kel]

Who Cares Enough With Peoples Pastors!


Well, as I have read, and researched this discussion we are having......a picture keeps popping back in my mind, time and time again.......

It is hours before President Bush is about to make the decision to go to war against Iraq in the early 1990's...........it's a hard decision for him, he said that many times........and the picture that was all over the news in those last hours is him arm and arm, with his pastor, in the Rose Garden of the White House discussing this decision privately.........do I want a man that would say "some" of the things he has said from his pulpit, speaking with my president before a huge historical decision.......that causes me to pause.....and wonder......


Barack Obama, is an intelligent, charismatic, learned man........and I have no problem believing that he DOES NOT agree with his pastor, his friend, his spiritual advisor, someone that is as close as family to him.....I have NO PROBLEM believing that he does not agree with him. I wish some could hear the debates I've had with friends over race.

I was so excited to hear his desire to bring the discussion of race relations back to the forefront.....

I was so excited to hear his desire to change America, to bring America together like never before.....

How exciting to finally hear that from a Presidential Candidate.....HOW EXCITING.....

So WHY????? would this man *sighs* have such a huge lapse of judgement to bring a man that goes against all of those things, into the inner circle of his campaign.....WHY?

Let the man say what he wishes from his pulpit......that is his right.....
Let people agree.....that is their right.....

But do not bring a man that preaches from his pulpit, words that you yourself find "wrong and divisive" The ONE WORD, that you have built a campaign around to fight against......WHY? I don't care that he's a friend, I don't care that he's your pastor, I don't care that he's like family....STUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUPID decision......

I have been waiting, and waiting, and waiting for a speech like the one just the other day.......WAITING.... because I knew it would be historical..........but I am disappointed because it was given, not out of passion for discussion, but out of political motives......

I wish this discussion of race, had been under different circumstances....unfortunately it's not..........


I'm disappointed....

[Varient]

McCain's pastor is just big an ******* as Obama's.

What I think is worse in McCain's situation than Obama's is that McCain joined the church to win over the religious right.

But it's okay because McCain hasn't been there long enough,...
(Hypocracy here is incredible)

[Mr Sparkle]

But it's okay because McCain hasn't been there long enough,...
(Hypocracy here is incredible)

I agree with you.
what the hell? politics make for strange bedfellows.

[SuBe]

I agree with you.
what the hell? politics make for strange bedfellows.
Yeah, seriously, ask B. Clinton, E. Spitzer, L. Craig, J. Ryan among many, many others. :cwink:

[Mr Sparkle]

Varient IS a very attractive man.

[Varient]

Varient IS a very attractive man.

(chuckle)

[Marx]

Lieberman has already said he would not do it.

Though it would be an interesting event.

Firstly, Democrats would lose control over the Senate, wouldn't they? They have a 51-49 control, correct? I'd assume if Lieberman agreed to be McCain's running mate, he'd caucus with the Republicans (hell, the Democrats would throw him out). Making it 50-50 with Cheney breaking ties.

Still, Lieberman would make a horrible choice for McCain. McCain is going to need a young, energetic, charasmatic, minority. Not another old, white, Washington insider.

God help us all.

[Spider-Bite]

Why are the secular democrat Obama and secular republican McCain getting wrongly compared to religious freaks?

[blackcobra]

I wouldn't call myself a 'conservative'

You are a Conservitve, what are you ashamed of? Your selective hearing is proof enough.

not socially anyway, but the guy was talking about ABORTION

Today, I will expose, perhaps the greatest hypocrisy of this tolerance touting culture (he's talking about america, he's not talking about Bangladesh) and prove to you once and for all, that underneath their smiles of inclusion, lurks the sinister sword of Segregation, Racism and Genocide, Genocide in America!! (I guess your bias and selective ear didn't hear that did it. That's what I thought. Now lets move along).




not a deliberate action on the part of the government to cause 'genocide' to any particular race.

I'm going to quote him again, since you want to have a dishonest conversation.

You and I help pay for everyone of those deaths with our tax dollars, THROUGH GOVERNMENT GRANTS(He's talking about America, not Indonesia)

After 230 years of American History, we realized the priniciple was imperfectly applied in our nation, especially when it came to African Americans. All men are created equal but you couldn't vote, and like Dread Scott would say, you still can't, Dread Scott would say your still nothing more then an animal(talking about Black Americans) and so does Roe VS. Wade (aka US GOVERNMENT).


He pulled out a statistic, which is indeed factual, that 25% of all African American babies have been aborted, thus equating the 'circumstance' to 'genocide'.

Facilitated by the overbearing forces of the US Federal Government, that's what he said. He's anti-american end of story.

He also did not 'insult' America, or make blatantly false accusations about something our country is perceived to have done.

Yes he did, he insulted our laws, that hard working American Men and Women who worked countless hours, to get those laws passed so all Americans can enjoy a better life. He insulted the Government institution of Planned Parentedhood. If he doesn't like what we do here in America, he should leave the Country, we won't miss him.

I do not equate the two, sorry.

I wonder why?

[Lightning Strykez!]

I say we don't vote for ANYBODY who goes to church.

There ya go. :hehe::up:

[The Senator]

You are a Conservitve, what are you ashamed of? Your selective hearing is proof enough.

I think lazur knows what his political ideology is.....

[Handsome Rob]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMaaDbGgsKA&eurl=http://truthabouttrinity.blogspot.com/



Conservatives, please, I want to see all of you renounce, and reject everything this pastor is saying. This is much worst then anything Pastor Wright has said. This is quite chilling. Proof that the so called liberal media is myth.

Well, I disagree with the use of the term "genocide" and any vast conspiracy to kill blacks when talking about a voluntary medical procedure; however, I'm staunchly pro-life. So, I can't technically renounce/reject EVERYTHING he's saying. Is that good enough for you?

[lazur]

You are a Conservitve, what are you ashamed of? Your selective hearing is proof enough.

You do not know me. Therefore, don't claim to.

Today, I will expose, perhaps the greatest hypocrisy of this tolerance touting culture (he's talking about america, he's not talking about Bangladesh) and prove to you once and for all, that underneath their smiles of inclusion, lurks the sinister sword of Segregation, Racism and Genocide, Genocide in America!! (I guess your bias and selective ear didn't hear that did it. That's what I thought. Now lets move along).

This particular preacher did not accuse the U.S. of doing something it did not do. This preacher was pointing out 'hypocrisy' - not 'conspiracy theories'. He doesn't agree with ABORTION, and it angers him that the U.S. government does, because as a result the U.S. government is making it 'possible' for 25% of all 'black' babies to be aborted.

That's a lot different than accusing the U.S. government of creating and intentionally infecting a certain race of people with a deadly disease...

I'm going to quote him again, since you want to have a dishonest conversation.

You and I help pay for everyone of those deaths with our tax dollars, THROUGH GOVERNMENT GRANTS(He's talking about America, not Indonesia)

After 230 years of American History, we realized the priniciple was imperfectly applied in our nation, especially when it came to African Americans. All men are created equal but you couldn't vote, and like Dread Scott would say, you still can't, Dread Scott would say your still nothing more then an animal(talking about Black Americans) and so does Roe VS. Wade (aka US GOVERNMENT).

Again, this is about abortion. This guy is talking about his BELIEF in 'America', but also how he's disappointed by how 'distorted' some principles have become.

Facilitated by the overbearing forces of the US Federal Government, that's what he said. He's anti-american end of story.

Um, no, he's pointing out flaws of the U.S. government that MANY of us believe exist. You don't need to be a preacher preaching form a pulpit, or 'Anti-American', to state that certain aspects of the U.S. government are indeed 'overbearing' to its people. His statements, imo, do not cross the line into being Anti-American. Were that the case, then by your definition ANY person who ever criticizes the government for anything *should* be considered Anti-American instead of something less dramatic and a little more sensible, such as simply being 'disappointed with' the U.S. government, and calling for change.

Yes he did, he insulted our laws, that hard working American Men and Women who worked countless hours, to get those laws passed so all Americans can enjoy a better life. He insulted the Government institution of Planned Parentedhood. If he doesn't like what we do here in America, he should leave the Country, we won't miss him.

He did not 'insult' anything. He displayed 'anger' over the way these laws have been created and used as a means of 'control'. He's also angry over the existance of racism even today in this country, when such a thing should not exist. Hmm, his concerns aren't all that uncommon, actually.

I do not equate this guy to Wright. He's not even in the same league. And anyone who does, after listening to the audio on this preacher, is simply looking for 'political' leverage to use in their favor to make what Obama's preacher said 'not that bad'.

And yet you talk about 'dishonesty' in discussion...

[blackcobra]

You do not know me. Therefore, don't claim to.



This particular preacher did not accuse the U.S. of doing something it did not do. This preacher was pointing out 'hypocrisy' - not 'conspiracy theories'. He doesn't agree with ABORTION, and it angers him that the U.S. government does, because as a result the U.S. government is making it 'possible' for 25% of all 'black' babies to be aborted.

That's a lot different than accusing the U.S. government of creating and intentionally infecting a certain race of people with a deadly disease...



Again, this is about abortion. This guy is talking about his BELIEF in 'America', but also how he's disappointed by how 'distorted' some principles have become.



Um, no, he's pointing out flaws of the U.S. government that MANY of us believe exist. You don't need to be a preacher preaching form a pulpit, or 'Anti-American', to state that certain aspects of the U.S. government are indeed 'overbearing' to its people. His statements, imo, do not cross the line into being Anti-American. Were that the case, then by your definition ANY person who ever criticizes the government for anything *should* be considered Anti-American instead of something less dramatic and a little more sensible, such as simply being 'disappointed with' the U.S. government, and calling for change.



He did not 'insult' anything. He displayed 'anger' over the way these laws have been created and used as a means of 'control'. He's also angry over the existance of racism even today in this country, when such a thing should not exist. Hmm, his concerns aren't all that uncommon, actually.

I do not equate this guy to Wright. He's not even in the same league. And anyone who does, after listening to the audio on this preacher, is simply looking for 'political' leverage to use in their favor to make what Obama's preacher said 'not that bad'.

And yet you talk about 'dishonesty' in discussion...


Rudy Giuliani's priest has been accused in grand jury proceedings of molesting several children (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=3753385&page=1) and covering up the molestation of others. Giuliani would not disavow him on the campaign trail and still works with him. (But hey, he's America's Mayor)



Mitt Romney was part of a church that did not view black Americans as equals and actively discriminated against them (http://www.slate.com/id/2178568/). He stayed with that church all the way into his early thirties, until they were finally forced to change their policies to come into compliance with civil rights legislation. Romney never disavowed his church back then or now. He said he was proud of the faith of his fathers.



Jerry Falwell said America had 9/11 coming (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell) because we tolerated gays, feminists and liberals. It was our fault. Our chickens had come home to roost, if you will. John McCain proudly received his support and even spoke at his university's commencement.



Reverend John Hagee has called the Catholic Church the "Great Whore." (http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1393) He has said that the Anti-Christ will rise out of the European Union (http://www.alternet.org/story/39748/?page=1) (of course, the Anti-Christ will also be Jewish (http://www.raptureready.com/faq/faq72.html)). He has said all Muslims are trained to kill (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/02/28/hagee/index.html) and will be part of the devil's army when Armageddon comes (http://youtube.com/watch?v=mOsYSwNrlBo) (which he hopes is soon). John McCain continues to say he is proud of Reverend Hagee's endorsement.



Reverend Rod Parsley believes America was founded to destroy Islam (http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/03/john-mccain-rod-parsley-spiritual-guide.html). Since this is such an outlandish claim, I have to add for the record, that he is not kidding. Reverend Parsley says Islam is an "anti-Christ religion" brought down from a "demon spirit." Of course, we are in a war against all Muslims, including presumably Muslim-Americans. Buts since Parsley believes this is a Christian nation and that it should be run as a theocracy, he is not very concerned what Muslim-Americans think.



John McCain says Reverend Rod Parsley is his "spiritual guide." (http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/03/john-mccain-rod-parsley-spiritual-guide.html)


What separates all of these outrageous preachers from Barack Obama's? You guessed it. They're white and Reverend Jeremiah Wright is not. If it's not racism that's causing the disparity in media treatment of these preachers, then what is it?

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/80253/

[Kel]

Were any of those men a part of their, or are they apart of their campaign run???

[lazur]

Rudy Giuliani's priest has been accused in grand jury proceedings of molesting several children (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=3753385&page=1) and covering up the molestation of others. Giuliani would not disavow him on the campaign trail and still works with him. (But hey, he's America's Mayor)

Giuliani isn't a candidate, so this is irrelevant. However, was it ever proven that this priest molested children, or was he just 'accused' of it? Innocent until proven guilty, remember?

Mitt Romney was part of a church that did not view black Americans as equals and actively discriminated against them (http://www.slate.com/id/2178568/). He stayed with that church all the way into his early thirties, until they were finally forced to change their policies to come into compliance with civil rights legislation. Romney never disavowed his church back then or now. He said he was proud of the faith of his fathers.

Honesty, remember? Something you like to keep pointing out that 'others' aren't using in their arguments?

Let me CORRECT your statement: Mitt Romney was part of a RELIGION (not 'church') that, UNTIL 1978, did not view black Americans as equals and actively discriminated against them.

I certainly don't support that belief, and I obviously feel it was wrong of that religion to conduct itself in such a way 30 years ago, but you have left out the parts stating how that 'belief' by the Mormon religion has since been abandoned.

And even if he had 'disavowed' his religion back then, do you think anyone would have cared or paid attention? The country was still quite turmulous with 'racism' back in 1978, and Romney also wasn't an elected official until 2002 - a full 24 years *after* the Mormon religion changed its ways. Now, if the Mormon relgion still held this belief, and still actively conveyed the messaging of this belief to the masses, then and ONLY then would you be logical for comparing it to Obama's preacher.

Jerry Falwell said America had 9/11 coming (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jerry_Falwell) because we tolerated gays, feminists and liberals. It was our fault. Our chickens had come home to roost, if you will. John McCain proudly received his support and even spoke at his university's commencement.

Yeah, I don't like Falwell, but he also apologized for the statement (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/14/Falwell.apology/).

Has Obama's preacher apologized yet?

As to John McCain, he didn't attend this commencement until much, much later, after Falwell had 'made ammends' for what he said FIVE YEARS earlier. Are you saying that even though Falwell apologized for and retracted what he said, that five years later McCain should have still held it against him?

Reverend John Hagee has called the Catholic Church the "Great Whore." (http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1393) He has said that the Anti-Christ will rise out of the European Union (http://www.alternet.org/story/39748/?page=1) (of course, the Anti-Christ will also be Jewish (http://www.raptureready.com/faq/faq72.html)). He has said all Muslims are trained to kill (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/02/28/hagee/index.html) and will be part of the devil's army when Armageddon comes (http://youtube.com/watch?v=mOsYSwNrlBo) (which he hopes is soon). John McCain continues to say he is proud of Reverend Hagee's endorsement.

Sounds like some 'misguided' views. He's also not speaking against the U.S. - he's speaking against the Catholic Church (which, tbh, I can't say I disagree with, at least in principle), and he is unfairly speaking against not another 'people', but the people of another 'religion', whom many in the WORLD (not just in his church) 'perceive' as being extremist in nature and bent on killing Americans.

I'm not defending what he said, but I am stating that it's quite different in context and meaning than what Obama's preacher did.

Reverend Rod Parsley believes America was founded to destroy Islam (http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/03/john-mccain-rod-parsley-spiritual-guide.html). Since this is such an outlandish claim, I have to add for the record, that he is not kidding. Reverend Parsley says Islam is an "anti-Christ religion" brought down from a "demon spirit." Of course, we are in a war against all Muslims, including presumably Muslim-Americans. Buts since Parsley believes this is a Christian nation and that it should be run as a theocracy, he is not very concerned what Muslim-Americans think.

I certainly don't agree with that, but I don't agree with most preachers of the Christian faith probably most of the time. This guy sounds a bit extreme for my tastes, but McCain also does not 'regularly attend' his church.

I guess if we want to, we can dig into the background of any 'well known' supporter of any candidate and find stuff like this.

But this isn't an exercise in doing that. You're trying to 'victimize' Obama for the amount of scrutiny he's getting based on situations that aren't even analogous. For example, how many people would we find like Rod Parsley in Obama's background if we dug? Should they be put on the same level as his preacher of TWENTY years who not only spoke against the U.S., but also concocted 'conspiracy theories' to make his points?

John McCain says Reverend Rod Parsley is his "spiritual guide." (http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/03/john-mccain-rod-parsley-spiritual-guide.html)

So that must mean that McCain is racist, right? Did Parsley say anything that was racist, or was he talking about other 'religions'?

What separates all of these outrageous preachers from Barack Obama's? You guessed it. They're white and Reverend Jeremiah Wright is not. If it's not racism that's causing the disparity in media treatment of these preachers, then what is it?

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/80253/

The 'content' of what was said is what separates Wright from the others. It has nothing to do with skin color OTHER than the fact that Wright himself - not 'everyone else' - is who BROUGHT UP skin color in the first place by accusing the 'white man' of intentionally KILLING black people by creating and maliciously infecting them with AIDs.

If you're unable to discern what Obama's preacher said in terms of severity and gravity from the examples posted above of what other preachers have said, then nothing I or anyone else can say will change your mind. You're obviously passionate about your feelings, and no one can blame you for that, but I'll say again that what Wright did is FAR AND AWAY significantly different than *any* of the examples you've cited above, and what Obama did in response to that (which was nothing for TWENTY YEARS until he was confronted by the media) is also FAR AND AWAY significantly different than the politicians you've named above.

[blackcobra]

Giuliani isn't a candidate, so this is irrelevant. However, was it ever proven that this priest molested children, or was he just 'accused' of it? Innocent until proven guilty, remember?

Ha Ha, your bias has reached epic porportions! The fact of the matter is, Guliani's Priest, the man who once married him, whom he still hired, even after he was accused of being a child molestor. The press didn't inundate him during his campaign, asking him why is he assocaited with accused child molestors. But we all know that Catholic priests often get off, aslong as their sympathetic folks who turn the other cheek.



Honesty, remember? Something you like to keep pointing out that 'others' aren't using in their arguments?

Let me CORRECT your statement: Mitt Romney was part of a RELIGION (not 'church') that, UNTIL 1978, did not view black Americans as equals and actively discriminated against them.

Ha Ha, now you're saying there's a differnce between the Mormon Church and the Mormon Religon? Please give me any examples, I need a good laugh. He as part of racist orginazation, it's not diffrent then being a part of the Nation of Islam.

I certainly don't support that belief, and I obviously feel it was wrong of that religion to conduct itself in such a way 30 years agao, but you have left out the parts stating how that 'belief' in the Mormon religion has since been abandoned.

That's not the point, the point is that Romeny suscribed to these racist teachings since birth, all the way into adulthood. Was he inundated with questions about his past? No, but Conservatives like you lecture Liberals everyday on how Senator Byrd was once a racist, so he'll allways be a racist, remember? You can't have it both ways.

And even if he had 'disavowed' his religion back then, do you think anyone would have cared or paid attention?

No, because he's white. If Barack Obama was ever part of the Nation of Islam, or the Black Panthers he couldn't get elected to the Senate, let alone the President of the United States.

He wasn't an elected official until 2002 - a full 24 years *after* the Mormon religion changed its ways. Now, if the Mormon relgion still held this belief, and still actively conveyed the messaging of this belief to the masses, then and ONLY then would you be logical for comparing it to Obama's preacher.

Mitt Romney his been running for political office since 1994, His father was the Governor of Michigan, back when his church still subscribed to these anti-american racist teachings. Since you want to use time as a barometer to measure ones racism. How come the Press didn't inundate Mitt with questions about his racist father, and how that would effect his judgements on civil rights and equal opportunnity. It's a double standard. And for you to sit here and defend it is appauling.



Yeah, I don't like Falwell, but he also apologized for the statement (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/14/Falwell.apology/).

Has Obama's preacher apologized yet?

That's not the point, the point is Falwell blammed America for 911, and still gets invited to the most prestigous Republican political events.

As to John McCain, he didn't attend this commencement until much, much later, after Falwell had 'made ammends' for what he said. Are you saying that even though Falwell apologized for and retracted what he said, that five years later McCain should have still held it against him?

That's irrelevant, the fact is Falwell has a history of making biggoted, anti-gay, and anti-semtic remarks for decades. But no candidate has ever been questioned about having his endorsement.



Sounds like some 'misguided' views. He's also not speaking against the U.S. - he's speaking against the Catholic Church (which, tbh, I can't say I disagree with, at least in principle), and he is unfairly speaking against not another 'people', but the people of another 'religion', whom many in the WORLD (not just in his church) 'perceive' as being extremist in nature and bent on killing Americans.

I'm not defending what he said, but I am stating that it's quite different in circumstance than what Obama's preacher did.

I'm an atheist so I personlally think all of these religous nutbags are retards. Since you conservatives want to play the guilt by association game, it's only fair that I point out your blatant hypocrisy.



I certainly don't agree with that, but I don't agree with most preachers of the Christian faith probably most of the time. This guy sounds a bit extreme for my tastes, but McCain also does not 'regularly attend' his church.

It doesn't matter, he's embracing the endorsment of a demogauge.

I guess if we want to, we can dig into the background of any 'well known' supporter of any candidate and find stuff like this.

Excatly, but no one is attacking Obama on the issues. Last month the Conservatives were propagating that he's a card carrying Muslim(HUSSIEN OBAMA). This month they're saying he's a devoted Trinity Baptist Christian, who frequently attended Sermons preached by Pastor Wright.

But this isn't an exercise in doing that. You're trying to 'victimize' Obama for the amount of scrutiny he's getting based on situations that aren't even analogous. For example, how many people would we find like Rod Parsley in Obama's background if we dug? Should they be put on the same level as his preacher of TWENTY years who not only spoke against the U.S., but also concocted 'conspiracy theories' to make his points?

He didn't preach the same story for 20 years, that's your bias judgement making gross generalizations. Falwell, Robertson, Hagee, Parsely has been making eqaully delplorable statments for even longer. I think Wright is a jackass. But it's sad that Conservatives are trying to bring Obama down based on racial issues, instead of substanivite ones.



So that must mean that McCain is racist, right? Did Parsley say anything that was racist, or was he talking about other 'religions'?

By your standard yes, anyone who's associated with anyone who has a history of making racist statements, or subscribing to anti semitic, and gay biggotry, should be judged based on who's connected to them. Time isn't a factor here.



The 'content' of what was said is what separates Wright from the others. It has nothing to do with skin color OTHER than the fact that Obama's preacher - not 'everyone else' - is who BROUGHT UP skin color in the first place by accusing the 'white man' of intentionally KILLING black people with AIDs.

Persoanly, I think segregation, jim crowe, and slavery are far worse, all which were intentionally done. So that's why African Americans have this suspicion of intention. Eventhough I disagree vehemently that aids was created to kill blacks.

If you're unable to discern the severity of what Obama's preacher said as compared to a bunch of 'religious' statements made by other preachers, then nothing I or anyone else can say will change your mind. You can choose to live in ignorance if you'd like - it's your life.

Obama's preacher made those statements in a religous context, there's no difference, it's the same fire and brimestone, just different themes, one preaches hate against gays, jews, and the others speaks on the historicaly intentional racism in America. No difference.

[lazur]

Ha Ha, your bias has reached epic porportions! The fact of the matter is, Guliani's Priest, the man who once married him, whom he still hired, even after he was accused of being a child molestor. The press didn't inundate him during his campaign, asking him why is he assocaited with accused child molestors. But we all know that Catholic priests often get off, aslong as their sympathetic folks who turn the other cheek.

No, what I'm saying is that if Guiliani's priest had been tried, found guilty, and convicted of child molestation, then you would absolutely have a point.

My question to you was (because you brought it up, and therefore YOU should substantiate the claim), has the guy been PROVEN guilty in a court of law, and was he convicted?

Ha Ha, now you're saying there's a differnce between the Mormon Church and the Mormon Religon? Please give me any examples, I need a good laugh. He as part of racist orginazation, it's not diffrent then being a part of the Nation of Islam.

Again, this is YOUR point. All I'm stating are the facts. The Mormon religion (different than just one person's 'church') abandoned this belief in 1978. While the Mormon religion was wrong in the first place for ever having this belief, so was our own country during slavery.

There's nothing in Romney's history to EVER indicate that he personally believes black people are 'less than' white people. Had the Mormon religion not abandoned this belief in 1978 and STILL believed it, then you would have a point.

That's not the point, the point is that Romeny suscribed to these racist teachings since birth, all the way into adulthood. Was he inundated with questions about his past? No, but Conservatives like you lecture Liberals everyday on how Senator Byrd was once a racist, so he'll allways be a racist, remember? You can't have it both ways.

How do you know what Romney believed or didn't believe? You're assuming that because the Mormon religion held these beliefs, so did ALL of its followers?

No, because he's white. If Barack Obama was ever part of the Nation of Islam, or the Black Panthers he couldn't get elected to the Senate, let alone the President of the United States.

That's a bold assumption on your part. I believe people can change their ways for the better. The Mormon religion demonstrated that 30 years ago...

Mitt Romney his been running for political office since 1994, His father was the Governor of Michigan, back when his church still subscribed to these anti-american racist teachings. Since you want to use time as a barometer to measure ones racism. How come the Press didn't inundate Mitt with questions about his racist father, and how that would effect his judgements on civil rights and equal opportunnity. It's a double standard. And for you to sit here and defend it is appauling.

Even 1994 was 16 years after 1978.

And, to be frank, I don't care what Romney's father did or didn't do. The same argument was made against Bush Sr., and I thought then that it was ridiculous. You can't hold a son accountable for the sins of the father unless the son participated, and Romney did not.

That's not the point, the point is Falwell blammed America for 911, and still gets invited to the most prestigous Republican political events.

He also apologized. I'm not defending Falwell, but he did 'man up' and make a public apology, and he never repeated those sentiments again.

That's irrelevant, the fact is Falwell has a history of making biggoted, anti-gay, and anti-semtic remarks for decades. But no candidate has ever been questioned about having his endorsement.

I don't follow Falwell, so I can't speak to the history of his remarks.

I'm an atheist so I personlally think all of these religous nutbags are retards. Since you conservatives want to play the guilt by association game, it's only fair that I point out your blatant hypocrisy.

Your 'personal' feelings toward religion are quite evident.

It doesn't matter, he's embracing the endorsment of a demogauge.

Accepting someone's endorsement isn't the same as 'embracing' an endorsement. This is a political game where politicians are forced to seek endorsements from ALL corners of the religious community, provided that they are not 'racist' or 'hate-filled' in nature. Nothing any of these preachers has said or done would indicate that they're either 'racist' or even 'hate-filled' toward the United States.

Excatly, but no one is attacking Obama on the issues. Last month the Conservatives were propagating that he's a card carrying Muslim(HUSSIEN OBAMA). This month they're saying he's a devoted Trinity Baptist Christian, who frequently attended Sermons preached by Pastor Wright.

I don't care what religion he is, to be honest. What I care about is that for 20 years he sat in a church where the preacher was preaching 'hate' for America, and he did nothing about it UNTIL it became an issue in the media.

He didn't preach the same story for 20 years, that's your bias judgement making gross generalizations. Falwell, Robertson, Hagee, Parsely has been making eqaully delplorable statments for even longer. I think Wright is a jackass. But it's sad that Conservatives are trying to bring Obama down based on racial issues, instead of substanivite ones.

Umm, no, all of the evidence points to Wright spewing the same 'vitriol' toward America in his sermons for the course of the last 20 to 30 years. Have you read any of the historical information on Wright? You should, especially if you're going to accuse others of 'gross generalizations'.

By your standard yes, anyone who's associated with anyone who has a history of making racist statements, or subscribing to anti semitic, and gay biggotry, should be judged based on who's connected to them. Time isn't a factor here.

No, actually that's YOUR position, not mine. You're attempting to downplay the credibility of being concerned over what Wright said, in relation to how Obama reacted to it (which is to say not at all until last year).

Persoanly, I think segregation, jim crowe, and slavery are far worse, all which were intentionally done. So that's why African Americans have this suspicion of intention. Eventhough I disagree vehemently that aids was created to kill blacks.

We finally agree on something...

Obama's preacher made those statements in a religous context, there's no difference, it's the same fire and brimestone, just different themes, one preaches hate against gays, jews, and the others speaks on the historicaly intentional racism in America. No difference.

There IS a difference (at least in logic) between 'criticizing' the 'doctrine' of other religions and even questioning the motives of our government, as compared to all out accusing our government of the 'intentional' efforts to commit genocide against a certain race of people.

[lazur]

Your position...

... which I think certainly merits consideration. You're absolutely correct for 'questioning' any of these candidates, no matter who they are, and I respect and appreciate that quality in what you bring to this discussion.

However, I also take a different position. I think that if I were running for office, I'd have to consider 'endorsements' from people within the society who have garnered a significant following of their own, and whose endorsements could potentially mean my winning an election ... (there's a big IF here) IF it didn't compromise my own 'values' - meaning that I could 'respectfully disagree' with some of my endorser's 'beliefs', provided they aren't too 'extreme', but not enough of them that I'd 'disown' that person.

The question, at least in my mind, comes down to how 'bought in' to these beliefs these candidates were, and just how 'severe' they were in meaning. I mean, do we really think Guiliani would knowingly associate himself with a convicted child molester? If he did, it would certainly harm his character, that's for sure, and he would absolutely deserve it. But he was also the mayor of the largest city and Political Haven in America. I wonder how many 'accused' people the man actually met on a daily basis. Probably more than you or I will ever meet in a lifetime. And, as Mayor, it was his absolute responsibility to act within the confines of the 'law' - ie, innocent until proven guilty. Maybe he wasn't that noble, I don't know, or maybe he was, at least at that moment.

Obama, on the other hand, had the luxury of a decision based on fact. His preacher wasn't just 'accused' of making Anti-American statements. It was proven with the distribution of the media. However, even after 'knowing' that these accusations in the media were true, he essentially did nothing. His preacher still remained a member of his Campaign, and not just 'any' part of the Campaign, but in charge of a branch of his Campaign named the "African American Religious Leadership Committee."

This brings into question Obama's own 'personal beliefs' with respect to how he sees our country. I mean, if the guy he's got running his Religious Leadership Committee is preaching this stuff, wouldn't it make sense to assume that Obama 'bought in' to the same beliefs? If that's not the case, or if he didn't have enough information, why would Obama have ever appointed this guy to this Committee in the first place?

I actually really like Obama most of the time, but for me this is calling into question my being able to 'trust' him, as my President, to make the best decisions in the interest of ALL people, regardless of race, to keep our country moving forward. Or is 'race' going to insert itself into his Administration? I ask that question because I ask myself what might happen if Wright were the President. And I have to ask that because I can only assume that, after 20 years of loyalty to this Preacher - who married him, baptised his children, and espoused such hatred of his country - Obama must also share in his beliefs. If he didn't, Wright would never have been on that Committee.

These other candidates you're pointing out didn't 'officiate' their relationship to these 'religious nutjobs' in any way. They weren't leaders inside their campaigns, and they most certainly didn't lead any committees. These other candidates didn't in any way exhibit or share in the beliefs of those they'd met through 'chance encounter' or simply by virtue of the political office being held. There is no guilt by association to be had here.

That's purely my logic on the matter. I haven't found a compelling reason to believe otherwise just yet, but I'm of course always looking for new perspectives.

[comicgirl]

race + politics = http://smilies.vidahost.com/cwm/cwm/angryfire.gif

[Kel]

I need Cliff Notes for some of these posts.....

[blackcobra]

Lazur, If Jerimeiah Wright is so hateful, so radical, do you care to explian these please.

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/clintonwright2.jpg

In 1959 Wright enrolled at Virginia Union University, in Richmond, where he remained until 1961. That year he left school to join the military. He served in the Second Marine Division of the U.S. Marine Corps from 1961 to 1963, achieving the rank of private first class. In 1963 he graduated as valedictorian from the Great Lakes Naval Training Center, and from 1964 to 1967, he served as a cardio pulmonary technician at the U.S. Naval Hospital in Bethesda, Maryland. During 1965 and 1966, he was awarded with three Presidential Commendations from President Lyndon B. Johnson.

http://www.answers.com/topic/jeremiah-wright

This proves that he's not the lifelong radical you pro-claim him to be. You can't judge a man by his words, only by his actions. Eventhough his words are beyond deplorable.

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/20clintonwrightl_190.gif
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/20clintonwright2_533.jpg

The secret service doesn't allow anti-american radicals to get this close to the president

Checkmate!

[comicgirl]

Lazur, If Jerimeiah Wright is so hateful, so radical, do you care to explian these please.

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/clintonwright2.jpg

In 1959 Wright enrolled at Virginia Union University, in Richmond, where he remained until 1961. That year he left school to join the military. He served in the Second Marine Division of the U.S. Marine Corps from 1961 to 1963, achieving the rank of private first class. In 1963 he graduated as valedictorian from the Great Lakes Naval Training Center, and from 1964 to 1967, he served as a cardio pulmonary technician at the U.S. Naval Hospital in Bethesda, Maryland. During 1965 and 1966, he was awarded with three Presidential Commendations from President Lyndon B. Johnson.

http://www.answers.com/topic/jeremiah-wright

This proves that he's not the lifelong radical you pro-claim him to be. You can't judge a man by his words, only by his actions. Eventhough his words are beyond deplorable.

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/20clintonwrightl_190.gif
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/20clintonwright2_533.jpg

The secret service doesn't allow anti-american radicals to get this close to the president

Checkmate!:up::up::applaud

[The Senator]

Lazur, If Jerimeiah Wright is so hateful, so radical, do you care to explian these please.

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/clintonwright2.jpg

In 1959 Wright enrolled at Virginia Union University, in Richmond, where he remained until 1961. That year he left school to join the military. He served in the Second Marine Division of the U.S. Marine Corps from 1961 to 1963, achieving the rank of private first class. In 1963 he graduated as valedictorian from the Great Lakes Naval Training Center, and from 1964 to 1967, he served as a cardio pulmonary technician at the U.S. Naval Hospital in Bethesda, Maryland. During 1965 and 1966, he was awarded with three Presidential Commendations from President Lyndon B. Johnson.

http://www.answers.com/topic/jeremiah-wright

This proves that he's not the lifelong radical you pro-claim him to be. You can't judge a man by his words, only by his actions. Eventhough his words are beyond deplorable.

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/20clintonwrightl_190.gif
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c6/cetawayo/20clintonwright2_533.jpg

The secret service doesn't allow anti-american radicals to get this close to the president

Checkmate!

As a Clinton supporter and someone who has discussed this already, I feel it is my duty to bring out the hilariously large font to explain the difference between Wright's relationship with the Clintons and the Obamas:

INVITING SOMEONE TO A CONFERENCE ATTENDED BY HUNDREDS OF RELIGIOUS LEADERS AND TAKING A PHOTOGRAPH WITH THAT PERSON IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM TAKING ADVICE FROM THAT SAME PERSON FOR 20 YEARS.

Also... Wright wasn't hired by Clinton as his top spiritual adviser!

You're comparing apples to oranges here.

[Superman]

What kills me about all this pastor stuff with Obama is that Pastor John Hagee, Whom John {Bush Jr} McCain ASKED to endorse him, Has said things that are far worse than anything Wright ever said and hardly no one is saying a thing about it.

Pastor John Hagee has called the Catholic Church "The Great Whore" and has said that hurricane katrina was gods punishment for the gays and New Orleans Gay Pride parade. He also thinks we should bomb the Middle East to get the biblical apocalypse started.:whatever:

The Right has been calling for Obama to denounce Wright outright but I don't see them saying a word to McCain about his guys.

If the Right was really as upset about Pastor Wright's statements as they claim to be then they should be all over McCain and the pastor's that McCain ASKED to endorse him, But like always with Republican's it's do as I say not as I do.:whatever:

[comicgirl]

What kills me about all this pastor stuff with Obama is that Pastor John Hagee, Whom John {Bush Jr} McCain ASKED to endorse him, Has said things that are far worse than anything Wright ever said and hardly no one is saying a thing about it.

Pastor John Hagee has called the Catholic Church "The Great Whore" and has said that hurricane katrina was gods punishment for the gays and New Orleans Gay Pride parade. He also thinks we should bomb the Middle East to get the biblical apocalypse started.:whatever:

The Right has been calling for Obama to denounce Wright outright but I don't see them saying a word to McCain about his guys.

If the Right was really as upset about Pastor Wright's statements as they claim to be then they should be all over McCain and the pastor's that McCain ASKED to endorse him, But like always with Republican's it's do as I say not as I do.:whatever:It's "sexier" news to work everybody into a froth over race. It's boys-will-be-boys Biz as usual for the Reps.:cmad:

[blackcobra]

As a Clinton supporter and someone who has discussed this already, I feel it is my duty to bring out the hilariously large font to explain the difference between Wright's relationship with the Clintons and the Obamas:

INVITING SOMEONE TO A CONFERENCE ATTENDED BY HUNDREDS OF RELIGIOUS LEADERS AND TAKING A PHOTOGRAPH WITH THAT PERSON IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM TAKING ADVICE FROM THAT SAME PERSON FOR 20 YEARS.

Also... Wright wasn't hired by Clinton as his top spiritual adviser!

You're comparing apples to oranges here.

Just because you write big doesn't make you right! Bill Clinton invited America's top 100,(not 100's) Pastors to an exclusive Whitehouse dinner on Sept 11th 1998. This was to improve his image after the Monica Lewinsky fallout. These Pastors were pre-screened by the secret service, since it was an exclusive event. If he was good enough to meet with the President 10 years ago, he was good enough to be Barack's Pastor. And Wright wasn't a paid advisor. But nice try.

[Lightning Strykez!]

What kills me about all this pastor stuff with Obama is that Pastor John Hagee, Whom John {Bush Jr} McCain ASKED to endorse him, Has said things that are far worse than anything Wright ever said and hardly no one is saying a thing about it.

Pastor John Hagee has called the Catholic Church "The Great Whore" and has said that hurricane katrina was gods punishment for the gays and New Orleans Gay Pride parade. He also thinks we should bomb the Middle East to get the biblical apocalypse started.:whatever:

The Right has been calling for Obama to denounce Wright outright but I don't see them saying a word to McCain about his guys.

If the Right was really as upset about Pastor Wright's statements as they claim to be then they should be all over McCain and the pastor's that McCain ASKED to endorse him, But like always with Republican's it's do as I say not as I do.:whatever:

You've got it exactly right. :up:

There is such a double-standard going on here. Folks are asking "what kind of role" these people's pastors and religions played, i.e. inquiring if they actually worked for the campaign, etc. My question is: What difference does it make?" :dry: If they have a so-called spiritual impact on the person running for office, then that's what needs to be judged solely--their logistic involvement with campaign affairs is a moot point.

I hate it when we try to split atoms here. The principles are the same, and if one candidate is held accountable for someone else's statements, then all of them should be.

[Lightning Strykez!]

Also... Wright wasn't hired by Clinton as his top spiritual adviser!

You're comparing apples to oranges here.

No.

You have no idea what kind of relationship Clinton had with Wright. Obviously there is something there for him to have been selected; I doubt it was random. There are THOUSANDS of ministers in this country. That was a private affair.

And again, if Obama is "guilty by association" then the same should be said of anyone else who's had ties with this pastor. I mean, if we're going to be shallow, let's be shallow all the way people. :whatever:

[Mr Sparkle]

Were any of those men a part of their, or are they apart of their campaign run???

oh, so it's NOT that they associate with them for an extended period of time.
it's that they made them part of their campaign.
I get it, you can associate with as many shady and insane people as you please....as long as they don't hold official title.

this is about appearances then?
well, I'm glad we can fully appreciate the rather shallow nature of this issue.

[Mr Sparkle]

No.

You have no idea what kind of relationship Clinton had with Wright. Obviously there is something there for him to have been selected; I doubt it was random. There are THOUSANDS of ministers in this country. That was a private affair.

And again, if Obama is "guilty by association" then the same should be said of anyone else who's had ties with this pastor. I mean, if we're going to be shallow, let's be shallow all the way people. :whatever:

oh LS you just don't get it.
people have been throwing out the " If I went to KKK meeting for 20 years...." card.
so apparently, what they mean is " If I go to KKK meetings for 20 years and then stop a year before the election....that means I was CURED of all racism!"

see? no double standard or implicit endorsement of hypocrisy there at all.
you're silly, LS, stop being silly, you don't get politics, HIllary did nothing wrong, because the nuts she associated with are NOT, repeat NOT part of her campaign, and as you well know, if someone is NOT part of your campaign association with them doesn't count.
like If Obama met with Hugo chavez and they made out for hours on end, and spoke about how much they hated America?
that wouldn't count if Obama doesn't make Chavez part of his campaign.

see? all perfectly logical.

[Spider-Bite]

As a Clinton supporter and someone who has discussed this already, I feel it is my duty to bring out the hilariously large font to explain the difference between Wright's relationship with the Clintons and the Obamas:

INVITING SOMEONE TO A CONFERENCE ATTENDED BY HUNDREDS OF RELIGIOUS LEADERS AND TAKING A PHOTOGRAPH WITH THAT PERSON IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM TAKING ADVICE FROM THAT SAME PERSON FOR 20 YEARS.

Also... Wright wasn't hired by Clinton as his top spiritual adviser!

You're comparing apples to oranges here.

dont' pretend there isn't anybody your close to whom has given you advice who has ever said anything deemed controversial.

People are holding this against Obama because he is black and they are just looking for an excuse to hop onto the race factor. Wright's name isn't on the ballet. He's not running for President.

[Damiean Dark]

Yep people can go round in circles on this but because a black man is associated with a controversial preacher he is suddenly some kind of fake who secretly hates whites (that includes his mother and all relations on her side) its the old stereotype that all blacks are automations off a production line all thinking and acting the same way!.

[Varient]

Smh.

[lazur]

Lazur, If Jerimeiah Wright is so hateful, so radical, do you care to explian these please.

I never said Wright was hateful. I said his sermons often seem to be filled with 'hate'. I have no doubt he's a good man and that he loves God and his family. But that's completely irrelevant due to the 'name' and 'reputation' he built for himself by using extreme language and falling back on racial 'conspiracy' theories. After all, I think we can all agree that accusing our government of deliberately inventing the AIDs virus in order to wipe out black people is just WAY, WAAAAY over the line.

As to who Wright associated with, who cares? Just because he was 1 of 100 leaders at some party Clinton threw 10 years ago does not mean the man is without sin. Wright may have been at one time very highly respected. Maybe Clinton didn't know about his extremism? Maybe it hadn't yet become public?

Still, even if former Presidents did wine and dine with the guy, it's not the same thing as sitting IN his church for 20 years and never uttering a word in disagreement to the 'message' he was preaching.

[lazur]

Yep people can go round in circles on this but because a black man is associated with a controversial preacher he is suddenly some kind of fake who secretly hates whites (that includes his mother and all relations on her side) its the old stereotype that all blacks are automations off a production line all thinking and acting the same way!.

I think Wright is a little more than 'controversial'. And no, I don't think there's a double standard here. For example, if it came to light that McCain had been attending a church for the last 20 years in which the preacher spoke poorly of 'black people' to the extent that it involved outlandish conspiracy theories, and then McCain took it several LEAPS further by calling this preacher his mentor and guide in life, even appointing him to a leadership position on his Campaign, do you *really* think people wouldn't raise it as a legitimate concern with respect to McCain's 'character'?

These people are running for the Presidency. They should ALL be held to the highest of standards regardless of skin color, period.

[The Senator]

No.

You have no idea what kind of relationship Clinton had with Wright. Obviously there is something there for him to have been selected; I doubt it was random. There are THOUSANDS of ministers in this country. That was a private affair.

And again, if Obama is "guilty by association" then the same should be said of anyone else who's had ties with this pastor. I mean, if we're going to be shallow, let's be shallow all the way people. :whatever:

It isn't about simply having a connection with the man.

It's about standing by him and hiring him as an adviser to your national campaign, which is suppose to work in the interest of ALL Americans. Obama hired him knowing what kind of hateful things the man had a record of saying.

And even if in his own eyes, Obama thought what Wright said wasn't offensive, he should have known that hiring this man would bring this kind of controversy to his campaign.

Clinton hasn't hired a racist whack job like Wright to serve on her campaign, has she? Wright never served as an adviser in her husband's presidential administration, did he?

So the idea that Clinton is just as guilty by association is a complete crap shot, as is the idea that people are judging Obama on this simply because he was 'associated' with the man.