Lie-berman scheduled to speak at Hagee event?!

[SW85]

In a nutshell, what it amounts to is that the media has gotten side-tracked into focusing on relatively trivial things. The Wright circus was basically pushed by the right, because the right doesn't care to talk about issues like the economy, the Iraq mess, the housing crisies, or the nearly fifty million Americans without health insurance.That's because they don't have solutions to ANY of it. it's easier to just say,"Hey, look over there, reverend Wright," or, "Hey, Obama's not wearing a flag pen, he must be "UNAMERICAN!" Or, "I heard Obama's a Muslim.You know, Obama, Osama, they sound a lot alike, they must be related."It's pretty transparent, and I don't see it working this time, though it has in the past..People are wising up, at long last.Of course, it took an idiot like Bush to screw everything up, but better late than never..

The Hagee circus is the same thing, and personally, I couldn't care less who supports McCain. McCain actively sought his support, though, which doesn't say much for his ability to screen the folks he seeks endorsements from, which doesn't say much about his judgement. So much for the value of "experience.."

Had Wright not been turned into a talking point by the RW and later the mainstream media, I doubt that most people would even be aware of Hagee. That's why people who live in glass houses shouldn't be throwing stones.

The impression that I get from your post is that your upset the "RW" isn't playing a game on your home turf. Screw that, I say; they're not obligated to. You don't get to decide what all the issues are in an election. (For instance, no one of importance has decided your "50 million Americans don't have health insurance" business isn't an issue because it simply isn't true). This reminds me of Obama's tendency to dismiss any legitimate criticism of him as "distractions," presumably from the business of electing him President.

If people are alarmed because Obama is an adherent to a heretical pseudo-religion that holds that God's central purpose is to destroy white people... well, they have a right to be. They have a similar right to be alarmed by McCain seeking the endorsement of an anti-Catholic bigot -- but again, the two issues are not equivalent in their details, which is why people are still more concerned about the former than the latter. But you don't get to dismiss the concerns of a relatively large number of people by pegging it as a phony non-issue cooked up to distract people from what you've decided are "real" issues.

So if you're not alarmed, why make an issue of it? This is something like the second time in the relatively few days you've been here that you've said you oppose X but want everyone who disagrees with you to suffer X anyway. This is such a small, petty way to think and feel and live.

 

[Vietvet]

The impression that I get from your post is that your upset the "RW" isn't playing a game on your home turf. Screw that, I say; they're not obligated to. You don't get to decide what all the issues are in an election. (For instance, no one of importance has decided your "50 million Americans don't have health insurance" business isn't an issue because it simply isn't true). This reminds me of Obama's tendency to dismiss any legitimate criticism of him as "distractions," presumably from the business of electing him President.

If people are alarmed because Obama is an adherent to a heretical pseudo-religion that holds that God's central purpose is to destroy white people... well, they have a right to be. They have a similar right to be alarmed by McCain seeking the endorsement of an anti-Catholic bigot -- but again, the two issues are not equivalent in their details, which is why people are still more concerned about the former than the latter. But you don't get to dismiss the concerns of a relatively large number of people by pegging it as a phony non-issue cooked up to distract people from what you've decided are "real" issues.

So if you're not alarmed, why make an issue of it? This is something like the second time in the relatively few days you've been here that you've said you oppose X but want everyone who disagrees with you to suffer X anyway. This is such a small, petty way to think and feel and live.

Now you are getting personal, and it's entirely uncalled for. You have no clue as to how I "think, feel or live," and it's none of your damned business, at any rate. Let's stick to talking about political things here, or don't bother responding to my posts at all.

The things that actually MATTER to the average person in this country, according to most polling sources of any credibility, are: Health care, The war in Iraq, the economy, and Jobs.I didn't decide that those are the main issues, it's pretty much common knowledge, to those who actually pay attention.It doesn't take a genius to figure that out, if one is living in the real world.. NOT Reverend wright OR Hagee. I didn't MAKE an "issue" of Hagee, he has become an issue on his own merits.My point was, if the RW wants to "play with fire" by harping on a bunch of scare tactics regarding Wright, than they should not be outraged or surprised about Hagee's name being brought out. Turnabout is fair play. Of course, that simple point seems to have gone right over your head..

If anyone here is guilty of pettiness, it's you, not me.

I don't appreciate the personal attacks, and they are totally uncalled for.

 

[Libsmasher]

The impression that I get from your post is that your upset the "RW" isn't playing a game on your home turf. Screw that, I say; they're not obligated to. You don't get to decide what all the issues are in an election. (For instance, no one of importance has decided your "50 million Americans don't have health insurance" business isn't an issue because it simply isn't true). This reminds me of Obama's tendency to dismiss any legitimate criticism of him as "distractions," presumably from the business of electing him President.

Dead on target - WHATEVER the criticism of Obama, the Obamabots reject the criticism as invalid - they are unwilling (or unable) to debate. They bring up fake issues like McCain's health, and when that is punctured with documentary evidence from competent sources, they keep going on and on like the energizer rabbit. Probably most people in the country believe that "Bush lied" about the war, simply because the leftwing propaganda machine has repeated it millions of times, even though nobody has ever proved it.

If people are alarmed because Obama is an adherent to a heretical pseudo-religion that holds that God's central purpose is to destroy white people... well, they have a right to be. They have a similar right to be alarmed by McCain seeking the endorsement of an anti-Catholic bigot -- but again, the two issues are not equivalent in their details, which is why people are still more concerned about the former than the latter. But you don't get to dismiss the concerns of a relatively large number of people by pegging it as a phony non-issue cooked up to distract people from what you've decided are "real" issues.

The Obamabots want to pretend character and background are not an issue. The guy sat in a racist, anti-american church for 20 years, but it's "not an issue". Here's this guy who is relatively new on the national scene, but nobody is supposed to inquire as to who he is and how he thinks - we're just supposed to look at his issues page. About the amercan flag pin etc: how do you know you like and trust anybody? Because you sent a detective to check them out? No, you know it from lots of things, day in and day out, that tell you over time what a person is. With Obama it's lots of "little" things like calling his grandmother a racist because she said the same thing as Jesse Jackson, his "mentoring" associations with communists and racists, and his strong connection with black liberation theology, an antiwhite racist movement. All of this doesn't matter? Nonsense - IT MATTERS.

 

[SW85]

Now you are getting personal, and it's entirely uncalled for.

Oh, get off your high horse, guy, I ain't interested.

I said you're acting petty. Which is true, considering you just admitted that the "issue" over which you made this thread to attack the "RW" is of 0 importance to you (and your earlier remark that, despite your opposition to the war, you'd still like to see your political opponents forced at gunpoint to participate in it). I didn't say you personally are petty; I don't know you and still probably wouldn't care if you were.

It's like if I say "my neighbor's acting like a jerk," which is rather a different statement than "my neighbor's a jerk."

I didn't MAKE an "issue" of Hagee, he has become an issue on his own merits.

Really now? The "RW" improperly manufactured the Wright controversy, but the Hagee business just materialized on its own and is fair game?

Look, either they're both off-limits for political discourse or they're both not. You don't get to change uniforms mid-game.

Turnabout is fair play.

Sure -- if you're going to say something like:

"Look, the RW is rushing to defend McCain for doing the exact same thing they used to attack Obama."

But you didn't. You behaved precisely the way you accuse your opponents of behaving just to grind their noses in it. That is petty, and objectively so.

 

[Vietvet]

Oh, get off your high horse, guy, I ain't interested.

I said you're acting petty. Which is true, considering you just admitted that the "issue" over which you made this thread to attack the "RW" is of 0 importance to you (and your earlier remark that, despite your opposition to the war, you'd still like to see your political opponents forced at gunpoint to participate in it). I didn't say you personally are petty; I don't know you and still probably wouldn't care if you were.

It's like if I say "my neighbor's acting like a jerk," which is rather a different statement than "my neighbor's a jerk."



Really now? The "RW" improperly manufactured the Wright controversy, but the Hagee business just materialized on its own and is fair game?

Look, either they're both off-limits for political discourse or they're both not. You don't get to change uniforms mid-game.



Sure -- if you're going to say something like:

"Look, the RW is rushing to defend McCain for doing the exact same thing they used to attack Obama."

But you didn't. You behaved precisely the way you accuse your opponents of behaving just to grind their noses in it. That is petty, and objectively so.

Doesn't matter to me whether you are "interested" or not. I think you need to give yourself a reality check and ask yourself,"Do I REALLY know WTF I am talking about?"

Get over yourself, "guy."

 

[all_arm]

hi libsmoothie, i notice you didn't address my citationed and linked post dealing with parsley and hagee. why not? because you can't strawman and ad hominem your way out of your untenable position when faced with actual, unrefutable video evidence?

 

[Libsmasher]

hi libsmoothie, i notice you didn't address my citationed and linked post dealing with parsley and hagee. why not? because you can't strawman and ad hominem your way out of your untenable position when faced with actual, unrefutable video evidence?

I haven't seen anything from you that's irrefutable - most of it is "not refutable" because it's not debate - just another of the long Obamalunatic rants that have infected this place lately.

With you, Vietshellshock, and Top Grin all posting massive Boshophobe rants, I don't catch everything. Kindly repost two things:

1. Something about parsley (and remember I never defended him)

2. An accurate (as opposed to excised soundbite) documentation of his connection with McCain.

 

[SW85]

Doesn't matter to me whether you are "interested" or not. I think you need to give yourself a reality check and ask yourself,"Do I REALLY know WTF I am talking about?"

Get over yourself, "guy."

I wish I could likewise accuse you of ignorance, but frankly you have yet to respond to anything I've said in any of my attempts to engage you (here or in Libsmasher's chickenhawk thread), so I can't say that with certainty.

Here's a short list of my points in this thread you haven't addressed. You can insult me all you like, and I'll take it lying down, if you're able to address them to my satisfaction:

(1) You said the Wright issue was manufactured by the right, but the Hagee issued developed naturally. This is silly.

(2) You appear to have dismissed the Wright issue solely because it was, as you say, manufactured by the right. You offer no other reasons why it should be ignored. If it's a non-issue then it's a non-issue on the basis of its merits, not on the basis of who called attention to it.

(3) Though you never explicitly state it, the assumption behind the posting of this thread is that Obama's close relationship with Wright and McCain's seeking an endorsement from Hagee are similar enough to warrant direct comparison. This is objectively not the case.

(4) You've openly said you don't care about the Wright issue or the Hagee issue -- yet here you're pretending to care about the Hagee issue to score political points, precisely the thing you're accusing the right of doing. This is not merely hypocritical in its own right, but doubly so since the entire point of the thread was to accuse your opponents of hypocrisy.

(5) Since you object to my characterization of the behavior described in point 4 above as petty, I'm curious as to how you think it isn't. You haven't actually objected to this on any grounds other than that it's "personal," when I've already told you, it isn't.


Now I find it frustrating (though not personally offensive) that you have ignored everything I've said with some weasley evasions about how I've hurt your feelings, and then go on to say that I don't know what I'm talking about.

 

[Vietvet]

I wish I could likewise accuse you of ignorance, but frankly you have yet to respond to anything I've said in any of my attempts to engage you (here or in Libsmasher's chickenhawk thread), so I can't say that with certainty.

Here's a short list of my points in this thread you haven't addressed. You can insult me all you like, and I'll take it lying down, if you're able to address them to my satisfaction:

(1) You said the Wright issue was manufactured by the right, but the Hagee issued developed naturally. This is silly.

(2) You appear to have dismissed the Wright issue solely because it was, as you say, manufactured by the right. You offer no other reasons why it should be ignored. If it's a non-issue then it's a non-issue on the basis of its merits, not on the basis of who called attention to it.

(3) Though you never explicitly state it, the assumption behind the posting of this thread is that Obama's close relationship with Wright and McCain's seeking an endorsement from Hagee are similar enough to warrant direct comparison. This is objectively not the case.

(4) You've openly said you don't care about the Wright issue or the Hagee issue -- yet here you're pretending to care about the Hagee issue to score political points, precisely the thing you're accusing the right of doing. This is not merely hypocritical in its own right, but doubly so since the entire point of the thread was to accuse your opponents of hypocrisy.

(5) Since you object to my characterization of the behavior described in point 4 above as petty, I'm curious as to how you think it isn't. You haven't actually objected to this on any grounds other than that it's "personal," when I've already told you, it isn't.


Now I find it frustrating (though not personally offensive) that you have ignored everything I've said with some weasley evasions about how I've hurt your feelings, and then go on to say that I don't know what I'm talking about.

Your last paragraph is a misquote of what I said. I didn't say a thing about your "hurting my feelings," because it will take a hell of a lot more than an inane rant from yet another RW drone to do that. You give yourself far too much credit. I merely said I didn't appreciate your personal editorial on my opinion not being a good example, in YOUR opinion, of how to "think or live." I ask you: Who in the HELL died and made YOU the "decider" of how others should think, live, breathe, eat and sleep??that's why i said you needed to "get over yourself." Understand now? Good, I didn't THINK you did..

Now, on to addressing your points: #1:I didn't say the Wright issue was "manufactured" by the right, as I recall, but I DID say that it had been pushed by the right. I first heard about it as I was channelsurfing through the Hannity-Colmes comedy hour, long before it broke nationally. I don't care if they keep talking about it, if that's what they want. All I am saying is, I doubt if the right was expecting all the "blowback" from the Hagee mess. I maintain that it would never have come about, if not for all the noise about Wright.Let 'em(and you) talk about Wright, and we'll talk about hagee and Parsley every time you do. Works for me.. I never said it wasn't fair game, on either side, so you have managed to miss my original point altogether. Hagee's been talking ridiculous bs for years. I live in his general "neighborhood," and even used to work with some of his "subjects," so I know what I am talking about. he would have gone on campaigning with McCain, and nobody would be making hay of it, had not Wright become such a major focal point. That's why I don't think religion and politics should be mixed. But, since they already have been, thanks to the media and the pundits, "bring it on." Do you get my point now? Good, didn't think so.

#2: See #1, I believe I've already covered it.

#3: Right, they are not the same, McCain's actively seeking Hagee's endorsement ,after failing to check out what's available on You Tube for all the world to see, betrays his basic lack of attention to detail.Obama never asked Wright to endorse him, because politics and religion should be seperated.Wright was his pastor, not a political tool for him to use in a political campaign. Ever hear of that "seperation of church and state" deal? We've already had a bellyful of religious hypocrisy with Bush and his supporters on the religious right who want to collect taxpayer bucks for their phony "faith-based initiatives" so why would anyone in their right mind want another POTUS like that?Mccain sought Hagee's support in order to placate the far right wacko-wing of his party, and it backfired on him, that's all..And you guys are still beating the same tired old, dead horse that is Wright, you're not getting traction any more, and tell the truth-It just frustrates the HELL outta you, doesn't it? But go ahead, keep on beatin', it's pitiful and fun to watch-all at the same time.

#4: I explained my position on the so-called "Wright issue" pretty thorougly, i believe.

#5: I think it's petty of you to even ask such a ridiculous question. Just stick to discussing issues, and don't attempt to dissect who is "petty" and who is not, alright? Thank you.

 

[Libsmasher]

SW85, you have to be gentle with Vietshellshock - you know how it is with those guys ..........

 

[Vietvet]

SW85, you have to be gentle with Vietshellshock - you know how it is with those guys ..........

STF up, you gutless jerkoff. Btw, let me know whenever you grow the balls to join the fight in Iraq..Chickenhawk . If I were Dick Cheney, I'd invite you to go hunting, but then again, you no-doubt would be unable to tell the butt from the barrel..Then again, you've probably got your butt ON a "barrel" right about now, right?

Ya PUNK.

Have a nice DAAAAAYEAH!!

 

[all_arm]

I haven't seen anything from you that's irrefutable - most of it is "not refutable" because it's not debate - just another of the long Obamalunatic rants that have infected this place lately.

With you, Vietshellshock, and Top Grin all posting massive Boshophobe rants, I don't catch everything. Kindly repost two things:

1. Something about parsley (and remember I never defended him)

2. An accurate (as opposed to excised soundbite) documentation of his connection with McCain.

excellent troll. you clearly did not watch the VIDEOS i posted, one of which clearly shows john mccain standing with rod parsley (not that you defended him) and calling him "a spiritual guide."

what we are saying, is that parsley and hagee are both ignorant bigots. i have posted LINKS (!!!) detailing the specifics of their ignorance and bigotry. john mccain voluntarily associated himself with both individuals despite the fact that it is MIND-NUMBINGLY EASY to discover their egregious statements.

thus, mccain is dealing purely in political capital, which conservatives do not want to have to answer for. yes, ok, obama's pastor is bad, got it... but it is undeniably a case of one of obama's personal acquaintances having inconvenient political views, yes? criticize that if you will, but then how can you deny that mccain should be accountable for the POLITICAL views of his POLITICAL acquaintances?

 

[Libsmasher]

excellent troll. you clearly did not watch the VIDEOS i posted, one of which clearly shows john mccain standing with rod parsley (not that you defended him) and calling him "a spiritual guide."

what we are saying, is that parsley and hagee are both ignorant bigots. i have posted LINKS (!!!) detailing the specifics of their ignorance and bigotry. john mccain voluntarily associated himself with both individuals despite the fact that it is MIND-NUMBINGLY EASY to discover their egregious statements.

thus, mccain is dealing purely in political capital, which conservatives do not want to have to answer for. yes, ok, obama's pastor is bad, got it... but it is undeniably a case of one of obama's personal acquaintances having inconvenient political views, yes? criticize that if you will, but then how can you deny that mccain should be accountable for the POLITICAL views of his POLITICAL acquaintances?

OK - no evidence - why am I not surprised?

 

[all_arm]

jesus dude, i posted videos in this thread. here's the post.

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?p=39522#post39522

i also posted videos in another thread.

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?p=39494#post39494

there's that post. popeye posted some too.

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=39573&postcount=18
https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=39577&postcount=21

if you're gonna be a good troll, you have to adapt. watch the freaking videos.

what is it exactly that there is no evidence for, tell me specifically. i said the pastors were bigots, and i proved it with direct quotations and videos. i said that mccain courted them, and valued their support, with more videos that showed him with the pastors at campaign events, even calling one "a spiritual guide." and you can't say that mccain didn't court them, because presidential candidates don't just appear in public AT CAMPAIGN EVENTS, IN FRONT OF LARGE CROWDS with every schmuck who "endorses" them. they were important to him. why am i the cultist, the mindless drone, if you won't even except this tiny fallibility, this one mistake, that your candidate made?

i've admitted that obama has made mistakes and is not perfect, on this very board even, but when faced with buttloads of incontrovertible evidence, you still won't concede a point. what're you even doing on a debate site? do you really get off that hard on the bs ego boost you get from moronically pretending you're right ON THE INTERNET? all you do, in every post, is act like you're better than everyone who disagrees with you, like you're our freaking high school teacher. that's not the game dude, if you want to play that crap go someplace else. and there's a problem with my tone. i'm the cultist. get a life.