Dispite the fanatical right on here trying to make the claim that Hagee and Parsley were no big deal and could not possibly be as bad as Rev. Wright, it looks like their candidate disagrees with them.

McCain rejected the months-old endorsement of Texas preacher John Hagee after an audio recording surfaced in which the preacher said God sent Adolf Hitler to help Jews reach the promised land. McCain called the comment "crazy and unacceptable."
I certainly agree with McCain on that.

He later repudiated the support of Rod Parsley, an Ohio preacher who has sharply criticized Islam and called the religion inherently violent.

"I believe there is no place for that kind of dialogue in America, and I believe that even though he endorsed me, and I didn't endorse him, the fact is that I repudiate such talk, and I reject his endorsement," McCain told the AP. ...
If only it hadn't taken 3 months of him saying he would not reject these endorsements, McCain might have had some credibility left at this point.


.

Dispite the fanatical right on here trying to make the claim that Hagee and Parsley were no big deal and could not possibly be as bad as Rev. Wright, it looks like their candidate disagrees with them.


I certainly agree with McCain on that.


If only it hadn't taken 3 months of him saying he would not reject these endorsements, McCain might have had some credibility left at this point.


.
Yeah, he should have waited 20 years... lol.

Yeah, he should have waited 20 years... lol.

He should not have gone out seeking their endorsements in the first place.

He should not have gone out seeking their endorsements in the first place.

Might as well drop this one, dhrama. It's a losing battle and we all know how well you admit defeat.

Might as well drop this one, dhrama. It's a losing battle and we all know how well you admit defeat.

Why do you always see every discussion as a "battle"?

Why do you always see every discussion as a "battle"?

Only with you, because you see everything through black and white partisan glasses. You spin/attack/demean anything and everyone that dares to contradict your posted viewpoint.

Take a few lessons from sedan... don't assume so much... and you won't be detested so much.

Only with you, because you see everything through black and white partisan glasses.
No, that is just you looking at me through black and white partisan glasses.



You spin/attack/demean anything and everyone that dares to contradict your posted viewpoint.
That is you looking in a mirror.

The hypocrisy of you posting that statement is just amazing.

pot...kettle...black...

That is you looking in a mirror.

And when someone says something, cut the "I'm rubber, you're glue" crap.

And when someone says something, cut the "I'm rubber, you're glue" crap.
I promise I won't say it unless it is absolutely true.
:thumbs:

I promise I won't say it unless it is absolutely true.
:thumbs:

Quitting allforums?

KKTHXBYE.

If only it hadn't taken 3 months of him saying he would not reject these endorsements, McCain might have had some credibility left at this point.


.


I'm glad he did. 3 months is ok.

If you ever had any doubt there was a liberal media, just look at how they try to defend Barak by attacking Mcain. Obama has a crazy preacher in his past? let's make sure Mcain does too. I bet you anything if no one knew about Wright, and Haggee and Parsley showed up on the scene, the media would make no attempt to find a Rev. Wright to counter act Mcains crazy pastors, even though they are not even really his pastors.

Obama has a crazy preacher in his past? let's make sure Mcain does too.

Mr. McCain's choices for religious representatives were McCain's doing, not the media's.

That is true, to bad he was not a real conservative in the first place, he would not have to jump through hoops and pander to nutjobs to seem conservative. he has to go from one extreme to the other.

he would not have to jump through hoops and pander to nutjobs to seem conservative. he has to go from one extreme to the other.

Exactly why he's the wrong choice for president.

I guess we are better off with an empty suit who cant remember anything.

and the conservatives (particularly the Christians) will vote for whoever runs ... doesn't matter.

Having a 9-0 conservative SCOTUS is their dream.

ON edit: There is always the possibility McCain is just a place holder to be swapped out either at the convention or shortly after being elected.

Mcain blows. He is the left wing medias nominee, not the conservatives nominee. The media never let the primary get far enough to let the conservative states vote. They declared a winner long before it was even over.

Mcain blows. He is the left wing medias nominee, not the conservatives nominee. The media never let the primary get far enough to let the conservative states vote. They declared a winner long before it was even over.

McCain was the default nominee because the republicans were too busy crossing over in Iowa and other caucuses to vote for Obama to keep Hillary out. Had they not had to do that ... McCain would not be the nominee.

The republicans didnt start crossing over until after Mcain was chosen by the media to be the Republican nominee. They would not vote for the dems if they had thier own race to decide.

Are you telling us that the republicans were dumb enough to let the media decide their candidate?

The republicans didnt start crossing over until after Mcain was chosen by the media to be the Republican nominee. They would not vote for the dems if they had thier own race to decide.

there are rules of precedence for the republicans and I imagine it goes like this ..

1) get Hillary out at all cost even if it means we sacrifice our nominee
2 everything else

this is probably why Huckabee took Iowa so big ... the republicans were so intent on crossing over they forgot to watch the hen house.

Are you telling us that the republicans were dumb enough to let the media decide their candidate?

No one let anyone do anything. Before conservative states got a chance to vote on the Republican nominee the media crowned Mcain and said it was over. So liberal NE states and Iowa got to pick the nominee.

So the republicans have no responsibility for the candidate they are running?

there are rules of precedence for the republicans and I imagine it goes like this ..

1) get Hillary out at all cost even if it means we sacrifice our nominee
2 everything else

this is probably why Huckabee took Iowa so big ... the republicans were so intent on crossing over they forgot to watch the hen house.

That is wrong. If they were so worried about Hildabeast they would have spent the time to nominate a candidate that could crush her. You are thinking like a democrat, who seems to like to do everyhitng the shady way. Republicans would rather just nominate someone worth voting for. That is if it ever got to that point.

It's all the big bad demos fault that the gop couldn't find anyone they liked to run for pres.

1-800 W H I N E:banana:

It is just strange they cant seem to bring themselves to say its over for hillary, yet when Mcain even started to look like he might be pulling ahead , well, it was over. What happened to Romney? Its like he was declared a loser after 2 or 3 primarys, while Hillary keeps going.

Yea it looks VERY bad for Clinton.. not very likely at all that she will be the nominee.. but she gets so much press coverage, you would think it's a photo finish.

It's all the big bad demos fault that the gop couldn't find anyone they liked to run for pres.

1-800 W H I N E:banana:

:lolhit:

Republicans got their candidate so quickly because they have a winner-take-all system that is designed to end it quickly.

It is just strange they cant seem to bring themselves to say its over for hillary ......

how to tell her ...

In a nutshell, they will be telling the candidate with the most votes she lost and to move out of the way. That's a tough sell for her supporters and all the exit polls show they will either vote for McCain or stay home ...

I'm one of them ... after 40+ years of being a democrat, I'm switching to McCain this time.

I'm glad he did. 3 months is ok.
IMO, It is not ok for him to defend this guy for 3 minutes, let alone 3 months.

McCain said that it was a "foreign policy endorsement" and that they agree on foreign policy. This from a guy, Hagee, who said that if America doesn't follow the foreign policy with Israel that he wants then God will send terrorists to make our "streets run red with blood".

If Hagee just said it yesterday that would be one thing, but he said these things long before McCain went to him and asked for his endorsement. Hell, Hagee was running around reitterating these things in the media while McCain was still defending him!

McCain is either lying about not knowing or he is completely incompetent at vetting people.

That is true, to bad he was not a real conservative in the first place, he would not have to jump through hoops and pander to nutjobs to seem conservative.

These nut-jobs he is pandering to are the "real" conservatives.

I guess we are better off with an empty suit who cant remember anything.

That is the kind of thinking that got us George W. Bush.

That is true, to bad he (McCain) was not a real conservative in the first place, he would not have to jump through hoops and pander to nutjobs to seem conservative.

These nut-jobs he is pandering to are the "real" conservatives.

Exactly.

Truer words were never spoken.

These nut-jobs he is pandering to are the "real" conservatives.

of course. Conservatives and christians, the last groups on earth liberals feel is OK to label and belittle. Probably because they are chickenshit and feel safe doing so, knowing that conservatives and christians will not do anything to them, unlike thier kind muslim borthers who would cut thier throat if they drew a cartoon that offended them or something serious like that.

of course. Conservatives and christians, the last groups on earth liberals feel is OK to label and belittle.

I am a christian, so you are only half right.
Some cons deserve to be belittled.

of course. Conservatives and christians, the last groups on earth liberals feel is OK to label and belittle. Probably because they are chickenshit and feel safe doing so, knowing that conservatives and christians will not do anything to them, unlike thier kind muslim borthers who would cut thier throat if they drew a cartoon that offended them or something serious like that.


*cough Crusades cough-cough Knights Templar cough Inquisition cough Salem Witch Trials cough-cough Holocaust cough*

*cough Crusades cough-cough Knights Templar cough Inquisition cough Salem Witch Trials cough-cough Holocaust cough*
Was the Holocaust based upon Christian beliefs, or did the people in charge happen to be Christian?

With the exception of that, your other examples are pretty darn old.

Knights Templar, give me a break.

Was the Holocaust based upon Christian beliefs, or did the people in charge happen to be Christian?

Hitler was a Christian. Ask him.

With the exception of that, your other examples are pretty darn old.

Millions have died at the hands of those kind "christians will not do anything to them, unlike thier kind muslim borthers." Do you deny this?

Hitler was a Christian. Ask him.

Cute.

What I asked was "Was the Holocaust based upon Christian beliefs, or did the people in charge happen to be Christian?"

Yes. And my response was "Hitler was a Christian. Ask him."

I asked you, "Millions have died at the hands of those kind christians will not do anything to them, unlike thier kind muslim brothers. Do you deny this?"

Was the Holocaust based upon Christian beliefs, or did the people in charge happen to be Christian?

Prominent American conservatives obviously agree with Hitler's assertions that he was a Christian doing God's work.

John Hagee, the controversial evangelical leader and endorser of Sen. John McCain, argued in a late 1990s sermon that the Nazis had operated on God's behalf to chase the Jews from Europe and shepherd them to Palestine. According to the Reverend, Adolph Hitler was a "hunter," sent by God, who was tasked with expediting God's will of having the Jews re-establish a state of Israel.


Going in and out of biblical verse, Hagee preached: "'And they the hunters should hunt them,' that will be the Jews. 'From every mountain and from every hill and from out of the holes of the rocks.' If that doesn't describe what Hitler did in the holocaust you can't see that."


He goes on: "Theodore Herzl is the father of Zionism. He was a Jew who at the turn of the 19th century said, this land is our land, God wants us to live there. So he went to the Jews of Europe and said 'I want you to come and join me in the land of Israel.' So few went that Hertzel went into depression. Those who came founded Israel; those who did not went through the hell of the holocaust.


"Then god sent a hunter. A hunter is someone with a gun and he forces you. Hitler was a hunter. And the Bible says -- Jeremiah writing -- 'They shall hunt them from every mountain and from every hill and from the holes of the rocks,' meaning there's no place to hide. And that might be offensive to some people but don't let your heart be offended. I didn't write it, Jeremiah wrote it. It was the truth and it is the truth. How did it happen? Because God allowed it to happen. Why did it happen? Because God said my top priority for the Jewish people is to get them to come back to the land of Israel."

1. Yes. And my response was "Hitler was a Christian. Ask him."

2. I asked you, "Millions have died at the hands of those kind christians will not do anything to them, unlike thier kind muslim brothers. Do you deny this?"

1. So your "yes" means that you believe that the Holocaust occurred due to people carrying out a christian belief?

2. I didn't deny those three hundred year old examples such as witch burning. I was more interested in your suggestion that the Holocaust was an example of christianity and not simply the acts of specific individual christians.
I'm still not clear on that answer.

Prominent American conservatives obviously agree with Hitler's assertions that he was a Christian doing God's work.

Hmm, had you said "many prominent American conservatives", then you could be right.

But leaving out the word "many" makes this a broad sweeping generalization.

I don't recall Cal Thomas, George Will or William F. Buckley ever commenting on this.

Perhaps you could provide a link?

Hitler was a Christian. Ask him.
he says no (http://www.answers.org/apologetics/hitquote.html).

Yes. And my response was "Hitler was a Christian. Ask him."

I asked you, "Millions have died at the hands of those kind christians will not do anything to them, unlike thier kind muslim brothers. Do you deny this?"

Yeah, Hitler was a Christian in the same sense Fred Phelps is.

Dhrama: Prominent American conservatives obviously agree with Hitler's assertions that he was a Christian doing God's work.
Brooks: Hmm, had you said "many prominent American conservatives", then you could be right.

But leaving out the word "many" makes this a broad sweeping generalization.

I don't recall Cal Thomas, George Will or William F. Buckley ever commenting on this.

Perhaps you could provide a link?
Dhrama, Being the voracious reader that I am, I am looking forward to these articles or links.
I know if you said it, it must be true.

1. So your "yes" means that you believe that the Holocaust occurred due to people carrying out a christian belief?

Not quite. Hitler (a Christian) got the ball rolling; I can't speak for the people who followed him. However, we do know that before World War II, about two-thirds of the German population was Protestant and one-third was Roman Catholic. In other words, WWII-period Germans were Christians, people whose gods told them not to go out and kill their neighbors simply because they were Jews. Something motivated them to join Hitler's crusade, despite the Christian tenets of "loving your enemy" and "turning the other cheek" and "Thou shalt not kill."

I didn't deny those three hundred year old examples such as witch burning. I was more interested in your suggestion that the Holocaust was an example of christianity and not simply the acts of specific individual christians.
I'm still not clear on that answer.

Although I made no remark suggesting "that the Holocaust was an example of christianity," Hitler's religion had a much to do with his rationale for wanting to kill off Jews (and Poles, and Romanians, and homosexuals, and so on). He's even said so much...

Hitler was raised by Roman Catholic parents... Hitler often praised Christian heritage, German Christian culture, and professed a belief in Jesus Christ. In his speeches and publications Hitler even spoke of Christianity as a central motivation for his antisemitism, stating that "As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice".

Hitler advocated a "Positive Christianity", a belief system purged from what he objected to in traditional Christianity, and which reinvented Jesus as a fighter against the Jews.

Hitler, despite his native Catholicism, favored aspects of Protestantism if they were more amenable to his own objectives. At the same time, he adopted some elements of the Catholic Church's hierarchical organization, liturgy and phraseology in his politics. --Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler#Religious_beliefs)


Why so many good Christian Germans followed Hitler's plan to exterminate those he deemed unacceptable is anyone's guess, but if the faith of the German populace was really true (in other words, if they really practiced what the Christian god preached), Hitler would have gotten nowhere. One can only speculate as to why they adored him so much that they were willing to abandon their Christian beliefs to do Hitler's bidding.

Basically, although faith is a lovely thing, religion is a complete sham and makes a great excuse for doing extremely un-godlike things to your neighbors. Hitler's Third Reich and the Holocaust proves that quite well.

1. Something motivated them to join Hitler's crusade, despite the Christian tenets of "loving your enemy" and "turning the other cheek" and "Thou shalt not kill."

2. Hitler's religion had a much to do with his rationale for wanting to kill off Jews (and Poles, and Romanians, and homosexuals, and so on). He's even said so much...
"Hitler advocated a "Positive Christianity", a belief system purged from what he objected to in traditional Christianity, and which reinvented Jesus as a fighter against the Jews."

3. Basically, although faith is a lovely thing, religion is a complete sham and makes a great excuse for doing extremely un-godlike things to your neighbors. Hitler's Third Reich and the Holocaust proves that quite well.
1. Okay, this is what I was wondering. We agree, I think.
The murders happened because those individuals weren't following their Christian teachings. It was their abandonment of those legitimate beliefs that allowed it to happen.

2. By "Hitler's religion" you are referring to the one that he invented I assume.

3. Yes, faith is a lovely thing, but religion is not the evil in the examples you cited.
The "religion" you refer to is a perversion of an existing religion that someone used for their own bad purposes, and not an example of religion.
Would you agree with this paraphrasing of your statement:
"The courts are a complete sham and make a great excuse for doing extremely un-godlike things to your neighbors. Plessy vs. Ferguson proves that quite well"

Also, if you don't differentiate between the true nature of an idea and the perversion of it, you would have to believe that Islam is, in and of itself, a bad thing.
I don't think it is.

Hmm, had you said "many prominent American conservatives", then you could be right.

No, that would have been a broad sweeping generalization.

By saying "prominent American conservatives" I am limiting it to specific, unnamed American conservatives.

I know if you said it, it must be true.

Of course you do. You must be quite used to being wrong all the time.

The "religion" you refer to is a perversion of an existing religion that someone used for their own bad purposes, and not an example of religion.

All modern religions are perversions and manipulations of simple faith.

The "religion" you refer to is a perversion of an existing religion that someone used for their own bad purposes, and not an example of religion.

All modern religions are perversions and manipulations of simple faith.

All religions, whether modern or ancient, are simple manifestations of superstitious beliefs, based in fear of the unknown, fear of death.

_________________

We have already compared the benefits of theology and science. When the theologian governed the world, it was covered with huts and hovels for the many, palaces and cathedrals for the few. To nearly all the children of men, reading and writing were unknown arts. The poor were clad in rags and skins -- they devoured crusts, and gnawed bones. The day of Science dawned, and the luxuries of a century ago are the necessities of to-day. Men in the middle ranks of life have more of the conveniences and elegancies than the princes and kings of the theological times. But above and over all this, is the development of mind. There is more of value in the brain of an average man of to-day -- of a master-mechanic, of a chemist, of a naturalist, of an inventor, than there was in the brain of the world four hundred years ago.
These blessings did not fall from the skies. These benefits did not drop from the outstretched hands of priests. They were not found in cathedrals or behind altars -- neither were they searched for with holy candles. They were not discovered by the closed eyes of prayer, nor did they come in answer to superstitious supplication. They are the children of freedom, the gifts of reason, observation and experience -- and for them all, man is indebted to man".------------- Robert Green Ingersoll

No, that would have been a broad sweeping generalization.

By saying "prominent American conservatives" I am limiting it to specific, unnamed American conservatives.
No, by saying "prominent American conservatives" you are including all prominent American conservatives.

I'm still waiting for the link to George Will, Cal Thomas and WF Buckley making those statements you are claiming they've made.

"Many" would have limited the number within an entire group (but you knew that already)

All modern religions are perversions and manipulations of simple faith.
Profound sounding, yes.

Meaningful, no.

By saying "prominent American conservatives" I am limiting it to specific, unnamed American conservatives.

No, by saying "prominent American conservatives" you are including all prominent American conservatives.

Au contraire.

The statement -- ""Prominent American conservatives obviously agree with Hitler's assertions that he was a Christian doing God's work"" -- could denote any number from 2 (prominent American conservatives) up to every prominent American conservative.

If at least 2 prominent American conservatives (the number necessary for a plural to be used) agree with Hitler's assertions that he was a Christian doing God's work, then the statement in question would be accurate.

The statement -- ""Prominent American conservatives obviously agree with Hitler's assertions that he was a Christian doing God's work"" -- could denote any number from 2 (prominent American conservatives) up to every prominent American conservative.

You prove what I've always believed because I see it here and in real life.

I don't know what it is, but liberals, for whatever reason, don't understand how language works.

And you are proving it.

No, by saying "prominent American conservatives" you are including all prominent American conservatives.

Wrong again, O wrong one.

Do you think all American conservatives are "prominent"?

If not, then you are admitting you are full of it.

:thumbs:

... liberals, for whatever reason, don't understand how language works.


:lolhit:
This is pretty funny coming from the hyper-partisan hack who wrongly thinks "many on the left" is not a generalization.

:lolhit:
This is pretty funny coming from the hyper-partisan hack who wrongly thinks "many on the left" is not a generalization.What's funny?

What's funny?

The irony.
:D

The irony.
:DWhat specifically is funny?

What specifically is funny?

I think I was pretty clear.

:lolhit: (https://ssl.mci.com/http/www.allforums.net/images/smilies/uglyhammer_2.gif)
This is pretty funny coming from the hyper-partisan hack who wrongly thinks "many on the left" is not a generalization.

I don't know what it is, but liberals, for whatever reason, don't understand how language works.


Are you certain about that?

I think I was pretty clear.

:lolhit: (https://ssl.mci.com/http/www.allforums.net/images/smilies/uglyhammer_2.gif)
This is pretty funny coming from the hyper-partisan hack who wrongly thinks "many on the left" is not a generalization.
Why? What did I say that was wrong?

what is the point of playing dumb, Brooks?

.

what is the point of playing dumb, Brooks?

I'm asking you what YOU mean. It doesn't get any easier.

What do you mean?

I'm asking you what YOU mean.

And I already explained it. I don't know how to be any clearer without having to draw you a picture.

This inability of yours to grasp simple english is only making it that much funnier.
:lolhit:

Are you certain about that?
Did you read FT's take on what he had to say? Still foggy?

And I already explained it. I don't know how to be any clearer without having to draw you a picture.

This inability of yours to grasp simple english is only making it that much funnier.
:lolhit:
Are you referring to a specific example?

If not, what are you talking about?