[Lingster]

I already voted for McCain in my state's primary election and had to use my left hand to force my right hand to push the button. 

But this '57 states' thing is even worse than Dan Quayle's 'potatoe' moment.

[cpbell0033944]

I already voted for McCain in my state's primary election and had to use my left hand to force my right hand to push the button. 

But this '57 states' thing is even worse than Dan Quayle's 'potatoe' moment.

I presume your two-handed comment is because McCain isn't conservative enough for your taste?
That, I think is the nub of the one thing that amazes me most about our differing political systems – many of you on the conservative side are bemoaning the fact that the GOP has put-up a lefttie candidate.  In the UK, I'm convinced that McCain would be viewed as the most right-of-centre leader of any mainstream party since Thatcher.

Personally, I cannot see how anyone finds him not sufficiently right-of-centre when he:

a) fails to agree that the US cannot stay in Iraq on an open-ended basis,

and

b) fails to distance himself at all (not that Obama exactly severed all links from Wright) from both Hagee and Parsley.  Whether one approves of homosexuality or Catholicism, what Hagee said was surely unforgiveable.

BTW, my confidence in Obama has been dented greatly by the topic of this thread and the Wright affair.  I was a big fan of his.  Now…not so sure.  Trouble is, Clinton's manipulative, and McCain to me is unbearable, so Obama ends-up being the best of a bad bunch.

If you're wondering, from what I heard of the early candidates, my favourite was Edwards, with Paul a dark horse if I could only be sure that the allegations of prior racism were false.

Still, it's none of my business – except that my country is so shackled to yours that, IMO the identity of your President affects me more than the identity of our Prime Minister does you.

[Lingster]

I presume your two-handed comment is because McCain isn't conservative enough for your taste?

He's not a conservative at all.  As near as I can tell he has no ideology, which to me is a sign of arrogance.

Who the hell is Parsley?  I know some people are trying to make an issue out of Hagee, but by all appearances McCain hardly knows the guy.  And Hagee's not even that bad.

[Lingster]

BTW: this is teh awesome: http://www.suitablyflip.com/suitably_flip/2008/05/obama-campaign.html

[demented20]

57 states eh?  Hmm I wonder if he's thinking about annexing Mexico. Once we get the troops out of Iraq and give them a couple of years to cool off we could solve the entire illegal alien problem by making the nation of Mexico a part of the US and breaking it into 7 states.  The take over would be bloodless of course because 10 or 12% of the Mexican population is already in the US. It would be a huge homecoming, just like when East Germany fell.

I'm joking of course… or half way joking anyway.

I'd also like to say as an American that we have had a pretty sorry choice of presidential candidates over the last 20 years or so. The American people would like to apologize in advance to the rest of the world for whoever our next president will be and whatever he/she will do once elected. There just aren't too many Teddy Roosevelt's floating around out there these days.

[cpbell0033944]

Lingster – if you truly believe that Hagee isn't too bad then you either haven't listened to his statements or are clinically insane.  Every time that guy opens his mouth publically, hate spews forth.  I would also suggest that you try something for me; instead of finding links that disparage Obama, (a pointless activity given that you have said you won't vote for him anyway) how's about doing a little research on Rod Parsley (McCain's equivalent of Wright).

These should help:

http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/03/john-mccain-rod-parsley-spiritual-guide.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3548250.ece

Look! even right-wing lunatics "Fair and Balanced" Fox News are covering it!  So it's not just a left-wing thing after all – who'd have thunk?

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/03/mccains-pastors-same-questions-different-answers/

Just because I can't resist, I'll go for the no more left-wing than Fox News is right-wing dreadful, anti-American, world-ending Commie source that is The Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-sedaei/deafening-silence-on-mcca_b_100832.html

[Lingster]

OK, number one, there is no McCain equivalent of Wright.  Obama spent 20 years attending Wright's church, took his kids to Wright's church, and even named his book after one of his pastor's favorite phrases.

So when people try to liken that to some guy who's merely endorsed McCain, well, McCain needs to get about 65,000,000 to endorse him, and so he ain't gonna be all that picky.  Neither will the Democrat nominee.

(And not for nothing, but I'd be surprised if a majority of Americans disagreed with the notion that the world would be a better place without Islam.)

[cpbell0033944]

OK, number one, there is no McCain equivalent of Wright.  Obama spent 20 years attending Wright's church, took his kids to Wright's church, and even named his book after one of his pastor's favorite phrases.

So when people try to liken that to some guy who's merely endorsed McCain, well, McCain needs to get about 65,000,000 to endorse him, and so he ain't gonna be all that picky.  Neither will the Democrat nominee.

(And not for nothing, but I'd be surprised if a majority of Americans disagreed with the notion that the world would be a better place without Islam.)

Parsley is factually wrong, BTW, when he states that the US was founded to destroy Islam:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion, as it has itself no character of emnity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war or any act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries

(Source: Treaty of Tripoli, June 1797).

Secondly, don't Parsley's sentiments remind you just a teeny little bit of Hitler and the Nazi party on the subject of Judaism circa 1933-1945?  I can well understand the sentiment of the US population in wishing that Islam didn't exist, but since when did any supposedly civilised nation justify going-off on a killing spree (don't tell me that genocide wasn't want Parsley inferred – how else do you end Islam?) by saying that they're reacting to the emotions and fear of the people?  That stuff might happen in the Third World, but the Leaders of the Free World doing it?  You might as well call the US a totalitarian military state and have done with it.

McCain also aligned himself with the late Jerry Falwell.  Forget Obama's tie-pin; that guy was seriously anti-American.

There may be no single McCain equivalent of Wright, but combine Parsley, Hagee and Falwell and the resultant recipe is just as poisonous.

Oh, and Hagee didn't just endorse McCain.  He's not just a name on a list.  McCain had him on stage with him.  Hagee retracted his comments about New Orleans, the restated them, and McCain didn't disown the guy.  At least Obama disowned Wright, though far too late.

[Lingster]

I looked up Parsley after you mentioned him, and he doesn't claim the US was founded to destroy Islam, he claims that Ferdinand and Isabella financed Columbus in order to gather resources to smash Islam – thus the Western Hemisphere was first explored for the purpose of smashing Islam.  Which is at least partly accurate.

Your Hitler comparison falls down because unlike Jewishness, Muslim-ness is not an ethnicity.  Thus it is an impossibility to be an anti-Muslim "racist".  Islam is a worldview, and it is totally legitimate for a person to be deeply critical of a worldview and seek to convert its believers to another worldview.  I find it refreshing to hear from a Christian pastor who is as enthusiastic about crushing Islam as so many Muslims seem to be about crushing everything else.  Still, I'm confident that if you drew a cartoon critical of Parsley, you wouldn't have to go into hiding to preserve your life.

And all of this is moot, because McCain hardly knows these guys whereas Obama has been an intimate friend of Wright and actually chose to theme his book and campaign slogan on Wright's sermons.

[cpbell0033944]

I looked up Parsley after you mentioned him, and he doesn't claim the US was founded to destroy Islam, he claims that Ferdinand and Isabella financed Columbus in order to gather resources to smash Islam – thus the Western Hemisphere was first explored for the purpose of smashing Islam.  Which is at least partly accurate.

Wrong – he explicitely says that America was founded to crush Islam, then uses (as you said) the Columbus argument to justify it.  This is utterly illogical as, of course, the United States was founded by people very much removed in time, geography and philosophy from Columbus and his royal backers.  To me, this error causes his argument to fall apart.  Yes, Columbus may have had the financial conquest of Islam as an objective, but that was when he and his supporters thought he was discovering a western route to the Far East, not the continent of America.  The Founding Fathers stated categorically that they had nothing against Islam (Treaty of Tripoli), and, as Parsley is referring to the USA in his remarks as opposed to a theoretical Columbus-inspired nation, he is plain wrong.

Secondly, my Hitler comparison hinges not on whether we are dealing with an ethnicity or religion, (why can't conservatives bear to admit that Islam is a religion as much as Christianity?  Why this meaningless word "worldview"?) but on the demonising of a huge number of people based on the actions of a few of them.  Also, it seems that you are saying that all Parsley wants to do is go forth and spread the word of the Lord and the Good Book and thereby convert all those sinful brown people to the white man's God.  C'mon; do you really believe that?

These are his words:

"I cannot tell you how important it is that we understand the true nature of Islam, that we see it for what it really is. In fact, I will tell you this: I do not believe our country can truly fulfill its divine purpose until we understand our historical conflict with Islam. I know that this statement sounds extreme, but I do not shrink from its implications. The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore."

He's talking about waging a war that would make the current mess in Iraq look like a dispute over a minor car shunt in a parking lot.  He's talking about killing Muslims because they're Muslims, just as Hitler killed Jews because they were Jews.  Do you not see the similarity?

Lastly, how do you know the extent to which McCain knows them?  Are you a friend of McCain?  He calls Parsley his "spiritual advisor" and has embraced Hagee on a campaign stage.  He hasn't just bumped into them once or twice in his local Starbucks; they're friends.  Do you call someone you hardly know an "advisor" or put your arm round the shoulders of someone you barely recognise?  I'm not saying he's known them as long as Obama knew Wright, but McCain seems to have been pretty close to these guys and has not censured either since Hagee retracted his apology.

Fact is that MCain, Obama and Hillary have all given you poor folks who have to choose your next C-in-C ample reasons to elect someone other than them.  Each has goofed, as you lot would say, and none looks likely to trouble Washington, Lincoln or Teddy Rooseveldt in the annals of great Presidents.  I just cannot see how electing another Republican hawk (who breezily admits being an economics dunce)and who has an association with extreme preachers who inspire as much hatred as any mad mullah is a good idea at any time, let alone now.

[Author]

Posts