Skeptomania - Paranormal / UFOs, etc.

paul68 · Shaved Ape

http://youtube.com/watch?v=uViQ0hVV57Q

McCain said he was "very honored" to receive this endorsement and, when asked about some of Hagee's more twisted views, responded: "all I can tell you is that I am very proud to have Pastor John Hagee's support."

"God caused Hurricane Katrina to wipe out New Orleans because it had a gay pride parade the week before and was filled with sexual sin."J.H

"The End Times -- Rapture -- is imminent and the U.S. Government must do what it can to hasten it, which at minimum requires: (a) a war with Iran and (b) undying, absolute support for a unified Israel, including all Occupied Territories" J.H

Hagee openly states that the Roman Catholic church is part of the holocaust, that Jews will either die or convert in the armageddon, that the Roman Catholic church is a "great whore", that he wants the U.S. to work with Isreal to bring about Armageddon, that the European Union will be headed by the anti christ, and that he supports Maccain because Mccain stands for what he believes in.

And Mccain will not renounce him, when the Roman Catholic church has demanded he do so? And instead defends him? Consider also, that this is a pastor with a long history of this type of talk, and there is more, and that Mccain actively sought his support and endorsement. Not until later, did Mccain even try to begin to put any distance between himself and Hagee, and even now, still speaks glowingly about him, then at the same time claiming he does not agree with his anti catholic, anti gay, armageddon seeking views. John Hagee has made his very evangelism about anti catholicsim, pure outright hate speech, and hastening war with the middle east for years.

Cat Nip

Wrong.

paul68 · Shaved Ape

Not wrong at all. All the article you linked has done, is try to paint Wright as a more severe problem than Hagee, by arguing that Obama is closer to Wright. So? Thats no different than arguing over, to use one of Yaish's analogies, "Whats worse, an aluminum bat up the ass or a wooden one"? Hagee is still very much guilty of hate speech, bigotry, and intolerance. Obama did not seek Wirghts endorsement, nor did he seek Farrakhans, and he's definitively denounced both.

The problem is, if there is going to be scrutiny and outcry over candidate affiliations, then there is absolutely no reason to give Mccain a pass. The bigger problem is that Mccain chose to seek Hagees endorsement and warmly welcomed it despite Hagee already being well known for his bigoted rhetoric. Mccain appeared with him a year ago at a campaign event, and was introduced by him. Mccain spent at least a year seeking his support. Are you going to believe that Mccain, seeking support, did not do any research into who's support he was seeking? Hagee didn't just come out of the woodwork and announce support for Mccain. Mccain invited him. Sought him out. Which is possibly worse than Wrights unsought endorsement, and certainly worse than Farrakhans.

If Mccain is so unfamiliar with Hagee, why then did he actively seek his support? If it's no big deal, then why is Mccain, just like Obama, slowly but surely backpedaling on the whole affair, although with much less conviction or determination than Obama showed. At least Obama was able to unequivicably denounce Wright, while Mccain insists on heaping praise on Hagee, while trying to denounce his brand of hate evangelism at the same time. "Straight talk" indeed.

The group Hagee helped form, "Christians United For Israel", is also well known for it's extremism, and radical views, and has been for quite some time. Yet Mccain made an appearance at their conference in Washington a year ago. In fact, Mccain has spent quite a bit of time with Hagee.

Another oft cited difference here is, that while Wright has a few snippets of old sermons, and some recent outrageous speeches, Hagee is known for his extremism being constant and present in almost every single sermon he gives. It's a permanent and steadfast part of his routine, and it's played a part in his endeavours on almost every front. It's who he is. It's what he does.

Probably the most worrisome thing is this. Hagee has in Mccains presence, spoken of the need to help Isreal in a preemptive strike on Iran, in order to bring about armageddon and the tribulation. And Mccain when asked on television regarding Iran about the possibility that we could end up in two wars said "I think we could have Armageddon."

Obama was endorsed by a guy who spews racist garbage, and Obama ditched him.

Mccain is endorsed by and sought endorsement from, a guy who wants Armageddon, advocates that America make it happen, believes in the Illuminati, says the EU is going to be headed by the Antichrist, thinks the new dollar bill shows the sign of evil, claims Hitler was inspired by his Catholic teachings, and that the Roman Catholic church approved of his actions, and tons more. Hagee is just flat out crazy.

So no, not wrong. Mccain's nuts.

BTW. Your article says..."McCain had never even met Hagee until he became the frontrunner for the GOP nomination."

That is plain incorrect. Mccain met with Hagee at least as early as the beginning of 2007 if not earlier.

Cat Nip

No comparison.

paul68 · Shaved Ape

Are you serious? How so?

Cat Nip

Political endorsements are what politicians do to get votes. Listening to someone preach for 20 years is what someone does when he's trying to develop his character.

I think Hagee and Wright are both assholes. But at least Hagee has apologized to the Catholic community, and they have accepted it. Wright has apologized for nothing, and has been emboldened by the controversy.

"Pastor John Hagee has demonstrated an improved understanding of the Catholic Church and its history," Catholic League President Bill Donohue said in a statement. "The tone of Hagee's letter is sincere. He wants reconciliation and he has achieved it. . . . Whatever problems we had before are now history. This case is closed."

"If Barack gets past the primary, he might have to publicly distance himself from me," Wright told the newspaper with a shrug in April 2007. "I said it to Barack personally, and he said, 'Yeah, that might have to happen.' "

paul68 · Shaved Ape

Of course endorsements are what politicians look for when their running for office. But who they seek endorsements from is telling of who they hold in high regard or at the least consider good representatives of character they want the voters to believe they too have.

Mccain sought support from Hagee. Hagee has for decades been known to preach exactly what has gotten him in trouble, and caused Mccain problems. Decades. Now, all of a sudden, Hagee sees the light on his rants about catholics? He outright said Hitler was influenced by the catholic church, he outright said the Roman Catholic church condoned Hitlers actions. For decades.

But now, just when his association with Mccain has political experts postulating his endorsement of Mccain might cost Mccain the election, he all of a sudden is remorseful and has gained a new understanding of Catholics and wants to be friends?

Sound a mite transparent? Wheres his apologies to the victims of Katrina? Where his apologies to protestants, and even Jews who he on one hand claims to support, and on the other says brought all their troubles on themselves? Funny how catholics are considered a major source of voter support for Mccain, and are the only ones Hagee feels remorse for denigrating and attacking. Decades of calling Catholicism the Great Whore, and a cult, and now in the space of 2 months, he's all of a sudden sorry.

Wheres his apology to women who he's on several occasions been just a little bit less than decent to.

Hagee on Women
"Do you know the difference between a woman with PMS and a snarling Doberman pinscher? The answer is lipstick. Do you know the difference between a terrorist and a woman with PMS? You can negotiate with a terrorist." [God's Profits: Faith, Fraud and the Republican Crusade for Values Voters, Sarah Posner]

"[T]he feminist movement today is throwing off authority in rebellion against God's pattern for the family." ["Bible Positions on Political Issues," John Hagee]

Obama attended Wrights church for 20 years. Ok

My GF attended a Lutheran church most of her life. According to her, she attended because she liked the people, her family attended it, she liked to excercise her faith there, she liked that church. She also has said the pastor was full of shit, that she didnt like him or his sermons. It wasn't until she personally needed help, and went to her pastor, and got handed the biggest crock of shit, that she left.

Was she there because she believed the same as her pastor?

Obama has said something similar. His record supports it. He was in the church because he believed it was something good. He believed it was a part of his faith, and a part of his work to help his community. And thats what his record shows. Does that mean he must also believe as Wright does? Not one bit. Yes Obama held Wright in high esteem, but so did many parishoners, who were white.

One such person, was going to marry a black woman. When she had second thoughts it was Wright who spoke to her on behalf of her white fiance to not let race get in the way of their marriage, then presided over their marriage. Does that white parishoner also beleive as Wright seems to? I doubt it highly.

.

Whats also interesting, is that Wright, although an asshole, stands by his convictions, kooky and offensive as they may be. Even when Obama was suffering over his rhetoric, he stood by it.

That says to me, that while he may be racist, and ignorant, at least he's honest in his convictions and his faith. Hagee can't even claim that much.

Obama did not ask for Wrights endoresement, and he did not ask for Farrakhans. He denounced both, and when Wright refused to reconcile his ignorance, he cut off ties with him. It was obvious this was hard for Obama, and source of great conflict for him. He went so far as to say he hoped he could give Wright some chance, some benefit of the doubt. But he made the hard decision, and went with what is right.

Mccain embraces Hagee, and will not renounce him. He defends him, he considers his support an honor.

And lets not forget. Bill Donahue wants a republican president, and has no love for Obama. He speaks for a Conservative Catholic group, and not the Roman Catholic church. It was Donahue who helped get Hagee noticed by the public in general for his remarks, but his acceptance of Hagees apology sure as heck does not speak for everyone.

"He has referred to the "gay death style," remarked, "God forbid we'd run out of little gay kids," claimed that Senator John Kerry "never found an abortion he couldn't justify," and claimed that "Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular ... Hollywood likes anal sex." Bill Donahue

Catholic League President Bill Donohue

I dont like Obamas affiliation with Wright one bit, It's caused me a lot of grief since I see Obama as one of the better presidential candidates to come down the pike in a long while.

But, I also see Obama after all this garbage, as being a whole hell of lot more honest, and having a whole hell of a lot more character than Mccain.

asmodee

Anything someone in power says, whether it be government or church, should be taken with a grain of salt. Whether Hagee has sincerely apologized and whether it has been sincerely accepted by the Catholic Church is not necessarily what both sides are saying. If both sides want McCain to be elected badly enough, both sides will say whatever is necessary to get that to happen. An apology without sincerity is politics and it happens every day. Wright may simply be less inclined to play the game, not that I am defending any preacher for small minded, bigoted hate speech.

I watched part of Deliver Us from Evil last night and saw just this same thing unfold. A priest admits to molesting a child and writes an apology letter. The bishop (or cardinal or something) talks to the family and says, "It's a misunderstanding. I talked to him and what she claims happened isn't what really happened." The parents produce the apology letter where the priest admits what happened and the dude gets pissed because his initial cover up attempt failed. He agrees to send the priest to a monetary in exchange for no charges being filed. Instead, he gets moved to another church just 54 miles away, where he begins again. Those in power will say anything to cover their own asses and get the things they want. They sell it to themselves as "just politics" and I suppose that's how they sleep at night knowing they just sent a priest with a problem to a new group of victims or, in this case, they just propagated a "little white lie for the greater good". These people have been lying to us and to themselves for so long that it just comes naturally to them without thought. It's not about truth or lies, just about what will get them the desired affect.

Basically, what they say to correct a problem means nothing more than that they are willing to play the game. What they said to cause the problem is the only thing actually based in reality. Do you seriously think that after all those years of preaching hate he just suddenly had a V8 moment at the perfect time to fix it before the election? Do you really think he said, "I'm sorry" and the Catholic church replied, "Good enough for me"? Not likely. It's all politics. Wright is just a little too nuts to know he's supposed to play along.

paul68 · Shaved Ape

"Wright is just a little too nuts to know he's supposed to play along."

Or just maybe, Obama really means what he says when he doesnt believe in politics as usual.

Cat Nip

Bottom line is this: We don't/can't know everything, and so what we have to go on is our opinions -- based on not just what is passed along to us through the media, but also our own gut feelings after seeing the politicians through personal appearances.

You, Paul, think that McCain is insane, for all I know based on what a friend's father said about a POW being unable to surface from such adversity with all his faculties. I happen to think that's horseshit. There's truth behind the adage, what doesn't kill us makes us stronger. I've yet to see any evidence of insanity.

I think that Obama wants desperately to be President regardless of his inexperience and inability to answer hardball questions one-on-one nearly as eloquently as he can work a crowd through practiced speeches. For someone like him to go from near zero to near Presidency -- and have so much of the population follow him because he's used the word "change" ad nauseum, even though his platform promises nothing more than the Democratic same ol' same ol' -- is what I find insane.

There is scant little evidence that BO is willing or able to roll up his sleeves and do battle to close the partisan gap for "change we can believe in", whatever the hell that's supposed to mean. (Just another vapid political slogan, I suppose.) Change Washington? I don't think he can.

TheMadHobbit · Subway Tolkien

Obama is still better than 4 more years of Republican misrule.

Cat Nip

How do you know?

Raven · Google Meister

because Obama said so...

Cat Nip

TheMadHobbit · Subway Tolkien

I don't, but I am willing to take my chances. But then again, you don't know either. Thus these debates.

Face it, barring some monumental collapse (possible but not likely) the Republicans are losing the White House in November.

Of the two Democratic choices, I prefer to roll the dice on Obama, than Clinton.

But McCain and - moreso - the Republican party? No way. They need to seriously overhaul their platform before they get my vote again. Reagan was the last time I was inclined to vote Republican due to "like" not "least of two weevils" and even then, I wasn't thrilled by him.

For the record, IMNSHO ALL the current candidates suck. I may wind up voting "None of the Above" come November. Just because I vote, doesn't mean I have to vote for the annointed party nominees.

Nor would doing so be "throwing my vote away" since it is a pretty clear message. Throwing my vote away would be voting for someone I completely loathe politically because they are marginally better than the alternative (Kerry vs Bush for example).