Reformed Chicks Blabbing

Reformed Chicks Blabbing

The Real McCain/Rubin Interview

posted by Susan Johnson | 8:28pm Friday May 16, 2008

Lefties, this will teach you guys not to believe the MSM. Here’s the video proof:Of course this won’t stop you from continuing to spread the lies about McCain the way you do about his “100 year” Iraq comment.



Previous Posts

One Final Word
My dear friend Michele slipped into eternity on Wednesday, February 1.   She was a remarkable woman who left a legacy of faith, determination, and love. For three years she courageously battled the ovarian cancer that eventually robbed her of her life.  A few days before she died, one of her docto

posted 8:43:41pm Feb. 10, 2012 | read full post »

The rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated
My husband told me that there are rumors that I've died. I'm happy to report that I'm still very much alive. My cancer has gone to stage four but we are controlling it with chemo, the cancer numbers are currently in the normal range. I've stopped blogging to concentrate on my daughters and writing a

posted 7:07:55pm Aug. 23, 2010 | read full post »

An update and a prayer request
Several people have asked about Michele's condition, and have promised to pray for her. On her behalf, I thank you for that. I spoke with her a little while ago, and she asked that I come here and tell you what's going on, and to ask you to pray for her. She isn't able to post here herself right

posted 4:55:36pm Apr. 06, 2010 | read full post »

Rest in peace, Internet Monk.
A man known in the cyber world as The Internet Monk, has died. Michael Spencer lost his battle with cancer tonight. My prayers go out for his family and for all those who loved and will miss him. :(

posted 11:52:00pm Apr. 05, 2010 | read full post »

The peace that passes all understanding, pt. 1
I'm coming out of my normal hiding place to make a few comments. The internet is a strange place. It is often a wonderful place, a helpful place, a unifying place. But it is also alienating, cold, and is the perfect medium in which to depersonalize others. Through it, I have seen people reach out

posted 4:39:08pm Mar. 25, 2010 | read full post »

Advertisement
Comments read comments(25)
post a comment
Donny

posted May 16, 2008 at 8:55 pm


Yep the libs will never stop telling lies. They are liars. LIARS! LIARS! LIARRRRRRRRRRSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



report abuse
 

zz

posted May 16, 2008 at 9:12 pm


Bush/McCain ’08!



report abuse
 

meh

posted May 17, 2008 at 12:55 am


How can they be lies when they’re straight from McCain’s lips? What’s the magic number of times you have to call it a lie before that becomes the truth of it? Can you just jump to that point so we can post the video of him saying it again?
That’s the fun part.



report abuse
 

Donny

posted May 17, 2008 at 2:10 am


LIESSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!! MORE LIESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!



report abuse
 

yelladawgNC

posted May 17, 2008 at 7:05 am


McCain quite clearly states that it will be necessary to sit across the table and talk to Hamas. So his charges directed at Obama are pure opportunistic politicking, just like the gas tax holiday and his flip-flop on Bush`s “unconscionable” tax cuts.
As for the 100 years comment, he is quite willing to have us occupy Iraq long-term and said as much in his rosy future speech just the other day.
McCain had principles once upon a time but this latest bit of hypocrisy and his joining Bush in smearing Obama for suggesting what has been standard diplomatic procedure under previous presidents including Bush the Elder demonstrates that whatever scruples he might once have held are long gone.



report abuse
 

Michele McGinty

posted May 17, 2008 at 8:14 am


“How can they be lies when they’re straight from McCain’s lips? What’s the magic number of times you have to call it a lie before that becomes the truth of it? Can you just jump to that point so we can post the video of him saying it again?”
It’s a lie when you take the quote out of context but I guess you can’t understand the distinction because you’re a Democrat.



report abuse
 

Michele McGinty

posted May 17, 2008 at 8:21 am


“McCain quite clearly states that it will be necessary to sit across the table and talk to Hamas. So his charges directed at Obama are pure opportunistic politicking, just like the gas tax holiday and his flip-flop on Bush`s “unconscionable” tax cuts.”
Sorry but you’re wrong. McCain sets the context of the talks in the answer to the second question. Any fair and reasonable person can see that. Biased partisan hacks will not. So, I’m not surprised you don’t get it.
BTW, I knew you guys would say this, you’re pretty predictable.
“As for the 100 years comment, he is quite willing to have us occupy Iraq long-term and said as much in his rosy future speech just the other day.”
There you go again as a one of our greatest presidents once said. He said that we would be there in the same way we are in South Korea and Germany. Again, reasonable people understand that. Saying it over and over again won’t change the fact that he didn’t mean it the way you imply and most of us know that. You just look silly repeating it. Even your candidate gets that now.



report abuse
 

Gene

posted May 17, 2008 at 9:58 am


“It’s a lie when you take the quote out of context but I guess you can’t understand the distinction because you’re a Democrat.”
Kind of like when you take “God damn America” out of context, Michele?



report abuse
 

DC

posted May 17, 2008 at 10:08 am


It’s a lie when you take the quote out of context but I guess you can’t understand the distinction because you’re a Democrat.
Didn’t you say that “lefties” would be surprised by the way you feel about them? Would this sentence be a good indication?
Michele, you perpetuate the worst of stereotypes with your shrillness, straw men, and your insistence on demonizing everyone outside your little circle. Do you have any interest whatsoever in meaningful exchanges of ideas? In finding common ground? In enlarging your understanding? Have you ever admitted that you made a mistake? And in what way does the harsh, mean-spirited “blabbing” you do here reflect what you are supposedly learning about grace, sincerity, forgiveness, turning the other cheek, charity, kindness, generosity, creating a hospitable and welcoming environment, or love?



report abuse
 

Gene

posted May 17, 2008 at 10:12 am


DC, Michele is someone that I love to disagree with but I don’t doubt for a moment her faith and practice. Like me, I think she just likes to rile people up. This is the only beliefnet.com blog that I’ll read consistently.



report abuse
 

anonymous reincarnate

posted May 17, 2008 at 11:46 am


Rubin: “Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have been in the past, in working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is in now charge?”

McCain: “They’re the government and sooner or later we’re going to have to deal with them in one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas is because of their dedication to violence and the things they not only espouse but practice, so, but it’s a new reality in the Middle East. And I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and a decent future — then they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that.”

Rubin: “So should the United States be dealing with that new reality through normal diplomatic contacts to get the job done for the United States?”

McCain: “I think the United States should take a step back, see what they do when they form their government, see what their policies are, and see the ways that we can engage with them, and if there aren’t any, there may be a hiatus. But I think part of the relationship is going to be dictated by how Hamas acts, not how the United States acts.”

i fail to see how this changes the story. at the time he was still advocating that we should engage with them in any ways possible, not to isolate them and label the political wing of hamas as a terrorist group.
the other point that he makes (but warmongers ignore) is that hamas was democratically elected by the palestinian people because fatah was not meeting their needs.
but hey, if he now wants to flip-flop and take up bush’s failed foreign policy then i just hope he takes that with him into the general election.



report abuse
 

anonymous reincarnate

posted May 17, 2008 at 11:51 am


respectfully gene, there are many more times that i can’t help but agree with dc’s comment. i agree with you that michele loves to rile people up. but i sometimes doubt her faith and especially her practice. reciting scripture and studying its history doesn’t make one a christian. i know many of those who are self-described christian by label only (more now than ever) and a few truly good christians. moonshadow is the perfect example of one who fits in the second group.



report abuse
 

Moonshadow

posted May 17, 2008 at 12:11 pm


I don’t doubt for a moment her faith and practice.
And you shouldn’t doubt it.
michele loves to rile people up.
She must have learned this at seminary because I never knew her to be like that.



report abuse
 

Gene

posted May 17, 2008 at 6:49 pm


Let’s not get too personal here. While I usually disagree with Michele and Susan, this blog and the associated comments are a fun place on the internet.
Besides, the focus group thing and the Obamatopia thing WERE very funny. I’ll take a good laugh any day of the week.



report abuse
 

Michele McGinty

posted May 18, 2008 at 6:02 am


“i fail to see how this changes the story.”
Yes, I repeat that it’s not hard for a partisan hack to not see what reasonable people have no trouble seeing, that the second quote makes clear that negotiations would depend on what Hamas did.



report abuse
 

Michele McGinty

posted May 18, 2008 at 6:12 am


“Michele, you perpetuate the worst of stereotypes with your shrillness, straw men, and your insistence on demonizing everyone outside your little circle.”
I do it because I reply in kind. The people I reply to have demonized me. They come here with preconceived ideas about who I am. I would rather have a dialogue but you can’t really do more than trade insults with people who insult you. Just read some of the comments from my perspective then maybe you would understand (btw, I pull my punches, I could say much worse).
“Do you have any interest whatsoever in meaningful exchanges of ideas? In finding common ground?”
I would love to but where is it? When I put up posts that are common ground, I get no replies. If I put up a post that upset people tons of insults.
“Have you ever admitted that you made a mistake? And in what way does the harsh, mean-spirited “blabbing” you do here reflect what you are supposedly learning about grace, sincerity, forgiveness, turning the other cheek, charity, kindness, generosity, creating a hospitable and welcoming environment, or love?”
Yeah, yeah, yeah I know you all think I’m a terrible Christian. No, I’m a real Christian who is loving, loving in this way:
“Matthew 23:25 ¶ “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence.”



report abuse
 

Michele McGinty

posted May 18, 2008 at 6:29 am


Though, I do feel bad about this comment: “It’s a lie when you take the quote out of context but I guess you can’t understand the distinction because you’re a Democrat.” And I apologize for it.



report abuse
 

Moonshadow

posted May 18, 2008 at 2:22 pm


No, I’m a real Christian who is loving, loving in this way:
“Matthew 23:25 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence.”

You appreciate the futility of Christ’s words in that passage? “Woe” and, later, “how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?” The implication being that they won’t.
You apply these words of Christ to those who comment here … and that’s love?
Anyway, thank you for apologizing for the “because you’re a Democrat” – it seemed like such a non sequitur to me.



report abuse
 

anonymous reincarnate

posted May 18, 2008 at 2:39 pm


“Yes, I repeat that it’s not hard for a partisan hack to not see what reasonable people have no trouble seeing, that the second quote makes clear that negotiations would depend on what Hamas did.”
then perhaps you, as a beautiful christian and saint, and truly open-minded independent thinking intellectual could explain it to this despicable christian and sinner, and partisan liberal hack.
in the second answer, mccain is simply emphasizing a careful, measured approach to working with hamas – which i agree. he’s not saying that we should never deal with them (the bush approach) or that we should isolate the moderate hamas government (as bush has done).
i think that you still don’t understand and support the result of true democracy at work in palestine. the political wing of hamas was elected by the people. maybe it would behoove us to understand why. and yet bush is willing to befriend and support dictators… go figure.



report abuse
 

DC

posted May 18, 2008 at 4:31 pm


I do it because I reply in kind. The people I reply to have demonized me.
Then this is a good time for you to exemplify turning the other cheek. This is your home. You set the standards. It is not only in your responses that you come across as mean-spirited; it is in your posts, your language. You diminish the legitimacy of your views — both religious and political — with mean-spirited, divisive comments instead of reaching out, trying to understand, and recognizing the common ground we all share.
If you have children, does an “everyone else does it” argument work for them? Do you want them to speak to people the way you do? What would you say to someone in your church tried to us a “they began it” excuse? My mother told us we had to be better than everyone else and set an example. Why don’t you show us the behavior you expect instead of catering to the lowest common denominator?
I do appreciate the apology, though. A good beginning.



report abuse
 

Michele McGinty

posted May 18, 2008 at 5:13 pm


“You appreciate the futility of Christ’s words in that passage? “Woe” and, later, “how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?” The implication being that they won’t.
You apply these words of Christ to those who comment here … and that’s love?”
No, I was using it as an example of hitting people in the face with their self-righteousness and hypocrisy. Not all the implications of the passage.



report abuse
 

Michele McGinty

posted May 18, 2008 at 5:23 pm


“Then this is a good time for you to exemplify turning the other cheek.”
What makes you think I haven’t done that?”
“it is in your posts, your language”
I suggest that you feel that way because you don’t agree with me. When I read eople rail against Bush and attack him, I view them as harsh even though they are just expressing their opinion as I do.
“If you have children, does an “everyone else does it” argument work for them?”
I wasn’t giving you an everyone does it argument, I was giving you a biblical one. I suggest you read Proverbs to understand what I’m saying when I say that I’m responding in kind.



report abuse
 

Michele McGinty

posted May 18, 2008 at 5:29 pm


“then perhaps you, as a beautiful christian and saint, and truly open-minded independent thinking intellectual could explain it to this despicable christian and sinner, and partisan liberal hack.”
I never said that I was a beautiful Christian and saint. In fact, I’m not really much of a Christian. But I know one thing, I’m tired of this and won’t be responding anymore to this thread. If you can’t see, what everyone has agreed (even Lou Dobbs) was an omission to make McCain appear to support unconditional negotiation with Hamas, then that’s up to you. Go in peace, my child.



report abuse
 

Moonshadow

posted May 18, 2008 at 6:20 pm


No, I was using it as an example of hitting people in the face with their self-righteousness and hypocrisy.
Yes, I got it. Thanks.



report abuse
 

anonymous reincarnate

posted May 20, 2008 at 2:44 pm


oooh, this is about “unconditional”
who ever made the claim that mccain (or obama for that matter) supported unconditional negotiation with hamas? i never did. i don’t believe that obama ever did. so what’s the debate about here?
do we get to discuss how despicable it is for mccain to attack obama because moderates of hamas would like to see a diplomat (obama) as president instead of bush or mccain?



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.

Share this story


About Beliefnet

Our mission is to help people like you find, and walk, a spiritual path that will bring comfort, hope, clarity, strength, and happiness. More about Beliefnet.

Help

Media Kit

Subscribe

Legal

Copyright © Beliefnet, Inc. and/or its licensors. All rights reserved. Use of this site is subject to Terms of Service and to our Privacy Policy. Constructed by Beliefnet.

Advertisement

Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.