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

Bush/McCain ’08!

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.

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

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.

“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.

“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.

“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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

“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.

“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.”

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.

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.

“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.

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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

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.

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?