McCain is pretty awful huh.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by TuralyonW3

How is someone who doesn't support at least gay civil unions not a bigot?

oh, they are. but since it's the stance taken by the majority of republicans, corganist can't see it that way.

i mean fucking hell. sure, debaser might be overstating it, but the implications are there. and the fact remains, he said flat out that part of the reason he wouldn't consider bloomberg is that he supports granting basic rights to a group of people. how is that not fucked up?

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Corganist

This idea that you guys have that McCain is somehow suggesting that supporting gay marriage is some sort of dealbreaker in and of itself in some way that being pro-choice isn't is kinda ridiculous. Do you really have to pretend that McCain is a bigot now? Is he not beatable enough for you as is that you have to twist quotes like this to make him worse?

also, do we just take the "pro-, you know, a lot of those other issues" and say that it means something? he couldn't name another one?? "pro-gay rights" is just one among many that he could have tossed out? give me a motherfucking break.

[Travis Meeks]

ugh, McCain is making this Warren debate into a McCain commercial. Can he talk about anything else besides being a shitty soldier who go caught?

[Future Boy]

Thats what you get for watching some faith debate crap.

[Debaser]

Did McCain Plagiarize His Speech on the Georgia Crisis?


A Wikipedia editor emailed Political Wire to point out some similarities between Sen. John McCain's speech today on the crisis in Georgia and the Wikipedia article on the country Georgia. Given the closeness of the words and sentence structure, most would consider parts of McCain's speech to be derived directly from Wikipedia.

First instance:

one of the first countries in the world to adopt Christianity as an official religion (Wikipedia)

vs.

one of the world's first nations to adopt Christianity as an official religion (McCain)

Second instance:

After the Russian Revolution of 1917, Georgia had a brief period of independence as a Democratic Republic (1918-1921), which was terminated by the Red Army invasion of Georgia. Georgia became part of the Soviet Union in 1922 and regained its independence in 1991. Early post-Soviet years was marked by a civil unrest and economic crisis. (Wikipedia)

vs.

After a brief period of independence following the Russian revolution, the Red Army forced Georgia to join the Soviet Union in 1922. As the Soviet Union crumbled at the end of the Cold War, Georgia regained its independence in 1991, but its early years were marked by instability, corruption, and economic crises. (McCain)

Third instance:

In 2003, Shevardnadze (who won reelection in 2000) was deposed by the Rose Revolution, after Georgian opposition and international monitors asserted that the 2 November parliamentary elections were marred by fraud. The revolution was led by Mikheil Saakashvili, Zurab Zhvania and Nino Burjanadze, former members and leaders of Shavarnadze's ruling party. Mikheil Saakashvili was elected as President of Georgia in 2004. Following the Rose Revolution, a series of reforms was launched to strengthen the country's military and economic capabilities. (Wikipedia)

vs.

Following fraudulent parliamentary elections in 2003, a peaceful, democratic revolution took place, led by the U.S.-educated lawyer Mikheil Saakashvili. The Rose Revolution changed things dramatically and, following his election, President Saakashvili embarked on a series of wide-ranging and successful reforms. (McCain)


Granted the third instance isn't as close as the first two, which seem quite obviously taken from Wikipedia.

It should be noted that Wikipedia material can be freely used but always requires attribution under its terms of use. Whether a presidential candidate should base policy speeches on material from Wikipedia is another question entirely.

[Debaser]

at least that must mean he's learning how to use the internet

[killtrocity]

fuck it

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by TuralyonW3

How is someone who doesn't support at least gay civil unions not a bigot?

Since when does someone have to think in lockstep with a special interest group or risk being labeled a bigot? McCain's policy view on civil unions and the like is just that, a policy view. Maybe he holds that view because he's a bigot, but you need a lot more evidence than what's out there to start throwing that sort of bile around.

And people wonder why no one ever takes a serious and thoughtful approach to this issue. Who'd want to if all they get for their trouble is being a labeled either a bigot if you're on one side, or a immoral, hellbound heathen if you're on the other?

Originally Posted by Eulogy

i mean fucking hell. sure, debaser might be overstating it, but the implications are there. and the fact remains, he said flat out that part of the reason he wouldn't consider bloomberg is that he supports granting basic rights to a group of people. how is that not fucked up?

He's not saying he doesn't want gay people to vote, carry guns, have free speech, etc. Let's not oversimplify the debate here. There's nothing "basic" about the rights that gay people seek for themselves, regardless of whether it'd be nice for them to have said rights. But that's a whole separate issue entirely. The point is that vilifying McCain on such flimsy "implications" is silly and desperate, especially when there is so much legitimate stuff to take him to task on. If John McCain's opinion on gay rights is gonna be a major issue in this election, then that means Obama is in trouble.

also, do we just take the "pro-, you know, a lot of those other issues" and say that it means something? he couldn't name another one?? "pro-gay rights" is just one among many that he could have tossed out? give me a motherfucking break.

Sorry that his actual words are inconvenient for you, but he said what he said. You can't just read the part of the quote about "other issues" out of things just because it makes McCain look like a bigger asshole than he already is. It's clear he was (inarticulately) assessing Bloomberg on the whole of his policy views, not solely on his position on gay rights.

Now, is it telling that gay rights was the only thing he specifically mentioned? Maybe. But frankly, I'm of the mind that the only reason it was the only issue he mentioned is not because it's an issue that's of any importance to him...rather, it's because it's one of the only issues other than abortion that McCain has any GOP street cred left on. What other issues could McCain have used to differentiate himself from a guy like Bloomberg that wouldn't have made him look like a hypocrite? He's hemmed and hawed and flip-flopped on just about every issue that matters to the GOP, so it's not like he could bring those up. McCain is really not in much position to tell anyone how much of a true republican they are compared to him.

[TuralyonW3]

Originally Posted by Corganist

Since when does someone have to think in lockstep with a special interest group or risk being labeled a bigot? McCain's policy view on civil unions and the like is just that, a policy view. Maybe he holds that view because he's a bigot, but you need a lot more evidence than what's out there to start throwing that sort of bile around.

And people wonder why no one ever takes a serious and thoughtful approach to this issue. Who'd want to if all they get for their trouble is being a labeled either a bigot if you're on one side, or a immoral, hellbound heathen if you're on the other?

You are a bullshit artist corganist. You'll will make a great Karl Rove bucket of slime some day.

[Travis Meeks]

Gays should have the same rights as any other group of people, including the right to get married. To stray from this is an embarrassment to America and humanism.

[Eulogy]

how is the right to marry someone not basic, corganist?

[maoi]

In the sense of the government recognizing marriages, Corganist is right that it isn't a basic right on the level of free speech much like the "right" to have a driver's license. It's more of a policy to strengthen family structure. Nevertheless the government recognizes and awards status and benefits for married couples. That it does not extend it to same sex couples is a form of discrimination. Either grant gays the right to marry or do away with marriage for everyone altogether.

[Travis Meeks]

well said

[Mo]

[Travis Meeks]

http://xtrvaluedvds.com/popeye-dvd.jpg

[mistle]

Originally Posted by Corganist

Since when does someone have to think in lockstep with a special interest group or risk being labeled a bigot? McCain's policy view on civil unions and the like is just that, a policy view. Maybe he holds that view because he's a bigot, but you need a lot more evidence than what's out there to start throwing that sort of bile around.

hey i don't think black people should be allowed to vote. don't act like i'm racist though, just because i don't think in lockstep with a special interest group

[Gish08]

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/...f-on-cone.html

In yesterday's Saddleback Forum, pastor Rick Warren on two occasions referred to John McCain's "cone of silence", implying strongly that he had not been able to hear the questions posed to Barack Obama ahead of time -- questions which were, in many cases, identical to the ones posed to McCain.

This was Pastor Warren during Barack Obama's segment last night. Apologies for the capitalization -- it is in the original transcript -- but emphasis is mine:

NOW WHAT I'VE DECIDED IS TO ALLOW FOR PROPER COMPARISON I'M GOING TO ASK IDENTICAL QUESTIONS TO EACH OF THESE CANDIDATES SO YOU CAN COMPARE APPLES TO APPLES. NOW SENATOR OBAMA IS GOING TO GO FIRST. WE FLIPPED A COIN. AND WE HAVE SAFELY PLACED SENATOR MCCAIN IN A CONE OF SILENCE. EACH OF THE INTERVIEWS WILL BE SEGMENTED INTO FOUR DIFFERENT SECTIONS WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT A FOUR DIFFERENT THINGS AND THE NUMBER OF QUESTIONS ANSWERED IN EACH SEGMENT WILL DEPEND ON HOW SUCCINCT THE SENATOR IS.

Warren again referred to the "cone of silence" at the very beginning of McCain's segment. McCain's response is obviously a joke, and a pretty funny one at that, but the important part is that Warren is implying that the cone of silence is an actual, physical place:

Q. WELCOME BACK TO THE SADDLEBACK CIVIL FORUM ON THE PRESIDENCY AND WELCOME SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN. NOW MY FIRST QUESTION WAS THE CONE OF SILENCE COMFORTABLE THAT YOU WERE IN JUST NOW?

A. I WAS TRYING TO HEAR THROUGH THE WALL.

However, Warren was just interviewed by CNN's Rick Sanchez, and apparently told him that McCain was not in the church during the first half-hour of Obama's segment. (I did not see the segment myself, nor does a transcript or video yet seem to be available). Sanchez has now suggested that Warren implied to him that he (Warren) thought McCain was in the "cone of silence" when he told the audience as much, but later learned that McCain was not.

This is highly despicable behavior, folks, on the part of McCain, Warren or possibly both. There's simply no way around it.

McCain definitely is pretty awful.

[Future Boy]

... clearly thats the worst thing he's done yet..

[Gish08]

Just the latest example, really.
Although yeah, that is pretty bad, I'd have to agree.

Sigh.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by mistle

hey i don't think black people should be allowed to vote. don't act like i'm racist though, just because i don't think in lockstep with a special interest group

There's a difference between denying a group a right already guaranteed to them, and refusing to create a new right out of whole cloth for that group's benefit. No matter how much anyone may distort the issue, the fact of the matter is that you're not gonna find a lot of cases of gay people being denied the right to vote, the right to free speech, or yes, even the right to get married solely on the basis that they're gay..so the comparison to black people falls horrendously flat.

But whatever. If you want to bend over backwards to fit McCain into the "bigot" label because it's easier than arguing against his policy views in a reasonable manner, feel free.

[Gish08]

How about this: McCain's an asshole. Forget more specific labels like bigot or liar. The man is an asshole with a short fuse and the thought of him being President is dangerous.

[killtrocity]

[killtrocity]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_five

most people are unaware of this. especially people who don't know how to use the internet

[redbreegull]

Guys, let's just give up. Corganist obviously doesn't believe in the concept of natural rights or anything like that. A right isn't a right unless the government says so, AMIRIGHT?

[killtrocity]

okay. last one before we bust out the victory gin.

[TuralyonW3]

Originally Posted by Corganist

No matter how much anyone may distort the issue, the fact of the matter is that you're not gonna find a lot of cases of gay people being denied...the right to get married solely on the basis that they're gay

But whatever. If you want to bend over backwards to fit McCain into the "bigot" label because it's easier than arguing against his policy views in a reasonable manner, feel free.

aaaaand I think I'm done with the Netphoria politics board. Congrats Corganist for finally snapping my thread.

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by TuralyonW3

aaaaand I think I'm done with the Netphoria politics board. Congrats Corganist for finally snapping my thread.

It's crazy how even though 90 percent of the posters here agree on all the major issues, one conservative hardliner can make everyone go nuts.

[Future Boy]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

Guys, let's just give up. Corganist obviously doesn't believe in the concept of natural rights or anything like that. A right isn't a right unless the government says so, AMIRIGHT?

I disagree with corganist, and weve already had a discussion on this, but I will agree with the position that marriage isnt a natural right not to be denied. The case is simply the government granting one condition special privileges and not the other. Either recognize all, or none. Basically what mayfuck said.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by TuralyonW3

aaaaand I think I'm done with the Netphoria politics board. Congrats Corganist for finally snapping my thread.

What's untrue about what I said? What's so wrong or horrible about it?

Sometimes I wonder why people post here in the first place if they're so shocked and disappointed anytime one of the tiny handful of right-leaning people here express an opinion that they disagree with, however trivial, that they have to make a big show about how far above it they are all the sudden. I mean, this place is pretty much just a left wing echo chamber as it is....is validation and camaraderie all that the lefties here look for? Don't you guys ever look for more here than just the satisfaction that other people are liberal too?

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Gish08

How about this: McCain's an asshole.

I think everyone can agree on that. And you don't have to twist his words to prove it. His record of assholery is well documented.