McClellan: Hagee Had Influence In Bush White House, Could ‘Quickly Get Someone On The Phone’
McClellan: Hagee Had Influence In Bush White House, Could ‘Quickly Get Someone On The Phone’
In an interview on NPR’s Fresh Air on Monday, host Terri Gross asked former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan if controversial pastor John Hagee had “much sway within the Bush administration.” In response, McClellan said Hagee was just “one of a number of evangelical pastors, social conservative” that “had a heavy influence on some of the White House policies.”
Pressed by Gross about Hagee’s specific influence, McClellan acknowledged that “yes,” he “certainly had some influence“:
GROSS: So Pastor Hagee was influential within the Bush administration?
Mr. McCLELLAN: I’d say he was one of a number that certainly had some influence and was able to quickly get someone on the phone at the White House. So yes.
Listen here:
Hagee, whose endorsement Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was forced to reject after audio surfaced of him saying that Hitler was fulfilling God’s will, has a long history with President Bush. As Sarah Posner has reported, when he was first running for president, Bush “enlisted Hagee to recruit other pastors to sign on to the Bush campaign effort.”
In fact, Hagee became such an enthusiastic Bush booster that he endorsed him in 2000 by writing a book titled God’s Candidate for America. According to Posner, Hagee was “unequivocal” in the book “that Jesus would vote for Bush“:
Despite accusing Bush Sr. of collaboration with the Antichrist, Hagee delivered for George W. Bush in his 2000 book, God’s Candidate for America. In that book, Hagee was unequivocal that Jesus would vote for Bush. “If you are concerned about the sort of America your children and grandchildren will grow up within,” Hagee wrote, “then you need to cast your vote for George W. Bush and the Republican Party.”
It appears that, according to McClellan, Hagee’s efforts paid off and Bush rewarded him by giving him “sway” in the White House.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Boy, Scotty can’t find the shutoff valve for his truthiness. He keeps this up and he’ll need 24-hour bodyguards.
June 4th, 2008 at 10:14 amHagee had influence in the Bush White House.
Well, no WONDER McPutz eagerly sought out this POS for his endorsement.
June 4th, 2008 at 10:14 amWell, THIS could explain a lot…
June 4th, 2008 at 10:14 amScott McClellan is the gift that keeps on giving. It’s like a soviet spy who has been turned. You go Scott! BTW, Conyers, get on the stick and get these McClellan hearings scheduled pronto!
June 4th, 2008 at 10:16 amHolee Crap!! The chickens are coming home to roost!
June 4th, 2008 at 10:18 amI always believed Bush was all about bringing about Armageddon!!
THe questions is: Are we in time to stop them?
Only a Republican would be happy with a Hagee endorsement. If Hagee tried to get through at the White House if a Democrat was President, he would have received a dial tone.
June 4th, 2008 at 10:19 am“If you are concerned about the sort of America your children and grandchildren will grow up within,” Hagee wrote, “then you need to cast your vote for George W. Bush and the Republican Party.”
___________________________________________
It boggles my mind that Hagee wants his children and grandchildren to grow up in an America that is hated around the world, an America that is less safe from foreign terrorism than it was before Bush took office, an America with a tanking economy, an America with a crumbling military, an America with a shrinking dollar, and an America that is rapidly becoming owned by China.
But that’s all OK, cuz the Rapture is coming — right, Hagee?
June 4th, 2008 at 10:19 amOh, so God talks to George Bush through Hagee? That explains quite a bit. If there is a God, can he please rapture Bush, Hagee, Cheney, Lieberman and send them all to Hell NOW rather than later?
June 4th, 2008 at 10:20 amamen
Surprised?
I’m not.
June 4th, 2008 at 10:21 amIOKIYAR…
Misshusseinmolly,
June 4th, 2008 at 10:21 amI was going to explain to you why it’s perfectly fine for this sick people to live in the world you were describing…but then I read your last sentence and it appears you do understand afterall.
Hagee had instant access (communication) to the White House?
Gannon had instant access (press pass) to the White House?
Hmmmmmmmmm.
Connect the dots, anyone?
Cograts to Senator Obama!!!
June 4th, 2008 at 10:23 amIn response, McClellan said Hagee was just “one of a number of evangelical pastors, social conservative” that “had a heavy influence on some of the White House policies.”
If the necessity of the separation of church and state was thought of as partially ambiguous to some Americans , this should clarify why that edict should be observed implicitly and without question.
June 4th, 2008 at 10:25 amSo that’s why Bush let all those black people drown in New Orleans. Hagee called Dubya and told him that was God’s way of punishing gays.
June 4th, 2008 at 10:29 amIn response, McClellan said Hagee was just “one of a number of evangelical pastors, social conservative” that “had a heavy influence on some of the White House policies.”
I really am having trouble accepting and getting over this.
What in the hell does this d-bag know about anything , much less political policy-making ?
Sheesh
It’s like asking your plumber to rebuild your automobile’s motor , and then wondering why it runs like complete shit……..
June 4th, 2008 at 10:31 amDespite accusing Bush Sr. of collaboration with the Antichrist, Hagee delivered for George W. Bush in his 2000 book, God’s Candidate for America. In that book, Hagee was unequivocal that Jesus would vote for Bush.
*********************************************************
So the son of a man who would collaborate with the Anti-Christ is the kind of man whom Jesus would vote for?!?
I’m having trouble following the logic in that train of thought…perhaps someone could explain it to me.
Oh, wait! Hang on…I think I get it. Why did I have trouble seeing the logic in that thought? I can’t understand why I didn’t see it at first…
Answer: THERE ISN’T ANY.
June 4th, 2008 at 10:31 amGee, I went to Sunday school as a child, and I guess we skipped the part that taught that Jesus would have voted for a war-mongering, pro-torture liar who turned his back on the poor and sick in order to put trillions of dollars into the already-stuffed pockets of the rich and powerful.
No, not the Jesus I know.
PEACE
June 4th, 2008 at 10:32 amIf anyone is a believer please pray for progressive government.
June 4th, 2008 at 10:34 amShoeless @ 13:
I think that may be one of the most infuriating, gut-wrenching, heart-breaking connections of dots I’ve heard in the last 8 years. It is most likely true, and I feel like vomiting.
June 4th, 2008 at 10:36 amScott - WHO could Hagee quickly get on the phone? That’s the key question.
Rove? That would be a big deal.
I’m enjoying Scott’s tell all, but he’s leaving out the critical details and not naming names.
June 4th, 2008 at 10:39 amspencers mom:
I don’t believe in god, or Jesus (except for his non-religious words i.e. anything he told you to do that didn’t involve god, but simply feeding the hungry etc.. You know, the BEATITUDES, the most valuable part of the Bible in my opinion) but assuming I’m wrong, if Jesus is up in heaven, he’s been weeping for humanity ever since we killed him. God has drunk himself into a stupor and isn’t planning on sobering up too soon because he’s trying to escape from the knowledge of what a bunch of fu(kups his creations are.
June 4th, 2008 at 10:39 amScotty alone won’t sink this administration, but there is a chance he might inspire someone else, another worried WH insider, to jump ship and tell more about this administration’s foul, criminal deeds. Then more insiders will grow worried about having their fate tied to Bush, and perhaps jump ship too. There could be a point where things suddenly fall like dominoes.
June 4th, 2008 at 10:41 amVerbal,
June 4th, 2008 at 10:42 amA house of cards would be a more apt description I think. Once enough of the cards (as you say, worried WH insiders) are pulled, the whole damn thing will crumble.
rogers; why don’t you just speculate yourself onto the freeway?
June 4th, 2008 at 10:46 amHagee and Boosh: the evil leading the stupid.
June 4th, 2008 at 10:48 amI again watched perhaps 3 minutes of Hagee’s Sunday Sales Service…what a morbidly obese pile of stinking dogshit.
Hagee sees religion & salvation as eternal war, with disneyesque ‘warriors’ fighting the forces of Allah with swords & spears.
Given the fact these weapons became obsolete centuries back, it’s safe to assume Hagee represents the past.
Obama represents the future.
Oh, did I mention that Obama is the Democratic candidate for the ‘08 Presidency?
June 4th, 2008 at 10:48 amlol
June 4th, 2008 at 10:50 amliberal traitor:
I see your beatitudes and raise you one (paraphrased) “whatever you have done to the least of them, you have done to me”.
Now I’ve gotta go work on taking that log out of my own eye…
PEACE
June 4th, 2008 at 10:51 amIf you are concerned about the sort of America your children and grandchildren will grow up within,” Hagee wrote, “then you need to cast your vote for…
…representatives who understand the meaning of seperation between church and state and who appreciate that this country founded on the principles of the Enlightenment, casting off the fear and superstition of the Dark Ages.
http://progressiveworldreview.com
June 4th, 2008 at 10:52 amroger please stop. Israel is multi functional. It’s a Mideast stronghold and it’s the promise of Salvation for millions.
However, I disagree that Israel is key to America’s survival. That’s pure bunk. So pick your argument, rogers. It’s DOA.
June 4th, 2008 at 10:53 amOf course you do not, because you are merely a reich-wing cheerleader and have no idea of what has really happened over the last 8 failed years of the dubyah adminstration.
June 4th, 2008 at 10:55 amHoly rollers, by virtue of demonstrating their lack of a firm grasp on reality, should not be consulted for advice on anything other than how to con people out of their money.
O, and, in case you get your news from TP and haven’t heard:
OBAMA CLINCHES DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION!
June 4th, 2008 at 10:56 amrogers Says:
——————————————————————————–
I’m not aware of any pro-christian policies, stances, or statements of bush, however controversial, and its just speculation to say which may have been influenced as such.
June 4th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Abstinence-only sex education is “standard’ for someone that actually is pragmatic and not influenced by those such as Hagee ?
Your water-carrying for Chimpy is obviously weighing your pea-brain down…….
June 4th, 2008 at 10:58 amApparently, rogers mother only allows Fox Nooze on her cable so that is all rogers gets to see.
June 4th, 2008 at 11:00 amWhat a redundant article. It says the same thing more than three times and that is not counting the audio. We get the idea about Hagee.
June 4th, 2008 at 11:05 amI’m not aware of any pro-logical posts, comments, or responses of rogers, or roger_roger, and its just speculation to say that there is capability of such.
June 4th, 2008 at 11:07 amgus smith Says:
What a redundant article. It says the same thing more than three times and that is not counting the audio.
It’s a basic rule of sermonizing: tell them what you are going to tell them, tell them what you want to tell them, and tell them what you told them.
June 4th, 2008 at 11:09 amspencers mom @ 28:
June 4th, 2008 at 11:14 amDamn straight, I forgot about that one. I may be an atheist, but I know the value of the teachings of Jesus even if I don’t think the man was divine.
The next time I hear some Democrat whine that he won’t vote for the Dem because his nominee wasn’t selected, I’m going to remind them that Hagee will be a part of McCain’s White House advisory staff. It’s true, no matter how strongly McCain denies it. The republicans are tied to these bigots.
Did we know this asshat was helping run American policies? Was the White House ever honest about WHO it took advice from?
June 4th, 2008 at 11:14 amBottom line is all of our government has become FAR too entwined with religious nutbags.
Bush and McCain have this psycho, Obama (and I’m an Obama supporter) has Wright, on and on and on we go.
All of these guys really need to stay the F out of our government.
A president getting policy advice from ANY religious figure should be grounds for immediate impeachment in my opinion.
June 4th, 2008 at 11:16 amrogers Says:
I’m not aware of any pro-christian policies, stances, or statements of bush, however controversial, and its just speculation to say which may have been influenced as such.
Then I guess you don’t remember this from a 1999 GOP primary debate.
QUESTIONER: What political philosopher or thinker do you most identify with and why?
GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: Christ, because He changed my heart.
QUESTIONER: I think that the viewer would like to know more on how He has changed your heart.
GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH: Well, if they don’t know it is going to be hard to explain. When you turn your heart and your life over to Christ, when you accept Christ as the savior, it changes your heart, it changes your life, and that’s what happened to me. (Cheers and applause)
June 4th, 2008 at 11:17 amRoger Dodger - what about the Faith Based Initiative? What the hell was that if not a pro-Christian stance? (That even the head of the thing called a sham as it was all politicized - remember the Mayberry Machiavellis?) Oh…it was supposed to be ‘non-denominational,’ but the bulk of the little bit of dough they put into it went to…people like Hagee.
June 4th, 2008 at 11:18 amHow about all the pushing to ban gay marriage, to ban abortions, the attempts at conversion of Iraqis by our military (handing them coins with Christian scripture snippets on them). How about all the stories coming out of our armed forces of atheistic soldiers being singled out by the christian officers?
June 4th, 2008 at 11:21 amWonder how Hagee’s realtionship with this WH managed to not be reported on until Scotty let it out of the bag?
June 4th, 2008 at 11:26 amWay to do the job, MSM!
I’m not aware of any pro-christian policies, stances, or statements of bush, however controversial, and its just speculation to say which may have been influenced as such. — Rogers
****************************************************
Huh?!? With all due respect, Rogers, what do you not get when you hear the phrase “faith-based initiatives”?
And before you say that “faith-based” does not specifically imply “pro-Christian”…would it interest you to know that nearly all, perhaps even the entirety, of funding for these so-called “faith-based initiatives” has been given to Christian organizations? Because I distinctly remember reading something a while back to this effect (I don’t remember where off-hand…I’ll have to see if I can find a source). Now, correct me if I’m wrong…but my understanding is that there actually are people living in this country who practice religious beliefs other than Christianity. Some of them (such as Buddhists) even practice religions which have no relation to Judeo-Christianity, whereas still others (such as Hindus) don’t even follow a monotheistic religion. These religions may not represent the majority, but that’s beside the point — they’re here, and the First Amendment gives them (within reason) the right to practice more or less however they see fit.
The First Amendment also implicitly establishes at least a nominal wall between church and state because “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” — which of course means that the United States does not and cannot have an official state religion. Extrapolating from this, I think a plausible argument can be made for the idea that it is at least an infringement if not an outright violation of the First Amendment for the federal government to endorse any one particular religion over others (and while we’re on the subject, I think that atheism or the lack of belief in the existence of a deity could potentially fall within the confines of the First Amendment as well because it still represents a belief system). Now, if what I’ve read is true and all (or nearly all) of the funding for “faith-based initiatives” is going to Christian organizations, then yes — I think one could definitely call that “pro-Christian”! I think we all know that there are charitable organizations in this country which are faith-based yet non-Christian which are trying to be of benefit to the community…so shouldn’t they be entitled to a share of the “faith-based” funding? I hope you would agree that they are — so if what I’ve read is true, why are they not getting it? If the “faith-based” funding is only going to Christian organizations, then why not simply be upfront about it and call them “Christian-based initiatives”?
Oh, wait…I almost forgot. That pesky First Amendment again…shucks. Such a nuisance, isn’t it…?
June 4th, 2008 at 11:27 amAnd we see yet another reason why the visitor’s log to the White House has been blocked under the Executive Privelege claim.
June 4th, 2008 at 11:36 amRogers @ #41
June 4th, 2008 at 11:44 amIn keeping with the authors intent I refuse to say the words “under god”
Well rogers, you forget the faith based initiative now in its fifth year. $14 million in federal faith-based money goes to Pat Robertson.
June 4th, 2008 at 11:50 amrogers Says:
…what do you think of “in god we trust” on paper currency, and raising hand to the bibble before testifying before court.
tell me, do you enjoy the pledge of allegiance, and living under “one Nation under God”?
“In God We Trust” was placed on the currency in 1861 in order to pander to religious fundamentalists in return for their public support for the Civil War.
“One nation under God” was inserted into the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 in order to demonize the “Godless Communists” who were being persecuted by Sen. Joe McCarthy and his fellow fascists.
Quite a proud history of those two phrases, eh?
June 4th, 2008 at 11:50 amMCMetal Says:
In response, McClellan said Hagee was just “one of a number of evangelical pastors, social conservative” that “had a heavy influence on some of the White House policies.”
If the necessity of the separation of church and state was thought of as partially ambiguous to some Americans , this should clarify why that edict should be observed implicitly and without question.
because we all have the right to believe or not believe how or whatever we want and our views are all different. And one stupid pastor has no right to judge the leader of any other faith, be it Catholic or not. or to judge anyone or thing for that matter. By that, he has shown how flawed he really is. So his stupid opinions need to be kept far away from the laws and leaders that Govern over us.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:00 pmThe evangelical base, as it were, is very important to the Republiscums. They know this group of people are easily controlled and manipulated. It’s a guarunteed block of votes. These sheep are easily mobilized and motivated. Just throw out some gay marriage, and abortion rhetoric and walla! You just got a million people to vote for you. I would be temped to use this “resource” too.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:06 pmBluestocking Says:
“God”, and the bibble are also clearly pro-christian…how about addressing #41?.
****************************************************
I suppose it depends upon your definition of the word “God” — seems to me that even if you restrict your definitions to those of the established religions, even that’s one hell of a lot of ground to cover! And that doesn’t even include people like Deists, “Twelve-Steppers”, and others who don’t strictly follow any of the established religions but still believe in a Higher Power!
Yes, I know that many of our Founding Fathers believed in God — but I also know that many of them were Deists and had a somewhat different definition of what God is than that of most Christians. I also know that while many of them believed in God, most of them didn’t seem to mention Jesus a whole lot. There’s only one usage of the word “God” in the Declaration of Independence, none in the Constitution, and no mention of either Jesus or Christ in either — and the context in which the word “God” appears in the Declaration (”Nature’s God”) seems to suggest that they may have not have meant that as an explicit reference to the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible. I also know that the motto “In God We Trust” did not appear on our coinage until the Civil War and did not become our nation’s motto until 1956 (both due to actions by Congress) — and that the words “Under God” were not added to the Pledge until 1954 (again, by action of Congress) — so I’m inclined to be at least somewhat skeptical of the idea that our Founding Fathers would have been in agreement with this. On the whole, I tend to side with those who believe that the words “Under God” in the Pledge and “In God We Trust” on the coinage are subtle infringements on the First Amendment.
Think of it like this. If for some reason you decided to go live in another country in which some other religion than Christianity was in the majority and something happened which required you to appear in that country’s court either as plaintiff or defendant…how would you feel if you were to walk into the court and see references to that other religion in that court? Would you feel confident that your testimony would be weighed equally with that of someone who shares the dominant faith…or would there be some doubt, no matter how slight, in your mind? If you would have doubts, is it possible that someone here in this country — an atheist, for example — might not have some of the same doubts?
Sorry, Rogers…but I’m afraid that if you’re going to engage in me in debate, you’re going to have your work cut out for you.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:08 pmFreaks like Hagee are only interested in increasing their power, ego, and wealth. He has convinced himself and many others that he is doing the work of “God”.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:17 pmfor the record, and for those interested… Christianity is not a religion. Baptism, pentecostal, Methodist, Episcopalian, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Muslim, Catholicism, and Born again Jews… all these are religions. However, to simply call yourself Christian is just to say you believe Christ was who he claimed he was. you could be a Christian Roman Catholic and totally not dig the so-called Christian fundamentalist movement with its “Faith-based” dealings into politics.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:19 pmBluestater, nice post at #54.
Interesting that the “God” references were acted upon by Congress around the same time as the Red Scare and those Godless Commies.
Fear is a powerful thing.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:22 pmit can turn your heart black you can trust.
It’ll take your heart filled soul and turn it to Devils and Dust.
Christ. Hagee has influence in the White House. God help us all..
June 4th, 2008 at 12:32 pmHell rogers, if you’re going to go that far why not describe the founding fathers as terrorists. That’s how they were viewed by others as well.
It must be bliss not to have any idea challenge the one(s) floating about in your skull. A real set of internal earmuffs.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:35 pmRe: Bush and god: Don’t you remember Bush’s statement that he was selected by god to resolve the terrorist mess- however poor my memory of the words.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:43 pmAgain - Separation of Church and State or lose your tax free propaganda pulpit. It sickens me that in Atlanta “Reverand Johnny in a Baptist Church sways his 6,000 believers that bush is a golden child. And that is just one of many. Reverands your job is NOT politics.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:51 pmrogers, could you expound on the 1st president of our country as being more evil than GWB. I’m interested in reading this.
June 4th, 2008 at 1:03 pmRogers…the Founding Fathers whom you’re so eager to vilify, dismiss, and denigrate literally risked their lives to create this country and establish the freedoms which it would appear you don’t see as having any merit or value. By any chance, are you aware of what the British did to people who were found guilty of treason to the Crown — which is probably what the Founding Fathers would have been charged with if the Revolutionary War had not been successful? The penalty was hanging, drawing, and quartering…probably one of the more brutal forms of capital punishment ever devised by humankind.
Your remarks seem to suggest that the fact these men were mere mortals and had their share of flaws spoiled and corrupted everything they did — but if you’re going to use that sort of logic, it follows that this country is itself inherently spoiled and corrupted since they were the ones who created it.
And no…I think that when HellInABucket was referring to the fact that the Founding Fathers were viewed as terrorists, he was probably referring to the British. When viewed from the British perspective, you have to acknowledge that the Boston Tea Party probably qualifies as an act of terrorism.
June 4th, 2008 at 1:19 pmrogers Says:
——————————————————————————–
MCMetal Says:
If pro-abstinence is religious-bias, then what do you think of “in god we trust” on paper currency, and raising hand to the bibble before testifying before court.
tell me, do you enjoy the pledge of allegiance, and living under “one Nation under God”?.
June 4th, 2008 at 11:17 am
You truly are an ignoramus.
The Pledge of Allegiance line “One nation under God” was added , naturally , by a GOP president , Eisenhower , in 1954 ; the original Pledge was written by a BAPTIST MINISTER , Francis Bellamy , who did not mention “God”.
Salmon P. Chase , Lincoln’s Secretary of Treasury had the words “In God We Trust” printed upon money 1st ; again , a GOP president.
Swearing on the bible is a left-over from the religious paradigm of the early republic ; I have yestified and absolutely refused to place my hand anywhere near that fairy tale book.
I was simply required to take an acceptable oath to tell the truth ; it is religious backwards-ass GOP backing suckholes like yourself that still insist everyone swear on the Bible.
That is simply unconstitutional………….
June 4th, 2008 at 1:19 pmrogers Says:
——————————————————————————–
hellinabucket Says:
if you’re going to go that far why not describe the founding fathers as terrorists. That’s how they were viewed by others as well.
Would those “others” include blacks and indians?.George washington was more evil than bush can ever hope, every president before lincoln is pretty much the same.the hypocrisy of those who support one and not the other…
June 4th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Did George Washington order captured British troops be tortured ?
Did Washington try to enrich his friends off the backs of those who gave their lives to create this nation ?
You’re a fu(king imbecile……………
June 4th, 2008 at 1:22 pmGreat job expounding rogers. When lacking true evidence a quick snotty comment is always the right thing to do.
Spot on Bluestater. Our Patriots were Britian’s Terrorists
June 4th, 2008 at 1:30 pmrogers Says:
——————————————————————————–
Washington-He became a slave owner when his father died in 1743. At the age of eleven, he inherited ten slaves and 500 acres of land. When he began farming Mount Vernon eleven years later, at the age of 22, he had a work force of about 36 slaves. With his marriage to Martha Custis in 1759, 20 of her slaves came to Mount Vernon. After their marriage, Washington purchased even more slaves.
http://www.mountvernon.org/ learn/ meet_george/ index.cfm/ ss/ 101/
June 4th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Did he ask them to fight in the Revolutionary War , much less an illegal and idiotic invasion and occupation against a sovereign nation that had neither attacked us nor provoked us ?
June 4th, 2008 at 1:49 pmStrange but historians are now stating bush is the worst President ever. Gee, people who actually are well versed in history stating bush supercedes any and all evil doing of any American President. Hmmmmm.
June 4th, 2008 at 2:04 pmBluestocking Says:
Rogers…the Founding Fathers whom you’re so eager to vilify, dismiss, and denigrate literally risked their lives to create this country and establish the freedoms which it would appear you don’t see as having any merit or value.
You must understand that rogers and all conservative Republicans like him would have been Tories in 18th century America. His extreme distaste for the founding fathers is very consistant with his ideology, as most of the founding fathers were progressive revolutionaries. Rogers’ type sided with the British and fought against their fellow Americans in order to keep us under rule of the King. The conservative Tories were invaluable to the British, as they ratted out many revolutionaries, who were then tortured, their families slain, and their houses burned.
This is the proud tradition of conservatives in America.
June 4th, 2008 at 2:10 pmrogers Says:
——————————————————————————–
MCMetal Says:
Are you comparing a voluntary millitary to slavery?.And what happens if iraq soldiars refuse to fight, prison time for dessertion?.Do they do hard labour in those prisons?.
And btw, the natives didn’t provoke the founding fathers either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chickamauga_Wars
June 4th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
I remember those like yourself attempting to compare Chimpy’s Idiotic Iraq Adventure to WWII ; that comparison makes more sense ?
Washington , while wrong for owning slaves in my opinion , did not leave the fighting of the Revolutionary War to others ; Chimpy has never participated in any battle , save the battle of the bottle.
For you to try and denigrate Washington in a comparison to the worst president in US history reveals your empty-headedness and Chimpy nut hugging adoration ; you’re a pathetic stooge………..
June 4th, 2008 at 2:23 pmRogers:
There’s not a lot I can do about anything the Founding Father said or did, as they are dead…
Bush and Hagee are both alive and well and when they act like idiots it is our duty to stand up and say, “You guys are idiots.”
That’s the American Way.
The founders tried to improve the country for the generations that would follow… it is our duty to improve it for the generations that follow us.
In my opinion, Bush and Hagee are not improving our country- quite the opposite- I understand that your opinion is different but you’ll have to think of a better argument to support your position than, ‘No one’s perfect- the founders weren’t all good and Hitler wasn’t all bad…’
If your yardstick for MODERN leadership is Hitler and slave-owners then I really feel for you…
June 4th, 2008 at 3:04 pmrogers Says:
——————————————————————————–
MCMetal Says:
Washington, while wrong for owning slaves in my opinion ….is that the dumbest statement ever or what?, we need to have a debate about the ethics of slavery?.Or maybe you simply accept that slavery was the norm at the time, therefore it was no big deal for him to do it??.
Hmmmm…
You know, hitler did alot for germany, especially with the fall of its empire after wwI.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Empire
Nazism really inspired the nation.So what if he enslaved the jewish ppl…he revolutionized a nation, and brought it back from the brink…thats all he needs to be remembered for, right?.
wow, your just never going to get it…
June 4th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
——————————————————————————–
The book you lauded that those like yourself swear upon before testifying , condones slavery , you colossal nitwit ; how do you explain that ?
Oh , and you “get it” by supporting the worst president in US history , whose own grandfather did business with Hitler and the Nazis ; care to explain that , too ?
June 4th, 2008 at 3:13 pmrogers Says:
——————————————————————————–
MCMetal Says:
and nice side-stepping my points…the founding fathers carried unjust brutality, and they’re policy of enslavement is much worse than sending an army to war.
June 4th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Ummm , no , it isn’t
Higher thinking is supposed to be a by-product of evolving , as most animals do (with the obvious exception being the entire GOP and their imbecilic backers like yourself) .
BTW
It isn’t about “just” sending an army yo war (which in and of itself carries a huge weight) ; it’s about an illegal , immoral and unnecessary war that has certain individuals and groups profitting off of it .
You see absolutely nothing wrong with that , do you , scumbag ?
June 4th, 2008 at 3:17 pmI have no reason to defend Washington at all, his evilness or lack there of is not relevant to the current conversation.
If you would like to have a seperate conversation condeming Washington’s slave-owning, land-stealing ways then I agree with you- that was wrong.
Very wrong.
What does it have to do with Hagee access to Bush and Bush’s pandering to the far-right pastors in his midst?
June 4th, 2008 at 3:21 pmFor the record, rogers, I’m also anti-Hitler…
June 4th, 2008 at 3:24 pmGoing out on a limb, there… but I feel it’s important to stand on principle.
Rogers, how old are you?
Forget, just admit defeat…if hitler was no worse than washington, neither was any man who did buiseness with him.
’cause if you are 12 then I can see how the above sentence might make sense to you… and I would be much less critical of your critical thinking skills in general… but that sentence makes no sense at all.
June 4th, 2008 at 3:30 pmrogers Says:
——————————————————————————–
MCMetal Says:
Forget, just admit defeat…if hitler was no worse than washington, neither was any man who did buiseness with him.
and of course the bibble condones slavery…its probably how the founding fathers probably justified themselves, along with other crazy religous bs…you know, like is now being claimed.
June 4th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
“Admit defeat” to a moron who claims Washington , Hitler and Chimpy are synonymous with each other when it comes to their bad behavior ?
The systematic extermination of millions (intentionally) , doesn’t make Hitler more heinous than Washington , dipshit ?
Jesus , you’re completely insane and as feeble-minded a fool as I’ve ever encountered……….
June 4th, 2008 at 3:32 pmexactly what do you hate him for….
I’ll assume you meant for that to be a question and here’s my answer…
I’m pretty much anti-fascist by nature- I think that authoritarian rulers are a bad way to go, generally.
What do you hate him for?
June 4th, 2008 at 3:33 pmrogers Says:
——————————————————————————–
MCMetal Says:
BTW
It isn’t about “just” sending an army yo war (which in and of itself carries a huge weight) ; it’s about an illegal , immoral and unnecessary war that has certain individuals and groups profitting off of it .
You see absolutely nothing wrong with that , do you , scumbag ?
I already gave you a link…read up
June 4th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
I know much more about every topic than yourself , Corky ; shut up , dipshit………
June 4th, 2008 at 3:34 pmis that a bad war?.
Yeah, it was… I would have been against it. What does it have to do with the topic at hand?
June 4th, 2008 at 3:47 pmrogers Says:
——————————————————————————–
belac Says:
For the record, rogers, I’m also anti-Hitler…
exactly what do you hate him for….
One reason to hate Hitler is that Bush loving fascists like you admire him.
How interesting. Today we have discovered that rogers is a fan of Adolf Hitler, who hates the founding fathers, and would have fought on the side of the British to keep America from ever gaining its independence.
What a good Republican.
June 4th, 2008 at 3:47 pmrogers Says:
——————————————————————————–
MCMetal Says:
Well then let me tell you this…the french/indan war had much more casualties than iraq, and it was the hostile brits and american colonies, led by washington, against peacful indians, and europeans who stood by them
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_and_Indian_War
is that a bad war?.
June 4th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
In what history book is the casualty count for the French and Indian War over 1 million , numbuts ?
June 4th, 2008 at 3:48 pmFor the record, rogers… I also am anti-Napoleon… he was another dictator obsessed with war…
June 4th, 2008 at 3:53 pmrogers.
what are you talking about?
how does this have ANYTHING to do with Bush and Hagee?
Would you like to talk about the French and Indian war? The seven years war in general? The history of wars between the British and the French? The books written by Patrick O’Brien that take place during the conflict between the two nations? The movie adaptation staring the australian actor whose name escapes me? Australia’s history of native opprestion and indentured servitude…
The thread of your wooly sweater mind escapes me…
June 4th, 2008 at 4:00 pmrogers Says:
——————————————————————————–
MCMetal Says:
In what history book is the casualty count for the French and Indian War over 1 million , numbuts ?
hmmm…mass, mass casualties, is that how your going to measure how wrong a war was, and those who waged it?.
June 4th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
No chucklehead ; I’m simply wondering why you chose to lie :
“Well then let me tell you this…the french/indan war had much more casualties than iraq”
That your way of attempting to defend Chimpy’s Illegal and Idiotic Iraq Adventure ?
June 4th, 2008 at 4:05 pmBluestocking: I’m enjoying your posts and would like your understanding of the term Founding Fathers. I see the Founding Fathers as those men who fought in our Revolutionary War and those who wrote The Declaration of Independence and Constitution. These are not the same people who first landed here. How do you see it?
June 4th, 2008 at 4:35 pmNo nonsense for me rogers?
June 4th, 2008 at 4:38 pmOnly love the Metal, huh?
Okey-doke…
rogers Says:
…hostilities engaged by the greedy, power-hunry us and its leaders.
Let’s be clear about this.
…hostilities engaged by YOUR greedy, power-hungry leaders.
June 4th, 2008 at 4:39 pmI am lost- your argument is incoherent and unfathomable… you seem to be saying that because bad stuff happened in the past the bad stuff that is happening now is excusable- ’cause how can you speak against one and not the other?
Okay, I’m against the French and Indian wars, I’m against the conquest of the West, I’m against the slaughter of non-combatants and combatants alike… where does that leave us?
and what does it have to do with Bush’s pandering to the whack-job Hagee?
Dude, you’re argument’s weak… what can I say?
June 4th, 2008 at 4:47 pmrogers Says:
——————————————————————————–
MCMetal Says:
No chucklehead ; I’m simply wondering why you chose to lie :
“Well then let me tell you this…the french/indan war had much more casualties than iraq”
That your way of attempting to defend Chimpy’s Illegal and Idiotic Iraq Adventure ?
fine, my casualty count was wrong.
The point is, what is the difference between the middle east war, and the indian wars?.
June 4th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
2 1/2 centuries ; that type of behavior and thinking should have gone the way of the dodo.
That is an impossibility in this day and age because the GOP is still around , sadly………..
June 4th, 2008 at 4:47 pmBTW the you’re for your is intentional- you seem to use them interchangably so I thought I’d give it a try… get it?
June 4th, 2008 at 4:48 pmThe point is, what is the difference between the middle east war, and the indian wars?.
One of them is still killing people…
June 4th, 2008 at 4:51 pmBTW RogerRoger
Your attempt to compare Washington and Chimpy is laughably stupid at best ; Washington was not responsible for the French and Indian War.
Chimpy is responsible for Iraq………………
June 4th, 2008 at 5:03 pmrogers Says:
——————————————————————————–
MCMetal Says:
2 1/2 centuries ; that type of behavior and thinking should have gone the way of the dodo.
what kind of thinking?.stealing land, or taking long to do so?.
unless you support giving back all land to indians with interest, I assume its the latter.
June 4th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Check my post above , nitwit ; Washington wasn’t responsible for the French and Indian War , dweeb……….
June 4th, 2008 at 5:04 pmso your only argumant is “forgive and forget”, then?.
See post # every single one of my posts this thread
I’ll ask again…
June 4th, 2008 at 5:10 pmMy argument is, “That’s stuff was bad. I’m against it. How does this have anything to do with Bush’s pandering to Hagee?”
I’ll ask a different question too…
My question is, “When confronted with an evil in the past and an ongoing evil- is our duty not to stop the evil we can effect and then worry about the one we cannot?”
There was something in a book Iread once about why getting all worked up about the speck in your brother’s eye while you ignore the beam in your own is a bad way to go… maybe that’s what Bush and Hagee talked about on the phone all those times?
Nah, probably not.
effect should be affect…
June 4th, 2008 at 5:12 pmMCMetal Says:
Your attempt to compare Washington and Chimpy is laughably stupid at best ; Washington was not responsible for the French and Indian War.
Are you saying that 22 year old Major George Washington was not responsible for that international conflict, while President George W. Bush is responsible for the invasion of Iraq? How can that be?
June 4th, 2008 at 5:16 pmshoeless Says:
——————————————————————————–
MCMetal Says:
Your attempt to compare Washington and Chimpy is laughably stupid at best ; Washington was not responsible for the French and Indian War.
Are you saying that 22 year old Major George Washington was not responsible for that international conflict, while President George W. Bush is responsible for the invasion of Iraq? How can that be?
June 4th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
2 letters
IQ
June 4th, 2008 at 5:26 pmBadmoodman Says:
Boy, Scotty can’t find the shutoff valve for his truthiness.
While he’s sill under the influence of what ever morally born-again truth serum he’s under, I’d like someone to ask him how Jeff Gannon, a male prostitute got such access to the White House and who was he there to see on his multiple visits?
June 4th, 2008 at 5:28 pmrogers Says:
——————————————————————————–
MCMetal Says:
Check my post above , nitwit ; Washington wasn’t responsible for the French and Indian War , dweeb……….
You need to read up on history..
“On the stormy night of May 27th, 1754, Washington and about 40 men began an all night march to confront the French and learn their intentions.”
“The shots at Jumonville Glen were the first in the Fort Necessity campaign, ultimately leading the world to war“.
http://www.nps.gov/fone/jumglen.htm
June 4th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
You want to claim that an incident that leads to war , and actually making the decision to go to war , are one and the same ?
Especially considering that Washington was under direct orders ?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Stop posting you moron………….
June 4th, 2008 at 5:31 pmRogers is obviously a high school student, I’d say about 10th grade, judging by the U.S. History reading lever and comprehension…
June 4th, 2008 at 5:37 pmI applaud your willingness to contribute, rogers, but would ask you to think your positions through a little more thouroughly… as they are they seem a little sophomoric.
Metal’s just left the room, jr. No one’s listening to you anymore.
June 4th, 2008 at 6:13 pmgoodnight sweetheart, kisses… have sweet dreams, and when you wake up you can eat at the adults table and we’ll have a real discussion…
June 4th, 2008 at 6:16 pmHagee :”This is not Scott I Knew…”..!
June 4th, 2008 at 7:17 pmI would love to see Hagee try to phone the White House once Obama is president.
White House Secretary: “Mr. President, it’s John Hagee on the phone. He wishes to speak with you, right away.”
President Obama: “Hang up the phone, Sallie. Oh, and if calls again, send the secret service to his residence for a “little chat”.
June 4th, 2008 at 7:31 pmBluestocking: I’m enjoying your posts and would like your understanding of the term Founding Fathers. I see the Founding Fathers as those men who fought in our Revolutionary War and those who wrote The Declaration of Independence and Constitution. These are not the same people who first landed here. How do you see it? — Saint Augustine
****************************************************
Thanks…and in response to your question, I’m working from exactly the same definition that you are. At least in my own experience, that’s the same definition that most other people are using when they refer to the Founding Fathers — I can’t say that I’ve ever seen anyone use it in reference to the colonists of Jamestown or the Pilgrims (although I know some people use the term Pilgrim Fathers), probably because those people would all have died by the time of the Revolution. The Jamestown colonists and the Pilgrims may have established the Colonies which eventually became the United States, but they themselves were not directly involved in the fight for our independence and the establishment of our government.
June 4th, 2008 at 7:51 pmrogers,
You have had a bad day.
Let me count the ways:
You claim that a 22 year old infantry officer was responsible for an international war.
You have outed yourself as a Tory, who would have fought on the side of the British, against American independence.
And, you have expressed your admiration for Adolph Hitler.
You are such a good Republican. And, you are a poster child for many of the reasons that the Republicans are done.
June 5th, 2008 at 2:24 am“in his 2000 book, God’s Candidate for America. In that book, Hagee was unequivocal that Jesus would vote for Bush”
OOoooh, that statement right there is enough to get his church’s tax exempt status yanked. Nothing would give me greater joy than seeing this vile parasite having to pay his fair share
June 5th, 2008 at 6:10 am