John McCain rejects endorsement of radical cleric John Hagee

[The Night Owl]

McCain Rejects Hagee Endorsement and "Crazy" Comments on Holocaust
May 22, 2008 4:48 PM

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., this afternoon rejected the endorsement of Pastor John Hagee after a sermon was publicized in which Hagen suggested Adolph Hitler and the Holocaust were caused by God so as to bring about the creation of the state of Israel.

A source close to McCain told ABC News the Arizona senator thinks these sentiments are crazy, and that back in February when the campaign accepted Hagee's endorsement, no one on the campaign, and certainly not McCain, had any idea that Hagee believed these types of things.

“Obviously, I find these remarks and others deeply offensive and indefensible, and I repudiate them," McCain said in a statement. "I did not know of them before Reverend Hagee's endorsement, and I feel I must reject his endorsement as well."

...

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/mccain-rejects.html

[DixieBelle]

Hagee isn't a "radical cleric". He's a Reverend or Pastor. Don't editorialize your thread titles. Stick to how the article is written and put your own commentary in the thread please.

[The Night Owl]

Hagee isn't a "radical cleric". He's a Reverend or Pastor. Don't editorialize your thread titles. Stick to how the article is written and put your own commentary in the thread please.

What is the problem here? John Hagee is both a radical and a cleric. Don't make me cart out dictionary definitions.

[franksolich]

Hagee isn't a "radical cleric". He's a Reverend or Pastor. Don't editorialize your thread titles. Stick to how the article is written and put your own commentary in the thread please.

Yeah, one wonders how many women this "radical cleric" has suppressed, or how many heads this "radical cleric" has chopped off, or how many holy wars, jihads, this "radical cleric" has called for.

The nocturnally foul one's doing that old trick again, equating a minor irritant, this "radical cleric" with an authentic threat, as if they're equal.

[The Night Owl]

Yeah, one wonders how many women this "radical cleric" has suppressed, or how many heads this "radical cleric" has chopped off, or how many holy wars, jihads, this "radical cleric" has called for.

The nocturnally foul one's doing that old trick again, equating a minor irritant, this "radical cleric" with an authentic threat, as if they're equal.

LOL! One does not need to chop off heads to be a radical. At least not in my book.

[Chris_]

LOL! One does not need to chop off heads to be a radical. At least not in my book.

You need a new book.

[The Night Owl]

You need a new book.

Standard dictionaries definitions are not good enough for you?

[Chris_]

Yeah, one wonders how many women this "radical cleric" has suppressed, or how many heads this "radical cleric" has chopped off, or how many holy wars, jihads, this "radical cleric" has called for.

The nocturnally foul one's doing that old trick again, equating a minor irritant, this "radical cleric" with an authentic threat, as if they're equal.

LOL! One does not need to chop off heads to be a radical. At least not in my book.

Still reading Marvel comics?

[The Night Owl]

From Merriam-Webster Dictionary...

Main Entry: 1rad·i·cal  
Pronunciation: \ˈra-di-kəl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin radicalis, from Latin radic-, radix root — more at root
Date: 14th century
1: of, relating to, or proceeding from a root: as a (1): of or growing from the root of a plant <radical tubers> (2): growing from the base of a stem, from a rootlike stem, or from a stem that does not rise above the ground <radical leaves> b: of, relating to, or constituting a linguistic root c: of or relating to a mathematical root d: designed to remove the root of a disease or all diseased and potentially diseased tissue <radical surgery> <radical mastectomy>
2: of or relating to the origin : fundamental
3 a: marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional : extreme b: tending or disposed to make extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions c: of, relating to, or constituting a political group associated with views, practices, and policies of extreme change d: advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs <the radical right>
4slang : excellent, cool

I think we can safely say that John Hagee's views are a considerable departure from the usual or traditional. I mean, how many Christians believe that God sent Adolf Hitler to Earth to hunt the Jews? Not any I know. And, how many Christians believe that the Holocaust was a divinely mandated action? Not any I know.

John Hagee is not just a radical cleric. He is a swine.

[Lord Undies]

Hagee isn't a "radical cleric". He's a Reverend or Pastor. Don't editorialize your thread titles. Stick to how the article is written and put your own commentary in the thread please.

Indeed.  A "radical cleric" would be one who calls for the death of a cartoonist, or maybe condones hanging homosexuals from construction cranes, or perhaps insists on death to the "great satan".  That's radical.

[franksolich]

I think we can safely say that John Hagee's views are a considerable departure from the usual or traditional. I mean, how many Christians believe that God sent Hitler to Earth to hunt the Jews? Not any I know. And, how many Christians believe that the Holocaust was a divinely mandated action? Not any I know.

John Hagee is not just a radical cleric. He is a swine.

We can perhaps agree that he's not first-class material.

But he hasn't called for the chopping-off of heads.

[The Night Owl]

We can perhaps agree that he's not first-class material.

But he hasn't called for the chopping-off of heads.

Why use a euphemism to describe John Hagee? The guy is scum and no one should have any qualms about saying so.

[franksolich]

Why use a euphemism to describe John Hagee? The guy is scum and no one should be afraid to say so.

Well now, I happen to remember my good breeding.

Unlike some.

I never even called the Ayatollah Khomeini "swine;" just that he didn't seem like the type of guy who liked people different from him, and the sooner he went on to his Eternal Life, the better for the world, giving both him there, and us here, peace and quiet.

"Swine" is a pretty harsh word to describe any human being, other than, of course, those human swine who endorse infanticide.  And primitives on some occasions.

[DixieBelle]

Hagee isn't a "radical cleric". He's a Reverend or Pastor. Don't editorialize your thread titles. Stick to how the article is written and put your own commentary in the thread please.

What is the problem here? John Hagee is both a radical and a cleric. Don't make me cart out dictionary definitions.

The problem here is your reading compherension skills. I said: "Don't editorialize your thread titles. Stick to how the article is written and put your own commentary in the thread please."

Don't make me cart out the moderator stick. Seriously. Drop the snark. I was being fair and polite in my first post. You will not find me so accomodating in the future if you continue in this manner.

Thread titles are supposed to be accurate. Especially when quoting something another person has written. Obviously, you're free to start thread topics with your own titles when it's an original piece. You are also free to add commentary within your post under the quoted article. It would have been acceptable for you to use the correct article title "McCain Rejects Hagee Endorsement and "Crazy" Comments on Holocaust" followed by something along the lines of: "I think Hagee is a radical cleric because...."

DO NOT post your opinions as facts and do not take liberties with someone else's article. I'm serious.

[The Night Owl]

Don't make me cart out the moderator stick. Seriously. Drop the snark. I was being fair and polite in my first post. You will not find me so accomodating in the future if you continue in this manner.

Thread titles are supposed to be accurate. Especially when quoting something another person has written. Obviously, you're free to start thread topics with your own titles when it's an original piece. You are also free to add commentary within your post under the quoted article. It would have been acceptable for you to use the correct article title "McCain Rejects Hagee Endorsement and "Crazy" Comments on Holocaust" followed by something along the lines of: "I think Hagee is a radical cleric because...."

DO NOT post your opinions as facts and do not take liberties with someone else's article. I'm serious.

Are you making up the rules as you go along? I don't see anything in the rules prohibiting the editorializing of thread titles posted in the Election 2008 forum. Moreover, I see plenty of thread titles which include commentary by posters.

And, considering that John Hagee easily fits the definition of a radical as defined by Merriam Webster Dictionary, your claim that the title of this thread is an attempt to editorialize is just plain wrong.

If you want to make a rule that threads about articles should have the same titles as the articles they're about, then make it.

[Willow]

Well, if Hagee is a radical, Wright is a monster!

[The Night Owl]

Well, if Hagee is a radical, Wright is a monster!

John Hagee and Jeremiah Wright are both radicals... and both monsters.

[Willow]

Well, if Hagee is a radical, Wright is a monster!

John Hagee and Jeremiah Wright are both radicals... and both monsters.

Yes, and Obamalama sat in the presence of a radical and a monster for 20 years and drank from his wisdom. McCain? not so much!

[BEG]

Well, if Hagee is a radical, Wright is a monster!

John Hagee and Jeremiah Wright are both radicals... and both monsters.

Yes, and Obamalama sat in the presence of a radical and a monster for 20 years and drank from his wisdom. McCain? not so much!

Ouch!   

[The Night Owl]

Yes, and Obamalama sat in the presence of a radical and a monster for 20 years and drank from his wisdom. McCain? not so much!

Exactly.

[Rebel]

Ya know, I think Hagee is a bit extreme in some of his statements. I heard about something he said today about the Jews and Hitler, and if he said that, he's nuckin' futs. I'll try to find the exact quote later.

[DixieBelle]

Don't make me cart out the moderator stick. Seriously. Drop the snark. I was being fair and polite in my first post. You will not find me so accomodating in the future if you continue in this manner.

Thread titles are supposed to be accurate. Especially when quoting something another person has written. Obviously, you're free to start thread topics with your own titles when it's an original piece. You are also free to add commentary within your post under the quoted article. It would have been acceptable for you to use the correct article title "McCain Rejects Hagee Endorsement and "Crazy" Comments on Holocaust" followed by something along the lines of: "I think Hagee is a radical cleric because...."

DO NOT post your opinions as facts and do not take liberties with someone else's article. I'm serious.

Are you making up the rules as you go along? I don't see anything in the rules prohibiting the editorializing of thread titles posted in the Election 2008 forum. Moreover, I see plenty of thread titles which include commentary by posters.

And, considering that John Hagee easily fits the definition of a radical as defined by Merriam Webster Dictionary, your claim that the title of this thread is an attempt to editorialize is just plain wrong.

If you want to make a rule that threads about articles should have the same titles as the articles they're about, then make it.

It's always been an understood rule. Especially in certain forums. I was fair and polite in my first response. I do not appreciate your tone at all. You will note that I did not edit your post title. I was being kind and asked you nicely to refrain from editorializing in your titles. I gave you a solid reason why. Your thread has stood unedited along with your comments. Your right to share your opinions about this subject matter have not been restricted.

And you still don't get it. You are free to editorialize all you want. But I've asked you nicely to refrain from doing so in the thread title. Titles should be accurate when cross-posting someone else's work. If need be, I will clarify this for the entire board. It makes no difference that you are correct about Hagee.

[Lord Undies]

Ya know, I think Hagee is a bit extreme in some of his statements. I heard about something he said today about the Jews and Hitler, and if he said that, he's nuckin' futs. I'll try to find the exact quote later.

A nut is someone who expresses their stupid opinion about an event that took place over 60 years ago.  A radical is someone who implores God to damn the United States of America in the here and now.

[The Night Owl]

Ya know, I think Hagee is a bit extreme in some of his statements. I heard about something he said today about the Jews and Hitler, and if he said that, he's nuckin' futs. I'll try to find the exact quote later.

Here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErC1IJeHnyc

You are correct. John Hagee is nuts... or perhaps just plain evil.

[Tess Anderson]

Nice try, too bad:

1. Hagee is and has never been Juan's minister, he's just another Baptist preacher.

2. Hagee's rhetoric STILL pales in comparison to Barack Hussein Obama's mentor of 20 + years.

3. Juan responded like an electable POTUS candidate would, Barack Hussein Obama didn't.