I Honestly Can't Believe I'm Reading This

Regardless of what any one American's politics or personal election preference might be, is it lost on people what they are reading if they click into Andrew Sullivan's blog from Memeorandum?

Here is how Swindle describes it to Byron York:

"I vaguely recall that story being told, among other stories."

Convinced? The answer as to why McCain never mentioned this in his first account or for a quarter century since and didn't even recall it when asked to recount memories of three separate Christmases in captivity is dismissed with the usual gambit:

What is quite well known beyond ANY shadow of a doubt is that Senator John McCain spent five years in captivity for serving his country during which time he was brutalized to such a severe extent that he still carries the scars and handicap from that captivity.

What is also well known beyond any shadow of a doubt is that Senator Barack Obama had some form of long-standing tie to an unrepentant domestic terrorist - but we can't know the extent of those ties because the Richard J. Daley Library of the University of Illinois at Chicago is blocking access to the records of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.

And all Andrew Sullivan and a significant number of new media members on the Left care about is whether or not a North Vietnamese prison guard drew a cross in the sand with a stick some 40 years ago?

Sorry, but are you people f~&/ing insane? Do you not have any sense of what country you actually live in today? Do you really not understand why America has rejected your presidential candidates at the ballot box in so many elections over these last forty or so years?

If this is how you intend to present yourself and your arguments from now until Fall, I'd suggest you prepare to lose once again. Turning any good American's stomach with your pathetic, distasteful and ultimately bat crap crazy tactics just ain't no way to win friends, or secure votes.

And if the Atlantic wants to preserve anything like a reputation, it might do well to consider giving Andrew Sullivan a break. Whatever bend he has gone around does not appear to be the kind from which one very easily makes it back.

Comments

[Spartan112]

Whoa...you want me to support McCain on the economy? He supports the economic plan of W...how's that working right now?

[mj]

Gays don't have economic interests? They aren't invested in national security? How odd to think so.

We're not talking about your opinion, we're talking about the fact that you define gay interests narrowly only to include issues that only directly effect gays. Lets recap: you have objected to the idea that an opinion on gay marriage should determine the persons view on all other topics. That you personally disagree with McCain on anything is irrelevant.

The remainder of your post is irrelevant blather.

[Brad]

Ronalds Revolution said:

"McCain was a shit student at west point and one of his first major achievements was being part of Keating 5."

He was 5th in a Class of over 800, genius, and it's "West Point", not "west point".

As far as the Keating 5 is concerned, he was completely cleared of any and all wrong doing there, and provided testimony that put people in prison. Get your facts straight, and your head out of your ass.

[Brad]

I missposted there. It was 5th in his class at the Naval Academy, not West Point, but since Ron seems to think McCain went to West Point, I'll just stick with my initial assessment that Ron really has no idea what the hell he's talking about.

[Spartan112]

"The remainder of your post is irrelevant blather."

Translation...I got nothing...

Seriously, you're pathetic. Of course gays have economic and security concerns. Is it not possible for a person (gay or otherwise) to reasonably assume that both those interests would be better served under a democrat than a republican bent on following the same path as his failed predecessor?

Still, if it's evident through their stance on a number of issues that a candidate hates you without even having met you that it might make sense for you to not vote for them?

Let's say candidate A believes interracial marriage should be outlawed and candidate B supports a persons right to marry any person of legal age that they choose. Now lets assume I were involved in a mixed race relationship that was serious enough to be considering marriage...who do you think I would vote for?

It happens to be a minor convenience that McCain is wrong on almost every issue but considering his heart is full of hate makes it easy for me to vote for Obama.

[seekeronos]

"--- Why do we punish murder and jaywalking differently? After all, they're both crimes. ---"

MJ, give Sparky enough rope, and he'll try to swindle you on the idea that jaywalking is a hate crime against motorists.

And gays/LGBTs do not have civil rights any different from anyone else: unlike the case of blacks being born of a colour different from the majority population through no choice save that of our mutual Creator, LGBTs continue to choose to practice their confusion the proper roles of men and women contrary to the laws of Nature, and to violate the Perfect Law of Nature's God, the Creator, who is also called by the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

[Spartan112]

"LGBTs continue to choose to practice their confusion the proper roles of men and women contrary to the laws of Nature, and to violate the Perfect Law of Nature's God, the Creator, who is also called by the name of the Lord Jesus Christ."

Yes, that's right. They choose to be in a persecuted minority.

[templar knight]

Seek, you better quit persecuting those gays. All that religious talk is hurting their little feelings. Yeah, that's some persecution. Fellow, go to some gay site and spout your idiocy. You're becoming quite odious here.

[mj]

Spartan,

"Translation...I got nothing". No. Translation, don't try to change the subject when you realize you look the fool.

How confused you must be. The comment you objected to concerned Andrew Sullivan, not the current presidential election. I stated that one's gay marriage position should not dictate anyone's positions on other issues. You objected. Feel free to explain.

I did not state these differing opinions need agree with anyone. Your belief that this relates to McCain is in your own fevered mind. My suggestion is that instead of changing the subject you just learn to read before you write.

There's no point in addressing your other fevered leftist talking points, only fools conclude someone "hates" them based on fantasy imaginings. Repeating "hate" 50 times may help your fellow leftists feel sanctimonious about their own irrational hate, but don't expect it to have any effect on the rest of us.

[seekeronos]

"--- Yes, that's right. They choose to be in a persecuted minority. ---"

No, they choose to practice their perversion. To whatever degree that they are "persecuted", it is of their own choice.

And I don't see how they are persecuted: they are a minority, true, but they are so exceedingly vocal, that homosexuality is all but completely normalized, with the LGBT agenda forcing first-graders to learn about "how normal" sodomy is, and placing gay marriage on the same level of moral imperative as the ending of slavery.

Despite however you may feel (in terms of sexual attraction) to this gender or that, you still ultimately have control over who you share yourself with sexually: a gay man *can* choose whether or not to practice buggery another man or not.

And even though the extremely vocal minority - the squeaky wheel - is getting plenty of oil due to the hyper-liberal MSM and Academia, it still doesn't change the bulk of 6,000 years of recorded history where heterosexual unions, sanctified in marriage, were both the norm and the very backbone of family, the cornerstone for nearly every society since the creation of Adam and Eve.

[Fred Beloit]

Spart say: "In this case, how many people are being prevented from marrying because of this rule?"

I want to marry my dog and my car, in that order, Spart. Is that OK?