McCain Sex Scandal?

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
…
I have many friends and relatives that consider themselves part of the Moral Majority. I find it ironic that when we speak of poor people or the homeless that they are adamant that those poor or homeless need to go out and get two jobs if necessary, rather than be their miserable selves. It is funny how they embrace only half of what Christ teaches.
…

I think Jesus said “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.”[/quote]

Well brother Zap you will have to dig that Scripture up, as I recall Jesus healed the sick fed the hungry. He did not tell them to get a job:) But I am curious where he said if you don�??t work you don�??t eat. That is common sense but I do not believe it is in the Bible

22

[quote]JeffR wrote:
etaco wrote:
I don’t know if this will have legs but the NYT published a story on the rumors of an implied sex for favors relationship involving McCain.

Part of my reason for posting this is because it includes a picture of the lobbyist (nice Johnny) which leads me to my real question. Why the hell would a corporate interest hire someone who looked like Fred Thompson – or any other decagenarian former senator for that matter-- to lobby for them when they could hire a hotter, younger, femaler lobbyist instead? The sex for political favors dynamic is older than humanity itself, after all.

McCain responds:

Any laws broken?

If not, who gives a crap?

JeffR
[/quote]

Because McCain has systematically and carefully crafted an image as an independent politician who is not subservient to concentrated power and big business. This story deals serious damage to his cultivated image, as we find out a lobbyist for the telco industry has prostituted herself to the man who was serving as the Chairman of the Senate Commerce committee. It exposes the man as dishonest and his image as false. This should bother you.

23

[quote]Gael wrote:
JeffR wrote:
etaco wrote:
I don’t know if this will have legs but the NYT published a story on the rumors of an implied sex for favors relationship involving McCain.

Part of my reason for posting this is because it includes a picture of the lobbyist (nice Johnny) which leads me to my real question. Why the hell would a corporate interest hire someone who looked like Fred Thompson – or any other decagenarian former senator for that matter-- to lobby for them when they could hire a hotter, younger, femaler lobbyist instead? The sex for political favors dynamic is older than humanity itself, after all.

McCain responds:

Any laws broken?

If not, who gives a crap?

JeffR

Because McCain has systematically and carefully crafted an image as an independent politician who is not subservient to concentrated power and big business. This story deals serious damage to his cultivated image, as we find out a lobbyist for the telco industry has prostituted herself to the man who was serving as the Chairman of the Senate Commerce committee. It exposes the man as dishonest and his image as false. This should bother you.[/quote]

I personally do not care if he was making Mr. Happy, happy but if he did her any political favors he should be exposed as corrupt.

24

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
…

I think that Christians trying to run the United States is just like the Catholic Church did in England…

Who’s the poor sap that has to be Becket? ( Thomas Becket - Wikipedia )[/quote]

Some of your questions are too broad for me to quite understand, but if I fallow your question correctly I would say Beckett is not a person but an Organization or movement.
Oh Hippies smell good:)

25
26

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
…
I have many friends and relatives that consider themselves part of the Moral Majority. I find it ironic that when we speak of poor people or the homeless that they are adamant that those poor or homeless need to go out and get two jobs if necessary, rather than be their miserable selves. It is funny how they embrace only half of what Christ teaches.
…

I think Jesus said “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.”

Well brother Zap you will have to dig that Scripture up, as I recall Jesus healed the sick fed the hungry. He did not tell them to get a job:) But I am curious where he said if you don�??t work you don�??t eat. That is common sense but I do not believe it is in the Bible[/quote]

2 Thessalonians 3:10 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain

For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

I had to google it of course.

27

Paul corrupted the teachings of Christ. Jesus was a liberal if ever there was one, a lover and defender of the downtrodden, and a critic of the rich and powerful, which is precisely why the ultra-Conservative Religious Leaders
of his day had him killed. Paul preached hatred, intolerance, vengeance, sexual repression of women, and most disgustingly, gave rise to the view that man is saved by faith and not works in direct contradiction of Christ. Fundamentalists love Paul because he provides a platform for them to spew their vitriol and claim biblical basis.

Jesus: But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just.

Jesus: If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.

Jesus: I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despite-fully use you, and persecute you.

Paul: Fuck the poor, nuke your enemies.

28

It was more of a ironic joke, given Becket was a high-ranking Catholic Arch Bishop of Canterbury that King Henry II had killed…

“What miserable drones and traitors have I nourished and brought up in my household, who let their Lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born cleric?”

29

[quote]lixy wrote:

Seems rather trifling, given there’s no underlying claim of exerting improper influence on behalf of Paxon.

30

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
…
I have many friends and relatives that consider themselves part of the Moral Majority. I find it ironic that when we speak of poor people or the homeless that they are adamant that those poor or homeless need to go out and get two jobs if necessary, rather than be their miserable selves. It is funny how they embrace only half of what Christ teaches.
…

I think Jesus said “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.”

Well brother Zap you will have to dig that Scripture up, as I recall Jesus healed the sick fed the hungry. He did not tell them to get a job:) But I am curious where he said if you don�??t work you don�??t eat. That is common sense but I do not believe it is in the Bible

2 Thessalonians 3:10 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain

For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

I had to google it of course.[/quote]

Excellent find, but I believe Gael said it and maybe a little more to :slight_smile: My problem with the moral majority representing the republican party as being as holy as Jesus is that �??Jesus said, �??It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God�?? (Matthew 19:24. I personally believe Christ would want every one to earn his own way, but the person that does not have the will or the mind is to be pitied not scorned. The latter is just my opinion,Peace

31

Are people evoking Christ as a preacher of confiscatory wealth redistribution?

32

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Are people evoking Christ as a preacher of confiscatory wealth redistribution?[/quote]

I do not think Christ would have confiscated anyone�??s wealth to redistribute it, I think he were a meek individual that had no interest in accumulating wealth

33

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Are people evoking Christ as a preacher of confiscatory wealth redistribution?[/quote]

No. Are your debating skills too weak to attack my actual arguments?

34

[quote]Gael wrote:
Paul corrupted the teachings of Christ. Jesus was a liberal if ever there was one, a lover and defender of the downtrodden, and a critic of the rich and powerful, which is precisely why the ultra-Conservative Religious Leaders
of his day had him killed. Paul preached hatred, intolerance, vengeance, sexual repression of women, and most disgustingly, gave rise to the view that man is saved by faith and not works in direct contradiction of Christ. Fundamentalists love Paul because he provides a platform for them to spew their vitriol and claim biblical basis.

Jesus: But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just.

Jesus: If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.

Jesus: I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despite-fully use you, and persecute you.

Paul: Fuck the poor, nuke your enemies.[/quote]

Do you really consider your last sentence to be an argument? Or really anything else in this post - it’s a slew of conclusive statements.

BTW, per your “most disgustingly” claim, how do you explain John 3:1-21?

35

The important questions considered:

36

Which sentence? Please, state your own relevant opinions before you ask me to explain anything.

37

[quote]Gael wrote:
Which sentence? Please, state your own relevant opinions before you ask me to explain anything.[/quote]

Your last one - you know the one:

“Paul: Fuck the poor, nuke your enemies.”

But I’m really more interested in reading your reconciliation of the claim Paul “most disgustingly, gave rise to the view that man is saved by faith and not works in direct contradiction of Christ” in light of John 3:1-21.

38

[quote]Gael wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Are people evoking Christ as a preacher of confiscatory wealth redistribution?

No. Are your debating skills too weak to attack my actual arguments?[/quote]

My debating skills are among the worst on this board, and I’d challenge anyone to debate me on that. However, I wasn’t posing a rhetorical question with some point to it. I’m asking for clarification. You know, an actual question? Like that one, for instance. Anyways, I’m not sure why you were under the impression I’d directed to the question to you personally. I’m asking it of everyone involved in the debate, in order to get a better grip on what the argument is actually about, and what position folks are holding.

39

[quote]Gael wrote:
Which sentence? Please, state your own relevant opinions before you ask me to explain anything.[/quote]

I’m assuming the “last sentence” he is talking about, is the last sentence.

40

[quote]Gael wrote:
Paul corrupted the teachings of Christ. Jesus was a liberal if ever there was one, a lover and defender of the downtrodden, and a critic of the rich and powerful, which is precisely why the ultra-Conservative Religious Leaders
of his day had him killed. Paul preached hatred, intolerance, vengeance, sexual repression of women, and most disgustingly, gave rise to the view that man is saved by faith and not works in direct contradiction of Christ. Fundamentalists love Paul because he provides a platform for them to spew their vitriol and claim biblical basis.

Jesus: But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just.

Jesus: If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.

Jesus: I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despite-fully use you, and persecute you.

Paul: Fuck the poor, nuke your enemies.[/quote]

You totally misread it. It does not say those that cannot work should not eat, it says those that would not work should not eat.

Huge difference.