The McCain Thread

[lazur]

You are a Conservitve, what are you ashamed of? Your selective hearing is proof enough.

You do not know me. Therefore, don't claim to.

Today, I will expose, perhaps the greatest hypocrisy of this tolerance touting culture (he's talking about america, he's not talking about Bangladesh) and prove to you once and for all, that underneath their smiles of inclusion, lurks the sinister sword of Segregation, Racism and Genocide, Genocide in America!! (I guess your bias and selective ear didn't hear that did it. That's what I thought. Now lets move along).

This particular preacher did not accuse the U.S. of doing something it did not do. This preacher was pointing out 'hypocrisy' - not 'conspiracy theories'. He doesn't agree with ABORTION, and it angers him that the U.S. government does, because as a result the U.S. government is making it 'possible' for 25% of all 'black' babies to be aborted.

That's a lot different than accusing the U.S. government of creating and intentionally infecting a certain race of people with a deadly disease...

I'm going to quote him again, since you want to have a dishonest conversation.

You and I help pay for everyone of those deaths with our tax dollars, THROUGH GOVERNMENT GRANTS(He's talking about America, not Indonesia)

After 230 years of American History, we realized the priniciple was imperfectly applied in our nation, especially when it came to African Americans. All men are created equal but you couldn't vote, and like Dread Scott would say, you still can't, Dread Scott would say your still nothing more then an animal(talking about Black Americans) and so does Roe VS. Wade (aka US GOVERNMENT).

Again, this is about abortion. This guy is talking about his BELIEF in 'America', but also how he's disappointed by how 'distorted' some principles have become.

Facilitated by the overbearing forces of the US Federal Government, that's what he said. He's anti-american end of story.

Um, no, he's pointing out flaws of the U.S. government that MANY of us believe exist. You don't need to be a preacher preaching form a pulpit, or 'Anti-American', to state that certain aspects of the U.S. government are indeed 'overbearing' to its people. His statements, imo, do not cross the line into being Anti-American. Were that the case, then by your definition ANY person who ever criticizes the government for anything *should* be considered Anti-American instead of something less dramatic and a little more sensible, such as simply being 'disappointed with' the U.S. government, and calling for change.

Yes he did, he insulted our laws, that hard working American Men and Women who worked countless hours, to get those laws passed so all Americans can enjoy a better life. He insulted the Government institution of Planned Parentedhood. If he doesn't like what we do here in America, he should leave the Country, we won't miss him.

He did not 'insult' anything. He displayed 'anger' over the way these laws have been created and used as a means of 'control'. He's also angry over the existance of racism even today in this country, when such a thing should not exist. Hmm, his concerns aren't all that uncommon, actually.

I do not equate this guy to Wright. He's not even in the same league. And anyone who does, after listening to the audio on this preacher, is simply looking for 'political' leverage to use in their favor to make what Obama's preacher said 'not that bad'.

And yet you talk about 'dishonesty' in discussion...

 

[blackcobra]

You do not know me. Therefore, don't claim to.



This particular preacher did not accuse the U.S. of doing something it did not do. This preacher was pointing out 'hypocrisy' - not 'conspiracy theories'. He doesn't agree with ABORTION, and it angers him that the U.S. government does, because as a result the U.S. government is making it 'possible' for 25% of all 'black' babies to be aborted.

That's a lot different than accusing the U.S. government of creating and intentionally infecting a certain race of people with a deadly disease...



Again, this is about abortion. This guy is talking about his BELIEF in 'America', but also how he's disappointed by how 'distorted' some principles have become.



Um, no, he's pointing out flaws of the U.S. government that MANY of us believe exist. You don't need to be a preacher preaching form a pulpit, or 'Anti-American', to state that certain aspects of the U.S. government are indeed 'overbearing' to its people. His statements, imo, do not cross the line into being Anti-American. Were that the case, then by your definition ANY person who ever criticizes the government for anything *should* be considered Anti-American instead of something less dramatic and a little more sensible, such as simply being 'disappointed with' the U.S. government, and calling for change.



He did not 'insult' anything. He displayed 'anger' over the way these laws have been created and used as a means of 'control'. He's also angry over the existance of racism even today in this country, when such a thing should not exist. Hmm, his concerns aren't all that uncommon, actually.

I do not equate this guy to Wright. He's not even in the same league. And anyone who does, after listening to the audio on this preacher, is simply looking for 'political' leverage to use in their favor to make what Obama's preacher said 'not that bad'.

And yet you talk about 'dishonesty' in discussion...

Rudy Giuliani's priest has been accused in grand jury proceedings of molesting several children and covering up the molestation of others. Giuliani would not disavow him on the campaign trail and still works with him. (But hey, he's America's Mayor)



Mitt Romney was part of a church that did not view black Americans as equals and actively discriminated against them. He stayed with that church all the way into his early thirties, until they were finally forced to change their policies to come into compliance with civil rights legislation. Romney never disavowed his church back then or now. He said he was proud of the faith of his fathers.



Jerry Falwell said America had 9/11 coming because we tolerated gays, feminists and liberals. It was our fault. Our chickens had come home to roost, if you will. John McCain proudly received his support and even spoke at his university's commencement.



Reverend John Hagee has called the Catholic Church the "Great ****e." He has said that the Anti-Christ will rise out of the European Union (of course, the Anti-Christ will also be Jewish). He has said all Muslims are trained to kill and will be part of the devil's army when Armageddon comes (which he hopes is soon). John McCain continues to say he is proud of Reverend Hagee's endorsement.



Reverend Rod Parsley believes America was founded to destroy Islam. Since this is such an outlandish claim, I have to add for the record, that he is not kidding. Reverend Parsley says Islam is an "anti-Christ religion" brought down from a "demon spirit." Of course, we are in a war against all Muslims, including presumably Muslim-Americans. Buts since Parsley believes this is a Christian nation and that it should be run as a theocracy, he is not very concerned what Muslim-Americans think.



John McCain says Reverend Rod Parsley is his "spiritual guide."


What separates all of these outrageous preachers from Barack Obama's? You guessed it. They're white and Reverend Jeremiah Wright is not. If it's not racism that's causing the disparity in media treatment of these preachers, then what is it?

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/80253/

 

[Kelly]

Were any of those men a part of their, or are they apart of their campaign run???

 

[lazur]

Rudy Giuliani's priest has been accused in grand jury proceedings of molesting several children and covering up the molestation of others. Giuliani would not disavow him on the campaign trail and still works with him. (But hey, he's America's Mayor)

Giuliani isn't a candidate, so this is irrelevant. However, was it ever proven that this priest molested children, or was he just 'accused' of it? Innocent until proven guilty, remember?

Mitt Romney was part of a church that did not view black Americans as equals and actively discriminated against them. He stayed with that church all the way into his early thirties, until they were finally forced to change their policies to come into compliance with civil rights legislation. Romney never disavowed his church back then or now. He said he was proud of the faith of his fathers.

Honesty, remember? Something you like to keep pointing out that 'others' aren't using in their arguments?

Let me CORRECT your statement: Mitt Romney was part of a RELIGION (not 'church') that, UNTIL 1978, did not view black Americans as equals and actively discriminated against them.

I certainly don't support that belief, and I obviously feel it was wrong of that religion to conduct itself in such a way 30 years ago, but you have left out the parts stating how that 'belief' by the Mormon religion has since been abandoned.

And even if he had 'disavowed' his religion back then, do you think anyone would have cared or paid attention? The country was still quite turmulous with 'racism' back in 1978, and Romney also wasn't an elected official until 2002 - a full 24 years *after* the Mormon religion changed its ways. Now, if the Mormon relgion still held this belief, and still actively conveyed the messaging of this belief to the masses, then and ONLY then would you be logical for comparing it to Obama's preacher.

Jerry Falwell said America had 9/11 coming because we tolerated gays, feminists and liberals. It was our fault. Our chickens had come home to roost, if you will. John McCain proudly received his support and even spoke at his university's commencement.

Yeah, I don't like Falwell, but he also apologized for the statement (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/14/Falwell.apology/).

Has Obama's preacher apologized yet?

As to John McCain, he didn't attend this commencement until much, much later, after Falwell had 'made ammends' for what he said FIVE YEARS earlier. Are you saying that even though Falwell apologized for and retracted what he said, that five years later McCain should have still held it against him?

Reverend John Hagee has called the Catholic Church the "Great ****e." He has said that the Anti-Christ will rise out of the European Union (of course, the Anti-Christ will also be Jewish). He has said all Muslims are trained to kill and will be part of the devil's army when Armageddon comes (which he hopes is soon). John McCain continues to say he is proud of Reverend Hagee's endorsement.

Sounds like some 'misguided' views. He's also not speaking against the U.S. - he's speaking against the Catholic Church (which, tbh, I can't say I disagree with, at least in principle), and he is unfairly speaking against not another 'people', but the people of another 'religion', whom many in the WORLD (not just in his church) 'perceive' as being extremist in nature and bent on killing Americans.

I'm not defending what he said, but I am stating that it's quite different in context and meaning than what Obama's preacher did.

Reverend Rod Parsley believes America was founded to destroy Islam. Since this is such an outlandish claim, I have to add for the record, that he is not kidding. Reverend Parsley says Islam is an "anti-Christ religion" brought down from a "demon spirit." Of course, we are in a war against all Muslims, including presumably Muslim-Americans. Buts since Parsley believes this is a Christian nation and that it should be run as a theocracy, he is not very concerned what Muslim-Americans think.

I certainly don't agree with that, but I don't agree with most preachers of the Christian faith probably most of the time. This guy sounds a bit extreme for my tastes, but McCain also does not 'regularly attend' his church.

I guess if we want to, we can dig into the background of any 'well known' supporter of any candidate and find stuff like this.

But this isn't an exercise in doing that. You're trying to 'victimize' Obama for the amount of scrutiny he's getting based on situations that aren't even analogous. For example, how many people would we find like Rod Parsley in Obama's background if we dug? Should they be put on the same level as his preacher of TWENTY years who not only spoke against the U.S., but also concocted 'conspiracy theories' to make his points?

John McCain says Reverend Rod Parsley is his "spiritual guide."

So that must mean that McCain is racist, right? Did Parsley say anything that was racist, or was he talking about other 'religions'?

What separates all of these outrageous preachers from Barack Obama's? You guessed it. They're white and Reverend Jeremiah Wright is not. If it's not racism that's causing the disparity in media treatment of these preachers, then what is it?

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/80253/

The 'content' of what was said is what separates Wright from the others. It has nothing to do with skin color OTHER than the fact that Wright himself - not 'everyone else' - is who BROUGHT UP skin color in the first place by accusing the 'white man' of intentionally KILLING black people by creating and maliciously infecting them with AIDs.

If you're unable to discern what Obama's preacher said in terms of severity and gravity from the examples posted above of what other preachers have said, then nothing I or anyone else can say will change your mind. You're obviously passionate about your feelings, and no one can blame you for that, but I'll say again that what Wright did is FAR AND AWAY significantly different than *any* of the examples you've cited above, and what Obama did in response to that (which was nothing for TWENTY YEARS until he was confronted by the media) is also FAR AND AWAY significantly different than the politicians you've named above.

 

[blackcobra]

Giuliani isn't a candidate, so this is irrelevant. However, was it ever proven that this priest molested children, or was he just 'accused' of it? Innocent until proven guilty, remember?

Ha Ha, your bias has reached epic porportions! The fact of the matter is, Guliani's Priest, the man who once married him, whom he still hired, even after he was accused of being a child molestor. The press didn't inundate him during his campaign, asking him why is he assocaited with accused child molestors. But we all know that Catholic priests often get off, aslong as their sympathetic folks who turn the other cheek.

Honesty, remember? Something you like to keep pointing out that 'others' aren't using in their arguments?

Let me CORRECT your statement: Mitt Romney was part of a RELIGION (not 'church') that, UNTIL 1978, did not view black Americans as equals and actively discriminated against them.

Ha Ha, now you're saying there's a differnce between the Mormon Church and the Mormon Religon? Please give me any examples, I need a good laugh. He as part of racist orginazation, it's not diffrent then being a part of the Nation of Islam.

I certainly don't support that belief, and I obviously feel it was wrong of that religion to conduct itself in such a way 30 years agao, but you have left out the parts stating how that 'belief' in the Mormon religion has since been abandoned.

That's not the point, the point is that Romeny suscribed to these racist teachings since birth, all the way into adulthood. Was he inundated with questions about his past? No, but Conservatives like you lecture Liberals everyday on how Senator Byrd was once a racist, so he'll allways be a racist, remember? You can't have it both ways.

And even if he had 'disavowed' his religion back then, do you think anyone would have cared or paid attention?

No, because he's white. If Barack Obama was ever part of the Nation of Islam, or the Black Panthers he couldn't get elected to the Senate, let alone the President of the United States.

He wasn't an elected official until 2002 - a full 24 years *after* the Mormon religion changed its ways. Now, if the Mormon relgion still held this belief, and still actively conveyed the messaging of this belief to the masses, then and ONLY then would you be logical for comparing it to Obama's preacher.

Mitt Romney his been running for political office since 1994, His father was the Governor of Michigan, back when his church still subscribed to these anti-american racist teachings. Since you want to use time as a barometer to measure ones racism. How come the Press didn't inundate Mitt with questions about his racist father, and how that would effect his judgements on civil rights and equal opportunnity. It's a double standard. And for you to sit here and defend it is appauling.

Yeah, I don't like Falwell, but he also apologized for the statement (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/14/Falwell.apology/).

Has Obama's preacher apologized yet?

That's not the point, the point is Falwell blammed America for 911, and still gets invited to the most prestigous Republican political events.

As to John McCain, he didn't attend this commencement until much, much later, after Falwell had 'made ammends' for what he said. Are you saying that even though Falwell apologized for and retracted what he said, that five years later McCain should have still held it against him?

That's irrelevant, the fact is Falwell has a history of making biggoted, anti-gay, and anti-semtic remarks for decades. But no candidate has ever been questioned about having his endorsement.

Sounds like some 'misguided' views. He's also not speaking against the U.S. - he's speaking against the Catholic Church (which, tbh, I can't say I disagree with, at least in principle), and he is unfairly speaking against not another 'people', but the people of another 'religion', whom many in the WORLD (not just in his church) 'perceive' as being extremist in nature and bent on killing Americans.

I'm not defending what he said, but I am stating that it's quite different in circumstance than what Obama's preacher did.

I'm an atheist so I personlally think all of these religous nutbags are ******s. Since you conservatives want to play the guilt by association game, it's only fair that I point out your blatant hypocrisy.

I certainly don't agree with that, but I don't agree with most preachers of the Christian faith probably most of the time. This guy sounds a bit extreme for my tastes, but McCain also does not 'regularly attend' his church.

It doesn't matter, he's embracing the endorsment of a demogauge.

I guess if we want to, we can dig into the background of any 'well known' supporter of any candidate and find stuff like this.

Excatly, but no one is attacking Obama on the issues. Last month the Conservatives were propagating that he's a card carrying Muslim(HUSSIEN OBAMA). This month they're saying he's a devoted Trinity Baptist Christian, who frequently attended Sermons preached by Pastor Wright.

But this isn't an exercise in doing that. You're trying to 'victimize' Obama for the amount of scrutiny he's getting based on situations that aren't even analogous. For example, how many people would we find like Rod Parsley in Obama's background if we dug? Should they be put on the same level as his preacher of TWENTY years who not only spoke against the U.S., but also concocted 'conspiracy theories' to make his points?

He didn't preach the same story for 20 years, that's your bias judgement making gross generalizations. Falwell, Robertson, Hagee, Parsely has been making eqaully delplorable statments for even longer. I think Wright is a jackass. But it's sad that Conservatives are trying to bring Obama down based on racial issues, instead of substanivite ones.

So that must mean that McCain is racist, right? Did Parsley say anything that was racist, or was he talking about other 'religions'?

By your standard yes, anyone who's associated with anyone who has a history of making racist statements, or subscribing to anti semitic, and gay biggotry, should be judged based on who's connected to them. Time isn't a factor here.

The 'content' of what was said is what separates Wright from the others. It has nothing to do with skin color OTHER than the fact that Obama's preacher - not 'everyone else' - is who BROUGHT UP skin color in the first place by accusing the 'white man' of intentionally KILLING black people with AIDs.

Persoanly, I think segregation, jim crowe, and slavery are far worse, all which were intentionally done. So that's why African Americans have this suspicion of intention. Eventhough I disagree vehemently that aids was created to kill blacks.

If you're unable to discern the severity of what Obama's preacher said as compared to a bunch of 'religious' statements made by other preachers, then nothing I or anyone else can say will change your mind. You can choose to live in ignorance if you'd like - it's your life.

Obama's preacher made those statements in a religous context, there's no difference, it's the same fire and brimestone, just different themes, one preaches hate against gays, jews, and the others speaks on the historicaly intentional racism in America. No difference.

 

[lazur]

Ha Ha, your bias has reached epic porportions! The fact of the matter is, Guliani's Priest, the man who once married him, whom he still hired, even after he was accused of being a child molestor. The press didn't inundate him during his campaign, asking him why is he assocaited with accused child molestors. But we all know that Catholic priests often get off, aslong as their sympathetic folks who turn the other cheek.

No, what I'm saying is that if Guiliani's priest had been tried, found guilty, and convicted of child molestation, then you would absolutely have a point.

My question to you was (because you brought it up, and therefore YOU should substantiate the claim), has the guy been PROVEN guilty in a court of law, and was he convicted?

Ha Ha, now you're saying there's a differnce between the Mormon Church and the Mormon Religon? Please give me any examples, I need a good laugh. He as part of racist orginazation, it's not diffrent then being a part of the Nation of Islam.

Again, this is YOUR point. All I'm stating are the facts. The Mormon religion (different than just one person's 'church') abandoned this belief in 1978. While the Mormon religion was wrong in the first place for ever having this belief, so was our own country during slavery.

There's nothing in Romney's history to EVER indicate that he personally believes black people are 'less than' white people. Had the Mormon religion not abandoned this belief in 1978 and STILL believed it, then you would have a point.

That's not the point, the point is that Romeny suscribed to these racist teachings since birth, all the way into adulthood. Was he inundated with questions about his past? No, but Conservatives like you lecture Liberals everyday on how Senator Byrd was once a racist, so he'll allways be a racist, remember? You can't have it both ways.

How do you know what Romney believed or didn't believe? You're assuming that because the Mormon religion held these beliefs, so did ALL of its followers?

No, because he's white. If Barack Obama was ever part of the Nation of Islam, or the Black Panthers he couldn't get elected to the Senate, let alone the President of the United States.

That's a bold assumption on your part. I believe people can change their ways for the better. The Mormon religion demonstrated that 30 years ago...

Mitt Romney his been running for political office since 1994, His father was the Governor of Michigan, back when his church still subscribed to these anti-american racist teachings. Since you want to use time as a barometer to measure ones racism. How come the Press didn't inundate Mitt with questions about his racist father, and how that would effect his judgements on civil rights and equal opportunnity. It's a double standard. And for you to sit here and defend it is appauling.

Even 1994 was 16 years after 1978.

And, to be frank, I don't care what Romney's father did or didn't do. The same argument was made against Bush Sr., and I thought then that it was ridiculous. You can't hold a son accountable for the sins of the father unless the son participated, and Romney did not.

That's not the point, the point is Falwell blammed America for 911, and still gets invited to the most prestigous Republican political events.

He also apologized. I'm not defending Falwell, but he did 'man up' and make a public apology, and he never repeated those sentiments again.

That's irrelevant, the fact is Falwell has a history of making biggoted, anti-gay, and anti-semtic remarks for decades. But no candidate has ever been questioned about having his endorsement.

I don't follow Falwell, so I can't speak to the history of his remarks.

I'm an atheist so I personlally think all of these religous nutbags are ******s. Since you conservatives want to play the guilt by association game, it's only fair that I point out your blatant hypocrisy.

Your 'personal' feelings toward religion are quite evident.

It doesn't matter, he's embracing the endorsment of a demogauge.

Accepting someone's endorsement isn't the same as 'embracing' an endorsement. This is a political game where politicians are forced to seek endorsements from ALL corners of the religious community, provided that they are not 'racist' or 'hate-filled' in nature. Nothing any of these preachers has said or done would indicate that they're either 'racist' or even 'hate-filled' toward the United States.

Excatly, but no one is attacking Obama on the issues. Last month the Conservatives were propagating that he's a card carrying Muslim(HUSSIEN OBAMA). This month they're saying he's a devoted Trinity Baptist Christian, who frequently attended Sermons preached by Pastor Wright.

I don't care what religion he is, to be honest. What I care about is that for 20 years he sat in a church where the preacher was preaching 'hate' for America, and he did nothing about it UNTIL it became an issue in the media.

He didn't preach the same story for 20 years, that's your bias judgement making gross generalizations. Falwell, Robertson, Hagee, Parsely has been making eqaully delplorable statments for even longer. I think Wright is a jackass. But it's sad that Conservatives are trying to bring Obama down based on racial issues, instead of substanivite ones.

Umm, no, all of the evidence points to Wright spewing the same 'vitriol' toward America in his sermons for the course of the last 20 to 30 years. Have you read any of the historical information on Wright? You should, especially if you're going to accuse others of 'gross generalizations'.

By your standard yes, anyone who's associated with anyone who has a history of making racist statements, or subscribing to anti semitic, and gay biggotry, should be judged based on who's connected to them. Time isn't a factor here.

No, actually that's YOUR position, not mine. You're attempting to downplay the credibility of being concerned over what Wright said, in relation to how Obama reacted to it (which is to say not at all until last year).

Persoanly, I think segregation, jim crowe, and slavery are far worse, all which were intentionally done. So that's why African Americans have this suspicion of intention. Eventhough I disagree vehemently that aids was created to kill blacks.

We finally agree on something...

Obama's preacher made those statements in a religous context, there's no difference, it's the same fire and brimestone, just different themes, one preaches hate against gays, jews, and the others speaks on the historicaly intentional racism in America. No difference.

There IS a difference (at least in logic) between 'criticizing' the 'doctrine' of other religions and even questioning the motives of our government, as compared to all out accusing our government of the 'intentional' efforts to commit genocide against a certain race of people.

 

[lazur]

Your position...

... which I think certainly merits consideration. You're absolutely correct for 'questioning' any of these candidates, no matter who they are, and I respect and appreciate that quality in what you bring to this discussion.

However, I also take a different position. I think that if I were running for office, I'd have to consider 'endorsements' from people within the society who have garnered a significant following of their own, and whose endorsements could potentially mean my winning an election ... (there's a big IF here) IF it didn't compromise my own 'values' - meaning that I could 'respectfully disagree' with some of my endorser's 'beliefs', provided they aren't too 'extreme', but not enough of them that I'd 'disown' that person.

The question, at least in my mind, comes down to how 'bought in' to these beliefs these candidates were, and just how 'severe' they were in meaning. I mean, do we really think Guiliani would knowingly associate himself with a convicted child molester? If he did, it would certainly harm his character, that's for sure, and he would absolutely deserve it. But he was also the mayor of the largest city and Political Haven in America. I wonder how many 'accused' people the man actually met on a daily basis. Probably more than you or I will ever meet in a lifetime. And, as Mayor, it was his absolute responsibility to act within the confines of the 'law' - ie, innocent until proven guilty. Maybe he wasn't that noble, I don't know, or maybe he was, at least at that moment.

Obama, on the other hand, had the luxury of a decision based on fact. His preacher wasn't just 'accused' of making Anti-American statements. It was proven with the distribution of the media. However, even after 'knowing' that these accusations in the media were true, he essentially did nothing. His preacher still remained a member of his Campaign, and not just 'any' part of the Campaign, but in charge of a branch of his Campaign named the "African American Religious Leadership Committee."

This brings into question Obama's own 'personal beliefs' with respect to how he sees our country. I mean, if the guy he's got running his Religious Leadership Committee is preaching this stuff, wouldn't it make sense to assume that Obama 'bought in' to the same beliefs? If that's not the case, or if he didn't have enough information, why would Obama have ever appointed this guy to this Committee in the first place?

I actually really like Obama most of the time, but for me this is calling into question my being able to 'trust' him, as my President, to make the best decisions in the interest of ALL people, regardless of race, to keep our country moving forward. Or is 'race' going to insert itself into his Administration? I ask that question because I ask myself what might happen if Wright were the President. And I have to ask that because I can only assume that, after 20 years of loyalty to this Preacher - who married him, baptised his children, and espoused such hatred of his country - Obama must also share in his beliefs. If he didn't, Wright would never have been on that Committee.

These other candidates you're pointing out didn't 'officiate' their relationship to these 'religious nutjobs' in any way. They weren't leaders inside their campaigns, and they most certainly didn't lead any committees. These other candidates didn't in any way exhibit or share in the beliefs of those they'd met through 'chance encounter' or simply by virtue of the political office being held. There is no guilt by association to be had here.

That's purely my logic on the matter. I haven't found a compelling reason to believe otherwise just yet, but I'm of course always looking for new perspectives.

 

[comicgirl]

race + politics =

 

[Kelly]

I need Cliff Notes for some of these posts.....

 

[blackcobra]

Lazur, If Jerimeiah Wright is so hateful, so radical, do you care to explian these please.

In 1959 Wright enrolled at Virginia Union University, in Richmond, where he remained until 1961. That year he left school to join the military. He served in the Second Marine Division of the U.S. Marine Corps from 1961 to 1963, achieving the rank of private first class. In 1963 he graduated as valedictorian from the Great Lakes Naval Training Center, and from 1964 to 1967, he served as a cardio pulmonary technician at the U.S. Naval Hospital in Bethesda, Maryland. During 1965 and 1966, he was awarded with three Presidential Commendations from President Lyndon B. Johnson.

http://www.answers.com/topic/jeremiah-wright

This proves that he's not the lifelong radical you pro-claim him to be. You can't judge a man by his words, only by his actions. Eventhough his words are beyond deplorable.

The secret service doesn't allow anti-american radicals to get this close to the president

Checkmate!

 

[comicgirl]

Lazur, If Jerimeiah Wright is so hateful, so radical, do you care to explian these please.

In 1959 Wright enrolled at Virginia Union University, in Richmond, where he remained until 1961. That year he left school to join the military. He served in the Second Marine Division of the U.S. Marine Corps from 1961 to 1963, achieving the rank of private first class. In 1963 he graduated as valedictorian from the Great Lakes Naval Training Center, and from 1964 to 1967, he served as a cardio pulmonary technician at the U.S. Naval Hospital in Bethesda, Maryland. During 1965 and 1966, he was awarded with three Presidential Commendations from President Lyndon B. Johnson.

http://www.answers.com/topic/jeremiah-wright

This proves that he's not the lifelong radical you pro-claim him to be. You can't judge a man by his words, only by his actions. Eventhough his words are beyond deplorable.

The secret service doesn't allow anti-american radicals to get this close to the president

Checkmate!

 

[The Senator]

Lazur, If Jerimeiah Wright is so hateful, so radical, do you care to explian these please.

In 1959 Wright enrolled at Virginia Union University, in Richmond, where he remained until 1961. That year he left school to join the military. He served in the Second Marine Division of the U.S. Marine Corps from 1961 to 1963, achieving the rank of private first class. In 1963 he graduated as valedictorian from the Great Lakes Naval Training Center, and from 1964 to 1967, he served as a cardio pulmonary technician at the U.S. Naval Hospital in Bethesda, Maryland. During 1965 and 1966, he was awarded with three Presidential Commendations from President Lyndon B. Johnson.

http://www.answers.com/topic/jeremiah-wright

This proves that he's not the lifelong radical you pro-claim him to be. You can't judge a man by his words, only by his actions. Eventhough his words are beyond deplorable.

The secret service doesn't allow anti-american radicals to get this close to the president

Checkmate!

As a Clinton supporter and someone who has discussed this already, I feel it is my duty to bring out the hilariously large font to explain the difference between Wright's relationship with the Clintons and the Obamas:

INVITING SOMEONE TO A CONFERENCE ATTENDED BY HUNDREDS OF RELIGIOUS LEADERS AND TAKING A PHOTOGRAPH WITH THAT PERSON IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM TAKING ADVICE FROM THAT SAME PERSON FOR 20 YEARS.

Also... Wright wasn't hired by Clinton as his top spiritual adviser!

You're comparing apples to oranges here.

 

[Superman]

What kills me about all this pastor stuff with Obama is that Pastor John Hagee, Whom John {Bush Jr} McCain ASKED to endorse him, Has said things that are far worse than anything Wright ever said and hardly no one is saying a thing about it.

Pastor John Hagee has called the Catholic Church "The Great ****e" and has said that hurricane katrina was gods punishment for the gays and New Orleans Gay Pride parade. He also thinks we should bomb the Middle East to get the biblical apocalypse started.

The Right has been calling for Obama to denounce Wright outright but I don't see them saying a word to McCain about his guys.

If the Right was really as upset about Pastor Wright's statements as they claim to be then they should be all over McCain and the pastor's that McCain ASKED to endorse him, But like always with Republican's it's do as I say not as I do.

 

[comicgirl]

What kills me about all this pastor stuff with Obama is that Pastor John Hagee, Whom John {Bush Jr} McCain ASKED to endorse him, Has said things that are far worse than anything Wright ever said and hardly no one is saying a thing about it.

Pastor John Hagee has called the Catholic Church "The Great ****e" and has said that hurricane katrina was gods punishment for the gays and New Orleans Gay Pride parade. He also thinks we should bomb the Middle East to get the biblical apocalypse started.

The Right has been calling for Obama to denounce Wright outright but I don't see them saying a word to McCain about his guys.

If the Right was really as upset about Pastor Wright's statements as they claim to be then they should be all over McCain and the pastor's that McCain ASKED to endorse him, But like always with Republican's it's do as I say not as I do.

It's "sexier" news to work everybody into a froth over race. It's boys-will-be-boys Biz as usual for the Reps.

 

[blackcobra]

As a Clinton supporter and someone who has discussed this already, I feel it is my duty to bring out the hilariously large font to explain the difference between Wright's relationship with the Clintons and the Obamas:

INVITING SOMEONE TO A CONFERENCE ATTENDED BY HUNDREDS OF RELIGIOUS LEADERS AND TAKING A PHOTOGRAPH WITH THAT PERSON IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM TAKING ADVICE FROM THAT SAME PERSON FOR 20 YEARS.

Also... Wright wasn't hired by Clinton as his top spiritual adviser!

You're comparing apples to oranges here.

Just because you write big doesn't make you right! Bill Clinton invited America's top 100,(not 100's) Pastors to an exclusive Whitehouse dinner on Sept 11th 1998. This was to improve his image after the Monica Lewinsky fallout. These Pastors were pre-screened by the secret service, since it was an exclusive event. If he was good enough to meet with the President 10 years ago, he was good enough to be Barack's Pastor. And Wright wasn't a paid advisor. But nice try.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

What kills me about all this pastor stuff with Obama is that Pastor John Hagee, Whom John {Bush Jr} McCain ASKED to endorse him, Has said things that are far worse than anything Wright ever said and hardly no one is saying a thing about it.

Pastor John Hagee has called the Catholic Church "The Great ****e" and has said that hurricane katrina was gods punishment for the gays and New Orleans Gay Pride parade. He also thinks we should bomb the Middle East to get the biblical apocalypse started.

The Right has been calling for Obama to denounce Wright outright but I don't see them saying a word to McCain about his guys.

If the Right was really as upset about Pastor Wright's statements as they claim to be then they should be all over McCain and the pastor's that McCain ASKED to endorse him, But like always with Republican's it's do as I say not as I do.

You've got it exactly right.

There is such a double-standard going on here. Folks are asking "what kind of role" these people's pastors and religions played, i.e. inquiring if they actually worked for the campaign, etc. My question is: What difference does it make?" If they have a so-called spiritual impact on the person running for office, then that's what needs to be judged solely--their logistic involvement with campaign affairs is a moot point.

I hate it when we try to split atoms here. The principles are the same, and if one candidate is held accountable for someone else's statements, then all of them should be.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

Also... Wright wasn't hired by Clinton as his top spiritual adviser!

You're comparing apples to oranges here.

No.

You have no idea what kind of relationship Clinton had with Wright. Obviously there is something there for him to have been selected; I doubt it was random. There are THOUSANDS of ministers in this country. That was a private affair.

And again, if Obama is "guilty by association" then the same should be said of anyone else who's had ties with this pastor. I mean, if we're going to be shallow, let's be shallow all the way people.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

Were any of those men a part of their, or are they apart of their campaign run???

oh, so it's NOT that they associate with them for an extended period of time.
it's that they made them part of their campaign.
I get it, you can associate with as many shady and insane people as you please....as long as they don't hold official title.

this is about appearances then?
well, I'm glad we can fully appreciate the rather shallow nature of this issue.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

No.

You have no idea what kind of relationship Clinton had with Wright. Obviously there is something there for him to have been selected; I doubt it was random. There are THOUSANDS of ministers in this country. That was a private affair.

And again, if Obama is "guilty by association" then the same should be said of anyone else who's had ties with this pastor. I mean, if we're going to be shallow, let's be shallow all the way people.

oh LS you just don't get it.
people have been throwing out the " If I went to KKK meeting for 20 years...." card.
so apparently, what they mean is " If I go to KKK meetings for 20 years and then stop a year before the election....that means I was CURED of all racism!"

see? no double standard or implicit endorsement of hypocrisy there at all.
you're silly, LS, stop being silly, you don't get politics, HIllary did nothing wrong, because the nuts she associated with are NOT, repeat NOT part of her campaign, and as you well know, if someone is NOT part of your campaign association with them doesn't count.
like If Obama met with Hugo chavez and they made out for hours on end, and spoke about how much they hated America?
that wouldn't count if Obama doesn't make Chavez part of his campaign.

see? all perfectly logical.

 

[Spider-Bite]

As a Clinton supporter and someone who has discussed this already, I feel it is my duty to bring out the hilariously large font to explain the difference between Wright's relationship with the Clintons and the Obamas:

INVITING SOMEONE TO A CONFERENCE ATTENDED BY HUNDREDS OF RELIGIOUS LEADERS AND TAKING A PHOTOGRAPH WITH THAT PERSON IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM TAKING ADVICE FROM THAT SAME PERSON FOR 20 YEARS.

Also... Wright wasn't hired by Clinton as his top spiritual adviser!

You're comparing apples to oranges here.

dont' pretend there isn't anybody your close to whom has given you advice who has ever said anything deemed controversial.

People are holding this against Obama because he is black and they are just looking for an excuse to hop onto the race factor. Wright's name isn't on the ballet. He's not running for President.

 

[Damiean Dark]

Yep people can go round in circles on this but because a black man is associated with a controversial preacher he is suddenly some kind of fake who secretly hates whites (that includes his mother and all relations on her side) its the old stereotype that all blacks are automations off a production line all thinking and acting the same way!.

 

[Varient]

Smh.

 

[lazur]

Lazur, If Jerimeiah Wright is so hateful, so radical, do you care to explian these please.

I never said Wright was hateful. I said his sermons often seem to be filled with 'hate'. I have no doubt he's a good man and that he loves God and his family. But that's completely irrelevant due to the 'name' and 'reputation' he built for himself by using extreme language and falling back on racial 'conspiracy' theories. After all, I think we can all agree that accusing our government of deliberately inventing the AIDs virus in order to wipe out black people is just WAY, WAAAAY over the line.

As to who Wright associated with, who cares? Just because he was 1 of 100 leaders at some party Clinton threw 10 years ago does not mean the man is without sin. Wright may have been at one time very highly respected. Maybe Clinton didn't know about his extremism? Maybe it hadn't yet become public?

Still, even if former Presidents did wine and dine with the guy, it's not the same thing as sitting IN his church for 20 years and never uttering a word in disagreement to the 'message' he was preaching.

 

[lazur]

Yep people can go round in circles on this but because a black man is associated with a controversial preacher he is suddenly some kind of fake who secretly hates whites (that includes his mother and all relations on her side) its the old stereotype that all blacks are automations off a production line all thinking and acting the same way!.

I think Wright is a little more than 'controversial'. And no, I don't think there's a double standard here. For example, if it came to light that McCain had been attending a church for the last 20 years in which the preacher spoke poorly of 'black people' to the extent that it involved outlandish conspiracy theories, and then McCain took it several LEAPS further by calling this preacher his mentor and guide in life, even appointing him to a leadership position on his Campaign, do you *really* think people wouldn't raise it as a legitimate concern with respect to McCain's 'character'?

These people are running for the Presidency. They should ALL be held to the highest of standards regardless of skin color, period.

 

[The Senator]

No.

You have no idea what kind of relationship Clinton had with Wright. Obviously there is something there for him to have been selected; I doubt it was random. There are THOUSANDS of ministers in this country. That was a private affair.

And again, if Obama is "guilty by association" then the same should be said of anyone else who's had ties with this pastor. I mean, if we're going to be shallow, let's be shallow all the way people.

It isn't about simply having a connection with the man.

It's about standing by him and hiring him as an adviser to your national campaign, which is suppose to work in the interest of ALL Americans. Obama hired him knowing what kind of hateful things the man had a record of saying.

And even if in his own eyes, Obama thought what Wright said wasn't offensive, he should have known that hiring this man would bring this kind of controversy to his campaign.

Clinton hasn't hired a racist whack job like Wright to serve on her campaign, has she? Wright never served as an adviser in her husband's presidential administration, did he?

So the idea that Clinton is just as guilty by association is a complete crap shot, as is the idea that people are judging Obama on this simply because he was 'associated' with the man.