Originally posted by loam
I'm a little confused by the logic that because McCain is getting away with his "associations", Obama should as well.

No problem, Ill help clear it up for you because you still are missing the point.

The article I posted is addressing a media bias in coverage regarding one of Obama's close friends controversial statements that have nothing to do with Obamas personal feelings anymore than Hagee's do McCain as both have stated. It points out a double standard with the politicians that may or may not relate to race. It asks the relevant question why are the ties of the other candidates not being placed under the same microscope and played, discussed, and condemned in the mainstream media as those of Obama.

I think that is also a legitimate question to ask considering that all three are guilty of similar situations yet only ONE is having theirs blown out of proportion.

This has helped to draw forth anger and resentment of the candidate being focused on, while the same resentment is not felt for the others specifically because of what the media has chosen to do. Is this part of an agenda? I'm starting to believe it is.

Are other Americans as outraged at McCain for Hagee's hateful comments or Robertson 9-11 condemnation of America?

I doubt it.

The unevenness of the standard as applied by the MSM is certainly a problem, but is not one that justifies the argument that Obama's affiliations should remain unquestioned.

Agreed.

Whose argument is that again?

It isn't that of the author of the article or myself as I have said now for the third or fourth time the questioning is not the issue its the double standard and possible agenda of a biased media. I'm talking about the unevenness you mentioned.

Please point out where I said Obama should get the free-pass McCain and Hillary (who also knows Wright) are getting?

Thanks,

- Lee

[edit on 5-5-2008 by lee anoma]

Originally posted by loam
(BTW, on your other question, see my edit above.)

I did.

You said:

He has a long history of similar sentiments described within his own books.

Where is the book that Wright wrote and what are the sentiments you refer to?

You still haven't answered. That quote you posted refers to a book by a different author that was the basis of the churches vision statement relating to Black Theology.

- Lee

Originally posted by lee anoma


The article I posted is addressing a media bias in coverage regarding one of Obama's close friends controversial statements that have nothing to do with Obamas personal feelings anymore than Hagee's do McCain as both have stated

[edit on 5-5-2008 by lee anoma]

This is where I disagree.
You dont sit there, and listen to this kind of crap for twenty years, you dont have the guy spewing the crap marry you, or baptise your kids, because you think hes full of it. You do that because you agree with him. Obama can say, he doesnt agree with wright all he wants. 20 years of church attendence says otherwise.

Originally posted by lee anoma

Originally posted by Shazam The Unbowed
So accepting someones endorsement of you, implies that you have some sympathy for their views.

Nope, but that was the case being made when Minister Farrakhan did the same for Obama.

Obama has denounced both Wright AND Farrakhan while McCain who is aware of the hate filled words of Hagee (and Robertson's condemnation of America) has not done so.

Why not?

- Lee

Can we try comparing apples to apples here? Trying to make it look like McCain has the same issue as O(bs)ama with his proclaimed mentor Wright is such a reach that it makes the people trying to make it look that just appear ridiculous.

Also, a candidate has no control whatsoever about the people that say they endorse them, however, a candidate has total control over the people they say they endorse. Nutcase "endorses" McCain - so what. O(bs)ama endorses Wright (as mentor and for 20 years) - potential big deal as it lends itself to character analysis.

[edit on 5/5/2008 by centurion1211]

Brother, If you want something fresh:

Research about the summer Hillary spent hanging out in the Black Panthers Headquarters as a lookout, preparing for their defense.

This is no lie!

Originally posted by centurion1211

Also, a candidate has no control whatsoever about the people that say they endorse them, however, a candidate has total control over the people they say they endorse. Nutcase "endorses" McCain - so what.

So what?

What exactly are you talking about? McCain sought out the nutcase...did you miss that? Why search for a nut to give you a push?

Before you swoop in with all your neat little Obama riffs understand that what I had said was this: Obama REJECTED Farrakhan where as McCain knowing Hagee's comments still was GRATEFUL he got the endorsement by his own words. He has yet to distance himself from this bigot that condemns all catholics and the other that condemns America.

Apples..oranges...I think you need to inspect your fruit a little closer. Not sure you know what you are eating.

Also read carefully please?

_ Lee

Originally posted by lee anoma

Originally posted by centurion1211

Also, a candidate has no control whatsoever about the people that say they endorse them, however, a candidate has total control over the people they say they endorse. Nutcase "endorses" McCain - so what.

So what?

What exactly are you talking about? McCain sought out the nutcase...did you miss that? Why search for a nut to give you a push?

Before you swoop in with all your neat little Obama riffs understand that what I had said was this: Obama REJECTED Farrakhan where as McCain knowing Hagee's comments still was GRATEFUL he got the endorsement by his own words. He has yet to distance himself from this bigot that condemns all catholics and the other that condemns America.

Apples..oranges...I think you need to inspect your fruit a little closer. Not sure you know what you are eating.

Also read carefully please?

_ Lee

I'm having a hard time trying to understand why you don't understand this, and why you have been given an answer several times in this thread and refuse to see it and continue to ask for an answer.

McCain did not go to church with any of the pastors you listed for 20 years, get married by them, have their kids baptised by them, etc. The pastors you listed and claim they preach "hate" is not hate but what they preach is from the Bible. They see in the Bible that God did things to bad people and they see that in the modern times as well. They don't make racist remarks. They condem what the Bible condems. The reason they do so is because they believe in the Bible and the preach their beliefs.

Wright preaches consistant racism against white people. He envokes hatred against white people and there is nothing in the Bible to defend what he preaches. Big difference in the way those pastors match up with racial hatred of Jeremiah Wright.

[edit on 11-5-2008 by madrock]

Originally posted by madrock

I'm having a hard time trying to understand why you don't understand this...

Understand what exactly?

McCain did not go to church with any of the pastors you listed for 20 years, get married by them, have their kids baptised by them, etc.

No but in the past 20 years McCain and most of the media have or should have been aware of the extremely controversial statements made by those religious leaders McCain sought after. I think it is just as bad as someone staying with a mentor that spouted hate. If I had run for office and went after some radical right-winger for an endorsement I essentially am acknowledging that this person has a valid base for which I hope to tap into. It is even worse knowing what that base accepts as truth and still gushing that I got the thumbs up.

You can't seek out a controversial endorsement then shy away from what they represent.

Would you be confused if McCain sought out Wright's endorsement?
Do you get the point?

The pastors you listed and claim they preach "hate" is not hate but what they preach is from the Bible.

Which is subjective interpretation or manipulative fudging depending on ones agenda. Some claim the bible supports multiple marriage, slavery, and even murder. In any case where does the bible say Catholics are evil, and that Hitler was appointed by God to do the "work" he did? Hagee says this is a fact.

Wright preaches consistant racism against white people. He envokes hatred against white people and there is nothing in the Bible to defend what he preaches. Big difference in the way those pastors match up with racial hatred of Jeremiah Wright.

Perhaps it is.

I have heard sound bytes taking from a DVD...that later I heard in context. Even still he is right about racism in America and America is run by wealthy white male and Hillary doesn't know what it is like to be a poor black American (or white American for that matter) so most of the bytes I heard were pretty accurate. Wright is a bit self-aggrandizing, egotistical and bombastic but then most religious leaders are in my opinion.

Even if they were outrageously bigoted that doesn't mean Obama would be. Wright is responsible for Wright, and Hagee is responsible for Hagee.

Both McCain and Obama have ties that are equally curious.
I can at least admit that even if you will not.

- Lee