Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeyy
The difference is you have two religious leaders. They both said stupid shit. One candidate has had to explain over and over about his relationship with wright. Even after he has completely rejected those statements. The other accepts the endorsement and is allowed to reject only the statements that are anti Catholic. And nobody cares. I see a double standard here.
|
And Obama has stated that his association with Wright is a valid concern but you STILL DON"T SEE THE PROBLEM! The reason WHY Obama had to keep explaining over and over again is because this IS a valid issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeyy
And you think the big difference is because Obama attended the church for twenty years. Hagee and the rest of the moral majority have been spewing their hate speech for at least that long. An I have not seen a single loop of video about any of them. Have you?
|
Obama and his
family attended that racist-anti American church for 20 years. They "knew" that Wright was and remains..anti-white and that he is a racist. Only when the media got hold of the story did Obama renounce Wright's rhetoric! You see Mikeyy...while Hagee endoresed McCain..Obama "endorsed" the Rev Wright by remaining in that racist,anti-American congregation for 20 years. Yes..there certainly IS a difference!
A candidate cannot be blamed because someone endorsed them. In Obama's case...he endorsed Wright for two decades by remaining in that congregation with full knowledge of the shepherds theme and theology.
Yeah ..I can see a "difference".Obama made a "choice",he supported Wright's rhetoric until it was exposed.McCain picked up an endorsement but was not a member of Hagee's church and thus not associated with his anti-Catholic rhetoric.