Really now?

From DC = , this minimizes the question and issue. Perhaps it is huge to me. Minimizing it with your first sentence puts me on the defensive, don't care to hear the rest because you just attacked me (whether intentional or not... whether you believe it right or not.... with that being your first response you put me on the defensive and tuned me out.

From MixedMedia her first interaction in this =
Is that not an attack on me?

Is that not an attack, subtle but yes, very much so.

SecretMethod's first response to the issue = First it's old news he says, so again my feelings on the issue have been minimized......

Then he can't say more because he is "infuriated" by xenophobia and nationalism.

Must I continue..... Only Rekna and Robot answered without any form of attack, everyone else, minimized my feelings, attacked my Lennonism, insinuated or flat out called me a racist.

Now, if you were trying to convince me that I should put this issue (that I have demonstrated as important to me) to rest and not worry about it.... attacking me, minimizing the issue and so on will not convince me that it really isn't an issue.

All you did was piss me off and make it a bigger issue for me.

NOW do you get what I am saying???????????

I had to go hostal, while I was copying and pasting I was thinking the same thing, 'this is so host right now' lol

I knew I forgot to post something along with the information. It's from Wiki so it may or may not be accurate, but from looking elsewhere it seems to be on the mark.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hagee

Pan - disagreement does not an attack make.

And we're not going to make this thread about you. Let's nip that in the bud right now. If you've got a problem with what you think are attacks, take it up with the staff. If the person in question in on staff, pick someone else that you know and trust and ask their opinion.

I expect that this aspect of the conversation is closed here in the thread. It may continue elsewhere, but not here.

Jesus, look at every thread host ever started here, the guy has his point minimized every fuckin time, every fuckin time. If it's an attack use the 'report bad post' button, if you don't want to report it, then don't continually complain about it because you haven't done anything to stop it.


If we're ranking the candidates by 'spiritual advisors' I guess Hillary wins with the lady who told her to have conversations with Eleanor Roosevelt:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Houston

Separation of church & state is an important issue. I see no problem in bringing up Obama's church activities and positions, which to me seem to be placing an awful lot of emphasis on promoting a black value system. This is a church that places more concern on Africa than America. Well I have news for these people: you are not in Africa anymore, you're in America. This isn't the 17th century, its the 21st. I would hazard a guess that there would be a formidable backlash if there was a white candidate in this position. Fine, be proud of your religion and your heritage, but keep it out of the government.

This particular issue means very little to me. I'm surprised it means anything to you, pan. I guess being a spiritual person, you are more sensitive to the spiritual differences in others. I'm not spiritual, so I can recognize how little spirituality has to do with Obama's platform. As far as I can tell, his affiliation with a church is a communal duty and not something he'll turn into an agenda for the country. Denying him credibility because of this is like refusing to buy 75% of the cars on the market today because their parent companies found themselves on the wrong side of World War 1 and 2. What car do you drive?

You're acting like a Republican.

pan....if Obama's church is a huge issue to you, then you should fully examine the church's statements, mission, accomplishments, etc.,and the context of all of the above before declaring it racist. Otherwise, I would say again, it is nonsense to make such a declaration.

Even more so if Obama is the only candidate of whom you feel church affiliation is a huge issue. He has never sought the endorsement of his pastor and has denounced the endorsement by Farrakhan.

As to McCain..he has been seeking the endorsement of Hagee for months and upon receiving that endorsement, said:

"I'm very honored by Pastor John Hagee's endorsement today..".."all I can tell you is that I am very proud to have Pastor John Hagee's support."
http://www.reuters.com/article/polit...49859920080228

This Hagee:

*All Muslims are programmed to kill and we can thus never negotiate with any of them (paraphrased....full text from an NPR interview)

*God caused Hurricane Katrina to wipe out New Orleans because it had a gay pride parade the week before and was filled with sexual sin. (from the same interview)

* The End Times -- Rapture -- is imminent and the U.S. Government must do what it can to hasten it, which at minimum requires: (a) a war with Iran and (b) undying, absolute support for a unified Israel, including all Occupied Territories (from NY Times story)

*The Catholic Church is the "‘The Great Whore," "the ‘anti-Christ," and a "false cult system.’”

***

Thus, white evangelical Ministers are free to advocate American wars based on Biblical mandates, rant hatefully against Islam, and argue that natural disasters occur because God hates gay people. They are still fit for good company, an important and cherished part of our mainstream American political system. The entire GOP establishment is permitted actively to lavish them with praise and court their support without the slightest backlash or controversy. Both George Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert sent formal greetings to the 2006 gathering of Hagee's group.

By contrast, black Muslim ministers like Farrakhan, or even black Christian ministers like Rev. Jeremiah Wright, are held with deep suspicion, even contempt. McCain is free to hug and praise the Rev. Hagees of the world, but Obama is required to prove over and over and over and over that he does not share the more extreme views of black Ministers.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...gee/index.html

IMO, it will be an issue only if the double standards are allowed to perpetuate...and some see the dubious advantage of continuing to make it in issue for only one candidate and take such issues out of context (attributing the words and actions of third parties to the one candidate in question who has repeated denounced such words and actions).

He is. His religion isn't in any way a part of his policy, platform, or campaign. It's being dragged in by people with an agenda to undercut him.

For anyone willing to listen to Obama, he's addressed and settled this. If it's not addressed and settled for you, consider that you're not willing to listen. And that's okay--you don't have to be willing to listen. But at least have the honesty to say, "You know, he's addressed this, and I refuse to believe what he says," rather than continuing to pretend your first flush of reaction to it stands unchallenged.

I don't see Obama's church as all that important. I haven't seen anything supporting that he takes direction from the church. He attends it, so?

People who do like Obama seem to be pulling out all the stops. "He doesn't pledge allegiance to the flag, he's a Muslim, he went to a Madrsas, he sworn in on a Koran, he part of a sleeper cell." None of that seems to be sticking so now it's "his church cares more about Africa then the US."

I didn't read that in the church's vision. I read "a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA." Not a "non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA even if we have to screw over ever person in the US in the process." And that's the problem with attacks like this, you have to read more into it then it actually says. If a Jewish person was running would anyone really have a problem if their synagogue had a mission or vision statement that included "a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO ISRAEL?" That's likely a really dumb question, isn't it? The same people attacking Obama would probably have just as big a problem with a Jewish person.

I agree with you that anyone who would use his affiliation to such a church would do so as a weapon against him -- but the thing is what it is. The pastor of this church, this Wright guy, did say that that racist slimeball Farrakhan "epitomized greatness", praised "his integrity and honesty" and called him "an unforgettable force, a catalyst for change and a religious leader who is sincere about his faith and his purpose."

Yes, Obama denounced Farrakhan, and smart move too because it would have done serious damage to be associated with a viper like Farrakhan. I don't think anyone here is saying Obama is racist - I don't think he is - but I think it raises some valid points about a candidate running for president who's attended such a controversial and racially outspoken church for 20 years. Especially a candidate that so many people complain they know so little about.

And this nonsense about people outright calling pan a racist, and that he's delusional for thinking that this church is in anyway extreme or controversial, that references to Africa aren't necessarily addressing blacks, is ridiculous. This Trinity Church most definitely has a racial agenda, it most definitely has a religious agenda, it most defintely is afro-centric, Louis Farrakhan is most definitely a racist, anti-semitic demagogue. Fine, what candidate isn't affiliated with equivalent organizations. I don't think it takes a racist to see what the Trinity Church is all about, and I hope religion stays, as much as possible, out of the official presidential debate.

Wouldn't you say all churches have "religious agenda?"

Perhaps, but not all churches have Presidential Candidates in their constituencies.

Question for folks that have this problem with Obama: what do/did you think about Romney? Because in many ways, the LDS church has many of the same issues, albeit with a much different bent.

Honestly, it seems like the same issue with a fake mustache on it to me. Romney's Mormonism was never an issue for me. The fact that he went from being a moderate to conservative Republican was, but his religion never factored into it at all.

And Huckabee's an actual pastor in the Southern Babtist church, which was a bastion of segregation for years. Then again, he's always been consistent about being a conservative.

If the candidate's platform does not reflect the agenda of the church that he choses to attend, can someone explain to me why it is an issue at all? Churches are just as much a social outlet as they are a concentration of philosphical thought.

You might as well say that Clinton supported the fascist coup of Argentina in 1976. After all, Burson-Marsteller, Clinton's PR firm headed by CEO Mark Penn, represented the regime. Also on the list of tacit endorsements is Nicolae Ceaucescu, Blackwater, and Countrywide Financial.

Something a candidate's minister once said about a man whom the candidate has publicly and explicitly denounced isn't something I'd get worked up about. This recent fracas about Obama's statements regarding NAFTA is much more interesting to me.

Ultimately, however, Obama is the stronger candidate on the basis of a lack of partisan baggage. In the wake of Clinton's failed health care initiative in the 90s, she even created some enemies within her own party and within Bill Clinton's administration. Dick Morris practically foams at the mouth every time he hears her name.

I am not trying to make this thread about me. I am trying to demonstrate a problem here.

IF this were a serious issue to me the attacks I earlier offered up should show something.

RatBastid, PowerClown seemed to understand.

YOU do not denigrate, degrade, minimize and so on someone's issue. If you truly support Obama, God love ya. But don't sit there and degrade someone's questions. Answer to the best of your ability and show respect and you may shift that HUGE issue into a petty one and win a vote.

If you denigrate, put them on the defensive, call them names and minimize, you will definitely lose that vote and possibly others (that person will tell friends and so on).

People don't know the candidates personally.... I seriously doubt we have many if any that can say they know any of the top 3 as friends. However, when you wear a pin, have a bumper sticker, somehow demonstrate your support for a candidate.... you become in some people's eyes a spokesperson for that candidate.

They ma ask you questions on your candidate's positions on all sorts of items. Easily answered. No problem.

However, someone may ask you a question or make a statement against your candidate like I did about Obama.

How you react, how you treat that person, how you talk to that person and accept their right to feel the way they do, can very much be a deciding factor in that person's vote.

You attack me and minimize my feelings and the issue.... I'm not going to vote for your candidate. Because if you believe in your candidate there is no reason for you to be defensive or offensive towards my feelings and questions.

Yes, this is going to be a very HUGE issue whether you want to believe it or not.... how you answer to your friends and people who ask you about it may very well decide their vote.

I know I'm repeating myself.... but Hey Zeus Frickin Crisps.... I shouldn't have to. I practically told you 2 posts ago, my last post I flat out told you and still some of you seem to not understand.

It's as simple as....

"What problems do you see going on with this issue?" "I respect what you are saying and the candidate has shown that a, b, c (separated himself from Wright, denounced Farrakhan... etc) has been done about this issue. I can give you my take on it if you like and maybe I can help answer your questions or at least point you in the right direction."

You start out with "that is so last year: you're a racist: do you even know what you are talking about....etc." You lost. It's highly doubtful no matter what point you make, no matter how legitimate... the person will listen.

The question, the issue becomes then an argument and all that does is set deeper a person's opinion. You lost just about any chance you will ever have had of getting that voter.

Now that it is spelled out in black and white.... and I admit this probably was the wrong place to show this.... do you understand what I was trying to get across?

Believe what you will..... I think a few may understand ... I hope so, because between now and Nov. you will have to defend your candidate and you best do so in a way that does not turn the other person off to your candidate.


But not everyone knows how he addressed this issue. By minimizing, attacking and degrading... the issue becomes bigger.

You must first give the benefit of the doubt and discuss with respect how Obama did handle it. Then go from there. Minimize your defensiveness and show that you understand the issue is important to the other person.

I believe that was a factor. I think the leaders of LDS church had a huge say in what and or how he took those positions.

I would have felt the same way if he'd been a Scientologists.

I don't think that's the same issue regarding Obama and his church.

I have never heard this issue addressed outside of political internet forums and it is always brought up by right-wing, reactionary racists. Which is just as likely to make someone see Obama in a more positive light than a more negative one. I've never heard this question brought up as a means of better understanding Obama as a person and a candidate. It is a ploy to discredit him. In fact, I had a conversation about Obama this weekend with a Republican and the issue was never broached...because unless you have a pre-existing bias against his candidacy, it is a non-issue. And, for the record, I think I may have secured another vote for Obama.

Vive la Africa! :p

pan.....you say this with such certainty like you know something the rest of us dont.

In fact, there is nothing to suggest that this will be a very HUGE issue. Polls dont suggest it, focus groups dont suggest it, campaign professionals in both camps dont suggest it, talking heads on TV dont suggest it...

And to the extent that it was an issue as a result of the misleading attacks on Obama, he has addressed it to the satisfaction of most.

IMO, the huge issue MAY be the record number of younger (18-25), first time voters that Obama has attracted who believe he represents the best hope for their future as evident by the exit polls from many (most) of the primaries held to date. The turnout among young voters in the Democratic primaries has been 3-4 times past turnouts in many states...and Obama has won most of these primaries in part because he has won this demographic group by a large margin in every state.

But I am not as certain as you because these same voters tend to be fickle, may lose interest between now and Nov and may not show up when it counts.

Just to make it clear,there is little or nothing that supports your conclusion that Obama's affiliation with his church or the statements of his pastor will be a huge issue or an issue at all..other than to those who have already decided not to vote for him.

The only issue that is marginally related to all of this "nonsense" is race. While publicly, most voters say that race is not an issue, privately, in the voting booth, it is still uncertain if some voters are willing to vote for a black president (ie the Bradley effect).

And its a waste to time trying to convince these folks to take a second look....particularly if they get so easily offended if their "certainty" or their superficial, one-sided view of the issue is questioned.

If you find this offensive or degrading or a personal attack, IMO, this is something you have to deal with yourself.

I'm curious as to where pan's outrage over McCain's political advisor is, he even said:
Well I posted proof, yet no outrage, no raising of stink, no recognition of the proof I posted whatsoever, but yeah you don't have a hard on for Obama or anything.
Sure you will.

dc_dux, do you have any estimate as to whether Obama will attract more votes because he's black or lose more votes because he's black? I can see arguments either way, and not just among African-Americans, either.

loquitor...I dont think it will be a significant issue either way.

The more compelling trends show both Obama and Clinton attracting more young voters, more affluent voters, and more women than previous Democratic nominees....and there is nothing to suggest that race is (or is not) influencing these trends.

The National Journal has an interesting article on these trends:
IMO, Obama's race wont be an issue for most women, young voters or high income voters that are voting (or trending) Democrat in greater numbers.

It may be an issue for seniors, but it could be hidden by their concern about his "experience". It may be an issue for blue color white men (the former Reagan democrats who have slowly returned to the fold)).

And it could have been an issue for Latinos if McCain had not recently backed away from his McCain/Kennedy immigration reform bill that provided a path to citizenship (his new position negates any advantage he may have had with the Latino community to protect his anti-immigration base).

First, if you do not think it will be an issue, you do not listen enough to your political rivals and depend too much on polls. Polls this early do not mean much.

Secondly, the GOP and radical right are not going to show their hand and put much heart into any attack right now. There is nothing to gain from it.

No one thought Swift Boat would be an issue in March '04 either. It is not a question of whether or not something is an issue to you, it is a question of what value someone who asks you as a supporter of your candidate puts on the issue.

DC let's say I support X for Senate. You ask me because you see I am very vocal in m support of candidate X. You come to me and say X has done this, the people around X has done that, his church/family/etc have all been accused of the other thing. Now, you may ask the question and open the issue up, but there maybe 10 people watching because they have heard the same things and have similar questions but never really wanted to ask because they feel not well informed, are scared, etc.

Now, if I minimize, put you on the defensive or just become all argumentative..... you will all of a sudden be wanting to make what was a small issue bigger, the people watching will see the defensiveness and anger over the issue and either tune politics out completely or believe there is more to X than they at first believed and may tune out any legit defense I may have because I already became combative and showed there maybe something there.

Now, if I answer, "Candidate X has addressed that this way, I understand your concerns and I believe that Candidate X truly handled this best when he did....... and said......... What is it about this issue that bothers you (DO NOT ACCUSE, IMPLY OR MINIMIZE)?" Listen to the concern then answer with your feelings about the issue.

Now, instead of having a negative exchange, I not only made myself look knowledgeable over the issue, I turned it into a positive exchange. I have gained respect and may have swayed a vote or 2... instead of losing votes and losing people's respect. I am a representation of my candidate, whether I want to be or not, as soon as I speak out, show my support with t-shirts, bumper stickers, buttons, etc for him/her, people will see me as an expert on the candidate.

This is where politics is going wrong and why we lose voters and close elections are lost. Negativity at the ground level. The politicians and talking pundits have enough negativity, supporters are supposed to maintain an optimism and positive view of their candidate.

So to interact with someone who has a question about the candidate in a negative fashion, no matter how negative that person may have come at you... will determine how some will see that candidate.

In other words, since you are the candidate's representation on the ground level:

Answer the question like the candidate would.

Now, do you think, Obama would have answered the questions I posed the way they were answered here?

But then again..... what do I know? I'm a racist, xenophobic, asshole who has no right asking questions because, well I'm not informed and I'm a racist and that issue was so last year....

You set a negative tone when asked about your candidate, you'll receive negativity back. You set a positive tone and an uplifting and people will see your candidate as a positive.

If I coming out negatively attacking your candidate and you answer in a positive, non minimizing, knowledgeable way... then all of a sudden my attack has lost steam and the people watching then look at the issue differently.

pan....I'm not going to debate you on debating (or posting) styles, but based on my 20+ years of working in grass roots politics, I think I have a pretty good sense and feel for when its makes sense to be respectful and when its necessary to call bullshit when it stinks. But even in the case of the latter, it is a stretch to call it a personal attack.

If you have framed your initial concern in a different way other than state "There is no way in Hell I am voting for a man that goes to a church that wants to divide my country further (no it doesnt) and promotes a race ancestory and foreign continent over my own country (no it doesnt)....." (yes, your characterization of his church was bullshit to me)...perhaps the responses would have been different.

As to your Swift Boat reference, I could characterize your initial post as a "swift boat type" attack (particularly the false characterization of the church in the statement above). And the lesson learned from 2004 is that you dont respond politely and respectfully to such scurrilous attacks. You call it out for the bullshit it is.

I stand by everything I posted :)

Tully - this in interesting. I don't think that the LDS leadership factored in at all. Romney did what he needed to do to get elected governor of Massachusetts, and his ideals either had to flex to fit that roll, or they were his real beliefs to begin with. When he ran for POTUS, I think that he changed his message in an attempt to capture the Republican right, which is probably the most valuable portion of the party since they do so well at actually voting. Honestly, if he had stayed true to his message as governor, I would have thought about voting for him, but that went away almost as soon as he declared for President.

As far as your idea about Scientologists, I'm going to have to give that a lot more thought. For some reason I can't get the South Park "Tom Cruise is in the closet" episode out of my head when pondering it. You do raise an interesting point, though.

There is no point in this because as long as we disagree with you, you'll see it as a 'personal attack'. Let's see, no one in this thread has called you an asshole, and no one has said you don't have the right to ask questions, so you're exaggerating things.


Now once again I ask, where is the outrage over McCain's spiritual advisor? Proof has been posted by me, and ignored by you, now why are you ignoring this proof? The only reason I can see is you have a hard on against Obama for some reason, and McCain is allowed to get all the shady 'spiritual advice' he likes. Of course you'll probably respond with my proof isn't good enough.

I think the point here is that perspective is important. Clinton has Burson-Marsteller on her side, and McCain not only got the endorsement of Hagee but courted it, and won't back down from the endorsement while simultaneously distancing himself from the man's outrageous public statements. Choosing to ignore that and call Obama out because his minister once praised a man whom Obama has denounced looks off-balance when you consider the context.

Obama's church making a commitment to Africa and the black community does not mean that Obama would ignore other groups as a result, because the United States already has a passel of international obligations: Israel, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Eastern Europe... Basically, everywhere that we have a military base, we have a certain degree of commitment. And Obama would not necessarily take this church's mandate as a presidential mandate. I would expect him to support it to a certain degree, but it is simply not probable that he would let other issues fall by the wayside. The US government has more than enough resources to support multiple initiatives of international scope.

Obama ftw!

I'll make the caveat that I know pan isn't a right-wing, reactionary racist, but him aside, I couldn't agree more. I'm still having difficulty understanding why it is an issue to anyone, present company included.

I'm not here to call out pan as a right-wing, reactionary racist. Believe me, I've seen them, talked to them, lived around them. I know from where I speak.

Although it can't be denied pan is highly reactive to issues of non-white race and culture, these issues usually being viewed as some kind of a threat to his own idea of 'American' culture and national 'pride.' pan may want to deny this and he can go right ahead. I think there is ample evidence right here on TFP to support my observation.

I don't necessarily think he has an agenda, which is what would most literally define a racist in my estimation, but I think he has issues with race that cause him to react in ways that could easily be interpreted as 'racist' in a colloquial sense. As we have seen in people's reactions to his posts in this thread previously and since.

What issues do I have with race?

I'm outspoken on Illegal Immigrants.... ummmm they are illegal and bankrupting Western Medical facilities, taking jobs away from hard workers and we have no idea who is coming over.

I bring up Obama's church because it became an issue to me this week. I grew up listening to Billy Cunningham on WLW and while he is outspoken and I don't agree with his politics, I became angered over the fact that people wanted him fired and taken off the air because he said Barack Hussein Obama. at a McCain rally.

I'm tired of censorship. I had heard about Obama's church but never cared to look into it, mainly because to me it wasn't an issue. Up until this time to be honest, I was truly undecided, I was scared of Obama because he just seemed to come out of nowhere, but his message seemed very intriguing and more positive than Hilary's.

I heard people talking about the issue of how even McCain pulled back because of Billy's use of "Hussein" and I listened to him talk about Obama's church. I investigated. I didn't exactly like what I saw, and decided to post here what I felt.

I figured someone here that I may respect would answer me with some honest answers and allay my fears. I was quite heated when I typed my reply because of the censorship issue and the "visions" I read from that church.

I was instead greeted by the very disrespectful replies I have shown in past posts.

No one allayed my fears, no one took the time to talk to me with respect over the issues. In the meantime I asked close friends at work (3 of the 5 happen to be black) and asked them what they thought. The one who when LS and I got married called us "devil worshippers" and was at one time a serious militant explained to me about Obama's church, she quelled my fears and anger and did so in a way that I was able to feel good that I asked.

McCain going after some white racist preacher doesn't bother me because that's what GOP candidates do. They make nice with extremists. I expected that from McCain. All this talk of McCain being "to moderate" and "not a true conservative" is bullshit, they said the same thing about W in 2000. I'm truly not concerned about McCain.

But perhaps, MM you can give me examples of my being racist by PMing me or opening a new thread. I would love to stop that lie and slanderous statement against me. I will not have someone who knows nothing about me at all make accusations that have absolutely no merit to them at all.

BTW, yes, I will probably vote for Obama in Nov. because while I do have fears (such as how fast he has risen, some of his stances on the issues) he is still better than McCain (or Bush lite).

I am just sorry that my "friends" on here decided to label me, call me out, degrade me, minimize the issue and treat me like shit. When all it would have taken would have been a PM or a simple talking to about my fears.

As Ms. M at work said, "It's not racist to ask the questions that bother you, you may even be passionate because the issue means something to you, it's racist to make assumptions and not ask at all." Then she told me about Obama's church... she happens to belong to a very similar church in Akron.

edit

I find it interesting that you chose to see our responses as personal attacks. My comment was merely stating the John was never judgmental and I felt that you were doing just that.

My view may be simpler than most here, but it ain't "Obama's church". Many men, and probably more so with black men, remain with churches their families grew up in. Personally, I don't go to any religious gatherings or even believe in the faith I grew up with, but I still have pride in my heritage. What's so wrong with that?

I understand your disagreement. But I think your wrong, just known too many ex-LDS members. I think Mitts changing positions are a sign of a couple things including a willingness within the LDS membership and church doctrine to support dishonesty in an attempt to do what they see as the right thing.

I believe you've just answered your own question.

This is the same type of misinformation and half truths used against the Irish and the Italians around the turn of the last century. It was racist then and it's racist now.

Seriously you're playing the 'friends' card? Oh darn someone called you out, suck it up, it doesn't mean people have attacked you, disagreement and attack are two totally different things. As I said before, lots of people have their issue minimized on this forum when they start topics, the difference is they don't whine about it in every single post. If someone degraded you or treated you like shit, report the fuckin post, it's that simple, if you don't want to report it, suck it the fuck up, because you aren't willing to do anything about it.
What you've shown are people who disagree with you, not people who have disrespected you, there's a difference.
So if they know nothing about you why let it bother you? In reality it's just some random internet person who has this opinion of you, why the fuck should it matter?

I don't even know why I bothered to reply to you, you'll just ignore it like every other post I've made in this thread, even when I posted the proof you asked for. Come on pan, where's this fuckin outrage over McCain's church, you make a big deal of asking for proof then ignore it when it is posted. Don't bother answering, just ignore like you usually do.

Ms. M had it right...."its racist to make assumptions." And that is exactly what you did in your post about Obama's church. And you did it in an inflammatory and provocative manner that painted Obama as guilty by association.

"There is no way in Hell I am voting for a man that goes to a church that wants to divide my country further and promotes a race ancestory and foreign continent over my own country....."

People responded to the tone and content of your post. I suspect the responses would have been different if you had simply asked the question without the false and/or biased assumptions.....something to think about for the future.

So, get over it, pan. You werent attacked, degraded, disrespected or treated like shit. Your words were called out for what they were.

McCain because he is the only one in the race with any sort of record of working in a bipartisan way to get things done. I am tired of division and deadlock and believe that McCain can unite more than divide. Clinton has no hope of uniting the government and while Obama talks a good fight about uniting the government he has no record of doing so at all. His voting record is nearly straight down party lines while McCain is co-authoring legislation with the Democrats.

Is this the same McCain who is now running away from the McCain/Feingold campaign reform bill and the McCain/Kennedy immigration reform bill in order to appease the conservative Republican base?

....or who voted with Democrats in the Senate against Bush's 2003 tax cuts for the wealthy, but now supports making them permanent?

McCain once was bipartisan, but it seems as if that's ended now that he's taking a shot at the oval office. Where he once was critiquing the war (remember when he called the efforts "inadequate"?), he now is taking a hard line to stay in Iraq for "100 years".

If you vote for McCain in this election, you won't be voting for McCain in 2000 or 2004. This is McCain 2008, and he's a hardline neocon.

I think the fact that Obama's votes are so strongly Democratic and yet he still frequently gets Republican co-sponsors shows just how much of a "uniter" he is, and how much he's capable of getting done.

Who are you voting for Smeth? :confused: :confused: